The present research study was conducted in ELT classrooms, and it is therefore important to consider what research studies have suggested about formative assessment in the context of second language classrooms. Formative assessment studies that investigated classroom-based assessment practices and the formative function of assessment, including self-assessment, have been reviewed as they provide insights that have direct relevance to the current study. This section reports studies that have focused on investigating different aspects of formative assessment in primary ELT contexts.
Several researchers have shown that formative assessment is essential in ESL/EFL teaching and learning (Butler and Lee, 2010; Gattullo, 2000; Hill and McNamara, 2012). Hill and McNamara (2012) researched the process of Classroom-Based Assessment (CBA), which they define as “any reflection by teachers and/or learners on the qualities of a learner’s work and the use of that information by teachers and/or learners for teaching, learning, reporting, management or socialisation purposes” (p.396). This understanding incorporates both the summative and formative functions of assessment. It seems to indicate that, in order to move learning forward (emphasising the formative function) an assessment opportunity must first reflect on what learners can already do. Assessment opportunities, as understood by Hill and McNamara (2012) are “any actions, interactions or artefacts (planned or unplanned, deliberate or unconscious, explicit or embedded) which have the potential to provide information on the qualities of a learner’s performance” (p. 398). They propose a framework for investigating CBA that is sensitive to how teachers plan, enact and follow up on assessment. The framework highlights four important areas in CBA, which are; (i) what teachers do, (ii) what information they collect to inform assessment, (iii) teachers’ and learners’ theories and (iv) beliefs about learning and assessment. This is significant to this study as they imply that when investigating
assessment, it is important to research teachers’ actions together with their understanding of their actions.
Implementing CBA, as defined above, seems to require a degree of competence in evaluating learning. However, primary language teachers are rarely experts in language assessment (Hasslegreen, 2005). It has been suggested that another way in which diagnostic efforts in primary EFL classrooms can be aided is through purpose-designed assessment materials. A case in point is a Norwegian project called EVAluation of English in Schools (EVA), within which assessment materials were developed to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of primary students’ performance in schools (Hasselgreen, 2000). The materials had a formative function in that they informed classroom practices. The results indicated that the children were highly engaged in the activities. This assessment tool also included a self-assessment component. The primary students were required to indicate whether they could complete the tasks independently on a 4-point scale and were also asked to rate the materials. The teachers were provided with scoring sheets to record the children’s progress, areas needing development and the results of their self-assessments. This project provided evidence that assessment materials used in primary ESL/EFL classrooms should be well contextualised and engaging for primary students. It also seems to indicate that a continuous approach offers an opportunity for gaining reliable insights into the foreign language achievement of children.
Another insight into how aspects of formative assessment can be implemented, in contexts where teacher-centred teaching and measurement-driven assessment have been traditionally valued,is provided by Butler and Lee (2006), who examined the validity of on-task and off-task self-assessment in a primary EFL classroom context (9-12-year-old) in South Korea. The results of the summative tests and teacher assessment were compared with the results of the students’ self-assessment. Butler and Lee (2006) concluded that on-task self-assessments, where self-evaluation takes place immediately after a learner has completed a task, are more accurate than off-task self-assessments that are unrelated to a specific task and are less influenced by contextual and individual factors. It was found that older learners (11-12 years old) were able to self-assess more accurately than their younger counterparts (9-10) and that all the children could develop accuracy in their self-assessments over time. This study is significant because Butler and Lee (2006)
Most importantly, it emphasised the importance of integrating self-assessment with teaching and learning.
Subsequently, Butler and Lee (2010) reported an intervention study involving 254 learners aged 11-12, conducted in two public primary schools in South Korea. The aims were to investigate whether learners develop accuracy in self-assessment over time and the effectiveness of self-assessment in supporting learning. Butler and Lee (ibid.) found that the implementation of self-assessment in both schools differed. In one school, the focus was on the role of self-assessment in increasing positive feelings, while in the other it was on increasing achievement. They concluded that the differences in how formative assessment was perceived and implemented were influenced by teacher beliefs. This study provided useful evidence that the primary students were able to improve the accuracy of their self-assessments over a relatively short period of time but only in the intervention group. The learners in the control group demonstrated declining accuracy in self-assessment. Butler and Lee (ibid) suggest that this may have been due to the fact that the children started learning with a positive self-concept but that this declined as they accumulated learning experiences. The study also revealed that teachers found it challenging to provide feedback to the children because they were concerned that it might increase the already high levels of competitiveness between students. This suggests that there is a link between self-assessment in primary ESL/EFL classroom classrooms and the research on affect, as affect may impact on the accuracy of self-assessments. The study also suggests that children can be trained in how to self-assess.
In another study describing the use of formative assessment in a primary ELT context, Gattullo (2000) conducted a case study in which he observed four teachers’ performance in applying formative assessment in their classes and reported the methods used. His study was a kind of survey in which the focus was just on techniques used in children’s classes. She reported nine categories of assessment features that were used in the primary ELT classrooms: questioning/eliciting, correcting, judging, rewarding, observing the process, examining the product, clarifying task criteria and metacognitive questioning. Her findings suggest that the teachers were willing to try implementing formative assessment and were enthusiastic about doing so. These findings indicate that it is possible to implement formative assessment techniques in a primary ELT classroom context, regardless of the learners’ low levels of language proficiency and their young age. However, it
should also be noted that the teachers in Gattullo’s (ibid) study tended to use techniques such as questioning and correcting significantly more frequently than techniques that Gattullo (ibid) considered more beneficial for learning, such as observing process or metacognitive questioning. She observed that the techniques favoured by the teachers were more naturally compatible with the teaching methodology used, suggesting that it may be important for CBA practices to be compatible with the teaching methodology.