The Mismatch between EAP Teachers’ Beliefs and Classroom Practices toward Formative Assessment in the EFL Context of Hormozgan

American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR) 2019
A J H S S R J o u r n a l P a g e | 40
American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR)
e-ISSN :2378-703X
Volume-3, Issue-1, pp-40-49
www.ajhssr.com
Research Paper Open Access
The Mismatch between EAP Teachers’ Beliefs and Classroom
Practices toward Formative Assessment in the EFL Context of
Hormozgan
1
Salah Addin Rahimi, 2
Rahman Sahragard
1
PhD candidate of TEFL, Department of Foreign Languages & linguistics, Shiraz University, Iran
2
Professor of Applied Linguistics, Department of Foreign Languages & linguistics, Shiraz University, Iran
ABSTRACT: Beliefs are formed through personal experiences and the interactions that individuals are
involved in daily life (Hsieh, 2002). These beliefs can be transformed into attitudes, which in turn affect
intentions, and decisions are formed through the intentions that lead to the action (Bauch,1984). The match or
mismatch between instructors’ beliefs and practices, between instructors’ cognitions and their authentic
practices in the classroom are two main fields of the teaching process (Clark & Peterson, 1986). However,
teachers may not always apply what they believe in the classroom. This study aims to reveal the discrepancy
between what they believe theoretically and what they do in the classroom. To this end, three instruments were
used in this study: (1) classroom observations, (2) semi-structured interviews, and (3) a questionnaire. The
questionnaire was compartmentalized into five sub-parts as follows: 1. Involving students in their learning,
2. Modeling for quality, 3. Giving feedback, 4. Self-assessment to explore frequency of classroom activities
employed in the EAP classroom procedure. The researcher observed four ESP classes to see what was actually
happening in the instructional setting. Moreover, semi-structured interviews were conducted with each of the
four ESP teachers whose classes were observed. Based on the teachers’ responses to the formative assessment
questionnaire, it was seen that the teachers employed the formative assessment technique quite frequently.
However, the researcher took on the role of a non-participant observer to see how frequently and on what
occasion instructors made use of formative assessment techniques during ESP classes. The findings of the study
reveal that the beliefs of ESP teachers were not always aligned with their actual practices in formative
assessment practice. Semi-structured interviews were conducted regarding the issues that instructors
encountered when they started teaching ESP.
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Beliefs are formed through personal experience and collaboration in daily life that individuals have involved in.
(Hsieh, 2002) these beliefs can be transformed into the attitudes which in turn affect on intentions, decisions are
formed through the intentions that lead to the action. (Bauch,1984). Beliefs plays a vital role in various
components of language teacing, as well as in life .beliefs engage individual to guide them how to make sense of
the world or help them to collect new information. Pajares(1992) believed that teachers’ beliefs have more
influence than teachers’ knowledge on the way they plan their lesson or help teachers regarding decision making
or designing task and practice in classroom procedure. It should be noted that teachers’ beliefs areprominrnt
aspect to specifying their actual behavior toward students. Additionally, belief are shaping early in life and
persist to change. Also, beliefs tend to be culturally bound. ( Marrion Williams, 1997). Kennedy(1997) stated
that it is not really clear what is the source of those beliefs. It is might be roote in product of their upbringing,
based on individual’s life experience, or result of interaction processes in school. However, teachers have strong
sense regarding the role of that education can play about the description of individual differences in educational
setting
2.1 Beliefs about learners
Ronald Meighan (1990) identified seven metaphorically roles for students as follows:
- Resisters
- Receptacle
- Raw material
- Clients

