Perceptions and Beliefs of EFL Students Regarding Classroom Assessment at a Colombian University

What is testing?

The paradigm of testing has traditionally dominated the certification of students' knowledge and abilities. When we talk about testing, we may be referring more to measurement, periodic tests, multiple-choice tests, and paper-and-pencil type tests. These qualities of measurement have commanded the tradition of learning assessment and are still prevalent in today's classrooms. Standardized and norm-referenced tests have been used to meet the demands, not necessarily of teachers and students, but actors external to the classroom.

Tests serve different purposes beyond regular classroom testing. First, tests can be used to measure students' general language competence, known as proficiency tests. Secondly, they can be used to assign students to a determined course or language level at a school program, known as placement tests. Finally, if teachers are concerned with the efficacy of their courses, lessons, or units, they can conduct achievement tests to report how much students have learned. Generally, these sorts of tests are administered at the end of a unit or course (Brown, 2004; Harmer, 2007). Other test types commonly described in the literature, which may resemble the ones just mentioned, are diagnostic tests, progress tests, and admission tests (Carr, 2011).

Testing does not imply a random selection of tasks or items for the sake of testing. It means great preparation from both the test developers (whether large-scale or classroom testing) and the test takers. In the case of classroom testing, it is not something that the teacher does without connecting to the criteria and objectives of the unit or course taught. Teachers need to think of purposes, instruments, feedback, and other relevant factors inherent to testing. As Fulcher and Davidson (2007) claim, the making of a test implies "a particular skill and training in test design" (p. 28).

In response to the tradition of testing, the term 'assessment' has been suggested as a more com-prehensive construct for a type of evaluation that targets performance rather than just receptive skills or grammar and vocabulary knowledge.

What is Assessment?

According to Popham (2008), the term assessment involves "testing students in the midst of an ongoing instructional sequence and then using the test results to improve instruction" (p. 3). For Barkley and Howell (2016), assessment corresponds to "appraisal of the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs that students have acquired, most often as the result of learning in their courses" (p. 24). Brookhart and Nitko (2019) go beyond the realm of the teacher and the student and state that assessment is "a process for obtaining information for making decisions about students; curricula, programs, and schools; and educational policies" (p. 2).

Thus, assessment has been regarded as an evaluation process that transcends the discrete-point approach and targets other impacts and aspects of students' development. It may give us the feeling that the term 'assessment' broadens the perspective of measurement that has been traditionally attributed to 'testing.'

Within the category of assessment, different conceptual dichotomies have emerged, such as quantitative versus qualitative assessment, formal versus informal, traditional versus alternative, and the widely discussed summative versus formative assessment. Some of these distinctions have been suggested due to the nature and characteristics of their evaluative procedures. For instance, most authors refer to summative assessment as the process of measuring students' learning, usually at the end of a period of teaching; while formative assessment has been regarded as a permanent process intended to improve both students' learning and teachers' instruction (Brown, 2004; Carr, 2011; Moss & Brookhart, 2009). Summative assessment usually corresponds to formal assessment, whereas informal assessments can play an important function within the formative assessment. Likewise, summative can be associated with quantitative assessment while formative with more qualitative assessment. The alternative assessment constitutes the promise of choice instead of more traditional assessments such as selected-response type tests.

Recently, a new perspective toward assessment has emerged. According to Shohamy (1998), assessment serves diverse purposes, and educators have developed various strategies to take advantage of every feature for evaluation. This 'multiplism' perspective is intended to orientate the selection of different options on the different assessment phases. Multiplism offers various possibilities when a teacher assesses learners, and these options vary depending on the purpose of the assessment. Shohamy, as one of the leading advocates of multiplism, states that "Assessment is shaped by its specific context, its purposes, the type of knowledge it addresses, the procedure it selects, by the different criteria for determining success, by different interpretation and different ways of reporting results" (p. 258).

The evolution of various teaching methodologies and approaches throughout the second half of the twentieth century has generated the distinctions above between testing and assessment and between the different types of tests and assessments.. We will briefly describe some of those stages in the following section.

Assessment of Learning (AOL) and Assessment for Learning (AFL)

The first uses of the AFL concept appear to occur in the early 90s, but according to William (2010), the term AFL in contraposition to AOL seemed to have been coined by Gipps and Stobart a few years later.

Even though AOL has been associated with summative evaluations and assessment for learning (AFL) with formative evaluations, some authors find discrepancies in these connections. William (2010) cites Black et ál. (2004) to differentiate between AFL and formative assessment:

Assessment for learning is any assessment for which the priority in its design and practice is to serve the purpose of promoting students' learning. It thus differs from assessment designed primarily to serve the purposes of accountability, or of ranking, or of certifying competence. An assessment activity can help learning if it provides information that teachers and their students can use as feedback in assessing themselves and one another and in modifying the teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged. Such assessment becomes "formative assessment" when the evidence is actually used to adapt the teaching work to meet learning needs. (p. 10)

However, the distinctions between formative and summative assessments keep a remarkable resemblance with those between AFL and AOL, mainly in terms of their function; understanding the distinction between AFL and AOL "is pivotal to realizing gains in student achievement" (Chappuis and Stiggins, 2020, p. 26).

According to Chappuis and Stiggins (2020), these constructs bear clear distinctions regarding the reasons for assessing, the audience, the place in time, the primary users, and their typical uses. AFL focuses on student growth and improvement, whereas AOL seeks to document achievement for purposes of reporting or accountability. AFL takes place during learning so that both the teacher can adjust their instructional practices if needed and students can modify or continue with the learning strategies they have been using. Instead, AOL takes place after learning has occurred. In some contexts, especially during final exams, there is not even time to provide students with feedback regarding their performance on particular tasks or their general learning progression. In AOL, the audience and the primary users of the information emerging from the assessment consist more of external agents instead of the students themselves, as in AFL. Likewise, grades, certification, graduation, and promotion issues are primary concerns of AOL (p. 26).

In a nutshell, teachers should plan educational assessment-language assessment in this case-and use the information collected from it as a resource to promote further learning and development. In other words, all assessments conducted in the classroom should be approached as assessment for learning, even if the evaluative procedures and instruments seem to be more aligned to summative assessment. Both AFL and AOL have a place in Classroom-based Assessment (CBA), another important construct in language learning assessment.

Classroom-based Assessment (CBA)

CBA constitutes an assessment paradigm that, in alignment with other constructs such as formative assessment or assessment for learning, has emerged from socio-cultural learning theories, in somehow contraposition to the large-scale psychometric tes-ting. CBA responds to the need to look at assessments that are more internal to the classroom instead of traditional standardized language exams that are distant from its realities.

Assessment theorists have used different labels to describe the assessment that takes place in the classroom and intends to support learning. They have used classroom assessment, teacher assess-ment, performance, alternative assessment, dynamic assessment, among others. Nevertheless, as Turner (2017) points out, "several of these terms when related to classroom activity are used simultaneously with and considered to be an extension of the more general term formative evaluation" (p. 67).

In the process of resorting to multiple sources to evidence students' learning progression, it some times becomes difficult to tell when an action or activity taking place in the classroom corresponds to a simple instructional activity or an evaluative procedure. Many teaching tasks can easily turn into assessment tasks depending on how teachers assume them. Sometimes a grade or score may indicate if the task is indeed an assessment task. This circumstance allows for two types of assessment modes, known as formal and informal assessment (Brown, 2004) or implicit and explicit assessment (Bachman and Dambock, 2017).

According to Brown (2004), informal assessments take several forms and do not necessarily imply recording the result of a performance. On the other hand, formal assessment constitutes more systematic and planned evaluative exercises or procedures (p. 6). For Bachman and Dambock (2017), one of the differences between the implicit and explicit modes lies in that students are unaware that an assessment is taking place on the former. In contrast, on the latter, both the teacher and the students know that the activity corresponds to an assessment (p. 16).

Whether formal or informal, explicit or implicit mode, one of the main considerations to be made in CBA is that teachers use the information they collect about students' learning, through any of the modes, to inform both the learning and the teaching process. Both the decisions and consequences deriving from the assessment must be formative and conducive to improvements for teachers and students.

Studies related to perceptions and beliefs about assessment

There is a vast quantity of research studies devoted to assessment in education. Most research studies focus on showing the effectiveness of formative assessment and the role teachers and students play in this process. A research study conducted by Falchivoke (2004, cited in Mussawy, 2009) showed that significant participation in peer assessment yielded better results in the students' learning process. In the same line of peer assessment, Iseni (2011) conducted a study about noting and reviewing students' errors.

She concluded that peer assessment "can help them become more analytical, and in this way, they learn more and gain an understanding of their progress, they learn how to be critical and analytical, and they engage themselves in metacognition" (p. 70). However, she emphasized the importance of making the assessment process continuous to obtain productive results for learners.

Mussawy's study also determined faculty members' and pre-service teachers' perceptions of classroom assessment. The results showed that most faculty members do not emphasize the formative part of the evaluation but rather focus their attention on the performance measured at the end of the course. In addition, Mussawy (2009) concluded that "students and teachers had a recognition of various forms and purposes of classroom assessment. Besides, both students and the faculty members viewed assessment as activities for educational purposes, not just assigning score or grade.." (p. 59-60).

Herrera and Zambrano (2019) inquired 160 students and five English teachers from a language teacher education Program at a Colombian university about their views on learning assessment, in general, and the assessment practices administered in the different language courses, in particular. They found that even though both teachers and students favor the implementation of formative evaluative practices and that institutional documents state that a formative assessment approach should be followed, there are shreds of evidence of summative evaluative procedures in the Program. The study concluded that the implementation of professional development opportunities on educational assessment, in addition to the incorporation of alternative assessment procedures, could contribute positively with the consolidation of "principles, purposes, functions, forms, means, techniques and evaluation instruments, on which teachers and students, as the main actors of the evaluation process, must coincide, thus avoiding surprises, disagreements, and injustices" (p. 210).

Muñoz, Palacio, and Escobar (2012) found in their study, led at a Colombian language center, a discrepancy between how teachers perceive assessment and the evaluative practices in the classrooms. Teachers regard assessment as a relevant contributor to the teaching and learning process, even more when assessment is assumed from a formative perspective. Nonetheless, summative assessment orientations are still evident in the teachers' comments. The authors recommend professional development opportunities so that teachers can reflect on both their assessment beliefs and practices.

Palacio et ál. (2016) conducted a study to improve testing in a language program at a public school in Colombia. They found that traditional tests harm their program since the format usually followed in tests (fill-in-the-blanks, multiple-choice, and matching) did not show a positive washback on students' learning. Likewise, the nature of these testing instruments does not allow teachers to assess students in a holistic way, which transcends the mere testing of students' subject knowledge. Also, the authors suggested revising the effectiveness of test tasks and items to improve the quality of course testing continuously.

López and Bernal (2009) found that trained teachers tend to view assessment as something integral during the instruction and as a tool that enhances learning. Teachers with no training (pre-service or in-service teachers) expressed negative opinions about assessment; they think that assessment serves only to give an evaluative grade and not a strategy for improving learning. This leaves much to be desired, as future teachers may continue with the same testing instruments without considering new techniques that may help to improve both their teaching practice and their students' learning.

Some studies that have focused on classroom assessment and testing (Areiza, 2013; López and Bernal, 2009; Palacio et al., 2016) have concluded that teachers rely heavily on summative assessment without considering other alternatives to assess students. Moreover, public universities do not offer courses or professional development seminars through their teaching programs to tackle assess-ment issues.

Thus, the present study aimed at identifying students' perceptions and beliefs regarding their language learning assessment process to contribute to the body of knowledge in the area, both in the Colombia context and abroad.

Research Design

Even though this small-scale research study used numerical elements in data analysis, it is predominantly qualitative and descriptive. The study aimed to describe an educational phenomenon (classroom assessment) that has not been quite researched in the targeted language teacher education program. This study sought to identify students' perceptions and beliefs regarding the assessment of their EFL learning process. The study's authors collected the data within the academic setting through semi-structured questionnaires, focus-group interviews, and narratives. All of these instruments were designed by them and revised by peer researchers.

The questionnaires were designed with open-en-ding questions so that students could provide more descriptive responses. The focus-group interviews and narratives complemented the information collected through the questionnaires, allowing us to respond to the research questions better.

Since we talked about perceptions, beliefs, and suggestions, it was imperative to implement a descriptive qualitative approach. In this regard, Creswell (2012) defines qualitative research as:

A means for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. The process of research involves emerging questions and procedures, data typically collected in the participant's setting, data analysis inductively building from particulars to general themes, and the researcher making interpretations of the meaning of the data. (p. 22)

About the quantitative elements, some of the information will be presented in terms of frequencies and percentages. Although the study is predominantly descriptive and qualitative, the combination of quantitative and qualitative elements used in the study offered an invaluable contribution to its analysis.

Particípanos

All of the students from an upper-intermediate English course for both academic terms 2016A and 2016B participated in this study. This is a convenience sample because the professor assigned to these courses is the co-author of this study. The number of participants was 49, and their ages ranged between 18 and 24 years old. Twenty-nine participants were female students, and twenty were male students. Students were given the option to withdraw from participating in any research stage, especially in completing the questionnaires. However, all of the students decided to take part in the study.

As previously stated, the participants have between an intermediate and advanced English proficiency level, according to the Program's placement criteria and courses' denomination. That is to say, they have already undergone different assessments, whether in their English courses or non-language courses, and, therefore, could provide us with reliable opinions regarding the learning assessment processes.

Data Collection

All participants completed a questionnaire that inquired on their experiences with assessments, both in their English courses and the other non-language courses. Then researchers selected groups of five participants for the focus-group interviews. Finally, about ten students volunteered to complete a narrative form with personal concepts and suggestions about the learning assessment process. The instruments were administered in the classroom, the computer lab, and in a teacher's office. They were also delivered at different moments of their educational process; that is, participants completed the forms previous to, while, and after assessments (see Table 1). As previously stated, the authors designed and adjusted these instruments following the revision made by peer researchers.

Following is a more detailed description of the instruments and procedures:

Questionnaire. This instrument consisted of 20 questions, 18 being selected-response type ques-tions, and two personal-response questions. The personal or open-ended questions were intended to provide more descriptive information that closed-ended questions might not have inquired. The questions asked on their definitions of learning assessment, their feelings and attitudes towards assessment, strategies they use to prepare for tests, types of evaluation instruments or modes they pre-fer, and the like. The questionnaire was online and did not take more than 20 minutes for students to complete. Almost all of the students completed the questionnaire in the computer lab during English class.

Focus-group Interviews. Two groups of students per academic term were interviewed. Each interview took about 30 minutes with equal opportunities for all participants (between five and six) to talk and respond to prompts. Between four and five prompts were presented to students inquiring about the topics mentioned in the previous instruments. With this instrument, students could expand on concepts and opinions they did not provide in the questionnaire.

Narratives. About ten students per academic term participated in this research stage. This instrument consisted of three guiding questions that inquired on definitions of learning assessment and suggestions regarding the evaluation process. Participants took about 20 minutes to complete this form.

Ethical Considerations

Their English professor informed students in this study about the type and purpose of the study. It was clarified to students that their names would never be revealed and that this study would affect their educational process in no way. All data, even contained in the online questionnaire, was kept confidential. The online questionnaire did not request their names.

Students' Perceptions of Assessment

Students' perceptions of learning assessment were classified according to two sub-categories: Assessment of Learning (AOL) and Assessment for learning (AFL).

Perceptions of assessment as AOL

Assessment is intended to elicit rote memorization.

Concepts provided by participants evidence the perspective of learning assessment as students' reproduction of information through memorization. The following excerpts, extracted from the different research instruments, support this concept (they are presented in the original language with corresponding translation):

Se miden los conocimientos a nivel memorista esenciales para poder alcanzar otro nivel de conocimiento. (E.S-Q19)

[Knowledge is measured at the memory level, essential to reach a higher level of knowledge.]

Es el recurso mediante el cual se puede saber si aprendiste lo que te ofreció el curso, pero sobre todo si memorizaste cada cosa. (E.S-Q19)

[It's the resource through which you get to know if you learned what the course offered you, but especially if you memorized everything.]

Assessment is regarded as a measurement of students' knowledge. Participants view classroom assessment as an opportunity for both teachers and students to know if the latter has learned the concepts presented throughout the course. The following excerpts support this statement:

Puedo decir que es un elemento que ayuda a medir nuestros conocimientos. (E.S-Q19)

[I can say that it's an element that helps us measure our knowledge.]

Es una medida para valorar el desempeño y el aprendizaje de los estudiantes. (E.S-Q19) [It's a measure to assess students' performance and learning.]

Mecanismos utilizados para evidenciar los niveles de apropiación de un tema. (E.S-Q19)

[Mechanisms used to show the levels of appro-priation of a topic]

From the questionnaire, 85.7 % (see Figure 1) of participants described the assessment as "an opportunity to measure their knowledge and abilities" in response to the question "¿Con cuáles de los siguientes enunciados relacionas la evaluación?" (E.S-Q1).

Figure 1: Students' statements regarding assessment

Perceptions of assessment as AFL

Students' suggestions concerning the assessment process

Students provided the following suggestions regar-ding classroom assessments:

• implementing strategies that help students reduce their level of anxiety

• valuing the entire learning process rather than just the results of testing

• improving the quality of both the test prepa-ration and some elements of the test

• working collaboratively with the teacher to improve classroom assessment practices

• designing assessments that transcend the elicitation of rote memorization