Language assessment training in Hong Kong: Implications for language assessment literacy

Abstract

Despite the call for using assessment to promote effective learning, most language teachers remain underprepared to conduct classroom-based formative assessment and interpret the summative assessment information for improving instruction as well as learning. Drawing upon a survey of programme and government documents, interviews, student assessment tasks, and teaching evaluation, this paper aims to explore the overall language assessment training landscape in five Hong Kong teacher education institutions against the backdrop of assessment reforms in primary/secondary school contexts. It specifically attempts to investigate the extent to which two assessment courses may facilitate and/or inhibit the development of pre-service teachers’ language assessment literacy in one teacher education institution. Findings indicate that language assessment training in Hong Kong remains inadequate and selected language assessment courses are still unable to bridge the theory-practice gap within the assessment reform context. Implications and recommendations for promoting language assessment literacy are discussed.

Keywords

Assessment reform English language education language assessment literacy language assessment training pre-service teachers

Assessment plays a crucial role in the process of teaching and learning. Despite its significance, assessment training for (language) teachers appears to be inadequate as described by Stiggins (1991) that, ‘We are a nation of assessment illiterates’ (p. 535). Since 1991, not much progress has been made as more than a decade later, Popham (2004) also contends that lack of appropriate training in assessment is considered ‘professional suicide’ (p. 82). To an extent, the situation portrayed by Stiggins and Popham has moderately improved, since key stakeholders (i.e., governments, language testers, testing agencies) and language testing researchers have promulgated the idea of assessment literacy (‘AL’) and more specifically language assessment literacy (‘LAL’) (Inbar-Lourie, 2008a, 2013a; Malone, 2008)

In this paper, LAL is defined as the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and principles of test construction, test interpretation and use, test evaluation, and classroom-based assessments alongside the development of a critical stance about the functions of assessment within a larger educational context (O’Loughlin, 2013, p. 363). While there has been a plethora of text-based resources (textbooks on language testing/assessment), language assessment courses, international professional development workshops and conferences provided for language testers (Brown & Bailey, 2008; Davies, 2008; Jeong, 2013; Jin, 2010), not much attention has been paid to educating pre-service teachers who may find the assessment knowledge, skills, and principles useful, such as knowledge of test specifications, item-writing, and alternative assessment just to name a few, for improving teaching and learning in their prospective work contexts.

The last decade has witnessed a burgeoning number of studies that investigate what AL/LAL is, how it is conceptually defined, how it can be learned, and in what ways it can be productively developed as a stand-alone knowledge base. Nonetheless, these studies primarily focus on how university instructors develop their competence in the area of language testing rather than how prospective classroom teachers understand, muster and develop the essential assessment knowledge and skills against the backdrop of wider assessment reforms in English language education (e.g., assessment for learning) (Davison & Hamp-Lyons, 2010; Davison & Leung, 2009). With reference to AL, Popham (2009) has argued that the mastery of both normative assessment and educational assessment knowledge is a commodity in initial teacher education, especially when most pre-service teachers are expected to utilize assessment data to improve instructional practices and conduct classroom-based assessment for promoting student learning.

In general education, Stiggins (2004) and Volante and Fazio (2007) also point out that more work needs to be done to find out how assessment training has a role to play in shaping pre-service teachers’ understanding and development of AL. Similarly, it is equally imperative to investigate the extent to which pre-service language teachers, especially in EFL settings, are trained to manage LAL, since language assessment training remains marginalized in certain teacher education programmes (Fulcher, 2012; Gu, 2014). Despite the recent research on LAL, current debates and discussions demonstrate there is no agreed-upon understanding of its definitions; knowledge base and components remain controversial, given its complex and multidimensional nature (Inbar-Lourie, 2013b; Taylor, 2013). To this end, this study aims to survey the language assessment training backdrop among Hong Kong teacher education institutions (‘TEI’), and specifically investigates whether and how two language assessment courses facilitate and/or inhibit pre-service teachers’ development of LAL.

Background

In Hong Kong, there has been a call for curriculum renewal since the turn of the century (Learning how to learn: A way forward, Curriculum Development Council, 2001). In 2007, a new secondary curriculum guide was disseminated in order to help teachers prepare for the implementation of the new senior curriculum in English and the public examination (Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination) held for the first time in 2012. Since then, the English language curriculum and assessment have undergone a drastic shift in areas of knowledge, practices, and social impacts in both external (large-scale testing) and internal (classroom-based) assessments for the Hong Kong educational setting.

In keeping with these changes, apart from pedagogy, the Education Bureau (‘EDB’) and the Standing Committee on Language Education and Research (‘SCOLAR’) introduced two initiatives that aimed to upgrade English teachers’ qualifications through (1) the Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers (‘LPAT’), and (2) attainment of English subject knowledge since 2001 and 2004 respectively (Qian, 2008). However, systematic training in language testing and/or assessment remains scarce, if not inadequate for both pre-service and serving teachers, since assessment training is not a mandatory part of pre-service teachers’ candidatures nor in-service teacher qualifications under the requirements mandated by EDB and SCOLAR.

In language assessment training, there is, indeed, no lack of research on university instructors’ perspectives on the usefulness of text-based materials (testing/assessment textbooks) and language testing courses for the development of LAL (Brown & Bailey, 2008; Coombe, Davidson, O’Sullivan, & Stoynoff, 2012; Davies, 2008; Malone, 2008). Also, most of this scholarship is derived from large-scale survey studies of the quantitative research paradigm. Qualitative studies investigating pre-service language teachers’ perspectives about their experience of language assessment training have been few and far between, especially within a context where the construct of LAL remains underdeveloped.

Framework for the study

The first component of the framework for this study is to establish an explicit theoretical construct of LAL, which has long been problematized without agreed-upon consensus. Based upon the assessment literature, there has been a take-it-for-granted assumption that initial teacher training can provide pre-service teachers with adequate understanding, knowledge, and skills in assessing EFL learners’ English proficiency (Davison, 2007, 2013; Koh, 2011). In fact, pre-service teachers are usually ill-prepared to assess their own students owing to inadequate training provided by teacher education programmes and misinterpreting assessment as assessment of learning rather than assessment for learning (Lee, 2010; Lee & Coniam, 2013; Mertler, 2009).

In the literature of LAL, there have been debates about how the concept may be succinctly defined, what knowledge about language and testing should be included to make teachers more professionally trained to carry out assessments, and how their assessment philosophies influence knowledge construction and assessment practices in a wider sociocultural setting (Fulcher, 2012; Inbar-Lourie, 2008a, 2013a, 2013b; Troudi, Coombe, & Al-Hamly, 2009; Xu & Liu, 2009). The debates regarding definition of LAL had started with Davies’ (2008) study of reviewing textbook trends of teaching language testing in the past five decades. Based upon his research, LAL has three major elements: skills (expertise in item-writing and test analysis), knowledge (theories of language and measurement), and principles (e.g., concepts about testing including validity, ethics and fairness). However, Davies’ study is mainly concerned with the training needed in the language testing community particularly of university instructors rather than teachers of K–12 students.

