Moving on, moving out: A study of students moving from

Intermediate (E3) English study to Upper Intermediate (L1)

in an FE ESOL context and what happens to retention,
progression and achievement.

Paul Gallantry

DTLLS Year 2 Research assignment, June 2009

word count: 4350

1
Index
Introduction.........................................3
Literature Review.................................4
theories of language learning and acquisition
ESOL and the Skills for Life programme
The Learner Study key findings
Methodology.........................................5
Findings...............................................6
analysis of the cohorts
cohort achievement
failure in exams
analysis of year-by-year progression
questionnaire results
Conclusions and recommendations........9
Bibliography.......................................11
Appendix a: achievement spreadsheet
appendix b: questionnaire sample and collected numbers
appendix c: original research proposal
appendix d: further questions raised

2
Moving on, moving out: A study of students moving from Intermediate
(E3) English study to Upper Intermediate (L1) in an FE ESOL context and
what happens to retention, progression and achievement.

Introduction
The subject of this study arose from the writer's interest in an anecdotally well-attested, but rarely
studied phenomenon: Why is it that non-native language students appear to study English, and
study it quite successfully, up to an Intermediate level, but then the number of learners who
continue to Upper Intermediate and further not only declines, but also the rate of exam success of
those who progress falters? From personal experience of being Director of Studies in a private
language school, I was aware that our student cohort largely consisted of learners ranging from
beginners to intermediate, with very small numbers progressing any further. Later, working in a
Further Education context, I observed a similar pattern.
While the lack of progression and success was an interesting, but not vital, subject in the context
of a private, fee-paying language school, the same issue in FE is far more important because
progression, retention, success and achievement have a significant effect on funding for our
courses.
The issue of lack of student retention, achievement and success at Level One (equivalent to an
Upper Intermediate level of language study) is one that has had an impact on the EFL/ESOL
department at TVU Reading. By contrast, our Entry Three (equivalent to an intermediate level of
language study) rates were high.
The aim of this research project is to investigate this phenomenon in the specific context of TVU
Reading. It will first seek to ascertain the veracity of the following statements:

• Records for exam passes at Entry 3 indicate a high success rate. By contrast, success
rates at Level One show a markedly lower rate.
• Few of the Entry Three students actually choose to progress to study at Level One
• Students who move on from Entry 3 to Level One have a lower prognostication for success
at the higher level of study, whereas those who directly enter level one from placement
tests have a greater chance of success.

It will then seek to answer the following questions:

• Do the majority of students need to progress beyond Entry 3, or do they feel they need to
progress?
• How far do extrinsic and intrinsic motivations affect the need for students to progress?
• Would a restructuring of higher level provision alter the number of students who are
retained and improve achievement and success?

It will look at linguistic theories underpinning current teaching methodologies, in particular referring
to second language acquisition (SLA), and why these may lead to an explanation of why the
transition from E3 to L1 is difficult.
It will place this issue within a more specific UK context, looking at current ESOL and Skills for Life
policies, referring in particular to Cooke and Simpson (2008) and The Learner Study (2008), which
has conducted research into this field in the context of adult literacy, numeracy and ESOL.
This research will then refer to qualitative and quantitative data in the form of data held in success
rates for students and from student questionnaires, and seek to infer information from them in
reference to the statements and questions above. Finally, this shall conclude with our findings,
suggestions for these findings and recommendations. In the appendix, I will put forward questions
raised by this research that may deserve further study.

3
Literature Review
Theories of Language learning and acquisition
Most current approaches to the teaching of EFL or ESOL have their basis in the Communicative
Approach, or CLT, which in turn is considerably influenced by, Krashen and Terrell's Natural
Approach (1983) and Krashen's previous theories on language acquisition (1981, quoted in
Richards and Rodgers (2001)) The emphasis in the Communicative Approach is to facilitate
language to emerge from an adult learner in as natural a way as possible , just as someone would
acquire his or her mother tongue(s) (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). ESOL and EFL classes tend to
do this to a greater or lesser degree, but it is noticeable how ESOL typically involves a more
situational approach as well. In the ESOL classroom, language emerges from given situations, e.g.
the need to describe what facilities are near one's home gives rise to the target language taught.
EFL classes quite often have a far more analytical component to them, with a greater degree of
linguistic analysis of the target language.
What is interesting about the Natural Approach is that it was initially only intended to be useful up
to intermediate level (Krashen and Terrell, 1983), or approximately the level tested by Entry Three
exams. After this level, what happens with the language learner is seemingly a topic on which there
is little available research. Ellis (1997) suggests that fossilization of learners' L2 occurs, or that a
certain degree of acculturation (Schumann, quoted in Ellis, 1997), whereby social distance limits a
student's capacity to progress with learning, takes place. There almost seems to be an assumption
that language students cease to acquire language after intermediate level, and instead learn
language – implying notions of metalanguage, learning skills in the learner, and the ability for
reflective analytical thought. It implies that language becomes a subject of study, rather than the
medium through which things are learned. Not only this, but the Skills for Life Programme as
originally envisaged by Moser (1999) arguably assumes a harmonised ability to do these things
regardless of one's social, national or cultural background.
ESOL and the Skills for Life programme
The Skills for Life programme was established in response to Sir Claus Moser's A Fresh Start
(1999), which investigated the need to increase Literacy and Numeracy provision throughout
England. According to Cooke and Simpson (2008), while ESOL was not initially considered
within the proposed framework, subsequent lobbying ensured that it came to be included in the
Skills for Life framework. A new set of qualifications was launched. The levels were Entry levels
one, two, and three, and Levels One and Two. In the EFL/ESOL context, these levels broadly
concord with, but are not exactly parallel to, the Council of Europe's (CoE) language level
descriptors. Because of the positioning of the ESOL curriculum within the wider Skills for Life
curriculum, it may be argued that the exams have been fitted to a political concern rather than
the genuine needs of the learners (Cooke & Simpson, 2008).
One issue in particular is the use of the Adult Literacy examination at levels one and two for
ESOL students. These are the generic literacy exams given to all students studying literacy,
and there is debate about their relevance to the ESOL learner (Cooke & Simpson, 2008). It
may be an issue that raises interesting results and conclusions from a study of how successful
students are.

The Learner Study key findings

The Learner Study (2008) was conducted by The National Research and Development Council
(NRDC), which in turn was established in response to Moser (1999). The study, comprising three
projects, was conducted to investigate Participation and Achievement, Learners' progress, and to
explore the impact of Skills for Life. It looked at data for the academic years 2000/01 – 2004/05, as
well as gathering data from smaller sample groups in the academic years 2004/05 – 2005/06.
While the Learner Study was interested in the overall Skills for Life strategy, covering Literacy,
Numeracy and ESOL, it is what it has to say about the latter that concerns this research, and in
particular what it says regarding achievement at Entry levels and Level One.
During the period investigated by the research, the overall Skills for Life figures for enrollment more
than doubled. Of these, 26% were enrollments into ESOL. Achievements overall saw a near-
threefold increase with achievement in ESOL reflecting the overall trend.

4
In terms of what level of qualification learners achieve, the study discovered that Entry Level and
Level One were the main components of participation and achievement. Level 2 achievement
declined through the period of the study, from 13% in 2000/01 to just 4% in 2004/05. Level One
was the main level of achievement recorded until 2002/03, when there was an enormous increase
in the number of students at Entry Level, leading to this having the highest number of
achievements. Overall, by 2004/05 Entry level achievements accounted for 49% on the total, with
Level one accounting for 48%.
The smaller study for the 2004/05 – 2005/06 period looked at students who moved on
(progressed), moved around (stayed at the same level) or moved out (stopped participating in
learning), and while it was a relatively small sample, it has some relevance to this research. Of
those ESOL students interviewed, 63% moved on, 20% moved around, and 16% moved out.

In the light of these research findings, the original focus of this research shifted to analysing
whether the figures on ESOL exam success reflect the nationwide trends reported by The Learner
Survey. In particular, I wanted to discover whether the figures for moving on – from one academic
year to another – reflected that of the larger survey.

Methodology
The research involved two main strands. The first involved the analysis of Achievement data held
by the EFL, ESOL and MFL department at TVU, detailing the achievement in the Cambridge Skills
for Life exams from their introduction in 2004 until the end of the academic year 2008, the last year
for which complete records of achievement in the three separate Skills for Life examinations
(Speaking and Listening, Reading, and Writing) are held1. The data were analyzed in three
separate ways. Firstly, I examined the total number of entrants for the E3 and L1 examinations
over the period to ascertain what differences might exist in terms of number of students taking the
exam, pass and fail rates. I then looked at the number of students entered for the exams who
achieved over the course of two or more years. Rather than look at overall enrollment retention,
achievement and success data held by the university, I decided to focus only on those entered for
exams, as to conduct a full investigation would require a significantly larger research task. While I
will in brief mention the total number of students who were entered for the SfL examinations, the
main aim of this research is to focus on those who progress from one academic year to another.
The students were broken down into three distinct cohorts – those students who progressed
through the entry levels (entry one to entry two or three) from one academic year to another
(Cohort A), those students who began at Level One and progressed to study at Level Two
(Cohort B), and those who progressed from studying at Entry level to Level One or Two (Cohort
C). The reason behind this was to establish whether those who progress from Entry to Level
actually tend to fail more than the other two cohorts.
After this, the data were broken into year progression strands, looking at progression of students
from entry three to levels one and two over the academic year periods 2004-2007, 2005 - 2008,
and 2006 – 2008. The aim of this was to analyze yearly progression over the time period it would
be expected (by guidelines for the teaching of ESOL Skills for Life) for students to progress by at
least two levels of study, and to see how many people chose to move on.
In order to ascertain current students' achievements and attitudes towards their course, an
exploratory questionnaire was conducted among learners studying at E3 and L1 levels, both full
time and part time. The questions asked looked at age ranges, nationality, gender, and number of
years spent studying English, prior achievement and certificates held, prior failure to achieve an
examination in English, intentions for future study, and attitudes towards current study.

1 It should be noted that a significant number of students did progress on to this academic year, but at the time of
writing there was insufficient data to make any conclusions.

5
Findings
Initial investigation of the Achievement spreadsheet sought to ascertain the rates of success for
those entered for Entry 3 examinations against those entered for Level One exams.

pass, absence and fail rates for E3 and L1 exams by percentage, 2004-2008
100%
90%
80%
70% below
absent
60% pass
percentag e

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
E3 S&L E3 Reading E3 Writing L1 S&L L1 reading L1 Writing
exams

rates for E3 and L1 exams - all entries

E3 S&L E3 ReadingE3 Writing L1 S&L L1 reading L1 Writing
pass 270 238 288 203 189 156
absent 36 27 33 21 23 25
below 15 38 13 30 61 45
total 321 303 334 254 273 226
pass 84.10% 78.54% 86.20% 79.92% 69.20% 69.02%
absent 11.21% 8.91% 9.88% 8.26% 8.40% 11.06%
below 4.67% 12.54% 3.98% 11.80% 22.30% 19.90%

avg E3 82.94% avg L1 72.71%

These figures reveal that L1 rates of success are significantly lower than pass rates for those doing
Entry 3 exams, as well as recording a fewer number of candidates for each exam. On average,
nearly 83% of students entered for a Skills for Life Exam at Entry 3 pass. In contrast, just under
73% of students entered for SfL at Level 1 pass. It should be pointed out that these figures also
include those students who failed an exam then subsequently passed at a second opportunity.

Analysis of the cohorts

progression of students
In cohort A, there are 132 entries for the
entire 2004-2008 period. For cohort B,
there are 23 people for the same period.
For cohort C, there are 112 people. In
112, 9%
students who do not progress short there are 267 people in the entire
23, 2%
132, 11% cohort A (students who
2004-2008 period who are retained for one
progress in entry level) or more years. By contrast, there are 925
cohort B (students who
progress from L1 to L2)
records of students who are entered for
925, 78% cohort C (students who exams in one academic year only over this
progress from E3 to L1+)
entire period, and who then 'move out' or
'move around'.
On average, unsurprisingly, those who
progress from level one to level two stay
an average of two years. Perhaps more surprisingly, the same average length applies to those in
cohort A. Interestingly, students who move from entry level to level one or above stay on average
2.5 years or more, but they have a greater tendency to repeat exams at the same level.

6
 final achie ve m e nt for cohort A

Cohort achievement
34, 26%
41, 31% Looking at rates of achievement, of those in
complete achievement
cohort C only 24 out of 112 show complete
partial achievement achievement – that is, ending their study
failure to achieve period with a complete qualification in Skills
for Life (in reading, writing and speaking and
57, 43%
listening) - just over 20% of the total. Of
those in cohort B, only 5 show complete
achievement (attaining all L2) over the period
final achie ve m e nt for cohort B
– nearly 22%. For cohort A progression, 41
achieved a complete E2 or E3 – 31% of the
4, 17% 5, 22%
total.

When we look at partial achievement, in

complete achievement
partial achievement
cohort A, 57 (43%)end up with a partial
failure to achieve achievement at a higher level than they
began with, or achieve a level over two or
14, 61% more years. In cohort C, 61 students (54.5%)
achieve partially. In Cohort B, 14 (61%)
achieve partial L2 or achieve L1 over two or
final achie ve m e nt for cohort C
more years.
When we look at progression but no
24, 21%
achievement whatsoever in the second or
27, 24%
third year of study, 34 in cohort A fail to
complete achievement
achieve in their 2nd or 3rd year – nearly 26%.
partial achievement
failure to achieve
In cohort B, only 4 (17%). In cohort C, 27
fail to achieve in their final year – 24% of the
total.
61, 55%

Failure in exams
Looking at what exams students fail, in cohort A, over the entire period, 16 (12%)failed their
speaking and listening exams, and a further 8 (6%) failed and successfully retook; 32 (24%) failed
the reading, and a further 18 (13.5%)failed and successfully passed; and 23 (17.4%) failed the
writing and a further 4 (3%) failed and successfully retook.

In Cohort B, 3 students failed the speaking and listening and 1 failed and retook successfully; 7
(30%) failed the reading exam, and a further 5 (21%)succeeded at the second attempt, while in
writing eight (35%) failed and 1 person failed then succeeded at the second attempt.

It is in cohort C that failures become starker. In the speaking and listening, 19 (17%) failed while
another 9 (8%) failed and succeeded in the resit. In the Reading exam, 49 (44%) students failed
the paper, and a further 23 (20.5%) failed and successfully retook the exam. In the writing, 43
(38%) students failed and only 2 failed and successfully retook.

It is noteworthy that 32 of these failures in the reading exam were at level one and two, and 36 in
the writing exam were at level one and two. Of those who failed, 14 failed the level one reading
exam twice. However, it should also be pointed out that the writing exam, because it comes at the
end of the academic year, does not have a resit session until October of the following academic
year – in other words, they had also failed the exam in the previous academic year, or were absent
at the time.

7
Looking at the number of failures in total in the Reading level one or two exam at the first time of
asking, regardless of subsequent success, 72 people (64%) in cohort C failed, while 45 (40%)
failed the writing.
It should also be noted that those in cohort B, 50% failed the reading exam in total at the first
sitting.

Analysis of year-by-year year-on-year progression from E3 to L2, 2004/05 - 2006/07

progression
70

Looking at the year breakdowns, in the 60

period of academic years 2004/05 – 50

2006/07, we notice that of the 58 people 40

students progress ing from L1
onward
who achieved at E3 in 2005, only 11 30 students progress ing from E3
(19%) of those went on to participate in 20
onward

L1 exams in the following year, and 1 10

returned in 2006/07. None of these
0
students stayed for another year. Of the Entry 3, 2004/05 Level one, Level two, 2006/07
59 people who were entered for L1 2005/06

exams in 2005/06, only 7 (12%)

returned to study at L2. year-on-year progression from E3 to L2, 2005/06 - 2007/08

100
In the period 2005/06 – 2007/08, of the 90

81 students who fully or partially 80

70
achieved at E3, 32 (39.5%) went on to 60 students progressing from L1
the next academic year. However, only 50
onw ard
students progressing from E3
three continued to 2007/08. Three other 40 onw ard

students who achieved L1 in 2006/07 30

20
also progressed, out of a total of 90 10

entered for level one exams in that year. 0

Entry 3, 2005/06 Level One, 2006/07 Level Tw o, 2007/08

In the period 2006/07 – 2007/08, of the

85 students who fully or partially achieved E3, only 22 continued to the following academic year.

Questionnaire results
An exploratory questionnaire was conducted over a week, and involved a total of 46 students. 31
of these were in Entry 3 classes (10 full time students, 9 part time day students, and 12 part time
evening students), and 15 were Level one (10 part time evening, 5 full time day). There were 10
male E3 students and 21 female, and 2 male L1 students and 13 female. In E3, the age range
reflected what might be expected with the time and nature of the course, with the full-time and part
time day courses consisting of a larger number of younger students, and the evening group having
an older profile. The L1 groups, because of the smaller sample size, do not reflect this as starkly.
In terms of nationality, almost half of the E3 sample and one third of the L1 sample were Polish,
with the remainder of varying nationalities (the next largest group was 3 Afghan students in the E3
Full Time class).
When asked how long they had been studying English, nearly half the E3 sample stated between
0-3 years, and 12 stated between 3-5 years. Only two students stated that they had been learning
the language for any longer. In the L1 sample, one third stated that they had been studying for 6
years or more, while 6 had studied for 0-3 years and 4 for 3-5 years.
When asked what skills for life qualifications they already held, in the E3 group only 9 students had
Entry 1 qualifications, and 19 had Entry 2. In the L1 group, only 3 students held E2 qualifications
and these were all in the part time group. However 8 of the part time group had E3 qualifications: 3
from the full time class had E3 speaking and listening, while only two had Reading and Writing
qualifications.
The students were asked whether they had failed any exams previously. From the Entry Three

8
group, only 4 stated that they had. The same number from the Level One group stated they had
failed exams as well.
The interviewees were then asked if they intended to continue studying English. Both groups were
almost entirely unanimous – all but two students wished to do so. The two who would not were
both planning on leaving the UK for their home countries.
In order to ascertain attitudes toward their studies, they were asked whether they felt that studying
English had become easier or more difficult. Twenty one of the E3 students felt it had become
easier, and seven felt it had become harder; the L1 group were inconclusive, with 5 stating that it
was easier, 4 harder and the remainder undecided.
The attitudes towards the classes were overwhelmingly positive. Asked to answer 'strongly agree',
'agree', 'disagree' or 'strongly disagree' to 7 statements, almost everyone expressed a positive
view. Crucially, everyone stated that they could see an improvement in their levels of English.

Conclusions and recommendations

Initial investigation of the results of achievement at Entry 3 and Level one indicate that there are
fewer students who are entered for exams at level one, and that those who sit a Level One exam
have a lower prognostication for achievement than those who sit an Entry Three exam. What this
does not show is how many of these students have progressed from a lower level of study within
TVU. In particular, the number of students who fail the Adult Literacy Exam at Level One in
comparison with those who fail the Entry Three exam should be noted.

The findings for TVU Reading do not seem to follow the results of the Learner Study (2008),
although it should be noted that the part of that research involved a relatively small sample size.
We should consider the remarkably low number of students who move on. Only 21.7% of students
are entered for exams in a second or subsequent academic year over the period of this study. We
can, in part, attribute this figure to the fact that the Full Time EFL students at TVU Reading also
take the Skills for Life Examinations, and that these students generally tend to stay for one
academic year.
Where students do stay on, they only remain, on average, for two academic years.
The achievement record of Cohort C (those who move on from studying at Entry Level to Level
One and above) should especially be noted. Only a quarter finish their studies with a complete
achievement of Level One or greater after two or more years of study, and a further quarter make
no progress whatsoever in their final year. It can be said that there is evidence that students find
the transition from studying at Entry level to studying at Level One and above difficult. It is
interesting to note that, while the percentage figures for complete achievement in cohorts B and C
are almost identical, the percentage of students who fail to achieve at all in their final year of study
is significantly higher in cohort C.

The truly outstanding figure, however, has to be that of the number of students who fail the reading
exam at Level One and Level Two. The fact that almost two thirds of cohort C and half of cohort B
(those who moved on from L1 to L2) failed this exam the first time they took it is astonishing.
Why is the result the way it is? It surely cannot be coincidence that the Reading exam at this level
is the Adult Literacy Qualification, a standard paper given to all students, British or otherwise, at
level One and Two. It would be interesting to investigate how many native English speakers fail this
paper, and how it compares with the outcome of this research.

When we compare the number of students who stay on for a second or subsequent year of
studying English with the attitudes expressed in the questionnaire, it is surprising to note the
disparity between those expressing a clear preference to stay on and study English with the fact
that very few actually do. The difference between intention and reality is such that one must ask
why it happens. From the answers given about their attitudes towards the course, it suggests that
negative motivation is not a significant factor. Perhaps it is the case that students want to do
something different. If this is so, how can they be attracted back at a later date?

9
What is significant is that, over the entire 2004/05 – 2007/08 period, the time within which one
might expect students to progress from Entry One to Level One, not a single student achieves this.

So, is there a failure of the language learning continuum between Entry 3 and Level 1? It is
tempting to say so, considering the fact that so many in Cohort C fail, but without further
investigation it is hard to establish this entirely. We can say with some confidence, however, that
the prognostication of exam outcome for students who move from E3 to L1 is worse than those
who enter courses at TVU at L1 level.

I suspect several things are occurring. Firstly, the exam results we see indicate that students
moving up from Entry three are not, for whatever reason, entirely prepared for success at higher
levels. The evidence from the year-by-year progression analysis suggests this strongly, as
evidenced by the fact that very few who complete E3 continue to L2.
Secondly, some students may not need, or want, to advance their language studies, and therefore
they do not remain, or they have achieved what they feel they need in terms of fluency and
communicativeness. Since an Intermediate level of English is widely regarded as allowing people
to communicate effectively if not fluently, it is entirely possible that language learners feel they
have enough English for their needs, and so choose not to stay on for another year of study.
We should also not discount the fact that students may also be moving around (studying another
subject at the same level), moving out (going on to work or something else having achieved what
they felt they needed) or even moving on in a different institution.

My recommendations include the following:

• Consider extending the period of time over which Entry Three students transfer to Level
One. As these students on average stay longer, it may be worth allowing them more time
prior to taking exams.
• Conduct an investigation into achievement figures for the Adult Literacy Examination across
the university to ascertain what percentages of native English Speakers currently pass and
fail and whether they reflect the trend in ESOL.
• Investigate the possibility of students who have achieved Entry 3 doing non-SfL exams –
for example, the Cambridge First Certificate in English (FCE), or other qualifications.
• Conduct investigation of figures from other FE ESOL institutions to see whether their
figures reflect the ones we hold.
• Investigate motivations and intentions of those students who do not stay on, and investigate
means for retaining them.

10
Bibliography
Cooke, M & Simpson, J (2008) ESOL: A Critical Guide. Oxford: OUP
Ellis, R (1997) Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP (Oxford Handbooks for Teachers
Series)
Krashen, S and Terrell, T (1983) The Natural Approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. Oxford:Pergamon
NRDC (2008) The Learner Study (summary report). London: IOE
Richards, J and Rodgers, T (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, 2nd
Edition. Cambridge: CUP
Robson, C (2002) Real World Research, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

11
Appendix
It is perhaps unfortunate that this study has not been as wide-ranging as it was originally intended
to be, and that the scope has been necessarily limited to looking at what outcomes have been
actually recorded and looking at current students' results and attitudes. It would have been
extremely useful to have interviewed former students as well, both those who had moved out of
learning and those who had moved around, onto other academic courses

The achievement spreadsheet

sample questionnaire and results

12
Questionnaire – E3 and L1

Please complete the questionnaire as much as possible. All the information you give
will be confidential and completely anonymous. Once the data have been analyzed, all
copies of the questionnaire will be destroyed.

• Age
16-19 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41

• Gender
M □ F □

• Nationality

• Student status Full time □ Part Time Day □ Part Time Evening □

• How long have you been learning English?

0 – 3 years 3 – 5 years 6 – 8 years 9 – 11 years 12+ years

• What qualifications do you have in English?

Speaking and listening Reading Writing
SfL Entry 1
Sfl Entry 2
SfL Entry 3
Sfl Level 1
SfL Level 2
Other (please state)

• Have you failed any English exams before?

Yes □ No □
If 'yes', please state which ones:

• Are you planning to continue studying English next year?

Yes □ No □
If 'yes', please go to question 11
• If you are not going to study English, are you planning to study another

13
 subject?
Yes □ No □
If 'yes', what subject are you going to study?

• If you are not planning to study, what are you going to do?

• If you are going to study English, please state which group you will join, or
prefer to join

• Has studying English become easier or more difficult?

• What do you think are the biggest differences between your current study
level and your previous study level?

• Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Strongly agree agree disagree Strongly
disagree
The Skills for Life exams are
useful for me.
My course has been useful and
appropriate for what I need to
do in life.
I understand why I have to do
the skills for life qualifications.
The level of my course has been
too easy.
The level of my course has been
too difficult.
The subjects I have studied
have been interesting and useful.
I can see an improvement in my
knowledge of English.

