An investigation into english classroom assessment practices in three primary schools in hanoi

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

PHẠM LAN ANH

AN INVESTIGATION INTO ENGLISH CLASSROOM
ASSESSMENT PRACTICES IN THREE PRIMARY
SCHOOLS IN HA NOI
Điều tra thực trạng giáo viên Tiếng Anh đánh giá học sinh trong quá trình học tập trên
lớp tại 3 trường tiểu học ở Hà Nội

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Major: English Language Teaching Methodology
Code: 62140111

Hanoi, 2015


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

PHẠM LAN ANH

AN INVESTIGATION INTO ENGLISH CLASSROOM
ASSESSMENT PRACTICES IN THREE PRIMARY
SCHOOLS IN HA NOI
Điều tra thực trạng giáo viên Tiếng Anh đánh giá học sinh trong quá trình học tập trên
lớp tại 3 trường tiểu học ở Hà Nội

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Major: English Language Teaching Methodology
Code: 62140111
Supervisor: Dr. TÔ THỊ THU HƢƠNG

Hanoi, 2015


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I, the undersigned, certify my authority of the dissertation entitled ―An Investigation into
English Classroom Assessment Practices in Three Primary Schools in Ha Noi‖ in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy.
Except where the reference is indicated, no other person‘s work has been used without
due acknowledgement in the text of the dissertation.

PHAM LAN ANH

i


ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AFL

Assessment for Learning

AOL

Assessment of Learning

ASL

Assessment as Learning

AFT

Assessment for Teaching

AI

Assessment Incident

AT

Assessment Task

CA

Classroom Assessment

CBA

Classroom-Based Assessment

DoET

Department/Division of Education and Training

DYNED

Dynamic Education (software)

EAL

English as an Additional Language

EFL

English as a Foreign Language

EPH

Education Publishing House, Vietnam

ESL

English as a Second Language

FA

Formative Assessment

IRF

Initiative-Responsive-Feedback

L2

Second Language

MOET

Ministry of Education and Training

NIESAC

National Institute for Education Strategy and Curriculum Development

OUP

Oxford University Press

PIP

Primary Innovation Project

PPP

Presentation-Practice-Production

PToT

Trainer of Primary Teachers

Ss.

Students

TEYL

Teaching English to Young Learners

ZPD

Zone of Proximal Development
ii


ABSTRACT
Assessment has been one of the most heatedly debated issues worldwide. While on the global
scale, classroom assessment (CA) has gained an increasing attention in educational practices
and in research for decades, this type of assessment has very recently received an initial
recognition in Vietnamese primary schools. The impact of CA in student learning, therefore,
remains inclusive and needs further research. The study presented in this thesis was designed
to seek deep insights into the CA practised by a group of primary EFL (English as a Foreign
Language) teachers and the factors underlying such practices.
To address this complex issue, a collective case study was conducted with 8 primary EFL
teachers of English in 3 schools in Hanoi, Vietnam. Data were collected through classroom
observations, interviews with teachers and students, and through assessment-related
document/materials.
The methodology was framed by a sociocultural constructivist approach that focused on 6
assessment components of CA (why, what, how, who, when, and how well to assess).
The findings showed that the teachers‘CA practices were influenced by personal and
contextual factors such as their beliefs of how children learn, constraints built into the
curriculum, and institutional assessment requirements. There was a complex and non-linear
relationship between teaching, learning and assessment practices related to CA due to the
teachers‘ internalized conceptions of CA and contextual constraints including the educational
policy.

iii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation would not have been possible without the ongoing support and
encouragement of a very large number of professors, colleagues and my family.
Without the endless empathy, encouragement and expertise from Dr. Tô Thị Thu
Hương – my supervisor, the completion of this study would never have happened.
I would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lê Hùng Tiến
support staff and librarians at the Faculty of Postgraduate Studies who are ever so kind and
helpful.
A sincere appreciation goes out to the members of the special topic and the
institutional panels:

, Dr. Lê Văn Canh, Dr. Hoàng Thị Xuân Hoa, Dr. Hà

Thị Cẩm Tâm, Dr. Nguyễn Huy Kỷ, Dr. Duong Thu Mai, and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Võ Đại Quang
for the assistance, guidance and enduring patience.
In addition, I wish to express my gratitude to my colleagues – Nguyễn Chi Lan,
Nguyễn Ngọc Lan, and Nguyễn Thúy Hạnh, whose comments made this study possible.
I am also grateful to David Carless, David Vale, Janet Enever, Jaynee Moon, Rebecca
Hales, Laura Grassic and Sophie Ioannou Georgiou for the invaluable ideas shared with me.
I would also like to thank the administrators as well as the teachers and students of the
three schools involved in my study for many acts of kindness, generosity and patience.
Finally, my deep gratitude will always be with my family, my dear and supportive
parents, my husband and my little children.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................
1. Rationale ............................................................................................................................
2. Significance of the study ....................................................................................................
3. Context of the study ...........................................................................................................
4. Aims and objectives of the study .......................................................................................
5. Research questions .............................................................................................................
6. Scope of the study ..............................................................................................................
7. Structure of the study .........................................................................................................
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................
1.1.
1.1.1.
1.1.2.
1.2.

Assessment .......................................................................................

Types of assessment........................
Formative and summative assessment ...................................................................

Classroom assessment ......................................................................

1.2.1.

Boundary and definition of classroom assessment ................................................

1.2.2.

Classroom assessment for young EFL learners .....................................................

1.2.2.1. Characteristics of young EFL learners ....................................................................
1.2.2.2. Principles of classroom assessment of young EFL learners ...................................
1.3. Components of classroom assessment ..........................................................................
1.3.1.

Purposes of assessment ..................

1.3.2.

Assessment focus ...........................

1.3.3. Assessment approaches and methods ....................................................................
1.3.4.

Agents of assessment .....................

1.3.5.

Assessment procedure....................

1.3.6.

Assessment strategies ....................

1.4.

Teachers‘ beliefs ...............................................................................

1.4.1.

Definitions of teachers‘ beliefs ..............................................................................

1.4.2.

Rationale for exploring teachers‘ beliefs ...............................................................

1.4.3.

Factors shaping teachers‘ beliefs ...........................................................................

1.4.4.

Previous studies on teachers‘ beliefs about CA .....................................................

1.4.5. Approaches to explore teachers‘ beliefs ................................................................
1.5. Teachers‘ classroom assessment practices ....................................................................
1.5.1.

Definition of classroom assessment practices .......................................................

1.5.2.

Previous studies on classroom assessment practices .............................................

1.5.3. Approaches to explore teachers‘ classroom assessment practices .........................
1.6.

Chapter Summary..............................................................................
v

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.....................................................................40
2.1. Rationale for the research design......................................................................................40
2.1.1. Qualitative approach.................................................................................................. 40
2.1.2. Case study..................................................................................................................41
2.2. Research procedure...........................................................................................................42
2.3. Participants........................................................................................................................44
2.4. Description of the three schools........................................................................................49
2.5. Data collection..................................................................................................................52
2.5.1. Instruments for data collection...................................................................................54
2.5.1.1. Questionnaire and follow-up interview to select teachers in Stage 1.....................54
2.5.1.2. Focus-group interviews in Stage 2 and Stage 3......................................................55
2.5.1.3. Stimulated recalls after each classroom observation session in Stages 2, 3...........57
2.5.1.4. Individual interviews after classroom observation process in Stage 3...................57
2.5.1.5. Classroom observations.......................................................................................... 59
2.5.1.6. Artefacts.................................................................................................................. 59
2.6. Data analysis.....................................................................................................................60
2.7. Measures to reduce subjectivity and increase validity......................................................61
2.8. Chapter summary..............................................................................................................63
CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS................................................................... 65
3.1. Teachers‘ self-reported practices and beliefs....................................................................65
3.1.1. Teachers‘ beliefs about children as young language learners....................................66
3.1.2. Teachers‘ beliefs about assessment............................................................................68
3.2. Teachers‘ classroom assessment practices........................................................................77
3.2.1. Assessment procedures.............................................................................................. 78
3.2.1.1. Observing a typical student work to provide feedback for the whole class........79
3.2.1.2. Teachers‘ marking/grading................................................................................. 83
3.2.2. Approach and focus of assessment............................................................................ 89
3.2.2.1. Approach and focus of assessment as reflected in the teachers‘ lesson plans....89

3.2.2.2. Approach and focus of assessment as reflected in periodic and final tests.........94
3.2.2.3. Approach and focus of assessment as reflected in daily assessment..................96
3.2.3. Agents of assessment and assessment strategies......................................................102
3.2.3.1. Sharing learning goals and information on assessment with students..............103
3.2.3.2. Eliciting student understanding.........................................................................107
3.2.3.3. Giving feedback................................................................................................111
3.2.3.6. Extending student learning............................................................................... 118
3.2.3.7. Assessment strategies reflected in evidence of student learning......................119
3.2.4. Purposes of assessment............................................................................................123
vi


3.3. Relationship between teachers‘ beliefs, practices and contextual constraints................126
3.3.1. Consistencies and discrepancies between teachers‘ beliefs and practices...............126
3.3.2. Context constraints...................................................................................................134
3.4. Chapter Summary........................................................................................................... 136
CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................138
1. Recapitulation of the main findings...............................................................................138
2. Concluding remarks.................................................................................................... 143
3. Implications.................................................................................................................144
4. Limitations.................................................................................................................. 147
5. Suggestions for further studies....................................................................................148
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 149
APPENDIX 1: DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL........................................................CLXX
APPENDIX 2: DATA ANALYSIS PROTOCOL..........................................................CLXXIII
APPENDIX 3: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE IN STAGE 1......................................CLXXVII
APPENDIX 4: ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE IN STAGE 1. CLXXXVI
APPENDIX 5: FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS IN STAGE 1..............................................CCII
APPENDIX 6: SAMPLE OF FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW.........................................CCVII
APPENDIX 7: EXAMPLE OF PROCESSING DATA FROM FOCUS GROUP

