INTRODUCTION

The Malaysia Education Blueprint (2013-2025) recognizes the importance of developing and
applying 21st-century curriculum and assessment (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2013).
Therefore, since 2016, Malaysia has been actively implementing 21st-century skills to tailor the
approaches and assessments to bring out the potential of everyone as emphasized in the
aspiration of the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025.

Assessment has grown rapidly in the education system and gained serious attention from the
authorities as it expands the quality of students’ learning and enables teachers to raise the
standard of instruction in ESL classrooms. In addition, assessment becomes a process used by
instructors to determine the level of knowledge and skills, learning objectives, strengths, and
shortcomings of their students so they may encourage them to develop their talents. There are
two main categories of classroom-based assessment used by teachers in ESL classrooms. One is
a summative assessment, and the other is a formative assessment. This literature review is
based on formative assessment. This assessment is often geared at assisting students in
developing their language proficiency, identifying areas for learning growth and
accomplishment, and identifying students' needs.

For our literature review, we chose five articles that aligned with the classroom-based
assessment. We developed five themes from the five articles which are “Formative Assessment
as a Means of Supporting Students’ Motivation”,” Student-Teacher Formative Assessment
Behaviour”,” Teachers' Beliefs of Formative Assessment”,” Perception and Difference of
Students and Teachers of Formative Assessment” and “Role of Teachers in Classroom
Assessment.”
LITERATURE REVIEW

Student-Teacher Formative Assessment Behavior

A vital aspect of the teaching and learning process is formative assessment. Information about
students’ and teachers’ performance is available from formative assessment. Investigating how
teachers and students behave during formative assessments has drawn more attention in recent
years. An overview of recent studies on the behavior of student-teacher formative assessment is
the goal of this review of the literature.

According to research by Black and Wiliam from 1998, formative assessment is an effective
tool to improve student learning results. Throughout the teaching and learning process,
formative assessment is a continuous assessment process. The purpose of this evaluation is to
discern the domains in which pupils exhibit proficiency or deficiency when learning, whilst
also offering teachers insight into improving their pedagogical methods. Wiliam (2011) studied
the role of student participation in formative assessment. The study discovered that including
students in the assessment process enhances their learning outcomes and boosts their
involvement in the learning process.

Chappuis et al. (2012) conducted research on how teachers use formative assessment in the
classroom. According to the study, effective formative assessment practices include using
various methods and instruments for assessment, conducting continuing assessments, and
involving students in the assessment process. Another study by Brookhart (2013) examined
teachers' use of formative assessment. The study discovered a relationship between higher
levels of student achievement and teachers' use of formative assessment techniques. The study
also discovered that incorporating formative assessment practices into the teaching and learning
process maximizes their effectiveness. In their 2017 and 2021 study, Gulikers and Baartman;
Veugen et al. conducted a participatory study where the teachers facilitate the students. This is
to explain the concrete teacher and student behavior in the formative assessment that plans to
stimulate learning. By providing feedback, students can enhance their performance.

The study of research shows that formative assessment is a useful strategy for improving
student learning results. Utilizing a variety of methods and instruments, conducting continuing
assessments, and including students in the process of evaluation are all components of effective
formative assessment practices. Additionally, feedback is a powerful tool that can greatly
enhance student learning outcomes. The study emphasizes the value of formative assessment
behavior between students and teachers in the teaching and learning process.
English language teaching and learning: Teachers' formative assessment beliefs and
practices

In the era of 21st Century Learning, both teachers and students face significant teaching and
learning challenges, especially in terms of implementing the assessment. Therefore, academics
have succeeded to identify adequate and effective assessment techniques for evaluating and
tracking students' learning progress in both local and global contexts.

Many studies have focused on the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and the practices of
assessment toward learning English in classrooms. However, Widiastuti, Mukminatien,
Prayogo, and Irawati (2020) examined the differences between teachers’ beliefs and the
practices of the formative assessment in EFL Classes which were observed from diverse
Continuing Professional Development (CPD) levels. They found that instructors with great
CPD involvement levels have stronger principles in implementing the formative assessment in
teaching and learning environments compared to those with lower CPD involvement. Merely 3
teachers were chosen based on certain criteria to participate in the study with different levels of
CPD involvement which are high, average, and low CPD participation. It was found that the
teachers with dissimilar CPD participation have diverse intensities of formative assessment
implementation. In light of this, researchers have become increasingly interested in the specific
effects of CPD involvement that provide experiences and build abilities that can impact the
teaching practices and application of classroom-based assessments. The researchers theorize
that implementation of the formative assessments in teaching ESL is often aimed at assisting
students in improving their language proficiency, identifying areas for development, and
recognizing students' needs. Theoretically, teachers with high CPD participation will have
higher teaching knowledge, which affects their beliefs and practices (Widiastuti, Mukminatien,
Prayogo, and Irawati, 2020). Thus, an instructor with a great CPD participation level has
intense principles in executing formative assessments in ESL classrooms compared to those
with minor CPD contributions.

