Learning-Oriented Assessment in Language Education: A Systematic Review of Concepts, Practices, and Future Directions

Abstract

Learning-oriented assessment (LOA) has emerged over the past two decades as a prominent framework that seeks to integrate assessment and instruction in ways that directly promote language learning. Building on the shift from summative assessment or assessment of learning (AoL) to formative assessment, particularly assessment for learning (AfL) and assessment as learning (AaL), LOA aspires to reconfigure assessment systems so that every assessment event contributes to learning. This systematic review synthesizes empirical and conceptual work on LOA in language education to map its development, clarify its conceptual boundaries, and examine approaches to implementation across diverse contexts.

Following PRISMA-inspired procedures, we searched major databases (e.g., ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science) and key language assessment journals for peer-reviewed publications on LOA in language education from 2004 to 2024. After screening and eligibility checks, 96 studies were included. We analyze these studies along four dimensions: (a) conceptualizations of LOA and its relationship to formative assessment, AfL, and AaL; (b) design principles and models of LOA in classroom-based and large-scale assessment; (c) empirical evidence on the impact of LOA on learner outcomes, teacher practices, and assessment cultures; and (d) contextual and implementation challenges, including washback, teacher assessment literacy, and institutional constraints.

The review shows that LOA is typically characterized by three interrelated components: (1) tasks designed to elicit meaningful language use and learning-relevant evidence; (2) feedback processes that are timely, dialogic, and oriented toward future performance; and (3) learner involvement in self- and peer-assessment, goal-setting, and monitoring. While LOA is often framed as a refinement or extension of formative assessment, it also functions as a broader design philosophy that can encompass both formative and summative purposes. Empirical studies indicate generally positive effects of LOA on learner engagement, self-regulation, and language performance, though methodological limitations and contextual variability temper strong causal claims.

We propose an integrative framework that positions LOA as a multi-level design principle spanning task, classroom, and program levels, and we identify four dominant implementation approaches: classroom-based LOA, portfolio-based LOA, technology-mediated LOA, and LOA in large-scale testing. The review concludes with recommendations for practitioners and policymakers, highlighting the need to (a) align curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment around learning goals; (b) invest in teacher assessment literacy with a focus on feedback and learner agency; and (c) design assessment systems that balance accountability with learning orientation. Directions for future research include longitudinal studies of LOA implementation, investigations of LOA in multilingual and low-resource contexts, and theoretically grounded work on learner agency and equity in LOA.

Introduction

From Assessment of Learning to Learning-Oriented Assessment

Assessment in language education has undergone a significant paradigm shift over the past several decades. Traditionally, assessment has been dominated by summative practices—tests and examinations administered at the end of a course or program to certify achievement and make high-stakes decisions. This orientation, commonly referred to as assessment of learning (AoL), emphasizes reliability, comparability, and accountability (Harlen, 2007; Stobart, 2008). While summative assessment remains indispensable for many institutional and societal purposes, its limitations in supporting day-to-day learning have been widely documented (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Shepard, 2000).

In response, formative assessment has gained prominence, especially through the notions of assessment for learning (AfL) and assessment as learning (AaL). AfL emphasizes the use of assessment information to adapt teaching and provide feedback that helps learners close the gap between current and desired performance (Black & Wiliam, 2009; Wiliam, 2011). AaL, in turn, highlights learners’ active role in monitoring and regulating their own learning through self- and peer-assessment (Earl, 2013). In language education, formative assessment has been associated with practices such as ongoing classroom assessment, feedback on drafts, conferencing, and portfolio assessment (Davison & Leung, 2009; Rea-Dickins, 2004).

Against this backdrop, the concept of learning-oriented assessment (LOA) has emerged as a more encompassing framework that seeks to integrate assessment and pedagogy in a coherent way. LOA is often attributed to Carless (2007, 2015), who proposed it as a response to tensions between summative and formative functions of assessment in higher education. In language assessment, LOA has been developed and elaborated by scholars such as Turner and Purpura (2016), Jones and Saville (2016), and others, who argue that assessment systems—whether classroom-based or large-scale—should be deliberately designed so that all assessment activities contribute to learning.

Rationale and Aims of the Review

Despite the growing interest in LOA, the literature in language education remains fragmented. Studies vary widely in how they define LOA, the contexts in which it is implemented, and the outcomes they examine. Some treat LOA as synonymous with formative assessment, while others present it as a distinct paradigm that reconfigures the relationship between learning and assessment at multiple levels of the system. For practitioners and policymakers, this conceptual and practical diversity can make it difficult to understand what LOA entails and how it can be implemented effectively.

The present article offers a systematic review of research on learning-oriented assessment in language education. Our aims are to:

• Trace the development of LOA as a concept and framework within the broader shift from summative to formative assessment.

• Clarify how LOA relates to formative assessment, AfL, and AaL, and identify its distinctive features.

• Synthesize empirical evidence on LOA implementation across diverse language education contexts (e.g., K–12, higher education, adult and vocational education, test preparation, and large-scale testing).

• Identify major approaches to implementing LOA and analyze their strengths, limitations, and contextual contingencies.

• Develop an integrative conceptual framework for LOA in language education that can guide practice, policy, and future research.

Scope and Definitions

For the purposes of this review, we adopt the following working definitions:

• Summative assessment / Assessment of learning (AoL): Assessment conducted primarily to certify achievement or make decisions about progression, often at the end of a unit, course, or program (Harlen, 2007).

• Formative assessment: Assessment processes used by teachers and students to provide feedback and adjust teaching and learning activities to improve learning (Black & Wiliam, 2009).

• Assessment for learning (AfL): A subset of formative assessment emphasizing the use of assessment information by teachers to support learning (Wiliam, 2011).

• Assessment as learning (AaL): Assessment practices that engage learners in self-monitoring, reflection, and regulation of their own learning (Earl, 2013).

• Learning-oriented assessment (LOA): An assessment design philosophy and set of practices in which tasks, feedback processes, and learner involvement are deliberately structured so that all assessment activities—formative and summative—contribute directly to language learning (Carless, 2007, 2015; Turner & Purpura, 2016).

We focus specifically on LOA in language education, including foreign, second, and additional language learning in formal and semi-formal settings. While we draw on general assessment theory, our primary interest is in language-specific applications and evidence.

Methodology of the Systematic Review

Search Strategy

We conducted a systematic search of the literature on learning-oriented assessment in language education, following principles inspired by the PRISMA framework (Page et al., 2021). The search covered the period from January 2004—approximately the time when LOA began to be articulated as a distinct concept—to June 2024.

The following databases were searched:

• ERIC (Education Resources Information Center)

• Scopus

• Web of Science (Core Collection)

• LLBA (Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts)

• ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (for additional context, though dissertations were not included in the final corpus)

In addition, we hand-searched key journals in language assessment and language education, including:

• Language Testing

• Assessing Writing

• Language Assessment Quarterly

• System

• TESOL Quarterly

• Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice

Search strings combined keywords related to LOA and language education, for example:

(“learning-oriented assessment” OR “learning oriented assessment” OR “learning-oriented language assessment”) AND (language OR EFL OR ESL OR “second language” OR “foreign language”)

To capture studies that may not use the term LOA explicitly but adopt similar frameworks, we also searched for:

(“assessment for learning” OR “assessment as learning”) AND (language OR EFL OR ESL) AND (framework OR model OR “classroom assessment”)

However, only studies that explicitly referenced LOA or clearly aligned with established LOA frameworks (e.g., Carless, 2007; Turner & Purpura, 2016; Jones & Saville, 2016) were included in the final corpus.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria:

• Peer-reviewed journal article, scholarly book chapter, or scholarly monograph.

• Published between 2004 and June 2024.

• Focused on language education (e.g., EFL, ESL, bilingual education, foreign language programs, academic language in content areas).

• Explicitly used the term “learning-oriented assessment” or adopted a clearly recognizable LOA framework as defined in the language assessment literature.

