Bringing innovation to EFL writing through a focus on assessment for learning

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 19-33

  Lee, Icy ^a  

^a CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Assessment for learning; EFL writing; Innovation; L2 writing; Writing assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952482654     PISSN: 17501229     EISSN: 17501237     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17501229.2010.502232     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Assessment Reform Group. 2002. Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
2. Bailey, K.M. 1992. The processes of innovation in language teacher development: What, why and how teachers change. In Perspectives on second language education, ed. J. Flowerdew, M. Brock, and S. Hsia, 253-82. Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
3. Belanof, P. 1991. The myths of assessment. Journal of Basic Writing 10, no. 1: 54-66.
4. Black, P., C. Harrison, C. Lee, B. Marshall, and D. Wiliam. 2003. Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
5. Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 5, no. 1: 7-74.
6. Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 2003. In praise of educational research: Formative assessment. British Educational Research Journal 29, no. 5: 623-37.
7. Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 2006. Assessment for learning in the classroom. In Assessment and learning, ed. J. Gardner, 9-25. London: Sage.
8. Clarke, S. 2005. Formative assessment in action: Weaving the elements together. London: Hodder Murray.
9. Curriculum Development Council. 2007. English language curriculum and assessment guide (Secondary 4-6). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.
10. Curriculum Development Institute. 2004. Promoting assessment for learning in English language education at primary level. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.
11. Davison, C. 2007. Views from the chalkface: English language school-based assessment in Hong Kong. Language Assessment Quarterly 4, no. 1: 37-68.
12. Edwards, P.A., J.D. Turner, and K. Mokhtari. 2008. Balancing the assessment of learning and for learning in support of student literacy development. The Reading Teacher 61, no. 8: 682-4.
13. Goetz, J., and M. LeCompte. 1984. Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
14. Hamp-Lyons, L. 2006. The impact of testing practices on teaching: Ideologies and alternatives. In International handbook of English language teaching, vol. 1, ed. J. Cummins and C. Davison, 487-504. Norwell, MA: Springer.
15. Harlen, W. 2006. The role of assessment in developing motivation for learning. In Assessment and learning, ed. J. Gardner, 61-80. London: Sage.
16. Huot, B. 2002. (Re)-articulating writing assessment for teaching and learning. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
17. Lee, I. 2007. Feedback in L2 writing: Assessment for learning or assessment of learning? Assessing Writing 12, no. 3: 180-98.
18. Lee, I. 2008. Understanding teachers' written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing 17, no. 2: 69-85.
19. Lo, J., and F. Hyland. 2007. Enhancing students' engagement and motivation in writing: The case of primary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing 16, no. 4: 219-37.
20. Morris, P., M.L. Lo, and B. Adamson. 2000. Improving schools in Hong Kong: Lessons from the past. In Changing the curriculum: The impact of reform on Hong Kong's primary schools, ed. B. Adamson, T. Kwan, and K.K. Chan, 245-62. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
21. Pennington, M., M.C. Brock, and F. Yue. 1996. Implementing process writing in Hong Kong secondary schools: What the students' responses tell us. Perspectives 8, no. 1: 150-217.
22. Sebba, J. 2006. Policy and practice in assessment for learning: The experience of selected OECD countries. In Assessment and learning, ed. J. Gardner, 185-96. London: Sage.
23. Sebba, J., and G. Maxwell. 2005. Queensland, Australia: An outcomes-based curriculum. In Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms, ed. OECD, 191-204. Paris: OECD.
24. Serafini, F. 2000/2001. Three paradigms of assessment: Measurement, procedure, and inquiry. The Reading Teacher 54, no. 4: 384-93.
25. Stake, R. 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26. Stobart, G. 2006. The validity of formative assessment. In Assessment and learning, ed. J. Gardner, 133-46. London: Sage.
27. Walker, A., and C.Y. Cheong. 1996. Professional development in Hong Kong primary schools: Beliefs, practice and change. Journal of Education for Teaching 22, no. 2: 197-212.
28. Wiliam, D. 2001. An overview of the relationship between assessment and the curriculum. In Curriculum and assessment, ed. D. Scoop, 165-81. Westport, CT: Ablex.
29. Yung, B.H.W. 2001. Examiner, policeman or students' companion: Teachers' perceptions of their role in an assessment reform. Educational Reviewer 53, no. 3: 251-60.