c1175097-83fc-43e3-93d3-472aace6b34720220111023931051naun:naunmdt@crossref.orgMDT DepositInternational Journal of Education and Information Technologies2074-131610.46300/9109http://www.naun.org/cms.action?id=3037111202211120221610.46300/9109.2022.16https://npublications.com/journals/educationinformation/2022.phpSaud MohammedAleneziEnglish Language and Translation Department, Faculty of Education and Arts, Northern Border University, Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaThis study aims to investigate the English language teachers’ perceptions and attitudes towards the use of alternative and online assessments adopted during the Coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak, in Saudi Arabia. The current study employs a descriptive method, and the data were collected using a survey questionnaire, which consists of 33 closed-ended and four open-ended questions. The participants were 102 (46 male and 56 female) teachers of English at Northern Border University, Saudi Arabia. The questionnaires were administered online via Google Form. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for quantitative responses, whereas content analysis was used to analyze the qualitative responses collected from the open-ended questions. The findings revealed that the teachers had mixed reactions towards alternative and online assessments. The online assessments adopted were in form of both alternative and traditional types, administered via Blackboard. It was found that portfolios and oral presentations were the most frequently used forms of alternative assessments by the English language teachers at the time of Covid-19. Other types of alternative assessments, including, online collaborative/peer assessment, self-assessment, virtual concept map, concept map, article review, and mini-project, were claimed to be less used by the teachers. However, the teachers’ top priority was summative assessment, where by the traditional exams were in fact still be used in online assessment. In addition, teachers reported constraints related to time for the assessments, need for computer literacy, possibility of cheating, and technical issues, when adopting online assessments. However, they believed online assessment covered the content of the course of study. Teachers also reported that students did not initially like online assessment but later warmed to it as it proved easier to do well in. Finally, pedagogical implications are discussed based on the study findings.1112022111202239494https://npublications.com/journals/educationinformation/2022/a082008-004(2022).pdf10.46300/9109.2022.16.4https://npublications.com/journals/educationinformation/2022/a082008-004(2022).pdf10.1016/j.jsps.2020.07.008Alqurshi, A. (2020). Investigating the impact of COVID19 lockdown on pharmaceutical education in Saudi Arabia–A call for a remote teaching contingency strategy. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 28(9), 1075- 1083. 10.12669/pjms.36.covid19-s4.2795Khan, R. A., & Jawaid, M. (2020). Technology enhanced assessment (TEA) in COVID 19 pandemic. Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 36(4), 108-111. Kearns, L.R. (2012). Student assessment in online learning: Challenges and effective practice”. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 8(3), 198-212. 10.20533/licej.2040.2589.2014.0234Alotabi, K. A. (2014). Student assessment strategies in Saudi Arabia: a case study of pre and post classroom practices. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal (LICEJ), 3(1), 1786-1763. 10.46545/aijelr.v3i2.152Monib, W. K., Karimi, A. Q., & Nijat, N. (2020). Effects of alternative assessment in EFL classroom: A systematic review. American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research, 3(2), 7-18. 10.1007/978-981-13-0265-7_4Denman, C., & Al-Mahrooqi, R. (2018). Teachers’ attitudes toward alternative assessment in the English language foundation program of an Omani University. In English Education in Oman (pp. 59-73). Springer, Singapore. Selma K., Xiongyi, L., Patrick, W. (2015). Assessment in online and blended learning environments. USA: Information Age Publishing Inc. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.02.003Mohamadi, Z. (2018). Comparative effect of online summative and formative assessment on EFL student writing ability. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 29- 40. Douglas, D. (2014). Understanding language testing. New York: Routledge. Franklin, J. (2002). Assessing assessment: Are alternative methods making the grade? Curriculum Update, www.ascd.org Hancock, C. R. 1994. Alternative assessment and second language study: What and why?. Eric Digest, ED376695 10.15390/eb.2019.6272Demir, M., Tananis, C. A., & Trahan, K. W. (2019). Evaluation of alternative assessment methods used in elementary schools. Egitim ve Bilim, 44(197), 223-238. Wubshet, H., & Menuta, F. (2015). Investigating the practice of alternative assessment in English classrooms: The case of selected grade nine English teachers’ assessment practices. International journal of scientific research in education, 8(4), 159-171. Bergquist, E., & Holbeck, R. (2014). Classroom assessment techniques: A conceptual model for CATs in the online classroom. Journal of Instructional Research, 3, 3-7. 10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 205-249. 10.2190/gymq-78fa-wmtx-j06cReeves, T. C. (2000). Alternative assessment approaches for online learning environments in higher education: Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(1), 101- 111. Knight, M. E (1994).Portfolio assessment: Application of portfolio analysis, University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland. 10.1111/bjet.12608Okada, A., Whitelock, D., Holmes, W., & Edwards, C. (2019). E‐ authentication for online assessment: A mixed‐ method study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 861-875. 10.13189/lls.2017.050302Aliasin, S., & Amanlu, M. (2017). The effect of alternative assessment techniques on EFL learners' reading comprehension ability and self-efficacy in reading: The case of Iranian Junior High School students. Linguistics and Literature Studies, 5(3), 160- 168. 10.5539/elt.v9n3p102Safari, M., & Koosha, M. (2016). Instructional efficacy of portfolio for assessing Iranian EFL learners' speaking ability. English Language Teaching, 9(3), 102-116. Kilmen, S., & Kosterelioglu, I. (2017). Examination of teachers’ perceptions towards alternative assessment approaches with CHAID Analysis. Elementary Education Online, 16 (1), 256-273. 10.24093/awej/vol8no4.20Kalra, R., Sundrarajun, C., & Komintarachat, H. (2017). Using portfolio as an alternative assessment tool to enhance Thai EFL students' writing skill. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) (8)4, 292-302. 10.24093/awej/vol9no3.13Tuvachit, V., & Soontornwipast, K. (2018). Integrating adapted approaches of writing instructions with alternative assessment to improve academic writing ability. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 9(3), 188- 206. 10.3991/ijet.v15i24.15103Cabrera-Solano, P. (2020). The use of digital Portfolios to enhance English as a foreign language speaking skills in higher education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(24), 159-175. 10.1177/001316447003000308Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. 10.7748/nr.4.1.81.s9Hickey, G., & Kipping, C. (1996). A multi-stage approach to the coding of data from open-ended questions. Nurse researcher, 4(1), 81-91.