2014 volume 3 (issue 1) by Journal of Education in Black Sea Region

Semi-Annual International Peer-Reviewed Academic Journal

ISSN 2298-0172

Journal of Education

Volume 3 Issue 1

Tbilisi 2014

UDC (უაკ)378( 479.22)(063)+811.111+821.111+37.016:811.111+37.016:821.111 I – 69

Semi-Annual International Peer-Reviewed Academic Journal

Volume: 3

Number: 1

2014

ISSN 2298-0172

Contents Culture in EFL classrooms .................................................................................................................................................... 5-10 Maia CHKOTUA Students’ beliefs about gender-based teacher-student relationships and learning efficacy at university (Georgian case) ............................................................................................................. 11-31 Natela DOGHONADZE An empirical evaluation and comparison of Classical Test Theory and Rasch Model .......................................................... 33-38 Mehtap ERGÜVEN Being an educator-leader – what does it mean? (Universities in Georgia case) ............................................................... 39-45 Alexandra NOZADZE Practical strategies for teachers to enhance the degree of reliability and validity in assessment ...................................... 47-52 Ekaterine PIPIA Status, place and profile of non-native English teachers in Georgia ................................................................................... 53-59 Lia TODUA, Natia JOJUA The importance of cultural awareness in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instruction to undergraduate students ................................................................................................................................ 61-64 Nino TVALCHRELIDZE

Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Culture in EFL classrooms Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Culture in EFL classrooms

Maia CHKOTUA*

Abstract The idea that foreign language teaching has a cultural dimension is not new. Throughout the history of language teaching it has been possible to distinguish different links between language instruction and teaching about culture. The way how these two have been linked has depended on the general goals of foreign language education, but also on how the concept of culture has been interpreted. The main aim of the research is to get an insight into the situation of teaching cultural aspects in English language classes in Georgian Universities. In order to get a broader view, teachers’ opinions of various aspects of teaching about culture while teaching EFL has been studied and discussed. A conclusion is made that, i n order to teach about culture systematically, teachers should set clear and achievable goals. However, to be able to do so, they need both contents and methods of teaching adequate training. Keywords: classroom, culture, language, EFL, teaching

Introduction To make culture teaching an integral part of a language class, the teacher should set realistic and clear goals. Although all aspects are important, most scholars stress that the main goals of teaching about culture should be developing intercultural understanding and communication. To achieve this difficult goal teacher should consider an appropriate approach with suitable techniques and activities. The choice of the latter depends on several factors, such as the situation in which the language is taught, the age and the language level of learners, and teacher with his/her preparation to achieve the set goal. Teachers also need accessible and reliable sources for teaching cultural aspects. Despite the recognition of the importance of culture in the language classes, teaching about it still remains rather limited. The main reasons for that are lack of time, the issues of designing a cultural syllabus and choosing appropriate techniques, and lastly, the presentation of culture-related topics and activities in teaching materials.

The main goals for teaching culture When the main aim of foreign language teaching is to develop students’ ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in various situations, culture-sensitive language teaching should facilitate intercultural communication and understanding. Seeley formulates what he himself calls a super goal for the teaching of culture: “All students will develop the cultural understanding, attitudes, and performance skills needed to function appropriately within a segment of another society and to communicate with people socialized in that culture” (Seeley, 1993, p. 29). Chastain (1998, pp.299-300) adds that, in language

classes where intercultural understanding is one of the goals, students become more aware of their own culture and more knowledgeable about the foreign culture. In such classes, students learn to recognize cultural patterns of behavior and communication and function within the parameters with those new expectations. Seeley (1993.:30) goes on with the discussion and states that large goals should be described in more details to be useful. He suggests six instructional goals, summarized as follows: the teacher should “help the students to develop interest in who in the target culture did what, where, when and why” (the first five goals) and “some sophistication in evaluating statements about the culture and finding out more about it” (the sixth goal). Tomalin and Stempleski (1993, p. 7-8) have modified Seeley’s goals of culturally-sensitive language instruction. According to them, the teaching of culture should help students • to develop an understanding of the fact that all people exhibit culturally-conditioned behaviors; • to develop an understanding that social variable such as age, sex, social class, and place of residence influence the way in which people speak and behave; • to become more aware of conventional behavior in common situations in the target culture; • to increase their awareness of the cultural connotations of words and phrases in the target language; • to develop the ability to evaluate and refine generalizations about the target culture, in terms of supporting evidence; • to develop the necessary skills to locate and organize information about the target culture; • to stimulate students’ intellectual curiosity about

* Assoc. Prof. Dr., Faculty of Education and Humanities, International Black Sea University, Tbilisi, Georgia E-mail: mchkotua@ibsu.edu.ge

Maia CHKOTUA Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

the target culture, and encourage empathy towards toward its people. Stern (1992, p. 212-215), after studying the goals set by several scholars, concludes that all goals, despite the differences in terminology, stress the cognitive aspect, that is: “knowledge about the target culture, awareness of its characteristics and differences between the target culture and the learners’ own culture.” A “research-minded outlook” is also important, that means, “willingness to find out, to analyze, synthesize and generalize.” Lastly, learners should understand the sociocultural implications of language and language use. In order to the above-mentioned goals culture in foreign language classes should be presented in a systematic and organized way. It should not be “incidental to the real business of language teaching” (Byram, 1989, p.3), neither could it be treated as “an interesting sidelight that is included periodically to provide a change of pace from language study”. Cultural studies should have “a rightful place in foreign language teaching. Kramsch’s observation seems to summarize what Chastain and Byram have said. She states: “Culture in language learning is an expendable fifth skill, tacked on, so to speak, to the teaching of speaking, listening, reading, and writing. It is always in the background, right from day one, ready to unsettle the good language learners when they expect it least, making evident the limitations of their hard-won communicative competence, challenging their ability to make sense of the world around them”. (Kramsch, 1993, p.1)

Topics for Teaching Culture The easiest way to design a cultural syllabus is to compile a list of topics that are thought to be important for or of interest to students. As there is no exhaustive list, the decision to include certain topics is always arbitrary. What a huge task trying to list the topics for teaching culture is can be seen from the list of 62 topics compiled by Brooks (1986, p.124-128). His list includes, for example, greetings, patterns of politeness, verbal taboos, festivals, folklore, music, medicine, hobbies, learning in school, meals, sports and careers. However, he claims that such a list is in no way exhaustive and stresses that the learners’ age and needs should be considered. The level of language skills is also to be taken into consideration. Chastain (1988, p.303-304) has compiled his list using an anthropological perspective. Similarly to Brooks, he claims that students can add topics with which they want to become familiar. In his list, there are 37 topics, including family, home, money, religion, holidays, clothes, good manners and non-verbal communication. He considers the latter especially important to teach when students anticipate having direct contacts with speakers of the other culture. What he also emphasizes is that the discussion of these topics should be based on comparing similarities and differences of students’ own and the target culture. The comparative approach is also emphasized by Durant (1997, p.31). His list consists of topics such as food, customs, the legal and judicial system, holidays, housing and gardens, social attitudes and forms of political expression. He adds, though, that “there seems to be little need for any fixed list of fixed order of themes” and the choice of topics depends on students’ interests and suggestions. To make culturally sensitive language teaching an in-

tegral part of EFL, teachers should set clear and realistic goals. Although all aspects (cognitive, behavioral, and affective) are important, most scholars stress that the main goal of teaching a foreign language in a culturally sensitive way should be developing intercultural understanding and communication. To achieve the goals teachers should consider an appropriate approach as well as suitable techniques and activities for such teaching. The choice of the latter depends on several factors, such as the situation in which the language is taught, the age and the language level of learners and, lastly, the teacher and his/her preparation to teach the target language in a culturally sensitive way. Besides the above-mentioned factors, teachers also need accessible and reliable sources. Several studies have shown that the cultural dimension in textbooks varies to a great extent. In order to evaluate their cultural context, teachers can use several checklists. However, in order to provide learners with up-to-date information, teachers should also turn to other sources. The aim of my research is to get an insight into the situation of culturally sensitive language teaching in university English classes in Georgia. In order to get a broader view, teachers’ opinions of various aspects of such teaching were studied.

Method A questionnaire for university teachers was chosen as a source for eliciting the data. A one-to-five Likert scale was used for getting the respondents’ judgments about the ways of culturally sensitive language teaching and topics of interest. Teachers were asked about the importance of teaching about culture in the process of EFL teaching. A questionnaire was composed with the help of survey software package (www.surveymonkey.com). The questionnaire was sent via e-mail to teachers of 4 universities (2 state and 2 private) in Georgia and also was distributed in person. All participants were volunteers. The survey was paper-based and responses were entered manually. A total of 50 questionnaires were completed and returned. The questionnaire was designed with the aim of finding answer to the following questions: 1. How do teachers define culture and what importance do they attribute to the teaching of it? (Q1 &3) 2. Should we teach culture or about culture? (Q2) 3. How often are cultural issues discussed in your classes and do these issues motivate students’ language learning? (Q4 &5) 4. What methods and techniques are used? (Q6) 5. What topics and information about which cultures do they consider important to teach? (Q7 & 8) 6. What teaching materials and other sources do they use and do they offer enough material for culturally-sensitive language teaching (Q9, 10 & 11)

Results All teachers gave answers to multiple-choice questions, whereas not all teachers ranked the ways of teaching and topics. Some teachers also left unanswered some openended questions.

Culture in EFL classrooms Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Question #1 The question about the definition of culture was placed first in the questionnaire. The respondents were given 2-3 lines to provide answers. The fact that culture is a very difficult word to define was proved by the fact that nearly one third of the teachers (32%) left the question unanswered. In the provided definitions one part of the teachers concentrated on the people’s way of life and their beliefs and perceptions, while another group claimed that culture embraces both people’s way of life and their history, geography and arts. Many teachers stressed that culture is associated with one country and that it is shared by its people. On the other hand, there were no definitions that mentioned cultural diversity within one country. Some respondents made it explicit that values are determined by one’s own culture. Language as a reflection of culture was also stressed in some definitions. The fact that culture is a dynamic system that develops continuously and influences people’s lives was also emphasized by some teachers. It can be concluded that the teachers who answered the question mostly defined culture by listing its various elements. A few holistic definitions were also provided, where the relations between various aspects of culture were indicated. Question #2 1. Culture 2. About culture?

considered important to integrate the teaching cultural issues in EFL classes, while 32% considered it as very important. For 2% of the teachers it is unimportant and 10% considered that it should be taught as a separate course. In fact, having separate culture-liked courses in an EFL program is quite a good idea, parallel to teaching the practical language courses in a culturally-sensitive way.

Figure 2. Teachers’ opinions about the importance of culture

Question #4 If the answer is yes, how often do you discuss culture-related topics in your English classes? 1. Often 2. Sometimes 3. Rarely 4. Never

Figure 1. Teachers’ opinions about teaching culture or about culture

More than half the teachers (58%) considered important to teach culture, while 42% considered teaching about culture. Despite the fact that in literature we frequently encounter with the phrase “teaching culture”, it is not wise to teach culture without a person’s will. It is against any legislation, against human rights. Teachers should teach about culture of the target language. Question #3 Do you think it is important to integrate the teaching cultural issues into foreign language classes? 1. Yes, important 2. Yes, very important 3. Not important 4. It should be taught as a separate course The results were as follows: 56% of the respondents

Figure 3. Teachers responses to the frequency of discussion of culture-related topics in EFL classes

The results were as follows: The majority of teachers, 48%, stated that they ‘sometimes’ included cultural issues in their lessons, 32% of the respondents claimed that they ‘often’ discussed culture-related topics , while 20% discussed it ‘rarely’. There were no negative responses. We see that the situation could be better. Question #5 Which of the following do you consider the most useful in culturally sensitive language teaching ? Rate from 1 to 5 for each selection. 1- least useful, 5 – the most useful. Please tick the appropriate boxes.

Maia CHKOTUA Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

tional symbols and stereotypes’ were also scored highly – 4.62 and 4.35 accordingly. From the topics connected to everyday life, ‘education and schools’ was scored the highest – 4.23, while ‘family life’ was scored – 4, a bit lower – 3.8 was given to ‘food’ and the lowest – 3.5 was given to ‘youth life’. Other topics were rated up to 4. The highest was ‘literature and art’ – 3.8, ‘history’ – 3.7, ‘music’ – 3.62, ‘geography’ – 3.5. It might be considered slightly surprising, as topics such as ‘history’, ‘literature’, ‘geography’, ‘art and music’ are considered to get most attention in EFL classes.

Figure 4. Teachers’ responses to the ways of teaching culture

The teachers considered lectures as the most important way of teaching about culture, giving 4.65, on a five-point scale, a little bit less, 4.52, was given to the discussion of cultural similarities and differences. Such a high score reveals that the teachers understand the importance of the comparative approach. Watching videos was also rated highly – 4.07, followed shortly by doing projects (4.05). Reading and discussing newspaper articles and reading authentic texts (short stories, poems) were rated equally by teachers, giving 4.03. Teachers were also asked to rate a technique that has been specially developed for the teaching about culture – the ‘culture capsule’. It was considered a useful technique with the average score 3.82. Listening to songs and discussing lyrics were rated higher (3.8) than listening to radio programs (3.4). Role plays were rated 3.19. The least effective for teachers was considered drama (2.92) and a little bit more effective - talking about current events (3). Although some space was left for the teachers to add some other ways of teaching about culture, there were no suggestions.

Figure 5. Teachers’ scores for the topics

Low scores were given to the topics ‘law and order’ (2.66) and ‘government and political institutions’ (3.32). It is possible that teachers are not well prepared to teach these topics. As for the other topics, no additional suggestions were given by the respondents. Question #7 When you teach the areas named in question 6, which country do you mostly focus on? 1. United Kingdom 2. Unites States 3. Australia 4. Other

Question #6 What aspects of culture would you consider the most important to teach about? Rate from 1 to 5 for each selection. 1- least useful, 5 – the most useful. Please tick the appropriate boxes. Teachers were also asked to indicate the most important topics to teach. A list of sixteen topics was provided for assessment. The teachers rated ‘patterns of politeness’ the highest – 4.68. ‘The rules of behavior’ was also considered very important to teach, with the average score of 4.25. This reveals that most of the teachers understand that, besides presenting background information about the culture, the development of students’ intercultural communicative skills is equally important. ‘Customs and festivals’ as well as ‘na-

Figure 6. Teachers’ responses to the countries they mostly focus on

Culture in EFL classrooms Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

The responses revealed that topics related to British culture were dominant – 49%. Then followed issues related to the United States – 41%, 10% of the teachers responded that topics related to Australia was important. Other cultures got no attention from the respondents. The focus on the British culture can be explained by two factors: firstly, historically British English has been taught in universities, and second, British English has been considered as superior one. However, it is desirable to pay more attention to the culture of other English-speaking countries. Question 8 What sources do you use for teaching about culture? Figure 8. Teachers’ opinions about textbooks

Question #10 Name the main textbooks you are currently using for teaching English. Fifteen textbooks were named by the respondents. The results were as follows: the most frequently named textbooks were Upstream (12 teachers) and Q:Skills for Success (2&3) (10 teachers). Then comes Market Leader (6 teachers), New English File (4 teachers), Total English (3 teachers), What a World, Master class and Outcome (2 teachers each), Discovering Fiction, Opportunities, Academic Connections, FC Gold, Famous American Stories and A World of Fiction (1teacher each).

Conclusions Figure 7. Teachers’ opinions about different teaching materials

Although English language textbooks (4.6) are the main source for teaching cultural aspects, the teachers use various sources. After textbooks, the most frequently mentioned sources were the Internet (4.4) and realia (4.2). Newspapers (3.6) and videotapes (3.5) were given nearly the same scores, after them come audio recordings with the score 2.3. The reason for giving a lower score to them might be that audiocassettes and CDs come together with those textbooks that do not contain enough culture-related materials. Literature (fiction) usage was given 3, while folklore only 1.9. As for other sources teachers used in the classrooms, unfortunately, there were no recommendations. Question #9 In your opinion, do the textbooks you use offer enough material for teaching culture-related issues? 1. Yes, quite a lot 2. Enough 3. To some extent 4. No The results were as follows: more than a half of the respondents, 54%, were satisfied to some extent with the textbooks they used, while more than a quarter, 24%, considered that the textbooks they used offered enough material for discussing culture-related issues. 13% thought that their textbooks provided quite a lot material, but 9% responded that the textbooks did not offer any useful material from cultural aspect.

Teaching of a foreign language (English) in a culturally sensitive way should be an integral part of English Language teaching in the ideal classroom. However, as culture has been defined in many different ways, it has led to different views to what is culturally-sensitive language teaching. Together with the growth of social sciences, culture started to be defined as the whole way of life. The anthropological definition has become also dominant in EFL teaching. Today, there exists a widespread consensus among scholars that language and culture should be integrated in the language classroom. Language is seen as part of culture and culture as part of language, that is why they cannot be separated and should be taught together (Brown, 2000, p. 177). In order to teach about culture systematically, teachers should set clear and achievable goals. The main aim of integrated linguo-cultural teaching is to develop students’ intercultural understanding and help them to communicate interculturally. For the latter, learners need cultural knowledge, cultural awareness and a set of skills, which constitute the learners’ intercultural competence. Despite the recognition of the importance of integrating culture in language teaching, it has still remained limited. Lack of time, the issues of designing a cultural syllabus and choosing appropriate techniques, the presentation of topics and activities in teaching materials are the main reasons. The easiest way of designing a culturally sensitive language syllabus is to use a list of topics (suggested, for example, by the national curriculum). After having determined the course content, teachers should decide on appropriate methodology. It should foster both students’ cultural knowledge and awareness. The choice of a suitable technique

Maia CHKOTUA Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

and activity also depends on what the aim of teaching about culture is. As the culturally-sensitive language teaching mostly takes place in the classroom, teachers need textbooks with organized and systematic approach of teaching about culture. In order to find out to what extent culture-related material is present in textbooks and how it is organized, teachers can use several checklists. As no single textbook can provide information on all the aspects of culture, teachers should turn to other sources. The material is diverse, ranging from the Internet, newspapers, films, literature, radio and television programmes to realia. To improve the situation of culturally sensitive language teaching more attention should be paid to language teacher training. Teacher education programmes at universities should include the methodology of teaching about culture in the curricula. Teachers, on the other hand, need ongoing in-service training, as culture is developing. More comprehensive and in-depth language teacher education would be one way to get nearer to the ideal where culture forms an integral part of language classes.

References Brooks, N. (1986). Culture in the Classroom. In J.M. Valdes (ed.), Culture Bound. Bridging the cultural gap in language teaching. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 123-128. Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of language Learning and Teaching. Fourth Edition. London: Longman. Pearson Education Limited. Byram, M. (1989). Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Chastain, K. (1998). Developing Second Language Skills. Theory and Practice. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace Janovich Publishers. Durant, A. (1997). Facts and Meanings in British Cultural Studies In S. Bassnett (ed.), Studying British Cultures: An introduction. (London: Routledge), 19-38. Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seeley, H.N. (2003). Teaching Culture: Strategies for Intercultural Communication. 3rd edition. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Stern, H.H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tomalin, B. & Stempleski, S. (1993). Cultural Awareness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Students’ beliefs about gender-based teacher-student relationships and learning efficacy at university (Georgian case) Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Students’ beliefs about gender-based teacher-student relationships and learning efficacy at university (Georgian case)

Natela DOGHONADZE*

Abstract Gender and teacher-student relations are normally viewed as factors influencing the learning efficacy. An effort has been made in this paper to connect these factors to each other as well. Teachers who cultivate, nurture, and main¬tain healthy teacher-student relationships often demonstrate behaviors consistent with an ethic of care, and care is generally believed to be a feature more typical for female than male lecturers. Besides, female teachers are expected to be more emotionally engaged in what is happening in the classroom. But the presented studies are contradictory on the issue. Instructors’ rating, behavior, expectations, personal features, and self-perception of proficiency are analyzed according to genders based on literature analysis and questionnaire. Views on female students’ distinctive features are also discussed. Two questionnaires were offered to students and lecturers, which were anonymous, but the respondents had to mention their gender, to permit assessment of viewpoints according to genders. In the first questionnaire a Likert scale (5 point) assessment of statements was applied (from 1 – totally disagree to 5 – totally agree); it involved 21 items. Forty one respondent filled in in. The second questionnaire was in the multiple choice format, to deal with more details, it involved 32 items and was filled in by 16 respondents. It was concluded that all students expect a female lecturer to be warm and supportive, male students are more independent in their studies, female students tend to be discriminating towards female lecturers, and male students are more tolerantly treated by all lecturers. Some other issues were assessed in a contradictory way. It is noteworthy that culture might have had an impact on the answers. Keywords: gender, teacher-student relationships, learning efficacy, lecturer objectivity, lecturer qualification

Introduction Nowadays much attention is being paid to gender studies practically in all spheres of humanities and social sciences, including education. According to Sadker and Sadker (1994:1), due to various perception and learning, “sitting in the same classroom, reading the same textbook, listening to the same teacher, boys and girls receive very different educations”. Females and males differ in various aspects related to education, so this fact has to be taken into consideration, to achieve a high efficacy of education, as well as to create a friendly learning/teaching environment for both female and male teachers and students. Two cases motivated me with the topic choice of this study. One is remembering a lecture of an African American woman-professor’s lecture during a Summer School held at Drexel University (Philadelphia, USA) in 1995. The professor confessed how difficult it is to be an African American woman professor, as to withstand the competition with white men professors she had to have much better achievements. I personally have never felt that much discrimination, however, being a woman even in such a traditionally women’s domain as humanities and education really has been different for me. One can say it is anecdotal evidence, but there has been research done on the issue. For instance, a study of scholarship made in Sweden found that women have to be 2.5 times more productive than men in order to get the same peer review ratings (Motiuk, 1997).

