Hi David
What makes Alan Wells' comments even more damning is that ESOL was forced to
follow on from the Literacy strategy and use all the strange parameters
already mapped out - many of which were inappropriate and illogical. It may
be that they were appropriate for the Literacy cohort...
(My Literacy-teaching friends seem to think their curriculum is equally
cobbled together)...
I know the original ESOL experts involved protested against the slavish use
of the Literacy core curriculum as a framework for the ESOL curriculum - to
no avail. So we had to start from something produced on the basis of
unreliable research carried out in a different field.. Nice one...

I was one of many involved in reading the various drafts of the ESOL core
curriculum documentation as part of the consultation process. Each meeting
ran along the lines of infuriated and outraged ESOL practitioners becoming
more infuriated and feeling increasingly paralysed by the machine of
production, the deadlines and so on and the fact that the whole thing was
pretty rigid. All our comments and recommendations were carefully noted and
attempts made to fight for a different outcome. As far as I know, most of
these were ignored in the final draft, apart from recommendations on the
layout and structure of the document itself - so it was to some extent a
fraud.
Eventually what emerged was the Literacy core curriculum with bolt on
language - some of which had a pretty tenuous connection to the skills and
much of which seemed to have been plastered on somewhat randomly in terms of
what structures and grammar are learnt at what stage. The skills structure
was far more to do with social interaction and coping mechanisms than
anything to do with the way anyone picks up a second language. As a result,
ESOL learners often have the social skills and abilities required, but very
little of the language implied - the whole issue of standards, achievement
and targets has proved the curriculum to be quite a stumbling block. It is a
useful list of things one can teach and a few ways of teaching them, so has
been a helpful tool for some isolated ESOL teachers struggling for a
structure and some ideas.

I wonder whether the curricula will be dumped, eventually - it has become so
accepted and it seems a lot of people have real faith in it... Not sure why.
Maybe because there isn't another useful handbook to replace it.

Frances



On 3/2/07 04:36, "David Thornton" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Stephen!
>
> It was interesting to read the views of the former director of the Basic
> Skills Agency, Alan Wells, on the research underpinning Skills for Life [The
> Guardian: 30.01.07]. Wells suggests that the research that underpins the
> Government's Skills for Life strategy is fundamentally flawed because the
> type of testing used does not represent a reliable way of measuring literacy
> levels in adults and because it relies on the use of other qualifications as
> proxies for literacy and numeracy. This seems to have quite clear
> implications for any mapping of IELTS [or any other qualification or
> paradigm] to Key Skills or Basic Skills.
>
> Wells concludes by suggesting that the whole Skills for Life strategy is
> based on unreliable and misleading research.
>
> Perhaps this is something that the OFTED Inspectors would be able to
> elucidate.
>
> ATB,
>
> David.
>
>
>> From: stephen woulds <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: stephen woulds <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: IELTS and Trinity
>> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 18:44:25 -0000
>>
>> Thanks to all that have answered this, provided leads and advice and
>> particularly David for such a comprehensive response. As Frances commented
>> this is a can of worms but one that needs opening and debating. Not all
>> IELTS candidates are professionals seeking a quick qualification to satisfy
>> occupational requirements nor are they accomplished L2 users looking for
>> university places. A great many seek the qualification purely for status
>> purposes. A great many of those are Skills for Life adults - asylum seekers
>> for example that have been with us for many years.
>>
>> Colleges (and I suspect OFSTED inspectors too) demand that schemes of work
>> for such individuals are mapped to the ESOL curriculum. Whilst some might
>> agree that this is mapping to an extreme that was my point of asking.
>> Vocational tutors are now expected to embed Key Skills (literacy and
>> numeracy) and show within their schemes clear mapping to national
>> standards. We too are expected to map to Basic Skills - be it literacy,
>> ESOL or numeracy. No formal mode of teaching escapes this when funding is
>> pulled down from LSC to finance courses. That includes IELTS. I'd be
>> interested to hear from colleges that don't expect mapping to Key Skills or
>> Basic Skills.
>>
>> At Leeds Thomas Danby we're expecting a call from the inspectors in
>> February and there are some in the ESOL team who don't want to leave
>> anything to chance. Hence, the original question.
>>
>> Regards
>> Stephen
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: ESOL-Research discussion forum on behalf of Frances Nehme
>> Sent: Fri 02/02/2007 11:30
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: IELTS and Trinity
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for answering this question, David,
>> I had been feeling guilty about not addressing it - I felt it was such a
>> can
>> of worms. I didn't reply at the time, as I felt it needed a really full
>> answer and would probably lead to lengthy discussion and some bad feeling.
>> However, now you have stuck your neck out, I'd like to back up what you
>> say.
>> In the past I used to prepare students for TOEFL for university entrance in
>> the States and for IELTS here - this was simply because it was an entry
>> requirement. In the UK I did this for students who were a pretty strong
>> Level 2, or higher, had had years of EFL before coming here and who only
>> needed IELTS to get into University. It was a case of exam prep and
>> practice, mock exams and cramming, not of ESOL learning as such.
>> It didn't seem constructive to reply to Stephen by simply being opinionated
>> and saying that, as far as I'm concerned, IELTS cannot usefully be mapped
>> to
>> the Core Curriculum and an ESOL scheme of work can't be served by the
>> attempt to find spurious links with it.
>> I also feel that ESOL learners working towards Level One - in particular-
>> cannot be helped by cramming for IELTS - but felt uncomfortable about
>> stating this as it seems unhelpful to ask someone why they are doing
>> something when it seems to be established at their place of work.
>>
>> Thanks again for addressing this
>> Frances
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/2/07 06:56, "David Thornton" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Stephen!
>>>
>>> You asked whether anyone had experience of delivering IELTS or/and
>> mapping
>>> the ESOL CC Level 1 and Level 2 with IELTS. I have had some experience
>>> delivering IELTS and my special area of interest is in testing,
>> assessment
>>> and evaluation. I assume that you want to try to map IELTS on to the
>> ESOL
>>> core curriculum to see what sort of target IELTS grade your Level 1
>> students
>>> are likely to achieve [or should be aiming at].
>>>
>>> My initial reaction is to ask why you would want to map ESOL CC Level 1
>> and
>>> Level 2 with IELTS and to develop schemes of work for IELTS and Level 1.
>> It
>>> seems to me to be a rather pointless exercise given the nature of the
>> IELTS
>>> examination. I certainly do not think that you can micro-map the two, if
>>> only because the IELTS descriptors and the descriptors in the curriculum
>> are
>>> too disparate [and, in the case of IELTS, too woolly at most levels].
>>> Probably all you can do is macro-map the two.
>>> With ESOL CC Level 1 and Level 2 you are dealing with moderate-level
>>> learners at best {Level 1 is equated with GCSE Grades D to G, or Council
>> of
>>> Europe CEF Vantage Level and Level 2 with GCSE Grades A to C, or Council
>> of
>>> Europe CEF Operational Proficiency Level]. In terms of IELTS these
>> appear to
>>> equate with IELTS Bands 5 to 6.5 [see Trinity Certificates in ESOL
>> Skills
>>> for Life Introductory Booklet and my attached table]. If you wish to be
>> able
>>> to make statements about specific levels of ESOL learner performance, it
>>> might be better to tie the course to the 5 ALTE levels and the Cambridge
>>> ESOL Main Suite. In other words, IELTS might not be the best instrument
>> for
>>> your purpose.
>>>
>>> Let me explain my views [although this may incur the wrath of Cambridge
>> ESOL
>>> and IELTS].
>>>
>>> My first problem is with the reference to OEdelivering' IELTS. This
>> seems to
>>> imply that IELTS is a deliverable course and has a suitably specific and
>>> specified syllabus upon which teaching [or instructional delivery] can
>> be
>>> based. IELTS is not really like this. It is only a fairly restricted
>>> examination. The appropriate delivery mode for IELTS is an intensive
>>> examination preparation course, which is hardly healthy TESOL. Having
>> said
>>> this, however, I suppose that it would always be possible to design and
>>> write a course targeted on Vantage Level plus that could be tested
>> through
>>> IELTS, should anybody see the point of doing so. It strikes me that it
>> would
>>> be the equivalent of reinventing a rather eccentric wheel.
>>>
>>> Essentially, my view is that IELTS is an inappropriate qualification at
>> any
>>> level: it is only a selection test and is not a ESOL qualification in
>> any
>>> real sense of making statements about proficiency at any level [except
>>> perhaps around band 6 but even then I am not sure what is represents in
>>> terms of proficiency levels]. IELTS offers a limited statement about
>>> proficiency that is only valid within a narrow band and within a narrow
>>> range of operational contexts.
>>>
>>> A more substantial problem for me concerns the nature of the IELTS
>>> examination. Although widely used [and probably misused] for other
>> purposes,
>>> in practice IELTS was originally created for a very specific purpose, to
>>> identify and select suitable candidates for entry into Higher Education
>> [in
>>> much the same way that TOEFL originated], as I have suggested above. In
>> the
>>> case of non-native users of English, most universities in the UK
>> nominally
>>> ask for an IELTS Band 6 or better, and this appears to be the target
>> level
>>> upon which IELTS is predicated. IELTS primary purpose remains the
>>> identification of relatively higher-level users of English, and it is
>>> probably reasonably effective in doing this.
>>>
>>> In connection with the nature of IELTS, I would be concerned that a
>> focus on
>>> IELTS as a curricular driver in FE TESOL might encourage learners to
>> develop
>>> unrealistic perceptions about the ease with which they might meet
>> language
>>> requirements for university entrance or other forms of HE. In my
>> experience,
>>> they find it difficult to appreciate that IELTS Bands 4 or 4.5 or 5 or
>> 5.5
>>> represent an inadequate performance [let's call it failure]. I have
>>> significant current experience with undergraduate students who have been
>>> allowed to enter an Honours course with IELTS 4.5 or the equivalent.
>>> Incidentally, I recognise that IELTS is also [mis]used as a selection
>> tool
>>> for non-degree HE/FE courses. Foundation courses or pre-sessional
>> courses,
>>> for example, may require relatively low IELTS Bands for entry, perhaps
>> as
>>> low as 4.5, an achievement that is almost meaningless.
>>> The attraction of IELTS may lie in its purported levelling [or banding]
>> of
>>> performance, and indeed IELTS sets out to report performance in terms of
>> 9
>>> bands. This appears to make it a type of proficiency test. However, in
>> my
>>> view, it is best seen as essentially a selection test rather than a true
>>> proficiency test. For me, true proficiency tests are represented
>> classically
>>> by the Cambridge ESOL Main Suite examinations, where there is a
>> specified
>>> body of target language and detailed descriptions for each proficiency
>>> level. IELTS may possibly be viewed as a placement test with clear
>> levels,
>>> but I do not believe this to be the case. The 9 IELTS levels do not have
>> 9
>>> discrete descriptions of language. It has one level that can be
>>> characterised as the target level [Band 6 to Band 7] plus 3 levels that
>>> represent more than sufficient performance and 5 less than sufficient
>>> performance.
>>>
>>> There is a further dimension to this argument. The test items for IELTS
>> have
>>> to be designed to discriminate accurately at the cut-off point [probably
>>> around Band 6.5]. A consequence of this is that the test items in IELTS
>>> certainly do not appear to be graded over the full range of proficiency
>>> represented by the bands and their descriptors. Indeed the descriptors
>> for
>>> Bands 1 to 4 seem to me to be essentially negative statements about
>>> performance, and test outcomes below IELTS Band Five, in my view, tend
>> to
>>> tell us more about what candidates cannot do rather than what they can
>> do.
>>> This is one of the systemic design feature that make IELTS an
>> inappropriate
>>> qualification aim for people below, say, ALTE Level 4 [NQF Level 2].
>>>
>>> Let me explain a little more closely. As a selection test, IELTS focuses
>> on
>>> a specified cut-off point: by their nature, all selection tests have
>> this
>>> pre-determined cut-off point below which learners are rejected and
>> cannot
>>> take the target course of instruction [and are often excluded from the
>>> target learning programme altogether]. Selection tests are constructed
>>> around that cut-off point in terms of reliability and validity: a
>> selection
>>> test is predicated on a specific and narrow band of scores, no matter
>> what
>>> comprehensive range of proficiencies it might claim to sample. This
>> focus in
>>> practice often means that selection tests such as IELTS [and,
>> incidentally,
>>> TOEFL] generally operate more efficiently around their cut-off point and
>>> increasingly less efficiently as scores move away from that point. This
>> is
>>> basically because at the cut-off level, the test outcomes enable
>> statements
>>> to be made about what individual learners can do in terms of the target
>>> language, whereas the further scores move down from this norm the more
>>> statements will actually be about what individual learners cannot do in
>>> terms of the target language [and because the criterion point is placed
>>> relatively high in the scale, this is especially true of the reliability
>> of
>>> scores below the cut-off]. The corollary is that as scores move up from
>> the
>>> norm, they will increasingly fail to make statements about what
>> individual
>>> learners can do in terms of the target language.
>>>
>>> I suggest that IELTS cannot work equally well as a test at each of its
>>> levels largely because doubts about the reliability and validity of
>>> selection tests increase the further test scores move away from their
>>> central norm. In my experience, IELTS requires a very high upper
>>> intermediate [that is a good FCE] or an advanced [CAE] level of
>> proficiency
>>> in English for candidates to have a realistic expectation of a
>> worthwhile
>>> band result [that is a Band Six or better]. It seems logical to suggest
>> that
>>> IELTS outcomes below Band 5 may not necessarily be worth the paper that
>> they
>>> are printed on. I would not be sure what sort of performance Band 4
>> actually
>>> represented reliably and I would certainly regard IELTS Bands 1 to 3 as
>>> essentially meaningless statements about performance.
>>>
>>> Another issue that seems very pertinent is variation in ability across
>>> skills and the problems this can cause in reporting IELTS. It seems
>> quite
>>> typical to find ESOL students testing at one level for speaking and
>>> listening, while testing at a significantly different level for reading
>> and
>>> writing. Indeed there may be significant variation between speaking and
>>> listening and between reading and writing levels. This can make IELTS
>> bands
>>> less than useful as statements of performance [and even harder to map
>> IELTS
>>> levels to the ESOL core curriculum.
>>>
>>> ATB,
>>>
>>> David Thornton.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: stephen woulds <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Reply-To: stephen woulds <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: IELTS and Trinity
>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:20:20 -0000
>>>>
>>>> Hi there
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have experience of delivering IELTS or/and mapping the ESOL
>>>> CC Level 1 and Level 2 with IELTS? The ESOL team at Leeds Thomas Danby
>>>> is currently attempting to develop schemes of work for IELTS and Level
>>>> 1. Our previous 'expert' at these levels has left and those that have
>>>> taken over his classes are adrift without a paddle. Any thoughts and
>>>> suggestions would be most welcome.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Stephen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System
>>>> on behalf of Leeds Thomas Danby. For more information please visit
>>>> http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> ***********************************
>>>> ESOL-Research is a forum for researchers and practitioners with an
>> interest
>>>> in research into teaching and learning ESOL. ESOL-Research is managed
>> by
>>>> James Simpson at the Centre for Language Education Research, School of
>>>> Education, University of Leeds.
>>>> To join or leave ESOL-Research, visit
>>>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ESOL-RESEARCH.html
>>>> A quick guide to using Jiscmail lists can be found at:
>>>> http://jiscmail.ac.uk/help/using/quickuser.htm
>>>> To contact the list owner, send an email to
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ***********************************
>>> ESOL-Research is a forum for researchers and practitioners with an
>> interest in
>>> research into teaching and learning ESOL. ESOL-Research is managed by
>> James
>>> Simpson at the Centre for Language Education Research, School of
>> Education,
>>> University of Leeds.
>>> To join or leave ESOL-Research, visit
>>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ESOL-RESEARCH.html
>>> A quick guide to using Jiscmail lists can be found at:
>>> http://jiscmail.ac.uk/help/using/quickuser.htm
>>> To contact the list owner, send an email to
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ***********************************
>> ESOL-Research is a forum for researchers and practitioners with an interest
>> in research into teaching and learning ESOL. ESOL-Research is managed by
>> James Simpson at the Centre for Language Education Research, School of
>> Education, University of Leeds.
>> To join or leave ESOL-Research, visit
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ESOL-RESEARCH.html
>> A quick guide to using Jiscmail lists can be found at:
>> http://jiscmail.ac.uk/help/using/quickuser.htm
>> To contact the list owner, send an email to
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System
>> on behalf of Leeds Thomas Danby. For more information please visit
>> http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System
>> on behalf of Leeds Thomas Danby. For more information please visit
>> http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>> ***********************************
>> ESOL-Research is a forum for researchers and practitioners with an interest
>> in research into teaching and learning ESOL. ESOL-Research is managed by
>> James Simpson at the Centre for Language Education Research, School of
>> Education, University of Leeds.
>> To join or leave ESOL-Research, visit
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ESOL-RESEARCH.html
>> A quick guide to using Jiscmail lists can be found at:
>> http://jiscmail.ac.uk/help/using/quickuser.htm
>> To contact the list owner, send an email to
>> [log in to unmask]
>
> ***********************************
> ESOL-Research is a forum for researchers and practitioners with an interest in
> research into teaching and learning ESOL. ESOL-Research is managed by James
> Simpson at the Centre for Language Education Research, School of Education,
> University of Leeds.
> To join or leave ESOL-Research, visit
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ESOL-RESEARCH.html
> A quick guide to using Jiscmail lists can be found at:
> http://jiscmail.ac.uk/help/using/quickuser.htm
> To contact the list owner, send an email to
> [log in to unmask]

***********************************
ESOL-Research is a forum for researchers and practitioners with an interest in research into teaching and learning ESOL. ESOL-Research is managed by James Simpson at the Centre for Language Education Research, School of Education, University of Leeds.
To join or leave ESOL-Research, visit
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ESOL-RESEARCH.html
A quick guide to using Jiscmail lists can be found at:
http://jiscmail.ac.uk/help/using/quickuser.htm
To contact the list owner, send an email to
[log in to unmask]