Classroom Assessment as Learning Mediation

As can be seen from Rea-Dickins (2001) model (see Figure 2.1), classroom assessment involves different strategies that aim at mediating learning. One of the main characteristics of classroom assessment, represented in stage 3 of the model, is making use of the information obtained from assessment based on classroom interaction (Al-Sawafi, 2014). Teachers use the information obtained from assessment to evaluate their pedagogy, inform teaching strategies, provide feedback to students, and mediate learning. This section discusses one of the main strategies obtained from assessment to promote learning: feedback.

2.3.1.1 Feedback in relation to classroom assessment.

Feedback has been recognized as a basic feature of the teaching and learning processes (Brookhart, 2007; Brown & Hudson, 1998; Davison & Leung, 2009; Gipps, 1994; Tunstall & Gipps, 1996). It is embedded within various kinds of assessment (in tests and classroom assessment) to inform teachers, students, or stakeholders about students’ understanding and abilities and to help teachers adjust their instruction based on students’ performance (Kunnan & Jang, 2009). In classroom assessment, especially that which is conducted for formative purposes,

a high priority is placed on teacher–student interaction, especially via dialogue in which feedback and questioning are provided (Davison & Leung, 2009). Feedback exists in different forms and for different purposes, and it may be in the form of verbal interaction (e.g., verbal comments after certain activities), or written commentary based on the type of assessment (Davison & Leung, 2009; Yorke, 2003).

While a few studies have focused on types of feedback in classroom assessment, not many have described the nature of teacher feedback discourse and what type of feedback they use (Ruiz-Primo & Min, 2013). Feedback in language assessment has been mostly associated with written corrective feedback, and many studies have demonstrated teachers’ and students’ roles in written feedback in L1 or L2 (e.g., Barkaoui, 2010; Montgomery & Baker, 2007), or discussed feedback as a general concept related to teacher classroom practices not specifically related to assessment (e.g., Ruiz-Primo & Min, 2013).

Although feedback exists in all kinds of assessment, in this study feedback is concerned with the context of classroom assessment. However, it is important to introduce the purposes of feedback in the testing context. In a large-scale testing context for summative purposes, feedback is used to inform teachers about the gap between the curricular goals and the target students’ level being tested; this information is used to monitor student progress, and the feedback is provided to all stakeholders, including students, parents, teachers, and school administrators (Kunnan & Jang, 2009).

Gipps (1994) indicated that formative assessment feedback offered to teachers and students is different from that of assessment for accountability or monitoring purposes: “Performance feedback must . . . emphasize mastery and progress, rather than normative comparison” (p. 41). Gipps stressed two important reasons for feedback within the process of

teaching: “it contributes directly to progress in learning through the process of formative assessment, and indirectly through its effect on pupils’ academic self-esteem” (p. 129–130). As such, studies on formative assessment consider feedback as an important element of formative assessment (Gipps, 1994).

Leung and Mohan (2004) compared feedback between summative and formative assessment, implying that feedback conducted in formative assessment provides better

opportunities to engage in the learning process than does summative assessment. In summative assessment, feedback is straightforward and is given about whether the answer is right or wrong (Leung & Mohan, 2004). In formative assessment, feedback is not straightforward because it is integrated into teaching and learning activities (Leung & Mohan, 2004). They argued that classroom assessment conducted for formative purposes “carries an enormous potential for providing useful and helpful teacher feedback, so that students can engage with further learning and/or revise what has been learned” (Leung & Mohan, 2004, p. 338). Teachers benefit from feedback obtained from classroom assessment as do students because they have the opportunity to discuss their performance with the teacher or through self-assessment (Kunnan & Jang, 2009; Leung & Mohan, 2004).

Although feedback is important in formative assessment practices to enhance learning, it can be used to serve summative or accountability purposes (Moss, 2003). Moss (2003) indicated that feedback in classroom assessment could be used to serve grading or accountability purposes. In a case study of her own classroom practices, Moss noted that she attempts to engage students with their work to enhance their learning processes. She did this by designing learning

opportunities in writing classes involving cooperation among students on different writing assignments. Feedback was not standardized, and although Moss argued against standardized

feedback, she pointed out that setting standardized feedback is sometimes necessary to develop “an analytic rubric for feedback” (p. 16). Thus, commenting on and grading an assignment is a form of feedback that requires a deliberate action from teachers in analyzing student’s

performance in any type of assessment (Yorke, 2003).

Cheng and Wang (2007) emphasized the role of feedback and grading practices. They interviewed English postsecondary teachers in three countries: Canada, Hong Kong, and China. The majority of teachers designed their own grading criteria, but they used them for different purposes. The majority of teachers in Hong Kong and Canada informed their students about the grading criteria before assessing them to increase learning expectations. Cheng and Wang (2007) found that most teachers in Canada used the marking criteria to inform their teaching pedagogy and student learning, and teachers in Hong Kong were also concerned with the way the marking criteria affect their practices. Chinese teachers did not explain how marking criteria would inform teaching or learning. Their beliefs were influenced by the context—large classes and past experience. In terms of feedback, teachers in all three contexts focused on errors in students’ work. Teachers in Hong Kong and Canada, however, provided individual feedback, whereas Chinese teachers provided feedback to the class as a whole as follow-up activities.