The scrutiny is coming from more than one direction. Admissions offices are tightening their own checks on the authenticity and consistency of English-language evidence, in response to well-documented fraud vulnerabilities and inconsistent evidence standards across the sector.

At the same time, UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) now runs an annual Basic Compliance Assessment (BCA) for every institution holding a student sponsor licence, scoring them on visa refusal rates, enrolment rates, and course completion rates. Falling short on any one of those metrics can strip an institution of the right to self-assess a student’s English ability altogether, forcing a shift to mandatory secure testing across the board. Further, a new Agent Quality Framework is being extended so institutions can no longer treat agent-sourced evidence as somebody else’s responsibility. In short: the English-language evidence an agent helps assemble now feeds directly into a compliance metric that determines whether an institution can keep recruiting internationally at all.

That’s the backdrop and it’s also the opportunity. Agents who understand this chain of evidence, and can speak to it confidently, become more valuable partners to the institutions they work with, and better advisers to the students who trust them.

Academic readiness is the cornerstone of student success

Academic readiness is the strongest predictor of first-year performance, progression, retention, and completion. When students arrive without sufficient English proficiency, the impact is immediate: difficulty engaging in seminars and group work, falling behind in reading-intensive modules, rising stress, and a higher likelihood of assessment failure or withdrawal.

Meeting a minimum entry requirement isn’t the same as being ready to perform at it. A student who scrapes the headline overall score with a weak reading or writing subscore is often the one who struggles most in postgraduate, research-intensive programmes, where extended reading and academic writing carry most of the assessment weight.

In practice, that means: looking with the student beyond the single overall band to the subscore breakdown; recommending a margin above the minimum particularly in speaking and writing wherever a programme is writing- or seminar-heavy; and encouraging an early retake where subscores are borderline, rather than waiting until an offer is at risk. Agents who steer students toward the cheapest or fastest route to a passing score to obtain a visa rather than genuine readiness, aren’t doing anyone any favours: those are the students most likely to need extra support, delay progression, or withdraw outcomes now visible to institutions through the BCA’s own completion-rate metric.

The growing scrutiny of MOI

Medium of Instruction (MOI) evidence is under sustained scrutiny, and institutions increasingly treat it as a case-by-case judgement rather than a standard alternative to testing. Practice varies widely: some institutions require MOI letters to be corroborated by transcripts, curriculum details, or interview; others have withdrawn MOI acceptance for certain markets or programmes altogether, following BCA findings that linked MOI-based admissions to weaker completion or higher visa refusal rates.

For agents, that means treating an MOI recommendation as a considered call each time, not a default and being able to talk a student through the reasoning.

Three questions are worth working through together: First, does the receiving institution’s current policy actually support MOI for this student’s country, subject, and level of study? Policies here shift often, so this is worth checking fresh for each application rather than assumed from a previous case. Second, was the student’s prior study substantively delivered and assessed in English not just described as such on paper in a way that plausibly matches the demands of postgraduate or research-intensive study in the UK? Third, is an MOI-based application more likely to trigger additional verification, delay an offer, or be queried at visa stage for this particular market?

Where any of these three is uncertain, recommending secure testing alongside or instead of MOI is the safer, more defensible choice for the student’s academic readiness, and for the agent’s credibility with the institutions they work with.

Secure testing as a strategic enabler

Secure English language testing is worth repositioning, in conversations with students, as more than an entry hurdle. It supports identity validation, demonstrates genuine academic readiness, reduces institutional exposure, and gives students greater confidence going into study. Viewing testing as an unnecessary cost is short-sighted: the real cost is poor preparation academic, financial, and emotional. Framing testing as an investment in a student’s own success, rather than a bureaucratic step, tends to land better with students and parents alike and it happens to be true.

