Content area
In English as a foreign language (EFL) education, assessment is often treated as a one-way transmission: teachers reflect privately, and students receive feedback they may not understand or value. This article introduces Writing-With as a relational, recursive stance toward reflective practice that bridges the gap between teacher insight and student assessment experience. Using duoethnography, two Vietnamese EFL teachers engaged in three rounds of written reflection and dialogic exchange, focusing on feedback moments that revealed disconnection, miscommunication, and pedagogical tension. Through recursive writing, we traced how subtle shifts in perception and practice emerged, not through isolated reflection but through shared inquiry. Our findings illuminate how Writing-With moves reflection beyond compliance and toward relational presence, reorienting formative assessment as an affective, dialogic process. We conclude by considering how Writing-With can inform more humanizing approaches to feedback and professional learning in EFL contexts.
Introduction
In many English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms, assessment remains a one-way process. Teachers write feedback with the intention of supporting student learning, but students often receive it as obscure, overly corrective, or emotionally disengaging (Fitriyah et al., 2024; Mahvelati, 2021; Nguyen et al., 2021). While teachers are routinely encouraged to reflect on their assessment practices, such reflection tends to remain private, decontextualized, or shaped by institutional mandates. Students, meanwhile, are rarely positioned as active participants in meaning-making around assessment. As a result, a fundamental disconnect persists between the intentions behind feedback and the ways students interpret and act upon it.
This disconnect is particularly visible in Asian EFL contexts, where assessment carries significant cultural, institutional, and emotional weight. Vietnamese teachers, for example, navigate curricular constraints, high-stakes testing pressures, and limited professional autonomy while being tasked with delivering pedagogically sound, learner-centered feedback (Ngo, 2024). Reflection is often framed as a tool to improve assessment literacy (Deneen & Hoo, 2023), but in practice, it can become formulaic, a task to be completed, rather than a space for dialogic inquiry. In such environments, feedback risks becoming a technical activity rather than a relational one.
This article introduces Writing-With as a stance that reframes teacher reflection on assessment from a solitary, evaluative act to a relational and recursive process. Through a duoethnographic exploration of our own assessment experiences as EFL teachers in Vietnam, we examine how co-reflective writing reshaped our understanding of how students receive, interpret, and respond to feedback. Rather than treating teacher reflection and student learning as separate domains, we explore how writing together, across institutional roles and teaching locations, allowed us to better attune to the affective dimensions of assessment and reimagine feedback as dialogic and co-constructed.
In doing so, we aim to offer both a methodological and pedagogical contribution. We argue that Writing-With can bridge the reflective-receptive gap between teacher intention and student experience, enabling more ethical, responsive, and student-sensitive assessment practices. In this paper, we share our process, reflect on the shifts that occurred, and consider the implications for teacher education, assessment literacy, and professional development in EFL contexts.
Literature review
Formative assessment in Asian EFL contexts
Formative assessment has gained increasing attention in Asian EFL education systems as a means of promoting learning through ongoing feedback, scaffolding, and diagnostic responsiveness (Carless, 2007, 2012). In Vietnam, as in other Southeast Asian countries, educational reforms have encouraged a shift from summative testing toward more formative approaches, particularly in language classrooms (Ngo, 2024; Phuong et al., 2025a, 2025b). However, implementation remains uneven. Teachers often operate under significant pressure to comply with prescribed curricula and national assessment standards (Le & Le, 2022), leaving little room to develop personalized or student-sensitive feedback practices.
A growing body of research has documented the tensions teachers face when trying to reconcile institutional expectations with the pedagogical aims of formative assessment (Brown, 2022; Coniam et al., 2024). These studies show that formative assessment, while promoted rhetorically, is frequently reduced to procedural checklists or post-lesson commentary, limiting its potential to enhance actual learning. Moreover, feedback practices in such contexts are rarely dialogic. Students are expected to receive and act upon teacher comments without opportunities for clarification or response, reinforcing hierarchical norms around assessment.
Teacher reflection and student learning
Reflection is often framed as the mechanism through which teachers improve their formative assessment practices. Influenced by theorists (e.g., Brookfield, 1995, 2017; Dewey, 1933; Schön, 1983, 2017), teacher education programs frequently position reflective writing as a route to self-awareness, professional growth, and pedagogical refinement. More recent work has extended this notion of reflection to include critical and relational dimensions, encouraging teachers to interrogate power, emotion, and identity in their classroom practices (Han et al., 2020; Pham et al., 2024; Ryan & Bourke, 2013).
