2.6 Empirical Studies on AL and LAL among Pre-service Teachers
2.6.2 Factors Mediating AL and LAL Evolvement
extensively reported in the literature. Research showed that pre-service EFL teachers held a narrowed understanding of assessment and treated assessment equivalent to traditional tests, which were usually in the form of multiple choice and short answers to check students’ mechanic memorization of facts and details (Graham, 2005). They also gained a limited scope of knowledge in both general testing principles and English language testing practice (Hatipoğlu, 2015). Though most of them grew to recognize alternative assessment as a valuable means to facilitate teaching and learning as advocated in assessment policies, pre-service EFL teachers were indicated to use portfolio assessment least frequently in language assessment practices (Graham, 2005;
Kavaklı & Arslan, 2019).
In a word, although there are some desirable improvements in several aspects of AL or LAL observed in recent studies, AL and LAL proficiency is reported to be insufficient among pre-service teachers. Besides, as to the AL proficiency level self- evaluated by pre-service teachers, there are contradictory results. Therefore, one of the objectives of the current study is to provide evidence in LAL field to this issue from the context of China.
practices in pre-service teacher education programmes.
There seemed a consensus among scholars that the assessment course was of paramount significance in initial teacher education to equip pre-service teachers with threshold assessment competence (Deneen & Brown, 2016; Huai et al., 2006; Kruse et al., 2020; Kyttälä et al., 2021; Lian &Yew, 2016; McGee & Colby, 2014; O’Sullivan
& Johnson, 1993; Wise & Lukin, 1993). The assessment course helped to build a foundation for teacher candidates to better understand how to assess learners’
achievement and to be more familiar with practical skills for implementing assessment activities in future teaching tasks (Deneen & Brown, 2011; McGee & Colby, 2014).
Besides, DeLuca et al. (2013) added pre-service teachers were more confident in theories of assessment after the training in the course. What is more important, the purpose of this course was also to foster their long-lasting interest in further exploring issues associated with assessment in the later professional careers (DeLuca et al., 2010).
Thus, explicit explanation of assessment might substantially assist them in AL improvement (Kruse et al., 2020; B. Yan et al., 2017).
However, the assessment course was not paid due attention to, nor was it delivered as effectively as expected (Hussain, 2017). Many pre-service programmes failed to offer adequate treatment of assessment (Gok et al., 2012) and remained less responsive to the latest trend of AfL to renew the teaching content (Volante & Fazio, 2007). In the survey by Volante and Fazio (2007), prospective teachers were reported to need more
trainings in newly-emerging alternative assessment instead of traditional assessment methods. Moreover, the delivery of professional knowledge about assessment was found to be disconnected from the real assessment practices and isolated from the complicated contexts in the classroom (Shulha, 1999). Hence, the assessment courses were strongly recommended to improve in multiple aspects. It was suggested to address the assessment preconceptions of prospective teachers (Brookhart, 2011; Izci
& Siegel, 2018; Shepard, 2006), or else, their assessment practices might be hard to be accordingly improved (Deneen & Brown, 2016). Pre-service teachers’ practical assessment-related experiences should also be involved as a basis for learning (Coombs et al., 2018; DeLuca et al., 2010). Besides, the problem-based learning approach was indicated to be adopted in assessment courses because it was productive to enhance pre-service teachers’ AL through solving problems in the practical contexts (Koh & Tan, 2016).
Teacher educators in charge of other subjects in the pre-service teacher education programme were also supposed to provide a model by utilizing a wide range of assessment tools within their own coursework in order to enable prospective teachers to have a deeper understanding of the usage of diverse assessment methods from the perspective as students (Allen & Flippo, 2002; Izci & Siegel, 2018). Active and continuous participation in peer-assessment practices helped pre-service teachers to be more literate assessors (Grainger & Adie, 2014). As evidenced by Reynolds-Keefer (2010), pre-service teachers who had the experience of using rubrics as students might
be more possible to utilize rubrics to their own students when they became teachers.
That means modeling the use of assessment tools could increase the likelihood of them being used in pre-service teachers’ future teaching careers. Unfortunately, however, Hussain (2017) indicated a large majority of teacher educators attained a mediocre AL proficiency level, practiced AoL by overly relying on traditional tests, and knew little about how to develop and select appropriate assessments for multiple purposes.
The challengeable situation was also what EFL teacher education in the pre-service stage faced. The language testing and assessment trainings needed to get the attention it deserved in the initial teacher education programmes (Giraldo & Murcia, 2018, 2019;
Hatipoğlu, 2015). According to Giraldo and Murcia (2019), they indicated such assessment trainings improved participants’ quality of assessment design in theoretical, technical, and practical dimensions. Besides, a radical shift in assessment conception was revealed from treating assessment as grading or scoring to a broader view of treating assessment for multiple instructional purposes.
However, the quality of assessment trainings needed much improvement. In terms of teaching content in the courses, the language assessment-related knowledge was a notoriously hard domain for pre-service teachers because of the abstract terminologies in developing and using assessment tools (O’Loughlin, 2006). The dominant coverage of theoretical knowledge with little mentioning of its practical application in the contexts was less successful to help teacher candidates internalize the knowledge
(Gebril, 2017). Therefore, there was a call for integrating theoretical knowledge with the practice of language testing in current situations (Giraldo & Murcia, 2018). On the other hand, Jeong (2013) revealed the teaching content of the courses was significantly determined by the instructors’ background. He pointed out that teachers without language testing background tended to concentrate more on classroom assessment and be less confident in technical issues in testing than those with language testing background.
As to the examination coverage of the language testing course, an overwhelming proportion of the questions in the examinations were occupied by the lower thinking skills like remembering and understanding the technical terms while an extremely limited range of questions dealt with measuring higher-thinking skills of evaluating or creating (Mohammadi et al., 2015). This unbalanced coverage of items in examinations might be more likely to direct pre-service teachers to mechanically memorizing what they had learned from the course and might be less likely to direct them to master the competence of language assessment in complicated contexts.
Within China, the situation was no better than other countries. According to Jin’s survey (2010), the language testing courses were optional for 60% of programmes and compulsory for the rest 40%. A majority of the courses did not cover the new assessment paradigm and did not pay adequate attention to alternative assessment approaches (Jin, 2010). In the context of Hong Kong, the language assessment training
was still deficient and language assessment courses surveyed were demonstrated to be less successful in linking theory with the practice against the background of assessment reform (Lam, 2015).
Another vital variable identified in the literature was practicum, but there existed competing results. Practicum referred to the period of time which pre-service teachers spend in observing and engaging in the authentic teaching and learning setting in the field schools (Buckworth, 2017). The practicum was intended to enable pre-service teachers to become acquainted with the requirements and practices of their future careers, learn about teachers’ daily routines, and gain experience in schools (Buckworth, 2017). Practicum was considered as an inhibitor by Lam (2015), who criticized that it was demanding for pre-service teachers to improve LAL through the period of practicum, as their attempts to implement assessment activities might be confined by the school assessment culture and the evaluation system by the school- based mentors. They had few opportunities and little autonomy to utilize innovative assessment methods which they learned from assessment courses in university. The pre-service teachers were likely to have a limited application of knowledge and skills related to assessment in the school-based contexts. Another criticism stemmed from the evaluation system of the practicum, which focused more on pedagogical skills than assessment competence. Since the practicum supervisor assessed the pre-service teachers on the quality of lesson delivery rather than the assessment activities, the pre- service teachers might have little possibility to manifest language assessment
strategies during the whole period of supervised teaching practices in the classroom.
Nonetheless, the positive evidence from the case study by Y. Xu and He (2019), describing practicum as a facilitator in both fostering pre-service teachers’ conceptions of assessment and their identity construction as an assessor. The researchers indicated that after practicum participants changed their understandings of assessment from superficially taking the assessment for measuring students’ achievement to a more profound understanding of assessment for multiple purposes. Meanwhile, the pre- service teachers had a more realistic understanding of assessment criteria in schools and began to realize fairness in assessment. The research findings also revealed that during the practicum the pre-service teachers had more opportunities to be immersed in the complex teaching reality and to construct their identity as an assessor. The assessor-identity construction was seen as the ultimate goal of LAL development in Y.
Xu and Brown’s (2016) model.
Regarding the experiential factors mediating pre-service teachers’ AL or pre-service EFL teachers’ LAL, prior school-based experience of being assessed as students was reported to be the dominant factor (Y. Xu & He, 2019). The previous assessment experiences of pre-service teachers might influence various aspects of their LAL, including the needs analysis of LAL improvement (Hatipoğlu, 2015), the conceptions of assessment (Bolívar, 2020; Brunker et al., 2019; Crossman, 2004; Deneen & Brown, 2011; Kvasova, 2022; Kyttälä et al., 2021; Smith et al., 2014), and willingness to grasp
the new language assessment knowledge or skills (O’Loughlin, 2006).
To summarise, various contextual and experiential factors mediating AL or LAL evolvement among pre-service teachers have been figured out in the existing literature.
It appears to be that the quality of pre-service teacher education around the issue of assessment is not as desirable as expected. There is large room for such trainings to be improved to meet the needs of pre-service teachers and other stakeholders. The prior assessment experience and opportunities for professional development also exert impact on LAL evolvement. However, the existing findings focus on identifying what the factors are on AL or LAL evolvement, scant attention has been paid to how the mediating factors interact with AL or LAL evolvement. Hence, more explorations of this topic with evidence from different contexts are welcomed.