BCA reviews are raising the bar

The Basic Compliance Assessment is an annual Home Office review of how well a sponsoring institution is managing its international student population against three metrics: visa refusal rates, enrolment rates, and course completion rates. Institutions rated amber or red face restrictions including, in some cases, losing the right to self-assess English-language ability, which pushes their entire cohort toward mandatory secure testing. As English-language evidence sits upstream of all three metrics a student who was never really ready for the course is more likely to be refused a visa, to under-enrol, or to withdraw, institutions are having to demonstrate, more rigorously than before, how that evidence was gathered, verified, and judged sufficient at the point of offer, both to their own compliance teams and to UKVI itself.

Agent-sourced evidence is now squarely inside that chain of justification. As regulatory attention on institutions increases, so does attention on the English-language guidance and evidence that agents provide upstream of the admissions decision. Weak guidance creates a vulnerability that traces all the way back to an agent’s file; strong guidance protects the student, the institution’s compliance record, and the agent’s own standing with institutional partners.

Defining practice that works for students and agents

A forward-looking standard is emerging, and it rewards informed, student-centred practice, which includes:

• Recommending the right test for the destination and programme, factoring in university acceptance, subject demands, security requirements, and timing
• Where subscores are borderline, especially speaking and writing for postgraduate, research-intensive courses, advising testing to a margin above the stated minimum, and supporting an early retake rather than a late one
• Treating MOI as a case-by-case judgement using the three questions above, not a standard substitute for testing
• Communicating secure testing to students as an investment in their own progression, not a hurdle to clear
• Keeping documentation authentic, consistent, and aligned with each institution’s current expectations, since these shift
• Engaging admissions teams early to confirm current requirements and reduce delays

These aren’t extra burdens layered on top of an agent’s advising role they’re the parts of that role now most visible to institutions, most consequential for students, and most likely to distinguish the agents that institutions want to keep working with.

The role of agents in a changing landscape

Agents are often a student’s first trusted adviser. Their guidance shapes not just admission outcomes but a student’s confidence, performance, and ultimately their success once they arrive. Getting the English-language piece right is one of the clearest, most immediate ways an agent can add value to that relationship and one of the clearest ways to build a track record that institutions notice.

How ELSAA supports the sector

ELSAA is the English Language Standard Advisory Authority [link to https://englishlsa.com]. Our mission is to strengthen standards, improve transparency, and support risk-aware decision-making across the English-language ecosystem. We work with agents and institutions to:

• Interpret emerging regulatory and compliance expectations
• Identify appropriate English-language pathways
• Reduce institutional and agent risk
• Improve student progression and retention
• Build trusted, future-ready recruitment practices

Agents who build this expertise put students at the centre of every decision and in doing so, strengthen their own standing with the institutions they work with. Strong English-language guidance isn’t an extra step; it’s the advantage.

The English Language Standard Advisory Authority (ELSAA) is an independent organisation dedicated to improving transparency, understanding, and informed decision-making in high-stakes English language testing. Through independent test reviews, comparative analysis, training, and advisory services, ELSAA supports universities, professional bodies, employers, and policymakers in evaluating and using English language assessments with confidence.

For additional background, please see:

• “Study highlights gaps between English standards set by test developers and those used by universities and professional bodies“
• “Narrowing bands of compliance: How the UK’s new RAG system will impact international student recruitment“

The post Why sharper English-language guidance is becoming an agent’s sharpest tool for student success appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

“We were really shocked by how institutions set test scores that widely deviated from test-maker recommendations, which are based on linguistic experience and evidence,” said study co-author Dr Amanda Müller of Flinders University in Australia. “We were most surprised by how different institutions varied so much in how they interpreted equivalency across English tests. The standardisation of equivalence scores is crucial.”

Aside from that misalignment between minimum score requirements set by universities and those set by professional bodies, the authors found there was no unified system for equating scores across the major English proficiency tests. They also concluded that neither universities nor professional bodies consistently follow the recommendations of test developers when setting minimum requirements.

For example, whereas professional bodies in the field of education set an average minimum IELTS score of 7.1, universities providing education degrees required, on average, IELTS 6.6. And where professional legal bodies required an average of IELTS 7.2, law schools specified an average of 6.5 for admission.

Across all professions assessed for the study, professional bodies required an average of IELTS 7.0 whereas universities providing professional degrees in the same fields asked for, on average, IELTS 6.6. “This means that universities are admitting students into degree pathways with a score lower than that required for professional registration,” note the authors. As to the significance of that gap, the authors explain that, “A variation of half an IELTS band score is more significant than it may sound. Research has shown that for a student to improve by a 0.5 band score, they would need to study English for up to 6 months full-time because gains are slower at higher levels than lower levels.”

In addition to that gap between professions and universities, the study also highlights that both sets of minimum requirements can often depart from test-developer recommendations as well.

For a “linguistically demanding” academic programme such as the ones evaluated in the study (e.g., education, law, medicine, psychology) IELTS recommends a 7.5 band score in order for an applicant to demonstrate an “acceptable” level of English proficiency. A score of 7.0 is rated by IELTS as “probably acceptable”. The following table expands on that official guidance.

Mind the gap

As to the factors behind those variances in the standards set by universities, the professions, and test developers, Dr Müller says, “International education is a fiercely competitive market. I can tell you from experience that institutions look to their peers when selecting their standards. This is definitely a common practice in both university and professional requirements. It forms part of the evidence base when they try to put changes through senate and boards.”

In other words, a university may be more inclined to set its requirements based on the admissions standards of other universities in their home region or country, as opposed to the evidence-based recommendations of the language experts who developed the test.

Dr Müller highlights as well the study’s findings with respect to test equivalency as other possible factor. “[An] international student may have got in on an English test that was not IELTS and was poorly equated. This is the other huge problem: that institutions choose and post scores on different English tests as ‘equivalent’ for them. However, when you look at the proper equivalence studies and even what other institutions are deciding, the scores they chose are clearly not equivalent.” This sets up loopholes in the admissions process that can be exploited: “Potential international students can game the scores for different tests at different universities until they get the one that they can reach with their lower levels of English skills.”

In order to minimise those discrepancies across the major English proficiency tests, the study sounds an urgent call for the standardisation of equivalence scores. “Test developers could be encouraged to create a single equivalence table of their tests as an important exercise to improve trust and reliability of language proficiency testing,” conclude the authors.

For additional background, please see:

• “The right score: Best practices for setting and assessing English proficiency requirements for admissions“

The post Study highlights gaps between English standards set by test developers and those used by universities and professional bodies appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

In December 2024, a BBC investigation kicked off a firestorm of controversy in the United Kingdom. “Universities enrolling foreign students with poor English, BBC finds,” . The resulting press coverage argued the point back and forth with plenty of commentary on all sides.

As international student numbers surged in the years after the pandemic, similar press inquiries have played out in other major study destinations. And they often settle on one central question: “What is the correct admissions requirement for English proficiency?”

You might think that there is a straightforward answer – a magic number of some sort – but the sheer variety of proficiency tests, and the correspondingly wide range of academic programmes on offer, makes working out the right score for academic admissions more complex than you might guess. The good news is that there are many resources, plenty of data, and lots of guidance for admissions teams working to set or review English proficiency requirements.

, hosted by 91ɬ��and featuring expert panelists from Cambridge English and Cardiff University, explored the topic at length.

Part of the challenge here arises from the fact that the stakes are really high. The purpose of the English proficiency requirement – that is, the test score that applicants must achieve for admission – is to reflect the minimum level of English ability that a non-native speaker will need to academic success at their chosen institution. By establishing an effective standard, institutions can admit students who are better prepared to perform well in their studies and to graduate.

“However,” cautions Dr Hye-won Lee, Senior Research Manager with Cambridge English, “if this threshold is set too low, students may struggle to keep up with their coursework. This may lead to higher dropout rates from the perspective of the institution or instances of academic misconduct as students may attempt to compensate for their language difficulties. Therefore setting an appropriate threshold is essential for maintaining academic integrity, upholding the institution’s reputation, and also fostering a thriving learning community in general. Needless to say, this has a material impact on student well-being as well. Students who are better prepared to succeed in their studies are also better able to make connections with instructors and peers and to more fully become a part of the campus community.”

How universities decide

Sally Rutterford, the Head of Admissions and Deputy Director at Cardiff University, made it clear during the webinar that universities take this question seriously. She described an extensive process of research and deliberation at Cardiff when evaluating proficiency tests and setting admissions thresholds.

This includes an examination of test validity data, an evaluation of correspondence to other tests or to well-established frameworks like the (CEFR), and a careful review of security measures. The entire process leads to formal recommendations with respect to overall test score requirements as well as “subscores” for reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Those recommendations are in turn scrutinised by a committee composed of senior admissions staff and faculty, before any proficiency requirements are formally adopted.

Dr Lee cautions that there is no such thing as a magic number that works for all programmes or all institutions. She adds that, “It’s essential to consider the specific demands of your context including the types of language use tasks involved, such as let’s say writing a lab report or giving a presentation and also the level of English proficiency needed to complete those language use tasks successfully. So for example, disciplines that require advanced linguistic skills such as the discipline of law or fields where clear communication is critical to safety, such as medicine and nursing. So those disciplines typically set higher or should set higher proficiency thresholds. But in contrast, disciplines with maybe slightly lower language demands can establish a more moderate minimum requirement.”

“A lot of it depends on the programme and what you are studying along with the length of that programme,” adds Ms Rutterford. “Intensive courses, 12-month masters, your level of English will probably need to be at a higher standard than it would for a three or four year undergraduate degree. Also, there are different needs and requirements based on, for example, if you’re doing a creative writing course, it’s going to be very different from your English language needs for a mathematical or science-based programme. You need a standard across a suite of programmes rather than a standard across the whole institution.”

Testing providers typically offer extensive, evidence-backed references and recommendations for institutions that are adopting a new test or reviewing test settings. But some research in the field that institutions may nevertheless choose to deviate from those recommendations.

An April 2025 found that “the minimum required scores set by universities and professional bodies often don’t align with the recommendations of test developers…For starting a ‘linguistically demanding’ academic course…an IELTS 7.5 band score is recommended, representing an ‘acceptable’ level of English proficiency. A band score of IELTS 7.0 is deemed ‘probably acceptable’. The report’s data shows the average minimum score set by universities was IELTS 6.6, deemed ‘English study needed’. Some universities set a minimum score as low as IELTS 5.0.”

“This research again underscores the importance of raising awareness about setting appropriate thresholds and making full use of the support and resources provided by test providers,” says Dr Lee.

Finding the right score

Cardiff’s approach provides something of a best practice model for institutions when it comes to setting those English requirements for admissions.

Justin Rodford, Senior Recognition Manager at Cambridge English, recommends that institutions “gather together a working group from the admissions team, the international office faculty, especially if it’s a new programme or a new test. Work out what the level of English is required for that course. Look at the evidence that they’ve already got, and then set the appropriate requirements.”
 
He adds that, “Institutions really need to ask test providers for evidence. There are so many new tests coming onto the market and if the test is robust, if it’s valid, test providers will be able to provide a body of evidence backing that up that the test is doing what it’s supposed to be doing – that it is testing what it’s supposed to be testing and that the test is appropriate for an academic setting.”

Cambridge English, for example, provides extensive test data for institutional review, including by programme area and student nationality. And it provides as well a range of supporting resources, including to support institutions in setting English proficiency admissions requirements. Those types of supports are invaluable building blocks in a process of establishing or reviewing the right score for academic admissions.

For additional resources on setting test score thresholds for admissions, .

The post The right score: Best practices for setting and assessing English proficiency requirements for admissions appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

Until now, all SDS applicants were required to provide International English Language Testing System (IELTS) test results of 6.0 or higher, with IELTS the only approved exam for SDS files.

As of 10 August 2023, IRCC will accept results from four additional English proficiency tests:

• Canadian English Language Proficiency Index Program (CELPIP) General

The Student Direct Stream – through which IRCC aims to provide faster processing of study permit applications with a target standard of 20 calendar days or less – has expanded considerably over recent years. As of this writing, it is open to eligible students from the following countries:

• Antigua and Barbuda
• Brazil
• China
• Colombia
• Costa Rica
• India
• Morocco
• Pakistan
• Peru
• Philippines
• Senegal
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Vietnam

Please consult for a detailed outline of eligibility and application requirements.

A related release from test provider ETS points out that the TOEFL iBT is already accepted by 100% of Canadian universities and is “also the world’s most widely accepted English-language test, used by more than 12,000 institutions in more than 160 countries worldwide.”

“Not only will the addition of TOEFL benefit the hundreds of thousands of students who take advantage of the SDS route each year,” said Rohit Sharma, Senior Vice President of Global Higher Education and Workskills at ETS, “but institutions can feel confident knowing that they can access a wider pool of applicants who can demonstrate their skills with the premier test of English-language proficiency.”

“We welcome the changes to the Student Direct Stream and look forward to supporting more students who wish to live, work, and study in Canada with our CAEL and CELPIP – General tests,” added Michael Holaday, the Vice President of Business Development at test provider Prometric. “These products were developed in Canada and have already been an integral part of many people’s immigration and study plans.”

Pearson CEO Andy Bird weighed in as well: “With PTE Academic now recognised for SDS purposes, I’m delighted that Pearson can help even more test takers achieve their dream of studying [in Canada]. This recognition comes hot on the heels of PTE Core being approved for Canadian economic migration purposes earlier this year and reflects our determination to make PTE the test of choice for everybody wanting to live, work or study abroad.”

For additional background, please see:

• “Canada’s foreign enrolment grew by more than 30% in 2022“
• “Canada adds Latin American and Caribbean countries to expedited student visa programme“

The post Canada approves expanded set of English tests for expedited visa processing appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

Questions around the administration of language proficiency tests in Vietnam came to a head this month when the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) announced new requirements for test providers on 8 November 2022. In effect, the MOET statement set out that exams for foreign language proficiency can only be given by organisations that have received official permission from the Ministry to do so.

The move follows a series of suspensions of testing schedules announced in September and October, including proficiency exams for Chinese (HSK, HSKK), Korean (TOPIK), and Japanese (NAT-Test). Sittings for other exams, including PTE, were postponed as early as 10 September.

Following the Ministry’s 8 November announcement, the two major IELTS providers operating in Vietnam, the British Council and IDP, said that they too were postponing testing until further notice. “We apologise to inform you that all IELTS tests arranged by the British Council in Vietnam have now been suspended till further notice,” said a British Council email to registered test takers on 10 November. “This decision is beyond our control and will affect all foreign language examinations in Vietnam. The resumption of the test depends on the consent of the Ministry of Education and Training, with whom we are collaborating to obtain the required approvals as quickly as possible.”

Needless to say, the widespread suspension of testing will affect thousands of Vietnamese students applying to study abroad next year, with many requiring test scores to support admissions applications to universities in North America or Europe as early as January 2023.

Proficiency exam results are also used by universities within Vietnam, either during admissions processes or as part of graduation requirements. With many other tests now suspended, the Vietnam National University-Ho Chi Minh City has asked its nine member-universities to adopt Vietnam’s VSTEP exam (Vietnamese Standardized Test of English Proficiency) for purposes of admissions and graduation evaluation. The VSTEP has been offered by the MET since 2014 but has not been widely adapted by Vietnamese universities to this point.

Why is this happening?

The November statement from the MOET explained that the Ministry has a number of concerns around test administration in the country. Speaking afterward to media, Deputy Minister Nguyen Nguyen Huu Do said that not all official requirements for local test administration had been met, leading in turn to concerns around fraud and the use of forged documents by test takers. “This can cause bad public opinion, affect the rights of exam takers, and the rights and interests of organisations that seriously implement exams and issue certificates,” he added. “In addition, other negative effects can be confusion in choosing the right certification, causing loss of state tax revenue and reducing the attractiveness and transparency of the business investment environment in the field of education in Vietnam.”

“The Ministry has guided related parties and conducted urgent appraisals, but the dossiers of request for approval from many exam organisations have not [yet] met the requirements,” said the Deputy Minister.

In a further comment to media outlets on 12 November, the MOET said it intends to prioritise approvals for the resumption of major foreign language exams, notably IELTS. “If the dossier meets the requirements, the ministry will process as quickly as possible to ensure compliance, within about 20 days. Afterwards, the approval will be publicly posted on the ministry’s information portal,” Deputy Minister Do noted.

For additional background, please see:

• “Parents and in-person counselling key factors in recruiting Vietnamese students“
• “Vietnam’s growing middle class fueling demand for study abroad“
• “Navigating a more complex landscape for English proficiency testing“

The post Language proficiency testing widely suspended in Vietnam appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

This is the situation that Nigerian students – as well as students in Ghana, Sierra Leone, and Liberia – have found themselves in for years, and they are pushing back against a practice increasingly regarded as discriminatory.

Sapping the desire to study abroad

In Canada, the newspaper interviewed Enike Samuel, a 27-year-old who, proficient in English, decided to apply to the University of Alberta. He soon learned that he would have to take an English proficiency test to be considered for admission. Offended, he checked with universities in another Canadian province, Ontario, and found that they also required the test. He chose not to apply to the University of Alberta or the others he had considered in Ontario, telling the Globe, “I just lost the motivation to continue applying, because it didn’t make any sense to me.”

The University of Alberta changed its policy in May (Mr Samuel is now again considering applying), in response to student complaints and advocacy on the part of Olumuyiwa Igbalajobi, a researcher at the University of British Columbia. Advocates have also stretched beyond the institutional level and convinced the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in Canada’s House of Commons to recommend that the Canadian government to stop requiring Nigerian students to take English tests as part of their applications.

As the Globe points out, tests such as the IELTS cost between CDN$250 and CDN$300, where the monthly minimum wage in Nigeria is just over CDN$90.

A Nigerian man, Dr Olumuyiwa Igbalajobi wrote to the University of Alberta, Canada asking them to remove Nigeria from the list of countries whose students must present IELTS & other English tests before admission.

The school has granted the request. Not all heroes wear capes.

— Israel Usulor (@JonalistIsrael)

Cost a concern

In the UK, Nigerians are also protesting English-proficiency requirements. Some are demanding that the IELTS be scrapped entirely for Nigerians, while others want a reduction in the cost of the test and an increase in the validity period of the test, which currently is only two years.

Nigerian students point out that peers in other countries – including Barbados, Guyana, the Bahamas, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, and Jamaica – are exempt from English-proficiency testing in the UK. Nigerian youth-advocacy platform Policy Shapers has initiated on Change.org pointing out how odd and unfair it is that none of over 20 anglophone African countries are on the UK’s Majority English Speaking Country List (MESC). Students from countries on the MESC list are exempted from having to take the test. Policy Shapers has asked the Home Office to consider expanding the list in light of the intense global competition for talent, saying it would “go a long way in repositioning the UK as the choice destination for skilled and passionate migrants.”

So far, the UK government has resisted the recommendation, saying that it has no proof that a majority of Nigerians are proficient in English.

Education First’s (EF) , meanwhile, lists Nigeria 29th – putting Nigeria in the “high proficiency category.”

EF notes in its executive summary, however, that gauging English proficiency in Africa is in some ways difficult: “The picture that emerges is of a highly diverse range of English skills, the most diverse of any region, in fact, when measuring the gap between high and low scorers.”

More decisions will be made at the institutional level

Though governments in Canada, the US, and UK are apparently not yet ready to consider a broader exemption of Nigerian students from English-language testing, we can anticipate more flexibility from individual institutions. Nigeria is a crucial recruitment market, and Nigerian students are known for their strong motivation and desire to succeed.

In the US, shows that Nigerians are the most successful of any migratory group. In 2017, 61% of Nigerians in the US held at least a bachelor’s degree compared with 31% of the overall foreign-born sample and 32% of the US-born population.

Nigerians are also disproportionately accomplished in the UK. Speaking with the Financial Times in 2020, Emeka Okaro, daughter of Nigerian parents and an obstetrician and lead clinician at St Bartholomew’s and Royal London Hospital said,

“Education is an essential part of our culture. [When] I went to school, we were encouraged to excel. Parents expected it of us.”

The Financial Times notes that Nigerians are motivated by lack of opportunity at home and highly intent on success in their new country. This corresponds closely with foreign educators’ desire to enrol talented students.

In tandem with growing awareness in Nigeria that some institutions are responding to pressure to drop English-language testing, there is significant online search activity by students aimed at identifying institutions that won’t make them take a test. If you Google “Which institutions don’t require Nigerians to take IELTS” – you’ll see that the topic is most certainly on the radar of prospective Nigerian students.

For additional background, please see:

• “Alarm sounded over low approval rates for African students hoping to study in Canada”
• “Nigerian demand surging but real challenges remain in visa processing and international payments”

The post Should Nigerian students be exempt from English proficiency testing? appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

Some have adopted test-optional policies, others have begun to accept a wider range of proficiency tests. One effect of all that is that more affordable and convenient language tests have gained much more acceptance in universities and colleges than ever before.

Duolingo is one such example. The popular language learning app has a reported total 500 million users – and 40 million active monthly users – worldwide. It offers a proprietary language test which clearly positions itself as a more affordable and accessible alternative to some of the more-established standardised exams. The can be taken online at any time, takes about an hour to complete, returns test results in two days, and costs US$49. In other words, it has been well-suited to the highly disrupted environment of the pandemic.

Perhaps it is not surprising then that Duolingo recently reported a dramatic increase in the use of its test last year. The company says that year-over-year test volumes increased by 2000% in 2020. While it has not released official figures on the number of test takers for the year, it has otherwise reported in technical documents that a total of 99,451 people took the test between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020. This would suggest that total volumes for 2020 were at least in excess of 100,000 test takers, distributed across 207 countries and representing 144 distinct first languages. The company reports as well that its test results are now accepted at more than 3,000 institutions worldwide.

And this in turn makes from Duolingo interesting to international recruiters. The company provided a summary recently of how Duolingo English Test results are shared between test takers and the institutions abroad where they hope to study.

Duolingo reports that the three most popular English-speaking destination countries – that is, the three with which its test takers most often share their results – are the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Based on test sharing data for 2020, Duolingo provides the following summary of the top-six countries of origin for test takers sending results to each of those three international destinations.

An accompanying statement from the company adds, “Trends among Duolingo English Test takers are reflective of broader movements observed in international enrolment. India is especially well represented among students sharing Duolingo English Test results…There has been an increase in applications from India to North America this past admissions cycle. [At the same time,] China doesn’t occupy the top spot for the US and Canada, which tracks with reports that numbers of Chinese students studying abroad are holding steady or decreasing.”

We have no previous referral patterns from Duolingo that these observations could be compared against, but we can only imagine that current travel restrictions, vaccination programmes, and other practical considerations have also had an important influence on the overall pattern of test results sharing this year.

