Rethinking Language Assessment in a Multilingual, AI-Driven World: From Classroom Practice to Programme Leadership

Mary Jo Lubrano is Associate Director (Language Education and Research) at the Center for Language Study. She holds an Ed.D. in Educational Leadership in Second Language Acquisition and two M.A. degrees—one in Foreign Language Education and the other in Applied Linguistics (Language Testing). She joined the CLS in 2013 as Language Testing Specialist and was promoted to Associate Director in 2017. In her current role, she provides professional development for language instructors and graduate students, oversees the Fundamentals of Language Teaching seminar for graduate students, and supports the SLA certificate program. She is also a standing member of the Language Study Committee.  Before coming to Yale, she was a tenured lecturer at the University of Perugia (Italy), where she also coordinated assessment across all language programs. She is a dually certified ACTFL OPI tester in Italian and English and has served as an ACTFL trainer since 2006. She was an advisory member of the committee tasked with revising the ACTFL Guidelines in 2024 and currently serves as testing advisor for the Bureau of International Language Coordination, NATO’s advisory body for language education and testing.  Her research and publications focus on high-stakes proficiency validation, assessment literacy, and multilingualism. In her free time, she enjoys tennis, padel, and pickleball.

This interview explores the professional journey and insights of a leading figure in language education whose work bridges classroom practice, assessment expertise, and program leadership. From over two decades of university teaching in Europe to shaping assessment practices in a dynamic multilingual academic context, the discussion highlights the evolving role of language educators in a rapidly changing landscape.

Focusing on assessment literacy, multilingualism, and the impact of emerging technologies such as generative AI, the interview offers critical reflections on fairness, validity, and innovation in high-stakes language testing. It also underscores the importance of sustained professional development and collaborative learning communities in supporting instructors and graduate students.

At its core, this conversation invites educators and researchers to reconsider long-standing assumptions about language learners and to engage more critically with the principles that shape teaching, assessment, and program design in the 21st century.

Could you reflect on your journey in language education, from your tenured lecturing role at the University of Perugia to your current position as Associate Director at the Center for Language Study?

After 23 years of teaching at the University of Perugia, I felt a growing desire to focus more intentionally on issues of language testing and assessment initially and subsequently on faculty development. Throughout my career, I observed that many language instructors—despite being highly committed educators—often felt underprepared when it came to designing principled, valid, and equitable assessments. Assessment was frequently treated as an afterthought rather than as a central component of curriculum design.

In my own classrooms and in my work training teachers across Europe, I repeatedly encountered questions about validity, reliability, fairness, and alignment with learning outcomes. Instructors wanted to create meaningful opportunities for learners to demonstrate progress, but they lacked structured training in assessment design.

My increasing involvement in teacher training workshops on language testing across several European countries crystallized my professional shift. I realized that I wanted to dedicate myself fully to advancing assessment literacy and principled testing design. I was initially hired as the testing and assessment specialist at the Center for Language Study and was promoted to my current role as Associate Director that allowed me to focus exclusively on these issues while working within a dynamic multilingual academic environment. It represents not a departure from teaching, but an expansion of it.

How have your academic qualifications, including your Ed.D. in Educational Leadership in SLA and dual M.A. degrees in Foreign Language Education and Applied Linguistics, influenced your approach to teaching, assessment, and program leadership?

Completing my second M.A. and Ed.D. while teaching full time was transformative. The simultaneity of theory and practice gave depth and immediacy to my studies. Rather than engaging with research abstractly, I could test ideas against lived classroom realities.

My M.A. degrees in Foreign Language Education and Applied Linguistics provided a strong foundation in second language acquisition theory and pedagogy. These programs strengthened my ability to critically examine instructional practices and understand the theoretical underpinnings of communicative teaching, performance-based assessment, and proficiency frameworks.

My Ed.D. in Educational Leadership further expanded my perspective. It deepened my understanding of curriculum design, leadership theory, program evaluation, and change management in academic contexts. I became more attentive to how institutional structures, faculty development models, and assessment policies shape classroom practice.

The integration of theory and practice allowed me to become both reflective and strategic: reflective in questioning my own pedagogical assumptions, and strategic in designing professional development and assessment initiatives that are research-informed yet grounded in instructors’ realities.

What key experiences shaped your focus on multilingualism, language assessment, and professional development for language instructors?

My focus on multilingualism and assessment emerged first and foremost from my classroom experience. Without having taught extensively myself, I do not believe I could effectively support instructors today. Educators are more receptive when they know the trainer understands classroom constraints, grading pressures, and student dynamics from firsthand experience.

Another major influence has been the evolving linguistic profile of our student population. Institutional data indicate that over 93% of our incoming students report proficiency in at least one language other than English—through heritage, schooling, travel, or mobility. This reality fundamentally challenges traditional assumptions about the “typical” language learner.

These students bring complex linguistic repertoires. The question is no longer whether multilingualism exists in our classrooms, but how we respond to it pedagogically and in assessment design. Do multilingual learners have advantages in metalinguistic awareness? How does prior exposure affect proficiency trajectories?

These questions have shaped my research and leadership. They push us to reconsider whether we are still designing instruction and assessment for an imagined monolingual learner, rather than for the linguistically diverse population that now defines our campuses.

As a dually certified ACTFL OPI tester and trainer, and for NATOs ’advisory body on language training and testing -  the Bureau of International Language Coordination - what do you consider the most pressing challenges in high-stakes language assessment today?

High-stakes language assessment today faces several significant challenges, the most immediate being the rapid development of generative AI technologies. These tools raise complex questions about construct validity, test security, authorship, and authenticity.

If AI systems can generate extended discourse at high levels of sophistication, what exactly are we measuring in writing assessments? How do we ensure that oral proficiency testing continues to reflect spontaneous language production? Test compromise, item exposure, and remote administration security have also become pressing concerns.

Beyond AI, another challenge lies in maintaining fairness in increasingly diverse testing populations. Multilingual learners may possess uneven skill profiles or distinct cognitive advantages that interact with test constructs in ways not previously accounted for. Ensuring equity requires ongoing validation research and continuous refinement of assessment frameworks.

High-stakes assessment must evolve—not defensively, but thoughtfully—to maintain credibility in a changing technological and demographic landscape.

How can language educators cultivate assessment literacy among instructors and graduate students?

Research consistently shows that one-off workshops rarely lead to sustained pedagogical change or increased self-efficacy. Instead, ongoing professional communities foster meaningful growth. In my current role, I emphasize longitudinal engagement: roundtables, collaborative discussions, and iterative reflection sessions centered on issues instructors identify as pressing.

These spaces promote collegiality where instructors feel more comfortable questioning their assessment practices and experimenting with new performance-based approaches. Graduate students are particularly valuable in these initiatives. They occupy a dual role as both educators and learners. They bring fresh perspectives from current coursework and firsthand insight into student experiences. In many ways, they provide a 360-degree view of teaching and assessment practices.

Assessment literacy is not about mastering technical jargon—it is about developing principled reasoning around validity, alignment, and fairness.

You contributed to the 2024 revision of the ACTFL Guidelines. What key principles or shifts guided this process, and how do they impact teaching and evaluation practices?

The revision process for the 2024 ACTFL Guidelines was guided by two major considerations: accessibility and contextual responsiveness. Although the Guidelines are fundamentally a proficiency framework, many educators use associated resources—such as Integrated Performance Assessments and Can-Do statements—for curriculum planning and classroom evaluation.

Given the increasingly multilingual and digitally immersed student population, it became essential to clarify language, update descriptors, and make the document more user-friendly for instructors, administrators, and even parents.

The revision aimed to maintain the integrity of the proficiency construct while making the framework more transparent to non-specialists. By enhancing clarity and contextual explanations, the updated Guidelines better support informed implementation in both K–12 and higher education contexts.

Ultimately, the goal was not to change the scale’s conceptual foundation, but to ensure it remains usable and relevant in contemporary educational settings.

In your role overseeing professional development for language instructors and graduate students, what strategies have you found most effective for fostering pedagogical growth and reflective practice?

One of the most effective strategies I have found is promoting inter- and intra-departmental collaboration. Smaller language programs often operate in isolation and may feel that their instructional challenges are unique. Instead, many pedagogical concerns—student motivation, assessment design, technology integration—are shared across languages.

By organizing cross-language roundtables and collaborative initiatives, we create neutral spaces where instructors can exchange ideas, affirm shared challenges, and reduce professional isolation.

These conversations foster reflective practice not through prescription, but through dialogue. Instructors become more open to innovation when they feel supported and understood.

How does the Fundamentals of Language Teaching seminar support graduate students’ development, and what aspects are particularly transformative for future language educators?

Many doctoral students in literature are required to teach language courses with minimal pedagogical preparation. The Fundamentals of Language Teaching seminar addresses this gap.

Structured as a peer-led seminar and facilitated by advanced graduate fellows, it creates an accessible and non-hierarchical space for new instructors. Topics range from lesson planning and classroom management to feedback strategies and responsible AI use.

Early-career instructors learn that challenges are shared, that experimentation is encouraged, and that reflective teaching is an ongoing process. By building confidence and community early in their careers, we help shape educators who are both thoughtful and adaptable.

Your research focuses on high-stakes proficiency validation, assessment literacy, and multilingualism. Which findings do you consider most consequential for improving classroom practice and language program administration?

Two developments stand out as particularly consequential.

First, AI technologies have introduced both risks and opportunities in assessment design and curriculum. Rather than reacting defensively, programs must consider how to integrate AI literacy into instruction while safeguarding assessment validity.

Second, demographic data indicate that multilingualism is no longer peripheral. Ten years ago, at least 10% of K–12 students identified as speakers of languages other than English and numbers continued to rise since—and over 90% of our incoming students reporting multilingual proficiency, the instructional landscape has fundamentally shifted.

In a 2022 study I conducted, instructors reported using eclectic teaching approaches to address differentiated learning needs, yet many were not fully aware of the multilingual profiles of their own students. This suggests a gap between demographic reality and pedagogical consciousness.

For language programs, the implication is clear: we must move from monolingual assumptions toward asset-based multilingual pedagogies and assessments that recognize linguistic repertoires as resources.

How do you integrate your research insights into your leadership and professional development initiatives?

My leadership philosophy is grounded in applicable scholarship. Staying abreast of scholarly conversations enables me to design professional development that is principled rather than trend driven.

Workshops, seminars, and policy discussions are informed by current research on validity, multilingualism, and assessment literacy. Rather than presenting research as abstract theory, I translate findings into actionable strategies instructors can implement immediately.

In this way, research becomes not an isolated endeavor but a living component of program development.

What emerging trends in language assessment and multilingual education do you anticipate will shape the next decade?

AI will undoubtedly continue to reshape language instruction and assessment, though the precise trajectory remains uncertain. We are likely to see increased emphasis on process-oriented assessment, multimodal communication tasks, and AI-integrated pedagogies.

At the same time, multilingual education will continue to expand, pushing institutions to adopt more flexible placement systems, heritage-sensitive curricula, and dynamic proficiency tracking.

The next decade will require adaptability, ethical clarity, and sustained validation research to ensure that innovation enhances rather than undermines educational integrity.

What advice would you offer to early-career researchers and language educators seeking to engage critically with assessment and program leadership?

Engage deeply with assessment theory early in your career. Understanding validity, reliability, and fairness will empower you to design stronger curricula and advocate for principled practices.

Seek mentorship, collaborate across disciplines, and remain curious. Leadership in language education is about the ability to connect research, policy, and classroom realities.

What continues to inspire your work at the intersection of research, teaching, and policy in language education?

What inspires me most is the intersection of research, teaching, and policy. Language education sits at the crossroads of identity, mobility, and opportunity.

Knowing that thoughtful assessment and equitable program design can expand access and validate learners’ linguistic identities gives purpose to my work. The evolving multilingual reality of our campuses keeps the field intellectually dynamic and socially relevant.