Catherine Elder Director, Language Testing Research Centre caelder@unimelb.au

1. Identifying the post-entry English needs of ESOL/D speakers in higher education settings: past practices, present issues Catherine Elder Director, Language Testing Research Centre caelder@unimelb.edu.au

2. Outline • Brief background (past and present) • Guiding principles for post-entry English assessment • Evaluation of 3 approaches to post-entry assessment • Issues for discussion

3. The situation at Australian universities • Multiple pathways for students to enter higher education • Ever increasing numbers of students (both international and domestic) for whom English is a second/additional language/dialect • Students with limited academic English may avoid choosing “language rich” subjects at school • Current English entry requirements (whether for international or domestic students) vary across institutions and are insufficient to ensure adequate language skills for academic study

4. Past assumptions • Assumption that English entry requirements suffice to screen out linguistically at risk students • Assumption that English language “problems” are confined to international students • Assumption that academic English literacy development is not the responsibility of academic staff • Assumption that conventions of academic literacy do not need to be explicitly taught

5. Present situation Wider recognition of • Scope of English language needs • Importance of early identification • Need for intervention on multiple fronts to promote English development and enhance engagement in university courses Growing concerns about • exit standards of English and how these might be ensured

6. How to identify post-entry English language needs? Are we aiming for: • A quick and efficient device for early flagging of linguistically “at risk” students (screening)? • A mechanism for providing detailed feedback to students and their teachers about academic language needs (diagnosis)? • A means of directing linguistically “at risk” students to appropriate language study options (placement)?

7. Emerging principles (1) • Assessment should provide meaningful information about a linguisticallyheterogeneous group of students many of whom are competent English users • Assessment should be non discriminatory in the sense that students are not targeted for assessment on grounds of race or ethnicity • Assessment should assist students in recognizing and attending to their language needs • Students should be strongly encouraged/incentivized to undergo assessment • Central funding, at no cost to students

8. Emerging principles (2) • Assessment should target academically relevant skills and be pitched appropriately • Assessment should be reliable • Assessment should be easy to administer and score (online but with pen and paper as option where lab facilities not readily available?) • Reporting of assessment results should be timely • Results should not be used to penalize or otherwise disadvantage students

9. Emerging principles (3) • Results should be accompanied by appropriate and individually-tailored advice • Results should be clearly linked to language study courses/pathways • These study options need to be accessible to students (i.e. to fit within their study programs) • Study options should not impose additional burden on students

10. The University of Melbourne experience DELA (Diagnostic English Language Needs Assessment) developed by staff at the Language Testing Research Centre. Since early 90s administered on a voluntary basis to international students with less than overall 7 on IELTS Now mandatory for a broader range of students including those with less than 35 on VCE ESL & 30 on VCE English

11. DELA components • Listening (30 mins) A pre-recorded mini-lecture on a topic of general interest with questions about the main ideas and important details • Reading (45 mins) One or two texts of about 1200 words in total with a variety of item types to measure comprehension • Writing (30 mins) An argument essay on a topic of general academic interest, with brief pro and con statements as stimuli

12. DELA reports • DELA BANDS 5 AND 6 Unlikely to require additional English language study – emailed profile • DELA BAND 4 May benefit from additional English language study - emailed profile with name of Faculty advisor • DELA BAND 3 Required to take credit courses or other form of language support – emailed profile with name of Faculty advisor • DELNA BAND 2 and 1 Required to take credit courses or other form of language support – emailed profile with name of Faculty advisor

13. DELA reports • “Diagnostic” skill profiles also emailed to students • Faculties receive spreadsheets with DELA results

14. Strengths of DELA • Professionally validated • Tasks are appropriate for the academic domain • Multiple statistically equivalent versions available • Band levels have empirical validity (ie we have evidence that they predict performance in the academic environment) • Strong research base

15. Limitations of DELA • No speaking component • Not suitable in current form for online delivery in scoring • Time-consuming • Not suitable for NS students (except writing) • Lack of obvious fit between reporting profiles and language study options • New mandatory requirement at odds with the enhancement function of the assessment? • Level of uptake of language study options unclear

16. The University of Auckland experience • DELNA (Diagnostic English Language Needs Assessment) was introduced in 2001 • No English language entry requirement for domestic students until recently • Intended for all incoming undergraduates regardless of language background

17. Components of DELNA ONLINE SCREENING (20 minutes) • Vocabulary • Text editing/speed reading DIAGNOSIS (2 hours) • Listening to a mini-lecture (DELA) • Reading academic-type texts (DELA) • Writing an interpretation of a graph

18. Role of the screening component Basic purpose: To quickly and cheaply identify students who are likely to cope with the language demands of academic study To identify those who need further assessment through the (more intensive and expensive) diagnostic assessment)

19. Screening report to students • Satisfactory • Recommended/required for diagnosis Students in the recommended category are recalled for diagnostic assessment

20. Advantages of DELNA • Screening - caters for large heterogeneous population including L1 English and ESOL/D speakers - non-discriminatory (administered to all first year undergraduates regardless of language background) - empirically tested “pass” threshold - quick online administration & scoring - cost effective

21. Advantages of DELNA (2) • Careful attention to presentation issues (encouragement rather than compulsion) • Resources allocated to faculty liaison and student advice (2 staff members) • Strong research base including regular tracking of “at risk” students

22. Limitations of DELNA • DELNA program in its entirety is expensive to implement • Limited uptake of 2nd tier diagnostic assessment • Less than optimum uptake of available language study options due to - Multiple demands on student time and workload pressures - A lack of personalized advice or follow-up support from their department - Scepticism amongst students about the value of additional language study

23. ELST - under development for UniSA • Combines screening and diagnostic functions of DELA and DELNA in a single measure • To be delivered online to all incoming students • Takes less than an hour to administer

24. Components of ELSA • Screening (speed-reading and c-test) (20 mins) • Argument essay (30 minutes) • Both taken simultaneously but only essays below ‘pass’ threshold on screening are marked

25. Current issues • How to balance screening, diagnostic & placement functions of assessment? • How to simultaneously diagnose academic English needs of L1 and L2 students ? • How to present assessment as benign & useful? • How best to advise students on English language needs? • How to optimize uptake of assessment advice? • How best to provide support for English language development?

26. Way forward Collaborative efforts to • Compare and evaluate the efficacy of available post- entry assessment models • Compare and evaluate the efficacy of different models of post-entry language provision