I began studying French in middle school and arrived at university with seven years of experience. Although it had always been a challenging subject for me, I had a strong foundation and had spent limited time abroad. I felt confident that I could pick up my studies and would not have to go through the prerequisites to place into courses such as Introduction to Reading French Literature to continue my studies. All I would need to do was take the French language placement test.

As it turned out, taking this placement exam was the most discouraging assessment I took in my academic career. I do not fault the department for using this test as a placement tool, nor do I claim that I was an exceptional candidate ready to excel in upper-level French courses. The aim of this piece is to reflect on how decontextualized placement exams can negatively affect the student experience and to seek alternatives to better the process for departments and students alike in the future.

It has now been more than a decade since I took the exam, so my memory is limited. However, I recall it as a brief, online multiple-choice test focused on grammar and conjugation. It lasted less than 20 minutes and did not include any writing or speaking components. When my results were returned, I was informed that I had only tested out of the first year and would be placed in French 201. I was surprised and disappointed. I did not feel that the test reflected my full range of skills, and the result had financial consequences—I would now be required to pay for credits covering material I had already mastered in high school.

I contacted the French department to ask whether I could submit additional evidence of proficiency or complete an interview, but I was told that this was not an option. I understood the limitations; it is not feasible to provide individualized assessments to every incoming student, especially at a large university, but it was extremely discouraging. With dismay, I enrolled in the recommended course and set my mind to seeking enrichment opportunities on my own, with the support from my instructor.

During that first course, my professor granted me permission to move ahead to French 202. The following summer, I participated in the university’s French language and culture in Tours, France. A major feature of the program was the opportunity to receive a Diplôme d’Etudes en Langue Française (DELF), a comprehensive exam assessing reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Despite my limited number of university credits, I was permitted to sit for the exams and passed earning a B2 certification, indicating proficiency great enough to study at a French university -similar to a minimum English language requirement to study at American universities.

This experience demonstrated how narrowly designed assessments can fail to capture students’ true capabilities. The placement test recognized only one type of knowledge and excluded other essential skills. As Montenegro and Jankowski (2017) argued, “assessment, if not done with equity in mind, privileges and validates certain types of learning and evidence of learning over others, can hinder the validation of multiple means of demonstration, and can reinforce within students the false notion that they do not belong in higher education” (p. 5). While equitable assessment at scale is complex, it remains essential—particularly when assessments carry real consequences for opportunity and cost. I am optimistic that as tools like AI and platforms like Lingco Language Labs develop better and better automated tools to help provide feedback for verbal expression, we will be able to develop more accessible and culturally responsive options for these kinds of language assessments. 

References

Montenegro, E., & Jankowski, N. A. (2017). Equity and assessment: Moving towards culturally responsive assessment (Occasional Paper No. 29). University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA).