EFL university teachers’ perceptions of writing assessment training

Percepciones de Docentes Universitarios sobre un Taller de Evaluación de Escritura en

Inglés como Lengua Extranjera

Elsa Fernanda González[1]



Assessment literacy is a term that has arisen from the worldwide constant use of assessment data and the need to help teachers understand and apply assessment procedures in their language classrooms (Malone, 2013; Inbar-Lourie, 2013). It involves the theoretical knowledge of assessment, its principles and the know how to (Fulcher, 2012) apply them in each specific context. Specifically, the assessment of writing remains a difficult activity that English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Mexican teachers are required to conduct as a regular activity of their language teaching profession. However, these activities are carried out, most of the times, without the proper training, guidance and consideration of teachers’ needs to assure students’ assessment validity and reliability. The study explores the perceptions that 48 Mexican EFL university teachers had in relation to the effectiveness of two writing assessment training sessions provided to them in a period of twelve months. Data obtained from a background questionnaire and an online post training questionnaire suggested that half of the teacher participants did not have previous writing assessment training nor for the use of scoring tools such as analytic and holistic rubrics. Additionally, it was found that although teachers found the sessions useful and practical for their future assessment practice they considered more practice using assessment rubrics and understanding the writing assessment process was needed. Teachers’ perceptions are also analyzed regarding the perceived changes that training encouraged. It is concluded that the inexperience with writing assessment that most of the teachers stated to have may have influenced the perceptions participants reported. Implications for the language student, teacher and institution are discussed in the conclusions of the paper.


Palabras clave: assessment literacy, EFL writing assessment, EFL teachers, teacher training, scoring rubrics.



La alfabetización de evaluación es un término que ha surgido del uso constante en el ámbito internacional de los datos de evaluación y la necesidad de ayudar a los maestros a comprender y aplicar los procedimientos de evaluación en sus aulas de idiomas (Malone, 2013; Inbar-Lourie, 2013). Implica el conocimiento teórico de la evaluación, sus principios y el saber hacer (Fulcher, 2012) que se aplican en cada contexto específico. Específicamente, la evaluación de la escritura sigue siendo una actividad difícil que los profesores mexicanos de inglés como idioma extranjero (EFL) deben realizar como una actividad regular de su profesión de enseñanza de idiomas. Sin embargo, estas actividades se llevan a cabo, la mayoría de las veces, sin la capacitación, orientación y consideración adecuada de las necesidades de los maestro para asegurar la validez y confiabilidad de la evaluación de los estudiantes. Considerando esta problemática, el presente estudio explora las percepciones que 48 profesores universitarios mexicanos de inglés como lengua extranjera tenían en relación a la efectividad de dos sesiones de capacitación de la evaluación de escritura que se les brindaron en un  período de doce meses. Los datos obtenidos de un cuestionario de antecedentes y un cuestionario electrónico posterior a la capacitación sugirieron que la mitad de los docentes participantes no tenían una capacitación previa en evaluación de escritura ni para el uso de herramientas de evaluación como las rúbricas analíticas y holísticas. Además, se encontró que a pesar de que los profesores consideraban que las sesiones eran útiles y prácticas para su futura práctica de evaluación, consideraban que era necesario comprender el proceso de evaluación de la escritura. Las percepciones de los maestros también se analizan con respecto a los cambios percibidos que la capacitación alentó. Se concluye que la inexperiencia con la evaluación de la escritura que la mayoría de los maestros tenia pudo haber influido en las percepciones manifestadas por los participantes. Las  implicaciones para el estudiante de idiomas, el maestro y la institución se discuten en las conclusiones del presente estudio.


Keywords: alfabetización evaluativa, evaluación de la escritura en inglés como lengua extranjera, docentes de inglés como lengua extranjera, capacitación docente, rubricas de evaluación.



