ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 9, Issue 2, June 2021 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 463 FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT IN ENGLISH LEARNING OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Dian Fitriani English Education Department, Faculty of Teaching Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Indonesia Email: dianfitrianii85@gmail.com Bambang A. Loeneto English Education Department, Faculty of Teaching Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Indonesia Email: loenetobambang@gmail.com Rita Inderawati English Education Department, Faculty of Teaching Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Indonesia Email: ritarudisaid@yahoo.com APA Citation: Fitriani, D., Loeneto, B. A., &Inderawati, R. (2021). Formative assessment in English learning of junior high school. English Review: Journal of English Education, 9(2), pp.463-474. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v9i2.4982 Received:17-02-2021 Accepted:09-03-2021 Published:15-06-2021 INTRODUCTION Assessment is considered important to improve students‟ performance, as well as to contribute in the better teaching and more efficient learning (Flucher & Davidson, 2007). In Indonesia, assessment is one of the core competences as it is stated in the regulation from Minister of Education and Culture Number 16 year 2007. Based on the context of the implementation of 2013 curriculum which is now applied in Indonesian schools, there are three kinds of assessment; assessment done by educators (teachers), by a unit of education (schools), and by government (stakeholders) (Mulyasa, 2018). In Mulyasa‟s book (2018), it is also described that the assessment done by teacher is used to measure the students‟ attitude improvement in which based on the National Standard of Education and on the Regulation of Education and Culture Number 23 year 2016, the assessment from teacher is done in line with the things to maintain the process, evaluation process of teaching and learning, the learning improvement, and the result improvement. On the implementation of curriculum 2013, teachers have to be able to conduct the assessment of the process and the result of the students‟ learning achievement involving the affective, cognitive, and psychomotor. Gani & Mahjaty (2017) added that this curriculum requires Abstract:Formative assessment (assessment-for-learning) helps teachers to conduct teaching and learning activities that can enhance the students‟ learning achievement. This study was aimed to find out the teachers‟ understanding about formative assessment, the implementation of a formative assessment for English learning including the use of formative assessment to improve the teachers‟ teaching and students‟ learning, and the supporting and/or hindering factors in implementing a formative assessment. Qualitative in case study design was used in this study. The data were collected through interview, observations, and documentation to four teachers, the school principal, and some observed students as the participants. The data collected were validated through methodological triangulations and were analyzed qualitatively and reported descriptively. The result discovered that teachers‟ understanding of formative assessment was in “good” category. The implementation of formative assessment in English learning given by the teachers followed the steps of input, process, and output. The teachers gave follow – up actions namely remedial and enrichment for students although the actions were not carried out as properly as what it is supposed to due to some hindering factors in giving the formative assessment. In conclusion, teachers‟ lack of assessment training affects their understanding in implementing formative assessment. Therefore, the teachers need to participate in such a seminar and they need to be given opportunities to join assessment training so that they can get input on how to give assessment well, and moreover to make the right assessment instruments. Keywords:formative assessment;teachers’ understanding; implementation; English learning; follow-up actions Dian Fitriani, Bambang A. Loeneto, &Rita Inderawati Formative assessment in English learning of junior high school 464 teacher to have knowledge of standards for content, teaching-learning processes, and evaluation. Moreover, 2013 curriculum as the latest version used in Indonesia, requires teachers to have an expertise in assessing the students either in formative (assessment for learning) or summative assessment (assessment of learning) to help students be able to develop themselves and have life-long learning as well. Dolin, Black, Harlen, & Tiberghien (2018) explained that formative assessment aims to seek the students‟ achievement and decide the following action, while summative assessment aims to report students‟ level of learning at particular time Unfortunately, in recent decades, using a simple assessment and neglecting assessment implementation in the teaching and learning process are still considered done by most teachers in Indonesia. Saefurrohman (2015) found that there are several reasons why English teachers are lack of assessment implementation or practices. First, it is due to the varied background of the students and obstacles learning faced by the students in the classroom during the learning process. Second, the teachers‟ lack of instructional instruments used to teach EFL students as well knowledge to conduct such a proper assessment to promote students‟ learning and assess their learning progress is considered a problem. Furthermore, the problems are not only faced by the teachers of public and private schools located in remote areas but also it possibly happens in schools located in downtown area. Over the years, formative assessment (assessment for learning) is considered important since it contributes in giving impact on the students‟ learning, to make them have a better achievement as well as an improvement. Karimi (2014) reported formative assessment as one of the most influential things to the teaching and learning process. This type of assessment is used to assess students‟ understanding, learning needs, and learning progress concerning a particular unit of learning materials. It is in line with the