Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Language Testing in Asia
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Formative vs. summative assessment:
impacts onacademic motivation, attitude
towardlearning, test anxiety, andself‑regulation
skill
Seyed M. Ismail1, D. R. Rahul2 , Indrajit Patra3 and Ehsan Rezvani4*
Abstract
As assessment plays an important role in the process of teaching and learning, this
research explored the impacts of formative and summative assessments on academic
motivation, attitude toward learning, test anxiety, and self-regulation skill of EFL stu-
dents in Iran. To fulfill the objectives of this research, 72 Iranian EFL learners were cho-
sen based on the convenience sampling method assigned to two experimental groups
(summative group and formative group) and a control group. Then, the groups took
the pre-tests of test anxiety, motivation, and self-regulation skill. Then, one experimen-
tal group was trained by following the rules of the formative assessment and the other
experimental group was taught according to the summative assessment. The control
group was instructed without using any preplanned assessment. After a 15-session
treatment, the post-tests of the test anxiety, motivation, and self-regulation skill were
administered to all groups to assess the impacts of the instruction on their language
achievement. Lastly, a questionnaire of attitude was administered to both experimental
groups to examine their attitudes towards the impacts of formative and summative
assessment on their English learning improvement. The outcomes of one-way ANOVA
and Bonferroni tests revealed that both summative and formative assessments were
effective but the formative one was more effective on academic motivation, test
anxiety, and self-regulation skill. The findings of one sample t-test indicated that the
participants had positive attitudes towards summative and formative assessments.
Based on the results, it can be concluded that formative assessment is an essential part
of teaching that should be used in EFL instructional contexts. The implications of this
study can help students to detect their own weaknesses and target areas that need
more effort and work.
Keywords: Academic motivation, Attitude toward learning, Formative assessment,
Self-regulation skill, Summative assessment, Test anxiety
Open Access
© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate-
rial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://
creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
RESEARCH
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468‑022‑00191‑4
Language Testing in Asia
*Correspondence:
e.rezvani@khuisf.ac.ir
1 College of Humanities
and Sciences, Prince Sattam Bin
Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj,
Saudi Arabia
2 School of Science
and Humanities, Shiv Nadar
University Chennai, Chennai,
India
3 NIT Durgapur, Durgapur, West
Bengal, India
4 English Department, Isfahan
(Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad
University, Isfahan, Iran
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 2 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
Introduction
In teaching and learning, assessment is defined as a procedure applied by instructors
and students during instruction through which teachers provide necessary feedbacks
to modify ongoing learning and teaching to develop learners’ attainment of planned
instructional aims (Robinowitz, 2010). According to Popham (2008), assessment is an
intended procedure in which evidence of learners’ status is utilized by educators to
adjust their ongoing instructional processes or applied by learners to change their pre-
sent instructional strategies. Assessment intends to improve learning and it is used to
reduce the gap between students’ present instructional situation and their target learn-
ing objectives (Heritage, 2012).
Two types of assessment are formative and summative. According to Glazer (2014),
summative assessment is generally applied to give learners a numerical score with lim-
ited feedback. erefore, summative assessment is commonly used to measure learn-
ing and is rarely used for learning. Educators can make the summative assessment more
formative by giving learners the opportunity to learn from exams. is would mean
supplying pupils with feedback on exams and making use of the teaching potentiality of
exams. Wininger (2005) proposed an amalgamation of assessment techniques between
summative assessment and formative assessment. is marriage between summative
assessment and formative assessment is referred to as summative-formative assessment.
Based on Wininger, summative-formative assessment is used to review the exam with
examinees so they can get feedback on comprehension. Formative-summative assess-
ment occurs in two primary forms: using a mock exam before the final or using the final
exam before the retake.
Formative assessment allows for feedback which improves learning while summa-
tive assessment measures learning. Formative assessment refers to frequent, interactive
assessments of students’ development and understanding to recognize their needs and
adjust teaching appropriately (Alahmadi etal., 2019). According to Glazer (2014), forma-
tive assessment is generally defined as tasks that allow pupils to receive feedback on their
performance during the course. In the classroom, teachers use assessments as a diagnos-
tic tool at the termination of lessons or the termination of units. In addition, teachers
can use assessments for teaching, by identifying student misconceptions and bridging
gaps in learning through meaningful feedback (Dixson & Worrell, 2016). Unfortunately,
numerous instructors consider formative assessments as a tool to measure students’
learning, while missing out on its teaching potential. Testing and teaching can be one or
the same which will be discussed further in this research (Remmi & Hashim, 2021).
According to Black etal. (2004), using formative tests for formative purposes improves
classroom practice whereby students can be encouraged in both reflective and active
review of course content. In general terms, formative assessment is concerned with
helping students to develop their learning (Buyukkarci & Sahinkarakas, 2021). Forma-
tive assessment can be considered as a pivotal and valid part of the blending of assess-
ment and teaching (Ozan & Kıncal, 2018). Formative assessment helps students gain an
understanding of the assessment process and provides them with feedback on how to
refine their efforts for improvement. However, in practice, assessment for learning is still
in its infancy, and many instructors still struggle with providing productive and timely
feedback (Clark, 2011).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 3 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
Using the mentioned assessments can positively affect the test anxiety of the students.
Test anxiety signifies the extent to which the students experience apprehension, fear,
uneasiness, panic tension, and restlessness while even thinking of forthcoming tests or
exams (Ahmad, 2012). Anxiety can also be regarded as a product of hesitation about
imminent events or situations (Craig etal., 2000). Test anxiety is the emotional reaction
or status of stress that happens before exams and remains throughout the period of the
exams (Sepehrian, 2013). Anxiety can commonly be connected to coercions to self-effi-
cacy and evaluations of circumstances as threatening or reactions to a resource of stress
to continue (Pappamihiel, 2002).
e other variable which can influence the consequences of tests or testing sessions
in EFL settings is the attitudes of students towards English culture, English language,
and English people. Kara (2009) stated that attitude about learning together with beliefs
and opinions have a significant impact on learners’ behaviors and consequently on their
performances. ose learners who have desirable beliefs about language learning are
willing to rise more positive attitudes toward language learning. On the other hand,
having undesirable beliefs can result in negative attitudes, class anxiety, and low cogni-
tive achievements (Chalak & Kassaian, 2010; Tella etal., 2010). ere are both nega-
tive and positive attitudes towards learning. Positive attitudes can develop learning and
negative attitudes can become barriers to learning because students have these atti-
tudes as they have difficulties in learning or they just feel that what is presented to them
is boring. While a negative attitude toward learning can lead to poor performances of
students, a positive attitude can result in appropriate and good performances of stu-
dents (Ellis, 1994).
Woods (2015) says that instructors should regularly utilize formative assessment to
advance the learners’ self-regulation skills and boost their motivation. Motivation is
referred to the reasons why people have different behaviors in different situations. Moti-
vation is considered as the intensity and direction of the students’ attempts. e inten-
sity of attempt is referred to the extent that students try to reach their objectives and the
direction of attempt is referred to the objectives that students intend to reach (Ahmadi
etal., 2009; Paul & Elder, 2013). Motivation is an inborn phenomenon that is influenced
by four agents such as aim (the aim of behaviors, purposes, and tendencies), instru-
ment (instruments used to reach objectives), situation (environmental and outer stimu-
lants), and temper (inner state of the organism). To reach their goals, people first should
acquire the essential incentives. For instance, academic accomplishment motivation is
significant to scholars (Firouznia etal., 2009).
Wiliam (2014) also asserts that self-regulation learning can be a crucial part of a pro-
ductive formative assessment concerning the techniques of explaining, sharing, and
understanding the instructional goals and students’ success and responsibility for their
own learning. Self-regulation skill requires learners to dynamically utilize their cog-
nitive skills; try to achieve their learning aims; receive support from their classmates,
parents, and instructors when needed; and most significantly, be responsible for their
own learning (Ozan & Kıncal, 2018). is research aimed to explore the impacts of using
summative and formative assessments of Iranian EFL learners’ academic motivation,
attitude toward learning, test anxiety, and self-regulation skill. is study is significant
as it compared the effects of two kinds of assessments namely formative and summative
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 4 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
on academic motivation, attitude toward learning, test anxiety, and self-regulation skill.
