Perceptions are determinant for the effective use of instructional interventions. Perceptions refer to one’s understanding about reality (Thompson, 1992: 128). Perceptions and the interpretations made by the educators and the students are among the major barriers to the use of formative assessment on
170
lessons (Yorke, 2003; Deneen & Boud, 2014). For instance, educators’ perceptions on the principles and practices of formative assessment influence the implementation (Careless, 2007a: 180). The students’ increased perceptions of responsibility for regulating their own learning can also determine the effective use of formative assessment (Zimmerman, 2002: 69).
The educator is a key actor in the use of quality formative assessment. Positive perceptions contribute in prioritizing formative, and improvement oriented assessment on lessons (Gebril & Brown, 2013: 19). Black and Wiliam (1998a) argue on the insignificant use of formative assessment to result from the lack of sufficient understanding by educators. In a study report by Pryor and Crossouard (2005: 1), the educators’ perceptions on formative assessment focused primarily on improving teaching and learning. In the present study, the educators showed positive perceptions towards the use of formative assessment irrespective of several impeding factors against the implementation. Nevertheless, because of course modularisation and the shortage of course coverage time, the use of quality formative assessment on lessons was found to be ineffective. As noted by Careless (2007a: 173), many educators regard formative assessment as impractical because of several impeding factors. In addition, the result from the present study indicated large class size, teaching multiple courses and the lack of skills and preparation of educators as challenges to the use of quality formative assessment.
Furthermore, as noted by Yorke (2003: 486), the insufficient theorisation and the lack of understanding about formative assessment influence its effective implementation. The well-practised summative assessment was also perceived as a potentially impeding factor to the use of quality formative assessment. Because of the dominance of direct instruction and summative assessment, the use of formative assessment is often discouraged in various international contexts (Careless, 2007b: 56). According to Pryor and Crossouard (2005: 13), many educators at universities are reluctant to use and develop formative assessment, and took summative assessment for granted. Concerning this point, Careless notes (2007b: 58) the following:
…educators who favour a formal and planned approach to assessment believe that they do not have the time to conduct formative assessment, while those with a more constructivist orientation consider formative assessment as an essential part of good teaching.
171
Correspondingly, the students’ perceptions on learning and assessment determine the quality of learning. Struyven, Dochy and Jenssens (2005) reviewed research evidence indicating a strong relationship between students’ perceptions about assessment and the learning approach they follow. Positive perceptions relate to reflecting and taking greater ownership of learning (Hodgson & Pang, 2012: 14). In the present study, the students perceived formative assessment as an activity that makes learning and assessment more interactive. Significant number of the students also reported that formative assessment has a favourable influence on motivation, active participation and learning. For example, they said feedback encourages more learning to occur. They also witnessed that self- assessment is facilitative for independent learning. In addition, peer assessment was perceived to be an appropriate assessment activity to induce motivations and competition among the students.
Furthermore, according to the reports on the perceptions of the students in this study, formative assessment contributes to the actualisation of deep learning with examples. The occurrence of deep learning encourages the students again to put greater effort in the learning process to satisfy their curiosity with regard to knowing and understanding more. It was also learned that formative assessment encouraged the students to be inquisitive and to look for ways to learn more on their course. However, the students perceived that the shortage of time for content coverage was a serious threat to the effective use of quality formative assessment and the promotion of deep learning. Moreover, the students suggested that a reasonable workload was one pre-condition for the effective use of quality formative assessment. This is similar to the findings by (Struyven, et al, 2005).
4.5 SUMMARY
This chapter dealt with the study results and discussions. Both the results and the discussions were presented with reference to the formulated research questions and hypotheses. Hence, the results and discussions showed:
The inconsistent use of quality formative assessment by university educators on the lessons of the course;
A statistically significant achievement gain and variation between the students who were taught by the use of quality formative assessment and those taught without the use of formative assessment on their lessons;
172
A statistically significant variation on the perceptions of self-regulating learning between the students who were taught by the use of quality formative assessment on lessons and those taught without the use of quality formative assessment on their lessons;
The educators’ show positive perceptions on the instructional advantages of formative assessment, and yet reluctance to apply it because of the lack of understanding, lack of skills, training and preparation, heavy workloads, class size and the students’ passivity and lack of encouragement.
173