Formative assessment of writing in English as a foreign language

ABSTRACT

Recognizing the importance of formative assessment, this mixed-methods study investigates how four teachers and 100 students respond to the new emphasis on formative assessment in English as a foreign language (EFL) writing classes in Norway. While previous studies have examined formative assessment in oral classroom interactions and focused on either studying students or teachers, little research has been conducted on formative assessment of writing where both students and teachers are studied. As such, this study provides new insight. The findings mostly indicate that contradictions are prevalent amongst teachers’ and students’ perceptions of formative assessment of writing. The contradictions revolve around feedback, grades, text revision, self-assessment, and student involvement. The identified contradictions suggest the need for developing a mutual understanding of formative assessment in order to make it useful and meaningful.

KEYWORDS:

• formative assessment
• assessment for learning
• writing assessment
• English as a foreign language

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Professor May Britt Postholm (NTNU, Trondheim), Professor Kari Smith (UiB, Bergen) and Professor Val Klenowski (QUT, Brisbane) for their helpful feedback on earlier versions of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

¹These terms are used interchangeably in this article. ‘Formative assessment’ is more the scientific term, whereas at policy level and in schools AfL is used.

²Half the amount of instruction hours they receive in Norwegian, less than science and mathematics – often singled out as core subjects (and tested internationally), less than social science and physical education, and the same amount as other foreign languages such as German and French.

³In the United States, it is common to use the term “multiple drafting” for the more Anglo-Saxon term “text revision”.

⁴Peer assessment was a totally unknown practice in the classrooms involved in the present study, and it is neither something teachers in Norway have to practice with their students (in contrast to providing useful feedback, involve students in assessment practices and in conducting self-assessment, which are all part of the official assessment regulations). Thus, peer assessment was not included as an item on the questionnaires.

⁵The percentages in the tables have been rounded off by one decimal in the text to ease reading.

⁶See Figure 1. Class 1 = C1, Class 2 = C2 and so forth. Each student in each focus-group has been numbered. Number 1 is a high performing student, number 2 is average performing, number 3 is low performing. So that “C1-S2” means “Student number 2 in the first eighth grade class, average performing”, “C2-S3” = Student number 3 in the second eighth grade class, low performing, and so forth.