As this research investigated the effects of the mentioned assessments on four emotional
variables simultaneously, it can be considered as a novel study.
Review oftheliterature
In the field of teaching English as a foreign language, several researchers and experts
defined the term “assessment” as a pivotal component of the process of teaching.
According to Brown (2003), assessment is a process of collecting data about learners’
capabilities to conduct learning tasks. at is, assessment is the way instructors use
to gather data about their methods and their pupils’ improvement. Furthermore, the
assessment process has got an inseparable component from teaching, since it is impos-
sible to think of teaching without assessments. Brown (2003) defined assessment in rela-
tion to testing. e differences between them refer to the fact that the latter occurs at
an identified point of time while the former is an ongoing process that occurs regularly
(Brown, 2003).
Other scholars explained the meaning of assessment by distinguishing it from eval-
uation. Regarding the difference between the two, Nunan (1992) asserted that assess-
ment is referred to the procedures and processes whereby teachers determine what
students can do in the target language and added evaluation is referred to a wider range
of processes that may or may not include assessment data. In this way, then, assessment
is process-oriented while evaluation is product-oriented. Palomba and Banta (1999)
defined assessment as “the systematic collection, review, and use of information about
educational programs undertaken to improve learning and development” (p.4). All in all,
assessing students’ performances means recognizing and gathering information, receiv-
ing feedback, and analyzing and modifying the learning processes. e main goal, thus,
is to overcome barriers to learning. Assessment is then used to interpret the perfor-
mances of students, develop learning, and modify teaching (Aouine, 2011; Ghahderijani
etal., 2021).
Two types of assessment are formative and summative. Popham (2008) said that it is
not the nature of the tests to be labeled as summative or formative but the use to which
that tests’ outcomes will be put. at is to say, the summative-formative manifestation of
assessment does not stop at being a typology but it expands to be purposive due to the
nature of assessment. Summative assessment, then, has been referred to as some crite-
ria. Cizek (2010) suggests that two criteria can define the summative assessment: (1) it
is conducted at the termination of some units and (2) its goal is mainly to characterize
the performances of the students or systems. Its major goal is to gain measurement of
attainment to be utilized in making decisions.
rough Cizek’s definition, a summative assessment seeks to judge the learners’ per-
formances in every single course. us, providing diagnostic information is not what
this type of assessment is concerned with. Significantly, the judgments made about the
students, teachers, or curricula are meant to grade, certificate, evaluate, and research on
how effective curricula are, and these are the purposes of summative assessment accord-
ing to Cizek (2010).
According to Black and Wiliam (2006), summative assessment is given occasionally
to assess what pupils know and do not know. is type of assessment is done after the
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 5 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
learning has been finalized and provides feedback and information that summarize the
learning and teaching process. Typically, no more formal learning is occurring at this
stage, other than incidental learning that may happen via completing the assignments
and projects (Wuest & Fisette, 2012). Summative assessment measures what students
have learned and mostly is conducted at the end of a course of instruction (Abeywick-
rama & Brown, 2010; Liu etal., 2021; Rezai etal., 2022).
For Woods (2015), the summative assessment provides information to judge the gen-
eral values of the instructional programs, while the outcomes of formative assessment
are used to facilitate the instructional programs. Based on Shepard (2006), a summative
assessment must accomplish its major purpose of documenting what learners know and
can do but, if carefully created, should also efficaciously fulfill a secondary objective of
learning support.
Brown (2003) claimed that summative assessment aims at measuring or summarizing
what students have learned. is means looking back and taking stock of how well that
students have fulfilled goals but does not essentially pave the way to future improvement.
Furthermore, the summative assessment also known as assessment of learning is clari-
fied by Spolsky and Halt (2008) who state that assessment of learning is less detailed, and
intends to find out the educational programs or students’ outcomes. us, summative
assessment is applied to evaluating different language skills and learners’ achievements.
Even though summative assessment has a main role in the learners’ evaluation, it is not
sufficient to know their advancement and to detect the major areas of weaknesses, and
this is the essence of formative assessment (Pinchok & Brandt, 2009; Vadivel etal., 2021).
e term ‘formative assessment’ has been proposed for years and defined by many
researchers. A clearer definition is provided by Brown (2003) in which he claims that
formative assessment is referred to the evaluation of learners in the process of “form-
ing” their skills and competencies to help them to keep up that growth process. It is also
described as comprising all those activities conducted by instructors or by their learners
that supply information to be utilized as feedback to adjust the learning and teaching
activities in which they are involved (Fox etal., 2016).
Formative assessments aim to gain immediate feedback on students learning through
which strengths and weaknesses of students can be diagnosed. Comprehensively, Wiliam
(2011) suggests: Practices in the classrooms are formative to the extent that evidence
about students’ accomplishments is elicited, interpreted, and utilized by instructors, stu-
dents, or their classmates, to decide about the subsequent steps in the education that are
probably to be better or better founded, than the decisions they would have taken in the
absence of the evidence that was elicited.
rough this definition, formative assessment actively involves both students’ and
teachers’ participation as a key component to develop students’ performance. e
assessment for learning, which is based on the aim behind using it, is assessing learn-
ers’ progress (McCallum & Milner, 2021). erefore, it is all about gathering data about
learners’ achievement to recognize their progress in skills, requirements, and capabilities
as their weaknesses and strengths before, during, and after the educational courses to
develop students’ learning and achievement (Douglas & Wren, 2008).
Besides, Popham (2008) considered the formative assessment as a strategic proce-
dure in which educators or pupils utilize assessment-based evidence to modify what
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 6 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
they are presently performing. at describes it as the planned process that is not ran-
domly occurring. erefore, formative assessment is an ongoing procedure that provides
learners with constructive timely feedback, helping them achieve their learning goals
and enhancing their achievements (Vogt etal., 2020). Formative assessment is a helpful
technique that can provide students with formative help by evaluating the interactions
between assessment and learning (Chan, 2021; Masita & Fitri, 2020).
Some criteria related to formative assessment have been presented by Cizek (2010). In
his opinion, formative assessment attempts to identify students’ levels whether high or
low, to provide more help for educators to plan subsequent instruction, to make it easier
for students to continue their own learning, review their work, and be able to evaluate
themselves. To make learners responsible for their learning and do their research Form-
ative assessment, to Cizek, is a sufficient tool and area for learners and teachers to make
proficiency in the learning-teaching process. All in all, concerning specific objectives,
formative assessment is a goal-oriented process.
Tahir etal. (2012) stated that formative assessment is a diagnostic use of assessment
that can provide feedback to instructors and learners throughout the instructional pro-
cess. Marsh (2007) claimed that formative tests are a type of strategy which are prepared
to recognize students’ learning problems to provide a remedial procedure to develop the
performances of the majority of the learners. e information that is provided for the
learners should be utilized for the assessment to be explained as a formative one. e
Assessment Reform Group (ARG) (2007) explains formative assessment as the proce-
dure to look for and interpret the evidence for instructors and their students to make
decisions about where the students fit in their learning, where they need to go, and how
best to get there. Kathy (2013) also argued that formative tests aim to analyze the stu-
dents’ learning problems to develop their academic attainment.
e theory that is behind our study is the sociocultural theory stating that knowledge
is generated in a cooperative way within social contexts. It views learning as a condition
wherein learners generate their meanings from the materials and content delivered to
them, rather than trying to memorize the information (Vygotsky, 1978). Based on socio-
cultural theory, learning can occur successfully when teachers and students have more
interactions with each other.
Some empirical studies are reported here. Alahmadi etal. (2019) aimed to examine
whether a formative speaking assessment produced any effect on learners’ performances
in the summative test. Besides, they aimed to observe students’ learning and to provide
useful feedbacks that can be applied by educators to develop learners’ achievement and
assist them to detect their weaknesses and strengths in speaking skills. eir results
indicated that formative assessment helped Saudi learners to solve the problems they
encounter in speaking tests.
Mahshanian etal. (2019) highlighted the significance of summative assessment in con-
junction with teacher-based (formative) assessments on the learners’ performances. To
do this study, 170 EFL students at the advanced level were chosen and grouped based
on the kind of assessment they had received. e subjects in this research were admin-
istered exams for two main reasons. First, a general proficiency test was given to put
the students at different levels of proficiency. Second, for comparing students’ develop-
ment according to different kinds of assessments within a 4-month learning duration,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 7 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
an achievement test of the course was administered both as the pre-test and the post-
test. e data gained via the scores of the participants on the achievement test received
analyses and then compared by utilizing ANCOVA, ANOVA, and t-tests. Based on the
outcomes of this research, we can conclude that an amalgamation of summative and
formative assessments can result in better achievements for EFL students than either
summative or formative assessments discretely.
Imen (2020) attempted to determine the effects of formative assessments on EFL
learners’ writing skills. Indeed, the goal of this study was to recognize the effects of form-
ative assessments on developing the writing skills of first-year master’s students at Abdel
Elhamid Ibn Badis University, in Mostaganem. is research also attempted to reveal
an essential issue that is the lack of the execution of formative assessments in the writ-
ing classrooms. To verify the hypotheses, two tools were applied in this study to gather
the data, the teachers’ questionnaire and the students’ questionnaire. e findings of the
study revealed that the formative assessment was not extensively used in teaching and
learning writing skills, at the University of Mostaganem. e results of both question-
naires showed that if the students were evaluated formatively, their writing skills could
be highly enhanced.
Ashdale (2020) attempted to examine the influences of a particular formative assess-
ment named as Progress Trackers, by comparing a control group that did not receive the
Progress Tracker with an experimental group that received the formative-based assess-
ment. e research findings revealed that there were no substantial differences between
the experimental and control groups based on the results of the pre-test and the post-
test scores. While not statistically significant, the experimental group showed a larger
increase in the learners with at least a 60% development in achievement. e lack of
significant differences between the experimental group and the control group could be
created by the uselessness of the formative assessments or the inability to exclude other
factors in the class contexts. is could comprise the uses of other formative assessments
applied in both groups, delivery of content, and execution of the formative assessments.
Persaud Singh and Ewert (2021) investigated the effects of quizzes and mock exams
as a formative assessment on working adult learners’ achievement using a quasi-exper-
imental quantitative design. One experimental group received both quizzes and mock
exams, another group received mock exams only, and a control group received neither.
e data gathered received analyses by utilizing t-tests and ANOVA. e findings indi-
cated noticeable differences in the levels of achievement for the groups receiving forma-
tive assessments in comparison to the control participants. e “mock exam” group
outperformed slightly than the “quizzes and mock exam” group.
Al Tayib Umar and Abdulmlik Ameen (2021) traced the effects of formative assess-
ment on Saudi EFL students’ achievement in medical English. e research also tried
to figure out teachers’ and students’ attitudes toward formative assessment. e par-
ticipants involved in this research were 98 students selected among the Preparatory
Year learners at a Saudi university. ey were assigned to an experimental group and
a control group. e experimental students were given their English for Specific Pur-
poses (ESP) courses following the formative assessment techniques whereas the control
group was trained in their ESP courses by traditional assessment rules. e experimental
group teachers were given intensive training courses in Saudi Arabia and abroad on how
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 8 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
to use formative assessment principles in the classrooms. At the end of the experiment
that continued for 120 days, the control and experimental groups sat for the end of term
examination which was designed for all candidates in the Preparatory College. Grades
of all participants in the two groups in the final exam were compared. e performance
of the experimental group was found to be meaningfully higher than that of the control
group. Instructors’ and students’ attitudes towards formative assessment were positive.
Hamedi etal. (2022) investigated the effects of using formative assessment by Kahoot
application on Iranian EFL students’ vocabulary knowledge as well as their burnout
levels. is study was conducted on 60 participants who were in two groups of experi-
mental and control. e results indicated that using formative assessment generated sig-
nificant effects on of Iranian EFL students’ vocabulary knowledge.
In conclusion, the above studies confirmed the positive effects of summative and form-
ative assessment on language learning. Yet, there are a few kinds of research on com-
paring the effects of the summative and formative assessments on Iranian EFL learners’
academic motivation, attitude toward learning, test anxiety, and self-regulation skill.
Most studies in the domain of assessment examined the effects of the summative and
formative assessments on the main skills (reading, speaking, writing, and listening) and
they did not pay much attention to the psychosocial variables; therefore, this research
posed two questions to cover the existing gap.
RQ1. Does using formative and summative assessments positively affect Iranian EFL
learners’ test anxiety, academic motivation, and self-regulation skill?
RQ2. Do Iranian EFL learners present positive attitudes toward learning through
formative and summative assessments?
Methodology
Design ofthestudy
Participants
e participants of this research were 72 Iranian EFL students who have studied Eng-
lish since 2016. e male EFL learners were selected based on the convenience sampling
method by administering the Preliminary English Test (PET). ey were selected from
the Parsian English language institute, located in Ahvaz city, Iran. e participants’ gen-
eral English proficiency was intermediate and their age average was 21 years old. e
participants were divided into two experimental groups (summative and formative) and
a control group.
Instrumentations
For homogenizing the subjects in terms of general English proficiency, we gave a version
of the PET test, extracted from the book PET Practice Test (Quintana, 2008). Because of
some limitations, only the sections of reading, grammar, and vocabulary of the test were
used in this study. We piloted the test on another similar group and allotted 60 min for
answering all its items. Its validity was accepted by some English experts and its reliabil-
ity was .91.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 9 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
Britner and Pajares’ (2006) Science Anxiety Scale (SAS) was used as the other instru-
ment to assess the participants’ test anxiety. Some wordings of the items were changed
to make them suitable for measuring test anxiety. ere were 12 items in this test that
required the participants to consider the items (e.g., I am worried that I will get weak
scores in most of the exams) and answer a 6-point scale ranging from certainly false to
certainly true. Based on Cronbach’s alpha formula, the reliability index of the anxiety
test was .79.
e other tool used in this study was the Self-Regulatory Strategies Scale (SRSS)
which was developed by Kadıoğlu etal. (2011) to assess the self-regulation skills of the
participants. e SRSS was a 6-point Likert instrument including never, seldom, occa-
sionally, often, frequently, and constantly. e SRSS consisted of 29 statements in eight
dimensions. e results of Cronbach’s alpha formula showed that the reliability of the
SRSS was .82.
We used the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) of Gardner (2004) to evaluate
the respondents’ English learning motivation. is measuring instrument had 26 items
each with six responses: Highly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Somewhat Disagree,
Somewhat Agree, Moderately Agree, and Highly Agree. We used the Cronbach alpha
to measure the reliability of the motivation questionnaire (r = .87). It should be noted
that the motivation questionnaire, the SAS, and the SRSS were used as the pre-tests and
post-tests of the research.
e last tool employed in this research was an attitude questionnaire examining the
participants’ attitudes towards the effectiveness of summative and formative assessment
on their English learning enhancement. e researchers themselves created 17-point
Likert- items for this questionnaire and the reliability of this instrument was .80. Likert
scale was utilized in the questionnaire to show the amount of disagreement and agree-
ment from 1 to 5 that were highly disagree, disagree, no idea, agree, and highly agree.
e validities of all mentioned tools were substantiated by a group of English specialists.
