Three Paradigms of Classroom Assessment: Implications for Written Feedback Research

References

• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barwell, R. (Ed.). (2009). Multilingualism in mathematics classrooms: Global perspectives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204–211. doi:10.1093/elt/ccn043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). The nature and value of formative assessment for learning ( Unpublished manuscript). Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ. Retrieved from http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c4/73/57/formative.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102
   Google Scholar
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Assessment for learning in the classroom. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 9–25). London, UK: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert, & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Bullough, R. V., Goldstein, S. L., & Holt, L. A. (1984). Human interests in the curriculum: Teaching and learning in a technological society. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219–233. doi:10.1080/03075070600572132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carless, D. (2007). Learning‐oriented assessment: Conceptual bases and practical implications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 57–66. doi:10.1080/14703290601081332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-heritage settings. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Carless, D. (2016). Feedback as dialogue. Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory (p. 1–6). Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_389-1
   Google Scholar
• Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395–407. doi:10.1080/03075071003642449
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical - Education, knowledge and action research. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Chong, I. (2017a). How students’ ability levels influence the relevance and accuracy of their feedback to peers: A case study. Assessing Writing, 31, 13–23. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2016.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chong, I. (2017b). Interplay among technical, socio-emotional and personal factors in written feedback research. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-12. (Available Online)
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, S. (2005). Formative assessment in action: Weaving the elements together. London, UK: Hodder Murray.
   Google Scholar
• Cornbleth, C. (1990). Curriculum in context. Michigan, MI: Falmer Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 391–409. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dirkx, J. M. (2008). The meaning and role of emotions in adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 120, 7–18. doi:10.1002/ace.311
   Google Scholar
• Earl, L. (2013). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning (2nd ed.). [E-reader version]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. doi:10.1093/elt/ccn023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ewert, G. D. (1991). Habermas and education: A comprehensive overview of the influence of Habermas in educational literature. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 345–378. doi:10.3102/00346543061003345
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrokhi, F., & Sattarpour, S. (2012). The effects of direct written corrective feedback on improvement of grammatical accuracy of high-proficient L2 learners. World Journal of Education, 2(2), 49. doi:10.5430/wje.v2n2p49
   Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307–329. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, F. (1980). Politics, values, and public theory—The problem of methodology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, S. P., & Bosanquet, A. M. (2006). The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it? Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 269–284. doi:10.1080/03075070600680521
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum product or praxis. Michigan, MI: Falmer Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human lnterests. trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro. London, UK: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon.
   Google Scholar
• Hamp-Lyons, L., & Chen, J. (1999). An investigation into the effectiveness of teacher feedback on student writing. English Language Teaching and Learning, 3, 207–219.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, M. (1987). Critical theory and the inter-paradigm debate. Journal of International Studies, 16(2), 249.
   Google Scholar
• Huot, B. (2002). (Re)-Articulating writing assessment for teaching and learning. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255–286. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90017-0
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185–212. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00038-8
   Google Scholar
• Inbar-Lourie, O. (2012). Language assessment literacy. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0605/full
   Google Scholar
• James, M. (2006). Assessment, teaching and theories of learning. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 47–60). London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• James, M. (2008). Assessment and learning. In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Unlocking assessment: Understanding for reflection and application (pp. 20–25). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, P. H. (1997). Knowing literacy: Constructive literacy assessment. York, ME: Stenhouse.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, J. (2010). The role of assessment for learning in the management of primary to secondary transition: Implications for language teachers. Language Learning Journal, 35(2), 175–191. doi:10.1080/09571730902928052
   Google Scholar
• Kahl, S. R., Hofman, P., & Bryant, S. (2013). Assessment literacy standards and performance measures for teacher candidates and practicing teachers. Retrieved from http://www.memphis.edu/caep/caep/assessment-literacy-in-teacher-preparati.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kemmis, S., & Fitzclarence, L. (1986). Curriculum theorising: Beyond reproduction theory. New York, NY: Hyperion Books.
   Google Scholar
• Lam, R. (2013). Two portfolio systems: EFL students’ perceptions of writing ability, text improvement, and feedback. Assessing Writing, 18(2), 132–153. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2012.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam, R. (2015). Feedback about self-regulation: Does it remain an ‘unfinished business’ in portfolio assessment of writing? TESOL Quarterly, 49(2), 402–413. doi:10.1002/tesq.226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam, R., & Lee, I. (2009). Balancing the dual functions of portfolio assessment. ELT Journal, 64(1), 54–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lea, M., & Street, B. V. (2000). Student writing and staff feedback in higher education: An academic literacies approach. In M. R. Lea, & B. Stierer (Eds.), Student writing in higher education: New contexts (pp. 32–46). Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, I. (2007). Assessment for learning: Integrating assessment, teaching, and learning in the ESL/EFL writing classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(1), 199–213. doi:10.3138/cmlr.64.1.199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144–164. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, I. (2014). Revisiting teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 201–213. doi:10.1002/tesq.153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, I. (2016). Putting students at the centre of classroom L2 writing assessment. Canadian Modern Language Review, 72(2), 258–280. doi:10.3138/cmlr.2802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, I., & Coniam, D. (2013). Introducing assessment for learning for EFL writing in an assessment of learning examination-driven system in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 34–50. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung, C. (2013). Classroom-based assessment: Issues for language teacherEducation. In A. Kunnan (Ed.), Companion to language assessment (Vol. III, pp. 1510–1519). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley -Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, B., & Boud, D. (2003). The impact of self-assessment on achievement: The effects of self-assessment training on performance in external examinations. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(2), 209–220.
   Google Scholar
• McGarrell, H., & Verbeem, J. (2007). Motivating revision of drafts through formative feedback. ELT Journal, 61(3), 228–236.
   Google Scholar
• Meriam, S. B. (2008). Adult learning theory for the twenty-first century. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 119, 93–98. doi:10.1002/ace.309
   Google Scholar
• Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education Quarterly, 32(1), 3–24. doi:10.1177/074171368103200101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118–141. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morisano, D., Hirsh, J. B., Peterson, J. B., Pihl, R. O., & Shore, B. M. (2010). Setting, elaborating, and reflecting on personal goals improves academic performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 255–264. doi:10.1037/a0018478
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulliner, E., & Tucker, M. (2017). Feedback on feedback practice: Perceptions of students and academics. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 266–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, M. (2013). Social theory and education research: understanding Foucault, Habermas, Bourdieu and Derrida. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. doi:10.1080/02602931003786559
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. doi:10.1080/03075070600572090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ontario Ministry of Education (2010). Growing success: Assessment, evaluation, and reporting in Ontario’s schools: First Edition, Covering grades 1 to 12. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/growsuccess.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (2011). Feedback alignment: Effective and ineffective links between tutors’ and students’ understanding of coursework feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 125–136. doi:10.1080/02602930903201651
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porto, M. (2001). Cooperative writing response groups and self-evaluation. ELT Journal, 55(1), 38–46. doi:10.1093/elt/55.1.38
   Google Scholar
• Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1999). Effects of self-evaluation training on narrative writing. Assessing Writing, 6(1), 107–132. doi:10.1016/S1075-2935(99)00003-3
   Google Scholar
• Ruan, Z. (2014). Metacognitive awareness of EFL student writers in a Chinese ELT context. Language Awareness, 23(1–2), 76–91. doi:10.1080/09658416.2013.863901
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 33–45. doi:10.1007/s11409-008-9031-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. The School Review, 78(1), 1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serafini, F. (2001). Three paradigms of assessment: Measurement, procedure, and inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 54(4), 384–393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. doi:10.1002/tesq.2007.41.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131. doi:10.1111/lang.2014.64.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stefanou, C., & Révész, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–282. doi:10.1111/modl.12212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straub, R. (1997). Students’ reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 91–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terry, P. R. (1997). Habermas and Education: knowledge, communication, discourse. Curriculum Studies, 5(3), 269–279.
   Google Scholar
• Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. doi:10.1111/lang.1996.46.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voerman, L., Korthagen, F., Meijer, P. C., & Simons, P. R. J. (2014). Feedback revisited: Adding perspectives based on positive psychology. Implications for theory and classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 91–98. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ware, P. (2011). Computer‐generated feedback on student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 45(4), 769–774. doi:10.5054/tq.2011.272525
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537. doi:10.1093/applin/19.4.515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar