Global Research in Higher Education ISSN 2576-196X (Print) ISSN 2576-1951 (Online) Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe 27 Original Paper A Study of a Multiple Evaluation System of College English Online Teaching in China Fan Zhang 1,2* & Shuxiong Feng 2 1 College of Foreign Languages, Central South University of Forestry & Technology, Changsha, Hunan, China 2 School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA * Fan Zhang, fzhang@udel.edu Received: September 2, 2021 Accepted: September 17, 2021 Online Published: December 6, 2021 doi:10.22158/grhe.v4n4p27 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/grhe.v4n4p27 Abstract The comprehensive and scientific evaluation of college English teaching in online mode is an important basis for further promoting and optimizing the pragmatic reform of college English teaching. Based on the operational principle, the principle of service to students, and the feasibility principle, this study aims to construct a multiple evaluation system of online college English teaching based on three aspects: online interaction, online autonomous learning, and English online practice. A questionnaire has been conducted among undergraduates, teachers, and experts. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been used to analyze the relative importance of the indicators at the first two levels in the multiple evaluation system. The results revealed that the weight coefficients of teacher-student interaction, learning resources, and English listening practice are higher, while those of learning freedom and oral English practice are lower. Therefore, the online college English teaching reform should take the following measures: equipment input of college English practice teaching should be reinforced, communication channels between teachers and students should be strengthened, and online teaching resources should be enriched. Keywords online teaching and learning, college English teaching, multiple evaluation system, analytic hierarchy process www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 28 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 1. Introduction The practice in College English education in China has been conducted based on nationally unified curriculum---the College English Curriculum Requirements (CECR) (Cai & Xin, 2009; Chen & Klenowski, 2009). China’s Ministry of Education (CMOE) has initiated College English curriculum reforms nation-wide with the attempt to promote the quality of College English education to better meet the needs of socioeconomic development in China (Cai & Xin, 2009; Chen & Klenowski, 2009; Zhang, 2004). The 2017 CECR advocated College English should vigorously promote the integration of the latest information technology and curriculum teaching, and continue to give play to the important role of modern educational technology, especially information technology in foreign language teaching (CMOE, 2017). The 2017 CECR called for a full use of information technology and actively create a diversified teaching and learning environment in colleges and universities (CMOE, 2017). Teachers are encouraged to build and use micro-courses and MOOCs, transform and expand teaching content by using high-quality online education resources, and implement mixed teaching modes such as flipped classroom based on classroom and online courses, so that students can develop towards active learning, independent learning and personalized learning (CMOE, 2017). The curriculum requirements emphasized that teaching assessment is a crucial link to achieve the goal of college English teaching (Xie et al., 2009; Yin, 2010). According to the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) (2004), the modern education technology is creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources to promote learning and improve the performance of the study and ethical practice. On the one hand, the new media, such as computers, multimedia, and internet applications in the actual teaching process, have been emphasized. On the other hand, the traditional teaching of knowledge structure’s linear defects is to be overcome to build up a diversified, multi-level, and nonlinear information structure. The modern educational technology with computer network has been gradually integrated into college English teaching in China, which has brought profound changes to the traditional English teaching model (Li, 2005; Wang, 2006). Since 2007, many forms of college English online teaching systems have emerged, such as the New Horizon College English online learning system and Bingo English functional Composition System (Zhang & Yin, 2010). The multimedia teaching system combined with digital technology enable students to communicate with each other and with teachers across time and space, and achieve the collaborative learning effects, to which the traditional teaching mode cannot be compared (Brett, 2000; Fang, 2011; Han et al., 2014; Li, 2005; Lukman & Krajnc, 2012). However, little research has been done to investigate the evaluation system of online college English teaching in China. This study aims to develop an effective network evaluation model of college English teaching in an online environment using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 29 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 2. Literature Review For years, previous Chinese scholars have been working on the assessment of college English teaching in an online/virtual environment in China (Li, 2005; Peng, 2004; Tong & Shi, 2009; Wang, 2006; Yang, 2012; Zhou & Qin, 2005). In terms of assessment methods, scholars have emphasized the importance of adopting formative assessment methods in college English teaching (Li, 2005; Yang, 2012; Zhou & Qin, 2005). Formative assessment methods include “self-correcting systems” that tap students’ potential and comprehensively examine students’ specific learning processes. Formative assessment gives full play to cultivating students’ independent and cooperative learning ability (Wang, 2006). However, based on the theory of connectionism, Tong and Shi (2009) examined the assessment system of college English teaching from the perspective of systematization, ecology, and language technology, and concluded that the assessment system must be based on formative assessment and supplemented by summative assessment. Peng (2004) proposed that the assessment system of college English teaching should neither be formative nor summative but should be a dynamic assessment system that can more effectively cultivate college students’ cognitive and understanding abilities. Prior researchers have also focused on the typical English composition scoring systems and scoring behaviors. In terms of the assessment model systems in different aspects of college English teaching, Wan (2005) explored the application of electronic software assessment systems in English writing tests for English majors in Anyang Institute of Technology. He explored the possibility of replacing manual assessment and found that electronic software assessment has higher reliability. Zhang and Yin (2010) did an overview of the relevant concepts of computer scoring for English composition, summarized the main research techniques of computer scoring for English composition, and introduced several typical computer scoring systems for English composition. Researchers have conducted a targeted discussion on the practical application of online assessment systems in college English teaching in China (Tan, 2008; Zhou et al., 2009; Zheng, 2010; Zeng, 2010). For example, Tan (2008) reported a study using Rasch model to analyze English writing grading behavior of four raters. The results showed that the intra-rater reliability is difficult to achieve. It is necessary to establish clear grading standards and train the grading staff to ensure the correct understanding and application of grading standards (Tan, 2008). Zhou and colleagues (2009) found paperless examination can improve the efficiency of testing and evaluation; and a larger proportion of students (85%) and teachers (90%) have a positive attitude to it; on the other hand, they also found negative aspects of computer-based examinations, for example, deficit network technology and testing software will increase teachers’ workload infinitely; reading online will aggravate the degree of eye fatigue; 5% of students disapprove of paperless exams in writing courses; 70% of teachers worry that paperless exams are not easy to implement. Zeng (2010) found the main advantages of computerized examination are mainly reflected in these four aspects: innovative examination questions can be applied; adaptability testing can be implemented; multi-dimensional capability estimation is realized; immediate diagnostic information can be provided. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 30 Published by SCHOLINK INC. With the rapid development of computer technology, web-based test and evaluation of second language acquisition have a very broad development prospect. This issue has also gained popularity among scholars in other countries. For instance, Akinwamide et al. (2012) explored the online autonomous learning functions and strategies with a finding that teachers’ supervision predicted the performance of ESL students’ online autonomous learning. Teachers need to arrange and help students to complete different online learning tasks to achieve the self-construction of knowledge. In terms of a network language learning environment, Lukman and Krajnc (2012) discussed the commonalities and characteristics of non-traditional teaching methods in the virtual and real learning environments. The results showed the appropriateness of nontraditional learning methods in comparison with traditional ones, although collaborative learning in both environments causes several frustration based on conflicts (personal or disagreements during the learning phase), influencing the efficiency of the learning process. Dickenson and his colleagues (2010) found virtual action learning was corelated with social, cultural, technical and economic change in the society. Yang (2009) believed that new media (such as blogs, etc.) facilitated learning a second language. The results showed that 43 student teachers were able to critically reflect on their thoughts and they viewed technology a useful tool for reflecting and communicating with each other. To date, the Chinese scholars’ research on the evaluation of college English teaching in a virtual environment has been relatively broad, including assessment methods such as formative assessment, summative assessment, and dynamic assessment (Peng, 2004; Tong & Shi, 2009; Yin, 2010; Zhou & Qin, 2005), as well as the study of assessment systems in different aspects, such as the English composition network scoring system (Tan, 2008; Wan, 2005; Zhang &Yin, 2010; Zhou et al., 2009). Although prior existing research of the assessment of online college English teaching has focused on teaching purposes, teaching methods, and teaching practices , relatively few studies have been conducted on online teaching assessments and fewer quantitative analyses of the evaluation standards have been adopted on the issue. In addition, due to the lack of sufficient attention on the information feedback mechanism from teaching practice process, student cognitive process and interaction platforms, online college English teaching is still constrained by the traditional English teaching model. Therefore, the possible contributions of this study might be as follows: first, to fill in the gap of the evaluation system research in a network environment in China by building up a multi-evaluation index system for online college English teaching; second, to supplement the literature of quantitative research on the evaluation criteria by utilizing the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to quantitatively study the evaluation criteria of online college English teaching; third, to add onto the literature on evaluation feedback mechanism by selecting experts, teachers, and students as questionnaire participants to provide feedback. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 31 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 3. Theoretical Framework The multi-dimensional approach of evaluation of college English language teaching in a network environment is based on the theoretical framework of the Constructivism and the Interaction Hypothesis (IH). Constructivism holds that teaching media should be a cognitive tool for students to study actively and explore cooperatively, rather than just a means to help teachers impart knowledge (Chen, 2007; Koohang et al., 2009; Lutz & Huitt, 2004; Perkins, 1991; Saunders & Goldenberg, 1996). According to the constructivist learning theory, on the one hand, online learners independently choose the learning contents and ways to control the learning process; on the other hand, it is also necessary to evaluate the learning process and results of self-construction through self-diagnosis and self-reflection since constructivist learning is cumulative and goal-directed (Yang, 2012). In the online teaching process, evaluation should be focused on formative assessment, including participation, homework submission, online discussion, online recording of the learning process, students’ self-evaluation, and peer review (Yang, 2012). Besides, communication with teachers and group cooperative learning should also be included to comprehensively evaluate the students’ learning effect and ensure the effectiveness and practicality of online teaching (Yang, 2012). The Interaction Hypothesis (IH), one of the most important Second Language Acquisition (SLA) hypotheses, has also laid the theoretical foundation of the current study. The IH claims that second language development is better facilitated when learners participate in negotiated interaction, and a second language is acquired more effectively through interaction and communication (Auquilla et al., 2019). A substantial body of studies has shown that interaction is inseparable from second/foreign language learning (Ellis, 1994; Gass, 2005; Long, 1981, 1983). There are mainly two kinds of interactive activities in a multimedia and a network environment: teaching interactive activities and social interactive activities. Li (2001) pointed out that teaching interaction refers to using computer network information from teaching resources, linking content, downloading information, publishing information, and so on. Such interactive activities provide learners with a dynamic control of information and the opportunity to control the learning situation. Social interaction is the use of e-mail, chat rooms, bulletin boards, online meetings, or other online media resources to communicate with others. Through these communication activities, asking questions, offering answers, discussions, and debates can be conducted online between learners and teachers as well as between learners and learners. In a network environment, interactive activities are a dynamic process, which runs through the whole learning process (Li, 2001). Previous second language acquisition researchers have identified and emphasized the importance of online communication and interaction in the target language, which provides opportunities for authentic social interaction (Auquilla et al., 2019; de la Fuente, 2003; Sachs & Suh, 2007; Smith, 2004). Many researchers have claimed that online communication offers learners many opportunities (Jepson, 2005; Smith, 2004). For example, de la Fuente (2003) found that face-to-face and computer-mediated www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 32 Published by SCHOLINK INC. interaction appeared equally effective in promoting vocabulary acquisition. Therefore, it will be of great significance to investigate the main factors of the multiple evaluation system of online college English teaching in China and their relative importance based on those conceptual foundations. 4. The Present Study The construction of the multiple evaluation index system for online college English teaching in China conforms to three basic principles of course evaluation (Tu, 2007): orientation, feasibility, and acceptability (Hu, 2008; Wang, 2002; Jin & Wang, 2007). In terms of orientation, a multiple evaluation system should embody the correct teaching values (Jin & Wang, 2007): social-service-orientated and student-development-orientated. Besides, feasibility requires evaluation to be consistent with the teaching context and be understood and accepted by evaluation objects (Hu, 2008). The main factors of multiple evaluation systems should be described clearly and accurately, and indicators should be measurable. Besides, the numerical value of each index should be evidence-based and reasonable, and the methods and the procedures of constructing the numerical value have to be widely accepted. Moreover, acceptability requires the indexes in this system to be accepted by most objects and subjects (Wang, 2002). Thus, the difficulties of the indexes should be moderate and fair to every participant. Each index in the system is relevant and relatively independent (Hu, 2008). To identify the main factors of multiple evaluations of online college English teaching in China, we selected articles from CSSCI journals published in the past ten years. The qualitative data coding (Huang, 2008) was employed to identify the specific indexes. Then the frequency and percentage of each index was counted. The multiple evaluation index system was designed from three levels: network interaction, autonomous learning, and English practice, which belong to the first level. The second level includes 12 indicators: teacher-student interaction, interaction among students, human-computer interaction, social interaction, learning resources, learning freedom, information acquisition, online teaching, oral English practice, English writing practice, English listening practice, and English reading practice. The third level includes 39 evaluation indicators, such as teacher-organization interaction, students’ question and answer interaction, group cooperation interaction, and group confrontation interaction, and so on. Twelve evaluation indicators belong to the network interaction dimension, 13 evaluation indicators belonging to autonomous learning, and 14 evaluation indicators belonging to network English practice (See Table 1). The AHP was used to analyze the relative importance of different hierarchical indicators. This study aimed to examine the relative importance of the evaluation index at each level to determine the main factors of the online college English teaching evaluation system in China. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 33 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Table 1. Multiple Evaluation System of Online College English Teaching in China 5. Methods 5.1 Participants Considering the differential influence of regional educational resources on the generalizability of the results, we selected five colleges and universities from three provinces in the eastern region, the central region, and the western region, respectively. The survey was conducted from May 2017 to January 2018 by online college English teaching experts and instructors as well as students who took the college English online courses. There was a total number of 5,639 respondents who finished and submitted the questionnaire, from which 35 were online English teaching experts, 102 were teachers, and 5,606 were students from those 15 colleges and universities. One hundred and fourteen questionnaires that were incomplete or carelessly filled out were eliminated. Therefore, finally, 5,525 valid questionnaires were obtained, with an attrition rate of less than 10%. 5.2 Questionnaire The questionnaire is mainly composed of four parts: The first part is demographic information of the participants, such as age, gender, affiliation, occupation, etc. The second part is the interactive network of college English teaching, which involves specifically the evaluation of 12 indicators. The third part is the evaluation of online autonomous learning of college English teaching, which involves 13 indicators. The fourth part is the evaluation of English practice in college English teaching, which specifically involves 14 indicators. The questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 34 Published by SCHOLINK INC. “strongly disagree”, “somewhat disagree”, “neutral/no opinion”, “somewhat agree”, to “strongly agree” for each item has been rated. 5.3 The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) The AHP, developed by Saaty (1980), is one of the Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods which helps to improve the effectiveness of numerical value distribution (Wang & Xu, 1990) and provide a simple method with multi-criteria for a complex system which is difficult to be quantified. It is widely applied to varied fields such as resource allocation, project design, maintenance management, and policy evaluation (Saaty, 1980; Cook et al., 1984; Shen et al., 1998; Cheng et al., 2005; Banai, 2005). AHP has the following advantages over other methodologies: 1) including comparing to the relative importance of each index with one another based on the best benefit of an overall evaluation system, 2) simplifying the decision-making process, and 3) improving the accuracy of priorities by pairwise comparison between every two indexes at the same level. The comparability of the numerical value can be strengthened by comparing each index with one another at the same level from the lowest to the highest level in evaluation systems. Therefore, AHP was used to apply to construct the multiple evaluation system of online college English teaching that can be turned into a hierarchical decision model. AHP is a method to solve a complex decision problem by breaking it down into multiple factors, but it is widely criticized for a tedious process of pairwise comparison when a number of criteria or alternatives are involved. Experts’ judgments may be doubted, for they are very likely to feel tired and lose patience during this process. To avoid such a drawback, only reasonable and manageable amounts of criteria are contained in the model based on the previous related research articles published in the CSSCI journals. The authors of this study have acted as facilitators to take over the judgment process. Therefore, AHP was regarded as the most appropriate method for this study since the data input was straightforward and convenient. The primary goal was to determine which indexes have the highest numerical value and should be included in the system. In this paper, the complicated mathematical calculations of AHP were skipped, and only a brief description of this method was provided. 6. Results 6.1 Descriptive Characteristics of the Score Status Based on the results from the evaluation questionnaire of online college English teaching, this study summarized the features of online interaction (B1), online autonomous learning (B2), and English online practice (B3). There were 66,300 option level observations altogether in terms of the online interaction dimension, 71,825 for the autonomous learning dimension, and 77,350 for the English practice dimension. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 35 Published by SCHOLINK INC. The option level of the online interaction dimension presented right skew or positive skew distribution, with an average value of 2.83. Among them, there were 11,695 samples with option 1, accounting for 17.64% of the total number. There were 17,699 samples with option 2, accounting for 26.70% of the total number. The number of samples with option 3 was 15,718, accounting for 23.71% of the total number. The number of samples with option 4 was 12,242, accounting for 18.46% of the total number. There were 8,946 samples with option grade 5, accounting for 13.49% of the total sample size (as shown in Figure 1). From the comprehensive comparison, the evaluation level of online interaction dimension is between “slightly important” and “relatively important”, which is inclined to the “relatively important” option. Figure 1. Descriptive Characteristics of the Scoring Status of Online Interaction The options of online autonomous learning dimension presented right skew or positive skew distribution, with a mean of 2.69. There were 16,425 with option 1, accounting for 22.87% of the total samples. The number of choosing other four following options was 19,682, 14,629, 11,902, and 9,187, respectively, accounting for 27.40%, 20.37%, 16.57%, and 12.79% of the total number, respectively (as shown in Figure 2). From the comprehensive comparison, the evaluation level of this dimension is between “slightly important” and “relatively important”, which was inclined to the “relatively important” option. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 36 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Figure 2. Descriptive Characteristics of the Scoring Status of Online Autonomous Learning The online English practice dimension options presented a normal distribution, with a mean value of 3.01. There were 10,322 samples with option 1, accounting for 13.34% of the total samples. In terms of other four options from 2 to 5, there were 16,694, 21,485, 19,527, 9,322 samples, respectively. They accounted for 21.58%, 27.78%, 25.24%, 12.05% of the total number of samples, respectively (as shown in Figure 3). The evaluation level of this dimension is between “relatively important” and “very important,” which was inclined to the “relatively important”, similar to the dimensions of online interaction and autonomous learning. Figure 3. Descriptive Characteristics of the Scoring Status of Online English Practice www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 37 Published by SCHOLINK INC. By using the AHP to analyze the questionnaire data, the results showed that the relative importance of the evaluation index at the first level was on the following order: English practice (B3) > network interaction (B1) > autonomous learning (B2). In terms of the network interaction dimension, the order of the relative importance of each index should be: communication between teachers and students (C1) > social interactions (C4) > interaction among students (C2) = human-computer interaction (C3). The situation of the relative importance of indicators in the autonomous learning dimension is as follows: learning resources (C5) > online teaching (C8) > information acquisition (C7) > learning freedom (C6). The relative importance of the indexes in the network English practice dimension: English listening practice (C11) > English writing practice (C10) = English reading practice (C12) > English speaking practice (C9). Therefore, the judgment matrix of the evaluation index at the first level:                  132 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 21 A The judgment matrix of the evaluation index at the second level:                    122 3 1 2 1 11 4 1 2 1 11 4 1 3441 1B ；                    123 2 1 2 1 12 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 4 1 2341 2B ；                    1 4 1 13 4124 1 2 1 13 3 1 4 1 3 1 1 3B 。 Table 2 shows the weights of the first and second levels of the multiple evaluation index system. In the current paper, the relative importance and the evaluation index weight of the third level were not included and discussed because the application of the modern network technology varied at different levels in different colleges and universities, therefore, the more detailed quantitative score of the evaluation indexes at the third level may not apply. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 38 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Table 2. Weights of Multiple Evaluation Index System of Online College English Teaching in China The consistency test has been used to measure the internal stability and reliability of judgment matrices of different levels and dimensions. The lower the consistency test coefficient is, the higher the consistency of the judgment matrix will be, and the higher the accuracy of the conclusion obtained by AHP will be. In this paper, the consistency ratio C.R. was selected as the consistency test index of the multiple evaluation system. The ratio of the calculated C.I. index value and R.I. index value was used to test the consistency of the three dimensions variables: network interaction, network autonomous learning, and network English practice. The calculation formula of C.I. index is: max. . 1 n C I n     , where max is the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix. By checking the table, we got the results as 58.03.. ）（IR and 90.04.. ）（IR . Results showed that the consistency ratio of the first level C.R. A = 0.0079. In terms of the second level, the consistency ratio of the online interaction dimension C.R. B1 = 0.0076; the consistency ratio of the online autonomous learning dimension C.R. B2 = 0.0115; the consistency ratio of the English practice dimension C.R. B3 = 0.0076. The consistency ratios of the www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 39 Published by SCHOLINK INC. evaluation indexes at all the levels were less than 0.05. It can be considered that the deviations of the maximum eigenvalue of the evaluation indexes at each level from the judgment matrix order is no more than 0.05 from the average random consistency index R.I. Therefore, the consistency of the judgment matrixes has been proved. In other words, the weights of the multiple evaluation index system of college English teaching obtained by the AHP were basically accurate since they conformed to the standards of consistency, stability, and reliability. 7. Conclusion This study attempted to build a multi-dimensional assessment system frontline college English teaching in China from three aspects: online interaction, online autonomous learning, and English online practice, aiming to provide a reliable reference for further improving and optimizing the online college English teaching model, as well as making up for the lack of research on the assessment system in the online environment. The AHP was used to supplement the literature of quantitative research on assessment standards. Experts, teachers, and students were selected as the participants of the questionnaire, so as to form assessment feedback information and fill in gaps of assessment feedback mechanism research. The results revealed that the relative importance of the evaluation index at the first level is based on the following order: English practice (B3) > network interaction (B1) > autonomous learning (B2). In terms of the network interaction dimension, the relative importance of each index should be: communication between teachers and students (C1) > social interactions (C4) > interaction among students (C2) = human-computer interaction (C3). The relative importance of indexes in the autonomous learning dimension is as follows: learning resources (C5) > online teaching (C8) > information acquisition (C7) > learning freedom (C6). The relative importance of the indexes in the network English practice dimension is: English listening practice (C11) > English writing practice (C10) = English reading practice (C12) > English speaking practice (C9). Thus, the weight coefficients of teacher-student interaction, learning resources, and English listening practice are higher than those of learning freedom and English oral practice. Based on the findings, there are implications for college English teaching under China’s network environment. Administrators and policymakers of universities in China need to support and encourage online English courses by enhancing the curriculum design and providing professional development for teachers. In addition, it is suggested that the equipment input of college English teaching be strengthened. Modern college English network practice facilities play an important role in cultivating students’ comprehensive English application ability and enhancing their autonomous learning ability. Besides, the communication channels between teachers and students need to be strengthened. Teachers’ role should not only be embodied in the college English classroom, but also in the online interaction among students. The cognitive construction of English learning is a cyclic process in which teachers www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 40 Published by SCHOLINK INC. help students from discovering problems to solving problems back and forth. Finally, great efforts need to be made to improve and enrich network teaching resources. Developing and building a variety of network teaching resources facilitates to provide students with a good language learning environment. The current study was the first to use AHP to examine the evaluation system of online English teaching in China. But as the other studies, there are limitations to this one. First, due to the shortcomings of ordinary AHP, such as uneasily estimated range of evaluation results, uneasily determined quantitative values, and strong subjectivity, future efforts are needed to be done on a more feasible online college English teaching system in China by a revised or improved AHP. Second, the specific indicators at the third level were not included and discussed in the current study due to the varied usage of the modern network technology in those colleges and universities and the paper length limit. Therefore, in the future studies, the relative importance of the indexes at the third level will be calculated and reported, such that the specific implication will be discussed for the online college English teaching in China. Acknowledgments This study was supported by A Philosophical and Social Science Foundation Project in Hunan Province in China: An Empirical Study on Multiple Evaluation System of College English Online Teaching (No. 17WLH45), and the China Scholarship Council (201808430171) for Fan Zhang. References Akinwamide, T. K., & Adedara, O. G. (2012). Facilitating Autonomy and Creativity in Second Language Learning through Cyber-Tasks, Hyperlinks and Net Surfing. English Language Teaching, 5(6), 36-42. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n6p36 Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied linguistics, 14(2), 115-129. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.115 Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (2012). Classroom assessment techniques. Jossey Bass, Wiley. Auquilla, D. P. O., Camacho, C. S. H., & Heras, G. E. (2019). The facilitative role of the interaction hypothesis: Using interactional modification techniques in the English communicative classroom. Polo del Conocimiento: Revista científico-profesional, 4(3), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.23857/pc.v4i3.913 Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. Banai, R. (2005). Anthropocentric problem solving in planning and design, with analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 22(2), 107-120. Retrieved July 29, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/43030729 Bender, T. (2012). Discussion-based online teaching to enhance student learning: Theory, practice and assessment. Stylus Publishing, LLC. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n6p36 https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.115 https://doi.org/10.23857/pc.v4i3.913 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 41 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 Brett, P. (2000). Integrating multimedia into the Business English curriculum: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 19(3), 269-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00018-0 Brown, J. D. (1995). Language program evaluation: Decisions, problems and solutions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 227-248. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500002701 Brown, J. L., & Kiernan, N. E. (2001). Assessing the subsequent effect of a formative evaluation on a program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24(2), 129-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(01)00004-0 Cai, J. G., & Xin, P. (2009). College English Curriculum Requirements: Uniform or individualized. Foreign Languages in China, 6(2), 4-10. Campbell, D. M., Melenyzer, B. J., Nettles, D. H., & Wyman, R. M. (2013). How to develop a professional portfolio: A manual for teachers. Pearson Higher Ed. Campbell, L., Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D. (1996). Teaching & Learning through Multiple Intelligences. Allyn and Bacon, Simon and Schuster Education Group, 160 Gould Street, Needham Heights, MA 02194-2315 (Order No. H63373, $27.95, plus shipping and handling). Cao, R., Zhang, W., & Zhou, Y. (2004). Implementation of formative assessment in an EFL writing course for Chinese non-English-major undergraduates. Foreign Language Education, 25(5), 82-87. Chen, L., Li, B., Guo, Y., & Peng, D. (2017). The New Trend and direction of Basic Education informatization in the era of “Internet +”. Audio-visual Education Research, 38(5), 5-12, 27. Chen, Q. X., & Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment and curriculum reform in China: The college English test and tertiary English as a foreign language education. In Proceedings of the 2008 AARE International Education Conference. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. Chen, W. (2007). A Review of Constructivist learning Theory. Academic Exchange, (3), 175-177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9647.2007.00353.x Cheng, E. W. L., Li, H., & Yu, L. (2005). The Analytic Network Process (ANP) approach to location selection: A shopping mall illustration. Construction Innovation, 5, 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1108/14714170510815195 CMOE. (2017). College English Curriculum Requirements. Beijing: Higher Education Press. Cook, T., Falchi, P., & Mariano, R. (1984). An urban allocation model combining time series and analytic hierarchical methods. Management Science, 30, 198-208. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.2.198 Dickenson, M., Burgoyne, J, & Pedler, M. (2010). Virtual action learning: practices and challenges. Action Learning Research & Practice, 7(1), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767330903576978 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00018-0 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500002701 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(01)00004-0 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9647.2007.00353.x https://doi.org/10.1108/14714170510815195 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.2.198 https://doi.org/10.1080/14767330903576978 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 42 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction (Vol. 17). John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.17 Fang, J. (2011). Evaluation of web-based Second Language Acquisition test. Chinese Journal: Foreign Language Education and Teaching, (7), 117-118. Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1992). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. Longman Publishing Group, 95 Church Street, White Plains, NY 10601. Fuente, M. J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1), 47-81. https://doi.org/10.1076/call.16.1.47.15526 Gardner, H. (1992). Multiple intelligences (Vol. 5, p. 56). Minnesota Center for Arts Education. Gass, S. M., & Torres, M. J. A. (2005). Attention when?: An investigation of the ordering effect of input and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050011 Gaytan, J., & McEwen, B. C. (2007). Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 117-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640701341653 Genesee, F., Upshur, J. A., & John, A. (1996). Classroom-based evaluation in second language education. Cambridge University Press. Hamp-Lyons, L., & Con, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio principles for practice, theory and research. Hampton Press. Han, G. (2003). Students’ Independent Learning and Classroom Interactive Teaching. Exploration in Education, (01). Han, X., Ge, W., Zhou, Q., & Cheng, J. (2014). Comparative Study of MOOC platform and typical Online teaching platform. China Audio-Visual Education, 1, 61-68. Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 4(3), 365-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594970040304 Hattie, J., & Jaeger, R. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning: A deductive approach. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050107 Hazari, S. (2004). Teaching Tip: Strategy for Assessment of Online Course Discussions. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4), 349-355. Holec, H. (1979). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Hu, Z. (2008). The Science of Educational Evaluation. Beijing: Renmin University of China Press. Huang, P. (2008). Comparative Study and Application of Chinese and Foreign TESOL Periodicals in English Abstract. Chengdu: Sichuan People’s Publishing House. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.17 https://doi.org/10.1076/call.16.1.47.15526 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050011 https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640701341653 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594970040304 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050107 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 43 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations—and negotiated interaction—in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 79-98. Jin, D., & Wang, G. (2007). Educational Evaluation and Testing. Beijing: Educational Science and Technology Press. Knight, P., & Yorke, M. (2003). Assessment, learning and employability. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Koohang, A., Riley, L., Smith, T., & Schreurs, J. (2009). E-Learning and Constructivism: From Theory to Application. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5(1), 91-109. Informing Science Institute. https://doi.org/10.28945/3321 Lambert, D., & Lines, D. (2013). Understanding assessment: Purposes, perceptions, practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203133231 Leung, C., & Mohan, B. (2004). Teacher formative assessment and talk in classroom contexts: Assessment as discourse and assessment of discourse. Language Testing, 21(3), 335-359. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532204lt287oa Li, B. (2001). Discussion and Research of interactive Activity Theory based on Network Environment. Shanghai Education, (18). Li, C. (2005). Experimental study on the Evaluation Model of College English Online Teaching. Foreign Language and Foreign Language Teaching, (7), 33-36. Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second-language acquisition. Annals of the New York academy of sciences. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42014.x Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in second language acquisition, 5(2), 177-193. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004848 Long, M. H. (1984). Process and product in ESL program evaluation. Tesol quarterly, 18(3), 409-425. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586712 Lukman, R., & Krajnc, M. (2012). Exploring non-traditional learning methods in virtual and real-world environments. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 237-247. Lutz, S., & Huitt, W. (2004). Connecting cognitive development and constructivism: Implications from theory for instruction and assessment. Constructivism in the Human Sciences, 9(1), 67-90. Lynch, B. K., & Lynch, B. K. (1996). Language program evaluation: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524629 McFarlane, A. (2001). Perspectives on the relationships between ICT and assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(3), 227-234. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00177.x McGraw, B. (1984). Assessment in the Upper Secondary School in Western Australia: Report on the Ministerial Working Party on School Certification and Tertiary Admissions Procedures (McGaw report). Oscarson, M. (1995). A national evaluation programme in the Swedish compulsory school: Assessment https://doi.org/10.28945/3321 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203133231 https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532204lt287oa https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42014.x https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004848 https://doi.org/10.2307/3586712 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524629 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00177.x www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 44 Published by SCHOLINK INC. of achievement in foreign languages. System, 23(3), 295-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)98860-V Pasfield-Neofitou, S. E. (2012). Online communication in a second language: Social interaction, language use, and learning Japanese (Vol. 66). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847698261 Peng, J. (2004). Dynamic assessment of college English Classroom teaching. Foreign Languages, (3), 26-31. Peng, Y. (2001). Interactive Classroom Teaching from language Input and Output theory. Journal of Hunan Institute of Environmental Biology, (07). Perkins, D. N. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? Educational technology, 31(5), 18-23. Reid, I. C. (2001). Reflections on using the Internet for the evaluation of course delivery. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(1), 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00048-3 Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytical hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York. Saaty, T. L. (1995). Decision making for leaders: The analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh. Sachs, R., & Suh, B. R. (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies, 197-227. Saunders, W., & Goldenberg, C. (1996). Four primary teachers work to define constructivism and teacher-directed learning: Implications for teacher assessment. The Elementary School Journal, 97(2), 139-161. https://doi.org/10.1086/461859 Shen, Q., Lo, K. K., & Wang, Q. (1998). Priority setting in maintenance: A modified multi-attribute approach using analytical hierarchy process. Construction Management and Economics, 16, 694-702. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461998371980 Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 365-398. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310426301X Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-765. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170208301010 Tan, Z. (2008). Analysis of English writing scoring behavior using Rasch Model. Foreign Language Teaching Theory and Practice, (1), 26-31. Tong, M., & Shi, T. (2009). Construction and Thinking of network Multimedia Foreign Language Teaching Evaluation System: A Discussion from the perspective of Connectionism. Audio-visual Foreign Language Teaching, (5), 65-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)98860-V https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847698261 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00048-3 https://doi.org/10.1086/461859 https://doi.org/10.1080/014461998371980 https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310426301X https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170208301010 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 45 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (2001). Developing formative assessment in the classroom: Using action research to explore and modify theory. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 615-631. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920120095780 Tu, Y. (2007). Educational Evaluation. Beijing: Higher Education Press. Vonderwell, S. K., & Boboc, M. (2013). Promoting formative assessment in online teaching and learning. TechTrends, 57(4), 22-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0673-x Wan, P. (2005). Research report on the Test of College English Writing by electronic Software Evaluation system. Foreign Language Audio-visual Teaching, (3), 11-13. Wang, J. (Ed.). (2002). Theory and Practice of Educational Evaluation. Changchun: Northeast Normal University Press. Wang, L., & Xu, S. (1990). An introduction to analytic hierarchy Process. Beijing: Renmin University of China Press. Wang, X. (2017). A Chinese EFL Teacher’s Classroom Assessment Practices. Language Assessment Quarterly, 14(4), 312-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2017.1393819 Wang, Y. (2006). Evaluation system of College English Teaching in multimedia Network environment. Foreign Languages, 2006(1), 98-101, 109. Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.). (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge university press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524735 Wei, S., Cheng, G., Wang, L., & Cui, N. (2016). Research on evaluation Index System construction of data-driven online Course Implementation Process. Open Learning Research, (2), 42-48. Weir, C. J., & Weir, C. J. (1993). Understanding and developing language tests. New York: Prentice Hall. Wood, R. (1992). Assessment and testing: A survey of research. Xie, F. (2009). Investigation report on the Role of college English Network Autonomous Learning Center. English Teaching and Research in Normal Colleges, (4), 4-6. Xinhuan, Y. (2012). A Research on the Mode of English Classroom Interaction: Theory and Practice. China Higher Education Research, 4. Yang, S. H. (2009). Using blogs to enhance critical reflection and community of practice. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 11-21. Yin, H. (2010). Investigation and Research on formative assessment in college English teaching under network environment. China English Education (Electronic Journal), 2, 54-63. Yu, S. (2003). Evaluation model of distance Education based on Internet. Open Education Research, (1), 33-37. Zeng, Y. (2012). Design Model of computerized Examination. Foreign Language Audio-visual Teaching, (1), 22-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920120095780 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0673-x https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2017.1393819 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524735 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 46 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Zhang, M., & Yin, Y. (2010). English composition Computer Scoring Technology Review. Foreign Language Audio-visual Teaching, (6), 44-47. Zheng, P., Shi, G., & Pan, M. (2010). Application of Information Technology in Language Testing: A Review of 2009 National English Majors CET 4 and CET 8 and Computer Information Technology Application Symposium. Foreign Language Audio-visual Teaching, (1), 76-78. Zhou, P., & Qin, X. (2005). Application of formative assessment in college English online teaching. Foreign Language Audio-visual Teaching, (5), 9-13. Zhou, Y., Sun, X., & Zhang, R. (2009). Research on paperless Examination of writing Course. Foreign Languages, (3), 59-65.