Test review: High-stakes English language proficiency tests—Enquiry, resit, and retake policies

IF 2.2 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Language Testing Pub Date : 2023-07-25 DOI:10.1177/02655322231186706
William S. Pearson
{"title":"Test review: High-stakes English language proficiency tests—Enquiry, resit, and retake policies","authors":"William S. Pearson","doi":"10.1177/02655322231186706","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many candidates undertaking high-stakes English language proficiency tests for academic enrolment do not achieve the results they need for reasons including linguistic unreadiness, test unpreparedness, illness, an unfavourable configuration of tasks, or administrative and marking errors. Owing to the importance of meeting goals or out of a belief that original test performance was satisfactory, some individuals query their results, while others go on to retake the test, perhaps on multiple occasions. This article critically reviews the policies of eight well-known, on-demand gatekeeping English language tests, describing the systems adopted by language assessment organisations to regulate results enquiries, candidates resitting (components of) a test where performance fell short of requirements, and repeat test-taking. It was found that all providers institute clear mechanisms through which candidates can query their results, with notable variations exhibited in procedures, costs, restrictions, outcomes, and how policies are communicated to test-takers. Test resit options are scarce, while organisations enact few restrictions on test retakes in the form of mandatory waiting times and cautionary advice. The implications for language assessment organisations are discussed.","PeriodicalId":17928,"journal":{"name":"Language Testing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Testing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322231186706","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many candidates undertaking high-stakes English language proficiency tests for academic enrolment do not achieve the results they need for reasons including linguistic unreadiness, test unpreparedness, illness, an unfavourable configuration of tasks, or administrative and marking errors. Owing to the importance of meeting goals or out of a belief that original test performance was satisfactory, some individuals query their results, while others go on to retake the test, perhaps on multiple occasions. This article critically reviews the policies of eight well-known, on-demand gatekeeping English language tests, describing the systems adopted by language assessment organisations to regulate results enquiries, candidates resitting (components of) a test where performance fell short of requirements, and repeat test-taking. It was found that all providers institute clear mechanisms through which candidates can query their results, with notable variations exhibited in procedures, costs, restrictions, outcomes, and how policies are communicated to test-takers. Test resit options are scarce, while organisations enact few restrictions on test retakes in the form of mandatory waiting times and cautionary advice. The implications for language assessment organisations are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
考试回顾:高风险的英语语言能力测试——查询、补考和重考政策
许多参加学术入学的高风险英语语言能力测试的考生没有达到他们需要的结果,原因包括语言准备不足,考试准备不足,疾病,不利的任务配置,或管理和评分错误。由于达到目标的重要性,或者出于最初的测试表现令人满意的信念,一些人查询他们的结果,而另一些人继续重新参加测试,可能在多个场合。本文批判性地回顾了八个著名的按需守门英语语言测试的政策,描述了语言评估机构采用的系统,以规范结果查询,考生重新参加(组成部分)考试,其中表现达不到要求,以及重复考试。研究发现,所有考试机构都建立了明确的机制,考生可以通过该机制查询考试结果,在程序、成本、限制、结果以及政策如何传达给考生方面表现出明显的差异。重新参加考试的选择很少,而组织对重新参加考试的限制很少,只是强制等待时间和警告性建议。本文讨论了这对语言评估机构的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Language Testing
Language Testing Multiple-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
9.80%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Language Testing is a fully peer reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles on language testing and assessment. It provides a forum for the exchange of ideas and information between people working in the fields of first and second language testing and assessment. This includes researchers and practitioners in EFL and ESL testing, and assessment in child language acquisition and language pathology. In addition, special attention is focused on issues of testing theory, experimental investigations, and the following up of practical implications.
期刊最新文献
Can language test providers do more to support open science? A response to Winke Considerations to promote and accelerate Open Science: A response to Winke Evaluating the impact of nonverbal behavior on language ability ratings Sharing, collaborating, and building trust: How Open Science advances language testing Open Science in language assessment research contexts: A reply to Winke
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1