







































English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211-228  211 

         10.12928/eltej.v3i3.2460                          http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index            eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id  

Constructive alignment of assessment practices in English 

language classrooms 

Lynrose Jane Dumandan Genona,1,*, Chezka Bianca P. Torres b,2 

a, b Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology, Andres Bonifacio Ave, Iligan City, 9200 Lanao del Norte, Philippines  
1 lynrosejane.genon@g.msuiit.edu.ph*; 2 chezkabianca.torres@g.msuiit.edu.ph 

* corresponding author 

 

1. Introduction 

While teaching and learning are fundamental areas in language acquisition, the picture is not 
complete without assessment, which serve as mediating channels between the lesson and the learner. 
Assessment should be in the limelight because it provides a basis for implicit or explicit judgments. 
It determines whether or not the goals of teaching are met. It affects decisions about grades, 
advancement, syllabus, curriculum, and instruction. It evaluates how much of the teaching is taken 
in by learners and if the students are learning what they are supposed to learn. It has an 
indispensable influence and role in language classrooms as it affects both teaching and learning. A 
study on assessment vis-à-vis learning and teaching will allow for a more insightful investigation of 
significant classroom phenomena (Alderson & Banerjee,2001). The power of assessment in 
transforming language learning and teaching may be more potent than expected (Jin, 2017).  

The study examines the strength and usefulness of assessment in second language teaching and 
learning and infers the views and principles practiced by language teachers in local classrooms 
through their assessment practices.  Its main focus is evaluating whether the assessment task targeted 
the intended skill in the learning objectives through looking at its content validity. The study 
examined the assessment practices in four elementary English language classrooms to see how these 
reflect the language teaching and learning.  It specifically sought answers to the following questions: 

A R T I C L E  I N F O 

 

ABST RACT  

 

 

Article history 

Received 04 July 2020 

Revised 17 August 2020 

Accepted 14 December 2020 

 This qualitative study identified the language assessment practices in 
terms of purpose, type, and timing in four elementary language classes 
in the Philippines. It then evaluated the constructive alignment and 
content validity of the assessment and described how the constructive 
alignment reflects the quality of teaching and learning in these language 
classrooms. Findings revealed that the assessment practices are 
entrenched in the teachers’ pedagogy serving various purposes (like 
monitoring, facilitation and motivation) other than evaluation.   
Generally, the assessment content and tasks show alignment to targeted 
learning goals. Several assessments, however, do not target the intended 
skill but rather tapped on the sub-skill, and they reveal alignment issues 
as well as teaching-learning conditions in the classrooms. Findings 
uncover, albeit a snapshot, of the gaps not only in assessment practices, 
but also in the articulation of curriculum goals leaving teachers to 
interpret and operationalize these on their own. These issues affect the 
students’ achievement since alignment affects achievement and 
opportunity to learn is at optimum levels when lesson plans are aligned 
with benchmarks, standards, and assessments, thus increasing academic 
achievement. 

 

 

This is an open access article under the CC–BY-SA license. 

    

 

 
Keywords 

language assessments 

language classrooms 

constructive alignment 

 

 

http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index
mailto:eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id
mailto:lynrosejane.genon@g.msuiit.edu.ph*
mailto:chezkabianca.torres@g.msuiit.edu.ph
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


212 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211-228 

 Lynrose Jane Dumandan Genon &  Chezka Bianca P. Torres (Constructive alignment of assessment practices) 

What are the purposes, types, and timing of the language assessment practices investigated?   
What is the quality of the constructive alignment and the content validity of the language assessment 
practices investigated? How does the quality of constructive alignment of the assessment practices 
reflect teaching and learning in these language classrooms?  

 

1.1. Language Learning in the Philippines 

The English language education in the Philippines is frequently faced with low academic 
performance among Filipino students. Despite the extensive effort of the Department of Education 
in the learning of the English language, pupil performance was generally low in subjects that relied 
on English (Bautista, Bernardo, Ocampo, 2009). In the Program for International Student 
Assessment (PISA), the Philippines ranks last among 79 countries in reading comprehension, and 
also ends up in the low 70s in mathematics and science. Low functional literacy skills is apparent in 
the assessment results (PISA 2018 results, 2019). This problem can be attributed to many factors, 
such as poverty, lack of school facilities, learning resources and qualified teachers who can teach 
English in diverse contexts, languages, levels, and regions (Madrunio, Martin, & Plata, 2016). 
Bautista, Bernardo, Ocampo (2009) also suggested that this is due to poor teacher quality, and 
irrelevant learning materials in the classroom. Looking into the said language learning problem 
and failure in achieving English competence as ideally projected in the curriculum’s aim, it is 
imperative to investigate the language classroom and examine the major components of language 
classroom, teaching, learning and assessment, to understand the problem in the grassroots. 

 

1.2. Assessment and the Teaching-Learning Process  

In language classroom, teaching and learning and assessment share a cyclic relationship.  
Assessment is an integral component of teaching and learning.  Its influence on the teaching and 
learning process makes it a crucial component of school improvement (Banda,2005). Assessment for 
learning guides and facilitates the teacher in monitoring and empowering students in their learning, 
in a way assessment supplements teaching and learning. Assessment can also evaluate and at the 
same time improve teaching and learning. Ideally, knowing how to assess students in order to 
improve instruction is a core principle of effective teaching (Bautista, Bernardo, Ocampo, 2009). 
According to the Department of Education the purposes of school-based assessment are: (1) to 
improve the teaching and learning process, (2) to identify student’s strengths and weaknesses, (3) to 
determine the student’s subject area performance and/or achievement, and (4) to report student 
progress to parents.  

Learning and teaching can be explored by examining assessment. The manner and the choice of 
assessment on a given set of learning objectives can yield insights to the quality of learning and 
teaching that is transpiring. By investigating the method, timing, content and format of assessment 
and evaluating its constructive alignment, the results may shed light to the realities and challenges 
both teachers and learners face in language classrooms. Assessment practices, content, and quality 
of constructive alignment, are key indicators to assess whether the experiences in the classroom have 
met the target learning objectives. They help in identifying gaps in the teaching and learning process 
and understanding language classroom. According to (Banda, 2005), teacher’s knowledge and skills, 
academic qualification, experience, perception and the educational program is an influencing factor 
in classroom assessment practices together with the class size, teaching and learning resources, 
student-student interaction and student-teacher interaction.   

In the context of the Philippines, teachers have the responsibility and the ability to shape the 
language classroom, as exemplified by the Department of Education cited in Mariñas and Ditapat 
(2011) stating that “The curriculum is designed to be interpreted by teachers and implemented with 
variations. Schools are encouraged to innovate and enrich or adapt, as long as they have met the 
basic requirements of the curriculum” (p. 114). However, in a study conducted by Deocampo 
(2013) on the alignment of pedagogical task and test task, results showed that there are glitches in 
pre-service language teachers’ administration of the classes. Results of the study show that 
problematic practices in designing assessment such as incoherence between the learning objective 
and the employed task, mismatch between instruction and test, and testing other skills not specified 
in the construct. Therefore, giving the teachers the responsibility and ability in shaping the language 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 213 
 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211-228 

 Lynrose Jane Dumandan Genon &  Chezka Bianca P. Torres (Constructive alignment of assessment practices) 

classrooms entails the necessity to educate and train them about effective and useful instructional 
methodologies in language pedagogy.  

 

1.3.  Assessment in Language Classrooms 

Taking the interconnected relationship of teaching, learning and assessment, alignment is then 
essential in optimizing the learning conditions for quality learning. According to Biggs (as cited in 
McLaughlin (2001), if there is a match between the assessment tasks, learning activities and 
objectives, the student will learn what is intended. The use of an aligned design process ensures that 
there is consistency between objectives, learning activities and assessment. Assessment is vital to 
effective language teaching (Brown, 2001). An understanding of this interwoven relationship 
requires examination of the alignment of test constructs, learning objectives, and of the many other 
facets and qualities that make a test or assessment useful. This alignment pertains to teaching and 
testing in the same way and with the same objective Brown (cited in Deocampo, 2013). This 
suggests the parallelism of the instruction, desired outcomes, and assessment.  

According to Carol Chapelle and Geoff Brindley (2002), “assessment refers to the act of 
collecting information and making ‘judgments’ about a language learner’s knowledge of a language 
and ability to use it” (p. 267), without the learner feeling a sense that he or she is being constantly 
judged according to his or her degree of knowledge or competence (Brown, 2001). Assessment can 
either be conducted through the use of formal measurements, tests, portfolios, journals, and the like, 
or by an informal method which may be planned or unplanned without a need for explicit or fixed 
judgments about a student’s competence for the purpose of recording results. Assessment 
complements teaching and learning. Assessment both formative and summative facilitates the 
feedback process of improving learning. Through assessment, learners are able to evaluate their 
responses and make adjustments on what and how they learn. It serves as an avenue in the language 
classroom from which students can identify gaps in knowledge, important information, and even 
connect procedural errors or misconceptions. Through assessment, they can chart their own 
development. On the other hand, this process allows teachers to make adjustments on what and how 
they teach.  

Assessment as opposed to tests cover a much wider domain. Tests are formal tools of assessment 
that consist of specified tasks through which language abilities are elicited. This subset to 
assessment, as stated by Brown (2001), is a “method of measuring a person’s ability or knowledge 
in a given domain”. It is a prepared instrument which is specifically designed to tap into the 
learner’s storehouse of skills and knowledge. It occurs at identifiable times when learners are aware 
that their performance is being measured and evaluated. Essential to useful tests is construct and 
content. These are the two important aspects of test validity. As demonstrated in Palmer and 
Bachman’s Model, validity pertains to the degree to which the test actually measures what it claims 
to measure, and it is the extent to which interpretations made on the basis of test scores are 
appropriate and meaningful.  Furthermore, according to Coombe (2010), a test is said to be valid if it 
tests what was taught and how it was taught. Content validity pertains to how an assessment calls for 
performance that matches that of the established set of goals or instructional objectives in a 
particular course or unit.  Examples of these objectives are the written descriptions of what students 
are expected to be able to know and be able to do at a specific stage of their education, and these 
objectives are typically reflected in the curriculum or lesson plan.  

 

1.4. Constructive Alignment  

Biggs (2003) introduced the constructive alignment system which is an approach to curriculum 
design that puts prime importance to quality learning. According to Biggs (as cited in McLoughlin, 
2001), if there is a match between the assessment tasks, learning activities and objectives, the 
student will learn what is intended. It is also expounded in McLoughlin’s (2001) study entitled 
‘Inclusivity and Alignment: Principles of pedagogy, task and assessment design for effective cross-
cultural online learning’ that the use of an aligned design process ensures that there is consistency 
between objectives, learning activities, and assessment.  

Basically, constructive alignment has two major aspects according to the Biggs (2003)—the 
constructive aspect and the alignment aspect. The ideas that students construct through meaningful 
learning activities is the focus of the constructive aspect, and alignment aspect centers on what the 



214 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211-228 

 Lynrose Jane Dumandan Genon &  Chezka Bianca P. Torres (Constructive alignment of assessment practices) 

teacher does.  The use of this aligned process ensures that there is consistency between objectives, 
learning activities, and assessment.  And this aligned process has an effect on students' achievement. 
The relationship of alignment to student achievement was discussed by Squires (2012) emphasizing 
that research on curriculum alignment suggests that alignment significantly improves student 
achievement. This is true in the case of American schools according to Cohen (as cited in Squire, 
2012). It was found out that the lack of excellence in American schools is not caused by ineffective 
teaching but mostly by misaligning what teachers teach and what they assess as having been taught.  

This established connection between assessment and achievement is also reflected in Bloom’s 
model, cited in Squire’s study, which showed that when curriculum, instruction, and lesson planning 
are aligned with curriculum-embedded tests (and there is a teach, test, re-teach, test model in place), 
students’ test results can improve dramatically. In his study on Designing a Unit Assessment Using 
Constructive Alignment, (Lawrence, 2019) concluded that the correlation between teaching, 
learning outcomes and assessment helps make the overall learning experience more transparent and 
meaningful for students. By aligning the assessment with the learning outcomes means that students 
know how their achievement will be measured.  

In Australian universities, the roles of achieving alignment of university strategic plans with 
curricula and graduate attributes are increasingly assigned to faculty and discipline educational 
developers and designers according to Oliver (as cited in Gesa, Olubukola & Linda, 2019), 
highlighting the crucial role of teachers in achieving alignment in design of teaching and learning. 
Research findings on curriculum design and course delivery call for more emphasis and detailed 
focus on ‘…engaging pedagogies, professional development for instructors, course designers and 
administrators should give alignment the long over-due attention…so that proper implementation of 
the constructive alignment can be ensured in practice’ (Wang et al..2013, p. 488). 

2. Research Method 

This study used naturalistic enquiry combined with qualitative methods in data gathering to 
examine the usefulness of assessment in four selected elementary school classrooms. The 
researchers focused on studying classroom situations as they unfold naturally; it is non manipulative 
and non-controlling; and the researchers were open to whatever emerges (there is no predetermined 
constraints or findings). The aims of this study were well-suited for qualitative-descriptive research 
methodology. The instruments used yielded qualitative data. 

 

2.1. Locale of the Study  

The research took place in Iligan City, an urbanized city situated in Northern Mindanao – Region 
10. Cebuano is the major language in the city and the majority of the population speaks English as 
their second language.  The selection of the locale of the study is purposive. The public elementary 
school selected for this research is Tambo Central School, which is formerly known as Iligan City 
East Central School (ICECS) and is situated in Tambo, Hinaplanon, Iligan City, located in Southern 
Philippines. This school is one of the top performing elementary public schools in Iligan City, 
making it fitting to draw inferences from the teaching-learning practices in the classroom.   

 

2.2. Research Participants 

The participants in this study were chosen based on a purposive sampling method.  Grade levels 
three to six were chosen since the said grade levels use English as a medium of instruction thus 
making second language learning relevant. The participants are students, who belong to the 
achievers’ class and their teachers. The students belong to the section for high achievers in grades 
three to six. The basis for the students’ sectioning is their academic standing. The grade schoolers 
are between 9-12 years old, mostly coming from an indigent or average earning family. 

The English teachers of these students, on the other hand, are regular English teachers. These 
teachers have been in the teaching profession for more than 15 years and have graduated with a 
degree of Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education. One of the bases for assigning the teachers 
to the achievers’ class is their seniority and the evaluation of the school principal. They are also 
usually recommended by senior Master Teachers. These teachers are also considered to be one of 
the best teachers in their school based on their credentials and qualifications. The observed class for 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 215 
 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211-228 

 Lynrose Jane Dumandan Genon &  Chezka Bianca P. Torres (Constructive alignment of assessment practices) 

each grade level is the section for the high achievers. Each class consists of an average number of 40 
students, wherein two thirds is female and one third is male. The classes are only observed during 
their English class which is scheduled in the morning. The class covers a one-hour duration per 
session.  

 

2.3. Data Gathering Procedures  

Data gathering was initially done through conducting a pilot testing of the observation form and 
interview questionnaire. These instruments were then modified based on the results of the pilot 
testing and of the feedback of the teachers. The participants of the pilot phase were not allowed to 
participate in the actual data gathering phase. In answering question number one (1), the language 
assessment practices were gathered through classroom observation in a span of one week during the 
third quarter in grades three to six. This also includes their periodical exam on the said quarter. 
During the actual data gathering, the researchers gathered field notes of all forms of assessment 
practices per grade level in a span of one week, within the third quarter of the academic year. The 
observation covered five class sessions per grade level, wherein each session lasted for an hour. 
Furthermore, the data were gathered through conducting a direct observation within the targeted 
time frame. The researchers were watching rather than taking part of the class. Observations were 
done objectively excluding personal biases and perceptions of the observers. The assessment 
practices are then presented with their purpose, type, timing, corresponding description, the intended 
learning objective, and also the test specifications for formal assessment.  

The researchers also procured copies of the third periodical tests and a set of learning objectives 
per grade level. Periodical tests are summative assessment administered quarterly. It is not a teacher-
made test, rather it is a division-made test. It is a centralized test tailored from the budgeted skills or 
the objectives in the teacher’s lesson plan provided by the Department of Education (DepEd). All 
the designed third periodical exams for each grade are used in all elementary public schools in Iligan 
City. To aid in the analysis of assessment practices and the administered tests, the researchers 
inferred the constructs of these tests. These were later validated by three experts in the field of 
Language Teaching and Linguistics.  

The data gathering for question number two (2), on the other hand, takes its foundation from the 
input about constructive alignment. This part looks into the constructive alignment of the gathered 
assessment practices presented in the first question. This aligned design process ensures that there is 
consistency between objectives, learning activities, and assessment. For the purpose of evaluating 
the alignment of the objectives and the corresponding tasks, the researchers gathered the assessment 
tasks administered in the classrooms as well as the learning objectives which said tasks are based on. 
The researchers inferred the constructs or the abilities that tasks measure and conducted interviews 
with the teachers and focus group discussion with the students.  

The focus group discussion with the students and interviews of the teachers were done to 
supplement the data gathered in the observation phase. Ten students, five male and five female, per 
grade level, were chosen randomly for the focus group discussion. The questions asked were about 
the activities and assessment practices conducted during the lessons covered in the observation and 
matters about their periodical test—who prepared the test, how reviews were conducted, and their 
attitude towards the test. Teachers were also interviewed about their lessons and about their 
periodical tests. This study used a one-on-one non-structured interview to fill in the possible missed-
out assessment practices during the direct observation and to elicit information about their periodical 
test. This is a confirmatory process as to why such activities and assessment tasks were done in the 
classroom. 

The learning objectives were taken from the teacher’s lesson guide that is provided by the 
Department of Education (DepEd). All teachers in public elementary schools have the same lesson 
guides; however, teachers still have the autonomy in tailoring the provided lesson guide in the actual 
classroom. The answer to the last question takes into account all the issues that have been discovered 
in evaluating the constructive alignment of the assessment tasks administered in the four classrooms 
giving a picture of the numerous gaps in the curriculum, its operationalization in the classroom, and 
its assessment. This is used as a basis in making inferences about the teaching and learning in these 
four English language classrooms.  



216 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211-228 

 Lynrose Jane Dumandan Genon &  Chezka Bianca P. Torres (Constructive alignment of assessment practices) 

3. Findings and Discussion 

3.1. Problem 1: What are the language assessment practices in terms of purpose, type and 

timing? 

 

Assessment Practices in Four Grade Levels 
 

In the classroom observation for grades four to six, with a total duration of 20 hours, there are a 
total of 98 assessment practices gathered, both formal and informal assessment. Every classroom has 
an average of 25 assessment practices in a week. Given this number of assessment practices, we can 
infer that every classroom has a good number of assessment practices which reflects that assessment 
practices are of much importance in the language classroom. It is also observable that in every 
session, the majority of the time is allotted to various assessment practices—collaborative work, 
interactive discussion, and oral recitation. Research conducted that the use of tasks in language 
classrooms that encourage learners to work together and collaborate in the solution of their 
language-related problems pushes learners to talk about the language they are using and pool their 
individual resources to solve the linguistic problems they encounter (Dobao, 2014).  The data also 
reveals that most of the assessment practices are informal and are part of the teaching activities.   

Moreover, as to the timing and purpose, it is revealed in the data that the assessment practices 
that are administered before the discussion are used to gauge students’ needs. The assessment 
practices during the discussion facilitate learning and are part of the teaching activities. These 
assessment practices monitor students’ progress and encourage engagement, participation, and 
collaboration. And those which are administered after the discussion are used to evaluate how much 
is learned from the lesson.  

 

Third Quarter Periodical Test in Four Grade Levels 
The periodical tests in the grade levels ranges from 40-50 items which are multiple choice except 

for the writing part. This test is administered at the end of the third quarter thus covers the learning 
objectives of the entire quarter which comprises nine weeks and is equivalent to 45 sessions with a 
duration of 45 hours, since one session is equal to one hour. From the given data it is evident that the 
items of the test are distributed to four macro skills listening, speaking, reading and writing. This 
tells us that the test taps the four macro-skills in the language learning, however, the items are not 
evenly distributed. Most of the items are concentrated on speaking and reading. The less assessed 
skill in the test is writing and listening which comprises an average of five items in the said tests. 
Thus, it can be inferred in the data that the macro-skills are not equally assessed. Testing all four 
macro-skills is crucial in language learning, not only for fairness to the learners but also to their 
proficiency profiles. Taking the interconnectivity of teaching, learning, and assessment into account, 
what is tested can affect what is taught as well as what is learned. Selective testing can cause uneven 
attention paid to language skills resulting to uneven profiles of proficiency skills of learners 
(Powers, 2010).  

 

3.2. Problem 2: How are these assessment practices constructively aligned and the 

assessment content valid? 

Looking closer at the test for the purpose of the evaluation of the alignment of the objectives and 
the corresponding tasks, the researchers gathered the learning objectives from which the assessment 
tasks are based on; the researchers inferred the constructs or the abilities that tasks measure and 
conducted interviews with the teachers and focus group discussion with the students. The evaluation 
of alignment takes its foundation from the input about constructive alignment. According to Biggs 
(as cited by McLoughlin, 2001), the student will learn what is intended if there is a match between 
assessment tasks, learning activities, and objectives. This is called constructive alignment.  In 
addition, Kurz, Talapatra and Roach (2012), also exemplified that the test must comprise items that 
sample exclusively across the constructs expressed in the intended curriculum which students 
(presumably) had the opportunity to learn during classroom discussion.  

Drawing upon the content of the assessment tasks, it is observable that there are assessment tasks 
that are aligned to the targeted objectives. In examples 6.1 to 6.5 shown in Appendix D, the learning 
objective intends students to demonstrate their ability to distinguish advertisements from 
propaganda. This skill is subsumed under the speaking macro-skill. In the data, five (5) observable 
assessment practices were identified. All these assessment practices elicited performance for 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 217 
 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211-228 

 Lynrose Jane Dumandan Genon &  Chezka Bianca P. Torres (Constructive alignment of assessment practices) 

learners to demonstrate the desired skill to be obtained by the end of the lesson. In terms of content 
validity, each task is relevant and representative of the construct expressed in the learning objective. 
There is a match between the task and the content or subject area being assessed. The performance 
of the students indicates that they have successfully achieved the intended learning outcome, 
showing that the assessment practices are constructively aligned. 

However, some assessment tasks are not aligned with the intended learning objectives identified 
in the study. Misaligned assessment tasks include tasks that are inadequate in assessing the four 
macro-skills of language as shown in the data. It also includes tasks that are insufficient 
operationalization of the intended learning objectives. There are language classes observed where 
learning objectives were not reflected in the assessment tasks, misinterpreted and translated to 
erroneous tasks, there are also misplaced tasks and, in some cases, there are too many tasks targeting 
the enabling skills failing to target the intended skill. Additionally, some tasks target the intended 
learning objectives, however still considered misaligned for performance-based learning objectives 
are reduced into knowledge-based assessment tasks, and some tasks are inauthentic.  

  

 Inadequacy in Assessing the Four Macro-Skills of Language Learning  
 

There are assessment tasks that the items are inadequately distributed to assess the intended 
knowledge and ability of students expressed in the learning objective. In the periodical tests, it is 
evident that the items of the test are distributed to four macro skills—listening, speaking, reading, 
and writing. The data shows that the test taps the four macro-skills in the language learning, 
however, as to the distribution of the items it is evident that items are not evenly distributed. Most of 
the items are concentrated on speaking and reading. The less assessed skill in the test is writing and 
listening which comprises an average of five items in the said tests. Thus, it can be inferred in the 
data that the macro-skills are not equally assessed.  

For example, the Grade Three periodical test, almost all test items are in a multiple-choice type 
of test, except for the writing part, which constitutes five points of the exam. The data as shown in 
Appendix D shows that the items of the test are not evenly distributed to the four macro-skills. There 
are only eight items attributed for listening, 16 for speaking, ten for reading, and six for writing. It is 
evident in the data that the test does not measure the four macro-skills equally. Though enough 
number of items are attributed to speaking and reading skills, it is still important to point out that an 
eight-item test is insufficient in measuring listening skill and a six-item task is insufficient to 
measure writing skill. Considering that summative decisions that include passing or failing students 
and certifying their level of ability will be based on this test, it is important to take these issues into 
account. Testing all four macro-skills is crucial in language learning, not only for fairness to the 
learners but also to their proficiency profiles. Taking the interconnectivity of teaching, learning, and 
assessment into account, what is tested can affect what is taught as well as what is learned. Selective 
testing can cause uneven attention paid to language skills resulting in uneven profiles of proficiency 
skills of learners (Powers, 2010).  

  

 Lack / Insufficient Operationalization of the Intended Learning Objectives  
 

 In the data, these refer to assessment tasks which are insufficient in terms of the extent to which 
it covers the intended learning objectives. These tasks do not comprise the number of items that 
sample exclusively across the constructs expressed in the intended curriculum and do not 
sufficiently gauge the depth and breadth the objective outlined. For example, in assessment 3.9 
shown in Appendix D, the objective that it targets is both the ability to read and write “oa” digraph 
but the assessment tasks focus on the recognition and reading ability only. In this part, the objective 
of reading and writing words, phrases, and sentences with “oa” diphthong is not reflected in the 
assessment tasks. No assessment task intends to facilitate and assess the skill expressed in this 
objective. This shows that there are learning objectives that are not reflected in the assessment of 
tasks. 

It is also evident from the test that there is a faulty interpretation of constructs made by the test-
maker. The examples 5.24 and 5.25 in Appendix D, which intends to measure the ability of students 
to infer the general mood of the selection. The mood as interpreted in the test refers to the literal 
emotion of the character or the prevailing emotion manifested in the situation which is erroneous 
since mood as a literary device does not solely pertain to the emotion or feeling. Given this faulty 
interpretation, it affects how the construct is being measured and also limits the learning and 



218 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211-228 

 Lynrose Jane Dumandan Genon &  Chezka Bianca P. Torres (Constructive alignment of assessment practices) 

performance of the students. Some tasks are also misplaced for they are just randomly inserted in the 
discussion which can potentially create confusion for the pupils. For example, assessment task 3.10 
in Appendix D is the transition of the previous and new lesson but was administered as the third 
assessment tasks in class. This should have been the first task to be administered since it marks the 
end of the previous lesson. The two preceding tasks are formative assessments for the new lesson.  

 There are also instances where too many tasks are targeting the enabling skills. This leads to 
failure to meet the target skill and insufficiency in the operationalization of the intended objective. 
This is evident in examples 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 in Appendix D. Although unlocking of difficulty is 
necessary to prepare and enable the students to comprehend the text that is to be discussed in class, 
allotting three assessment tasks in achieving this purpose is excessive. Unnecessary tasks consume 
time that would have been allotted to other more important tasks that will target the intended 
learning objective.  

 

Performance-based Learning Objectives and Knowledge-based Assessment Tasks 

Performance-based learning objectives require assessment tasks where students are engaged in 
certain activities or create products to demonstrate their academic knowledge and abilities, 
(Alsardary, Pontiggia, Hamid, & Blumberg, 2011) for the level of engagement affects subsequent 
language development (Zabihi, 2020). In this case, most of the items insufficiently measure the 
intended learning objective as it only taps the recognition knowledge of the pupils. For example, the 
learning objectives that require students to produce sentences and use words in sentences are 
reduced to recognizing and identifying words. In this case, the tasks fail to cover the extent of the 
intended learning objectives. This is also evident in the misaligned writing tasks. Writing assessment 
for Grade 5 pupils stops at the format level and lacks a rubric for evaluation and scoring. In the 
learning objective where students are expected to write a telegram, the assessment task asks learners 
to write the jumbled parts of the letter properly while observing correct punctuation marks and 
capitalization as shown in example 5.PT. 46-50 in Appendix D.  

As stated in the K-12 curriculum, for Grade five (5) level, the students are already able to plan a 
2-3 paragraph composition writing and they already can compose clear and coherent sentences using 
appropriate grammatical structures but the test only assesses their ability to arrange the given parts 
of a letter following a prescribed format. In examples 3.15, 3.16, and 3.17 in Appendix D where the 
learning objectives focused on the writing and speaking skills of the students, the assessment 
practices in this part are aligned but it is not able to completely cover the intended learning 
objectives. In these assessment tasks, reading, writing phrases and sentences with “oa” diphthong is 
assessed by just underlining diphthongs in the given text. In this particular example, we can infer  

Low-level comprehension tasks are also evident in the data. Reading comprehension tasks stop at 
the inferential level and most of the tasks assessing the students’ reading skills were not as 
intellectually demanding as it should be.  Assessment tasks 32, 3.5, and 3.6 are shown in Appendix 
D facilitate comprehension which is an enabling skill of writing because it is necessary for students 
to fully comprehend the text before they can create a written output based on the text. However, 
what makes these problematic is that these comprehension tasks stop at the inferential level which is 
just level 2 of the dimension of reading comprehension based on Gray, Gates Smith, and Barret’s 
model. The students are yet to go through levels 3 and 4 which are critical and integrative before 
they can reproduce the text information in a different form, which is level 5 and is the target of the 
lesson objective. We can infer then that these tasks fail in preparing the pupils to do the task which 
requires them to write a short note of advice to the country mouse.          

Among the recurring issues observed from all the summative assessment tests being examined, 
this test shares the common issue of how the construct as expressed in the learning objects are 
reduced to be measured only in terms of its cognitive aspect. This is well-exemplified examples 6. 
PT.13-16 in Appendix D. This shows how the content of the test items do not sufficiently cover and 
represent the intended learning objective. Inadequacy of the test content mirrors the extent to which 
the learning objectives are measured. It also mirrors how students’ demonstration of their level of 
ability is constrained or enabled (Lewkowicz, 2000). If such is the case, then we can infer based on 
the content that there is a weak constructive alignment of the test. The test tasks contained in the 
tests do not fully match the learning objectives specified.  

  



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 219 
 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211-228 

 Lynrose Jane Dumandan Genon &  Chezka Bianca P. Torres (Constructive alignment of assessment practices) 

 Inauthentic Assessment Tasks 
 

 It is also important to point out that most of the tasks, though aligned, are devoid of context. 

Bachman and Palmer (as cited in Phakiti, 2008) stated that for a test to be authentic, given language 

test tasks should correspond to the features of a “target language use” task. Learning becomes 

meaningful and effective if the students are allowed to link their school activities to real-life 

experience. Therefore, if the tasks are contextualized, most likely there will be better retention 

(Lewkowicz, 2000). So, in this case, where assessment tasks are devoid of context, less retention 

will be expected from the students. 
In this study, these are tasks devoid of context to demonstrate and apply the extent to which they 

were able to acquire the intended skill. In example 5.22 in Appendix D, the assessment task is 
aligned to the learning objective, however, it is devoid of context. The students were tasked to write 
five sentences based on a picture that is randomly picked by the Teachers. In this example, though 
this task will make the student write it is still not considered meaningful learning for the students 
cannot make a connection between the classroom and real-world tasks. 

 

3.3. Problem 3: How do the quality of constructive alignment in these assessment 

practices reflect teaching and learning in these language classrooms? 
 

Taking into account all these issues that have been discovered in the evaluation of constructive 
alignment of the assessment tasks administered in the four classrooms, we can have a picture, albeit 
a snapshot, of the numerous gaps in the curriculum, its operationalization in the classroom, and its 
assessment. Thus, we can infer that the constructive alignment of the assessment practices in these 
classrooms are problematic. As stated by McLoughlin (2001) and Jervis L.M. & Jervis L.  (2005), 
the use of an aligned design process ensures that there is consistency between objectives, learning 
activities, and assessment. However, there are assessment tasks that are not aligned with the 
intended learning objectives identified in the study. These include tasks that are inadequate in 
assessing the four macro-skills of language as shown in the data. It also includes tasks that lack or 
are insufficient operationalization of the intended learning objectives. There are language classes 
observed where learning objectives were not reflected in the assessment tasks. Insufficient 
operationalization appears in the form of misinterpretation of learning objectives misplaced tasks 
and, in some cases, there are too many tasks targeting the enabling skills failing to target the 
intended skill. Additionally, some tasks target the intended learning objectives, however still 
considered misaligned for performance-based learning objectives are reduced into knowledge-based 
assessment tasks, and some tasks are inauthentic.  

 The issues that are revealed in the assessment practices reflect the state and condition of the 
teaching and learning in the classrooms. Though the four macro-skills are interrelated, each 
contributes uniquely to an individual’s overall communicative ability, thus must be assess equally. It 
is important to test for each of these four skills individually because each is a critical aspect of 
communicative competence. Direct evidence of specific skills can provide an indirect evidence of 
other skills. More comprehensive and integrated assessment of language skills provides several 
sources of information and yields better decisions individual’s communicative proficiency (Powers 
& Powers, 2015). Assessment tasks that lack or are insufficient operationalization of the intended 
learning objectives are crucial in language teaching and learning for what is tested is very likely to 
affect not only what is taught, but how it is taught. Alderson and Wall (1993) posited that a test 
affects the rate and sequence, and the degree and depth of how language is taught and learned. 
Messick (1996) also added that the test influences language teachers and learners to do things they 
would not otherwise do that consequentially promote or inhibit language learning.   

The tasks that are devoid of context suggest that the learning experience of the students in the 
classroom is not as effective and as meaningful when they could connect their activities in the 
classroom to the real world. In these classrooms, students spend most of their time in knowledge-
based assessment tasks. Moreover, on the issues of weak alignment between the learning objective 
and the test items, misaligned writing tasks, and misinterpretation of the lesson guide or learning 
objectives, we can infer that there is a gap between the curriculum developers and the teachers. 
These issues would reflect that teachers and curriculum developers have a different understanding 
and perception of the constructs articulated in the learning objectives. These issues also reflect that 



220 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211-228 

 Lynrose Jane Dumandan Genon &  Chezka Bianca P. Torres (Constructive alignment of assessment practices) 

students become exhausted in doing several tasks in the classroom without even learning what is 
intended to be learned.  

As for reading comprehension, the assessment practices reveal that the reading comprehension 
tasks are at literal and inferential levels. These tasks do not assess students’ critical, integrative, and 
creative comprehension ability. And also, for the writing ability, as shown in the assessment 
practices, writing tasks are more focused on the format rather than the content, thus we can see how 
writing is perceived as conforming to a suggested format not an actual production of sentences and 
an expression of students’ thoughts. The lack of rubric would make the inferences from the result of 
the assessment tasks unreliable. In a bigger picture, all these issues affect the students’ achievement 
since as stated by Mohamud and Fleck (2010), alignment affects achievement and ample evidence 
from research on alignment of standards, instruction, and assessments suggests that students perform 
better on tests that measure content they have had the opportunity to learn. Opportunity to learn is at 
optimum levels when lesson plans are aligned with benchmarks, standards, and assessments, thus 
increasing academic achievement. Thus, the problematic constructive alignment and weak content 
validity of the assessment practices could be contributory to the language proficiency of the students 
in the language. 

4. Conclusion 

According to Schmidt, et. al (as cited in Squires, 2012), there is a significant connection between 
achievement and alignment of the taught and tested curriculum. The findings of the study point out 
how the quality of constructive alignment of the identified assessment practices can either enable or 
constrain the learning process and acquisition of the students. At the system level, the first curricular 
challenge as stated by Kurz, Talapatra, and Roach (2012) is the alignment between the intended and 
assessed curriculum. In a well aligned system, the teaching instruction and activities would facilitate 
well to achieve and assess the desired outcomes of the curriculum, as articulated in the set of 
learning objectives provided by the system.   However, a misalignment of the taught and assessed 
curriculum could limit the learning opportunities of the students. Therefore, the goal for improved 
educational opportunities and outcomes requires us to examine the assessment practices as these 
reveals much about the teaching and operationalization of the intended curriculum. By examining 
the quality of constructive alignment and validity of the content in assessment practices, this study 
provides a snapshot of the quality of teaching and learning in the language classrooms. The study 
looks into the three components of constructive alignment: the teaching activities, assessment 
practices in classrooms – particularly the informal assessment, and the learning objectives, in a span 
of one week. These components by itself already reveal a lot about the practices in the language 
classroom. Aside from that, the study also takes into account the administered periodical tests as it 
will reveal a broader picture of the teaching and learning.  

However, this study is only limited to the honor’s class of grades four to six in Tambo Central 
School. Since the Mother Tongue Based-Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) has been 
implemented, English only begins as a medium of instruction in these grade levels and it is only then 
that the second language learning becomes relevant. Based on the findings, policy makers can look 
into assessment practices in connection to the educational system’s pursuit for an optimized learning 
condition for quality learning. Investment on teacher training addressing the problems of alignment 
of curriculum, pedagogies, and assessment practices within classrooms and across the system is seen 
as one of the significant policy implications of this research. Policy-makers need to be made aware 
of the significance of assessment for learning and the essential roles of teachers to its 
implementation. Likewise, teachers collectively need to participate in broader debates about system 
accountability in relation to assessment of learning. Moreover, in improving constructive alignment 
and content, it is also important to look into instructional strategies and evaluate which seems to be 
working well and which are not. This will make a clearer diagnosis and would determine the focus 
of professional efforts. 

 

 

 

 

 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 221 
 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211-228 

 Lynrose Jane Dumandan Genon &  Chezka Bianca P. Torres (Constructive alignment of assessment practices) 

REFERENCES 

Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14, 115-129. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.115 

Alderson, J., & Banerjee, J. (2001). Language testing and assessment (Part I). Language Teaching, 34(4), 

213-236. https://doi.org.10.1017/S0261444800014464  

Alsardary, S., Pontiggia, L., Hamid, M., & Blumberg, P. (2011). Primary trait analysis to assess a learner-

centered, upper-level mathematics course. Primus: Problems, Resources & Issues in Mathematics 

Undergraduate Studies, 21(4), 303-315. https://doi.org.10.1080/10511970903043755  

Banda, W. (2005). Classroom Assessment in Malawi Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices in Mathematics. 

Retrieved May 9, 2019, from scholar.lib.vt.edu 

Bautista M.C.R., Bernardo A. B. I., Ocampo D. (2009). When Reforms Don’t Transform:     Reflections on 

institutional reforms in the Department of Education. Human Development Network. Retrieved from 

https://hdn.org.ph/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/dp02_bautista_etal.pdf 

Biggs, J. (1996)  Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. High Educ 32, 347–364. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871  

Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessment to curriculum objectives. Imaginative Curriculum Project, 

LTSN Generic Centre.  

Brown, Hn.D., (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. NY: 

Pearson Education. https://doi.org.10.2307/3587655  

Brown, J. (2000). What is Construct Validity? Retrieved May 11, 2019, from 

http://jalt.org/test/PDF/Brown8.pdf 

Brown, T. (2010). Construct Validity: A Unitary Concept for Occupational Therapy Assessment and 

Measurement. Hong Kong Journal of Occupational Therapy, 20(1), 30–42. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-18611070056-5  

Chapelle, C. A., & Brindley, G. (2002). Assessment. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An Introduction to Applied 

Linguistics (pp. 267-288). New York, USA: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from 

https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/assessment-2.  

Chapelle, C. A., & Voss, E. (2017). Utilizing Technology in Language Assessment. Language Testing and 

Assessment, 149–161. https://doi.org.10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_10  

Coombe C. (2010, August). The Cornerstones of Testing.CLT NEWSLETTER. Retrieved May 20, 2014 

from https://hct-portal.hct.ac.ae/support/ctl/ 

Deocampo, L. (2013). Aligning Pedagogical Tasks and Assessment Tasks: The Challenges of Pre-Service 

Language Teachers. Mindanao State University – Iligan Institute of Technology, Iligan City 

(unpublished).  

Dobao, A. F. (2014). Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work. 

Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 497–520. https://doi.org.10.1177/1362168813519730  

Eder, K. (2010).  Authenticity in Language Assessment, Munich, GRIN Publishing GmbH. Retrieved from 

http://www.grin.com/en/ebook/172655/authenticity-in-language-assessment 

Gesa, R., Olubukola , T. & Linda T. (2019): Implementing constructive alignment in higher education – 

cross-institutional perspectives from Australia, Higher Education Research & Development. 

https://doi.org.10.1080/07294360.2019.1586842  

Götzinger, J. (2009) E8 Writing Validation Report for E8 Writing 

LTC Technical Report 6. Retrieved from http://www.uni-

klu.ac.at/ltc/downloads/E8_Validation_Report_Writing_JG.pdf 

Herman, J., Dreyfus, J., & Golan, S. (1990). Effects of Testing in Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from 

http://cresst.org/publications/cresst-publication-2701/?sf_paged=43 

Herman, J. L., Abedi, J., & Golan, S. (1994). Assessing the Effects of Standardized Testing on Schools. 

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(2), 471–482. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054002022    

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.115
https://doi.org.10.1017/S0261444800014464
https://doi.org.10.1080/10511970903043755
https://hdn.org.ph/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/dp02_bautista_etal.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
https://doi.org.10.2307/3587655
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-18611070056-5
https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/assessment-2
https://doi.org.10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_10
https://doi.org.10.1177/1362168813519730
https://doi.org.10.1080/07294360.2019.1586842
http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/ltc/downloads/E8_Validation_Report_Writing_JG.pdf
http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/ltc/downloads/E8_Validation_Report_Writing_JG.pdf
http://cresst.org/publications/cresst-publication-2701/?sf_paged=43
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054002022


222 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211-228 

 Lynrose Jane Dumandan Genon &  Chezka Bianca P. Torres (Constructive alignment of assessment practices) 

Jervis L.M.  & Jervis L.  (2005) What is the Constructivism in Constructive 

Alignment?, Bioscience Education, 6:1, 1-14, DOI: 10.3108/beej.2005.06000006 

Jin, Y. (2017). Construct and content in context: implications for language learning, teaching and assessment 

in China. Language Testing in Asia, 7(1). https://doi.org.10.1186/s40468-017-0044-1     

Kurz, A., Talapatra, D. & Roach, A.T. (2012). Meeting the Curricular Challenges of Inclusive Assessment: 

The role of alignment, opportunity to learn, and student engagement, International Journal of 

Disability, Development and Education, (59)1, 37-52, 

https://doi.org.10.1080/1034912X.2012.654946      

Kluitmann, S. (2008).Testing English as a Foreign Language: Two EFL-tests Used in Germany.Retrieved 

from http://www.sprachenmarkt.de 

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding Language Teaching. Mahwah, New Jersey London: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 

Lawrence, J. (2019). Designing a Unit Assessment Using Constructive Alignment. International Journal of 

Teacher Education and Professional Development (2) 1, 30-51, 

https://doi.org.10.4018/IJTEPD.2019010103     

Lewkowicz, J. A. (2000). Authenticity in language testing: some outstanding questions. Language Testing, 

17(1), 43–64. https://doi.org.10.1177/026553220001700102   

Madrunio, M. R., Martin, I. P., & Plata, S. M. (2016). English Language Education in the Philippines: 

Policies, Problems, and Prospects. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English Language Education Policy in 

Asia (pp. 245-264). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org.10.1007/978-3-319-22464-0     

Mariñas, B., &Ditapat, M. (n.d.) Philippines Curriculum Development.Retrieved May 9, 2019 from 

http://www.ibe.unesco.org/curriculum/Asia%20Networkpdf/ndrepph.pdf    

McLoughlin, C. (2001). Inclusivity and alignment: Principles of pedagogy, task and assessment design for 

effective cross‐cultural online learning, Distance Education, (22)1, 7-29, 

https://doi.org.10.1080/0158791010220102     

Mohamud A. & Fleck D.  (2010) Alignment of Standards, Assessment and Instruction: Implications for 

English Language Learners in Ohio, Theory Into Practice, 49(2), 129-136, 

https://doi.org.10.1080/00405841003626643     

Norton, L. (2004). Using assessment criteria as learning criteria: a case study in psychology. Assessment & 

Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 687–702. https://doi.org.10.1080/0260293042000227236     

Otomo, R. (2016). English language testing of very young children: The case of Japan. Cogent Education, 

3(1). https://doi.org.10.1080/2331186x.2016.1209802    

Phakiti, A. (2008). Construct validation of Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) strategic competence model over 

time in EFL reading tests. Language Testing, 25(2), 237–272. 

https://doi.org.10.1177/0265532207086783      

OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do, PISA, OECD Publishing, 

Paris. https://doi.org.10.1787/5f07c754-en     

Powers, D. E., & Powers, A. (2015). The incremental contribution of TOEIC® Listening, Reading, Speaking, 

and Writing tests to predicting performance on real-life English language tasks. Language Testing, 

32(2), 151–167. https://doi.org.10.1177/0265532214551855    

Scaramucci, M. & Kobayashi, E. (2013).Washback effect of Cambridge English: Key for Schools in Sao 

Paulo city, Brazil: A case study. Cambridge English:Research Notes, 54, 13-21.  

Smith, C. Smith (2008). Design‐focused evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(6), 

631–645. https://doi.org.10.1080/02602930701772762      

Squires, D. (2012). Curriculum Alignment Research Suggests That Alignment Can Improve Student 

Achievement. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 85(4), 

129–135. https://doi.org.10.1080/00098655.2012.657723     

Sewagegn, A. (2013). Function of Training Background and Teaching Experience with Particular Reference 

to Final Examinations. American Journal of Educational Research. 2013; 1(8):300-306. doi: 

10.12691/education-1-8-6. 

https://doi.org.10.1186/s40468-017-0044-1
https://doi.org.10.1080/1034912X.2012.654946
https://doi.org.10.4018/IJTEPD.2019010103
https://doi.org.10.1177/026553220001700102
https://doi.org.10.1007/978-3-319-22464-0
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/curriculum/Asia%20Networkpdf/ndrepph.pdf
https://doi.org.10.1080/0158791010220102
https://doi.org.10.1080/00405841003626643
https://doi.org.10.1080/0260293042000227236
https://doi.org.10.1080/2331186x.2016.1209802
https://doi.org.10.1177/0265532207086783
https://doi.org.10.1787/5f07c754-en
https://doi.org.10.1177/0265532214551855
https://doi.org.10.1080/02602930701772762
https://doi.org.10.1080/00098655.2012.657723


ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 223 
 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211-228 

 Lynrose Jane Dumandan Genon &  Chezka Bianca P. Torres (Constructive alignment of assessment practices) 

Toews-Shimizu, J. (2013). Young learner perceptions of test taking in Japan.Cambridge English:Research 

Notes, 54, 21-29.  

Wang, X., Su, Y., Cheung, S., Wong, E., & Kwong, T. (2013). An exploration of Biggs’ constructive 

alignment in course design and its impact on students’ learning approaches. Assessment & 

Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(4), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.658018  

Watanabe, Y, (2004). Washback in Language Testing. Retrieved from 

http://faculty.mu.edu.sa/public/uploads/1347487499.950171132987-Washback-in-Language-

Testing.pdf) https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami015  

Yoshida, K. (2006). Theoretical frameworks of testing in SLA: Processing perspectives and strategies in 

testing situations. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.1p.99 Retrieved from 

jalt.org/test/yos_1.htm 

Tyson,R. & Oak, S.(1999, January).Applying the Concept of "Test Usefulness" to Oral Achievement Testing 

in University EFL Classes. Retrieved from http://english.daejin.ac.kr/~rtyson/cv/oraltesting2.html 

Zhan, Y., & Andrews, S. (2014). Washback effects from a high-stakes examination on out-of-class English 

learning: Insights from possible self theories. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and 

Practice, 21(1), 71–89. https://doi.org.10.1080/0969594X.2012.757546    

Zabihi, R. (2020). The effects of task type on the resolution of grammatical cognitive conflict episodes and 

grammar learning. The Language Learning Journal, 1–13. 

https://doi.org.10.1080/09571736.2020.1795913  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A 

 

Observation Protocol 

 

Date:        Name of the School: 

Time of Observation:      Start: ____ End: ____ 

Grade Level:      Teacher:  

Number of Students:     Boys:   Girls:  

Classroom Number:  

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.658018
http://faculty.mu.edu.sa/public/uploads/1347487499.950171132987-Washback-in-Language-Testing.pdf
http://faculty.mu.edu.sa/public/uploads/1347487499.950171132987-Washback-in-Language-Testing.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami015
http://english.daejin.ac.kr/~rtyson/cv/oraltesting2.html
https://doi.org.10.1080/0969594X.2012.757546
https://doi.org.10.1080/09571736.2020.1795913


224 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211-228 

 Lynrose Jane Dumandan Genon &  Chezka Bianca P. Torres (Constructive alignment of assessment practices) 

 

A. Kind of formative assessment task given and the way it was structured or 

administered 

 

  Kind of Assessment Type and Purpose Administration Timing 

    I  P  

G 

C B

D 

D

D 

W

D 

A

D 

O 

 Oral Recitation           

 Reporting           

 Answering textbooks           

 Answering worksheet questions           

 Quiz           

 Role Play           

 Collaborative Activity           

 Interactive Discussion           

 Others:            

            

            

            

            

            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. Other Comments (Additional information necessary to capture the assessment activities 

including comments on any feature of the class.)  

 

 

 

Administration Timing 

 

I – Individual BD- Before Discussion 

P – Pair  DD – During Discussion 

G – Small Group WD – Within Discussion 

C –Whole Class AD – After Discussion 

  O - Others 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 225 
 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211-228 

 Lynrose Jane Dumandan Genon &  Chezka Bianca P. Torres (Constructive alignment of assessment practices) 

 

Appendix B 

 

Focus Group Discussion Questionnaire  

 

Focus: Test Alignment to Teaching Instruction and Learning Objectives 

 

1. Was the test easy or difficult for you? Why? 

2. What is the most difficult part of the test? Why? Did you discuss this in class? 

3. What is the easiest? Why? Did you discuss this in class? 

4. How did the teacher discuss the lesson? 

5. What lessons were not included in the test that were discussed in class?  

6. Did you study for the test? 

7. Did the teacher conduct a review before the test? 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C 

 

Interview Questionnaire  

 

1. Who made the test? 

How did they make it? 

2. How did you prepare the students for the test given that you did not make the test? 

3. Are the lessons/objectives covered in the test sufficient? 

4. Do you think that the lessons covered in the test are the most important? 

 

Objectives of the test should be clarified. 

a.) What are the objectives covered in the test? 

b.) What specific objective/s is/are targeted in this part of the test? 

c.) What are not included? 

d.) How much is covered by the test? 

 

 

 

 

 

 



226 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211-228 

 Lynrose Jane Dumandan Genon &  Chezka Bianca P. Torres (Constructive alignment of assessment practices) 

Appendix D      Constructs and Content of All Forms of Assessment Tasks 

Thematic 

Classification 

Assessment 

No. 

Learning 

Objectives 

Based on 

Teacher’s 

Lesson Guide 

Assessment Task Inferred 

Constructs 

Constructively aligned 

tasks to Learning 

Objectives  

 

6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 

6.4, 6.5  
 

 

Distinguish 

advertisement 
from propaganda 

Interactive Discussion 

Students were asked to 

volunteer and reenact an 
advertisement from the radio or 

television 

 

Ability to orally 

demonstrate 

examples of 
advertisements 

Oral Recitation 
Students were asked questions 

regarding the definition and 

difference between 

advertisement and propaganda  
 

Ability to distinguish 
advertisement from 

propaganda  

Collaborative Activity 

The class is divided into groups. 

Each group is tasked to make an 
example of an advertisement 

and propaganda, either existing 

or original. They are to present 

it in class.  

Ability to recognize 

and identify examples 

of an advertisement 
and propaganda 

Quiz 

Students are tasked to identify 

whether the item provided is an 

advertisement or a propaganda. 

Ability to identify 

and distinguish 

examples of 

advertisement and 
propaganda  

Lack/ insufficient 

operationalization of 

the intended learning 

objectives  

 

3.9 Read and write 

words with “oa” 

digraph as in goat 
 

Identify several 

effects based on a 

given cause 
 

Read and write 

words, phrases and 

sentences with oa 
diphthong 

 

Answering Textbooks 

The students are tasked to 

answer the exercise orally. 
In the exercise the students are 

tasked to match the picture 

with the word it stands for. 

Words: pout, shout, ground, 
throw, found 

Ability to recognize 

words and associate 

images to them.  
 

Ability to associate 

written word with 

the image it signifies 

Lack/ insufficient 

operationalization of 

the intended learning 

objectives  

 

5.24, 5.25 Infer the general 

mood of 
expression in a 

selection 

Interactive Discussion 

The teacher asks questions to 
the students such as: What do 

you think is a general mood? 

Why do you think we should 

adjust to the general mood of 
our environment? 

 

Collaborative Activity 

The students are tasked to sing 
“Joy to the World” expressing 

the following moods: happy, sad, 

angry 

Follow up question: How did 
you feel singing the song? 

Ability to define 

general mood 
 

 

Ability to 

communicate ideas 
orally 

 

Ability to portray 

different moods 
 

Ability to express 

ideas a within groups 

Lack/ insufficient 

operationalization of 

the intended learning 

objectives  

3.10 Read and write 

words with “oa” 

digraph as in goat 
 

Role Play 

The students are tasked to 

perform their role play about 
“What the City Mouse should do” 

 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 227 
 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211-228 

 Lynrose Jane Dumandan Genon &  Chezka Bianca P. Torres (Constructive alignment of assessment practices) 

 Identify several 
effects based on a 

given cause 

 

 
 

 

 

Read and write 
words, phrases and 

sentences with oa 

diphthong 

 

in class. This task was given as 
an assignment to them. 

 

 

 
 

 

*no rubrics 

*excellent clap is given after 
student’s performance 

 

 

Lack/ insufficient 

operationalization of 

the intended learning 

objectives  

 

3.1, 3.2, 3.3  Understand that 

contentment and 

the ability to adapt 

are important 
 

Write a note on 

what to be done 

by the Country 
Mouse 

Spelling Quiz 

The students are tasked to spell 

10 words. The teacher reads the 

words aloud and use it in a 
sentence.  

Words: Province, city, mouse, 

dinner, curious, food delicious, 

terrible, scratching, corner 
 

Interactive Discussion 

The teacher shows a picture to 

the class (Picture of a Mouse) 
and the teacher asks the 

students, randomly, to tell 

something about the picture. 

 
Collaborative Activity 

The teacher calls 10 students to 

hold the two sets of strips of 

paper, the first set are the words 
and the second set are the 

meaning of the words. The 

students are tasked to arrange to 

arrange the strips of words with 
their corresponding meanings. 

The words are selected text for 

the lesson.  

Ability to spell 

vocabulary words 

 

Ability to make 
associations between 

the oral word and the 

written 

 
 

Ability to describe a 

picture 

 
Ability to 

communicate ideas 

orally 

 
Ability to recognize 

words and associate 

meanings to them  

Performance-based 

learning objectives 

are reduced into 

knowledge-based 

assessment tasks. 

5.PT. 46-50 Write a telegram. Writing 
Students are tasked to write the 

jumbled parts of the letter 

properly while observing correct 

punctuation marks and 
capitalization. 

Ability to arrange the 
given parts of a letter 

following a 

prescribed format 

 
Ability to observe 

capitalization and 

proper usage of 

punctuation marks in 
writing a letter. 

 Performance-based 

learning objectives 

are reduced into 

knowledge-based 

assessment tasks 

3.2, 3.5, 3.6 Understand that 

contentment and 

the ability to adapt 
are important 

 

Write a note on 

what to be done 
by the Country 

Mouse 

Interactive Discussion 

The teacher shows a picture to 

the class (Picture of a Mouse) 
and the teacher asks the 

students, randomly, to tell 

something about the picture. 

 
Interactive Discussion 

The teacher asks motivational 

questions to students related to 

the story to be discussed such 
as: Have you been in the 

province?, What are the 

experiences you have in there? 

Ability to describe a 

picture 

 
Ability to 

communicate ideas 

orally 

 
Ability to answer 

“Wh” questions 

 

Ability to recall 
personal experiences 

 

Ability to 



228 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211-228 

 Lynrose Jane Dumandan Genon &  Chezka Bianca P. Torres (Constructive alignment of assessment practices) 

 

 

 
 

What are the experiences of the 
City mouse in the province and 

the country mouse in the city? 

 

Oral Recitation 
The teacher asks 

comprehension questions to the 

students (literal and inferential) 

communicate ideas 
orally 

 

Ability to recall what 

the text says 
 

Ability to read 

between the lines or 

to infer information 
from the text 

 
Performance-based 

learning objectives 

are reduced into 

knowledge-based 

assessment tasks. 

6.PT.13-16 Use verbs in the 

active and passive 
voice 

Multiple Choice. 

Students choose from the given 
options the passive version of an 

active voice and vice versa.  

Students are tasked to identify if 

the sentence is in a passive or 
active voice 

Speaking skills; 

ability to identify and 
recognize sentences 

in the active and 

passive voice 

Performance-based 

learning objectives 

are reduced into 

knowledge-based 

assessment tasks 

3.15, 3.16, 3.17 Identify and write 

complex sentences  

 
Read and write 

words, phrases and 

sentences with 

“oa” diphthong 
 

Oral Reading and Boardwork 

The student are tasked to 

underline the “oa” diphthong in 
the sentences on the board and 

they read it after. 

Boardwork 

Random students are tasked to 
underline the “oa” diphthongs 

in the sentences written on the 

board 

Ability to identify 

words with “oa” 

diphthong 
 

Ability to pronounce 

words with “oa” 

diphthong  
 

 

 

Ability to identify 
words with “oa” 

diphthongs in 

sentences 
Inauthentic 

Assessment Tasks  

 

5.22 Write a sentence 
using descriptive 

words 

Writing Sentences 
The students are tasked to write 

five sentences based on the 

picture given by the teacher. 

Ability to write 
sentences about a 

picture  


