Alghanmi, Bayan Fahad (2023) Self-assessment in EFL speaking classroom

and its effect on achievement, self-regulated learning, and critical thinking:

students’ voices from Saudi Arabia. PhD thesis.

https://theses.gla.ac.uk/83697/

Copyright and moral rights for this work are retained by the author
A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study,
without prior permission or charge
This work cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first
obtaining permission in writing from the author
The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any
format or medium without the formal permission of the author
When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author,
title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given

Enlighten: Theses
https://theses.gla.ac.uk/
research-enlighten@glasgow.ac.uk
Self-assessment in EFL Speaking Classroom and its Effect on
Achievement, Self-Regulated Learning, and Critical Thinking:
Students’ Voices from Saudi Arabia.

By
Bayan Fahad Alghanmi

A Thesis Submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

School of Education
College of Social Sciences
University of Glasgow

December 2022
 ii

Dedication

I dedicate this thesis to Fahad and Baheya, my parents, for their endless love, support, and
encouragement, my beloved husband Bassam, who has been a source of strength, support,
and motivation throughout this journey, my beautiful children Mohammed and Maya, who
arrived in this world during this journey and have been a source of motivation, my brother
and sisters for always being there for me, and my in-laws, who are my second family, for
their support and encouragement.
 iii

Abstract

In light of the growing need to enhance the quality of education to overcome social and
economic issues, assessment systems and curriculum have undergone significant
modifications and reforms in many countries. Saudi Arabia is no exception. The literature
suggests that innovative approaches to assessment, such as self-assessment, have the
potential to promote lifelong skills, empower learners, and enhance learning. Nonetheless,
traditional assessment practices continue to dominate in Saudi Arabia, particularly in
higher education English language courses. Review and reframing of assessment
approaches are, therefore, necessary in Saudi Arabia to improve the quality of learning and
to develop learners’ lifelong skills, including self-regulated learning skills and critical
thinking skills. Despite the growing interest in self-assessment as a practical instructional
strategy that draws on formative assessment to promote self-regulated learning and critical
thinking, relatively few studies have addressed this topic in English language courses in
higher education, and none have addressed it in the context of Saudi Arabia. The evidence
regarding the impact of self-assessment on the quality of learning and the empowerment of
learners may help to guide the Saudi education reform.

Nonetheless, traditional assessment practices continue to dominate in Saudi Arabia,

particularly in higher education English language courses. Therefore, reviewing and
reframing of assessment approaches, specifically to improve the quality of learning, are
necessary in Saudi Arabia to develop learners’ lifelong skills, including self-regulated
learning skills and critical thinking skills. Recently, self-assessment has emerged as a
practical instructional strategy that draws on formative assessment to promote self-
regulated learning. However, most research on formative assessment and self-regulated
learning has portrayed results related to self-assessment as generalisable, despite the need
for research across various educational contexts.

The aim of this research is to explore in depth the participants’ perceptions and experience
of self-assessment in speaking classrooms and the impact of self-assessment on learners’
self-regulatory skills, critical thinking, and speaking language performance within the EFL
context. This study also examines the relationship between learners’ self-regulated learning
and their critical thinking skills. Pre- and post-tests were conducted with 27 EFL students
before and after a self-assessment intervention. In addition, a self-assessment proforma,
audio recording, and semi-structured interviews were collected and conducted with 10 of
 iv
the 27 students. All these tools played an essential role in investigating the participants’
perceptions and experience of self-assessment and its impact.

Overall, the participants in this study displayed favourable attitudes towards self-
assessment. The findings indicate that a variety of factors influenced the learners’
perspectives, including learners’ prior experience with traditional speaking assessment,
learners’ motivation and willingness to self-assess, learners’ awareness of assessment
criteria, and learners’ perceptions and experiences of feedback. The findings also reveal the
positive impact of self-assessment on learners’ self-regulated learning skills, critical
thinking skills, and achievement, as well as a positive medium-strength relationship
between learners’ self-regulated learning skills and critical thinking skills.

The study concludes with recommendations for educational policy-makers who are aiming
to establish practices that support and empower learners. For example, the study
encourages the use and adaptation of the self-assessment proforma in the English language
as a reliable scaffolding method of assessment that can foster deep learning and self-
regulated learning.
 v

Table of content

Dedication ......................................................................................................................ii

Abstract ........................................................................................................................ iii

Table of content ............................................................................................................. v

List of tables .................................................................................................................. xi

List of figures ............................................................................................................... xiv

List of Appendices ........................................................................................................ xv

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................... xvi

Abbreviations .................................................................................................................1

Chapter 1 : Introduction .................................................................................................1

1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2. The motivation for the study ...................................................................................... 2

1.3. Significance of the study and research gap ................................................................. 4

1.4. The purpose of the study ........................................................................................... 5

1.5. The research questions .............................................................................................. 5

1.6. Thesis structure ......................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 2 : Context of the Study (Saudi Arabia) ..............................................................8

2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 8

2.2. Profile of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ....................................................................... 8

2.3. Saudi education system ............................................................................................. 9

2.4. English language in Saudi Arabia .............................................................................. 13

2.5. English language teaching objectives, materials, and approaches in Saudi Arabia .... 15
 vi
2.6. English language assessment in higher education in the KSA .................................... 19

Chapter 3 : Literature Review .......................................................................................22

3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 22

3.2. Self-regulated learning and critical thinking in education ......................................... 23

3.2.1. Self-regulated learning ...........................................................................................23

3.2.1.1. Self-regulation (SR) versus self-regulated learning (SRL) ............................................... 24

3.2.1.2. Self-regulated learning consensus: Phases, components, and processes ..................... 28

3.2.1.3. Measuring self-regulated learning skills ........................................................................ 29

3.2.2. Critical thinking.......................................................................................................30

3.2.2.1. Components of critical thinking ..................................................................................... 31

3.2.2.1.1. Cognitive ability ........................................................................................................ 31

3.2.2.1.2. Dispositions .............................................................................................................. 32

3.2.2.1.3. Measuring components of critical thinking .............................................................. 34

3.2.3. The relationship between self-regulated learning and critical thinking .................37

3.3. Self-assessment ....................................................................................................... 38

3.3.1. The concept of assessment ....................................................................................39

3.3.1.1. Developing conceptualisation of assessment ................................................................ 39

3.3.2. Self-assessment in the EFL context ........................................................................46

3.3.2.1. Definition of self-assessment ......................................................................................... 46

3.3.2.2. Self-assessment from “letter” to the “spirit” ................................................................. 48

3.3.2.3. Origin of sociocultural theory ........................................................................................ 49

3.3.2.4. Self-assessment and self-regulated learning from a sociocultural perspective ............. 50

3.3.3. Self-assessment and areas of self-regulated learning ............................................52

3.3.3.1. Self-assessment and achievement goal theory .............................................................. 52

3.3.3.2. Self-assessment and metacognition .............................................................................. 53

3.3.3.3. Self-assessment, Self-efficacy, and motivation .............................................................. 54

3.3.4. Self-assessment strategies in the EFL context ........................................................56

3.3.4.1. Reflection pieces (learner diaries, dialogue journals, and reflection logs) .................... 60

3.3.4.2. Audio-visual aids ............................................................................................................ 61

 vii
3.3.4.3. Self-assessment forms (rating scales/ criteria sheets/ rubrics and checklists) ............ 62

3.3.5. Self-assessment as a means to enhance critical thinking along with self-regulated

learning in the EFL context ......................................................................................................63

3.4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 65

Chapter 4 : Methodology of the research ..................................................................... 67

4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 67

4.2. Research approach................................................................................................... 67

4.3. Research site ............................................................................................................ 74

4.4. The target population and sampling methods .......................................................... 75

4.5. Ethical considerations .............................................................................................. 76

4.6. The data collection process and its reliability and validity ........................................ 78

4.6.1. The intervention .....................................................................................................78

4.6.2. Research instruments.............................................................................................82

4.6.2.1. Pre- and post-tests ......................................................................................................... 82

4.6.2.1.1. The Self-Regulation of Learning Self-Report Scale (SRL-SRS) ................................... 83

4.6.2.1.2. Watson-Glaser II Critical Thinking Appraisal (CTA) ................................................... 85

4.6.2.2. Audio-recordings............................................................................................................ 86

4.6.2.3. Self-assessment proforma ............................................................................................. 87

4.6.2.4. Interviews (semi-structured interviews) ......................................................................... 88

4.6.3. Recruitment of the participants .............................................................................90

4.6.3.1. Recruiting the participants for the first phase of the research (intervention and pre and

post surveys) ..................................................................................................................................... 90

4.6.3.2. Recruiting the participants for the second phase of the study (assessment proformas,

recording, and interviews) ................................................................................................................ 90

4.6.4. Validity and reliability .............................................................................................90

4.7. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 97

Chapter 5 : Quantitative data analysis.......................................................................... 99

5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 99

 viii
5.2. EFL learners’ perceptions of their self-regulated learning ......................................... 99

5.2.1. EFL learners’ perceptions of their planning skill in the SRL-SRS survey .............. 101

5.2.2. EFL learners’ perceptions of their self-monitoring skills in the SRL-SRS survey .. 105

5.2.3. EFL learners’ perceptions of their evaluation strategy in the SRL-SRS survey .... 110

5.2.4. EFL learners’ perceptions of their reflection strategy in the SRL-SRS survey ...... 115

5.2.5. EFL learners’ perceptions of their effort in the SRL-SRS survey .......................... 119

5.2.6. EFL learners’ perceptions of their self-efficacy in the SRL-SRS survey ................ 124

5.2.7. EFL learners’ overall perceptions of their self-regulated learning in the SRL-SRS

survey 129

5.3. EFL learners’ critical thinking skills ......................................................................... 131

5.4. The relationship between EFL learners’ perceptions of their self-regulated learning

and their critical thinking skills ........................................................................................... 137

5.5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 140

Chapter 6 : Quantitative and qualitative data analysis ............................................... 142

6.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 142

6.2. Analysis Method and Process ................................................................................. 142

6.2.1. Audio recordings ................................................................................................. 142

6.2.2. Self-assessment proforma ................................................................................... 143

6.2.3. Interviews Analysis Method and Process ............................................................ 144

6.2.3.1. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis .................................................................. 145

6.3. Findings ................................................................................................................. 150

6.3.1. Learners’ perceptions and experiences of traditional speaking assessment ...... 150

6.3.1.1. The use of traditional speaking assessments ............................................................... 151

6.3.1.2. Challenges linked with traditional speaking assessment ............................................. 152

6.3.2. Learners’ perceptions and experiences of self-assessment in speaking classes . 152

6.3.2.1. The use of self-assessment in speaking classes ........................................................... 153

6.3.2.2. The benefits of self-assessment ................................................................................... 155

6.3.2.3. The significance of the self-assessment proforma ....................................................... 158

 ix
6.3.3. Learners’ perceptions and experiences of feedback in speaking classes ............ 159

6.3.3.1. Perceptions of receiving feedback ............................................................................... 160

6.3.4.2. Sources of feedback ..................................................................................................... 161

6.4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 163

Chapter 7 : Findings and Discussion ............................................................................ 165

7.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 165

7.2. How do EFL students perceive the implementation of self-assessment in speaking

classes, especially in relation to their speaking language achievement? ............................. 166

7.2.1. EFL learners’ prior experience with traditional speaking assessment ................ 166

7.2.2. Learners’ perceptions and experiences of self-assessment in speaking classes . 170

7.2.3. Learners’ perceptions and experiences of feedback in speaking classes ............ 172

7.3.4. The impact of learners’ perceptions and experiences of self-assessment in

speaking classes on their language achievement. ................................................................ 179

7.3. What influence does self-assessment in speaking have on EFL students regarding

their self-regulated learning and critical thinking skills. ...................................................... 180

7.3.1. The impact of learners’ perceptions and experiences of self-assessment in

speaking classes on their self-regulated learning. ................................................................ 180

7.3.2. The impact of learners’ perceptions and experiences of self-assessment in

speaking classes on their critical thinking skills. ................................................................... 184

7.4. What is the association between students’ perceptions regarding the influence of

self-assessment in speaking on their self-regulation and their critical thinking? ................. 185

7.4. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 186

Chapter 8 : Conclusion ................................................................................................ 188

8.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 188

8.2. Critical reflection on the research aim and its contribution .......................................... 189

8.2.1. Learners’ support for a shift from assessment of learning to assessment for learning

.............................................................................................................................................. 189
 x
8.2.2. Using self-assessment to promote deep learning, self-regulated learning, and critical

thinking ................................................................................................................................. 190

8.2.3. Self-assessment intervention and proforma as mediating artefacts. ......................... 191

8.2.4. The significance of feedback from family and friends ................................................ 194

8.3. Recommendations from the study ............................................................................... 198

8.3.1. Recommendations for educational policy and higher education institutes ............... 199

8.3.2. Recommendations for practice .................................................................................. 200

8.4. Limitations of the study and recommendations for future research ............................. 201

8.5. Reflection .................................................................................................................... 202

BIBLIIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................... 204

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 236

 xi
List of tables

Table 3-1 Self-regulation versus self-regulated learning ................................................................................. 27

Table 3-2 A summary of critical thinking components .................................................................................... 36

Table 3-3 a list of micro- and macro-skills of speaking (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2004)................................ 58

Table 4-1 Summary of the five fundamental philosophical research paradigms in social science research

(Saunders et al., 2019, p. 144) ......................................................................................................................... 69

Table 4-2 Speaking tasks administered during weeks 1 to 8 of ELI_102. ........................................................ 79

Table 4-3 Interpretive approaches to evaluative criteria (Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2015) ........................... 92

Table 4-4 Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) techniques to achieve trustworthiness ................................................. 93
st
Table 4-5 1 Reliability statistics of speaking task .......................................................................................... 96
nd
Table 4-6 2 Reliability statistics of speaking task ......................................................................................... 96

Table 5-1 Descriptive statistics for the full sample on perceptions regarding planning on the pre- and post-

SRL-SRS survey for all statements ................................................................................................................. 102

Table 5-2 Descriptive statistics of the full sample scores of the planning section in the pre- and post-SRL-SRS

survey ............................................................................................................................................................ 104

Table 5-3 Statistical difference of the panning section in the pre and post-SRL-SRS survey ......................... 105

Table 5-4 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s perceptions of self-monitoring skills in the pre- and post-

SRL-SRS survey ............................................................................................................................................... 106

Table 5-5 Descriptive statistics of the full sample scores of the self-monitoring section in the pre- and post-

SRL-SRS survey ............................................................................................................................................... 109

Table 5-6 Statistical difference of the self-monitoring section in the pre and post-SRL-SRS survey .............. 109

Table 5-7 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s perceptions of their evaluation skills in the pre- and post-

SRL-SRS survey ............................................................................................................................................... 111

Table 5-8 Descriptive statistics of the full sample scores of the evaluation section in the pre- and post SRL-

SRS survey...................................................................................................................................................... 114

Table 5-9 Statistical difference of the evaluation section in the pre and post-SRL-SRS survey ..................... 114

Table 5-10 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s perceptions of their reflection skills in the pre- and post

SRL-SRS survey ............................................................................................................................................... 116

Table 5-11 Descriptive statistics of the full sample scores of the reflection section in the pre- and post SRL-

SRS survey...................................................................................................................................................... 118

 xii
Table 5-12 Statistical difference of the reflection section in the pre and post-SRL-SRS survey ..................... 118

Table 5-13 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s perceptions of their effort in the pre- and post-SRL-SRS

survey ............................................................................................................................................................ 120

Table 5-14 Descriptive statistics of the full sample scores of the effort section in the pre- and post SRL-SRS

survey ............................................................................................................................................................ 123

Table 5-15 Statistical difference of the effort section in the pre and post-SRL-SRS survey ........................... 123

Table 5-16 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s perceptions of their effort in the pre- and post-SRL-SRS

survey ............................................................................................................................................................ 125

Table 5-17 Descriptive statistics of the full sample scores of the self-efficacy section in the pre- and post SRL-

SRS survey...................................................................................................................................................... 128

Table 5-18 Statistical difference of the self-efficacy section in the pre and post-SRL-SRS survey ................. 129

Table 5-19 Descriptive statistics of the full sample scores of the overall SRL from the pre- and post SRL-SRS

survey ............................................................................................................................................................ 130

Table 5-20 Statistical difference of the overall SRL in the pre and post-SRL-SRS survey ............................... 130

Table 5-21 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s grades of the infer section in the pre- and post-CTA .. 132

Table 5-22 Statistical difference of the infer section in pre- and post-CTA ................................................... 132

Table 5-23 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s grades of the recognise assumptions section in the pre-

and post-CTA ................................................................................................................................................. 133

Table 5-24 Statistical difference of the recognize assumptions section in pre- and post-CTA ...................... 133

Table 5-25 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s grades on the deduce section in the pre- and post-CTA

....................................................................................................................................................................... 134

Table 5-26 Statistical difference of the deduce section in pre- and post-CTA ............................................... 134

Table 5-27 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s grades of the interpret section in the pre- and post-CTA

....................................................................................................................................................................... 134

Table 5-28 Statistical difference of the interpret section in pre- and post-CTA ............................................. 135

Table 5-29 Descriptive statistics of the full sample grades of the evaluation argument section in the pre and

post CTA ........................................................................................................................................................ 135

Table 5-30 Statistical difference of the evaluation arguments section in pre- and post-CTA ........................ 136

Table 5-31 Descriptive statistics of the full sample grades of the total score in the pre and post CTA ......... 136

Table 5-32 Statistical difference of the total score in pre- and post-CTA ...................................................... 136
 xiii
Table 5-33 Spearman’s rho correlation matrix between self-regulated learning skills and critical thinking of

the full sample prior to and after the intervention ........................................................................................ 139

Table 6-1 Descriptive statistics of speaking achievement of 10 EFL learners ................................................ 143

Table 6-2 Statistical difference of achievement in the first and last audio recordings .................................. 143

Table 6-3 Samples of traces of the use of SRL Strategies from self-assessment proforma ........................... 144

Table 6-4 Initial list of Themes....................................................................................................................... 146

Table 6-5 Clusters of initial themes ............................................................................................................... 148

Table 6-6 Sample of occurrences of cluster of themes .................................................................................. 149

Table 6-7 Sample of participants’ quotes used to identify a theme .............................................................. 149

Table 6-8 List of final themes ........................................................................................................................ 150

 xiv
List of figures

Figure 2-1 The global English circle model (adapted from Kachru et al., 2009) .............................................. 11

Figure 3-1 Integrated self-regulated learning model (adapted Manso-Vázquez et al., 2018, p. 42469) ........ 29

Figure 4-1 Integrated self-regulated learning model (adapted from Manso-Vázquez et al. (2018) ............... 81

Figure 8-1 diagrammatic mediating artefacts for the self-assessment intervention .................................... 193
 xv
List of Appendices

Appendix A: Descriptors of the common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR)…….……230

Appendix B: a sample of the pacing guides…………………………………………………………………………………………….231

Appendix C: Ethical approval………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….233

Appendix D: Participants information sheet (PIS)…………………………………………………………………………………..234

Appendix E: Consent form……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..236

Appendix F: Self-Regulation of Learning Self-Report Scale (SRL-SRS)……………………………………………………..237

Appendix G: Translation permission……………………………………………………………………………………………………..240

Appendix H: Self-assessment proforma………………………………………………………………………………………………...241

Appendix I: manual analysis of interview……………………………………………………………………………………………...243

 xvi
Acknowledgments

Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to Allah for giving me the strength to
complete this thesis.

I also offer special thanks and gratitude to my first and second supervisors Doctor
Georgina Wardle and Professor Louise Hayward for their guidance, support, assistance,
and commitment throughout this journey. Thank you for always pointing me in the right
direction towards achieving my dream. I learned a lot from your valuable insights, and I
am forever grateful.

My love and gratitude for all of my loved ones is indescribable, particularly my parents,
my husband, children, brother and sisters, and second family (my in-laws). Thank you for
everything and for always keeping me in your prayers. Without the inspiration and support
that you provided, I would not have been able accomplished this goal.

Special gratitude also goes to the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as
represented in the United Kingdom via the Ministry of Education and the Cultural Attaché
and the University of Jeddah (UJ) represented by the English language institute (ELI) for
granting me the scholarship and supporting me throughout this journey.
xvii
 1

Abbreviations

AaL Assessment as Learning

AfL Assessment for Learning
ALM Audio-Lingual Method
AoL Assessment of Learning
CLT communicative language teaching
CT Critical thinking
CTA Watson-Glaser II Critical Thinking Appraisal
EFL English as a Forging Language
ELT English Language Teaching
FA Formative Assessment
GMT Grammar Translation Method
HE Higher Education
HEI Higher Education Institute
KSA Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
IPA Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
LLL Life Long Learning
MoE Ministry of Education
SA Summative Assessment
SR Self-regulation
SRL Self-regulated learning
SRL-SRS Self-Regulation of Learning Self-Report Scale
UK United Kingdom of Britain
 1

Chapter 1 : Introduction

1.1. Introduction

As one of the three pillars in the educational system, namely curriculum, pedagogy, and
assessment, assessment plays a significant role in the development of education, including
in processes such as teaching, learning, and decision-making (Coombs et al., 2018). Rather
than merely an extra step at the end of the teaching and learning process, assessment is an
integral part of the process according to Brown and Glasner (1999). In fact, assessment can
influence the learning process in beneficial ways to improve students' learning. It can
involve the students in meaningful learning and help them to understand how well they are
progressing and what else they must do to advance their learning (Brown & Glasner,
1999). It can, thus, inform future learning and prepare students for lifelong learning (LLL).
However, to accomplish these goals, assessment needs adjustment and reform (Boud &
Falchikov, 2007). Considering the rising need to improve the quality of education to
address and overcome social and economic problems, many countries have come to view
assessment as playing an increasingly important strategic role in education policy
formation (Livingston & Hutchinson, 2017). Consequently, many countries around the
world have attempted to make significant modifications and reforms in their assessment
systems and curricula over the past two decades, and Saudi Arabia is no exception.

In 2006, assessment emerged as the practice that required the most reformation and
improvement in a report on quality assessment of education programmes by the United
Nations Development Programme Regional Bureau for Arab States (UNDP/RBAS, 2006)
in 23 Arab higher education institutions (HEI), including Saudi Arabian HEI. Assessment
in Saudi Arabia is mostly seen as a means of grading students on the basis of the
information they have acquired by the end of the academic year or course (Darandari &
Murphy, 2013). This view of assessment leads to teacher-centred classrooms, in which the
teacher is the source of information while students tend to be passive receivers of
knowledge (Heywood, 2000). The teacher-centred approach can hinder the development of
lifelong skills that could otherwise empower learners and improve their learning
(Heywood, 2000). Thus, a transition from assessment as judgement is needed to support
learning and help students become self-regulated learners and develop lifelong skills like
critical thinking. This transition, however, is not free from challenge due to the top-down
 2
assessment policy, which is the dominant state model in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
(KSA), and the strong influence of traditional views of teaching, learning, and assessment
(Do Quyen & Khairani, 2017).

Over the last decade, higher education (HE) in Saudi Arabia has begun to question its
dependence on teacher-centred classroom, including traditional assessment methods
(Darandari & Murphy, 2013). However, despite attempts to shift from the teacher-centred
and traditional assessment approaches to a new assessment culture, traditional assessment
practices still dominate in Saudi Arabia, especially in the English language courses in HE
(Almossa, 2021). Hence, assessment approaches should be reconsidered and reframed
specifically in English language courses in higher education to boost the quality of learning
in Saudi Arabia and develop learners’ lifelong skills.

1.2. The motivation for the study

Personal and cultural reasons have motivated me to investigate the impact of self-
assessment in speaking classrooms on English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ self-
regulated learning and critical thinking in the Saudi Arabian EFL context.

This research was first inspired by my personal desire to see self-assessment, self-regulated
learning, and critical thinking extensively acknowledged and practised in Saudi higher
education. My initial exposure to the concepts of self-regulated learning and critical
thinking occurred during my master's (MA) in TESOL, which I took in Saudi Arabia. I was
immediately intrigued by the concepts and began analysing and contrasting my own
learning behaviour during my MA with my past learning behaviour during my Bachelor’s
(BA) in English Language, which I also took in Saudi Arabia. During my MA, I
experienced self-regulated learning, in contrast to my BA, in which students were
encouraged to be passive receivers in class, where the focus was always on the instructor
as the source of information. Experiencing self-regulated learning made me feel that
undergraduates in Saudi Arabia should have access to these opportunities for learning to
develop skills for the future, or LLL skills. In addition, from my own teaching experience
in a higher education institute (HEI) in KSA, I have noticed that the majority of students
adopt a passive role instead of engaging and trying to take an active role in class. My
students tended to wait for information and directions from the teacher. This teaching
experience, in turn, further inspired me to investigate and gain initial insights into how
Saudi learners perceive the notion of self-regulated learning.
 3
Consequently, I asked the students in my English language classes about the idea of self-
regulated learning to gain a sense of their broad thoughts on the concept. Self-regulated
learning seemed to be a new concept to the students, yet there was a favourable response in
terms of its potential benefits, and some students asked about how to implement and
develop this approach to learning. However, research in EFL has suggested that effective
learning in EFL requires not only self-regulated learning but also critical thinking (see, for
example, Ghanizadeh (2017); Ghanizadeh and Mirzaee (2012); Kamgar and Jadidi (2016)).
I decided then to pursue an investigation into the concept in higher education in Saudi
Arabia as a contribution to enhancing the standard of language learning in the Saudi HEIs
and assisting the learners in developing LLL skills.

As a person who has lived, studied, and worked in educational settings in Saudi Arabia, I
have experienced the obstacles of EFL learning as a student and observed them as a
teacher. Assessment in Saudi Arabia is mostly seen as a means of grading students on the
basis of the information they have acquired by the end of the academic year or course
(Darandari & Murphy, 2013). Adherence to traditional teaching and assessment practices
continues in HE particularly in the English language courses, notwithstanding efforts to
shift from the traditional teaching and assessment culture (Almossa, 2021). This
emphasises the need to shift away from traditional practices of assessment to support
enhancing the quality of learning in English language courses in higher education in KSA.

In recent years, Panadero et al. (2017) and Brown and Harris (2014) proposed and tested
self-assessment as a practical instructional strategy that drew on formative assessment to
support self-regulated learning. Specifically, the researchers tested its effectiveness in
promoting self-regulated learning and learners’ empowerment, and improving learning.
However, what is effective in a context where English is the native language of students
may not necessarily be effective in a context where English is taught and learnt as a foreign
language. Panadero et al. (2018), in a review paper, noted that most research on formative
assessment and self-regulated learning has presented the findings as though they are
generally applicable; thus, more attention should be given to researching the relationship
across various educational contexts (Panadero et al., 2018).

Therefore, prior to implementing any changes or reforms, there is a requirement to study,

identify, and discuss information and practices related to the impact and experience of self-
assessment in the Saudi context. More precisely, the impact of self-assessment on self-
regulated learning, critical thinking skills, and achievement must be examined, as that
 4
impact may be unique and perceived differently in the Saudi Arabian context.
Additionally, learners’ perceptions and experience within the learning process are
fundamental to the success or failure of any attempts to reform assessment (Kamgar &
Jadidi, 2016). Several researchers have highlighted the importance of investigating
assessment practices from language learners’ perspectives (Alhamami, 2019; Borg &
Edmett, 2019; Kalra et al., 2017; Tong, 2011). Therefore, it is also significant to explore
EFL learners’ perceptions and experience of self-assessment and its impact on learners’
self-regulated learning, critical thinking, and speaking language achievement. Notably, no
research has investigated the effect of self-assessment on learners' self-regulated learning
and critical thinking in Saudi Arabia, particularly in English language courses in HE. I
decided to pursue an investigation into the influence of self-assessment on learners’ self-
regulated learning, critical thinking, and language achievement in HE in Saudi Arabia to
contribute to the provision of an evidence base that could be used to help enhance the
language learning quality in higher education and assist undergraduates in developing LLL
skills.

1.3. Significance of the study and research gap

This research investigates the impact of self-assessment on learners’ self-regulated learning

and critical thinking in EFL speaking classes. Relatively few studies have addressed this
topic from the learners’ perspective, despite wide recognition of the critical role of
learners’ perceptions. Of the studies that have addressed this topic (see, for example,
Kahrizi et al. (2014) and Ghanizadeh and Mirzaee (2012)), none have addressed it in the
context of Saudi Arabia. The topic of self-regulated learning and critical thinking at the
higher education level is critical to the Saudi government's 2030 vision and its goal of
developing a knowledge economy. A knowledge economy emerges with increasing usage
of knowledge-based outputs obtained via intellectual capabilities; such knowledge-
intensive tasks demand independent thinkers who are capable of creating and solving
problems (Powell & Snellman, 2004). Despite the topic's relevance in the Saudi context,
this research gap remains. These subjects, as well as the relationship between self-
regulated learning and critical thinking, have not been thoroughly examined in higher
education and in an EFL context.

In this research, which is situated within an EFL context, there is a need to investigate and
comprehend learners' perspectives of self-assessment, as well as to comprehend how it
supported or impeded student learning and development. The hope is that this research
 5
increases interest in the implementation of innovative assessment in EFL classes in KSA.
The findings of this research may be used to encourage language teachers in the Saudi
context to consider implementing self-assessment in the English language classroom as a
means to empower learners through promoting self-regulated learning and critical thinking
and thus improve the quality of learning. The findings of this research may also provide
stakeholders and teachers in Saudi higher education with a framework of knowledge on
how students perceive the use and impact of self-assessment and stimulate questions,
opportunities, and possibilities for its applicability. Such a framework could help educators
to overcome difficulties in self-assessment implementation with English language learners
who lack experience in self-assessment.

1.4. The purpose of the study

The aim of this research is to explore in depth the participants’ perspectives and experience
of self-assessment in speaking classrooms and the impact of self-assessment on learners’
self-regulatory skills, critical thinking, and speaking language performance within the EFL
context. This study also examines the relationship between learners’ self-regulated learning
and their critical thinking. The participants were EFL learners in their preparatory year at a
higher education institution where they are learning English.

1.5. The research questions

The following questions were formulated to address the aim of this research:

1) How do EFL students perceive the implementation of self-assessment in speaking

classes, especially in relation to their speaking language achievement?
2) What influence does self-assessment in speaking have on EFL students regarding:
(a) their self-regulated learning in English language speaking?
(b) their critical thinking skills?
3) What is the association between students’ perceptions regarding the influence of self-
assessment in speaking on their self-regulated learning and their critical thinking?

1.6. Thesis structure

In the first chapter (Introduction), the rationale for the study is established and the
purposes of this research are defined. This chapter has also outlined the study’s
 6
significance and the gap and research questions that the study aimed to address. The Saudi
Arabian context, which serves as the context for this study, is thoroughly described in the
second chapter of this thesis, Context of the Study: Saudi Arabia. This second chapter
details the Saudi education system and discusses the system’s objectives in relation to this
research. A comprehensive understanding of the significance of the English language and
its function in the Saudi setting and education system is also provided in this chapter.
Finally, the chapter provides a synopsis of the materials, objectives, approaches, and
assessment used in English language teaching in Saudi Arabia.

The third chapter, namely Literature review, offers a thorough review of the relevant
literature to this study. This chapter first discusses the concepts of self-regulated learning
and critical thinking and considers the connection between the two. The chapter then
presents and discusses the key concepts, the conceptualisation of assessment over time, and
self-assessment, including its definitions and its contextualisation in the constructivist and
sociocultural paradigms. Finally, the chapter explores the potential of self-assessment as a
means of enhancing critical thinking and self-regulated learning in an EFL context. In the
fourth chapter, the methodology employed in gathering the data and the data analysis in the
study is outlined. This chapter presents the rationale for using a mixed methods approach
and the advantages associated with that approach and discusses the tools used to collect the
data and the rationale for the study sample. Additionally, it details the steps taken to ensure
that the study upheld all applicable ethical standards. Finally, the chapter considers validity
and reliability in detail. The next two chapters present findings from the analysis.

The fifth chapter in this thesis, which contains the Quantitative data analysis, outlines the
methods and processes used in the analysis of the pre- and post-tests and presents the
findings of both tests. In turn, the sixth chapter, which contains Quantitative and
qualitative data analysis, outlines the methods and processes used in the analysis of
learners’ audio recordings and self-assessment proforma and presents its findings. This
chapter also outlines the methods and processes used in the analysis of the semi-structured
interviews with the EFL learners, and presents the main themes drawn from the interviews.

In order to address the research questions, the seventh chapter (Discussion) discusses the
findings of this research, presented in the fifth and sixth chapters, together to situate the
findings in the context of wider literature. The last chapter in this thesis provides a
conclusion for the study by summarising and reflecting on the research key findings. It also
identifies possible implications for educational policy and higher education institutes and
 7
practice. It identifies the limitations of the study and offers several recommendations for
further studies.
 8
Chapter 2 : Context of the Study (Saudi Arabia)

2.1. Introduction

The chapter outlines the background and context of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA),
within which this research is situated. It reviews the English language teaching history in
Saudi Arabia by tracking the ways in which, over time, thinking has changed about the
teaching of English. The chapter then examines how the English language was
incorporated into Saudi education over time. The chapter continues by describing the
education system in Saudi Arabia and analyses education policies and objectives in the
Saudi context that are of particular relevance to this study. Finally, the chapter reflects on
English language materials, teaching methods, and assessment used in the Saudi EFL
context.

2.2. Profile of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is a Muslim Arab country founded by King Abdul-
Aziz Al-Saud in 1902 (Nonneman, 2001). It is situated in the south-west region of Asia
and is thus geographically at a crossroads between Africa, Europe, and Asia. It is split into
13 administrative divisions, or regions, including Riyadh, the capital, in the central area;
Dammam and Jeddah, the two principal ports; Makkah and Medina, the Islamic holy cities;
and Abha, in the southern region. The Saudi Arabian economy was modest till World War
II, relying on subsistence farming, limited commerce, pearl fishing, camel exports, and the
income earned from people paying to undertake pilgrimage to one of the world’s major
religious sites. Although oil was discovered in the eastern region in 1938, it was not widely
utilised until the Arab American Company was founded in 1946 (Al-Sadan, 2000). Since
then, Saudi wealth has influenced every part of society, altering societal values, increasing
educational and healthcare possibilities, and enhancing the standard of living (Al-Sadan,
2000). Moreover, with the two holy cities for all Muslims, Makkah and Medina, the KSA
is widely considered to be the heartland of Islam. The Arabic language, which is the holy
Quran's and Islam's sacred language, is the official language in Saudi Arabia, and all
elements of society, including the education system, are governed by it (Oyaid, 2009).
 9
2.3. Saudi education system

The education system in Saudi Arabia, which includes general education and higher
education, focuses on the teaching of Islam, has a centralised system of supervision and
educational assistance, receives governmental funding (thus, education is free at all levels
in the KSA), and has a general policy of gender segregation (Smith & Abouammoh, 2013).
The Saudi educational system follows a top-down policy in which the Ministry of
Education (MoE) is permitted by the Saudi government to make all decisions on education,
including curriculum, instructional practices, and educational materials. (Nunan, 1989). In
general education, there are 12 years of education: six years of primary or elementary
education (ages 6–12 years old), three years of intermediate education (ages 13–15), and
three years of secondary education (ages 16–18). Higher education in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia is a relatively new concept, with the first university being founded in 1957.
The Higher Committee for Educational Policy in the MoE, which is accountable for both
general and higher education, defines the objectives of Saudi education based on the
teachings of Islam as follows:

1. To provide learners with the vital information and abilities to become valuable
members of society.
2. To develop learners’ sense of cultural, economic, and social issues and prepare
them to contribute to these problems’ solutions.
3. To reinforce individuals’ dignity and give individuals equal opportunities to
develop their skills to participate in the development of the country.
4. To motivate and develop scientific research and thinking, strengthen the ability
to observe and reflect, and enlighten students about the signs and miracles of
God in the universe all in order to enable the students to play an effective role
in building social life and properly directing it.
5. To teach learners about great achievements in literature, science, and other
fields, revealing that scientific progress results from the efforts of all mankind.
6. To develop mathematical thinking, arithmetical skills, reading skills, and
reading habits and to train students in the use of the language of figures and its
applications in the scientific field.
7. To teach students to express themselves correctly in speech and in writing.
8. To teach students at least one foreign language so they can benefit from it.
9. To view each student as an individual and direct them and help them to grow in
a way best suited to their abilities.
10. To give students the opportunity to do manual work and gain experience in
laboratories and in building and agricultural work.
11. To study the scientific principles of various activities in order to encourage
progress and innovation in mechanical production.

(MoE, 1970)

The policy context for this study might seem favourable, as it could be argued that most of
 10
the objectives in the Educational Policy highlight the importance of self-assessment, self-
regulated learning, and critical thinking in learning and require students to improve and
develop these skills in order to achieve these objectives. Promoting self-assessment, self-
regulated learning, and critical thinking could offer opportunities to achieve these
objectives in learning.

For example, three objectives concern encouraging learning that could help students take
on active roles in their society (objectives 1, 2 and 3). Promoting self-assessment, self-
regulated learning, and critical thinking have the potential to help students be active
members of their society, as well as actors capable of solving social and cultural problems.
Namely, self-assessment supports learners to participate actively in the assessment process,
prompting them to think more deeply and develop crucial cognitive skills such as critical
thinking, collaboration, decision-making, self-monitoring and regulation, and problem-
solving; self-assessment pushes learners to criticise constructively and suggests
improvements, reflect, and make sensible judgements (Sung et al., 2005). The role of self-
assessment in the learning process is discussed later in Chapter 3 (Section 3.3, p. 38). Thus,
the impact of self-assessment, self-regulated learning, and critical thinking on learning
could enable students to become better learners. These factors could lead students to
become more skilful and able to become active members in their societies. Such graduates
could participate in resolving social issues instead of only acquiring knowledge; indeed,
knowledge alone is insufficient to enable learners to participate and be involved in their
societies. Moreover, the educational objectives of Saudi Arabia place importance on the
individual as a part of the society. Objective 9 emphasises the role and the growth of the
individual and highlights the importance of providing guidance based on an individual’s
unique abilities. Introducing self-assessment and self-regulated learning in the Saudi
education system would encourage independence and enrich the view of individuality.
Self-assessment and self-regulated learning enable learners to reflect on their learning and
to connect with their existing knowledge and, in turn, may prompt students to learn by
themselves. Students could thus attain several objectives of the education system in Saudi
Arabia through employing strategies of self-assessment. This thesis returns to these three
concepts (self-assessment, self-regulated learning, and critical thinking) in Chapter 3.

Another of the Saudi’s Educational Policy’s objectives, Objective 8, highlights the

importance of introducing at least one foreign language into the curriculum. In this case,
the English language has been chosen by the Saudi government. The ability to use the
English language has grown in significance, predominantly in business and education, with
 11
the spread of globalisation (Nouraldeen & Elyas, 2014). Additionally, the necessity for the
English language in global communication has contributed to the spread of language
(Nouraldeen & Elyas, 2014). Kachru et al. (2009) identified three categories of English
that are frequently referred to as the three concentric circles of English; together, these are
sometimes referred to as the global English circle model. This model includes the inner
circle, the outer circle, and the expanding circle (Figure 2-1). The inner circle denotes
nations where English is spoken as a first language, such as the United States, the United
Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, and indicates the origins of the English
language (Kachru et al., 2009). The outer circle denotes nations where the English
language was introduced through colonialism; English is used as a second language
alongside the country's primary language, even in official communications in these
countries. Outer circle nations include Malaysia, India, and several African countries
(Kachru et al., 2009). The last circle, the expanding circle, includes nations where English
as a foreign language (EFL) is spoken but not widely utilised and has no significant role.
The expanding circle refers to the remaining countries around the world, such as China,
Korea, and Saudi Arabia (Kachru et al., 2009). Saudi Arabia recognises the importance of
the English language in international communication. Hence, English is the only foreign
language introduced as a compulsory subject in the Saudi education system, and it is
currently taught in primary (from grade two, which is around 7–8 years old), intermediate
and secondary schools, and higher education.

Figure 2-1 The global English circle model (adapted from Kachru et al., 2009)
 12
Regardless, as Al-Issa (2009), Qahtani (2010), and Alharbi and Madhesh (2018) crucially
observed, the policies and purposes of the Saudi education system were developed in 1970;
and since then, few changes have emerged. The lack of change remains the basis of much
criticism despite the presence of critical thinking, self-regulated learning, and self-
assessment in the Educational Policy objectives. It is no longer logical or rational to apply
the same policy and purposes with the same words that were designed for a different era;
this language, at the very least, needs refining and reforming in accordance with the
present context and requirements (Qahtani, 2010). Al-Issa (2009) argued that cultural and
societal changes lead to alterations in educational systems and policies. Al-Issa (2009)
proposed that a new educational policy should embrace change through encouraging
discovery, searching, and inquiry and the strengthening of mental abilities among the new
generations; such areas of growth subsequently enhance students’ cognitive and
metacognitive skills and, ultimately, their prospective productivity, while providing
students with the skills and knowledge to succeed in their individual and social lives.

However, to date, relatively little research has been undertaken that has focused
specifically on the Saudi education system, especially related to policies, strategies, and
initiatives for assessment that define assessment objectives, strategies, and implementation.
This lack of research is particularly concerning in light of the release of the National
Transformation Programme and Saudi Vision 2030 in 2016. This vision aims to reduce
Saudi Arabia's reliance on oil and to ensure the Kingdom is a thriving society, a prosperous
economy, and an ambitious nation (Saudi-Vision-2030, 2016). The Saudi Vision is
dedicated to developing a prosperous country in which all residents may accomplish their
aspirations. This vision is also supported by the MoE and its educational policy; however,
to achieve this vision, the country should reform its education system with a focus on
connecting education objectives with economic development to produce a skilled and
educated workforce that can advance the nation economically.

Significantly, as Alharbi and Madhesh (2018) noted, the Educational Policy is the main
policy followed by all schools and higher education institutions in the KSA, and the
English language is the only foreign language that has been introduced as a compulsory
subject in the Saudi education system, a fact also emphasised by Gaffas (2019). Therefore,
prior to taking any action, it is necessary to investigate what would work best in the Saudi
Arabian context. The following section addresses the historical background of the English
language in Saudi Arabia.
 13
2.4. English language in Saudi Arabia

As identified in Section 2.2 of this chapter, the oil discovery in the KSA in the 20th
century, affected every aspect of life and changed social values. It resulted in significant
economic expansion, which in turn resulted in the hiring of a large number of workers
from foreign countries including the Philippines, Indonesia, India, and Pakistan (Al-Sadan,
2000). These workers came to work in different locations around the country such as
governmental and private companies, banks, and hospitals. The resulting need to interact
with the international community, as well as with international workers within Saudi
Arabia, encouraged the Saudi people to learn the English language due to its importance in
the international community (Al-Motairi, 2005). Accordingly, English Language Teaching
(ELT) and learning in the Saudi area began to increase (Javid et al., 2012). Four reasons
for teaching English in Saudi schools were highlighted by Al-Hajailan (2003). First,
English is regarded as the first global language spoken in both the East and the West.
Second, most published resources, including international research, are written in English.
Third, English is the international language of business and commerce. Lastly, it is the
United Nations' official language, and it is spoken in most nations for a variety of reasons
including trade, education, and tourism. Consequently, Al-Seghayer (2011) highlighted
that, following the establishment of the Directorate of Education in 1923, the government
of Saudi Arabia introduced English as a compulsory intermediate education course in
1927.

Between 1923 and 1953, the Directorate of Education introduced a variety of educational
goals pertaining to English Language Teaching (ELT). One example was the introduction
of ELT into the curriculum in Saudi Arabia in 1948 through the establishment of an
industrial school, or a training school that teaches students the skills they need to work in
industry, with a curriculum adopted from Egypt and Egyptian teaching staff. The industrial
school taught the usual theoretical subjects including science and mathematics, the
practical subjects appropriate to a vocational school, and the English language (Al-Subahi,
1988; Lebeeb, 1993). Nonetheless, the syllabus was deemed to be unsuitable for the needs
of Saudi students, since it no longer matched the criteria of the Saudi education system and
did not contribute to its primary goals (Al-Subahi, 1988). The 1960s witnessed the
appearance of the first comprehensive English curriculum in both intermediate and
secondary schools. This curriculum continued until the 1970s, as reported by Al-Seghayer
(2005), when policy changes led to eight hours of English teaching per week being reduced
to six. However, in the 1980s, a new English curriculum known as Saudi Arabian Schools
 14
English (SASE) was launched and replaced the previous programme, which was deemed
not appropriate for learners’ linguistic requirements. The new English programme set out
to reach the goals of the Saudi students’ requirements (Al-Subahi, 1988).

Another initiative in English Language Teaching (ELT) was launched by native-speaking

(NS) specialists in the 1990s and implemented under the formal supervision of King Fahd
University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), the university where the NS specialists
worked (Al-Seghayer, 2011). The MoE initiated this programme by releasing a series of
intermediate and secondary school textbooks entitled English for Saudi Arabia (Al-
Seghayer, 2011). Nonetheless, Almulhim (2001) argued that these textbooks may not have
been suitable at that time in the Saudi context; thus, have been found unsuitable for the
learners' requirements. Indeed, the textbooks have been criticised for neglecting certain
aspects of Saudi society and culture. Until then, English had been taught in intermediate
and secondary schools; however, since evidence reveals that the majority of high school
and college graduates in Saudi Arabia had low levels in English language proficiency (Al-
Seghayer, 2005), the Higher Committee on education policy in the MOE designed a new
programme. The new programme aimed to introduce English into primary schools initially
at the sixth grade (2004) and then later in the fourth grade (2008) as a further attempt to
improve English learning (Elyas, 2008).

Considering the significance of the English language in the international community (Al-
Motairi, 2005), English has been taught at all levels of higher education in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia, including universities, military academies, and technical and vocational
schools. When King Fahad University was formed in 1975, it was the first to use English
as a medium of instruction, as was King Abdullah University of Science and Technology
(KAUST) on its foundation in 2009. Moreover, in 2004 a major policy shift took place
when all universities in the KSA were required to introduce a preparatory year programme
that included a significant time allocation to ELT covering all aspects of English including
listening, speaking, reading, writing, grammar, and vocabulary (Al-Motairi, 2005). This
programme was gradually introduced in the universities over the next five years. Currently,
one of the requirements for acceptance into university departments in Saudi Arabia such as
engineering and medicine is an acceptable level of English. Additionally, English is the
language of instruction for a variety of courses in higher education in KSA, including
engineering, computer science, and medicine. The following section addresses the
objectives of teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in the KSA and the methods
and materials used.
 15
2.5. English language teaching objectives, materials, and approaches in
Saudi Arabia

Enhancing students’ language proficiency is considered as the main goal of teaching EFL
in the KSA. Al-Motairi (2005) argues that EFL in the KSA has been taught with the aim of
increasing students’ language proficiency in order to ensure students can access and
understand international references, since many publications in different fields are written
only in English. Thus, intellectual, personal, and professional development depends on
students’ English language ability. For example, the new English programme at one Saudi
higher education institution (HEI) aims to build students' English skills in key areas, both
academically and personally through building students' English proficiency in the four
language skills. Further, the programme aims to enhance these skills with linguistic and
lexical competencies as well as to develop thinking skills, presentation skills, and sub-
skills. Part of teaching English in institutions is also that developing students’ cognitive
skills is extremely important. Integrating strategies of self-assessment into EFL pedagogy
therefore makes sense, as doing so could help enhance learners’ competence in the
language as well as their cognitive skills and ultimately make them better learners. The
developments in English language teaching in the KSA, including the materials and
teaching methods, were all attempts to achieve the goal of improving the quality of EFL
teaching in the country.

In an attempt to improve learners’ language proficiency in the KSA, schools and

universities began to use textbooks and materials developed in countries where English is
the first language (Elyas, 2008). It is important to note that policy in the KSA does not
allow teachers to adapt textbooks to the needs of their learners or their learners’ situations;
without any deviation, teachers must adhere to the textbooks (GDA, 2013). This
inflexibility, according to Shah et al. (2013), could negatively impact the teaching and
learning process. It de-professionalises teachers and limits them to using only the
traditional teaching methods used in the textbooks, methods that tend to produce only
surface learning and passive acceptance of ideas and information. Shah et al. (2013)
discussed that additional factors are thought to influence English instructional methods
along with the ministry of education’s constraints on the content and methods of teaching
English in Saudi Arabia. EFL teachers in Saudi Arabia are all given the same syllabus,
along with standards and deadlines that they must adhere to. Additionally, instructors'
perceptions of language learning, as procedural memorising of grammar rules and
vocabulary, is another explanation for the dominance of traditional teaching approaches;
 16
teachers prefer to organise classes and content around a presentation of the information
that students must remember and acquire. Additionally, the perceptions of the instructors
regarding interaction with students only includes learners responding to questions posed by
the instructor. Teachers' perceptions and attitudes thus contribute to the development of an
exam-oriented culture.

Traditional teaching approaches to language teaching and learning, such as the grammar
translation method (GTM), the direct method, and the audio-lingual method (ALM), have
been commonly used in language teaching in the KSA (Al-Awaid, 2018; Al-Seghayer,
2005; Al-Seghayer, 2011, 2015; Khan, 2011; Mahmoud, 2012). These methods have also
been used around the world in language teaching. Today, though, these methods have been
rejected in most countries, as they have been shown to be ineffective in enhancing English
language proficiency and communicative competence (Griffiths & Parr, 2001). However,
in the KSA, these traditional teaching approaches are still in use. Predominantly, teacher-
led presentations and explanations of new language elements are used, with limited
possibilities for student involvement. In the KSA, GTM tends to be used the most in EFL
classrooms (Al-Seghayer, 2005; Al-Seghayer, 2011, 2015; Khan, 2011). Widespread use
of the GTM remains, despite the issues with its use. GTM has been deemed to be a
traditional, teacher-centred approach. It is underpinned, first and foremost, by conducting
an in-depth study and analysis of grammar rules and then applying the gained knowledge
into practice through translation assignments to practise translating to and from the target
language (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, 2014). In other words, GTM mainly concentrates on
the teacher’s presentation skills and translation. According to Richards and Rodgers (2001,
2014), GTM places a strong emphasis on comprehending the system of the foreign
language (English in the Saudi context) instead of using the English language in
communication. GTM concentrates on teaching rather than learning (Al Asmari, 2013).
GTM’s focus is limited to the application and mastery of linguistic patterns; it pays
insufficient attention to the use of those patterns in communicative situations. Thus, rather
than imparting communicative knowledge, GTM gives learners only formal and technical
knowledge. Teaching approaches like those advocated by GTM tend to offer only limited
opportunities to exercise self-regulated learning and critical thinking through self-
assessment. Such approaches encourage learners to be passive receivers during classes and
heavily dependent on their teachers rather than on themselves. Self-regulation or
articulation of thinking during learning is thus extremely challenging for learners
accustomed to such approaches.
 17
The direct method is another approach to teaching and learning that is still widely used by
Saudi EFL teachers (Al-Seghayer, 2005; Al-Seghayer, 2011, 2015; Khan, 2011). The
direct method concentrates on vocabulary learning through presentations and then asking
questions to check students’ understanding (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, 2014). The direct
method also tends to keep learners as passive receivers of knowledge from their teachers; it
does not train learners to use or practise using the knowledge (Al-Seghayer, 2005). In
addition, Zaid (1993) claimed that, by applying the direct approach, EFL language
instructors sometimes implement cognitive code learning, which fosters the conscious
selection of important forms of grammar throughout the learning process. Cognitive code
learning heavily concentrates on correct grammar forms. Richards and Rodgers (2001,
2014) suggested that this method prioritises grammatical forms of the language over
meaning and argued that this may cause problems for students at the early stages of
language learning. To promote self-regulated learning and critical thinking in language
learning instead, teachers need to shift towards methodologies that elicit meaningful
interaction.

The audio lingual method is another approach to teaching and learning the English
language in Saudi Arabia (Al-Seghayer, 2005; Al-Seghayer, 2011, 2015; Khan, 2011;
Zaid, 1993). The ALM also focuses on structure and form rather than on meaning, and it
emphasises memorisation methods (Richards and Rodgers, 2001, 2014). The ALM is
dependent on teaching and learning foreign language through drilling and repetition of
words and grammatical rules in language laboratories (Castagnaro, 2006). This dependence
on such facilities is problematic given some schools lack the necessary facilities. Zaid
(1993) argued that EFL instructors incorporate ALM into their classes in order to adhere to
the established standards for English instruction. Zaid (1993) further argued that there is
minimal overlap between the objectives of education and the utilised methods in EFL
teaching and learning in the Saudi context. Namely, Zaid (1993) argued that the ALM,
which is grounded on drill and repetition, would be ineffective in improving learners'
cognitive abilities, which is a key objective of English instruction. Hence, the ALM is not
suitable for promoting self-regulated learning and critical thinking in English language
learning through self-assessment. It concentrates on repetition and memorisation, whereas
self-assessment, self-regulated learning, and critical thinking centre on enabling learners to
use their cognitive skills and enabling learners to make meaning of their learning.

All of the discussed teaching methods used in Saudi Arabia (the GTM, direct method, and
ALM) put greater emphasis on grammatical forms and content instead of practising the
 18
actual use of language in real-life situations. Accordingly, these methods are unlikely to
help learners to become active learners and develop their intellectual abilities;
consequently, these methods are unlikely to contribute to the achievement of the objective
of raising the quality of English language instruction in Saudi Arabia. To achieve this goal,
EFL teaching in the KSA needs to transform to learner-centred instead of teacher-centred.
This shift may be best achieved through the adoption of alternative pedagogical approaches
such as the communicative language teaching (CLT) approach, a student-centred approach
that shifts the focus from teachers to students. Mahmoud (2012) clarified that, in the late
1990s and early 2000s in the Saudi HE sector’s language instruction, the CLT approach
began to emerge and develop. This period is thus a significant period in terms of the focus
shifting from teacher-centred to learner-centred education.

Warschauer and Kern (2000) also observed that the traditional methods long practised in
language teaching, such as the ALM and GTM, began to be transplanted by the CLT
approach at the turn of the century. Hymes (1972), who originally developed the CLT
approach, prioritised communicative use of the actual language being learnt over simple
clarification of lexical, grammatical, and phonological sets of rules (Hiep, 2007).
Interactions within the communicative classroom indeed improve language learning more
than mere repetition of regular tasks (Consolo, 2006). CLT, as described by Richards and
Rodgers (2001, 2014), Brown (2000), Richards (2006), and Ariza and Zainuddin (2002),
consists of a set of norms and principles for language teaching that covers the objectives,
classroom activities, and responsibilities of the instructor and learners through
communication and interaction. It has been claimed by Brown (2000), Richards (2006),
Hiep (2007), and Ariza and Zainuddin (2002) that communicative competence is to be
regarded as the primary objective of language learning and deemed necessary for the
effective use of the target language. Communicative competence, as outlined by Richards
(2006), involves the ability to use a language in a variety of settings with a number of
diverse individuals and for a range of distinct objectives.

Within the context of the KSA, Cullen (1998) clarified that, in order to transition from
teacher-centred to learner-centred curricula, teachers across the country should be
encouraged to adapt CLT in EFL classrooms. Nevertheless, Al-Seghayer (2005) argued
that the CLT approach was not adopted within the EFL classroom as teachers showed no
interest in using CLT with EFL learners. Reluctance can be present, even though evidence
indicates that involving language learners in various communicative activities, as CLT,
could improve communicative competence (Ellis & Ellis, 1994). Al-Seghayer (2005) and
 19
Zaid (1993) suggested that perceiving reading and writing as the two vital language skills
in EFL teaching and learning by teachers in Saudi Arabia could lead to resistance among
teachers toward using CLT in classrooms. Alzaidi (2011) as well as Al-Seghayer (2015)
noted that, among the reasons for the continued use of traditional teaching techniques, is a
dearth of clear instructional resources on the implementation of CLT, insufficient training,
high curricular loads, and learners’ perceived lack of English proficiency; all of these
factors could negatively affect teachers’ implementation of CLT. Alzaidi (2011) and Al-
Seghayer (2015) findings further indicated that Saudi EFL instructors had a strong
theoretical foundation in the communicative language teaching approach and its concepts;
even more surprisingly, instructors appeared to have a favourable perspective about the
communicative language teaching approach. Nevertheless, in actual classroom practice, the
CLT approach was not being adopted by the teachers. Instead, traditional teaching methods
were still being used, just with new resources. Consequently, instead of assisting learners
in using and practising the English language through active learning, teachers spent most
of the class time concentrating on the delivering the content through the same old cognitive
skills, namely those related to the ability to memorise acquired information.

Al-Seghayer (2015) argued that one consequence of the adherence to traditional teaching
methods in the KSA is that context assessment is done only for summative purposes
through oral and written testing. Al-Seghayer (2015) further argued that a dominating
exam-oriented culture compels language instructors to do all possible to prepare pupils for
final exams and, as a result, to focus exclusively on the topics and material covered by the
tests. Indeed, Al-Sadan (2000) found that teachers’ main concern was the number of their
students who would pass exams. The adherence to traditional teaching methods is thus, at
least in part, a consequence of the current practices and purposes of assessment in the
Saudi context. Reconsidering current practices of English language assessment is therefore
essential. Educational assessment can enhance and develop the educational processes and
outcomes (Gordon & Rajagopalan, 2016). Accordingly, the following section addresses
assessment in the Saudi education system, particularly EFL assessment in higher
education.

