No.

7 ISSN: 1725 2278 876X 2018

Mismatch between Outcomes and Assessment in Engineering College

English Curriculum

PARVATHAVARTHINI, S

Abstract
English language acquisition has become an enigma to many learners after twelve years of studying it. Securing a good
grade in English does not guarantee good speaking skills in English. The futility of learning English in today’s context is
attributed to various reasons. The curriculum, syllabi, objectives, outcomes are interlinked through the OBE. Outcome
based education has necessitated a clear analysis of various components that help with the learning process. The result is
more accountability on the part of academics and clarity on the part of learners. A direct link is created between the
objectives or outcomes and the question paper followed by grades. The paper aims at an analysis on the outcomes stated
in the syllabus and the assessment pattern. A theoretical analysis is done on the English courses prescribed for the
engineering curriculum. It is done to ascertain the reason behind good grades and poor performance with respect to
English language.
Keywords: communicative language teaching, outcome-based education, assessment pattern, engineering college
English syllabus and curriculum

Background of the Study
Mastering English is the key to placement for an
engineering student. This requirement has necessitated
the learning and teaching of English in engineering
curriculum. English is taught to students to equip them to
express their knowledge and research in English to the
world community. In spite of the best efforts of curriculum
designers and teachers, the expectations of students,
employers and teachers with regard to English language
learning are not fulfilled. There are more and more
learners who are not able to express their thoughts in
English. The success of the teaching and learning process
lies largely on various issues such as teachers, learning
environment, curriculum, syllabi, teaching methodologies,
students and assessment pattern. This has instigated
research in the field of ELT and ELL to achieve the desired
goal. The present paper is an attempt at analyzing the
outcomes and assessment pattern followed in the
engineering curriculum with respect to the English syllabi.
Outcome based education has brought our education
system under scrutiny. It has brought about responsibilities
and accountability on the part of teachers and more
importantly curriculum designers. Curriculum designers
have to prepare syllabi that is by itself self explanatory. It
has to specify the aspects that the learner would have
learned at the end of learning the course. The curriculum is
so designed that the objectives and outcomes are
interconnected. Likewise, all the desired outcomes are
tested in the evaluation of the course. The evaluation
pattern and outcomes are stated in the syllabi and
curriculum which helps other stakeholders to make sense
of the grades obtained and the ability of the students in
that particular course. The curriculum designers and
teachers are made accountable for the learner’s inability to
achieve the outcomes.
Educational standards are the same worldwide with
the advent of outcome based education. Especially, for the
countries that have signed the Washington Accord, there
are similar norms to fall back on. India has become a part
of this global group from 2014. The colleges that seek
approval from UGC and NBA have to fulfill those
standards. The syllabi of various institutions and university
are designed with outcomes along with objectives. Further,
the syllabi and assessment are interlinked and made more
reliable. The course file requires an analysis of the results
with that of the outcomes stated in the syllabi. The
question papers and other assessment tools are analyzed
and linked to the particular outcome that they aim at
evaluating. The components in the syllabi and the
outcomes that are not assessed are revealed during this
analysis. Thus, the reliability of the assessment is revealed
to all the stakeholders. Further, it also helps to monitor the
evaluation pattern and helps the teachers to revise and
remodel the assessment tools.

American College Journal of English Language and Literature (ACJELL) 109 | P a g e


Importance of Assessment
Assessment of English as a second language has
posed many problems to the academicians. As rightly
pointed out by Hatipoglu who quotes O”Loughlin
(2006:71), second language assessment is a “notoriously
difficult domain of knowledge for students in second
language teacher education programs because of the high
level of abstraction around its key theoretical concepts,
validity, reliability, and practicality, and how they need to
be balanced against each other in designing and using
assessment instruments” (2010:40). The same is also
applicable to the assessment process of English in ESL
context. The practical difficulties in assessing the speaking
and listening skills have made it highly impossible to
assess these two skills in both the formative and
summative analyses.
The real purpose of assessment, as rightly pointed
out by Russell Stannard et.al. (2013) should be to help the
teachers and other stakeholders evaluate and understand
if the learning outcomes are being achieved (150). There
are several other purposes for assessment. O’Malley and
Valdez Pierce (1996, p. 3, as cited in Rea-Dickins, 2001)
identify six purposes for assessment: 1. Screening and
identification, 2. Placement, 3. Reclassification or exit, 4.
Monitoring students’ progress, 5. Program evaluation and
6. Accountability. The recent OBE has laid more stress on
the two aspects that are mentioned especially monitoring
students’ progress and accountability. With respect to
English language learning assessment throws more
challenges. As rightly pointed by Brown (2004) and Ecke
et al. (2005), language teaching has undergone a
tremendous change and an effective communicative
approach is adopted. But when it comes to assessment it
is the traditional pen and paper approach with more
importance given to individual grammar units, form and
writing skills. The paper aims at finding out if all the four
skills if mentioned in the syllabus are assessed in the
examinations.
Hypotheses
The following two hypotheses are constructed for
validation in the study:
1. Assessment of all the four language skills is
unequal.
2. Speaking and listening skills are neglected in the
assessment.
110 | P a g e
Research Department of English
Research Questions
The following questions were framed for interrogation:
 What are the components/outcomes stated in
the English syllabus designed for engineers?
 How are they assessed if they are assessed at
all?
 How has the assessment pattern been devised
to assess all the components/outcomes stated in
the syllabus?
Methodology
It is a qualitative analysis wherein the syllabi
pertaining to English language subject prescribed by few
autonomous colleges and Anna University are referred.
The autonomous colleges taken up for the study include
MEPCO, GCT, CIT, ACGCET and TCE. On analysis the
components/outcomes stated in the syllabus are noted
down and compared. The internal and external
assessment pattern is also analyzed. The lacuna in the
assessment with respect to outcome is analyzed. The
syllabus prescribed by Anna University for the affiliated
colleges and some of the autonomous engineering
colleges are taken up for the present study. Further, the
study concentrates on all the papers offered for
communication by the department of English. The syllabi
prescribed in the recent regulations between 2012 and
2018 are taken into consideration for the present study.
Discussion
English language teaching and learning and
assessment have undergone vast changes during the past
decade in Tamilnadu. Language learning was identified as
a laboratory component in 2005-2006 and a laboratory
course was introduced by Anna University for all the
affiliated colleges. Speaking and listening skills were
assessed in this lab course. Still, the result analysis done
for OBE reveals that there is some lacuna in the
assessment process. Hence, the syllabi and the
corresponding assessment patterns are analyzed to find
the lacuna.
Syllabi for the colleges affiliated to Anna University
have two theory papers in the first year titled
Communicative English and Technical English. There are
two practical papers in the second year titled Interpersonal
Skills /Listening and Speaking and Advanced Reading and
Writing. There is yet another paper in the sixth semester
titled Professional Communication. Out of these, the two
theory papers have summative assessments with pen and
paper tests. The other laboratory courses are assessed as
The American College, Madurai
No.7 ISSN: 1725 2278 876X
lab components with internal and external examiners. The
two theory papers and their assessment are taken up for
the present study.
Autonomous colleges closely follow the Anna
university syllabi and curriculum. They have one or two
theory paper in the first year which is a communicative
syllabus giving importance to all the four skills. In one of
the colleges there is a lab-cum theory paper in the first
semester alone, which is similar to the theory papers. In
few colleges there is a lab paper titled professional
communication or presentation skills. These lab papers
contain speaking and listening skills. In one of the colleges
two lab courses are introduced one each in the second
and third year. The assessment pattern is also similar to
the one followed in Anna University affiliated colleges. It is
a pen and paper test for the theory courses and examiners
for the lab courses.
The present study concentrates on the one/two
theory/lab-cum theory papers for which the assessment
patterns were obtainable. These are communicative syllabi
that give importance to integrated language learning with
LSRW. Hence, all the four skills are given equal
importance in the syllabi. With respect to assessment
pattern, there are three formative assessments and one
summative assessment. Formative assessment is termed
internal and is given 20 percentage or 30 percentage and
50 percentage weight age in the overall assessment. The
rest of the percentage, 80, 70 and 50 respectively are
given to the external or summative assessment.
Internal assessment consists of three unit/series
tests, assignments or projects and attendance.
Assignments and attendance are given 10 percentages
each in the overall internal marks. In the case of series
tests, one test in first semester is attributed to all the four
skills for the affiliated colleges. Even in other colleges,
listening and speaking are assessed as part of
assignments/projects. The rest of the two tests are
allocated for the reading and writing skills. Thus, out of the
20/30/50 percentages that are allocated for the internals
only 20 percentages of the marks are allocated for the
speaking and listening skills.
Summative or external assessment occupies a major
share as far as assessment is concerned. It consists of the
80/70/50 percentage of the overall assessment. Here, only
pen and paper test is followed for the aforesaid theory
papers. Hence, speaking and listening tests do not take
part in these tests. Only writing and reading skills are
assessed. The question paper necessitates short answers
for 20 marks. Hence, grammar components are tested with
American College Journal of English Language and Literature (ACJELL)
2018
gap filling activities. It has ascertained that even here
application of grammar is tested and no importance is
given to the content knowledge. Similarly with regard to the
writing and reading skills the application and creative part
of the skills are tested and content aspect is ignored.
There are variations in laboratory papers. They give
more importance to the speaking and listening
components. There is also the introductory paper on
reading and writing skills in the affiliated colleges’ syllabus
which gives rooms for assessing those skills also.
Likewise, in the autonomous colleges also speaking and
listening skills are given importance in the laboratory
papers. The absence of pen and paper test will facilitate
the assessment of listening and speaking skills by way of
other modes.
Validation of Hypotheses
 Outcomes pertaining to all the four skills are not
assessed by giving equal importance
With regard to the theory/ theory-cum lab papers
in the first year, the assessment process does
not give equal importance to all the components,
writing skill is given more importance. Likewise,
as far as the lab courses are concerned
speaking is given more importance.
 Speaking and listening skills are neglected in the
assessment. As far as the theory/theory-cum lab
paper in the first year is concerned, speaking
and listening skills mentioned in the outcome are
assessed only in the internal evaluation at a
minimal level and not assessed in external
evaluation. With respect to the lab courses,
speaking skills is given more importance.
Scope of Study and Limitations
The study is a theoretical analysis based on the data
available at the entry level. The exit level of students and
implementation of the syllabi and assessment was not
taken due to time constraint. The syllabi and the
assessment patterns were taken up from the college or
university websites and through question papers. The
classroom practice with regard to teaching and learning
methodologies might reveal more on the effectiveness of
the formative assessment. Further, the opinion of the
teachers and learners about the assessment can be
sought to ascertain if the devised plan in the syllabi and
curriculum is executed in the classroom.
111 | P a g e

Recommendations
The skills that are given equal importance in the
syllabus should be given equal importance in the
assessment also. Further, introducing lab components in
professional communication or presentation skills has a
different purpose from that of the communicative syllabus
that gives an integrated approach to language learning.
Hence, there is a difference between them both at the level
of syllabi and testing. So, assessment for communicative
syllabus is completely different from that of the lab
courses. Assessment for communicative syllabus should
include all the four skills. Equal weight can be given to
listening and speaking skills. The assessment can be
made 50 percentages lab and 50 percentages theory for
the summative assessment. The 50 percentage lab part
can be allocated to speaking and listening. Likewise, the
other 50 percentage can be given for reading and writing.
Even here, there is a distinction between reading for
comprehension and reading for practice. The latter has to
be included in the lab component. A unique methodology
for English language testing has to be devised to cater to
all aspects of the language components.
Conclusions
Assessment plays an important role in the teaching
and learning process. The wash back effect helps the
learners and the teachers push their limits to learn newer
limits. At the same time, it can also make the teachers and
learners idle if it does not challenge their capability.
Likewise, contents in the syllabus that are not assessed
will be neglected and forgotten both by the teachers and
students gradually. Activities and aspects that are not
assessed will lose its meaning and will become irrelevant
in the classroom for a student. This will make the entire
curriculum and syllabi meaningless to the students.
Ultimately, with improper assessment the real purpose of
the curriculum and language learning process will be lost.
Hence, appropriate assessment pattern has to be
implemented for the corresponding communicative
syllabus that integrates all the four skills.
112 | P a g e
Research Department of English
References
Alderson, J. C. and D. Wall (1993). Does washback exist?
Applied Linguistics, 14, 2. p 115–129
Álvarez, O. G (2008). Assessment and testing in the EFL
classroom. ELT journal, Jan, np.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment principles and
classroom practices. New York: Pearson Education.
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Anna
University, Chennai. English for engineers and
technologists (vol.1). Hyderabad: Orient
Blackswan,1998.
Eckes, T., Ellis, M., Kalnberzina, V., Pizorn, K., Springer,
C., Szollas, K., et al. (2005). Progress and Problems
in Reforming Public Language Examinations in
Europe: Cameos from the Baltic States, Greece,
Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, France and Germany.
Language testing, 22 (3). pp 355-377.
Hatipoglu, C. (2010). Summative evaluation of an english
language testing and evaluation course for future
english lang.... ELTED. 13. Pp.39-51. Retrieved on
2nd February 2018 from https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/268030991
Jannati, S. (2015). ELT Teachers’ Language Assessment
Literacy: Perceptions and Practices
Educational Research Association. The International
Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 6(2).
pp 26-37.
Md. Fazlur Rahman, Rasel Babu & Md. Ashrafuzzaman.
Assessment and Feedback Practices in the English
Language Classroom. Journal of NELTA, 16 (1-2),
Dec 2011
Rea-Dickins, P. Mirror, mirror on the wall: identifying
processes of classroom assessment. Language
Testing, 18 (4), 2001, 429-462.
Stannard, Russell and Anthony. (2013).‘Skip’ Basiel A
practice-based exploration of technology enhanced
assessment for English. Innovations in learning
technologies for
English language teaching language teaching. Ed. Gary
Motteram. British council. London. p147-173.
The American College, Madurai