Sevimel-Sahin, A., & Subasi, G. (2021). Exploring

foreign language assessment literacy training needs

of pre-service English language teachers.

International Online Journal of Education and

Teaching (IOJET), 8(4), 2783-2802.

Received : 26.07.2021

Revised version received : 15.09.2021

Accepted : 17.09.2021

EXPLORING FOREIGN LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT LITERACY TRAINING

NEEDS OF PRE-SERVICE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHERS1

(Research article)

(corresponding author)

Aylin Sevimel-Sahin https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2279-510X

ELT Department, Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey

aylinsevimel@anadolu.edu.tr

Gonca Subasi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7049-5940

ELT Department, Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey

goncas@anadolu.edu.tr

Biodata:

Dr. Aylin Sevimel-Sahin is currently working in ELT Department, Faculty of Education,

Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey. Her research interests are ELT teacher education,

language testing and assessment, teaching practice, affective domain, use of digital tools in

language education, and research methodology.

Gonca Subaşı is an assistant professor doctor in the ELT Department at Anadolu University,

Turkey. Her research interests include teaching writing skills, vocabulary acquisition,

affective factors in language teaching, language testing and evaluation, and language teacher

education.

Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without written permission of IOJET.

1 This paper is based on the doctoral dissertation titled ‘Exploring foreign language assessment literacy of pre-

service English language teachers’ of the first author.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2279-510X
mailto:aylinsevimel@anadolu.edu.tr
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7049-5940
mailto:goncas@anadolu.edu.tr
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2279-510X
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7049-5940

Sevimel-Sahin & Subasi

2784

EXPLORING FOREIGN LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT LITERACY

TRAINING NEEDS OF PRE-SERVICE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

TEACHERS

Aylin Sevimel-Sahin

aylinsevimel@anadolu.edu.tr

Gonca Subasi
goncas@anadolu.edu.tr

Abstract

Language teachers are expected to be language assessment literate (LAL) - the ability to

use assessment knowledge effectively in own contexts - to guide instruction and improve

learning. However, research demonstrated that most English teachers had challenges in

assessment practices and needed further training. Then, this study aims to explore LAL

training needs of pre-service English language teachers through a course-based training in

teacher education. The participants as pre-service English language teachers responded to

open-ended questions two times: before the course (N=164) and after the course (N=146).

The content analysis of their responses yielded two major themes: conceptual dimension and

course-related issues. Although most found the course beneficial and sufficient for LAL

training, certain training needs were revealed. For example, the course was too theoretical

and lacked practice. The topics were testing-oriented and other topics such as formative

assessment, evaluation skills, integrated testing, ethical issues, and contextual factors were

not included. Therefore, some implications were discussed to revise the course for a better

LAL training at the teacher education phase.

Keywords: English language teaching, language assessment literacy, language testing, pre-

service teacher, teacher education

1. Introduction

Language assessment is an integral part of language teaching. Without effective

assessment practices, teaching would be deficient in responding to the needs of its

educational context. It is because language assessment is helpful to find out what and how

much is learned, what kind of learning difficulties there are, whether the goals are

accomplished, and whether the style or method of teaching as well as the materials used are

effective (Herrera & Macias, 2015; Hidri, 2018; Rogier, 2014). That is, language assessment

is useful to get feedback about the quality of learning and instruction, and it can be used with

different purposes or functions to make progress in language learning. According to the

outcomes of assessment, language teachers can organize their teaching better and make

necessary decisions to promote and reinforce learning while language learners can detect

their strengths and weaknesses to regulate their own performance (Bachman, 2005; Rea-

Dickins, 2004). Therefore, language assessment becomes a motivating focal point both for

teachers and learners in education.

Language teachers are acknowledged as the main stakeholders in language learning and

instruction (Giraldo, 2018) because they have the primary responsibility for planning and

monitoring teaching/learning processes. Hence, they need to be qualified in certain

competencies: language proficiency, language teaching and language assessment. Among

these competencies, language assessment is crucial to guide the educational decisions of

mailto:aylinsevimel@anadolu.edu.tr
mailto:goncas@anadolu.edu.tr

International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2783-2802.

2785

teachers since such decisions can have both a positive and negative impact on

teaching/learning itself (Inbar-Lourie, 2013). For this reason, teachers need to be competent

evaluators to be able to fulfill the needs of their own teaching contexts. However, to perform

effective assessment procedures, they need to possess a certain competence, namely,

language assessment literacy (LAL), as their professional competence.

LAL basically refers to the familiarity with and the ability to carry out all language

assessment related issues. In other words, teachers need to know what testing, assessment and

evaluation are, what kind of techniques can be used effectively for which reason or purpose

at which time according to own contexts, how they can be designed and administered

efficiently, and how they can be interpreted to support and monitor language development

(Inbar-Lourie, 2017; Jeong, 2013; Pill & Harding, 2013). In addition, not only the knowledge

of and familiarity with the assessment concepts and procedures but also the ability and skills

are covered in the definition of LAL since teachers practice assessment in their classrooms by

developing, administering, using, interpreting, analyzing, and evaluating language tests and

assessment tools in order to monitor the progress of language learners and give constructive

feedback in line with the results (Lam, 2014; Vogt & Tsagari, 2014). More extensively,

Fulcher (2012) put forth the definition of LAL as:

The knowledge, skills and abilities required to design, develop, maintain or evaluate,

large-scale standardized 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).

Then, this definition is assumed to be too expanded in terms of its coverage by reflecting

the understanding of LAL in all aspects. However, in this study, foreign language assessment

literacy (FLAL) term has been preferred to directly represent English as a foreign language

(EFL) context.

