







































 Steiger 1 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

Research Paper 

 

Placing Students for Success: A Comparison of IELTS, Local, and Other Placement 

Methods for English for Academic Purposes Courses 

 

Jane D. Steiger 

Thompson Rivers University 

 

Abstract 

 

While previous research on student success has focused on disciplinary academic classes and 

programs with varying results regarding the predictive validity of English proficiency tests, 

namely the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), none have studied student 

success within the non-program-specific context of an English for academic purposes (EAP) 

program in which the cut scores set by the university align with the IELTS guidance. Using data 

collected during the intake of new international students and at the completion of each semester, 

this study primarily sought to determine how students placed via IELTS fared compared to those 

placed via other tests, including the in-house English placement test (EPT), and whether they 

were more likely to fail EAP courses during their first semester. Across six semesters, success 

data for 663 English language learners (ELLs) enrolled in EAP courses during their first 

semester at the university were collected and compared on the basis of the placement test used, 

students’ test scores, and their final course grades. Logistic regression analysis results revealed 

that the EPT performed significantly better in placing students into level-appropriate courses 

than IELTS. The findings indicate the predictive value of the in-house EPT process and suggest 

further research into semester-to-semester variations, emergent placement methods, and the 

probability of seeking services to mitigate academic challenges.  

 

Introduction 

 

Accurately assessing the language ability of prospective students is key to allowing post-

secondary institutions to make wise placement decisions that positively impact student success. 

The popularity of one English language proficiency test, the International English Language 

Testing System (IELTS), is undeniable with many prospective students submitting IELTS scores 

to gain college and university admission. This trend has been bolstered by Immigration, 

Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s decision in June 2018 to implement a “Student Direct 

Stream” to allow for expedited processing of study permits for applicants who meet certain 

requirements, including an IELTS “academic or general training score of 6.0 or higher in each 

skill (reading, writing, speaking and listening)” (Government of Canada, 2021). Thompson 

Rivers University (TRU), a medium-sized public university in British Columbia, has experienced 

this growth firsthand.  

 

 The TRU website states the following requirements for international students who are 

applying for admission: 

 

Applicants are required to meet minimum English language proficiency requirements for 

direct entry into academic programs. Students may meet this condition by either 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 2 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

providing an acceptable English language proficiency test score (Test of English as a 

Foreign Language (TOEFL), IELTS, etc.) or by achieving an acceptable score on the 

TRU English Placement Test (EPT). (TRU, n.d.b) 

 

 Students are also placed into English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses based on 

either their English language proficiency test scores (IELTS, etc.) or their TRU EPT scores 

which include “a set of computer-adaptive, untimed tests” assessing Accuplacer grammar, 

reading skills and sentence meaning, and in-house remarking of their writing samples as well as 

oral interviews (College Board, 2009, para. 4). The number of students placed via IELTS scores 

as opposed to the TRU EPT has steadily increased over the years.   

 

 A concern shared by members of the English Language Learning & Teaching (ELLT) 

Department is that students placed according to their IELTS scores may lack the necessary pre-

requisite skills to succeed in their assigned EAP courses. This unease stems from the observation 

that, in some cases, IELTS scores allow students to take courses that are one, two, or even three 

levels higher than their EPT scores would have allowed. Students who are assessed on both EPT 

and IELTS are placed according to whichever test yields the highest placement. This situation 

raises the question: Do these students have adequate English language preparation to pass the 

course levels into which their IELTS scores place them or are they being set up to fail?   

 

 Concerns over language proficiency tests, namely IELTS, have prompted extensive 

investigation with numerous articles on the predictive efficacy of IELTS in the context of 

disciplinary academic courses and programs at post-secondary institutions in Australia (e.g., 

Cotton & Conrow, 1998; Dooey & Oliver, 2002; Feast, 2002; Woodrow, 2006), the United 

Kingdom (UK) (e.g., Dang & Dang, 2021; Hu & Trenkic, 2019; Thorpe et al., 2017; Yen & 

Kuzma, 2009), and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (e.g., Schoepp & Garinger, 2016; Schoepp, 

2018), as well as cross-locational or broad literature reviews (e.g., MacDonald, 2019; Murray, 

2015, 2018; Pilcher & Richards, 2017; Stigger, 2019).  

 

 This literature raises questions about the appropriateness of the cut-scores set by 

universities for admission into programs (e.g., Feast, 2002; Hu & Trenkic, 2019; MacDonald, 

2019; Murray, 2015, 2018; Schoepp, 2018; Thorpe et al., 2017; Woodrow, 2006), concerns about 

test fraud (e.g., Hu & Trenkic, 2019; MacDonald, 2019; Murray, 2015, 2018), and concerns 

about score inflation due to curriculum-narrowing practices or repeated test taking (Hu & 

Trenkic, 2019). The vast amount of research on the IELTS test indicates that concerns regarding 

its use are widespread and varied.   

 

 The present research project contributes to the literature by studying student success 

within the non-program-specific context of an EAP program in which the cut-scores align with 

the guidance provided by IELTS (IELTS, 2019a), allowing for more focused examination. By 

comparing two methods of placement, this study can illuminate whether students who are placed 

with one method rather than the other are more likely to fail thus identifying students who may 

need further support and contributing to EAP professionals’ consideration of the efficacy of 

placement testing options.  

  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 3 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

Literature Review 

 

Previous research concerning the predictive validity of IELTS has delved into the success of 

non-native English speakers (NNES) in either their first semester or their first year of an 

academic program at various universities around the world, and the findings from these studies 

have been mixed. For example, Woodrow (2006) found a moderate level of predictive power 

after examining the academic performance of 62 international students who gained admittance to 

a post-graduate university program in Australia via their IELTS scores. Likewise, there was a 

moderately significant level of correlation in Yen and Kuzma’s (2009) study of 61 Chinese 

business students attending a university in the UK. As well, Dang and Dang (2021) investigated 

80 Vietnamese students studying in academic disciplines at 31 UK post-secondary institutions 

and found that “these students’ IELTS scores moderately correlated with their academic results” 

(p. 13).  

 

 However, several studies resulted in stronger affirmation that IELTS scores predict 

academic performance, at least to some extent. Schoepp and Garinger’s (2016) review of 241 

undergraduate students enrolled at a UAE university revealed a strong link for IELTS scores of 

7.0 and higher but a weaker link for IELTS scores of 6.0 and 6.5. Schoepp (2018) found 

“statistically significant correlations between overall IELTS score and all measures of GPA” 

after analyzing 953 NNES students enrolled in a bachelor’s degree program in the UAE (p. 281); 

however, unlike the university programs featured in many other studies, the first year and a half 

of this bachelor’s degree program consisted of “very prescriptive general education” courses and 

the minimum requirement for admission was exceptionally low: an IELTS score of 5.0 (p. 273). 

Lastly, Hu and Trenkic (2019) analyzed 153 Chinese students enrolled in a master’s degree 

program at a UK university and also found a strong correlation but noted that the correlation was 

stronger for the more linguistically demanding programs than for the less linguistically 

demanding programs.   

 

 In contrast, other studies found that IELTS scores were either not connected or only 

weakly connected with academic performance. Cotton and Conrow (1998) analyzed three 

different measures of academic outcomes and a sample of 33 international students studying in a 

variety of undergraduate or graduate disciplines during their first year at an Australian university 

and did not find any significant correlations for the overall IELTS scores but did find “weak 

correlations between the reading and writing subtest scores” for both the faculty and student 

ratings of academic performance (p. 109). Similarly, a study by Dooey and Oliver (2002) of 65 

students enrolled in the business, science, and engineering programs at an Australian university 

found that only the IELTS reading module significantly predicted academic success while the 

other IELTS modules did not. Feast’s (2002) investigation of 101 undergraduate and graduate 

NNES attending an Australian university resulted in “a significant and positive, but weak, 

relationship between English language proficiency . . . and their performance” (p. 83). Finally, a 

study involving a UK post-secondary institution with a sample of 611 undergraduate and 245 

post-graduate NNES found a correlation between IELTS scores and academic performance in the 

case of undergraduate students, but not in the case of post-graduate students (Thorpe et al., 

2017). Although all of the above studies focused on international students during their first post-

secondary courses at English medium institutions, the sample sizes, contexts, and results varied 

greatly.    

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 4 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

 A common notion in the current literature is that using an English proficiency test that 

focuses on general English to assess the readiness of NNES to study in discipline-specific 

academic programs is inappropriate. In fact, Stigger (2019) postulated that the incongruity 

between the decontextualized language used in IELTS and the contextualized language used in 

academic disciplines might be responsible for the inconsistent findings regarding the predictive 

validity of IELTS. Furthermore, Murray (2018) argued: 

 

Tests such as IELTS and TOEFL do not—and do not claim to—assess test-takers’ 

conversancy in the particular academic literacies of their future disciplines, and this is 

likely why students who meet even more rigorous English language entry conditions will 

often still struggle subsequently with course work. (p. 19)  

 

Similarly, Pilcher and Richards (2017) asserted that post-secondary institutions are “entrusting 

too much power to a test that assesses its own [sic] individual, subjective type of ‘English’, 

which differs from the ‘English’ students need to succeed” in discipline-specific contexts (p. 12). 

In essence, these, and other, researchers have questioned the broad-scale use of a test that claims 

to measure “English language proficiency needed for an academic, higher education 

environment” but does not actually include the types of tasks and language that are predominant 

in undergraduate and graduate academic programs (IELTS, 2019b, p. 4).  

 

 Another prevalent argument is that there is a mismatch between the cut scores set by 

many universities and the recommendations made by IELTS. According to the guidance IELTS 

provides universities to help them determine institutional and program entry requirements, for 

“linguistically demanding academic courses,” scores in the range of 7.5 to 9.0 are acceptable 

while 7.0 is “probably acceptable;” in the case of “linguistically less demanding academic 

courses,” scores in the range of 7.0 to 9.0 are acceptable while 6.5 is “probably acceptable” 

(IELTS, 2019a, p. 15). However, published research has revealed that numerous universities in 

the UK, Australia, and UAE had minimum entry requirements that fall below the suggested cut 

scores and did not take into account the linguistic demands of various programs and disciplines 

(e.g., Feast, 2002; Schoepp, 2018; Thorpe et al., 2017; Woodrow, 2006). The situation is similar 

in Canada, where 6.5 is the common minimum entry score for undergraduate admission to post-

secondary institutions irrespective of the linguistic demand of the courses or program 

(MacDonald, 2019, p. 165). Several studies (e.g., MacDonald, 2019; Murray, 2015, 2018; 

Thorpe et al., 2017; Woodrow, 2006) identified the same key factor, which MacDonald (2019) 

described as “the influence of market conformity and economic pressures,” that prompts 

universities to set lower entry requirements than the IELTS recommendations (p. 166). Indeed, 

Feast (2002), MacDonald (2019), and Schoepp (2018), among others, mentioned that some 

universities stand to experience “unacceptably high losses of international students” by raising 

their IELTS entry thresholds (Feast, 2002, p. 84). The discrepancy between the IELTS guidelines 

and the cut-scores set by many institutions raises an important ethical consideration regarding 

whether these institutions are creating a situation that undermines student success. Hu and 

Trenkic (2019) succinctly explained the crux of this concern:  

 

International students accept their offers in good faith, believing that if the university has 

accepted their qualifications, their English skills must be good enough to allow them to 

fulfil their academic potential. For those who find out that their English is not strong 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 5 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

enough to allow them to learn and perform at the true level of their ability, this risks 

jeopardising their educational experience, their mental health and wellbeing, and their 

future employment prospects. (p. 22) 

 

 In order to address the mismatch and better serve students, recommendations range from 

raising the entry requirements to account for the linguistic demands of the program (e.g., Feast, 

2002; Hu & Trenkic, 2019; Schoepp, 2018) to offering NNES in-session support to help them 

develop academic literacies, acclimate to the academic environment, and bolster their language 

proficiency (e.g., Dang & Dang, 2021; MacDonald, 2019; Murray, 2018; Stigger, 2019).  

 

 This project differs in several ways from other research on this topic and thus fills a gap 

in the literature. First, whereas other studies featured Australian, UK, or UAE universities, this 

project features a Canadian university. Second, this study considered a distinct perspective by 

comparing the efficacy of two different English proficiency tests in placing English language 

learners (ELLs) into appropriate courses: IELTS and the TRU EPT. Another way in which this 

project contributes to research is by featuring a setting that had not been explored: IELTS 

students’ success in an EAP program. According to Woodrow (2006), “There is . . . a need for 

continuing predictive validity studies that take into account specific settings” (p. 52). While other 

studies explored student success in academic university programs, the present study explored 

student success in a program designed to prepare EAP students for a variety of academic 

disciplines.  

 

 Furthermore, unlike several other studies, the sample size used in this project was large 

and homogeneous, aligning with the recommendation by Cotton and Conrow (1998). The sample 

included 319 ELLs placed into EAP courses, rather than various academic disciplines, via their 

IELTS scores. Finally, compared to many university programs analyzed in the published studies, 

the EAP program featured in this study does not contradict IELTS’s “Guidelines for educational 

institutions” (IELTS, n.d.b) and more directly aligns with the non-discipline-specific English 

used in IELTS. A more direct correlation between students’ scores and their performance in the 

EAP program is expected since there is no requirement for these students to have specialized 

disciplinary knowledge to succeed in their EAP courses.   

 

 The present study addressed the following research questions with English language 

proficiency test and EAP success data from students across six semesters:  

 

1. What were the success rates of new students placed into EAP courses via the TRU EPT, 

the IELTS test, and other placement methods? 

2. How many students who had taken the TRU EPT were placed into higher course levels as 

a result of their IELTS scores, and how did they perform in those courses?   

3. Were the students placed according to their IELTS scores more likely to fail their EAP 

courses during their first semester than those placed according to the TRU EPT?  

4. Did the students who had higher IELTS overall band scores than required have a greater 

success rate than those whose overall band scores met the requirements for the EAP 

program level in which they were placed? 

  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 6 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

The Study 

 

The EAP program that was the focus of this study consists of five levels, ranging from beginner 

to advanced, of skill-based EAP courses, namely reading, writing, oral communication, and 

grammar. Normally, ELLs can complete a level in one semester. Level one, two, and three 

students take five EAP courses per semester. In level four, students can take one discipline-

specific academic course in addition to four EAP courses while level five students can take an 

additional three courses along with two core EAP courses.  

 

This study relied on data that are routinely collected during the intake of new international 

students and at the completion of each semester. Data were collected over a period of six 

semesters from Fall 2018 to Fall 2020. At the beginning of each semester, ELLs enrolled in EAP 

courses during their first semester at the institution were identified. This information, as well as 

the placement method used and students’ test scores, was compiled along with the final grades 

and the courses which students did not successfully complete. Subsequently, the success rates of 

students placed via different placement methods were compared. Ethics approval was granted 

prior to the commencement of data collection and was renewed in subsequent years.   

 

Design  

 

First semester of enrollment and placement method served as the two independent variables for 

this project. The rationale for examining students’ performance during their first semester of 

studies at TRU was twofold. First, Yen and Kuzma (2009) found IELTS scores were better able 

to predict academic outcomes in the first semester, suggesting a stronger correlation would be 

found between students’ IELTS scores and their success rate in EAP courses during their first 

semester at TRU than in subsequent semesters. Second, the focus on students’ first semester was 

intended to control for additional student performance factors, such as the effects of grades in the 

previous semester and increases in English proficiency through further instruction.  

 

 The main placement methods studied in this research project were the IELTS test, 

labelled as IELTS, and the TRU EPT, labelled as EPT. For students whose EPT placement 

matched their IELTS placement, the placement method was labelled as “EPT = IELTS.” 

Although this study primarily compared IELTS placements to EPT placements, the data set 

included “other” placements, such as pathway programs, TOEFL, other English proficiency 

tests, including the Pearson Test of English (PTE) and Duolingo, and unspecified placements 

where not noted in the ISP Database, the international student management software. These 

equivalency tests are posted on the TRU website (n.d.c).  

 

 Meanwhile, the dependent variable was success in the assigned EAP course. In the TRU 

EAP program, students need to earn a C+ (65%) in order to successfully complete a course. As 

such, a grade below a C+ (65%), as well as not completing a course (i.e., a Did Not Complete 

(DNC)), was counted as a failure, and a final grade equal to or greater than a C+ was counted as 

a success. If a student withdrew from a course prior to the institutional withdrawal date (i.e., up 

to eight weeks in a one semester course), the course was removed from the data (TRU, 2016).   

  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 7 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

Procedure 

 

The analyzed student data were routinely collected during the intake process, and, as such, 

nothing additional was collected from the participants. Students with IELTS scores request their 

IELTs testing agency send their official test scores directly to TRU Admissions. Upon receiving 

the test scores from the testing agency, TRU Admissions staff input them into the ISP Database. 

International student advisors compile a list of students who plan to take the in-house EPT upon 

arrival at TRU. The other students are placed according to their IETLS scores. An ELLT faculty 

member creates an EAP intake spreadsheet and adds the names and ID numbers, which are 

provided by the TRU Assessment Centre, of the students who are writing the EPT and, if 

necessary, accesses the ISP Database to verify any IELTS scores missing from the spreadsheet. 

After the students with IELTS scores who have chosen to take the in-house EPT have completed 

the EPT, ELLT faculty members enter their scores and placement results into the EAP Intake 

spreadsheet. Students’ grades for EAP courses (the pass/fail list in this study) are recorded by the 

Registrar’s Office and provided to the ELLT Department so faculty can use this list to ensure 

that the students registered in their courses have met the prerequisites.  

 

 In order to identify students placed directly via their IELTS scores and to filter out 

returning students, my research assistants and I relied on spreadsheets generated from the ISP 

Database and cross-referenced them with the EAP intake spreadsheet. The raw data were 

organized into separate spreadsheets for each semester under review, and information was added 

as it became available. After the completion of the final semester of this study, we collated the 

data from each semester into one MS Excel document and removed identifiers to make the data 

set anonymous. Finally, the data were summarized and analyzed to determine whether students 

placed through IELTS were more likely to fail than those placed through the TRU EPT. As a 

further means of comparison, students placed via other methods were also included in some data 

sets.  

 

 The TRU EPT, which serves as the comparison to IELTS, is a multistep process that 

relies on ELLT faculty involvement. First, students complete the computer adaptive reading 

skills, sentence meaning, and language use components of the College Board Accuplacer English 

as a second language (ESL) test, which are electronically scored. Then students complete the 

timed writing component of Accuplacer by responding to a prompt that is assessed by at least 

two ELLT faculty members. Next, faculty members interview students to assess their speaking 

and listening skills. Finally, small groups of ELLT faculty determine EAP course placements by 

carefully considering all of the assessment results, and then faculty meet one-on-one with 

students to share their results and assigned courses. Accuplacer scores are combined with 

faculty-based assessment to determine students’ placement into skill-based EAP courses in one 

of six levels. Level one to three students are enrolled strictly in EAP courses while level four and 

five students can take some discipline-specific academic courses concurrently. The sixth level is 

sufficient for direct entry, and thus these students are not in the EAP program or in this dataset. 

Where there are jagged scores with one skill area being stronger than another, faculty input is 

key to determining the placement.  

  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 8 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

Participants 

 

This research project focused on students enrolled in at least one EAP course during their first 

semester of study at TRU. Returning students, defined as those who have previously taken 

courses at the institution, and students who gained direct entry into academic courses were not 

included in this project. In addition, students placed into strictly level one and/or two EAP 

courses were excluded in order for the control group (i.e., students placed via EPT) to more 

closely match the test group (i.e., students placed via IELTS). Students placed into level three or 

above, or into a blend of level two and three EAP courses were included in this study. The 

majority of the students in this study were international, but some domestic students who were 

ELLs were also included. Though the exact proportion of international to domestic students 

included in this study is difficult to ascertain based on the available information, according to the 

TRU Integrated Planning and Effectiveness course enrollment reports for the winter and fall 

semesters from 2018 to 2020, international students represented approximately 92% of all course 

enrollments in the TRU EAP program while domestic students represented approximately 8% 

(Institutional Planning & Effectiveness, n.d.; Institutional Planning & Effectiveness, 2020). To 

protect the anonymity of the participants, identifiers, such as their name, student ID number, 

gender, and nationality, were removed from the final data set.   

