Hong Kong College Students’ Perceptions of Continuous Assessment in the Context of Academic Literacy Instruction

  • Jingjing MaEmail author


Conducted in the context of college students’ acquisition of academic literacy, defined as the ability to “use, manipulate, and control language and cognitive abilities for specific purposes and in specific contexts” (Van Dyk and Van de Poel in J Lang Teach 47: 56, 2013), this study investigated a group of Hong Kong students’ perceptions of the continuous in-class assessment tasks in their academic English writing classrooms. In addition to the perceived summative elements of the continuous assessment, the students were positive about its learning potential in that the continuous assessment facilitated their learning and self-regulation. Pedagogical implications concerning the design and implementation of continuous assessment tasks are discussed with a view to building a fruitful relationship between its summative and formative elements in similar contexts as described in the study.



The research reported here is supported by a research grant from the Research Grants Council, Hong Kong (Ref. UGC/FDS14/H08/14).


  1. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74. Scholar
  3. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281. Scholar
  4. Carless, D. (2012). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-heritage settings. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning practice. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carless, D., Chan, K. K. H., To, J., Lo, M., & Barrett, E. (2018). Developing students’ capacities for evaluative judgment through analysing exemplars. In D. Boud, R. Ajjawi, P. Dawson, & J. Tai (Eds.), Developing evaluative judgment in higher education: Assessment for knowing and producing quality work. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Charmaz, K. (2002). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. Gubrium & J. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 675–694). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Frost, J., De Pont, G., & Brailsford, I. (2012). Expanding assessment methods and moments in history. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37, 293–304. Scholar
  9. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
  10. Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared regulation: Exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113, 240–264.Google Scholar
  11. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist, 33(1), 1–21. Scholar
  12. Hawe, E. M., & Dixon, H. R. (2014). Building students’ evaluative and productive expertise in the writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 19, 66–79. Scholar
  13. Holmes, N. (2015). Student perceptions of their learning and engagement in response to the use of a continuous e-assessment in an undergraduate module. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 1–14. Scholar
  14. Isaksson, S. (2008). Assess as you go: The effect of continuous assessment on student learning during a short course in archaeology. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(1), 1–7. Scholar
  15. Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miller, A., Imrie, B., & Cox, K. (1998). Student assessment in higher education: A handbook for assessing performance. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  17. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 199–218. Scholar
  18. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. Scholar
  19. Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 535–550. Scholar
  20. Trotter, E. (2006). Student perceptions of continuous summative assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 505–521. Scholar
  21. Van Dyk, T., & Van de Poel, K. (2013). Towards a responsible agenda for academic literacy development: Considerations that will benefit students and society. Journal for Language Teaching, 47, 43–69. Scholar
  22. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hang Seng University of Hong KongSha TinHong Kong

Personalised recommendations