Bruce Howell, University of Reading - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

neveah
bruce howell university of reading n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Bruce Howell, University of Reading PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Bruce Howell, University of Reading

play fullscreen
1 / 23
Download Presentation
Bruce Howell, University of Reading
89 Views
Download Presentation

Bruce Howell, University of Reading

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Bruce Howell, University of Reading How should, and how can, ‘low level EAP’ be assessed?

  2. Why assess? (e.g. Reading)

  3. ‘Placement’– getting on the right track • "is this candidate at least the minimum level to join the pre-sessional EAP programme?" • "which (e.g. writing) group within the EAP pre-sessional programme should this student be in?" • “what specific area needs to be addressed within the EAP in-sessional programme?” (Read 2008)

  4. ‘Placement’ – getting on the right track • programme screening • yes/no • class placement • multi-level • diagnostic • descriptions not numbers?

  5. “It must be practical” (1) • time restraints • e.g. British Council (O’Sullivan 2010)

  6. “It must be practical” (2) • 10 minutes Dictation (gap-fill sentences) • 10 minutes Kanji ( spelling) • 30 minutes Writing • 5 minutes Speaking (interview) • 3 minutes self-assessment questionnaire (Toyoda & Hashimoto 2001) ** The more data the better ** BUT a minimum of data may be enough for your situation

  7. But what about EAP? • TEEP: listening and reading into writing; task-based speaking; academic perspective on topics • process approach can be replicated in (placement) tests (Lee 2005; Plakans2009) • …but is this necessary for low levels? • experience of TEEP: below ~4.5 can “blow it completely” • so perhaps the approach should be: • general language competence • university context

  8. How should ‘low level’ EAP be assessed? • Reading Writing Listening Speaking • yes but … perhaps not possible • what about just a simple grammar test? • NO! • “use of a single test format is inadequate” (Green and Weir 2004) • why not just use international tests or school results? • not always available • expensive • bland, generalised • not always trustworthy, despite claims

  9. Popular suggestions • grammar test • vocabulary test • independent writing test • independent reading test • interview

  10. More suggestions… • linked reading speaking task • ‘two-in-one’ • going beyond formulaic language • dictation • “high correlation with grammatical knowledge AND oral/aural proficiency” (Ford-Niwa 1998, cited in Toyoda & Hashimoto 2001) • a staged/modular procedure: • not all sections are needed (Fulcher 1997) • a pre-test screening section? • self-assessment

  11. DELNA (Read 2008)

  12. Online OPT

  13. British Council (O’Sullivan 2010)

  14. Self-assessment • does it work? • research gives differing results (Dandenault 1997)

  15. …need to ask meaningfulquestions

  16. …don’t be too simplistic!(Gere et al 2010)

  17. How can ‘lower level’ EAP be assessed (practical solution) • depends on your context!

  18. Computer-based? • … if you have the resources!

  19. How to check your test is working • trial/pre-test it first – if possible • imperative (Fulcher 1997) • get teachers’ views on suitabilty • ask students about their experience • analyse score data – eliminate problem items • review cut level(s) – are they living up to expectations? • how does it compare to scores on IELTS etc? • (concurrent validity)

  20. … but remember • we cannot assume the test ‘is not working’ just because students do not increase their level in a linear way • depends on: • motivation/completion of work/attendance • aptitude for languages • external factors • e.g. distractions outside class • etc.

  21. Most important • assessments must have a system • essential to have stakeholders on board (Read 2008) • must be easily understood by all • follow-up plans (e.g. split profile) • who does the decision-making? • advisepotential students so that they can make the right decision • programme screening test: • short test may be OK, but it’s high-stakes … • so it has to have proven reliability and good security

  22. Bibliography Brantmeier, C. (2006). Advanced L2 learners and reading placement: Self-assessment, CBT, and subsequent performance. System 34 :15–35. Dandenault, E. J. (1997). Self-Assessment of Communicative Ability: Investigation of a Novel Tool for ESL Learners. MA Dissertation. Montreal: Concordia University. Available at http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/1227/1/MQ40158.pdf Fulcher, G. (1997). An English language placement test: issues in reliability and validity. Language Testing 14-113. Read, J. (2008). Identifying academic language needs through diagnostic assessment. JEAP 7:180- 190 Gere, A. R., Aull L., Green. T., and Porter, A. (2010). Assessing the validity of directed self-placement at a large university. Assessing Writing 15:154–176. Green, A. B. and Weir. C. J. (2004). Can placement tests inform instructional decisions? Language Testing 21-467. Lee, Y. J. (2005). A Summary of Construct Validation of an English for Academic Purposes Placement Test. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second of Foreign Language Assessment Vol. 3. O’Sullivan , B. (2010). Developing a Placement Test: A case-study of the British Council ILA project. IATEFL TEA SIG Newsletter Spring 2010. Plakans, L. (2009). Discourse synthesis in integrated second language writing assessment. Language Testing 26-561. Toyoda, E. & Hashimoto, Y. (2001). Analysis of a new Japanese Language Placement Test Battery Using G-Theory and Rasch Model Programs. Melbourne Papers on Language Testing 10-1.

  23. What do YOU think?