BRIEF RESEARCH REPORTS

TESOL Quarterly invites readers to submit short reports and updates on their
work. These summaries may address any areas of interest to Quarterly readers.

Edited by LAWRENCE JUN ZHANG

University of Auckland

Classroom Assessment Practices and Learning

Motivation: A Case Study of Chinese EFL Students
ZHENGDONG GAN
University of Macau
Macau SAR, China
CONSTANT LEUNG
King’s College London
London, England
JINBO HE
Tianjin University
Tianjin, China
HONGHAN NANG
China Pharmaceutical University
Nanjing, China

doi: 10.1002/tesq.476

C lassroom-based assessment carried out by teachers has received

renewed interest and support in current international educational
research and policy, particularly across a number of diverse jurisdictions
in locations such as Australia, Hong Kong, and England (Leung, 2009;
Leung et al. 2018). This renewed interest in classroom-based assessment
parallels the paradigmatic movement towards assessment for learning
that serves as an integral part of the teaching and learning process
(Black & Wiliam, 1998). Contextually bound and contingent to individ-
ual teachers’ classrooms, classroom assessment is often described as
encompassing all activities performed and artefacts used by a teacher to

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 0, No. 0, xxx 2018 1

© 2018 TESOL International Association
gather relevant information to make well-supported inferences about
student learning. In recent years, a large body of literature around sec-
ond language (L2) teachers’ cognitions and experiences with classroom-
based assessment has been gradually building up (e.g., Cheng & Fox,
2017; Rea-Dickins, 2004). However, relatively fewer studies have exam-
ined what understandings L2 learners have regarding classroom assess-
ment practices (Purpura, 2016). For example, in general education, a
line of research adopting Brookhart’s (1997) framework on the role of
classroom assessment practices in motivating student learning effort has
been conducted to explain variance in student learning attitudes and
performance. These studies maintain that classroom assessment is a pow-
erful agent for influencing learning and motivation. Brookhart’s theo-
retical perspective, however, has not been tested in the L2 assessment
context, and little is known about the meaning L2 students give to the
assessment practices they experience, and particularly how different
forms of classroom assessments may influence their learning motivation.
According to Brookhart (1997), aspects of the classroom assess-
ment environment are closely associated with student learning moti-
vation and achievement. In her view, the classroom assessment
environment is largely created by teachers who make assessment
choices, including types or formats of assessment, establishing pur-
poses for assessment, assigning assessment tasks, appraising perfor-
mance and providing feedback, and monitoring student learning
outcomes (Hao & Johnson, 2013). Brookhart argues that some class-
room assessments make students want to study more, try harder, or
better foster student self-efficacy, and are thus more likely to enhance
student motivation by mitigating performance anxiety. This suggests
that students may differ in their perceptions of the assessment task,
perceptions of their ability to accomplish it, and perceptions of the
reasons why they might want to accomplish it. Consequently, class-
room assessment practices are believed to be the basis of students’
perceptions as to what it is important to learn and where to direct
effort in learning (Harlen & Deakin Crick, 2003). A number of
empirical studies have provided support for Brookhart’s framework
(e.g., Brookhart, Walsh, & Zientarski, 2006).
Meanwhile, in recent conceptualization of motivational strategies by
second language motivation researchers (e.g., D€ ornyei & Ushioda,
2010), focus has been placed on the role of teacher instructional behav-
ior in motivating students to learn. Much overlooked in the L2 literature
is how various forms of teacher classroom-based assessments cater for L2
students’ motivational processes. Building on Brookhart’s theoretical
perspective and recent motivational theories, the study reported in this
paper aims to address the following questions: (1) To what extent do
Chinese university students of English as a foreign language (EFL)

2 TESOL QUARTERLY
experience various forms of classroom assessment in their English
course? (2) What may characterize these EFL students’ motivational dis-
position related to their English course? and (3) What is the relationship
between various forms of classroom assessment practice and these EFL
students’ learning motivation? Building on previous studies (e.g., Broo-
khart, 1997; Cheng & Fox, 2017; You & D€ ornyei, 2016), we hypothesized
that (1) Chinese university EFL students experience student-centred
assessment such as self-assessment the least; (2) there is a higher level of
endorsement for effort investment compared with other motivational
dimensions among these Chinese university EFL students; and (3) class-
room assessment practices are closely associated with students’ learning
motivation, and different classroom assessment practices predict stu-
dents’ learning motivation to a different extent.

