Asia Pacific Journal of Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cape20

Teachers’ views on classroom-based assessment:

an exploratory study at an Islamic boarding school
in Indonesia

Lalu Mohammad Abid Zainul Puad & Karen Ashton

To cite this article: Lalu Mohammad Abid Zainul Puad & Karen Ashton (2021)
Teachers’ views on classroom-based assessment: an exploratory study at an Islamic
boarding school in Indonesia, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 41:2, 253-265, DOI:
10.1080/02188791.2020.1761775

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1761775

Published online: 12 May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 956

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cape20
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION
2021, VOL. 41, NO. 2, 253–265
https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1761775

ARTICLE

Teachers’ views on classroom-based assessment: an exploratory

study at an Islamic boarding school in Indonesia
a b
Lalu Mohammad Abid Zainul Puad and Karen Ashton
a
English Department, Mts Darul Athfal Ranjok, Jl. Pariwisata Benang Stokel Kec Batukliang Utara, Lombok Tengah,
Indonesia; b School of Humanities, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study explores six secondary school English as a Foreign Language Received 3 March 2019
(EFL) teachers’ views on classroom-based assessment at an Islamic board- Accepted 22 April 2020
ing school in Lombok, Indonesia. Researching teacher views is important KEYWORDS
as a significant curriculum reform which mandates teachers’ use of for- Formative assessment;
mative assessment practices within the classroom is planned for imple- summative assessment;
mentation by the Indonesian government in 2020. Results from this study classroom assessment;
found that teachers tended to view classroom-based assessment from assessment for learning;
summative rather than formative perspectives. A strong emphasis was teachers’ views; Islamic-
placed on assessing students’ attitudes and behaviour in classrooms based schools; Indonesia
alongside their academic ability. Grades and test scores were also seen
as a way to hold students accountable to their teachers and parents for
their learning and achievement. This article highlights the challenges of
implementing formative assessment practices within the classroom in
a traditional, hierarchical society.

Introduction
Indonesia has seen many curriculum reforms with the latest major reform taking place in 2013.
In this reform, the School-Based Curriculum (SBC) 2006 was superseded by what is referred to
as Curriculum 2013, which is to be implemented in schools across all levels of education (K-13)
in 2020 (MoEC, 2015). The new curriculum outlines major changes such as moving from
teacher-centred to student-centred pedagogy and to formative approaches of assessment
(Ministry of Education and Culture Act No 69/2013). The mandated requirement in the new
curriculum for teachers to use assessment for learning or formative assessment, in place of the
more conventional assessment of learning or summative assessment (MoEC, 2017), aligns with
Black and Wiliam (2012) view that “assessment in education must, first and foremost, serve the
purpose of supporting learning” (p. 11).
The desire to shift to more student-centred and formative practices of assessment is a trend also
seen in other Asian countries. For example, the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization,
Innovation and Technology (SEAMEO INNOTECH, 2015), reporting on assessment reforms in the 10
member-countries including Indonesia, notes “the conscious effort to rethink and effect a paradigm
shift from Assessment of Learning (AoL) to Assessment for Learning (AfL) and Assessment as
Learning (AaL)” (p. 34). These reforms have been characterized by a push towards holistic assessment
systems and frameworks which integrate assessment activities into teaching and learning processes,
and which include peer- and self-assessment strategies (SEAMEO INNOTECH, 2015).

CONTACT Lalu Mohammad Abid Zainul Puad abid.zainulpuad@gmail.com Mts Darul Athfal Ranjok, Jl. Pariwisata Benang
Stokel Kec Batukliang Utara, Cempaka Putih, Desa Aik Darek, Kec Batukliang, Lombok Tengah, NTB 83552, Indonesia
© 2020 National Institute of Education, Singapore
254 L. M. A. Z. PUAD AND K. ASHTON

In the Indonesian context, policy reforms have tended to be top-down and have not sought the
voice and views of the teachers who are required to implement the changes (Bjork, 2005, 2006). This
is a concern as research has found traditional teacher-centred pedagogies to be common in
Indonesian classrooms (Zulfikar, 2009). For example, Zuhdi (2015), in outlining three typical char-
acteristics of Indonesian classrooms, notes that large class sizes (approximately 40 students) are
common as is a more transmission style of teaching where students are “passive individuals who
come to school to see, listen to and take notes on whatever their teachers instruct” (Zuhdi, 2015,
p. 149). The third related characteristic is that rote learning is commonplace, not only in religious-
based schools where students are asked to memorize religious texts but also in public education
schools.
There is a strong hierarchical system in Indonesia which may influence the use of teacher-centred
pedagogy. For example, a study involving 1900 students (grades 7–9) from 11 public schools in
Indonesia found that students view teachers as exhibiting directive and authoritative behaviour
towards them (Maulana, Opdenakker, den Brok, & Bosker, 2011). Maulana et al. (2011) claim that this
is because in Indonesia “teachers enjoy high status and respect from students and other members of
society” (p. 45). In Indonesian culture there tends to be a high power distance; that is, rank, seniority
and age are markers of status and respect in society (Mangundjaya, 2013).
Therefore, the current education system and context need to be carefully considered before
a new policy is implemented (Phillips & Ochs, 2003). Teachers’ views need to be understood given
their role in ensuring the success or otherwise of the reform (Brown, Kennedy, Fok, Chan, & Yu, 2009).
This is particularly important in a context where traditionally teacher-centred approaches to teach-
ing, learning and assessment have dominated (Koh, Tan, & Ng, 2012). The aim of this study is to
explore the views of six English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers at an Islamic boarding school in
Indonesia on classroom-based assessment, in response to the government’s radical reform of
assessment practices outlined in the new curriculum. The term classroom-based assessment is
used in this work to refer to all assessment carried out by teachers in the classroom in accordance
with the new curriculum mandating teachers to use formative assessment practices, including peer-
and self-assessment to assess students’ attitudes, knowledge and skills (further details are provided
in the section on Indonesian policy and assessment).

