Channeling assessments in English language learning via interactive online platforms

Astri Yulia, Nor Azilah Husin, Faiz I Anuar


Technology adoption in classrooms has impacted the way educational practitioners conduct assessments. Online quizzes are preferred compared to paper-pencil based tests. However, very few information that explains the contribution of online assessment towards holistic attainment of students in English. The present study aimed at examining the effects of online assessments on students’ performance. This research employed a quasi-experimental study to evaluate the role of interactive online assessments toward students’ performance in English. Eighty-six undergraduate students in TESL participated in this study; 53 were randomly assigned to the online group while 33 were assigned to the control group. The research computed t-tests to compare the performance of both groups on five different assessments. The results revealed that the online assessment group performed better on four assessments tested—listening and reading skills. The control group performed significantly higher on the assessment that involved presentation (evaluated speaking skill). These findings indicate that online assessments enhance students’ mastery of listening, reading, and writing skill but rather not so much influence on verbal skills. This research implies that educational practitioners should not entirely rely on interactive online platforms. To incorporate the blended-learning approach, classroom activities must consist of a combination of online and offline strategies.


eLearning; online assessment; formative assessment; summative assessment; language assessment; educational technology

Full Text:



Atkin, J. M., Black, P., & Coffey, J. (2001). Classroom assessment and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Baleni, Z. G. (2015). Online formative assessment in higher education: Its pros and cons. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13, 228-236.

Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85, 536-553.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 7-74.

Casidy, J. C., & Gridly, B. E. (2005). The effects of online formative and summative assessments on anxiety and performance. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(1), 2-29.

Cassady, J. C., & Gridley, B. E. (2005). The effects of online formative and summative assessment on test anxiety and performance. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(1), 1-30.

Dixson, D. D., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in the classroom. Theory into Practice, 55(2), 153-159.

Donelli-Sallee, E. (2018). Supporting online teaching effectiveness at scale: Achieving efficiency and effectiveness through peer review. Journal of Educators Online, 15(3).

Ebrahimzadeh, M., & Alavi, S. (2017). The effect of digital video games on EFL students’ language learning motivation. Teaching English with Technology, 17(2), 87-112.

Gardner, R. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition: The socio-educational model. New York: Peter Lang.

Icard, S. B. (2014). Educational technology: Best practices. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 11(3), 37-41.

Iwamoto, D. H., Hargis, J., Taitano, E. J., & Vuong, K. (2017). Analyzing the efficacy of the testing effect using Kahoot on student performance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 80-93.

Johnston, T. C. (2004). Online homework assessments: Benefits and drawbacks to students. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 8(3), 29-40.

Marmolejo-Ramos, F., & Tian, T. S. (2010). The shifting boxplot. A boxplot based on essential summary statistics around the mean. . International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 37-45.

Marriot, P. (2009). Students’ evaluation of the use of online summative assessment on an undergraduate financial accounting module. British Journal of Educational Technology, 4, 237-254.

Mohamadi, Z. (2018). Comparative effect of online summative and formative assessment on EFL student writing ability. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 29-40.

Ogange, B. O., Agak, J., Okelo, K. O., & Kiprotich, P. (2018). Student perceptions of the effectiveness of formative assessment in an online learning environment. Open Praxis, 10(1), 29-39.

Palinkas, L., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C., Wisdom, J., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2016). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42, 533-544.

Silviyanti, T. M. (2014). Looking into EFL students’ perceptions in listening by using English movie videos on YouTube. Studies in English Language and Education, 1(1), 42-58.

Stevens, J. (2018). Finding the Balance: Creating Meaningful Assignments without Overwhelming Instructional Workload. Journal of Educators Online, 15(3).

Thomas, C. (2014). Kahoot! Retrieved from

Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asynchronous discussions and assessment in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 309-328.

Yeo, C. H., Ke, K., & Chatterjee, B. (2014). An investigation into the relationship between online formative assessments and performance of students. e-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 8(1), 18-21.

Zakrzewski, S., & Bull, J. (1998). The mass implementation and evaluation of computer-based assessments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 141-152.


Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Print ISSN: 2355-2794, Online ISSN: 2461-0275

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

View Journal Stats