Yet the link between teacher reflection and student learning outcomes remains largely assumed rather than demonstrated. Reflection is typically studied in terms of teacher development and how teachers make sense of their practice, rather than how reflective insight transforms what students experience, especially in assessment settings. When reflection is documented through portfolios, post-lesson reports, or training tasks, it often serves institutional accountability rather than authentic pedagogical change (Kelly et al., 2018). This disconnection is particularly problematic in contexts where language assessment carries high stakes and emotional charge for learners.
The missing link: reflection, feedback, and student uptake
Few studies explicitly trace how reflective processes influence the feedback students receive or how they interpret that feedback. Even in research on assessment literacy, teacher reflection is typically treated as an internal cognitive act, disconnected from the relational and affective dynamics that shape student learning. Studies of collaborative autoethnography and duoethnography (Lee et al., 2020; Pithouse-Morgan et al., 2025) offer promising methodological models yet rarely focus on the micro-practices of feedback within EFL assessment.
This article addresses that gap by introducing Writing-With, a recursive, relational form of reflection, and examining how it mediates teacher feedback practices in ways that directly shape student experience. By tracing how dialogic reflection led to changes in how we responded to student writing, revised rubrics, and rethought feedback tone and structure, we position reflection not only as teacher development but also as a pedagogical bridge between intention and uptake. In doing so, we extend recent calls for more affective and relational approaches to assessment (MacLure, 2013, 2023; Winstone et al., 2022), offering an empirically grounded account of how Writing-With can make assessment more responsive to student needs.
Theoretical framing
Writing-With as reflective stance
Writing-With emerges from the recognition that reflection, particularly in assessment contexts, is too often framed as an individual, linear, and evaluative act. In response, we propose Writing-With as a stance that repositions reflection as relational, recursive, reflexive, and reforming. Rather than viewing feedback as a product of isolated deliberation, Writing-With frames reflection as dialogic composition, where meaning is co-constructed, challenged, and revised through engagement with others, texts, and emotions (see Fig. 1).
Relational: Reflection is not undertaken in solitude but through attentive copresence with others, such as colleagues, students, institutional norms, or imagined readers. Insight emerges through connection rather than detachment.
Recursive: Rather than progressing from event to conclusion, reflection spirals. Teachers return to moments of feedback, student confusion, or assessment design with new affective and pedagogical awareness. This recursive movement allows meanings to deepen rather than resolve.
Reflexive: The self in Writing-With is not stable or authoritative. Writers become aware of how their position, tone, and power shift as they write, read, and revise their reflections in response to others.
Reforming: Writing is not a transcript of thought; it is where thought happens. Through Writing-With, not only teachers reflect on practice but also they recompose it. Feedback is reshaped, rubrics reworded, and assumptions unsettled.
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 1
The spiral of Writing-With: reflection as recursive, reflexive, relational, and reforming
The spiral serves as a visual metaphor for how Writing-With unfolds in practice, not as a neat progression toward clarity but as a recursive entanglement. It resists the teleology of traditional reflective models, offering instead a rhythm of return, hesitation, and co-emergence. In assessment contexts, this spiral captures the emotional and pedagogical complexity of responding to student work, not to correct but to connect.
Relational feedback, affective assessment, and dialogic pedagogy
The conceptual roots of Writing-With intersect with several key traditions in education. First, it aligns with relational feedback theory, which foregrounds the importance of mutual understanding, student voice, and feedback as dialogue rather than delivery (Carless & Boud, 2018). In this view, feedback is most powerful when it is co-constructed and emotionally resonant, not simply informative but transformative.
Second, Writing-With draws on work in affective assessment (MacLure, 2013), which explores how emotions shape how feedback is written, received, and interpreted. In many Asian EFL contexts, feedback can carry shame, anxiety, or distance. Attending to these affective undercurrents helps teachers craft feedback that is not only cognitively clear but relationally attuned.
Finally, Writing-With builds on dialogic pedagogy, particularly as developed within critical and poststructural frameworks (Freire, 1970; McLaren, 2023). It is not enough to speak with students, but we must also listen to what our assessment practices say. Through dialogic reflection, teachers come to hear the unintended messages in their feedback and to revise both content and tone as acts of relational accountability.