Depending on such definitions, some researchers discussed the possible dimensions to

present a conceptual framework. For example, Davies (2008) put forward in relation to

language testing that LAL has three components as knowledge (the understanding of

language description, setting and measurement), skills (the training of developing tests), and

principles (the use of tests appropriately and ethically). Similarly, Inbar-Lourie (2008)

asserted that LAL is made up of what (the language trait to be measured), how (the execution

of assessment), and why (the reasons behind assessment decisions and choices). Furthermore,

Fulcher (2012) proposed a three-dimensional model of LAL: practices (knowledge, skills,

and abilities), principles (processes, principles and concepts), and contexts (historical, social,

political, and philosophical frameworks: origins, reasons and impacts). Regarding contexts,

Hill (2017), Inbar-Lourie (2013), Stabler-Havener (2018), and Yan, Zhang, and Fan (2018)

also underlined the significance of instructional contexts in that the features of local teaching

contexts such as the needs and expectations of own environments, sociocultural values,

educational and institutional policies are influential in undertaking suitable assessment

practices. Considering such arguments, language assessment literate teachers have already

been found to have common characteristics such as the knowledge and skills of language

assessment theories and practices in line with the instruction, the skill of designing,

administering and evaluating assessment tools, the ability to carry out assessment procedures

appropriately and ethically related to the contexts, and the capability of interpreting

Sevimel-Sahin & Subasi

2786

assessment results to sustain better teaching/learning (Berry & O’Sullivan, 2016; Bohn &

Tsagari, 2021; Huang & He, 2016; Taylor, 2009). Consequently, foreign language teachers

need to have such characteristics to be assessment literate for effective teaching practices as

well as for cultivating language learning more.

To be language assessment literate is not easy as it seems. It makes education and training

a requisite because ‘teachers are not born testers’ (Jin, 2010, p. 556). Lately, there is much

more emphasis on LAL training due to the changing concepts and roles in foreign language

education. Particularly, there has been a shift from traditional testing notion to measure

learning as the product (summative) to the present conception of assessment to monitor and

improve learning during the process (formative) (Csépes, 2014). This results from the effect

of the changes in language teaching/learning methodologies towards a more learner-centered

approach (Tsagari & Vogt, 2017). That is, teaching and assessment were considered separate

earlier (Viengsang, 2016); hence, language assessment training was ignored and

overshadowed by methodology education in the past. But recently, there is a growing

emphasis on classroom assessment and the role of teachers as assessors because of the

interplay between teaching and assessment (Scarino, 2013; Wach, 2012), which has put more

responsibility on teacher education to equip future teachers with LAL competencies. Then,

regarding all the LAL discussions in the literature, LAL training can encompass:

an appropriate balance of technical know-how, practical skills, theoretical knowledge,

and understanding of principles, but all firmly contextualized within a sound

understanding of the role and function of assessment within education and society

(Taylor, 2009, p. 27).

Nevertheless, the research into the concept of LAL is said to be new and needs to be

developed (Fulcher, 2012; Inbar-Lourie, 2013) because there are few studies with pre-service

teachers in English Language Teaching (ELT) education but several studies with in-service

teachers. Most of the studies with teacher candidates focused on their experiences and beliefs

about LAL and assessment practices in practicum. To illustrate, many teacher candidates of

ELT were found to have lower levels of LAL because they received a basic level of training;

thus, they could not perform any testing or assessment in teaching practice properly,

especially the formative one (Howerton, 2016; Karaman & Sahin, 2014; Viengsang, 2016).

Besides, they developed some misunderstandings about the assessment concepts and choices,

i.e., testing was seen equal to assessment, and they learned about only summative assessment

(Viengsang, 2016). Though they seemed to be ready for classroom assessment, they did not

practice assessment in pre-service teacher training phase much (Komur, 2018).

Concerning LAL training content in teacher education, in spite of very few studies, the

researchers investigated mostly its final effect through the given specific courses related to

language assessment. For instance, some studies concluded pre-service ELT teachers were

contented with their LAL training courses at their teacher education programs and found

them beneficial because their views and attitudes changed positively towards assessment, and

gained certain abilities related to language assessment (Hilden & Frojdendahl, 2018;

Watanabe, 2011). However, most studies revealed lacking points of LAL training in teacher

education. For example, pre-service ELT teachers did not have any chance to practice what

they learned related to language assessment since course instructors dealt with theoretical

issues more (Hatipoglu, 2010; Jin, 2010; Lam, 2014; Sariyildiz, 2018). Moreover, most

syllabi of the LAL courses included only testing issues (Hatipoglu, 2015; Jin, 2010). Besides,

teacher candidates had challenges in designing and administering language tests, especially

according to language level (Ukrayinska, 2018) as well as in scoring, grading, evaluating, and

interpreting them (Watanabe, 2011). In addition, a number of researchers revealed the

International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2783-2802.

2787

question of how well teacher education programs trained their undergraduates as future

teachers in language assessment despite LAL training because many English teachers

graduated with a poor ability to observe and track changes in language development through

assessment and to prepare and practice assessment tools (e.g., Berger, 2012; Chen, 2005; Gan

& Lam, 2020; Malone, 2008; Vogt & Tsagari, 2014). This issue is not so different in the

Turkish context. Despite very few studies in language assessment, especially, about its

training side, they concluded teacher training programs remain inadequate to provide the

expected training in language assessment (e.g. Hatipoglu, 2010, 2015; Mede & Atay, 2017;

Turk, 2018). Therefore, all those studies demonstrated that most language assessment courses

given at universities were not effective for developing LAL (e.g., Giraldo & Murcia, 2018;

Lam, 2014), and teacher candidates needed more training in different aspects of language

assessment. Though pre-service teacher education is of utmost important to support LAL

training early in learning and LAL is highly contextual rather than universal (Bohn &

Tsagari, 2021; Xu & Brown, 2016), those studies only reported the general findings after the

course but did not investigate what is required to improve LAL training by taking the needs

of pre-service teachers into account during the training phase within their own educational

context.

