<em>Considering the increasing popularity of the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), the present article provides a succinct description and critique of the test. As with any high-stakes assessment, educational institutions need to carefully examine all aspects of a given assessment tool before applying it in practice. Green’s (2014) framework for the evaluation of second language assessment tools was applied to the analysis of the IELTS test. The present review demonstrated that there are many ways in which the IELTS test can be improved (e.g., increasing the authenticity of the listening modules and reducing the role of construct irrelevant skills). While it is far from flawless and not the only option, IELTS continues to be one of the most popular international tests of English language proficiency. Clearly, the test is an important gate-keeping measure and an incentive for millions of non-native speakers to improve their English language skills. As we know, the beneficial consequences of a given assessment system are on the top of the hierarchy of effective assessment characteristics (Green, 2014), and IELTS seems to achieve its purpose. However, it is hoped that the present critical review is a valuable contribution to the ongoing validation and improvement of the test. At the very least, it is hoped that it would help assessment stakeholders to better understand the structure of the test and to reflect on its usefulness in a more informed and objective way.</em>

Previous research has investigated the effectiveness of implicit and explicit instructional methods on second language (L2) learners’ grammatical accuracy. However, there is a scarcity of studies focused on the effects of the two teaching methods on L2 learners’ pronunciation. To fill this gap, the present study examined the effects of implicit and explicit instruction on the pronunciation of beginning learners of German. Over the course of one semester, one group of learners (n=5) was taught pronunciation explicitly (i.e., using phonetic rules), another group (n=5) implicitly (i.e., without phonetic rules), and a third group (n=5) received no pronunciation instruction. A pretest‐posttest design was used to measure learners’ improve ment in accent and comprehensibility. A slight improvement in both variables was observed under all conditions, but no significant difference in progress was found across the three groups. The findings suggest that some learner variables (e.g., age) might be better predictors of improvement than the type of instruction. Moreover, not all pronunciation features were equally relevant for L2 learners’ comprehensibility and accent. The results have implications for L2 pronunciation teaching.

No abstract

No abstract

The International English Language Testing System (IELTS) has gained popularity in recent years and it is now accepted by many educational institutions worldwide. While IELTS offers a distinct academic version of the reading and writing test components, it uses the same listening module for the General Training and the Academic exam. The present article explores to what extent the listening subtest in the Academic IELTS test is a useful measure of test-takers listening ability and a predictor of their academic success. This study focusses on the test’s construct validity. A critical review of the major strengths and potential drawbacks of the listening test is followed by a comparison of the test scores with another traditionally accepted test of academic English. Conclusions about the validity of the IELTS listening test are drawn along with some suggestions for design improvement. Future research directions are also proposed.