Assignment 2: Reflections on the Impact of Assessment in

Student Number 201915291771700 – Reflections on Assessment in Secondary - Essay (SCITT)

1

Assignment 2: Reflections on the Impact of Assessment in the MFL Classroom

“Start from where your students are, not from where you would like them to be”

– Dylan Wiliam, 2020.

Well-thought-out learning objectives can enable students to make progress in

their learning of a foreign language, and to develop the capacity to own and

monitor their own progress as independent language users – the ultimate aim

of language learning – Jones & Wiliam, 2008:3.

Introduction Assessment is an essential component to teaching and learning in the Modern

Foreign Languages (MFL), or Foreign Languages (FL) classroom, regardless of

the approach to instruction (Knoch & Macqueen, 2017; Sartaj et al., 2019): it is

central to any successful language programme in terms of effectiveness,

whether the assessment is summative or formative (Ahmed et al., 2019; Sartaj

et al., 2019; Wiliam, 2011). There are many different types of assessment, such

as diagnostic, norm-referenced, and criterion-referenced. However, the focus of

this assignment will be the impact of formative and summative assessment on

students in the MFL classroom, with particular focus on formative assessment,

since it has been seen to be one of the most powerful ways to support student

learning (Wiliam, 2018).

When considering the impact of these types of assessment, I will be

investigating what formative assessment does that summative does not: how

summative is commonly seen as just having the role of accountability, rather

than to improve learning, and how formative offers potential benefits to learning

in the classroom (Estaji & Mirzaii, 2018; McTighe & O’Connor, 2005; Stiggins &

Chappuis, 2006; Wiliam, 2018). Reflecting this distinction, summative

assessment has been called ‘assessment of learning’, whilst formative

assessment is widely known as ‘Assessment for learning’ (AfL) (Estaji & Mirzaii,

2018; Pachler et al., 2014).

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Nice quote


2

Inside of this, this assignment will be looking at teacher assessment, peer-

assessment, and self-assessment. This includes the importance of sharing the

learning objectives and success criteria. It is my greatest belief that the ultimate

goal of any teacher, especially in an MFL classroom, is to help students

become independent and self-regulated learners, and shared success criteria is

key to this endeavour, especially in influencing student motivation and

engagement (Clark, 2012; Gan et al., 2019; McTighe & O’Connor, 2005;

Stiggins & Chappuis, 2006).

Literature review

Assessment has the potential to enhance learning (Wiliam, 2011). To assess

the impact of assessment on students and their learning in this assignment, I

will be focusing on two types of assessment: summative and formative. To fully

assess the impact of assessment, this assignment also needs to focus on the

learner’s responses to the feedback (Wiliam, 2011). This importance has

featured in the literature in how value is given to how assessment can

contribute to motivating or engaging students (Gan et al., 2019; McTighe &

O’Connor, 2005; Stiggins & Chappuis, 2006), which is an important aspect of

the impact of assessment.

Due to the limitations of this work, I will not be focusing on some other forms of

assessment: norm-referenced, criterion-referenced or diagnostic assessment.

Though diagnostic assessment received increased research interest in the early

2000s, diagnostic procedures have been inadequately theorised, classroom-

based research in second and FL is surprisingly rare, and there is little

agreement on what diagnosis really means in an MFL classroom (Alderson et

al., 2015; Knoch & Macqueen, 2017).

Formative and summative assessment are different types of assessment only

because they have different uses (Pachler et al., 2014). For example, if a

reading task with multiple-choice answers is an example of formative

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

This is an excellent and important point - the use of the assessment is more than its type.

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Excellent introduction


3

assessment, it assesses the progress towards a product, and the teacher uses

the results of the task to move the learning forward, redesigning a follow-up

task, or lesson. If this task were an example of summative assessment, it would

assess the product, at the end of the learning period, where the mark reflects

the pupils’ overall progress made (Chandio & Jafferi, 2015; Pachler et al.,

2014).

Language teaching in the MFL classroom benefits from both summative and

formative qualitative feedback of various types, which include teacher

assessment, peer-assessment, and self-assessment (Knoch & Macqueen,

2017; Wiliam, 2018). Assessment in instruction is critical, but it is the case that

both teachers and learners, as well as peers, need to get actively involved in

the assessment process (Azarnoosh, 2013; Wiliam, 2018). These roles are

important for classrooms in general, but the MFL classroom is no exception

(Jones & Wiliam, 2008).

