An investigation into english classroom assessment practices in three primary schools in hanoi

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES PHẠM LAN ANH AN INVESTIGATION INTO ENGLISH CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT PRACTICES IN THREE PRIMARY SCHOOLS

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

PHẠM LAN ANH

AN INVESTIGATION INTO ENGLISH CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT PRACTICES

IN THREE PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN HA NOI

Điều tra thực trạng giáo viên Tiếng Anh đánh giá học sinh trong quá trình học tập trên lớp

tại 3 trường tiểu học ở Hà Nội

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Major: English Language Teaching Methodology Code: 62140111

Hanoi, 2015

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

PHẠM LAN ANH

AN INVESTIGATION INTO ENGLISH CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT PRACTICES

IN THREE PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN HA NOI

Điều tra thực trạng giáo viên Tiếng Anh đánh giá học sinh trong quá trình học tập trên lớp

tại 3 trường tiểu học ở Hà Nội

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Major: English Language Teaching Methodology Code: 62140111

Supervisor: Dr TÔ THỊ THU HƯƠNG

Hanoi, 2015

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I, the undersigned, certify my authority of the dissertation entitled ―An Investigation into English Classroom Assessment Practices in Three Primary Schools in Ha Noi‖ in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy

Except where the reference is indicated, no other person‘s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the text of the dissertation

PHAM LAN ANH

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

DoET Department/Division of Education and Training

NIESAC National Institute for Education Strategy and Curriculum Development

ABSTRACT

Assessment has been one of the most heatedly debated issues worldwide While on the global scale, classroom assessment (CA) has gained an increasing attention in educational practices and in research for decades, this type of assessment has very recently received an initial recognition in Vietnamese primary schools The impact of CA in student learning, therefore, remains inclusive and needs further research The study presented in this thesis was designed

to seek deep insights into the CA practised by a group of primary EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teachers and the factors underlying such practices

To address this complex issue, a collective case study was conducted with 8 primary EFL teachers of English in 3 schools in Hanoi, Vietnam Data were collected through classroom observations, interviews with teachers and students, and through assessment-related document/materials

The methodology was framed by a sociocultural constructivist approach that focused on 6 assessment components of CA (why, what, how, who, when, and how well to assess)

The findings showed that the teachers‘CA practices were influenced by personal and contextual factors such as their beliefs of how children learn, constraints built into the curriculum, and institutional assessment requirements There was a complex and non-linear relationship between teaching, learning and assessment practices related to CA due to the teachers‘ internalized conceptions of CA and contextual constraints including the educational policy

I would like to thank Assoc Prof Dr Lê Hùng Tiến

support staff and librarians at the Faculty of Postgraduate Studies who are ever so kind and helpful

A sincere appreciation goes out to the members of the special topic and the

Canh, Dr Hoàng Thị Xuân Hoa, Dr Hà Thị Cẩm Tâm, Dr Nguyễn Huy Kỷ, Dr Duong Thu Mai, and Assoc Prof Dr Võ Đại Quang for the assistance, guidance and enduring patience

In addition, I wish to express my gratitude to my colleagues – Nguyễn Chi Lan, Nguyễn Ngọc Lan, and Nguyễn Thúy Hạnh, whose comments made this study possible

I am also grateful to David Carless, David Vale, Janet Enever, Jaynee Moon, Rebecca Hales, Laura Grassic and Sophie Ioannou Georgiou for the invaluable ideas shared with me

I would also like to thank the administrators as well as the teachers and students of the three schools involved in my study for many acts of kindness, generosity and patience

Finally, my deep gratitude will always be with my family, my dear and supportive parents, my husband and my little children

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale 1

2 Significance of the study 2

3 Context of the study 2

4 Aims and objectives of the study 7

5 Research questions 8

6 Scope of the study 8

7 Structure of the study 9

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 10

1.1 Assessment 10

1.1.1 Types of assessment 10

1.1.2 Formative and summative assessment 11

1.2 Classroom assessment 12

1.2.1 Boundary and definition of classroom assessment 12

1.2.2 Classroom assessment for young EFL learners 14

1.2.2.1 Characteristics of young EFL learners 14

1.2.2.2 Principles of classroom assessment of young EFL learners 16

1.3 Components of classroom assessment 17

1.3.1 Purposes of assessment 18

1.3.2 Assessment focus 19

1.3.3 Assessment approaches and methods 21

1.3.4 Agents of assessment 23

1.3.5 Assessment procedure 24

1.3.6 Assessment strategies 25

1.4 Teachers‘ beliefs 27

1.4.1 Definitions of teachers‘ beliefs 27

1.4.2 Rationale for exploring teachers‘ beliefs 28

1.4.3 Factors shaping teachers‘ beliefs 28

1.4.4 Previous studies on teachers‘ beliefs about CA 30

1.4.5 Approaches to explore teachers‘ beliefs 31

1.5 Teachers‘ classroom assessment practices 32

1.5.1 Definition of classroom assessment practices 32

1.5.2 Previous studies on classroom assessment practices 32

1.5.3 Approaches to explore teachers‘ classroom assessment practices 38

1.6 Chapter Summary 38

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 40

2.1 Rationale for the research design 40

2.1.1 Qualitative approach 40

2.1.2 Case study 41

2.2 Research procedure 42

2.3 Participants 44

2.4 Description of the three schools 49

2.5 Data collection 52

2.5.1 Instruments for data collection 54

2.5.1.1 Questionnaire and follow-up interview to select teachers in Stage 1 54

2.5.1.2 Focus-group interviews in Stage 2 and Stage 3 55

2.5.1.3 Stimulated recalls after each classroom observation session in Stages 2, 3 57

2.5.1.4 Individual interviews after classroom observation process in Stage 3 57

2.5.1.5 Classroom observations 59

2.5.1.6 Artefacts 59

2.6 Data analysis 60

2.7 Measures to reduce subjectivity and increase validity 61

2.8 Chapter summary 63

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 65

3.1 Teachers‘ self-reported practices and beliefs 65

3.1.1 Teachers‘ beliefs about children as young language learners 66

3.1.2 Teachers‘ beliefs about assessment 68

3.2 Teachers‘ classroom assessment practices 77

3.2.1 Assessment procedures 78

3.2.1.1 Observing a typical student work to provide feedback for the whole class 79

3.2.1.2 Teachers‘ marking/grading 83

3.2.2 Approach and focus of assessment 89

3.2.2.1 Approach and focus of assessment as reflected in the teachers‘ lesson plans 89

3.2.2.2 Approach and focus of assessment as reflected in periodic and final tests 94

3.2.2.3 Approach and focus of assessment as reflected in daily assessment 96

3.2.3 Agents of assessment and assessment strategies 102

3.2.3.1 Sharing learning goals and information on assessment with students 103

3.2.3.2 Eliciting student understanding 107

3.2.3.3 Giving feedback 111

3.2.3.6 Extending student learning 118

3.2.3.7 Assessment strategies reflected in evidence of student learning 119

3.2.4 Purposes of assessment 123

3.3 Relationship between teachers‘ beliefs, practices and contextual constraints 126

3.3.1 Consistencies and discrepancies between teachers‘ beliefs and practices 126

3.3.2 Context constraints 134

3.4 Chapter Summary 136

CONCLUSION 138

1 Recapitulation of the main findings 138

2 Concluding remarks 143

3 Implications 144

4 Limitations 147

5 Suggestions for further studies 148

REFERENCES 149 APPENDIX 1: DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL CLXX APPENDIX 2: DATA ANALYSIS PROTOCOL CLXXIII APPENDIX 3: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE IN STAGE 1 CLXXVII APPENDIX 4: ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE IN STAGE 1 CLXXXVI APPENDIX 5: FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS IN STAGE 1 CCII APPENDIX 6: SAMPLE OF FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW CCVII APPENDIX 7: EXAMPLE OF PROCESSING DATA FROM FOCUS GROUP

INTERVIEWS CCXVIII APPENDIX 8: PROCESSED DATA FROM FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS CCXXI APPENDIX 9: SOURCES OF TEACHERS‘ BELIEFS AND VALUES CCXXIV APPENDIX 10: EXAMPLE OF FINDINGS IN SINGLE CASE CCXXXII

Single case analysis CCXXXII

APPENDIX 11: FINDINGS ACROSS CASES CCXXXIV

Meta-matrix for cross-case analysis CCXXXIV

APPENDIX 12: FEEDBACK PATTERNS CCXXXVII

9 Feedback patterns CCXXXVII Most used feedback patterns by every single case CCXXXIX

APPENDIX 13: INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW IN STAGES 2, 3 CCXL APPENDIX 14: CHECKLIST FOR CLASSROOM OBSERVATION IN STAGES 2, 3 .LXXX APPENDIX 15: TALLY SHEET FOR CLASSROOM OBSERVATION IN STAGE 2 LXXXII APPENDIX 16: ARTEFACTS: PERIODIC AND FINAL TESTS LXXXIII

Test C2010 LXXXIII Test C2013 LXXXV Test D2010 XCI

Test D2013 XCVII Test BM2014 XCIX

APPENDIX 17: ANALYSIS OF PERIODIC AND FINAL TESTS CIIIPeriodic test evaluation CIII

Overall evaluation of periodic and final tests CVIII

APPENDIX 18: BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ALL ACTIVITIES IN 39 OBSERVED

LESSONS CIXAPPENDIX 19: ARTEFACTS: SAMPLE OF A LESSON PLAN CXVIITacher D‘s Lesson Plan CXVIIAPPENDIX 20: EXAMPLE OF TRANSCRIBED LESSON CXXTranscription of teacher D‘s lesson: Unit 3, Grade 3 CXXAPPENDIX 21: EXAMPLE OF STIMULATED RECALL CXXVStimulated recall, Teacher D, Unit 3 Grade 3, Stage 2 CXXVAPPENDIX 22: EXAMPLE OF PROCESSED DATA FROM RAW DATA CXXVIII

Unit 13 Lesson 2, English 3, Grade 3, Teacher B, Stage 3 CXXXI

Lesson plan CXXXITranscribed lesson CXXXVIIStimulated recall CLVAPPENDIX 23: STUDENT EVIDENCE AND SAMPLES OF STUDENTS‘ WORK CLX

Workbook, Student S1B2F10 (in Teacher B2‟s class, Grade 5) CLXIII Writing book, Student 2S2D CLXX

APPENDIX 24: EXAMPLE OF POST-OBSERVATION FEEDBACK SESSION TO

STUDENTS CLXXVII

Teacher C2 CLXXVII

LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1: Relationship between testing, measurement, assessment, and

classroom assessment

13

Table 1.1: View on relative distinctions of Formative/Summative vs

AOL/AFL/AFT/ASL

19

Table 2.1: Sources of data for the research sub-questions 43 Table 2.2 Brief profile of the five additional cases in Stage 3 48 Table 3.1: Common procedure: Whole-class teaching/revisiting of the content

as the result of checking a sample of students

INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale

Following the growing tendency of lowering the age of EFL learners, together with innovations in education, the field of language assessment for young learners has received an increasing attention Since young language learners possess special characteristics, assessing them needs to be motivational and child friendly as they have no reasons for learning a foreign language (Cameron, 2001; Hasselgreen, 2005; Mckay P., 2006; Moon, 2000) Moreover, classroom assessment practices for young learners demand a focus on the long-term learning process, rather than on the short-term outcome (Cameron, 2001; Hasselgreen, 2005; Hill & McNamara, 2011; Mckay P., 2006; McKay S L, 2006; Rea-Dickins, 2007) This trend is parallel with the development of learning theories from Behaviourism to Sociocultural Constructivism, with the former being characterized as teacher-centeredness, surface learning, assessment of the final product of learning and a separation between teaching and assessment while the latter placing learning at the center of all educational activities and embedding assessment throughout the learning and teaching process (Cameron, 2001; Lambert & Lines, 2000; Mohamed, 2013; Popharm, 2008, Swaffield, 2008)

In order to implement CA practices in the light of Sociocultural Constructivism, teachers are supposed to possess a sound knowledge base of the assessment components (Cameron, 2001; McKay S L, 2006; Mohamed, 2013; Rea-Dickins, 2001; Swaffield, 2008), for example, specifying assessment purposes (why to assess), identifying the focus of assessment (what to assess), selecting/designing assessment methods (how to assess), integrating teacher assessment with self- and peer-assessment (who to assess), following the assessment procedure from planning, implementing and using the collected assessment data (when to assess and in what procedure), and employing effective assessment strategies (how well to assess) Also, teachers‘ beliefs about learning, teaching and assessment are expected to be parallel with the philosophy of CA from the sociocultural constructivist perspectives

Owing to its reported learning gains, CA has received an increasing attention in Vietnam However, the reform in assessment practices in Vietnamese context seems to conflict the sociocultural constructivist view of CA originated in the western countries because didactic teaching, passive learning and traditional examinations for screening and selecting have been dominant in Vietnam for centuries (Le Van Canh, 2011; Pham Thi Hong Thanh, 2014) This local context has given the researcher the desire to conduct a qualitative case study to

investigate how and why the selected groups of teachers assess their young learners of English the way they do

Moreover, as a teacher trainer in the field of assessment, the researcher strongly feels that the preparation for future teachers to deal with the challenges in their career is essential The personal interest behind this research is also to bridge the gap between theory and practice and

to equip the pre-service teachers with practical assessment knowledge/skills in order to raise the quality of their future CA practices A case study of the actual CA practices helps the researcher bring the course to life as students engage with practical assessment strategies that take into account the local culture and context of their future teaching

2 Significance of the study

Although CA is an important component in education, limited studies have been published on the actual CA practices, especially in primary EFL classrooms Hence, this research is significant in raising awareness of CA among pre-service primary teachers, the researched teachers, and primary teacher trainers

This study is unique from other studies on CA practices because it does not focus on a particular aspect of the CA practices but examines the comprehensiveness and complexities of the whole process

The result of the research is useful for the primary schools in reviewing CA practices, helping them be more aware of the issue of assessment and its role in the overall course of teaching English as a foreign language to young learners

Essentially, the findings are intended to more clearly define the crucial factors underlying the teachers‘ classroom assessment practices This, to certain extent, can contribute to greater educational success, improving teachers‘ assessment knowledge and practices, and formulating relevant professional development

3 Context of the study

This section presents an overview of the context of teaching and assessing English at primary level as well as the context of researching assessment in Vietnam (with a particular reference

to Hanoi) It first examines factors affecting teachers‘ assessment practices, namely the policy and the status of English subject, the English curriculum, assessment policy, the status of English teachers, and teacher training Then, the section provides an overview of the research context in assessment in general and CA in particular Such background information prompted the research questions for the study in the settings of three schools in Hanoi Generally

speaking, the three schools were placed within the context of teaching and assessing English

as described below Details about the specific contexts of the three schools are going to be discussed in section 2.4

a Context of teaching and assessing English

Although English has been recognized as a widely taught foreign language in Vietnam, it is still treated as a subject for study rather than as a living language to be spoken in daily conversation (Hayes, 2008a/b; Moon, 2005)

Within the framework of the 2020 Project on Foreign Languages Teaching and Learning in the National Education System in the period 2008-2020, English teaching and learning, which is supposed to be stagely implemented, is to follow 10 year compulsory curriculum, starting from Grade 3 with time allocation of 4 periods of 40 minutes per week

The 10 year curriculum (MOET, 2010) is claimed to take account of the needs of young learners in primary school, which are different from the needs of older children in secondary school As stated in the document, the principle of developing primary English curriculum is

to emphasize communicative competences and therefore seeks to promote more communicative teaching methods through coherent themes and topics, which are meaningful and relevant to the student‘s world (MOET, 2010) The guiding principle also specifies that primary age children should be recognized as still developing cognitively (MOET, 2010) They are not able to think abstractly or to analyze the structures of languages (MOET, 2010) The teaching and assessing methods need, therefore, to be based on the curiculum with adequate opportunities for the young learners to practise language skills in meaningful contexts that are suitable for their cognitive, social, and psychological development (MOET, 2010) Specifically,

―assessment of student achievement must be aligned with the curriculum aims and performance objectives, based on the performance standards for the four macro-skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing Student achievement is assessed and measured through a combination of continuous and periodic assessment, with an emphasis being placed

on evidences of children‘s communicative competence in the learning process Evidence of student achievement is also collected from teacher observation and teacher feedback throughout the entire academic year Formats of assessment should be varied, including both written and spoken.‖ (translated, Guideline 6, p 15).

The curriculum, however, provides merely general guidelines and philosophy of CA As such, prior to 2012, the assessment practice of English was guided by the circular No 32/2009/TT-BGDĐT, which was valid for all subjects at primary level In this document, the assessment principles were specified as follows:

Align assessment with standards of knowledge and skills and requirement of attitudes as indicated in the national curriculum, primary level;

Combine quantitative and qualitative assessment; integrate teacher assessment and students‘ self-assessment;

Implement transparent, fair, objective, accurate and comprehensive procedure;

Assess and grade student achievement and student developmental progression in different skills and subskills; emphasize an encouragement for student progress without putting pressure

on either students or teachers (Article 3, translated)

The document also prescribes the definition and guidance on how to conduct the two main types of CA, namely continuous assessment and periodic assessment (Article 6)1 Continuous assessment is defined as the regular act of teacher focusing on student progress in everyday lesson throughout the learning process with the purpose of monitoring, encouraging or reinforcing student learning This act simultaneously enables teachers to modify and update their teaching methods in order to achieve the educational goal Recommended methods for continuous assessment include oral assessment, written assessment (less than 20 minutes), observation of student learning and performance in learning activities, in practice and in application of their knowledge and skills A periodic assessment is defined as an assessment which is carried out after certain period of learning with the purpose of providing teacher, school and authorities with information about student learning in order for such stakeholders

to direct or adjust the teaching process or to report the results to parents, which aim at coordinating, facilitating and supporting student learning

Regarding English subject, the document specifies in detail the minimal quantity of assessments for each type, namely, one assessment per month for continuous and two assessments annually for periodic (i.e, end of term 1 and end of year), in which the end of year assessment is the most important (Article 6) This means that only the result of the end-of year assessment is recorded in student learning profile and is reported to stakeholders However, as English is an optional subject, the result is not counted as the grounds for ranking students

As the circular No 32/2009/TT-BGDĐT (MOET, 2009) was a general guideline for all subjects at primary education, there were no specific regulations on the contents or formats of assessment of English subject To meet the demand, the official dispatch No 8225/2012/BGDĐT-GDTH (MOET, 2012) was signed in November 2012 to stipulate assessment procedure for the end-of-year assessment According to the official dispatch, the end-of-year assessment aims to assess four macro skills: speaking, listening, reading and writing Speaking is assessed separately in a form of interview or oral assessment, which is to

be administered either on a single day for all students or on daily basis as part of a lesson with

1

a few students at a time throughout the academic year Listening, reading and writing are all to

be assessed in one written test in which there is a section of listening with five tasks of four items each, and another section of reading and writing with four tasks of four items Thus, the end-of-year test consists of three sections weighting 10%, 50% and 40% for speaking, listening and reading and writing sections, respectively The document also specifies the length of the written test and the task types for each section It is noted that such suggested task types mimic Cambridge Tests for Young English Learners, which are unlikely to resemble the learning tasks in the current pilot primary English curriculum Moreover, the lack

of information on the content coverage as well as test specifications is inherent in the guidelines

The Official Dispatch No 3032 BGDDT–GDTH (MOET, 2013), then suplements detailed guidelines on the administration of the end-of-year (final) English test Against this official dispatch, the written test of listening is to be administered separately with time allocation of 20 minutes, followed by the 15-minute written test of reading and writing The speaking test is to

be administered either individually or in groups at another test time (separated from the test time for the written tests) The document also provides samples of questions for the speaking test However, no information on the content coverage as well as test specifications was provided

Regarding the learning outcomes, primary school graduates are expected to have mastered the equivalence of level A1 (CEFR) or Level 1 of the Vietnam Language Proficiency Framework for foreign languages (circular No 01/2014/TT–BGDĐT, MOET, 2014)

Against the above backdrop, in Ha Noi, English is being officially taught from Grade 3 as an

optional subject, 2 periods per week, and has yet been included in children‘s achievement

records On one hand, compared to other subjects at primary school, English is thus viewed from teachers‘, parents‘ and children‘s perspectives as less important and less serious (Hayes, 2008b; Moon, 2005) On the other hand, in practice, teachers still give tests periodically to children as the single means of collecting information of student progress and achievement (Moon, 2005)

Rooted from the status of English as an optional subject at primary level, teachers of English, therefore, suffer from low status, low salary, which likely leads to low motivation for professional development (Grassick, 2006; Hayes, 2008a/b; Moon, 2005)

Before 2005, primary English teachers were not on monthly payroll; teachers were paid an hourly rate by the school Most primary English teachers were hired by schools on an annual

contract and did not have permanent status Since 2005 MOET have distributed staff quota for the DOETs, who then continue the distribution to schools under its authorities The quota, however, is so limited that for example one district of Hanoi is allowed to recruit only one primary teacher of English2 One consequence of this is that most English teachers are contracted, who either need to have several teaching jobs in different schools or have to teach

a large number of English classrooms in the contracted school This entails the fact that many teachers suffer from heavy workload and long hour teaching (Hayes, 2008a/b)

As English has been treated as an optional subject at primary level for nearly two decades now, there has not been any specialized pre-service training3 for primary teachers from education universities and colleges All primary teachers get their training from the university

or college of education to become either lower or upper secondary school English teachers This means that almost all English teachers in primary schools have been trained to teach and assess older learners and that they have to learn the special knowledge and skills of teaching and assessment of young learners on the job (Hayes, 2008b; Moon, 2005)

b Context of research on assessment

In the context of Vietnam, there have been few studies on assessment and testing, most of which aim at testing at tertiary level Specifically, Nguyen Phuong Nga (1997) explored the washback effects of the international English language testing system at the Vietnam National University whereas Vu Thi Phuong Anh (1997) examined authenticity and validity in

language testing with a focus on reading components of IELTS and TOEFL To Thi Thu

Huong (2000) conducted a study to 202 Vietnamese AusAID scholarship awardees in order to justify the relationship between their IELTS scores as the primary requirement for Australian University admission and their academic achievement or success in their host universities in Australia

Regarding CA in Vietnamese context, up to the time of this research report, there has been merely one study carried out by Do Quang Viet (2011) attempting to investigate the patterns

of task types and the focus of assessment practice in French language classrooms in Northern Vietnam at secondary level The findings of Do Quang Viet‘s (2011) survey into testing activities in schools showed that (1) 96.6% of classroom-based testing activities focused on vocabulary and grammar (p 236), and (2) assessment activities were heavily dependent on

mechanical memorization of knowledge with primary emphasis on recognition and reproduction (p 244)

Research on young EFL learners has been conducted with the aim to investigate if Vietnam has prepared necessary and sufficient conditions for a successful implementation of compulsory English language teaching in the primary sector

Moon (2005a/b) conducted a study into the teaching of English at primary levels in Vietnam in order to assess the needs of primary ELT nationwide, including provinces of differing geography, ethnicity and economic and social development Moon (2005b) concluded that,

‗…The existing teachers do not have the appropriate training or, in many cases, the necessary language competence to teach primary children English effectively…Any scaling up of primary English teaching would need plenty of forward planning in order to train the huge number of teachers that would be required There is also very little expertise available in Vietnam in the area of TEYL at present to develop the training programmes and teaching materials needed …‘ (pp.73 - 74)

Although Moon (2005b) did not mention teachers‘ CA competence, it can be inferred that primary EFL teachers were not adequately trained in CA

Thus, in Vietnam, there have been a number of studies on assessment and testing and on primary English teaching practices However, there is an obvious tendency for research on language assessment and testing to depart from young EFL learners, and vice versa, research

on primary English teaching inadequately refer to assessment, especially at classroom level Relatively little has been known about CA practices, especially when the issue is related to young language learners Given the transitional period of the implementation of English language teaching in the primary classroom, there is a strong need for deep insights into the phenomenon of CA practices

This section has outlined the context for teaching, learning and assessing English and the context of researching CA at primary level in Hanoi, Vietnam Although the status of English has been improved, and the 2010 pilot primary English curriculum has followed the innovative trends in curriculum development in the world, there has been a lack of a number of necessary conditions and resources for an effective implementation of English teaching, learning and assessment In regard to research on CA practices in EFL at primary sector, there is a big gap

to be filled as no prior research has tapped into this phenomenon

4 Aims and objectives of the study

The overarching aim is to uncover CA practices and the extent to which such factors as teachers‘ beliefs and working context influence those practices It is believed that the insights help inform teacher training and teacher professional development

The objectives of this study, therefore, are to (1) explore how CA was practised by primary EFL teachers in three primary schools in Hanoi, (2) examine teachers‘ beliefs underlying their

CA practices, and (3) gain understanding of contextual factors influencing teachers‘ CA practices

5 Research questions

Overarching research question:

How and why do the teachers practise classroom assessment the way they do?

6 Scope of the study

This explorative and interpretive study investigates how eight EFL teachers in the three primary schools in Hanoi practise CA in their eleven classroom settings and how these practices are influenced by their beliefs and working contexts Although traditional research in the field of assessment quantitatively examine the validity and reliability of external high stakes tests and examinations, this study, by contrast, confines itself to the investigation of teacher assessment practices inside their classrooms and the factors underlying these practices from sociocultural constructivist perspectives CA in this study, therefore, is restricted within the objectives of the current Primary English curriculum (2010) and is qualitatively examined

in an alignment with the curriculum

The impact of the EFL CA practices is reflected in both teachers‘ teaching quality and in student progress and achievement However, the study placed more emphasis on the part of teacher than on students since the ultimate goal of the study is for teacher training and teacher professional development Student participants, therefore, were not fully explored Only two students in each classroom were accessed for tracking their individual progress and achievement in English as a reflection of teacher assessment practices in the classroom Justification for the choice of the selected student participants is going to be discussed in 2.3

CA practices involve a number of factors, including (1) teacher‘s individual beliefs toward learning, language teaching and assessment, (2) local school context and administration, and

(3) wider external forces like existing societal teaching, learning and assessment culture, reform climate, and the impact of relevant government or quasi-governmental agencies‘ policies (Carless, 2005, p 51) This study limits its focus on teachers‘ beliefs, school regulations on EFL teaching and assessment, and assessment policies which have been promulgated School administration, existing societal teaching, learning and assessment culture, reform climate, impact of relevant government or quasi-governmental agencies‘ policies were discussed only when necessary

Given the inter-relationship between teaching, learning and assessment, this study, employing

a theoretical framework from sociocultural constructivist perspectives, examined CA purposes, approaches, procedures, agents and assessment strategies

In order to uncover the CA practices conducted by the teachers throughout the whole academic year, the study employed qualitative approach with collective case study as research design Thus, the main methods included interview, observation, document analysis and artefacts However, other instruments such as questionnaire and checklist were also employed for the convenience of collecting, displaying and managing data

7 Structure of the study

The research consists of three parts Part I is the research introduction, which briefly presents the rationale, aims, purposes and scope of the study Part II consists of three chapters Chapter One (Literature review) reviews the relevant literature on the components of CA, which serve

as the theoretical framework for the study on teachers‘ beliefs and contextual factors underlying the CA practices This chapter also reviews a large body of previous studies on CA practices and teachers‘ beliefs Chapter Two (Research methodology) provides a description

of the case study research design as well as an explanation of the steps involved in the data collection, data analysis and data display, followed by measures against the threat to validity and reliability Chapter Three (Findings and Discussions) presents the findings and discussion

of the findings in response to the research questions The thesis ends with the Conclusion, which provides a summary of the major findings of the research, recommendations on practices of CA and suggestions for further studies

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a theoretical and empirical framework which is then used as an analytical framework for this research on CA practices

Section 1.1 provides a definition of assessment with types of assessment Section 1.2 identifies the place of CA in the field of language assessment and testing, including the working definition of CA employed by the study This section also discusses the characteristics of young learners and the distinct assessment principles for this kind of students Section 1.3 elaborates on the components of CA, namely purpose of assessment (why to assess), assesment focus (what to assess), approach and methods of assessment (how to assess), agents

of assessment (who to assess), assessment process (when to assess and in what procedure) and assessment strategies (how well to assess) Section 1.4 presents a review on the role of teachers‘ beliefs in their practices, especially when dealing with CA, followed by a review of previous studies about teachers‘ beliefs Finally, section 1.5 reviews a number of empirical studies on CA practices in various disciplines in general and in primary English education in particular, followed by a discussion on the gap in literature in section 1.6

1.1 Assessment

The term assessment in education refers to a systematic gathering, interpreting and using both

quantitative and qualitative information on student learning for the purposes of making decisions or judgements about individuals (Cameron, 2001; Chapelle and Brindley, 2002, Griffin, 2009; Lamprianou & Athanasou, 2009; McMillan, 2014; Messick, 1998; Lynch, 2001; Nunan, 2003; Popham, 2014)

1.1.1 Types of assessment

Drawn out from the literature (e.g., Berry, 2008; Cameron, 2001; Duong Thu Mai, 2013; Lambert and Lines, 2008; McKay S L., 2006; McKay, P., 2006; McMillan, 2014; Nunan, 2003; Popham, 2014; Rea-Dickins, 2007…), it can be inferred that types of assessment is mainly classified based on (1) the settings where assessment is conducted, (2) agents who designs and administers assessment, (3) time when assessment takes place, and (4) purposes of assessment

In terms of scope and settings, assessment can be divided into two types, namely, large-scale and school-based or classroom-based While the former is formally administered to many

learners, usually across schools and regions within the national educational system, the latter is administered either formally or informally for a certain population of students within a school

Regarding agents, large-scale tests are externally designed and administered In contrast, school-based or classroom-based asssessment is planned and conducted by individual school

teachers or groups of school teachers

With respect to purposes, large-scale tests are usually standardized for an easier selection or

comparison among learners Following a consistent set of procedures for designing,

administering and scoring, large-scale tests produce scores, which can be used to evaluate the

effectiveness of the educational system and to compare individuals or schools ‗If children take the same test under the same conditions, then the scores in the tests are believed to have

the same ‗meaning‘ and are therefore comparable‘ (McKay, P., 2006, p.315) Unlike scale tests, the main purposes of school-based or classroom-based assessment are to identify

large-what and how much learners have progressed and achieved so that learning and teaching can

be modified accordingly Such purposes of school-based or classroom-based assessment can then be termed summative and formative An example of summative assessment is testing

learners, either objectively or subjectively at the end of a period of instruction to inform

stakeholders ‗how well the learners did‘ (Shermis & Di Vesta, 2011, p.22) Thus, summative

assessment sums up what the learners have achieved and certifies them (Black & Wiliam,

1998a/b; Lambert & Lines, 2000) Summative assessment is rarely used to measure learner

progress throughout a learning process or to inform the quality of instruction (e.g., to inform teacher if learning objectives are achieved or which teaching methods help obtain the expected

outcomes, or which contents need to be adapted to suit specific learners…) Instead, formative assessment meets these demands Specifically, formative purpose indicates any assessment

aiming at identifying learner progress in order to improve teaching and learning whereas

summative purpose is linked to certifying learners‘ learning, evaluating learning and teaching,

and informing learners‘ achievements to stakeholders (Bennett, 2011; Black & Wiliam,

1998a/b; Broadfoot et al., 1999, in Lambert & Lines, 2000; Harris & McCann, 1994; Hughes,

2003; McMillan, 2003; Sadler, 1989)

1.1.2 Formative and summative assessment

As mentioned in the preceeding section, the terms formative assessment and summative

assessment refer to purposes of assessment However, the terms also indicate two more dimensions, namely time and quality

In terms of time, formative assessment refers to any assessment conducted during instructions Given an emphasis on the continuous process, formative assessment is used interchangeably with continuous assessment In contrast, summative assessment emphasizes the final product

of a specified learning period and can be termed as periodic (Black & Wiliam, 1998a; Harris

& McCann, 1994; Hughes, 2003; Sadler, 1989)

In terms of quality (Bloom et at., 1969 as cited in Black & Wiliam, 1998a/b, 2009), formative

assessment incorporates such qualities as the extent to which (1) assessment serves the purpose of improvement in learning and teaching, (2) assessment reveals student learning, (3) assessment information is actually used for learning and teaching modification, and (4) assessment moves student learning forward In contrast, any assessment restricted to identifying student strengths and weaknesses without further intervention is termed summative (Biggs, 2008; Carless, 2009; Davison & Leung, 2009; Lo, 2006)

Due to their multiple meanings, the terms formative and summative assessment are understood differently by different authors and readers, which leads to a misconception In order to

distinguish the meanings, this study employed the terms (1) continuous and periodic assessment to indicate time distinction, (2) formative and summative purposes to show the purpose or the use of assessment, and (3) formative and summative assessment to refer to the

quality of assessment

Defined in this sense, it could be inferred that a periodic assessment can be used formatively

to give constructive feedback to students and improve learning Similarly, a continuous assessment activity can be termed summative if it provides learners with a mere quantified grade

More details about the dimensions or components of CA will be reviewed and discussed in section 1.3

The next section explores the relationship between classroom assessment and other methods to collect information about student learning It also discusses principles of classroom asessment, especially when dealing with young EFL learners

1.2 Classroom assessment

1.2.1 Boundary and definition of classroom assessment

In education, terms such as evaluation, assessment, measurement and testing are commonly

used In the literature, these terms are defined differently by different authors

Evaluation is defined as the process of gathering information to judge the success and the

quality of the total language program (Bachman; 1994, Cameron, 2001; Chapelle and

Brindley, 2002, Griffin, 2009; Lynch, Nunan, 2003) Assessment is understood as the process

of appropriate interpretation and actions based on appropriate collection of quantitative and

Figure 1.1: Classroom assessment in relationship with

testing, measurement, assessment, and evaluation

(Adapted from Lynch, 2001)

qualitative information about student learning (Lynch, 2001; Messick, 1989) Measurement

refers to ‗any procedure that attaches numbers to characteristics of people, objects, and so on according to a set rule Measurement is the quantitative description of particular characteristics

of a class of people, objects, systems, or events‘ (Berry, 2008, p.7) Testing is one of the

assessment procedures that can be used to measure a learner‘ ability and performance (Bachman; 1994, Cameron, 2001; Chapelle and Brindley, 2002, Griffin, 2009; Lynch, 2001; Nunan, 2003)

The relationship of these terms is illustrated in Figure 1.1,

with a particular reference to the term classroom assessment As indicated in Figure 1.1, classroom assessment encompasses testing, measurement and

assessment, but is not a part of evaluation

Classroom assessment (CA) is defined as the collection, synthesis, and interpretation of

information to aid the teacher in decision making (Airasian,1997; Cheng, Rogers & Hu, 2004;

Cumming, 2010; Eggen and Kauchak, 2004; Leung & Mohan, 2004; Mathew and Poehner, 2014; McKay, 2006; Rea-Dickins, 2001, 2007; Stobart and Gipps, 2010) It may be formative when teachers collect information about children‘s strengths and weaknesses in order to provide feedback to them and to make further decisions about teaching, or it may be summative, when teachers collect information at the end of a period of time, generally to report to stakeholders about children‘s progress

In a more specific manner, Hill and McNamara (2011) define CA as

‗any reflection by teachers (and/or learners) on the qualities of a learner‘s (or group of learners‘) work and the use of that information by teachers (and/or learners) for teaching, learning (feedback), reporting, management or socialization purposes‘ (p 396)

Defined in this way, Hill and McNamara‘s (2011) concept of classroom assessment encompasses a variety of student performances of their knowledge, understanding and ability

in different methods, ranging from a formal standardized test administered inside the classroom to an informal questioning and giving qualitative feedback during instruction

Following Hill and McNamara (ibid.), it can be inferred that: (1) the agents of CA process are

mainly teachers and learnerss; (2) the focus and methods of assessment are any reflection on the qualities of a learner‟s (or group of learners‟) work, either formal or informal, summative

or formative; and (3) the purposes of assessment are for teaching, learning, reporting, management or socialization Accordingly, CA is an on-going process, which can be

conducted throughout the learning process (i.e., regularly or periodically), depending on the problems emerging from individual student or group of students‘ work

For the purpose of this study, Hill and McNamara‘s definition of CA (ibid.) is adopted as the working definition The main reason behind this adoption is that unlike other definitions, which emphasize the role of informal formative assessment, Hill and McNamara‘s definition provides a comprehensive and balanced view of classroom assessment which includes both formal and informal, summative and formative types of assessment conducted by both teacher and students in classroom context

1.2.2 Classroom assessment for young EFL learners

Along with the worldwide trend of starting learning EFL from an early age, a large body of studies have been conducted to find out if general principles of language testing and assessment can be applied to classroom assessment of young EFL learners (e.g Hasselgreen, 2005; Shohamy, 2009; McKay, 2006) The findings of these studies show that young learner

population is „a special case for language assessment‟ (McKay, 2006, p.1) who ‗would be carried out under very distinct conditions‟ (Hasselgreen, 2005, p.261) This was in part owing

to the special characteristics of the young language learners, which requires that assessment for young learners follow certain principles

The subsequent sections are going to elaborate characteristics of young language learners and principles of assessing them accordingly

1.2.2.1 Characteristics of young EFL learners

This section highlights children characteristics reflected in their cognitive, social, emotional and physical growth

According to Piaget (1926, as cited in Cameron, 2001), children cognitive development follows different stages and derives from actions with objects or ideas Children‘s cognitive ability develops as gradual growth, passing through different stages, from sensorimotor to pre-operational to concrete operation upon the age of 11 before it can reach formal, logical and abstract thinking as adult The sensorimotor stage extends from birth until the appearance of language, approximately during the first 18 months of life The preoperational stage occurs around the period from 2 to 7 years old During this stage, children learn to use and to represent objects by images, words, and drawings The concrete operation stage extends from the age of 7 until about 11 or 12 years old At this stage, children can think in a logical and coherent way about objects that exist, and about actions or relations that they can see

According to Piaget (1926, as cited in Nicholls, 2004, p 40) ‗attempts to teach the products of

a ―later‖ stage before previous stages have been passed through cannot facilitate development nor can it foster understanding.‘ This means that at each stage children are able to carry out some types of cognitive thinking but still ―incapable of others‖ (Cameron, 2001, p 3) Thus, what children can learn will depend on what stage of development they have reached, which can vary from one child to another (Dunn, 1983)

Supplementing the work of Piaget (1926, as cited in Cameron, 2001), children cognitive

characteristics in relation to language development have been the subject of many observations and studies, which show that children tend to use such techniques as going for meaning, using chunks of language and inventing new words (Halliwell, 1991; Harmer, 2001; McKay, 2006; Moon, 2000) They are able to form stable concrete concepts as well as mental reasoning and beliefs, continuing to learn from direct experience and from ―sensory input‖ (Brown, 1994, p.90), which means they still need to have all five senses stimulated in order to activate their memory and thinking They are continuing to expand their use of their first language to clarify thinking and learning based on functional purposes of language (Brown, 1994; Cameron, 2001; McKay, 2006) However, children are still unable to understand rules, explanations and abstract talk about language (Brown, 1994, p 90) Moreover, the attention span of children is short, as little as 10 to 15 minutes; they are easily diverted and distracted by other pupils (Brown, 1994; Dunn, 1983; Halliwell, 1991; Harmer, 2001; McKay 2006; Moon, 2000; Scott & Ytreberg, 1990; Ur, 1991) They may drop out of a task when they find it difficult, though they are often willing to try a task in order to please the teacher

Regarding children social growth, children‘s contact with their peers and teachers expands greatly during their school years (Dunn, 1983; McKay, 2006) In order to examine the social facet in children development, many researchers, among whom were Bruner (1976) and Vygotsky (1978), have developed Piaget‘s work (1929) further to include the effects of the social interaction in which children are learning Bruner, together with Ross and Wood (1976,

as cited in Cameron, 2001; in Brewster et al., 2002) introduces the term ‗scaffolding‘ to describe a social talk to support a child in carrying out an activity Similar to the concept of scaffolding (1976) is Vygotsky‘s perspectives of teaching and learning as ‗a way of working within the zone of proximal development‘ Vygotsky (1978, as cited in Lighbown & Spada, 1999) claims that children‘ learning is supported by the conversations with adults and peers, but not alone He emphasizes that learning can be enhanced through collaboration with others

including teachers and more able peers Vygotsky concludes that “in a supportive interactive environment, the child is able to advance to a higher level of knowledge and performance‖

(Lightbown & Spada, 1991, p 23) Drawing on the work of Vygotsky (1978), many practitioners (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Carless, 2011; Leung, 2004; Rea-Dickins, 2000; Torance & Pryor, 1998) argue that talk or classroom discourse plays a central role in the teaching and learning process, where teachers and children must use talk and joint activity to create a shared communicative space Quality oral interaction is regarded as central elements

of learning (Carless, 2011; Leung, 2004) and children are creatively engaged in their own learning, negotiating meaning and experimenting with language (Dunn, 1983; Moon, 2000; Scott & Ytreberg 1990; Vale 1995)

In regard to emotional and physical growth, it is this characteristic that presents clear differences between young learners and adults Children are sensitive to criticism and their feelings of success or failure are dependent on how teachers and peers respond to them (Halliwell, 1991; McKay 2006) Temperament is one special trait in children aged around 7-9, which much ―affects their ability to take part in language-learning activities‖ (Dunn, 1983, p 14) Children‘s physical growth also continues rapidly toward the development of gross and fine-motor skills (Tucker, 1977, p 42, as cited in Dunn, 1983, p.14) At this age they are still very active, easy to get tired but quickly to recover (Dunn, 1983; Moon, 2001; McKay 2006)

To sum up, young learners are still half the way of cognitive, social, emotional and physical development Therefore, assessment of young language learners needs to be taken with care, inherent in the principles discussed in the following section

1.2.2.2 Principles of classroom assessment of young EFL learners

Assessing children‘s work is a daily feature of classroom practice at all levels Given conditions under which children can learn best demonstrate the way they should be assessed (McKay, 2006, p 47), all the characteristics of young language learners described in the previous section firmly shape the way teacher assesses them Assessment principles, therefore, include aligning assessment with young learners‘ learning experience, supporting teaching and learning, and involving children in a motivational and child-friendly assessment procedure (Cameron, 2001; McKay, 2006; Moon, 2001)

These principles require that assessment tasks should be meaningful, taking children‘s characteristics into account There should be an emphasis on meaning in context rather than on grammatical form (Brewster et al., 2002; Cameron, 2001; Halliwell, 1991; McKay, 2006; Moon, 2000) Moreover, young children should not be assessed for things they do not know, rather than that assessment should focus on classroom activities, which children are familiar with (Brewster et al., 2002; Cameron, 2001; Halliwell, 1991; McKay, 2006; Moon, 2000;

Vale, 1995) since a sense of failure early on could badly influence children‘s attitudes toward learning Therefore, it is important that there must be no ―pass‖ or ―fail‖ in assessment at primary level (Harris & McCann, 1994; Vale, 1995) Most importantly, assessment tasks or activities should be suitable to children‘s cognitive and social development For example, a simple listening task matching pictures to what they hear can be suitable to children over 8 years of age, but for children under 7 it could be difficult because they are still developing the hand-eye-ear coordination (Brewster et al., 2002; Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003; McKay, 2006) Finally, assessment tasks should be motivational so that children can perform to their best (Brewster et al., 2002; Cameron, 2001; Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003; Halliwell, 1991; McKay, 2006; Moon, 2000) Specifically, assessment tasks should also involve physical activities such

as response-moving, pointing, circling or colouring in a picture to encourage young learners to complete the task (Brewster et al., 2002; Cameron, 2001; Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003; Halliwell, 1991; McKay, 2006; Moon, 2000) Assessment tasks should take children‘s physical development into account, with regard to tiredness, ability to sit still and hand-eye coordination… ( McKay, 2006)

Generally speaking, in order to conform to the principles, it is necessary to carefully consider the stages in children‘s cognitive development; social influence, their prior knowledge and the influence of the learning environment toward children attitudes and motivation for learning Details about the principles reflected in different aspects of classroom assessment are going to

be examined in the following section

1.3 Components of classroom assessment

This section reviews the literature on the principles of assessment inherent in the major components of CA, which can be used as a theoretical framework to explore teachers‘ beliefs and practices ofCA The components of CA practices drawn out from the literatureinclude purposes of CA, approaches of CA, agents of CA, focus of CA, procedures to conduct CA, and assessment strategies The components are structured with an attempt to answer such questions as why/for what purposes CA is administered, what approaches guide CA, who is involved in CA practices, what is assessed in CA, and when and how well CA is conducted Definitely, these six components help create a profound theoretical framework, which best informs the design of the study

The subsequent sections provide more insights into each component related to EFL classroom assessment to young learners

1.3.1 Purposes of assessment

Regarding the use of assessment results for the pedagogical purpose, assessment can be classified into two categories: assessment of learning (AOL), and assessment for learning (AFL), which is then divided into assessment for teaching (AFT) and assessment as learning (ASL) Among these four categories, assessment of learning is used synonymously with summative assessment while the remainders constitute assessment for formative purposes In this regard, formative assessment is viewed from both teacher and learners‘ perspectives, in which AFL and AFT are facilitated with the essential role of teacher whereas ASL is enhanced with the active role of learners

Specifically, AFL is the process of seeking and interpreting evidence for making substantively grounded decisions or judgements about the product of a learning task in order to decide where the learners are in their learning, where they need to go, and how best to get there

(Broadfoot et al., 1999 in Lambert & Lines, 2000; Colby and Turner, 2007)

In light of dynamic assessment, AFT is conducted to identify the learners‘ zone of proximal

development (ZPD) (Griffin et al., 2012; Poehner, 2008; Griffin, 2014) Linking notions of

scaffolding and a learner‘s ZPD, Poehner and Lantolf (2003) argue that in order to fully understand a learner‘s potential to develop, it is necessary to discover his or her zone of

proximal development through developmental progressions (Griffin et al., 2012; Griffin,

2014) so that ‗we can observe how the person behaves in response to assistance‘ (Poehner and Lantolf, 2003, p 22) As such, scaffolding during assessment helps provide teachers with valuable information to better understand the potential of a learner and be better informed for future intervention (Booth, 2012)

As for ASL, assessment can be used to provide students with opportunities to actively involve themselves in the assessment process, in order to develop and support their self-regulation and learning disposition As such, learners act as active agents in the assessment process, making a meaningful connection between CA and their own learning (Carless, 2009;

Heritage, 2007; McMillan, 2011)

Recently, the distinction made between formative and summative tends to be blurred since the same assessment instrument, and even the same assessment results, could be used both formatively and summatively As Gardner (2010) puts it, the most important point is that an assessment activity is not inherently formative or summative (p 6) It is the use of assessment results that determines the type of assessment (Black & Wiliam, 1998a/b; Gardner, 2010; Leung & Teasdale, 2000; McMillan, 2010) If a test is used to help learners improve their learning, then it is mainly formative or AFL If an assessment activity is used to report

learners‘ standard of performance, then it is mainly summative or AOL Then, an end-of-year test can be used summatively to report performance and formatively if it focuses on reflection and self-evaluation in learners (Carless, 2011) Moreover, in the era of technology, ‗distinction between formative and summative assessment may diminish as the efficiency of technology allows [timely] feedback to be received at both systems‘ (i.e., formative and summative assessment) (Griffin, 2011)

This blurry distinction can be visualized in the table below:

Summative Formative

Note: X: primary purpose; x: secondary purpose Table 1.1: View on relative distinctions of Formative/ Summative vs AOL/AFL/AFT/ASL

(Adapted from Bennett, 2011, p 8)

As can be seen from Table 1.1, assessment tools used for formative purpose could provide information about learners‘ achievement, which helps in grading and certification Likewise, summative purposes could also serve as feedback for teaching and learning improvement (Broadfoot, 2005; Brookhart, 2010)

1.3.2 Assessment focus

In the field of teaching English to young learners, the ultimate aim is to develop communicative language ability in learners Assessment focus, therefore, is to uncover and develop the communicative competence in English and the thinking levels young learners possess in their learning process Thus, underlying the ‗what to assess‘ is the construct of an assessment, based on which a number of decisions on the traits of language ability/performance in student learning to be uncovered and decisions on the content of an assessment are made to address the educational objectives

Most recently, the framework of language user‘s competence within the CEFR proposed by the Council of Europe (COE) (2001) defines the notion of communicative language ability as

a wide range of knowledge, namely, general competences and communicative language competences This is explained in COE‘s document as ‗all human competences contribute in one way or another to the language user‘s ability to communicate and may be regarded as aspects of communicative competence‘ (COE, 2001, p 101)

Specifically, general competences are described as a combination of declarative knowledge, skills and know-how, existential competence and ablity to learn In order to prepare themselves for effective communication, language learners need declarative knowledge and skills and know-how, which involve knowledge of the world, sociocultural knowledge and intercultural knowledge as well as practical skills and knowhow, social living and intercultural skills and knowhow Moreover, as attitudes, motivation and learning dispositions play a crucial role in the success of language learning, learners also need to develop existential competence and ability to learn (COE, 2001, pp 101-108)

Communicative language competences encompass linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences There are five areas of linguistic competences, namely, lexical competence, grammatical competence, semantic competence, phonological competence, orthographic competence and orthoepic competence (COE, 2001, pp 108 – 118)

Given the proficiency level of young language learners, it is interesting to learn that the CEFR places an emphasis on knowledge and skill in the perception and production of both the symbols of the print or written texts (orthographic) and a correct pronunciation from the written form (orthoepic) Traditionally, orthographic and orthoepic competences are categorized as basic literacy skills which enable children to recognize sound-letter link for correct spelling and pronunciation, establishing a solid foundation for independent reading and writing For language learners, especially for young language learners these skills are substantial When being recognized as two independent competences of the five, orthographic and orthoepic competences occupy an important place in developing communicative competences in young learners Regarding student learning English at primary level, there is a strong showcase for the developing and assessing orthographic and orthoepic competences alongside other well-established components of lexicology, grammar, semantics, and phonology

Regarding student thinking levels to be revealed in educational objectives, there are a number

of profound frameworks of which the most influential one is Bloom‘s taxonomy (1956) with adaptation made by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001)

Bloom‘s taxonomy describes a mental process graded from Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis to Evaluation (1956, in Lambert & Lines, 2000; in McKay, 2006) Drawing on the work of Bloom‘s, Anderson and Krathwohl‘s revision (2001) retains six cognitive process categories: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate and create

By changing the description of thinking levels from the form of nouns (e.g., knowledge,

comprehension,) to the form of verbs (e.g., remember, understand…), Anderson and Krathwohl‘s revision emphasizes the interrelation between planning, teaching and assessment, with the taxonomy being the backbone Anderson and Krathwohl‘s taxonomy (2001) involves

a two dimensional table, with six cognitive processes (remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate and create) and four types of knowledge (factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive) The factual knowledge domain includes things that learners need to know about a subject area or concept The conceptual knowledge domain includes the ways in which other concepts and theories of the subject matter can be linked Procedural knowledge includes specific skills that learners need to master The metacognitive knowledge domain includes the learners‘ understandings about how to learn and how to perform at school Therefore, compared to the original framework of Bloom‘s, Anderson and Krathwohl‘ revised framework

is more appropriate for teachers to reveal student learning aligned with learning objectives, instruction and assessment

For the purpose of the study, in order to reveal thinking levels, new version of Bloom‘s taxonomy by Anderson and Krathwohl was used because the object of the study was elementary students, who are thought to be in their developmental process cognitively and affectively, thereby they need specific learning targets prescribed for them

Obviously, teachers who understand the elements of communicative language competences and different levels of learning can use that information in selecting the type of assessment to use and in giving feedback and feedforward to help students improve their performances and understanding

1.3.3 Assessment approaches and methods

Approaches of assessment have been profoundly grounded on substantial theories of learning Alongside the development of learning theories, assessment witnesses a diversity and complexity in its approaches, reflecting social and educational realities

Accompanied with the earliest theory of learning, the first approach, influenced by Behaviourism, sees learning as a gradual process of behavior formation through a system of reinforcement where (1) teacher is seen as the single transmitter of knowledge to learners, (2) learning is broken into constituent parts of grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation, and (3) assessment is done by the teacher to check if learners memorize these constituent parts (Brown, 2004; Cameron, 2001; Gardner, 2006; Harmer, 1991; Hutchinson, 1987, Swaffield, 2008)

Later, the second approach (influenced by Cognitivism) sees learning as an internal governed process resulting in problem solving where (1) teacher plays the role of knowledge transmitter and activity organizer, (2) learning reflects cognitive ability or thinking order graded from knowledge, application, analysis, synthesis to evaluation (according to Bloom,

rule-1956, as cited in Lambert & Lines, 2000; and McKay, 2006); and (3) assessment is done mainly by the teacher to check learner understandings in their mental process in order to identify if they demonstrate mastery of content or competency in order to move them to the next level of instruction (Brown, 2004; Cameron, 2001; Gardner, 2006; Harmer, 1991; Hutchinson, 1987, Swaffield, 2008)

More recently, the third approach perceives learning as cultural and social interactions where (1) active roles of the teacher and learners are emphasized, (2) learning is constructed with the scaffolding provided by more able people (including the teacher and the more-able peers) in the environment where learning takes place, and (3) assessment is done by both the teacher and learners to facilitate learners‘ internalizations of their constructed learning (Brown, 2004; McKay, 2006; Cauley & McMillan, 2010; Poehner and Lantolf, 2003; Stobart & Gipps, 2010) Compared to the preceding assessment approach, assessment influenced by Sociocultural Constructivism tends to shift from teacher-centeredness to student-centeredness and learning-centeredness (Rea-Dickins 2001; Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003; Poehner and Lantolf, 2003; Brown, 2004; McKay, 2006; Cauley & McMillan, 2010; Stobart & Gipps, 2010)

Under the influence of the sociocultural constructivist approach, assessment is generally to be embedded in the learning process, without being carried out as an ‗add-on‘ after the learning event (Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003; McKay, 2006) Such assessment tasks are done by both the teacher and learners with an attempt to improve teaching and learning Both group learning as well as individual learning is assessed (Ur, 1991; Rea-Dickins 2001; Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003; McKay, 2006) Assessment of how learners approach problem-solving, work together and evaluate their actions is a key factor, suggesting a concentration on collaborative and project work (Vale, 1995; Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003; McKay, 2006) In this sense, assessment

is done constructively and collaboratively focusing on both achievement and development, allowing learners to improve their actual learning and stretch their potentials (Harris & Mccann, 1994; 2004; Rea-Dickins, 2005; Poehner, 2008) Assessment methods range from traditional (tests) to alternative (non-tests) forms, addressing ‗real world‘ problems which learners are encountered in their learning process (Brewster et al., 2002; Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003; McKay, 2006; Rea-Dickins 2001) Judgements are mainly qualitative, rather than quantitative, to fit the sociocultural constructivist approach (Swaffield, 2008)

However, apart from tests, other types of alternative assessment is time-consuming and difficult for both administration and scoring because learners are assessed as they perform actual or simulated real-world tasks in varied contexts, which generally require interactions with teacher or mediator (Brown, 2004; Poehner, 2008) Moreover, there is also a threat to reliability in such assessment as scores fluctuate, depending much on different formats and contexts of assessment

1.3.4 Agents of assessment

CA involves all the process related to teachers‘ making decisions about learners‘ progress and achievement, ranging from informal feedback given to a learner in a lesson, to the announcement of their exam results (Cauley & McMillan, 2010; Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003; Rea-Dickins 2001; Stobart & Gipps, 2010) In this regard, the teacher is involved in assessment, collecting, recording and reporting evidences of learners‘ progress and achievement at a number of levels (Brown, 2004; Cauley & McMillan, 2010; Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003; McKay, 2006; Poehner and Lantolf, 2003; Rea-Dickins, 2001; Stobart & Gipps, 2010) Given this essential role of teacher, CA, to large extent, is understood as teacher assessment (Cameron, 2001; Davison & Leung, 2009; Moon, 2000)

When referring to CA, it is also necessary to include learners as they are not only the receivers

of the assessment done to them, but in some cases they are the administers or assessors for themselves Above all, they ‗can become more aware of their own learning process and performance, and in turn they can become more proficient in learning‘ (Butler & Lee, 2010, p.6) In this sense, self-assessment and peer-assessment emphasize the active engagement of learners in their learning process, from sharing with the teacher the learning goals, the criteria for success and the procedure to carry out the assessment to develop their learning autonomy (Brown, 2008; Heritage, 2007; McKay, 2006; Rea-Dickins, 2007)

Thus, CA is a two-way process involving teacher designing assessment, collecting and interpreting evidences of learning, grading, recording and reporting learners‘ progress and achievement While the teacher is seen as the decisive agent of the whole process, learners are also becoming the active agents of their own learning Specifically, they are able to evaluate their own learning products or learning processes in light of the shared learning objectives and standards with the teacher Simultaneously, they are able to produce a critical analysis of their peer‘s work and to receive critical appraisals of their own work against a set of scoring criteria, provided that they are supported (mainly by the teacher) to have a good understanding

of the learning outcomes required

1.3.5 Assessment procedure

Assessment procedure refers to time and steps involved in the assessment process From the

conventional view of teaching and assessment cycle, assessment often comes after a certain period of teaching and learning (Cajkler & Addelman, 2000; Hutchinson, 1987) In this sense, learners are assessed based on the criteria which have already been shaped by the expected learning outcomes This kind of assessment employs a limited range of formats with the most common type being paper-and pencil tests After administering the assessment, the student work is marked and evaluated Based on the evaluation, the learners are certified, teachers are either rewarded or criticized, and the whole course is re-examined in order to identify if the aims and objectives are satisfactory, and the cycle continues (Cajkler & Addelman, 2000; Hutchinson, 1987)

Obviously, in this cycle, the final assessment is characterized as formal achievement tests/examinations The procedures, therefore, include such steps as (1) specifying aims, objectives and the intended learning outcomes, (2) proposing a checklist of main content and task types covered in the syllabus, (3) constructing specifications that describe the content, knowledge/skills/attitudes assessed, weighting, and marking, (4) selecting task types and writing test items as well as piloting the test items if possible, (5) administering the tests, and

(6) marking, and (7) disseminating the results (Cheng et al., 2004: Fulcher, 2010; Heaton,

1998; Hughes 2003)

In this teaching and assessment cycle, however, there is another informal assessment which is continuous, ‗directed at specific bits of learner-produced language with the aim of bringing about improvement‘ (Ur, 1991, p.244) This kind of assessment is conducted before, during and after presenting new inputs with a variety of formats ranging from informal observation to

a class test (Biggs, 2008; Carless, 2009; Davison & Leung, 2009; McKay, 2006; McMillan, 2010; Rea-Dickins, 2001, 2004, 2007) Central to informal assessment is classroom observation used to collect evidence of student learning to bridge the gap between where the learners are and the expected goal (Ramaprasad, 1983) Procedures of effective informal assessment involve revealing learners‘ prior knowledge about the new input, checking their understanding of the new input, comparing their current learning with the specified goals, identifying learners‘ strength and weaknesses (including their misconception), providing support when necessary, and developing learner self-improvements (Black & Wiliam, 1998a/b; Brookhart, 2008; Harris, 2007; Ramaprasad, 1983; Rea-Dickins, 2001; Russell & Airasian, 2012; Sadler, 1989; Stobart & Gipps, 2010; Torrance & Pryor, 1998)

In general, either for formal or informal types, assessment procedures within classroom contexts typically encompass such steps as collecting evidence of learning (i.e., prior knowledge, understanding, misconception), interpreting assessment evidences collected, grading, marking or decision making, recording assessment information, and using assessment results for specific purpose, ranging from modifying learning and teaching to reporting assessment results to relevant stakeholders (Rea-Dickins, 2001; Gillis & Griffin, 2008; Cizek,

2009; Russell & Airasian, 2012; Miller et al., 2013; McMillan, 2014; Popham, 2014)

of successful assessment practices

According to Lambert and Lines (2000) and Harris (2007), CA techniques generated from research include providing clear learning targets, structuring the beginning and end of every lesson, offering feedback about progress towards the targets, enhancing student self-assessment and self-regulation and so on

Recently, based on their empirical research findings, Cauley and McMillan (2010) draw out five key strategies that characterize CA They are: (1) provide clear learning target; (2) offer feedback about progress toward meeting goals; (3) attribute student success and mastery to moderate effort; (4) encourage student self-/peer- assessment; (5) help student set attainable goals for improvement

Similarly, Brookhart and Moss (2009) identify six elements of CA process as shared learning targets and criteria for success; feedback that feeds forward, student goal setting, student self-/peer- assessment; strategic teacher questioning; student engagement in asking effective questions (p 5)

Generally speaking, the strategies mentioned by Cauley and McMillan (2010) and by Brookhart and Moss (2009) resemble two areas which Black and Wiliam (1998b) indicate as essential in the conceptual framework that facilitates learning changes in classroom context They are summarized as revealing student learning and using evidence of student learning to adapt teaching and to support student self-reflection and improvement

Drawing upon Black and Wiliam‘s conceptual framework to support teaching and learning, Wiliam and Thompson (2007, in Black et al., 2009) then modify that teachers need to not only clarify, share, and understand learning intentions and criteria for success but also organize classroom activities that elicit evidence of student learning It is possible to specify the learning intentions in terms of clear and short-term goals, with narrow and specific criteria for

success (Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003; McKay, 2006) In regard to elicitation of evidence of

achievement, teachers can frequently utilize the form of questioning or dialogic talk Kelly & Turner, 2007; Leung, 2004; Carless, 2011) And it is important to note that any

(Colby-actions that elicit evidence should be used to inform instruction The requirement that

feedback move learning forward emphasizes that feedback is more effective when it causes a cognitive rather than an affective change However, the extent to which feedback enhances learning depends not only on the quality of the feedback, but also on student, and the learning context in which the feedback is given and received (Brookhart, 2008) The other aspect of feedback that moves learning forward is related to instructional adjustments from the part of teacher Instead of merely providing feedback to student, the assessment outcomes may provide feedback for the teacher so that the teacher can modify the instruction in order to be

more effective

Regarding an assessment strategy that is related to the role of student in the CA process, students are supposed to be the owners of their own learning and active as learning resources for each other For students to become owners of their own learning they need both to understand the curriculum standards with its specific goals, and to be active in guiding their own learning—in other words, they must become self-regulated learners

Thus, the agreed-upon assessment strategies include sharing the learning goals with students, eliciting evidence of student learning through a variety of methods, giving feedback that feeds forward, and extending student learning

Section 1.3 has reviewed the six components of CA, including purposes of classroom assessment, focus of classroom assessment, approaches of classroom assessment, agents of classroom assessment, procedures, and assessment strategies to conduct classroom assessment The purpose of assessment has been seen as the crucial factor for choosing the meaningful focus, the appropriate assessment approach, its relevant procedure and effective assessment strategies Essentially, identifying the focus of an assessment process, which leads to useful (Bachman & Palmer, 1996) use of the assessment is the ultimate goal of any assessment Without identifying the exact construct underlying a specific assessment, based on which an

assessment is constructed and administered, the whole process becomes meaningless or useless The main agents of classroom assessment – teacher and learners, also play an increasingly important role in juggling and implementing the whole assessment process

As teachers are seen as the decisive agent in their CA practices, it is useful, then, to find out what shapes the way teacher conducts their assessments Since an extensive literature has indicated how teachers‘ classroom practices including assessment practices are influenced by their beliefs (e.g., Borg, 2003; Green, 1971; Pajares,1992…), it is critical to gain understanding of the underlying beliefs of teachers‘ CA actions/behaviours The following section is a review of the literature on teachers‘ beliefs and on how beliefs influence their CA practices

1.4 Teachers‟ beliefs

1.4.1 Definitions of teachers‟ beliefs

Much has been written in the literature about teachers‘ beliefs Drawing from the literature, the

definition of the term of teachers‟ beliefs seems to be inconsistent among researchers The

term has been defined as ‗an individual‘s judgement of the truth or falsity of a proposition, a judgment that can only be inferred from a collective understanding of what human beings say, intend, and do‘ (Pajares, 1992, p 316)

It is also defined as ‗a particularly provocative form of personal knowledge that is generally defined as pre-service or in-service teachers‘ assumptions about students, learning, classrooms, and the subject matter to be taught‘ (Kagan; 1992, pp 65-66) Similarly, Calderhead (1996, as cited in Fives & Buehl, 2012) identified five areas of teacher's beliefs, including, beliefs about learners and learning, beliefs about teaching, beliefs about the subject, beliefs about learning to teach and beliefs about self and the teaching role Generally speaking, there are two different approaches to defining teachers‘ beliefs (Fives & Buehl, 2012) For example, one approach separates beliefs from attitudes and knowledge (e.g., Green, 1971; Richardson, 1996) whereas the other approach makes no distinction between knowledge, perceptions, attitudes and beliefs (e.g., Borg, 2003; Herman & Duffy, 1989; Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1992; Rogers et al., 2007; Woods, 1996)

For the purpose of clarity and consistency in this study, the term teachers‟ beliefs is used

interchangeably with knowledge, attitudes and perceptions as suggested by Pajares (1992) and

Rogers et al (2007)

In this study, the term teachers‟ belief has been used to refer to an individual teachers’

attitudes and knowledge of student learning, language teaching and assessment (see Pajares, 1992; Rogers et al., 2007)

1.4.2 Rationale for exploring teachers‟ beliefs

In order for teachers to conduct effective and successful CA practices, they are influenced by a number of factors, including their individual beliefs toward language teaching, learning and assessment (Borg, 2003; Carless, 2005; Green, 1971)

Bauch (1984) also states that teachers‘ beliefs are believed to be likely transformed into attitudes, which in turn influence individual intentions, then, intentions become the bases for decisions that lead to actions Sharing this perspective, Richards and Lockhart (1996) assert ‗it

is based on the assumption that what teachers do is a reflection of what they know and believe, and that teacher knowledge and "teacher thinking" provide the underlying framework or schema which guides the teacher's classroom actions‘ (p 29) In a similar line, Dasgupta

(2013) agrees that personal beliefs or attitudes exert a powerful influence on the individual‘s

judgments, decisions and actions unconsciously

Erkmen (2012, p.141) also argues that

It has now been well established that teacher beliefs about teaching and learning, about themselves and their students influence the ways they view and approach their work This view

is based on the assumption that understanding teachers‘ beliefs and the principles they operate from will help to understand how teachers view their work; how teachers‘ beliefs affect their behaviour in the classroom; what goes on in the classroom; how teachers use new information about teaching and learning in their teaching; how teaching practices and professional teacher preparation programmes can be improved (Richards, Gallo and Renandya, 2001; Borg, 2003)

Thus, teacher‘s personal beliefs about assessment can have a powerful impact on their classroom assessment practices

1.4.3 Factors shaping teachers‟ beliefs

There raises a question of what factors help shape teachers‘ beliefs Research showed that there are crucial factors influencing teachers‘ assessment beliefs Such factors include pre-service teacher assessment training, teaching experience, academic qualification, professional development, and prior assessment experience as students (Brown, Chaudhry & Dhamija, 2015; Tao, 2014)

Several studies, in attempt to trace back sources of failures in teacher assessment practices, identified either insufficient or inappropriate/irrelevant pre-service assessment training (e.g., Brown, Irving & Keergan, 2008; Zhang & Burry-Stock, 2003) The findings help confirm that

pre-service teacher assessment programmes play a decisive role in shaping theoretical and basic foundations of assessment knowledge base required for effective classroom assessment Regarding the impact of teaching experience on teachers‘ assessment beliefs, Zhang and Burry-Stock (1997) found that teaching experience is among the main factors enhancing teachers‘ beliefs underlying assessment competence in developing performance assessment and using informal observations for students Along this line, Chapman (2009) and Alkharusi (2011) also found that teaching experience contributes to a greater self-perceived assessment competence However, there are some studies rejecting the causal relationship between teaching experience and teachers‘ knowledge and beliefs about assessment (Alkharusi, 2011; Gotch & French, 2013)

In consideration of in-service professional development, some research has shown that providing school teachers with courses or workshops on educational assessment promotes assessment knowledge (Tao, 2014) Such findings echo Stiggins‘ (2010) argument that the lack of in-service assessment training delivery worldwide has resulted in a limited assessment knowledge base of teachers

Another factor affecting teachers‘ beliefs about assessment is their own experience as learners and assessees Green and Stager (1986) assert that school teachers‘ prior learning experience influence their current beliefs about classroom tests As Richards annd Lockhart (1994) put it,

‗all teachers were once students‘ (p 30), then their beliefs about assessment are often a reflection of how they themselves were assessed As such, a teacher who as a student was continuously given tests tends to use tests as a single source to collect information about student learning

In particular contexts, there are practical factors such as large class size or long teaching hour exerting a great impact on teachers‘ beliefs of assessment Gibbs and Lucas (1997) found that large class size prevent teachers from implementing authentic and performance-based assessment, which leads to their beliefs in disregarding such types of assessment in their

classroom Similarly, Nakabugo et al (2007) asserts that large class size impacts assessment

practices of primary school teachers in Uganda These teachers hardly believe based assessment tasks as effective types of assessment Likewise, in terms of the way long teaching hour influences teachers‘ classroom assessment practices, Rath (2010) found that teachers in his study never returned the marked assignments to their students and did not provide feedback on students‘ work because they had so many classes per week Obviously, such teachers are unlikely to believe in changes in their assessment practices