Enhancing Assessment Literacy for Teachers of Less Commonly Taught Languages: Insights from Greek as a Second Language

Abstract

In the field of language assessment, emphasis is usually placed on widely spoken languages. However, amidst this focus, a multitude of less commonly taught languages (LCTLs) remain in obscurity, their potential overlooked and their learners underserved. This paper reports a study that illuminates the importance of training teachers of an LCTL in enhancing their assessment literacy levels. Τhe study involved 89 teachers of Greek as a second language (L2) who attended an online training course based on a major LAL teacher resource produced by a European-funded project. Through a mixed method design (pre-/post-surveys and teachers’ end of term assignments), we advocate for the empowerment of LCTL teachers through the transformative impact of assessment literacy on language education. The paper offers research and pedagogical recommendations in enhancing teachers’ language assessment literacy in LCTL contexts.

1. Introduction

Assessment is a process that contributes to the quality of education [1] and can be conducted for various reasons, e.g., diagnostic, placement, achievement as well as for academic and social purposes. Assessment can yield important information that helps monitor students’ outcomes and shed light on important cognitive processes [2]. Furthermore, assessment results can have a significant impact on the lives of test-takers, e.g., in cases such as naturalization or university entrance exams. However, concern has been raised by stakeholders (e.g., teachers, parents and school principals among others) regarding students’ well-being [3] as students have frequently reported heightened levels of stress, fear, anxiety, competition and even punishment related to assessment practices and results [4].

Moreover, findings from the field of assessment research, educational policy, and technology have led to a reconsideration of assessment purposes and practices. For example, educational assessment has shifted from being the evaluation process offered at the end of a course or program to becoming part of the learning process, where assessment takes place as a continuous formative act of learning, referred to as ‘formative assessment’ [5] or ‘assessment for learning—AfL’ [6,7]. In recent years, and especially during the recent pandemic, the implementation of formative assessment practices has become essential [8,9]. However, to be able to implement such assessment orientations in practice and meet other assessment challenges and developments, practitioners need to possess a variety of assessment competences; in other words, they need to have acquired adequate levels of ‘assessment literacy’.

Researchers in the field of language education [10,11,12,13] define ‘language assessment literacy’ (LAL) as a set of assessment skills, knowledge, and abilities that are needed by multiple stakeholders (including teachers) to successfully implement various assessment paradigms with the aim of supporting and improving learning. Having a better understanding of the LAL levels of teachers can generate insights into the ways LAL can be implemented in educational contexts and can also serve as a baseline for assessment endeavours and teacher development programs particularly in contexts where less commonly taught languages (LCTLs) are learned. LCTLs, encompassing languages beyond the mainstream ones, play a pivotal role in fostering cultural diversity and linguistic richness. These languages serve as gateways to vibrant cultures and interconnected global communities. For these languages to thrive, particularly in educational settings, teachers must gain, among other skills, adequate levels of LAL enabling them to design assessments that support learning and reflect the unique sociocultural and linguistic features of LCTLs. However, despite their inherent value, LCTLs like Greek, often face challenges, ranging from limited access to learning resources, reduced exposure to the language in daily life, and insufficient institutional support. These constraints make it critical for LCTL teachers to possess robust LAL. These challenges necessitate the design and implementation of assessment practices that are culturally responsive and adapted to the sociolinguistic realities of diverse student populations [14]. Therefore, developing the LAL of LCTL teachers is essential for fostering effective learning environments, ensuring educational equity, and sustaining LCTLs for future generations.

Nevertheless, assessment literacy courses are generally underrepresented in graduate and postgraduate teacher education programs in Greek medium Universities [15,16]. This gap in teacher preparation is significant, given the unique challenges associated with teaching and assessing Greek. The status of Greek as a language of interest for diverse groups—such as the Greek Diaspora, migrants, and refugee populations—further highlights the need for teachers with robust assessment literacy.

This paper presents an exploratory study that seeks to examine and conceptualize the notion of LAL and its development among a group of educators teaching Greek as a second language (L2). The findings of this study aim to contribute to the discourse on teacher education in LAL, particularly in the context of professionalizing instructors of LCTLs. The primary objective of this research is to advance and deepen the existing understanding of LAL among teachers of LCTLs.

2. Literature Review

Language teachers’ assessment literacy comprises important assessment components such as the knowledge of principles and practices of language assessment [10,11,17]. Teachers’ LAL serves a dual purpose: it can support teachers’ understanding of assessment processes and build their identity as assessors [18]. Discussions of LAL have focused not only on identifying assessment knowledge and skills [19,20], but, more recently, on highlighting the importance of skills such as critical reflection and decision-making in how and when to apply LAL knowledge [1,18,21,22] within specific educational contexts [13,23,24].

Overall, LAL has been an important professional arena with major impact not only on education but on the wider society as language assessment has been used for high-stakes decisions, e.g., university admissions and citizenship [25,26,27]. LAL has developed into an important area of scholarship [1,27] which has grown significantly over the last 20 years representing various geographical regions such as Asia [28,29], North America [21], Europe [17,30,31], Australia [18], Latin America [32,33]. Such research has shown that, although teachers often make important assessment decisions regarding their students, they do so with limited training in assessment [30,34] while experience in assessment is mainly accumulated on the job [3,31]. Therefore, researchers have repeatedly stressed the need for enhancing the LAL levels of stakeholders [35], especially teachers [34,35,36,37] and efforts have been made to do so [38,39,40].

Researchers also stress the importance of viewing LAL as a situated activity in local contexts [9,37] where certain aspects such as traditions and affordances of teaching, learning practices and language testing and assessment [9,17,37,41] need to be taken into consideration. Xu and Brown [14] summarize this point by saying that assessment literacy is “dependent on a combination of cognitive traits, affective and belief systems, and socio-cultural and institutional influences, all of which are central to teacher education” (p. 155). Therefore, culturally-responsive assessment approaches deem appropriate in teacher development programs that aspire to raise LAL awareness and practice and ensure fairness and equity in language classrooms. These will need to take into consideration the educational context, theoretical grounding and pay particular focus on assessment orientations that can contribute to the development of differentiated teacher LAL trajectories [15,19,42,43,44]. Research in teacher LAL [45] has also demonstrated that assessment practice is determined by teachers’ experience, their familiarity with local assessment needs, national curricula and exam requirements. Investigating teachers’ LAL also entails considering their views and practices towards assessment as well as national assessment policies [36]. Finally, research stresses that LAL needs to address the assessment character and requirements of different languages and cultures [43,44,46,47,48,49].

However, despite various teacher training efforts [39,50], LAL remains a challenge as teachers still believe that LAL training is at times theoretically and pedagogically disconnected from everyday classroom assessment practices [14,15,23], while expertise in assessment is largely gained through practical experience [31,35]. It is also the case that some teacher development programs provide general knowledge in assessment, without considering the local assessment needs of the teachers [1,37]. For example, Guskey [51] maintains that teacher training programs in LAL tend to fail because they do not take into account teachers’ ‘lived experiences’ of assessment which should be closely linked to teachers’ LAL development.

Furthermore, it seems that the existing body of research in the field of LAL has focused on teacher assessment literacy of widely spoken languages, e.g., English and has overlooked the LAL developmental trajectories and needs of teachers of LCTLs [52]. LCTLs such as Greek, though spoken by fewer people globally, play a critical role in maintaining cultural heritage and linguistic diversity. For such languages to flourish, particularly in educational settings, teachers must not only be proficiency in the language taught and instructional practice, but also have appropriate levels of language assessment literacy. Enhancing teachers’ assessment language competence in LCTLs is crucial for creating effective learning environments, promoting educational equity and ensuring the longevity of these languages for future preservation.

However, teachers of LCTLs face unique challenges in assessment due to the limited availability of assessment teacher training and tools. Unlike widely spoken languages, LCTLs often lack comprehensive testing materials that accurately reflect their linguistic intricacies [53]. Furthermore, the cultural contexts embedded within LCTLs necessitate assessments that are culturally responsive and sensitive to the language’s unique attributes [54]. Without adequate training in assessment literacy, teachers may struggle to design and implement effective evaluation methods, potentially hindering student progress and engagement.

Therefore, it is important to create well-structured and meaningful assessments that provide valuable feedback, help students understand their progress and areas needing improvement [55]. In the context of LCTLs, where learner motivation is crucial for language maintenance, well-designed assessments can enhance engagement by showcasing achievable milestones and fostering a sense of accomplishment [56]. Teachers with robust assessment competence are better equipped to recognize and address biases in testing high-quality education and fair assessment practices [57], ensuring that student evaluations are conducted under fair and impartial conditions. This is particularly important for LCTLs, where learners might face additional challenges such as limited exposure to the language outside the classroom [58]. Furthermore, developing the LAL levels of LCTL teachers is quite important since efficient and fair assessment can be closely connected to the preservation or revitalization of LCTLs or the acquisition of citizenship and work permit for immigrant populations. Therefore, it is important that the assessment of students of LCTLs is fair and valid and offers learning opportunities towards mastering these languages. Finally, teachers who are proficient in assessment can identify and address learning gaps, thereby improving overall language proficiency among students. This, in turn, contributes to the vitality and longevity of the language [59]. Moreover, accurate assessment data can inform policy decisions and resource allocation, further supporting the institutionalization of LCTLs within educational systems.

This paper considers the LAL levels of teachers of Greek, a language spoken mainly in Greece and Cyprus, and in Greek diaspora [60,61]. The available research conducted on the LAL of teachers of Greek is limited. What is highlighted in the existing research studies available is the urgent need for training of teachers of Greek either as a first (L1) or as a second language (L2) in developing their LAL competence [16]. For example, Solomonidou [62] studied the LAL of 95 teachers of Modern Greek language in mixed classes in Cyprus and found that there is inadequate training in formative assessment and, therefore, difficult to implement the corresponding assessment mandates of the local curricula. Iliopoulou and Rousoulioti [15] considered the LAL levels of 181 teachers of Greek who taught in primary and secondary schools concerning the implementation of formative assessment. The study showed that even though teachers were positive towards formative assessment, very few of them had attended teacher training seminars and did not know much about how to implement it in class (also [63]). Pirtsiou and Rousoulioti [64] studied the views of 15 secondary school teachers of Greek in private and public secondary education regarding the implementation of formative assessment with emphasis on the use of portfolios. The results showed that the latter were only used as complementary tools to assess the quality of learning, but their implementation was not yet fully feasible as it required radical changes in the structure of the existing Greek educational system.

In December 2021, new curricula for all levels of education were introduced in Greece. In these curricula the idea of critical literacy is prevalent. In this context, not only the development of students’ critical thinking is required, but also teachers’ ‘critical language assessment literacy’ [22]. Vogt and Tsagari [31] stressed that “the lack of ability to critically evaluate tests represents a risk for the teachers to take over tests unquestioningly without considering their quality” (p. 391). They asserted that the ability to critically evaluate tests is one of the most essential skills for language teachers. From this perspective, it is essential to consider and develop a theory of critical language assessment literacy [1,22].

In response to the aforementioned considerations, this study aimed to explore teachers’ conceptualizations of LAL in the context of an LCTL, such as Greek, and to examine the role of training in facilitating the development of the requisite levels of LAL. The findings provide valuable insights into teachers’ LAL trajectories and contribute to the discourse on teacher education in language assessment, both within local contexts (Greece and Cyprus) and in broader LCTL settings. Based on the results, recommendations for future research will be proposed, with the aim of enhancing language teacher education and professional development.

3. Research Context and Research Questions

This research was conducted in the context of an online postgraduate program which aimed at teachers of Greek to speakers of other languages and was offered by a private Cypriot University. The program accepted large numbers of participants, mainly from Greece. These were pre- and in-service qualified teachers in primary or secondary education whose first language was Greek and wished to specialize in the teaching of Greek as a second/foreign language (L2). The program was offered during the COVID-19 pandemic, which necessitated remote learning and impacted the implementation of course components, including assessment [65].

Overall, the MA program lasted one and a half years and consisted of 6 compulsory and 5 elective courses. ‘Assessment in Greek as a second/foreign language’ was a compulsory second-semester course. The duration of the course was 12 weeks. The course aimed at strengthening students’ language assessment literacy and consisted of the following topics:

• Basic principles of assessment
• Types of language tests
• Basic principles in designing a language test
• Factors affecting language test performance
• Test tasks in Greek as L2
• The assessment of listening
• The assessment of reading
• The assessment of speaking
• The assessment of writing
• Grading and providing feedback
• Interpretation of test results
• Alternative Methods of Assessment

Several options were explored in search of reading resources in second language assessment for the course. The online LAL training course, designed by the Erasmus+ project titled ‘Teachers’ Assessment Literacy Enhancement (TALE, KA2, European Lifelong Learning Programmes, 2015-1-CY01-KA201-011863, http://taleproject.eu (accessed on 14 October 2024) lent itself as a suitable resource. TALE, a three-year project (2015–2018) involving eminent language assessment experts from five European countries, aimed at enhancing language teachers’ assessment literacy with the ultimate goal of assessing students effectively and fairly. The TALE syllabus also corresponded to the syllabus requirement of the current assessment course and offered the flexibility for a hybrid use of its materials [38]. Given the scarcity of online teacher training resources in language testing and assessment in Greek and the high quality [37] and flexibility of the TALE course (e.g., web-based, self-standing, used for LAL training of teachers of other languages), it deemed appropriate to use the TALE materials as syllabus materials for the current course. Therefore, students were instructed to use the TALE materials as main input to develop their LAL competence as well as reference material for their end-of-semester assignment. As a result, a link was created on the platform of the MA course that allowed students direct access to the website of the TALE materials.

The course described in the study combined both theoretical and practical elements. Participants engaged in hands-on tasks, such as designing assessments and providing feedback. In addition, for the assessment of the course, formative and summative assessment practices were used. Every week students were expected to complete self-assessment tasks that were used for formative assessment purposes. Feedback was also provided at the end of each week to ensure understanding of concepts and materials related to the course. The final course requirement was based on a written assignment where students were invited to comment critically on currently used practices for the assessment of writing skills in national and international high-stake exams, design a writing test with its accompanying assessment criteria and consider the ways of providing feedback to pupils.

Overall, the course was conducted according to the pedagogical model of e-learning [66] using both asynchronous and synchronous communication. Students were required to participate in three synchronous online meetings that took place every 4 weeks during the semester. The role of the course tutor was mainly that of guiding and supporting the development of self-directed and autonomous learning of the participants [67].

In this context, the research aimed to assess the needs and levels of Greek language teachers’ LAL both before and after their participation in the MA assessment course. Additionally, the study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the TALE materials in enhancing teachers’ LAL.

4. Methods and Materials

The study used an experimental research design. The participants were invited to fill in a pre- and post-evaluation survey in relation to the MA course. The study can also be defined as a single group before-and-after design [68,69], where the participants were exposed to an experimental treatment (e.g., participating in an assessment course based on the TALE materials and responding to a pre- and post-survey).

4.1. Research Instruments

The questions included in the online survey aimed at answering the research questions. They were formulated on the basis of the curriculum of the course [70] and informed by various other questionnaire instruments used in previous research in LAL [30,35,37]. Overall, in its current form the survey consisted of a total of 40 questions administered via google forms (35 closed-ended and 5 open-ended questions) including questions about training, knowledge, views and practice of assessment (see Appendix A). The language of the survey questionnaire was English and it was divided into three parts: (1) General Information (Questions 1–8), (2) General Questions (Questions 9–10) and (3) Specific Questions (Questions 11–40). For the closed-ended questions, the participants used 6-point frequency Likert scales (1 = not important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = important, 5 = very important and 6 = extremely important) or DK (Don’t Know).

All participants completed the survey questionnaire online before and after the course. The survey took between 15–20 min to complete. It included an introductory letter that contained information regarding the purpose of the study. The participants’ consent was requested in the letter who were informed that they could withdraw at any stage of the research. As a validation check, the instrument was piloted for clarity and comprehensiveness before dissemination [71].

The statistical analysis consisted of descriptive statistics including frequencies and percentages. We also used the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test to compare pre- with post-survey results for ordinal data [72]. In the analysis, we also applied the following criterion: if the symmetry assumption of this Test was violated, a Sign Test was used instead [73]. In case of dichotomous variables, the McNemar Test was used [74].

In addition, the study analysed the students’ final assignments (SAs) as part of their course. Initially, this analysis focused on the volume of references made to the TALE materials. These were systematically recorded and tabulated. To further analyze the SAs, we used thematic analysis [75,76]. We followed the six phases of thematic analysis proposed by Braun & Clarke [75], e.g., 1. familiarize yourself with your data, 2. generate initial codes, 3. search for themes, 4. review themes, 5. define and name themes, and 6. produce the report. We chose to code manually by printing out the SAs and writing notes on the texts produced using highlighters to identify segments of interesting data [75]. For the analysis we worked collaboratively to ensure that multiple perspectives were applied [77]. First, we carefully read the SA texts to familiarize ourselves with the data set. Then we performed the initial coding and discussed interpretations with each other. Finally, we coded the material and then we had joint meetings to discuss the emerging interpretations. In our analysis, we followed a line of inquiry that viewed the participants’ ideas expressed in their assignments as blueprints for professional knowledge and thinking [70]. In doing so, we noticed that the participants used various roles when describing how they would enact different aspects of their writing assessment practice as part of the requirements of the final assignment. To code the data, we often used in vivo codes to capture the meanings inherent in the participants’ assignments.

In the presentation of the results, we use extensive quotations from the data (open-ended questions from pre-/post-surveys and SAs) aiming at reducing the risk of personal interpretations and allowing for trustworthiness [77] in the conceptualization of the assessment literacy of LCTL teachers. Finally, as the SAs were written in Greek, we translated the extracts used in the current paper in English.

4.2. The Participants

Eighty-nine student participants took part in the study of which ninety-one percent were identified as female (N = 81) and 9% as male (N = 8). The age distribution of the participants and their teaching experience varied. Their age and professional teaching experience is presented in

Table 1. Participants’ age range and years of teaching.

Age Range	N	%	Years of Teaching	N	%
under 26	21	24%	I don’t teach	22	25%
26–35	48	54%	1–5	36	40%
36–45	19	21%	6–10	13	15%
46–55	1	1%	11–15	12	13%
			16+	6	7%

where 25% either had no experience at all or had between 1 to 5 years of experience (40%).

In terms of their educational background, it appears that the participants were fully qualified teachers of Greek (with BA degrees) while half of them had received additional postgraduate training during various MA and PhD programs (

Table 2. Participants’ educational qualification and age range of their learners.

Qualification	N	%	Age Range of Learners	N	%
BA degree	46	52%	6–12	64	72%
MA degree	39	44%	13–15	47	53%
PhD degree	4	4%	16–18	32	36%
			over 18	22	25%

).

5. Results

5.1. Online Survey Questionnaires

This section presents the overall results based on the participants’ answers to the two online survey questionnaires. For ease of reference, the pre- and post-survey questionnaires will be referred to as ‘pre- and post-tests’. Also to establish the anonymity of respondents, when extracts are used from participant written responses to the open-ended questions to illustrate points made, these are given code names such as S1, S2, S3, etc. References to questionnaire items will be made as Q1, Q2, Q3, etc. Overall, the structure of this section follows the order of questions included in the surveys.

5.1.1. Part 1 of the Questionnaire

Sources and Type of LAL Provision

Teacher training programs play a vital role in developing assessment literacy among teachers of languages. However, there is often a lack of specialized training and resources tailored to the unique needs of teachers in LCTL contexts. In the current study the results showed that teachers’ assessment literacy has not been adequately developed as more than 80% of the participants said that they have not been adequately trained in language assessment (Q6). These findings corroborate with the research findings of other research [30]. However, it is a sad realization that LCTL teachers do not receive the level of training in language assessment as this might have potential consequences on students’ learning [78,79]. It also points to the urgent need for structured pre-service and in-service teacher education to improve assessment practices and support student learning [15,31].

The participants who have had LAL training said they received such training from different types of institutions (Q7.1a) as presented in

Table 3. Training Institutions and Training Types.

Institutions	N	%	Types	N	%
University	15	16%	face to face training courses	24	27%
Training College/ Institution	13	14%	online courses	29	33%
Your school	15	16%	assessment textbooks	37	42%
Conferences/ Workshops	15	16%	other teachers	55	62%
Other places	15	16%	Official syllabus	22	25%
			Other	33	38%

, e.g., ‘universities’, ‘schools’, ‘conference/workshops’ and ‘training college/institutions.

Table 3 also presents the types of LAL training received (Q7.2a). Interestingly the majority, 62% of the participants learnt about language assessment on the job, e.g., from other teachers. This finding concurs with the results of other studies which discuss the role of learning about assessment on the job (e.g., [29]) and point to the importance of communities of practice (CoP) [80] where teachers can learn from each other, collaborate, share experiences, and form individual identities as language assessors. This aligns with previous studies [80,81] that emphasize the value of CoPs to support peer learning and mentorship in fostering professional growth.

Importance of Assessment of the Greek Language

The study offered an opportunity for a comparison of participants’ LAL levels before and after the course. The study found that participants already valued the assessment of Greek as an L2 highly, with a slight increase in perceived importance after the MA course (from 61% to 64%) (see

Table 4. The importance of assessment of the Greek language (Q8).

	Pre-Test		Post-Test
	N	%	N	%
1 = not important	0	0%	0	0%
2 = slightly important	0	0%	0	0%
3 = moderately important	2	2%	0	0%
4 = important	3	3%	8	9%
5 = very important	30	34%	24	27%
6 = extremely important	54	61%	57	64%

).

In their comments, teachers also explained that it is necessary for them to be trained in assessing students’ four macro-skills, using rating scales as well effectively communicating results to students and other stakeholders, e.g., school authorities and parents. They also taped on aspects of formative assessment and argued that appropriate and fair assessment can be an incentive to improve students’ performance in Greek.

The teachers emphasized the need for further training in assessing macro-skills, using rating scales, implementing assessment procedures, and effectively communicating results to stakeholders.

5.1.2. Part 2 of the Questionnaire

Part 2 of the questionnaire consisted of two open-ended questions. Q9 asked the participants about the kind of knowledge, skills, competence, etc. teachers need to carry out appropriate assessment of the Greek language. Respondents offered interesting answers pointing to a significant shift in their understanding of assessment, highlighting the impact of the course on their professional development. For example, in the pre-test, teachers noted the following:

‘Teachers should be able to assess students in the four language macro-skills’.

(S10, pre-test)

‘Teachers should know how to design language tests‘.

(S15, pre-test)

This perspective aligns with established approaches to language testing that emphasize discrete-point assessments (e.g., testing isolated skills or knowledge components) and reflect narrower, technical perspectives on assessment practice.

By contrast, the post-test responses demonstrate a broader, more nuanced understanding of assessment. For instance:

‘A language teacher should have knowledge and training in broader assessment matters and acquire relevant experience’.

(S10, post-test)

S10’s recognition of the need for training and experience in “broader assessment matters” signals an emerging awareness of the complex interplay between assessment practices and pedagogical goals. This transition aligns with the principles of formative assessment and the “assessment for learning” paradigm, where the focus shifts from measuring performance to supporting the learning process [55].

The following teachers’ responses are representative of similar transitions. For example, the mention of students’ well-being, as noted by the participants below, is particularly significant:

‘Teachers should have adequate information about their students, for example, they should know their language level in L2, be clear about what they want to assess and how to create good assessments’.

(S65, pre-test)

‘Tests should not cause stress to students during the assessment process’.

(S10, post-test)

‘Teachers need specialized training on special assessment matters and relevant practice’.

(S15, post-test)

Moreover, the participants’ responses reflect a deeper appreciation of contextual factors in assessment, e.g.,

‘Well-trained teachers should know not only what to assess and how, but which method of assessment to use, taking into account the profile of their class, the purpose of the learning process and special educational needs of their students’.

(S38, post-test)

S38’s emphasis on tailoring assessment methods to the class profile, learning objectives, and students’ special educational needs highlights a shift toward a more learner-centered approach. This perspective is critical in diverse classroom settings, particularly in language education, where students’ backgrounds, proficiency levels, and motivations can vary widely.

The comparison between pre- and post-course reflections on the importance of training (Q10) further underscores the shift in assessment orientations. While pre-test responses emphasize technical competence in designing assessments, post-test reflections suggest that teachers have developed a more integrated view, recognizing the role of assessment in fostering motivation and improving learning outcomes. For example:

‘I believe that training is more important than good intentions if you want to assess your students and you don’t know the right way to do it …’.

(S25, pre-test)

while in the post-test the same participant stressed:

‘Τhe most important thing is the use of assessment for the improvement of students. Fair and accurate assessment increases the willingness of students to study…’.

(S25, post-test)

S25’s acknowledgment of the motivational power of fair and accurate assessment aligns with research suggesting that transparent and equitable assessment practices can enhance students’ engagement and self-efficacy [82].

The above findings also point to the transformative potential of the course which appears to have fostered a more reflective stance among participants, enabling them to move beyond procedural concerns to consider broader pedagogical and ethical dimensions of assessment. This shift is indicative of teachers developing assessment literacy, encompassing not just technical skills but also the ability to critically evaluate and adapt assessment practices to promote learning and equity [42].

5.1.3. Part 3 of the Questionnaire

In the third part of the questionnaire, the participants were invited to evaluate a list of assessment practices (Q11-37) against a 7-point Likert scale (see Appendix A) that would help identify important aspects of the assessment trajectory of Greek language teachers and cast light on how teachers of LCTLs conceptualize LAL.

The results from this part of the questionnaire also emphasize significant shifts in how participants perceived various aspects of LAL following their engagement with the current course. The analysis showed that the participants highlighted the importance of all assessment competences listed (see Appendix A) and pointed towards formative assessment practices as higher values were observed on all statements included in this part of the questionnaire after the course. These shifts underline not only the transformative potential of targeted LAL training but also the critical gaps in current teacher preparation programs for LCTL contexts.

More specifically, heightened interest was observed in the case of peer assessment (Q13).

Table 5. Importance of peer assessment (Q13).

	Pre-Test		Post-Test
	N	%	N	%
1 = not important	1	1%	0	0%
2 = slightly important	6	7%	5	6%
3 = moderately important	8	9%	6	7%
4 = important	19	22%	11	13%
5 = very important	32	36%	31	36%
6 = extremely important	22	25%	33	38%

shows that while 25% of the participants chose the option ‘extremely important’ in the pre-test, this increased to 38% after the completion of the course. The sign test indicated that the higher values observed in the post-test were also statistically significantly (Z = −1.838, p = 0.033).

The significant increase in the perceived importance of peer assessment reflects an evolving understanding of assessment as a collaborative and formative tool. By valuing peer assessment more highly after the course, participants seem to recognize its potential. This aligns with formative assessment frameworks that emphasize the active involvement of learners in their own assessment [55]. Peer assessment also contributes to students’ ability to self-regulate their learning, a core component of effective pedagogy in language classrooms [83].

Table 6. Importance of appropriate use of language tests. (Q14).

	Pre-Test		Post-Test
	N	%	N	%
1 = not important	0	0%	0	0%
2 = slightly important	3	4%	1	1%
3 = moderately important	3	4%	1	1%
4 = important	10	12%	13	15%
5 = very important	32	38%	17	20%
6 = extremely important	37	44%	54	63%

presents participants’ increased appreciation for the appropriate use of language tests (from 44% to 63%). The sign test also indicated that the higher values observed in the post-test were statistically significant (Z = −1.750, p = 0.040).

This finding suggests another important pedagogical shift. More specifically, it indicates a move away from traditional high-stakes testing toward a more integrated and purposeful application of tests within classroom contexts. This finding aligns with research advocating for test practices that not only evaluate achievement but also provide diagnostic insights and guide instruction [84].

Increased interest was also observed with regard to the importance of different purposes of assessment practices (Q19, see

Table 7. Importance of knowledge of different purposes of assessment (Q19).

	Pre-Test		Post-Test
	N	%	N	%
1 = not important	1	1%	0	0%
2 = slightly important	2	2%	1	1%
3 = moderately important	4	5%	3	4%
4 = important	12	14%	5	6%
5 = very important	32	37%	25	29%
6 = extremely important	35	41%	51	60%

). In particular, a difference of 20% was identified between the pre-test (41%) and post-test (60%) results. This finding is also confirmed by the Sign Test results which showed that the difference was statistically significant (Z = −2.507, p = 0.006).

The participants’ growing recognition of the importance of understanding diverse purposes of assessment reinforces the role of assessment as a flexible, multifaceted tool that can be tailored to meet the varying needs of LCTL learners, curricular goals, and institutional requirements.

Furthermore, the observed increase in valuing assessment as a motivational tool is particularly noteworthy. The course seemed to have strengthened the connection between assessment and motivation (Q21, see

Table 8. Importance of the use of assessment to motivate learners (Q21).

	Pre-Test		Post-Test
	N	%	N	%
1 = not important	1	1%	1	1%
2 = slightly important	0	0%	0	0%
3 = moderately important	4	5%	2	2%
4 = important	11	13%	4	5%
5 = very important	23	27%	19	22%
6 = extremely important	46	54%	59	69%

) in that the participants placed a lot more emphasis on the importance of the use of assessment to motivate learners (the percentage increased from 54% to 69% after the course). This difference is statistically significant as confirmed by the Sign Test performed (Z = −1.922, p = 0.027).

This shift suggests a deeper awareness of the interplay between assessment practices and learner psychology in the current context. Effective assessment not only measures knowledge but also influences attitudes, self-efficacy, and engagement. By recognizing assessment as a motivational lever, participants seem to be adopting a more holistic view of their LCTL teaching practice.

The analysis also revealed statistically significant differences between respondents’ pre- and post-test answers, in terms of their perceptions. For example, the recognition that one’s personal views and values have a significant impact on the evaluation of one’s practices (Q28). This was considered both ‘very important’ and ‘extremely important’ (see

Table 9. Impact of views and values on assessment practices (Q28).

	Pre-Test		Post-Test
	N	%	N	%
1 = not important	0	0%	1	1%
2 = slightly important	2	2%	2	2%
3 = moderately important	11	13%	5	6%
4 = important	18	22%	13	15%
5 = very important	28	34%	39	46%
6 = extremely important	25	29%	25	29%

). The differences were also statistically significant (Z = −1.789, p = 0.037).

The increase in recognizing the impact of personal values on assessment practices emphasizes the role of teachers’ beliefs in shaping their choices and resonates with Schön’s [85] concept of reflective practice.

Similarly, for Question 31, which focused on formative assessment knowledge, there was a statistically significant positive shift in responses (Z = −1.739, p = 0.041). These findings suggest that the course had a measurable impact on enhancing teachers’ understanding and appreciation of collaborative and formative assessment practices, specifically in the context of teaching Greek as L2 (see

Table 10. Importance of knowledge of formative assessment (Q31).

	Pre-Test		Post-Test
	N	%	N	%
1 = not important	1	1%	0	0%
2 = slightly important	1	1%	2	2%
3 = moderately important	2	2%	2	2%
4 = important	13	15%	10	12%
5 = very important	29	33%	24	28%
6 = extremely important	42	48%	48	56%

).

Q38 generated responses that accentuate the systemic shortcomings in teacher education in the current context (see

Table 11. Efficiency of teacher education and its impact on good assessment practices (Q38).

	Pre-Test		Post-Test
	N	%	N	%
No	76	85%	74	83%
Yes	13	15%	15	17%

). The vast majority of the participants, over 80% in both the pre- and post-survey, felt that teacher education does not prepare teachers adequately for carrying out effective assessment. In other research, conducted in the Greek context, similar results were noted: the participants felt unprepared both theoretically and practically to assess their language students [15,31,34].

Participants’ qualitative reflections reveal a need for robust LAL components within university curricula, encompassing both theoretical and practical dimensions.

In Q39 and Q40 the participants offered various suggestions to improve teacher assessment practices. For instance, they highlighted the need for hands-on practice, internships, and exposure to formative assessment methods (e.g., portfolios, systematic observations). This reflects the growing demand for experiential learning opportunities in teacher preparation. For example:

‘Teachers should be taught assessment techniques for each language skill. They should also be trained in alternative methods of assessment such as systematic observation, portfolio assessment, etc. Semester long courses of assessment should be included in university programs. Teachers should practice various aspects of assessment, alternative assessment, also how to prepare students for their tests using rating scales and communicating assessment results in appropriate ways’.

(S38, post-test)

For the same questions, S40 and S75 openly talked about the lack of courses related to assessment in university curricula, a fact that motivated them to look for resources themselves to meet their practice needs.

‘Well, in the past, I was never given advice on how to assess my students. One or two of my university lecturers recommended some books, so I bought them and read them alone…’.

(S40, post-test)

‘The way assessment is implemented must change. Alternative assessment methods have to be adopted and included in university programs’.

(S75, post-test)

The participants also emphasized the need for hands-on practice opportunities in their future LAL courses offered by University departments, e.g.:

‘Undergraduate programs in many university departments have to change in order to be contemporary and include new courses, such as a course on language assessment that also gives the opportunity to practice assessment in schools with students’.

(S40, post-test)

‘Undergraduate programs should have more teacher training courses in assessment. A kind of internship should be also offered in these courses’.

(S75, post-test)

The need for higher levels of assessment literacy for pre- and in-service teachers, was also confirmed by students’ assignments as will be discussed in the next section.

5.1.4. Students’ Final Assignments (SAs)

The analysis of the student assignments highlights a substantial engagement with the course materials. The participants, responding to the requirements of their assignment, e.g., the assessment of writing skills and the provision of feedback, made extensive use of the TALE materials with particular focus on two particular and relevant chapters from of the TALE handbook: ‘Assessing Writing Skills’ and ‘Providing Feedback’. The analysis of the SAs also sheds light on participants’ conceptualization of their roles as assessors, mentors, and counselors, revealing a substantial shift in these roles which points to the multidimensional approach to language assessment. The following discussion explores these shifts, grounding them in broader theoretical frameworks and practical implications.

Teachers as Assessors: The Centrality of Writing Assessment

The significant number of references to a variety of writing assessment themes (

Table 12. TALE project materials: Assessing Writing Skills.

Themes		Number of References
1	Being a teacher rater—Rubrics	40
2	The scoring procedure	30
3	Guidelines for building own’s own rubric	30
4	Qualities of writing assessment (validity and reliability)	17
5	Writing purpose and audience	16
6	Designing writing tasks	10

) reflects the participants’ heightened focus on effectively evaluating students’ writing proficiency. The particular emphasis on being a teacher-rater, on using rubrics, and scoring procedures indicates an awareness of key principles of standardized assessment practices. This reflects a recognition of the need for objectivity, consistency and fairness, as outlined in research on rater reliability [86].

Teachers’ role as assessors was also reflected in the texts of the SAs where the participants’ expressed concerns with how to assess students’ overall writing competence (i.e., disciplinary knowledge, practical skills, and key competencies) of the language, e.g.,

‘Τhe raters of a test should assume that all the written productions they are asked to judge have been written by people who act like “hypothetical authors” for whom the test was designed. Under this hypothesis, the raters have to assess the expected written production according to the actual language ability of the examinees’.

(SA20)

Concerns were also expressed as to how teachers would design and apply their own rubrics or criteria for the assessment of written scripts. As SA5 noted, rubrics must adapt to the type of examination and the students being assessed, aligning with [82] assertion that well-designed rubrics enhance the fairness and clarity of assessments, e.g.,

‘When designing rubrics/criteria, teachers can formulate different criteria in quality and number, so they use their experience by correlating it with the type of examination and examinees’.

(SA5)

Additionally, participants highlighted concerns regarding the scoring procedure, e.g.,

‘Raters can also note the points they disagree with and discuss them with each other, so that in the end they can get a common result’.

(SA60)

The participants’ interest in designing and applying rubrics stresses their acknowledgement of the importance of clear, context-specific criteria in enhancing assessment validity and reliability.

Addressing Validity, Reliability, and Learner-Centered Principles

The participants also explicitly stressed the importance of addressing the two important assessment qualities (validity and reliability) in their writing assessment. This demonstrates a theoretical grounding in key principles of language testing [87]. For example, SA70’s emphasis on structuring tests around reliability principles reflects an awareness of the need to ensure consistent and dependable outcomes:

‘Tests should be structured around certain principles. First of all, a very important principle for the design of a writing test that has to do with the principle of reliability’.

(SA70)

Similarly, SA35’s reference to understanding students’ psychology and experiences suggests a learner-centered approach to designing meaningful and contextually relevant writing tasks:

‘Tasks should get into the psychology of the emerging author so that candidates can express themselves flexibly according to their experiences and knowledge’.

(SA35)

Moreover, participants demonstrated an awareness of broader dimensions of writing assessment, including the importance of purpose, audience, and task design. These aspects are critical in aligning assessments with real-world language use and fostering meaningful engagement [88]. For example, SA9 emphasized the need for tasks that stimulate interest and allow students to showcase their abilities, a sentiment that resonates with communicative language teaching principles.

‘In addition, the style of the topics must change. The writing topics must be selected aiming to stimulate candidates’ interest and to highlight all their abilities and inclinations in both formal or informal texts’.

(SA9)

Teachers as Mentors and Counselors: The Role of Feedback

The analysis of the SAs also showed that the participants were interested in feedback provision. They framed their discussion and practices against the course materials titled ‘Providing Feedback’. Frequencies in

Table 13. TALE project materials: Providing Feedback.

Themes		Number of References
1	The role of feedback in learning	60
2	Characteristics of effective teacher feedback	55
3	Basic principles in providing feedback	30
4	Feedback provision	25
5	Process of providing feedback	15
6	Feedback for formative assessment	15
7	Feedback outcomes	15
8	Feedback and learners’ motivation	10

reveal the central role that feedback played in writing assessment in SAs organized per theme.

The analysis of feedback-related references highlights participants’ evolving perception of feedback as a dynamic, learner-centered process integral to formative assessment. The recognition of feedback as a tool for learning (60 references) and the emphasis on its characteristics, principles, and outcomes reflect a growing commitment to using feedback to support student development [89].

The participants demonstrated considerable awareness of their responsibilities as both mentors and counselors. They were particularly interested in supporting their learners in the best possible way, e.g., by giving them constructive feedback:

‘… feedback is a dynamic and continuous process. The kind of feedback students will receive directly affects them. Therefore, it is important to ensure its positive outcome. Also, precise planning is required in light of the principles that govern the whole feedback process’.

(SA89)

‘In fact, for the overall assessment of the writing, not only the weaknesses but also the strengths of the writing should be taken into account’.

(SA15)

‘However, teachers often implement feedback superficially, spontaneously and without prior or later thought, which is not to the benefit of students who are directly involved or even can hinder the whole process of providing feedback’.

(SA25)

The participants were also keen on discussing the basic principles of providing feedback often emphasizing the dual focus of feedback—addressing both cognitive and emotional dimensions, see references to student well-being and their emotions below:

‘… Finally, it is important to keep in mind the impact of our feedback as teachers can bring about changes both in students’ learning and in the way they feel about themselves as students’.

(SA68)

Moreover, participants’ references to balancing positive and critical feedback (SA6) highlight a nuanced understanding of how to manage students’ emotions in the assessment process. By promoting a balanced approach that considers students’ strengths and weaknesses, the participants demonstrated an alignment with practices that foster resilience and positive learner self-concept [90].

‘The characteristics of constructive feedback are summarized as follows: mainly personalized feedback, in parallel or immediately after the end of the test, with a specific and repetitive character, understandable for the level and using age-appropriate language, with a combination of positive and negative comments to balance the emotions that will be caused, indicating the correct use of language to the students and providing opportunities for students to respond and improve’.

(SA6)

Feedback and Motivation: Bridging Assessment and Learner Engagement

The participants’ recognition of the link between feedback and motivation reflects an understanding of assessment as a pedagogical tool to inspire and sustain engagement. This is evident in SA11’s acknowledgment of constructive feedback’s role in encouraging learners.

‘In addition, providing constructive feedback helps students to sustain their motivation to learn L2 and encourages them’.

(SA11)

The participants’ acknowledgment of the impact of feedback on students’ learning and self-perception highlights the importance of socially and emotionally responsive assessment practices. This aligns with Carless’s [91] work on sustainable feedback, which emphasizes fostering student agency and long-term improvement through effective feedback practices.

The practical recommendations in the assignments—such as providing person-alized, timely, and comprehensible feedback—demonstrate alignment with best practices for effective feedback provision [92]. Additionally, the participants highlighted innovative modalities, such as video feedback (SA78) and teacher-student conferences (SA13), which offer interactive, multimodal approaches to feedback, e.g.:

‘It is a purely communicative method since teachers can create feedback videos for each student, focusing on points that students themselves deem important for commentary. Also, through video recording, opportunities are given for a detailed explanation of the comments, supporting each student individually’.

(SA78)

‘Finally, having given (the teacher) the necessary feedback to all students, a discussion could take place with students in class so that they can communicate their views about their mistakes and draw conclusions that will help them to understand the topic they are dealing with’.

(SA13)

These strategies align with emerging trends in technology-enhanced formative assessment [7].

6. Discussion

The current study investigated the LAL needs and levels of teachers of LCTL, i.e., teachers of Greek as L2. This study also examined the extent to which these levels were enhanced after attending a language assessment course as part of a distance learning MA course. Findings provide an understanding of LAL needs of teachers of LCTL and explore the role of the mediating training material in enhancing their assessment knowledge and competences.

In summary, the data revealed a shift in teachers’ perceptions and reflections and highlights the significant changes in their assessment literacy following the professional development course. Initially, teachers’ focus on the four macro-skills—listening, speaking, reading, and writing—highlights a traditional and compartmentalized view of language assessment. This approach aligns with historical practices in language assessment, where emphasis was placed on discrete, measurable aspects of language proficiency [84]. Such practices often reflect limited assessment literacy, characterized by technical skills but lacking broader conceptual understanding [42]. However, the analysis of the data also revealed a progression from a fragmented, skill-focused view of assessment to a holistic, student-centered, and contextually informed perspective.

The conceptualization of LAL based on the assignments was also interesting. Teachers refer to the need for fair assessment which is important for LCTL learners in order to maintain their interest in language learning. In their answers, teachers emphasized the importance of formative assessment in order to improve students’ language learning [6,93]. The participants are interested in the implementation of assessment as formative practice supported also by the provision of constructive critical feedback. The implementation of formative assessment for language development is extremely crucial and can act as a leverage to motivate leaners of LCTLs. Furthermore, the integration of formative assessments reflects ongoing shifts in language education, moving toward more personalized and learner-centered methodologies [94]. Teachers also expressed the wish to become better assessors to maintain the motivation of LCTL students and support them to overcome obstacles towards learning.

The teachers were also considerate about fairness and ethical issues. Their critical reflections on fairness in assessment and the appropriate use of assessment closely connected to aspects of assessment such as administering, scoring, interpreting, and reporting the results in a principled manner was reflected in the participants’ comments. Another consideration relates to the issue of test consequences such as the impact of assessment on students’ well-being. Analysis of the data from both the questionnaires and the participants’ assignments indicated consideration of the societal/cultural values to be an important topic.

The results also align with broader literature that highlights the necessity of teacher agency in assessment design and implementation. Fulcher’s [17] work on teacher assessment literacy highlights the importance of contextualized professional development, particularly for educators of languages with limited teaching resources. Also, in the current research teacher identity is often emotionally charged and contextually dependent [9,14,95] and is impacted by variables such as the teacher’s background, experience, and professional learning [96], as well as the status and nature of the language as indicated in our study. The development of teachers’ assessment competence and identity is a challenging task [97]. It entails a multi-faceted process, where shifts in perspective on the role of assessment are present [98]. Teachers further develop their assessment identities as members of communities of practice [99] or previous assessment-related experience [37].

In response to the second objective of this study, the results indicated that the TALE materials have the potential to enhance the assessment literacy of both pre-service and in-service teachers. These materials appear to facilitate teachers’ professional development by providing supplementary resources on key assessment principles and practices, as evidenced by the numerous references made to them in participants’ assignments. Teachers particularly emphasized the significance of formative assessment [6,93], while additional findings further reinforced the effectiveness and sustainability of the TALE materials in teacher training.

The adaptation of TALE materials to the Greek language context can serve as a valuable tool for enhancing the assessment literacy of Greek language teachers, thereby contributing to their professional development in the field of language testing and assessment. Moreover, the TALE materials seem to be able to foster a collaborative learning environment that promotes teacher training, self-study, and professional autonomy. By utilizing TALE as a self-education resource, teachers of Greek as an L2 could independently shape their own trajectory in assessment literacy [94].

The emergent need for the development of LAL of LCTLs not only on a theoretical, but in a practical level was evidenced in the participants’ responses and assignments. These highlighted the lack of resources regarding the implementation of assessment practices in the target language as well as the lack of relevant assessment courses. In the end, the assessment literacy of teachers of LCTL is of great importance, because it is necessary not only to maintain but also to increase the number of speakers of these languages. The results of the study emphasize the importance of ongoing professional development in equipping teachers with the knowledge and skills necessary to implement effective, inclusive, and meaningful assessment practices. Furthermore, the results highlight the need for teacher education programs to address not only the “how” of assessment but also the “why”, fostering a critical understanding of its role in supporting learning and student development.

Overall, the study highlights the importance of professional development in LAL (51,17), ensuring that language-specific characteristics are considered to address the needs of LCTL teachers. Institutions and policymakers should also encourage structured, ongoing professional development opportunities within CoPs. However, upon reflection, it is important to recognize the potential limitations of CoPs in developing teachers’ LAL. Beliefs and myths linked to assessment systems can sometimes be perpetuated within these communities, particularly among teachers with many years of experience who do not always engage in continuous professional development [100]. Therefore, a combination of updated resources, expert-led discussions, and periodic evaluations is essential to ensure that CoPs remain dynamic and forward-looking. Such efforts can balance the informal learning that CoPs excel at with the need for continuous improvement in language assessment practices [101,102].

The study also raises issues while some questions closely linked to the research objectives on LAL for teachers of LCTLs need further exploration. For example, the study focuses on teachers’ perspectives but does not extensively explore learner outcomes [35]. Future research should investigate how LCTL learners perceive changes in assessment practices introduced by trained teachers [103]. Surveys, focus groups, or interviews with students can provide insights into the impact on their motivation, engagement, and language acquisition [82]. Understanding learners’ experiences can validate the effectiveness of LAL interventions and refine assessment practices to better address their needs [91].

It would also be helpful to research the sustained impact of the TALE materials and further explore the extent to which these resulted in lasting changes to participants’ assessment practices beyond the duration of the study. However, to ensure sustained impact, future research should focus on longitudinal tracking of participants’ assessment practices beyond the course [17]. This can include follow-up interviews and classroom observations to determine whether the learned skills translate into long-term improvements.

While the results are contextually grounded in Greek and Cypriot educational settings, the insights on teacher LAL have broader applicability. However, the generalizability of findings to other LCTLs requires further comparative studies in diverse contexts, as suggested by Vogt and Tsagari [31]. Future research could investigate whether similar interventions produce comparable results in other sociocultural and linguistic contexts. Moreover, addressing these challenges will enhance the adaptability of LAL frameworks, ensuring their relevance and effectiveness across various educational systems and languages. Furthermore, this study is limited to a relatively small sample size. Future research could also work with larger samples and triangulate results with follow-up teacher interviews and classroom observations of the participants performing assessment tasks, could be much more informative and rewarding.

Also, investigations into the assessment literacy of the LAL course instructors themselves and the extent to which they adhere to the principles and good practices in language assessment could be investigated in their assessment practices. Finally, further research is needed to identify other probable hindering factors to provide more comprehensive information for the design of a better course. Given the effectiveness of the course in the current study, we suggest using the study design again to investigate teacher LAL in the context of other LCTLs and their varieties, e.g., Sana, Maltese, etc., as well as in other school systems, to ensure its relevance across boundaries. Nevertheless, the questionnaire instrument would need some adaption to the contextual variables and expansion of some of the questions, e.g., the relationship between assessment and motivation through open-ended questions.

In conclusion, while the study primarily addresses Greek as a second language, yet its findings have broader implications. Adaptation to different cultural and educational contexts requires customization of LAL training, reflecting local assessment traditions and policies [14]. Comparative studies across diverse contexts could evaluate the universality of the TALE materials while uncovering unique needs of other LCTLs. Such research could inform cross-cultural frameworks, enhancing the applicability of findings to a global audience [87].

7. Concluding Remarks

Languages like Greek, though less commonly taught and spoken, are essential for preserving cultural heritage and promoting linguistic diversity. For these languages to prosper, especially in educational settings, teachers must be fluent in the language, skilled in instructional methods, and well-versed in language assessment literacy. Competence in assessment is crucial for creating effective learning environments, fostering equitable education, and sustaining these languages for future generations.

Well-designed assessments play a critical role in maintaining learner motivation, especially in LCTLs, where engagement is vital for language preservation. These assessments provide constructive feedback, help students track their progress, and foster a sense of achievement through clear milestones. Teachers skilled in assessment literacy can ensure fair and unbiased evaluations, which is particularly significant given the challenges learners of LCTLs often face. Additionally, accurate assessment data can guide policy-making and resource allocation, strengthening institutional support for LCTLs.

To address the need for improved assessment competence, several strategies can be employed. For example, providing teachers with ongoing professional development opportunities focused on assessment literacy is crucial. Workshops, (online) courses, and collaborative learning communities can help educators develop the skills needed to design, implement, and analyze assessments effectively [24,93]. University programs should integrate comprehensive LAL courses addressing both theoretical foundations and applied strategies, particularly for lesser-taught languages. These courses should emphasize innovative practices like peer and formative assessments while providing hands-on training. Collaborative learning communities could further enhance their reflective and adaptive capabilities. Training should address the socio-emotional aspects of assessment, equipping teachers to use assessment not just as a measure of learning but to motivate and engage learners of LCTLs.

Furthermore, investing in the creation and dissemination of assessment tools tailored to LCTLs can alleviate some of the challenges teachers face. Collaborative efforts between linguists, educators, and cultural organizations can yield high-quality, culturally relevant assessment materials [104]. Finally encouraging research on assessment practices in LCTLs can generate valuable insights and innovative approaches. Collaborative research initiatives can facilitate the sharing of best practices and the development of standardized guidelines for assessing LCTLs [105].

To conclude, developing assessment language competence in teachers of less commonly spoken languages is vital for fostering effective teaching and learning environments. Enhanced assessment literacy [106] not only improves student outcomes [107], but also promotes educational equity and supports the sustainability of linguistic diversity. By prioritizing professional development, resource creation, and research collaboration, educational institutions can empower teachers to deliver high-quality, culturally responsive assessments, ensuring that LCTLs continue to thrive in a globalized world.