The corpus for this review consisted of 14 research studies in which various language teachers (preservice, in-service, student teachers) were engaged in learning about theories and practices in language testing and assessment. To choose studies fit-for-purpose in the review, I used three selection criteria:

The study had to exclusively describe a course or workshop about language assessment rather than one in general applied linguistics or language teaching. This criterion was necessary because several scholars have questioned the usefulness of courses which touch upon assessment in passing rather than giving extensive attention to it (Babaii & Asadnia, 2019; Vogt & Tsagari, 2014).

To arrive at the findings for this review, I first iteratively analyzed data inside each study independently, and then across studies, to form what Schreier (2012) calls a “coding frame.” For this, I employed a matrix through which I collected the following information: purpose, context, and participants; methodology for teaching language assessment; contents of the workshop or course; findings (impact on teachers); and other insights, for example, recommendations emerging from each study.

With these codes, or categories as Schreier (2012) calls them, I then proceeded to group information across all 14 studies and observe instances of data to illustrate each category. For example, language assessment contents such as item analysis and task analysis were data-driven categories for which I associated examples from all studies. I then grouped these categories into one called assessment design, and then this and other grouped categories (e.g., task development) formed a synthesized category, that is, a finding-rigorous design of assessments. I explain and discuss this and other findings next.

The first finding relates to the contexts, objectives, and professional development approaches in the 14 programs. Although these elements varied in their focus, naturally the programs had a common goal, which was to help teachers improve different aspects of their LAL. Table 2 lists down basic features about the context of these programs, their purpose, and methodologies.

Table 2

Context
Graduate	In-service	Preservice
2 studies: Kleinsasser (2005); O’Loughlin (2006)	9 studies: Arias et al. (2012); Baker & Riches (2017); Boyd & Donnarumma (2018); Koh et al. (2018); Kremmel et al. (2018); Levi & Inbar-Lourie (2019); Montee et al. (2013); Nier et al. (2009); Walters (2010)	4 studies: Giraldo & Murcia (2019); Jaramillo-Delgado & Gil-Bedoya (2019); Restrepo-Bolívar (2020); Walters (2010)
Purposes
Critique or design of assessments		Development of LAL at large
9 studies: Arias et al. (2012); Kleinsasser (2005); Koh et al. (2018); Kremmel et al. (2018); Levi & Inbar-Lourie (2019); Montee et al. (2013); Nier et al. (2009); O’Loughlin (2006); Walters (2010)		5 studies: Baker & Riches (2017); Boyd & Donnarumma (2018); Jaramillo-Delgado & Gil-Bedoya (2019); Giraldo & Murcia (2019); Restrepo-Bolívar (2020)
Methodologies
Critiquing and designing assessments: Face to face		Critiquing and designing assessments: Blended
11 studies: Arias et al. (2012); Baker & Riches (2017); Boyd & Donnarumma (2018); Giraldo & Murcia (2019); Jaramillo-Delgado & Gil-Bedoya (2019); Kleinsasser (2005); Koh et al. (2018); Kremmel et al. (2018); Levi & Inbar-Lourie (2019); Restrepo-Bolívar (2020); Walters (2010)		3 studies: Montee et al. (2013); Nier et al. (2009); O’Loughlin (2006)

Based on the corpus of 14 studies, four trends are evident. The initiatives reported in the literature are aimed at helping language teachers in general, with most emphasis placed on those who teach the English language. However, the presence of teachers from different languages suggests that training in this area is necessary regardless of the language taught (for example, Montee et al., 2013 and Koh et al., 2018). Also, there is an emphasis on in-service language teachers, but studies with preservice teachers are starting to appear, with Giraldo and Murcia (2019), Jaramillo-Delgado and Gil-Bedoya (2019) and Restrepo-Bolívar (2020) being examples of this trend. This is positive, given that authors have emphasized the burning need for preservice teacher training in language testing and assessment (Hill, 2017; Lam, 2015; López-Mendoza & Bernal-Arandia, 2009; Vogt & Tsagari, 2014). The fact that most studies included in-service teachers attests to the need for providing these teachers with continuous professional development in LAL; however, the number of LAL initiatives for preservice teachers should be higher, so that they are more professionally prepared for the inevitable task of in-service language assessment.

Another trend in the corpus regards the purposes for training in LAL. Naturally, all studies were meant to help teachers improve their LAL. The clear tendency, however, is that improving assessment design is a key objective of these programs. Twelve out of 14 studies explicitly aimed at helping teachers improve their LAL either through analysis or design of assessment instruments; Kleinsasser (2005) and Restrepo-Bolívar (2020) do mention design in their studies but not as the approach to teaching LAL. The trend of design as a main purpose in these programs reflects one expectation that teachers have about language assessment: They want practical, hands-on training (Fulcher, 2012; Giraldo & Murcia, 2018). This finding emphasizes teachers’ need of a focus on the skills side of LAL. The implication seems to be that if teachers study knowledge and principles in LAL, they should do so within a practice-based framework.

The approaches to teaching language assessment in these programs were variegated. However, and as just commented, design-based learning is fundamental in these studies. The programs, whether face-to-face or online, use hands-on design and critique of assessments for helping teachers improve the skills component of LAL but knowledge emerges in these tasks, as I will explain later. This is in line with what authors have discussed about LAL for teachers, that is, that the practical side of assessment is pivotal (Fulcher, 2012; Giraldo, 2018; Inbar-Lourie, 2008). As Boyd and Donnarumma (2018) argue, “teachers need a proper course in assessment design to allow them the time to absorb what is, after all, an expert subject” (p. 120). As the data corroborate, the skills side of LAL, and particularly design, seem to be pivotal to help teachers further their LAL. Clearly, the studies indicate that engaging teachers in designing assessment instruments impacts them positively at the technical and theoretical levels.

Lastly, one issue that may merit attention in these studies is the time devoted for training. The range is wide, from one-off workshops lasting three hours (Boyd & Donnarumma, 2018), week-long or semester-long programs (Baker & Riches, 2017; O’Loughlin, 2006, respectively), to sustained training for two or three years (Koh et al., 2018; Kremmel et al., 2018). As the authors in these programs suggest, initiatives with longer times should be encouraged for teachers’ LAL (Baker & Riches, 2017; Boyd & Donnarumma, 2018; Kremmel et al., 2018). Since LAL is so much needed, as language testing experts and language teachers agree, the long-term impact of short professional development programs, if such exist, should be questioned or researched. Programs like the ones in Arias et al. (2012) and Koh et al. (2018) attest to the need for sustainable initiatives that, in addition to training in language assessment, accompany teachers in the implementation and scrutiny of the assessments they design. While short programs seem to raise teachers’ awareness of what language assessment implies, actual impact on teaching and student learning seem to come with sustained programs (months and even years, such as Koh et al., 2018) that connect assessment to the contexts where teachers work. Clearly, the longer the LAL program, the more beneficial it might be for all stakeholders involved.

Whereas the contents found in all 14 programs naturally varied, the data suggest clear tendencies at a theoretical and a practical level of language assessment. The data also show that there are contents which are not addressed in the majority of the studies, and there may be reasons for this.

The information in Table 3 corroborates the finding explained above: In this review, language assessment programs for teachers’ LAL prioritize the critique and, most importantly, the design of language assessments. There is evidence in all 14 studies that teachers are engaged in studying and creating instruments with either items (e.g., multiple-choice questions) or tasks (a rubric for a speaking assessment) for traditional or alternative assessment. Thus, it can be suggested that these programs have responded to the need that teachers have expressed (see the relevant section on teachers’ LAL research). In line with this finding and with a focus on preservice teachers, Giraldo and Murcia (2019) state that “language assessment courses for pre-service teachers should emphasise highly structured design tasks because they trigger conscientious decisions fueled by seasoned theoretical frameworks” (p. 255). Based on the data from the corpus, the programs seemed to have understood language assessment as design-driven rather than merely conceptual, which should have implications for language teacher education in various contexts, for instance, pre- and in-service: The design of assessment instruments should be a top priority for teachers’ LAL.

Table 3

Study	Knowledge			Skills		Principles
	Meaning of LA	Purposes in LA	Qualities of LA: validity, reliability, etc.	LA methods: critique and/or design	Assessing language skills	Ethics, fairness, impact, etc.
Kleinsasser (2005)		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
O’Loughlin (2006)		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Nier et al. (2009)		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Walters (2010)				Yes
Arias et al. (2012)		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Montee et al. (2013)		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Baker & Riches (2017)			Yes	Yes	Yes
Boyd & Donnarumma (2018)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Kremmel et al. (2018)			Yes	Yes	Yes
Koh et al. (2018)			Yes	Yes	Yes
Jaramillo-Delgado & Gil-Bedoya (2019)			Yes	Yes
Giraldo & Murcia (2019)	Yes		Yes	Yes	Yes
Levi & Inbar-Lourie (2019)	Yes	Yes		Yes		Yes
Restrepo-Bolívar (2020)	Yes	Yes		Yes		Yes

Qualities for language assessment is another type of content that is common across most studies (11 out of 14). Of these, validity and reliability are the qualities that occur most in the studies, with authenticity and practicality coming second in the data. In scholarly discussions, these qualities are included in the knowledge dimension of LAL, which underscores them as an essential part of the fundamental knowledge base that is needed for language assessment (Inbar-Lourie, 2008, 2012). Besides, as various authors in these studies report (Giraldo & Murcia, 2019; Kleinsasser, 2005), the participating teachers used these qualities to critique and design instruments for language assessment, which suggests that theory, apparently, was not studied in isolation but through the analysis assessments. A major implication from these data may be that theory should connect to design so teachers can make sense of it in the assessments they critique or analyze. Finally, three studies did not explicitly address key qualities such as reliability and validity (Levi & Inbar-Lourie, 2019; Restrepo-Bolívar, 2020; Walters, 2010), which are staple in language testing and assessment given their overarching impact. Thus, these two qualities should be central topics in LAL programs and studied accordingly given the specific nature of each initiative.

Another common content that stands out in Table 3 is, perhaps naturally, the assessment of language skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The studies that do not mention skills assessment (Jaramillo-Delgado & Gil-Bedoya, 2019; Levi & Inbar-Lourie, 2019; Restrepo-Bolívar, 2020; Walters, 2010) perhaps did cover these topics, but they are not explicitly or implicitly reported in the articles. In the case of Walters’ study, the program focused on a rather particular set of strategies for analyzing items: specifications writing and reverse specifications. Overall, the focus on assessing skills aligns with studies which report that teachers want to learn or improve how they assess language skills (for example, see Giraldo & Murcia, 2018; Vogt & Tsagari, 2014). In all 14 studies there is an absence of construct-based discussions which are prominent in language testing, namely the assessment of multilingual competence. This may happen given that teachers work in contexts where there is a majority target language to be assessed.

As for the absence, in some cases, of the meaning of and purposes for language assessment, it may be the case that these topics were in fact studied in the programs. However, these topics are not reported in all studies because they may be taken for granted or because the nature of the study did not need to address them at length. For example, Kremmel et al. (2018) state that their study was not meant for classroom assessment, in which case instructional purposes for assessment may be irrelevant. However, language testing is predominantly done from a purpose-based angle: Assessments respond to purposes for them to be useful. Thus, purposes should be explicitly studied so that knowledge, skills, and principles in language assessment correspond to them.

Lastly, only six out of 14 programs included or addressed, at least explicitly, principles for language assessment. The principles included in the studies were ethics, fairness, democracy, and transparency, with a major focus in Arias et al. (2012) and, to a lesser extent, Levi and Inbar-Lourie (2019). The other studies (Boyd & Donnarumma, 2018; Kleinsasser, 2005; Montee et al., 2013; Restrepo-Bolívar, 2020) merely mention these contents. This finding contrasts with overall discussions of LAL, which state that principles such as ethics and fairness are a fundamental piece of this puzzle, for all stakeholders, teachers included (Davies, 2008; Inbar-Lourie, 2017; Kremmel & Harding, 2020). Interestingly, the finding does seem to align with teacher-reported needs. Descriptive studies such as Fulcher (2012) and Giraldo and Murcia (2018) show that teachers rank principles as a low priority for LAL. In one of the studies in this review-Kremmel et al. (2018)-teachers reported that they learned little about principles such as ethicality, but as the authors comment, this was not the focus of their LAL study. However, in the study by Arias et al. (2012), teachers implemented fair, transparent, and democratic practices in their assessment approach. Thus, it seems that principles for LAL should be further studied in these programs, and their impact on teachers elucidated, especially because such principles have become central regarding the role and impact of language assessment in society (Fulcher, 2012; Giraldo, 2018; Inbar-Lourie, 2017).

In this section, I will provide evidence to answer the second research question that guided this review. The impact that these programs had on teachers’ LAL can be explained in three aspects: Heightened conception of language assessment, rigorous design of assessments, and broader constructs for assessment. Next, I will explain and discuss these impacts.