HAN O I U N IVE R SITY

Km 9 Nguyen Trai Road, Thanh Xuan, Hanoi, Vietnam

Telephone:(84-4)3854 4338; Fax:(84-4)3854 4550
E-mail: [email protected]; Website: www.hanu.edu.vn

Family Name: Bui First Name: Lam

Family Name: Bui First Name: Phuong

Unit Title: Language Testing and Assessment

Assignment Title: Alternative Assessments: Theory and Practice

Name of Lecturer: Mr. Trinh Hai An Class: 2PGN51

Date Submitted:
Student Contact Telephone No./Student Email Address:
11th May 2024
Bui Tung Lam: 0393369823 – [email protected]

STUDENT DECLARATION

I DECLARE THAT THIS ASSIGNMENT IS ORIGINAL AND HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR ASSESSMENT
ELSEWHERE.
I DECLARE THAT THIS ASSIGNMENT IS MY OWN WORK AND DOES NOT INVOLVE PLAGIARISM
OR COLLUSION.
I GIVE MY CONSENT FOR THE ELECTRONIC VERSION TO BE EXAMINED BY RELEVANT
PLAGIARISM SOFTWARE PROGRAMS.
I HAVE MADE A PHOTOCOPY OR ELECTRONIC COPY OF MY ASSIGNMENT, WHICH I CAN PRODUCE IF THE
ORIGINAL IS LOST FOR ANY
REASON.

SIGNED: DATED:

1
 MARKS

COMMENTS: .......................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................

Lecturer’s Signature: ..……………………………………… Date: ………………....

2
Table of Contents

A. A review of ten research articles ................................................................................... 5

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 5

II. A review of ten research articles .............................................................................. 5

2.1. The Alternatives in Language Assessment. (Brown & Hudson, 1998). ........... 5

2.2. The role of learners’ test perception in changing English learning practices:
A case of a high-stakes English test at Vietnam National University, Hanoi.
(Nguyen & Nguyen, 2019)............................................................................................ 7

2.3. Illustrating formative assessment in task-based language teaching. (Gan &

Leung, 2019). ................................................................................................................ 8

2.4. Self-assessment of language learning in formal settings (Harris, 1997). ........ 9

2.5. Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. (Zhao,

2014). 10

2.6. Teachers' perspectives on using peer assessment among young EFL learners.
(Yim, 2016). ................................................................................................................ 10

2.7. Self-regulation through portfolio assessment in writing classrooms (Mak &

Wong, 2017)................................................................................................................ 11

2.8. Portfolios in the EFL classroom: Disclosing an informed practice. (Nunes,

2004). 12

2.9. An investigation into EFL teachers’ perceptions of in-class English speaking

assessment. (Nguyen & Tran, 2018). ......................................................................... 13

2.10. Challenges for college English teachers as assessors. (Nguyen, 2022). ......... 13

III. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 15

B. Test evaluation ............................................................................................................ 16

I. Description of the context ...................................................................................... 16

3
 1.1. Teaching context ............................................................................................. 16

1.2. Course objectives ............................................................................................ 16

1.3. Course materials ............................................................................................. 16

1.4. Course contents............................................................................................... 17

II. Test specifications .................................................................................................. 22

2.1. Test context and test purpose. ........................................................................ 22

2.2. Test content and construct.............................................................................. 22

III. Analysis and evaluation of the validity of the test ............................................. 23

3.1. Content validity .............................................................................................. 23

3.2. Construct validity. .......................................................................................... 25

3.3. Face validity .................................................................................................... 27

3.4. Validity in scoring ........................................................................................... 27

Reference list ...................................................................................................................... 28

4
A. A review of ten research articles

I. Introduction

Language testing and assessment have increasingly gained more significance,

especially in the current context of globalization that requires students’ language
proficiency. This demands the development of different methods to evaluate the student’s
language abilities, including both traditional and alternative assessments. Based on that
context, this literature review is written to analyze ten relevant articles made by researchers
and educators worldwide to examine the definitions and forms of alternative language
assessment measures and practical applications before concluding by drawing a link
between the findings of the researched articles.

II. A review of ten research articles

2.1. The Alternatives in Language Assessment. (Brown & Hudson, 1998).

This study is a comprehensive introduction to alternative assessment

methods, arguing the reliability and validity, their categories and potential effects,
and exploring application strategies.

The writers first doubt the credibility and validity of these measures and claim that
these strategies are not enough. They argue that to be effective, the strategies require
careful design, pilot, examination, and revision for improvements, and thinking that
alternative language assessment methods are automatically reliable and valid can affect the
decision-making process negatively.

The study then continues by identifying different alternative strategies for language
assessment, namely selected-response, constructed-response, and personal response,
each comes with its advantages and disadvantages.

Selected-response assessments involve True-False questions, Matching

questions, and Multiple-choice questions. Students are required to pick the accurate
answers from a given list of options. This method is suitable for measuring receptive skills,
namely listening, and reading. While they are objective and generally easy to administer

5
and score, these alternatives are not easy to produce and do not offer much assessment of
language production abilities. Moreover, there are drawbacks of the guessing factor of
True-False and Matching questions, or the limited range of knowledge tested.

