5. Perugia: No Orientation and Poor Testing (1)
If the University of Perugia for Foreigners left an indelible impression on me it is that of diffidence on the part of the Administration. Out of charity, we might say the administrators demonstrated poor management skills. In truth, they demonstrated a remarkable degree of indifference to the concerns or interest of the students. An early example of such indifference can be found in the absence of an orientation programme and in the type of entrance test that was an insult to the idea of conscientious testing.
When I corresponded with the university I dealt with the “Office of Welcome” [Ufficio Accoglienza], but there certainly was no welcoming group when I arrived on campus! Now, I’m not expecting a brass band and a cheering group, but I do expect to have some kind of orientation. It’s not that the Administration does not hold such events, because I noticed that the university was advertising orientation programmes for incoming Italian students when their term started in October. What makes the administrators think that foreigners attending a foreign institution in a strange city would not require some kind of orientation? Classes were not localised to a single central building but held in several buildings separated by a good 10 minutes walk and located on different levels of the Perugian plateau. Instead, we were left to discover for ourselves the city and the university and to find our own way to the various buildings.
Lack of an orientation programme may be trivial in the grand scheme of things, but how do we explain the poor quality of the testing given by the university? Every student had to take a placement test so that the university could evaluate our knowledge of Italian. The “test” consisted of multiple-choice answers to questions on certain passages. Like children who grow up playing computer games, those who grow up with multiple choice tests have an adeptness that others lack. More importantly, multiple choice is hardly appropriate for a course in language. Since the course stressed language, grammar, comprehension, and speaking, the test should check for all these areas instead of just comprehension.
As a result of this superficial testing, our class of 17 was divided into those who could speak but knew no to little grammar, and those who knew their grammar but were weak on comprehension and speaking. Half the class was bored when grammar was taught while the other half dominated when asked to read or speak. If the university had been serious about placing us in our correct levels, the test would have included grammar, comprehension, and an oral test. Anyone who has taught English as a Second Language knows that an experienced teacher can readily identify a student’s weaknesses from reading a brief paragraph and holding an even briefer interview.
The excuse that the large number of entering students -- there were multiple classes --precludes the more thorough testing recommended by me is a lame excuse. First, as I have pointed out, it does not require that much time to test a student for all three areas. Besides, what is more important – placing the student in the correct level or the markers’ convenience? Many of us registered for the course months before the classes started. For example, I registered in May. Early registration gave the university ample time to schedule the tests at set times for registered students with a catchall for late comers. This approach would have given the testers time for a more thorough testing to ensure that students were placed correctly. Instead, those responsible opted for a conveniently superficial method of testing that was inherently inaccurate.
The conclusion is that those who ran the test were too lazy to administer one that could give them a more accurate picture of the student’s ability. Or else it really did not matter, just as it did not matter to the Administration that there was no orientation programme. I suggest that the reason for this indifference is that the university is sitting on its reputation quite content to rake in the euros from those of us who sign up for their one-month course. In short, we were just so many bodies bringing in extra euros.
When I corresponded with the university I dealt with the “Office of Welcome” [Ufficio Accoglienza], but there certainly was no welcoming group when I arrived on campus! Now, I’m not expecting a brass band and a cheering group, but I do expect to have some kind of orientation. It’s not that the Administration does not hold such events, because I noticed that the university was advertising orientation programmes for incoming Italian students when their term started in October. What makes the administrators think that foreigners attending a foreign institution in a strange city would not require some kind of orientation? Classes were not localised to a single central building but held in several buildings separated by a good 10 minutes walk and located on different levels of the Perugian plateau. Instead, we were left to discover for ourselves the city and the university and to find our own way to the various buildings.
Lack of an orientation programme may be trivial in the grand scheme of things, but how do we explain the poor quality of the testing given by the university? Every student had to take a placement test so that the university could evaluate our knowledge of Italian. The “test” consisted of multiple-choice answers to questions on certain passages. Like children who grow up playing computer games, those who grow up with multiple choice tests have an adeptness that others lack. More importantly, multiple choice is hardly appropriate for a course in language. Since the course stressed language, grammar, comprehension, and speaking, the test should check for all these areas instead of just comprehension.
As a result of this superficial testing, our class of 17 was divided into those who could speak but knew no to little grammar, and those who knew their grammar but were weak on comprehension and speaking. Half the class was bored when grammar was taught while the other half dominated when asked to read or speak. If the university had been serious about placing us in our correct levels, the test would have included grammar, comprehension, and an oral test. Anyone who has taught English as a Second Language knows that an experienced teacher can readily identify a student’s weaknesses from reading a brief paragraph and holding an even briefer interview.
The excuse that the large number of entering students -- there were multiple classes --precludes the more thorough testing recommended by me is a lame excuse. First, as I have pointed out, it does not require that much time to test a student for all three areas. Besides, what is more important – placing the student in the correct level or the markers’ convenience? Many of us registered for the course months before the classes started. For example, I registered in May. Early registration gave the university ample time to schedule the tests at set times for registered students with a catchall for late comers. This approach would have given the testers time for a more thorough testing to ensure that students were placed correctly. Instead, those responsible opted for a conveniently superficial method of testing that was inherently inaccurate.
The conclusion is that those who ran the test were too lazy to administer one that could give them a more accurate picture of the student’s ability. Or else it really did not matter, just as it did not matter to the Administration that there was no orientation programme. I suggest that the reason for this indifference is that the university is sitting on its reputation quite content to rake in the euros from those of us who sign up for their one-month course. In short, we were just so many bodies bringing in extra euros.
posted by Toby1939 at 11:17 AM
<< Home