Language Assessment Literacy Development of a Novice University English Teacher in the Chinese Context

Abstract

To date, most studies on language assessment literacy (LAL) have focused on how to improve language teachers’ LAL through external inputs (e.g. assessment training, courses), but much remains unknown with regard to how individual teachers develop their LAL over time in their teaching contexts. To fill this void, the current study explored the lived experience of a novice university English teacher's LAL development over an extended period in the Chinese context. It was found that the teacher witnessed her LAL development throughout one academic year. Specifically, she developed more conceptual knowledge of language assessment, became more aware of the importance of learning in relation to assessment, accessed more assessment skills and became more student centred in assessment practices. This improvement, following an individualised developmental trajectory in a bottom-up way, was mediated by contextual (e.g. institutional support), experiential (e.g. assessment training or learning) and personal (e.g. agency and reflection) factors, in all of which the teacher's self-agency contributed substantially to her LAL development. Based on the findings, implications for university English teachers’ professional development in language assessment have been provided.

Keywords

Language assessment literacy narrative inquiry novice university English teachers teacher agency professional development

Introduction

Language assessment is considered to be a pivotal component in language education, because the quality of classroom instruction is influenced considerably by the quality of assessment (Stiggins, 1999). The importance of language assessment has resulted in a high demand for teachers’ language assessment literacy (LAL), which generally refers to the knowledge, skills, principles and capabilities stakeholders require to implement language assessment activities (Inbar-Lourie, 2017). With sufficient LAL, language teachers can conduct efficient assessment tasks, make informed decisions about students’ language performance and minimise any negative impact these decisions may exert on teaching and learning. As such, teachers’ LAL has become an indispensable part of professional development for language teachers (Giraldo, 2021), given its crucial role in promoting students’ learning. In addition, as ‘lack of LAL might be a sign of limited professionalism for language teachers’ (Tsagari, 2021: 26), teachers’ LAL development is urgently needed to inform and underpin their assessment practices.

A burgeoning number of studies have investigated teachers’ LAL development through external inputs, including assessment training programmes, assessment courses or projects and involvement in test development (e.g. Baker and Riches, 2018; Ho and Yan, 2021). Although these studies were conducted in settings designed for research purposes in a top-down way, it is not known how individual teachers advance LAL in their specific teaching contexts. The current study fills this gap by documenting the LAL developmental trajectory of a novice university English teacher in China through a narrative inquiry. It aims to gain insights into how language teachers develop LAL over time by examining various factors emerging from teaching practices.

Our study responds to the call for researching ‘how LAL develops within individuals, grows and matures over time’ (Taylor, 2013: 407) by listening to language teachers’ voices (Inbar-Lourie, 2017) and documenting the developmental process of teachers’ LAL in their assessment practices (Gan and Lam, 2022). Exploring language teachers’ lived experiences of LAL development contributes to the ongoing dialogue about the dynamic and descriptive nature of LAL (Inbar-Lourie, 2017) and the interaction between LAL and teachers’ professional development (Giraldo, 2021).

Teachers’ LAL Development

The close connection between language testing and assessment, and teaching and learning has brought teachers’ professional knowledge of language testing and assessment, namely, teachers’ LAL, to the forefront of educational practices. Based on published definitions of LAL (e.g. Scarino, 2013; Vogt and Tsagari, 2014), LAL is operationalised here as language teachers’ competence in understanding and developing language assessment knowledge, skills and principles and applying these in practice, whereby they judge and infer students’ language performance and utilise these assessment data to inform instruction within a sociocultural context. Assessment literate teachers are able to diagnose students’ learning weaknesses and strengths, provide accurate inferences for students and adjust their teaching accordingly. In contrast, teachers who are not competent in LAL may undermine their assessment practices and instructions, students’ learning and their own professional development (Hidri, 2021). Therefore, LAL should be put at the core of successful language teaching and the professional development of teachers (Giraldo, 2021). However, extensive LAL literature has revealed that most language teachers remain unable to gain a satisfactory level of LAL to implement effective classroom-based assessment practices (e.g. Crusan et al., 2016; Sun and Zhang, 2022).

To address this problem, most LAL studies have turned to external inputs for teachers’ LAL development. One type of input is assessment training/courses. Previous studies have highlighted the urgent need for pre- and in-service teacher training in language testing and assessment (McGee and Colby, 2014; Vogt and Tsagari, 2014). Such training programmes/courses can empower teachers with more knowledge, skills and practices, and a better professional understanding of language assessment (Baker and Riches, 2018). Teachers’ LAL development through these inputs is quick and apparent, because they ‘offer profound engagement and dialogue with language-related matters’ (Levi and Inbar-Lourie, 2019: 180).

