Table 1 Summative versus formative assessment

Summative assessment occurs at the conclusion of an academic unit and is often conducted in the form of a written test that assesses pupils' retention of the content studied in the unit, as shown in table 1. The exam is returned to the student with a grade (and possibly some form of error correction) several days or weeks later, but pupils are unlikely to receive extensive feedback or the opportunity to correct their mistakes. Assessment, on the other hand, happens in the unit and, in many cases, on a regular basis, and may take many forms, including portfolios, group or pair assignments, and even answers to teacher questions. Feedback from teachers (which should be more than a numerical grade or error correction), as well as peer and self-correction, are all ways that tasks are evaluated.  The importance of communicating learning objectives to pupils at the start of a unit and setting goals is also emphasized by assessment.

Summative evaluation has been criticized by scholars for decades, who argue that it does not provide an accurate representation of information. Furthermore, some argue that summative evaluation, especially high-stakes testing, could put pupils under undue stress. Summative testing, though intended to measure student performance and raise expectations, can cause anxiety in some pupils. When pupils realize they are being tested, they become preoccupied with preventing failure (to the point that learning goals can be overlooked in the pursuit of a high grade or test score) [39, p. 147].

Brenda's conviction that language is best learned when learners have a need for it led her to concentrate on grammar points that came naturally from communicative experiences when choosing grammar material. She would, for example, present an item in class if a writing task involved repetitive use of the infinitive and learners had not yet mastered it. According to Borg (1998), learners could quickly absorb the target structure because they had a realistic need to use it.

The aim of this research is to provide analysis of assessment techniques that may be used in the classroom to assess learners’ speaking and writing skills through grammar structures. In Kazakhstan, the use of formative testing and assessment for learning has been incorporated into teacher training curricula and is promoted by schools over the last few years.

In this study, Where applicable, I have used written practice exercises. Learners were usually asked to construct sentences or write dialogues using the appropriate grammar. I clearly preferred dialogue writing over the other two forms of practices because it provided a concrete framework for the practice of grammar items: it is more meaningful in the form of a dialogue.

They would have a better understanding of the subject after the exercise. One of the most important aspects of the spoken and written practice that I used was that it was combined. For example, when teaching the “adjective clause, ” I had learners identify a famous person first. She then instructed them to pair up and write a short dialogue between two speakers describing a well-known figure. Finally, I used primary trait score to correct their writing. and asked each pair of pupils to write a dialogue in the form of a conversation. The teaching series began with oral practice, progressed to writing, and then concluded with oral practice once more. This is in line with her belief that a good lesson requires the combination of various skills.

In all subjects, effective evaluation is a critical component of successful teaching. The best schools use formative testing on a daily basis to determine what their pupils know and where they need extra help. As a result, direct input to individual pupils and parents is possible.