HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL --- PHAN THI MY PHUONG THE EFFECT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT CHECKLISTS ON IELTS WRITING TASK 2 AMONG HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS BAND 4.5-5.5 AT ENGL
INTRODUCTION
Background of the study
The IELTS (International English Language Testing System) is a globally recognized assessment for English language proficiency, attracting over three million candidates annually from over 140 countries Established in the 1980s by experts in language assessment, the IELTS evaluates essential English skills for academic, professional, and migration needs.
The IELTS Writing section is essential, lasting 60 minutes and comprising two tasks Task 1 requires a 150-word description of visual information, such as graphs or diagrams, to be completed in about 20 minutes Task 2 is more challenging, requiring a minimum 250-word essay on a given topic within 40 minutes, and it plays a significant role in determining the overall score This essay assesses the ability to formulate a coherent argument and is weighted more heavily in scoring According to the official IELTS guidelines, scores are evaluated based on task competence for Task 1 and task responsiveness for Task 2, alongside coherence, cohesion, lexical resource, and grammatical accuracy, following established criteria.
Mastering the Writing section is crucial as it evaluates a candidate's ability to articulate complex ideas clearly and coherently, showcasing their linguistic comprehension alongside critical thinking and analytical skills Candidates are required to exhibit a diverse set of writing abilities, including idea formation, extensive vocabulary, correct syntax, and the construction of logically flowing sentences with varied structures.
Self-assessment is crucial for effective test preparation, as it encourages students to evaluate their writing skills and recognize their strengths and weaknesses This reflective process enhances self-awareness and autonomy, boosts motivation, and helps students establish and accomplish personalized learning objectives.
2006) Useful self-assessment tools include the use of detailed rubrics, checklists, and peer feedback, which help test takers align their writing with IELTS standards (Weigle, 2002;
Research indicates that self-assessment significantly enhances writing and language skills, which are essential for success in standardized tests like the IELTS Studies by Andrade & Valtcheva (2009), Panadero & Alonso-Tapia (2014), and Ware (2005) support this finding, highlighting the positive impact of self-evaluation on academic performance.
Incorporating self-assessment into IELTS preparation can greatly enhance candidates' performance in the Writing section, leading to improved band scores and essential skills for academic and professional growth This study explores the impact of self-assessment checklists on the Writing Task 2 performance of high school students (Band 4.5-5.5) at English Time Center in Thu Duc City, emphasizing the potential for significant improvements in writing skills through systematic self-evaluation.
Statement of the problem
High school students from the English Center in Thu Duc City, aiming for a band score of 4.5-5.5, are struggling with IELTS writing, especially Task 2
Task 2 poses additional challenges due to time demands and cognitive pressures, which prevent students from coming up with clear logical answers Vietnamese students sometimes struggle to use connected devices and proper language, resulting in lower performance and performance scores in the IELTS writing section (Pearson, 2018; Slater, 2002; Panahi & Mohammed News, 2010; Nguyen & Nguyen (2022) Issues include time constraints, syntactic difficulties, lack of prior knowledge, poor connections between concepts, and confusing sentence structure as a result, Vietnamese students have an average IELTS writing score of 5.7 Additional instruction is often required to meet academic graduation standards (IELTS, n.d.; Tran, 2016)
In light of ongoing challenges, it is crucial to evaluate the effectiveness of self-assessment strategies, particularly checklists, in enhancing secondary school students' IELTS writing skills This action research aims to tackle the educational issues identified through the application and analysis of self-assessment methods.
3 makes it easier for students to develop a deeper understanding of their writing skills and make important improvements, ultimately increasing both IELTS writing scores and academic achievement.
Aims of the study
This project aims to investigate the impact of self-assessment checklists on high school students' proficiency in IELTS Writing Task 2, specifically targeting students at English Time Center in Thu Duc City who are aiming for a band score of 4.5-5.5 The study seeks to evaluate how these checklists influence their performance in this section of the IELTS exam, ultimately providing valuable insights into the effectiveness of self-assessment tools in enhancing writing skills within this educational setting.
Research questions
This study aims to investigate the impact of self-assessment checklists on high school students at English Time Center who are preparing for IELTS Writing Task 2 The research questions focus on how these checklists influence students' writing skills and overall performance in the exam.
The implementation of self-assessment checklists significantly enhances the performance of high school students in IELTS Writing Task 2 at English Time Center in Thu Duc City This approach is particularly beneficial for students targeting a band score of 4.5-5.5, as it encourages self-reflection and critical evaluation of their writing skills By utilizing these checklists, students can identify their strengths and weaknesses, leading to targeted improvements and a better understanding of the assessment criteria Overall, self-assessment checklists serve as an effective tool for boosting student performance in IELTS writing tasks.
High school students at the English Time Center in Thu Duc City exhibit positive attitudes toward the effectiveness of self-assessment checklists in enhancing their writing proficiency for IELTS Writing Task 2 They believe that these checklists provide valuable guidance and help them identify areas for improvement in their writing skills Overall, students find self-assessment checklists to be a beneficial tool for achieving better results in their IELTS preparation.
Significance of the study
This work is crucial as it meets essential educational needs and improves language learning strategies, especially in preparing high school students for the IELTS Writing Task 2 Highlighting the IELTS exam emphasizes the necessity of integrating systematic self-evaluation techniques in language learning environments to boost student independence and proficiency.
Overview of the study
This research project is structured into five chapters, each dedicated to evaluating the impact of self-assessment checklists on enhancing performance in IELTS Writing Task 2 The focus is on high school students with band scores ranging from 4.5 to 5.5 at the English Time Center.
Chapter 1 lays the groundwork for the study, providing essential background, research questions, scope, and significance It emphasizes the importance of investigating the impact of self-assessment on IELTS Writing Task 2 proficiency among high school students in Thu Duc City
Chapter 2 reviews literature on self-assessment in language learning, specifically its effect on IELTS Writing Task 2 The chapter examines the structure, challenges, and evaluation criteria of IELTS Writing Task 2, along with the benefits and limitations of self- assessment checklists It also reviews previous studies, identifies gaps and trends, and proposes further research on using self-assessment in IELTS preparation to improve writing skills
Chapter 3 describes the research design, methodology, and data collection methods It explains the participant selection process and tools used, including self-assessment checklists and pre/post-tests, and outlines the analytical procedures for assessing the impact of self- assessment on writing proficiency
Chapter 4 presents the study’s findings, analyzing data in relation to the research objectives The discussion integrates theoretical insights and offers practical implications and recommendations to enhance self-assessment practices in IELTS preparation
Chapter 5 concludes by summarizing the key findings, implications, limitations, and recommendations of the study It addresses the research questions, outlines the limitations that may have affected the results, and suggests directions for future research to further develop self-assessment methods aimed at improving performance in IELTS Writing Task 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Self-Assessment
Self-assessment is a crucial element of formative assessment in language education, allowing students to monitor their progress continuously (Harlen & Deakin Crick, 2003) It serves as both a guide and evaluator, providing essential feedback that enhances the learning experience (Wang & Wang, 2007) The term 'assessment' originates from the Latin word 'ad sedere,' meaning "to sit down beside," which underscores the supportive role of assessment in helping learners In an academic setting, evaluators metaphorically "sit beside" students, offering them valuable guidance and support through feedback.
Self-assessment is crucial in language education, as it helps students grasp task objectives and evaluation criteria while enhancing their learning experience by clarifying grading practices (Orsmond et al., 1997; Taras, 2001) Nunan (1999) describes assessment as a dynamic process of gathering and interpreting information about student learning By engaging in self-assessment, students develop awareness of their strengths and weaknesses, a cognitive skill deemed vital to the process by Boud and Falchikov (1989).
