Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Texas A&M University Libraries]On: 13 November 2014, At: 09:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Innovation in Language Learning andTeachingPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rill20
Bringing innovation to EFL writingthrough a focus on assessment forlearningIcy Lee aa Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty ofEducation , The Chinese University of Hong Kong , Ho TimBuilding, Shatin, Hong KongPublished online: 21 Sep 2010.
To cite this article: Icy Lee (2011) Bringing innovation to EFL writing through a focus onassessment for learning, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5:1, 19-33, DOI:10.1080/17501229.2010.502232
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2010.502232
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Bringing innovation to EFL writing through a focus on assessment forlearning
Icy Lee*
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University ofHong Kong, Ho Tim Building, Shatin, Hong Kong
(Received 12 April 2010; final version received 13 June 2010)
With a paradigm shift from a focus on product to one on process in languageassessment, assessment for learning (AfL) has been gaining currency in educa-tional policy in different parts of the world. While AfL emphasizes the use ofassessment for improving learning and teaching, assessment of learning (AoL)focuses on using assessment for administrative and reporting purposes. In L2writing, assessment has traditionally been characterized by AoL. Although AfLstrategies like process pedagogy, formative feedback, peer response, and con-ferences have been promoted in L2 writing, these strategies are not widely adoptedoutside North American educational contexts. In English as a foreign language(EFL) contexts, there is scanty research that investigates writing teachers’attempts to bring innovation to their assessment practices through a focus onAfL. Using data from four Secondary 1 (i.e. Grade 7) classrooms in a Hong Kongschool, the study aimed to investigate how the teachers’ determination toimplement AfL in writing influenced their instructional and assessment practicesand impacted on students’ attitudes and beliefs regarding writing. Results showthat the implementation of AfL resulted in a significant change in teachers’instructional and assessment practices, and students improved their motivation inwriting. The paper concludes with a few implications for EFL writing.
Keywords: assessment for learning; L2 writing; EFL writing; writing assessment;innovation
Introduction
With a paradigm shift from a focus on product to one on process in language
assessment, assessment for learning (AfL) has been gaining currency in educational
policy in different parts of the world. In AfL, learning is a goal in its own right and
assessment is a means to achieving the goal (Assessment Reform Group 2002). AfL,
therefore, emphasizes the central role assessment plays in reinforcing learning. There
is exponentially growing evidence from AfL research that shows the positive impact
of AfL on student learning, in terms of both motivation and actual performance �e.g. in the UK and Australia (Black and Wiliam 1998, 2003; Sebba 2006; Sebba and
Maxwell 2005).
In L2 writing, AfL is an under-explored area. In English as a foreign language
(EFL) contexts, there is scanty research that investigates writing teachers’ attempts to
bring innovation to their assessment practices through a focus on AfL. The present
*Email: [email protected]
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching
Vol. 5, No. 1, March 2011, 19�33
ISSN 1750-1229 print/ISSN 1750-1237 online
# 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17501229.2010.502232
http://www.informaworld.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
&M
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
study was designed with a view to filling such a void. Using data collected from four
Secondary 1 (S1, i.e. Grade 7) classrooms in a Hong Kong school, the study aimed to
investigate how the teachers’ determination to implement AfL in writing influenced
their instructional and assessment practices and impacted on students’ attitudes and
beliefs regarding writing.
Background
Assessment of learning (AoL) and assessment for learning (AfL)
In language teaching, it is crucial to make a distinction between the concepts of
assessment of learning (AoL) and AfL. AoL focuses specifically on using assessment
to inform administrators and parents about what students have achieved, serving
primarily administrative and reporting purposes. AfL, on the other hand, empha-sizes the use of assessment for improving learning and teaching. While AfL benefits
teaching and learning and hence serves students directly, AoL is often a tool used by
school administrators to demonstrate school improvement, not directly serving the
needs of students. In the words of Serafini (2000/2001), AoL is something ‘we do
‘‘to’’ students rather than ‘‘with students’’’ (390). To help students improve their
learning, AfL has to be promoted. Table 1 below outlines the major distinctions
between AoL and AfL.
Assessment for learning (AfL) in writing
In L2 writing classrooms, the need to distinguish between AoL and AfL is of
particular relevance, since assessment has traditionally been characterized by AoL,serving more summative than formative purposes. Assessment has been seen as a
Table 1. Comparing AoL and AfL.
Assessment of learning (AoL) Assessment for learning (AfL)
Time Carried out at the end of aninstructional unit
Carried out during a unit ofinstruction
Purpose Measures and summarizes students’knowledge and skills; designed tocertify learning and to makejudgments about students’ progress;serves summative purposes
Monitors and supports learning;designed to help students improvelearning; serves formative purposes
Form ofassessment
Takes the form of tests orexaminations
Relies on a wide range of assessmentdata � e.g. questioning, observation,and conferencing
Feedback Feedback is expressed in the form ofmarks or grades that distinguishhigh-performing students from low-performing students without givingmuch information about students’mastery of skills and concepts; servesreporting purposes
Feedback highlights students’strengths and weaknesses andprovides descriptions that informindividual students’ learning, helpingteachers scaffold the next steps ofinstruction
Teacher andstudent role
Teachers dominate the assessmentprocess
Teachers play a central role, but theyshare responsibility with students byinvolving them in the assessmentprocess
20 I. Lee
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
&M
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
means for gate-keeping and learning as a matter of achieving better grades and
standards (Huot 2002), and as a result, assessment has been divorced from teaching
and learning. For teachers, assessment often means testing and grading, referred to
as ‘the dirty thing’ teachers have to do (Belanof 1991, 61). For students, assessment
tends to be equated with grades, which can easily shatter confidence and diminish
motivation. Such assessment holds little value for teaching and learning (Hamp-
Lyons 2006; Wiliam 2001).
By contrast, AfL in writing has much greater potential for promoting teachingand learning (see Black and Wiliam 2006; Clarke 2005), as it entails a re-thinking of
pedagogy and classroom practices and processes � e.g. instructional approach,
quality of writing tasks, how criteria are designed and communicated to students,
how to involve students actively (e.g. through self- and peer evaluation), and how to
enhance their motivation in learning. Given the negative impact of traditional
writing assessment practices and the potential of AfL, there is a need to re-visit the
role of assessment and harness its power for enhancing teaching and learning in the
writing classroom, which underpins the need for the study.
Assessment for learning (AfL) in the Hong Kong context
In Hong Kong, the Education Bureau has, since the early 2000s, promulgated AfLas a major focus in the curriculum reform for the new millennium (Curriculum
Development Institute 2004). In English language teaching, one significant
offshoot of such reform is the implementation of school-based assessment (SBA)
(see Davison 2007) to promote AfL. SBA requires students to choose texts (print
or non-print) to read or view and participate in a group interaction or give an
individual presentation of the work they have chosen. Davison (2007) has found
that teachers and students are beginning to appreciate the benefits of AfL through
such an oral assessment innovation. AfL in the writing classroom, however, isvirtually an unexplored area. Although AfL principles such as the use of
continuous qualitative feedback through portfolios, student involvement in
assessment through self-/peer assessment, and conferencing are advocated in the
local English language curriculum (Curriculum Development Council 2007), there
is little evidence that teachers are implementing AfL in writing. In fact, local
research has demonstrated that there is often disjuncture between the classroom
reality and espoused principles (Lee 2008; Morris, Lo, and Adamson 2000; Yung
2001). This merits research on AfL to shed light on how AfL can be promoted toimprove the teaching and learning of writing.
Teaching, learning, and assessment of writing in Hong Kong
Against the backdrop of education reform that calls for a focus on AfL in writing
is conventional practice that equates teaching of writing with assigning writing
topics and marking of student writing (Lo and Hyland 2007), where teachers
primarily play the role of a tester and students that of testees. In Hong Kong
secondary schools, students are normally required to produce an average of 10�14
compositions each year � mostly timed, in-class, and one-shot writing collected
for the purpose of gathering grades for summative purposes. Assessment
dominates the lives of teachers, who spend a huge amount of time respondingto student writing, but such assessment is found to serve primarily the purpose of
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 21
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
&M
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
AoL (Lee 2007). Students lack motivation to write in English, which is
increasingly considered a foreign language in Hong Kong. Such a situation is
worsened by the fact that student papers are often covered with red, with each
and every single error corrected, resulting in decreased confidence, motivation,
and interest in writing. Error correction, which by definition should have a
formative purpose, is performed in a way that under-utilizes its formative
potential, since it is used as a quantitative reflection of students’ performance
in grammatical accuracy instead of as a diagnostic tool to help them understand
their strengths and weaknesses in written accuracy. In some classrooms, marks are
deducted according to the number of errors made, drawing students’ attention to
their grammar score rather than how learning can be improved in their control of
language. Overall, assessment is used to document achievements, sort students,
and meet standards � i.e. AoL. It does little to promote student learning and
improve teaching � i.e. AfL. To give a clearer picture about how AoL and AfL
are operationalized in Hong Kong writing classrooms, Table 2 provides an
analysis by drawing upon the differences between AoL and AfL outlined in Table
1 above.
Given the predominant concern with AoL in local writing classrooms, the present
study was undertaken as an initial attempt to investigate how innovation could be
brought to EFL writing through a focus on AfL.
The study
Research questions
The study focuses on the implementation of AfL in writing in four S1 classrooms in
Hong Kong. It seeks to answer the following research questions:
Table 2. Assessment in Hong Kong writing classrooms: AoL or AfL?
Writing in Hong Kong classrooms AoL/AfL
Time Assessment occurs at the end of instruction;students submit single drafts, where writing istreated as a product
AoL
Purpose Writing is used to find out how well or howbadly students perform and judgments aremade based on students’ grades/scores
AoL
Form ofassessment
Takes the form of tests (e.g. in-class timed essaywriting)
AoL
Feedback Teachers use broad assessment criteria, such aslanguage, organization and style, scorestudents on these dimensions, and award anoverall grade/score
AoL
Teachers give detailed error feedback byresponding to every single error. Students docorrections by correcting errors made � byresponding to coded (with error codes providedby teacher)/uncoded error feedback (witherrors underlined/circled), or by mechanicallycopying answers already provided by teacher
AfL (formative potentialunder-utilized throughteachers using errorcorrection asquantitative reflection ofstudents’ performance inwritten accuracy)
Teacher andstudent role
Teachers dominate the assessment process;students remain passive
AoL
22 I. Lee
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
&M
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
(1) What motivated the teachers to introduce AfL to the writing classroom?
(2) How did the teachers’ endeavor to implement AfL influence their instruc-
tional and assessment practices?
(3) How did AfL impact on students’ attitudes and beliefs regarding writing?
Participants and context of study
Four teachers and 138 S1 students from a low-banding secondary school (with
mainly Bands 2 and 3 student intake � Band 1 being the best and Band 3 the weakest
academically) in Hong Kong participated in the study. The teachers are referred to as
Teachers A (a native English teacher), B, C, and D. At the time of the study, they had
teaching experience ranging from 5 to 11 years. All the teachers have an Englishmajor and a teaching qualification (majoring in English). As for the students, they
were aged between 12 and 13, with most of them from working-class families. Public
assessment results (i.e. TSA � Territory System Assessment) in Primary 6 (i.e. Grade
6) suggest that the English proficiency level of the S1 students was below
the territory’s average. The teachers taught 10 English lessons per seven-day cycle.
The English lessons were not compartmentalized into separate language skills but the
normal expectation was that students would have to produce a reasonable number of
compositions during the school year (usually more than 10). At the time of the study,the S1 teachers were using a task-based coursebook, with supplementary materials
that were either self-designed or adapted from existing sources (such as the Internet
and reference books).
Data collection and analysis
Multiple approaches were used in this single case study (Stake 1995), involving both
quantitative and qualitative data gathered from teacher and student interviews, pre-
and post-study student questionnaires, classroom observation, S1 teachers’ meeting
notes, and the researcher’s field notes. First of all, written notes gathered from a pre-
study S1 teachers’ meeting were collected to throw light on the context of the study
(mainly previous instructional and assessment practice and impetus for change). Atthe beginning of the study, a questionnaire was administered to the students to find
out their attitudes to writing and their beliefs about writing assessment. They
completed the same questionnaire at the end of the study. Three focus group
interviews were conducted with the S1 teachers (in English) to find out their
experience with AfL in writing. As Teacher A (whose students were from the
academically strongest S1 class) agreed to be a subject of in-depth investigation, four
of her writing lessons were observed, each followed up by a brief post-observation
interview. Researcher’s field notes were kept on all the observed lessons, which werevideotaped (to be reviewed if needed). The lesson observation data gave the
researcher first-hand information about Teacher A’s instructional approach and
served to triangulate with some of the self-reported data from the teacher interviews.
Also, six students from Teacher A’s class, selected randomly to represent different
proficiency levels (i.e. high, mid, and low), participated in a post-study focus group
interview conducted in Cantonese (the students’ L1) to find out their views of AfL.
The student questionnaire data were subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS.
Paired samples t-tests were run on the data, yielding both descriptive and inferentialstatistics. The student interview data were translated and transcribed, and the teacher
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 23
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
&M
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
interview data were transcribed. The interview data were read several times to
identify emergent patterns and themes and to discover the relationships among the
categories (Goetz and LeCompte 1984), and then the categories were coded through
an inductive analysis procedure. As for the researcher’s field notes and the S1
teachers’ meeting notes, salient points were extracted to shed further light on the
analysis from other sources.
Results and discussion
This section presents and discusses the findings according to the three research
questions that the study attempted to answer.
What motivated the Secondary 1 (S1) teachers to introduce assessment for learning(AfL) to the writing classroom?
The notes of the S1 teachers’ meeting (N) and the teacher focus group interview data
(I) reveal five main reasons that made the teachers undertake AfL in writing. First,
they were all convinced of the ineffectiveness of their current assessment practice,
which focused inordinately on teachers correcting errors for students, but with
minimal impact on student learning:
The current practice of marking student writing is both time-consuming for teacher(mark each piece of writing comprehensively and grade it) and unhelpful/tediousto students who mechanically copy corrections without learning from their mis-takes. (N)
I don’t think they learn anything from their mistakes . . . the marking codes . . . Idon’t think it really helps them. (I � Teacher A)
Students sometimes do not really understand the meaning of the feedback. (I �Teacher B)
Even we do all the corrections for them, they don’t really think. (I � Teacher C)
I don’t see them improving at all. (I � Teacher D)
The above quotes show that teachers were greatly dissatisfied with their error-
focused feedback practice, since it failed to fully utilize the formative potential ofassessment. As students copied teachers’ corrections mechanically, they did not
learn from their mistakes. Even when error codes were used, students did not fully
understand them. A policy that drove teachers to respond to every single written
error had made it difficult for students to improve their learning because the
feedback was unfocused (pointing out all errors rather than selected errors) and
not easily manageable as it was comprehensive, apart from it being demotivating
and confusing besides.
Secondly, teachers felt that the existing assessment practice had produced passiveand dependent learners who were ‘indifferent to their school work and did not have
the habit of checking their work and looking for ways to improve it’ (N). Teacher A
said: ‘I think they are quite happy, sitting there and doing something easy with no
thinking’ (I). Teachers generally believed that students: ‘should be trained to be less
24 I. Lee
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
&M
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
dependent on teachers and more responsible for their own achievements by
becoming more critically aware of their strengths and weaknesses in their writing’
(N). The current assessment practice, therefore, failed to provide students with
opportunities to engage actively in the assessment process.
Thirdly, it was felt that inadequate input was given to students to help them write,
and that there was a missing link between teaching and assessment. Teacher C
thought that the current focus was on the writing and the post-writing: ‘what they
need is pre-writing . . . so I think we should do more on the pre-writing task, to makethem competent to start’ (I). Teachers felt a need to align teaching with assessment
goals and outcomes. Therefore, they deemed it important to share assessment criteria
with students to show them explicitly their learning goals: ‘Time needs to be spent
on . . . explaining criteria for formative assessment’ (N).
Finally, a product approach was found problematic as students were not given
opportunities to revise and improve their writing:
It’s just for that one piece of work and we don’t see anything feeding into a successivepiece of work. It’s like a stand-alone piece of work, and there is nothing which continuesto show progression. (I � Teacher A)
With a product approach, assessment was rendered a solitary activity with little
connection with teaching and learning.
The findings above suggest that the teachers were set to overhaul conventionalassessment practices that focused primarily on AoL and to play the role of
implementers of change (Bailey 1992). While Hong Kong teachers are often
perceived as not prepared for change (Walker and Cheong 1996), the S1 teachers
in the study were convinced of the need for change and were determined to
implement change as a team because of their great dissatisfaction with the heavy
AoL culture in their school. Through a focus on AfL, they hoped to enhance student
learning, improve motivation, promote their self-confidence, and improve teacher
satisfaction and efficiency in teaching and assessing writing:
I think we need a change . . . because it’s quite disillusioning to see the same thing, thesame patterns repeating themselves. And because I saw the teachers are veryhardworking, and the result is disastrous, so we all want to do something to changethe situation. (I � Teacher A)
Influence of assessment for learning (AfL) on teachers’ practice in the writingclassroom
The teacher interview and classroom observation data (plus the researcher’s field
notes) show that the teachers’ determination to implement AfL in writing broughtabout a new approach to writing and writing assessment. First, teachers attempted to
foster a closer link between teaching and assessment by strengthening pre-writing
input and sharing task-specific assessment criteria with students before writing
(whereas before teachers’ instructional input was minimal):
I think, actually we’ve spent quite a lot of time on pre-writing activities . . . I mean,asking questions, making notes, mind-mapping, timelines . . . and I think that the pre-writing is really important. Before we gave them the writing task, we told them what thecriteria were. So we gave them sort of a marking sheet in advance. (Teacher A)
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 25
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
&M
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Second, to give students more time to develop a piece of work, instead of collecting
single drafts (which was a common practice in Hong Kong schools), multiple drafts
were required:
I ask them to write about three drafts. (Teacher D)
Some students actually had written four drafts, but they’d done it on their own. Somehad written two . . . it depends. It depends on what the circumstances are, but certainlymultiple drafts. (Teacher A)
To encourage greater student involvement and collaboration during the writing
process, teachers also provided opportunities for collaborative writing. For example,
they put their students into groups to write about a field trip:
It’s the Activity Day, so they were in groups, and they have one student wrote aboutmorning � it’s still a division of labour � one wrote about the morning, one wrote aboutthe afternoon, and one wrote about the evening . . . and then they put it to-gether . . . (Teacher A)
To further engage students actively in the learning-to-write process, another
innovative assessment strategy teachers adopted was peer- and self-editing:
We created some checklists for self- and peer editing . . . The first one was quite big, andit was ticking boxes. For example, we wrote in complete sentences and they tick the box;colour in balloons, and write comments. (Teacher A)
Finally, upon collecting students’ writing, the teachers decided to mark errors
selectively instead of comprehensively to facilitate more focused learning. The policy
was implemented in all S1 classes across the board, in spite of the fact that
conventional practice in Hong Kong required teachers to mark all students’ written
errors. Instead of providing correct answers for students, teachers relied more on the
indirect feedback strategy, as they wanted students to think and develop greater
independence in error correction:
Because I really . . . I think that if they . . . they need to do the thinking for themselves,and so I try and lead � point the way that hopefully they will understand their . . . andthen I’ll just simply underline and put a question mark. (Teacher A)
To promote AfL, there was a consensus among teachers to de-emphasize scores/
grades so as to help students focus more on the writing itself:
In terms of assessment, we changed the assessment style. We no longer give thema mark. We just tell them, so you just go ahead and just try to write anything.(Teacher D)
This is in line with Stobart’s (2006) suggestion that scores and grades are threats to
AfL because when teachers give both comments and scores/grades, students mainly
focus on the latter (Black et al. 2003).
