Access to this full-text is provided by Canadian Center of Science and Education.
Content available from International Journal of English Linguistics
This content is subject to copyright.
International Journal of English Linguistics; Vol. 12, No. 4; 2022
ISSN 1923-869X E-ISSN 1923-8703
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
54
A Review of Language Testing and Assessment in Online Teaching
Thu Ha Bui1
1 Graduate School of Education, The University of Western Australia, Australia
Correspondence: Thu Ha Bui, Graduate School of Education, The University of Western Australia, Australia.
E-mail: buithuha2981998@gmail.com
Received: April 22, 2022 Accepted: June 13, 2022 Online Published: June 19, 2022
doi:10.5539/ijel.v12n4p54 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v12n4p54
Abstract
In line with the increased importance of language testing and assessment in online learning, the paper sets out to
present an overview of the landscape of online language testing and assessment based on available scholarship in
global and Vietnamese contexts. Several benefits of online language testing and assessment are reported,
including promotion of learner autonomy, evaluation of students’ progress, and convenience. Methods of online
language assessment encompass collecting evidences of learning and using rubrics. A number of problems with
current language testing and assessment practices in an online environment are delineated, including
cheating/plagiarism, preference for selected response items, lack of validity and reliability, and increased
workload for teachers. Recommendations for relevant stakeholders including teachers and teacher education
institutions to improve the quality of online language assessment are accordingly presented.
Keywords: language testing, language assessment, online learning, distance education
1. Introduction
The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic was reported to delay in-person teaching in over 144 countries and
thus affect 1.2 billion students worldwide (UNESCO, 2020). During a time of frequent social distancing and
lockdowns, online learning has increasingly been regarded as a viable solution to the COVID education
disruption (Dhawan, 2020). In Vietnam, with regard to the language education sector, on March 25th 2020, the
Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) issued the Dispatch 1061/BGDĐT-GDTrH, in which several
guidelines regarding online education were laid down for educational institutions, teachers, students and parents
to follow at the start of a nationwide transition to online learning (MOET, 2020). Centered around the three
major forms of distance education which include learning management systems (LMS), learning content
management systems (LCMS) and electronic learning (e-learning) systems, these guidelines put forward a
number of requirements in terms of facilities and infrastructure, teaching and learning materials, activities and
assessment (MOET, 2020).
The expansion of online learning has given rise to the re-emergence of testing and assessment as a prominent
concern for instructors (Akimov & Malin, 2020; Benson, 2003; Gaytan & McEwen, 2007), considering how
challenging physical distance could prove to be for teachers to keep track of students’ progress and offer prompt
interaction (Cheng et al., 2013). Consequently, there has been a growing need to look into testing and assessment
in a virtual learning context (Gaytan & McEwen, 2007).
However, despite increased attention given to online learning in general and testing and assessment in particular,
there is a strong line of evidence that corroborates problematic testing and assessment practices in distance
education worldwide. Specifically, academic dishonesty has often been referred to as one of the main challenges
of online language testing and assessment given that online instructors may not be able to verify the identity of
their students (Rovai, 2000). Over-reliance on automatic computer correction, and consequently disproportionate
attention given to the use of selected response such as multiple-choice questions (MCQs), are several pertinent
concerns found in teachers’ assessment practices worldwide (Hunt et al., 2007). Furthermore, a shortage of
necessary technological tools to fulfill the distinctive needs of online language testing and assessment was
reported by Ahmad et al. (2021).
Recurring findings extracted from local publications have also shed light on issues with online language
assessment in Vietnam. Following the introduction of a national project titled “Teaching and Learning Foreign
Languages in the National Education System, period 2008-2020”, the Decision No.1400/QD-TTg was issued,
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 12, No. 4; 2022
55
which called for increased Information and Communications Technology (ICT) use in teaching and learning,
teacher professional development and investment in technological equipment and facilities (Dang, 2013).
Nevertheless, ICT use among teachers remains seriously limited. In his report, Nguyen (2016) claimed that the
level of ICT application among language teachers in Vietnam was disappointingly low, and this view is also
reinforced by Nguyen (2013) as well as Le and Nguyen (2017). The majority of teachers consider the Internet as
a representative of ICT application, and they are ill-informed of what web-based applications to use and how to
apply them into their teaching contexts (Nguyen, 2016). This lack of preparedness as ICT users has direct
implications on language teachers’ testing and assessment practices, since it was found that only 35% of English
teachers under study could reach the stage when they were able to develop online tests for their students (Pham
et al., 2018). Large-scale implementation of ICT is often restricted to trial runs, and this justifies why many
language teachers do not feel the need to develop their ICT competence in conducting testing and assessment as
part of their everyday teaching repertoire (Nguyen, 2016).
After having thoroughly examined relevant materials, the researcher has detected the following gaps in the
literature review. First of all, while an abundance of prior studies has probed into the use of ICT in language
teaching (e.g., Baleni, 2015; Ebrahimzadeh & Alavi, 2017), little is known about how technology influences
language testing and assessment, or what learning outcomes can be drawn from online testing and assessment.
Secondly, when it comes to the researcher’s local context, there is a paucity of research into language testing and
assessment in virtual learning in Vietnam, and rather the majority of existing studies have investigated the use of
ICT in language learning in general with little to no reference to online testing and assessment.
