System 47 (2014) 73e87

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/system

Implementing assessment for learning in L2 writing: Anactivity theory perspective

Pauline Mak a, *, Icy Lee b

a School of Education and Languages, The Open University of Hong Kong, Hong Kongb Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 31 July 2013Received in revised form 5 July 2014Accepted 12 September 2014Available online

Keywords:Assessment for learningWriting assessmentL2 writingActivity theoryContradictions

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ852 2768 5816.E-mail address: pwwmak@ouhk.edu.hk (P. Mak)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.0180346-251X/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

While there is extensive literature on how assessment for learning (AfL) can be put intopractice at the general classroom level, research examining teachers' attempts to imple-ment AfL in writing, especially in the elementary context, is relatively less explored. Thepresent study seeks to shed light on how four elementary teachers in Hong Kong attemptto foster change in assessment by implementing AfL in the L2 writing classroom domi-nated by the examination culture. Drawing on data gathered from classroom observationsand interviews with administrators and teachers of two Hong Kong primary schools overthe course of one year, this study uncovers the tensions that arise as a result of theintroduction of AfL in writing. Using activity theory and its notion of contradiction, thestudy concludes that the uptake of AfL innovation in writing could be inhibited unless thecontradictions in the activity systems can be resolved.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Following the research of Black and Wiliam (1998) which provides evidence that assessment plays an integral role inlearning, the recent two decades havewitnessed a growing recognition of the need for a shift towards assessment for learning(AfL) in order to foster stronger connections between assessment, teaching and learning. Although the extensive literaturehas offered no lack of advice on how AfL can be put into practice at the classroom level in general, research examiningteachers' attempts to implement AfL in writing in their specific work contexts, especially in the elementary context, isrelatively less explored. In L2 writing, especially in EFL contexts that are dominated by the traditional form of assessment andevaluation, there is a paucity of research on teachers' assessment innovations in elementary schools. Of the limited researchon AfL inwriting, themajor focus has been put on the impact of teachers' attempts at AfL on student learning in the secondaryschool context (Lee, 2011; Lee & Coniam, 2013). Such research has thrown light on the potential of AfL in helping studentsimprove their writing performance and motivation. While factors that influence AfL in writing in secondary school contextsare highlighted in previous studies (Lee, 2011; Lee & Coniam, 2013), the difficulties of implementing AfL in writing are notwell understood. Specifically, the use of the sociocultural activity theory as an analytical lens to shed light on the difficultiesand tensions arising from teachers' assessment innovation is a new endeavor. L2 writing and assessment research that ad-dresses the elementary context is also rare. To fill these research gaps, the present study seeks to investigate how fourelementary teachers in Hong Kong attempt to foster change in assessment by implementing AfL in the L2 writing classroom

.

P. Mak, I. Lee / System 47 (2014) 73e8774

dominated by the examination culture. By using the sociocultural activity theory framework (Engestr€om,1987) and its notionof contradiction as an analytical lens, this study provides a means to analyze the teachers' assessment activities within theirteaching contexts, shedding light on the interrelationship between teachers' actions and the sociocultural milieu. This papercontributes to the literature by examining the contradictions in teachers' work contexts which pose a barrier to the imple-mentation of AfL, shedding light on how AfL can be effectively put into practice in writing.

2. Literature review

2.1. Assessment for learning in L2 writing

Traditionally, assessment and instruction are ‘conceived as curiously separate in both time and purpose’ (Graue, 1993, p.291). Since Black and Wiliam's (1998) ground-breaking research that focuses on the substantive connection betweenassessment and learning, the notion of AfL has been advocated as having a strong potential in improving learning. AfL isclosely relatedwith learning-oriented formative practices and it is defined as ‘any assessment for which the first priority in itsdesign is to serve the purpose of promoting students' learning’ (Wiliam, 2009, p. 8). An assessment becomes formative whenit promotes learning and when the evidence is used to adapt the teaching to meet learning needs. AfL, then, contrasts toassessment of learning (AoL), which has an aim to ‘elicit evidence regarding the amount or level of knowledge, expertise orability’ largely for administrative (Wiliam, 2001, p. 169), or summative purposes. Rather than viewing the two forms ofassessment as incompatible, formative assessment should work alongside with summative assessment (Black, Harrison, Lee,Marshall, & Wiliam, 2003) or ‘coexist productively’ (Carless, 2011, p. 2).

Subsequent to Black andWiliam's (1998) research about the positive impact of AfL, the Assessment Reform Group (ARG) inthe UK formulated ten principles for AfL (ARG, 2002), drawing the attention of the educational community to the principlesand practice of AfL. Central to the ten principles is that assessment should take up a facilitative role in promoting learning(Berry& Adamson, 2011). Drawing upon the ten guiding principles of the ARG, Chappuis (2009) has constructed a frameworkof seven strategies of AfL, which are organized around the three key questions: where am I going, where am I now and howcan I close the gap? These questions correspond to Hattie and Timperley's model of feedback (2007, p. 86) e ‘feed up, feedback and feed forward’. First, ‘feed up’ refers to the goals one lays down to achieve. ‘Feed back’ specifies what progress is beingmade towards the goal while ‘feed forward’ is concerned with the activities needed to achieve better progress. TranslatingChappuis (2009) and Hattie and Timperley's (2007) principles into practice in the writing classroom demands the use of avariety of AfL-oriented strategies in the three stages of writing (i.e., pre-writing, during-writing and post-writing).

In the pre-writing stage, students set attainable goals so that they understandwhat they areworking towards in the ‘feed up’stage (i.e., where they are going). Documents like goals sheets, rubrics and feedback forms can be used to facilitate goal setting,allowing students to formulate their own goals, giving them a sense of direction ofwhat they are to achieve, and providing themwith a blueprint of where they are going. The assessment criteria are demystified in the rubrics and feedback forms, enablingstudents to be cognizant of the assessment protocol and to progress towards the required standards (Carless, 2006).

In the during-writing stage (i.e., the ‘feed back’ or where am I stage), constructive and manageable feedback is to beprovided so that the students understand their strengths and weaknesses inwriting and use the feedback to reach their goals.Coded feedback, for instance, where the teacher indicates that an error has been made with the help of an error code, canguide the learners to self-correct and foster reflection upon their existing knowledge (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010). Focusedcorrective feedback (CF), with a limited number of error types being targeted at in a piece of writing, has an important role toplay in the ‘feed back’ stage. Not only can it facilitate learner's noticing and understanding of the corrections (Ellis, Sheen,Murakami, & Takashima, 2008) but the feedback is also made more manageable for the students. As suggested by severalresearchers (e.g., Ferris, 2003; Sachs & Polio, 2007), feedback defeats its purpose and is deemed useless if the students fail tounderstand the teachers' response and engage with it. In addition to coded and focused CF, teachers can involve studentsactively through self- and peer assessment so as to allow students to learn about their own progress.

In thepost-writing stage (i.e., the ‘feed forward’ stageorhowcan I close thegap stage),while the teacherswill bemakinguse ofthe assessment information to inform their teaching, the learnerswill be using it to reflect on and keep track of their learning. Forexample, the teachers can give explanations about the common errors students have made in their writing. As for the students,error logs can raise their awareness of themajor and frequent patterns of errors, thus allowing them to prioritize those errors andbegin to work on them (Bates, Lane, & Lange, 1993). The keeping of error logs also enables students to track and measure theirprogress (Ferris, 2003). Reflection sheets can help students reflect upon their learning so that they become more aware of thelearning that has and has not occurred. They can also serve as a guide to help students define goals in the ‘feed up’ stage.

In sum, AfL in writing calls for a closer alignment between assessment, teaching and learning. The information gatheredfrom the feedback to the students can inform teaching and help teachers adapt their teaching to meet the learning needs ofthe students. AfL needs to be advocated in the writing classroom to improve student learning and ‘to reap the greatestbenefits for learners’ (Lee, 2007, p. 200).

2.2. Activity theory

The pursuit of innovation in assessment does not occur in a social vacuum. To understand the way teachers implement AfLin their writing classroom (i.e., teacher actions) demands a close examination of the teaching context in which the teachers

P. Mak, I. Lee / System 47 (2014) 73e87 75

are situated. This study draws upon the sociocultural activity theory (AT) (Engestr€om,1987), which posits that human actionsare embedded within the social, historical and cultural context, thus emphasizing the interplay between the teachers andbroader institutional, historical and political influences. With its emphasis on the setting, AT then provides a lens throughwhich we analyze and interpret the teachers' activity within their activity system, defined as ‘object oriented, collective, andculturally mediated human activity’ (Engestr€om &Miettinen, 1999, p. 9) [italics in original]. In Thorne's (2004) words, throughan activity theoretical lens, we ‘consider the goings on in a classroom or school as an activity system’ (p. 52). Therefore, AT hasthe potential to illuminate how teachers' teaching context mediates the extent to which AfL in writing is implemented.

In their attempts to implement AfL in the writing classroom, teachers' actions are mediated by the interrelated compo-nents which constantly interact with one another within the dynamic assessment activity system e the subject, mediatingartefacts, object, community, rules and division of labor (see Table 1). The subject (i.e., the participating teachers) concerns theindividual or sub-group, whose agency is selected as the point of view in the analysis. Mediating artefacts (i.e., tools such asAfL-oriented strategies, teachers' beliefs and knowledge) refer to instruments which help to achieve the object and transformit into outcomes. The object (i.e., the provision of feedback in the three stages of writing to develop students into motivated,autonomous and independent learners1) is what the activity is directed at and is the target of the activity. The communityconsists of individuals and groups (i.e., the administrators, teachers and students) who possess the same object. Rules refer toexplicit (e.g., rules set by the school or the English Department) and implicit regulations, norms and conventions that confinethe actions and interactions in the activity system (e.g., values and culture of the school). The division of labor denotes thehorizontal division of tasks among the members of the community (e.g., school administrators being responsible for thedevelopment of policies) and the vertical division of power and status (e.g., the principal's power that governs teacher au-tonomy). An activity system integrates all the components in a unified whole (Engestr€om, 1993).

These elements of the activity system are not static but are dynamic and in constant interaction with one another. Anactivity system, as noted by Engestr€om (1993), ‘is composed of a multitude of often disparate elements, voices, and view-points’ (p. 68). An education system, according to Thorne (2004), is a part of a number of activity systems. For example, theactivity system of a particular classroom coexists with the activity system of a broader context of the classroom (e.g., theschool). Specifically, there is the assessment activity system of the participating teachers who are using the new AfL-orientedstrategies to enhance the learning experience of the students. Alongside the teacher's activity system, there might be anactivity system of the administrators who are result-oriented and therefore are using the AfL-oriented strategies to boost theresults of the students and to improve the school reputation at the same time. Thus, an activity system is influenced by themultiple activity systems in the education system.

Due to the multiple perspectives of the participants or multivoicedness inherent in the activity systems, contradictions,which are defined as ‘historically accumulating structural tensions within and between activity systems’ (Engestr€om, 2001, p.137), are inevitably generated. For instance, teachers' assessment practices could be constrained by some of the rulesestablished by the school (e.g., AfL practices may be restricted because of the school's focus on AoL), and teachers may possessdifferent objects from other participants (e.g., administrators or other members of the English team), resulting in tensionsbetween the activity systems. Though contradictions manifest themselves in disturbances, AT considers contradictions assources of change and development (Kuutti, 1996). It is through resolving the historically evolving contradictions can activitysystems develop (Engestr€om, 2000).

AT offers a promising framework for this study as it can capture the change process of the teachers within their culturaland historical context. Its notion of contradictions also facilitates a systematic way of analyzing the development of theactivity systems, deepening our understanding of constraints and barriers to teachers' assessment innovation and providing apossible avenue to overcome the problems arising from the contradictions. All in all, activity theory offers a framework forimplementing innovations (Thorne, 2004) and provides ‘analytical tools for understanding constraints and barriers to in-novations in schools as well as possible new means to overcome them and to support sustainable innovative change efforts’(Sannino & Nocon, 2008, p. 326).

To conclude, the present study extends the limited research on AfL inwriting (Lee, 2011; Lee & Coniam, 2013) by adoptingAT, focusing on not only elementary teachers' attempts at AfL but also the contradictions that emanate from their assessmentinnovation, providing insights into the sociocultural factors that may influence the effective implementation of AfL inelementary writing.

3. The study

3.1. Purpose of study

This study seeks to address the following research questions:

1) How and to what extent do elementary teachers attempt to implement AfL in writing in their teaching context?2) What contradictions, if any, arise from teachers' introduction of AfL in the writing classroom?

1 The object of the teachers grew out of the concern over the ineffectiveness of their existing assessment practice (see Section 3.2.4).

Table 1Components in the assessment system.

Components in a human activity system Components in the assessment activity system in this study

Subject The participating teachersMediating artefacts Tools such as AfL-oriented strategies, teachers' beliefs and knowledgeObject The provision of feedback in the three stages of writing to develop students into motivated,

autonomous and independent learnersCommunity Administrators, teachers and studentsRules Explicit: rules set by the school or the English Department

Implicit: values and culture of the schoolDivision of labor Horizontal: school administrators are held responsible for the development of policies

Vertical: the principal may possess absolute power and may not grant autonomy to the teachers

P. Mak, I. Lee / System 47 (2014) 73e8776

3.2. Context of study

3.2.1. Context and participantsThis study was conducted in four Primary 6 classes in two co-educational primary schools in Hong Kong. Four teachers,

Kenneth, Philip, Hilary and Catherine (pseudonyms) took part in the study. All the participants have a bachelor's degree inEnglish or Education, with Kenneth having anMA in English language teaching. At the time of the study, Kenneth and Philip ofSchool A had three and 40 years of teaching experience, while Hilary and Catherine of School B had eight and 20 years ofteaching experience, respectively. As the teachers were trying out some new assessment methods in their writing classroom,the rest of the English team of the two schools, according to the participants, would like to find out the effectiveness of thestudy before involving themselves in a change of practice. Convenience sampling was used to select the research participants,who volunteered to take part in the study and signed an informed consent form before the commencement of the study.

The first author held a two-day workshop for the participating teachers, with an aim to improve teachers' knowledge ofdifferent AfL-oriented approaches in L2 writing, keep them informed about the research development of AfL and feedback inL2 writing, and deepen their understanding of their role and the students' role in the whole writing process. After theworkshop, the participating teachers selected the AfL-oriented approaches that they considered suitable for their ownteaching context. They decided to take part in the study because they believed that AfL-oriented approaches could reinforcegreater interrelatedness of assessment, teaching and learning, increase students' involvement in the writing process andresult in more effective learning for the students. It was agreed with the participants that the study was a naturalistic one,with the first researcher playing the observer role without interfering with their teaching and assessment.

3.2.2. Assessment for learning in Hong Kong writing classroomIn Hong Kong, AfL has been acknowledged as one of the most important items on the English language education reform

agenda since the new millennium (CDC, 2004). For this reason, a number of official documents have been issued, whichrecommend schools adopt more diversifiedmodes of assessment. Closely in line with the principles developed by the ARG, theHong Kong government calls for strategies that involve students actively in the assessment process. Teachers are encouraged touse feedback to inform students of their strengths and weaknesses, seek opportunities to do assessment collaboratively withstudents and allow students to carry out peer assessment or self-assessment on a regular basis (CDC, 2001).

In reality, however, rather than incorporating the AfL principles advocated by the government, timed and product-orientedwriting, which is summative in nature, takes precedence. Conventionally, a writing lesson is such that there is a teacher-ledintroduction to the topic with minimal input and writing is completed under a timed condition (Lo & Hyland, 2007), mak-ing writing more like a test than a learning activity. As opposed to what the literature has suggested about the need to providefeedback at intermediate stages to assist students to improve their writing (e.g., Ferris, 1995; 2003; 2006), one-shot writingimposes constraints on the ways teachers respond to student writing. Teachers play the role of an ‘error hunter’, placing thepriority on form-based feedback and marking errors comprehensively. Such type of unfocused feedback could lead to ‘infor-mation overload’ (Bitchener, 2008, p.109) and could be discouraging and unhelpful (Hyland&Hyland, 2006).When thewritingis returned to the students, they either rewrite the sentences with grammatical mistakes or copy out thewhole piece of writing.Feedback fails to give students guidance on how to improve their writing and they are not afforded the opportunity to act on theteacher's feedback. Conferencing, peer and self-assessment are not commonly practiced and students do not play the role of anactive learner nor do they take control over their own writing (Lee, 2011).

From the above, it can be seen that teachers' current assessment practice is primarily oriented towards AoL rather than AfL.Firstly, students are not guided by pre-defined targets nor are they provided with a clear sense of direction to accomplish thegoals. Secondly, feedback is not formative in nature, in that it does not consist of diagnostic information about the strengths andweaknesses of the students. Thirdly, due to the inefficacyof feedback, studentshave the slightest idea about howto improve theirlearning. Despite the advocation of AfL in local curriculum guidelines, AfL inwriting has not gainedwide currency inHong Kong.

3.2.3. Former assessment practice of the schoolsPrior to participating in the study, School A had adopted process writing, where the teachers administered feedback on

content in the first draft and grammar in the second draft, with direct comprehensive CF being practiced (i.e., all errors weremarked and correct answers provided by the teacher). Upon receiving their writing from the teacher, students copied it out

P. Mak, I. Lee / System 47 (2014) 73e87 77

once as corrections. There was a strong emphasis on written accuracy. Peer assessment was conducted only occasionally.While providing feedback at intermediate stages of thewriting process and using peer assessment alignedwith the principlesof AfL to a certain extent, direct comprehensive CF in the final draft lacked a clear focus making ‘focused revision’ (Chappuis,2009) difficult. Also, with the absence of specific assessment criteria, students failed to have a clear understanding of the goalsthey were working towards e both in their own writing and in peer assessment.

As for School B, before the study commenced, they were adopting a product-oriented approach in writing, where multipledrafting was not required. In the pre-writing stage, a reading comprehension exercise, which was of the same topic as thestudents' writing, was assigned before writing. Like School A, students copied their writing out once as corrections subsequentto teachers' feedback on their writing, which primarily consisted of direct comprehensive CF. Peer assessment was conductedoccasionally. School B was clearly not practicing AfL inwriting. From the pre-writing to post-writing stage, the teachers did notarticulate the achievement expectations to the students nor did they provide descriptive feedback for the students on how theycould improve. Failing to understand what they were expected to learn and what the assessment results meant, the studentswere not afforded the opportunities to take charge of their own learning or to become independent learners.

To sum up, before the study commenced, there were slight attempts at AfL in writing in School A. In school B, the writingassessment practices were generally oriented towards AoL rather than AfL.

3.2.4. Impetus for changeThe teachers' impetus for change derived from their reflection on their teaching experience (also reinforced at the first

researcher's workshop), which led them to cast doubt on the effectiveness of their former practice. For School A, the impetusfor change arose from the need to develop students' ability to play an active role in the whole writing process as well as tobecome reflective and autonomous learners. Despite the teachers' conscientiousness in responding to every single error instudents' writing, teachers remarked that students tended tomake the samemistakes. They felt that students lost confidenceas they were discouraged by the red marks on their writing. Also, the teachers thought that there were few learning op-portunities for the students; they did not know how to improve their writing nor did they have a purpose or goal for writing.By administering a number of AfL-oriented approaches in the writing classroom (see Table 2 for a description of the AfLapproaches), Kenneth and Philip hoped that the students would take an active part in their learning and become independentlearners.

The rationale of School B for initiating change in their assessment practice was similar to School A. They raised concernsabout the ineffectiveness of their direct comprehensive CF approach and the lack of interrelatedness between assessment,learning and teaching. Process writing, which required multiple drafting for students to develop richer content and moreaccurate grammar in their writing, was lacking. Though students might want to engage with the teacher's response to theirwriting, they experienced difficulties in understanding the teacher's feedback, not tomention using the comments to improvetheir future writing. The two teachers were motivated to participate in this study and believed that the way forward laywithin the implementation of AfL-oriented approaches (refer Table 2 for a description of the AfL approaches). To conclude, theteachers in both schools believed that their former assessment practice was beset with problems and shortcomings, whichled them to undertake alternative measures with a view to enhancing their assessment practice.

3.3. Method of study

The present study involves case studies of four teachers from two primary schools, who attempted to implement AfL-oriented approaches in writing for one academic year in their Primary 6 classrooms.2 Multiple sources of data werecollected systematically during this period, including the participants' research plans, teacher interviews, lesson observations,as well as interviews with the administrators including the principals and English department heads. All the interviews wereaudiotaped, and lesson observations were videotaped alongside with field notes taken by the researchers.

To address research question one, which is to explore how and the extent towhich the teachers attempted to implement AfLin their teaching context, multiple sources of data were used including the research plans drawn up by the teachers prior tocommencing the study, pre-and post-study interviews with teachers as well as three classroom observations of each teacherthroughout the academic year. Each school devised one research plan,which detailed the AfL-oriented approaches to be adoptedand the rationale. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in English with each of the teachers at the outset as well as theconclusion of the study. The interviews were audiotaped and notes were taken during each interview. The classroom obser-vations, with the purpose of triangulating the self-reported data obtained from the research plans and interviews, were vid-eotaped and field noteswere collected. A follow-up informal interviewwas carried outwith the teachers after each observation.

To throw light on the second research question, which is to find out the contradictions arising from the assessmentinnovation, semi-structured interviews with the principals and English department heads of the two schools and pre-andpost-study interviews with teachers were conducted. The first researcher conducted the interview with the principals ofthe two schools in Cantonese (a language with which they were most at ease), whereas the interviews with the English

2 The researchers were aware that it was not ideal to collect data in Primary 6 classrooms as students' scores need to be submitted to the local ex-aminations authority for the Secondary School Place Allocation (SSPA) exercise; however, these were the classes taught (and volunteered) by theparticipating teachers.

Table 2Teachers' former assessment and target AfL practices in writing.

Former assessment practice Target AfL-oriented approaches to be implemented

School AProcess writing SameDirect comprehensive marking of errors Focused and coded corrective feedbackPeer assessment occasionally Peer assessment with a detailed feedback form that contains specific assessment criteria

Teacher feedback form with specific assessment criteriaError log to be kept by studentsGoal setting by studentsStudent reflection

School BProduct-oriented approach Process writingMinimal input in the pre-writing stage Strengthened input in pre-writing stageDirect comprehensive marking of errors Focused and coded corrective feedbackPeer assessment occasionally Peer assessment regularly

Peer assessment with a detailed feedback form that contains specific assessment criteriaTeacher feedback form with specific assessment criteriaError log to be kept by studentsGoal setting by studentsStudent reflection

P. Mak, I. Lee / System 47 (2014) 73e8778

department heads and the teachers were carried out in English. The interviewwith the principals, English department headsand teachers shed light on their beliefs and attitudes regarding the innovative AfL-oriented approaches and uncovered thetensions and contradictions that stemmed from the implementation of AfL in writing.

The interviews conducted in English were transcribed verbatimwhile the ones carried out in Cantonesewere transcribed andtranslated into English. The researchers systematicallywent through the transcript data line by line until general patterns emergedafter several roundsof reading.Usingopencoding, thedatawere segmented intocategoriesof information (Strauss&Corbin,1990),duringwhichcodeswereassigned. Then, throughaxial coding, the researchers interrelated thecategories and themespertaining tothe research questions. For the second research question, specifically the coding categories were based on the components of theactivity systemwhich include subject, object, mediating artifacts, rules, community and division of labor. The lesson observationdata, including thefieldnotes, enable the researchers togain insight intopracticeof theparticipants in thenatural environmentandthedata serve thepurposeof triangulating thedataobtained from interviews. Researchplanswereanalyzed to triangulatewith theother data sources, shedding light on the assessment strategies teachers adopted in their writing classrooms.

4. Results

4.1. Research question 1: How and to what extent do elementary teachers attempt to implement AfL in writing in their teachingcontext?

This section reports on the teachers' attempts to implement AfL in writing in their school settings, as well as the extent towhich they were able to implement the AfL strategies as planned.

As far as the implementation of AfL is concerned, the teachers' AfL strategies (based on observational and interview data)could be examined in terms of three phases of their lessonse pre, during and post (refer to Table 2 for the approaches adoptedduring the three stages).

In the pre-writing stage, all the four teachers provided instructional scaffolding to prepare students for writing assessment.While School A had always given input to the students before writing (even before the study), pre-writing input was furtherstrengthened during the study. For School B, providing instructional scaffolding was a new endeavor for teachers, who used togive studentsminimal input beforewriting. The teachers all started by going over the features of the target genrewith the help ofsample texts. They asked students to set goals in relation to the task-specific features. A goal sheet was developed (which wassimilar between the two schools e see Appendix A for a sample of School A) and given to students, which was to be completedbefore they commenced theirwriting. For instance, in one observed lesson,Hilaryfirst familiarized the studentswith the featuresof the narrative, which was about how they spent a day with their family in the park. In the post-interview with her, she said:

I deliberately gave them the structure in the first paragraph and the background, and then the second paragraph, the body,what elements should be involved and in the concluding paragraph, the feelings, personal reflection. This structure is quiteuseful for them to go about their writing, rather than just giving the topic to them without any input. In the past, I would say,‘Today we’re going to talk about…’ and then the students would start their writing.

The teachers also drew students' attention to the assessment criteria of the writing through a detailed feedback form (seeAppendix B for a sample used in School A e School B used a similar form). Through highlighting the features of the targetgenre, helping students set goals and demystifying the assessment criteria, the teachers enhanced students' awareness ofwhere theywere going and enabled them to have a clear vision of how theywere to progress towards the expected standards(i.e., ‘feed up’). In one observed lesson, Kenneth drew the attention of the students to the rubrics he had designed.

P. Mak, I. Lee / System 47 (2014) 73e87 79

I tried to raise their awareness of grammar and language and also text type, which we didn't pay much attention to in theearlier stages.

In the during-writing stage, the students carried out peer assessment after producing the first drafts. Guidelines andtraining were provided to students before they performed peer assessment. Peer feedback forms were used in both schools.Catherine commented:

After writing the first draft, we’ll tell the students how to do peer assessment. As each piece of writing is different, we’ll ask thestudents to focus on the specific elements of the writing. For example, the sequencing of events may bemore important in thispiece of writing and I'll ask my students to pay attention to this particular aspect more.

The teacher feedback form,which consisted of the same assessment criteria as the peer feedback form,was usedwhen teachersresponded tostudentwriting.Aftercollecting thefirst drafts, the teachers responded tostudentwriting in respect to theassessmentcriteria shared with the students in the pre-writing stage, using the teacher feedback form. After the second draft, rather thanpracticing direct comprehensive CF, the teachers' planwas to adopt focused CFand provide coded CF to the students'writing. Theirpurposewas to render feedback less discouraging and to help students engagemore actively in the assessment process. Feedbackforms, together with focused and coded CF, detailed the strengths as well as theweaknesses of the students. Students couldmakeuse of the assessment information to improve their writing, and hence reach the ‘where am I now’ stage (i.e., ‘feed back’).

After writing (i.e., the post-writing stage), the students filled in the error log with the number of mistakes they had madein relation to the pre-determined focuses (see Appendix C for a sample used in School B e School A used a similar error log).The teachers also gave students the opportunity to review their work and reflect on their writing. They were asked tocomplete a reflection sheet (see Appendix D for a sample used in School B e School A used a similar reflection sheet). Whilethe error log enabled students to keep track of their own learning, the reflection sheet could help students figure out wheretheywere in their learning and how they could close the gap (i.e., ‘feed forward’). They could have a clearer direction of whereto go next and set goals to challenge themselves in the next stage. In answering ‘what can I do better’ in the reflection sheet,students were encouraged to set further goals for their own improvement.

While the participating teachers aimed to implement the AfL approaches delineated in the above (also see Table 2)throughout the academic year, as they reflected on their attempts at the end of the study, they admitted that they were notalways able to adhere to their original plan but instead experienced obstacles in implementing AfL in their writing classroom.Table 3 shows the extent towhich the teachers adhered to the target AfL approaches. Overall, the results indicate that teachers inSchoolApractised coded and focusedCFonly forhalf a year but switchedback to thedirect comprehensive CFapproach. In schoolB, focused and coded CF was provided to student writing but not in pieces related to examination topics (i.e., writing thatprepared students for exams). While teachers implemented the other AfL-oriented approaches on a regular basis, some werecarried out only occasionally (i.e., half of the writing tasks), such as student reflection in both schools, and students' goal settingand error logs in School B. The factors that posed obstacles to the implementation of AfLwill be explored in the following section.

4.2. Research question 2: What contradictions, if any, arise from teachers' introduction of AfL in the writing classroom?

Using the AT framework, this section analyses how the culturalehistorical setting of the teachers mediated the extent towhich the AfL approaches were implemented in their writing classrooms, throwing light onwhy the teachers were unable toadhere to the implementation of AfL throughout the year. The new element (i.e., AfL) was injected into the existingassessment activity system, which came into conflict with the conventional practice, thereby constraining the teachers' AfLassessment initiatives in the writing classroom. The focus of this section is, therefore, on the contradictions stemming from

Table 3The extent to which teachers implemented AfL-oriented approaches in the writing classroom.

The AfL-oriented approaches attempted The AfL-oriented approaches realized

School AFocused corrective feedback Practiced for half a yearIndirect coded feedback Practiced for half a yearError log Regular practicePeer assessment with a detailed feedback form Regular practiceTeacher feedback form Regular practiceGoal setting Regular practiceStudent reflection Occasionally

School BFocused corrective feedback Practiced in writing apart from examination topicsIndirect coded feedback Practiced in writing apart from examination topicsError log OccasionallyPeer assessment with a detailed feedback form Regular practiceTeacher feedback from Regular practiceGoal setting OccasionallyStudent reflection OccasionallyProcess writing Regular practiceInput in pre-writing stage Regular practice

P. Mak, I. Lee / System 47 (2014) 73e8780

the introduction of AfL to the conventional assessment system, which are discussed in relation to main components of theactivity system, i.e., instruments, object, rule, and division of labor.

Instrument-related

One of the contradictions stemmed from the instruments (i.e., feedback tool) which contributed to the failure of teachers'attempt to adhere to the AfL strategies throughout the academic year.

At the beginning of the study, the teachers believed strongly that the way forward for the improvement in their practicelay partly within the implementation of a less explicit and more focused approach to CF in the writing classroom. However,the teachers were affected by the culturally accepted instrument of the school e direct comprehensive CF practice andforwent the act of practising focused and coded CF after half a year. Kenneth reflected as follows:

3 Onemonito

4 Preallocatiis to be

It's interesting because I know that at the beginning we were thinking about doing focused corrections but we were actuallydoing comprehensive corrections… I guess it's how it has been to have a final copy error-free… I don't know! I feel like thatthe final copy should be correct like nice grammar and everything

The direct comprehensive CF tool also influenced the practice of Philip, propelling him to give up his original plan aboutfocused marking of errors. He thought that the final copy should be free of errors and 100% immaculate. He said:

I think it'd be better if we just ask the students to focus on certain aspects…but it's the common practice among teachers tomark all the errors in student writing. In fact here in this school, the final draft is a bit like a piece of corrections and youmarkevery single grammar point and make sure that the final copy is error free.

The above quotes illustrate the incongruity between the teacher's beliefs about feedback, which hindered the effectiveintegration of AfL into writing. The members of the English team held conflicting perceptions about which feedback tool(s)should be used for responding to studentwriting. The direct comprehensive CFapproachwas the culturally accepted instrumentfor responding to student writing. For instance, the English department heads of the two schools felt that direct comprehensiveCF was the tried and trusted method. Even though the English department head of School A cast doubt on the effectiveness ofsuch an approach, the punitive feeling of guilt made her respond to errors meticulously. She expressed it in the following way:

You feel kind of guilty if you don't mark every single mistake. When I was a student, I really didn't care much about themarking, I just want to get my corrections done, my homework done…that's why I said I doubt the effectiveness. But I usuallymark errors comprehensively. It's very ironic, I think!

It is indeed striking to find that the English Department Head was urging the school to abide by the feedback policy eventhough she ridiculed herself for remaining faithful to this approach. She kept the tradition of practising the direct compre-hensive CF, which had been handed down from generation to generation. The ‘strands of history engraved in its artefacts’(Engestr€om, 2001, p. 136) and the history of the tool had shaped the beliefs of the English Department Head. The traditionalfeedback (i.e., direct comprehensive CF) not only guided the action of the English department heads and the English team butalso the participating teachers. Though being aware of the lack of usefulness of the conventional approach and acknowledgingthe need to revamp the traditional practice, the participating teachers' actions were driven by the historical forces of this tool.

Although the teachers in School A set out with a plan to implement focused CF, they reverted to the old practice ofcomprehensive CF after half a year. Due to the multiple perspectives of the teachers and administrators about the appropriateinstruments in responding to student writing, the teachers wavered between the traditional and innovative approaches andin the end gave up the latter.

Object-related

An additional contradiction resulted from the differences in the objects of the participating teachers and administrators.The general object of the participating teachers was to improve students' learning through embedding innovative assessmentstrategies into writing. The object of the administrators, however, focused mainly on students' immediate writing perfor-mance as reflected in examination results, and hence was not entirely in congruence with that of the teachers.

The principals of both schools were concerned about TSA3 and pre-secondary 1 Hong Kong Attainment Test (pre-S1HKAT4). The principals hoped that the students werewell-equippedwith the essential skills to copewith the two assessmentsso that they would achieve exemplary results. The two external tests had been established as the top priority, which posed anobstacle to teachers' adherence to AfL strategies inwriting, especially to the way theymarked writing. The principal of SchoolA commented as follows:

of the key aims of TSA is to measure the students' attainment of the fundamental skills set out in the curriculum, which enables the government tor the effectiveness of their policies and to provide focused support to schools in need (Education Commission, 2000).-S1 HKAT is an assessment used to scale the internal assessment (IA) of the students and the scaled IA results form a basis in determining theon bands (there is a three-band system in Hong Kong, with Band 1 schools being the top schools) or the students. Another function of pre-S1 HKATused by some secondary schools as a reference for streaming their Secondary 1 intake (Education Commission, 2005).

P. Mak, I. Lee / System 47 (2014) 73e87 81

Exams like pre-S1 and TSA influence the way they (the teachers) mark and teach writing. This is a reality issue.

