Introduction

In recent years, assessment literacy (also known as AL) has become a central concern in English language teaching (ELT), particularly as communicative language teaching (CLT) helps reshape the ways we teachers design and evaluate student learning and language mastery. To better comprehend Assessment Literacy, it needs to be understood that this concept refers to teachers’ “ability to understand, analyze, and apply assessment principles in ways that enhance student learning” (Stiggins, 1995, p. 240) not from a summative standpoint but from a formative one that boosts linguistic development among students. While communicative lessons emphasize interaction, meaning, and real-world use of language, they require forms of assessment that go beyond discrete-point grammar tests. Developing assessment literacy ensures that teachers can design evaluations aligned with communicative outcomes, bridging the gap between pedagogy and evidence of learning.

Communicative Teaching and Assessment Challenges

One of the persistent challenges in CLT has been the usual misalignment between instructional goals (linked to course outline outcomes and assessment tools (tasks to provide students with feedback through formative assessment). Nunan (2004) highlights that communicative tasks must be evaluated for both accuracy and fluency, yet many teachers still rely on “traditional testing methods that measure isolated forms rather than communicative competence” (p. 112). Without assessment literacy, teachers risk undermining communicative pedagogy by applying outdated forms of testing, emphasizing, e.g., whether B2 learners can effectively use the third conditional without mixing tenses. AL provides conceptual and practical tools for teachers to ensure that assessment reflects what is taught, that scaffolds the learner throughout all the process and that they communicatively practice the grammar, vocabulary, and communication strategies in the classroom.

Defining Teacher Assessment Literacy

Assessment literacy must not be simply considered as a technical skill but as a professional competence nowadays. Inbar-Lourie (2008) has defined AL as “the knowledge base, skills, and principles that enable teachers to integrate assessment into classroom practice in a meaningful way” (p. 389). For ELT, this includes designing performance-based tasks with a communicative aim in their genesis, using rubrics for formative assessment to guide students on the areas they need to strengthen, and providing meaningful feedback that promotes learner autonomy. In this sense, assessment literacy is inseparable from pedagogical content knowledge, as teachers must not only know how to teach communicatively but also how to measure communicative growth among their language learners.

Formative Assessment as a Pedagogical Tool

A key point of assessment literacy is the understanding and use of formative assessment. Black and Wiliam (1998) argue that “formative assessment is at the heart of effective teaching” because it informs instruction and guides learners (p. 140). Within ELT, formative strategies such as peer feedback, self-assessment checklists, and reflective journals allow teachers to capture language development in authentic ways. These tools reflect a shift from assessment of learning to assessment for learning, a distinction that is crucial in communicative classrooms, which will help language instructors abandon non-communicative practices that do not contribute to assist the development of “pragmatic” language mastery among students.

Feedback and Learner Agency

Assessment literacy also equips teachers to give timely and meaningful feedback to learners that fosters their agency and responsibility for their own language learning. According to Hattie and Timperley (2007), effective feedback must answer three questions: Where am I going? How am I going? Where to next? (p. 86). In communicative language teaching (CLT) contexts, this set of questions means moving beyond error correction toward feedback that encourages risk-taking, negotiation of meaning, and learner reflection. Teachers trained in AL can provide feedback that not only addresses language accuracy but also builds learners’ confidence in authentic communication. In the end, we language teachers want to have a cohort of students willing to try out what they are learning in new contexts where similar grammatical structures along with communication strategies are used.

Washback and Classroom Practices

The concept of washback, the influence of assessment on teaching and learning, highlights the importance of teacher assessment literacy. Bailey (1996) notes that “tests and examinations often have powerful influences on both teachers and students, shaping classroom activities and attitudes” (p. 259). These types of summative assessments are not meant to replace communicative and formative tasks; this summative evaluation is important but not central to CLT. Teachers who lack AL are bound to succumb to negative washback by teaching to the written, grammar and vocabulary-oriented tests, while those who are assessment literate can harness positive washback to reinforce communicative pedagogy and communication strategies in real life situations. For instance, task-based formative assessments can drive instruction that is more interactive and learner-centered aiming at helping students toy with the language, discover how it is used, and negotiate meaning in conversation.

Professional Development and Assessment Literacy

Professional development programs (PDPs) must therefore integrate assessment literacy as a core component of teacher training and teacher performance assessment. Scarino (2013) argues that AL requires not only technical expertise but also a “critical, reflective stance toward one’s own practices and assumptions” (p. 312); self-reflection or some kind of reflective journaling can give room to better classroom practices and delivery. For ELT teachers, this reflective dimension ensures that assessment is not a separate or punitive element, but a pedagogical practice aligned with communicative principles aiming at helping students develop the target language. Training teachers to design communicative lessons using frameworks such as the Kirkpatrick Model should naturally extend to equipping them with the skills to evaluate communicative outcomes, not only in in-class, formative assessments but in course summative evaluations.

Conclusion

Assessment literacy is the natural extension of communicative teaching. Without AL, we teachers risk undermining communicative goals by defaulting to traditional testing formats where form is more important than meaning and use. With AL, we language instructors gain the capacity to design assessments that reflect authentic language use, provide meaningful feedback, and create positive washback among our learners. Ultimately, AL empowers us teachers to connect pedagogy and assessment, ensuring that communicative classrooms are not only rich in interaction but also rigorous in evaluation.

📚 References

Bailey, K. M. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300303

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Inbar-Lourie, O. (2008). Constructing a language assessment knowledge base: A focus on language assessment courses. Language Testing, 25(3), 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208090158

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Scarino, A. (2013). Language assessment literacy as self-awareness: Understanding the role of interpretation in assessment and in teacher learning. Language Testing, 30(3), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213480128

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

Reflection and Discussion Questions for Teachers

1. In your current practice, how do you ensure that your assessments align with the communicative goals of your lessons?

2. Have you experienced negative washback (tests shaping your teaching in unhelpful ways)? If so, how could assessment literacy help you counteract it?

3. Which formative assessment strategies (e.g., peer feedback, self-assessment, learning journals) have you found most effective in your classrooms? Why?

4. How do you balance accuracy-focused assessment (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation) with assessments of fluency and communicative competence?

5. Reflect on the feedback you typically provide to learners: does it answer the three guiding questions Hattie & Timperley (2007) suggest (Where am I going? How am I going? Where to next?)?

6. In what ways could you further develop your own assessment literacy through professional development, collaboration, or self-study?

 Assessment Literacy Activity [handout]

Assessment Literacy Activity [Handout] by Jonathan Acuña

Assessment Literacy Workshop Handout

Assessment Literacy Workshop Handout by Jonathan Acuña

Assessment Literacy in ELT - Extending Communicative Teaching Through Informed Evaluation by Jonathan Acuña

In language education, one of the most widely discussed and endorsed yet inconsistently practiced approaches is Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Since its genesis, advent, and use in the late twentieth century, CLT has been promoted as a response to traditional language learning form-focused methods, emphasizing meaningful “communicative” interaction and language learner autonomy. However, as Dr. Jack C. Richards (2006) points out, while many language instructors acknowledge the value of CLT, they often “struggle to translate its principles into actual classroom practice” (p. 22); that is, classroom exercises, activities, and tasks are not exactly communicative. In other words, this gap between theory and practice remains a pressing challenge in language teacher education and in-service training: language trainers may understand communicative principles conceptually but default to grammar drills, vocabulary memorization, or teacher-centered techniques when faced with real classroom constraints.

Bridging this gap between communicative principles and actual teaching practice in the classroom requires more than methodological input; it calls for professional development that needs to be systematic, reflective, and oriented toward long-term behavioral change among teaching practitioners. The Kirkpatrick Four-Level Training Evaluation Model offers a structured framework for such an academic and PD endeavor. Originally designed for corporate training, it has since been adapted to fit and suit educational contexts where both teacher learning and student outcomes are critical for language speaking mastery and communication goals achievement. By applying Kirkpatrick’s model to language teacher training, professional development can move beyond theoretical awareness, ensuring that language teachers can acquire, apply, and sustain communicative strategies that lead to measurable improvements in student competence and language mastery.

Understanding the Kirkpatrick Model in the Context of Language Teacher Training

The Kirkpatrick Model consists of four levels, each building on the previous one. When applied to language teacher training, it provides a roadmap for both instructional, pedagogical design and performance evaluation. Its structure aligns well with what Penny Ur (2012) emphasizes as the cyclical process of teacher learning: input, practice, reflection, and adaptation.

Level 1: Reaction: The first level examines how language teachers perceive the training in terms of relevance, engagement, and usefulness for their teaching practice in F2F or virtual teaching settings. This dimension is crucial because, as Fullan (2007) argues, “deep change is only possible when teachers find personal meaning in new practices” (p. 36). In a communicative training program, workshops must not only present concepts but also model communicative techniques such as sketchpads (role plays) or information-gap tasks, allowing language instructors to experience firsthand the types of activities their learners might perform in their classrooms. Teachers’ reactions can be documented through post-session surveys, reflective journals, or facilitated discussions, which reveal whether participants see the training as practical and inspiring, or whether the training must be “tuned up” to kindle instructors’ interest in a different way.

Level 2: Learning: At the second level, the focus shifts to the knowledge, skills, and attitudes teachers acquire during training. In the case of CLT, David Nunan (2004) highlights that communicative lesson planning requires sequencing tasks in ways that mirror real-life communication, moving learners from controlled to freer use of language (p. 31). Teacher training at this level therefore emphasizes principles of CLT, task-based learning, and student-centered instruction. As a consequence, language instructors might analyze traditional versus communicative lesson plans, design their own sequences of activities and tasks for a communicative class, and engage in microteaching sessions that provide opportunities for experimentation and peer feedback. Learning at this stage is typically assessed through rubrics, pre- and post-assessments, and structured reflective journaling, ensuring that participants leave with a clearer understanding of how to plan lessons that promote authentic interaction.

Level 3: Behavior: The third level evaluates whether the knowledge gained by the instructors translates into classroom practice and more student learning. Borg (2015) observes that teacher cognition strongly influences classroom behavior, which means that training alone is insufficient without mechanisms for sustained support. That is, PD training without an accountable follow-up is not meant to make changes in classroom delivery and student performance and learning. With proper follow-up, in this stage, teachers begin to implement communicative strategies in their own classrooms, guided by mentoring cycles, coaching sessions, and reflective teaching journals. Supervisors can conduct structured classroom observations using communicative-focused checklists, while teachers themselves engage in self-assessment and collaborative peer feedback. Over time, these practices encourage a shift from traditional teacher-led instruction toward classrooms that foster greater learner autonomy and interaction.

Level 4: Results: The final stage (Results) examines the broader impact of teacher development on student outcomes and performance. Littlewood (2004) argues that the success of communicative approaches lies in students gaining the competence and confidence to use the language in authentic contexts (p. 324). To evaluate this, institutions can compare student participation and performance in speaking and listening tasks before and after teacher training, analyze classroom discourse patterns, and collect learner feedback. Positive outcomes may be observed in increased student engagement, greater willingness to use the target language spontaneously, and improvements in communicative competence and language mastery. Such evidence can fully demonstrate that teacher development has moved beyond theory into tangible learning results whose impact may also be measured in exit exams such as TOEIC speaking or any other type of test the institution uses.

Self-Assessment and Supervisor Rubric

To facilitate not only reflection but also accountability, a combined self-assessment and supervisor rubric can support teachers in monitoring their progress across all four levels of the Kirkpatrick Model. Teachers must provide evidence such as workshop reflections, lesson plans along with communicative activities, classroom observations of their peers, and student performance data, while supervisors document growth through feedback and observation. This dual perspective ensures that professional development remains both individualized and systematically evaluated. Then, both teachers and supervisors are accountable for the success in the implementation of CLT in each class.

The following rubric is designed to help teachers reflect on their progress and allow supervisors to identify areas where support may be needed. It is just a draft that needs to be expanded to include other areas where an institution wants to focus while working on their instructors’ professional development. Each level of the Kirkpatrick Model is represented with indicators and a scale of achievement.

Training language teachers to plan communicative lessons is best understood as a sustained process of professional growth rather than a one-off intervention. The Kirkpatrick Model offers a structured, evidence-based framework that ensures teachers not only acquire new strategies but also apply them effectively and achieve tangible improvements in student outcomes. By aligning teacher development with each stage of the model, institutions can foster professional growth that is impactful, sustainable, and directly linked to communicative competence in the classroom.

Moreover, the model resonates with contemporary trends in English language teacher development. Reflective practice, for instance, has been widely recognized as a cornerstone of professional learning; Schön (1983) describes it as the process by which teachers critically examine their actions to improve future practice. Similarly, teacher learning communities (CoPs) have emerged as collaborative spaces where educators share experiences, challenge assumptions, and co-construct knowledge (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Embedding the Kirkpatrick framework within these practices ensures that teacher training is not an isolated event but part of an ongoing culture of reflection, collaboration, and renewal.

In this sense, the Kirkpatrick Model functions not only as an evaluative tool but also as a catalyst for deeper engagement with the principles of communicative teaching. When combined with reflective inquiry and peer collaboration, it can help build a professional development ecosystem that empowers teachers to create classrooms where authentic communication thrives.

📚 References

Borg, S. (2015). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Bloomsbury.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 319–326.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Ur, P. (2012). A course in English language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

9 Discussion Questions for Teaching Coaches

1.    How can the Reaction level of the Kirkpatrick Model be adapted to ensure teachers perceive training as relevant and motivating for their classroom realities?

2.    What strategies can be used to help teachers move from conceptual understanding of CLT to the actual design of communicative tasks?

3.    In what ways might microteaching and peer feedback serve as effective tools to strengthen the Learning stage?

4.    How can teaching coaches ensure that the Behavior level—classroom implementation—does not fade once the training sessions conclude?

5.    What role can reflective journals and teacher cognition research (Borg, 2015) play in sustaining behavioral change in communicative teaching practices?

6.    How can the Results level be measured beyond standardized tests, capturing authentic student communicative competence?

7.    What institutional supports (e.g., mentoring cycles, CoPs, supervisor rubrics) are necessary to make the Kirkpatrick framework sustainable in ELT contexts?

8.    How can the model be integrated with task-based learning principles (Nunan, 2004) to provide both structure and flexibility in lesson planning?

9.    To what extent does embedding the Kirkpatrick Model into professional development foster a culture of accountability and collaboration among teachers, supervisors, and institutions?

Evaluating Teacher Training - Applying the Kirkpatrick Model to Communicative Lesson Design by Jonathan Acuña