Understanding K-12 In-service EFL Teachers’ Online Assessment Practices and Assessor Identity: A Chinese Study

Abstract

After the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, distance teaching brought on unforeseen challenges around the world, including classroom-based assessment practice. However, little attention has been paid to teachers’ assessment practice and their identity as assessor in the new teaching situation. This study examines Chinese K-12 in-service EFL teachers’ assessment practice and their identity as assessor in the pandemic. Three rounds of semi-structured interviews were used to probe six in-service teachers. The findings revealed that three major online assessment practices were implemented in response to the challenges: (1) remaining unaltered in online assessment practice; (2) being proactive in formative assessment; (3) provision of online feedback. Results also showed that there were three types of assessment identity that could be identified, namely, positive negotiator, flexible facilitator and struggling follower. The findings indicated assessment practice and assessment identity reciprocally influenced each other in a new assessment context. Different identities might lead to different assessment practice with varied and mixed emotions attached to it. Moreover, varying identities interacted with each other on medicating their online assessment practice.

Plain language summary

In this study, six in-service EFL teachers’ assessment experiences during Covid-19 are reported, offering in-depth reflections on how the challenges can be met by other in-service teachers. The findings are valuable for all stakeholders to understand that teachers need a more emotional support in dealing with the new assessment environment. It revealed a wide range of online assessment practices, including remaining unaltered, being supportive of formative assessment and provision of online feedback. In addition, their assessment identity can be understood as positive negotiator, flexible facilitator and struggling follower. Among these participants, most of them were not hindered by the constraints of the pandemic; instead, they made use of their agency and devoted themselves to their work. In this process, they encountered uncertainties, conflicts and challenges, but also gained strength and confidence through them, building their assessment identity in positive ways. Moreover, different identities may lead to different assessment practice accompanied by mixed emotions. Tensions exist in the process of identity construction. In this sense, teacher assessment training programs should help in-service teachers become more aware of their identity as assessor. They also need longer hours to be more fully engaged in online assessment practice to learn to confront the complexities and challenges of assessment practice, and (re)construct their identity as assessors.

Keywords

in-service teachers assessment practice assessor identity emotion

Introduction

Classroom assessment has been an important topic for researchers in recent years. Focusing on assessment is crucial for the development of teaching and learning processes (Monteiro et al., 2021). With the rising importance of assessment for learning, there is an urgent need for assessment-literate teachers (DeLuca et al., 2016; Popham, 2013; Xu & Brown, 2016). Assessment-literate teachers can carry out effective and valid assessment, optimize the use of assessment results to inform teaching and learning and make sound decisions on students’ academic performance (Scarino, 2013). The prominence of teacher assessment literacy has drawn much attention from scholars to discuss and explore various assessment-related themes including conceptions of assessment (Brown et al., 2014; Xu & He, 2019), training needs and assessment courses (Jin, 2010; Villa Larenas & Brunfaut, 2023; Vogt & Tsagari, 2014), classroom-based assessment approaches (Baidoo-Anu et al., 2023; DeLuca et al., 2018) and the status quo of assessment literacy across different contexts (Banitz, 2022; Lan & Fan, 2019; Sultana, 2019). However, after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the conditions for teaching, learning and assessment has changed dramatically, forcing teachers to adjust to the use of online platforms and new means of assessment. These changes require teachers to cope with new demands and challenges when promoting a new educational movement (Gao & Zhang, 2020). Accordingly, a rising concern has grown in changes in online teaching and assessment (Watermeyer et al., 2021). It is important to note that the pandemic illuminated gaps in the current lack of understanding of assessment practice in online settings. As online instruction and assessment have become the “new normal,” teachers are expected to implement effective online assessment to achieve and maintain high teaching quality (Ma et al., 2021). It is posited that the pandemic condition provides an opportunity for exploring how online teaching affected their assessment practice and their identity as assessor. Therefore, the goal of the study was to provide guidance for the longer term transitions to partial or entirely online in educational practice that is likely to result from the pandemic and shed light on the implications for improving the quality of language online assessment practices, developing teacher assessment identity to enhance teacher assessment literacy in the Chinese context and other similar K-12 educational settings.

Teacher’s Language Assessment Literacy (LAL), as a subset of assessment literacy in general education has attracted much attention in language assessment scholarship in recent decades. Given its prominence in language assessment, various LAL-related themes have been considerably researched (Gan & Lam, 2022). However, scant attention has been paid to EFL teachers’ online assessment practice and identity. Watermeyer et al. (2021) investigated the impact of the pandemic on digital disruption among instructors and found that the pandemic-fueled transition to online teaching was particular difficult for language teachers. Thus, gaining more in-depth insights into how EFL teachers cope with online assessment is vital. In order to address the gaps in the literature, the present study attempts to provide insights into online assessment practice and assessment identity, as well as the relationship between them. I will report on an exploratory study of K-12 Chinese EFL teachers on their assessment practice and identity during the lockdown period. With a large number of teachers teaching English as a foreign language in China, the primary and secondary teachers are faced more with assessment-related work and deal with various assessment activities in their professional life. This study will reveal the ways in which six in-service EFL teachers implement assessment practices and their perceptions of their identity as assessor and shed light on views regarding the mechanisms between assessment practice and assessor identity.

To this end, this research is guided by the following specific questions:

How did the six Chinese in-service teachers assess students’ learning during Covid-19?

How did they perceive their identity as assessor in their online assessment practice?

How did these teachers’ assessor identity interact with their assessment practice?

Teacher Assessment Literacy in Practice

As noted above, assessment literacy generally refers to the knowledge, skills and principles stakeholders should acquire to handle various language assessment activities (Inbar-Lourie, 2017; Taylor, 2013). It can be a competence (Baker & Riches, 2018), an ability (Deygers & Malone, 2019; Malone, 2013) or a knowledge base (Inbar-Lourie, 2008). Teachers who are empowered with such a competence, ability or knowledge base are generally considered assessment literate (Gan & Lam, 2022). Teachers usually spend from one-third to one-half of their time on assessment in classroom teaching activities (Cheng et al., 2004). They design, develop, implement and evaluate assessment in order to inform their teaching. As Taylor (2013) proposed that, compared to other stakeholder groups, classroom teachers focus more on designing practical assessment methods and put them into practice. In other words, they are doing a most significant yet most challenging job. To be qualified for this job, teachers need to have sufficient assessment literacy.

Given the complex nature of teacher assessment literacy, a large body of research has been prompted to explore different dimensions of teacher assessment literacy at the classroom level in offline teaching context, finding out that in-service teachers seemed not to reach the expected level (Fulcher, 2012; Jin, 2010; Lan & Fan, 2019), with very limited practical use in teaching practice (Vogt & Tsagari, 2014). Also, the majority of teachers maintained variable understandings about assessment practice and face significant challenges integrating it to their teaching (DeLuca et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2023). With empirical data’s continuous enrichment in different assessment contexts, a comprehensive conceptual framework of Teacher assessment literacy in Practice (TALiP) was presented by Xu and Brown (see Figure 1). This framework consists of six components, moving the field beyond a focus on the knowledge base to consideration of a situated, dynamic, and evolving system in which teachers constantly make compromises among competing tensions (Xu & Brown, 2016). More importantly, teacher as assessor is placed at the top in this framework, which represents the ultimate goal of the construction of assessment literacy (Rea-Dickins, 2004). The significance of identity in teachers’ assessment work and the connection between assessment practices and teacher identity development have been highlighted, suggesting assessment identity is by no means static, and it is relational in nature. Against this background, this study aims to further underscore the interaction between assessment practice and identity in the online context, which has been more complicated and situated than what TALiP has suggested.

Figure 1.

TALiP Modal—Xu and Brown (2016).

Assessment Practice and Experiences in Language Teaching Context

In the field of language assessment, we have witnessed a growing interest in developing teachers’ language assessment literacy due to an increase in the assessment responsibilities placed upon language teachers. Their assessment practice is considered critically important to achieve and maintain high language teaching quality (Banitz, 2022; Mansouri et al., 2021). Although there is no consensus on Language Assessment Literacy conceptualization, this construct has sparked considerable studies and debates, generating insightful information about the nature and development of LAL. The existing empirical research has stemmed from using measures based on professional standards from the early 1990s (i.e., Standard for Teacher Competency in Educational Assessment of Students, American Federation of Teachers & National Education Association, 1990) (DeLuca et al., 2016; Gotch & French, 2014). Teachers are expected to monitor and report student learning outcomes based on established standards. After comprehensively considering informal language assessments including classroom observation, oral feedback and random testing, researchers began to consider and reflect language disciplines’ unique characteristics and requirements, as well as the social issues and diverse contexts teachers face in constructing and using assessment (Inbar-Lourie, 2008; Wang et al., 2023).

Despite the increasing number of studies that investigate what language assessment is, how it is conceptually defined, and how it can be developed, most research on this area has focused on (1) general descriptions of language teachers’ assessment practice in EFL contexts (Baker & Riches, 2018; Cheng et al., 2004, 2008; Qi, 2004), (2) influence of external testing-oriented culture and social context on EFL teachers (Chen et al., 2013; Cheng et al., 2008; Luxia, 2007), (3) training in language assessment practice (Adie et al., 2020; Lee & Wiliam, 2005; Mertler, 2004, 2009). This body of literature showed that language teachers in EFL context relied heavily on test-based assessments and their assessment practices and experiences were largely influenced and constrained by the conceptions and beliefs they have about the purposes of assessment (Deneen & Brown, 2016; Gebril, 2017; Kao, 2023), social and professional experiences (Skott, 2014), and the larger social and educational context such as state assessment policies (Harrison, 2005; Popham, 2013).

However, these recent lines of inquiry have paid scant attention to EFL teachers’ practice, challenges, and experiences when implementing assessment practice in the context of online language teaching during the lockdown period. Morrison’s study, as a rare exception, reported that Chilean English teacher educators struggled with assessment-related activities after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and found that part of teacher educators continued using traditional assessment tools and procedure, while other teachers made modifications to their assessment methods (Morrison & Sepulveda-Escobar, 2022). However, Morrison’s finding is mainly derived from relatively large-scale survey studies of quantitative research paradigm. Qualitative studies investigating in-service EFL teachers’ online assessment practice and the interplay between practice and identity have been few and far between. The need for the research motivated the current research. This study attempts to highlight the importance of: (a) studying in-service EFL teachers’ assessment practice during Covid-19 and (b) attention to alignment between contemporary practices and their identity in order to develop teachers’ online assessment literacy throughout their careers.

Teacher Assessment Identity

The development of teachers’ LAL is recognized to be situational and context-dependent. However, in order to understand the complexity of teachers’ LAL development, it should be explored in conjunction with other concepts, one of which is teacher’s assessment identity (Gan & Lam, 2023). As teachers perform the dual role of both teachers and assessor or judge in the language assessment process, understanding assessment identity on the part of language teachers is essential for the research on teachers’ language assessment practice and development (Scarino, 2013).

Assessment identity, coined by Adie (2013), refers to teachers’ perceptions of themselves as an assessor and their concerns about how they were judged by others when they made professional decisions on students’ performance. Later it has been defined and redefined as teachers’ personal and professional identification of their assessment activities, entailing teachers’ assessment knowledge and skills, knowledge of effective assessment practices, confidence in enacting assessment and beliefs in assessment processes (Wyatt-Smith & Adie, 2021; Wyatt-Smith et al., 2010). Furthermore, teacher assessment identity seemed to feature personal dispositions (e.g., emotional responses, self-efficacy) and contextual mediations (Looney et al., 2018; Willis et al., 2013). As such, Looney et al. (2018) reconceptualized teacher assessment identity as encompassing not only assessment knowledge and skills but also beliefs and feelings about assessment.

Teacher’s identity as assessors could trigger teachers’ reflection, promote interaction between teachers and students, and aid them in making professional judgment (Adie, 2013; Looney et al., 2018). Regarding the intricate relationship between assessment identity and assessment literacy in practice, Xu and Brown (2016) contended that to improve assessment literacy, teachers should transition from seeing themselves solely as instructors to recognizing that teachers can take on both roles of instructor and assessor. Building upon conceptual discussions of teacher assessment identity, Estaji and Ghiasvand (2021) and Moqaddam et al. (2021) designed and validated a teacher assessment identity questionnaire with EFL teachers in the Iranian context. Coombs et al. (2020) identified three subgroups of pre-service teachers as assessors: eager, contemporary and hesitant assessors. Leonardsen et al. (2022) captured the dynamics of teacher assessment identity by depicting five faces of being an assessor enacted in assessment practices: the quality controller, the educator, the fosterer, the motivator, and the negotiator. Regardless of the diverse classification, various types of assessment identities demand teachers to demonstrate corresponding levels of assessment literacy when putting into classroom practice. However, the previous studies seem to take it for granted that teachers are endowed with the identity as an assessor the moment they undertake assessment accountability (Gan & Lam, 2023). Little remains known about how teacher view and develop their assessment identity, and more importantly, how they form their online assessment identity in the pandemic context, which is a crucial part of LAL development.

Methodology

Research Context

The current study is part of a longitudinal study on K-12 EFL teachers’ LAL development in the Chinese context. This paper reported six EFL teachers given the research purpose. Due to the fact that a strict lockdown was introduced on February in this city in 2022, the timing rendered a window to investigate EFL teachers’ online assessment practice and identity with corresponding LAL development over time.

The study was conducted in two public primary and middle schools in Shanghai. These two schools were selected for three reasons. First, responding to the quality education policy (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (MOE), 2013), particularly in the aspect of assessment for the quality of primary and secondary education, these two schools have promoted comprehensive assessment reform respectively, suggesting using various assessments to change the inclination to assess the quality of basic education solely based on standardized test scores. Second, the author’s familiarity with the context and rapport with the school personnel facilitated the qualitative research (Stake, 2006). Last, these two schools are featured with distinguished performance in English language teaching. They are high-achieving schools, ranking among the top five in the local area. In contrast to the normal practice of starting English education at Grade 3 in many parts of China, these two schools lowered the starting age for formal English instruction to Grade 1. Given this fact, our findings about EFL teachers’ assessment practice and identity may be higher than the average level, although this assumption cannot be testified in this qualitative study.

Participants

Participants in this study were six primary and middle school teachers in the two public schools located in the same district. As mentioned by Creswell (2017), a single individual or a small number of individuals in a case study provides ample opportunities to identify the themes. Therefore, six participants in a qualitative study are enough to generate insightful findings. To make more inclusive statements, participants whose experience are likely to be different are recruited. This purposive sampling strategy serves to pragmatically capture diverse manifestations of the phenomenon. Several dimensions are employed as criteria for selecting participants. The first criterion is that they are serving primary and secondary teachers and have taught online from the beginning to the end during the lockdown. The second criterion is teachers’ teaching experiences, based on the rationale that as teachers’ careers advance, their perceptions of assessment may change. Therefore, I chose to include both novice and experienced teachers. Among them, three participants had prior experience of online teaching, while the rest had no experience before. The third criterion is their willingness to cooperate throughout the semester. A formal written letter describing the details of the study was sent to them respectively. All the participants confirmed their willingness to be involved in the study. Considering the relatively small sample of the research, this study strives to select EFL teachers with different degrees, diverse ages, different online teaching experiences from different schools, etc. The information on the participant teachers was illustrated on Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Information of the Participants.

Participants	Gender	School	Total teaching experience (Years)	Highest degree	Online teaching experience
T1	F	Primary	2	Master’s	No
T2	F	Primary	1	Bachelor’s	No
T3	F	Primary	12	Bachelor’s	No
T4	M	Middle	8	Bachelor’s	Yes
T5	F	Middle	3	Master’s	Yes
T6	F	Middle	4	Master’s	Yes

As can be seen in Table 1, the participating teachers’ profiles including the background, school type, teaching experience, and highest degree were described. There were five females and one male with between 1 and 12 years of teaching experience.

Research Instrument

Despite a large number of quantitative research on EFL teachers’ assessment practice in the offline context, limited scholarship has been undertaken regarding an in-depth understanding of the lived experiences of in-service teachers’ online assessment practice and identity as well as the interaction between them during the pandemic. Qualitative research can provide more insightful and epistemological approaches to deducing conclusive findings through thick and rich descriptions (Creswell, 2017). Therefore, grounded in a qualitative approach, I conducted qualitative interviews, which is most often used to generate participants’ personal accounts of their experiences and how they perceive these experiences from a personal angle (Hollway & Jefferson, 2000), and it well serves the purpose of the current study and facilitates an in-depth exploration of a real-world situation during the time of swift online teaching transition and the participants’ lived experiences and perceptions.

According to Weiss (1994), the key reasons for choosing qualitative interviews as a major data source are as follows. First, it can help to describe experiences and perspectives in a comprehensive, detailed, and contextualized way. Second, it helps the researcher to understand and integrate multiple individual perspectives. Third, it enables the researcher to describe the processes and experiences in depth. Fourth, a holistic description of perspectives, realities, experiences, and phenomena can be achieved via the interview. Based on these merits of qualitative interviews, the present study adopts semi-structured interviews as a major instrument to collect data.

Based on Xu and Brown’s (2016) model, I incorporated assessment experiences, practices and identity into the interview protocol. Questions were asked about how teachers perceive their online assessment practice and identity as well as the interaction between them in these three regards and beyond.

Data Collection

The current research was conducted during the spring semester of 2022. After acquiring Institutional Research Board approval, three rounds of semi-structured individual teacher interviews were conducted at the beginning, toward the middle, and at the end of the spring semester in the school year. At the end of February in 2022, a focus group interview was first conducted to understand participants’ initial perceptions and experiences on online teaching and assessment-related activities at the start of Shanghai lockdown. Later the second and third round of individual interviews were conducted at the middle of April during the lockdown and at the end of July after the lockdown. Individual interviews at the last two rounds were suitable because the participants are encouraged to share more freely and openly in relation to their personal experiences and thoughts in detail (Salmons, 2014). The specific interview questions in each interview were provided in the Appendix (see Appendix A table). The length of interviews ranged from 40 to 70 min each time. All the interviews were conducted on the online platform (e.g., WeChat platform and Tencent online conference platform) in Chinese language, recoded, and then transcribed for further data analysis.

Data Analysis

Participants’ interviews were transcribed verbatim by the author and then sent back to the participants for member checking. All the transcripts were carefully reviewed and coded, with particular attention paid to assessment practice and assessment identity mentioned in the data. The researcher followed the coding process suggested by Creswell (2017), using open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. When the researcher reviewed the data, repeated concepts became apparent and were grouped into categories. The researcher read the interview transcripts line-by-line, and a list of categories emerged and were summarized. Taking online assessment practice as an example, the coding process is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Example of coding process.

Below, the data references are specified as follow. I stands for interview. The number after the data source abbreviations are the specific session with the data source. For example, T1-I3-LL65-72 indicates that the quote is from Participant Teacher 1’s third interview, and in the lines of 65 to 72 of the transcripts.

Findings

The findings will be presented and discussed in the following three parts. The first part discusses varying types of online assessment practice. The second part presents different categories of assessment identity. The third part reports the interplay of assessment practice and assessment identity.

Online Assessment Practice

The interviews revealed three types in terms of their online assessment practice, ranging from passive agency to active agency.

Remain Unaltered in Online Assessment Practice: Mechanical Way

For the first type, teachers tended to transfer to the online teaching context mechanically. They appeared to maintain the usual assessment procedures in traditional language classes, viewing the online platform as merely a tool for instructing, assigning, collecting and assessing. As the following participants reported:

After the lockdown, I felt myself unprepared for online teaching… Later I virtually did the usual activities. I used the online platform to lecture, assign homework and grade them, you know, it was just an instruction tool as we did in f2f classes. (T3-I1-LL34-37)

I asked my students to submit their written assignments through Weixin (online communication tool name) by photos…just like we collected our homework in the physical classes. In that situation, whether you like it or not, you have to transition the class to online environment. (T2-I1-LL56-60)

When assessing their essays, I graded and corrected them through the online platform that our school expects us to use. For me it didn’t make any difference. (T3-I2-LL26-29)

From the above excerpts, it seemed that the virtual context had not affected how two participants (T2 and T3), a novice teacher and an experienced one, assessed in the online environment very much and their practice almost remained unaltered except for using online platform as a different means for teaching and assessing. The statements from the interview suggested that they did not have the awareness of the differences in assessment between online course and offline course and seemed not being well equipped for the new teaching context. For instance, “it didn’t make any difference” and “virtually did the same” (T3) revealed that they replicated assessment practice of face-to-face teaching in an online setting without adjustments. “Whether you like it or not” (T2) indicated the teacher’s relatively casual attitude to online teaching, and might not have the ability to reflect on their assessment practice. Accordingly, they would not initiate changes and consider the potential for online assessment practice. Both of them reported that they had no online teaching experience, which may result in the feeling of unpreparedness (T3) and lack of investment (T2), leading them to resort to the conventional ways of assessment practice. It can be said that the participants’ replication itself might not help teachers to seek for a better understanding of their assessment practices, although assessment activities seemed to take place in their online classes. Therefore, it is likely that these participants would then end up repeating what they familiarize and usually do.

Being Proactive in Formative Assessment: Assisting in Online Assessment

The second category of teachers appeared to be very supportive of formative assessment in their online assessment practice. They were not satisfied with transferring the physical format into an online platform. Instead, they responded positively by adopting new online formative assessment approaches and adjusted themselves to the new teaching environment.

I took one assessment-related course when I was a master student. But I had no idea of what online assessment looks like before the pandemic… now take speaking activities as an example, students’ oral performance can be recorded and put in their e-portfolio…I was glad that I can practice my assessment knowledge in real class…(T1-I2-LL102-110)

I think online assessment has some advantages. The biggest advantage is that it can automatically correct students’ work and present the learners their mistakes directly. Besides, it provides students opportunities for autonomous learning such as peer learning and group learning. (T6-I2-LL133-140)

I learned to use Wenjuanxin (an online questionnaire platform) to collect the parents’ expectations as well as students’ learning condition during the lockdown. I wanted to seek their support for effective teaching. (T4-I2-LL96-100)

I developed a new bonus reward system including “no homework” card or “make a wish” card or “talents show” card and encouraged them to actively get involved in learning. (T5-I2-LL213-245)

The above data shows that various coping strategies were employed to facilitate online teaching through formative assessment including technology-enhanced methods such as e-portfolio (T1) and automatic correction system (T6), self-designed questionnaire (T4) and a new reward system (T5) in the online environment. They exercised their agency and actively practiced forms of formative assessment in their classes. These participants, including novice teachers (T1, T3, and T5) and experienced teachers (T4), invested themselves into teaching and assessing innovation. T1, without prior online teaching experience, reflected her relevant assessment knowledge in the master program. In contrast, the experienced teachers with prior online experiences tended to take advantage of technology and create practical formative assessment ways to facilitate their online teaching and assessment. With the coming of a new teaching environment such as pandemic, it entails change and requires teachers to adapt to the changes. This group of participants are likely to be influenced by their prior assessment learning experiences and online teaching experiences, which help them deal with the unexpected online transition by trying out new formative assessment approaches and making use of technology. In the meantime, their LAL could be enhanced concurrently through agentive efforts (e.g., reflective practices and new trials) and assessment-related stakeholders’ support. The result indicated within online teaching context teachers could also be very quick and creative to come up with new assessment practice to confront challenges during the pandemic. It is consistent with prior studies that with the help of online resources, effective formative assessment could be achieved to improve learning and teaching (Bolliger & Shepherd, 2010; Cheng et al., 2008).

Provision of Online Feedback: Multiple Functions of Feedback

The third type of assessment practice was referred to as the provision of online feedback Teachers’ performance of feedback has long been considered similar to or a part of assessment literacy (Smith et al., 2013). Previous studies have also pointed that technology-enabled feedback has potential to facilitate the teaching process (Carless & Boud, 2018; Hennessy & Forrester, 2014). Participants classified into this type were aware of the benefits of feedback and used more online feedback in their teaching and assessing. The following statements refer primarily to their feedback-related activities.

Compared to traditional class, I thought online platforms offer various tools that can enhance feedback, for example I gave learners audio, written and video feedback in different ways. (T5-I2-LL67-70)

As for speaking activities…unlike in f2f class, I changed the rubrics, excluded the delivery manners, made the learners clear about that. I also gave them detailed feedback and helped them to make improvement. (T6-I2-LL115-125)

Students were formed different groups randomly. I selected their sample work, both writing exemplars and problematic work and organized students to compare and discuss them online. In this way, students could comment and even generate their reflection on their own writing. (T1-I2-LL66-71)

I arranged high achievers to help slow learners to correct their errors in their assignments within a group. Working in pairs can help slow learners to get more feedback from peers. (T4-I3-LL96-102)

These excerpts manifested that feedback relates to opportunities for frequent and meaningful interactions to enable shared learning purpose and meaning of teaching goals (Gaytan & McEwen, 2007; Wolsey, 2008). These participants seemed to have a more favorable view of the effectiveness of online feedback. The integration of feedback into their online teaching and assessment made them conscious about the multiple functions of feedback. For example, T5 adopted different types of feedback; T6 changed the assessment rubrics; T1 provided exemplars to scaffold the feedback process; T4 integrated peer feedback into assessment practice. Their response demonstrated a clear awareness of setting up conditions for students to use feedback in online teaching context and exhibited a strong interest in repositioning feedback in relation to assessment. As a result, their LAL could be fostered by initiating online feedback and involving learners to be active agents in feedback processes.

Identity as Assessor

Based on the interview data, altogether three categories that appeared to be important for the participants have been identified in terms of their assessment identity: (1) positive negotiator; (2) flexible facilitator; and (3) struggling follower.

Positive Negotiator

Among the six participants, three teachers expressed that they perceived online teaching as opportunities for their understanding of educational assessment and their identity as assessor. From their response, the positive negotiator was characterized by teacher’s initiative to communicate with other assessment-related stakeholders and seek help from external resources. The following statements also illustrate their willingness and positive attitude attached to their adaptive practice.

Interaction with parents were very important…I held an online meeting with all the parents. I told what I expected from them. We should collaborate with each other. (T1-I3-LL113-119)

I value a mutually respectful relationship with the learners. Each time I assigned homework I explained to them why I designed and why it was beneficial for their learning. For example, I collected their audio files of reading, and gave extra points to those who did well. (T5-I3-LL76-82)

At the beginning of online teaching, I was very anxious. Our dean held an online meeting, and shared with her way of online assessment and encouraged us to form an online learning community. I felt very encouraged after chatting with colleagues and we discussed a lot about how to give feedback and how to measure what they’ve learnt… (T6-I2-LL205-215)

These respondents’ identity as positive negotiator tended to motivate them to reach out for other parties including parents (T1), students (T5), and colleagues (T6), suggesting their shared understanding of the significance of assessment and their engagement in the transition. It is aligned with the previous studies showing that teacher’s identity as assessor could promote interactions between teachers and assessment-related stakeholders, aiding them in making professional judgment (Adie, 2013; Looney et al., 2018). Moreover, it also revealed the emotional changes accompanied their perception of assessor and signaled the critical point in the development of assessment identity. For example, T6’s change from anxiety to encouragement proved that a teacher might have experienced ups and downs in the construction of assessment identity and the confidence in enacting assessment could be enhanced through supportive online learning community when she was placed in a site of struggling.

Flexible Facilitator

While the first group of teachers reached out for external help from different stakeholders, the second group named “flexible facilitators” was more reflective of their identity as assessor. These teachers facilitated their teaching and enhanced their identity through thinking and reflecting critically their assessment practice.

Unlike f2f class, I may not be capable of observing all the learners in online course because there were more than 40 students in my class, so I invited one of my colleagues to come to observe my online class. (T6-I2-LL132-140)

After I realized the distraction issue in online class, I begun to form a habit of recording my online classes. After the class, I would rewatch some of them and pay more attention to those students who do not concentrate on. (T1-I3-LL85-89)

I was aware of not criticizing naught students in the online class, it was not appropriate and it was likely to demotivate the student. I would choose to talk with the student in private after online class. In f2f classes, I may talk to naughty students directly, but I would not do that in virtual classes. (T4-I3-LL143-151)

I pushed myself to learn how to use the platforms and tried to figure out how it worked well and designed online exams for my students by trial and error…sometimes I watched instructional videos to help myself (T5-I2-LL90-94)

When confronted with the constraints such as large class size, distraction issue and unfamiliarity with the online teaching platform, flexible facilitators learned to reflect and regulate their assessment practice in their own ways such as getting colleague involved in online classes(T6) and recording online courses (T1), giving more encouragement (T4), and watching instructional videos (T5). Their reactions to online assessment were also relatively positive as negotiators. Through reflection on prior teaching experience, T6 prioritized student engagement and facilitated online teaching and assessment by inviting colleagues to deal with the online assessment. By making reflective comparisons between online and offline teaching, T4 flexibly adjusted his assessment practice by giving more positive feedback. T5 shared his proactive practice by learning how to use the platform in designing online exams. These statements are indicative of teachers’ clearer understanding of assessor identity and reflection in creating their own solutions in handling teaching and assessment-related constraints. It also proves that teacher’s identity as assessor may trigger teacher’s reflection and strengthen awareness of an assessor’s responsibilities (Looney et al., 2018).

Struggling Follower

Compared to the previous two categories, this category of teachers tended to show their doubt and uncertainty about their online assessor identity. In particular, they appeared to be suspicious of the effectiveness of assessment-related online teaching. The following statements indicated they seemed not to understand the responsibilities of being an assessor..

The big struggle for me was to get the younger kids there every day… [how] to log on right when the Tencent (online platform name) class starts. Some of them arrived later. How to have them attentively there every day is my priority (T2-I3-LL54-58)

I asked the learners to do more homework assignments or worksheets that were designed not for accuracy. But I did not really know, as an assessor, whether I could really help them learn or not… [I wanted] to make sure that everybody was doing what they were supposed to do, but I was really confused about my roles as assessor. (T3-I3-LL71-78)

I was a bit tired of online teaching. I had no idea if students would take my online feedback and comments seriously. From time to time, I had a feeling that I followed my intuition in my teaching. (T4-I3-LL223-226)

These statements can be interpreted as their “follower” identity. The respondents expressed their different degrees of perplexity, uncertainty and even a bit avoidance over online assessment and doubted their identity as assessor. Some of their complaints revealed the problems they encountered in online assessment, namely, younger learners’ attendance, assessment purposes, and effectiveness. In line with the previous studies, teachers are likely to feel unprepared and stressful due to lack of confidence in their assessment practice (DeLuca et al., 2019; DeLuca & Klinger, 2010) and may struggle to enact new assessment ideas, which might associate with the teachers’ beliefs and perceptions of assessment (Dixon, 2011). Additionally, the tension produced by what they perceived themselves placed some participants (e.g., T2 and T4) in a dilemma that they found difficult to reconcile their identities as a teacher and an assessor at the same time. Consequently, they tended to deal with online assessment randomly.

Another interesting finding was that several participants simultaneously embraced more than one identity related to online assessment practice. Four out of six participants (T1, T4, T5, and T6) reported more than one identity. It can be concluded that different types of assessment identities may co-exist and interact each other in mediating the participants’ efforts to integrate online assessment into their teaching practice. This finding also suggests that different assessment identities may compete with or reinforce each other, accompanied by emotional complexity that may mediate their identity construction; on the other hand, mixed feelings about online assessment may generate different assessment identities, which is dynamic and may fluctuate under different circumstances.

The Interplay of Assessment Practice and Assessor as Identity

The above analysis identified that different identities seemed to be closely connected with different assessment enactment. In particular, it was found that participants who identified them positive negotiator and flexible facilitator often adopted assessment practice that were relatively adaptive and pragmatic. When talking about how their identity interacted with their assessment practice, these participants tended to have a clearer awareness of integrating assessment into online teaching and paid more attention to the role of assessment. Words like “encourage,”“promote,”“place them at center” were used by the participants T6 and T1 below.

As an assessor, I know that my duty is to engage the learners, encourage them to actively take participation through the assessment activities I designed with the help of technology. (T1-I3-LL34-37)

I knew by principle, all the assessment activities should be designed to place students at the center, developing their abilities and promoting their autonomous learning. (T6-I3-LL77-79)

The statements reflected the two participants had the clear awareness of their identity as assessor and the importance of assessment design, which motivated them to design classroom activities and facilitate students’ learning. Conversely, the participants positioned themselves as struggling follower had a relatively narrowly-defined assessment-related identity, namely, the role of instructor or manager, accompanying by a limited understanding of the relationship between teaching and assessment (see the following discourse by Teacher 2).

The school I taught paid more attention to students’ scores…you know, although double reduction policy has been issued, schools, parents and teachers are all very concerned about how to make students get prepared for Zhongkao (secondary school entrance examination) …so I think there is little I can do about it. I followed what I usually did. (T2-I2-LL134-141)

From the above data, it can be seen that T2 rather acknowledged her identity as an instructor rather than that of an assessor, which may lead to her low self-efficacy toward assessment practice. It reveals that different identification seem to orient and mediate teachers’ assessment practice, adopting different approaches and implementing assessment-related teaching. When one self-positions his or her identity as negotiator, one tends to view himself or herself as a bridge between school and parents and felt the teacher should play a role in making parents understand their teaching and school expectations. When teachers assume the facilitator identity, they are more likely to value students’ participation in the process and two-way equal dialog between teachers and students. As a result, their awareness of assessor’s responsibilities could be strengthened and their LAL may be enhanced at the same time. Without consciousness of being an assessor, teachers may find it difficult to reconcile their dual identities, namely, an instructor and an assessor, which hinders their LAL development.

Situated in the online assessment context, negotiator identity and facilitator identity made teachers regard assessment in the online situation in a more open-minded manner and enabled them to appreciate technology affordance. Accordingly, it is likely to mediate their online assessment practice toward considering possible leaner-centered teaching and assessment approaches. Thus, embracing identity as negotiator and facilitator were likely to help teachers to encounter the challenges, conflicts even tensions.

In addition, several participants’ accounts indicated that different identities interacted with each other on medicating their online assessment practice. For example, in the case of T4, T5, and T6, the different combination of different identities seemed to mediate their online assessment practice. In particular, T4’s experiences of being assessed as a learner influenced his assessment implementation in online class. He reflected how he was assessed as a learner and reported his emphasis on the fairness in the assessment practice. The quotes below illustrate it:

My experience of being assessed as a learner was not that good. Most of the teachers at that time evaluated the students only based on their grades. I think it was not right, so I always reminds myself of the fairness in my assessment practice. In my online class, I attempted to take some other factors into my consideration when I was the assessor. (T4-I3-LL53-60)

In his online assessment practice, he flexibly adjusted his assessment practice by giving more positive feedback, reflecting his consciousness of being an assessor; however, he also has experienced withdrawals and confusion when he dealt with online assessment. He expressed his mixed feelings in terms of online assessment including tiredness and suspicion. It demonstrated the mixed and dynamic process when teachers constructed their identities. This finding is consistent with that of the study by Dao (2021), indicating that teacher assessment identity is not fixed, but evolving. Thus, the interaction of assessment identity and practice is not one-way or linear. They are intertwined and reciprocally influenced by each other (Cheng, 2021).

Discussion

This study examined six K-12 English teachers’ online assessment practice and their identity as assessor, further deepening the understanding of the interplay between the two during the pandemic.

The first research question focused on how K-12 teachers conducted assessment in the online assessment-related teaching context. The results of this study revealed that these Chinese EFL K-12 teachers’ assessment practice during covid-19 was partly different from assessment in normal face-to-face situations and there were wide variations across different categories of assessment practice. The participants in the study seemed to take three different pathways. There were those who remained unchanged and continued using face-to-face classroom assessment approaches; there were those who appeared being proactive in formative assessment; and there were those who took initiative to provide constructive online feedback with different functions. The first category may suggest that online assessment approaches and methods may not come naturally to teachers who show doubt over the effectiveness of online assessment. The participants who remained unaltered and transformed face-to-face assessment to online context do not fully trust the use of assessment in online courses. This finding is different from that of some studies (e.g., Doyle et al., 2021; Moqaddam et al., 2021; Namgung et al., 2021) in which teachers automatically enact their assessment practice through educational encounters with students. However, it echoes Morrison’s study which found teacher educators were afraid of change by sticking to what they’ve done in the traditional face-to-face class (Morrison & Sepulveda-Escobar, 2022). In contrast, the other two categories of online assessment practice showed teachers’ innovative and adaptive use of formative online assessment and provision of different forms of feedback. It showed that EFL teachers could take initiative to deal with assessment practice in the online assessment context. Online assessment provides a platform for their LAL enhancement, but each participant experienced a different development process. It corroborates the claim that the development of teacher assessment literacy is a non-linear process of becoming (Adie, 2013; Looney et al., 2018). In this regard, these results provide further evidence of the importance of in-service teacher training related to online environment in Chinese EFL teaching context.

In terms of the second research question, the qualitative data indicates that teacher assessment identity is comprised of three types: positive negotiator, flexible facilitator and struggling follower. The participants’ multiple identities, influenced by their prior assessment experiences, online training, institutional requirements and support, tended to be aligned with their assessment practice (Gan & Lam, 2023). For example, the positive negotiator and flexible facilitator seemed to be more willing to adapt themselves to the new teaching online environment, while struggling followers were likely to experience more negativity and confusion. The former two learned to negotiate their identities as assessors within interactions with other stakeholders, especially when assessment-related innovations are being implemented (Cowie et al., 2014; Scarino, 2013). Comparatively, teachers who fell into the last type may feel unprepared and perplexed due to lack of confidence in their assessment practice and may struggle to enact new assessment ideas.

Regarding the third research question about the interaction between the participants’ identities and their assessment practice, this study revealed that the relatively narrower self-positioned identities seemed to mediate their assessment practice toward to hold onto remaining unaltered through using the traditional assessment approaches with relatively limited reflectivity. The detachment of being an assessor may partially be ascribed to the new assessment context and their limited understanding of assessment, which is often linked with traditional summative-dominated assessment culture (Xiao, 2017). In contrast, embracing assessment identities such as negotiator and facilitator is more likely to shape their assessment practice with a greater focus on fostering students’ autonomous learning and positive attitude toward online assessment, concurrently enhancing LAL development with differing extents and routes. In addition, teachers’ perceptions of their assessment identity are likely to change and multiple identities may interact with each other on mediating their online assessment practice.

The finding also suggests that when teachers assess, more is in play than simply knowledge and skills, which also conforms to the previous argument that teacher assessment practice is affected by a complex set of cognitive and affective traits (DeLuca et al., 2018, 2019; Looney et al., 2018). Varied emotions manifested in these three types of assessors suggest complex emotions may drive, influence or mediate their identity construction associated with online assessment. The assessment-related identity clashes seem inevitable, leading to turbulence of the formation and construction of assessment identity. It may explain the reasons that participants (e.g., T4) have been transformed into different categories of assessment-related identity as they embraced the new teaching and assessment environment.

Based on the findings, a common teacher assessment identity development model is proposed (see Figure 3), postulating that the online assessment context mediates the range of assessment practices that EFL teachers experience, the accumulation of which may lead to the development of LAL and construction of assessment identity. Teacher assessment identity is placed at the center, surrounded by the development of assessment literacy. It represents that teachers improve their assessment identity in a bottom-up, iterative process. The development of assessment literacy is an active learning process. Mediated by complex emotions, they accumulate assessment experiences and practices, embracing or neglecting assessment identities (Gan & Lam, 2023; Xu & Brown, 2016; Yan & Fan, 2021). The outer circle indicates that the assessment context presents unique assessment issues that prompt or hinder teachers to trial assessment practices, which may in turn influence their awareness of being an assessor along with their LAL development. This model aims to capture the dynamic nature of assessment identity depending on assessment context and internal factors.

Figure 3.

A common teacher assessment identity development model.

Conclusions

There is little understanding of the assessment-related challenges EFL teachers face under the pandemic, how they conduct assessment as well as the interplay of assessment practice and assessor as identity. Based on in-depth interviews, six in-service teachers’ assessment experiences during Covid-19 are reported in this qualitative case study, offering in-depth reflections on how the challenges can be met by other in-service teachers. The findings are valuable for all stakeholders to understand that teachers need a more emotional support in dealing with the new assessment environment.

Informed by the data, it revealed a wide range of online assessment practices, including remaining unaltered, being supportive of formative assessment and provision of online feedback. In addition, their assessment identity can be understood as positive negotiator, flexible facilitator and struggling follower. Although there are participants who were struggling in the process, changes are expected if they can be given more emotional support and gain more practical experience of online assessment.

Moreover, different identities may lead to different assessment practice accompanied by mixed emotions. Tensions exist in the process of identity construction. In this sense, teacher assessment training programs should help in-service teachers become more aware of their identity as assessor. Particularly, in-service EFL teachers in this study need to understand how their emotions affect their assessment practice and learn to reflect their prior experiences of being assessed and online assessment practice.

Implications

As summarized in Literature Review section, the research gap in existing research is the lack of in-depth insights on EFL teachers’ assessment practice and identity in the online teaching contexts in China. This study aims to fill this gap by employing a longitudinal research design and three rounds of interview data collection methods to address the dynamics of the issue, and by suggesting ways to enhance EFL teachers’ assessment identity as well as the enactment of educational changes in primary and secondary contexts. The implications of this research are presented theoretically and practically.

First, the study enriches the literature on educational change from the perspective of teacher assessment by paying special attention to EFL teachers’ online assessment practice and experiences. The study probed into the interaction of EFL teacher assessment practice and identity situated in the context of pandemic and demonstrated the interactive relationship between them, mediated by influencing factors including prior online teaching experiences, perceptions of assessment and new assessment context. It highlighted the complexities of the nested relationships between teacher assessment and identity within online teaching context.

Second, as assessment practice and identity are issues of practical concern, this study also provides insights into EFL teachers assessment identity construction in the instructional practice, professional development and workplace. Within the online educational change contexts, EFL teachers too often grapple with challenges and contradictions between their assessment practice, identity and what they are assigned to do as implementers by the institutions. The findings reveal that few of them address their own struggle in the workplace to develop solutions collectively. The EFL teachers need to incessantly engage and negotiate with family, institutional, sociocultural and sociopolitical contexts. Joint efforts should be put into empowering in-service teachers to trial their ideas and helping them fit in their schools by making compromises among tensions in dealing with the assessment reality. Moreover, in-service teachers need longer hours to be more fully engaged in online assessment practice. Sufficient exposure to various online assessment practice is a good way for in-service teachers to engage on critical reflection on their assessment identity, learn to confront the complexities and challenges of assessment practice, and (re)construct their identity as assessors.

Limitations and Future Research

The study had some notable limitations. As the current study only focused on six K-12 in-service EFL teachers’ assessment practice and identity in the context of online teaching during the pandemic, its generalizability might be limited. Future research about other disciplines and higher education institutions should be conducted for more generalizable and comprehensive findings. Furthermore, the voices of other relevant parties are not explored in the current research. A follow-up investigation could explore how assessment-related stakeholders including students, parents, test developers, administrators and technicians collaborate to provide scaffolding for in-service teachers to improve their online assessment literacy and reshape their assessment identity in the online teaching. In addition, more research can envision effective policy support and in-service teachers’ professional learning for facilitating online assessment practice and increase teachers’ awareness of assessment identity. Lastly, it would be worthwhile to pay more attention to the trajectories of teachers’ identity construction and longitudinal research in different cultural contexts so that the whole picture of assessor can be presented more accurately.

Footnotes

Appendix: Interview Protocol

The interview protocol below outlines the major questions the participants were asked in the three interviews. The exact questions varied depending on the participants’ exact responses.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Shanghai International Studies University Foundation, under grant ID 2021114025 together with Key Laboratory of Multilingual Education with Artificial Intelligence Fund (grant ID B202204).

ORCID iD

Siyuan Shao

References

Adie

(2013). The development of teacher assessment identity through participation in online moderation. Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice, 20(1), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2011.650150

Adie

Stobart

Cumming

(2020). The construction of the teacher as expert assessor. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(4), 436–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866x.2019.1633623

Baidoo-Anu

Rasooli

DeLuca

Cheng

(2023). Conceptions of classroom assessment and approaches to grading: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives. Education Inquiry, 14, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2023.2244136

Baker

B. A.

Riches

(2018). The development of EFL examinations in Haiti: Collaboration and language assessment literacy development. Language Testing, 35(4), 557–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217716732

Banitz

(2022). Language assessment in Mexico: Exploring university language teachers’ backgrounds, practices, and opinions. System, 110, 102898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102898

Bolliger

D. U.

Shepherd

C. E.

(2010). Student perceptions of e-Portfolio integration in online courses. Distance Education, 31(3), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2010.513955

Brown

G. T.

Irving

Keegan

(2014). An introduction to educational assessment, measurement, and evaluation: Improving the quality of teacher-based assessment. Dunmore.

Carless

Boud

(2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

Cheng

(2021). The implications of EFL/ESL teachers’ emotions in their professional identity development. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 755592. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.755592

10.

Cheng

Rogers

(2004). ESL/EFL instructors’ classroom assessment practices: Purposes, methods, and procedures. Language Testing, 21(3), 360–389. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532204lt288oa

11.

Cheng

Rogers

W. T.

Wang

(2008). Assessment purposes and procedures in ESL/EFL classrooms. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(1), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930601122555

12.

Chen

Kettle

Klenowski

May

. (2013). Interpretations of formative assessment in the teaching of English at two Chinese universities: A sociocultural perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(7), 831–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.726963

13.

Coombs

DeLuca

MacGregor

(2020). A person-centered analysis of teacher candidates’ approaches to assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 87, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102952

14.

Cowie

Cooper

Ussher

(2014). Developing an identity as a teacher-assessor: Three student teacher case studies. Assessment Matters, 7(6), 64–89. https://doi.org/10.18296/am.0128

15.

Creswell

J. W.

(2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.

16.

Dao

T. B. N.

(2021). A narrative inquiry of a Vietnamese university EFL teacher’s assessment identity. International Journal of TESOL and Education, 1(3), 260–277.

17.

DeLuca

Coombs

MacGregor

Rasooli

(2019). Toward a differential and situated view of assessment literacy: Studying teachers’ responses to classroom assessment scenarios. Frontiers in Education, 4, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00094

18.

DeLuca

Klinger

D. A.

(2010). Assessment literacy development: Identifying gaps in teacher candidates’ learning. Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice, 17(4), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2010.516643

19.

DeLuca

LaPointe-McEwan

Luhanga

(2016). Teacher assessment literacy: A review of international standards and measures. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 28(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9233-6

20.

DeLuca

Valiquette

Coombs

LaPointe-McEwan

Luhanga

(2018). Teachers’ approaches to classroom assessment: A large-scale survey. Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice, 25(4), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2016.1244514

21.

Deneen

C. C.

Brown

G. T. L.

(2016). The impact of conceptions of assessment on assessment literacy in a teacher education program. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2016.1225380

22.

Deygers

Malone

M. E.

(2019). Language assessment literacy in university admission policies, or the dialogue that isn’t. Language Testing, 36(3), 347–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219826390

23.

Dixon

(2011). The problem of enactment: The influence of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs on their uptake and implementation of feedback-related ideas and practices. Assessment Matters, 3, 71–92. https://doi.org/10.18296/am.0091

24.

Doyle

Johnson

M. C.

Donlon

McDonald

Sexton

(2021). The role of the teacher as assessor: Developing student teachers’ assessment identity. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 46(12), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2021v46n12.4

25.

Estaji

Ghiasvand

(2021). Assessment perceptions and practices in academic domain: The design and validation of an assessment identity questionnaire (TAIQ) for EFL teachers. International Journal of Language Testing, 11(1), 103–131.

26.

Fulcher

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

27.

Gan

Lam

(2022). A review on language assessment literacy: Trends, foci and contributions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 19(5), 503–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2022.2128802

28.

Gan

Lam

(2023). A tale of two teachers: Construction of Novice University English teachers’ assessment identity. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 46(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2023-0205

29.

Gao

L. X.

Zhang

L. J.

(2020). Teacher learning in difficult times: Examining foreign language teachers’ cognitions about online teaching to tide over COVID-19. Educational Psychology, 11, 549653. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.549653

30.

Gaytan

McEwen

B. C.

(2007). Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640701341653

31.

Gebril

(2017). Language teachers’ conceptions of assessment: An Egyptian perspective. Teacher Development, 21(1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2016.1218364

32.

Gotch

C. M.

French

B. F.

(2014). A systematic review of assessment literacy measures. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice, 33(2), 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12030

33.

Harrison

(2005). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Mapping teacher change. Teacher Development, 9(2), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530500200264

34.

Hennessy

Forrester

(2014). Developing a framework for effective audio feedback: A case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), 777–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.870530

35.

Hollway

Jefferson

(2000). Doing qualitative research differently: Free association, narrative and the interview method. Sage.

36.

Inbar-Lourie

(2008). Constructing a language assessment knowledge base: A focus on language assessment courses. Language Testing, 25(3), 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208090158

37.

Inbar-Lourie

(2017). Language assessment literacy. In Shohamy

May

(Eds.), Language testing and assessment, encyclopaedia of language and education (pp. 257–286). Springer.

38.

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209351431

39.

Kao

(2023). Empowering preservice English teachers with language assessment literacy concepts and practices: Application of Vygotskian concept-based language instruction. Modern Language Journal, 107(S1), 68–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12818

40.

Lan

Fan

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

41.

Lee

Wiliam

(2005). Studying changes in the practice of two teachers developing assessment for learning. Teacher Development, 9(2), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530500200244

42.

Leonardsen

J. K.

Utvær

B. K. S.

Fjørtoft

(2022). The five faces of an assessor: Conceptualizing the enactment of teacher assessment identity in vocational education and training. Educational Assessment, 27(4), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2106967

43.

Looney

Cumming

van Der Kleij

Harris

(2018). Reconceptualising the role of teachers as assessors: Teacher assessment identity. Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice, 25(5), 442–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2016.1268090

44.

Luxia

(2007). Is testing an efficient agent for pedagogical change? Examining the intended washback of the writing task in a high-stakes English test in China. Assessment in Education, 14(1), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701272856

45.

Malone

M. E.

(2013). The essentials of assessment literacy: Contrasts between testers and users. Language Testing, 30(3), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213480129

46.

Wang

Teng

M. F.

(2021). Using learning-oriented online assessment to foster students’ feedback literacy in L2 writing during COVID-19 pandemic: A case of misalignment between micro- and macro- contexts. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30, 597–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00600-x

47.

Mansouri

Molana

Nazari

(2021). The interconnection between second language teachers’ language assessment literacy and professional agency: The mediating role of institutional policies. System, 103, 102674.

48.

Mertler

C. A.

(2004). Secondary teachers’ assessment literacy: Does classroom experience make a difference? American Secondary Education, 33, 49–64.

49.

Mertler

C. A.

(2009). Teachers’ assessment knowledge and their perceptions of the impact of classroom assessment professional development. Improving Schools, 12(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480209105575

50.

Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (MOE). (2013). Suggestions on Promoting the Reform of Comprehensive Evaluation of the Quality of Education in Primary and Secondary Schools. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A06/s3321/201306/t20130608_153185.html

51.

Monteiro

Mata

Santos

N. N.

(2021). Assessment conceptions and practices: Perspectives of primary school teachers and students. Frontiers in Education, 6, 631185. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.631185

52.

Moqaddam

Q. J.

Khodabakhshzadeh

Motallebzadeh

Khajavy

G. H.

(2021). Measuring EFL teachers’ assessment identity: Development and validation of a questionnaire. Journal of Language and Translation, 11(1), 29–46.

53.

Morrison

Sepulveda-Escobar

(2022). Chilean English as a foreign language teacher educators’ conceptions and practices of online assessment. RELC Journal, 53(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221079059

54.

Namgung

Moate

Ruohotie-Lyhty

(2021). Repositioning teachers as assessors: Compromised aspirations and contested agency. Apples: Journal of Applied Language Studies, 15(2), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.47862/apples.101524

55.

Popham

W. J.

(2013). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Allyn & Bacon.

56.

(2004). Has a high-stakes test produced the intended changes? In Cheng

L. Y.

(Ed.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 193–212). Routledge.

57.

Rea-Dickins

(2004). Understanding teachers as agents of assessment. Language Testing, 21(3), 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532204lt283ed

58.

Salmons

(2014). Qualitative online interviews: Strategies, design, and skills. Sage.

59.

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213480128

60.

Skott

(2014). The promises, problems, and prospects of research on teachers’ beliefs. In Helenrose

Michele

G. G.

(Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 25–42). Routledge.

61.

Smith

C. D.

Worsfold

Davies

Fisher

McPhail

(2013). Assessment literacy and student learning: The case for explicitly developing students’ assessment literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(1), 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.598636

62.

Stake

R. E.

(2006). Multiple case study analysis. The Guildford Press.

63.

Sultana

(2019). Language assessment literacy: An uncharted area for the English language teachers in Bangladesh. Language Testing in Asia, 9(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-019-0077-8

64.

Taylor

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

65.

Villa Larenas

Brunfaut

. (2023). But who trains the language teacher educator who trains the language teacher? An empirical investigation of Chilean EFL teacher educators’ language assessment literacy. Language Testing, 40(3), 463–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322221134218

66.

Vogt

Tsagari

(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

67.

Wang

Zuo

Liu

Sun

(2023). A scientometric review of research trends in language assessment literacy. Education Sciences, 13(2), 190. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020190

68.

Watermeyer

Crick

Knight

Goodall

(2021). COVID-19 and digital disruption in UK universities: Afflictions and affordances of emergency online migration. Higher Education, 81, 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00561-y

69.

Weiss

R. S.

(1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. Free Press.

70.

Willis

Adie

Klenowski

(2013). Conceptualising teachers’ assessment literacies in an era of curriculum and assessment reform. The Australian Educational Researcher, 40, 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-013-0089-9

71.

Wolsey

(2008). Efficacy of instructor feedback on written work in an online program. International Journal on E-learning, 7(2), 311–329.

72.

Wyatt-Smith

Adie

(2021). The development of students’ evaluative expertise: Enabling conditions for integrating criteria into pedagogic practice. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 53(4), 399–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1624831

73.

Wyatt-Smith

Klenowski

Gunn

(2010). The centrality of teachers’ judgement practice in assessment: A study of standards in moderation. Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice, 17(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940903565610

74.

Xiao

(2017). Formative assessment in a test-dominated context: How test practice can become more productive. Language Assessment Quarterly, 14(4), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2017.1347789

75.

Brown

G. T. L.

(2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58(58), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010

76.

(2019). How pre-service teachers’ conceptions of assessment change over practicum: Implications for teacher assessment literacy. Frontiers in Education, 4, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00145

77.

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532220929924