Preliminary studies which were conducted on EFL teachers revealed that the success and
failure of formative assessment practice are influenced by the teacher's belief in the formative
assessment (Borg, 2011; Guadu & Boersma, 2018; Karim, 2015; Quyen & Khairani, 2016).
However, there was hardly any comprehensive studies were conducted to examine the
discrepancy between teachers' beliefs and practices which are seen from numerous instructors'
CPD engagement levels, especially in ESL classrooms. The experiences and skills that teachers
gain via CPD can have an impact on how they teach and how assessments are used in the
classroom. Across the studies, there is a shred of consistent evidence to suggest that teachers’
beliefs and practices of the formative assessment were influenced by diverse levels of CPD
development. This was supported by Andersson, Hellgren, and Susanne (2018), who mentioned
that teachers’ CPD participation intensity, therefore, influences their way of conducting the
assessment. Unfortunately, there is a lack of research on the phenomenon of teachers’ beliefs
and practices regarding the formative assessments which are influenced by different levels of
CPD development in ESL classrooms. This suggests that more teachers should become
proficient at performing formative assessments and should always take into account factors that
could affect the implementation of the formative assessments. Despite the considerable research
that went into this study and the comprehensive analysis of the data, the small number of
samples that were examined makes it important to be cautious when generalizing the results.
Thus, it is advised that more studies be done to elucidate new discoveries on instructors' use of
formative assessment.

Perception of students and teachers of formative assessment

Since formative assessment (FA) both reflects and improves student learning, educational
scholars and instructors have been increasingly interested in it (Brazeal et al., 2016; Ozan &
Kincal, 2018). Researchers have looked into the efficacy of formative assessment in teaching
and learning across a variety of contexts, but particularly in ESL/EFL settings. The objective of
this study was to create a scale to examine how English university lecturers and students view
various forms of formative evaluation. The study also looked at if there are any notable
differences between the two groups.

Through a mixed-methods study, Ozan and Kincal (2018) in Turkey discovered that the
experimental group of ESL students had greater achievement levels. Similar to this, Lee (2011)
discovered through a case study in China that formative evaluation improves students' writing
abilities over time. Formative evaluation has also drawn a lot of interest from Pakistan and Iran,
two nations that border Afghanistan. For instance, formative assessment improved the English
writing abilities of Pakistani college students, according to Haq et al. (2020). Despite being
advantageous for both teaching and learning, formative assessment is difficult to implement in
the classroom, according to Naghdipour (2017). The findings of this study on formative
assessment views among students and teachers provide new avenues for discussion in our
profession and have broad relevance. According to Jawad Golza's research from the year 2022,
educators might benefit from knowing how their practises may be influenced by how they
perceive a topic differently from their students in both ESL and EFL contexts.
Due to this, there hasn't been as much concrete research on how formative assessment might
influence learners' performance and guide effective teaching strategies in higher education
(Dunn & Mulvenon, 2009). According to Nazari et al. (2021), the setting is underrepresented in
the field of English language studies, and no prior research has examined how teachers and
students in Afghanistan perceive formative evaluation, a relatively new idea. It is important to
conduct research to create a useful scale to analyse how Afghan EFL teachers and students
perceive formative assessment because people's perceptions can alter depending on their
situations (Borg, 2003).

The results demonstrated that interactive and in-class diagnostic exams were evaluated almost
exactly the same by teachers and students. However, they clearly noticed a major difference
between self-evaluation and subject performance assessment. In comparison to the professors,
the students reported a higher level of self-evaluation, but a lower level of subject-performance
assessment. It is crucial to recognise this study's limitations in order to contextualise its results
and implications: First, one university rather than several across the nation was used to recruit
all student volunteers for the study. Additionally, the data was only gathered through a survey
questionnaire, but semi-structured interviews with members of the two target groups can be
used to further study the causes of any discrepancies between teachers' and students'
perspectives that may already exist. To understand the causes of the inconsistencies and what
might be done to enhance perceptions, formative assessment practises, and the learning process
in general, administrators' and policymakers' voices were not included in the study. Last but not
least, future research should evaluate if some formative assessment designs are more effective
than others, and why, as this study did not analyse the participants' opinions towards different
formative assessment kinds.

Theoretically A four-construct perception scale, consisting of self-evaluation, interactive formal

assessment, in-class diagnostic assessment, and subjective assessment, was created by the
researchers. In order to comprehend and confirm that students understood the concepts during
in-class activities, English language teachers employ interactive-informal assessment as one of
their formative assessment tools in the L2 learning context. Diagnostic evaluations are yet
another sort of formative assessment. In-class diagnostic testing, according to Xiao and Yang
(2019), aids in learners' ability to self-regulate when learning a second language. Despite the
diagnostic assessment's alleged value, some teachers created unfavourable impressions of it and
its ultimate goal in the classroom (Jimola & Ofodu, 2019). In the end, Gan et al. Despite these
advantageous advantages, instructors' perceptions and willingness to administer performance
assessments are greatly influenced by the setting and by the availability of relevant instruments.
Butler and Lee (2010) discovered that learners' language proficiency and confidence in learning
English were both positively impacted by self-assessment. Both kinds are connected, and
students have favourable attitudes towards self-evaluation, according to Munoz and Lvarez's
2007 research. Van der Kleij (2019) showed that while learners' levels of self-efficacy, self-
regulation, and intrinsic beliefs predicted their judgements of the quality of feedback, teachers
assessed feedback quality more favourably than students did. These unique traits are crucial in
determining how students view formative evaluation. This quantitative study sought to fill this
gap by developing and evaluating a scale for EFL classroom assessment. Thus, four sub
constructs—self-evaluation, interactive-informal assessment, in-class diagnostic assessment,
and subject-performance assessment—were recovered after a careful analysis of the literature
on classroom assessment.

Role of Teachers in Classroom Assessment

Black and Wiliam (1998) characterized the common roles teachers take when classroom
assessment occurs as the selection of assessment activities, classroom discourse, the use of
questions, tests, and feedback from tests. According to Moustafa et al. (2013), “the teacher’s
role in constructivist classrooms is to support and embrace the independence of students and
create an inviting atmosphere for their communication,” functioning as a mentor for students.
Constructivist teachers act in contrasting ways to traditional teachers, who control the
classroom environment and deliver clear instruction based on information development.
Teachers will assist students in developing their unique knowledge and skills, as well as enable
their students to achieve success (Belo et al., 2014).

The variety of assessment activities allows teachers to check how well their students understand
the lesson subject and how effectively they carry out it (Garnett & Tobin, 1989). According to
Ames (1992), the tasks should be original and differ in attention and provide equal barriers.
Nevertheless, excessive amounts of complex assignments may cause learners to neglect them,
putting their confidence in danger (Blumenfeld, 1992). Next, the level of communication
between the teacher and the students affects their relationships on many elements of classroom
assessments. According to Carlsen, 1991; Filer, 1995, the purpose built into any
communication is also influenced by the structures of connections among individuals
participating in its development. Roth and Roychoudhury (1994) propose the use of concept
maps as a tool for educational discussions, produced by students, present important
perspectives for explaining the themes under debate, allowing the teacher to involve students in
active assessment. King (1990, 1992a, b; 1994) encouraged students to generate stimulating
questions, which views as helping students develop their confidence. Teachers’ ought to
motivate students to critically analyse multiple challenges that arise in class and the feedback
they receive from teachers and peers.

Bangert-Drowns et al. (1991b) examined the impact of regular class tests and discovered that a
series of short tests was more beneficial for classroom assessment. Encouragement for teachers
to acquire these novel testing practices is predicted to be effective in the context of professional
growth for standards. According to Cauley & McMillan, 2010; Heritage, 2007; Lysaght &
O‘Leary, 2013, sharing objectives for learning and criteria for achievement with students is
another important engagement that teachers can engage in classroom assessment. Teachers can
use these two methods to determine if their students are progressing on the proper path in their
studies. Furthermore, teachers can use strategies such as observations, classroom discussions,
and homework tasks to elicit data about students’ learning processes. Classroom assessment is
incorporated into classroom education, providing teachers and students with rapid feedback on
their teaching and learning so that teachers can enhance their instruction and students can
improve the way they learn. A focus on teachers’ role is vital since the teachers are
fundamental to successful learning in formal education.

CONCLUSION

In summary, based on all the literature reviews, it can be concluded that formative assessment
is the utmost suitable approach to be implemented in classroom. This literature review study
outlines several important points and viewpoints that support the effectiveness of formative
assessment as a classroom-based strategy. In addition to having a positive effect on pupils,
formative assessment encourages participation in the course and advances students' academic
achievement. To add on, formative assessments also play a huge positive role in students’
behaviour. Overall, implementing formative assessment in the classroom can help students
become better learners. As a result of the favourable outcome from the literature reviews,
teachers may want to use the following strategy in the classroom. Furthermore, it is believed by
the teachers that formative assessment can detect the students’ proficiency in learning.