The relationship between English language proficiency test scores and academic achievement: A longitudinal study of two tests
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English-medium universities often accept scores from various English language proficiency (ELP) tests as evidence of ELP from non-English background students. This practice raises the question of how these tests compare in terms of their ability to predict academic achievement. This longitudinal study addresses this question by examining the strength of the associations between total scores on the IELTS Academic and the TOEFL iBT, on one hand, and the academic achievement of 6481 non-English background undergraduate students in the first 10 semesters of their study at a Canadian, English-medium university, on the other. Findings revealed that the association between ELP and academic achievement varied across ELP tests and disciplines. Furthermore, students with different IELTS scores exhibited significantly different grade point average (GPA) trajectories over time. Specifically, students with lower IELTS scores tended to exhibit a more substantial decline in GPA over the 10 semesters compared to students with higher scores who displayed less decline in GPA, suggesting greater resilience. The findings and their implications for research concerning the relationship between ELP and academic achievement over time are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it