THIS STUDY
Motivational Variables as Operationalized in This Study

From a learner’s perspective, Harlen and Deakin Crick (2003)

expressed three broad categories of motivational variable that were found
to be closely related to classroom assessment: (1) What I feel and think about
myself as a learner (i.e., self-efficacy, sense of self as a learner, etc.); (2) The
energy I have for the task (i.e., effort, interest in and attitude to subject, etc.);
and (3) How I perceive my capacity to undertake the task (i.e., locus of control,
goal orientation, etc.). For example, self-efficacy concerns one’s belief in
one’s ability to succeed in specific situations or accomplish a task such as
“I am sure that I will be successful in English learning.” Effort, also known
as intended effort or directed effort, is an element of motivation that has
been frequently examined in L2 motivation research (D€ ornyei & Ushioda,
2010). Locus refers to whether the learners see responsibility lying with
them or with external factors. Students who perceive the locus of control
and responsibility as being with the teacher tend to attribute success to
external attributions such as help from the teacher rather than to ability
and effort. In this study, Harlen and Deakin Crick’s three broad categories
of motivational variable were operationalized to target university students’
situation-specific motivational disposition related to their learning in the
university English course.

Participants

A total of 204 second-year undergraduate students studying in col-

lege English course in China were recruited and completed a

BRIEF RESEARCH REPORTS 3

questionnaire composed of 21 items concerning classroom assessment
practices and another one consisting of 15 items concerning students’
EFL course learning motivation. Among the 204 participants, 98 were
from a keynote university, 106 were from a non-keynote university; 16
were male, and 181 were female, 7 did not report their gender status;
and the age of the participants ranged from 20 to 24 years with Mage =
21.37 years, SDage = 0.84 years.

Instruments

The classroom assessment practices questionnaire consisted of five

factors measured with 21 items in a 5-point Likert scale. These items
were developed based on Black and Wiliam’s (1998) constructs related
to classroom assessment and a review of relevant empirical studies
(e.g., Brown, Irving, Peterson, & Hirschfeld, 2009) in the literature.
The initial pool of items was subjected to a review by three experi-
enced researchers in the field of classroom assessment to scrutinize
the face and content validity of the initial list. This procedure resulted
in a scale of 21 items. We piloted this scale of 21 items on a class of
20 tertiary EFL students to check for clarity and readability. Some fur-
ther slight modifications were then made in the wordings of a few
items on this scale based on the students’ feedback. Specifically, the
five factors of the questionnaire are self-assessment (5 items; e.g., stu-
dents evaluated each other’s learning performance); interactive-infor-
mal assessment (5 items; e.g., teacher assessed students through
observation); teacher scaffolding (4 items; e.g., teacher feedback on
student work helped students to improve their ways of learning); in-
class diagnostic assessment (3 items; e.g., using textbook-provided
materials to assess student learning); and subject performance assess-
ment (4 items; e.g., using fill-in-the-blank or short answer questions to
assess students).We measured students’ EFL course learning motiva-
tion by the Students’ EFL Course Learning Motivation Questionnaire.
The items in this questionnaire were adapted from items used in Guil-
loteaux and D€ ornyei ‘s (2008) Student Motivational State Question-
naire which was designed to gauge secondary EFL students’ situation-
specific motivational disposition pertaining to their current English
course. We removed a few items in Guilloteaux and D€ ornyei’s ques-
tionnaire that seem not applicable to the tertiary English learning con-
text in our study. We also added two items on effort investment. This
resulted in a four-factor scale of 15 items. Specifically, the four factors
are: L2 classroom anxiety (5 items; e.g., “I am afraid other students
will laugh at me when I speak English”); attitude towards the English
course (4 items; e.g., “I like English classes this semester”); effort

4 TESOL QUARTERLY
investment (3 items; e.g., “I persist in reading English newspapers,
magazines, or novels to improve my English proficiency”); and linguis-
tic self-confidence (3 items; e.g., “I am sure that one day I will be able
to speak English fluently”).

Data Analyses
To explore the factor structure of the two instruments used in the
current study, we split the total sample randomly with one half being
used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA; n = 102) and the other half
for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; n = 102). First, by using SPSS
22.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY), we conducted EFA with princi-
pal component analysis and Promax rotation; and to determine the
number of factors we used Kaiser’s eigenvalues-greater-than-one crite-
rion (Kaiser, 1960) and the scree plot (Raubenheimer, 2004); more-
over, we excluded items showing loadings less than 0.4 (DeVellis,
2003) and/or cross-loading on two or more factors with loadings of
0.4 or greater (Krishnan, 2011). After the factor structure was derived
from the EFA, we performed CFA by using Mplus 7.4 (Muthen and
Muth en, Los Angeles, CA) to confirm the factor structure with the
other half sample; and we used the weighted least squares means and
variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimator to estimate the model parame-
ters because it has been shown to be the best estimator for Likert-type
data (Wang & Cunningham, 2005). In addition, to evaluate the model
fitness the following fit indices with cut-off values (Hooper, Coughlan,
& Mullen, 2008) were reported: the root mean square error of approx-
imation (RMSEA; < 0.08 indicates good fit), the comparative fit index
(CFI; > 0.90 indicates good fit), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; > 0.90
indicates good fit), and the weighted root mean square residual
(WRMR; < 1.0 indicates good fit; Yu, 2002). It should be noted that
the RMSEA often falsely indicates a poor-fitting model with a small
sample (Kenny, Kaniskan, & McCoach, 2015). Thus, we mainly relied
on CFI, TLI, and WRMR for evaluating the model fitness.
Then, by using the whole sample (N = 204), the reliabilities of the
classroom assessment practices and EFL course learning motivation
were evaluated by internal consistency coefficient with the Cronbach’s
coefficient, for which a value greater than 0.6 suggests acceptable relia-
bility. To explore the effects of university type (keynote university vs.
non-keynote university) on classroom assessment practices and EFL
course learning motivation, multivariate analysis of variance (MAN-
OVA) was used. Pearson product-moment correlation (r) analysis was
carried out to examine the relationship between assessment practice
and learning motivation factors. Furthermore, a multiple regression

BRIEF RESEARCH REPORTS 5

analysis (ENTER method) was applied to reveal the effects of the
assessment practice factors on student learning motivation with the
factors of the assessment practices as predictors and the learning moti-
vation (mean of the four motivation factors) as the dependent vari-
able.

RESULTS
Initial Analysis of the Classroom Assessment Practices
Questionnaire

The underlying factor structure of the 21-item Classroom Assess-

ment Practices Questionnaire was firstly explored by EFA (n = 102)
which was repeated several times by deleting items with loadings less
than 0.4 and items cross-loading on two or more factors. Finally, three
items were deleted, and a five-factor model with 18 items was obtained
with 64.624% of the total variance explained. Then, by using the
remaining half sample (n = 102), CFA was conducted to confirm the
first-order five-factor model, and satisfying model fits were found with
v2(125) = 177.820 (p < 0.001), RMSEA = 0.065 (90% confidence interval
[CI]: 0.041, 0.086), CFI = 0.966, TLI = 0.958, and WRMR = 0.771. A
Cronbach’s coefficient of 0.892 was found for the total items selected
for assessing classroom assessment practices. Furthermore, the Cron-
bach’s a coefficients for the five factors were 0.842 for self-assessment,
0.766 for teacher scaffolding, 0.732 for interactive-informal assessment,
0.623 for in-class diagnostic assessment- (3 items), and 0.618 for sub-
ject performance assessment (3 items). Factor loadings for EFA and
CFA of the Classroom Assessment Practices Questionnaire and its relia-
bility for each factor are presented in Table 1.

Initial Analysis of the Students’ EFL Course Learning

Motivation Questionnaire
Following the same procedure for exploring the factor structure of
the Classroom Assessment Practices Questionnaire, we first explored
the underlying factor structure of the 15-item Students’ EFL Course
Learning Motivation Questionnaire by EFA (n = 102), and obtained a
four-factor 15-item model with 56.496% of the total variance
explained. Then we conducted CFA to confirm the first-order four-fac-
tor model with the remaining half sample (n = 102), and satisfying
model fits were found with v2(84) = 146.174 (p < 0.001), RMSEA =

6 TESOL QUARTERLY
 TABLE 1
Factor Loadings of EFA and CFA and Reliability for the Classroom Assessment Practices Questionnaire

