Job Discussion Forums

[Voyeur]

We're splitting hairs about whether all learning involves a degree of memory usage. But regardless, I agree that the best prep starts years in advance. Honestly, for IELTS and TOEFL you don't need that much prep if you are smart and your English is good, certainly not years. But just ensuring your English is at a high level come university time does require an early start.

SAT (as it currently is) really is best started early, mainly for the high-level vocab. Reading a lot from an early age, especially academic-level stuff, is the best way to ensure a good SAT score.

[Sashadroogie]

I have to admit some confusion as to what hairs are being split, and how.

Of course memory plays a vital role in language learning. How could it not? But there seems to be a position being put forward that test-takers can somehow hear a key word, activate a pre-scripted response which seamlessly fits into the conversation, respond coherently to the examiner's follow-up questions, and so get a high mark. Yet, through all this, they didn't possess real language skills at all, and so cheated the system by memorization.

Sorry chaps. I still say that if a test-taker can do what was described above, then that it more than likely evidence of real language ability rather than 'cracking the code'. Learning off key phrases and lexical chunks related to a range of topics? That what learners are supposed to do! Test or no test.

Perhaps this New Oriental outfit is guilty of nothing more than dishonestly selling its course as a magic short-cut to lazy students, and then forcing them to really acquire solid language skills! Brilliant strategy which would exploit natural temptation and tendencies to corruption : ))

[Voyeur]

Let's try to look at this from another angle. Ultimately, the problem seems to stem from the fact that students with similar test scores (say IELTS Band 7 or a TOEFl 100) end up having quite different levels of overall aptitude when it comes to working in English at universities.
To some degree, this is of course unavoidable. The language tests are human products, and humans are fallible. However, test prep (or whatever effective sort) seems to exacerbate this dynamic, and I think that ultimately this is what is behind the 'Chinese problem'. Regardless of whether the test prep is legitimate or utilizes too much memorization to be so, the result is that someone with an IELTS band score of 7 who has prepped extensively likely has less English capability than someone who scored the same with much less preparation.
What can be done about that, short of changing the tests (which may not be possible)? Well you could set the minimum requirements to a level that is high enough that even with massive preparation it still represents sufficient fundamental English capacity. However, this really hurts those with less money or time. Furthermore, and this is where the memorization question reasserts itself, *if* an undesirable amount of memorization during test prep is effective--even to a limited degree--you are now forcing everyone to spend time on such a useless activity. Therefore, if test prep works at all (and it seems like it does) then everyone is to some degree forced to engage in it. And therefore it is ultimately in our interests to do our best to make sure that the kind of test prep that is effective is as desirable as it can be.
And unfortunately, we seem to be at a bit of an impasse with respect to exploring the effectiveness of what many consider 'excessive memorization' in test prep, mostly because the issue has become exceedingly technical. Furthermore, as I posited before, I believe there is a dynamic, arms-race quality at play. I believe that, broadly speaking, many of the most blatant topic specific memorization tactics that have become famous now work much less effectively. IELTS and TOEFL examiners have been trained to weed out and effectively penalize a lot of it. But the question of what kinds of memorization still work, how well they work, and for what kinds of students they work, still remains unclear. And is likely changing day-by-day as preppers and examiners battle it out.
I do think we have dealt with the idea of using extended scripts as best we can. It seems likely that it was much more effective before, and now must be done very artfully if it wants to be effective. And using it so artfully would require someone with a high degree of intelligence using a lot of time. There is an an opportunity cost there: what would have been their score if the same intelligent student spent that time in another way?
For those technically inclined, I think we should look at the value of 'example banks' and memorized 'topic-specific' vocabulary and word strings. That seems to be where the new action is. How valuable is it to break down all past test questions in to categories, and memorize examples that can be used as well as fairly specific vocabulary and word strings for those topics such as: 'Global warming will endanger the future of all humanity' or 'Fear is a learned response that can be trained' etc...
Another place to look at is what are called 'templates'. Many eager Chinese students use templates for their speaking and writing answers, which basically take the idea of learning introductory, transitional, and concluding phrases and push it to the extreme. We want students to learn this kind of vocabulary, but we don't--ideally--want them using templates. But it seems hard to push back on the latter. I recognize their usage in a lot of student work, but I can't entirely discourage it as I don't really know how effective templates are compared to the alternative. I even teach templates myself, ostensibly as training wheels. But the wheels often never come off.

[Bud Powell]

Another place to look at is what are called 'templates'.

I'm not sure of what you mean by templates. Form maybe?

In the writing module, the students practice writing different kinds of essays and other written communication: process papers, chronological narratives (this happened, then that happened, etc.), descriptive narratives, argumentative essays, letters, etc.. Each type of formal written communication requires a specific form. In semester-long university IELTS classes, the forms are taught along with specific transitional words and phrases.

American freshman writing classes teach the same things. There is NO WAY on earth that just knowing the form, transitional words and phrases, and even THESIS will help a native English speaker to pass a written essay test. NO WAY. I've worked with high school students (and college students) in the States who had incredible difficulty putting their thoughts in writing. No amount of memorization of anything would help them get a satisfactory grade if they had not mastered the basics of written communication (verb-subject agreement, tense, parallelism, etc.). If native speakers can't do it, E2 speakers/writers who haven't mastered the basics can't do it either. I promise you.

When I was studying for my masters degree in writing, and composition, my assistantship required me to work with foreign students (mostly Asian). Many were good writers whose only problem was self confidence.

Others, however, had very poor writing skills, and I often wondered how they even got into the university without having to take classes with the English Language Institute (an organization that SUPPOSEDLY helps foreign students at many universities with their English requirements). I have long felt that ELTI is a sham and that the admissions process at many state universities is a disgrace for admitting foreign students who can barely work on the 6th grade level, much less on the university level.

[Sashadroogie]

A very good point. Much of the finger-pointing levelled at IELTS and TOEFL relates to foreign applicants arriving at an anglophone university and not having the requisite skills to manage well on the course. Somehow this is seen as a flaw in the testing procedures rather than one in university admissions. Only requiring an IELTS 6 overall, and sometimes lower, is not always going to lead to first year students with sufficient reading and writing skills for particular courses.

[Bud Powell]

I doubt that some of my students even scored a band 3. What is happening at many universities in the U.S is that the school goes on a spending spree, then props up budgetary shortfalls by admitting unqualified foreign students who pay 5-10x instate tuition and rooming. My own alma mater was found guilty of approving student visas to unqualified applicants. My university isn't the only one guilty of this.

Students who score high on these tests let others know how hard they worked by demonstrating their incredible language skills in class (and sometimes by bragging about their scores to be sure that a distinction is made between them and those who bought their way into the school).

I can't see how anyone can fault legitimate test results. Both TEOFL and IELTS are comprehensive tests. The problem is that some schools in the U.S. disregard scores in favor of revenues.

[bograt]

If you're facing an experienced examiner, going to cram schools and memorizing chunks will only get you so far at IELTS. Probably a six in the speaking test. Of course many of them know all the questions beforehand, they email them onto a website for others to look at as soon as they leave the test venue, but experienced examiners basically know what someone's going to get within the first few minutes of the test. They're so used to the stock phrases they all seem to learn and the general manner that seems to emanate from the fives and sixes. A candidate who's a seven generally won't be nervous for example. Fives and sixes are nervous because they're worried they won't understand the questions, Sevens don't have that fear. Even if a 5/6 prepper gets past the initial stages, the final part when they have to respond to off the cuff questions about what they've said will always catch them out in the end. As long as the examiner is doing their job properly.