AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ PRACTICE

Language teaching methodology

256

AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ PRACTICE

OF EFL WRITING ASSESSMENT

Truong Thi Anh*

Nguyen Ho Hoang Thuy

University of Foreign Languages, Hue University

Abstract: This study aimed to explore the teachers’ practice of EFL writing

assessment at some upper secondary schools in Quang Tri province, Vietnam. For this

purpose, the study adopted a mixed-methods approach. Sixty EFL teachers from

sixteen schools responded to a five-point Likert scale questionnaire, ten of them

participated in subsequent interview sessions and five teachers shared their students’

assessment writing papers. Empirical data indicated that teachers often used five

criteria of content, organization, language use, vocabulary and mechanics in

evaluating the students’ written works, and frequently responded to student writing by

giving marks and feedback. However, there remained some major issues: linguistic

features were prioritized, sources of self-peer assessment were poorly utilized, success

criteria were not explicitly framed as part of feedback, and written feedback lacked

diagnostic information about students’ strengths and weaknesses in writing. The study

revealed many impediments constraining teachers’ implementation of classroom

writing assessment.

Key words: EFL writing assessment, assessment criteria, feedback.

1. Introduction

National Foreign Languages Project 2020, which was launched by Vietnam’s

Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) and has now been extended to 2025, has

made a huge reform in curriculum design, teaching methodology and assessment. In terms

of language testing and assessment, Vietnam’s MOET requires that the assessment of four

language skills namely reading, listening, speaking and writing be comprehensively

conducted at schools of all levels (Official Document No 5333/BGDĐT-GDTrH) so that

students, on completing upper secondary education, will have achieved level three of the

Foreign Language Proficiency Framework for Vietnam, the equivalent of CEFR level B1

(Hoang, Hoang, Dang, Phan, Hoang, Kieu, Vu, & Dao, 2014). This means that there is an

emphasis on assessing language skills in the teaching-learning process. Nevertheless, in

practice, many teachers keep using paper-pencil tests mainly for grading purposes while

assessing language skills is often ignored. How to assess writing effectively seems to

* Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Proceedings of the 4th International Conference

Interdisciplinary Research in Linguistics and Language Education

257

receive little attention from high school teachers. A number of teachers hold a belief that

assessing writing is giving learners a topic to write and marking their papers. Nonetheless,

writing assessment is not that simple. Khongput (2010) asserts writing as “an art” which

requires “the mixture of criteria, judgment and experience” as an assessment method (p. 7).

It is even more demanding when writing assessment aims to enhance the teaching and

learning of writing.

A number of previous studies have investigated teachers’ practice of writing

assessment in several EFL contexts such as Thailand, Hongkong, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia,

etc. Teachers’ assessment literacy was surveyed in Crusan, Plakans and Gebril (2016); the

concerns as well as obstacles teachers faced were explored in Obeid (2017); controversies

around formative assessment were found in Guadu and Boersma (2018) and Lee and

Coniam (2013); the criteria raters focused on were discussed in Ezza (2017) and Khongput

(2010). Some studies conducted in Vietnam have dealt with rater consistency in essay

evaluation (Nguyen, 2016), and self-assessment in writing class (Nguyen, 2015). It can be

noted that these studies have examined certain aspects of EFL writing assessment at

tertiary education contexts while few studies have examined these issues at secondary

education settings, where there are significant differences in instructional programs,

teacher experiences, student levels, etc. Also, it is problematic that none of the

aforementioned studies provides empirical evidence of what criteria school teachers

employ in assessing writing and how they respond to student writing. This leaves a critical

gap for the study to explore. The current study therefore sets out to investigate Vietnamese

EFL teachers’ implementation of writing assessment at some high schools in Quang Tri,

Vietnam and highlight its relevant issues.

2. Literature review

2.1. Definition of assessment

Assessment is defined as the process of gathering and synthesizing information to

discover and document students’ strengths and weaknesses, plan and enhance instruction,

or evaluate progress and make decisions about students (Cizek, 1997). Assessment can be

used for formative or summative purposes. Formative assessment aims to provide learners

and instructors with information on learners’ present performance to improve it in the

future (Andrade & Cizek, 2010). Brown (2004) emphasizes that the key to such

information is delivering immediate and appropriate feedback on performance, with an eye

toward the future continuation of learning. Summative assessment differs from formative

assessment in a fundamental way; it aims to measure, or summarize student’s achievement

at the end of a course or unit of instruction (Brown, 2004).


258

2.2. Nature of writing ability

English writing in many ways is perceived as the most difficult language skill.

Compared to speaking as a so-called communicative skill, speaking setting provides

interlocutors with prosodic features such as pitch, rhythm, intonation and non-verbal

features that enhance meaning; in contrast, the writing context is created by words alone

without having direct interaction between the writer and the reader (Weigle, 2002). Due to

its non-interactive nature, writing is a distinct mode of communication involving writers’

attempts to convey meaning with an absent reader in both time and space distances.

Writing is also seen as a cognitive phenomenon. Nunan (1989) strongly states that writing

is a complex cognitive process involving the writer controlling a number of variables both

inside and outside sentence level. This means that writers must control content, format,

vocabulary, punctuation, spelling, and letter formation simultaneously. Also, they must be

able to organize and integrate their ideas into cohesive and coherent paragraphs. The nature

of writing is related to not only linguistic knowledge but also sociolinguistic knowledge.

As Weigle (2002) states, it is important to view writing not solely as the product of an

individual, but as a sociocultural act. In other words, writing does not simply make surface

of the text, but how to use language appropriately in social contexts is more significant.

Consequently, writing is the most difficult language skill to teach, and when it comes to

assess, it is much more difficult.

2.3. Product and process approaches to writing

In teaching and assessing writing, the product and process approaches see writing in

different perspectives. The product approach focuses on the learner’s final product with

error-free performance (Nunan, 1999). This means the written product must be a

grammatically correct and coherent text, with appropriate use of vocabulary, grammar and

language devices. While the product-oriented approach places the emphasis on accurate

language form in the final text, the process approach concerns more on the process of how

students develop ideas and formulate them into effective written works. The process

approach sees writing as a non-linear sequence in which learners go recursively through such

stages as planning, drafting, editing, revising and publishing, and it puts special emphasis on

audience and interaction with peers and teachers (Hyland, 2003). However different those

explanations are, there is an important point on which they all agree; that is, a good product

depends on good process.

2.4. Writing assessment criteria

In assessing writing, to avoid bias from raters and yield consistent assessment, there

needs to be a written rubric that outlines the criteria. The most widely used analytic scale in

assessing compositions created by Jacob, Zingkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, and Hughey (1981)



259

presents a set of criteria including content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and

mechanics. In this profile, content receives more weight than the other indicators, which

means evaluating content of a written product is considered the most important. A highly-

rated composition should have its content relevant to topic, develop the thesis thoroughly,

and address task requirements appropriately. Organization is also invariably significant. A

well-organized composition focuses on coherence and cohesion. Coherence is concerned

with the overall interpretation of a text as a unified piece of discourse while cohesion deals

with formal link by using cohesive devices including lexical devices (e.g., repetition,

synonym, antonym, superordinate) and grammatical devices (e.g., reference, substitution,

ellipsis, conjunction). Additionally, vocabulary is considered the foundation of writing and

one of important features of good writing. Regarding language use, it refers to the use of

grammar accurately and appropriately to convey intended meaning. A composition with

good use of language should have effective constructions, few errors of agreement, tense,

word order, articles, pronouns, and prepositions. The last feature is mechanics (punctuation,

spelling, and capitalization), which receives the least emphasis in Jacob et al’.s (1981) scale.

2.5. Scoring a written product

Scoring a piece of writing can be either holistic or analytic. Holistic scoring is a

method by which raters give a single score based on their overall impression of a piece of

writing. The obvious benefit of this type is that it requires a short span of time to evaluate a

paper since only a single score is reported and raters do not comment the student’s work.

