Due to the Covid 19 pandemic resulting in the limitations in data collection procedure which has been presented in Section 5.3 of Chapter 5, this study only investigated the actual practices of one teacher (Helen). Among the five teachers, Helen was the only one whose formative assessment practice in class was carefully observed in two lessons. This section, therefore, analyzes her actual practice to get a closer look at how this teacher employed formative assessment strategies in her writing classes as well as the relationship between her cognition and practice.
To begin with, I would give an overview of Helen’s teaching procedure in her writing lessons based on the observational data. This procedure is illustrated in Table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2 Helen’s lesson procedures (Observation note, 15/01/2020) Lesson 1 – Topic Traffic Lesson 2 – Topic Pollution
ã Studentswork in pairs and discuss ideas for the topic Traffic
ã Students guess the topic of the pictures
ãStudents ask and answer questions from the exercise in the textbook
ã Pre-listening: Students work in pairs and guess the correct answers for the listening exercises in the textbook
ã Studentswork in pairs and discuss ideas for the topic Pollution
ã Students guess the topic of the pictures
ã Studentsask and answer questions from the exercise in the textbook
ã Pre-listening: Students work in pairs and guess the correct answers for the diagram in the textbook
ã While-listening: Students listen
54
ã While and post-listening:
Students listen to the audio and check the guessing answers
ã Pre-writing: Students guess the topic of the pictures
ã Students work in groups and discuss ideas for the writing topic
ã While-writing: Students write a paragraph in groups
ã Teacher observes and gives feedback
ã Post-writing: Presentation (Each group reports on their writing)
ã Peers’ feedback session
ã Teacher’s feedback session
to the audio and fill in the diagram
ã Post-listening: Teacher calls one student to the board to complete the diagram. Other students work in pairs and compare answers with peers
ã Pre-writing: Students work in groups and discuss ideas for the writing topic
ã While-writing: Students write a paragraph in groups
ã Teacher observes and gives feedback
ã Post-writing: Gallery Walk
ã Peers’ feedback session
ã Teacher’s feedback session
Compared to Table 4.2, which presented other teachers’ teaching procedures, it can be seen that Helen also conducted the same procedure and organised similar activities . Although in Section 4.1.2.1, Helen misconceived formative assessment as ―oral tests'' or ―15-minute tests‖, she did employ three formative assessment strategies (i.e..,questioning, feedback and peer-assessment) in her writing class through such activities as guessing pictures, discussion, pair or groupwork, presentation and gallery walk. The extract below gives an example
55
of Helen using feedback strategy through groupwork and presentation activity at the while and post-writing stages in Lesson 1:
Extract 19
Helen asked students to work in four big groups and gave each of them an A0 paper and a marker. Each group chose one type of traffic to write a paragraph and report about it. Teacher then went around, observed students writing and gave feedback to them if necessary. After 7 minutes, the teacher called each group to bring their writing to the board and present their works in turn...The teacher gave feedback about the grammar mistakes, vocabulary uses and ideas development to the students.
(Observation note, Helen’s lesson 1, 15/01/2020)
In explaining the reason for using the feedback strategy, Helen stated her aim was to point out her students’ mistakes or weaknesses so that students can learn from her comments and improve their writing. Helen also clarified her use of questioning strategy through guessing pictures activity as to elicit the students’
learning evidence in the lesson. This was contradictory to Helen’s perceived purpose of formative assessment in Section 4.1.2.2. Although she mentioned that formative assessment was used for grading purposes, she still employed the strategies for formative aims and planned for adjustment in her writing classes.
Another important finding of the study was that Helen’s practice of formative assessment was also influenced by the contextual factors reported in Section 4.1.4. Regarding the national assessment policy (Section 4.1.4.1), just like other EFL teachers in the lower-secondary public school system, Helen also strictly followed the official document guidelines and employed such activities as guessing pictures, presentation, and so on to practice formative assessment in her class.
The teacher also reported on the large-sized class and the lack of time as contextual difficulties (Section 4.1.4.2) which hindered her practice of formative assessment strategy. However, not all of Helen’s assessment practice was
56
obstructed by these difficulties. She professed to use peer-assessment strategy, (i.e., pair or groupwork activities) as it was considered a good way for her to manage the large-sized class. Helen explained that by using this strategy, all students would have to focus on their works when discussing with peers. From Helen and other teachers’ sharings, it could be noted that the teachers’ reported contextual difficulties were not only regarded as the constraints for teachers’
effective use of formative assessment but they could also function as facilitations for teachers’ practice of strategies.
In general, the case study of Helen helped provide readers with a clearer picture of how an EFL lower-secondary teacher uses formative assessment strategies in the writing classes as well as the relationship between their practices and cognition.