INTERVIEWS.............................................................................................................. CCXVIII
APPENDIX 8: PROCESSED DATA FROM FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS.............CCXXI
APPENDIX 9: SOURCES OF TEACHERS‘ BELIEFS AND VALUES.................... CCXXIV
APPENDIX 10: EXAMPLE OF FINDINGS IN SINGLE CASE..............................CCXXXII
Single case analysis.................................................................................................CCXXXII
APPENDIX 11: FINDINGS ACROSS CASES........................................................ CCXXXIV
Meta-matrix for cross-case analysis......................................................................CCXXXIV
APPENDIX 12: FEEDBACK PATTERNS..............................................................CCXXXVII
9 Feedback patterns..............................................................................................CCXXXVII
Most used feedback patterns by every single case.................................................CCXXXIX
APPENDIX 13: INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW IN STAGES 2, 3.....................................CCXL
APPENDIX 14: CHECKLIST FOR CLASSROOM OBSERVATION IN STAGES 2, 3
LXXX
APPENDIX 15: TALLY SHEET FOR CLASSROOM OBSERVATION IN STAGE 2
LXXXII
APPENDIX 16: ARTEFACTS: PERIODIC AND FINAL TESTS.............................. LXXXIII
Test C2010.................................................................................................................LXXXIII
Test C2013..................................................................................................................LXXXV
Test D2010.........................................................................................................................XCI
vii


Test D2013 ....................................................................................................................
Test BM2014 ..................................................................................................................
APPENDIX 17: ANALYSIS OF PERIODIC AND FINAL TESTS ..................................
Periodic test evaluation .....................................................................................................
Overall evaluation of periodic and final tests ................................................................
APPENDIX 18: BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ALL ACTIVITIES IN 39 OBSERVED
LESSONS .............................................................................................................................
APPENDIX 19: ARTEFACTS: SAMPLE OF A LESSON PLAN ................................

Tacher D‘s Lesson Plan ............................................................................................
APPENDIX 20: EXAMPLE OF TRANSCRIBED LESSON ............................................
Transcription of teacher D‘s lesson: Unit 3, Grade 3..................................................
APPENDIX 21: EXAMPLE OF STIMULATED RECALL ...........................................
Stimulated recall, Teacher D, Unit 3 Grade 3, Stage 2 ............................................
APPENDIX 22: EXAMPLE OF PROCESSED DATA FROM RAW DATA ...........
Unit 13 Lesson 2, English 3, Grade 3, Teacher B, Stage 3 .........................................
Lesson plan .............................................................................................................
Transcribed lesson ...............................................................................................
Stimulated recall...........................................................................................................
APPENDIX 23: STUDENT EVIDENCE AND SAMPLES OF STUDENTS‘ WORK ..... CLX
Workbook, Student S1B2F10 (in Teacher B2‟s class, Grade 5) ..................................
Writing book, Student 2S2D ..........................................................................................
APPENDIX 24: EXAMPLE OF POST-OBSERVATION FEEDBACK SESSION TO
STUDENTS ................................................................................................................
Teacher C2 ..............................................................................................................

viii


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Relationship between testing, measurement, assessment, and
classroom assessment

Page

13

Table 1.1: View o

AOL/AFL/AFT/A

Table 2.1: Source

Table 2.2. Brief p

Table 3.1: Comm

as the result of ch

Table 3.2: Comm
remedies

Table 3.3: Comm

Table 3.4: Comm

Table 3.5: Charac

Table 3.6: Teache

Table 3.7: Summ

ix


INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
Following the growing tendency of lowering the age of EFL learners, together with
innovations in education, the field of language assessment for young learners has received an

increasing attention. Since young language learners possess special characteristics, assessing
them needs to be motivational and child friendly as they have no reasons for learning a foreign
language (Cameron, 2001; Hasselgreen, 2005; Mckay P., 2006; Moon, 2000). Moreover,
classroom assessment practices for young learners demand a focus on the long-term learning
process, rather than on the short-term outcome (Cameron, 2001; Hasselgreen, 2005; Hill &
McNamara, 2011; Mckay P., 2006; McKay S. L, 2006; Rea-Dickins, 2007). This trend is
parallel with the development of learning theories from Behaviourism to Sociocultural
Constructivism, with the former being characterized as teacher-centeredness, surface learning,
assessment of the final product of learning and a separation between teaching and assessment
while the latter placing learning at the center of all educational activities and embedding
assessment throughout the learning and teaching process (Cameron, 2001; Lambert & Lines,
2000; Mohamed, 2013; Popharm, 2008, Swaffield, 2008).
In order to implement CA practices in the light of Sociocultural Constructivism, teachers are
supposed to possess a sound knowledge base of the assessment components (Cameron, 2001;
McKay S. L, 2006; Mohamed, 2013; Rea-Dickins, 2001; Swaffield, 2008), for example,
specifying assessment purposes (why to assess), identifying the focus of assessment (what to
assess), selecting/designing assessment methods (how to assess), integrating teacher
assessment with self- and peer-assessment (who to assess), following the assessment
procedure from planning, implementing and using the collected assessment data (when to
assess and in what procedure), and employing effective assessment strategies (how well to
assess). Also, teachers‘ beliefs about learning, teaching and assessment are expected to be
parallel with the philosophy of CA from the sociocultural constructivist perspectives.
Owing to its reported learning gains, CA has received an increasing attention in Vietnam.
However, the reform in assessment practices in Vietnamese context seems to conflict the
sociocultural constructivist view of CA originated in the western countries because didactic
teaching, passive learning and traditional examinations for screening and selecting have been
dominant in Vietnam for centuries (Le Van Canh, 2011; Pham Thi Hong Thanh, 2014). This
local context has given the researcher the desire to conduct a qualitative case study to
1