Items of the classroom assessment practices questionnaire EFA CFA Reliability

Factor 1. Self-assessment 0.842
1. Students used concept mapping to assess their learning. 0.846 0.165 0.107 0.194 0.113 0.658
2. Students used portfolios to assess their learning progress. 0.843 0.032 0.026 0.040 0.051 0.778
3. Students decided on and shared their learning objectives and goals. 0.696 0.011 0.344 0.126 0.047 0.682
4. Students evaluated each other’s learning performance. 0.639 0.234 0.148 0.260 0.085 0.785

BRIEF RESEARCH REPORTS

5. Students evaluated their own learning performance. 0.586 0.262 0.104 0.264 0.176 0.968
Factor 2. Teacher scaffolding 0.766
11. Teacher helped students understand how to improve their assignments. 0.143 0.832 0.104 0.035 0.011 0.815
12. Teacher feedback on student work helped them to improve their ways of 0.194 0.761 0.026 0.247 0.005 0.787
learning.
13. Teacher checked students’ understanding of the course content through 0.271 0.728 0.310 0.070 0.031 0.642
classroom questioning.
14. Teacher feedback on student work helped to clarify things they hadn’t 0.364 0.533 0.010 0.029 0.104 0.688
fully understood.
Factor 3. Interactive-informal assessment 0.732
6. Teacher evaluated oral questions from students. 0.038 0.008 0.864 0.003 0.042 0.658
7. Teacher talked to the students about their learning progress. 0.101 0.202 0.697 0.013 0.143 0.636
8. Teacher assessed students through observation. 0.279 0.099 0.618 0.342 0.167 0.841
Factor 4. In-class diagnostic assessment 0.623
15. Teacher used reading-aloud or dictation to assess students’ learning. 0.134 0.329 0.100 0.859 0.015 0.892
16. Teacher administered announced quizzes. 0.106 0.012 0.038 0.716 0.270 0.492
17. Teacher used textbook-provided materials to assess student learning. 0.323 0.377 0.100 0.486 0.006 0.521
Factor 5. Subject performance assessment 0.618
18. Teacher used essay-writing to assess students. 0.008 0.017 0.040 0.169 0.875 0.815
19. Teacher used translation to assess students. 0.081 0.023 0.266 0.077 0.572 0.870
21. Teacher used Fill-in-the-blank or short answer questions to assess 0.310 0.051 0.198 0.003 0.528 0.573
students.
Percentage of variance explained based on EFA (%) 29.602 14.442 7.210 7.098 6.273 0.892

Note. Item loadings of EFA greater than 0.40 are in bold type. EFA = exploratory factor analysis; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis.

7
8
TABLE 2
Factor Loadings of EFA and CFA and Reliability for the Students’ EFL Course Learning Motivation Questionnaire

Items of the students’ EFL course learning motivation questionnaire EFA CFA Reliability
Factor 1. L2 classroom anxiety 0.756
1. I get very worried if I make mistakes during English class. 0.803 0.026 0.028 0.231 0.772
2. I am afraid other students will laugh at me when I speak English. 0.749 0.030 0.208 0.174 0.877
3. I am worried about my ability to do well in English this semester. 0.660 0.060 0.200 0.285 0.681
4. Improving my English is a burden for me this semester. 0.637 0.154 0.143 0.256 0.582
5. I feel nervous in English listening and speaking classes. 0.487 0.033 0.336 0.087 0.699
Factor 2. Linguistic self-confidence 0.616
13. I volunteer to seek speaking opportunities outside class to enhance 0.102 0.878 0.093 0.044 0.991
my spoken English.
14. I often volunteer to do speaking presentations in English classes. 0.042 0.753 0.124 0.061 0.504
15. I am sure that one day I will be able to speak English fluently. 0.221 0.723 0.005 0.086 0.324
Factor 3. Attitude towards the English course 0.697
6. In English classes this semester, we are learning things that will be 0.031 0.310 0.775 0.153 0.721
useful in the future.
7. I enjoy my English lessons this semester because what we do is 0.013 0.095 0.664 0.077 0.650
neither too hard nor too easy.
8. I like English classes this semester. 0.146 0.347 0.581 0.056 0.861
9. I want to work hard in English to make my teacher happy. 0.213 0.226 0.508 0.028 0.714
Factor 4. Effort investment 0.698
10. I persist in listening to radio English programs or watch English 0.122 0.067 0.149 0.811 0.755
movies to enhance my English.
11. I persist in reading English newspapers, magazines, or novels to 0.053 0.074 0.095 0.790 0.709
improve my English proficiency.
12. I feel I am making progress in English this semester as a result of 0.061 0.135 0.368 0.443 0.740
persistent effort.
Percentage of variance explained based on EFA (%) 21.799 16.694 9.940 8.062 0.727

Note. Item loadings of EFA greater than 0.40 are in bold type. EFA = exploratory factor analysis; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis.

TESOL QUARTERLY
0.086 (90% CI: 0.062, 0.110), CFI = 0.921, TLI = 0.901, and WRMR =
0.891. A Cronbach’s coefficient of 0.727 was found for the total items
selected for assessing learning motivation. Furthermore, the Cron-
bach’s a coefficients for the four factors were 0.756 for L2-classroom
anxiety, 0.616 for linguistic self-confidence, 0.697 for attitude towards
the English course, and 0.698 for effort investment. Factor loadings
for EFA and CFA of the Students’ EFL Course Learning Motivation
Questionnaire and its reliability for each factor are presented in
Table 2.

Differences in Classroom Assessment Practices and Students’

Learning Motivation Between the Keynote and Non-Keynote
University

Table 3 shows the results of MANOVAs conducted for assessment

practices and learning motivation by university type. For the effect of
university type on assessment practices, significant multivariate main
effect was found, F(5,178) = 5.809, p < 0.01(Wilks’ k = 0.860, = 0.140).
Furthermore, univariate results showed this effect to be significant for
interactive-informal assessment, F(1,182) = 4.40, p < 0.05, and in-class
diagnostic assessment, F(1,182) = 19.92, p < 0.01, with a medium
(0.65) effect size; but not for self-assessment, F(1,182) = 1.24, p > 0.05,

TABLE 3
Results of MANOVAs: Classroom Assessment Practices and Student Learning Motivation by
University

Keynote Non-keynote
uni. uni. F Cohen’s d
Factors Mean(SD) Mean(SD)
Assessment Self-assessment 3.20(0.83) 3.06(0.80) 1.24 0.16
Wilks’ k = 0.860 Interactive-informal 3.87(0.77) 3.62(0.81) 4.40* 0.31
assessment
F(5,178) = 5.809** Teacher scaffolding 3.93(0.62) 3.79(0.64) 2.08 0.21
g2 =0.140 In-class diagnostic 4.07(0.57) 3.62(0.76) 19.92** 0.67
assessment
Subject performance 3.71(0.69) 3.78(0.68) 0.57 0.11
assessment
Motivation L2 classroom anxiety 3.05(0.83) 3.13(0.65) 0.46 0.10
Wilks’ k = 0.939 Attitude towards the 3.18(0.70) 3.18(0.59) 0.002 0.01
English course
F(4,176) = 2.87* Effort investment 3.41(0.74) 3.20(0.56) 4.35* 0.31
g2 =0.061 Linguistic 3.28(0.66) 2.98(0.64) 9.10** 0.45
self-confidence

Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

BRIEF RESEARCH REPORTS 9

teacher scaffolding, F(1,182) = 2.08, p > 0.05, and subject performance
assessment, F(1,182) = 0.57, p > 0.05.
For the effect of university type on students’ EFL course learning
motivation, a significant main effect was also revealed, F(4,176) = 2.87,
p <0.05 (Wilks’ k = 0.939, =0.061). Furthermore, univariate results
showed this effect to be significant for effort investment, F(1,179) =
4.35, p < 0.05, and linguistic self-confidence, F(1,179) = 9.10, p < 0.01,
with a small effect size (0.31 and 0.45); but not for L2 classroom anxi-
ety, F(1,179) = 0.46, p > 0.05, and attitude towards the English course,
F(1,179) = 0.002, p > 0.05.

Relationship Between Classroom Assessment Practices and

Students’ Learning Motivation

As can be seen in Table 4, self-assessment, interactive-informal

assessment, and teacher scaffolding were found to be significantly and
positively correlated with all four motivational factors. In-class diagnos-
tic assessment was found significantly and positively correlated with
three positive motivational factors (i.e., attitude towards the English
course, effort investment, and linguistic self-confidence), but not with
L2 classroom anxiety. Subject performance assessment was found only
significantly and positively correlated with L2 classroom anxiety and
attitude towards the English course but not with effort investment and
linguistic self-confidence.
The results of multiple regression analysis (Model 1) by using all
assessment practices to predict learning motivation showed that self-
assessment (b = 0.212, p = 0.01), interactive-informal assessment (b =
0.166, p < 0.05), and in-class diagnostic assessment (b = 0.153, p = 0.05)
could significantly and positively predict students’ learning motivation,

TABLE 4
Correlation Between Classroom Assessment Practices and Student Learning Motivation

Classroom assessment practices

Student learning Self-assessment Interactive- Teacher In class Subject
motivation informal scaffolding diagnostic performance
assessment assessment assessment
L2 classroom anxiety 0.270** 0.163* 0.189** 0.125 0.161*
Attitude towards the 0.304** 0.254** 0.328** 0.222** 0.161*
English course
Effort investment 0.206** 0.260** 0.247** 0.229** 0.102
Linguistic 0.247** 0.185* 0.232** 0.168* 0.114
self-confidence

Notes. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

10 TESOL QUARTERLY
whereas teacher scaffolding (b = 0.138, p > 0.05) and subject perfor-
mance assessment (b = 0.065, p > 0.05) could not; and the R2 was
0.219, indicating that 21.9% of the variance in students’ learning motiva-
tion could be explained by these five assessment practices predictors.
Furthermore, by using only the three significant assessment practices
predictors as independent variables, regression results (Model 2)
showed that self-assessment (b = 0.254, p < 0.01), interactive-informal
assessment (b = 0.204, p < 0.01), and in-class diagnostic assessment (b =
0.146, p < 0.05) were still significant, with the regression model present-
ing a slightly decreased R2 (i.e., 0.205), indicating that self-assessment,
interactive-informal assessment, and in-class diagnostic assessment could
have significant influence on students’ learning motivation. Details of
the two regression models can be found in Table 5.

DISCUSSION
The findings revealed that the participants experienced four types
of assessment practice considerably frequently—in-class diagnostic
assessment, teacher scaffolding, interactive-informal assessment, and
subject performance assessment, whereas self-assessment emerged to
be used the least. Note that teacher-directed subject performance
assessment is the only type of assessment on which the non-key univer-
sity students obtained a higher mean score. These results suggest that
Chinese university EFL students generally experience student-centred
assessment the least. With regard to students’ motivational disposition

TABLE 5
Regression Models Reporting Unstandardized (B), Standardized Betas (b), Standard Errors
(SE), t and p Values for Predictors of Learning Motivation

Predictor Student learning motivation

Model 1 B SE b t p
Self-assessment 0.120 0.046 0.212 2.605** 0.010
Interactive-informal assessment 0.097 0.047 0.166 2.053* 0.042
Teacher scaffolding 0.102 0.069 0.138 1.492 0.137
In-class diagnostic assessment 0.100 0.051 0.153 1.972* 0.050
Subject performance assessment 0.045 0.055 0.065 0.814 0.417
R2 = 0.219
Model 2 (only significant B SE b t p
predictors in Model 1 included)
Self-assessment 0.144 0.041 0.254 3.515** 0.001
Interactive-informal assessment 0.120 0.044 0.204 2.708** 0.007
In-class diagnostic assessment 0.095 0.047 0.146 2.029* 0.044
R 2= 0.205

Note. * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01.