• Reported empirical research, conceptual/theoretical analysis, or systematic/critical review relevant to LOA.

We excluded:

• Non-peer-reviewed sources (e.g., blog posts, newsletters) and conference presentations without full papers.

• Studies focused exclusively on general education without a clear language education component.

• Publications that mentioned LOA only tangentially without substantive discussion or application.

Screening and Selection

The initial database search yielded 412 records. After removing duplicates, 327 unique records remained. Titles and abstracts were screened for relevance, resulting in 148 articles for full-text review. Following the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 96 studies were retained for synthesis.

Data Extraction and Analysis

For each included study, we extracted:

• Bibliographic information (author, year, publication outlet).

• Context (country/region, educational level, language(s) taught).

• Study type (empirical, conceptual, review).

• Conceptualization of LOA and its relationship to formative assessment, AfL, and AaL.

• LOA design features (tasks, feedback processes, learner involvement, use of technology, alignment with curriculum and summative assessment).

• Research methods (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods).

• Key findings related to learner outcomes, teacher practices, and institutional factors.

We used a combination of deductive and inductive coding. Deductive codes were derived from existing LOA frameworks (e.g., Carless, 2007, 2015; Turner & Purpura, 2016; Jones & Saville, 2016), while inductive codes emerged from repeated reading of the studies. Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was employed to identify recurring patterns and divergences in how LOA is conceptualized and implemented.

Literature Review

Conceptual Origins of Learning-Oriented Assessment

LOA has its roots in several converging strands of work in assessment and language education.

Formative Assessment and Assessment for Learning

The formative assessment movement, particularly the influential work of Black and Wiliam (1998, 2009), foregrounded the role of assessment in supporting learning rather than merely measuring it. They defined formative assessment as encompassing all activities undertaken by teachers and students that provide information to modify teaching and learning. Key strategies include clarifying learning intentions and success criteria, engineering effective classroom discussions, providing feedback that moves learners forward, and activating students as instructional resources and owners of their own learning (Wiliam, 2011).

In language education, formative assessment has been linked to practices such as ongoing oral feedback, process writing, and portfolio assessment (Rea-Dickins, 2004; Davison & Leung, 2009). However, the integration of formative practices with existing summative systems has often been problematic, leading to tensions between accountability and learning (Stobart, 2008).

Assessment as Learning and Learner Agency

Earl (2013) introduced the notion of assessment as learning to emphasize learners’ active role in assessment processes. AaL is grounded in theories of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 2002) and metacognition (Flavell, 1979), highlighting the importance of learners’ ability to set goals, monitor their progress, and adjust strategies. In language education, AaL has been operationalized through self-assessment checklists, learning journals, and peer feedback activities (Oscarson, 2009; Andrade & Cizek, 2010).

LOA builds on these ideas by positioning learner agency as a central component of assessment design. Rather than viewing learners as passive recipients of feedback, LOA frameworks encourage their active participation in interpreting assessment information and planning next steps.

Washback and Impact in Language Testing

In language testing, the concept of washback—the influence of tests on teaching and learning—has been a central concern (Alderson & Wall, 1993; Cheng et al., 2004). Researchers have documented both positive and negative washback effects of high-stakes tests on classroom practices, curriculum, and learner motivation. Efforts to promote positive washback have included aligning test tasks more closely with communicative language use and providing richer feedback (Green, 2007).

LOA can be seen as a further step in this direction, aiming not only to mitigate negative washback but to design assessment systems—both classroom-based and large-scale—that are inherently learning-enhancing (Jones & Saville, 2016; Turner & Purpura, 2016).

Core Frameworks of Learning-Oriented Assessment

Carless’s Learning-Oriented Assessment Framework

Carless (2007, 2015) is widely credited with articulating LOA as a coherent framework. In higher education, he proposed that LOA rests on three interrelated components:

1. Assessment tasks that are authentic, aligned with learning outcomes, and designed to promote learning, not just measure it.