Summative and formative assessment

The terms summative and formative assessments are commonly used to represent the bureaucratic
and educational functions of assessment, respectively. Summative assessment generally refers to
summarizing students’ achievement at the end of a learning period (Lambert & Lines, 2000). The
results of summative assessment are used for a range of purposes including reporting to external
stakeholders for accountability purposes (Ewell, 2008), and for making decisions on placement,
certification, and selection (Harlen, 2005; Newton, 2007). Due to these functions, in summative
assessment, the focus is often more on the outcome, i.e., on the need to achieve a particular result
or to reach a certain standard (Black & Wiliam, 2010). This contrasts with a formative assessment
which focuses on the process of teaching and learning inside the classroom, for example:
. . . evidence about student achievement is elicited, interpreted, and used by teachers, learners, or their peers, to
make decisions about the next steps in instruction that are likely be better, or better founded, than the decisions
they would have taken in the absence of the evidence that was elicited (Black & Wiliam, 2009, p. 9).

From a formative perspective, evidence of learning generated from assessment activities should
be used by students, their peers and teachers to make decisions to improve teaching and learning
(Black & Wiliam, 2009). In other words, evidence from assessments should be used as feedback to
students on where they are at in their learning and how well they have met their learning goals,
and also as feedforward to inform students’ next learning steps and goals (Hattie & Timperley,
2007).
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 255

As part of good formative assessment practice, active interaction between teachers, students, and
their peers is encouraged (Heritage, 2013). In other words, in good formative assessment practice,
teachers are not the sole source of knowledge. Learners are also considered as a source of knowl-
edge, not only for themselves but also for other learners. A social process is emphasized where
learner collaboration in the teaching and learning process is promoted, something which is often
absent from more teacher-dominant practices (Heritage, 2013).

Teachers’ views about accountability in assessment

Brown et al. (2009) state that the results of assessment can be used to hold students, teachers and
schools accountable. For example, assessment evidence can be used to evaluate schools (school
accountability) and/or to indicate how effective teachers are (teacher accountability). Assessment
evidence can also be used to categorize students based on the grades they have received, to indicate
whether the required standard has been met, and to determine student success at learning (student
accountability). As such assessment for accountability is more closely associated with summative
rather than formative assessment practices. As the discussion below illustrates, it is evident from
several survey studies that some teachers strongly endorse the view that the purpose of assessment
is for accountability.
Teachers’ views about assessment and accountability can vary according to the context, reflecting
differences in education policy, practice and culture (Chen & Cowie, 2016). For example, a study of
170 Egyptian pre-service and in-service teachers shows that both groups agreed that assessment
results are used to hold schools accountable while less emphasis is given to student accountability
(Gebril, 2017). Gebril further explains that the nature of assessment practices in Egypt is summative
with use of externally mandated tests, and thus teachers are required to adhere to the assessment
policies stipulated by the Ministry of Education.
In New Zealand, however, research has found more emphasis on teacher accountability than on
school or student accountability. For example, in a study involving 525 primary school teachers,
Brown (2004) reports that teachers feel that they are held accountable for student assessment
results. It is suggested that this is because in New Zealand schools are self-managing and governed
by a Board of Trustees (‘Your school board of trustees’, 2017). Teachers are therefore held accoun-
table to school boards of trustees, and the wider community, for the assessment results obtained
(Brown, 2004), and as a consequence, feel that they need to prove to these stakeholders that they are
teaching effectively.
This contrasts with Singapore, Hong Kong and China, where it has been found that teachers
emphasize student accountability. For example, Brown, Hui, Flora, and Kennedy (2011) and Fulmer,
Tan, and Lee (2017) assert that the scores students obtain from public tests are used to hold students
accountable to their teachers, parents, schools and wider society. This is also influenced by the
Chinese culture where working hard and high achievement in assessments is seen as something to
be proud of (Brown & Gao, 2015; Brown et al., 2011). A high-stakes exam-culture dominates with
scores from exams used to make important decisions about students’ future prospects (Berry, 2011).

Challenges implementing formative assessment in non-western countries

The implementation of formative assessment has faced challenges in non-western countries where
high-stakes exams and teacher-centred practices have tended to dominate (Koh et al., 2012; Quyen &
Khairani, 2016). For example, a recent study surveying 243 secondary school English teachers in
Lombok, Indonesia, found that teachers lacked understanding of formative assessment (Arrafii &
Sumarni, 2018). Common practices included the use of assessment for accountability, test/exam-
driven learning, and passive roles of students in learning and assessment. Berry (2011) also notes that
in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China, teachers “were not capable of translating AfL
[Assessment for Learning] theories into classroom practices” (59). Despite the availability of
256 L. M. A. Z. PUAD AND K. ASHTON

guidelines, teachers needed more concrete and detailed information on how to implement forma-
tive assessment practices. Similar conclusions were drawn from a study undertaken in Saudi Arabia
where teacher-centred approaches and pressure for students to pass exams, combined with inade-
quate teacher knowledge about the principles of formative assessment and how to implement them,
were identified as barriers for successful adoption of formative assessment (Al-Wassia, Hamed, Al-
Wassia, Alafari, & Reda, 2015). Thus, in the above studies, it was concluded that further teacher
professional development was needed (Al-Wassia et al., 2015; Berry, 2011).

Indonesian policy and assessment context

In Indonesia, the new curriculum 2013 which introduces the mandated use of formative assessment
practices including the use of peer- and self-assessment (MoEC, 2017), is currently being piloted and
will be implemented in all schools in Indonesia in 2020 (MoEC, 2015).
The official guidance on assessment practices in the new curriculum outlines three domains to be
assessed; attitudes (social and spiritual), knowledge, and skills. The domain of attitudes is new and
was not included as a core competence in the previous curriculum (Indriyanto, 2017; MoEC, 2017).
This new domain is also supported by the current Presidential Regulation (‘Presidential Regulation
No. 87ʹ, 2017) which highlights the importance of building student character alongside academic
ability. Indicators of social attitudes are being honest, disciplined, responsible, tolerant, cooperative,
polite, and confident. Indicators of spiritual attitudes are based on the religious values that each
student demonstrates. Attitudes are assessed by teacher observation in the classroom. Assessment
of the second domain, knowledge, involves the assessment of content knowledge through a range
of measures including by teachers in the classroom, by school exam and by a national government
developed exam. The third and final domain of skills refers to measuring students’ ability in applying
the knowledge they have obtained, e.g., through solving real-life problems. This domain is assessed
by teachers in the classroom and also through the school exam.
An overview of the range of assessment techniques and responsibilities is provided in Table 1. As
can be seen, the new curriculum places the heaviest assessment burden on teachers.

Method
Research context
This study was conducted in Lombok, an island in West Nusa Tenggara Province in the Eastern part of
Indonesia. Lombok is seen as a centre for Islamic teaching with 93.6% of its population Muslim
(Statistics Centre, NTB, 2016). There are 429 Islamic boarding schools (or Pesantren, as they are

Table 1. Overview of assessments.

Assessment responsibilities and range of techniques
The govern-
Teachers Schools ment
Assessment National
responsibility Day-to-day assessment or classroom assessment School-based exams exam
Domains assessed,
and techniques
used
Attitudes Observation sheet, self- and peer-assessment - -
Content knowledge Peer- and self-assessment, oral-and written-test, Written test, oral test Written
assignments done individually or in a team at schools test
or at home
Skills Peer- and self-assessment, performance-, product-, and Performance-, product-, and -
project-based, and portfolio project-based, and
portfolio
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 257

known locally) in Lombok (Statistics Centre, NTB, 2014). This study was conducted in a medium-sized
(approximately 400 students) co-educational Pesantren in a rural area of Lombok.
Pesantren are different from public schools. They are usually privately owned by an Islamic leader
called Tuan Guru, who according to Kingsley (2012) has a high social status and socio-political
influence in society. Pesantren provide both formal and informal education (Fahrurrozi, 2015).
Formal education is organized according to the government’s curriculum, with secular subjects
taught in the same manner as in public schools. Informal education is prepared and designed by
each Pesantren independently and focuses on Islamic teaching and character development, with the
aim of preparing students to be not only academically capable but also of good character (Ali et al.,
2011; Izfanna & Hisyam, 2012; Lukens-Bull, 2001). To receive this informal education, students are
encouraged to board at the school. Although not all students are boarders in a Pesantren, the vast
majority are.

Research design
The key aim of this study was to explore teachers’ views of classroom-based assessment in
a Pesantren in Lombok, Indonesia. Given that this topic is under-explored, and little is known
about teacher views of classroom-based assessment in this context, a qualitative exploratory
approach with semi-structured interviews was used. This allowed participants to voice their under-
standing and views in their own words and allowed for multiple perspectives as well as for divergent
views to be elicited. This is in line with the principles of constructivism where individuals hold
a subjective understanding of their experiences, which is both complex and varied and informed by
the context where they live and work (Creswell, 2009).

Participants
All of the EFL teachers in the school where this study was conducted were invited to participate in
this study, with six agreeing to participate. This represents a near-census sample of the EFL teachers
within the school. Information about the participants is provided in Table 2. Pseudonyms are used for
all participants. Ethical approval for the research was obtained from the researchers’ institution with
the code of ethical conduct adhered to throughout.

Data collection and analysis

Data were collected through semi-structured telephone interviews. Interviews had a duration of
between 40 and 60 minutes. Telephone interviews were conducted rather than face-to-face
interviews due to the location of the interviewer. The interviews consisted of open questions
intended to elicit teachers’ views about classroom-based assessment and were informed by
a review of the literature, particularly the work of Black and Wiliam (2009, 2010, 2012).
Questions (see Appendix A) were designed to elicit a discussion on teachers’ general views of
classroom-based assessment, as well as their actual classroom practices to more deeply under-
stand their views. Open questions were seen as important in obtaining “subjectively lived

Table 2. Overview of participants.

Names Years of teaching experience Gender
Mahmud Six to nine years Male
Sofyan Four to five years Male
Suryani Ten or more years Female
Marjan Four to five years Male
Ilham Four to five years Male
Dina Six to nine years Female
258 L. M. A. Z. PUAD AND K. ASHTON

experiences and viewpoints” on this from each respondent’s perspective in their own words
(Tracy, 2012, p. 132). An open-ended approach also allowed the researchers to further probe
and clarify any aspects raised by participants (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007; Tracy, 2012).
Interviews were audio-recorded and conducted by the first author in the participants’ first
language (Indonesian). The data were then transcribed and only translated into English as
necessary for the purpose of reporting (Li, 2011).
To analyse the data, this study employed a thematic approach. Transcripts were read multiple times
and data were coded before being categorized into themes, with connections then sought across
themes (Lofgren, 2013; Schulz, 2012). This is in line with an inductive approach where the researcher
allows themes to emerge from the data rather than having preconceived ideas about teachers’ views
(Thomas, 2003). Throughout the data analysis process, the focus was on ensuring that teacher views
were represented as faithfully and authentically as possible (Ashton, 2019; Li, 2011).

Results
Teachers’ views of classroom-based assessment are presented according to three key themes that
emerged from the analysis: 1) students’ behaviour and attitudes, 2) teacher-centred assessment
approaches, and 3) student accountability.

Students’ behaviour and attitudes

The first theme illustrates that these teachers saw the assessment of student behaviour and attitudes
as key to classroom-based assessment. This theme was important for five of the six teachers. For
example, Ilham stated: “when I heard the word classroom-based assessment, I was thinking about
students’ personality, behaviour and attitudes”. He argued that it is essential that students have
a positive attitude and are respectful of teachers in the classroom. Similarly, Sufiyan said that “the
first assessment activities I always do in my classroom are to assess students’ presence, discipline,
and whether they respect me or not”. Sufyan expanded on this stating that “when students behave
well and show good attitudes during the teaching and learning process in the classroom, I believe
that they will have better understanding about the lesson compared to those who do not behave
well in the class”. From the perspective of these teachers, if they are able to manage students’
behaviour and attitudes within the classroom, students are then more likely to be receptive of the
information and knowledge that they deliver. For Marjan, the main benefit of classroom-based
assessment was to assess student attitudes:

The benefits of classroom-based assessment is that when we assess students in the classroom, we [teachers]
know better about students’ ability because we [teachers] ourselves see what students are doing . . ..
Therefore, this assessment is very strong compare to the national exam. The national exam is strongly
based on data [students’ score based on a test]. There is no attitude assessment, and no assessment of
students’ honesty.

Assessing students’ behaviour and attitudes is primarily conducted by use of an observation sheet
where teachers assign grades based on how students behave in the classroom. These behavioural
grades are then compared with how students perform on a test and can impact a student’s final
grades. Sufiyan discusses how this process works:

I usually give students a test after I finish a chapter in the textbook. After marking their work, I compare the
grades students obtain from the moral aspects with the grades they obtain from the test. If the students get
a good grade on the test but do not behave well and do not respect me, their final grades will not be good.
Conversely, if their scores on the test are not satisfied but they present in the class every day, pay attention to the
teacher, and behave well, their final scores can be added.
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 259

Out of the six teachers, only Mahmud stated that he felt uncomfortable about this assessment
practice. He acknowledged the complexity in assessing students’ work distinct from his views about
their personality:
My biggest challenge is my subjective view. When I grade students’ work, I cannot objectively assess students’
work without considering their personality. I know that if students cannot achieve the required standards, the
consequence is that they should go for remedial. But because the student has a good personality, I often add his/
her score, and I know this is not right based on the rules of assessment. But I still do it.

These results show how teachers view assessing attitudes as a key part of and benefit of
classroom-based assessment. It also illustrates how teachers use assessment to manage and
control student behaviour in the classroom due to the potential impact on final grades. These
results also highlight the difference in status between teachers and students in this context as
students are expected to respect their teachers and have a positive attitude towards teachers and
their learning.

Teacher-centred assessment approaches

Teacher-centred approaches dominated the way teachers viewed classroom-based assessment. In
discussing the types of assessment used, teacher created paper-and-pencil tests were the most
common. For Marjan, tests were considered the best way to determine a student's level of under-
standing of material: “I know students have different levels of understanding and the best way to
find out these differences is to give them essay test. Students' answers show their actual under-
standing; they cannot make up answers“. The view that tests were the most appropriate way to
assess student understanding came through strongly in the data as did the view that teachers are
the holders of knowledge, are more capable than students, and are thus better equipped to assess
student work. For example, Sufiyan argued that “assessment is [the] teachers’ job, teachers who
guide, teach, educate so they should assess as well. Teachers know students’ attitudes, behaviour
and everything about the students”.
Teacher-centred views can also be seen when teachers shared their views about peer- and self-
assessment. All six teachers shared similar views on the use of peer- and self-assessment in
a classroom. For example, Suryani stated:
I personally have never used peer-assessment because it is not suitable and not going to be effective if it is
applied in my school. Assessing peers would be very difficult for my students. I think my students do not have
sufficient knowledge to assess their friends, and even if they do, the results will not be objective. Because they
are assessing their peers, they will be very subjective. Self-assessment is even a worse idea because if you ask
students to grade their work, they are unlikely to be honest about it.

This viewpoint is further illustrated by Marjan who stated that “peer-assessment is not going to be
effective if it is applied in my class because students may not fully comprehend the materials being
taught so how they can assess their peers’ work or their own work?” From the above quotes, it can be
seen that for these teachers, grading work requires mastery of content knowledge and should be
done in an “objective” manner, competencies they perceive students as lacking. Additionally, as Dina
comments, students should not be involved in assessing as “they haven’t got an explanation about
how to assess. So, they don’t know the process of assessing; they haven’t got any training how to do
that while teachers get such training”. As the above data illustrate, teachers viewed classroom-based
assessment from a predominantly summative perspective. They felt that they are better equipped to
assess student work and were more likely to trust the results from formal types of assessment such as
tests. Only two teachers, Mahmud and Dina, talked about the more formative aspects of assessment.
For example, after assessing students, Mahmud said that the next step was for the teacher “to
analyse why students have different levels of understanding, which parts they differ and what causes
the differences”, in order to help the teacher identify a solution to improve student performance
while Dina talked about writing notes to students about their weakness “so I tell them to revisit
260 L. M. A. Z. PUAD AND K. ASHTON

specific material to improve themselves”. There was no other evidence in the data of teachers using
assessment data in a formative way or of teachers involving students in assessing their own learning
such as being clear to students about the purpose of learning or their learning goals.

Student accountability
The data show that teachers view student accountability as a key purpose of classroom-based
assessment. The hierarchical relationship between teachers and students can be seen in perceptions
of where responsibility for improving learning lies, further highlighting the unequal status between
teachers and students.
For example, Dina, Ilham, and Sufiyan stated that the results of assessments, accumulated in an
academic report given to parents at the end of each semester, show parents whether their children
are learning what they are expected to or not. Dina, Ilham and Sufyan all commented that they are
unlikely to be blamed by parents for poor results. In addition, Sufyan stated, “the academic report is
seen by parents as a weapon to educate their children”. Reports detail not only students’ academic
performance but feedback on students’ behaviour in schools. If the reports are not positive, teachers
in this study expect that parents will discipline their children and motivate them to work harder.
In addition, assessment results are used to hold students accountable to their teachers. For
example, Ilham stated that “one of the reasons I give students an assignment in a classroom is to
see if they are responsible or not”. Responsibility is seen as the effort that students make in
demonstrating that they have done their work. This links closely to the first theme “Students’
behaviour and attitudes” but focuses more on the actual learning. Ilham expands on his views
above and states that before the main lesson begins, he often asks questions of students about
previous lessons. His intention is to see if students have studied the previous lessons and prepared
for class as this indicates whether students have done what they are supposed to be doing or not. At
the end of every lesson, Ilham stated that these students would be tested and scored. Scores are
taken as an indication of the amount of effort students have put in.

Discussion
The discussion below is organized in three sections: 1) students’ behaviour and attitudes in assess-
ment, 2) teacher-centred views on classroom-based assessment, and 3) the status of teachers.

Students’ behaviour and attitudes in assessment

Teachers in this study emphasized the importance of assessing students’ attitudes and behaviour in
the classroom and discussed how this can impact on the final grade that students obtain. This
approach contrasts with recommended principles of good assessment practice. For example,
Heritage (2013) argues that evidence of students’ learning ought to be based on “knowledge of
the subject matter” (p.76).
This focus on students’ behaviour and attitudes may have been influenced by recent government
policy in Indonesia which highlights the need for Indonesian people to be of good character
(Presidential Regulation No. 87, 2017). Joko Widodo, the President of the Republic of Indonesia,
has claimed that this is a priority because having a good intellect without also being of good
character is meaningless (Aji, 2017). “Good character” includes being religious, being responsible,
having national pride, honesty, discipline, and tolerance (Presidential Regulation No. 87, 2017).
Rampant corruption cases in Indonesia have been cited as a reason for this focus with Joko
Widodo claiming that corruption exists “because character education is not yet the centre of
government’s attention” (Aji, 2017).
In addition, the new curriculum which promotes a focus on behaviour and attitudes may have
influenced the teachers in this study (MoEC, 2017). Although the new curriculum has not yet been
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 261

fully implemented in schools, it has been widely promoted in the media. The inclusion of character
development within the new curriculum is in accordance with the President’s focus outlined above
and was driven by the lack of focus on character development in the previous curriculum and what
has been referred to as the moral degradation in younger generations (Indriyanto, 2017).
Furthermore, the values embraced by Islamic schools may influence teachers’ views on education
and assessment. For example, studies in Islamic schools in Indonesia (Ali et al., 2011; Izfanna &
Hisyam, 2012; Lukens-Bull, 2000), have shown that there is a strong focus on building the moral
character of students and this is seen as a critical component of Islamic teaching and learning. School
leaders and teachers in this context are expected to be role models for their students. In this study, it
is likely that a combination of the current political context, the new curriculum policy, and Islamic
values have shaped the way in which these teachers view assessment.
Reflecting on this finding, there is an inherent contradiction and tension within the new govern-
ment policy. The emphasis on assessing students’ attitudes and behaviour in assessment goes
against principles of good assessment and contrasts with the wide range of formative assessment
practices promoted within the new curriculum.

Teacher-centred views
Teachers in this study viewed assessment as the responsibility of teachers. They felt that students did
not have sufficient knowledge to carry out assessment activities and were unlikely to be objective
when asked to assess their own work or the work of their peers. Only one teacher, Mahmud, was able to
reflect more deeply on this acknowledging that teacher assessment of student work was also not
completely objective. The views expressed go against one of the principles of formative assessment, to
promote active interaction and engagement among teachers, students, and peers (Heritage, 2013).
The views shared by teachers regarding peer- and self-assessment also reflected a lack of under-
standing of formative assessment practices as they focused on grading rather than assessing
progress and providing feedback or suggestions for improvement (Black & Wiliam, 2012). Only two
teachers, Mahmud and Dina discussed more formative aspects of assessment and the connection
between assessment and improving students’ learning but there was little evidence of these being
implemented in practice. A lack of understanding about the principles of formative assessment and
how to formatively assess were seen as barriers to successful implementation in Saudi Arabia (Al-
Wassia et al., 2015) and Hong Kong (Berry, 2011). In these studies, a need for further professional
development was highlighted. Similarly, in Indonesia, considerable professional development is
needed if teachers are to change their practice and develop an understanding of good formative
practices and how to implement peer- and self-assessment in line with the new curriculum.

The status of teachers

Findings from this study show that a key purpose in assessing students was to hold them accountable
for their learning to both parents and teachers. Scores or grades obtained were used to indicate
whether students are responsible for their learning or not. The onus is thus on students to prove to
their parents and teachers that they are doing well in their learning. As found in other studies, the
expectation of parents within Asian cultures for students to work hard and achieve well on tests may
account for this finding (Brown & Gao, 2015; Brown et al., 2009). As this shifts the focus from learning to
achievement, it does not align well with the principles of formative assessment (Brown et al., 2009).
Another reason for the emphasis on student accountability may be the status that teachers are
afforded in this context. Teachers, especially in a rural area like Lombok, are highly respected within
society (Afrianto, 2014; Maulana et al., 2011). Teachers are often regarded as role models and are valued
because they are seen as knowledgeable and as a source of wisdom (Afrianto, 2014). Hierarchy and
seniority in Indonesian society also play an important role, where the relationship between teacher-
student and parent-child is top-down (Mangundjaya, 2013). Decisions made by those in a senior position
262 L. M. A. Z. PUAD AND K. ASHTON

are generally considered correct. Thus, “the most dependable response is to follow directions” and avoid
creating conflict (Bjork, 2006, p. 134). In Indonesia, if students are not successful in their learning, teachers
are rarely blamed or criticized (Bjork, 2005). Instead, student achievement is generally attributed to factors
such as “innate intelligence, school facilities, parental support, and [the] educational background of
parents” rather than the quality of teaching received (Bjork, 2006, p. 90; Zulfikar, 2009).
Additionally, in an Islamic boarding school context, teachers are given the mandate to act as
parents. For example, in a study exploring Islamic schools in Java, Lukens-Bull (2001) identifies the
relationship between teachers and students as “father-son” like (p. 364). The influence of Tuan Guru,
Islamic school leaders in Lombok, is also important. Tuan Guru have a high social status and thus are
highly respected in Lombok society (Kingsley, 2012). Parents trust and respect the decisions made by
teachers and the Tuan Guru and trust that they will do their best to educate their children. If
something goes wrong, parents are more likely to blame their children than the school leader or
teachers.

Conclusion
This study explored the views of six EFL teachers on classroom-based assessment at an Islamic
boarding school in Indonesia. This research is timely given recent Indonesian policy directives to
implement more learner-centred and formative assessment approaches in the classroom. Key
findings reveal the unequal status and the hierarchical distance between teachers and students in
this context and illustrate that strong teacher-centred views of classroom-based assessment are
common. Against a contextual backdrop where a hierarchy exists between teachers and students,
and where the focus on moral development is endorsed by government policy, teachers and
parents, introducing learner-centred approaches such as formative assessment becomes more
challenging. There appears to be an inherent contradiction in the aims of the policy which is likely
to impede the successful implementation of formative assessment approaches. Further research
around these tensions is needed as is more research and professional development on how learner-
centred approaches can be implemented in traditional, hierarchical non-western societies.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Lalu Mohammad Abid Zainul Puad is an English teacher at Mts Darul Athfal Ranjok, a private secondary school in
Lombok Indonesia. He completed his master’s degree in TESOL Leadership at Massey University, New Zealand in June
2018.
Karen Ashton is a Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics and Language Education at Massey University, New Zealand.
She is an experienced teacher educator with particular expertise in language learning, teaching and assessment, and
language education policy.

ORCID
Lalu Mohammad Abid Zainul Puad http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1434-8994
Karen Ashton http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6419-8720

References
Afrianto. (2014). Because teaching is like a plantation of “dakwah”: Understanding complexities in choosing to be
a teacher in Indonesia. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 14, 51–59.
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 263

Aji, B.Y. (2017). Alasan Jokowi menerapkan pendidikan karakter. http://news.metrotvnews.com/politik/8KyG3JYb-alasan-

jokowi-menerapkan-pendidikan-karakter
Ali, M., Kos, J., Lietz, P., Nugroho, D., Furqon, Zainul, A., & Emilia, E. (2011). Quality of education in Madrasah: Main study.
Jakarta, Indonesia: The World Bank Office Jakarta.
Al-Wassia, R., Hamed, O., Al-Wassia, H., Alafari, R., & Reda, J. (2015). Cultural challenges to implementation of formative
assessment in Saudi Arabia: An exploratory study. Medical Teacher, 37(sup1), 9–19.
Arrafii, M.A., & Sumarni, B. (2018). Teachers’ understanding of formative assessment. Lingua Cultura, 12(1), 45–52.
Ashton, K. (2019). Approaches to teaching in the multi-level language classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and
Teaching, 13(2), 162–177. doi: 10.1080/17501229.2017.1397158
Berry, R. (2011). Assessment trends in Hong Kong: Seeking to establish formative assessment in an examination culture.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(2), 199–211.
Bjork, C. (2005). Indonesian education: Teachers, schools, and central bureaucracy. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Bjork, C. (2006). Transferring authority to local school communities in Indonesia: Ambitious plans, mixed results. In
C. Bjork (Ed.), Educational decentralization: Asian experiences and conceptual contributions (pp. 129–147). Dordrecht,
the Netherlands: Springer.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2012). Assessment for learning in the classroom. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp.
11–32). London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and
Accountability (Formerly: Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21(1), 5–31.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan,
92(1), 81–90.
Brown, G.T.L. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions of assessment: Implications for policy and professional development.
Assessment in Education: Principles Policy and Practice, 11(3), 301–318.
Brown, G.T.L., & Gao, L. (2015). Chinese teachers’ conceptions of assessment for and of learning: Six competing and
complementary purposes. Cogent Education, 2(1), 1–19.
Brown, G.T.L., Hui, S.K., Flora, W.M., & Kennedy, K.J. (2011). Teachers’ conceptions of assessment in Chinese contexts:
A tripartite model of accountability, improvement, and irrelevance. International Journal of Educational Research, 50
(5–6), 307–320.
Brown, G.T.L., Kennedy, K.J., Fok, P.K., Chan, J.K.S., & Yu, W.M. (2009). Assessment for student improvement:
Understanding Hong Kong teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles,
Policy & Practice, 16(3), 347–363.
Chen, J., & Cowie, B. (2016). Chinese preservice teachers’ beliefs about assessment. Educational Practice and Theory, 38
(2), 77–93.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Ewell, P.T. (2008). Assessment and accountability in America today: Background and context. New Directions for
Institutional Research, 2008(S1), 7–17.
Fahrurrozi (2015). Budaya pesantren di pulau Seribu Masjid, Lombok. Jurnal Sosial Dan Budaya Keislaman, 23(2),
324–345.
Fulmer, G.W., Tan, K.H.K., & Lee, I.C.H. (2017). Relationships among Singaporean secondary teachers’ conceptions of
assessment and school and policy contextual factors. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 1–18.
doi:10.1080/0969594X.2017.1336427
Gebril, A. (2017). Language teachers’ conceptions of assessment: An Egyptian perspective. Teacher Development, 21(1),
81–100.
Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning–tensions and synergies. Curriculum
Journal, 16(2), 207–223.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Heritage, M. (2013). Formative assessment in practice: A process of inquiry and action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Indriyanto, B. (2017). The education system of Indonesian: Features and policies. In A.E. Pasca-Valenzuela, W. Yan,
S. Yubiao, W. Daoyu, E. Baak, & M. Kor (Eds.), Guidebook to education systems and reforms in Southeast Asia and China
(pp. 54–89). Beijing, China: Southeast Asia Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO).
Izfanna, D., & Hisyam, N.A. (2012). A comprehensive approach in developing akhlaq: A case study on the implementa-
tion of character education at Pondok Pesantren Darunnajah. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 6(2),
77–86.
Kingsley, J.J. (2012). Village elections, violence and Islamic leadership in Lombok, Eastern Indonesia. Journal of Social
Issues in Southeast Asia, 27(2), 285–309.
Koh, K.H., Tan, C., & Ng, P.T. (2012). Creating thinking schools through authentic assessment: The case in Singapore.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24(2), 135–149.
Lambert, D., & Lines, D. (2000). Understanding assessment: Purposes, perceptions, practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
264 L. M. A. Z. PUAD AND K. ASHTON

Li, Y. (2011). Translating interviews, translating lives: Ethical considerations in cross-language narrative inquiry. TESL
Canada Journal, 28(16), 16–30.
Lofgren, K. (2013). Qualitative analysis of interview data: A basic step-by-step guide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
DRL4PF2u9XA&t=318s
Lukens-Bull, R.A. (2000). Teaching morality: Javanese Islamic education in a globalizing era. Journal of Arabic and Islamic
Studies, 3, 26–47.
Lukens-Bull, R.A. (2001). Two sides of the same coin: Modernity and tradition in Islamic education in Indonesia.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 32(3), 350–372.
Mangundjaya, W. (2013). Is there cultural change in the national cultures of Indonesia? In Y. Kashima, E. Kashima, &
R. Beatson (Eds.), Steering the cultural dynamics (pp. 59–68). Melbourne, Australia: International Association for Cross-
Cultural Psychology.
Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M., den Brok, P., & Bosker, R. (2011). Teacher–student interpersonal relationships in Indonesia:
Profiles and importance to student motivation. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 31(1), 33–49.
MoEC. (2015). Tahun 2018 semua sekolah pada tahap pertama sudah melaksanakan kurikulum 2013 [All schools in 2018
have implemented the 2013 curriculum in the first phase]. https://www.kemdikbud.go.id/main/blog/2015/01/tahun-
2018-semua-sekolah-pada-tahap-pertama-sudah-melaksanakan-kurikulum-2013-3680-3680-3680
MoEC. (2017). Panduan Penilaian oleh pendidik dan satuan kependidikan untuk sekolah menengah atas [Assessment
guidance for teachers and schools at senior high school level]. Jakarta, Indonesia: Direktorat Pembinaan SMA Ditjen
Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah.
Newton, P.E. (2007). Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy and
Practice, 14(2), 149–170.
Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan nomor 69 (2013) [Ministry of Education and Culture Act No 69/2013]. (n.
d.). http://direktori.madrasah.kemenag.go.id/media/files/Permendikbud69TH2013.pdf
Phillips, D., & Ochs, K. (2003). Processes of policy borrowing in education: Some explanatory and analytical devices.
Comparative Education, 39(4), 451–461.
Presidential Regulation No. 87. (2017). http://setkab.go.id/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Perpres_Nomor_87_Tahun_
2017.pdf
Quyen, D.T.N., & Khairani, Z.A. (2016). Reviewing the challenges of implementing formative assessment in Asia: The
need for a professional development program. Journal of Social Science Studies, 4(1), 160–177. http10.5296/jsss.
v4i1.9728
Schulz, J. (2012). Analysing your interviews. University of Southampton. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
59GsjhPolPs&t=313s
SEAMEO INNOTECH. (2015). Assessment systems in Southeast Asia: Models, successes and challenges. Manila, Philippines:
SEAMEO INNOTECH.
Statistics Centre, NTB. (2014). Banyaknya pondok pesantren menurut kabupaten/kota provinsi NTB [The number of
Pondok Pesantren in each region/municipality in NTB Province]. https://ntb.bps.go.id/dynamictable/2017/11/16/
244/banyaknya-pondok-pesantren-menurut-kabupaten-kota-provinsi-ntb-2014.html
Statistics Centre, NTB. (2016). Percentage of population by regency/municipality and religions in Nusa Tenggara Barat
Province. http://setkab.go.id/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Perpres_Nomor_87_Tahun_2017.pdf
Thomas, R.D. (2003). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. University of Auckland.
Tracy, S.J. (2012). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Chichester,
UK: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Your school board of trustees. (2017). https://parents.education.govt.nz/primary-school/getting-involved-in-your-childs-
school/your-school-board-of-trustees/
Zuhdi, M. (2015). Pedagogical practices in Indonesia. In F.-H.E. Law & U. Miura (Eds.), Transforming teaching and learning
in Asia and the Pacific: Case studies from seven countries (pp. 142–160). Paris, France: The United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Zulfikar, T. (2009). The making of Indonesian education: An overview on empowering Indonesian teachers. Journal of
Indonesian Social Science and Humanities, 2, 13–39.
 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 265

Appendix A. Interview questions

(1) What comes in your mind when you hear the word “classroom-based assessment”?
(2) Why is assessment important?
(3) What in your view are the characteristics of good assessment?
(4) I would like to know more about how you assess your students. Below are lists of different types of assessment,
please indicate which types of assessment you apply in the classroom and provide reasons for using or not using
them.
● Peer-assessment (please give examples)
● Self-assessment (please give examples)
● Paper-and-pencil tests (please give examples)
● Observation (please give examples)
● Project (please give examples)
● Questioning (please give examples)
● Individual conferences (please give examples)
● Quizzes (please give examples)
● Others please indicate!
(5) What do you expect to achieve using the different types of assessment?
(6) Refer back to what you have said; what do you do with the results of each type of assessment?
(7) When do you think assessment should be conducted? Before, during or after the teaching and learning process?
Why?
(8) How does assessment affect your teaching?
(9) How does assessment affect students’ learning?