{"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.
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.