Collecting theneeded data
To start the study, first, the PET was administered to 96 EFL learners and 72 intermedi-
ate participants were selected among them. As stated previously, the participants were
divided into two experimental groups (summative and formative) and one control group.
After that, the pretests of test anxiety, motivation, and self-regulation skill were admin-
istered to the participants of all groups. After pretesting process, the treatment was con-
ducted on the groups differently; each group received special instruction.
One experimental group was instructed based on the rules of the formative assess-
ment, in the formative group, the teacher (researcher) assisted the students to partici-
pate in evaluating their learning via using self and peer assessment. Besides, the teacher’s
comprehensive and descriptive elicitation and feedbacks of information about students’
learning were significant in formative class. In fact, there were no tests at the termination
of the term and the teacher was flexible concerning the students’ mistakes and provided
them with constructive feedback including metalinguistic clues, elicitation, correction,
repletion, clarification request, recast, and repletion.
In the summative class, the teacher assessed the students’ learning by giving mid-term
and final exams. e teacher did not provide any elaborative feedback, and his feedback
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 10 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
was limited to yes/no and true/ false. e control group neither received a formative-
based instruction nor a summative-based instruction. e teacher of the control group
instructed them without utilizing any preplanned assessments. ey finished the course
without any formative and summative assessments. After the treatment, the post-tests
of the test anxiety, motivation, and self-regulation skill were given to all groups to assess
the influences of the intervention on their language achievement. In the final step, the
questionnaire of attitude was distributed among both experimental groups to check
their opinions about the impacts of summative and formative assessment on their Eng-
lish learning improvement.
e whole study lasted 23 sessions; each took 50 min. In one session, the PET test was
administered and in the next three sessions, three pre-tests were conducted. During 15
sessions, the treatment was carried out; in three sessions, three post-tests were given to
the participants, and in the last session the attitudinal questionnaire was administered to
examine the participants’ attitudes towards the effectiveness of summative and forma-
tive assessment of their English learning achievement.
Data analysis
Having prepared all needed data via the procedures mentioned above, some statistical
steps were taken to provide answers to the questions raised in this study. First, the data
were analyzed descriptively to compute the means of the groups. Second, some one-way
ANOVA and Bonferroni tests were used for analyzing the data inferentially. ird, one
sample t-test was utilized to analyze the motivation questionnaire data.
Results anddiscussion
After checking and getting sure about the normality distribution of the data by using the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, we used several one-way ANOVA tests and reported their
results in the following tables:
As we see in Table1, the mean scores of all groups are almost similar. ey got almost
equal scores on their anxiety pre-test and the three groups were at the same level of anx-
iety before conducting the instruction. is claim is verified in the following table with
the help of one-way ANOVA.
According to the Sig value in Table2, there is not a noticeable difference between the
test anxiety of all three groups. ey were at the same anxiety level at the outset of the
study. e inferential statistics show that all the participants had an equal amount of
anxiety before they had received the treatment.
Table 1 Descriptive statistics of all groups on the test anxiety pre-tests
NMeans Std.
deviations Std. errors 95% condence interval for
means Minimum Maximum
Lower
bounds Upper
bounds
Control 24 27.70 11.37 2.32 22.90 32.51 14.00 49.00
Summative 24 28.91 11.89 2.42 23.89 33.93 13.00 50.00
Formative 24 28.41 10.93 2.23 23.79 33.03 14.00 49.00
Total 72 28.34 11.25 1.32 25.70 30.99 13.00 50.00
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 11 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
As is seen in Table3, the mean scores of all groups are different on the anxiety post-
tests. Based on the descriptive statistics, the groups gained different scores on their anxi-
ety post-test and the experimental groups obtained better scores than the control group.
is claim is substantiated in the following table by using a one-way ANOVA test.
Table4 depicts that the Sig value is less than .00; accordingly, one can conclude that
there is a noticeable difference between the test anxiety post-tests of all three groups.
ey were at different anxiety levels at the end of the research. It seems that the experi-
mental groups outdid the control group on the post-test.
In Table5, the test anxiety level of all groups is compared. is table shows that
there are remarkable differences between the anxiety post-tests of the control group
Table 2 Inferential statistics of all groups on the test anxiety pre-tests
Sum of squares df Mean squares FSig.
Between groups 17.69 2 8.84 .06 .93
Within groups 8980.62 69 130.15
Total 8998.31 71
Table 3 Descriptive statistics of all groups on the test anxiety post-tests
NMeans Std.
deviations Std. errors 95% condence interval for
means Minimum Maximum
Lower
bounds Upper
bounds
Control 24 29.95 11.08 2.26 25.27 34.63 14.00 51.00
Summative 24 37.91 10.80 2.20 33.35 42.47 19.00 60.00
Formative 24 49.50 10.37 2.11 45.11 53.88 23.00 62.00
Total 72 39.12 13.33 1.57 35.99 42.25 14.00 62.00
Table 4 Inferential statistics of all groups on the test anxiety post-tests
Sum of squares Df Mean squares FSig.
Between groups 4635.08 2 2317.54 20.02 .00
Within groups 7986.79 69 115.75
Total 12,621.87 71
Table 5 Multiple comparisons by Bonferroni test (test anxiety)
a The mean dierences are signicant at the 0.05 level
(I) groups (J) groups Mean
dierences
(I-J)
Std. errors Sig. 95% condence intervals
Lower bounds Upper bounds
Control Summative −7.95a3.10 .03 −15.57 −.33
Formative −19.54a3.10 .00 −27.16 −11.92
Summative Control 7.95a3.10 .03 .33 15.57
Formative −11.58a3.10 .00 −19.20 −3.96
Formative Control 19.54a3.10 .00 11.92 27.16
Summative 11.58a3.10 .00 3.96 19.20
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 12 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
and both experimental groups. Also, this table shows that the formative group outdid
the control and summative groups. e formative group had the best performance
among the three groups of this study.
As observed in Table6, all three groups’ performances on the self-regulation pre-
tests are almost the same; their mean scores are almost equal. We used a one-way
ANOVA to check the groups’ performances on the self-regulation pre-tests.
In Table7, the inferential statistics of all groups on the self-regulation pre-tests are
shown. As Sig (.96) is higher than (0.05), the differences between the three groups are
not meaningfully significant. Based on this table, all three groups had the same level
of self-regulation ability at the outset of the study.
e mean scores of the control group, the summative group, and the formative
group are, 80.12, 130.04, and 147.25, respectively (Table8). At the first look, we can
say that both experimental participants outflank the control participants since their
mean scores are very higher than the mean score of the control group.
e results indicate significant differences between the self-regulation post-tests of
the groups in favor of the experimental groups (Table9). Based on the inferential sta-
tistics, the performances of the three groups on the self-regulation post-test are dif-
ferent and the summative group and the formative group outflank the control group.
Table 6 Descriptive statistics of the three groups on the self-regulation pre-tests
NMeans Std.
deviations Std. errors 95% condence interval for
means Minimum Maximum
Lower
bounds Upper
bounds
Control 24 77.54 17.02 3.47 70.35 84.73 39.00 99.00
Summative 24 78.20 16.22 3.31 71.35 85.06 41.00 101.00
Formative 24 76.83 16.78 3.42 69.74 83.92 39.00 98.00
Total 72 77.52 16.45 1.93 73.66 81.39 39.00 101.00
Table 7 Inferential statistics of the three groups on the self-regulation pre-tests
Sum of squares df Mean squares FSig.
