Cogent Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oaed20

Afghan English teachers’ and students’ perceptions

of formative assessment: A comparative analysis

Jawad Golzar, Seyed Ebrahim Momenzadeh & Mir Abdullah Miri

To cite this article: Jawad Golzar, Seyed Ebrahim Momenzadeh & Mir Abdullah Miri (2022)
Afghan English teachers’ and students’ perceptions of formative assessment: A comparative
analysis, Cogent Education, 9:1, 2107297, DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access

article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Published online: 02 Aug 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1918

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaed20
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297

EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Received: 14 February 2022
Accepted: 25 July 2022
*Corresponding author: Jawad Golzar
English, Herat University, Afghanistan
Email: jawad.golzar@yahoo.com
Reviewing editor:
Sammy King Fai HUI, Curriculum &
Instruction, The Education University
of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
Afghan English teachers’ and students’
perceptions of formative assessment:
A comparative analysis
Jawad Golzar1*, Seyed Ebrahim Momenzadeh2 and Mir Abdullah Miri2
Abstract: This study investigates the perceptions of teachers and students toward
formative assessment (FA) in higher education settings. The researchers developed
a four-construct perception scale, namely self-assessment, interactive formal
assessment, in-class diagnostic assessment, and subjective assessment. Data were
collected from 216 participants—91 teachers and 125 students. The findings
demonstrated that both teachers and students have identically perceived interac­
tive and in-class diagnostic assessments. Nonetheless, they distinctively perceived
self-assessment and subject performance assessment demonstrating a significant
difference. The students reported self-assessment greater than the teachers,
whereas they perceived the subject-performance assessment lower compared to
the teachers. The findings suggest that English as a foreign language (EFL) or
English as a second language (ESL) learners benefit from formative assessment if
teachers evaluate students’ progress based on their own development rather than
being evaluated in comparison to other students’ development.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Jawad Golzar is a faculty member at the English
Department, Herat University, Afghanistan. He
holds a master’s degree in TESOL, and he has
obtained it through Fulbright Scholarship from
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA. He has
participated in numerous academic, personal
and professional development programs within
the past few years. His research interests include
teacher identity, educational technology, teach­
ing methods and issues related to giving voices
to others.
Formative assessment plays a significant role in
supporting students’ learning. This study aimed to
develop a scale to measure how English university
teachers and students perceive different types of
formative assessment. The study also examined
whether any significant difference exists between
the two parties. The researchers sent an online
survey to 91 university teachers and 125 stu­
dents. The results revealed that teachers and
students perceived in-class diagnostic and inter­
active assessments similarly. Yet, they perceived
subject performance assessment and self-
assessment differently. More specifically, the stu­
dents perceived self-assessment greater com­
pared to the teachers. However, they reported the
subject-performance assessment lower than the
teachers. The researchers provided following
suggestions: reconceptualizing the formative
assessment, assessing students’ progress
according to their development without compar­
ing them with other learners’ progress, improving
students’ motivation to influence their percep­
tions of formative assessment positively, con­
ducting formative assessments on a regular basis,
Giving feedback on time, and providing institu­
tional support.

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Page 1 of 19
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297

Subjects: Teaching Practice - Education; Assessment & Testing; Higher Education;

Assessment; Assessment & Testing; Teaching & Learning; Assessment; Language Teaching
& Learning

Keywords: formative assessment; student perceptions; teacher perceptions; classroom

practice; assessment for learning

1. Introduction
Educational researchers and teachers have had much interest in formative assessment (FA) over the
past few decades as this assessment type reflects and enhances student learning (Brazeal et al., 2016;
Ozan & Kincal, 2018). Contemporary literature depicts the significant impact of formative assessment
on student achievement. Researchers have proposed almost a similar definition of formative assess­
ment—a process which involves exchanging feedback, aiming to improve the quality of learning and
teaching process, resulting in enhancing learner autonomy and maximizing learning outcome (Black
& Wiliam, 2018; McManus, 2008; Van der Kleij et al., 2018). Formative assessment allows teachers to
become reflective practitioners, collecting ongoing feedback about student progress and planning
their future lessons (Wuest & Fisette, 2012). Formative assessment, a “policy pillar of education
significance” (Van der Kleij et al., 2018, p. 620), is broadly perceived as an acceptable classroom
practice for teachers and decision making tasks for educational authorities (Torrance, 2012).

Researchers in various contexts, particularly in ESL/EFL settings, have investigated the effective­
ness of formative assessment in teaching and learning. Ozan and Kincal (2018) in Turkey, through
a mixed-methods study, found that ESL students in their experimental group had a higher
achievement level. Similarly, Lee (2011), in a case study in China, found that formative assessment
has a long-term positive impact on student writing skills. In Afghanistan’s neighboring countries
like Pakistan and Iran, formative assessment has received a lot of attention as well. For instance,
Haq et al. (2020) found that formative assessment facilitated Pakistani college students’ English
writing skills. Naghdipour (2017) found that although formative assessment is beneficial for
learning and teaching, its incorporation in teaching is challenging.

2. Problem statement
Most university teachers believe that the feedback they offer for their students is unbiased, in depth
comprehensible, motivating, and productive (Mulliner & Tucker, 2017). The teachers also frequently
make an underlying assumption that the learners understand the ways to implement their feedback
and improve their performance. However, all the learners do not essentially perceive and interpret the
teachers’ feedback the same as their teachers (Orsmond & Merry, 2011; Weaver, 2006).

There has been less previous practical evidence for how formative assessment could inform
university teachers’ effective practices, and shape learners’ performance (Dunn & Mulvenon, 2009),
especially in the context of Afghanistan. The context is underrepresented in the field of English
language studies (Nazari et al., 2021), and none of the previous research explored teachers and
students’ perceptions of formative assessment, which is a relatively new concept, in Afghanistan.
As individuals’ perceptions are subject to change by the influence of contexts (Borg, 2003), it is
crucial to conduct a research to develop a relevant scale to investigate how Afghan EFL teachers
and learners perceive formative assessment.

To address this gap, this quantitative study aimed at designing and validating a scale for EFL
classroom assessment. Hence, the literature on classroom assessment was meticulously examined
and four sub constructs, namely self-assessment, interactive-informal assessment, in-class diag­
nostic assessment, and subject-performance assessment, were extracted. Therefore, the following
research questions guide this study:

(1) To what extent the formative assessment perception scale fulfill psychometric properties
(reliability and validity)?

Page 2 of 19
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297

(2) How do Afghan EFL university teachers and students perceive about formative assessment?
(3) Are there any significant differences between Afghan teachers and students with respect to
their perceptions of formative assessment?

This study on students’ and teachers’ perceptions toward formative assessment opens threads for
further discussion on formative assessment, and its contributions to our field have broad applic­
ability. Teachers in both ESL and EFL contexts can benefit from understanding how teachers’
perceptions toward a concept could vary from those of their students and how that perception
might influence their practices. This can impact policymakers and curriculum designers’ decision
making in the materials they develop and the number of sessions they allocate for each subject or
course.

3. Concept clarification
Assessment as a core concept is the process of accumulating data and appraising students’
knowledge of a particular language and skills to apply it (Chapelle & Brindley, 2010). Brown and
Abeywickrama (2019) argued that assessment is also a continuous process that embraces various
methodological strategies and tactics and emerges in different types among which formative
assessment is a salient one. Bennett (2011) argued that the term formative assessment have
not represent precise practices and artefacts yet. Existing definitions acknowledge different enact­
ments that the impacts need to diverge extensively from a particular learners’ population and
specific enactment to the next one. Brown and Abeywickrama (2019) defined formative assess­
ment as:

Evaluating students in the process of “forming” their competencies and skills with the goal
of helping them to continue that growth process. The key to such a formation is the delivery
(by the teacher) and internalization (by the student) of appropriate feedback on perfor­
mance, with an eye toward the future continuation (or formation) of learning. (p. 8)

Formative assessment itself constitutes various conceptual categories. Self-assessment is a “wide

variety of mechanisms and techniques through which students describe (i.e., assess) and possibly
assign merit or worth to (i.e., evaluate) the qualities of their own learning processes and products”
(Panadero et al., 2016, p. 804). In contrast, informal assessment embraces a wide continuum of
feedback provided for the learners (Brown, 2004). It can also be of several forms, beginning with
nonjudgmental, random, spontaneous remarks and replies, accompanying instructions and other
impromptu comments to the learners (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2019). However, a diagnostic
assessment aims to recognize various features of a language which a learner is required to
improve as well as what a language course needs to cover (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2019). On
the contrary, scaffolding refers to the process of assisting less experienced learners to realize their
potential via support from knowledgeable the other (Vygotsky, 1978). The support is given via
social interaction within a learner’s zone of proximal development, the gap between learners’
potential and actual development. The teacher identifies learning gaps and utilizes various scaf­
folding strategies as formative assessment. The teacher observes the learner’s development and
engagement and subsequently, provides him feedback.

4. Theoretical framework to develop perception scale

Gan et al. (2019) found that the most salient formative assessment categories included: (1) self-
assessment (Butler & Lee, 2010; Qasem, 2020; Vasu et al., 2020), (2) interactive informal assess­
ment, (3) in-class diagnostic assessment, (4) subject performance assessment, (5) teacher scaf­
folding. However, due to the limited scope, this study only employed the first four categories to
develop a scale, measure the university teachers’ and students’ perceptions and identify the
possible discrepancies between the two parties (See figure 1).

The reasons to select Gan et al.’s (2019) study for the theoretical framework are twofold: 1) the
research mainly focused to appraise what assessment practices EFL students undergo in the

Page 3 of 19
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297

classroom and their impacts on the students’ emotional investment in learning process; 2) it also
developed a classroom assessment practices questionnaire conducting exploratory factor analysis
due to the absence of hypotheses regarding the underlying frame for the scale.

Qasem (2020) defined learners’ self-assessment (LSA) as a facilitating and supportive task which
is well integrated in task-based teaching and student-centered approach. Self-assessment can
offer ample opportunities for ESL learners to have control over their learning (Vasu et al., 2020).
M. Oscarson (2013) argued that learners’ self-assessment skills are important for evaluating their
outcomes and identifying a meaningful connection between this practice and their learning.
Qasem (2020) also explored significant impacts of LSA on students’ learning performance. LSA
develops students’ engagement, emotional investment, and English language skills as they get
indirect but constructive feedback to ensure their success. It also enhances students’ autonomy in
the learning process. In a similar vein, Butler and Lee (2010) found that LSA boosted students’
confidence and performance when learning English. It also has good potential to minimize
maladaptive behaviors compared to indirect teacher feedback (Vasu et al., 2020). Furthermore,
A. D. Oscarson (2009) stated two major benefits of LSA on the students. They can perform the self-
assessed learning tasks more effectively and at the same time, LSA enhances their self-regular
practices. LSA develops self-regulated learning “goal setting, strategy planning, strategy use,
attribution and adaptive behavior” (Vasu et al., 2020, p. 1). Therefore, teachers and learners
maintained a positive perception of self-assessment. However, Butler and Lee (2010) found that
the perception of LA practice and its effectiveness varied based on the contexts. Despite these
benefits and varied perceptions, Qasem (2020) stated that some students do not engage in this
type of assessment due to not having enough ESL proficiency.

Interactive-informal assessment is also one of the formative assessment strategies that English
language teachers use in the L2 learning context to understand and ensure that students learned
the concepts during in-class activities. This type of assessment can include various tasks and
strategies such as questioning, one-on-one conferencing, dialogic feedback and so forth (Ruiz-
Primo, 2011). Gan et al. (2019) argued that this type of formative assessment could serve as
a good strategy to understand and promote learners’ emotional investment and internal drives.
Interactive-informal assessment works well if it is dynamic and engages both teacher and stu­
dents in meaningful dialogue (Carless, 2011). Despite its significance, this assessment type is not
part of university assessment policies and even some English teachers ignore it.

Another formative assessment type is diagnostic assessment. Jang and Wagner (2013) stated,
“Diagnostic assessment enables teachers to make inferences about learners’ strengths and weak­
nesses in the skills being taught” (p. 1). Gan et al. (2019) found that in-class diagnostic assessment
was frequently used in English language classrooms. In this type of assessment, a teacher may use
group discussion, assess this collective dialogic interaction, and use several quizzes to check the
learners’ comprehension of the concepts. Xiao and Yang (2019) stated that in-class diagnostic
assessment also supports learners’ self-regulation in L2 learning. Promoting students’ generated

Figure 1. Theoretical frame­

work to develop perception Formative Assessment
scale.

Self-assessment In-class diagnostic assessment

Interactive informal Subject performance

assessment assessment

Page 4 of 19
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297

quizzes, the study found that designing quizzes empowered learners by providing opportunities to
evaluate the quizzes at the process level and learn through. In a similar vein, Jang and Wagner
(2013) questioned the assumption that gave students a passive role as exclusively feedback
recipients. The authors explored diagnostic assessment beyond the cognitive domain; viewed
students as change agents in the process, examining their non-cognitive characteristics of percep­
tion on assessment and learning. They claimed that learners’ goal orientations facilitate how
students interpret feedback and apply it in their learning process. Kim (2015) discussed the
feasibility of cognitive diagnosis assessment in various attributes such as strategy, skills and
knowledge gained by students. Despite its perceived usefulness, some teachers shaped negative
perceptions about diagnostic assessment and its ultimate purpose in the classroom (Jimola &
Ofodu, 2019).

Ultimately, Gan et al. (2019) found that learners frequently experienced performance-oriented
assessment practices. Marhaeni et al. (2019) suggested that this type of assessment can support
students’ learning ownership and promote their writing achievement in English classes. Palm
(2008) argued that performance assessment could provide ample opportunities to better measure
students’ communication and complicated skills. Despite these positive affordances, teachers’
perception and willingness to conduct performance assessment heavily relies on the context
and whether related instruments are available or not.

5. Literature review
A plethora of existing literature defines formative assessment as an assessment for learning (Lee
et al., 2019; Leong et al., 2018; Wei, 2010). Contemporary literature shows the crucial roles of
formative assessment in higher education. Some scholars argue that using formative assessment
in teaching empowers students to grow and become self-regulated learners (Yorke, 2003, Xiao &
Yang, 2019; Yastibas & Yastibas, 2015; Zou & Zhang, 2013), and some claim that formative
assessment functions as an external factor in motivating students to learn (Andersson & Palm,
2017; Yu et al., 2020; Zhan, 2019). According to Shana and Abd Al Baki (2020), formative assess­
ment allows learners and teachers to understand the extent students have learned during
a timespan. Despite numerous published research on formative assessment, the concept has
been considered an enigma in the field.

Recent studies focus on the effects of formative assessment on student motivation (Fong et al.,
2019; Hwang & Chang, 2011; Lee et al., 2018; Tang & Liu, 2018; Waller & Papi, 2017; Yu et al., 2020;
Zhan, 2019), and effects of formative assessment on learning progress (Black & Wiliam, 2006;
Carless, 2011; Clinchot et al., 2017). These studies revealed either similar or conflicting results
about university teachers’ and students’ perceptions depending on contextual factors, different
research methods and theoretical frameworks.

6. Formative assessment and students’ learning motivation

Dweck (2017) argued that students’ goal orientation is not fixed and can be changed by the way
feedback is given. The determination and feedback sign are the predictors of changes in motiva­
tion and performance (Richard, 2003). Many scholars attempted to examine FA and learning
motivation. Identifying the deficiency in evidence about effects of feedback on writing motivation,
Yu et al. (2020) developed comprehensive L2 feedback measures to examine how different feed­
back influences students’ degree of writing motivation in the Chinese EFL environment. This Likert-
scale instrument was designed to evaluate teacher writing feedback aspects, consisting of writing
process-oriented feedback, scoring/evaluative feedback, expressive feedback, written corrective
feedback (WCF), and peer feedback. The study revealed that expressive feedback appeared to be
the most common L2 writing feedback type and written corrective feedback the least common. It
also showed that students’ writing motivation level dropped due to process-oriented and written
corrective feedback. However, expressive, self, peer and scoring feedback improved learners’
motivation. Waller and Papi (2017) also investigated how writing motivation impacts learners’
orientations toward WCF. The study revealed that writing motivation was related to this

Page 5 of 19
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297

orientation. Tang and Liu (2018) argued that L2 writing feedback might affect students’ motivation
in terms of anxiety, writing self-efficacy, self-regulating and goal-seeking behaviors. .

However, Zhan (2019) examined students’ perceptions of continuous assessment (CA) functions
on their learning in a college English course using semi-structured interviews. The study revealed
that learners’ perceptions toward this type of assessment improved the formative promises and
most students believed that it served as a motivating force for learning. It also revealed that less
than half of the students perceived the judgmental role of continuous assessment. The study also
discussed that weak informing and strong extrinsic motivational roles could limit students’ con­
tinuous learning; the participants’ perception of CA as a stimulus was ecologically rational due to
education system, examination culture, and university assessment policies in China, whereas
lecturer-based feedback and grading scores as well as context shift from secondary school to
college led to lower recognition of CA as a motivator.

7. Effects of formative assessment on learning progress

Evans et al. (2014) found that formative assessment can promote students’ engagement in the
learning process and have learners maintain positive responses to various assessments. Most
teachers redefined formative assessment to an interactive, learning-oriented, dynamic and reflec­
tive pedagogy: Assessment for Learning. This formative assessment engages students to take key
roles in the learning process by adopting the assessment values. It also involves teachers to
provide support for understanding the goals, constructive feedback, incorporating the results of
assessment for designing the lessons ahead, and enough scaffolding to fill the learning gaps (Black
& Wiliam, 2006). Clinchot et al. (2017) argued that it would be much more effective if teachers
make this formative assessment responsive to students’ needs. Lee et al. (2019) also claimed that
assessment as learning could enhance students’ learning. The authors examined applying this
type of assessment in two writing classrooms from teachers’ and students’ viewpoints, specifically
aiming to explore the perceived pros and cons. The study revealed that teachers’ attempts
improved writing assessment literacy. It could be effective if they constantly participate in relevant
professional development programs to enrich current assessment as learning practices and
empower learners to be assessment adept. Aligned with students’ central role, Jiang (2014)
examined questioning as a formative assessment strategy used to encourage learners’ thinking,
show their learning level, and provide the basis to inform pedagogical decisions in the classrooms.
Cropley and Cropley (2016) further suggested that formative computer-assisted assessment can
help teachers to promote students’ creativity; this technology can also offer feedback on different
aspects of a product, person, process, and press, the four aspects of creativity.

A burgeoning body of research exists on students’ and teachers’ perceptions about the ways to
implement formative assessment. Bhagat and Spector (2017) argued that technology supports
formative assessment to improve learning attitude, motivation, and performance in different
disciplinary fields. In a similar vein, Baleni (2015) examined online formative assessment in higher
education and its affordances from university teachers’ and students’ point of views. After using
different formative assessment techniques, including online tests and forums, the researcher
identified several benefits. The online formative assessment resulted in enhancing learners’ com­
mitment; their flexibility in taking the tests; providing quicker feedback, saving time and cost for
grading and administration.

8. Perceptions of formative assessment in different contexts

Feedback was mostly viewed as an unidirectional process from teacher to students in the past (Hattie
& Gan, 2011); this perspective did not support students’ learning to a greater extent. Similarly, the
scholars previously accentuated the significance of the sender, receiver, and quality of feedback on
learning progress while excluding the ways feedback was perceived by teachers and students.
However, it became recently apparent that the role of students’ perception and the extent they
meaningfully engage with the feedback determined learning success (Winstone et al., 2017). A direct
relationship exists between the level of learning engagement and the perception about formative

Page 6 of 19
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297

assessment and feedback. Hence, several scholars attempted to examine the perceptions about
formative assessment across different contexts and its effects on learning. For instance, In Saudi
Arabia, formative assessment is positively perceived due to improving college students’ learning
outcomes. The university teachers’ perceptions were also influenced by a number of factors, including
educational level and teaching experience (Alsubaiai, 2021). In Netherland, Leenknecht et al. (2020)
examined the extent formative assessment supports university students’ motivation and investigated
the mediating role of need satisfaction. The findings revealed that the learners’ perception of FA’s use
is positively connected to their autonomy, competence level, and autonomous motivation.

College students have been assessed to explore the extent they learn from the tested topics at
Kent State University, USA. Through predictive category learning judgments (CLJs), they approxi­
mately calculated the number of questions they could properly respond to a range of designated
subject matters. They completed postdictive CLJs for similar topics after the test. The results
revealed that they had a better formative evaluation afterward. This study concluded with creating
more accurate postdictive CLJs. The average students’ performance could also limit their aptitude
to evaluate their topical knowledge (Rivers et al., 2019). Since formative assessment practices are
not informed and used by the teachers every so often, Box et al. (2015) examined contextual
components, either internal or external, that limited or supported this type of assessment.
Including Cornett’s curriculum development model of personal practice theories as a framework,
the study showed that diverse differences existed among teacher participants’ in terms of personal
practice. Many restraining or supporting factors were also identified that influenced the percep­
tions about formative assessment use, including teachers’ knowledge, habits, high-stakes tests,
learners’ dispositionality, teacher-student expectations, and implementing a directive instead of
non-directive constructive teaching method, and finally, the tension to cover the curriculum. Chow
and Hollo (2018) argued that teachers’ perception of students’ language and behavioral perfor­
mance should have been given much attention. Their study revealed that a low degree of agree­
ment existed between teacher language ratings and assessment. It also showed that language
measures had distinct differences and varied based on students’ behavioral characteristics.

Andersson and Palm (2017) examined the impact of formative assessment training on a teacher
professional development program on students’ performance in a Swedish context. The study
revealed that the intervention group outperformed the controlled group indicating that the training
shaped teachers’ perceptions about related formative assessment practices using different strategies.
It, in turn, improved students’ academic achievement. However, the study called for extending the
collaboration level. Moreover, it identified very varied multi-level learners and short duration of related
PD programs as constraints for developing formative assessment practices. Similarly, Widiastuti et al.
(2020) examined the discrepancies between teachers’ perception and formative assessment in EFL
classrooms. The study revealed that the teachers who had higher levels of continuous professional
development maintained more positive perception toward formative assessment.

Havnes et al. (2012) found that the ways teachers and students’ perceive feedback practices
varied significantly across gender and within subjects. Xiao and Yang (2019) argued that formative
assessment improves students’ self-regulated English learning practices in a Chinese context. The
study showed that students were engaged in formative assessment practices and became self-
regulated learners. The students maintained a positive perception of these practices, which
supported their English language learning and self-regulation skills throughout the process.
However, these perceptions about formative assessment are subject to change by the influence
of contexts (Borg, 2003). More importantly, assessing the teachers’ and students’ perceptions and
identifying discrepancies provide significant insights about effective implementation of formative
assessment in language classrooms. Therefore, developing a perception scale can improve quality
of FA and in turn, maximize learning outcomes (Van der Kleij, 2019). In addition, even though
perceived usefulness associated with formative assessment in higher education seems to be well
understood, there is little known about teachers’ and students’ perceptions of FA and its discre­
pancies in an underrepresented context like Afghanistan.

Page 7 of 19
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297

9. Methodology

9.1. Participants and settings

Participants of this study were 91 Afghan EFL university teachers (42.1%) and 125 students
(57.9%). Using convenience sampling, the researchers recruited the academic staff and student
participants from different higher education institutions, including Herat University. Most teacher
participants’ were holding MA degree (n = 85) and a few had PhD (n = 6).They taught English as
a Foreign Language and various subjects, including American and British Literature, Introduction to
Research, Academic, Business, Creative Writing, and many other courses. The students’ education
ranged from undergraduate (n = 95) to MA graduate (n = 30). The students’ age falls between 18 to
24 years (M = 21.50, SD = 1.71). However, university teachers’ age ranged from 25 to 40 years
(M = 29.60, SD = 4.21). The participants’ native languages were Dari and Pashto. Prior to conducting
the study, the researchers obtained the participants’ consent and approval. The authors also
followed confidentiality by keeping the data in a secure place, and ensuring the participants that
their personal data will not be disclosed without their permission.

Education in Afghanistan has been influenced by various administrative and ideological factors
over the past decades. Several international organizations contributed to support the reconstruc­
tion process especially in education. Similarly, English language instruction has undergone various
changes due to existing demand in the society. The educational institutes highlighted the impor­
tance of English and even the Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) planned to make English the
primary medium of instruction in the universities. Therefore, it focused on teaching English and
assessing students’ language knowledge and skills. MoHE delineated the assessment policies and
types in the Ministry of Higher Education Development Program (2018) including both formative
and summative assessments. However, MoHE assigned more scores for later assessment type
compared to FA and it is mainly due to the relevant top-down policies which undermined the
significance of formative assessment on maximizing learning outcomes and limited teachers’
agency in this regard (Golzar et al., 2022; Nazari et al., 2021)

9.2. Data collection

To examine the university teachers’ and students’ perceptions of formative assessment, a survey
questionnaire was designed and developed according to Gan et al.’s (2019) study results. Gan et al.’s
(2019) identified five most salient formative assessment categories (1) self-assessment (Butler & Lee,
2010; Qasem, 2020; Vasu et al., 2020), (2) interactive informal assessment, (3) in-class diagnostic
assessment, and (4) subject performance assessment, (5) teacher scaffolding. However, due to the
limited scope of this study, the researchers only focused on the first four FA categories. Subsequently,
25 items were extracted and designed based on the review of literature. The construct of self-
assessment included 6 items, interactive informal assessment was comprised of 8 items, in-class
diagnostic assessment had 6 items, and subject performance assessment built-in 5 items.

To have easier access to the participants, the researchers used Google Forms. This online survey
included questions to obtain demographic information (age and education) and 25 five-point Likert
scale items, containing strongly agree (5), agree(4), neutral(3), disagree(2), and strongly disagree
(1), to gain quantitative data. The scale was used for both university teachers and students.
Moreover, for face validity, 4 EFL expert teachers were requested to analyze the items and pinpoint
any ambiguity they observe in the items. They all verified that the items were perfectly compre­
hensible. Ultimately, the survey link was sent to the university teachers and students to fill up
through emails and Telegram. It was further validated and also improved by removing some items.
Data collection was conducted between November and December of 2021.

9.3. Data analysis

After collecting data, the Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) software was used to run
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the scale. In addition, the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS) software was employed to obtain descriptive statistics (Mean, Standard

Page 8 of 19
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297

Deviation, Std. Error Mean, and etc.) to understand university teachers’ and students’ perceptions
of formative assessment. It was also utilized to gain inferential statistics to examine the differ­
ences between the two groups’ perceptions of formative assessment through t-test.

10. Results

10.1. CFA and reliability of the scale

To substantiate the construct validity of the newly-developed scale of the study i.e., formative
assessment perception scale, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used (Figure 2). The scale
includes four sub-constructs of self-assessment, interactive-informal assessment, in-class diag­
nostic assessment, and subject-performance assessment. To improve the model fit, items which
had a factor loading below 0.4 (i.e., Q3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 23) were removed from the scale.
Table 1 presents initial factor loadings for the scale items. Afterwards, CFA was run again and
factor loadings after removing the items are presented in Table 2. Goodness-of-fit indices are
reported in Table 3. The criterion for acceptance is different across researchers; in the present
study χ2/ df should be less than 3 (Ullman, 2001), TLI and CFI should be over .90, and RMSEA
should be less than .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Based on the obtained results, the model fits the
data adequately, hence confirming the structure of the formative assessment perception scale. In
addition, the Cronbach alpha estimated for this scale was .82, confirming the reliability of the
scale. After removing 9 items, the improved perception scale included 16 items which were equally
distributed to four sub-constructs (See Appendix A).

10.2. Perceptions of teachers and students

Table 2 demonstrates the descriptive statistics of the two groups. Regarding the first, second and
third sub-constructs i.e. self-assessment, interactive assessment, and in-class diagnostic assessment,
teachers and students obtained a mean score between 16 and 17 indicating that they almost agreed
with the statements in these three sub-constructs (Items of the scale are in Appendix A). That is to
say, regarding self-assessment, university teachers and students both unanimously agreed that

Figure 2. Measurement model

for the formative assessment
perception scale.

Page 9 of 19
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297

Table 1. Initial item factor loadings

Estimate Estimate
Q1<–F1 .64 Q14 <— F2 .54
Q2<–F1 .65 Q15 <— F3 .39
Q3<–F1 .34 Q16 <— F3 .32
Q4<–F1 .46 Q17 <— F3 .61
Q5<–F1 .29 Q18 <— F3 .45
Q6<–F1 .40 Q19 <— F3 .61
Q7<–F2 .47 Q20 <— F3 .67
Q8<–F2 .61 Q21 <— F4 .46
Q9<–F2 .66 Q22 <— F4 .57
Q10<–F2 .35 Q23 <— F4 .38
Q11<–F2 .24 Q24 <— F4 .64
Q12<–F2 .33 Q25 <— F4 .46
Q13<–F2 .28

Table 2. Final item factor loadings

Estimate Estimate
Q1<–F1 .66 Q17 <— F3 .58
Q2<–F1 .66 Q18 <— F3 .53
Q4<–F1 .44 Q19 <— F3 .67
Q6<–F1 .36 Q20 <— F3 .67
Q7<–F2 .56 Q21 <— F4 .72
Q8<–F2 .61 Q22 <— F4 .42
Q9<–F2 .57 Q24 <— F4 .71
Q14<–F2 .57 Q25 <— F4 .50

Table 3. Goodness of fit indices

X2/ df TLI CFI RMSEA
Acceptable fit <3 >.90 >.90 <.08
Model 1.55 .901 .92 .05

students should choose their learning needs and objectives, assess their progress, and use concept
mapping to evaluate their learning. With respect to interactive informal assessment, there was
consensus on the usefulness of peer feedback for learners, and on teachers’ responsibility to correct
learners’ mistakes, assess their responses and check their understanding through interaction. With
regards to In-class diagnostic assessment, there was general agreement that university teachers
should conduct diagnostic assessments and announced quizzes to identify learners’ needs and
assess their understanding respectively. The teachers were also expected to examine the learners’
gap of knowledge and use the available materials to check their understanding. As for the fourth sub-
construct of the study, i.e., subject performance assessment, however, university teachers and
students showed different levels of agreement with the statements. In general, the teachers agreed
that they should use multiple choice questions, essay writing, gap fill, and short-answer questions for
evaluation purposes while students viewed these items somewhat neutrally.

Page 10 of 19
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the teachers and learners

Constructs Role N Mean Std. Std. Error
Deviation Mean
Self-assessment Teacher 91 16.26 2.25 .24
Student 125 16.89 2.20 .20
Interactive Teacher 91 16.80 2.07 .22
assessment
Student 125 16.67 2.55 .23
In-class Teacher 91 16.81 1.97 .21
diagnostic
Student 125 16.27 2.58 .23
assessment
Subject- Teacher 91 14.80 2.65 .28
performance
Student 125 16.08 2.41 .22
assessment

10.3. Mean differences

In order to check the mean differences between English language learners and university teachers
with respect to the four factors of the study, a series of independent sample t-tests were run.
Table 5 presents the results of the independent samples t-test across the four factors between the
teachers and students. As indicated in Table 5, there were significant differences between the two
groups with regards to self-assessment (t = −2.06, p < .05) and subject performance assessment
(t = −3.71, p < .05). According to Table 4, mean scores of the university teachers on the self-
assessment factor (Teacher, M = 16.26; Student, M = 16.89) as well as the subject-performance
assessment factor (Teacher, M = 14.80; Student, M = 16.08) were lower than those of the students.
With regards to interactive-informal assessment and subject performance assessment, no signifi­
cant difference between the university teachers and students was observed indicating they
perceived the two subcontracts similarly.

11. Discussion
After developing a formative assessment perception scale, the descriptive statistics revealed that
teachers and students almost equally perceived interactive informal assessment and in-class
diagnostic assessment. However, their perceptions toward self-assessment (t = −2.06, p < .05)
and subject performance assessment (t = −3.71, p < .05) were significantly different. More speci­
fically, the results revealed that the learners reported greater values compared to the teachers in
subject performance assessment and self-assessment constructs. However, Hansen (2020) found

Table 5. Results of the Independent Samples T-test on Teachers and Students

t-test for Equality of Means
Construct T df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of
Difference Difference the Difference

Lower Upper
Self-assessment −2.06 214 .04 −.63 .31 −1.24 −.03
Interactive .36 214 .71 .12 .32 −.52 .76
assessment
In-class 1.67 214 .09 .54 .32 −.10 1.18
diagnostic
assessment
Subject- −3.71 214 .00 −1.28 .35 −1.97 −.60
performance
assessment

Page 11 of 19
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297

that the teacher and students possessed many commonalities. She argued that it is highly
significant for the university teachers “to develop a mutual learning dialogue and the active effort
and participation by both parties in such formative activities as self-assessment, reflection as
feedback and dialogue” (p. 1). Similarly. Winstone et al. (2017) stated that the discrepancy
between the teachers’ and students’ perceptions can be bridged by fostering dialogue among
the stakeholders.

The study results revealed that teachers’ and students’ perceptions on self-assessment and its
usefulness significantly varied. Wang (2016) argued that students’ perceptions of self- assess­
ment was tied with their perceptions about the rubric used by the teachers. The university EFL
students perceived rubric as helpful instrument to develop their self-regulatory practices by
supporting them through setting goals, planning, self-monitoring, and self-reflection stages.
Butler and Lee (2010) argued that self-assessment had positive impacts on the learners’ lan­
guage performance and their confidence in learning English after running several statistical
analyses. Butler and Lee (2010) also stated that teachers’ understandings about feedback quality
and assessment affected their success when employing novel self-assessment activities. Munoz
and Álvarez (2007) examined the relationship between teachers’ assessment and learners’ self-
assessment. They found that both forms are correlated to a larger extent and students main­
tained positive attitudes toward self-assessment. Learners’ accuracy in self-assessing is closely
associated with their experience in carrying out the relevant procedures. Munoz and Álvarez
(2007) also proposed some pedagogical implications including implementation of ongoing self-
assessment along with teachers’ continuous support, raising cultural awareness to accept self-
assessment, providing scaffolding for students to employ self-assessment as a medium to
recognize cognitive and metacognitive strategies in learning, and developing teachers’ profes­
sionalism in term of promoting their students’ autonomy and providing quality feedback.

Examining teachers’ and students’ perceptions about FA, Van der Kleij (2019) found that
teachers perceived feedback quality more positively compared to the students in particular sub­
jects. Moreover, learners’ self-efficacy level, self-regulation, and innate beliefs projected their
perceptions about quality of feedback. The above students’ individual idiosyncrasies interceded
the connection between learners’ degree of achievement and their perception about quality of
feedback. These individual characteristics are pivotal to govern how learners perceive the ways
formative assessment supports learning, involve them in the feedback process, and promoting
their understanding of course content (Shute, 2008).

Unlike the results of our study, Jimola and Ofodu (2019) found that most English language
teachers in their sample population had imprecise perceptions about the aim of diagnostic
assessment and also maintained negative perceptions towards it. If teachers aim to apply diag­
nostic assessment, they are required to provide detailed feedback about learners’ learning status
within a cognitive domain. To maximize learning outcomes and usefulness of diagnostic assess­
ment, it will be effective to recognize different constituents of a cognitive domain; for example,
reading and its components. It results in improving English learning process (Kim, 2015).

The teachers could meticulously think about the ways and implement formative assessment
aligned with their perceptions and belief systems (Widiastuti, et al., 20,220). Black and Wiliam
(2006) identified five important ways that formative assessment facilitates the learning process. It
elucidates learning expectations and measures for students’ success, divulges students’ level of
understanding to the teachers, provides feedback to move students’ forward in regard to instruc­
tional attunements and self-assessment, and encourages peer interaction and triggered learning
ownership among students. Considering the five objectives, Brazeal et al. (2016) examined stu­
dents’ perceptions about formative assessment. Most participants maintained positive views and
perceived FA to support their own learning through different ways. However, their perceptions
about FA types varied when achieving particular objectives. Brazeal et al. (2016) suggested
teachers and administrators not oversimplify learners’ perceptions or implement linear and fixed

Page 12 of 19
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297

assumptions. In contrast, Ogange et al. (2018) argued that students perceived FA with almost no
significant variation. The study revealed that participants were given more early feedback from
computer-marked and peer assessments rather than teacher-marked assessment. Such
a perception resulted in mounting resistance toward FA.

They resisted formative assessment because of grading criteria and instructional design, includ­
ing testing time and group project arrangement (Brazeal et al., 2016). Similarly, learners’ negative
perceptions about unfairness of grading and related policies resulted in such a resistance (Chory-
Assad & Paulsel, 2004). According to Wiggins et al. (2005), teachers possibly would reduce
students’ resistance by aligning learning goals, course content, exam items, and FA undertakings.
The teachers could minimize specific resistance types by adjusting grading and employing parti­
cular FA designated tasks to fully engage students as well as spurring emotional investment and
improving preferred task’s dynamics in the classroom.

Conducting a critical review of research, Dunn and Mulvenon (2009) argued that there is a little
empirical evidence to back up the most effective formative assessment practices. Through a meta-
analysis of existing literature, Bennett (2011) found that even though wide-ranging practices
related to formative assessment support learning, the formative assessment varies from one
implementation to another and one population to the next. In a systematic review of 52 articles,
Yan et al. (2021) identified the factors that influenced teachers’ enactment of and intention for FA:
personal and contextual. The personal factors included education and training, instrumental
attitude, teaching beliefs, skills, self-efficacy, affective attitude, and subjective norm. However,
the contextual factors were educational institute environment, internal institutional support, job’s
condition, learners’ characteristics, external policies, and cultural norm. Sach (2012) also stated
that the teachers recognized formative assessment as a pivotal factor in supporting the learning
process, yet they felt less confident than they claimed to be in employing relevant strategies. Their
perception about FA undertook changes in regard to teacher experience. Moreover, teachers’
positive perceptions about FA have not been fully translated into classroom practices due to
existing fallacy in considering FA as an additional constituent of regular instruction rather than
integral part of teaching. The teachers who maintained a promising instrumental attitude, positive
subjective norm, and greater self-efficacy were expected to include formative assessment in their
classroom practices to a greater extent (Yan & Cheng, 2015). Bennett (2011) also suggested that it
could by highly effective and beneficial if formative methods and techniques are conceptualized as
integral constituents of an all-inclusive system in which all parts work harmoniously to support
learning process.

12. Concluding remarks

This study developed a formative assessment perception scale, including 16 individual items in
four constructs: Self-assessment, interactive informal assessment, in-class diagnostic assessment,
and subject-performance assessment. The findings showed that teachers and students almost
identically perceived interactive and in-class diagnostic assessments. Nonetheless, they distinc­
tively perceived self-assessment and subject performance assessment demonstrating a significant
difference. The students reported self-assessment greater than the teachers, whereas they per­
ceived the subject-performance assessment lower compared to the teachers.

The results of the present study propose several implications. In terms of the pedagogical implica­
tions, it is significant to remember that teachers’ and students’ perceptions play a pivotal role in
employing formative assessment in EFL classrooms. Teachers could identify the sources to under­
stand these perceptions and plan accordingly to improve FA activities. It will be more effective if the
teachers maintain a critical view toward the four constructs to bring changes in developing and
implement context-specific FA tasks via actual teaching practices. The initiatives in formative assess­
ment need to accentuate conceptualizing well-defined and more specific approaches founded on
methods and overall processes ingrained within particular content areas (Bennett, 2011).

Page 13 of 19
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297

Worthy of note is that emotional investment has a positive impact on shaping FA perceptions.
Teachers could improve the effects of FA on learning by highlighting the significance of continuous
assessment and bringing innovative and preferable FA activities into the classroom. Formative assess­
ment in this sense allows teachers to evaluate students’ progress based on their own development rather
than being evaluated in comparison to other students’ growth. Teachers’ and students’ perceptions are
dependent on the contexts and their relevant available facilities to implement various FA constructs.

Furthermore, incorporating regular student self-assessment into courses, providing feedback for
learning, and holding both students and teacher accountable for the results of assessments enhance
the practicality of FA in language classrooms. In large classes, where assessing individual students is
difficult, teachers could initiate focus group assessment. The assessment types used to identify the
interactions of students with the curriculum and its learning outcomes could be done from the viewpoints
of both the students and the curriculum. Such inclusion could help teachers go beyond the judgmental
evaluation of students and collect descriptive data about their students’ performance.

The administrators and policymakers could improve the EFL learning process by investing on the
teachers’ capability in terms of FA knowledge and by providing logistic, technical and professional
support. Finally, a huge gap exists for a cross-context study to investigate teachers’ and students’
perception on formative assessment in various countries, which can be an agenda for future research.

To situate the findings and implications of this study, it is essential to identify its limitations: first,
the study recruited all student participants from one university rather than several institutions
across the country. Additionally, the data was only obtained through a survey questionnaire
whereas the reasons for existing discrepancy between teachers’ and students’ perceptions can
be further investigated through semi-structured interviews from the two target groups. Moreover,
the study did not include administrators’ and policymakers’ voices to understand the sources of
the inconsistencies and what should be done to improve the perceptions, formative assessment
practices and learning process in general. Lastly, since this study did not investigate the partici­
pants’ perceptions toward different formative assessment types, future research could explore
whether some formative assessment designs are more effective than others, and why.

Funding Andersson, C., & Palm, T. (2017). The impact of formative

The authors received no direct funding for this research. assessment on student achievement: A study of the
effects of changes to classroom practice after
Author details a comprehensive professional development
Jawad Golzar1 programme. Learning and Instruction, 49, 92–102.
E-mail: jawad.golzar@yahoo.com https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.12.006
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0268-391X Baleni, Z. G. (2015). Online formative assessment in
Seyed Ebrahim Momenzadeh2 higher education: Its pros and cons. Electronic
Mir Abdullah Miri2 Journal of E-Learning, 13(4), 228–236.
E-mail: miri.abdullah@gmail.com Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical
1
Head of English Department, Herat University, Herat, review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &
Afghanistan. Practice, 18(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/
2
PhD Candidate, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, 0969594X.2010.513678.
Mashhad, Iran. Bhagat, K. K., & Spector, J. M. (2017). Formative assess­
ment in complex problem-solving domains: The
Disclosure statement emerging role of assessment technologies. Journal of
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the Educational Technology & Society, 20(4), 312–317.
author(s). Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Assessment for learning in
the classroom. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and
Citation information learning: Theory, practice and policy (pp. 9–25). Sage
Cite this article as: Afghan English teachers’ and students’ Publication.
perceptions of formative assessment: A comparative Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and
analysis, Jawad Golzar, Seyed Ebrahim Momenzadeh & pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy
Mir Abdullah Miri, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297. & Practice, 25(6), 551–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0969594X.2018.1441807
References Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching:
Alsubaiai, H. S. (2021). Teachers’ perception towards for­ A review of research on what language teachers
mative assessment in Saudi Universities’ Context: think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36
A review of literature. English Language Teaching, 14 (2), 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/
(7), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v14n7p107 S0261444803001903

Page 14 of 19
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297
Box, C., Skoog, G., & Dabbs, J. M. (2015). A case study of
teacher personal practice assessment theories and
complexities of implementing formative assessment.
American Educational Research Journal, 52(5),
956–983. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0002831215587754
Brazeal, K. R., Brown, T. L., Couch, B. A., & Brickman, P.
(2016). Characterizing student perceptions of and
buy-in toward common formative assessment
techniques. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4),
1–14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0133
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and
classroom practices (1st ed.). Pearson Education.
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2019). Language
assessment: Principles and classroom practices (3rd
ed.). Pearson Education.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of
assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.),
Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).
Sage.
Butler, Y. G., & Lee, J. (2010). The effects of
self-assessment among young learners of English.
Language Testing, 27(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0265532209346370
Butler, Y.G., & Lee, J. (2010). The effects of
self-assessment among young learners of English.
Language Testing, 27(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0265532209346370
Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive learning:
Implementing formative assessment in confucian-
heritage settings. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203128213
Chapelle, C. A., & Brindley, G. (2010). What is language
assessment? In N. Schitt (Ed.), An Introduction to
Applied Linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 247–267). Hodden
Education.
Chory-Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004). Classroom
justice: Student aggression and resistance as reac­
tions to perceived unfairness. Communication
Education, 53(3), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0363452042000265189
Chow, J. C., & Hollo, A. (2018). Language ability of stu­
dents with emotional disturbance: Discrepancies
between teacher ratings and direct assessment.
Assessment for Effective Intervention, 43(2), 90–95.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508417702063
Clinchot, M., Ngai, C., Huie, R., Talanquer, V., Lambertz, J.,
Banks, G., Weinrich, M., Lewis, R., Pelletier, P., &
Sevian, H. (2017). Better formative assessment. The
Science Teacher, 84(3), 69. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/
tst17_084_03_69
Cropley, D., & Cropley, A. (2016). Promoting creativity
through assessment: A formative computer-assisted
assessment tool for teachers. Educational
Technology, 56(6), 17–24.
Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of
research on formative assessments: The limited
scientific evidence of the impact of formative
assessments in education. Practical Assessment,
Research, and Evaluation, 14(1), 1–11 https://doi.org/
10.7275/jg4h-rb87.
Dweck, C. S. (2017). From needs to goals and represen­
tations: Foundations for a unified theory of motiva­
tion, personality, and development. Psychological
Review, 124(6), 689. https://doi.org/10.1037/
rev0000082
Evans, D. J., Zeun, P., & Stanier, R. A. (2014). Motivating
student learning using a formative assessment
journey. Journal of Anatomy, 224(3), 296–303.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12117
Fong, C. J., Patall, E. A., Vasquez, A. C., & Stautberg, S.
(2019). A meta-analysis of negative feedback on
intrinsic motivation. Educational Psychology Review,
31(1), 121–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-
9446-6
Gan, Z., He, J., & Liu, F. (2019). Understanding classroom
assessment practices and learning motivation in sec­
ondary EFL students. Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(3), 783.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.3.2.783.
Golzar, J., Miri, M. A., & Nazari, M. (2022). English language
teacher professional identity aesthetic depiction: An
arts-based study from Afghanistan. Professional
Development in Education, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.
1080/19415257.2022.2081248.
Hansen, G. (2020). Formative assessment as
a collaborative act. Teachers’ intention and students’
experience: Two sides of the same coin, or? Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 66, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.stueduc.2020.100904
Haq, M. N. U., Mahmood, M., & Awan, K. (2020). Assistance
of formative assessment in the improvement of
English writing skills at intermediate level. Global
Language Review, 5(3), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.
31703/glr.2020(V-III).04
Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feed­
back. In P. Alexander & R. E. Mayer (Eds.), Handbook
of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–271).
Routledge.
Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012).
Formative assessment and feedback: Making learn­
ing visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38(1),
21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.04.001
Hwang, G.J., & Chang, H.-F. (2011). A Formative
assessment-based mobile learning approach to
improving the learning attitudes and achievements
of students. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1023–
1031 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.002.
Jang, E. E., & Wagner, M. (2013). Diagnostic feedback in
the classroom. In A. Kunnan (Ed.), Companion to
language assessment. Wiley-Blackwell., 2, 693–711.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118411360.wbcla081
Jiang, Y. (2014). Exploring teacher questioning as
a formative assessment strategy. RELC Journal, 45(3),
287–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0033688214546962
Jimola, F. E., & Ofodu, G. O. (2019). ESL teachers and
diagnostic assessment: Perceptions and practices.
ELOPE: English Language Overseas Perspectives and
Enquiries, 16(2), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.4312/elope.
16.2.33-48
Kim, A. Y. (2015). Exploring ways to provide diagnostic
feedback with an ESL placement test: Cognitive
diagnostic assessment of L2 reading ability.
Language Testing, 32(2), 227–258. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0265532214558457
Lee, I. (2011). Formative assessment in EFL writing: An
exploratory case study. Changing English, 18(1),
99–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2011.
543516
Lee, I., Yu, S., & Liu, Y. (2018). Hong Kong secondary
students’ motivation in EFL writing: A survey study.
TESOL Quarterly, 51(1), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.
1002/tesq.364
Lee, I., Mak, P., & Yuan, R. E. (2019). Assessment as
learning in primary writing classrooms: An explora­
tory study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 62,
72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.04.012
Leenknecht, M., Wijnia, L., Köhlen, M., Fryer, L., Rikers, R.,
& Loyens, S. (2021). Formative assessment as prac­
tice: The role of students’ motivation. Assessment &
Page 15 of 19
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297
Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(2), 236–255.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1765228
Leong, W. S., Ismail, H., Costa, J. S., & Tan, H. B. (2018).
Assessment for learning research in East Asian
countries. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59,
270–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.09.
005
Marhaeni, A. A. I. N., Kusuma, I. P. I., Dewi, N. L. P. E. S., &
Paramartha, A. A. G. Y. (2019). Using performance
assessment to empower students’ learning owner­
ship and promote achievement in EFL writing
courses. International Journal of Humanities,
Literature & Arts, 2(1), 9–17.
McManus, S. (2008). Attributes of effective formative
assessment. Council of Chief State School Officers.
Mulliner, E., & Tucker, M. (2017). Feedback on feedback
practice: Perceptions of students and academics.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42
(2), 266–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.
2015.1103365
Munoz, A., & Álvarez, M. E. (2007). Students’ objectivity
and perception of self-assessment in an EFL class­
room. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 4(2), 1–25.
Naghdipour, B. (2017). Incorporating formative assess­
ment in Iranian EFL writing: A case study. The
Curriculum Journal, 28(2), 283–299. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09585176.2016.1206479
Nazari, M., Miri, M. A., & Golzar, J. (2021). Challenges
of second language teachers’ professional identity
construction: Voices from Afghanistan. TESOL
Journal, 12(3), e587. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.587
Ogange, B. O., Agak, J. O., Okelo, K. O., & Kiprotich, P.
(2018). Student perceptions of the effectiveness of
formative assessment in an online learning
environment. Open Praxis, 10(1), 29–39. https://doi.
org/10.5944/openpraxis.10.1.705
Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (2011). Feedback alignment:
Effective and ineffective links between tutors’ and
students’ understanding of coursework feedback.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36
(2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02602930903201651
Oscarson, A. D. (2009). Self-Assessment of Writing in
Learning English as a Foreign Language: A Study at
the Upper Secondary School Level. (PhD Thesis
University of Gothenburg).
Oscarson, M. (2013). Self-assessment in the classroom. In
A. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assess­
ment (pp. 712-729). Wiley-Blackwell.
Ozan, C., & Kincal, R. Y. (2018). The effects of formative
assessment on academic achievement, attitudes
toward the lesson, and self-regulation skills.
Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(1), 85–
118. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.1.0216.
Palm, T. (2008). Performance assessment and authentic
assessment: A conceptual analysis of the literature.
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 13(4),
1–11 https://doi.org/10.7275/0qpc-ws45.
Panadero, E., Brown, G. T., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). The
future of student self-assessment: A review of known
unknowns and potential directions. Educational psy­
chology review, 28(4), 803–830.
Qasem, F. A. A. (2020). The effective role of learners’ self-
assessment tasks in enhancing learning English as
a second language. Arab World English Journal, 11(3),
502–514 https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no3.33.
Richard, M. E. (2003). Goal Orientation and Feedback Sign
as Predictors of Changes in Motivation and
Performance (Master’s Thesis). Louisiana State
University.
Rivers, M. L., Dunlosky, J., & Joynes, R. (2019). The con­
tribution of classroom exams to formative evaluation
of concept-level knowledge. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 59, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101806
Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2011). Informal formative assess­
ment: The role of instructional dialogues in asses­
sing students’ learning. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 37(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
stueduc.2011.04.003
Sach, E. (2012). Teachers and testing: An investigation
into teachers’ perceptions of formative assessment.
Educational Studies, 38(3), 261–276. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03055698.2011.598684
Shana, Z. A., & Abd Al Baki, S. (2020). Using plickers in
formative assessment to augment student learning.
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning,
12(2), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijmbl.
2020040104
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review
of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0034654307313795
Tang, C., & Liu, Y. T. (2018). Effects of indirect coded
corrective feedback with and without short affective
teacher comments on L2 writing performance, lear­
ner uptake and motivation. Assessing Writing, 35,
26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.12.002
Torrance, H. (2012). Formative assessment at the cross­
roads: Conformative, deformative and transforma­
tive assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 38(3),
323–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.
689693
Ullman, J. B. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In
B. G. Tabachnick & L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using multivari­
ate statistics (4th ed., pp. 653–771). Allyn & Bacon.
van der Kleij, F. M., Cumming, J. J., & Looney, A. (2018).
Policy expectations and support for teacher forma­
tive assessment in Australian education reform.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,
25, 620–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.
1374924
van der Kleij, F. M. (2019). Comparison of teacher and
student perceptions of formative assessment
feedback practices and association with individual
student characteristics. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 85, 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2019.06.010.
Vasu, K. A., Mei Fung, Y., Nimehchisalem, V., & Md
Rashid, S. (2020). Self-regulated learning develop­
ment in undergraduate ESL writing classrooms:
Teacher feedback versus self-assessment. RELC
Journal , 51 (3). , . https://doi.org/10.1177/
0033688220957782
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of
higher psychological processes. Harvard University
Press.
Waller, L., & Papi, M. (2017). Motivation and feedback:
How implicit theories of intelligence predict L2 wri­
ters’ motivation and feedback orientation. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 35, 54–65. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jslw.2017.01.004
Weaver, M. (2006). Do students value feedback?
Students’ perception of tutors’ written feedback.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31
(3), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02602930500353061
Wei, L. (2010). Formative assessment: Opportunities and
challenges. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 1(6), 838–841. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.
1.6.838-841
Page 16 of 19
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297
Widiastuti, I. A. M. S., Mukminatien, N., Prayogo, J. A., &
Irawati, E. (2020). Dissonances between teachers’
beliefs and practices of formative assessment in EFL
classes. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1),
71–84. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.1315a
Wiggins, G. P., Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005).
Understanding by design. ASCD.
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J.
(2017). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement
with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy
of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52
(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.
1207538
Wuest, D. A., & Fisette, J. L. (2012). Foundations of physi­
cal education, exercise science, and sport (17th ed.).
McGraw-Hill.
Xiao, Y., & Yang, M. (2019). Formative assessment and
self-regulated learning: How formative assessment
supports students’ self-regulation in English lan­
guage learning. System, 81, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.system.2019.01.004.
Yan, Z., & Cheng, E. C. K. (2015). Primary teachers’ atti­
tudes, intentions and practices regarding formative
assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45,
128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.002
Yan, Z., Li, Z., Panadero, E., Yang, M., Yang, L., & Lao, H.
(2021). A systematic review on factors influencing
teachers’ intentions and implementations regarding
formative assessment. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(3), 228–260.
Yastibas, A. E., & Yastibas, G. C. (2015). The use of
E-portfolio-based Assessment To Develop Students’
Self-Regulated Learning In English Language Teaching.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 3–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.437
Yu, S., Jiang, L., & Zhou, N. (2020). Investigating what
feedback practices contribute to students’ writing
motivation and engagement in Chinese EFL context:
A large scale study. Assessing Writing 44 , 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100451
Zhan, Y. (2019). Motivated or informed? Chinese under­
graduates’ beliefs about the functions of continuous
assessment in their college English course. Higher
Education Research & Development, 39(5), 1055–
1069. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.
1699029.
Zou, X., & Zhang, X. (2013). Effect of different score reports
of Web-based formative test on students’ self-
regulated learning. Computers & Education, 66, 54–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.016
Page 17 of 19
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297

Appendix A
Factor 1 (Self-Assessment)

(1) Learners should determine their learning needs.

(2) Learners should implement concept mapping to evaluate their learning.

(3) Learners should choose their learning objectives.

(4) Learners should assess their own learning progress.

Factor 2 (Interactive-Informal Assessment)

(5) Learners should benefit from peer feedback as an evaluation instrument.

(6) Teachers should check learners’ understanding and progress via interactions.

(7) Teachers should evaluate learners’ responses.

(8) Teachers should rectify learners’ mistakes.

Factor 3 (In-class Diagnostic Assessment)

(9) Teachers should conduct diagnostic assessments to identify learners’ needs.

(10) Teachers should administer announced quizzes to evaluate learners’ understanding.

(11) Teachers should examine the learners’ gap of knowledge.

(12) Teachers should use the contents available to check learners’ understanding.

Factor 4 (Subject Performance Assessment)

(13) Teachers should use multiple choice questions to evaluate learners.

(14) Teachers should use essay writing to evaluate learners.

(15) Teachers should use gap fill to evaluate learners.

(16) Teachers should use short-answer questions to evaluate learners.

Page 18 of 19
Golzar et al., Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2107297
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107297

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Cogent Education (ISSN: 2331-186X) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com

Page 19 of 19