RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재 SCOPUS

      Fairness and Justice in L2 Classroom Assessment: Perceptions from Test Takers

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A105972658

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      Fairness and justice are key aspects in the evaluation of language assessments. In this paper, I argue that fairness and justice are subjective perceptions of test takers. Consistent with Kunnan (2018), fairness was conceived as a test quality, while justice was a quality of the social entity administering the test; which in this study was the language program. Test fairness was conceptualized as a multidimensional construct—distributive fairness (how fairly learners perceive their score relative to their effort) procedural fairness (equality of procedures administered during the assessment), interactional fairness (respectful interpersonal treatment of the students by the test administrator), and informational fairness (how fairly information about the assessment and its procedures were provided).
      In total, 83 university L2 learners in Taiwan completed an online questionnaire gauging perceptions of a single test administration. Regression analysis revealed that procedural and interactional fairness were predictive of justice perceptions of the language program. Distributive fairness shared a relationship with justice perceptions but was not predictive. These findings suggest that participants made justice judgments of their language programs based on how fairly the procedures used to administer a single test were carried out and how respectfully the instructor administering the test treated them.
      번역하기

      Fairness and justice are key aspects in the evaluation of language assessments. In this paper, I argue that fairness and justice are subjective perceptions of test takers. Consistent with Kunnan (2018), fairness was conceived as a test quality, while ...

      Fairness and justice are key aspects in the evaluation of language assessments. In this paper, I argue that fairness and justice are subjective perceptions of test takers. Consistent with Kunnan (2018), fairness was conceived as a test quality, while justice was a quality of the social entity administering the test; which in this study was the language program. Test fairness was conceptualized as a multidimensional construct—distributive fairness (how fairly learners perceive their score relative to their effort) procedural fairness (equality of procedures administered during the assessment), interactional fairness (respectful interpersonal treatment of the students by the test administrator), and informational fairness (how fairly information about the assessment and its procedures were provided).
      In total, 83 university L2 learners in Taiwan completed an online questionnaire gauging perceptions of a single test administration. Regression analysis revealed that procedural and interactional fairness were predictive of justice perceptions of the language program. Distributive fairness shared a relationship with justice perceptions but was not predictive. These findings suggest that participants made justice judgments of their language programs based on how fairly the procedures used to administer a single test were carried out and how respectfully the instructor administering the test treated them.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 Lind, E. A., "The social psychology of procedural justice" Plenum Press 1988

      2 Karami, H., "The quest for fairness in language testing" 19 (19): 158-169, 2013

      3 Blodgett, J. G., "The effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on postcomplaint behavior" 73 (73): 185-210, 1997

      4 Leventhal, G. S., "Social exchange: Advances in theory and research" Springer US 27-55, 1980

      5 Bies, R. J., "Research on negotiations in organizations Vol. 1," JAI Press 43-55, 1986

      6 Thibaut, J. W., "Procedural justice: A psychological analysis" Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1975

      7 Colquitt, J. A., "On the dimensionality of organizational justice : A construct validation of a measure" 86 (86): 386-400, 2001

      8 Cropanzano, R., "Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice" 58 (58): 164-209, 2001

      9 Byrne, Z. S., "Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice Vol. 2" Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 3-26, 2001

      10 Greenberg, J., "Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management" Erlbaum 79-103, 1993

      1 Lind, E. A., "The social psychology of procedural justice" Plenum Press 1988

      2 Karami, H., "The quest for fairness in language testing" 19 (19): 158-169, 2013

      3 Blodgett, J. G., "The effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on postcomplaint behavior" 73 (73): 185-210, 1997

      4 Leventhal, G. S., "Social exchange: Advances in theory and research" Springer US 27-55, 1980

      5 Bies, R. J., "Research on negotiations in organizations Vol. 1," JAI Press 43-55, 1986

      6 Thibaut, J. W., "Procedural justice: A psychological analysis" Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1975

      7 Colquitt, J. A., "On the dimensionality of organizational justice : A construct validation of a measure" 86 (86): 386-400, 2001

      8 Cropanzano, R., "Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice" 58 (58): 164-209, 2001

      9 Byrne, Z. S., "Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice Vol. 2" Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 3-26, 2001

      10 Greenberg, J., "Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management" Erlbaum 79-103, 1993

      11 Rebecca M. Chory, "Justice in the Higher Education Classroom: Students’ Perceptions of Unfairness and Responses to Instructors" Springer Nature 42 (42): 321-336, 2017

      12 Xiaoming Xi, "How do we go about investigating test fairness?" SAGE Publications 27 (27): 147-170, 2010

      13 Robin D. Tierney, "Fairness as a multifaceted quality in classroom assessment" Elsevier BV 43 : 55-69, 2014

      14 Kunnan, A. J., "Fairness and validation in language assessment Vol." Cambridge University Press 1-14, 2000

      15 Tim McNamara, "Fairness Versus Justice in Language Testing: The Place of English Literacy in the Australian Citizenship Test" Informa UK Limited 8 (8): 161-178, 2011

      16 Kunnan, A. J., "Evaluating language assessments" Routledge 2018

      17 Kunnan, A. J., "European year of languages conference papers, Barcelona" Cambridge University Press 27-48, 2004

      18 Chory, R. M., "Enhancing student perceptions of fairness : The relationship between instructor credibility and classroom justice" 56 : 89-105, 2007

      19 Hatfield, E., "Encyclopedia of human behavior Vol. 2" Academic Press 73-78, 2012

      20 Messick, S., "Education measurement" American Council on Education & Macmillan 13-103, 1989

      21 Deutsch, M., "Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective" Yale University Press 1985

      22 Rebecca M. Chory‐Assad, "Classroom justice: student aggression and resistance as reactions to perceived unfairness" Informa UK Limited 53 (53): 253-273, 2004

      23 Chory-Assad, R. M., "Classroom justice : Perceptions of fairness as a predictor of student motivation, learning, and aggression" 50 (50): 58-77, 2002

      24 Song, X., "Assessment in education: Implications for leadership" Springer International Publishing 67-89, 2016

      25 Adams, J. S., "Advances in experimental social psychology Vol. 2" Academic Press 267-299, 1965

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2023 평가예정 해외DB학술지평가 신청대상 (해외등재 학술지 평가)
      2020-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (해외등재 학술지 평가) KCI등재
      2018-03-29 학회명변경 한글명 : 아시아영어교육학회 -> 아시아테플
      영문명 : The Asian Association Of Teachers Of English As A Foreign Language (Asia Tefl) -> AsiaTEFL (The Asian Association of Teachers of English As a Foreign Language)
      KCI등재
      2013-10-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (기타) KCI등재
      2010-01-01 평가 SCOPUS 등재 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0 0 0
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0 0 0 0
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