Thank you for completing this questionnaire!

paul.gallantry@tvu.ac.uk

14
 DTLLS Questionnaire results

level:
level one overall
1.age
16-19 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 or older total
1 3 4 1 1 10
ft students (in gray) 2 2 1 5
2. gender
m f total
2 8 10
5 5
3.nationality

4. student status
FT PT day PT eve total
10 10
5 5
5. how long learn English
0-3 yrs 3-5 yrs 6-8 yrs 9-11 yrs 12 + yrs total
3 3 4 10
3 1 1 5
6. what quals?
S&L Reading Writing total
E1 2 2 2 6

E2 3 3 3 9

E3 8 8 8 24
3 2 2
L1 6 6
1 3 1
L2 0
1
total 17 24 16
7. fail exam before?
yes no total
3 6 9
1 4 5
which exam?

s&l (l1?), reading

8. planning to continue English?
yes no total
10 10
4 1 5
9. planning to study other subject?
yes no total
0
1 1
what subject?
makeup artist (1 ft)
10. not planning to study, what do?

11. If study English, which group will join?

12 has studying become easier or more difficult?

easier more diffficult total
3 3 6
2 1 3
13 what are main differences between levels?

agree or disagree?
strong agree agree disagree str. Disagree totals
SfL useful 7 3 10
5 5
course useful and appropriate 3 7 10
1 4 5
Understand why have to do SfL 4 6 10
3 2 5
level of course too easy 3 6 9
5 5
level of course too difficult 1 8 1 10
1 4 5
subjects interesting and useful 3 6 1 10
5 5
can see improvement in English level 2 8 10
1 4 5
totals 24 55 23 2

15
DTLLS Questionnaire results

level:
entry three overall
1.age
16-19 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 or older total
1 3 3 2 9 E3 pt day
1 5 2 1 3 12 E3 pt eve
5 1 4 10 e3 ft
2. gender
m f total
3 6 9 pt day
4 8 12 pt eve
3 7 10 ft
3.nationality
total

4. student status
FT PT day PT eve total
10 9 12 31
5. how long learn English
0-3 yrs 3-5 yrs 6-8 yrs 9-11 yrs 12 + yrs total
4 2 1 1 8
4 7 11
7 3 10
6. what quals?e3 pt day e3 pt eve e3 ft
S&L Reading Writing total S&L Reading Writing total S&L
E1 1 1 1 3 E1 5 5 5 15 E1 3
E2 4 4 4 12 E2 9 9 9 27 E2 6
E3 6 7 13 E3 1 8 9 E3 9
L1 0 L1 0 L1
L2 0 L2 0 L2
total 11 12 5 total 15 22 14 total 18
7. fail exam before?
yes no total
3 6 9 e3 pt day
12 12 e3 pt eve
1 9 10 e3 ft
which exam?

8. planning to continue English?

yes no total
8 1 9
12
10
9. planning to study other subject?
yes no total
0
what subject?

10. not planning to study, what do?

11. If study English, which group will join?

12 has studying become easier or more difficult?

easier more diffficult total
8 1 9
4 7 11
9 9
13 what are main differences between levels?

agree or disagree? e3 pt day agree or disagree? e3 pt eve

strong agree agree disagree str. Disagree totals strong agree agree disagree str. Disagree totals
SfL useful 2 7 9 SfL useful 1 11 12
course useful and appropriate 3 6 9 course useful and appropriate 2 10 12
Understand why have to do SfL 1 7 1 9 Understand why have to do SfL 5 6 11
level of course too easy 2 2 5 9 level of course too easy 1 3 7 11
level of course too difficult 1 5 2 8 level of course too difficult 1 7 3 11
subjects interesting and useful3 4 2 9 subjects interesting and useful2 9 1 12
can see improvement in English 1 level 8 9 can see improvement in English 5 level 7 12
totals 12 35 13 2 totals 16 47 15 3

agree or disagree? e3 ft
strong agree agree disagree str. Disagree totals
SfL useful 5 5 10
course useful and appropriate 6 4 10
Understand why have to do SfL 7 2 9
level of course too easy 2 5 3 10
level of course too difficult 7 3 10
subjects interesting and useful2 8 10
can see improvement in English 4 level 5 9
totals 26 29 10 3

16
original research aims
The original aims of this research were far more wide ranging than they ended up being, yet they
are questions and points that are still worthwhile researching. It is my hope that this exploratory
research will lay the foundation for a far more comprehensive research in the future, aimed at
addressing the issues raised, and the underlying issues about progression in particular. I include
here the original research proposal to give an idea of what was in my mind initially when I began
this project.