Summative assessment

Summative assessment – also known as high stakes testing – produces a

grade or score that is reported to education leaders, is used to allow entrance to

a class, or a university, and therefore commands the attention of students

because their results typically ‘count’, appearing on report cards, transcripts and

certificates (McAlpine, 2002; McTighe & O’Connor, 2005). Summative

assessment comes at the end of a unit, a term, a year, or a course, and

provides information about how much a learner has progressed, and how well

the course has worked, normally for purposes of accountability (Agcam &

Babnoglu, 2016; Estaji & Mirzaii, 2018; McAlpine, 2002; Pachler et al., 2014).

However, by itself, summative assessment is an insufficient tool to make the

most of learning, especially since the end of a teaching period is too late to see

what students have learnt in order to improve the teaching (McTighe &

O’Connor, 2005). Though not directly helpful in improving learning, it is useful

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Good - very important

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Good

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

reference needed


4

for the succinct communication of student abilities to external interest parties,

who make decisions based on grades (McAlpine, 2002).

Stress and anxiety, which is particularly problematic in language learning, is a

disadvantage of summative assessment, especially if students get a low mark:

when students are given their mark, it is received like a final blow, with no

indication for what direction to take in follow-up study (Ahmed et al., 2019;

Chandio & Jafferi, 2015; Tang, 2016). There is typically little time given for

students to reflect on the learning process for future improvement possibilities

and the students are unable to take any command of the learning process

(Ahmed et al., 2019; Chandio & Jafferi, 2015; Tang, 2016). Additionally, issues

of content validity have been reported, suggesting that there can be failure in

measuring the desired skills adequately – especially if the tests merely assess

cramming techniques (Chandio & Jafferi, 2015).

With summative assessment, teachers struggle to calculate how far their

teaching strategies were successful, and where they need to change strategy

(Sartaj et al., 2019). In a Pakistani study, teachers showed dissatisfaction with

the assessment system, considering the educational system to be responsible

for the poor results of students (Sartaj et al., 2019). They believed pupils are

judged on information that reflects their ability to cram information, and,

therefore, not very useful for communicating further data about individual

student abilities (Sartaj et al., 2019; McAlpine, 2002).

Formative assessment, on the other hand, is done during the learning process,

and the results are used to feed directly back into the teaching and learning

process, providing continuous timely feedback to the learners, and in this way

scaffolding support for any learning deficiencies (Chandio & Jafferi, 2015;

Pachler et al., 2014; Wiliam, 2011). Unlike summative assessment, formative

assessment is widely considered and endorsed as an important instrument in

the enhancement of student learning and achievement (Black et al., 2004; Estaji

& Mirzaii, 2018; Jones & Wiliam, 2008; Leenknecht & Prins, 2018; Wiliam,

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Good use of wider international literature

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Good

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Good


5

2011). It includes a variety of both teacher-led formal and informal methods,

such as ungraded quizzes, spoken questioning, teacher observations, and

think-alouds (McTighe & O’Connor, 2005). To be effective, these instructional

adjustments need to be over a short time scale: the information collected and

the feedback given from one minute or day to the next is better than that which

is given from one week or month to the next (Wiliam, 2018; Wiliam & Leahy,

2015). Such short scale assessment feedback reflects its interactive nature,

which improves pupil engagement (Azarnoosh, 2013).

Background

Formative assessment is strongly supported by current international educational

research and policy: it is clear that it makes for effective instruction (Estaji &

Mirzaii, 2018; Wiliam, 2011; Gan et al, 2019; Stiggins & Chappuis, 2006) – but,

to what degree, and how? Beginning in the late 1980s, research on formative

assessment declared it as being one of the most powerful ways to improve

student engagement and achievement (Ahmed et al., 2019; Jones & Wiliam,

2008). The Formative Assessment Research Group at King’s College London

worked with many local authorities to explore how the findings could be used in

real classrooms, of various subjects, and later finding that the formative

assessment principles worked just as well in MFL classrooms (Jones & Wiliam,

2008).

Formative assessment informs learners of their strengths and weaknesses,

reduces uncertainty, and, in this way, may motivate them to study more

purposefully (Estaji & Mirzaii, 2018). It has been found to be useful in helping

students to learn and recall vocabulary, as well as other aspects of language

learning, such as grammar and pronunciation (Estaji & Mirzaii, 2018).

Furthermore, it motivates students, who were seen to have a positive attitude

towards formative assessment (Estaji & Mirzaii, 2018; Gan et al., 2019;

McTighe & O’Connor, 2005; Wiliam, 2011). This could be due to how it

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Excellent


6

alleviates fear and anxiety in speaking, and in tests (Chandio & Jafferi 2015;

Sanaeifar & Nafari, 2018; Tang, 2016).

However, there have been concerns over the effectiveness of formative

assessment in improving learning due to perceived constraints: teachers do not

share practice or believe in it enough, meaning the potential is not fully realised,

which can lead to anxiety – even though the opposite has also been claimed

(see above) (Estaji & Mirzaii, 2018; Sanaeifar & Nafari, 2018). This could be

due to the extra work needed in ensuring the alternative modes of assessment

are effective, a task that requires some skill and patience for the teacher

(Chandio & Jafferi, 2015).

Teacher assessment

To assess students’ learning or knowledge, educators need to use a variety of

assessment methods; however, in traditional classroom settings, the teacher

has tended to be the main assessor (Orsmond, Merry & Reiling, 2000; Pope,

2005, in Matsuno, 2009). Teacher assessment has traditionally been seen as

the main form of assessment in the classroom, with teachers playing a major

role, and studies have revealed that students think the same: that assessment

is not only obligatory, but always done by teachers, and that they do not have a

say in it (Agcam & Babanoglu, 2016; Azarnoosh, 2013). This lack of voice in the

process appears especially damaging for pupils since teacher assessment

feedback gains consistently low satisfaction scores in national surveys of

student satisfaction, with concern around the quality and effectiveness of it, as

well as how timely it is (Hill & West, 2020).

Teacher assessment includes: effective questioning; the sharing of learning

intentions and success criteria; and the designing and setting up of various

classroom activities that elicit evidence of learning, and offer opportunity for

feedback to be given that moves learners forward (Jones & Wiliam, 2008;

Wiliam, 2018). The teacher is able to use questioning to assess progress of

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Good


7

students during lessons, and, importantly, by selecting students at random from

the whole class, the level of engagement increases, and the teacher has a

greater breadth of information about the class’s progress (Jones & Wiliam,

2008). Questioning is essential in underpinning good language teaching: it

starts a dialogue with the students and gives them a voice (Jones & Wiliam,

2008). However, questioning needs to be designed thoughtfully to offer

cognitive challenge and time to think, otherwise students “are unlikely to take

MFL seriously” (Jones & Swarbrick, 2004, in Jones & Wiliam, 2008:8).

Pupil assessment

Pupil assessment, involving peer and self-assessment, offers pupils a voice

since the pupils become assessors in the language learning process. Peer-

assessment involves students being activated as learning resources for one

another, providing feedback to other learners, as well as receiving feedback

themselves (Pachler et al., 2014; Wiliam 2018). Self-assessment involves

students being activated as owners of their own learning, typically based on a

clearly-defined task with clear assessment criteria, sometimes derived from

learners’ input (Léger, 2009; Leeknecht & Prins, 2018; Wiliam, 2018).

In recent decades, with a growing emphasis on a learner-centred curriculum,

pupil peer and self-assessment became of particular interest in educational

research (Birjandi & Bolghari, 2015). The positive effect on learning across

empirical studies, led to, in the last thirty years, an increasing use of peer-

assessment in the classroom, and also self-assessment (Azarnoosh, 2013;

Birjandi & Bolghari, 2015; Léger, 2009; Li et al., 2020). Peer-assessment has a

promising impact on language learning because it promotes ownership,

personal responsibility, and motivation: it is helpful, yet also challenging, and

enjoyable (Azarnoosh, 2013; Birjandi & Bolghari, 2015). Self-assessment is also

motivating for students, who are able to directly observe their own improvement,

and are thus more likely to display long-term motivation and then persist in the

face of difficulty (Gan et al, 2019).

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Excellent


8

Most commonly used in second language learning classrooms for writing,

students provide feedback to their peers on a range of task types, including

written and oral skills (Knoch & Macqueen, 2017; Matsuno, 2009). Through the

task of commenting on their own or their peers’ work, students develop critical

judgement, which, in turn, improves the quality of their work, even when later

produced independently (Jones & Wiliam, 2008). Observing the performance of

others raises awareness of performance criteria, increases reflection, and

empowers students to guide their own learning: this develops the skill of

generalising to new situations, which in turn promotes self-assessment, and

aids in the development of meta-cognitive self-awareness, which in turn

develops self-regulated learners who are able to monitor their efforts in line with

their goals (Azarnoosh, 2013; Birjandi & Bolghari, 2015; Gan et al., 2019; Léger,

2009; Leeknecht & Prins, 2018; Yan, 2020).

Importantly here, students are more involved, and the assessment is

individualised and interactive, which leads to greater satisfaction for the

students (Azarnoosh, 2013; Matsuno, 2009). It is critical that the students

believe they can successfully learn: when this happens, the students are more

likely to be motivated and make enough effort for the task (McTighe and

O’Connor, 2005). Furthermore, with self-assessment, with shared learning

intentions and assessor responsibility, students feel more important and

empowered, and so are less likely to feel anxious in the learning process and

give up on the language learning quest, which is important on the journey to

becoming an independent language learner (Léger, 2009).

However, some teachers have doubts about its accuracy, and whether the

students are able to assess themselves correctly (Birjandi & Bolghari, 2015;

Matsuno, 2009). In Matsuno’s study (2009), though at least consistent, peer-

raters were more generous to their peers, and in self-assessment, self-raters,

especially high-achieving writers, were too critical towards themselves. This

could be due to a reaction to a friendship bias, or a lack of it, if the students lack

trust, or feel threatened by the task, unnerved by the subjectivity of their roles


9

as assessor, perhaps preferring teacher feedback to having responsibility

(Azarnoosh, 2013; Knoch & Macqueen, 2017). Students also have doubts,

caused by lacking confidence in their own assessment ability, which leads to

low-quality peer-feedback (Leenkneckt & Prins, 2018; Saito, 2008). This

unreliability and subjectivity that threatens the validity of the assessment means

that teachers often use peer-assessment for only developmental purposes

(Birjandi & Bolghari, 2015).

Furthermore, the benefits of peer-assessment cannot be guaranteed if the

students are incapable of implementing the assessment, for example, if they

find a scoring system difficult to use (Leekneckt & Prins, 2018; Saito, 2008).

Students need to be taught the language of assessment as well as how to do

peer-assessment in order for it to be effective, which is time-consuming, but

would otherwise result in incorrect feedback (Knoch & Macqueen, 2017; Saito,

2008). For some students, this might not be enough, particularly for weak ability

students (Gan et al., 2019).

It is clear that the step from a passive student receiving only teacher feedback

to a student taking the responsibility of being an assessor themselves is not

small, but it is worth considering for the possible benefits of working to develop

skilled self-regulated learners (Yan, 2020). Furthermore, although the

unreliability of pupil assessment limits some teachers to only using it for

developmental purposes, not even experienced teachers are always seen as

reliable markers, which would suggest that it would be unfair to discard pupil

assessment on the grounds of lacking reliability: the limitations of peer- and

self-assessment should not reduce the value these assessment types have to

language education (Birjandi & Bolghari, 2015).

Classroom Practice

In the classroom (with myself implied when I write ‘the teacher’), I have seen

how assessment is used formatively to build progress in the learning of the

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Excellent


10

pupils, and how it is also used summatively to give information to teachers,

parents, and the leadership team. Formative assessment is in the hands of the

teacher to use to maximise learning, since summative assessment is often

externally produced – either by an exam board, in the GCSE exams, or

departmentally-controlled, in the end-of-unit and end-of-year exams.

Teacher assessment with self-assessment:

In my host school, the end-of-unit test is known as the ‘Green Pen Matters’, or

‘GPM’, and is done with the ‘Grammar Review’. Marked by the teacher, it

appears a type of summative teacher assessment, however the end-of-unit test

is designed to put the student at the centre of the process, with some self-

assessment. The test is marked as lightly as possible, using a code, and the

student is guided to correct their work, with the help of this code, and then to

map their progress onto their ‘progress ladder’, a booklet that contains many

such tables charting details of success and progress. This scaffolds the process

for the student to create targets for improvement, which becomes their focus for

the next term.

The students are obliged to interact with the feedback because they are asked

to respond to the code the teacher uses to mark in, in order to process and

learn from the feedback. After this, the students must fill in their perceived

progress in a table at the end of the test, colouring in the box that is relevant to

how they feel they have progressed, based their understanding of the content,

as well as a corresponding page in their ‘progress ladders’. As students fill

these in under guidance from the teacher, the summative assessment is an

effective blend of teacher and self-assessment.

Though these tests are summative, and therefore potentially demotivating, they

are used to maximise learning. The self-assessment task makes sure that the

students read, use and respond to the feedback, thus making it more effective

and having greater impact (Jones & Wiliam, 2008). The self-assessment task


11

improves student motivation and increases awareness of success criteria. The

progress ladder task at the end of the test reflects something of the “traffic-light

icons” task that is used to indicate familiarity with the skills or understanding that

is advantageous in the development of language learning, or, similar to the

“advance organising” task of Chamot and O’Malley in 1991 (in Jones & Wiliam,

2008:25). The summative assessment is used formatively because the teacher

and the students share in the planning of areas of difficulty to focus on, and as a

result, the students are activated as owners of their own learning (Jones &

Wiliam, 2008). With the students as owners of their own learning, they are one

step closer to becoming autonomous learners. Furthermore, this step is

repeated in every end-of-unit assessment, and so the students are accustomed

to the routine of this self-assessment task. This means the students can work

on developing this skill ready for the ultimate test, the externally-assessed

summative GCSEs, as part of the grand scheme of becoming self-regulated

independent language learners, even if they are weak ability students (Gan et

al., 2019).

Teacher assessment

Throughout the duration of class time, in different measure, reading, listening,

writing and speaking skills are assessed by the teacher through teacher-led

formative assessment, which forms a significant part of the learning process in

the classroom. The teacher cannot continue with the lesson without periodically

checking understanding. Assessment in the classroom is mainly formative

taking the form of: numerous ‘games’; testing grammar understanding, reading

skills, or listening skills; spoken questioning; teacher observations during tests

and activities, such as scaffolded translation and error correct worksheets; and

working thinking-out-loud (McTighe & O’Connor, 2005). The teacher uses

information from all these tasks to examine student performance, see how

much progress has been made towards the lesson objectives, and then use this

to maximise learning by adapting follow-up tasks, in the same lesson, if

misconceptions are critical, or in the next, if more practice is needed (Agcam &

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

This is well described add some good analysis of the impact of this.


12

Babanoglu, 2016; McTighe & O’Connor, 2005; Wiliam and Leahy, 2015). The

formative assessment is essential, since without it I am unable to know what the

students have learnt: with numerous games, multiple-choice questions, and

quizzes, I am able to gauge many different gaps in understanding whilst

maintaining pupil engagement.

As part of this, the practice of asking questions to students at random is used to

monitor progress and has proven effective in increasing the level of

engagement of the whole class, as well as improving my awareness of student

progress (Jones & Wiliam, 2008). Furthermore, it does not inhibit my

differentiation in questioning, since I can still question differently, depending on

the student. Importantly, this technique not only means I can assess the

progress of a greater sample of pupils, it makes the students pay more

attention, in preparation for a random question. It is an effective tool for

engaging the whole class, which in turn is an effective tool for managing

behaviour, since all students know that they can be selected, and I am also able

to choose a student who is clearly not paying attention, as well as those who

are listening carefully.

However, it is still true that, though the teacher may have a greater sample of

information from the students, it is still not from everyone in the class. This is

often remedied in class with whole class formative assessment such as through

the use of mini-whiteboards, or multiple-choice questions displayed on the

board, with numbered options that are then matched up to students giving

answers with their fingers– on the cue of the teacher. When well-written, they

are excellent in assessing reading and listening skills (Smith & Conti, 2016).

Using mini-whiteboards with questioning simultaneously checks whole class

understanding and so is an indispensable AfL practice I will continue to utilise in

my teaching career.

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Good


13

Pupil assessment

The weekly vocabulary test is the most routine appearance of peer-assessment,

where the students are tested on their spellings of words in translation, and

when completed, the pupils are told to “intercambiad los cuadernos con tu

compañero” – to give their book to their partner to mark. The answers are put

on the board, but the pupils themselves are always the ones who are

scrutinising the answers and marking their partner’s work. I have the opportunity

to circulate and monitor the answers being written during the vocabulary test,

and see the speed at which students are able to recall learnt words, noticing

any common mistakes, and can then compare this with student feedback

afterwards. Whilst the vocabulary tests are being marked, students ask

questions about what is allowed, deemed acceptable, or to be ignored, when

marking the work. This critical skill is invaluable to them as they develop as

independent language learners, working in an objective fashion. It allows the

students to develop an eye for detail – to pay attention to important accents, for

which a mark can be lost if incorrectly placed – improving their own work and

progress, and very time-effectively. After the vocabulary test is marked, I can

see any correlations between marks, and can ask the students for feedback on

how they found the test, or where those marks could have been lost. For

example, one vocabulary test in a Year 7 class had produced a high number of

students with scores of 12 or 13 out of 15, so I asked the class what might

explain so many of the class losing just 2 or 3 marks, and they were very

quickly able to tell me that it was a confusion with the accents. This developing

awareness of their own skills in language aids in the development of

independent language learners, especially because it shows how the students

are able to talk about language: this is incredibly helpful for developing their

skills in understanding the “greatest possible range of strategies in their lifelong

language learning endeavours” (Jones & Wiliam, 2008:4).

Another less routine example of peer-assessment in my MFL classroom was a

peer-assessed writing and speaking task, in a Year 8 class. Though done

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Good


14

towards the end of a topic, it is an example of formative assessment: a paired

written task was set to review the language learnt, with the text performed at the

end of writing it. It was critical that extremely specific success criteria were

shared with the students when they were writing the text – they could then self-

assess whilst working towards the goal. Furthermore, I had done a task like this

before without specific success criteria, and it had led to havoc: students were

creative with language they did not know, meaning neither I nor they could see

what they had learnt in class. In this written task with clear success criteria on

the board, the students could not only consolidate their knowledge, they could

also develop their metacognitive awareness: they could be sure they knew what

they knew. Additionally, these criteria on the board could then be used for the

peer-assessment task, when the written work was performed to the rest of the

class. This experience made clear to me the importance of clearly-defined

success criteria in pupil assessment (Azarnoosh, 2013).

Self-assessment, with teacher support:

Students are regularly asked to “coged un boli verde” after a class activity – to

take a green pen – and it is the signal for the students to mark their own work. It

is true that it is not completely self-assessed, since there is guidance from the

teacher and the answers are shared by the teacher on the board and

discussed. However, teacher guidance does not take away from how the

benefits of this activity. The activity shares responsibility with the students as

they are asked to scrutinise their partners’ work, and compare that to the correct

answers. Furthermore, this blend of teacher assessment and self-assessment

offers an additional opportunity for the teacher to ask questions and collect

feedback from the students, empowering them to engage properly with their

self-assessment. Additionally, I am able to utilise peer-assessment here, when

a student gives an answer, by asking them: ‘why?’, or, depending on the ability

of the student, I might redirect the ‘why’ question to a student capable of

answering, or asking a peer to tell me if that answer was a good one. Both pupil

and teacher assessment has proven effective in lessons, especially when done

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Good again well described you could have linked a little more to some of your very good literature review.


15

together, and regularly, however it is true that it is a practice that needs to be

ongoing, taught and supported, and done regularly.

Informal teacher assessment with self- and peer-assessment:

When thinking of the teacher producing effective formative assessment in the

classroom through effective questioning, and think-alouds, I remember an

observation of a colleague in a Year 7 lesson, where one student (Student A),

who had been absent the day before, felt ‘lost’ with a grammar point. The

teacher used this as an opportunity to review the learning of all students by

selecting one confident student (Student B) to explain to lost Student A what the

details of the language point were. Student A was asked if he understood, and

when deigning to say ‘no, not quite’, the teacher asked for another go at the

explanation from Student B, and Student A explained again, slightly differently,

with different words. Student A was asked again if that made enough sense,

and when he replied with another ‘no, not quite’, the teacher selected another

keen and confident student who wanted to try helping – and she chose from

many keen students. When Student A had finally understood, many students

had contributed to helping him understand, and also displayed an excellent

level of understanding and progress themselves. These students who had

helped had not only demonstrated an understanding of the subject matter, but

had also used higher order thinking skills, and so had also benefited from the

experience, since the demands of explaining the grammar to their peer made

them deepen their own thinking, and the ability to rephrase, explain in your own

words, and synthesise knowledge, develops more advanced higher stages of

thinking (Jones & Wiliam, 2008).

This was an effective blend of teacher and informal peer-assessment, since

these peers responded and produced information in answer to the prompting of

the teacher, but here, crucially, the reason for it was helping a peer to

understand and reach the same level of understanding as them, which worked

effectively to develop the learning, and skills, of all the students.

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Good

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Good description


16

This conclusion is supported by a study on centrality in assessment in Iran,

which focused on a written task, and though limited in its breadth, showed how

all three types of assessment expressed no centrality (which is negative and

should be reduced) (Farrokhi et al., 2011). There is a reported maximum

improvement in writing when students take part in peer- and self-assessment

together with teacher assessment (Birjandi & Bolghari, 2015). Clearly, there are

promising prospects in using a combination of teacher and pupil feedback in

classes, since students can receive a greater quantity of feedback, faster

(Farrokhi et al., 2011; Knoch & Macqueen, 2017).

It is clear from these reflections on classroom practice that the best kind of

assessment is that which blends teacher and pupil assessment, and contains

shared learning objectives and success criteria, with effective teacher

questioning to support and guide the pupils.

Conclusion

Though Wiliam is an active and persuasive advocate of how formative

assessment should be a priority for all teachers, it is the case that teachers

need to be aware of how a combination of summative and formative

assessment may contribute to better overall performance of students (Wiliam,

2013; Wiliam & Leahy, 2015; Ahmed et al., 2019). Furthermore, it would seem a

blend of pupil and teacher assessment contributes best to developing

metacognitively aware and self-regulated learners. This is especially the case if

summative assessment can also be used, or interpreted, for formative gains, as

seen in my classroom practice with the ‘GPM’ self-assessment task after the

tests were given back to the pupils, and where the students shared in the

understanding of the success criteria, and became owners of their own learning

(Jones & Wiliam, 2008). This is ultimately what is desired: always taking one

step closer to being, or becoming an independent language learner. It is

important, therefore, to always share the success criteria and learning

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Good linking to the literature


17

objectives and intentions with the students, and to always involve the students

and their peers. Furthermore, it is also critical that, inside of this, there is a

blend of pupil assessment, which is a regular, ongoing practice in classes, and

teacher assessment, which is supported with effective questioning – the key to

good language teaching (Jones & Wiliam, 2008).

Random questioning of the whole class has proven indispensable in the

classroom, for keeping engagement, managing behaviour, and for checking

understanding and progress. A drawback, however, which should reduce a

teacher’s dependence on it as an AfL strategy, is that it is difficult to know if the

randomly selected student can be considered representative of any other

students in the class – maybe the students who are struggling remain randomly

unchosen, and thus, the teacher is unaware of the unmade progress of those

students. Furthermore, though it allows the teacher to see the progress of the

students quickly and under control, it is not as effective as self-assessment, or

even peer-assessment. In my practice going forward I will work on finding ways

to continue to develop peer and self-assessment.

However, though improving assessment in the classroom results in improved

outcomes for learners, this might not be so easy in practice. In theory, without

students present, it might seem easy, but in practice, it is more difficult, since to

improve assessment in the classroom would require the class teacher to

change their habits (Wiliam & Leahy, 2015). As a new teacher, I am in a

position to build and form habits in the classroom, so I will work to make the

most of formative assessment experiences in the classroom, as part of the

nascence of my teaching career, in order to always cater to the needs of the

students, whether it is from one task to the next inside of a lesson, or from one

lesson to the next. I will work to use assessment at regular intervals, and make

sure that the assessment covers a variety of skills – with appropriate

methodology, and used to motivate students, this makes for the best tests

(Smith & Conti, 2016). I will also work to make sure to share learning objectives

and clear success criteria with the students, and guide this with thoughtful


18

questioning, especially as part of any practice in developing peer and self-

assessment, so that the students can become empowered self-regulated and

autonomous language learners.

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Good reflections on the assignment and also on your own ongoing practice.


19

References

Agcam, R. & Babanoglu, M. P. (2016). Students’ Perceptions of Language

Testing and Assessment in Higher Education. Üniversitepark Bülten. Vol. 5, No.

1-2, (pp.66-77).

Ahmed, F., Ali, S. & Ali Shah, R. (2019). Exploring Variation in Summative

Assessment: Language Teachers’ Knowledge of Students' Formative

Assessment and Its Effect on their Summative Assessment. Bulletin of

Education and Research. Vol. 41, No. 2, (pp. 109-119).

Alderson, J. C., Brunfaut, T. & Harding, L. (2015). Towards a Theory of

Diagnosis in Second and Foreign Language Assessment: Insights from

Professional Practice Across Diverse Fields. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 36, No. 2,

(pp236-260).

Azarnoosh, M. (2013). Peer assessment in an EFL context: attitudes and

friendship bias. Language Testing in Asia, Vol. 3, No. 11, (pp1-10).

Birjandi, P. & Bolghari, M. S., (2015). The Relationship between the Accuracy of

Self- and Peer-assessment of Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners and Their

Learning Styles. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 5, No. 5,

(pp996-1006).

Black, P., Harrison, C. Lee, C., Marshall, B. & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working Inside

the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Classroom. Phi Delta Kappan.

Vol. 86, No. 1, (pp.8-21).

Chandio, M. T. & Jafferi, S. (2015). Teaching English as a Language not

Subject by Employing Formative Assessment. Journal of Education and

Educational Development. Vol. 2, No. 2, (pp151-171).

Clark, I. (2012). Formative Assessment: Assessment is for Self-Regulated

Learning. Educational Psychology Review. Vol. 24, No. 2, (pp.205-249).


20

Estaji, M. & Mirzaii, M. (2018). Enhancing EFL learners’ vocabulary learning

through formative assessment: Is the effort worth expending? Language

Learning in Higher Education. Vol. 8, No. 2, (pp239-264).

Farrokhi, F., Esfandiari, R. & Dalili, M. V. (2011). Applying the Many-Facet

Rasch Model to Detect Centrality in Self-Assessment, Peer-Assessment and

Teacher assessment. World Applied Sciences Journal 15 (Innovation and

Pedagogy for Lifelong Learning). (pp70-77).

Gan, Z., He, J. & Liu, F. (2019). Understanding Classroom Assessment

Practices and Learning Motivation in Secondary EFL Students. The Journal of

Asia TEFL. Vol. 16, No. 3, (pp.783-800).

Hill, J. & West, H. (2020). Improving the student learning experience through

dialogic feed-forward assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher

Education. Vol. 45, Issue 1, (pp.82 – 97).

Jones, J. & Wiliam, D. (2008). Modern Foreign Languages inside the black box.

London: GL Assessment.

Knoch, U. & Macqueen, S. (2017). Assessment in the L2 classroom. In S.

Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second

language acquisition. New York, United States: Routledge Taylor and Francis

Group. (pp.181–202).

Leenknecht, M.J. & Prins, F.J. (2018). Formative peer assessment in primary

school: the effects of involving pupils in setting assessment criteria on their

appraisal & feedback style. European Journal of Psychology of Education.

Vol.33, No.1, (pp101-116).

Léger, D. (2009). Self-Assessment of Speaking Skills and Participation in a

Foreign Language Class. Foreign Language Annals. Vol. 42, No. 1, (pp158-

178).

Li, H., Xiong, Y., Hunter, C.H., Guo, X., & Tywoniw, R. (2020). Does peer

assessment promote student learning? A meta-analysis. Assessment &

Evaluation in Higher Education. Vol. 45, No. 2, (pp193 – 211).


21

Matsuno, S. (2009). Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments in Japanese

university EFL writing classrooms. Language Testing. Vol. 26, No. 1, (pp75-

100).

McAlpine, M. (2002). Principles of Assessment. Luton: CAA Centre, University

of Luton.

McTighe, J. & O'Connor, K. (2005). Seven practices for effective learning.

Educational Leadership. Vol. 63, No. 3. (pp10-17).

Pachler, N., Evans, M., Redondo, A. & Fisher, L. (2014). Learning to Teach

Foreign Languages in the Secondary School: A companion to school

experience, 4th edition. London and New York: Routledge.

Saito, H. (2008). EFL classroom peer assessment: Training effects on rating

and commenting. Language Testing. Vol. 25, No.4, (pp513-581).

Sanaeifar, S.H., & Nafari, F.N. (2018). The Effects of Formative and Dynamic

Assessments of Reading Comprehensions on Intermediate EFL Learners' test

Anxiety. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. Vol. 8, No. 5, (pp533-540).

Sartaj, S., Kadri, S., Shah, S.F.H. & Siddiqui, A. (2019). Investigating the

Effectiveness of Classroom Based Assessment on ESL Teaching Strategies

and Techniques in Pakistan: Study from Teachers’ Perspective. Theory and

Practice in Language Studies. Vol. 9, No. 7, (pp826-834).

Smith, S. & Conti, G. (2016). Assessment, Feedback and Marking. In The

Language Teacher Toolkit. (pp.337-350).

Stiggins, R. & Chappuis, J. (2006). What a difference a word makes:

Assessment FOR learning rather than assessment OF learning helps students

succeed. National Development Council. Vol. 27, No. 1, (pp10-14).

Tang, L. (2016). Formative Assessment in Oral English Classroom and

Alleviation of Speaking Apprehension. Theory and Practice in Language

Studies. Vol. 6, No. 4, (pp751-756).


22

Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational

Evaluation. Vol. 37, No. 1, (pp3-14).

Wiliam, D. (2013). Assessment: The bridge between teaching and learning.

Voices from the Middle. Vol. 21, No. 2, (pp15-20).

Wiliam, D. (2018). Embedded Formative Assessment, 2nd Edition. Indiana:

Solution Tree Press.

Wiliam, D. (2020). Conference – Dylan Wiliam Center. Available online:

https://www.dylanwiliamcenter.com/conference/. Accessed: 20 April 2020.

Wiliam, D., & Leahy, S. (2015). Embedding Formative Assessment. Florida:

Learning Sciences International.

Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C. & Black, P. J. (2004). Teachers developing

assessment for learning: impact on student achievement. Assessment in

Education: Principles, Policy and Practice. Vol. 11, No. 1, (pp49-65).

Yan, Z. (2020). Self-assessment in the process of self-regulated learning and its

relationship with academic achievement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher

Education. Vol. 45, Issue 2, (pp224-238).

https://www.dylanwiliamcenter.com/conference/

Paul Hopkins

47380000000000538

Good

Documents

Assignment 2: Reflections on the Impact of Assessment in