The SWU English department uses the Classroom Oral Language Test (COLT) to assess whether those prospective ITAs who have not already demonstrated sufficient English language proficiency in some other way have the language proficiency necessary to serve as instructors in any of its programs (i.e. IEP, ESL, or undergraduate linguistics). I spoke with two people
involved, AJ and RW. During her interview RW pointed out that a test like the COLT attempts to assess language proficiency specific to the context of teaching but not to assess teaching ability itself. She acknowledged, however, that other constructs like teaching ability are “kind of inextricable” from this specific language proficiency.
The procedures for administering the COLT are outlined in the IEP’s self-study
submitted for accreditation (the IEP is accredited separately from the university). The document outlines who the panel of raters will consist of: one faculty member who teaches graduate courses in the English department and two members of the IEP faculty (including preferably the GTA coordinator, a position I discuss more below). Although not mentioned in the document, some informants reported that an undergraduate student is also typically invited to be a rater. The test involves two tasks: a short presentation (estimated to take about five minutes) and a longer prepared presentation (estimated to take about ten minutes). For the short presentation, the test- taker is given some typical classroom material (e.g., a syllabus) and asked to present the document to the raters as if they were students in the test-taker’s class. For the prepared
presentation, test-takers are asked to prepare to teach about a basic topic and deliver the lesson to the raters. Some informants reported in interviews that the raters also ask the test-taker questions to help assess how well s/he responds to student questions. According to the self-study
immediately eligible to teach in the department, (2) the test-taker provisionally passes but must complete ENG 600 before being qualified to teach in the department (however, no further testing is necessary), and (3) the test-taker does not pass and must complete ENG 600 and also re-take the COLT before being eligible to teach in the department.
The director of the IEP program, HM, reported that additional language requirements for the department’s ITAs, including the COLT, are relatively recent and came about in conjunction with the IEP’s application for accreditation several years prior, although they apply to ITAs teaching in other English department programs as well. In particular, the accrediting agency lists as one of its standards that “Faculty who teach English demonstrate excellent proficiency in English”, and, in its self-report for reaccreditation, the IEP outlines procedures for the COLT (including the exemptions listed above) as a way of demonstrating its satisfaction of this requirement. HM reported that, at the time the IEP was applying for accreditation, HM and AJ explored industry best practices, through, for example, listserv discussions with peers at other universities, in order to determine how best to fulfill CEA’s requirements. The various language proficiency requirements for English department ITAs, including the COLT, were developed through this process.
During her interview, HM spoke positively of these new requirements stating that they “legitimize” the process of instructor selection to the accreditation agency and that they help ensure that students receive quality instruction. HM could not recall a time when an ITA had been assigned a class without adequate language proficiency, suggesting that these requirements are motivated by a desire to respond to the potential concerns of other stakeholders especially students or the accreditation agency.
It appears to be simply an oversight that the requirements discussed in the previous paragraphs do not also appear in the PhD program’s handbook (as of the time of writing),
because the department has required international PhD students to take the COLT including three whom I interviewed for this project: SW, RK, and HC, the three ITAs who were not assigned teaching responsibilities in their first semester (suggesting perhaps that the testing requirement is a further factor in the AL department’s decision to shield some international PhD students from teaching initially). Indeed, an email message from the then department chair addressed to one ITA informed the ITA that s/he would be required to take the COLT before being allowed to teach and cited and provided a link to the MA handbook policy. All three of these ITAs reported passing the COLT on their first attempt and not being required to take (and thus not taking) ENG 600.
Those ITAs who were required to take the COLT reported not having known in advance of the requirement and, in one case, interpreted the requirement negatively. In her interview, HC said that she learned of the requirement only briefly after she requested to teach a course. In his interview, RK reported that he “was a bit shocked by” the short time period between when he was informed of the test and when he was scheduled to take it, which he reported was only five days. Likewise, as shown in Excerpt 4.19, SW expressed surprise at the requirement (lines 233- 235). This surprise seems to stem in part from him not having been aware of the requirement, perhaps because it was not listed in the PhD handbook. SW went further than the other ITAs, apparently interpreting this requirement as a lack of confidence in his teaching or English speaking ability (lines 248-252), an issue he appears to consider serious because of the
much of the research that is carried out in the field is directed toward educational matters (lines 236-246).