Assessing and reporting performances on pre-sessional EAP courses
Assessing and reporting performances on pre-sessional EAP courses
Assessing and reporting performances on pre-sessional EAP courses
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
60<br />
J. Banerjee, D. Wall / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 50–69<br />
indicate how seriously they viewed a student’s particular difficulties. They would not<br />
worry about ticking individual boxes if they could indicate in the summary secti<strong>on</strong><br />
that they were “generally satisfied with the student’s performance”. This would<br />
allow them to give their students specific feedback <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> guidance without suggesting<br />
that they had not “successfully completed” the course.<br />
(iii) Wording of the judgement—The tutors argued that some of the diplomacy of the<br />
original <str<strong>on</strong>g>reporting</str<strong>on</strong>g> format had been lost <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> that, in order to correct the apparent<br />
baldness of the claims being made, the descriptors needed to be <strong>pre</strong>sented within the<br />
c<strong>on</strong>text in which the judgements took place. The outcome of this discussi<strong>on</strong> was that<br />
all the judgements are <strong>pre</strong>faced with the phrase “Our evidence suggests that.”<br />
The tutors also argued that it should be possible to indicate when there was no<br />
evidence for a particular judgement. For instance, a skill may have been taught but<br />
the student may not have taken advantage of opportunities to dem<strong>on</strong>strate it. This<br />
resulted in the inclusi<strong>on</strong> of the third column, “We have no evidence.” It should be<br />
noted at this point that the tutors’ request for this column proved somewhat<br />
problematic when the report was used in its final form (see below).<br />
Thirdly, in line with the spirit of the new exit assessment, the tutors rejected the<br />
formulati<strong>on</strong>s “will have difficulty” <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> even “has difficulty” as they implied a<br />
<strong>pre</strong>dicti<strong>on</strong> of future performance. They <strong>pre</strong>ferred instead to locate their judgements<br />
within the period of the course, hence the formulati<strong>on</strong> “has had difficulty”.<br />
(iv) Evidence available <strong>on</strong> which to base a judgement—Though the tutors c<strong>on</strong>sidered the<br />
report form easy to use <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> transparent, they were c<strong>on</strong>cerned about the extent to which<br />
they could make detailed judgements about the students’ listening <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> reading abilities.<br />
They argued that since the processes involved in listening <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> reading are internal, they<br />
would be reliant <strong>on</strong> student self-report (which might not be reliable) or <strong>on</strong> their<br />
inter<strong>pre</strong>tati<strong>on</strong> of students’ listening <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> reading abilities based <strong>on</strong> what they produced<br />
when speaking <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> writing. This problem has not been fully or satisfactorily resolved.<br />
Indeed, it remains <strong>on</strong>e of the difficulties in any assessment of receptive skills.<br />
The tutors also argued that students with good language skills might fail to give evidence<br />
of certain can-do statements such as strategies like “asking for clarificati<strong>on</strong>,” since they<br />
might never be in a positi<strong>on</strong> where they have misunderstood <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> have to ask for<br />
clarificati<strong>on</strong>. The soluti<strong>on</strong> we have adopted has been to orientate the students to the criteria<br />
by which they are to be judged. When the students register they receive a self-assessment<br />
checklist which requires them to make judgements about their language abilities at the start<br />
of the course. This checklist replicates the can-do statements used in the exit assessment<br />
checklist <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> has proved a useful c<strong>on</strong>sciousness-raising tool particularly since students<br />
discuss their self-assessments during their first c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong> with their tutor. Nevertheless,<br />
we are still c<strong>on</strong>cerned that students might fail to fully dem<strong>on</strong>strate their abilities according<br />
to the “can-do” statements <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> we plan to explore this area in a later study.<br />
4. Investigating the validity of the checklist<br />
The final versi<strong>on</strong> of the checklist incorporated as much of the feedback as was feasible from<br />
the course tutors <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> the University’s Postgraduate Admissi<strong>on</strong>s Officer. It was then used to<br />
assess 86 students, all of whom completed the 4-week <strong>pre</strong>-sessi<strong>on</strong>al <strong>EAP</strong> course. In a further