2010 Second International Workshop on Education Technology and Computer Science
The Effects of Formative Evaluation on Students’
Self-directed Learning and Language Teaching
Xu Huilian
Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics
Nanchangˈ China
arden_xu@163.com
Abstract—As an important component of language programs,
formative evaluation is a type of evaluation which has the
purpose of improving teaching and learning through providing
teachers and learners with immediate and effective feedback.
Firstly, the article presents problems of the implementation of
current formative evaluation in college English teaching. Then it
introduces a case study of comparing two different forms of
formative evaluation. Finally it analyzes the effects of formative
evaluation on teaching and non-English majors’ self-directed
learning.
Keywords--formative evaluation; self-directed learning;
feedback
Formative evaluation is understood as the most important
assessment practice which helps teachers and students learn
whether their teaching and learning activities are effective[7].
With the reform of university education, universities and
colleges have attached great importance to formative
evaluation to improve college English teaching and learning.
However, there still exist problems in the implementation of
formative evaluation in some universities and colleges.
I. PROBLEMS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FORMATIVE
EVALUATION
Summative assessment has been given priority over
formative evaluation for a long time. Formative evaluation is
attached great importance, but the proportion of formative
evaluation is only 20% and the proportion of summative
assessment still takes 80% in some universities. During the
implementation, such formative evaluation does not play a
crucial role.
Firstly, formative evaluation procedure is not specific.
Teachers could hardly get the standard of assessment, which
results in the fact that teachers evaluate students learning
performance casually. Some teachers even evaluate students
learning performance according to their presence in class. Such
implementation of formative evaluation is an empty talk.
Secondly, the actually functional formative evaluation is
rarely used in practice. College English Teaching in China is
generally in large classes with 45-65 students. Therefore,
formative evaluation is not used as an ongoing diagnostic tool;
instead, it is usually graded with students’ performance of
question-answering and class participation.
Finally, such ineffective formative evaluation has little
impact on the students’ self-directed learning attitudes,
learning strategies and learning attitudes, etc.
978-0-7695-3987-4/10 $26.00 © 2010 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/ETCS.2010.381
Aiming to the above problems, the article attempts to
highlight that formative evaluation with higher proportion of
the total assessment does much better work on improving
teaching and learning than that with much lower proportion.
II. THE RESEARCH DESIGN
Two kinds of formative evaluation which respectively
takes 40% and 20% of the total assessment have been
conducted over the course of two semesters.
A. Objects
To raise the awareness of the importance of formative
evaluation is of great necessity to raise the proportion of
formative evaluation to the total assessment. The study was
designed to examine the effects of the proportion of formative
evaluation on non-English majors’ self-directed learning and
teachers’ teaching.
B. Subjects
The subjects of this study were 220 non-English-major
sophomores in Jiangxi University of Finance & Economics.
108 subjects were members in a treatment group, receiving
relatively systematic formative evaluation which took 40% of
the total assessment for two semesters. The rest were members
in a control group, participating in normal teaching activities in
which formative evaluation took only 20% to the total
assessment.
C. Procedures
Questionnaires
Two questionnaires were conducted. One was self-directed
learning questionnaire used to test subjects’ learning attitudes,
learning strategies and learning contents when they were given
formative evaluation which took only 20% to the total
assessment. Another was the same questionnaire designed for
both the treatment group and the control group.
Interviews
Two teachers were interviewed twice who were
respectively in the treatment group and the control group to
show their teaching plans, teaching methods, class
organization and their frequency of feedback to the students.
Formative Evaluation in the two groups
In the treatment group, formative evaluation took 40% of
the total assessment. The formative evaluation consists of three
524
parts, which are students’ self evaluation, peer evaluation and
the teacher’ evaluation.
Students’ self-evaluation was presented in journals in
which subjects’ learning attitudes, learning plans and learning
contents were reflected. Journals were assigned to students in
order to urge them to carry out self-evaluation and promote
their improvements in EFL learning by providing them with
regular feedback. Peer evaluation was carried out through
group work. Group leaders recorded group members’
performance in the after-class activities related to college
English learning. Teachers’ evaluation refers to teachers’
records of students’ performances in quizzes, exercises,
classroom participation and journals, etc. Teachers’ evaluation
is partly graded and partly diagnosed in detail. The formative
evaluation applied in the treatment group is shown as Fig 1.
Formative evaluation
Learners’ Self Teachers’
evaluation evaluation
Interview & feedback
Exercises
Quizzes
Classroom participation
Learning contents
Learning attitude
Learning plan
Figure 1 Formative Evaluation in the treatment group
Formative evaluation
Teachers’ evaluation Class presence
Exercises
Performance in class
Figure 2 formative evaluation in the control group
In the control group, formative evaluation took 20% of the
total assessment. It consisted of two parts. One was teachers’
evaluation on students’ performance in class activities and
exercise, the other was students’ class attendance. Students’
performance in class activities took 50% of the formative
evaluation and their class attendance took the rest 50%. It is
shown in figure 2.
I. THE STUDY ANALYSIS
A. A Comparison between the Students’ awareness of
self-directed learning in the two groups
A total of 220 students of the two groups participated in the
questionnaire survey at the beginning of the investigation.
With the analysis of the data, it shows that the differences
between the two groups of students are not significant.
However, the differences between the two groups are obvious
after two-semester treatment. The questionnaire was about
students’ learning attitudes, learning strategies and learning
contents before the start of the evaluation.