Between groups 22.69 2 11.34 .04 .96
Within groups 19,203.25 69 278.30
Total 19,225.94 71
Table 8 Descriptive statistics of the three groups on the self-regulation post-tests
NMeans Std.
deviations Std. errors 95% condence interval for
mean Minimum Maximum
Lower
bounds Upper
bounds
Control 24 80.12 17.14 3.500 72.88 87.36 47.00 114.00
Summative 24 130.04 10.44 2.13 125.62 134.45 109.00 146.00
Formative 24 147.25 27.19 5.55 135.76 158.73 39.00 167.00
Total 72 119.13 34.52 4.06 111.02 127.25 39.00 167.00
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 13 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
e outcomes in Table10 indicate that both experimental groups have better perfor-
mances than the control group on the self-regulation post-tests. Also, the findings show
that the formative group performed better than the other two groups. e treatment had
the most effect on the formative group.
e control group’s mean score is 90.33, the mean score of the summative group is
91.75, and the mean score of the formative group is 92.45 (Table11). Accordingly, we
can say that the three groups had an equal degree of motivation before conducting the
treatment.
Table12 presents the inferential statistics of all groups on the motivation pre-tests.
One can see that Sig (.94) is larger than 0.50; consequently, no difference is observed
Table 9 Inferential statistics of the three groups on the self-regulation post-tests
Sum of square Df Mean squares FSig.
Between groups 58,348.52 2 29,174.26 76.60 .00
Within groups 26,278.08 69 380.84
Total 84,626.61 71
Table 10 Multiple comparisons by Bonferroni test (self-regulation)
a The mean dierences are signicant at the 0.05 level
(I) groups (J) groups Mean
dierences
(I-J)
Std. errors Sig. 95% condence intervals
Lower bounds Upper bounds
Control Summative −49.91a5.63 .00 −63.73 −36.09
Formative −67.12a5.63 .00 −80.94 −53.30
Summative Control 49.91a5.63 .00 36.09 63.73
Formative −17.20a5.63 .01 −31.03 −3.38
Formative Control 67.12a5.63 .00 53.30 80.94
Summative 17.20a5.63 .01 3.38 31.03
Table 11 Descriptive statistics of the three groups on the motivation pre-tests
NMeans Std.
deviations Std. errors 95% condence interval for
means Minimum Maximum
Lower
bounds Upper
bounds
Control 24 90.33 25.08 5.11 79.74 100.92 50.00 149.00
Summative 24 91.75 22.08 4.50 82.42 101.07 55.00 128.00
Formative 24 92.45 21.69 4.42 83.29 101.62 55.00 129.00
Total 72 91.51 22.69 2.67 86.18 96.84 50.00 149.00
Table 12 Inferential statistics of the three groups on the motivation pre-tests
Sum of square df Mean squares FSig.
Between groups 56.19 2 28.09 .05 .94
Within groups 36,519.79 69 529.27
Total 36,575.98 71
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 14 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
among the groups in terms of motivation pre-tests. e inferential statistics show that
the students of the three groups had the same amount of motivation before they had
received the treatment.
As shown in the Table13, the mean scores of the summative and formative groups
are 115.79 and 127.83, respectively, on the motivation post-tests and the mean of the
control group is 92.87. It appears that the experimental participants outperform the
control participants on the motivation post-tests as their mean scores are higher than
the control group.
In Table14, the inferential statistics of all groups on the motivation post-tests are
revealed. e Sig value (.00) is less than 0.50; therefore, the differences between the
groups are significant. Indeed, the experimental groups outperformed the control group
after the instruction and this betterment can be ascribed to the treatment.
e mean scores of the motivation post-tests are compared in Table15. Accordingly,
there are noticeable differences between the post-tests of all groups. e formative par-
ticipants had better performance than the other two groups. We can say that the forma-
tive assessment is more effective than the summative assessment in EFL classes.
As depicted in Table16, the amount of statistic T-value is 63.72, df=16, and Sig=0.00
which is less than 0.05. is implies that Iranian students held positive attitudes towards
Table 13 Descriptive statistics of the three groups on the motivation post-tests
NMeans Std.
deviations Std. errors 95% condence interval for
means Minimum Maximum
Lower
bounds Upper
bounds
Control 24 92.87 20.99 4.28 84.00 101.74 60.00 129.00
Summative 24 115.79 13.50 2.75 110.09 121.49 99.00 140.00
Formative 24 127.83 12.51 2.55 122.54 133.11 100.00 150.00
Total 72 112.16 21.58 2.54 107.09 117.23 60.00 150.00
Table 14 Inferential statistics of the three groups on the motivation post-tests
Sum of square df Mean squares FSig.
Between groups 15,138.08 2 7569.04 29.12 .00
Within groups 17,933.91 69 259.91
Total 33,072.00 71
Table 15 Multiple comparisons by Bonferroni test (motivation)
a The mean dierences are signicant at the 0.05 level
(I) groups (J) groups Mean
dierences
(I-J)
Std. errors Sig. 95% condence intervals
Lower bounds Upper bounds
Control Summative −22.91a4.65 .00 −34.33 −11.49
Formative −34.95a4.65 .00 −46.37 −23.53
Summative Control 22.91a4.65 .00 11.49 34.33
Formative −12.04a4.65 .03 −23.46 −.62
Formative Control 34.95a4.65 .00 23.53 46.37
Summative 12.04a4.65 .03 .62 23.46
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 15 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
the effectiveness of summative and formative assessments on their language learning
improvement.
Briefly, the results indicate that both experimental groups had better performances
than the control group in their post-tests. e formative group had the best perfor-
mance among the three groups of this study. Additionally, the results reveal that the par-
ticipants of the present research had positive attitudes towards the effectiveness of both
formative and summative assessments on their language learning development.
After analyzing the data, it was found that all three groups were at the same levels of
test anxiety, motivation, and self-regulation skill at the outset of the research. But, the
performances of the three groups were different at the end of the investigation. Both
experimental groups outdid the control group on their post-tests and the formative
group performed better among the three groups. Although both types of assessments
(summative and formative) were effective on test the anxiety, motivation, and self-reg-
ulation skill of EFL learners, the formative assessment was the most effective one. e
findings of the current research also indicated that both experimental groups presented
positive attitudes toward the implementation of the summative and formative assess-
ments in EFL classes.
e findings gained in this study are supported by Persaud Singh and Ewert (2021)
who inspected the impacts of formative assessment on adult students’ language improve-
ment. ey indicated that there were meaningful differences between the formative par-
ticipants and the control participants in terms of language achievement in favor of the
formative participants. Additionally, our research findings are advocated by Alahmadi
etal. (2019) who explored the effects of formative speaking assessments on EFL learn-
ers’ performances in speaking tests. ey showed that the formative assessment assisted
Saudi EFL learners to solve the problems they encountered in speaking tests.
In addition, our study findings are in accordance with Mahshanian etal. (2019) who
confirmed that the amalgamation of summative and formative assessment can result
in better achievement in English language learning. Also, our investigation lends sup-
port to the findings of Buyukkarci and Sahinkarakas (2021) who verified the positive
effects of using formative assessment on learners’ language achievement. Additionally,
the results of the current research are in agreement with Ounis (2017) who stated that
formative assessment facilitated and supported students’ learning. Our study findings
are supported by the sociocultural theory which focuses on the role of social interac-
tions among the students and their teachers in the classroom. Based on this perspec-
tive, the learning process is mainly a social process and students’ cognitive functions are
made based on their interactions with those around them.
Table 16 One-sample test of the attitude questionnaire
Test value = 0
TDf Sig. (2-tailed) Mean dierences 95% condence
interval of the
dierences
Lower Upper
Scores 63.72 16 .000 4.52 4.37 4.67
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 16 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
Furthermore, our research results are in agreement with the results of Imen (2020)
who discovered the impacts of formative assessments on EFL students’ writing abilities.
His results indicated that using formative assessment develops the participants’ writ-
ing skills. Moreover, our research outcomes are supported by the impacts of formative
assessments on learners’ academic attainment, opinions about lessons, and self-regula-
tion skills in Ozan and Kıncal (2018) who performed an investigation on the influences
of formative assessments on students’ attitudes toward lessons, academic achievement,
and self-regulation skill. ey revealed that the experimental class that received the
treatment by formative assessment practices had better academic performances and
more positive attitudes towards the classes than the control class.
Regarding the positive attitudes of the participants towards formative and summa-
tive assessment, our results are in line with Tekin (2010) who discovered that forma-
tive assessment practices meaningfully developed students’ attitudes about mathematics
learning. at research indicated that the participants in the treatment group had posi-
tive attitudes about mathematics learning. In addition, King (2003) asserted that the
formative assessments enhanced the learners’ attitudes about science classes. Also,
Hwang and Chang (2011) revealed that the formative assessment highly boosted the atti-
tudes and interest of students toward learning in local culture classes.
One explanation for the outperformance of the formative group over the other two
groups can be the fact that they received much more input. ey were provided with
different kinds of feedback and took more exams during the semester. ese exams and
feedback can be the reasons for their successes in language achievement. is is in line
with Krashen’s (1981) input theory stating that if students are exposed to more input,
they can learn more.
e other possible explanations for our results are that formative assessments are not
graded so they take the anxiety away from the assessees. ey also detach the thinking
that they must get everything right. Instead, they serve as a practice for students to get
assistance along the way before the final tests. Teachers usually check for understand-
ing if students are struggling during the lesson. Teachers address these issues early on
instead of waiting until the end of the unit to assess. Teachers have to do less reteaching
at the end because many of the problems with mastery are addressed before final tests.
e mentioned advantages can be the reasons for our obtained findings.
In addition, monitoring the students’ learning via using the formative assessment can
be the other justification for our results. In fact, monitoring the learning process can
provide an opportunity for the teachers to give constructive feedback to their students to
improve their language learning. When teachers continuously monitor students’ growth
and modify instruction to ensure constant development, they find it easier and more
predictable to progress towards meeting the standards on summative assessments. By
comprehending precisely what their students know before and during the instruction,
teachers have much more power to improve the students’ mastery of the subject matter
than if they find out after a lesson or unit is complete.
It is important to point out that when instructors continually evaluate the develop-
ment of their students and modify their curriculum to assure constant improvement,
they find that it is simpler and more predictable to make progress toward fulfilling the
requirements on summative assessments. If teachers wait until the end of a session or
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 17 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
unit to find out how well their learners have mastered the material, they will have con-
siderably less influence over how well their learners learn the material than if they find
out how well their learners have mastered it earlier and during teaching. e value of
formative assessment lies in the critical information about student comprehension that
it provides throughout the process of learning, as well as the chance it gives educators
to provide participants with quick and efficient, and action-oriented feedback, as well as
the chance to alter their own behavior so that every respondent has the chance to learn
and re-learn the material. Learners whose academic performance falls on the extreme
ends of the normal curve, such as those who are struggling and those who excel academ-
ically, benefit the most from formative evaluation. ese learners have learning require-
ments that are often one of a kind and highly specialized, and to meet those needs, the
instructor needs updated data. In addition, making use of frequent formative evaluation
as a means to remediate learning gaps brought up by COVID-19 guarantees that educa-
tors can promptly give remediation.
e other justification for our findings can be ascribed to the strength of formative
assessments that lies in the formative information they provide about the students’ com-
prehension throughout the learning process and the opportunities they give to teachers
to provide the pupils with action-oriented and timely feedback and to change their own
behaviors so that each learner has an opportunity to learn and re-learn. More particu-
larly, using formative assessment can assist the students to detect their own weaknesses
and strengths and target areas that need more effort and work. All the positive points
enumerated for the formative assessments can be the reasons and explanations for the
results gained in the current research.
Moreover, the better performance of assessment groups may be due to numerous rea-
sons. In the first place, consistently evaluating students’ progress helps maintain learning
objectives at the forefront of one’s mind. is ensures that learners have a distinct goal
to strive towards and that instructors have the opportunity to assist clear up misconcep-
tions before learners get off track. Second, engaging in the process of formative assess-
ment enables instructors to gather the information that reveals the requirements of their
students. When instructors have a clear grasp of what it takes for their students to be
successful, they are better able to design challenging educational environments that
push every learner to their full potential. irdly, the primary role of formative assess-
ment that will assist in enhancing academic achievement is to provide both learners
and instructors with frequent feedback on the achievement that is being made toward
their objectives. Learners can bridge the gap between their existing knowledge and their
learning objectives through the use of formative assessment (Greensetin, 2010). e
fourth benefit of doing the formative assessment is an increase in motivation. Forma-
tive assessment entails creating learning objectives and monitoring the progress towards
those objectives. When learners have a clear idea of where they want to go, their perfor-
mance dramatically improves. Fifthly, students must identify a purpose for the work that
is assigned to them in the classroom. Connecting the learning objectives with real-world
problems and situations draws students into the instructional activities and feeds their
natural curiosity about the world. Sixthly, an in-depth examination of the data gathered
via formative assessment provides the educator with the opportunity to investigate their
own methods of teaching and identify those that are successful and those that are not. It
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 18 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
is indeed possible that some of the strategies that work for one group of learners won’t
work for another. Lastly, students become self-regulated when they are provided with
the tools they need to set, track, and ultimately achieve their own learning objectives.
Students may develop into self-reliant thinkers if they are exposed to models of high-
quality work and given adequate time to reflect on and refine their own work.
e positive effects of formative and summative assessment on students’ motivation
are supported by e Self Determination eory (SDT) of Motivation which is a moti-
vational theory that provides a way of understanding human motivation in any context
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). SDT attempts to understand human motivation beyond the simple
intrinsic/extrinsic model. It suggests that human motivation varies from fully intrinsic
motivation, which is characterized by fully autonomous behavior and “for its own sake”
to fully extrinsic motivation, which is characterized by behavior that is fully heterono-
mous and which is instrumentalized to some other end.
In this study, the self-regulatory skills of the students in the EGs where the forma-
tive assessment practices were applied did significantly differ from the ones in the CG
where no formative assessment practices were applied. us, students’ self-regulation
was shown to be improved as a result of formative assessment procedures. Similar find-
ings were observed in the experimental research by Xiao and Yang (2019) that compared
the self-regulation abilities of EG and CG learners in secondary school and discovered a
substantial difference in favor of the former group. Research findings based on qualita-
tive data reveal that learners engaged in a variety of cognitive techniques and self-regu-
latory learning practices. e participants acknowledged that they were an integral part
of their own learning and that they accepted personal responsibility for their progress.
Teachers reported that learners’ ability to self-regulate improved as a result of formative
assessment, which fostered ongoing, meaningful, and learning-effort and performance-
focused dialogue between teachers and learners. e students’ progress in the areas of
self-regulation and metacognitive abilities, as well as their growth in accordance with
educational standards, may be supported by a rise in their success in diagnostic exami-
nations thanks to the use of formative assessment (DeLuca etal., 2015). In a study that
he conducted in 2015, Woods examined the link between formative assessment and self-
regulation. He highlighted that teachers who use formative assessment strategies need
to comprehend the participants’ self-regulatory learning processes to make appropriate
decisions for their classrooms. Furthermore, Woods (2015) recommended that educa-
tors make regular use of formative assessment to foster the growth of learners’ abilities
to self-regulate and to boost the motivation levels of their learners. Wiliam (2014) also
asserted that self-regulatory learning could be an important component of an effective
formative assessment in relation to the techniques of explaining, sharing, and compre-
hending the learning goals and success criteria and students taking the responsibility for
their own learning.
It is vital to note that learners who have developed self-regulation skills employ their
cognitive abilities; work toward their learning objectives; seek out appropriate sup-
port from peers, adults, and authority figures; and, most significantly, accept personal
accountability for their academic success. As a result, learners’ abilities to self-regulate
have a direct effect on the type of formative assessment based on learning and the appli-
cations designed to eliminate learning deficiencies. Self-regulation is an ability that
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 19 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
needs time and practice to acquire, but it is possible to do so with the right tools and
a continuous strategy. Formative assessment techniques were shown to boost learners’
ability to self-regulate, although this effect was found to be small when the study findings
were combined with those found in the literature. is finding may be attributed to the
fact that, although formative assessment procedures were implemented for an academic
year, they were limited to the context of the social research classroom, and students’
abilities to self-regulate may develop and evolve over time.
e findings of this research can increase the knowledge of the students about two
types of assessment. is study can encourage students to want their teachers to assess
their performances formatively during the semester. Also, the findings of this study can
assist instructors to implement more formative-based assessments and feedback in
their classes. is study can highlight the importance of frequent input, feedback, and
exam for teachers. An exact analysis of formative assessment data permits the teachers
to inspect their instructional practices in order to understand which are producing pos-
itive results and which are not. Some that are effective for one group of students may
not be effective for another group. e implications of this research can help students
try to compensate for their deficiencies by taking responsibility for their own learning
instead of just attempting to get good grades. In this respect, formative assessments
ensure that students can manage the negative variables such as a high level of examina-
tion and grading.
Using formative assessments helps teachers gather the information that reveals the
students’ needs. Once teachers have an understanding of what students need to be suc-
cessful, they can generate a suitable learning setting that will challenge each learner to
grow. Providing students and teachers with regular feedback on progress towards their
aims is the major function of the formative assessments that will help in increasing
academic accomplishment. Formative assessments can help the students close the gap
between their present knowledge and their learning objectives. Moreover, using forma-
tive assessment gives the students evidence of their present progress to actively moni-
tor and modify their own learning. is also provides the students the ability to track
their educational objectives. Also, via using formative assessment, the students have
the ability to measure their learning at a metacognitive level. As the students are one of
the main agents of the teaching-learning process, instructors must share the learning
objectives with them. is sharing can develop the students’ learning in basic knowledge
and higher order cognitive processes such as application and transfer (Fulmer, 2017). In
fact, if learners know that they are expected to learn in that lesson, they will concentrate
more on those areas. Formative assessments make the teaching more effective by guid-
ing learners to achieve learning objectives, setting learning needs, modifying teaching
accordingly, and increasing teachers’ awareness of efficient teaching methods. Lastly, our
findings may aid material developers to implement more formative-based assessment
activities in the EFL English books.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study proved the positive impacts of applying formative assess-
ments on Iranian EFL students’ academic motivation, attitude toward learning, test
anxiety, and self-regulation skill. erefore, teachers are strongly recommended to
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 20 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
use formative assessment in their classes to help students improve their language
learning. Using formative assessment allows teachers to modify instruction according
to the results; consequently, making modifications and improvements can generate
immediate benefits for their students’ learning.
One more conclusion is that using formative assessment gives the teacher the
ability to provide continuous feedback to their students. This allows the students
to be part of the learning environment and to improve self-assessment strategies
that will help with the understanding of their own thinking processes. All in all,
providing frequent feedback during the learning process is regarded as an efficient
technique for motivating and encouraging students to learn a language more suc-
cessfully. Indeed, by assessing students during the lesson, the teachers can aid them
to improve their skills and examine if they are progressing or not. Thus, formative
assessment is an essential part of teaching that should be used in EFL instructional
contexts.
As we could not include many participants in our study, we recommend that future
researchers include a large number of participants to increase the generalizability
of their results. We worked on male EFL learners; the next studies are required to
work on both genders. We could not gather qualitative data to enrich our results; the
upcoming researchers are advised to collect both quantitative and qualitative data to
develop the validity of their results. Next researchers are called to examine the effects
of the summative and formative assessments on language skills and sub-skills. Also,
next researchers are offered to inspect the effects of other types of assessments on
language skills and subskills as well as on psychological variables involved in language
learning.
Abbreviations
EFL English as a foreign language
ANOVA Analysis of variance
PET Preliminary English Test
SAS Science Anxiety Scale
SRSS Self-Regulatory Strategies Scale
AMTB Attitude/Motivation Test Battery
SDT Self Determination Theory
EG Experimental group
CG Control group
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions
All authors had equal contributions. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.
Authors’ information
Seyed M. Ismail is an assistant professor at Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia. His research interests are
teaching and learning, testing, and educational strategies. He published many papers in different journals.
D. R. Rahul is an assistant professor School of Science and Humanities, Shiv Nadar University Chennai, Chennai, India. He
has published several research papers in national and international language teaching journals.
Indrajit Patra is an Independent Researcher. He got his PhD from NIT Durgapur, West Bengal, India.
Ehsan Rezvani is an assistant professor in Applied Linguistics at Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch,
Isfahan, Iran. He has published many research papers in national and international language teaching journals.
Funding
We did not receive any funding at any stage.
Availability of data and materials
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 21 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 5 July 2022 Accepted: 27 August 2022
References
Abeywickrama, P., & Brown, H. D. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. Pearson Longman.
Ahmad, S. (2012). Relationship of academic SE to self-regulated learning, SI, test anxiety and academic achievement.
International Journal of Education, 4(1), 12–25.
Ahmadi, S., Namazizadeh, M., Abdoli, B., & Seyedalinejad, A. (2009). Comparison of achievement motivation of football
players between the top and bottom teams of the Football Premier League. Olympic Quarterly, 17(3), 19–27.
Al Tayib Umar, A., & Abdulmlik Ameen, A. (2021). The effects of formative evaluation on students’ achievement in English
for specific purposes. Journal of Educational Research and Reviews, 9(7), 185–197.
Alahmadi, N., Alrahaili, M., & Alshraideh, D. (2019). The impact of the formative assessment in speaking test on Saudi
students’ performance. Arab World English Journal, 10(1), 259–270.
Aouine, A. (2011). English language assessment in the Algerian middle and secondary schools: A context evaluation. Magister
Dissertation, Mouloud Maamri University, Tizi-Ouzou. Algeria.
Ashdale, M. (2020). The effect of formative assessment on achievement and motivation. Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfill-
ment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Education. Graduate Programs in Education Goucher College.
Assessment Reform Group. (2007). Assessment for learning. Retrieved on March 11, 2010, from http:// www. asses sment-
reform- group. org/ ASF. html.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Open Univer-
sity Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Assessment for learning in the classroom. Assessment and Learning, 5, 9–25.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science SE beliefs of middle school students [Electronic version]. Journal of
Research in Science and Teaching, 43(5), 485–499.
Brown, H. D. (2003). Language assessment principles and classroom practices. Oxford university press.
Buyukkarci, K., & Sahinkarakas, S. (2021). The impact of formative assessment on students’ assessment preferences. The
Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 21(1), 142–161.
Chalak, A., & Kassaian, Z. (2010). Motivation and attitudes of Iranian undergraduate EFL students towards learning English.
GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 10(2), 37–56.
Chan, K. T. (2021). Embedding formative assessment in blended learning environment: The case of secondary Chinese
language teaching in Singapore. Education Sciences, 11(7), 360.
Cizek, G. J. (2010). An introduction to formative assessment: History, characteristics, and challenges. In H. L. Andrade, & G.
J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment, (pp. 3–17). Routledge.
Clark, I. (2011). Formative assessment: Policy, perspectives and practice. Florida Journal of Educational Administration &
Policy, 4(2), 158–180.
Craig, K. J., Brown, K. J., & Baum, A. (2000). Environmental factors in the etiology of anxiety. Retrieved April 1, 2006 from
http:// www. acnp. org/ g4/ GN401 000127/ CH125. html.
DeLuca, C., Klinger, D., Pyper, J., & Woods, J. (2015). Instructional rounds as a professional learning model for systemic
implementation of Assessment for Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 122–139.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09695 94X. 2014. 967168.
Dixson, D. D., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in the classroom. Theory into practice, 55(2),
153–159.
Douglas, G., & Wren, D. (2008). Using formative assessment to increase learning. Report from the Department of Research,
Evaluation and Assessment. Virginia Beach City Public Schools.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Firouznia, S., Yousefi, A., & Ghassemi, G. (2009). The relationship between academic motivation and academic achieve-
ment in medical students of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Iranian Journal of Medical Education, 9(1), 79–84.
Fox, J., Haggerty, J., & Artemeva, N. (2016). Mitigating risk: The impact of a diagnostic assessment procedure on the
first-year experience in engineering. In J. Read (Ed.), Post-admission language assessment of university students, (pp.
43–65). Springer.
Fulmer, S. M. (2017). Should we share learning outcomes / objectives with students at the start of a lesson? Online docu-
ment, retrieved from https:// khsbpp. wordp ress. com/ 2017/ 10/ 12/ should- we- share- learn ing- outco mesob jecti ves-
with- stude nts- at- the- start- of-a- lesson/
Gardner, R. C. (2004). Attitude/Motivation test battery: International AMTB research project. The University of Western
Ontario.
Ghahderijani, B. H., Namaziandost, E., Tavakoli, M., Kumar, T., & Magizov, R. (2021). The comparative effect of group
dynamic assessment (GDA) and computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA) on Iranian upper-intermediate
EFL learners’ speaking complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). Lang Test Asia, 11, 25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/
s40468- 021- 00144-3.
Glazer, N. (2014). Formative plus summative assessment in large undergraduate courses: Why both? International Journal
of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26(2), 276–286.
Greensetin, L. (2010). What teachers really need to know about formative assessment. ASCD.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 22 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
Hamedi, A., Fakhraee Faruji, L., & Amiri Kordestani, L. (2022). The effectiveness of using formative assessment by Kahoot
application on Iranian Intermediate EFL learners’ vocabulary knowledge and burnout level. Journal of new advances
in English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 768–786.
Heritage, M. (2012). From formative assessment: Improving teaching and learning. Paper presented at the CRESST 2007
Assessment Conference, Los Angeles, CA
Hwang, H. J., & Chang, H. F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving the learning
attitudes and achievements of students. Computers and Education, 56, 1023–1031.
Imen (2020). The impact of formative assessment on EFL students’ writing skill. A dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment
of the Requirement for the Degree of Master in Didactics and Foreign Languages, at Abdelhamid Ibn Badis Univer-
sity of Mostaganem.
Kadıoğlu, C., Uzuntiryaki, E., & Çapa-Aydın, Y. (2011). Development of self-regulatory strategies scale (SRSS). Eğitim ve Bilim,
36(160), 11–23.
Kara, A. (2009). The effect of a ‘learning theories’ unit on students’ attitudes towards learning. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 34(3), 100–113.
Kathy, D. (2013). 22 essay assessment technique for measuring in teaching learning. Grow. The Education blog www.
nwea. org 1-22 Essay formative Assessment.
King, M. D. (2003). The effects of formative assessment on student self-regulation, motivational beliefs, and achievement in
elementary science (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProOuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3079342).
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon Press.
Liu, F., Vadivel, B., Mazaheri, F., Rezvani, E., & Namaziandost, E. (2021). Using games to promote efl learners’ willingness to
communicate (WTC): Potential effects and teachers’ attitude in focus. Frontiers in Psychology, 4526.
Mahshanian, A., Shoghi, R., & Bahram, M. (2019). Investigating the differential effects offormative and summative assess-
ment on EFL learners’ end-of-term achievement. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(5), 1055–1066.
Marsh, C. J. (2007). A critical analysis of the use of formative assessment in schools. Educational Research for Policy and
Practice, 6(1), 25–29.
Masita, M., & Fitri, N. (2020). The use of Plickers for formative assessment of vocabulary mastery. Ethical Lingua Journal of
Language Teaching and Literature, 7(2), 311–320.
McCallum, S., & Milner, M. M. (2021). The effectiveness of formative assessment: student views and staff reflections. Assess-
ment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 1–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02602 938. 2020. 17547 61.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. CUP.
Ounis, A. (2017). The assessment of speaking skills at the tertiary level. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(4),
95–113.
Ozan, C., & Kıncal, R. Y. (2018). The effects of formative assessment on academic achievement, attitudes toward the lesson,
and self-regulation skills. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18, 85–118.
Palomba, C. A., & Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher
education. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Pappamihiel, N. E. (2002). English as a second language students and English language anxiety: Issues in the mainstream
classroom. ProQuest Education Journal, 36(3), 327–355.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2013). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life. Pearson Education.
Persaud Singh, V., & Ewert, D. (2021). The effect of formative assessment on performance in summative assessment: A study
on business English students in a language training center. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Arts in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, LCC International University
Department of English.
Pinchok, N., & Brandt, W. C. (2009). Connecting formative assessment research to practice: An introductory guide for educators.
Learning point.
Popham, W. J. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know, (5th ed., ). Prentice Hall.
Quintana, J. (2008). PET practice tests. Oxford University Press.
Remmi, F., & Hashim, H. (2021). Primary school teachers’ usage and perception of online formative assessment tools in
language assessment. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 10(1),
290–303.
Rezai, A., Namaziandost, E., Miri, M., & Kumar, T. (2022). Demographic biases and assessment fairness in classroom: Insights
from Iranian university teachers. Language Testing in Asia, 12(1), 1–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s40468- 022- 00157-6.
Robinowitz, A. (2010). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education,
13(2), 181–208.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development,
and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–95. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0003- 066X. 55.1. 68.
Sepehrian, A. (2013). Self-Efficacy, achievement motivation and academic procrastination as predictors of academic
achievement in pre-college students. Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education, 6, 173–178.
Shepard, L. A. (2006). Classroom assessment. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement, (4th ed., pp. 623–646).
American Council on Education/Praeger.
Spolsky, B., & Halt, F. M. (2008). The handbook of educational linguistics. Blackwell.
Tahir, M., Tariq, H., Mubashira, K., & Rabbia, A. (2012). Impact of formative assessment on academic achievement of
secondary school students. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(17) http:// myflo rida. com/ apps/ vbs/
vbs_ www. ad. view_ ad? adver tisem ent_ key_ num= 107800.
Tekin, E. G. (2010). Matematik eğitiminde biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin etkisi [Effect of formative assessment in mathematics
education] (Master’s thesis, Marmara University, İstanbul, Turkey). Retrieved from https:// tez. yok. gov. tr/ Ulusa lTezM
erkezi/
Tella, J., Indoshi, F. C., & Othuon, L. A. (2010). Relationship between students’ perspectives on the secondary school Eng-
lish curriculum and their academic achievement in Kenya. Research, 1(9), 390–395.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 23 of 23
Ismailetal. Language Testing in Asia (2022) 12:40
Vadivel, B., Namaziandost, E., & Saeedian, A. (2021). Progress in English language teaching through continuous profes-
sional development—teachers’ self-awareness, perception, and feedback. Frontiers in Education, 6, 757285. https://
doi. org/ 10. 3389/ feduc. 2021. 757285.
Vogt, K., Tsagari, D., Csépes, I., Green, A., & Sifakis, N. (2020). Linking learners’ perspectives on language assessment
practices to teachers’ assessment literacy enhancement (TALE): Insights from four European countries. Language
Assessment Quarterly, 17(4), 410–433. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15434 303. 2020. 17767 14.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree.
Wiliam, D. (2014). Formative assessment and contingency in the regulation of learning processes. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Wininger, S. R. (2005). Using your tests to teach: Formative summative assessment. Teaching of Psychology, 32(3), 164–166.
Woods, N. (2015). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning. The Journal of Education Retrieved from https:// thejo
urnal ofedu cation. wordp ress. com/ 2015/ 05/ 20/ forma tive- asses sment- and- self- regul ated- learn ing/.
Wuest, D. A., & Fisette, J. L. (2012). Foundations of physical education, exercise science, and sport, (17th ed., ). McGraw-Hill.
Xiao, Y., & Yang, M. (2019). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: How formative assessment supports stu-
dents’ self-regulation in English language learning. System, 81, 39–49. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. system. 2019. 01. 004.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