From the lesson observation data, in three out of the four lessons, Teacher A
carried out a variety of pre-writing activities with her students. She made students
brainstorm ideas on a mind map or gave students a planning sheet to gather ideas
that might be included in the writing. She also made sure that students had a
26 I. Lee
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
&M
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
chance to share ideas orally with peers in small groups. In all the lessons
observed, Teacher A provided a great deal of input to help students understand
the requirements of the writing tasks, which were translated into task-specific
evaluation criteria. For instance, before students wrote a description about a
classmate for the class notice board, she taught students how to organize their
writing by including their classmate’s name, appearance, personality, and favorite
activities. She also put students in pairs to do a simple interview based on a
worksheet (e.g. what my classmate likes and doesn’t like, hobbies, family, etc.).The classroom observation data corroborate the interview data, showing that
Teacher A’s determination to implement AfL made her spend more time on pre-
writing so as to better prepare students for assessment.
In sum, the findings suggest that the inefficacy of conventional assessment
practices had made the teachers embark upon a process of change, where they
experimented with a number of alternative assessment and instructional strategies
with a view to promoting student learning in writing. It is worth noting that a
number of quotes cited above were from Teacher A, a native English teacher.Although the more quiet local teachers were willing to respond when called upon, the
focus groups still tended to be dominated by Teacher A (which is not an uncommon
phenomenon in Hong Kong school contexts).
Impact of assessment for learning (AfL) on students’ attitudes and beliefs regardingwriting
The student questionnaire and interview data throw light on the impact of AfLon student motivation in writing. Table 3 provides a summary of the pre- and
post-study student questionnaire findings. Inferential statistics (see boldfaced
statements with significant differences between pre- and post-study questionnaire
means) indicate enhanced self-esteem (Q5 and Q6) and improved motivation as
writers (Q1, Q8, and Q9) at the end of the study. Although the raw data show
that the post-study results for these statements still score below 4 (agree) out of a
five-point Likert scale, it is important to take into account the linguistic
background of the students, who were from a low-banding school in HongKong. As we examine the descriptive data, 10 of the statements (Q 3, 4, 7, 10, 13,
18, 20�23) suggest more positive attitudes toward writing and/or principles of
AfL, such as self-/peer assessment and process writing, at the end of the study.
Specifically, Q12, with a significant difference between the pre- and post-study
results (see boldfaced statement in Table 3), suggests that students’ attitude to
writing assessment better aligned with the major AfL principle � i.e. the purpose
of assessment is to help students improve their writing. Other descriptive data,
however, suggest that the study might have failed to develop attitudes congruentwith other AfL principles, as shown in the results obtained in Q2 (product being
more important than process), Q11 (students’ increasing concern with how well or
how badly they perform), Q14 (the teacher’s role in assessing every single piece of
student writing), Q15 (that teachers should focus only on grammatical accuracy),
and Q16 (that teachers need to mark every single written error). In particular,
there is some discrepancy between the results obtained from Q17 and Q19 with
regard to students’ preference for teachers’ use of assessment criteria (namely
broad and task-specific assessment criteria), suggesting that perhaps teachers’ useof task-specific assessment criteria in the study had failed to impress upon
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 27
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
&M
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Table 3. Pre- and post-study student questionnaire results (five-point scale).
Statement (5 �stronglyagree; 1 �stronglydisagree)
Pre,N
Pre,M
Pre,SD
Post,N
Post,M
Post,SD
t-values
P-values Cohen’s d
1. Writing in English isa pleasure
138 3.04 0.99 172 3.36 0.96 �2.85 0.01* �0.33
2. I am more concernedabout the product ofwriting than theprocess of writing
137 3.27 0.91 172 3.33 0.90 �0.54 0.59 �0.07
3. When I put effort inmy writing, I canproduce a goodpiece of work
138 3.51 1.02 171 3.56 0.10 �0.36 0.72 �0.09
4. Whether I write wellis within my owncontrol
136 3.20 1.07 171 3.33 1.03 �1.07 0.29 �0.12
5. I am good at Englishwriting
138 2.49 1.03 172 2.81 1.00 �2.79 0.01* �0.32
6. When I am given awriting task, I can doit well
138 3.01 0.94 171 3.25 0.98 �2.15 0.03* �0.25
7. I know what to do toimprove my writing
137 3.21 0.91 171 3.30 0.89 �0.84 0.40 �0.10
8. I am ready to takeresponsibility toimprove my ownwriting
137 3.28 0.89 170 3.50 0.87 �2.13 0.03* �0.25
9. When I write, I workhard to do it well
137 3.55 0.95 170 3.82 0.82 �2.67 0.01* �0.31
10. I am willing to workhard to overcomemy difficulties inwriting
138 3.51 0.93 172 3.67 0.86 �1.51 0.13 �0.18
11. The purpose ofassessment is to findout how well or howbadly I perform
137 3.15 0.92 170 3.34 0.86 �1.84 0.07 �0.21
12. The purpose ofassessment is to helpme improve mywriting
137 3.72 0.81 171 3.96 0.78 �2.67 0.01* �0.30
13. The purpose ofassessment is to helpmy English teacherimprove his/herteaching
135 3.20 0.90 171 3.39 0.82 �1.88 0.06 �0.22
14. I think my Englishteacher shouldassess every piece ofwriting I do
131 3.50 0.92 170 3.62 0.86 �1.24 0.22 �0.14
15. I think my Englishteacher should focusonly on grammaticalaccuracy whenassessing my writing
136 3.10 0.80 169 3.13 0.83 �0.29 0.77 �0.04
28 I. Lee
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
&M
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Table 3. (Continued ).
Statement (5 �stronglyagree; 1 �stronglydisagree)
Pre,N
Pre,M
Pre,SD
Post,N
Post,M
Post,SD
t-values
P-values Cohen’s d
16. I think my Englishteacher shouldrespond to all mywritten errors
134 3.52 1.04 171 3.70 0.80 �1.71 0.89 �0.20
17. I think my Englishteacher should usebroad criteria (likecontent, language,and organization)to assess studentwriting
137 3.62 0.90 171 3.74 0.79 �1.21 0.23 �0.14
18. I think my Englishteacher should givewritten commentson my writing
137 3.84 0.92 169 3.95 0.84 �1.07 0.29 �0.13
19. I think my Englishteacher should usedifferent assessmentcriteria for differentwriting tasks (e.g.story anddescription)
137 3.68 0.91 171 3.71 0.81 �0.35 0.72 �0.04
20. It is useful to haveconferences with myEnglish teacher todiscuss how mywriting can beimproved
135 3.44 0.93 171 3.61 0.89 �1.57 0.12 �0.19
21. It is useful to haveopportunities toconduct self-assessment of myown writing
137 3.42 0.98 170 3.49 0.93 �0.66 0.51 �0.07
22. It is useful to haveopportunities toassess myclassmates’writing
135 3.44 1.01 170 3.54 0.99 �0.84 0.40 �0.10
23. It is useful to haveopportunities torevise mycompositionaccording to myteacher’s feedbackrather than simplycorrect the errors
136 3.47 0.98 171 3.66 0.84 �1.78 0.08 �0.21
*Statistically significant.Note: N, total number of students; M, mean rating of the statement (on a five-point Likert scale: 5 beingstrongly agree and 1 strongly disagree); SD, standard deviation; Cohen’s d, one common type of effectsize � regardless of sign, d values of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 are by convention interpreted as small, medium, andlarge effect sizes, respectively.
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 29
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
&M
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
students as a new and useful way to engage them in learning. These less positive
findings mainly relate to how teachers should respond to student writing and
suggest that it takes time for students to adjust to assessment strategies that
depart from conventional practices. It is also difficult to change students’
ingrained beliefs � e.g. about the primacy of the written product and the role
of grammatical accuracy in writing. Nevertheless, the questionnaire data indicate
that students had developed a stronger motivation for writing and were beginning
to develop some new attitudes toward writing (such as peer evaluation and
multiple drafting) at the end of the study.
The student interview data are able to corroborate the questionnaire findings that
reflect students’ improved motivation in the AfL-focused writing classroom. All the
six students interviewed said they liked writing better than before. One student said:
Whenever I heard about writing, I felt annoyed and I was very reluctant. Writing? Notagain! But now my attitude has changed.
When asked specifically how they would describe their attitude to writing at the
beginning of the school year, the words they used were ‘afraid’, ‘not again’, ‘what else’,
‘annoying’, etc. However, at the end of the year, they would say ‘will try my best’ and
‘will try’. The findings suggest that AfL did have a motivating effect on the students. In
the words of Harlen (2006), ‘assessment is one of the key factors that affect motivation’
(61).
Apart from a greater interest in writing, all the six students showed enhanced
confidence in themselves as writers as they felt they had made better improvement in
S1 than in previous years. Students appeared to be more aware and appreciative of the
learning-to-write process. They were able to re-tell how the teacher took them through
the writing process � e.g. by asking lots of guiding questions, giving them sample texts
to read, giving them pre-writing input in terms of grammar and vocabulary, and
allowing them to gather ideas. They also referred to the rich ‘reference materials’ that
the teacher gave them to prepare them for writing (i.e. at the pre-writing stage).
Although the questionnaire data do not indicate a significant difference in
students’ attitude to AfL strategies like peer evaluation, the students interviewed said
that they all appreciated the opportunities to engage in self- and peer evaluation and
found the experience beneficial. The reasons, according to the students, are as
follows:
We can find out how others write.
If you see some weaknesses from others, you may tell them, and if there is somethinggood, you may learn from reading it. Also from reading others’ writing, you canimprove your own writing as well.
Also, students thought they benefited from multiple drafting and all the six students
said they preferred multiple drafting to single drafting, as done in primary school:
It gives you more time to think about it.
You won’t know what you have done wrong if it’s without drafts.
And you can correct the mistakes made in the earlier drafts.
30 I. Lee
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
&M
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
They all felt that multiple drafting helped them write better. One reason could be
that with increased interest in writing, students might also find drafting and
redrafting on the same topic palatable. Contrary to some previous local studies
that reveal the failure of process pedagogy (Hamp-Lyons 2006; Pennington,
Brock, and Yue 1996), the relative success of process writing with these students
could be partly due to the fact that they were not yet threatened by public exam
pressure (the public exam for them was to take place 5 years later). Given the
exam-oriented culture in Hong Kong, it is generally more difficult for teachers tointroduce change in senior secondary classrooms, as they are under pressure to
give students a high dose of exam practice.
The positive response to AfL gathered from Teacher A’s students, however,
cannot be generalized to other students taught by Teachers B, C, and D, whose
students were of even lower proficiency levels. It would have been useful if voices
could have been heard from these weaker students. However, since only Teacher A
showed volition to take part in an in-depth investigation, access to student interview
data from the other classes was not available. Nonetheless, overall the questionnairedata suggest some improvement in students’ self-esteem and motivation at the end of
the study. Specifically, for students in Teacher A’s class, AfL had changed their
attitude to conventional practices such as a product-oriented approach to writing
and engendered a more open attitude to learning.
Implications and conclusions
The study shows that implementing AfL in writing entails a significant change inthe teaching approach, assessment methods, and the respective roles of teacher
and students in the writing classroom. Consistent with the findings of Black and
Wiliam (1998) about the positive impacts of formative assessment, the study
provides some evidence for the benefits that a focus on AfL can bring to teaching
and student motivation in the writing classroom. For the teachers, they learn to
be more assessment literate (Edwards, Turner, and Mokhtari 2008) � i.e. more
capable of promoting student learning in the writing classroom. As they opt for
focused rather than comprehensive error feedback and share responsibility withstudents through peer and self-evaluation, they can free themselves up for other
important aspects of their work, such as planning and designing materials for
instructional scaffolding. For the students, AfL can enhance motivation in writing
and engender new attitudes to aspects of learning and assessment in writing, such
as peer evaluation and multiple drafting. However, it should be noted that
students’ attitudes and beliefs about writing and writing assessment do not change
overnight, and it takes time for innovation to take root. It is important that
teachers sustain their effort in innovative assessment practices in writing, withoutwhich it is hard to make a lasting impact on students’ motivation and attitudes
toward writing.
Although it is not the purpose of this study to generalize its findings, caution
has to be sounded about the small scale of the study, the fact that the in-depth
investigation was conducted in only one S1 class, and the fact that the data were
primarily self-reported. Despite its limitations, a number of implications can be
drawn from the study. First, AfL in writing entails a change in both assessment
strategies and instructional practices. It enables teachers to bring togetherteaching, learning and assessment, to strengthen writing instruction, and to align
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 31
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
&M
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
assessment with instruction. AfL, therefore, is not only about changing the way
teachers assess writing, but also about helping them find ways to improve the
teaching and learning of writing. Second, in order for AfL to achieve its long-
term benefits, teachers need to work collaboratively and engage in communities of
practice, so that AfL will become an important part of their professional
repertoire. In the study, teachers’ implementation of AfL in writing was largely a
joint decision. Without the support of colleagues, it would have been difficult for
teachers to depart from conventional practices and bring innovation to the
writing classroom. Finally, although attitudes and beliefs are not easy to change,
the findings show that with more productive assessment and instructional
practices, students can become better motivated in writing. While the study
focuses on the attitudinal aspect of learning, it is necessary for future research to
investigate how teachers’ sustained efforts in implementing AfL can impact
positively on students’ long-term writing development.
Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper was supported by a grant from the Research Grants Councilof the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China � CUHK 446408.
Notes on contributor
Icy Lee is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education at the Chinese University ofHong Kong. Her research interests include second language writing, language assessment, andsecond language teacher education.
References
Assessment Reform Group. 2002. Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Port Melbourne:Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, K.M. 1992. The processes of innovation in language teacher development: What, whyand how teachers change. In Perspectives on second language education, ed. J. Flowerdew,M. Brock, and S. Hsia, 253�82. Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
Belanof, P. 1991. The myths of assessment. Journal of Basic Writing 10, no. 1: 54�66.Black, P., C. Harrison, C. Lee, B. Marshall, and D. Wiliam. 2003. Assessment for learning:
Putting it into practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice 5, no. 1: 7�74.Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 2003. In praise of educational research: Formative assessment.
British Educational Research Journal 29, no. 5: 623�37.Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 2006. Assessment for learning in the classroom. In Assessment and
learning, ed. J. Gardner, 9�25. London: Sage.Clarke, S. 2005. Formative assessment in action: Weaving the elements together. London:
Hodder Murray.Curriculum Development Council. 2007. English language curriculum and assessment guide
(Secondary 4�6). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.Curriculum Development Institute. 2004. Promoting assessment for learning in English
language education at primary level. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.Davison, C. 2007. Views from the chalkface: English language school-based assessment in
Hong Kong. Language Assessment Quarterly 4, no. 1: 37�68.Edwards, P.A., J.D. Turner, and K. Mokhtari. 2008. Balancing the assessment of learning and
for learning in support of student literacy development. The Reading Teacher 61, no. 8:682�4.
32 I. Lee
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
&M
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Goetz, J., and M. LeCompte. 1984. Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research.San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hamp-Lyons, L. 2006. The impact of testing practices on teaching: Ideologiesand alternatives. In International handbook of English language teaching, vol. 1, ed. J.Cummins and C. Davison, 487�504. Norwell, MA: Springer.
Harlen, W. 2006. The role of assessment in developing motivation for learning. In Assessmentand learning, ed. J. Gardner, 61�80. London: Sage.
Huot, B. 2002. (Re)-articulating writing assessment for teaching and learning. Logan, UT:Utah State University Press.
Lee, I. 2007. Feedback in L2 writing: Assessment for learning or assessment of learning?Assessing Writing 12, no. 3: 180�98.
Lee, I. 2008. Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondaryclassrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing 17, no. 2: 69�85.
Lo, J., and F. Hyland. 2007. Enhancing students’ engagement and motivation in writing: Thecase of primary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing 16, no. 4:219�37.
Morris, P., M.L. Lo, and B. Adamson. 2000. Improving schools in Hong Kong: Lessons fromthe past. In Changing the curriculum: The impact of reform on Hong Kong’s primaryschools, ed. B. Adamson, T. Kwan, and K.K. Chan, 245�62. Hong Kong: Hong KongUniversity Press.
Pennington, M., M.C. Brock, and F. Yue. 1996. Implementing process writing in Hong Kongsecondary schools: What the students’ responses tell us. Perspectives 8, no. 1: 150�217.
Sebba, J. 2006. Policy and practice in assessment for learning: The experience of selectedOECD countries. In Assessment and learning, ed. J. Gardner, 185�96. London: Sage.
Sebba, J., and G. Maxwell. 2005. Queensland, Australia: An outcomes-based curriculum. InFormative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms, ed. OECD, 191�204.Paris: OECD.
Serafini, F. 2000/2001. Three paradigms of assessment: Measurement, procedure, and inquiry.The Reading Teacher 54, no. 4: 384�93.
Stake, R. 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Stobart, G. 2006. The validity of formative assessment. In Assessment and learning, ed. J.
Gardner, 133�46. London: Sage.Walker, A., and C.Y. Cheong. 1996. Professional development in Hong Kong primary schools:
Beliefs, practice and change. Journal of Education for Teaching 22, no. 2: 197�212.Wiliam, D. 2001. An overview of the relationship between assessment and the curriculum. In
Curriculum and assessment, ed. D. Scoop, 165�81. Westport, CT: Ablex.Yung, B.H.W. 2001. Examiner, policeman or students’ companion: Teachers’ perceptions of
their role in an assessment reform. Educational Reviewer 53, no. 3: 251�60.
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 33
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tex
as A
&M
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