 

 This study relied on student data that are normally collected during the intake process, 

making it possible to have a relatively large sample size. Initially, the number of participants was 

694. However, 17 students were removed due to a variety of placement discrepancies which 

resulted in them enrolling in courses that differed from their placement method scores, such as a 

graduate program with a higher entrance score. Seven were removed after they withdrew from 

all of the EAP courses in which they were initially enrolled. A further seven students were 

removed as their first semester of study at TRU or placement method could not be confirmed, 

resulting in a final sample size of 663 students. These students represented a total of 1,879 EAP 

course enrollments spread out over the six semesters included in this study (see Figure 1).  

 

Figure 1  

 

Total Number of New ELLs and EAP Course Enrollments by Semester.   

 

  

1879

194

158

468

155

203

701

663

77

49

177

45

65

250

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Total

F 20

W 20

F 19

S 19

W 19

F 18

Students

Course Enrollments

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 9 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

Analysis and Results 

 

Analyses were completed using MS Excel, including the XLMiner Analysis ToolPak add-in. The 

results of this study are presented in response to each question posed. Prior to describing the 

analysis and results of each question, I articulate the rationale for the units of analysis and 

sampling.  

 

Unit of Analysis 

 

In this study, the case was defined as a course in which a student was enrolled since there is 

considerable variation in the number of courses students take each semester, with some students 

taking as many as five EAP courses and others taking only one. While the analyses were done 

for both the course as a case and for the student as a case, analyzing by students who passed all 

courses or failed at least one course, combined the students who failed one course with those 

who failed multiple courses, resulting in a less sensitive metric of student success. Thus, I report 

the data by course unit (each course that a student enrolled in) rather than by student. I used an 

alpha level of .05 for all statistical tests.   

 

Addressing Sampling Implications of COVID-19 

 

In order to control for the extraordinary circumstances generated by the pandemic, I removed the 

2020 winter and fall semester data from the analyses entitled, “pre-COVID-19.” I also included 

all six semesters in several analyses as points of comparison. The COVID-19 pandemic struck 

during the final year of this research project, thus impacting the data in several ways. First, 

efforts to curb the spread of the virus resulted in an abrupt halt to face-to-face instruction in 

March 2020, resulting in a shift to alternate modes of instruction, namely online, for the last few 

weeks of the 2020 winter semester. This move to online teaching necessitated amendments to 

course outlines, such as weighting completed course work more heavily than originally indicated 

and eliminating the final exam. In addition, the university issued extraordinary provisions 

allowing students to withdraw from a 2020 winter semester course instead of receiving a failing 

grade (TRU Announcements, personal communication, April 3, 2020).  

 

 Furthermore, the continued suspension of face-to-face instruction affected the 2020 

summer semester. TRU was not able to offer the EPT as face-to-face testing was not permitted. 

Therefore, all new international student applications for that semester were suspended, which 

meant that I was unable to collect any data during what was supposed to be the final semester of 

data collection. Finally, the pandemic continued to disrupt the 2020 fall semester. Due to travel 

restrictions, only two students were able to come in person to TRU to take the on-campus EPT. 

To address the void in COVID-safe testing options, Duolingo was added to the list of accepted 

English proficiency tests since it enables candidates to take the test from the purported safety of 

their own homes. Consequently, there was a shift in the number of placements made through the 

different methods. Moreover, courses were again delivered remotely to comply with province-

wide restrictions.   

  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 10 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

What were the success rates of new students placed into EAP courses via the TRU EPT, the 

IELTS test, and other placement methods? 

 

Table 1 presents a summary of EAP placements based on TRU EPT scores. To study the success 

rate, I analyzed the failure rate. A total of 177 students were placed into 682 EAP courses during 

the six semesters included in this study: Fall 2018, Winter 2019, Summer 2019, Fall 2019, 

Winter 2020, and Fall 2020. The failure rate for all semesters was 9.7%. Removing the pre-

COVID-19 semesters resulted in a minimal decrease in the failure rate to 9.5%. There was 

considerable variability in the percentage of courses failed from semester to semester with the 

lowest percentage of course failures in the 2019 summer semester at 1.4% and the highest pre-

COVID-19 failure rate in the 2018 fall semester at 12.1%. Although the 2020 fall semester 

actually had a much higher course failure rate than the 2018 fall semester, with a sample size of 

only two students enrolled in eight courses, the results for this semester were very different from 

the other semesters and occurred during pandemic times.  

 

Table 1 

 

TRU EPT Placements 

 

Semester Number of 

Students 

Number of EAP 

Courses 

Number of EAP 

Courses Failed 

Percentage of 

Courses Failed 

Fall 2018 68 282 34 12.1% 

Winter 2019 22 83 6 7.2% 

Summer 2019 19 74 1 1.4% 

Fall 2019 52 179 18 10.1% 

Winter 2020 14 56 3 5.4% 

Fall 2020 2 8 4 50% 

All 6 Semesters 177 682 66 9.7% 

Pre-COVID-19  161 618 59 9.5% 

 

 The success rates of new ELLs placed into EAP courses via the IELTS test are presented 

in Table 2 (next page). In all six semesters combined, 319 students were placed into 885 EAP 

courses resulting in a 12.2% course failure rate. When the semesters that were affected by the 

COVID-19 pandemic were removed, the failure rate increased to 13.4%. Again, there was a 

relatively large degree of semester to semester variation. The lowest course failure rate, 4.6%, 

occurred in the 2020 winter semester while the highest course failure rate, 17.1%, occurred in the 

2019 winter semester. 

 

 Table 3 (next page) presents a summary of all students whose placement via the on-

campus EPT coincided with their placement via the IELTS test. The sample included a total of 

eight students in this category representing 24 course enrollments and an overall course failure 

rate of only 4.2%. However, the sample size was too small to make meaningful comparisons.  

 

  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 11 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

Table 2 

 

IELTS Placements 

 

Semester Number of 

Students 

Number of EAP 

Courses 

Number of EAP 

Courses Failed 

Percentage of 

Courses Failed 

Fall 2018 116 302 50 16.6% 

Winter 2019 37 105 18 17.1% 

Summer 2019 25 79 7 8.9% 

Fall 2019 77 215 19 8.8% 

Winter 2020 28 87 4 4.6% 

Fall 2020 36 97 10 10.3% 

All 6 Semesters 319 885 108 12.2% 

Pre-COVID-19  255 701 94 13.4% 

 

Table 3 

 

EPT = IELTS Placements 

 

Semester Number of 

Students 

Number of EAP 

Courses 

Number of EAP 

Courses Failed 

Percentage of 

Courses Failed 

Fall 2018 3 9 1 11.1% 

Winter 2019 1 4 0 0% 

Summer 2019 1 2 0 0% 

Fall 2019 2 7 0 0% 

Winter 2020 1 2 0 0% 

Fall 2020 0 0 0 0% 

All 6 Semesters 8 24 1 4.2% 

Pre-COVID-19  7 22 1 4.5% 

 

 The success rates of the new ELLs placed into EAP courses via other placement methods, 

including pathway programs, TOEFL, PTE, Duolingo, other English proficiency tests, and 

unspecified placements, are presented in Table 4 (next page). Over the six semesters, 159 

students completed a total of 288 courses with an overall failure rate of 22.2%. Removing the 

semesters affected by the pandemic, the 2020 winter and fall semesters, resulted in a drop in the 

failure rate to 15.1%. Prior to the pandemic, the semester with the highest failure rate, 17.6%, 

was the 2018 fall semester, and the semesters with the lowest failure rates were the 2019 winter 

and summer semesters, both 0%; however, only five students were placed in winter and none 

were placed in summer via other methods.  

 

 As seen in Figure 2 (next page), the fall semesters attracted the largest number of EAP 

course enrollments by new ELLs. Furthermore, IELTS placements consistently accounted for the 

most enrollments, followed closely by the on-campus EPT. The only semester that did not follow 

these patterns was the 2020 fall semester which, primarily due to pandemic travel restrictions, 

experienced an overall drop in enrollments, a substantial increase in other placement methods, 

namely Duolingo, and a considerable decrease in TRU EPT placements.   

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 12 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

Table 4 

 

Other Placement Methods 

 

Semester Number of 

Students 

Number of EAP 

Courses 

Number of EAP 

Courses Failed 

Percentage of 

Courses Failed 

Fall 2018 63 108 19 17.6% 

Winter 2019 5 11 0 0% 

Summer 2019 0 0 0 0% 

Fall 2019 46 67 9 13.4% 

Winter 2020 6 13 1 7.7% 

Fall 2020 39 89 35 39.3% 

All 6 Semesters 159 288 64 22.2% 

Pre-COVID-19  114 186 28 15.1% 

 

Figure 2 

 

Total Number of EAP Courses New ELLs Took Each Semester by Placement Method  

 

 
 

 Overall, the average EAP program failure rate when all placement methods were 

combined was 12.7% for all six semesters (Figure 3, next page) and 11.9% when the two 

semesters affected by the pandemic were excluded (Figure 4, next page). On average, IELTS 

placements produced higher course failure rates than EPT placements did. For all six semesters 

combined, 12.2% of IELTS placements and 9.7% of EPT placements resulted in unsuccessful 

completion of a course. Removing the 2020 winter and fall semesters, increased the overall 

IELTS failure rate to 13.4% and marginally decreased the overall EPT failure rate to 9.5%. Other 

placement methods accounted for the highest failure rates for all six semesters, 22.2%, and for 

pre-COVID-19 semesters, 15.1%, while EPT placements that matched the IELTS placements 

accounted for the lowest course failure rates: 4.2% and 4.5% respectively.   

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 13 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

Figure 3 

 

Total Percentage of EAP Courses New ELLs Failed by Placement Method for All Six Semesters 

 

 
 

Figure 4 

 

Total Percentage of EAP Courses New ELLs Failed by Placement Method for All Pre-COVID-

19 Semesters  

 

 
  

9.7%

12.2%

4.2%

22.2%

12.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

EPT IELTS EPT=IELTS Other Combined

P
er

ce
n
ta

g
e 

o
f 

C
o

u
rs

e 
F

ai
lu

re
s

Placement Methods

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 14 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

How many students who had taken the TRU EPT were placed into higher course levels as a 

result of their IELTS scores, and how did they perform in those courses?   

 

To answer this question, I began by identifying which students had both TRU EPT and IELTS 

scores. The test group included the students whose IELTS scores resulted in higher EAP course 

placements than the EPT would have permitted. The total across the six semesters was 104 

course enrollments within the test group (see Table 5) with a course failure rate of 13.5%.   

 

Table 5 

 

Course Placements Bumped Up via IELTS Scores (Test Group) 

 

Semesters Number of EAP 

Courses 

Number of EAP 

Courses Passed 

Number of EAP 

Courses Failed 

Percentage of 

Courses Failed 

All  104 90 14 13.5% 

Pre-COVID-19 93 81 12 12.9% 

 

 I created two different control groups to determine how these students performed by 

comparison. Control group 1, which included the IELTS course placements that were not 

bumped up to a higher level, constituted 120 course enrollments with a 5.0% failure rate (see 

Table 6). Control group 2 was comprised of all EAP course placements made according to the 

EPT scores, totalling 118 enrollments and an overall failure rate of 6.8% (see Table 7, next 

page), combined with control group 1, the IELTS course placements that were not bumped up. 

Because only two students were placed via the TRU EPT in the 2020 fall semester and they did 

not have IELTS scores, this semester was excluded from the analyses. The descriptive statistics 

show that students had a higher failure rate in the courses in which they were bumped up one or 

more levels due to their IELTS scores; however, to ascertain whether this observation was 

significant, I employed inferential statistics.  

 

Table 6 

 

IELTS Course Placements NOT Bumped Up (Control Group 1) 

 

Semesters Number of EAP 

Courses 

Number of EAP 

Courses Passed 

Number of EAP 

Courses Failed 

Percentage of 

Courses Failed 

All  120 114 6 5.0% 

Pre-COVID-19 91 85 6 6.6% 

Note. This table includes placements in which the EPT matched the IELTS course assignment.  

 

 To examine the relationship between placement method and success in a course, I 

conducted chi-square tests of independence using control group 1. My hypothesis was that 

IELTS course placements that were higher than the respective EPT scores were more likely to 

result in failure than IELTS course placements that were not higher. The correlation between the 

variables was significant, X2 (1, N = 224) = 4.91, p = .03, meaning that ELLs were more likely to 

fail EAP courses in which they were bumped up. However, when the 2020 winter semester was 

removed, the results were no longer significant, X2 (1, N = 184) = 2.07, p = .15.   

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 15 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

Table 7 

 

EPT Course Placements  

 

Semesters Number of EAP 

Courses 

Number of EAP 

Courses Passed 

Number of EAP 

Courses Failed 

Percentage of 

Courses Failed 

All  118 110 8 6.8% 

Pre-COVID-19 109 101 8 7.3% 

Note. This table excludes placements in which the EPT matched the IELTS course assignment to 

avoid counting these courses twice.  

 

 Further chi-square tests of independence were performed using control group 2, IELTS 

course placements that were not bumped up combined with EPT course placements. Again, my 

expectation was that course placements bumped up by IELTS scores stood a greater chance of 

failure. The first chi-square test showed that there was a significant association between 

placement method and the failure rate, thus confirming my hypothesis, X2 (1, N = 342) = 5.53, p 

= .02. Conversely, the second chi-square test, which included only pre-COVID-19 semesters, 

failed to reject the null hypotheses, X2 (1, N = 293) = 2.74, p = .098, with a .05 alpha.    

 

Were the students placed according to their IELTS scores more likely to fail their EAP 

courses during their first semester than those placed according to the TRU EPT?  

 

To determine if there was a relationship between placement method, semester, and course 

success I ran several logistic regression analyses. The independent variables were method of 

placement and first semester of study, and the dependent variable was success in a course. The 

results of these analyses are presented in Table 8 below: 

 

Table 8 

 

Course Failure Rate Analyses 

 

Analyzed methods and semesters Results (Case = course) 

All Semesters (EPT vs. IELTS) Placement method:  Beta value = .34, SE =.17, p = .044* 

Semester:  Beta value = -.16, SE =.05, p = .002* 

Pre-COVID-19 Semesters (EPT vs. 

IELTS) 

Placement method:  Beta value = .41, SE =.18, p = .02* 

Semester:  Beta value = -.2, SE =.07, p = .004* 

All Semesters (All Placement 

Methods) 

Placement method:  Beta value = .32, SE =.06, p <.001*  

Semester:  Beta value = -.03, SE =.04, p = .51 

Pre-COVID-19 Semesters (All 

Placement Methods)  

Placement method:  Beta value = .16, SE =.08, p = .046* 

Semester:  Beta value = -.19, SE =.06, p = .003* 

* Significant (p < .05) 

 

As previously mentioned, the analyses done for the course cases were also done with student as 

the case but resulted in non-significance for placement method.  

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 16 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

 In the logistic regression analysis that compared the TRU EPT with IELTS, both the 

placement method (p = .044) and the semester (p = .002) significantly predicted success in an 

EAP course. The results remained significant for both independent variables with the removal of 

the 2020 winter and fall semesters. Similar chi-square analyses were run which did not control 

for semester variation. These analyses were not significant except for the Pre-COVID-19 

Semesters (EPT vs. IELTS) analysis which was significant, X2 (1, N = 1319) = 4.78, p = .03. 

 

 In the logistic regression analysis that investigated the relationship between all placement 

methods and all semesters, the placement method had a significant effect on success in an EAP 

course (p = <.001) while the semester did not (p = .51). When only pre-COVID-19 semesters 

were included in the analysis, both the placement method (p = .046) and the semester (p = .003) 

were predictive of course success.    

 

Did the students who had higher IELTS overall band scores than required have a greater 

success rate than those whose overall band scores met the requirements for the EAP 

program level in which they were placed? 

 

To determine program and course placements of NNES, TRU staff and faculty rely on both the 

IELTS overall band score and the lowest band score. This reliance on overall and lowest band 

scores means that some students may have an overall band score that would normally allow them 

to enroll in a higher EAP course level or an academic program but have one band score that is 

below the threshold for entry into that level or program.   

 

 I conducted two chi-square analyses to find out if the students who had an overall IELTS 

band score above the course level in which they were placed were more likely to succeed in their 

courses than students whose overall IELTS band score matched the level. The students whose 

IELTS band scores were not specified in the available documents were removed from the data 

set, leaving a sample size of 206 students representing 586 EAP course enrollments (see Table 9, 

next page). A total of 69 students for all six semesters combined and 40 students for pre-COVID-

19 semesters (see Table 10, next page) had overall band scores above the required threshold.   

 

 According to Tables 9 and 10, the students who had higher overall IELTS band scores 

actually had higher failure rates (11.9% and 13.2%) than those who had lower overall band 

scores (7.2% and 7.7%). Nevertheless, the outcome of the chi-square that included data from all 

semesters failed to reject the null hypothesis (X2 (1, N = 586) = 3.43, p = .06) as did the chi-

square that only included pre-COVID-19 semesters (X2 (1, N = 402) = 2.58, p = .11). A lack of 

significance suggests equivalency.   

 

 Table 11 (next page) shows the distribution of IELTS placements across the EAP 

program levels, which reveals a potential reason for the higher—though statistically 

insignificant—failure rate of students with overall IELTS band scores above the threshold. The 

percentage of level five course enrollments by students with high overall band scores (i.e., 

64.3%) was much larger than for those with regular overall band scores (i.e., 33.0%). This is 

noteworthy because level five students can take three other academic courses alongside their 

EAP courses, so they may have placed more importance on passing those courses than the EAP 

courses. As well, level five courses are, inherently, more challenging than lower level courses.    

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 17 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

Table 9 

 

IELTS Placements: All Semesters  

 

Overall Band 

Score 

Number of 

Students 

Number of EAP 

Courses 

Number of EAP 

Courses Failed 

Percentage of 

Courses Failed 

Above threshold 69 168 20 11.9% 

Meets threshold 137 418 30 7.2% 

 

Table 10 

 

IELTS Placements: Pre-COVID-19 Semesters  

 

Overall Band 

Score 

Number of 

Students 

Number of EAP 

Courses 

Number of EAP 

Courses Failed 

Percentage of 

Courses Failed 

Above threshold 40 91 12 13.2% 

Meets threshold 102 311 24 7.7% 

 

Table 11 

 

IELTS Placements by EAP Level: All Semesters  

 

Overall 

Band 

Score 

Number of 

Level 3 

Course 

Enrollments 

Level 3: 

Percentage 

of Overall  

Number of 

Level 4 

Course 

Enrollments 

Level 4: 

Percentage 

of Overall  

Number of 

Level 5 

Course 

Enrollments 

Level 5: 

Percentage 

of Overall  

Above 

threshold 

20 11.9% 40 23.8% 108 64.3% 

Meets 

threshold 

80 19.1% 200 47.8% 138 33% 

 

Discussion 

 

This study investigated EAP student success through the effectiveness of the IELTS test 

compared to the TRU EPT in placing students into appropriate EAP course levels by examining 

four questions.  

 

 The first question explored the EAP course failure rate for each of the following 

placement methods: TRU EPT, IELTS, and all other methods. The descriptive statistics revealed 

that students placed via IELTS scores were less likely to succeed in EAP courses than those 

placed via TRU EPT scores. The greatest course success rates were attributed to those cases in 

which the students’ EPT scores and the IELTS scores led to the same placement. This result 

affirms the expectation that when course placements based on two different tests coincide, the 

chances of success would increase. Other placement methods, which include a wide range of 

pathway agreements and other tests, generally resulted in the highest course failure rates.  

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 18 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

 Research question number two attempted to answer an important ELLT faculty concern: 

Do students have adequate English language proficiency and preparation to succeed in the EAP 

course levels into which their IELTS scores place them? As mentioned in the introduction, this 

concern primarily arose from some students taking EAP courses that are one, two, or even three 

levels above where the TRU EPT would have placed them. The results of chi-square tests 

suggest that the concerns may be warranted. Students whose course level via IELTS placement 

was not higher than their course level would have been via EPT placement tended to be more 

successful.   

 

 Third, to determine whether or not students placed via IELTS were less likely to succeed 

in EAP courses than those placed via the TRU EPT, I used logistic regression analyses 

comparing these two placement methods, which confirmed that IELTS placements resulted in a 

greater likelihood of course failure. When I expanded the logistic regression analyses to include 

the “other” placement method category, the placement method remained statistically significant.    

 

 The comparison of course success of students who had overall IELTS band scores above 

the minimum requirement to those with overall IELTS band scores that met the EAP course level 

requirement did not yield a significant difference. In other words, students with higher overall 

IELTS band scores did not have higher success rates than those with regular overall IELTS band 

scores. This result supports the current TRU practice of giving consideration to both the overall 

band score and the lowest band score to place students into appropriate EAP course levels. 

 

Pedagogical Implications 

 

The results indicate that the on-campus EPT more effectively predicts student success and more 

closely aligns with the EAP program at TRU than the IELTS test does. This outcome could be 

attributed to the contribution of ELLT faculty expertise in the EAP placement process. A study 

by James and Templeman (2009) that confirmed the efficacy of the TRU EPT found that ELLT 

faculty involvement was integral:  

 

The effectiveness of the comprehensive EAP placement process at TRU was determined 

to depend to a significant degree on extensive involvement by faculty. By facilitating the 

oral interview, assessing the writing sample, and interpreting the Accuplacer ESL results, 

faculty significantly improved the accuracy of student placement. (p. 94) 

 

According to Murray (2015), having “a sense [sic] of what different test scores represent in real 

performance terms” is a key element for those making university admission and placement 

decisions based on test scores to possess (p. 111). This sense of what test scores represent makes 

ELLT faculty uniquely qualified to accurately place students; from years of teaching, they not 

only have an experiential awareness of ELLs’ capabilities but also a thorough understanding of 

the EAP program. 

 

Limitations and Future Research 

 

The logistic regression analyses showed semester-to-semester variations in terms of EAP course 

enrollments and student success which may have influenced the results of this study. With 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 19 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

programs typically beginning in September, fall semesters have the highest number of new 

student course enrollments while summer semesters have the lowest. Furthermore, although this 

study did not track student demographics, including nationality, I have observed in practice 

patterns, such as groups of Japanese university exchange students typically enrolling in EAP 

courses in the fall semesters. Semester-to-semester variations, a pandemic, and emergent 

placement methods, such as Duolingo and IELTS Indicator, necessitate further years of data 

comparison to allow for controlling for the effects of semester and deeper exploration of 

methods. 

 

 Furthermore, counting course DNCs as failures may have affected the results. According 

to the TRU grading systems policy (n.d.a), failing to complete at least 50% of course work or 

mandatory course components without officially withdrawing from the course results in a DNC. 

However, there are reasons unrelated to academic readiness and English proficiency which may 

lead to a DNC, such as a personal crisis, a health issue, or time mismanagement. To mitigate this 

effect, future research could include a qualitative student survey with subsequent focus groups 

that examine students’ experiences in the courses, as well as their perceptions of the accuracy of 

the test.  

 

 Since students who were placed into EAP courses via their IELTS scores had a higher 

failure rate, it is worth exploring ways to further support these students. There are already two 

academic student services available to EAP students: the ELLT Department’s Language 

Learning Centre and the TRU Writing Centre. Although these services are already recommended 

to EAP students at TRU, the number of students placed via IELTS versus EPT who access these 

services is unknown. There may be a link between the placement method and the probability of 

seeking services yet to be demonstrated by research.  

 

 The findings of this study raise an important question, especially in light of uncertain 

global circumstances. While one advantage of the IELTS test is its worldwide availability 

allowing NNES to take the test in their home countries, the recent global pandemic has exposed 

the need for more flexible testing options to address mobility restrictions and allow students to 

continue to access post-secondary education. This need for flexibility has led to the emergence of 

remote testing options, such as Duolingo, which enable students to take English proficiency tests 

from the presumed safety of their homes. The IELTS academic test and in-house EPTs were not 

originally designed to be administered remotely. This lack of remote options has posed a 

challenge for many post-secondary institutions, including TRU, and has partly been responsible 

for a decline in international enrollments since the pandemic began, leading to an important 

question: Is there a way to remotely administer the in-house EPT without jeopardizing 

prospective students’ privacy, compromising the test’s security, or removing a crucial 

component of the EPT process, the involvement of ELLT faculty? During the pandemic, IELTS 

(n.d.a) temporarily offered a remote test in several countries, but not mainland China, and the 

remote option was accepted by some but not all institutions.   

 

Conclusion 

 

This study explored the relationship between the placement method and student success in EAP 

courses. The results of logistic regression analyses revealed that the in-house EPT performed 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451


 Steiger 20 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

significantly better in placing students into level-appropriate courses than IELTS. These findings 

support the continued and perhaps increased reliance on the EPT process as it yields more 

accurate EAP course placements and thus greater student success compared to the IELTS test. It 

is not time to abandon in-house English placement tests at post-secondary institutions.  

 

Acknowledgments 

 

This research was supported in part by a grant from the Centre for Excellence in Learning and 

Teaching of TRU. I would like to thank my undergraduate research assistants Kirsten Hales and 

Mikhayla Maurer, Dr. Carolyn Hoessler for her invaluable Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 

(SoTL) research guidance and expertise, Eric Kim for his ISP Database technical support, and 

for the feedback I received from Dr. Jim Hu and Dr. Hilda Freimuth, Co-Chairs of the ELLT 

Research & PD Committee.  

 

References 

 

College Board. (2009). ACCUPLACER ESL [Brochure]. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20151017150203/https://secure-

media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/accuplacer/accuplacer-2009-esl-brochure.pdf  

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, 1, 72–115. 

https://www.ielts.org/-/media/research-reports/ielts_rr_volume01_report4.ashx  

Dang, C. N., & Dang, T. N. (2021). The predictive validity of the IELTS test and contribution of 

IELTS preparation courses to international students' subsequent academic study: Insights 

from Vietnamese international students in the UK. RELC Journal, 1–15. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220985533  

Dooey, P., & 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. 

http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/docs/prospect_journal/volume_17_no_1/17_1_3_Dooey.p

df  

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

Education Journal, 3(4). 70–85. 

https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/IEJ/article/view/6809/7449  

Government of Canada. (2021, March 26). Student direct stream: Who can apply. 

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/study-canada/study-

permit/student-direct-stream/eligibility.html  

Hu, R., & Trenkic, D. (2019). The effects of coaching and repeated test-taking on Chinese 

candidates’ IELTS scores, their English proficiency, and subsequent academic 

achievement. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–17. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1691498  

IELTS. (2019a, May). Guide for education institutions, governments, professional bodies and 

commercial organisations. https://www.ielts.org/-/media/publications/guide-for-

institutions/ielts-guide-for-institutions-uk.ashx?la=en  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451
https://web.archive.org/web/20151017150203/https:/secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/accuplacer/accuplacer-2009-esl-brochure.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20151017150203/https:/secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/accuplacer/accuplacer-2009-esl-brochure.pdf
https://www.ielts.org/-/media/research-reports/ielts_rr_volume01_report4.ashx
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220985533
http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/docs/prospect_journal/volume_17_no_1/17_1_3_Dooey.pdf
http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/docs/prospect_journal/volume_17_no_1/17_1_3_Dooey.pdf
https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/IEJ/article/view/6809/7449
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/study-canada/study-permit/student-direct-stream/eligibility.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/study-canada/study-permit/student-direct-stream/eligibility.html
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1691498
https://www.ielts.org/-/media/publications/guide-for-institutions/ielts-guide-for-institutions-uk.ashx?la=en
https://www.ielts.org/-/media/publications/guide-for-institutions/ielts-guide-for-institutions-uk.ashx?la=en


 Steiger 21 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

IELTS. (2019b, August). Guide for teachers: Test format, scoring and preparing students for the 

test. https://www.ielts.org/-/media/publications/guide-for-teachers/ielts-guide-for-

teachers-uk.ashx  

IELTS. (n.d.a). For organisations. Retrieved May 28, 2021, from IELTS Indicator: 

https://www.ieltsindicator.com/for-organisations/  

IELTS. (n.d.b). How to set IELTS entry scores. Retrieved April 7, 2021, from 

https://takeielts.britishcouncil.org/organisations/setting-ielts-entry-scores  

Integrated Planning & Effectiveness. (2020, October 1). Course enrolments - Kamloops, fall, 

course department. Internal TRU report: unpublished. 

Integrated Planning & Effectiveness. (n.d.). Course enrolments—Kamloops, winter, course 

department. Internal TRU report: unpublished. 

James, C., & Templeman, E. (2009). A case for faculty involvement in EAP placement testing. 

TESL Canada Journal, 26(2), 82–99. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v26i2.416  

MacDonald, J. (2019). Sitting at 6.5: Problematizing IELTS and admissions to Canadian 

universities. TESL Canada Journal, 36(1), 160–171. 

https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v36i1.1308  

Murray, N. (2015). Pre-enrolment language assessment and English language conditions of 

entry. In Standards of English in Higher Educations: Issues, Challenges and Strategies 

(pp. 99–120). Cambridge University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139507189.005  

Murray, N. (2018). University gatekeeping tests: What are they really testing and what are the 

implications for EAP provision. JACET Journal, 62, 15–27. 

https://doi.org/10.32234/jacetjournal.62.0_15  

Pilcher, N., & Richards, K. (2017). Challenging the power invested in the International English 

Language Testing System (IELTS): Why determining ‘English’ preparedness needs to be 

undertaken within the subject context. Power & Education, 9(1), 3-17. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1757743817691995  

Schoepp. (2018). Predictive validity of the IELTS in an English as a medium of instruction 

environment. Higher Education Quarterly, 72(4), 271–285. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12163  

Schoepp, K., & Garinger, D. (2016). IELTS and academic success in higher education: A UAE 

perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 5(3), 

145–151. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.3p.145  

Stigger, E. (2019). The correlation between IELTS scores and international students' academic 

success: A literature review. BC TEAL Journal, 4(1), 84–94. 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v4i1.339  

Thompson Rivers University. (2016, January 25). Withdrawals. 

https://www.tru.ca/__shared/assets/Withdrawals5640.pdf  

Thompson Rivers University. (n.d.a). Grading systems. Retrieved May 19, 2021, from 

https://www.tru.ca/__shared/assets/ED_03-5_Grading_Systems35364.pdf  

Thompson Rivers University. (n.d.b). International student admission requirements. Retrieved 

April 1, 2021, from https://www.tru.ca/future/admissions/international/admission-

requirements.html  

Thompson Rivers University. (n.d.c). Program Overview. Retrieved May 21, 2021, from TRU 

Education and Social Work: https://www.tru.ca/edsw/schools-and-

departments/esl/academic_esal/regulations.html  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451
https://www.ielts.org/-/media/publications/guide-for-teachers/ielts-guide-for-teachers-uk.ashx
https://www.ielts.org/-/media/publications/guide-for-teachers/ielts-guide-for-teachers-uk.ashx
https://www.ieltsindicator.com/for-organisations/
https://takeielts.britishcouncil.org/organisations/setting-ielts-entry-scores
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v26i2.416
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v36i1.1308
https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139507189.005
https://doi.org/10.32234/jacetjournal.62.0_15
https://doi.org/10.1177/1757743817691995
https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12163
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.3p.145
https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v4i1.339
https://www.tru.ca/__shared/assets/Withdrawals5640.pdf
https://www.tru.ca/__shared/assets/ED_03-5_Grading_Systems35364.pdf
https://www.tru.ca/future/admissions/international/admission-requirements.html
https://www.tru.ca/future/admissions/international/admission-requirements.html
https://www.tru.ca/edsw/schools-and-departments/esl/academic_esal/regulations.html
https://www.tru.ca/edsw/schools-and-departments/esl/academic_esal/regulations.html


 Steiger 22 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 1–22 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451 

Thorpe, A., Snell, M., Davey-Evans, S., & Talman, R. (2017). Improving the academic 

performance of non-native English-speaking students: the contribution of pre-sessional 

English language programmes. Higher Education Quarterly, 71(1), 5–32. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12109  

Woodrow, L. (2006). Academic success of international postgraduate education students and the 

role of English proficiency. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 1, 51–70. 

https://faculty.edfac.usyd.edu.au/projects/usp_in_tesol/pdf/volume01/article03.pdf  

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. 

http://eprints.worc.ac.uk/811/1/YenKuzmaIELTScores.pdf  

 

 

 
The BC TEAL Journal is licensed under a 

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 

Copyright rests with the author(s). 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.451
https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12109
https://faculty.edfac.usyd.edu.au/projects/usp_in_tesol/pdf/volume01/article03.pdf
http://eprints.worc.ac.uk/811/1/YenKuzmaIELTScores.pdf
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

