EFL Learners’ Perceptions and Practices of Reflective Assessment and Its’ Impact on Their General English Achievements

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
R. Vafaeimehr 1
S. Baleghizadeh 2
1 Ph.D. Candidate in English Language Teaching, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of English Language and Literature Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to investigate the role of practicing reflective assessment (RA) strategies in language classroom and to examine EFL learners’ perceptions regarding RA. In order to do so, the following research questions and hypotheses were answered:

Research questions:

Does applying RA strategies impact EFL learners’ achievements in General English (GE) classes?
Is there any statistically significant difference in post-test scores of EFL learners who practiced RA strategies and who did not?
Is there any statistically significant difference in retention-test scores of EFL learners who practiced RA strategies and who did not?
What are EFL learners’ perceptions regarding the application of RA strategies in language classroom?



Research hypotheses:


Applying RA strategies does not impact EFL learners’ achievements in General English classes.
There is not any statistically significant difference in post-test scores of EFL learners who practiced RA strategies and who did not.
There is not any statistically significant difference in retention-test scores of EFL learners who practiced RA strategies and who did not.

This study followed a mixed-methods design and both quantitative and qualitative data were used. The participants of the quantitative phase were 90 Computer Engineering students at Shahid Beheshti University who took part in General English (GE) classes. Two classes were selected and randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. Intermediate-level learners were selected based on their Oxford Placement Test’s scores. After pretest, in the experimental group, the students practiced Ellis's (2001) RA strategies, but in the control group, the normal course of class was followed. Five RA strategies (Ellis, 2001) were practiced in the experimental group. They were I Learned Statement, Talk about it (Think Aloud), Clear and unclear windows, The week in review, and Record keeping: After ten sessions, the posttest was administered and four weeks later, delayed posttest was administered. Considering the qualitative phase of the study, the participants were 45 computer engineering students (experimental group) and their perceptions regarding RA were extracted using questions and a questionnaire (Kourilenko, 2013). To do so, the participants were asked to complete a questionnaire and answer two interview questions regarding the application of RA and its impact on their English language achievements. After both quantitative and qualitative data collection, the data were analyzed. For quantitative data analysis, paired-samples t-test and independent-samples t-tests were used, and for qualitative data analysis, content analysis was run. The results revealed that the practice of RA strategies had a positive impact on EFL learners’ GE achievements (t (44) = -8.7, p<0.05). Furthermore, it was found that there were statistically significant differences between experimental and control groups’ scores in posttest (t (88) = 3.25, p< 0.05) and retention test (t (88) = 4.58, p< 0.05). According to the data, EFL learners, who practiced RA strategies, had higher scores in their post-test and retention-test compared to their control group counterparts. Besides, the analysis of the qualitative data showed that EFL learners had a positive approach to RA, and themes like increased collective morale, enhanced awareness of errors, and increased motivation to learn were the most frequent ones regarding positive impacts of RA and lack of time and knowledge, tediousness of over-practicing, and lack of students’ cooperation were found to be obstacles in practicing RA in the language classroom. The results of this study may have beneficial implications for EFL learners, teachers and material developers. EFL learners can apply different RA strategies in their learning process to increase their awareness of what they have learned and how they have learned them. EFL teachers should encourage their learners to practice RA strategies and provide them with appropriate feedback to help them improve their learning. Finally, EFL material developers can insert activities in the books and educational materials which trigger students’ reflection. Moreover, they can design activities which motivate learners to write reflective journals and record their scores in order to follow the way of their progress. Overall, this study revealed that practicing RA strategies are beneficial in language classroom and EFL learners have positive attitudes toward it. It is noteworthy to state that this is the first study conducted in Iran considering the implementation of RA and its effectiveness in the language classroom. It is hoped that it paves the way for further research in the realm of RA in Iran.


Keywords

Subjects

Allen, D. (1985). Oxford placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bianchi, G. A. (2007). Effects of metacognitive instruction on the academic achievement of students in the secondary sciences (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, USA.
Birjandi, P., & Tamjid, N. H. (2010). “The Role of Self-Assessment in Promoting Iranian EFL Learners' Motivation”. English Language Teaching. 3(3). Pp. 211-220.
Black, P., Harrison, C., & Lee, C. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
Blanche, P., & Merino, B. J. (1989). “Self‐assessment of foreign‐language skills: Implications for teachers and researchers”. Language learning. 39(3). Pp. 313-338.

Blank, L. M. (2000). “A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student understanding?”. Science Education. 84(4). Pp. 486-506.

Bond, J. (2003). The effects of reflective assessment on student achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, USA.

Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R. M. (2007). “Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of third-grade students”. The reading teacher. 61(1). Pp. 70-77.
Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Teacher feedback in formative classroom assessment. In Leading student assessment (pp. 225-239). Dordrecht: Springer.
Cauley, K. M., & McMillan, J. H. (2010). “Formative assessment techniques to support student motivation and achievement”. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas. 83(1). Pp. 1-16.
Costa, A. L. (2001). Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1703 N. Beauregard St., Alexandria, VA.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). “Choosing a mixed methods design”. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2. Pp. 53-106.
Denton, D. (2010). The Effects of Reflective Thinking on Middle School Students’ Academic Achievement and Perceptions of Related Instructional Practices: A Mixed Methods Study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, USA.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. DC: Heath.
Ellis, A. K. (2001). Teaching, learning, and assessment together: The reflective classroom. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Ellis, R. (2005). “Principles of instructed language learning”. System. 33(2). Pp. 209-224.

Evans, L. (2009). Reflective assessment and student achievement in high school English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, USA.

Ferguson, P. B. (2012). Becoming a reflective practitioner. Teaching Development, Whânga Whakapakari Ako. 1-23.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). “Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry”. American psychologist. 34(10). Pp. 906- 1011.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). “Collecting research data with questionnaires and interviews”. Educational research: An introduction. 12(10). Pp. 227-261.
Georghiades, P. (2004). “From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition”. International journal of science education. 26(3). Pp. 365-383.
Glaser, C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2007). “Improving fourth-grade students' composition skills: Effects of strategy instruction and self-regulation procedures”. Journal of educational psychology. 99(2). Pp. 297- 312.
Goto Butler, Y., & Lee, J. (2010). “The effects of self-assessment among young learners of English”. Language Testing. 27(1). Pp. 5-31.
Hung, S. (2009). “Promoting self-assessment strategies: An electronic portfolio approach”. Asian EFL Journal. 11(2). Pp. 129-146.
Kourilenko, I. N. (2013). Reflective Assessment, Feedback, and Student Achievement in Foreign Language Studies: A Mixed Methods Study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, USA.
Leung, D. Y., & Kember, D. (2003). “The relationship between approaches to learning and reflection upon practice”. Educational psychology. 23(1). Pp. 61-71.
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Ascd.
Marzano, R. L. (2009). “When students track their progress”. Educational Leadership.67(4). Pp. 86–107.
McMillan, J. H., & Hearn, J. (2008). “Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student motivation and higher achievement”. Educational Horizons. 87(1). Pp. 40-49.
Michalsky, T., Mevarech, Z. R., & Haibi, L. (2009). “Elementary school children reading scientific texts: Effects of metacognitive instruction”. The Journal of Educational Research. 102(5). Pp. 363-376.
Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s theory. In Piaget and his school (pp. 11-23). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). “The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing”. Theory into practice. 41(4). Pp. 219-225.
Shoop, K. A. (2006). Self-reflection, gender and science achievement. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, USA.
Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). “Self-assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure?”. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 9(2). Pp. 169-191.
Spalding, E., Wilson, A., & Mewborn, D. (2002). “Demystifying reflection: A study of pedagogical strategies that encourage reflective journal writing”. Teachers College Record. 104(7). Pp. 1393-1421.

Stefani, L., Mason, R., & Pegler, C. (2007). The educational potential of e-portfolios: Supporting personal development and reflective learning. London: Routledge.
Stiggins, R. (2006). “Assessment for learning: A key to motivation and achievement”. EDge: the latest information for the education practitioner. 2(2). Pp. 1-19.
Stiggins, R. J. (1996). “Opening doors to excellence in assessment: A guide for using quality assessment to promote effective instruction and student success”. Assessment Training Institutes, Inc. Portland: OR (paper).
Torrance, M., Fidalgo, R., & García, J. N. (2007). “The teachability and effectiveness of cognitive self-regulation in sixth-grade writers”. Learning and instruction. 17(3). Pp.265-285.
Tunstall, P., & Gsipps, C. (1996). “Teacher feedback to young children in formative assessment: A typology”. British educational research journal. 22(4). Pp. 389-404.
Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). “Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations”. Metacognition and learning. 1(1). Pp. 3-14.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press.
Yang, Y., van Aalst, J., Chan, C. K., & Tian, W. (2016). “Reflective assessment in knowledge building by students with low academic achievement”. International Journal of Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning. 11(3). Pp. 281-311.
Zan, R. (2000). “A metacognitive intervention in mathematics at university level”. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 31(1). Pp.143-150.
Language Related Research
Volume 11, Issue 3 - Serial Number 57
July and August 2020
Pages 347-377