Transporte de cloruro a través de liposomas con los derivados 1-

The data analysis exposed a limited understanding of the OOPT on behalf of teachers. Some described the OOPT as an achievement test or used the term placement test but referred to it as if it had been designed to assess test-takers’ overall competence in the language. It emerged, therefore, that teachers were unclear about the purpose of placement tests and what they were designed to measure. It was evident that staff had little knowledge of the characteristics of the OOPT in particular and how it was being employed in their context, i.e. in the ELI at KAU.

The OOPT was mainly designed by its developers to facilitate placement into an appropriate English language course at the institution where the students would study. It therefore, was not designed to provide a comprehensive picture of students’ communicative competence in English across the four skills but rather to simply group students into different levels to facilitate teaching. However, while placement tests are not intended to fully assess competence in the language, they do not function in a vacuum. Whether or not a placement test ‘works’ does not simply relate to the quality of the test itself, but also to the ways in which results are used. As previously mentioned, in the ELI students are placed in an English language module as a result of their OOPT scores, however the marks range for the levels are different from the ones recommended by the OOPT test developers. The ELI also offers only four different levels instead of the six suggested by the publisher. Hence, in this context, the results are not used as recommended by the test developers and it is possible that the marks range adopted in the ELI may be linked to some of the misplacement issues reported in the teacher interviews. Purpura (2007), in a research paper describing the meaning of OOPT scores, argues that regardless of how well test developers have designed the test, they cannot prevent people for misusing it. If this takes place, then ‘invalid use’ is made of a ‘valid test’. The OOPT, he suggests, has been designed to serve one primary purpose: to place students accurately into an English language class appropriate for their needs (www.oxfordenglishtesting.com).

While proficiency test scores have been used for placement purposes in some institutions, it is important to understand that they have not been designed for this purpose. Fox (2009)

found that using proficiency test scores, such as IELTS and TOEFL, for placement into English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses was problematic. Students placed in the same level, had very diverse abilities and there were huge differences between those at the top and those at the bottom of the EAP classes (Fox, 2009). While teachers at the ELI also complained about significant differences in ability within one level, the ELI does not employ IELTS or TOEFL scores for placement purposes. The only test used for placement purposes at the ELI is the OOPT, which was designed for this specific purpose. While there are some similarities between proficiency tests and placement tests, one of the observable differences between them is that placement tests are not designed to inform teaching and learning but merely to place students in an appropriate level.

A crucial question, which emerged both from the literature and the data analysis, concerns whether misplacement causes significant disruptions in teaching and learning. This reflects Hughes’ (2003) argument, where he claimed that placement tests are designed to provide ‘an indication’ of overall ability rather that determining a student’s proficiency level or competence across the four skills. Furthermore, he argued that placement tests are simply used for making decisions regarding which course is most appropriate for students. Therefore, these decisions are ‘not of critical importance’ and since people do not generally prepare for placement tests, ‘there is no need to worry about possible backwash’ (p.186). Hughes (2003) additionally argues that where students are misplaced by the placement test, ‘they can usually easily be moved to a more appropriate class’, however, while moving students to a higher or lower level may appear easy, one should also consider the social context (p.186).

Through careful analysis of the interview data, it also became apparent that teachers spoke differently about students who scored high in the OOPT compared to those who scored low. While they did not express clear criticism of students who did not perform well, some of the assumptions appear judgemental. One teacher commented that students in level 1 and 2 have weak grammar, vocabulary and speaking. She added that she thought students had guessed answers in the OOPT and did not know what they were doing. She argued that there is something wrong with students in level 1 and 2 and the placement test is not placing students correctly because their English is extremely weak. This teacher appears to believe that

students were misplaced in a higher level, presumably in level 2 instead of level 1, as a result of having guessed answers. The teacher’s lack of trust in the students and criticism of their competence is an example of how lower level students may become stigmatised as weak and not hard working. Some teachers also held strong views on students who were placed in higher levels as a result of the OOPT. One of the teachers interviewed reported that you can tell that students placed in levels 3 and 4 have travelled abroad and come from families with higher SES. Here, the teacher is making a generalisation about students in levels 3 and 4. These students are viewed in a positive light, which once again, suggests that some teachers infer all kinds of information from the test results students obtain in the OOPT and the level in which they are placed. Sanford (2005) argues that, ‘unexamined stereotypes shape teachers’ expectations of students’ limited opportunities for them to explore and define alternative realities’ (p.306). Some teachers thus base their judgements on the observation of certain traits observable in weaker or stronger students, without exploring alternative factors, which could also affect test performance.

Concerning the purpose of the OOPT, one teacher fully understood that the aim of the test was to help place students in the correct level and not to provide a comprehensive picture of their proficiency in English. She felt that the OOPT was generally effective at placing students correctly and therefore found the test ‘valid’ and ‘serving its purpose’. She also acknowledged that the test ‘doesn’t test everything’ and therefore it ‘doesn’t reflect students’ competence in English language’. Another teacher, who had taught at KAU before the modular system was introduced, commented that previously she had to teach students with a very wide ability range and had to modify the Cambridge textbook to serve the needs of all the different levels. Others also agreed that the OOPT was generally effective in placing students into the correct level and pointed out that most students placed in level 1 had very similar levels and language background.

Some teachers, however, felt that the placement test should match the content of the ELI courses. One of the participants argued that such tests should be linked, in a way, to the curriculum. She felt that there was a mismatch between the Cambridge books employed by the ELI and the OOPT and commented that the ELI had recently decided to use Cambridge books instead of Oxford for the teaching of ELI courses and that this would certainly affect

students’ achievement. While it may be preferable, in order to ensure consistency, to adopt materials from the same publisher, the fact that some teacher held very strong feelings about the apparent mismatch between the OOPT and the curriculum appears to once again highlight a confusion about the purpose of placement tests.