investigate how and why the selected groups of teachers assess their young learners of English
the way they do.
Moreover, as a teacher trainer in the field of assessment, the researcher strongly feels that the
preparation for future teachers to deal with the challenges in their career is essential. The
personal interest behind this research is also to bridge the gap between theory and practice and
to equip the pre-service teachers with practical assessment knowledge/skills in order to raise
the quality of their future CA practices. A case study of the actual CA practices helps the
researcher bring the course to life as students engage with practical assessment strategies that
take into account the local culture and context of their future teaching.
2. Significance of the study
Although CA is an important component in education, limited studies have been published on
the actual CA practices, especially in primary EFL classrooms. Hence, this research is
significant in raising awareness of CA among pre-service primary teachers, the researched
teachers, and primary teacher trainers.
This study is unique from other studies on CA practices because it does not focus on a
particular aspect of the CA practices but examines the comprehensiveness and complexities of
the whole process.
The result of the research is useful for the primary schools in reviewing CA practices, helping
them be more aware of the issue of assessment and its role in the overall course of teaching
English as a foreign language to young learners.
Essentially, the findings are intended to more clearly define the crucial factors underlying the
teachers‘ classroom assessment practices. This, to certain extent, can contribute to greater
educational success, improving teachers‘ assessment knowledge and practices, and
formulating relevant professional development.
3. Context of the study
This section presents an overview of the context of teaching and assessing English at primary
level as well as the context of researching assessment in Vietnam (with a particular reference
to Hanoi). It first examines factors affecting teachers‘ assessment practices, namely the policy
and the status of English subject, the English curriculum, assessment policy, the status of

English teachers, and teacher training. Then, the section provides an overview of the research
context in assessment in general and CA in particular. Such background information prompted
the research questions for the study in the settings of three schools in Hanoi. Generally
2


speaking, the three schools were placed within the context of teaching and assessing English
as described below. Details about the specific contexts of the three schools are going to be
discussed in section 2.4.
a. Context of teaching and assessing English
Although English has been recognized as a widely taught foreign language in Vietnam, it is
still treated as a subject for study rather than as a living language to be spoken in daily
conversation (Hayes, 2008a/b; Moon, 2005).
Within the framework of the 2020 Project on Foreign Languages Teaching and Learning in the
National Education System in the period 2008-2020, English teaching and learning, which is
supposed to be stagely implemented, is to follow 10 year compulsory curriculum, starting
from Grade 3 with time allocation of 4 periods of 40 minutes per week.
The 10 year curriculum (MOET, 2010) is claimed to take account of the needs of young
learners in primary school, which are different from the needs of older children in secondary
school. As stated in the document, the principle of developing primary English curriculum is to
emphasize communicative competences and therefore seeks to promote more communicative
teaching methods through coherent themes and topics, which are meaningful and relevant to
the student‘s world (MOET, 2010). The guiding principle also specifies that primary age
children should be recognized as still developing cognitively (MOET, 2010). They are not able
to think abstractly or to analyze the structures of languages (MOET, 2010).
The teaching and assessing methods need, therefore, to be based on the curiculum with
adequate opportunities for the young learners to practise language skills in meaningful
contexts that are suitable for their cognitive, social, and psychological development (MOET,
2010). Specifically,
―assessment of student achievement must be aligned with the curriculum aims and

performance objectives, based on the performance standards for the four macro-skills of
listening, speaking, reading and writing. Student achievement is assessed and measured
through a combination of continuous and periodic assessment, with an emphasis being placed
on evidences of children‘s communicative competence in the learning process. Evidence of
student achievement is also collected from teacher observation and teacher feedback
throughout the entire academic year. Formats of assessment should be varied, including both
written and spoken.‖ (translated, Guideline 6, p. 15).

The curriculum, however, provides merely general guidelines and philosophy of CA. As such,
prior to 2012, the assessment practice of English was guided by the circular No 32/2009/TTBGDĐT, which was valid for all subjects at primary level. In this document, the assessment
principles were specified as follows:
3


Align assessment with standards of knowledge and skills and requirement of attitudes as
indicated in the national curriculum, primary level;
Combine quantitative and qualitative assessment; integrate teacher assessment and students‘
self-assessment;
Implement transparent, fair, objective, accurate and comprehensive procedure;
Assess and grade student achievement and student developmental progression in different
skills and subskills; emphasize an encouragement for student progress without putting pressure
on either students or teachers (Article 3, translated)

