Identify and discuss the main challenges faced by the IELTS Listening test in relation to

specific aspects of validity, authenticity and reliability. To what extent is this test a
better or worse indicator of the listening skills required in the target language context
than other large-scale tests such as Pearson, TOEFL or TOEIC? Make reference to this
IELTS listening test sample
Introduction:

Speaking, hearing, reading, and writing are the four evenly balanced sub-components of the
IELTS framework. The assessment is usually conducted over 2 days at designated test centres
with experienced scorers and examiners.  Interviewing takes place in a distinct session,
typically before the sessions based on paper for the other three abilities, listening, writing,
and reading. The participant's entire scale score is the average of the all sections. The courses
on speaking and writing (Taylor, 2004). Each two years, an authorised IELTS trainer
observes supervisors to confirm that they are grading documents according to defined norms
before assessing the hearing and reading segments.

Assessing participants' general English ability is a difficult and hard task for which there are
no easy answers since it involves several interconnected segments and sub such as speaking,
reading, writing, and listening (Hamp-Lyons, 1990). Given IELTS's popularity and
significance in the lives of those engaged, it is becoming increasingly vital for the exam
management and give independent proof of quality management in the type of evaluation
validity and reliability (Shaw, 2007).

With the rising acceptance of IELTS, matters about the validity of the implications taken
from its effectiveness, as well as how and what it actually examines applicant capability, are
getting a lot of focus. As a result, test assignments and their veracity, for example, are
deemed critical. Despite the fact that exams are given to incorporate many language abilities,
Weir (1990) claims that only direct tests that imitate proper communication activities can
accurately represent true authentic communicative engagement. As a result, attention should
be taken when creating and implementing test assignments to ensure that they include all
aspects of language usage and involve students in real language use in communicative
situations (Gilfert, 1996). This essay will analyse the validity, reliability and authenticity of
listening test in IELTS to examine its scope and effectiveness.

There are several sorts of listening tasks:

Multiple-choice questions It aims to assess in-depth knowledge on particular topics or a

general grasp of the key elements of the audio listening. There is a form of inquiry that is
preceded by three alternative replies, or a statement that is preceded by three different
methods to fill in the blanks. The right answer must be selected by test participants. Matching
is a test that evaluates a test taker's ability to listen for details or their interpretation of the
information in a conversation. It might be used to assess participants' capacity to comprehend
links and relationships between data in a listening document. The candidates must match a
series of numbered objects on the auditory sound to a set of alternatives on the questionnaire.
The capacity to grasp, for instance, a statement of a place and link it to a graphic
representation is assessed using plan, diagram labelling, maps, note, completion and
summary. This might include the ability to understand and interpret language that expresses
spatial relations and instructions. Test takers must name a plan (for example, a building), a
map (for example, a section of a town), or a drawing (e.g. of a piece of equipment).
Typically, the responses are chosen from a column on the exam questions (Baghaei &
Aryadoust, 2015).

Reliability of IELTS:

Maintaining consistency in grading in both the subjectively and objectively assessed IELTS
courses has been a major concern. According to the IELTS webpage, a thorough test
processing has resulted in Listening and Reading editions with an ordinary Cronbach Alpha
of 0.88, depending on the success of over 90,000 candidates on thirteen listening and reading
versions, which is appropriate as a way of measuring of a study's reliability and accuracy
(UCLES, 2007). Different approaches will be used to verify the validity of the IELTS
Speaking and Writing Courses, but their excellence will be guaranteed by a rigorous
programme of supervisor training, accreditation, and supervision. During the
speaking assessment, and manuscripts from the writing activities, the audio recording
technique is used, and both are preserved for approximately 2 months. Moreover, IELTS
grades are properly checked before being published, and participants have two weeks to
encounter their outcomes under a official system. (Fazel and Ahmadi, 2011) 

While the speaking and writing components place a great focus on supervisor training,
recertification, and standardisation, one downside is that the IELTS website does not give any
data analysis of the courses' reliability. They do, however, present a complete dependence
evaluation for the four components, based on Fldt and Brennan's (1989) approach, which
returns a development of 0.95 and a low SEM of 0.21. Nevertheless, getting an accurate
coefficient statistic that hasn't been deployed for creating propaganda or marketable purposes
is problematic unless a means of abilities and performance the dependability correlation for
writing and courses is advanced. According to some experts, various types of language tests
must have differing reliability coefficients. For example, Lado (1961) claims that reading
exams have a greater level of reliability than listening comprehension questions, that are
more trustworthy than oral output tests. This will reveal there is a considerable association
among IELTS results and academic performance in the reading summative assessment.
According to Dooey and Oliver (2002), the substantial connection for business majors may
be due to the discipline's reputation as the "most linguistically demanding." Despite the fact
that the coefficients were weak, reliable and valid research of this sort do not demand a
correlate of greater than 0.3 (about 10%) (Davies and Criper, 1988).

According to Alshammari (2016), the rigidity of the IELTS points system might be a crucial
factor influencing the consistency of applicants' achievements and final results. Nonetheless,
further study on these topics is needed to enhance the test scoring system so that it is more
consistent with the exam's aim, which is to measure how effectively applicants use their
reading abilities to grasp whatever they read regardless of circumstances.

The IELTS test is categorised into four parts, each of them is allocated a band grade. As a
consequence, a reliability coefficient approximation is a good pointer of reliability. Fazel and
Ahmadi (2011) used a technique developed by Feldt and Brennan (1989) to estimate the
dependability of a composition. Lowest alpha values for factually scored exams and g-
coefficients for the sole rater conditions for subjectively assessed papers were utilised to
create a cautious approximation. Through a trial research conducted by Salmani-Nodoushan,
(2002) the conclusions of the study revealed a positive dependability number of Iranian
students evaluated the Academic modules for reliability.

Validity of IELTS:

Several validity and reliability research has attempted to establish a link among IELTS grades
and academic success, with mixed results. Some research (Gibson & Rusek, 1992; Fiocco
1992) found no link between the two, while others (Cotton & Conrow, 1998; Bellingham
1995; Feast, 2002) found usually favourable relationships. Yen and Kuzma (2009) used a
homogeneous sample to find substantial strong association between IELTS scores and GPAs,
confirming IELTS' predictive value in students' academic success. The study backs up the
validity of employing students' IELTS scores as an admissions’ criteria. The majority of the
study on the predictive validity of the IELTS exam dates from before the redesign of the test
in 1995. Fiocco (1992) examined a group of 61 candidates from non-English speaking origins
at Curtin University in Western Australia, many of whom did not exceed the institution's
IELTS criteria but were nonetheless accepted into their standard degree. The study was
divided into two parts, the first of which compared students' IELTS scores with their
coursework weighted averages (PPI) in order to see if IELTS could be used as a predictor of
performance. Participants were questioned in the second portion to learn about their worries
about language challenges and if these issues were represented in their IELTS results.

According to the first phase's data analysis, there was no significant difference in the link
between PPIs and IELTS results among those who had met those who had not fulfilled the
institution's English language requirements. There was no discernible variation in the
association between those who enrolled in 'linguistically difficult' and 'non linguistically
demanding' programs (Fiocco 1992). The results of the second stage, on the other hand,
suggested that language did play a role in academic success. Other issues raised by several
students were educational techniques, professors, and sentiments of loneliness and
isolation (Dooey and Oliver, 2002).

According to Ferguson and White (1994), the validity of IELTS is stronger when the test
scores are lower, implying that the relationship should be higher among students with band
scores below 6.0. Cotton and Conrow (1998) discovered that the IELTS reading exam
showed a modest positive connection with academic results in the context of predictive
validity of four IELTS test courses. Furthermore, they found a negative link between
speaking subtest scores and overall academic achievements, suggesting that reading subscale
results, especially, were the strongest predictors of future academic success (p. 109). Dooey
and Oliver (2002) investigated whether other aspects, such as linguistic context, influence the
analytical validity of IELTS by looking at learners' performance in the following primary
languages and dialects: Cantonese, Indonesian, and other Chinese languages. The findings of
their research indicated no significant differences in IELTS results and academic
achievement across subjects. As a result, their findings demonstrated that the predictive
validity of IELTS is unaffected by the language demands of the programs.

Authenticity of IELTS:

Exam boards' increasingly acknowledged influence on the educational process, and hence on
community as a whole, has been verified. Because of the exams' international acclaim and
cash-in-value, this is the case. Such an influence is frequently felt on two different scales: at
the macro scale, which deals with social organizations, and at the micro scale, which deals
with individuals (Green, 2007). The washback denotes to the significances that could be
beneficial or unexpected bad, and the influences are associated to teaching performance,
relevant learning, and programs. Because the number of English speakers is rapidly
increasing, international examinations such as IELTS and its effects need careful academic
analysis, including the above-mentioned difficulties of validity and reliability. The major
impact of such high-stakes assessment on learning and teaching, on the other side, prompts
academics to look into the IELTS washback.

Green (2007) looked at the impact of test preparation classes on students' IELTS academic
work module scores. The findings show that test-driven learning did not improve
respondents' scores, but that the test subject must be linked to regular instruction and prior
training in order to improve their result. Furthermore, he believed that real examinations
might be influenced by a range of circumstances outside of the classroom context, such as the
learners' background, the length of the program, and the amount of attentiveness. Rashidi and
Javanmardi (2011) discussed the probable washback impact of IELTS training courses on
teaching and learning outcomes, as well as students' exam achievement. They used
Hughes' washback trichotomy model from 1994.Washback to individuals, products, and
procedures ere among the three phases. While IELTS coaching courses had a great effect on
students' active learning and exam performance, the result regarding students' both positive
and negative life preconceptions regarding some factors of these trainings based on responses
to various questions prior to and after the IELTS training is not conclusive. As a result, the
results of their study showed no clear advantage of the introductory classes.

The IELTS academic module, according to Hayes and Read (2004), tests four macro-skills
through a range of exercises that are meant to simulate real-world study situations. As a
result, they believe that it is meant to have a constructive washback effect, with the goal of
improving candidates' language skills in a way that aids their academic learning of English.
They demonstrated strong evidence of authenticity in an IELTS preparation program at
school; nevertheless, the outcomes did not appear to be the type of positive impacts
anticipated because the students and teachers were focused primarily on the practise of test
tasks instead of the improvement in linguistic competence. Yue (1997) noted that certain
textbooks explicitly pay attention to practising skills and subskills that are demanded by
IELTS, giving enough information about the exam, and increasing students testing
capabilities in his research of IELTS washback on textbooks. IELTS is increasing favourable
washback on preparatory materials in this scenario. However, it is preferable if the
assessment of textbook components demonstrated both direct and indirect relationships
among  test system and text books, such as "chances to amplify the achievement of English-
speaking culture-relevant microskills, activities, functions, in media modes, relevant
settings." In this situation, both directly and indirectly exam-related information may help
students learning for the test if it was designed to match their genuine communication
requirements.

Lewthwaite (2007) centered on teachers' and students' perspectives on the IELTS writing test.
The study's findings revealed a high agreement between the IELTS writing assignments
expected and what participants and other sources believed was required in a coursework.
Several of the respondents believe there was a disconnect between what was achievable in an
exam course and what was the best pedagogical practise. In light of the contrasts noted
between the IELTS and university written assignments in his research, the IELTS tasks
appeared to be a useful teaching emphasis guide for assisting students' writing output using
the essential abilities. In contrary to what other researchers discovered washback adversely,
all of the observed sentiments were favourable stated attitudes regarding the exam (Davidson
& Mandalios 2005).

Comparison between TOEFL, Pearson, or TOEIC

IELTS isn't the only large-scale English language competence test of its sort; there are
numerous more. All of them are meant to assess overseas students' English language
competency before they enrol in an English-speaking higher education institution to
guarantee that they can adjust to new study and living settings (Read & Hayes, 2003). The
next section will compare and contrast IELTS with the other large-scale exams in aspects of
question design, question substance, response help, and feedback, in order to determine
which best reflects the listening abilities necessary in the language learning environment. In
terms of subject categories, the IELTS Listening test comprises MCQs that concentrate on
auditory comprehension abilities. There are also fill-in-the-blank and corresponding tasks to
assess your ability to listen to details and accurately spell words (Handbook, 2007). Pearson
Tests of English, on the other contrary, employs more extensive test questions. These, for
example, ask students listen to learning materials and synthesize the important themes,
assessing the participants' capacity to absorb knowledge as well as arrange language, spelling
and grammar (Yichou, 2017).

