(2024) 14:34
Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-024-00310-3

Language Testing in Asia

Open Access

RESEARCH

Assessment polarity or praxis parity?
Uncovering the learning‑oriented assessment(LOA) landscape of novice and experienced
Iranian EFL teachers
Masoomeh Estaji1*   and Maryam Kogani1   *Correspondence:
mestaji74@gmail.com
1
Department of English
Language and Literature, Facultyof Persian Literature and Foreign
Languages, Allameh Tabataba’i
University, Chamran Highway,
South Allameh St, Modiriat
Fly‑Over, Tehran, Iran

Abstract
Although learning-oriented assessment (LOA) has been recognized as an effective
method of assessment, the literature on this concept in relation to teacher professionalism is limited. In response to this gap, the present study explored 16 Iraniannovice and experienced EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices of LOA. Data were collected from self-reported practices and semi-structured interviews. Analysis of the data
through MAXQDA revealed that the novice and experienced teachers’ LOA beliefs
featured similarities and differences. While the novice teachers’ LOA beliefs wereless sophisticated, experienced teachers highlighted a more central role for LOA in theirintegration of teaching and assessment. Moreover, while novice teachers preferredusing self- and peer assessment, the experienced teachers used more portfolio
and dynamic assessment for their LOA-related practices. The study provides implications for teachers and teacher educators to use LOA in professional development
courses.
Keywords: Experienced teachers, Learning-oriented assessment, Novice teachers,
Teacher beliefs, Teacher practices, Teaching experience

Introduction
For several decades, assessment has been considered as an essential part of language
teaching and learning (Phakiti & Leung, 2024) in that it has a significant impact on classroom instruction and students’ performance (Tsagari & Vogt, 2017). As pinpointed by
Keppell et al. (2006), assessment simply shapes students’ learning experience, and it
should be about assessing the quality of students’ learning and teaching practices as it
facilitates the measurement and understanding of student learning (Keppell et al., 2006).
Moreover, assessment can inspire intellectual curiosity and drive in students, challenging them to grapple with complex ideas and deepen their commitment to learning(Ramsden, 2003). In the past decades, assessment has been conceptualized as moving beyond a summative perspective toward integrating it with teaching and learning processes (Phakiti & Leung, 2024). In this regard, Hamp-Lyons (2007) argued that
© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permitsuse, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:34

assessment should move toward a learning culture rather than an exam culture. The aimof such shifts has been defining how assessment could be integrated with the dynamics
of teaching as this approach could exercise more beneficial effects on students’ learning
outcomes. Such a perspective of assessment has been reflected in the works of scholars,such as McNamara (2012) and Shohamy (2013), trying to link assessment and learning
to broader sociocultural issues.
Carless (2007) held that teachers serve as essential mediators, leveraging their expertise to enhance student learning. However, top-down educational policies significantly
limit teachers’ assessment identities, emotions, and agency, compelling them to createan adaptive assessment system while receiving minimal professional support (Derakhshan et al., 2024). Meaningful improvements in the implementation of formative
assessment hinge largely on teachers’ deep comprehension of its guiding principles andeffective classroom practices. An offshoot of such a perspective has been learning-oriented assessment (LOA), which refers to the systematic gathering of performance-based
evidence as the foundation for making informed judgments about students’ continued language development (Purpura, 2004). An LOA perspective enables teachers andlearners to develop a better connection between the teaching, learning, and assessment
dimensions (Chong & Reinders, 2023). As the most notable feature of LOA is to emphasize the learning process by considering how instruction, assessment, and learning areinterconnected (Turner & Purpura, 2016), it is perfectly matched with the principles ofassessment for learning, which is a recent trend in assessment in education.
Recent years have witnessed the growth of research on LOA in applied linguistics(Chong & Reinders, 2023). Studies of this line of research have also explored effects of
LOA on learners’ (e.g., Estaji & Safari, 2023; Gao, 2017; Hamp-Lyons, 2017; Keppell
et al., 2006) as well as teachers’ LOA beliefs and practices (e.g., Ali, 2013; Banitalebi &Ghiasvand, 2023; Carless, 2015; Derakhshan & Ghiasvand, 2022; Jalilzadeh & Coombe,2023). Despite the growth of research on teachers’ LOA beliefs and practices, the scopeof research on teachers’ experience as a factor in LOA is limited. Few studies, if any, haveinvestigated whether novice and experienced teachers concur/differ in their LOA-related
beliefs and practices. This gap is prominent as novice and experienced EFL teachers may
have dissimilar beliefs and practices of LOA. Tsui (2009a, 2009b) has highlighted a number of differences among novice and experienced teachers (e.g., flexibility, automaticity,
adaptability, and effectiveness), which are also likely to influence teachers’ assessment
beliefs/practices in general and LOA-related beliefs/practices in particular. By bridging
this gap, this study attempted to expand the literature on LOA in EFL contexts, where
teachers form different conceptualizations and practices of assessment.

Literature review
Learning‑oriented assessment

The origins of LOA turn back to the general perspectives about formative assessment.
In his paper on LOA, Farhady (2021) tabulates six types of assessment: (1) performanceassessment, which is measuring the skills of speaking and writing, (2) authentic assessment, which measures performance in real-world-like tasks, (3) summative assessment,
which measures achievement, (4) formative/classroom assessment, which measureslearning based on in-class developments, (5) diagnostic assessment, which identifies

Page 2 of 19

Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:34

strengths and weaknesses, and (6) alternative assessment, which disfavors traditional,
discrete point perspectives of testing. These conceptualizations of assessment have
evolved over time in that more attention is now paid to moving assessment beyond simply measuring learning toward integrating it with teaching and considering the sociocultural factors that shape assessment (Inbar-Lourie, 2013; Scarino, 2013; Xu & Brown,2016).
LOA shares also a lot with the ramifications of integrating assessment with learning,
including assessment for, of, and as learning. In this regard, Schellekens et al. (2021)
stated that AaL, or assessment as learning, emphasizes the active involvement of students in the assessment process and their own learning. AfL, assessment for learning,
focuses on identifying learning progress throughout the assessment. AoL, assessmentof learning, revolves around the measurement of learning outcomes through assessments. LOA presents a mixture of these perspectives because as Carless (2007) andGebril (2021) stated, LOA could draw on a wide range of assessment-based sources tomake a meaningful contribution to students’ learning. In this regard, Carless (2007)
laid the foundations of LOA by stating that in LOA, the primacy of learning should beat the forefront, both in the literal construction of the term and as a matter of principle. Assessment practices should fundamentally emphasize and prioritize the learning
aspects, rather than treating learning as a secondary consideration.
Carless (2007) summarized his framework of LOA around three principles. The firstprinciple states that the design of assessment tasks should promote and cultivate effective learning practices for students, which emphasizes the proactive perspective ofassessment in terms of informing instruction. The second principle is that assessment
should actively engage students in the process of evaluating criteria, judging levels of
quality, and reflecting on their own or classmates’ performance, which emphasizes thecentral role of learners in integrating learning with assessment, what was also emphasized in assessment as learning. The third principle holds that feedback provision should
be both timely and future-oriented, aiming to support students’ current learning as wellas guide their ongoing development, which underlines the importance of feedback as acentral process of learning and assessment.
Building on Carless’s (2007) study, Gebril (2021) investigated the perceptions of LOA
among novice and experienced EFL teachers in Egypt. The findings indicated that bothgroups of teachers acknowledged the importance of LOA in expanding student learningand development. However, novice teachers expressed concerns about the practicality
and viability of implementing LOA in their classrooms, stressing factors such as large
class sizes, time constraints, and pressure to cover the curriculum. In contrast, experienced teachers evinced a more positive attitude toward LOA and underscored the benefits of formative assessment in guiding their instructional decisions.
In addition to the studies mentioned, there are other recent studies that can contributeto the theoretical framework of LOA. For instance, Goldouz and Baleghizadeh (2021)
explored the tensions between novice and experienced teachers’ beliefs and practices
regarding written corrective feedback in EFL contexts. This study could provide insights
into how teachers’ beliefs about assessment and feedback influence their implementation of LOA. In another study, Khatib and Saeedian (2021) identified the key factors
influencing novice teachers’ classroom decision-making, emphasizing how pedagogicalPage 3 of 19

Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:34

reasoning shapes their assessment strategies. Although this study did not directly focus
on LOA, it can shed light on the factors that shape novice teachers’ classroom practices,
including their perceptions of assessment and evaluation. Furthermore, Pham Haoi
Huong (2023) contributes to this discourse by providing a sociocultural perspective on
novice teachers’ professional development, suggesting that contextual factors significantly impact their understanding and implementation of assessment practices.
Following the growth of LOA, researchers attempted to develop models of the concept. Farhady (2021) argued that LOA tasks not only focus on the learning outcomes,
but also prioritize the learning process itself. They leverage the contributions of selfassessment and peer assessment to enhance and deepen the overall learning experience, which opens the space for the emergence of various conceptualizations. With its
emphasis on both learning and assessment, LOA has grasped the attention of researchers (Chong & Reinders, 2023; Jones & Saville, 2016; Salamoura & Morgan, 2021; Turner& Purpura, 2016). Despite the growth of research on LOA, this line of inquiry needs
more attention from researchers to explore teachers’ beliefs and practices of LOA. However, in recent years, few studies have explored teachers’ LOA beliefs and practices. For
example, Ali (2013) explored whether teachers supported LOA, the reason for such support, how LOA could be applied, and the challenges that teachers faced in implementing
LOA. Data were collected from 25 teachers in the context of Oman using a six-question
open-ended questionnaire. The analysis of the data showed that the teachers supported
using LOA because this approach could help learners improve their learning outcomes
and foster more active engagement in the learning process.
In another study, Derakhshan and Ghiasvand (2022) explored Iranian EFL teachers’
beliefs and practices of LOA as well as the challenges that they faced in implementing
LOA. The study also explored the types of activities that could better promote LOA.
Data were collected from 40 teachers’ semi-structured interviews and analyzed through
MAXQDA. The analysis of the data revealed that the teachers believed that LOA could
enhance classroom participation and collaboration, and fostered learners’ engagement.
Relatedly, Jalilzadeh and Coombe (2023) explored how 16 Iranian teachers perceived
the role of LOA in education and the challenges that they faced in implementing LOA.
Data were collected from in-person and online interviews scheduled on WhatsApp. The
analysis of the data showed that before attempting to implement LOA principles in theirclasses, teachers need to ensure effective coordination and alignment across the different
components of the curriculum.
Novice and experienced teachers’ assessment beliefs and practices

Teachers’ beliefs and practices of assessment have been widely discussed in the form of
their language assessment literacy (Estaji, 2024a, 2024b; Wang et al., 2023) and identity(Estaji & Ghiasvand, 2023, 2024). In this regard, Popham (2004) stated that teachers wholack assessment literacy encounter many challenges and that they may commit professional suicide. Moreover, in his discussion of teacher expertise, Tsui (2003) enumerated
some of characteristics of expert teachers, including possessing deep subject-matter
expertise, demonstrating proficient practical skills, and having the ability to make accurate diagnoses, provide insightful analyses, and reach sound decisions, often under time
constraints. From this perspective, expert teachers have been identified as those who

Page 4 of 19

Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:34

can draw on their spontaneous understanding and experience to make decisions thatprovide a more quality instruction.
Li (2020) argued that the major difference between novice and experienced teachers is their task performance. That is, novice teachers may have difficulty in integrating conceptual knowledge into their practice, while experienced teachers are better
able to incorporate such theories into their teaching. Additionally, novice teachers may
have difficulty in establishing effective communication with students, while experienced
teachers are able to perform such relationships helpfully (Tsui, 2009a, 2009b). Simply
put, compared to experienced teachers, novice teachers often approach problems froma more superficial, immediate perspective, concentrating on the present circumstances.
In contrast, experienced teachers can connect the issue at hand to long-term objectives,address it at a deeper level, apply learning theories to their teaching, and effectively manage curriculum requirements (Tsui, 2009a, 2009b).
Moreover, in her 2009 paper on distinctive qualities of expert teachers, Tsui studied
four teachers (Marina, Eva, Ching, and Genie), who had 8, 5, 5, and 2 years of experience. Tsui identified three areas in which the teachers differed: integrating knowledge,
which had two aspects of establishing class norms and organizing the object of learning;
using situated possibilities, which had two aspects of perceiving possibilities for learning and maximizing the learning opportunities; and reflective practice, which focusedon actualizing theoretical knowledge and theorizing actual knowledge. Tsui concluded
that while many of the features identified in the study have been documented in previous research, the key distinguishing factor between experts and non-experts appears tobe the ability to perceive and capitalize on the “situated possibilities” presented by the
specific context at hand (p. 437). Furthermore, Tsui (2009a, 2009b) and Li (2020) haveargued that while there are similarities between novice and experienced teachers, theyalso have differences in specific areas of their cognitions and practices.
To further elaborate on the contributions of Tsui (2009a, 2009b) and Li (2020), it isessential to highlight the implications of their findings for teacher training and professional development. Both studies underscore the necessity of fostering reflective practices and situational awareness among novice teachers to bridge the gap between theory
and practice. By emphasizing the importance of mentorship and collaborative learning
opportunities, educational programs can better support novice teachers in developing
the skills to integrate theoretical knowledge into their teaching effectively. Additionally,
incorporating strategies that enhance communication and relationship-building withstudents can empower novice educators to create more dynamic and responsive learning
environments, ultimately improving their pedagogical effectiveness. This focus on situational adaptability and reflective practice can lead to a more nuanced understanding ofteaching as a complex, context-dependent profession.
In the past decades, research on the beliefs and practices of EFL teachers has increased(e.g., Burkhauser & Lesaux, 2017; Gatbonton, 2008; Karimi & Norouzi, 2019; Koni &Krull, 2018; Wolff et al., 2017). For example, Wolff et al. (2017) explored the differences
between novice and experienced teachers’ beliefs about classroom management events.
Two videos containing problematic classroom situations were presented to the teachers. Data analyses revealed that while the novice teachers focused more on behavior anddiscipline, the experienced teachers were more focused on the role of teacher in student

Page 5 of 19

Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:34

learning. In addition, Karimi and Norouzi (2019) explored the differences in the pedagogical thought units of 20 teachers who were grouped into five different groups of experience ranges. Using recorded classes and stimulated recall interviews, the researchers
were able to show that experience could play a direct role in teachers’ better representations in comparison to novice teachers.
The above literature shows that teaching experience is a significant factor in shaping
teachers’ beliefs and practices. Additionally, such experience could influence teachers’
assessment beliefs and practices. However, little is known about how novice and experienced teachers differ in their LOA beliefs and practices. Thus, the purpose of this study
was exploring such differences between novice and experienced Iranian EFL teachers byconsidering the following research question:
How convergent or divergent are novice and experienced Iranian EFL teachers in theirlearning-oriented assessment (LOA)-related beliefs and practices?

MethodThis study employed a phenomenological approach to explore the beliefs and practices
of novice and experienced Iranian EFL teachers regarding LOA. This design was selected
because of the nature of the study, by which both similarities and discrepancies in the
beliefs and practices of the two groups of teachers about LOA were thoroughly examined using their own perceptions and lived experiences (Lester, 1999; Richardson, 1999).
The design was adopted in a way that it could figure out how teaching experience could
play a role in shaping EFL teachers’ LOA beliefs and practices. In addition, phenomenology not only provided a rich understanding of the hindrances to the practice of LOA
encountered by EFL teachers but it also allowed the collection of in-depth data about the
coping practices employed by these teachers to navigate the challenges of implementing
LOA.
Participants and context

For the present study, private language institutes in the Iranian context were targeted asthese institutes recruit both novice and experienced teachers. The rationale for the selection of this context for the study was because it better unpacks the similarities and differences between novice and experienced teachers. The participants were 16 EFL teachers(8 novice and 8 experienced), selected through maximum variation sampling. According
to Palinkas et al. (2013), the use of maximum variation sampling enables the researchers
to capture the potential diversity among the participants. This approach facilitates theidentification of important shared patterns that cut across cases, which, as Patton (2015)
notes, achieve their significance from having emerged out of heterogeneity. Ultimately,
this allows for more effective extrapolation of the data from the sample to the broader
population.
Furthermore, informed consent was obtained from all participants a week before datacollection to observe research ethics. This cohort of teachers (12 out of 16) were predominantly female, representing 75% of the sample, and the remaining 4 teachers (25%)
were male. The age range of the teachers spanned from 19 to 42 years old. All the institute courses focused on general English and aimed to develop the learners’ four language
skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). The teachers were categorized as novice

Page 6 of 19

Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:34

Page 7 of 19(those with up to 3 years of experience) and experienced (those beyond 5 years) relying on the literature (e.g., Farrell, 2012; Gatbonton, 2008). Table 1 indicates the teachers’
demographic particularities.
The data in the table indicates that the highest proportion of the teachers in the sample constituting 50% or 8 out of 16 teachers held a Master’s degree. Besides, 31.25% or
5 teachers had a Bachelor’s degree, while 12.5% or 2 teachers were engaged in a PhD
program, and 6.25% or 1 teacher already had a PhD. The instructors’ didactic experience
spanned from 1 to 12 years, indicating a range of experience levels within the sample.
From among the teachers, the largest proportion, 81.25% or 13 teachers, had an English
Language Teaching (ELT) background. Moreover, 12.5% or 2 teachers majored in English Literature, and 6.25% or 1 teacher accomplished Translation Studies. Overall, thesample primarily consisted of female teachers in their 20s, with a notable concentrationof teachers holding a Master’s degree and specializing in ELT.
Data collection

The first stage of data collection involved garnering novice and experienced teachers’
LOA-related practices. In this regard, the teachers were asked to report their practices
through a self-reported observation questionnaire. The focus of this query was investigating whether or not the novice and experienced teachers differed in their LOArelated practices (Appendix 1). Once these practices were obtained by sending theirwritten reports to the researchers electronically, they were subsequently involved in asemi-structured interview. According to Dornyei (2007), it is appropriate to use a semistructured interview when the researcher possesses a sufficient understanding of thephenomenon or domain under investigation and is capable of formulating broader questions in advance.
In so doing, the interview questions were primarily developed by the researchers
and then three experts (PhD in TEFL) were invited to check their content relevance andTable 1 Novice and experienced teachers’ demographic information
Name

GenderAge (year)

Academic degree

Experience (year) Field of study

T1

Female19

BA

2

Literature

T2

Male

19

BA

1

Literature

T3

Female19

BA

2Translation

T4

Female

24

MA

2

ELT

T5

Female

29

MA

2

ELT

T6

Female

22

BA

2

ELT

T7

Female

23

BA

2

ELT

T8

Female

28

MA

2

ELT

T9

Female

40

MA

11

ELT

T10

Male

24

MA

6

ELT

T11

Female

24

MA

4

ELT

T12

Female

36

MA

8

ELT

T13

Female42

PhD candidate

12

ELT

T14

Female26

PhD student

6

ELT

T15

Male

29

MA

6

ELT

T16

Male

32

PhD

7

ELT

Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:34

language appropriateness. The interview aimed to obtain the teachers’ beliefs and practices pertaining to LOA (Appendix 2). The interview questions examined how the teachers
implemented LOA in their classes, how they perceived LOA and its effectiveness, the challenges that they faced in implementing LOA, and what activities and practices they used tomaintain and develop their understanding/practices of LOA in their classes. The relevance,clarity, and language accuracy of each question were examined by the experts in a week.
After obtaining the experts’ appraisal, the items were revised, and the content validity index(CVI) was measured and approved. Afterward, an online one-on-one audio-recorded semistructured interview was conducted, via WhatsApp and Skype, and the interviews lasted,
on average, 20–30 min per teacher during non-instructional time at their convenience. It
is worthy of note that the participants were reassured of their identity and responses, being
kept confidential.
Data analysis

The data were qualitatively analyzed in tune with the design of the study. Data collected
through the self-reported practices and semi-structured interviews were transcribed. To
this end, Braun and Clarke’s (2006) model was utilized to run a thematic analysis of theinterview data using MAXQDA software. First, the transcribed data from the two data sets
were read several times to help better grasp their nature. Second, the initial extracted codes
emerging from the data were written down. Third, the initial codes were refined throughconstant-comparison with the two data sources to develop the major themes. Fourth, all
the extracted codes and themes from the interviews were double-checked and fed into thesoftware. Next, coding was done drawing on the “open coding,” “axial coding,” and “selective coding” model proposed by Corbin and Strauss (1990). The data of the interview were
iteratively inspected and some open codes were produced. Then, in the axial coding stage,
the open codes were linked to produce larger codes. Finally, “selective coding” was carriedout and the extracted themes were collated into larger categories (Creswell, 2014). Furthermore, a second coder probed the credibility and confirmability of the findings that drew on
the codes.
The data from the two data sets (i.e., self-reported practices and semi-structured interviews) were analyzed using MAXQDA software (v. 2020) to develop more inclusive themes.
Having the qualitative data analysis completed, to ensure the trustworthiness of the findings, two measures of memorandum note-taking (through glossing the findings in a Wordfile) and member checking were taken. To adhere to the principle of member checking andenhance the credibility and confirmability of the interpretations, a second coder, who was a
PhD in applied linguistics, with experience in running qualitative research in L2 assessment
was invited to examine the extracted codes and themes to check the inter-coder agreement level. To this end, 20% of the data obtained from the interviews were cross-checked.
Cohen’s kappa coefficient was calculated, and the results showed an inter-coder reliabilityof 0.78. In the following, these findings are discussed and presented through figures, percentages, and interview excerpts.

Page 8 of 19

Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:34

Results and discussion
The findings of the study are divided into three sections. The first section discusses thebeliefs about LOA among novice teachers. The second section presents the beliefs about
LOA among experienced teachers. Finally, the third section focuses on the LOA-related
practices of both novice and experienced teachers.
Novice teachers’ beliefs about LOA

The results obtained by MAXQDA revealed that Iranian novice EFL teachers had different beliefs about LOA. Four codes were extracted from the interview data (Fig. 1).
These codes were the most frequent ones. The participants perceived that LOA “reflects
the integrated nature of assessment and instruction,” “is a movement toward learning,”“highlights learning process rather than product,” and “responds to students’ learningneeds” which were respectively repeated 6, 5, 4, and 3 times across the data.
For example, for the theme on the integrated nature of assessment and instruction,a teacher argued that LOA is an approach that views assessment and teaching as anintegrated whole rather than viewing them as isolated segments: “Well, to me LOA is
an approach to testing that unifies assessment and teaching” (T2). Regarding the purpose of LOA toward learning, another teacher mentioned that LOA is an approach thatemphasizes learning during assessment: “In my opinion, LOA is an assessment approachthat highlights learner-centeredness. So, it prioritizes learning during assessment” (T8).
T5 explained about the process-based nature of LOA and proclaimed: “I could say that
I believe LOA is an assessment technique that promotes the quality of students’ learning.
In other word, it focuses on process rather than product” (T5). As to being responsive tolearner needs as an influential factor, a teacher mentioned: “To me, LOA is very influential in L2 education as it reduces the pressure on learners by highlighting their learningneeds over test performance. Thus, the process of learning is emphasized in LOA” (T4).
The teachers were also asked about their beliefs about the effectiveness of LOA. The
analysis of interview responses showed that six teachers (75% of the participants) perceived LOA as an effective assessment approach in their classes. For example, T5 viewed
LOA as an approach that contributes to long-lasting learning and stated: “Well, to me
LOA can cause life-long learning and classroom engagement as it integrates learning into
assessment.” T1 also believed that LOA emphasizes the learning outcomes instead of theexam results and added: “LOA is an effective approach that improves learning. It moves

Fig. 1 Novice teachers’ perceptions of LOA

Page 9 of 19

Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:34

the emphasis from exam results to a better comprehension of the material. LOA gives
learners the opportunity to take charge of their education, encourages introspection, andadvances mentality.” T6 mentioned a similar point regarding the effectiveness of LOA
in her classes: “I see LOA as highly effective because it shifts the focus from just grades tothe learning process itself. Thus, this method allows students to understand their strengths
and weaknesses and work toward improvement.”
Moreover, the teachers were asked about the challenges that they confronted in implementing LOA. The results revealed that “time constraint,” “institutional barriers,” and“lack of experience” were the most frequent challenges in implementing LOA. For example, T8 considered time constraint and institutional barriers as permanent obstacles
in implementing LOA in her classes and mentioned that: “Time is always a constraint.
Other than that, institutional barriers, like teaching to the test, often exert a limitationon the agency of the teacher to implement creative and beneficial initiatives.” Regarding
experience, T7 argued that professional development courses that aim at reducing thischallenge can be helpful: “To me, LOA is challenging for novice teachers in that it requires
expertise and pre-service training. Therefore, preparing LOA-related professional development courses for teachers if optimal outcome is desired can be helpful.”
Experienced teachers’ beliefs about LOA

Using MAXQDA, six codes were extracted from the interview data (Fig. 2) of the experienced teachers. The codes included LOA as it “reflects the symbiotic nature of assessment, instruction, and learning,” “is a trigger of classroom interaction, collaboration, andengagement,” “is a stimulator of learners’ curiosity and motivation,” “is practicing assessment as a retrospective alternative,” “is a reflection of social change and educational
reform,” and “addresses skill-related difficulties via assessment” which were respectively
repeated 6, 5, 4, 4, 3, and 3 times across the data.

Fig. 2 Experienced teachers’ perceptions of LOA

Page 10 of 19

Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:34

The following excerpts represent the teachers’ beliefs about LOA, representing thethemes projected in Fig. 2.
I generally try to unite my teaching and assessment in a way that they are notseparate activities. Rather, I aim to design them in a symbiotic arrangement inwhich instruction helps assessment and assessment encourages further learning.
(T15)
To me, LOA is an effective approach because it facilitates classroom interaction,
collaboration, and engagement among students. (T10)
I believe in an assessment that achieves its aims, it has to include an elementthat will push the learners toward further effort and learning. Assessment should
be capable of stimulating the learners’ curiosity and increasing their motivation.
(T13)
Adopting this approach assists me in using my prior experiences of successful student learning and applying them to my current practices. This way I use my best
assessment technique, which at the same time increases learning. (T14)
In my opinion, LOA reflects social change and it is a sort of educational reformemphasizing a learning society. (T16)
In my teaching practice, I have often noticed that I can amend possible speaking
errors through immediate and direct feedback while the student is talking. And I
have come to believe that this technique works for many students. And it has theextra benefit of reflecting these instances in the student’s scores. (T12)Regarding teachers’ beliefs about the effectiveness of LOA, seven teachers (88% of theparticipants) based on the analysis of the data argued that LOA is an effective approachin their classroom practices. For example, T14 stated: “LOA alleviates many of the students’ problems while decreasing their language-learning resistance at the same time.” T11also declared: “As for areas in which rapport is concerned, LOA creates a feeling for the
students that their teacher cares, and it also reduces many negative emotions related tothe classroom, such as anxiety, lacking autonomy, and other such feelings.” Moreover, likethe novice teachers, the experienced teachers shared similar challenges in implementing
LOA. They argued that “lack of time” and “institutional barriers” are the main challenges
in implementing LOA in their classes. For example, T16 mentioned a point regarding
how time constraints can bring about challenges of LOA implementation: “One of themain obstacles I encounter while putting LOA into practice is time management. Because
developing and executing meaningful assignments and delivering timely feedback calls for
meticulous preparation and coordination.” T13 also emphasized the importance of timeand how lack of time causes challenges in implementing LOA in her classes: “To me,
the main challenge in implementing LOA is time budget. It is time-consuming to strike abalance between grading and providing2 constructive feedback that encourages positive
academic growth.” T9 shared her opinion about institutional barriers as a challenge in
implementing LOA in her classroom practices: “Language assessment approach is notvery practical when it comes to school since we don’t have the permission to apply suchkind of assessment in our classes.” T16 also maintained: “The logistics of schools are sometimes challenging because it takes time and effort to search for suitable materials that caneffectively convey the language points that I want to teach.”

Page 11 of 19

Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:34

Novice and experienced teachers’ LOA‑related practices

The analysis of the data showed that the novice and the experienced teachers reported
different LOA-related practices (Fig. 3). Novice teachers reported that to implement
LOA in their classroom practices, they utilized “self-assessment,” “peer assessment,” and“collaborative group projects” which were respectively repeated 5, 4, and 3 times acrossthe data. For example, T3 stated that she uses self-assessment to promote LOA in herclasses: “I incorporate a variety of LOA practices in my classes to enhance the learning
experience for students. For example, I use regular self-assessment quizzes, which makethem reflect on their understanding of the material.” T6 also posited: “I utilize peer
reviews and collaborative group projects to encourage students to engage in self-evaluation and reflection.” Moreover, the teachers held that they used “reading books,” “attending webinars, seminars, and workshops,” and “attending professional development
courses” to maintain and develop their understanding/practice of LOA in their classes.
For example, T2 shared a point regarding how he develops his understanding of LOA:
“I think that I should read books and articles related to language assessment. They canbroaden my understanding of the current issues related to this concept.” T8 also mentioned that: “I attend workshops and read-up on the literature available on the subject inbetween terms and sometimes, if time allows, during them as well.” Finally, T7 held that:“I pursue ongoing professional learning to preserve and expand my grasp of and application of LOA.”
However, the experienced teachers held that they utilized “formative assessment practices,” “dynamic assessment,” “portfolio assessment,” and “performance-based tests/
tasks” to practice LOA in their classes which were respectively repeated 5, 4, 4, and 3
times across the data. For example, T11 stated that: “Well, I use formative assessment
practices, dynamic assessment, and process-oriented tasks to measure learners’ language performance.” T16 also mentioned that he prefers to use portfolio assessment andperformance-based tasks to practice LOA in his classes: “I use alternative assessment
techniques such as portfolio assessment and performance-based tests to measure each
student’s learning. Since LOA is an individualized and ongoing approach it integrates
assessment and learning.” Furthermore, like the novice teachers, the experienced teachers shared similar activities to maintain and develop their understanding/practice of
LOA in their classroom practices. For example, T13 held that: “Personally, I read books
and handbooks related to LOA and L2 assessment. Moreover, attending training courses,

Fig. 3 Novice and experienced teachers’ LOA-related practices

Page 12 of 19

Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:34

workshops, and seminars is beneficial.” T12 also added that an effective way to exchange
ideas related to LOA is attending webinars, conferences, and seminars: “I always participate in webinars, conferences, and seminars related to pedagogy and assessment. In order
to exchange ideas and experiences, I also work in collaboration with other colleagues.”
In sum, the results of this research question indicated that the novice and experienced teachers had different beliefs about LOA. The novice teachers claimed that LOA“reflects the integrated nature of assessment and instruction,” “is a movement towardlearning,” “highlights learning process rather than product,” and “responds to students’learning needs.” While experienced teachers considered that LOA “reflects the symbiotic
nature of assessment, instruction, and learning,” “is a trigger of classroom interaction,
collaboration, and engagement,” “is a stimulator of learners’ curiosity and motivation,” “ispracticing assessment as a retrospective alternative,” “is a reflection of social change andeducational reform,” and “addresses skill-related difficulties via assessment.” Moreover,
the analysis of the data demonstrated that the novice and experienced teachers reported
different LOA-related practices. Novice teachers reported that they utilized “self-assessment,” “peer assessment,” and “collaborative group projects” to implement LOA in theirclassroom practices while the experienced teachers held that they utilized “formative
assessment practices,” “dynamic assessment,” “portfolio assessment,” and “performancebased tests/tasks” to practice LOA in their classes.

Discussion
This study explored the beliefs and practices of novice and experienced EFL teacherswith regard to LOA. The findings of the study revealed both similarities and discrepancies in the belief and practices of the two groups of teachers. Concerning the novice
teachers, their LOA beliefs revolved around four overarching themes, while the experienced teachers pointed to six main themes that characterized their LOA beliefs. The
differential impact of teacher experience can be markedly identified in the dataset of
the two groups. Corroborating the observations made by Li (2020), while the novice
teachers’ cognitive processes were predominated with less sophisticated instructional
concerns, the experienced teachers demonstrated a more comprehensive perspective of what shapes genuine and ongoing student learning. These findings also resonate
with Tsui (2009a, 2009b) who contended that experienced teachers normally possessa broader knowledge base in relation to collecting data on student learning and making accurate assessments. In addition, the experienced teachers’ data vividly reflect
their critical evaluation of product-oriented and psychometric approaches to classroom
assessment and, instead, indicates how these teachers favor linking the teaching–learning-assessment cycle to broader sociocultural issues and socio-educational exigencies of
the context of their instruction (Jones & Saville, 2016; Shohamy, 2013). By stating that
LOA both reflects and contributes to the broader social and educational transformations
taking place, they have demonstrated their deep understanding of the theoretical ramifications of adopting an LOA approach, which replaces an exam culture in educational
milieu with a learning culture (Carless, 2007; Gebril, 2021; Hamp-Lyons, 2007; Turner &Purpura, 2016).
These differences are significant in that they highlight a novel dimension of language
teachers’ LOA-related beliefs, which has not received due analysis in the previous

Page 13 of 19

Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:34

literature. In light of the point that the LOA movement was originally a product of thegrowing dissatisfaction with the dominant psychometric paradigms of measuring students’ achievement (and, by extension, themselves and their future prospects) to determine their academic fate (Farhady, 2021; Turner & Purpura, 2016), the experienced
teachers in our study aptly drew attention to the rather destructive outcomes of thatparadigm on the broader scale of the society, which is shaped by the individual students.
By favoring formation and construction against labeling and deconstruction, the teachers have attempted to align their conceptualization of LOA with larger sociocultural andcontextual considerations in the formation of a learning society (Levi & Inbar-Lourie,
2020; Zeng et al., 2018). That is, they have verbalized their belief that the implementation of LOA is a promising approach, which not only integrates learning and assessment
aiming to capitalize on the former, but also eventually engenders an environment to educate individuals, who will be able to contribute to social change and improvement. It is
probable that this conceptualization might have emanated from following the longitudinal journey of the development of many students that the experienced teachers havetaught during their career.
In terms of similarities, both groups of teachers were cognizant of the principal foundations of LOA. Both groups acknowledged that LOA represents a movement toward
prioritizing learning and that it seeks to establish a synergy between assessment,
instruction, and learning (Carless, 2015; Chong & Reinders, 2023). This finding might
be due to the distinctive characteristics of LOA that the teachers have acquired throughtheir graduate and undergraduate training in formative assessment approaches, such as
dynamic assessment and assessment for learning (Popham, 2011; Sun & Zhang, 2022;
Xu & Brown, 2016). Despite the slight differences between these formative assessment
techniques, the teachers’ assessment literacy seems to have enabled them to identify
the fundamental principles of a learning-oriented approach to assessment and this ability is common among the teachers regardless of their experience level. Similar findings
have also been reported by Banitalebi and Ghiasvand (2022) and Jalilzadeh and Coombe(2023).
Pertaining to one of the three main principles of LOA (i.e., feedback as feedforward;
Carless, 2007), both groups of the teachers have demonstrated their well-establishedbeliefs about the effective feedback loop inside an LOA approach to classroom practice.
By stating that “LOA highlights learning process rather than product” (novice teachers)
and “LOA is practicing assessment as a retrospective alternative” (experienced teachers),
they have pointed out the primacy of feedback in guiding the learning process according
to an LOA orientation (Estaji & Safari, 2023; Jones & Saville, 2016). Within this mindset,
assessment does not mark the end of the instructional cycle, but rather starts anotherloop of scaffolding student learning through the data gathered from the current performance. Reflected in their “feedforward” term, Carless (2007), Hamp-Lyons (2017), andother scholars have illustrated how the feedback from the teacher (as well as from othersources) can serve as a flashlight with which to diagnose potential learning pitfalls, aswell as a crutch with which to walk the student through his/her attempts to amend thoseinstances of failure. As such, the teachers have highlighted the fact that feedback acts asa cornerstone of pedagogy in the implementation of LOA (Derakhshan & Ghiasvand,2022; Jalilzadeh & Coombe, 2023; Zhao & Qi, 2023).

Page 14 of 19

Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:34

With regard to the teachers’ practices of LOA, the findings point to the distributedand collective approach to assessment by the teachers. The data of novice teachers indicates that they used multiple sources of information in their evaluation of student learning (e.g., self-assessment, peer-assessment). These alternative assessment techniques areamong the most frequently adopted tasks teachers employ in line with an LOA framework (Derakhshan & Ghisvand, 2022; Gebril, 2021; Zeng et al., 2018). Concerning thefindings gleaned from the analysis of the experienced teachers’ data, it was observed that
this latter group embedded their practice of LOA within a more comprehensive and fully
fledged understanding of its implementation. That is, by referencing “formative assessment” and “dynamic assessment” among their designated tasks to embody LOA in theclassroom, they have demonstrated that LOA is not just another method of assessing
student learning to be employed once in a while, but rather a holistic and integrated
approach on which to base classroom instruction (Jones & Saville, 2016; Turner & Purpura, 2016). Considering the focus of formative and dynamic assessment, which is tomobilize all the resources (especially assessment) to serve student development, theteachers have documented their important role as mediators in this process.
Collectively, the research findings document the positive appraisal and effective implementation of LOA by both groups of teachers, despite the variance which could be
attributed to their experience level. Significantly, both groups of the teachers had noted
the stumbling blocks in the way of their practice of LOA (Derakhshan & Ghiasvand,2022; Jalilzadeh & Coombe, 2023; Zhao & Qi, 2023). At the same time, the teachers havealso enumerated some of their coping strategies (e.g., attending seminars, reading books,
among others). As Farhady (2021) states, teachers are the foundation upon which all
educational systems are built. The agency among our participants, which seemed to possess a higher status with experienced teachers, can be observed to contribute to LOA,
especially in the face of potential challenges (e.g., institutional barriers).

Conclusion and implications
This study looked into novice and experienced Iranian EFL teachers’ LOA-related
beliefs and practices. The findings revealed both similarities and differences between
the two groups. Regardless of the discrepancy that could be ascribed to their experiencelevel, both groups (1) indicated positive appraisal and effective enactment of LOA, (2)remarked the hindrances to their practice of LOA, and (3) enumerated some of theircoping practices. In view of the findings, it can be concluded that teaching experienceplays a significant role in shaping EFL teachers’ LOA beliefs and practices. Another conclusion is that while LOA has recently begun gaining attention in EFL contexts, teachers
can still enact it effectively when they are trained to do so. Theoretically, these findings
add new insights to the literature on teachers’ beliefs and practices of LOA as an alternative assessment technique. To date, the studies have mainly focused on assessment
literacy and practices in general rather than having a specialized analysis of alternative
assessment approaches. Therefore, the findings can unveil the mechanism of LOA and
how it relates to teachers’ professional practice and knowledge base. Additionally, thisstudy contributes to the literature by pointing up the prominent role of teaching experience in shaping teachers’ assessment beliefs and practices.

Page 15 of 19

Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:34

The study offers implications to EFL teachers and teacher educators. Regarding teachers, they can benefit from the findings by enhancing their understanding of LOA practices that contribute to their professionalism in assessment. Moreover, they can figureout the benefits and challenges of implementing LOA in their classes and the strategies
to cope with those challenges. Teacher educators can also benefit from the findings ofthis study by developing LOA-specific training courses and workshops to raise earlycareer teachers’ awareness of how to structure their assessment practices and contributeto a better implementation of LOA. Such teacher development courses would have several beneficial outcomes for teachers by making them cognizant of how to consider thedifferent aspects and components of LOA in their professional career.
This study had limitations that could be compensated for in future studies. To investigate whether novice and experienced teachers concurred/differed in their LOA practices, the teachers were only asked to report their practices. Classroom observations
could have helped to grasp a more comprehensive understanding of how teachers practice LOA. This can be a plausible line of inquiry for future scholars. Moreover, this study
was conducted with only 16 novice and experienced teachers, which limited the generalizability of the findings. Therefore, it is more likely that better results can be pursued
through conducting future research with a greater number of teachers. Additionally, further research is called for to examine the other stakeholders’ LOA-related beliefs andpractices and expand the conceptualizations of LOA in L2 education.
A triangulated approach to collect and analyze the data over a longer period of investigation is also suggested to future avid researchers of the field. Likewise, further research
can delve deeper into the factors that influence the implementation of LOA practices in
EFL classrooms. Investigating the specific professional development requirements andsupport systems that can help novice and experienced EFL teachers better understandand implement LOA practices in their classrooms would also be a potential area for
future research. Finally, the other avenue for further research is examining how teachers’ sense of self-efficacy and their perceived agency in the assessment process influence
their willingness and ability to incorporate LOA approaches in their teaching. Future
research can also explore the impact of cultural contexts on the implementation of LOApractices. Specifically, teachers’ and students’ perceptions of assessment may be influenced by their cultural values, beliefs, and educational norms. Such a study can involve
comparative studies across different cultural settings, investigating how these contextual factors shape the understanding and application of LOA. The outcomes can reveal
unique challenges and opportunities that arise from cultural differences, ultimately
informing more culturally responsive assessment practices in EFL classrooms.

Appendix 1
Self‑reported LOA practices

Dear teacher, please write a report on your leaning-oriented assessment (LOA)-related
practices considering the following questions.
1. Have you implemented LOA in your classes?

Page 16 of 19

Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:34

2. How do you describe the LOA-related practices that you have implemented in yourEFL classes?
3. Can you provide more specific examples or descriptions to illustrate your LOArelated practices?
4. What activities and practices do you use to maintain and develop your understanding and practices of LOA in your classes?

Appendix 2
Semi‑structured interview

As an EFL teacher, please respond to the following questions on your beliefs and perceptions about the role of leaning-oriented assessment (LOA) in your EFL classes.
1. How familiar are you with the concept of learning-oriented assessment (LOA)?
2. How do you perceive the key principles or characteristics of LOA?
3. In your opinion, how effective is the implementation of LOA?
4. What are the challenges that you have confronted in implementing LOA

Abbreviations
AaL	Assessment as learning
AfL	Assessment for learning
AoL	Assessment of learning
CVI	Content validity index
EFL	English as a foreign language
ELT	English Language Teaching
L2	Second language
LOA	Learning-oriented assessment
MAXQDA	MAX Qualitative Data Analysis
TEFL	Teaching English as a foreign language
Acknowledgements
The authors highly appreciate the insightful comments suggested by the editor and anonymous reviewers.
Authors’ contributions
The study was conceptualized, conducted, written, edited, and approved for publication by the authors involved in thisstudy.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the author on reasonable request.

Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national
research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all the individual participants included in this study.
Consent for publication
The authors consent to the publication of the manuscript upon its acceptance.
Competing interests
None.
Received: 19 June 2024 Accepted: 9 August 2024

Page 17 of 19

Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:34

References
Ali, H. I. H. (2013). In search for implementing learning-oriented assessment in an EFL setting. World Journal of English
Language,3(4), 11–31. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5430/​wjel.​v3n4p​11
Banitalebi, Z., & Ghiasvand, F. (2023). The representation of learning-oriented assessment (LOA) practice in EFL contexts: A
case study of teacher questioning strategies. Language-Related Research,14(3), 69–95. https://​doi.​org/​10.​29252/​LRR.​
14.3
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3(2), 77–101. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1191/​14780​88706​qp063​oa
Burkhauser, M. A., & Lesaux, N. K. (2017). Exercising a bounded autonomy: Novice and experienced teachers’ adaptations
to curriculum materials in an age of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies,49(3), 291–312. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​00220​272.​2015.​10880​65
Carless, D. (2007). Learning-oriented assessment: Conceptual bases and practical implications. Innovations in Education
and Teaching International,44(1), 57–66. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14703​29060​10813​32
Carless, D. (2015). Exploring learning-oriented assessment processes. Higher Education,69(6), 963–976. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s10734-​014-​9816-z
Chong, S. W., & Reinders, H. (2023). Innovation in learning-oriented language assessment. Springer Nature.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology,13(1), 3–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1515/​zfsoz-​1990-​0602
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Derakhshan, A., & Ghiasvand, F. (2022). Demystifying Iranian EFL teachers’ perceptions and practices of learning-oriented
assessment (LOA): Challenges and prospects in focus. Language Testing in Asia,12(55), 1–18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​
s40468-​022-​00204-2
Derakhshan, A., Molana, Kh., & Nazari, M. (2024). “I wonder who I am when my assessment ideas are not respected”: A
case-study inquiry into the role of institutional policies in English language teachers’ assessment identity. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02188​791.​2024.​23282​37.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.
Estaji, M. (2024a). Perceived need for a teacher education course on assessment literacy development: Insights from EAP
instructors. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 9(50), 1–27. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​
s40862-​024-​00272-2
Estaji, M. (2024b). Unveiling the impact of language assessment teacher education on EFL teachers’ assessment agency
and professional development trajectory: Perceptions, opportunities, and challenges. Language Testing in Asia,
14(20), 1–28. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40468-​024-​00292-2
Estaji, M., & Ghiasvand, F. (2023). Tracing the dynamics of teacher assessment identity (TAI) through web-based audio
diaries. The Qualitative Report, 28(9), 2681–2715. https://​doi.​org/​10.​46743/​2160-​3715/​2023.​5903
Estaji, M., & Ghiasvand, F. (2024). Expanding novice and experienced Iranian EFL teachers’ assessment identity landscape:
Does online explicit instruction make a difference? International Journal of Language Testing, 14(1), 131–149. https://​doi.​org/​10.​22034/​ijlt.​2023.​413583.​1279
Estaji, M., & Safari, F. (2023). Learning-oriented assessment and its effects on the perceptions and argumentative writing
performance of impulsive vs. reflective learners. Language Testing in Asia, 13(31), 1–18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​
s40468-​023-​00248-yFarhady, H. (2021). Learning-oriented assessment in virtual classroom contexts. Journal of Language and Communication,8(2), 121–132.
Farrell, T. S. (2012). Novice-service language teacher development: Bridging the gap between preservice and in-service
education and development. TESOL Quarterly,46(3), 435–449. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​tesq.​36
Gao, Y. (2017). An empirical study on learning-oriented assessment. Advances in Educational Technology and Psychology,1(2), 33–43. https://​doi.​org/​10.​23977/​aetp.​2017.​12002
Gatbonton, E. (2008). Looking beyond teachers’ classroom behaviour: Novice and experienced ESL teachers’ pedagogicalknowledge. Language Teaching Research,12(2), 161–182. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​13621​68807​086286
Gebril, A. (2021). Learning-oriented assessment: Main issues and an overview. In A. Gebril (Ed.), Learning-oriented language assessment: Putting theory into practice (pp. 1–11). Routledge.
Goldouz, E., & Baleghizadeh, S. (2021). Exploring tensions between novice and experienced EFL teachers’ written corrective feedback beliefs and practices. Language Related Research,12(3), 347–376. https://​doi.​org/​10.​29252/​LRR.​12.3.​12
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2007). The impact of testing practices on teaching. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 487–504). Springer.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2017). Language assessment literacy for language learning oriented assessment. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment,6(1), 88–110. https://​doi.​org/​10.​58379/​lixl1​198
Huong, P. H., & L. (2023). A sociocultural analysis of novice EFL teachers’ professional development activities. Language
Related Research,14(3), 97–121. https://​doi.​org/​10.​29252/​LRR.​14.3.4
Inbar-Lourie, O. (2013). Guest editorial to the special issue on language assessment literacy. Language Testing,30(3),301–307. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02655​32213​480126
Inbar-Lourie, O. (2017). Language assessment literacy. In E. Shohamy & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Language testing and assessment encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 257–270). Springer International Publishing.
Jalilzadeh, K., & Coombe, C. (2023). Constraints in employing learning-oriented assessment in EFL classrooms: Teachers’
perceptions. Language Testing in Asia,13(1), 7–19. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40468-​023-​00222-8
Jones, N., & Saville, N. (2016). Learning oriented assessment: A systemic approach. Cambridge University Press.
Karimi, M. N., & Norouzi, M. (2019). Cognitive aging in teachers: L2 teachers’ cognitive performance across various stages
in their teaching career. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching,13(4), 371–388. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17501​
229.​2018.​14668​93

Page 18 of 19

Estaji and Kogani ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:34

Keppell, M., Au, E., Ma, A., & Chan, C. (2006). Peer learning and learning-oriented assessment in technology-enhanced
environments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,31(4), 453–464. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02602​93060​
06791​59
Khatib, M., & Saeedian, A. (2021). Identifying and informing novice Iranian English language teachers’ classroom decision
making and pedagogical reasoning regarding managerial mode. Language Related Research, 12(3), 121–149. https://​doi.​org/​10.​29252/​LRR.​12.3.5
Koni, I., & Krull, E. (2018). Differences in novice and experienced teachers’ perceptions of planning activities in terms ofprimary instructional tasks. Teacher Development,22(4), 464–480. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13664​530.​2018.​14428​76
Lester, S. (1999). An introduction to phenomenological research. Stan Lester Developments.
Levi, T., & Inbar-Lourie, O. (2020). Assessment literacy or language assessment literacy: Learning from the teachers. Language Assessment Quarterly,17(2), 168–182. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15434​303.​2019.​16923​47
Li, L. (2020). Teacher cognition and teacher expertise. In S. Walsh & S. Mann (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English
language teacher education (pp. 335–348). Routledge.
McNamara, T. (2012). Language assessments as shibboleths: A poststructuralist perspective. Applied Linguistics,33(5),564–581. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​applin/​ams052
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2013). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental
Health and Mental Health Services Research,42(5), 533–544. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10488-​013-​0528-y
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage.
Phakiti, A., & Leung, C. (2024). Assessment for language teaching (elements in language teaching). Cambridge University
Press.
Popham, W. J. (2004). Why assessment illiteracy is professional suicide. Educational Leadership,62(1), 82–83.
Popham, W. J. (2011). Assessment literacy overlooked: A teacher educator’s confession. The Teacher Educator,46(4),265–273. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​08878​730.​2011.​605048
Purpura, J. E. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. Routledge.
Richardson, J. T. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research. Review of Educational Research,69(1),53–82. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​11706​44
Salamoura, A., & Morgan, S. (2021). Learning-oriented assessment from a teacher’s perspective: Insights from teachers’
action research. In Learning-Oriented Language Assessment (pp. 182–206). Routledge.
Scarino, A. (2013). Language assessment literacy as self-awareness: Understanding the role of interpretation in assessment and in teacher learning. Language Testing,30(3), 309–327. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02655​32213​480128
Schellekens, L. H., Bok, H. G., de Jong, L. H., van der Schaaf, M. F., Kremer, W. D., & van der Vleuten, C. P. (2021). A scoping
review on the notions of assessment as learning (AaL), assessment for learning (AfL), and assessment of learning(AoL). Studies in Educational Evaluation,71, 101094. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​stued​uc.​2021.​101094
Shohamy, E. (2013). The discourse of language testing as a tool for shaping national, global, and transnational identities.
Language and Intercultural Communication,13(2), 225–236. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14708​477.​2013.​770868
Sun, H., & Zhang, J. (2022). Assessment literacy of college EFL teachers in China: Status quo and mediating factors. Studies
in Educational Evaluation,74(10), 101157. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​stued​uc.​2022.​101157
Tsagari, D., & Vogt, K. (2017). Assessment literacy of foreign language teachers around Europe: Research, challenges andfuture prospects. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment,6(1), 41–63. https://​doi.​org/​10.​58379/​uhix9​883
Tsui, A. A. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2009a). Teaching expertise: Approaches, perspectives, and characterizations. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards(Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 190–197). Cambridge University Press.
Tsui, A. B. (2009b). Distinctive qualities of expert teachers. Teachers and Teaching,15(4), 421–439. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
13540​60090​30571​79
Turner, C. E., & Purpura, J. E. (2016). Learning-oriented assessment in second and foreign language classrooms. In D.
Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 255–272). de Gruyter.
Wang, Y., Derakhshan, A., Pan, Z., & Ghiasvand, F. (2023). Chinese EFL teachers’ writing assessment feedback literacy: A
scale development and validation study. Assessing Writing,56(May), 100726. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​asw.​2023.​
100726
Wolff, C. E., Jarodzka, H., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2017). See and tell: Differences between expert and novice teachers’ interpretations of problematic classroom management events. Teaching and Teacher Education,66, 295–308. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​tate.​2017.​04.​015
Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education,58, 149–162. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​tate.​2016.​05.​010
Zeng, W., Huang, F., Yu, L., & Chen, S. (2018). Towards a learning-oriented assessment to improve students’ learning - A
critical review of literature. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability,30(3), 211–250. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s11092-​018-​9281-9
Zhao, C. G., & Qi, Q. (2023). Implementing learning-oriented assessment (LOA) among limited-proficiency EFL students:
Challenges, strategies, and students’ reactions. TESOL Quarterly,57(2), 566–594. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​tesq.​3167

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Page 19 of 19