In many higher education institutions of Mexico, English as Foreign Language (EFL) teachers are required to teach and assess the four language skills on a regular basis. They need to select an assessment method; develop the assessment tool or use one provided by the program manager; administer and score the tool; interpret and make decisions related to the score; communicate the results and cope with the consequences that assessment and evaluation may have (Crusan, 2014; Fulcher, 2012; Stoynoff and Coomb, 2012; Weigle, 2007). To perform all these activities university language teachers need to be assessment literate. 

The lack of assessment literacy may not only result in a heavier workload for teachers; it may also negatively affect the validity and reliability of the assessment of their students’ writing abilities.


To develop writing assessment literacy teachers require continuous, well-planned training. Lack of training often results in teachers’ uneasiness and distrust in their abilities to assess their students’ written work (González, 2017). Training may favor score and assessment reliability and consistency (Bachman and Palmer, 2010; Hamp-Lyons, 2003; Weigle, 2007). Teachers, however, might not value the training received, or their views of training may impede a positive impact on their assessment practices. Teachers’ perceptions of writing assessment training are therefore, a legitimate field of inquiry.


Assessment literacy means being familiar with and using measurement practices to assess the language used by students for a class (Malone, 2013). Assessment literacy research began in the late 1990s and it has investigated writing teachers’ assessment training needs; teachers’ perceptions of assessment training; and the impact of trainers’ backgrounds on the content and procedures of the assessment training they provide (Bailey and Brown, 1996, 2008; Fulcher, 2012; Hasselgreen and col. 2004; Jeong, 2013; Nier  and col. 2013; Stiggins, 1995). Studies on assessment literacy take place in classrooms of English as a first language (L1), English as a second language (ESL), and English as a foreign language (EFL). Studies that examine assessment training in ESL and EFL contexts, focus mainly on the impact of raters’ training; raters’ backgrounds; raters’ use of rubrics; raters’ gender and other issues of large-scale testing (Barkaoui, 2007, 2011; Eckes, 2008; Esfandiari and Myford, 2013; Lim, 2011).


Specifically in EFL education, Nier and col. (2013), focused on analyzing a blended learning assessment course and its usefulness to participants. They administered a post-training questionnaire to 35 teachers and analyzed the group discussions conducted during the face-to-face encounters. Results indicate that most participants considered the blended learning approach as useful, but required more examples to understand the processes of assessment. Participants identified the course and mode of course as a helpful and useful mode of professional development.


In another study, Jeong (2013) examined teacher trainers’ understanding of assessment and the ways in which their assessment background influenced the outcomes of their assessment courses. Participants were 140 instructors of language assessment courses (both language testers and non-language testers).  Data were collected with the use of an online survey and a telephone interview. Findings show that there were significant differences in the content of the courses depending on the instructors’ background in six topic areas: test specifications, test theory, basic statistics, classroom assessment, rubric development, and test accommodation. Non-language testers were less confident in teaching technical assessment skills compared to language testers and had a tendency to focus more on classroom assessment issues. The researcher recommends language testers to share their knowledge and make it accessible to those who are part of the language assessment community. Research still needs to explore the writing assessment literacy of EFL teachers; the ways in which EFL teachers assess writing; and the impact of EFL teachers’ perspectives of assessment on their assessment practices. Research should also explore the assessment context, the assessment needs, and the perceptions of assessment training of EFL teachers in Latin American countries.


In Mexico, undergraduate students in most universities are required at least a B1 level of proficiency in a language other than Spanish. Therefore, teachers need to be assessment knowledgeable; have practical assessment skills; have the capacity to connect classroom assessment to large-scale tests; and maintain the focus on students’ learning as the main purpose of assessment. Assessment literacy is particularly important to develop the complex ability of EFL writing.


This study examined the perceptions of teachers that participated in a two-session writing assessment workshop in the 2014-2015 school calendar. The research questions addressed were the following:


1)     What are the teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness of the writing assessment training received?

2)     How do writing assessment training influence classroom assessment practices?



This study uses a cross-sectional, non-experimental, intervention design. It is descriptive and exploratory. It does not intend to generalize the results to other populations. Instead, its purpose is to analyze the unique traits that characterize the small group of participants. Data collection and analysis were driven by a mixed-methods approach. Combining quantitative and qualitative data allowed a better understanding of the teachers’ perceptions of assessment and the assessment training they received (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Creswell, 2013). In an effort to care for the validity and reliability of the findings  here portrayed data was shared with an experienced researcher in the area of applied linguistics following a peer checking process (Dörnyei, 2007) that allowed the comparison of results obtained from both researchers. To diminish the Hawthorne Effect as well as the Social Desirability Bias (Dörnyei, 2007) effect a data triangulation method was conducted during which specific data was elicited in different forms and structures within the same online questionnaire.


Participants and research context

Participants were teachers of three universities (19 participants) and one language institute (29 participants) in the northeastern corner of Mexico. Initially, 150 teachers were invited to take part in the study, since they were in service teachers at the time of the study, and teaching in university settings. However, only 48 gave their informed consent to participate. A convenience sampling method was used (Dörnyei, 2007) which emphasizes the inclusion of those participants who were available and willing to take part in the study.


The teachers’ institutions of affiliation used different programs and methods to teach and assess writing. Regarding their assessment policies, all four schools required their teachers to calculate a holistic score (0-10 or 0-100) that integrated students’ EFL writing proficiency with other language skills. Teachers from the language institute reported that the institution had established writing tasks and scoring rubrics to assess the writing abilities of students. University teachers, on the other hand, stated that their institutions did not provide assessment guidelines and they were free to decide on their assessment approaches. Neither the language institute nor the universities gave their teachers EFL writing assessment training.


Writing assessment training

The researcher, who was also the trainer, delivered the workshop in two sessions. The first session focused on the nature of EFL writing, writing assessment, and the use of holistic and analytic rubrics. The second session focused on the importance of using rubrics to assess writing skills and giving trainees time for practice. Teachers reflected on the characteristics of their teaching contexts and their assessment practices. The trainer structured the workshop in accordance with the concept of “assessing for learning” (Stiggins, 1995); the manual for language examinations (Concil of Europe, 2002; 2009a; 2009b) of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR); and the manual for language test development and examining (2011) of the Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE). The assessment training given to participants included: (a) guided discussion of previously scored samples; (b) independent marking and follow-up discussion of scores; and (c) independent marking and pair discussion of scores.


Data collection instruments

Two data collection instruments were used: a background questionnaire and an online post-training questionnaire. The background questionnaire was paper-based and administered on-site during the first training session. It gathered information about the participants’ EFL teaching and assessment experience.


A combination of eight multiple-choice and three open-ended questions were included in the background questionnaire to provide informants with opportunities for free expression (Nunan, 1992). The post-training questionnaire was written in the participants’ L1 (Spanish) and delivered electronically with the use of a survey generation and research platform for members of the University of Southampton (found at: https://www.isurvey.soton.ac.uk/). The tool made thedata collection processes effective for the researcher and attractive for the participants (Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2010). The survey included Likert-scale items, closed and open questions (Dörnyei, 2007).  It was pilot tested (Dörnyei, 2003) with a group of EFL teachers that were not part of this study.


Data collection and analysis procedures

Data collection for the study involved two stages in a period of twelve months. In the first stage, the researcher asked participants to complete the background questionnaire and delivered the first training session, which lasted approximately three hours which included a 20-minute break. Eight months later, in stage two, the researcher provided the second assessment training session, which took approximately two to three hours to complete. During the session teachers engaged in assessment practice with scoring rubrics, group discussion and benchmark scoring of sample papers. They also shared their reflections on the changes they had observed in their assessment practice, after receiving the first assessment training session. Then, the researcher explained how to answer the online post-training questionnaire and notified teachers they would receive a link by email to answer it. Teachers answered the questionnaire two to three weeks after completing the second training session.


For the analysis, descriptive statistics was used with data that came from the closed-ended items of both questionnaires. The information was introduced into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS. 23) to calculate Means, Mode, and frequency of data items. The sample of teachers did not allow for inferential statistics analysis and therefore, only exploratory and descriptive statistics were used.


For the analysis of open-ended questions, themes were identified and clustered into categories. Each category was given a code and frequencies for each code were calculated (Creswell, 2015).Participants’ responses were analyzed in Spanish to avoid translation of data bias or subjectivity (Pavlenko, 2007). Once the analysis ended, responses were translated into English to report the results.



Participants’ background Participants were 65 % female and 35 % male EFL teachers. Their ages ranged from 20 to 52 years. Regarding their teaching experience, 67 % had taught for five or less years; 25 % had five to nine years of experience; and only 8 % had been teachers for 10 or more years.  As to their professional background, 38 % were undergraduate students working as English language teachers; 29 % had under- graduate or graduate degree and a teaching certificate (Teaching Knowledge Test or the In-Service Certificate of Language Teaching by Cambridge English Language Assessment). Finally, 33 % of the trainees had undergraduate or graduate degree and lacked a teaching certificate. Information on the participants’ background is shown on Table 1.








To compare the participants’ assessment practices before and after the training, the background questionnaire investigated their previous assessment training and use of assessment tools. As shown on Table 1 above, 54 % of the participants responded that they had not received assessment training, while 46 % answered that they had received assessment preparation. Trainees also reported the assessment frequency in their teaching of EFL writing. Of the 48 teachers, 36 % reported that they often assessed writing; 34 % responded that they assessed writing always. Together, people that often and always assessed writing, made 70 % of the sample. However, 20 % sometimes assessed their students; 5 % never did; and 5 % rarely assessed writing in their classrooms.


In relation to assessment tools, teachers were asked about their rubric training and rubric use. Table 1 shows that 56 % responded that they had never received training and 44 % stated that they had received preparation in the use of assessment tools. This is consistent with 44 % of the teachers that informed that they used rubrics (23 % stated that they always used rubrics and 21 % responded that they often did), and 56 % that reported an infrequent use of rubrics (17 %, rarely; 15 %, sometimes; 15 %, never; and 9 %, hardly ever).


What are the teachers’ perceptions of the writing assessment training received? In general, the EFL writing assessment workshop was well accepted by the trainees. Most of them (90 %) considered that the content was clear and understandable. A high percentage of them (96 %) either agreed or strongly agreed with the idea that the training was practical in their subsequent assessment practice.  The majority of them (92 %) agreed or strongly agreed with the item that read: The information and practice shared is useful for future writing assessment. These results are shown on Table 2.



How do writing assessment training influence classroom assessment practices?

As can be portrayed on Table 3, the he teachers’ perception of the influence of the training on their assessment practice was generally positive. A large group (88 %) agreed or strongly agreed with the notion that scoring their students’ pieces of writing became easier for them after the workshop. Many of them also perceived that scoring (90 %) and the use of rubrics (90 %) became more efficient.


The use of rubrics became easier (90 %) and so they considered that the rubrics provided by the trainer during the workshop would be useful in their subsequent assessment practice. However, 13 % of the participants did not plan to use a scoring tool to assess the writings of their EFL students.


The open-ended questions related to the perceived changes in the assessment practices of teachers as a result of the writing assessment training, revealed three major themes.  The themes came from those teachers that: (1) perceived their assessment as more objective after receiving the training; (2) those that considered their assessment became more efficient in terms of speed and practicality; and (3) those teachers that did not perceive any change in their assessment practices as a result of taking the EFL writing assessment workshop. The open-ended questions related to the perceived changes in the assessment practices of teachers as a result of the writing assessment training, revealed three major themes.  The themes came from those teachers  that: (1) perceived their assessment as more objective after receiving the training; (2) those that considered their assessment became more efficient in terms of speed and practicality; and (3) those teachers that did not perceive any change in their assessment practices as a result of taking the EFL writing assessment workshop. As to the reasons for considering that the use of rubrics made their assessments more efficient, they affirmed that the perceived that their scoring became more impartial.


…the rubrics provided in the workshop are useful to supplement the rubrics we already used and to make a more objective assessment (TP04).


Another participant that considered that the workshop contributed to a more objective view expressed the following,

using rubrics to evaluate writing changed because I managed to understand that when assessing a text, I must take into account several things, not only spelling or grammatical errors.  I also learned that with a rubric it is easier for both, the teacher and the student, to be clear about the features of writing that will be assessed and to ensure that the score awarded is reliable” (TP302).


The second theme emerged from the participants who considered their assessment became more efficient referred to the time invested in assessing students work. The following extract of a trainee’s written comments illustrates this view.


The use of rubrics has notably facilitated me the assessment of students’ writing; it is a facilitating tool and it saves time (TP31).


Another teacher considered that after the training, his assessment became more precise. The following comment reflects this view.

It’s easier for me to differentiate if a student belongs to a specific grade of competence described in the rubric, without hesitating or doubting when giving the score (TP36 ).


Most trainees that perceived no change in their assessment practices after receiving the training reported that the rubrics provided in the workshop were very similar to those they were already using in workplaces (TP14).


One teacher perceived that the training received was more useful to analyze his own use of rubrics than to assess his students’ EFL writing (TP35).



This study analyzed the perceptions that 48 EFL Mexican university teachers regarding a writing assessment workshop. It also examined the teachers’ perceived changes in their assessment practices after attending the writing assessment training. Findings indicate that they perceived the training as useful and practical. They also considered the training resulted in a more efficient and objective assessment practice, as well as an easier and less time-consuming scoring of students’ written work. Interestingly, a large part of the sample considered implementing scoring tools in their classroom assessment after the training, thus making a change in their assessment practices. These results seem to echo those of Nier, Donnovan and Malone (2013) in which 35 language teachers answered a post-training questionnaire. Still, four teachers disagreed and strongly disagreed with the statement that training was useful for their assessment practice. They also perceived that training did not change their assessment practice. However, this study focused on their perceptions of their practice and not on what they in fact do in the classroom.


Future research could focus on the concrete assessment processes that they make happen in the classroom, to give them a better assessment preparation. The majority of the EFL teachers who took the assessment workshop seemed to be conscious of their language assessment weaknesses. They were always willing to participate in pair and class discussion, and to practice the use of holistic and analytic rubrics. However, a small group of teachers seemed to refuse the use of scoring tools in their writing classes.


This finding seems to be related to their specific teaching experience and professional backgrounds. The participants of this study, as foreign language teachers worldwide, come from different professional fields, which may influence their understanding of assessment. Jeong (2013), found significant differences in the content of assessment training courses depending on the instructors’ background.


The influence of language assessment trainees on the ways they perceive assessment would need further research. Finally, this study involved two data-collection instruments that involve indirect contact with participants and favor short responses. Future studies could consider the use of other collection instruments, such as face-to-face or stimulus –recall interviews, which allow direct contact and more nourished responses.



The conclusions that emanate from this study highlight the importance that writing assessment training represents for the language student, the language teacher and for any type of language institution. On many occasions, the future of a language student is determined by scores provided by a teacher in the classroom or on a large-scale test. Teachers in the Mexican EFL context on the other hand, are required to assess language skills on a regular day-to-day basis. Therefore, it seems rather unfair for the student and the teacher to conduct these assessments without prior and proper training, jeopardizing the validity and reliability of assessment and the students’ future academic life. On the other hand, the results of this study could also serve teacher trainers and language program managers or coordinators to understand the needs of their teachers and their views in terms of writing assessment. This with the purpose of comparing and contrasting them with the institutions’ teaching goals and teacher training possibilities so that appropriate sessions are provided, making the breach between the teacher and assessment literacy as small as possible.



Bailey, K. M. and Brown, J. D. (1996). Language testing courses: What are they? In A. Cumming and R. Berwick (Eds.), Validation in language testing (pp. 236–256). UK: Multilingual Matters.

Bailey, K. M. and Brown, J. D. (2008). Language testing courses: What are they in 2007? Language Testing. 25(3): 349-383.

Bachman, L.F. and Palmer, A. (2010). Language Assessment in Practice. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Barkaoui, K. (2007). Rating scale impact on EFL essay marking: A mixed-method study. Assessing Writing. 12(2): 86–107.

Barkaoui, K., (2011). Effects of marking method and rater experience on ESL essay scores and rater performance. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 18(3): 279–293.

Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J.W. (2015). A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage Publications.

Crusan, D. (2014). Assessing writing. In Anthony John Kunan (Ed.) The companion to language assessment (pp. 206-217). UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Council of Europe (2002). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching and Assessment. Strasbourgh, France: Council of Europe.

Council of Europe (2009a). The manual for language test development and examination. Strasbourgh, France: Council of Europe.

Council of Europe (2009b). Manual for relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Strasbourgh, FR: Council of Europe.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dörnyei, Z. and Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration and processing. NY: Routledge.

Eckes, T. (2008). Rater types in writing performance assessments: A classification approach to rater variability. Language Testing. 25(2): 155–185.

Esfandiari, R., Myford, C. (2013). Severity differences among self-assessors, peer-assessors, and teacher assessors rating EFL essays. Assessing Writing. 18(2): 111–131.

Fulcher, G. (2012). Assessment Literacy for the Language Classroom, Language Assessment Quarterly. 9(2): 113-132.

González, E.F. (2017). The challenge of EFL writing assessment in Mexican Higher Education. En Higher Education English Language Teaching and Research in Mexico (p. Grounds & C. Moore, Eds.) (pp.73-100). British Council: Mexico City.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (2003). Writing teachers as assessors of writing. In Kroll, B. (Ed.) Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing (pp. 162-189). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Hasselgreen, A., Carlsen, C., and Helness, H. (2004). European survey of language testing and assessment needs. Part 1: General findings. Gothenburg, Sweden: European Association for Language Testing and Assessment. Retrieved from. [Online]. Available in: http://www.ealta.eu.org/documents/resources/survey-report-pt1.pdf.

Jeong, H. (2013). Defining assessment literacy: Is it different for language testers and non-language testers? Language Testing. 30(3): 345-362.

Lim, G. (2011). The development and maintenance of rating quality in performance writing assessment: A longitudinal study of new and experienced raters. Language Testing. (28): 543-560.

Malone, M. E. (2013). The essentials of assessment literacy: Contrasts between testers and users. Language Testing. 30(3): 329-344.

Nier, V. C., Donovan, A. E., and Malone, M. E. (2009). Increasing assessment literacy among LCTL instructors through blended learning. Journal of the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages. (9): 105–136.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics. 28(2): 166-188.

Stiggins, R. J. (1995). Assessment literacy for the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan. 77(3): 238-245.

Stoynoff, S. and Coombe, C. (2012). Professional development in language assessment. In Christine Coombe, Peter Davidson, Barry O’Sullivan, Stephen Stoynoff (Eds.) The Cambridge guide to second language assessment (pp. 122-130). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Weigle, S. C. (2007). Teaching writing teachers about assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing. 16(3): 194–209.



[1] Fecha de recepción: 20 de septiembre de 2018 /Fecha de aceptación: 05 de octubre de 2018 /Autor para correspondencia: efernandagonzalez@gmail.com/Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, Unidad Académica Multidisciplinaria de Ciencias, Educación y Humanidades/Dirección: Centro Universitario Victoria, “Lic. Adolfo López Mateos”, Ciudad Victoria Tamaulipas, México, C.P. 871491.