Topic for investigation

The Entry Three/Level one interface in an FE context: why does achievement and success decline when
students move from Intermediate(E3) groups to Upper Intermediate (L1) groups, and how can this be
improved?

The aim of this research project is to investigate the possible reasons behind the apparent and recorded
decline in achievement and success when ESOL students progress from ESOL entry three classes to ESOL
level one at Thames Valley University, Reading. It will also investigate possible reasons as to why fewer
students tend to progress to level one and beyond, referring to current theories concerning language learning
and acquisition. The investigation, while focusing on a specific circumstance, will be set within the broader
context of language learning. It will deploy a suite of methods to collect data, and from this seek to
understand the current situation, why it occurs, and what actions may be taken to improve the student
experience, and achievement and success figures of the ESOL cohort.
The investigation will begin from the current situation as it is understood:
• The student cohort of over 300 full- and part time students in ESOL largely comprises learners at the
entry levels (E1, E2, and E3), with less than 25% of the total cohort being students at L1 or L2.
• records for exam passes at entry 3 indicate a very high success rate. By contrast, success rates at
level one show a markedly lower rate.
• Few of the entry three students actually choose to progress to study at level one
• Students who move on from entry 3 to level one have a lower prognostication for success at the
higher level of study, whereas those who directly enter level one from placement tests have a greater
chance of success.
• Students who achieve entry 3 in Reading, Writing and Speaking and Listening Skills for Life (SfL)
examinations may progress to other courses e.g. HND programmes in TVU Reading, even though
they may not be prepared linguistically or academically to cope with the demands of a course
delivered in the medium of English, meaning that achievement and success is affected in areas
outside ESOL.
The research will first ascertain the truth or otherwise of these statements. In addition, it will seek to answer
these questions:
• Is level one study of English seen as inherently more 'difficult' than at entry level?
• Does the style of learning required at level one place students from certain educational and cultural
backgrounds at a disadvantage?
• Do the subject matter and themes explored at level one differ significantly from entry levels, and do
these themes militate against the interests of the 'average' learner?
• Does acquisition slow or stop entirely at Entry 3, to be followed by a period of formal learning of
certain language features at level one?
• Do the majority of students need to progress beyond Entry 3, or do they feel they need to progress?
• How far do extrinsic and intrinsic motivations affect the need for students to progress, and are these
motivations reflected in the students' Individual Learning Plans (ILPs)?
• Would a restructuring of higher level provision alter the number of students who are retained and
improve achievement and success?

Methodology

17
Primary research shall consist of several strands. In the first instance, there will be an investigation of data
held by the university on examinations, achievement and progress from Entry three to level one, both current
and historical2, alongside an analysis of historical and present data on cohort size in entry level classes and
level one and two.
It is intended that there shall be a questionnaire and interviews of both students and staff. These shall
investigate attitudes and opinions of learners and teachers, and throw insight into the motivating factors
behind student decisions as to if and which course of study they choose to follow, and whether the students'
individual backgrounds have a bearing on perceived and real success. Subsequently, a selection of students'
ILPs will be researched to ascertain whether their ILP targets match students' aims.
Further research will be conducted in a more informal context to gauge teachers' attitudes towards the issue
of the transition from E3 level to level one, in order to place the situation being investigated in the wider
context of English language teaching and learning.
Secondary research will look at the contextual issues of language teaching and learning, in
particular focusing on second language acquisition and learning theories, and the changing role of
ESOL in the Further Education context, and also include a brief explanation of its setting in
education following the publication of the Leitch Review. Further secondary research will
investigate any previous work that has looked into this same subject or similar.

Further questions raised

Do results reflect the time when classes take place?

Do evening students do less well, and is this a reflection on hours of study or age range?
Do motivations alter according to age and gender?
How do results in SfL compare between ESOL and Literacy and Numeracy within TVU and other
local colleges?
How do these results reflect what is known about language learning and acquisition?
'language fit for exams, or exams fit for language'. Which idea is prevalent?
Are the Skills for Life examinations fit for purpose for ESOL students?

2 'historical' in this context refers to the introduction of the Skills for Life examinations in the 2004-2005 academic
year and thereon.

18