According to Oller (1973), English language examinations may be split into two types:
discrete-point exams and integrative exams. The Integrative examination looks at overall
language skills, whereas the Discrete-point test evaluates performance on individual
linguistic skills (Yichou, 2017). These two types of examinations are combined in both the
IELTS and Pearson auditory exams. The IELTS Listening exam, on the other hand, has a
higher amount of split test content that focuses on listening comprehension. The Pearson
Tests of English's Hearing portion, on the other hand, looks at both listening
understanding and other basic abilities like writing and reading (Riazi, 2013). As a result, the
Pearson Tests of English are more probable than the IELTS exam to assess pupils' total
linguistic competence.

According to Powers (1985), psychology, students studying English, computers, and

chemistry consider listening comprehension to be the foundation of listening skills, whereas
speaking and writing skills should be incorporated into listening skills in real-life
communication scenarios. As a result, the IELTS Listening test's statements of
questions should be expanded to include tests of other general abilities such as reading and
writing.

 In the listening test of IELTS, the question content includes academic lectures and student
experience. Sections 1 and 3 are dedicated to conversation, whereas Sections 2 and 4 are
dedicated to story. Sections 1 and 3 are dedicated to conversation, whereas Sections 2 and 4
are dedicated to story. These consist of live recordings or audio snippets of real-world
scenarios such as lectures, presentations, interviews, and lectures, which are used to assess
students' ability to adapt to various study and life circumstances in varied settings
(Aryadoust, 2012). The TOEFL Listening test, on the other hand, exclusively covers
intellectual themes (Chalhoub-Deville & Turner, 2000). According to research, native
English-speaking students generally use a broad style of English in academic settings
(Zareva, 2005). However, in terms of academic matters, students will face a variety of
conditions while studying abroad that will affect their whole perspective. As a result, thinking
about language use in a broader sense is critical. IELTS Listening examines the listening
abilities necessary in a variety of circumstances in the target language setting in regards of
question content.

Apart from fill-in-the-blank questions using maps or flow charts to aid students in answering
the questions, the IELTS Listening exam contains fewer cases of test support (Handbook,
2007). The Pearson Tests of English exam pattern, which challenges test takers to "choose
the proper major concept of the passage," is one example of legitimate content available on
the desktop-based Pearson Tests of English. It also includes video segments that allow
applicants to respond using dynamic visual elements and listening data (Pearson, 2013).
Rather than the IELTS listening exam, which is a better evaluation of listening abilities
necessary in an academic context in the second language, the Pearson Test of English hearing
test assesses listening skills in a more genuine academic atmosphere.

It's critical to provide feedback at the end of an exam to help candidates improve their
listening abilities. Brief feedback neglects both improve students their abilities and may
generate confusion in their studies, whereas comprehensive feedback helps applicants
develop their skills. The Pearson Tests of English results are only thorough and correlate to
the English language skill indicated by the score; there is no extensive study of each product's
competence (Pearson, 2012). The IELTS test creators, on the other hand, advocated for the
modification of the IELTS exam Handbook by conducting practise tests to gather information
and comments from many stakeholders (Saville & Hawkey, 2004).The evaluation is
separated into hearing, speaking, reading,  and writing, at the end of the IELTS exam,
offering an acceptable language ability analysis. Furthermore, the Handbook provides the
competency analysis for other grades, guaranteeing that students can discover problem spots
(Handbook, 2007). This not only enhances students' listening abilities, but it also helps them
improve their general English proficiency.

References:

Aryadoust, V. (2012). Differential item functioning in while-listening performance tests: The

case of the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) listening module.
International Journal of Listening, 26(1), 40-60.

Baghaei, P., & Aryadoust, V. (2015). Modeling local item dependence due to common test
format with a multidimensional Rasch model. International Journal of Testing, 15(1), 71-87.

Bellingham, L. (1995). The relationship of language proficiency to academic success for

international students. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 30(2), 229-232.

Chalhoub-Deville, M., & Turner, C. E. J. S. (2000). What To Look for in ESL Admission
Tests: Cambridge Certificate Exams, IELTS, and TOEFL. 28(4), 523-539.