However, reducing writing to a single score means teachers gain little information about

students’ specific strengths and weaknesses, thus cannot feedback into their instruction

(Hyland, 2003). Analytic scoring, on the other hand, is a method by which raters evaluate

different aspects of writing performance separately. It is suggested that while holistic

scales are faster, analytic scales tend to be more reliable, and certainly provide more useful

feedback, as scores on different aspects of writing can tell students what their strengths and

weaknesses are (Weigle, 2007). As a result, analytic rubric is useful as a diagnostic

teaching tool. As Brown (2004) claims, in classroom settings where a teacher wishes to

adapt their teaching to the needs of students, much more information across sub-skills is

desirable than a single score.

2.6. Feedback in writing assessment

Despite the importance of timed writing, a single script written within limited time is

insufficient to measure a student’s ability, because it provides a very restricted picture of

what the student is able to do with writing in real world (Weigle, 2002). That is why

Brown (2004) suggests an assessment type which is informal, formative and replete with

washback be conducted in the tutored relationship of teacher and student, and in the


260

community of peers. In the same manner, Lee (2017) claims that feedback delivered during

stages of writing process lies at the heart of classroom writing assessment. In the article

The Power of Feedback, Hattie and Timperley (2007) stress “feedback is one of the most

powerful influences on learning and achievement” (p. 81). They suggest that effective

feedback be divided into three stages, feed up (Where am I going?), feedback (How am I

going?), and feed forward (Where to next?). In the feed up stage, the teacher shares

learning goals and success criteria with students and provides instructional scaffolding. In

the feedback stage, descriptive and diagnostic feedback linking planned criteria is delivered

to students, informing them of what progress they are making toward the goal. The last

stage, feed forward, provides information about what students need to do next to move

forward in their learning.

Feedback to student writing can come from both teachers and students. Hyland

(2003) points out that teachers’ response takes a variety of forms, such common ones as

commentary, rubrics, minimal marking, and electronic feedback. According to Lee (2017),

written feedback should be followed by oral feedback so that teachers can explain

ambiguities and students have opportunities to ask questions. Lee (2017) asserts that

teachers should use feedback to inform students of their major strengths and areas for

improvement with reference to the learning goals. Additionally, peer feedback is used

synonymously with peer response or peer assessment, which has potential in enhancing L2

student writing through creating meaningful interaction among peers (Lee, 2017). Andrade

and Cizek (2010) claim that students are in favour of feedback on their work provided by

peers rather than by the teacher because peer feedback can be more immediate, timely and

individualized. Lee (2017) stresses that if students engage in peer feedback meaningfully,

they not only help their peers improve their writing but also develop their ability to review

and critique their own writing. Likewise, self-assessment is important in life-long learning

and reduces teacher’s burden (Butt, 2010). Students should be responsible for their own

learning, achieve self-awareness of their work, rather than teachers constantly tell them

what is good or bad. Self-assessment is an emphasis of student-centered approach which

places learners as the center of teaching and learning (Iraji, Enayat & Momeni, 2016). To

sum up, apart from using scoring methods, classroom teachers can make the best use of

peer/ self-assessment to assess student writing. By evaluating student work done in both

timed and untimed settings, teachers will be able to get a full picture of what their students

are capable of doing in writing.

3. Research methodology

3.1. Participants and contexts

The number of participants in this study was 60 EFL teachers (11 males and 49



261

females) who were from 16 upper secondary schools in Quang Tri province, making up

31.9% of the population. The samples’ teaching experience ranged from one to over twenty

years, 8 had a Master’s degree and 52 had a Bachelor’s degree in EFL methodology.

3.2. Data collection instruments and procedure

In order to investigate teachers’ practice of EFL writing assessment, a mixed-

methods design was adopted (Creswell, 2012). The study started with collection and

analysis of quantitative data from questionnaire to gain an overall understanding of

emerging problems and followed by qualitative data to obtain further information.

The full questionnaire consisted of 48 close-ended statements exploring teachers’

perceptions and practice of EFL writing assessment. For the purpose of this article, 5 items

concerning teachers’ use of assessment criteria and 12 items inquiring teachers’ responding

to student writing were chosen for analysis. The teachers were asked to indicate their

opinion on a 5-point Likert scale (5 = always, 4 = often, 3 = sometimes, 2 = rarely, and 1 =

never). The questionnaire was written in Vietnamese to ensure clarity of meaning for the

participants and distributed online by means of Google form via email and Facebook.

Following initial analysis of the quantitative data, individual semi-structured interviews

were carried out in Vietnamese with 10 participants. Each individual interview lasted from

15 to 25 minutes and was audio-taped with the consent of the interviewees. Collecting

students’ assessment papers was also employed to examine instructors’ real experiences in

assessing writing. The researcher made contact with the teachers and five of them agreed

to send writing papers soon after they conducted an assessment in their classes.

3.3. Data analysis

Descriptive analysis was used to transform a set of numbers into indices to describe the

survey data (Creswell, 2012). Statistical numbers, including percentages, means and standard

deviations were computed using EXCEL. The results were then presented in figures and

tables to make the interpretations comprehensible. The interview data was transcribed and

organized into major themes which were identified based on the messages of word repetition

or similar phrases to elaborate the questionnaire data. Regarding assessment of writing

samples, the researcher read assessment writing papers carefully to have a general view of

the teachers’ responding to student writing. The analysis centered on the assessment criteria

in focus and the way feedback was given in the margins of papers.

4. Findings and discussion

4.1. Criteria in writing assessment

Quantitative data concerning criteria which surveyed what teachers focused on while

evaluating students’ writing are summarized in Table 1 below.


262

Table 1. Frequency of criteria used in writing assessment (AW = Always, O = Often,

S = Sometimes, R = Rarely, N = Never, M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation)

Questions AW

%

O

%

S

%

R

%

N

% M SD

I evaluate content of my student’s composition. (1) 25.0 61.7 10.0 3.3 0.0 4.08 0.70

I evaluate organization of my student’s composition. (2) 35.0 51.7 11.7 1.7 0.0 4.20 0.71

I evaluate language use of my student’s composition. (3) 26.7 65.0 6.7 1.7 0.0 4.17 0.62

I evaluate vocabulary of my student’s composition. (4) 30.0 56.7 13.3 0.0 0.0 4.17 0.64

I evaluate mechanics of my student’s composition. (5) 23.3 46.7 26.7 3.3 0.0 3.90 0.80

As shown in Table 4.1, there are substantial proportions of participants reporting

always and often using the listed criteria to evaluate students’ composition, which indicates

comparatively high frequencies of using assessment criteria among participants. The table

also shows that participants did not assign equal weighting to every feature of writing but

prioritized some over others. The rank of the writing assessment criteria according to mean

scores from the highest to the lowest is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Rank of criteria used in writing assessment

As shown in Figure 4.1, organization was the most frequently used criterion with the

highest mean score (M=4.20), followed by language use and vocabulary, at the same

frequencies as illustrated by equal mean scores (M=4.17), content ranked fourth and

mechanics is at the lowest range of the list. Interestingly, participants weighed

organization, language use and vocabulary more than content. In other words, form took

priority over meaning. This may be due to the fact that most of the teaching follows a

structural approach that privileges form over meaning in EFL classes in Vietnam (Le,

2011). According to the interviewees, competence in grammar and vocabulary would



263

determine the quality of writing outcome. The students having problems with grammar and

vocabulary might have low writing ability, as a teacher commented “Some of my students

have poor structure and incorrect vocabulary usage which limit their ability to complete a

piece of writing”. Moreover, teachers’ choice of criteria might depend on the writing tasks

they had to teach and then assess. In fact, paragraphs, letters and essays are some popular

genres that school students are exposed to. Accordingly, the teachers assessed their

students’ accumulation of sub-skills taught in these writing lessons, emphasizing steps

required to produce a well-organized text, as shared by an interviewee:

I normally assess what students have learnt in writing lessons, especially whether

they organize a paragraph with a topic sentence, supporting ideas, and a concluding

sentence, or whether they follow an appropriate format of a letter.

It could be inferred from the findings above that many participants considered

vocabulary and grammar, and text structure important while fewer of them were concerned

about content or meaning embedded in the written texts. This implies that the teachers paid

more attention to linguistic features than communicative ones in the assessment of student

writing performance.

Compared to relevant literature, the reported findings both confirm and contradict

those in previous studies. That mechanics ranked lowest is similar to Khongput’s (2010)

study and Jacob et al’.s (1981) profile. In Jacob et al. (1981) and Khongput (2010), content

received more weight than the other indicators, which is in marked contrast to the current

results. Differently, participants in Ezza’s (2017) study employed ideas, spelling, punctuation

and text structure as top criteria in writing exams. In fact, writing is a demanding skill in its

nature and assessing writing is seen as a complicated activity in which raters’ subjectivity

and experience may play an important role (Weigle, 2002). This more or less affects the

various ways in teachers’ use of criteria; therefore, although certain criteria are employed for

rating writing, some variability between practices still occurs. This is plausible when Ezza

(2017) concluded that the use of rubrics is affected by some variables, including instructional

experience, academic levels at which writing courses are offered and the type of writing

being assessed.

4.2. Teachers’ responding to student writing

This section deals with data concerning how teachers responded to students’

writings. Table 2 details percentages, means and standard deviations of respondents’ rating

to every single item.


264

Table 2. Frequency of teachers’ activities in assessing writing

Questions AW

%

O

%

S

%

R

%

N

% M SD

I involve my students in assessment process. (6) 20.0 46.7 25.0 8.3 0.0 3.78 0.87

I assess student ability during stages of writing

process. (7) 31.7 26.7 23.3 15.0 3.3 3.68 1.17

I inform students of criteria before assessing their

works. (8) 15.0 53.3 21.7 10.0 0.0 3.73 0.84

I apply rubrics in my writing classes. (9) 8.3 43.3 31.7 11.7 5.0 3.38 0.98

I provide students with marks on their papers. (10) 28.3 56.7 11.7 3.3 0.0 4.10 0.73

I provide students with comments on their papers. (11) 30.0 58.3 11.7 0.0 0.0 4.18 0.62

Oral feedback is used to assess students’ work. (12) 13.3 41.7 33.3 11.7 0.0 3.57 0.87

Written feedback is used to assess students’ work. (13) 21.7 48.2 26.7 1.7 1.7 3.87 0.83

I inform students of their strong points in writing. (14) 23.3 30.0 43.3 3.4 0.0 3.73 0.86

I inform students of their weak points in writing. (15) 15.0 36.7 43.3 5.0 0.0 3.62 0.80

I apply peer assessment in my writing classes. (16) 16.7 43.3 31.7 8.3 0.0 3.68 0.85

I apply self-assessment in my writing classes. (17) 1.7 28.3 35.0 25.0 10.0 2.87 1.00

As indicated in Table 2, two outstanding items are 10 (M = 4.10) and 11 (M = 4.18).

Their comparatively high mean scores indicate that the participants regularly gave marks

and comments on students’ papers. That the mean score of item 11 is a bit higher than that

of item 10 implies they tended to give more comments than marks. Item 17 got the lowest

mean score (M=2.87) which indicates that self-assessment was least utilized. Responses to

the rest of items were fairly homogeneous in a slight variation within 0.49 and the mean

range from 3.38 to 3.87. These medium mean scores show that activities including giving

feedback, informing progress, involving students, assessing writing process, informing

criteria, applying rubrics, and peer assessment were moderately conducted. The table also

reveals that both oral feedback and written feedback were utilized by many teachers. This

is convincing when we see around 60% of surveyed teachers reported always and often

doing so in items 12 (M = 3.57) and 13 (M = 3.87). Such practice is quite good because

oral feedback can make sure students understand the feedback deeply by asking questions

if there is any misunderstanding and written feedback allows them to go back and read the

comments later on (Lee, 2017). These analyzed items also tell that although both kinds of



265

feedback were valued, written feedback was used more frequently. Even though the

teachers claimed to provide feedback either regularly or often, it is not how much feedback

is provided but how effectively it is delivered. This raised issues for further exploration about

teacher responding to student writing.

The first issue is teacher’ assessing student writing seemed limited to writing

process. As illustrated in item 16 (M = 3.68, SD = 1.17), 23.3% of surveyed teachers

reported that they sometimes assessed student during the writing process and nearly 20%

of them rarely and never had such practice. The process approach is believed to encourage

student thinking and revising, thereby enhances writing skills (Hyland, 2003). However,

interviewed results indicate that limited class time prevented teachers from giving frequent

and subsequent feedback to student writing. An interviewee asserted like this:

45 minutes were too short for many activities, teacher teaching students how to

write, students practicing writing and teacher giving feedback. I just have a few final

minutes to evaluate some writings and no time to do this with multiple drafts from 42

students.

Understandably, time is a big challenge to all school teachers when they are

mandated to cover three or more writing tasks as defined in the syllabus within a 45-

minute lesson with a class size of around 40 students. Previously stated, self-/peer

assessment techniques are viewed not only to reduce teachers’ workload but also to

accelerate student writing (Butt, 2010; Lee, 2017). Unexpectedly, the collected data clearly

indicate that the teachers did not frequently involve students in assessment process (item 6,

M = 3.78). This anticipation can be also seen in items 16 (M = 3.68) and 17 (M = 2.87)

which reveal peer assessment was only sometimes utilized and rarely was self-assessment

applied. Students’ low proficiency and time constrains were two primary reasons for the

teachers to skip or spend little time on self-/ peer feedback. As for self-assessment, some

opinions were cited “However good a student is, he or she cannot self-assess their written

work”, “From my experience, students do not often realize their mistakes until someone

shows them”. Undoubtedly, it is not easy for L2 learners to assess their own work because

writing requires sub-skills within and beyond sentence level (Nunan, 1989). By contrast,

research by Iraji et al. (2016) shows that students are capable of analyzing and responding

to their own writing, so self-assessment can boost learner autonomy, promote intrinsic

motivation, and make them prepared for life-long learning. Many teachers still kept doubts

about student ability, so narrowed their chance of assessing writing on their own, which is

in harmony with Nguyen’s (2015) finding. Certainly, teacher feedback should be valued;

however, if students rely too much on the teacher, their proactive involvement in learning is

limited, resulting in being passive consumers of feedback.


266

Additionally, rubric is considered a useful tool to inform criteria and give feedback,

based on which students would have a sense of what criteria needed for the desired

performance (Butt, 2010; Hyland, 2003; Lee, 2017). Conversely, it was not often

implemented, as illustrated in item 9 (M = 3.38). Although it was reported that the teachers

evaluated writings by using certain criteria, rubric did not seem to work well when there was

a significant variation among participants’ responses. Interviewed teachers admitted telling

their students the requirements of a composition in the pre-stage of a writing lesson or on the

outset of assessment process, but gave no evidence of assessment forms such as a checklist

or rubric. This implies that the teachers did not develop any criteria sheets to share with

students. It would thus be reasonable to say that criteria for assessment tasks were not

communicated to the students explicitly and transparently. The results reveal that the

teachers employed certain criteria in assessing writing, yet they did not seem to implement

them effectively inside the classroom. These findings are in accordance with those found in

Crusan et al. (2016) that teachers are inadequately prepared in the use of rubrics. Obeid

(2017) shares the same point that rubric is a major obstacle that teachers encounter in

practicing writing assessment. How to design and apply rubrics effectively is a really

remaining issue in EFL contexts, as Myskow (2011) argues that for most EFL teachers who

are already burdened with many responsibilities, an investment on a single rubric is not

realistic.

Ultimately, data from assessment papers inform written comments seemed not

diagnostic enough to help students realize their strengths and weaknesses in writing. In

some cases, the teachers wrote some words “good”, “quite good” on high-mark papers.

These praises could motivate students as they rewarded their successful performance but

lacked explanation about what they did well. In many cases, the teachers made direct

corrections of grammar and spelling mistakes by crossing over wrong words and replacing

them with correct ones, whereas in some others they made indirect comments by

underlining or circling the part with errors. Seemingly, teachers seemed to be attracted by

observable mistakes in spelling, vocabulary and grammar while comments on other

features such as organization and content were almost absent. Even some papers were left

merely with numerical values which implied little diagnostic information. Accordingly,

such manners of teacher giving feedback were not descriptive enough to inform students of

what they could and could not do with writing and how to tackle similar problems next

time. The most common observation emerging from all assessed writings is that feedback

was provided at the same time as the grade. Especially, the teachers gave a single score to

the overall quality of writing rather than giving scores to distinct features. If a writing

paper is returned to the student with just a grade and without informing strengths and

weaknesses, it might have negative washback because he/she does not identify his/her

knowledge gaps (Brown, 2004). Consequently, data from assessed papers reveal that



267

assessment information is mainly used for grading and reporting purposes which are the

typical features of the traditional testing system.

Hattie and Timperley (2007) have suggested that effective feedback should inform

students of learning goals, the progress they are making toward the goal, and how to move

forward to close their learning gaps. The data analysis above, however, indicates that the

feedback provided by participants did not seem to be a powerful tool to enhance writing

because of the restriction of student involvement, lack of explicit explanation of rubrics,

and limitation of subsequent feedback. Written feedback also provided little diagnostic

information about students’ strengths and weaknesses in writing, and was delivered as the

same time as the grade, thereby mainly served summative purposes. Time pressure seemed

the most prominent obstacle affecting the quality of teachers’ feedback because reading

and giving comments on students’ papers are considered time-consuming tasks, as cited

“Assessing writing takes me a lot of time to read and give feedback”, “I often need a lot of

time to mark and write comments for each student writing”. It is even more challenging

when the teachers had to tackle with a large class. This could explain why teachers’ written

feedback tended to be brief and general. Another negative factor might be examination

pressure. In fact, Vietnamese education is very much embedded within examination-

oriented culture which puts pressure on students to learn for grading (Ho, 2015).

According to the teachers, because writing skill is not the focus of standardized tests in

secondary education, many students found it tedious to take part in writing assessment

activities; instead, they were more concerned about graded tasks and summative scores. As

a result, the teachers were inclined to grade rather than assess their students formatively to

get insights into the teaching and learning of writing. The findings confirm Lee and

Coniam’s (2013) study that the examination-oriented system that valued summative scores

could pose severe obstacles to giving feedback in writing classes in Hong Kong schools.

Likewise, this practice is consistent with Guadu and Boersma’s (2018) study that formative

assessment was not promising in Ethiopia due to time constraint to finish the course and

unmanageable class size.

5. Conclusion

The results obtained from quantitative and qualitative data indicated that the teachers

frequently employed assessment criteria and prioritized linguistic features in evaluating

written work. Moreover, they often gave marks and feedback to student writing, yet did not

utilize the tool of rubric, written feedback and self-/peer assessment in order to enhance

student writing. These remaining issues seem to reflect the common situation in many EFL

contexts, particularly in Quang Tri province. This is because there are many setbacks

hindering the effective implementation of EFL writing assessment including student low

proficiency, large class size, syllabus and examination pressure, and class time constraints.


268

How to tackle these problems is still an open question because the context in which the

teachers work does not always allow them to bring their desire to fruition; however, they

should be taken into consideration in congruence with the implementation of EFL writing

assessment.

References

Andrade, H., & Cizek, G.J. (2010). Handbook of formative assessment. UK: Routledge.

Brown, H.D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. New

York: Pearson Education.

Butt, G. (2010). Making assessment matter. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Cizek, G.J. (1997). Learning, achievement, and assessment: Constructs at a crossroads.

In G.D. Phye. Handbook of classroom assessment: Learning, achievement and

adjustment (pp. 2-29). California: Academic Press.

Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (4th edition).. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:

Pearson Education, Inc.

Crusan, D., Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2016). Writing assessment literacy: Surveying

second language teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Assessing Writing, 28, 43-56.

Ezza, E.S.Y. (2017). Criteria for assessing EFL writing at Majma’ahuniversity. In S. Hidri

& C. Coombe (2017), Evaluation in foreign language education in the Middle East and

North Africa (pp. 185-200). Springer International Publishing.

Guadu, Z.B., & Boersma, E.J. (2018). EFL instructors’ beliefs and practices of formative

assessment in teaching writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(1), 42-50.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational

Research, 77(1), 81-112.

Ho, T.N. (2015). An exploratory investigation of the practice of assessment for learning in

Vietnamese higher education: Three case studies of lecturers' practice. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. Queensland University.

Hoang, V.V., Hoang, T.X.H., Dang, H.G., Phan, H., Hoang, T.H.H., Kieu, T.T.H., Vu,

T.L., & Dao, N.L. (2014). Tieng Anh 10 (Teacher book - Volume 1). Ha Noi: Vietnam

Education Publishing House.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Iraji, H.R., Enayat, M.J., & Momeni, M. (2016). The effects of self-and peer-assessment on

Iranian EFL learners' argumentative writing performance. Theory and Practice in

Language Studies, 6(4), 716-722.



269

Jacobs, H., Zingkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V., & Hughey, J. (1981). Testing ESL

composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Khongput, S. (2010). EFL writing assessment practices: Teachers’ perspectives.

Proceedings of the 36th Conference on International Association for Educational

Assessment (pp. 1-8). Thailand.

Le, V.C. (2011). Form-focused instruction: A case study of Vietnamese teachers’ beliefs

and practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Waikato, Hamilton, New

Zealand.

Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Singapore:

Springer Nature.

Lee, I., & Coniam, D. (2013). Introducing assessment for learning for EFL writing in an

assessment of learning examination-driven system in Hong Kong. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 22(1), 34-50.

Ministry of Education and Training, V.N. (2014). Dispatch 5333/BGDĐT-GDTrH on

implementing language assessment policy to develop learners' English proficiency at

secondary education level, starting from the academic years 2014-2015. Vietnam, Hanoi:

Ministry of Education and Training.

Myskow, G. (2011). L2 writing assessment in context: The case of a Japanese EFL

secondary school. Toyo University Institute of Human Sciences, 13, 17-33.

Nguyen, T.H.T. (2015). An investigation into students’ self-assessment practice in writing

classes in QuangBinh University. Unpublished master thesis. University of Foreign

Languages, Hue University.

Nguyen, T.Q.Y. (2016). Rater consistency in rating L2 learners’ writing task. VNU Journal

of Foreign Studies, 32(2), 75-84.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston, Mass: Heinle&Heinle

Publishers.

Obeid, R. (2017). Second language writing and assessment: Voices from Within the Saudi

EFL Context. English Language Teaching, 10(6), 174-181.

Weigle, S.C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Weigle, S.C. (2007). Teaching writing teachers about assessment. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 16(3), 194-209.


270

NGHIÊN CỨU THỰC TẾ GIÁO VIÊN

ÁP DỤNG ĐÁNH GIÁ KỸ NĂNG VIẾT TIẾNG ANH

Tóm tắt: Nghiên cứu được thực hiện để điều tra việc giáo viên áp dụng đánh giá kỹ

năng viết tiếng Anh ở một số trường THPT tại Quảng Trị, Việt Nam. 60 giáo viên

tiếng Anh từ 16 trường trả lời phiếu khảo sát, 10 giáo viên tham gia phỏng vấn và 5

giáo viên chia sẻ bài đánh giá. Kết quả cho thấy, giáo viên thường sử dụng năm tiêu

chí, nội dung, tổ chức, sử dụng ngôn ngữ, từ vựng và chính tả, và thường đánh giá bài

viết học sinh bằng điểm và nhận xét. Tuy nhiên, một số vấn đề tồn tại trong đánh giá,

kiến thức ngôn ngữ được ưu tiên, học sinh tự đánh giá và đánh giá chéo ít được áp

dụng, tiêu chí đánh giá không được thể hiện rõ ràng trong phản hồi và nhận xét viết

thiếu thông tin chẩn đoán về điểm mạnh và điểm yếu của học sinh. Nghiên cứu chỉ ra

nhiều yếu tố cản trở giáo viên thực hiện đánh giá viết hiệu quả trong lớp học.

Từ khóa: Đánh giá kỹ năng viết tiếng Anh, tiêu chí đánh giá, phản hồi.

Documents

AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ PRACTICE