Self-assessment is crucial for enhancing self-awareness, metacognition, and self-regulation, going beyond mere performance measurement In formal education, it is based on clear standards and criteria, while informal settings utilize community norms to help students develop expert-level self-evaluation skills Nonetheless, distance learning introduces specific challenges, particularly the sense of isolation that learners often face.
& Ross, 2000; Richards, 2009) To fully leverage self-assessment in educational design, it is essential to understand these perspectives and encourage active student engagement in the assessment process
Several methods help ensure self-assessment accurately reflects student performance and progress Harris and Brown (2013) identified three key approaches The first is self-
Regulated learning empowers students to take control of their education by establishing goals, tracking their progress, and making adjustments as needed (Andrade, 2010; Hattie & Timperley, 2007) Additionally, self-assessment through scoring, grading, or ranking fosters critical reflection on individual performance, enhancing the learning experience.
A widely used approach in education involves the use of rubrics, scripts, and checklists to enhance student learning Rubrics provide structured criteria for task assessment, helping students identify their strengths and areas for improvement (Panadero, Alonso-Tapia, & Huertas, 2012; Andrade, 2000) Scripts offer step-by-step instructions to keep students focused on their tasks (Alonso-Tapia & Panadero, 2010), while checklists outline essential steps for systematic progress monitoring (Burke, 2010) These tools promote self-reflection, facilitate task evaluation, and support continuous improvement (Andrade & Valtcheva, 2009; Vasu et al., 2020; Veenman, 2015), ultimately empowering students to take charge of their learning and enhance their self-assessment skills.
Checklists play a crucial role in education and assessment by helping students evaluate their work against set criteria According to Burdett and Hastie (2009), these tools not only assist in planning but also enhance assessment by offering a structured approach to the learning process, ensuring that students complete the necessary tasks outlined in the checklist.
Harris and Brown (2013) emphasize the importance of accurate self-assessment in reflecting students' performance and progress, recommending tools such as rubrics, scripts, and checklists for effective evaluation (Panadero, Alonso-Tapia, & Huertas, 2012) These resources establish clear standards, enabling students to comprehend quality levels across various tasks (Andrade, 2000) and providing valuable feedback for their improvement (Andrade, 2008).
Checklists serve as effective tools for students by providing structured, step-by-step criteria to evaluate and monitor their task processing (Burke, 2010) By breaking down complex tasks into manageable segments, checklists facilitate systematic tracking of progress and completion.
Different types of checklists serve unique educational purposes Procedural checklists guide students through specific steps to complete tasks For example, a writing checklist may
The writing process consists of several key stages, including brainstorming, drafting, revising, and proofreading (Burke, 2010) To enhance writing skills, diagnostic checklists are utilized to pinpoint strengths and weaknesses in areas like grammar, coherence, and vocabulary (Panadero, Alonso-Tapia, & Huertas, 2012) Additionally, evaluative checklists are employed to measure the quality of finished work, focusing on criteria such as the clarity of the thesis, the structure of arguments, and the effectiveness of conclusions (Andrade, 2008).
Checklists serve as powerful self-assessment tools that provide a structured method for evaluating tasks By utilizing checklists, students can effectively meet requirements, gain a better understanding of their work, and track their progress, ultimately enhancing their learning efficiency and organizational skills.
2.1.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Self-Assessment Checklists
Checklists play a crucial role in education by enhancing clarity and focus through clearly defined criteria, which aids students in concentrating on the essential aspects of tasks, thereby improving their understanding and performance (Andrade & Valtcheva, 2009) Additionally, they foster confidence by breaking down tasks into manageable steps, which in turn promotes motivation and persistence (Veenman).
Checklists provide a consistent framework for self-evaluation, helping students gain a deeper understanding of standards through repeated use They offer immediate feedback, allowing students to quickly identify areas for improvement and make real-time adjustments Additionally, checklists promote reflective practice, which fosters critical thinking and self-regulation—essential skills for lifelong learning.
Checklists can present challenges in educational settings, as an over-reliance on them may lead students to prioritize task completion over meaningful engagement with the material (Panadero & Jonsson, 2013) They often provide a superficial evaluation of complex tasks (Boud, 1995), and without proper guidance, students might apply them mechanically, which diminishes critical thinking (Andrade & Valtcheva, 2009) Additionally, the subjectivity in interpreting checklist criteria can result in inconsistent self-assessment (Panadero & Jonsson, 2013) Creating effective checklists can be time-consuming for educators, and overly lengthy checklists may overwhelm students (Panadero, Alonso-Tapia, & Huertas, 2012) Ultimately, while checklists can offer valuable structure and support for self-assessment, their success hinges on thoughtful design and appropriate usage.
2.1.5 Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) Theory in Using Self-Assessment Checklists
Utilizing Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) theory as a framework for implementing checklists in self-assessment for IELTS Writing Task 2 is highly beneficial SRL theory posits that learners actively participate in their learning by setting goals, monitoring progress, and adjusting strategies (Zimmerman, 2000) This approach is particularly relevant for IELTS Writing Task 2, as it empowers students to define specific writing objectives, such as coherence and vocabulary, and evaluate their work against these benchmarks using checklists Checklists serve as metacognitive tools that facilitate objective performance assessment, helping students identify areas needing improvement, including grammar and logical structure (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) Additionally, SRL theory emphasizes the necessity for students to adapt their strategies based on feedback from self-assessment checklists, which boosts motivation and persistence in enhancing writing skills (Locke & Latham, 1990) This theoretical framework effectively supports the exploration of how checklists can strengthen students' self-regulatory capabilities and overall readiness for the demands of IELTS Writing Task 2 in educational contexts.
Overview of IELTS Writing Task 2
The IELTS Writing Task 2 challenges candidates to compose a 250-word essay within 40 minutes, focusing on a specific question or prompt This section assesses the ability to express a clear opinion, support arguments with relevant examples, and present ideas logically and coherently.
An effective IELTS Writing Task 2 essay typically comprises four to five paragraphs: an introduction, two or three body paragraphs, and a conclusion The introduction sets the stage by providing background information, articulating a general opinion or position, and outlining the essay's structure Each body paragraph begins with a clear topic sentence and includes supporting points, examples, and evaluations to reinforce the argument Finally, the conclusion summarizes the key points and restates the main opinion.
9 explaining why this point is important The conclusion summarizes the most critical arguments in the paper and restates the writer's main argument (IELTS, n.d.)
2.2.2 Challenges Faced by Test Takers
Before delving into the four criteria of IELTS Writing Task 2, it is essential to address general challenges that candidates face According to Cullen (2017), many candidates encounter difficulties such as time pressure, unfamiliar topics, and fatigue, which can lead to increased anxiety (Pearson, 2018) Additionally, Slater (2002) notes that candidates, particularly those from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, often have trouble understanding task prompts Under the stress of time constraints, they may abandon their initial plans, making it difficult to develop coherent arguments.
Müeller (2015) observed that candidates with lower proficiency levels frequently make more errors, especially in Lexical Resource (LR) and Grammar In a similar vein, Alavi et al (2020) identified that Task Achievement (TA) exhibits the highest rate of mistakes, which are often attributed to misunderstandings or overly broad topics, leading to essays that are either off-topic or lack clarity (Cullen).
Bagheri and Riasati (2016) found that candidates often struggle with focus and uneven treatment of topics, negatively impacting their scores Liu and Deng (2019) highlighted that even with a strong vocabulary, candidates frequently lack the necessary background knowledge, which restricts their idea generation Additionally, Panahi and Mohammaditabar (2015) reported that Iranian students encounter difficulties with coherence and cohesion, complicating their ability to organize thoughts effectively—a concern also raised by Farid and Saifuddin (2018).
Common issues in language revision include incorrect collocations, spelling mistakes, and limited paraphrasing, often due to a restricted vocabulary Additionally, the misuse of cohesive devices and poor reference handling are frequently observed Overly complex grammatical structures can complicate writing and exhaust readers, resulting in grammar and punctuation errors.
Various opinions highlight the key challenges faced by Vietnamese learners in IELTS Writing Task 2, which collectively impact their band scores To gain deeper insights into these specific struggles, further research is essential Many candidates often find themselves facing difficulties in this section of the exam.
10 with task comprehension, idea generation, focus, vocabulary, and grammar, all of which affect their overall performance
2.2.3 Scoring Criteria and Band Descriptors
Understanding the IELTS Writing Task 2 scoring criteria is crucial for both candidates and teachers, as it highlights the key areas of assessment The evaluation is based on four essential criteria, each representing a significant component of effective writing.
Task Response evaluates how well candidates address all parts of the prompt Responses must present "a clear and logical progression" of ideas (British Council, 2023, p
High-scoring essays thoroughly analyze the task at hand, whereas lower-scoring essays often lack completeness or stray off-topic Maintaining proper coherence is essential, as the misuse of cohesive devices can diminish both clarity and organization.
Coherence and cohesion evaluate the organization and connection of ideas within a text Effective responses exhibit a logical flow, utilizing linking words like adverbs and pronouns to direct the reader Conversely, weak responses tend to lack consistency, leading to fragmented reasoning and diminished coherence.
Lexical Resource emphasizes the importance of a varied and accurate vocabulary in writing To achieve high scores, candidates must demonstrate a wide range of precise vocabulary relevant to the topic, minimizing errors In contrast, the use of repetitive language and frequent mistakes, as noted in the 2022 IELTS results, can significantly diminish one's score.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy assess the diversity of sentence structures and the correctness of grammar in writing Successful responses incorporate a blend of simple and complex sentences while maintaining minimal errors Insufficient variety and frequent grammatical mistakes can impede clarity and understanding.
The IELTS Band Descriptors, updated in 2023 by the British Council, categorize writing scores from 1 to 9, offering explicit criteria for evaluating writing quality These guidelines assist educators and students in comprehending expectations and identifying key areas for enhancement.
Together, these criteria and band descriptors form the foundation of IELTS Writing Task 2 assessment, guiding teaching practices and setting the standards students must meet to succeed
Writing Performance
Effective writing performance in academic contexts, especially in high-stakes exams like the IELTS Writing Task 2, involves several key components These include language accuracy, which focuses on grammatical precision and lexical richness to ensure clear communication Coherence and cohesion are vital for maintaining a logical flow and connectivity of ideas, enhancing overall readability Additionally, task response evaluates how well writers address prompts, considering the depth and relevance of their content Lastly, critical thinking is crucial for developing well-supported arguments, showcasing analytical skills through evidence-based reasoning.
2.3.1 The role of checklists as a form of self-assessment in enhancing Writing
Self-assessment checklists play a crucial role in enhancing writing performance by promoting self-regulated learning and metacognitive awareness among students Rooted in Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) theory, these checklists help learners establish clear goals, track their progress, and modify strategies to achieve their writing objectives By outlining specific criteria such as coherence, vocabulary usage, and task completion, checklists assist students in recognizing areas for improvement and evaluating their writing against these standards They serve as valuable metacognitive tools, allowing students to assess their writing objectively, identify strengths and weaknesses, and effectively plan revisions.
Empirical research highlights the effectiveness of self-assessment checklists in improving writing skills in various educational contexts Notably, Fahimi and Rahimi (2015) reported substantial advancements in writing proficiency and self-regulated learning through the systematic application of checklists Additionally, Ai and Thuy (2023) observed significant enhancements in writing accuracy, coherence, and overall quality among Vietnamese EFL students who utilized structured self-assessment and focused improvement strategies.
12 underscore the practical benefits of integrating checklists into writing instruction to promote student engagement and autonomy in the learning process
2.3.2 Application in IELTS Writing Task 2 Preparation
Self-assessment checklists are essential for preparing for IELTS Writing Task 2, as they help align student writing with the IELTS band descriptors (Brown, 2018) By combining checklist criteria with specific requirements like coherence, task response, and critical thinking, students can effectively evaluate and improve their writing skills These checklists offer a structured way for students to reflect on their writing process, gain actionable feedback, and make informed revisions, ultimately enhancing their exam readiness This method fosters continuous improvement, enabling students to address assessment criteria effectively and boost their overall writing competence, leading to higher band scores.
Effective writing in academic contexts necessitates strong language skills, coherence, and critical thinking Self-assessment checklists are valuable tools that encourage self-regulated learning, boost metacognitive awareness, and enable focused improvements in writing quality Specifically, in preparing for IELTS Writing Task 2, the strategic use of checklists helps students meet the exam's stringent requirements, align their writing with assessment criteria, and achieve higher proficiency levels By utilizing these checklists for self-evaluation, educators can assist students in cultivating the essential writing skills and competencies vital for academic success and language proficiency.
Attitudes
According to Allport (1935), an attitude is a mental or neural state shaped by experience that influences how individuals respond to various objects and situations In simpler terms, an attitude can be understood as a mindset or predisposition to behave in a certain way based on personal experiences and temperament.
Attitudes are psychological constructs representing an individual's degree of like or dislike for an item, behavior, or idea These evaluations predispose individuals to respond in
13 specific ways to objects, people, or events According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1972), attitudes encompass feelings, beliefs, and behavioral intentions, forming a crucial part of the psychological processes that influence behavior
In educational environments, students' attitudes toward self-assessment significantly impact their perceptions, beliefs, and emotional responses when evaluating their own learning and performance These attitudes are crucial as they influence how effectively students utilize self-assessment tools like checklists, ultimately affecting their learning outcomes and overall educational experiences Research shows that positive attitudes towards self-assessment correlate with higher motivation, deeper engagement in learning tasks, and improved academic achievement.
The three main components of attitudes are affective, behavioral, and cognitive, which help explain how attitudes develop and influence behavior
The affective component encompasses the emotional reactions elicited by an object, person, or situation, which can be either positive or negative These emotions significantly impact an individual's motivation and willingness to engage For instance, a student's excitement or anxiety about learning a new language can greatly influence their motivation to participate in the learning process.
Emotions significantly influence attitudes by establishing core affect and shaping psychological responses, as highlighted by research in 2003 Additionally, Henter (2014) underscores the vital role of emotions such as anxiety and enthusiasm in enhancing learner engagement and success in language acquisition.
The behavioral component of attitudes significantly influences students' engagement in self-assessment, with those valuing this practice more likely to reflect on their work and make necessary adjustments Conversely, students with negative attitudes may either avoid self-assessment or engage with it only superficially Research by Putri, Artini, and Nitiasih (2017) confirms that students' attitudes directly impact their participation in reflective practices, indicating that their involvement in self-assessment often reflects their overall learning experience and the broader educational context.
The cognitive component of self-assessment encompasses beliefs, thoughts, and perceptions regarding its goals, benefits, and effectiveness Students who recognize the importance of self-assessment for academic growth are likely to engage more deeply in the process Rokeach (1968) emphasizes that beliefs shape attitudes and influence individuals' approaches to activities, while Fishbein and Ajzen (1972) note that cognitive evaluations affect decision-making Additionally, Oskamp and Schultz (2005) highlight that knowledge and beliefs play a crucial role in shaping self-assessment practices.
Students' involvement in self-assessment is influenced by their emotional, behavioral, and cognitive attitudes Emotions fuel motivation, behaviors demonstrate engagement, and cognitive beliefs determine understanding and perceived value Collectively, these components highlight the impact of attitudes on self-assessment and its effect on learning outcomes.