The second type of assessment is Constructed-Response, including Fill-in, Short

answer, and performance exercises, in which students are asked to produce language
which makes them suitable for assessing students’ productive skills and the effects between
different skills. While Fill-in and Short-answer questions are generally easy to produce and
quick to administer, the performance tasks allow students to experience nearly
authentic communications. However, the Fill-in and Short exercises usually suffer from a
narrow focus and the risk of having multiple possible answers, and the performance tasks
can be difficult to produce and possibly lack reliability and validity.

The remaining assessments are conferences, portfolios, and self-and peer

assessments, categorized as Personal-Response Assessments. While these methods allow
teachers to evaluate individual students, can be integrated into the curriculum, and provide
continual assessments, they can be quite demanding to produce, organize, and score.

The study concludes by first presenting both the positive and negative effects of
washback. Secondly, it states the importance of feedback in giving educators useful
information and gives ways to improve feedback quality. Finally, it stresses the need to
utilize multiple sources of information in the assessment process.

6
2.2. The role of learners’ test perception in changing English learning practices: A
case of a high-stakes English test at Vietnam National University, Hanoi.
(Nguyen & Nguyen, 2019).

This article examines the effects of students’ perceptions of the VSTEP test on their
English learning activities at Vietnam National University (VNU), Hanoi. It collects
answers through a 2-part questionnaire, asking about the students’ opinion of the test and
their learning strategies using the Likert-type scale. The study employs Exploratory Factor
Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, and Structural Equation Modeling.

Regarding the washback effect of test pressure, students mostly depend on rumors
from senior students and the available VSTEP training materials to determine the test’s
difficulty and significance. Moreover, the pressure also encourages students to choose test-
focused materials and strategies, limiting their education and overall lingual abilities. The
results also demonstrate a lack of students’ confidence in the provided education at
university. This necessitates the development of suitable learning activities
that provide both practical language experience and preparation for high-stakes tests.

While a better understanding of the test is often associated with better performance,
the study finds that most students are oblivious to the structure and aim of the test, which
indicates a problem with the current English curriculum and calls for revision and
improvements.

This study shows that a conventional high-stakes testing method may

pose serious risks and negatively influence the learning habits of students, which can
further affect their language proficiency. Consequently, besides similar types of
assessment, the reviewer proposes the consideration of other alternative assessment forms
that are low stake, happen continually instead of periodically, and focus on assessment for
learning in language education.

7
2.3. Illustrating formative assessment in task-based language teaching. (Gan &
Leung, 2019).

To demonstrate how formative assessment or giving feedback can be used in task-

based-language teaching, the study discusses the concepts of formative assessment and
task-based language teaching before focusing on the application of formative assessment
in a three-stage structure teaching prepositions of time from the English Language
Education Key Learning Area Curriculum Guide in Hong Kong.

In the pre-task section, the students are given different tasks that provide
information on the desired outcome, test and improve the student’s abilities, and encourage
interactive formative assessments. Moreover, this allows the students to utilize what they
have learned to communicate and the teachers to participate in these conversations, identify
their students’ abilities, and give instructions accordingly.

During the performance, the teacher acts as a supporter, helping with students’
brainstorming. This can encourage students’ collaboration while providing further
understanding of the task’s nature. Through peers and the teacher’s feedback, the students
also have an opportunity to realize their strengths and weaknesses, thus enhancing the
quality of their product.

The implementation of formative assessment in post-task activities usually helps

students stimulate their further learning and consolidate the learned items.

The study believes that through the implementation of formative assessments in

task-based activities, the students can gain understanding as they partake in formative
conversations and different aspects of their learning process can also be enhanced.
Nevertheless, because of the potential issues from misunderstanding, proper teacher
training is needed for formative assessment to be used efficiently.

While the study has managed to review the literature comprehensively, analyze the
associated challenges and complexities critically with authentic examples, and integrate
feedback and dialogue, it was slightly overgeneralized, downplayed the involving

8
challenges, providing little discussion of the challenges and supportive evidence that
evaluated the impact of formative assessment.

2.4. Self-assessment of language learning in formal settings (Harris, 1997).

This research aims to explore the potential effects and implementation of self-
assessment in format settings. It starts by proposing different challenges that hinder the
usage of self-assessment in formal education settings, including limited learning
objectives, large class sizes, and the culture-rooted consideration about learning conflicting
with the aims of communicative foreign language learning.

Despite those restrictions, self-assessment is becoming increasingly important due

to its multiple benefits. Firstly, diagnostic self-assessment promotes active learning by
allowing learners to identify their strengths and shortcomings, and then encourage them to
personally seek potential strategies to improve their performance. Moreover, self-
assessment at the end of the course can also encourage students to realize their goals and
progress.

Through proper self-assessment instructions, the students can also change their
perception of progress. The first difference is a shift from a focus on the knowledge to the
actual ability to use the language. Additionally, this allows learners to realize their progress
in terms of communication, removing the potential frustration from a “learning plateaux”
as they perceive an increase in errors as an attempt to acquire new skills, not failures. From
these, the students can review their communication development and consequently plan
future strategies.

In a formal classroom where individual teacher assessment can be limited, self-

assessment can be an excellent tool that advances all other informal assessments. To be
effective, self-assessment needs to accommodate the time, equipment, and schedule of
language classrooms, which requires it to be integrated into the classroom activities. The
assessment must be tailored to meet the student’s level, and the students should receive
proper training for the assessment to be efficient. If done well, it can become a helpful tool
to promote other learning activities.

9
2.5. Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. (Zhao,
2014).

This study explores the effective implementation of peer assessment, collecting data
from an EFL writing class at a China university with 18 students. The collected and
analyzed data include peer feedback, teacher opinions about said feedback, how
the feedback is used, and students’ views on the use of peer assessment with teacher
support, which involves student training, feedback analysis and comment, and conflict
resolution.

While the training can improve the effectiveness and nature of the feedback,
teachers’ comments influence its reliability and validity and encourage its usage in
students’ revision. Peer feedback with teacher support also receives favorable comments
from students, claiming it helps them improve their writing, creates a better understanding
between teachers and students, and more communication opportunities between students
due to similarity in level and backgrounds. All of these promote the usage of peer
assessment in an educational context.

However, there also exists a risk of peer assessment effectiveness being overly
influenced by teachers’ comments. This requires clear instructions on the interpretation
of teachers’ opinions and their importance for their next work.

2.6. Teachers' perspectives on using peer assessment among young EFL learners.
(Yim, 2016).

This study focuses on the willingness of teachers to use peer assessment for their
young learners in the context of assessment for learning becoming more prevalent.

It employs a survey involving 82 primary school teachers in Korea with different

genders and teaching experiences, both English and non-English, constructed on the theory
of behavior framework. The 24 items in the survey are categorized into attitude, subjective
norm, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intention, and both quantitative
(descriptive statistics) and qualitative (content) data analysis methods are used.

10
 From the quantitative analysis, it seems the teachers are generally positive about
peer assessment in Writing lessons, with attitude and perceived behavioral control being
the influential features. From the open-ended responses, the teachers are aware that peer
assessment increases self-reflection and awareness of mistakes and is a valuable method
for improving writing abilities. However, there exist concerns regarding the varying
English proficiency levels of students and a lack of preparation that requires additional
training to avoid problems such as bullying.

In general, the study has a sound framework based on Ajzen’s Theory of

Planned Behavior, the methodology and data analysis of the study validate its findings.
However, besides surveys, there should be interviews involving different stakeholders,
namely students, teachers, parents, and policymakers, for comprehensiveness.

2.7. Self-regulation through portfolio assessment in writing classrooms (Mak &

Wong, 2017).

This study explores how self-regulation can be fostered through portfolio

assessment (PA) in elementary writing classrooms and its effects. It collects data by
interviewing two teachers and 69 students in Hong Kong, observing classrooms, and taking
field notes based on Pintrich’s 4-step cyclical model. Afterward, a qualitative, inductive,
and iterative approach was used, both individually and collectively, to analyze the findings
and ensure their reliability.

The first step of the process provides students with instructional scaffolding while
encouraging self-regulation by setting manageable goals. The next steps involve several
types of assessment and revision based on certain criteria to help students reflect on their
work and monitor progress.

Using PA in the classroom helps students increase learning autonomy and

awareness of goals, improve their ability to make evaluations of and monitor their product,
enhance their autonomy and manage feedback, and raise their willingness for self-
reflection.

11
 The article provides helpful evidence on how PA can help students self-regulate in
education and its effects, and the teachers’ roles in achieving that, which necessitates the
teachers’ professional development.

2.8. Portfolios in the EFL classroom: Disclosing an informed practice. (Nunes,

2004).

To prove the effectiveness of using portfolios in EFL classrooms, an educator in a

Portuguese high school conducted a study with sixteen 10th-grade students, requiring them
to produce portfolios based on the introduction and instructions of the teacher. The
study requires the use of portfolios to be continually dialogic and reflective, which the
study conductor achieved using questionnaires asking the students to reflect on four
categories, namely syllabus, instruction, learning, and assessment. The students could use
samples from multiple sources, including anything considered important to their language
acquisition process.

Fourteen out of the sixteen original students managed to produce portfolios of their
work. Data analysis reveals that using portfolios allowed students to have different-level
interactions which can bring better relationships between the students and their teachers,
strengthen the student’s strengths and weaknesses, and encourage them to learn from
others. Moreover, while the collected data brings the students more learning autonomy and
enhances their metacognitive strategies, it also helps teachers understand their students’
preferences, design future teaching, and make teaching decisions.

Despite having provided clear materials and references, used comprehensible

language, and succeeded in proving the effectiveness of using portfolios in a classroom
context, the study still suffers from some shortcomings, namely the small scale of the
research, the lack of a clear grading system and the non-inclusion of all the students, posing
a potential shortage of comprehensiveness. Moreover, the study was unnecessarily time-
consuming due to instructional problems, which could have easily been avoided.

12
2.9. An investigation into EFL teachers’ perceptions of in-class English speaking
assessment. (Nguyen & Tran, 2018).

This study discusses teachers’ understanding of English-speaking assessment in

Vietnamese classroom setting by giving questionnaires with descriptive to 42 EFL teachers
statistics and interviewing five of them, asking about their general understanding of the
task, possible activities, and their roles in the application.

It was discovered that the teachers were generally positive about the speaking
assignment, appropriately understanding its importance and aims. They also prefer giving
formative feedback to summative assessment.

Regarding the task types, while tasks providing interactions such as interviews or
role-plays were favored, portfolios were not utilized due to a lack of knowledge, and self-
assessment was also dismissed as the teachers questioned its reliability.

The teachers’ contribution can be seen in the three parts of an English-speaking

assignment, including the pre-, while-, and post-stage. The pre-stage requires teachers
to make careful preparations for the activity with suitable tasks, appropriate criteria for
assessment, and a clear introduction of said criteria to the students. During the while-stage,
teachers should perform recordings while assessing students’ performance based on the
predetermined criteria. It is also suggested that the teachers should not overly emphasize
the students’ grammatical errors in this part. In the post-stage, the teachers are expected to
give both feedback and marks, focusing on the former while being careful with the
delivery so as not to hurt the student’s feelings.

2.10. Challenges for college English teachers as assessors. (Nguyen, 2022).

This study explores the teachers’ roles in language assessment, their challenges, and
resolutions. It relies on the Activity Theory as the main framework, collecting data from
the written and oral narratives from three different teachers, only one of which had had
prior basic assessment training before starting his career, in an outcome-based English
program. The data was collected in two months, following different steps, namely the
transcription of oral narratives, coding, and categorizing them into 6 types.

13
 Data analysis reveals several findings. Regarding the challenges, these teachers
suffer due to a shortage of assessment literacy, an inadequacy of common information and
inconsistent grading criteria, and a lack of occupational training and discussion. The
teacher participants mainly rely on the provided training, discussions, and practice
opportunities to solve these mentioned issues, without actively seeking to better their
assessment quality. As stated above, the provided resources are usually not enough or fail
to meet the demands of the teachers, making them ineffective. The study suggests that there
should be collaborations between different components and involved parties, namely the
teachers, the assessor community, and the institutions for the challenges to be met.

Overall, the study succeeded in identifying the challenges faced by teachers in

language assessment based on a sound theoretical framework while presenting and
commenting on the solutions employed by the teacher participants. However, there are also
some existing issues. Firstly, the low number of participants may limit the
comprehensiveness of the study. Secondly, the study failed to propose clear suggestions to
help address the issues. These necessitate more future studies into the matter to make the
process more effective.

14
III. Conclusion

These ten articles, while each study focuses on different aspects of assessment,
collectively contribute to the understanding of alternative assessment practices and their
effects on teaching and learning. While the study by Brown & Hudson (1998) discuss
alternative assessment in general, the study by Nguyen & Nguyen (2019) provides
evidence on the problems of relying on conventional and summative assessment methods,
highlighting the needs for alternative assessment methods. The ones by Gan & Leung
(2020) and Harris (1997) emphasize the importance of formative assessment and feedback
in improving learning outcomes. At the same time, the studies of Zhao (2014) and Yim
(2016) examine the benefits and challenges of incorporating peer assessment into language
classrooms. The role of self-assessment in promoting learner autonomy and metacognitive
strategies is examined through the study of Harris (1997) again and the ones by Mak &
Wong (2017), and Nunes (2004). Moreover, the studies by Nguyen & Tran (2018) and
Nguyen (2022) focus on teachers' perceptions of assessment strategy alternatives and the
obstacles they face in implementing these measures effectively.

They also emphasize the importance of adopting a variety of assessment methods

to support effective teaching and learning, while stressing the demand for ongoing
professional development to address the noted challenges and enhance the effectiveness
and usage of language assessment alternatives in language education.

15
 B. Test evaluation

I. Description of the context

1.1. Teaching context

The test is used as part of an evaluation system for an English course lasting 35 weeks,
catering to an average of 40 6th-grade Vietnamese students. These students generally have an
A1 and pre-A2 proficiency level, representing a basic understanding of the English language
and fundamental skills.

Throughout the course, assessments are carefully organized after every 2 to 3 units or
10 lessons. Later lessons provide a revision of earlier ones, and the tests act as a monitor of
students’ progress and report to the parents, strengthen their knowledge, and identify students’
strengths and weaknesses for appropriate education planning.

1.2. Course objectives

The course aims to fulfill two sets of objectives: one from the Vietnamese Ministry of
Education and Training and one from the training department of the school. It consolidates
students’ understanding of A1-level English while providing fundamental A2-level knowledge
concerning the writing skills, particularly paraphrasing, sentence forming, and paragraph
construction.

1.3. Course materials

The course uses the book “Tiếng Anh 6 Friends Plus – Student Book” as the main
material, tailoring the course following the organization and structure of the book’s content.
This book was written based on the General education program in English at the junior high
school level and officially accepted for the education of the target students by the Ministry of
Education and Training of Vietnam.

The material covers an extensive and comprehensive range of topics and tasks
appropriate to both the level and maturity of the mentioned learners, ensuring the systematic
and efficient acquisition of both language and lingual abilities suitable to the A1 to A2 levels,
meeting both the education and communicative needs of the students.

16
 1.4. Course contents.

Each unit in the course has clear objectives with suitable tasks to meet the demands and
interests of the students. At the end of the course are additional contents, including quizzes,
puzzles, and songs to motivate students.

The course involves a revision of the learned knowledge and eight main units, namely
Towns and Cities; Days; Wildlife; Learning World; Food and Health; Sports; Growing Up;
and Going Away. (Tran et. al, 2022). The structure of the course is as follows:

FIRST SEMESTER

Week The program issued by the Ministry The school’s advanced supplementary
of Education and Training program

Lesson Content Lesson Content

1. 1. Starter unit- Vocabulary 1. Starter unit: Vocabulary-Phonetics
2. Starter unit- Language focus 2. Starter unit: Language focus 1
3. Starter Unit. Vocabulary
2. 4. Starter Unit. Vocabulary- 3. Starter unit Language focus 2
Language focus
5. Unit 1: Towns and cities- 4. Starter unit: Reading and
Vocabulary Vocabulary
6. Unit 1: Towns and cities-
Reading
3. 7. Unit 1: Towns and cities- 5. Unit 1: Towns and cities-
Language focus Vocabulary-Phonetics
8. Unit 1: Towns and cities- 6. Unit 1: Towns and cities- Language
Vocabulary and listening focus
9. Unit 1: Towns and cities-
Language focus
4. 10. Unit 1: Towns and cities- 7. Unit 1: Towns and cities- Language
Speaking focus
11. Unit 1: Towns and cities- 8. Unit 1: Towns and cities- Reading
Writing and Vocabulary
12. Unit 1: Towns and cities-
Writing
5. 13. Unit 1: Towns and cities: 9. Unit 1: Towns and cities- Speaking
CLIL and Listening
14. Unit 1: Towns and cities: 10. Unit 1: Towns and cities- Writing
Consolidation

17
 15. Unit 2: Days - Vocabulary
6. 16. Unit 2: Days- Reading 11. Unit 1: Towns and cities-
Consolidation
17. Unit 2: Days-Language 12. Unit 2: Days- Vocabulary-
focus Phonetics
18. Unit 2: Days-Vocabulary
and listening
7. 19. Unit 2: Days-Language 13. Unit 2: Days- Language focus 1
focus
20. Unit 2: Days- Speaking 14. Unit 2: Days- Language focus 2
21. Unit 2: Days - Writing
8. 22. Unit 2: Days-Writing 15. Unit 2: Days- Reading and
Vocabulary
23. Unit 2: CLIL 16. Unit 2: Days- Listening and
24. Unit 2: Consolidation speaking
9. 25. Review 1 17. Unit 2: Days-Writing
26. Review 1 18. Unit 2: Days- Consolidation
27. Review 1
10. 28. Mid-term test 19. Review 1
29. Unit 3: Wild life - 20. Review 1
Vocabulary
30. Unit 3: Wild life- Reading
11. 31. Unit 3: Wild life- Language 21. Unit 3: Wild life-Vocabulary and
focus phonetics
32. Unit 3: Wild life- 22. Unit 3: Wild life- Language focus 1
Vocabulary and listening
33. Unit 3: Wild life- Language
focus
12. 34. Test correction 23. Unit 3: Wild life- Language focus 2
35. Unit 3: Wild life- Speaking 24. Unit 3: Wild life- Reading and
36. Unit 3: Wild life- Writing vocabulary
13. 37. Unit 3: Wild life- Writing 25. Unit 3: Wild life- Listening and
speaking
38. Unit 3: Wild life- CLIL 26. Unit 3: Wild life- Writing
39. Unit 3: Wild life-
Consolidation
14. 40. Unit 4: Learning world- 27. Unit 3: Wild life- Consolidation
Vocabulary
41. Unit 4: Learning world- 28. Unit 4: Learning world -
Reading Vocabulary and phonetics
42. Unit 4: Learning world-
Language focus

18
15. 43. Unit 4: Learning world- 29. Unit 4: Learning world- Language
Vocabulary and listening focus 1
44. Unit 4: Learning world- 30. Unit 4: Learning world- Language
Language focus focus 2
45. Unit 4: Learning world-
Speaking
16. 46. Unit 4: Learning world – 31. Unit 4: Learning world- Reading
Writing and vocabulary
47. Unit 4: Learning world - 32. Unit 4: Learning world- Listening
Writing and speaking
48. Unit 4: Learning world-
CLIL
17. 49. Unit 4: Learning world: 33. Unit 4: Learning world- Writing
Consolidation
50. Progress review 2 34. Unit 4: Learning world-
51. Progress review 2 Consolidation

18. 52. Progress review 2 35. REVIEW 2

53. Final term test 36. REVIEW 2
54. First-term test correction

19
 SECOND SEMESTER

Week
The program issued by the Ministry The school’s advanced supplementary
of Education and Training program

Lesson Content Lesson Content

19. Unit 5: Food and health - Unit 5: Food and health –
55. 37.
Vocabulary Vocabulary - Phonetics
Unit 5: Food and health -
56.
Reading Unit 5: Food and health -
38.
Unit 5: Food and health - Language focus 1
57.
Language focus
20. Unit 5: Food and health - Unit 5: Food and health -
58. 39.
Vocabulary and listening Language focus 2
Unit 5: Food and health -
59.
Language focus Unit 5: Food and health -
40.
Unit 5: Food and health - Reading and Vocabulary
60.
Speaking
21. Unit 5: Food and health - Unit 5: Food and health -
61. 41.
Writing Speaking and Listening
Unit 5: Food and health -
62.
Writing Unit 5: Food and health -
42.
Unit 5: Food and health - Writing
63.
CLIL
22. Unit 5: Food and health - Unit 5: Food and health -
64. 43.
Consolidation Consolidation
65. Unit 6: Sports - Vocabulary
Unit 6: Sports - Reading 44. Unit 6: Sports: Vocabulary -
66.
Phonetics
23. Unit 6: Sports - Language Unit 6: Sports - Language focus
67. 45.
focus 1
Unit 6: Sports - Vocabulary
68.
and listening Unit 6: Sports - Language focus
46.
Unit 6: Sports - Language 2
69.
focus
24. Unit 6: Sports - Speaking Unit 6: Sports - Reading and
70. 47. Vocabulary

71. Unit 6: Sports - Writing

Unit 6: Sports - Writing 48. Unit 6: Sports - Speaking and
72.
Listening
25. 73. Unit 6: Sports - CLIL 49. Unit 6: Sports - Writing

20
 Unit 6: Sports -
74.
Consolidation 50. Unit 6: Sports - Consolidation
75. Progress review 3
26. 76. Progress review 3 51. Progress review 3
77. Progress review 3 Progress review 3
52.
78. Midterm test 2
27. Unit 7: Growing up - Progress review 3
79. 53.
Vocabulary
Unit 7: Growing up - Unit 7: Growing up -
80.
Reading Vocabulary-Phonetics
54.
Unit 7: Growing up -
81.
Language focus
28. Unit 7: Growing up - Unit 7: Growing up - Language
82. 55.
Vocabulary and listening focus 1
Unit 7: Growing up - Unit 7: Growing up - Language
83.
Language focus 56. focus 2
84. Test correction
29. Unit 7: Growing up - Unit 7: Growing up - Reading
85. 57.
Speaking and Vocabulary
86. Unit 7: Growing up - Writing Unit 7: Growing up - Speaking
58.
87. Unit 7: Growing up - Writing and Listening
30. 88. Unit 7: Growing up - Culture 59. Unit 7: Growing up - Writing
Unit 7: Growing up - Unit 7: Growing up -
89.
Consolidation Consolidation
60.
Unit 8: Going away -
90.
Vocabulary
31. Unit 8: Going away - Unit 8: Going away -
91. 61.
Reading Vocabulary-Phonetics
Unit 8: Going away - Unit 8: Going away - Language
92.
Language focus focus 1
62.
Unit 8: Going away -
93.
Vocabulary and listening
32. Unit 8: Going away - Unit 8: Going away - Language
94. 63.
Language focus focus 2
Unit 8: Going away - Unit 8: Going away - Reading
95.
Speaking 64. and Vocabulary
96. Unit 8: Going away - Writing
33. Unit 8: Going away - Writing Unit 8: Going away - Speaking
97. 65.
and Listening
98. Unit 8: Going away - Culture Unit 8: Going away - Writing
Unit 8: Going away - 66.
99.
Consolidation
34. Progress review 4 Unit 8: Going away -
100. 67.
Consolidation

21
 101. Progress review 4 Progress review 4
68.
102. Progress review 4
35. 103. Progress review 4 69. Progress review 4
104. Final term test Progress review 4
70.
105. Final term test correction
II. Test specifications

2.1. Test context and test purpose.

The test is a formative assessment of learning conducted every three units, equivalent
to around 10 lessons, and used on a large scale (all 6th graders in the school must take the test).
The test is conducted to measure the student’s abilities by examining their utilization of the
learned writing skills, relevant vocabulary, and grammatical features, which allows teachers to
provide timely feedback and suggestions and to develop appropriate teaching strategies to help
consolidate their strengths and address their weaknesses.

2.2. Test content and construct.

2.2.1. Text length

While the text length is not clearly stated in the test production instruction, the length of
the text is minimal, involving mostly instructions and suggestions, while providing students
with more writing opportunities. Specifically, the content of the test includes 177 words on
one page.

