Research in the field of Language Assessment Literacy (LAL) shows that university admission officers and policy makers are not generally well-versed in matters of LAL. Only very few studies to date have traced why this may be the case, however, and in the field of language testing few studies to date have reported on how university admission language requirements are set. Nevertheless, because of the impact of test use on university admissions, developing such knowledge is essential to the progress of LAL as a discipline. This paper reports on a qualitative study that includes all university admission policy makers in one context (Flanders, Belgium). The analyses of the interviews show that the concerns and ideas of LAL scholars and those of university admission policy makers may differ substantially. Real-world policy is determined by pragmatism and compromise and policy makers, even at universities, may fail to consider empirical findings. Because this study shows that the view of policy makers can be quite dissimilar from the traditional approach taken in the LAL literature, the authors argue that it may be as beneficial to encourage policy literacy among language testing professionals, as to expect LAL from policy makers.
ACTFL. (2016). Assigning CEFR ratings to ACTFL assessments. Washington, DC: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
2.
BakerB. A. (2016). Language assessment literacy as professional competence: The case of Canadian admissions decision makers. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 63–83.
3.
BakerB. A.TsushimaR.WangS. (2014). Investigating language assessment literacy: Collaboration between assessment specialists and Canadian university admissions officers. Language Learning in Higher Education, 4(1), 137–157.
4.
BallS. J. (2015). What is policy? 21 years later: Reflections on the possibilities of policy research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(3), 306–313.
5.
BallS. J.MaguireM.BraunA. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. New York: Routledge.
6.
Beleidscel Diversiteit en Gender. (2016). Diversiteit aan de UGent: de instroom van kansengroepen in cijfers. Ghent: Ghent University.
7.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
8.
De WachterL.HeerenJ. (2013). Eerste analyses taalvast. Internal policy document. Leuven: KU Leuven.
9.
Departement Onderwijs en Vorming. (2015). Taalverslag academiejaar 2013–2014. Departement Onderwijs en Vorming. Afdeling Hoger Onderwijs en Volwassenenonderwijs. Retrieved from www.Vlaanderen.be, October23, 2016.
10.
DeygersB.ZeidlerB.VilcuD.CarlsenC. H. (2018). One Framework to Unite Them All? Use of the CEFR in European University Entrance Policies. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(1), 3–15. doi: 10.1080/15434303.2016.1261350
11.
FischerF. (2007). Deliberative policy analysis as practical reason: integrating empirical and normative arguments. In FischerF.MillerG. J. (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 223–236). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
12.
FulcherG. (2009). Test use and political philosophy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 3–20.
13.
FulcherG. (2012). Assessment literacy for the language classroom. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(2), 113–132.
GoodinR. E.ReinM.MoranM. (2006). The public and its policies. In MoranM.ReinM.GoodinR. E. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 3–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
GrinF. (2003). Language policy evaluation and the European charter for regional or minority languages. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
HawkeyR. (2006). Teacher and learner perceptions of language learning activity. ELT Journal, 60, 242–252.
18.
HowlettM.GiestS. (2013). The policy-making process. In AralE. J.FritzenS.HowlettM.RameshM.WuX. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 17–28). London and New York: Routledge.
19.
HsiehH.-F.ShannonS. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
20.
ILTA. (2000). Code of ethics. Retrieved June 3, 2014, from www.iltaonline.com.
21.
Inbar-LourieO. (2008). Constructing a language assessment knowledge base: A focus on language assessment courses. Language Testing, 25(3), 385–402.
22.
Inbar-LourieO. (2017). Language assessment literacy. In ShohamyE.OrI.MayS. (Eds.), Language testing and assessment (pp. 257–270). New York: Springer.
23.
JannW.WegrichK. (2007). Theories of the policy cycle. In FischerF.MillerG. J. (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 43–62). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
24.
LeuvenKU. (2016, April28). Onderwijs- en examenreglement 2016–2017. Retrieved September 30, 2016, from www.kuleuven.be/onderwijs/oer/2016
25.
LejanoR. P. (2007). Postpositivism and the policy process. In FischerF.MillerG. J. (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 43–62). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
26.
Lo BiancoJ. (2001). Policy literacy. Language and Education, 15(2–3), 212–227.
27.
Lo BiancoJ. (2014). Dialogue between ELF and the field of language policy and planning. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(1), 197–213.
28.
Lo BiancoJ. (2017, May). Language policy and social cohesion. Presented at the ALTE 6th International Conference, Bologna.
29.
MaloneM. E. (2013). The essentials of assessment literacy: Contrasts between testers and users. Language Testing, 30(3), 329–344.
30.
MaloneM. E.MonteeM. (2014). Stakeholders’ beliefs About the TOEFL iBT® Test as a measure of academic language ability. ETS Research Report Series, 2014(2), 1–51.
31.
O’LoughlinK. (2011). The interpretation and use of proficiency test scores in university selection: How valid and ethical are they?Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(2), 146–160.
32.
O’LoughlinK. (2013). Developing the assessment literacy of university proficiency test users. Language Testing, 30(3), 363–380.
33.
PillJ.HardingL. (2013). Defining the language assessment literacy gap: Evidence from a parliamentary inquiry. Language Testing, 30(3), 381–402.
34.
PotterW. J.Levine-DonnersteinD. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27(3), 258–284.
35.
Rea-DickinsP.KielyR.YuG. (2007). Student identity, learning and progression: The affective and academic impact of IELTS on “successful” candidates. IELTS Research Reports, 7.
36.
SmithH. A.HaslettS. J. (2008). Use of the IELTS General Training module in technical and vocational tertiary institutions: A case study from Aotearoa New Zealand (online). In: OsborneJ. (Ed), International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Research Reports 2008 (vol. 8, pp. 1–39). Canberra, Australia: IELTS Australia.
TaylorL. (2013). Communicating the theory, practice and principles of language testing to test stakeholders: Some reflections. Language Testing, 30(3), 403–412. doi:10.1177/0265532213480338
39.
ToulminS. (2003). The uses of argument (updated ed.). Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Van den BoschK.CantillonB. (2006). Policy impact. In MoranM.ReinM.GoodinR. E. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 296–319). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43.
VedungE. (2013). Six models of evaluation. In AralE. J.FritzenS.HowlettM.RameshM.WuX. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 387–400). London & New York: Routledge.
Vrije Universiteit Brussel. (2014). Onderwijs- en examenreglement 2014–2015. Retrieved October25, 2016, from www.vub.ac.be.
46.
WilsonR. (2006). Policy analysis as policy advice. In: MoranM.ReinM.GoodinR. E. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 152–169). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
47.
WollmannH. (2007). Policy evaluation and evaluation research. In FischerF.MillerG. J. (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 393–402). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