purposes of assessment stated by Southeast Asian Minister of Education (SEAMOE) (2015) which include monitoring process and progress of students‟ learning, and improving process and outcomes of students‟ learning continually. As applied in the curriculum 2013, government mentioned that assessment is as the process to collect and analyze the information in order to measure students‟ learning achievement. In addition, Filsecker and Kerres (2012) described that the formative assessment components include taking teacher - student(s)‟ interactions, communicating about the students the criteria of success, gathering detail information about learning activities, providing learning feedback, and providing instructional corrective adjustments. Teachers are required to understand these components of formative assessment so that they can carry out the formative assessment in classroom practices properly. One of the characteristics of the 2013 curriculum regarding assessment is the requirement that teachers doauthentic assessment. According to the Regulation of Ministry of Education and Culture of Indonesia No 66 and 81 (2013b), authentic assessment isa comprehensive assessment to assess the start of input, process, and output (learning), which includes the domain of attitudes, knowledge, andskills. The principles of implementing an assessment is also related to these three dimensions; input, process and output(May,2013). Even though the regulation and guidance to implement the standard of assessment has clearly stated, the implementation done by teachers of English is still considered unsatisfying enough, especially the assessment for learning (formative assessment). Data from Education for All Monitoring Report (2012) emerged that Indonesia EFA Development Index (EDI) ranking was 64 out of 120 countries, categorized into medium level; the point in this research was learning assessment. Moreover, teachers‟ understanding of formative assessment itself is still considered a problem. For instance, Kuzel and Shumba (2011) found that teachers in selected schools in fort Beaufort in South Africa did not understand well about formative assessment and had a negative attitude towards it. As a result, the formative assessment did not seem applicable to be used by most teachers as a way of their teaching improvement. Similarly, a study conducted by Foster and Poppers (2009) showed that most teachers in their study could not carry out an appropriate formative assessment in their teaching practices, instead of using formative assessment to improve their teaching and students‟ learning, the teachers use formative assessment only to test students‟ ability. Nielson (2015) also argued that indeed, such examinations are designed and ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 9, Issue 2, June 2021 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 465 have been proved to fulfill standard requirements for reliability. In addition, Widiastuti and Saukah (2017) who conducted research on the formative assessment practices in EFL classroom claimed that based on the result of their research, the majority of the English teachers do not have comprehensive understanding of formative assessment yet; as a result, the follow up actions are not properly carried out. Several improvements have been done by the teachers after conducting formative assessment; however, these were not done in various high quality activities. In contrast to the teacher‟s lack of understanding of formative assessment, the result of the study conducted by and Panchbhai and Srivastava (2014) in Deemed University which took undergraduate students of dental faculty as the participants showed that 95.46% students agreed that formative assessment is needed to trigger them to study. Based on the result of Panchbhai and Srivastava‟ (2014) study, it shows that formative assessment is needed and so is the feedback given to the students by the teachers. It drives to the appropriate follow up actions taken by the teacher in responding to the students‟ needs based on the result of the formative assessment. Finally, based on the previous studies, it is clearly concluded that teachers must have a good understanding of the formative assessment which lead them on how to conduct the right formative assessment itself, because the better teachers‟ understanding of the formative assessment, the better students‟ outcome will be. In line with the rationales, the writer decided to have SMP Negeri 14 Palembang as the further observed school in implementing formative assessment in English learning. SMP Negeri 14 Palembang has been implementing the formative assessment as they apply 2013 curriculum which is considered as curriculum-based assessment. This school holds A accreditation and based on the vision and mission of the school, the assessment for learning is highlighted both to improve the quality of teaching and learning of the school and the quality of the students and teachers. Additionally, the school intends to have formative assessment in every activity involving learning, motivation, and attitude as it helps to improve their learning achievement as well as to improve the teachers‟ teaching. METHOD This study used qualitative in case study design. According to Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, & Razavieh (2010), qualitative research is designed to reach information of the current status of phenomena that is related to the existing situation at the time of the study. This study involved four teachers of English of SMP Negeri 14 Palembang, the school principal, and some observed students. The data were collected through interview, observations, and document review. The interview was adapted from Brink (2017). To support the findings on the data from interview, the observation was held and was supported by the document review analysis regarding teachers‟ lesson plan and assessment instruments. Interview was administered to the four teachers of English concerning their understanding about formative assessment, how formative assessment was implemented in English learning, and the supporting and / or hindering factors in implementing formative assessment in the teaching and learning process. The interview was based on interview guide. The interview was recorded by using voice recorder and then it was transcribed. The analysis of the interview and document analysis followed the data analysis procedure through the following steps as noted by Ary et al. (2010): The steps are: (1) familiarizing with and organizing the data. To do that, the obtained data must be re-read and repeatedly listened to from the audio-tapes. Then, the information must be transcribed without omitting or adding anything to the recorded original data; (2) coding and reducing, that is identifying codes as many as needed from the transcription, then reducing the codes into categories and themes; (3) interpreting and presenting, that is telling story, providing elaborations and developing plausible explanations of the obtained data, then presenting the information. In addition, the four representative students were also interviewed to confirm and also crosscheck the teachers‟ answer related to how the teachers implement the formative assessment in teaching and learning process and whether they use the formative assessment to improve the students‟ learning. The data obtained from the interview about teachers‟ understanding of formative assessment were analyzed using rubric of understanding of formative assessment and were categorized into bad, good, and very good with the scoring range: 0- 10 was categorized bad, 11-20 was categorized Dian Fitriani, Bambang A. Loeneto, &Rita Inderawati Formative assessment in English learning of junior high school 466 good, and 21-30 was categorized very good. The result of the teachers‟ understanding was presented in a chart. However, the result of the teachers‟ understanding was still described descriptively with themes. Then, the data obtained from interview about the implementation of formative assessment in English learning, the use of formative assessment to improve teachers‟ teaching and students‟ learning, and the supporting and / or hindering factors in implementing formative assessment were analyzed qualitatively and reported descriptively by using an analysis procedure suggested by Ary et al. (2010), and analyzed by following what is stated in the regulations of Ministry of Education and Culture No.23 year 2016 about formative assessment based curriculum 2013. Some themes were emerged in describing the results. The data obtained were supported by the observations in the teaching and learning process and strengthened by the document reviews regarding teachers‟ lesson plans, assessment instruments, and also the teachers‟ monthly report. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results The results of interviews, classroom observation, and documentation were analyzed into three mainobjectives to draw conclusions. Teachers’ understanding of formative assessment Based on findings on the interview, most teachers‟ understanding of formative assessment based on the highest score was in very good category. The total number of teachers who had this category was 1. Meanwhile, 3 teachers were in category of good. The result showed that teachers of English had no serious problem in answering the interview questions of understanding of assessment in general and formative assessment. This implication showed that the teachers were comprehensive enough about assessment in general and formative assessment based on curriculum 2013. The result of the teachers‟ understanding of formative assessment was presented in Figure 1 below. Figure 1.Description of teachers’ understanding of formative assessment Based on the data from interview, it was found that there were three teachers of English of SMP Negeri 14 Palembang who had the same idea that formative assessment deals with its use to see the students‟ progresses. In assessment guidance of 2013 curriculum, Ministry of Education and Culture via Directorate of Primary and Secondary Education (2017) defined that assessment for learning (formative assessment) is a set of activities in assessing students in which it enables educators to use the information of the condition of the learners to improve their learning. In Indonesia, teachers take classroom practice which can be described as assessment activities. According to Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education(2017), daily assessment is considered as one of formative assessments which is defined as the process of gathering and processing information on student learning outcomes used for establish improvement or enrichment programs based on the level of mastery of competencies and improving the learning process. The findings reflected that the teachers had right concept on when to conduct formative assessment. It is in line with the concept of assessment for learning regulated in assessment guidance of 2013 curriculum, Regulation of Ministry of Education and Culture No. 23 year 2016 about the procedure of evaluating the learning process and learning outcomes by educators (teachers) is carried out with 0 5 10 15 20 25 Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3 Teacher 4 Understanding of Formative Asssessment Score ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 9, Issue 2, June 2021 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 467 some ways, one of them is by setting assessment objectives with reference to the lesson plans that have been prepared. In relation to the definition of formative assessment as regulated by the INDONESIAN government in curriculum 2013, the understanding of formative assessment also covers the knowledge of when the assessment is given, what activities are given in implementing formative assessment, what the aspects to assess are in formative assessment, and what the importance of formative assessment is both for students and teachers. Filsecker and Kerres (2012) described that the formative assessment components include taking teacher - student(s)‟ interactions, communicating about the students, the criteria of success, gathering detail information about learning activities, providing learning feedback, and providing instructional corrective adjustments. Teachers need to understand these components of formative assessment so that they can carry out the formative assessment in classroom practices properly. Therefore, English teachers have to have a good understanding of formative assessment as the good understanding will determine their ability in taking the follow up actions as the way to improve students‟ learning achievement and improve the teaching quality. In other words, the understanding includes how teachers define the formative assessment, the characteristics of formative assessment, and how they give feedback after giving formative assessment to students. This is in line with Bennet‟s (2011) suggestion that teachers‟ understanding of assessing students‟ understanding is also dependent upon the teachers‟ cognitive ability in theories of learning. He further emphasized that teachers might have difficulties in conducting formative assessment without comprehensive understanding of learning theories. As Stiggin (2002) said that teachers who conduct assessment for learning work with the classroom assessment process, collecting information about learners that it supplies in order to advance, and check on the learners‟ learning. In terms of the time in giving formative assessment, it was found that the teachers of English of SMP Negeri 14 Palembang understood that formative assessment was done to see the students‟ ability in learning every lesson taught and improve their learning; therefore the teachers should give formative assessment after finishing one basic competence or one lesson. In relation to regulation, it was reflected that what teachers of English of SMP Negeri 14 Palembang uttered is in the same boat referring a set of activities in assessing students for learning as well as deciding the right time to conduct the formative assessment which is done during instruction. This is in line with the theory of formative assessment, according to Wiggins and McTighe (2007), in which formative assessment occurs during instruction, as part of instruction rather than a separate activity. Teachers who conduct formative assessment should provide feedback as well as the follow up actions they take after implementing the assessment. Wiliam and Thompson (2008) distinguished between different terms used along with the term “formative assessment”: “Another way of thinking about the distinction being made here is the terms of monitoring assessment, diagnostic assessment, and formative assessment. An assessment monitors learning to the extent that it provides information about whether the student, class, school or system is learning or not; it is diagnostic to the extent that it provides information about what is going wrong; and it is formative to the extent that it provides information about what to do about it” (p. 62). It can be inferred from the statement above that formative assessment is important as it gives information to both teachers and students to check their success in teaching and learning process and make an improvement afterward. Through the formative assessment, both teachers and students get feedback on what they have to improve. In response to the importance of feedback as the follow up action after giving formative assessment to the improvement of both teachers‟ teaching and the students‟ achievement, it is claimed that formative assessment is required to be given during instruction as the assessment for learning. As explained by Linquanti (2014), formative assessment is a process done during instruction in which some feedback is provided by teachers to make adjustment toward the teaching and learning process to improve students‟ achievement of the learning. In other words, formative assessment functions to inform learners of their progress in learning and to empower them to take action to improve their performance as well as for teachers to Dian Fitriani, Bambang A. Loeneto, &Rita Inderawati Formative assessment in English learning of junior high school 468 take the appropriate actions needed by students as the improvement of their teaching. Realizing the importance of formative assessment both for students and teachers, According to Stiggin (2002), teachers who conduct assessment for learning work with the classroom assessment process, collecting information about learners that it supplies in order to advance, and check on the learners‟ learning. Assessment for learning is done during the teaching and learning; this helps also teachers to conduct more appropriate teaching and learning activities to enhance the students‟ learning achievement. Panchbhai and Srivastava (2014) explained that the term formative assessment refers to the assessment to assign the teacher in designing new materials and improvement of teaching in response to students‟ needs. Since this assessment occurs throughout the learning process, teachers could visibly see the students‟ understanding towards the lesson and decide what they can do to help students‟ progress. Assessment for learning is the part of formative assessment which means that the assessment conducted by teachers who keep monitoring the level of the success of the students‟ learning based on the learning objectives (Stiggins, 2004). After analyzing the result of the interview, the writer found that the findings were in line with the prediction over those four teachers that their answers on interview showed that they knew something about assessment in general and formative assessment in particular. The implementation of formative assessment (input- process-output) The findings on interview and observations about how formative assessment implemented for English learning, the writer used the theory of implementation (input, process, output) following what is stated in the regulation of Ministry of Education and Culture No.23 year 2016 and supported by the theory of implementation suggested by May (2013) to analyze the data obtained. Document reviews regarding teachers‟ lesson plans, teachers‟ daily journal, and the assessment instruments were also collected and analyzed to strengthen the findings of this study. The obtained data about the implementation of formative assessment for English learning at SMP Negeri 14 Palembang could be seen in Table 2. Table 1.Formative assessment implementation: input-process-output Dimensions Indicators Participants Input 1. Objectives  Teacher 1: what to assess based on the indicators in the lesson plan  Teacher 2: Assess students‟ progress on their cognitive, psychomotor, and affective in every meeting  Teacher 3: what to assess based on the material taught to the students  Teacher 4: Assess students‟ learning progress, their attitude on each learning domain. a. Syllabus Followed the syllabus for one semester b. Lesson Plans Stated and followed the learning objectives in the lesson plan based on the material taught to give the assessment c. Instruments All participants got used to make assessments instruments like preparing questions sheet made by themselves related to one material/chapter that has been learnt and giving daily test. Teachers also have daily assessment report to assess students‟ in every meeting. d. Human Resource Teachers and students Process a. Setting assessment objectives with reference to the lesson plans that have been prepared according to the syllabus; b. Arranging assessment grids; c. Deciding and providing the  -  ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 9, Issue 2, June 2021 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 469 assessment instruments along with the assessment guidelines; d. Conducting instrument quality analysis; e. Doing the assessment; f. Processing, analyzing, and interpreting the results of the assessment; g. Providing feedback h. Taking follow-up actions as creating opportunities for learners to undertake remedial action and/or consolidation activities and / or enrichment i. Reporting the results of the assessment; j. Utilizing the report of the assessment results -       Output The process and output of implementation both for students and teachers;  Students‟ score as the representative of their learning progress  Formative assessment result to see teachers‟ success in teaching  Formative assessment result to see students‟ learning progress (Regulation of Ministry of Education and Culture No.23 year 2016) The findings on the implementation of formative assessment in English learning at SMP Negeri 14 showed that teachers of SMP Negeri 14 Palembang did some of those steps in conducting formative assessment. Discussion Assessment instruments As described in the „understanding of formative assessment‟part, it is stated that the teachers assessed the students on what they have learnt stated in the indicators and learning objective in the lesson plan. Afterward, the teachers said that they had to prepare the assessment instruments. In this case, the teachers considered daily test as a kind of formative assessment that they give to the students. According to the Regulation of Ministry of Education and Culture No. 23 year 2016, the procedure of evaluating the learning process and learning outcomes by educators (teachers), such as; (1) Setting assessment objectives with reference to the lesson plans that have been prepared; (2) Arranging assessment grids; (3) Deciding and providing the assessment instruments along with the assessment guidelines; (4) Conducting instrument quality analysis; (5) Doing the assessment; (6) Processing, analyzing, and interpreting the results of the assessment; (7) Reporting the results of the assessment; (8) Utilizing the report of the assessment results. The results of the interview showed that teachers did some of those steps in conducting formative assessment. In the input, the teachers prepared some kinds of assessment instruments. As described in the „understanding of formative assessment‟ part, it is stated that the teachers assessed the students on what they have learnt stated in the indicators and learning objective in the lesson plan. Afterward, the teachers said that they had to prepare the assessment instruments. In this case, the teachers considered daily test as a kind of formative assessment that they gave to the students. The teachers knew the input part of formative assessment implementation. However, most of the teachers did not really understand about the assessment instruments that they needed to prepare, they only prepared the media like questions sheet as the instruments for formative assessment instead. According to the Ministry of Regulation of Education and Culture (No 66/2016), some criteria of mechanisms, procedures, and instruments of assessment as the learning outcomes are the standards of educational assessment. Educational assessment as the act of collecting and processing information to measure the learning outcomes of the learners including the authentic assessment, self- Dian Fitriani, Bambang A. Loeneto, &Rita Inderawati Formative assessment in English learning of junior high school 470 assessment, project-based assessment, examinations (daily, semester, and final semester), competency test, competency of quality level test, national examination, and school examination. Follow-up actions in formative assessment In the process of the implementation of formative assessment, teachers are required to carry out follow-up actions as feedback for both teachers and students. According to Smith and Gorard (2005), feedback is vital to help teachers improve the day- to-day assessment of their students, because it improves learning and gives learners specific guidance on strengths or weaknesses. Brookhart (2001) also pointed out that assessment can be considered formative if the information is used to form students‟ performance. It is in line with Fulcher and Davidson (2007) defining formative assessment that it is designed in order to encourage students‟ learning and improvement. Formative assessment is considered to be given a bigger portion since it is engaged with the practices in learning and contributes much in students‟ performance. Since feedback is very vital, CERI (2008) stated that it is important for teachers to give a feedback which leads students to know how well their learning progress as well as to give suggestions for the future better learning achievement. Based on the results of the interview, the teachers gave follow – up actions namely remedial and enrichment for students. In the teachers‟ point of view, the passing grade has become their parameter of deciding which students should be given a remedial and which students should be given enrichment. In the daily test done after one basic competence, or a quiz given in every meeting, the teachers analyzed the students‟ scores. For those students whose score under the passing grade, they had to be given such a remedial. In terms of the form of the remedial, each teacher had their own ways in deciding it. Teacher 1: “Like remedial and enrichment. After I analyze the result of the students‟ score then I give them like assignment. I usually ask some students who have the same problems then I group them up. I give them explanation about the materials that they still do not get it yet then I give them like assignments to do in group. It is done after the class dismissed. That‟s what I did if only some students who need to take remedial, but if many of the students in the class need to take remedial then I ask them to stay after other students leave, then I give another teaching and I explain the material.” Teacher 2: “Follow up action of course. For students whose scores are under the passing grade, I gave them like remedial. Before remedial I gave them another explanation about the material. And for enrichment is what I like the most because enrichment is for the chosen ones. The remedial is in the form of assignments, but before given the assignments, the students are called and given explanation of which one they still do not understand. (Follow up action of course. For students whose scores are under the passing grade, I gave them like remedial. Before remedial I gave them another explanation about the material”. It means that both Teacher 1 and Teacher 2 decided to use assignments as the remedial for students. However, Teacher 3 gave assignments for those students who have reached the passing grade score instead. Then, the remedial students were asked to repeat the test doing the questions that they failed to answer in the previous daily test. Teacher 3: “I give remedial for the students who cannot reach the passing grade, and those who have reached the passing grade or got score over the passing grade, I give them enrichment. The enrichment is in the form of assignments which can trigger them more to study and understand the lesson. For the remedial students, they have to repeat answering the questions which they failed in the previous test, and it is given after the daily test after I return their daily test sheet and give them the score. They have to repeat doing the test, only answering the points that they couldn‟t do previously”. Out of four teachers who were interviewed, Teacher 4 could only explain that she took follow- up action like remedial and enrichment and mentioned for which students she gave the remedial and enrichment to. Teacher 4: “I give remedial test after daily test for the students who haven‟t reached the passing grade and I give enrichment for those who have reached the passing grade”. The way teachers assessed the students is in line with the regulation of the government. Directorate General of Primary and Secondary of Ministry of education and Culture (2017) mentioned assessment for learning is the process of gathering information / ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 9, Issue 2, June 2021 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 471 data about learning achievement of learners in affective, cognitive, and psychomotor aspects done in a planned and systematic manner. Furthermore, based on the regulation of Ministry of Education and Culture of Indonesia No. 23 (2016), there are some components of assessment mechanism that are used as the principals to assess the students on elementary and secondary education level. Those components are: (1) Planning assessment strategies when teachers conducting lesson plan based on syllabus; (2) Assessing affective domain through observation and other relevant techniques of assessment and the report is accounted to the teachers; (3) Assessing cognitive domain through written test, oral test, and tasks which suit the assessed competence; (4) Assessing psychomotor domain through practice, product, portfolio, and other techniques of assessment which suit the assessed competence; (5) Students who obtain score lower than the passing grade, they must have remedial; (6) The result of cognitive and psychomotor domain possibly reported either in number or description. Moreover, based on Teacher 1 and Teacher 2‟ explanations, they claimed that they did such a re- teaching by giving another explanation first for the students who will take remedial. Before giving them assignments as the remedial action, the students were given some explanation on the materials that they still did not understand about analyzed from their result of daily test, although the other 2 teachers did not do the same thing. This is in line with some elements or steps which should be implemented in conducting assessment for learning according to Jones (2005): (1)explain the learning objectives and feedback opportunities, (2) check learner understanding of learning objectives, (3) brief learners on what they have to do and what they have to hand in, (4) introduce the assessment criteria to learners and check their understanding, (5) provide learner with the opportunities to apply the assessment criteria to examples of work produced, possibly by a previous cohort, to illustrate standards required and application of the assessment criteria, (6) provide the necessary guidance to learners on an individual basis and provide oral feedback, (7) provide peer-assessment opportunities, (8) provide self-assessment opportunities, (9) undertake the teacher –led assessment of learners‟ work, (10) provide written feedback to learners, (11) create opportunities for learners to undertake remedial action and/or consolidation activities and also enrichment. Additionally, to ensure the teachers‟ statements on how they took follow-up actions such as remedial and enrichment and moreover include the way the teachers assess the students, some students were interviewed. It is assumed that the teachers have the same focus on the three domains in assessing the students which is through assignments, exercise, and the daily test. In the output process, it was found that taking follow-up actions is important. Thus, the teachers have already told some kinds of follow-up action they took in formative assessment. According to Jones (2005) who stated that there are three kinds of feedback used in classroom setting;affirmative feedback, developmental feedback, and effective feedback. First, affirmative feedback is defined as a direct feedback done after a performance has been observed. Second, developmental feedback considered as a feedback containing a developmental comments on someone‟s work. Third, an effective feedback is used to meet the needs of the individuals and is directly linked to observable evidence – either a learner‟s written or practical work or a performance from a task given, then it focuses on individual‟s action points and deals with one point at one time. It was found in the observation of the teaching and learning process that teachers of English of SMP Negeri 14 Palembang did a direct feedback when the material is speaking skills such as having a dialogue in front of the class by giving correction in students‟ speaking performance and written feedback for exercises. Moreover, teachers also have the teachers‟ journal as they assess students in every meeting. Teachers use the teachers‟ journal to make such a feedback for students. For example, facing students‟ negative attitude and we should take follow-up action like giving advice, and also we have to note down the positive attitude of the students and give them compliment as follow up action from teacher. Based on the result of documentation, the teacher could prove that she had teacher‟s agenda containing teacher‟s journal on assessing students‟ every meeting as well as giving comments and stating the idea to improve her teaching every meeting. In the process of the implementation of formative assessment, teachers are required to carry out follow-up actions as feedback for both teachers Dian Fitriani, Bambang A. Loeneto, &Rita Inderawati Formative assessment in English learning of junior high school 472 and students. According to Smith and Gorard (2005), feedback is vital to help teachers improve the day-to-day assessment of their students, because it improves learning and gives learners specific guidance on strengths or weaknesses. Brookhart (2001) also pointed out that assessment can be considered formative if the information is used to form students‟ performance. Supporting and or hindering factors in implementing formative assessment The findings on supporting and or hindering factors faced by the teachers in implementing formative assessment could be seen in table 2. Table 2. Supporting and or hindering factors in implementing formative assessment Supporting and or hindering factors Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3 Teacher 4 1. Students‟ different ability     2. Teaching and learning media   3. Insufficient number of class meetings   4. Lack of assessment training.     It was claimed that the teaching and learning media has become both opportunity and challenges for teachers in teaching. It seems that teachers need sufficient guidance and support in applying assessment. The good support both from schools and environment would bring an opportunity to both teaching and learning process and teachers‟ assessment practices. In line with it, Saefurrohman (2015) found that there are two reasons why English teachers are lack of assessment implementation or practices. First, it is due to the varied background of the students and obstacles learning faced by the students in the classroom during the learning process. Second, the teachers‟ lack of instructional instruments used to teach EFL students as well knowledge to conduct such a proper assessment to promote students‟ learning and assess their learning progress is considered a problem. Some of the teachers also said that they got difficulty in handling the teaching due to the unexpected things such as the bad weather in Palembang at that time (in October-November 2019) which led the Education government ruled all schools in Palembang to have some days off due to the haze. This impact the teaching and learning process did not run as planned. The teachers got difficulty in handling the class due to the insufficient number of class meetings where they sometimes had to combine two or three basic competences before taking the daily test. This situation was considered to result in the ineffective result of the students‟ formative assessment. Moreover, even though some of the teachers said that they have participated in assessment training held at the school, however, they said that the training was considered still not enough to make them have good knowledge on assessment especially in 2013 curriculum. The teachers said that they still needed to take part in many kinds of assessment training, moreover in such a workshop or seminars. Teachers need to participate in such a seminar and they need to be given opportunities to join assessment training so that they can get input on how to give assessment well, and moreover to make the right assessment instruments. CONCLUSION The results of this study revealed that the teachers‟ understanding of formative assessment was mostly in category of good. This implication showed that the teachers were comprehensive enough about assessment in general and formative assessment based on curriculum 2013. Then, the implementation of formative assessment for English learning, the results of the interview showed that teachers of SMP Negeri 14 Palembang did some of the steps in conducting formative assessment based curriculum. However, in the input process, the assessments instruments used by the teachers were mostly in the forms of questions as they gave daily test as the assessment for English learning and then in the process, they gave both direct and indirect ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 9, Issue 2, June 2021 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 473 feedback to assess students‟ learning. The follow- up actions; remedial and enrichments were also taken by the teachers during the process of giving formative assessment. Although the remedial and enrichment given were not specifically described and inserted in the lesson plan. One teacher out of four gave re-teaching before the remedial given to the students under the passing grade. However, some steps like preparing assessments grid, and conducting the quality of assessment were not done by the teachers as they only provided the questions sheet for students in the daily test as the assessment instruments, while the assessment rubric was also not included in their lesson plan. In using the results of formative assessment, the teachers‟ statements implied that assessment results are essential part in teaching and learning process. The results could give a feedback for both teachers and students to correct their methods in teaching. Regarding the hindering factors such as the teachers were lack of assessment training, it was concluded that assessment training for teachers is very important. Even though the school had ever hosted a training about 2013 curriculum for teachers, the teachers still consider they were insufficient in the assessment. Teachers need to participate in such a seminar and they need to be given opportunities to join assessment training so that they can get input on how to give assessment well, and moreover to make the right assessment instruments. REFERENCES Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., &Razavieh, A. (2010).Introduction to Research in Education (8 th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bennet, R. E. (2011). Formative Assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education:Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), pp. 5-25. Brink, K.M. (2017). Teachers' perceived understanding of formative assessment and how this understanding impacts their own classroom instruction. Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 5(1). Brookhart, S. M. (2001). Successful students‟ formative and summative uses of assessment information.Assessmentin Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 8(2), 153-169. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). (2008). OECD/CERI International Assessment for learning: Formative AssessmentConference. Learning in the 21st Century: Research, Innovation and Policy. OECD, Paris. pp. 1-24. Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education. (2017). Panduan Penilaian Pendidik dan Satuan Pendidikan: Sekolah Menengah Pertama Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Dolin, J., Black, P., Harlen, W., &Tiberghien, A. (2018). Exploring Relations Between Formative and Summative Assessment. In J. Dolin & R. Evans (Ed.), Transforming Assessment (Vol.4, p. 53-80). Cham, Switzerland, Springer International Publishing. Education for All Monitoring Report (2012). The Education for All Development Index. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA /HQ/ED/pdf/gmr2012-report-edi-pdf Filsecker, M., &Kerres, M. (2012).Repositioning formative assessment from an education. Flucher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language Testing and Assessment: An Advanced Resource Book. New York, NY: Routledge. Foster. D., & Poppers, A. (2009).Using Formative Assessment to Drive Learning. Silicon Valley: The Noyce Foundation. Gani, S. A. &Mahjaty, R. (2017).English teachers‟ knowledge for implementing the 2013 curriculum.English Education Journal, 8(2), 199- 212. Jones, C. A. (2005). Assessment-for-Learning. Liverpool: Newnorth Ltd. Karimi, M. N. (2014). Iranian EFL teachers' perceptions of dynamic assessment: exploringthe role of education and length of service.Australian Journal of Teacher Education journal, 39(8), pp. 143-162. Kuzel, M. W.&Shumba, A. (2011). An investigation into formative assessment practices ofteachers in selected schools in Fort Beaufort in south Africa. J SocSci Journal, 29(2), pp.159-170. May, C. (2013).Towards a general theory of implementation.Implementation Science, 8(18), 2- 14. Ministry of Education and Culture. (2013b). Regulation number 81A: Curriculum Implementation.Jakarta, Indonesia: DepartemenpendidikanNasional. Ministry of Education and Culture.(2016). Indonesian Government Policy Act No. 23. 2016: Assessment in Education. Retrieved from https://bsnpindonesia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2009 /09/Permendikbud_Tahun2016_Nomor023.pdf Ministry of Education and Culture.(2016). NeracaPendidikan Daerah. Retrieved from http://npd.data.kemendikbud.go.id/file/pdf//2016/ 116000.pdf http://www.unesco.org/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/pdf/gmr2012-report-edi-pdf http://www.unesco.org/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/pdf/gmr2012-report-edi-pdf https://bsnpindonesia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2009/09/Permendikbud_Tahun2016_Nomor023.pdf https://bsnpindonesia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2009/09/Permendikbud_Tahun2016_Nomor023.pdf http://npd.data.kemendikbud.go.id/file/pdf/2016/116000.pdf http://npd.data.kemendikbud.go.id/file/pdf/2016/116000.pdf Dian Fitriani, Bambang A. Loeneto, &Rita Inderawati Formative assessment in English learning of junior high school 474 Ministry of Education and Culture. (2016b). Regulation number 22: Standards of Assessment. Jakarta, Indonesia: Department of National Education. Mulyasa, M. (2018).ImplementasiKurikulum 2013 Revisi. Jakarta: BumiAksara. Nielsen, J. A. (2015). Assessment of innovation competency: A thematic analysis of upper secondary school teachers‟ talk. The Journal of Educational Research, 108, 318-330. Panchbhai, S., & Srivastava, T. (2014). Students` perception about the formative assessment examinations. JHSE Journal, 1(1), 2-5. Saefurrohman.(2015). Classroom assessment preference of Indonesian junior high school teachers in English as foreign language classes.Journal of Education and Practices, 6(36), 104-110. Smith, E.&Gorard, S. (2005). “They don‟t give us our marks”: the role of formative feedback in students‟ progress. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 12(1), 21-38. Southeast Asian Ministers of Education (SEAMEO). (2015). Assessment in the curriculum 2013.Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 20(2), 166- 178. Stiggins, R.J. (2002). New assessment beliefs for a new school. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 22-27. Stiggins, R.J. (2004). New assessment beliefs for a new school.Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 22-27. Widiastuti, S. & Saukah, A. (2017). Formative assessment in EFL classroom practices. Bahasa dan Seni Journal, 45(1). 50-61. Wiggins, G.&McTighe, J. (2007).Schooling by Design: Mission, Action and Achievement.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2008). Integrating assessment with learning: What will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.).The Future of Assessment: Shaping Teaching and Learning(pp. 53-82). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate