The Post-Graduate Academic English Language Skills and the Language Skills Measured by the Iranian PhD Entrance Exam: A Test Reform and Curriculum Change

Abstract

To investigate the congruence between the requisite post-graduate academic language skills and the language skills measured by the General English section of the Iranian National PhD Entrance exam, field-specialist informants, language-specialist informants and post-graduate students were questioned. The informants’ data were collected through interviews and the students’ data were obtained through a language skills’ questionnaire. The informants and students’ data were analyzed through content analysis and frequency analysis, respectively. The informants acknowledged that all four language skills were crucial for academic success. Considering congruity, both groups of informants asserted that there was little congruity between the language skills measured by the exam and those of the academic context. Post-graduate students believed that the reading section of the exam did not match their academic needs; they also believed that a writing section should be added and that a listening section need not be included in the exam. The findings have some implications for a change in the curriculum preceding the exam.

Keywords

• Congruence
• Field-specialist informants
• Language-specialist informants
• Academic skills
• Post-graduate students
• PhD entrance exam

The Post-Graduate Academic English Language Skills and the Language Skills Measured by the Iranian PhD Entrance Exam: A Test Reform and Curriculum Change

Abstract

To investigate the congruence between the requisite post-graduate academic language skills and the language skills measured by the General English section of the Iranian National PhD Entrance exam, field-specialist informants, language-specialist informants and post-graduate students were questioned. The informants’ data were collected through interviews and the students’ data were obtained through a language skills’ questionnaire. The informants and students’ data were analyzed through content analysis and frequency analysis, respectively. The informants acknowledged that all four language skills were crucial for academic success. Considering congruity, both groups of informants asserted that there was little congruity between the language skills measured by the exam and those of the academic context. Post-graduate students believed that the reading section of the exam did not match their academic needs; they also believed that a writing section should be added and that a listening section need not be included in the exam. The findings have some implications for a change in the curriculum preceding the exam.

Keywords

• congruence
• field-specialist informants
• language-specialist informants
• academic skills

References

1. Atai, M.R. (2002a). ESAP curriculum development in Iran: An incoherent educational experience. Journal of Persian Literature and Human Sciences of Tehran Teacher Training University, 1, 17–34.
2. Atai, M.R. (2002b). Iranian EAP programs in practice: A study of key methodological aspects. Sheikhbahaee Research Bulletin 1(2), 1–15.
3. Atai, M. R., & Mazlum, F. English language teaching curriculum in Iran: Planning and practice. The Curriculum Journal 24(3), 389-411.
4. Baldauf, R.B., Li, M., & Zhao, Sh. (2010). Language acquisition management inside and outside the school. In Handbook of educational linguistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
5. Berendes, K., Vajjala, S., Meurers, D., Bryant, D., Wagner, W., Chinkina, M. (2018). Reading demands in secondary school: Does the linguistic complexity of textbooks increase with grade level and the academic orientation of the school track? Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 518–543.
6. Benson, M. J. (1989). The academic listening task: A case study. TESOL Quarterly, 23(3), 421-445.
7. Berman, R., & Cheng, L. (2001). English academic language skills: Perceived difficulties by undergraduate and graduate students, and their academic achievement. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 25-40.
8. Bridgeman, B., & Carlson, S. B. (1983). Survey of academic writing tasks required of graduate and undergraduate foreign students. (TOEFL Research Report No. 15). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

9. Butler, F. A., Lord, C., Stevens, R., Borrego, M., & Bailey, A. L. (2004). An Approach to Operationalizing Academic Language for Language Test Development Purposes: Evidence from Fifth-Grade Science and Math. CSE Report 626. US Department of Education.
10. Canseco, G., & Byrd, P. (1989). Writing required in graduate courses in business administration. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 305-316.
11. Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
12. Cheng, L., Myles, J., & Curtis, A. (2004). Targeting language support for non-native English speaking graduate students at a Canadian university. TESL Canada Journal, 22, 50-71.
13. Clapham, C. (2000). Assessment for academic purposes: where next? System, 28(4), 511-521.
14. Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M.J. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Durkin, K. (2004). Challenges Chinese students face in adapting to academic expectations and teaching/learning styles of UK Masters courses, and how cross cultural understanding and adequate support might aid them to adapt. Discussion Paper. London: British Council.
16. Educational Testing Service (1990). TOEFL test and score manual. Princeton, NJ.
17. Eslami-Rasekh, Z. & Valizadeh, K. (2004). Classroom activities viewed from different perspectives: Learners’ voice vs. teachers’ voice. TESL EJ, 8(3), 1-13.
18. Farhady, H. & H. Hedayati. (2009). Language assessment policy in Iran. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 132-141.
19. Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996). Academic listening/speaking tasks for ESL students: Problems, suggestions, and implications. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 297-320.
20. Field, J. (2011). Into the mind of the academic listener. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 102-112.
21. Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M., (2001). Research perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Forey, G., & Feng, D. (2016). Interpersonal meaning and audience engagement in academic presentations: A multimodal discourse analysis perspective. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 416–30). New York, NY: Routledge.
23. Fox, J., & Cheng, L. (2007). Did we take the same test? Differing accounts of the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test by first and second language test-takers. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 14(1), 9–26.
24. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2011). Teaching and researching reading (2nd ed.). London, UK: Pearson Education.
26. Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2013). Reading and writing together: A critical component of English for academic purposes teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 4(1), 9-24.
27. Gottlieb, M. (2004). Overview. In WIDA consortium K -12 English language proficiency standards for English language learners: Frameworks for large-scale state and classroom assessment. Overview document. Madison: State of Wisconsin.
28. Gottlieb, M. H., & Ernst-Slavit. G. (2013). Academic language a foundation for academic success in mathematics. In M. H. Gottlieb and G. Ernst-Slavit (Ed.), Academic language in diverse classrooms: mathematics, grades K-2: Promoting content and language learning (pp. 1-34). Corwin Press.
29. Huang, S. C. (2006). Reading English for academic purposes–What situational factors may motivate learners to read? System, 34(3), 371-383.
30. Hyland, K. (2006). English for Academic Purposes: An Advanced Resource Book. New York.
31. Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1994). Students’ perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 81–101.
32. Kiany, Gh., Mirhosseini, S.A., & Navidinia. H. (2011). Foreign language education policies in Iran: Pivotal macro considerations. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 53(222), 49–70.
33. Kim, S. (2006). Academic oral communication needs of East Asian international graduate students in non-science and non-engineering fields. English for Specific Purposes 25, 479-489.
34. Kuzborska, I. (2010). The relationship between EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices in reading instruction to advanced learners of English in a Lithuanian University context. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Essex. Colchester, UK.
35. Maftoon, P., M. Yazdani Moghaddam, H. Golebostan, & S.R. Beh-Afarin. (2010). Privatization of English education in Iran: A feasibility study. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 13(4), 1–12.
36. Morell, T. (2007). What enhances EFL students’ participation in lecture discourse? Student, lecturer and discourse perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 222–237.
37. Ostler, S. E. (1980). A survey of academic needs for advanced ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 4(4), 489-502.
38. Reid, I., Kirkpatric, A., & Mulligan, D. (1998). Framing reading. Perth: National Center for English Language Teaching and Research with the Center for Literacy, Culture and Language Pedagogy at Curtin University of Technology.
39. Rosenfeld, M., Leung, S., & Oltman, P. (2001). The reading, writing, speaking, and listening tasks important for academic success at the undergraduate and graduate levels. TOEFL monograph 21. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
40. Rost, M. (2011). Teaching and researching listening (2nd ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson
41. Ryan, K. (2002). Assessment validation in the context of high‐stakes assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 7-15.
42. Saville-Troike, M. (1984). What really matters in second language learning for academic achievement? TESOL Quarterly, 18 (2), 199-219.
43. Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A Conceptual Framework (Technical report 2003-1). Santa Barbara, CA: Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
44. Schmitt, D., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2015). The need for EAP teacher knowledge in assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 18, 3-8.
45. Shafie, L., & Nayan, S. (2011). The characteristics of struggling university readers and instructional approaches of academic reading in Malaysia. International Journal of Human Sciences [online]. 8, 1.
46. Shelyakina, O. K. (2010). Learner perceptions of their ESL training in preparation for university reading tasks (Master’s thesis). Brigham Young University – Provo.
47. Shih, M. (1992). Beyond comprehension exercises in the ESL academic reading class. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 289-318.
48. Solomon, J., & Rhodes, N. (1995). Conceptualizing academic language (Research Rep. No. 15). Santa Cruz: University of California, National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
49. Spaan, M. (2006). Test and item specifications development. Language Assessment Quarterly: An International Journal, 3(1), 71-79.
50. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51. Zahedi, K., & Shamsaee, S. (2012). Viability of construct validity of the speaking modules of international language examinations (IELTS vs. TOEFL iBT): evidence from Iranian test-takers. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24(3), 263-277.
52. Zhu, W., & Flaitz, J. (2005). Using focus group methodology to understand international students’ academic language needs: A comparison of perspectives. TESL-EJ, 8(4), 1-11.