Chalhoub-Deville, M., & Turner, C. E. J. S. (2000). What To Look for in ESL Admission
Tests: Cambridge Certificate Exams, IELTS, and TOEFL. 28(4), 523-539.
Cotton, F., & Conrow, F. (1998). An investigation of the predictive validity of IELTS
amongst a group of international students studying at the University of Tasmania.
International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Research Reports 1998: Volume 1,
72.

Davidson, P. & Mandalios, J. (2005). Using Assessment to Facilitate Learning. Presentation

given at the 9th CTELT Conference, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

Davies, A. (1990). Principles of language testing. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Dooey, P. and Oliver, R. (2002). An investigation into the predictive validity of the IELTS
test as an indicator of future academic success. Prospect, 17(1), 36-54.

environment. Research notes, 27(1), 14-19.

Fazel, I., & Ahmadi, A. (2011). On the relationship between writing proficiency and
instrumental/integrative motivation among Iranian IELTS candidates. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 1(7), 747-757.

Feast, V. (2002). The impact of IELTS scores on performance at university (Doctoral

dissertation, Flinders University).

Feldt L.S & Brennan R. L. (1989). Reliability. In Linn (Ed): Educational Measurement, 3rd
Edition. American Council on Education: Macmillan.

Ferguson, G., White, E. (1994). A Predictive Validity Study of IELTS. University of

Edinburgh, Institute for Applied Language Studies.

Fiocco, M. (1992). English proficiency levels of students from a non-English speaking

background: A study of IELTS as an indicator of tertiary success. Unpublished research
report, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.

Gibson, C., & Rusek, W. (1992). The validity of an overall band score of 6.0 on the IELTS
test as a predictor of adequate English language level appropriate for successful academic
study. Unpublished Masters of Arts thesis: Macquarie University, New South Wales,
Australia.

Gilfert, S. (1996) A Review of TOEIC. In The Internet TESL Journal.

Green, A. (2007). IELTS washback in context: Preparation for academic writing in higher
education (Vol. 25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hamp‐Lyons, L. (1998). Ethical test preparation practice: The case of the TOEFL. Tesol
Quarterly, 32(2), 329-337.

Hayes, B., & Read, J. (2004). IELTS test preparation in New Zealand: Preparing students for
the IELTS academic module. Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods,
97-111.

Lado, R. (1961). Language Testing: The Construction and Use of Foreign Language Tests. A
Teacher's Book. Pennsylvania State University: Longmans.

Lewthwaite, M. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes to IELTS writing tasks: positive or
negative washback. UGRU Journal, 5, 1-16.

ller Jr, J. W. (1973). Discrete-point tests versus tests of integrative skills. Focus on the
learner, 184-199.

Pearson. (2012). PTE Academic: Score Guide.

Rashidi, N., & Javanmardi, F. (2011). The IELTS preparation washback on learning and
teaching outcomes. Cross-Cultural Communication, 7(3), 132-144.

Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2002). Text Familiarity, Reading Task, and ESP Text

Performance: A Study on Iranian LEP AND NON-LEP University Students.Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tehran, Tehran.

Saville, N., & Hawkey, R. (2004). The IELTS impact study: Investigating washback on
teaching materials. Washback in language testing: Research contexts methods 73-96.

Shaw, S. D. (2007). Modelling facets of the assessment of writing within an ESM

Taylor, L. Y. N. D. A. (2004). IELTS, Cambridge ESOL examinations and the common

European framework. Research Notes, 18(2), 3.

UCLES. (2007). IELTS handbook 2007. Retrieved from the IELTS Web site:
http://www.ielts.org/pdf/IELTS_Handbook_2007.pdf

Weir, C. (1990) Communicative Language Testing. New York: Prentice Hall

Yen, D., & Kuzma, J. (2009). Higher IELTS score, higher academic performance? The
validity of IELTS in predicting the academic performance of Chinese students. Worcester
Journal of Learning and Teaching, (3), 1-7.
Yue, W. W. (1997). An investigation of textbook materials designed to prepare students for
the IELTS test: A study of washback. Unpublished master’s thesis, Lancaster University,
England, 226.

Zareva, A. (2005). What is new in the new TOEFL-iBT 2006 test format?. e-FLT: Electronic
Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2(2).