The English Language Placement Test at the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET) in Kuwait: A Survey of Instructors’ Perspectives

The English Language Placement Test at the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET) in Kuwait: A Survey of Instructors’ Perspectives | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The English Language Placement Test at the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET) in Kuwait: A Survey of Instructors’ Perspectives Sarah AlSabbagh, Hanan Altarrah, Dalal Boland, Budour AlSharifi This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7545830/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract English language placement tests are essential tools employed globally for assessing students’ English proficiency levels. In Kuwait, such evaluations are widely implemented across higher educational institutions, as English serves as the second most widely used language after Arabic. Nonetheless, the literature reveals a lack of in-depth studies that explore instructors’ perspectives and recommendations for enhancing the use of these tests. Such insights are crucial for informing educators and policymakers not only in Kuwait but also across the region. Hence, this study investigated instructors’ perceptions of the English Placement Test (EPT) administered at the Language Center (LC) of the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET) in Kuwait. It aimed to identify challenges correlated with the EPT and propose potential areas for improvement from the perspective of PAAET’s language instructors. A total of 64 out of 79 instructors participated in an electronic survey designed to ensure anonymity between researchers and respondents. The questionnaire incorporated Likert-scale items and open-ended questions, generating both quantitative and qualitative data to enrich the analysis. Quantitative data from the Likert-scale responses were analyzed using SPSS, while qualitative data from the open-ended responses underwent thematic analysis via NVivo. This approach provided comprehensive insights into statistical trends and instructors’ nuanced perspectives. Findings revealed that although instructors generally viewed the EPT positively, there were diverse opinions about its effectiveness in accurately reflecting students’ language proficiency. Drawing on these insights, the research concludes with instructors’ recommendations to incorporate additional language skills and modify the test format to better align with real-life language use. English Placement Test (EPT) Language Center (LC) Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET) Reliability Validity Language Proficiency Kuwait Introduction Background of the Study Educational institutions assess students’ language skills through English language placement exams to evaluate the competencies of non-native speakers. As Sheerah and Yadav (2022) note, language testing functions as a measure of accountability for educational institutions, ensuring that students meet established proficiency standards before progressing to higher levels of education or entering the workforce. This is particularly critical in contexts where English proficiency is correlated with academic and professional success. Enhancing students’ language abilities contributes to developing a highly skilled and distinguished human capital. The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) remains one of the most widely utilized assessments for academic purposes, while the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) and Cambridge Assessment examinations serve both academic and immigration-related objectives. Cambridge English Exams, in particular, are recognized globally by governments, employers, and universities and are designed to assess varying levels of proficiency (Alzankawi & Alenezi, 2021, Pastor et al., 2011). With the rise of globalization, standardized language assessments have become increasingly essential, particularly for validating professional and academic credentials (Aladl, 2018). Tests such as the IELTS and TOEFL have gained widespread acceptance as benchmarks of English language ability. Moreover, assessments that extend beyond mere evaluation of grammatical knowledge—focusing instead on functional language use and communicative competence—have been developed to provide a more comprehensive measure of learners’ proficiency (Wang, 2019). Significance of Accurate Placement in Language Education Accurate placement in language education is crucial for ensuring that learners are appropriately challenged, receive targeted instruction, and make efficient progress. By aligning students with classes that match their proficiency levels, proper placement prevents them from feeling either overwhelmed or under-challenged. Effective language testing also enables institutions to assign students to suitable language support programs, which is particularly important for addressing language difficulties and minimizing the risk of academic failure. As illustrated by the English Language Institute at the University of Surrey, standardized language examinations are widely employed in educational settings to identify students who may require additional language support. These assessments facilitate the enrollment of students in courses corresponding to their level of language competence. (Fulcher, 1997). Proper placement further allows instructors to focus on developing relevant skills for each group, maintaining student motivation and engagement, which, in turn, boosts their confidence and promotes academic success. Moreover, Alzankawi and Alenezi (2021) highlight that instructors can refine their curriculum and instructional practices by understanding their students’ linguistic strengths and weaknesses. Context of the Study at the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET) Established on December 28, 1982, the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET) was created to develop and enhance human resources in response to the technical labor shortages driven by the nation’s industrial and economic growth. Through its two primary sectors—education and training—PAAET seeks to meet the country’s demand for human capital while cultivating a robust technical workforce (UNESCO-UNEVOC, n.d). PAAET comprises five academic colleges: the College of Business Studies, College of Basic Education, College of Medical Sciences, College of Nursing, and College of Technological Studies. These institutions offer students a range of higher national diploma programs and selected bachelor’s degree programs (Al Faraj, 2021). In 2007, the Language Center (LC) was established within PAAET to provide English language support across its five colleges. Currently staffed by 79 instructors holding qualifications ranging from bachelor’s to doctoral degrees, the LC s committed not only to excellence in English language instruction but also to advancing scholarly research in language education and linguistics. Its mission is to equip students with the language competencies essential for academic success and professional advancement. Thus, the LC offers both general English courses and English for Specific Purposes (ESP) courses, tailored to meet the needs of students in diverse fields (Almutairi, 2024). To ensure appropriate placement in an English language module that matches their proficiency level, applicants are required to take the English Placement Test (EPT). This test is designed and administered by a committee appointed by the LC specifically for students who have recently been admitted into any of the PAAET colleges. The LC administers the EPT twice a year, at the beginning of each semester. Students are permitted only one opportunity to take the test at the start of their college studies. The exam comprises 100 questions, with a passing score of 60 out of 100 required for successful placement. All students are requested to take the EPT upon acceptance into their programs. The minimum passing score is set at 60% for diploma students and 80% for bachelor’s degree students. Students who either choose not to take the placement test or fail to achieve the required score are automatically enrolled in a remedial, non-credit English course. Nonetheless, students can be excused from taking this remedial course if they present an IELTS score of 4.5 for diploma programs and 5.5 for bachelor’s programs or an equivalent score from other recognized English proficiency tests. PAAET’s EPT has sparked debate among several instructors at the LC. While some argue that the test requires enhancement due to its numerous limitations, others believe it should be entirely redesigned, citing significant flaws and shortcomings in its current structure (Al Faraj, 2021). Purpose of the Study Understanding Instructors’ Perceptions of English Language Placement Tests EPTs are vital instruments for assessing the proficiency levels of students entering language courses or programs. The way instructors perceive these tests can significantly affect their implementation, effectiveness, and the overall educational experience for both instructors and students. A thorough understanding of these perceptions is essential for enhancing the role of EPTs in language education. Instructors commonly form their perceptions based on their understanding of the purpose and functionality of placement tests. Many recognize EPTs as crucial tools for accurately gauging students’ language proficiency levels. Several instructors view EPTs as critical for ensuring that students are placed in courses that correspond to their abilities, which allows for tailored instruction that meets their learning needs. This perspective underscores the significance of employing placement tests to create an optimal learning environment where students can thrive (Sheerah & Yadav, 2022). Another critical factor shaping instructors’ perceptions is their confidence in the validity and reliability of placement tests. Educators typically scrutinize whether these assessments accurately measure students’ language proficiency and produce consistent and dependable results. Concerns about validity frequently arise when instructors perceive that the tests fail to capture the full range of language skills or exhibit bias toward particular language varieties or cultural contexts. Such concerns can influence how instructors integrate these assessments into their teaching practices. Furthermore, some educators evaluate placement tests based on their alignment with the curriculum and instructional objectives of their language programs. Tests tend to be viewed more favorably when they effectively assess the skills and knowledge emphasized in classroom instruction. Conversely, if there are noticeable discrepancies between test content and the curriculum or if the assessments do not accurately reflect the learning goals of the program, instructors may express dissatisfaction. This misalignment can result in critical evaluations of placement tests and calls for adjustments to better serve educational objectives. Overall, instructors’ perceptions of these tests are influenced by their understanding of the tests’ purpose, their beliefs about validity and reliability, and how well these assessments align with their curriculum. Addressing these perceptions is crucial for enhancing the implementation and effectiveness of EPTs in language education (Fulcher, 2010). Identifying Potential Areas for Improvement in the Placement Test Process Enhancing the efficacy, fairness, and accuracy of placement exams is crucial for optimizing student outcomes. Several key areas require attention to bolster the overall placement test process. First, the content of placement tests should be regularly updated to ensure that it accurately reflects the skills necessary for success in language programs. This involves aligning test content with current educational standards and the specific language competencies students need. This allows organizations to enhance the validity and reliability of these assessments by grounding them in students’ real learning contexts. Moreover, the administration of placement tests must be carefully designed to ensure accessibility for all students, including those with disabilities. Streamlining administrative procedures can help minimize errors and bias, creating a more equitable testing environment. Employing reliable and standardized technologies and processes is also essential to enhance the overall testing experience and ensure consistency across various testing instances (Bachman & Palmer, 2010). Stakeholder engagement is another critical area for improvement. Actively involving educators in the test development process provides valuable feedback and insights that can help shape the content and structure of assessments. Their perspectives are instrumental in aligning tests with both students’ academic needs and labor market demands, ensuring the continued relevance and effectiveness of placement exams. Finally, addressing ethical considerations is vital to uphold the integrity of placement testing. Upholding fairness, confidentiality, and respect for diversity must remain a priority. Institutions should proactively identify and mitigate biases within the testing process, promoting an inclusive environment where all students feel valued and fairly assessed. By focusing on these areas for improvement, organizations can optimize the effectiveness and fairness of placement tests, ultimately resulting in better educational outcomes for students (Taylor, 2013). Research Questions 1. What are instructors’ perceptions of the current English language placement test at the PAAET? 2. What suggestions do instructors have for upgrading the English language placement test process? Literature Review Functions and Applications of Placement Tests Language placement assessments effectively evaluate students’ proficiency in a second language, particularly during educational transitions, such as the shift from high school to university. These assessments also help identify weaknesses in specific language competencies, encompassing reading, writing, grammar, and listening, providing insights that enable educators to adapt instructional strategies and resources, which create a more tailored and successful classroom environment. According to Kadwa and Sheikh (2021), placement tests establish a baseline for tracking student progress, allowing educators to monitor improvements in proficiency over time. They also support multilevel teaching approaches by facilitating the customization of materials to address diverse learner needs, thereby creating more inclusive and impactful educational experiences. Long et al. (2018) highlight that language assessment is a fundamental component of language education, integrating diverse perspectives and critical considerations. Key components encompass validity and reliability, which ensure that assessments accurately measure intended constructs and produce consistent results across various contexts and time frames. The purpose of the assessment also plays a pivotal role, as the intended use of test scores, such as for placement, diagnostics, or progress monitoring, directly affects the design and interpretation of the assessment. For instance, placement tests seek to allocate students to courses that align with their proficiency levels, necessitating clear goals and robust methodologies. Peredrienko and Istomina (2017) affirm that comprehensive assessments should evaluate both receptive skills (listening and reading) and productive skills (speaking and writing), thereby offering a holistic understanding of students’ language abilities. Inaccurate assessments that cause misplacement can negatively affect students’ motivation and confidence, highlighting the significance of reliability and validity. The field of language assessment continues to evolve, driven by ongoing research, practitioner feedback, and technological advancements, with increasing emphasis on fairness and inclusivity to accommodate diverse learners and educational contexts. On another note, Nasem (2019) argues that cultural and contextual factors are equally critical, as assessment practices must align with the unique educational and linguistic contexts in which they are applied. Similarly, Akhidenor-Bamidele (2019) underscores the value of integrating modern technologies, such as computerized assessments, to enhance accessibility, efficiency, and adaptability to contemporary educational demands. Additionally, Nasem (2019) highlights the importance of professional development for educators as a vital component of effective language assessment. Instructors’ perceptions of assessments, encompassing concerns about validity, reliability, and curricular alignment, can significantly affect the effectiveness of these tools. Hence, ongoing instructor training and the development of culturally adaptable assessments are crucial for optimizing the utility of language assessment tools. In sum, language assessment serves as a cornerstone of effective language education. It supports learning through accurate placement, informs teaching by providing diagnostic insights, and evolves to meet educational needs through technological and methodological innovations. By prioritizing validity, equity, and cultural relevance, language assessments can significantly enhance teaching practices, student learning, and overall educational outcomes. Perspectives on English Language Placement Tests There are numerous concerns regarding the validity and reliability of placement tests. For instance, educators typically question whether these assessments accurately measure students’ language abilities, particularly when the test content lacks alignment with students’ cultural backgrounds or the curriculum being taught (Nasem, 2019; Al-Adawi & Al-Balushi, 2016). Additional issues—such as statistical errors in scoring, the limitations of certain test formats like multiple-choice questions, and the potential for random guessing to influence outcomes—are frequently cited as factors that undermine the reliability of these assessments (Al-Adawi & Al-Balushi, 2016). Cultural relevance also emerges as a critical factor affecting both student performance and the overall effectiveness of placement tests. In multicultural and multilingual settings, it is crucial to design assessments that accommodate diverse student experiences to promote fairness and equity (Long et al., 2018). Furthermore, the increasing reliance on online testing formats introduces new challenges, particularly in relation to students’ computer literacy. Those with limited technological proficiency may encounter difficulties navigating digital platforms, which can distort test results and result in inappropriate placement decisions (Nasem, 2019). To address these challenges, researchers advocate for continuous refinement in the design and implementation of placement tests. There is growing support for more comprehensive assessments that evaluate all four language skills—listening, speaking, reading, and writing—rather than relying on limited test formats (Al-Adawi & Al-Balushi, 2016). Such holistic approaches offer a more accurate reflection of students’ overall language proficiency and better prepare them for real-world communication, where multiple skills are typically employed simultaneously. The alignment of placement tests with the curriculum is another significant area of discussion. Educators argue that tests should reflect the content and skills taught in the classroom to enhance their relevance for both placement decisions and instructional planning. While placement tests are primarily designed for initial student placement, they can also serve as tools for monitoring progress over time. By tracking development, placement tests offer valuable data to inform decisions about advancing students to higher instructional levels (Nasem, 2019). Additionally, both educators and researchers highlight the significance of professional development for instructors. Those who are well versed in the structure, purpose, and scoring of placement tests are better equipped to interpret results, integrate them into instructional planning, and communicate findings effectively to students and stakeholders (Nasem, 2019; Long et al., 2018). Professional training ensures that placement tests are utilized to their fullest potential, ultimately contributing to students’ success in language learning. Instructors’ Perspectives on Placement Tests According to Long et al. (2018), instructors’ opinions regarding assessment procedures, classroom environments, and personal experiences all affect how they see language placement exams. Test validity and reliability issues are widespread, particularly when they do not match curricula nor adequately assess students’ skills. A. Validity and Reliability According to Kadwa and Sheikh (2021), instructors’ perceptions of language placement exams vary considerably, influenced by their professional backgrounds, teaching environments, and the design of the tests themselves. A common concern among educators is the validity of these assessments—whether they accurately measure students’ language proficiency and reflect the competencies necessary for academic success and real-world communication. In many cases, this skepticism extends to broader concerns about the overall quality of English language instruction. Instructors typically observe that students continue to struggle with achieving basic proficiency levels. This perceived disconnect leads to frustration, not only with the placement tests but also with the educational system as a whole. Furthermore, it is believed that a heavy reliance on quantitative evaluation techniques, such multiple-choice questions, is insufficient for assessing qualitative language abilities like speaking and writing, which are essential for achieving comprehensive language competency. A variety of factors, such as instructional environments, educational ideologies, and professional experiences, shape educators’ perspectives on examinations, particularly in the context of language assessment and standardized testing. Instructors’ views typically reflect a nuanced understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of evaluations in accomplishing learning objectives. According to Lai and Waltman (2008), educators’ top concerns encompass test validity and fairness. Many instructors question whether standardized tests truly capture students’ knowledge and abilities, particularly for learners with diverse educational needs or those from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Another source of skepticism lies in the potential mismatch between what these tests measure and broader educational goals, such as fostering creativity and critical thinking. Additionally, high-stakes testing is often perceived as encouraging a “teaching to the test” approach, which may narrow the curriculum and detract from more holistic, learner-centered educational practices. Lai and Waltman (2008) further highlight ongoing concerns regarding the validity and reliability of such tests, despite their widespread use and significance. Considering that variables like exam anxiety, cultural differences, or unfamiliarity with test forms may affect results, educators and stakeholders frequently wonder if these tests accurately reflect students’ language proficiency. The significance of ensuring that placement tests are reliable (they produce consistent results in several contexts) and valid (they evaluate the required competencies) is therefore becoming increasingly important. A test that is remarkably too simple or difficult could compromise the reliability of the placement procedure. Instructors also consider the test’s equality and fairness, highlighting the significance of providing each student with an equal chance to showcase his/her skills. Strong and reliable evaluations are essential to ensuring that placement choices are based on accurate and meaningful information. The impact of placement examinations on students’ academic trajectories is also widely acknowledged. Their academic paths may be greatly influenced by the results; hence, it is crucial that these exams are impartial and provide a fair evaluation of language skills. As such, placement tests are regarded as vital tools for guiding students toward appropriate educational opportunities (Outias & Belaoura, 2021). B. Curriculum and Design The discrepancy between curricula and the style or content of the exams is another common criticism. Several instructors believe that students’ learning experiences are fragmented because the resources they utilize in the classroom do not match the evaluations. Another major issue is cultural relevance. Several educators believe that these assessments, which are typically created from a Western viewpoint, ignore the backgrounds, values, and beliefs of students in diverse cultural contexts. Placement tests are also valued for the insights they provide into students’ strengths and weaknesses. Such information allows instructors to modify their lesson plans to meet the requirements of individual students and enhance their overall efficacy. Thus, placement tests are useful instruments for directing curriculum design in addition to determining course placement. Instructors and institutions can better align their programs with students’ needs by examining the results of placement tests, ensuring curricula remain both effective and relevant (Lai & Waltman, 2008). According to Akhidenor-Bamidele (2019), students’ performance may be shaped by various factors, encompassing cultural differences, prior educational experiences, and test-taking anxiety. These factors may result in inaccurate assessments of students’ actual language proficiency. Additionally, there is a drive for assessments that consider students’ particular needs, learning experiences, and circumstances. Moreover, limiting assessments to specific skills such as reading, vocabulary, and grammar is viewed as insufficient for providing a comprehensive evaluation of English proficiency. Many educators advocate for the inclusion of speaking and listening components to ensure a more holistic assessment of students’ language abilities. Another critical consideration is the role of computer literacy. In Ouitas and Belaoura’s (2021) study, instructors have noted that students may suffer in online tests if they are unfamiliar with technology, highlighting the necessity of evaluating students’ technological proficiency while assessing test results. Methodology This research seeks to elucidate instructors’ perceptions of the EPT administered at the LC of the PAAET. Their insights significantly help us determine the efficacy of the test from their perspectives. To gather the necessary data that supports the study’s objectives and provides robust answers to the research questions, instructors at the LC of the PAAET were invited to share their views through two surveys integrating Likert-scale items and open-ended questions. This mixed-methods approach allowed for the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data, yielding rich findings that deepened our understanding of the topic under investigation. The survey method provided our participants with an opportunity to express their opinions freely by ensuring honesty, anonymity, and confidentiality, which minimized any personal reactions and interpretations. Prior to data collection, a letter of ethical consent was sent to the LC director, securing approval to conduct the research within the LC of the PAAET. Surveys The use of survey research in this study aligns with Cohen et al. (2018), who emphasize that quantitative data helps distinguish values from facts, allowing for clearer correlations and comparisons with other studies. Similarly, Williams (2007) affirms that quantitative findings can be both explanatory and confirming, while Wellington (2015) underscores the ability of surveys to also capture qualitative insights. Furthermore, Creswell and Clark (2018) stress the significance of crafting simple and direct questions to effectively capture respondents’ attitudes toward the EPT. This can eventually offer empirical evidence to inform policymakers, instructors, and students about the test’s efficiency. Cohen et al. (2018) recommend online surveys to capture participants’ beliefs and views in an effective and speedy fashion. Thus, in this research, Microsoft Forms was employed as the survey platform due to its familiarity among instructors. Moreover, as this study involved multiple researchers, online surveys were practical and reduced potential bias, encouraging more honest responses. Participants were initially asked several Likert questions, and the findings resulted in the subsequent stage where they were asked for more in-depth responses through another online survey with open-ended questions to generate data that explains and supports the descriptive and inferential findings obtained in the earlier phase. Sample The surveys were distributed to all language instructors teaching English across the PAAET’s colleges under the LC. This approach aimed to gather diverse perspectives, enhance the robustness of the analysis, and establish causal relationships that could be applicable to a broader population. The online questionnaires were distributed electronically to all the instructors, encompassing those holding PhD, master’s, and bachelor’s degrees. At the time of data collection, the LC included 79 active teaching members, but only 64 instructors volunteered to participate in the study. The sample predominantly comprised female participants, reflecting the overall composition of PAAET’s instructional staff, with women accounting for 76.0% of participants and men comprising 24%. Most respondents were aged 31–40 years, representing 55% of the sample. This was followed by those aged 41–50 (20%), 51–60 (17%), and 61 years or older (8%). Participants aged 21–30 made up the smallest group at just 1%. This distribution indicates that all age categories are represented within the sample, although younger individuals (21–30 years) were the least represented. Most participants held a master’s degree (64%), followed by those with PhDs (32%). Participants with bachelor’s degrees comprised 5% of the sample. Regarding teaching experience, two groups—those with 11–15 years and those with 21 years or more—each accounted for 26% of respondents. Participants with 16–20 years of experience represented 23%, while those with 6–10 years made up 18%. The smallest group, at 8%, comprised instructors with 1–5 years