Previous studies about using checklists as a form of self-assessment in IELTS Writing
Self-assessment tools like checklists and reflective journals are increasingly recognized in global language teaching and learning Research highlights their effectiveness in helping students pinpoint their writing strengths and weaknesses, facilitating improvement through structured self-assessment (Bowman, 2017; Ferry, 2020) These tools contribute to better writing organization, clarity, and compliance with language standards, promoting gradual skill enhancement across different proficiency levels (Fahimi & Rahimi, 2015; Xu, 2019; Wang).
2017) Reflective journaling, highlighted in studies by Ahmed (2019) and Lee (2017), enhances students' self-awareness and metacognitive processes, empowering them to pinpoint areas needing improvement like sentence structure and coherence
While the advantages of checklists for self-assessment are recognized, there is a lack of research specifically focused on their application within the Vietnamese educational setting A study by Phan and Phuong (2017) highlighted high school EFL students' positive views on analytic rubrics for speaking self-assessment, yet noted difficulties in understanding and applying them In contrast, Ai and Thuy (2023) found that self-assessment checklists significantly enhance writing skills among Vietnamese tertiary EFL students by facilitating structured evaluations based on defined criteria Additionally, Hanh and Tinh's (2022) research contributes to this growing body of evidence.
Research Gaps
Self-assessment tools like checklists and reflective journaling have gained international recognition in language education, effectively helping students identify their writing strengths and weaknesses for focused enhancement These strategies improve writing organization, clarity, and compliance with language standards, while reflective journaling promotes self-awareness and metacognitive abilities.
Research on the use of self-assessment checklists in Vietnam's educational landscape is limited, particularly regarding their effect on high school students' performance in IELTS Writing Task 2 While studies by Phan and Phuong (2017), Ai and Thuy (2023), and Hanh and Tinh (2022) highlight the benefits of these checklists for Vietnamese learners, there is a significant gap in understanding their impact on students targeting band scores of 4.5-5.5 in English centers in Thu Duc City.
The initial gap in research focuses on the impact of checklists on the IELTS Writing Task 2 performance of high school students in Thu Duc City Although previous studies highlight the advantages of checklists in general writing contexts, there is a critical need for tailored insights regarding their effectiveness in this academic environment to facilitate targeted improvements in scores.
There is a lack of research on high school students' attitudes toward using checklists for self-assessment in IELTS preparation at English centers Gaining insight into students' perceptions and motivations concerning these tools is essential for improving their effectiveness and boosting student engagement and performance in IELTS writing.
This study aims to enhance educational practices by offering practical insights for educators on integrating effective self-assessment strategies tailored for high school students preparing for the IELTS exam By addressing existing gaps, it seeks to support students in achieving their academic goals in English proficiency exams.
Conceptual framework
This study's conceptual framework focuses on integrating self-assessment tools, particularly checklists, to enhance IELTS Writing Task 2 preparation It highlights the principles of Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) and how they contribute to improving writing proficiency Key components include the types and characteristics of self-assessment checklists, their impact on writing performance, and students' attitudes toward self-assessment Ultimately, this framework aims to provide a thorough understanding of how these tools can effectively improve writing skills and better prepare students for high-stakes assessments like the IELTS.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study utilized a one-group pre-test/post-test pre-experimental design to evaluate the impact of an intervention on students' writing performance By employing this design, researchers gathered both quantitative and qualitative data, allowing for a thorough analysis of the research question (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).
In the pre-test phase, students' performance in IELTS Writing Task 2 was evaluated to establish a baseline for their writing skills, focusing on crucial criteria like task response, coherence, and grammar After this initial assessment, self-assessment checklists were introduced as an intervention to enhance their writing abilities.
18 help students evaluate their writing based on the IELTS writing band descriptors, promoting self-reflection and self-monitoring of their progress
Following the intervention, students took a post-test to assess changes in their writing skills The quantitative data collected from both the pre-test and post-test provided an objective means to compare student performance, highlighting areas of improvement and assessing the measurable impact of the intervention on their writing abilities.
The study utilized a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative data with qualitative insights to examine the impact of self-assessment checklists Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather in-depth information about students' experiences with the self-assessment process These interviews revealed how students interacted with the checklists, their views on the usefulness of the feedback received, and the ways in which they applied the checklists to enhance their writing skills.
The qualitative data helped to contextualize the quantitative findings, offering a more nuanced understanding of the mechanisms through which the self-assessment checklists influenced students' writing development
The study combined quantitative data from pre-tests and post-tests with qualitative insights from interviews to provide a comprehensive understanding of the impact of self-assessment on student writing The findings indicated that using self-assessment checklists allowed students to monitor their progress, reflect on their writing, and make significant adjustments, resulting in notable improvements in their writing performance over time.
Research setting
The research was carried out at the English Time Center in Thu Duc City, Vietnam, a leading institution dedicated to delivering English language courses that prepare students for academic achievements and international exams.
19 structured curriculum designed to enhance students’ proficiency in various aspects of the English language, with a particular focus on preparing learners for the International English Language Testing System (IELTS)
The center provides a supportive learning environment that fosters student engagement and active participation Equipped with modern classrooms and essential learning resources, including textbooks, audio-visual aids, and IELTS-specific practice materials, it ensures an immersive educational experience These resources are crucial for helping students enhance their writing, listening, reading, and speaking skills in preparation for the IELTS examination.
Participants
A research study was conducted with 15 high school students aged 16-18 from the band 4.5 – 5.5 course, consisting of 10 females and 5 males All participants had completed a foundation course at English Times Center, which focused on various grammar topics and vocabulary enhancement The students were informed that their writing units would be instructed by their teacher, who also served as the researcher Although they had not yet been introduced to IELTS writing question types, they had acquired skills in writing different paragraph formats.
Data for this study were collected from students who met specific criteria, including completion of all data collection processes and attendance in at least 85% of scheduled classes, without transferring between classes during the semester.
Research Instruments and Materials
This research utilizes a self-assessment checklist based on the IELTS Writing Task 2 Band Descriptors, adapted from The IELTS Coach and Timothy Dickeson's 2018 version The checklist enables students to assess their writing skills after practice sessions by emphasizing essential criteria, including Task Response, Coherence and Cohesion, Lexical Resource, Grammar Range and Accuracy, and Time Management.
Developed through research, student feedback, and revisions, this straightforward and user-friendly checklist consists of Yes/No questions It aligns closely with IELTS standards,
Guiding students in crafting well-structured essays involves focusing on clear arguments, logical transitions, appropriate vocabulary, and correct grammar Consistent use of a checklist can significantly improve students' writing skills and enhance their ability to self-assess, both of which are essential for success in exams.
This tool is especially advantageous for high school students at the English Center in Thu Duc City, targeting band scores of 4.5-5.5 It addresses the difficulties they face with Task 2, which are often caused by time constraints and cognitive pressures that negatively impact their performance (Pearson, 2018; Slater, 2002; Panahi & Mohammed News, 2015; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2022).
Through self-assessment, students can enhance their writing skills and boost their IELTS scores Utilizing a self-assessment checklist allows students to evaluate their current abilities, align with the IELTS Band Descriptors, and focus on specific areas for improvement, ultimately leading to better exam readiness.
The study assessed writing proficiency in high school students by conducting pre- and post-tests before and after the introduction of self-assessment checklists To ensure consistency, both tests followed the same format, difficulty level, and time constraints, with students given 40 minutes to write 250–300-word essays Different prompts were utilized to eliminate rehearsal effects A total of 15 students participated in the pre-test, which established baseline data for evaluating the impact of the self-assessment checklist intervention.
Post-intervention assessments evaluated the effectiveness of the intervention by using a post-test prompt for IELTS Writing Task 2 that was identical in format and difficulty to the pre-test The improvement in writing skills was determined by comparing the scores from the post-test with those from the pre-test.