Along with the rising prominence of India as a driver of enrolment growth for leading study destinations, the data provides a window into some of the growth markets that have been noted for each of those top host countries. Iran and Bangladesh, for example, are increasingly important growth markets, and Brazil has been an important sending market for all three destinations for some time now.

It is interesting to note as well that onshore students are prominently represented in the Duolingo table. Students already in the US, for example, were the fourth-largest group to share test results with US colleges. And we see the same pattern in the results for Canada and the UK as well. This reflects the large volumes of foreign students already enrolled in preparatory language or other foundation studies in each country, and the “internal mobility” that that represents as those students move on to further studies at a college or university.

For additional background, please see:

• “ETS launching a new TOEFL exam this year“
• “91ɬ��Exchange podcast: The gradual return to student travel“
• “Survey confirms that vaccination rollouts are influencing student choice“

The post Test sharing data provides an interesting window into student choice appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

Some have adopted test-optional policies, others have begun to accept a wider range of proficiency tests. One effect of all that is that more affordable and convenient language tests – notably but others as well – have gained much more acceptance in university admissions offices than ever before.

Such tests “existed before the pandemic but they hadn’t been widely accepted,” says Srikant Gopal, the executive director of the TOEFL Program at ETS. “The pandemic disrupted the entire testing cycle and rhythm of testing, and so this past year has been a period of experimentation that has benefited some of those low-cost providers. But our view is that that is not sustainable going forward and that the market needs a higher-quality option.”

ETS aims to provide that option with a new TOEFL product that will launch later this year. The new test, , is clearly intended as a counter to a growing field of more affordable competitors.

As recently reported, the Duolingo test, which costs US$49 and takes about an hour to complete, was accepted by “only dozens” of US colleges before COVID. The Duolingo website indicates the test is now accepted by nearly 1,600 institutions worldwide.

In comparison, the TOEFL iBT costs up to US$225 in the US (with prices running higher or lower in markets around the world) and takes up to three hours to complete. While pricing is not yet final, ETS expects TOEFL Essentials to cost roughly half of the iBT price (so somewhere around US$100-US$120) and to take 90 minutes to complete.

The TOEFL iBT is “the gold standard for accessing someone’s ability to succeed in a university environment,” maintains Mr Gopal. “It is universally accepted, and gives universities and colleges the assurance that [the applicants they accept] will meet their standards.”

But where the TOEFL iBT focuses on English communication in an academic context, TOEFL Essentials is designed to be a broader, more versatile test. 91ɬ�� half of the content is academic; the other half is more general “life skills” English.

As a more affordable, more convenient alternative to the iBT, ETS believes that TOEFL Essentials can help universities and colleges reach a larger applicant pool. Building on the lessons learned in home-based test administration over the past year, TOEFL Essentials will also be taken by students at home, supported with a combination of human and AI proctoring.

“The scores are as reliable, valid, and accurate as any test from ETS,” adds Mr Gopal. “But as universities around the world try to recruit high-quality students, they want to do whatever they can to reduce barriers for students, including with respect to English language testing. We want to help universities attract new and more diverse applicants but also maintain quality standards at the same time.”

Getting ready for launch

In a survey of roughly 250 universities across major study destinations, 90% said they would be likely to accept TOEFL Essentials scores for admissions in 2022. Nearly all respondents (95%) saw the test as beneficial in attracting quality applicants. ETS is now conducting briefings for institutions through the first half of this year leading up to the official release of the new test in August 2021.

Between now and then, ETS plans to release a concordance table mapping test scores on TOEFL Essentials to the iBT and other standardised tests, and test preparation materials and resources for teachers are also in development.

For additional background, please see:

• “Testing update for June 2020: Pearson, TOEFL, IELTS, iTEP, Cambridge, LanguageCert, Duolingo“
• “91ɬ��Exchange podcast: The ELT sector in 2030“
• “Key factors influencing the language travel market for 2021“

The post ETS launching a new TOEFL exam this year appeared first on 91ɬ��Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.