The document also prescribes the definition and guidance on how to conduct the two main
1

types of CA, namely continuous assessment and periodic assessment (Article 6) . Continuous
assessment is defined as the regular act of teacher focusing on student progress in everyday
lesson throughout the learning process with the purpose of monitoring, encouraging or
reinforcing student learning. This act simultaneously enables teachers to modify and update

their teaching methods in order to achieve the educational goal. Recommended methods for
continuous assessment include oral assessment, written assessment (less than 20 minutes),
observation of student learning and performance in learning activities, in practice and in
application of their knowledge and skills. A periodic assessment is defined as an assessment
which is carried out after certain period of learning with the purpose of providing teacher,
school and authorities with information about student learning in order for such stakeholders
to direct or adjust the teaching process or to report the results to parents, which aim at
coordinating, facilitating and supporting student learning.
Regarding English subject, the document specifies in detail the minimal quantity of
assessments for each type, namely, one assessment per month for continuous and two
assessments annually for periodic (i.e, end of term 1 and end of year), in which the end of year
assessment is the most important (Article 6). This means that only the result of the end-of year
assessment is recorded in student learning profile and is reported to stakeholders. However, as
English is an optional subject, the result is not counted as the grounds for ranking students.
As the circular No 32/2009/TT-BGDĐT (MOET, 2009) was a general guideline for all subjects
at primary education, there were no specific regulations on the contents or formats of
assessment of English subject. To meet the demand, the official dispatch No
8225/2012/BGDĐT-GDTH (MOET, 2012) was signed in November 2012 to stipulate
assessment procedure for the end-of-year assessment. According to the official dispatch, the
end-of-year assessment aims to assess four macro skills: speaking, listening, reading and
writing. Speaking is assessed separately in a form of interview or oral assessment, which is to
be administered either on a single day for all students or on daily basis as part of a lesson with
1

4


a few students at a time throughout the academic year. Listening, reading and writing are all to
be assessed in one written test in which there is a section of listening with five tasks of four
items each, and another section of reading and writing with four tasks of four items. Thus, the

end-of-year test consists of three sections weighting 10%, 50% and 40% for speaking,
listening and reading and writing sections, respectively. The document also specifies the length
of the written test and the task types for each section. It is noted that such suggested task types
mimic Cambridge Tests for Young English Learners, which are unlikely to resemble the
learning tasks in the current pilot primary English curriculum. Moreover, the lack of
information on the content coverage as well as test specifications is inherent in the guidelines.
The Official Dispatch No 3032 BGDDT–GDTH (MOET, 2013), then suplements detailed
guidelines on the administration of the end-of-year (final) English test. Against this official
dispatch, the written test of listening is to be administered separately with time allocation of 20
minutes, followed by the 15-minute written test of reading and writing. The speaking test is to
be administered either individually or in groups at another test time (separated from the test
time for the written tests). The document also provides samples of questions for the speaking
test. However, no information on the content coverage as well as test specifications was
provided.
Regarding the learning outcomes, primary school graduates are expected to have mastered the
equivalence of level A1 (CEFR) or Level 1 of the Vietnam Language Proficiency Framework
for foreign languages (circular No 01/2014/TT–BGDĐT, MOET, 2014).
Against the above backdrop, in Ha Noi, English is being officially taught from Grade 3 as an
optional subject, 2 periods per week, and has yet been included in children‘s achievement
records. On one hand, compared to other subjects at primary school, English is thus viewed
from teachers‘, parents‘ and children‘s perspectives as less important and less serious (Hayes,
2008b; Moon, 2005). On the other hand, in practice, teachers still give tests periodically to
children as the single means of collecting information of student progress and achievement
(Moon, 2005).
Rooted from the status of English as an optional subject at primary level, teachers of English,
therefore, suffer from low status, low salary, which likely leads to low motivation for
professional development (Grassick, 2006; Hayes, 2008a/b; Moon, 2005).
Before 2005, primary English teachers were not on monthly payroll; teachers were paid an
hourly rate by the school. Most primary English teachers were hired by schools on an annual
5

contract and did not have permanent status. Since 2005 MOET have distributed staff quota for
the DOETs, who then continue the distribution to schools under its authorities. The quota,
however, is so limited that for example one district of Hanoi is allowed to recruit only one
2

primary teacher of English . One consequence of this is that most English teachers are
contracted, who either need to have several teaching jobs in different schools or have to teach
a large number of English classrooms in the contracted school. This entails the fact that many
teachers suffer from heavy workload and long hour teaching (Hayes, 2008a/b).
As English has been treated as an optional subject at primary level for nearly two decades now,
3

there has not been any specialized pre-service training for primary teachers from education
universities and colleges. All primary teachers get their training from the university or college
of education to become either lower or upper secondary school English teachers. This means
that almost all English teachers in primary schools have been trained to teach and assess older
learners and that they have to learn the special knowledge and skills of teaching and
assessment of young learners on the job (Hayes, 2008b; Moon, 2005).
b. Context of research on assessment
In the context of Vietnam, there have been few studies on assessment and testing, most of
which aim at testing at tertiary level. Specifically, Nguyen Phuong Nga (1997) explored the
washback effects of the international English language testing system at the Vietnam National
University whereas Vu Thi Phuong Anh (1997) examined authenticity and validity in language
testing with a focus on reading components of IELTS and TOEFL. To Thi Thu Huong (2000)
conducted a study to 202 Vietnamese AusAID scholarship awardees in order to justify the
relationship between their IELTS scores as the primary requirement for Australian University
admission and their academic achievement or success in their host universities in Australia.

Regarding CA in Vietnamese context, up to the time of this research report, there has been
merely one study carried out by Do Quang Viet (2011) attempting to investigate the patterns of
task types and the focus of assessment practice in French language classrooms in Northern
Vietnam at secondary level. The findings of Do Quang Viet‘s (2011) survey into testing
activities in schools showed that (1) 96.6% of classroom-based testing activities focused on
vocabulary and grammar (p. 236), and (2) assessment activities were heavily dependent on

2Source: result from the primary English teacher recruitment in Hanoi in 2010
3 Recently DaNang University, HaNoi Education College (former Ha Noi Junior Teacher Training College), and

Hue University have provided pre-service training for primary English teachers, commencing in the academic
year of 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, respectively. Up to the time of this study report the first cohorts of
pre-service primary teacher-students are to graduate.

6


mechanical memorization of knowledge with primary emphasis on recognition and
reproduction (p. 244).
Research on young EFL learners has been conducted with the aim to investigate if Vietnam
has prepared necessary and sufficient conditions for a successful implementation of
compulsory English language teaching in the primary sector.
Moon (2005a/b) conducted a study into the teaching of English at primary levels in Vietnam in
order to assess the needs of primary ELT nationwide, including provinces of differing
geography, ethnicity and economic and social development. Moon (2005b) concluded that,
‗…The existing teachers do not have the appropriate training or, in many cases, the necessary
language competence to teach primary children English effectively…Any scaling up of
primary English teaching would need plenty of forward planning in order to train the huge
number of teachers that would be required... There is also very little expertise available in
Vietnam in the area of TEYL at present to develop the training programmes and teaching

materials needed …‘ (pp.73 - 74).

Although Moon (2005b) did not mention teachers‘ CA competence, it can be inferred that
primary EFL teachers were not adequately trained in CA.
Thus, in Vietnam, there have been a number of studies on assessment and testing and on
primary English teaching practices. However, there is an obvious tendency for research on
language assessment and testing to depart from young EFL learners, and vice versa, research
on primary English teaching inadequately refer to assessment, especially at classroom level.
Relatively little has been known about CA practices, especially when the issue is related to
young language learners. Given the transitional period of the implementation of English
language teaching in the primary classroom, there is a strong need for deep insights into the
phenomenon of CA practices.
This section has outlined the context for teaching, learning and assessing English and the
context of researching CA at primary level in Hanoi, Vietnam. Although the status of English
has been improved, and the 2010 pilot primary English curriculum has followed the innovative
trends in curriculum development in the world, there has been a lack of a number of necessary
conditions and resources for an effective implementation of English teaching, learning and
assessment. In regard to research on CA practices in EFL at primary sector, there is a big gap
to be filled as no prior research has tapped into this phenomenon.
4. Aims and objectives of the study
The overarching aim is to uncover CA practices and the extent to which such factors as
teachers‘ beliefs and working context influence those practices. It is believed that the insights
help inform teacher training and teacher professional development.
7


The objectives of this study, therefore, are to (1) explore how CA was practised by primary
EFL teachers in three primary schools in Hanoi, (2) examine teachers‘ beliefs underlying their
CA practices, and (3) gain understanding of contextual factors influencing teachers‘ CA
practices.

5. Research questions
Overarching research question:
How and why do the teachers practise classroom assessment the way they do?
Research questions:
1. How is classroom assessment practised by the EFL teachers in three primary

schools?
2. To what extent are the teachers‟ classroom assessment practices shaped by their

beliefs?
3. How are their classroom assessment practices influenced by their actual contexts

of teaching?
6. Scope of the study

This explorative and interpretive study investigates how eight EFL teachers in the three
primary schools in Hanoi practise CA in their eleven classroom settings and how these
practices are influenced by their beliefs and working contexts. Although traditional research in
the field of assessment quantitatively examine the validity and reliability of external high
stakes tests and examinations, this study, by contrast, confines itself to the investigation of
teacher assessment practices inside their classrooms and the factors underlying these practices
from sociocultural constructivist perspectives. CA in this study, therefore, is restricted within
the objectives of the current Primary English curriculum (2010) and is qualitatively examined
in an alignment with the curriculum.
The impact of the EFL CA practices is reflected in both teachers‘ teaching quality and in
student progress and achievement. However, the study placed more emphasis on the part of
teacher than on students since the ultimate goal of the study is for teacher training and teacher
professional development. Student participants, therefore, were not fully explored. Only two
students in each classroom were accessed for tracking their individual progress and
achievement in English as a reflection of teacher assessment practices in the classroom.

