![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
Globalized English proficiency tests such as the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) are increasingly playing the role of gatekeepers in a globalizing world. Although the use of the IELTS as a ‘policy tool’ for making decisions in the areas of study, work and migration impacts on test-takers' lives and life chances, not much is known about its own policy and policy logic. With the growing call for listening to test-takers' voices, specific policy aspects of the test have recently been scrutinized. This article seeks to contribute to this area by drawing on test-takers' perspectives on the IELTS retake policy and developing an understanding of how policies of global English tests are perceived, interpreted and given new meanings by its key stakeholders. Although the truth-value of the emic views of test-takers may be debated, their experiences and perceptions problematize the reliability claims of the testing agency by locating commercial motives at the center of their policy and thereby raising theoretical, professional and ethical questions.
Acknowledgements
The article is based on data from my new staff start-up research project which was funded by the University of Queensland, Australia. The writing of the article was facilitated by a Writing Retreat organized by the School of Education, the University of Queensland. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the 2nd conference of the Association for Language Testing and Assessment of Australia and New Zealand (ALTAANZ) on 27–29 November 2014 at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. I would like to acknowledge comments and feedback received from the audience. Valuable comments and feedback were received from two anonymous reviewers and the Editors of Discourse. I am also grateful to Peter Renshaw, Angela Scarino and Ngoc Hoang for their feedback.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 IDP Education is an international student recruitment agency which is jointly owned by 38 Australian universities and the job website called SEEK Ltd. See www.australia.idp.com and www.seek.com.au.
2 The IELTS represents itself as a test that ‘opens doors around the world’. Similarly, the American Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) describes itself as ‘opening more doors than any other academic English test’ (see Khan, Citation2009, p. 195).
3 It is to be noted that the British Council, a co-partner of IELTS, describes itself as ‘a registered charity’. Similarly, Cambridge International Examinations operates as a ‘non-profit organization’ (Phillipson, Citation2011), as does the owner (Educational Testing Service, ETS) of Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) (see Sarich, Citation2012).
4 But see Spolsky (Citation1995) for an account of how the institutional power influences tests and testing.
5 See the IELTS website www.ielts.org. The gaps between real-life language and the language of tests have been highlighted by many researchers including Khan (Citation2009) and Johnson, Jordan, and Poehner (Citation2005).
6 Refer to http://www.ets.org/toefl.
7 Refer to http://www.ets.org/toefl.
8 The form is available at http://www.ielts.org/PDF/IELTS_Application_Form_Web.pdf.
9 Ethical clearance for the study was obtained from two universities in Australia.
10 Refer to the IELTS website.
11 Refer to http://www.occupationalenglishtest.org/ and https://www.languages.unsw.edu.au/tests/peat/. OET is owned by Cambridge English Language Assessment which is also a co-owner of IELTS. PEAT is owned by New South Wales Department of Education and Communities. The University of New South Wales Institute of Languages is responsible for its design and administration.
12 Refer to the IELTS website.