The folks behind IELTS recently published a white paper encouraging institutions to think carefully about the language tests they accept. The paper seems, in part, like an effort to push back at the use of AI and automated scoring in language tests.

It says:

“In order to effectively address each element of the socio-cognitive framework and to ensure all aspects of a language skill are elicited, it is vital to move beyond simple multiple-choice or fill-in-the-blank questions to incorporate more diverse tasks that activate the skills and abilities expected of students by higher education institutions.”

Regarding the use of AI and “algorithmic scoring” in language testing, the authors note:

“…unlike algorithmic scoring… the IELTS Speaking test cannot be ‘hacked’ using gaming techniques that can trick mechanical evaluators into mistakenly evaluating speech as high quality when it is not.”

It notes that algorithmic scoring “requires students to generate predictable patterns of speech in response to fixed tasks,” unlike the IELTS speaking section which “gives the student the best opportunity to be assessed on their communicative proficiency.”

Of writing assessment, the paper notes:

“Given the nature of writing and its importance to learning new knowledge and communicating ideas, there are few shortcuts that can provide the same level of evaluation as an expert trained in writing assessment.”

The paper includes a side-by-side comparison of the two IELTS writing tasks and five “algorithmic scoring” tasks. Weirdly, the authors couldn’t name the test containing those five tasks.

Also included is an infographic about claimed shortcomings of AI-generated reading tasks and a note about the challenge of assessing reading skills “in a truncated period of time.”

The paper has some stuff about listening, but I think you get the point. Beyond singing the praises of IELTS, it really seems like BC and IDP are pushing back at recent trends in the testing industry. And at their competitors.

The closing remarks (which are highly recommended reading) include this:

“While there may be assessments on the market that promise quicker results, more entertaining formats, or easier pathways, the question institutions and students alike must ask is: at what cost?”

There are also a few words about “inherent duty.”

I’m not informed enough to know if the above criticisms are valid, but it is good when testing companies justify their existence and their products. It is also good for tests to be quite different from each other. The last thing we need is a blob of samey tests used for all possible purposes.

Will this make a difference? Well, I haven’t seen any evidence that institutions actually read this sort of stuff. University leaders seem to pay scant attention to the details of the tests they accept – it’s hard enough to get them to adjust scores to match new concordance tables or to stop “accepting” tests that ceased to exist years ago. But things could change.

I read in a press release that ApplyBoard will partner with the British Council “to help bridge the gap between the testing and application phases of the international education experience.” It says that people taking the IELTS through the British Council “will receive personalised study-abroad matching through ApplyBoard.”

I don’t know exactly what that means, but it sounds fun. And is probably a great opportunity for ApplyBoard to further expand beyond its traditional niche of putting people in Canadian schools.

I like that the British Council is partnering with ApplyBoard, even though that firm is a direct competitor to their close pals at IDP Education.

I also appreciate that ApplyBoard is linking up with the IELTS, despite being owned, in part, by the folks behind the TOEFL.

Once, a very long time ago, I wrote a bunch of articles about the TOEFL for a partnership between Applyboard and that test. But the project was canceled and most of my articles are (presumably) still sitting in a virtual filing cabinet somewhere in southern Ontario. They were pretty good articles.

The paper-based IELTS has been suspended in Iran since August 1. Some test-takers have been told that the suspension is due to concerns about cheating at test centers. The computer based version (also delivered at test centers) is still available, and registrants for the paper version can switch for free.

People in Iran are frustrated, as testing has been a real challenge in their country for some time. As I wrote in March, seemingly hundreds of individuals who took the TOEFL iBT Test in Iran faced unexpected cancellations of their scores. Some received notice of the cancellations months after taking the test, and lost offers of admission to prestigious schools abroad.

IDP Education has just published its financial report for the year ending June 2023. Some highlights:

1. IDP delivered 1.93 million IELTS tests during the year. That’s up 1% from 1.91 million tests last year.
2. Revenue from testing is up 7%. Revenue growth is up mostly because the average cost of taking the IELTS increased by six percent during the year.
3. IELTS revenue in India is down 5%. No word on the decline in testing volume, but it must be more than 5%, given price increases. I guess the other companies are successfully chipping away at IDP’s dominance in this market. Good for them.
4. IELTS revenue is up a big 18% outside of India. Testing volumes are up 22% outside of India.
5. These figures do not include IELTS tests administered by the British Council. Remember that IELTS is a two-headed beast, and that test takers can opt to get the test from IDP or BC (though not in every market).  Those figures will be available later this year.

It is fascinating to see a test like the Pearson PTE grow by 50% in a year, while the IELTS grows by only about 1%. We are certainly witnessing a sea change in the way language testing is done. I predict a more consumer-friendly environment moving forward (but I fear consolidation).

“Language Testing” just published an article about using the TOEFL and IELTS tests to predict academic success at university. The authors’ meta-analysis of 32 studies indicates that there is a weak positive correlation with academic achievement and no significant difference between the predictive power of each test.

Note the following conclusion, though:

Although significant, the overall correlation was low; thus, practitioners are cautioned from using standardized English-language proficiency test scores in isolation in lieu of a holistic application review during the admissions process.

Perhaps the test creators would agree that the tests should be used only to assess a test-taker’s ability to use academic English, and not be used to predict their academic success. Indeed, there are other tests which can be used for the latter purpose.

It appears that test takers can now register for “IELTS Online,” which is a version of the IELTS test that can be taken from home.  The registration page is right here.  It appears that the speaking section is offered only on Wednesdays, while the rest of the test is offered only on Thursdays.   Yes, that means the test must be completed across two separate days. The cost seems to be $229 USD. 

Sadly, registration seems to be limited to certain countries.  I’ve used my VPN to confirm that IELTS Online is currently available in Japan and Korea.  I have confirmed that it is not available in the United States and India.  Those are just the countries I have tested so far.  I’ll run a few experiments to figure out which other countries I can register from.

Honestly, though, don’t be surprised if this changes in the near future.  I don’t see any details about this on the main IELTS page, and I only know about the registration page because it was sent to me.  The only additional details provided right now seem to be in Japanese.

Update:  A test-taker guide to the Online Test is now available.

Update:  IDP has some unlisted YouTube videos with more information.  Find them here:

• Listening
• Reading
• Writing

The British Council recently funded a study comparing the IELTS Academic Test and the Duolingo English Test.  You can read the study here.  The authors of the report suggest that the DET has some weaknesses.  They conclude:

Our analysis demonstrates that, compared to IELTS, DET test tasks under-represent the construct of academic language proficiency as it is commonly understood, i.e., the ability to speak, listen, read, and write in academic contexts. Most of the DET test tasks are heavily weighted towards vocabulary knowledge and syntactic parsing rather than comprehension or production of extended discourse, though the recent addition of Interactive Reading addresses this lack somewhat.

But they do note that:

Scores on the two tests are correlated, which might suggest that DET is a reasonable substitute for IELTS, given its accessibility and low cost. Of course, knowledge of lexis and grammar are essential enabling skills for higher-order cognitive skills, and a test that focuses on these lower-level skills can be useful for making broad distinctions between low, intermediate, and high proficiency learners. However, potential test users should be aware of the limitations of DET in terms of predicting academic success.

The study was done by researchers working out of Georgia State University.