To ensure grading uniformity and reliability, multiple measures were implemented, including independent scoring by both the researcher and a certified teacher using IELTS Writing Task 2 band descriptors Calibration sessions were held prior to grading to align interpretations of the scoring criteria To minimize bias, essays underwent double-blind grading, with a third rater addressing significant discrepancies in scores Inter-rater reliability was evaluated through Cohen's kappa to guarantee consistency in the grading process.
These methods provided a reliable framework to analyze the impact of the self- assessment checklist intervention on students' writing proficiency and to track their progress accurately
Semi-structured interviews, based on Tran's (2016) and Khoi et al.'s (2015) research, were conducted to examine students' perceptions of the self-assessment checklist intervention and its effect on IELTS Writing Task 2 scoring criteria Following Creswell's (2013) qualitative methodologies and employing Braun and Clarke's (2006) thematic analysis framework, the study aimed to understand how the intervention impacted students' writing performance awareness and improvement strategies A targeted sampling technique ensured participant diversity and representation, with students informed about the study's purpose and voluntary nature during Week 1, and consent forms distributed Volunteers were selected at the end of each cycle (Weeks 6 and 11), including students with varying writing skills and levels of engagement with the checklists.
Interviews were held in a private and relaxed setting to foster open dialogue, focusing on students' first impressions of the checklists, the benefits and challenges they observed, their evolving understanding of scoring criteria, and the enhancements in their writing confidence and performance.
This qualitative approach provided valuable insights into how self-assessment checklists enhanced high school students' performance in IELTS Writing Task 2
The IELTS Preparation course designed for students targeting a band score of 4.5 to 5.5 is based on the IELTS Complete Band 4-5 book and consists of 16 lessons Each lesson focuses on one of the four key question types in Task 2 of the IELTS Writing exam, with each type being explored over two 90-minute sessions, amounting to a total of 180 minutes of instruction per question type.
The course begins with the "People’s Lives" unit, which emphasizes the exploration of the pros and cons of different subjects Following this, the "Agree or Disagree" unit, titled "It Was All New Once," allows students to practice articulating and defending their viewpoints effectively.
The third unit, "Being Human," addresses questions that involve answering two related prompts, and the final unit, "Tourist Attractions," involves discussing opposing views and providing opinions
This methodical approach ensures students get targeted practice and develop skills across all question types, preparing them effectively for the IELTS Writing Task 2.
Data Collection Procedures
This study evaluated students' writing abilities and the effects of self-assessment through pre-tests, post-tests, and semi-structured interviews Pre-tests were administered in Week 1, followed by post-tests at the conclusion of each cycle, where students had 40 minutes to write an IELTS Writing Task 2 essay, scored on a 1–9 scale using established band descriptors To ensure scoring reliability, each essay was evaluated independently by two qualified raters, and statistical analyses, including paired sample t-tests, were conducted using SPSS 20.
Students utilized self-assessment checklists to assess their writing according to essential criteria, including task response, coherence, vocabulary, grammar, and timeliness These checklists were provided at the start of each writing task, and the completed checklists were submitted with the essays for evaluation.
At the conclusion of both cycles, four high school students engaged in semi-structured interviews to share their self-assessment experiences related to IELTS Writing Task 2 Through open-ended questions, the interviews delved into the students' comprehension of the task, their self-assessment methods, and any modifications in their writing techniques Participants consented to have the interviews recorded and transcribed, with all transcriptions being anonymized and verified for accuracy, following the guidelines of Kvale and Brinkmann (2009).
The 12-week data collection period was carefully structured to ensure comprehensive analysis In Week 1, students completed pre-tests to assess their baseline writing abilities and
23 were introduced to the IELTS Writing Task 2 descriptors and self-assessment checklists (Andrade, 2019)
Cycle 1 (Weeks 2–6) focused on writing instruction, where students used checklists to self-assess their work against the given criteria They completed writing exercises and received feedback, which is known to improve learning outcomes (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) Post-tests conducted at the end of Week 6 assessed progress and established benchmarks for the next cycle
Cycle 2 (Weeks 7–11) built upon the first cycle's interventions with more intensive strategies These efforts aimed to reinforce learning outcomes and address areas for improvement identified in Cycle 1’s post-tests Additional post-tests in Week 11 provided further data on student progress and informed instructional adjustments
Semi-structured interviews were conducted following both cycles to gather qualitative insights into students' experiences with self-assessment and writing These interviews examined students' comprehension of evaluation criteria, their self-assessment processes, and the evolution of their writing techniques over time (Seidman, 2013).
In Week 12, the focus shifted to data analysis, where all collected data, including interview transcripts, were thoroughly examined to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention This reflective phase offered valuable insights into the outcomes and contributed to refining instructional strategies for future cycles.
Data Analysis
The analysis commenced with calculating the mean scores for both pre-test and post-test essays to evaluate the initial and final writing skills To analyze the data, a paired samples t-test was conducted, as recommended by Field.
A study conducted in 2013 quantitatively assessed improvements by statistically comparing mean scores across various writing aspects Descriptive statistics were utilized to evaluate key areas, including task response, coherence, lexical resource, grammar, and timing This comprehensive analysis identified significant improvements and highlighted areas needing additional support.
In adherence to ethical guidelines, semi-structured interviews were transcribed and anonymized to maintain participant confidentiality Thematic analysis was conducted to identify common themes in the responses, emphasizing students' comprehension of IELTS criteria, their experiences with the writing process, and any observed changes in their writing strategies This qualitative methodology is supported by the work of Braun and Clarke.
(2006), helped interpret how the instructional interventions influenced students' attitudes and writing proficiency.
Reliability and Validity
Reliability in testing refers to the consistency of results obtained under similar conditions (Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Brown, 1996) This study ensured reliability by implementing standardized testing conditions and consistently applying rubrics for both pre-tests and post-tests Additionally, the use of IELTS Mock Tests, specifically designed to evaluate writing proficiency consistently across various administrations, further contributed to the overall reliability of the assessment.
To ensure reliability in scoring, standardized rubrics based on IELTS Task 2 band descriptors were utilized, focusing on task response, coherence, cohesion, lexical resource, and grammatical accuracy This approach reduced scoring variability among raters and enhanced inter-rater reliability (Weigle, 2002) To mitigate potential biases from individual perspectives (Hamp-Lyons, 1990), multiple raters assessed each task, with a third rater addressing any significant discrepancies in scores, in line with Develle's (2009) recommendations, thereby promoting fairness and internal consistency.
Rater training is crucial for ensuring reliability in scoring, as it equips raters with the skills to apply IELTS band descriptors consistently (Shaw, 2006) While subjective factors like familiarity with a topic can impact scores (Alderson et al., 2005), this issue is addressed by choosing general topics—such as foreign language learning, public health, and moral education—that are accessible to all participants (Uysal, 2010).
The test-retest reliability was enhanced by ensuring a consistent structure, timing of 40 minutes per task, and a word count of 250 words, leading to stable results over time (Hughes, 2003) Although external factors like emotional states, fatigue, and test anxiety (Alderson, Clapham, & Wall, 1995; Messick, 1989) could impact performance, the controlled testing environment effectively minimized these influences.
In summary, by employing standardized rubrics, multiple raters, rater training, and consistent testing conditions, the study ensured reliable and dependable results across all stages
Validity is the degree to which a test accurately measures its intended purpose, ensuring the results are both relevant and precise (Messick, 1989) This study focuses on two primary types of validity: content validity and construct validity (Bachman & Palmer).