- Partners
- Individual explorers
- Democratic explorers
Teachers view these construction as prominent influence on their classroom procedure. It is should be noted that
the first three constructs refer to teacher- dominant while the last four constructs engage increseangly active
learner participation. If teacher observe their students as resister, receptacles or raw materials, students are
forced to master a language, transfer their information and form students according to teacher’s wishes. But if
teachers observe students as clients, partners, individual explorers or democratic explorers, then they will
change their views and consideration regarding students and treat with students as facilitator and co- operators
and educate them based on learners’ need. Melodie Rosenfeld claimed that , effective teacher beliefs as
important aspect of useful teaching and it is considered as integral components of effective teaching.
Additionally, effective teacher can be defined as based on act on the belief that they meet student’s need
.teachers often have interventionist beliefs about students and their ultimate goal is improve student
performance and self-esteem.In recent decades, assessment has a vital role in education. English language
teaching at university in many countries has resulted in vigorous discussions on assessment of EAP students. In
both local and global contexts, researchers and instructors have sought appropriate and efficient assessment
methods for evaluating and monitoring EAP Students progress in ESP courses. (Chen 2003, Chern, Ruan,
&Yeh, 2001, Gattullo, 2000; Hasselgren, 2000). Assessment refers to any method, strategy, or tool a teacher
may use to collect evidence about student progress toward achievement of established goals. It is a process of
collecting information and gathering evidence about what students have learned (Chen, 2003,Wishon, 1998).
Assessment is part of curriculum design and goal od education and enables instructors to reflect on the actual
learning situation (zahork,1995). Thus, instructor are able to focus on working toward Students progress.
(wishon,1998). Researchers have classified the purpose and function of assessment as follow: 1. Understanding
the strength and weakness of students’ ability 2.help instructors to investigate student learning process 3.
Evaluating student learning process 4. Placing students in proper level based on given institutional standards.
(Heaton1990). The concept of formative assessment first appeared in the late 1960, but after few years
education researchers have shifted their focus towards use assessment as tools in enhancing learning. In the field
of assessment, researchers have changed their focus from learner being dependent on the instructor to encourage
students to form a partnership in learning with their instructor. In other words, function of formative assessment
is conceptualized learning, teaching and teaching as an integrative process and instructors discusses formative
assessment as a tool for enhancing learning rather than evaluating it.
1.2 Significance of the study
Recent development in nations political cultural, social, athletic, business, tourism, and economic ties as well as
the recent increase in ESP publications (textbook), conference presentations, professional and academic
meetings, invited lectures and online workshops, highlight the fact that ESP has gain significant place not only
among Iranian university and academic circles but also it has gained the shape of new industry in 21
century.(Kiany&Maftoon, 2011). Due to the importance of ESP especially in countries, like Iran where English
is mainly used for academic purposes, importance of teachers’ efficacy in the context in which ESP is taught is
important. Additionally, With regard to teachers’ beliefs,teachers’ thought, individual pedagogies and decisions
are influenced by their beliefs. (Borg, 1999). It should be noted that these beliefs guide teachers regarding
teacher’s decision and practices, such as identify the lesson objectives, designing syllabus, designing and
choosing tasks and activities, and assessing students performance. (Rios, 1996). Moreover, Kennedy addressed
that these beliefs are used to assess new thought about teaching the teachers often face them during classroom
procedure. Thus, teachers’ beliefs are more prominent than a teacher’s knowledgeon decision they make
regarding teaching activities. These aspect result from the teachers’ self-instruction which is collected from
social history and culture, life experience and education, and teachers’ ability for transfer
information.Knowledge of formative assessment can help instructors focus their practices on enhancing student
learning and adjust instruction. The significance of study stems from two important issues in ESP in particular
and language teaching in general, this study tries to evaluate the context in which ESP is taught as Duuley-
Evans(1998), believes that a significant stage in ESP is evaluation. Brown (1995) defines evaluation which is
organization and analysis of all related information to improvement of curriculum and effectiveness among the
context of the particular situation involved. Yorke (2003) argue that few teachers understand formative
assessment as classroom practices to improve teaching and learning rather than grading. Thus, teachers need to
understand formative assessment as an instrument to facilitate teaching and learning and as part of an interactive
learning environment andthis is important to reveal both self-reported teachers ‘beliefs and their actual
formative assessment practices in the EAP classrooms. This study aims to reveal the discrepancy between what
they believe theoretically and what they do in the classroom.

1.3 Objective of the study
The match or mismatch between instructors’ beliefs and practices instructors’ cognitions and their authentic
practices in the classroom are two main field of teaching process (Clark & Peterson, 1986). However, teachers
may not apply what they believe in the classroom. Fang (1996) believed that discrepancy between beliefs and
practices could occur from different psychological, social and environmental factors that prevent teachers from
applying their own personal beliefs in their educational decision-making.Thus, this study tries to reveal both
self-reported teachers ‘beliefs and their actual formative assessment practices in the EAP classrooms. This study
aims to reveal the discrepancy between what they believe theoretically and what they do in the classroom and
whether there is significant difference between ESP students’ assessments before and after their being provided
with the formative assessment
1) What are the mismatches between teachers’ espoused beliefs and actual practices regarding formative
assessment?
2) What are the teachers’ beliefs regarding formative assessment in EAP context of Iran?
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Teachers’ belief
Beliefs are formed through personal experience and interaction in daily life that individuals have involved in.
(Hsieh, 2002) these beliefs can be transformed into the attitudes which in turn affect on intentions, decisions are
formed through the intentions that lead to the action. (Bauch,1984) in educational situations, teaching behaviors
are governed through belief system. Regarding language teaching , teachers’ belief reflect individual
pedaogoes.( Graves, 2000). Teachers’ thought , individual pedagogies and decisions are influenced by their
beliefs. (Borg, 1999). It should be noted that these beliefs guide teachers regarding teacher’s decision and
practices, such as identify the lesson objectives, designing syllabus, designing and choosing tasks and activities,
and assessing students performance. (Rios, 1996). Thus, teacher’s role is not only ransfer the knowledge to their
students, but also intentionally or unintentionally pass or impose their beliefs about learning on students.
(Horwitz, 1988). Cheng (1997) argued that teachers’ belief about foreign language learning ave a direct impacts
on students’ anxiety about secong language learning.
2.2 Teachers’ belief and practices
Regarding relationship between teachers; beliefs and actual practices, two themes are identified. One of them is
proposed that there exist a consistent relationship between teachers’ belief and pactices..it should be noted that
teachers’ theoretical belief from their ways of teaching. Rupley and Logan (1984) reported that primary
teachers’ belief regarding reading strategies influence their decision making in the classroom. Additionally,
Richardson( 1991) argued that teachers’ belief regarding teaching an English are aligned with their classroom
teaching practices. Johnson(1994) believed that , since teachers’ belief are unobservable it is difficult to define
or study. In addition, Farrel&Lims( 2005) identified three majors basic assumptions as follow: 1) teachers’
belief plays a vital part in forming knowledge and information on teaching into classroom practices; 2) teacher’s
belief affect on ther perceptions and judgment; 3) it is important to discover teachers’ belief, because it may
improve lesson objectives and teacher practices. However, some researches showed that there exist slight
similarities between teachers’ beliefs and actual practices. Richards( 1991) reported that , these mismatch maybe
rooted in research methods; for instances researcher attempts to examine teachers belief through paper and
pencil types, or questionnaires. Basturkman (2012) argued that even the most comples methods do not
necessarily reveal closer correspondence. Moreover, van der schaff (2008) reported that , based on various
sources of data on beliefs and practices, it can not clearly state that there exist relationship between teachers’
esposed beliefs about research skill, and their actual practices of teaching an English in classroom. Additionally,
Farrel and Lim (2005) reported that there existed powerfull correspondence between espoused beliefs and actual
practices regarding teaching grammar. Butler( 2006), examined four experienced teacher beliefs and practices in
literacy and literacy assessment for two semesters. Four teachers were working literacy clinic as a part time job
for their graduate coursework. One of four teacher worked as a reading resources instructor at a public primary
school, two of them taught primary school, and the last one taught high school. The result revealed that there
existed mismatch between teachers’ beliefs and their actual practices in order to an array of variables such as
school policy and governmental rule.
III. Method
3.1 Participants
Twenty instructors comprising of 10 males and 10 females participated. They have been teaching EAP courses
for several years. The teachers useformative assessment as a framework for teaching ESP courses. Thus, the
teachers change the way they interact with students, how they set up learning situations and guide students

toward learning goals. Thus, these experienced instructors have enough knowledge regarding formative
assessment. They are both males and females between 30-56 years of age and ranged from MA degree to Ph.D.
The instructors are from three faculties at Islamic Azad universities of Bandar Abbas, Bastak and Hormozgan
University who taught ESP courses.
3.2 Instrument
The three instruments were used in this study: (1) classroom observations, (2) semi-structured interviews, and
(3) a questionnaire. Classroom observation was used as the first data collection technique in this study.
Observations enable the researcher to rely on real situation facts ratherthan on ‘second hand accounts’ (Cohen,
Manion& Morrison, 2007).The major purposes of observing the classroom are to see how frequently use
formative assessment and reveal the discrepancy between what they believe theoretically and what they do in
the classroom.
The semi- structured interview questions were similar to the questionnaire sections in order to triangulate the
collected data. The third instrument is the instructors’ questionnaire. The questionnaire for instructors were
piloted in the second semester of the academic year 2017. The reliability of the questionnaire according to the
present context and situation were estimated after piloting the questionnaire within a population of 10 ESP
teachers. To determine the reliability of the checklist, the KR-21 formula was used. The reliability values of all
the four sections of the checklist ranged from 0.75 to 0.91, which can be considered high-reliability values.The
instructors’ questionnaire consists of two parts. Part A of the instructors’ questionnaire consists of eight items
dealing with personal information: name, age, gender, job experience, university degree, status: EFL instructor
or content instructor, years of English teaching, name of institute / university where they teach. The second part
of questionnaire consists of 30 items which were modified version of the one used by James, Black,
McCormick, Pedder, and Wiliam (2006) to explore frequency of classroom activities carried out in Iranian ESP
classes. In addition,Thequestionnairewas compartmentalized into five sub-parts as follows: 1. Involving students
in their learning, Modeling for quality, 3. Giving feedback, 4. Self-assessment
3.3 Procedure and data analysis
The researcher observed four ESP classes to see what is actually happening in the instructional setting.The
researcher was taken on the role of a non-participant observer to find out how frequently and on what occasions
instructors use formative assessment in ESP classroom. Moreover, semi-structured interviews were conducted
with each of the four ESP teachers whose classes are observed. Semi-structured interview were conducted
regarding the issues that instructors encounter while they start teaching ESP The third instrument is the
instructors’ questionnaire which are modified version of the one used by Farhady (2007) to explore frequency of
classroom activities carried out in the EAP classesAnalyzing the data of the two sources requires different
analytical approaches. Since the nature of analyzing questionnaire results and mean scores is descriptive, the
obtained data were analyzed through variety of descriptive statistics such as frequency count, percentage, means
and standard deviation. SPSS version 16 were used to perform all the analysis on the questionnaire data.
Analysis of qualitative data such as interview results is time consuming. First the categories of collected data
will be classified from the interview transcriptions, the researcher was used the methodology proposed by Duff
and Polio (1990), which is known as the ‘method of sampling’.The researcher was taken on the role of a non-
participant observer to find out how frequently and on what occasions instructors use formative assessment in
ESP classroom. Each teaching session lasted 70 minutes, classroom observation were carefully examined:
involving students in their learning, modeling for quality, giving feedback, self-assessment. Thus, the same
formative assessment checklist was used to observe how frequently teachers made use of those technique in
reality of their classroom practice. Also, the observer must carefully choose the frequency of using the
classroom technique during EAP classroom. The items were ranked on a Likert scale ranging from 1 ( Always)
to 5(Never). It has been drawn out from the classroom observations that although the approximately all of the
teachers maintained that they make use of formative assessment in theEAP classroom.preliminary analysis were
used to ensure whether teachers’ belief are in line with teaching practice. To this end, after calculating the
descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviation, and percentage of each item of questionnaire, two
non-parametric tests, Wilcoxon and sign procedure were used to ensure whether teachers’belief in consistent
with teaching practices.
IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
1) Involving pupils in their learning
Getting students involved in the classromm is important. However, teachers need to make sure that students
have collaboration together inorder to class size. One of the prominent strategies of formative assessment is
provide instructor with the evidences that each student is learning what instructors are teaching , while engaging
the wholw students. (Dyer, 2013). Thus, the ultimate goal of formative assessment is to motivate students
toward the development their own learning to learn skills. Students often have a knowledge of metacognitive
strategies transfer and use these skills for problem solving into daily life. (Bransford, 1999).Pajares(1996)

argued that , students are rarely apply centeral strategies if they lack motivation or self-confidence. Student;s
judgment about their ability to take control of their own learning and carry out task have a direct relationship
regarding their task performance. Thus, develop variety of learning strategies and building confidence play a
pivotal role for teachers.
Table 1.involving pupils in their learning
Table 1 shows the frequencies and percentages of participants respond to the item related to the involving pupils
in their learning. Based on the results it can be claimed that half of the participants support the first statement.
The arithmetic means is 1.95 and standard deviation is 0.88.while80% teachersoften and very often employ the
second technique. The arithmetic means is 1.90 and standard deviation is 0.71. Furthermore, regarding the
thirdstatement, two thirdsof the participants always and very often carry out and 20% often carry out the
taskstatement. The arithmetic mean is 2and the standard deviation is 0.72. While almost 45% of the participants
sometime and often carry out the fourth item, 55% teachers carry out the related item. The mean score is 2.55
and thestandard deviation is 0.91. Furthermore, the result shows that the majority of the teachers claimed that
theyalways and very often make use of this technique.The arithmetic mean is 2.25 and the standard deviation is
1.06. Finally, considering the laststatement half of the participants are in favor ofthe statement, and only 10%.
Sometime carry out the related item in their daily teaching practice as it is shown in the table 1. For this item,
the arithmetic mean is 2.60and the standard deviation is 1.04.
2)Modeling for quality
Eisner(2002) maintained that , the educational evaluation purpose is to focus on quality of curriculum and
character of those activities. Moreover,learning and instruction are increasingly competence-based. Competence
is complex and not always easily assessed.Nowdays, purpose of evaluation is not only in knowledge seeking but
also evaluation is seen as a tool in decision making.
Table2. Model for quality

As table 2 indicated, less than half of theteachers (40 % always and very oftenmake use of this item. Teachers
stated that they make use of the related technique. More than half of the teachers (55 %) often and sometime
carry out the related item. the arithmetic mean is 2.55 and standard deviation is 1.27. regarding the second item,
55 percent of the teachersalways and very often employ this technique and less than one quarter of them
sometime carry out the related item.According to third item 60 percent of the respondents always and very often
employ this technique in classroom procedure. in rewardsand 10 percent of respondents mentioned that never
carry out the related item. The arithmetic mean is 2.55 and standard deviation is 1.19. The fourthitem Revealed
that, Less than one quarter of the teachers (10% found make use of this technique. On the other hand, more than
half of the teachers (60% very often and often) stated that the expressing approval when achievement is
satisfactory. the arithmetic mean is 2.25 and standard deviation is 0.78. However, the fifth item, the teachers
reported that they make use of this technique nearly about 40%. The arithmetic means is 3.68 and standard
deviation is 4.65. Regarding the sixth item the majority of the teachers (60% very often and often )telling pupils
what they have achieved with specific reference to their learning . The arithmetic means is2.75 and standard
deviation is 0.96 .Concerning the seventh item Only 5 percent of the teachers never apply this technique as it is
shown in the table 2 . Additionally, the eighth techniquewas well favored by the teachers.The arithmetic means
is 2.70 and standard deviation is 1.12. according to the next item 70 percent of teachers mentioned that
thedescribing a way an answer is correct. Furthermore, more than half of the teachers (80% very often and
often) mentioned that they specifying a better/different way of doing somethingabove their level. Finally,
regarding the last item more than half of the teachers (55%) mentioned that employ the related task in the ESP
classprocedure . The arithmetic mean is 2.40 and standard deviation is 0.99
3. Giving feedback
Feedback should be based on sudent’s need. Some piece of knowledge should provided directly or tacit.
Moreover, the instructors need to guide student only where are necessary to help thep through misconception or
other weakness in performance. Students should be encouraged regarding every task-specifik, wheras criticism
is seen as counter productive. (Crooks, 1988). Royce Sadler(1989) identified three elements that a play pivotal
role to the effectiveness of formative assessment as follow:
1) Students should be provided evidence about to what extent their work matches with desired goal.
2) Students need to identify clearly the desired goal
3) Helping students to recognize ways to close the gap between the desired goal and their current performance.
Table 3. Giving feedback
As table 3 indicated, it can be seen almost all the teachers reported that about 85 % always and very often carry
out the first item. Additionally, 15 percent of the teachers stated that they often and some time carry out the
statement. Also, the arithmetic mean is 2.75 and standard deviation is 0.85.with regard to second item, as it can
be inferred from the table 3, half of the teachers (50%) always and very often carry out the statement Regarding
the third statement of this criterion, only (5%) always make use the related statement. Moreover, 35% of
teachers sometime or even never carry out the related statement. The participants’ opinions, tabulated in Table
3, regarding the fourth item nearly 50% of the teachers favor the statement that the getting a pupil to suggest
ways something can be improved while over 25% of the teachers sometime carry out the related statement. The