This review sets out to provide a systematic and multifaceted synthesis of online language assessment across the
globe and especially in Vietnam. Moreover, the study can be of great usefulness to relevant stakeholders in
foreign language education given that possible measures to fine-tune online assessment practices should aim to
address the outlined issues.
2. Discussion
2.1 Language Testing and Assessment
In this section, an overview of language testing and assessment, with a focus on the two terms formative and
summative assessment, is presented.
On the one hand, formative assessment is defined as “assessment for learning”, meaning that its objective is to
improve learning through activities that can offer feedback to teachers and students (Black & Wiliam, 2010).
With formative assessment, teachers are given ongoing information about students’ understanding, hence being
able to make informed decisions to adjust teaching and learning activities (Black & Wiliam, 2010; Sadler, 1989).
Summative assessment, on the other hand, is defined as “assessment of learning”, and aims to determine how
much students have learned (Gardner, 2010). Summative assessment is often conducted at the end of a learning
process via testing (e.g.: final exams, college entrance exams). The purpose of summative assessment is to
pinpoint students’ level of proficiency within a given time, to decide on their eligibility for special programs or
advancement to the next level, as well as qualifications for awards (Harlen & Gardner, 2010).
2.2 Benefits of Online Language Testing and Assessment
Overall, the use of online platforms in language assessment has generated favorable outcomes, especially with
respect to formative assessment (Yeo et al., 2014). In this section, several benefits of online language testing and
assessment are elicited from the existing literature.
2.2.1 Promotion of Learner Autonomy
Online language testing and assessment, when designed properly, can be expected to foster learner engagement
and participation in the sense that it allows a shift away from the teacher-centered model to one where students
are empowered to regulate their learning (Carson, 2017). This view is echoed by Chang et al. (2013) who
similarly acknowledged the usefulness of technology enhanced and interactive digital learning in encouraging
self-directed learning. Specifically, online testing and assessment empower students to apply learned concepts in
their own ways to produce artifacts such PowerPoint presentations, posters and brochures, after which they will
not only be able to expand their knowledge base but also harness various competencies essential to their field of
study (Buluc et al., 2013).
2.2.2 Evaluation of Students’ Progress
The ability to archive evidence of students' learning, for instance audio recordings of speaking performances, can
prove to be extremely useful for teachers to acquire a well-rounded picture of their students’ competences (Rubio,
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 12, No. 4; 2022
56
2015). In a similar vein, online programs are praised for their ability to allow teachers to extract information
from a virtual database, with which teachers can dissect to arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of their
students’ progress (Bulkley et al., 2010).
Discussion on the ability of online learning to trace students’ performance would remain poorly substantiated if
the concept of learning analytics were left out of the conversation. Learning analytics is defined as the collection,
interpretation and reporting of a range of data about students for the purposes of assessment of students’ progress,
diagnosis of potential problems and prediction of future performances (Romero-Zaldivar et al., 2012). This is
often deployed in the use of the Learning Management System (LMS) which has been gaining status across
higher education institutions. Macfadyen and Dawson (2010) affirmed that meaningful information can be
obtained from LMS-generated student tracking. With online education, the LMS can facilitate the collection and
analysis of data used to interpret students’ academic progress without requiring much time. This presents a
competitive edge over physical face-to-face (F2F) education where data often has to be collected via traditional
methods such as questionnaires, interviews, and on-site observations (Conijn et al., 2017).
2.2.3 Convenience
With online learning platforms, students with a hectic schedule, especially those who work while studying, are
allowed to work on testing and assessment tasks at their own pace and place of convenience (Ebadi & Rahimi,
2017, 2018). Another convenience factor about the use of online language testing and assessment is its ability to
provide rapid scoring and feedback, which presents a remarkable improvement over traditional paper-based tests
(Rahayu & Februariyanti, 2005).
In response to the rising demand to reduce scoring time, several automated scoring applications have penetrated
into the education market, one of which is called SpeechRater SM. This application was developed at the
Education Testing service (ETS) and has been employed in low-stakes speaking practice tests to evaluate
students’ fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar (Xi et al., 2008). VersantTM English placement
speaking tests, which also function on the basis of auto-marking, consist of mostly simple constrained tasks (e.g.:
sentence repetition, building sentences, reading sentences aloud). These tests could be used for pre-screening
purposes or as a point of reference on which more complex speaking skills are built (Bernstein et al., 2010).
In terms of feedback automated platforms, CriterionTM (developed by ETS for education contexts) and English
as a Second Language (ESL) Assistant (developed by Microsoft for commercial contexts) are grammatical error
feedback systems. Chodorow et al. (2010) found that the use of article error feedback available via Criterion
helped reduce the number of article errors in students’ writing, while with ESL Assistant, suggestions regarding
article and prepositions errors along with sample structures containing suggested forms supported users to
compose emails more effectively and accurately.
2.3 Methods of Online Language Assessment
In this section the researcher explores different methods of online language assessment commonly practiced in
relation to formative and summative assessment, including evidence of learning and rubrics created for
assessments (Pu & Xu, 2021).
2.3.1 Evidence of Learning
Consistent online language assessments processes often involve students’ written works, and these could be
collected from tools including but not limited to discussion boards, electronic portfolios (e-portfolios) and
collaborative writing essays (e.g., Cheng et al., 2013; Gikandi et al., 2011; Robles & Braathen, 2002; Rovai,
2000).
Online discussion
Having witnessed increasing popularity in tertiary education, online discussion boards are hoped to transform the
classroom dynamics using a learner-centered and socio-constructivist approach (Althaus, 1997; Turcotte &
Laferriere, 2004). Specifically, online discussions are found to improve students’ learning skills and quality of
their learning (Wu & Hiltz, 2004) considering that they help develop students’ faculties of thinking (Althaus,
1997). This is justifiable since with virtual discussions, students can interact at their own pace and reflect on
their contributions before making their submissions online, as well as engaging in metacognitive processes
including brainstorming ideas, reflecting, critical thinking, confronting divergent or conflicting views,
problem-solving and communicating with instructors and peers (Birch & Volkov, 2007).
To add to this, a study by Birch and Volkov (2007) revealed that online discussion in ESL classrooms can give
students a stronger sense of inclusion. It is further specified that in traditional F2F classrooms, it is common to
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 12, No. 4; 2022
57
see certain students who dominate the conversations (Ortega, 1997). Online discussions allow students who may
feel hesitant to raise their voice and make their share of contributions (Curtin, 2002; Ortega, 1997).
Online discussions also provide ample opportunities for students to apply learned vocabulary of their field of
study and develop “linguistic flexibility” without worrying about whether their language limitations could inhibit
their performance (Biesenbach-Lucas, 2003).
Another significant benefit linked to second language acquisition lies in the development of intercultural
communication competence (ICC), derived from the concept of telecollaboration, which is defined as web-based
exchange facilitated by an academic institution between people coming from various cultures for the purpose of
developing language proficiency and ICC (Byram, 1997). With assessment components including
telecollaboration, students are put in a communicative setting where meaningful interaction with foreign partners
would be of immense value to helping students learn how to use contextually appropriate language, or in other
words, pragmatic competence (Cunningham, 2017).
E-portfolio
E-portfolios are defined as a showcase of students’ artefacts in a variety of formats enabled by educational
technologies (Buluc et al., 2013). E-portfolios have the potential to paint students a clearer picture of their
strengths and weaknesses than a singular test score. Besides, they are of great usefulness in promoting the habits
of self-assessment given that students are expected to review their written products and analyze their language
progress (Apple & Shimo, 2004). E-portfolios also encourage students to apply their target language in real-life
contexts, along with developing problem-solving and creativity skills (Baturay & Daloğlu, 2010).
Essentially similar to traditional portfolios, however, e-portfolios might be preferred in the sense that they could
be stored and their information could be transmitted and cross-referenced (Buluc et al., 2013). Another
advantage that e-portfolios have over regular ones is that they are not time-bound, and can create scope for an
engaging delivery of teacher and peer feedback through the application of technological innovations (Hung,
2008).
Collaborative writing
Collaborative writing, with Google Docs and wikis as its prime examples, leaves ample room for collaboration
among peers (Finn, 2018), and its interactiveness is conducive to language development (Black, 2008; Thorne &
Black, 2007). Specifically, given plenty of opportunities to work with others, students may find their language
needs met in a personalized and meaningful way (Barootchi & Keshavarz, 2002). This could be attributed to the
power of peer feedback in drawing learners’ attention to mistakes and encouraging them to make necessary
changes to produce quality products (Rassaei, 2013). Besides, through collaborative learning, students take on
the role of their teachers by providing peer feedback as well as monitors of their learning process, which is
regarded as a stepping stone to the development of self-directed learning (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006).
2.3.2 Rubrics Designed for Testing and Assessment
In the context of virtual learning, rubrics are perceived to be a highly useful framework for interpretation of
learning evidence, and often work as part of more complex assessment tools such as electronic portfolios and
online discussion boards (Buluc et al., 2013). Quite similar to online discussion boards, rubrics are considered a
democratic assessment instrument as they provide a common ground for instructors and learners to hold
discussions over course contents, expected outcomes and proficiency levels to work towards (Buluc et al., 2013).
One typical use of rubrics can be noticed in online discussion boards. Here rubric criteria may include level of
participation (read others’ messages and post responses) and content of responses (novelty of ideas, ability to
recap and analyze peers’ ideas and stimulate discussions, relevance to course contents) (Rovai, 2000).
What sets rubrics in an online context apart from its offline equivalent is that verbal exchanges that are often
neglected in traditional classrooms could now be stored digitally and permanently, which could influence
decisions regarding the assessment results should teachers decide to re-watch recordings for further evidence of
assessment and when vocabulary use is made a marking criteria (Bauer & Anderson, 2000). It is hence suggested
that rubric makers should consider when to focus on vocabulary use (e.g.: formal postings), and when to focus
on content and level of participation (e.g.: online asynchronous discussions). It is implied that if students know
that their use of lexis is being constantly watched in an online environment, it might compromise their level of
participation (Bauer & Anderson, 2000). Currently there is a dearth of prior investigation into the relationship
between assessment methods or rubrics and learning goals or objectives in online language teachers’ practices
(Pu & Xu, 2021).
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 12, No. 4; 2022
58
2.4 Problems with Online Language Testing and Assessment Practices
In this section, several challenges associated with the use of online language assessment practices are presented,
along with the researcher’s in-depth analysis of and implications drawn from noteworthy findings.
2.4.1 Cheating/Plagiarism
Cheating is cited as one of the primary concerns when language teachers conduct testing and assessments online.
In an age of burgeoning technological support in academics, Watson and Sottile (2010) pointed out students’
inclination to violate academic integrity via looking up answers online and chatting with friends.
While cheating is an ongoing issue in both online and offline education, it is exacerbated in online testing as the
instructor may not have a clue about the identity of the student interacting with him (Benson, 2003). One
workable solution to addressing identity verification concerns has been proctored testing. Proctored tests are
conducted at designated locations such as schools, libraries and testing centers, with invigilators or proctors
controlling students’ access and verifying their identity (Benson, 2003). The use of randomized tests is also a
viable course of action, which means students are given different sets of questions so the possibility of cheating
among peers could be minimized, although this would require an additional step of test personalization (Buluc et
al., 2013).
Another issue that falls into academic dishonesty is plagiarism (Rovai, 2000). Online learning has certainly made
it easier for learners to search for information, copy and paste into their own works. In an attempt to alleviate this
problem, teachers should inform students of what constitutes academic dishonesty and in particular plagiarism,
and the consequences of such actions (Benson, 2003). Students and teachers can also deploy web-based
applications to detect plagiarism, the most popular of which has been Turnitin - a detection software commonly
used in academia by identifying text similarities across an enormous database of students' works, journals,
reports, websites, articles and so on (Halgamuge, 2017).
It is also recommended that online instructors use a variety of assessments. Giving students varied assessments
would enable teachers to identify anomalous patterns in students’ works and thus notify them of the possibility of
cheating or plagiarism (Shuey, 2002).
2.4.2 Preference for Selected Response Items
Construct of online tests is currently overemphasizing selected response items (e.g.: MCQs, matching, true/false
questions) (Buluc et al., 2013), and rather they are “old tests in new technology” (Hunt et al., 2007). The reason
for selected response being particularly favored in online education is attributable to the fact that the majority of
course management systems contain available tools and functions to design tests with selected response formats,
which allow automatic scoring after each question or after the whole test has been completed (Benson, 2003).
Thus, for expediency reasons, it is conceivable why selected response has been dominating test specifications.
Concern over the prioritization of MCQs which feature automatic correction is that this kind of language tests
may reduce assessments to an overly simplified version (Carson, 2017).
In Vietnam, the majority of existing studies on MCQs have been mostly limited to those used in offline tests, but
certain implications can be drawn from their findings. Most apparently, disproportionate attention given to
selected response, especially MCQs, is largely derived from a test-driven education system, particularly in
reflection of the National High School Graduation Examination, which comprises only MCQs (Hoang, 2017). As
a consequence, teachers often find themselves placed under constant pressure to engage in “test-like” materials
in the format of MCQs in order to prepare their students for the National High School Graduation Examination.
Thus, it is left to be investigated whether selected response may also dominate online tests, which might serve to
exacerbate the negative washback effects of testing on classroom teaching and learning. In this way, selected
response in online tests presents a promising area of study for future contextualized research in Vietnam.
2.4.3 Lack of Validity and Reliability of Assessments
One serious challenge in language testing and assessment in both face-to-face and virtual learning concerns the
issue of validity and reliability (Gikandi et al., 2011). Gikandi et al. (2011) proposed three characteristics of
reliability in online testing and assessment, including (1) opportunities for collecting evidence of learning with
which teachers and students could use to determine their strengths as well as weaknesses to devise plans for
improvement, (2) variety of sources for evidence of learning, (3) clear learning targets and collective
understanding of rubrics which encourage students to take on an active role and make informed decisions about
their learning.
According to Gikandi et al. (2011), validity consists of the three following characteristics: (1) whether testing
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 12, No. 4; 2022
59
and assessment relates to real life use (Crisp & Ward, 2008; Lin, 2008), (2) effective formative feedback which is
defined as whether feedback is provided in a prompt and continuous fashion, and feedback along with
well-curated rubrics is specific enough to help learners identify ways to improve (Wang et al., 2008), and (3) a
variety of approaches and tasks through which students feel motivated to display their competences and manage
their learning (Crisp & Ward, 2008).
2.4.4 Teachers’ Increasing Amounts of Work
Online testing and assessment as part of virtual learning would demand teachers to cope with a heavier workload,
including preparing classroom materials, organizing interactive tasks, managing classroom discipline and
offering specific feedback to students (Pratawati et al., 2021). In Vietnam, problems with lack of time to use ICT
were echoed by Dang (2011), who claimed that teachers’ reluctance to apply ICT in their teaching could be
attributed to a fear of more work needed to be done for lesson preparation, which would be exacerbated by their
already low levels of familiarity with ICT. Although little was mentioned about testing and assessment, the given
findings could draw valuable implications for the insufficient adoption of ICT in testing and assessment as well.
Fears of additional volumes of work could also lead to fragmented use of alternative assessments in online
settings. Duong (2016) stated that one of the issues that surfaced when alternative assessment was introduced to
the new curriculum stipulated by the MOET was the increasing burden of assessment responsibilities on teachers,
and that implementing the existing curriculum was already a lot of work for them. While it offered an insightful
review of the current landscape of language assessment in Vietnam, Duong’s (2016) study could leave grounds
for future studies to determine whether a lack of practice of alternative assessment methods due to teachers’
constrained time and energy could be generalized to distance learning.