2.6. English language assessment in higher education in the

KSA

The primary objective of assessment in KSA is to measure the educational curriculum's

outcome (Al-Saloom, 1987). Until recently, student assessment in universities has mainly
 20
supported a model that is norm-referenced and summative (Darandari & Murphy, 2013). In
Saudi Arabia, EFL assessment is viewed as a method of grading pupils according to their
acquired knowledge and skills by the conclusion of course or programme of study, with
formal examination serving as the primary means of gathering summative data (Darandari
& Murphy, 2013). Heywood (2000) argued that traditional assessment techniques, as
examinations, have been claimed to produce surface learning and raise student anxiety.
This, according to (Hughes, 2003), is a result of the fact that examinations are mostly
intended to assess students' performance on previously taught courses.

To illustrate, in higher education, student assessment is commonly undertaken in two parts:

midterms and quizzes during the semester (with only 10–15% being dedicated to oral
tests), which account for up to 60% of the assessment, and the final examination, which
accounts for the other 40% of the assessment. The tests usually require students to recall
memorised content and urge learners to be more concerned with their grades instead of the
actual learning process; as a result, test-focused learning tends to target only the lower-
order cognitive skills in Bloom’s taxonomy (2001) and often puts too much emphasis on
the final product (Simonson et al., 2000). These practices are largely inconsistent with an
approach that would help learners meet the key objective of EFL teaching in Saudi Arabia;
that is, to improve learners’ intellectual, personal, and professional abilities. Additionally,
Mohammed (2016) argued that tests were considered as an anxiety-inducing factor for
Saudi EFL students.

Furthermore, Darandari and Murphy (2013) argued that traditional assessment approaches
were not integrated into a learning experience to support students’ learning; the emphasis
on grading defines a curriculum that is centred on evaluation rather than on the processes
and results of learning. Researchers have consistently suggested that the purpose of
assessment should not be to only grade students’ performance; rather, the purpose should
be to offer invaluable information on the effectiveness and suitability of the learning and
teaching process for students and teachers, as well as the quality of curriculum creation and
implementation (see, for example, Berry (2008); Lambert and Lines (2013); Natriello
(1987); Newton (2007, 2010); Sadler (2010). Chapter 3 addresses these issues in more
depth. Darandari and Murphy (2013) assessment, when incorporated into a plan for
improving the quality of the teaching and learning process, should be created
simultaneously with educational practice, curriculum development and design.
Nonetheless, there is no evidence of this strategy in the KSA at the system level, university
level, or individual classroom level (Darandari & Murphy, 2013).
 21
Despite efforts in the KSA to encourage adoption of student-centred approaches,
traditional methods for student assessment are still dominant in HE (Al-Seghayer, 2022;
Almossa, 2021). The loyalty to traditional assessment is also an issue in the UK HEIs, as
observed by Hargreaves (2006); also in the UK, there is an emphasis on traditional
assessment methods, specifically examinations, as the mainstay of all assessment despite
the rich and varied approaches to assessment that are now available. In 2005, the National
Commission for Academic Accreditation and Assessment (NCAAA) was formed by Saudi
Arabia, demonstrating the country's strong commitment to improve, as highlighted
by Almusallam (2007). The new commission has promoted a new paradigm for higher
education, which concentrates on learning outcomes and stresses the importance of
planning and designing assessment around those learning outcomes (Al-Musallam, 2007;
Darandari & Murphy, 2013). Consequently, attitudes have started to shift, and new
strategies have been created to offer more comprehensive and flexible assessment
approaches capable of achieving a broader variety of objectives (Darandari & Murphy,
2013). It is noteworthy that, over the years, NCAAA was devoted to teaching with a
variety of published documents and workshops supported by quality assurance deans in
Saudi institutions (NCAAA, 2015). With the emphasis on teaching, these materials and
workshops appeared to disregard assessment (Almossa, 2021).

Though traditional methods for student assessment remain dominant, in the last few years,
teacher-centred assessment approaches have been challenged by many Saudi academics in
HEIs, with some Saudi lecturers and researchers considering alternative assessment
approaches such as portfolios and self and peer assessment (see, for example, Alotaibi
(2019); Alahmadi et al. (2019); Al-Abdullatif (2020).

In an attempt to comprehend the role and impact of self-assessment on EFL learners’ self-
regulated learning and critical thinking, the literature review that follows in Chapter 3
explores the literature on self-assessment, self-regulated learning, and critical thinking.
 22
Chapter 3 : Literature Review

3.1. Introduction

Chapter 2 sets the context for this study in the education system in KSA. The chapter
explored the historical journey of English language teaching and its impact on current
English language teaching and assessment in HE in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Chapter
3 now moves beyond the specific context of Saudi Arabia and reviews the literature on
assessment, self-regulated learning, and critical thinking more broadly.

Over time, consistent themes have emerged in the EFL literature as to what makes learning
successful. Holec (1981), in a study carried out in the field of foreign language learning,
was the first to introduce the centrality of autonomy and self-regulated learning; in other
words, the ability of an EFL learner to manage and master learning within tasks is crucial
to high-quality learning. Building on Holec’s work, Roghanizadeh (2011), Ghanizadeh and
Mirzaee (2012), and Kamgar and Jadidi (2016) presented empirical evidence to suggest
that effective learning in EFL requires not only self-regulated learning but also critical
thinking. In accordance with Gardner (2012), the present research project is concerned
with the influence of assessment practices that have the potential to have a substantial
impact on future learning. However, before exploring how self-regulated learning and
critical thinking may be enhanced through self-assessment, it is necessary to appraise self-
regulated learning and critical thinking as concepts.

For the purpose of understanding the role and impact of self-assessment on EFL learners’
self-regulated learning and critical thinking, the literature review is divided into two
sections. The first section introduces and discusses the concepts of self-regulated learning
and critical thinking and considers the link between the two. The second section aims first
to provide and discuss the background for the term self-assessment by exploring two
different sets of assessment lenses: (1) summative assessment and formative assessment
and (2) Assessment of Learning (AoL), Assessment for Learning (AfL), and Assessment as
Learning (AaL). The chapter next investigates the concept of self-assessment, including its
definitions and its contextualisation in different educational paradigms, in particular the
constructivist and the social constructivist paradigms. The link between conceptualisations
and practices of self-assessment used in EFL will then be considered. This chapter then
concludes by exploring the potential of self-assessment as a means to enhance critical
thinking and self-regulated learning in an EFL context.
 23
3.2. Self-regulated learning and critical thinking in education

The relationship between self-regulated learning and critical thinking is significant to this
research and is discussed in depth in Section 3.2.3. Before considering the relationship
between the two concepts, this section outlines the origins and literature surrounding self-
regulated learning and critical thinking. The following three sections aim to offer an
evidence-based overview of self-regulated learning and critical thinking, including their
significance in education and the relationship between the two concepts.

3.2.1. Self-regulated learning

The topic of self-regulated learning, as well as self-regulation in general, emerged from the
area of autonomous learning. The concept of learner autonomy gained substantial attention
in education around the 1970s (Little, 1991), with the primary concentration on the
abilities of learners to take responsibility for their own learning and lifelong learning
(Griffiths & Parr, 2001). The term autonomous learner is difficult to define. After
reviewing titles of books on autonomy, Pemberton et al. (1996) argued that “different
terms are often used to refer to the same thing and the same term is often used to mean
different things” (p. 2). This research follows Holec's (1981) view of autonomy as his
work, Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning (1981), was a fundamental basis for other
researchers in the context of foreign language learning. Holec (1981) began by defining
learner autonomy as the ability to be responsible for personal learning, noting that this
ability must be learnt, it is not an inborn ability, either through natural means or via
systematic and deliberate formal learning. Holec (1981) further explained that being
accountable for every choice made in relation to all aspects of learning is what it means to
take responsibility for personal learning. Holec’s work sought to promote learner
autonomy through developing in learners the abilities that would allow learners to become
more responsible while contributing to the society in which they live. Learner autonomy
thus increases learners’ potential to play an active role in and take control of every stage of
their learning, from goal setting to evaluation. It is well documented in the work of Sierens
et al. (2009), Andrade and Bunker (2009) and Murray (2014) that gaining autonomy,
which entails the added responsibility of taking charge of one’s own learning, requires the
application of self-regulatory processes. Rowe and Rafferty (2013) identified numerous
self-regulatory processes, including recognising knowledge gaps, making informed
decisions about personal educational requirements, managing time effectively in terms of
how and when to study, planning, engaging in reflective tasks, and maintaining sustained
 24
motivation to accomplish tasks successfully. Zimmerman and Schunck (2001)
characterised self-regulated learning as the act of controlling and mastering personal
learning within tasks.

However, Dinsmore et al. (2008) and Oppong et al. (2019) pointed out that self-regulation
is not the same thing as self-regulated learning. This distinction exists despite the overlap
in the two terms themselves: self-regulation and self-regulated learning. Both terms are
often used interchangeably in educational literature, but the distinction matters, as
understanding the distinction can assist educators in identifying the scientific and
theoretical basis for their practices.

3.2.1.1. Self-regulation (SR) versus self-regulated learning (SRL)

Identifying the distinction between self-regulation and self-regulated learning is necessary

to the basis for this study. Initially, self-regulation was significantly influenced by the work
of Albert Bandura, whose initial publications were issued in the 1970s. In the work of
Bandura (1977), self-regulation was not viewed as having an educational or cognitive
enterprise; it was instead the process by which a person controls one’s own behaviour,
actions, thoughts, or emotions in the context of life in general, not within the learning
context. It concerns issues such as addictions and anger management. It would only later
be suggested by Carver and Scheier (1981/2012) that self-regulation can be related to
learners through its idea of goal-setting and feedback, since people’s behaviours are guided
by goals and feedback. This suggestion put an emphasis on the use of self-regulation in a
learning context (Carver & Scheier, 2017). Self-regulation has continued to develop and
emerge in research such as in the work of Zimmerman and Bandura (1994) and
Zimmerman and Schunck (2001). Developments in research have linked self-regulation to
motivation, specifically self-efficacy, namely one’s belief about their personal ability to
succeed in a task or in any circumstance (Zimmerman & Schunck, 2001; Zimmerman &
Bandura, 1994). As the academic interest in self-regulation increased, Zimmerman and
Bandura (1994) defined self-regulation in relation to learning; their more recent definition,
which refers to self-regulation of learning, addresses how learners’ self-generated thoughts,
feelings, and behaviours can be organised systematically towards achievement of
educational goals. Zimmerman and Bandura’s (1994) definition of self-regulation in
relation to learning reflects Holec’s (1981) view of learner autonomy and the idea of
learners taking control of their own learning in a systematic way. Thus, the increasing
emphasis on self-regulation in academic contexts seems to have had a significant role in
 25
the development of a new term: self-regulated learning.

Self-regulation has been seen as an umbrella term under which the term self-regulated
learning falls. The term self-regulated learning was introduced in the 1980s and increased
in prominence in the 1990s (Lajoie, 2008). According to Schunk (2001), self-regulated
learning is characterised by learners’ self-generated thoughts and behaviours being
systematically concentrated on achieving study objectives. Self-regulated learning has
mostly been conceptualised to contain regulation within an academic field. In contrast,
self-regulation is not necessarily about learning at all, and it is only sometimes applied in
academic contexts or cognitive tasks. Zimmerman (2002) argued that self-regulated
learners can be perceived as being guided by personally and individually established goals
and task-related strategies; self-regulated learners are, therefore, conscious of their
strengths and weaknesses, and proactive in their learning. He argued that through
monitoring their behaviour in relation to their goals and reflecting on the effectiveness of
their performance, self-regulated learners increase their sense of self-esteem and
motivation, which eventually results in improved performance and learning techniques.
Zimmerman (2002) also argued that self-regulated learners have a greater possibility of
attaining academic achievement and have an optimistic perspective of the future resulting
from their motivation and adaptable learning techniques.

Self-regulated learning is primarily considered a phased, intentional, complex, and goal-

directed process containing cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, affective, emotional,
social, and contextual components that are always tied to learning (Muis, 2007; Oppong et
al., 2019). Muis et al. (2018) noted that self-regulated learning can reveal the active and
continues progression of learning and learners’ knowledge. Similarly, Winne and Hadwin
(1998) and Oppong et al. (2019) stated that self-regulated learning could extend students’
experience by taking students’ assumptions and perceptions of their competence to
complete a task using the available resources into consideration. Self-regulated learning
can also be argued to incorporate learners’ feelings about tasks’ engagement as well, which
is referred to as personal epistemology (Oppong et al., 2019; Winne & Hadwin, 1998).

By taking personal epistemology into consideration, self-regulated learning adds a new and
important concept to self-regulation (Oppong et al., 2019). Generally, personal
epistemology has been centred on an individual's epistemic views; that is, how people
think about knowledge and what they believe about it, as those factors could affect
cognitive processing, and conceptual change learning as well as affect strategy
 26
implementation and understanding (Hofer, 2008). In other words, personal epistemology
is the act of reflecting on or being critical of one's own thought procedures or methods
(Mason et al., 2010). Self-regulated learning includes four aspects of personal
epistemology: epistemic cognition, epistemic metacognition, epistemic motivation, and
epistemic emotions (Mason et al., 2010). Epistemic cognition includes the learners'
knowledge and ideas about their individual learning and problem-solving processes, as
well as about learning and problem-solving in general, typically in a specific context
(Mason et al., 2010). Epistemic metacognition addresses how learners' general planning,
monitoring, evaluating, and revising of learning and problem-solving methods, in addition
to the sequencing of these strategies, are influenced by their knowledge and beliefs (Mason
et al., 2010). Epistemic motivation engages learners in critical and deep thinking (Scholten
et al., 2007) and enables learners to develop and maintain well-informed conclusions
independently (Amit & Sagiv, 2013). Epistemic emotions include the feelings that emerge
when learners' primary attention is on knowledge and knowing (Boekaerts & Pekrun,
2015). Therefore, due to the concentration on personal epistemology, self-regulated
learning tends to emphasise self-motivation, self-awareness, and behavioural skills as
essential components of successful knowledge use; that is, self-regulated learning exceeds
the need for skill-specific knowledge. Thus, personal epistemology is the major difference
between self-regulation and self-regulated learning.

For the purpose of this research, a decision between these two concepts, self-regulation and
self-regulated learning, had to be taken in order to form the research basis. As indicated
above, self-regulation is not tied to the learning context in particular; it is more concerned
with the context of life in general. Self-regulated learning, in contrast, is constantly
connected to learning and constrained by the environment or the situation of learning
(Bandura, 1977; Oppong et al., 2019; Winne & Hadwin, 1998). Moreover, emphasis
should be placed on learners’ assumptions and ideas about their competence for a
particular task, as well as learners’ emotions about their involvement with the activities, as
all influence their experiences and development; as such, these elements relate to self-
regulated learning, not to self-regulation, since these elements are rooted in students’
personal epistemology, as noted by Winne and Hadwin (1998).

One of the main purposes of the present research is to explore and understand EFL
learners’ perceptions and experiences of the impact of self-assessment. Accordingly, the
theory of self-regulation is not suitable and does not fit the purpose of this research. Self-
regulated learning, however, has been recognised as an effective technique for overcoming
 27
underachievement among students who possess the capacity to succeed at very high levels.
Indeed, underachievement may be ascribed to a variety of factors, including a lack of early
definition of the learners' task, insufficient motivation or efficacy, or unpleasant feelings
associated with the environment or task (Oppong et al., 2019). Thus, self-regulated
learning is more suitable for the purpose of this research (see Table 3-1 for a summary of
self-regulation and self-regulated learning key features).

Table 3-1 Self-regulation versus self-regulated learning

Self-regulation (SR) Self-regulated learning (SRL)

self-regulated learning is
characterised by learners’ self-
generated thoughts and behaviours
The process by which a person being systematically concentrated on
controls one’s own behaviour, achieving study objectives (Schunk,
Definition actions, thoughts, or emotions in the
2001).
context of life in general, not within
the learning context (Bandura, 1977).
It has mostly been conceptualised to
contain regulation within academic
field (Schunk, 2001).

It is goal-directed process containing

cognitive, metacognitive,
motivational, affective, emotional,
social, and contextual components
It can be related to learners through (Muis, 2007; Oppong et al., 2019).
its idea of goal-setting and feedback
Key (Carver & Scheier, 2017). Self-regulated learning adds an
features important concept to self-regulation
Developments have linked self- that is personal epistemology
regulation to motivation, specifically (Oppong et al., 2019). Consequently,
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1988; self-regulated learning tends to
Zimmerman & Schunck, 2001; emphasis self-motivation, self-
Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994) awareness, and behavioural skills as
essential components of successful
knowledge use; that is, self-regulated
learning exceeds the need for skill-
specific knowledge.
 28
3.2.1.2. Self-regulated learning consensus: Phases, components, and
processes

Research in the area of self-regulated learning is broad, yielding a number of theories and
models seeking to characterise and differentiate effective learner characteristics (see, for
example, Bandura (1991); Boekaerts and Niemivirta (2000); Pintrich (2000); Zimmerman
(1990)). Nevertheless, there is a widespread agreement on the phases and component of
SRL (Bandura, 1991; Beishuizen & Steffens, 2011; Manso-Vázquez et al., 2014, 2018;
Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman & Schunck, 2001). Manso-Vázquez et al. (2018) proposed an
integrated model that incorporates the three most often used models in self-regulated
learning: Zimmerman (2002) model, Pintrich (2004) general model, and Winne and
Hadwin (1998) information processing model. The integrated model of Manso-Vázquez et
al. (2018) consists of three distinct phases and five distinct areas. The three phases are (1)
forethought, planning, and activation; (2) performance, monitoring, and control; and (3)
evaluation, reflection, and reaction. Cognition, metacognition, motivation, behaviour, and
social and environmental context are the five areas in the integrated model (see Figure 3-1
for details of the phases, areas, and learning strategies). The work of Pintrich (2000), Bol
and Garner (2011), Schunk and Zimmerman (2012), and Panadero (2017) has affirmed that
SRL incorporates several crucial cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and behavioural
affective aspects that influence learning. Self-regulated learning is therefore considered to
be a very important area of research (Panadero, 2017). The areas in self-regulated learning
are discussed in Section 3.3.5 in relation to self-assessment. Furthermore, the
implementation of the integrated model of Manso-Vázquez et al. (2018) is presented in
Chapter 4.
 29

Figure 3-1 Integrated self-regulated learning model (adapted Manso-Vázquez et al., 2018, p.
42469)

3.2.1.3. Measuring self-regulated learning skills

The measurement of self-regulated learning has been a significant research issue in the
area of SRL. The different proposed types of measurement include mainly self-reporting
and event measurement. Zimmerman (2008) emphasised the self-reporting technique, or
the use of questionnaires, surveys, and interviews. This technique mainly focuses on the
perceptions and ideas of the learners, i.e. on learners’ perspectives of self-regulated
learning. In contrast, Winne and Perry (2000) proposed event measures such as traces and
thinking aloud protocols for measuring the process of self-regulated learning. Panadero et
al. (2012) and Winne and Jamieson-Noel (2002) found that self-reporting as a technique
for measuring self-regulated learning may not always be accurate, since students may not
always report their true usage of methods. Additionally, Boekaerts (1997) argued that self-
reporting does not necessarily record changes in student use of strategies. Therefore,
 30
Boekaerts and Corno (2005) recommended the triangulation of self-regulated learning
data; that is, not relying on one measure. On the same note, Panadero et al. (2012)
emphasised the need to combine self-reporting measures with event measures. The
techniques used in measuring self-regulated learning are discussed in Chapter 4 in relation
to this research.

With the concept of self-regulated learning clarified, the next section provides an evidence-
based overview of the concept of critical thinking.

3.2.2. Critical thinking

Adopting critical thinking as an educational goal could promote students’ autonomy and
prepare students to succeed in life. The term critical thinking refers to the concept of
reflective thinking, which originated as a way to describe educational objectives by the
American philosopher John Dewey (1910/1997). Dewey (1910/1997) defines critical
thinking as “active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of
knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which
it tends” (p. 9). However, the definition of critical thinking is contested and has changed
over time. A number of definitions have been proposed. Ennis (2016) lists 17 definitions of
critical thinking, 13 of which are philosophically oriented scholarly definitions. Critical
thinking in educational contexts is generally given as a “programmatic definition”
(Scheffler, 1960, p. 19). Building on Scheffler’s (1960) research, Ennis (1969) argued that
a programmatic concept or definition takes the form of a definition, but it is not only a
definition. Ennis (1969) defined a programmatic concept as a proposition or suggestion to
adopt and implement a programme or a particular perspective. The definition of critical
thinking should, thus, perhaps also be related to a programme of what ought to be done to
encourage critical thinking in practice. Similarly, Hitchcock (2018b) argued that, because
the attainment of an educational goal through a practical programme characterises critical
thinking as part of education, it is far more beneficial to identify criteria and standards of
critical thinking than to provide a definition in a single sentence. As Hitchcock (2018b)
further explained, these criteria and standards include the knowledge, abilities, and
disposition of critical thinking. Hitchcock (2018b) suggested that recognising, adopting,
and implementing these criteria and standards should be considered as the actual
educational goal.

Despite the variation in definitions of the concept, there is a widespread agreement that
 31
critical thinking contains cognitive abilities and dispositions. Ennis (1987), Facione
(1990), and Halpern (1998, 1999) have argued that critical thinking is more than the
successful use of a skill; it is also an attitude or disposition to recognise when a skill is
needed as well as the commitment and willingness to invest the mental effort required to
apply this ability. Paul and Elder (2006), Bailin and Battersby (2016), and Hamby (2014)
proposed using the virtues to refer to the critical thinking dispositions. Virtues, in context
of critical thinking, are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, as presented and
discussed by Zagzebski and Zagaebski (1996) and Turri et al. (2017). These virtues
concern a person's modes of thought rather than ways of interpersonal interactions (Turri et
al., 2017). On this basis, it can be argued that critical thinkers have abilities and
dispositions that, when appropriate, can encourage and lead individuals to think critically.
Hence, the following sections explore both the cognitive ability and dispositions or
intellectual virtues of critical thinking.

3.2.2.1. Components of critical thinking

3.2.2.1.1. Cognitive ability

As Ku and Ho (2010a) clarified, an individual’s cognitive ability is characterised by the

ability to not only understand a problem but also engage in rational decisions based on the
adoption of cognitive skills. Cognitive abilities are central to critical thinking (Ku & Ho,
2010a). Hitchcock (2018b) identified these cognitive abilities as observational abilities,
which involve making careful and accurate observation; emotional abilities, which involve
identifying one's own emotional commitments and responses, as well as those of others;
questioning abilities, which involve formulating inquiries; imaginative abilities, which
involve generating possible explanations; inferential abilities, which involve establishing
conclusions from provided data and determining the degree of confidence with which one's
own or others' conclusions follow; experimenting abilities, which involve designing and
executing experiments; consulting abilities, which involve finding and appraising
information; argument analysis abilities, which involve identifying and evaluating
arguments; and judging and deciding skills, or the capacity to recognise the conclusion or
judgement that the available facts and reasoning support. Hitchcock (2018b) argued that
identifying and focusing on cognitive abilities is a beneficial first step before establishing
educational objectives. Setting educational objectives, in turn, is a beneficial first step
before developing strategies to assist learners in achieving the objectives and, naturally,
prior to developing methods for assessing the degree to which learners have reached goals
 32
(Hitchcock, 2018b). In short, recognising and targeting certain cognitive abilities is key in
developing the process and strategies used for developing learners’ critical thinking.
Nevertheless, as Section 3.2.2 explored in detail, those skills and attitudes or dispositions
are significant aspects of good critical thinking performance. The following section
explores dispositions, or the intellectual virtues of critical thinking.

3.2.2.1.2. Dispositions

There is considerable agreement amongst researchers that, along with abilities, critical
thinking also entails dispositions (see, for example, Ennis (1987); Facione (1990); Bailin
and Battersby (2016); Halpern (1998); Hamby (2014); Paul and Elder (2006)). The term
dispositions is used broadly to refer to the habits of mind and attitudes contributing
causally to being able to think critically and influence the patterns of a person’s
intellectual activity (Hitchcock, 2018b). Critical thinking dispositions are identified by Ku
and Ho (2010a) as enjoyment of thinking, an open attitude, a careful approach in
thinking, and a mindset for truth; these dispositions are essential for a person to reach
sound judgements. As Facione (1990) explained, there are two forms of dispositions that
may be helpfully distinguished: those that contribute causally to the initiation of critical
thinking on an issue, i.e. initiating dispositions, and those that contribute causally to an
individual's ability to think critically once one has started, i.e. internal dispositions.

Hitchcock (2018b) adopted the approach of appraising variables that could hinder the
critical thinking capabilities of individuals. By doing so, he established that the initiating
dispositions include pursuing truth, interest in finding evidence to support one’s own
perspectives, confidence in reason, readiness to delay judgement, open-mindedness,
tenacity, self-assurance, inclination to investigate, and attentiveness. Pursuing truth and
interest in finding evidence to support one’s own perspectives promotes critical thinking by
encouraging the learner to move past their initial subjective perspective on a subject.
Confidence in reason, which leads to respect for the procedure of rational investigation,
also characterises the development of critical thinking, discouraging suspicion of reason.
Readiness to delay judgement when considering various explanations and options is
indicative of an inclination towards critical thinking, which can be hindered by swift
decision-making. Open-mindedness counters inflexibility, which is a hindrance to critical
thinking. Tenacity, especially in intellectual pursuits, makes an inclination towards critical
thinking, and self-assurance counters any stifling of independent thought that may arise
due to limited confidence in one’s own critical thinking capacities. The inclination to
 33
investigate stems from an inner motivation to pursue meaningful inquiry into something.
Finally, attentiveness helps to ensure an individual does not overlook how critical thinking
about something is required.

Moreover, as Hitchcock (2018b) clarified, certain initiating dispositions are also internal
dispositions, for example readiness to delay judgement and open-mindedness.
Nevertheless, Hitchcock explained that internal dispositions are associated with cognitive
approaches or trends that causally influence effective critical thinking after it has been
initiated. Furthermore, Hitchcock (2018c) related that internal dispositions, like an
inclination to endure in completing a difficult activity, may be impetuses to endeavour
with, or amend, the critical thinking procedure. Alternatively, tenets of effective thought,
such as establishing an issue with clarity and staying focused on that issue, provide the
basis of numerous other internal dispositions for critical thinking.

There is considerable consistency amongst different researchers who have established

comparable sets of dispositions pertinent to critical thinking abilities (Bailin et al., 1999;
Ennis, 1987; Facione, 1990; Halpern, 1998; Paul & Elder, 2006). The following are
commonly referred to as critical thinking dispositions: an inclination to acknowledge and
respect other people’s perspectives (Bailin et al., 1999); flexibility (Facione, 1990;
Halpern, 1998); a desire to possess knowledge (Ennis, 1987; Facione, 1990); curiosity
(Bailin et al., 1999; Facione, 1990); an inclination to pursue reason (Bailin et al., 1999;
Ennis, 1987; Paul & Elder, 2006); fair-mindedness (Bailin et al., 1999; Facione, 1990); and
open-mindedness (Bailin et al., 1999; Ennis, 1987; Facione, 1990; Halpern, 1998).

Nonetheless, critical thinking is considered to be a combination of both dispositions and

abilities, as Section 3.2.2 explained. Ku and Ho (2010b) agreed with this position, as they
argued that cognitive abilities and dispositional components, in addition to metacognitive
components, which will be discussed in the following section, are all required for effective
critical thinking. Consequently, both dispositions and capabilities for critical thinking must
be fostered. Additionally, there is general agreement that while direct instruction may
facilitate the development of abilities, dispositions are better referred to as attitudes, thus
long-term engagement in learning contexts receptive to reflection and debate is necessary
for the dispositions’ development (Ennis, 1987; Facione, 1990; Halpern, 1998, 1999).
 34
3.2.2.1.3. Measuring components of critical thinking

Critical thinking standardised tests have been created to determine an individual's degree
of possession of certain dispositions and skills (Hitchcock, 2018b). Experimental
educational interventions have demonstrated that education can promote critical thinking
abilities and dispositions, as measured by standardised tests (see, for example, Bixler et al.
(2015); Naber and Wyatt (2014); Nelson et al. (2018); Webster and Willett (2019) Maryam
et al. (2021)). While the abilities can be identified directly, the dispositions need to be
identified indirectly, since dispositions relate to habits of mind and attitudes; indirect
identification may involve considering what factors contribute to, or impede exercise of,
the dispositions (Hitchcock, 2018b). Consequently, critical thinking skills are more easily
quantifiable than critical thinking dispositions (Hitchcock, 2018a). The following eight
currently available standardised tests have been designed to measure critical thinking skills
as highlighted by (Hitchcock, 2018b) including: the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking
Appraisal (Watson & Glaser, 1994); the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X and Level
Z (Ennis, Millman, & Tomko, 1985, 2005); the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test
(Ennis & Weir, 1985); the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione, 1992); the
Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (Halpern, 1998); and the Collegiate Learning
Assessment (Council for Aid to Education, 2017). In the field of language learning, the
California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione, 1992) and the Watson-Glaser Critical
Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser, 1994) are the two most commonly used tools for
measuring critical thinking skills in the field of language learning. In the current research,
the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal test was used to measure the students’
critical thinking abilities. This test is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. It is more
difficult to measure dispositions with the use of a multiple-choice format – as noted,
dispositions concern habits of mind – yet, some standardised tests do exist for that purpose
(Hitchcock, 2018a) such as the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory.
Nevertheless, a more effective method of assessing critical thinking dispositions would be
to explore how individuals behave when confronted with situations that reveal their
dispositions (Hitchcock, 2018a). Therefore, in the current study, the student participants
were involved in a self-assessment intervention followed by interviews, which could reveal
their dispositions and indicate if the students exhibited a good critical thinking
performance. According to Ku and Ho (2010b), a good critical thinking performance
involves cognitive ability, including both dispositional and metacognitive components.
 35
Regarding metacognitive components, limited research has investigated the link between
metacognitive components and critical thinking, even though this link has been discussed
as an important factor affecting critical thinking (Ku & Ho, 2010b). The main aspect of the
link is that metacognitive components are believed to elicit behaviours in pupils that allow
them to monitor and regulate their thinking processes and abilities, and dispositions can
arise in the process (Ku & Ho, 2010b). In other words, a critical thinker oversees their
thinking processes thanks to the use of metacognitive strategies, which enable the thinker
to exert control.

The most commonly recommended metacognitive approaches for critical thinking fall into
three groups: planning, monitoring, and evaluating (Ku & Ho, 2010b). Planning strategies
include those aimed at establishing processes that guide thinking, and include the selection
of suitable tactics and resource allocation (King, 1991; Schraw, 1998, cited in Ku & Ho,
2010b). Monitoring is a term that refers to a continuous awareness of task understanding
(Schraw, 1998, cited in Ku & Ho, 2010b). Monitoring strategies thus include verifying task
information to ensure understanding, directing attention to critical concepts, and
highlighting informational ambiguities (Luckey, 2003; Swartz, 2003, cited in Ku & Ho,
2010b). Evaluating strategies include the evaluation and correction of an individual's
cognitive processes (Facione, 1990, cited in Ku & Ho, 2010b). They involve evaluating
one's own logic, objectives, and conclusions (Schraw, 1998, cited in Ku & Ho, 2010b) as
well as making revisions when necessary (see Table 3-2 for a summary of critical thinking
components). The relationship between metacognitive strategies and critical thinking
implies that self-regulated learning and critical thinking are linked, a relationship that is
discussed in the following section.
Table 3-2 A summary of critical thinking components

Components
of critical Cognitive ability Dispositions/ Virtues Metacognitive
thinking
Definition
Cognitive ability is Refer to the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical Metacognitive components are
characterised by the ability thinker and influence the patterns of a person’s intellectual activity (Hitchcock, believed to elicit behaviours in
to not only understand a 2018a). pupils that allow them to
problem but also engage in monitor and regulate their
rational decisions based on thinking processes and abilities,
the adoption of cognitive and dispositions can arise in the
skills. process (Ku & Ho, 2010b)
Components
Hitchcock (2018b) Initiating dispositions Internal dispositions Metacognitive techniques for
identified the following critical thinking fall into three
are those that contribute causally are those that contribute causally to an
cognitive abilities: groups (Ku & Ho, 2010b):
to the initiation of critical individual's ability to think critically once one
• observational abilities thinking on an issue (Facione, has started (Facione, 1990). • Planning strategies
• emotional abilities 1990). • Monitoring strategies
• Flexibility (Facione, 1990; Halpern 1998).
• questioning abilities Hitchcock (2018b) identified the • Curiosity (Bailin et al., 1990; Facione, 1990). • Evaluating strategies
• imaginative abilities following initiating dispositions: • Pursuing reason (Ennis, 1985; Paul, 1992;
• inferential abilities Bailin et al., 1999).
• experimenting abilities • pursuing truth
• confidence in reason • Desire to possess knowledge (Ennis, 1984;
• consulting abilities Facione, 1990).
• argument analysis • readiness to delay
judgement • fair-mindedness (Facione, 1990; Bailin et al.,
abilities 1999)
• open-mindedness
• tenacity • open-mindedness (Ennis, 1985; Facione, 1990,
2000; Halpern, 1998; Bailin et al., 1999).
• self-assurance
• Willingness to acknowledge and respect other
• attentiveness
people’s perspectives (Bailin et al., 1999)
• Hitchcock (2018b)
3.2.3. The relationship between self-regulated learning and critical thinking

Several researchers have suggested that critical thinking and self-regulated learning are
interrelated, so improving one leads to improving the other; both have a positive effect on
learners’ learning (Butler, 2002; Dickinson, 1987; Dunn et al., 2014; Ghanizadeh &
Mirzaee, 2012; Kahrizi & Farahian, 2014; Phan, 2010; Uyar et al., 2018; Watson, 2002;
Zimmerman, 2002). Dickinson (1987) and Zimmerman (2002) argued that self-regulated
learning and critical thinking are interrelated, because a self-regulated person who is
critical in their thinking is capable of learning more efficiently and quickly than an
individual who lacks these qualities. Phan (2010) discussed that self-regulated learning is
facilitated by critical thinking as a cognitive skill. Critical thinking requires the use of
higher-order learning techniques, one of which is self-regulation, at least when self-
regulation is employed to analyse data and assess classroom activities (Phan, 2010). In the
same vein, Butler (2002) argued that improving self-regulated learning is linked to the
development of students’ capacity to analyse tasks, and that to analyse tasks students need
to employ critical thinking. Likewise, Ghanizadeh (2011) indicated that critical thinking
skills contribute to the long-term improvement of self-regulation. Accordingly, it appears
that, through active involvement in the learning process, learners develop self-regulated
learning and critical thinking. In turn, self-regulated learning together with critical thinking
leads learners to acquire a sounder understanding of their learning objectives, to have
greater recognition of their own knowledge and abilities, and to embrace the development
of further learning strategies. Engaging students in practices as a means of enhancing self-
regulatory skills and critical thinking is, therefore, significant.

Evidence suggests that self-assessment, as an example of a practice, is significantly

positively correlated with self-regulated learning and critical thinking. Paul et al. (1997)
argued that self-assessment is a key aspect for critical thinking, and that critical thinkers
are those who have mastered self-assessment. They contended that a critical thinker is
capable of monitoring, analysing, judging, and selecting the most effective way of
thinking; thus, a good critical thinker is, in effect, a good self-assessor (Paul et al., 1997).
Similarly, Smith (1997) emphasised the significance of self-assessment, stating that self-
assessment enables learners to develop into independent learners, and their capacity for
critical thinking is defining characteristic of independent learners. The argument here is
that the idea of self-assessment fosters critical thinking. However, it is important to note
that Smith’s (1997) work linked autonomous learning with critical thinking. In the area of
 38
autonomous learning, Campbell et al. (1998) stated that self-assessment instils in learners a
stronger feeling of ownership over their work, a more passionate attitude toward learning,
and an improved capacity for higher-order thinking; self-assessment thus, they concluded,
increases students’ self-regulation in learning. All the aforementioned evidence suggests
that self-assessment can promote both self-regulated learning and critical thinking, as self-
assessment is generally concerned with giving opportunities for students to self-assess their
achievement and concentrate on their learning process. This thesis uses the term self-
assessment throughout. Thus, this thesis intends to investigate the term’s origin and the
theoretical underpinning of self-assessment before examining the influence of self-
assessment on EFL learners’ self-regulated learning and critical thinking.

3.3. Self-assessment

Assessment is of paramount importance in measuring, supporting, and enhancing learning;

tracking progress; and informing the teaching process for certification, selection, and
accountability purposes (Gardner, 2012). The focus of this research is the importance of
assessment in enhancing learning. Helping and supporting learners to improve their
learning is one of the fundamental ideas of assessment; thus, assessment is essential to
promoting learning and eventually attainment (Brink, 2017). Self-assessment, in particular,
is a powerful strategy for involving learners in their own learning and increasing their
awareness in everyday educational practice.

This thesis focuses on the effect of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and critical
thinking within an EFL context, namely, the Saudi context, but the literature search was
not restricted to EFL contexts alone. It also included ESL contexts and English-speaking
countries in order to find any evidence that would be related to this thesis. The major
online research databases ERIC, JSTOR, and ProQuest, were used to obtain relevant
studies using the keywords: Self-assessment OR Self-evaluation AND critical thinking OR
self-regulation. The additional search terms “speaking”, “ESL”, and “EFL” were included
to limit the search. Literature continued to be searched throughout the writing of this thesis.

The following sections overview the concept of self-assessment. First, the concept of
assessment is introduced, and then the relationship between self-assessment, self-regulated
learning, and critical thinking is discussed.
 39
3.3.1. The concept of assessment

Assessment is central to education, as it is one of the three major message systems:

curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. However, assessment is also a contentious term;
there is a lack of agreement on its definition (Taras, 2005). The word assess originates
from ‘to set by’ or ‘to sit down beside’ (e.g. as an assessor or assistant/judge) from Old
French and Late Latin languages (Oxford English Dictionary, n.d., cited in Wyse et al.
(2015, p. 3). The central idea in this definition is the use of assessment to support learning,
yet often the term assessment is associated more directly with the idea of judgement. This
confusion between the learning and judgement functions of assessment can be illustrated in
how the terms assessment and evaluation are sometimes used interchangeably in the field
of education (Taras, 2005). This inconsistency emphasises the complexity of defining
assessment and, thus, arguably justifies the shift in focus to forms of assessment instead of
simplistic definition. Wiliam (2011) highlighted the increasing tendency to view the
processes and activities intended to guide learners towards goals as approaches of
assessment.

3.3.1.1. Developing conceptualisation of assessment

Initially, assessment was conceptualised as summative assessment and formative

assessment. The terms summative assessment and formative assessment were introduced
by Bloom (1971) as two kinds of assessment in students’ learning. The terms were
originally generated from the terms summative evaluation and formative evaluation by
Scriven (1967). Scriven (1967) introduced the terms, summative evaluation and formative
evaluation, pertaining to the evaluation of educational programmes comprising a
curriculum, instructional materials, and general teaching strategies. Scriven (1967) used
summative evaluation when referring to the final evaluation of a curriculum or programme;
formative evaluation, in comparison, referred to evaluation throughout the development
and implementation of new curricula with the aim of executing revisions and
improvements before the final evaluation.

In the work of Bloom et al. (1971), summative assessment is seen as “judging, grading and
certifying what the learner had achieved at the end of a course or programme that is usually
in the form of examinations” (p. 20). In agreement with Bloom et al.’s perspective of
summative assessment, Andrade and Cizek (2010) indicate that summative assessment
involves the administered examinations in particular, predetermined, times throughout the
 40
academic year, with the main purposes of evaluating the teaching process's success and
classifying pupils according to the degree to which they have shown competence in a
certain topic. This view of summative assessment seems to assume students’
disengagement in the process of assessment. In comparison, formative assessment seems to
stress the significance of student engagement in the learning process, as highlighted in the
work of Bloom et al. (1971).

Bloom et al. (1971) described formative assessment as assisting the process of teaching
and learning while remaining flexible and open to amendment. In other words, Bloom et
al. argued that formative assessment aims to provide instructors with the possibility to
intervene “during the formation of the student” (p. 20). Similarly, Ramaprasad (1983)
stated that formative assessment is basically feedback to both the instructor and students on
their current level of knowledge and skill development in order to identify the best course
of action (Harlen & James, 1997). Mats Björkman’s (1972) notion of “feedforward” seems
relevant here, as it emphasises the importance of information exchange flow between the
instructor and the student, which can take place through feedback to inform future efforts
(Sadler, 2010). This notion involves providing information to be used to alter and develop
the teaching and learning processes. Notably, though Bloom et al. (1971) claimed both
kinds of assessment were to be used together, working in harmony, they described
formative assessment as being used to improve summative assessment results; that
distinction could indicate that formative assessment is less important than summative
assessment.

In the early 2000s, Black and Wiliam (2003) argued that summative assessment was
becoming prominent due to the external pressure for certification and accountability.
Harlen and Deakin Crick (2003) showed that setting objectives based on test results could
lead to a variety of practices that limited students learning experience and negatively
affected students’ learning motivation, self-esteem, effort, and achievement. Harlen
(2005); Harlen and Deakin Crick (2003), and Marshall and Drummond (2006) confirmed
this idea, discovering that a strong emphasis on summative assessment may have an
adverse impact on students' willingness to learn. In practice, a focus on summative
assessment often results in teaching to the test and, therefore, away from deep learning
(James, 2006; Lau, 2016). Additionally, in a study that compared the value of information
collected from both types of assessment, Andrade and Cizek (2010) found that summative
assessment information provided little benefit to the procedures necessary to avoid surface
learning. A traditional concentration on summative assessment marks a need for a
 41
“paradigm shift”, as Gipps (1994) argued even before the turn of the century.

The traditional view, as outlined by Gipps (1994), is that assessment should be a norm-
referenced judgement, with all individuals’ examinations being conducted, marked, and
interpreted in the same way to enable cross-comparison of results. Consequently, as Gipps
(1994) related, exams and standardised assessments are typical in the traditional view of
assessment. Moreover, Gipps (1994) argued that the traditional view operates on a belief in
the unchanging and inherent character of intelligence. Consequently, judgement in the
traditional view focuses on classification, categorisation, and selection. In contrast, the
criterion-referencing view characterises learning outcomes according to the definite
assessment standards adopted by teachers instead of judging students against their fellow
learners (Gipps, 1994; Taylor, 1994). This new view of assessment, as Gipps (1994)
explained, focuses on assessing educational experiences' processes and outcomes.

However, even from a traditional assessment perspective, both types of assessment are
critical to the learning process; and, according to Broadfoot and Black (2004), the optimal
environment for learning is one in which formative and summative assessment methods are
balanced. Black and Wiliam (1998) suggested that formative and summative assessment
are primarily connected; they support each other. Likewise, Biggs (1998) argued that
formative and summative assessment should not be seen as “two different trees” but as
“the backside of an elephant” (p. 108). Taras (2007) clarified this by explaining that “each
limb must work with the other in order for the whole to work; the animal is stronger as it is
better balanced, and without one back leg the elephant would fall over” (p. 64). This relates
to the sense that an elephant would keel over if it had a hind leg missing, as more effective
balancing and strength is achieved by the elephant when its legs are working in
coordination and harmony, enabling the entire body to move effectively. This metaphor
indicates the importance of Bloom et al.’s (1971) initial idea that both kinds of assessment
need to be linked and work in harmony. Indeed, different types of assessment should be
interpreted in light of the extent to which the information produced may be used to guide
future learning; rather than simply categorized them as summative or formative (Black et
al., 2011). Consequently, instead of pushing for summative assessment to be abandoned as
argued by Gipps (1994), supporting learning could be achieved through exploring and
understanding the various purposes for various approaches of assessment and how various
assessment approaches may operate in coherence to enhance learning.
 42
The three main approaches to assessment are Assessment of Learning (AoL), Assessment
for Learning (AfL), and Assessment as Learning (AaL). As the terms indicate, each has a
distinct and unique character and function and, therefore, serves a precise purpose.
Notably, summative assessment and formative assessment are sometimes referred to as
AoL and AfL, respectively.

Within the literature, AoL is sometimes referred to as traditional assessment (Earl,

2003/2013). Earl (2013) stated, for example, that AoL is a traditional approach with a
prime concentration on the production and gathering of evidence or information for a
summative judgement of students’ performance. In AoL, learners are usually passive
subjects who take tests designed to evaluate and measure progress and performance; these
tests are not administered during the learning/teaching process, but at the end of a teaching
unit in order to measure students’ knowledge of decontextualised content (Harlen & James,
1997). In short, AoL concentrates on summative purposes.

AfL, in comparison, denotes a substantial change in the assessment’s role in the learning
process. Growing interest in AfL, in turn, suggests a shift in concentration from improving
students’ scores to improving students’ learning (Murtagh & Webster, 2010). A substantial
movement has emerged in the assessment culture of higher education sectors. Namely, AfL
is being promoted to provide further information to enhance the educational process for
both teachers and learners and decrease attention on judgment, classification, and
categorisation (Kennedy et al., 2008).

AfL concepts and practices have been promoted by the Assessment Reform Group that
was formed in 1989 by a group of educational assessment researchers with the support of
the British Educational Research Association. In 2002, the Assessment Reform Group
found that assessment which promotes learning has the following characteristics: sharing
learning objectives with learners, informing learners of the criteria they are aiming for,
engaging learners in self-assessment and peer-assessment, providing feedback for the
learners in order to recognise and plan for their next steps, having the confidence of
learners’ ability to improve, and ensuring the reflect on assessment information from both
teachers and students. The purpose of these characteristics is helping to decrease the
difference between the actual level of learners and the intended objectives, and enhancing
learners’ ability to self-assess and monitor their learning and progress. Based on these
characteristics, the group used the term AfL, defining it as the process of searching for and
construing evidence that can be applied by teachers and students alike in order to
 43
determine not only the stage of learning that students have achieved but also what students’
future direction should be and the most effective means of arriving there (ARG, 2002).
Consequently, AfL concentrates on the process of learning and supporting students to
address their individual learning gaps (Sadler, 1989). These characteristics, when used
efficiently, can improve learning and teaching.

Once formative assessment is effectively applied, learning occurs in Vygotsky’s Zone of

Proximal Development (ZPD), also known as Zone of Potential Development (Vygotsky &
Cole, 1978). In this zone, teachers are responsible for structuring and leading learning by
way of scaffolding information with the students based on a process of gathering and
interpreting evidence (Vygotsky & Cole, 1978). Thus, through applying formative
assessment, instructors and learners are motivated to work on a consistent basis in the
ZDP. AfL in the zone of proximal development helps teachers to provide experiences and
support to their students, enabling students to gain new knowledge and understandings.
Learners may also learn and benefit from classroom interaction and collaboration.

However, the effectiveness of formative assessment may be undermined when there is

significant pressure placed on teachers to improve test performance, as is the case with
many accountability systems (Bennett, 2011; Torrance, 2012). AfL and formative
assessment were criticised by Torrance (2012) and Bennett (2011), who argued that use of
formative assessment is being reduced to the monitoring of students’ achievements through
regular tests or other techniques used to “teach to the test”. Their criticism of AfL can be
linked to the work of Marshall and Drummond (2006), which found that some AfL
practices represent only the “letter” of AfL, not the “spirit” of AfL; practices that do
capture the spirit of AfL are discussed later in Section 3.3.3.2.

Within an AfL context, though both teachers and students are central in the process, the
teacher’s role remains more significant. Earl (2003/2013) thus proposed the concept of
AaL to complement, support, and extend AfL, as AaL focuses on the students and their
role in learning, while AfL keeps teachers centred.

AaL can be seen as an extension of AfL, as both approaches focus on formative assessment
to promote learning (Berry, 2008). Dann (2002/2012) first introduced AaL as “a process
through which pupil involvement in assessment can feature as part of learning” (p. 153).
Earl and Katz (2006) then highlighted AaL as a metacognitive process in which learners
are encouraged to monitor and employ self-regulatory skills in their thinking processes,
 44
with an emphasis on the value and importance of encouraging learners to be their own
assessors. AaL aims to provide learners with valuable opportunities to think, self-assess,
self-evaluate, self-reflect, and self-correct both their learning progress and the strategies
they implement. It thereby aims to help learners to identify their strengths and weaknesses,
so learners can improve their own learning (Lee & Mak, 2014). Although learners are the
primary focus of AaL, teachers are involved in AaL through their effort to serve students’
learning by maximising learner involvement and enhancing learner motivation; teachers
can improve the attention, engagement, and productivity of their students' learning by
enhancing the effectiveness of their instruction through making it more goal-oriented,
student-centred, and effective (Earl, 2013). In AaL, in short, the instructor serves as a
facilitator, assisting students in their learning, rather than the key source of knowledge and
information.

Earl and Katz (2006) argued that each of the three approaches is useful and serves a
distinct function. Mok (2012) highlighted the need to find a balance between assessment
as, of, and for learning in order to gain the educational and learning advantages of each
approach. However, achieving a balance among the three approaches is not always easy.
The ongoing attempts for balancing and combining these approaches of assessment over
the years have led to the emergence of learning-oriented assessment (LOA), a concept
originated by Carless et al. (2006). As the term indicates, LOA is a type of assessment in
which the major concentration is on the possibility for students to establish productive
learning processes (Carless, 2007, 2014). Carless (2007, 2014) highlighted that both
formative and summative assessments have the potential to enhance learning as long as the
primary emphasis is on creating appropriate student learning opportunities. Carless et al.
(2006), Carless (2007, 2014), and Keppell et al. (2006) thus suggested that LOA should
aim to stress the educational aspects of assessment and to address the question of how
assessment may be utilised more effectively to improve students' learning. In agreement
with Carless, Purpura and Turner (2014) emphasised that learning should be central to the
curriculum and should serve as the guiding principle for instructional decision-making;
specifically, they argued that learning could be prompted by LOA through situating
assessment as a vital component of learning. LOA is a relatively new approach to
assessment that has the potential to significantly increase students' learning.

Moreover, Carless (2007, 2014) provided a framework to understand Learning-Oriented

Assessment (LOA) that is summarised in the following principles:
 45
• Principle 1: Assessment tasks should be designed to stimulate sound learning
practices amongst students.
• Principle 2: Assessment should involve students actively in engaging with criteria,
quality, and their own and/or peers’ performance.
• Principle 3: Feedback should be timely and forward-looking so as to support
current and future student learning.

(Carless, 2007, p. 59)

The first principle suggests that including assessment activities that represent the intended
learning goals can prep students for deep learning experiences (Carless, 2007, 2014). The
second principle suggests that the participation of students in assessment enables them to
gain deeper knowledge of learning objectives and to engage more actively with criteria and
standards (Carless, 2007, 2014). The third and last principle suggests that, for an
assessment task to be effective in promoting learning, the task should give students
relevant and appropriate feedback that the students can feedforward and incorporate into
future work (Carless, 2007, 2014). Based on these principles, Purpura (2016) described
LOA as a cognitive, collaborative, and learner-centred approach to learning. Consequently,
it could be argued that LOA can boost students’ self-regulated learning and autonomy
through creating an active learning environment which concentrates on the use of
metacognitive strategies and feedback.

Furthermore, researchers including Carless et al. (2006), Carless (2007, 2014), Willey and
Gardner (2009), and Purpura and Turner (2014) have suggested that Learning-oriented
assessment could be developed through self-assessment. Engaging students in self-
assessment may help students to develop learner autonomy, self-regulatory skills, and
critical thinking. In turn, students can focus on meeting learning objectives. Evidence has
revealed that learners that engaged in self- and peer-assessment may increase their
likelihood of comprehending and engaging with the learning objectives, which has an
impact on their performance (Daley & Nisa, 2016; Dann, 2012; Klenowski, 2009). Evans
(2013) review of literature on self-assessment highlighted that self-assessment enhances
learners' confidence and empowers them to take charge of their own learning process. Self-
assessment is an influential approach, particularly in the EFL context. Such approaches
may lead to the enhancement of learner’s confidence, independence, communication skills,
and deepened learning, as well as to critical thinking skills’ developments. Hence, self-
assessment remains significant owing to its positive influence on students’ learning skills
 46
and abilities. Thus, the following section explores self-assessment in the EFL context to
understand its role in lifelong learning and in the promotion of self-regulated learning and
critical thinking in this specific context.

3.3.2. Self-assessment in the EFL context

During the 1970s and 1980s, very limited attention was devoted to self-assessment within
the higher education context, particularly in the field of second and foreign language
learning (Coombe & Canning, 2002). However, since the 1990s, the increasing
prominence of student-focused learning has led to self-assessment gaining ground as a
means of assessment (Coombe & Canning, 2002). Thus, according to Harris (1997),
learners are generally now required to assume a degree of responsibility for the planning,
organisation, implementation, and evaluation of their learning. Traditionally, the obligation
to regulate these four components was assigned to teaching staff alone. Other trends in
pedagogy include the increasing relevance of lifelong learning and reflective learning in
higher education (Sambell et al., 2012); the value conferred on learner autonomy (Hunt et
al., 1989); and the increased focus on needs analysis (Blanche & Merino, 1989), All have
led self-assessment to become accepted as a valuable means of assessment.

3.3.2.1. Definition of self-assessment

The concept of self-assessment is open to dispute, with no agreed definition of the term.
The developing concept draws on various perspectives of different writers and researchers.
For example, according to Dickinson (1987), self-assessment denotes a method through
which students can assess and track their levels of expertise, performance, and
comprehension in order to obtain an overall of their academic progress. Such a
characterisation places self-assessment in a constructivist framework. In contrast,
Underhill (1991) defined self-assessment as a form of testing that can encourage the
participation of learners in the evaluation of their expressive or oral skills; Underhill noted
self-assessment is, therefore, the easiest, cheapest, and quickest form of assessment.
Underhill’s definition aligns self-assessment with behaviourist theories. The definition
adopted by Blatchford (1997) adds a comparative element to self-assessment. Namely,
Blatchford defines it as the process by which learners can measure and judge their own
improvement in relation to the performance of their peers. However, others have dismissed
the notion that self-assessment is in any way comparative, insisting that it only involves
students making judgements about their own achievements or failings in a way that serves
 47
to expand self-awareness. For example, Dikel (2005) contended that self-assessment
comprises a route by which students arrive at an awareness of their personal learning traits,
their personal learning preferences, and their responses to particular learning scenarios.
Similar to Dikel’s definition, Montgomery (2001) definition describes it as a means of
judging, by which students can judge their own performance and learning journey.
Specifically, as Mousavi (1999) stated, self-assessment is a learner’s personal evaluation of
their linguistic competence and their ability to employ the target language in multiple
scenarios. Nevertheless, most definitions of self-assessment characterise self-assessment as
one’s abilities, processes, or products, that can add to the complexity of defining the term.
For example, Epstein et al. (2008) defined self-assessment as a continuous process of self-
monitoring from one point in time to the next; it refers to observing our individual actions,
to curiosity about the implications of those actions, and to our willingness to develop our
behaviour and thinking through learning from our observations. Brown and Harris (2013)
defined it as a descriptive and evaluative act undertaken by a learner in relation to their
own academic abilities and progress. Panadero, Brown, et al. (2016) described it as a “wide
variety of mechanisms and techniques through which students describe (i.e. assess) and
possibly assign merit or worth to (i.e. evaluate) the qualities of their own learning
processes and products” (p. 804).

The multiplicity of definitions for the concept of self-assessment also demonstrates a lack
of agreement regarding the term itself. Self-assessment may be referred to as self-
evaluation, self-rating, or self-appraisal. These terms tend to be variously applied to denote
self-assessment and sometimes are used interchangeably within the literature. Klenowski
(1995) argued that self-evaluation refers to the assessment or appraisal of the value of
performance and the recognition of positive and negative aspects with the intention of
enhancing future learning outcomes. Klenowski’s definition is somewhat broader than
most self-assessment definitions, which are more restricted, focused instead on the
processes in which learners engage in order to determine the grade to which they are
entitled. Klenowski’s definition could be seen as broadly parallel to that employed by
Dickinson (1987) in that both definitions are contextualised within a constructivist frame,
which emphasises evaluation and information gathering on areas that require improving.
The term self-rating tends to refer to learners using a scale to score their progress and
performance (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2018; Cheng et al., 2010; Goh et al., 2010; Taheri et
al., 2014; Williamson, 2007). Whilst the terms self-assessment and self-appraisal are often
used interchangeably (McLeod, 1997; Sobral, 2004), self-appraisal is also used to indicate
self-evaluation of success by certain writers such as Van Praag et al. (2017).
 48
Due to the difficulties in defining self-assessment, some researchers, including Haughton
and Dickinson (1988), Oscarson (1989), Bachman (2000), have endeavoured to define the
term based on the purpose of self-assessment. Along that same line, Andrade and Cizek
(2010) and Andrade (2018) argued that most definitions are missing the purpose of the act
of self-assessment. Within the literature, formative and summative assessment are the two
identified types of self-assessment (Andrade & Cizek, 2010; Andrade, 2018; Andrade &
Brown, 2016; Bachman, 2000; Barnes, 2006; Brown et al., 2015; Carless, 2005;
Dickinson, 1987; Oscarson, 1989).

Andrade and Cizek (2010), Andrade (2018), and Andrade (2019) argued that “self-
assessment is feedback” and that the drive of feedback is to guide alterations that enable
deep and enhanced learning and achievement; therefore, self-assessment is meant to
generate feedback with the purpose of promoting learning and improving performance.
This argument emphasises feedback as a vital part of the student process of self-
assessment, and it could help avoid superficial implementations of self-assessment, as
discussed in the following section.