Validity refers to how well a test measures what it is intended to measure (Messick,
In a study conducted in 1989, writing tasks were designed to evaluate academic writing skills, focusing on the construction of arguments, appropriate grammar and vocabulary usage, and clear communication The research emphasized two crucial aspects of validity: content validity and construct validity, as outlined by Bachman and Palmer in 1996.
Content validity is crucial for ensuring that test items comprehensively assess the intended skills and knowledge (Cronbach, 1971) This study incorporated writing tasks that mirrored real-world issues, such as foreign language learning, the impact of sports on public health, and moral education These relevant topics encouraged participants to showcase various writing abilities, including argumentation and persuasion, while minimizing topic bias (Uysal, 2010) By selecting diverse and pertinent subjects, the tasks effectively aligned with real-world communication requirements, thereby enhancing content validity (Hughes, 2003).
Construct validity is essential for determining how effectively a test measures the theoretical construct it intends to evaluate, such as academic writing proficiency This proficiency includes critical skills like argument development, coherence, grammar, and vocabulary usage.
The implementation of IELTS Task 2 band descriptors facilitated a uniform evaluation of writing skills, as highlighted by Weigle (2002) By monitoring participants' writing performance throughout various stages and topics, the study offered an in-depth perspective on their capabilities, thereby reinforcing construct validity, as noted by McNamara (2000).
In conclusion, the study demonstrated robust content and construct validity by focusing on significant, real-world topics and utilizing standardized scoring criteria These approaches ensured that the writing tasks effectively evaluated academic writing skills, resulting in findings that are both reliable and pertinent within an academic setting.
Ethical considerations
In the study titled "The Effect of Self-Assessment Checklists on IELTS Writing Task 2 Among High School Students (Band 4.5-5.5) at English Time Center in Thu Duc City," it is crucial to address ethical considerations to ensure participant protection and uphold the integrity of the research.
Informed consent is essential in research, ensuring that students understand the study's goals, procedures, risks, and benefits before participating Information is presented in an accessible format for individuals of all ages and cognitive abilities, with detailed information sheets provided to students and their parents Participants sign consent forms to confirm their willingness to join the study, and they are made aware that they can withdraw at any time without facing negative consequences.
Ensuring the privacy and data protection of participants is crucial in research To achieve this, all data is anonymized by assigning unique identifiers, eliminating any connection to personal information The research team accesses interview transcripts and qualitative data securely, and findings are presented in aggregate form to enhance participant privacy.
The study focuses on improving students' writing skills through self-assessment checklists, while also recognizing potential risks such as anxiety or stress during assessments To alleviate these concerns, students are reassured that their performance will not affect their grades at the English Time Center A supportive research environment is cultivated to promote open discussions and lessen pressure Furthermore, there are inherent risks of data breaches or unauthorized access that must be addressed.
27 sensitive information All digital data is encrypted and stored on secure servers, while physical copies are kept in locked folders accessible only to authorized personnel
The research prioritizes participants' rights through informed consent, confidentiality, and risk management By following ethical guidelines, the study not only safeguards participants but also bolsters its credibility.
Research timeline
The project commenced with the writing of the proposal in March 2024 After the proposal was submitted, it received confirmation in June 2024
Data collection took place from July to August 2024, beginning with Cycle 1 on July
27, 2024, and concluding with Cycle 2 on August 31, 2024 Following the data collection phase, data analysis occurred in September 2024
In March 2024, the development of the project progressed with the completion of Chapters 1, 2, and 3, which encompass the Introduction, Literature Review, and Research Methodology An intensified focus on the Research Methodology is planned for September 2024 The final chapters, including Chapter 4 (Findings and Discussion) and Chapter 5 (Conclusion and Recommendations), are scheduled to be completed by October 2024.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
Result of Pretest, Posttest-1 and Posttest-2
4.1.1 Comparison of Pretest and Posttest-1 Results
4.1.1.1 Descriptive data between Pre-test and Post-test 1
The table below shows the the descriptive data of the pretest and posttest 1 in Cycle 1
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation
Table 4.1 displays the descriptive statistics for 15 participants' performance in both the pre-test and posttest-1, revealing notable improvements in essential writing components after the intervention The pre-test results showed a mean score of 3.333 for Task Response, while Coherence and Cohesion, Lexical Resource, and Grammatical Range and Accuracy had mean scores of 3.267, 3.167, and 3.167, respectively The overall mean score for the pre-test was 3.267, indicating a range of 2.5 to 4.0 for Task Response and 2.5 to 3.5 for the other components.
Following the intervention, posttest-1 results demonstrated significant improvements in all evaluated components Task Response achieved a mean score of 4.433, while Coherence and Cohesion rose to 4.400 Lexical Resource improved to 4.233, and Grammatical Range and Accuracy increased to 4.000 Overall, the posttest-1 score saw a rise from 3.267 to 4.367, reflecting a positive trend in performance across the board.
The intervention resulted in notable enhancements in participants' writing performance, with an average increase of around 1.1 points across all components The most significant improvements were observed in Task Response and Coherence and Cohesion, which increased by 1.1 and 1.133 points, respectively, highlighting the effectiveness of the intervention.
4.1.1.2 Paired sample T-test between Pretest Posttest-1
The table below presents the paired sample T-test data comparing Pre-test 1 and Post- test 1 results in Cycle 1
Paired Differences t df Sig (2- tailed)
Pair 2 Pretest Coherence and Cohesion
Pair 4 Pretest Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Posttest-1Grammatical Range and Accuracy -.833 488 -6.614 14 000
A Paired Samples T-test was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention, revealing significant improvements in all writing components Task Response saw a mean increase of 1.100 points, rising from 3.33 to 4.43 Coherence and Cohesion improved by 1.133 points, from 3.27 to 4.40 Lexical Resource showed a mean enhancement of 1.067 points, increasing from 3.17 to 4.23 Grammatical Range and Accuracy experienced a smaller improvement of 0.833 points, moving from 3.167 to 4.000 All components demonstrated high statistical significance with a p-value of 000.
The overall score improved by 1.1 points, with Pre-test results at 3.267 and Posttest-1 at 4.367 The two-tailed test yielded a p-value of 000, significantly lower than the 05 threshold, indicating a statistically significant difference between the Pre-test (M = 3.267, SD = 3200) and Posttest-1 (M = 4.367, SD = 5499) in Cycle 1 These findings demonstrate that the intervention successfully enhanced participants' writing performance, leading to the conclusion that the instructional method significantly improved students' overall task performance.
4.1.2 Comparison of Posttest-1 and Posttest-1 Results
4.1.2.1 Descriptive data between Posttest-1 and Posttest-2
The table below presents the descriptive statistics for Posttest-1 and Posttest-2 in Cycle
Table 4.3 presents the descriptive statistics for 15 participants in two posttests, highlighting significant improvements in writing components In Posttest-1, the mean score for Task Response was 4.433 (range: 3.5–5.5), followed by Coherence and Cohesion at 4.400 (range: 3.5–5.5) Lexical Resource averaged 4.233 (range: 3.5–5.0), while Grammatical Range and Accuracy had a mean of 4.000 (range: 3.5–5.5) The overall mean score across all components was 4.367 (range: 3.5–5.5).
In Posttest-2, significant improvements were noted, with Task Response and Coherence and Cohesion both increasing to 5.033 Lexical Resource saw an enhancement to 4.800, while Grammatical Range and Accuracy rose to 4.733 The overall mean score also improved to 4.967 Notably, Task Response and Coherence and Cohesion experienced the most substantial gains, each rising by approximately 0.6 points, indicating considerable progress throughout the testing cycles.
