University entrance language tests: A matter of justice

Abstract

University entrance language tests are often administered under the assumption that even if language proficiency does not determine academic success, a certain proficiency level is still required. Nevertheless, little research has focused on how well L2 students cope with the linguistic demands of their studies in the first months after passing an entrance test. Even fewer studies have taken a longitudinal perspective.Set in Flanders, Belgium, this study examines the opinions and experiences of 24 university staff members and 31 international L2 students, of whom 20 were tracked longitudinally. Attention is also given to test/retest results, academic score sheets, and class recordings. To investigate the validity of inferences made on the basis of L2 students' scores, Kane's (2013) Interpretation/ Use Argument approach is adopted, and principles from political philosophy are applied to investigate whether a policy that discriminates among students based on language test results can be considered just. It is concluded that the receptive language requirements of university studies exceed the expected B2 level and that the Flemish entrance tests include language tasks that are of little importance for first-year students. Furthermore, some of the students who failed the entrance test actually managed quite well in their studies -a result that entails broad implications concerning validation and justice even outside the study's localized setting.

Comparison of Chinese and Western English language proficiency measures in transnational business degrees

“…This view is further supported by the results in Table 8 which show that the Failed Cohort of students, who all failed to meet the SELP hurdle requirement of category 4 for admission, went on to not only complete the degree but on average outperform the average degree student. This finding is consistent with the results in Deygers, den Branden, & Gorp (2018). Given these students all passed the diploma and the CEP and EAP programs it supports all these being more appropriate hurdle requirements than a single category difference in SELP.…”

“…What is not supported is the frequent claim (within AU and as expressed in media and public forums) that adding a SELP test after students have successfully completed an English language pathway program will protect the degree program from students with an unacceptable level of English. The findings of this study support the reverse argument (see Deygers et al, 2018) since it shows students below the SELP hurdle but with alternative evidence of ELP can be highly successful when allowed to proceed. A belief that performance in a discipline specific English-medium pathway program is not a sufficient measure of English language ability seems to be one of the greatest myths in transnational education and is directly rebutted by the findings in relation to RQ2.…”

Fairness and Social Justice in English Language Assessment

“…Building on this idea, Deygers proposes operationalizing justice as minimizing injustice, much in the same way as fairness research focuses on minimizing bias. In Deygers' definition, "a testing policy is unjust if it wilfully and avoidably restricts test takers' freedom without an empirically sound or reasonable motivation" (Deygers 2017;Deygers et al 2017). A reasonable motivation should rely on empirical data, and could follow Toulmin's argument structure (Toulmin 2003) as it has been proposed in operationalizations of validity (Kane 2013) and fairness (Kunnan 2010).…”

Task-Based Language Assessment Aligning Designs With Intended Uses and Consequences

“…Decisions about which assessment designs should be used for these purposes, as well as the decisions about individual test takers made on their basis, lead to high-impact consequences. Applicants' life choices may be affected as they are justly or inappropriately admitted or denied to university study on the basis of language test scores (e.g., Deygers, Van den Branden, & Van Gorp, 2017). Universities have a vested interest in ensuring student success, and they can ill afford admitting students who are not linguistically capable of the various demands of academic study in a given target language, only to see them fail.…”