Published

2022-01-19

In-Service University-Level EFL Instructors’ Language Assessment Literacy and Training Needs

Requerimientos de capacitación y de literacidad en evaluación de lenguas de docentes de inglés en ejercicio

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v24n1.93676

Keywords:

assessment training needs, Iranian context, language assessment, literacy, university English instructors (en)
evaluación de lenguas, contexto iraní, docentes de inglés universitarios, literacidad, requerimientos de capacitación (es)

Downloads

Authors

The study examined university-level English instructors’ assessment training experiences, classroom-based assessment practices, and assessment training needs in Iran. Sixty-eight instructors who were randomly selected through academic social networks filled out a questionnaire. Eight instructors were also interviewed. The results indicated that the instructors had received insufficient training, especially in practical aspects, because they had solely been exposed to assessment concepts and theories in the limited and impractical assessment courses offered to preservice teachers in their universities. Also, they had recurrently failed to put their limited assessment knowledge into practice. Despite this situation, they preferred to get basic rather than advanced assessment training due to personal and contextual constraints. The study bears implications for university English instructors, teacher educators, and university administrators.

Este estudio indagó sobre las necesidades y experiencias de capacitación y las prácticas de evaluación de 68 docentes de inglés universitarios iraníes. Los participantes, seleccionados al azar de redes sociales académicas, diligenciaron el cuestionario. Ocho participantes fueron entrevistados. Los resultaron mostraron que los participantes habían recibido poca capacitación, especialmente en aspectos prácticos, a través de limitados cursos diseñados para docentes en formación sobre aspectos conceptuales y teóricos. Los participantes también indicaron un consistente fracaso para poner en práctica su poco conocimiento sobre evaluación. A pesar de esto, los participantes prefieren recibir capacitación básica en lugar de una más avanzada debido a limitaciones personales y contextuales. El estudio tiene implicaciones para docentes de inglés universitarios, formadores docentes y administrativos universitarios.

Recibido: 16 de febrero de 2021; Aceptado: 18 de octubre de 2021

Abstract

The study examined university-level English instructors’ assessment training experiences, classroom-based assessment practices, and assessment training needs in Iran. Sixty-eight instructors who were randomly selected through academic social networks filled out a questionnaire. Eight instructors were also interviewed. The results indicated that the instructors had received insufficient training, especially in practical aspects, because they had solely been exposed to assessment concepts and theories in the limited and impractical assessment courses offered to preservice teachers in their universities. Also, they had recurrently failed to put their limited assessment knowledge into practice. Despite this situation, they preferred to get basic rather than advanced assessment training due to personal and contextual constraints. The study bears implications for university English instructors, teacher educators, and university administrators.

Keywords:

assessment training needs, Iranian context, language assessment, literacy, university English instructors.

Resumen

Este estudio indagó sobre las necesidades y experiencias de capacitación y las prácticas de evaluación de 68 docentes de inglés universitarios iraníes. Los participantes, seleccionados al azar de redes sociales académicas, diligenciaron el cuestionario. Ocho participantes fueron entrevistados. Los resultaron mostraron que los participantes habían recibido poca capacitación, especialmente en aspectos prácticos, a través de limitados cursos diseñados para docentes en formación sobre aspectos conceptuales y teóricos. Los participantes también indicaron un consistente fracaso para poner en práctica su poco conocimiento sobre evaluación. A pesar de esto, los participantes prefieren recibir capacitación básica en lugar de una más avanzada debido a limitaciones personales y contextuales. El estudio tiene implicaciones para docentes de inglés universitarios, formadores docentes y administrativos universitarios.

Palabras clave:

evaluación de lenguas, contexto iraní, docentes de inglés universitarios, literacidad, requerimientos de capacitación.

Introduction

Assessment has been widely recognized as an indispensable part of a language teacher’s job. A great deal of a teacher’s time is typically spent on undertaking various assessment and evaluation activities such as developing and administering tests, rating examinees’ performances, and making appropriate decisions regarding the test-takers’ proficiencies and the quality of teaching and learning activities (Ashraf & Zolfaghari, 2018; DeLuca & Klinger, 2010). Language assessment is not solely a means to monitor and rank students’ achievements at the end of a course and make decisions about their futures (i.e., assessment of learning). Teachers may also carry out assessment for learning in order to improve students’ learning through providing frequent informative feedback, building their confidence, and helping them undertake self-regulated learning and assessment to feel responsible for their own success (Levi & Inbar-Lourie, 2020; Stiggins, 2002). It might also be beneficial for teachers by providing them with ample evidence to regulate their instruction and to sharpen their pedagogic and evaluative qualities (Mertler, 2016). Accordingly, it is necessary for language teachers to have sufficient language assessment literacy (LAL) to maximize teaching and learning practices in classrooms through carrying out efficient assessments (DeLuca & Klinger, 2010; Harding & Kremmel, 2016).

Widely acknowledged as a significant construct (Scarino, 2013; Taylor, 2013), LAL is generally regarded as the skills, abilities, knowledge, and expertise that language assessors are required to attain in order to carry out efficient language assessments (Fulcher, 2012; Inbar-Lourie, 2017). Fulcher (2012) defines teachers’ LAL and, more specifically, the skills that they need to acquire to be assessment-literate as:

The knowledge, skills and abilities required to design, develop, maintain or evaluate, large-scale standardised and/or classroom based tests, familiarity with test processes, and awareness of principles and concepts that guide and underpin practice, including ethics and codes of practice. The ability to place knowledge, skills, processes, principles and concepts within wider historical, social, political and philosophical frameworks in order to understand why practices have arisen as they have, and to evaluate the role and impact of testing on society, institutions, and individuals. (p. 125)

In spite of the continuing controversy about what LAL is required for different stakeholders (Inbar-Lourie, 2017), there is a consensus that language teachers are the largest group of LAL users and, consequently, require LAL most immediately (Harding & Kremmel, 2016). To perform assessment activities that are consistent with the desired learning objectives, language teachers are required to obtain appropriate LAL. Lack of LAL would threaten the reliability and validity of a test considered for the evaluation of language learners and, as a result, impede students’ language learning (Xu & Brown, 2017). Therefore, promoting teachers’ LAL through, for instance, launching language assessment training programs, appears essential in developing their assessment skills. Apart from tapping into the knowledge and skills that teachers are required to acquire to be assessment-literate, language assessment training programs need to address teachers’ perceptions and personal training needs (Vogt et al., 2020).

Different facets of language assessment training have been studied in western academic settings including teachers’ training needs and the efficiency of face-to-face and virtual training (Malone, 2008; Vogt & Tsagari, 2014). However, it is still underexplored in the higher education context, particularly in parts of the world where education is exam-oriented (Yan et al., 2018). Accordingly, there is a dearth of research concerning language assessment training in the Iranian higher education context. In other words, previous studies have scantly explored the assessment training university English instructors have received or wish to receive in the Iranian context. The present study, therefore, sought to examine university-level English instructors’ assessment training experiences, classroom assessment practices, and assessment training needs (ATN) in Iran. University instructors are recurrently busy with assessment-based activities such as generating and administering tests, rating or ranking performances, providing feedback, and making decisions. Therefore, exploring university instructors’ ATNs may help them generate a more profound understanding of their assessment skills and, consequently, induce teacher educators to design and offer training programs in line with the instructors’ needs.

The present study sought to find appropriate answers to the following questions:

  1. What assessment training have Iranian university English instructors received?

  2. What are Iranian university English instructors’ assessment training needs?

Literature Review

The term assessment, for many years, was associated with the process of evaluating and summing up what pupils had learned and achieved at the end of a certain course. In this traditional approach, known as summative assessment or assessment of learning, “the actions that guided learning processes before the end of the course were generally not regarded as kinds of assessment” (William, 2011, p. 4). More recently, however, there has been a growing tendency to practice formative assessment or assessment for learning with the aim of guiding and forming students’ learning based on their potential capabilities and adjusting pedagogic practices to the needs of the learners. Despite some minor distinctions between formative assessment and assessment for learning (see Swaffield, 2011), the two terms are usually used synonymously in the related literature (see Dann, 2014, for further discussion). Motivated by the assessment for learning initiative, developing LAL has become critical for language teachers and the subject of discussion and research in the related literature (see Hasselgreen, 2008; Hasselgreen et al., 2004; Reckase, 2008; Scarino, 2013; Taylor, 2009; Vogt & Tsagari, 2014; Walters, 2010).

The related literature is replete with studies which have examined LAL among English language teachers working in schools (e.g., Chung & Nam, 2018; Guerin, 2010; Hasselgreen et al., 2004; Watmani et al., 2020; Yan et al., 2018; Zulaiha et al., 2020) and institutes (e.g., Crusan et al., 2016; DeLuca & Klinger, 2010; Lam, 2015). The teachers in most studies (e.g., Crusan et al., 2016; Lam, 2015; Malone, 2017; Vogt & Tsagari, 2014; Watmani et al., 2020) were reported to demonstrate underdeveloped LAL and to lack adequate skills and knowledge to carry out a fair and efficient assessment. Watmani et al., for instance, studied LAL among 200 Iranian high school teachers of English and concluded that the teachers had poor assessment literacy competence.

The disappointing condition of language teachers’ LAL highlights the urgent need for training teachers in this regard (Fulcher, 2012; Malone, 2017). Hasselgreen et al. (2004), for example, examined this issue in the European context and came to the conclusion that insufficient attention was paid to training teachers in the field of language assessment and evaluation. Guerin (2010) also reported that the participants in his study had not received adequate assessment training and called for programs that could enable them to become more skillful assessors. Fulcher (2012) and Chung and Nam (2018) have also reported similar findings in their studies in which the participating instructors voiced the need for training programs that prepared them to be experts in designing and developing tests. On the other hand, the teachers who participated in Gan and Lam’s (2020) study did not give much weight to assessment training programs and refrained from attending such programs due to personal factors. Hence, it seems that no consensus on the criticality of assessment training programs has been reached in the related literature.

In general, the findings reported in previous related studies have suggested ATNs as highly contextualized and individualized factors. Language instructors from various settings with specific educational norms have reported different training needs. Tsagari and Vogt (2017), for example, scrutinized language teachers’ ATNs across seven European countries and found that the instructors from different countries focused on varying priorities in their assessment training programs and whether they showed desires to attend training programs depended on the assessment culture of their country. Greek teachers, for instance, required advanced training courses since the English curriculum standards as well as the Ministry of Education in the country emphasized the significance of assessment practices in academia. In contrast, German teachers exhibited moderate training desires concerning skill-based assessment because German foreign language learners were evaluated by national tests mainly based on linguistic skills.

Due to the context-specific nature of LAL, ATNs are often customized. Specifically, since teachers’ LAL involves their knowledge, abilities, attitudes, and beliefs about assessment (Scarino, 2013), their ATNs can differ individually. The English language teachers participating in various studies (e.g., DeLuca & Klinger, 2010; Yan et al., 2018) voiced greater training needs for assessment practice than for assessment theory. They, specifically, did not show any interest in theoretical principles of language assessment and refrained from applying the theories in their assessment practices. ATNs are also individualized owing to some contributing factors. Yan et al. (2018) argued in this regard that an enormous workload prevents language teachers from expressing their ATNs in assessment theories and principles because it is challenging and time-consuming to study and acquire these theories and principles. Teachers’ varying individual desires may also be due to the imbalanced training contents that they have received (Lam, 2015). Lam (2015) also argued that language assessment courses fail to provide preservice teachers with the essential assessment skills. This inefficiency, in his view, results in the generation of different assessment skills and, consequently, various ATNs.

Although the previous studies have yielded precious insights into assessment training for language teachers, they have mainly been concerned with English teachers working in schools or institutes and only a few were on university instructors. Likewise, as the review of the related literature indicates, university English instructors’ ATNs are underexplored in the Iranian context. The current study, therefore, was carried out to fill this gap.

Method

A mixed-method design was used in the present study. More specifically, in order to complement and triangulate the collected data to provide a more profound understanding of Iranian university English instructors’ ATNs, both quantitative and qualitative data were accumulated and analyzed. Online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were employed to collect quantitative and qualitative data respectively.

Participants

The study was conducted after the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020, which gave the researcher no choice but to find appropriate cases through social networks. More specifically, to sample the participating university instructors, the researcher randomly looked for appropriate cases in some academic social networks such as LinkedIn and Academia and sent them messages containing a brief description of the objectives of study along with formal participation requests and the questionnaire. They were also requested to share their demographic information and leave their telephone number or email address at the end of the questionnaire if they were interested in receiving the follow-up interview. The messages were sent to more than 300 English instructors who taught at the university level in Iranian state, Azad, Payame-Nour, and applied science and technology universities.