4.1.2.2 Paired sample T-test between Posttest-1 and Posttest-2
The table below presents the paired sample T-test data comparing Posttest-1 in Cycle
1 and Posttest-2 results in Cycle 2
Pair 2 Posttest-1 Coherence and Cohesion
Pair 4 Posttest-1 Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Posttest-2Grammatical Range and Accuracy -.733 678 -4.190 14 001
The results from the Paired Samples Test in Table 4.4 indicate significant improvements in participants' writing performance between Posttest-1 and Posttest-2 Specifically, Task Response showed a mean increase of 0.6 points, rising from 4.433 in Posttest-1 to 5.033 in Posttest-2, with a p-value of 000, highlighting substantial progress Additionally, Coherence and Cohesion experienced an improvement of 0.633 points, increasing from 4.400 to 5.033, and a p-value of 001 further confirms this notable enhancement.
The resource experienced a notable increase of 0.567 points, rising from 4.233 in Posttest-1 to 4.800 in Posttest-2, with a significant p-value of 002 The most substantial improvement was seen in Grammatical Range and Accuracy, which surged by 0.733 points, moving from 4.000 in Posttest-1 to 4.733 in Posttest-2, accompanied by a highly significant p-value of 001.
The overall score increased by 0.6 points, with Posttest-1 averaging 4.367 and Posttest-2 averaging 4.967 The statistically significant difference, indicated by a two-tailed test Sig value of 001 (well below the 05 threshold), highlights the improvement in participants' writing performance This enhancement is evident across various components, with gains between 0.567 and 0.733 points, particularly notable in Grammatical Range and Accuracy.
4.1.3 Comparison of Pretest and Posttest-2
4.1.3.1 Descriptive data between Pretest and Posttest -2
The table below shows the the descriptive data of the pretest and posttest-2
Pretest Grammatical Range and Accuracy 15 2.5 3.5 3.167 362
Table 4.5 indicates significant improvement in the writing performance of 15 participants from the Pre-test to Posttest-2 The Pre-test revealed a mean score of 3.333 for Task Response, while Coherence and Cohesion, Lexical Resource, and Grammatical Range and Accuracy had mean scores of 3.267, 3.167, and 3.167, respectively Overall, the Pre-test mean score was 3.267, reflecting a range of 2.5 to 3.5 across all categories.
In Posttest-2, the Task Response score improved to 5.033, along with Coherence and Cohesion, which also reached 5.033 Lexical Resource saw an increase to 4.800, while Grammatical Range and Accuracy rose to 4.733 Consequently, the overall mean score increased to 4.967.
The largest gains were seen in Task Response and Coherence and Cohesion, each increasing by about 1.7 points These results show significant progress across all writing components following the intervention
4.1.3.2 Paired sample T-test between Pretest and Post-test 2
The table below presents the paired sample T-test data comparing Pretest and Posttest-
Paired sample T-test between Pretest and Posttest -2
Paired Differences t df Sig (2- tailed)
Pair 2 Pretest Coherence and Cohesion
Pair 4 Pretest Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Posttest-2Grammatical Range and Accuracy -1.567 704 -8.622 14 000
A Paired Samples T-test conducted on the Pretest and Posttest-2 scores, as shown in Table 4.6, demonstrated significant improvements in all writing components following the intervention Task Response increased by 1.7 points, rising from 3.333 to 5.033, while Coherence and Cohesion improved by 1.767 points, from 3.267 to 5.033 Lexical Resource experienced a mean enhancement of 0.633 points, moving from 4.167 to 4.800, and Grammatical Range and Accuracy increased by 1.566 points, from 3.167 to 4.733 All components exhibited a p-value of 000, confirming high statistical significance in the results.
The overall score improved by 1.7 points, rising from 3.267 in the pretest to 4.967 in the posttest, with a statistically significant two-tailed p-value of 000, well below the 05 threshold These findings indicate that the intervention successfully enhanced participants' writing performance across all areas, demonstrating the effectiveness of the instructional method used.
Results from Se-mi structured interviews
At the end of each cycle, eight students were interviewed about their attitudes of applying Self-Assessment checklists in teaching IELTS Writing Task 2 The findings are presented as follows
4.2.1 Students' perspectives on Pre-Test Writing Challenges and Self-Improvement
Across both Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 interviews, participants consistently reported significant challenges in their pre-tests, particularly related to anxiety, time management, and essay structuring
Many students described feelings of nervousness and being overwhelmed, which hindered their ability to organize ideas and approach the task systematically
(ST7) I was really anxious and felt overwhelmed by the task I found it hard to structure my essay and ran out of time
(ST9) In the pre-test, I was really nervous and found it hard to organize my ideas
Time management was another major issue reported by participants, which often led to incomplete essays
(ST8) I struggled a lot in the pre-test, especially with time management and structuring my essay
(ST15) My ideas were all over the place, and I ran out of time
Participants reported challenges in the initial stages of essay writing, especially in organizing their thoughts coherently Their feedback indicates that anxiety and ineffective structuring strategies negatively impacted their performance during the pre-test phase.
(ST6) I struggled a lot in the pre-test I didn’t know how to start, and my essay lacked structure.”
(ST9) In the pre-test, I was really nervous and found it hard to organize my ideas
Despite the challenges, some students viewed the pre-test as an opportunity for growth, recognizing their weaknesses and the need for better planning and preparation for future writing tasks.
(ST12) It was a wake-up call for what I needed to work on
(ST3) The pre-test was tough I found it hard to organize my thoughts and ran out of time, which made me realize I needed to work on my planning
During practice sessions, students utilized Self-Assessment Checklists to evaluate their work, revealing significant challenges in completing tasks within the 40-minute time limit This difficulty continued into the post-test for Cycle 1, highlighting the critical need to focus on time management and effective structuring strategies.
In summary, the interviews and observations revealed persistent challenges related to anxiety, time management, and essay structuring among students Nevertheless, their increasing awareness of these issues and dedication to self-assessment and planning demonstrate notable progress Despite facing initial difficulties, students are making strides in enhancing their writing skills and overcoming these barriers.
4.2.2 Students’ perspective on adaptation and impact of Self-Assessment Checklists on Writing Skills
In Cycle 1, students faced challenges with the Self-Assessment Checklists due to their unfamiliarity with the tool ST7 expressed, "I didn’t know how to use it effectively at first, but after a few attempts, I saw its value in organizing my thoughts." Likewise, ST6 experienced initial confusion but acknowledged the checklist's potential after using it multiple times.
By Cycle 2, students reported that the revised checklist was significantly easier to navigate ST9 mentioned that the provided examples clarified what to focus on, while ST8 highlighted that the updates made the checklist much clearer, enabling them to identify more errors.
Students experienced significant enhancements in Task Achievement and Coherence and Cohesion during both cycles One student noted, "I’ve definitely improved in task achievement and coherence My essays are more focused and logically organized now."
I still need to work on my vocabulary range.” However, challenges remained in grammar and vocabulary
Utilizing self-assessment checklists for IELTS Writing Task 2 has significantly enhanced my ability to craft effective introductions and conclusions These checklists enable me to clearly articulate my main points and effectively summarize my arguments, leading to improved writing quality.
The Self-Assessment Checklists significantly enhanced students' writing skills, especially in task achievement and coherence Revisions made in Cycle 2 improved their usability and effectiveness However, persistent issues with grammar and vocabulary indicate a need for further assistance, which may include additional guidance or expanded features in the checklists.
4.2.3 The level of effectiveness of using Self-Assessment Checklists across different writing components
The feedback provided by the students highlights a clear improvement in the effectiveness of the Self-Assessment Checklists between Cycle 1 and Cycle 2, particularly in the component of Task Response
In Cycle 1, while students acknowledged the checklist's role in organizing their essays and helping them stay on topic, their comments also suggest a certain limitation in its initial application
ST 7 The checklist is somewhat effective, especially in helping me stay on topic and organize my essay better
ST10 The checklist is effective for helping me organize my essays and ensure I answer the question But it’s less effective in helping me with grammar and vocabulary
By Cycle 2, updates to the checklists significantly improved essay organization and clarity of ideas The inclusion of specific examples and clearer instructions increased effectiveness, highlighting that well-designed tools lead to better results.