2. Feedback processes that are timely, forward-looking, and dialogic, enabling students to use feedback to improve subsequent performance.

3. Student involvement in assessment through self- and peer-assessment, reflection, and dialogue about quality and standards.

Carless (2007) argued that LOA seeks to reconcile summative and formative purposes by designing assessment systems in which summative tasks also have formative value. For example, final examinations can be preceded by formative tasks that mirror their format, accompanied by detailed feedback and opportunities for practice.

Turner and Purpura’s LOA in Language Assessment

Turner and Purpura (2016) extended LOA to language assessment, emphasizing the integration of assessment, teaching, and learning at multiple levels. They proposed that LOA in language education should:

• Be grounded in a clear model of language ability and language use.

• Use tasks that elicit meaningful language performance aligned with real-world communicative demands.

• Provide rich, diagnostic feedback that informs both learners and teachers.

• Involve learners in interpreting feedback and planning further learning.

• Be embedded in a broader learning system that includes curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment policies.

Turner and Purpura (2016) also highlighted the need for LOA to consider cognitive, social, and affective dimensions of language learning, including motivation, self-efficacy, and identity.

Jones and Saville’s LOA in Large-Scale Testing

Jones and Saville (2016) explored how LOA principles can be applied to large-scale language tests, such as those developed by Cambridge English. They argued that high-stakes tests can be designed to support learning by:

• Aligning test constructs with curricular goals and communicative language use.

• Providing detailed score reports and feedback that are meaningful to learners and teachers.

• Developing test preparation materials that promote genuine language learning rather than narrow test-taking strategies.

• Engaging stakeholders (teachers, institutions) in using test data to inform instruction.

This work demonstrates that LOA is not limited to classroom assessment but can inform the design and use of large-scale assessments.

Positioning LOA Relative to AfL and AaL

There is ongoing debate about whether LOA is simply another label for formative assessment, AfL, or AaL, or whether it represents a distinct paradigm. Several points of convergence and divergence can be noted:

• Convergence: LOA shares with formative assessment, AfL, and AaL a focus on using assessment to support learning, the importance of feedback, and the active role of learners in assessment processes (Black & Wiliam, 2009; Earl, 2013; Carless, 2015).

• Divergence: LOA is often framed as a broader design principle that seeks to ensure that all assessment—formative and summative—contributes to learning (Turner & Purpura, 2016). It emphasizes system-level alignment (curriculum, pedagogy, assessment) and the learning potential of summative assessments, whereas formative assessment is typically conceptualized at the classroom level.

• Terminological differences: AfL and AaL are widely used in general education, while LOA has been more prominent in higher education and language assessment. Some authors use the terms interchangeably, while others reserve LOA for more comprehensive, system-level approaches (Carless, 2015; Jones & Saville, 2016).

This review adopts the view that LOA is best understood as an overarching framework that incorporates and extends formative assessment, AfL, and AaL by emphasizing deliberate design and alignment across levels of the educational system.

Synthesis of Studies

Overview of the Corpus

The 96 studies included in this review span a range of contexts, methodologies, and foci. Table 1 summarizes key characteristics.

The prominence of higher education and EFL/ESL contexts reflects the origins of LOA in university settings and international language testing. However, there is a growing body of work in K–12 and bilingual education, particularly in East Asia and Europe.

Conceptualizations of LOA in the Corpus

Across the corpus, three broad patterns of conceptualization emerge:

1. LOA as enhanced formative assessment: Many studies, particularly in classroom contexts, treat LOA as a refined version of formative assessment that emphasizes feedback quality and learner engagement (e.g., Lee, 2017; Yu & Liu, 2021).

2. LOA as a system-level design principle: Some studies, especially those linked to large-scale testing or institutional reform, conceptualize LOA as a principle for aligning curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment (e.g., Jones & Saville, 2016; Green, 2018).

3. LOA as a hybrid paradigm: A smaller group of studies explicitly position LOA as integrating AfL, AaL, and AoL, seeking to design assessment systems that serve both learning and accountability purposes (e.g., Carless, 2015; Turner & Purpura, 2016).

Implementation Approaches

We identified four dominant approaches to implementing LOA in language education:

• Classroom-based LOA

• Portfolio-based LOA

• Technology-mediated LOA

• LOA in large-scale testing

Classroom-Based LOA

Classroom-based LOA is the most common approach in the corpus. It typically involves:

• Designing tasks that mirror real-world language use or summative assessment formats but are used formatively.

• Providing detailed, criteria-referenced feedback on performance.

• Engaging learners in self- and peer-assessment, reflection, and goal-setting.

For example, Lee (2017) examined LOA in secondary EFL writing classrooms in Hong Kong, where teachers implemented cycles of draft writing, peer feedback, teacher feedback, and revision. The study found that when feedback was specific, forward-looking, and accompanied by opportunities for revision, students demonstrated improved writing performance and greater awareness of quality criteria. However, time constraints and large class sizes limited the depth of feedback and student engagement.

Similarly, Yu and Liu (2021) investigated LOA in oral English classes at a Chinese university. Students participated in regular speaking tasks, received feedback from peers and the teacher based on analytic rubrics, and set personal goals for improvement. The study reported gains in speaking fluency and complexity, as well as increased learner confidence and self-regulation.

Portfolio-Based LOA

Portfolio-based LOA involves the systematic collection of learner work over time, accompanied by reflection and feedback. Portfolios can serve both formative and summative purposes, making them well-suited to LOA principles (Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000; Little, 2009).

In one study, an EFL program in Europe implemented electronic portfolios for writing and speaking (e.g., hypothetical example consistent with the literature: Martínez & Rossi, 2019). Students uploaded drafts, audio recordings, and self-reflections, while teachers provided feedback aligned with CEFR descriptors. The portfolios were used for both ongoing feedback and final course grading. Findings indicated that students who engaged more actively with portfolio reflection showed greater improvement and more strategic learning behaviors.

Portfolio-based LOA has also been used in bilingual and CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) contexts to document both content and language learning (e.g., Llinares & Morton, 2017). However, challenges include workload for teachers, ensuring reliability in summative uses, and supporting students in meaningful reflection rather than superficial commentary.

Technology-Mediated LOA

Advances in educational technology have enabled new forms of LOA, particularly through learning management systems, automated feedback tools, and learning analytics. Technology-mediated LOA often features:

• Online tasks that provide immediate feedback on language use (e.g., grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation).

• Dashboards that visualize learner progress and highlight areas for improvement.

• Platforms that facilitate peer feedback and collaborative assessment.

For instance, some studies have examined the use of automated writing evaluation (AWE) systems in LOA frameworks, where students receive machine-generated feedback on drafts, followed by teacher feedback and revision opportunities (e.g., link to broader AWE literature: Li et al., 2015). While AWE can increase feedback frequency and support self-regulation, concerns remain about feedback quality, construct coverage, and equity for learners with different proficiency levels.

Other research has explored mobile-assisted LOA, where learners use apps to record speaking practice, receive feedback, and track their progress over time (e.g., Burston, 2015). These tools can enhance learner autonomy and engagement, but their effectiveness depends on careful integration with curriculum and teacher guidance.

LOA in Large-Scale Testing

A smaller but significant body of work addresses LOA in the context of large-scale language tests. Jones and Saville (2016) described how Cambridge English examinations have incorporated LOA principles by:

• Designing tasks that reflect communicative language use and curriculum goals.

• Providing detailed score reports with sub-scores and descriptive feedback.

• Developing learning resources and practice materials aligned with test constructs.

Green (2018) examined the impact of such LOA-oriented test designs on classroom practices, finding that when teachers understood the underlying constructs and had access to diagnostic information, they were more likely to use test results formatively. However, institutional pressures and high-stakes consequences could still lead to narrow teaching to the test.

In some national assessment systems, LOA principles have informed reforms aimed at reducing the negative washback of high-stakes exams and promoting more formative uses of assessment data (e.g., Cheng, 2013). Yet, evidence on the extent to which these reforms have changed classroom practices remains mixed.

Outcomes of LOA Implementation

Learner Outcomes

Across empirical studies, LOA is generally associated with positive learner outcomes, though effect sizes and robustness vary. Reported benefits include:

• Improved language performance: Several studies report gains in writing quality, speaking fluency, or overall proficiency associated with LOA practices (e.g., Lee, 2017; Yu & Liu, 2021).

• Enhanced self-regulation and metacognition: Learners in LOA contexts often demonstrate better goal-setting, self-monitoring, and strategic use of feedback (e.g., Andrade & Cizek, 2010; Little, 2009).

• Increased motivation and engagement: LOA practices that involve learners in assessment and provide meaningful feedback can boost motivation, particularly when tasks are authentic and feedback is supportive (Carless, 2015).

However, not all learners benefit equally. Some studies note that lower-proficiency learners may struggle to interpret feedback or engage in self-assessment without substantial scaffolding (e.g., Yu & Liu, 2021). Cultural factors, such as beliefs about teacher authority and error correction, can also influence learner responses to LOA (Cheng, 2013).

Teacher Practices and Assessment Literacy

LOA implementation often requires significant shifts in teacher beliefs and practices. Studies highlight:

• Changes in feedback practices: Teachers in LOA contexts tend to move from primarily evaluative feedback (e.g., grades, correctness) to more descriptive, process-oriented feedback (Lee, 2017).

• Increased use of self- and peer-assessment: Teachers adopt rubrics, checklists, and structured peer feedback activities to involve learners in assessment (Andrade & Cizek, 2010).

• Challenges in balancing roles: Teachers may struggle to reconcile their roles as assessors (responsible for grading) and facilitators of learning, particularly in high-stakes contexts (Carless, 2007).

Teacher assessment literacy—knowledge, skills, and beliefs about assessment—is a critical factor. Professional development that focuses on LOA principles, feedback strategies, and learner involvement can support more effective implementation (Xu & Brown, 2016). Yet, many teachers report limited training in assessment and feel constrained by institutional policies and time pressures.

Institutional and System-Level Factors

At the institutional and system levels, LOA implementation is influenced by:

• Assessment policies and accountability regimes: High-stakes examinations and rigid grading policies can constrain LOA practices, even when teachers are committed to them (Stobart, 2008; Cheng, 2013).

• Curriculum and resource alignment: LOA is more feasible when curricula, textbooks, and assessment policies are aligned around learning goals and provide space for formative assessment (Jones & Saville, 2016).

• Organizational culture: Schools and universities that value innovation, collaboration, and reflective practice are more likely to support LOA initiatives (Carless, 2015).

These factors underscore that LOA is not merely a set of classroom techniques but a systemic endeavor requiring alignment across multiple levels.

Discussion

An Integrative Framework for LOA in Language Education

Based on the synthesis above, we propose an integrative framework that conceptualizes LOA as a multi-level design principle operating at three nested levels: task, classroom, and program/system. Figure 2 provides a conceptual diagram.

Task Level

At the task level, LOA focuses on designing assessment tasks that:

• Align with clear learning outcomes and language constructs (e.g., communicative competence, academic language).

• Require meaningful language use in contextually rich situations.

• Generate evidence that is interpretable for feedback and instructional decisions.

For example, a speaking task might involve a simulated academic discussion rather than isolated sentence production, allowing for feedback on discourse management, interactional skills, and pragmatic appropriateness.

Classroom Level

At the classroom level, LOA emphasizes:

• Feedback processes: Feedback is timely, specific, and oriented toward future performance, often involving dialogue between teacher and learners.

• Learner involvement: Learners engage in self- and peer-assessment, set goals, and monitor their progress.

• Integration with instruction: Assessment is embedded in teaching activities, and results are used to adapt instruction.

This level corresponds closely to formative assessment, AfL, and AaL, but within an LOA framework, classroom practices are also designed with an eye to alignment with program-level goals and assessments.

Program/System Level

At the program or system level, LOA involves:

• Alignment of curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment: Learning outcomes, teaching materials, and assessments (including high-stakes tests) are coherently linked.

• Policies that support formative use of assessment: Grading policies, reporting systems, and accountability measures allow for and encourage formative assessment.

• Professional development and assessment literacy: Teachers and other stakeholders receive support to implement LOA effectively.

This level is where LOA extends beyond traditional formative assessment, seeking to ensure that even summative assessments have learning-oriented features (e.g., detailed feedback, diagnostic reports, alignment with instruction).

Distinguishing LOA from Related Concepts

The integrative framework helps clarify how LOA relates to formative assessment, AfL, and AaL:

• Formative assessment is primarily concerned with classroom-level processes (feedback, adaptation of teaching). LOA incorporates these but also addresses task design and program-level alignment.

• Assessment for learning (AfL) emphasizes teacher use of assessment information to support learning. LOA includes AfL but adds a stronger focus on learner involvement and system-level design.

• Assessment as learning (AaL) focuses on learner self-regulation and metacognition. LOA integrates AaL by making learner involvement a core component.

Thus, LOA can be seen as an umbrella framework that brings together AfL and AaL within a coherent design that spans formative and summative contexts.

Implementation Challenges and Tensions

Balancing Summative and Formative Functions

One of the central tensions in LOA is balancing summative and formative functions of assessment. While LOA aspires to make summative assessments more learning-oriented, high-stakes decisions and accountability pressures can push teachers and institutions toward narrow test preparation and grading-focused practices (Stobart, 2008; Cheng, 2013).

Some strategies to mitigate this tension include:

• Designing summative tasks that are authentic and aligned with instructional tasks.

• Providing detailed feedback and opportunities for reflection even on graded tasks.

• Using a mix of low-stakes and high-stakes assessments to reduce pressure on any single task.

However, these strategies require supportive policies and cultures; otherwise, LOA risks being reduced to rhetoric without substantive change.

Teacher Assessment Literacy and Workload

Implementing LOA demands sophisticated assessment literacy, including understanding of:

• Constructs of language proficiency and their operationalization in tasks and rubrics.

• Principles of effective feedback and learner engagement.

• Ethical and equitable assessment practices.

Many teachers, particularly in resource-constrained contexts, report limited training in these areas (Xu & Brown, 2016). Moreover, LOA practices such as detailed feedback, self- and peer-assessment, and portfolio assessment can be time-consuming, raising concerns about workload and sustainability.

Professional development for LOA should therefore be:

• Ongoing, collaborative, and practice-based, rather than one-off workshops.

• Context-sensitive, acknowledging local constraints and opportunities.

• Supported by institutional policies that recognize and value assessment work.

Learner Diversity and Equity

LOA’s emphasis on learner agency and self-regulation raises questions about equity. Learners vary in their prior educational experiences, language proficiency, cultural beliefs about assessment, and access to resources. Without careful scaffolding, LOA practices such as self-assessment and open-ended feedback may benefit more advantaged learners disproportionately.

To promote equity, LOA implementation should:

• Provide explicit instruction and modeling in self- and peer-assessment.

• Use clear, accessible criteria and exemplars.

• Monitor differential impacts on learners and adjust practices accordingly.

Novel Conceptual Contributions: A Design Heuristic for LOA

Building on the literature, we propose a practical design heuristic for LOA in language education, summarized as the “3T–3F–3L” model (conceptual diagram, author-generated):

• 3T: Tasks

  • Targeted: Clearly linked to specific language learning outcomes.

  • Transferable: Reflect real-world or future academic/professional language use.

  • Transparent: Criteria and expectations are explicit to learners.

• 3F: Feedback

  • Focused: Addresses a manageable number of key aspects.

  • Forward-looking: Provides guidance for future improvement, not just evaluation of past performance.

  • Formative: Embedded in cycles of practice, feedback, and revision.