Together, these theoretical threads position Writing-With as both a method and a stance, one that reframes reflection not as a tool for teacher development alone but as a bridge between teacher awareness and student learning.
Methodology
This study draws on duoethnography (Sawyer & Norris, 2013) as both method and ethical stance. Rather than seeking objectivity or generalizability, duoethnography foregrounds difference, dialogue, and reflexive co-construction. In this project, we, two Vietnamese EFL teachers situated in distinct educational roles, engaged in iterative rounds of writing, reading, and responding to each other’s reflections on assessment and feedback. Our aim was not to produce fixed conclusions but to write with one another toward deeper awareness of how our practices shaped, and were shaped by, students’ learning experiences.
At the time of writing, one author, Thor (pseudonym), was a Ph.D. researcher studying abroad in Belgium while continuing to support teacher development in Vietnam; the other, Megan (pseudonym), was teaching full time at a Vietnamese university, navigating high teaching loads and constrained assessment conditions. This divergence in institutional positioning allowed our reflections to span different vantage points while remaining anchored in shared cultural and pedagogical contexts.
We structured our process into three reflective writing rounds, each focused on a core theme relevant to formative assessment:
Moments of miscommunication: Instances where students misunderstood feedback or failed to respond in expected ways
Affective disconnect: Times when feedback was ignored, resisted, or emotionally charged
Revised practice: Occasions where a prior reflection prompted a shift in rubric design, feedback phrasing, or teacher response
After each round, we exchanged reflections and used layered writing, such as comments, questions, insertions, and returns, to deepen our engagement. This dialogic analysis emphasized where our meanings diverged, where our assumptions were unsettled, and where new insights emerged. Rather than theming or coding our data, we treated the writing itself as a site of reflection: recursive, reflexive, relational, and reforming.
Throughout, we maintained an ethical commitment to situated knowing. Our aim is not to present findings that are prescriptive or universal but to show how Writing-With, as an affective and dialogic method, created space for us to reconsider assessment not only as evaluative practice but also as a relational encounter with students and with each other.
Findings: dialogic episodes of assessment reflection
In this section, we present three dialogic episodes that emerged through our recursive Writing-With each other. Rather than isolate “themes” from our reflections, we foreground moments where something broke down, surprised us, or shifted our understanding of assessment. These episodes are not illustrative “cases” but situated traces of our attempt to reflect relationally: on our language, our silences, and our students’ responses.
Each episode enacts a movement: from intention to misalignment, from emotional rupture to mutual recognition, and from private realization to pedagogical re-formation. In doing so, they illuminate the four dimensions of Writing-With as they unfolded in practice: relational, recursive, reflexive, and reforming.
Episode 1: “I thought it was clear”
It began with a single sentence written in the margin of a student’s essay: “Clarify your position here as it is too vague.” At the time, it seemed obvious. The sentence was intended as formative feedback: brief, direct, and helpful. But when the student submitted a revised version, nothing had changed. The same vague phrasing remained untouched. In a follow-up conversation, she said quietly, “I did not know what you meant.”
Reading this reflection later, Megan responded in the margin: “This happens to me too. I think I am being precise, but I am writing from the teacher’s logic, not the student’s lens.” That comment was a pause in the narrative: a point of resonance that turned the reflection from a personal frustration into a shared question: How often does our clarity mask misalignment?
We returned to the moment in writing several times, each time peeling it back further. Was the phrase “too vague” actually vague itself? Was “clarify” a directive or an invitation? Did the student read it as criticism or simply noise? In asking these questions, we began to see feedback not as transmission but as translation, one that often fails across institutional, linguistic, and emotional lines.
In our duoethnographic exchange, we circled around this moment like a spiral, not trying to fix it but trying to dwell in it. Thor recalled being taught to “tighten” feedback and to make it more concise and more efficient. Megan wrote about how the word “vague” had always felt vaguely accusatory, even when intended as neutral. We asked: What makes feedback legible? Who decides what counts as clarity?
This episode illuminated a disjunction between intention and uptake, exposing the limits of reflective certainty. In our individual writing, we had both initially framed the problem as a gap in student comprehension. Through Writing-With, that diagnosis shifted. The issue was not a lack of student understanding but a lack of relational presence in our feedback.