However, Coombe et al. (2020) proposed that researchers should pay due attention to the quality of assessment education. For instance, there was an imbalance in terms of time allocation for teaching assessment theories followed by hands-on practice (Jin, 2010) and of the content coverage in both classroom-based and large-scale assessment (Lam, 2015). These issues may result in the uneven development of teachers’ assessment knowledge, skills and practices. Stabler-Havener (2018) also pointed out that assessment training and courses were problematic, because they could only develop some aspects of teachers’ LAL, not all. In addition, LAL teaching and learning methods in the assessment training were not innovative enough to improve teachers’ LAL to any great extent (Fulcher, 2020). If unresolved, these pedagogical problems are likely to call into question the effectiveness of teacher professional development in and through LAL.

Given this, researchers have sought alternative methods for enhancing teachers’ LAL. For instance, teachers’ LAL can be improved if they are directly involved in test design and development, such as designing test tasks (Koh et al., 2018), writing test items (Ho and Yan, 2021) or joining a test retrofit (Janssen, 2022). By being involved in these test development activities, teachers can familiarise themselves with assessment processes, through which they can obtain assessment knowledge and acquire skills in carrying out assessment through self-reflection and collaboration with specialists (Harding and Brunfaut, 2020), ultimately promoting their LAL.

However, there is an oversight in the aforementioned studies. That is, language teachers are not viewed as active agents with regard to constructing their LAL knowledge base and acquiring a LAL skills kit. Instead, they receive the base and the kit imparted by teacher educators, assessment trainers or researchers. Little is known about the role played by individual teachers in LAL development and how this development is situated in their own teaching settings. In other words, in research on teachers’ LAL, ‘it is necessary to consider not only the knowledge base … but also the processes through which this literacy is developed’ (Scarino, 2013: 316).

Few studies that explored individual teachers’ proactive LAL development have revealed patterns or features in teachers’ immediate teaching settings. Xu and Liu (2009) discovered that language teachers constructed their assessment knowledge through self-reflection and collaboration with colleagues and students. They highlighted the importance of teacher agency and the influence of teachers’ previous experiences, power relationships in the workplace and assessment contexts. Similarly, another study found that LAL development for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers was student and coursebook driven, showing that teachers were confident about validating their assessment instruments and methods. This validation is likely to have a positive impact on student learning (Yastıbaş and Takkaç, 2018). Despite their contributions to the understanding of teachers’ LAL development, these two studies offered few insights into the dynamic nature of LAL development.

The gap was filled by Xu’s (2017) study in which three stages of the LAL development of novice EFL teachers in classroom assessment practices were identified. In the first stage, novice teachers conducted planned assessment from which they acquired practical skills. The second stage concerned teachers’ increased awareness of linking their planned assessment with teaching objectives. In the third stage, novice teachers were more likely to carry out improvised assessment to interact with students. These three stages presented in-depth descriptions of teachers’ assessment practices in natural teaching milieu, but the study did not examine further how the developmental patterns were constructed. Nonetheless, the aforementioned studies have indicated that by counteracting the constraints of assessment education and using available affordances, teachers’ LAL development could also be self-regulated and characterised by self-agency and self-empowerment.

A more recent study by Yan and Fan (2021) described a LAL developmental process by proposing a model of LAL development (see Figure 1). They postulated that stakeholders’ LAL development is a bottom-up and cyclical process, through which they obtain their limited initial knowledge of LAL from past assessment experiences. Stakeholders then develop their initial LAL by creating and utilising opportunities or resources and testing different assessment practices. They then reflect on and evaluate their assessment knowledge, skills and practices, from which they accumulate assessment experience. In turn, this enrichment of their experience results in stakeholders’ LAL development, which helps them address assessment problems, leading to new assessment experiences. In the model, Yan and Fan (2021) emphasised the influence of assessment context and experience on LAL development, underlining the importance of stakeholders’ agentive actions such as reflection, evaluation, familiarisation, adaptation and application. Their model has provided theoretical clarifications of stakeholders’ LAL development processes and generated practical implications for LAL development. Nevertheless, this model does not showcase a trajectory of LAL development, neither has it been attested by empirical data in real-life contexts over time.

Inspired by the literature, this study attempts to portray a novice university English teacher's LAL developmental trajectory through a narrative inquiry approach. It addresses a central research question: How did a novice university English teacher develop LAL in assessment practices in her own teaching context? With this question, the study delves into how and to what extent the teacher has developed her LAL, filling a void in the extant LAL development studies.

The Present Study

Narrative Inquiry as a Research Method in LAL Development

Since quantitative research cannot examine the dynamic intricacies of LAL development due to its psychometric nature, researchers have called for more in-depth, qualitative investigation in LAL research (e.g. Giraldo, 2020). Interpretatively qualitative in nature, narrative inquiry can be used to reveal individuals’ life stories ‘narrated by the one who lives them’ (Chase, 2012: 55). This method has become popular in some applied linguistics sub-fields such as identity construction (Barkhuizen and Wette, 2008), whereas it is scarcely seen in language testing and assessment research (e.g. Xu and Liu, 2009). Studies adopting this approach often present written texts such as field notes or interview transcripts, providing insightful evidence for exploring biographical accounts of various stakeholders with regard to language testing and assessment (Harding and Brunfaut, 2020). Given this strength, narrative inquiry is well suited to the present study for investigating the dynamic intricacies of LAL by eliciting authentic narratives of language teachers’ experiences of LAL development.

Research Context and Participant

The study is part of a longitudinal project on university English teachers’ LAL development over time in the Chinese context. Although the longitudinal study explored four teachers, Rachel (pseudonym), a novice teacher, is the only one reported here, for three reasons. First, she was the only one who had no learning and training background in language testing and assessment before becoming a teacher.¹ Second, the university she worked in was the only non-key university in the longitudinal study.² Third, novice teacher though she was, Rachel was a keen and fast learner, expecting to achieve professional development by joining our research.

When joining the study, Rachel was in her third working year, teaching College English to non-English major undergraduates. College English is a compulsory course for non-English major undergraduates during their first two years. Teachers of this course focus on various English proficiency skills (i.e. reading, writing, listening, speaking). They are also encouraged to use various assessment methods and tools to assess learning, provide students with constructive feedback and engage them in assessment practices. These practices comply with the course requirement that universities have the freedom to contextualise classroom-based formative assessment practices according to their students’ needs (CMoE, 2020).

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected over two semesters through narrative frames (NFs), interviews (ITs) and classroom observations (COs). Three NFs (see supplemental material) were used to capture Rachel's experiences of LAL development through her accounts using a template that was structured to tell a story (Barkhuizen and Wette, 2008). The frames served as scaffolding for Rachel to produce her own coherent lived stories in relation to language assessment. She completed the first NF at the beginning of the first semester and the other two at the end of the first and second semesters by following the first author's guidance.

Semi-structured ITs (see supplemental material) were also utilised, as Rachel's stories may not have been fully developed due to the constrained writing space in prescribed frames (Barkhuizen and Wette, 2008). ITs were conducted at the beginning and end of each semester, four in all. IT questions revealed Rachel's plans, the implementation of assessment tasks, potential challenges she encountered and her reflections on assessment practices and LAL development. Conducted in Chinese to ensure free expression, each IT, which lasted around one and a half hours, was audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed. Those excerpts selected as supportive evidence were translated from Chinese to English.

To complement the IT data, we conducted COs to explore how Rachel developed her LAL in her working context. Eight classroom sessions of College English and two in-class speaking tests were observed over two semesters in which field notes were taken.³ Each 90-min session of observations was videotaped and only those recorded segments relating to assessment were transcribed verbatim for analysis. The segments relating to assessment referred to the following: how Rachel gave feedback to students and the extent to which students interacted with her to enact her feedback; how she utilised assessment methods (e.g. self-/peer assessment) to motivate student learning and organise teaching or learning activities; and how she created learning opportunities for students to reflect on their errors. For these transcribed segments, which were delivered in English, no translation was needed.

Data in this study were rigorously analysed in an inductive approach (Miles et al., 2019). First, we engaged in narrative analysis (Polkinghorne, 1995), iteratively reading the data from the ITs and NFs and identifying a plotted story by sequencing the events, thereby producing ‘narrative portraits’ (Sinclair et al., 2019: 240). Second, we conducted an analysis of narratives, that is, identifying common themes (Polkinghorne, 1995). Rachel's stories were initially open coded with various codes relevant to Rachel's LAL development, such as ‘attending assessment lectures’ and ‘better understanding assessment concepts’. We collaboratively coded Rachel's narratives and solved disagreements about coding through discussions. After revision and refinement, the codes were integrated and categorised into three major themes: (a) acquiring LAL: ‘I modelled my teachers’; (b) developing conceptual knowledge: ‘Academic reading helps’; and (c) enhancing assessment practices: ‘I can conduct peer assessment!’. Third, the analysis of videotaped field observations was based on themes emerging from the ITs and NFs. Drawing on the themes, we repeatedly reviewed the COs to identify assessment scenarios that could reflect the participant's LAL growth in relation to assessment practices. These scenarios were then excerpted to corroborate Rachel's narrations. Finally, the coded narrative data were sent to Rachel for member checking and her comments were considered when the findings were interpreted.

Findings

Acquiring Initial LAL: ‘I Modelled My Teachers’

Without pre-service training in language assessment, Rachel obtained her initial understanding of this practice mainly from her previous assessment experiences. As a school student, she took many pencil and paper tests, which were viewed as the be-all and end-all of assessment. Having entered the university, she realised that her language performance could be assessed through multiple methods, but these methods put her under ‘great pressure’ (IT1). When becoming a teacher, she felt intuitively that assessment was indispensable for language teaching and learning but did not have any explicit knowledge of types of assessment. Although being aware that ‘assessment is used to diagnose students’ learning progress and identify the effectiveness of teachers’ teaching’ (IT1), Rachel admitted that her understanding of assessment was ‘superficial’. Nevertheless, at the start of her career, she managed to assess students by imitating her teachers. She explained, ‘I didn’t have a background in language assessment education … I modelled my teachers to ask questions and organise assessment’ (IT1).

However, Rachel was also given assessment guidance by her department. Because Rachel's university prioritised teaching over research, her department supported staff in their professional development by offering necessary help. Thus, the department provided clear guidelines and examples for each assessment task. This guidance helped Rachel implement assessment without ‘making mistakes’ (IT1) as a novice English teacher.

...as a newbie in language teaching, I don’t know much … I don’t know how to handle assessment tasks flexibly. Therefore, I strictly follow the department's guidelines to record and grade students’ performance. (IT1)

The department also invited experts in different fields to give lectures. Rachel accidentally attended an online lecture on assessment. Not knowing the theme of the lecture at the outset, she found that she was hooked on it.

The lecture is interesting! … I learn the concepts like formative, summative and diagnostic assessment and understand their implications. I suddenly realise that I have used some assessment methods unconsciously in my teaching before, but I have never linked them with assessment approaches. (IT1)

This particular lecture triggered Rachel's minor change in her understanding of assessment in two ways. First, it exposed her to basic assessment concepts and their implications. Second, it prompted Rachel to be aware of her implicit assessment knowledge. It was this self-reflection during the lecture that helped Rachel build her initial assessment knowledge base, referred to as ‘initial LAL’ by Yan and Fan (2021).

Rachel's experiences revealed the initial stage of her LAL development: she had partial awareness of the role assessment plays in language teaching and learning; she could articulate a limited number of terms relevant to assessment; and she could implement assessment by modelling former teachers and following explicit guidance.

Developing Conceptual Knowledge: ‘Academic Reading Helps’

Although receiving support and becoming more familiar with language assessment, Rachel struggled to choose and implement appropriate assessment methods. She ascribed the difficulty to her lack of knowledge of assessment theories. However, later, she was ‘thrilled’ to find that this inadequacy could be compensated for through reading. Rachel approached the first author after the first IT and asked for some recommendations of books about assessment. Not wishing to disappoint a novice teacher, we gave her a list of books. On the list, Rachel ‘found treasures’ (NF2) and invested time in reading an assessment handbook.

It [the handbook] is very useful! It presents multiple assessment methods and explains when and how to use them. It showcases feedback techniques through the use of samples. I can turn to the book whenever I have any queries. (IT2)

The academic reading enriched Rachel’s theoretical knowledge of assessment, although she found it taxing to internalise assessment concepts and theories. Reading also motivated her to ‘verify whether these findings [of the studies in the handbook] can be applied to my [her] class’ (NF2).

Rachel also actively searched for and read publications to find the latest research on language assessment. For instance, by reading articles in Language Testing and Teaching, a Chinese professional journal on language testing and assessment, she learned about relevant studies in local settings and picked up new concepts such as ‘consequential validity’ (IT3).

In the second semester, Rachel participated in a three-day online conference focusing on language assessment after seeing a poster on social media. This conference was portrayed as being ‘eye-opening’ (IT3), as it exposed Rachel to diverse assessment concepts, methods and practices. Two talks at the conference impressed her particularly. One was about critical reading assessment, from which she gained insights into assessing students’ critical reading, although field observations revealed that she had not yet practised this type of assessment in the classroom.

I’m interested in critical reading, but I don’t know how to assess students in this area. The conference provides me with new insights. For example, I might assess students’ critical thinking about reading passages instead of just students’ understanding of words or sentences. (IT3)

From the other talk, Rachel learned about a new concept unique to the Chinese context, namely, China's Standards of English Language Ability (CSE), a language proficiency framework similar to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Liu and Pan, 2019). Through the talk, Rachel understood how the CSE could be applied as an assessment tool and learned about ‘different criteria used to assess students’ various proficiency levels’ (IT3).

In this period, Rachel reinforced her conceptual knowledge of assessment by reading and attending conferences. She learned about more assessment concepts and content than before by taking proactive actions.

Enhancing Assessment Practices: ‘I Can Conduct Peer Assessment!’

The increasing exposure to assessment literature drove Rachel to put her enhanced learning about assessment into practice. Eager to trial methods introduced in the aforementioned assessment handbook, Rachel conducted peer assessment on students’ writing for the first time in the second semester. Not knowing how to use the method, Rachel first familiarised herself with procedures by reading the assessment handbook carefully and watching demo videos online. She then designed assessment criteria by referring to the marking rubric for the writing section in the College English Band 4 Test (a proficiency test for non-English major undergraduates in China).

On the day of conducting peer assessment, Rachel first explained to students what to consider when assessing an essay (e.g. ‘examine if there are any linguistic errors, including spellings, collocations, grammars and punctuations’ CO6). She shared her self-designed rubric and instructed students how to grade others’ writing (e.g. ‘Usually we read through the essay first and decide which range it should fall on. Then we choose a baseline score in this range as a reference’ CO6). While students had a group discussion on how to provide feedback for peers’ essays, Rachel walked around the group and stopped to listen to and talk with individuals. When students had completed their written feedback, Rachel then asked them to present feedback orally. To her disappointment, no one volunteered. To proceed with the assessment, Rachel had to select individuals herself, and one student from each group was called upon to present feedback. However, the presentation did not go well because some students failed to provide detailed and informative feedback even though they were presenting in Chinese. When the presentations were finally finished, Rachel instructed the students to revise their essays using peer feedback (e.g. ‘carefully read your peers’ comments and revise your essay … Hand in to me your original essay marked and commented on by your peers and the revised version.’ CO6).

The peer assessment was Rachel's initiative for going beyond the ‘monotonous’ assessment tasks specified by the department. Using this method, she briefly trained students in giving peer feedback and grading peer essays with criteria and rubrics to ensure quality assessment. She also facilitated the peer assessment process by explaining rubrics and listening to and talking with students. With this support, students were expected to generate informative feedback on peers’ essays. However, observed scenarios revealed that not all students could do so and that Rachel did not offer any comments on students’ written or oral feedback on peer essays.

Rachel identified some unintended problems when reflecting on her first peer assessment attempt. For instance, not all students engaged properly with this task, especially those with a low level of English proficiency. Students also hesitated to write down their names as a peer marker, fearing that the feedback and scores would undermine their relationship with peers.

Despite these drawbacks, Rachel was satisfied with the implementation, especially when she noticed an improvement in students’ writing when comparing their first drafts with the revised ones. The improvement was that ‘their [students’] writing seems to be more logical’ (IT4). The successful use of an alternative assessment method also boosted Rachel's efficacy and confidence in assessment so much that she claimed, ‘I can conduct peer assessment!’ and ‘I will continue to use this method in my class!’ (IT4).

Apart from initiating peer assessment, Rachel accumulated her LAL by trialling different assessment formats. Her trials were a process of ‘fumbling and exploring’ (IT3). In the first semester, Rachel was deeply frustrated when some students refused to take a speaking test in which they were required to publicly tell a two-minute story related to Chinese culture. She viewed students’ unwillingness to speak up as ‘a big challenge’ to her teaching, ‘This is the first time I have ever known that students dared not to take tests!’ (IT3). Despite her frustration, Rachel tried to address this problem by discussing it with her colleagues. The discussions were fruitful, because they helped her to prioritise two essential elements in speaking tests, namely, ‘students’ English proficiency and topics relevant to textbooks’ (IT2).

Accordingly, in the second semester, Rachel revised the speaking test. Recognising the students’ less-than satisfactory proficiency in English, she adjusted the task to involve individual conversations with each student, using topics from the textbook. The familiarity of the topics and the form of one-to-one speaking made students ‘not so nervous and stressful’ (IT4). This trial had a good effect, as no students were absent from the test at the end of the semester. During the trial, active reflections enabled Rachel to adjust her assessment practices to accommodate students’ learning needs.

I would recall today's assessment practice and students’ responses. I evaluate if the assessment content and methods are used correctly to address students’ English proficiency and learning needs. I am always exploring what methods are effective and then adjust them for next assessment activity. (IT3)

In addition, Rachel's awareness of integrating assessment with classroom instruction was heightened when being assigned by the department to take part in a teaching contest at the end of the second semester, it being a tradition for novice teachers to join a cross-institution teaching contest⁴ every year. Because of this assignment, Rachel was offered an opportunity to attend a teaching seminar offered by one of the well-known language publishers in China. During the seminar, Rachel observed an intra-university teaching contest, and was ‘shocked to observe that two or three teachers saliently implemented their assessment in the contest’ (NF3). It was uncommon to demonstrate assessment in a teaching contest, because ‘assessment is believed not to represent a teacher's teaching competence’ (NF3). However, inspired by the ‘brilliant’ demonstrations (NF3), Rachel decided to include a slide in her own presentation to show the use of a checklist for assessing students’ learning. In this way, ‘teaching, learning and assessing constitute a complete cycle’ (NF3). Seemingly, peer observations advanced Rachel's awareness of synergising teaching with assessment.

At the end of the first academic year, Rachel had gradually grown proficient in her assessment practices. She was able to engage students in their learning through peer assessment, and she had also accumulated assessment experience by trialling different assessment methods. In addition, she was more conscious of synergising assessment with her teaching practices.

Discussion

This study examined a novice university English teacher's (Rachel) LAL development process through a narrative inquiry. It found that Rachel's LAL improved over time but this did not happen without encountering difficulties. The improvement followed an individualised trajectory, and was influenced by an interplay between contextual, experiential and personal factors. Rachel's LAL enhancement was evidenced in three areas. First, she advanced her conceptual knowledge of assessment and developed her learning about assessment through academic reading, although not all her acquired knowledge was translated into practices. Second, Rachel showcased her advancement in relation to certain assessment skills: she adopted peer assessment for students’ writing and became more confident in using this method, and also tried different assessment methods and modified them to promote students’ learning when facing challenges. Third, Rachel's LAL development involves ethical language assessment practices. For example, considering students’ English proficiency, she catered more to their learning needs rather than simply complying with departmental guidelines when choosing assessment methods. The shift was probably related to her increasing awareness of the synergy between teaching, learning and assessment. This self-directed awareness allows teachers to reflect on and adjust their assessment practices accordingly (Xu and Liu, 2009).

Despite the above positive evidence with regard to Rachel's LAL development, it should be noted that this development was not necessarily full fledged. For instance, Rachel acquired skills in using peer assessment, but seemed not to care much about the quality of peer feedback, because she gave no comments in this respect. This is possibly because she lacked the adequate means to reflect on her assessment practices regularly as Hill (2017) claimed. This shortcoming might be due to the lack of explicit guidelines that could be obtained from professional assessment training or learning.

Rachel's LAL development followed an individualised bottom-up trajectory. She started her teaching career with limited LAL gathered from her previous assessment experiences. The initial LAL grew gradually when she obtained guidance from the department in implementing assessments. Attending lectures and conferences on assessment has given her considerable exposure to assessment theories and practices, accelerating her acquisition of LAL. Whereas academic reading further deepened Rachel's nuanced understanding of assessment, agentic reflections and observations of peers’ assessment practices contributed more significantly to the improvement of her assessment practices. Although expectations with regard to assessment were placed on her in a top-down manner, Rachel acquired her own assessment knowledge, skills and practices in a bottom-up fashion. This LAL development trajectory (see Figure 2) confirms Yan and Fan (2021)'s notion of LAL development in that individuals advance their LAL in practice by means of interaction with the immediate context, accumulation of assessment experience and self-regulating actions (e.g. reflection, evaluation, adaptation, etc.).

The trajectory of Rachel's LAL development also shows that it was mediated by contextual, experiential and personal factors, supporting the findings from previous studies (e.g. Vogt et al., 2020; Yan et al., 2018). Shaped by prior assessment experiences, Rachel's initial LAL was improved progressively. This could be partly ascribed to the assessment guidance offered by her department, which was useful and timely for Rachel at a time when institutional support for teachers’ LAL development was rare in China (Jiang, 2020). This finding corroborates Livingston and Hutchinson's (2017) view that teachers’ professional understanding of assessment can be developed effectively in a supportive environment. Aside from assessment guidance, the institutional demands of the teaching contest provided Rachel with more assessment experience. Thanks to the contest, she was offered an opportunity to observe her peers’ classes, paying more attention to the synergy between assessment and teaching. Teaching contests are conducive to teachers’ professional development at different levels of education in mainland China, as they prompt teachers to be more innovative, attentive and creative in their teaching (Cheng and Wu, 2016).

Along with institutional support and the opportunities provided, personal factors such as Rachel's agency and self-reflection facilitated her LAL enhancement. She agentively resorted to books and attended conferences to obtain an assessment knowledge base and skill set. She also reflected on her own assessment practices and turned to experienced colleagues for help. Using her reflections, she trialled assessment methods to improve the effectiveness of assessment tailored to students’ learning needs. Instead of highlighting the impact of contextual and experiential factors on teachers’ LAL development (e.g. Yan and Fan, 2021), the current study emphasises the contribution of teachers’ agency and self-reflection to LAL development. This finding is in line with Xu and Liu's (2009) discovery that teachers’ agency and reflection were crucial for the construction of knowledge on assessment.

Unlike those studies in which teachers undertook assessment training programmes/assessment courses, our study focused on a novice teacher's LAL development in her teaching setting. In this process, the teacher exercised her agency to acquire knowledge on assessment, practise assessment skills and accumulate experience of assessment. She applied her theoretical knowledge of language assessment to various assessment practices by undertaking trials. All these experiences made her feel more empowered as a teacher–assessor (Yan et al., 2018). She was not downgraded as a passive recipient of knowledge, skills and principles transmitted from assessment trainers or researchers. Instead, she proactively grasped every given opportunity or affordance to develop her LAL.

Conclusion and Implications

Our study reported the trajectory of a novice English teacher's LAL development in the Chinese context through a narrative inquiry. The findings of this case study might not be generalisable to teachers in other similar contexts. However, it does offer new insights into the developmental trajectory of language teachers’ LAL. It has also added to our understanding of LAL as a dynamic, situated and context-specific construct. We admit that in the current study, the use of qualitative instruments (e.g. prompts in interview questions) and the presence of the first author at the research site have inevitably changed the participant's assessment practices to a certain extent. Researchers need to minimise this influence in the future by trying to remain as unobtrusive as possible in their fieldwork. Future research could also involve multiple cases to explore how teachers develop their LAL over an extended period across multiple contexts (e.g. those countries in South East Asia). Thus, we could gain a better understanding of LAL development in a bottom-up manner.

The findings of the study provide implications for university English teachers, departmental/university administrators and teacher educators/assessment trainers in terms of teachers’ LAL development. First, university English teachers need to invest in acquiring knowledge of assessment and the skills and practices involved in applying this by mobilising available affordances and creating new opportunities when external constraints are imposed. This involves teachers’ self-directed reflections and the enactment of their agency in their assessment practices. They can also find external resources to help improve their LAL, for example, through active and collective conversations with colleagues, administrators and experts (Smith et al., 2014).

Second, it is recommended that departmental/university administrators support novice teachers in developing language assessment practices by giving specific guidance and providing more classroom-based assessment observations. This ongoing support in relation to assessment can serve as a catalyst to enhance teachers’ agentic and reflective engagement in learning about assessment. Thus, they feel more connected to the community of language assessment, which in turn motivates them to improve their LAL.

Third, it is suggested that those undertaking language teacher education programmes, including teacher educators and assessment trainers, take account of teachers’ LAL needs and struggles and provide training in assessment accordingly. To sum up, although previous studies have offered useful suggestions for the top-down development of LAL, the current study points to the importance of combining both bottom-up and top-down approaches for the more effective professional development of teachers’ LAL.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-rel-10.1177_00336882241231304 - Supplemental material for Language Assessment Literacy Development of a Novice University English Teacher in the Chinese Context

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-rel-10.1177_00336882241231304 for Language Assessment Literacy Development of a Novice University English Teacher in the Chinese Context by Ling Gan and Ricky Lam in RELC Journal

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-rel-10.1177_00336882241231304 - Supplemental material for Language Assessment Literacy Development of a Novice University English Teacher in the Chinese Context

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-rel-10.1177_00336882241231304 for Language Assessment Literacy Development of a Novice University English Teacher in the Chinese Context by Ling Gan and Ricky Lam in RELC Journal

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our participant who inspired us throughout the study. We would also like to extend our gratitude to Dr Meilin Chen from the Language Centre at Hong Kong Baptist University who kindly provided insightful comments on the revisions of this manuscript.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Ling Gan

Ricky Lam

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Correction (August 2024):

Article updated to correct Ling Gan's affiliation from ‘School of Languages and Communications, Beijing Technology and Business University, China' to ‘School of Languages and Communication, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing, China’.

References

Baker

Riches

(2018) The development of EFL examinations in Haiti: Collaboration and language assessment literacy development. Language Testing 35(4): 557–581.

Barkhuizen

Wette

(2008) Narrative frames for investigating the experiences of language teachers. System 36(3): 372–387.

Chase

(2012) Narrative inquiry: Still a field in the making. In: Denzon

Lincoln

(eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, 4th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 55–84.

Cheng

L-y

(2016) The affordances of teacher professional learning communities: A case study of a Chinese secondary school. Teaching and Teacher Education 58: 54–67.

CMoE (2020) Guidelines on College English Teaching. Beijing: Higher Education Press.

Coombe

Vafadar

Mohebbi

(2020) Language assessment literacy: What do we need to learn, unlearn, and relearn? Language Testing in Asia 10: 3–16.

Crusan

Plakans

Gebril

(2016) Writing assessment literacy: Surveying second language teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Assessing Writing 28: 43–56.

Fulcher

(2020) Operationalising language assessment literacy. In: Tsagari

(eds) Language Assessment Literacy: From Theory to Practice. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 8–28.

Gan

Lam

(2022) A review on language assessment literacy: Trends, foci and contributions. Language Assessment Quarterly 19(5): 503–525.

10.

Giraldo

(2020) A post-positivist and interpretive approach to researching teachers’ language assessment literacy. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development 22(1): 189–200.

11.

Giraldo

(2021) Language assessment literacy and teachers’ professional development: A review of the literature. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development 23(2): 265–279.

12.

Harding

Brunfaut

(2020) Trajectories of language assessment literacy in a teacher–researcher partnership: Locating elements of praxis through narrative inquiry. In: Poehner

Inbar-Lourie

(eds) Toward a Reconceptualization of Second Language Classroom Assessment. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 61–81.