Added to Davies’ (2008) three components of LAL, is Fulcher’s (2012) survey research into the language assessment needs of language teachers. Fulcher critiqued DeLuca and Klinger’s (2010) overgeneralized definition of AL which only involves ‘the understanding and appropriate use of assessment practices and the knowledge of the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings in the measurement of students’ learning’ (pp. 419–420) without ‘placing 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’ (Fulcher, 2012, p. 125). It is clear that Fulcher’s (2012) expanded definition of LAL embraces wider sociocultural and sociopolitical perspectives than DeLuca and Klinger’s (2010) definition in terms of how teachers can be empowered to re-examine the social role of assessment and how it impacts teaching and learning within a larger testing community.

More recently, drawing upon the research published in the special issue of Language Testing, Taylor (2013) classifies the LAL construct into eight dimensions including: (1) knowledge of theory, (2) technical skills, (3) principles and concepts, (4) language pedagogy, (5) sociocultural values, (6) local practices, (7) personal beliefs, and (8) scores and decision making (p. 410). Yet, she argues that not every stakeholder experiences all these dimensions of LAL in a similar fashion. For instance, language testers may cover all of the above LAL aspects in their work contexts; however, for classroom language teachers, they are likely to prefer practical skills needed for creating tests/examinations for the students rather than measurement theory that enhances their conceptual understanding of testing. This point corroborates one of the findings reported in Qian’s (2014) study where secondary-level English teachers preferred learning practical marking skills which help them make sound judgments when implementing school-based asessments (‘SBA’) in Hong Kong. From the above discussion, LAL could be defined as teachers’ understandings and mastery of assessment concepts, measurement knowledge, test construction skills, principles about test impact, and assessment procedures which can influence significant educational decisions (evaluation of student learning) within a wider sociocultural context.

The second component of the framework is the need for development of LAL to untangle the two seemingly incompatible cultures, namely testing and learning cultures in the wider language assessment arenas, since most teacher education programmes only provide subject teachers with limited assessment training, namely curriculum courses for general education without a clear focus on second or foreign language assessment components (Coombe, Troudi, & Al-Hamly, 2012; Inbar-Lourie, 2008a).

Stiggins (1991, 1995) has already warned that most education faculties have prepared teachers who were neither confident nor knowledgeable enough to assess their students in school contexts. The evolving trend of assessment illiteracy, according to Stiggins (1995), is further exacerbated by the overreliance on the use of standardized testing (multiple-choice questions) because of its reliable and cost-effective characteristics. While Stiggins’ argument refers to general education per se, it remains valid when applying to English language education where the absence of assessment literacy could be a cause for concern (Inbar-Lourie, 2008a). As argued by Berry (2011) and Davison (2013), implementing SBA in a testing culture such as Hong Kong is extremely demanding. The emphasis on examination rather than learning makes language assessment training, especially assessment for learning, a tall order, since student and teacher attention is typically drawn to examinations. Although there has been a plethora of textbooks and courses about language testing and assessment, relatively less attention is paid to understanding how teachers of K–12 students can productively carry out various classroom-based assessments, such as peer assessment or portfolio assessment to foster student learning (Davies, 2008; Davison & Leung, 2009; Gu, 2014). It is believed that the rationale, content, structure, delivery of language assessment training in teacher education programmes are worthy of empirical investigation for understanding how LAL can be thoroughly fostered among teachers of K–12 students to handle both large-scale testing as well as classroom-based assessments.

In the writing literature, the divide between examination-driven and learning-oriented cultures in EFL writing classrooms results in teachers’ needs to develop LAL especially within a larger assessment reform setting. Lee (2007) and Weigle (2007) contend that assessment should be integrated into instruction so as to maximize student learning. Huot (2002) has proposed that the formative elements of assessment including multiple drafting and diverse feedback sources (e.g., instructor written feedback) can be used as opportunities to support rather than to judge student learning. Despite the impact of classroom-based formative assessment on student learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Rea-Dickens, 2008), there has been a clear mismatch between teachers’ limited levels of assessment competence and expanding assessment demands posed by the use of classroom-based assessment (Davison, 2007; Davison & Hamp-Lyons, 2010). Inbar-Lourie (2008b) also points out that teachers are, in fact, torn between the two ‘non-compatible cultures’ (p. 388), with one emphasizing the use of alternative assessments to promote student learning (the learning culture), while the other requiring compliance to the rules set by the external testing agencies (the testing culture). To this end, Hamp-Lyons (2007) and Popham (2011) advocate the integration of the normative testing community and the learning-oriented assessment community as well as the need for utilizing educational tests as an instruction-enhancing tool to support student learning through provision of AL/LAL training for pre-service teachers.

Although there is no shortage of studies highlighting the importance of AL, research into LAL is still in its infancy (Fulcher, 2012, p. 117). In response to a paucity of LAL scholarship, we need to not only review the overall Hong Kong language assessment training landscape, but also evaluate how the language assessment courses provided for pre-service English teachers may influence their development of LAL. Thus, one of the translucent arguments is that most local teachers are underprepared to adopt classroom-based assessment such as SBA and feel ill-equipped to prepare students for the standardized assessments, for instance, Territory-wide System Assessment (‘TSA’) and Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (‘HKDSE’), not to mention how to make use of these assessment data to improve teaching and learning (Berry, 2011; Carless, 2011; Falvey & Cheng, 1995; Hamp-Lyons, 2007; Qian, 2014). In short, LAL is a slippery construct which needs greater investigation to enlighten researchers, teacher educators, and programme administrators how it operates in authentic language education settings.

Methodology

Documentation concerning specific language assessment training was examined and then the following two research questions were posed: (1) What is the overall language assessment training landscape in Hong Kong and how does it influence the development of pre-service teachers’ LAL in a context of assessment reforms? (2) What are instructors’ and pre-service teachers’ perceptions of how course-based language assessment training promotes LAL? The ensuing section reports on how the study was conducted, detailing the ways in which multiple sets of data were collected, analysed, and verified to address the key concern raised in each research question.

Data collection

To address the first research question (RQ 1), the author surveyed all undergraduate programmes in English Language Teaching through the SCOLAR official website (www.language-education.com/eng/dc.asp), which included a list of recognized language major degree programmes, all run by tertiary institutions in Hong Kong. There were a total of 84 major degree programmes from this list. Criteria for selecting appropriate teacher education programmes under review, given the scope of this study, included (1) those from the Joint University Programmes Admissions System (‘JUPAS’); (2) full-time and face-to-face undergraduate programmes for Form Six (Grade 12) school leavers (part-time programmes were excluded as they were designed for in-service teachers); (3) field of study restricted to Applied Linguistics, English Language Teaching (‘ELT’) and English Literature (areas other than these were excluded); (4) programmes under the new five-year academic structure (those which were phasing out and/or not offered after 2012–13 were not considered). The adoption of these four selection criteria ensured that the teacher education programmes under investigation targeted the pre-service English language teachers to be trained for Hong Kong primary and secondary school contexts. All teacher training programmes designed for the new academic structure included assessment courses in one way or another.

After two rounds of initial manual screening, 24 ELT-related programmes under the new academic structure were identified. To further validate whether these 24 programmes were pertinent to the scope of the survey on language assessment training, the author browsed respective university websites concerning the details such as the offers of these programmes and contacted programme administrative staff by phone/email when queries arose. Subsequent to the Internet search, five teacher education programmes which fulfilled the four selection criteria stated above were chosen for content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Among the remaining 19 programmes, they were either not on offer or phasing out, with minimal ELT-related components or non-JUPAS programmes admitting post-secondary (e.g., associate degree) and mature students. Based upon an Internet search on the website of General Statistics on University Grants Committee-funded Institutions/Programmes, 256 pre-service language teachers were enrolled in the four government-funded TEIs and one self-financed TEI with JUPAS admission during 2012–13. The composition of enrollment figures was shown as follows: TEI A – 26; TEI B – 35; TEI C – 122; TEI D – 38; TEI E – 35.

Alongside documents including programme handbooks, course outlines, and student assessment tasks drawn from the five target programmes, information about language assessment training from EDB curriculum guides, the EDB website, the SCOLAR website, and the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (‘HKEAA’) website was collated for the survey. To examine the language assessment training landscape in greater depth, the focus of this research then honed in on one Hong Kong TEI that provided pre-service teachers with language assessment training. To investigate instructors’ and pre-service teachers’ perceptions of how course-based language assessment training promotes LAL in the second research question (RQ 2), focus group interviews with selected students (N = 40 out of 83) from two assessment courses and individual interviews with nine instructors were conducted within the same institution. The focus group interviews for student participants were conducted in groups of four and lasted for 35 minutes, and interviews with individual instructors lasted for around 50 minutes. All interviews were conducted in English. Interview protocols were semi-structured, eliciting interviewees’ opinions of the design, content, usefulness, and quality of the assessment courses relating to the development of LAL. Relevant course materials including the outlines, assessment methods, and teaching evaluation of these two language assessment courses were also utilized as data sets for document analysis. Participation in the study was voluntary and informants were allowed to withdraw from the project at any time. Consent was sought from the participants prior to the study. To sum up, having determined the programmes that should develop LAL, a survey (RQ 1) was conducted with multiple data sources and followed up by a case study (RQ 2). Details of data collection for the study were summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Description of data collection.

Research question	Data source	Methodology	Number of programmes/institutions or participants (N)
1. What is the overall language assessment training landscape in Hong Kong and how does it influence the development of pre-service teachers’ LAL in a context of assessment reforms?	SCOLAR website; EDB website; HKEAA website; EDB curriculum guides; relevant programme handbooks and course outlines from five TEIs	Surveys (of text-based and hypertext documents)	Five teacher training programmes in five TEIs
2. What are instructors’ and pre-service teachers’ perceptions of how course-based language assessment training promotes LAL?	Interview transcriptions; outlines, assessment methods, and teaching evaluation of two language assessment courses under study	Focus group interviews (pre-service teachers); individual interviews (instructors); document analysis	Nine instructors and 40 pre-service teachers studying in the final year

Data analysis

The survey on language assessment training scenario was analysed by means of content analysis as mentioned in the last section. This included programme/government documents, course materials, student assessment tasks and websites of education/testing agencies (e.g., EDB and HKEAA). Multiple manual and Internet searches for this documentation was likely to warrant the reliability of findings (Yin, 2003). The scope of the research could also be fine-tuned by using explicit selection criteria to identify five most relevant teacher education programmes for data analysis. Setting boundaries for the survey could further enhance the ecological validity of the study (Creswell, 2008), since its aim is to specifically investigate language assessment training in relation to developing pre-service teachers’ LAL.

To analyse multiple data sets, systematic coding and categorization of the survey data were performed long before analysis of the case study data (i.e., two language assessment courses), so that themes emerging from the former could inform the latter on how language assessment training might influence the development of pre-service teachers’ LAL. Additionally, separation of data analysis, of the survey and case study data, could enhance objectivity owing to possible bias in the self-report data from the case study. Categories used for coding the survey data (RQ 1) included (1) the degree of language assessment training provided in selected TEIs, for example, assessment components of each programme (an elective or a core course), target groups, and the government policy concerning the requirements of language assessment training, and (2) content and objectives of language assessment courses in terms of three sub-categories – knowledge of theory (theory of test construction); technical skills (testing techniques); principles and concepts (validity and ethics) and commentaries that described the courses generally. For RQ 2, categories for coding the interview transcriptions and course materials concerned how the processes, contents, and delivery of two language assessment courses facilitated or inhibited the development of LAL. Coding for documentary data, interview data, and content of teaching evaluations was carried out three times to arrive at a good level of intra-rater reliability. To ensure inter-rater reliability, one research assistant performed the same coding procedures and compared the themes arising from his analysis with the author’s. In case of discrepancy, they would revisit the problematic data sets again and engage in continuous negotiations until consensus was reached.

Findings

For reference, the five teacher education institutions were coded as TEIs A, B, C, D, and E, and the language assessment courses under these five TEIs were coded as Courses 1–2 (TEI A), 3 (TEI B), 4–5 (TEI C), 6–9 (TEI D), and 10 (TEI E). Two themes had emerged that delineated an overall language assessment landscape in Hong Kong and informed us of the development (or lack thereof) of LAL within an assessment reform setting.

RQ 1: Survey of language assessment training in Hong Kong and its influence on the development of pre-service teachers’ LAL within a context of assessment reforms

(a) Insufficient support to promulgate LAL

From the survey of the EDB, SCOLAR and HKEAA official websites and printed documents of these agencies, it can be noted that language assessment training in Hong Kong has only enjoyed a low profile compared to the language proficiency requirements (i.e., LPAT) for language teachers owing to the outcry of overall declining students’ English standards and inconsistent shift in language policy in the local secondary education during the turn of the century (Evans, 2013).

From 2004 onwards, new language teachers are required to fulfil three requirements before serving in the local primary/secondary schools including: (1) language proficiency; (2) subject knowledge; and (3) pedagogy (Standing Committee on Language Education and Research, 2003). As the element of LAL was supposed to be part of subject knowledge training, according to the survey, each TEI offered one to two assessment-related courses, except TEI D which offered four courses incorporating the teaching of assessment of four language skills into the syllabi (Courses 6–9: see Table 2). However, among these 10 assessment-related courses under study, only four out of 10 (Courses 1, 2, 4, and 5) were stand-alone language assessment-focused courses, meaning that they were not part of a larger curriculum and learning course (see Table 2). Additionally, in three out of these 10 courses (Courses 1, 3, and 10), the assessment component (knowledge of theory and technical skills) was only designed for general education students rather than for language education majors. Another three of them (Courses 1, 4, and 5) were offered as electives, implying that some pre-service teachers might receive no training in LAL despite majoring in language education (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Language assessment training in Hong Kong teacher education institutions (‘TEI’).

	Bachelor’s degree programme about language teacher education	Number of assessment-related courses provided in each programme	Nature of assessment-related courses	Target group of courses	Design of courses	Courses to be offered in each programme
TEI A	Double degree in BA and BEd	2: (Courses 1 and 2)	1 elective (Course 1), 1 core (Course 2)	Course 1 for all majors in the faculty	Course 1 = a generic assessment course	Semester 1 in final year
TEI A	Double degree in BA and BEd	2: (Courses 1 and 2)	1 elective (Course 1), 1 core (Course 2)	Course 2 for English double-degree students only	Course 2 = a language assessment-specific course
TEI B	Double degree in BA and BEd	1: (Course 3)	1 core	Course 3 for all majors in the faculty	Course 3 = a curriculum and assessment course	Semester 1 in Year 3
TEI C	Single degree in BEd	2: (Courses 4 and 5)	2 electives	Courses 4 and 5 for English majors only	Courses 4 and 5 = a language assessment-specific course	Semesters 1 and 2 in final year
TEI D	Double degree in BA and BEd	4: (Courses 6–9)	4 cores	Courses 6–9 for English double-degree students only	Courses 6 and 8 = an ELT course (oracy) at primary and secondary levels respectively	Courses 6 and 8 in Year 3 (Semesters 1 and 2); Courses 7 and 9 in Year 4 (Semesters 1 and 2)
TEI D	Double degree in BA and BEd	4: (Courses 6–9)	4 cores	Courses 6–9 for English double-degree students only	Courses 7 and 9 = an ELT course (literacy) at primary and secondary levels respectively
TEI E	Double degree in BA and BEd	1: (Course 10)	1 core	Course 10 for English double-degree students only	Course 10 = a generic curriculum and assessment course	Semester 3 in Year 1

In view of the above figures, it can be argued that five TEIs may not provide pre-service teachers with adequate language assessment training, especially when there is only one TEI which offers pre-service teachers a compulsory and stand-alone language assessment-focused course to prepare for their teaching careers, namely Course 2. Although all 10 courses under review did include assessment elements in one way or another, they might not be sufficient to equip pre-service teachers with fundamental knowledge, principles, and skills in handling a range of classroom-based assessments within a wider examination-driven educational context (Gu, 2014; Harlen, 2006). This argument can be well supported by short-term professional development courses organized by the EDB. When surveying the EDB website concerning language assessment training between September 2013 and June 2014, only five out of 26 12-hour courses were about language assessment training in areas of reading and writing (Education Bureau, 2014). Among these five courses, two were run for primary-level English teachers, and three for secondary-level English teachers. Since these courses had limited enrollment quota and were solely reserved for in-service English teachers, it implies that pre-service teachers might not get access to this up-to-date training for developing their LAL.

(b) (Lack of) training in managing classroom-based and large-scale assessment

With government initiatives to promote new curriculum and assessment reforms in the last decade, for example, Assessment for Learning (‘AfL’) and SBA (Curriculum Development Council, 2004, 2007; Davison, 2007), the survey data illustrated that all 10 courses offered by the five TEIs included theoretical rationale of implementing AfL at the classroom level. Nonetheless, not every course under study covered the teaching of technical skills in utilizing AfL to promote learning except Courses 2, 4, and 5 and principles and concepts about how AfL could be more contextually carried out in the Hong Kong school context except Course 10 (see Table 3). Courses 4 and 5 did not only deliver theoretical underpinnings of large-scale assessments, but also included explicit instruction in the rationale of test construction, testing techniques and procedures, and assessment strategies that facilitate the use of classroom-based assessment for both summative and formative purposes (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Content of assessment-related courses across five TEIs.

	Knowledge of theory (theory of test construction/test measurement; theory of AfL)			Technical skills (testing process and techniques; use of AfL strategies)			Principles and concepts (e.g., validity, ethics, fairness)	Remarks
	AoL	AfL	AoL & AfL (e.g., SBA)	AoL	AfL	AoL & AfL (e.g., SBA)
Course 1 (TEI A)	✘	√	✘	✘	√	✘	✘	Emphasis on the theory and practice of alternative assessments and classroom-based assessment; a generic assessment course for all majors
Course 2 (TEI A)	✘	√	✘	✘	√	√	✘	A language assessment course; exclusive focus on AfL rather AoL; full coverage of assessment skills of various language skills (e.g., vocabulary, grammar, writing, etc.)
Course 3 (TEI B)	√	√	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	Key issues on curriculum design, development, implementation and evaluation; one fourth of course content on discussion of AoL and AfL; a generic curriculum and assessment for all majors
Course 4 (TEI C)	√	√	√	√	√	√	✘	A language assessment course; discussion on task-based assessments; relationship between AoL and AfL (e.g., SBA and TSA); secondary education-focused
Course 5 (TEI C)	√	√	√	√	√	√	✘	A language assessment course; emphasis on feedback for learning (e.g., AfL as innovations); primary education-focused
Course 6 (TEI D)	√	√	✘	√	√	✘	✘	Part of a pedagogy course specializing in teaching, learning, and assessment of speaking and listening at primary school level; focus on task-based instruction and assessment
Course 7 (TEI D)	√	√	✘	√	√	✘	✘	Part of a pedagogy course specializing in teaching, learning, and assessment of reading and writing at primary school level; focus on new literacies through digital media and pop culture
Course 8 (TEI D)	√	√	✘	√	√	✘	✘	Part of a pedagogy course specializing in teaching, learning, and assessment of speaking and listening at secondary school level; focus on task-based instruction with a focus on second language acquisition
Course 9 (TEI D)	√	√	✘	√	√	✘	✘	Part of a pedagogy course specializing teaching, learning, and assessment of reading and writing at secondary school level; emphasis on teaching of top-down-bottom-up processing, and process and genre-based writing pedagogies; specific focus on curriculum design and assessment practices in relation to the New Senior Secondary Curriculum
Course 10 (TEI E)	✘	√	✘	√	√	✘	√	Part of a curriculum theory and assessment course; focusing on test construction skills especially alternative assessments; emphasis on curriculum development more than assessment theories

Despite the government rhetoric emphasizing that AfL can be used to promote learning at the classroom level, challenges and controversy arise especially when AfL, used in SBA, becomes part of high-stakes summative assessment which would determine students’ future careers (Cheng, Andrews, & Yu, 2011). Since its implementation in 2007, SBA has remained well-received irrespective of its drawbacks including the issues of fairness and English varieties (cf. Qian, 2008). One interesting finding from the survey was that the implementation of SBA as an assessment innovation in terms of its origin, rationale, processes and impact on teaching and learning was not included in any of the 10 assessment courses except Course 4 where one 3-hour lecture was used to cover the rationale and logistics of SBA and how it could be applied in the mainstream English curriculum.

Against the backdrop of assessment reforms, EDB and HKEAA aim to promote productive integration of public and classroom-based assessment through SBA (Curriculum Development Council, 2009; Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority, 2013); however, from our survey, eight out of 10 assessment courses have a clear demarcation when delivering the content of assessment of learning and assessment for learning, except Courses 4 and 5 which allocated one lecture each to discuss how to make use of public assessment results to inform/improve instruction and generate constructive feedback for learning improvement (see Table 3). It can be argued that the two assessment cultures – a learning culture with a focus on AfL and a testing culture with a focus on high-stakes public examinations – may not be necessarily in tension or be mutually exclusive (Carless, 2011; Inbar-Lourie, 2008b). Nonetheless, owing to a lack of training in handling both forms of assessment efficiently, pre-service teachers may find it burdensome to muster useful instructional strategies to harness student learning amid massive pressure in preparing students for the public examination.

RQ 2: Instructors’ and pre-service teachers’ perceptions of how course-based language assessment training promotes LAL

In this sub-section, the scope of the narrowed down research to two language assessment courses (Courses 4 and 5) in TEI C further reveals instructors’ and pre-service teachers’ perceptions of how course-based language assessment training fostered LAL. Three themes were reported.

(a) Perceptions of LAL in an examination-oriented culture

When asked about their conceptual understanding of LAL, 26 out of 40 interviewed students said that they had not heard about the term, but considered it as a basic competency for performing assessment in the classroom contexts. Two students (Course 4), in fact, mentioned that they equated ‘language assessment’ to ‘testing’. When asked to elaborate what ‘testing’ meant in their interpretations, they pointed out that ‘testing’ referred to large-scale assessments such as HKDSE. Another student (Course 5) commented that in order to make students familiar with the format of the public examination, teachers had to possess sound knowledge of the examination system. He added:

Teachers need to know how to play the ‘game’ (the examination format), otherwise their teaching is regarded as ineffective.

One instructor contended that students in her class (Course 4) preferred learning technical skills of test construction rather than AfL practices, as her students, the pre-service teachers, believed that in most school contexts, getting to know how to develop good test/examination items is more practical than implementing AfL. This finding resonated with Taylor’s (2013) suggestion that classroom teachers usually prefer practical skills in test/examination paper construction over scientific measurement theories. After all, students tended to focus more on graded assessments than on formative classroom-based assessments.

Five students from Course 4 felt that the course was able to deepen their conceptual understanding of test-item construction, test procedures and, most importantly, assessment purposes including learning and judging functions of assessment. Nonetheless, these students expressed concerns that, despite the comprehensive coverage of content in Course 4, there was still so much that the instructor did not cover in the course, including issues such as test impact on teaching and learning, test usefulness and the ethics of assessment (see Appendix A). These students concluded that they might master some fundamental knowledge about language assessment, namely test construction and procedures, but for LAL, they wondered whether they had fully developed such a competency after only taking one elective course in their final year of the teacher education programme. One student stated:

The programme does provide us with some rudimental training in language assessment theories and practices, but I do not think that we become ‘assessment literate’ after taking only 10 lectures in one elective.

Similarly, an instructor commented that Course 5 should be taught alongside subject instruction courses, so that student teachers could develop a much better understanding of how different assessment tools could become an integral part of the teaching and learning process.

As stated in the course outlines, Courses 4 and 5 aimed to develop learners’ knowledge and skills in constructing various test items and evaluating how these assessment tools promote effective learning (see Appendices A and B). However, in the course documents, assessment principles concerning the social dimensions of assessment, test usefulness, ethics and fairness were not included, which is understandable but worth mentioning. Based upon the teaching evaluation of Courses 4 and 5, the overall mean scores were 3.28 and 3.71 out of 4.0 respectively. While the courses were well-received, as students’ qualitative comments indicated, some of them suggested that the content of Course 5, especially the part on using AfL to promote classroom learning, could be made more contextualized, since some strategies (e.g., ‘comment-only marking’ and ‘minimal use of marking codes’) might not work in the Hong Kong context. Two students stated that despite the usefulness of the course, they did not truly understand the theoretical rationale behind AfL and how AfL would affect student learning in a context where fixation with assessment outcomes and examination performance was prevalent. According to them, the social impact of AfL needs to be further discussed, given that language assessment should be associated with its immediate contexts.

From the above discussion, it can be argued that while the two elective courses provided students with training in knowledge of theory and technical skills about language assessment, it appears that students have almost no access to the knowledge base of the social dimensions of language assessment such as validity, fairness, and test impact on teaching and learning. Considering pre-service teachers’ development of LAL, course instructors or programme administrators may revisit the construct of LAL and align it with the needs of pre-service teachers who will serve in educational contexts where assessment outcomes are highly valued; they must see, how these outcomes positively influence teaching and learning in a larger test-driven culture.

(b) Experience of course-based language assessment training

When asked about student teachers’ learning experience in the two assessment courses, responses were varied, with some being unconvinced of the effectiveness of language assessment training in the form of academic literacy and some being very positive about the learner-centred approach adopted in the course. In Course 4, the majority of students considered its content too academic although they did not deny its usefulness concerning the inclusion of theories and practices in assessing different aspects of language skills (e.g., assessing reading and speaking) and emphasizing task-based assessment. However, one student pointed out that Course 4 was generally beneficial, but it was primarily delivered in a teacher-centred approach, which did not facilitate classroom communication and learning motivation. She said:

I wonder if the instructor’s teaching approach could be made more interactive, namely use of case studies and discussion that stimulate our critical thinking on assessment issues.

Another student also felt that the course instructor required her and other course mates to read a lot of academic literature, but there was not sufficient follow-up to these readings such as group discussions, oral presentations, and critiques of key issues arising from the literature. She then questioned whether such a top-down approach could facilitate the development of LAL, given that course participants may simply regurgitate the learnt assessment theories and skills without having developed a sound understanding.

For the assignment, students from Course 4 were asked to compile an assessment portfolio based upon a task-based unit of work which consisted of three short formative assessment tasks and one summative assessment task (see Appendix A). One instructor commented that the course assignment should be incorporated into a teaching practicum, so that pre-service teachers could pilot these assessment tasks and critically reflect upon whether they were practical in terms of their use in the local classroom contexts and whether they had an impact on student learning. After reviewing the course documents of Course 4, another instructor recommended that the course should diversify its learning activities, since the course mainly emphasized pre-service teachers’ academic writing abilities without considering the ‘hands-on’ experience of those assessment theories and skills. She further argued that the processes of language assessment training should encourage pre-service teachers to become more resourceful in fine-tuning those ‘imported’ educational assessment theories and practices (usually from Anglophone contexts) in order to make them contextually suitable for the local testing culture which typically emphasized test performance rather than mastery of learning.

In Course 5, one student noted that the course content covered both theory and practice of various language assessment issues at the primary level although a section about TSA, a high-stakes standardized test for all Grades 3 and 6 pupils in Hong Kong could be added to enrich her knowledge base on assessment of learning. Generally, students were content with the learning activities designed for the course, including lectures, interactive tutorials, critiques of assessment literature, oral presentations, contributions to the class blog, and so forth. Student positive attitudes towards the learning modes could be reflected in two questions of the teaching evaluation that had high mean scores (3.38 out of 4.0 and 3.65 out of 4.0): ‘The coursework helped me develop the knowledge and skills identified in the course objectives’ and ‘The learning activities stimulated my interest in the subject’ respectively.

Another two students from Course 5 were satisfied with the coursework arrangement, since it involved two parts where the first part (to design a formative assessment task with rationale) of the assignment leads to its second part (to design a short test for the purpose of accountability) (see Appendix B). The students added that this arrangement was beneficial, because instructor feedback from the part 1 assignment could help them improve the part 2 – construction of a summative test. Three instructors felt that this two-part assignment in Course 5 could raise students’ consciousness about the significance of formative feedback, which was one of the key agenda items to be included in the course. Another instructor was also appreciative of the use of self-evaluation in both parts of the assignment, since such a reflective practice could promote the learning-how-to-learn skill in pre-service teachers’ language assessment training.

In order to foster pre-service teachers’ LAL, the teaching of assessment knowledge and skills need to be contextualized, given that certain assessment concepts, such as AfL, may not work well in a test-driven environment such as Hong Kong. Also, the delivery of course-based language assessment training should diversify its instructional and learning activities and adopt a more learner-centred approach, which can transform pre-service teachers into reflective practitioners when putting the assessment theories into practice.

During the interviews, instructors and students alike were asked in what ways course-based language assessment training might affect the development of LAL. Four students considered that Course 4 was useful in introducing various formative assessment strategies such as self-assessment, since based upon their teaching practicum experience in Year 3, most serving teachers (school-based mentors) emphasized explicit teaching of examination formats and adopted repetitive drilling of past examination papers, sparing no time at all to implement any alternative assessments, including, for example, self- and peer assessment in the class. One instructor, who had taught Course 4, expressed his concerns:

I do not think our students can apply what they have learnt from the assessment course, since most schools are still conservative especially when it comes to assessment. Traditional paper-and-pencil tests are preferred. Although SBA promotes the use of alternative assessments, most English teachers treat SBA as if it were another large-scale oral examination.

Another instructor argued that it was so demanding for pre-service teachers to develop LAL during their practicum, because they were obliged to follow the school culture and the evaluation system practised by the school-based mentors. There was no room for them to practise innovative assessment strategies learnt from the course.

In the teaching evaluation of Course 5, three students commented that the course content was useful and highly relevant to their professional careers. One of them admitted that the principles learnt from the course were useful in helping them to set a full-length test paper; however, during the practicum, because of the time constraints, she tended to adapt test items from the commercial materials rather than create her own. In the interview, the other two students shared similar views that bridging the theory-practice gap remained challenging, given that university-based language assessment training was typically academic, whereas serving teachers usually preferred to pursue their ‘tricks of the trade’ owing to various sociocultural constraints they experience in their work contexts, including student ability, school culture, and teacher autonomy

Additionally, two instructors (Course 5) made the criticism that restricted application of assessment knowledge and skills in the school contexts could be explained by the focus of most teaching practicums which primarily underscored the evaluation of pedagogical skills and classroom language proficiency rather than LAL. One student expressed her concern that it was not possible for her to demonstrate language assessment skills during the supervised teaching practice, given that the practicum supervisor would only assess how she delivered a lesson rather than how she evaluated her learners’ language abilities within a 40-minute lesson. She added:

The major purpose of practicum is to judge how I teach rather than how I assess my students’ English proficiency.

Another instructor (Course 5) remarked that university-based language assessment training in most teacher education programmes tended to be one-off and fragmentary by nature, which might not necessarily provide pre-service teachers with adequate support to master and practise specific language assessment theories. For instance, both Courses 4 and 5 were offered as electives only during the final year of the teacher education programme. For Course 4, it was offered before students’ second teaching practicum, whereas, for Course 5, it was offered after it. One student (Course 4) stated that language assessment courses should be offered right before the two practicums in the programme.

From the above discussion, it appears that there is a perceived disjuncture between theory and practice concerning the development of LAL in the Hong Kong school context. It is recommended that pre-service teachers apply the language assessment knowledge and skills during their practicum, there are sociocultural constraints that hinder a full implementation of these theory-supported assessment practices. For the sake of clarity, the results of instructors’ and pre-service teachers’ interviews on two assessment courses were summarized in Table 4.

Table 4.

Results of instructors’ and pre-service teachers’ interviews.

Emerging themes from RQ 2	Participants	Course 4 in TEI C	Course 5 in TEI C
1. Perceptions of LAL in an examination-oriented culture	Instructors	found that pre-service teachers preferred learning test construction skills to learning AfL practices	proposed an integration of assessment and subject instruction courses to foster LAL
	Pre-service teachers	did not have a clear idea of LAL equated language assessment to testing perceived that they could manage basic understanding of test-item construction and test procedures realized that the social dimensions of language assessment were not covered, e.g., ethics	did not have a clear idea of LAL felt that teachers should be familiar with examination formats considered that it was necessary to contextualize certain AfL practices within an examination-oriented educational context did not have a comprehensive understanding of AfL rationale
2. Experience of course-based language assessment training	Instructors	suggested incorporating construction of assessment portfolio (the coursework) into practicum recommended diversification of the learning activities of the course which mainly emphasizes academic abilities proposed that pre-service teachers should ‘adapt’ not adopt Anglophone theories and practices	were appreciative of self-evaluative components of the two-part assignment felt that the coursework in Course 5 could raise pre-service teachers’ consciousness about the importance of formative feedback
	Pre-service teachers	found that the instructor adopted an academic literacy approach to instruction were not satisfied with the teacher-centred approach to instruction felt there were not sufficient follow-up activities to academic readings	proposed that the topic on Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) at Grades 3 and 6 should be included were satisfied with diverse learning activities to foster LAL were satisfied with the two-part assignments where instructor feedback from the first part of the assignment could help improve the second part
3. Restricted application of LAL in authentic school contexts	Instructors	raised concerns about the transferability of assessment knowledge and practices (e.g., AfL) during practicum emphasized that there was no room for pre-service teachers to develop LAL owing to their conformity to conservative school cultures	noted that the practicum assessed pre-service teachers’ pedagogical skills instead of assessment skills. commented that university-based language assessment training was usually one-off and fragmentary by nature
	Pre-service teachers	concurred that learning formative assessment strategies was useful realized that course-based language assessment training (offered only as electives or in the final year) was disconnected from practicum	were aware of a theory–practice gap due to practical constraints of school contexts were not encouraged to improve assessment skills as they were not evaluated

Discussion

To summarize the findings, five themes from the survey (RQ 1) and the case study of two language assessment courses (RQ 2) include: (1) insufficient support to promulgate LAL; (2) (lack of) training in managing classroom-based and large-scale assessment; (3) perceptions of LAL in an examination-oriented culture; (4) experience of course-based language assessment training; and (5) restricted application of LAL in authentic school contexts. Based upon these themes, three key issues are worthy of discussion concerning how language assessment training impacts the development of pre-service teachers’ LAL.

The first issue is concerned with how to further support language assessment training for promoting LAL in the local teacher education programmes. From our data, there has been fundamental language assessment training provided for prospective teachers in five Hong Kong TEIs; however, in terms of quantity and quality, it seems that there is still room for improvement. First of all, in each TEI, core language assessment courses (not as electives) should be offered to all students majoring in language education although this is not stipulated by EDB as initial qualifications for all new teachers similar to the language proficiency requirement (i.e., LPAT). From the survey data, only one out of four language assessment-focused courses is a core to assist pre-service teachers in developing their LAL. The remaining six courses under study only deliver a limited range of assessment theories and skills as part of either subject instruction or generic assessment courses, which may marginalize the development of LAL in the long run.

Second, the construct of LAL should be explicitly defined especially when it applies in a context where ethical issues in language assessment such as test impacts and fairness are rarely taught. The inclusion of LAL in language assessment courses is imperative, given that most of these courses only emphasize theory and practices about assessment and pay very little attention to how sociocultural and sociopolitical dimensions of assessment have a role to play in affecting teaching and learning in certain educational settings as argued by Fulcher (2012) and Inbar-Lourie (2013a) in their studies.

Third, to boost the profile of LAL in Hong Kong teacher education arena, programme administrators from five TEIs, EDB and SCOLAR should work collaboratively to establish mandatory LAL benchmarks for pre-service teachers as one form of exit requirements by means of continuous assessment. However, the first step in achieving this goal is to have university-based instructors receive professional development concerning how to present up-to-date assessment theories, practices, and principles to their students via seminars, conferences, text-based materials, and on-the-job training workshops provided by their universities (Taylor, 2009).

The second issue is about how to develop a balanced focus on large-scale and classroom-based assessment in language assessment training. From our survey data, all language assessment courses include the teaching of theory and practice of assessment of learning and assessment for learning; however, there are not many content issues concerning how teachers can interpret outcomes generated from assessment of learning, and how they can synergize the functions of both assessments, given that within the Hong Kong setting, assessment of learning remains predominant despite the recent assessment reform initiatives and government rhetoric to promote SBA and other alternative assessments (Curriculum Development Council, 2009; Lee & Coniam, 2013).

Course content concerning how to make good use of large-scale assessment results to inform and/or improve instruction and help students enhance their learning should be prioritized in language assessment training. This prioritization needs to be aligned with the usual pedagogical practices adopted by most Hong Kong teachers who are used to drilling students heavily for the large-scale examination and focusing on the product of learning. Additionally, developing a knowledge base about how to utilize AfL strategies to improve public examination results should be encouraged in language assessment courses, since there is no point in teaching pre-service teachers theories of assessment of learning and assessment for learning separately without letting them know the benefits of combining the functions of both. According to Popham (2011), it is imperative that pre-service teachers should try out AfL strategies in the context of large-scale public examinations, because in real teaching contexts, teachers and students tend to pay full attention to these high-stakes assessments. One of the good starting points to integrate assessment of learning and assessment for learning is to make use of web-based Student Assessment (www.hkeaa.edu.hk/en/sa_tsa/sa/) to prepare school pupils for TSA. Student Assessment is a web-based assessment bank for teachers to evaluate formatively their students’ basic competency level in English through computer-generated feedback. Helping students to generate their own test/examination papers at the classroom level is another alternative to integrate both assessment purposes effectively (Lam, 2013).

The third issue is about how to bridge the theory–practice gap in language assessment training. Despite the usefulness of assessment knowledge and skills, some pre-service teachers remained sceptical about its application in their teaching practicum and future professional careers. To bridge the theory–practice gap, university-based instructors, practicum supervisors, and programme directors may consider incorporating pre-service teachers’ assessment knowledge and skills as part of pedagogical content knowledge (Gu, 2014; Inbar-Lourie, 2013b) and realign the assessment rubrics of teaching practicum to facilitate development of LAL in the long run. As reflected from the findings, when LAL was not formally evaluated during the practicum, pre-service teachers would then ignore its potential impact on the processes of teaching and learning. It is hoped that the inclusion of LAL into the assessment of pre-service teachers’ pedagogical skills can enhance awareness and competence when they assess their own school students more effectively, that is, loop input in experiential teacher training. While it may be challenging to assess pre-service teachers’ LAL especially within one single lesson, programme directors and practicum supervisors may require teachers to videotape their assessment practices for both summative and formative assessment purposes. They are also encouraged to produce reflective portfolios for recording their own beliefs in assessing school students’ English abilities in relation to the knowledge, practices, and principles learnt from the language assessment training.

Conclusion

The study has reported on a small-scale survey and a case study of how language assessment training has influenced the development of pre-service teachers’ LAL in Hong Kong. Owing to its small sample size, the results of this study do not intend to claim wider generalization to other contexts. Having said that, they could illuminate the extent to which language assessment training, especially in the form of university-based academic courses, can have a moderate role to play in shaping pre-service teachers’ LAL. Based upon the survey findings, university-based language assessment training is not perceived as providing pre-service teachers with adequate support to develop their LAL, given that not every TEI offers mandatory language assessment-focusedt courses to train prospective teachers, not to mention a lack of government initiatives to enforce the requirement of LAL as part of regular teacher qualifications parallel to LPAT. From the case study data, instructors and pre-service teachers alike reported that the social dimensions of LAL (e.g., ethics and fairness) were not included in most assessment courses and commented that the training was too academic which led to a wide theory–practice gap during the teaching practicum. Additionally, various sociocultural and sociopolitical factors may come into play to inhibit the development of pre-service teachers’ LAL including a larger examination-oriented culture, teacher autonomy (limited application of LAL), resources to support language assessment training, and government policies about LAL, and so forth.

Though limited in scope, the major contribution of this study lies in the fact that it enriches scholars’ understanding of the relationship between language assessment training and development of LAL within a context of assessment reforms. The findings of the study also demonstrate that there has been discrepancy between overall provision of course-based language assessment training and localized needs of pre-service teachers who wish to develop LAL at individual teacher education programmes. Different from other studies on LAL, the uniqueness of this study is that its findings imply how course-based language assessment training could be made more effective by revamping its purpose, content, delivery, and overall quality, if the government and programme administrators are determined to develop pre-service teachers’ LAL in accommodating challenges arising from the current assessment reform landscape in Hong Kong, namely SBA and AfL initiatives. Nonetheless, other curricular aspects such as availability of time and prioritization of the course content have to be considered when planning comprehensive language assessment training for pre-service teachers.

Unquestionably, language assessment training is not an only means to foster LAL; however, it is indispensable for equipping pre-service teachers with fundamental knowledge, skills, and principles in handling both large-scale and classroom-based assessments efficiently and mastering how to utilize these assessment outcomes to promote student learning through continuous professional learning (i.e., a community of practice). Future research could investigate how the context of classroom-based assessment can facilitate or inhibit in-service teachers’ development of LAL in primary/secondary English education, since research on LAL largely involves university language instructors and language testers. Another possible avenue is to explore how pre-service and in-service teachers develop their LAL via other sources, such as regular online workshops and webinars during the first few years of teaching, and examine how these alternatives to course-based language assessment training may promote and/or inhibit the development of teachers’ LAL beyond the confines of university-based teacher education programmes.

Footnotes

Appendix A: An overview of Course 4

Appendix B: An overview of Course 5

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biography

Ricky Lam is an assistant professor in the Department of Education Studies at Hong Kong Baptist University. His publications have appeared in ELT Journal, Assessing Writing, TESL Reporter, TESL Canada Journal, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Studies in Educational Evaluation, and The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. His research interests are assessment for learning, portfolio assessment, and second language writing assessment.

References

Berry

(2011). Assessment trends in Hong Kong: Seeking to establish formative assessment in an examination culture. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(2), 199–211.

Black

Wiliam

(1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.

Brown

J. D.

Bailey

K. M.

(2008). Language testing courses: What are they in 2007? Language Testing, 25(3), 349–383.

Carless

(2011). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-heritage settings. New York: Routledge.

Cheng

Andrews

(2011). Impact and consequences of school-based assessment (SBA): Students’ and parents’ views of SBA in Hong Kong. Language Testing, 28(2), 221–249.

Coombe

Davidson

O’Sullivan

Stoynoff

(Eds.) (2012). The Cambridge guide to second language assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coombe

Troudi

Al-Hamly

(2012). Foreign and second language teacher assessment literacy: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. In Coombe

Davidson

O’Sullivan

Stoynoff

(Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language assessment (pp. 20–29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Creswell

J. W.

(2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Curriculum Development Council. (2001). Learning to learn – The way forward in curriculum. Hong Kong: Education Bureau.

10.

Curriculum Development Council. (2004). English language curriculum guide (Primary 1–6). Hong Kong: Education Bureau.

11.

Curriculum Development Council. (2007). English language: Curriculum and assessment guide (Secondary 4–6). Hong Kong: Education Bureau and Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority.

12.

Curriculum Development Council. (2009). Senior secondary curriculum guide. The future is now: from vision to realization (Secondary 4–6). Hong Kong: Education Bureau.

13.

Davies

(2008). Textbook trends in teaching language testing. Language Testing, 25(3), 327–347.

14.

Davison

(2007). Views from the chalkface: English language school-based assessment in Hong Kong. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(1), 37–68.

15.

Davison

(2013). Innovation in assessment: Common misconceptions and problems. In Hyland

Wong

L. L. C.

(Eds.), Innovation and change in English language education (pp. 263–275). Abingdon: Routledge.

16.

Davison

Hamp-Lyons

(2010). The Hong Kong Certificate of Education: School-based assessment reform in Hong Kong English language education. In Cheng

Curtis

(Eds.), English language assessment and the Chinese learner (pp. 248–264). New York: Routledge.

17.

Davison

Leung

(2009). Current issues in English language teacher-based assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 393–415.

18.

DeLuca

Klinger

D. A.

(2010). Assessment literacy development: Identifying gaps in teacher candidates’ learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(4), 419–438.

19.

Education Bureau. Professional Development Programmes (2013–2014). Retrieved on 13 February 2014, from www.edb.gov.hk/en/curriculum-development/kla/eng-edu/professional-development-programmes.html.

20.

Evans

(2013). The long march to biliteracy and trilingualism: Language policy in Hong Kong education since the handover. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 302–324.

21.

Falvey

Cheng

(1995). A comparative study of teachers’ beliefs about assessment principles and practices. Language Testing Update, 18, 38–39.

22.

Fulcher

(2012). Assessment literacy for the language classroom. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(2), 113–132.

23.

P. Y.

(2014). The unbearable lightness of the curriculum: What drives the assessment practices of a teacher of English as a foreign language in a Chinese secondary school? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(3), 286–305.

24.

Hamp-Lyons

(2007). The impact of testing practices on teaching: Ideologies and alternatives. In Cummins

Davison

(Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 487–504). Norwell, MA: Springer.

25.

Harlen

(2006). On the relationship between assessment for formative and summative purposes. In Gardner

(Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 61–80). London: Sage.

26.

Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination 2014 – English language: School-based assessment teachers’ handbook. Retrieved on 22 January 2014, from www.hkeaa.edu.hk/DocLibrary/SBA/HKDSE/SBAhandbook-2014-ENGLANG-1012.pdf.

27.

Hsieh

H. F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

28.

Huot

(2002). (Re)articulating writing assessment for teaching and learning. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

29.

Inbar-Lourie

(2008a). Constructing a language assessment knowledge base: A focus on language assessment courses. Language Testing, 25(3), 385–402.

30.

Inbar-Lourie

(2008b). Language assessment culture. In Shohamy

Hornberger

N. H.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Vol. 7: Language testing and assessment (2nd ed., pp. 285–300). New York: Springer.

31.

Inbar-Lourie

(2013a). Language assessment literacy. In Chapelle

C. A.

(Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 2923–2931). Oxford: Blackwell.

32.

Inbar-Lourie

(2013b). Guest editorial to the special issue on language assessment literacy. Language Testing, 30(3), 301–307.

33.

Jeong

(2013). Defining assessment literacy: Is it different for language testers and non-language testers? Language Testing, 30(3), 345–362.

34.

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.

35.

Koh

K. H.

(2011). Improving teachers’ assessment literacy through professional development. Teaching Education, 22(3), 255–276.

36.

Lam

(2013). Formative use of summative tests: Using test preparation to promote performance and self-regulation. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(2), 69–78.

37.

Lee

(2007). Feedback in Hong Kong secondary writing classrooms: Assessment for learning or assessment of learning? Assessing Writing, 12(3), 180–198.

38.

Lee

(2010). Writing teacher education and teacher learning: Testimonies of four EFL teachers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(3), 143–157.

39.

Lee

Coniam

(2013). Introducing assessment for learning for EFL writing in an assessment of learning examination-driven system in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 34–50.

40.

Malone

M. E.

(2008). Training in language assessment. In Shohamy

Hornberger

N. H.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Vol. 7: Language testing and assessment (2nd ed., pp. 225–239). New York: Springer.

41.

Mertler

C. A.

(2009). Teachers’ assessment knowledge and their perceptions of the impact of classroom assessment professional development. Improving Schools, 12(2), 101–113.

42.

O’Loughlin

(2013). Developing the assessment literacy of university proficiency test users. Language Testing, 30(3), 363–380.

43.

Popham

W. J.

(2004). Why assessment illiteracy is professional suicide. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 82–83.

44.

Popham

W. J.

(2009). Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental? Theory Into Practice, 48(4), 4–11.

45.

Popham

W. J.

(2011). Assessment literacy overlooked: A teacher educator’s confession. The Teacher Educator, 46(4), 265–273.

46.

Qian

D. D.

(2008). English language assessment in Hong Kong: A survey of practices, developments and issues. Language Testing, 25(1), 85–110.

47.

Qian

D. D.

(2014). School-based English language assessment as a high-stakes examination component in Hong Kong: Insights of frontline assessors. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(3), 251–270.

48.

Rea-Dickens

(2008). Classroom-based language assessment. In Shohamy

Hornberger

N.H.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Vol. 7: Language testing and assessment (2nd ed., pp. 257–271). New York: Springer.

49.

Standing Committee on Language Education and Research. (2003). Action plan to raise language standards in Hong Kong: Final report of language education review. Hong Kong: Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

50.

Stiggins

R. J.

(1991). Assessment literacy. The Phi Delta Kappan, 72(7), 534–539.

51.

Stiggins

R. J.

(1995). Assessment literacy for the 21st century. The Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), 238–245.

52.

Stiggins

R. J.

(2004). New assessment beliefs for a new school mission. The Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 22–27.

53.

Taylor

(2009). Developing assessment literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 21–36.

54.

Taylor

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

55.

Troudi

Coombe

Al-Hamly

(2009). EFL teachers’ views of English language assessment in higher education in the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 546–555.

56.

Volante

Fazio

(2007). Exploring teacher candidates’ assessment literacy: Implications for teacher education reform and professional development. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(3), 749–770.

57.

Weigle

S. C.

(2007). Teaching writing teachers about assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 194–209.

58.

Y. T.

Liu

Y. C.

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

59.

Yin

R. K.

(2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.