As Megan wrote in a later round: “Maybe it was not that she did not understand. Maybe she did not feel safe to ask.” The feedback that once seemed self-evident was now reread as partial, situated, and affectively charged. This was not failure but a revelation: that feedback lives not just in what is written but in how it is received and in how we return to it together.
Episode 2: “She did not read it”
“I do not think she even read it.”That was the sentence Thor wrote at the top of his first reflection in the second round. He had spent nearly an hour writing feedback on his learner’s draft, carefully pointing out how the ideas could be better structured, gently encouraging her to elaborate on her examples. When the learner submitted the final version, not a single change reflected what he had written. There was no mention, no adjustment, and no comment. It felt like silence in return.
Megan responded with a different kind of silence. In the first exchange, she did not comment immediately but days later returned with a single question: “What if she read it and did not know how to respond?” The question shifted something. Megan had assumed non-response as nonengagement and as disinterest. But what if it was discomfort or even shame?
In the recursive back-and-forth that followed, we began to write about the affective undercurrents of feedback. Thor remembered a time as a student when feedback felt like a verdict, even when kindly worded. Megan recalled her own hesitancy to reread feedback emails that seemed to carry disappointment, even when she valued the teacher. What we had once named “non-response” now began to take on texture: avoidance, fear, confusion, and resistance.
The student’s silence was not data we had coded before. In most reflective models, student uptake is assumed to be visible through test scores, rubric checkmarks, or post-feedback revisions. But here, there was no measurable change. There was only a blank and only a gap, and, yet, in that gap, we began to write with more attunement: to the student’s emotional stance, to our own longing for recognition, and to the ethics of feedback as presence.
“I wrote too much,” Thor admitted later. “I was trying to be helpful, but maybe it felt overwhelming.” “I wonder if I was writing for her, or for myself,” Megan reflected, “to feel like I had done my job.” Through the Writing-With process, the blank space of the student’s silence was no longer a dead end. It became a mirror. We were not just reflecting on her actions but we were noticing our own. How much feedback was really about being heard and about feeling visible as a teacher? How much of it was written for the student and how much to prove something to the system?
This episode did not resolve into a clear takeaway. But it deepened our understanding of feedback not just as instructional but emotional. Silence, too, is a response, one that asks not for better instructions but for better relations.
Episode 3: “After our exchange, I rewrote the rubric”
It was during the third round of reflection that Megan admitted: “I have used the same rubric for years.” It was not said with pride, nor with guilt, just an acknowledgment of a habit. The rubric had grown comfortable and familiar. It offered structure and a sense of fairness. But after the previous exchanges, about miscommunication, silence, emotional residue, it began to feel brittle.
In that reflection, she wrote: “The rubric says ‘clarity of argument: 4 points.’ But what does that mean to a student who has never written an argument in English? Or to one who reads that as ‘be logical,’ when what I want is: ‘show me your thinking, even if it is messy’?” The comment stirred something. It echoed our earlier episodes, not just in content but in stance. We had been circling the gap between our intentions and students’ experiences. Now, that gap extended to the very language of evaluation. It was not just feedback that misfired, but it was the assessment criteria themselves.
In our Writing-With exchange, the rubric became a site of inquiry. We annotated each other’s tools, writing margin notes like the following: “What does ‘sufficient support’ mean here?” and “Could this be a prompt, not a score?” Thor rewrote a line to say, “Have you shown the reader why this matters to you?”, turning assessment into invitation.
After that round, Megan rewrote her rubric, not entirely but meaningfully. Criteria were recast as guiding questions. Numbers gave way to short descriptors. The tone shifted: less about judgment and more about direction. And notably, she introduced it differently in class: “This is not something I use on you. It is something we can use together.” This was not a performative change. It was not driven by training or policy or a mandate to revise. It came from recursive attention, returning to earlier moments, sitting with discomfort, and allowing the writing process to reform what assessment could look like. As Thor wrote in the final exchange, “Before, the rubric was a wall between me and the students. Now it feels more like a path we can walk.”
In this episode, Writing-With became an act of pedagogical re-formation. The rubric was not just edited; it was reimagined through relation. This was not about abandoning standards but reworking the terms of engagement. Assessment, when approached dialogically, could move from control to connection.
Table 1 offers a synthesized view of the three dialogic episodes presented above.
Table 1. Summary of episodes
Episode title | Triggering moment | Reflective tension | Dialogic movement | Pedagogical shift |
|---|---|---|---|---|
“I thought it was clear” | Student misunderstood teacher’s written feedback | Teacher assumed clarity; student left confused | Recursive return to phrasing, tone, and intention, awareness of feedback as translation | Reframing feedback from directive to dialogic, questioning whose clarity matters |
“She did not read it” | Student did not engage with extensive written comments | Teacher felt unseen; assumed student disinterest | Shift from judgment to empathy, silence interpreted as affective data, not failure | Feedback viewed as emotional encounter, recognition of over-responsibility, and need for relational presence |
“After our exchange, I rewrote the rubric” | Long-standing rubric felt out of sync with students’ understanding | Assessment language revealed gaps in transparency and inclusion | Collaborative rewriting and annotation, assessment became shared inquiry | Rubric reimagined as a pedagogical tool, assessment positioned as co-navigated guidance |
Rather than distilling them into fixed outcomes, Table 1 highlights how each moment emerged from pedagogical tension, was reread through relational writing, and led to subtle yet meaningful shifts in assessment practice. By mapping the recursive and affective dynamics of our duoethnographic process, it illustrates how Writing-With transformed isolated incidents into sites of shared inquiry and pedagogical re-formation.
Discussion
Our trio of episodes reveals something deceptively simple: feedback is not just a technical act of giving information, but it is a relational, emotional, and interpretive encounter. What became clear across our recursive reflections was not just that students misunderstood or disengaged from our assessment practices but that our own assumptions about clarity, responsibility, and success were also in need of rereading. This movement from private reflection to shared inquiry is what Writing-With offers: a way to reorient assessment not as transmission but as dialogue.
In this sense, Writing-With builds on but also departs from traditional models of reflective practice. Dewey’s (1933) emphasis on experience and Schön’s (1983, 2017) notion of reflection in action laid foundational ground for teacher inquiry, yet both have tended to position reflection as a problem-solving tool enacted by the autonomous practitioner. Brookfield (1995, 2017) pushed further, insisting that reflection must surface the ideological dimensions of teaching, but still often framed that process as internal, cognitive labor. Our findings complicate this framing. In our Writing-With process, reflection did not yield clarity or closure. Instead, it invited discomfort, ambiguity, and recognition of the limits of individual knowing.
Where previous literature often treats teacher reflection as a mechanism for improving practice, we found it more helpful to approach it as a space for dwelling with dissonance. As Ryan and Bourke (2013) argued, dominant discourses of the “reflexive professional” in teacher standards tend to exclude affect, vulnerability, and the unpredictable texture of classroom life. What our study shows is that the moments most generative for pedagogical change did not come from mastering a better technique but from lingering with what felt unresolved. In this regard, we align with MacLure’s (2013) call to notice the wonder of data, the moments that resist immediate coding or explanation, and instead demand a different kind of attention.
This relational orientation echoes and extends recent research on formative assessment in Asian contexts. As Carless and Boud (2018) pointed out, feedback practices are most effective when they are dialogic rather than didactic. Yet, much of the research still positions feedback as a one-way event, with uptake measured through visible revisions or learning gains. In our episodes, uptake was not always visible, but it was palpable. In student silence, misreading, or even resistance, we found opportunities to reframe assessment as an ongoing affective and ethical negotiation. This aligns with Han et al.’s (2020) reminder that teacher and learner autonomy are mutually constitutive. Our agency as assessors became clearer only when we attended to how our students might be struggling to respond.
The shift from judging student work to writing with student experience also resonates with dialogic pedagogy and relational feedback theory. The move to co-annotate rubrics, for example, was not part of a planned strategy. It arose from noticing friction in our reflective writing, moments where we questioned our own language and tools. This echoes Lee et al.’s (2020) argument that writing can be “wrong” not because of technical flaws but because it misses the lived emotional terrain of the classroom. When we rewrote our rubrics and reframed our feedback, it was not to be more precise but to be more present.