Considering all the arguments and findings in the literature, there is a demand to

understand what teacher candidates need about LAL in relation to the course content during

their training phase in their own contexts and how the course-based LAL training meet their

needs throughout this training process in order to help them to be capable and competent

teachers for their careers as well as to develop LAL training at the teacher education phase

accordingly. Therefore, the present study aims to explore LAL training needs of pre-service

ELT teachers, and also to investigate whether a course-based LAL training in teacher

education is useful to develop LAL of teacher candidates. Accordingly, two research

questions were addressed:

1. What are the assessment training needs of pre-service English language teachers?

2. How does ‘English language testing and evaluation’ course affect language assessment

literacy of pre-service English language teachers?

All in all, the current study is hoped to contribute to the field of language assessment

research considerably. First, it is believed to provide further insights into LAL training to

meet the changing needs and expectations of pre-service ELT teachers. Second, it may reveal

the ways to support the initial training on LAL by describing the present status of the course

and uncovering the potential assessment needs for future guidelines to develop coursework. It

is because both individual and contextual factors can lead to differences in training needs,

and thereby the training content. Last, since there has been a limited number of works within

this research scope, to study on LAL training may contribute to the field by revealing

possible new perspectives for further implications.

2. Methodology

The present research is a qualitative study incorporating needs assessment in order to

explore LAL training needs. As the name suggests, needs assessment aims at gathering

information about the deficiencies or gaps about the target situation to discover the needs as

well as to evaluate the status quo of any existing course, program, and the like for planning

and improving the content to fulfill the needs (Royse et al., 2009). Therefore, considering the

purposes of this study, needs assessment was preferred to describe, analyze, and evaluate the

course-based LAL training through collecting qualitative data about the opinions and

Sevimel-Sahin & Subasi

2788

experiences of the course-takers to reveal their perceived assessment training needs within

the context of ELT teacher education.

2.1. Research Context and Participants

In Turkey, the universities with Faculty of Education offer a four-year ELT teacher

education program at the undergraduate level through English instruction. There are

compulsory and elective courses related to the field of ELT as well as general educational

and pedagogical courses. In the last year, pre-service teachers need to complete their two-

semester teaching practice before graduation.

For LAL training, teacher candidates take compulsory ‘English Language Testing and

Evaluation (ELTE)’ course in the last term (the eight semester), and is delivered three hours a

week. In the current study, the participants were the ELTE course-takers as their LAL

training at a Turkish state university. The course content consists of basic terms and concepts

about language assessment, the design and evaluation of different language skills testing

tools, mostly in the form of classroom-based tests that are appropriate for various types of

schools, language levels and age groups. When the data were collected, there were eight

classes of the fourth-year ELT undergraduate students enrolled in ELTE course, and those

classes were instructed by four lecturers. Since the opinions and experiences of the

participants were asked two times for the purposes of the study, there were 164 pre-service

ELT teachers before they began the ELTE course, and 146 course-takers after they finished

the course (see Table 1). All of the participants took the course for the first time and

participated in this study voluntarily through purposeful sampling.

Table 1. The distribution of the participants (numbers)

Responded Excluded Rest (main one)

Pre-service ELT teachers (BEFORE) 168 4 164

Pre-service ELT teachers (AFTER) 147 1 146

2.2. Data Collection and Analysis

In the present study, open-ended questions were used to collect data. It is because they are

helpful to get a deeper understanding of the topic by analyzing the reasons, causes,

experiences, and the like compared to close-ended questions (Creswell, 2012), and also more

useful to reach a larger sample compared to interviews (Gay et al., 2012). The open-ended

questions were formed by the researcher via thorough analysis of the related literature,

especially considering the conceptualizations suggested by Davies (2008), Fulcher (2012),

Hill (2017), and Inbar-Lourie (2008). Besides, these questions were validated by three

experts in the language assessment field as well as the qualitative research by checking the

concept suitability, the relation with the scope of this study, and the clarity and

appropriateness of the language. There were six questions asked at the beginning of the

course semester and other six questions at the end of the semester. Both of the questions were

different from each other: The first-round questions (before the course) were about the

opinions, needs and expectations of LAL training, and the second-round questions (after the

International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2783-2802.

2789

course) were related to their opinions and experiences of the course training. The consent

forms were also given for the ethical concerns.

This study was conducted in the Spring Semester of 2017-2018 Academic Year when the

participants were taking the ELTE course for the first time. Before data gathering, the

research ethics approval from the institutional review board was granted. Then, the open-

ended questions accompanied by the consent forms were distributed to pre-service ELT

teachers who were taking ELTE course at their regular class times. The first application was

carried out at the beginning of the semester, and 168 pre-service teachers responded to the

questions but four of them were eliminated owing to incomplete papers or repeating the

course. As a result, 164 participants answered the questions for the first application.

Afterwards, the second application was conducted at the end of the course semester, and 147

course-takers responded to them. However, one of them was excluded due to incomplete

responses; thus, there were 146 participants for the second application (see Table 1).

To analyze the responses, content analysis was performed inductively to the collected

qualitative data. For the analysis, the suggestions by Creswell (2012) and Miles, Huberman,

and Saldana (2014) were taken into account. First, to get the general sense of the data, the

researcher examined each response by hand for the preliminary exploratory analysis. As a

result, a few main codes and themes were revealed. That first analysis was shown to a field

expert to get feedback. Then, all the data were embedded into NVivo 11 Pro Program for a

detailed content analysis. After coding the data chunks and labeling themes, the list of the

findings was made for expert checking. Two ELTE course lecturers evaluated the findings,

and some misunderstandings were clarified in the organization and the codes/themes were

refined for more meaningful wording. To establish the interrater-reliability, Miles, and

Huberman’s (1994) intercoder-agreement was used and a high consistency between the raters

was achieved (97% agreement). Finally, all the findings were compared and evaluated

together to get a whole understanding of the study focus.

3. Findings

The analysis of the responses of the sample revealed two major themes and certain minor

themes regarding FLAL. Since there were different questions asked for two applications

(before and after), the data for each application was done separately and then, discussed

together through comparison.

3.1. Before the Course

At the beginning of the semester, 164 course-takers responded to the open-ended

questions. The analysis of their responses revealed two themes: FLAL-ELTE Concept, and

ELTE Course-related Issues (see Figure 1). The participants commented more on ELTE

course-related issues (f=1046) than FLAL-ELTE concept (f=253).

Sevimel-Sahin & Subasi

2790

Figure 1. The thematic display of the findings from pre-service ELT teachers (before the

course)

For ‘FLAL-ELTE Concept’, they underlined what kind of competencies are essential for

English language assessment (f=59), mentioned the importance of FLAL-ELTE itself

(f=184), and shared their opinions about the previous experiences of own assessment related

issues (f=10) (see Figure 1). Firstly, they pointed out that language teachers must know not

only how to teach but also how to test since teaching and assessment are embedded in each

other. Therefore, they believed teacher candidates should gain necessary competencies and

skills about language assessment during their teacher education (‘Competence-Awareness in

general’). For example, one of them highlighted that:

‘Assessment in ELT is necessary. Being a teacher is not just about teaching. One of the

most important points that every teacher has to pay attention is to prepare language exams

suitable for their students. Therefore, every teacher candidate needs to be competent in

language assessment.’ (Before.Pre.23)

Secondly, all the participants agreed that assessment is as important as teaching itself

because it is helpful to find out whether students learn and get feedback about the

effectiveness of teaching (‘Importance of FLAL-ELTE’). Lastly, some course-takers

mentioned their previous experiences about testing as test-takers. Mostly, they complained

about taking poorly prepared and wrong exams throughout their school lives, and also

International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2783-2802.

2791

criticized their previous English language teachers not knowing how to test properly

(‘Previous experiences of ELTE’).

As for ‘ELTE Course-related Issues’, the participants focused on their expectations and

needs about the course itself (f=492) and expressed their general opinions about the course

(f=554) (see Figure 1).

Regarding ‘Expectations and needs of course’, most participants hoped to gain more

awareness about language assessment, acquire a critical eye towards language testing

qualities, learn how to assess language skills and be able to effectively test and evaluate

during the course period. Specifically, they expected to gain knowledge and ability of testing

such as preparation, designing, and evaluating language tests according to certain criteria, all

of which would be helpful for their profession. For instance, one of them stated:

‘In this course, I think we will learn how to assess language learners. I expect the course

will be relatively permanent, and I want to gain the knowledge that I will use in my

professional teaching life.’ (Before.Pre.28)

In addition, some participants indicated the ELTE course would be a revision of English

teaching-methods-courses they took for three years, and they hoped to relate their

methodological knowledge with assessment knowledge. Furthermore, only a few course-

takers explained the backwash effect of testing and discussed negative effects of tests on

learners. Unlike those statements, just a few participants only expected to enjoy and pass the

course.

Considering ‘General opinions of ELTE course’, nearly all the participants had positive

attitudes towards the course. They emphasized the importance of the course for their future

career: it would be complementary to their teaching competence and be beneficial to change

their perspectives and attitudes positively towards testing. Therefore, one of them reported

that:

‘I think this course should be given. It is necessary for pre-service teachers studying at

faculty of education in order to learn and know how to assess language skills and the

evaluation criteria for a successful and qualified professional life.’ (Before.Pre.7)

Besides, some participants focused on the Turkish examination system and highlighted

that exams are part of their lives. They also criticized exams are very problematic and have a

great impact on test-takers. Therefore, this course was hoped to be helpful to increase their

knowledge and skills of assessing language proficiency as well as to gain awareness about

testing. One of them underlined that:

‘In my opinion, testing and evaluation are one of the most important stages of educational

process. Assessment is feedback both for teachers and students. While students have the

chance to see their mistakes and learn the correct ones, teachers evaluate their teaching

techniques [as a result of assessment]. Furthermore, since every stage of educational system

in Turkey is dependent on exams, every teacher should know how to prepare tests. Therefore,

this course is important and necessary.’ (Before.Pre.58)

To sum up, the participant course-takers expected to learn the required testing knowledge

and skills for their profession; hence, they believed the course would be very helpful to make

them ready to assess and deal with testing issues effectively.

Sevimel-Sahin & Subasi

2792

3.2. After the Course

At the end of the semester, 146 course-takers responded to the open-ended questions. The

analysis of their responses revealed two themes: FLAL-ELTE Concept, and ELTE Course-

related Issues (see Figure 2). The participants reflected on ELTE course-related issues

(f=1036) more than FLAL-ELTE concept (f=617).

Figure 2. The thematic display of the findings from pre-service ELT teachers (after the

course)

For ‘FLAL-ELTE Concept’, they underscored the importance of FLAL-ELTE in general

(f=263) and mentioned their own perceived competency level (f=354) (see Figure 2). Most

participants thought testing and evaluation are very important in teaching process because

they are useful to provide feedback about especially what is right and wrong about learning.

Therefore, they stated every teacher, no matter what they are candidates, novice or

experienced, must acquire language assessment competence (‘Importance of FLAL-ELTE’).

International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2783-2802.

2793

As to ‘Perceptions of own FLAL level’, most participants believed they needed to improve

themselves more because they felt themselves competent at the moderate level in FLAL after

the course (n=109). They hoped to make progress in testing especially about practical skills

when gaining more experience in their future teaching. For example, one of them indicated:

‘I perceived myself being qualified in language assessment at a moderate level. It is

because I cannot foresee how effectively I will put theoretical knowledge into practice. I

believe I will be better in language assessment via experience.’ (After.Moderate.Pre.100)

In contrast to moderate level perception, those who perceived themselves highly

competent in FLAL (n=33) discussed that though they were still teacher candidates, they

assumed to learn necessary things about language testing, and be able to perform tests easily

in their teaching life thanks to this course. On the other hand, although there were few

participants who perceived themselves to be very inadequate (n=4), they complained about

their lack of testing experience even after taking that course.

When it comes to ‘ELTE Course-related Issues’, the participants expressed their general

opinions about the course (f=587) and mentioned their experiences throughout the course in

the form of what they learned (f=449) (see Figure 2).

Concerning ‘Experiences about ELTE course: acquired knowledge and skills’, most of

them focused on their gained competencies about language assessment in which they

discussed what they learned and how they could use it. They reported they learned how to

test each language skill, how to design language skills tests by using different test items such

as multiple choice items, how table of specifications can be used, and what kind of testing

criteria and principles, test types and purposes there are. For instance, one of them

exemplified that:

‘We received information about the criteria that we have to pay attention while designing

language tests. Also, we learned how we can prepare language exams according to the level

of our classes as well as our teaching goals. Besides, we studied on the procedures which can

be utilized to increase the reliability and validity of language tests.’ (After.Moderate.Pre.119)

Also, some stated that their views of testing changed; they said they realized teaching-

testing connection and many affecting factors on testing. For example, one indicated that:

‘I learned at the end of this course that there is a close relationship between teaching and

assessment. I also learned about language testing techniques, evaluation, the features that

any measurement tool should possess, and how to prepare test items for language skills such

as grammar, vocabulary, reading, writing, and listening.’ (After.Moderate.Pre.44)

Considering ‘General opinions of ELTE course: its importance and benefits’, nearly all

the participants agreed the course responded to their needs and expectations. The course was

found beneficial for the career; in addition, they believed they gained necessary competencies

about language assessment. Some also mentioned the ELTE course was helpful to provide

another teaching competence dimension, namely, language assessment during their teacher

education. For instance, one of them discussed:

‘This course met my expectations. Throughout our four-year-university life, we took the

courses about how to teach English language; I mean, how to organize language teaching

activities in the class. But we had not known how to assess those at the end of those courses.

From this point, this course filled this gap.’ (After.Moderate.Pre.31)

With respect to ‘Opinions of content and course’, most of the sample held positive

attitudes and found the content sufficient. They indicated the topics were comprehensive, and

they learned test types, items, methods, and other stuff while developing an understanding of

Sevimel-Sahin & Subasi

2794

the concept. Besides, they highlighted their course instructors were very qualified in testing,

and very helpful and explanative throughout the course semester.

Nevertheless, some participants discussed the shortcomings of the course and made

suggestions to improve it. They mostly criticized the course was too theoretical and there was

no practice; thus, they did not gain practical testing skills during the term. For example, one

of them reported:

‘The course did not respond to my needs adequately because the whole semester was

theoretical. The practical part was given only as an assignment. While the theoretical parts

could have been read at home, there was much more emphasis on that side in the lessons.

Therefore, since we had no experience in terms of practicing assessment, there would be

problems in the future.’ (After.Low.Pre.4)

Moreover, some complained about not-updated course content. The coursebook used was

Heaton’s (2011) ‘Writing English Language Tests’, but the participants found the sample

testing items old and not suitable to recent teaching contexts. Some participants also

mentioned the semester of the course was too late to take because they believed they did not

have any chance to practice their testing skills. Even in teaching practice, they did not do any

testing practice since they were only evaluated by their teaching skills, not testing skills.

Similarly, they complained about the inadequate class hours because the course was delivered

only three hours a week only in one semester.

Thereupon, the participants made some recommendations to improve the course. For

example, they indicated the practical side could be increased by means of the assignments of

preparing and administering language tests. In addition, some suggested there might be more

examples related to integrated testing skills since they mentioned they only learned testing

each language skill separately. They also stated more checklists can be given to learn how to

evaluate and score because there was not much anything about scoring or grading. Besides,

some emphasized the course might be coordinated in line with the practicum where students

may implement their own language testing tasks. To exemplify;

‘The course was sufficient in terms of its theoretical knowledge, but I think it was

inadequate in terms of its practical side. I think the course should be integrated into the

practicum.’ (After.Moderate.Pre.26)

In short, the participants appreciated the importance and benefit of the ELTE course, but

they did not feel very qualified in FLAL especially due to the lack of practice and experience.

Therefore, they drew attention to some missing points, and accordingly made certain

suggestions to develop the training course more.

4. Discussion

The current study investigated LAL training needs of pre-service ELT teachers through

their opinions and experiences about ELTE course. The findings yielded that ELTE course

provided a basic training and offered essential theories of language testing and knowledge of

preparing specific language-skill-based tests. Most participants found the course beneficial,

especially for its being English-domain-focused and complementary to teaching-methods-

courses. Thus, there was a positive change after the course because they mentioned they

learned a lot and were more aware and critical of ELTE, which is similar to Hilden and

Forejdendahl’s (2018), and Watanabe’s (2011) study results. In terms of their perceived

competency level, most of the participants felt competent at the moderate level though they

needed to experience assessment, which is contrary to some study findings that revealed

International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2783-2802.

2795

lower levels of LAL (e.g. Howerton, 2016; Karaman & Sahin, 2014). Besides, they indicated

their course instructors were qualified in ELTE, which helps them to gain necessary

knowledge. This is similar to Jeong’s (2013) argument that the background of teacher

educators is important in that they must be professionally developed to give content courses.

Hence, the ELTE course was found to have a positive effect in changing attitudes and gaining

certain knowledge of testing as perceived by the sample. Yet, the participants discussed some

shortfalls related to the course and certain LAL training needs were identified.

To begin with the conceptions, pre-service ELT teachers adopted a rather testing notion

than assessment perspective because they mostly focused on summative purposes of

assessment such as diagnosis and achievement/attainment that can be measured via

traditional testing tools like multiple-choice items. Similarly, some studies also found that

ELTE was seen only as summative assessment (e.g. Lam, 2014; Viengsang, 2016). Actually,

this testing perception can be attributed to two reasons: First, the ELTE course content

included more testing topics in line with the coursebook and hence, their perceptions were

shaped accordingly. Second, Turkey is an exam-oriented country which employs high-stakes

testing through multiple-choice exams; thus, the participants were more familiar with that due

to their previous experiences. This was also highlighted by Lam (2014) that country’s

tendency in assessment affects perceptions of teacher candidates. In addition, regarding LAL

dimensions, pre-service ELT teachers emphasized knowledge/what component and

skills/practices/how component more than principles (proper/ethical use) and contexts

(origins, reasons/why component, impacts, teaching settings) compared to Davies’s (2008),

Fulcher’s (2012), and Inbar-Lourie’s (2008) frameworks. In other words, they did not

underline much some LAL characteristics such as ethics, fairness, knowledge of

social/political concepts, rationales behind assessment choices, backwash effect and

contextual or local needs. Therefore, there is a need to broaden their perspectives towards

more formative assessment viewpoint to keep up with the recent understandings of

assessment for learning; that is, assessment can be used to foster language learning apart from

just measuring language proficiency, especially required at the classroom level (Fulcher,

2012; Scarino, 2013). There is also a need to concentrate on other LAL components to make

them comprehend the elements of being assessment literate for better education.

Considering the topics of the ELTE content, the statements of the participants indicated

the syllabus contained testing approaches and methods, testing criteria (reliability, validity,

etc.), and the design of language-skill-tests by writing appropriate test items like cloze tests.

This was most probably due to the testing coursebook (Heaton, 2011). This is similar to the

findings of Jin’s (2010) and Hatipoglu’s (2015) study that such courses consisted of only

testing matters. Hence, other topics such as alternative, performance-based, computer-based

assessment, statistics, the comparisons of teacher-made and ready-made tests or classroom-

based and large scale/standardized tests, contextual issues, and ethical concerns were not

touch upon much in the training. Specifically, the participants stressed they learned how to

test each skill separately and did not know how to measure overall language ability. They

also stated they did not learn anything about scoring, grading, and evaluating the results to

give feedback, which is similar to Watanabe’s (2011) study that pre-service teachers had

difficulties in communicating with assessment results. However, one of the characteristics of

being LAL is the ability to analyze and interpret assessment results to improve and reinforce

learning (Berry & O’Sullivan, 2016; Taylor, 2009). For this reason, there is a need to revise

the syllabus of the course and to add some other materials/resources for a better LAL

training.

Moreover, the participants complained about the inadequate class hours and being too late

to take such training in the last semester as in Hatipoglu’s (2015) study because the content

Sevimel-Sahin & Subasi

2796

was too demanding, and there was not much time to achieve each objective of the course

throughout the semester. Thus, it can be inferred all the components of LAL cannot be

focused in a single course and there is a need to redesign course hours and given semester

time.

Furthermore, although the participants reported the content was sufficient and their

expectations were met, they agreed the course was too theoretical and lacked practice as in

some studies (e.g. Jin, 2010; Komur, 2018; Lam, 2014). For example, they criticized though

they learned how to design a grammar multiple-choice test item, they did not perform such

knowledge in the course. Apart from the course, they did not even practice their testing

knowledge in the practicum as also reported by Sariyildiz (2018) and Viengsang (2016)

because they were only evaluated by their teaching in the practicum. In fact, this is against

the interconnection between teaching and assessment. Since there was imbalance between

theory and practice in the course, practical testing skills were not developed much. Therefore,

further training is needed to enable them to experience what they learn. Otherwise, all they

learned remained in theory as in the present study.

To sum up, concerning the first research question, the needs of pre-service ELT teachers

about LAL training were listed as: deprived of having assessment and evaluation perspective

on the conceptual basis, lack of knowledge about formative assessment, ethical issues,

contextual and local uses of assessment, and being deficient in putting theory into practice.

As for the second research question, ELTE course was found useful to make significant

contributions to develop ELT-based-testing knowledge by teacher candidates, especially in

terms of raising awareness with regard to language testing principles, types, and items,

learning how to design testing tools about language skills and areas, and leading them to feel

more competent in testing knowledge. Conversely, they highlighted negative aspects of the

course as insufficient hands-on experience in designing and administering tests, and

interpreting test results, incapable of forming integrated-skills tests, inadequate class hours,

and its being given too late in the program. Since the content included only testing

knowledge issues at the theoretical base, it was restricted in covering the following topics:

recent assessment means such as formative assessment, computer-based testing, statistical

procedures, and alternative assessment such as portfolio, self/peer-assessment, and learner

diaries.

Though it is promising to see that ELTE course provided an initial basic training and

positive changes in teacher candidates, still there is a need to revise the course and make it

more practice-based to make future teachers more competent because a good LAL training

should include balanced proportions of what-how-why of language assessment depending on

a contextualized instruction (Inbar-Lourie 2008; Taylor 2009).

Therefore, some implications can be shared. Firstly, different meanings and functions of

language assessment can be explicitly introduced and exemplified to broaden the perceptions.

Secondly, other topics such as integrated testing, formative and alternative assessment might

be added to update the content. Likewise, local needs of the educational system and unethical

assessment practices may be discussed and exemplified to boost LAL more. To enhance

evaluation skills, the preparation of rubrics/checklists or scoring/grading ready-made

materials can also be included. Additionally, more examples, exercises and tasks might be

studied to make them to connect their assessment knowledge with their skills, and then they

can construct own tools and administer them to internalize what they learn. It is because

without practice, teacher candidates cannot develop meaningful assessment. However, to feel

real experiences, there should be a coordination between ELTE course and teaching practice

through which they can put their theoretical assessment knowledge into practice through the

International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2783-2802.

2797

cycle of plan-develop-administer-evaluate language assessment according to their lessons in

the practicum.

In view of such implications, a model content can be recommended for a better course-

based LAL training for teacher candidates of ELT. In this model, the course can be divided

into two semesters as two following courses ELTE-I (7th semester) and ELTE-II (8th

semester) to handle the demanding content effectively and allocate more time for both

knowledge and practice. It should be noted it would be more useful to place the courses in the

last two semesters after taking all teaching methodology courses so that it becomes more

meaningful to pre-service teachers to relate them. ELTE-I might cover more theoretical

issues, and ELTE-II more practical considerations, which also includes its integration into

practicum; that is, while they take in-class instruction, they can practice assessment in

practicum.

ELTE-I may contain introduction into language testing, assessment, and evaluation;

assessment of learning and assessment for learning; the concept of LAL; historical

background, recent developments, and social and contextual issues; principles of language

testing (e.g., reliability, validity, washback, ethics); purposes, types and uses of multiple

language tests and assessments (e.g., achievement, placement, summative, formative,

alternative, high/low-stakes, classroom-based, standardized, computer-based, teacher-made,

etc.); commonly used types of test items and exercises on their examples; the ways of

performing formative assessment (e.g., self/peer-assessment, observation, portfolio);

introduction to evaluation; the ways of analysis and interpretation of scores with sample

exercises by using basic descriptive and inferential statistics; the ways of evaluating and

monitoring language progress and giving feedback.

ELTE-II might consist of the revision of ELTE-I; test construction stages and the use of

table of specifications; summative and formative assessment ways of language areas (e.g.,

grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation), skills (e.g., reading, listening, speaking, writing), and

integrated one by studying on samples, doing exercises and activities; constructing tests and

criteria; discussing the practicum experiences and observations; reflecting on the

performance of pre-service teachers’ tests and assessment ways in teaching practice by means

of administering and interpreting them (i.e., the coordination with practicum through the

cycle of plan-develop-administer-evaluate language assessment; not just summative but also

using formative one).

After all, since teacher education is influential in shaping early beliefs and training ELT

specific competencies, which affects future performance of teacher candidates, such revisions

in response to the needs of pre-service ELT teachers might be helpful to promote their LAL

for a better teaching career.

5. Conclusion

Language teachers need to be assessment literate to respond to the needs of their

educational context more effectively because LAL is helpful to undertake efficient

assessment methods, which makes both teaching and learning to be developed and motivated

for better outcomes (Khadijeh & Amir, 2015). But to be assessment literate, they need

training early in learning so that they can construct their assessment knowledge and skills for

their career. Thus, teacher education has an important role to equip teachers with LAL

competence (DeLuca & Klinger, 2010). In this sense, this study was believed to enlighten

certain LAL training needs of pre-service ELT teachers within ELTE course through their

own perspectives as a distinctive feature and revealed a need to redesign the course in terms

Sevimel-Sahin & Subasi

2798

of content, implementations, time, and practice. Unlike other studies in this field, the current

study made an effort to share pedagogical implications that can be applicable regarding LAL

training through the model course content by including the coordination with practicum so as

to provide assessment practices. Specifically, this model content for the courses as ELTE-I

and ELTE-II could lead to a new curriculum design for pre-service teachers’ LAL training in

teacher education program. This model is also hoped to be implemented in other contexts by

making necessary adaptations according to their own educational policies. In this respect, this

study showed a genuine attempt to present a new model for a course-based LAL training by

starting from a specific context (Turkish-ELT) to guide the development of such courses in

other countries.

As suggestions for further studies, since this study was a sample of only one stakeholder,

the perspectives of different stakeholders can be considered to elaborate more on the needs of

LAL training; for instance, comparisons between pre-service and in-service teachers

regarding their perceptions and practices of LAL can be made to improve the quality of

training and provide more guidelines for teacher education.

International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2783-2802.

2799

References

Bachman, L. F. (2005). Statistical analyses for language assessment. CUP.

Berger, A. (2012). Creating language-assessment literacy: A model for teacher education. In

J. Hüttner, B. Mehlmauer-Larcher, S. Reichl & B. Schiftner (Eds.), Theory and practice

in EFL teacher education: Bridging the gap (pp. 57-82). Short Run Press.

Berry, V., & O’Sullivan, B. (2016). Assessment literacy for language teachers.

http://tea.iatefl.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Vivien-Berry-and-Barry-OSullivan.pdf

Bohn, H., & Tsagari, D. (2021). Teacher educators’ conceptions of language assessment

literacy in Norway. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 12(2), 222-233.

http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1202.02

Chen, P. P. (2005). Teacher candidates’ literacy in assessment. Academic Exchange

Quarterly, 9(3), 62-67.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Teacher+candidates%27+literacy+in+assessment.-

a0138703662

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

Csépes, I. (2014). Language assessment literacy in English teacher training programmes in

Hungary. In J. Hovarth & P. Medgyes, (Eds.), Studies in Honour of Marianne Nikolov

(pp. 399-411). Lingua Franca Csoport.

Davies, A. (2008). Textbook trends in teaching language testing. Language Testing, 25(3),

327-347. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265532208090156

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(11), 1-18.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-020-00109-y

Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for

analysis and applications (10th ed.). Pearson Education.

Giraldo, F. (2018). Language assessment literacy: Implications for language teachers.

Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 20(1), 179-195.

https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v20n1.62089

Giraldo, F., & Murcia, D. (2018). Language assessment literacy for pre-service teachers:

Course expectations from different stakeholders. Gist Education and Learning

Research Journal, 16, 56-77.

Hatipoglu, C. (2010). Summative evaluation of an English language testing and evaluation

course for future English language teachers in Turkey. English Language Teacher

Education and Development (ELTED), 13, 40-51.

Hatipoglu, C. (2015). English language testing and evaluation (ELTE) training in Turkey:

expectations and needs of pre-service English language teachers. ELT Research

Journal, 4(2), 111-128.

http://tea.iatefl.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Vivien-Berry-and-Barry-OSullivan.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1202.02
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Teacher+candidates%27+literacy+in+assessment.-a0138703662
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Teacher+candidates%27+literacy+in+assessment.-a0138703662
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265532208090156
https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.516643
https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.642041
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-020-00109-y
https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v20n1.62089

Sevimel-Sahin & Subasi

2800

Heaton, J. B. (2011). Writing English language tests (new ed.). Longman.

Herrera, L., & Macias, D. (2015). A call for language assessment literacy in the education

and development of teachers of English as a foreign language. Colombian Applied

Linguistics Journal, 17(2), 302-312.

https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2015.2.a09

Hidri, S. (2018). Introduction: State of the art of assessing second language abilities. In S.

Hidri (Ed.), Revisiting the assessment of second language abilities: From theory to

practice (pp. 1-19). Springer International Publishing.

Hilden, R., & Frojdendahl, B. (2018). The dawn of assessment literacy – exploring the

conceptions of Finnish student teachers in foreign languages. Apples – Journal of

Applied Language Studies, 12(1), 1–24.

https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.201802201542

Hill, K. (2017). Understanding classroom-based assessment practices: A precondition for

teacher assessment literacy. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 6(1), 1-17.

Howerton, A. M. (2016). Elephant on a stepladder: an exploration of pre-service English

teacher assessment literacy [Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University].

Northern Illinois University Institutional Repository.

https://commons.lib.niu.edu/handle/10843/20902

Huang, J., & He, Z. (2016). Exploring assessment literacy. Higher Education of Social

Science, 11(2), 18-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/8727

Inbar-Lourie, O. (2008). Constructing a language assessment knowledge base: A focus on

language assessment courses. Language Testing, 25(3), 385-402.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265532208090158

Inbar-Lourie, O. (2013). Language assessment literacy. In C. A. Chapella (Ed.), The

Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1-9). Blackwell Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0605

Inbar-Lourie, O. (2017). Language assessment literacy. In E. Shohamy, L. Or, & S. May

(Eds.), Language Testing and Assessment (pp. 257-270). Springer International

Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_19

Jeong, H. (2013). Defining assessment literacy: Is it different for language testers and non-

language testers? Language Testing, 30(3), 345-362.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265532213480334

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%2F0265532209351431

Karaman, P., & Sahin, C. (2014). Ogretmen adaylarinin olcme degerlendirme

okuryazarliklarinin belirlenmesi [Investigating the assessment literacy of teacher

candidates]. Ahi Evran Universitesi Kirsehir Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi [Ahi Evran

University Kirsehir Education Faculty Journal], 15(2), 175-189.

Khadijeh, B., & Amir, R. (2015). Importance of teachers’ assessment literacy. International

Journal of English Language Education, 3(1), 139-146.

https://doi.org/10.5296/ijele.v3i1.6887

Komur, S. (2018). Preservice English teachers’ assessment awareness: Level of readiness for

classroom practice. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 109-121.

https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2015.2.a09
https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.201802201542
https://commons.lib.niu.edu/handle/10843/20902
http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/8727
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265532208090158
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0605
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_19
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265532213480334
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265532209351431
https://doi.org/10.5296/ijele.v3i1.6887

International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2783-2802.

2801

Lam, R. (2014). Language assessment training in Hong Kong: Implications for language

assessment literacy. Language Testing, 32(2), 169-197.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265532214554321

Malone, M. E. (2008). Training in language assessment. In E. Shohamy & N. H. Hornberger

(Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2nd ed., Vol. 7) (pp. 225-239).

Blackwell Publishing.

Mede, E., & Atay, D. (2017). English language teachers’ assessment literacy: The Turkish

context. Dil Dergisi-Ankara Universitesi TOMER [Language Journal-Ankara

University TOMER], 168(1), 43-60.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data

analysis (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods

sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Pill, J., & Harding, L. (2013). Defining the language assessment literacy gap: Evidence from

a parliamentary inquiry. Language Testing, 30(3), 381-402.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265532213480337

Rea-Dickins, P. (2004). Understanding teachers as agents of assessment. Language Testing,

21(3), 249-258. https://doi.org/10.1191%2F0265532204lt283ed

Rogier, D. (2014). Assessment literacy: Building a base for better teaching and learning.

English Language Teaching Forum, 3, 2-13.

Royse, D., Staton-Tindall, M., Badger, K., & Webster, J. M. (2009). Needs assessment. OUP.

Sariyildiz, G. (2018). A study into language assessment literacy of pre-service English as a

foreign language teachers in Turkish context [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Hacettepe

University.

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%2F0265532213480128

Stabler-Havener, M. L. (2018). Defining, conceptualizing, problematizing, and assessing

language teacher assessment literacy. Teachers College, Columbia University Working

Papers in Applied Linguistics & TESOL, 18(1), 1-22.

Taylor, L. (2009). Developing assessment literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29,

21-36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190509090035

Tsagari, D., & Vogt, T. (2017). Assessment literacy of foreign language teachers around

Europe: Research, challenges and future prospects. Papers in Language Testing and

Assessment, 6(1), 41-63.

Turk, M. (2018). Language assessment training level and perceived training needs of English

language instructors: A mixed methods study [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Bahcesehir

University.

Ukrayinska, O. (2018). Developing student teachers’ classroom assessment literacy: The

Ukrainian context. In S. Hidri (Ed.), Revisiting the assessment of second language

abilities: From theory to practice (pp. 351-371). Springer International Publishing.

Viengsang, R. (2016). Exploring pre-service English teachers’ language assessment literacy.

Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 6(5), 432-442.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265532214554321
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265532213480337
https://doi.org/10.1191%2F0265532204lt283ed
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265532213480128
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190509090035

Sevimel-Sahin & Subasi

2802

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

Wach, A. (2012). Classroom-based language efficiency assessment: A challenge for EFL

teachers. Glottodidactica, 39(1), 81-92.

Watanabe, Y. (2011). Teaching a course in assessment literacy to test takers: Its rationale,

procedure, content and effectiveness. Cambridge ESOL: Research Notes, 46, 29-34.

Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A

reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149-162.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010

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

https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2014.960046
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.003