2.2.2. Timing

The test employs an integrative assessment method, testing the student’s writing skills,
grammatical understanding, and topic-related vocabulary. The students are given a total of 45
minutes, and they are free to divide the time among the questions.

2.2.3. Test structure and number of questions.

There are a total of 6 questions in the test. While the first writing task has three
paraphrasing questions based on the suggestions, the second requires the students to write two
sentences using a particular grammatical item, and the last test item involves writing a short

22
descriptive paragraph about a certain animal. These aim to test the student’s ability to apply
the learned knowledge, including vocabulary and grammatical items, to writing.

2.2.4. Sub-skills examined.

The test is used to evaluate the student’s writing progress and abilities after unit 3, in
week 13, in lesson 39. The targeted sub-skills are paraphrasing, grammar usage at the sentence
level (superlative comparison), and paragraph construction.

2.2.5. Topics tested.

As stated above, the test is conducted after unit 3 in the course, checking the students’
understanding of the topic of Wildlife. The related vocabulary involves the terms and
descriptive adjectives for both common and possibly uncommon animals and their actions.

2.2.6. Language element

Regarding grammatical features, the test involves questions testing the student’s
understanding and usage of superlative adjectives and relevant descriptive structures.

III. Analysis and evaluation of the validity of the test

3.1. Content validity

3.1.1. Topic

The topic of the unit (Wildlife) is present in all questions. Particularly, while the first
task requires students to rewrite sentences describing three different animals with superlative
adjectives, the second task involves the students using superlative adjectives to construct their
sentences. Finally, the final task is writing a paragraph describing a particular animal (the
cheetah). Although some animals mentioned might be uncommon in real life, the students are
supposed to have been familiar with them through the mentioned unit, which makes the
vocabulary items, and consequently the questions, manageable to them.

3.1.2. Text length

The length of the given test is aligned with the common length of the writing tasks and
mock tests given to them in daily class activities. This ensures that the content of the test is

23
manageable and familiar to the students and removes external factors that could affect their
results, such as potential fatigue caused by unnecessarily lengthy texts or unfamiliarity.

3.1.3. Vocabulary level

Since the targeted students are at the A1 level, the test items also mostly employ A1
vocabulary related to the given topics to make it manageable and familiar to them, with
occasional usage of A2 vocabulary items. Vocabulary items in B1 to C1 levels are also utilized,
but they account for only insignificant portions. The result collected from the Oxford Test
Checker online tool demonstrates as follows:

24
 According to the results, the test fulfills the vocabulary requirements of the test and the
course, as it can track the students’ understanding of A1- and beginning-A2-level vocabulary.

3.2. Construct validity.

3.2.1. Time

The total test lasts 45 minutes, an amount standard in most one-lesson tests in Vietnam’s
secondary schools. However, because of a lack of a suggested distribution of time for each
task, the students may spend too long on one task and not enough on others, which affects the
total effectiveness of the evaluation because of unreasonable time management instead of the
student’s actual abilities. Moreover, considering the length of the test and the number of test
items, the reviewers think that the given test time is unreasonably lengthy. To address this
issue, there should be more test items added. .

3.2.2. Types of tasks

The test monitors different writing-related skills of students by three types of tasks:
paraphrasing, sentence construction, and paragraph construction. These seem reasonable to the
current language ability of the students while providing diversity, which helps test the student’s
different related skills and avoids boredom.

However, there is a risk of talented students producing multiple possible answers. This
inconsistency may lead to questions among students and difficulties for teachers in the
correction, grading, and explanation processes.

3.2.3. Test item design.

The questions are generally designed to meet the requirements of both the institutions
and the students, are suitable to the student’s language needs, and are familiar with their
practices in ordinary classes. They allow students to put what they have learned into practice
and measure their strengths and weaknesses accordingly. Specifically, as mentioned above, the
questions are diverse with paraphrasing tasks, sentence formation with a specific grammatical
item, and paragraph construction, which the students have been frequently with, and cover the
topics of Wildlife that the students have learned in the previous lessons. Nevertheless, there
exist several problems in the construction of some questions. They are as follows:

25
For the second task:

“II. Write two superlative sentences about the topic “Wild animals”. (2pts)

1. ....................................................................................................................................

2. ................................................................................................................................... ”,

while the instruction clearly states the objective grammatical item tested (superlative
comparison), it is overly general (two sentences about the topic “Wild Animals”) and
consequently provides inadequate guidance, which may confuse the students regarding what
they should write about, and this could affect the final result. For the reviewers, the task should
be adjusted, for example, to:

“II. Write two sentences using superlative adjectives to describe the animal that stands
out. Look at the example: (2pts)

Example: (Giraffes, wolfs, dogs, tigers) – Giraffes are the tallest animals.

1 (Elephants, chickens, rabbits, cats) ..............................................................................

2.(Cheetahs, turtles, snails) ............................................................................................. ”

Overall, while most of the test content matches the topics and requirements, some have
instructional problems that can affect students’ ability to produce accurate or desirable
answers, regardless of their English competence.

3.2.4. Sub-skills tested

The first section manages to examine the paraphrasing skills of the students, while the
second items check whether they can produce sentences with the required grammar aspect. In
the last Writing item, the understanding of the grammar features, sentence formation, and
paragraph organization and formation are all tested. These are aligned with the course’s
objectives and could measure the students’ sub-skills accurately, yet the reviewers believe that
there should be more questions in the first and second sections to ensure the student’s ability
further.

26
 3.2.5. Test items allocation.

The test items are distributed evenly between the three sections, with a diverse range
of task items used. This is aligned with the test production instruction from the institution and
the course objectives, and to the reviewers, this distribution is suitable and appropriate to the
students’ levels.

3.3. Face validity

This is achieved if a test seems as if it can accurately measure what it claims to. This
test has met this requirement as it employs various tasks and successfully evaluates different
factors of students’ language understanding regarding superlative comparison and their writing
abilities obtained from the previously learned units. However, to ensure better face
validity, some issues mentioned must be addressed by replacing or adjusting the instructions
provided.

3.4. Validity in scoring

For this specific test, the questions are all performance-based, which means the scoring
can evaluate the student’s language understanding compared to the commonly seen selected-
response assessment. Their work is graded on a 10-point scale, with each item in the first and
second sections worth one point and the essay in the third worth three points. This distribution
is quite reasonable as the third task is the most challenging. However, in these questions, there
is a risk that spelling may influence the scoring, which deviates from the original objectives.
Moreover, the sentence and paragraph formation tasks can make the scoring potentially
subjective, affecting the final score given by the teacher. The reviewers recommend a targeted
scoring from the teachers, focusing on the student's accurate use of the superlative comparison,
sentence structure, and coherent paragraph organization to ensure scoring validity.

27
 Reference list

Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (1998). The Alternatives in Language Assessment. TESOL
Quarterly, 32(4), 653. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587999

Gan, Z., & Leung, C. (2019). Illustrating formative assessment in task-based language
teaching. ELT Journal, 74(1), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz048

Harris, M. (1997). Self-assessment of language learning in formal settings. ELT

Journal, 51(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/51.1.12

Hughes, A. (2002). Testing for Language Teachers.

https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511732980

Mak, P., & Wong, K. M. (2017). Self-regulation through portfolio assessment in writing
classrooms. ELT Journal, 72(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx012

Nguyen, T. C. (2022). CHALLENGES FOR COLLEGE ENGLISH TEACHERS AS

ASSESSORS. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 38(5). https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-
2445/vnufs.4817

Nguyen, T. L., & Nguyen, T. N. (2019). THE ROLE OF LEARNERS’ TEST PERCEPTION
IN CHANGING ENGLISH LEARNING PRACTICES: A CASE OF A HIGH-
STAKES ENGLISH TEST AT VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI. VNU
Journal of Foreign Studies, 35(6). https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4481

Nguyen, H. H. T., & Tran, T. T. N. (2018). An Investigation Into Efl Teachers’ Perceptions of
In-Class English Speaking Assessment. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies.

Nunes, A. (2004). Portfolios in the EFL classroom: disclosing an informed practice. ELT
Journal, 58(4), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.4.327

Vu, V. X. (2021). Tiếng Anh 6 Friend Plus Student Book (C. B. N. Tran, Ed.) [Review of Tiếng
Anh 6 Friend Plus Student Book]. VIETNAM EDUCATION PUBLISHING HOUSE.

Yim, S. Y. (2016). Teachers’ perspectives on using peer assessment among young EFL
learners. JLTA Journal, 19(0), 15.

28
Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT
Journal, 68(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct068

29
 Introduction.docx
by Lam Bui Tung

Submission date: 11-May-2024 10:58PM (UTC+0700)

Submission ID: 2376822149
File name: Introduction.docx (108.21K)
Word count: 5937
Character count: 33424
 3

1
9

1
10

8
 11

12

2
3
4
7
4
6
5

5
Introduction.docx
ORIGINALITY REPORT

3 %
SIMILARITY INDEX
2%
INTERNET SOURCES
0%
PUBLICATIONS
2%
STUDENT PAPERS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1
Submitted to Macquarie University
Student Paper <1 %
2
academic.oup.com
Internet Source <1 %
3
archive.ecml.at
Internet Source <1 %
4
worldwidescience.org
Internet Source <1 %
5
Submitted to Hanoi University
Student Paper <1 %
6
Submitted to Universiti Sains Malaysia
Student Paper <1 %
7
js.vnu.edu.vn
Internet Source <1 %
8
www.frontiersin.org
Internet Source <1 %
9
Submitted to Cornerstone University
Student Paper <1 %
10
www.researchgate.net
Internet Source <1 %
11
nlist.inflibnet.ac.in
Internet Source <1 %
12
Hanoi National University of Education
Publication <1 %

Exclude quotes On Exclude matches < 5 words

Exclude bibliography On