IELTS Research Reports

A multiple case study of the relationship between the indicators of students’ English languagecompetence on entry and students’ academic progress at an international postgraduate universityGenerally, there is correspondence between the Pre-test IELTS scores and the Summer ProgrammeReports. However, the Pre-test IELTS report scores for Students SOM4, SAS 9 and SAS10 are lessfavourable than the Report grades, particularly so for SOM4. All students who score low either onthe Writing score or on the combined Listening and Reading score were recommended to attend theweekly tutorials in English language. Student SAS2 was referred to the Disability Learning SupportOfficer for investigation because of writing difficulties. Students SAS4 and SAS7 who were enteringcourses where there were many students with whom they shared a first language were additionallyadvised to maximise opportunities for English language practice.9.2.4 Exam scripts of Summer Programme studentsThe review of exam scripts demonstrated that nearly all examinations required students to writeextended passages of text apart from one course in SOE where textual content was low. However, thiswas far from the case with the other SOE exam scripts where passages of text were common. Counterintuitively,scripts from a quantitatively orientated course in SOM contained much less text than theSOE scripts.Comments about the examinee’s written language were not uncommon. The examination scripts ofthree students, SOM1, SOM2 and SAS3 all contained critical comments which specified language,such as ‘generally superficial and with inaccurate use of English’; ‘this comment is worrying butcould just reflect a language barrier’; ‘weak language’ and ‘not an answer, needs explanation, suspectlanguage problems?; appalling style, clearly has problems with written English but basics are here’(sic). The comments on the scripts of two other students (SOM6 and SAS9) referred to ‘poor style’,‘dumping not answering’ and requests for more detail and explanations besides bulleted lists. Twostudents answered too many questions and one student received praise for presentation (SOM5).Statements that might be language related were found on other students’ scripts but have not beenreported because they cannot be securely attributed to language difficulties alone. Written commentswere most frequently found on the scripts of SOM students.It was not anticipated that exam scripts would provide a rich source of evidence of languagedifficulties because there is no requirement for examiners to mark English language specifically. Itis possible too that examiners may take a more relaxed approach to the quality of English languagein stressful exam conditions. The interview data had shown variation in the degree to which CourseDirectors paid attention to English language in course assignments so similar variation amongstexamination markers was also to be expected. As described above, comments were strictly evaluatedto exclude any ambiguous remarks. Consequently, those comments presented in the report are likelyto underestimate the contribution of language issues in exam scripts and so can be regarded as robustevidence for the purposes of the research. The results are included in Table 9.9.2.5 Summer Programme students – Workload of thesis supervisors15 out of 22 supervisors responded to the questionnaire, a 68% response rate. Supervisors’ experienceof supervising Masters theses ranged from two to 20 years and five had been supervising for 15 yearsor more. The number of Masters theses each supervisor was responsible for in the academic sessionvaried from one to sixteen but this range obscured the fact that 13 were supervising between four andseven theses.The question relating the students’ English language proficiency to the thesis mark was answeredby only half the respondents and, in retrospect, lacked clarity. 20% of all supervisors considered thestudent’s language proficiency had beneficially contributed to the thesis mark and 33.3% not at all.IELTS Research Reports Volume 11167