Two of the most significant current models of LAL are Teacher Assessment

Literacy in Practice framework (TALiP) (Xu & Brown, 2016) and LAL–TEP (Larenas
& Brunfaut, 2023). The focus of these two studies has been LAL in general contexts,
whereas an association between these two models and classroom-based assessment
(CBA) has received less research attention. This paper aims to (1) compare and
contrast these 2 models in terms of CBA, (2) present the strengths of weaknesses of
them with the connection to CBA, and (3) indicate that TALiP model developed by
Xu & Brown (2016) is more relevant to assessment in classroom setting.

1. Overview of classroom-based assessment

Drawing on an extensive range of sources, I would set out the key features of
CAB. First, CBA is a process that involve both teachers and students (Lan & Fan,
2019), and teachers play a central role in this process (Inbar-Lourie, 2016). In his
study, Inbar-Lourie (2016) studies revealed that different stakeholders are associated
with assessment activities; however, studies tend to consider teachers as the main
stakeholder. Second formative assessment, assessment for learning, is the main focus
of CBA. Shepard (2019) noted that classroom assessment precisely measures learning
process instead of learning outcomes. Third, there is a link between CBA and the
constructive alignment between assessment and teaching. A qualitative research
conducted by Genon & Torres (2020) found reflection of constructive alignment on
the quality of teaching and assessing. They claimed that in classroom setting, teaching
and learning and assessment have an interrelationship.

2. Comparison of TALiP and LAL-TEP.

Both of the two models presented in this paper share a number of similarities as
well as differences in the perspectives of components and the interrelationships
between them. On the one hand, there are several correlations between TALiP and
LAL-TEP. To begin with, five components in LAL-TEP including: knowledge,
conceptions, context, learning, and practices are mentioned in TALiP. Larenas &
Brunfaut (2023) claimed that in spite of the overlap between two studies, their
research might play a role as an empirical synthesis to conceptualize the components
of LAL. In addition, the interconnections of LAL’s components are illustrated in these
two models. Xu & Brown (2016) described in their study that TALiP model is
“cyclical in nature”; in other words, changes in one component may lead to changes in
other components. Similarly, Larenas & Brunfaut (2023)’s LAP-TEP model
establishes the influence of components on each other.

On the other hand, areas where significant differences have been found include
TALiP and LAL-TEP. Probably, one of the key variations is the type of study that two
models developed from. While TALiP by Xu & Brown (2016) is a framework based
on theories, LAL-TEP by Larenas & Brunfaut (2023) is derived from an empirical
research in Chile. After synthesising and analysing 100 research on assessment
literacy, Xu & Brown (2016) created TALiP framework. In contrast, LAL-TEP model
was proven by a research in which Larenas & Brunfaut (2023) interviewed Chilean
EFL teachers and analyse their assessment materials.

Furthermore, TALiP describes assessor identity reconstruction as the component

that is on top of the pyramid whereas LAL-TEP considers this factor as a by-product,
not a component. Xu & Brown (2016) argued that under the influence of the dynamic
and interactive nature and the focus on formative assessment of classroom-based
assessment, teacher identity as the final goal of teacher’s LAL. However, Larenas &
Brunfaut (2023) standing from teacher educators’ perspective believed that teacher
identity reconstruction should be a product, not a part constituting to their LAL.

Another variation between these two models is the way they show the
interrelationships of components. Illustrated visually in a pyramid with multi-
directional arrows, TALiP framework can show the influence and the reflection of
components on each other, as well as the cyclicality of itself. In contrast, Larenas &
Brunfaut (2023) insisted that in TALiP pyramid, only one layer which is the
relationship between 2 components is indicated; as a result, they used the oval shape
to present “the wide-ranging effects” (p.484) of components on each other.

3. Strengths and weaknesses of TALiP and LAL-TEP.

 There are several plus points and minus points of these models regarding their
relevance to CBA. It is conspicuous that the TALiP and LAL-TEP framework outline
key components including knowledge, conceptions, learning, practice, and context,
which contribute to the assessment approaches and practices in classroom settings.
This was confirmed by the study analyzing on the assessment material of 16 teachers
conducted by Levi & Inbar-Lourie (2020). The research found that effective
classroom-based assessment literacy relies on the collaboration of teachers’
knowledge and skills and their contextual experience. Teachers transformed and
applied their general understanding of knowledge and conceptions in balance with
their expertise of contextual factors to practice assessment in classroom. Therefore,
teachers could use these two frameworks to adapt to their development of CBA, and
teacher’s educators could create CBA training courses based on these models.
Although these two models bring some advantages, they do suffer from a
number of drawbacks. One of the key weaknesses is that two LAL models described
here are only focus on teacher, while classroom-based assessment is interactive in
nature (Xu & Brown, 2016), which means that the involvement of students is also
essential for CBA. There are numerous empirical studies identified both teachers and
learners as the variables of the classroom context (Hill and McNamara, 2012; Lan &
Fan, 2019; Chong, 2023). Baker & Riches (2018) believed that in terms of
transparency and autonomy, students should learn how they are assessed.
Another shortcoming of these models is that they illustrate the general
definitions and some examples of the components; nevertheless, none of them are
operationalized with descriptions of what a teacher does to be considered classroom-
based assessment literate. Admittedly, the lacking of specificity could be positive for
those who have enough understandings and practices of CAB to select and adapt the
models appropriately to their contexts. However, I would argue that there might be
teachers who are inexperienced in CBA, and they might find it difficult to
operationalize these LAL models for their classroom contexts.
Finally, regarding their research method, these two models are questionable for
their generalizability. Based on the analysis of 100 studies on LAL, TALiP was not
supported by empirical studies. Similarly, a qualitative research of 20 Chilean
teacher’s educators might not support the adaptability of LAL-TEP model for
language teachers in other contexts.
4. The relevance of TALiP to classroom-based assessment
In my opinion, TALiP model by Xu & Brown (2016) is more relevant to CBA
than LAL-TEP model by Larenas & Brunfaut (2023) because I believe that teacher
identity construction which is a component included in the former is a crucial factor of
CBA. In the following part, I will illustrate how components of TALiP relate to
CBA’s features described in part 1, and highlight the significance of teacher’s identity
to prove that TALiP framework is more suitable than LAL-TEP framework in the
aspect of CBA.
First of all, teachers’ knowledge and conceptions are related to CBA (Hill and
McNamara, 2012) because they transformed and applied their understandings of
assessment to plan, design and construct assessment instruments in their classroom
(Levi & Inbar-Lourie, 2020). In his reflective framework of CBA, Hill (2017)
described the first question that teacher should consider is “what do you do”. Teachers
should know about the purposes of assessment when planning and framing, the
assessment ethics when conducting, and assessment interpretation and
communication, grading and giving feedback when using assessment. These elements
are corresponding to the knowledge base described in TALiP. Hill (2017)’s
framework also mentioned the question of “ what beliefs or understandings do you
use?”, confirming the importance of conceptions in CBA.
Second, many studies argued that CBA is affected by the contextual factors that
described in TALiP. Xu & Brown (2016)’s description that LAL of teacher is
influenced by micro-and macro- variables such as policies, norms, rules, regulations,
and conventions is similar with the findings of Levi & Inbar-Lourie (2020) that CBA
affected by teacher’s contextual experience such as the local environment and national
curriculum and testing systems. In addition, Sheehan (2020) also claimed that
contextual elements have effects on CBA practices.
Third, teachers’ learning in two ways: reflection and participation in community
(Xu & Brown) could be positively influential to their CBA. This engagement may
result in the subsequent changes of their approaches to improve their assessment for
the learning (AFL) of students which is the key feature of CBA.
Fourth, practices of CBA also consider the balance between teacher’s beliefs and
the influence of contextual factors (Xu & Brown, 2016). After analysing the teacher
assessment materials, Levi & Inbar-Lourie (2020) found that the decisions of CBA
practice are based on the alignment between teachers’ knowledge and conceptions and
their familiarity with the local environment, echoing the finding of Yan et al., (2020)
Finally, it is crucial to involve the teacher’s identity construction in the
development of CBA due to a number of reasons. My justification is that CBA
involve the constructive alignment between teaching programs and assessment Genon
& Torres (2020). As CBA is dynamic in nature (Xu & Brown, 2016), teaching
methodologies and curriculum could be changed to be suitable for student’s learning
progress. As a result, identity construction could act as an effective factor stimulating
teacher’s thinking and sharpening their professional judgements. (Xu & Brown,
2016). It is undeniable that LAL- TEP model does not mention assessor’s identity as a
component in LAL. However, I would argue that Larenas & Brunfaut (2023) focused
on language teacher’s educator, not language teachers. This is also the main reason
that TALiP could be more relevant to CBA than LAL-TEP.
In conclusion, although there are some similarities and differences, strengths and
weaknesses of TALiP and LAL-TEP models, I believe that TALiP framework are
more related to CBA.
 Reference
Baker, B. A., & Riches, C. (2018). The development of EFL examinations in
Haiti: Collaboration and language assessment literacy development. Language
Testing, 35(4), 557-581.
Chong, S. W., & Isaacs, T. (2023). An Ecological Perspective on Classroom‐
Based Assessment. TESOL Quarterly.
Genon, L. J. D., & Torres, C. B. P. (2020). Constructive Alignment of
Assessment Practices in English Language Classrooms. English Language Teaching
Educational Journal, 3(3), 211-228.
Hill, K. (2017). Understanding classroom-based assessment practices: A
precondition for teacher assessment literacy. Papers in Language Testing and
Assessment, 6(1), 1-17.
Hill, K., & McNamara, T. (2012). Developing a comprehensive, empirically
based research framework for classroom-based assessment. Language testing, 29(3),
395-420.
Inbar-Lourie, O., et al. (2016). Language assessment literacy. In E. Shohamy
(Ed.). Language testing and assessment. N. Hornberger (General Ed.), Encyclopedia
of language and education (pp. 230–243). (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Lan, C., & Fan, S. (2019). Developing classroom-based language assessment
literacy for in-service EFL teachers: The gaps. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 61,
112-122.
Levi, T., & Inbar-Lourie, O. (2020). Assessment literacy or language assessment
literacy: Learning from the teachers. Language Assessment Quarterly, 17(2), 168-182.
Shepard, L. A. (2019). Classroom assessment to support teaching and learning.
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 683(1), 183-
200.
Susan, S. (2020). What teachers think about assessment and how it influences
their classroom-based assessment practices–the results of a global survey. VNU
Journal of Foreign Studies, 36(4).
 Villa Larenas, S., & Brunfaut, T. (2023). But who trains the language teacher
educator who trains the language teacher? An empirical investigation of Chilean EFL
teacher educators’ language assessment literacy. Language Testing, 40(3), 463-492.
Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A
reconceptualization. Teaching and teacher education, 58, 149-162.
Yan, Q., Zhang, L. J., & Dixon, H. R. (2022). Exploring classroom-based
assessment for young EFL learners in the Chinese context: teachers’ beliefs and
practices. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1051728.