Assessment of the ESP exemption examinations for Business and

While each of the three ESP courses for students of Business and Economics at UEF has its own exemption examination, all three are organised on the same day for practical reasons: some activity types in the different examinations may be similar, the day ensures field-specific audience members for the students’ presentations and thus far the numbers of attendees have been reasonable and accommodated without difficulty within one day lasting typically from 9 am to 4 pm. The scheduling however effectively means a student cannot attend more than one course-specific ESP exemption examination on the day as each examination entails a variety of written and oral activities, the

41 completion of which with all the participants and all the activities can take up to the time allocated for the examination (Tuomainen 2014, 32–33).

While each examination consists of various written and oral components, they are of the same variety of exercises, activities and methods as in the corresponding classroom teaching or formal learning course, as illustrated previously in table 3.2.

Since Bachman and Palmer (2010, 28) have argued that overall there is very little difference between tasks for language teaching and language assessment, this has encouraged the use of similar tasks in the ESP exemption examinations as in the formal learning courses. The use of several different methods and activities is supported by the concern over the so-called ‘method effect’ in language testing (Bachman 1991, 688), whereby the results of testing can vary due to some learners being more familiar or comfortable with some tasks than others since background knowledge of the field and the individual’s ability to perform in a given task have been cited as potential influences in language testing (Bachmann 1990, 271–275; O’Sullivan 2006, 4). Therefore preference in the ESP exemption examinations for Business and Economics is given to multi-task, multi-method assessment to avoid any unwittingly unfair bias, and the authenticity of the materials and the activities is also pursued with an up-to-date exploration of literature concerning ESP, EBP and EAP in relation to each course’s expressed learning outcomes (Tuomainen 2014, 32–33).

The ESP exemption examinations as a form of language assessment also adhere to the ethical considerations of testing and assessment of individuals. As some educational and linguistic researchers argue, the assessment of learning cannot be a neutral technique in measuring performance because how learning is assessed often determines what learning is regarded as important or relevant (Jarvis, Holford &

Griffin 2003, 158; Lynch 2003, 21). Similarly McNamara and Roever (2006, 8, 12–13) view language testing as a social practice with elements of power so that what is measured and valued as worth measuring reflect the values that emanate from social and cultural origins. This premise places great responsibility with the ESP lecturers/

RPL assessors from both the language assessment and RPL assessment perspectives to ensure the fairness and transparency of the assessment so that every RPL participant receives the same treatment during the assessment process, from the administrative elements of signing up and being informed to the analysis and feedback regarding the results (Lynch 2003, 159). Therefore fairness is also connected to the power aspect of assessment as fairness (or unfairness) implies relations of power.

The reliability of the assessment with the ESP exemption examinations as a form of language assessment is also consciously sought through the consistency of the examination and assessment measures across different times and active attempts to identify and minimise potential sources of measurement errors (cf. Bachman 1990, 24).

As the ESP exemption examination are a form of human interaction, the ESP lecturer/

RPL assessor’s assessment faces the risk of being influenced by human non-language factors such as conflicts between teaching or assessment philosophy, relationship between institutional agendas and assessment practices or even personality conflicts (Lynch 2003, 19–20) so to increase the reliability of the assessment, the RPL assessor must attempt to minimise these factors to the best of his/her ability (Bachman 1990, 163–166).

The supervision and assessment of all activities and the overall performance assessment of the students in the ESP exemption examinations for Business and Economics is typically conducted on each UEF campus by the designated ESP lecturers/RPL assessors. Similarly to most ESP teachers in Finnish university language centres, the ESP lecturers/RPL assessors at the UEF Language Centre, including myself, are not native speakers of English, enforcing a validity question of non-native speakers assessing ESP proficiency (Sandberg, personal communication on May 7, 2014). However, since non-native speakers of English “clearly outnumber native speaker operators in the business world” (Louhiala-Salminen & Charles 2008, 32) and that in business in particular, communication in English primarily transpires between non-native speakers rather than between native speakers (Charles 2007, 262), it is arguably suitable that non-native speakers of English are assessed by expert non-native assessors with relevant and comprehensive experience in the teaching and assessment of ESP/EBP/EAP. These campus-specific ESP lecturers, again myself included, do have long histories of teaching and assessing ESP/EBP/EAP, and they also teach the corresponding formal learning ESP courses for students of Business and Economics at UEF. This practice also follows the RPL recommendations in the EHEA whereby the same person who assesses the equivalent formal learning would also be in charge of the RPL assessment (Vau 2012, 17). Additionally it could be argued that one experienced ESP lecturer/RPL assessor assessing and grading the examinations provides the RPL process so-called systematic intra-rater reliability (Fischer, Chouissa, Dugovicˇovà, & Virkkunen-Fullenwider 2011, 65; Noijons, Bérešová, Breton

& Szabó 2011, 90). If several assessors for RPL were used, the potential for differences between the assessors when evaluating a wide range of performances could, according to Stenlund (2011, 15–16), create issues with the validity of the assessment.

Any students who successfully pass all the components of the ESP exemption examination are provided feedback on their performance and are accredited the same number of ECTS credits with numerical grading 1–5 as students completing the equivalent formal learning course. Students who fail to pass are also provided feedback and instructed to attend the ESP course to further develop their skills. Students at UEF are thus allowed to attend each course-specific ESP exemption examination once only, as per common practice for RPL for non-formal and informal learning in many Finnish university language centres (Anttila et al. 2014, 3–7). Whether pass or fail, all students are provided feedback on their performance and how the overall assessment and grading were accumulated. After all, an important part of RPL is the manner in which the results of the RPL process are reported to the participants and since the level and amount of feedback provided can be said to influence how students view the RPL process (Stenlund 2010, 793).

The completed ESP exemption examination for Business and Economics appears in the student’s study register at UEF as the ESP course name, number of ECTS credits and the grade, same as with students who have completed the formal learning course.

The only difference is the code used for the study register, which enables the statistical analysis of credits accumulated from non-formal and informal learning at UEF, on the language centre level and the university level. Werquin (2010, 81) has urged European HEIs to record credits or qualifications obtained through RPL for non-formal and

43 informal learning in the same manner as for the equivalent formal learning to ensure non-discrimination and equity in RPL, i.e. no specific indication should be made about the recognition of skills through an exemption or validation process as there are also no distinguishing measures in formal learning for credits awarded with either examinations, continuous assessment or other assessment methods.

To again evaluate the ESP exemption examinations for Business and Economics at the UEF Language Centre as a form of RPL assessment for non-formal and informal learning, table 3.4 details the nine practical features set by Cedefop (2009, 81–83) for the assessment phase for the validation of non-formal and informal learning and the practices in place at the UEF Language Centre for the ESP exemption examination under scrutiny in this study.

Table 3.5. The assessment phase features for the validation of non-formal and informal learning by Cedefop (2009, 81–83) and the procedures for the ESP exemption examinations at the UEF Language Centre

Assessment phase The ESP exemption examination procedures at the UEF Language Centre Standards / referential Assessment instruments include clear criteria (course description, self-assessment

questions and proficiency levels) to enable students to make judgements about the validity and sufficiency of their prior learning.

Qualified assessor The assessor of the ESP exemption examinations has extensive experience of teaching and assessment of ESP skills, has created the examination tasks, and also has knowledge and experience of the RPL principles, assessment standards and criteria.

Assessment methods A range of methods is utilised in each ESP exemption examination to ensure valid and reliable outcomes of the assessment.

Self-assessment Each candidate is instructed to self-assess his/her skills and knowledge against the set learning outcomes and assessment criteria and also with the explicit examination-specific self-assessment questions.

Further orientation Further orientation may result from the assessment process if the student does not pass the exemption examination whereby the student is instructed to attend the ESP course.

Transparency Assessment instruments, their structure and use are described to the students in detail prior to the examination day to ensure transparency.

Authenticity The exemption examination tasks and activities are based on an ESP needs analysis to ensure the activities provide as true a reflection as possible of the non-formal and informal learning and their context.

Stakeholder involvement Stakeholders such as the UEF Language Centre, other ESP lecturers and the university as a whole are involved in the outlining of the general principles of RPL.

Implementation of the

assessment instruments The conditions of the assessment are in favour of a reliable process, with clear in-structions and documentation and an assessment environment free of distractions.

Assessment criteria Each examination has explicit assessment criteria tailored for specific use in the as-sessment (see appendix 3 of this study).

Communication Students are informed about the assessment time, place and procedure in detail, with consistent and equal communication prior, during and after the assessment.

Appeal procedure The UEF Language Centre RPL process details the possibility for an appeal proce-dure for each student who wishes to have his/her assessment re-evaluated, either with a failed performance or if questioning the grading of the RPL evaluation (when applicable).

4 Research Questions and