Formative evaluation which took 40% to the total
assessment became an incentive of students’ instrumental
motivation. After one semester’s implementation of the two
different forms of formative evaluation, the same questionnaire
was conducted in the two groups. It showed that the students in
the treatment group tended to arrange their study by
themselves and their motivation for English learning increased.
Students in the treatment group knew that their formative
Peer evaluation performances of English learning would be closely related to
their final scores. Therefore, 92% students in the treatment
group had an awareness and understanding of self-directed
learning. They took part in English activities on their own
initiative.
After-class activities
Group work
Whereas the students in the control group still followed
teachers’ arrangements and were lack of awareness of
self-directed learning. Only 25% students in the control group
maintained the awareness of self-directed learning. 75%
students just took textbooks to the classroom and passively
participated in class activities. Most students thought that it
was not necessarily to study English so much in their college
life because so-called formative evaluation took only 20% to
the total assessment. Moreover, so long as they were present in
the English class, they would get half of the grade of formative
evaluation. In their minds, the most important was to prepare
for the final examinations.
B. Feedback in the treatment group improves students’
self-directed learning
Formative evaluation is oriented to help students improve
their learning with effective and timely feedback [11]. First of
all, in the treatment group, the teacher’s feedback is mainly
about the quality of students’ tasks. In the feedback, students’
weaknesses were pointed out and strengths were appreciated.
Such feedback helped students realize the gap between their
learning goals and their present efforts. Moreover, suggestions
were given to students to improve their learning. Whereas, in
the control group, the teacher’s feedback is mainly about
whether students were absent or present in class and their
performances in class activities were usually graded. The
feedback could not encourage those students who were
passively learning English to be volunteers to participate
activities in classes.
Secondly, the teacher in the treatment group evaluated
students’ learning methods, learning attitudes and learning
strategies, which greatly inspired students’ English learning
interest and enlightened students to self-monitor their learning
processes. As a result, they had a better awareness and
525
understanding of self-directed learning and tried to develop REFERENCES
their learning with more effective learning strategies. However, [1] Black, P. and William, D. “Assessment and classroom learning”.
the teacher in the control group seldom offered feedback to Assessment in Education, 1998
students, which resulted in student ignorance of study [2] David Gardner & Lindsay Miller. Establishing Self-Access from theory
processes. Students in the control group failed to realize that to practice. Cambridge University Press. 2005.
English, as a language should be learned over the course of [3] Genesee F & Upshur John A. Classroom-based Evaluation in Second
college life by speaking, listening, reading and writing. In the Language Education. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and
respect, the formative evaluation in the control group did not Research Press & Cambridge University Press. 2001.
work at all. [4] Holec㧘H. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning [M].Oxford:
Pergamon㧘1981.
C. A Comparison between teaching in the two groups [5] Littlewood, W. “Autonomy”: An anatomy and a framework, System,
1996, 24 (4).
From the interview, it is found that the teaching in the two
[6] Weir C J & Roberts J. Evaluation in ELT. Blackwell Publishers, 1994
groups was different. In the treatment group the teacher was
more careful and well prepared for classroom instruction with >@ College English Curriculum Requirements (in Chinese). Beijing:
Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2004.
plans. Secondly, the teaching content in the treatment group
>@ Guo Qian, “Promoting Learner s Autonomy in College English
was not confined to the textbook. The students were required Teaching with Formative Evaluation” (in Chinese), Journal of X i’an
to do supplementary readings, search more information on the International Studies University. 2004, (2) pp. 66-68
topic they learned in each unit and delivered speeches, etc. >@ Luo Shaoqian. The Study of Formative Evaluation on English Teaching
Thirdly, the teacher was found to be more actively involved in (in Chinese). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,
guiding and supervising students in after-class activities. 2003
Moreover, the in-class learning is teacher-oriented and >@ Wang Hua & Fu Changhong, “A survey of studies on using formative
student-centered. evaluation in foreign language instruction” (in Chinese), Foreign
Language World, 2006, (4) pp. 67-72
Compared with the teacher in the treatment group, the >@ WEN Ying-xi, “On Formative Assessment and Improving College
teacher in the control group tended to be more traditional. He Students Independent English-Learning Ability” (in Chinese), Journal
paid less attention to classroom instruction. The teaching of Guangxi University for Nationalities(Philosophy and Social Sciences
Edition), 2008, (3) pp. 163-165
content was greatly confined to the textbook. The students
were just required to finish the exercises in the textbook and
memorize English words, etc. On the surface, formative
evaluation in the control group was implemented, because it
took 20% of the total assessment. But it did not actually work
to improve teaching and learning. It was, indeed, a variant of
part of summative evaluation.
III. CONCLUSION
Formative evaluation is a type of evaluation which has the
purpose of improving teaching and learning. However,
summative assessment has been given priority over formative
assessment for a long time. Some teachers do not really
understand the practical procedure of formative evaluation and
take the superficial form of formative assessment to cater for
the reform of College English Education. The article discusses
the effects of formative evaluation with different proportion of
the total assessment on students’ self-directed learning and
teachers’ teaching.
It is found that formative evaluation with higher proportion
of the total assessment enables formative evaluation to have
been implemented more systematically. The teacher has
become more careful and well prepared for classroom
instruction with plan. Moreover, with the teacher’s
well-organized teaching and diagnosed feedback in the
evaluation, students have developed self-directed learning.
In evaluating students’ English learning, the teacher will
encounter a large number of questions and problems. Without
a systematic evaluation procedure, the implementation of the
evaluation is likely to be of low efficiency and yield little
desirable effect. Therefore, an applicable and systematic
formative evaluation procedure is desirable in the language
teaching and learning.

526