Nghiên cứu hiểu biết về kiểm tra đánh giá trong lớp học của các giảng viên tiếng anh tại một trường đại học ở viêt nam

School of Education and Professional Development

An exploration of literacy in classroom assessment of English teachers at a higher
educational institution in Vietnam

Linh Dam - U1967862
A dissertation submitted to the University of Huddersfield in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of
MA TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) – Intake 2019/2020

1


ABSTRACT
The current phenomenological research attempts to look at literacy in classroom
assessment of language teachers from a different perspective compared to the past studies
under this theme. Rather than measuring the gap in the participants’ understanding of
assessment knowledge, the study seeks to explore their assessment literacy through their
classroom assessment practices at the interplay of various factors related to their broader
social & historical context, their micro professional context, their past assessment
experiences, their professional learning and the inner conceptions that underlie their
classroom decisions. In-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out with 10 teachers
from a higher educational institution in Vietnam to help the researcher gain insights into the
participants’ development of their classroom assessment practices and the experiences of
assessment in their own classroom context. Main findings from the study show that the
teachers perceived their classroom assessment practices as primarily shaped by the
curriculum in their professional context, though these may be subject to changes brought
about the larger social & historical context, and their learning of assessment which takes
place in both formal and informal forms. Through their description, aspects in the teachers’
CA practices seemed quite deviant from the principles of AL, however; these are underlined
by their own set of conceptions originating from either the teachers’ cognitions or prior

experiences of assessment. Finally, dimensions in their classroom context and their multiple
duties as teaching staff in their professional context are perceived by the teachers as the
main factors hindering the teachers from translating their beliefs and knowledge into
practices. Based on the findings, implications are made for both the teachers’ learning of
assessment and policy in the target setting to help teachers advance their literacy in CA
amidst these varying influences.

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my warmest and sincerest gratitude to Dr Kate
Lavender – Senior Lecturer in Lifelong Learning – Department of Initial Teacher Education,
who has been my supervisor while I was working on this graduation paper. Without her
guidance and continuous support during the project, I would not have been able to get to this
point. Her words of encouragement during our tutorials did pull me back whenever I felt put
off by hardships. I see myself maturing in terms of both professional expertise and research
competence under her supervision.
My deepest thanks also go to all the English teachers who agreed to take part in the
study. I could not be luckier to have such devoted and helpful participants who were so
willing to spare me their time despite heavy workloads and family commitments. Their
insightful and truthful response in the data collection process has made this study possible.
Finally, I am more thankful than ever for my family members and my close friends who
have been keeping me grounded throughout this arduous journey. I am truly proud to have
such a strong support network to my count.

ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................. ii
GLOSSARY..................................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
1.

Rationale & Research Aims ................................................................................................ 1

2.

Context of the study ............................................................................................................ 2

3.

Overview of the study .......................................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 5
1.

2.

3.

4.

Classroom Assessment ...................................................................................................... 5
1.1.

Definition of Classroom Assessment.......................................................................... 5

1.2.

Classroom Assessment Strategies............................................................................. 6

Assessment Literacy ........................................................................................................... 7
2.1.

Tensions in the conceptualization of Assessment Literacy (AL).............................. 7

2.2.

The Chosen Conceptualization of Literacy in Classroom Assessment ................... 8

Development of Classroom Assessment Practices ........................................................ 10
3.1.

School Experiences ................................................................................................... 10

3.2.

Historical & Social Context and Professional Context ............................................ 11

3.3.

Teacher Learning ....................................................................................................... 11

Assessment Conceptions & Impacts of Professional Context ....................................... 12
4.1.

Assessment Conceptions .......................................................................................... 12

4.2.

Impacts of professional context ................................................................................ 13

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................. 14
1.

Methodological Approach ................................................................................................. 14

2.

Research Method .............................................................................................................. 14

3.

Quality................................................................................................................................. 15

4.

Sampling............................................................................................................................. 16
iii


5.

Research Conduct ............................................................................................................. 17

6.

Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 17

7.

Analysis Process ............................................................................................................... 18

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS & DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 20
1.

2.

Development of the teachers’ classroom assessment practices................................... 20
1.1.

School Experiences ................................................................................................... 20

1.2.

Social & Historical Context ........................................................................................ 21

1.3.

Professional Context.................................................................................................. 22

1.4.

Teacher Learning ....................................................................................................... 23

Meaning of assessment literacy in the teachers’ CA practices and the conceptions

underlying their decision-making ............................................................................................. 25

3.

2.1.

Assessment purposes, content & method ............................................................... 25

2.2.

Grading ....................................................................................................................... 28

2.3.

Teacher Feedback ..................................................................................................... 30

2.4.

Student-involved assessment ................................................................................... 32

2.5.

Interpretation & Communication of Assessment Results ....................................... 33

Impact of professional context as perceived by the teachers ................................................ 34

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 37
1.

Findings & Implications ..................................................................................................... 37

2.

Limitations & Recommendations ...................................................................................... 38

3.

Personal & Professional Growth ...................................................................................... 38

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 40
APPENDICES .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
APPENDIX 1................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
APPENDIX 2................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
APPENDIX 3................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
APPENDIX 4................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
APPENDIX 5................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
iv


GLOSSARY
CA

-

Classroom Assessment

AL

-

Assessment Literacy

ELT

-

English Language Teaching

HE

-

Higher Education

CEFR -

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

IELTS -

International English Language Testing System

VSTEP-

Vietnamese Standardized Test of English Proficiency

TOEFL-

Test of English as a Foreign Language

v


LIST OF FIGURES

Figures

Page

Figure 2.1. A Conceptual Framework for Literacy in Classroom Assessment

8

Figure 3.1. Demonstration of themes

19

vi


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This section provides the rationale and aims of the current research. As its context is
set in a very specific higher educational institution in Vietnam, a thorough description of its
background, students, teaching staff and classroom assessment context is given to help
readers form a better understanding of the study’s participants as well as findings.

1. Rationale & Research Aims
For a long time, classroom assessment (CA) was overshadowed by the acknowledged
far-reaching effects of large-scale testing, despite the undeniable significant role it plays in

the learning process (Stiggins & Conklin, 1992). The same was witnessed in English
language education where much attention had been paid to large-scale testing including
national exams and popular tests such as IELTS, TOEFL (Sheehan & Munro, 2017). As a
result, classroom assessment was left as a pretty under-researched area. However, this
situation seems to take a turn, when the backwash of high-stake language testing is further
scrutinized and put down to assessment taking place in the classroom where the teacher
acts as the main agent (Rea-Dickins, 2004). The emphasis is put on the teacher’s ability to
successfully embed assessment into teaching practices to promote learning towards better
educational outcomes (Sheehan & Munro, 2017).
While assessment literacy (AL) is integral for teachers as classroom assessors, it
should not only be measured through their understanding of theoretical principles. Previous
quantitative studies (Hasselgreen, Carlsen & Helness, 2004; Crusan, Plakans & Gebril,
2016), whose findings confirmed lacking AL of English teachers through their scores in a
questionnaire, have had their validity challenged by later qualitative studies (Rea-dickins,
2007). Specially, participants were found capable of demonstrating a variety of CA strategies
despite not scoring high in those theory-based tests. This implicates the pressing need for
further studies that attempt to evaluate teachers’ AL through their demonstration of
classroom practices. However, their knowledge base of assessment is not the sole driving
factor for the classroom practices of teachers (Xu & Brown, 2016). In fact, the formation of
teacher CA practices is a complex process under the influence of various dynamics related
to their past learning experiences, the broader historical & social context, the micro
professional context, their professional learning and most importantly their own conceptions
of assessment (Looney, Cumming, Kleij & Harris, 2017). This is complemented by
dimensions found within their professional context which can hinder teachers from putting
knowledge into practices (Barnard & Burn, 2012). Assessment literacy, therefore, should be
looked at as teachers’ competence in CA practices at the interplay of these abovementioned
factors (Xu & Brown, 2016). Following this direction, the current study hopes to contribute to
1

the limited body of research that endeavours to explore AL of language teachers through
multidimensional lenses, rather than judging them as literate or not.
In the context of Vietnam, there seems to be a lack of study that seeks to explore
literacy in CA of language teachers. The past studies by Vu (2017) and Pham, Nguyen &
Nguyen (2019) did lay the focus on investigating CA practices of English teachers in various
Vietnamese settings; however, neither of them took the same direction as this study.
Moreover, their contexts were set at primary and secondary schools where participants’ CA
practices tend to be highly constrained by stakeholders, national curriculum and schoolleaving exams. As this study is set at higher educational context where teachers are given
excessive autonomy at their hands, it would be captivating to see what the teachers bring
into their CA practices to enact their own interpretation of AL.
All the aforementioned reasons prove the pressing need for the researcher to carry out
the current project which targets at exploring literacy in classroom assessment of
English teachers at a higher educational institution in Vietnam. To realize this ultimate
ambition, the research aims at answering the following questions:


How do the teachers develop their classroom assessment practices?



What does assessment literacy mean to the teachers through their classroom
assessment practices? What are the conceptions that underlie their decisionmaking?



How do the teachers perceive the impacts of their professional context on
their classroom assessment practices?

2. Context of the study
Chosen for this research is a foreign language school belonging to a university in

northern Vietnam. With its main mission of fostering human resources highly competent in
foreign languages for the northern mountainous region of the country, the school trains
students who major in languages to become teachers or interpreters. Thanks to its growing
reputation, the school is welcoming more and more students in recent year. However, this
seems to put a strain on its limited number of teaching staff who have to deal with large-sized
classes comprising of at least 35 students. As a young unit with only 13 years of
establishment, the school has yet to have its facilities fully invested to meet the standards of
a well-catering educational environment. Most students come from remote areas where
economic and educational conditions are inferior to those in larger cities. Partially because of
this disadvantaged background, their proficiency is generally lower than the average of
language-majoring students all over Vietnam. To secure their graduation, they must attain at
least level B2 (CEFR or equivalent) in certified exams such as IELTS, TOEFL, VSTEP. As
mature students admitted at the minimum age of 18, students in Vietnamese higher
2


education (HE) are supposed to be responsible for their own learning progress with less
parental and stakeholder involvement (Nguyen, 2011).
In general, HE institutions in Vietnam have the rights to internalize their curriculum
(Hayden & Lam, 2007). This is no exception to the target setting where its curriculum is
designed and approved by the teachers within a specialized department with no interference
from higher authorities. Half of the main curriculum is devoted to proficiency courses to
provide students with an adequate proficiency basis prior to the core major-related modules.
Each proficiency class is organized into two sessions per week, both of which last three and
a haft hour. One of them covers reading and writing, while the other is devoted to speaking
and listening. Each class lasts for 15 semester weeks during which students are assessed by
their teacher. After that, students have to sit finals where they are assessed by other
teachers. Results from their classroom assessment account for half of students’ final
outcomes of a course. These are represented by five grade components (each making up
10%) and generated from students’ performances throughout the semester. The teachers

have flexibility over the number of grades they can give, just needing to ensure that CA
results feature adequate components. The other haft is decided by the students’
performance in the final test whose format is always communicated to them at the beginning
of the semester. Although each course comes with a specific syllabus and textbook, teachers
have much autonomy over their lessons plans, supplementary materials and content
schedule depending on their class context. In every class, the teacher is encouraged to
make use of at least two classroom tests for each session during the whole semester;
however, test content is completely up to the teacher. Unlike those in primary or secondary
education, teachers at HE in Vietnam are not put under pressure of students’ school-leaving
exams or achievements (Chua & Duong, 2016).
The target population of the research are 40 teachers belonging to Department of
English in the school. Most of them are in the age range between 28 and 36 with at least 6
years of teaching experience. There are three teachers younger than this age group with
only 1-3 years in the job. Several teachers have been inactive in teaching, because they are
currently taking further education. Except for the department head and some teachers who
have teaching workload cutbacks due to their managerial roles in other departments within
the school, the others have to take on at least 4 classes per semester both in proficiency
subjects and major-related subjects such as linguistics, translation and teaching
methodology. Besides their main classroom duties, each teacher has to take over others
such as student dealings, research output, curriculum revision, invigilation and assessment
in the final exams.

3


3. Overview of the study
The current study is presented through five chapters, each of which is briefed as
follows:


Chapter 1 gives background to the general topic of classroom assessment &
assessment literacy, and the rationale behind the study. It also addresses clear
research questions to answer and provides the readers with a better
understanding of the subjects.



Chapter 2 reviews key concepts and research findings underlying the topic in
the light of relevant literature, thus enabling the researcher to justify the
theoretical framework of literacy in classroom assessment this study bases on.



Chapter 3 provides the justifications for the choice of phenomenology and
interview for the research design. It describes in details the process of building,
piloting, implementing the interview protocol and how the generated data is
treated as well as analysed. Measures taken to ensure ethical conformation of
the research are also included in this chapter.



Chapter 4 presents the most significant findings to answer each research
question. Discussion of these findings is done hand-in-hand as they are
presented.



The final chapter summarizes the key findings of the study, which in turn leads
to implications being made for improved assessment practices in the target
context. An acknowledgment of its limitations and a reflection by the researcher

on the takeaways from this research are also found in this chapter.

4


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This section is to give a critical review the key concepts including classroom
assessment and assessment literacy, and other related issues at the core discussion of the
research. By doing this, the researcher can identify the theoretical basis that informs the
study as well as the gap in previous literature for it to fill in.
1. Classroom Assessment
1.1.

Definition of Classroom Assessment
If considered together in a spectrum, “classroom assessment” (CA) can be said to be

at the other end of large-scale testing. While the latter refers to tests administrated on an
extensive basis and under tight control by different parties such as stakeholders, test
organizers, and test designers (Seong, 2011), the former is confined within the classroom
setting with a higher degree of flexibility and deals with teachers as assessment agents
(Rea-Dickins, 2004). In that sense, an assessment administrated by the other parties in the
classroom is not considered classroom assessment, because it is not prepared and carried
out by the teacher (Mckay, 2006). Unlike large-scale testing which is organized in separation
from instruction, CA cannot deviate from learning and teaching (Black & William, 1998). With
that being said, a learning task can also be considered an assessment task through which
the teacher determines the extent to which students grasp what is learned.
According to Zhang & Burry-stock (2003), CA can be seen as a process that
constitutes a number of stages namely designing and implementing assessment methods,
forming judgment of students’ performance, interpreting and using assessment outcomes in
instructional decisions, and communicating them to stakeholders (students, parents, and

authorities). Besides these central processes, CA is also presented through various smaller
activities including longitudinal compilation of students’ works, students’ involvement in selfassessment and peer-assessment, teacher feedback & grading, adjustment of assessment
to specific learning goals as well as students’ needs, and subsequent modification of
instruction (Davidson & Leung, 2005).
CA, therefore, can be both for formative and summative purposes (McKay, 2006). As a
form of formative assessment, CA evidences are used to hold students accountable for their
learning progress and help teachers amend their instruction towards better achievements
(Stiggins & Conklin, 1992). When serving summative purposes, CA is used to measure
students’ learning with its outcomes being reported against the curriculum criteria and
communicated to parents and higher authorities (Black & William, 2005). In the target context
of the study where summative assessment is conducted by other agents separately from CA,
CA is rather associated with formative purposes.

5


As noted above, however, CA entails higher degree of flexibility and is largely
dependent on what is actually practiced by the teacher in a particular context (McKay, 2006).
Therefore, a teacher may not use CA for all of these stated purposes. Instead, they can even
take advantages of CA to prepare students for summative assessments (Cheng, Rogers &
Hu, 2014) and for prominent large-scale language tests such as IELTS, TOEFL (Sheehan &
Munro, 2017).
1.2.

Classroom Assessment Strategies
While the presented definitions have demonstrated all essential parameters and

processes involved in CA, they are not detailed to the point of outlining all CA strategies.
Therefore, these will be added into the theoretical basis of the study as follows:


Observation: This method can only turn into an assessment strategy when the
teacher takes advantage of their stand-back time, circulating round the class to take
note of aspects such as students’ performance in a task, their participation, and their
progress towards the objectives (McKay, 2006). This kind of recording must also be
done systematically and consistently throughout a semester.



On-the-run assessment: This means a sudden intervention by the teacher into the
classroom discourse (William, 2009). This may happen as the teacher observe
students on the task and think that scaffolding should be given on the spot.
Scaffolding, according to Mckay (2006), encompasses questioning techniques,
clarification request or any other action by the teacher to redirect students into the
right track.



Portfolio: This alternative assessment method refers to a compilation of students’
works over a period of time (Cheng & Fox, 2017). Portfolio should be used by the
teacher to monitor students’ achievements from one work to another. Based on the
gathered evidence of their achievements, the teacher can discuss with students
about their progress and motivate them to work harder (McKay, 2006). Students
should be assessed on their performance in accordance with the criteria set on each
piece of work and the whole portfolio.



Classroom test: This method involves students working on a task or a number of
tasks under time limit without teacher intervention (McKay, 2006). While deemed to

be the most popular form of assessment, research suggests that CA should move
away from using test considering the impact it may have on students’ mental wellbeing and its failure to measure students’ continuous progress (Huerta-Macıas,
2002).



Project: This method entails students working on a macro task or series of tasks that
may take over a long period of time (J.D.Brown, 1998). While being an assessor of
6


students’ works, the teacher also acts as a facilitator who guides students stage-bystage throughout the project.
2. Assessment Literacy
2.1.

Tensions in the conceptualization of Assessment Literacy (AL)
Playing the dual roles as a teacher and an assessor in the classroom, each teacher is

expected to possess the competence to conduct CA rightfully to promote teaching and
learning towards better educational outcomes (Sheehan & Munro, 2017). Without adequate
literacy, CA is subject to teachers’ intuition, thus leading them to form such improper
judgements. To take a salient example of this, the study by Berry, Sheehan & Munro (2019)
found that the fussiness in their participants’ understanding of assessment prompted them to
grade students’ performance by just guessing their levels and assigning a random number.
The consequence of this fuzzy understanding, according to Vogt & Tsagari (2014), may be a
series of wrong decisions made following those random judgements.
While AL is indispensible for teachers to do well as the main agent of CA, hardly has
literacy in CA been properly defined (Willis, Adie & Klenowski, 2013). Malone (2011, online)
defines this as “an understanding of the measurement basics related directly to classroom
learning”. While this definition manages to situate AL within the context of classroom, it has

yet to clarify what “measurement basics” refer to. Fulcher (2012, p.125) considers AL as
comprising of the “abilities required to design, develop, maintain or evaluate [….] classroom
based tests, familiarity with test processes”. Considering this definition in relation to the
presented literature, it can be said to only reflect teacher competence in one small
component of CA which is classroom test. Meanwhile, CA is a much broader area
constituting a range of practices.
On the other hand, Inbar-Lourie (2008) associates AL with a set of abilities by the
teachers to:


Critically design and evaluate assessment methods and their congruence to
the circumstances under which assessment happens



Monitor and grade performance



Decide the next doings based on the assessment outcomes.

Compared to the two previous ones, this definition seems to embrace the most
essential dimensions of CA as outlined in the literature. However, its vagueness can still be
sensed, as it has yet to denote the meaning of “doings” by the teachers.
While the previously offered definitions have their own shortcomings, it should be
acknowledged that AL seems to be much a complex concept to confine within a definition

7

(Willis et al, 2013). Is this an implication that AL should be conceptualized in a broader
framework?
2.2.

The Chosen Conceptualization of Literacy in Classroom Assessment
Perhaps, Xu & Brown (2016) are the only scholars that attempt to reconceptualise AL

in a framework based on a thorough systematic review of over 100 studies under the same
theme. At the heart of the framework is the practical knowledge base presented into specific
constructs that a teacher is expected to excel in.

Figure 2.1. A conceptual framework of teacher assessment literacy (Xu & Brown, 2016)
Owing to this clear conceptualization, the knowledge base in this framework is chosen
for the study. However, the focus is put on only five components namely assessment
purpose, content & methods, teacher feedback, grading, student-involved assessment, and
interpretation & communication of assessment results. Moreover, these five constructs are
more obviously presented in the processes of CA as previously discussed. Given the
background of the participants in this study, the researcher assumes that their knowledge of
the instructed discipline & teaching methodology and understanding of assessment ethics
should not be put under scrutiny.
In their article, Xu & Brown (2016) did provide specifications regarding what teachers
are expected to know under each construct. However, these are reconsidered and
adapted in light of thorough literature research and context of this study. Details are given as
followed:


Knowledge of assessment purposes, content and method: Teachers need to
identify the right purposes of their assessment and choose the suitable assessment
task (Mckay, 2006). Content of the task must resemble the learned content
8

(Brookhart, 2011) and expected outcomes from the task should be reflected in the
course objectives (Hill, 2012). Assessment content should also be adapted on
account of students’ proficiency, interests, background, physics, affections (Hill 2017)
and classroom conditions (McKay, 2006). Moreover, teachers need to thoroughly
understand the principles of employing different assessment strategies including
observation, portfolio, project, test, on-the-run assessment (J.D.Brown, 1998).


Knowledge of grading: It is necessary for every classroom teacher to understand
the marking rubrics and assessment criteria thoroughly so as to assign appropriate
weighing to different components in students’ performance and give rationale for their
scoring decisions (Brookhart, 1999). Ideally, non-language use and non-achievement
factors such as efforts and bias should not be considered (Stiggins, 1995). Grading in
the classroom should also guarantee intra-rater reliability which emphasizes the
teacher’s ability to be consistent their marks given under different conditions
(H.D.Brown, 2003).



Knowledge of feedback: The teacher needs to ensure that the feedback is given on
aspects of students’ performance (accuracy, fluency, coherence, vocabulary etc), not
on their cognitive capabilities (Hill, 2017). The feedback should be accommodated to
students’

needs

whether

being

focused

or

unfocused.

It

should

cover

strengths, weaknesses as well as recommendations for improvement (Hill, 2012).


Knowledge of student-involved assessment: As a decision-maker in class, the
teacher needs to have a good grasp of benefits brought about by engaging students
in peer-assessment as well as self-assessment, and how to implement these
methods to maximize their potential (Chappuis & Stiggins, 2002). It is also vital that
students be trained on how to assess themselves based on the given criteria, and not
to give harsh comments that sound patronizing to their peers (Mckay, 2006).



Knowledge of assessment interpretation & communication: Based on the results
of students, teachers are in charge of making interpretations about students’ needs,
and any adjustment in terms of instructional approaches to help them achieve the
learning objectives (Rea-dickins, 2001). In the current context of the study which

deals with students at HE (with less parental and stakeholder involvement) and
formative assessment, the focus will be on how the teachers communicate the
assessment results to their students to hold them accountable for their learning
progress. It is important for teachers to make students understand the rationale
behind their results, their results in relation to the goals of the curriculum, and further
actions to take by students to achieve these goals (Brookhart, 1999).
Albeit the meticulous analysis of varying constructs involved in AL, any teacher may

ponder over being considered an assessment illiterate (if their knowledge does not meet
9


those criteria). Whether the status of being assessment literate should be conferred to them
by assessment experts or should be proudly be claimed by the teachers themselves is a
question left unanswered (Sheehan & Munro, 2017).
On the other hand, Sheehan & Munro (2017) posits that measurement of teachers’
literacy should be put within how they actually demonstrate their knowledge through CA
practices. Most studies conducted into this area have come out with quite consistent findings
which affirm the lacking AL of English teachers (Hasselgreen et al, 2004; Crusan et al, 2016;
Fulcher 2012). However, one common limitation among all of them is the use of quantitative
instruments which generate very superficial findings. Specifically, lacking AL of the majority
of participants is confirmed based solely on their checking of theoretical statements in a
questionnaire distributed by convenience. In later qualitative-oriented studies, Berry et al
(2019) and Rea-dickins (2007) challenge the validity of these quantitative studies by pointing
the wide range of assessment activities that their participants manage to deploy (despite not
scoring high in such a survey). These aforementioned points provide the researcher with the
basis to investigate the participants’ literacy in CA through their actual practices with the use
of qualitative measures.
3. Development of Classroom Assessment Practices
3.1.

School Experiences
According to Smith, Hill, Cowie, & Gilmore (2014), teachers’ current practices can be a

reflection of the experiences with which they were familiarized as schoolchildren. In
assessment literature, this has been corresponded by Vogt & Tsagari (2014)’s study which
reported their participants’ practices being reminiscent of the way they were tested at school.
In contrast, Sheehan & Munro (2019) found that the majority of participants in their study
develop their CA practices by rejecting the traditional paper-based assessment formerly
practiced by their teachers. Instead of falling into the old path characterized by grammatical
exercises and test, they were eager to create an interactive assessment environment that is
both motivating and pressure-free for students.
In discussing the influence of prior learning background on the teachers’ assessment
practices, it is worth bringing in their experiences during pre-service education. The study by
Graham (2005) found that many of its participants’ current assessment practices were
inspired by those modeled by their university professors and mentors. These welldemonstrated practices can more or less decide whether teacher students replicate or break
away the obsolete practices they experienced at school. However, teacher trainers’ modeling
alone is not adequate. It is still essential for pre-service teacher education programs to
include components related to assessment training (Deluca, 2012). Sadly, many of them
have yet to realize this (Popham, 2011). Pre-service assessment training tend to be
10


completely either absent or confined to just one module which only introduces students to
very basic concepts involved in this complex area.
3.2.

Historical & Social Context and Professional Context
Rather than just measuring the gap in teachers’ knowledge, research into AL should

seek to understand how practices have arisen as they have (Fulcher, 2012). In fact,
classroom work of teachers develops alongside their mediation within the historical & social
context, and the professional context in which they function (Scarino, 2013; Davies, 2008).
To be more specific, the broader historical and social context denotes any transformation
happening in the past and present society that influences the way in which assessment is
conducted (Looney et al, 2017). However, it is the professional context that tends to exert
more explicit influences on classroom work of a teacher. The most influential factors, as
recognized by Deluca, Coombs, MacGregor & Rasooli (2019), are those at micro-level such
as curriculum, student background, student interactions and behaviours, student diversity,
and class setting. Meanwhile, Mockler (2011) reckons that macro-level factors including
institutional organization, assessment system and collegial connections can also contribute
to shape teacher practices.

If any change associated with the abovementioned factors

happens, that CA practices might be reframed in adaptation to it (Looney et al, 2017).
3.3.

Teacher Learning
Teacher AL would not plateau, but keep advancing as long as professional learning

takes place (Xu & Brown, 2016). This enables teachers to constantly revise their own set of
assessment philosophies and make better compromise out of the tensions arising from their
context.
As teachers move along their career, they should endeavour to better their practices
through ceaseless reflection of prior assessment experiences (Deluca, 2012). This involves
looking back critically on the past practices and planning as well as implementing changes to
enhance their efficacy. Without reflection, teachers’ actions would be driven by impulse, and
eventually fall into the old path. In assessment literature, hardly has there been any study
that sheds light on the role of reflective practice in teacher CA development. The one by

Sheehan & Munro (2019) did touch upon this aspect through the recounts of participants who
enhanced

their

ability

to

design assessment tasks by

making

and

learning

from mistakes. However, what they emphasize is not the importance of reflective practice,
but the not-so-straightforward pattern in the participants’ development of CA practices.
In-service participation in assessment training is another way through which teachers
can enhance their AL (Xu & Brown, 2016). The training content delivered by field experts can
even empower teachers to change their cognitions (Levy-Vered & Nasser-Abu Alhija,
2015). This notion has also been affirmed by such studies as the one by Sheehan & Munro
11


(2019)

in

which

participants described their

training program as

an

eye-opening

experience and the force for them to innovate their practices. Nonetheless, there are a
number of studies that come out with opposite findings. For instance, informants in Brown &
Bailey (2008)’s study found their engagement in an assessment course unhelpful, as its
heavy theory-based approach fails to provide them with practical knowledge to apply in
classroom environment. The underlying truth, according to Malone (2013), is rooted in the
mismatch in the actual training needs of teachers and those anticipated by experts. While
teachers prefer practical elements, training professionals reckon that an understanding of
technical basics is integral. Apart from practicality, what is apparently lacking in the content
of many programs is the so-called localization element (Vogt & Tsagari, 2014). That means
assessment training should be situated within the teachers’ own context, because
the particular contextual tensions they are caught in may become the hindrance for them to
put knowledge into practices (Xu & Brown, 2016).
4. Assessment Conceptions & Impacts of Professional Context
4.1.

Assessment Conceptions
Another shortcoming of these quantitative-oriented studies lies in their failure to take

into account the set of conceptions that govern the classroom decisions made by teachers.
Based on the framework of Xu & Brown (2016), it can be seen that conceptions denote two

dimensions namely cognitive and affective. According to Thompson (1992), cognitive
dimension is mostly associated with constructs including beliefs, thinking, opinions,
impression, bias, preferences, expectations and mental drawings. Meanwhile, the affective
dimension represents negative or positive attitudes that teachers form as a result of their
prior experiences with assessment (Xu & Brown, 2016). Both of these dimensions are
framed by the broader beliefs they hold towards assessment, teaching and learning
(G.T.L.Brown, 2008). According to Looney et al (2017), these conceptions act as a filter
through which they operationalize, modify or even reject a certain practice. For example,
Sheehan & Munro (2019) found in their study that student-involved assessment was used
more frequently and properly by participants who held stronger beliefs to the efficacy of this
method and vice-versa.
Research has pointed out that teachers’ assessment practices can contradict existent
theoretical principles. For instance, scoring practices of classroom teachers are found to be
influenced by non-language use factors (Yin, 2010) and non-achievement factors such as
bias, students’ efforts and attitudes (McMillan, Myran & Workman, 2002), even though this is
supposed to deviate from basics for grading as abovementioned. The rationale behind this all
puts down to the teachers’ own set of philosophies, personal preferences and expectations

12


for students’ performances that may render these scoring principles inapplicable (Teasdale &
Leung, 2000).
4.2.

Impacts of professional context
Despite some firm beliefs that teachers hold towards CA, their ability to translate those

into actual decision-making is primarily subject to the context where they work (Barnard &
Burns, 2012). While professional context contributes to promote teachers’ practices, it also

entails dimensions that may hinder teachers from making decisions in line with their inner
philosophical framework.
For instance, Xu & Liu (2009) found that varying impositions from stakeholders, school
policy (i.e students’ achievements, school-leaving exams, teacher standards), institutional
organization, and curriculum may act as barriers for the teachers to translate their
assessment ideals into classroom practices. On the other hand, participants in Yin (2010)’s
study perceived their CA practices as impacted by parameters directly concerning classroom
context including large class size, limited class schedule and classroom conditions.
Taylor (2009) identified lack of formal assessment training as another hindrance for
teachers to further advance their AL. While the importance of professional development has
been widely acknowledged, there is apparently a lack of focus on assessment in these
provided in-service training programs.
After their study, Xu & Liu (2009) apparently made the call for a shift of research
methodology that look at the unique and inner nature of teacher assessment. Therefore, the
current study can be considered as a response to that call which hopefully can contribute to
the limited body of research that follows this direction. Instead of judging whether the
participants are assessment literate or illiterate, it seeks to understand their literacy in CA
practices as situated into the broader social & historical context, their micro professional
context, their schooling experiences, their professional learning, the conceptions guiding their
practice, and the constraints imposed by their professional context.

13


CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
This chapter provides the justifications for the chosen methodology, research method,
and sampling approach. It also outlines the procedures of building and piloting the research
protocol, collecting and analysing the data. Issues related to research quality and ethics are
also presented.
This qualitative-oriented study revolves around the topic of CA practices by English

teachers at a higher educational context in Vietnam. The theoretical basis that informs the
study are five AL constructs in the knowledge base at the bottom of Xu & Brown (2016)’s
framework. By using these, the researcher targets at:


The factors that contribute to the development of CA practices of the teachers



The meaning of assessment literacy in their CA practices (presented through
five aspects including assessment purposes, content & methods, grading
practices, teacher feedback, student-involved assessment, and assessment
interpretation) and the conceptions underlying their decision-making



The impacts that the professional context has on their CA practices as
perceived by the teachers

1. Methodological Approach
According to Newsome (2016), phenomenology lays emphasis on the how humans
describe and interpret their experiences. As a result, it is suitable to those studies that seek
to investigate its participants on invisible aspects such as their attitudes, feelings, beliefs and
perceptions (Denscombe, 2017). The focus of this research was placed on the teachers’
description of their CA practices, the conceptions underlying their practices and their
perceptions of how professional context impacts their practices.

Such a congruence of

phenomenological approach to the research aims provided the researcher with the basis

to choose it as the central methodology for the research design.
2. Research Method
The current study took a qualitative approach to the collection and analysis of data with
interviews being used as the primary method. By using interviews, the researcher is able to
dig deeper into aspects that are harder to uncover through quantitative instruments including
participants’ beliefs, feelings, experiences and the underpinnings of their actions (Mears,
2017). These were in line with the aims of the current study which targets at the teachers’
experiences with assessment, the conceptions underlying their practices and their
perceptions of the impact from their professional context. In specific, semi-structured
interviews were put to use which involved further probing into the participants’ response to
understand the underpinnings of their actions (Robson & McCartan, 2016). This enabled

14


richer data being collected to help the researcher back up her interpretations. Most of the
questions were put in open-ended form which allowed the researcher to generate
unanticipated answers and further probe into the participants’ response (Lodico, Spaulding &
Voegtle, 2006). The probes were either pre-scripted with references to the identified literature
or spontaneously posed in correspondence to the participants’ response (Cohen, Manion &
Morrison, 2018).
The researcher admitted the point that combining classroom observations together with
interviews would enable comparisons to be made out of the teachers’ actual practices in
relevance to their description, thus enhancing the trustworthiness of the data. However, the
researcher’s plans for conducting observations were hindered, due the unprecedented
circumstance this year. With cross-border travel restrictions in place, access to the target
setting was made impossible. Following the guidelines of Vietnamese government in the
wake of COVID-19 outbreak, all classrooms in this setting were moved online. Consequently,
several CA practices often implemented in a normal face-to-face classroom may not be
observed on a virtual basis. After thorough consideration, in-depth interview was deemed to

the most feasible method.
3. Quality
Data reliability and validity are the keys through which a study secures its
trustworthiness (Coe, 2017). Data reliability, which is about the consistency of data
generated under different conditions, is further complicated in any research that employs
interview (Denscombe, 2017). Participants’ ideas tend to be impacted by the temporary
context of the interview. However, this was mitigated by later double-checking the response
with the participants or comparing the viewpoints of participants to look for common themes
(Denscombe, 2017).
In qualitative research, validity is shown through the resonance of findings to actual
discourses of the partaking group and those within related literature (Given, 2008). Upon
awareness of this, the study placed interpretive & descriptive validity, theoretical validity
(Maxwell, 1992), and content validity (Peräkylä, 2017) at its essence. While descriptive
validity was addressed via the accurate presentation of data without any distortion or
fabrication, interpretative validity was achieved through rational inference of participants’
words in relevance to literature and detailed context description (Maxwell, 1992). As a mean
to form theoretical validity of data, this current study used theories grounded from the past
studies as the basis for its research design and data analysis. Finally, content validity was
demonstrated through the building of interview questions that covered all the concepts or
issues identified in the literature review (Peräkylä, 2017).

15


Several other measures were taken to further validate the protocol of the study. After
the questions being built, they were sent to the supervisor for feedback. This resulted in the
wording of several questions being edited for enhanced congruence with the characteristics
of semi-structured interviews. The questions were then piloted with those teachers who are
currently taking further education abroad, because they shared the same background with
the participants (Gay, Mills, Airisian, 2012). Following the pilots, the researcher came to a

realization that prompts should be added to several questions to help the researcher clarify
their meaning (Cohen et al, 2018). The pilots also presented the researcher with
opportunities to enhance her interviewing skills to generate more enriched response from the
participants (Silverman, 2017).
Despite having been away from the investigated context for further education, the
researcher still acknowledged that her position as an insider did bring about certain merits.
With a capture of the actual happenings in the target context, the researcher was able to
build sounder interpretations with the collected data. Familiarity with the participants not only
provided the researcher with the ease of access, but also facilitated the interview progress
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A certain level of comfortableness between both parties would
make the participants more open about their response, thus contributing to the richness of
data. On the other hand, this close researcher-informant relationship did pose a question to
the honesty of the data (Denscombe, 2017). Participants were likely to adjust their response
to the satisfaction of the researcher. Yet, this was tackled by a clear address of research
purposes and expectations for truthful correspondence by the researcher prior to the
interviews.
4. Sampling
The current study employed non-probability sampling in choosing its informants.
Therefore, the researcher has the rights to exert criteria on deciding who will partake in the
study (Denscombe, 2017). One of the greatest trades–off of using this sampling method is
that the data gathered would be inefficient for the conductor to make any generalizations out
of the target population (Tansey, 2007). However, it is worth noting that the current smallscale qualitative study attempted to investigate the participants in terms of their experiences,
practices and conceptions on much personal and specific level. Therefore, the use of nonprobability sampling was plausible enough.
As the study also looked at the transformation of teachers’ CA practices, those
teachers who have longer teaching experiences (at least 6 years) were more preferable for
the study. Those with less teaching experiences (1-3 years) were not considered for this
study, as they may not be able to give insightful response with such short career duration.
Those who are currently taking further education or only take over very few classes as partial
16

fulfilment of the administration requirements were also not considered, since their being in
the classroom had been inconsistent. With that being said, purposive sampling approach
was taken to sort out appropriate participants who can give insightful response to help the
researcher meet the objectives of the study (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). 10 chosen
participants were those who had been consistently in the classroom, thus being able to give
in-depth updated reflection of their CA development. The choice of participants reflected the
main range of ages and teaching experiences in the target context in compliance with the
representativeness ideal of non-probability sampling (Denscombe, 2017). Hopefully, the
chosen participants with varying backgrounds would reveal a diversity of perspectives and
allowed the researcher to draw interesting comparisons based on which.
5. Research Conduct
The current project lasted for three months with the main phases being literature
building, research design, data collection, data analysis and writing up. Intensive reading,
which was fundamental to the enhancement of the researcher’s knowledge base and
research competence, was done throughout the whole period. Regarding data collection
process, all the interviews took place on one-off basis through Zoom at the participants’
convenience, since the researcher was not based in Vietnam. The language used for the
interviews was Vietnamese, so that both sides found it easier to convey their meaning. As
the collected data was supposed to be sufficient for the researcher to make a thorough
analysis, each interview was expected to last for over 1 hour. All of the interviews were
recorded through build-in functions of Zoom upon the participants’ approval. Their response
was then transcribed and translated into English to prepare for analysis process.
6. Ethical Considerations
It is very imperative that the serious considerations be taken to guarantee adherent
ethical conformation in the conduct of an educational research (Howes & Moes, 1999). For
those studies that involve human participation, research ethics are primarily shown through
respecting the participants and their autonomy (Cohen et al, 2018). On this premise, the
researcher followed the principles devised by Denscombe (2017) including the protection of
participants’ interest, their involvement on a voluntary informed basis, and honesty in

participant confrontations. For the sake of interest protection, every disclosure by the
participants including their personal information and interview data were confidentially stored
and not revealed to any third party for irrelevant purposes (Newsome, 2016). Whenever
mentioned in the study, their identities were put under pseudonyms to prevent the
participants from any potential mental and physical infringement. With regards to voluntary
basis, participants were invited into the study upon their approval and could withdraw at any
point without further coercion from the researcher (Denscombe, 2017). Informed consent is
17


the key through which the researcher gains the trust of the potential participants
(Hammersley & Traianou, 2012). Therefore, they were thoroughly explained about the
research purposes and their feasible contribution at initial contact. The researcher then
spared few days for them to consider their partaking decision. Upon agreeing to join the
study, the participants were double-checked on their understanding of the study’s intentions
and signed the consent forms provided by the researcher. To exert the honesty notion during
the data collection process, the researcher maintained a subjective attitude, only posing
questions to guide the interviews without manipulating or obstructing the participants (Lodico
et al, 2006).
7.

Analysis Process
The current study took thematic approach to its analysis process for its prevalence in

analysis of qualitative data (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and appropriateness for those
researchers with less experience (Robson & McCartan, 2016). According to Punch &
Oancea, (2014), there are two basic processes involved in thematic analysis namely coding
and theming. Coding entails the researcher picking up chunks of data and aggregating them
into a category (Creswell, 2013). This is not a straightforward process, as some codes are
quite subtle and can only be captured through thick description of data (Ryan & Bernard,

2003). After a number of codes are identified, a theme is formed as a broader unit of data
that represents these sub-categories of codes (Creswell, 2013). Thematic analysis can be
conducted in a deductive way where existing themes and sub-themes are brought in to code
the data or in an inductive way where these develop out of the data itself (Braun & Clarke,
2012).
For any study that addresses very clear aims from the beginning, major themes are
formed in conformation to the research questions (Bell & Waters, 2018). Those codes
underlying each major theme come from either the chosen framework for the study or issues
identified in the literature. In qualitative-oriented social research, however, it is not
uncommon to see codes that surprisingly emerge from the data in addition to the anticipated
codes from the literature review (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Instead of fitting the data to a
predetermined coding frame, the researcher also considered these surprising codes. Such a
combination of both deductive and inductive approaches enabled the researcher to not only
link the data with existent literature, but also explore unpredictable findings brought about by
context difference.
Based on the research questions of this study, the three major themes were identified
as development of CA practices, assessment literacy through CA practices & underlying
conceptions, and impacts of professional context. Under each theme were series of subthemes set following the literature. Data chunks were labelled to a suitable sub-theme based
18