3.3.2.2. Self-assessment from “letter” to the “spirit”

Before discussing the implementation of self-assessment within the context of EFL

learning, it is important to clarify that self-assessment is far more than simply applying a
technique. Superficial implementations of self-assessment must be avoided to ensure its
benefits. Self-assessment as part of AfL or AaL is grounded in a constructivist approach
(Marshall & Drummond, 2006; Munns & Woodward, 2006; Murphy, 2008). As noted,
AaL is derived from AfL. The constructivist approach of learning is a theory developed by
Piaget (1978) that concentrates on building knowledge through experiences’
interpretations. Through scaffolding, students can build new knowledge grounded on
previous knowledge and experience (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). However, AfL and AaL
could be seen as forms of interaction between teachers and students or between students.
Assessment is a complex cultural process, wherein the connections between learners,
teachers, and tasks are explored in their context (Elwood, 2006). Accordingly, the
constructivist approach to self-assessment is questioned so that self-assessment can be seen
from a sociocultural perspective. The sociocultural approach enables teachers to navigate
and understand the complexities of their context in promoting learner autonomy (Willis,
2009). It recognises that “activities do not exist in isolation rather they are part of broader
systems of relations, social structures, in which they have meaning” (Murphy et al., 2006).
 49
Social and cultural contexts have a powerful impact on classroom assessment and learners’
autonomy, and, without comprehension of their impact, AfL may well be “part of the futile
search for a universal, culture-free, ‘teacher-proof’ approach to education” (Wells &
Claxton, 2002, p. 6). In this regard, Marshall and Drummond (2006) differentiated between
the “letter” and “spirit” of AfL; namely, they indicated that teachers that understand the
importance of social contact and the importance of sharing the learning responsibility
along with their learners, will eventually lead to a positive influence on students’
performance and autonomy with the support of AfL practices. The spirit of AfL is present
in teaching when the environment of the classroom supports socially constructed learning
and when the goal is to increase learner autonomy. Therefore, to avoid superficial
implementation of self-assessment, and to understand AfL with sociocultural theory, the
origin of the theory including the work of Dewey (1910/1997) and Vygotsky (1978), is
explored in the following section.

3.3.2.3. Origin of sociocultural theory

Sociocultural theory can be linked to the work of John Dewey (1910/1997) and Lev
Vygotsky (1978), two prominent psychologists in developing the sociocultural theories of
learning. Glassman (2001) argued that Dewey’s work may possibly have had an impact on
Vygotsky’s thinking. Though both psychologists did differ on some substantial aspects of
their comprehension of learning, both had primarily the same viewpoint regarding the
socially constructed aspect of learning and the concept of development toward learner’s
autonomy (Glassman, 2001). Dewey (1910/1997) argued that the teacher–student
relationship facilitates learning, such that understanding is developed through social
contact and “scientific inquiry” instead of the traditional instruction of a subject. Learning
processes should thus involve students in active learning that incorporates teacher-student
interaction in a social context. Moreover, Vygotsky (1978) concentrated on the function of
language as a cultural instrument rather than on individual development as an end goal, by
including children in activities and allowing them to engage with more experienced
individuals, and thereby foster stronger social cohesion (Vygotsky & Cole, 1978).
Vygotsky (1978) further argued that, when adults use language to communicate as an
attempt to complete a task, language is viewed as a tool to facilitates activity. Viewing
language in this way facilitates the internalisation of learning and gives a foundation for
comprehension of their following activity.
 50
Vygotsky (1978), in explaining his concept of the zone of proximal development (ZDP),
emphasised the gaps between degrees of possible development; those gaps, he argued, are
influenced by “independent problem solving and the level of potential development as
determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more
capable peers” (Vygotsky & Cole, 1978, p. 86). Vygotsky (1978) highlighted the
significance of the instructor-student relationship, wherein the instructor recognises and
scaffolds tasks within a ZDP that is slightly above the developmental level of the learner
(Vygotsky & Cole, 1978). This approach emphasises that the teacher’s role is guaranteeing
that all learners may collaborate and work in a social setting to build new knowledge and
understanding, thereby fostering and encouraging their individual learning.

Drawing on Vygotsky’ concept of ZPD, Gipps (2002) uses the notion to support her
position on the transition from AfL. The zone of proximal development is the focal point
of Gipps (2002) argument on assessment, in that it both reflects and promotes the learning
process of the students. Gipps (2002) outlines four critical characteristics of assessment:

The critical role of tools in human activity and implications of offering assistance
and guidance during the course of an assessment... The inseparability of the social,
affective and cognitive dimensions of action and interaction and hence the
implication that learners should be assessed not in isolation and in competition but
in groups and social settings... The relationship between expert and apprentice...and
the implications of this for the assessment relationship... (p. 74)

Self-assessment, within the context of the sociocultural, can be seen as a cultural and
dialectical process that allows learners to improve their knowledge and have control over
their learning process.

This assists in comprehending self-assessment in a sociocultural context; as an

interactional process, students and teachers or peers collaborate with the purpose of
improving learning. This suggests that, through interaction and cooperation, learners may
explore deeply and gain knowledge from one another.

3.3.2.4. Self-assessment and self-regulated learning from a sociocultural

perspective

A sociocultural perspective casts doubt on the more traditional notion of learner autonomy
as “the capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent
action” (Little, 1991, p. 4). From a sociocultural perspective, learning is situated within a
 51
cohesive cultural process; the social context and the learner are interrelated in a manner
that influences and shapes the learning process, with the social environment being
influenced by and influencing the student (James, 2006). The learner acquires competence
through language use and participation in social interactions, which include collaboration
with the instructor. Willis (2009) highlighted that learner autonomy is characterised as the
socially created identity of a self-monitoring learner that engages in culturally acceptable
behaviours in a community of practice. Willis’s (2009) interpretation emphasises the view
that students develop learner autonomy in a social setting rather than in solitude. Willis’s
definition of learner autonomy is influenced by Lave and Wenger (1991) definition of
identities as “long-term, living relationships between persons and their place and
participation in communities of practice” (p. 93). In Willis’s (2009) definition of learner
autonomy, self-monitoring entails the ability to comprehend and control learning at the
time it occurs, with dependence on the teacher reducing over time. Regarding this
definition of learner autonomy, Ratner (2000) further argued that the learner’s autonomy
transitions from a stable to a prospective state, and only with social interaction can the role
of an autonomous learner be fulfilled. The learner is thus actively engaged in negotiating
their own learning identity.

Within a sociocultural perspective, to assist learners in developing self-regulatory skills,

both teacher- and student-led AfL and AaL activities should be made more interactive and
dialogic (Nicol, 2010). Making these practices more interactive will entail making self-
assessment dialogic as well in order to develop students into autonomous and self-
regulating learners. Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) and Nicol (2010) argued that
feedback should be considered a two-way, dialogical process including teacher-student
and/or peer-peer interaction, as well as the learner’s active involvement through self-
feedback. Interpretations are exchanged, meanings are negotiated, and expectations are
defined in such an engaged discussion; this approach contrasts with conventional
assessment practices that follow an old paradigm centred on one-way information flow
from the teacher to the student (Carless, 2012). Feedback as dialogue is argued to promote
learner’ active involvement with feedback (Price et al., 2011), and self-regulated learning
(Winstone et al., 2017). With self-assessment, students thus play an active role in
providing feedback through self-assessment or peer-assessment to develop their
performance. Students can learn to accept and comprehend useful and meaningful
comments in an approachable way. Panadero, Brown, et al. (2016) argued that, through
teacher and peer evaluation or feedback, novice self-assessors could become aware of the
possibility of inaccuracy in their assessment. Additionally, it is argued in the work of
 52
Panadero, Brown, et al. (2016), Panadero and Alonso-Tapia (2013), and Cao and Nietfeld
(2005) that providing feedback to students is necessary for them to develop into more
accurate self-assessors, and without feedback self-assessment appears to be highly
dependent on individual qualities and differences.

Moreover, through self-assessment, students can also practise detached judgement,

learning to become more critical of their own work and, thus, improving their self-
regulatory skills. The next section discusses the concepts of self-regulated learning and its
compatibility with self-assessment.

3.3.3. Self-assessment and areas of self-regulated learning

Self-regulated learning provides a theoretical framework to the notion of self-assessment

by emphasising the learners’ active role in the learning process (Panadero, Brown, et al.,
2016). It is argued in the literature that engaging students in self-assessment could develop
their self-regulated learning skills (Andrade & Cizek, 2010; Andrade, 2019; Panadero &
Alonso-Tapia, 2013; Panadero et al., 2018; Panadero, Jonsson, et al., 2016). Additionally,
several research studies as those conducted by Yan (2020), Brown and Harris (2013), and
Panadero et al. (2018) have demonstrated that self-assessment is a critical component of
SRL and occurs throughout each phase in the SRL process. Recently, Panadero et al.
(2017) meta-analytic review and Andrade (2019) critical review on the relationship
between self-assessment and self-regulated learning suggested that self-assessment
interventions are beneficial for students' self-regulated learning skills. By placing self-
assessment within the theoretical framework of self-regulated learning, which includes
cognitive, metacognitive, self-efficacy and motivation theories, the following section
explores the connections between the two concepts and highlights the importance of self-
assessment to promoting students’ self-regulatory skills.

3.3.3.1. Self-assessment and achievement goal theory

Achievement goal theory is a cognitive theory concerned with both the manner in which
learners internalise diverse ability objectives and the impact of these objectives on self-
assessment, learner persistence, and learning outcomes (Senko et al., 2011). Studies within
the field have tended to emphasis two types of goals: mastery goals and performance goals
(see, for example, Harackiewicz et al. (2002); Maehr and Zusho (2009); Pintrich et al.
(2003); Senko et al. (2011)). Mastery goals push the learner to concentrate on a given task,
 53
specifically on the knowledge and skills required to complete it (Maehr & Zusho, 2009).
Mastery is acquired through cognitive processes, including self-monitoring, thinking, and
problem-solving (Maehr & Zusho, 2009). When working towards mastery goals, learners
tend to completely involve themselves in tasks and activities, monitoring their own
progress throughout (Pintrich et al., 2003). Conversely, performance goals emphasise
outcomes and results, including grades and scores (Senko et al., 2011). Performance goals
emphasise focus on the outcome and identifying ways to ensure the outcome; more
emphasis is placed on ensuring the grade than on fostering a deeper knowledge.
Performance goals can, therefore, prompt learners to develop negative perceptions
regarding their abilities and performance. Performance goals may also serve to reinforce
compliance and conformity, which then prevent any real improvement in comprehension
or proficiency since the grade or score becomes more important than authentic learning.

The presence of performance goals implies that the process of monitoring and evaluating
learning is an external one. Conversely, mastery goals suggest that the monitoring and
evaluation are, at least to a degree, internal. Self-assessment is invaluable in the context of
mastery goals, since it facilitates self-awareness in learners regarding their knowledge and
skill levels. However, performance orientation is dependent on the teachers and other staff
who arrange learning activities, define success and failure, and assess outcomes. Thus,
augmenting skills in relation to self-assessment improves mastery orientation.

3.3.3.2. Self-assessment and metacognition

Metacognition is the process of “thinking about thinking” (Flavell, 1979, p. 906).

Unsurprisingly, it has a marked influence on self-assessment. Metacognitive and self-
regulated learning strategies are fundamental for learner success (Bol & Garner, 2011).
Self-regulated learning is an active, practical process in which learners determine goals for
their learning; these goals, along with the contextual characteristics of the learning
environment, will guide learners’ monitoring and regulating of their own cognition,
motivation, and behaviour (Pintrich, 2000). To become active in their learning process,
students should choose and adapt their learning strategies and reflect on the effectiveness
of those learning strategies (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2012). Metacognitive strategies include
planning, monitoring, and evaluating learning performance (Pintrich, 2000). These
strategies can be regarded as the means by which learners track, organise, and arrange their
learning. Metacognitive strategies also include learners developing awareness of what
activities and techniques they employ during learning (Bol & Garner, 2011). Thus, through
 54
the process of metacognition, learners can acquire the ability to understand which learning
strategies have the most effective outcomes in specific learning contexts. Further, learners
can realise what measures must be undertaken to enhance outcomes. However, to conduct
metacognition effectively, students must be aware of their work and be able to monitor,
evaluate, and realise what to do to improve performance; these capacities require skills
such as checking, understanding, predicting outcomes, planning activities, managing time,
and switching to different learning activities as needed (Berry, 2013).

Metacognitive strategies arguably require self-regulatory skills on the part of the learner,
and they certainly have positive links to self-assessment and enhanced learning
performance. Learners must be able to monitor, evaluate, and assess their own learning
both during and following the learning experience. In this way, learners become engaged
participants, utilising any information produced via assessment and assuming
responsibility for their future learning performance (Berry, 2013). Moreover, as Berry
(2013) noted, the intention embodied within metacognition-related assessment is to
facilitate the development of students as independent learners. However, metacognition-
related assessment necessitates learner awareness in relation to what is expected from
them, as well as the ability to regulate and evaluate their own progress. Using the
information acquired through self-assessment, learners are in a position to manage their
learning in a way which allows the prompt achieving of their objectives. Clearly, this
conceptualisation of assessment places the active role of learners at its core.

3.3.3.3. Self-assessment, self-efficacy, and motivation

Conceptually, self-efficacy is closely related to the notion of learner autonomy, which

exists in the discussion of language learning under the term self-regulation. As Dann
(2012) noted, learner self-efficacy determines how a learner proceeds in any given
teaching, learning, or assessment scenario. Hence, beliefs concerning self-efficacy have a
causal relationship with a learner’s employment of self-regulatory behaviours, such as time
management, learning strategies, and the establishment of personal academic goals (Dann,
2012). In other words, the greater the academic capacity students perceive themselves to
possess, the more advanced the targets they establish for themselves. Should students fail
to achieve their objectives, the more self-efficacious amongst them will simply redouble
their efforts, whilst the less self-efficacious will tend to revoke their active pursuit of
academic success (Zimmerman, 2000b). Thus, a learner’s self-belief regarding their
 55
academic potential or prowess has a direct and marked influence on their capacity to
realise their goals (Zimmerman, 2000b).

Self-regulation comprises three discrete stages: forethought, performance, and self-

reflection (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2012; Zimmerman, 2000a; Zimmerman & Cleary,
2009). Self-efficacy is a sub-constituent of self-regulation, belonging specifically to the
forethought phase, which encompasses notions existing prior to the learning performance
(Cleary & Zimmerman, 2012; Zimmerman & Cleary, 2009). Making estimations
pertaining to potential performance and ability, and to the probability that effort will be
met with success are crucial aspects of self-efficacy (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2012;
Zimmerman & Cleary, 2009). Such self-perception emerges alongside the capacity of
learners to incrementally link their successes and failures to specific causal factors.
Situation and context are crucial to self-efficacy. Moreover, self-perception is vital because
it correlates with learners’ beliefs concerning their general capabilities, knowledge base,
and skills (Zimmerman, 2000a, 2000b). Thus, learners who possess high expectations in
relation to their potential are more likely to act in a manner indicative of persistence.
Conversely, learners with lower expectations regarding their abilities are less prone to
persevere in learning and may demonstrably shun certain tasks or relinquish their studies
altogether. Therefore, in the opinion of McCarthy et al. (1985), the employment of self-
assessment techniques presents itself as a valuable way to enhance learners’ self-efficacy
and, consequently, their abilities and performance levels.

Self-assessment must be undertaken for a number of reasons. Students need to self-assess

in order to identify when they are learning, how much work is necessary for achievement,
when they have achieved success, when they have made a mistake, and which learning
methods work best for them (McMillan & Hearn, 2008). Effective and honest self-
evaluation facilitates the identification of what has been successfully grasped versus what
is yet to be mastered. Learners who succeed in performing reasonably demanding tasks can
tribute their achievement to their skill and effort, not external variables such as peer
support. Identifying internal strengths depends on the capacity to make accurate self-
assessments and evaluations.

However, learners must not merely possess convictions concerning self-efficacy

(Zimmerman, 2000a). Learners should also be stimulated to become active learners. In
order to develop as active learners, students must be autonomously inspired to take all they
can from their learning environment. Learners should formulate judgements and make
 56
decisions pertaining to the degree to which they wish to actively learn (Dann, 2012). Self-
beliefs regarding personal learning capacities will clearly inform this effort to some extent.
According to Rheinberg et al. (2000), learning-focused motivation encompasses multiple
traits, including motives, objectives, intentions, predilections, and situational factors such
as potential advantages and disadvantages of tasks and the nature of activities involved.

Thus, self-assessment is a principal classroom-based activity which can be invoked to

teach learners about learning. Moreover, as Dann (2012) maintained, self-assessment can
educate learners on how to review their own work frankly, impartially, and constructively.
It can also teach learners to express opinions about their personal learning experiences, to
celebrate success, and to formulate realistic goals. Furthermore, the capacity of self-
assessment to determine self-efficacy and other aspects of self-regulation should not be
forgotten (Zimmerman, 1989). Thus, when learners possess negative attitudes towards
their personal learning, self-assessment is a valuable strategy which can be employed to
manifest and ground more positive aspects of the process. Before exploring the different
self-assessment strategies used in the EFL context, it is necessary to explore the ideas
around speaking and assessment of speaking in the EFL context in the following section,
as this thesis concentrates on speaking classroom.

3.3.4. Speaking and its assessment

Within an EFL context, speaking skills are a vital component of the curriculum (Luoma,
2004). Speaking skills are fundamental for global mobility, admission into higher
education, and employment in the globalised society (Fulcher, 2015; Isaacs & Isaacs,
2016). Speaking, according to Bailey (2003), is the systematic production of utterances to
communicate meaning, namely an oral, aural, and productive skill that occurs in real time.
To illustrate, as speech is generated orally, speaking is oral; as the response is frequently
related to input audibly received, speaking is also aural; as language is directed outward,
speaking is productive too; and lastly, as the other speaker should wait for the person who
is speaking to finish speaking before they can speak, and as the speaker is unable to revise
his response as he could in writing, speaking occurs in real time (Bailey, 2003).
Notwithstanding, regardless of the prominence of speaking in language assessment and
pedagogy, several researchers, including Correia (2016); Fan and Yan (2020); Guettal
(2008); Levelt (1994); Rychtarik (2014); Schmidt (1992), have viewed speaking as an
intangible construct that can be difficult to conceptualise and assess. Hughes (2003)
indicated that selecting the appropriate assessment is a major challenge in assessing
 57
speaking. Along with selection of the appropriate assessment, O'malley and Pierce (1996)
suggested that identification of the assessment criteria is another major challenge in
assessing speaking. These challenges in conceptualising and assessing speaking, according
to Luoma (2004) and Carter and McCarthy (2017), could first probably be due to the
dynamic and context-specific character of spoken language. Second, Luoma (2004) and
Carter and McCarthy (2017) have also argued that the challenges could also be due to the
numerous forms that spoken language can take, such as paired conversation, group
discussion, and monologs, and to the various situations in which speech occurs, such as
intentional or unplanned situations.

In an attempt to help determine what to assess when it comes to speaking, Brown and
Abeywickrama (2004) classified speaking skills into micro-skills and macro-skills. Micro-
skills encompass the ability to produce small units of language, including words,
morphemes, phonemes, collocations, and phrase units, while macro-skills concern the
larger components of speaking, including style, fluency, function, cohesion, discourse
nonverbal communication, and strategic options (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2004) (see
Table 3-3 for a list of micro- and macro-skills of speaking).
 58
Table 3-3 a list of micro- and macro-skills of speaking (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2004)

Micro-skills Macro-skills

• Producing differences among English • Appropriately accomplishing

phonemes and allophonic variants. communicative functions according to
• Producing chunks of language of situations, participants, and goals.
different lengths. • Using appropriate styles, registers,
• Producing English stress patterns, implicature, redundancies, pragmatic
words in stressed and unstressed conventions, conversation rules, floor
positions, rhythmic structure, and keeping and yielding, interrupting, and
intonation contours. other sociolinguistic features in face-to-
• Producing reduced forms of words and face conversations.
phrases. • Conveying links and connections
• Using an adequate number of lexical between events and communicating
units (words) to accomplish pragmatic such relations as focal and peripheral
purposes. ideas, events and feelings, new
• Producing fluent speech at different information and given information, and
rates of delivery. generalization and exemplification.
• Monitoring one’s own oral production • Conveying facial features, kinesics,
and using various strategic devices – body language, and other nonverbal
pauses, fillers, self-corrections, cues along with verbal language.
backtracking – to enhance the clarity of • Developing and using a battery of
the message. speaking strategies, such as
• Using grammatical word class (nouns, emphasizing key words, rephrasing,
verbs, etc.) systems (tense, agreement, providing a context for interpreting the
pluralisation); word order; patterns; meaning of words, appealing for help,
rules; and elliptical forms. and accurately assessing how well your
• Producing speech in natural interlocutor is understanding you.
constituents: in appropriate phrases,
pause groups, breathe groups, and
sentence constituents.
• Expressing a particular meaning in
different grammatical forms.
• Using cohesive devices in spoken
discourse.

Moreover, building on the work of Heaton (1988), Hughes (2003), and O'malley and
Pierce (1996), Brown and Abeywickrama (2004) identified five categories of speaking
assessment practices:

1- Imitative practices, or repeating a small stretch of language to assess

competence in phonetics, prosody, lexicon, and grammar (pronunciation).
2- Intensive practices, such as via reading aloud (to assess stress-pattern, rhythm and
pronunciation); directed response tasks (to assess a specific grammatical form or a
transformation of a sentence); sentence/dialogue completion (to assess the micro-
 59
skill of providing the right chunks of language and other pronunciation features);
translation/interpreting games (to assess competence in conveying a message in the
target language); and limited picture-cued tasks (to assess competence in explaining
a plan, directions, and even opinions).
3- Responsive practices, or using small dialogues or responses to spoken prompts,
such as via question and answer (to assess producing meaningful language in
response); giving instruction and direction (to assess competence in describing a
how-to description); and paraphrasing.
4- Interactive practices, or using larger dialogues in transactional and interactional
conversation, such as via interview, drama-like tasks, discussions and
conversations, and games.
5- Extensive practices, or monologues, such as eliciting speech through oral
presentations or reports, picture-cued storytelling, retelling a story, and translation.

These categories of speaking assessment practices as classified by Brown and

Abeywickrama (2004) emphasise the vital role of the purposes of assessment. Identifying
and understanding the purpose of speaking assessment can contribute to the development
of speaking tasks or assessments that target specific speaking abilities and achieve the
intended objective, for example, to measure performance or support learning. Another
starting point when it comes to speaking assessment is the language ability theories, such
as Canale and Swain (1980) or Bachman (1990) theories, or language ability description,
such as Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Proficiency Guidelines
(ACTFL). For example, Canale and Swain’s (1980) theory of language ability focusses on
four competencies: grammatical, strategic, discourse, and socio-linguistic competencies.
On the same note, the CEFR’s language ability description includes descriptions of the
main four skills from beginning to advanced.

The above ideas related to speaking assessment could inform the creation of appropriate
student learning opportunities through speaking self-assessment that stresses the
educational aspects of assessment, promotes deep learning, and encourages active
engagement in the learning process. The following section addresses the different self-
assessment strategies used in the EFL context.
 60
3.3.5. Self-assessment strategies in the EFL context

Self-assessment necessitates that learners employ a wide range of learning strategies and
higher-order cognitive skills that offer more than just feedback it also offer guidance for
future learning (Chamot & O'malley, 1994). Andrade (2019) reported in a recent critical
review of research on learners' self-assessment that, without exception, the studies included
in the review, which also included two meta-analyses (Graham et al., 2015; Sanchez et al.,
2017), revealed a positive relationship between self-assessment and achievement. Research
in the field of EFL learning in Saudi Arabia also revealed positive relationship between
self-assessment and achievement in writing (Alshammari, 2016; Nalliveettil & Mahasneh,
2017) and reading (Rabiah, 2020); and general language improvement (Qasem, 2020).

Within the context of EFL, self-assessment may be incorporated through different

strategies including learner diaries, dialogue journals, pre- and post-course writing, rating
scales, checklists, and audio and video recording. The practical application of such
strategies is clarified and explored in the following section.

3.3.5.1. Reflection pieces (learner diaries, dialogue journals, and reflection

logs)

Diaries, dialogue journals, and reflection logs are types of reflective writing that Oskarsson
(1984) and Dickinson (1987) initially proposed for students. Opp-Beckman and
Klinghammer (2006) described the reflection log as written records by which personal
actions, work, and attainment can be monitored by a student over the course of their
learning. Actions that could be taken to achieve self-improvement, aspects that have been
straightforward or challenging, issues that a student still has queries about, and critical
reflection on the learning process could all be documented in a reflection log according to
Opp-Beckman and Klinghammer (2006). This type of reflective writing can be appropriate
at the level of a certain subject or an academic unit, as observed by North Carolina State
Department (1999) (Jones et al., 1999). Additionally, Richards et al. (2002) noted that
pupils’ learning can also be monitored by teachers through reflection logs. Opp-Beckman
and Klinghammer (2006) described dialogue journals as written reflections on the writer’s
own development and learning experiences generated on a day-to-day or week-by-week
basis. Nunan et al. (1992) clarified that dialogue journals create teacher-student and
student-student interaction outside classes.
 61
Moreover, Boud and Falchikov (2007) pointed out that compared with a typical diary, the
level of personal reflection will be less, although some critical reflection will be present in
the journal. According to Boud and Falchikov (2007), diaries are effective means of
assessment when the emphasis is on the learning process rather than the end result. Nunan
et al. (1992) suggested that autonomous learning is promoted through diaries, as diaries
encourage learners to take charge of their own learning. Furthermore, Nunan et al. (1992)
suggested that the formulation of novel ideas, comprehension of challenging resources,
improvement of confidence, and exchange of ideas with teachers are all possible subjects
for learners to reflect on through diaries. Köller (2005) also noted that opportunities for
critical reflection by learners are provided by learning diaries, which offer further
autonomous learning opportunities. These methods offer a means for learners to
methodically self-assess their progress over a length of time. Leaners are prompted to
employ these journals or diaries for the free expression of elements of their learning;
through these tools, learners can describe how they feel about their progress and explore
their future intentions regarding the use of their newly acquired skills.

3.3.5.2. Audio-visual aids

Technology has enabled the recording of lessons, so audio-visual processes can be used to
isolate and preserve certain elements in the process of learning. For instance, recording
could be employed for self-assessment, wherein learners can use it to trace either
themselves or their fellow students’ performance. By listening to the recordings, students
provide themselves with a valuable opportunity to gauge their own linguistic competence.
When audio and visual recording is combined, students can evaluate their own
paralinguistic skills, including tone and pitch of the voice, or body language as an adjunct
to their language parallelism and linguistic performance. Repeated use of these techniques
can allow learners to acquire a precise sense of their progress and performance, which is
beneficial in terms of increasing learner confidence levels pertaining to oral productive
skills. Audio recording appears to lend itself well to self-assessment in the context of
speaking skills amongst language students in Saudi Arabia, a context in which obtaining
permission to employ video recording may be fraught with obvious difficulties. VSR
(video-stimulated recall) offers several benefits for independent language learners (Hurd &
Lewis, 2008). It is capable of recording some aspects of classroom performance and
permits the subsequent revisiting of data and consequent reflection. Moreover, decisions
taken during lessons and emotions demonstrated at the time can be carefully reconsidered.
There are notable drawbacks to VSR as well, though. Reitano (2006) noted, for example,
 62
that VSR creates a predisposition to fixation upon physical appearance, can elicit
embarrassment and self-consciousness, and may lead to intransigent attitudes regarding the
objectivity of any observations.

Irrespective of affective factors, research by Ross (2006) concluded that, in combination

with appropriate instruction, self-assessment by students constitutes a consistent and
appropriate evaluation tool which can enhance both learning experiences and learning
outcomes. According to Reitano (2006), VSR is the most efficacious way in which
teaching staff can review their own teaching practices and continue their professional
development. Thus, video or audio reflection has the potential to be used effectively in
relation to language learners.

3.3.5.3. Self-assessment forms (rating scales/ criteria sheets/ rubrics and

checklists)

Rating scales and checklists are common techniques in self-assessment. Such forms are
frequently utilised to help language learners evaluate their apparent capabilities and
linguistic proficiencies. Several research studies as those conducted by Coombe Coombe
and Canning (2002); Coombe (1992) and Oskarsson (1984) have demonstrated the manner
in which statements of ability, such as self-assessment forms, may be used by learners for a
structured means of pondering and constructively assessing their own learning
performance. A checklist is characterised by Herman (1992) as a set of dimensions,
characteristics, or behaviours that that are ultimately rated with ‘no’ or ‘yes’ options. As
Herman (1992) explained, a checklist assists the user to acknowledge the possession or
lack of specific conduct or features; compared with rating scales, checklists often have
more dimensions. Stimulating students’ active learning through reflecting on their work
and helping them to learn in an effective way is perhaps the main use of checklists within
the EFL learning context (Wragg, 2003). In contrast, rubrics offer guidance by providing
criteria and descriptors of the different levels of proficiency or knowledge that could help
learners while reflecting on their work (Griffith & Lim, 2012). It is argued by Andrade and
Valtcheva (2009) and Panadero et al. (2013), that complex self-assessment scaffolding
tools, such as rubrics, could assist beginners by providing clarity on what constitutes
quality performance. The directions embodied within self-assessment forms and the
criteria required can be either straightforward and brief, or extensive and complex. The
extent of the measures employed in self-assessment forms typically correlates with the
level of linguistic proficiency the students possess. However, the measures can also relate
 63
to the specific issues which teaching staff wish to address and to any other language-
related skills in which students must demonstrate ability (Diab, 2010a, 2010b; Harris,
1997; Kasule & Lunga, 2010; Oscarson, 2009).

Within the context of language learning, recent research indicates that rubrics can help
students enhance performance and adopt self-regulatory learning strategies. For example,
Baxa (2015), Herayati (2020), Ratminingsih et al. (2018), Weiss (2018), and Xu (2019)
indicate that rubrics should clearly describe particular ideas for learners’ work and
influence learners’ development through understanding the strengths and weaknesses of
the learners. In the same vein, some research has found that the use of rubrics can improve
performance and provide opportunities for self-regulatory learning use of strategy (Brown
& Harris, 2013; Panadero & Alonso-Tapia, 2013; Taras, 2010). These findings imply that
rubrics can be effective strategies that positively impact achievement and provide
opportunities to use self-regulatory strategies. These tools enhance learners' awareness of
the criteria that will likely be used to assess their performance, and Nielsen (2011) found
that, without learners' comprehension and awareness of these criteria, assessment cannot be
valid. The use of accurate, well-defined, and well-understood criteria and standards of
performance, according to Panadero et al. (2013) and Panadero and Romero (2014), is
essential for assisting students in assessing their own work to determine whether it meets
standards and expectations, hence enhancing the accuracy of self-assessment.

3.3.6. Self-assessment as a means to enhance critical thinking along with

self-regulated learning in the EFL context

Self-assessment can improve both self-regulated learning and critical thinking as it

provides a link between critical thinking, self-regulated learning, and enhancing the
learning (Watson, 2002). A student who is capable of thinking critically can monitor,
analyse, judge, and select the best ways to learn; thus, a good critical thinker is a better
self-assessor (Paul et al., 1997). In fact, self-assessment entails providing learners with the
chance to monitor their development and solely concentrate on their learning (Harris,
1997). Learners should use critical thinking in order to make the most of this opportunity.
Self-assessment enables learners to be actively involved in the process of assessment and
to think deeply; it prompts students to develop cognitive skills such as critical thinking,
collaboration, decision-making, self-monitoring and regulation, and problem solving; and
it encourages them to criticise constructively, propose changes, reflect, and make sound
decisions (Sluijsmans et al., 1998; Sung et al., 2005). Likewise, Smith (1997) stressed the
 64
prominence of self-assessment and argued that self-assessment assists learners in becoming
autonomous learners and that, in turn, critical thinking is one of the traits of autonomous
learners. Moreover, Paul et al. (1997) proposed that self-assessment is a crucial factor for
critical thinkers, who are capable of monitoring, analysing, judging, and selecting the most
effective way of thinking; thus, a good critical thinker is a good self-assessor.
Consequently, the argument is that self-regulated learning and critical thinking could be
enhanced through providing learners with opportunities by which they can self-assess their
performance as explained in detail in the above sections.

Reviewing the literature on self-assessment within EFL reveals that most studies
investigating the impact of self-assessment have used observational approaches to
characterise classroom activity. Few studies have offered evidence supporting their
findings or illustrated the effectiveness of self-assessment in EFL classes. Nonetheless, in
the last five years, there has been a recognised increase in the number of the studies on the
implementation of self-assessment and its impact on achievement within the EFL context,
e.g. Herayati (2020), Liu and Brantmeier (2019), Ratminingsih et al. (2018), Wang (2017),
Elgadal (2017). Significantly, there is a noticeable difference between the number of the
studies that have emerged in writing classrooms, on the use and effect of self-assessment in
writing classrooms in comparison to the number of studies in speaking classrooms,
especially in higher education. The review also revealed several recent empirical studies on
the relationship between self-assessment and self-regulated learning in higher education
within the EFL context, e.g., Papanthymou and Darra (2018), Duque Micán and Cuesta
Medina (2017), Fathi et al. (2017), Dharma and Adiwijaya (2018). However, none of the
studies have addressed to the issue in the Saudi context, particularly in English language
courses in higher education. Additionally, neither the relationship between self-assessment
and critical thinking nor the relationship between self-regulated learning and critical
thinking have been sufficiently explored, especially in higher education within the Saudi
context. Previous studies have emphasised the need for further research on the perception
of students of the practices of assessment in EFL classrooms (Alhamami, 2019; Borg &
Edmett, 2019; Kalra et al., 2017; Tong, 2011), which has not been sufficiently explored,
especially in speaking classes. Such research could provide important evidence about the
effectiveness of self-assessment. Learners’ perceptions are important to understanding their
preferences and likes and dislikes, or their desire to alter the learning/teaching process in
the language classroom (Griffiths, 2007). Roghanizadeh (2011) highlighted that no
curriculum can claim to be strictly learner-centred, unless consideration is given to
students’ perceptions and needs in the learning process. Kamgar and Jadidi (2016) stated
 65
that learners’ opinions, views, and preferences of the learning process are vital to a
student's success or failure in learning a foreign language. Additionally, Ghanizadeh and
Mirzaee (2012) argued that the more we understand about learners' individual methods and
views, the more effective and fruitful our interventions would be; accordingly, language
instructors and syllabus designers should pay attention to their learners’ preferences and
perceptions. This thesis aims to hear the voices of EFL learners regarding their perception
and experience of self-assessment and its impact on their self-regulatory skills and critical
thinking skills.

3.4. Conclusion

This chapter has reviewed literature on the role and impact of self-assessment on EFL
learners’ self-regulated learning and critical thinking. It began by discussing the
developing concepts of self-regulated learning and critical thinking. It presented evidence
suggesting that, through self-regulatory processes, learners can take charge of their own
learning and thus play an active role in their learning, from setting goals to evaluating
performance. However, a number of factors emerged that may influence the efficacy of
that process.

This chapter has also provided evidence suggesting that, through recognising, adopting,
and implementing cognitive skills and dispositions of critical thinking, students can
enhance their learner autonomy and prepare to succeed in life. The evidence suggested that
critical thinking and self-regulated learning had to be connected with higher-order and
metacognitive strategies. Learners need to be actively involved in the learning process. The
rationale behind activities should be explicit and linked to practical examples of how ideas
might emerge in practice. Learners can thereby acquire a better understanding of their
learning objectives. That improved understanding, in turn, can lead to the recognition of
their own knowledge and abilities, and could promote the development of learning
strategies through developing self-regulated learning and critical thinking.

Simplistic notions of self-assessment, self-regulated learning, and critical thinking linked

to the use of strategies are unlikely to lead to the intended learning benefits. This chapter
presented evidence of the significance of adopting a sociocultural perceptive instead of a
constructivist perceptive regarding self-assessment. Social interaction and negotiation of
meaning are key to achieving the intended learning benefits. Thus, feedback, from
teachers, peers, or learners themselves, plays a vital role in achieving the anticipated
 66
learning benefits; generating and managing feedback, in turn, enhances self-regulated
learning skills and, thus, enhances learners’ critical thinking.

The key message from this chapter is that perceptions, opinions, and preferences of
learners about the learning process are always important to the success or failure of any
student's attempts to acquire a foreign language. Language instructors and syllabus
designers must therefore pay attention to their learners’ preferences and perceptions.
Accordingly, this thesis aims to hear the voices of EFL learners regarding their perception
and experience of self-assessment and its impact on their self-regulatory skills and critical
thinking skills. The following chapter discusses the methodology employed in this
research.
 67

Chapter 4 : Methodology of the Research

4.1. Introduction

As Chapter 3 reviewed the literature on assessment, self-regulated learning, and critical

thinking, Chapter 4 discusses the used methodology to conduct this research. This chapter
aims to explain and justify the selection of the research philosophy and research design. It
aims to describe the methods used to collect and analyse the data in this research with the
purpose of addressing the following research questions, as were described in Chapter One:

1) How do EFL students perceive the implementation of self-assessment in speaking

classes, especially in relation to their speaking language achievement?
2) What influence does self-assessment in speaking have on EFL students regarding:
a. their self-regulated learning in English language speaking?
b. their critical thinking skills?
3) What is the association between students’ perceptions regarding the influence of
self-assessment in speaking on their self-regulated learning and their critical
thinking?

This chapter also provides details about the institution where this research took place and
outlines the procedures followed to obtain approval to collect the data from this institution
and participants, according to the University of Glasgow's ethical standards along with the
British Educational Research Association's (BERA) ethical standards for research
involving human subjects. Additionally, this chapter explains the process of data collection
following the university and offers some details and justifications for the sample selected.

4.2. Research approach

The philosophical stance plays a significant role in determining the research methodology
(Creswell, 2009). Thus, identifying fundamental philosophical assumptions is essential to
understanding and conducting a research project (Coe, 2017). The importance of
identifying these philosophical assumptions lies particularly in designing and supporting
the research framework (Hitchcock & Hughes, 2002). The research framework, in turn,
guides researchers in the social sciences, affecting their choices and adoption of different
methodological approaches (Gibson & Brown, 2009). Research philosophy includes a
 68
range of paradigms (Lincoln & Guba, 2003). The following paradigms, as shown in
Table 4-1, are commonly recognised in social research: positivism, critical realism,
interpretivism, postmodernism, and pragmatism (Saunders et al., 2019, p. 144). A
paradigm, according to Guba and Lincoln (1994), may be characterised as “a set of basic
beliefs or assumptions [...] It represents a worldview that defines for its holder the nature of
the world, the individuals in it and the range of possible relationships to that world and its
part” (p. 108).

When considering how to approach this study, I began to seek the research paradigm that
would be most appropriate, i.e. the paradigm that would allow me to fulfil the purpose of
this research and address the research questions. The review of the literature (Chapter 3)
revealed a research gap regarding the impact of self-assessment on self-regulated learning
and critical thinking from the students’ perspective in EFL speaking classes in Saudi
Arabia. Therefore, this thesis aims to listen to the voices of EFL learners regarding their
perceptions and experience of self-assessment and its impact on their own self-regulatory
skills and critical thinking; this focus on learners’ voices is appropriate, because learners’
opinions, views, and preferences regarding the learning process are vital to the success or
failure of efforts to learn a foreign language (Kamgar & Jadidi, 2016). In other words, in
this research, I am interested in exploring and understanding EFL learners’ perceptions of
the implementation of self-assessment during speaking classes and how self-assessment
affects their language performance, self-regulated learning, and critical thinking. What
matters most in this research are the participants’ own experiences and perspectives, which
are unlikely to stay static and fixed and are what comprise the participants’ reality; in short,
the research is grounded on knowledge of an individual's lived experience. Accordingly,
this research employs an interpretative paradigm to reach the study's goals.
Table 4-1 Summary of the five fundamental philosophical research paradigms in social science research (Saunders et al., 2019, p. 144) 69

Research
Positivism Critical Realism Interpretivist Postmodernism Pragmatism
Philosophy
Ontology: Nominal. Complex, rich. Socially
Stratified/layered (the Complex, rich. Socially
constructed through power Complex, rich, external
Real, external, empirical, the actual and the constructed through culture
relations, Some meanings, ‘Reality’ is the practical
the researcher’s independent. One true real). External, independent and language. Multiple
interpretations, realities are consequences of ideas. Flux
view of the reality (universalism) Intransient. Objective meanings, interpretations,
dominated and silenced by others. of processes, experiences
nature of reality Granular (things) Ordered structures. Causal realities. Flux of processes,
Flux of processes, experiences, and practices
or being mechanisms experiences, practices
practices
Epistemology: What counts as ‘truth’ and The Practical meaning of
Scientific method. Theories and concepts too ‘knowledge’ is decided by knowledge in specific
Epistemological relativism.
Observable and simplistic. Focus on dominant ideologies. Focus on contexts. ‘True’ theories and
the researcher’s Knowledge historically
measurable facts. Law-like narratives, stories, absences, silences and oppressed/ knowledge are those that
view regarding situated and transient. Facts
generalisations Numbers. perceptions and repressed meanings, enable successful action.
what constitutes are social constructions.
Causal explanation and interpretations. New interpretations and voices Focus on problems, practices
acceptable Historical causal explanation
prediction as a understandings and Exposure of power relations and and relevance. Problem
knowledge as a contribution
contribution worldviews as a contribution challenge of dominant views as a solving and informed future
contribution practice as a contribution
Axiology: Value-laden research. Value-constituted research.
Value-free research. Value-bound research.
Researcher acknowledges Researcher and research Value-driven research.
Researcher is detached, Researchers are part of what
bias by world views, cultural embedded in power relations. Research initiated and
the researcher’s neutral and independent of is researched, subjective.
experience and upbringing. Some research narratives are sustained by researcher’s
view of the role what is researched. Researcher interpretations
Researcher tries to minimise repressed and silenced at the doubts and beliefs.
of values in Researcher maintains an key to contribution.
bias and errors Researcher is expense of others Researcher Researcher reflexive
research objective stance Researcher reflexive
as objective as possible radically reflexive
Data collection Typically deductive, Typically deconstructive – Following research problem
Retroductive, in-depth Typically inductive. Small
techniques highly structured, large reading texts and realities against and research question.
historically situated analysis samples, in-depth
most often used samples, measurement, themselves In-depth Range of methods: mixed,
of pre-existing structures investigations, qualitative
typically quantitative investigations of anomalies, multiple, qualitative,
and emerging agency. Range methods of analysis, but a
methods of analysis, but a silences and absences. Range of quantitative, action research.
of methods and data types to range of data can be
range of data can be data types, typically qualitative Emphasis on practical
fit the subject matter interpreted
analysed methods of analysis solutions and outcomes
 70

Within the interpretivist paradigm, reality is regarded as multiple and complex, with
various and distinct interpretations for a single phenomenon. Interpretivists emphasise the
significance of an individual's subjective experience rather than viewing social reality as a
single fixed reality. In contrast, positivists believe that there is one singular truth, one
reality; thus, positivists presume that reality could be generalised and is applicable to other
situations (Croker, 2009). Accordingly, positivists tend to adopt quantitative approaches
and mostly use instruments that allow them to objectively collect data from large samples
to measure the research issue (Picciano, 2004). However, although my research includes an
intervention with students and the use of quantitative data, I did not follow the positivist
paradigm, which would usually be the choice of a researcher who follows objective
assumptions rather than subjective. I was more interested in the participants' subjective
experiences and their perceptions of the intervention and its impact than in trying to
measure the intervention’s results.

The interpretive paradigm views knowledge as “personal, subjective and unique” (Cohen
et al., 2007, p. 7) and is defined by its emphasis on the individual. The interpretive
paradigm, in other words, focuses on the explanation and comprehension of the unique
individual case rather than on the general; it is interested in comprehending how the
individual generates, alters, and explores the world that the individual inhabits.
Interpretivists tend to adopt qualitative research, which is generally defined as any type of
research that generates results that are not quantifiable through statistical techniques or
other quantification methods (Davis, 1995). This preference is due to interpretivists
establishing the foundation for data gathering as the collection of rich data that can support
investigating, characterising, and promoting the understanding of organisational social and
psychological processes and the social contexts in which individuals find themselves
(Berg, 2004; Bogdan & Biklen, 1997). Interpretivism imposes on researchers’ constraints
regarding the use of the ways of the natural scientist and how they interact with their
participants during deep investigation of the research issue.

In light of the above, this research employs an interpretative paradigm to represent my

viewpoint and the study's goals. To illustrate, I view learning as the result of a dynamic
interaction between individuals, not as an objective incident unrelated to the learners or
their environment. I believe that the context in which a person lives influences their
learning process and perspectives. Additionally, participants' views of the problem may
differ according to their own perception and experience, and those differences may
ultimately result in a different interpretation. For all these reasons, this research employs
 71
an interpretive paradigm; in particular, a phenomenological approach: a form of
interpretive paradigm focused on comprehending individuals’ lived experience (Cal &
Tehmarn, 2016).

The methodologies of the interpretivist paradigm usually illustrate actions, through

qualitative research methods, that the participants exhibit or explain through open-ended
interviews, classroom observations, and focus groups (Bryman, 2016; Scotland, 2012).
Qualitative research is often concerned with how individuals perceive, comprehend, and
make sense of their surroundings. By examining the views of individuals who have
personally experienced a certain occurrence, a researcher may acquire and comprehend
different perspectives on the phenomena. Kumar (2019) emphasised the value of
qualitative research in providing a thorough understanding of individuals’ experiences.

However, social scientists have acknowledged that quantitative and qualitative research
methods could be combined, merged, or integrated into a single research for rational
purposes (Creswell, 2010). This argument highlights the fact that, despite the fact that
various research methodologies have typically been associated with certain paradigms, this
connection between research paradigms and research methods is neither essential nor
sacred (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Crotty (1998) argued that, if a method suits their
purposes, researchers could adopt any theoretical perspectives and utilise any methods of
research. Similarly, Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) argued that significant
disagreements in epistemological views should not hinder a qualitative researcher from
using data collection methods that are often linked with quantitative research, and vice
versa. Building on the two previous opinions, McChesney and Aldridge (2019) argued for
including both qualitative and quantitative methods in mixed methods research in
accordance with a single and particular research paradigm. This position allows for a more
diverse and purposeful selection and integration of paradigms and/or techniques in order to
achieve a study's objectives (McChesney & Aldridge, 2019).

In this research, the context in which the study was conducted, the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia (KSA), and the aim that the study pursued, which was to explore and measure
learners’ perception of their critical thinking and self-regulated learning, both had a
substantial impact on the method choice. To illustrate, in the KSA, quantitative methods,
particularly standardised tests and questionnaires, are two of the most important tools for
assessing education and educational institutions; these tools collect numerical data that can
be converted into useful statistics for evaluating students' achievement (ETEC, 2018).
Quantitative methods thus contribute to identifying the most critical and effective ways to
 72
improve education (ETEC, 2018). In addition, in the KSA, standardised tests and
questionnaires are also important for exploring attitudes, views, and behaviours (ETEC,
2018). In addition to the impact of the context, the literature review indicated that
perceptions of self-regulated learning can be collected and measured through
questionnaires, and that critical thinking can be measured through standardised testing (see
Chapter 3 Section 3.2). However, focusing on the numerical data alone would not have
been suitable for this research and would be unlikely to support the complexity of the
research issue; that is, EFL learners’ perceptions towards self-assessment in speaking
classes and the impact of those perceptions on their speaking skills, self-regulatory skills,
and critical thinking. This research issue, in short, is mainly concerned with perceptions
and attitudes, which are difficult to measure, but can be explored through qualitative
methods (Creswell, 2012). Accordingly, this research adopted a mixed methods research
design under the interpretivist paradigm instead of solely employing quantitative methods
to explore students’ perceptions.

According to Creswell (2012) and Bryman (2014), combining quantitative and qualitative
data collection methods results in a better understanding of the research questions than
using either method alone. Thus, the first rationale for using mixed methods is
triangulation. Triangulation can be defined as the use of several methods during the
investigation of a single phenomenon (Denzin, 1978). According to Denzin (1978),
triangulation in research may be classified as follows: data triangulation, investigator
triangulation, theory triangulation, and methodological triangulation. Data triangulation
refers to the utilisation of several sources of evidence which are brought together to build a
more nuanced understanding of a research topic. Investigator triangulation refers to the
practice of using several researchers in the context of a study. Theory triangulation refers
to the process of interpreting data using several theories (Denzin, 1978). Finally,
methodological triangulation refers to the investigation of a phenomena via the use of
various techniques (Denzin, 1978). Methodological triangulation was used in the present
study. Additionally, this study adopted a particular type of methodological triangulation.
Two types exist: within-methods triangulation, which involves using a combination of
qualitative or quantitative methods, and methods triangulation, which involves using both
quantitative and qualitative methods. The use of methods triangulation in this research is
discussed later in Section 4.6.3. In this study, I used a combination of quantitative and
qualitative data; according to Denzin (1978), integrating data in this way can decrease the
bias of any individual methods.
 73
The purpose of this research is not to develop statistical generalisations about other
learners. Nevertheless, it does aim to develop case-to-case translation or transferability,
based on Firestone (1993) three models of generalisability, through providing a
comprehensive examination of participants' assessment experiences and perceptions of the
impact of self-assessment on their self-regulatory skills and critical thinking within a
particular context. The issue of transferability is discussed later in Section 4.6.4.

This indicates another rationale for the use of mixed methods in that the combination of
quantitative and qualitative methods extends, explains, illustrates, and complements the
results of each individual methods, thus avoiding the disadvantages of utilising only a
single method by itself (Bryman, 2014; Creswell, 2009; Creswell, 2012; Johnson &
Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Additionally, mixed methods research assists a researcher to gain
more insightful and balanced findings (Creswell, 2009; Creswell, 2012; Fraenkel et al.,
2012). Punch (2009) provided an illustration of how both approaches may boost research:

Quantitative research brings the strengths of conceptualizing variables,

profiling dimensions, tracing trends and relationships, formalizing
comparisons and using large and perhaps representative samples. On the
other hand, qualitative research brings the strengths of sensitivity to
meaning and to context, local groundedness, the in-depth study of smaller
samples, and greater methodological flexibility which enhances the ability
to study process and change. (p. 290)

This research adopts a certain type of mixed methods research: the embedded design. The
purpose of using an embedded design, according to Creswell (2011), is to gather
quantitative and qualitative data sequentially and to have one form of data that acts as a
support for another. Creswell (2011) explained that the process of an embedded study is to
gather quantitative and qualitative data in the course of a single research project, with both
datasets being examined independently and addressing different research objectives. For
instance, in the case of the present research, whether the intervention had an impact on the
outcomes is assessed using the quantitative data, while the perceptions of participants and
attitudes about the intervention are assessed using the qualitative data (Creswell, 2011).

This research employs an interpretivist paradigm and is concerned with investigating the
effect of self-assessment in speaking classes on EFL learners’ perceptions of their self-
regulatory skills, critical thinking, and speaking performance in the KSA. The research site
and English programme are discussed in the next section.
 74
4.3. Research site

The study was conducted in a single Saudi higher education institution (HEI), a national
university in the western region of the KSA. This HEI offers an EFL programme for
preparatory year students that aims to build students' English skills in key areas both
academically and personally. The English Language Institute (ELI) at this HEI delivers
two levels of intensive English language courses (ELI_101 and ELI_102). These courses
aim to improve learners' English proficiency in four key areas (listening, reading, writing,
and speaking); to reinforce these abilities with linguistic and lexical abilities; and to
develop thinking skills, presentation skills, and sub-skills. The curriculum design process is
term-based, with each term consisting of a total of 14 instructional weeks per level. Like
all other courses in the preparatory year, successful completion of the course requirements
enables students to be admitted into undergraduate programmes. It is noteworthy that
specialists such as Derwing et al. (2004) and Zhang (2009) indicated that traditional
language teaching approaches in which the four abilities are taught individually are
unsatisfactory, and argued that transition to a more integrated and communicative approach
of learning is essential.

The research was carried out in level ELI_102 in the second term of the academic year. As
described in the institution's policy documents, ELI_102 is an intensive English course
which aims to develop language proficiency beginning at a B2 level and moving into the
C1 level on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR),
which is within the band of being an independent/proficient user (Canadian benchmarks
CLB 8-9-10) (ELI-Curriculum-manual, 2018/2019). This progress from a B2 level into the
C1 level marks a transition from being an independent language user to being a proficient
language user (see Appendix A for descriptors of the common European framework of
reference for language levels). This course provides students with the opportunity to
develop their language abilities and thinking and presentation skills. Students in this course
apply their language skills in a variety of activities, including reading, writing, speaking,
and oral presentations incorporating a variety of formats such as reading passages, articles,
videos, lectures, and audio materials.

In the course, instead of a textbook, the students are provided with a course kit that is
considered to be a learning and practice guide that should be supported with many extra-
curricular resources and tasks. This course kit consists of 14 pacing guides, each for a
week of the 14 instructional weeks in the semester, each with a different theme and
 75
different main and skill-specific student learning objectives (SLOs). Each day of the week
is designated to the development of a certain skill (grammar & vocabulary, listening,
reading, writing, and speaking) (see Appendix B for a sample of the pacing guides). Each
instructional week begins with class of grammar & vocabulary related to the week’s theme
and ends with a speaking class.

Moreover, the classroom activities in the programme include discussions, vocabulary

building, writing and speaking exercises, pronunciation and grammar lessons. Through this
course, students learn how to make visual outlines and information graphs, how to
summarise, analyse, and brainstorm, and how to use a variety of thinking skills in different
contexts. The pedagogy evident in the institution from learners’ perceptions is discussed
later in Chapter Seven.

Furthermore, for the measurement of the learners speaking performance the teachers use
the institution’s specific rating criteria and assessment scale that include descriptions of
eight components of a speaking performance including: fluency, pronunciation, topic
management, content, grammar (accuracy), vocabulary, communicative effectiveness, and
organisation & delivery.

The target population of this study and sampling methods are discussed in the next section.

4.4. The target population and sampling methods

Making an informed choice about participant selection involves taking several critical
factors into consideration. Cohen et al. (2007) suggested considering the following factors
in making decisions about sampling: the population sample's size, the sample's
accessibility, and the sampling strategy. This research was conducted at a Saudi HEI.
Similar to other universities in the KSA, the institution's foundation year includes rigorous
English language programmes. As discussed in the previous sections of this chapter, this
was a mixed methods research with both quantitative and qualitative parts. Therefore,
different sampling strategies were adopted to determine the sample for each part.

The intervention and quantitative parts of this research adopted the sampling strategy of
random selection. Proper sampling is crucial in quantitative sampling, since quantitative
research relies on drawing a representative sample of the target population so that the
findings may then be generalised to the population (Shah & Al-Bargi, 2013). Nonetheless,
 76
it is important to note that this research does not intend to make statistical generalisations.
In random selection of participants, a researcher draws a sample from a population at
random (Creswell, 2012; Herbert et al., 1989). One section of 35 students was randomly
selected from all of the ELI_102 students registered for the year of 2019. The recruitment
of participants is discussed later in Section 4.6.3.

With regards to the sample for the qualitative part of this research, which included self-
assessment proformas, audio recordings, and interviews, the adopted sampling strategy is
referred to as criterion sampling. In qualitative research, the sample size should not be so
small as to preclude data saturation, defined as the moment at which no new themes or
codes originate from data (Braun & Clarke, 2021), but it should not be so large that it is
impossible to conduct a thorough, case-based analysis (Bryman, 2014). Accordingly, this
research employed non-sequential approaches to sampling that are referred to as fixed
sampling strategies. With fixed sampling strategies, the sample is set early on in the study,
and there is no sample increase as the research progresses (Bryman, 2014). In particular,
this study follows criterion sampling, a type of fixed sampling strategy identified by Patton
(1990) and Palys (2008), in which all individuals who meet a certain criterion are included.
In this case, the criterion was that participants must be students who participated in the
intervention from the beginning, since any student who enters the sample during the
intervention would have a different experience than students who were included from the
start.

The following section addresses the process of recruiting the participants and the ethical
considerations in this research.

4.5. Ethical considerations

Ethical issues are directly connected to the integrity of a research project and cannot be
disregarded (Bryman, 2016). Ethics in research consist of the norms of behaviour that
guide researchers' actions with regard to how they preserve the rights of study participants
or any individuals who may be impacted by the research (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004). The
researcher developed this thesis in accordance with the University of Glasgow's Ethics
Committee's standards (UofG, 2018), which necessitate the submission of an ethical
approval application. In line with the university’s requirements, the researcher filled in an
application to the University of Glasgow's College of Social Sciences Ethics Committee
that highlighted the ethical concerns to be considered and how they would be handled
 77
before any fieldwork or data gathering began. The application for ethical approval was
approved prior to data collection (see Appendix C). In the following paragraphs, I provide
examples of how I have adhered to the University of Glasgow’s ethical standards, as well
as to the British Educational Research Association's (BERA) ethical standards for research
involving human subjects. Permission for conducting the empirical study was also acquired
in advance from the university and from all participants in this research.

Prior to conducting any research or beginning data collection, gaining access to an

investigation or formal setting, such as the classroom, is critical and can be done through
obtaining permission from “gatekeepers” (Creswell, 2009). In this case, the gatekeeper was
an educational establishment. Creswell (2009) also suggested that it is better to create a
brief proposition for review by management in regard to the research. This proposal should
contain the study's goals, significance, and purpose for the administration, and include the
name of the dean of the institution to which the researcher is seeking access (Cohen et al.,
2007; Creswell, 2009). Accordingly, I contacted the dean and vice dean of the ELI at this
Saudi HEI in order to attain their permission to conduct the study.

Moreover, naturalistic researchers, such as Lofland and Lofland (1985) in Hoepfl (1997),
have proposed and emphasised the significance of asking individuals to provide access to
their lives, experiences, and perceptions based on justifications for the study's objectives.
Thus, prior to the implementation of the intervention and data collection, the prospective
participants, who were EFL students in this case, were informed of the study's nature,
purpose, and significance. An introductory PowerPoint presentation was given to the
whole class, and then the participant information sheet (PIS) and consent form (see
Appendix D and E) were presented. Both these documents were in the students’ first
language (Arabic). This content clarified and explained what was meant by self-assessment
and outlined the study’s primary purposes and benefits in addition to some key concepts
related to the study (e.g. critical thinking and self-regulated learning). The content also
offered a brief outline of the purpose of the study, its instruments, and the intervention.
Then, the participant information sheet and consent form were distributed to the students
and collected the following day so that the students could read both documents thoroughly
and make the decision whether to participate in the comfort of their own homes.

Each student was informed that their participation was optional and that they could
withdraw at any time. Each student signed the consent form and acknowledged that the
first and last speaking activities and interview would be recorded. Students were also
informed that, as participants, they would be identified only by an ID number that would
 78
then be de-identified and replaced by a code in any report or publication. Students were
also informed that anyone who did not want to participate would not be affected by the
study or the intervention, as any time spent assessing themselves would be done during
free time for the students, which they regularly have at the end of each class anyway;
during that time, the students are free to do whatever they want to do as long as they are
speaking in English. The data collection instruments and process, and the participants’
recruiting process are discussed in the next section.

4.6. The data collection process and its reliability and validity

This research utilises primary, or original, data as well as extant literature. The materials
reviewed for this thesis include books, journal articles, and online resources; these sources
provided the study's contextual and theoretical framework. Primary data are data that have
been collected specifically for the purpose of the research (Neuman & Kreuger, 2003). In
the current research, the primary data were collected from the ELI at the aforementioned
Saudi HEI via pre-post tests, self-assessment proformas, audio recordings, and semi-
structured interviews.

4.6.1. The intervention

The present study aimed to explore EFL learners’ perceptions of self-assessment in

speaking classes and its impact on their critical thinking, self-regulated learning, language
performance, and achievements. The study was conducted with EFL students in ELI_102
(see Section 4.3) during the second term of the academic year 2018/2019 during speaking
classes. These speaking classes were held and taught as usual by the teacher with little
reference to the intervention. As mentioned in Section 4.5, prior to the implementation of
the intervention, an introductory PowerPoint presentation informed the prospective
participants of the study's nature, purpose, significance, instruments, and intervention, and
gave them the opportunity to enquire about and discuss the intervention. It also illustrated
the nature of self-assessment as well as key concepts related to the study. The students
participated in individual, paired, or group speaking activities and then spoke or presented
in front of the class. The intervention took place during speaking classes in a total of eight
speaking classes. Each class was approximately three hours long. The classes were
included in weeks 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13 of ELI_102. As mentioned in Section 4.3,
each week covers a new theme and pacing guide which include new objectives, grammar
lessons, and word lists and a different speaking task (see Table 4-2 Speaking tasks
 79
administered during weeks 1 to 8 of ELI_102). During the intervention, I attended the
speaking classes with the learners and was available to support them as well as discuss and
respond to their concerns regarding the intervention when needed.

By the end of the intervention, all the students participating in the study had engaged in a
total of eight speaking classes and completed all eight speaking activities.

Table 4-2 Speaking tasks administered during weeks 1 to 8 of ELI_102.

Theme of the
Weeks Date Speaking Activity
Week
Prepare a short presentation based on a listening
Week1 e-Business task. Students were required to listen to an audio
17-2-2019
(Week3) revolution recording on e-business, take notes, and summarise
the content for their classmates.
Narrate a personal experience with online
Week2 Online shopping. Students were required to tell their
24-2-2019
(Week4) shopping classmate about their own experience with online
shopping.
Talk about taking a selfie. Students were required
Week3
10-3-2019 Taking a selfie to talk about their best or worst selfie, or give tips
(Week6)
on how to take the perfect selfie.
Interview a classmate on second language learning.
Second
Week4 In pairs, students were required to take turns
17-3-2019 language
(Week7) interviewing each other about their experience
learning
learning a second language.
Discuss international tests of English. Students
Week5 International were required to talk about and discuss their own
24-3-2019
(Week8) tests of English experiences or information regarding international
tests of English and to compare the tests.
Discuss the best business leaders ever. Students
Week6 Best business
7-4-2019 were required to discuss, from their perspective, the
(Week9) leaders ever
business leaders who were the best in the world.
Prepare a presentation based on listening task. In
Week7 Multiple groups, students were required to listen to an audio
14-4-2019
(Week10) intelligences recording on multiple intelligences, take notes, then
summarise the notes for their classmates.
Prepare a presentation on Saudi Vision 2030.
Week8 Saudi Vision Students were required to give a presentation on
21-4-2019
(Week11) 2030 Saudi Vision 2030 with the use of a mind map that
included the main points.

Manso-Vázquez et al. (2018) self-regulated learning (SRL) model was used to design and
develop the intervention as a means to optimise EFL learners’ SRL through self-
assessment during the speaking classes. As referred to in Chapter 3, this model is an
integrated model that combines the three most often used self-regulated learning models:
 80
Zimmerman (2002) model, Pintrich (2004) general model, and Winne and Hadwin (1998)
information processing model. This model includes three phases: (1) forethought,
planning, and activation; (2) performance, monitoring, and control; and (3) evaluation,
reflection, and reaction. Each phase targets five different areas: cognition, metacognition,
motivation/affect, behaviour, and (social and environmental) context.

The first phase (forethought, planning, and activation) includes the processes that occur
when learners prepare to learn or perform (see Figure 4-1). In the intervention, during this
phase, the teacher presented the speaking task to the learners and discussed its
requirements with them. The learners were advised to use a self-assessment proforma to
plan and set their goals. This phase included the application of different learning strategies,
as the teacher defined and described the actions that the learners would use to perform in
planning and preparing for the task. The phase addressed all five target areas as follows:
selecting sources, taking notes, and summarising (cognition area); defining the goal and
task (metacognition area); discussing the difficulty of the task and level of interest with the
teacher and classmates (motivation/affect); estimating the time required (behaviour); and
discussing the task (context).

During the second phase (performance, monitoring, and control), the learners were asked
to use self-assessment proforma to monitor their work against the speaking criteria:
fluency, pronunciation, topic management, content, grammar (accuracy), vocabulary,
communicative effectiveness, and organisation & delivery that was included in the self-
assessment proforma and was also used by the teacher to assess their performance. The
learners were also asked to audio-record themselves while they presented or talked in class,
so they would be able to listen to their own performance afterward and self-assess
themselves with the use of the proforma. Throughout the second phase, learners applied
different strategies to enhance their learning and attention and concentrate on task
achievement within the five target areas (see Figure 4-1) as follows: practising vocabulary
and grammar control, memorising through imagery, and summarising meaning (cognition
area); self-monitoring through the self-assessment proforma (metacognition area); using
the checklist on the self-assessment proforma (motivation / affect); exercising time control
(behaviour); and collaborating and cooperating for task achievement (context).

During the third and last phase (evaluation, reflection, and reaction), learners used different
strategies to respond to critical issues related to their level of performance, goal
achievement, and task type. The five target areas were addressed as follows (see Figure 4-
 81
1): brainstorming ideas for enhancing performance through the self-assessment proforma
(cognition); evaluating performance through the self-assessment proforma
(metacognition); reacting after evaluation of performance and making positive statements
through the self-assessment proforma (motivation/affect); evaluating the allocated time and
recognising strengths and weaknesses (behaviour); and discussing and evaluating the task
(context).

Figure 4-1 Integrated self-regulated learning model (adapted from Manso-Vázquez et al. (2018)

During the intervention, the students were given the freedom to decide whether to discuss
their performance and assessment with their classmates or teacher; this option was given to
avoid some sociocultural challenges specific to the Saudi culture. These challenges include
students’ fear of negative comments (Al-Haqwi et al., 2012) and the relationship between
teachers and students in Saudi culture, wherein mastery of knowledge is reserved for the
instructor (Al-Wassia et al., 2015). In short, Saudi students tend to be fearful of engaging
in debates with their teachers, and teachers tend to dislike and may even resent questioning
and discussion from the students (Kariri et al., 2018). Alternative forms of assessment, like
 82
peer assessment, may therefore be less appreciated by teachers and students in such
cultures (Yan & Cheng, 2015).

4.6.2. Research instruments

As noted before, both quantitative and qualitative data collection instruments were selected
and used to collect data in this study in order answer the research questions and provide
thorough knowledge of the phenomenon being studied. For the quantitative data in this
mixed methods research, two instruments were utilised: pre- and post-tests, and students’
audio recording of their speaking activities. The quantitative data collected via these
instruments helped to measure the impact of self-assessment on students’ perceptions
regarding their critical thinking and self-regulation before and after the intervention. As for
the qualitative data in this mixed methods research, the instruments used were a self-
assessment proforma, and semi-structured interviews. The qualitative data were intended to
provide a better understanding of students’ perception regarding the impact of self-
assessment on their thinking, self-regulation, and speaking. All the adopted instruments in
this study (the pre- and post-test, self-assessment proforma, audio recording, and semi-
structured interviews) are outlined in the following subsections in the order in which they
were used.

4.6.2.1. Pre- and post-tests

According to Creswell and Creswell (2017), a pre-test is a test that assesses some traits or
features of participants prior to their participation in an intervention. Following the
intervention, the post-test then reassesses those traits or features of participants; in this
research, the post-test aimed to assess learners’ critical thinking, self-regulated learning,
and speaking achievement at the end of the semester after the intervention. The two
instruments utilised were specifically pre-post surveys, which collected the quantitative
data. The quantitative data, in turn, helped identify and explore the impact of self-
assessment on students’ perceptions regarding their self-regulated learning through the
Self-Regulation of Learning Self-Report Scale (SRL-SRS), and critical thinking through
the Watson-Glaser II Critical Thinking Appraisal (CTA) before and after the intervention;
in other words, at the beginning and the end of the academic semester.
 83
4.6.2.1.1. The Self-Regulation of Learning Self-Report Scale (SRL-SRS)

This research aims to explore students’ perceptions of their self-regulated learning before
and after the intervention. Thus, the Self-Regulation of Learning Self-Report Scale (SRL-
SRS), which was translated into the students’ first language of Arabic (permission for
translation was granted from the authors) (see Appendix F), was the first instrument
utilised in the research. Self-report questionnaires are the most often used technique for
measuring SRL, as noted by Perry and Winne (2006). Self-report questionnaires offer
important information on how learners perceive their ability to self-regulate their learning.

The SRL-SRS has been used in several contexts, including EFL contexts, to measure
students’ SRL (Saks, 2016; Zarei et al., 2016). It contains 50 items that were composed by
Toering et al. (2012). The scale seeks to measure students’ perception of self-regulated
learning processes through measuring metacognition and motivation dimensions before
and after the intervention. The scale results thus help to answer the second research
question about what influence self-assessment in speaking has on EFL students’
perceptions regarding their self-regulated learning in English language speaking classes.
The metacognition dimension contains four sub-scales: planning, self-monitoring,
evaluation, and reflection. The motivation dimensions consist of effort and self-efficacy.
The subscales of planning and effort were based on the self-regulatory inventory by Hong
and O’Neil Jr. (2001), and the self-monitoring subscale was adopted from the Self-
Regulation Trait Questionnaire by Herl et al. (1999). Self-efficacy was assessed with items
based on the Generalized Self-efficacy Scale (Hong & O’Neil Jr., 2001; Schwarzer &
Jerusalem, 1995). The evaluation items were adopted from the evaluation subscale of the
Inventory of Metacognitive Self-Regulation (Howard et al., 2000), and the reflection
subscale was based on the reflection subscale of the Reflective Learning Continuum
(Peltier et al., 2006).

The SRL-SRS consists of two sections. Each section targets one of the two dimensions
with a total of 50 statements:

• First section: Targets metacognition dimensions and includes four subsections with
a total of 30 statements.
o First subsection (Planning): Aims to measure the degree to which an
individual must plan their approach to a task in advance of their actions
(includes 9 statements).
 84
o Second subsection (Self-monitoring): Aims to measure the degree to which
an individual requires a self-checking system while doing a task in order to
monitor achievement of goals (includes 8 statements).
o Third subsection (Evaluation): Aims to measure the degree to which an
individual must assess the process and results of their plan after execution
(includes 8 statements).
o Fourth subsection (Reflection): Aims to measure the degree to which an
individual must reflect on their learning process, implying that they apply
their information and expand their repertoire of methods, thus increasing
their performance possibilities (includes 5 statements).
• Second section: Targets motivation dimensions and includes two subsections with a
total of 20 statements.
o First subsection (Effort): Aims to measure the degree of energy an
individual exerts in working on a task (includes 10 statements).
o Second subsection (Self-efficacy): Aims to measure the degree of individual
confidence in their own ability to complete a task (includes 10 statements).

Each of the six subsections were measured using Likert scales of different points. A four-
point Likert scale was used to measure four out of the six the subsections (planning, self-
monitoring, effort, and self-efficacy). The learners marked their perception within four
categories; the higher the number chosen, the more often they believed they performed a
certain skill or ability (1 = almost never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, and 4 = almost always).
The remaining two subsections were measured on a five-point Likert scale, though in each
of these two sub-sections the learners marked their perception within two different
categories. In the evaluation sub-section, the participants marked their perception on a 5-
point scale in which the higher the number chosen, the more often they believe they
performed a certain skill or ability (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, and 5 =
always). In the reflection subsection, the participants marked their perception on a 5-point
scale in which the higher the number chosen, the more they agreed with the given
statement (1 = Strongly Disagree (SD), 2 = Disagree (D), 3 = Neither (N), 4 = Agree (A),
and 5 = Strongly Agree (SA)). Both the validity and reliability of the SRL-SRS have been
proven in different studies and are discussed later in Section 4.6.3.
 85
4.6.2.1.2. Watson-Glaser II Critical Thinking Appraisal (CTA)

As referred to in Chapter 3, the California Critical Thinking Skills Test and the Watson-
Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal are the two commonly used tests to measure critical
thinking abilities in the field of language learning. Both tests are designed for graduate and
undergraduate university students. However, the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking
Appraisal test was used in the current study to measure the students’ critical thinking
abilities since the California Critical Thinking Skills Test is analysed by Insight
Assessment, the providers of the test; in the case of the present study, that would have
compromised the confidentiality of the participant information and results. The Watson-
Glaser II Critical Thinking Appraisal was initially developed by Goodwin Watson and
Edward Glaser in 1925. It is a multiple-choice assessment instrument that has been
developed specifically to evaluate chosen key critical thinking abilities. It has been used in
academic contexts to assess the extent to which students have improved their critical
thinking abilities as a consequence of coursework or instructional programmes. It has also
been used as a selection and developmental tool in organisations. The test has been applied
specifically in several studies in the EFL context to measure students’ critical thinking
(Bagheri & Ghanizadeh, 2016; Ebrahimi & Moafian, 2012; Ghanizadeh & Mirzaee, 2012;
Jafari et al., 2015). The test has 40 multiple-choice items in 5 sub-test areas that can be
completed within an estimated 35 to 50 minutes. It aims to measure CT through measuring
the ability to logically analyse assumptions, evaluate the strength of an argument, and draw
logical conclusions from the information provided. The test results thus help to answer the
second research question, about what influence self-assessment in speaking has on EFL
students’ perceptions regarding their critical thinking in English language speaking classes.

It consists of five sections, and each section targets a single critical thinking skill with a
total of 40 statements:

• First section (Infer): Aims to measure the skill of inference through asking learners
to identify the degrees of truth or falsehood of an inference with 5 statements.
• Second section (Recognise Assumptions): Aims to measure the skill of
acknowledging underlying assumptions or presuppositions with 12 statements.
• Third section (Deduce): Aims to measure skill of deduction through asking learners
to decide whether or not certain findings necessarily follow with 5 statements.
• Fourth section (Interpret): Aims to measure skill of interpretation through asking
learners to evaluate evidence and determine whether generalisations or conclusions
are appropriate with 6 statements.
 86
• Fifth section (Evaluation of Arguments): Aims to measure skill of evaluation of
arguments by determining whether learners can distinguish between strong and
relevant arguments and arguments that are weak or irrelevant with 12 statements.

The paper and pencil version of the test was administered in English. According to the
Watson-Glaser II test manual, “directions and items were written at or below the 9th grade
reading level”; that is, at the B2 reading level or below (Watson & Glaser, 2010). This
level is at or below the expected reading level of undergraduate students in ELI_102
participating in the study (expected level is B2/C1 independent/proficient user) (ELI-
Curriculum-manual, 2018/2019). Thus, participants were not expected to experience any
difficulties with the test instructions and items. In addition, the test manual states that the
Watson-Glaser II should be given in the examinee's first language if feasible; however, an
Arabic version is not available for the test, and translating the test is not permitted.
Regarding the administration of the test, though no special training is required to
administer the Watson-Glaser II, the administrator must be capable of conducting standard
examination procedures and fully familiarised with the administration instructions and test
materials prior to administering the test in order to guarantee accurate and reliable results
(Watson & Glaser, 2010). Students’ participation and test results had no effect on their
grades in the course. Both the validity and reliability of the Watson-Glaser II Critical
Thinking Appraisal have been proven in several studies and are discussed later in Section
4.6.3.

4.6.2.2. Audio-recordings

As discussed in Chapter 3, listening to recordings of themselves can offer students a

valuable opportunity to gauge their own linguistic competence. When audio recording is
used, students can evaluate their own paralinguistic skills, including the tone and pitch of
their voice, as an adjunct to their language parallelism and linguistic performance.
Repeated use of this technique can allow learners to acquire a precise sense of their
progress and performance, which is beneficial in terms of increasing learner confidence
levels pertaining to oral productive skills. Thus, the intervention in the study includes
audio-recording students while presenting, talking, or debating and using those recordings
afterward to self-assess per predefined criteria included in the self-assessment proforma, as
discussed in the following section. Each student was engaged in a total of eight speaking
classes and activities, had 24 hours of speaking practice, and produced a total of eight
audio-recordings. These recordings were utilised as the third instrument in the research to
 87
measure student speaking ability and achievement at the beginning and the end of the
intervention. The first and last (i.e. eighth) recordings were collected from all 10 students
comprising the sample in the study.

4.6.2.3. Self-assessment proforma

Depending on the purpose of a study, self-assessment may take a variety of forms.

Examples of forms of self-assessment include a questionnaire assessing general speaking
skills; a reflective conversation; a learning journal for metacognitive reflection; or a
classroom activity, such as a self-assessment proforma, where students utilise the same
assessment standards or rating criteria as their instructors (Bachman & Palmer, 1989;
Chen, 2008; Rivers, 2001). This research asked the students to use a unique criteria-
referenced self-assessment proforma with a five-point Likert scale during their speaking
classes, during speaking activities and after listening to recordings of each speaking across
a total of eight speaking classes and activities (see Appendix H). Andrade and Cizek
(2010) and Panadero and Alonso-Tapia (2013) argued that in order to conduct an adequate
self-assessment of their work, students need to understand the criteria provided by their
teachers. Thus, the creation of the proforma, which includes eight criteria, was driven by
the institution’s policy and approach of teaching and follows the same rating criteria and
the scoring system and rubric used by teachers, the pacing guides, the week-specific SLOs,
and the activity instructions. These eight criteria are fluency, pronunciation, topic
management, content, grammar (accuracy), vocabulary, communicative effectiveness, and
organisation & delivery.

Self-assessment proformas were used for “Tracing”, which refers to a method introduced
by Perry and Winne (2006) for gathering data by involving learners in tasks that provide
information about learners’ engagement with the tasks. Traces, or evidence gathered over
time, may be used to provide precise, time-stamped descriptions of observed engagement
between students and content (Perry & Winne, 2006). Thus, the self-assessment proforma
can provide traces of what learners really did and what SRL strategies they actually used,
rather than what learners claim to have done and used (Perry, 1998; Winne & Jamieson-
Noel, 2002).
 88
4.6.2.4. Interviews (semi-structured interviews)

Interviews are a valuable research tool for eliciting information about a phenomenon from
a variety of respondents in order to accomplish research goals. Surveys can provide rich
and valuable information (Cohen et al., 2018). Surveys are, however, guided by their
nature and are fairly prescriptive; surveys do not provide responders with any freedom or
the opportunity to seek explanation or engage in discussion (Cohen et al., 2018).
Interviews, in comparison, may be beneficial and offer valuable insights on this front.
According to Kvale (1996), interviews can be defined as the exchange of viewpoints
between two individuals talking about a shared interest. The interviews in this research
allowed me to establish a relationship of mutual trust with my interviewees and to acquire
data that the other types of instruments would not have allowed me access to. The
interviews also allowed the participants to share opinions and experiences and allowed me
the opportunity to conduct a precise analysis of their answers (Wimmer & Dominick,
2013). Furthermore, interviews provide the researcher with a chance to obtain opinions,
responses, or clarifications about certain actions on the part of the interviewees. As a
result, this technique was critical to the study since it enabled a more in-depth
investigation, formation of a more complete picture of the learners’ perceptions, and a
more comprehensive description of the study objectives. Additionally, Yin (2009) stated
that interviews should be considered vital for any study with a small sample size as
interviews add depth and deepen understanding regarding the issue under investigation.
Again, that was the case for this study. The interviews in this study were semi-structured. I
pre-planned questions based on the literature and the research question, but allowed the
students to respond based on their own experiences and perspectives; while doing so, I
provided opportunities for the exploration of topics significant to each learner.

The semi-structured interview format with students was utilised as the last data collection
instrument in the study to collect the qualitative data. Semi-structured interviews are one of
the interview types that Burns (2009) highlighted in educational research, the others being
structured and unstructured interviews. In structured interviews, the researcher asks all
participants the same set of control questions. In unstructured interviews, in contrast, the
researcher makes use of spontaneous, open-ended questions. Combining these two types of
interviews, semi-structured interviews start with a list of less strictly controlled questions
that the researcher may supplement, omit, or alter based on the interview. Moreover, in a
semi-structured interview, as explained by Bailey (2007):
 89
The interviewer uses an interview guide with specific questions that are organised
by topics but are not necessarily asked in a specific order. The flow of the
interview, rather than order in a guide, determines when and how a question is
asked. (p. 100)

The semi-structured interview format was selected since it enables the researcher to have
complete control over the interview while allowing for more freedom in terms of question
sequence, probing, and in-depth examination of answers. This created the opportunity for
the participants to engage in fruitful discussion about a certain topic and contributed in
outlining the areas to be investigated. This decision thus enabled me to include questions
pertaining to particular themes that I anticipated would arise, but might not naturally
emerge during the interview (Gillham, 2000; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). Additionally,
this structure enabled me to pose a question sooner, if necessary, even if the question was
not on the interview questions order. Additionally, semi-structured interviews enabled me
to ask follow-up questions and prompts throughout the interviews in order to elicit
additional information from participants. The interviews consisted of 14 questions related
to four themes that were predetermined; however, students had the opportunity to clarify,
explain, and depart somewhat from the questions. The questions were prepared as open-
ended questions. Prompts and sub-questions were then included to elicit more insights into
the students’ responses.

The key objective of the interview questions was to explore and discuss students’ attitudes
towards the intervention of self-assessment with the use of audio recording and self-
assessment proforma in their speaking classes and how the self-assessment affected their
performance, critical thinking, and self-regulation. The questions also aimed to explore
how the intervention affected students’ self-regulation and critical thinking. Moreover, the
questions were designed to elicit information regarding effectiveness of the self-assessment
proforma from the students’ perspective. Students in these interviews were free to use
either their mother tongue, Arabic, or English, and each interview was taped and lasted
about 15 to 20 minutes.
 90
4.6.3. Recruitment of the participants

4.6.3.1. Recruiting the participants for the first phase of the research
(intervention and pre and post surveys)

As discussed in section 4.5, I contacted the dean and vice dean of the ELI at this Saudi HEI
to attain permission to conduct the study. It should be noted that due to the Islamic and
cultural beliefs of the country, the Saudi educational system is segregated by gender (Baki,
2004). Thus, as a female researcher, I randomly selected a section for this research that
included 35 female students who were all aged 18 years old and over. All 35 students from
the selected section agreed and appeared to be enthusiastic about taking part in the
research. Ultimately, however, the participant number decreased to 27 students, as 4
students dropped the English course after the pre-test, and a further four students withdrew
from the study during the intervention.

4.6.3.2. Recruiting the participants for the second phase of the study
(assessment proformas, recording, and interviews)

At the end of the intervention and the post-test, the students’ first and last recordings of
their speaking activities and their self-assessment proformas were collected. However,
although all students had already signed the consent form and agreed to provide their
recording and proformas and agreed to take part in interviews, some students gave some
verbal and nonverbal signs of discomfort about sharing their recordings or being recorded
during the interview. Therefore, the participants of the first phase were further asked, via
another consent form that included a separate point for the interview, if they consented to
being approached for the study's semi-structured interview. Unfortunately, only 10 of the
students who participated in the first phase agreed to this and signed the second consent
form. The recordings and self-assessment proformas were collected from the students, and
those 10 students were interviewed.

4.6.4. Validity and reliability

It is critical to generate accurate and trustworthy information and results in any kind of
research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). However, what these ideas mean in practice is
intensely contested. According to Jupp (2006), validity refers to the degree to which an
indicator or variable accurately measures the theoretical idea which it is intended to
measure, while reliability refers to the degree to which a measuring device consistently
 91
produces accurate results. Within mixed methods research, in particular, it is vital that each
method supports the other methods involved in the research, complementing other
methods’ weaknesses through its strengths (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006). Moreover,
validity and reliability could mainly imply standard conditions of quality or quality criteria,
which is also known variously as credibility, rigour, or trustworthiness (Morrow, 2005).
However, to determine the quality of a research in any paradigm, the research should be
assessed in terms of the paradigm's specific terminology (Healy & Perry, 2000). Due to the
interpretive character of this study, conventional definitions of validity and reliability may
be regarded as less relevant than they would be in quantitative research. Nonetheless, the
results of any research must be acceptable, reasonable, and trustworthy (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). Thus, this research employs Lincoln and Guba's (1985) postpositivist method to
evaluating the quality of interpretative research.

In their postpositivist method, Lincoln and Guba (1985) posit that the standard conditions
of quality or the trustworthiness of a research study is critical when determining the study’s
value. According to this method, determining the trustworthiness of an interpretive
research involves four evaluative criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). These four criteria are parallel to the four criteria
rooted in methodological positivism: internal validity, external validity and
generalisability, reliability, and objectivity (Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2015) (see Table 4-3
for details). All four of these quality criteria were defined by Lincoln and Guba (1985).
Credibility is interpreted as the degree of trust a reader can have in the truth of the study
results; it determines if the study results reflect credible information derived from the
participants' original data and offer an accurate interpretation of the participants' original
perceptions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Transferability refers to the extent to which the
findings of a study may be applied to different contexts or settings with other participants.
Dependability refers to the stability of results over time, and confirmability refers to the
extent to which the research study's conclusions can be verified by other researchers
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
 92
Table 4-3 Interpretive approaches to evaluative criteria (Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2015)

Criterion Terms Used in Lincoln and Guba

Methodological Positivism (1985): Parallel terms

Truth value Internal validity Credibility

Applicability External validity/ Transferability
Generalisability
Consistency Reliability Dependability
Neutrality Objectivity Confirmability

Moreover, Lincoln and Guba (1985) offered a set of techniques for conducting research
that leads to a study being trustworthy: triangulation, prolonged engagement,
dependability, and confirmability audits (for more details, see

Table 4-4 Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) techniques to achieve trustworthiness). In this research,
some of these strategies have been applied and are discussed in further detail in this
section; these strategies help to establish validity and reliability, ensuring that the present
study’s results give an adequate measure of EFL learners’ perceptions of the impact of
self-assessment on their critical thinking, self-regulated learning, and performance.
 93

Table 4-4 Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) techniques to achieve trustworthiness

Criterion Strategy Definition

Spending an adequate amount of time in the field to
Prolonged engagement learn or comprehend the culture, social
environment, or phenomenon of interest.
Identifying and concentrating on the features and
Persistent observation aspects of a situation that are most pertinent to the
problem or issue at hand.
Using various data sources in a research in order to
Triangulation
gain more information.
Exposing oneself to a disinterested peer in a way
similar to an analytical session with the goal of
Credibility Peer debriefing examining elements of the inquiry that may
otherwise stay merely implicit in the inquirer's
thinking.
Refining an analysis until it can account for or
Negative case analysis
explain the majority of cases.
Recognising a subset of data that should be
Referential adequacy
preserved but not analysed.

Validating data, analytic categories,

Member checks interpretations, and conclusions with members of
the original data-gathering groups.

After thoroughly investigating a phenomena,

assessing the degree to which the findings obtained
Transferability Tick description
are transferrable to different periods, places,
circumstances, and individuals.
Using various data sources in a research in order to
Triangulation
gain more information.
Dependability
Examining the investigation's method (how data
Dependability audits
were gathered, stored, and the data's accuracy)
Conducting an examination of the product to ensure
Confirmability audits that the findings, interpretations, and
recommendations are backed up by data.
Producing a detailed description of the processes
Confirmability Audits trail involved in conducting research, from the inception
of the research through the reporting of results.
Using various data sources in a research in order to
Triangulation
gain more information.
 94

Moreover, in this section I explore validity and reliability threats that should be considered
in the quantitative and qualitative components of mixed methods research. The mixed
methods approach was selected for this study as a triangulation strategy. In other words,
the mixed methods approach assists in bringing various views from various sources of data
in order to improve methodological rigour; the use of several techniques allows researchers
to more effectively present a credible narrative of reality (Calfee & Sperling, 2010). Using
only one method for data collection could present a limited perspective of an issue; in
contrast, using a combination of methods may provide for a valid and comprehensive
understanding of the issue (Calfee & Sperling, 2010; Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Johnson
& Christensen, 2004). Additionally, triangulation in its many forms has been deemed
beneficial for increasing the dependability/reliability of any research (Lillis, 2006; Lukka,
1988). Triangulation in this research was undertaken through the employment of different
tools for collecting the data, namely the pre- and post-tests, self-assessment proforma,
audio recordings, and interviews. The pre- and post-tests, self-assessment proforma, and
audio recordings supported the interviews and were all conducted prior to the interviews.
Triangulating via these methods also supported the dependability of the findings by
gaining saturation of the data in the study (Stavros & Westberg, 2009).

In the quantitative part of this research, the validity and reliability of the pre- and post-tests
were confirmed since they were not constructed by the researcher, but were specifically
designed to explore and measure SRL and critical thinking. The SRL-SRS has been proven
to be a valid and reliable instrument for assessing SRL in the work of Toering et al. (2012)
and Lucieer et al. (2016). Toering et al.’s (2012) work indicated that the SRL-SRS is a
reliable instrument to measure SRL as a relatively stable attribute. The reliability
coefficients, which vary from 0.00 to 1.00, assist in estimating the level of error related
with the surveys. Following the basic rules given by the United States Department of
Labor (1999) for evaluating a reliability coefficient, anything above 0.89 is deemed
“exceptional”, within 0.80–0.89 is considered "acceptable", within 0.70–0.79 is regarded
"sufficient", and less than 0.70 is deemed "inadequate" and may have a narrow range of
applicability (Saad et al., 1999). The reliability and internal consistency of the SRL-SRS
questionnaire was checked and proven by Toering et al. (2012). The Cronbach’s alpha for
each component of the questionnaire was as follows: planning=0.81, self-monitoring=0.73,
self-evaluation=0.82, reflection=0.78, effort=0.85, and self-efficacy=0.81. Toering et al.’s
(2012) work also provided support for the validity of the instrument through confirmatory
 95
factor analysis. The SRL-SRS has been used in multiple studies and contexts, having been
applied to examine the impact of SRL strategies and academic achievements on
recruitment of graduates in the KSA (Almutairi & Hasanat, 2018) and the development of
SRL at medical school's pre-clinical stage (Lucieer et al., 2016). In the present research,
the reliability and internal consistency of the data collected through the SRL-SRS
questionnaire had to be checked using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The Cronbach’s alpha
for each component of the questionnaire was as follows: planning=0.75, self-
monitoring=0.74, self-evaluation=0.74, reflection=0.74, effort=0.84, and self-
efficacy=0.76. Thus, the reliability of the SRL-SRS should be adequate.

Moreover, in order to increase the reliability of the questionnaire, back-translation and

consultation were used to ensure good translation, as suggested by Filep (2009).
Accordingly, the English questionnaire was first translated into Arabic then back-translated
into English. Then, five bilingual language instructors were consulted and asked to check
the clarity of the translated survey. No modifications were needed to the survey based on
the instructors’ feedback.

The validity and reliability of the Watson-Glaser II Critical Thinking Appraisal has also
been proven in several studies. The test manual contains sufficient evidence of face,
content, criteria, and construct validity (Watson & Glaser, 2010). The manual also reports
that the Watson-Glaser II has been shown to be sufficiently reliable over time through test-
retest reliability, and internal consistency has been proven through Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient (Watson & Glaser, 2010). Hassan and Madhum (2007) noted that the Watson-
Glaser II is distinguished by its long history of use to measure critical thinking in different
countries and diversified contexts and fields. Some examples of its use in the last 10 years
include the comparison of critical thinking skills between special education school students
and their graduates (Zascavage et al., 2007); the measurement of critical thinking of
business administration students (Coleman et al., 2012); the evaluation of Middle Eastern
students' critical thinking (Alshraideh, 2015) and the evaluation of US undergraduates
(Obias, 2015); the evaluation of the relationship between academic achievement, self-
regulation, and critical thinking in HE (Ghanizadeh, 2017); the measurement of Iranian
students who took English language classes in terms of their critical thinking (Hashemi &
Zabihi, 2012); the analysis of the relationship between critical thinking and personal
reputation (Sandhu & Sharma, 2015); the measurement of the reading ability of students as
measured by the TOEFL (Fahim et al., 2010); and the evaluation of the critical abilities of
instructors of English as a foreign language in relation to their level of professional
 96
achievement (Birjandi & Bagherkazemi, 2010). From the aforementioned, it can be
ascertained that the Watson-Glaser II has been applied in a variety of settings around the
globe with a wide variety of demographic groups; however, the majority of its applications
have been with teens, undergraduates, and workers. This adds to the validity and reliability
of the test.

As for speaking scores’ reliability, providing clear and explicit instructions for scoring
increases reliability as noted by Hughes (2003). Language tests or scores are also
considered to be reliable when the tests or scores are dependable and consistent, as noted
by Brown and Abeywickrama (2010). Accordingly, scoring was done using a detailed
rubric provided by the institution, and I rated the audio recordings twice with a duration of
a month between the two ratings and two sets of scores. Then, the reliability of the scores
was determined through Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which revealed that the reliability
was exceptional in the first and last recordings: Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.96 for the
first recording and 0.95 for the last recording, both well above 0.89 (see Table 4-5).

Table 4-5 1st Reliability statistics of speaking task

Cronbach's No of
Alpha Items

1st audio .97 2

recording
Last audio .95 2
recording

As for speaking scores’ validity, the two sets of scores should be compared to the learners’
actual or true scores as given by the teacher according to Borman et al. (2001).
Accordingly, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to determine the rating accuracy
and dependability between the three sets of scores. Table 4-6 reveals that the reliability is
deemed exceptional between the three sets of scores, with Cronbach’s alpha value at 0.95
and 0.93.

Table 4-6 2nd Reliability statistics of speaking task

Cronbach's No of
Alpha Items

1st audio .95 3

recording
Last audio .94 3
recording
 97
In the qualitative part of the research, the standard conditions of quality, which may refer
to validity and reliability, are credibility, dependability, and transferability (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). Credibility is critical in both qualitative and quantitative research; in other
words, regardless of method, it is critical to assess and demonstrate the study's credibility
(Golafshani, 2003). According to Patton (2015), the credibility of quantitative research is
reliant upon the instrument design; in qualitative research, in comparison, the researcher is
the instrument. The researcher is, therefore, significant in achieving credibility in
qualitative research. Similar to Patton (2015), Golafshani (2003) suggested that, in
qualitative research, credibility is decided by the ability and effort of the researcher. This
suggestion is applicable to the qualitative part of the present research, as I put significant
effort into interacting with the participants throughout the data collection process in order
to acquire a rich source of information and deeper analysis. In order to increase the
reliability of the qualitative part of the research further, back-translation, consultation, and
piloting were used to ensure good translation, as suggested by Filep (2009). I invited five
bilingual language instructors to check the clarity of the self-assessment proforma and the
interview questions in both versions, English and Arabic. No modifications were needed to
the survey based on the instructors’ feedback. Additionally, audio recording equipment
was used during the interviews to provide an evidence base that could ensure that all
details from the interviews with participants would be available for analysis (Gay et al.,
2009). The findings’ statistical generalisability may be regarded as limited due to the fact
that the study was performed at a single institution; however, as previously discussed, this
research was concerned with transferability that is concerned with investigating a single
case and strove to comprehend and contextualise a unique situation (Gialdino &
Vasilachis, 2009). According to Trochim (2005), the transferability of study results may be
determined by comparisons between the location, individuals, and context; thus, given the
centralised nature of the Saudi education system, one might argue that the results are also
relevant beyond the study's particular setting to other HEIs in the KSA.

4.7. Conclusion

This chapter aimed to address the research philosophy and design of this research. It also
aimed to discuss the sample and the tools used to serve the aim of this research, which was
to explore the EFL learners’ perceptions on the impact of self-assessment on their self-
regulated learning, critical thinking, and achievement. The chapter first addressed the
interpretive paradigm adopted in this research and the rationale for employing a mixed
method research design. Mixed method research design was the most appropriate design to
 98
obtain rich data in the context of the research, namely Saudi Arabia. The chapter then
discussed the sample of the study and the instruments applied for data collection, which
included pre- and post-questionnaires, audio recordings, and interviews. Additionally, the
different means to assure the validity and the reliability of these instruments were
discussed.

The following two chapters, Chapters 5 and 6, present the methods used to analyse the data
collected in this study. The findings from the three research instruments in relation to
students’ perceptions and experience of the effect of self-assessment on EFL learners’ self-
regulated learning, critical thinking, and achievement are also discussed in Chapters 5 and
6.
 99

Chapter 5 : Quantitative Data Analysis

5.1. Introduction

Chapter 4 outlined the research methodology for this study, including the use of the mixed-
methods approach to explore and understand EFL learners’ lived experiences and
perspectives of the impact of self-assessment on their self-regulated learning, critical
thinking, and achievement in English speaking classrooms in Saudi higher education
institutions (HEIs) through pre- and post-surveys, audio-recording, self-assessment
proformas, and semi-structured interviews. Both Chapters 5 and 6 outline the methods of
analysis and present the findings of this research, and Chapter 7 then discusses the findings
in relation to the literature. Chapter 5 focuses on the quantitative data collected in this
study, and Chapter 6 then focuses on the qualitative data. The order of the presentation of
the data is based in part on the chronological order in which data were collected.
Moreover, I believe that it is necessary to move from the broader view to the individual.
Therefore, after this chapter discusses first the broader view based on the quantitative data
on students' perception prior to and after the intervention, Chapter 6 moves on to explore
individual views through the qualitative data.

Chapter 5 addresses the methods used in the analysis of the quantitative data collected in
this study, namely the pre- and post- surveys that addressed EFL students’ perceptions
regarding their self-regulated learning strategies, and measured the students’ critical
thinking prior to and after the intervention. The chapter also reports the findings and results
of both the descriptive and inferential statistics. The discussion of the process of analysing
the quantitative data and the presentation of the findings are integrated and presented under
three sections (5.2, 5.3, and 5.4), each of which comprises several subsections.

5.2. EFL learners’ perceptions of their self-regulated learning

As explained in Chapter 4, the Self-Regulation of Learning Self-Report Scale (SRL-SRS)

was used to collect participants’ perception of their self-regulatory skills before and after
the intervention; the total number of survey respondents was n=27. Data management and
analysis were performed using SPSS software (Version 26). The SRL-SRS employed the
Likert scale, an ordinal scale of measurement used in ordering categories (Cohen et al.,
2018).
 100
The participants’ responses for all six sections in the SRL-SRS were first analysed using
descriptive statistical methods. The frequency and percentages for each statement were
calculated based on the ratings provided by participants. Inferential statistics were also
used to determine if there were statistically significant variations in learners' perceptions of
their self-regulated learning prior to and after intervention. Non-parametric tests were used,
as non-parametric approaches are generally optimal for analysing data on ordinal scales of
measurements (Cohen et al., 2018; Pallant, 2010; Pallant, 2016). The use of parametric
techniques procedures would have been unsuitable, as the data were not normally
distributed; thus, the normality assumption for using parametric techniques with ordinal
scale was not met. In comparison, non-parametric tests do not make assumptions about
distribution. Therefore, non-parametric tests were used to analyse the survey. The
Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, which is the equivalent of Paired Sample T-test, was used in
this research in order to determine whether there were statistically significant differences
between two related samples, namely learners’ perceptions in the pre- and post-surveys.
However, statistical significance is proportional to the sample size and only intended to
inform the researcher whether or not a certain outcome, such as a difference or a
correlation, happened by chance (Cohen et al., 2018; Pallant, 2010; Pallant, 2016). Thus, it
is argued that a measure of effect size, rather than statistical significance, may be more
informative as statistical significance alone does not imply effect, and impact is what most
researchers pursue (Cohen et al., 2018). Therefore, after determining effect size (r), it was
necessary to use Equation 1 to measure the effect size or the strength of association and to
determine effect size using Cohen’s (1988) criteria of strength of association, namely .1 =
small effect, .3= medium effect, .5= large effect (Pallant, 2010).

#
!= , Equation 1
$

where N = total number of cases, and the z value is generated using Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test.

The six sections of the SRL-SRS survey consisted of planning, self-monitoring, evaluation,
reflection, effort, and self-efficacy. Each section evaluated a number of variables in order
to target relevant learner perceptions. For example, the planning section consisted of nine
statements incorporating variables that concerned learners’ perceptions of their planning
skills. Furthermore, because this research was interested in all aspects of learners’
perceptions of their planning, it was necessary to not only analyse the responses to all these
variables but also create a new variable that could represent planning, for example, through
SPSS. This process, referred to as transforming variables, entails transforming data from a
group of categorical variables into a single new continuous variable (UoS, 2014). In order
 101
to transform these variables, SPSS collapsed each learners’ responses for each statement in
the section into one total score to calculate the average. For example, in the planning
section, a learner who answered “4”, or “almost always”, in response to all nine statements
on a four-point Likert scale of the planning section would score 36, as
4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4+4= 36, on the new scale for the new variable. That new scale ranges
from 4 to 36, given that nine statements were in the section. The average of this score
represents the score of the planning section for that learner.

Both descriptive and inferential statistics of the SRL-SRS prior to and after the
intervention are discussed in the following sub-sections.

5.2.1. EFL learners’ perceptions of their planning skill in the SRL-SRS

survey

This section reports results from the first section of the SRL-SRS survey, which aimed to
explore to what extent EFL learners believe they can perform a certain ability or task in
relation to their planning skills and process. The learners marked their perception on a
four-point Likert scale; the higher the number chosen, the more the participant believed
that they could perform a certain skill or ability. This section contained nine statements.
Table 5-1 presents the descriptive statistics from both pre- and post-surveys, including the
frequency and percentages of the full sample (n=27) for each statement.
 Table 5-1 Descriptive statistics for the full sample on perceptions regarding planning on the pre- and post-SRL-SRS survey for all statements 102

Pre-survey Post-survey
Statements N Almost someti
often
Almost
Total
Almost someti
often
Almost
Total
never mes Always never mes Always
1. I determine how to solve a F 0 9 12 6 27 0 1 8 18 27
problem before I begin. 27
% 0% 33.3% 44.4% 22.2% 100% 0% 3.7% 29.6% 66.7% 100%
2. I think through in my mind the F 2 7 12 6 27 0 1 8 18 27
steps of a plan I have to follow. 27
% 7.4% 25.9% 44.4% 22.2% 100% 0% 3.7% 29.6% 66.7% 100%
3. I try to understand the goal of a F 0 7 10 10 27 0 1 9 17 27
task before I attempt to answer. 27
% 0% 25.9% 37.0% 37.0% 100% 0% 3.7% 33.3% 63.0% 100%
4. I ask myself questions about what F 2 10 8 7 27 0 2 13 12 27
a problem requires me to do to 27
solve it, before I do it. % 7.4% 37.0% 29.6% 25.9% 100% 0% 7.4% 48.1% 44.4% 100%
5. I imagine the parts of a problem I F 3 11 8 5 27 0 3 12 12 27
still have to complete 27
% 11.1% 40.7% 29.6% 18.5% 100% 0% 11.1% 44.4% 44.4% 100%
6. I figure out my goals and what I F 0 6 10 11 27 0 2 9 16 27
need to do to accomplish them. 27
% 0% 22.2% 37.0% 40.7% 100% 0% 7.4% 33.3% 59.3% 100%
7. I carefully plan my course of F 1 8 11 7 27 0 3 8 16 27
action to solve a problem. 27
% 3.7% 29.6% 40.7% 25.9% 100% 0% 11.1% 29.6% 59.3% 100%
8. I clearly plan my course of action F 1 8 11 7 27 1 3 8 15 27
to solve a problem. 27
% 3.7% 29.6% 40.7% 25.9% 100% 3.7% 11.1% 29.6% 55.6% 100%
9. I develop a plan for the solution of F 3 6 11 7 27 1 3 7 16 27
a problem. 27
% 11.1% 22.2% 40.7% 25.9% 100% 3.7% 11.1% 25.9% 59.3% 100%
(F: Frequency)
 103

Overall, the findings of the data presented in Table 5-1 reveal significant changes in the
learners’ perceptions of different planning processes after the intervention. The first four
statements in the survey aimed to explore learners’ perceptions of their planning strategies
before starting a task. Regarding the first two statements in the pre-survey, two thirds of
the learners, or 44.4% (12 participants) often and 22.2% (six participants) almost always,
felt that they tried to determine how to solve a problem before beginning and thought
through the steps that they would have to follow. In the post-survey, the number of
participants who felt this way increased: the majority of the participants (26 participants),
or 29.6% (eight participants) often and 66.7% (18 participants) almost always, planned in
this way. One possible reason for this increase may be that, through the intervention,
learners were given a way and an opportunity to identify the area on which they should
focus while doing a task; therefore, the learners were prompted to think about and
determine the steps needed for them to complete a task and succeed. Students’ responses to
the third statement suggest that more than two thirds of the participants, with 37.0% (10
participants) often and 37.0% (10 participants) almost always believing that, when
performing tasks, they tried to understand the goal before attempting to answer. This
percentage increase in the post-survey, with most participants feeling that they often, with
33.30% (nine participants), or almost always, with 63.0% (17 participants), made an effort
to comprehend the goal of a task before trying to accomplish the task. In response to the
fourth statement, more than half the participants, a total of 55.5%, felt that they often, with
29.6% (eight participants), or almost always, with 25.9% (seven participants) asked
themselves what a problem required them to do to solve it before completing the problem.
One possible reason for the positive increase could be that, through the intervention
learners, were given a means and an opportunity to identify the area in which they should
focus on while completing a task, meaning that they were able to think and determine the
necessary steps for them to set a goal to complete a task and succeed.

Moreover, statements from four to nine aimed to explore learners’ perceptions of their
planning strategies while accomplishing a task. Students’ responses to the fifth statement
in the pre-survey reveal that almost half the participants felt that they often, with 29.6%
(eight participants), or almost always, with 18.5% (five participants), thought of the
components of an issue that they had yet to solve. However, the number of participants
who felt this way increased after the intervention, and responses to the same statement in
the post-survey reveal that more than 85% of the participants (24 participants) felt that they
often, with 44.4% (12 participants), or almost always, with 44.4% (12 participants) thought
 104
of the components of an issue that they have yet to solve. Table 5-1 revealed EFL learners’
responses to statements number seven, eight, and nine in the pre survey indicated that two
thirds of the participants (66.6%) felt that they often, with 40.7% (11 participants), or
almost always, with 25.9% (seven participants) developed and planned their course of
action to solve a problem carefully and clearly. However, the number of participants who
felt this way increased after the intervention, and their responses to the same statements in
the post-survey reveal that over 85% of the participants felt that their line of action to
resolve an issue was carefully and clearly planned. Learners’ responses to these statements
may be attributed to the fact that, by raising learners’ awareness of the criteria through self-
assessment proformas, they were able to plan the means of completing the task carefully
and clearly.

Furthermore, students’ responses to all nine statements that aimed to explore their
perceptions of their planning process were merged, as explained in Section 5.2, and
presented as one single indicator to represent learners’ perceptions of their planning
processes prior to and after the intervention. Table 5-2 presents the descriptive statistic of
the planning section as a whole from both pre- and post-surveys, including the mean of the
full sample (n=27) for each statement. It is apparent from Table 5-2 that the mean of
participants’ responses in the planning section in the post-SRL-SRS survey is higher than
those responses from the pre-survey, and the mean difference is 0.63.

However, in order to confirm whether the difference in means between the pre- and post-
survey was statistically significant, Wilcoxon’ Signed Rank Test was used, as discussed in
Section 5.2.

Table 5-2 Descriptive statistics of the full sample scores of the planning section in the pre- and post-SRL-SRS survey

Pre-survey Post-survey
N
Mean Median SD Min Max Mean Median SD Min Max
Planning 27 2.85 2.88 .49 1.78 3.67 3.48 3.55 .43 2.67 4.00

Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test was chosen to establish a comparison between the two
related sets of data as a mean to determine any statistically significant difference between
the two. These results are presented in Table 5-3.
 105

Table 5-3 Statistical difference of the panning section in the pre and post-SRL-SRS survey

Test Statistics
Post-planning –
Pre-Planning
Z -4.44b
Asymp. Sig. (2- .000
tailed)
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on negative ranks.

The findings from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank presented in Table 5-3 reveal a statistically
significant difference between learners’ perceptions of their planning processes prior to
and after intervention. The test reveals a statistically significantly positive change in
learners’ views, Z= -4.44, p < .001, with a large effect size (r = .85). The median score of
the perceptions of planning increased from pre-survey (Md = 2.88) to post-survey (Md=
3.55).

Learners’ perceptions of planning before and after the intervention indicate highly positive
attitudes towards the intervention. The participants believed that they were more engaged
while completing the task and using the different strategies while planning for the task
completion more frequently. This result may indicate a positive impact of self-assessment
on learners’ perceptions and use of their planning skills. However, it is not possible to be
certain of the reasons for this positive perception before examining the qualitative data.

The findings and descriptive statistics from the second section in the survey, namely self-
monitoring, are presented and discussed in the following sub-section.

5.2.2. EFL learners’ perceptions of their self-monitoring skills in the SRL-

SRS survey

This section presents the results of the second section in the SRL-SRS survey, which
contained eight statements. The second section in the survey aimed to explore EFL
learners’ perceptions of their self-monitoring strategies. Learners indicated their
perceptions on a four-point scale; the higher the number, the more confident that the
learners were in their ability to exercise a certain skill. Table 5-4 presents the descriptive
statistics from both the pre- and post-survey, including the frequency and percentages of
the full sample (n=27) for each statement.
 Table 5-4 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s perceptions of self-monitoring skills in the pre- and post-SRL-SRS survey
106

Pre-survey Post-survey
Statements N Almost someti
often
Almost
Total
Almost someti
often
Almost
Total
never mes Always never mes Always
1. While doing a task, I ask F 3 6 10 8 27 1 1 7 18 27
myself questions to stay on 27
track % 11.1% 22.2% 37.0% 29.6% 100% 3.7% 3.7% 25.9% 66.7% 100%

2. While doing a task, I ask F 3 6 11 7 27 0 1 13 13 27

27
myself, how well I am doing % 11.1% 22.2% 40.7% 25.9% 100% 0% 3.7% 48.1% 48.1% 100%

3. I check my work while doing F 0 6 10 11 27 0 1 5 21 27

27
it. % 0% 22.2% 37.0% 40.7% 100% 0% 3.7% 18.5% 77.8% 100%

4. I check how well I am doing F 0 6 10 11 27 0 1 5 21 27

27
when I solve a task. % 0% 22.2% 37.0% 40.7% 100% 0% 3.7% 18.5% 77.8% 100%

5. I check my accuracy as I 27 F 1 5 9 12 27 0 1 6 20 27
progress through a task. % 3.7% 18.5% 33.3% 44.4% 100% 0% 3.7% 22.2% 74.1% 100%
6. I know how much of a task I F 2 4 6 15 27 0 0 7 20 27
27
have to complete. % 7.4% 14.8% 22.2% 55.6% 100% 0% 0% 25.9% 74.1% 100%
7. I judge the correctness of my F 2 4 11 10 27 0 0 3 24 27
27
work. % 7.4% 14.8% 40.7% 37.0% 100% 0% 0% 11.1% 88.9% 100%
F 1 3 5 18 27 0 0 4 23 27
8. I correct my errors 27
% 3.7% 11.1% 18.5% 66.7% 100% 0% 0% 14.8% 85.2% 100%
(F: Frequency)
 107
The results in Table 5-4 reveal substantial changes in learners' views of self-monitoring
processes prior to and after intervention. The first six statements in this section intended to
gather information on learners' views of their self-monitoring tactics while completing a
task. Learners’ responses to the first statement in the pre-survey indicate that two thirds of
the participants believed that they asked themselves questions while completing a task as a
means to stay on track. 37.0% of the participants (10 participants) believed that they often
asked themselves, and 29.6% (eight participants) believed that they almost always used
this technique to stay on track. Interestingly, students’ responses in the post-survey show
that almost all the participants used this technique to stay on track, with 66.7% (18
participants) indicating that they almost always used this technique when completing tasks,
and 18.5% believing that they often do so. However, it should be noted that the second
statement in the survey aimed to gather information on learners' views of whether they
asked themselves to track how well they were performing the task, and the data reveal that,
in the pre-survey, the participants gave almost identical responses to the first statement.
40.7% of the participants believed that they often asked themselves how well they were
performing a task and 25.9% believed that they almost always used this technique to stay
on track. However, although learners’ responses to the post-survey show that, similar to the
first statement, almost all participants believed that they asked themselves how well they
were performing doing a task, only 48.1% of the participants (13 participants) believed that
they almost always used this technique, and the other 48.1% of the participants (13
participants) believed that they often asked questions to assess their performance in a task.
The change in attitudes toward these statements may be because the awareness of
assessment criteria and requirement enable the students to set objectives and goals that
they try to reach.

Moreover, the data presented in Table 5-4 for participants’ responses for the third, fourth,
and fifth statements showed that, prior to the intervention, over 75% of the participants felt
that they checked their work and the accuracy of this work. Almost 37.0% of the learners
believed that they often checked their work, and almost 40.7% felt that they almost always
checked their work. Remarkably, the number of participants who felt this way increased
after the intervention; their responses to the same statements in the post-survey suggested
that almost all the participants felt that they ensured the quality of their work and its
correctness, with almost 77.8% feeling that they almost always and almost 18.5% believed
that they do so. Table 5-4 also shows learners’ responses for the sixth statement in the
survey, revealing that over 75% of the EFL learners believed that they were aware of how
much of a task remained to be completed, with 22.2% (six participants) believing that they
 108
were often aware and 55.5% (15 participants) believing that they were almost always
aware of the amount of task in hand. Remarkably, learners’ responses after the intervention
suggest that almost all the participants felt that they were aware of the amount of task that
remained to be complete. 25.9% (seven participants) of the learners believed that they were
aware of what was needed to be completed, and 74.1% (20 participants) felt that they were
almost always ware. The possible reason for this finding is that using the audio recordings
enabled the learners to monitor their speaking performance as they had evidence of their
performance, which would allow them to check and identify their mistakes and
weaknesses.

Furthermore, students’ responses to the seventh statement in the pre-survey reveal that
over 75% of the participants felt that they often, with 40.7% (11 participants), or almost
always, with 37.0% (10 participants), judged the correctness of their work after completing
it. Surprisingly, the participants’ responses to this question after the intervention suggest
that all the participants felt that they were able to judge the correctness of their work. Only
11% (three participants) of the learners’ stated that they often judged their work, while
88.9% (24 participants) of the learners stated that they almost always did so. The data in
Table 5-4 presents learners’ responses to the eighth statement, which aimed to explore to
what extent learners corrected their errors when completing tasks. The data reveal that, in
the pre-survey, approximately 85% of the participants stated that they either often or
almost always corrected their errors. 18.5% (five participants) of the learners believed that
they often corrected their work, and 66.7% (18 participants) of the learners’ stated that they
almost always did so. Remarkably, the number of participants who felt this way increased
after the intervention and their responses to the same statement in the post-survey reveal
that all the participants stated that they corrected their errors with 85.2% (23 participants)
feeling that they almost always corrected their mistakes, and 14.8% (four participants)
stating that they often did so.

Furthermore, learners’ responses to all eight statements, which aimed to explore their
perceptions of their self-monitoring processes, were merged and presented as one single
indicator to represent learners’ perceptions of their self-monitoring processes prior to and
after the intervention. Table 5-5 presents the descriptive statistic of the self-monitoring
section as a whole from both the pre- and post-survey, including the mean of the full
sample (n=27) for each statement. It is evident from Table 5-5 that the mean of
participants’ responses in the self-monitoring section in the post survey is higher than their
responses in the pre-survey, with a mean difference of 0.58.
 109
Table 5-5 Descriptive statistics of the full sample scores of the self-monitoring section in the pre-
and post-SRL-SRS survey

Pre-survey Post-survey
N
Mean Median SD Min Max Mean Median SD Min Max
Self- 27 3.11 3.25 .53 1.75 4.00 3.69 3.75 .31 2.75 4.00
Monitoring

In order to confirm whether the difference in means between learners’ perceptions of their
self-monitoring processes in the pre- and post-survey was statistically significant,
Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test was used, the findings of which are presented in Table 5-6.

Table 5-6 Statistical difference of the self-monitoring section in the pre and post-SRL-SRS survey

Test Statistics
Post-self-
monitoring – Pre-
self-monitoring
Z -4.37b
Asymp. Sig. (2- .000
tailed)
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on negative ranks.

Table 5-6 presents the results of Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank test and indicates a statistically
significant difference between learners’ perceptions of their self-monitoring processes
prior to and after the intervention. The test reveals a statistically significant positive change
in learners’ perceptions, Z= -4.37, p < .001, with a large effect size (r = .0.84). The median
score on perceptions of self-monitoring increased from the pre-survey (Md = 3.25) to the
post-survey (Md= 3.75).

In summary, learners’ perceptions of the planning section before and after the intervention
show high positive attitudes and confidence in their ability to monitor, check, and correct
their performance at different stages, which may indicate the positive impact of self-
assessment in this positive change of their perceptions of their self-monitoring skill and
processes. The reasons for these changes in perceptions may be clearer when discussing
these results side-by-side with the results of qualitative data.

The findings and descriptive statistics of the second section in the survey self-monitoring
are presented and discussed in the following sub-section.
 110
5.2.3. EFL learners’ perceptions of their evaluation strategy in the SRL-SRS
survey

This section reports the findings of the third section of the SRL-SRS survey. The third
section in the survey included eight statements and aimed to explore EFL learners’
perceptions of their self-monitoring strategies. The learners indicated their perceptions on
five scales: the higher the scale, the more confident that they were in their ability to
perform a certain skill. Table 5-7 presents the descriptive statistics from both pre- and post-
survey, including the frequency and percentages of the full sample (n=27) for each
statement.
 111

Table 5-7 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s perceptions of their evaluation skills in the pre- and post-SRL-SRS survey

Pre-survey Post-survey
Statements N someti Alway someti Alway
Never Rarely often Total Never Rarely often Total
mes s mes s
1. I look back and check if F 0 2 11 10 4 27 0 0 0 4 23 27
what I did was right. 27
% 0% 7.4% 40.7% 37.0% 14.8% 100% 0% 0% 0% 14.8% 85.2% 100%
2. I double-check to make F 1 3 12 9 2 27 0 0 1 12 14 27
sure I did it right. 27
% 3.7% 11.1% 44.4% 33.3% 7.4% 100% 0% 0% 3.7% 44.4% 51.9% 100%
3. I check to see if my F 1 3 4 12 7 27 0 0 2 11 14 27
calculations are correct. 27
% 3.7% 11.1% 14.8% 44.4% 25.9% 100% 0% 0% 7.4% 40.7% 51.9% 100%
4. I look back to see if I did F 0 1 6 10 10 27 0 0 0 6 21 27
the correct procedures. 27
% 0% 3.7% 22.2% 37.0% 37.0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 22.2% 77.8% 100%
5. I check my work all the F 0 1 8 9 9 27 0 0 1 7 19 27
27
way through the problem
% 0% 3.7% 29.6% 33.3% 33.3% 100% 0% 0% 3.7% 25.9% 70.4% 100%
6. I look back at the problem F 0 2 7 11 7 27 0 0 1 5 21 27
to see if my answer 27
makes sense. % 0% 7.4% 25.9% 40.7% 25.9% 100% 0% 0% 3.7% 18.5% 77.8% 100%
7. I stop and rethink a step I F 0 1 1 10 15 27 0 0 3 5 19 27
have already done. 27
% 0% 3.7% 3.7% 37.0% 55.6% 100% 0% 0% 11.1% 18.5% 70.4% 100%
8. I make sure I complete F 0 1 3 5 18 27 0 0 1 3 23 27
each step 27
% 0% 3.7% 11.1% 18.5% 66.7% 100% 0% 0% 3.7% 11.1% 85.2% 100%
 112

Generally, the data in Table 5-7 suggest remarkable changes in learners' perceptions of
their evaluation processes pre- and post-intervention. Students’ responses to the first
statement in the pre-survey reveal that approximately half of the participants stated that
they checked whether or not what they did was correct, with 37.0% (10 participants)
stating that they often checked what they had done after they finished. 14.8% (four
participants) of the learners stated that they always did so. Surprisingly, the participants’
responses to the same statement after the intervention reveal that all the participants felt
that they evaluated and checked their work after finishing. 85.2% (23 participants) of the
participants stated that they always did so, and only 14.8% (four participants) of the
learners state that they often did so. Similarly, the data on the second statement in the
survey revealed that 40.7% of the participants stated that they double-checked if what they
did was right after finishing. 33.3% (nine participants) of the learners stated that they often
re-evaluated their work, while only 7.4% (two participants) of learners stated that they
always did so. Remarkably, the number of participants who stated that they double-
checked their work increased after the intervention; their responses in the post-survey
suggest that almost all of the participants stated that they double-checked and re-evaluate
their work to determine if what they did was correct, with 85.2% (23 participants) feeling
they always corrected their mistakes and 14.8% (four participants) stating that they often
did so.

Moreover, Table 5-7 shows learners’ responses to the third and fourth statements, which
aimed to gather information on learners’ evaluation processes in the details of the work.
The data reveal that approximately 70% of EFL learners stated that they checked if the
details of their work were correct and if they followed the correct procedures or format.
The details of the responses on the third statement reveal that 44.4% (12 participants) of
learners stated that they often checked if the details of their work were correct, and 25.9%
(seven participants) of the learners stated that they always checked their work after
finishing to check the details. Additionally, the findings of the fourth statement reveal that
37.0% (10 participants) of the learners stated that they often checked if they followed the
correct procedures or format, and 37.0% (10 participants) stated that they always did so.
Remarkably, the number of participants who stated that they often or always checked if the
details of their work were correct, and if they followed the correct procedures or format,
increased after the intervention and the responses in the post survey suggest that almost all
the participants stated that they did so. The fifth statement in the questionnaire aimed to
explore to what extent students checked if their answers made sense in relation to the
 113
speaking tasks. Table 5-7 shows that, in the pre-survey, approximately two thirds of the
participants stated that they checked their responses. In the details, 40.7% (11 participants)
of learners stated that they often checked their answers, and 25.9% (seven participants)
stated that they always did so. Surprisingly, learners’ responses in the post-survey reveal
that students tended to focus more on evaluating the meaning of their answers in relation to
the speaking topics; 96.3% of the participants stated that they either often or always
checked if their answers made sense. Table 5-7 shows that, in the post-survey, 77.8% (21
participants) of the participants, in comparison to 25.9% (seven participants) in the pre-
survey, stated that they always checked if their answers make sense. Additionally, 18%
(five participants) of the learners in the post-survey stated that they often checked their
responses.

Furthermore, students’ responses to the seventh statement in the pre- and post-survey
reveal that, after the intervention, more learners tended to stop and reconsider previous
steps when working on a task. In details, the data presented in Table 5-7 showed that, in
the post-survey, 70.4% (19 participants) of the participants, in comparison to 55.6% (15
participants) in the pre-survey stated that they always stopped and rethought a step that
they had already completed. Additionally, 18% (five participants) of learners in the post-
survey stated that they stopped and rethought a step that they had already done. Table 5-7
presented learners’ responses to the eighth statement, the data of which reveal that, in the
pre-survey, 85% of the participants stated that they made sure that they completed each
step. 18.5% (five participants) made sure that they completed each step, and 66.7% (18
participants) of the learners stated that they almost always did so. Remarkably, the number
of participants who felt this way increased after the intervention, and their responses to the
same statement in the post survey reveal that almost all the participants stated that they
made sure that they completed each step, with 85.2% (23 participants) feeling they always
corrected their mistakes and 14.8% (four participants) stating that they often did so.

Moreover, descriptive statistics of learners’ responses to all eight statements, presented as

one single indicator to represent learners’ perceptions of their self-monitoring processes
prior to and after the intervention, are presented in Table 5-8. Similar to the first two
sections of the survey, it is evident from Table 5-8 that the mean of participants’ responses
in the evaluation section in the post survey is higher than responses in the pre-survey, and
the mean difference is 0.74.
 114

Table 5-8 Descriptive statistics of the full sample scores of the evaluation section in the pre- and post SRL-SRS survey

Pre-survey Post-survey
N
Mean Median SD Min Max Mean Median SD Min Max
Evaluation 27 3.93 4.00 .53 2.50 4.75 4.67 4.75 .25 4.00 5.00

Moreover, Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test was then used to investigate whether the
difference in means between the pre- and post-survey was statistically significant or not.
These findings are presented in Table 5-9.

Table 5-9 Statistical difference of the evaluation section in the pre and post-SRL-SRS survey

Test Statistics
Post-Evaluation –
Pre-Evaluation
Z -4.55b
Asymp. Sig. (2- .000
tailed)
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on negative ranks.

The Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank test revealed a statistically significant difference between
learners’ perceptions of their evaluation processes prior to and after intervention. The test
revealed a statistically significantly positive change in learners’ perceptions, Z= -4.55, p <
.001, with a large effect size (r = .87). The median score on the perceptions of their
evaluation processes increased from pre- (Md = 4.00) to post-survey (Md= 4.75).

In summary, the participants’ perceptions reveal higher willingness and engagement in

evaluating their work at each stage while completing their task, until evaluating their
performance in the audio recording. One possible explanation for these results is that
learners were more aware of the requirement of the tasks and the assessment criteria,
which could motivate them to work hard and evaluate this work to succeed.

The findings and descriptive statistics of the second section in the survey self-monitoring
are presented and discussed in the following sub-section.
 115
5.2.4. EFL learners’ perceptions of their reflection strategy in the SRL-SRS
survey

This section reports findings from the fourth section of the SRL-SRS survey. This section
included five statements that sought to elicit information on learners' views of their
reflection processes. The learners indicated their views and level of agreement with a five-
point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Table 5-10
presents the descriptive statistics from both pre- and post-survey, including the frequency
of agreement and percentages of the full sample (n=27) for each statement.
 116

Table 5-10 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s perceptions of their reflection skills in the pre- and post SRL-SRS survey

Pre-survey Post-survey
Statements N
SD D N A SA Total SD D N A SA Total

1. I reappraise my F 1 1 13 6 6 27 0 0 1 8 18 27
experiences so I can learn 27
from them % 3.7% 3.7% 48.1% 22.2% 22.2% 100% 0% 0% 3.7% 29.6% 66.7% 100%
2. I try to think about my F 0 2 8 9 8 27 0 1 0 7 19 27
strengths and weaknesses. 27
% 0% 7.4% 29.6% 33.3% 29.6% 100% 0% 3.7% 0% 25.9% 70.4% 100%
3. I think about my actions F 0 0 6 14 7 27 0 0 2 3 22 27
to see whether I can 27
improve them % 0% 0% 22.2% 51.9% 25.9% 100% 0% 0% 7.4% 11.1% 81.5% 100%
4. I think about my past F 0 3 6 12 6 27 0 0 0 6 21 27
experiences to understand 27
new ideas % 0% 11.1% 22.2% 44.4% 22.2% 100% 0% 0% 0% 22.2% 77.8% 100%
5. I try to think about how I F 1 0 4 6 16 27 0 0 0 4 23 27
27
can do things better next
time % 3.7% 0% 14.8% 22.2% 59.3% 100% 0% 0% 0% 14.8% 85.2% 100%

(SD: Strongly Disagree, D: Disagree, N: Neither, A: Agree, SA: Strongly Agree, F: Frequency)
 117

The data in Table 5-10 shows significant change in learners' perceptions of their reflection
processes prior to and after the intervention. Remarkably, learners’ responses to the first
statement in this section in the pre- and post-survey reveal that, after the intervention, more
learners agreed that they carefully considered their experiences in order to gain knowledge
from them. Table 5-10 reveals that, in the post-survey, a total of 96.3% (26 participants) of
the participants agreed that they reappraised their experiences to learn from them, with
66.7% (18 participants) strongly agreeing and 29.6% (eight participants) agreeing, in
comparison to 44.4% (12 participants) in the pre-survey with 22.2% (six participants)
strongly agreeing and 22.2% (six participants) agreeing. Table 5-10 also presents learners’
responses to the second statements which reveal that the number of participants who
agreed that they tried to weigh their strengths and weaknesses increased after the
intervention. In details, the data reveals that, in the post-survey, a total of 96.3% (26
participants) of the participants agreed that they tried to weigh their strengths and
weaknesses with 70.4% (19 participants) strongly agreeing and 25.9% (seven participants)
agreeing in comparison to 62.9% (17 participants) in the pre-survey with 29.6% (eight
participants) strongly agreeing and 33.3% (nine participants) agreeing.

Moreover, Table 5-10 presents learners’ responses to the third statement. The data reveal
that, in the pre-survey, 77.8% of the participants agreed that they re-thought their actions to
see whether they could improve, with 25.9% (seven participants) strongly agreeing and
51.9% (14 participants) agreeing. Interestingly, the number of participants who agreed with
this statement increased after the intervention in the post-survey, with a total agreement of
92.6% of the participants, with 81.5% (22 participants) strongly agreeing and 11.1% (three
participants) agreeing. Surprisingly, learners’ responses to the fourth statement in the pre-
and post-surveys reveal that, after the intervention, more learners agreed that they thought
about their past experiences to understand new ideas. In details, Table 5-10 reveals that, in
the post-survey, all the participants (27 participants) agreed that they thought about their
past experience to understand new ideas with 77.8% (21 participants) strongly agreeing
and 22.2% (six participants) agreeing in comparison to 66.6% (18 participants) in the pre-
survey with 22.2% (six participants) strongly agreeing and 44.4% (12 participants)
agreeing. Finally, the responses to the fifth statement reveal that, in the pre-survey 81.5%
of the participants (22 participants) agreed that they tried to think about how they could do
things better next time, with 59.3% (16 participants) strongly agreeing and 22.2% (six
participants) agreeing. Remarkably, the number of participants who agreed increased after
the intervention and the responses in the post-survey reveal that all the participants tried to
 118
think about how they could do things better next time, with 85.2% (23 participants)
strongly agreeing and 14.8% (four participants) agreeing.

Furthermore, the descriptive statistic of learners’ responses to all five statements, which are
presented as a single indicator to represent learners’ perceptions of their reflection
processes prior to and after the intervention are presented in Table 5-11.

Table 5-11 Descriptive statistics of the full sample scores of the reflection section in the pre- and post SRL-SRS survey

Pre-survey Post-survey
N
Mean Median SD Min Max Mean Median SD Min Max
Reflection 27 3.91 4.00 .65 2.00 5.00 4.72 4.80 .29 4.00 5.00

It is apparent from Table 5-12 that the mean of participants’ responses in the evaluation
section in the post-survey is higher than those in the pre-survey, with a mean difference of
0.81. Nonetheless, it was necessary to use Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test to investigate
whether the difference in means between the pre- and post-survey was statistically
significant, the findings of which are presented in Table 5-12.

Table 5-12 Statistical difference of the reflection section in the pre and post-SRL-SRS survey

Test Statistics
Post-reflection –
Pre- reflection
Z -4.32b
Asymp. Sig. (2- .000
tailed)
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
c. Based on negative ranks.

Table 5-12 presents the results of Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank test, revealing a statistically
significant difference between learners’ perceptions of their reflection processes prior to
and after the intervention. The test indicates a statistically significantly positive change in
learners’ perceptions, Z= -4.32, p < .001, with a large effect size (r = .83). The median
score on the perceptions of reflection increased from pre-survey (Md = 4.00) to post-survey
(Md= 4.80).
 119
Although the reasons for the high agreement by the learners after the intervention cannot
be certain before comparing these findings to those from the qualitative data, it may be
possible to suggest that one of the reasons is that the self-assessment engaged students in
their learning and provided opportunity for them to reflect more, identify their strength
and weaknesses, and think of means of improving and overcoming weaknesses and issues.
The findings and descriptive statistics in the fifth section in the survey on effort are
presented and discussed in the following sub-section.

5.2.5. EFL learners’ perceptions of their effort in the SRL-SRS survey

This section reports the findings from the fifth section of the SRL-SRS survey. The fifth
section of the survey included 10 statements and aimed to explore EFL learners’
perceptions of the effort that they put into their work. The learners indicated their views on
a five-point scale; the higher the scale, the more confident they are in the level of effort
that they put into their work. Table 5-13 presents the descriptive statistics from the pre- and
post-survey, including the frequency and percentages of the full sample (n=27) for each
statement.
 Table 5-13 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s perceptions of their effort in the pre- and post-SRL-SRS survey 120

Pre-survey Post-survey
Statements N Almost someti
often
Almost
Total
Almost someti
often
Almost
Total
never mes Always never mes Always
1. I keep working even on F 1 4 11 11 27 0 0 9 18 27
27
difficult tasks % 3.7% 14.8% 40.7% 40.7% 100% 0% 0% 33.3% 66.7% 100%
2. I put forth my best effort when F 1 3 4 19 27 0 1 5 21 27
performing tasks 27
% 3.7% 11.1% 14.8% 70.4% 100% 0% 3.7% 18.5% 77.8% 100%
3. I concentrate fully when I do a F 2 5 6 14 27 0 0 11 16 27
task. 27
% 7.4% 18.5% 22.2% 51.9% 100% 0% 0% 40.7% 59.3% 100%
4. I don’t give up even if the task F 1 6 11 9 27 0 3 9 15 27
is hard. 27
% 3.7% 22.2% 40.7% 33.3% 100% 0% 11.1% 33.3% 55.6% 100%
5. I work hard on a task even if it F 3 9 8 7 27 1 2 15 9 27
27
is not important
% 11.1% 33.3% 29.6% 25.9% 100% 3.7% 7.4% 55.6% 33.3% 100%
6. I work as hard as possible on F 0 6 8 13 27 0 1 12 14 27
all tasks 27
% 0% 22.2% 29.6% 48.1% 100% 0% 3.7% 44.4% 51.9% 100%
7. I work hard to do well even if I F 3 10 8 6 27 1 1 17 8 27
don’t like a task. 27
% 11.1% 37.0% 29.6% 22.2% 100% 3.7% 3.7% 63.0% 29.6% 100%
8. If I’m not really good at a task I F 0 10 11 6 27 0 3 11 13 27
can compensate for this by 27
working hard. % 0% 37.0% 40.7% 22.2% 100% 0% 11.1% 40.7% 48.1% 100%
9. I am willing to do extra work F 2 1 9 15 27 0 1 4 22 27
on tasks in order to learn more. 27
% 7.4% 3.7% 33.3% 55.6% 100% 0% 3.7% 14.8% 81.5% 100%
10. If I persist on a task, I’ll F 0 2 7 18 27 0 0 5 22 27
27
eventually succeed. % 0% 7.4% 25.9% 66.7% 100% 0% 0% 18.5% 81.5% 100%
 121
Generally, the data in Table 5-13 reveal changes in learners' perceptions of the level of
effort that they put into their work prior to and after the intervention. Students’ responses
to the first statement in the pre-survey reveal that more than 80% of the participants
believed that they were persistent in their efforts even when confronted with challenging
tasks, with 40.7% (11 participants) stating that they often kept working even on difficult
tasks, and 40.7% (11 participants) of the learners stated that they almost always did so. The
participants’ responses to the same statement after the intervention revealed that all the
participants felt that they persisted in their efforts even when confronted with challenging
tasks. 66.7% of the participants (18 participants) stated that they almost always did so, and
33.3% of the participants (nine participants) stated that they often did so. Table 5-13 also
shows learners’ responses to the second statements, and the data revealed that the number
of participants who felt that, while completing assignments, they made their best effort
increased after the intervention. In details, the data in Table 5-13 suggest that, in the post-
survey, a total of 96.3% (26 participants) of the participants felt that they made a concerted
effort while completing tasks, with 77.8% of the participants (21 participants) stating
almost always and 18.5% (five participants) stating that they often felt this way in
comparison to 85.2% (23 participants) in the pre-survey with 70.4% (19 participants)
saying almost always and 14.8% (four participants) often felt that they put in their best
effort when performing a task. Moreover, Table 5-13 presents learners’ responses to the
third statement, the data of which reveal that, in the pre-survey, 74.1% of the participants
believed that, when working on a task, they gave it their all, with 51.9% (14 participants)
saying almost always and 22.2% (six participants) often feeling that they concentrate fully
when doing a task. Notably, in the post-survey all participants felt that they completely
focused when working on a task, increasing to 59.3% (16 participants) of the participants
almost always and 40.7% (11 participants) often feeling this way.

Moreover, statements from the fifth to eighth in this section aimed to gather information on
how hard learners are working on tasks. Learners’ responses to these statements in the pre-
and post-survey reveal that, after the intervention, more learners felt that they worked hard
when completing a task. In details, learners’ responses to the fifth statement presented in
Table 5-13 reveal that, in the post-survey, 88.9% of the participants (24 participants) felt
that they devoted considerable effort to a task, regardless of its significance, with 33.3%
(nine participants) stating almost always and 55.6% (15 participants) stating that they often
felt this way in comparison to 55.5% (15 participants) in the pre-survey, with 25.9% (seven
participants) almost always and 29.6% (eight participants) often feeling that they worked
 122
hard on a task regardless of its importance. Furthermore, responses to the sixth statement
reveal that, in the post-survey, 96.3% of the participants (26 participants) felt that they
strived to give their best to all tasks, with 51.9%% of the participants (14 participants)
stating almost always and 44.4% (12 participants) stating that they often felt this way in
comparison to 78.3% (21 participants) in the pre-survey, with 48.1% (13 participants)
stating almost always and 29.6% (eight participants) often feeling that they worked as hard
as possible on all tasks. Similarly, responses to the seventh statement reveal that, in the
post-survey, 92.6% of the participants (25 participants) felt that they strived to complete
tasks successfully, even the task were unpleasant, with 29.6%% of the participants (eight
participants) stating almost always and 63.0% (17 participants) stating that they often felt
this way in comparison to 51.8% (14 participants) in the pre-survey, with 22.2% (six
participants) stating almost always and 29.6% (eight participants) stating that they often
felt that they worked hard to complete tasks effectively, even when they disliked a task.
Furthermore, responses to the eighth statement revealed that in the post survey a total of
88.8% of the participants (24 participants) felt that, even if they felt that they were good at
a task, they could compensate by working hard, with 48.1% of the participants (13
participants) stating almost always and 40.7% (11 participants) stating that they often felt
this way in comparison to 62.9% (17 participants) in the pre-survey, with 22.2% (six
participants) stating almost always and 40.7% (11 participants) stating that they often felt
that, if they were not good at a task, they could compensate by working hard.

Furthermore, students’ responses to the ninth statement in the pre-survey reveal that over
80% of the participants felt that they were willing to put in more effort into a task in order
to get further knowledge, with 55.6% (15 participants) stating that they were almost always
willing to put extra effort and 40.7% (11 participants) of the learners stating that they often
did so. Following the intervention, participants' responses to the same statement indicated
that almost all participants believed that they were willing to take on more work in order to
gain further knowledge. 81.5% of the participants (22 participants) stated that they almost
always did so, and 14.8% of the participants (four participants) stated that they were often
willing to do extra in order to learn more. Lastly, the findings for the tenth statement reveal
that, in the pre-survey, the majority of the participants (25 participants) believed that they
would eventually succeed if they continued to work hard on a task, with 66.7% of the
participants (18 participants) stating that they almost always felt this way and 25.9% of the
participants (seven participants) stating that they often felt this way. Notably, the number
of participants who felt this way increased after the intervention and the responses in the
post-survey revealed that all the participants believed that, if they persisted on a task, they
 123
would eventually succeed, with 81.5% (22 participants) stating that they almost always felt
this way, and 18.5% (five participants) of the learners stating that they often felt that they
would succeed if they continued in completing a task.

Furthermore, students’ responses to all 10 statements, which aimed to explore their

perceptions of their efforts, are merged and presented as one single indicator to represent
learners’ perceptions of their effort prior to and after the intervention. Table 5-14 presents
the descriptive statistics on the effort section as a whole from both the pre- and post-
survey, including the mean of the full sample (n=27) for each statement.

Table 5-14 Descriptive statistics of the full sample scores of the effort section in the pre- and post SRL-SRS survey

Pre-survey Post-survey
N Mean Median SD Min Max Mean Median SD Min Max

Effort 27 3.13 3.40 .56 1.80 4.00 3.53 3.60 .35 2.40 3.90

Table 5-14 that the mean of participants’ responses in the post-SRL-SRS survey is higher
than their responses in the pre survey, and the mean difference is 0.39. Nonetheless, in
order to investigate whether the difference in means between the pre and post is
statistically significant or not, the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test and the findings are
presented in Table 5-15.
Table 5-15 Statistical difference of the effort section in the pre and post-SRL-SRS survey

Test Statistics
Post-effort – Pre-
effort
Z -3.94b
Asymp. Sig. (2- .000
tailed)
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on negative ranks.

Table 5-15 presents the results of Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test, which indicate a
statistically significant difference between learners’ perceptions of their effort processes
prior to and after the intervention. The test reveals a statistically significantly positive
change in learners’ perceptions, Z= -3.94, p < .001, with a large effect size (r = .75). The
median score on the perceptions of effort increased from pre-survey (Md = 3.40) to post-
survey (Md= 3.60).
 124
These findings may be considered an indication of the positive impact of self-assessment
and the intervention on learners’ effort. The findings reveal positive changes in learners’
perception of the level of dedicated effort that they put into their work after the
intervention. One possible justification for these findings is that learners’ active
engagement and involvement in their speaking classes encouraged them to take a more
active role in their learning and, thus, enhance the level of effort they put in their work.
Nonetheless, an in-depth exploration of learners’ perceptions through interviews can
provide reasons for these results.

The findings and descriptive statistics of the sixth section in the survey are presented and
discussed in the following sub-section.

5.2.6. EFL learners’ perceptions of their self-efficacy in the SRL-SRS survey

This section reports findings on the sixth and final section of the SRL-SRS survey. The
sixth section in the survey includes 10 statements that aimed to explore EFL learners’
perceptions of the level of their self-efficacy. The learners indicated their views on a five-
point scale; the higher the scale, the higher the confidence and high self-efficacy. Table 5-
16 presents the descriptive statistics from both the pre- and post-survey, including the
frequency and percentages of the full sample (n=27) for each statement.
Table 5-16 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s perceptions of their effort in the pre- and post-SRL-SRS survey 125

Pre-survey Post-survey
Statements N Almost someti
often
Almost
Total
Almost someti
often
Almost
Total
never mes Always never mes Always
1. I know how to handle unforeseen
F 3 11 9 4 27 0 3 13 11 27
situations, because I can well think
27
of strategies to cope with things
% 11.1% 40.7% 33.3% 14.8% 100% 0% 11.1% 48.1% 40.7% 100%
that are new to me.
2. If someone opposes me, I can find F 2 9 8 8 27 0 5 8 14 27
27
means and ways to get what I want. % 7.4% 33.3% 29.6% 29.6% 100% 0% 18.5% 29.6% 51.9% 100%
3. I am confident that I could deal F 2 12 7 6 27 0 2 15 10 27
efficiently with unexpected events. 27
% 7.4% 44.4% 25.9% 22.2% 100% 0% 7.4% 55.6% 37.0% 100%
4. If I am in a bind, I can usually think F 2 5 14 6 27 0 3 11 13 27
of something to do. 27
% 7.4% 18.5% 51.9% 22.2% 100% 0% 11.1% 40.7% 48.1% 100%
5. I remain calm when facing F 2 12 11 2 27 0 4 15 8 27
27
difficulties, because I know may
ways to cope with difficulties. % 7.4% 44.4% 40.7% 7.4% 100% 0% 14.8% 55.6% 29.6% 100%
6. I always manage to solve difficult F 0 4 13 10 27 0 1 7 19 27
problems if I try hard enough. 27
% 0% 14.8% 48.1% 37.0% 100% 0% 3.7% 25.9% 70.4% 100%
7. I can solve most problems if I F 0 11 6 10 27 0 1 7 19 27
invest the necessary effort. 27
% 0% 40.7% 22.2% 37.0% 100% 0% 3.7% 25.9% 70.4% 100%
8. It is easy for me to concentrate on F 2 11 7 7 27 0 4 10 13 27
my goals and to accomplish them. 27
% 7.4% 40.7% 25.9% 25.9% 100% 0% 14.8% 37.0% 48.1% 100%
9. When I am confronted with a F 2 14 9 2 27 0 1 19 7 27
problem, I usually find several 27
solutions. % 7.4% 51.9% 33.3% 7.4% 100% 0% 3.7% 70.4% 25.9% 100%
10. No matter what comes my way, F 0 5 16 6 27 0 2 11 14 27
27
I’m usually able to handle it. % 0% 18.5% 59.3% 22.2% 100% 0% 7.4% 40.7% 51.9% 100%
 126
The data in Table 5-16 reveals changes in learners' perceptions of their self-efficacy prior
to and after the intervention. The data presented in Table 5-16 show learners’ responses to
first statements, and reveal the number of participants who believed that they were capable
of dealing with unanticipated circumstances since they were capable of finding solutions to
deal with new challenges after the intervention. In the post-survey, 88.8% of the
participants (24 participants) thought that they knew how to handle unforeseen situations
because they had strategies to cope with things that were new to them, with 40.78% of the
participants (11 participants) stating almost always and 48.1% (13 participants) stating that
they often felt this way in comparison to 48.1% (13 participants) in the pre-survey with
14.8% (four participants) almost always and 33.3% (nine participants) often feeling that
they were capable of dealing with unanticipated circumstances and finding ways for coping
with unfamiliar situations. Moreover, learners’ responses to the second statement in the
pre-survey reveal that over 59.2% of the participants believed that, if someone challenged
them, they would be capable of finding means and methods to get what they wanted, with
29.6% (eight participants) stating that they were often able to find the means to get what
they want and 29.6% (eight participants) of the learners stated that they almost always did
so. The participants’ responses to the same statement after the intervention reveal that over
80% of the participants felt that, if they were challenged, they would be capable of
devising tactics to get what they wanted. 51.9% of the participants (14 participants) stated
that they almost always did so and 29.6% of the participants (eight participants) state that
they often felt so. Table 5-16 also presents learners’ responses to the third statement in the
pre-survey and post-survey, revealing that, after the intervention, more learners had
confidence that they could cope with unforeseen circumstances effectively. Table 5-16
reveals that, in the post-survey, 78.6% of the participants (25 participants) were confident
in their ability to cope with unforeseen situations effectively, with 23.0% of the
participants (10 participants) stating almost always and 55.6% (15 participants) stating that
they often felt this way in comparison to 48.1% (13 participants) in the pre-survey, with
22.2% (six participants) stating almost always and 25.9% (seven participants) often feeling
confident that they could deal efficiently with unexpected events.

Furthermore, Table 5-16 shows students’ responses to the fourth statement in the pre-
survey, revealing that 74.1% of the participants believed that, when in a dilemma, they
could usually think of something to do, with 51.9% (14 participants) stating that they often
had an idea, and 22.2% (six participants) of the learners stating that they almost always did
so. The participants’ responses to the same statement in the post-survey reveal that 88.8%
 127
of the participants believed that, when in a bind, they could come up with something to do.
48.1% of the participants (13 participants) stated that they almost always did so, and 40.7%
of the participants (11 participants) stated that they often did so. The data presented in
Table 5-16 also show learners’ responses to the fifth statements, revealing that the number
of participants who felt that they remained calm when confronted with obstacles, since
they are aware of several strategies for dealing with them increased after the intervention.
In the post-survey, a total of 85.2% of the participants (23 participants) felt that, because
they know many ways to cope with difficulties, remain calm when facing difficulties, with
29.6% of the participants (eight participants) stating almost always and 55.6% (15
participants) stating that they often felt this way in comparison to 48.1% (13 participants)
in the pre-survey, with 7.4% (two participants) stating almost always and 40.7% (11
participants) often feeling that they knew many ways to cope with difficulties.

Table 5-16 presents learners’ responses to the sixth statement, which reveal that in the pre-
survey, 85.1% of the participants believed that they usually succeeded in solving
challenging problems if they worked hard enough, with 37.0%% (10 participants) almost
always and 48.1% (13 participants) often feeling so. Notably, in the post-survey, the
majority of the participants (26 participants) felt that, if they worked hard enough, they
always succeeded in solving challenging problems, with 70.4% of the participants (19
participants) stating almost always and 25.9% (seven participants) often feeling this way.
Furthermore, the table presented learners’ responses to the seventh statement, revealing
that the number of participants who believed that they were capable of solving most issues
if they made appropriate effort increased after the intervention. In the post-survey, the
majority of the participants (26 participants) believed that, if they made the required effort,
they were capable of resolving most problems, with 70.4% of the participants (19
participants) stating almost always and 25.9% (seven participants) often feeling this way in
comparison to 59.2 (16 participants) in the pre-survey, with 37.0% (10 participants) almost
always and 22.2% (six participants) often feeling that they could solve most problems if
they invested the necessary effort.

The data presented in Table 5-16 also reveal learners’ responses to the eighth statement in
the pre-survey. 51.8% of the participants believed that concentrating on and achieving their
objectives was effortless to them, with 25.9% (seven participants) stating that, when
concentrating on their objectives, achieving these objectives became effortless. Moreover,
25.9% (seven participants) of the learners stated that they almost always felt this way. In
the post-survey, 85.1% of the participants believed that it was easy for them to concentrate
 128
on their goals and to accomplish them, with 48.1% of the participants (13 participants)
stating that they almost always felt so and 37.0% of the participants (10 participants)
stating that they often felt so.

Furthermore, Table 5-16 presents learners’ responses to the ninth statement. In the pre-
survey, 40.7% of the participants believed that, when they are confronted with a problem,
they usually found several solutions, with 7.4% (two participants) stating almost always
and 33.3% (nine participants) stating that they often felt so. Remarkably, in the post-
survey, the majority of the participants (26 participants) felt that they usually found several
solutions when they faced a problem, with 70.4% of the participants (19 participants)
stating often and 25.9% (seven participants) almost always feeling this way. Lastly,
learners’ responses to the tenth statement reveal that the number of participants who
believed that they were capable of dealing with any issue that they faced increased after the
intervention. In the post-survey, 92.6% of the participants (25 participants) felt that, no
matter what came their way, they were usually able to handle it, with 51.9% of the
participants (14 participants) stating almost always and 40.7% (11 participants) stating that
they often felt this way in comparison to 81.5% (22 participants) in the pre-survey with
22.2% (six participants) stating almost always and 59.3% (16 participants) often feeling
that they knew how to handle any issue.

The descriptive statistics of learners’ responses to all 10 statements presented as one single
indicator to represent learners’ perceptions of their self-efficacy, prior to and after the
intervention, are presented in Table 5.17.

Table 5-17 Descriptive statistics of the full sample scores of the self-efficacy section in the pre- and post SRL-SRS survey

Pre-survey Post-survey
N
Mean Median SD Min Max Mean Median SD Min Max
Self- 27 2.77 2.80 .48 1.50 3.70 3.37 3.40 .33 2.60 4.00
efficacy

Based on, it is evident that the mean of participants’ responses in the self-efficacy section
in the post-survey is higher than their responses to the pre-survey, and the mean difference
is 0.61. However, as discussed in the previous subsection, Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test
was used to investigate whether the difference in means between learners’ perceptions of
their self-efficacy in the pre- and post- survey is statistically significant. These findings are
presented in Table 5-18.
 129
Table 5-18 Statistical difference of the self-efficacy section in the pre and post-SRL-SRS survey

Test Statistics
Post- self-efficacy –
Pre- self-efficacy
Z -4.50b
Asymp. Sig. (2- .000
tailed)
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on negative ranks.

Table 5-18 presents the results of Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test to reveal a statistically
significant difference between learners’ perceptions of their self-efficacy processes prior to
and after the intervention. The test found a statistically significantly positive change in
learners’ perceptions, Z= -4.50, p < .001, with a large effect size (r = .86). The median
score on the perceptions of self-efficacy increased from pre-survey (Md = 2.80) to post-
survey (Md= 3.40).

By considering these statements on self-efficacy, learners’ perceptions of the level of their

self-efficacy increased after the intervention. Learners’ responses reveal a high level of
confidence and independency. It is impossible to be certain of reasons for this positive
change in learners’ attitude and perceptions before exploring their views and experience in
depth through interviews. One possible explanation for these changes is that, through self-
assessment, learners were able to be more involved in their learning and saw results of
improvement, and believed in their ability to overcome difficulties, which raised their self-
efficacy.

The findings and descriptive statistics of the overall perceptions of self-regulated learning
including all six sections in the survey, are presented and discussed in the following sub-
section.

5.2.7. EFL learners’ overall perceptions of their self-regulated learning in the

SRL-SRS survey

This section reports learners’ overall perceptions of all six sections in the SRL-SRS survey.
The descriptive statistics of learners’ responses to all 10 statements presented as one single
indicator to represent learners’ perceptions of their self-efficacy, prior to and after the
intervention are presented in Table 5-19.
 130
Table 5-19 Descriptive statistics of the full sample scores of the overall SRL from the pre- and post SRL-SRS survey

Pre-survey Post-survey
N
Mean Median SD Min Max Mean Median SD Min Max

Overall 27 3.29 3.37 .38 2.16 3.87 3.91 3.94 .25 3.22 4.25
SRL

Table 5-19 shows that the mean of the overall responses in the post-SRL-SRS survey is
higher than the overall responses in the pre survey, and the mean difference is 0.62.
Nonetheless, in order to investigate whether the difference in means between the pre and
post is statistically significant or not, the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test and the findings are
presented in Table 5-20.

Table 5-20 Statistical difference of the overall SRL in the pre and post-SRL-SRS survey

Test Statistics
Post- overall SRL –
Pre- overall SRL
Z -4.54b
Asymp. Sig. (2- .000
tailed)
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on negative ranks.

Table 5-20 presents the results of Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank test, which indicate a
statistically significant difference between learners’ perceptions of the overall processes
prior to and after the intervention. The test reveals a statistically significantly positive
change in learners’ perceptions, Z= -4.54, p < .001, with a large effect size (r = .87). The
median score on the perceptions of overall SRL increased from pre-survey (Md = 3.36) to
post-survey (Md= 3.93).

In summary, the results of the SRL-SRS prior to and after the intervention reveal positive
changes in learners’ attitudes toward their self-regulated learning skills. These results could
be considered an indication that self-assessment has a positive impact of on EFL learners’
self-regulated learning skills, though it is not possible to determine the positive impact of
self-assessment before exploring and understanding learners’ perceptions and experience
in-depth through interviews.
 131
Moreover, based on the results of the SRL-SRS, evaluation had the largest effect size
between the six self-regulated learning skill included in SRL-SRS (r = .62). This finding
indicates that self-assessment has a higher positive impact on learners’ views about their
evaluation skills than other skills.

The following section presents and discusses the finding of the critical thinking test before
and after the intervention.

5.3. EFL learners’ critical thinking skills

As discussed in Chapter 4, the Watson-Glaser II Critical Thinking Appraisal (CTA) was

used in this study to measure participants’ critical thinking before and after the
intervention, and the total number of respondents was n=27. Data management and
analysis were performed using SPSS software (Version 26). As the first stage of the
analysis, the pre- and post-CTAs of the full sample of participants were corrected using the
answer sheets provided with the test by TalentLens, the providers of the test. The grade for
each section was calculated along with the total for all five sections for both the pre- and
post-CTAs.

Moreover, before describing the test used for data analysis, it should be noted that the CTA
is measured through grades described as continuous variables as a ratio scale of
measurement (Pallant, 2010; Pallant, 2016; Salkind, 2010). The participants’ grades for all
five sections, along with the total grade of the CTA were first analysed using descriptive
statistical methods. The means, medians, and standard deviation were used to provide
descriptive statistics for continuous variables (Pallant, 2010; Pallant, 2016; Salkind, 2010).
Data were then analysed using inferential statistics as a mean to determine if there were
statistically significant difference. Parametric tests are often used to analyse continuous
variables; however, since the data did not meet the assumption of normality required for
parametric test, non-parametric tests were applied to perform the analysis of the CTA
before and after intervention. Therefore, Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test was used in this
study to determine whether or not there were statistically significant differences between
two related samples, namely learners’ critical thinking in the pre- and post-surveys. Both
descriptive and inferential statistics of the CTA prior to and after the intervention are
discussed.
 132
The data presented in Table 5-21 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s grades of the
infer section in the pre- and post-CTA show learners’ grades for the first section of the
CTA, which aimed to assess learners' ability to make inferences by having them determine
the degrees of truth or untruth of an inference. The results reveal an increase of learners’
grades in this section after the intervention. In details, the data reveal that learners’ grades
increased from the pre-CTA (M =2.26, SD = .98) to post-CTA (M =3.44, SD = 1.19).

Table 5-21 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s grades of the infer section in the pre- and post-CTA

Pre-CTA Post-CTA
N
Min Max Mean Median SD Min Max Mean Median SD

Infer 27 1 5 2.26 2.00 .98 1 5 3.44 4.00 1.19

However, the significance of the difference cannot be ascertained only with descriptive
statistics. Therefore, Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test was used to determine any statistically
significant difference between learners’ grades in this section in the pre- and post-CTA, the
findings are presented in Table 5-22.

Table 5-22 Statistical difference of the infer section in pre- and post-CTA

Test Statistics
Post-infer – Pre-
infer
Z -3.99b
Asymp. Sig. (2- .000
tailed)
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on negative ranks.

Table 5-22 presents the results of Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test presented, which reveal a
statistically significant difference between learners’ grades prior to and after the
intervention. The test indicates a statistically significantly positive improvement in
learners’ grades, Z= -3.99, p < .001, with a large effect size (r = .76). The median score of
the learners’ grades in this section increased from pre-CTA (Md = 2.00) to post-CTA (Md=
4.00).

Moreover, Table 5-23 presents learners’ grades for the second section of the CTA, which
aimed to assess their ability to recognise underlying assumptions or presuppositions. The
findings reveal an increase in learners’ grades after the intervention. Furthermore, the data
reveal that learners’ grades increased from the pre-CTA (M =6.15, SD = .2.01) to post-
CTA (M =8.30, SD = 2.03).
 133
Table 5-23 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s grades of the recognise assumptions section in the pre- and post-
CTA

Pre-CTA Post-CTA
N Min Max Mean Median SD Min Max Mean Median SD

Recognise 27 2 9 6.15 7.00 2.01 4 11 8.30 9.00 2.03

Assumption

Moreover, in order to determine a statistically significant difference between learners’

grades in this section in the pre- and post-CTA, Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test was used,
the findings of which are presented in Table 5-24

Table 5-24 Statistical difference of the recognize assumptions section in pre- and post-CTA

Test Statistics
Post- Recognise
Assumptions – Pre-
Recognise Assumptions
Z -3.68b
Asymp. Sig. (2- .000
tailed)
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on negative ranks.

Table 5-24 presents the results of Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank test to reveal statistically
significant differences between learners’ grades prior to and after the intervention. The test
indicates a statistically significantly positive improvement in learners’ grades, Z= -3.68, p
< .001, with a large effect size (r = .70). The median score of the learners’ grades in this
section increased from pre-CTA (Md = 7.00) to post-CTA (Md= 9.00).

Learners’ grades in the third section are presented in Table 5-25. This section aimed to
assess learners' deductive ability by asking them to determine whether or not specific facts
were definitely true. The findings presented in Table 5-25 reveal an increase in learners’
grades after the intervention. In details, learners’ grades increased from the pre-CTA (M
=3.04, SD = 1.16) to post-CTA (M =4.00, SD = 1.04).
 134
Table 5-25 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s grades on the deduce section in the pre- and post-CTA

Pre-CTA Post-CTA
N Min Max Mean Median SD Min Max Mean Median SD

Deduce 27 0 5 3.04 3.00 1.16 1 5 4.00 4.00 1.03

Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test was used to determine any statistically significant difference
between learners’ grades in this section in the pre- and post-CTA. These findings are
presented in Table 5-26.

Table 5-26 Statistical difference of the deduce section in pre- and post-CTA

Test Statistics
Post-Deduce – Pre-
Deduce
Z -3.36b
Asymp. Sig. (2- .001
tailed)
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on negative ranks.

Table 5-26 presents the results of Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test to reveal a statistically
significant difference between learners’ grades prior to and after the intervention. The test
found a statistically significantly positive improvement in learners’ grades, Z= -3.36, p =
.001, with a large effect size (r = .64). The median score of the learners’ grades in this
section increased from pre-CTA (Md = 3.00) to post-CTA (Md= 4.00).

Moreover, Table 5-27 outlines learners' grades for the CTA's fourth section, which aimed
to assess interpretive ability by having students evaluate evidence and determine if
generalisations or conclusions were appropriate. The data presented in Table 5-27 reveal
an increase in learners’ grades after the intervention. In details, the data revealed that
learners’ grades improved from the pre-CTA (M =2.70, SD = 1.17) to post-CTA (M =3.96,
SD = 1.05).

Table 5-27 Descriptive statistics of the full sample’s grades of the interpret section in the pre- and post-CTA

Pre-CTA Post-CTA
N Min Max Mean Median SD Min Max Mean Median SD

Interpret 27 0 5 2.70 3.00 1.17 1 6 3.96 4.00 1.05

 135
However, Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test was used to determine any statistically significant
difference between learners’ grades in this section in the pre- and post-CTA, the findings
of which are presented in Table 5-28.

Table 5-28 Statistical difference of the interpret section in pre- and post-CTA

Test Statistics
Post- Interpret – Pre-
Interpret
Z -3.72b
Asymp. Sig. (2- .000
tailed)
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on negative ranks.

Table 5-28 presents the results of Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test to reveal a statistically
significant difference between learners’ grades prior to and after the intervention. The test
found a statistically significantly positive improvement in learners’ grades, Z= -3.72, p <
.001, with a large effect size (r = .71). The median score of the learners’ grades in this
section increased from pre-CTA (Md = 3.00) to post-CTA (Md= 4.00).

Furthermore, Table 5-29 presents learners’ grades in the fifth section in the CTA prior to
and after the intervention, which aimed to determine if students were capable of
differentiating between strong and relevant arguments and weak or irrelevant arguments.
The data reveal an increase of learners’ grades after the intervention from the pre-CTA (M
=6.37, SD = 1.24) to post-CTA (M =8.52, SD = 1.37).

Table 5-29 Descriptive statistics of the full sample grades of the evaluation argument section in the pre and post CTA

Pre-CTA Post-CTA
N Min Max Mean Median SD Min Max Mean Median SD

Evaluation 27 4 10 6.37 6.00 1.24 5 11 8.52 9.00 1.37

Arguments

Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test was then used to determine a statistically significant
difference between learners’ grades in this section in the pre- and post-CTA, the findings
of which are presented in Table 5-30.
 136
Table 5-30 Statistical difference of the evaluation arguments section in pre- and post-CTA

Test Statistics
Post- Evaluation
Arguments – Pre-
Evaluation Arguments
Z -4.01b
Asymp. Sig. (2- .000
tailed)
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on negative ranks.

Table 5-30 presents the results of Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test to reveal a statistically
significant difference between learners’ grades prior to and after the intervention. The test
found a statistically significantly positive improvement in learners’ grades, Z= -4.01, p <
.001, with a large effect size (r = .77). The median score of the learners’ grades in this
section increased from pre-CTA (Md = 6.00) to post-CTA (Md= 9.00).

Furthermore, the descriptive statistics of the total test score of the five sections in the pre-
and post- CTA are presented in Table 5-31. Based on Table 5-31, there was an increase in
learners’ grades after the intervention. In details, the data reveal that learners’ total grades
improved from the pre-CTA (M =20.52, SD = 3.99) to post-CTA (M =28.44, SD = 4.59).

Table 5-31 Descriptive statistics of the full sample grades of the total score in the pre and post CTA

Pre-CTA Post-CTA
N
Min Max Mean Median SD Min Max Mean Median SD
CT Total 27 10 28 20.5 22.0 3.99 19 36 28.4 30.0 4.59
score

Moreover, in order to determine any statistically significant difference between learners’

grades in this section in the pre- and post-CTA, the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used,
these findings of which are presented in Table 5-32.

Table 5-32 Statistical difference of the total score in pre- and post-CTA

Test Statistics
Post- total score –
Pre- total score
Z -4.31b
Asymp. Sig. (2- .000
tailed)
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on negative ranks.
 137
Table 5-32 presents the results of the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test presented and it reveals
a statistically significant difference between learners’ grades prior to and after the
intervention. The test found statistically significantly positive improvement in learners’
grades, Z= -4.31, p < .001, with a large effect size (r = .82). The median score of the
learners’ grades in this section increased from pre-CTA (Md = 22.0) to post-survey (Md=
30.0).

Moreover, based on the results of the CTA, the inference and evaluation arguments critical
thinking skills displayed the highest effect size between the five critical thinking skills with
a large effect size (r = .77). The outcome of both CTA, prior to and after the intervention,
showed an increase in learners’ grades on the test measuring their critical thinking abilities.
One possible explanation for these changes is the impact of self-assessment on learners’
critical thinking abilities, which is discussed further in Chapter 7. Another possible
explanation is the relationship between learners’ self-regulated learning skills and their
critical thinking abilities. Therefore, the relationship between learners’ perceptions of their
self-regulated learning and critical thinking is examined and explored in the following
section.

5.4. The relationship between EFL learners’ perceptions of their self-

regulated learning and their critical thinking skills

After determining a statistically significant change in learners’ perceptions of their self-

regulated learning skills and improvement in their critical thinking, it was necessary to
determine the relationship between participants’ self-regulated learning skills and critical
thinking, as one of the main purposes of this research was to examine the extent of the
relationship between these variables. According to Cohen et al. (2018), Spearman’s rho is
the non-parametric test used for investigating connections among variables. Spearman’s
rho values vary from -1.0 to +1.0, where the greater the connection between variables, the
larger the coefficient (Cohen et al., 2018). When two variables fluctuate in the same
direction, i.e. when one increases, the other increases, or vice versa, and a positive
connection or correlation occurs. Therefore, +1.0 represents a perfect positive correlation
variable (Cohen et al., 2018). In contrast, a negative connection or correlation occurs when
one variable increases while the other decreases. Therefore, -1.0 represents a perfect
negative correlation between variables (Cohen et al., 2018). However, perfect correlations
are uncommon in social research, with the majority of correlation coefficients falling at
approximately +0.5 or less (Cohen et al., 2018). Finally, a connection between variables
 138
with a value of zero implies that there is no relationship (Cohen et al., 2018). Spearman’s
rho was used to explore whether there was a relationship between EFL learners' self-
regulated learning skills and critical thinking for the full sample (n=27) and to explore
whether there was interdependency between self-regulated learning skills. This test was
performed at two points of this study, namely before and after the intervention, the results
of which are presented in Table 5-33.
 139

Table 5-33 Spearman’s rho correlation matrix between self-regulated learning skills and critical thinking of the full sample prior to and after the intervention

Pre-intervention Post-intervention

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. CT

2. SRL-1
-.16 .38*
3. SRL-2
-.07 .42* .21 .75**
Spearman’s 4. SRL-3
-.09 .49** .69** .26 .46* .49**
rho
5. SRL-4
.16 .14 -.01 .30 .5 .52** .35 .49**
6. SRL-5
-.29 .49** .69* .78** .18 .17 .47* .62** .57** .14
7. SRL-6
-.05 .53** .52** .49** .12 .57** .38 .49** .45* .31 -.00 .60**
8. SRL-7
-.09 .71** .69** .83** .44** .83** .71** .36 .85** .81** .73** .55** .71** .68**

(CT: Critical thinking, SRL-1: Self-regulated learning- Planning, SRL-2: Self-regulated learning- Self-monitoring, SRL-3: Self-regulated learning- Evaluation, SRL-4: Self-
regulated learning- Reflection, SRL-5: Self-regulated learning- Effort, SRL-6: Self-regulated learning- Self-Efficacy, SRL-7: SRL- overall).
*correlation is significant at the 0.05 (2-tailed)

**correlation is significant at the 0.01 (2-tailed)

 140
The results of Spearman’s rho for the CT and SRL skills before and after the intervention
are presented in Table 5-33. Prior to the intervention, there were weak negative
relationships between learners’ critical thinking and learners’ self-regulated learning skills
of planning (SRL-1), self-monitoring (SRL-2), evaluation (SRL-3), effort (SRL-5), and
self-efficacy (SRL-6), except for reflection (SRL-4), which had a weak positive
relationship with learners’ CT. However, the data presented in Table 5-33 reveal that the
overall relationship between CT and SRL skills is a weak positive relationship, and is not
statically significant.

This relationship changed after the intervention, indicating a medium-strength positive

relationships between CT and SRL. Also, the relationship between CT and SRL skills
shifted after the intervention, indicating weak positive relationships between CT and self-
monitoring (SRL-2), evaluation (SRL-3), and effort (SRL-5) and medium-strength positive
relationships between CT and planning (SRL-1), reflection (SRL-4), and self-efficacy
(SRL-6). Additionally, Table 5-33 revealed that the relationship between critical thinking
and planning skill is statistically significant, p < .05.

Moreover, Table 5-33 presents relationships before the intervention between the self-
regulated learning skills that vary between weak, medium strength, and strong positive
relationships and one weak negative relationship between reflection (SRL-4) and
evaluation. Additionally, most of these positive relationships are statistically significant, p
< .05 or p < .01. Notably; however, the strength of the relationship between SRL skills
increased after intervention. The table suggests that the majority of the skills have a
medium or positive relationship. The table also reveals a weak relationship between effort
(SRL-5) and reflection (SRL-4), as well as a weak negative relationship between effort
(SRL-5) and self-efficacy (SRL-6).

5.5. Conclusion

The findings presented in this chapter were gathered by two pre- and post- tests, SRL-SRS
and CTA, that explored EFL students' perspectives of their self-regulated learning
practices and measured their critical thinking before to and after self-assessment
intervention. The quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and a non-
parametric test, namely Wilcoxon Signed Rank. Overall, the findings from the SRL-SRS
reveal favourable shifts in the learners' perceptions of their self-regulated learning ability
after the self-assessment intervention. These findings might be supported by the findings
 141
from the in-depth investigation of the learners' perspectives through interviews, which will
be analysed in Chapter 6. Similarly, the overall findings from the CTA showed
improvement in students’ results in terms of their critical thinking skills.

Lastly, the relationship between self-regulated learning skills and critical thinking skills
were investigated using Spearman’s r correlation test, which revealed a strong positive
medium-strength relationship between the two concepts.

The findings from the pre- and post-test are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7 in
relation to the literature, with a view to answering the research questions.
 Chapter 6 : Quantitative and Qualitative Data Analysis

6.1. Introduction

Chapter 4 outlined the research methodology for this study, including the use of mixed
methods to explore and understand the EFL learners’ lived experiences and perspectives of
self-assessment and its impact on their self-regulated learning, critical thinking, and
achievement in English speaking classrooms at the Saudi higher education institution
(HEI) through pre and post surveys, first and last audio recordings, self-assessment
proformas, and semi-structured interviews. This chapter begins by outlining the method
and process used in the analysis of learners’ audio recordings and self-assessment
proformas. The chapter then discusses the method and process used in the analysis of the
semi-structured interviews with the EFL learners. As discussed in Chapter 4 Section
4.6.2.4, the purpose of the interviews was to identify and explore the learners’ experience
with the use of self-assessment and the learners’ perceptions of the use and impact of self-
assessment in an English speaking classroom. The chapter then presents the themes that
emerged from the interviews and interprets the findings.

6.2. Analysis Method and Process

This study aimed, in part, to explore EFL learners’ perceptions of their lived experience
with self-assessment and the impact of self-assessment on their self-regulated learning,
critical thinking, and achievement through interviews. First, however, it was important to
identify and explore whether the EFL learners were actively engaging in self-assessment.
In addition, it had to be determined whether the learners used SRL strategies while
completing the task. Finally, it also had to be determined whether the learners had
improved in their performance and achievement. All of these factors provided valuable
insight into learners’ perceptions. The analysis and the results are presented below.

6.2.1. Audio recordings

Audio recordings of learners’ first and last speaking task were collected during the
intervention in order to uncover whether a significant statistical difference could be
detected in learners’ level of achievement after the implementation of self-assessment. As
a first step of analysis, each audio recording was listened to multiple times and was graded
twice at different times using the institution speaking rubric. Then, the average of the two
 143
sets of data and the actual grade given by the teacher was calculated. The descriptive
statistics of the participants’ grades for both the first and last audio recordings are
presented in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1 Descriptive statistics of speaking achievement of 10 EFL learners

Pre-CTA Post-CTA
N Min Max Mean Median SD Min Max Mean Median SD
Achievement 10 2.25 4.58 3.60 3.62 .61 3.50 4.92 4.31 4.33 .50

It is evident from Table 6-1 that the mean of participants’ grades in the last audio recording
is higher than the mean of their grades in the first recording. In order to confirm whether
the difference in means is statistically significant, the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was
used, the findings of which are presented in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2 Statistical difference of achievement in the first and last audio recordings

Test Statistics
1st recording – last
recording
Z -2.81b
Asymp. Sig. (2- .005
tailed)
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on negative ranks.

Table 6-2, which presents the results of the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, indicates a
statistically significant difference between the participants’ speaking grades prior to and
after the intervention. The test revealed a statistically significant positive change in
learners’ grades, Z = -2.81, p < .01, with a large effect size (r = .88). The median score of
the grades increased from the first recording (Md = 3.62) to the last recording (Md= 4.33).

6.2.2. Self-assessment proforma

Self-assessment proformas was collected to explore the EFL learners’ usage of SRL
strategies while practising self-assessment. The proformas were thus employed to capture
traces of what learners really did, rather than just what learners claim to have done (Perry,
1998; Winne & Jamieson-Noel, 2002). Table 6-3 indicates whether there was any evidence
of SRL strategies being employed; the table includes the SRL strategies of planning, self-
monitoring, reflection, and evaluating.
 144
Table 6-3 Samples of traces of the use of SRL Strategies from self-assessment proforma

Participants S1 S11 S21

SRL skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Planning ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü

Monitoring ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü

Evaluating ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü

Reflection ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü

Overall, the data revealed that all learners actively engaged with the intervention and
employed all four SRL skills almost every time they used the self-assessment proforma,
with a few minor incidents in which learners did not use the reflection skill.

The following section addresses the methods and processes of analysing the interviews.

6.2.3. Interviews Analysis Method and Process

The semi-structured interview data in this research was analysed using thematic analysis.
Braun and Clarke (2006) referred to thematic analysis as the essential foundation of
qualitative analysis. Thematic analysis is generally regarded as a key technique for
qualitative analysis since it provides researchers with a range of core abilities for
conducting any type of qualitative analysis. Thematic analysis is adaptable, and as such, it
is a useful tool for analysing categories in order to create themes (Alhojailan, 2012) and
provide comprehensive interpretation of data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Moreover, thematic
analysis may be adapted or organised to align with the interpretivist approach, which aims
to convey participants' experiences, ideas, and realities (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thus,
thematic analysis is applicable to any research that aims at exploration and interpretation
since it includes a systematic approach for data analysis (Alhojailan, 2012) and enables the
researcher to understand any topic or issue (Marks & Yardley, 2004).

In thematic analysis, a theme can be defined in terms of what may be important to the
research questions; a theme may not necessarily be easily quantified. Furthermore, many
researchers have indicated that themes and patterns in thematic analysis may be defined
 145
inductively (bottom up), wherein codes are derived directly from data (data-driven), or
deductively (top down), wherein codes are set prior and stem from the research aim and
questions and literature (theory-driven) (Boyatzis, 1998; Braun & Clarke, 2006; Hayes,
1997, 2013). For this research, the method of thematic analysis selected was inductive
interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Specifically, the research applied the IPA
stages for thematic analysis as described by Smith and Osborn (2003), Eatough and Smith
(2017), and Smith and Shinebourne (2012).

6.2.3.1. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

IPA, as per the stages of the aforementioned researchers, follows three steps.

Step 1: Search for initial themes in all cases.

The first step of IPA requires the researcher to become familiar with the data through
focused repeated reading of the transcript, as each reading has the potential of eliciting new
perceptions (Smith & Osborn, 2003). In the present research, the transcripts were printed,
and the analysis was conducted manually on paper; as suggested by Smith and Osborn
(2003), the left-hand margin of the transcript was used to comment and annotate what was
noteworthy or important from each participant’s statements. Remarks in the transcripts had
several purposes. Some represented efforts to summarise or paraphrase. Others noted
associations or links that came to mind, attempted early interpretations, or highlighted
participants’ language use, or the sense of the participants that is coming across. This
process, which was undertaken for all interview transcripts, gave me a preliminary
understanding of the overall perspectives and outcomes. Next, the right-hand margin was
used to write emerging theme titles. Themes emerged from the preliminary notes, which
were transformed into initial themes or concise phrases with the purpose of capturing the
essence of the outcomes and what was found in the transcript (Smith & Osborn, 2003).
Writing these initial themes and phrases transitioned the analysis to a slightly higher level
of abstraction; namely, though I was still grounded in the particularity of the specific
words said, it was necessary to find expressions high level enough to capture theoretical
connections within and across cases (Smith & Osborn, 2003). This process of transforming
preliminary notes into initial themes was conducted with all interview transcripts (See
Appendix I for sample of the manual analysis of interviews). According to Smith and
Osborn (2003), I treated all transcripts as data at this step, making no attempt to omit or
select particular passages for special attention. In addition, not all preliminary notes turned
 146
into or generated themes. The number of emerging themes in each transcript indicated the
richness of the interview. The initial themes are shown in Table 6-4.

Table 6-4 Initial list of Themes

Initial list of Themes

Self-assessment requires practice.

Learners’ active involvement in the learning process.

Positive feelings associated with self-assessment.

The development of metacognitive knowledge.

The development of cognitive processes.

The development of metacognitive strategies.

The development of critical thinking abilities.

The development of critical thinking dispositions.

Enhancing performance and achievement.

Relevance and appropriateness of assessment criteria

Informing and understanding speaking assessment requirements or criteria.

The purpose of assessment.

Speaking assessment as a de-motivator.

Anxiety associated with traditional speaking assessment.

The role of the teacher in the assessment process.

Support or against teacher feedback.

Support or against peer-assessment.

Support other sources of feedback.

Anxiety associated with receiving feedback.

The significance of feedback.

Learners’ feedback expectations.

 147
Step 2: Cluster themes.

The second step of IPA aims to identify clusters of themes that capture the participants’
perceptions on a topic. I used sticky notes to explore and identify clusters of themes,
writing the initial themes on sticky notes so that I could easily move them while searching
for possible clusters. As noted by Smith and Osborn (2003), this step requires more
analytical and theoretical analysis as the researcher attempts to make sense of the initial
themes. In this step, some of the initial themes may merge into clusters, while others may
develop as subordinate themes or cluster of themes (Smith & Osborn, 2003). For instance,
the theme of “the benefits of self-assessment” was identified as an initial theme and then
developed as a subordinate theme. Table 6-5 presents the clustering of themes. The
clustered themes were then verified in the transcripts to ensure that the connections made
sense according to the participants' actual words (Smith & Osborn, 2003). Additionally,
according to Smith and Osborn (2003), the themes should be selected based on their
occurrence and richness within the data. The clustered themes were checked across
participants to verify that they are represented in more than half of the participants. The
occurrences of subordinate themes are shown in Table 6-6. A sample of participants’
quotes used to identify a theme are shown in Table 6-7.
 148

Table 6-5 Clusters of initial themes

Cluster of themes Initial themes

Self-assessment requires training.

The use of self-assessment in
Learners’ active involvement in the learning process.
speaking classes
Positive feelings associated with self-assessment.

The development of metacognitive knowledge.

The development of cognitive processes.

The development of self-regulatory strategies.

The benefits of self-assessment
The development of critical thinking abilities and
disposition.

Enhancing performance and achievement.

Relevance and appropriateness of assessment criteria

The significance of the self-
assessment proforma Informing and understanding speaking assessment
requirements or criteria.

The purpose of assessment.

The use of traditional speaking
assessments (exams)
Speaking assessment as a de-motivator.

Challenges linked with Anxiety associated with speaking assessment.

traditional speaking assessment
(exams) The role of the teacher in the assessment process.

Support or against teacher feedback.

The source of feedback Support or against peer-assessment and feedback.

Support other sources of feedback.

Anxiety associated with receiving feedback.

Perceptions of receiving
The significance of feedback.
feedback
Learners’ feedback expectations.
 149

Table 6-6 Sample of occurrences of cluster of themes

Occurrences of cluster of themes S1 S3 S11 S18 S21

The use of self-assessment in speaking

ü ü ü ü ü
classes

The benefits of self-assessment ü ü ü ü ü

The significance of the self-assessment

ü ü ü ü ü
proforma

The use of traditional speaking

ü ü ü ü ü
assessments (exams)

Table 6-7 Sample of participants’ quotes used to identify a theme

Cluster of
Quotes from participants that identify the theme
themes

I was very scared from judgement, because the normal way of evaluation
was never enjoyable (S3).

I had to memorise my answers even if I didn’t understand them (S3).

The use of They (speaking assessment) were like the scariest, slowest and most
traditional stressful times (S3).
speaking
assessments Speaking usually is more like a test, we make groups and do the speaking,
so it’s more like a prepared script that we need to memorise and say it to
the teacher (S11).

In speaking classes, you don’t really care if you did a good job or not
because in the end all that actually mattered were the grades from the
speaking (S11).

Step 3: Identify final themes.

The third step of IPA aims to connect clusters of themes and find patterns to identify final
themes (superordinate themes). This involved the use of sticky notes to easily move and
organise clusters of themes to identify final themes. Table 6-8 presents the list of final
themes.
 150

Table 6-8 List of final themes

Final themes Cluster of themes

The use of traditional speaking assessments

Perceptions and experiences of traditional
speaking assessment Challenges linked with traditional speaking
assessment

The use of self-assessment in speaking classes

Learners’ perceptions and experiences of The benefits of self-assessment

self-assessment in speaking classes
The significance of the self-assessment
proforma

Source of feedback
Perceptions and experiences of feedback in
speaking classes
Perceptions of receiving feedback

The following section presents the themes that emerged from the learners’ interviews.

6.3. Findings

The interviews were mainly conducted to gather deep information regarding Saudi EFL
learners’ perspectives on the effect of self-assessment in English speaking classes and their
experiences with self-assessment. From the learners’ interviews, three themes emerged.
The first theme is learners’ perceptions and experiences of traditional speaking assessment.
The second theme is learners’ perceptions and experiences of self-assessment in speaking
classes. The third theme is learners’ perceptions and experiences of feedback in speaking
classes.

6.3.1. Learners’ perceptions and experiences of traditional speaking

assessment

This theme concerns learners’ perspectives on the nature of assessment practices in English
speaking classes and the strong emphasis in those classes on summative purposes of
assessment. The participants’ opinions and attitudes are discussed and presented through
the following two subordinate themes: the use of traditional speaking assessments and the
challenges linked with traditional speaking assessments.
 151
6.3.1.1. The use of traditional speaking assessments

The interviews indicated that assessment in the learners’ speaking classes occurs mainly in
the form of oral presentations or exams conducted throughout the term. All EFL learners
believed that assessment in speaking classes is mainly carried out for summative purposes,
namely for evaluating and measuring their progress and performance. The learners did not
feel that assessment aims to support them. For example, one participant stated that
“speaking usually is more like a test, we make groups and do the speaking, so it’s more
like a prepared script that we need to memorise and say it to the teacher” (S11). As another
participant noted, “I had to memorise my answers even if I didn’t understand them” (S3).
These statements suggest that speaking assessments led learners to rely on a lower-order
cognitive skill in Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), namely memorising,
and emphasised only the results. The learners further expressed that this form of
assessment pressured them to concentrate on grades instead of on actually improving their
language; as a result, the assessments eventually limited their learning.

In speaking classes, you don’t really care if you did a good job or not because in the
end all that actually mattered were the grades from the speaking (S11).

The normal way of evaluation was never enjoyable. They were like the scariest,
slowest and most stressful times. I had to memorise my answers even if I didn’t
understand them, because all what we ever cared about were the marks (S3).

Most of the English classes that I have participated in and like specifically speaking
classes, I always end up caring about my grades at that moment and I rarely come
out of that class with benefits (S1).

These quotations reveal a shared belief among the learners that speaking assessment hinder
and even prevent learning opportunities and improvement. The quotations also reveal that
speaking exams and the focus on grades can demotivate learners and discourage learning.
The learners’ use of phrases such as “you don’t really care if you did a good job” or “I just
want to get it over with and know my mark” indicate that assessment with only summative
purposes can ultimately undermine learning opportunities.
 152
6.3.1.2. Challenges linked with traditional speaking assessment

In addition, the data suggested that learners considered the speaking assessments to be a
source of fear and anxiety. Learners’ perceptions of traditional speaking assessments were
linked to words like “demanding, scariest, difficult, and stressful”, with one participant
stating “the usual speaking assessment is really nerve-racking, especially the last one”
(S2). This fear and concern seems to be connected to the value placed on grades. Learners
highly priority their grades and seem to be fearful of their grades dropping, which would
influence their GPA, affect their ability to choose their desired majors in university, and
ultimately impact their future. Participants stated, for example, the following:

The normal way of evaluation was never enjoyable. They were like the scariest,
slowest and most stressful times. I had to memorise my answers even if I didn’t
understand them, because all what we ever cared about were the marks so I can
enter the medical school and achieve my dream of being a doctor (S3).

I work so hard on my-self and I’m always stressed that it will not be enough to
have the future that my parent wish for me that is the reason why I feel terrified of
being graded in every speaking assessment (S18).

I always prepare for every evaluation and spend the time from one class to the next
week class overthinking, worried, and stress because I want to have full mark but
even after everything I do I lose marks (S21).

The statements above exemplify the learners’ shared perception of speaking assessments as
a cause of fear and anxiety. This fear of assessment may influence learners’ motivation to
learn and achieve language development. This negative influence can be deduced from
learners’ voices, which often became strained and expressed tension when the subject of
speaking assessments and grades came up.

6.3.2. Learners’ perceptions and experiences of self-assessment in

speaking classes

The EFL learners’ views of their traditional speaking assessment experiences made clear
that the learners were not satisfied with the traditional form of assessment. Rather, the
learners expressed feelings of discomfort and worry about the assessment, which they
 153
believed was mainly conducted for summative purposes. However, although the learners
questioned the role of traditional speaking assessments with purely summative purposes,
the learners also recognised the importance of self-assessment and its role in helping them
to be active learners in the learning process. This theme concerns how the learners
described and viewed their experience with self-assessment in speaking classes. The
learners’ views and attitudes are discussed and presented through the following three
subordinate themes: the use of self-assessment in speaking classes, the benefits of self-
assessment, and the significance of the self-assessment proforma.

6.3.2.1. The use of self-assessment in speaking classes

The analysis revealed that all 10 participants had positive attitudes and experiences
regarding self-assessment. In contrast to their views regarding traditional speaking
assessment, learners’ perspectives of self-assessment were linked to words like
“comfortable, confident, liked, happy, interested, and encouraged”. The following
statements are representative:

It (self-assessment) was a fun and great experience filled with great impact (S11).

With self-assessment, I became more interested and encouraged in speaking classes

(S18).

It (self-assessment) made me feel like there’s nothing that I can’t do or learn if I

just work on it and focused on it (S3).

The above quotations suggest that participants had favourable opinions and experiences
with self-assessment. This positive response can also be inferred from learners’ voices;
namely, whenever learners spoke about their experience with self-assessment and how
self-assessment affected their motivation for learning, learners’ voices became enthusiastic
and cheerful. Learners’ motivation could be connected to learners’ awareness of their role
in the learning process and the significance of self-assessment in terms of improving their
language progress and abilities.

The analysis of the interview data further showed that learners demonstrated awareness of
how self-assessment helps them to take an active role in their learning. Learners expressed
their awareness of their own active role and engagement in the learning process, several
 154
times drawing a comparison between their role in traditional speaking assessment and their
own self-assessment. For example, as one participant stated, “I liked self-assessment more
(than the usual speaking assessment) because you can participate in your own progress,
and it can help you notice the actual progress rather than just listen to what the teacher says
about you” (S2). Several participants also explained how the self-assessment put them in
charge of and allowed them to take an active role in their own educational development:

I really liked the fact that I am the one who search for a way to improve myself
after knowing my strong points and mistakes, and knowing and understanding the
criteria rather than just taking a lesson after a lesson without me trying to put what I
have learned in action (S1).

I found that using the recordings and sheets encourage me to do a better job
planning and preparing myself through taking notes and thinking of ways to finish
the tasks in better quality (S21).

By doing it (assessment) yourself you can know the way you prefer studying or
working so you first know what the task or goal you have to achieve then you start
thinking of different ways to achieve that goal and choose one to use, and
afterwards you can see the results yourself and analyse them to get yourself further
knowledge (S11).

In the statements above, the participants explained their experience as active learners. The
participants described monitoring their performance; identifying their strength and
weaknesses; and planning, preparing, and searching for ways to overcome weaknesses and
correct mistakes. These statements thus suggest that self-assessment can support learners in
developing a clear picture of their level, including their strengths and weaknesses, and in
identifying gaps that they can overcome.

The data also suggested that, along with learners’ awareness of how self-assessment
enables them to participate actively in their own learning, learners showed awareness that
self-assessment requires practice. Participants observed that successful self-assessment
requires practice:

I wasn’t quite sure if this method would be effective in any way because when I
tried to assess myself I can’t tell what is right and what is wrong, but after a few
 155
attempts and relistening to my recording and knowing and understanding the
standards and the point the I need to focus on I got the hang of it better and I can
judge myself and see where I was lacking and work on myself (S11).

In the beginning, I was not sure if I’m doing it (self-assessment) correctly but I
started to use the sheet to assess myself then re-listen to the audio and check my
evaluation. At first, I notice that I was hard on myself and would do it again but
starting from the fourth task I stopped doing this because after the third task I
realised that I can now accurately evaluate myself and start thinking of new ways to
improve (S34).

The statements above show that the learners had developed an awareness of how much
effort, dedication, time, and practice it takes to be critical of their own performance, and
pinpoint areas for improvement in their learning and the means by which these areas may
be improved.

6.3.2.2. The benefits of self-assessment

The analysis of the interviews showed that all 10 learners agreed that self-assessment has a
beneficial effect on several aspects, including their language performance and themselves
as learners. The learners showed awareness of the role of self-assessment in improving
their language performance and achievement:

I think I still have a long way to be fluent like natives when speaking English but I
am happy with how I improved through this journey (S11).

I think my speaking skills improved a lot that even I myself can see the different
before and after this semester (S2).

I think it (self-assessment) really help with improving my speaking skill (S35).

The above quotations show that learners perceive self-assessment as having a significant
influence on language proficiency and achievement. In turn, awareness of the beneficial
effects of self-assessment on their language seems to significantly boost the learners’
motivation and willingness to actively engage in study.

The data also suggested that engaging in their own learning through self-assessment
 156
allowed the learners to develop confidence and boosted their sense of responsibility for
future learning. Some examples follow:

I don’t think it only helped me with improving my English learning, but it also
raised my confidence and helped me express myself more and not hesitate or be
afraid of speaking what in my mind! Even if I’m afraid of making mistakes I don’t
let that fear controls and shut me anymore (S11)

The more tasks I did the more confident I became and it made me feel like there’s
nothing that I can’t do or learn if I just work on it and focused on it (S3)

I became more interested and encouraged in speaking classes and week after week I
notice that I sound more confident in the audio record and I speak more
comfortably (S34)

The above statements indicate that the more learners are actively involved in their learning,
the more likely learners are to develop confidence and self-motivation. This evidence
further supports that the learners developed critical thinking dispositions, including self-
confidence and courage. Notably, the students' voices became excited whenever they
discussed their experience, which also supports the fact that self-assessment influenced the
learners’ motivation for learning.

The interviews analysis indicated that self-assessment creates opportunities for self-
regulated learning. The learners, in detailing their experience with self-assessment,
revealed the use of higher-order cognitive skills in Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001) such as evaluation and analysing. The learners also revealed the use of
metacognitive strategies including monitoring, planning, reflection, and brainstorming
during speaking classes. The following examples highlight some of those skills and
strategies:

I started to have a goal plan more in my head or paper before I start talking just to
get all my ideas in place and focus on the comment that I made in the previous one
and every time I finish I re-listen to myself and I automatically evaluate myself
like, did I stay on topic? Did I used adjectives? was my pronunciation clear? then I
start to think of very week point and think how can I be better at it like for example
one week I could not say some words so I thought I can ask my father’s Canadian
 157
friend to say it to me and send it by whatsApp so I can repeat it and say it to him
(S33)

The learners also revealed the use of metacognitive strategies including monitoring,
planning, reflection, and brainstorming during speaking classes.

It helped me plan more efficiency. What I mean is that now I first understand and
set my goal and what I want to reach before even planning, then I ask myself
questions and develop my plan according to the most effective way while putting in
considerations what can go wrong and how to deal with the outcomes (S11)

I now know that planning and organising your ideas and thoughts beforehand can
really improve your speech and helps a lot with making it more professional and
let you make less mistakes than you usually would (S21)

I think they helped my quit much after observing myself, because now I think of
multiple ways that can extend the meaning of my speech without making it boring,
and I also try my best to minimise my grammar mistakes (S1).

In the above statements, learners described how they set goals and planned a strategy for
approaching a speaking assessment. Learners also described the way they monitored,
evaluated, analysed, and reflected on their performance. In addition, one learner described
how she reflected on her performance and found a solution to a problem she encountered
during the assessment. These responses suggest that higher-order cognitive skills and
metacognitive strategies can be linked to self-assessment; specifically, self-assessment may
have the potential to promote the development and application of these strategies and thus
promote self-regulated learning.

Along with the development of cognitive and metacognitive skills, the interviews produced
evidence of the impact of self-assessment on learners’ metacognitive knowledge. Learners
shared statements that indicated metacognitive knowledge:

I think they made me see different sides and different view of my skills that I
usually don’t really consider (S1)

Through the self-assessment I realised that I don’t really focus on my own

 158
mistakes, but with it I can now notice where I lack and put extra effort when
learning, for example I notice that I struggle with the sentences structure especially
if it includes adjectives or adverbs so now when I’m learning I focus more on this
and try to figure when to use it or what is the right structure for the sentences (S11).

I felt responsibility, yes, more responsibility, more consciousness of my skills, and

what do I need to develop, that helped me more, I knew exactly what I need to
change in myself, sometimes, I felt sad, because there were many things I need to
adjust, things I need to improve (S18).

The quotations above indicate an agreement among the learners of the impact of self-
assessment on learners’ awareness of their strengths and weaknesses. With the use of self-
assessment, the learners identified their successes and struggles in their performance; the
result was a higher level of awareness of strengths and weaknesses. This awareness can
help learners to enhance their learning, as it indicates to learners where to focus and
identify areas requiring further development. The data also suggested that the criteria
included in the self-assessment proforma played a significant role in raising learners’
awareness. The significance of the self-assessment proforma is discussed in more detail in
the following section.

6.3.2.3. The significance of the self-assessment proforma

Another common theme that emerged from the analysis of the interview data is learners’
awareness of the significance of knowing and understanding speaking assessment criteria
and the relevance of these criteria. Informing learners of the speaking assessment criteria
seemed to lead learners to perceive the criteria as vital to the learning process; learners
came to understand that the assessment criteria could help them enhance their learning and
identify areas that need improvement. This understanding is demonstrated in the following
statements.

I think it (criteria) made me see different sides and different view of my skills that I
usually don’t really consider them (S1).

Everything in it (the criteria in assessment proforma) was important for a speech

and I understood what I need to do to improve (S35)
 159
Honestly at first I thought what’s the point to care about adjectives and adverbs in a
speech but little did I know they are important. I didn’t know the difference
between them so I had to search about it therefore I can apply them in the next task
(S34)

The quotations above indicate that providing learners with clear assessment criteria can
encourage and help learners to take an active role in their learning process. Thus, clear
criteria could also assist learners in defining their learning goals, identifying strategies for
achieving those goals, and ultimately reaching the required level.

Evidence from the data analysis also suggests that all of the learners found the assessment
criteria to be relevant and appropriate. Learners’ positive reaction to the criteria is
demonstrated in the following statements:

I guess they do cover most of the points that you should have in order to be a good
speaker (S1).

I think all the criteria in the sheet were important and need to put in consideration
(S11).

I feel that is a complete unit, each part completes the other, I don't think we add
anything else (S18).

In short, the learners agreed on the relevance and appropriateness of the assessment
criteria. However, one participant did contradict herself. Though she first stated that the
criteria were relevant, she then stated that she did not understand the reason for including
time and topic management. That contradiction indicates that the criteria were not relevant
to her: “In fact I’m not sure why should we evaluate our time management and topic
management. It has nothing to do with our speaking performance and language” (S3). This
participant’s experience could indicate misunderstanding on the part of the learner on the
importance of the two, or a lack of communication between the learner and the teacher.

6.3.3. Learners’ perceptions and experiences of feedback in speaking

classes

Feedback seems to be an issue on which the EFL learners held strong views. This theme
concerns how learners described and viewed their experience with receiving feedback and
 160
the sources of the feedback. The learners’ views and attitudes are discussed and presented
through the following two subordinate themes: perceptions of receiving feedback and
source of feedback.

6.3.3.1. Perceptions of receiving feedback

The data from the interviews revealed that the EFL learners held conflicting views on the
importance of receiving feedback. The learners also expressed different feelings about
asking for or receiving feedback. Nonetheless, the majority of the learners understood the
value of feedback in identifying mistakes and improving performance:

I could use some feedback, because others may notice some points that I might
miss so I can improve my language (S33).

There are lots of times you don’t notice the mistakes you make that’s why asking
my friends helped me a lot to be better (S11).

The statements above demonstrate the learners’ awareness of the potential for feedback to
have a beneficial effect on learning and development. However, two participants disagreed
with the other learners, expressing negative perceptions of the importance and the role of
feedback. Their negative perceptions are demonstrated in the following statements:

I like to stay strong and don’t feel weak in front of others, I don't like to be judged
or criticised, this idea makes me stressed, I was in situations that forced me to do
mental block and perform the task without thinking, to show everyone that I really
don't care while I care (S2).

Criticism is always a negative thing, it crushes my spirit and kills the enthusiasm
(S18)

The above statements, which illustrate strong negative reactions from two learners towards
feedback, could be linked to previous experience with feedback. For example, the learners’
use of the word “criticism” and the phrase “crushes my spirit and kills enthusiasm” could
relate to a previous and dramatically negative experience with feedback. It is possible that,
in past classes, the learners received feedback that did not serve the purpose of improving
learning. These negative perceptions of feedback could have a detrimental effect on
learners’ motivation, engagement with their own learning, and willingness to use
 161
comments to influence future learning.

The data also suggested that, although most of the learners believe in and understand the
importance of feedback, the learners held varying opinions on which sources of feedback
they prefer. The question of sources of feedback is discussed in the following sub-section.

6.3.4.2. Sources of feedback

The analysis of the interviews indicates that learners held differing views on who should be
the provider of feedback. Learners shared their perspectives and experiences with seeking
and receiving feedback from their teacher, classmates, family members, and friends.
Interestingly, only one participant expressed a preference for communicating with and
receiving feedback from their teacher: “I asked the teacher to clarify her comments and
feedback each time I presented, and I asked her to give me tips on how to overcome the
issues” (S34). The data suggested that preferences for feedback from certain sources could
be linked to previous experiences with receiving feedback from those sources. The
following quotations demonstrate how past experiences could influence preferences:

Most of the time even if someone said something wrong the teacher wouldn’t pay
attention to it and after it’s done she doesn’t give feedback, only saying good job.
So you don’t really know if you did a good job or not because in the end all that
actually mattered were the grades from the speaking (S18).

Normally the teacher does not point at what mistakes you made and most of the
time she focuses on the PowerPoint presentation and what information I display in
it instead of focusing on how to improve our performance (S21).

The above statements illustrate how learners' past experience of a teacher's involvement
and the quality of feedback provided by the teacher influenced their willingness to seek
and engage with feedback from their teachers. The following examples show another way
in which past experiences can influence learners' preferences:

Just the idea to ask my teacher or my classmates was a big no for me, like what if
they make fun of me? Or am I just giving them the wrong first impression? What if
they thought I will never improve? I had no confidence whatsoever …one time I
pronounced a word wrong while talking with the teacher and she laughed at me
 162
then fixed it. But then from time to time when I use that word she would comment
about me doing a good job that I didn’t mispronounced it (S33).

I once made a mistake in a group project with my classmates and from that day till
the end of the semester they avoided working with me because I ruined it (S3).

Given the significance of saving face in Saudi society, the above statements exemplify how
students’ fear of embarrassment influenced their feedback choices from teachers and peers.
The following example illustrates an additional way in which prior experiences might
affect a learner's motivation to seek and engage with feedback:

It is competitive in the class and everyone want to be better and have higher grades
than others so they will tell you wrong things to see you fail (S35).

This statement demonstrates the influence of negative peer competition on leaners from
seeking and engaging with feedback.

All the above statements illustrate how prior experiences with feedback influenced
learners' willingness to seek and receive feedback from their instructor and peers. The
analysis of the interview data further showed that learners preferred receiving feedback
from their family members, and friends. This preference is demonstrated in the following
quotations:

I kept asking my friends who aren’t in the same class as me how did I do and asked
them about their thoughts on it ... I was more comfortable asking my friends than
asking the teacher because I’m shy (S11).

I didn’t want to ask my classmates or my teacher, rather, after the recording, I

asked my friends to hear the recording and assess my performance, what are the
areas that I might have been mistaken, which might need more concentration (S33).

That’s why I prefer asking my close friends for help even though they are not
taking the course with me (S3).

The statements above demonstrate learners’ preferences to receive and engage with
feedback from their friends outside the classroom rather than from their teacher or
classmates. The following examples show students’ preferences to receive and engage with
 163
feedback from others rather than their teachers.

To be honest I’m not that close with any of my classmates so I wouldn’t feel
comfortable letting them judge my work. The same goes towards my teacher, I
don’t want her to have the wrong impression about me. That’s why whenever I
wanted feedbacks I would ask my family, since I’m around them all the time they
can notice my improvements more than anyone else, and I would ask them to listen
to the recordings and they would tell me their honest feedback (S1).

I always had my mother support in my learning so she can now help me with my
speaking and give me notes that I can work on (S35).

These statements suggest that students would rather get feedback from their family
members than from their teachers and classmates.

6.4. Conclusion

This chapter analyses the data that were gathered using three different tools. First,
quantitative data were collected through audio recordings of the first and final speaking
activity. Qualitative data were collected by the second and third tools, namely self-
assessment proformas and semi-structured interviews. The quantitative data were analysed
using descriptive statistics and a non-parametric test, namely Wilcoxon Signed Rank. The
qualitative data collected by interviews were analysed with two different methods and
processes of analysis. Data from the self-assessment sheets were used to trace learners’
usage of self-regulated learning strategies. The data from the semi-structured interviews
were analysed using thematic analysis, particularly IPA stages for thematic analysis.

The results of the quantitative data analysis revealed a statistically significant positive
change in learners’ speaking grades prior to and after the self-assessment intervention. The
chapter presents EFL learners’ perspectives and experiences of self-assessment under three
themes: perceptions and experiences of traditional speaking assessment, self-assessment in
speaking classes, and feedback in speaking classes.

The first theme showed that learners’ perceptions of assessment are directly influenced by
their experience with traditional assessment in speaking classes. The learners believed that
assessment was primarily for summative purposes and had no purpose in assisting their
 164
learning in any form. Learners identified this belief as a source of anxiety and as a reason
for shifting their concentration from improving in the language to finding ways to achieve
higher grades. The second theme revealed that learners’ perceptions of self-assessment
were affected by their experience with traditional assessment in speaking classes. The
learners noted the importance of self-assessment and its function in helping them to
become active participants in the learning process, along with its benefit in developing
their use of higher-order cognitive skills and metacognitive skills. Additionally, learners
expressed awareness that self-assessment needs to be practised. The third and last theme
revealed an awareness of the importance of feedback and its positive impact on learning
and development among learners. However, the perspectives of the learners on their
preferred sources of feedback (teacher, family, friends, and classmates) were diverse.

The following chapter discusses the findings presented in this chapter along with the
findings from Chapter 5 and situates these findings within the context of the broader
literature in order to address the research questions.
 165
Chapter 7 : Findings and Discussion

7.1. Introduction

This chapter provides a thorough analysis and discussion of the research outcomes and
significant findings of this study. The outcomes and findings are derived from the
descriptive and inferential analyses of quantitative data conducted through SPSS software
(see Chapters 5 and 6) and from the thematic and IPA analysis of qualitative data gathered
through self-assessment proformas and semi-structured interviews (see Chapter 6). The
present chapter also synthesises these outcomes and findings together with those from prior
studies with a view to answering the research questions. However, as discussed in Chapter
3, there are still some notable gaps in the literature, particularly with regards to the
relationship between self-assessment and self-regulated learning, self-assessment and
critical thinking, and self-regulated learning and critical thinking. These gaps have added
another layer of difficulty to the study's theoretical foundation. Due to these gaps in the
literature, I was driven to reflect on emerging findings in the context of a wider body of
literature, such as disciplinary culture and feedback, in order to enrich the interpretation of
this study’s results.

This chapter is organised and discussed chronologically in accordance with the research
questions:

1) How do EFL students perceive the implementation of self-assessment in speaking

classes, especially in relation to their speaking language achievement?
2) What influence does self-assessment in speaking have on EFL students regarding:
a. their self-regulated learning in English language speaking?
b. their critical thinking skills?
3) What is the association between students’ perceptions regarding the influence of
self-assessment in speaking on their self-regulated learning and their critical
thinking?

Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 4 this study adopted a mixed methods design to enable a
thorough overview of the relevant and important issues from various sources of data in
order to present a narrative closer to reality. Recurrent themes have emerged through cross-
case analysis, and at least more than half of the participants in the interviews voiced those
themes (as discussed in Chapter 6). Notwithstanding, this chapter’s discussion of evidence
 166
takes into account the prominence of the individual's voice, using individual statements
when appropriate.

7.2. How do EFL students perceive the implementation of self-assessment

in speaking classes, especially in relation to their speaking language
achievement?

The findings of this study reveal that a number of variables shaped and influenced EFL
learners’ perceptions of the implementation of self-assessment in speaking classes:
learners’ prior experience with traditional speaking assessment, learners’ motivation and
willingness to self-assess, learners’ awareness of assessment criteria, and learners’
perceptions and experiences of feedback. The findings also reveal the impact of learners’
perceptions and experiences of self-assessment in speaking classes on their language
achievement. This research is original and significant in that it contextualises and discusses
these ideas within the context of the EFL field in Saudi Arabia, an area where there
remains very little published research in this field. Chapter 8 will then address the issues
and implications emerging from this chapter.

7.2.1. EFL learners’ prior experience with traditional speaking assessment

Chapter 2 argued that language instructors in higher education institutions in the Saudi
context still often adhere to traditional approaches to language teaching and assessment.
Evidence emerging from Chapter 6 suggests that learners’ perceptions and experiences of
traditional speaking assessment influence their experience and perceptions of self-
assessment in speaking classes. The EFL learners’ interviews, as discussed in Chapter 6,
indicate that in speaking classes, lecturers and language instructors carry out assessment
mainly to evaluate and measure learners’ progress and performance instead of supporting
their learning. For example:

Normally the teacher does not point at what mistakes you made and most of the
time she focuses of the PowerPoint presentation and what information I display in
it instead of focusing on how to improve our performance (S21).

The student clearly believes that the teacher’s main concern is to get through the
curriculum, “she focuses of the PowerPoint presentation”, rather than on how to support
the student’s learning and “the teacher does not point at what mistakes you made”. The use
 167
of the word “instead” suggests that this student would prefer a stronger focus on student
progress. This statement indicates that the student considered that content knowledge was
more significant to the teacher than language development. The following statements
reveal that the students felt assessment was conducted just to evaluate and grade their
language proficiency.

When we do the speaking, the teacher ask everyone to do it as fast as possible so

she can have the time to grade everyone before the class ends (S33)

The student clearly believes that the teacher’s main concern is finishing the task at hand,
which is “grading everyone before the class ends” rather than focusing on each student.
The use of the word “grade” suggests an emphasis on the summative purpose of an
assessment of measuring learners’ progress.

Most of the time even if someone said something wrong the teacher wouldn’t pay
attention to it and after it’s done she doesn’t give feedback, only saying good job.
So you don’t really know if you did a good job or not because in the end all that
actually mattered were the grades from the speaking (S18).

This statement suggests that the student feels neglected by the teacher, and that the learner
is not looking for words of encouragement or approval, but instead for the support of the
teacher, which was not present even when making mistakes. This student also emphasised
that the grades were the primary focus.

It seems that lecturers and language instructors are mainly focused on summative purposes
of assessment. This approach is strongly teacher centred. It is thus in line with Al-
Seghayer’s (2015) findings that language assessment in the Saudi context has merely
summative purposes due to a dominating exam-oriented culture. This culture drives
language teachers to stick to traditional teaching and assessment methods; under this
system, teachers focus on preparing students for examinations. The result is a
concentration on the topics and information covered by the tests. This adherence to
traditional teaching and assessment methods could be influenced by the context and
discipline.

Jessop and Maleckar (2016), Lindblom-Ylänne et al. (2006), Neumann et al. (2002),
Neumann (2001) and Smeby (1996) have all argued that the disciplinary culture plays a
 168
significant role in forming learning and teaching. This argument views teaching and
assessment, as an area of practice, based on the main disciplinary categories identified in
the work of Becher (1987): hard pure (denoting pure sciences like chemistry and biology),
soft pure (denoting the humanities and social sciences), hard applied (denoting technology-
related studies like engineering), and soft applied (denoting applied social sciences like
law). For example, Lindblom-Ylänne et al. (2006) argued that disciplines and contexts
influence the adoption of teaching and assessment approaches; thus, teachers with
exposure to a variety of contexts may adapt their pedagogical approach according to the
context. In addition, Lindblom-Ylänne et al. linked the adaption of pedagogical approach
with the teachers’ discipline. Similarly, Jessop and Maleckar (2016) suggested that the
discipline may have an impact on the policies, practices, perceptions, and purposes of
assessment. Indeed, the influence of the field and the context also emerged in Almosaa’s
(2021) study, which found that teachers in English language courses in a variety of Saudi
universities used unified assessment practices and purposes, with minor alterations. This
decision among teachers, in turn, could be attributed to the nature of English language
courses in the foundation year. This issue is discussed in Chapter 8 as a proposal for future
research.

The findings in Chapter 6 also indicate that the focus on exams and the summative
purposes of assessment pressured learners and led them to focus on improving their exam
results. For example:

In speaking classes, you don’t really care if you did a good job or not because in the
end all that actually mattered were the grades from the speaking (S11).

Most of the English classes that I have participated in and like specifically speaking
classes, I always end up caring about my grades at that moment and I rarely come
out of that class with benefits (S1).

These statements indicate that, as a result of the assessment's purpose, EFL learners
concentrated on memorising scripts and information for their speaking assessment,
studying only for the test, instead of actually improving their English language. In short,
this form of assessment ultimately limited students’ learning and resulted in superficial or
surface approaches to learning. Biggs (1987) identified superficial or surface approaches as
those emerging when learners perform assessment activities only in order to earn a grade, a
mark, or a certificate; learners relying on these approaches are not driven by an interest in
 169
or a wish to deepen comprehension of the subject matter. This finding is consistent with
Heywood (2000), in argument that traditional assessment techniques, namely tests,
promote surface approaches to learning. Additionally, this finding also aligns with
Simonson et al. (2000) finding that test-focused learning often relies only on lower-order
cognitive abilities in Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), memorising in
particular, and frequently places an excessive emphasis on the final outcome, instead of
higher-order ability such as analysing and evaluating.

Although the significance of assessment for summative purposes has been recognised, as
discussed in Chapter 3, this emphasis on summative purposes and test-focused learning is
incompatible with the primary objective of EFL instruction in KSA, which is to develop
learners' intellectual, personal, and professional abilities (MoE, 2005). This adherence to
exams and summative purposes of assessment could indicate that the Saudi system of
education is in need for a cultural shift. Thus, greater emphasis should be placed on
assessment as a means of supporting and improving students’ learning as well as the
learner's involvement in the process through self-assessment as an example of a practice.
This suggestion among others will be addressed in Chapter 8.

Moreover, Heywood (2000) argued that traditional assessment techniques such as exams
increase student anxiety. The findings from this study supported Heywood’s conclusion.
All learners in this study indeed considered the traditional speaking assessments, namely
speaking tests, to be a source of fear and anxiety. Expressions such as “demanding”,
“scariest”, “difficult”, “stressful”, and “nerve-racking” emerged when the learners talked
about traditional speaking assessments. This result is in line with previous research by
Mohammed (2016) showing that tests are identifies as a source of anxiety for Saudi EFL
learners. It is also in line with the theory of foreign language classroom anxiety (Horwitz et
al., 1986), in which test anxiety is identified as one of three components of foreign
language classroom anxiety: communication apprehension, fear of negative evaluation, and
test anxiety. Given that a high degree of foreign language anxiety might impede language
learning (Horwitz et al., 1986), it is vital for both language instructors and students to take
steps to reduce anxiety levels. This suggestion will be addressed in Chapter 8.

Additionally, learners’ interviews made apparent that fear and anxiety about being
assessed, as well as the value placed on grades, could have a negative impact on the level
of learners' motivation to learn and make language progress. For example:
 170
The normal way of evaluation was never enjoyable. They were like the scariest,
slowest and most stressful times. I had to memorize my answers even if I didn’t
understand them, because all what we ever cared about were the marks (S3).

This finding is compatible with prior research in EFL contexts by Liu and Huang (2011),
Mohammed (2016) and Cayli (2020). The findings of Liu and Huang (2011), Mohammed
(2016) and Cayli (2020) indicated that learners' motivations to learn are negatively
correlated with the level of anxiety.

The above findings, taken together, could be seen as a positive sign of learners’ awareness
of their role and the role of assessment in the learning process as all learners showed
dissatisfaction with this form of assessment and questioned its role in their learning
process. From the interviews, it could be argued that the negative perceptions of and
experiences with traditional speaking assessment could influence learners’ perceptions of
and experiences with self-assessment. This relationship is discussed in depth in the
following subsection.

7.2.2. Learners’ perceptions and experiences of self-assessment in

speaking classes

Kyndt et al. (2011) suggest that traditional assessment promotes surface learning;
approaches to achieving deeper learning rely, in contrast, much more on students’
motivation. Self-assessment, on the other hand, is argued to be a practice that promotes
deep learning and relies on students’ motivation (Panadero et al., 2013; Sitzmann et al.,
2010). The participants in this study displayed a high degree of enthusiasm and motivation
for participation and a strong commitment to change and progress. The findings from
learners’ interviews in Chapter 6 show that the participants were actively engaged in self-
assessment and had favourable opinions about and experiences with self-assessment in
speaking classes. In the interviews, the learners described how the self-assessment
empowered them to take control of actively participating in their own educational progress.
For example:

I found that using the recordings and sheets encourage me to do a better job
planning and preparing myself through taking notes and thinking of ways to finish
the tasks in better quality (S21).
 171
By doing it (assessment) yourself you can know the way you prefer studying or
working so you first know what the task or goal you have to achieve then you start
thinking of different ways to achieve that goal and choose one to use, and
afterwards you can see the results yourself and analyse them to get yourself further
knowledge (S11).

Moreover, learners’ interviews suggested that the learners were eager for a shift away from
the traditional approaches of learning and assessment towards new and improved
approaches. For example, as one participant stated, “I liked self-assessment more (than the
usual speaking assessment) because you can participate in your own progress, and it can
help you notice the actual progress rather than just listen to what the teacher says about
you” (S2). Additionally, whenever speaking about their experiences with self-assessment
and how self-assessment affected their motivation for learning, the learners became
enthusiastic and cheerful, using expressions such as "comfortable”, “confident”, “liked”,
“happy”, “interested”, and “encouraged". This result is in line with previous research
showing that learners’ motivation is essential to actively conduct self-assessment
(Panadero et al., 2013; Sitzmann et al., 2010).

Additionally, Panadero et al. (2013) argued that students' motivation and willingness to
utilise self-assessment tools – for example, rubrics and scripts, which are complex self-
assessment scaffolding tools – relate to students’ perception of the tools' use. The more
valuable these self-assessment tools are to students, the more motivated students will be to
utilise them (Panadero et al., 2013). Notably, some participants expressed admiration for
the intervention and self-assessment proforma. For example, one participant wondered if
she could use the proforma in the writing classroom to assess her writing. Thus, the
learners’ positive attitude and motivation could be attributed to their awareness of their
active role in the learning process and their recognition of the significance of self-
assessment in terms of improving their metacognitive abilities, as discussed in Section
7.3.1, and language.

Moreover, the findings in Chapter 6 also reveal that learners' knowledge of the speaking
assessment criteria through the self-assessment proformas led them to the conclusion that
awareness and understanding of the speaking criteria is crucial to the learning process. For
example:

I really liked the fact that I am the one who search for a way to improve myself
 172
after knowing my strong points and mistakes, and knowing and understanding the
criteria rather than just taking a lesson after a lesson without me trying to put what I
have learned in action (S1).

From learners’ descriptions in the interviews, it was clear that learners understood the
value of the assessment criteria which could help them identify areas for development and,
ultimately, improve their learning. With clear assessment criteria, the participants in the
study felt encouraged to actively engage and take ownership of their own learning. The
learners interviewed in this study explained how the speaking criteria aided them in
identifying their strengths and weaknesses, setting their learning objectives, developing
methods for achieving those objectives, and eventually attaining the required standards.
These findings support the argument of Panadero et al. (2013) and Panadero and Romero
(2014), namely that the use of precise, well-defined, and well-understood criteria and
standards of performance is critical to helping learners assess their own work to determine
whether their performance meets standards and expectations, an action which can add to
the accuracy of self-assessment. These findings are also consistent with those of Andrade
and Valtcheva (2009), Panadero et al. (2013), and Panadero and Jonsson (2013), as these
prior studies also found that complex self-assessment scaffolding tools, such as rubrics and
scripts, could assist beginners by providing clarity on what constitutes quality
performance.

Nonetheless, as Panadero, Brown, et al. (2016), Panadero and Alonso-Tapia (2013), and
Cao and Nietfeld (2005) argued, providing feedback to students is necessary for them to
develop into more accurate self-assessors. Without feedback that enables students to draw
comparisons between their own and others' perceptions of their work, self-assessment
appears to be highly dependent on individual qualities and differences (Cao & Nietfeld,
2005; Panadero & Alonso-Tapia, 2013; Panadero, Brown, et al., 2016). The following sub-
section discusses learners’ perceptions and experience of feedback.

7.2.3. Learners’ perceptions and experiences of feedback in speaking

classes

As discussed in Chapter 3, without feedback, self-assessment would be a constructivist

approach which places the burden for learning on the shoulders of the learners. Such an
approach leaves learners with full responsibility for their own learning. This approach
leads to superficial implementation of self-assessment. Rather, educators should place self-
 173
assessment within the sociocultural approach, in which learners develop in a social setting
rather than in isolation. Within a sociocultural perspective, self-assessment should be
interactive and dialogic in nature in order develop students into autonomous and self-
regulated learners. Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) and Nicol (2010) argued for the
conceptualisation of feedback as a dialogical two-way process involving teacher-student
and/or peer-to-peer interaction as well as each learner’s active involvement through self-
feedback. Additionally, Panadero, Brown, et al. (2016) argued that, through teacher and
peer evaluation or feedback, novice self-assessors could become aware of the possibility of
inaccuracy in their assessment.

The evidence presented in Chapter 6 indicates that learners had mixed views on the value
of feedback. The majority of participants, 8 out of 10 participants, were aware of the value
and the power of feedback as a necessary component in the learning process, especially
when it came to recognising strengths and weaknesses and improving performance. For
example:

I could use some feedback, because others may notice some points that I might
miss so I can improve my language (S33).

There are lots of times you don’t notice the mistakes you make that’s why asking
my friends helped me a lot to be better (S11).

Indeed, the literature stresses the role of feedback as a highly effective strategy for
increasing student achievement (Ahea et al., 2016; Boud & Molloy, 2013; Brooks et al.,
2019; Hattie & Clarke, 2018; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006;
Sadler, 2010; Wisniewski et al., 2020). The data revealed that seven of the learners who
participated in the study seemed to value all three aspects of feedback when providing self-
feedback, especially the last two, based on the Hattie and Timperley (2007) model of
feedback. Those three aspects are, first, feed up, which entails providing information to
students and/or teachers about the learning objectives to be met. Second, feed back entails
informing students and/or teachers about learners’ accomplishments in relation to some
predetermined standard or previous performance after a comparison of their current work
with previous work. Third, feed forward entails providing information to students and/or
teacher to inform future efforts and targets based on current work or performance.

Two learners, however, disagreed with the other learners, expressing unfavourable
 174
attitudes towards the importance of feedback. The following statements reflect their
unfavourable perceptions:

I like to stay strong and don’t feel weak in front of others, I don't like to be judged
or criticized, this idea makes me stressed, I was in situations that forced me to do
mental block and perform the task without thinking, to show everyone that I really
don't care while I care (S2).

Criticism is always a negative thing, it crushes my spirit and kills the enthusiasm
(S18)

The word “criticism” and the phrase “crushes my spirit and kills enthusiasm” emerged
when these two students talked about feedback. These responses were related to a previous
and dramatically negative experience with feedback. The two learners’ interviews suggest
that their negative perceptions of feedback had a detrimental effect on their motivation,
engagement with their own learning, and willingness to use comments to influence future
learning, as will be discussed later in this section.

Moreover, the data revealed that the participants demonstrated a consciousness of the
significance of two factors. The first was the learners’ active participation in the feedback
process. The second was the ways in which dialogue and discussion – whether internal,
through self-monitoring, or with others, family and friends – could affect and enhance
learners’ understanding of feedback. As Carless (2016) observed, feedback as dialogue
contributes to learners’ engagement and empowerment. Feedback is an effective learning
tool that allows learners to make sense of information from a variety of sources and to
apply that information to their own work or learning practices in order to improve (Carless,
2016). Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006), Nicol (2010), Carless et al. (2011), and Boud
and Molloy (2013) argued that feedback should be conceptualised as a dialogical two-way
process involving teacher-student and/or peer-to-peer interaction as well as the learners’
active involvement through self-feedback. Feedback as dialogue is argued to promote
learners’ active involvement with feedback (Price et al., 2011), and self-regulated learning
(Winstone et al., 2017). It is remarkable; however, that although learners recognised the
importance of feedback and dialogue for their learning process, they declined to receive or
engage in dialogic feedback with their teacher.

The findings from Chapter 6 revealed that prior experiences with feedback affected
 175
learners' willingness to seek and engage with feedback from their teachers and peers. From
the interviews, three reasons emerged related to learners' previous experience with
feedback. The first reason was learners’ prior experience with teacher’s engagement and
the quality of the feedback. This reason was by far the most common, with seven out of ten
participants mentioning it. For example:

Most of the time even if someone said something wrong the teacher wouldn’t pay
attention to it and after it’s done she doesn’t give feedback, only saying good job.
So you don’t really know if you did a good job or not because in the end all that
actually mattered were the grades from the speaking (S18).

Normally the teacher does not point at what mistakes you made and most of the
time she focuses of the PowerPoint presentation and what information I display in
it instead of focusing on how to improve our performance (S21).

The second reason was students’ fear of embarrassment given the importance of saving
face in the Saudi culture. This reason was identified by six learners. For example:

Just the idea to ask my teacher or my classmates was a big no for me, like what if
they make fun of me? Or am I just giving them the wrong first impression? What if
they thought I will never improve? I had no confidence whatsoever …one time I
pronounced a word wrong while talking with the teacher and she laughed at me
then fixed it. But then from time to time when I use that word she would comment
about me doing a good job that I didn’t mispronounced it (S33).

As shown by the statement, the student preferred not to ask for or receive feedback from
teachers or classmates owing to previous negative experiences with it and embarrassment.

The third and last reason, noted by four learners, was the negative competition between
classmates, which discouraged students from seeking feedback.

It is competitive in the class and everyone want to be better and have higher grades
than others so they will tell you wrong things to see you fail (S35).

Notably, only one participant expressed a preference for communicating with and
receiving feedback from their teacher: “I asked the teacher to clarify her comments and
feedback each time I presented, and I asked her to give me tips on how to overcome the
 176
issues” (S34). All the other participants, nine out of ten, preferred not to receive feedback
from their teachers or their classmates, preferring instead feedback from family members
and friends or peers outside the classroom. This preference is demonstrated in the
following examples:

I kept asking my friends who aren’t in the same class as me how did I do and asked
them about their thoughts on it ... I was more comfortable asking my friends than
asking the teacher (S11).

To be honest I’m not that close with any of my classmates so I wouldn’t feel
comfortable letting them judge my work. The same goes towards my teacher, I
don’t want her to have the wrong impression about me. That’s why whenever I
wanted feedbacks I would ask my family, since I’m around them all the time they
can notice my improvements more than anyone else, and I would ask them to listen
to the recordings and they would tell me their honest feedback and points my
strengths and weaknesses (S1).

These findings are not consistent with prior research, which instead indicates EFL learners’
awareness of the value and importance of teachers’ feedback in their learning process
(Putri & Munir, 2021). Putri and Munir (2021) findings reveal that all EFL learners
considered teachers’ feedback to be vital to the learning process. Additionally, based on
Gamlem and Smith’s (2013) classification of feedback as positive and negative feedback,
Putri and Munir (2021) also found that learners recognised the value of teachers’ positive
feedback, i.e., feedback that expresses approval of performance, accomplishment, or effort,
and specifies how the work could be improved.

Gamlem and Smith (2013) argued that feedback for approval is essential for building
strong teacher-student relationships, but is not particularly beneficial for enhancing work.
They also argued that feedback for approval could be either a source of motivation or a
message that hinders motivation and learning. Putri and Munir (2021) findings suggest that
EFL learners perceive feedback for approval with expressions such as "good", "excellent",
and “OK” as positive feedback, which could increase their motivation in learning English.
However, the findings from this research indicate learners perceive the expression “good
job” as insufficient and useless in feedback. This perception could relate to how the
expression “good job” functions in the Saudi culture, where a speaker may use the
expression as a filler before changing the subject without necessarily implying that
 177
something has been accomplished well.

Interestingly, learners’ interviews also revealed that learners found feedback and
comments from their family and friends outside the classroom to be more valuable than the
feedback from their teacher. The learners expressed their dissatisfaction with the quality of
feedback provided by their teacher. The data indicate that students believe the feedback
they received from their teachers, if any, was not constructive. In contrast, learners
believed that the feedback they received from their family and friends was supportive,
motivating, and beneficial to their language development. For example:

They (the family) would tell me their honest feedback and points my strengths and
weaknesses (S1).

I always had my mother support in my learning so she can now help me with my
speaking and give me notes that I can work on (S35).

From a sociocultural perspective, VanPatten and Williams (2015) indicated that learners’
positive or negative perspectives of learning are shaped by active participation in the
cultural and linguistic contexts formed by their family and peers as well as by educational
establishments. Learners’ preferences in receiving feedback from family and friends
outside the classroom instead of from the teacher could indicate a cultural issue as well as a
weak teacher-student relationship. The statements “she laughed at me” and “I don’t want
her to have the wrong impression about me” suggest that a barrier is discouraging the
learners from connecting and communicating with their teacher. This barrier could indicate
a traditional passive relationship within the classroom between the learners and the teacher.
Al-Wassia et al. (2015) argued that this relationship is the result of a cultural perception in
Saudi culture that only the teacher has knowledge mastery. Wu et al. (2015) suggested that,
under this type of relationship, learners are unlikely to develop their sense of
responsibility, their ability to cooperate, and their critical thinking and problem-solving
abilities. Thus, it is critical to consider how to overcome this barrier and build a stronger
relationship between students and their teachers. Chapter 8 addresses this suggestion.

Moreover, learners believed that their family and friends would not criticise their
performance, or at least would not only highlight their weaknesses, but would provide
positive feedback and information that could improve their performance. Gamlem and
Smith (2013) argued that the effectiveness of teacher and peer feedback is contingent upon
 178
the involvement of ideas for improvement and honesty. This argument is perhaps one
explanation for the participants’ preference for feedback from family and friends outside
the classroom instead of from their teacher. In short, the participants believed that the
feedback from family and friends would be constructive. Additionally, the Saudi context is
family-oriented, so learners tend to have close relationships with their families, which may
also account for the learners' preference for feedback from family. In other words, the
learners may feel more at ease seeking and engaging with feedback from family members.
Consequently, I would argue that, depending on the context, family feedback may be just
as valuable to the learning process. Chapter 8 will address this issue as a potential
contribution of this research.

As noted in Chapter 6, the interviews also indicated that the learners viewed peer feedback
as critical to improving their English language, in agreement with the findings of
Alshammari (2016). However, the findings in this research indicate that peer feedback falls
into two categories: peer feedback inside the classroom (classmate-peer feedback) and peer
feedback outside the classroom (friends-peer feedback). As discussed above, the
participants in this research preferred to seek and engage with feedback from friends
outside the classroom and had negative attitudes towards feedback from classmates. This
result could emphasise the significance of the social context when providing and receiving
feedback. I would argue, depending on the context, friends-peer feedback could be as
valuable or even more valuable than classmate-peer feedback to the learning process
depending on the context of the learning.

Moreover, evidence from learners’ interviews indicated that the support received from
family and friends was critical to their English language learning. These results are
compatible with prior research, indicating that family influence supports and improves
foreign language acquisition (Gardner et al., 1997; Han, 2007).

The findings discussed in this section highlight the importance of caution when providing
feedback, especially negative feedback as suggested by Ahea et al. (2016). Learners should
have positive feelings about feedback as a means to motivate them to actively engage with
feedback (Piccinin, 2003). Notably, Goodrich (1996) argued that teachers need to learn and
develop the ability to provide learners with not only opportunities to practise self-
assessment but also critical feedback about learners’ self-assessment and task performance.
Additionally, it is crucial to emphasise, however, that providing quality academic feedback
may be difficult if students are not trained or if the criteria of assessment are not
 179
understood (Gamlem and Smith, 2013), and the same could apply for the family members.
Therefore, it is critical to explore and consider various means of overcoming this barrier.
Chapter 8 will later address this suggestion.

7.3.4. The impact of learners’ perceptions and experiences of self-

assessment in speaking classes on their language achievement.

The findings presented in Chapter 6 revealed a positive relationship between self-

assessment and EFL language achievement. The findings from the quantitative data
(learners’ audio recordings) presented in Chapter 6, indicate that, after the self-assessment
intervention, learners' speaking grades improved. Learners’ results revealed a statistically
significant positive change and improvement in their speaking. These findings align with
the findings from the participants’ interviews. All 10 learners believed that self-assessment
had a beneficial influence on their language proficiency and achievement. For example,

I think my speaking skills improved a lot that even I myself can see the different
before and after this semester (S2).

I think it (self-assessment) really help with improving my speaking skill (S35).

The learners' awareness of the beneficial impacts of engaging in self-assessment seemed to

considerably increase their confidence, motivation and willingness to actively participate
in their learning.

I don’t think it only helped me with improving my English learning, but it also
raised my confident and helped me express myself more and not hesitate or be
afraid of speaking what in my mind! Even if I’m afraid of making mistakes I don’t
let that fear controls and shut me anymore (S11).

I became more confident because I saw my progress and I become more excited
and encouraged to do more tasks and improve more even when we did not have a
speaking task I created one to practise more (S2).

The literature on the relationship between self-assessment and achievement offer several
relevant insights. In a recent critical review of research on learners’ self-assessment,
Andrade (2019) reported that, without exception, the studies included in the review, which
also included two meta-analyses (Graham et al., 2015; Sanchez et al., 2017), revealed a
 180
positive relationship between self-assessment and achievement. Moreover, the present
study’s findings are in line with findings from research in the field of EFL learning in
Saudi Arabia targeting other language skills; writing (Alshammari, 2016; Nalliveettil &
Mahasneh, 2017) and reading (Rabiah, 2020); and general language improvement (Qasem,
2020).

7.3. What influence does self-assessment in speaking have on EFL

students regarding their self-regulated learning and critical thinking skills.

7.3.1. The impact of learners’ perceptions and experiences of self-

assessment in speaking classes on their self-regulated learning.

As previously discussed in Chapter 3, self-assessment shares a significant theoretical

relationship with self-regulated learning (Andrade & Cizek, 2010; Panadero & Alonso-
Tapia, 2013; Panadero et al., 2018). Panadero, Jonsson, et al. (2016) indicated that the key
premise in the relationship between self-assessment and self-regulated learning is that
when a teacher offers opportunities for students to engage with and utilise self-assessment
in the classroom, these opportunities may assist students in developing their ability for self-
assessment and, therefore, their self-regulated learning skills. However, despite the strong
theoretical connection between self-assessment and self-regulated learning, Yan (2020)
remarked that empirical studies, included in Brown and Harris (2013) and Panadero et al.
(2017) in this topic, have been far from definitive.

On the basis of the evidence in Chapters 5 and 6, self-assessment involves learners in the
assessment process and increases learners’ sense of control of their learning and their use
of self-regulatory skills. Evidence from the pre and post SRL-SRS survey, presented in
Chapter 5, indicated that self-assessment had a positive impact on learners’ perceptions on
the use of their self-regulatory skills and self-efficacy before and after the intervention.
Chapter 5 evidence indicates that the intervention had a beneficial effect on students'
perceptions of their planning skills and processes. The interviews reported in Chapter 6
support these findings, with learners explaining and discussing their experiences with self-
assessment. Specifically, the interviews revealed that learners became aware of the
importance of planning and setting goals at the beginning of each speaking task, and of
how that step can help in improving their language and performance. For example,

It helped me plan more efficiency. What I mean is that now I first understand and
 181
set my goal and what I want to reach before even planning, then I ask myself
questions and develop my plan according to the most effective way while putting in
considerations what can go wrong and how to deal with the outcomes (S11)

Additionally, learners’ awareness of the assessment criteria and requirement assisted them
in setting goals and planning for the task completion. Thus, learners began setting goals
and planning as a first step of completing or performing any speaking task. In alignment
with learners’ perceptions regarding their planning skill, evidence collected from the
learners’ self-assessment proformas demonstrated that all learners used the proformas to
plan for their speaking showing improvement in their planning tactics throughout the eight
weeks. This result could indicate that the intervention of self-assessment and the use of the
self-assessment proformas had a positive impact on the first phase of self-regulated
learning (i.e. the forethought phase).

Similarly, evidence from Chapter 5 indicates that the intervention had a significant and
positive influence on learners' views of their self-monitoring abilities and processes. The
data revealed highly positive attitudes and self-confidence among learners regarding their
ability to monitor and check their own performance; there was a statistically significant
positive change post the intervention. In Chapter 6, learners explained how they were self-
monitoring their speaking performance, using the self-assessment proforma according to
the criteria and standards of assessment. Learners also explained how they made sure that
they were on the right track while completing the task. For example,

I really like to use the sheets because it help me focus on the requirement and
criteria and it helps me to focus and try my best when I plan the task and check if
I’m doing great work when I’m doing it and after I finish (S21).

In accordance with the learners' perceptions of their self-monitoring skill, evidence

gathered from the learners' self-assessment proformas revealed that all learners used the
proformas to monitor their speaking, indicating that their monitoring skills improved over
the course of the eight-week period. This result could imply that the self-assessment
intervention also had a beneficial effect on the second phase of the self-regulated learning
as well (i.e. the performance phase).

Finally, evidence from the pre and post survey revealed a statistically significant positive
change in learners’ perceptions of their evaluation processes prior to and after intervention.
 182
Additionally, evidence from the survey showed a statistically significant positive change in
learners’ perceptions of their reflection processes prior to and after the intervention. These
results are supported by findings from the participants’ interviews. Namely, the
participants reported in their interviews higher willingness and engagement in evaluating
and reflecting on their work against the assessment criteria and standards during the
intervention. Learners explained how their metacognitive knowledge and awareness of
their strengths and weaknesses during the evaluation process helped them find solutions to
overcome their weaknesses during reflection, and eventually led them to enhance their
learning and performance. For example,

Through the self-assessment I realized that I don’t really focus on my own

mistakes, but with it I can now notice where I lack and put extra effort when
learning, for example I notice that I struggle with the sentences structure especially
if it includes adjectives or adverbs so now when I’m learning I focus more on this
and try to figure when to use it or what is the right structure for the sentences (S11).

This result could indicate that the self-assessment intervention had a beneficial effect on
the third phase of the self-regulated learning (i.e. the evaluation or appraisal phase).

Taken together, these results indicate that the self-assessment proforma activates the usage
of self-regulatory skills and engages the learners in all three phases of self-regulated
learning: the forethought phase, in which tasks are analysed, plans are made, and goals are
established; the performance phase, which involves the usage of learning and monitoring
strategies; and the evaluation or appraisal phase, in which students reflect on and evaluate
their learning achievements. These findings suggest that the intervention was beneficial in
boosting students' use of self-regulated learning skills. The findings thus link back to the
literature, supporting the theoretical relationship between self-assessment and self-
regulated learning; that is, that engaging students in self-assessment can develop their self-
regulated learning skills (Andrade & Cizek, 2010; Andrade, 2019; Panadero & Alonso-
Tapia, 2013; Panadero et al., 2018; Panadero, Jonsson, et al., 2016). Additionally, these
findings are consistent with the findings reported in Andrade’s (2019) critical review and
Panadero et al.’s (2017) meta-analytic review, namely that self-assessment interventions
are beneficial for students' self-regulated learning skills. Nonetheless, the effect size in
Panadero et al. (2017) research varied from small to medium, according to the tool used for
self-regulated learning, which is not consistent with the effect size in this research.
Moreover, in the literature on self-assessment and self-regulated learning within the field
 183
of EFL learning, these findings align with those of Kahrizi et al. (2014) from language
schools that self-assessment has a statistically significant positive impact on self-regulated
learning. However, the study by Kahrizi et al. (2014) study only reports statistical
significance; as discussed in Chapter 5, statistical significance is proportional to the sample
size, so the occurrence of statistical significance alone does not guarantee the presence of
an effect. The findings of this research provide empirical evidence of the relationship
between self-assessment and self-regulated learning within the field of EFL learning and
particularly during speaking classroom at HEI. Thus, I would argue that the self-
assessment proforma could be considered as a complex self-assessment scaffolding tool to
support student learning. Chapter 8 will address this as a potential contribution of this
research.

Moreover, as discussed earlier in this chapter, self-assessment relies on students’

motivation (Panadero et al., 2013; Sitzmann et al., 2010). Students’ motivation, in turn,
refers to the extent to which a student makes an effort and maintains a focus on studying in
order to attain success (Saeed & Zyngier, 2012). Within research on motivation in learning,
learners’ self-efficacy is among the most important aspects of motivation (Linnenbrink &
Pintrich, 2002). In addition, learners’ motivation is positively affected by their self-efficacy
(Zimmerman, 1995). In other words, learners’ effort is associated with learners’
perceptions of their ability to perform a task and accomplish predefined objectives. Thus,
self-efficacy is likely to have a significant impact on the notion of self-regulated learning
and self-assessment, as previously discussed in Chapter 3.

Evidence presented in Chapter 5 from the pre and post SRL-SRS survey indicate a
statistically significant positive change in learners’ effort and self-efficacy prior to and
after the intervention. The findings revealed a statistically significant positive change in
learners’ perception of the level of dedicated effort put into their work before and after the
intervention. The findings also revealed a statistically significant positive change in
learners’ perception of their self-efficacy before and after the intervention. Learners’
interviews, as shown in Chapter 6, revealed that the learners’ active engagement and
involvement with self-assessment in their speaking classes encouraged them to take on a
more active role in their own learning; taking on that more active role, in turn, enhanced
the level of effort the learners put into their work. As the learners saw the results, namely
improvement, the learners came to believe in their ability to overcome difficulties. For
example, “I became more confident because I saw my progress and I become more excited
and encouraged to do more tasks and improve more even when we did not have a speaking
 184
task I created one to practise more” (S2). The findings of the impact of the self-assessment
intervention on the EFL learners’ self-efficacy in HEI are similar to those of Baleghizadeh
and Masoun (2013) in language school. Namely, Baleghizadeh and Masoun (2013) found
that EFL learners' self-efficacy level increased significantly as a result of consistent use of
self-assessment.

7.3.2. The impact of learners’ perceptions and experiences of self-

assessment in speaking classes on their critical thinking skills.

Learners who acquire and develop critical thinking abilities often continue to use such
abilities well into later in life and transfer those abilities into academic and professional
success (Murawski, 2014). By developing critical thinking, learners tend to broaden their
worldview and improve their ability to negotiate critical choices in school and in life
(Murawski, 2014; Phan, 2010). One of the arguments in Chapter 3 was that providing
learners with self-assessment opportunities could enhance their critical thinking. Evidence
from the Watson-Glaser II Critical Thinking Appraisal prior to and after the self-
assessment intervention presented in Chapter 5 shows a statistically significant difference
between learners’ critical thinking total grades prior to and after the intervention. The data
indicate a statistically significantly positive improvement in learners’ critical thinking,
which aligns with the findings of (Kahrizi et al., 2014). Kahrizi et al.’s study found that
learners’ critical thinking increased significantly after a self-assessment intervention in
comparison to their results before the intervention. Nevertheless, Kahrizi et al. (2014)
research reports only statistical significance; as noted in Chapter 5, statistical significance
is related to sample size, so the existence of statistical significance does not ensure the
presence of an effect.

The data presented in Chapter 5 also indicated development in each of the five critical
thinking skills after the intervention. First, the evidence reveals a statistically significant
positive improvement in learners’ ability to make inferences about the degrees of truth or
untruth of a statement. Second, the evidence reveals a statistically significant positive
improvement in learners’ ability to recognise underlying assumptions or presuppositions.
Third, the evidence reveals a statistically significant positive improvement in learners’
deductive ability, as measured by asking them to determine whether or not specific facts
were definitely true. Fourth, the evidence reveals a statistically significant positive
improvement in learners’ interpretive ability, as measured by having the learners evaluate
evidence and determine if generalisations or conclusions were appropriate. Lastly, the
 185
evidence reveals a statistically significant positive improvement in learners’ ability to
differentiate between strong and relevant arguments and weak or irrelevant arguments.

Moreover, along with the development of learners’ critical thinking skills, evidence from
learners’ interviews revealed that self-assessment enabled the learners to gain or improve
two of the critical thinking dispositions, namely confidence and courage, and increased
their sense of responsibility to support future learning by participating in their own
learning.

7.4. What is the association between students’ perceptions regarding the

influence of self-assessment in speaking on their self-regulation and their
critical thinking?

Dickinson (1987) and Zimmerman (2002) argued that self-regulated learning and critical
thinking are interrelated ,because a self-regulated person who is critical in their thinking is
able to learn more efficiently and readily in a shorter amount of time than someone who
lacks these qualities. Ku and Ho (2010b) argued that metacognitive strategies can elicit
actions in pupils that help them to monitor and manage their mental processes, and that the
employment of metacognitive methods can often be as a significant element influencing
critical thinking.

Evidence from Chapter 5 indicates that, prior to the intervention, the relationship between
critical thinking and self-regulated learning skills was not statically significant. The
relationship between learners’ critical thinking and the overall perception of self-regulated
learning was weakly negative. The relationship between critical thinking in relation to the
self-regulated learning skills of planning, self-monitoring, evaluating, putting forth effort,
and self-efficacy was weak; the one exception was reflection, with which critical thinking
had a weak positive relationship. The correlation between critical thinking and self-
regulated learning skills changed after the intervention, yet the relationships remained
statistically insignificant except for that with planning skills. Learners’ critical thinking had
a medium-strength positive relationship with planning, reflection, and self-efficacy and a
weak positive relationship with self-monitoring, evaluation, and effort. These findings are
not consistent with those of Kahrizi et al. (2014). Although both studies indicate
statistically significantly positive improvement in learners’ critical thinking and self-
regulated learning, the correlation in this study is not statically significant as opposed to
Kahrizi et al. (2014)
 186
Nonetheless, even though the relationship was not statistically significant, the findings in
the present study indicate that self-regulated learning and critical thinking do share a
medium-strength positive relationship. This relationship suggests that an improvement in
learners self-regulated learning ability could lead to improvement, to some extent, in their
critical thinking skills. In other words, the more learners apply and improve their self-
regulatory skills, the more critical thinking skills are likely to develop. This finding
supports the arguments of Dickinson (1987), Zimmerman (2002), and Ku and Ho (2010b).
Given that both critical thinking and self-regulated learning are high-order skills, this
relationship seems more feasible. Thus, the findings in this study seem to indicate that the
contributing role of the relationship between self-regulated learning and critical thinking
might also be valid in the Saudi context. Chapter 8 addresses this finding as a potential
contribution of this research and as an area for further research.

7.4. Conclusion

This chapter presented a comprehensive analysis of the research findings in light of the
existing literature in order to address the research questions. Several themes emerged from
the findings in response to the three research questions. The first question sought to
identify EFL learners’ perceptions of self-assessment in speaking classes. The findings
indicate that self-assessment in speaking classes was seen favourably by language learners.
The learners in this study expressed admiration for the intervention and the assessment
tool, which influenced their motivation and willingness to learn and self-assess. Learners
also expressed admiration for how self-assessment allowed them to be aware of and
understand the assessment criteria, and helped them engage with and improve their
learning by being able to identify their strengths and weaknesses and areas for language
development.

The findings discussed in this chapter suggest that learners’ positive perceptions and
experiences of self-assessment are mainly influenced by their negative prior experience
with traditional speaking assessment. The findings in this study indicate learners’
eagerness to change from traditional speaking assessments that dominate language courses
in higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia. The learners expressed that traditional
speaking assessments were a source of anxiety and how they are driven to focus on grades
instead of improving their language, thereby driving students to memorise scripts for their
speaking.
 187
This chapter also discussed learners’ perceptions and experiences of feedback, as it plays a
vital role in self-assessment and learning. The learners that participated in this study
recognised the significance of feedback in the learning process, as well as the value of
dialogue and discussion in feedback and its role in understanding and using feedback to
improve their learning. However, the learners described preferring to engage in feedback
with their family and friends outside of the classroom rather than their teachers and
classmates based on previous experiences with feedback, which is considered to be a key
finding in this study.

The second research question aimed to investigate the impact of self-assessment in the
speaking classroom as perceived by learners. This impact was firstly discussed in relation
to learners’ self-regulated learning skills, namely planning, self-monitoring, evaluation,
and reflection, along with their effort and self-efficacy. The impact was also discussed in
relation to learners’ critical thinking skills, namely their ability to infer, recognise
assumptions, deduce, interpret, and evaluate arguments. Finally, the third research question
sought to investigate the relationship between learners’ perceptions of their self-regulated
learning and their critical thinking. This question aimed to test (Ku & Ho, 2010b) theory
that a relationship exists between these two factors. The findings in this chapter reflect how
critical thinking abilities are more likely to develop with the development of self-
regulatory skills.

This study's novelty and significance lie in its contextualisation and discussion of these key
concepts in the EFL field in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, a number of key findings
contribute to the study’s novelty. These findings concern learners’ preference for receiving
feedback from family and friends, the classification of peer feedback into classmate-peer
feedback versus friends-peer feedback, and the self-assessment proforma as a complex
self-assessment scaffolding tool. These ideas are discussed further in Chapter 8.
 188
Chapter 8 : Conclusion

8.1. Introduction

This research has investigated the impact of self-assessment on self-regulated learning,

critical thinking, and language achievement in an EFL context in Saudi Arabia from
learners’ perspectives. The first and second research questions aimed to explore, in terms
of EFL learners’ perceptions, the influence of self-assessment on EFL learners’ self-
regulated learning, language achievement, and critical thinking. The third research
question concerned the relationship between EFL learners’ perceptions of self-regulated
learning and critical thinking.

The previous chapters, in seeking to address these research questions, have provided a
thorough analysis and discussion of the findings in light of the existing literature. This
chapter now provides a reflection on this thesis and its contributions to the study’s field
and context. The chapter then provides some recommendations derived from the findings
of the study. This chapter concludes by noting the limitations of the study and
recommending areas for further research.

Prior to addressing the aforementioned points, it is vital to acknowledge that this research
is merely a snapshot of the process of development in the higher education (HE) sector in
Saudi Arabia, where policies, practices, and theories are in a constant state of
transformation in the process of reaching Saudi Vision 2030. Additionally, this research
only investigated a small part of the participants’ learning experiences. The results of this
research are not intended to be generalised to a larger population of undergraduate
students.

The results of this research are not intended for generalisation to a larger undergraduate
students’ population. These results are intended instead to stimulate questions,
opportunities, and possibilities for teachers, researchers, policy makers, and curriculum
designers who are interested in the research findings and aim to investigate the findings’
applicability to their own context.
 189
8.2. Critical reflection on the research aim and its contribution

This study investigated the perspectives of Saudi EFL students learning English in a
preparatory foundation year programme at a Saudi Arabian higher education institution
throughout one academic semester. This research is significant in light of the Saudi
Arabian government's substantial investment and commitment in conceiving, securing, and
integrating curriculum transformations in Saudi Arabia's educational institutions in the
process of achieving Saudi Vision 2030. Given that assessment is a fundamental
component of the curriculum, research such as the present study is vital to empowering
learners and supporting English language learning. A critical reflection on the findings of
this research regarding the aim and research’s contributions is presented in the following
sub-sections.

8.2.1. Learners’ support for a shift from assessment of learning to

assessment for learning

The Saudi Ministry of Education aims to provide an extraordinary educational system that
uses “a modern curriculum focused on rigorous standards in literacy, numeracy, skills, and
character development” (Saudi-Vision-2030, 2016, p. 38). Accordingly, assessment in
Saudi Arabia should shift to a social-realist perspective of knowledge, a foundation that
embraces how the social aspect of assessment can enhance learning. However, according
to Case (2015), the institutions, curricula, and modes of teaching and assessment will need
to undergo considerable structural and cultural transformation in order to create an
undergraduate experience that will allow for a shift in students' agency and in cultural and
social structure. This shift will include abandoning the 'survival of the fittest' approach in
favour of assuming that the majority of students accepted for the programme should
succeed, specifically via intensive engagement with themselves, others, and the discipline
knowledge. It requires a transition from assessment as judgement to assessment for
learning.

This transition, however, is not free from challenges. Achieving reform and transformation
in any culture is likely to be gradual, with success subject on the adaptability of the context
(Creanza et al., 2017). Allport et al. (1954) suggested that EFL learners develop their
attitudes through direct interactions with various sociocultural elements, including history,
culture, and L1 context. Research in the context of Saudi Arabia indicates the challenge of
obtaining support for the adoption of learner-centred strategies (Alyami, 2016; Fatany,
 190
2009). However, the findings in this research indicate that the learners, who are used to
traditional assessment and teacher-centred learning, are now more receptive to new
strategies. Comments from the students suggest that the students have positive attitudes
towards opportunities that would give them the chance to actively participate in and be
involved in their own education. This change in attitudes may be influenced by the context
in Saudi Arabian culture which is beginning to welcome changes in many aspects in life.
Formerly a more traditional and conservative society, Saudi Arabia is today striving to
become part of a larger global community, and is also working to develop its knowledge
economy as part of its 2030 vision. Despite the country still being in the early phases
change and development, this shift in students' perspectives demonstrates a change in how
education is considered. This might be considered as evidence that both the Saudi Ministry
of Education and the students desire to reform the assessment system. Therefore, Saudi
Arabia's implementation of self-assessment in the EFL curriculum in higher education
might be a step towards reaching the objective of reforming the education system, of which
skills and character development form a key part.

8.2.2. Using self-assessment to promote deep learning, self-regulated

learning, and critical thinking

Kyndt et al. (2011) argued that learners’ use of learning approaches is affected by
assessment demands. Kyndt et al. (2011) suggested that traditional assessment promotes
the use of approaches that lead to surface learning. The findings in this study seem to
indicate that, due to the nature and purpose of assessment in speaking classrooms, and due
to how significant grades were to the learners, the EFL learners adopted the surface
learning approach of memorisation for their speaking assessment. Self-assessment, in
contrast, led learners to begin to adopt deeper learning approaches, i.e. understanding and
reflection, for their speaking. This evidence supports E. Panadero et al. (2013) argument
that self-assessment is a practice that promotes deep learning. The shift between learning
approaches might also be considered to be reflective of how students adapt to suit the
requirements of assessment. Biggs (1987) identified superficial or surface approaches as
those approaches that emerge when learners perform assessment activities solely to earn a
grade, a mark, or a certificate; learners who rely on these approaches are rarely motivated
by an interest in or a desire to gain a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
Additionally, as discussed previously in this research, self-assessment is an effective
practical instructional strategy to improve learning and the quality of learning. Self-
assessment, if carefully enacted, was found to be effective in the work of Panadero et al.
 191
(2017) and Brown and Harris (2014). However, this relationship needs to be explored in
different educational contexts, as the findings in research exploring the relationship are
often presented as universally valid. The findings in the Saudi EFL context in higher
education, a context where there is no previously published work, indicate that self-
assessment offers opportunities for language learners to use and develop their self-
regulated learning skills. Therefore, the adoption of self-assessment in the EFL curriculum
in Saudi Arabia could enable students to engage in deep and meaningful learning and thus
improve the quality of learning.

Moreover, as argued by Dickinson (1987) and Zimmerman (2002), self-regulated learning

and critical thinking are interrelated; thus, an increase in learners' ability to self-regulate
their learning might result in an improvement in their critical thinking skills. The results of
this research also suggest that the use of self-regulated skills may be a key signal of
learners' improved critical thinking skills, and vice versa. This association between self-
regulated learning and critical thinking may play a significant role in the Saudi context in
relation to the Saudi government's 2030 vision and the goal of developing a knowledge
economy, which emerges with increasing usage of knowledge-based outputs obtained via
intellectual capabilities; such knowledge-intensive tasks demand independent thinkers who
are capable of creating and solving problems. This finding may also indicate the need to
employ and explore different strategies and create opportunities for the development of
learners’ self-regulated learning and/or critical thinking skills, which might lead to
improvement in both areas to empower the learners for their future. This also requires
further research regarding the level of the impact and improvement of different strategies
on learners’ self-regulated learning and critical thinking skills.

This research proposed and tested the self-assessment proforma as a complex self-
assessment scaffolding tool, as a means of improving the quality of learning through
engaging students in deep and meaningful learning and the development of the learners
self-regulated learning skills and, thus, their critical thinking skills. The self-assessment
proforma may also be presented as an artefact that mediates learning, which is discussed in
the following section.

8.2.3. Self-assessment intervention and proforma as mediating artefacts.

Looking through the lens of activity theory by Leont’ev (1978), the present research also
proposes the self-assessment proforma as an artefact in the idea of mediation by artefacts.
 192
The fundamental idea, according to this theory, in the activity theory is that artefacts, such
as tools, methods, and processes, have a mediating function in activities. As described by
Patchen and Smithenry (2014), mediating artefacts provide transformational learning
opportunities in the classrooms. In this research, the self-assessment proforma mediates
learning and the development of self-regulated learning skills. Through the use of the self-
assessment proforma as an artefact is considered as a means by which the learners can
concentrate their thinking on specific aspects of their learning, which is, in this study, the
development of their language and the use and development of their self-regulatory skills.
The findings indicate that the proforma clarifies assessment expectations and standards,
helping learners to understand the assessment expectations and standards as well as to
determine whether their performance met the standards and expectations. Additionally, the
self-assessment proforma activated the use of self-regulatory skills and engaged the
learners in all three phases of self-regulated learning: the forethought phase, in which tasks
are analysed, plans are made, and goals are established; the performance phase, which
involves the use of learning and monitoring strategies; and the evaluation or appraisal
phase, in which students reflect on and evaluate their learning achievements. Therefore, the
self-assessment proforma could indeed act as a complex self-assessment scaffolding tool,
and the findings indicate that it was beneficial in boosting students' use of self-regulated
learning skills, fostering deep learning, and improving the quality of learning.

Moreover, building on the idea of mediation by artefacts, the work of Conole (2008) and
Conole (2012) on learning design has used the term mediating artefacts (MS) to refer to
the different forms of representation of any learning activity. According to Conole (2008),
learning activities “can be ‘codified’ into a number of different forms of representation,
which each foreground different aspects of the learning activity” (p. 4). Conole (2008) and
Conole (2012), furthermore, argues that MS have the potential to assist in making
informed decisions in terms of implementing activities. Through identifying mediating
artefacts in a learning activity or an intervention, practitioners are better able to more
accurately comprehend how learning activities are represented and how these artefacts may
be utilised to facilitate new design. Case study or narratives, iconic presentations or
diagrammatic, vocabularies, and models are some of the examples of different forms of
representation or mediating artefacts for learning activities as proposed by Conole (2008)
and Conole (2012). Accordingly, the present research is proposed as case study mediating
artefacts, describing the specifics of a pedagogical intervention (Conole, 2008), namely the
use of a self-assessment proforma during speaking classes to promote self-regulated
learning. Additionally, the diagram in Figure 8-1 is proposed as a diagrammatic mediating
 193
artefacts for the intervention as a means of providing a concise summary of the essential
aspects of the intervention and the use of the self-assessment proforma. Diagrammatic or
iconic presentations, according to Conole (2008), highlight the key aspects of the
intervention and their connections and an indication of structure or process.

Figure 8-1 diagrammatic mediating artefacts for the self-assessment intervention

 194
Moreover, Conole (2008) argued that the mediating artefacts might be joined with
guidelines, key points or Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Therefore, the following
aspects need to be taken into account for effective use or repurpose of the mediating
artefacts:

• Transparency involves sharing precise, well-defined, and well-understood criteria

in the self-assessment proforma. Clear standards of performance are critical to
helping learners assess their own work and determine whether their performance
meets expectations (Panadero et al., 2013; Panadero & Romero, 2014). This
necessitates engaging learners in discussing these goals and criteria to ensure a
common understanding and, when possible, to prompt learners to choose their
learning goals, which might increase learners’ motivation (Hayward, 2013).

• Feedback involves engaging learners in dialogic feedback with their teachers and
peers. Dialogic feedback, according to Carless (2016), enhances learners’ active
engagement and understanding of feedback.

• Modelling or exampling involve providing an example of a self-assessment

proforma for the students to review. Though not vital, according to Zimmerman
and Kitsantas (2005), models of instruments can increase learning potentials and
benefits.

Moreover, as discussed previously in this research, feedback plays a significant role in

achieving the anticipated learning benefits in self-assessment. Therefore, it is vital to
acknowledge that many of the issues discussed in this study in terms of feedback are
consistent with international findings on feedback. However, the next section discusses a
distinctive feature in relation to feedback that has emerged in the Saudi culture.

8.2.4. The significance of feedback from family and friends

As discussed in Chapter 3, self-assessment, from a sociocultural viewpoint, should be

dialogical and participatory in order to promote autonomy and self-regulated learning
(Nicol, 2010). Feedback, as argued by Nicol and Macfarlane- Dick (2006) and Nicol
(2010), should be a two-way, dialogical process including teacher-student and/or peer-peer
interaction in addition to the learner's active participation via self-feedback. Through
teacher and peer feedback, novice self-assessors can become aware of the possibility of
 195
inaccuracy in their assessment (Panadero, Brown, et al., 2016). As the study’s evidence
indicates, learners were aware of the importance and efficacy of feedback as an integral
part of the educational process. The learners also valued dialogue feedback as it could
influence and improve their understanding of feedback. Yet, despite learners’
acknowledgement of the value of feedback and discussion to their learning process, they
did not seek or engage in dialogic feedback with their teacher. Interestingly, the
participants in this study preferred and chose to receive and engage with feedback from
family and friends outside the classroom rather than from the teacher. More interestingly,
the participants in this study did not seek or engage with their family or friends for
emotional support or feedback, as in the findings of Massri (2017) in the Saudi context in
which students stressed the role of the family relationship and highlighted the importance
of family support in English language learning, in terms of emotional support in particular.
The students in the current study preferred to engage with family rather than with their
teacher and to discuss their speaking performance, including their strengths and
weaknesses and ways for improvement. This preference poses questions regarding the
teacher-student relationship and the parent-student relationship.

To understand students’ feedback-related preferences and choices in this study, I drew on

research on students’ engagement with feedback and parent involvement in higher
education to inform an understanding of the aspects that influence students’ feedback
decisions. Within the literature on student engagement, Handley et al. (2011) and Carless
(2019) have identified the stage prior to engagement with feedback (i.e. the pre-
engagement stage) as vital to learners’ engagement with feedback. Handley et al. (2011)
identified this stage as “readiness-to-engage”, namely, students' willingness to engage with
feedback. According to Handley et al. (2011), learners' willingness to engage or disengage
with feedback is determined by a number of variables, including their past experiences
with it. Likewise, learners’ prior experiences with feedback had great importance to
learners’ engagement with feedback in a study by Carless (2019) using the 3P (presage,
process, product) model. This model was based on the Biggs 3P models of learning and
teaching (Biggs, 1993, 1999 as cited in Carless (2019). The 3P model addresses three
aspects of the feedback experience for learners: “presage or prior experiences; processes of
engaging with feedback; and products, namely the likely outcomes and impact of the
processes” (Carless, 2019, p. 53). According to Carless (2019), the impact of the feedback
varied according to the influence of the presage and process stages. I have focused here on
the presage stage of this model to understand students’ choices and preference of feedback
in this study. This stage includes the following several factors: prior experience with
 196
feedback, the competences required to effectively engage with feedback, and the
motivation to utilise the feedback to develop. This stage also includes the teaching context,
which involves course design, teaching inputs, learning activities, and assessment design,
and it includes relational factors, including the course atmosphere and the relationships
between participants (Carless, 2019, p. 53).

As Handley et al. (2011) and Carless (2019) found, learners’ prior experience with
feedback has a significant impact on their engagement with feedback. In addition,
according to VanPatten and Williams (2015), learners' positive or negative attitudes
towards learning are shaped by learners’ active engagement in the cultural and linguistic
settings produced by their family and peers as well as by educational institutions. The
findings from the current study indicate that learners’ refusal to engage with feedback from
their teachers and classmates tends to be rooted in negative prior experiences with
feedback and the traditional passive relationship between the teacher and students. This
finding emphasises the influence of learners’ prior experiences on their engagement with
feedback and ultimately their learning process. Nonetheless, several important questions
remain regarding the participants’ reasons and preferences for engaging with feedback
from family. These questions concern, in particular, the characteristic of parent
involvement during higher education and the Saudi context. However, despite the
significance of parental involvement in higher education and the interaction between
students and their parents, little study has taken place in the context of Saudi Arabia.

The body of literature on parent involvement in the higher education context has generally
acknowledged the role of the parents as a core component in student development (Lowe
& Dotterer, 2018; Sax & Wartman, 2010). Yet Sax and Wartman (2010) highlighted that
despite the academic community's acknowledgement of parental involvement as a
legitimate strategy for promoting student success, there is limited consensus on its
theoretical and practical definitions and characteristics. In a recent study, Lowe and
Dotterer (2018) define parental involvement as a “multi-dimensional construct composed
of three distinct involvement strategies: parental support giving, parent-student contact,
and parental academic engagement”(p. 36).

Looking through the lens of the theoretical underpinnings of parental involvement, and
through Bowlby’s (1988) developmental theory of attachment in particular, evidence from
this study suggests that relationships between students and parents enable students’
confidence to proceed in their learning and offer support in the form of dialogic feedback
 197
when necessary. This might indicate that the learners are aware of the significance of
learning in a social context; and that, due to their prior experience with feedback from
teachers and classmates and their relationship with their family, learners described
preferring the support of their family over that of their teacher. Investigating the
characteristics and impact of parental involvement is, therefore, necessary to understand
students’ feedback choices and identify the best practices that parents and family may
employ to support learners. Moreover, the findings of this study indicate that peer feedback
could be divided into two distinct categories: peer feedback inside the classroom
(classmate-peer feedback) and peer feedback outside the classroom (friends-peer
feedback). Further research should investigate the characteristics of each type of feedback
and identify the best practices for each type to be most effective. This distinction, however,
may be a result of learners’ prior negative experience with peer-feedback. Al-Khairy
(2013) contends that peer pressure might contribute to the demotivation of language
students. Thus, learners’ attitudes towards classmate-peer feedback may improve if
learners study in a friendly classroom environment in which the learning setting fosters
trust and support.

Taken together, the findings from this research indicate that learners’ feedback decisions
are subject to their emotions. This is highlighted in the work of Immordino-Yang (2015),
that emotions become a characteristic of the cognitive skills such as learning, motivation,
memory, and decision making, thereby affecting these skills. Therefore, understanding
students’ emotions and the roots and purposes of these emotions regarding feedback and
their teacher-student relationship and the parent-student relationship could be used to find
solutions.

Stepping back from the findings in this research on feedback, what is really interesting is
that it would be expected that students see their English language teachers as experts in
terms of language teaching and learning, as those who have the content knowledge in
terms of language teaching and learning, and the pedagogical knowledge in terms of
approaches to learning and an understanding of the curriculum and what is required for
progression in examinations. Therefore, it would be expected that students in terms of their
own success, would want to access this knowledge and have this professional feedback.
However, the findings in this research suggest that students prefer to have that pedagogical
support to actively support their learning from their family and friends rather than their
teacher. This issue poses the following important questions:
 198
Is pedagogical support, including feedback from an “expert”, devalued in the Saudi
culture?

Do the cultural associations of family and friends indicate that, if the students have
feedback and advice from their family and their teacher, are the students more
likely to take advice from their family or friends rather than the teacher?

Is this decision only influenced by the students’ emotions, or does it have a wider
prevalence in the Saudi culture?

Thus, further research is required to answer these questions.

Meanwhile, the findings from this research indicate that higher education institutes should
take into consideration the significance of family and friends-peer feedback on EFL
learning. Nonetheless, it is vital to highlight the likelihood of inaccuracy and
ineffectiveness in feedback from family and friends. The educational background and
language proficiency of family and friends might influence their ability to provide accurate
and effective feedback. Using technology, as well as facilitating teacher and peer feedback,
particularly for the new generations in Saudi Arabia, might offer an answer for this
dilemma (Al-Hariri & Al-Hattami, 2017). Additionally, the recent interest in “technology-
enhanced feedback” indicates considerable potential for technology-enhanced feedback to
eliminate some of the hurdles that may hinder face-to-face dialogue between learners and
lecturers, hence increasing the use of feedback (Pitt & Winstone, 2020). Henceforth, the
creation of an online platform for dialogue feedback between family, friends, and learners
under the supervision of the teacher, as well as between classmates, teachers, and other
learners, might enhance the likelihood that all learners will participate in meaningful and
effective dialogue to support their learning. Further research is needed to investigate the
effectiveness of such technology-enhanced feedback.

8.3. Recommendations from the study

Based on the findings of this study, this section presents the following recommendations
for educational policy making, practice, and future research.
 199
8.3.1. Recommendations for educational policy and higher education
institutes

The evidence collected from this research regarding the use and impact of self-assessment
to improve the quality of learning and develop learners’ LLL may motivate education
decision makers and higher education institutes to implement self-assessment at higher
education institutes, particularly in the EFL context. The following is, therefore,
recommended to decision makers.

Recommendation 1: Reduce reliance on assessment of learning and increase the use of

assessment to support learning.

One of the findings in this study was that currently, assessment is mainly used for
grading the learners, and self-assessment in comparison offers the benefits of
improving learning, empowering learners, and developing learners’ self-regulated
learning and critical thinking skills. It is, thus, recommended to encourage higher
education institutions to adopt complex forms of self-assessment such as the self-
assessment proforma, which is proposed in this study, rubrics, or scripts to develop
self-regulated learners and effective lifelong skills and strategies, instead of attempts
to adopt weak forms of self-assessment, such as check lists. Such a shift could also
improve the state of language learning in the educational system.

Recommendation 2: Conducting workshops and training sessions on self-assessment for

the learners.

Another finding in this research was that the Saudi EFL learners seem eager to shift
away from traditional assessment, and they show interest and willingness to self-
assess. It is thus recommended to encourage higher education institutions to build a
culture of support and ongoing development for learners through conducting
workshops and training sessions on self-assessment. The aim is to build and develop
a clear and profound understanding of self-assessment’s rationale, benefits,
practices, and processes. Learners should have spaces to meet regularly and share
their ideas on practices of self-assessment, based on their actual experiences.
 200
8.3.2. Recommendations for practice

The recommendations to improve the quality of learning and develop learners’ LLL should
be combined with recommendations for practice. Combining these recommendations
would optimise the effectiveness of self-assessment and eliminate any potential negative
results. The following is, therefore, recommended.

Recommendation 1: Create a friendly classroom environment to reduce students’ anxieties

and build strong relationships between students, teachers, and classmates.

Recommendation 2: Offer one-on-one counselling sessions to support students with self-

assessment and provide feedback.

One of the findings in this study was that the students preferred not to ask for, or
receive, feedback from teachers or classmates owing to previous negative
experiences, which included embarrassment. The following is therefore
recommended: Encourage teachers to create a friendly classroom environment and
build a strong relationship with their students based on trust and support. The aim is
to reduce students’ anxieties and fear of mistakes, facilitate active learning, and
increase learners’ motivation to learn. Additionally, encourage the teachers to foster
better and stronger relationships among classmates. Secondly, encourage the
teachers to offer one-on-one counselling sessions to provide assistance with self-
assessment and appropriate support, such that the teachers can monitor and give
dialogic feedback to guarantee effective implementation.

Recommendation 3: Encourage teachers to engage with the learners in dialogic feedback.

Another finding in this research was that learners recognised the importance of
feedback and dialogue for their learning process. Thus, it is recommended to
encourage teachers and students to engage in more dialogue in the classroom.
Teachers should also be encouraged to collaborate with learners to establish a shared
comprehension for criteria of assessment, since the criteria are essential to the
learning experience of the students.

Recommendation 4: Encourage the use and adaptation of the self-assessment proforma as a

reliable scaffolding assessment method and a mediating artefact.
 201
Another finding and contribution of this research was that the self-assessment
proforma could serve as a complex self-assessment scaffolding tool and a mediating
artefact assessment that can foster deep learning, clarify expectations, make criteria
explicit, and facilitate feedback for a proper implementation of self-assessment. The
following is thus also recommended:

Recommendation 5: Ensure the implementation of self-assessment is

underpinned by defined curriculum objectives.
Recommendation 6: Encourage the use of audio or video recordings as
models to foster an understanding of the criteria and learning
expectations.

8.4. Limitations of the study and recommendations for future research

This study’s limitations included the methodology and the limitations imposed by the
nature and division of the English language course. This study included a self-assessment
intervention and measured learners’ critical thinking before and after the intervention to
examine the impact of self-assessment on their learning. According to Pallant (2016), such
research is enhanced by the inclusion of a control group that is not exposed to the
intervention but is identical to the experimental group in all other aspects; several other
factors, including the passage of time, may contribute to changes. Indeed, a control group
would have helped to rule out the effect of other factors that may have influenced the
results. However, due to the time constraint, the nature and division of the English
language course, conducting the study with both experimental and control groups would
not have been appropriate. The experimental group would have gained an advantage on
assessment at the end of the academic semester; there would have been insufficient time to
implement the intervention with the control group after completing the experiment with the
experimental group. This limitation could be rectified with similar research in other higher
education institutions in Saudi Arabia to corroborate the findings and contribute to the
insights gained here. Thus, further research is recommended to overcome this limitation.

Furthermore, this study aimed to explore learners’ perceptions of the implementation of

self-assessment in a speaking classroom and its impact on their self-regulatory skills,
critical thinking, and achievement. This study concentrated on speaking classroom as it
aimed to target the gap in the literature regarding the use of self-assessment in speaking
classes in KSA. However, focusing only on speaking may have created the misleading idea
 202
that the components of academic literacy, including writing, listening, reading, and
speaking, are distinct; in fact, they are not. Thus, further research is recommended to
include all four language skills.

Moreover, this study used pre and post surveys and interviews as tools for data collection.
Based on the findings from this study, if I were to recreate the research, one of the
participants groups that I would add to this research would be language instructors as key
participants to investigate their perspectives of self-assessment and feedback and explore
their observations regarding the impact of self-assessment on EFL learners.

Additionally, I would include classroom observations to provide more in-depth

information. Classroom observations would make it possible to investigate teacher-student
relationships, peer relationships, and feedback procedures in more depth.

Future research may also investigate policymakers’ perception of self-assessment. Due to

the top-down structure of the Saudi educational system, all decisions and policies are
accountable to the crown policymakers Lastly, future research may also involve an
investigation of the English language curriculum to determine how assessment is handled
currently. Such an investigation could shed light on ways in which curriculum-related
concerns may be alleviated in order to promote improved student learning.

8.5. Reflection

I began my study with the strong belief that with the new generation of students, the
spoon-feeding and conventional teacher-centred practices that are prevalent in Saudi
English language classrooms will no longer be successful. The learners’ interviews and
perceptions of the traditional assessment practices support this belief. If we continue to
educate and assess in the same traditional manner, we will continue seeing the same
unsatisfactory language learning results. Unless a change occurs, it is unlikely that
anything will improve. To engage and motivate students in the learning process, there is a
need to adopt modern approaches. Consequently, encouraging and adopting an
independent learning style is crucial not only for enhancing the quality of education in
Saudi Arabia but also for preparing the next generation with lifelong skills that extend
beyond the classroom. However, there is a strong need for evidence situated in the Saudi
context before implementing any change. This is significant, as a different social and
cultural context activates different mind-sets which may lead individuals to approach and
 203
perceive independent learning differently.

Additionally, as mentioned earlier in this thesis, all forms of assessment in Saudi Arabia
are mostly seen as a means of grading students. I began this research with an
understanding of assessment as being either summative assessment, which serves the
purpose of evaluating students’ learning, or formative assessment, which supports
students’ learning. Nonetheless, as the research progressed, I have discovered that there is
so much to assessment and that it is complex, as there are many interpretations and ideas
underpinning it. Now, at the end of this research, I have recognised that the results
collected by any assessment may be utilised for a variety of purposes and that the ultimate
purpose of assessment is learning.

Moreover, the concept of self-regulated learning was one of the foundational pillars of this
research. To me, initially, self-regulated learning was simply the idea of someone taking
charge of their own learning. Nonetheless, as the research progressed, my understanding of
the concept has changed and developed. This study has shown me that the development of
self-regulated learning depends on the formation of skills and habits. Students, teachers,
classmates, friends, and family members can all play a role in helping students to develop
positive learning habits and self-regulated learning and lifelong skills. Thus, we, the
community, need to support the new generation with more opportunities to learn and
evolve.
 204
BIBLIIOGRAPHY

Ahea, M., Ahea, M., Kabir, R., & Rahman, I. (2016). The Value and Effectiveness of
Feedback in Improving Students' Learning and Professionalizing Teaching in
Higher Education. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(16), 38-41.

Al Asmari, A. R. (2013). Saudi university undergraduates’ language learning attitudes: A

preparatory year perspective. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 3(11),
2288-2306.

Al-Abdullatif, A. M. (2020). Alternative assessment approaches and quality product design

within web-based learning environments. International Journal of Web-Based
Learning and Teaching Technologies (IJWLTT), 15(3), 60-74.

Al-Awaid, S. A. A. (2018). Teaching strategies in EFL environment in the secondary

schools in the KSA: Evaluation and remedies. Advances in Language and Literary
Studies, 9(2), 50-58.

Al-Hajailan, T. (2003). Teaching English in Saudi Arabia. Riyadh: Aldar Alsawlatiah.

Al-Haqwi, A. I., Al-Wahbi, A. M., Abdulghani, H. M., & Van der Molen, H. T. (2012).
Barriers to feedback in undergraduate medical education. Saudi Med J, 33(5), 557-
561. (Saudi Med J)

Al-Hariri, M. T., & Al-Hattami, A. A. (2017). Impact of students' use of technology on

their learning achievements in physiology courses at the University of Dammam.
Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 12(1), 82-85.

Al-Issa, A. (2009). Education reform in Saudi Arabia between the absence of political
vision and apprehension of religious culture and the inability of educational
administration. Lebanon, Beirut: Dar Al-Saqi.

Al-Khairy, M. H. (2013). English as a foreign language learning demotivational factors as

perceived by Saudi undergraduates. European Scientific Journal, 9(32).

Al-Motairi, A. D. M. (2005). Towards improving the teaching of English as a foreign

language in the Saudi context: a case study of five Saudi boys secondary schools
University of East Anglia].

Al-Musallam, A. (2007). Higher education accreditation and quality assurance in the

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. First National conference for Quality in Higher
Education,

Al-Sadan, I. (2000). Educational assessment in Saudi Arabian schools. Assessment in

Education: principles, policy & practice, 7(1), 143-155.

Al-Saloom, H. (1987). The History of Educational Movement in Saudi Arabia. Saudi

Arabia. (Saudi Arabia)

Al-Seghayer. (2005). Teaching English in SA: Slowly but steadily changing. In G. Braine
(Ed.), Teaching English to the world: History, curriculum, and practice (pp. 125-
134). Routledge.
 205
Al-Seghayer, K. (2011). English teaching in Saudi Arabia: Status, issues, and challenges.
Hala.

Al-Seghayer, K. (2015). Salient Key Features of Actual English Instructional Practices in

Saudi Arabia. English Language Teaching, 8(6), 89-99.

Al-Seghayer, K. (2022, August, 2022). Continued Concerns with Language Assessment

Practices in Saudi Arabian English Education. Education, Language and Sociology
Research, 3, 55-65.

Al-Subahi, A. A. H. (1988). A communicative-functional English curriculum for

intermediate school in Saudi Arabia: a model for English syllabus design and
implementation.

Al-Wassia, R., Hamed, O., Al-Wassia, H., Alafari, R., & Jamjoom, R. (2015). Cultural
challenges to implementation of formative assessment in Saudi Arabia: An
exploratory study. Medical Teacher, 37(sup1), S9-S19.

Alahmadi, N., Alrahaili, M., & Alshraideh, D. (2019). The impact of the formative
assessment in speaking test on Saudi students’ performance. Arab World English
Journal (AWEJ) Volume, 10.

Alhamami, M. (2019). Learners’ beliefs about language-learning abilities in face-to-face &

online settings. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education, 16(1), 1-23.

Alharbi, A., & Madhesh, A. (2018). Inclusive education and policy in Saudi Arabia.
International Journal of Education Research and Reviews, 6(1), 946-956.

Alhojailan, M. I. (2012). Thematic analysis: A critical review of its process and evaluation.
West east journal of social sciences, 1(1), 39-47. (West east journal of social
sciences)

Allport, G. W., Clark, K., & Pettigrew, T. (1954). The nature of prejudice.

Almossa, S. Y. (2021). Assessment practices in English language courses in Saudi public

universities. Collated Papers for the ALTE 7th International Conference, Madrid,

Almulhim, A. M. (2001). An English language needs assessment of Saudi college-of-

technology students with respect to a number of business sectors in Saudi Arabia.
The University of Mississippi.

Almutairi, M. M., & Hasanat, M. H. A. (2018). Impact of SRL Strategies and Academic
Achievements on Recruitment of Information System Graduates in Saudi Arabia.
International Journal of Computer (IJC), 31(1), 53-64. (International Journal of
Computer (IJC))

Alotaibi, K. A. (2019). Teachers' Perceptions on Factors Influence Adoption of Formative

Assessment. Journal of Education and learning, 8(1), 74-86.

Alshammari, M. (2016). The role of peer-and self-assessment in developing Saudi EFL

learners’ English writing skills. International Journal of Education, 8(3), 85.
 206
Alshraideh, M. K. (2015). Pre-Service Teachers Reasons and Beliefs about Teaching as a
Profession. EDUCARE, 7(2). (EDUCARE)

Alyami, A. (2016). Cross-cultural studies among Saudi students in the United Kingdom
Brunel University London].

Alzaidi, H. (2011). An investigation into the implementation of CLT in the Saudi female
intermediate and secondary school context Master‘s thesis), Newcastle University,
Newcastle, UK].

Amit, A., & Sagiv, L. (2013). The role of epistemic motivation in individuals’ response to
decision complexity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
121(1), 104-117.

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

Andrade, H., & Cizek, G. J. (2010). Students as the defi nitive source of formative
assessment: Academic self-assessment and the self-regulation of learning. In
Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 102-117). Routledge.

Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-
assessment. Theory into practice, 48(1), 12-19. (Theory into practice)

Andrade, H. L. (2018). Feedback in the context of self-assessment. In The Cambridge

handbook of instructional feedback. (pp. 376-408). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316832134.019

Andrade, H. L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Frontiers

in Education,

Andrade, H. L., & Brown, G. T. (2016). Student self-assessment in the classroom. In

Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 319-334). Routledge.

Andrade, M. S., & Bunker, E. L. (2009). A model for self-regulated distance language
learning. Distance education, 30(1), 47-61.

ARG. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Assessment Reform Group London.

Ariza, E. N., & Zainuddin, H. (2002). Fundamentals of teaching English to speakers of

other languages in K-12 mainstream classrooms. Kendall Hunt.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford

university press.

Bachman, L. F. (2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: Assuring that
what we count counts. Language testing, 17(1), 1-42.

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1989). The construct validation of self-ratings of

communicative language ability. Language testing, 6(1), 14-29. (Language testing)

Bagheri, F., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2016). Critical thinking and gender differences in
academic self-regulation in higher education. Journal of Applied Linguistics and
 207
Language Research, 3(3), 133-145. (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language
Research)

Bailey, C. A. (2007). A guide to qualitative field research. Sage Publications.

Bailey, K. M. (2003). Speaking. Practical English language teaching, 47-66.

Bailin, S., & Battersby, M. (2016). Reason in the balance: An inquiry approach to critical
thinking. Hackett Publishing.

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Common misconceptions of
critical thinking. Journal of curriculum studies, 31(3), 269-283.

Baki, R. (2004). Gender-segregated education in Saudi Arabia: Its impact on social norms
and the Saudi labor market. Education policy analysis archives, 12(28), n28.

Baleghizadeh, S., & Masoun, A. (2013). The effect of self-assessment on EFL learners’
self-efficacy. TESL Canada Journal, 42-42.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological review, 84(2), 191.

Bandura, A. (1988). Self-regulation of motivation and action through goal systems. In

Cognitive perspectives on emotion and motivation (pp. 37-61). Springer.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287.

Barnes, C. J. (2006). Preparing preservice teachers to teach in a culturally responsive way.

Negro educational review, 57.

Becher, T. (1987). The disciplinary shaping of the profession. The academic profession,
271-303.

Behar-Horenstein, L. S., Beck, D. E., & Su, Y. (2018). An initial validation study of the
self-rating scale of self-directed learning for pharmacy education. American
Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 82(3).

Beishuizen, J., & Steffens, K. (2011). A conceptual framework for research on self-
regulated learning. In Self-regulated learning in technology enhanced learning
environments (pp. 1-19). Brill.

Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education:

principles, policy & practice, 18(1), 5-25.

Berg, B. L. (2004). Methods for the social sciences. Qualitative Research Methods for the
Social Sciences. Boston: Pearson Education, 191. (Qualitative Research Methods
for the Social Sciences. Boston: Pearson Education)

Berry, R. (2008). Assessment for learning (Vol. 1). Hong Kong University Press.

Berry, R. S. Y. (2013). The assessment as learning (AaL) framework for teaching and
learning: The AaL wheel.
 208

Biggs, J. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning: a role for summative assessment?
Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, 5(1), 103-110.

Biggs, J. B. (1987). Study Process Questionnaire Manual. Student Approaches to Learning

and Studying. ERIC.

Birjandi, P., & Bagherkazemi, M. (2010). The Relationship between Iranian EFL Teachers'
Critical Thinking Ability and Their Professional Success. English Language
Teaching, 3(2), 135-145. (English language teaching)

Bixler, G. M., Brown, A., Way, D., Ledford, C., & Mahan, J. D. (2015). Collaborative
concept mapping and critical thinking in fourth-year medical students. Clinical
pediatrics, 54(9), 833-839. (Clinical pediatrics)

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
Education: principles, policy & practice, 5(1), 7-74.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2003). ‘In praise of educational research’: Formative assessment.
British educational research journal, 29(5), 623-637.

Black, P., Wilson, M., & Yao, S.-Y. (2011). Road maps for learning: A guide to the
navigation of learning progressions. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research &
Perspective, 9(2-3), 71-123.

Blanche, P., & Merino, B. J. (1989). Self-assessment of foreign-language skills:

Implications for teachers and researchers. Language learning, 39(3), 313-338.

Blatchford, P. (1997). Students’ self assessment of academic attainment: Accuracy and

stability from 7 to 16 years and influence of domain and social comparison group.
Educational Psychology, 17(3), 345-359.

Bloom, B. S. H., J. T; Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative

evaluation of student learning.

Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers,

policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and instruction, 7(2),
161-186.

Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on

assessment and intervention. Applied psychology, 54(2), 199-231.

Boekaerts, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-regulated learning: Finding a balance

between learning goals and ego-protective goals. In Handbook of self-regulation
(pp. 417-450). Elsevier.

Boekaerts, M., & Pekrun, R. (2015). Emotions and emotion regulation in academic
settings. In Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 90-104). Routledge.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1997). Qualitative research for education. Allyn & Bacon
Boston, MA, USA:.
 209
Bol, L., & Garner, J. K. (2011). Challenges in supporting self-regulation in distance
education environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2), 104-
123.

Borg, S., & Edmett, A. (2019). Developing a self-assessment tool for English language
teachers. Language teaching research, 23(5), 655-679.

Borman, W. C., Buck, D. E., Hanson, M. A., Motowidlo, S. J., Stark, S., & Drasgow, F.
(2001). An examination of the comparative reliability, validity, and accuracy of
performance ratings made using computerized adaptive rating scales. Journal of
applied psychology, 86(5), 965.

Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning
for the Longer Term. Taylor & Francis.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bsF8AgAAQBAJ

Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge
of design. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 38(6), 698-712.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code

development. sage.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. (Qualitative research in psychology)

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation
as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative
research in sport, exercise and health, 13(2), 201-216.

Brink, M. K. (2017). Teachers' perceived understanding of formative assessment and how

this understanding impacts their own classroom instruction. Southern Illinois
University at Carbondale.

Broadfoot, P., & Black, P. (2004). Redefining assessment? The first ten years of
assessment in education. Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice,
11(1), 7-26.

Brooks, C., Carroll, A., Gillies, R. M., & Hattie, J. (2019). A matrix of feedback for
learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 44(4), 14-32.

Brown, G., & Harris, L. (2013). Student self-assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), SAGE
Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment (pp. 367–393). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.

Brown, G. T., Andrade, H. L., & Chen, F. (2015). Accuracy in student self-assessment:
directions and cautions for research. Assessment in Education: principles, policy &
practice, 22(4), 444-457.

Brown, G. T., & Harris, L. R. (2014). The Future of Self-Assessment in Classroom

Practice: Reframing Self-Assessment as a Core Competency. Frontline Learning
Research, 2(1), 22-30.
 210
Brown, H. (2000). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language
Pedagogy by H. Douglas. New York: Longman.

Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2004). Language assessment. Principles and

Classroom Practices. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and

classroom practices (Vol. 10). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education. (White
Plains, NY: Pearson Education)

Brown, S., & Glasner, A. (1999). EBOOK: Assessment Matters In Higher Education.
McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Bryman, A. (2014). June 1989 and beyond: Julia Brannen’s contribution to mixed methods
research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 17(2), 121-131.

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford university press.

Burns, A. (2009). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for
practitioners. Routledge.

Butler, D. L. (2002). Individualizing instruction in self-regulated learning. Theory into

practice, 41(2), 81-92.

Cal, A., & Tehmarn, A. (2016). Phenomenological epistemology approaches and

implications for HRD research and practice. [Manchester, England: University
Forum of Human Resource Development]. Manchester, England: University Forum
of Human Resource Development,

Calfee, R., & Sperling, M. (2010). On Mixed Methods: Approaches to Language and
Literacy Research (An NCRLL Volume). Language & Literacy Series (NCRLL
Collection). ERIC.

Campbell, D., DeWall, L., Roth, T., & Stevens, S. (1998). Improving Student Depth of
Understanding through the Use of Alternative Assessment.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to

second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.

Cao, L., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2005). Judgment of Learning, Monitoring Accuracy, and
Student Performance in the Classroom Context. Current Issues in Education, 8(4),
n4.

Carless, D. (2005). Prospects for the implementation of assessment for learning.

Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, 12(1), 39-54.

Carless, D. (2007). Learning-oriented assessment: conceptual bases and practical

implications. Innovations in education and teaching international, 44(1), 57-66.
(Innovations in education and teaching international)

Carless, D. (2012). Trust and its role in facilitating dialogic feedback. In Feedback in
higher and professional education (pp. 90-103). Routledge.
 211
Carless, D. (2014). Exploring learning-oriented assessment processes. Higher Education,
69(6), 963-976.

Carless, D. (2016). Feedback as dialogue. Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and

theory, 1-6.

Carless, D. (2019). Learners’ feedback literacy and the longer term: Developing capacity
for impact. In The impact of feedback in higher education (pp. 51-65). Springer.

Carless, D., Joughin, G., & Liu, N.-F. (2006). How assessment supports learning:
Learning-oriented assessment in action (Vol. 1). Hong Kong University Press.

Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback
practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395-407.

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2017). Spoken grammar: Where are we and where are we
going? Applied linguistics, 38(1), 1-20.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981/2012). Attention and self-regulation: A control-

theory approach to human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2017). Self-regulatory functions supporting motivated

action. In Advances in motivation science (Vol. 4, pp. 1-37). Elsevier.

Case, J. M. (2015). A social realist perspective on student learning in higher education: the
morphogenesis of agency. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(5), 841-
852.

Castagnaro, P. J. (2006). Audiolingual method and behaviorism: From misunderstanding

to myth. Applied linguistics, 27(3), 519-526. (Applied linguistics)

Cayli, M. B. (2020). An analysis of Efl learners’ foreign language anxiety and their
motivation to learn English The University of Mississippi].

Chamot, A. U., & O'malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the
cognitive academic language learning approach. Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company Reading, MA.

Chen, Y.-M. (2008). Learning to self-assess oral performance in English: A longitudinal

case study. Language teaching research, 12(2), 235-262. (Language teaching
research)

Cheng, S.-F., Kuo, C.-L., Lin, K.-C., & Lee-Hsieh, J. (2010). Development and
preliminary testing of a self-rating instrument to measure self-directed learning
ability of nursing students. International journal of nursing studies, 47(9), 1152-
1158.

Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). A cyclical self-regulatory account of student

engagement: Theoretical foundations and applications. In Handbook of research on
student engagement (pp. 237-257). Springer.

Coe, R. (2017). The nature of educational research. Research methods & methodologies in
education, 5-14. (Research methods & methodologies in education)
 212

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (Sixth).
Oxon: Routledge.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (Eigth
Edition ed.). New York: Routledge.

Coleman, B. J., Mason, P., & Steagall, J. W. (2012). Does a business curriculum develop
or filter critical thinking? American Journal of Business Education (AJBE), 5(4),
409-416. (American Journal of Business Education (AJBE))

Conole, G. (2008). The role of mediating artefacts in learning design. In Handbook of

research on learning design and learning objects: issues, applications, and
technologies (pp. 188-208). IGI global.

Conole, G. (2012). Designing for learning in an open world (Vol. 4). Springer Science &
Business Media.

Consolo, D. A. (2006). Classroom oral interaction in foreign language lessons and

implications for teacher development. Linguagem & Ensino, 9(2), 33-55.

Coombe, C., & Canning, C. (2002). Using self-assessment in the classroom: Rationale and
suggested techniques. Karen’s Linguistics Issues.

Coombe, C. A. (1992). The relationship between self-assessment ratings of functional

literacy skills and basic English skills test results in adult refugee ESL learners.
The Ohio State University.

Coombs, A., DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Chalas, A. (2018). Changing
approaches to classroom assessment: An empirical study across teacher career
stages. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 134-144.

Correia, R. C. (2016). Assessing speaking proficiency: A challenge for the Portuguese EFL
teacher. e-TEALS, 7(1), 87-107.

Creanza, N., Kolodny, O., & Feldman, M. W. (2017). Cultural evolutionary theory: How
culture evolves and why it matters. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 114(30), 7782-7789.

Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches 3rd Edn London: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2010). Mapping the developing landscape of mixed methods research.

SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, 2, 45-68.

Creswell, J. W. (2011). Controversies in mixed methods research. The Sage handbook of

qualitative research, 4(1), 269-284. (The Sage handbook of qualitative research)

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. .
 213
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

Croker, R. A. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. In Qualitative research in

applied linguistics (pp. 3-24). Springer. (Qualitative research in applied linguistics)

Crotty, M. J. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. The foundations of social research, 1-256. (The foundations of
social research)

Cullen, R. (1998). Teacher talk and the classroom context. ELT journal, 52(3), 179-187.

Daley, C., & Nisa, S. (2016). Evaluating a Student Centred Approach To Teaching And
Learning On A Post-Graduate Professional Module. Journal of Advances in Higher
Education, 8(1), 7-15.

Dann, R. (2002/2012). Promoting assessment as learning: Improving the learning process.

Routledge.

Dann, R. (2012). Promoting assessment as learning: Improving the learning process.

Routledge.

Darandari, E., & Murphy, A. (2013). Assessment of student learning. In Higher Education
in Saudi Arabia (pp. 61-71). Springer.

Davis, K. A. (1995). Qualitative theory and methods in applied linguistics research. Tesol
Quarterly, 29(3), 427-453. (Tesol Quarterly)

Denzin, N. (1978). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. McGraw-Hill.

Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2004). Second language
fluency: Judgments on different tasks. Language learning, 54(4), 655-679.

Dewey, J. (1910/1997). How we think. Courier Corporation.

Dharma, I. P. S., & Adiwijaya, P. A. (2018). The Effect Of Problem Based Learning And
Self-Assessment On Students’ Writing Competency And Self-Regulated
Learningm. SHS Web of Conferences,

Diab, N. M. (2010a). Effects of peer-versus self-editing on students’ revision of language

errors in revised drafts. System, 38(1), 85-95.

Diab, N. M. (2010b). Peer-editing versus self-editing in the ESL classroom.

Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Dikel, M. (2005). A guide to going online for self-assessment tools. .

Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual
lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational
psychology review, 20(4), 391-409.
 214
Do Quyen, N. T., & Khairani, A. Z. (2017). Reviewing the challenges of implementing
formative assessment in Asia: The need for a professional development program.
Journal of Social Science Studies, 4(1), 160-177.

Dunn, K. E., Rakes, G. C., & Rakes, T. A. (2014). Influence of academic self-regulation,
critical thinking, and age on online graduate students’ academic help-seeking.
Distance education, 35(1), 75-89.

Duque Micán, A., & Cuesta Medina, L. (2017). Boosting vocabulary learning through self-
assessment in an English language teaching context. Assessment & evaluation in
higher education, 42(3), 398-414.

Earl, L. M. (2003/2013). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize

student learning. Corwin Press.

Earl, L. M. (2013). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize

student learning. Corwin Press.

Earl, L. M., & Katz, M. S. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with purpose in mind:
Assessment for learning, assessment as learning, assessment of learning. Manitoba
Education, Citizenship & Youth.

Eatough, V., & Smith, J. A. (2017). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. The Sage
handbook of qualitative research in psychology, 193-209.

Ebrahimi, M. R., & Moafian, F. (2012). Does Emotional Intelligence or Self-Efficacy

Have Something to Do with High School English Teachers' Critical Thinking,
Considering Demographic Information? International Journal of Linguistics, 4(4),
224. (International Journal of Linguistics)

Elgadal, H. A. (2017). The effect of self-assessment on inexperienced EFL students’

writing during revision University of Birmingham].

ELI-Curriculum-manual. (2018/2019). ELI_102_Curriculum manual.

Ellis, R., & Ellis, R. R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford
University.

Elwood, J. (2006). Formative assessment: Possibilities, boundaries and limitations.

Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, 13(2), 215-232.

Elyas, T. (2008). The attitude and the impact of the American English as a global language
within the Saudi education system. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and
Language), 2(1). (Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language))

Ennis, R. H. (1969). Logic in teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities.

Ennis, R. H. (2016). Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key

Concepts.
 215
Epstein, R. M., Siegel, D. J., & Silberman, J. (2008). Self-monitoring in clinical practice: a
challenge for medical educators. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health
Professions, 28(1), 5-13.

ETEC. (2018). Education and Training Evaluation Commission.

Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of

educational research, 83(1), 70-120.

Facione, P. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of

educational assessment and instruction (The Delphi Report).

Fahim, M., Bagherkazemi, M., & Alemi, M. (2010). The Relationship between Test
Takers' Critical Thinking Ability and their Performance on the Reading Section of
TOEFL. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 1(6). (Journal of Language
Teaching & Research)

Fan, J., & Yan, X. (2020). Assessing speaking proficiency: a narrative review of speaking
assessment research within the argument-based validation framework. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 330.

Fatany, S. (2009). Saudi challenges and reforms. Arab Center for Publications, Media &
Researchs.

Fathi, J., Yousefi, L., & Sedighravesh, M. (2017). The impact of self-assessment and peer-
assessment in writing on the self-regulated learning of Iranian EFL students.
Journal of Sociological Research, 8(2), 1-16.

Filep, B. (2009). Interview and translation strategies: coping with multilingual settings and
data. Social Geography, 4(1), 59-70. (Social Geography)

Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to

qualitative research. Educational researcher, 22(4), 16-23.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–

developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906.

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research
in education (Vol. 7). McGraw-hill New York.

Fulcher, G. (2015). Assessing second language speaking. Language Teaching, 48(2), 198-
216.

Gaffas, Z. M. (2019). Students’ perceptions of the impact of EGP and ESP courses on their
English language development: Voices from Saudi Arabia. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 42, 100797.

Gamlem, S. M., & Smith, K. (2013). Student perceptions of classroom feedback.

Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, 20(2), 150-169.

Gardner, J. (2012). Assessment and learning. Sage.

 216
Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A. M. (1997). Towards a full model of
second language learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language
Journal, 81(3), 344-362.

Gay, L., Mills, G., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational Research (Vol. (9th ed.)). Pearson
plc.

GDA. (2013). General Directorate of Assessement: The structure of exams in public

schools.

Ghanizadeh, A. (2011). An investigation into the relationship between self-regulation and

critical thinking among Iranian EFL teachers. Technology of Education Journal
(TEJ), 5(2), 117-124.

Ghanizadeh, A. (2017). The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-
monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Education,
74(1), 101-114. (Higher Education)

Ghanizadeh, A., & Mirzaee, S. (2012). EFL learners' self-regulation, critical thinking and
language achievement. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 451-468.
(International Journal of Linguistics)

Gialdino, & Vasilachis, I. (2009). Ontological and epistemological foundations of

qualitative research. [Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social
Research]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research,

Gibson, W., & Brown, A. (2009). Working with qualitative data. Sage.

Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond Testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment.

Routledge.

Gipps, C. (2002). Sociocultural Perspectives on Assessment. In Learning for Life in the

21st Century (pp. 73-83).
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753545.ch6

Glassman, M. (2001). Dewey and Vygotsky: Society, experience, and inquiry in

educational practice. Educational researcher, 30(4), 3-14.

Goh, J. W., Lee, O. K., & Salleh, H. (2010). Self-rating and respondent anonymity.
Educational Research, 52(3), 229-245.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The

qualitative report, 8(4), 597-607. (The qualitative report)

Goodrich, H. W. (1996). Student self-assessment: At the intersection of metacognition and

authentic assessment. Harvard University.

Gordon, E. W., & Rajagopalan, K. (2016). The Gordon Commission and a Vision for the
Future of Assessment in Education. In The Testing and Learning Revolution (pp. 1-
8). Springer.
 217
Graham, S., Hebert, M., & Harris, K. R. (2015). Formative assessment and writing: A
meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 523-547.

Griffith, W., & Lim, H. (2012). Performance-based assessment: rubrics, web 2.0 tools and
language competencies. Mextesol Journal, 36(1).

Griffiths, C. (2007). Language learning strategies: students' and teachers' perceptions. ELT
journal, 61(2), 91-99.

Griffiths, C., & Parr, J. M. (2001). Language-learning strategies: Theory and perception.
ELT journal, 55(3), 247-254. (ELT journal)

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research.

Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194), 105. (Handbook of qualitative
research)

Guettal, I. (2008). Introducing Storytelling Activities as a Basic Technique to Develop

Students’ Oral PerformanceAn Experimental Approach Case Study: Second Year
Students of English at Batna University Universite Mohamed Khider].

Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments”
in research. Qualitative inquiry, 10(2), 261-280. (Qualitative inquiry)

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition,
skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American psychologist,
53(4), 449.

Halpern, D. F. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop the
skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New directions for teaching and
learning, 1999(80), 69-74.

Hamby, B. (2014). The virtues of critical thinkers

Han, H.-S. (2007). Family influence on children's second language literacy building: A
case study of Korean families Indiana University of Pennsylvania].

Handley, K., Price, M., & Millar, J. (2011). Beyond ‘doing time’: investigating the concept
of student engagement with feedback. Oxford Review of Education, 37(4), 543-560.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002).
Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating.

Hargreaves, G. (2006). An introduction to assessment: Teaching and learning. London:

The Higher Education Academy.

Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers' summative practices and assessment for learning–tensions

and synergies. Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 207-223.

Harlen, W., & Deakin Crick, R. (2003). Testing and motivation for learning. Assessment in
Education: principles, policy & practice, 10(2), 169-207.
 218
Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: differences and relationships
between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education:
principles, policy & practice, 4(3), 365-379.

Harris, M. (1997). Self-assessment of language learning in formal settings. ELT journal,

51(1), 12-20.

Hashemi, M. R., & Zabihi, R. (2012). Does Critical Thinking Enhance EFL Learners'
Receptive Skills? Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 3(1). (Journal of
Language Teaching & Research)

Hassan, K. E., & Madhum, G. (2007). Validating the Watson Glaser critical thinking
appraisal. Higher Education, 54(3), 361-383. (Higher Education)

Hattie, J., & Clarke, S. (2018). Visible learning: feedback. Routledge.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational
research, 77(1), 81-112.

Haughton, G., & Dickinson, L. (1988). Collaborative assessment by masters' candidates in

a tutor based system. Language testing, 5(2), 233-246.

Hayes, N. (1997). Doing qualitative analysis in psychology. Psychology Press.

Hayes, N. (2013). Doing qualitative analysis in psychology. Psychology Press.

Hayward, L. (2013). Has anyone really learned anything? In D. Wyse, B. Vivienne, E.

David, H. Louise, & G. Carmel (Eds.), Creating the Curriculum. Series:
Understanding primary education series. Routledge: London.

Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of
qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative market research: An
international journal. (Qualitative market research: An international journal)

Herayati, D. F. (2020). Teaching Writing Through Self-Assessment And Analytical

Scoring.

Herbert, W., Seliger, H. W., Shohamy, E. G., & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language
research methods. Oxford University Press.

Herman, J. L. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. ERIC.

Heywood, J. (2000). Assessment in higher education: Student learning, teaching,

programmes and institutions (Vol. 56). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Hiep, P. H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT

journal, 61(3), 193-201.

Hitchcock, D. (2018a). Assessment. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Hitchcock, D. (2018b). Critical thinking. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/spr2019/entries/critical-thinking/
 219
Hitchcock, D. (2018c). Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions. Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/dispositions.html

Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (2002). Research and the teacher: A qualitative introduction
to school-based research. Routledge.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement
in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and.
Educational psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.

Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education

researchers. Volume 9 Issue 1 (fall 1997). (Volume 9 Issue 1 (fall 1997))

Hofer, B. K. (2008). Personal epistemology and culture. In Knowing, knowledge and

beliefs (pp. 3-22). Springer.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. ERIC.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety.
The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.

Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge university press.

Hunt, J., Gow, L., & Barnes, P. (1989). Learner self-evaluation and assessment-a tool for
autonomy in the language learning classroom. Language teaching and learning
styles within and across cultures, 207-217.

Hurd, S., & Lewis, T. (2008). Language learning strategies in independent settings (Vol.
33). Multilingual matters Bristol.

Immordino-Yang, M. H. (2015). Emotions, learning, and the brain: Exploring the

educational implications of affective neuroscience (the Norton series on the social
neuroscience of education). WW Norton & Company.

Isaacs, T., & Isaacs, T. (2016). Assessing speaking. Handbook of second language
assessment, 12, 131-146.

Jafari, Z., Yavari, S., & Ahmadi, S. D. (2015). THE IMPACT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT
ON EFL LEARNERS'CRITICAL THINKING. Modern Journal of Language
Teaching Methods, 5(1), 145.

James, M. (2006). Assessment, teaching and theories of learning. Assessment and learning,
47, 60.

Javid, C. Z., Farooq, U., & Gulzar, M. A. (2012). Saudi English-major undergraduates and
English Teachers' perceptions regarding effective ELT in the KSA: A Comparative
Study. European Journal of Scientific Research, 85(1), 55-70. (European Journal of
Scientific Research)

Jessop, T., & Maleckar, B. (2016). The influence of disciplinary assessment patterns on
student learning: A comparative study. Studies in Higher Education, 41(4), 696-
711.
 220
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. Sage publications.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research

paradigm whose time has come. Educational researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
(Educational researcher)

Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T., & Davis, M. (1999).
The Impact of High-Stakes Testing on Teachers and Students in North Carolina.
The Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 199-203. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20439620

Jupp, V. (2006). The Sage dictionary of social research methods. sage.

Kachru, B. B., Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. L. (2009). The handbook of world Englishes (Vol.
48). John Wiley & Sons.

Kahrizi, P., & Farahian, M. (2014). The Relationship Between Self-Regulation and Critical
Thinking Among Iranian EFL Learners. Modern Journal of Language Teaching
Methods, 4(4), 157.

Kahrizi, P., Farahian, M., & Rajabi, S. (2014). The impact of self-assessment on self-
regulation and critical thinking of EFL learners. Modern Journal of Language
Teaching Methods, 4(1), 353.

Kalra, R., Sundrarajun, C., & Komintarachat, H. (2017). Using portfolio as an alternative
assessment tool to enhance Thai EFL students' writing skill. Arab World English
Journal (AWEJ) Volume, 8.

Kamgar, N., & Jadidi, E. (2016). Exploring the Relationship of Iranian EFL Learners
Critical Thinking and Self-regulation with their Reading Comprehension Ability.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 776-783. (Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences)

Kariri, K., Cobern, W. W., & Bentz, A. (2018). Investigating the Use of Formative
Assessment among Male Saudi Arabian High School Science Teachers.
International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 13(1), 889-901.
(International Journal of Environmental and Science Education)

Kasule, D., & Lunga, V. B. (2010). Attitudes of second language students towards self-
editing their own written texts. Reading & Writing-Journal of the Reading
Association of South Africa, 1(1), 61-72.

Kennedy, K. J., Chan, J. K. S., Fok, P. K., & Yu, W. M. (2008). Forms of assessment and
their potential for enhancing learning: Conceptual and cultural issues. Educational
Research for Policy and Practice, 7(3), 197-207.

Keppell, M., Au, E., Ma, A., & Chan, C. (2006). Peer learning and learning-oriented
assessment in technology-enhanced environments. Assessment & evaluation in
higher education, 31(4), 453-464. (Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education)

Khan, I. A. (2011). Learning difficulties in English: Diagnosis and pedagogy in Saudi

Arabia. Educational Research, 2(7), 1248-1257.
 221
Klenowski, V. (1995). Student self-evaluation processes in student-centred teaching and
learning contexts of Australia and England. Assessment in Education: principles,
policy & practice, 2(2), 145-163.

Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for learning revisited: An Asia-Pacific perspective.

Köller, O. (2005). Formative assessment in classrooms: A review of the empirical German

literature. Formative assessment: improving learning in secondary classrooms,
265-279.

Ku, K. Y., & Ho, I. T. (2010a). Dispositional factors predicting Chinese students’ critical
thinking performance. Personality and individual differences, 48(1), 54-58.

Ku, K. Y., & Ho, I. T. (2010b). Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking.
Metacognition and learning, 5(3), 251-267.

Kumar, R. (2019). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Sage.

Kvale, S. (1996). The 1,000-page question. Qualitative inquiry, 2(3), 275-284. (Qualitative
inquiry)

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research
interviewing. sage.

Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., Struyven, K., & Cascallar, E. (2011). The perception of workload
and task complexity and its influence on students’ approaches to learning: A study
in higher education. European journal of psychology of education, 26(3), 393-415.

Lajoie, S. P. (2008). Metacognition, self regulation, and self-regulated learning: A rose by

any other name? Educational psychology review, 20(4), 469-475.

Lambert, D., & Lines, D. (2013). Understanding assessment: Purposes, perceptions,

practice. Routledge.

Lau, A. M. S. (2016, 2016/07/03). ‘Formative good, summative bad?’ – A review of the

dichotomy in assessment literature. Journal of Further and higher education, 40(4),
509-525. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2014.984600

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge university press.

Lebeeb, R. (1993). The General Principles for Teaching in Beirut Lebanon, Dar-Aludah.

Lee, I., & Mak, P. (2014). Assessment as learning in the language classroom. Assessment
as learning. Hong Kong: Education Bureau, 3, 66-78.

Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality.

Levelt, W. J. (1994). The skill of speaking. International perspectives on psychological

science, 1, 89-103.

Lillis, A. (2006). Reliability and validity in field study research. Methodological issues in
accounting research: Theories and methods, 461-475.
 222

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. sage.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2003). Ethics: The failure of positivist science. Turning
points in qualitative research: Tying knots in a handkerchief, 219-238.

Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to
teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher
Education, 31(03), 285-298.

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic

success. School psychology review, 31(3), 313-327.

Little, D. G. (1991). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems. Authentik

Language Learning Resources.

Liu, H., & Brantmeier, C. (2019). “I know English”: Self-assessment of foreign language
reading and writing abilities among young Chinese learners of English. System, 80,
60-72.

Liu, M., & Huang, W. (2011). An exploration of foreign language anxiety and English
learning motivation. Education Research International, 2011.

Livingston, K., & Hutchinson, C. (2017). Developing teachers’ capacities in assessment

through career-long professional learning. Assessment in Education: principles,
policy & practice, 24(2), 290-307.

Lowe, K., & Dotterer, A. M. (2018). Parental involvement during the college transition: A
review and suggestion for its conceptual definition. Adolescent Research Review,
3(1), 29-42.

Lucieer, S. M., Jonker, L., Visscher, C., Rikers, R. M., & Themmen, A. P. (2016). Self-
regulated learning and academic performance in medical education. Medical
Teacher, 38(6), 585-593. (Medical teacher)

Lukka, K. (1988). Budgetary biasing in organizations: theoretical framework and empirical

evidence. Accounting, organizations and society, 13(3), 281-301. (Accounting,
organizations and society)

Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge University Press.

Maehr, M. L., & Zusho, A. (2009). Achievement Goal Th eory: Th e Past, Present, and
Future. In Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 91-118). Routledge.

Mahmoud, S. (2012). The effect of using L1 (Arabic language) in the L2 (English

Language) classroom on the achievement in general English of foundation year
students in King Abdulaziz University. Sino-US English Teaching, 9(12), 1733-
1738.

Manso-Vázquez, M., Caeiro-Rodríguez, M., & Llamas-Nistal, M. (2014). A questionnaire

for the evaluation of self-regulated learning support in software. 2014 International
Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE),
 223
Manso-Vázquez, M., Caeiro-Rodríguez, M., & Llamas-Nistal, M. (2018). An xAPI
application profile to monitor self-regulated learning strategies. IEEE Access, 6,
42467-42481. (IEEE Access)

Marks, D. F., & Yardley, L. (2004). Research methods for clinical and health psychology.
Sage.

Marshall, B., & Drummond, M. (2006). How teachers engage with assessment for
learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research papers in education, 21(02), 133-
149.

Maryam, A., Mohammadreza, D., Abdolhussein, S., Ghobad, R., & Javad, K. (2021).
Effect of Concept Mapping Education on Critical Thinking Skills of Medical
Students: A Quasi-experimental Study. Ethiopian journal of health sciences, 31(2).
(Ethiopian journal of health sciences)

Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Epistemic metacognition in context:
evaluating and learning online information. Metacognition and learning, 5(1), 67-
90.

Massri, R. (2017). Attitudes of Saudi foundation year students towards learning English as
a Foreign Language: A qualitative study University of York].

McCarthy, P., Meier, S., & Rinderer, R. (1985). Self-Efficacy and Writing: A Different
View of Self-Evaluation. College Composition and Communication, 36(4), 465-
471. https://doi.org/10.2307/357865

McChesney, K., & Aldridge, J. (2019). Weaving an interpretivist stance throughout mixed
methods research. International journal of research & method in education, 42(3),
225-238. (International journal of research & method in education)

McLeod, S. (1997). Student self-appraisal: Facilitating mutual planning in clinical

education. The Clinical Supervisor, 15(1), 87-101.

McMillan, J. H., & Hearn, J. (2008). Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student
motivation and higher achievement. Educational horizons, 87(1), 40-49.
(Educational horizons)

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.

MoE. (1970). Educational Policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia:
The Ministry of Education.

MoE, T. M. o. E. (2005). Goals and Objectives of Teaching English in Saudi Arabia.

Mohammed, A. (2016). EFL effective factors: anxiety and motivation and their effect on
Saudi college student's achievement. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol, 6.

Mok, M. M. C. (2012). Assessment Reform in the Asia-Pacific Region: The theory and
practice of self-directed learning oriented assessment. In Self-directed learning
oriented assessments in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 3-22). Springer.
 224
Montgomery, W. (2001). Creating culturally responsive, inclusive classrooms. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 33(4), 4-9.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling

psychology. Journal of counseling psychology, 52(2), 250. (Journal of counseling
psychology)

Mousavi, S. A. (1999). A dictionary of language testing. Rahmana Publications.

Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational

psychologist, 42(3), 173-190.

Muis, K. R., Chevrier, M., & Singh, C. A. (2018). The role of epistemic emotions in
personal epistemology and self-regulated learning. Educational psychologist, 53(3),
165-184.

Munns, G., & Woodward, H. (2006). Student engagement and student self-assessment: the
REAL framework. Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, 13(2),
193-213.

Murawski, L. M. (2014). Critical Thinking in the Classroom… and Beyond. Journal of

Learning in Higher Education, 10(1), 25-30.

Murphy, L. (2008). Supporting learner autonomy: Developing practice through the

production of courses for distance learners of French, German and Spanish.
Language teaching research, 12(1), 83-102.

Murphy, P., Sharp, G., & Whitelegg, E. (2006). Girls' experience of physics: A problem of
identification and marginalization. Unpublished journal article. The Open
University.

Murray, G. (2014). Exploring the social dimensions of autonomy in language learning. In

Social dimensions of autonomy in language learning (pp. 3-11). Springer.

Murtagh, L., & Webster, M. (2010). Scaffolding teaching, learning and assessment in
Higher Education. Teacher Education Advancement Network Journal, 1(2).

Naber, J., & Wyatt, T. H. (2014). The effect of reflective writing interventions on the
critical thinking skills and dispositions of baccalaureate nursing students. Nurse
Education Today, 34(1), 67-72. (Nurse Education Today)

Nalliveettil, G. M., & Mahasneh, A. (2017). Developing competence in basic writing

skills: perceptions of EFL undergraduates. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics and English Literature, 6(7), 323-341.

Natriello, G. (1987). The impact of evaluation processes on students. In Educational

Psychologist, (pp. 155–175). Routledge.

NCAAA. (2015). Handbook for quality assurance and accreditation in Saudi Arabia part
2: Internal quality assurance arrangements. (NCAAA)

Nelson, K. L., Rauter, C. M., & Cutucache, C. E. (2018). Life Science undergraduate
mentors in NE STEM 4U significantly outperform their peers in critical thinking
 225
skills. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(4), ar54. (CBE—Life Sciences
Education)

Neuman, W. L., & Kreuger, L. (2003). Social work research methods: Qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Allyn and Bacon.

Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher

Education, 26(2), 135-146.

Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary
contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405-417.

Newton, P. E. (2007). Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Assessment in

education, 14(2), 149-170.

Newton, P. E. (2010). The multiple purposes of assessment. In International

Encyclopaedia of Education. (pp. 392-396).

Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in

mass higher education. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 35(5), 501-
517.

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(2), 199-218.

Nielsen, K. (2011). Peer evaluation and self assessment: A comparative study of the
effectiveness of two complex methods of writing instruction in six sections of
composition Boston University].

Nonneman, G. (2001). Saudi—European relations 1902–2001: a pragmatic quest for

relative autonomy. International Affairs, 77(3), 631-661.

Nouraldeen, A. S., & Elyas, T. (2014). Learning English in Saudi Arabia: A socio-cultural
perspective. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research,
2(3), 56-78. (International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research)

Nunan, D. (1989). A client-centred approach to teacher development. ELT journal, 43(2),

111-118.

Nunan, D., David, N., & Swan, M. (1992). Research methods in language learning.
Cambridge university press.

O'malley, J., & Pierce, L. (1996). Authentic Assessment For English Language Learners:
Practical Approaches For Teachers Author: J. Michael O'Malley, Lorrain.

Obias, P. H. (2015). Critical Thinking of College Students: Inputs to Teacher Education

Curriculum. The Normal Lights, 9(2). (The Normal Lights)

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research.
Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63. (Research in the Schools)
 226
Opp-Beckman, L., & Klinghammer, S. (2006). Shaping the Way We Teach English:
Successful Practices around the World. Readings and Resources. Washington, DC.

Oppong, E., Shore, B. M., & Muis, K. R. (2019). Clarifying the connections among
giftedness, metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: Implications
for theory and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(2), 102-119.

Oscarson, A. D. (2009). Self-Assessment of Writing in Learning English as a Foreign

Language: A Study at the Upper Secondary School Level. Goteborg Studies in
Educational Sciences 277. ERIC.

Oscarson, M. (1989). Self-assessment of language proficiency: Rationale and applications.

Language testing, 6(1), 1-13.

Oskarsson, M. (1984). Self-Assessment of Foreign Language Skills: A Survey of Research

and Development Work. ERIC.

Oyaid, A. (2009). Education policy in Saudi Arabia and its relation to secondary school
teachers’ ICT use, perceptions, and views of the future of ICT in education.

Pallant, J. (2010). A step by step guide to data analysis using the SPSS program: SPSS
survival manual. England: McGraw Hill Education and Open University Press.
ISBN, 13, 978-970.

Pallant, J. (2016). Survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS
program. London: McGraw-Hill Education.

Palys, T. (2008). Purposive sampling. The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research

methods, 2(1), 697-698.

Panadero, Alonso-Tapia, J., & Reche, E. (2013). Rubrics vs. self-assessment scripts effect
on self-regulation, performance and self-efficacy in pre-service teachers. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 39(3), 125-132.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.04.001

Panadero, E. (2017). A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four

Directions for Research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422-422.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422

Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2013). Self-assessment: theoretical and practical

connotations, when it happens, how is it acquired and what to do to develop it in
our students.

Panadero, E., Andrade, H., & Brookhart, S. (2018). Fusing self-regulated learning and
formative assessment: A roadmap of where we are, how we got here, and where we
are going. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45(1), 13-31.

Panadero, E., Brown, G., & Courtney, M. (2013). What teachers think about and how they
use self-assessment: An approach to its use in Spain. Sent for publication.

Panadero, E., Brown, G., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment:
A review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educational psychology
review, 28(4), 803-830.
 227

Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment
purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129-144.

Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Botella, J. (2017). Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated
learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses. Educational Research Review, 22,
74-98.

Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2016). Scaffolding self-regulated learning
through self-assessment and peer assessment: Guidelines for classroom
implementation. Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of
implementation,

Panadero, E., & Romero, M. (2014). To rubric or not to rubric? The effects of self-
assessment on self-regulation, performance and self-efficacy. Assessment in
Education: principles, policy & practice, 21(2), 133-148.

Panadero, E., Tapia, J. A., & Huertas, J. A. (2012). Rubrics and self-assessment scripts
effects on self-regulation, learning and self-efficacy in secondary education.
Learning and individual differences, 22(6), 806-813.

Papanthymou, A., & Darra, M. (2018). Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education: The
International Experience and The Greek Example. World journal of education,
8(6), 130-146.

Patchen, T., & Smithenry, D. W. (2014). Diversifying instruction and shifting authority: A
cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) analysis of classroom participant
structures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 606-634.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications,

inc.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative studies.

Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 652-743.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought.
Journal of Developmental Education, 30(2), 34.

Paul, R. W., Elder, L., & Bartell, T. (1997). California teacher preparation for instruction
in critical thinking: Research findings and policy recommendations.

Pemberton, R., Li, E. S., Or, W. W., & Pierson, H. D. (1996). Taking control: Autonomy in
language learning (Vol. 1). Hong kong University press.

Perry, N. E. (1998). Young children's self-regulated learning and contexts that support it.
Journal of educational psychology, 90(4), 715. (Journal of educational psychology)

Perry, N. E., & Winne, P. H. (2006). Learning from learning kits: gStudy traces of
students’ self-regulated engagements with computerized content. Educational
psychology review, 18(3), 211-228. (Educational Psychology Review)

Phan, H. P. (2010). Critical thinking as a self-regulatory process component in teaching

and learning. Psicothema, 284-292.
 228

Piaget, J. (1978). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures.(Trans

A. Rosin). Viking.

Picciano, A. (2004). Educational research primer. A&C Black.

Piccinin, S. J. (2003). Feedback: key to learning. Halifax, NS: Society for Teaching and
Learning in Higher
Education.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In Handbook

of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). Elsevier.

Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated

learning in college students. Educational psychology review, 16(4), 385-407.

Pintrich, P. R., Conley, A. M., & Kempler, T. M. (2003). Current issues in achievement
goal theory and research. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(4-5),
319-337.

Pitt, E., & Winstone, N. (2020). Towards technology enhanced dialogic feedback. In Re-
imagining university assessment in a digital world (pp. 79-94). Springer.

Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annual review of
sociology, 199-220.

Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2011). Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement.
Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 879-896.

Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods in Education. SAGE.

Purpura, J., & Turner, C. (2014). A learning-oriented assessment approach to

understanding the complexities of classroom-based language assessment.
Roundtable on learning-oriented Assessment in Language Classrooms and Large-
Scale Contexts.

Putri, N. V. W., & Munir, A. (2021). Students’ perceptions of teacher feedback in EFL
English class and their self-regulated learning after receiving feedback. Journal on
English as a Foreign Language, 11(1), 42-60.

Qasem, F. A. A. (2020). The Effective Role of Learners' Self-Assessment Tasks in

Enhancing Learning English as a Second Language. Arab World English Journal,
11(3), 502-514.

Rabiah, M. N. A. B. (2020). Effectiveness of Self-Assessment Technique in Reading Skills

of EFL Students. Multi-knowledge Electronic Comprehensive Journal Foe
Education And Science Publications (MECSJ)(36), 1-27.

Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral science, 28(1), 4-13.

Ratminingsih, N. M., Marhaeni, A., & Vigayanti, L. (2018). Self-Assessment: The Effect
on Students' Independence and Writing Competence. International Journal of
Instruction, 11(3), 277-290.
 229

Ratner, C. (2000). Agency and culture. Journal for the theory of social behaviour.

Reitano, P. (2006). The value of video stimulated recall in reflective teaching practices.
Proceedings of the Australian Consortium for Social and Political Research
Incorporated (ACSPRI) Social Sciences Methodology Conference,

Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Rollett, W. (2000). Motivation and action in self-
regulated learning. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 503-529). Elsevier.

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. SEAMEO Regional

Language Centre Singapore.

Richards, J. C., Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language

teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge university press.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge university press.

Rivers, W. P. (2001). Autonomy at all costs: An ethnography of metacognitive self-

assessment and self-management among experienced language learners. The
Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 279-290. (The modern language journal)

Roghanizadeh, L. (2011). An investigation into the relationship between self-regulation

and critical thinking among Iranian EFL teachers.

Ross, J. A. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical

Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 11(1), 10.

Rowe, F. A., & Rafferty, J. A. (2013). Instructional design interventions for supporting
self-regulated learning: enhancing academic outcomes in postsecondary e-learning
environments. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(4), 590-601.

Rychtarik, S. (2014). Designing criteria to assess speaking skills Doctoral Dissertation.

From< https://www/. academia. edu/7719276/Designing …].

Saad, S., Carter, G. W., Rothenberg, M., & Israelson, E. (1999). Testing and Assessment:
An Employer's Guide to Good Practices.

Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems.

Instructional science, 18(2), 119-144.

Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex

appraisal. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 35(5), 535-550.

Saeed, S., & Zyngier, D. (2012). How motivation influences student engagement: A
qualitative case study. Journal of Education and learning, 1(2), 252-267.

Saks, K. (2016). Supporting students’ self-regulation and language learning strategies in

the blended course of Professional English Tartu University].
 230

Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design (Vol. 1). sage.

Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Montgomery, C. (2012). Assessment for learning in higher
education. Routledge.

Sanchez, C. E., Atkinson, K. M., Koenka, A. C., Moshontz, H., & Cooper, H. (2017). Self-
grading and peer-grading for formative and summative assessments in 3rd through
12th grade classrooms: A meta-analysis. Journal of educational psychology,
109(8), 1049.

Sandhu, B., & Sharma, S. (2015). Role of critical thinking in ego identity statuses among
adolescents. Indian Journal of Health & Wellbeing, 6(11). (Indian Journal of
Health & Wellbeing)

Saudi-Vision-2030. (2016). Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Vision 2030.

http://vision2030.gov.sa/en

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students.
Pearson education.

Sax, L. J., & Wartman, K. L. (2010). Studying the impact of parental involvement on
college student development: A review and agenda for research. Higher education:
Handbook of theory and research, 219-255.

Scheffler, I. (1960). The language of education. Philosophy, 38(144), 19.

Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency.

Studies in second language acquisition, 14(4), 357-385.

Scholten, L., Van Knippenberg, D., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Motivated
information processing and group decision-making: Effects of process
accountability on information processing and decision quality. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 43(4), 539-552.

Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulation through goal setting.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). Motivation and self-regulated learning:

Theory, research, and applications. Routledge.

Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating

ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific,
interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5(9), 9-
16. (English language teaching)

Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. Perspectives of Curriculum

Evaluation. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2011). Achievement goal theory at the
crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational
psychologist, 46(1), 26-47.
 231
Shah, S. R., & Al-Bargi, A. (2013). Research Paradigms: Researchers' Worldviews,
Theoretical Frameworks and Study Designs. Arab World English Journal, 4(4).
(Arab World English Journal)

Shah, S. R., Hussain, M. A., & Nasseef, O. A. (2013). Factors Impacting EFL Teaching:
An Exploratory Study in the Saudi Arabian Context. Arab World English Journal,
4(3).

Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, F. (2009). The
synergistic relationship of perceived autonomy support and structure in the
prediction of self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
79(1), 57-68.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2000). Teaching and Learning at
a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education.

Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). Self-assessment of
knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure? Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 9(2), 169-191.

Sluijsmans, D., Dochy, F., & Moerkerke, G. (1998). Creating a learning environment by
using self-, peer-and co-assessment. Learning environments research, 1(3), 293-
319. (Learning environments research)

Smeby, J.-C. (1996). Disciplinary differences in university teaching. Studies in Higher

Education, 21(1), 69-79.

Smith, C. (1997). Student self-assessment at St. Bernadette’s primary school. Primary

Educator, 3(4), 7.

Smith, J., & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Qualitative

Psychology, 7(2), 125–130.

Smith, J., & Shinebourne, P. (2012). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. American

Psychological Association.

Smith, L., & Abouammoh, A. (2013). Higher education in Saudi Arabia: Reforms,
challenges and priorities. In Higher Education in Saudi Arabia (pp. 1-12). Springer.
(Higher Education in Saudi Arabia)

Sobral, D. T. (2004). Medical students' self-appraisal of first-year learning outcomes: use

of the course valuing inventory. Medical Teacher, 26(3), 234-238.

Stavros, C., & Westberg, K. (2009). Using triangulation and multiple case studies to
advance relationship marketing theory. Qualitative market research: An
international journal. (Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal)

Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., Chiou, S.-K., & Hou, H.-T. (2005). The design and application
of a web-based self-and peer-assessment system. Computers & Education, 45(2),
187-202. (Computers & Education)

Taheri, M. M. H., Ryasi, H. R., Afshar, M., & Mofatteh, M. R. (2014). Comparison
between student rating, faculty self-rating and evaluation of faculty members by
 232
heads of respective academic departments in the school of medicine in Birjand
University of Medical Sciences in Iran. Journal of Education and Health
Promotion, 3.

Taras, M. (2005). Assessment–summative and formative–some theoretical reflections.

British journal of educational studies, 53(4), 466-478.

Taras, M. (2007). Assessment for learning: Understanding theory to improve practice.

Journal of Further and higher education, 31(4), 363-371.

Taras, M. (2010). Student self-assessment: Processes and consequences. Teaching in

higher education, 15(2), 199-209.

Taylor, C. (1994). Assessment for measurement or standards: The peril and promise of
large-scale assessment reform. American educational research journal, 31(2), 231-
262.

Toering, T., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Jonker, L., van Heuvelen, M. J., & Visscher, C.
(2012). Measuring self-regulation in a learning context: Reliability and validity of
the Self-Regulation of Learning Self-Report Scale (SRL-SRS). International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(1), 24-38. (International Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology)

Tong, S. Y. A. (2011). Exploring students’ perception of and reaction to feedback in

school-based assessment.

Torrance, H. (2012). Formative assessment at the crossroads: Conformative, deformative

and transformative assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 38(3), 323-342.

Trochim, W. M. (2005). Research methods: The concise knowledge base. Atomic Dog
Publishing.

Turri, J., Alfano, M., & Greco, J. (2017). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Underhill, N. (1991). Testing spoken language: A handbook of oral testing techniques.

Cambridge University Press.

UNDP/RBAS, U. N. D. P. R. B. f. A. S. (2006). Quality Assessment of Education

Programmes in Arab Universities Regional Overview Report.

UofG, U. o. G. (2018). The Guidelines of the Ethics Committee.

UoS, U. o. S. (2014). Univariate Analysis.

Uyar, R. O., Genc, M. M. Y., & Yasar, M. (2018). Prospective preschool teachers’
academic achievements depending on their goal orientations, critical thinking
dispositions and self-regulation skills. European Journal of Educational Research,
7(3), 601-613.

Van Praag, L., Demanet, J., Stevens, P. A., & Van Houtte, M. (2017). ‘Everyone has their
own qualities’: tracking and academic self-appraisal in Flemish secondary
education. Social Psychology of Education, 20(3), 601-618.
 233
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2015). Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An
Introduction. Routledge. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d-zHoAEACAAJ

Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological
processes. Harvard university press.

Wang, W. (2017). Using rubrics in student self-assessment: student perceptions in the

English as a foreign language writing context. Assessment & evaluation in higher
education, 42(8), 1280-1292.

Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and
practice. Cambridge university press.

Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (2010). Watson-GlaserTM II critical thinking appraisal.

Technical Manual and User’s Guide. (Technical Manual and User’s Guide)

Watson, G. B. G., E. M. (2002). Watson–Glaser critical thinking appraisal. .

Webster, T. L., & Willett, G. M. (2019). Educational Intervention Aimed at Teaching

Critical Thinking: A Mixed Methods Investigation. Radiologic Science &
Education, 24(1). (Radiologic Science & Education)

Weiss, K. (2018). Student Self-Assessment Re-Assessed. Journal of Academic Writing,

8(2), 161-175.

Wells, G. E., & Claxton, G. E. (2002). Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural
perspectives on the future of education. Blackwell Publishing.

Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation,

37(1), 3-14.

Willey, K., & Gardner, A. (2009). Investigating the potential of self and peer assessment to
develop learning oriented assessment tasks. [Annual Conference of Australasian
Association for Engineering Education]. Annual Conference of Australasian
Association for Engineering Education,

Williamson, S. N. (2007). Development of a self-rating scale of self-directed learning.

Nurse researcher, 14(2).

Willis, J. (2009). Assessment for learning: a sociocultural approach. Proceedings of the

Australian Association for Research in Education International Education Research
Conference: Changing Climates: Education for Sustainable Futures,

Wimmer, R., & Dominick, J. (2013). Mass media research. Cengage learning. Yang-
Wallentin, F., Schmidt, P., Davidov, E., & Bamberg, S.(2004). Is there any
interaction effect between intention and perceived behavioral control. Methods of
Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 127-157. (Yang-Wallentin, F., Schmidt, P.,
Davidov, E., & Bamberg, S.(2004). Is there any interaction effect between intention
and perceived behavioral control. Methods of Psychological Research Online)

Winne, P., & Hadwin, A. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. . In Metacognition in

educational theory and practice (pp. 277-304).
 234
Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self reports
about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
27(4), 551-572. (Contemporary Educational Psychology)

Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In Handbook of

self-regulation (pp. 531-566). Elsevier.

Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners'
agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of
recipience processes. Educational psychologist, 52(1), 17-37.

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-
analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3087.

Wragg, E. C. (2003). Assessment and learning in the secondary school. Routledge.

Wu, X. V., Heng, M. A., & Wang, W. (2015). Nursing students' experiences with the use
of authentic assessment rubric and case approach in the clinical laboratories. Nurse
Education Today, 35(4), 549-555.

Wyse, D., Hayward, L., & Pandya, J. (2015). The SAGE handbook of curriculum,
pedagogy and assessment. Sage.

Xu, Y. (2019). Scaffolding students’ self-assessment of their English essays with annotated
samples: A mixed-methods study. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 42(4),
503-526.

Yan, Z. (2020). Self-assessment in the process of self-regulated learning and its

relationship with academic achievement. Assessment & evaluation in higher
education, 45(2), 224-238.

Yan, Z., & Cheng, E. C. K. (2015). Primary teachers' attitudes, intentions and practices
regarding formative assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 128-136.
(Teaching and Teacher Education)

Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2015). Interpretation and method: Empirical research
methods and the interpretive turn. Routledge.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). sage.

Zagzebski, L. T., & Zagaebski, L. T. (1996). Virtues of the mind: An inquiry into the
nature of virtue and the ethical foundations of knowledge. Cambridge University
Press.

Zaid, M. A. (1993). Comprehensive analysis of the current system of teaching English as a

foreign language in the Saudi Arabian intermediate schools. University of
Colorado at Boulder.

Zarei, A. A., Esfandiari, R., & Akbari, A. (2016). Self-regulated learning strategies as
predictors of reading comprehension. Journal of Modern Research in English
Language Studies, 3(2), 34-21.
 235
Zascavage, V., Masten, W. G., Schroeder-Steward, J., & Nichols, C. (2007). Comparison
of Critical Thinking in Undergraduates and Graduates in Special Education.
International Journal of Special Education, 22(1), 25-31.

Zhang, Y. (2009). Reading to speak: Integrating oral communication skills. English

Teaching Forum, 47 (1), 32-34.

Zimmerman, B., & Schunck, D. (2001). Self-Regulated Learning & Academic

Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elbaum.
Associates Publisher.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning.

Journal of educational psychology, 81(3), 329.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An

overview. Educational psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. Self-efficacy in

changing societies, 1(1), 202-231.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000a). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In

Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). Elsevier.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000b). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into

practice, 41(2), 64-70.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical

background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American
educational research journal, 45(1), 166-183.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing

course attainment. American educational research journal, 31(4), 845-862.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. J. (2009). Motives to self-regulate learning: A social

cognitive account. In Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 261-278). Routledge.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Homework practices and academic

achievement: The mediating role of self-efficacy and perceived responsibility
beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(4), 397-417.
 236

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Descriptors of the common European framework of reference for

languages (CEFR)

Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can

summarise information from different spoken and written sources,
C2 reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can
express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely,
differentiating finer shades of meaning even in more complex situations.
Proficient
User Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise
implicit meaning. Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously
without much obvious searching for expressions. Can use language
C1 flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes.
Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects,
showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and
cohesive devices.
Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and
abstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of
specialisation. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that
B2 makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without
strain for either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of
subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages
Independent
and disadvantages of various options.
User
Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar
matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with
most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the
B1 language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which
are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events,
dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations
for opinions and plans.
Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to
areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family
information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate
A2 in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of
information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms
aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in
Basic User
areas of immediate need.
Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic
phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can
introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about
A1 personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and
things he/she has. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person
talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.
 237

Appendix B: A sample of the pacing guides

238
 239

Appendix C: Ethical approval

 240

Appendix D: Participants information sheet (PIS)

Participant Information Sheet for Students

Title of Project: A study on EFL students’ perception of self-assessment in speaking
and its effect on achievement, critical thinking, and self-regulation.

Name of Researcher: Bayan Alghanmi

Name of supervisors: Dr. Georgina Wardle and Prof. Louise Hayward

you are being invited to take part in a research study. Before you decide it is important for
you to understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take time
to read the following information carefully and discuss it with others if you wish. Ask us if
there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information. Take time to
decide whether or not you wish to take part.

Thank you for reading this.

You are invited to participate in this research project because the study will be attempting
to find out students’ perspective of the practice of self-assessment in speaking classes and
how they believe its affect their achievement, critical thinking, and self-regulation. The
result of this research may be used to provide insight to policy makers on how students
perceive the implementation of self-assessment which can help to overcome difficulties
and common problems in implementing it with students without experience in self-
assessment. It will also provide opportunities for students to reflect on their learning and
the areas, critical thinking and self-regulation, that can lead to their progress and
achievement which could impact their professional lives in the future.

The participation is voluntary and If you decide to take part in the this study, the study will
be conducted for the whole 2nd semester during speaking classes and we will find a
mutually convenient time to meet for the interviews at the end of the semester. With your
 241
permission, the speaking activities and interviews will be audio-recorded and I may wish
to quote your exact words in my thesis.

Before conducting the study, an introductory PowerPoint presentation will be presented to

you with some information regarding the study. The study involves an intervention that
will be implemented in speaking classes, which will be held and taught as regular, where
you will audio-record your-self during the speaking activity so you can listen to your
performance afterward and self-assess your-self with the use of self-assessment sheet after
hearing the recording. Also, you will participate and complete two surveys (tests) pre- and
post- the intervention at the beginning and the end of the semester, and some of the
students will be interviewed at the end of the semester.

All personal information which is collected will be kept strictly confidential. You will only
be identified by an ID number, which will be replaced by a code given to you at the
beginning of data collection, and you will not be identified in any report or publication.

Confidentiality will be respected unless there are compelling and legitimate reasons for
this to be breached. If this was the case, we would inform you of any decisions that might
limit your confidentiality.

The results will be included in my thesis and will be completed by 2020/2021. Results may
also be available as publication in articles and conference papers. If requested by
participants, I will provide them with a summary of the findings. The recordings and data
will be stored in my computer and protected with a password or locked in the cabinet in
my own accommodation. All electronic or paper copies of data will be retained for 10
years after completion of the project. Please note that the data will not be shared/archived
or re-used.

This project has been considered and approved by the College Research Ethics Committee.

For further Information please contact Bayan Alghanmi, PhD in Education, School of
Education, University of Glasgow, email: xxxxxxxx@student.gla.ac.uk
Further information and where to pursue any complaint: this should be the College of
Social Sciences Ethics Officer Dr Muir Houston, email: Muir.Houston@glasgow.ac.uk
 242
Appendix E: Consent form

Consent Form for Students

Title of Project: A study on EFL students’ perception of self-assessment in speaking and its effect on
achievement, critical thinking, and self-regulation.
Name of Researcher: Bayan Alghanmi
Name of supervisors: Dr. Georgina Wardle and Prof. Louise Hayward

I confirm that I have read and understood the Participant Information Sheet for the above study and have had
the opportunity to ask questions.
I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving any
reason.
I consent to interviews being audio-recorded.
I acknowledge that participants will be referred to by pseudonym.
I acknowledge that follow up interviews might be necessary.
I acknowledge that there will be no effect on my grades arising from my participation or non-participation in
this research.
• All names and other material likely to identify individuals will be De-identified (i.e. whereby
identifiers are replaced by a code given to participants at the beginning of data collection, to which
the researcher retains the key, in a secure location).
• The material will be treated as confidential and kept in secure storage at all times.
• The material will be destroyed once the project is complete.
• The material may be used in future publications, both print and online.

I agree to take part in this research study

I do not agree to take part in this research study

Name of Participant ………………………………………… Signature

……………………………………………..
Date ……………………………………

Name of Researcher: Bayan Alghanmi Signature ………………………………………

Date ……………………………………
 243
Appendix F: Self-Regulation of Learning Self-Report Scale (SRL-
SRS)
Please read the following statements and choose the answer (on a Likert-scale
points) that best describes the way you plan, monitor, reflect, your effort, and
Self-efficacy during speaking activities. I would be grateful if you read each
statement carefully and provide an answer. Please remember there are no
right answers--please describe yourself as you are, not how you want to be or
think you ought to be.
(1) (2) (3) (4)
statements almost Sometimes Often almost
never always
1. I determine how to solve a problem before I
begin.
2. I think through in my mind the steps of a plan I
have to follow.
3. I try to understand the goal of a task before I
attempt to answer.
4. I ask myself questions about what a problem
Planning

requires me to do to solve it, before I do it.

5. I imagine the parts of a problem I still have to
complete
6. I carefully plan my course of action to solve a
problem.
7. I figure out my goals and what I need to do to
accomplish them.
8. I clearly plan my course of action to solve a
problem.
9. I develop a plan for the solution of a problem.

(1) (2) (3) (4)

statements almost Sometimes Often almost
never always
10. While doing a task, I ask myself questions to
stay on track.
11. I check how well I am doing when I solve a task.
12. I check my work while doing it.
monitoring
Self-

13. While doing a task, I ask myself, how well I am

doing.
14. I know how much of a task I have to complete.
15. I correct my errors
16. I check my accuracy as I progress through a task.
17. I judge the correctness of my work.
 244

Always
Rarely

-times
Some

Often
never
statements

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)
18. I look back and check if what I did was right.
19. I double-check to make sure I did it right.
20. I check to see if my calculations are correct.
Evaluation

21. I look back to see if I did the correct

procedures.
22. I check my work all the way through the
problem
23. I look back at the problem to see if my answer
makes sense.
24. I stop and rethink a step I have already done.
25. I make sure I complete each step

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

statements Strongly Disagree neither agree Strongly
disagree agree
26. I reappraise my experiences so I can learn from
them
27. I try to think about my strengths and
Reflection

weaknesses.
28. I think about my actions to see whether I can
improve them
29. I think about my past experiences to understand
new ideas
30. I try to think about how I can do things better
next time

(1) (2) (3) (4)

statements almost Sometime Often almost
never always
31. I keep working even on difficult tasks
32. I put forth my best effort when performing
tasks
33. I concentrate fully when I do a task.
34. I don’t give up even if the task is hard.
35. I work hard on a task even if it is not important
Effort

36. I work as hard as possible on all tasks

37. I work hard to do well even if I don’t like a
task.
38. If I’m not really good at a task I can
compensate for this by working hard.
39. I am willing to do extra work on tasks in order
to learn more.
40. If I persist on a task, I’ll eventually succeed.
 245

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Sometime
statements almost
s
Often almost
never always
3. I know how to handle unforeseen situations,
because I can well think of strategies to cope
with things that are new to me.
41. If someone opposes me, I can find means and
ways to get what I want.

42. I am confident that I could deal efficiently

with unexpected events

43. If I am in a bind, I can usually think of

Self-efficacy

something to do

44. I remain calm when facing difficulties,

because I know may ways to cope with
difficulties.
45. I always manage to solve difficult problems if
I try hard enough.

46. It is easy for me to concentrate on my goals

and to accomplish them

47. I can solve most problems if I invest the

necessary effort

48. When I am confronted with a problem, I

usually find several solutions
49. No matter what comes my way, I’m usually
able to handle it.
 246

Appendix G: Translation permission

 247

Appendix H: Self-assessment proforma

Speaking Assignment – Week ______ Name________________________

Use the self-assessment sheet to plan, monitor, evaluate, and reflect on

during speaking activities

CHECK: on a scale from 1 to 5, Think about the Unit Assignment and

complete the Self-Assessment sheet 5=excellent, 1=not at all

5=excellent, 4= very good, 3=good, 2=ok, 1= not at all

My plan
________________________________________________________

Self-assessment

Criteria Explain
5 point I plan to
your scale
What do I Work in progress Likert improve
(with
Criteria understand by scale by
this criterion examples)
I spoke
Fluency

without pauses 5 4 3 2 1
or hesitation.

I Show clear
nciatio
Pronu

pronunciation 5 4 3 2 1
n

The topic was

5 4 3 2 1
management

relevant.
Topic

I covered the
5 4 3 2 1
topic correctly.

I used
vocabulary 5 4 3 2 1
from this unit.
Content

I used
grammar from 5 4 3 2 1
this unit.
 248

I used correct
sentence 5 4 3 2 1
structure

I used verbs
5 4 3 2 1
correctly
(Accuracy)
Grammar

I used nouns
5 4 3 2 1
correctly.

I used
adjectives 5 4 3 2 1
correctly.

I used adverbs
5 4 3 2 1
correctly.

I used
appropriate 5 4 3 2 1
Vocabulary

vocabulary

I used a variety
5 4 3 2 1
of expressions

My Ideas were
Communicative

clear and 5 4 3 2 1
effectiveness

comprehensive

My Ideas were
connected and 5 4 3 2 1
developed.

I managed my
5 4 3 2 1
time
Organization & delivery

I hold attention
5 4 3 2 1
of entire class

Speaks with
fluctuation in
5 4 3 2 1
volume, clear,
audible voice.
 249

Appendix I: manual analysis of interviews

250
251
252
253