Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development

ISSN: 1657-0790
[email protected]
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Colombia

Giraldo, Frank
Language Assessment Literacy: Implications for Language Teachers
Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development,
vol. 20, no. 1, 2018, January-June, pp. 179-195
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Colombia

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

Available in: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=169253856013

How to cite
Complete issue Scientific Information System Redalyc
More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America and the Caribbean, Spain and
Journal's webpage in redalyc.org Portugal
Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative
 https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v20n1.62089

Language Assessment Literacy: Implications for Language Teachers

Literacidad en evaluación de lenguas: implicaciones para docentes

Frank Giraldo* 1

Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira, Pereira, Colombia

Recently, the applied linguistics field has examined the knowledge, skills, and principles needed for
assessment, defined as language assessment literacy. Two major issues in language assessment literacy
have been addressed but not fully resolved—what exactly language assessment literacy is and how
it differs among stakeholders (e.g., students and teachers). This reflective article reviews assessment
literacy from general education experts and language education scholars and shows how the meaning of
language assessment literacy has expanded. To add to the discussion of this construct, the article focuses
on the specific language assessment literacy for language teachers and proposes a core list of assessment
knowledge, skills, and principles for these stakeholders.

Key words: Assessment, language assessment literacy, language teacher education, language testing.

Recientemente, el campo de la lingüística aplicada ha evaluado el conocimiento, habilidades y principios

necesarios para la evaluación, definidos como la literacidad en evaluación de lenguas. Dos temas centrales
han sido discutidos, pero no resueltos —exactamente qué es literacidad en evaluación de lenguas y
cómo se diferencia entre poblaciones interesadas (p. ej. estudiantes y profesores)—. Este artículo de
reflexión hace una revisión de la literacidad en evaluación vista por expertos en educación y enseñanza
de lenguas, y muestra una expansión del significado de literacidad en evaluación de lenguas. Como
adición a la discusión de este constructo, el artículo se enfoca en la literacidad en evaluación de lenguas
específica para docentes de lenguas y propone una lista central sobre el conocimiento, las habilidades
y los principios de evaluación para este grupo.

Palabras clave: educación de profesores de lenguas, evaluación, evaluación de lenguas, literacidad en

evaluación de lenguas.

* E-mail: [email protected]
How to cite this article (apa, 6th ed.): Giraldo, F. (2018). Language assessment literacy: Implications for language teachers. Profile: Issues
in Teachers’ Professional Development, 20(1), 179-195. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v20n1.62089.

This article was received on January 19, 2017, and accepted on May 22, 2017.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons license Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License. Consultation is possible at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 20 No. 1, Jan-Jun, 2018. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 179-195 179
Giraldo

Introduction the literature review section). Since several stakeholders

The “39th Language Testing Research Colloquium: should be engaged in language assessment, the picture
Language Assessment Literacy Across Stakeholder of what exactly lal means becomes even more complex
Boundaries”1 held in Bogotá (Colombia) in July, 2017, (Inbar-Lourie, 2013a; Taylor, 2013). Thus, a general
explored the issue of language assessment literacy (lal) consensus in lal is that research needs to be ongoing
for various stakeholders. The colloquium was guided and welcomed (Fulcher, 2012; Coombe, Troudi, & Al-
by the consensus that lal is a competency engaging Hamly; 2012; Taylor, 2013).
different parties, from teachers to school administrators. Notwithstanding the need to involve others in lal,
The fact that such colloquium was mostly devoted to language teachers remain central stakeholders whose
this topic speaks of the relevance that lal has gained in teaching contexts should be considered to further define
language education and language testing. The purpose of lal (Scarino, 2013). López and Bernal (2009) and more
this reflective paper is to contribute to ongoing discus- recently Herrera and Macías (2015) have made the call
sions in lal and seeks to illustrate what this construct that (Colombian) language teachers should improve
implies for language teachers. their lal. The authors have argued that lal is needed
In general terms, lal refers to knowledge, skills, and among in-service language teachers, and that pre-service
principles in language testing (Davies, 2008; Fulcher, language teaching programs should raise the bar to
2012; Malone, 2008). These three components have provide quality lal opportunities for teacher develop-
in fact remained constant in theoretical and research ment. This is justified not only in language education
discussions about lal. However, its scope and boundar- but education in general, where scholars have argued
ies have been questioned (Inbar-Lourie, 2013a; Taylor, for assessment literacy among teachers (Brookhart,
2013). Specifically, scholars are wondering what specific 2011; Popham, 2009; Schafer, 1993). While the call for
knowledge, skills, and principles are needed to define better lal among language teachers is indeed necessary,
the term. What is clear is that knowledge of language, the field must ask what it is exactly that lal entails. A
language use, and language pedagogy differentiate lal careful reconsideration of lal is therefore the central
from assessment literacy, the generic term in general theme of this paper.
education (Brookhart, 2001; Popham, 2009). The paper consists of a literature review that starts
Another crucial discussion, the core of the afore- with a discussion of López and Bernal’s (2009) and
mentioned colloquium, refers to the people involved in Herrera and Macías’ (2015) argumentation; later, it
lal. Taylor (2009) argues that not only should language overviews general assessment literacy and its change
teachers be involved in knowledge of language assess- over time in education. Then, the bulk of the paper
ment; other stakeholders such as school principals, explores lal from two themes: its meaning and scope,
parents, and politicians should know about language and stakeholder profiles. This theoretical exploration
assessment and its implications (i.e., decisions based on will serve as a basis to present a core list of lal for
scores). Based on the available research, Taylor (2013) language teachers. Such list is derived from conceptual
identifies four stakeholder profiles in lal: test writers, discussions and research insights into knowledge,
classroom teachers, university administrators, and skills, and principles related to language assessment
professional language testers (more on these profiles in for teachers. Thus, the list is meant to fuel discussion in
lal, particularly for language teachers, and suggest what
1 Organized by the International Language Testing Association,
the implications of lal for these stakeholders can be.
ilta and Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá.

180 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
 Language Assessment Literacy: Implications for Language Teachers

Literature Review teaching and learning. Addressing language teaching

programs, the researchers find it central that
Background all prospective teachers take at least a course in language testing
The research by López and Bernal (2009) indicates before they start teaching, and should strive to better themselves
that there are different practices of assessment among through in-service training, conferences, workshops and so forth to
language teachers. Those with language assessment create a language assessment culture for improvement in language
training used assessment to improve teaching and education. (López & Bernal, 2009, p. 66)
learning, whereas those with no training used it as a
way to solely obtain grades. Thus, López and Bernal Herrera and Macías (2015) start their article by stat-
report that teachers without training placed grades and ing that “teachers are . . . expected to have a working
assessment on the same level, which the researchers knowledge of all aspects of assessment to support their
perceive as a limited approach to language assessment. instruction and to effectively respond to the needs and
Additionally, the teachers in this research implemented expectations of students, parents, and the school commu-
more summative than formative methods. nity (p. 303, my emphasis). Teachers with an appropriate
In terms of professional development, López and level of lal, according to Herrera and Macías, connect
Bernal inform that while graduate programs do have instruction and assessment, criticize large-scale tests, and
language assessment courses, few in-service language design and choose from an available repertoire of assess-
teachers gain access to ma degrees in Colombia. Because ments. Echoing López and Bernal, Herrera and Macías
of this situation, the researchers argue that pre-service urge language education programs to provide more and
language teaching programs should offer more language better opportunities for lal so that language teachers can
assessment training. A majority (20 out of 27) of the focus on the spectrum that language assessment really
undergraduate programs the researchers analyzed did entails—and not only focus on tests as instruments to
not have any language assessment courses; the picture measure learning. The authors then propose that for
becomes more complicated when the authors explain lal experiences, questionnaires can be used to tap into
that out of 27 programs, only two public universities teachers’ knowledge and skills in language assessment.
offered assessment courses, as opposed to five courses However, as the researchers clarify, such instrument alone
offered by private universities. is not sufficient to describe and/or offer information to
Similar concerning results of language assessment improve lal among teachers.
practices can also be found in Arias and Maturana Both articles claim that lal is needed among
(2005); Frodden, Restrepo, and Maturana, (2004); pre- and in-service teachers. If language teachers are
and Muñoz, Palacio, and Escobar (2012), all studies effectively trained in lal, as these authors suggest,
conducted in Colombia. What is more, such findings assessment for formative purposes—that is to enhance
have also been present in other parts of the world such teaching and learning (Davison & Leung, 2009)—can
as Chile (Díaz, Alarcón, & Ortiz, 2012), China (Cheng, become essential in language education. While the call
Rogers, & Hu, 2004), and Canada (Volante & Fazio, of these four authors is one with which I agree I believe
2007). In their conclusions, López and Bernal (2009) we need to take a deeper, more critical look towards what
urge teachers to improve the validity, reliability, and assessment literacy and specifically lal involve. With
fairness of their language assessment practices, and to this in mind, the next section of this article reviews the
implement assessment that is conducive to enhancing generalities of assessment literacy and specifics of lal.

Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 20 No. 1, Jan-Jun, 2018. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 179-195 181
Giraldo

Assessment Literacy: tasks, use of alternative assessments such as portfolios,

Generalities in Education formative assessment, student test preparation, and
The literature in assessment literacy reports assessment of English language learners. Popham
on an expansion of the knowledge and skills that argues that assessment literacy is needed so teachers
teachers and other stakeholders are expected to become aware of the power that tests, especially
have—although the focus has been on assessment external, can have on education.
literacy for teachers. Historically, assessment literacy Furthermore, Brookhart (2011), who argues that
has expanded teachers’ toolbox to monitor, record, the standards above are not comprehensive enough
improve, and report on student learning. There has for classroom teachers, believes assessment literacy
also been increasing attention as to how assessment has to do with knowledge of how students learn in a
has consequences on teaching, learning, and school specific subject; connection between assessment, cur-
curricula (Brookhart, 2011; Popham, 2009, 2011); this riculum, and instruction; design of scoring schemes
attention has led to a belief that teachers should have that are clear for stakeholders; administration of
a critical stance towards how assessment impacts externally-produced tests; and use of feedback to
stakeholders (Popham, 2009). improve learning.
The first allusion to assessment literacy in edu- Other areas that have received attention in assess-
cation was proposed by the American Federation ment literacy involve the use of basic statistics for
of Teachers, National Council on Measurement in educational measurement (Popham, 2011; White,
Education, and National Education Association 2009), student motivation (White, 2009), and the
(1990) in their Standards for Teacher Competence in use of multiple methods in assessment (Rudner &
Educational Assessment of Students. They believed Schafer, 2002). Similarly, the use of technology has
these guidelines were needed to help teachers become been proposed as part of teachers’ assessment literacy
aware of assessment in and out of classroom contexts. (Rudner & Schafer, 2002).
The guidelines can be categorized into two strands. The previous section has shown a steady histori-
The first deals with instruction; teachers should be cal increase in the knowledge, skills, and principles
able to choose, design, and evaluate valid assess- related to the assessment literacy that teachers are
ments for positive effects on learning, teaching, and expected to have. While the meaning of lal shares
schools. The second strand has to do with uses of similarities with assessment literacy, lal is unique in
tests and test results; teachers are expected to know specific ways. The next section of the paper pinpoints
when assessments are being used inappropriately, what has been carried over from general assessment
and to know how to communicate results well to literacy, and what has made lal a construct on its
various stakeholders. Later, Stiggins (1995) used the own. For this purpose, this paper addresses two re-
term assessment literacy to include knowledge and lated, ongoing debates in lal: the need to pursue a
skills that stakeholders such as teachers and school knowledge base in the field and the realization that
administrators should have about assessment. lal means different things to different people. After
In addition to the standards above, Popham (2009) these two debates, the section will focus on a recent
explains that assessment literacy includes knowledge addition to the meaning of lal by Scarino (2013),
of reliability and threats to it, tests’ content validity, who argues that lal should also involve teachers’
fairness, design of closed-ended and open-ended test contexts of teaching.

182 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
 Language Assessment Literacy: Implications for Language Teachers

Language Assessment Literacy: sensus in the field regarding that suggestion (Coombe
Generalities and Specifics et al., 2012; Inbar-Lourie, 2012; Taylor, 2009).
Overall, conceptual discussions and research The previous section shows that lal shares com-
findings in lal have provided insights for a concept ponents with assessment literacy. However, language
that is far from being defined in limited terms. In a as a construct for assessment is what differentiates
review of language testing textbooks, Davies (2008) lal from its generic term. Thus, in Davies (2008),
places the field within three components: knowledge, lal includes knowledge of language and language
skills, and principles related to the assessment of methodologies such as communicative language
language ability. While emphasis has been given to teaching. Inbar-Lourie (2008, 2012) calls language
the first two components, there is an increase in the the what in lal (after Brindley, 2001). Addition-
need to instill language testing with principles such ally, Inbar-Lourie (2008) argues that lal includes
as fairness (non-discriminatory testing practices) and knowledge of multilingual learners and content-based
ethics (appropriate use of assessment data) (Kunnan, language teaching.
2003). In fact, research has indicated that this trend Skills and principles in lal are therefore directly
is stable because language testing textbooks focus on related to assessing language. Specifically, skills needed
knowledge and skills (Bailey & Brown, 1996; Brown for test design (e.g., item-writing), use and interpre-
& Bailey, 2008) more than they do on principles. tation of statistics, and test evaluation are part of
In fact, the trend is also evident in language testing lal because they are used to assess language ability
courses (Jeong, 2013; Jin, 2010), which include some (Davies, 2008; Fulcher, 2012; Inbar-Lourie, 2013a).
but not sufficient attention to principles as well as Concerning principles, they are viewed the same
to consequences of assessment. Thus, Davies’s global in lal as in assessment literacy; that is, principles
view of lal is generally accepted by authors (Inbar- refer to codes of practice for ethics, fairness, and
Lourie, 2008; Fulcher, 2012; Taylor, 2009). consequences of assessment.
Fulcher (2012) used a questionnaire to find out One way to picture the wide scope of lal is by
the lal needs among language teachers from around looking at Inbar-Lourie’s (2013b) ingredients of lal
the world (n = 278). Based on the survey results, his for language teachers. She argues that lal is “a unique
definition emphasizes the interplay among Davies’s complex entity”, similar yet different from general
three major components of lal, as they impact prac- assessment literacy for teachers. According to the
tice and society at large. Fulcher also argues that author, the ingredients of lal for language teachers are:
teachers need to view language assessment from its 1. Understanding of the social role of assessment and the responsi-
historical development. Fulcher’s (2010) book, Practi- bility of the language tester. Understanding of the political [and]
cal Language Testing, is an operationalization of this social forces involved, test power and consequences. (p. 27)
definition of lal. What is particularly interesting 2. Knowledge on how to write, administer and analyze tests; report
about the author’s definition is that it refers to both test results and ensure test quality. (p. 32)
large-scale and classroom tests, which suggest lal 3. Understanding of large scale test data. (p. 33)
for language teachers is not limited to classroom 4. Proficiency in Language Classroom Assessment. (p. 36)
assessment. Besides, Fulcher strongly suggests that 5. Mastering language acquisition and learning theories and relating
lal require that teachers be critical toward language to them in the assessment process. (p. 39)
assessment practices, and there exists a general con-

Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 20 No. 1, Jan-Jun, 2018. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 179-195 183
Giraldo

6. Matching assessment with language teaching approaches. Know- testers had differing views and needs as regards the
ledge about current language teaching approaches and pedagogies. contents of an online language testing tutorial. While
(p. 41) the former group expected the tutorial to be clear
7. Awareness of the dilemmas that underlie assessment: formative and include practical matters, the latter expected
vs. summative; internal external; validity and reliability issues par- comprehensiveness of concepts. These three studies
ticularly with reference to authentic language use. (p. 45) certainly provide convincing evidence that several
8. lal is individualized, the product of the knowledge, experience, stakeholders—and not only teachers—should be re-
perceptions, and beliefs that language teachers bring to the cipients of lal.
teaching and assessment process (based on Scarino, 2013). (p. 46) To define the level of lal among different stake-
holders, Taylor (2013) proposes a figure that places
Given the array of elements in lal, it is not surpris- them at different levels. Thus, researchers and test
ing that scholars in language testing are still debating the makers are at the core of the figure, language teachers
boundaries of the concept (Fulcher, 2012; Jeong, 2013; and course instructors are placed at an intermediary
Malone, 2013; Scarino, 2013; Taylor, 2013). Inbar-Lourie level, and policy makers and the general public are
(2013a) wonders what the essentials for lal actually on a peripheral level of lal. Additionally, this author
are, and invites discussions and research to expand and outlines the profiles for four different stakeholder
clarify lal and its uniqueness. What further fuels the groups; namely, test writers, classroom teachers, uni-
debate around the meaning and scope of lal is how versity administrators, and professional language
it relates to different stakeholders. testers. These four profiles are described against eight
dimensions: “knowledge of theory, technical skills,
LAL and Different Stakeholders principles and concepts, language pedagogy, socio-
Taylor (2009) contends that given the impact cultural values, local practices, personal beliefs and
assessment can have other people besides teachers attitudes, and scores and decision making” (Taylor,
should possess knowledge of language assessment. Pill 2013, p. 410). Taylor (2013) presents her proposal as
and Harding’s (2013) study testifies the need to have open to debate and invites the field to inspection
others involved in lal. Their study found that there and operationalization of the suggested levels and
were misconceptions and a lack of language assessment profiles of lal.
knowledge at the Australian House of Representa- In conclusion, as commented elsewhere, scholarly
tives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. discussions and research in lal have indicated that this
This political body was responsible for determining concept has come to have different shades of meaning
which doctors could be granted entrance to Australia, for various people directly or indirectly involved in
based on the results of two tests: The International language assessment. While it is certain that others
English Language Testing Service (ielts) and the should be engaged in lal, language teachers remain
Occupational English Test (oet). Additionally, the central in the efforts to deliver professional develop-
study by O’Loughlin (2013) reports the lal needs ment opportunities in lal (Boyles, 2006; Brindley,
(e.g., score interpretation) of the administrative staff 2001; Fulcher, 2012; Nier, Donovan, & Malone, 2009;
at an Australian university using ielts for admission Taylor, 2009). Accordingly, I now move on to exploring
of international students. Finally, the study by Malone lal for language teachers and the implications that
(2013) reports that language instructors and language this construct may have for them.

184 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
 Language Assessment Literacy: Implications for Language Teachers

LAL for Language Teachers interviews, these two studies provide descriptions of
Scarino (2013) argues that in addition to know- language assessment stages. In Rea-Dickins (2001),
ledge, skills, and principles in lal, it is pertinent to there are four stages to language assessment in the
include teachers’ interpretive frameworks. That is, classroom: planning, implementation, monitoring,
discussions in lal need to acknowledge that language and recording and dissemination. In the first stage,
teachers have particular teaching contexts, practices, language teachers select the purposes and tools to
beliefs, attitudes, and theories, all of which shape assess and prepare students for assessments. In stage
their own lal. Recognition of language teachers’ two, teachers introduce the why, what, and how of
interpretive frameworks is particularly important in assessment, and also provide scaffold while assessment
fostering professional development, as Scarino sug- unfolds, ask learners to monitor themselves and others,
gests. Knowledge, skills, and principles in language and provide immediate feedback to students. During
assessment coexist with teachers’ ways of thinking stage three, teachers bring together their observations
and acting upon the act of assessment. Thus, Sca- and analyze them with peers, with the hope to provide
rino explains that, in the case of language teachers, delayed feedback to improve learning and teaching. In
the components of their lal influence each other, a the last stage, teachers formally report their analyses to
notion briefly addressed by other authors (Fulcher, whomever they need to. In McNamara and Hill (2011),
2012; Taylor, 2009). the stages are called planning, framing, conducting,
lal discussions and research, even for language and using assessment data. They are, essentially, the
teachers, have provided a top-down perspective. Thus, same as those in Rea-Dickins (2001) as the stages
the knowledge-base of lal has been described from refer to the same assessment activities. From these
language testing textbooks (Davies, 2008), language last two studies, I believe we can add more layers
testing courses (Bailey & Brown, 1996; Brown & Bailey, to what lal can entail—lal includes the ability to
2008; Jeong, 2013; Jin, 2010), and even pre-determined effectively plan, execute, evaluate, and report assess-
by language testing scholars themselves. For example, ment processes and data.
Fulcher (2012) and Vogt and Tsagari (2014) use ques- Lastly, other studies report findings of skills that
tionnaires with pre-determined categories to find should be part of teachers’ lal. In Walters’ (2010)
out needs among language teachers. However, what study, English as a second language (esl) teachers
has not been clearly addressed in the literature is became aware of a process for test and item analysis
how language teachers engage in or display lal. In called standards reversed engineering (after Davidson
tandem with Scarino’s (2013) proposal, I believe there & Lynch, 2001), through which they could derive test
are particularities to lal that should come from the specifications and critique state-mandated standards
bottom up, or language teachers’ assessment practices. for esl. The study by Vogt and Tsagari (2014) with
Rea-Dickins’ (2001) and McNamara and Hill’s European language teachers identified that participants
(2011) research studies do not overtly refer to teachers’ mostly needed skills to critique external tests. The
lal. However, their research scope certainly deals researchers report that “the lack of ability to critically
with areas that, according to the literature, are part of evaluate tests represents a risk for the teachers to take
a language teacher’s knowledge, skills, and principles over tests unquestioningly without considering their
for assessment viewed from a formative lens. Based on quality” (p. 391). Lastly, even though not explicitly
a purely qualitative approach using observations and using the term lal, the study by Arias, Maturana,

Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 20 No. 1, Jan-Jun, 2018. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 179-195 185
Giraldo

and Restrepo (2012) helped language teachers instill that knowledge of major issues in applied linguistics
transparency and democracy in their practices. The should be part of language teachers’ lal; for example,
researchers conceptualized transparency as making communicative approaches to language testing. Finally,
students aware of testing modes, rubrics, grades, this component includes teachers’ knowledge of their
and others; and democracy in language assessment own contexts for language assessment, an inclusion
as negotiation and the use of multiple methods that I derive from Scarino’s (2013) proposal.
and moments to assess learners. In summary, the Following in the list are skills (five dimensions),
knowledge and use of reversed engineering and test which first and foremost include instructional skills.
specifications, skills for critiquing existing tests and I base this addition to lal largely on the studies by
esl standards, and transparency and democracy as McNamara and Hill (2011) and Rea-Dickins (2001)
assessment principles should all be part of language into assessment practices. Following, design refers to
teachers’ lal. test and item construction for the four language skills
Given all these possible additions to the construct and their integration in assessments (Fulcher, 2012;
under examination, lal is still not clearly delim- Taylor, 2009). Germane to educational assessment
ited for language teachers, and in fact appears to be are measurement skills, which I include based on
far-reaching. For instance, if located on a spectrum, Davies (2008) and Fulcher (2010, 2012). In the case
Inbar-Lourie’s (2013b) ingredients of lal can range of language teachers, I agree with Popham (2011) that
from specific skills (e.g., item-writing) to complex while advanced statistical expertise is not needed,
issues such as the relationship between second language teachers should know quantitative methods that
acquisition theories, language teaching approaches, can illuminate their assessment practice. Lastly,
and language assessment. Amidst all these ingredients technological skills come from Davies (2008) and
and components, I believe we need to have a way to Inbar-Lourie (2012).
reconcile and streamline the implications of lal for The last component of the list refers to language
language teachers. To this end, in the next section I assessment principles. I derive this part from vari-
propose a core list of lal that brings together thinking ous authors (Arias et al., 2012; Coombe et al., 2012;
and research around lal. Malone, 2013; Taylor, 2009; etc.). It has been discussed
that large-scale tests are consequential and powerful
A Core List of LAL for Language (Shohamy, 2001), so ethics and fairness should be
Teachers present in language assessment. In Taylor’s (2013)
The proposed list is based upon three central proposed profile for language teachers, the author
components, introduced by Davies (2008), each argues that this group may not be as concerned about
with corresponding dimensions. Knowledge (three ethics and fairness as language testing professionals
dimensions) reflects theoretical considerations such must. However, I believe language teachers need to
as the meaning of validity and reliability, two classi- realize that these two principles are in fact codes for
cal discussions in language testing. This component the professional practice of those involved in language
ranks high in the list as it deals with language and assessment (ilta, 2000). Most importantly, scholars
language use, the uniqueness of lal (Inbar-Lourie, in lal argue that teachers need to become critical
2013a). Following this, within knowledge I include towards assessment practices (Fulcher, 2012; Scarino,
Davies’ (2008) and Inbar-Lourie’s (2008) suggestion 2013). Thus, transparency and democracy appear in

186 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
 Language Assessment Literacy: Implications for Language Teachers

Figure 1. A Core List of Language Assessment Literacy Dimensions: Knowledge, Skills, and Principles

Awareness of applied linguistics

Awareness of theory and concepts
Awareness of own language
assessment context

Knowledge

Language
Assessment
Literacy

Skills Principles

Instructional skills
Design skills for language Awareness of and actions towards
assessments critical issues in language assessment
Skills in educational measurement
(advanced skills not always needed)
Technological skills

this last component thanks to the research by Arias namely means, modes, medians, bell curves, sems,
et al. (2012). reliability and correlation coefficients, and so on.
Figure 1 summarizes the core list while Table 1 Newfields’ inventory, however, is not presented
shows the complete list with an illustrative descriptor hierarchically (i.e., by ranking high core components
for each dimension. such as language and language teaching) and is based
Some similarities between this list and the work on content validity perceptions from college students,
by Newfields (2006) are possible. The author proposes high school language teachers, and test developers.
a series of statements for items that I also include in The present list is based on conceptual reviews of the
my list. For example, the “ability to interpret statistical literature in lal and personal experience in language
raw data in terms of common measures of centrality assessment courses through information from well-
(mean, mode, median) and deviation (sd, quartiles)” known language testing textbooks such as Bachman
(p. 51) is similar to the following skill in the present (2004), Fulcher (2010), and others.
list: the ability to interpret data from large-scale tests,

Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 20 No. 1, Jan-Jun, 2018. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 179-195 187
Giraldo

Table 1. Descriptors for Knowledge, Skills, and Principles in Eight Dimensions of LAL for Language Teachers

Knowledge

Awareness of applied linguistics

Compares approaches for language teaching and assessment; e.g., communicative language testing; task-
1
based assessment.
Explains major issues in applied linguistics; e.g., bilingualism, language policy and planning, pragmatics,
2
sociolinguistics, etc.
Analyzes trends in second language acquisition and their impact on language assessment; e.g., motivation,
3
cross-linguistic influence, learner strategies.
Integrates theories related to language and language use; e.g., models of language ability, discourse analysis,
4
and grammar teaching.
Awareness of theory and concepts
5 Illustrates history of language testing and assessment, and its impact on current practices and society.
Interprets reliability in language assessment and its implications: dependability, classical test theory, item
6
analysis, threats, calculating reliability of tests and items, inter- and intra-rater reliability, etc.
Interprets validity in assessment and its implications: construct, content, and criterion validities, construct
7
validity as unitary, Messick’s (1989) consequential validity; validity as argument.
Calculates statistics procedures for investigating validity such as Pearson Product Moment Correlation
8
(ppmc).
Interprets major qualities for language assessment practices (apart from reliability and validity), and their
9 implications for language assessment: authenticity, practicality, interactiveness, fairness, ethics, and impact
(including washback).
10 Computes basic statistical analyses: mean, mode, median, range, standard deviation, score distribution, etc.
Differentiates concepts related to assessment paradigms: traditional versus alternative; norm-referenced
11
and criterion-referenced testing.
Differentiates major purposes and related decision-making for language testing: placement, achievement,
12
proficiency, etc.
Explains major steps in developing tests: test purpose, construct definition, content specifications, test
13
specifications, etc.
14 Examines the meaning and implications of critical language testing: power, ethics, and fairness.
15 Judges the consequences (intended or unintended) stemming from assessments in his/her context.
16 Evaluates the kind of washback that assessments can have on learning, teaching, curricula, and institutions.
Contrasts assessment methods, with their advantages and disadvantages; tests, portfolios, performance
17
assessment, self- and peer-assessment, role-plays, among others.
18 Articulates the nature, purpose, and design of scoring rubrics; for example, holistic and analytic.
19 Recognizes what feedback implies within a formative assessment paradigm.

188 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
 Language Assessment Literacy: Implications for Language Teachers

Awareness of own language assessment context

20 Explains own beliefs, attitudes, context, and needs for assessment.
21 Evaluates the test and assessment policies that influence his/her teaching.
22 Assesses the existing tensions that influence language assessment in his/her school.
Illustrates the general guidelines and policies that drive language learning and assessment in his/her
23
context; for example, type of language curriculum.
24 Criticizes the kind of washback assessments usually have on his/her teaching context.
Skills

Instructional skills
has the ability to:
25 align curriculum objectives, instruction, and assessment.
26 plan, implement, monitor, record, and report student language development.
27 provide feedback on students’ assessment performance (norm- and criterion-referenced).
collect formal data (e.g., through tests) and informal data (while observing in class) of students’ language
28
development.
29 improve instruction based on assessment results and feedback.
30 utilize alternative means for assessment; for example, portfolios.
31 use language assessment methods appropriately: to monitor language learning and nothing else.
provide motivating assessment experiences, giving encouraging feedback, or setting up self-assessment
32
scenarios.
communicate norm- and criterion-referenced test results to a variety of audiences: students, parents,
33
school directors, etc.
34 use multiple methods of assessment to make decisions based on substantive information.
35 incorporate technologies in assessing students.
Design skills for language assessments
has the ability to:
36 clearly identify and state the purpose for language assessment.
37 clearly define the language construct(s) a test will give information about.
38 design assessments that are valid not only in terms of course contents but also course tasks.
39 construct test specifications (or blueprints) to design parallel forms of a test.
40 write test syllabuses to inform test users of test formats, where applicable.
41 design assessments that are reliable, authentic, fair, ethical, practical, and interactive.
42 write selected-response items such as multiple-choice, true-false, and matching.
43 improve test items after item analysis, focusing on items that are either too difficult, too easy, or unclear.
44 design constructed-response items (for speaking and writing), along with rubrics for assessment.
45 design rubrics for alternative assessments such as portfolios and peer-assessment.
46 provide security to ensure that unwanted access to tests is deterred.
47 design training workshops for raters, whenever necessary.

Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 20 No. 1, Jan-Jun, 2018. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 179-195 189
Giraldo

Skills in educational measurement (advanced skills not always needed)

has the ability to:
interpret data from large-scale tests, namely descriptive statistics such as means, modes, medians, bell
48
curves, etc.; has the ability to calculate descriptive statistics.
49 infer students’ strengths and weaknesses based on data.
50 criticize external tests and their qualities based on their psychometric characteristics.
51 interpret data related to test design, such as item difficulty and item discrimination.
52 calculate reliability and validity indices by using appropriate methods such as Kappa, ppmc, and others.
53 investigate facility and discrimination indices statistically.
Technological skills
has the ability to:
54 use software such as Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.
55 run operations on Excel; for example, descriptive statistics and reliability correlations.
use internet resources such as online tutorials and adapt contents for his/her particular language
56
assessment needs.
Principles

Awareness of and actions towards critical issues in language assessment

57 Clearly informs the inferences and decisions that derive from scores in assessments.
Uses assessment results for feedback to influence language learning, not other construct-irrelevant sources
58
(e.g., personal bias towards a student).
59 Treats all students, or users of language assessment, with respect.
60 Uses tests, test processes, and test scores ethically.
61 Provides assessment practices that are fair and non-discriminatory.
62 Critiques the impact and power standardized tests can have and has a stance towards them.
63 Observes guidelines for ethics used at the institution in regard to language assessment.
64 Criticizes external tests based on their quality and impact.
Implements transparent language assessment practices; informs students of the what, how, and why of
65
assessment.
Implements democratic language assessment practices, by giving students opportunities to share their
66
voices about assessment.

Recommendations provide feedback on knowledge, skills, and principles.

The proposed list can be used by language teachers For example, applicable abilities in the 25 to 35 range
in five ways. First, they can utilize the descriptors as can be turned into an observation protocol for stages
a Yes/No checklist to evaluate their own language in classroom language assessment. Third, teachers can
assessment contexts, paying attention to what they identify topics to know more about what is in lal and
do well and what they need to strengthen. Second, they seek for training opportunities such as professional
can use the descriptors to observe each other’s lal and development teams or study groups; in such groups,

190 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
 Language Assessment Literacy: Implications for Language Teachers

teachers may want to understand large-scale tests, so be an authoritative account of what lal actually is for
they would need to read about educational measurement language teachers; it does, however, bring together
and develop corresponding data interpretation skills thinking from scholars and researchers in assessment
(e.g., What does a mode tell me about test results?). literacy and most specifically in lal. What is more, the
Fourth, if teachers design tests, they may need to see list has a personal bias. I have developed it based on my
what skills in this list are appropriate for their enterprise. understanding of the literature and my own experience as
Lastly, teachers can use this list for an overview of a test writer and student of language testing. Additionally,
language assessment literacy: a large and still developing the 66 descriptors may not do justice to the width and
construct in applied linguistics. Overall, teachers are depth of lal but only comprise a fraction of what the
encouraged to use this list however they feel useful construct implies in theory and practice for language
for their purposes. teachers; I may have overlooked key skills, knowledge,
Besides language teachers, this list may prove use- or principles that are indeed part of teachers’ lal. In
ful for teacher educators in both pre- and in-service this same vein, there are descriptors that can include
programs. For pre-service teachers, educators can use other more detailed skills. For example, in descriptor
it to introduce future language teachers to the field of one, one sub-component is knowledge of issues within
language assessment; the list may be used as a pre-test task-based assessment, namely the discussion of task-
and post-test to language testing courses and provide centered and construct-centered assessment in test
the pre-service teachers with the chance to observe how design (Bachman, 2002).
much they have learned in a language testing course. Lastly, this list includes statistical procedures (e.g.,
Regarding in-service teacher education, tutors can turn descriptor 55) teachers need not concern themselves
the list into a needs assessment or a diagnostic test in with, according to some authors (Brookhart, 2003;
order to plan programs in language assessment; the Popham, 2009). However, the idea that teachers do not
pre-test/post-test treatment can be used in in-service need knowledge of statistics (at least at a basic level)
teacher development. may underestimate their potential. In the study by
A caution that I feel necessary to address is that the Palacio, Gaviria, and Brown (2016), the participating
list includes parts of a greater whole. The dimensions English language teachers used statistical procedures
in the list should not be seen separately but have been such as correlations and reliability analyses to improve
separated here for the sake of clarity and organization. the quality of the tests they designed.
Rather, they should be envisioned as complementary, Notwithstanding these limitations, I invite readers
first and foremost, depending on teachers’ contexts. For to examine the arguments and proposal I present to
example, teachers who are required to design language advance the knowledge base necessary to operational-
tests with considerable impact may need strong design ize the meaning and implications of lal for language
skills, some knowledge of educational measurement, and teachers.
awareness of theory and concepts. The combination of
these skills and this knowledge should help them bring Conclusions
about quality products. Language teachers throughout the world make deci-
sions based on assessment data. In turn, such decisions
Limitations impact teaching and learning. Given this scenario, there
There are four limitations in this core lal list that is a need for language teachers to have solid assessment
deserve discussion. To start, this list is not meant to literacy. Likewise, language teaching programs should

Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 20 No. 1, Jan-Jun, 2018. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 179-195 191
Giraldo

be more profoundly engaged in providing quality lal— knowledge, skills, and principles that are consonant
and not do so through elective courses which may not with language teaching and language learning. High
do much (Siegel & Wissehr, 2011) or merely mention quality assessment is done by language teachers who
assessment in passing. More importantly, programs and plan, design, implement, monitor, record, evaluate,
opportunities for in-service teachers are also central provide, and improve opportunities for the overarching
to improving the state of lal. While the call is indeed goal in the language classroom and beyond; that is, the
necessary, the field of language education should care- development of students’ language ability. Lastly, because
fully reflect upon the nature and scope of lal, as it is it is an expanding controversy in language education,
indeed an expanding notion. the meaning and implications of lal are still in fruitful
Historically, the meaning of assessment literacy development.
has extended to include issues such as technology and
even student motivation. While the meaning of lal has References
been rather stable, the actual scope of each component American Federation of Teachers, National Council on
(knowledge, skills, and principles) is still expanding. Measurement in Education, & National Education
This expansion has become all the more prominent Association. (1990). Standards for teacher competence
due to the call that several stakeholders (e.g., university in educational assessment of students. Washington, dc:
administrators and politicians) must be included in the Authors. Retrieved from http://buros.org/standards-
lal equation. teacher-competence-educational-assessment-students.
While the contents of and people involved in lal are Arias, C., & Maturana, L. (2005). Evaluación en lenguas
still the focus of scholarly work and commentary, this extranjeras: discursos y prácticas [Assessment in
paper has presented a comprehensive list to operational- language teaching: Discourse and practices]. Íkala,
ize lal for language teachers, an essential stakeholder Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 10(1) 63-91.
group. Such list is proposed as a way to highlight the Arias, C., Maturana, L., & Restrepo, M. (2012). Evaluación de
knowledge, skills, and principles that, according to los aprendizajes en lenguas extranjeras: hacia prácticas
the literature and research, language teachers should justas y democráticas [Evaluation in foreign language
have when assessing language. The paper has discussed learning: Towards fair and democratic practices].
five ways in which language teachers can use the list; Lenguaje, 40(1), 99-126.
besides, the paper has discussed its limitations, ending Bachman, L. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language
with a call to further discussion. Even though it cannot performance assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 453-
be prescribed that all language teachers have such a 476. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt240oa.
repertoire, as Taylor (2013) explains, the overarching Bachman, L. (2004). Statistical analyses for language assess-
categories—that is knowledge, skills, and principles—still ment. Cambridge, uk: Cambridge University Press.
apply, whether we discuss assessment in the language https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667350.
classroom or out of it (Fulcher, 2012). Bailey, K., & Brown, J. D. (1996). Language testing courses:
While assessment literacy may be far-reaching, the What are they? In A. Cumming & R. Berwick (Eds.),
importance of such literacy for the language teacher Validation in language testing (pp. 236-256). Clevedon,
cannot be underestimated, and it should be comple- uk: Multilingual Matters.
mented by what their contexts have to offer so that such Boyles, P. (2006). Assessment literacy. In M. Rosenbusch
construct is better operationalized. The effect of what lal (Ed.), New visions in action: National Assessment Summit
truly means should be language teachers who display papers (pp. 18-23). Ames, us: Iowa State University.

192 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
 Language Assessment Literacy: Implications for Language Teachers

Brindley, G. (2001). Language assessment and professional [The English teacher: His beliefs about English language
development. In C. Elder, A. Brown, E. Grove, K. assessment at primary, secondary and tertiary levels].
Hill, N. Iwashita, T. Lumley, . . . K. O’Loughlin (Eds.), Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 17(1), 15-26.
Experimenting with uncertainty: Essays in honour of Frodden, M., Restrepo, M., & Maturana, L. (2004). Analysis
Alan Davies (pp. 126-136). Cambridge, uk: Cambridge of assessment instruments used in foreign language
University Press. teaching. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 9(1),
Brookhart, S. (2003). Developing measurement theory for 171-201.
classroom assessment purposes and uses. Educational Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical language testing. London, uk:
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(4), 5-12. https:// Hodder Education.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2003.tb00139.x. Fulcher, G. (2012). Assessment literacy for the language
Brookhart, S. (2011). Educational assessment know- classroom. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(2), 113-132.
ledge and skills for teachers. Educational Measure- https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.642041.
ment: Issues and Practice, 30(1), 3-12. https://doi. Herrera, L., & Macías, D. (2015). A call for language assess-
org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2010.00195.x. ment literacy in the education and development of
Brown, J. D., & Bailey, K. (2008). Language testing courses: Teachers of English as a foreign language. Colombian
What are they in 2007? Language Testing, 25(3), 349-383. Applied Linguistics Journal, 17(2), 302-312. https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208090157. org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2015.2.a09.
Cheng, L., Rogers, T., & Hu, H. (2004). esl/efl instructors’ Inbar-Lourie, O. (2008). Constructing a language assess-
classroom assessment practices: Purposes, methods, and ment knowledge base: A focus on language assessment
procedures. Language Testing, 21(3) 360-389. https:// courses. Language Testing, 25(3), 385-402. https://doi.
doi.org/10.1191/0265532204lt288oa. org/10.1177/0265532208090158.
Coombe, C., Troudi, S., & Al-Hamly, M. (2012). Foreign and Inbar-Lourie, O. (2012). Language assessment literacy. In C.
second language teacher assessment literacy: Issues, Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics
challenges, and recommendations. In C. Coombe, (pp. 1-9). Oxford, uk: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.
P. Davidson, B. O’Sullivan, & S. Stoynoff (Eds.), The org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0605.
Cambridge guide to second language assessment (pp. Inbar-Lourie, O. (2013a). Guest Editorial to the special issue
20-29). Cambridge, uk: Cambridge University Press. on language assessment literacy. Language Testing, 30(3)
Davidson, F., & Lynch, B. (2001). Testcraft: A teacher’s guide 301-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213480126.
to writing and using language test specifications. New Inbar-Lourie, O. (2013b, November). Language assessment
Haven, us: Yale University Press. literacy: What are the ingredients? Paper presented at
Davies, A. (2008). Textbook trends in teaching language the 4th cbla sig Symposium Programme, University
testing. Language Testing, 25(3), 327-347. https://doi. of Cyprus.
org/10.1177/0265532208090156. International Language Testing Association. (2000). Code
Davison, C., & Leung, C. (2009). Current issues in English of ethics for ilta. Retrieved from http://c.ymcdn.com/
language teacher-based assessment. tesol Quarterly, sites/www.iltaonline.com/resource/resmgr/docs/ilta_
(43)3, 393-415. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009. code_english.pdf.
tb00242.x. Jeong, H. (2013). Defining assessment literacy: Is it dif-
Díaz, C., Alarcón, P., & Ortiz, M. (2012). El profesor de ferent for language testers and non-language tes-
inglés: sus creencias sobre la evaluación de la lengua ters? Language Testing, 30(3), 345-362. https://doi.
inglesa en los niveles primario, secundario y terciario org/10.1177/0265532213480334.

Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 20 No. 1, Jan-Jun, 2018. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 179-195 193
Giraldo

Jin, Y. (2010). The place of language testing and assessment blended learning. Journal of the National Council of
in the professional preparation of foreign language Less Commonly Taught Languages, 9, 105-136.
teachers in China. Language Testing, 27(4), 555-584. O’Loughlin, K. (2013). Developing the assessment literacy
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209351431. of university proficiency test users. Language Testing,
Kunnan, A. (2003). Test fairness. In M. Milanovic & C. Weir 30(3), 363-380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213480336.
(Eds.), Selected papers from the European Year of Lan- Palacio, M., Gaviria, S., & Brown, J. D. (2016). Aligning
guages Conference, Barcelona (pp. 27-48). Cambridge, English language testing with curriculum. Profile: Issues
uk: Cambridge University Press. in Teachers’ Professional Development, 18(2), 63-77.
López, A., & Bernal, R. (2009). Language testing in Colombia: https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v18n2.53302.
A call for more teacher education and teacher training Pill, J., & Harding, L. (2013). Defining the language assess-
in language assessment. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ ment literacy gap: Evidence from a parliamentary
Professional Development, 11(2), 55-70. inquiry. Language Testing, 30(3), 381-402. https://doi.
Malone, M. (2008). Training in language assessment. In org/10.1177/0265532213480337.
E. Shohamy & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Popham, W. (2009). Assessment literacy for teachers:
language and education: Language testing and assessment Faddish or fundamental? Theory Into Practice, 48(1),
(2 ed., Vol. 7, pp. 225-233). New York, us: Springer.
nd
4-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577536.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_178. Popham, W. (2011). Assessment literacy overlooked: A
Malone, M. (2013). The essentials of assessment literacy: teacher educator’s confession. The Teacher Educator,
Contrasts between testers and users. Language Testing, 46(4), 265-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.20
30(3), 329-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213480129. 11.605048.
McNamara, T., & Hill, K. (2011). Developing a compre- Rea-Dickins, P. (2001). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Iden-
hensive, empirically based research framework for tifying processes of classroom assessment. Language
classroom-based assessment. Language Testing, 29(3), Testing, 18(4), 429-462.
395-420. Rudner, L., & Schafer, W. (Eds.). (2002). What teachers need
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational to know about assessment. Washington, dc: National
measurement (3 rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York, us: Education Association.
Macmillan. Scarino, A. (2013). Language assessment literacy as self-
Muñoz, A., Palacio, M., & Escobar, L. (2012). Teachers’ awareness: Understanding the role of interpretation in
beliefs about assessment in an efl context in Colombia. assessment and in teacher learning. Language Testing,
Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 30(3), 309-327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213480128.
14(1), 143-158. Schafer, W. (1993). Assessment literacy for teachers.
Newfields, T. (2006, May). Teacher development and Theory Into Practice, 32(2), 118-126. https://doi.
assessment literacy. In T. Newfields, I. Gledall, M. org/10.1080/00405849309543585.
Kawate-Mierzejewska, Y. Ishida, M. Chapman, & P. Ross Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests. Harlow, uk: Pearson
(Eds.), Authentic communication: Proceedings of the 5th Education.
Annual jalt Pan-sig Conference (pp. 48-73). Shizuoka, Siegel, M., & Wissehr, C. (2011). Preparing for the plunge:
jp: Tokai University College of Marine Science. Pre-service teachers’ assessment literacy. Journal of
Nier, V., Donovan, A., & Malone, M. (2009). Increasing Science Teacher Education, 22(4), 371-391. https://doi.
assessment literacy among lctl instructors through org/10.1007/s10972-011-9231-6.

194 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
 Language Assessment Literacy: Implications for Language Teachers

Stiggins, R. (1995). Assessment literacy for the 21st century. Volante, L., & Fazio, X. (2007). Exploring teacher candi-
Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), 238-245. dates’ assessment literacy: Implications for teacher
Taylor, L. (2009). Developing assessment literacy. Annual education reform and professional development. Cana-
Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 21-36. https://doi. dian Journal of Education, 30(3), 749-770. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0267190509090035. org/10.2307/20466661.
Taylor, L. (2013). Communicating the theory, practice and Walters, F. (2010). Cultivating assessment literacy: Standards
principles of language testing to test stakeholders: Some evaluation through language-test specification reverse
reflections. Language Testing, 30(3), 403-412. https://doi. engineering. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7(4),
org/10.1177/0265532213480338. 317-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2010.516042.
Vogt, K., & Tsagari, D. (2014). Assessment literacy of White, E. (2009). Are you assessment literate? Some funda-
foreign language teachers: Findings of a European study. mental questions regarding effective classroom-based
Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(4), 374-402. https:// assessment. OnCue Journal, 3(1), 3-25.
doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2014.960046.

About the Author

Frank Giraldo has an ma in the teaching of English as a second language from University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign (usa). He also holds an ma in English didactics from Universidad de Caldas, Colombia.
He is an academic consultant at the Instituto de Lenguas Extranjeras (ilex) at Universidad Tecnológica
de Pereira, Colombia. His interests are language testing and assessment, curriculum development, and
professional development of language teachers.

Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 20 No. 1, Jan-Jun, 2018. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 179-195 195