ORGANIZATION OF CRITERION-BASED ASSESSMENT IN SCHOOL ENGLISH LESSONS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF STUDENTS’ SELF-REGULATED ASSESSMENT

This article addresses the problem of assessment through the authentic integration of interactive assessment techniques into school teaching and learning processes, using English language lessons as an example. The article draws on the materials and findings of an applied study conducted in two schools in the North Kazakhstan Region, which involved the experimental piloting of a framework for criterion-referenced assessment of reading, listening, speaking, and writing under conditions of self-organization and self-management of assessment activities. The materials and findings were conceptually interpreted from the perspectives of pedagogy and language didactics by faculty members of Manash Kozybayev North Kazakhstan University. The originality of the article lies in its focus on learners’ cognitive development and on expanding the resources and mechanisms of criterion-referenced assessment in response to the challenges posed by Kazakhstan’s updated educational content. The research findings demonstrate the effectiveness of organizing criterion-referenced assessment as an integrated process in English language teaching that promotes self-regulation in learning, elicits positive emotions, including academic buoyancy and enjoyment of learning a foreign language, and supports personalized learning. The findings are of practical significance for school teachers, university lecturers, particularly in terms of preparing pre-service teachers for criterion-referenced assessment, as well as educational methodologists and education experts.

1. Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (1995, August 30). Adilet: Information and Legal System of Administrative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K950001000

2. Ministry of Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2022, August 3). On approval of state compulsory standards for preschool education and training, primary, basic secondary and general secondary, technical and vocational, post-secondary education (Order No. 348; as amended on April 15, 2025). Adilet: Information and Legal System of Administrative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/V2200029031

3. Li, J., & Gu, P. Y. (2026). Teacher continuing professional development in formative assessment: A pathway to enhanced student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 174, Article 105426. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.tate.2026.105426

4. Romig, J. E., Olsen, A. A., Medina, E., & Tulloh, A. (2025). Criterion validity evidence and alternate form reliability of curriculum-based measures of written expression for eighth grade students. Assessing Writing, 66, Article 100958. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.asw.2025.100958

5. Zeng, B., Sun, J., & Wen, H. (2026). Analyzing factors associated with student achievement in large- scale educational assessments: A two-stage machine learning approach. International Journal of Educational Research, 136, Article 102886. https://doi.org/10.1016/Uier.2025.102886

6. Zhang, J. (2026). A multidimensional approach to the impact of achievement emotions on high school students' L2 writing performance. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.asw.2026.101048 Assessing Writing, 69, Article 101048. 7. Martinez-Abad, F., Jimenez-Vivas, A., & Rodriguez-Conde, M. J. (2026). Teaching competencies as a key element for educational achievement and equity: A PISA-based study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 181, Article 105712. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.tate.2026.105712

7. Ministry of Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2022). State compulsory standard of basic secondary education (Approved by Order No. 348 of August 3, 2022). 9. Cambridge University Press & Assessment. (2021). Cambridge Assessment annual review: 01 August 2020 - 31 July 2021. https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/

8. Ministry of Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan, & National Center for Education Research and Assessment «Taldau» named after A. Baitursynuly. (2024). Results of Kazakhstan in PISA 2022: National report. NCERA «Taldau».

9. Mozhayeva, I.O., Shilibekova, A.S., & Ziyedenova, D.B. (2016). Guide to criterion-based assessment for primary and general secondary school teachers: Methodological manual. AOO «Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools».

10. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203181522/visible-learning-teachers-iohn-hattie

11. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2008). Seven strategies of assessment for learning. Oxford University Press.

12. Nygmetova, B.D., & Sarbasov, N.S. (2016, August 16). Sushchnost' kriteriail'nogo otsenivaniya v usloviyakh obnovleniya soderzhaniya shkol'nogo obrazovaniya [The essence of criterion-based assessment in the context of updating the content of school education]. Bilimdi El. Obrazovannaya Strana, (15), 29. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/suschnost-kriterialnogo-otsenivaniya-v-usloviyah-obnovleniya-soderzhaniya-shkolnogo-obrazovaniya/viewer

13. Harrison, C., & Harlen, W. (2004). Assessment for learning: Resource materials and practices. School Science Review, 85(311), 85-90.

14. Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714

15. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

16. Shmigirilova, I.B., Rvanova, A.S., Tadjigitov, A.A., & Kopnova, O.L. (2024). Razvitiye navykov otsenivaniya u budushchikh uchiteley matematiki: Kompleksnyy podkhod [Assessment skills development in future mathematics teachers: An integrated approach]. The Education and Science Journal, 26(3), 91 122. https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2024-3-91-122

17. Boldyrev, N.N. (2004). Kontseptual'noye prostranstvo kognitivnoy lingvistiki [Conceptual space of cognitive linguistics]. Issues of Cognitive Linguistics, https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kontseptualnoe-prostranstvo-kognitivnoy-lingvistiki (1), 18-36.

18. Tate, M.L. (2003). Worksheets don't grow dendrites: 20 instructional strategies that engage the brain. Corwin Press.

19. Dem'yankov, V.Z. (1994). Kognitivnaya lingvistika kak raznovidnost' interpretiruyushchego podkhoda [Cognitive linguistics as a variety of an interpretive approach]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija (Topics in the Study of Language), (4), 17-33. http://belb.info/obmen/Demiankov-Kognitiv.htm

20. Baimukhanova, A.N. (Comp.). (2017). Model' kriteriail'nogo otsenivaniya: Metodicheskiye rekomendatsii [Criterion-based assessment model: Methodological guidelines]. NAO «NIS». https://nis.edu.kz

21. Wetz, B., & Pye, D. (2020). English Plus. Grade 8. Student’s book. Oxford University Press.

22. Yang, C., Li, H., & Zheng, Y. (2026). Foreign language academic buoyancy, enjoyment and academic achievement among Chinese senior high school students. Acta Psychologica, 263, Article 106276. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.actpsy.2026.106276