BRIEF RESEARCH REPORTS 11

in the English course, there was generally marginally moderate
endorsement for L2 classroom anxiety, attitude towards the English
course, and linguistic self-confidence. Effort investment obtained the
highest mean score within either keynote or non-keynote university.
These results suggest a higher level of endorsement for effort invest-
ment in the Chinese university students compared with other motiva-
tional dimensions. MANOVA results showed that students from the
keynote university were higher on mean scores of all the assessment
practices except subject performance assessment, and significantly
higher on interactive-informal assessment and in-class diagnostic assess-
ment, suggesting that assessment practices in the keynote university
were likely to be more facilitative to student learning, probably as a
result of being equipped with better teaching and learning resources
and higher quality teaching staff. In terms of learning motivation, stu-
dents from the keynote university reported a lower level of L2 class-
room anxiety and the same level of attitude towards the English
course, but significantly higher level of both effort investment and lin-
guistic self-confidence in their EFL course. One possible interpretation
of these motivational results is that keynote universities across China
usually recruit higher quality students than do non-keynote universi-
ties, and that higher quality students may thus have a better linguistic
foundation to draw on when continuing their English learning in the
university EFL course.
This study is the first of its kind in L2 education to investigate the
association between motivational processes and different forms of EFL
classroom assessment practice. Our analyses revealed that the positive
correlations between four classroom assessment practices (i.e., self-
assessment, teacher scaffolding, in-class diagnostic assessment, and
interactive-informal assessment) and the three positive motivational fac-
tors were stronger than those between subject performance assessment
and these three motivational factors, suggesting that teacher-controlled
subject performance assessment might be less effective in cultivating
and sustaining students’ motivation to learn. Multiple regression analy-
sis further revealed that self-assessment, interactive-informal assessment,
and in-class diagnostic assessment significantly positively predicted stu-
dents’ learning motivation in the English course. This is probably
because these types of assessment practices may help to make students’
learning needs better known than other forms of assessment. As such,
daily teacher–student interactive practices such as peer student self-
assessment, teacher oral questioning and informal observation, and in-
class teacher monitoring can potentially catalyse changes in students’
motivational processes and can thus possibly have a positive impact on
student learning behaviour. For example, the more opportunities EFL
students have to exercise self-assessment, the more likely they are to

12 TESOL QUARTERLY
develop a positive attitude towards English learning, and the more lin-
guistically confident they tend to judge themselves to be. In other
words, student–student or teacher–student dialogic interaction can be
considered a primary source of formative learning potential in the EFL
classroom. The result is particularly encouraging given the tendency in
the literature to prioritize formal and the procedural assessment activi-
ties and to underplay observation-driven approaches to assessment in
everyday classroom practices. Note that the result that self-assessment
was reported to be least experienced in this study suggests that teacher
implementation of student-led assessment practices appeared to be lim-
ited in Chinese EFL classrooms. Chinese EFL teachers thus need to
play an active part in the development and monitoring of student self-
assessments, most especially for students who have a low level of learn-
ing motivation, and create opportunities for them to develop skills in
self- and peer-assessment within collaborative working opportunities in
classrooms.

CONCLUSION

This study adds to our understanding of how classroom assessment

is undertaken in Chinese EFL classrooms and how it can be effective
in enhancing student learning motivation. In the main, our three
hypotheses have received support. The most striking finding of the
study is that it provides empirical evidence pertaining to the promi-
nent roles of self-assessment, interactive-informal assessment, and in-
class diagnostic assessment in shaping students’ motivational climate
in EFL classrooms, thus raising significant implications pertaining to
alignment of teaching, learning, and assessment. The results suggest
that there is a pressing need for EFL teachers to be aware of the utility
of optimal assessment practices that lead to the most desirable out-
comes of student motivation and learning. Specifically, this requires
teachers to reflect on what classroom assessment practices best foster
student active involvement, autonomy, and responsibility for their
learning. Teachers need to be encouraged to use the assessment
method not simply as a tool of measuring student achievement at the
end of a unit or a semester of study but as a process that can stimulate
students’ motivation to learn through engaging students in learning
dialogues with one another and with their teachers. This study also
suggests that there is a need for EFL teachers to be better aware of
the value of using self-assessment, interactive-informal assessment, and
in-class diagnostic assessment to support students to become self-regu-
lating learners and take the ownership of their learning. Consequently,
work to support EFL teachers’ professional development needs to be

BRIEF RESEARCH REPORTS 13

designed and provided if they are expected to change their view of
assessment as something that is being done to students to something
that is being done with and for the students.
It should be pointed out that two limitations of the current study
ought to be considered in future studies. First, a relatively small sam-
ple size was used for EFA and CFA analyses. Future investigations
should test the claims made here using a larger sample size. Second,
the measures of classroom assessment practices and students’ learning
motivation were all generated from self-report instruments which
might involve response biases. Future investigations might make use of
qualitative observational research in classrooms to corroborate the sta-
tistical evidence reported in this paper.

THE AUTHORS

Zhengdong Gan is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education at the

University of Macau.

His research interests include second language classroom assessment practices, the
psycholinguistics of second language acquisition, individual differences in lan-
guage learning, and second language teacher education.

Constant Leung is a professor of educational linguistics in the School of Educa-

tion, Communication and Society, King’s College London. His research interests
include additional/second language teaching and assessment, language policy,
and teacher professional development. He is joint editor of Language Assessment
Quarterly and editor of Research Issues for TESOL Quarterly. He serves as a member
of the editorial boards of the Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Language and
Education, and The Modern Language Journal. He is a Fellow of the Academy of
Social Sciences (UK).

Jinbo He earned his Ph.D. degree from the Faculty of Education, University of
Macau, and is currently an associate professor in the School of Education, Tianjin
University. His research mainly focuses on quantitative research methodology such
as structural equation modeling.

Honghan Nang is currently an associate professor in the Foreign Languages

Department of China Pharmaceutical University. He specializes in linguistics and
applied linguistics and has published more than 10 books and some papers on
English teaching and learning in China. His major research interests are discourse
analysis, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics.

REFERENCES

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5, 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0969595980050102

14 TESOL QUARTERLY
Brookhart, S. M. (1997). A theoretical framework for the role of classroom assess-
ment in motivating student effort and achievement. Applied Measurement in Edu-
cation, 10, 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame1002_4
Brookhart, S. M., Walsh, J. M., & Zientarski, W. A. (2006). The dynamics of moti-
vation and effort for classroom assessments in middle school science and social
studies. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 151–184. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15324818ame1902_5
Brown, G. T., Irving, S. E., Peterson, E. R., & Hirschfeld, G. H. (2009). Use of
interactive informal assessment practices: New Zealand secondary students’ con-
ceptions of assessment. Learning and Instruction, 19, 97–111. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.learninstruc.2008.02.003
Cheng, L.-Y., & Fox, J. (2017). Assessment in the language classroom. London, Eng-
land: Palgrave.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
D€
ornyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2010). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.).
Harlow, England: Longman.
Guilloteaux, M. J., & D€ ornyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A class-
room-oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student
motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.
2008.tb00207.x
Hao, S., & Johnson, R. L. (2013). Teachers’ classroom assessment practices and
fourth-graders’ reading literacy achievements: An international study. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 29, 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.010
Harlen, W., & Deakin Crick, R. (2003). Testing and motivation for learning. Assess-
ment in Education, 10, 169–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594032000121270
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling:
Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research
Methods, 6, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001316446002000116
Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA
in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44,
486–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236
Krishnan, V. (2011). A comparison of principal components analysis and factor
analysis for uncovering the early development instrument (EDI) domains. In
Early Child Development Mapping (ECMap) Project (Unpublished manuscript),
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Leung, C. (2009). Developing formative teacher assessment: Knowledge, practice,
and change. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1, 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15434311laq0101_3
Leung, C., Davison, C., Hamp-Lyons, L., East, M., Evans, M., Liu., Y.-C., & Purpura,
J. E. (2018). Using assessment to promote learning: Clarifying constructs, theo-
ries, and practices. In J. M. Davis, J. M. Norris, M. E. Malone, T. H. McKay, &
Y.-A. Son (Eds.), Useful assessment and evaluation in language education. Washing-
ton, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Purpura, J. E. (2016). Second and foreign language assessment. Modern Language
Journal, 100, 190–208. https:/doi.org/10.1111/modl.12308
Raubenheimer, J. (2004). An item selection procedure to maximize scale reliability
and validity. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30, 59–64. https://doi.org/10.
4102/sajip.v30i4.168

BRIEF RESEARCH REPORTS 15

Rea-Dickins, P. (2004). Understanding teachers as agents of assessment. Language
Testing, 21, 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532204lt283ed
Wang, W. C., & Cunningham, E. G. (2005). Comparison of alternative estimation
methods in confirmatory factor analyses of the General Health Questionnaire.
Psychological Reports, 97, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.97.1.3-10
You, C., & D€ ornyei, Z. (2016). Language learning motivation in China: Results of
a large-scale stratified survey. Applied Linguistics, 37, 495–519. https://doi.org/
10.1093/applin/amu046
Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models
with binary and continuous outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Univer-
sity of California, Los Angeles, CA.

16 TESOL QUARTERLY