Good question linking with issues of appropriate language in a(n institutional) context, lingua franca, communicative competence, and assessment validity.

Starting with the last point, say, tests as assessment method, the crucial issue about validity of a test is 'does the test test what it is intended to test?'. Moreover, does an assessment approach or method assess what it is supposed to assess? One of my ex-colleagues (at an Australian university) comes from a South American country, emigrated to Australia when there were 'troubles' at home, did various post-graduate study and actually gained the university medal for study in, basically English acquisition in academic contexts, became an IELTS examiner and quite respected in and outside of that university. Having come from a background of learning and teaching 5 languages in this person's old country and in Australia, their's is the sharpest and most encyclopedic grammar mind I have ever encountered. I interviewed this person once and found consistent avoidance of perfect mood, extensive reliance on time references and other adverbial-type language functions and some other language behaviour not so consistent with a language profile of a so-called native English speaker in Australia. However, this person's standing and respect that is had for them also rests on professional performance which would consensus-wise be top level I'd think. As a case in point, this person may be exceptional, or they may be an example of how other issues transcend those posed in the question as significant. In other words, would any assessment instrument be truly suitably valid?

Communicative competence - it took me years as usual to realise the profoundly obvious bases in applied linguistics, one of which is that communication is actually more important than language, which of course is just one mode for communication. Further, rather than teachers teaching, learners learning what they do if not what they need is a priori. In other words, professors and teachers for all their value and necessity are just among a set of channels through which learners may learn. Communicative competence comes in where roles of professors/teachers are essential (eg as lecturers, assessors, advisers. materials makers) in the institutionalised teaching/learning avenues present. In some ways, 'teaching literacies' for want of a better expression are more significant than English language proficiency - though of course English language proficiency in an ENglish as lingua franca is certainly conspicuously important.

The first two points seem to go together, and link with the one about tests having to test what they are supposed to test. In order to function in the institution as well as conduct, present and publish research appropriately plus the teaching, English proficiency is essential. This becomes more significant in as far as accountability in educational and research institutions seems to be increasing and increasing - for instance accounting for things needs to be communicated in these places in English.

So, do the testing apparati mentioned in the question meet appropriate criteria? In the short term, No, of course not, as they are not generated from the social and cultural contexts in which the people they are supposed to be assessing exist. In this sense, they do not test what they are supposed to test - even IELTS which pupports itself to test communication with English rather than be an English test.

In the longer term, a range of assessment approaches, such as, say, test, portfolio, context or practice-based competence testing and observation would be more appropriate in any environment. Unfortunately (or fortunately - for we their potential victims(!)) this is less than practical. This can be done for performance review, which

So, we may be left just with these testing schemes if English proficiency is all that matters. The preferable approach would be to use them as a non-binding guide at best. The commons sense approach would be to realise that so many other things are just as or more significant.

Good question linking with issues of appropriate language in a(n institutional) context, lingua franca, communicative competence, and assessment validity.

Starting with the last point, say, tests as assessment method, the crucial issue about validity of a test is 'does the test test what it is intended to test?'. Moreover, does an assessment approach or method assess what it is supposed to assess? One of my ex-colleagues (at an Australian university) comes from a South American country, emigrated to Australia when there were 'troubles' at home, did various post-graduate study and actually gained the university medal for study in, basically English acquisition in academic contexts, became an IELTS examiner and quite respected in and outside of that university. Having come from a background of learning and teaching 5 languages in this person's old country and in Australia, their's is the sharpest and most encyclopedic grammar mind I have ever encountered. I interviewed this person once and found consistent avoidance of perfect mood, extensive reliance on time references and other adverbial-type language functions and some other language behaviour not so consistent with a language profile of a so-called native English speaker in Australia. However, this person's standing and respect that is had for them also rests on professional performance which would consensus-wise be top level I'd think. As a case in point, this person may be exceptional, or they may be an example of how other issues transcend those posed in the question as significant. In other words, would any assessment instrument be truly suitably valid?

Communicative competence - it took me years as usual to realise the profoundly obvious bases in applied linguistics, one of which is that communication is actually more important than language, which of course is just one mode for communication. Further, rather than teachers teaching, learners learning what they do if not what they need is a priori. In other words, professors and teachers for all their value and necessity are just among a set of channels through which learners may learn. Communicative competence comes in where roles of professors/teachers are essential (eg as lecturers, assessors, advisers. materials makers) in the institutionalised teaching/learning avenues present. In some ways, 'teaching literacies' for want of a better expression are more significant than English language proficiency - though of course English language proficiency in an ENglish as lingua franca is certainly conspicuously important.

The first two points seem to go together, and link with the one about tests having to test what they are supposed to test. In order to function in the institution as well as conduct, present and publish research appropriately plus the teaching, English proficiency is essential. This becomes more significant in as far as accountability in educational and research institutions seems to be increasing and increasing - for instance accounting for things needs to be communicated in these places in English.

So, do the testing apparati mentioned in the question meet appropriate criteria? In the short term, No, of course not, as they are not generated from the social and cultural contexts in which the people they are supposed to be assessing exist. In this sense, they do not test what they are supposed to test - even IELTS which pupports itself to test communication with English rather than be an English test.

In the longer term, a range of assessment approaches, such as, say, test, portfolio, context or practice-based competence testing and observation would be more appropriate in any environment. Unfortunately (or fortunately - for we their potential victims(!)) this is less than practical. This can be done for performance review, which

So, we may be left just with these testing schemes if English proficiency is all that matters. The preferable approach would be to use them as a non-binding guide at best. The commons sense approach would be to realise that so many other things are just as or more significant.

If going for higher education abroad stick to these

This our bad luck that hardly there is the alternatives but still I think IELTS is not perfect to jugde one's English capability rather it examines the capability of stress management, audible capability and to follow some tricks to score more.

Dear Howard Doyle, Shazia Haris, and Md Zafar Alam Bhuiyan,

Your answers to my question above are very interesting.

My point was in regards to countries where English is not a first language and countries whose EFL teachers have never been to English speaking countries.

This is my comment. IELTS and TOEFL exams are indeed good for US and UK academic purposes. Yet, I have observed that for local contexts outside these nations, these tests fall short. Test designers seem not to be aware of sociocultural issues that non native speakers of English cannot learn and acquire within EFL classrooms. I understand that designers are cognizant of validity & reliability (Bachman & Palmer, 1996), but this is not enough to design a test for international settings. Indeed, even though these evaluation instruments are somewhat good, they need to have more international precision for other than US or UK purposes only.