Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Advocating an empirically-founded university admission policy

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Language Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Few studies have yet described concrete efforts by researchers in applied linguistics to systematically impact language policy. In linguistics, there is a general lack of published work on interactions between research and policy, and authors have decried a general dearth of policy literacy among applied linguists. The goal of the current paper is to describe how applied linguistics research can bring about policy impact by presenting a narrative account of one approach aimed at impacting university admission language policies. The first part of the paper presents research-based recommendations regarding language requirements for international students, the second focuses on mechanisms to communicate these recommendations to policy makers. The case study presented in this paper serves to argue that applied linguistic research and policy impact can go hand in hand, on the condition that policy recommendations are concrete, timely, seen as relevant, and researchers have a fundamental understanding of the policy-making context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ACTFL. (2016). Assigning CEFR Ratings to ACTFL Assessments. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/assigning-cefr-ratings-actfl-assessments

  • Amuzie, G. L., & Winke, P. (2009). Changes in language learning beliefs as a result of study abroad. System, 37(3), 366–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.02.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, B. A. (2016). Language assessment literacy as professional competence: The case of Canadian admissions decision makers. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 63–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berthele, R. (2019). Policy recommendations for language learning: Linguists’ contributions between scholarly debates and pseudoscience. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 3(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering tot codificatie van de decretale bepalingen betreffende het hoger onderwijs, Pub. L. No. B.S.27/02/2014 (2013). http://data-onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/edulex/document.aspx?docid=14650#44

  • Blommaert, J. (2011). The long language-ideological debate in Belgium. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 6(3), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2011.595492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M., & Bt’HartKuipers, P. S. (2006). The politics of policy evaluation. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 319–336). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032009003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrnes, H., Maxim, H. H., & Norris, J. M. (2010). Realizing advanced foreign language writing. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 1–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01136.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalhoub-Deville, M., & Turner, C. E. (2000). What to look for in ESL admission tests: Cambridge certificate exams, IELTS, and TOEFL. This paper is based on discussion presentations given by the authors at an institute entitled “Using English Screening Tests at Your Institute” at the annual meeting of TESOL March 1999 in New York. System, 28(4), 523–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00036-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherney, A., Head, B., Povey, J., Ferguson, M., & Boreham, P. (2015). Use of academic social research by public officials: Exploring preferences and constraints that impact on research use. Evidence and Policy, 11(2), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426514X14138926450067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherney, A., Povey, J., Head, B., Boreham, P., & Ferguson, M. (2012). What influences the utilisation of educational research by policy-makers and practitioners? The perspectives of academic educational researchers. International Journal of Educational Research, 56, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Council of Europe.

  • Council of Europe. (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Council of Europe Language Policy Division.

  • Davies, H. T. O., Nutley, M. N., & Smith, P. C. (Eds.). (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delarue, S., & De Caluwe, J. (2015). Eliminating social inequality by reinforcing standard language ideology? Language policy for Dutch in Flemish schools. Current Issues in Language Planning, 16(1–2), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2014.947012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Departement Onderwijs en Vorming. (2015). Taalverslag academiejaar 2013–2014. Departement Onderwijs en Vorming. Afdeling Hoger Onderwijs en Volwassenenonderwijs. www.Vlaanderen.be

  • Dery, D. (2000). Agenda setting and problem definition. Policy Studies, 21(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/014428700114008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deygers, B. (2017a). Just testing. Applying theories of justice to high-stakes language tests. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(2), 143–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deygers, B. (2017b). University entrance language tests: Examining assumed equivalence. In J. Davis, J. M. Norris, M. E. Malone, T. H. McKay, & Y. Son (Eds.), Useful assessment and evaluation in language education. Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deygers, B. (2018). How institutional and interpersonal variables impact international L2 students’ language gains at university. System, 76, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.05.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deygers, B. (2019). Fairness and social justice in English language assessment. In X. Gao, F. Davidson, & C. Leung (Eds.), Springer second international handbook of English language teaching. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deygers, B., Bigelow, M., Bianco, J. L., Nadarajan, D., & Tani, M. (2021). Low print literacy and its representation in research and policy. Language Assessment Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2021.1903471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deygers, B., & Malone, M. E. (2019). Language assessment literacy in university admission policies, or the dialogue that isn’t. Language Testing, 36(3), 347–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219826390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deygers, B., Van den Branden, K., & Peters, E. (2017). Checking assumed proficiency: Comparing L1 and L2 performance on a university entrance test. Assessing Writing, 32, 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.12.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deygers, B., Van den Branden, K., & Van Gorp, K. (2018). University entrance language tests: A matter of justice. Language Testing, 35(4), 449–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217706196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deygers, B., Zeidler, B., Vilcu, D., & Carlsen, C. H. (2018). One framework to unite them all? Use of the CEFR in European university entrance policies. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2016.1261350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowding, K. (2019). Rational choice and political power. Bristol University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (2013). Justice for Hedgehogs (Reprint edition). Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elder, C. (2021). The challenges of providing expert advice in policy contexts. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment.

  • Elder, C., Knoch, U., & Harradine, O. (2019). Language requirements for Australian citizenship: Insights from a Senate enquiry. In C. Roever & G. Wigglesworth (Eds.), Social perspectives on language testing (pp. 73–88). Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erling, E. J., & Hilgendorf, S. K. (2006). Language policies in the context of German higher education. Language Policy, 5(3), 267–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-006-9026-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (1995). Evaluating public policy. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (2007). Deliberative policy analysis as practical reason: Integrating empirical and normative arguments. In F. Fischer & G. J. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 223–236). CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (2013). The argumentative turn in public policy revisited: Twenty years later. Critical Policy Studies, 7(4), 425–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2013.851164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginther, A., & Elder, C. (2014). A comparative investigation into understandings and uses of the TOEFL iBT test, the International English Language Testing Service (academic) test, and the Pearson Test of English for Graduate Admissions in the United States and Australia: A case study of two university contexts. Educational Testing Service.

  • Ginther, A., & Yan, X. (2018). Interpreting the relationships between TOEFL iBT scores and GPA: Language proficiency, policy, and profiles. Language Testing, 35(2), 271–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217704010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, C. R., & Gesing, P. (2018). The development of social capital through international students’ involvement in campus organizations. Journal of International Students, 8(3), 1274–1292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R. E., Rein, M., & Moran, M. (2006). The public and its policies. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 3–39). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, A. (2018). Linking tests of English for academic purposes to the CEFR: The score user’s perspective. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2017.1350685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu, Q., & Maley, A. (2008). Changing places: A study of Chinese students in the UK. Language and Intercultural Communication, 8(4), 224–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708470802303025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harsch, C., Ushioda, E., & Ladroue, C. (2013). Predictive validity of TOEFL iBT - informing admissions policy/practice in a UK setting. Copenhagen: EALTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance model: on the coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review: an Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 10(2), 88–110. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Giest, S. (2013). The policy-making process. In E. Aral Jr., S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 17–28). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the policy cycle. In F. Fischer & G. J. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 43–62). CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kehoe, L., Reis, T., Virah-Sawmy, M., Balmford, A., & Kuemmerle, T. (2019). Make EU trade with Brazil sustainable. Science, 364(6438), 341–341. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw8276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerstjens, M., & Nery, C. (2000). Predictive validity in the IELTS test: A study of the relationship between IELTS scores and students’ subsequent academic performance. IELTS Research Reports, 3, 85–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinginger, C. (Ed.). (2013). Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoch, U., & Macqueen, S. (2019). Assessing English for professional purposes: Language and the workplace. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Knoch, U., Rouhshad, A., Oon, S. P., & Storch, N. (2015). What happens to ESL students’ writing after three years of study at an English medium university? Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoch, U., Rouhshad, A., & Storch, N. (2014). Does the writing of undergraduate ESL students develop after one year of study in an English-medium university? Assessing Writing, 21, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KU Leuven. (2016, April 28). Onderwijs- en examenreglement 2016–2017. https://www.kuleuven.be/onderwijs/oer/2016

  • Laswell, H. D. (1956). The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. University of Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lejano, R. P. (2007). Postpositivism and the policy process. In F. Fischer & G. J. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 43–62). CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo Bianco, J. (2015). Ethical dilemmas and language policy (LP) advising. In P. I. De Costa (Ed.), Ethics in applied linguistics research: Language researcher narratives (pp. 83–100).

  • Lo Bianco, J. (2001). Policy literacy. Language and Education, 15(2–3), 212–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780108666811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo Bianco, J. (2014). Dialogue between ELF and the field of language policy and planning. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(1), 197–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo Bianco, J. (2018). No policy without testing no policy without testing! How the language of policy persuasion and persuasive language help to make testing count. Auckland: LTRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, T. (2011). Academic listening in the 21st century: Reviewing a decade of research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, M. E. (2013). The essentials of assessment literacy: Contrasts between testers and users. Language Testing, 30(3), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213480129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, T. (2009). Language tests and social policy: A commentary. In G. Hogan-Brun, C. Mar-Molinero, & P. Stevenson (Eds.), Discourses on language and integration (pp. 153–164). John Benjamins Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, T., & Ryan, K. (2011). Fairness versus justice in language testing: The place of English literacy in the Australian citizenship test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.565438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect, 38(4), 573–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, N. (2016). Standards of English in higher education. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, J. M. (2016). Language program evaluation. Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 169–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Loughlin, K. (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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.564698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Loughlin, K. (2013). Developing the assessment literacy of university proficiency test users. Language Testing, 30(3), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213480336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G., & Zittoun, P. (2016). Contemporary approaches to public policy. Theories, controversies and perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. C. (2007). Adding complexity: Philosophical perspectives on the relationship between evidence and policy. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 376–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2007.00110.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, P. (2000). Not just what, but when: Timing and sequence in political processes. Studies in American Political Development, 14(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898588X00003011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pill, J., & Harding, L. (2013). Defining the language assessment literacy gap: Evidence from a parliamentary inquiry. Language Testing, 30(3), 381–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213480337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, J. (2015). Assessing English proficiency for university study. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Riazi, M. (2013). Concurrent and predictive validity of Pearson Test of English Academic (PTE Academic). Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 2(2), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkies, M. N., Bowles, K. A., Skinner, E. H., et al. (2017). The effectiveness of research implementation strategies for promoting evidence-informed policy and management decisions in healthcare: A systematic review. Implementation Science., 12, 132. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0662-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (2010). The Idea of Justice (1st Edition edition). Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spöttl, C., Kremmel, B., Holzknecht, F., & Alderson, C. J. (2016). Evaluating the achievements and challenges in reforming a national language exam: The reform team’s perspective. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 5(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strobbe, L. (2016). Taalbeleid of talenbeleid? De plaats van meertaligheid op school. In L. Van Praag, S. Sierens, O. Agirdag, P. Lambert, S. Slembrouck, P. Van Avermaet, J. Van Braak, P. Van de Craen, K. Van Gorp, & M. Van Houtte (Eds.), Haal meer uit meertaligheid. Omgaan met talige diversiteit in het basisonderwij (pp. 117–130).

  • Subtirelu, N. (2014). A language ideological perspective on willingness to communicate. System, 42, 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Universiteit Gent. (2015). Onderwijs- en examenreglement 2015–2016. www.ugent.be

  • Universiteit Hasselt. (2016). Taalvoorwaarden. Toelatingsvoorwaarden. http://www.uhasselt.be/Taalvoorwaarden

  • Universiteit Antwerpen. (2016, April 12). PROCEDURE PROC/ADOND/001.1. https://www.uantwerpen.be/images/uantwerpen/container1160/files/Procedure%20buitenlanders2016def.pdf

  • Valentini, L. (2009). Coercion and (Global) Justice: Towards a Unified Framework. CSSJ Working Papers Series, SJ010, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentini, L. (2012). Justice in a globalized world: A normative framework (1 edition). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Splunder, F. (2015). Taalstrijd. Over relaties tussen talen in de wereld, Europa, Nederland en Vlaanderen. ASP.

  • Van den Bosch, K., & Cantillon, B. (2006). Policy impact. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 296–319). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gestel, N., Denis, J.-L., Ferlie, E., & McDermott, A. M. (2018). Explaining the policy process underpinning public sector reform: The role of ideas, institutions, and timing. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(2), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvx020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VUB. (2014). Onderwijs- en examenreglement 2014–2015. http://www.vub.ac.be/sites/vub/files/reglementen/Onderwijs-%20en%20examenreglement%2014-15_RvB%2020.05.2014.pdf

  • Zhou, J., & Cole, D. (2017). Comparing international and American students: Involvement in college life and overall satisfaction. Higher Education, 73(5), 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-9982-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by the Flemish scientific research fund, FWO Vlaanderen, under Grant Number G078113N.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication, Ghent University, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Bart Deygers & Marieke Vanbuel

Authors
  1. Bart Deygers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marieke Vanbuel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bart Deygers.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: CEFR level description: B2 and adjacent levels

Appendix 1: CEFR level description: B2 and adjacent levels

CEFR

ACTFL# reading, listening

ACTFL# writing, speaking

Description*

B1

Advanced low

Intermediate high

Understanding the main points of clear standard speech on familiar matters

Understanding texts that consist mainly of high frequency everyday or job-related language

Engaging in unprepared conversation on familiar topics

Connecting phrases in a simple way to describe experiences, events, dreams, hopes and ambitions

Giving reasons and explanations for opinions and plans

Writing straightforward connected text on familiar topics

B2

Advanced mid

Advanced low

Understanding extended speech and lectures

Following complex lines of argument on familiar topic

Explaining viewpoints on topical issues, stating advantages and disadvantages

Writing clear, detailed texts on a range of familiar subjects

Writing informative or argumentative essays or reports

C1

Advanced high

Advanced high

Understanding extended speech even when it is not clearly structured

Understanding longer technical instructions and specialized articles on unfamiliar topics

Formulating ideas and opinions with precision

Presenting clear, detailed descriptions of complex subjects

Writing detailed expositions of complex subjects in essays or reports

  1. #ACTFL (2016)
  2. *Paraphrased from Council of Europe (2018: 167–169)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deygers, B., Vanbuel, M. Advocating an empirically-founded university admission policy. Lang Policy 21, 575–596 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-022-09615-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-022-09615-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation