Job Discussion Forums

[Capergirl]

TOEFL, TOEIC, IELTS, CanTest, etc...these are all big tests used to guage students' level of proficiency in the English language. Much time and money is spent preparing students to write these tests but what I am wondering is this: does preparing them for a specific test - in other words "teaching to the test" - really help them? I would argue that it helps to prepare them psychologically but nothing more than that. Next question: If they are given lots of test prep in advance, are their resulting scores a true measure of their proficiency?

[ntropy]

I'd argue the tests themselves don't measure proficiency.

Not that I can suggest any better standard way that would, so I guess I should keep my negative criticism to myself.

I'm just tired of students who have 570 TOEFLs and can't ask the bus driver for directions.

[guest of Japan]

In my experience in Japan I have found the TOEIC to be a very accurate guage of English ability for students who have spent one year abroad or less. Any more international experience than that and the TOEIC is worthless.

The TOEFL seems to be pretty valuable for students who plan to go to university in an English speaking country. Let's face it, professors and textbooks like big words and lots of them.

I don't have any experience with the other tests listed.

In Japan there is also the EIKEN. These tests are confusing. The written test measures the degree to which you have learned about English. The speaking test is more a measure of personality and dress than English ability. That said, I have never met a person with a first grade certificate who wasn't extremely good at English.

Western education in the last 20 years has been steadily moving toward standardation and accountability. English as a second or foreign language is actually a little slow at getting on the bus. The tests that do exist don't match the dominant teaching methods which are more communication focused. Until the standards match the current goals of instruction it seems teachers will be caught in the middle.

[johnslat]

Having taught a good number of TOEFL Prep classes, I'd say that "teaching to the test" does more than just that. For the reading section, I gave my classes a pre-test, then a thorough introduction to skimming and scanning and LOTS of practice. The improvement never failed to amaze me. Then practice with inference, vocabulary through context clues, predicting, etc. All these tools have a great many applications besides test-taking. Same for the grammar/structure section -thanks to the pre-testing, I was able to identify with a high degree of accuracy just what areas the students were especially weak in, which thereafter directed my lesson planning. Instructing for the writing section also goes far beyond just teaching for the test, as the required skills are ones the students will need not only in graduate school, but probably throughout their lives.
Regards,
John
P.S. But it all works for "taking the test", too. The average increase in the classes was about 100 points from the initial TOEFL pre-test.

[FGT]

In my opinion, a mediocre intermediate/upper-intermediate student can be coached in Toefl technique to a successful conclusion. The same does not apply with IELTS because this is a test of use of English rather than memorisation of formulae. The other tests are unfamiliar to me.

[Roger]

Passing such a test cold would seem to indicate the student is proficient; passing it only after endless pre work involving similar tests to the one the student has to pass would seem to me to mean he internalised typical student behaviour in a test for the sake of passing it - in other words: he memorised it.

I too found IELTS to teach students (here in China) some learning techniques not taught to them by their own teachers, such as analysing, infering, reading between the lines.
But it's true too that such techniques must be taught at a sufficiently early stage; once students have been through local teaching for more than 4 years they are not generally amenable to studying in a more enlightened manner that does not focus on rote-memorisation.

[Alitas]

I think johnslat is referring to literacy techniques. Many of today's students do not know how to scan a text, make an inference, predict, etc.

There are those who are well-read in their own language. I call these types of students expert readers. They could win a Scrabble game in a foreign language because they understand the values in place. Do they necessarily understand everything? Perhaps not, but they know the rules.

In my experience teaching high school Spanish, 90% of my students are not expert readers and I end up teaching them to read in order to understand.

We aren't in Kansas anymore! It's not memorization, it's technique. At the high school level, I have found very receptive learners because they want to make meaning out of what they are doing. Which brings me to this point: standardized tests are not real-world. And if you have no concept, culturally, of these non-real-world events (an expert reader!), it makes it much harder to do well on this type of assessment, because you can't make any meaning!

[Will.]

Hi Folks,
I have taught IELTS and am familiar with TOEFl and TOEIC just info...
Who gets the best deal from these tests, the students, the institution or the company that sells the test? They exist to demonstrate achievement of certain skills and an ability to use them at a pre-described level.
I see no mention of the Cambridge, or other, FCE CAE CPE suite of exams and these are the ones that students I am enrolling ask for when applying. These are recognised by institutions in their home country who want more than a score in a test for entry into their faculty.
Just a thought, anyone ever get a commission from TOEFL or other for sending students to do a test?

[Capergirl]

I have no experience with IELTS, but it sounds similar to the CanTest in that the student is required to give complete answers as opposed to multiple choice (TOEFL, TOEIC). My students are required to take the TOEIC test at certain intervals at the discretion of their employer. They like to have some preparation for the test, so we give it to them, but I really think it is only preparing them psychologically to write the test. I really feel that there is no way they are going to improve their scores after a few days of practice questions. However, if it helps to put their minds at ease then it probably does help their scores because they are more relaxed when they take the test.

I don't know how accurate a measure of English proficiency these tests are but I suppose it can be helpful to have some way to assess their levels (although "levels" can be a somewhat subjective concept), particularly when their language skills directly affect their employment or their ability to complete university-level coursework in English.

However, in response to Will's question, I believe it is the companies who sell these standardized tests who benefit the most from them.

[arioch36]

"teaching to the test" is certainly a problem in any country.

but what are you comparing it to? 60 hours of IELTS class by a foreign teacher compared to 60 hours of non-IELTS class taught by a foreigner? I no longer have the info, but I have seen the results that the average IELTS student taught by a Chinese teacher had a statistically insignificant increase in their IELTS class.

I think any good class will help English. I taught at a two year "college" where parents paid huge amounts to prepare their children to go to school overseas. The main goal was to do well on the IELTS. I taught some writing, and I taught it pretty much the same way as I taught writing in the Chinese college.

The big thing was doing well on the verbal test. This is where teaching to the tests really comes to play

When I first came to China, I thought the idea of a verbal test was a great idea. After all, was is the point of teaching english if the student can't ask for direction. Now, after several years, I think the oral part is harmful and worthless. I hope the TOEFEL doesn't start doing the verbal.

The verbal is supposed to be 15 minutes. The average tester takes about one minute to grade the students. The Chinese student spends hours and hours rehearsing canned topic segments, more hours studying all the tips. Hours and hours and hours doing everything except practicing talking to others.

I really think my most practical teaching was teaching them how to properly shake hands, introduce self, smile and make appropriate eye contact, and look confident.

Test results seem to have little correlation to english ability or academic ability. Yes, pretty young girls do score better. Students i have had with great academic ability (after all, they are going overseas to study) come away with "4's on the oral test, kiss of death, while poorer students went to s different tester and got "6"'s

In case it doesn't show, I now despise the oral section of the IELTS. I could rant for hours

Chris in Henan, back from vacation, and ready to change the world

[jud]

In Italy I can't tell you how many elementary students come to us and are convinced that they can prepare for the PET test in 30 hours. Also low intermediates (or lower) who are convinced that they can cram for the Toeffl.

They can't. I think the Cambridge Exams (KET, PET, First, etc.) are great exams for this. They measure the speaker's functional English level, and while you can prepare for them, you have to have the appropriate levels of fluency BEFORE you do a preparatory course.

Teaching to these tests is effective as it helps students build their language skills and understand that language is not just "the grammar", but phrasal verbs, idioms, tone, appropriacy,......

Give me a student who's passed the First, and I know I've got a good, high-intermediate student.

[shmooj]

[Capergirl]

These TOEIC tests my students take are supplemented by a writing section as well as a two-part oral exam (designed by an affiliate specifically for these students). It really rounds out the test so that all areas of competency are covered. Fortunately, we aren't the ones who have to assess these oral tests. We just ask the questions, record the answers, and ship the cassettes off to the experts.

[MELEE]

We prepare students for The Cambridge Exams (KET PET and FCE) and I don't think we are a British based program. We have 15 English teachers, of whom seven are American, two Scottish, one English, two Australians, one New Zealander, one Canadian and one Jamiacan.

When teaching students who will take these tests there are two things to keep in mind, one is improving their overall level. The other is getting them familiar with the format of the exams. In giving the Speaking componate of the exams, I've seen students do worse than their ablity because they didn't do what was asked of them (particulary at the PET level) I've also seen students who were so preped for the exam, they answered allright, but obviously weren't aware of what it was they were communicating (this happens a lot at the KET level)

The latest practice papers issued by UCLES have had some "fake" American accents on the cassettes and American usage in the readings. As an American myself, I would personally perfer they dropped the fake accents which are laughable, and instead try to use internationally recognized vocab and drop some of the "very British" vocab from the test (such as lorry).

Shmooj,
The ACTFL (American Association of Teachers of Foreign Languages) have exams similar to IELTS (in that you get a band range) and the American Foreign Service also has good proficiency exams, but neither organization is interested in sharing them with the world.

[Will.]

This sounds like UCLES might be trying to get a greater market share in the American zone.
I agree about the fake accents but you could never persuade us brite tu use
Red truck,
Yellow truck.
We will have no truck with it.