arithmetic mean is 3.15and the standard deviation is 1.13. Furthermore, regarding the statement that the
providing formats and structures for writing or recording findings two thirdsof the teachers always and very
often carry out the related item. Only 5% of teachers sometime perform it. The arithmetic mean is 2.75 and the
standard deviation is 1.11.considering the next statement , half of the participants are in favor of the statement,
while the other half are sometime carry out it For this item, the arithmetic mean is 2.30 and the standard
deviation is 1.19. Moreover, the great number of participants granted the highest score to the seventh item and
more than half of teachers were emphasized, e.g. 40 % always and very often and roughly 50 % of the teachers
somewhat agreed.Regarding the last item ,teachers stated that they employ this task in the classroom procedure.
As it can be seen in table 3, about 45 % of teachers perform this related item the arithmetic mean also is 2.60
and standard deviation is 1.42.
4. Self-assessment
Self assessment is a vital component in learning. Students performance can be effective the extent to which the
studens recognize their weakness and accept that their performance can be improved and identify vital
components of their performance that they are going to improve. ( Harlen&Mary,1996). Self-monitoring is a
vital part of the performance. Thus, if instructors want the students to become independent and professional
learners in their field of study, the teacher should actively promote self-assessment if students are encouraged
and motivate to critically examine and feedback on their own performance. Assessment can be more effective in
terms of contributon of educational development. Moreover, students gain the most learning value from
assessment when comments or feedback is received without any grades or marks.
Table 4.self assessment
As it is shown in table 4, the extreme percentage of the respondents, i.e. 50% always and very often employ the
first statement. Additionally, 50% of respondents often and some timeagreed on the statement of related item.
Also arithmetic mean is 2.50 and standard deviation is 0.94. regarding second item the high degree of teacher’s
support the related statementi.e. 65% very often and often carry out perform it in the ESP classroom
procedure.Concerning the third statement, teachers reported that they make use of this technique quite
frequently. In other word, 60% always and very often support the related item. However, 5 % of respondents
sometime employ the statement in their daily teaching pracice. Additionally, teachers’ performance regarding
the fourth item it ca be seen from table 4 65% of them very often and often carry out the related statement.
Finally, the last item showed that half of the teachers employ this statement. Also the arithmetic mean is 2.40
and standard deviation is 0.94.
Table 5: Arithmetic means and standard deviations of the four categories
Main categories Mean Std.deviaion
Involving pupils in their learning 2.10 0.88
Modeing for quality 3.03 1.08
Giving feedback 2.70 1.32
Self-assessment 2.49 1.00

Table5 shows clear dispute over modeling for quality and giving feedback. There are two categories that had
arithmetic means of 3.03 and 2.70. the table also shows that two categories namely, involving students in their
learning and self-assessment had the lowest mean. On other hand, modeling for quality had the highest mean.
The overall result shows that the teachers frequently conducting the classroom activities regarding modeling for
quality.
Observations:
The researcher observed four ESP classes to see what is actually happening in the instructional setting.The
researcher was taken on the role of a non-participant observer to find out how frequently and on what occasions
instructors use formative assessment in ESP classroom.Each teaching session lasted 70 minutes, classroom
observation were carefully examined: involving students in heir learning, modeling for quality, giving feedback,
self-assessment. Thus, the same formative assessment checklist was used to observe how frequently teachers
made use of those technique in reality of their classroom practice.also, the observer must caerefully choose the
frequency of using the classroom technique during EAP classroom. The items were ranked on a likert scale
ranging from 1 ( Always) to 5(Never). It has been drawn out from the classroom observations that although the
approximately all of the teachers maintained that they make use of formative assessment in theEAP classroom,
the observed methodology by the researchers was mainly different . There were clear mismatch from the
teachers‟ reported beliefs and their actual classroom practices pertaining to the formative assessment.Then, fter
collecting the data , preliminary analysis were used to ensure whether teachers’ belief are in line with teaching
practice. To this end, after calculating the descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviation, and
percentage of each item of questionnaire, two non-parametric tests, Wilcoxon and sign procedure were used to
ensure whether teachers’belief in consistent with teaching practices.Regarding non-parametrc Wilcoxon test, as
the table.indicated that there is a gap between teachers’ belief and their actual formative assessment practices in
the EAP classroom at the level o 0.5 significance.Because the Z value is negative. Thus, it can be concluded that
frequency of classroom activity in relality is much less than what the teachers theoretically believe.
Z -3.14
Asymp.sig (2 tailed) 0.002
Moreover, the sign test verifies the result of Wilcoxon procedure at the 0.05 level of significance.
Sign test .004
Qualitative measures
Given the findings of the study, this study reveals that the beliefs of ESP teachers were not always aligned with
their actual practices in formative assessment practices.Semi-structured interview were conducted regarding the
issues that instructors encounter while they start teaching ESP. Additionally, in order to identify the main source
of the mismatch between beliefs and practices, The instructors viewpoints were asked regarding analyzing the
students’ need, choosing relevant course content, material development, course implementation, teaching
methodologies, use of A/V supplementary materials and other multimedia in the class, student motivation,
classroom management, and class size in order to provide any solution regarding mismatch between frequency
of classroom activity conducting in reality and ESP teaching.The responses provided by the participants were
recorded and then transcribed as needed by the researcher.
EFL teachers reported that lack of uniformity in terms of training programs, misconception about ESP courses,
low general English proficiency of students (GEP), limited number of credits for ESP courses, and amount of
allotted time are basic reasons of why Iranian ESP instructors failto successfully implement ESP courses. A vast
majority of EFL instructors explains technical terms in Persian and students only memorized them in order to
succeed in their final exam; while they were not able to use these technical and sub-technical terms in the actual
context. Moreover, theinstructors admitted that lack of sufficient linguistic knowledge is an obstacle to teaching
language skills. In addition, they reported that the main problem they encountered during teaching ESP courses
was the lack of appropriate material based on students’ need and their proficiency level. Specialized English
courses offered at Iranian universities seem to ignore students’ need in term of daily use of language in real
context. Additionally, EFL instructors were asked about student’s motivation regarding ESP courses, they
reported that in addition to traditional methods for language teaching, instructors should provide other language
learning opportunities such as videos and web-based facilities in their instruction. The vast majority of
instructors reported that the classes are overcrowded and the main problem seems to be rooted in low general
English proficiency of students.EFL instructors mentioned that the allocated time for ESP courses is not enough
to provide opportunities for communication and negotiation of meaning or provide opportunities for learners to
interact in L2or mketheminvolve in the creative use of language. Collins (1988) suggested that in an ESP course

situated learning create opportunities for learner to involve in purposeful task in context that reflect the objective
for which learner may require to use English in the future.EFL teachers also were not all equal in terms of
teaching skills,for instance how to write business letter. It is vital that the instructor adopt the position of the
consultant who has the knowledge of communication practice, but need to consult with the students on how to
provide and design these practices to meet student’s needs and the objective they have.That’s why the majority
of ESP instructor use relatively old course which obviously lack a part for strategy instruction, therefore, it is
essential that material developers review again and revise the old part of textbook and pay more attention to the
issues of strategy instruction which student might need.ThnEFL teachers mentioned that studentslearn better if
they practice and are informed about learning aids or in other words learning strategies.The teachers made
mention about giving feedback and possessing sufficient socio-affective knowledge. They confessed that they
are not familiar with the giving feedback and socio-effective knowledge. This causes them not be able tocreate a
friendly relationship with students and they are unable to motivate students in orderraise the flexibilityand
willingness to attend in ESP course regardingthe disciplines or professional activities that students are involved
in the work.A vast majority of content instructors explains technical terms in Persian and students only
memorized them in order to succeed in their final exam; while they were not able to use these technical and sub-
technical terms in the actual context. Content instructors admitted that lack of sufficient linguistic knowledge is
an obstacle to teaching language skills.
V. CONCLUSION
Based on the teachers’ responses to formative assessment questionnaire, it was seen that the teachers employed
the formative assessment technique quite frequently. Moreover,as it can be inferred from questionnaires, all of
the teachers claimed that they employ all of these techinques pertaining to the formative assessment. How ever,
the reseaherwas taken on the role of a non-participant observer to see how frequently and on what occasion
instructors make use of formative assessment techniques during ESP classroom. Observation were carefully
examined, involving students in ther learning, modeling for quality, giving feedback, and self-assessment. It has
been drawn out from classroom observation that although approximately all of the teachers maintained that they
make use of ormative assessment in the EAP classroom. Then, after collecting the data , preliminary analysis
were used to ensure whether teachers’ belief are in line with teaching practice. Given the findings of the study,
this study reveals that the beliefs of ESP teachers were not always aligned with their actual practices in
formative assessment practices.Semi-structured interview were conducted regarding the issues that instructors
encounter while they start teaching ESP.the teachers reported that lack of uniformity in terms of training
programs, misconception about ESP courses, low general English proficiency of students (GEP), limited
number of credits for ESP courses, and amount of allotted time are basic reasons of why Iranian ESP instructors
failto successfully implement ESP courses.
REFERENCE
[1]. Anthony, L. (1997). Defining English for Specific Purposes and the Role of the ESP Practitioner.
[2]. Borg, M. G., Riding, R. J., &Falzon, J. M. (1991). Stress in teaching. A study occupational stress and
its determinants, job satisfaction and career commitment among primary school teachers. Educational
Psychology, 11, 59-75.
[3]. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language
teachers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching, 39, 81-109.
[4]. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher Cognition and Language Education.Continuum, London.
[5]. Clark, C. M. (1988).Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of research on
teaching thinking.Educational Researcher, 17, 5-12.
[6]. Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought process. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan
[7]. Colby-Kelly, C., & Turner, C. E. (2007). AFL research in the L2 classroom and evidence of usefulness:
Taking formative assessment to the next level. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(1), 9-37.
[8]. Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M.J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A
multidisciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[9]. Fang, Z. H. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices.Educational Research, 38(1),
47-65.
[10]. Hutchinson , T., & Waters, A.(1987). English for specific purposes. A learning- centered Approach
.Cambridge University press.
[11]. Kelly A. L., & Berthelsen, D. C. (1995).Preschool teachers’ experiences of stress.Teaching &Teacher
Education, 11(4), 345-357.
[12]. Kennedy, Mary M. (1997). Defining an ideal teacher education program [mimeo]. Washington, DC:
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. 1-29.
[13]. Mazadayasna,G, M.H.Tahririan.(2008). Developing a profile of the ESP needs of Iranian students: The
case of students of nursing and midwifery .Journal of English for academic purposes, 227-289.

[14]. Meighan, R. & J. Meighan. (1990). Alternative roles for learners with particular reference to learners as
democratic explorers in teacher education courses. The School Field, 1(1), 61-77
[15]. Meighan, R. & J. Meighan. (1990). Alternative roles for learners with particular reference to learners as
democratic explorers in teacher education courses. The School Field, 1(1), 61-77
[16]. Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Clearing up a messy construct. Review
of Educational Research, 62(2), 307-332.
[17]. Rashidi N., Moghadam M. (2014).The Discrepancy between Teachers’ Belief and Practice, from the
Sociocultural Perspective.Studies in English Language Teaching,Vol. 3, No. 3, 2015.
[18]. Richardson, V. (1996).The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach.In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, &
E.
[19]. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning and
Measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
[20]. Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning:
Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice, 11(1), 49-65.

The Mismatch between EAP Teachers’ Beliefs and Classroom Practices toward Formative Assessment in the EFL Context of Hormozgan

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to The Mismatch between EAP Teachers’ Beliefs and Classroom Practices toward Formative Assessment in the EFL Context of Hormozgan

More from AJHSSR Journal

Recently uploaded

The Mismatch between EAP Teachers’ Beliefs and Classroom Practices toward Formative Assessment in the EFL Context of Hormozgan