Through these recursive exchanges, Writing-With revealed itself not as a substitute for existing feedback practices but as a stance that reconditions how teachers attend to the labor of assessment. Unlike compliance-oriented models of professional development (Kelly et al., 2018), which valorize polished reflection as evidence of teacher growth, Writing-With makes space for unfinishedness and for the kind of learning that is not yet (or never) resolved. As Pithouse-Morgan et al. (2025) showed in their work on arts-based inquiry, professional learning is most transformative when it grows “from the inside out,” rippling through relationship rather than through requirement. Writing-With, then, is not just a reflection for teachers. It is a reflection for students, through us, with us, and alongside them. By staying with the affective frictions of assessment, we do not just learn about our own teaching. We begin to feel, and to reform, the pedagogical relations at its heart.
Conclusion and implications
This study began with a simple but urgent question: How can teacher reflection more meaningfully connect to student assessment experiences? Through our duoethnographic engagement, Writing-With emerged not as a fixed method but as a recursive and relational stance that shifted how we viewed feedback, not as a product but as a process of attunement. In attending to confusion, silence, and discomfort, we did not find solutions. We found relation. And in relation, we found transformation.
The three dialogic episodes traced subtle yet powerful pedagogical reorientations. From assuming clarity to questioning language, from interpreting silence as failure to recognizing it as affective residue, and from using rubrics to enforce standards to co-designing them as invitations, each shift reflected a deeper engagement with the social, emotional, and ethical dimensions of assessment. This is not the kind of change that fits easily into performance metrics or training manuals. But it is the kind that matters for students who are often on the receiving end of feedback that feels distant, impersonal, or unkind.
Writing-With, as this study suggests, holds particular promise in low-resource or high-surveillance teaching contexts, where time is short, affect is constrained, and reflective labor is often privatized. It does not demand new tools or technologies. It asks for presence as follows: to one’s own uncertainty, to others’ perspectives, and to the space between intention and interpretation. It is not a corrective mechanism for reflection but a companionable reimagining of it.
For EFL assessment practice, this means recognizing that formative feedback is not only about accuracy or alignment but also about connection. Teachers need not discard their rubrics or rewrite every comment. But they might, through Writing-With, begin to see where those tools no longer serve their students or themselves. Professional development, then, might look less like training and more like gathering: writing groups, reflective dialogues, and collaborative annotation of assessment texts. These spaces need not be large or formal to be meaningful. They need only to make room for voice, for listening, and for the kind of learning that comes when we write not alone but alongside.
In closing, Writing-With is not offered as a new best practice. It is a reorientation toward reflection as shared inquiry and toward assessment as relational pedagogy. For teachers and researchers seeking to bridge the persistent gap between reflective insight and classroom practice, it offers not a map but a rhythm, one that invites us to return, rewrite, and re-relate.
Limitations and recommendations for future research
As a duoethnographic inquiry, this study is grounded in the lived experiences and dialogic exchanges of two Vietnamese EFL teachers. Our reflections are situated and shaped by our cultural contexts, institutional roles, and relational dynamics. While this localized focus enables depth and resonance, it also marks a boundary: the insights generated here are not intended to be generalized across contexts but rather to inspire further situated inquiry.
Another limitation lies in the scope of perspectives represented. Although we centered student assessment experiences in our writing, we did not include direct student voices. Future studies might explore how students themselves engage with and respond to feedback practices shaped through Writing-With. Comparative or participatory designs could offer a richer view of how dialogic assessment unfolds across classrooms, languages, and power relations.
Additionally, our reflections emerged outside of formal teacher development structures. This raises questions about how Writing-With might be integrated into institutional contexts, without being co-opted by performance metrics or bureaucratic mandates. Further research might examine how reflective writing groups, co-inquiry models, or mentorship practices can be designed to support Writing-With as both professional learning and pedagogical stance.
Finally, while we focused on written feedback and assessment design, future research could extend this work into other domains of teacher-student interaction, such as oral feedback, conferencing, or collaborative tasks, where relational reflection might further shift pedagogical possibilities. In exploring these directions, researchers and practitioners alike may continue to ask: what becomes possible when we write not for correction but for connection?
Authors’ contributions
Le and Pham made substantial contributions to the conception of the work; Le drafted the work and Pham revised it critically for important intellectual content; Le and Pham approved the version to be published and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Funding
Not applicable
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was conducted with a strong commitment to upholding ethical standards in research. As experienced researchers in the field of social studies, we carefully adhered to all relevant ethical guidelines and found no violations.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Abbreviation
English as a foreign language
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Brookfield, SD. Becoming a critically reflective teacher; 1995; Jossey-Bass Inc.:
Brookfield, SD. Becoming a critically reflective teacher; 2017; John Wiley & Sons:
Brown, GT. The past, present and future of educational assessment: A transdisciplinary perspective. Frontiers in Education; 2022; 7, 1060633. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1060633]
Carless, D. Conceptualizing pre-emptive formative assessment. Assessment in Education; 2007; 14,
Carless, D. (2012). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-heritage settings. Routledge.
Carless, D; Boud, D. The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education; 2018; 43,
Coniam, D., Lee, T., & Lampropoulou, L. (2024). The use of expert judgement and pairwise comparison in the establishment of an assessment scale. Journal of Applied Linguistics, (37), 2–19. https://doi.org/10.26262/jal.v0i37.10392
Deneen, CC; Hoo, HT. Connecting teacher and student assessment literacy with self-evaluation and peer feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education; 2023; 48,
Dewey, J. How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process; 1933; Heath & Co Publishers:
Fitriyah, I; Ningrum, ASB; Gozali, I. An investigation of written corrective feedback in EFL writing assessment: How teachers’ feedback practices meet students’ expectations. International Journal of Language Testing; 2024; 14,
Freire, P. The adult literacy process as cultural action for freedom. Harvard Educational Review; 1970; 40,
Han, S; Blank, J; Berson, IR. Revisiting reflective practice in an era of teacher education reform: A self-study of an early childhood teacher education program. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education; 2020; 41,
Kelly, S; Olney, AM; Donnelly, P; Nystrand, M; D’Mello, SK. Automatically measuring question authenticity in real-world classrooms. Educational Researcher; 2018; 47,
Le, TT; Le, XM. English language teaching reforms in Vietnam: EFL teachers’ perceptions of their responses and the influential factors. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching; 2022; 16,
Lee, S; Fogaca, J; Harrison, M. Can writing be wrong? Collaborative autoethnography as critical reflective practice in sport, exercise, and performance psychology. The Qualitative Report; 2020; 25,
MacLure, M. The wonder of data. Cultural Studies? Critical Methodologies; 2013; 13,
Mahvelati, EH. Learners’ perceptions and performance under peer versus teacher corrective feedback conditions. Studies in Educational Evaluation; 2021; 70, 100995. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.100995]
McLaren, P. Darder, A; Hernandez, K; Lam, KD; Baltodano, M. Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. The critical pedagogy reader; 2023; Routledge: pp. 75-97. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003286080-6]
Ngo, XM. English assessment in Vietnam: Status quo, major tensions, and underlying ideological conflicts. Asian Englishes; 2024; 26,
Nguyen, NLT; Nguyen, BTT; Hoang, GTL. Students’ perceptions of teachers’ written feedback on EFL writing in a Vietnamese tertiary context. Language Related Research; 2021; 12,
Pham, TT; Le, TT; Phuong, HY; Nguyen, AT; Huynh, TAT; Nguyen, HT. Qualitative examination of Vietnamese EFL teachers’ reflective teaching: Insights into in-on-for reflection methods at different stages in their career. Reflective Practice; 2024; 25,
Phuong, HY; Le, TT; Pham, TT. Assessment for learning or assessment for scoring? Washback of analytic rubrics in Vietnamese EFL classrooms. Language Testing in Asia; 2025; 15,
Phuong, HY; Tran, NBC; Nguyen, TTL; Lam, TD; Bui, NQ; Le, TT. From tests to tasks: How Vietnamese EFL teachers navigate washback through formative assessment practices. Language Testing in Asia; 2025; 15,
Pithouse-Morgan, K; van Laren, L; Masinga, L. Professional learning through arts-inspired collaborative self-study: Growing from the inside out with rippling effect. Studying Teacher Education; 2025; 21,
Ryan, M; Bourke, T. The teacher as reflexive professional: Making visible the excluded discourse in teacher standards. Discourse (Abingdon, England); 2013; 34,
Sawyer, R. D., & Norris, J. (2013). Duoethnography: Understanding qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
Schön, DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action; 1983; Basic Books:
Schön, D. A. (2017). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Routledge.
Winstone, NE; Balloo, K; Carless, D. Discipline-specific feedback literacies: A framework for curriculum design. Higher Education; 2022; 83,
© The Author(s) 2025. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.