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.
J. Banerjee, D. Wall / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 50–69 51<br />
for instituti<strong>on</strong>al purposes (e.g., the Instituti<strong>on</strong>al TOEFL). Some instituti<strong>on</strong>s, in additi<strong>on</strong> to<br />
dem<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing a minimum level of performance <strong>on</strong> an external test, require students to take an inhouse<br />
test. The results of this test are used to determine whether the students need further<br />
language support before they begin their academic programme or, in some instituti<strong>on</strong>s, while<br />
they follow their programme. In other instituti<strong>on</strong>s (particularly those in the UK), students who<br />
meet all the other requirements for admissi<strong>on</strong> but whose performance <strong>on</strong> the external test falls<br />
short of that required for unc<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>al admissi<strong>on</strong> can be admitted provided that they<br />
successfully complete a <strong>pre</strong>-sessi<strong>on</strong>al <strong>EAP</strong> course.<br />
There is no comm<strong>on</strong> approach to assessing <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>reporting</str<strong>on</strong>g> performance <strong>on</strong> <strong>pre</strong>-sessi<strong>on</strong>al <strong>EAP</strong><br />
<strong>courses</strong>. In the case of instituti<strong>on</strong>s that will <strong>on</strong>ly accept the results of external tests, students are<br />
required to re-take the tests at the end of their <strong>pre</strong>-sessi<strong>on</strong>al <strong>EAP</strong> <strong>courses</strong>. One recently reported<br />
example is that of Australian universities where <strong>pre</strong>-sessi<strong>on</strong>al <strong>EAP</strong> <strong>courses</strong> serve not <strong>on</strong>ly to<br />
<strong>pre</strong>pare students for academic study but also for the IELTS test (Moore & Mort<strong>on</strong>, 2005). At<br />
least <strong>on</strong>e instituti<strong>on</strong> uses the results of an external test that has been piloted <strong>on</strong> its students; others<br />
design their own tests, which may or may not be modelled <strong>on</strong> tests created elsewhere for other<br />
purposes. Some instituti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>pre</strong>fer to judge students <strong>on</strong> their in-course performance, combining<br />
internal test scores, performance <strong>on</strong> written assignments (projects <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> course assignments,<br />
sometimes collected together in portfolios), formal <strong>pre</strong>sentati<strong>on</strong>s, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> classroom participati<strong>on</strong>.<br />
The weighting given to these elements varies, but it is comm<strong>on</strong> to give more weight to tasks that<br />
are completed near the end of the course.<br />
Most instituti<strong>on</strong>s are required to send individual reports to the central admissi<strong>on</strong>s office or the<br />
receiving department, either with a test result (from <strong>on</strong>e or more of the tests described above), a<br />
grade determined by a combinati<strong>on</strong> of test results <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> other assessments, or a pass-fail<br />
judgement which is based either <strong>on</strong> tutors’ im<strong>pre</strong>ssi<strong>on</strong>s or <strong>on</strong> a more straightforward criteri<strong>on</strong><br />
such as attendance. An estimated IELTS score is required in some instituti<strong>on</strong>s. A recent<br />
development is the use of ‘can-do’ scales, which c<strong>on</strong>sist of lists of performance objectives <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
columns where <strong>EAP</strong> tutors indicate whether students are able or not to achieve each objective.<br />
The history of assessment <strong>on</strong> Lancaster University’s <strong>pre</strong>-sessi<strong>on</strong>al <strong>EAP</strong> <strong>courses</strong> reveals that<br />
we have adopted a number of these approaches at different times. In the early 1990s, we were<br />
asked to provide estimated IELTS scores. The admissi<strong>on</strong>s officers found these estimates useful<br />
as they could inter<strong>pre</strong>t them in the same way they had processed genuine test results when<br />
making their initial decisi<strong>on</strong>s. We, however, became increasingly c<strong>on</strong>cerned about the lack of<br />
validity <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> reliability in our judgements because:<br />
(i) We did not have access to the official rating scales for speaking <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> writing.<br />
(ii) Estimating reading <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> listening abilities was problematic, since this depended <strong>on</strong><br />
inferences about students’ ‘inner processes’ rather than analyses of products such as<br />
essays or oral <strong>pre</strong>sentati<strong>on</strong>s, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
(iii) N<strong>on</strong>e of the teaching team had been trained as IELTS examiners.<br />
We ab<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g><strong>on</strong>ed this practice in favour of writing a profile report for each student, commenting<br />
<strong>on</strong> their general ability in listening, oral <strong>pre</strong>sentati<strong>on</strong>s, group discussi<strong>on</strong>s, reading <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> writing.<br />
The report was written by the student’s main tutor, who had at least 8 h of c<strong>on</strong>tact with the<br />
student every week <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> also had access to feedback sheets <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> comments from the student’s<br />
other tutors. The main tutor would also give an overall judgement of the student’s ability. The<br />
report was discussed with the student before being passed <strong>on</strong> to the course co-ordinators. The<br />
course co-ordinators reviewed <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> edited it to st<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ardise the style <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> to ensure that it was