Eventually, 68 instructors (28 men and 40 women) with the age range of 30 to 58 years participated in the study by filling in the questionnaires. Fifty-nine participants taught English to non-English major students and nine taught English major students. The majority of the participants (about 80%) got a master’s degree in applied linguistics, linguistics, English literature, or English language translation. The rest had a doctoral degree in the mentioned fields of studies. Their teaching experiences ranged from 3 to 21 years.

Fourteen participants agreed to receive follow-up interviews. The researcher, subsequently, selected one volunteer randomly and interviewed him through Skype. After analyzing the recorded data, he interviewed another case through the same procedure and kept it up to reaching the status of data saturation and coherence. The recorded data saturated after the participation of eight participants whose demographic information is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic Information of the Interviewees

Interviewees Gender Age Teaching experience Degree
I1 Male 35 5 years Master’s
I2 Female 38 9 years PhD
I3 Female 36 5 years Master’s
I4 Male 39 11 years PhD
I5 Female 32 3 years Master’s
I6 Female 35 3 years Master’s
I7 Female 37 6 years Master’s
I8 Female 45 15 years PhD

Data Collection Instruments

To accumulate the quantitative data, the questionnaire developed by Vogt and Tsagari (2014) was adapted and used. This instrument was selected since it has also been employed and validated in similar studies on ATNs such as Lan and Fan (2019). It consists of three sections. The first section seeks participants’ demographic information including their gender, age, academic degree, teaching experience, student types (English or non-English major), and educational background. The second section investigates the assessment training respondents have received and wish to get. This section comprises three thematic areas including concepts and content of language testing, aims of testing and assessment, and classroom assessment performances. Each thematic area is divided into two parts: received training and needed training. A three-point Likert scale is used for each item with not at all, a little, and advanced options for received training and none, basic, and advanced for needed training. It is worth mentioning that the terms a little, basic, and advanced are quantified to dispel any likely ambiguity. More specifically, the terms a little, basic, and advanced are specified as training for one day, two days, and three or more days respectively. At the end of the questionnaire, one open-ended question is used to seek instructors’ perceptions about their specific ATNs.

The questionnaire was piloted with four English instructors teaching in Iranian universities. As a result of the comments provided by the respondents, some minor changes were made to the questionnaire including removing similar items, rewording the technical terms, and reordering the items. Eventually, the questionnaire (see Appendix A) comprised 22 items including nine items for concepts and content of language testing, four items for aims of testing and assessment, and nine items for classroom assessment performances.

Semi-structured interviews were also used to triangulate the collected data and let the respondents extend, elaborate on, and provide details about their perceptions of their ATNs. Such a plan could lead to the richness and depth of the responses given by the respondents as well as the comprehensiveness of the emerging findings. The interview questions were concerned with the respondents’ classroom assessment practices, assessment training experiences, assessment learning resources, and ATNs. The interview questions (see Appendix B) were developed in English and, subsequently, checked by two experts who were teaching English-major students in Iranian universities.

Data Collection Procedure

Since the study was conducted after the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020 and also focused on a wide range of university teachers from various universities in the country, the researcher sought to take the advantage of academic social networks (e.g., LinkedIn and Academia) to collect the data. More specifically, the researcher found cases with the required features on social networks and sent them the intended message and the questionnaire. Seventy-one respondents returned the questionnaires after about three months. Three submissions were excluded due to incomplete responses. The responses given in the rest (68 questionnaires) were loaded into SPSS 24 to be analyzed.

After collecting the quantitative data, the researcher strived to contact the respondents who left their telephone number or email address at the end of the questionnaire and set an interview time with the volunteers. The interviews were conducted and recorded through Skype. To facilitate the communication and give the respondents the chance to elaborate on their viewpoints at length, they were privileged to opt for the language to respond freely. To ensure the trustworthiness of the data, the researcher sought to avoid bias through the recommended strategies (for more details see McMillan & Schumacher, 2006). More specifically, he persistently employed field work, accounted for participants’ language verbatim accounts, and checked the data informally with the participants during the interviews. In addition to recording all interviews with the permission of the participants, the researcher took hand-written notes of the key points of the interviewees’ responses throughout the interviews.

Data Analysis Procedure

SPSS 24 was employed to analyze the data collected through the questionnaires. Analysis of the data indicated a strong internal and consistent reliability of the questionnaire (α = 0.92). Descriptive statistics of the 23 items, including their frequencies and percentages, were reported to answer the research questions quantitatively. Besides, the frequency of the recurring themes was calculated to analyze the responses given to the open-ended question.

The recorded interviews were analyzed inductively and deductively. To conduct the inductive procedure, the interview contents were analyzed through code-labeling and identifying recurring themes. That is, the data from both interviews and open-ended questions were transcribed verbatim and integrated with the notes taken. The transcriptions were then read frequently and recursively so that the interactions could be envisaged in detail. This also helped to find connections between the results emerging from both sources. The researcher developed open codes concerning the research questions independently, which sometimes entailed going back and forth through the data. The categories and relationships among the themes emerged from more refined cross-referencing among the themes, memos, and participants’ accounts. This procedure proceeded incrementally up to data saturation and coherence and, eventually, conclusions. The deductive approach taken in the data analysis procedure involved referring to questionnaire items as categories. To ensure coding reliability, coding and thematizing were verified by an expert who was an associate professor of applied linguistics and had a great wealth of research experience.

Results From Questionnaires

The results are discussed in the three thematic areas considered in the questionnaire including concepts and content of language testing, aims of testing and assessment, and classroom assessment performances.

Content and Concepts of Language Testing

As can be seen in Table 2, it seems that most of the training the respondents received in the content and concepts revolved around the qualities of a test. That is, less than 11% of the respondents claimed that they had received no training in the concept and content of test reliability, validity, and discrimination. Only two respondents reported no training in the concept and content of test reliability and validity. On the other hand, more than half of the participants did not receive any remarkable training in the content and concept of assessing language skills and the social dimension of language assessment. Social dimension, among all content and concept areas, appears to be the most neglected one in training, with 74% of respondents reporting no training in this regard. Integrated language skills were reported to be the second least trained area of content and concepts among the respondents, 70% of whom claimed no training at all.

Table 2: Respondents’ Assessment Training Received and Needed in Content and Concepts

Received training Needed training
f % f %
Receptive skills (listening/reading) Not at all 36 53 9 13
A little 27 40 37 54
Advanced 5 7 22 33
Productive skills (writing/speaking) Not at all 36 53 9 13
A little 27 40 37 54
Advanced 5 7 15 33
Integrated language skills Not at all 48 70 6 9
A little 18 27 43 63
Advanced 2 3 19 28
Validity Not at all 2 3 6 9
A little 51 75 41 60
Advanced 15 22 21 31
Reliability Not at all 2 3 6 9
A little 51 75 41 60
Advanced 15 22 21 31
Discrimination Not at all 8 11 8 11
A little 52 76 39 58
Advanced 8 13 21 31
Difficulty Not at all 10 15 6 9
A little 50 73 42 61
Advanced 8 12 20 30
Statistics Not at all 15 23 5 8
A little 46 67 36 53
Advanced 7 10 27 39
Social dimension Not at all 50 74 8 12
A little 16 23 39 57
Advanced 2 3 21 31

Note. The percentages have been rounded up and down.

Concerning the respondents’ ATNs, Table 2 indicates that the majority of the respondents longed to receive training in all concept and content areas of language assessment. However, their needs for basic training were unveiled to be stronger than those for advanced training. That is, more than half of the respondents reported a need for basic training in all content and concept areas, whereas about one-third of them desired advanced training in content and concepts.

Aims of Testing and Assessment

The results in Table 3 show that more than one-third of the participants had not received any training in the four areas concerned with the purposes of testing and assessment. One out of two respondents claimed that they had received basic training in the four issues dealing with the purpose of testing. It was also revealed that the amount of advanced training that they had received in any of the four areas was negligible. That is, only less than 5% of the respondents reported receiving advanced training in the purpose of testing and assessment.

Table 3: Respondents’ Assessment Training Received and Needed in Purpose of Testing

Received training Needed training
f % f %
Giving grades Not at all 25 36 7 10
A little 40 59 43 63
Advanced 3 5 18 27
Finding out what is needed in teaching and learning Not at all 27 39 2 3
A little 39 58 37 54
Advanced 2 3 29 43
Placing students Not at all 26 38 9 13
A little 38 58 44 64
Advanced 4 4 15 23
Selecting students Not at all 26 38 10 16
A little 38 58 41 59
Advanced 4 4 17 25

Note. The percentages have been rounded up and down.

Most of the participants also thought they still lacked training in the four areas covered in this theme. However, they showed greater tendencies to attend basic training sessions about the purposes of testing and assessment rather than advanced ones. The participants seeking to receive training in “finding out what is needed in teaching and learning” made up the largest percentage of advanced training applicants at 43 percent. It may indicate the respondents’ attention to the significant connection between assessment and teaching.

Classroom-Based Assessment Performances

The results in Table 4 indicate that more than half of the respondents received no training in the practical aspects of classroom assessment except for “selecting appropriate assessment methods,” with less than two-thirds of the respondents receiving training. Among these classroom-based assessment practices, “preparing students for high-stakes tests” and “using integrated assessment” seem to be the most neglected areas in training, with more than four-fifths of respondents reporting no training in these aspects. Less than 8% of the respondents reported attending advanced training sessions in any of the classroom-based assessment practices. On the other hand, nearly 90% of the respondents expressed their desire to attend either basic or advanced training sessions in the practical aspects. Except for “preparing students for high stakes exams,” the instructors expressed more need for basic training in classroom-based assessment practices.

Table 4: Respondents’ Assessment Training Received and Needed in Classroom-Based Assessment Practices

Received training Needed training
f % f %
Developing classroom-based assessment Not at all 50 73 8 11
A little 15 22 36 53
Advanced 3 5 24 36
Selecting and using ready-made tests Not at all 43 63 6 9
A little 22 32 36 53
Advanced 3 5 26 38
Giving feedback based on assessment Not at all 35 51 6 9
A little 30 44 30 44
Advanced 3 5 32 51
Using self-assessment Not at all 52 76 8 11
A little 15 23 50 73
Advanced 1 1 10 16
Using peer-assessment Not at all 53 77 6 8
A little 14 22 48 70
Advanced 1 1 14 22
Using integrated assessment Not at all 55 81 8 11
A little 12 18 45 66
Advanced 1 1 15 23
Using portfolio Not at all 40 58 8 12
A little 20 29 39 57
Advanced 8 13 21 31
Preparing students for high-stakes tests Not at all 55 81 2 3
A little 13 19 30 44
Advanced 0 0 36 53
Selecting appropriate assessment methods Not at all 25 36 10 12
A little 37 54 40 57
Advanced 6 10 8 31

Note. The percentages have been rounded up and down.

Overall Results

As indicated in Table 5, the majority of the instructors (66%) had not received any training in the practical aspects of classroom assessment, which also turned out to be the most neglected area among the examined assessment themes. The proportion of the instructors receiving no training in the other two thematic areas was similar (i.e., about one-third). Besides, most of the training that the respondents had received was reported to be basic.

Table 5: Overall Trend of Assessment Training

Received training Needed training
% %
Content and concepts Not at all 34 9
A little 55 58
Advanced 11 33
Purpose of testing Not at all 38 10
A little 58 60
Advanced 4 30
Classroom-based assessment practice Not at all 66 9
A little 30 57
Advanced 4 34

Note. The percentages have been rounded up and down.

The results also show that the respondents demonstrated similar ATNs in the three thematic areas. That is, nearly 60% and 30% of the instructors reported their desire to get basic and advanced training respectively in any of the examined areas. Also, about 10% of the respondents had no interest in receiving training in any of the three thematic areas.

Findings From the Interviews and the Open-Ended Question

The interviews were carried out to reveal the respondents’ assessment training experiences, classroom assessment practices, and ATNs. The latter was also scrutinized by the open-ended question used at the end of the questionnaire.

Training Experiences and Classroom Practices

Iranian preservice instructors are typically exposed to various assessment and testing concepts, principles, and approaches in formal higher-education courses for the first time (I1, I2, & I6). Some common testing and assessment concepts -including reliability, validity, practicality, rating, and assessment purposes- were learned from those courses (I1, I2, I5, & I6). However, as four of the respondents argued, they have failed to apply the knowledge and skills they learned in actual classes since they became in-service instructors. Also, no training plan has been considered by universities to help in-service instructors to extend and enact their prior assessment knowledge (I2, I4). This is vividly presented in I2’s words:

I have to admit the fact that I have learned nothing about language testing except some broad theories, definitions, and principles that were presented in my university courses. Honestly, what happened to me regarding language testing was just superficial learning. I just memorized the most important definitions and notes to pass my testing exams. And, honestly, I do not remember much about my testing lessons because I have never tried to use those theories in my classroom assessment practices. Also, my university has never required us or has never considered a program to train us to employ our testing knowledge in practice.

The interviewees were also asked to elaborate on the strategies they had used to compensate for the lack of assessment training. Seven out of the eight respondents maintained that they had done nothing to promote their classroom assessment abilities after graduation and had never been exposed to any language testing resources because language testing had never been their academic area of interest. Two instructors (I2 & I7) also attributed this negligence to their universities, which did not attach much weight to “recent and up-to-date testing methods” (I7) and required their instructors to “stick to old-fashioned methods” (I7). I3 was the only instructor who had compensated for his lack of assessment training through “reading assessment books and recently-published papers.”

Assessment Training Needs

Nearly 90% of the participants who answered the open-ended question aired their needs for training in various assessment areas. They were eager to receive training in practical aspects of testing (n = 42) and, more specifically, learn to develop a standard test (n = 16), implement formative assessment in their classes (n = 12), interpret test scores efficiently (n = 8), and prepare candidates for high-stakes exams (n = 5).

Along the same lines, all interviewees unanimously voiced strong desires for getting training in assessment because, to them, it might lead to promoting their LAL, classroom-assessment practices, and students’ quality of learning. They were also required to elaborate on their specific training needs. Although three respondents did not provide any clear response to this question, the rest expected to receive training in some assessment skills including various formative assessment methods and techniques, test and scale development, item writing, and score interpretation. Concerning her specific ATNs, I5 stated:

I like to learn basically how to apply formative assessment in my classes because I have always used summative assessment to evaluate my students’ performance. Although I assign some scores to students’ class activity and attendance, I know what I do is not systematic or scientific.

I2 called for training programs that mainly focus on applied aspects of classroom assessment rather than theories and principles: “We are fed up with various theories of language testing. I suppose we did not learn how and where to apply those theories. I am eager to get training in anything which can be used in classrooms.”

Discussion

The current study sought to examine Iranian university English instructors’ assessment training experiences, classroom assessment practices, and ATNs. The results of the study showed that the instructors had received insufficient assessment training (specifically in classroom-based assessment practices), had low LAL, and had failed to put their limited testing and assessment knowledge into practice because they had solely been exposed to various theoretical assessment lessons in the limited courses they had taken in their undergraduate and post-graduate studies. Similar findings have been reported in studies conducted in other settings (e.g., Fulcher, 2012; Jin, 2010; Vogt & Tsagari, 2014). Jin (2010), likewise, attributes the failure of enacting language instructors’ assessment knowledge in classrooms to the limited time devoted to classroom practice in language testing and assessment courses. The results, however, are not supported by Lam’s study (2019) in which university instructors in Hong Kong were reported to have high LAL for receiving professional training in language assessment. This difference might be explained by the fact that instructors in this region are mandated to pass the Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers Test to be qualified officially to start their career (Coniam & Falvey, 2013). Therefore, taking professional assessment training to prepare for the test appears to be necessary for the instructors. On the contrary, getting such a qualification is not considered a job prerequisite in the Iranian context. Besides, assessment training programs offered to preservice instructors in Hong Kong, unlike in Iran, are reported to be comprehensible and efficient (Lam, 2015).

The results of the study also revealed that the participants, despite their lack of assessment training, had refrained from using other resources to compensate for their insufficient LAL since they were not interested in the testing and assessment area and also had to comply with the testing regulations adopted in their universities. This is not consistent with the results in Tsagari and Vogt’s study (2017) where the instructors were reported to resort to books and recently-published papers and turn to their colleagues for practical advice in order to make up for their low LAL.

Another important finding of the study was that a great majority of the respondents (nearly 90%) expressed their desire to get assessment training. It appears that they assumed taking efficient assessment training programs to be effective in addressing their assessment needs and, consequently, enhancing their assessment literacy competence. As Tajeddin et al. (2011) concluded in their study, taking assessment training programs can help untrained or insufficiently-trained Iranian teachers develop a more profound understanding of different language proficiency concepts and make, for instance, more insightful and reliable raters through mainly focusing on macro-level and higher-order components of language while assessing their students’ performance.

On the other hand, the teachers mainly showed unwillingness in taking advanced and rigorous training programs and required basic training in content and concepts in assessment, purposes of testing, and classroom-based practices owing to their disinterest in the language assessment area (i.e., a personal factor) and insufficient support from their universities (i.e., a contextual constraint). This is in line with the findings reported in the study by Yan et al. (2018) in which the participants mainly tended to take less advanced assessment training courses to improve their LAL and, consequently, classroom practices. Yan et al. also argued that the tendency to get basic rather than advanced training can be accounted for by personal factors and/or contextual constraints. It accordingly seems that the university instructors may reinforce their interest in promoting their assessment knowledge and skills if more emphasis is placed on their assessment competence in their workplaces and adequate support and budget are provided for them to improve their LAL. A lack of support as well as strict regulations set by universities may discourage instructors from improving their LAL and assessment practices because the instructors are generally graded and evaluated based on the quality of their publications rather than on classroom practices (Mohrman et al., 2011).

More support and emphasis on LAL may reinforce the instructors’ interest in getting more advanced assessment training and induce them to pursue more recent and novel approaches to language assessment (Lam, 2015). For instance, they may strive to practice assessment for learning to support students’ learning and benefit from their assessment results to improve the quality of their teaching. Also, they may resort to the sociocultural theory of language teaching, learning, and assessment to assist their learners to move through their zone of proximal learning through constructive feedback on their performances and scaffolding. The tendency to grow such skills was also pointed out by the instructors who voiced their desire to learn to practice formative assessment.

The results also showed that when the interviewees were required to voice their specific ATNs, some of the respondents were found to be hesitant to answer. This supports Tsagari and Vogt’s (2017) study in which the language instructors failed to specify their ATNs clearly. As Hill (2017) argued, the difficulty to know ATNs appears when instructors fail to employ their assessment knowledge in classrooms or when they lack skills to elaborate on the efficiency of their classroom assessment practices.

Conclusion

The study attempted to explore university English instructors’ assessment training experiences, classroom assessment practices, and ATNs in Iran. In general, the findings revealed that the instructors had not received enough training to promote their LAL and classroom-based assessment practices because they had solely been exposed to language assessment principles in the limited courses offered to preservice teachers in universities, which had mainly revolved around concepts and theories of language assessment and had given short shrift to the practical aspects. In spite of this situation, the instructors had a stronger desire for one-to-two-day training programs (i.e., basic training programs) rather than advanced ones lasting more than three days. This tendency might be ascribed to different personal and contextual constraints including the instructors’ disinterest in the language testing and assessment area and lack of support from universities.

The study, however, is subject to some limitations that could be addressed in future research. First, it is a small-scale study with 68 participants who filled out the questionnaire and eight interviewees. Moreover, some terms used in the questionnaire (e.g., basic and advanced) may still look ambiguous, although they are quantified by being day-based. This ambiguity may give rise to varying interpretations and, consequently, different responses from participants.

Despite such limitations, the study may have some practical implications to enhance assessment training for university English instructors in Iran. For instance, the results obtained in the current study may contribute to growing the body of knowledge in the related literature. They may also raise teacher educators’ awareness of the Iranian university instructors’ LAL, assessment training experiences, classroom-based assessment practices, and ATNs. This awareness might induce them to design and implement more efficient assessment training programs in line with instructors’ lacks and actual needs. Further, the results may encourage Iranian university administrators and department heads to give more weight to their instructors’ assessment practices, to consider practical and effective assessment training programs for the preservice and in-service instructors, and to provide enough financial support for them to promote their LAL.

References

Ashraf, H., & Zolfaghari, S. (2018). EFL teachers’ assessment literacy and their reflective teaching. International Journal of Instruction, 11(1), 425-436. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11129a [Link]

Chung, S. J., & Nam, Y. (2018). Language assessment literacy of Korean EFL teachers: An investigation of their training experiences and needs. Modern English Education, 19(1), 38-48. https://doi.org/10.18095/meeso.2018.19.1.04 [Link]

Coniam, D., & Falvey, P. (2013). Ten years on: The Hong Kong language proficiency assessment for teachers of English (LPATE). Language Testing, 30(1),147-155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212459485 [Link]

Crusan, D., Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2016). Writing assessment literacy: Surveying second language teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Assessing Writing, 28, 43-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.03.001 [Link]

Dann, R. (2014). Assessment as learning: Blurring the boundaries of assessment and learning for theory, policy and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 149-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.898128 [Link]

DeLuca, C., & Klinger, D. A. (2010). Assessment literacy development: Identifying gaps in teacher candidates’ learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice , 17(4), 419-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.516643 [Link]

Fulcher, G. (2012). Assessment literacy for the language classroom. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(2), 113-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.642041 [Link]

Gan, L., & Lam, R. (2020). Understanding university English instructors’ assessment training needs in the Chinese context. Language Testing in Asia, 10(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-020-00109-y [Link]

Guerin, E. M. C. (2010). Initial findings from a pilot Italian study of foreign language teachers’ stated language assessment knowledge-base and needs. In G. Bota, H. Hargreaves, L. Chia-Chun, & R. Rong (Eds.), Papers from the Lancaster University postgraduate conference in linguistics & language teaching (Vol. 4, pp. 80-103). Lancaster University.

Harding, L., & Kremmel, B. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy and professional development. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 413-427). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513827-027 [Link]

Hasselgreen, A. (2008, May 8-11). Literacy in classroom assessment (CA): What does this involve? [Paper presentation]. The 5th Annual EALTA Conference, Athens, Greece.

Hasselgreen, A., Carlsen, C., & Helness, H. (2004). European survey of language testing and assessment needs (Report: Part one - general findings). Retrieved from http://www.ealta.eu.org/documents/resources/survey-report-pt1.pdf [Link]

Hill, K. (2017). Understanding classroom-based assessment practices: A precondition for teacher assessment literacy. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 6(1), 1-17.

Inbar-Lourie, O. (2017). Language assessment literacy. In E. Shohamy, I. G. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Language testing and assessment: Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed., pp. 257-286). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_19 [Link]

Jin, Y. (2010). The place of language testing and assessment in the professional preparation of foreign language teachers in China. Language Testing, 27(4), 555-584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209351431 [Link]

Lam, R. (2015). Language assessment training in Hong Kong: Implications for language assessment literacy. Language Testing, 32(2), 169-197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214554321 [Link]

Lam, R. (2019). Teacher assessment literacy: Surveying knowledge, conceptions and practices of classroom-based writing assessment in Hong Kong. System, 81, 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.01.006 [Link]

Lan, C., & Fan, S. (2019). Developing classroom-based language assessment literacy for in-service EFL teachers: The gaps. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 61, 112-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.03.003 [Link]

Levi, T., & Inbar-Lourie, O. (2020). Assessment literacy or language assessment literacy: Learning from the teachers. Language Assessment Quarterly , 17(2), 168-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2019.1692347 [Link]

Malone, M. E. (2008). Training in language assessment. In E. Shohamy & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Language testing and assessment: Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., pp. 225-240). Springer.

Malone, M. (2017). Training in language assessment. In E. Shohamy, I. G. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Language testing and assessment: Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed., pp. 225-239). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_16 [Link]

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (1st ed.). Pearson.

Mertler, C. (2016). Classroom assessment: A practical guide for educators. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315266756 [Link]

Mohrman, K., Geng, Y., & Wang, Y. (2011). Faculty life in China. The NEA 2011 Almanac of Higher Education, 83-99.

Reckase, M. (2008, May 8-11). Assessment literacy [Paper presentation]. The 5th Annual EALTA Conference, Athens, Greece.

Scarino, A. (2013). Language assessment literacy as self-awareness: Understanding the role of interpretation in assessment and in teacher learning. Language Testing, 30(3), 309-327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213480128 [Link]

Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-765. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170208301010 [Link]

Swaffield, S. (2011). Getting to the heart of authentic assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice , 18(4), 433-449. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.582838 [Link]

Tajeddin, Z., Alemi, M., & Pashmforoosh, R. (2011). Non-native teachers’ rating criteria for L2 speaking: Does a rater training program make a difference? Teaching English Language, 5(1), 125-153.

Taylor, L. (2009). Developing assessment literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 21-36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190509090035 [Link]

Taylor, L. (2013). Communicating the theory, practice and principles of language testing to test stakeholders: Some reflections. Language Testing, 30(3), 403-412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213480338 [Link]

Tsagari, D., & Vogt, K. (2017). Assessment literacy of foreign language teachers around Europe: Research, challenges and future prospects. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment , 6(1), 41-59.

Vogt, K., & Tsagari, D. (2014). Assessment literacy of foreign language teachers: Findings of a European study. Language Assessment Quarterly , 11(4), 374-402. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2014.960046 [Link]

Vogt, K., Tsagari, D., & Spanoudis, G. (2020). What do teachers think they want? A comparative study of in-service language teachers’ beliefs on LAL training needs. Language Assessment Quarterly , 17(4), 386-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2020.1781128 [Link]

Walters, F. S. (2010). Cultivating assessment literacy: Standards evaluation through language-test specification reverse engineering. Language Assessment Quarterly , 7(4), 317-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2010.516042 [Link]

Watmani, R., Asadollahfam, H., & Behin, B. (2020). Demystifying language assessment literacy among high school teachers of English as a foreign language in Iran: Implications for teacher education reforms. International Journal of Language Testing, 10(2), 129-144.

William, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation , 37(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001 [Link]

Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. L. (2017). University English teacher assessment literacy: A survey-test report from China. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment , 6(1), 133-156.

Yan, X., Zhang, C., & Fan, J. J. (2018). “Assessment knowledge is important, but…”: How contextual and experiential factors mediate assessment practice and training needs of language teachers. System , 74, 158-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.003 [Link]

Zulaiha, S., Mulyono, H., & Ambarsari, L. (2020). An investigation into EFL teachers’ assessment literacy: Indonesian teachers’ perceptions and classroom practice. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 9(1), 189-201. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2020.1.189 [Link]

Sayyadi, A. (2022). In-service university-level EFL instructors’ language assessment literacy and training needs. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 24(1), 77-95. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v24n1.93676

About the Author

holds a PhD in teaching English as a foreign language from the University of Tehran. His main area of interest is language assessment.

Appendix A: Questionnaire on Language Assessment Literacy and Assessment Training Needs

Part I. General Information

  1. Do you work in (country)? Yes □ No □

  2. What subject(s) do you teach?

  3. What subjects have you studied?

  4. What is your highest qualification? Please specify:

  5. Type of school/institution you teach at:

  6. Average age of pupils:

  7. Your functions at your school/institution:

□ Teacher

□ Head of department or school

□ Mentor

□ Advisory function for authorities (local government, ministry, etc.)

□ Other? Please specify:

8. During your preservice or in-service teacher training, have you learned something about testing and assessment (theory and practice)?

□ Yes (please specify:)

□ No

Part II. Questions About Training in Language Assessment

1. Content and concepts of language testing

1.1. Please specify if you were trained in the following domains.

Not at all A little Advanced
Assessing receptive skills (reading/listening)
Assessing productive skills (speaking/writing)
Assessing integrated language skills
Assessing social dimensions of language
Establishing reliability of tests/assessment
Establishing validity of tests/assessments
Establishing test/assessment discrimination
Determining the test difficulty
Using statistics to study the quality of tests/assessment

1.2. Please specify if you need training in the following domains.

None Basic Advanced
Assessing receptive skills (reading/listening)
Assessing productive skills (speaking/writing)
Assessing integrated language skills
Assessing social dimensions of language
Establishing reliability of tests/assessment
Establishing validity of tests/assessments
Establishing test/assessment discrimination
Determining the test difficulty
Using statistics to study the quality of tests/assessment

2. Aims of testing and assessment

2.1. Please specify if you were trained in the following domains.

Not at all A little Advanced
Giving grades
Finding out what needs to be taught/learned
Placing students into courses, programs, etc.
Awarding final certificates (from school/program; local, regional, or national level)

2.2. Please specify if you need training in the following domains.

None Basic Advanced
Giving grades
Finding out what needs to be taught/learned
Placing students into courses, programs, etc.
Awarding final certificates (from school/program; local, regional, or national level)

3. Classroom-assessment performances

3.1. Please specify if you were trained in the following domains.

Not at all A little Advanced
Preparing classroom tests
Using ready-made tests from textbook packages or from other sources
Giving feedback to students based on information from tests/assessment
Using self-assessment
Using peer-assessment
Using integrated assessment
Preparing students for high-stakes tests
Using portfolios
Selecting appropriate assessment methods

3.2. Please specify if you need training in the following domains.

None Basic Advanced
Preparing classroom tests
Using ready-made tests from textbook packages or from other sources
Giving feedback to students based on information from tests/assessment
Using self-assessment
Using peer-assessment
Using integrated assessment
Preparing students for high-stakes tests
Using portfolios
Selecting appropriate assessment methods

3.3. Please specify if you have any other language assessment training needs.

Appendix B: The Interview Questions

  1. How familiar are you with different contents and concepts of language assessment?

  2. Do you use different language assessment methods to evaluate your students?

  3. Have you ever received any training in language assessment?

    1. If yes, what were the training programs?

    2. How long did they last?

    3. What was the training mainly about?

    4. How effective was the training?

    5. To what extent have you applied the training topics in your actual classes?

    6. Do you think you have been sufficiently trained?

  4. Have you done anything to compensate for your lack of assessment training? If yes, what?

  5. What are your language assessment training needs?

  6. Do you prefer to get basic or advanced language assessment training? Why?

References

Ashraf, H., & Zolfaghari, S. (2018). EFL teachers’ assessment literacy and their reflective teaching. International Journal of Instruction, 11(1), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11129a

Chung, S. J., & Nam, Y. (2018). Language assessment literacy of Korean EFL teachers: An investigation of their training experiences and needs. Modern English Education, 19(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.18095/meeso.2018.19.1.04

Coniam, D., & Falvey, P. (2013). Ten years on: The Hong Kong language proficiency assessment for teachers of English (LPATE). Language Testing, 30(1),147–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212459485

Crusan, D., Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2016). Writing assessment literacy: Surveying second language teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Assessing Writing, 28, 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.03.001

Dann, R. (2014). Assessment as learning: Blurring the boundaries of assessment and learning for theory, policy and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.898128

DeLuca, C., & Klinger, D. A. (2010). Assessment literacy development: Identifying gaps in teacher candidates’ learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(4), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.516643

Fulcher, G. (2012). Assessment literacy for the language classroom. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(2), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.642041

Gan, L., & Lam, R. (2020). Understanding university English instructors’ assessment training needs in the Chinese context. Language Testing in Asia, 10(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-020-00109-y

Guerin, E. M. C. (2010). Initial findings from a pilot Italian study of foreign language teachers’ stated language assessment knowledge-base and needs. In G. Bota, H. Hargreaves, L. Chia-Chun, & R. Rong (Eds.), Papers from the Lancaster University postgraduate conference in linguistics & language teaching (Vol. 4, pp. 80–103). Lancaster University.

Harding, L., & Kremmel, B. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy and professional development. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 413–427). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513827-027

Hasselgreen, A. (2008, May 8–11). Literacy in classroom assessment (CA): What does this involve? [Paper presentation]. The 5th Annual EALTA Conference, Athens, Greece.

Hasselgreen, A., Carlsen, C., & Helness, H. (2004). European survey of language testing and assessment needs (Report: Part one – general findings). Retrieved from http://www.ealta.eu.org/documents/resources/survey-report-pt1.pdf

Hill, K. (2017). Understanding classroom-based assessment practices: A precondition for teacher assessment literacy. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 6(1), 1–17.

Inbar-Lourie, O. (2017). Language assessment literacy. In E. Shohamy, I. G. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Language testing and assessment: Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed., pp. 257–286). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_19

Jin, Y. (2010). The place of language testing and assessment in the professional preparation of foreign language teachers in China. Language Testing, 27(4), 555–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209351431

Lam, R. (2015). Language assessment training in Hong Kong: Implications for language assessment literacy. Language Testing, 32(2), 169–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214554321

Lam, R. (2019). Teacher assessment literacy: Surveying knowledge, conceptions and practices of classroom-based writing assessment in Hong Kong. System, 81, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.01.006

Lan, C., & Fan, S. (2019). Developing classroom-based language assessment literacy for in-service EFL teachers: The gaps. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 61, 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.03.003

Levi, T., & Inbar-Lourie, O. (2020). Assessment literacy or language assessment literacy: Learning from the teachers. Language Assessment Quarterly, 17(2), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2019.1692347

Malone, M. E. (2008). Training in language assessment. In E. Shohamy & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Language testing and assessment: Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., pp. 225–240). Springer.

Malone, M. (2017). Training in language assessment. In E. Shohamy, I. G. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Language testing and assessment: Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed., pp. 225–239). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_16

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (1st ed.). Pearson.

Mertler, C. (2016). Classroom assessment: A practical guide for educators. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315266756

Mohrman, K., Geng, Y., & Wang, Y. (2011). Faculty life in China. The NEA 2011 Almanac of Higher Education, 83–99.

Reckase, M. (2008, May 8–11). Assessment literacy [Paper presentation]. The 5th Annual EALTA Conference, Athens, Greece.

Scarino, A. (2013). Language assessment literacy as self-awareness: Understanding the role of interpretation in assessment and in teacher learning. Language Testing, 30(3), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213480128

Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170208301010

Swaffield, S. (2011). Getting to the heart of authentic assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.582838

Tajeddin, Z., Alemi, M., & Pashmforoosh, R. (2011). Non-native teachers’ rating criteria for L2 speaking: Does a rater training program make a difference? Teaching English Language, 5(1), 125–153.

Taylor, L. (2009). Developing assessment literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190509090035

Taylor, L. (2013). Communicating the theory, practice and principles of language testing to test stakeholders: Some reflections. Language Testing, 30(3), 403–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213480338

Tsagari, D., & Vogt, K. (2017). Assessment literacy of foreign language teachers around Europe: Research, challenges and future prospects. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 6(1), 41–59.

Vogt, K., & Tsagari, D. (2014). Assessment literacy of foreign language teachers: Findings of a European study. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(4), 374–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2014.960046

Vogt, K., Tsagari, D., & Spanoudis, G. (2020). What do teachers think they want? A comparative study of in-service language teachers’ beliefs on LAL training needs. Language Assessment Quarterly, 17(4), 386–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2020.1781128

Walters, F. S. (2010). Cultivating assessment literacy: Standards evaluation through language-test specification reverse engineering. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7(4), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2010.516042

Watmani, R., Asadollahfam, H., & Behin, B. (2020). Demystifying language assessment literacy among high school teachers of English as a foreign language in Iran: Implications for teacher education reforms. International Journal of Language Testing, 10(2), 129–144.

William, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001

Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. L. (2017). University English teacher assessment literacy: A survey-test report from China. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 6(1), 133–156.

Yan, X., Zhang, C., & Fan, J. J. (2018). “Assessment knowledge is important, but…”: How contextual and experiential factors mediate assessment practice and training needs of language teachers. System, 74, 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.003

Zulaiha, S., Mulyono, H., & Ambarsari, L. (2020). An investigation into EFL teachers’ assessment literacy: Indonesian teachers’ perceptions and classroom practice. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 9(1), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2020.1.189

How to Cite

APA

Sayyadi, A. (2022). In-Service University-Level EFL Instructors’ Language Assessment Literacy and Training Needs. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 24(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v24n1.93676

ACM

[1]
Sayyadi, A. 2022. In-Service University-Level EFL Instructors’ Language Assessment Literacy and Training Needs. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development. 24, 1 (Jan. 2022), 77–95. DOI:https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v24n1.93676.

ACS

(1)
Sayyadi, A. In-Service University-Level EFL Instructors’ Language Assessment Literacy and Training Needs. Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev. 2022, 24, 77-95.

ABNT

SAYYADI, A. In-Service University-Level EFL Instructors’ Language Assessment Literacy and Training Needs. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, [S. l.], v. 24, n. 1, p. 77–95, 2022. DOI: 10.15446/profile.v24n1.93676. Disponível em: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/profile/article/view/93676. Acesso em: 24 feb. 2024.

Chicago

Sayyadi, Ali. 2022. “In-Service University-Level EFL Instructors’ Language Assessment Literacy and Training Needs”. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development 24 (1):77-95. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v24n1.93676.

Harvard

Sayyadi, A. (2022) “In-Service University-Level EFL Instructors’ Language Assessment Literacy and Training Needs”, Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 24(1), pp. 77–95. doi: 10.15446/profile.v24n1.93676.

IEEE

[1]
A. Sayyadi, “In-Service University-Level EFL Instructors’ Language Assessment Literacy and Training Needs”, Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 77–95, Jan. 2022.

MLA

Sayyadi, A. “In-Service University-Level EFL Instructors’ Language Assessment Literacy and Training Needs”. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, vol. 24, no. 1, Jan. 2022, pp. 77-95, doi:10.15446/profile.v24n1.93676.

Turabian

Sayyadi, Ali. “In-Service University-Level EFL Instructors’ Language Assessment Literacy and Training Needs”. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development 24, no. 1 (January 19, 2022): 77–95. Accessed February 24, 2024. https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/profile/article/view/93676.

Vancouver

1.
Sayyadi A. In-Service University-Level EFL Instructors’ Language Assessment Literacy and Training Needs. Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev. [Internet]. 2022 Jan. 19 [cited 2024 Feb. 24];24(1):77-95. Available from: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/profile/article/view/93676

Download Citation

CrossRef Cited-by

CrossRef citations0

Dimensions

PlumX

Article abstract page views

859

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.