IELTS Research Reports

Gaynor Lloyd-Jones, Charles Neame and Simon MedaneyS sP St E T S PIWPILPIRPITS PRepWS PRepLNS PRepRS PRepSExamscrSOM1 IELTS 6 5.5 34 33 67 B B B+ B Critical oflanguageS WThesisRevise andrepresentSOM2 IELTS 6TOEFLIBT 64SOM3IELTS5.55 36 27 63 B+ A- A- B+ Critical oflanguageEquivocalRevise andrepresent4 29 18 47 C-/C C C C- None Revise andrepresentSOM4 IELTS 6 5.5 21 18 39 A- B+ A- B Critical oflanguageAdverselyRevise andrepresentSOM5 IELTS 6 5.5 27 25 52 B B+ B+ B/B+ Positiveon styleAdverselyMinorcorrectionsSOM6IELTS5.55.5 24 21 45 B B B B Criticalof styleRevise andrepresentSP St Summer Programme studentE T S Entry test scorePI Pre-test IELTS W Writing L Listening R Reading T TotalSP Rep Summer Programme Reports LN Listening and note taking S SpeakingExam scr Exam Scripts None no comments about languageS W Supervisory workloadTable 12. SAS Summer Programme students’ entry scores and measures of progressOverall, the results display some of the difficulties facing researchers who try to ring fence thecontribution of English language skills to academic progress. Whilst the supervisors’ perspectivehas provided helpful triangulation, the partial nature of the data and the difficulty in correlatingdifferent assessment measures hinder the aim of reaching secure conclusions about the contribution oflinguistic competence to academic ability and outcomes for individual students. Nevertheless, it seemsreasonable to conclude that these Summer Programme students, as a group, remain borderline in termsof English language proficiency throughout the year of study.10 DISCUSSIONThe discussion is framed by the three aims of the research study with references to the literatureincluded where relevant.10.1 Course Directors’ admissions practices and experiencesThe most striking finding of the study was the variety of selection practices within the institution.The variations were linked to School affiliation and, possibly, to former organisational arrangementswhen there were two campuses rather than one. The selection procedures varied in relation to the useof English test scores, ranging from SOM at one end which placed greatest reliance upon Englishtesting to SAS, at the other, which largely delegated assessment of an applicant’s English language172 www.ielts.org