Using self-assessment checklists for IELTS Writing Task 2 has significantly improved my essay organization The checklist has enabled me to arrange my ideas more clearly, resulting in writing that is easier to follow.
The transition from Cycle 1 to Cycle 2 demonstrates that a user-friendly checklist with clear expectations and examples significantly improved students' ability to organize their thoughts and produce focused responses This underscores the importance of well-designed, adaptable tools in developing specific writing skills Nevertheless, it also highlights the necessity for ongoing refinement to tackle additional elements such as grammar and vocabulary, ensuring greater overall effectiveness in writing.
In the analysis of Coherence and Cohesion, the progression from Cycle 1 to Cycle 2 demonstrates a clear improvement in students' perceptions of the Self-Assessment Checklists
In Cycle 1, ST12 noted that the checklist proved effective for maintaining topic focus and enhancing essay flow, but it fell short in addressing vocabulary development as much as desired This highlights the checklist's strengths in coherence while revealing its limitations in supporting vocabulary enhancement.
By Cycle 2, students experienced a more positive learning outcome due to the modifications made, with ST8 noting, "It’s been very effective, especially for improving my vocabulary and essay structure My writing feels more polished now." This indicates that the revised checklists significantly enhanced vocabulary support and structural clarity, leading to more refined and coherent writing Additionally, ST3 emphasized the improved readability, stating, "The checklist has been really effective for organizing my essays My writing is easier to read and understand now."
The transition from Cycle 1 to Cycle 2 illustrates the beneficial effects of improving Self-Assessment Checklists on students' writing, especially regarding cohesion and coherence Feedback from students indicates that the changes implemented in Cycle 2 have significantly enhanced their writing skills.
Discussion of findings
The analysis of pretest, posttest-1, and posttest-2 scores demonstrates the significant benefits of self-assessment checklists on high school students' performance in IELTS Writing Task 2 Specifically, Table 4.1 indicates a remarkable increase in average scores, rising by about 1.1 points from 3.267 in the pretest to 4.367 in posttest-1.
The analysis of individual components reveals significant improvements from pretest to posttest-1: Task Response increased by 1.1 points (from 3.333 to 4.433), Coherence and Cohesion by 1.133 points (from 3.267 to 4.400), Lexical Resource by 1.067 points (from 3.167 to 4.233), and Grammatical Range and Accuracy by 0.833 points (from 3.167 to 4.000) These enhancements indicate that the self-assessment method effectively enabled students to recognize areas needing improvement, particularly in grammar and vocabulary, which contributed to their overall performance The paired sample T-test results further validate the statistical significance of these findings.
The analysis of 44 improvements reveals a two-tailed significance value (Sig.) of 0.00, significantly lower than the 0.05 threshold This finding indicates that the observed progress is highly unlikely to have occurred by chance, thereby reinforcing the effectiveness of the intervention.
In Cycle 2, notable progress was recorded, with the overall mean score increasing by 0.6 points from 4.367 in posttest-1 to 4.967 in posttest-2 Each writing component demonstrated improvement: Task Response rose by 0.6 points, Coherence and Cohesion by 0.633 points, Lexical Resource by 0.567 points, and Grammatical Range and Accuracy by 0.733 points The two-tailed significance value of 0.001, well below the 0.05 threshold, confirms that the enhancements between posttest-1 and posttest-2 are statistically significant, underscoring the intervention's effectiveness in promoting sustained student progress.
Over the course of the writing program, the overall mean score improved substantially
The analysis presented in Table 4.5 reveals a significant improvement in mean scores, rising from 3.267 in the pretest to 4.967 in posttest-2, marking an average enhancement of 1.7 points Notably, all components exhibited substantial gains: Task Response increased by 1.7 points (from 3.333 to 5.033), Coherence and Cohesion improved by 1.766 points (from 3.267 to 5.033), Lexical Resource saw a rise of 1.633 points (from 3.167 to 4.800), and Grammatical Range and Accuracy advanced by 1.566 points (from 3.167 to 4.733).
Table 4.6 demonstrates the statistical significance of the observed improvements, indicated by a two-tailed p-value of 0.000, which is significantly lower than the 0.05 threshold This finding confirms a statistically significant difference between the pretest (M = 3.267, SD = 0.3200) and the posttest results.
The instructional approach significantly enhanced students' writing abilities, as evidenced by a mean score of 4.967 and a standard deviation of 0.4806 The findings indicate that the implementation of self-assessment checklists led to notable improvements in performance across all writing components, resulting in comprehensive gains in students' overall writing skills.
These findings are consistent with prior research, such as Bowman (2017) and Ferry
(2020), which highlight the effectiveness of self-assessment in improving writing clarity, organization, and self-awareness The steady improvements suggest that self-assessment is a
45 valuable tool for helping students focus on specific areas of weakness, leading to more targeted and effective writing practice
These findings are consistent with prior research, such as Bowman (2017) and Ferry
In 2020, research emphasized the significance of self-assessment in enhancing writing clarity, organization, and self-awareness However, it was observed that not all participants demonstrated improvement from posttest-1 to posttest-2, indicating that some students may need extra support to maintain their progress Additionally, the limited initial gains in Grammatical Range and Accuracy suggest that specific skills, particularly grammar, may require more time to develop effectively.
In conclusion, this study demonstrates that self-assessment checklists significantly improve students' writing performance The consistent and statistically significant advancements observed across various cycles underscore the importance of self-assessment in enabling students to recognize and address their weaknesses, resulting in focused and lasting progress Therefore, educators are urged to incorporate self-assessment strategies into their teaching methods to enhance student self-awareness, boost task performance, and promote enduring writing success.
Data from semi-structured interviews in both Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 revealed that most participants preferred using self-assessment checklists for their IELTS Writing Task 2 preparation This preference is consistent with Wasu’s (2018) findings, which highlighted the positive perception of these tools among participants.
Initially, participants using self-assessment checklists for IELTS Writing Task 2 faced increased anxiety due to difficulties in organizing their ideas and managing time, leading to frustration and lowered confidence However, over time, the checklist's structured approach significantly reduced these emotional challenges, resulting in decreased anxiety and enhanced confidence This systematic method enabled participants to feel more in control of their writing process, aligning with Hyland’s (2000) findings that structured tools foster learner independence and alleviate stress.
Identifying strengths and weaknesses boosts motivation for setting clear goals, leading to active engagement in writing development This finding aligns with Wasu’s (2018) research, which highlights the positive emotional impact of self-assessment tools in language learning.
The self-assessment checklist significantly influenced participants' behaviors, fostering greater autonomy in their writing process Initially reliant on teacher feedback, participants began to independently utilize the checklist for both classroom activities and self-study as their familiarity grew This transition reflects Andrade and Valtcheva’s (2009) concepts of self-regulated learning, where learners take charge of their own progress Additionally, participants incorporated strategies like mind mapping to enhance essay coherence and developed self-revision habits, leading to independent review and improvement of their work By the second cycle, participants noted substantial enhancements in task achievement, which further boosted their engagement and confidence in using the checklist as a consistent tool for writing development.
The self-assessment checklist significantly improved participants' understanding of the writing process, enhancing their time management, essay structure, and coherence in writing This aligns with Andrade and Valtcheva’s (2009) findings on checklists fostering metacognitive skills, making learners more aware of their writing approaches However, some participants still faced challenges with grammar and sentence variety, indicating the need for further refinement of the checklist To maximize its cognitive benefits, incorporating specific components that focus on grammar and vocabulary could be beneficial.
