There is a newly-released study in the English Language Teaching Journal: “The impact of English language test choice for higher education admissions in the UK: perceptions of key stakeholders”, (the journal article is behind a paywall here, but summarized in this PIE News article, “New ELT study takes aim at “less traditional” tests“.)

I have many comments about the issues raised in the report: comparisons of “traditional” and “less traditional” tests, findings of low language assessment literacy, and lack of evidence-based frameworks to guide selection of tests accepted for admissions at many UK institutions. I will get to these in a blog post to come.

But let’s start here, talking about the section on perceptions of student language proficiency and academic literacy skills, summarized in the PIE News article (emphasis mine):

In addition to the choice of test, much of the report is dedicated to findings highlighting the growing concerns among university personnel about the declining English language proficiency of international students. 

When asked to evaluate the academic literacy of the international students they teach, 44% of respondents said it was ‘poor’, 47% deemed it to be ‘mixed’ or ‘varied’, with less than 10% judging it to be ‘good’.   

It seems the authors are trying to draw a connection between low (perceived) proficiency and academic literacy, and the concerns about reliability of “less traditional” tests. In other words, that “less traditional” tests allow students with insufficient language proficiency to be admitted to university.

[facepalm emoji] 🤦🏼‍♀️

Faculty and/or staff perceptions of international students’ fluency is not useful data and doesn’t provide insight into a complex issue.

First, lamenting international students’ “poor English” is not a “growing concern”! For more than a decade people in the UK, Canada, and other Anglophone contexts have been wringing their hands about “international students who can’t speak English” and how it’s affecting standards and quality in higher education.

Here’s an article from 2013 from MacLean’s magazine in Canada: “The flap over the fluency gap: As schools turn to international students to fill chairs and coffers, concerns grow about English proficiency” and here’s one from 2013 from University Affair, “Internationalizing the Canadian campus
ESL students and the erosion of higher education.”

Fast forward to summer 2024, and we still are seeing pieces like, such as this blog post from Higher Education Policy Institute : “Hidden in Plain Sight: The Real International Student Scandal” (spoiler alert: according to two (2) anonymous faculty members at Russell group institutions, the real scandal is students’ English language proficiency). And then there was this December 2024 BBC investigation into the issue: “Universities enrolling foreign students with poor English, BBC finds”.

Some students are in need of language and/or academic skills support? Um…, yeah, we know! We’ve known for years. Talk about a non-scandal.

There is no doubt a small number of students committing deliberate language testing fraud and/or institutions turning a blind eye to it. And this should stop.

However, as I’ve written before, the real issue is lack of language assessment literacy amongst faculty and staff across higher education institutions, and the lack of investment in addressing language and academic skills development pre- and post-admission, within the curriculum as well as via support services.

Back to the faculty perceptions of students’ performance as captured in this latest study, let’s not forget that English language proficiency and academic literacy are two completely different things. Someone could have an excellent proficiency exam score, and still struggle with their studies if they lack academic literacy skills to know how to apply those skills in the context of their studies.

None of the standardized English proficiency exams mentioned in the article assesses academic literacy; they only assess English language proficiency.

So a tiny sample of 34 faculty members’ broad perceptions of the English proficiency and academic literacy skills of ALL the international students they teach is in my opinion quite useless as a measurement of academic preparedness or the student experience.

People without training in language assessment, even faculty, are generally terrible at evaluating others’ language ability, often incorrectly conflating accent with low proficiency, or silence for lack of understanding, or fixating on minor errors that don’t impede communication.

It’s honestly just vibes.

So instead of a few faculty members’ perceptions, give us some evidence to tell us how institutions can better support students’ language skills, academic literacy, and academic success, retention and student experience.

For example, ask students themselves about their linguistic and academic preparedness and experiences to identify what was most challenging to them during the transition to university in a new country and new language. This can identify gaps and effective curricular and extra-curricular interventions and support. Ask faculty to reflect on their own teaching practices and what they’ve done to update their teaching to a more linguistically- and culturally-diverse student body in order to identify what works and what doesn’t. Or how they have integrated the teaching of essential academic literacy skills into the curriculum.

Lots of this research exists already.

Predictive validity studies looking at specific exams and correlation with student success are highly-context-dependent and rarely conclusive or widely generalizable unless carefully designed. Nonetheless, student data around first-semester GPA, core course marks, credit taken to credit earned ratios, retention rates, academic integrity offenses, access to language and academic support services, etc. can be informative on a local level.

Or consult some of the excellent scholarship that already exists on the topic, such as Bee Bond’s Making Language Visible in the University, or Neil Murray’s Standards of English in Higher Education: Issues, Challenges and Strategies.

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the findings of this study, saying there is or isn’t a connection between recent changes in the number and type of English language proficiency exams accepted and academic and linguistic preparedness, and the student experience. I’ll comment on that later.

And I’m DEFINITELY NOT saying that universities shouldn’t continue to exercise the duty of care mentioned in the article that goes beyond admissions, and “[increase] their investment in language support services, mental health resources, and academic counselling to help students transition successfully into their new academic environment”. I agree with this, and would add that these issues also have to be addressed via the curriculum. And faculty can do their part by internationalizing their curriculum and teaching practices, and exploring more culturally- and linguistically-responsive pedagogies.

I’m simply urging us to research and discuss these important issues while moving beyond the tired trope of “the international students can’t speak English”.