Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Formative Assessment Model Using an Analytical Rubric for Written Tasks

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances and Applications in Computer Science, Electronics, and Industrial Engineering (CSEI 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 433))

Abstract

A formative assessment process provides students the opportunity to be involved in their learning process. Many teachers and students of English have problems in this type of process because they do not have a homogeneous evaluation procedure. The purpose of this study is to propose a formative evaluation model using an analytical rubric that standardizes the process of evaluating writing ability in the field of EFL. This study followed a quasi-experimental design that included a pre and post-test. Two groups of A2 level students were asked to write book reports where an intervention was applied to the experimental group, which included a self and peer-assessment process based on a rubric that was designed among A2 level teachers. The results showed that the experimental group outperformed the comparison group in the post test. The study reveals that this process helped students get closer to the rubric criteria due to recursive feedback that was shared in a collaborative setting. The research has practical implications for teaching book report writing among English learners of the same level, but with different teachers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mohamadi Z (2018) Comparative effect of online summative and formative assessment on EFL student writing ability. Stud Educ Eval 59:29–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Vasu KA, Mei Fung Y, Nimehchisalem V, Md RS (2020) Self-regulated learning development in undergraduate ESL writing classrooms: teacher feedback versus self-assessment. RELC J 1:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wiliam D, Black P (1996) Meanings and consequences: a basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? Br Edu Res J 22(5):537–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. García CA, Castellanos EX, Rosero C, Sánchez C, García MV, Pérez F, et al (2017) CPPS on low cost devices for batch process under IEC-61499 and ISA-88. In: 2017 IEEE 15th international conference on industrial informatics (INDIN), pp 855–860

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kalantzis M, Cope B (2012) New learning: elements of a science of education. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  6. Huapaya D, Marin D, Mauricio D (2021) TCO app: telemonitoring and control of pediatric overweight and obesity. In: Advances and applications in computer science, electronics and industrial engineering. Springer, Singapore, pp 79–97

    Google Scholar 

  7. Adachi C, Tai JHM, Dawson P (2018) Academics’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of self and peer assessment in higher education. Assess Eval High Educ 43(2):294–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang W (2017) Using rubrics in student self-assessment: student perceptions in the English as a foreign language writing context. Assess Eval High Educ 42(8):1280–1292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cockett A, Jackson C (2018) The use of assessment rubrics to enhance feedback in higher education: an integrative literature review. Nurse Educ Today 69:8–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. García MV, Irisarri E, Pérez F, Marcos M, Estévez E (2017) Engineering tool to develop CPPS based on IEC-61499 and OPC UA for oil & gas process. In: 2017 IEEE 13th international workshop on factory communication systems (WFCS), pp 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schmoker M (2002) Up and away. J Staff Dev 23(2):10–13

    Google Scholar 

  12. Burke K (2010) From standards to rubrics in six steps: tools for assessing student learning. Corwin Press

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chowdhury F (2019) Application of rubrics in the classroom: a vital tool for improvement in assessment, feedback and learning. Int Educ Stud 12(1):61–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wolf K, Stevens E (2007) The role of rubrics in advancing and assessing student learning. J Effect Teach 7(1):3–14

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gatcho ARG, Hajan BH (2019) Augmenting senior secondary ESL learners’ reading skills through explicit instruction of metacognitive strategies. Online Submission 6(1):1–23

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kalantzis M, Cope B: Rubric-based peer and formative assessment. https://bit.ly/3ubZwJk

  17. Ariyanti A (2016) The teaching of EFL writing in Indonesia. Dinamika Ilmu 16(2):263–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Abas IH, Abd Aziz NH (2017) Classification of L2 writing process and writing strategies. Proc ICECRS 1(1):367–380

    Google Scholar 

  19. Graham S, Hebert M, Harris KR (2015) Formative assessment and writing: a meta-analysis. Elem Sch J 115(4):523–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ridhwan M (2017) Understanding formative and summative assessment for EFL teachers: theoretical reflections on assessment for learning. J-SHMIC J Engl Acad 4(1):40–50

    Google Scholar 

  21. Torres JO (2019) Positive impact of utilizing more formative assessment over summative assessment in the EFL/ESL classroom. Open J Mod Linguist 9(1):1–11

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Scriven M (1967) The methodology of evaluation, vol 1. Social science education consortium

    Google Scholar 

  23. Black P (2015) Formative assessment-an optimistic but incomplete vision. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract 22(1):161–177

    Google Scholar 

  24. Yüksel HS, Gündüz N (2017) Formative and summative assessment in higher education: opinions and practices of instructors. Eur J Educ Stud

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fathi J, Khodabakhsh MR (2019) The role of self-assessment and peer-assessment in improving writing performance of Iranian EFL students. Work 7(03)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Nogales R, Benalcazar F, Guilcapi J, Vargas J (2021) Selection of classifiers for hand gesture recognition using analytic hierarchy process: a systematic literature review. In: Advances and applications in computer science, electronics and industrial engineering. Springer, Singapore, pp 265–278

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wanner T, Palmer E (2018) Formative self-and peer assessment for improved student learning: the crucial factors of design, teacher participation and feedback. Assess Eval High Educ 43(7):1032–1047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hislop J, Stracke E (2017) ESL students in peer review: an action research study in a university English for Academic Purposes course. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 12

    Google Scholar 

  29. Morales L, Silva D, Moreno V, Collantes S (2020) Symptomatology of musculoskeletal pain related to repetitive movements. preliminary study “post-harvest in floriculture companies”. In: Advances and applications in computer science, electronics and industrial engineering. Springer International Publishing, pp 329–340

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ratminingsih NM, Marhaeni A, Vigayanti L (2018) Self-assessment: the effect on students’ independence and writing competence. Int J Instr 11(3):277–290

    Google Scholar 

  31. Andrade HG (1997) Understanding rubrics. Educ Leadersh 54(4):14–17

    Google Scholar 

  32. Li C (2018) Constructing and applying rubrics in college-level EFL writing assessment in China. Syracuse University

    Google Scholar 

  33. Brookhart SM (2013) How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. Ascd

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ragupathi K, Lee A (2020) Beyond fairness and consistency in grading: the role of rubrics in higher education. In: Diversity and inclusion in global higher education. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore, pp 73–95

    Google Scholar 

  35. White H, Sabarwal S, et al.: Quasi-experimental design and methods: methodological briefs-impact evaluation, no 8. https://bit.ly/3wGOk9g

  36. Cook T, Campbell D (1979) Quasi-experimentation. Rand Mc-Nally, Chicago. CookQuasi-Experimentation

    Google Scholar 

  37. Dawson TE: A primer on experimental and quasi-experimental design. ERIC

    Google Scholar 

  38. Braddock K (2019) A brief primer on experimental and quasi-experimental methods in the study of terrorism. JSTOR

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nikolov M (2017) Students’ and teachers’ feedback on diagnostic tests for young EFL learners: implications for classrooms. In: García Mayo MP (ed) Learning foreign languages in primary school: research insights. Multilingual Matters, Bristol, pp 249–266. 10:9781783098118–014

    Google Scholar 

  40. Luce C, Kirnan JP (2016) Using indirect vs. direct measures in the summative assessment of student learning in higher education. J Scholarship Teach Learn 16(4):75–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE, Hyun HH (2012) How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill, New York. https://shortest.link/Ytw

Download references

Acknowledgments

The gratitude for the support provided in the research to the Technical University of Ambato, and to the Research and Development Directorate (DIDE).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Av. Manuelita Sáenz, 180207, Ambato, Ecuador

    Johana Morales

  2. Universidad Técnica de Ambato, Los Chasquis y Río Payamino, 180103, Ambato, Ecuador

    Vicente Morales

  3. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Av. Germán Amézaga s/n, 15081, Lima, Peru

    Sussy Bayona

  4. Ministerio de Salud Pública, Av. República del Salvador 36-64, 170515, Quito, Ecuador

    Marjorie Morales

Authors
  1. Johana Morales
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vicente Morales
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sussy Bayona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marjorie Morales
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vicente Morales .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad del País Vasco, Bilbao, Spain

    Marcelo V. Garcia

  2. FISEI, Universidad Técnica de Ambato, Ambato, Ecuador

    Félix Fernández-Peña

  3. FISEI, Universidad Técnica de Ambato, Ambato, Ecuador

    Carlos Gordón-Gallegos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Morales, J., Morales, V., Bayona, S., Morales, M. (2022). Formative Assessment Model Using an Analytical Rubric for Written Tasks. In: Garcia, M.V., Fernández-Peña, F., Gordón-Gallegos, C. (eds) Advances and Applications in Computer Science, Electronics, and Industrial Engineering. CSEI 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 433. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97719-1_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation