Perception towards formative assessment in selected English pronunciation classes among English majors

Ha D. N. Nguyen, Huu D. N. Nguyen. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 10(3), 91-108 91 
Perception towards formative assessment in selected English 
pronunciation classes among English majors 
Ha Dinh Nhu Nguyen1*, Huu Dinh Nhu Nguyen2 
1Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HUTECH) 
2Mien Dong University of Technology 
*Corresponding author: nguyenhahitc@gmail.com 
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT 
DOI:10.46223/HCMCOUJS.
soci.en.10.1.571.2020 
Received: 16/04/2020 
Revised: 21/06/2020 
Accepted: 29/06/2020 
Keywords: 
formative assessment, self-
assessment, students’ 
perception, teacher’s 
feedback 
This research aimed at discovering the students’ perception 
towards formative assessment conducted in the pronunciation 
classes at Mien Dong University of Technology (MUT). A total of 
one hundred and eighteen university freshmen participated in 
answering the questionnaire and semi-structured interview 
questions. The quantitative data gained from the questionnaire were 
analyzed by SPSS in terms of descriptive statistics, while the 
qualitative data were analyzed using the content analysis approach. 
The results showed the students’ proper awareness of formative 
assessment in general and their positive perception towards the 
application of formative assessment tasks. However, despite the 
advantages, this application was still admitted containing some 
disadvantages. 
1. Introduction 
Pronunciation has long been receiving little attention since linguists made their first efforts 
at studying the subject of language teaching. Pronunciation is always considered merely as a 
supplementary component of speaking. Even as one of the components of speaking skills, it is not 
as popular and well understood by language teachers as grammar and vocabulary. That is why a 
course for pronunciation does not earn a certain place in a lot of language curriculums. A lot of 
curriculum developers choose either to incorporate pronunciation into speaking courses or to 
entirely allow their teachers to make the decision (McGregor & Reed, 2018). In this case, it is the 
teachers who will decide whether they want pronunciation in their syllabus or not. As teachers do 
not have much time for their speaking courses and some of them, especially non-native teachers, 
find it hard to teach pronunciation, they tend to neglect this part of the language or just give it little 
attention. In their study, Purcell and Suter (1980) also depreciated teachers’ instructions in 
pronunciation by stating that, “teachers and classrooms seem to have had remarkably little to do 
with how well our students pronounce English” (p. 285). Since not much attention is paid to 
pronunciation itself, not much effort is put into finding how to assess it. However, as Celce-Murcia, 
Brinton, and Goodwin (1996) asserted in their book that if nonnative speakers cannot catch up 
with the “threshold level” of pronunciation, they will encounter many “oral communication 
problems” although they are good at English grammar and vocabulary. Pronunciation should be 
92 Ha D. N. Nguyen, Huu D. N. Nguyen. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 10(3), 91-108 
reserved a secured place in language curriculums and be looked at carefully by language teachers. 
Moreover, when it is taught, it has to be assessed. Assessment for pronunciation should also be of 
great interest to researchers in the field of language teaching and learning. 
Many researchers consider formative assessment as one of the most effective ways to raise 
students’ achievement in classrooms (Black & William, 1998). Also, in tertiary education in 
Vietnam, formative assessment is generally acknowledged and applied in classrooms. However, 
its importance and value in students’ learning are not well understood. This is also true in the field 
of English teaching and learning where only a few hours of instructions are allowed per week for 
the coverage of many required contents and units in the course. As a result, teachers will find 
formative assessment time-consuming and distracting to their normal practices in the classrooms. 
In the case of students, many of them tend to focus on marks and results rather than the quality of 
their learning. Therefore, they aim at achieving good marks rather than seriously look at their 
learning process. These factors lead to the lack of attention given to the appropriate application of 
formative assessment in the field of English teaching and learning. 
In addition to the factors that form the research gap, it is worth noting that most studies on 
formative assessment have their focus on writing skills, leaving little space for the other skills and 
areas, including pronunciation. With the nature of a productive skill that has the final product as a 
tangible piece of writing, writing seems to be one of the easiest skills to apply any kind of formative 
assessment and adjustment. To seek for the originality and not to get involved in topics that are 
widely and well-studied before, the researcher chooses pronunciation and how it is assessed. 
Besides, to draw teachers and students’ attention to formative assessment in pronunciation 
classrooms, a more specific study on different types of formative assessment and students’ 
reactions to them is also worth conducting. Based on the significance and necessity of formative 
assessment in English pronunciation classes, the objectives of this study were (1) to find out 
students’ perception towards formative assessment in a pronunciation course at MUT, (2) to find 
out the students’ opinions about the application of two types of FA (teacher’s feedback and self-
assessment) in the selected pronunciation classes at MUT. 
Research questions 
To investigate the students’ perception towards formative assessment in pronunciation 
class at MUT, the following research questions were formulated: 
(1) What is the students’ perception of formative assessment in a pronunciation course at 
MUT? 
(2) What is the students’ perception towards the application of the two types of formative 
assessment (teacher’s feedback, and self-assessment) in the selected pronunciation 
classes at MUT? 
Conceptual framework 
The researcher finally came to the conceptual framework of the study which was described 
in the following diagram. 
Ha D. N. Nguyen, Huu D. N. Nguyen. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 10(3), 91-108 93 
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study 
A teacher must consider the five key aspects of formative assessment to ensure the 
successful application of this assessment in a classroom. These key aspects, as stated in the 
previous sections, are listed in the form of the following questions: 
(1) Who should conduct a formative assessment? 
(2) When should a formative assessment be conducted? 
(3) Where should a formative assessment be conducted? 
(4) Why should a formative assessment be conducted? 
(5) How should a formative assessment be conducted? 
Taking account of the key aspects mentioned above, this study employs the formative 
assessment tasks proposed by Black and William (2009). The formative assessment tasks proposed 
by Black and William (2009) are widely accepted by many other researchers in the same field and 
applied in many teaching and learning contexts since they are well defined and built from a strong 
theoretical basis. However, due to the characteristics of pronunciation as well as the purpose and 
limitation of this study, only the two formative assessment tasks, namely teacher’s feedback and 
self-assessment were applied and examined. 
2. Methodology 
2.1. Participants 
The participants of the study consisted of 118 students who were from two pronunciation 
classes in a university in Dong Nai province, Vietnam. The participants were at pre-intermediate 
levels, as determined by the university entrance examination. 
WHO to conduct 
formative 
assessment 
Application of formative 
assessment in pronunciation 
classes 
Teacher’s feedback 
Self-assessment 
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION 
WHEN to conduct 
formative 
assessment 
WHERE to 
conduct formative 
assessment 
WHY conduct 
formative 
assessment 
HOW to conduct 
formative 
assessment 
94 Ha D. N. Nguyen, Huu D. N. Nguyen. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 10(3), 91-108 
2.2. Instruments 
The researcher applied a lot of research instruments to collect the data. First, to make sure 
the students had the experience of participating in the formative assessment in a pronunciation 
course before collecting their opinions on it, the researcher conducted an experimental course as 
the treatment for this study. This treatment focused on the application of teacher’s feedback and 
self-assessment. Next, questionnaires and interviews were employed to collect the students’ 
perceptions and opinions about the application of formative assessment in their classes. 
2.3. Data collection and analysis 
Concerning the data collection procedure, the researcher started to apply all of the two 
formative assessment tasks. This application, which was the treatment of the study, took 8 weeks 
with 3.75 hours of instruction each week. The application consisted of two stages in which all of 
the two types of formative assessment were used. Before the first stage began, the teacher asked 
the students to record their pronunciation of all the words for both English vowels and consonants. 
This was their first recording. In the first stage, two formative assessment tasks which were the 
teacher’s oral feedback, and self-assessment were carried out for the students’ pronunciation of 
vowels in their first recording. After experiencing the two types of assessments on vowels, the 
students were required to record their pronunciation of vowels for the second time. At this time, 
the teacher listened to the students’ second recording and gave written feedback on their 
pronunciation. This process was repeated for the second stage in which the focus was put on the 
students’ pronunciation of English consonants. Next, the researcher had the students answer the 
questionnaire which focuses on their perception towards formative assessment and its two different 
types during the final week of the experimental course. Finally, the researcher conducted 
interviews to gain deeper insights from the students about the issue. The interviews were recorded 
for later analysis and interpretation. 
For the quantitative section, 118 students from two pronunciation classes participated in 
the survey. These participants were chosen for the convenience of the researcher. Among 118 
participants, 24 of them joined the qualitative interview for their in-depth opinions. These 24 
students, accounting for about 20 percent of the total number of the participants, were chosen for 
the interview based on their scores and performances in class. 
Table 1 
A summary of the instruments employed in the study 
Research 
questions 
Investigative questions 
Number of items/ questions 
Student questionnaire 
Student 
interview 
Research 
question 1 
Students’ 
perception 
towards 
formative 
assessment in a 
pronunciation 
course at MUT 
Who to conduct formative 
assessment 
3 
(Section 1A - Items 
1.11.3) 
When to conduct formative 
assessment 
3 
(Section 1A - Items 
2.12.3) 
Where to conduct 
formative assessment 
2 
(Section 1A - Items 
3.13.2) 
Ha D. N. Nguyen, Huu D. N. Nguyen. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 10(3), 91-108 95 
Research 
questions 
Investigative questions 
Number of items/ questions 
Student questionnaire 
Student 
interview 
Why conduct formative 
assessment 
2 
(Section 1A - Items 
4.14.2) 
Research 
question 2 
Students’ 
opinions about 
the application 
of teacher’s 
feedback and 
self-assessment 
in the selected 
pronunciation 
classes at MUT 
Teacher’s feedback 
7 
(Section 1A - Items 
5.15.7) 
2 
(Question 
1,2) 
Self-assessment 
5 
(Section 1A - Items 
6.16.5) 
2 
(Question 
3,4) 
Ranking of the two 
formative assessment tasks 
1 
(Section 1B) 
Suggestions for the 
application of the two 
formative assessment tasks 
1 
(Question 5) 
General opinions about the 
pronunciation course 
1 
(Question 6) 
Demographic information 
6 
(Section 2 - Items 16) 
Total 29 6 
Source: The researcher’s data analysis 
Regarding data analysis, the data were classified and analyzed according to the main 
themes of the research such as the student’s perception towards who, when, where, and why 
conduct the formative assessment, and the students’ opinions about the advantages and 
disadvantages of teachers’ feedback, and self-assessment in their pronunciation classes. The 
quantitative data reported were analyzed by using descriptive statistical techniques by the 
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software including mean scores and standard 
deviation. The qualitative data collected through interviews were synthesized. Audio data were 
transcribed into texts for analysis. Later, the data were interpreted according to themes to serve the 
purpose of the study. 
3. Results and discussion 
3.1. Results 
3.1.1. Students’ perception of the application of formative assessment in their classes 
Students’ perception of who to conduct formative assessment 
The table showed positive results when the mean values of the three items ranged from 
2.95 to 3.92. Among the three agents that should assess a student’s pronunciation, the first item 
which was the teacher received the strongest agreement from the students. The mean scores and 
96 Ha D. N. Nguyen, Huu D. N. Nguyen. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 10(3), 91-108 
standard deviation of the other two items (items 1.2 and 1.3) were not much different from each 
other and both items received agreement from the students. However, statistically, the students 
still showed less confidence to have their pronunciation assessed by themselves (M = 2.95) than 
by their friends (M = 3.00). Additionally, the standard deviation of items 1.2 and 1.3 was high 
(S.D = .587 and S.D = .600 respectively) and ranged from the lowest score (Min = 1) to the highest 
score (Max = 4), indicating that the responses varied considerably among students. In comparison 
with the first item which referred to the teacher as the assessor, the other two items referred to the 
students’ classmates and themselves received much lower mean scores and much higher standard 
deviation. This comparison suggested that the students had the highest expectation and strongest 
faith in their teacher to assess their performance. 
Table 2 
Students’ questionnaire responses on who to conduct formative assessment 
 N Mean S.D Min Max 
1.1. His/her teacher 118 3.92 .281 3 4 
1.2. His/her classmates 118 3.00 .587 1 4 
1.3. The student himself/ herself 118 2.95 .600 1 4 
 Source: Data analysis result of the research 
Students’ perception of when to conduct formative assessment 
These three items were included in the questionnaire to find out whether the students 
thought it was necessary to apply formative assessment regularly during the course. Firstly, this 
description showed the students’ preference for the high frequency of formative assessment in the 
pronunciation course. Specifically, of all the three items, item 2.1 with the idea that formative 
assessment should be conducted at the end of every session or specific content had the highest 
mean value (M = 3.66) and lowest standard deviation (S.D = .477) ranging from 3 to 4. This 
statistic proved that all of the students in this class preferred to have their pronunciation assessed 
regularly during the course. Secondly, the figures also disclosed the students’ disagreement on 
applying formative assessments rarely in a course. Both items 2.2 and 2.3 received low mean 
scores and both mean scores were negative ones (M < 2.5). Item 2.2 which followed the idea that 
formative assessment should occur at the end of a course did not receive positive perception from 
the students when its mean value was below average (M = 2.41). This figure revealed that the 
students already knew formative assessment should occur several times during the course. The 
students might also know that formative assessment was different from a major test that they 
usually had to take at the end of a course or semester. Finally, the least accepted idea which was 
item 2.3 only had a mean value of 2.36. This mean score was lower than item 2.2 (M = 2.41) and 
much lower than item 2.1 (M = 3.66). The students, according to this description, might not 
consider conducting formative assessment only when the teachers recognize some problems in 
students’ learning as effective as doing this assessment periodically. They might know that in a 
large-sized class with about 60 students, it was difficult for a teacher to recognize the problems in 
the students’ learning if he or she did not carry out some assessment methods. 
Ha D. N. Nguyen, Huu D. N. Nguyen. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 10(3), 91-108 97 
Table 3 
Students’ questionnaire responses on when to conduct formative assessment 
 N Mean S.D Min Max 
2.1. At the end of each session or the 
specific content 
118 3.66 .477 3 4 
2.2. At the end of the course 118 2.41 .746 1 4 
2.3. When students encounter learning 
problems 
118 2.36 .886 1 4 
Source: Data analysis result of the research 
Students’ perception of where to conduct formative assessment 
The collected data for the question ‘Where should the formative assessment be conducted?’ 
was described in the following table. In general, both items of this section had the above-average 
mean values (M > 2.51), indicating that the students agreed to carry out the formative assessment 
tasks both in class and out of class. However, there was a major difference in the level of students’ 
agreement between the two places of conducting the formative assessment. Item 3.1 which referred 
to the classroom as the appropriate setting of formative assessment received a much higher mean 
value (M = 3.83) than that of item 3.2 which pointed out the out of class setting (M = 2.63). This 
description revealed that the students preferred to carry out the formative assessment in class rather 
than out of class. Besides, the standard deviation of item 3.1 was low (S.D = .422) and the 
responses ranged from 2 to 4, revealing that the students’ perceptions were not much different 
from each other and that they found it more effective to assess in class. The students might find it 
easier to for the assessment to occur in class since they could receive the useful support and 
instructions from their classmates and teacher. On the contrary, in the case of the out-of-class 
setting, the figures showed a major gap among the students’ perceptions (Min = 1 and Max = 4). 
This point disclosed that besides some students who were extremely confident and willing to assess 
by themselves at home, there were still some students finding it difficult or ineffective to do that 
outside of class. 
Table 4 
Students’ questionnaire responses on where to conduct formative assessment 
 N Mean S.D Min Max 
3.1. In class. 118 3.83 .422 2 4 
3.2. Out of class. 118 2.63 .763 1 4 
Source: Data analysis result of the research 
Students’ perception of why to conduct formative assessment 
As to why the formative assessment should be conducted, the data collected from the 
students’ responses generated these results which were described in the following table. Of all the 
four items, item 4.1 and 4.4 had the lowest standard deviations with the narrow range from 3 (Min 
= 3) t