Download - Eva Lui City University of Hong Kong
Eva LuiEva LuiCity University of Hong Kong
Language Testing Forum 2009
Students do not use English◦ Possible reasons (Li etal, 2001):
1. Lack of contexts for use2. Human relationship consideration3. Language ability3. Language ability4. Psychological influence
Li, N., Leung, D.Y.P. and Kember, D. (2001). Medium of instruction in Hong Kong universities: the mis-match between espoused theory and
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Hong Kong universities: the mis match between espoused theory and theory in use. Higher Education Policy 14,293–312.
Students do not use EnglishStudents do not use EnglishPressure from stakeholders◦ Employersp y◦ Management
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Entrance English Score (e.g. HKASL English score)(e g S g s sco e)
English Enhancement courses
•Course intended learning outcomes•Course content & Teaching & learning activities•Assessment tasks
Exit English Test
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
(IELTS score)
C E li h P fi i A tCommon English Proficiency Assessment Scheme (CEPAS)- ‘exit’ test results and interpretation of the findings in the publicinterpretation of the findings in the public◦ ‘Students from the University of Hong Kong topped
the rankings, at 6.99’ (Lam, 2009)English standard and ranking◦ ‘Perceptions of standards, including standards in
English will affect the standing of HKU graduatesEnglish, will affect the standing of HKU graduates and of the university...’ (Allison, 1992)
Allison, D. (1992). From "Remedial English" to "English enhancement". (So, What Else is New?). Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 15, p.20.
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Linguistics and Language Teaching, 15, p.20.Lam, A. (Sept 9 2009). More university students sit IELTS test.
South China Morning Post.
AccountabilityCredibility of courses
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Low A lot of resources BUT
unsatisfactory performance?entrance standard
Content Construct
Unsatisfactory St d dexit test score
+ employers’ d f
Mismatch
Standard setting
dissatisfaction between input & exit
test
Failure in intervention
Inappropriate expectation Insufficient
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
intervention Insufficient input
Teaching & Targeted Language Course
Learning Activities
g gUseIntended
Learning
EnglishEnhancement Course
Outcomes
Outcomes- Enhancementcourses
contentOutcomesBased Teaching & Learning
AAssessment
Learning Curriculum Approach
Assessment tasks
Criteria=Standard?
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
1989 AILA UNESCO report on Language Teaching in the Perspective of the Predictable Requirements of the 21 century:
‘The definition of objectives and content in foreignThe definition of objectives and content in foreign language learning.Efforts should be undertaken to develop a functional
l f fi i ll i f it i f dscale of proficiency allowing for a criterion referenced system of both assessment of learner achievement and evaluation of curricular effectiveness.’
De Jong, J.H.A.L. (1990). Guest-editor’s preface. In J.H.A.L. De Jong (Ed.) AILA Review- Standardisation in language testing.
d h h l d
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Amersterdam, The Netherlands: Free University Press, 6.
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)‘It comprisesIt comprises (a) a descriptive scheme for analyzing what is involved
in language use and language learning and f f f(b) a definition of communicative proficiency at six
levels arranged in three bands’ (pp.645-646)
‘The CEFR was designed to assist the development of L2 curricula, the design and implementation of L2 teaching programs and the assessment of L2 learning outcomesprograms, and the assessment of L2 learning outcomes. (p. 648)
Little, D. (2007). Perspective. The Issue. The Common European
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Little, D. (2007). Perspective. The Issue. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the Making of Supranational Language Education Policy. The Modern Language Journal, 91.
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Standards for employers’ guide:Hong Kong Workplace English Benchmarks (HKWEB)( l h hk h l hk b h )(www.english.gov.hk/eng/html/wec_hkweb.htm)
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
In the university settingIn the university setting,What do teachers pay attention to when assessing students?gDo these aspects align with the course objectives/ intended learning outcomes?In their opinion, what can students who have passed their courses do when communicating in English?in English?What standard do they think their courses should help students attain?should help students attain?
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Centre backgroundSize of the Centre
Full-time: 49Part-time: 32
Teaching load -Per teacher load: app 20 teaching hours/ week-App 11000 student registrations per year (government-funded, self-financing; degree, associate degree courses)
Focus of this studyocus o t s studyCourses Government-funded courses for degree studentsStudent population
App 1100 per year (each taking 6-credits/180 hrs)(50% of each intake; 50% of the Centre’s teachingpopulation (50% of each intake; 50% of the Centre s teaching load)
Curriculum change
From Sept 2012, all universities in HK will switch from a 3 year to a 4 year curriculumchange from a 3-year to a 4-year curriculum
1 Wh t l t h b d t d t i th1. What language teachers based on to determine the passing standard
2. The perceived skills to which teachers paid attention as compared to the stated assessment criteria/ intended learning outcomescriteria/ intended learning outcomes
3. Opinions on standard settingp g3.1 Confidence level of results from the Centre3.2 External benchmarking: possible standards to be
d dadopted3.3 Comments on setting a standard across all
courses
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
courses3.4 Best ways to maintain standard
Questionnaire 33 Full-time teaching staff (67%)
Background* of all Full-time teaching staff in the g gcentre:-Teaching experience: 16 years (average)
(min: 1 & max: 35)*Years teaching in this Centre: 7 years (average)-Years teaching in this Centre: 7 years (average)(min: 1 & max: 12**)
Interview 4 full-time teaching staff participated in in-d th i di id l i t idepth individual interviews
Background:-Head, 1 Associate Head, 1 Core courseHead, 1 Associate Head, 1 Core course coordinator, 1 Elective course coordinator
*Rough estimation since official information is not il bl
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
available** The Centre is 12 years old
The CoursesThe Courses
• Core courses (3-credit)( )
• Elective courses (3-credit)
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Courses (180 hrs) taken by undergraduates who entered the University with only the minimum English language requirement
Course Core Core Electives
Course Title WrittenLanguage
Spoken Language
e.g. Presentation Skills, WritingEffective Lab Reports etcReports, etc.
Major Language Skills covered
WritingReading
SpeakingListening
Speaking/Writing + other
skills
Length 48 contact
hours + 12 IL hours
36 contact hours + 12 IL
hours
1 Credit=24 hours
Credits 2 1 3
R k
Credits 2 1 3Assessment weighting
30% Coursework70% Exam
30% Coursework70% Exam
100% Coursework
Remarks:-IL: Independent learning-All are pass/fail courses
Written LanguageOn successful completion of the course, students should be able to:able to:1 use a range of strategies to develop ideas for an essay2 write a problem-solution essay3 write an argumentative essayg y4 use language appropriately in your writing5 use a range of strategies to improve reading6 carry out independent learning so as to improve identified areas
of weakness in reading and writingof weakness in reading and writing
ASSESSMENTSReading (45%) (CILO 5)g ( ) ( )Writing (45%) (CILOs 1-4)Independent learning (10%) (CILO 6)
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Reading (45%)-timed assessments on reading skills (Tasks: choosing linkers,
t hi d / h d d fi iti h i b tit t fmatching words/phrases and definition, choosing substitutes for words and phrases, matching paragraphs and statements/comments, identifying true or false statements, explaining the reference of a given word/phrase in own words, describing the meaning of a g /p , g gword/phrase in the reading text, writing an appropriate title, choosing the best title, filling in the gaps in a summary)
-short answers & MC items
Writing (45%)-timed assessments on writing skills (Assessment criteria:
organization/coherence content/ideas language)organization/coherence, content/ideas, language)-essay writing
Independent learning (10%)p g-portfolio assessment (Assessment criteria: An ability to provide an
account of the independent learning process, demonstrating reflection and critical thinking)
Core Courses: Intended Learning Outcomes & Assessments
Spoken LanguageOn successful completion of the course, students should be able to:1 discuss issues fluently1 discuss issues fluently2 discuss issues accurately3 discuss issues using appropriate vocabulary4 express your opinions naturally4 express your opinions naturally5 evaluate the opinions of others6 listen actively7 respond appropriately in discussionsp pp p y8 manage discussions effectively9 demonstrate understanding of main ideas10 demonstrate understanding of supporting details11 carry out independent learning so as to improve identified areas of weakness
ASSESSMENTSListening (23%) (CILOs 9-10)
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Listening (23%) (CILOs 9 10)Speaking (47%) (CILOs 1-8)Independent learning (30%) (CILO 11)
Listening (23%)-timed assessments on listening skills (Task: correctly identifying
subject of the interview, opinion of one speaker and somesubject of the interview, opinion of one speaker and some supporting details)
-verbal debriefing
Speaking (47%)Speaking (47%)-timed assessments on speaking skills (Assessment criteria:
comprehensibility, participation & interaction, group management)g )
-group discussion
Independent Learning (30%)-portfolio assessment (Assessment criteria: amount of work and
effort, choice of activities & strategies, reflection)
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Questionnaire findingsQuestionnaire findings
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
1. What language teachers based on to determine the passing standard
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Details of the responses (n=33)d d
Courses covered
Core:SpokenLanguage
Core: Written Language (10)
Other elective courses (9)
-open-ended response
Language (14)
(10) courses (9)
Aspects that teachers paid attention toAspects that teachers paid attention to
Aspects Core:
SpokenLanguage
Core: Written Language
Other elective coursesLanguage courses
Assessment criteria-related
23 24 8
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Other 1 1 1
Aspects that teachers paid attention to (a b kd )breakdown)
Assessment criteria-related aspects
Core: SpokenLanguage (23)
Core: Written Language (24)
Comprehension/ Language 8 9Speaking/ Writing task related
criteria 9 13
Listening/ Reading task relatedcriteria 1 2
Independent learning related 5 0p gcriteria 5 0
Oth t Core: Spoken Core: Written Other electives Other aspects pLanguage (1) Language (1) (1)
Criteria Task fulfillment Task fulfillment Attitude towards learning
CILOs/ marking schemes
Details of the responses (n=20)-open-ended response
CILOs/ marking schemes (previous)/ TLU 11
bli / h kipublic exams/ other marking schemes / literature 7
Teachers' knowledge/ experience/ expectations 5
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
p / p
2. The perceived skills to which teachers paid attention as compared to the stated assessment criteria/ intended learning outcomesoutcomes
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
WRITTEN LANGUAGE ASSESSMENTSReading (45%) W iti (45%) (A t it i organi ation/coherence content/ideasWriting (45%): (Assessment criteria: organization/coherence, content/ideas, language)Independent learning (10%)
Written Language What teachers paidWritten Language Assessment criteria
What teachers paid attention to Possible interpretation
Reading (45%) 2/10 Not as important as WritingW iti O i ti Wh t t t h idWriting: Organisation
(18%) 9/10 What most teachers paid attention to when assessing
Writing: Content (13 5%) 4/10 Less important among the
three writing criteria(13.5%) three writing criteriaWriting: Language
(13.5%) 9/10 What most teachers paid attention to when assessing
Independent Learning Not an important skill toIndependent Learning (10%) 0/10 Not an important skill to
teachers•55% of the grade not clearly noticed by teachers
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
teachers•-Reading: objectively marked•-Independent Learning- not the key skill to discriminate students
SPOKEN LANGUAGE ASSESSMENTSListening (23%) S ki (47%) (Assessment criteria comprehensibilit participation &Speaking (47%) (Assessment criteria: comprehensibility, participation & interaction, group management)Independent learning (30%)
Spoken Language What teachers paidSpoken Language Assessment criteria
What teachers paid attention to Possible interpretation
Listening (23%) 1/14 Less important than SpeakingSpeaking
Speaking:Comprehensibility
(15.6%)8/14
More teachers paid attention to this aspect when assessing( ) g
Speaking:Participation &
interaction (23.6%)7/14
More teachers paid attention to this aspect when assessing•60% of the grade not clearly
d b hSpeaking: Group management (7.8%) 2/14 Not a determining criterion
when assessing speakingIndependent Learning 2/14 Less important than
noticed by teachers•-Listening: separately assessed but part of the speaking tasks
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
(30%) 2/14 Speakingspeaking tasks•-Independent Learning- not the key skill to discriminate students
3. Opinions on standard setting 3.1 Confidence level of results from the
Centre
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Think about the students who have passed this course. With reference to this statement– ‘___', how
confident are you?'All students who have passed this course should be able to get a 'D' i th HKASL UE 'in the HKASL UE exam''All students who have passed this course have all achieved the Course Intended Learning Outcomes (CILOs) satisfactorily'
45.5%
'Students who have passed ELC courses have a similar level of language proficiency' •More confident with students’
achievement of CILOs
21.2%
33.3%
21.2%
33.3%36.4%
24.2%
•Not quite confident with proficiency level and similarity of proficiency among students
6.1%
% %
15.2%
3.0%0.0%
6.1% 6.1%9.1%
6.1%
12.1%
18.2%
3.0%
g
1 (Not at all) 2 3 4 5 6 (Very)
CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference) http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Portfolio/?L=E&M=/main_pages/levels.html
Students who have passed ELC
courses
My WEAKESTstudent who has passed ELC courses
My STRONGESTstudent who has passed ELC courses
A1 Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help. 100% 94% 100%
A2 Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need. 97% 91% 97%
B1 Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of l i t t 97% 82% 97%B1 personal interest. 97% 82% 97%
B1 Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes & ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans. 85% 39% 97%
B2Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialisation.
58% 15% 79%p
B2Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party.
61% 6% 97%
B2Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.
12% 6% 48%p
C1 Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recogniseimplicit meaning. 3% 0 9%
C1 Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. 6% 3% 72%
C1 Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and f i l 0 0 61%C1 professional purposes. 0 0 61%
C1Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.
3% 0 39%C2 Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. 0 0 24%
Can summarise information from different spoken and written sources
Those who passed ELC courses:-weakest: B1ishC2 Can summarise information from different spoken and written sources,
reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. 18% 9% 52%C2 Can express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely,
differentiating finer shades of meaning even in more complex situations. 0 0 0
weakest: B1ish-average: B2ish-strongest: C1ish
>80% 50-79% <50%
3. Opinions on standard setting p g
3.2 External benchmarking: possible standards to be adopted
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
If we need to set a standard across all ELC courses for undergraduates what standard
HKASL UE C 1
courses for undergraduates, what standard should we refer to?
HKASL UE C 1HKASL UE D 8HKASL UE E 1
IELTS 7.0 7IELTS 6.5-7.0 1IELTS 6.5 8IELTS 6.0-6.5 2IELTS 6.0 6IELTS 5.5-6.0 1IELTS 5.5 1
Can’t comment, too new to the system 2
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Respondents are allowed to give multiple answers
3. Opinions on standard setting 3.3 Comments on setting a standard across
all courses
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Details of the responses (n=33)d d
Pros (39) Cons* (31)Assuring English
-open-ended response
Assuring Englishstandard/ reliability (16) Implementation issues (12)
Employer & other p ystakeholder friendliness (9)
Practicality issues (7)
Positive backwash onPositive backwash on teaching &/ learning (8) Other negative impacts (12)
Other (6) *No disadvantages (6)Ot e (6) o d sad a tages (6)•Slightly more pros than cons•CONs: more related to respondents’ interpretation that setting standards teaching to a standardised test OR their own
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
standards = teaching to a standardised test OR their own standard setting interpretation
Pros (39) Details
Assuring English -Assuring English standard (4)Assuring Englishstandard/ reliability (16)
-Same standard across courses (4)-Fairness/ consistency (4)-Better reliability/ quality assurance (4)
E l & hEmployer & other stakeholder friendliness (9)
-Stakeholders: All/ General (5)-Employer in particular (4)
Positive backwashPositive backwash on teaching &/ learning (8)
-Students motivation (6)-Clearer directions for teaching &/ learning (2)
-More sensible course selection by students (2)
Other (6)
More sensible course selection by students (2)-Better respect for the Centre within the university (1)-Fulfill university management’s expectations (1)St li t d d di ti k
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
-Streamline standardardisation work across courses (1)-Not sure (1)
Cons (31) DetailsDifficulty in implementation due to the nature of
Implementation issues (12)
-Difficulty in implementation due to the nature of courses (4)-Failing more students (3)-Drop in enrolment (2)-Workload issues (3)
Practicality issues (7)
-Not practical (with some courses) (5)-Difficulty in choosing the right standard (2)
Other negative
-Focus on passing the standard and not customised language enhancement (5)-Lower credibility if the standard chosen is too low (1)g
impacts (12) low (1)-Unreliable reflection of student ability (3)-Student anxiety (2)-Danger of choosing the wrong standard (1)
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
CONs: more related to respondents’ interpretation that setting standards = teaching to a standardisedtest OR their own standard setting interpretation
ELC courses are too short to see any improvement on a standardized, general proficiency test ELC courses often target very specific skills whichgeneral proficiency test. ELC courses often target very specific skills which might not be measured on a standardized, general proficiency test.Might transform ELC courses/teaching into 'IELTS/standard cramming' courses. Less variety in the courses offered, so English teaching might becourses. Less variety in the courses offered, so English teaching might be narrowed to its bare minimum: reaching the 'academic' standard.These kinds of tests are so formulaic and don't take into account different learning styles and abilities to pass tests. The students will think that we need to teach them EXACTLY how to pass this exam and won't care about learning other aspects of language learning.We should be focusing on learning not on having students reach a fictitious l l h i h l ld d ' hi W h ldlevel that in the real world doesn't mean anything. We, as a center, should focus on quality learning and teaching and that may create a reputation for exceptional language instruction with graduates who are at ease , enjoy and are excellent at communicating in English.and are excellent at communicating in English.
Details of the responses (n=18)-open-ended response
-Mostly constructive suggestions-Concerns: Also related to interpretation of ho standards
AspectsPossible concerns (4): test preparation, practicality, feasibility
interpretation of how standards would be set
Comments on current situation (2)Advantages of standard setting (2)S ti f th i l t ti (9)Suggestions for the implementation (9):
-External benchmarking-public exams (4)-Engaging experts/ the wider ESL community (2)-Other suggestions (3): Internal benchmarking (among-Other suggestions (3): Internal benchmarking (among courses), Reference to the local education system, Focus on language proficiency, Better justifications of weighting among assessment criteriaamong assessment criteria
Others: Indicated interest in the project (1)
Interview findingsInterview findings
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
2. What language teachers based on to determine the passing standard
Marking schemes-h
-may differ in actual interpretation of individual i i ( h h h l i il )
determine the passing standard
teacher interpretation, usefulness of the criteria
criteria (though the scores are mostly similar); differences higher for newer teachers
-some criteria may not discriminate students well (remarks: students are mostly homogenous andcriteria (remarks: students are mostly homogenous and the courses are just for P/F)
-some aspects of real-life communication may be overlooked (e.g. understanding subtlety of messages)messages)
-weighting of some criteria may lead to negative backwash (e.g. insufficient emphasis of language accuracy)g g y
Aspects that teachers paid attention to when
-marking scheme + overall / own impression / evaluation of students’ ‘standard’
assessing
3. Opinions on standard setting 3 1 Confidence level of results from the3.1 Confidence level of results from the
Centre3.4 Best ways to maintain standard
Confidence level of results from the Centre
-Very confident that students passing the course have reached course expectations (with the support of the marking scheme)
3.4 Best ways to maintain standard
-Comparing with external benchmarks – no but that was not in the design
Best ways to maintain standard
-Amending marking scheme: adjusting weighting to reflect better real lifemaintain standard -adjusting weighting to reflect better real life
performance-more emphasis on language proficiency
-Strengthening marker trainingg g g-more rigorous marker training-checkmarking at earlier stages-peer markingmore feedback to teachers who need help-more feedback to teachers who need help
-External benchmarking
1. Collecting source data:◦ Paid student samples (completing a wide range of tasks
covered in language courses simulating the targetcovered in language courses simulating the target language use situation)
2. Ranking/ filing the exemplars:◦ Sponsoring such students to take a public exam withinSponsoring such students to take a public exam within
one month◦ Labelling each sample according to the public exam result
3. Opinions on standard setting 3.3 Comments on setting a standard across
ll ( d d l)Comments/ Suggestions on
d d
-Collecting exemplars & external benchmarking: good idea & do-able
d h b
all courses (re: proposed model)
setting standards across courses
-Considerations re: mismatches between test tasks in the public exams and samples collected
Foci FindingsFoci Findings
1. What language teachers based on to determine the
(Questionnaire) Mostly assessment criteria related aspects (Interview) Assessment criteria + Ownpassing standard (Interview) Assessment criteria + Own impression of students’ ‘standard’
2. The perceived skills to which teachers paid (Questionnaire)
Skills expressed in CEFR:pattention as compared to the stated assessment criteria/ intended learning outcomes
Skills expressed in CEFR:-Weakest: B1ish-Average: B2ish-Strongest: C1ishoutcomes g
3 O d d
(Questionnaire) -More confident with students’ achievement of CILOs-Not quite confident with proficiency level3. Opinions on standard
setting3.1 Confidence level of results from the Centre
Not quite confident with proficiency level and similarity of proficiency among students(Interview) -Very confident that students
i h h h dresults from the Centre passing the course have reached course expectations (NOT with external benchmarking)
Foci Findings3. Opinions on standard setting (Questionnaire) -Differentsetting3.2 External benchmarking: possible standards to be adopted
(Questionnaire) -Different expectations-IELTS: 6-7
3. Opinions on standard setting3.3 Comments on setting a t d d ll
(QuestionnaIre)-More pros than cons-Cons more related to respondents’ interpretation of ‘standard setting’
t hi t t d di d t tstandard across all courses as teaching to a standardised test3. Opinions on standard setting3 4 Best ways to maintain
(Interview)-Amending marking scheme-Strengthening marker training3.4 Best ways to maintain
standardStrengthening marker training
-External benchmarking
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
Teachers rely on the assessment criteria when i i h fassigning the performance scores
Interpretation of the criteria and banding:Mostly similar + own interpretation (basedMostly similar + own interpretation (based on experience)
When using CEFR to describe students’ performance- B1 to C1 (reflecting the standard adopted in the courses)When suggesting what level to aim at if aWhen suggesting what level to aim at if a standard is to be set across all courses: IELTS 6-7 (reflecting their own expectations)
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK
The current descriptors seem to allow t d t t CEFR B1 t d d t thstudents at CEFR B1 standard to pass the
coursesTeachers’ own expectations differTeachers own expectations differ
NEED to set clearer standards through d i i f d fdescription of targeted performance to provide clearer guidelines to both teachers and studentsand students
Improve accountability of the course provider and credibility of the courses
Language Testing Forum 2009 Eva Lui CityU HK