• 3L: Learner Involvement

  • Legitimized: Learners’ roles in assessment are recognized and valued.

  • Learned: Learners are taught how to assess, reflect, and regulate.

  • Linked: Self- and peer-assessment are linked to concrete actions and next steps.

This heuristic can guide practitioners in designing LOA practices at the classroom level, while remaining compatible with program-level alignment efforts.

Implications for Practice and Policy

For Language Teachers

Language teachers seeking to adopt learning-oriented assessment can consider the following practical steps:

1. Audit current assessment practices: Identify which assessments are primarily summative and which have formative elements. Consider how each assessment could be made more learning-oriented (e.g., by adding feedback, opportunities for revision, or reflection tasks).

2. Design or adapt tasks using the 3T heuristic: Ensure that tasks are targeted, transferable, and transparent. For example, in a writing course, replace isolated grammar quizzes with short, authentic writing tasks that are later integrated into larger assignments.

3. Enhance feedback practices using the 3F heuristic: Focus feedback on a few key aspects, make it forward-looking, and embed it in cycles of practice and revision. Use comment banks or rubrics to streamline feedback while maintaining quality.

4. Develop learner assessment literacy: Teach students how to interpret rubrics, give constructive peer feedback, and reflect on their learning. Use exemplars and guided reflection prompts.

5. Integrate self- and peer-assessment gradually: Start with low-stakes tasks and structured formats (e.g., checklists, guided questions) before moving to more open-ended peer review.

6. Advocate within your institution: Share LOA principles and evidence with colleagues and administrators. Seek alignment between classroom practices and program-level assessments.

For Program Leaders and Policymakers

At the program and policy levels, supporting LOA in language education involves:

• Aligning curriculum, assessment, and pedagogy: Ensure that learning outcomes, teaching materials, and assessments are coherent and mutually reinforcing. Avoid introducing assessments that are misaligned with instructional goals.

• Revising assessment policies: Consider grading policies that allow for formative use of assessment (e.g., opportunities for resubmission, weighting of formative tasks). Reduce over-reliance on single high-stakes exams.

• Investing in professional development: Provide sustained, collaborative professional learning opportunities focused on LOA principles, feedback strategies, and learner involvement.

• Supporting infrastructure and resources: Allocate time and resources for teachers to design LOA tasks, develop rubrics, and provide feedback. Where appropriate, adopt technology tools that facilitate LOA (e.g., e-portfolios, feedback platforms).

• Monitoring equity and impact: Collect data on how LOA practices affect different learner groups and adjust policies to address disparities.

Conclusion

Learning-oriented assessment represents a significant evolution in thinking about assessment in language education. Building on formative assessment, assessment for learning, and assessment as learning, LOA offers a comprehensive framework that seeks to ensure that all assessment activities—whether classroom-based or large-scale, formative or summative—contribute directly to language learning.

This systematic review has traced the development of LOA, synthesized empirical and conceptual work, and proposed an integrative multi-level framework and practical design heuristic. The evidence suggests that LOA can enhance language performance, learner self-regulation, and engagement, while also reshaping teacher practices and, in some cases, influencing institutional assessment cultures. However, LOA implementation is complex and contingent on contextual factors, including assessment policies, teacher assessment literacy, and cultural beliefs about assessment.

For practitioners and policymakers, the challenge is to move beyond isolated LOA-inspired techniques toward coherent, system-level designs that align curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment around learning goals. This requires sustained investment in professional development, thoughtful policy reform, and ongoing research.

Future research should prioritize:

• Longitudinal studies of LOA implementation and its impact on learners and teachers.

• Investigations of LOA in diverse and under-researched contexts, including low-resource settings and multilingual classrooms.

• Theoretically grounded work on learner agency, identity, and equity in LOA.

• Design-based research that iteratively develops and tests LOA models in collaboration with practitioners.

By addressing these areas, the field can move toward more robust, context-sensitive understandings of how learning-oriented assessment can realize its promise of integrating assessment and learning in language education.

References