Justification for the choice of the selected student participants is going to be discussed in 2.3.
CA practices involve a number of factors, including (1) teacher‘s individual beliefs toward
learning, language teaching and assessment, (2) local school context and administration, and
8


(3) wider external forces like existing societal teaching, learning and assessment culture,

reform climate, and the impact of relevant government or quasi-governmental agencies‘
policies (Carless, 2005, p. 51). This study limits its focus on teachers‘ beliefs, school
regulations on EFL teaching and assessment, and assessment policies which have been
promulgated. School administration, existing societal teaching, learning and assessment
culture, reform climate, impact of relevant government or quasi-governmental agencies‘
policies were discussed only when necessary.
Given the inter-relationship between teaching, learning and assessment, this study, employing
a theoretical framework from sociocultural constructivist perspectives, examined CA purposes,
approaches, procedures, agents and assessment strategies.
In order to uncover the CA practices conducted by the teachers throughout the whole academic
year, the study employed qualitative approach with collective case study as research design.
Thus, the main methods included interview, observation, document analysis and artefacts.
However, other instruments such as questionnaire and checklist were also employed for the
convenience of collecting, displaying and managing data.
7. Structure of the study
The research consists of three parts. Part I is the research introduction, which briefly presents
the rationale, aims, purposes and scope of the study. Part II consists of three chapters. Chapter
One (Literature review) reviews the relevant literature on the components of CA, which serve
as the theoretical framework for the study on teachers‘ beliefs and contextual factors
underlying the CA practices. This chapter also reviews a large body of previous studies on CA
practices and teachers‘ beliefs. Chapter Two (Research methodology) provides a description of
the case study research design as well as an explanation of the steps involved in the data

collection, data analysis and data display, followed by measures against the threat to validity
and reliability. Chapter Three (Findings and Discussions) presents the findings and discussion
of the findings in response to the research questions. The thesis ends with the Conclusion,
which provides a summary of the major findings of the research, recommendations on
practices of CA and suggestions for further studies.

9


CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a theoretical and empirical framework which is then
used as an analytical framework for this research on CA practices.
Section 1.1 provides a definition of assessment with types of assessment. Section 1.2 identifies
the place of CA in the field of language assessment and testing, including the working
definition of CA employed by the study. This section also discusses the characteristics of
young learners and the distinct assessment principles for this kind of students. Section 1.3
elaborates on the components of CA, namely purpose of assessment (why to assess),
assesment focus (what to assess), approach and methods of assessment (how to assess), agents
of assessment (who to assess), assessment process (when to assess and in what procedure) and
assessment strategies (how well to assess). Section 1.4 presents a review on the role of
teachers‘ beliefs in their practices, especially when dealing with CA, followed by a review of
previous studies about teachers‘ beliefs. Finally, section 1.5 reviews a number of empirical
studies on CA practices in various disciplines in general and in primary English education in
particular, followed by a discussion on the gap in literature in section 1.6.
1.1. Assessment
The term assessment in education refers to a systematic gathering, interpreting and using both
quantitative and qualitative information on student learning for the purposes of making
decisions or judgements about individuals (Cameron, 2001; Chapelle and Brindley, 2002,
Griffin, 2009; Lamprianou & Athanasou, 2009; McMillan, 2014; Messick, 1998; Lynch, 2001;
Nunan, 2003; Popham, 2014).

1.1.1. Types of assessment
Drawn out from the literature (e.g., Berry, 2008; Cameron, 2001; Duong Thu Mai, 2013;
Lambert and Lines, 2008; McKay S. L., 2006; McKay, P., 2006; McMillan, 2014; Nunan,
2003; Popham, 2014; Rea-Dickins, 2007…), it can be inferred that types of assessment is
mainly classified based on (1) the settings where assessment is conducted, (2) agents who
designs and administers assessment, (3) time when assessment takes place, and (4) purposes of
assessment.
In terms of scope and settings, assessment can be divided into two types, namely, large-scale
and school-based or classroom-based. While the former is formally administered to many
learners, usually across schools and regions within the national educational system, the latter is
administered either formally or informally for a certain population of students within a school.
10


Regarding agents, large-scale tests are externally designed and administered. In contrast,
school-based or classroom-based asssessment is planned and conducted by individual school
teachers or groups of school teachers.
With respect to purposes, large-scale tests are usually standardized for an easier selection or
comparison among learners. Following a consistent set of procedures for designing,
administering and scoring, large-scale tests produce scores, which can be used to evaluate the
effectiveness of the educational system and to compare individuals or schools. ‗If children
take the same test under the same conditions, then the scores in the tests are believed to have
the same ‗meaning‘ and are therefore comparable‘ (McKay, P., 2006, p.315). Unlike largescale tests, the main purposes of school-based or classroom-based assessment are to identify
what and how much learners have progressed and achieved so that learning and teaching can
be modified accordingly. Such purposes of school-based or classroom-based assessment can
then be termed summative and formative. An example of summative assessment is testing
learners, either objectively or subjectively at the end of a period of instruction to inform
stakeholders ‗how well the learners did‘ (Shermis & Di Vesta, 2011, p.22). Thus, summative
assessment sums up what the learners have achieved and certifies them (Black & Wiliam,

1998a/b; Lambert & Lines, 2000). Summative assessment is rarely used to measure learner
progress throughout a learning process or to inform the quality of instruction (e.g., to inform
teacher if learning objectives are achieved or which teaching methods help obtain the expected
outcomes, or which contents need to be adapted to suit specific learners…). Instead, formative
assessment meets these demands. Specifically, formative purpose indicates any assessment
aiming at identifying learner progress in order to improve teaching and learning whereas
summative purpose is linked to certifying learners‘ learning, evaluating learning and teaching,
and informing learners‘ achievements to stakeholders (Bennett, 2011; Black & Wiliam,
1998a/b; Broadfoot et al., 1999, in Lambert & Lines, 2000; Harris & McCann, 1994; Hughes,
2003; McMillan, 2003; Sadler, 1989).
1.1.2. Formative and summative assessment
As mentioned in the preceeding section, the terms formative assessment and summative
assessment refer to purposes of assessment. However, the terms also indicate two more
dimensions, namely time and quality.
In terms of time, formative assessment refers to any assessment conducted during instructions.
Given an emphasis on the continuous process, formative assessment is used interchangeably
with continuous assessment. In contrast, summative assessment emphasizes the final product
11


of a specified learning period and can be termed as periodic (Black & Wiliam, 1998a; Harris &
McCann, 1994; Hughes, 2003; Sadler, 1989).
In terms of quality (Bloom et at., 1969 as cited in Black & Wiliam, 1998a/b, 2009), formative
assessment incorporates such qualities as the extent to which (1) assessment serves the purpose
of improvement in learning and teaching, (2) assessment reveals student learning, (3)
assessment information is actually used for learning and teaching modification, and (4)
assessment moves student learning forward. In contrast, any assessment restricted to
identifying student strengths and weaknesses without further intervention is termed summative
(Biggs, 2008; Carless, 2009; Davison & Leung, 2009; Lo, 2006).
Due to their multiple meanings, the terms formative and summative assessment are understood

differently by different authors and readers, which leads to a misconception. In order to
distinguish the meanings, this study employed the terms (1) continuous and periodic
assessment to indicate time distinction, (2) formative and summative purposes to show the
purpose or the use of assessment, and (3) formative and summative assessment to refer to the
quality of assessment.
Defined in this sense, it could be inferred that a periodic assessment can be used formatively to
give constructive feedback to students and improve learning. Similarly, a continuous
assessment activity can be termed summative if it provides learners with a mere quantified
grade.
More details about the dimensions or components of CA will be reviewed and discussed in
section 1.3.
The next section explores the relationship between classroom assessment and other methods to
collect information about student learning. It also discusses principles of classroom asessment,
especially when dealing with young EFL learners.
1.2. Classroom assessment
1.2.1. Boundary and definition of classroom assessment
In education, terms such as evaluation, assessment, measurement and testing are commonly
used. In the literature, these terms are defined differently by different authors.
Evaluation is defined as the process of gathering information to judge the success and the
quality of the total language program (Bachman; 1994, Cameron, 2001; Chapelle and
Brindley, 2002, Griffin, 2009; Lynch, Nunan, 2003). Assessment is understood as the process
of appropriate interpretation and actions based on appropriate collection of quantitative and
12


qualitative information about student learning (Lynch, 2001; Messick, 1989). Measurement
refers to ‗any procedure that attaches numbers to characteristics of people, objects, and so on
according to a set rule. Measurement is the quantitative description of particular characteristics
of a class of people, objects, systems, or events‘ (Berry, 2008, p.7). Testing is one of the
assessment procedures that can be used to measure a learner‘ ability and performance

(Bachman; 1994, Cameron, 2001; Chapelle and Brindley, 2002, Griffin, 2009; Lynch, 2001;
Nunan, 2003).
The relationship of these terms is illustrated in Figure 1.1,
EVALUATION
ASSESSMENT
MEASUREMENT

with a particular reference to the term classroom
assessment. As indicated in Figure 1.1, classroom
assessment encompasses testing, measurement and

TESTING
Classroom assessment

Figure 1.1: Classroom assessment in relationship with
testing, measurement, assessment, and evaluation
(Adapted from Lynch, 2001)

assessment, but is not a part of evaluation.


Classroom assessment (CA) is defined as the
collection, synthesis, and interpretation of
information to aid the teacher in decision making (Airasian,1997; Cheng, Rogers & Hu, 2004;
Cumming, 2010; Eggen and Kauchak, 2004; Leung & Mohan, 2004; Mathew and Poehner,
2014; McKay, 2006; Rea-Dickins, 2001, 2007; Stobart and Gipps, 2010). It may be formative
when teachers collect information about children‘s strengths and weaknesses in order to
provide feedback to them and to make further decisions about teaching, or it may be
summative, when teachers collect information at the end of a period of time, generally to
report to stakeholders about children‘s progress.

In a more specific manner, Hill and McNamara (2011) define CA as
‗any reflection by teachers (and/or learners) on the qualities of a learner‘s (or group of
learners‘) work and the use of that information by teachers (and/or learners) for
teaching, learning (feedback), reporting, management or socialization purposes‘ (p.
396).
Defined in this way, Hill and McNamara‘s (2011) concept of classroom assessment
encompasses a variety of student performances of their knowledge, understanding and ability
in different methods, ranging from a formal standardized test administered inside the
classroom to an informal questioning and giving qualitative feedback during instruction.
Following Hill and McNamara (ibid.), it can be inferred that: (1) the agents of CA process are
mainly teachers and learnerss; (2) the focus and methods of assessment are any reflection on
the qualities of a learner‟s (or group of learners‟) work, either formal or informal, summative
or formative; and (3) the purposes of assessment are for teaching, learning, reporting,
management or socialization. Accordingly, CA is an on-going process, which can be 13