The principal of School B, similarly, stated:

There are a few factors that can affect them to implement change. Firstly, there is a need to equip students with the ability tocope with external tests…

While the participating teachers hoped to improve student learning through the assessment innovation, they were awarethat the positive impact of AfL on students' writing performance, if any, would take time. The principals, however, appeared tobe hoping for a ‘quick fix’ through the innovation. Both Kenneth and Philip acknowledged the pressure they were under. Dueto the importance the principals attached to the two external tests, the teachers had to allocate more time to drilling ex-amination schemes. Kenneth reflected as follows:

I have to drill them for pre-S1 and…there's this pressure that exists.

Being aware that student writing could not improve overnight despite the adoption of innovation, the teachers werefrustrated with the contradiction in the object and found it hard to juggle the demands of the external tests and the additionalworkload incurred by their assessment innovation. Hence, the conflicting objects between teachers and school leadersdiscouraged teachers from implementing AfL in writing.

Rule- and division of labor-related

Another contradictionwhich emerged during the implementation of AfL was that the rule (i.e., the need to conform to thegiven syllabus and prescribed curriculum) and division of labor (i.e., teachers' workload and autonomy) remained ratherstatic.

As regards rule, there was the need to adhere to the rules set up by the administrators, such as conforming to the originalsyllabus and the curriculum, which was mainly oriented towards assessment of learning. With the increased amount of timerequired to implement the new assessment approaches, the teachers faced difficulties to catch up with the syllabus. All theteachers stressed the need to devote more time and effort to using the new approaches but they were obligated to completethe rigid and jam-packed syllabus prescribed in their schools. Both Hilary and Catherine complained about the squeezedsyllabus. In her own words, Hilary stated:

Time is limited and we have a crammed and squeezed syllabus.

In the post-study interview with Catherine, she said:

You have to finish your syllabus…We have to produce more than 10 pieces of writing…it seems that you're just rushing to getthings done.

Thus, the need to finish the prescribed syllabus and the time constraint made it difficult for teachers to implement AfLconsistently and regularly. This can explain why certain strategies (e.g., student reflection) were practiced only occasionally.

Another contradictionwas the imbalance in division of labor. The vertical division of power and status (i.e., power relationsbetween the administrators) posed another challenge to the adherence to AfL. In school B, although teachers knew that itwould be best to involve all colleagues teaching the same level, this was not approved by their principal and the Englishdepartment head. Instead, the teachers were allowed to change their practice provided that they did not affect the other threeclasses. The English department head of School B said that she was willing to take on change only if the research projectyielded positive results. She commented as follows:

Involving all the colleagues in the grade? It depends on whether your research will yield positive results! If yes, we’ll presentthe findings to the teachers and then we’ll discuss whether we should implement that kind of change.

On the other hand, the teachers of School A could undertake change and involve more colleagues as long as there wasresearch evidence to back up their initiative and that they would also comply with the rules of the school/English department(e.g., the need to drill examination schemes). Kenneth explicated the situation as follows:

They (the principal and English Department Head) are very open to me trying new things, which is very great…I bring inresearch articles to show why it's effective just to make sure they know I'm not trying out things for fun and so they take mequite seriously which is good. They are willing to let me try and experiment but at the same time, I have to drill them for pre-S1 and we have our morning lesson for pre-S1.

In School A, therefore, teachers could enjoy full autonomy in their change initiative only if they could produce evidence toshow that the innovation worked, and such evidence would have to be sanctioned by the principal and English departmenthead. At the end, therefore, it would be the school leaders who could give real approval for change.

As a result of the asymmetrical power relations between the administrators and the teachers, the teachers did not enjoyfull autonomy in their attempts at innovation. Hilary in School B, for example, expressed her principal's dissatisfaction aboutthe smaller amount of writing resulting from process writing. ‘The more, the better’ conception seemed to hold sway in theschool:

P. Mak, I. Lee / System 47 (2014) 73e8782

…our principal thinks they write very few times, so she's not that satisfied… so next year, we may work on more writing, likein terms of the quantity, she is focusing on the quantity of the writing and not the quality.

Although the teachers in School B adopted process writing regularly during the academic year, it could be imagined thatsustaining process writing would require the support of school leaders, whichmight be difficult given the principal's focus onquantity rather than quality.

In addition to the contradiction in the vertical division of power and status, the horizontal division of tasks posed anotherobstacle. In every school, different duties and responsibilities are assigned to eachmember of the English team. Because of thehorizontal division of tasks among the members of the community in the participating schools, teachers found it difficult tocarry out change. According to Hilary, all the teachers of her English teamwere responsible for devising writing materials forthewhole team. In addition to thesewritingmaterials, Hilary and Catherine had to design other materials to implement AfL inwriting (e.g., additional instructional materials and feedback forms), which imposed extraworkload on them. As a result, theywere unable to fully implement AfL they had planned for (e.g., goal setting) when they were hard pressed for time. Catherineexpressed her difficulty as follows:

This year, I have towork harder and time is tight! If we had twomore teachers to prepare thematerial, then life would be a loteasier.

As revealed in the above findings, the contradictions arising from teachers' attempts at AfL in writing included theincongruence of beliefs between the different members of the English team, the differing objects of the participating teachersand administrators, the adherence to the rules and the imbalance in division of labor. The contradictions were manifested indisturbances to the assessment innovation, which posed impediments to the implementation of AfL. Nonetheless, AT canprovide us with perspectives to resolve the contradictions, which can be used as an impetus for change. These perspectivesand implications will be discussed in the following sections.

5. Discussion

Following the decision to focus on strategies to enhance student writing, the teachers interspersed the AfL strategies inthree phases of the writing process e pre, during and post-writing stages. Evidently, there was a symbiotic relationshipbetween feedback, pedagogy and learning as the teachers were able to teach what they assessed and assessed what theytaught (Lee, 2009). In the pre-writing stage, the students set goals. Reading about the goals of the students, the teachersunderstood the needs of the students and knew what they hoped to achieve, which in turn could inform their teaching andallow them to attend to the needs of the students. On the other hand, familiarizing the students with the assessment criteriafacilitated the students' understanding of the expectations of the teachers and equipped them with the knowledge tocomprehend the feedback provided by the peers and teacher (e.g., Carless, 2006; 2007; Crusan, 2010) in the during writingstage. As suggested by a number of researchers (e.g., Ferris, 2003; Sachs & Polio, 2007), feedback defeats its purpose and isdeemed useless if the students fail to understand the teachers' response and engage with it. In the during-writing stage, boththe peer and teacher feedback forms corresponded to the assessment criteria established in the pre-writing stage. To renderfeedback effective, the teachers responded to students' writing using focused coded feedback. In the post-writing stage, thestudents recorded the number of errors in their error log and reflected on their progress. The act of reflection also involvedstudents in thinking critically about their own writing and the feedback they received from both their peers and teachers,allowing them to take greater responsibility for their learning (Ferris, 2003). Having a clear understanding of their strengthsand weaknesses, the students were able to make use of the information to feed forward and benefit their future writing.Through implementing AfL in the three stages of writing, the teachers tried to help students become reflective and auton-omous learners, and develop their ability to take more responsibility for their own learning.

Although the teachers aimed to implement the AfL strategies throughout the academic year and were able to carry out amajority of the AfL strategies on a regular basis, they were not always able to adhere to their original plan (see Table 3) due tothe contradictions arising from the introduction of AfL to the teaching context. The uptake of AfL innovation in writing couldbe inhibited unless the components of the activity systems were redefined and that the contradictions were resolved.

To start with, there were contradictions between the instruments in responding to student writing, which tended to arisedue to the values and beliefs different participants brought into the activity system. The change initiative of AfL in writingwould not come into fruition unless the incongruence of beliefs could be resolved. The beliefs of the department headsseemed to have been influenced by their personal and school experience. For example, the English department head of SchoolA held deep-seated beliefs based upon her own experiences as students and also her cultural understanding (Richardson,1996) of how best to respond to student writing. She relied on her recollections of teaching as a learner of English, andshe felt obliged to adopt direct comprehensive CF, the very samemethod that her former teachers had used. Overall, therewasa strong culture that favored direct comprehensive CF, which contradicted the principle of AfL. As one's thoughts and actionsare more powerfully influenced by the organization's culture than one's previous training and experience, one tends to adjustthe features of the innovation to accommodate the culture of the school (Heckman & Mantle-Bromley, 2004). In this study,the teachers of School A intended to practice focused CF but reverted to their old practice due to the culture of the school.

Further tensions arising from the conflicting objects of the teachers and administrators militated against the full imple-mentation of AfL and needed to be resolved. The object of the teachers was to enhance the learning experience of the students

P. Mak, I. Lee / System 47 (2014) 73e87 83

and enable them to become independent learners, with a view to improving students' writing performance in the long run.Their object contradicted the administrators' object of achieving exemplary results in external tests within a short time.Whilesuch an object is understandable especially for Primary 6, our experience with school administrators shows that this objecttends to permeate throughout all grade levels. Such contradiction regarding object would require collective resolution(Engestr€om, 1987), which will be followed up in the implications in the next section.

Another aspect that emerged as significant in interfering with the teachers' activity was contradiction regarding thedivision of labor. Existing rules in school did not provide adequate support for the assessment innovation, resulting in adisruption in the momentum for change. In creating a feasible plan to change their assessment practice, the teachersnegotiated with their colleagues and administrators but found themselves in an inferior position whereby they had toabide by rules e having to cover the tight curriculum content and drill examination schemes. The practice of the newapproaches, which demanded additional time, made the teachers race against time to complete the packed syllabus. Theteachers confessed about the need to forgo some of the AfL approaches originally planned so as to cover the centralizedcurriculum. It has been documented from research that the teachers in Hong Kong are often overloaded with work.Morris, Lo, and Adamson (2000) find that teachers in general feel that their workload has reached ‘a saturation point’(p. 259). Cheng (2009) adds to this by affirming that teachers are suffering from the ‘bottle-neck’ of high workload and anew initiative would become a heavy burden on them (p. 76). AfL appeared to be daunting as the teachers were solelyresponsible for preparing the material for the new approaches without the support from other members of the Englishteam.

6. Implications and conclusion

Contradictions are considered a source of trouble and innovation (Engestr€om, 1987) and require collective resolution thatinvolves different parties in dialogic problem solving and negotiation. The ways in which contradictions can be resolvedprovide useful implications not only for the participating teachers in the study, but also for those working in similar EFLcontexts who are interested in bringing change to their assessment practices.

First of all, resolution of contradictions calls for negotiation among the different members of the school to develop acommon vision and new goals on classroom writing assessment. Drawing on Fullan's (2007) theory of change and capacitybuilding, it is important that teachers acquire strategies that enhance collective effectiveness through developing knowledgeand competencies, resources andmotivation in both individuals and the collective groupwith a clear target regarding studentlearning. To implement AfL in writing, therefore, a supportive professional community of colleagues with a shared mission,vision, values and goals (Fullan, 2009) is essential. For instance, the participating teachers could provide input to teachers newto the reform, organize workshops to share their experience in implementing the innovative assessment approaches withother members of the English team, and acquaint them with the approaches they adopted as well as the difficultiesencountered. The teachers could also formulate future action plans in collaborationwith the rest of the English team andworkwith them through peer coaching and team teaching, taking small steps progressively with a view to establishing a commonvision and object in the English team. Hong Kong is well known for its examination-oriented culture, and school adminis-trators tend to put a great deal of emphasis on examination performance. As noted by Carless (2011), ‘we live, however, in anage of accountability, and assessment is not going to go away’ (p. 3). To resolve the tension between AfL and AoL, teacherscould consider making formative use of summative assessments (Lam, 2013). For instance, teachers can make use of theassessment information gathered from mock tests to inform their teaching and provide appropriate scaffolding to the stu-dents in relation to the weak points in their writing.

In relation to the contradiction arisen from rule and division of labor, lasting support from the administrators is verymuch needed; otherwise, innovations will become episodic (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009). There are various means ofsupport that could be provided to teachers for carrying out the change, including structural and financial support (e.g.,flexibility in manipulating with the curriculum, opportunities to interact with the colleagues and manpower). Rather thanimposing on the teachers a top-down rigid curriculum and inflexible schedules, the principal may consider accepting moreequitable relationships with the teachers. As noted by Muijs, Harris, Chapman, Stoll, and Russ (2004), ‘the most effectivemeans for true improvement lies in more distributed and democratic forms of leadership’ (p. 156). Specifically, teacherscould be granted greater flexibility and autonomy in planning and implementing the curriculum, so that AfL strategies couldbe integrated seamlessly into the existing curriculum. Also, school administrators could consider giving teachers more timeto experiment with new ideas, to reflect, and to learn from the experience. As shown in the findings, the school leaderswould only allow fuller participation if positive results could be obtained (and often school leaders tend to look for instantresults). The participating teachers were thus caught in a catch-22 situation e because without the innovation, they couldnever be sure whether positive results would be yielded. And yet, their team members would not be allowed to embark onchange in the absence of positive evidence. While improvement in student learning is a legitimate goal, it is important tounderstand that time is needed for innovation to take root and that improvement in writing scores cannot happen over-night. When teachers attempt to undertake innovation, problems or even failures at the initial stage are sometimesinevitable because humans often learn by trial and error. Therefore, patience and support from school leaders are verymuchneeded.

Successful implementation and continuation of AfL also rests upon a trained cadre of teachers. It would be ideal if theparticipating teachers could be further supported through universityeschool partnership (which was not a focus of the

P. Mak, I. Lee / System 47 (2014) 73e8784

study). As noted by Richert, Stoddard, and Kass (2001), new practice could be more effectively developed by partnershipswith university, especially strong, sustainable partnerships between schools and universities. Due to the uniqueness of thecontext of each individual school that circumscribes or supports the teachers' effort in initiating changes in writing, rec-ommendations about the implementation of AfL should be considered in the teachers' own teaching context. One size doesnot fit all. The faculty members of the university can work together with the schools to provide external assistance andexplore new possibilities, specifically to develop practice within teachers' specific context at a pace and in a manner that bestsuits their needs.

The study is not without limitations and cautionmust be taken in drawing implications and conclusions from the findings.First, our findings are based on a small sample, consisting of four teachers from two schools. Second, the students in the studywere of average and below-average proficiency level as judged by TSA results, and hence the findings may not apply to thoseof higher language proficiency level. Also, the fact that the students were in Primary 6 rather than of a level which is less high-stakes could have affected the results of the study.

Despite these limitations, taking a sociocultural perspective in this longitudinal study enables us to deepen our under-standing of how the implementation of AfL is constrained by contradictions that stem from the assessment innovation.Teachers are influenced by sociocultural forces that play a significant role in the way and the extent to which teachers employthe AfL strategies. Translating the rhetoric of AfL into reality is an arduous task, as there are inconsistencies and contradictionswithin the assessment activity and between the new assessment activity system and other activity systems in school. Despitethis, contradictions are in fact essential in the process of development (Cole & Engestr€om, 1993). In future research, it will beparticularly important to explore how contradictions can be resolved and how the restructuring of the activity setting can bemade possible (e.g., through school-based professional learning and/or universityeschool collaboration). Apart from theinvestigation of the sociocultural factors that impact various AfL practices, other dimensions including teacher beliefs, teacherconception of change, understanding of change process, teacher learning and the larger sociopolitical assessment landscapeshould be taken into account when examining the teacher change in using AfL strategies in the Hong Kong context. Theseprovide avenues for further research. Finally, any change in pedagogical assessment innovations takes time to be effective,and thus another future line of research entails the need to conduct the study over a longer time frame to find out how thechange efforts of the teachers can be supported and sustained.

Acknowledgments

The work described in this article was partially supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong KongSpecial Administrative Region, China e CUHK 448610. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightfulcomments on our manuscript.

Appendix A. Goals.

What do you want to do better in your writing?

P. Mak, I. Lee / System 47 (2014) 73e87 85

Appendix B. Feedback form

Peer Assessment

Appendix C. Error log

Count the number of errors you made after the second draft, and put the number in the appropriate space.

Types of errors Number of errors

Writing 1 Writing 2 Writing 3 Writing 4 Writing 5

1 Spelling (Sp)2 Tense (T)3 Word (W)4 Article (A)5 Preposition (Pp)6 Punctuation (P)7 Plural (Pl)8 Sentence fragments (F)

P. Mak, I. Lee / System 47 (2014) 73e8786

Appendix D. Reflection

References

Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Bates, L., Lane, J., & Lange, E. (1993). Writing clearly: Responding to ESL compositions. Boston, Massachusettes: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.Berry, R., & Adamson, B. (2011). Assessment reform in education: Policy and practice. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102e118.Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language

Writing, 19(4), 207e217.Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7e74.Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219e233.

P. Mak, I. Lee / System 47 (2014) 73e87 87

Carless, D. (2007). Learning-oriented assessment: conceptual bases and practical implications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1),57e66.

Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-heritage settings. New York: Routledge.Chappuis, J. (2009). Seven strategies of assessment for learning. Boston: Pearson.Cheng, Y. C. (2009). Hong Kong educational reforms in the last decade: reform syndrome and new developments. International Journal of Educational

Management, 23(1), 65e86.Cole, M., & Engestr€om, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and

educational considerations (pp. 1e46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crusan, D. (2010). Assessment in the second language writing classroom. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Curriculum Development Council. (2001). Exemplars of curriculum development in schools. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.Curriculum Development Council. (2004). English language education key learning area: English language curriculum guide (Primary 1e6). Hong Kong: Hong

Kong Government Printer.Education Commission. (2000). Learning for life, learning through life: Reform proposals for education system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Gov-

ernment Printer.Education Commission. (2005). Report on review of medium of instruction for secondary schools and secondary school places allocation. Hong Kong: Hong Kong

Government Printer.Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign

language context. System, 36, 353e371.Engestr€om, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Engestr€om, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a test bench of activity theory: the case of primary care medical practice. In J. Lave, & S. Chaiklin

(Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64e103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Engestr€om, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43, 960e974.Engestr€om, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133e156.Engestr€om, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engestr€om, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1e18).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33e53.Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland, &

F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81e104). New York: Cambridge University Press.Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Fullan, M. (2009). The challenge of change: Start school improvement now! (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Graue, M. E. (1993). Integrating theory and practice through instructional assessment. Educational Assessment, 1(4), 283e309.Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81e112.Heckman, P. E., & Mantle-Bromley, C. (2004). Toward renewal in school-university partnerships. In J. I. Goodlad, & T. J. McMannon (Eds.), The teaching career

(pp. 69e95). New York: Teachers College Press.Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts

and issues (pp. 1e19). New York: Cambridge University Press.Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity

theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17e44). Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Lam, R. (2013). Formative use of summative tests: using test preparation to promote performance and self-regulation. The Asia-Pacific Educational

Researcher, 22(1), 69e78.Lee, I. (2007). Assessment for learning: integrating assessment, teaching, and learning in the ESL/EFL writing classroom. The Canadian Modern Language

Review, 64(1), 199e213.Lee, I. (2009). A new look at an old problem: how teachers can liberate themselves from the drudgery of marking student writing. Prospect: An Australian

Journal of Teaching/Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), 24(2), 34e41.Lee, I. (2011). Bringing innovation to EFL writing through a focus on assessment for learning. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 19e33.Lee, I., & Coniam, D. (2013). Introducing assessment for learning for EFL writing in an assessment of learning examination-driven system in Hong Kong.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 34e50.Lo, J., & Hyland, F. (2007). Enhancing students' engagement and motivation in writing: the case of primary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 16(4), 219e237.Morris, P., Lo, M. L., & Adamson, B. (2000). Improving schools in Hong Kong: lessons from the past. In B. Adamson, T. Kwan, & K. K. Chan (Eds.), Changing the

curriculum: The impact of reform on primary schooling in Hong Kong (pp. 245e262). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas e a review of research evidence.

School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(2), 149e175.Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102e119). New

York: Macmillan.Richert, A. E., Stoddard, P., & Kass, M. (2001). The promise of partnership for promoting reform. In F. O'Connell Rust, & H. Freidus (Eds.), Guiding school

change: The role and work of change agents (pp. 136e154). New York: Teachers College Press.Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners' uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67e100.Sannino, A., & Nocon, H. (2008). Introduction: activity theory and school innovation. Journal of Educational Change, 9, 325e328.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Thorne, S. (2004). Cultural historical activity theory and the object of innovation. In O. St. John, K. van Esch, & E. Schalkwijk (Eds.), New insights into foreign

language learning and teaching (pp. 51e70). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Wiliam, D. (2001). An overview of the relationship between assessment and the curriculum. In D. Scott (Ed.), Curriculum and assessment (pp. 165e181).

Westport, Conn: Ablex Publishing.Wiliam, D. (2009). Assessment for learning: Why, what and how? London: Institute of Education, University of London.