Hossein Nassaji is Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Victoria, Canada. He has published extensively in the areas of second language acquisition, corrective feedback, form-focused instruction, and task-based teaching. His recent books include The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching (2021, Cambridge University Press, with E. Kartchava), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning (2017, Routledge, with E. Kartchava), and Interactional Feedback Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning (2015, Bloomsbury). He has delivered over 60 keynote and invited speeches at national and international conferences including his most recent plenary talk at the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL) at Pittsburgh, USA. He is the editor-in-chief and co-editor of Language Teaching Research (LTR) and Editor of the Grammar Teaching Volume of The TESOL Encyclopaedia of English Language Teaching published by Wiley. He has received several awards for his contributions, including the Twenty-First Mildenberger Prize of the Modern Language Association of America and the Research Excellence Award of the Faculty of Humanities, University of Victoria. He has recently been elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, the highest academic honor for the country’s distinguished scholars and leaders. 

A short bio statement of Hossein Farhady

Hossein Farhady, who is a professor of applied linguistics at the ELT department at Yeditepe University in Istanbul, Turkey, received his MA in TESL and Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from UCLA. He has taught courses on language testing, research methods, and ESP at the MA and Ph.D. levels in Iran, Canada, Armenia, and the USA. He has directed two nationwide research projects on EFL/EAP in Iran, and test development and test validation projects in the US.  He retired in 2006, moved to the US, and worked as a senior scholar and project manager for testing organizations. He also worked as the associate dean of the Department of English Programs at the American University of Armenia. Besides, he has supervised more than 50 MA Theses and Ph.D. dissertations. His major area of interest is research on various aspects of language testing and assessment.

Title of Presentation:

“Reflections on EFL Teachers’ LAK”

We have witnessed some dramatic changes in education in the last few decades. TEFL is no exception. One such change was the transition from the so-called method era to the post method era which led to a pleasant consequence of integrating teaching, learning, and assessment.  (Purpura, 2014). To accommodate this shift, we need to make significant adjustments in the perceptions, beliefs, and practices of teachers, learners, and other stakeholders (Xu, 2015). We need teachers who have desirable commitment, peace of mind, knowledge, and skills to meet these challenges (Inbar-Lourie, 2013; Malone, 2013; Green 2021). That is why research has proliferated in the field investigating whether EFL teachers receive adequate preparation in teacher education centers and supplementary training later. Unfortunately, research findings consistently reveal that EFL teachers around the world are not well prepared to meet the new challenges. Nor are they receiving adequate training in teacher education programs (Inbar-Lourie, 2008; Farhady &Tavassoli 2018

The purpose of this presentation is to reflect on one of the major challenges we face. I will focus on EFL teachers’ professional knowledge (TPK) and more specifically on their language assessment knowledge (LAK). I will examine the findings of research on LAK and argue that consistent research findings on the insufficiency of EFL teachers’ LAK may not reflect a true picture of reality. Rather, the findings might be partially due to the artifact of the old framework (NCME, & NEA, 1990) that has been the basis of most LAK tests. Following Gotch and French (2014), I would argue that the present treatment of LAK, which follows summative normative principles, might not be as construct valid as we assumed it to be. In other words, we need to revise the definition of the construct of LAK to accommodate all potential dimensions of the field. I will conclude the paper by suggesting a modified perspective on defining the construct that requires extensive empirical validation research.