Another case deals with Margaret Thatcher’s opinion that, after watching her speech on TV, her colleagues-politicians, both male and female, first commented on her appearance and then, by the way, the contents of her speech. ‘Who do I dress for? I really dress for the occasion and for the job and it is very important’ (Thatcher, 1986). Law is one thing and prejudice is another. To change laws is difficult, but to change prejudices is much more difficult. So, after many years of speculating on the subject, I decided to undertake this research. Stone and O’Shea (2013: 106) in their survey of 37 adult (aged over 21) students ask: “So how is it that such traditional gender roles continue to thrive amongst this cohort despite the strong feminist challenge over at least the past 30 years?” The traditional views on female teacher and student roles in their research deal with women as carers and men as breadwinners (Lister, 2000; Orloff, 1996; Weeks, 2000) had shaped their experiences accordingly. Also they include a lower educational, economic and employment status (Chapman, Cartwright and McGilp, 2006; McGivney, 2006; Scott, Burns, and Cooney, 1998; Tett, 2000). Certainly, the male students in this study were keenly focused upon finishing their studies as quickly as possible in order to obtain the necessary skills and perform their breadwinner role more effectively. The women with children were managing multiple responsibilities including child-care, housework

* Prof.Dr., Faculty of Education and Humanities, International Black Sea University, Tbilisi, Georgia E-mail: nateladoghonadze@ibsu.edu.ge

Natela DOGHONADZE Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

and paid work. Their stories revealed the interrupted nature of their study progress and the impossibility of having dedicated, privileged and uninterrupted time for study on a regular basis. Family responsibilities, including caring for ageing parents, came first, yet they managed to succeed at their studies through artful juggling and loss of sleep. On the other hand, women are traditionally regarded as more ‘natural’ teachers based on their biological role as major care takers. So, often there are higher expectations from them, concerning warmer relationships with students and even resultant higher student learning outcomes. There also is one more interesting aspect of the problem – discrimination of women by women. Research has shown that today women even more often are biased against women in leadership positions and some professions which are viewed as traditionally male ones (Hill, Corbett, and St. Rose, 2010). As Shalala (2006) points out, evidence establishes that most people—men and women—hold implicit biases … most of us carry prejudices of which we are unaware but that nonetheless play a large role in our evaluations of people and their work. I decided to make my own contribution to the study of the issue and at least for myself to make the picture clearer. What this article will be about is not gender discrimination, but how much it matters for students whether their lecturer is a man or a woman and whether they somehow relate their success or failure to their lecturer’s gender. I believe this aspect of gender issues in education has been investigated less and the results are too inconsistent. My article is not about women’s right to teach at a university, but about the state of the matter – whether lecturer gender impacts teacher-student relations and attitudes and via them – students’ academic achievements.

Literature review Numerous studies have viewed the effects of gender on teacher ratings, teacher-student relations and student academic achievements (Ogden,1994; Chen, Gonyea, and Kuh, 2008; Giles, Smythe and Spence and others). It appears there is an interaction between gender of the student and gender of the instructor. However, the results are quite contradictory. This is probably because there are too many variables involved (ethnicity and culture, personal features including appearance and dress fashion, subject taught, experience, relationship with students types, teaching/learning styles and methods, pedagogical views), some of which are not defined by researchers, which makes assessment scales less reliable. According to Ogden (1994:10), “students may be judging male and female professors/teachers on various issues, some of which may have nothing to do with teaching competence… Gender and academic level apparently both influence students’ perceptions of good / effective teachers… When students evaluate teachers, there may be an interaction between the sex of the student and the sex of the teacher, as well as some other variables”. Students view their instructors as “role models, mentors, and guides for continuous, lifelong learning” (NSSE, 2010: 37).Chen, Gonyea, and Kuh (2008:4) defined studentfaculty interaction as “meaningful interaction [students have] with faculty”, which is important both for the success of online college students and for students attending traditional college campuses. This is why the relationships between teacher and his/her students are really important.

Giles, Smythe and Spence (2012) found that relationships are essential and matter to the educational experience whether this is recognized or not (i.e., consciously or subconsciously). “Remembering teacher-student experiences brings back memories of feeling inspired, bored or perhaps overlooked. Curricula, lesson plans and learning outcomes are long forgotten, but the impact of relationships lives on (Giles, Smythe and Spence, 2012: 215).” Are they subjectsubject or subject-object – this is what matters first of all. The participants in this study were 17 student teachers and lecturers from five different pre-service teacher education providers within New Zealand who were engaged in preservice teacher education as a student teacher or as a lecturer. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and interpreted. According to the study, good relationships with students individually and collectively are valued. Caring, inspiring, available for help teachers stimulate not only better learning, but also to the person’s well-being in the future. Giles and Kung (2010:311-316) also mention respect, care, openness, encouragement, and sincerity as essential features of teacherstudent relations. Efficacy beliefs refer to judgments of one’s ability to perform actions required to achieve desired outcomes (Bandura, 1977, Bandura, 1997). Two types of teacher efficacy beliefs have been identified as integral to education; these are individual teacher efficacy and collective efficacy. Collective teacher efficacy is not an automatic sum of individual teachers’ efficacies, but a ‘climate’ in the whole educational institution which helps students to improve their knowledge. Teacher efficacy has been identified as a crucial construct in the research on teachers and teaching (Goddard, 2000). Collective teacher efficacy is more essential at school and not at university, besides, my topic deals with individual teacher efficacy, so I will view only individual teacher efficacy. Ideally, one of the purposes of higher education is to help learners in various fields to develop meaningful understandings about their domains of study and to facilitate the development of critical thinking within and among those domains. One expects that the role of teachers at the university level is distinct from the role of those who work with younger students in mandatory school settings, as their learning styles differ and they need different degree and type of help, compared to young learners. Still, students often expect teachers to be more helpful with learning: provide clearer explanations, more impressive examples, and feedback, help select good educational materials, organize more effective activities, more abundant practice. Teacher efficacy refers to “the teacher’s belief in his or her capability to organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context” (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy, 1998: 233). Academic efficacy is considered to be the individual’s belief in his or her abilities to carry out the tasks required for an academic position, namely research, teaching, and service (Landino and Owen, 1988; Schoen and Winocur, 1988). In the teaching context, teacher efficacy is expected to influence the goals teachers identify for the learning context as well as to guide the amounts of effort and persistence given to the task (Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, Hoy, 1998). Researchers of self-efficacy in university faculty have provided descriptions of efficacy by gender (Brennan, Robison, and Shaughnessy, 1996; Landino and Owen, 1988; Schoen and Winocur, 1988), such as caring, emotional

Students’ beliefs about gender-based teacher-student relationships and learning efficacy at university (Georgian case) Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

involvement, etc. Fives and Looney (2009) and Brennan, Robinson and Shaughnessy (1996), for instance, found that women have higher levels of efficacy for teaching. One explanation of this continued trend could be in the understanding of the role of teacher in society and the socialization practices that allow for women to more closely align themselves with this work. Teachers who cultivate, nurture, and main¬tain healthy teacher-student relationships often demonstrate behaviors consistent with an ethic of care (Noddings, 1984). Additional research sup¬ports the notion that highly effective teachers are perceived to be caring (Burke and Nirenburg, 1998; Irvine, 2003; Howard, 2001; Noblit, 1993). Owens and Ennis (2005:392) state that “the ability to enact an ethic of care in teaching should be an expectation of effective teachers. Teachers need to be able to care for themselves, their students, the subject matter and other members of the school community. Too often, that ability to care is assumed rather than nurtured or taught”. As female teachers are mostly viewed as more caring, they are normally expected to be more efficient. In addition, female teachers are expected to be more emotionally engaged in what is happening in the classroom. Teacher’s emotional engagement can be identified through markers such as identification with the academic institution (Finn, 1989) and expression of affective reactions (e.g., interest) in the classroom (Skinner, Handelsman, Briggs,

Sullivan, and Towler, 2008). Some studies have provided evidence for the teacher role of engagement in influencing academic outcomes such as achievement and learning (Handelsman, Briggs, Sullivan, and Towler, 2005; Skinner et al, 2008; Skinner, Wellborn, and Connell, 1990). Achievement, defined as an indicator of individuals’ academic ability is usually assessed through grades on exams and standardized achievement tests (McLean, 2001); whereas learning represents the process through which an individual acquires knowledge (McLean, 2001). However, other researchers, e.g., Sagayadevan and Jeyara (2012), have found there is only weak correlation between gender and emotional support. They studied the correlations between learning outcomes and various factors, including gender. Demographic information requested from participants in their study included their age and gender. In addition, two manipulation check-questions “How do you usually feel when you attend this lecturer’s lesson?” and “What are some of the characteristics that you would associate with this lecturer?” were included to ensure that the experimental manipulation was successful. In general, participants assigned to the good lecturer-student interaction condition were expected to report more positive than negative feelings when attending the lecturer’s lesson, and associate more positive than negative characteristics to the lecturer compared to those assigned to the poor lecturerstudent interaction condition. The lecturer-student Interac-

Table 1. Summary of intercorrelations between LSI, CEQ, POL, age, gender, module grade and average grad

According to Sagayadevan and Jeyara (2012: 11)

Natela DOGHONADZE Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

tion questionnaire encompassed four aspects of lecturerstudent interaction: autonomy, emotional, academic support and provision of structure to measure the quality of lecturerstudent interaction. Also a Perception of Learning Questionnaire (POL) was applied. A total of 20 psychology students participated in the pilot study. In line with the hypothesis of the research, students who shared a good interaction with their lecturer reported significantly higher levels of emotional engagement during the lecture compared to those who shared a poor interaction. But the positive impact of emotional engagement on learning outcomes (academic achievement) was not supported. (Table 1) LSI – learner-student interaction POL - perception of learning CEQ - emotional engagement average grade – perceived learning module grade – student achievement expressed in assessments (exam results, etc.) What is interesting in this article for my study, from Table 1 one can see that • lecturer-student interaction has a strong positive correlation with all factors, except the last three ones (average grade, gender and age) • gender has a relatively strong (compared to other factors) correlation only with emotional support • emotional support has a strong correlation with all factors except the three last ones (average grade, gender and age) In a study by Şimşek (2012) the sample consisted of college students, future teachers (totally 583), studying at various classes of spring semester in 2009-2010 academic year of Textile Education, Metallurgy Education, Electrical Education, Mechanical Education, Printing Education at Technical Education Faculty at a state university located in Istanbul. It was found that how teacher candidates’ perceptions about their willingness to undertake teaching roles differed by their class, by the program they attend, gender, educational status of parents, reasons for choosing the department, whether they found their professions appropriate to their own personalities, whether they considered themselves competent in terms of professional knowledge and skill, and whether they wanted to change their departments if they were given the opportunity. 73 female and 180 male students answered the questionnaire dealing with candidates’ abilities to undertake various teacher roles. It was observed that the self-perceptions of female candidates’ ability to undertake social, communication, vocational and teaching and management roles was higher than those of male candidates. However, the difference was not so significant to management roles, and for teaching roles it was the highest.

Figure 1. The Perception of the Ability to Undertake Roles According to Gender According to Şimşek (2012: 59)

The purpose of study by Kaya, Osay and Sezek (2008) was to establish a questionnaire that would allow a study of students’ perceptions of teacher communication behavior in Ataturk The results of this questionnaire were evaluated according to student gender, grade (year) and department (biological, chemistry and physical) differences. The results of the study indicate that there were statistically significant differences between students’ gender perceptions of the learning environment (p<0.05) on one of the five scales of the TCBQ (Teacher Communication Behavior Questionnaire: challenging, encouragement and praise, non-verbal support, understanding and friendly, and controlling). Female students perceived more of these communication behaviors in their teachers than did the male students. But there were not statistically significant differences between boys’ and girls’ perceptions, because girls tend to perceive their learning environment in a more positive way than do boys (Fraser et al., 1995). On the other hand, there were statistically significant differences (p<0.0001) on four of the five scales of the TCBQ between teachers’ gender. Communication behaviors of male teachers are higher than female teachers’ in four of the five scales of the TCBQ. While it is clear that teachers treated and perceived boys and girls differently, it is less clear how this differential treatment impacted student performance on standardized exams. Of course, a vast literature establishes differences on standardized exams by gender of student, but no research connects test results to teacher gender and its interaction with student gender. Some of these differences include disciplinary interactions, perceptions of student characteristics, and the amount of attention devoted to students (Krieg, 2005). Table 2 contains a summary of the views on female lecturers from various researchers. It is clear from this review that the assessment of female lecturers is mainly positive or at least neutral, except the rating, which is controversial. There is no data concerning the impact of these factors on the efficacy of student learning. Differences of students according to gender, while assessing lecturers, matter, too. Unfortunately, not enough data on the issue have been published. First of all, ratio of female to male students shows, probably, girl’s higher interests in undergraduate studies compared to boys: for example, in the USA Between 1980 and 2001, according to Peter, Horn and Carrol (2005) women increasingly represented the majority of undergraduates, from 52 percent in 1980 to 56 percent in 2001. Women also made up a majority of students awarded associate’s and bachelor’s degrees over the same period. The number of associate’s degrees awarded to women increased from approximately 228,000, or 55 percent of associate’s degrees awarded, to 357,000, or 60 percent of associate’s degrees awarded. In Table 3 the percentage distributions of undergraduate students in the US by field of study is presented. This is more or less analogous all over the world. We can see that typical female fields (where female students perceptibly prevail over male students) are education, health, psychology, and English language and literature. It is interesting, that, though male students dominate in business, numbers of female students there are highest, compared to other fields. Traditionally male fields are business, computer and information sciences, and engineering. In the same study (Peter, Horn and Carrol, 2005:30), persistence and attainment was also analyzed for specific types of institutions. For both men and women, the percentage who completed or persisted (i.e. kept trying to graduate)

Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; beliefs about gender-based teacher-student relationships and learning efficacy at university (Georgian case) Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014 Table 2. Female instructorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; rating, behavior, expectations, personal features, and self-perception of proficiency

Natela DOGHONADZE Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014 Table 3. Percentage distribution of bachelor’s degrees by field of study, by gender of student: 1980–81, 1990–91, and 2000–01

According to Peter, Horn and Carrol (2005:19)

at public 4-year institutions increased between the two cohorts (from 70 to 76 percent for men and from 75 to 79 percent for women). While women were more likely than men to complete or persist at public 4-year institutions in the first cohort, no difference could be detected by gender in the second cohort. For private not-for-profit 4-year institutions and

public 2-year institutions, no difference could be detected in the rates of persistence and completion between men and women in each cohort. It appears that female students are more persistent in completion of their studies. According to the National Center for Education statistics (NCES, 20:4) 56-57% of students of different types of higher

Students’ beliefs about gender-based teacher-student relationships and learning efficacy at university (Georgian case) Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

education institutions during 1995-2008 were girls. According to Butterfield and Pemberton (2012:8), at Idaho State University (USA), female students constituted 65%, while male – 35%. Female students were more evenly dispersed across the age-ranges than male students. Among males the majority of respondents (51.35%) were of traditional college age-between 18 and 24 years of age, 29.73% were 25-31 years of age while the rest (18.92%) – 32 and older. Among females 50.25% were between 18 and 24 years of age, 17% were 25-31 years of age while the rest (31.75%) – 32 and older (p.19). This is linked with more girls having to start later or suspend studies, mostly due to family conditions (35% of female respondents were married, and over 40% had children – p. 26). About a half of students receive scholarships and grants, but a higher percentage of girls received both, which, probably, reveals them as more diligent and successful students. Girls’ GPA are also, though not statistically significantly, higher than that of boys: 3.3644 vs. 3.3289 (p.18). Several studies have found gender differences in GPA favoring female students (Chee, Pino and Smith, 2005; Clifton, Perry, Roberts, and Peter, 2008; Sheard et al, 2009). However, applying Learning and Study Skills Inventory (LASSI), developed and used in Weinstein and Palmer, 2002; Melancon, 2002; Olaussen and Braten, 1998) other researchers found only slight differences among males and females from GPA viewpoint (Weinstein and Palmer, 2002; Prus, Hatcher, Martin, and Grabiel, 1995). In Bender and Garner (2010) study student gender differences were significant for five of the ten sub-scales. Females scored significantly higher on Attitude, t (383)=-5.79, p<0.01, Motivation, t (383)=-3.68, p<0.01, Self-Testing, t (383)=-2.75, p<0.01, and Time Management, t (383)=-3.02,

p<0.01. Females also scored significantly lower on Anxiety t (383)=5.39, p<0.01. It is noted that the gender differences were most pronounced for the Affect/Motivation sub-scale cluster, they were moderate for the Self-regulation group, and were non-existent for the Skill-specific sub-scales category. Female students obtained higher GPAs (M = 2.98, SD =0.68) after the first year of college than male students (M = 2.68, SD = 0.90) in the sample, t (314.90) =3.41, p<0.01. Results received via the inventory LASSI, mentioned above showed that motivation remained significantly related to academic achievement for both females and males but the other sub-scales indicated gender differences. Test Strategies was the only other sub-scale related to academic achievement for females but this was not true for males. In contrast, Concentration, Time Management, and Attitude were significantly correlated with GPA for males but not females. Table 5 sums up the features of female students. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any data concerning the female/female of female/male student/teacher assessments, except the ones mentioned in table 6 below. There is very little research data on relationships between lecturers and students according to gender. Whatever I was able to find, is summarized in table 6. Besides, there is little evidence that teacher-student relations at university have impact on the learning outcomes. In fact, the two questionnaires that I constructed are the summary of the viewpoints expressed in literature review. For economy purposes I did not write any summary or my viewpoints in this section of the article.

Table 4. Students’ financial support

Standard Error: 0.289 in tables 3 and 4 Based on Butterfield, 2012 : 13 Table 5. Female students’ distinctive features

Methodology Alway (1995) suggests that feminist researchers approach a study from a different standpoint than those favoured within mainstream epistemologies. Feminist epistemologies offer the possibility for alternative theorisation, as such approaches imply that women theorise the act of knowing in a different way from men (Crotty 1998). By adopting this position, female researchers may be able to identify issues and obtain interpretations that might be unavailable within more traditional and often male-defined epistemologies. However, in my research, to avoid gender bias in making up the questionnaire, I requested a male colleague to check the issues from this viewpoint. I also held it with both male and female students, expecting them to be different to some degree. The goal was to find out, on the one hand, whether there is some prejudice concerning women lecturers and whether they are better/worse viewed by students in general and according to gender. On the other hand, I wanted to find out students’ opinion on whether gender-based teacher-student relations have an impact on the quality of teaching. The questionnaires were anonymous, but participants had to mention their gender as well as their year of study. As I had too many questions to ask, I made up two questionnaires. In the first Likert scale (5 point) assessment of statements was applied (from 1 – totally disagree to 5 – totally

agree). As this questionnaire was relatively short (21) items, I shared the information about it with all my Facebook student friends, asking them to share it with their friends in turn. I used software questionpro (http://www.questionpro.com/) to collect and analyze the answers. Seven respondents started, but did not complete answering the questions, and incompletely filled in forms could not be taken into consideration, so finally 20 male and 21 female respondents’ answers were analyzed. The second questionnaire was in the multiple choice format, to deal with more details. It involved 32 items. As this questionnaire required much time to be filled in, I did not hope that anybody would fill it in if it just passively lay on Facebook. So I and my colleagues from other universities in person approached the students, asking them to fill it in by hand very attentively, without omitting any questions. 16 respondents filled it in. I held the questionnaire in three universities in Georgia, two in the capital and one regional. Among the universities in the capital one is big and state and another is small and private, while the regional university is average size and state. As they represent all types of universities in Georgia, I hope that the results will be representative enough to reflect the general situation in the country. The students filled the questionnaires in on a volunteer basis. I tried to get a balanced view of female and male students, as well as students of different years.

Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; beliefs about gender-based teacher-student relationships and learning efficacy at university (Georgian case) Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Table 7. Statistics concerning students

Results are presented in tables 8-12 Table 8. Male studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; answers to Likert scale format questions

Natela DOGHONADZE Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Table 9. Female students’ answers to Likert scale format questions

Table 10. Summative results of students’ answers to Likert scale format questions

Students’ beliefs about gender-based teacher-student relationships and learning efficacy at university (Georgian case) Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

For reverse to the answers that we need questions like ‘Lecturer’s warmness does not stimulate students to work hard.’ I calculated the average result in a reverse way (1=5, 2=4, 3=3). The questions in tables 11 and 12 especially deal with existence of prejudices / ideas about male and female students and lecturers. Table 11. Male students’ answers to multiple choice format questions

Natela DOGHONADZE Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; beliefs about gender-based teacher-student relationships and learning efficacy at university (Georgian case) Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Natela DOGHONADZE Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; beliefs about gender-based teacher-student relationships and learning efficacy at university (Georgian case) Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Natela DOGHONADZE Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

To put the answers shorter, in table 12, we use abbreviations ‘m’, ‘f’, ‘both’ and ‘none’. Wherever a different answer is offered, it is given in the table. Besides, the questions have been shortened.

Discussion a) Tables 8-10 Questions 1, 8, 15, 16 concern teacher-student relationships (good, caring, warm, and tolerant) relationships. Respondents believe they are very important (average points between 3.63 and 4.91) for the quality of learning. Male students especially care for good and warm relations, while female students – for caring and tolerant relationships. From my personal experience, personal relations between teacher and student in Georgia have a great importance and a positive impact on class discipline and quality of learning. However, gender-biased tolerance (question 17) irritates students (average 3.63), especially girls (4.00). Answers to question 13 tell us that all students expect a female lecturer to be warm and supportive (average 4.78), while female students (4.86) especially expect so. It means that respondents believe that female teachers possess this important parameter permitting them to teach effectively. Questions 2-5 deal with lecturer appearance. There is much research showing that both teachers and students react positively to each other’s nice appearance (DeCastroAmbrosetti and Cho, 2011; Hamp-Lyons, E. 2012). And in Georgia, like, possibly, in many other countries, people pay much attention to appearance. On average, students pay much attention to female teachers’ dress (3.78) (this fact was mentioned in the introduction), however, they do not really care about male teacher’s dress (3.59). Male students pay very much attention to female lecturers’ dress (4.10), female students pay less attention to female lecturers’ dress, however, the level of attention is high enough (3.43). Female students even more ignore male lecturers’ dress than male students do (3.67 compared to 3.60). However, it does not really have an impact on student learning (on average 3.59 and 3.68 concerning female and male teacher, correspondingly; even less important for female students (3.71) than for male ones (3.45-3.65). Questions 6-7 describe the degree of independence of studies. There is little research on the issue, whatever research exists, it does not find much correlation between learner autonomy and gender. However, it is culture-linked. Goh and Foong (1997), for example, analyzed Chinese students’ learning strategies and found little correlation between learner autonomy and gender (females more autonomous), while Sakai, Takagi, and Chu (2010) from Japan found a high enough correlation between gender and learner autonomy (female students were more autonomous). In my research, on average, students are reasonably independent (3.20). However, it differs for female and male students. Male students do not care about getting all details from the lecturer (2.10), while female students ascribe much importance to it (4.10). And vice versa, the average level of independent study is not too high (3,00), while male students tend to be much more independent (4.70) than female ones (1.70). Questions 9-12, 14 and 19 deal with parameters, influencing the quality of learning. Teacher’s attitude to teaching profession, among the offered parameters, rates the highest both among female and male students (5.00). Teacher’s at-

titude to the course s/he teaches also has a very high average rating (4.83), however, for female students it is more important (5.0) than for male students (4.70). Organization, time management, and more efficient learning strategies also rate very high (average 4.56), especially for female students (4.86). Challenging tasks also has a high average rating (4.42), while for male students (4.7) it is higher than for female ones (4.14). Surprisingly (as it is an outdated view, coming from teacher-centered times), students like it, when teachers are controlling (average 4.31), while male students (4.50) like it more than female students (4.14). Questions 20-21 deal with charm used by female lecturers and students for more efficient motivation and getting higher grades. Students almost do not think that female students and lecturers use their charm to be assessed higher (averages 2.68 and 2.90), while males do think so to some degree (3.10 and 3.40). b) Tables 11-12 The majority of female and male students find no gender impact in connection with the following issues: • attitude towards lecturer gender (question1) • relationships with lecturers (question 2) • lecturer objectivity (question 3) • overlooking students’ requests (question 7) • attitude towards teacher’s profession (question 14) • tendency to be more controlling (question 17) • punctuality and organization (question 20) • student- or teacher-centeredness (question 31) The majority of male students believe there is no gender impact in connection with the following issues: • quality of teaching and lecturer gender (question 4), however, 50% of female students believe male teachers teach better (it is questionable, whether it is really so or just prejudice against representatives of their own gender which sometimes has the place) • boredom at lectures (question 10), however, surprisingly, 75% of female students think female lecturers’ lectures are more often boring than male lecturers’, which again may be gender biased • tolerance towards female students’ problems with exact sciences (question 25), while female students think that neither male nor female lecturers have this tolerance, so the views are opposite and not very reliable • tolerance towards pregnant students and females with little children (question 26), however, only 25% of female students agree with this viewpoint, 25% of girls think only female lecturers make allowances, while 50% think that none of lecturers do, which does not correspond to my experience and awareness The majority of female students believe there is no gender impact in connection with the following issues: • high grades (question 8) - 50% of male students confirm their viewpoint, however, 50% think that female lecturers give male students higher grades, which might be really so emotional engagement (question 13) - 50% of male students share their opinion, however, 50% think that female lecturers are more emotionally engaged in the class, so we can speak about minor gender impact here; this should speak in favor of female lecturers, as emotional teaching, as it is known, increases student motivation and learning outcomes (Wang et al., 2012; Sagayadevan, Jeyaraj, 2012); the results of the first questionnaire also confirm it

Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; beliefs about gender-based teacher-student relationships and learning efficacy at university (Georgian case) Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Table 12. Female studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; answers to multiple choice format questions

Natela DOGHONADZE Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

• treating female students in a more tolerant way (question 21) (this contradicts their own answers to questions 25 and 26, so is quite doubtful) - 50% male students think that female lecturers treat female students more tolerantly, so the answers are inconclusive Concerning the following issues the answers were spread to all categories and differed between student genders so much, that we can also conclude that there is practically no gender impact on • level of lecturers’ knowledge (question 5) – even females being better at humanities and males at technical sciences was not confirmed • inspirational teaching (question 9) • encouraging students (question 11) • helping students (question 12) • love towards teacher profession and their subject (questions 15 and 16) • spending more time with students beyond the lectures (question 18); answers to this question are generally disappointing, as they show that lecturers seldom do it • students’ level of intellect (question 23) • expected desire to graduate timely (question 24) • student motivation (questions 27 and 28) • time management, being organized, having efficient learning strategies (questions 29 and 30) • student discipline according to lecturer’s gender (questions 32 and 33)

has been undertaken yet. In the future it will be interesting to hold the same (or modified / improved) questionnaires with lecturers.

Conclusions and recommendations

As for the issues where all students confirm gender impact, male and female students disagree with each other. For male students this is: • female lecturers are more caring (question 6); 50% of female students also think so, thus, the answer may be viewed as more or less trustworthy • teachers expect female students to be more diligent (question 22), however, 75% of female students think that none of the lecturers think so, so the item is not very reliable For female students this is: • male lecturers treating male students in a more tolerant way (question 19); while 50% of male students answer that male students are treated more tolerantly than female students and 50% think that female lecturers treat male students in a more tolerant way, so there looks to be a higher tolerance to male students in general, however, the issue needs a deeper investigation It is necessary to comment that female students’ answers seem to be too critical and negative, so there may be some biases connected with them. It looks like there is mutual prejudice of female students and female lecturers, but without further investigation this conclusion cannot be made.

Though the research touched quite many respects of the possible impact of gender-related issues on the quality of education, not much impact has been found. However, it permits us to give some recommendations to lecturers. To sum up the findings of this study: • All students expect a female lecturer to be warm and supportive (average 4.78), while female students (4.86) especially expect so (the first questionnaire, issue 13). As answers to the first questionnaire, issues 1, 8, 15, 16 confirm that good teacher-student relationships support effective learning, this has a positive impact on learning outcomes. • According to the first questionnaire, issues 2-5, though students pay much attention to female lecturer dress, this does not really have an impact on student learning (on average 3.59 and 3.68 concerning female and male teacher, correspondingly; even less important for female students (3.71) than for male ones (3.45-3.65). • According to the first questionnaire, issues 6-7, male students are more independent in their studies (the average level of independent study is not too high -3,00, while male students tend to be much more independent -4.70 - than female ones - 1.70. • 50% of female students believe that male teachers teach better (questionnaire 2, issue 4) and 75% of female students think that female lecturers’ classes are more often boring than male teachers’. • 50% of male students think that female lecturers give male students higher grades, (questionnaire 2, issue 8). • Besides, male students are more tolerantly treated than female students according to 75% of female students (second questionnaire, issue 19, while, according to female students, male students are treated more tolerantly either by female lecturers (75%) or both female and male lecturers (25%). • According to the first questionnaire, issue 9, teacher’s emotional engagement contributes to the quality of teaching; 50% of male students think that female lecturers are more emotionally engaged in the class, so we can speak about a minor gender impact here (second questionnaire, issue 13). • Tolerance towards pregnant students and females with little children (second questionnaire, issue 26) has a minor impact. • Caring character of female lecturers is relatively perceived by students (second questionnaire, issue 6).

Limitations and directions of future research

Recommendations

Students from three universities in Georgia were involved, which may be insufficiently representative; second questionnaire, due to its length, was answered by quite few students. In the process of analysis I came to conclusion that even some more questions were needed (e.g., student discipline according to gender, but irrespective the lecturer gender). On the other hand, as the conclusions are rather in line with the analyzed researches, the results may be viewed as throwing some light on the issue in Georgian context, especially, taking into consideration that no such research

• Whether the answers concerning student treatment based on gender are prejudiced or realistic has to be investigated (questionnaire 2, issues 4,8, and 19), lecturers can be recommended to do their best to be more reflective towards their own behavior and to change viewpoint and behavior to gender-neutral. • Learner autonomy has to be stimulated, especially with female students (the first questionnaire, issues 6-7), via applying more tasks fulfilled independently.

Students’ beliefs about gender-based teacher-student relationships and learning efficacy at university (Georgian case) Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

References Alway, J. (1995). The Trouble with gender: Tales of the stillmissing feminist revolution in sociological theory. Sociological Theory, 13(3): 209-228 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 8: 191-215 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman Basow, S.A., and Distenfeld, M.S. (1985). Teacher expressiveness: More important for male teachers than female teachers? Journal of Educational Psychology, 77: 45-52 Basow, S.A. and Howe, K.G. (1987). Evaluations of college professors: Effects of professors’sex-type, and sex, and students’ sex. Psychological Reports. 60: 671-678. Basow, S.A. and Silberg, N.T. (1987). Student evaluations of college professors: Are female and male professors rated differently? Journal of Educational Psychology, 79: 308-314 Bender, D,S. and Garner, J.K. (2010). Using the LASSI to Predict First Year College Achievement: Is a Genderspecific Approach Necessary? Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Denver, Colorado, April 30– May 4: 1-21 Bennett, S.K. (1982). Student perceptions of and expectations for male and female instructors: Evidence relating to the question of gender bias in teaching evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology., 74 (2): 170-79 Bernard, M.E., Elsworth, G., Keefauver, L.W. and Naylor, F.D. (1981). Sex-role behavior andgender in teacherstudent evaluations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73 (5), 681-696. Brennan, M. D., Robison, C. K., and Shaughnessy, M. F. (1996). Gender comparison of teachers’ sense of efficacy. Psychological Reports, 78: 122 Brooks, V. (1982). Sex differences in student dominance behavior in female and male professors’ classrooms. Sex Roles, 8: 683-690 Butler, D. and Geis, F.L. (1990). Nonverbal affect responses to male and female leaders: Implications for leadership evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58:48-59 Butterfield, R.M. and Pemberton, C.L.A.(2012).Differing Gender Characteristics and associated needs and college student retention. Retrieved March 13, 2014 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED528166.pdf Chapman, J, Cartwright, P, and McGilp, E. J. (2006). Lifelong Learning, Participation and Equity. Dordrecht, The

Netherlands: Springer. Chee,K.H., Pino, N.W., and Smith, W.L., (2005). Gender differences in the academic ethic and academic achievement. College Student Journal, 39: 604-618 Chen, P. D., Gonyea, R., and Kuh, G. (2008). Learning at a distance: Engaged or not? Innovate, 4(3): 1-8 Clifton, R.A., Perry, R.P., Roberts, L.W., and Peter, T. (2008). Gender, psychosocial dispositions, and the academic achievement of college students. Research in Higher Education, 27: 676-687 Costin, F., Greenough, W.T., and Menges, R.J. (1971). Student ratings of college teaching: Reliability, validity, and usefulness. Review of Educational Research, 41:511-535 Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research. Australia: Allen and Unwin Elmore, P.B. and LaPointe, K.A. (1975). Effect of teacher sex, student sex, and teacher warmth on the evaluation of college instructors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67 (June): 368-374 DeCastro-Ambrosetti, D. and Cho, G. (2011). A Look at “Lookism”: A Critical Analysis of Teachers’ Expectations Based on Students’ Appearance. Multicultural Education, Winter: 51-54 Fraser, B.J., Giddings, G.J., and McRobbie, C.R. (1995). Evolution and validation of a personal form of an instrument for assessing science laboratory classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science, Vol. 32, Issue 4:399–422 Giles, D. and Kung, S. (2010). Using appreciative inquiry to explore the professional practice of a lecturer in higher education: Moving towards life-centric practice. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, Vol. 50, # 2, July 2010: 308-322 Giles, D. Smythe, E. and Spence, D. (2012). Exploring relationships in education: A phenomenological inquiry. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, Vol. 52, N 2, July 2012: 214-236 Goddard, R. D. (2000, April). Collective-efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement. Annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans. Goldberg, P. (1968). Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction, 5 (April): 28-30 Goodwin, L.D., and Stevens, E.A. (1993). The influence of gender on university faculty members’ perception of “good teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 64 (2): 166-184 Hamp-Lyons, E. (2012). Your most essential audiovisual aid yourself! English Teaching Forum, 4, 33-35 Handelsman, M.M., Briggs, W.L., Sullivan, N., and Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184-191

Natela DOGHONADZE Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Harris, M.B. (1975). Sex role stereotypes and teacher evaluations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67: 751756

sis Reports. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, NCES 2005–169. Wasgington, D.C.

Hill, C., Corbett, C. and St. Rose, A. (2010). Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. American Association of University Women. Retrieved March 12, 2014 from http://www. aauw.org/resource/why-so-few-women-in-sciencetechnology-engineering-and-mathematics/

Prus, J. , Hatcher, L., Martin, H. , Grabiel, C. (1995). The learning and study strategies inventory (LASSI) as a predictor of first-year college academic success. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 7: 7-26

Kaya, E., Osay, E. and Sezek, F. (2008). Application of a Questionnaire to Describe Teacher-Students Communication Behaviour in a University in Turkey. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 3 (1): 26 – 29 Krieg, J.M. (2005, April 12). Student Gender and Teacher Gender: What is the Impact on High Stakes Test Scores? Current Issues in Education [On-line], 8(9): 399-422. Retrieved March 12, 2013 from http://cie. ed.asu.edu/volume8/number9/ Landino, R. A., and Owen, S. V. (1988). Self-efficacy in university faculty. Journal of Vocational Behavior,33: 1-14 Lister, R. (2000). Gender and the analysis of social policy. In Lewis, G., Gewirtz, S. and Clarke, J. (Eds.). Rethinking Social Policy. London: Open University in association with Sage Publications: 22-35 McGivney, V. (2006). Attracting new groups into learning: Lessons from research in England. In Chapman, J., Cartwright, P., and McGilp, J.E. (Eds.). Lifelong Learning, Participation and Equity. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer: 79-91 McLean, M. (2001). Can we relate conceptions of learning to student academic achievement? Teaching in Higher Education, 6: 399-413 Motiuk, A. (1997, May 24). Sex bias study shocks world. New Scientist. Retrieved March 12, 2014 from <http:// www.newscientist.com/article/mg15420830.200sex-bias-study-shocks-world.html> National Survey of Student Engagement. (2010). About NSSE. Retrieved March 4, 2014 from http://nsse.iub.edu/ html/about.cfm NCES. (2010). Profile of Undergraduate Students: Trends From Selected Years, 1995–96 to 2007–08. Web Tables. U.S. Department of Education. September. Retrieved March 13, 2013 from nces.ed.gov/ pubs2010/2010220.pdf Orloff, A. S. (1996). Gendering the analysis of the welfare state. In Sullivan, B. and Whitehouse, G. (Eds.). Gender, Politics and Citizenship in the 1990s. Sydney: UNSW: 81-97 Peter, K., Horn, L. and Carrol, C.D. (2005). Gender Differences in Participation and Completion of Undergraduate Education and How They Have Changed Over Time: Postsecondary Education. Descriptive Analy-

Rakow, L. F. (1991). Gender and Race in the Classroom; Teaching Way out of Line. Feminist Teacher, vol. 6 #1:10-13 Rubin, R. B. (1981, November). Ideal traits and terms of address for male and female college professors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41: 966-974 Sadker, D., Sadker, M. (1994). Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls. Toronto, ON: Simon & Schuster Inc. Sagayadevan, V., Jeyaraj, S. The role of emotional engagement in lecturer-student Interaction and the Impact on academic outcomes of student achievement and learning. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12,3: 1-10 Sakai, S., Takagi, A., and Chu, M. (2010). Promoting learner autonomy: Student perceptions of responsibilities in a language classroom in East Asia. Educational Perspectives, 43, 1-2: 12-27 Schoen, L. G.and Winocur, S. (1988). An investigation of the self-efficacy of male and female academics. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32: 307-320 Scott, C., Burns, A., and Cooney, G. (1998). Motivation for return to study as a predictor of completion of degree amongst female mature students with children. Higher Education (35): 221-239 Shalala, D. (2006). Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Washington: National Academies Press. Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Sheard, M., Golby, J., van Wersch, A. (2009). Progress towards construct validation of the sports mental toughness questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25 (3): 186-193 Şimşek, C. (2012). Attitude of teacher candidates studying at technical education on ability to take the role of a teacher. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, April, volume 11 Issue 2: 55-68 Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., and Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4): 765-781 Skinner, E.A. Handelsman, M.M., Briggs, W.L., Sullivan, N., and Towler, A. (2008). A measure of college student course engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 98(3): 184-191

Students’ beliefs about gender-based teacher-student relationships and learning efficacy at university (Georgian case) Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Skinner, E.A., Wellborn, J.G., and Connell, J.P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and whether I’ve got it: A process model of perceived control and children’s engagement and achievement in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1): 22-32 Stone, C. and Shea, S. (2013).Time, money, leisure and guilt – the gendered challenges ofhigher education for mature-age students. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 53 (1), 95-116 Tett, L. (2000). ‘I’m Working Class and Proud of it’ - gendered experiences of non-traditional participants in higher education. Gender and Education, 12(2): 183-194 Thatcher, M. (1986, November 20). The Englishwoman’s Wardrobe, BBC TV, cited according to http://process. arts.ac.uk/sites/default/files/daniel-conway-britishpolitics.pdf . Tiernan, C.R. and Rankin-Ullock, B. (1985, January). Student evaluations of teachers: An examination of the effect of sex and field of study. Teaching Sociology, 12 (2):177-191 Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., and Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher-efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2): 202-248 Wang, N., Wilhite, S. C., Wyatt, J., Young, T., Bloemker, G., and Wilhite, E. (2012). Impact of a college freshman social and emotional learning curriculum on student learning outcomes: An exploratory study. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 9.2, article 8, retrieved April 4, 2014 from http://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/EJ984909.pdf Weeks, W. (2000). Women’s citizenship: Back into the family. In McMahon, A. Thomson, J. and Williams, C. (Eds.). Understanding the Australian Welfare State. Croydon, Vic: Tertiary Press:55-81 Weinstein, C.E., and Palmer, D.R., (2002). LASSI User’s Manual: Learning and Study Skills Inventory (2nd Edition). Clearwater, FL.: HandH Publishing, Inc. Zigmund, B.B. (1988, September 1). The well-being of academic women is still being sabotaged by colleagues, by students, and by themselves. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A44.

Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

An empirical evaluation and comparison of Classical Test Theory and Rasch Model Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

An empirical evaluation and comparison of Classical Test Theory and Rasch Model

Mehtap ERGÜVEN*

Abstract Although it is considered an interdisciplinary subject, theory of measurement is mostly based on the mathematical foundations. In the last quarter of the 19th century, various psychometric approaches have been developed on the strength of those scientific foundations. Those theories allow users to analyze and determine relationship among individuals’ latent abilities and their response patterns with respect to surveys, aptitude tests, examinations or other educational measurement tools. Besides, these models of measurement are enhanced to estimate model parameters on the strength of features of items. Item-person statistics are used for the educational measurement and assessment purposes mostly. In that context, Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Rasch model are focused and elaborated to evaluate School Olympiad Examination. The way how to implement both theories and how to interpret results of the analyses is presented in the study. Comparison of both theories is done. This comparison gives chance to determine similarities and differences between them. Using the IRTPRO program, some notable features of the items are described and discussed in detail. According to gender, item-person statistics/parameters are determined and interpreted. Behaviors of Item Characteristics Curves are elaborated with respect to both genders. Reliability of the test is defined with Cronbach’s alpha in the whole test and with respect to genders. As a conclusion it is suggested that SOE (School Olympiad Examination) has a high reliability as an educational test, groups of female and male students handled almost all of the items similarly. CTT and Rasch model give similar information with respect to different genders in general. However, Rasch model gives better and more informative results in the ability determination and comparison. Keywords: Item response theory, Rasch model, Classical Test Theory, discrimination index, difficulty index, item-person statistics, item characteristic curve, reliability

Introduction Since the beginnings of psychological measurement, Classical Test Theory (CTT) has been the dominant approach to the construction, analysis, and scoring of psychological scales. Although CTT methods dominate to this day, a second approach, Item Response Theory (IRT) is becoming more popular and better appreciated. (Embretson & Reise, 2000). Main purpose of both CTT and Item Response Theory is determining numerical scores that approximate an individual’s latent ability level. Although they have a common target, both primary theories of measurement differ significantly. They make fundamentally different assumptions about the nature of the construct being measured as well as about how individuals respond to test items (Sharkness & DeAngelo, 2011). The traditional approach - “classical test theory or true score theory (Magno, 2009)” - has a simple implementation algorithm and has served measurement researchers successfully for many years. However, in 1960 Georg Rasch developed IRT models to measure reading ability and to devise tests for the military. His name was given to one of the best-known IRT models “Rasch Model”. In CTT a person’s ‘‘true score’’ is entirely dependent on a particular set of items because the true score is defined

in relation to a specific test or scale. In IRT, a person’s ‘‘true score’’ is entirely independent of items (Allen & Yen, 2002). IRT is theoretically and mathematically more sophisticated than CTT and can be used to obtain estimates of constructs and latent traits that have many desirable attributes (Sharkness & DeAngelo, 2011). It can be assumed that, Rasch model is the most preferable and easiest among IRT models for the items which have equal “good” measures of the trait and only different difficulty parameters. CTT is based on relatively weak assumptions that are easy to meet with real data and modest sample sizes. Those above-mentioned models are simple to use and require little mathematical knowledge on the part of the user (De Champlain, 2010). The article gives opportunity to compare both models in whole and among female and male examinees. According to distinct genders item-person parameters (discrimination, difficulty and ability) are determined and interpreted. Reliability of the mathematical part of the School Olympiad Examination (SOE) (Georgia, 2013) is analyzed. Relation among ability, difficulty and probability of answering an item correctly is represented by item characteristic curves (ICC). In the last decades there has been explosive growth in programs that can analyze tests on the basis of IRT as-

* Ph.D Student, Faculty of Computer Technologies and Engineering, International Black Sea University, Tbilisi, Georgia E-mail: merguven@ibsu.edu.ge

Mehtap ERGÜVEN Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

sumptions. IRTPRO software is one of them. Identification of item-person parameters and representation of item characteristic curves is done by IRTPRO.

Methodology CTT and Rash models are analyzed from different perspectives. Mathematics category of the School Olympiad Examination (2013) is elaborated, which is administered in Georgia by the International Black Sea University. The examination is in multiple-choice format and responses of 523 students were converted to dichotomized answers (0/1). False answers were converted to 0 and true responses - to 1. Experimental studies are done with IRTPRO program to determine the ability levels of the examinees. IRTPRO is used to find out item difficulty, item discrimination indices (in CTT)/parameters (in Rasch) and to demonstrate ICCs as well. Additionally, the ability levels description has been done among genders. 284 female and 239 male students were included in research. Hence, the comparison of different groups of students was done and similarities/differences among the groups were represented. For that reason reliability coefficient was described and behaviors of item characteristic curves were defined in both groups. Correlations among discrimination and difficulty parameters were evaluated and Microsoft Excel s used for the required statistical analyses.

Rasch Model

In constructing tests using this model frequently discards those items that do not meet these assumptions (Wright & Stone, 1979). It can be interpreted that one-parameter (Rasch) model includes only the difficulty parameter. Rasch model assumes that the score is a function of only the difficulty (McBride., 2001) and generally the item discrimination parameter is equaled to 1.

P1 (θ ) =

e(θ −b1 ) 1 + e(θ −b1 )

In the above equation, Pi (θ) is equal to the probability that an examinee chose at random with a given theta score answers item i in the scaled direction, bi is the item i difficulty parameter and e is equal to 2.718 (McBride., 2001). The model based on the exponential function yields measures of people and items on a natural scale, whose unit is called “logit” (Choppin, 1987). According to IRT assumptions, ability level of a person can be evaluated with logit:

 Ps    1 − Ps 

θ s = LN 

P is the proportion of correct answers for respondent s “s”. The proportion correct can be simply found as the ratio of the number of correctly answered items and total number of items.

Since 1960, when Georg Rasch (1901–1981) produced his now well-accepted measurement model published as the “Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests” (Rasch, 1960), there has been a quiet revolution in measuring variables in education, psychology, business and medicine. Rasch’s initial measurement model, now called the Simple Logistic Model of Rasch, is only applied to items in a dichotomous format, such as no/yes, disagree/agree, wrong/right (Cavanagh & Waugh, 2011). In an IRT analysis, trait levels and item difficulties are usually scaled on a standardized metric, so that their means are 0 and the standard deviations are 1. The b parameter on the ability (theta) axis corresponds to the location where the probability of answering correctly for the focused item is 0.5 both in the Rasch and 2PL-IRT model (Furr & Bacharach, 2007). Probability of answering an item correctly depends on the respondent’s ability level (θ) and difficulty of item “b”. Lower b values are indicators of more difficult items (Wauters, Desmet, & Van Den Noortgate, 2010) in Rasch model. If an individual’s ability level is higher than an item’s difficulty parameter, probability of answering the item correctly would be higher than 0.5. Correspondingly, if the value of b increases, required ability level for a test taker will be higher to have a 50% chance of getting the item correctly. As a simple summary:

Table 1. The computation process of determining initial estimates of “ability levels and difficulty parameters” with the given formulas

(1) The easier the question, the more likely the student will respond correctly to it, and (2) The more able the student, the more likely he/she will pass the question compared to a less able student.

According to the given equation, if an examinee’s personal measure is 2.3 and item’s difficulty is 1.2, then logit is

Rasch measurement requires the researcher to design the items in a scale from easy to hard, but with certain conditions in mind. The conditions mean that the probability of answering positively must be related to the difference between the person’s measure and the item difficulty (Cavanagh & Waugh, 2011). In Rasch model, the following equation expresses what happens when a person meets an item in a test. LOG (P/1-P) =person measure – item difficulty

LOG (P/1-P) = 2.3-1.2=1.1

An empirical evaluation and comparison of Classical Test Theory and Rasch Model Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

It can be interpreted that the examinee’s probability of getting the item correctly on the Y-axis corresponds to the value of logit which is represented on the X-axis. Thus, it is obvious that Rasch equation is related to the graphic of item characteristic curve. Using the above-given example and logit 1.1, we can convert the logit scale back to probability (Revelle, 2005) by taking exp(1.1)/(1 + exp(1.1)) and we get 0.75. As a conclusion, the person has a 75% chance of getting the item correctly. This valuable information is accessible through the IRT analysis. Studies in various parts of the world indicate that in a given subject area, the typical child’s achievement level would rise by rather less than half a logit in a typical school year (Choppin, 1987). For instance, if an individual’s change is from -1.94 logits to -1.22 logits, this means too much positive change for him/her.

Findings and Interpretations

(b) place individuals from different groups onto a common scale, even if they have responded to different items (Reise, Ainsworth & Haviland, 2005). According to Hambleton, Swaminathan & Rogers (1991), except for measurement errors, evaluated item parameters will be the same in different groups. Using the mentioned idea, to check difficulty parameter invariance, the relations among difficulty parameters were determined by coefficient of correlation. Correlation coefficient is evaluated as 0.934172 between difficulty “b” parameters of female and male students. Obviously, the difficulty parameter invariance is observed with regard to a very high correlation. Unfortunately, to compare discrimination parameters is not possible in Rasch model, since they are considered as fixed values. In the study those values were equaled to 1 to have a very good discrimination among low ability and high ability groups of students. Table 3. Rasch model’s difficulty parameters and CTT’s discrimination indices presentation with respect to genders in the SOE

According to the IRT assumptions, “difficulty values less than -1.0 indicate to fairly easy items, whereas items with difficulty greater than 1.0 indicate to rather difficult items”. (Zumbo, 1999). Items that are very difficult and very easy for a particular group of examinees usually have substantially lower point biserials for that group of examinees than do items of medium difficulty (Lord & Novick, 1968). That situation is clearly met in the following table. On the strength of CTT assumptions, item 2 is the most difficult item and the corresponding discrimination parameter coefficient of point biserial correlation is 0.05. It is lower than average magnitude (0.51) of discrimination. Similarly, the easiest questions are determined as item 14 and item 16. The corresponding point biserial for the item 16 is lower than average. Table 2. Representation of discrimination and difficulty indices of CTT and difficulty parameter of Rasch model in the SOE

IRT methods are used because researchers want to (a) more rigorously study how items function differently in different groups;

Item discriminating power is defined as correlation between the item scores and the total test scores (McDonald, 1999, p. 231). The higher the value of coefficients, the better discrimination power the item has. High discrimination value shows that students with high scores answered the item correctly whereas students with low test scores responded incorrectly. If the item-total correlation is negative or close to zero, the item should be eliminated from the test. In table 3, item-total correlations were calculated for female and male test takers separately. Item-total correlations were the lowest values for both female and male students in the item 2. Those discrimination indices were 0.04 for female and 0.07 for the male students. Both of item-total correlations were very low. Hence, item 2 does not differentiate well between high ability and low ability groups among female and male examinees as well. Similarly, discrimination index of item 16 is also low with regards to female and male students (0.32 and 0.34). Al-

Mehtap ERGÜVEN Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

though item 16 cannot differentiate among different ability groups well, the item is better than item 2 in both cases. Corrected item-total correlations are satisfactorily high for the item 1 (0.55) and item 9 (0.56) among females. In addition, item 4 (0.58) and item 11 (0.56) best discriminate the high ability male students from the low ability male students.

Ability Parameters Determination and Comparison for Female and Male Students The maximum ability level was 2.24 among the male students while it was found 2.35 for the female students with respect to Rasch Model. On the other hand, the minimum ability levels were found -2.27 and -2.39 for female and male students respectively. According to the classical theory, similar application can be done using total test scores. In that case, maximum score was 17 and minimum score was 0 among both female and male students. It is clear that this information is not enough to demonstrate differences among genders. However, previously given ability levels give much more idea about identification of capabilities of different genders. Therefore it can be judged that IRT gives much more information about the focused situation. Eventually, it can be interpreted that most successful student was a female (2.35) and lowest ability student was a male (-2.39), according to Rasch model. Besides those outputs, the average score was calculated as 8.98 and 8.35 among male and female students respectively. According to average scores it can be interpreted that average score of males is greater than females. On the other hand, mean value of the abilities were -0.00042 and -0.00049 for male and female test takers. This result is similar to the CTT outputs and correspondingly it can be denoted that average of the males is greater than females. Table 4. General statistics results

According to Zumbo, (1999), items with “difficulty values less than -1.0 indicate fairly easy items whereas items with difficulty values greater than 1.0 indicate rather difficult items”. In the light of the mentioned information, since difficulty parameters of item 14 and item 16, -1.277 and -1.20, were less than -1, they can be interpreted as easy items. Obviously the situation coincides with CTT results. Because difficulty values close to zero are considered as difficult and close to one are considered easier items. Thus, item 14 and item 16 can be interpreted as easy questions. In CTT, their difficulty “p” indices of those items are 0.78 and 0.77 respectively (see table 2). Besides, item 2 is very difficult, since its p index 0.05 was very close to zero and its b parameter 2.101 exceeded 1. In Rasch model, the easiest item for male students was “item 14” and its difficulty was -2.12. On the other hand,

item 16 was the easiest for the female examinees and difficulty parameter was -1.76 in item 16.

Reliability of the Test with respect to Genders Being able to make important and correct decisions in the educational process, as in other branches of science, depends on reliable and valid measurement which is described as the results of any observation that are matched with numbers or other symbols (Baykul, 2000). Classical test theory’s reliability coefﬁcients are widely used in behavioral and social research. Each provides an index of measurement consistency ranging from 0 to 1.00 and their interpretation (Webb, Shavelson & Haertel, 2006). A value of 0.7-0.8 is an acceptable value for Cronbach’s α; values substantially lower indicate an unreliable scale (Field, 2005). According to Varma, non-reliable and non-valid test scores are simply meaningless numbers (Varma, 2013). Marginal reliability for response pattern scores was found 0.75 for the both female and male students. In general reliability analysis, reliability coefficient Cronbach’s alpha was found 0.84 with respect to whole data. On the strength of the female test takers, coefficient alpha was 0.8394. In the male group of students the level of internal consistency was increased to 0.8504. In all cases, SOE had a high reliability coefficient as an educational test.

Evaluation of Item Characteristic Curves’ Behaviors with respect to Different Genders Each item has its own ICC in IRT. Item characteristic curves are used to represent probability of a correct response and ability (θ) for each item, on a test. In the graphical representation of the ICC, the probability of correct response exists on the Y-axis and, range from 0.0 to 1.0. Ability (θ) is along the X-axis. One of the main characteristics of the item is difficulty and it is accessible from the graph of ICC. ICCs in the research were obtained for the male and female students by using IRTPRO. Trace lines ICCs are all identically shaped since Rasch model assumes all items are equally discriminating. Slopes of the lines are same. According to the group of male students, in the table 3 it is observed that difficulty parameter of the item 2 was 2.75. This result is depicted in the below ICC which belongs to item 2. In the curve, 2.75 is represented on the X-axis and corresponding probability 0.5 is placed on the Y-axis. Meaning of the information is that if the ability level of a student was greater than 2.75, there is 50% chance of responding the item 2 correct. Clearly, item 2 can be interpreted as a very difficult item. In the same group of male students, difficulty parameter of item 14 was the lowest “-2.12”and this is visible in figure 2. According to Zumbo (1999), item discrimination values of 1.0 or greater are considered very good. Items with very low “a” values are useless to distinguish among individuals. Therefore, item discrimination parameter is fixed to the “1” to get a good discrimination. Hence, the slope of the curves are same in all figures. It is not possible to talk about discrimination property of the items with respect to separate groups of genders in the Rasch model. Similar to the figure 1, item 2 had the largest difficulty parameter “2.46” in the female group as represented in figure 3. However, unlike males’ item 16 was the easiest for the females and its

An empirical evaluation and comparison of Classical Test Theory and Rasch Model Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Figure 1. ICC of the item 2 in the group of male students (the most difficult item)

Figure 2. ICC of the item 14 in the group of male students (easiest item)

Figure 3. ICC of the item 2 in the group of female students

Figure 4.ICC of the item 16 â&#x20AC;&#x153;easiest item in the group of female studentsâ&#x20AC;?

difficulty level was found as -1.76 (see figure 4). As a result, item 2 is the most problematic question in the examination because it does not differentiate well and its difficulty is very high, it should be eliminated from the examination.

Conclusion

Eventually, it is suggested that, SOE has a high reliability as an educational test; groups of female and male students handled almost all of the items similarly. Although male students more successfully endorsed the items in whole, the highest ability level was observed among female examinees. CTT and Rasch model give similar information with respect to different genders in general. Besides that, Rasch model gives better and more informative results in the ability determination and comparison.

In the research, traditional approach and Rash model were elaborated and compared from different perspectives. The way how to implement both CTT and Rasch model and how to interpret results of the analyses is presented. Comparison of both theories is done for the whole group and among genders. Therefore, main assumptions and principles of both theories are empirically presented; similarities and differences with respect to different genders were detected. Several notable features of the items were described and discussed with the help of IRTPRO program. According to different genders, item-person statistics/parameters were determined and interpreted. Behaviors of Item Characteristic Curves were elaborated with respect to female and male students. Reliability of the test was detected with Cronbachâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s alpha for the whole test and for genders.

Mehtap ERGÜVEN Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

References Allen, M., Yen, W. (2002). Introduction to Measurement Theory. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. (Original Work Published 1979). Baykul, Y. (2000). “Eğitimde ve psikolojide ölçme: Klasik test teorisi ve uygulaması”. Ankara: ÖSYM. Cavanagh, R. F., Waugh, R. (2011). Applications of Rasch Measurement in Learning Environments Research. Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Sharkness, J.; De Angelo, L. (2010). Measuring Student Involvement: A Comparison of Classical Test Theory and Item response theory in the Construction of Scales from Student Surveys. Higher Education Research Institute, 52, 480-507. Wauters, K., Desmet, P., Van Den Noortgate, W. (2010). Acquiring Item Difficulty Estimates: a Collaborative Effort of Data. Belgium. Webb, N.M.; Shavelson, R.J.;Haertel, E.H. (2006). Reliability Coefﬁcients and Generalizability Theory (Elsevier B.V ed., Vol. 26). USA.

Choppin, B. (1987). The Rasch Model for Item Analysis. In D. L. McArthur, Alternative Approaches to the Assessment of Achievement. LA: Springer.

Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design: Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press.

De Champlin, A. F. (2010). A Primer on Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory for Assessments in Medical Education. Medical Education, 44, pp. 109-117.

Zumbo, B. D. (1999, April). A Handbook on the Theory and Methods of Differential Item Functioning (DIF)): Logistic Regression Modeling as a Unitary Framework for Binary. Ottawa, Canada.

Embretson, S. E. & Reise, S. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers. Field, A. (2005). Reliability Analysis. In discovering statistics using SPSS. London. Furr, R. M. and Bacharach, V. R. (2007). Item Response Theory and Rasch Models. In R. M. Furr, & V. R. Bacharach, Psychometrics, an Introduction (pp. 314334). Sage Publications. Hambleton, R.K.; Swaminathan, H,; Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. (D. S. Foster, Ed.) USA: Sage Publications. Lord, F. M.; Novick, M. R. (1968). Normal Ogive Parameters: Item Difficulty. In F. M. Lord, & M. R. Novick, Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. New York, USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. Magno, C. (2009). Demonstrating the Difference between Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory Using Derived Test Data. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 1(1), 1-11. McBride, N. (2001). An Item Response Theory Analysis of the Scales from the International Personality Item Pool and the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Rasch, G., (1960), Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests, Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational Research. Reise, S.P.; Ainsworth, A. T.; Haviland, M.G. (2005). Item Response Theory: Fundamentals, Applications, and Promise in Psychological Research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2), 95-101. Revelle, W. (2005). A short guide to R. retrieved from https://personality-project.org

Varma, S. (2013). Preliminary Item statistics Using Point Biserial Correlation and p-Values. Retrieved October 2013, from Educational Data Systems: http://www. eddata.com/resources/publications/EDS_Point_Biserial.pdf

Being an educator-leader – what does it mean? (Universities in Georgia case) Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Being an educator-leader – what does it mean? (Universities in Georgia case)

Alexandra NOZADZE*

Abstract Due to ongoing educational reforms administration alone is no longer able to lead schools on the way to efficient teaching. Educator-leaders, both formal (the department chairs, the staff developers, the head teachers, mentors, program coordinators, etc.) and informal (event initiators, educators active in participation in conferences, meetings, etc.) have become an absolute necessity. However, there are some grave obstacles to involving all teachers and lecturers in leading at least certain activities at their institutions and beyond. The article aims to find out the viewpoints on leadership at universities in Georgia. A survey was held in three universities with 96 lecturers as respondents. It applies a questionnaire with 10 close-ended items assessed via Likert scale and an open-ended question concerning the attitudes of lecturers towards leadership and their motives for wanting or not wanting to be leaders. It is concluded that lecturers, probably, do not realize the great need on educator-leaders of contemporary education in the time of continuous and intensive reforms. Lectures need to be educator-leaders in the classroom, among colleagues and in professional self-development. They have to lead some events, at least from time to time. Keywords: educator-leader, teacher-leader, educational reforms, shared leadership, effective educational institutions, leadership qualities, assessment of leadership

Introduction Educator-leaders are indispensable nowadays, as the ever ongoing reforms in education may confuse any, even very qualified educator. Besides the numerous innovations in the psychological and pedagogical sciences, there are plenty of new formats of paperwork which have never before been demanded from an ordinary teacher. To overcome this problem, among educators we need to have those who are ready to spend hours getting acquainted with all these innovations (or at least organizing their study and sharing among teachers) and then presenting them to their colleagues. Principals and vice-principals at schools and rectors and administration at universities cannot any more be the only leaders at educational institutions, as there are too many innovations, and too much subject-specific knowledge is needed. Shared leadership, both formal and informal, has become a necessity. To provide efficient teaching and learning, educational institutions of today have to be learning communities not only for students, but also for teachers. Quality leadership is a key component of effective educational institutions. Effective educational institutions are not only schools/universities where individual effective educators work, but where there is a team, in which the more experienced and older teachers share their knowledge, while the younger and less experienced teachers use their energy for creating effective learning atmosphere. Sustaining the quality of school/university leadership is as essential today as having a highly qualified teacher for every classroom. Teacher-leaders and teacher leadership are not very new concepts. In the 1980s, for example, there were the

“teacher career ladder” initiatives. These initiatives took place on the background of educational reforms that started at that time. As reforms are going on practically non-stop, the role of leader teachers has been increasing over the last decades. The issue of leader-educators has been mostly researched for schools, but it is actual for universities as well.

Definition of leader-educator Various authors, as well as various educators, as this study showed, understand the term ‘deader-educator’ differently. Schmerler (2009) asks the following questions in order to get an adequate definition of teacher-leaders: Is ‘teacher leadership’ actually a truism? (After all, all teachers are leaders within their own classrooms.) Is it an oxymoron? (Teachers teach, leaders lead.) Is it a specific, designated role? Or is it a hard-to-get-your-hands-around abstraction, visible only in its subtle impact on school culture? Is it, in fact, even a useful construct, something that can help us make sense of the way schools either change to accommodate the needs of their students or remain stuck in old, corrosive patterns of failure? (Schmerler, 2009: 4) The answer he gives is – all of these. What educatorleader definitely is not it is just a formal position. Of course, teachers with positions at school and university (the department chairs, the staff developers, the head teachers, mentors, program coordinators, etc.), to fulfill their duties, need

* Assoc. Prof. Dr., Faculty of Education and Humanities, International Black Sea University, Tbilisi, Georgia E-mail: anozadze@ibsu.edu.ge

Alexandra NOZADZE Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

to realize leadership qualities. But it is very desirable that all teachers from time to time are leaders on a voluntary basis. They can and should lead professional learning communities, organize various events: presentations, teacher seminars on certain topics, practical or theoretical conferences, round tables / discussions, open lessons/lectures, etc. Teacher leaders are teachers who aspire to stretch beyond their classrooms to engage in leadership roles that take many shapes and forms, both “informal” and “formal”. These teachers view the school as a whole, see the “big picture” and focus on how they can help improve aspects of the school to result in increases in student achievement. Teacher leaders see themselves as “teachers” first and do not want to become principals or administrators, but want to work collaboratively with their colleagues and school administrators to improve school and student performance. (Education Commission of the States, NJ3, 2010) Roza’s (2003) study aimed to identify the most important skills principals are looking for in school leadership. The top five skills identified are listed below and are preceded by the percentage of respondents who ranked that skill as the most important or second most important: 1. 98% - Ability to motivate staff and hold them accountable for results 2. 90% - Ability to execute a school improvement strategy 3. 9% - Ability to minimize conflict at school level (among teachers and parents) 4. 6% - Ability to use money to effectively further im-

Figure 1. Framework for teacher leadership

provement goals 5. 1% - Responsiveness to central office demands According to York-Barr and Duke (2004: 287), “teacher leadership is the process by which teachers, individually or collectively, influence their colleagues, principals, and other members of the school community to improve teaching and learning practices with the aim of increased student learning and achievement”. They (ibid: 289) developed a framework for teacher leadership shown in Figure 1. The Vermont Task Force on Teacher & Leader Effectiveness (2013:2) developed Teacher Leader Standards for teachers in leadership roles: Principles of effective teacher-leader evaluation: 1. Safe and open (transparent) collaboration is necessary. 2. Measures of teacher and leader performance are most helpful and meaningful when they are based on levels of performance and measurable standards. .. 3. Integrated systems (e.g., recruitment, selection/ placement, induction, professional learning, performance management and evaluation, and career continuum) must link evaluation procedures with curricular standards, professional learning activities, targeted support, and human capital decisions. 4. Teachers’ and leaders’ input (e.g., self-assessment, goal setting and self-reflection) in determining performance and learning outcomes should be part of the evaluation process. 5. While standards are essential, teachers and leaders

Being an educator-leader – what does it mean? (Universities in Georgia case) Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

should also help to define a set of practices and student growth and learning objectives to be assessed. The Vermont Task Force on Teacher & Leader Effectiveness (2013:3) also developed a very appropriate triangulated Framework of Teacher and Leader Evaluation, presented in the figure below. “The evaluation framework begins with observation of practice and examination of artifacts, but incorporates two more elements: validation by examining indicators of student growth and learning outcomes; and assessing evidence of professional contributions. The various elements are combined effectively to create a unified system. All three elements are essential for providing educators with the information they need to grow professionally and to improve student growth and learning. When combining observations with other indicators, the relationship to student outcomes becomes stronger, and better identifies teaching effectiveness”.

Figure 2. Framework of Teacher and Leader Evaluation

The booklet (ibid: 5) views Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED). This framework is an evidence-based approach to measure the effectiveness of school leadership behaviors known to influence teacher performance and student growth and learning. This framework comprises core components (refer to characteristics of schools that support the learning of students and enhance the ability of teachers to teach) and key processes (refer to how leaders create those core components). The VAL-ED tool identifies six key steps or “processes” that an effective principal takes when carrying out his/her responsibilities. 1. Planning 2. Implementing 3. Supporting 4. Advocating 5. Communicating 6. Monitoring The elements of an effective leadership evaluation cycle will include: • Professional Growth Plan • Observation • Data Collection • Feedback • Formative assessment • Summative assessment • Reflection • Improvement Plans (ibid:14) To sum up: • Educator-leader is not an administrative position, it is the active role the teacher plays in the classroom, among the colleagues and his/her own professional development. • Educator-leader may constantly or on a temporary

basis lead on a different scale, from a small group of teachers to the whole school community. • S/he should be motivated to improve the quality of teaching and learning and motivate others. • S/he should visualize the strategies to achieve better teaching / learning, have a plan, do one’s best to fulfill it, reflect over the fulfillment and assess it, think of improvement. • Educator-leaders are student-centered, they think first of all of students’ needs, interests, background knowledge; they get and provide timely feedback. • Educator-leader leads the students in his/her classroom in effective learning, helping them to develop productive learning strategies.

Review of some research on educators-leaders Rhoton and McLean (2008) held a study dealing with summer schools organized in 2006-2008 for 74 science teachers. The control groups dealt with various professional topics, whereas the experimental groups, in order to develop in them leadership qualities, was mostly offered topics in educational leadership. Among them were also education administrators whom this professional development program help to realize the need of changing the professional development climate, and involving into it all teachers in turns as leaders. Eighty-four percent of the teachers in the experimental group agreed that the trainers demonstrated how project materials and project resources could be presented or shared with peers. The other 16% were uncertain. One hundred percent of the teachers agreed that the instructional methods and procedures demonstrated by the trainers helped them in learning more effective methods of delivering their science curricula, including leadership in the classroom. One hundred percent of the teachers rated the overall effectiveness of trainers’ visits to their classrooms as more effective than the in-service normally provided by their school systems. The study showed a triple effect: • Trainees’ knowledge concerning educational leadership increased; they started to understand how necessary it is to be an educator-leader, also they were ‘armed’ with strategies of developing leadership features and behavior. • They applied the gained knowledge and increased their leadership behaviors. • Students’ learning outcomes also increased. No such results were reported in the control groups, whose trainees were not very satisfied. Carver and Klein (2013) held an action research dealing with educator-leaders. The program studied is a universitybased principal preparation program in the Midwest. As a state-approved principal certification program, the curriculum is aligned with state and national leadership standards, candidates are required to complete a substantial internship experience, and program faculty incorporate performancebased assessments into their courses. Because this is a cohort-based program, candidates take their courses as a group throughout the entire seven-semester program. A typical cohort enrolls 10-15 candidates. Located in a suburban community, the university draws students from a wide variety of school contexts: public, private, parochial and charter, as well as urban, suburban and rural. Two cohorts of students were invited to participate in the study and twelve signed statements of consent. The participants were asked

Alexandra NOZADZE Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

to complete eight reflections across a thirteen-week term. Nearly all candidates, often more than once, commented on how the readings introduced them to new ways of thinking about leadership and, more specifically, the role of principal. One of the shifts that candidates make was leadership from a classroom-only perspective to one that encompassed the entire building or organization. Sharing the leadership with teachers was another issue. The participants of the research expressed great satisfaction and hoped they would be able to apply in practice the obtained knowledge and problemsolving skills.

Reasons for lack of educator-leaders Irrespective the obvious necessity of educator-leaders, unfortunately, there are not so many teachers/academics all over the world who volunteer to do the job, unless required by their direct job responsibilities. The reasons why is it is difficult for a teacher to be a leader are multiple: • Teaching is anyway very time-consuming, being a leader of other educators makes it even more time-consuming/ • Nobody pays the teacher/lecturer for being a leader, or even if they pay (heads of departments in schools, administrative positions at university), the payment is not adequate for the job. • Not only payment, but also other incentives are inexistent or insufficient. • Colleagues may view the educator who is eager to share his/her knowledge as arrogant and pretentious as they believe they know as much or more, but do not undertake to ‘teach’ others. • Hierarchical relationships between school / university staff do not support the idea of leaders other than staff in corresponding administrative positions; administrators may even perceive efforts of teacher leadership as violation of their rights. According to Lieberman and Miller (2004, p. 84), teacher leaders commonly report feeling trapped in the “middle space” - “between the teachers whom they attempt to influence and represent and the administrators who count on them to do work that the administrators are, for various reasons, unable to do themselves - while being trusted fully by neither” (Schmerler,2009: 3).

Methodology The research focuses on the attitudes towards leadership in education in Georgian universities. A survey (quantitative and quantitative) was held concerning lecturers’ views on educator-leader’s qualities and job. The objectives of the research were to find out Georgian lecturers’ points of view on leadership in education: • Is the quality of teaching connected with leadership? • Who are / should be educator-leaders, administrators or just lecturers? • In which spheres of lecturer’s work they are ready to be leaders? • Do lecturers see themselves as educator-leaders? • Lecturers’ motives for supporting or opposing leadership in the classroom The quantitative survey – questionnaire - included 10 close-ended Likert-scale format questions. The questions

were made based on the above analysis. The lecturers had to rate in terms of 1 (minimum) -5 (maximum) points how much the statements concern them. The qualitative study involved an open-ended question dealing with lecturers’ views on the reasons for the need (or its absence) in educator-leaders. According to, e.g., Diniz-Pereira (2003), “individualism is one of the strongest marks of traditional teacher identity, so to collect lecturer responses is not easy. The participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous. The researcher handed out 120 questionnaires. 96 respondents from 3 universities in Georgia (one private and small, two state and big; two of them in the capital and one – regional) filled in the questionnaire, but some were not filled in completely or according to the required format, so only 80 answer sheets were finally taken into consideration. As the respondents come from the basic types of universities in Georgia and taking into consideration the lack of desire of lecturers to answer any questionnaires, even such short ones, due to limited free time as well as the individualist character of teaching profession hopefully, this study is representative enough of the trends among lecturers in universities in Georgia.

Questionnaire results and discussion The survey results are presented in Table 1. Leaders are not born, people become leaders. However, there exist personal features which make leadership easier. The answers to question one show that, though many enough (43% - answers ‘4’ and ‘5’) lecturers are leaders by nature, so it is easy for them to be leaders in the classroom and in professional activities in their university, there are also quite many who do not see leader’s potential in themselves (34.5% - answers ‘1’ and ‘2’), which makes it difficult to involve them in leadership activities even from time to time. On average, lecturers do not very strongly view themselves as leaders (3.3). Fewer lecturers (42.5% - answers ‘4’ and ‘5’) respond to question two that they are trying to be leaders in their classrooms (average 2.9). Though contemporary teaching has to be student-centered (e.g., Wright, 2011) and it may seem that the times of educator-leaders are in the past, this is a wrong comprehension of teacher/lecturer role: contemporary educators are no longer movie stars, they are stage managers and their role seems to be invisible. However, it does not mean that they are passive assistants who are only waiting for students’ request to help. In reality their role is even greater, as it requires a high level of qualification to be the invisible, unnoticeable leader. The fact that lecturers, due to various reasons, including their character and wrongly interpreted concept of student-centered education, do not try to lead their students to forming the necessary competences, is worrying. Probably, this is also linked with a wrong image of a leader (in fact, authoritarian leader) who dominates over the lead, which is based on lecturers’ experience (democracy is not built quickly and the image of a leader as a democratic leader has to be established, which takes time). The majority of lecturers do not think it is difficult to be a leader in the classroom (question three: average – 2.325 and 62.5% think it is not difficult - answers ‘1’ and ‘2’), which means that they are just reluctant to do so, not have difficulties of being so. We need to think seriously of ways how to

Being an educator-leader – what does it mean? (Universities in Georgia case) Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Table 1. Results of the questionnaire on lecturer leadership

motivate teachers to be leaders. The average level of the answers to the fourth question concerning being a leader not only in the classroom, but also among colleague-teachers and in self-development, is a bit higher than to question 2 (3.175), however, not high enough. There are a half of teachers, answering positively (4 or 5 points) to the question, however, still many enough (25%) answering negatively (1 or 2 points). Requirements towards effective teachers are numerous. However, if not crowned by leadership, they may not reach the desired outcome. Though the answers ‘4’ and ‘5’ are, of course, the correct answers to question five, still they show the very low rating of leadership for lecturers among the features of good teaching (the average answer is high - 4.25, which means that there are other, much more important parameters of good teaching – a view, which was, probably, OK a couple of decades ago, but not now). Independent learning is indispensable in higher education (Tennant, 2006). This is why finding out whether, according to lecturers’ views, educator-leader may hinder it is important. A considerable part of teachers (35% - answers ‘4’ and ‘5’) – see answers to question six - thinks that teacher-leader prevents from independent learning (average 3.4, which is high enough). On the other hand, more teachers (50%) think that teacher-leaders do not prevent from independent learning (answers ‘1’ and ‘2’). Answers to this question once again brings me to the idea of wrongly understood student-centered education. Teachers may want to be leaders in some respects of their professional activity and be less reluctant to do so in

other respects. The answer to question seven shows quite a positive attitude towards the leadership at teachers’ meetings (average 3.475), 35 % of teachers like it (answers ‘4’ and ‘5’). However, there are approximately as many who totally dislike it (answers ‘1’ and ‘2’ - 42.5 %). Modeling is an efficient way of teaching and learning. According to answers to question eight, 45% of respondents try to be a model in their self-study, however, many enough (27.5%) do not care about being a model to anybody. The average level of leadership in self-development is not too high (3.25). As it has already been mentioned, leadership in education is no longer tightly linked with administrative positions. It was pleasant to see that, according to answers to question nine, the majority of lecturers do not associate leadership with administrative positions (answers ‘1’ and ‘2’ – 45 %, average 2.65). However, still many enough (30%) believe that ‘leader’ and ‘administrator’ are synonyms (answers ‘4’ and ‘5’ %). They definitely need to change their viewpoints. The summative question ten tells us that in general (average 2.95) teachers do not associate leadership with good teaching. 40 % of teachers think so (answers ‘4’ and ‘5’). Luckily, there are many enough teachers (47.5% - answers ‘1’ and ‘2’) who do not think there is no need to be a leader in order to do good teaching. What is characteristic, a considerable part of lecturers (12.5-37.5%) answer “3”, which may indicate either lack of opinion or indifference to the issue under study, which is also very undesirable. It may also deal with unclear, differently understood nature of the term ‘leader’.

Alexandra NOZADZE Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

In fact, lecturers’ opinions split into two camps: of supporters and opponents of leadership in higher education, with a thinner slice of hesitant ones. The whole picture shows us that lecturers, probably, do not realize the great need of contemporary education in the time of continuous and intensive reforms to take the lead, at least from time to time, or are not efficiently stimulated to become leaders, if not on a constant, then at least on a temporary basis. Among the answers to the open-ended question “Why teacher should / shouldn’t be a leader in the classroom?’ some typical answers involved: Yes: • Usually teachers have an important role in the classroom, whether they are delivering lectures or practical classes. Being a leader means a lot of things. Leaders are not born originally, they learn to be leaders throughout lives. Teachers have to be leaders because they are responsible for classroom management, which is really difficult… So today every teacher is the leader and the manager of their classes without exaggeration • They should – to lead the students to the posed aims. • In my opinion if the teacher is the type of a leader who has a good classroom management, we have a really good teacher. Without it we will have poor results. Yes and No: • Teacher should be the guide (plus other functions), but not the one who dominates. (This, and some more answers confirm my idea of possible misinterpretation of the term ‘teacher-leader’). • A teacher should expose his/her leadership potential in order to make the students do what s/he wants, but s/ he shouldn’t try to be a leader or an authoritative person in the classroom, it’s better to be an observer, and check the students’ work. • It depends on what the term ‘leader’ means: provided that it implies a good facilitator for the learners, then it does matter, and a teacher should be a leader in the classroom to give the right guidance to his/her students. Conversely, if a ‘leader’ means that a teacher ought to talk interminably him/ herself at the lecture, then, definitely, a teacher should not be a leader in the classroom. No: • Teachers and students should be both responsible for learning. Personally, I believe, more teacher leadership is needed on the initial stage of education. At university comes the time for gentle leadership where student individually explores and discovers the subject (with the help of the teacher, of course, but not under a dictator teacher. • The statement ‘to teach well. The teacher doesn’t have to be a leader’ is most suitable for me, as, according to the communicative method, which I use during the classes, my role in the teaching process is that of a facilitator, not a leader. • I think if a teacher is a leader in a classroom, it means that students passively receive information, and they are not actively involved. A good language teacher serves more as a guide who leads students generally in the right direction.

Limitations of the study The study was held in one country, in three higher education institutions out of 149, including colleges, according to National Center for Educational Quality (n.d), which is a limited number, with 96 lecturers (also not very many). Besides, the situation in other countries may be very different. In the pro-

cess of holding the questionnaire some additional questions (such as “How do you understand teacher-leader?”) arose, which require additional investigation in the future. The problem is too vast to be covered in one research, however, it does speak about the general trend, at least, in Georgia. Ways to stimulate leadership also have to be investigated, to come to really conclusive answers.

Conclusion The research raised more questions than gave clear answers. Anyway, putting up an important question is also beneficial. The research can stimulate lecturers to become contemporary educator-leaders and not isolated figures as they often are. Though this issue was not in the questionnaire, from the contradictory enough answers it is clear that the desire (or lack of such) to be a leader largely depends on the image of a leader one has in mind, or, otherwise the views on necessity to be a lecturer-leader depends on the type of leader (democratic/authoritative or authoritarian) one thinks of. The results of the quantitative and qualitative study are in congruence with each other. They are also analogous to the analyzed literature, so they are trustworthy enough. The main obtained answers to the questions posed by the research are: • Many enough (43%) lecturers view themselves as having leader’s character (question 1). • Approximately as many (42.%) are trying to be leaders in their classrooms, but quite many (20%) are not trying to be leaders in the classroom (question 2), even though the majority of them (62.5%) do not think that to be a leader in the classroom is difficult (question 3). • Many lecturers (40-50%) do not link the quality of teaching with leadership (questions 4, 10). • Half of the respondents answered that teacher-leaders do not prevent students’ independent study (answers ‘1’ and ‘2’), however, there are quite many (35% - answers ‘4’ and ‘5’) who think they are (question 6). • Many (30%) still believe that administrators should be educator-leaders (question 9) • If we compare lecturers’ approval of leadership in various spheres of their activities (questions 2, 7 and 8), they find the idea of being a leader during teacher meetings the most attractive (average assessment 3.475), being a model in self-development as more or less attractive (average assessment 3.250), while leadership in the classroom as the least attractive one (2.900). • The answers to the open-ended question about the motives of wanting (or not wanting) to be leaders in the classroom confirm the lack of lecturers’ understanding of the meaning of student-centered education and educatorleaders’ role. Whatever the reasons, the results of the survey do show that the respondents are not very willing to be leaders. It means they need to change their views on leadership in contemporary society and try to be real democratic leaders people who are ready to take the responsibility for the future of education. This, in turn, means that a system of measures to stimulate democratic leadership in university lecturers has to be developed, researched and applied.

Being an educator-leader – what does it mean? (Universities in Georgia case) Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

References Carver, C.L. and Klein, C.S. (2013). Action Research: A Tool for Promoting Faculty Development and Continuous Improvement in Leadership Preparation. NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, Vol. 8, No. 2– October 2013: 162-177 Diniz-Pereira, E.J. (2003). The Social Construction of Teachers’ Individualism: How to Transcend Traditional Boundaries of Teachers’ Identity? New Orleans: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) Annual Meeting & Exhibits Education Commission of the States (NJ3). (2010) Teacher leaders: Boosting teacher Effectiveness and student achievement. The Progress of Education Reform, 11, 1-5 Lieberman, A. and Miller, L. (2004). Teacher Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass National Center for Educational Quality (n.d). HEIs. Retrieved March 30, 2013 from http://eqe.ge/eng/register/heis Rhoton, J. and McLean, J.E. (2008). Developing Teacher Leaders in Science: Catalysts for Improved Science Teaching and Student Learning. Science Educator, 17, 2: 45-56 Roza, M. (2003). A Matter of Definition: Is There Truly a Shortage of School Principals? Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education, Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington Schmerler, G. (ed.) (2009). Teacher Leaders: Transforming Schools from the Inside. Adelaide, Australia: Bank Street’s Adelaide Weismann Center for Innovative Leadership in Education Tennant, M. (2006). Psychology and Adult Learning. N.-Y.: Routlege The Vermont Task Force on Teacher & Leader Effectiveness. (2013). Vermont Guidelines for Teacher & Leader Effectiveness. Retrieved March 18, 2013 from http://education.vermont.gov/documents/EDUGuidelines_for_Teacher_and_Leader_Effectiveness.pdf Wright, G.B. (2011). Student-centered learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23, 3, 92-97 York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research 74(3), 255–316

Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Practical strategies for teachers to enhance the degree of reliability and validity in assessment Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Practical strategies for teachers to enhance the degree of reliability and validity in assessment

Ekaterine PIPIA*

Abstract In the context of measurement, reliability refers to consistency and stability of the scores, not the tests themselves, while validity refers to the accurate interpretation of test scores (Reynolds, Livingston & Willson, 2009). The concern of reliability together with validity stems from the original nature of assessment to provide precise information that helps educators make necessary changes to enhance the quality of education. The paper underlines that reliability and validity of this information is of great importance in decreasing the degree of measurement error that is inherent in all measurement. Therefore, the role of educational professionals is to identify the sources of measurement error and minimize their impact on the obtained sources. The research revealed that the teachers need to apply different approaches to eliminate the sources of measurement errors and to estimate the reliability and validity of assessment in practice. Keywords: assessment, reliability, validity, measurement errors, strategies, consistency, stability

Introduction It’s notable that a number of theories and models have been developed regarding measurement error, but the most noteworthy is Classical Test Theory which is very often called True Score Theory. According to this theory, every obtained score encompasses two key components: the true score, which is the score that would be obtained if there were no errors, and the error score: Obtained Score= True Score +Error. The theory is represented in the following equation: X= T + E X (Obtained Score) = represents an observed score of a test taker T (True Score) = represents a test taker’s true skills, knowledge and abilities, which is always free form measurement errors E (Error) = represents measurement error, which limits the extent to which test results can be generalized. It’s obvious for many educators that the main interest of assessment is to obtain a true score, but due to the presence of measurement error, we can never know what the true score is. The only feasible way to tackle the problem could be to gain information about the reliability of measurement, so that we could establish intervals around the obtained score and calculate the probability that the true score falls within the intervals specified (AERA et al., 1999). Practically speaking, if we administered parallel forms of a test and had the same person take them at different times, the presence of measurement error would prevent the person from earning the same score every time. The details of time intervals will be discussed below in relation to time sampling error. Consequently, the sources of measurement error should be detected in order to reduce its impact on the final result and of course, measure the reliability and validity

of the obtained score. I think it’s quite beneficial to be aware of the key characteristic traits of measurement errors to identify the sources and somehow eliminate their existence in the process of test development, administration, scoring and interpretation.

Sources of measurement error Content sampling error It is quite obvious for many educators that every single test represents a sample which could be deemed a representative of the domain. The discrepancy that exists between the sample of the items (i.e., the test) and the domain of the items (i.e., all the feasible items) causes a content sampling error or domain sampling error (Aiken, 2000). The fact that content sampling error is the largest source of measurement error makes the observation process much easier. There is always a high degree of probability to identify how well the test makers (writers) sample the total domain of items. According to Reynolds, Livingston, & Willson (2009): ‘if the items on a test are a good sample of the domain, the amount of measurement error due to content sampling will be relatively small’(p. 94). Consequently, if the test items are poor sample of the domain, the amount of measurement error will be of a large scale. We all agree that a single test may not include every possible question or evaluate every possible relevant behavior. For example, if a teacher administers a test, which is designed to assess students’ knowledge in Early American

* Assoc.Prof.Dr., Faculty of Education and Humanities, International Black Sea University, Tbilisi, Georgia E-mail: ekapipia@ibsu.edu.ge

Ekaterine PIPIA Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

History, and all the questions refer to American Revolution and no other aspects of American history were covered, we would conclude that these questions are simply a sample and may not be representative of the domain from which they are drawn.

Time sampling error Time sampling errors are provoked by the situations in which random changes over time in the test taker (e.g. illness, tiredness, anxiety) or the testing environment (e.g. temperature, noise) affect performance on the test (Reynolds, 1982). Imagine that one of your students did not have breakfast and your exam was just before lunch, s/he might not perform as well as if s/he took the test after lunch. Or take an example of a testing session, where a neighboring class was making noise; the class might have performed better in the afternoon when the neighboring class was less disruptive. According to Reynolds, Livingston & Willson (2009), ‘measurement error due to time sampling reflects random fluctuation in performance from one situation to another and limits our ability to generalize test scores across different situations’(p.94). Clerical errors could be detected while adding up a student’s score. It is a minor source of measurement error, but still exists in our experience.

ror due to both content sampling and time sampling. c) Inter-rater reliability- the test is administered one time, but scored by different individuals independently and the correlation is calculated between the scores by the scorers (Sheslow, & Adams, 2003). This approach is designed to eliminate subjective judgments and evaluate the degree of agreement when different teachers score the same test. Inter-rater reliability is mostly estimated in constructed- response items, when teachers’ personal biases, preferences or mood influence the score. In order to draw a clear-cut picture of different processes estimating reliability, I have summed the main characteristic traits of each in the table below. Table 1. Ways to estimate reliability

Reliability: practical strategies for teachers Many educators have multiple options for estimating the reliability of scores produced by their classroom tests. Due to this fact, I would like to discuss below the major approaches that are used in educational assessment to estimate reliability. Generally, there are many ways to estimate reliability, but the following ones could be very easily implemented in our everyday teaching and assessment experience. a) Test- retest reliability- the same test is administered to the same group in two different situations and the reliability coefficient is obtained by calculating the correlation between the scores (Sheslow &Adams, 2003). If we consider the example of the student who could not perform well on the test in the morning due to sleep-deprivation, we can conclude that test-retest reliability is sensitive to measurement error due to time sampling and provides the stability of scores over time. But at the same time, the length of the interval between the two test administrations should be taken into consideration. If the test-retest interval is too short, the reliability estimate will be affected by memory and if this interval period is long, the reliability estimate may be lowered by the actual changes in the test taker during this period. Therefore, it should be noted here that the way the test is used is an important consideration in determining what an appropriate test-retest interval is in different assessment accommodations. b) Alternate-form reliability- two forms of the test (parallel forms) are administered to the same group and the reliability coefficient is obtained by the scores of two assessments (Sheslow & Adams, 2003). In this sense, reliability is estimated through simultaneous or delayed administrations of the parallel forms. Alternate form with simultaneous administration implies two forms of the test administered on the same occasion and is sensitive to measurement error due to content sampling. The other, alternate form with delayed administration implies two forms of the test administered on two different occasions and is sensitive to measurement er-

The main aim of estimating reliability of the assessment of the test results is to provide teachers with practical opportunities to make better decisions in their teaching and assessment. It is thought-provoking that there is a close relationship between reliability and validity, but reliability of the test does not guarantee validity of score interpretations. It means that after administering the tests in a reliable manner, the valid interpretations of the assessment are required.

Validity: practical strategies for teachers Even though many teachers may complain about the time and resources to conduct validity studies, they can use some practical procedures to evaluate the validity of the results of their classroom assessment.

Examination of test content Within this framework, we can discuss content based validity evidence to examine the relationship between the content of the test and the construct it is designed to measure. The focal point here is to identify whether the content of the test is relevant to the content domain. According to Standards (AERA et al., 1999): ‘test content includes the themes, wording, and format of the items, tasks, or questions on a test, as well as the guidelines…regarding administration and scoring’ (p.11). Therefore, it is important to design a table of specifications, which is a blueprint guiding the development

Practical strategies for teachers to enhance the degree of reliability and validity in assessment Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

of the test through defining the topics and objectives to be covered at the early stage of writing actual test items. Examination of student response processes In this sense, learning objectives and outcomes are of paramount importance, as the teachers are supposed to examine the cognitive and behavioral processes engaged in by students during the test. In other words, the testing items should reflect the same cognitive activities and behavioral abilities that are specified in the learning objectives.

Limitations of the Questionnaire

The teachers should ensure a high degree of fairness to all students regardless of their different ethnic, cultural and political backgrounds. We all come up with one prevalent idea that, it is teachers’ responsibility to make sure that the assessment activities they employ in the classroom are developed, administered, scored and interpreted in a technically, ethically, and legally sound manner.

Several limitations to this study suggest the need for future research. Even though the questionnaires were very carefully designed, instrumented and analyzed, its validity still needs to be questioned. A number of faults can be identified with questionnaire layout: Results obtained from a horizontally presented four-point scale showed that some respondents repeatedly used one point of the scale. It suggests careless answers that can be explained by the inability of the questionnaire to maintain the respondent’s interest. If the questionnaires had offered answer choices in drop-down boxes, the respondents might have chosen their responses with more consideration. Finally, a range of organizational performance improvements were suggested such as smooth introduction of change, better decision making, more effective resolution of disagreement, increased enthusiasm motivation to get the job done at its best.

Examination of practical features

Results

It is obvious that a number of factors may limit the validity of interpretations, but the two major internal threats should be mentioned here: 1) construct under-representation and 2) construct- irrelevant variance. Construct underrepresentation takes place when the items on test do not measure the needed construct- essential content in the specified domain. Construct- irrelevant variance takes place when the items on the test measure the content or skills unrelated to the construct (Feldt, 1997). Teachers should take into account these two factors while developing a classroom test in order to evaluate the correspondence between the test content and its construct. This process will guarantee the valid interpretations of assessment. Many teachers are not aware of the fact that their positions give them an opportunity to hold considerable power. Every day they make decisions that significantly impact their students’ performance inside and outside the classroom. How and when these decisions are made by the teachers in educational assessment was the primary aim of my research, which was conducted with the participation of the lecturers at International Black Sea University, Tbilisi, Georgia.

Question 1: How often do you specify educational objectives and tables of specifications before developing a classroom test? - As summing up the collected responses, I have received the following data for analysis, where equally 46.15 % of the teachers pointed that they always and sometimes specify educational objectives and 7.69 % responded that they do this rarely. None of them marked the option- Never; which gives a promising picture that teachers more or less define the objectives and tables of specifications in advance and create healthy assessment accommodation in the classroom.

Examination of test fairness

Method I have applied web-based online questionnaires because of its apparent advantages over paper approaches. It gave me an opportunity to reach respondents by sending email invitations to online surveys. Online survey software package www.surveymonkey.com was used for conducting the Internet based surveys. To see the questionnaire online please click the following link - https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ TDMZKQN . The respondents could access the survey questionnaire by clicking on the link emailed to them. Some responses from paper-based questionnaire were added through Manual Data Entry. Totally 25 questionnaires were completed and returned. The aim of the questionnaire was to identify teachers’ approaches to eliminate the sources of measurement errors and the ways how to estimate reliability and validity of assessment in practice.

Figure 1. Specification of Educational Objectives and Tables of Specifications

Question 2: What kind of testing items do you employ while developing a classroom test? When asked what kind of items on the test they use while developing a classroom test, 58.33% of the subjects pointed the mixed format of all above mentioned items, 25% of them marked selected-response items and surprisingly, equal percentages (8.33%) were allocated for both constructed-response items and performance assessment. The question revealed that none of the teachers uses portfolio assessment. Only one subject skipped the question.

Ekaterine PIPIA Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Figure 4. Development of Guidelines for Test Administration

Question 5: Do you check if procedures are in place to ensure that assessments are scored properly and the results are reported accurately? The data revealed that the majority of the subjects (69.23%) check the reliability and validity of the scores. 23.08% of the teachers consider these procedures less important and 7.69 % ignores the importance of properly reported assessment results. Figure 2. Specification of Educational Objectives and Tables of Specifications

Question 3: How often do you provide information to students on the assessment before administering the test? Related to the frequency of the provided information to students on the assessment before test administration, 92.31% of the subjects responded that they do this always, while 7.69% of them do it sometimes. None of them marked the options- rarely and never.

Figure 5. Reliability and Validity of the scores

Question 6: If yes, what are your ways of quality control on scoring? Of those who responded that the process of checking reliability and validity of scores are focal factors in educational assessment,….. pointed out some ways and techniques of quality control on scoring from their own experience: ‘I occasionally check procedures and people who are responsible for administration of exam’ ‘Before tests are held I specify scoring of assessment system in course syllabus and then try to stay on the track’ ‘I report students’ background data, statistical relation between data and scores and comparing them’. ‘Recalculating the points Accepting as correct the answers that did not come to my mind when I made up the test, but which may be correct’ Figure 3. Specification of Educational Objectives and Tables of Specifications

Questions 4: Do you develop guidelines for test administration? The data highlighted that the majority of the teachers (69.23%) develops guidelines for test administration, while 15.38% of them showed their negative attitudes towards the guidelines.

Question 7: Do you take into consideration the limitations of the assessment result? To the question whether they consider the limitations of the assessment result, the majority of the subjects (72.72%) responded that they do care about it and just 27% of them (still) think that the total ignorance of these limitations is not fair. 2 subjects skipped the question.

Practical strategies for teachers to enhance the degree of reliability and validity in assessment Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

The teachers, who showed their preference towards the sensitivity of personal and extraneous factors in students’ test performance, shared their experience: ‘If the problem is originated from health conditions, I change the exam day for the student’ ‘If a student had a serious reason it needs to be taken into consideration’ ‘Once the best (during the semester) student in the group wrote the paper worse than everybody else in the group. I realized it was due to anxiety. Since then I always include bonus points for a creative task which only a bright student can do’.

Conclusions Figure 6. Limitations of the Assessment Results

Question 8: Do you take into consideration personal factors or extraneous events that might have influenced test performance? Question 9: If yes, please share your experience Question 10: If no, please explain the reason The data revealed that 9. 9% of the teachers do not take into account personal factors and extraneous events while assessing the test results. It is not surprising that many subjects skipped the constructed-response items (questions 9 and 10) to explain their reasons. But thanks to some teachers, I have some comments for my analysis: ‘It is almost impossible to take into consideration everything about human based things’ ‘In written test I cannot take into consideration any kind of student factor. It is very objective’. 45.45% showed their sensitivity towards these factors and almost the same number of teachers (45%) marked that they not so much pay attention to these factors in students’ test performance. 2 subjects skipped the question.

Figure 7. Consideration of Personal and Extraneous Factors

• The obtained data revealed that 46.15% of teachers always specify the educational objectives and tables of specifications before developing a classroom test. Surprisingly the same percentage of teachers (46.15%) noted that they sometimes determine these factors before the test is administered, while 7.69% totally ignores this process. The data once again stresses that contemporary teachers are very busy and have limited time, it may be tempting to skip these steps and simply commence writing the test. But it should be noted that, this is actually one of the important steps to produce quality tests, as the table of specifications define the content of the test which itself is linked to the educational objectives. The predetermined goals of assessment together with the learning outcomes create the content based validity evidence, which examines the relationship between the content of the test and the construct it is designed to measure. Consequently, the blueprint prepared by the teachers will eliminate the construct underrepresentation and construct-irrelevant variance (both of them refer to content sampling error) which are the main sources of measurement error. • The majority of teachers (58.33%) pointed out that no single assessment format can effectively measure the diverse range of educational objectives and outcomes. Once the table of specifications is designed, it should be used to develop items of different types: selected-response items, constructed-response items, portfolios and performance assessment. The type of testing items is usually shaped by the specifications of the construct, but this variety really serves to check the mixed ability of the students. • The data reflected that still there are some teachers (31.77%) who have negative attitudes towards developing guidelines for test administration. In addition to characteristics of the test itself, extraneous factors may impact the reliability and validity of assessment. Failure to give appropriate instructions, suitable testing conditions or follow time limits may lower the students’ performance on the test. • Even though many teachers (69.23%) responded that they do examine and estimate reliability and validity of assessment, most of them were not able to name the practical strategies for estimation and quality control. The discussed practical strategies for teachers to estimate reliability and validity in the points 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 could be a good guideline. It is important to note here that there is no universal approach to estimate reliability and validity and these strategies should be chosen by the teachers in accordance to their particular situation (considering teaching context, specifica-

Ekaterine PIPIA Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

tions of the construct, students’ characteristics, administrative regulations, etc.). • It is notable that 45.45% of the teachers showed their sensitivity towards personal factors and extraneous events that might influence test performance and almost the same number of teachers (45%) marked that they not so much pay attention to these factors in students’ test performance. It is thought-provoking that many teachers are not given an opportunity to take into account the personal and extraneous factors to measure reliability and validity of assessment, as they have to comply with the administrative regulations (internal or external). I think it has to be regulated by the curriculum developers, faculty members and teachers. Consideration of these factors is of a paramount importance, as it is designed to eliminate content (domain) and time sampling errors. In sum, teachers should try to use different ways and techniques to eliminate the existence of measurement errors in order to obtain a true score. • Reliability and validity of assessment are of paramount importance, as they enhance the quality of the product attained by the end of educational process. The reliable data help professionals to make good decisions in teaching and assessment.

References Aiken, L.R. (2000). Psychological Testing and Assessment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon American Educational Research Association. (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association Feldt, L. (1997). Can Validity Rise When Reliability Declines? Applied Measurement in Education Reynolds, C.R., Livingston, R. B. & Willson, V. (2009). Measurement and Assessment in Education, second edition, Pearson Reynolds, C.R. (1982). The Problem of Bias in Psychological Assessment. New York: Wiley Sheslow, D.,&Adams, W. (2003). Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning 2 (WRAML), Wilmington, DE: Wide Range

Status, place and profile of non-native English teachers in Georgia Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Status, place and profile of non-native English teachers in Georgia

Lia TODUA* Natia JOJUA**

Abstract In recent years mostly in non-English speaking countries research concerning non-native teachers of English has reached its acme. It has resulted in a thorough analysis of the phenomenon. Nevertheless, the issue has not been exhausted. The more researchers, native and nonnative instructors add their colors to the portrait of teachers of English as a foreign or second language, the better insight of the subject we have. The present article aims to understand what coincidences and discrepancies there are between the characteristics of non-native English instructors abroad and in Georgia, how specific hiring practices, employment patterns, trainings for non-native English teachers are in the country. The study has been conducted based on analyzing the theoretical background of the issue, a survey of English teachers and empirical evidence. All the procedures applied led to the following conclusions: thousands of native English speakers who teach English in Georgia disclose many aspects of the dichotomy –non-native English-speaking teachers (NNEST) vs. native English-speaking teachers (NEST). The former in Georgia demonstrate similarities, both professional and personal, with their peers abroad. Differences pinpointed as a result of the research represent the legacy of the educational system of the soviet past and of the post-soviet transition period peculiarities. Hiring practices, employment patterns in the Teaching English as a Foreign Language field are similar to foreign ones; discrepancies, though, are caused by different socio-economic factors in the country. Keywords: non-native English-speaking teachers (NNEST), native English-speaking teachers (NEST), Methods of English Language Teaching (ELT), teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL)

Introduction The vaster the territory English has covered, the more educational, economic and socio-cultural importance it has acquired and the more teachers of it have emerged. And as a consequence of mushrooming EFL (English as a foreign language) classrooms worldwide, the number of non-native English language teachers skyrocketed leaving in an asymmetrical position those native English language educators. When the trend reached its peak a few decades ago (Moussu and Llurda, 2008) there appeared first researches analyzing the non-native English-speaking teachers (NNEST) vs. native English-speaking teachers (NEST) phenomenon. The first two articles (Medgyes, 1992; Medgyes,1993) concerning the issue followed by a groundbreaking, influential, and disturbing book by Peter Medgyes (1994) which magneted formidable attention of both native and non-native teachers and researchers. Subsequent books and a plethora of articles show no sign that the subject has been exhausted. On the contrary, they make the topic more controversial and even discriminatory. Dilemma number one - who counts as a native in ELT (English language teaching). The solution for most is unanimous and ubiquitous: an English native speaker is someone who

• is born in an English-speaking country • has learned English during childhood in an Englishspeaking environment • speaks English as a first language • has a native-like command of English • is capable of producing fluent, spontaneous speech in English that is characterized by creativity, • has the intuition to distinguish correct or wrong forms in English. (Andreou and Galantomos, 2009:202-203) Hence, the rest of EL teachers are arbitrarily seeded into the “nest” of NNESTs. And here arise some issues - uncertain and unjust. First, how can those speaking, because of their origin, one of the varieties of English, teach its standard? Second, not having clear-cut criteria for defining who a NES is why should people with unclear linguistic ancestry be either prioritized or disregarded? Finally, why should a native but less qualified, in some cases, linguistically more deficient instructor outweigh a qualified, TEFL-skilled, language-proficient non-native one? However inhibiting, the reality still offers ways out. Scarcely attainable, although highly feasible C2 level of the Common European Framework equals a native-like compe-

* Assoc. Prof. Dr., Faculty of Education and Humanities, International Black Sea University, Tbilisi, Georgia E-mail: ltodua@ibsu.edu.ge ** Ph.D Student, Faculty of Education and Humanities, International Black Sea University, Tbilisi, Georgia E-mail: njnatiajojua@gmail.com

Lia TODUA, Natia JOJUA Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

tence in English. Highly-desirable among NNESTs, it represents a solace securing ELT jobs intended for native instructors. Furthermore, unlike the hardly attainable top level, non-NESTs priorities against native peers are quite tangible and agreed upon. 1) They provide a good learner model to their students; 2) They can teach language strategies very effectively; 3) They are able to provide more information about the language to their students; 4) They understand the difficulties and needs of the students; 5) They are able to anticipate and predict language difficulties; and 6) In EFL settings, they can use the students’ native language to their advantage. (Moussu and Llurda, 2008:322) Less complicated and easier to tease out are advantageous features and qualities of native EL teachers: having innate cultural knowledge of the target language, role-modeling in performance and competence of English, demonstrating a lower level of anxiety in the classroom, being communication-oriented, etc. ( Anchimbe, 2006). Obvious priorities (consisting mainly of authenticity of performance) of NESTs were so much epitomized recently that the demand on them has peaked on ELT employment chart, having exacerbated the opposing group. Disproportion of opportunities, prejudice towards non-NESTs gradually stigmatized the term itself, urging to revisit the phenomenon as a sort of glass-ceiling at a TEFL job market. To euphemize the debatable term –non-NESTs- there have been several attempts to introduce, for instance, more or less accomplished vs. proficient users, expert vs. novice speakers, etc. (Medgyes, 2001:431) Teachers cannot be labeled in this or that way as it inevitably entails arbitrary judgment unless specialized exam syndicates or authorized courses grant instructors appropriate certificates. Recently introduced much-aspired CELTA (Certificate in English Language Teaching to Adults), DELTA (Diploma in English Language Teaching to Speakers of Other Languages) and similar certificates and diplomas guarantee equal opportunities for all coveting to be successful in TEFL. Such enterprises close separate gates for segregation of non-natives, introduce objective mechanisms of regulating hiring practices in the sphere. For non-NESTs high points in TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language), IELTS (International English Language Testing System), plus, FCE (First Certificate in English), CAE (Cambridge English Advanced Exam), CPE (Certificate of Proficiency in English), etc. alongside globally recognized teaching certificates serve as benchmarks; the latter are equal job providers for both NESTs and NNESTs. Medgyes (1983) acted as an eye-opener for NNESTs - the first to delve into the psychological nightmare many of them experience – leading, as he claims, either to schizophrenia or to inferiority complex. It is considered to be one of the most intriguing among his assumptions. Causes (and curses) of such grave mental and emotional conditions surfaced thanks to the researcher and the NNEST himself – an extreme complexity of English as of a language and a means of communication. Those lucky NNESTs to know his theories and ideas in detail are greatly relieved both psychologically and professionally as this is the case when awareness is a cure or prevention at least (Medgyes, 1983:2). Research methods The present research is at the junction of educational, namely, TEFL, sociological, and sociolinguistic studies. Thus, for implementation it relies on the equilibrium between the research methods of each of the spheres mentioned. Library research, i.e. studying theoretical aspects of the issue,

generalizing empirical evidence, surveys conducted with the intention of gathering quantitative data, narratives for obtaining qualitative material – these are essential elements typical for such researches. Factual material, data, documents retrieved from different Georgian sites greatly facilitated the study, contributed to better understanding of the issue, and amply illustrated different assumptions. Wider-scale studies, though, necessitate introduction of more components, like classroom observation, interviews, and experiments.

Status, Place and Profile of Non-Native English Teachers in Georgia Four years ago under the aegis of the project “Teach and Learn with Georgia” (TLG) hundreds, later, thousands of volunteer native teachers of English landed in the country with a humane intention of enhancing knowledge of and competence in the globally-acclaimed lingua franca among the young throughout Georgia. Justification of the enterprise by the authorities was the following: The primary goal of TLG is to improve the English language skills of Georgian students, teachers and families. As a post-Soviet country, Georgia is at a turning point in its history. For centuries, while other countries and cultures were globalizing, Georgia’s borders were closed to the outside world. Now, as a sovereign state, Georgia has the opportunity to integrate with the rest of the world—linguistically and culturally. This is what makes TLG a particularly unique program. Bringing English speakers into classrooms increases English language proficiency throughout the country, which is essential to Georgia’s ability to assimilate into the modern world. (Teach and Learn, 2013-2014:6) The fact and an explicit government policy behind it sounded the alarm among the NNESTs, citizens of Georgia. The seemingly self-sufficient, idyllic, orderly chaotic TEFL Geo-world got a message that ELT practices are not fully compatible with the requirements of the modern world. On the one hand, NESTs inundating the TEFL arena of the developing country menaced to snatch ELT jobs from the local peers; on the other hand, they cast shadow on the reputation of the latter. In any case, revisiting the role, profile and status of NNESTs in Georgia became urgent. The governmental policy under the aegis of which thousands of NESTs teach in Georgia has made all the aspects of the dichotomy – native vs. non-native speaking English instructors easy to observe and analyze. For decades during the soviet regime and for a short period afterwards under momentum, universities and institutes in Georgia alongside all the Soviet republics due to uniformity of the curricula produced institutionally homogeneous, but individually divergent philologists- teachers of the English language and literature. Regaining sovereignty and independence was accompanied by landmark changes in the academic area – dozens of private universities emerged overnight. These newly-fledged private universities used to copycat the traditional models of teaching plans very often incompetently with lots of flaws and faults. Moreover, lack of resources and academic staff led to deterioration of standards. Shortage of finances affected the state sector as well and the training standards started to crumble. One of the reasons behind such a decline was a high intake of students as a response

Status, place and profile of non-native English teachers in Georgia Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

to the increased demand at the job market for specialists of English and a great popularity of the profession. Neither private nor state universities were able to cope with this unexpected and unprecedented surge of students. Those years of assembly-lined university diploma production made an EFL teacher without an adequate knowledge of the subject a reality. Meanwhile, older generations of English teachers had only rare and sporadic chances to further develop as educators. Georgian higher education system’s admission to the Bologna Process and accreditation/ authorization requirements for universities introduced by the Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia significantly normalized academic processes. Approximation to the new standards in case of training prospective English teachers (primarily specialists of the language) resulted in leveled (according to the European framework) teaching of English, ouncing of theoretical aspects at a BA level and pounding practical ones. At many universities, however, reduction (rejection) of the subjects in the curricula was implemented at the expense of Methods of ELT. A handful of universities added a separate module for training EFL teachers; the rest remained loyal to the longestablished schemata of teaching the course. Various governmental and non-governmental organizations regularly offer refresher courses to NNESTs, every year many instructors of English have opportunities to travel in English-speaking countries to attend language or TEFL courses, some private and state universities constantly demonstrate their initiatives with ingenious teacher development schemes. More than three decades ago the leading universities in the world responded to new patterns of communication in the global village and opened language centers at their institutions. Their matrix of organizing teaching FLs was imitated by many Georgian universities. It has caused drastic rearrangement of hiring practices, less so of teaching ones. As a result, the importance of scientific degrees was diminished considerably; it has altered research models and urged instructors of English at universities to reshuffle their priorities. Some years ago university students in Georgia faced a new challenge - B1 in English became a must for getting a BA degree in any sphere; hence, English appeared in the curricula of all university schools and faculties in the country. Consequently, the number of English teachers or their workload has increased significantly, squeezing out and diminishing lecturers of other FLs. Behind the above-mentioned governmental requirement a competent eye could discern an implicit language policy due to which the country automatically skipped onto the expanding circle of English striving to find itself in the outer one. Paradoxical as it may seem the policy was preceded and accompanied by the gradual plummet of the number of places available at Georgian universities for those wishing to have a degree in the English language. This year out of 87 universities in the country authorized to accept students at a BA level 23 have a degree programme in English at faculties / schools of Humanities. It is impossible to calculate the exact number of vacancies as some universities present the total of places at the above-mentioned faculty/ school (Reference Book, 2014.:8). There are universities (all of them private) which offer degree programmes in English, but not in the state Georgian language, as it is considered to be non-cost-effective. Those universities which have degree programmes in other languages alongside English announce far more vacancies for

majoring in English compared with French, German, Russian, etc., e.g., Gori State Teaching University expects 50 students of English, 10 of German, 10 of Russian. Hiring practices, employment patterns in the TEFL field in the country greatly resemble foreign ones; discrepancies, though, are caused by different socio-economic factors. To persons with a degree in English a labor market in Georgia offers jobs as translators, interpreters, office managers, etc. The main job providers for EFL teachers in the country are private and state universities, private and state schools, language courses, private kindergartens, governmental and non-governmental educational organizations. Many with a BA in the field by means of post-graduate studies slightly or radically change the course of their career and resort to more profitable, demanded, and prestigious professions. If all the mentioned trends are taken into account, non-native English teachers in Georgia (citizens of Georgia) may become scarce in the foreseeable future. Compared with teachers/ lecturers of other subjects, English teachers are most demanded at the job market. Vacancy announcements retrieved from the most frequently visited recruitment sites indicate that among all teacher jobs ELT jobs predominate. 14.03.2014 - www.hr.ge offers 46 teachers’ jobs, 15 out of them are TEFL ones, while for teachers of French, German, Russian, Georgian, Spanish there are single announcements. www.jobs.ge -out of 40 teachers’ jobs here 13 are vacancies for English instructors. However, at this site the outlook is more optimistic for teachers of other foreign languages - four jobs for French teachers, three instructors are needed for teaching Turkish, German, Spanish and only one for Russian. Out of all the ELT jobs only one offers employment in one of the regions of the country. Two more jobs welcome native EL teachers, and there is an employer which does not overtly state which are preferred - NNESTs or NESTs, but from the announcement it can be deduced that their doors are open for both. The requirements that employers challenge NNESTs with are also noteworthy. For them a degree in the English language is a must, experience of teaching weighs a lot, effectiveness in communication, fluency in English mean much, and as in most businesses, creativity, the sense of responsibility, punctuality, motivation, and computer skills matter as well. World trends are embraced by language courses mainly - high preference is given to CELTA, DELTA, IELTS, CAE, CPE, etc. holders. Such requirements put many teachers in a “winner takes all” situation, e.g., NNESTs with renowned certificates and diplomas have up to 4 ELT jobs, while many without them are left at a disadvantage, even jobless. Thus, popular certificates may evolve as a discriminating element. Employers all over the world have much milder requirements for NESTs. Similarly, in Georgia natives are expected: be native in English / have two years of post-secondary education / have flexibility, an open mind, and a willingness to make a difference (Reference Book, 2014:9). Other job announcements confirm the trend. Employers in the regions of Georgia make considerable concessions in terms of requirements supposedly due to the lack of local English instructors. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, having the iron curtain lifted, in the post-soviet countries, FL teachers, especially EFL ones, emerged as objects of envy - most demanded, hence, better-off, busiest, and unrivalled. However, the glamorous façade often airbrushes dire reality. The shift from the soviet classroom proved to be a daunting task.

Lia TODUA, Natia JOJUA Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Many coped with the challenge mostly connected with the authentic performance in Modern English. They did so with zeal and determination, with timely found resources for relevant courses or with formidable time allocated for independent work. Many have been left behind, for younger generation of teachers the refreshment of the language skills seemed futile as with often meager salaries/wages such an endeavor seemed not worthy of trouble. “Survival of the fittest”- the principle works to the full here as well. Exceptional flexibility and tenacity are essential as top employers raise standards from year to year. It doubles stress and anxiety experienced at an ELF lesson. Many skillfully disguise it and resort to aggressive behavior in the classroom or outside it, the rest desperately plunge into pessimism. Both aggressiveness and pessimism, as P. Medgyes asserts, cover linguistic insecurity (Medgyes, 1983:3). Those having invested a lot of energy, time and self in mastering English are most assertive, self-confident, even conceited, and often severely critical towards their colleagues. Other salient traits of NNESTs claimed in Georgia are: prescriptive attitude towards the language taught, though there are exceptions here as well; inability to make the EFL classroom genuinely communicative; lack of skills to use modern technologies, etc. From the characteristic of NNESTs researchers of the issue have reached a consensus on, the following qualities (both positive and negative) are most salient for Georgian non-native instructors: use “bookish” language / use English less confidently / are more cautious / are stricter / are more committed / adopt a more guided approach / focus on: accuracy, form, grammar rules, printed word, formal registers/ teach items in isolation /use more L1 / resort to more translation / supply less cultural information, etc.( Medgyes, 2001:435) NNESTs in Georgia demonstrate similarities, both professional and personal, with their peers abroad. Differences pinpointed as result of the research represent the legacy of the educational system of the soviet past and of the postsoviet transition period peculiarities. To reveal more nuances for complementing the portrayal of non-NESTs in Georgia, we conducted a survey of English instructors in the country. We also aimed to uncover what coincidences and discrepancies there are between the qualities of non-native English teachers abroad and in Georgia. We take into account that there may be some disagreement between what is said by teachers in formal surveys and what actually takes place in their classrooms, in their careers, etc. “Questionnaire-elicited self-reports reflect a teacher’s stated behavior rather than his or her actual behavior; there may be a wide gap between the two” ( Medgyes, 2001:434). Hence, qualitative and quantitative evidence and data presented here may complement each other even when being contradictory. The survey questionnaire was sent to about 200 NNESTs- all citizens of Georgia mainly via social networks. They were explained how much contribution of each meant and were requested to cooperate. Teachers both male and female, of different nationalities, of various age categories, dwellers of Tbilisi, Kutaisi, Batumi, Gori, Telavi, and other towns and regions of Georgia were asked to participate. The survey was compiled in order to collect sufficient numerical and narrative data. By cross-examining the correlation between different variables (place of dwelling, academic degree, age, etc.) and the data obtained we intended to further

clarify some of the nuances of the statistics given below. The questions concerned NNESTs’ educational background, working experience, level of English skills, career development plans, psychological problems, job satisfaction, knowledge of TEFL methodology, etc. The fact that only 35 teachers agreed to assist the researchers and the rest ignored the request, lends itself to various interpretations: behind those more than 150 NNESTs there may be hidden high degree of professional and psychological anxiety, linguistic insecurity, reluctance to co-operate with peers, and lack of solidarity among NNESTs. Participants ranged from 22 up to 70-year-old teachers, two of which were male, the rest female; 26- MA holders (out of them four -PhD candidates), four -with a BA degree, four - PhDs, one – a student; twelve teachers were from various towns and regions of Georgia (seven of them from different towns and regional centers and five from villages), and the rest from Tbilisi. The survey covered 10 university lecturers, 18 secondary school teachers, four instructors of language courses, and three unemployed, more precisely, self-employed (having private pupils) EFL tutors. It emerged that teachers started careers with more prestigious jobs, then lost them and had to move to less challenging ones - 10 cases of it were pinpointed. Seven respondents whether deliberately or accidentally shifted from two or three jobs to fewer ones. However, there were only four cases when a NNEST stepped upwards on a career ladder, e.g., from secondary schools to universities, and two more teachers lost all jobs relying on giving private lessons only. Twenty one respondents expressed their dissatisfaction with their salary/ wages, only three were happy about payment; the Georgian metropolis – Tbilisi - provides NNESTs with better salaries/ wages than towns, regions and villages of the country. Hence, it is natural that 25 teachers opted to have private pupils to earn extra means for living. One of the teachers surveyed had four ELT jobs, seven of them two jobs, three respondents have three jobs, two - none and the rest -22 instructors– a job each. Batumi, Telavi, and Tbilisi residents were those maximum job holders. Seventeen (about a half) of the teachers claimed they are busy teaching English from four to seven hours a day, then come six of them working 8-10 hours, the busiest – six respondents toiling for 12 hours and more, the rest have lighter workloads. English teachers from different villages and small towns enjoy more relaxed lifestyles. Most (22 persons) teachers state they have little time for family and friends, 10 of them have more than enough time for socializing and the least group – three - complain ELT leaves no time for the closest ones. The trend of instability of TEFL jobs and NNESTs’ overall dissatisfaction with salaries uncover serious drawbacks of employment patterns in the fields, unreliability and lack of responsibility of employers. On the other hand, the tendency indicates that EFL teachers in Georgia are not fully equipped with skills and competence of English and ELT at the start of their career ladders. When graduating from their universities, 15 prospective teachers were content with their knowledge of the profession, the same percentage were happy about their English to some degree only and the minority - five were dissatisfied with it. Those surveyed were almost unanimous that they significantly improved their competence and performance of the language since the graduation, only five of them stating about slight enhancement of their knowledge. When asked how they had managed to do so, again most -20 respondents claimed they had planned and fulfilled perfecting their

Status, place and profile of non-native English teachers in Georgia Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

English skills on their own, eight of them solely by means of courses, the rest utilized both ways. Hence, the fact that 25 participants have had courses and thus possess certificates indicates the following - certification is not viewed as a means of boosting knowledge of English or of TEFL Methodology, but as a means of getting, maintaining or increasing the positions. Most (22 teachers) of graduates had their training in the country, the rest - both in and outside it. In the majority are those (23 teachers) who self-confidently enter the ELT classroom as specialists of English and teachers of it, the rest falter a bit, demonstrating less selfassurance. Tied to it is the following data. Fifteen surveyed teachers seldom and six never experience anxiety at a lesson, 12 more respondents - often or sometimes, and only one confesses to be always nervous at work. According to the survey results, nervousness is mostly caused by discipline problems (16 teacher say so), other explanations are: lack of ELT skills, teachers’ tiredness, lack of knowledge of English, etc. Strikingly predominate those NNESTs who rate their English as advanced (26 respondents), five even higher advanced+ , three teachers are more modest claiming to be at an upper-intermediate level and only one - to have an intermediate development of the language skills. The following data rejects the assumption about NNESTs’ psychological tension - most (25) teachers assert TEFL - their occupation - has a positive effect on their personal lives, for some (five teachers) no correlation between the two exists and only two teachers’ lives are negatively impacted by their jobs. Answers to this question as well as to those about anxiety, their level of English, about its significant improvement after graduation and self-confidence indicate that either NNESTs in Georgia are different from their peers abroad, or the most self-confident, best of all agreed to be surveyed, which is quite possible. Two more possible explanations are - teachers skillfully conceal negative

aspects of their profession and occupation or lack awareness of psychological, professional and linguistic problems in TEFL as a career entails. When asked about the weak points of their English (teachers could underline more than one possible answer), the most frequent concerns included listening skills (12 cases), then come writing deficiencies (six cases), pronunciation failures (five cases) and vocabulary, grammar and speaking problems share an equal number - four cases each, eight teachers claim they have no weakness at all. Inside the classroom pronunciation errors disturb NNESTs most (16 persons), then come vocabulary mistakes (six persons), grammar and speaking trouble teachers least (three and two persons respectively), and five teachers ignored the question altogether. The following findings confirm that many Georgian universities have had and still experience limitations in terms of teaching methods of EFL. Almost half (16 persons) of the teachers assert they did not have such a course at their faculties. Moreover, only nine instructors were able to name books and authors on ELT Methodology. When cross-examining the data against the degree and experience of teachers we found out that the higher their degree and the more experience they have, the more awareness and knowledge of TEFL methodology they possess (see charts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Three more findings speak in favor of higher degrees in TEFL: MA holders are happier with their salaries/ wages, have more jobs, and have more stable and less declining careers than their BA peers; while those with a PhD or PhD candidates excel in all these aspects: salary satisfaction, career stability, and number of jobs. Age differences mean a lot in case of career development goals NNESTs in Georgia set, e.g., the youngest surveyed (22-28-year-olds) aim to study abroad, get a PhD degree or CELTA, get better jobs, improve their English; older teachers (29-35-year-olds) like the latter covet to have a PhD, enrich both language and ELT skills; however, more

Figure 1. Did you study TEFL Methodology at university and can you name books on methods of ELT?

Lia TODUA, Natia JOJUA Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

ambitious challenges: becoming a teacher trainer, setting up a language centre are on their agenda as well. NNESTs who are 35-41 years old are more enthusiastic to pass certification exams organized by the Ministry of Education. In this group again some plan to have a PhD, DELTA, and foreign certificates. Teachers aged 42-48 are more research-oriented, determined to become experts of ELT, express willingness to have more courses, to master information and communications technology (ICT) skills for better teaching practices. Sadly, those above 50 set no professional goals at all.

Conclusions / Suggestions The most acute problem NNESTs in Georgia experience is insufficient knowledge of modern methods of TEFL (16 out of 35, i.e. 46% have not taken this course at university). Hence, it is important that EFL teachers should update their skills and competence in this respect. Universities in Georgia have to renew their curricula in terms of quality of ELT training, must not ignore TEFL methodology as an essential part of the course. The research indicated that NNESTs’ professional growth is mostly independent, chaotic and sporadic. Hence, it is vital that the educational authorities in Georgia make ELT resources, relevant and effective trainings more accessible to instructors both in the regions and in the capital. By means of applying fair selection criteria EFL/ ESL teachers’ courses in English-speaking countries must be available to NNESTs on equal terms. NNESTs’ main employers - universities, secondary schools, and language courses have to offer their teachers opportunities for further professional development. Moreover, as it was revealed that they often set high standards for prospective employees, it is advisable that they take into account the Georgian reality – the socio-economic situation in the country, sensibly make concessions when selecting teachers not to neglect teachers with a big potential, though with fewer certificates and less experience. It will create a level playing field for all NNESTs in the country. In addition, it is important that employers contribute to stable gradual development of NNESTs’ careers as it was pinpointed that their track records either improved or deteriorated in a haphazard way. One more obligation of employers is guaranteeing salary satisfaction of EFL instructors, as most NNESTs (21 or 60%) are unhappy with their salaries. The more ELT jobs teachers feel obliged to have and do have, the less effectively they work. Thus, a salary that is commensurate with their skills and experience will significantly improve the quality of TEFL. Many NNESTs in Georgia are fully aware of modern requirements in ELT in and outside the country; therefore, most of them regularly refresh their knowledge to comply with the existing demands in the sphere. However, to be more suitable for TEFL jobs in Georgia and abroad, more and more NNESTs in the country have to take into consideration the following recommendations. Since the survey revealed that NNESTs are mostly content with their level of English, with its improvement dynamics, have a high degree of self-confidence, it is essential that they assess themselves more realistically, they should be more cognizant of psychological, professional, linguistic peculiarities of their jobs and profession, raise their awareness of requirements at the TEFL job market, seek for more chances to develop as specialists of English and EFL teach-

ers, gain higher university degrees in English. It is advisable that teachers do not rely solely on independent work for improving their language skills (as most NNESTs in Georgia do). Senior teachers are advised not to quit enhancing their professionalism (as it was revealed by the survey) in order to be more competitive and act as role models and counselors for their young peers. Finally, to make the tough world of TEFL milder to survive, NNESTs need more intra-group solidarity, mutual support, sharing ideas, resources and novelties in ELT. And to withstand the rivalry of NESTs in Georgia and outside it, Georgian NNESTs have to boost their communicative competence (the survey detected listening as their weakest point) and to focus on authenticity of their English and native-like communication in the classroom.

Special thanks to all the EFL teachers who participated in the survey.

References Anchimbe, E. A., (2006). The native-speaker fever in English language teaching (ELT): Pitting pedagogical competence against historical origin.Linguistik Online. Accessed 10 Mar. http://www.linguistik-online. de/26_06/anchimbe.html Andreou, G., Galantomos, I. (2009). The Native Speaker Ideal in Foreign Language Teaching. Electronic Journal of ELT, vol.6, No.2, p.200-208. Retrieved 10 March, 2014 from http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v6n22009/ andreou.pdf Medgyes, P. (1983). The Schizophrenic Teacher. Oxford: ELT JOURNAL. Retrieved 1 March 2014 from http:// sakaiteachers.pbworks.com/f/The+schizophrenic+teacher.pdf Medgyes, P. (1991). Native or non-native: who’s worth more? Oxford: ELT JOURNAL. Retrieved 1 Mar. 2014 from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/46/4/340.abstract Medgyes, P. (1994). The Non-Native Teacher. London: Macmillan. Medgyes, P. (2001). When the Teacher Is a Non-native Speaker. Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 5, p. 429-442 Moussu, L., Llurda,E. (2008). Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching. CUP, p.315-348. Retrieved 5 March 2014 from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ al/research/groups/ellta/elted/events/download.pdf

Status, place and profile of non-native English teachers in Georgia Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Reference book of unified entry exams 2014. Retrieved 2 March 2014 from http://www.naec.ge/erovnuli-erovnuligamocdebi/ertiani-erovnuli-gamocdebi-siakhleebi/3244cnobari-abiturientthathvis.html?lang=ka-GE Teach and Learn with Georgia Manual. Retrieved 5 March 2014 from http://www.tlg.gov.ge/uploads/TLG%20Manual_2013-2014.pdf

Lia TODUA, Natia JOJUA Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

The importance of cultural awareness in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instruction to undergraduate students Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

The importance of cultural awareness in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instruction to undergraduate students

Nino TVALCHRELIDZE*

Abstract This study sets out to identify the importance of inclusion of culture in English language teaching for non-native speakers. Communicative competence, an essential goal in learning English as a foreign language, is identified as the linguistic and behavioral competence. In addition, this study explores the contribution of culturally-sensitive English language teaching to students’ increased awareness of culture. The study uses the culture tests, developed by the author, throughout the culturally-sensitive English language teaching course to check students’ progress in cultural awareness. The research revealed that there is valuable benefit in adopting the view of inseparability of language and culture by teachers and using culturally-sensitive English language teaching. It is essential to increase students’ sensitivity about different cultures in today’s culturally rich environments. Keywords: culture, culturally-sensitive language teaching, communicative competence, behavioral competence, culture tests, culture awareness

Introduction Concerns with cultural differences in teaching foreign languages have a long history and the connection between language and culture has been well proved. Valdes (2001), for example, states that ‘culture specific world views are reflected in language’ (p.8). This means that how people think and speak is determined by their culture. Byram (1989) also observed that culture represents a ‘hidden’ curriculum in second language teaching and pointed out that language teaching implicitly involves teaching in a culturally-sensitive way because language refers to speakers’ knowledge and perception of the world, concept of culture, and cultural learning. What has become evident in recent decades is that learning pure ‘language’ (pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, listening, speaking, reading, and writing) is insufficient for verbal communication. Simply encoding the message in a certain language does not guarantee communication or interaction with a person (Morain, 2001). Communicative competence which is a well-admitted goal in learning English is defined as the unity of linguistic competence and the behavioral expertise (Hymes, 1967&1972). Adequate / deep / complete understanding of interlocutor takes place only with the knowledge of the language used for communication and the culture from which the language derives. The negative impact of the lack of target-language cultural information in communication is especially strong in the process of communication between non-native speakers with native speakers. A native speaker may use many names, facts, holidays, idioms, which are culturally-bound and not known to the non-native speaker, which will cause misunderstanding or lack of understanding. When both / all interlocutors are nonnative speakers, the problem of one-sided comprehension

will not arise. On the other hand, non-native speakers may allude to their culture, not well known to their interlocutor(s), which may also impede communication.

Method The aims of the study involve two concerns: (1) To reveal how language instruction, focused on culturally-embedded activities, raises the cultural awareness. (2) To make up an adequate culture test, hold it and analyze its results. The participants were 24 freshmen students at the direction of Business Management at the International Black Sea University, Tbilisi, Georgia. The tuition language at the university is English. This is why it is essential that the freshman students, while taking their practical English courses, do not simply gain knowledge of vocabulary and grammar and some skills of speaking, listening, reading and writing, but also communicative competence in English. The researcher earlier held an experiment described in her doctoral dissertation Implications of different cultures of (English as Second Language) ESL classes in terms of language teaching methodologies (Tvalchrelidze, 2014) to check the effectiveness of culturally-sensitive English language teaching in acquisition of communicative competence in the English language. For the purposes of the experiment, the researcher had two groups (experimental and control). In the experimental group, the researcher created special activities using different approaches, methods, and techniques to increase

*Asist. Prof. Dr., Faculty of Education and Humanities, International Black Sea University, Tbilisi, Georgia E-mail: ntvalchrelidze@ibsu.edu.ge

Nino TVALCHRELIDZE Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

the interaction of language learners and keep their motivation high. These activities enhanced students’ skills for comparative analysis of their own and target culture while maintaining their own cultural identity. Furthermore, the researcher designed a syllabus where linguistic and cultural goals were given the same importance. Reflection questions and non-verbal communication elements with a variety of specially designed activities were incorporated for the enhancement of intercultural communication. Language skills of the students in both groups were assessed twice during the experiment: Once in the process with the introduction of while-test and for the second time after the experiment, when the post-test was held. All tests were in the same format to ensure the comparability of the results. For experimental group, the following teaching activities and methods were followed in the classroom: different forms of presentations including PowerPoint, group activities and assessment developed by the researcher, while the control group simply used the materials provided by the English textbook. These materials to a less degree focuse on culturallysensitive language teaching. As the next step, this article investigates whether this approach to language teaching also increases students’ knowledge of culture, besides improving language skills. This study assessed the impacts of culturally-sensitive language teaching on students’ cultural awareness. In this study, compared to the above-mentioned experiment with a control and experimental group, assessment of the knowledge about culture was conducted only in the experimental group. The rationale for the choice of the group is the fact that culturally-embedded activities, texts and vocabulary were introduced throughout the semester only to the students of the experimental group. The researcher made up a test to assess the knowledge of culture, based on Byram and Morgan’s (1994) proposal and Valette’s (2001) culture test. The test comprised four parts, enabling to check the achievement of four important categories of the cultural goals, pre-set before the research started. These are: 1. Culture awareness – measuring the culture knowledge; 2. Command of etiquette – illustrating the polite cultural conventions for behavior of people living in the countries where target language is spoken and checking students’ ability to appropriately use the etiquette; 3. Understanding of outward cultural differences – assessing how well students can interpret unfamiliar customs to function easily in the country of the target language; 4. Understanding of cultural values – evaluating how well students realize that system of values in target culture and in students’ own cultures may be different and come to respect them. The test was administered three times during the study course of the above-mentioned freshmen group: a pre-test, a while-test and a post-test. The researcher used three same format tests to check how students progressed in the knowledge about the target culture. See below a sample of the culture test used in the study.

Culture test Cultural awareness 1. Contributions of the target culture. 1.1. Benjamin Franklin is: a. writer, philosopher, inventor b. American rock and roll star c. English poet 2. Differences in way of life patterns 2.1. What cultural differences would you observe if you are living in America and Britain? (Please choose all that apply) a. In America, people say too many “please,” “thank you,” and “sorry.” b. Americans hug and kiss an acquaintance. c. Dating in America is more casual and informal that in any cultures and should not be interpreted as anything more. d. An invitation to someone’s home is less common in England than in the rest of Europe. e. In Britain, gifts are not opened upon receiving. Command of etiquette 3. Knowledge of etiquette 3.1. What is the traditional American pattern when a man and a woman are walking down the street? (Please circle one category)

Command of etiquette 3. Knowledge of etiquette 3.1. What is the traditional American pattern when a man and a woman are walking down the street? (Please circle one category) a. The man always walks on the curb side. b. The woman always walks on the curb side. c. The man always walks a step forward a woman. Understanding of outward cultural differences 4. Linguistic cultural referents 4.1 While dining with your British friend, his/her mother started telling how beautiful her friends and her plaited pattern of ribbons round the pole were in her childhood. What holiday is she talking about? a. Easter b. Valentine’s day c. May Day d. Christmas Understanding of cultural values 5. Interpreting behavior of members of target culture 5.1 Imagine an old woman with heavy load is moving with difficulty. An American saw the old woman and passed by without help. What would you think about him? (please circle one category) a. He is impolite b. He does not feel well c. He values individualism

The importance of cultural awareness in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instruction to undergraduate students Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

6. Interpreting behavior of members of the native culture 6.1 Imagine an English friend is staying in a Georgian family. Which of the following behaviors will shock him? (please circle one category) a. Mother always cooks meals for the whole family. b. Mother watches soap operas. c. Father comes late from work.

Result Question 1. From the category Contributions of target culture Question 4. From the category Linguistic cultural referents

The graph shows the growth of studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; understanding of contributions of target culture from test to test. In pre-test 38,9% of the students identified the correct answer, in whiletest 68,45% of the students were correct in their answers and in post-test all 24 students chose the correct answer. Question 2. From the category Differences in way of life pattern

The graph illustrates the decrease in wrong answers from test to test. In pre-test 55,6% of subjects identified wrong differences in way of life pattern of the British and Americans, in while-test the wrong answers were 31,6% and in post-test only 13,6% of students were not correct. Question 3. From the category Knowledge of etiquette. The graph shows the increase of the knowledge of etiquette in target culture from test to test 33,3% in the pre-test, 68,4% in the while-test and 100% in the post-test.

The graph presents that only 5,65% of students in the pre-test were aware of the outward cultural referents. In the while-test 68,4% of students were correct and in the posttest all 24 students identified the correct answers. Question 5. From the category Interpreting behavior of target culture

Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; understanding of cultural values has grown from 11,1% in the pre-test to 68,45 in the while-test and 100% in the post-test. Question 6. From the category Interpreting behavior of members of the native culture The graph illustrates the increase in understanding of behavior of people from native culture from test to test 77.8% in the pre-test, 78.9% in the while-test and 100% in the post-test.

Nino TVALCHRELIDZE Journal of Education; ISSN 2298-0172; Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014

Byram, M., & Morgan, C. (1994). Teaching-and-learning language-and-culture. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 8-28. Hymes, D. (1972). Reinventing Anthropology. New York: Pantheon Books. Morain, G. (2001). Kinesics and cross-cultural understanding. In J. M. Valders (Ed.), Culture bound: Bridging the Cultural Gap in Language Teaching Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 64-76 Thus, it is possible to say that the experiment proved that culturally-sensitive language teaching improved students’ knowledge about the target culture.

Conclusion The tests showed the increase in students’ understanding of all categories of knowledge about the culture. 1. Though the students’ awareness of their native culture was quite high from the very beginning of the course, a 22.22% increase is very valuable, as their increased awareness of their own culture will help them to behave with the native speakers in a way more appropriate for their interlocutors. Finally, a better mutual understanding will be achieved. 2. The tests showed an increase (5.6% 68.4% 100%) in understanding of outward cultural differences (question 4), which will help students while interacting with people from countries where English as a native language is spoken. 3. Students’ understanding of contributions of people from the target culture has increased by 61.1%, which is also beneficial for them in their lives. The idea of awareness of their famous personalities is valued by people from every culture. This awareness will promote friendship and good relationship with people from target culture. 4. In the end, the test showed an impressive growth in grasping the differences in life patterns, etiquettes (by 66.7%), understanding of students’ own culture (by 22.22%) and the target culture (by 88.89%). Most importantly, this growth proves the effectiveness of culturally-sensitive language teaching. Thus, the study has proved that culturally-sensitive English language teaching suggested by the researcher is effective for acquisition of knowledge about the target culture.

References Valdes, J. M. (Ed.). (2001). Culture bound: Bridging the cultural gap in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Byram, M. (1989). Cultural studies in foreign language education. Clevedon & Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Tvalchrelidze, N. (2014). Implications of Different Cultures of ESL Classes in Terms of Language Teaching Methodologies. Doctoral dissertation. International Black Sea University Valette, R. M. (2001). The culture test. In J. M. Valdes (Ed.), Culture bound (pp.179-197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

EDITOR’S NOTE Journal in Education publishes manuscripts related to Education. Each submission is rigorously refereed to a process with blind reviewers from relevant disciplines. Key instructions - All manuscripts must: • Not be under consideration with any other journal; • Be written in English. It is recommended that an English check of the manuscript by a competent and knowledgeable person be completed before submission. Only manuscripts that are written in clear and concise English, will be accepted for review; • Be in Microsoft Word format, with lines and pages numbered consecutively, (using Arial, APA style, font size-10, line spacing-1,5); • Include an abstract of not more than 300 words, in English; • Keywords (not less than 3 and not more than 10 words, in alphabetical order); • Include an introduction; • Conclusion; • References (on the reference list in alphabetical order). Authors are asked to pay particular attention to the accuracy and correct presentation of references (please read the instructions given bellow carefully), JSS employs an APA Style Formatting as follows: • For books: Author surname, initials. (year). Book Title. Publishing house and publication place • For articles: Author surname, initials. (year). Article title. Journal Name. # and/or vol. pp. • For internet sources: Author surname, initials (if available). (year or, n.d. – non-dated (if not available) ). Article or Website title. Retrieved on… (date) from (address) • For quotations page should be indicated inside the text or article SAMPLE: Journal article viewed online: Inside the text: (Curwin, 2010) List of references: Curwin, R. L. (2010). Motivating urban youth. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 19(1), 35-39. Retrieved December 5, 2010, from www.reclaimingjournal.com Website: Inside the text: (American Psychological Association, 2010) List of references: American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved January 4, 2010, from http://apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx Journal article with one author: Inside the text: (Habel, 2009) List of references: Habel, C. (2009). Academic self-efficacy in ALL: Capacity-building through self-belief. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 3(2), 94-104. Journal article with six or more authors: Inside the text: (Amsel et al., 2009) List of references: Amsel, E., Johnston, A., Alvarado, E., Kettering, J., Rankin, L. & Ward, M. (2009). The effect of perspective on misconceptions in psychology: A test of conceptual change theory. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36, 289-295. Book with one author (with city and country for publisher & page number for specific idea or quotation in in-text citation): Inside the text: (O’Shea, 2009, p. 6) List of references: O’Shea, P. (2009). So you think you can learn: An evidence based guide to improving learning. Brisbane, Australia: Cadamon. Book with more than one author (with city and state for publisher): Inside the text: (Haslam, Reicher, & Platow, 2010) List of references: Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S., & Platow, M. (2010). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence, and power. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

SUBMISSION: Types of manuscripts accepted: • New, significant, innovative and original findings that is suitable as a scientific research article. Submit manuscripts as a file attachment by e-mail or online to the following addresses: sje@ibsu.edu.ge http://journal.ibsu.edu.ge/index.php/sje Further information will be sent by e-mail upon your request. NOTE: • Journal of Education reserves the right to make editorial changes in style and format. • Articles submitted are sent to blind reviewers and a decision is made by the editors in the light of their comments. A decision should be received within three to four weeks.