Language assessment literacy in university admission policies, or the dialogue that isn’t

Abstract

Research in the field of Language Assessment Literacy (LAL) shows that university admission officers and policy makers are not generally well-versed in matters of LAL. Only very few studies to date have traced why this may be the case, however, and in the field of language testing few studies to date have reported on how university admission language requirements are set. Nevertheless, because of the impact of test use on university admissions, developing such knowledge is essential to the progress of LAL as a discipline. This paper reports on a qualitative study that includes all university admission policy makers in one context (Flanders, Belgium). The analyses of the interviews show that the concerns and ideas of LAL scholars and those of university admission policy makers may differ substantially. Real-world policy is determined by pragmatism and compromise and policy makers, even at universities, may fail to consider empirical findings. Because this study shows that the view of policy makers can be quite dissimilar from the traditional approach taken in the LAL literature, the authors argue that it may be as beneficial to encourage policy literacy among language testing professionals, as to expect LAL from policy makers.

Linking Learners’ Perspectives on Language Assessment Practices to Teachers’ Assessment Literacy Enhancement (TALE): Insights from Four European Countries

“…Although an increasing range of stakeholders are considered in LAL (e.g. Deygers & Malone, 2019;Malone, 2013;Pill & Harding, 2013;Taylor, 2013), learners have not represented a major group in research in the field yet (cf. Lee and Butler's (2020) metaanalysis).…”

Teaching to the test: The effects of coaching on English-proficiency scores for university entry

“…Instead, in its guidance to educational institutions, the Consortium lists scores between 7.5 and 9.0 as acceptable for studying linguistically demanding academic courses, and scores of 7.0 and above as sufficient for linguistically less demanding courses (IELTS, 2019). Each university, however, sets its own minimum requirements, with the decisions usually guided by pragmatism and compromise (Deygers & Malone, 2019). The requirements thus differ by institution and by programme, with scores between 6.0 and 7.0 (corresponding to the range from the mid B2 to low C1 level of the Common European Framework of Reference) typically accepted for unconditional entry (Feast, 2002;Green, 2007).…”

Towards a Comprehensive, Empirical Model of Language Assessment Literacy across Stakeholder Groups: Developing the Language Assessment Literacy Survey

“…Scholars have thus called for the promotion of language assessment literacy (LAL) not only for teachers and assessment developers, the two groups most typically involved with language assessments, but also for score users, policymakers and students (among others) (e.g. Baker, 2016;Deygers & Malone, 2019). For such groups, a heightened awareness of the principles and practice of language assessment would ideally lead to more informed discussion of assessment matters, clarity around good practice in using language assessments, and ultimately more robust decision-making on the basis of assessment data (O'Loughlin, 2013;Pill & Harding, 2013;Taylor, 2009).…”