




































Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AIJSSR 

 

                      American International Journal of Social Science Research; Vol. 4, No. 2; 2019 
                                       ISSN 2576-103X   E-ISSN 2576-1048 

Published by Centre for Research on Islamic Banking & Finance and Business, USA 
 

        102 
 

Impacts of Formative Assessment on EFL Students’ Academic Performance at 
Kandahar University 

 
 

Javed Sahibzada  
Education Faculty’s Research Center Head  

English Department, Kandahar University, Kandahar, Afghanistan   
E-mail: sahibzada.javed@gmail.com 

 
Abdul Nafi Himat 

BA English Literature  
English Department, Education Faculty, Kandahar University, Kandahar, Afghanistan   

E-mail: abdulnafi.himat2017@gmail.com 
 
Abstract 
This study investigated the implementation of formative assessment and its impacts on EFL students’ academic performance at 
Kandahar University. The study is descriptive in nature; quantitative questionnaire was used to collect data from one hundred 
and fifty EFL students at all four levels selected through random sampling method. The collected data was analyzed by using 
IBM 24 version of SPSS and results are reported in tables by showing means, standard deviation, percentage and frequency. The 
major findings revealed that teachers are using formative assessment as part of their plan, allocating time for peer feedback, 
methods and tools of assessment teachers are using are group work, assignment, homework, presentation, project work which 
had positive impacts on students’ academic performance and improved final exam grades. Study also disclosed that teachers are 
valuing more summative assessment than formative, some important methods of assessment are ignored by teachers aversively 
affected their lower performance. 
 
Keywords: Formative Assessment, EFL, Implementation, Impacts  
 
1. Introduction 
In recent years, rapid development of technology and the growing unemployment rate around the world has led many 
universities to bring changes in various areas of their teaching and learning. These shifts of changes can be experienced in class 
structures, technology enabling learning, curriculum, teaching methodology from teacher-centered to student-centered to the new 
active learning methods students-centered learning, problem based learning and outcome based learning have taken place of 
traditional methods in order to produce graduates based on market demands of twenty-first century. Assessment is also the part 
of these quick variations which has changed parallel with them from traditional end process summative assessment into 
formative assessment. As teaching assessment and learning is inseparable activities, it is the only promise of any quality 
institutions to surprise their students with enough assessment during their careers. These can be either in the form of summative 
taken at the end of the course, program, week, month and semester or formative taken during course, semester, program, 
instruction, study period or prior to course, program or instruction. The latter type is the prime focus of this paper.  As it infers 
from its name, formative assessment’s main concern is improvement rather than consisting marks, which is very essential for 
students’ career development. It is often called on-going or assessment for learning. As the name suggests, it is used for learning 
process and change the learning process in order to achieve better results (Wiesnerová, 2012).    

Obviously, formative assessment can be done any time and is not time bound. As a chef can test his/her dish anytime 
and bring changes for making it more delicious. He/she sometimes wants to add or decrease some ingredients (salt, basil, oil, 
paper or water) before it is ready for guest or customer to test it. Assessment can be done as diagnostic, formative and summative 
assessment; the diagnostic assessment can be done to recognize areas of the students’ needs, or gaps in their understanding 
(Dandekar, 2015). Therefore, the act of measuring the weight of child to find out the development in child’s growth or weight  
increase after specific amount of time, does not help child’s growth or development. What matters and helped the child growth 
and development was the food and other nutrition child has received before the act of measuring. In the same way taking into 
consideration summative assessment as end process does not help with students’ progress in their academic performance but 
what helps them is formative assessment.  

In this type of assessment students are receiving feedback from their teachers and it is used to assess course, instruction, 
program, individual during or prior; its beginning in order to bring changes or adopt them each accordingly. As well as, 
formative assessment is used as an instrument to declare whether the learning goals have been achieved by the learners or whether 
further intensive learning enhancement should be made (Widiastuti & Saukah, 2017). Thus, on-going assessment helps in 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AIJSSR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr             American International Journal of Social Science Research                 Vol. 4, No. 2; 2019 
 

103 
                       

accomplishing the intended outcomes by any levels at respected universities. Consequently, it can be defined as assessment for 
learning and not as assessment of learning (Ruiz-Primo & Furtak, 2007). 

 Garrison & Ehringhaus (2007) argue that formative assessment happens during the instructional process, and its 
primary purpose is to provide the necessary details to modify teaching and learning. Whereas, summative assessment or 
assessment of learning is used to make final judgment on what students know and do not know. Assessment of learning is meant 
to make decisions on students’ academic performance including pass/fail. It determines whether the goals of education are being 
achieved or not. It is typically formal in nature and performed at the end of the course or learning module (Das, Alsalhanie, 
Nauhria, Joshi, Khan & Surender, 2017). As well as, the information that is obtained through formative assessment give teachers 
chance to change, improve, enhance, or accelerate the topic what he or she is currently teaching to better meet student needs 
(Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Herman, Osmundson, Ayala, Schneider & Timms, 2006). Formative assessment is a process 
in which teachers and students provide feedback during instruction to organize the learning and teaching process in order to 
increase students’ achievement (McManus, 2008). 

Despite, formative assessment playing major roles in pupils’ academic performance and learning process and the 
current policy of Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) emphasizes and supports both formative and summative assessment to 
be applied in public and private universities.  Majority of the teachers at Kandahar University specifically, EFL educators are still 
focusing on summative assessment rather than ongoing assessment which is direct or indirectly effecting EFL students’ academic 
performance. There are still teachers who are using traditional model of assessment as paper and pencil exam and with such 
model of assessment it’s difficult to accomplish the educational goal (Garrison, et al., 2007).  According to Noori, Shafie, 
Mashwani & Tareen (2017) large classes and the limitation of time are the factors that teachers cannot implement assessment 
for learning in their classrooms. Likewise, Quyen & Khairani (2016) stated that teacher was not allowed to follow any other 
types of assessment approach that is why he/she only practiced summative assessment in learning process.  

Taking into the consideration the importance of formative assessment with only summative format of assessment in 
universities will cause the students to be unskilled labors for many companies inside home country or the outside the country. 
From the beginning of the lesson, students are given the responsibility for their own learning, giving each one an opportunity to 
create their own knowledge of the subject (Ritchhart, Church & Morrison, 2011). Formative assessment assists in investing to 
eliminate joblessness growing rate which nowadays is serious problem not only in Afghan context but around the world due to 
the universities are not providing market based demand graduates. It informs teachers about students whether the students have 
learned and they have an indicator qualification for how the teacher should plan their next lesson in future (Wuest & Fisette, 
2012). Moreover, supporters of formative assessment claim that it helps students to develop a deeper understanding of the issue 
they are studying. It helps create life-long learners and give students the power and skills to begin and analyze their own learning 
and find ways to improve in an independent environment. It does this by turning the student from a passive learner into an 
active learner, it gives them an occasion to set their own aims and often monitor their own success (Clark, 2011). 

Although formative assessment is playing a crucial role in students’ career development, surprisingly limited or no 
study have been conducted in Afghan context specifically at Kandahar University, to measure current statues of formative 
assessment or its impacts on academic performances of the students. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate current 
status of formative assessment’s implementation and its effects on academic performance of EFL students. This study would 
help with the (MoHE) and it is respected universities in exploring the limitations for implementing formative assessment by 
teachers in their courses and as an effective data in highlighting impacts and importance of formative assessment. This would 
also benefit students in universities to understand its value and not to miss these ongoing assessments’ due dates. In addition, it 
would aid lecturers at public and private universities in using various types of assessment for ensuring themselves that the desired 
outcomes at different levels have been achieved.   

 
2. Objectives of the Research 

 To investigate the current status of formative assessment’s implementation in EFL students’ classes at Kandahar 
University. 

 To investigate impacts of formative assessment on EFL students’ academic performance at Kandahar University. 
 

3. Research Questions 

 What is the current status of formative assessment’s implementation in EFL Students’ classes at Kandahar University? 
 What are the impacts of formative assessment on EFL students’ academic performance at Kandahar University? 

 
4. Literature Review 
4.1 Implementation of Formative Assessment 
Noori, et al., (2017) investigated the practices and perceptions of Afghan EFL teachers toward assessment and also to explore 
the challenges that instructors encounter in the usage of assessment for learning in their classes in Afghan context. The findings 
showed that instructors preserved positive perceptions toward formative assessment and favored it over final exam. The study 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AIJSSR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr             American International Journal of Social Science Research                 Vol. 4, No. 2; 2019 
 

104 
                       

further illustrated that instructors use summative assessments more than assessments for learning in their classrooms. In addition, 
a study was conducted by Taylor (2017) to investigate formative assessment usage in English language acquisition in an upper 
secondary schools. Its findings revealed from five teachers that have been observed only one teacher’s entire classroom pract ice 
was formative, three teachers conducted several separate activities, and one teacher did not use formative assessment at all.  

Similarly, research conducted by Jasparro & Burns (2010) in Johnsan and Wales University in order to find out the 
implementation of formative assessment strategies perceived by high school students and teachers. The findings showed teachers 
plan their formative assessment ahead of time and repeatedly modify their instruction based on students’ feedback. Furthermore, 
more than half of the teachers were often used rubrics and they scheduled class time for students to revise their work. There were 
low rates of implementation of providing students time for student peer assessment. Similarly, 56% of teachers preferred 
summative assessments instead of assessment. The study further indicated that only one formative assessment strategies were 
implemented in high levels to use rubrics. Less time was given to students during the class to revise their work and instructors 
changed their instructional approach when they did not do well on the quizzes.  

Another study conducted by Ruland (2011) to investigate the effects of using formative assessment attributes in daily 
instruction of student. The finding showed association with daily use of formative assessment attributes and increase in student 
achievement. The study further suggests the possible reason that learners who receive assessment for learning attributes perform 
better on summative assessments is due to belief that they can learn academic efficacy and the desire to continue to learn 
eagerness. Another study conducted to compare the academic outcome of students randomly assigned to an experimental group 
(formative assessment), to a control group (only final summative examination). The finding of this study demonstrated that the 
students who participated in on-going assessment obtained better examination results in summative assessment than the ones 
who did not. This study also found some students who participated in formative assessment failed in formative assessment but 
still they were successful in the final exams (Carrillo-de-la-Pena, Bailles, Caseras, Martínez, Ortet & Pérez, 2009). 

Research conducted by Huisman (2018) in Lowa Northwestern College, to examine the impact of formative 
assessment on students’ learning. The finding indicated that formative assessment methods that were used in the classroom had 
positive impact on students’ learning. Also, Espiritu, Shahrill, Perera & Prahmana 2018) conducted a study to explore the 
formative assessment practices in science education in relation to the improvement of students’ learning. The findings revealed 
that formative assessment was used partially and it was also noted few student-led discussions which significantly strengthened 
current ongoing assessment practices. The study further suggested that assessment for Learning in science education can be used 
successfully. Similarly, the practice of formative assessment was studied by Tolley (2016) in the northeastern United States, to 
examine the formative assessment practices of secondary English language arts teachers who were all teaching the same course 
within a concurrent enrollment program. The findings revealed that there were statistically significant changes in the practices 
that the teachers used formative assessment from week to week with their students. The study also demonstrated that teachers’ 
practices assessment for learning in the course. 

Similarly, Lord (2013) studied implications of formative assessment in a high school classroom. It was found that 
teachers were willing to implement new formative assessment techniques to prepare, implement and analyze. It also asserted that 
only one of the seven teachers provided an explanation of how they would change their instructional techniques. Furthermore, 
there were teachers who felt formative assessment was something they did naturally in the classrooms which does not require 
proper planning. As well as, research carried out to discover whether the implementation of more comprehensive approach to 
formative assessment made a difference to students’ summative assessment outcomes or not. The study identified that the 
choosing of a more comprehensive model of formative assessment increased levels of students’ engagement and built a more 
positive changes in the classroom as well. It was also improved 12th grade final exam marks of students in the subject of 
mathematics (Stockwell, 2017). 

The study conducted by Widiastuti et al., (2017) in Bali, to explore the challenges and opportunities of formative 
assessment in EFL classes. Three junior high school teachers and three students were involved in research samples. The findings 
showed that English instructors had different understanding of formative assessment and several strategies of follow up actions. 
The first teacher had some awareness about the principles and purpose of assessment for learning. The second teacher utilized 
result of assessment for learning to improve learning; however, she did not have comprehensive understanding about the criteria 
of it. She was still using daily assessment closed-ended, open-ended questions and question-answer in teaching. The third teacher 
did not clearly describe her purpose of ongoing assessment meant for learning. She was using closed-ended questions and open-
ended questions, however her only purpose was to enable students successfully pass in final exam. They also found EFL teachers 
need immediate attention for further intensive training on appropriate usage of ongoing assessment and how to follow up 
actions should be integrated into classroom practices.  

Vingsle (2014) conducted a study to investigate activities, knowledge and skills that teachers of mathematics are using 
in their formative assessment practice during class lessons. his findings revealed that the formative assessment practice was very 
complex and difficult task for the teachers. He also found that teachers used minute-by-minute formative assessment in order to 
elicit students identifying their leaning needs.  Moreover, Oz (2014) conducted a study to find out teachers’ practices of 
formative assessment in the English EFL classroom. The findings that most of teachers were relied on the conventional methods 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AIJSSR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr             American International Journal of Social Science Research                 Vol. 4, No. 2; 2019 
 

105 
                       

of assessment (fill in the blank, multiple choice, true-false, matching and short term exams) rather than formative assessment 
process. Similarly, research carried out by Gioka (2007), to explore the extent to which science teachers use assessment for 
learning when they teach biology subject in secondary classes. The finding showed that only a few of them implemented 
elements of assessment for learning in classrooms.  
 
4.2 Impacts of Formative Assessment 
The purpose of formative assessment is to provide feedback to teachers and students during the course of learning. It helps 
teachers to fill the gap of the students (Heritage, 2007; Filsecker & Kerres, 2012).  Obviously, assessment for learning takes 
place during the teaching and learning activities and the primary purpose is to help teachers to conduct more appropriate 
teaching and learning activities in order to enhance the students’ learning performance. In this case, it can be summarized that 
there are two essential purposes of formative assessment: (a) determining and modifying learning activities, and (b) choosing the 
most appropriate strategies to improve the students’ learning performance (Widiastuti et al., 2017). Furthermore, a study 
conducted by Yin, Shavelson, Ruiz-Primo, Brandon, Furtak & Young (2008) to find out the role of formative assessments in 
improving students’ achievement, motivation, and consequently conceptual change. Their findings showed that formative 
assessment did not lead to a significant influence on students’ achievement, motivation and conceptual changes; however, this 
stemmed from the difficulty of effective implementation of formative assessment rather than its effectiveness.  

A research was conducted to find out the effects of formative assessment practices on students’ academic performance, 
attitudes toward lessons, and self-regulation skills in the fifth-grade social studies class of a secondary school. The findings 
showed that the experimental group in which the formative assessment practices were performed had a significantly higher 
academic accomplishment levels and better attitudes toward the class than the students did in the control group. With regard to 
the students’ self-regulation skills, although the formative assessment had a positive effect, no significant difference was found 
between the experimental and control groups. Based on researchers’ observations and interviews conducted with the teacher and 
students, it was determined that the general view on the application of formative assessment was notably positive. It also found 
the academic attainments of the students in the experimental group where the formative assessment practices were applied had 
significantly higher than the ones in the control group where no formative assessment practices were applied (Ozan & Kincal, 
2018). 

Asking questions in ongoing assessment is essential to obtain details about students’ learning and understanding 
(McMillan, 2014). Teachers plan the implementation or process of formative assessment at the beginning, during or at the end 
of a unit (Ruiz-Primo et al., 2007). Teachers can spend one-third of their teaching time asking questions from the students in 
classroom (Moss & Brookhart, 2009). Additionally, formative assessment can be characterized as follows: (a) It is an assessment 
carried out by teachers on a daily basis during the teaching and learning process; (b) it provides feedback for the instructors to 
do immediate revision; and (c) it purposes to modify teaching and learning activities in order to improve students’ learning 
accomplishment. In line with the objectives of instructional processes, consequently, most of the classroom assessment is 
formative because it allows teachers to consider what improvement should be made immediately which will give significant 
learning impacts for the students in achieving the learning objectives completely (Decristan, Klieme, Kunter, Hochweber, 
Buttner, Fauath & Hardy, 2015; Dunn & Mulvenon, 2009). 

A study conducted by Mehmood, Hussain, Khalid & Azam (2012) to identify effects of formative assessment on 
academic achievement of secondary school students. Their findings demonstrated that formative assessment had positive effects 
on students’ achievements. The study further illustrated that the students who assessed by formative assessment had significantly 
high score than those who were not assessed. As well, Cauley & McMillan (2010) studied the formative assessment techniques 
that support student motivation and achievement. Findings revealed that each of the techniques can improve student motivation 
as well as achievements. The study further indicated that assessment for learning have a powerful effect on student motivation 
and performance. Moreover, research conducted by Iqbal & Anjum (2017) to find out the effects of assessment for learning on 
academic achievement of elementary school students in the subject of social studies. Their findings revealed that formative 
assessment had positive effects on students’ accomplishment. 

Similarly, Eremina & Reginald (2016) have investigated influence of assessment for learning on biology academic 
performance on senior secondary students. This study revealed that formative assessment strategies effectively improved biology 
accomplishment of students’ and their academic performance was enhanced by the following ongoing assessment strategies: use 
of questioning, comment only marking and self/peer assessment. they also found formative assessment has significant impact on 
academic performance of students. Research carried out by Kline (2013) to find the effects of assessment for learning on middle 
school students’ accomplishment. Findings of this study revealed that formative assessment has positive impact on students’ 
performance in mathematics and reading. Moreover, Doffermyre (2016) conducted a research, to investigate the use of 
assessment for learning and the resulting data to drive instruction in the classroom. The findings showed that the use formative 
assessment increases the performance of students.  

Moyosore (2015) carried out an experimental research to explore the effects of formative assessment on learners’ 
achievement in secondary mathematics students. his findings showed strong significant differences in mean achievement score of 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AIJSSR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr             American International Journal of Social Science Research                 Vol. 4, No. 2; 2019 
 

106 
                       

mathematics students exposed to formative assessment strategies also there was no gender difference in achievement scores of 
mathematics students exposed to formative assessment. Research conducted to find the impact of formative assessment on EFL 
learners’ vocabulary enhancement. The findings revealed that formative assessment had positive influence on the learners’ 
vocabulary enhancement. It also indicated that formative assessment contributed to students’ vocabulary enhancement and 
helped them to become actively involved in their learning process (Torosyan, 2014).  In addition, Chemeli (2019) studied the 
effects of five key assessments for learning strategies on students’ performance in mathematics instruction in secondary school. 
The findings asserted that there was positive impact on students’ accomplishment. The study further suggested educators’ 
workload, raised students’ attitudes, and interest. These also improved the students’ critical thinking, and educators and learners’ 
enjoyed from the using (FAS).  The study further indicated that the use (FAS) improve acquisition of problem solving skills 
(increased students’ motivation, teamwork, participation, response to questions, and the capability to provide reason for 
something).  

 A study conducted by Kiplagat (2016) to determine the effects of formative assessment classroom teaching strategy 
(FACTS) on mathematics academic achievement among primary school learners. The findings demonstrated that there was 
significant impact of (FACTS) on pupils’ mathematics academic achievement. The study further concluded that formative 
assessment classroom teaching strategy improved achievement in primary school mathematics. Finally, research conducted by 
Peterson & Siadat (2009) in Chicago to examine the influence of the implementation of formative assessment on student 
achievement in elementary algebra classes. It was found that after approximately four months the students who were regularly 
assessed with weekly quizzes achieved significantly higher scores on the final examinations than the students whose instruction 
did not include formative assessment at all. 
 
5. Methodology 
This study is descriptive in nature which quantitative questionnaire is used to measure the current status of formative 
assessment’s implementation and its effects on EFL students’ academic performance at Kandahar University. The participants 
were 150 EFL students mainly from two faculties, Education and Languages and Literature, English Departments. They were 
selected by the use of random sampling method. The adopted and adapted process was in selection of some questions for 
instrument from the study of Asefa’s (2015). Its reliability was checked for and had good result of 0.6 Cornbach’s Alpha. The 
data was analyzed by using IBM 24 version of SPSS and found out the frequency, percentage; mean and standard deviation 
which are presented in tables. 
 
6. Findings 
Findings of the study revealed the current status of formative assessment’s implementation and its impacts on EFL Students’ 
academic performance. 
Table 1. Demographic Data 
 

Distribution of Respondents by Demographic Data 

      Characteristics Frequency Percentage 

                                                
Gender:                     

Male 135 90 

Female 15 10 

Level of Education:                                                              
                                                                                          
 
 

Freshmen 59 39.3 

Sophomore 30 20 

Junior 29 19.3 

Senior 32 21.3 

Age:  
 
 

Under 20 55 36.7 

Between 20 & 25 81 54 

Upper 25 7 4.7 

Upper 28 7 4.7 

Faculty:                         
 

Education  77 51.3 

Languages and Literature  73 48.7 

 
Table 1 shows the demographic information of the respondents in categories of gender, level of education, age, and 

faculty. There is still limitation in perusing higher education so there are very few students in EFL Departments, therefor 90% 
of the respondents are male and only 10% are female. Depending to their level of education, freshmen are 39.3% sophomore 
20%, junior 19.3% and senior 21.3%. With regard to age under 20 years old are 36.7%, between 20 and 25 are 54%, upper 25 
are 4.7% and upper 28 were 4.7% students. Regarding to faculty division 51.3% are students from education faculty, English 
department and 48.7% are from languages and literature faculty, English department.  



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AIJSSR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr             American International Journal of Social Science Research                 Vol. 4, No. 2; 2019 
 

107 
                       

What is the current status of formative assessment’s implementation in EFL Students’ classes at Kandahar University? 
 
Table 2. Current Status of Formative Assessment’s Implementation in Classes 

No  Items Mean Std. Deviation 

1  Some teachers use formative assessment as a part of their lesson plan. 3.25 1.00 

2  Teachers partially use formative assessment in their lesson. 2.95 .92 

3  Some teachers do not use formative assessment at all. 2.38 1.23 

4  In our classes formative assessment is not implemented in teaching by teachers. 2.68 1.07 

5  Teachers use assessment as a feedback for adopting their methods accordingly. 2.95 1.26 

6  Teachers use questions and answer technique assessment at the end of lessons.  2.70 1.38 

7  Some teachers prefer summative assessment instead of formative assessment. 3.02 1.18 

8  Teachers assess my progress based on day to day activities beside final exam. 2.99 1.25 

9  Some teachers provide time to encourage peer assessment between students. 3.13 1.20 

Likert scale: 1. Never                      2. Rarely                       3. Sometimes                       4. Often                             5. Always  
 
              Table 2.  Indicates the current status of formative assessment’s implementation in EFL classes. (M is representing 
=Mean and SD representing= Standard Deviation).  The entire items had the mean scores between in the range of 2.38 to 3.25. 
Three items which got the highest ratings:  the first one is students responses on their teachers are using assessment for learning 
as a part of their lesson plan with (M=3.25, SD=1.00). Similarly, the second item that got the high mean score is participants 
responses on their teachers are giving them time for peer assessment which (M=3.13, SD=1.20).  The last item which got 
higher rating is participants’ responses that their teachers are valuing more final then continues assessment with (M=3.02, 
SD=1.18). Respondents with mean score (M=2.99, and SD=1.25) reported that their teachers rarely use formative assessment.  
              In addition to that (M=2.95, SD=1.26) students reported that their teachers use the assessment results for positive 
wash back effects of their teaching methods adoption accordingly.  The finding also suggests with means score of (M=2.95, and 
SD=.92) that some teachers do not use ongoing assessment completely during the teaching.  Result indicate that with mean 
score (M=2.70, and SD=1.38) students responded that their teachers are using questions and answer method of assessment at 
the end of lessons. Students with (M=2.68, SD=1.07) have reported that their teachers rarely use formative assessment in their 
teaching.  Finally, M=2.38, SD=1.23) of the respondents reported that their teachers are not implementing assessment for 
learning at all.  
 
Table 3. Types of Formative Assessment Used in EFL Courses 

 Frequency Percent 

Group work 112 74.7 

Assignment 99 66.0 

Homework 89 59.3 

Presentation 75 50.0 

Project work 34 22.7 

Closed-ended questions 17 11.3 

Open-ended questions 14 9.3 

Weekly quizzes  11 7.3 

Portfolio 10 6.7 

Rubric 2 1.3 

 
Table 3. Asserts types of assessment EFL teachers are using in their courses. Group work is the most common 

assessment method according to 74.7% of the respondents, for 66% of the respondents’ assignment, homework  for 59.3%, 
presentation for 50%, project work for 22.7%, closed-ended questions for 11.3%, open-ended questions for 9.3%, weekly 
quizzes for 7.3%, portfolio for 6.7% for 1.3% of respondents as a common assessments method by their teachers in their 
courses. 
 
What are the effects of formative assessment on EFL students’ academic performance at Kandahar University? 
 
 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AIJSSR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr             American International Journal of Social Science Research                 Vol. 4, No. 2; 2019 
 

108 
                       

Table 4. The Impacts of Formative on Students’ Academic Performance  

No  Items Mean Std. Deviation 

11  Teachers’ assessing previous lessons have forced me to review previously learned 
materials. 

2.89 .761 

12  Formative assessment has provided me opportunities to find my strength and 
weakness in order to work accordingly. 

2.87 .816 

13  Teachers’ assignment in studying new lessons has made me to be active in the 
class. 

2.95 .925 

14  Teachers’ positive reinforcement motivates me to do my best.   2.88 .819 

15  Teachers’ questions and answers method of assessment at beginning of the 
classes and at the end have leaded me to come prepared for the class.    

2.95 .822 

16  Teachers’ assigning in activities during classes helps me to be more creative. 2.90 .841 

17  Teachers assessing at the end of lesson help me to take note effectively and 
summarize the lesson for the day. 

2.77 .862 

18  Teachers’ questions at the end of the lesson assist me to be active in class 
discussion.  

2.80 .905 

19  Teachers’ assigning me for writing reflection has leaded me to avoid 
misconception in learned points through teacher’s feedback.  

2.73 .776 

20  The formative assessment has affected my result in final exam. 3.03 .827 

21  Formative assessment has increased my academic performance. 3.14 .846 

Likert scale: 1. Strongly Disagree                    2. Disagree                                3. Agree                                   4. Strongly Agree 
             

Table 4. Illustrates the impacts of formative assessment on students’ academic performance. All the items had the 
mean scores between the ranges of two to three. Two items which got the highest ranking. The first one students with mean 
score (M=3.14, SD=.84) have responded that formative assessment has increased their academic performance. The second item 
with higher mean is (M=3.03, SD=.82) which students have agreed that formative assessment had positive effect on their final 
exam result. The following items show the lower mean scores compared to the above items. The responses of (M=2.95, 
SD=.82) respondents indicates that the questions and answer techniques of teachers prior to the class beginning and at the end 
of the lesson does not help students to come prepared for their classes.  In addition to that, students’ (M=2.90, SD=.92) 
indicates that students being assigned for reading new lessons do not affect their activeness in the classes.  Beside that (M=2.90, 
SD=.84) students responds that teachers’ assigning students in activities during the class did not help students to be active in the 
classes.  Participants’ responses of (M=2.89, SD=.76) shows that teachers’ assessment of previous lesson does not affect them 
to review their previously learned materials.    

Additionally, the students’ responses toward item 14 (M=2.88, SD=.81) indicates that ‘Teachers’ positive 
reinforcement did not motivated students do their best’ got the lowest mea. Similarly, students’ responses toward item 12 
(M=2.87, SD=.81) indicates that ‘teachers’ use of assessment for learning did not help students in discovering their strength 
and weakness in order to work accordingly’.  Students’ response to the item 18 (M=2.80, SD=.90) indicates ‘the questions at 
the end of lessons by teachers did not help students have active class discussion’.   Furthermore, students’ responses (M=2.77, 
SD=.86) toward item 17 indicates that ‘teachers’ assessing at the end of lesson did not help students in effective note taking and 
as well day to day lesson summarization’. Finally, students’ (M=2.73, SD=.77) responses regarding item 19 indicates that 
‘teachers’ assigning students to write reflection did not help them avoid misconception in learned points through teacher’s 
feedback.   

 
7. Discussion 
The findings of current study show that EFL teachers have used formative assessment as a part of their lesson plans (M=3.25, 
SD=1.00). It means that lecturers are using on-going assessment as a part of their lesson plan. The similar findings also 
suggested by Jasparro, et al., (2010) that teachers plan their formative assessment ahead of time and repeatedly modify their 
instruction based on students’ feedback and according to Lord (2013) there were teachers who felt that formative assessment 
was something they did naturally in the classroom. As well as, Noori, et al., (2017) that teachers had positive perception toward 
formative assessment. Moreover, the finding of this study also indicated that some of the educators provide time and encourage 
learners for peer feedback (M=3.13, SD=1.20) which is opposite with the study conducted by Jasparro, et al., (2010) whose 
study demonstrated that there is little time provided for peer assessment. On the other hand, the study also revealed that 
(M=3.02, SD=1.18) teachers are mostly favored summative assessment rather than formative assessment which is aligned with 
finding of Jasparro, et al., (2010) who found that 56% of teachers preferred summative assessment such as common end course 
assessment. Furthermore, this finding further supported by Oz (2014) that most of teachers were relied on the conventional 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AIJSSR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr             American International Journal of Social Science Research                 Vol. 4, No. 2; 2019 
 

109 
                       

methods of assessment (fill in the blank, multiple choice, true-false, matching and short term exams) rather than formative 
assessment process. 

Similarly, the study also found that the use of formative assessment increased and effected academic performances of 
the students (M=3.14, SD=.84) and (M=3.03, SD=.82) the use of assessment for learning improve and effects students’ 
performance. This is in harmony with (Ruland, 2011; Doffermyre, 2016) that assessment for learning increases the academic 
performance of pupils. This finding further supported by Stockwell (2017) that choosing a more comprehensive model of 
formative assessment increased levels of students’ engagement and built a more positive classroom (brought changes in the 
classroom as well). In addition, this finding is also in the line with the (Ozan, et al., 2018; Mehmmod, et al., 2012; Peterson, et 
al., 2009) that experimental group in which the formative assessment practices were performed had a significantly higher 
academic performance levels (high score) and better attitudes toward the class than the students did in the control group. These 
findings can be more supported by Carrillo-de-la-Pena, et al., (2009) that students who participated in formative assessment 
obtained better examination results in summative assessment than the ones who did not. The findings of (Iqbal, et al., 2017; 
Eremina, et al., 2016; Kiplagat, 2016; Kline, 2013; Cauley, 2010; Mehmood et al., 2012) studies show that assessment for 
learning have powerful, significant and positive effects on students’ motivation and performance. Although, this result is differed 
with result found by Yin et al., (2008) that formative assessment did not lead to a significant influence on students’ 
performance. Though, teachers are using various types of formative assessments in EFL courses. such as: group work 74.7% 
assignment 66.0%, homework 59.3%, presentation 50.0%, project work 22.7% there are still some areas EFL teachers should 
consider increasing various types of assessment which directly affect the academic performance of their students. As well as, 
Stockwell (2017) have the same concern for choosing the more comprehensive model of assessment increase the level of 
students’ engagement and built more positive change in the classroom. Furthermore, Widiastuti, et al., (2017) also suggested 
that appropriate assessment for learning and ways to follow up actions should be integrated in the classroom practices. 

Similar problem can be seen in this context as well. As result shows for the types of assessment their teachers are using 
only 9.3% respondents said they are using open-ended question and 11.3% said they are using closed-ended questions. Results 
discovered with (M=2.95, and SD=.82) that questions and answers techniques used by teachers at end of lesson and prior to 
class begin did not help them to come prepared for their classes whereas many researchers emphasized on the importance of 
asking questions for its improving students’ understanding (McMillan 2014; Ruiz, et al., 2007; Moss et al., 2009). Only 7.3% 
of the respondents reported they have weekly quizzes that is how (M=2.90. SD=92) reported they are not active in classes and 
also they are not active in classroom activities in which they are assigned by the teachers. Therefore, it can be inferred that 
teachers are not much focusing active learning in which required classroom activities. In addition, the result also indicates that 
teachers’ assessments of previous lesson did not assist them to review previously learned lessons which can be inferred from 9.3% 
weekly quizzes that instructors are not taking seriously review of previously learned materials which are considered very crucial 
for students to connect new lessons with their previous experiences. Result displays that teachers’ positive reinforcement did not 
help students in doing their best. Moreover, similar findings also revealed in the study by Yin et al., (2008) where they found 
formative assessment did not lead to a significant influence on students’ performance, motivation or conceptual changes. 

Obviously, as one of the purpose of assessment for learning is that students learned about their strength and weakness 
in order to work accordingly where teachers’ role is significant because in the studies of (Heritage, 2007; Filsecker et al., 2012) 
reported that the aim of formative assessment is to provide feedback to teachers, students during the course of learning in order 
to fill the gap of the pupils. Thus, the study disclose that learners have trouble in these areas and it is very essential for EFL 
teachers to work with students understand their strength and weakness so that they could work accordingly. Additionally, result 
also specifies that students are not taking note, which effective note taking is very important during lecture, group or class 
discussion and that maybe because on-going assessment is not used accordingly at the end of the class. As well, choosing the 
most appropriate strategies, can improve the students learning performance (Widiastuti, et al., 2017). The result also confirms 
this problem which only 9.3% respondents said their teacher used open-ended question as types of formative assessment. As the 
result indicated more that instructors used formative assessment as a part of their course plan yet students had misconception 
about learned lesson after the class. The result of this study more indicated (M=2.73, SD=77) that teachers assigning students 
to write did not avoid their misconception in learned points through teachers’ feedback. It’s either they are not given feedback or 
students are careless about this vital points. 

 
8. Conclusion 
The findings of this study asserted that teachers are using assessment as a part of their lesson plan and they also allocate time for 
students for peer assessment among themselves. However, the study also showed that teachers preferred more summative 
assessment than formative assessment. It also has been discovered that formative assessment had positive impacts on the 
academic performance of the students. Thus, the teachers are using various tools of formative assessment, but there are many 
types of formative assessment instruments which have been either ignored or limited used such as students’ reflection, quizzes, 
asking questions and many more that’s how learners’ academic performance in active participation in classes, being prepared for 
new classes, effective note taking, summarizing results and avoiding misconceptions in their lessons did not improve. 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AIJSSR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr             American International Journal of Social Science Research                 Vol. 4, No. 2; 2019 
 

110 
                       

References 
Asefa, E. N. (2015). The Implementation and Challenge of Continuous Assessment in Teaching and Learning Mathematics in 

some Selected General Secondary School of Oromia: The Case of Special Zone Oromia Surrounding Finfine (Doctoral 
dissertation, Addis Ababa University). 

Carrillo-de-la-Pena, M. T., Bailles, E., Caseras, X., Martínez, À., Ortet, G., & Pérez, J. (2009). Formative assessment and 
academic performance  in pre-graduate students of health sciences. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(1), 61-
67. 

Cauley, K. M., & McMillan, J. H. (2010). Formative assessment techniques to support student motivation and performance . 
The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(1), 1-6. 

Chemeli, J. (2019). Impact of the five key formative assessment strategies on learner’s performance  in mathematics instruction 
in secondary schools: A case of Nandi County, Kenya. International Academic Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 
2(1), 212-229. 

Clark, I. (2011). Formative assessment: Policy, perspectives and practice. Florida Journal of Educational Administration and 
Policy, 4(2), 158-180. 

Dandekar, P. D. (2015). Effects of Formative Assessment of Students on their Academic in Department of Kriya Sharir. Journal 
of Education Technology in Health Sciences, 2 (2), 51-56.  

Das, S., Alsalhanie, K. M., Nauhria, S., Joshi, V. R., Khan, S., & Surender, V. (2017). Impact of formative assessment on the 
outcome of summative assessment–a feedback based cross sectional study conducted among basic science medical 
students enrolled in MD program. Asian Journal of Medical Sciences, 8(4), 38-43. 

Decristan, J., Klieme, E., Kunter, M., Hochweber, J., Buttner, G., Fauath, B., & Hardy, I. (2015). Embedded Formative 
Assessment and Classroom Process Quality: How Do They Interact in Promoting Science Understanding?. American 
Educational Research Journal, 52 (6): 1133–1159. 

Doffermyre, J. J. (2016). Formative Assessment in the Classroom: Getting it Right. 
Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A Critical Review of Research on Formative Assessments: The Limited Scientific 

Evidence of the Impact of Formative Assessments in Education. Practical Assessment & Research and Evaluation, 14 (7): 
1-11. 

Eremina, A. H. A., & Reginald, P. U. (2016). Effect of Assessment For Learning (Afl) on Biology Academic Performance of 
Senior Secondary Students in Rivers State. European Journal of Educational and Development Psychology, 4(2), 12-24. 

Espiritu, M. J. B., Shahrill, M., Perera, J. S. H. Q., & Prahmana, R. C. I. (2018). Formative assessment in science education: Is it 
being practiced?. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1088, No. 1, p. 012009). IOP Publishing. 

Filsecker, M., & Kerres, M. (2012). Repositioning Formative Assessment from an Educational Assessment Perspective: A 
Response to Dunn & Mulvenon (2009). Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17. 

Garrison, C., & Ehringhaus, M. (2007). Formative and summative assessments in the classroom. 
Gioka, O. (2007). Assessment for learning in biology lessons. Journal of biological education, 41(3), 113-116. 
Heritage, M. (2007). Formative Assessment: What Do Teachers Need to Know and Do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140-145. 
Herman, J. L., Osmundson, E., Ayala, C., Schneider, S., & Timms, M. (2006). The Nature and Impact of Teachers' Formative 

Assessment Practices. CSE Technical Report 703. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student 
Testing (CRESST). 

Huisman, M. (2018). Formative Assessment and the Impact on Student Learning. National Center for Research on Evaluation, 
Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). 

Iqbal, M., & Anjum, A. (2017). Effect of Continuous Assessment Techniques on Students' at Elementary level. Bulletin of 
Education and Research, 39(1). 

Jasparro, R., & Burns, R. (2010). Implementation of Formative Assessment Strategies Perceived by High School Students and 
Teachers: Professional Development Implications. 

Kiplagat, P. (2016). Rethinking primary school mathematics teaching: a formative assessment approach. 
Kline, A. J. (2013). Effects of formative assessment on middle school student performance in mathematics and reading 

(Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). 
Lord, M. C. (2013). Implications of planned formative assessment training in a science, math and humanities classroom. 
McManus, S. (Ed.) (2008). Attributes of effective formative assessment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School 

Officers. 
McMillan, J. H. (2014). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice for effective standards-based ınstruction (5th ed.). Essex: 

Pearson. 
Mehmood, T., Hussain, T., Khalid, M., & Azam, R. (2012). Impact of formative assessment on academic performance  of 

secondary school students. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(17). 
Moss, C. M., & Brookhart, S. M. (2009). Advancing formative assessment in every classroom: A guide for instructional leaders. 

Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AIJSSR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr             American International Journal of Social Science Research                 Vol. 4, No. 2; 2019 
 

111 
                       

Moyosore, O. A. (2015). The Effect Of Formative Assessment On Students’ performance In Secondary School Mathematics. 
International Journal of Education and Research, 3(10), 481-490. 

Nicol, D. & MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: Amodel and seven principles of 
good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. 

Noori, A., Shafie, N. H., Mashwani, H. U., & Tareen, H. (2017). Afghan EFL lecturers’ assessment practices in the classroom. 
Oz, H. (2014). Turkish teachers' practices of assessment for learning in the English as a foreign language classroom. Journal of 

Language Teaching and Research, 5(4), 775-786. 
Ozan, C., & Kincal, R. Y. (2018). The Effects of Formative Assessment on Academic Performance , Attitudes toward the 

Lesson, and Self-Regulation Skills. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(1), 85-118. 
Peterson, E., & Siadat, V. M. (2009). Combination of formative and summative assessment instruments in elementary algebra 

classes: A prescription for success. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 16(2), 19-29. 
Quyen, N. T. D, & Khairani, A. Z. (2016). Reviewing the Challenges of Implementing Formative Assessment in Asia: The 

Need for Professional Development Program. Journal of Social Science Studies, 4(1), 160.  
Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and 

independence for all learners. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. 
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring Teachers’ Informal Formative Assessment Practices and Students’ 

Understanding in the Context of Scientific Inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57-84. 
Ruland, J. W. (2011). The impact of using formative assessment attributes in daily instruction on student affect. 
Stockwell, M. E. (2017). Developing Effective Formative Assessment Practices For Students in Year 12 Mathematics A 

(Doctoral dissertation, Curtin University). 
Taylor, M. A. (2017). Formative for whom?: How formative assessment is used in the English Classroom of an upper secondary 

school in Sweden. 
Tolley, L. M. (2016). Assessing Formative Assessment: An Examination of Secondary English/Language Arts Teachers' 

Practices. 
Torosyan, S. (2014). The Impact of Formative Assessment on EFL Learners’ Vocabulary  Enhancement (Doctoral 

dissertation).  
Vingsle, C. (2014). Formative assessment: Teacher knowledge and skills to make it happen (Doctoral dissertation, Umeå 

universitet). 
Widiastuti, I. A. M. S., & Saukah, A. (2017). Formative assessment in efl classroom practices. Bahasa dan seni, 45(1). 
Wiesnerová, D. (2012). Benefits of Self-assessment in English classes at Elementary Schools (Doctoral dissertation, Masarykova 

univerzita, Pedagogická fakulta). 
Wuest, D. A., & Fisette, J. L. (2012). Foundations of physical education, exercise science, and sport (17th ed.). New York, NY: 

McGraw-Hill. 
Yin, Y., Shavelson, R. J., Ayala, C. C., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., ... Young, D. B. (2008). On the 

impact of formative assessment on student motivation, performance, and conceptual change. Applied Measurement in 
Education, 21, 35359. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/08957340802347845 

 
 

 
Copyrights  
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. This is an open-access 
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 


