Exploring Secondary School EFL Teachers’ Assessment Literacy in Practice: A Case Study in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessment literacy (AL) has emerged as an important research field during the past decade, yet it remains a great challenge for secondary school EFL teachers in China to appropriately enact their assessment literacy. Due attention needs to be paid to research upon teachers’ conceptions of assessment (CoA) and assessment practice. Based upon a semester’s observation of the English classes in a secondary school in China, weekly meetings on English teaching and research, a focus group interview, individual interviews, documents such as the participants’ lesson plans and reflective journals, this qualitative study aims at exploring: (1) what are the conceptions of assessment of the participating secondary EFL teachers? (2) what is the teachers’ assessment literacy in practice (TALiP)? (3) How could their assessment literacy be enhanced?  Self-reported findings show that the EFL teachers have a wide scope of conceptions of assessment and individual variations in their assessment practices. The former range from knowledge of assessment purposes and criteria to regarding assessment as learning (AaL), and the latter from giving instant feedback of nodding or simple comments to practicing assessment for learning (AfL) in classroom teaching. Findings from observation also reveal that when tempting AaL, the participants could generally achieve AfL to some extent. Implications for further teacher professional development are discussed concerning how to enhance assessment literacy mentoring in internship and in-service training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".