2.4.5 Lack of National Policies or Guidelines
Generally speaking, macro policies at the national level remain general and insufficient for higher education
institutions and teachers to execute online learning (Ahmad et al., 2021). In Vietnam particularly, regulations
relevant to teacher and staff training teachers on language testing and assessment are lacking at primary and
lower secondary levels, whereas at the upper secondary level, only regulations regarding placement and ranking
are available (Duong, 2016).
During COVID-19 pandemic, the MOET has issued several decrees, yet most of which have touched upon
teachers’ responsibility for strictly complying with testing and assessment plans and their use of online
assessment results in place of in-person ones (MOET, 2020). Specific guidelines including different strategies
and techniques to execute testing and assessment in a virtual learning mode, toolkits for online teachers and
teacher training sessions on online testing and assessment, have largely been overlooked.
On a similar note, Dang (2011) found that an ICT plan was never administered to language teachers, which
would result in their lack of understanding with regard to the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of incorporation of ICT into
teaching practices in general and assessment in particular. While this finding has successfully pointed to the need
for clearer guidelines to bridge the gap between theory in all MOET guidelines and educational practice,
considering that his study dated back to 2011, there is a call for further empirical research into current macro
policies regarding assessments and their impacts on actual testing and assessment practices.
2.4.6 Teachers’ Low Levels of ICT Literacy and Lack of ICT Equipment
Generally speaking, teachers’ poor ICT competency is one of the principal challenges associated with online
language assessment (Ahmad et al., 2021). As Davies (2002, p. 2) pointed out “It is not the hardware that is at
fault, nor the software that runs on it; it is the failure to train teachers to make the best use of the hardware and
software”, the underuse of ICT results from teachers’ low levels of digital literacy, which is caused by infrequent
and heavily theory-based training on the matter.
In Vietnam, a pre-service teacher can graduate without demonstrating familiarity with the use of ICT as well as
media skills (Pham & Nguyen, 2020). This unstressed need to normalize ICT competency might provide
justification for teachers’ limited use of ICT in planning in-class activities, which then leads to their lack of
confidence in applying ICT into their teaching in general and assessment in particular (Pham et al., 2018).
Specifically, teachers’ ICT use is mainly restricted to a rigid pattern of looking up relevant materials online,
using word processing softwares to design practice activities and presenting knowledge through Microsoft
PowerPoint slides (Dang, 2011). Again, since this study was conducted in 2011, there remains a demand for
further investigation into teachers’ current digital competence in language teaching in general and language
assessment in particular.
Another noteworthy issue is lack of ICT equipment to support teaching and learning foreign languages (Edmett
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 12, No. 4; 2022
60
et al., 2020). Limited availability of ICT hardwares, softwares and connectivity is most evident in rural and
mountainous areas that are mainly populated by minority families. These families often struggle financially to
afford their children computers as well as Internet access to study online (Minh, 2021).
3. Conclusion
This paper gives a holistic view of language testing and assessment in distance learning derived from existing
literature globally and locally. Specifically, a number of benefits of online language testing and assessment
include promotion of learner autonomy, evaluation of students’ progress, and convenience. Methods of online
language assessment entail collecting evidence of learning and using rubrics. Several problems with current
language testing and assessment practices in online learning are explained, including cheating/plagiarism,
preference for selected response items, lack of validity and reliability, and teachers’ increased workload.
Several recommendations for relevant stakeholders including teachers and teacher education institutions are thus
presented. Different proposals would be subject to careful scrutiny and evaluation, with the researcher’s intent on
localizing the suggestions in mind.
3.1 Teachers
Acknowledging the critical role that formative assessment plays in improving learning during and beyond the
COVID-19 pandemic (Rahim, 2020) and the central part teachers play in implementing online formative
assessment (Mimirinis, 2019), teachers are highly recommended to apply online formative assessment which can
cover the following aspects: (1) offering prompt and constructive feedback, and (2) engaging students with
critical thinking via collaboration or self-regulation (Gikandi et al., 2011). Specifically, with a due emphasis on
feedback giving, a number of suggestions have been put forward. First of all, teachers are advised to make use of
computer-assisted feedback systems such as “track changes” where learners can view the comments along their
written texts (Cope et al., 2011) without the necessity of a time-consuming feedback process. It is also crucial
that the online feedback provided be personalized rather than generic (Lew et al., 2010). Additionally, peer
feedback should be frequently utilized, and ongoing opportunities to work collaboratively in a virtual
environment should be presented to students so that they can develop a sense of community instead of feeling
isolated (Kang & Duong, 2021).
Besides formative peer feedback, as in distance education where learner autonomy is increasingly important,
teachers should instruct students to conduct self-assessments by providing them with examples of such practices
and delineating criteria for them to assess their own performance (Pratawati et al., 2021). Also, it is important to
note that online teachers should make conscious efforts to explore new methods of assessment rather than
replicating assessments often used in the F2F classroom, given the distinctive functionality of the Web in
providing amplified communication and interaction to optimize teaching and learning (Rubio, 2015). Finally, it
is essential that both pre-service and in-service teachers seek continuous training opportunities themselves to
hone their ICT competencies in language teaching in general and in assessment in particular (Zou et al., 2021).
3.2 Teacher Education Institutions
Teacher education institutions are responsible for designing pre-service and in-service training programs that
enable teachers to challenge their preconceived beliefs about ICT and share their assessment practices in distance
education (Williams & Beam, 2019). It is suggested that the more training teachers receive, the more skillful and
comfortable they are with using ICT, and this is hoped to lead to more technology being embedded in teaching in
general and assessment in particular (Dang, 2013).
Regarding the contents of training, it is advisable that training duration be increased and sufficient content of
training be made readily available. It was reported that during annual training provided by Hanoi
University—one of the most well-known universities for language learning in Vietnam—teachers were taught to
use a limited set of digital features such as Microsoft Office, Internet search and download (Dang, 2013). In
other words, discrete technical skills were emphasized instead of how they could be utilized to teach (Dang,
2013). Given that “while computers will not replace teachers, teachers who use computers will eventually
replace teachers who don’t” (Clifford, 1987), teachers need to be equipped with a set of ICT skills applicable to
language teaching. Specifically, they should be trained to use Web 2.0 to conduct relevant testing and assessment
tasks such as giving constructive and specific feedback, using learning analytics in the LMS and using
alternative assessments (e.g.: e-portfolios, discussion boards, collaborative writing).
In addition, it should be noted that teachers, just like their students, learn in different ways (Leach et al., 2005),
thus it is important that ICT training be to cater to such differences, including online training, face-to-face
training, use of printed materials and e-learning resources, and that training should be stored in a repository for
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 12, No. 4; 2022
61
full-time access so that those with conflicting schedules can engage in self-paced learning to revisit or participate
in ICT training (Dang, 2013). Also, similar to the need to foster a collaborative attitude among students,
educational institutions should organize regular peer support groups for teachers, considering that colleagues’
professional advice constitutes a major part of language teachers’ assessment practices, and that teachers often
compensate for the inadequacy of their pre-service training by learning through staffroom knowledge sharing
(Vogt & Tsagari, 2014; Sultana, 2019).
References
Ahmad, N., Rahim, I. S. A., & Ahmad, S. (2021). Designing effective online assessment implementation
strategies for tertiary language courses-narratives on preliminary overview of challenges. AIP Conference
Proceedings, 2347(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0051487
Akimov, A., & Malin, M. (2020). When old becomes new: A case study of oral examination as an online
assessment tool. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(8), 1205−1221.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1730301
Althaus, S. L. (1997). Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiment with
on-line discussions. Communication Education, 46(3), 158−174.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529709379088
Apple, M., & Shimo, E. (2004). Learners to teacher: Portfolios, please! Perceptions of portfolio assessment in
EFL classrooms (pp. 53−58). The Interface between Interlanguage, Pragmatics and Assessment:
Proceedings of the 3rd Annual JALT Pan-SIG conference. Tokyo, Japan: Tokyo Keizai University
Baleni, Z. G. (2015). Online formative assessment in higher education: Its pros and cons. Electronic Journal of
e-Learning, 13(4), 228−236.
Barootchi, N., & Keshavarz, M. H. (2002). Assessment of achievement through portfolios and teacher-made tests.
Educational Research (Windsor), 44(3), 279−288. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880210135313
Baturay, M. H., & Daloğlu, A. (2010). E-portfolio assessment in an online English language course. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 23(5), 413−428. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.520671
Bauer, J. F., & Anderson, R. S. (2000). Evaluating Students’ Written Performance in the Online Classroom. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(84), 65−71. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.849
Benson, A. D. (2003). Assessing participant learning in online environments. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 2003(100), 69−78. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.120
Bernstein, J., Van Moere, A., & Cheng, J. (2010). Validating automated speaking tests. Language Testing, 27(3),
355−377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210364404
Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2003). Asynchronous discussion groups in teacher training classes: Perceptions of native
and non-native students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 24−46.
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v7i3.1843
Birch, D., & Volkov, M. (2007). Assessment of online reflections: engaging English second language (ESL)
students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 291−306.
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1254
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta
Kappan, 92(1), 81−90. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200119
Black, R. W. (2008). Adolescents and online fan fiction. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Bulkley, K. E., Oláh, L. N., & Blanc, S. (2010). Introduction to the Special Issue on Benchmarks for Success?
Interim Assessments as a Strategy for Educational Improvement. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2),
115−124. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619561003673920
Buluc, R., Costea, L., & Tomescu, S. (2013). A Two-folded Perspective on Foreign Language Online Courses
and Assessment. “Carol I” National Defence University.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.
Carson, L. (2017). Improving online language assessment: Using Pecha Kucha to assess spoken production in
English. Caracteres (Salamanca), 6(2), 446−464.
Chang, C.-C., Tseng, K.-H., Liang, C., & Liao, Y.-M. (2013). Constructing and evaluating online goal-setting
mechanisms in web-based portfolio assessment system for facilitating self-regulated learning. Computers
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 12, No. 4; 2022
62
and Education, 69, 237−249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.016
Cheng, A. C., Jordan, M. E., & Schallert, D. L. (2013). Reconsidering assessment in online/hybrid courses:
Knowing versus learning. Computers and Education, 68, 51−59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.022
Chodorow, M., Gamon, M., & Tetreault, J. (2010). The utility of article and preposition error correction systems
for English language learners: Feedback and assessment. Language Testing, 27(3), 419−436.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210364391
Clifford, R. (1987). The Status of Computer-Assisted Language Instruction. CALICO Journal, 4(4), 9−16.
Conijn, R., Snijders, C., Kleingeld, A., & Matzat, U. (2017). Predicting Student Performance from LMS Data: A
Comparison of 17 Blended Courses Using Moodle LMS. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies,
10(1), 17−29. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2016.2616312
Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., McCarthey, S., Vojak, C., & Kline, S. (2011). Technology-Mediated Writing
Assessments: Principles and Processes. Computers and Composition, 28(2), 79−96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2011.04.007
Crisp, V., & Ward, C. (2008). The development of a formative scenario-based computer assisted assessment tool
in psychology for teachers: The PePCAA project. Computers and Education, 50(4), 1509−1526.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.02.004
Cunningham, D. J. (2017). Second language pragmatic appropriateness in telecollaboration: The influence of
discourse management and grammaticality. System (Linköping), 64, 46−57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.006
Curtin, J. (2002). WebCT and online tutorials: New possibilities for student interaction. Australian Journal of
Educational Technology, 18(1), 110−126. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1750
Dang, X. T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ use of ICT in language teaching: A case study of Hanoi
University, Vietnam. The 4th edition of the ICT for Language Learning Conference. Retrieved April 27,
2014 from http://www.conference.pixel-online.net
Dang, X. T., Nicholas, H., & Lewis, R. (2013). ICT training and ICT use among Vietnamese foreign language
teachers. Ubiquitous Learning, 5(3), 13−24. https://doi.org/10.18848/1835-9795/CGP/v05i03/40374
Davies, G. (2002). ICT and modern foreign languages: Learning opportunities and training needs. International
Journal of English Studies, 2(1), 1−18. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.2.1.48371
Dhawan, S. (2020). Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems, 49(1), 5−22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018
Duong, M. T. (2016). The Modern Assessment Paradigm and the Methods to Assess Students’ Competences in
Vietnam’s Education. VNU Journal of Science: Education Research, 32(1). Retrieved from
https://js.vnu.edu.vn/ER/article/view/666
Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2017). Exploring the impact of online peer-editing using Google Docs on EFL learners’
academic writing skills: A mixed methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(8), 787−815.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1363056
Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2018). An exploration into the impact of WebQuest-based classroom on EFL learners’
critical thinking and academic writing skills: A mixed-methods study. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 31(5−6), 617−651. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1449757
Ebrahimzadeh, M., & Alavi, S. (2017). The Effect of Digital Video Games on EFL Students’ Language Learning
Motivation. Teaching English with Technology, 17(2), 87−112.
Edmett, A., Donaghy, K., & Tysoe, Z. (2020). An evaluative report on the Project 2020 Vietnamese National
Open Online Learning Centre proposal. British Council.
Gardner, J. (2010). Developing teacher assessments: An introduction. In J. Gardner, W. Harlen, L. Hayward, G.
Stobart & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Developing teacher assessment (pp. 1−11). New York, NY: Open
University Press.
Gaytan, J., & McEwen, B. (2007). Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. American Journal of
Distance Education, 21(3), 117−132. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640701341653
Gikandi, J., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 12, No. 4; 2022
63
literature. Computers and Education, 57(4), 2333−2351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004
Halgamuge, M. N. (2017). The use and analysis of anti plagiarism softwa‐re: Turnitin tool for formative
assessment and feedback. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 25(6), 895−909.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21842
Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach languages online.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 311−326. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220500335455
Harasim, L. (2009). Teaching and Learning On-Line: Issues in Computer-Mediated Graduate Courses. Canadian
Journal of Learning and Technology, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.21432/T2TK6K
Harlen, W., & Gardner, J. (2010). Assessment to support learning. In J. Gardner, W. Harlen, L. Hayward, G.
Stobart & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Developing teacher assessment (pp. 15−28). New York, NY: Open
University Press.
Hoang, V. V. (2017). The 2016 national matriculation and general certificate of secondary education English test:
A challenge to the goal of foreign language education in Vietnamese schools. VNU Journal of Foreign
Studies, 33(2). https://doi.org/10.25073/2588-1159/vnuer.4118
Hung, S. T. (2008). Promoting self-assessment strategies: An electronic portfolio approach. Asian EFL Journal,
11(2), 129−146.
Hunt, M., Neill, S., & Barnes, A. (2007). The use of ICT in the assessment of modern languages: The English
context and European viewpoints. Educational Review (Birmingham), 59(2), 195−213.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910701255012
Kang, M., & Duong, A. (2021). Student Perceptions of First-time Online Learning During the COVID-19
Pandemic in Vietnam. Inquiry in Education, 13(1).
Le, C. V., & Nguyen, N. T. (2017). What can the National Foreign Language Project 2020 learn from Asian
experiences? VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 33(4), 10−23.
Lew, M. D., Alwis, W. A., & Schmidt, H. G. (2010). Accuracy of students’ self-assessment and their beliefs
about its utility. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(2), 135−156.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802687737
Lin, Q. (2008). Preservice teachers’ learning experiences of constructing e-portfolios online. The Internet and
Higher Education, 11(3), 194−200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.07.002
Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2010). Mining LMS data to develop an “early warning system” for educators:
A proof of concept. Computers and Education, 54(2), 588−599.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.008
Mimirinis, M. (2019). Qualitative differences in academics’ conceptions of e-assessment. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(2), 233−248. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1493087
Minh, P. (2021, September 3). Quang Binh: Thousands of students do not have enough equipment for online
learning. Sai Gon Online. Retrieved from
https://www.sggp.org.vn/quang-binh-hang-ngan-hoc-sinh-khong-du-co-so-vat-chat-hoc-truc-tuyen-758863.
html
Ministry of Education and Training. (2020, March). Instructions for teaching via the Internet and on television
for general and regular educational institutions when students are absent from school due to Covid-19 in
the 2019
−
2020 school year. Vietnamese Government. Retrieved August 27, 2021, from
https://thuvienphapluat.vn/cong-van/cong-nghe-thong-tin/Cong-van-1061-BGDDT-GDTrH-2020-day-hoc-q
ua-Internet-trong-thoi-gian-nghi-hoc-o-truong-vi-Covid-19-438294.aspx
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and
seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education (Dorchester-on-Thames), 31(2),
199−218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Nguyen, H. V. (2013). An Investigation into the Effectiveness of Using some Web 2.0 tools on Learning Speaking
and Listening to Sophomores. College of Foreign Languages, University of Danang. Danang: University of
Foreign Languages.
Nguyen, L. (2016). IT Application in Foreign Language Education: From International Experience to Real State
of Affairs in Vietnam. VNU Journal of Science: Education Research, 32(2). Retrieved from
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 12, No. 4; 2022
64
https://js.vnu.edu.vn/ER/article/view/1670
Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for
L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning and Technology, 1(1), 82−93.
Pham, H. T. T., & Nguyen, N. D. (2020). Policy Transformations about ICT Applying in Learning and Teaching
in Vietnamese General Educational System. VNU Journal of Science: Education Research, 36(4).
https://doi.org/10.25073/2588-1159/vnuer.4457
Pham, T. T. N., Tan, C. K., & Lee, K. W. (2018). Exploring Teaching English Using ICT In Vietnam: The Lens of
Activity Theory. International Journal of Modern Trends in Social Sciences, 1(3), 15−29.
Pu, S., & Xu, H. (2021). Examining Changing Assessment Practices in Online Teaching: A Multiple-Case Study
of EFL School Teachers in China. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00605-6
Rahayu, E. Y., & Februariyanti, H. (2015). Implementation of Online Reading Assessments to Encourage
Reading Interests. English Language Teaching (Toronto), 8(11), 197. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n11p197
Rahim, A. F. A. (2020). Guidelines for online assessment in emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19
pandemic. Education in Medicine Journal, 12(2), 59−68. https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2020.12.2.6
Rassaei, E. (2013). Corrective feedback, learners’ perceptions, and second language development. System
(Linköping), 41(2), 472−483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.05.002
Robles, M., & Braathen, S. (2002). Online assessment techniques. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 44(1), 39−49.
Romero-Zaldivar, V.-A., Pardo, A., Burgos, D., & Delgado Kloos, C. (2012). Monitoring student progress using
virtual appliances: A case study. Computers and Education, 58(4), 1058−1067.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.003
Rovai, A. P. (2000). Online and traditional assessments: What is the difference? Internet and Higher Education,
3(3), 141−151. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00028-8
Rubio, F. (2015). Assessment of Oral Proficiency in Online Language Courses: Beyond Reinventing the Wheel.
The Modern Language Journal (Boulder, Colo.), 99(2), 405−408. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12234_4
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2),
119−144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
Shuey, S. (2002). Assessing Online Learning in Higher Education. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 16(2),
13−18.
Sultana, N. (2019). Language assessment literacy: An uncharted area for the English language teachers in
Bangladesh. Language Testing in Asia, 9(1), 1−14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-019-0077-8
Thorne, S. L., & Black, R. W. (2007). Language and Literacy Development in Computer-mediated Contexts and
Communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27(5), 133−160.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190508070074
Turcotte, S., & Laferrière, T. (2004). Integration of an Online Discussion Forum in a Campus-based
Undergraduate Biology Class. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(2), 73.
https://doi.org/10.21432/T2V59W
UNESCO. (2020). Education: From disruption to recovery. Retrieved October 3, 2021, from
https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
Vogt, K., & Tsagari, D. (2014). Assessment literacy of foreign language teachers: Findings of a European study.
Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(4), 374−402. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2014.960046
Wang, T. H., Wang, K. H., & Huang, S. C. (2008). Designing a Web-based assessment environment for
improving pre-service teacher assessment literacy. Computers and Education, 51(1), 448−462.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.06.010
Watson, G., & Sottile, J. (2010). Cheating in the Digital Age: Do Students Cheat More in Online Courses?
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(1).
Williams, C., & Beam, S. (2019). Technology and writing: Review of research. Computers & Education, 128,
227−242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.024
Wu, D., & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 12, No. 4; 2022
65
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 139−152. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v8i2.1832
Xi, X., Higgins, D., Zechner, K., & Williamson, D. M. (2008). Automated scoring of spontaneous speech using
Speechratersm v1.0. ETS Research Report Series, 2008(2), 1–102.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2008.tb02148.x
Yeo, C. H., Ke, K., & Chatterjee, B. (2015). An investigation into the relationship between on-line formative
assessments and performance of students. e-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 9(1),
1−42.
Zou, M., Kong, D., & Lee, I. (2021). Teacher Engagement with Online Formative Assessment in EFL Writing
During COVID-19 Pandemic: The Case of China. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30, 487−498.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00593-7
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author, with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.