A PROBE INTO COMPREHENSION AND USE OF ASSESSMENT BY SECONDARY EFL TEACHERS IN CHINA
Abstract
Abstract: The purpose of this study is to explore Chinese secondary EFL teachers’ comprehension and use of assessment, including formative assessment (FA) and summative assessment (SA). Assessment has a great impact on students’ learning. The role of FA for improving learning has been well documented (Black & Wiliam, 1998, Hattie & Timperley, 2007, Shute, 2008; Wiliam et al., 2004) and teachers’ summative assessment practices also have the potential to positively influence students and teachers (Biggs, 1998; McMillan, 2003). Thanks to its value for learning and teaching, assessment has been emphasized in many national educational documents in China such as National English Curriculum Standards (MoE, 2001 & 2011). Yet little researches have been done so far to investigate how secondary EFL teachers in China understand and implement FA and SA. This study, via a qualitative and quantitative analysis of questionnaire questions, reveals some specific patterns in teachers’ understanding and application of assessment: their consistency and inconsistency with the discourse of mainstream assessment literature. The findings are expected to provide implication for development of professional teacher preparation program and teachers’ self-reflection.
Keywords: formative assessment, summative assessment, secondary EFL teachers
References
Andrade, H. (2010). Students as the definitive source of formative assessment: Academic self-assessment and the self-regulation of learning. In H. L. Andrade, & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment. New York: Routledge.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biggs, J. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning: A role for summative assessment? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 103-110.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1): 7-74.
Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (2003). ‘In praise of educational research’: Formative assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 29(5), 623-637.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Developing a theory of formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1): 5-31.
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (Eds.) (1971). Handbook on the formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bonner, A. M. (2013). Validity in classroom assessment: Purposes, Properties, and Principles. In McMillan, J.H. (Ed.), Sage Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Brown & Harris (2013). Student self-assessment. In McMillan, J.H. (Ed.), Sage Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-heritage settings. New York: Routledge.
CERI (2005). Formative Assessment: Improving Learning in Secondary Classroom. Paris: OECD.
Chetcuti, D., Murphy P. & Crima, G. (2006). The Formative and Summative uses of Professional Development Portfolio: a Maltese case study. Assessment in Education, 13(1): 97-112.
Dysthe, O. & Englesen, K. S. (2004). Portfolios and assessment in teacher education in Norway: a theory-based discussion of different models in two sites. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 5(1): 131-137.
Gipps, C. (1990). Assessment: A teacher’s guide to issues. London: Hodder & Stroughton.
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.
Irons, A. (2008). Enhancing learning through formative assessment and feedback. London: Routledge.
Kahl, S. (2005). Where in the world are formative tests? Right Under Your Nose! Education Week, 25(4), 11.
Kenowski, V. (2002). Developing portfolios for learning and assessment. London: Routledge Falmer.
Lin, D.L. & Gao, M. (2011). Teacher assessment literacy: theory and practice. Foreign Language Teaching in Theory and Practice, (4),29-37.
McManus, S. (2008). Attributes of effective formative assessment. Washington, D C: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved October 6, 2013, from http://www.ccsso.org/publications/ details.cfm?Publication ID=362]
McMillan, J. H. (2003). The relationship between instructional and classroom assessment practices of elementary teachers and students scores on high-stakes tests (Report). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED472164).
Moss, C.M. (2013). Research on Classroom Assessment. In McMillan, J.H. (Ed), Sage Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioural Science, 28(1), 4-13.
Rea-Dickins, P. (2001). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Identifying processes of classroom assessment. Language Testing, 18(4), 429-462.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144.
Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5 (1), 77-84.
Scriven, M. S. (1967).The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, 1, (pp. 39-83). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Schneider, M.C., Egan, K.L. & Julian, M. W. (2013). Classroom Assessment In The Context of High-Stakes Testing. In McMillan, J.H. (Ed.), Sage Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Shepard, L. A. (2013) Foreword. In McMillan, J.H. (Ed), Sage Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
All articles published in English Review: Journal of English Education (ERJEE) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
Copyright Ownership
Authors retain the copyright of their articles and grant ERJEE the right of first publication. The journal is granted a non-exclusive license to publish, reproduce, and distribute the article in any format, medium, or platform, provided that proper credit is given to the original authors.
License Terms – CC BY 4.0
Under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, others are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially
As long as they:
- Provide appropriate credit to the original author(s) and source
- Provide a link to the license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
- Indicate if any changes were made
There are no restrictions on the reuse, reproduction, or adaptation of published articles as long as attribution is properly given.
Author Warranties
By submitting a manuscript to ERJEE, authors confirm that:
- The work is original and does not infringe any existing copyright.
- The manuscript has not been previously published and is not under consideration elsewhere.
- All sources and references are appropriately acknowledged.
- Necessary permissions have been obtained for any copyrighted materials used.
