Improving the Academic Performance of Non‐native English‐Speaking Students: the Contribution of Pre‐sessional English Language Programmes

Abstract

There is an established, if weak, inverse relationship between levels of English language proficiency and academic performance in higher education. In response, higher education institutions (HEIs) insist upon minimum entry requirements concerning language for international applicants. Many HEIs now also offer pre‐sessional English courses to bring applicants up to the designated language requirement. This paper revisits the research into language proficiency and academic performance using data on all full‐time students (17,925) attending a major UK HEI in the academic year 2011–2012, 4,342 of whom were non‐native English speakers. The findings confirm that while higher International English Language Testing System (IELTS) marks at entry translate into higher grade point averages (GPAs), students who undertake pre‐sessional courses do notably worse in GPA terms than students who arrive with acceptable (for the course) IELTS scores. These findings suggest HEIs (and, by extension, international students) could benefit from a review regarding the appropriateness of current pre‐sessional English language proficiency programmes.

Predictive validity of the IELTS in an English as a medium of instruction environment

“…Through their investigation they supported an IELTS 6.0 as a minimum threshold level for success. In a recent UK‐based IELTS paper with a large sample of 611 students, Thorpe, Snell, Davey‐Evans, and Talman () concluded that ‘both undergraduate and postgraduate NNES [non‐native English speakers] underperformed in GPA terms compared to their English‐speaking counterparts’ (p. 28) irrespective of IELTS score. However, NNES students who began study with the required IELTS entrance score did significantly better than students needing further English preparation prior to beginning their programmes of study.…”

The Effectiveness of Pre‐sessional EAP Programmes in UK Higher Education: A Review of the Evidence

“…Analysis of the literature revealed 11 studies founded on the quantitative language programme evaluation tradition. Among this group, three sub‐designs were identified; studies which tracked students' progress from PSP to degree by documenting their assessed marks/completion rates (Allwright & Banerjee, ; Millar, ; Atherton, ; Martala, ; Ridley, ; Lloyd‐Jones et al , ), studies describing or measuring students' language development over a PSP (Archibald, ; Green, ; Issitt, ), and those investigating the nature of the relationship between PSP outcomes and academic results (Ushioda & Harsch, ; Thorpe et al , ). Qualitative research into PSP effectiveness was noticeably less common (five studies).…”

“…Thorpe et al 's. () recent study stands out as a rare example of researchers establishing how students who are admitted via pre‐sessional programmes compare academically with their colleagues who meet the linguistic entry requirements, as well as with native‐speaking students. Utilising data from the entire cohort of full‐time students at a university in southern England (including 4,342 NNES students) the researchers developed a regression model, with PSP completion being a key independent variable investigated.…”

“…The regulations thus afford institutions the freedom to facilitate students to pass pre‐sessional programmes, as opposed to standardised international tests of English, such as IELTS. Yet recruiting NNES students whose language level falls below that advocated by language testing organisations and specialists has not been without controversy (Thorpe, Snell, Davey‐Evans, & Talman, ), with some media outlets reporting that universities are engaged in linguistic corner‐cutting to boost their enrolment of lucrative international students (Coughlan, ; De Lotbiniere, ).…”

“…These factors constitute a worrying state of affairs given the high academic and financial stakes involved (Seviour, ). Such concerns are accentuated by a recent study (see Thorpe et al , ) that appears to shatter the consensus that PSPs are effective in bringing students up to par with those who are deemed linguistically ready or prepared.…”