All human beings are born free and equal

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty The impact of national language requirements on low-literate L 2 learners Bart Deygers, KU Leuven – Belgium Cecilie H. Carlsen, Høgskulen på Vestlandet – Norway be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Migration, worldwide 244 000 international migrants International Organization for Migration. (2017). World migration report 2018. Geneva:

Migration, Europe 33% of all international migrants Frontex. (2010). Beyond the Frontiers: Frontex: The First Five Years. Warsaw: Frontex. International Organization for Migration. (2017). World migration report 2018. Geneva:

Migration, Europe 33% of all international migrants Large proportion: low-educated learners UNESCO. (2017). Literacy rates continue to rise from one generation to the next. Fact Sheet 45. Geneva: Unesco Institute for statistics.

Migration, Europe % Candidates Afghanista n Morocco Iraq Syria Bulgaria Turkey Poland Somalia Iran Ghana 9% 8% 8% 8% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% % SE % Literacy 36% 54% 28% 69% 45% 80% 98% 94% 37% %85 76% 45% 89% 56% 92% 8% 73% 53%

Migration, Europe Increasing use of language tests for citizenship among Co. E member states 201 90% 81% 75% 201 7 3 201 0 61% 200 7 29% 200 2 Mc. Namara, T. , & Shohamy, E. (2008). Language tests and human rights. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 89– 95. Van Avermaet, P. , & Pulinx, R. (2013). Language Testing for Immigration to Europe. In A. Kunnan (Ed. ) The Companion to Language Assessment. New York: Jo

A neglected research population LESLLA learners: agenda Not part of the mainstream language testing / SLA (Carlsen, 2017; Mc. Namara & Shohamy, 2008; Tarone & Bigelow, 2012)

A neglected research population LESLLA learners: agenda Not part of the mainstream language testing / SLA No systematic reviews into appropriate testing methods (Allemano, 2013)

A neglected research population LESLLA learners: agenda Not part of the mainstream language testing / SLA No systematic reviews into appropriate testing methods No agreed-upon research approaches (Mc. Namara & Shohamy, 2008)

A neglected research population LESLLA learners: agenda Not part of the mainstream language testing / SLA No systematic reviews into appropriate testing methods No agreed-upon research approaches Not part of many essential theories & constructs Not high on policy maker agenda (Carlsen, 2017)

A neglected research population See also: Mc. Namara, T. , & Shohamy, E. (2008). Language tests and human rights. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 89– 95.

A neglected research population “Bad news! I’ve been informed that they have decided that it is too early for research. ” See also: Mc. Namara, T. , & Shohamy, E. (2008). Language tests and human rights. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 89– 95.

Research questions Given that Low-educated learners acquire an L 2 slower than their highly educated peers (Kurvers, 2015)

Research questions Given that Low-educated learners acquire an L 2 slower than their highly educated peers L 2 courses are not as efficient as typically projected (De Niel et al, 2016; Schuurmans, 2008)

Research questions Given that Low-educated learners acquire an L 2 slower than their highly educated peers L 2 courses are not as efficient as typically projected Low-educated learners may lack testing strategies & problem-solving abilities (Allemano, 2013; Oller, Kim, & Choe, 2000; Ostrosky-Solis et al. , 1998)

Research questions #1 How do low and highly educated learners score on the different components of an A 2 test for citizenship purposes? #2 Does L 2 education succeed in leveling out any differences in these populations? #3 How do the writing performances at the end of the different educational programs compare?

Norway Slow track up to 3000 hours of language tuition Target: A 1 or A 2 in written skills A 2, B 1 in oral skills Standard track Fast track

Norway Slow Standard Fast % of track that achieves A 2 threshold Score variance explained by track p Reading 23. 9% <. 000 Writing 18. 4% <. 000 Listening 13. 4% <. 000 Speaking 13% <. 000 N = 2082 Carlsen, C. H. (2017). Giving LESLLA learners a fair chance in testing. In M. Sosinsky (Ed. ), Proceedings of LESLLA 2016 12 th Annual Symposium. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.

Flanders: migration language policy 2015 A 2 level requirement for residency & citizenship

Flanders: migration language policy 2015 A 2 level requirement for residency & citizenship Language classes: 4 tracks Alpha Slow Standard Fast (exempt from test) up to primary 480 hrs(A 1) + 270 hrs secondary 120 hrs(A 1) + 120 hrs university 80 hrs (A 1) + 80 hrs (A 2) (A 2 TEST)

Flanders: migration language policy 2015 A 2 level requirement for residency & citizenship 2017 Language test Computer-based Paper-based Face-to-face

Research population Population N = 1063 Age In B 52% 25% med 32 mean 34 (se. 4, sd 10) med 2 mean 4 (se. 2, sd 4) female employed

Research population Population N = 1063 A 1 A 2 54% 46%

Research population Population N = 1063 A 1 A 2 54% 46% 15% 41% 28% ≤ primary secondary tertiary Alfa Slow Standard Fast 9% 35% 37% 19%

Research population Population N = 1063 A 1 A 2 54% 46% 15% 41% 28% ≤ primary secondary tertiary Alfa Slow Standard Fast 9% 35% 37% 19%

Research population Population N = 1063 A 1 A 2 54% 46% 15% 41% 28% ≤ primary secondary tertiary Alfa Slow Standard Fast 9% 35% 37% 19%

Listening: scoring profile Pass probability listening P (≤ primary) =. 59 P (≥ secondary) =. 89 W = 10040 / p < 0. 0000 / d -0. 839 / 95% CI -1. 084 – -0. 594

Listening: score differences Median Lower Secondary Higher secondary Higher education Primary education 25 W = 1975. 5 p <. 000 d -0. 745 W = 3417 p <. 000 d -0. 940 W = 998 p <. 000 d -0. 930 Lower secondary 27 W = 6922. 5, p = 0. 0574 d -0. 165 W = 2053 p = 0. 01557 d -0. 398 Higher secondary 28 Higher education 28 W = 4995. 5 p = 0. 345 d -0. 185 Plonsky, L. , & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How Big Is “Big”? Interpreting Effect Sizes in L 2 Research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878

Reading: scoring profile Pass probability reading P (≤ primary) =. 44 P (≥ secondary) =. 79 W = 9251/ p < 0. 0000 / d -0. 833 / 95% CI -1. 0778 – -0. 5878

Reading: score differences Median Lower Secondary Higher secondary Higher education Primary education 21 W = 1448 p <. 000 d -1. 13 W = 3464 p <. 000 d -0. 964 W = 687 p <. 000 d -1. 241 Lower secondary 27 W = 9061. 5 p = 0. 091 d 0. 240 W = 1773. 5, p <. 000 d -0. 376 Higher secondary 27 Higher education 29 W = 2773 p <. 000 d -0. 523 Plonsky, L. , & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How Big Is “Big”? Interpreting Effect Sizes in L 2 Research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878

Speaking: scoring profile MEASURE SE INFIT Zstd 2. 29 0. 07 0. 98 0. 3 - SECONDARY 1. 93 0. 06 0. 88 2. 7 - PRIMARY 0. 07 0. 84 3. 5 - TERTIARY 1. 07

Speaking: scoring profile

Speaking: bias by item W = 271. 5, p < 0. 000 d = -1. 157

Speaking: bias by item W = 672 p = 0. 043 d = 0. 452 -

Speaking: bias by item W = 144. 5, p < 0. 000 d = 1. 674 -

Speaking: bias by item Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a “Complex” Task Really Complex? Validating the Assumption of Cognitive Task Complexity. The Modern Language

Speaking: gains by track Measure Fast A 2 3. 31 Standard A 2 2. 33 Fast A 1 2 Slow A 2 1. 77 Standard A 1 1. 54 Slow A 1 1. 14 Se 0. 15 0. 1 0. 08 0. 13 0. 11 Infit 0. 96 0. 87 0. 97 0. 83 0. 78 0. 91 Zstd 0. 51. 10. 33. 42. 61. 2 -

Writing: scoring profile Pass probability P (primary) =. 12 P (secondary) =. 38 P (tertiary) =. 64 Primary / Secondary Primary / tertiary Secondary / tertiary W = 8267, p < 0. 000 d -0. 564 W = 3882, p < 0. 000 d -1. 1771 W =16552, p < 0. 000 d -0. 540

Writing: scoring profile

Writing: bias by item Factual, personal

Writing: bias by item Why?

Writing: bias by item Basic argumentation

Writing: gains by track Measure Fast A 2 8. 55 Standard A 2 1. 79 Standard A 1 1. 67 Fast A 1 1. 56 Slow A 2 0. 44 Slow A 1 0. 23 - Se 0. 07 0. 05 0. 07 0. 04 Infit 1. 14 0. 98 0. 91 1. 05 0. 81 Zstd 2. 8 0. 52. 90. 9 6. 27. 5 -

Writing performances in detail N = 385 Double coded: 20% (n = 78), ICC. 81 -. 98 ICC 0. 981 p <. 0000 95% CI 0. 965 - 0. 99 Error-free TU 0. 919 <. 0000 0. 851 - 0. 957 #errors 0. 949 <. 0000 0. 883 - 0. 976 Co Clause 0. 889 <. 0000 0. 799 - 0. 94 Sub Clause 0. 811 <. 0000 0. 623 - 0. 904 T-Unit

Writing performances in detail Syntactic complexity Clauses/TU Words/Clause Mean sentence length Simple sentence ratio Compound sentence ratio Complex sentence ratio Compound complex ratio Coordinated clause ratio Subordinated clause ratio Lexical complexity. Average word length Unique words / tot Guiraud’s index Accuracy Incomplete sentence ratio Proportion of error-free T-Units Errors / T-Unit Errors / words Fluency Words / TU Total word count Bulté, B. , & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L 2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42 – 65. Iwashita, N. , Brown, A. , Mc. Namara, T. , & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed Levels of Second Language Speaking Proficiency: How Distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 24– 49. Knoch, U. , Rouhshad, A. , Oon, S. P. , & Storch, N. (2015). What happens to ESL students’ writing after three years of study at an English medium university? Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 39– 52.

Writing performance gains Slow: No measurable gains on any indicator

Writing performance gains Standard: Small – medium gains in accuracy Fewer incomplete sentences Less errors / T-Unit (W = 877. 5, p = 0. 033, d =. 5) (W = 450, p = 0. 015 d = -0. 576) No measurable gains on syntactic / lexical complexity, fluency

Writing performance gains Fast: Small – medium gains in syntactic complexity Clauses / TU (W = 1727. 5, p = 0. 002, d = -0. 505) Words / Clause (W = 3289, p = 0. 01 d = 0. 325) Simple sentence ratio (W = 3354. 5, p < 0. 001 d = 0. 571) Cx sentence ratio (W = 1899, p < 0. 001 d = -0. 507) Subordinated clause ratio (W = 1534. 5, p < 0. 001 d = -0. 710)

Writing performance gains Fast: Small – medium gains in syntactic complexity Clauses / TU (W = 1727. 5, p = 0. 002, d = -0. 505) Words / Clause (W = 3289, p = 0. 01 d = 0. 325) Simple sentence ratio (W = 3354. 5, p < 0. 001 d = 0. 571) Cx sentence ratio (W = 1899, p < 0. 001 d = -0. 507) Subordinated clause ratio (W = 1534. 5, p < 0. 001 d = -0. 710) Individual indicators of lexical complexity, accuracy, fluency Guiraud’s index (W = 2005, p = 0. 04, d = -0. 264) Errors / total words (W = 3104, , p = 0. 017, d = -0. 248) Words / T-Unit (W = 1595, , p < 0. 000, d = -0. 268)

Writing performance differences Slow - Stand A 1 Syntactic complexity Clauses/TU Words/Clause Mean sentence length Simple sentence ratio Compound sentence ratio Complex sentence ratio Compound complex ratio Coordinated clause ratio Subordinated clause ratio Lexical complexity LC: wordlength unique words/tot_perf GUIRAUD Accuracy Incomplete sentence ratio Error-free TU/tot ERR/TU ERR/Nwords Fluency Nwords/TU Nwords Standard - Fast A 1 Slow - Fast A 1

Writing performance differences Slow - Stand A 1 Syntactic complexity Clauses/TU Words/Clause Mean sentence length Simple sentence ratio Compound sentence ratio Complex sentence ratio Compound complex ratio Coordinated clause ratio Subordinated clause ratio Lexical complexity LC: wordlength unique words/tot_perf GUIRAUD Accuracy Incomplete sentence ratio Error-free TU/tot ERR/TU ERR/Nwords Fluency Nwords/TU Nwords Standard - Fast A 1 Slow-Stand A 2 Standard - Fast A 2 Slow - Fast A 1

Test-taking strategies Time constraints Basic test literacy Logical inferences Abstract questions (words written in 20’: 38 vs. 91, W = 333, p <. 0000, d – 1. 264) (tick the box) (“how often, why…”) Kim, J. et al. , . (2014). Effect of literacy level on cognitive and language tests in Korean illiterate older adults. Geriatrics & Gerontology International, 14(4), 911– 917.

Summary In spite of contextual differences, the Flemish and Norwegian data align Allemano, J. (2013). Testing the Reading Ability of Low Educated ESOL Learners. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 7(1), 67– 81.

Summary In spite of contextual differences, the Flemish and Norwegian data align Between-group differences - Significant and large differences between educational profiles - Important cut-off point: primary - secondary education - Abstract / cognitively demanding question types: significant & large bias Allemano, J. (2013). Testing the Reading Ability of Low Educated ESOL Learners. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 7(1), 67– 81.

Summary In spite of contextual differences, the Flemish and Norwegian data align Between-group differences Within-group gains Speaking: Large, significant gains in each program, differences remain Writing: Most gains in fast track, no gains in slow track, differences increase Allemano, J. (2013). Testing the Reading Ability of Low Educated ESOL Learners. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 7(1), 67– 81.

Conclusion Educational background impacts test performance Not entirely mediated by L 2 classes Written skills: most problematic for low-educated learners L 2 classes: gains are made! But they are too small to achieve the requirement The gap between the standard track increases Allemano, J. (2013). Testing the Reading Ability of Low Educated ESOL Learners. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 7(1), 67– 81. Carlsen, C. H. (2017). Giving LESLLA-learners a fair chance in testing. Proceedings of the 12 th LESLLA Symposium. Granada:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty bart. deygers@kuleuven. be Download this presentation at https: //tinyurl. com/Deygers-Eurosla 18 be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the