2.5 Empirical Studies on AL and LAL among In-service Teachers
2.5.1 AL and LAL Proficiency Level
2.5.1.2 LAL Proficiency Level
students’ behaviors rather than for the purpose of enhancing students’ cognition and learning autonomy. In addition, they appeared to have great difficulty in adjusting the assessment plan dynamically in the process of instruction on the basis of the constant interaction with students in the classroom.
in the process of assessing students (Aria et al., 2021; Luthfiyyah et al., 2020). With regard to the assessment purpose and methods, they were reported to have an unclear vision of the purpose of the assessment practices initiated by them in the class and to apply a limited range of assessment techniques in assessing students learning (Shahzamani & Tahririan, 2021). They also seemed to have fuzzy ideas of implementing innovative reforms to assess students’ language proficiency, although learning-oriented assessment had been highlighted in various documents and policies, which encouraged instructors to actively use alternative assessment techniques (Firoozi et al., 2019; Shahzamani & Tahririan, 2021; Vogt & Tsagari, 2014).
One of such assessment illiterate behaviors was teaching to test. Assessment illiterate teachers tailored language teaching to the examination content covered in the external tests and the tests developed by EFL teachers were only confined to a very limited range of language skills measured in the external tests whereas assessment literate EFL teachers preferred non-washback assessment activities in their classrooms (Díaz et al., 2012; Kiomrs et al., 2011; Ragchaa, 2019; Shahzamani & Tahririan, 2021; Tsagari, 2016). The significant discrepancy between the expected LAL proficiency level and real LAL proficiency level of teachers was also perceived by teachers themselves who were involved in daily routine classroom assessment activities. Generally, they felt not confident in developing and designing assessment activities (Berry et al., 2019; Tsagari
& Vogt, 2017).
Numerous studies pointed out EFL/ESL teachers primarily used assessment for the summative purpose not formative purposes (Büyükkarcı, 2014; Giraldo, 2019;
Gonzales & Aliponga, 2012; Hidri, 2016; Luthfiyyah et al., 2020; Portelli &
O’Sullivan, 2016) and they preferred traditional assessment methods to alternative assessment methods (Kiliçkaya, 2016; Kirkgoz et al., 2017; Shahzamani & Tahririan, 2021; Tsagari, 2016; Tsagari & Vogt, 2017). Their traditional assessment activities were primarily focused on learning outcomes rather than the learning process (Djoub, 2017; Sultana, 2019). Most of the assessment feedback they provided was in the form of grades usually issued at the end of the assessment activities for measuring students learning rather than functioned as a means of monitoring teaching and learning (Berry et al., 2019; López & Bernal, 2009). EFL teachers seemed to pay less attention to AfL, such as sharing learning goals and involving students in the whole process of assessment (Büyükkarcı, 2014; Seden & Svaricek, 2018). It seemed as if the AoL prototype was “deeply ingrained in their assessment DNA” (Levi & Inbar-Lourie, 2020, p. 177).
In China, the research on LAL proficiency level among primary and middle school in- service EFL teachers has shown similar results with studies in other countries. EFL teachers were reported to have low LAL to deal with the strong washback of the external high-stake tests and lack of skills to transfer the knowledge to assessment practices in the Mainland of China (Lan & Fan, 2019; Lin & Su, 2015) while teachers in Taipei (Chan, 2008) and Hong Kong (Lam, 2019) performed much better in
assessment.
Collecting and analyzing the questionnaires of a sample of over 300 EFL teachers in middle schools in China, Lan and Fan (2019) found that participants possessed deficient LAL to carry out the classroom assessment activities and knew little about how to apply the assessment terminologies (e.g., validity and reliability) into the classroom-based language assessment activities. Additionally, teachers’ teaching and assessment process were strongly influenced by the high-stake test mandated at the end of the last year in middle school. More specifically, teaching to the test played a dominant role in their classroom teaching and assessment activities, which were exam- oriented both in the assessment formats and contents to some extent.
The study conducted by Lin and Su (2015) utilized a test, not the self-report questionnaire, to investigate the status quo of a small sample of 39 middle school EFL teachers. They confirmed the low proficiency level of LAL, which was manifested in participants’ poor understanding of the key statistic terms and rare consideration of authenticity and fairness in assessment development. The importance of students’
active agent role in assessment did not receive due attention from EFL teachers.
Unlike previous studies with a focus on quantitative data, X. Yan and Fan (2020) relied on interviews, the qualitative data only, to describe LAL profiles across several stakeholder groups. With regard to the EFL teachers, the results showed that the
participants heavily concentrated on issues closely related to traditional language tests, for instance, how to develop language test items, how to use the test results, and how these items influenced the teaching and learning process. They seemed to attach little importance to the alternative assessment techniques.
In Taipei, over 500 EFL teachers in elementary schools were investigated through a questionnaire to reveal their beliefs and practices towards multiple assessments (Chan, 2008). The findings were encouraging that nearly all of them held a rather positive attitude to the multiple assessments. The overwhelming participants indicated that they had a good knowledge of alternative assessment methods, which were used more frequently than traditional tests in their actual assessment practices. They seemed to embrace the belief that assessment was a key way to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction and that students were also main assessors in the assessment activities.
In Hong Kong, Lam (2019) examined to what extent the 66 English teachers in secondary school were assessment literate by adopting the framework of Y. Xu and Brown (2016) to collect multiple data from a questionnaire, interviews, and classroom observation. Although there was still much to be improved to achieve a comprehensive mastery of AL, the participants were found to possess a much better understanding of AfL and AoL than AaL. In their AaL practices, they just imitated the steps rather than completely internalizing the nature. Contrary to the long weakness of assessment ethics and fairness among teachers in Mainland of China, teachers in Hong Kong were
found to have considerable knowledge about these assessment principles. However, they were weak in reflecting on the use of assessment results to improve teaching and learning.
In a word, based on the larger amount of quantitative research, it is notably evident that the teachers including EFL teachers, across the world, do have an undesirable proficiency level of AL or LAL. However, what has been presented here is not to blame teachers for their insufficient AL or LAL, their conceptions towards assessment are
“ecologically rational” within their own local surroundings (Brown, 2011, p. 70).
Furthermore, their varying proficiency levels are plausible to be interpreted as the different stages during the AL or LAL developmental process and how to facilitate teachers through the continuum of AL or LAL needs more attention and further exploration (Choi, 2017). Thus, the following part is aimed to sort out factors mediating AL and LAL evolvement in order to understand how to effectively improve AL among teachers and LAL among EFL teachers.