13.

Hidri

(2021) Language assessment literacy: Where to go? In: Hidri

(ed) Perspectives on Language Assessment Literacy: Challenges for Improved Student Learning. Routledge, 3–12.

14.

Hill

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

15.

Yan

(2021) Using community of practice to characterize collaborative essay prompt writing and its role in developing language assessment literacy for pre-service language teachers. System 101(4), article 102569.

16.

Inbar-Lourie

(2017) Language assessment literacy. In: Shohamy

May

(eds) Language Testing and Assessment. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 257–270.

17.

Janssen

(2022) Local placement test retrofit and building language assessment literacy with teacher stakeholders: A case study from Colombia. Language Testing 39(3): 377–400.

18.

Jiang

(2020) Gaoxiao yingyu jiaoshi ceping suyang xianzhuang jiqi yingxiang yinsu yanjiu [Study of College English teachers’ assessment literacy and its influencing factors]. Foreign Language World 6: 18–26.

19.

Jin

(2010) The place of language testing and assessment in the professional preparation of foreign language teachers in China. Language Testing 27(4): 555–584.

20.

Koh

Burke

Luke

, et al. (2018) Developing the assessment literacy of teachers in Chinese language classrooms: A focus on assessment task design. Language Teaching Research 22(3): 264–288.

21.

Lam

(2015) Language assessment training in Hong Kong: Implications for language assessment literacy. Language Testing 32(2): 169–197.

22.

Levi

Inbar-Lourie

(2019) Assessment literacy or language assessment literacy: Learning from the teachers. Language Assessment Quarterly 17(2): 168–182.

23.

Liu

Pan

(2019) English Language teaching in China: Developing language proficiency frameworks. In: Gao

(eds) Second Handbook of English Language Teaching. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 415–432.

24.

Livingston

Hutchinson

(2017) Developing teachers’ capacities in assessment through career-long professional learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 24(2): 290–307.

25.

McGee

Colby

(2014) Impact of an assessment course on teacher candidates’ assessment literacy. Action in Teacher Education 36(5-6): 522–532.

26.

Miles

Huberman

Saldaña

(2019) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. London: SAGE Publications.

27.

Polkinghorne

(1995) Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 8(1): 5–23.

28.

Scarino

(2013) Language assessment literacy as self-awareness: Understanding the role of interpretation in assessment and in teacher learning. Language Testing 30(3): 309–327.

29.

Sinclair

Larson

Rajendram

(2019) ‘Be a machine’: International graduate students’ narratives around high-stakes English tests. Language Assessment Quarterly 16(2): 236–252.

30.

Smith

Hill

Cowie

, et al. (2014) Preparing teachers to use the enabling power of assessment. In: Wyatt-Smith

Klenowski

(eds) Designing Assessment for Quality Learning. Dordrecht: Springer, 303–324.

31.

Stabler-Havener

(2018) Defining, conceptualizing, problematizing, and assessing language teacher assessment literacy. Studies in Applied Linguistics and TESOL 18(1): 1–22.

32.

Stiggins

(1999) Evaluating classroom assessment training in teacher education programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 18(1): 23–27.

33.

Sun

Zhang

(2022) Assessment literacy of college EFL teachers in China: Status quo and mediating factors. Studies in Educational Evaluation 74: article 101157.

34.

Taylor

(2013) Communicating the theory, practice and principles of language testing to test stakeholders: Some reflections. Language Testing 30(3): 403–412.

35.

Tsagari

(2021) Language assessment literacy: concepts, challenges, and prospects. In: Hidri

(eds) Perspectives on Language Assessment Literacy: Challenges for Improved Student Learning. London: Routledge, 13–32.

36.

Vogt

Tsagari

(2014) Assessment literacy of foreign language teachers: Findings of a European study. Language Assessment Quarterly 11(4): 374–402.

37.

Vogt

Tsagari

Spanoudis

(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): 410–433.

38.

(2017) Exploring novice EFL teachers’ classroom assessment literacy development: A three-year longitudinal study. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 26(3): 219–226.

39.

Liu

(2009) Teacher assessment knowledge and practice: A narrative inquiry of a Chinese college EFL teacher’s experience. TESOL Quarterly 43(3): 493–513.

40.

Yan

Fan

(2021) ‘Am I qualified to be a language tester?’: Understanding the development of language assessment literacy across three stakeholder groups. Language Testing 38(2): 219–246.

41.

Yan

Zhang

Fan

(2018) ‘Assessment knowledge is important, but …’:How contextual and experiential factors mediate assessment practice and training needs of language teachers. System 74: 158–168.

42.

Yastıbaş

Takkaç

(2018) Understanding language assessment literacy: Developing language assessments. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 14(1): 178–193.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB