This integrative review examined 38 published articles on the topic of formative assessment conducted in South Korean EFL settings, from 2014 to 2023. Despite strong interests in using quality formative assessments that are aimed at improving English learners’ performance, no prior systematic analyses have been performed to date. To that end, this study draws on Wiliam and Thompson’s (2008) conception of the formative assessment five-strategy model, and Yan and Pastore’s (2022) Teacher Formative Assessment Practice Scale (TFAPS), as a guiding framework to examine the extent to which formative assessment research conducted in South Korean EFL classroom settings has enacted the five key strategies and thereby promoted learning and improved teaching. For all five key strategies, more studies showcased weak evidence of implementing each strategy, and that positive student learning was more likely to be seen in studies that fully, or nearly fully, implemented the key strategies. Recommendations for enhancing formative assessment teaching and research practice are provided at the end.

In many high-stakes testing situations, test-takers are not allowed to draw on external writing resources while writing, a practice observed more frequently in classroom settings. This may pose problems with the representativeness of test tasks and score interpretations. This study investigates the domain definition of one particular test known as the English Placement Writing Test within an argument-based validation framework. Focusing on the domain definition inference, the following rebuttal was evaluated: Certain essential contextual factors in the academic writing domain are not modeled in the test tasks. To do so, lower- and intermediate-level ESL students (n=92) who previously took the test were surveyed and interviewed regarding their uses of computerbased and face-to-face human-assisted writing tools. Results showed that students at both levels were statistically similar in their attitudes toward and uptakes of such tools while writing. The difference in availability of external writing tools between the target and test domain may point to issues with task authenticity of the test.