IELTS Research Reports

Gaynor Lloyd-Jones, Charles Neame and Simon MedaneyBanerjee concluded that the ‘at risk’ group of students suffered in terms of extra study time and effort.The present study did not set out to reflect the student experience but did demonstrate that there werecosts to teaching staff in terms of increased supervisory workload. 11 of the Summer Programmestudents were known, through supervisor’s reports, to have difficulties with writing which impactedadversely upon thesis supervision whilst three were reported as having no difficulties with writtenlanguage. The present study therefore upholds and extends Banerjee’s findings by identifying costsfrom the teaching perspective.Overall, the findings of the Summer Programme students’ progress indicate that they represent aborderline group throughout their study both academically and linguistically. However, it is notpossible with any certainty to gauge to what extent linguistic problems contribute to academic failurefor an individual student within the group.10.3 The consequences of different admission criteria and practices uponpostgraduate students’ academic progressThe final aim of the study sought to compare the consequences of different admission criteria andpractices upon students’ academic progress in a variety of courses. Because of small numbers it isnot possible to determine differences at programme level but there are clear differences at Schoollevel. Distinctions between the three Schools in admission criteria and practices have already beendiscussed. Regarding academic progress, as measured by the need to redraft the thesis, students inSOM fared worse than students in the two other Schools. Of the six SOM students, five (83%) havebeen instructed to revise and represent their theses. For the 11 SAS students, one failed to gain a MScaward and six students (63%) are revising and representing their theses. For SOE, three out of sevenstudents (42%) are revising their theses.It appears that the more explicitly stringent are the admission criteria, the more likely are students withborderline English language skills to suffer academic setbacks. Taken at face value, the findings appearlogical and predictable but there are caveats. One is the fact that the students with the lowest entrytest scores (IELTS 5.5 and TOEFL IBT 64) are located in SOM. Conversely, the students in SOE havethe highest entry test scores, three conforming to the institutional requirements (IELTS 6.5, TOEFLCBT 243 and TOEFL IBT 92). The differences could therefore be partially explained by variationsin students’ English language proficiency at entry. Another possibility is the effect of disciplinarydifferences. In a discipline where written text is prominent, such as Management studies, not onlyare stricter English language requirements more likely but so are the assessment standards of writtenwork. This explanation would be supported by the greater number of comments about language onthe exam scripts of SOM students than from any other School. However, this explanation is not asstraightforward as it may seem. Many courses in the other Schools at Cranfield are interdisciplinaryand incorporate content from management, scientific and technological domains. Examples of thesehave been included in the SAS and SOE programmes in the current research study.Unfortunately, the small numbers urge caution in reaching robust conclusions for the relationshipbetween School admission criteria and academic outcomes. Further research, probably longitudinal,will be necessary to tease out the varying contributions to borderline NNES students’ academic progress.176 www.ielts.org