of teaching experience. A significant majority (76%) reported not being involved in designing the EPT at the PAAET, while only 24% indicated participation in this activity. Reliability This study employed a mixed-methods research strategy, integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches to validate findings and deepen understanding. It enhances the validity and reliability of research by cross-checking evidence from multiple perspectives (Creswell, 2013; Tashakkori, 1998; Bryman, 2012). In the social sciences, this methodology is particularly effective for capturing the complexity of human behavior (Cohen & Manion, 2001). In this research, a mixed-methods questionnaire was administered, incorporating open-ended questions (qualitative) alongside Likert-scale items (quantitative), conducted concurrently to assess instructors’ perceptions of the placement test. The quantitative data was prioritized, with qualitative data supporting and validating the findings. The integration of both methods allowed for confirmation of researcher interpretations, provision of more comprehensive insights, and increased confidence in the results (Stake, 1995; Robson, 2011). Analysis The data was explored using SPSS for the quantitative responses, which facilitated processing and interpreting numerical data efficiently through descriptive and inferential analysis. For the open-ended questions employed in the subsequent stage, NVivo software was applied to generate thematic analysis by identifying recurring themes and patterns in participants’ responses. This integration of methods offered a comprehensive understanding of both the statistical trends and the qualitative insights from the participants. A total of 64 respondents from the LC of the PAAET participated in the quantitative data collection phase. This sample size is ideal for a total population of 79, yielding a confidence level of 90% and a margin of error of 10%, which is considered appropriate for the study’s objectives. To ensure data adequacy and quality, the reliability of the study instruments was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. The scale comprised 14 items rated on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The internal consistency coefficients ranged from 0.674 to 0.940, all exceeding the critical t-value at the 0.05 significance level. The overall Cronbach’s alpha was 0.873, which is higher than the acceptable threshold of 0.70, indicating strong reliability of the study instruments (see Table 1). After answering the first research question that generated quantitative data, nearly half of the respondents (30 participants) volunteered to share their opinions in our open-ended questions that aimed at answering our second research question regarding instructors’ suggestions for enhancing the EPT process. This stage generated thematic qualitative data, which, as Braun and Clarke (2006) argue, is the foundational analytical method for qualitative data. The data were examined to offer a rich thematic description of the findings, and the themes were identified through an inductive approach. Qualitative research, in contrast to quantitative study, allowed our participants to inject their own personal experiences that further explain and justify their responses in the quantitative phase. According to Creswell and Clark (2018), data gathered through a mixed-methods approach provide greater explanatory power and validity, which could not be obtained if the research only relied on the collation of one set of data. Limitations One of the drawbacks of online data collection was the absence of face-to-face interaction with the instructors, which may have deterred some of them from participating in the study. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the electronic survey helped in maintaining anonymity between the researchers and their participants, who are also their colleagues at the PAAET. Conveniently, this allowed them the opportunity to share their opinions freely, which increased the reliability of the research findings. Findings This study sought to explore instructors’ perceptions of the PAAET’s current EPT and gather their insights on potential improvements. Accordingly, the data were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative measures, as detailed in the following sections. Instructors’ perceptions of the EPT To answer the first research question regarding instructors’ perceptions, participants were asked some quantitative Likert questions to gain a better understanding of the current situation. Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 present the results regarding instructors’ current perceptions of the EPT, its impact on students’ language learning experiences, and their suggestions for improvement, respectively. Each table includes an explanation of the findings, along with the mean scores, standard deviations, and mean score percentages for each question. [Insert Table 1] The mean ± SD for the effectiveness of the test in assessing language proficiency was 3.25 ± 0.94, with a mean score percentage of 65.0%, indicating that participants moderately agree with this statement. The relatively low standard deviation reflects a fair level of consensus among respondents. When asked about the test’s reflection of necessary academic language skills, the mean ± SD was 3.02 ± 1.25, with a mean score percentage of 60.31%, suggesting moderate agreement. However, the higher standard deviation suggests more varied opinions on this aspect. Instructors generally agreed that the test is fair to all students (mean score = 66.56%), though the standard deviation of 1.31 indicates significant diversity in their responses. The results indicate that the placement test is moderately aligned with students’ actual language abilities, as reflected by a mean score of 2.97 and a standard deviation (SD) of 1.28, suggesting notable variability in participants’ responses. A mean score of 4.16 demonstrates strong agreement among participants that the instructions and format of the test are clear, with the low SD of 0.80 indicating a high level of consensus. Similarly, the time allocated for completing the placement test was viewed positively, with a Mean ± SD of 4.14 ± 0.89, showing strong agreement and consistent responses across participants. Finally, the mean score of 3.02 and SD of 1.32 suggest moderate agreement that the test’s range of question types effectively assesses various language abilities, though there is considerable variation in opinions on this aspect. The data suggests that participants generally view the EPT at the PAAET positively, particularly regarding the clarity of instructions and sufficiency of the time allocated. Nonetheless, there is more varied feedback on other aspects such as the test’s reflection of academic language skills, fairness, and alignment with actual language abilities, highlighting potential areas for improvement. [Insert Table 2] As exhibited in Table (2), participants indicated that the EPT motivates students to enhance their language skills, with a mean score of 2.41 ± 1.09 and a mean score percentage of 48.13%. This suggests that a significant portion of the respondents either disagreed or remained neutral about the motivational impact of the placement test. Additionally, respondents affirmed that students placed into higher proficiency levels tend to exhibit greater confidence in their language skills. This statement received a mean score of 3.83 ± 1.03 and a mean score percentage of 76.56%, reflecting a strong belief among participants that placement in higher levels boosts student confidence. Conversely, students assigned to lower proficiency levels may encounter challenges in their academic coursework. With a mean score of 3.67 ± 1.22 and a mean score of 73.44%, the data suggests that instructors believe that many students at lower proficiency levels may experience significant academic hurdles. According to our participants, the EPT adequately predicts students’ success in subsequent language courses. This statement obtained a mean score of 3.27 ± 1.12 and a mean score percentage of 65.31%, demonstrating mixed opinions among the respondents regarding the predictive validity of the placement test. This detailed breakdown highlights both strengths and areas needing improvement in the EPT process, particularly in its impact on students’ language learning experiences. [Insert Table 3] Table 3 provides an overview of the distribution of study subjects (N = 64) based on their responses to three key suggestions for enhancing the placement test experience. The analysis highlights that most respondents favor optimizing the accessibility of placement tests and providing additional resources, with mean scores of 3.86 and 3.80, respectively. Nonetheless, there is a moderate level of satisfaction with the current placement tests, indicated by a lower mean score of 2.97. This proposes areas for improvement in upgrading the overall placement test experience. [Insert Table 4] Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics for the examined aspects of the EPT. Overall, participants’ perceptions of the placement test are positive, with responses showing a fair level of consistency. The mean scores and their percentages exhibit that participants generally agree that the time allocated for the placement test is sufficient and that the test positively impacts students’ language learning experiences. The suggestions for improvement were also well received, highlighting areas where further enhancements could add value. [Insert Table 5] Table 5 exhibits no statistically significant relationship between any of the variables and the socio demographic data, as the significance level was bigger than 0.05 (p > 0.05). This table illustrates the distribution of responses across low, moderate, and high frequency levels. Most respondents reported moderate to high perceptions of the placement test, reflecting generally positive feedback, with only seven responses at the low level. Similarly, participants indicated a moderate to high impact of the placement test on their language learning experiences, with only four low-level responses. Finally, nearly half of the respondents offered moderate suggestions for improvement, while a substantial number (30 responses) provided high-level suggestions, demonstrating interest in enhancing the placement test. Instructors’ opinions regarding the EPT’s challenges and their recommendations for improvement The second research question yielded qualitative data that included instructors’ opinions regarding the EPT’s challenges and their recommendations for upgrading this test. There were common categories among the data, which were grouped together to avoid any redundancies; thus, the data were examined thematically to accentuate the dominant categories and themes across the dataset. According to Braun and Clarke (2006), researchers do not simply identify themes because they emerge in the data; instead, they are also inspired by their epistemological and theoretical positions. Hence, we presented participants’ voices by integrating several pieces of evidence that we “select, edit, and deploy to border our arguments” (Fine, 2002: 218). The key themes identified from instructors’ insights included enhancing the EPT’s content, addressing administrative and technical hurdles, and enhancing students’ preparation. A. Enhancing the EPT’s content Participants highlighted that the test content presents several issues that negatively impede its effectiveness and fairness. First, multiple-choice questions commonly feature options that are closely similar, causing confusion among test-takers. Consequently, this can undermine their ability to accurately demonstrate their semantic knowledge. Second, the inclusion of multiple comprehension passages was noted as particularly challenging for slower readers, potentially disadvantaging them during the assessment. To address this, participants suggested “mitigating the number of reading/comprehension questions.” Furthermore, while slightly more than 31% of the participants believed that the exam adequately reflected the language abilities required for academic success, 42% criticized the test for not covering “all language skills.” This deficiency failed to offer a comprehensive evaluation of students’ overall language proficiency. Furthermore, 17.2% of the respondents expressed concern that the test does not accurately align or “match the actual language competency level of the students,” nor does it effectively measure their actual English proficiency levels. This discrepancy can misrepresent their abilities and hinder appropriate placement or advancement. “The majority of test content is directed toward testing grammar. It does not test learners’ analytical ideas.” Critically, the test’s difficulty level has been questioned, with feedback suggesting that it is too easy and lacks items that “engage students’ critical thinking skills.” This emphasis on straightforward grammar assessment neglects critical abilities that are crucial for real-world language use. Overall, these content-related issues highlight the need for a comprehensive review and revision to guarantee that the test accurately reflects students’ true proficiency levels and effectively evaluates a broad range of language skills. A clear consensus emerged among respondents (68.8% of participants) advocating for the inclusion of additional language skills in the assessment framework. Many instructors noted that the test “does not test all four skills” or “include other academic language skills.” Specifically, 23% of participants recommended incorporating a listening section to evaluate students’ comprehension abilities in real-life scenarios. This addition would assess their capacity to understand spoken English effectively. Similarly, there was strong support for integrating a speaking component, with suggestions for interviews or interactive tasks to evaluate students’ oral proficiency and ability to communicate fluently and coherently. Furthermore, participants emphasized the need for increased focus on vocabulary assessment within the test. Including more vocabulary questions would enable a more thorough evaluation of students’ linguistic knowledge across diverse domains, optimizing the test’s overall effectiveness in measuring language proficiency. Moreover, respondents underscored the significance of including a “general writing section.” This would allow evaluators to “gauge students’ abilities” in producing written English, including their grammar, vocabulary usage, and overall writing skills. Feedback on the test’s content and format revealed a strong desire for enhancements that better reflect practical language use and provide a more comprehensive evaluation of students’ abilities. Several respondents stressed the significance of creating a more interactive test by incorporating real-life applications of English. This approach seeks to move beyond traditional grammar and vocabulary assessments by offering tasks that simulate everyday language contexts and interactions, as one participant noted: “It must include more real-life uses of English rather than the usual English grammar and vocabulary.” Some instructors recommended that “new exams should be written for each new academic year” to maintain its relevance and rigor. They also argued that creating new exams annually guarantees that the test reflects current language learning objectives and challenges students appropriately. Hence, this continuous adaptation helps maintain the test’s effectiveness in assessing students’ language proficiency levels. Other participants advocated following “some examples from the TOEFL and IELTS,” as well-established standardized tests, to further optimize the EPT’s credibility and reliability. They believe that drawing upon established frameworks and assessment criteria from recognized tests ensures that the EPT measures language skills in a way that is widely accepted and understood to benefit both students and the PAAET. Overall, these recommendations highlight the desire to create a more comprehensive and balanced assessment that accurately measures a wide range of language skills—listening, speaking, and writing—in addition to traditional reading and comprehension tasks. Respondents believe that by incorporating these components, the EPT of the PAAET can offer a more thorough evaluation of students’ language abilities and adequate preparation for academic and real-world language use. 2. Addressing administrative and technical challenges According to respondents, the administrative and technical challenges correlated with the testing process can cause significant obstacles for students and administrators. Administratively, managing the test becomes complex, particularly when dealing with large numbers of students and with late arrivals who disrupt ongoing sessions. This logistical issue adds stress and potential delays to the testing environment. Proctoring also emerged as a major concern, with reports of inadequate supervision during testing sessions: “Proctoring has been less than adequate for years, which may have affected the ability to properly evaluate the actual test.” This inadequacy can compromise the integrity of test administration and affect the reliability of test results. Thus, participants emphasized the need for proper proctoring to ensure a controlled testing environment that minimizes distractions and prevents unauthorized behaviors that could affect outcomes. Technically, some students face challenges due to limited digital literacy. As respondents noted, may students “do not know how to use the computer” and struggle with navigating traditional keyboards, logging in, and submitting responses electronically. One participant observed, “The student’s modest level of digital literacy makes it even harder for him/her to navigate the test,” while another added, “They are used to the touch-screen experience, and this results in them starting the test with a sense of struggle.” Students’ lack of proficiency can hinder their test performance, while technical issues during the exam further exacerbate these challenges, compromising the reliability and fairness of computer-based test outcomes. For instance, the use of outdated and slow computers adds to the difficulty, disrupting smooth test administration and timely completion. Hence, addressing these challenges is crucial for optimizing the testing process and ensuring a fair and effective assessment environment. Some participants suggested “fixing the software and computer problems” to optimize the overall reliability and fairness of the EPT and to minimize disruptions during testing sessions, thereby allowing students to focus solely on demonstrating their language skills. 3. Improving students’ preparation Several respondents emphasized the need to offer students with training in using the test platform, noting that “students’ inability to use technology” has been a significant barrier. Ensuring that students are proficient in utilizing the test platform and familiar with basic computer operations mitigates the likelihood of technical difficulties during the assessment. This preparation ensures a smoother testing process and allows students to focus more on demonstrating their language skills rather than troubleshooting technical issues. Moreover, numerous participants highlighted that students often lack readiness for the test, while others underscored the impact of psychological barriers on performance: “The psychological barrier that students carry with them. They are always certain that they are not capable of doing well and subsequently do not even bother.” This lack of readiness typically leads students to guess answers instead of applying proper knowledge and reasoning, potentially skewing results and undermining the validity of the assessment. Preparation and training are essential components to optimize students’ performance in assessments. Suggestions included “giving them additional materials to prepare for the test” and “prepping students for what they need to know before coming to the test.” To support this, some participants recommended offering pre-test preparation materials or mock tests that familiarize students with the test format and enhance their expectations. These resources allow students to practice and gain confidence in navigating the test structure, which can alleviate anxiety and upgrade their overall test-taking experience. Additionally, instructors believe preparing students for the test helps them understand its procedures, timing, and specific requirements. Moreover, clear instructions contribute to a more organized testing environment and facilitate a fair and consistent assessment for all participants. Discussion The analysis reveals a moderate agreement among instructors that the EPT effectively assesses students’ language proficiency (mean = 3.25, 65%), as exhibited in Table 3 . This reflects a general sense of efficacy, proposing that while the test meets some expectations, there may be room for improvements in accuracy and reliability. Moreover, instructors expressed mixed opinions about the extent to which the test reflects the necessary academic language skills for success (mean = 3.02, 60.31%), as displayed in Table 3 . The variability indicated by the higher standard deviation (SD = 1.25) proposes that some instructors may feel that certain skills are undervalued or not adequately tested (Table 3 ). This demonstrates a perceived gap that demands attention, which addresses the research question by highlighting specific concerns. With instructors agreeing (mean = 3.33, 66.56%) that the test is fair, there is a positive general sentiment regarding its impartiality (Table 3 ). Nonetheless, the significant variation in opinions (SD = 1.31) depicts a divide on this issue, pointing to potential biases or concerns that some instructors believe should be addressed to ensure equitable assessment for all students (Table 3 ). The analysis addressing Research Question 1 indicates moderate agreement that the test results align with students’ actual language abilities (mean = 2.97, 59.38%), as demonstrated in Table 3 . This reflects some skepticism about the validity of the test results in accurately reflecting students’ true language skills, stressing another aspect of instructors’ perceptions that could be improved upon. The finding regarding the EPT’s limited motivational impact (mean = 2.41, 48.13%), as exhibited in Table 4 , strongly correlates with the overall perception of the test’s effectiveness. If instructors perceive the test as not motivating students, then this could have implications for how students engage with their learning, which aligns with their concerns about the test’s role in supporting language development. The instructors’ strong support for optimizing accessibility (mean = 3.86 and offering additional resources (mean = 3.80), as indicated in Table 5 , reflects the perception that while the test is somewhat effective, enhancements are necessary for it to become more beneficial for students. This directly reveals instructors’ desires for a more supportive testing environment that caters to diverse student needs, which addresses their concerns about the current test structure. Tables depicting descriptive statistics and socio-demographic analysis demonstrate that while the overall perception of the placement test is positive, there is a consistent call for enhancement and modifications. This reflects an acknowledgment among instructors of both the strengths of the test and the areas requiring improvement, providing a balanced view of their perceptions. In conclusion, the analysis clearly affirms that instructors at the PAAET have a generally positive perception of the EPT but also highlight notable concerns regarding its effectiveness in reflecting academic skills, fairness, and motivational impact. These perceptions propose a nuanced understanding of the test’s role in the educational process, highlighting both strengths and areas for potential improvement. The insights gathered can guide future developments of the EPT, ensuring that it not only assesses proficiency accurately but also supports student engagement and success effectively. The researcher believes that addressing these considerations will lead to more meaningful and impactful outcomes from the EPT. The study’s literature review underscores the critical role of language placement tests, particularly the EPT, in assessing students’ language proficiency and facilitating appropriate course placements. It emphasizes the significance of validity and reliability, ensuring that assessments accurately capture students’ language skills and effectively support their academic journey. This context frames the discussion on instructors’ perceptions of the EPT and its effectiveness. The literature posits that effective placement tests not only determine students’ current proficiency levels but also optimize their learning experiences by ensuring that they are placed in suitable courses (Akhidenor-Bamidele, 2019 ; Lai & Waltman, 2008 ). The discussion reflects a moderate agreement among instructors on the efficacy of the EPT, corroborating the literature’s assertion that placement tests can positively impact educational outcomes. Nonetheless, the literature also stresses the need for continuous improvement in test design and implementation (Nasem, 2019 ), which aligns with the discussion’s acknowledgment of the EPT’s room for enhancement concerning accuracy and reliability. Moreover, the mixed opinions in the discussion regarding the EPT’s ability to reflect essential academic language skills (mean = 3.02), as exhibited in Table 3 , align with literature highlighting the significance of designing placement tests that assess the skills required for academic success (Long et al., 2018 ). The literature affirms the need for assessments to capture a comprehensive view of students’ language abilities, which is echoed in the instructors’ concerns about undervalued skills. This gap signals a need for reevaluation to ensure that the test adequately prepares students for their academic challenges. The study’s literature discusses the significance of fairness in language assessments and the critical implications of biases in placement decisions (Peredrienko & Istomina, 2017 ). Furthermore, the discussion indicates a generally positive perception of the EPT’s fairness (mean = 3.33), as displayed in Table 3 , but also reveals variability in opinions, proposing potential biases that must be explored further. This highlights the need for ongoing dialogue around best practices to optimize perceived fairness and guarantee equitable assessments for all students. Instructors expressed skepticism about the alignment of test results with actual language abilities (mean = 2.97), as exhibited in Table 3 , reflecting broader concerns in the literature about the validity of placement testing. The literature underscores that accurate assessments should genuinely reflect students’ language skills to foster effective learning environments (Kadwa & Sheikh, 2021). This noted skepticism among instructors presents an opportunity for further investigation and enhancement in test development. The discussion raises significant concern concerning the limited motivational impact of the EPT (mean = 2.41), as demonstrated in Table 4 , which could impede student engagement. Literature underlines that effective assessments should not only evaluate proficiency but also serve to motivate students in their learning journeys (Ouitas & Belaoura, 2021 ). This lack of motivation stresses the necessity for reforms in the EPT to engage students meaningfully and upgrade their learning experience. The instructors’ strong support for enhancing accessibility and offering additional resources aligns with the literature’s advocacy for tailored instructional strategies and support mechanisms that cater to diverse learner needs (Lai & Waltman, 2008 ; Akhidenor-Bamidele, 2019 ). The call for improvements demonstrates an understanding of the necessity to create a supportive testing environment that maximizes learning opportunities for every student. Finally, both the literature and the discussion underscore the significance of recognizing strengths and areas needing improvement in language placement tests. The written literature encourages a reflective approach to optimize test designs in alignment with evolving educational needs (Nasem, 2019 ). This is mirrored in the instructors’ insights, which acknowledge the strengths of the EPT while also proposing concrete areas for development, thereby contributing to a richer dialogue on optimizing the testing process. Regarding instructors’ recommendations for refining the EPT process, there was a call among respondents for diversifying the EPT’s question types to avoid restricting them to the standard multiple-choice formats only. This resonates with Al-Adawi and Al-Balushi’s ( 2016 ) concerns regarding the negative impact of certain test formats, such as multiple-choice questions, and the potential for random guessing, which may compromise test reliability. There was also a clear consensus among respondents (68.8% of participants as exhibited in Table 5 ), advocating for a more comprehensive and balanced assessment that accurately evaluates a wide range of language skills—listening, speaking, and writing—in addition to traditional reading and comprehension tasks. This corroborates with Ouitas and Belaoura’s ( 2021 ) proposition that testing only specific skills does not offer a complete evaluation of students’ proficiency levels. This also echoes Peredrienko and Istomina’s ( 2017 ) argument that comprehensive assessments should explore both receptive skills (listening and reading) and productive skills (speaking and writing) to present a holistic vision of students’ language abilities. By incorporating these components, the EPT of the PAAET can provide a more thorough evaluation of students’ language abilities that can serve in both academic and real-world contexts. On another note, numerous participants in this research discussed the need to offer students with pre-test training, which is a matter that has been raised by many researchers such as Nasem ( 2019 ), who emphasize the importance of familiarizing students with technology to upgrade their results in placement tests. It is worth noting that while numerous respondents discussed the necessity of students’ preparation, none mentioned professional development for educators. This implies that they do not view the training required for the EPT as a shared responsibility between educators and students. Moreover, several participants recommended adopting universal models such the TOEFL and IELTS and overlooked students’ cultural differences and prior educational experiences. Thus, further future studies should explore the perspectives of both students and instructors to enhance their experiences with the EPT of the PAAET. Conclusion While previous literature focused on discussing the benefits of employing the EPT, in addition to certain limited aspects such as the validity and reliability of this test (e.g., Almutairi, 2024 ), the current research offered novel detailed insights that seek to improve the usage of the EPT at PAAET’s LC in Kuwait. This research filled a gap in the literature by elucidating instructors’ perceptions of this test and identifying hurdles and areas for improvement that can result in promising outcomes, not only in Kuwait but also in other prestigious academic institutions in other parts of the world. This study utilized surveys that integrated Likert and open-ended questions to generate quantitative and qualitative data. On the one hand, the quantitative findings, which were explored using SPSS, demonstrated that instructors generally view the test positively, specifically concerning the clarity of instructions and the time allotted for completion. Nevertheless, there was a variability in opinions about whether the test accurately reflects students’ language abilities. Additionally, instructors highlighted the need to optimize the test’s accessibility and offer more resources for students. Conversely, the qualitative data identified key themes regarding participants’ suggestions for upgrading the EPT, encompassing redesigning the test and enhancing students’ preparations for it. Concerns about students’ confidence, motivation, and proctoring were also highlighted. Many participants also suggested incorporating additional language skills—such as listening, speaking, and writing—and modifying the test format to better reflect real-life communication scenarios. Hence, the EPT of the PAAET should be optimized by updating it on a frequent basis to ensure its efficacy. This can be achieved by addressing students’ cultural backgrounds, needs, and aligning the test with the LC’s curriculum to maximize its effectiveness. Recommendations This research not only elucidates instructors’ insights about the EPT employed at the PAAET’s LC but also leverages its findings to recommend modifications aimed at enhancing the test’s validity and reliability, as well as enriching both students’ learning and instructors’ teaching experiences. Additionally, this research advocates for future research to explore students’ and instructors’ experiences with an improved version of the EPT, assessing its impact on both stakeholders and the overall teaching and learning process. Moreover, a follow-up study should be undertaken to compare students’ results in the previous and new EPTs to identify gaps and areas for further improvement. Abbreviations PAAET Public Authority for Applied Education and Training EPT English Placement Test LC Language Center ESP English for Specific Purposes TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language IELTS International English Language Testing System SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences NVivo (Not expanded; refers to NVivo qualitative data analysis software) PhD Doctor of Philosophy Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Ethical approval was obtained from the Language Center (LC) at the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET), Kuwait. Instructors participated voluntarily, and anonymity/confidentiality were maintained. Consent for publication Not applicable Funding Not applicable References Akhidenor-Bamidele, A. (2019). The roles of online placement test in English language teaching. KnE Social Sciences , 1-9. doi:10.18502/kss.v3i24.5163. Al-Adawi, S.S., & Al-Balushi, A.A. (2016). Investigating content and face validity of English language placement test designed by colleges of applied sciences. English Language Teaching , 9 (1), 107-121. doi:10.5539/elt.v9n1p107. Al Faraj, A. (2021). Teacher and student perceptions of academic and professional literacies in ESP at tertiary and applied colleges in Kuwait (Doctoral dissertation, University of Leeds). AlAdl, A.E.A. (2018). Investigating validity, reliability and perception of English language placement test: The model of Delta University. مجلة کلية التربية فى العلوم التربوية, 42(1), 15–40. Almutairi, M. (2024). Reliability and validity of the electronic English placement test (EPT) conducted by the Language Center, Public Authority for Applied Education & Training. Egyptian Journal of Educational Sciences , 4 (1), 113-128. doi:10.21608/ejes.2024.380393. Alzankawi, M.A., & Alenezi, Y.M. (2021). English language teachers’ perceptions of PAAET's professional development programs: Implications on guideline formulation for training programs. International Education Studies , 14 (9), 90-107. doi:10.5539/ies.v14n9p90. Bachman, L.F., & Palmer, A.S. (2010 ). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world . Oxford University Press. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3 (2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods . Oxford University Press. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2001). Research methods in education . London: Routledge Falmer. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education. Research methods in education . New York: Routledge. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . SAGE Publications. Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Fine, M. (2002). Disruptive voices: The possibilities for feminist research . Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press. Fulcher, G. (1997). An English language placement test: Issues in reliability and validity. Language Testing , 14 (2), 113-139. doi:10.1177/026553229701400201. Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical Language Testing . Hodder Education. Isbell, D.R., & Kremmel, B. (2020). Test review: Current options in at-home language proficiency tests for making high-stakes decisions. Language Testing , 37 (4), 600-619. doi:10.1177/0265532220943483. Kadwa, M.S., & Sheik, A. (2021). A critical review of the Oxford Q-skills placement test at a Saudi Arabian university. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation , 4 (1), 198-209. doi:10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.1.19. Lai, E.R., & Waltman, K. (2008). Test preparation: Examining teacher perceptions and practices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 27 (2), 28-45. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2008.00120.x. Long, A., Shin, S.Y., Geeslin, K., & Willis, E. (2018). Does the test work? Evaluating a web-based language placement test. Language Learning & Technology , 22 (1), 137-151. doi:10125/44585. Nasem, H., & Mohammed, A. (2019). Teachers’ perceptions on the effectiveness of the Oxford online placement test at King Abdulaziz University (Doctoral dissertation, Durham University). Ouitas, R., & Belaoura, A. (2021). An investigation of EFL teachers’ and learners’ perceptions towards the placement test assessment (Doctoral dissertation, University of Jijel). Pastor, A.J., Guilot, S., & Mora, C. (2011). Validity and reliability in placement test design . Language Learning in Higher Education, 1 (2), 2-8. Peredrienko, T., & Istomina, E. (2017). Placement test validation: Ways of improvement. In INTED2017 proceedings (pp. 6287-6293). IATED. Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Blackwell Publishing . Sheerah, H.A., & Yadav, M.S. (2022). The use of English placement test (EPT) in assessing the EFL students’ language proficiency level at a Saudi university. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities , 14 (3), 1-24. doi:10.21659/rupkatha.v14n3.24 Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research . SAGE Publications. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches . SAGE Publications. Taylor, L. (2013). Language testing and assessment: Ethics and professionalism . In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (pp. 115-132). Wiley-Blackwell . UNESCO-UNEVOC. (n.d.). The Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET). In Explore the UNEVOC Network. https://unevoc.unesco.org/home/Explore+the+UNEVOC+Network/centre=403. Accessed 26 March 2024. Wang, Y. (2019). The impact of TOEFL on instructors' course content and teaching methods. TESL-EJ , 23 (3), n3. Wellington, J. (2015). Educational research: Contemporary issues and practical approaches . Bloomsbury. Williams, C. (2007). Research methods. Journal of Business & Economic Research , 5 (3), 65-72 Tables Tables 1 to 5 are available in the Supplementary Files section Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Tables.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7545830","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":517627001,"identity":"1591a8de-7a4c-4f98-80ae-daec9ef5e737","order_by":0,"name":"Sarah AlSabbagh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The Public Authority for Applied Education and Training","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sarah","middleName":"","lastName":"AlSabbagh","suffix":""},{"id":517627002,"identity":"984ea304-00e7-4e9c-b1ad-710b6620f108","order_by":1,"name":"Hanan Altarrah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The Public Authority for Applied Education and Training","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hanan","middleName":"","lastName":"Altarrah","suffix":""},{"id":517627003,"identity":"b6cc4b43-5aca-46ee-93c5-4215d07d6dba","order_by":2,"name":"Dalal Boland","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The Public Authority for Applied Education and Training","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dalal","middleName":"","lastName":"Boland","suffix":""},{"id":517627004,"identity":"513ec2e2-8b23-47b6-b1ff-3662f8114cbe","order_by":3,"name":"Budour AlSharifi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The Public Authority for Applied Education and Training","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Budour","middleName":"","lastName":"AlSharifi","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-05 16:08:06","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7545830/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7545830/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":92256328,"identity":"6423b971-2a69-4e79-97bf-9d90864bf2f3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-26 11:36:11","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":107522,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Manuscript10Sept.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7545830/v1/4a6c1f79ddb793c2e062a664.docx"},{"id":92256330,"identity":"f8086508-84d3-43df-aea2-c6871940b5f6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-26 11:36:12","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7386,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"5667435e7c72446f8ec7edf79cf40cd2.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7545830/v1/4d13b95ca9651a3a8a52ddad.json"},{"id":92256331,"identity":"4287b274-965b-4a62-a709-d8390436756c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-26 11:36:12","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":158247,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"5667435e7c72446f8ec7edf79cf40cd21enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7545830/v1/20d9619d02c256b5763b87e5.xml"},{"id":92257062,"identity":"2ab53cbe-1c20-465a-b12b-50749ba7a514","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-26 11:44:12","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":159114,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"5667435e7c72446f8ec7edf79cf40cd21structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7545830/v1/5350bf35c4c1bcfce1114d2b.xml"},{"id":92256329,"identity":"d8901c38-6fba-4f4f-80fd-4d9c557bdaf6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-26 11:36:11","extension":"html","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":168765,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7545830/v1/01c1a653c260153a408c57b7.html"},{"id":101940162,"identity":"0d5f4438-486b-42cd-a1df-a378673359c6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-05 09:13:16","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":773948,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7545830/v1/3cf4f529-cb96-49da-9e2d-72473cb2d278.pdf"},{"id":92256327,"identity":"c6248720-e95f-48c8-9f5d-dca74fa1f933","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-26 11:36:11","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":36197,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Tables.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7545830/v1/7104941e220ca145f8347ec2.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The English Language Placement Test at the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET) in Kuwait: A Survey of Instructors’ Perspectives","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackground of the Study\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEducational institutions assess students’ language skills through English language placement exams to evaluate the competencies of non-native speakers. As Sheerah and Yadav (2022) note, language testing functions as a measure of accountability for educational institutions, ensuring that students meet established proficiency standards before progressing to higher levels of education or entering the workforce. This is particularly critical in contexts where English proficiency is correlated with academic and professional success. Enhancing students’ language abilities contributes to developing a highly skilled and distinguished human capital.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) remains one of the most widely utilized assessments for academic purposes, while the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) and Cambridge Assessment examinations serve both academic and immigration-related objectives. Cambridge English Exams, in particular, are recognized globally by governments, employers, and universities and are designed to assess varying levels of proficiency (Alzankawi \u0026amp; Alenezi, 2021, Pastor et al., 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith the rise of globalization, standardized language assessments have become increasingly essential, particularly for validating professional and academic credentials (Aladl, 2018). Tests such as the IELTS and TOEFL have gained widespread acceptance as benchmarks of English language ability. Moreover, assessments that extend beyond mere evaluation of grammatical knowledge—focusing instead on functional language use and communicative competence—have been developed to provide a more comprehensive measure of learners’ proficiency (Wang, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSignificance of Accurate Placement in Language Education\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccurate placement in language education is crucial for ensuring that learners are appropriately challenged, receive targeted instruction, and make efficient progress. By aligning students with classes that match their proficiency levels, proper placement prevents them from feeling either overwhelmed or under-challenged. Effective language testing also enables institutions to assign students to suitable language support programs, which is particularly important for addressing language difficulties and minimizing the risk of academic failure. As illustrated by the English Language Institute at the University of Surrey, standardized language examinations are widely employed in educational settings to identify students who may require additional language support. These assessments facilitate the enrollment of students in courses corresponding to their level of language competence. (Fulcher, 1997). Proper placement further allows instructors to focus on developing relevant skills for each group, maintaining student motivation and engagement, which, in turn, boosts their confidence and promotes academic success. Moreover, Alzankawi and Alenezi (2021) highlight that instructors can refine their curriculum and instructional practices by understanding their students’ linguistic strengths and weaknesses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eContext of the Study at the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEstablished on December 28, 1982, the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET) was created to develop and enhance human resources in response to the technical labor shortages driven by the nation’s industrial and economic growth.\u0026nbsp;Through its two primary sectors—education and training—PAAET seeks to meet the country’s demand for human capital while cultivating a robust technical workforce (UNESCO-UNEVOC, n.d). PAAET comprises five academic colleges: the College of Business Studies, College of Basic Education, College of Medical Sciences, College of Nursing, and College of Technological Studies. These institutions offer students a range of higher national diploma programs and selected bachelor’s degree programs (Al Faraj, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2007, the Language Center (LC) was established within PAAET to provide English language support across its five colleges. Currently staffed by 79 instructors holding qualifications ranging from bachelor’s to doctoral degrees, the LC s committed not only to excellence in English language instruction but also to advancing scholarly research in language education and linguistics. Its mission is to equip students with the language competencies essential for academic success and professional advancement. Thus, the LC offers both general English courses and English for Specific Purposes (ESP) courses, tailored to meet the needs of students in diverse fields (Almutairi, 2024). To ensure appropriate placement in an English language module that matches their proficiency level, applicants are required to take the English Placement Test (EPT). This test is designed and administered by a committee appointed by the LC specifically for students who have recently been admitted into any of the PAAET colleges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe LC administers the EPT twice a year, at the beginning of each semester. Students are permitted only one opportunity to take the test at the start of their college studies. The exam comprises 100 questions, with a passing score of 60 out of 100 required for successful placement. All students are requested to take the EPT upon acceptance into their programs. The minimum passing score is set at 60% for diploma students and 80% for bachelor’s degree students. Students who either choose not to take the placement test or fail to achieve the required score are automatically enrolled in a remedial, non-credit English course. Nonetheless, students can be excused from taking this remedial course if they present an IELTS score of 4.5 for diploma programs and 5.5 for bachelor’s programs or an equivalent score from other recognized English proficiency tests.\u0026nbsp;PAAET’s EPT has sparked debate among several instructors at the LC. While some argue that the test requires enhancement due to its numerous limitations, others believe it should be entirely redesigned, citing significant flaws and shortcomings in its current structure (Al Faraj, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePurpose of the Study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnderstanding Instructors’ Perceptions of English Language Placement Tests\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEPTs are vital instruments for assessing the proficiency levels of students entering language courses or programs. The way instructors perceive these tests can significantly affect their implementation, effectiveness, and the overall educational experience for both instructors and students. A thorough understanding of these perceptions is essential for enhancing the role of EPTs in language education. Instructors commonly form their perceptions based on their understanding of the purpose and functionality of placement tests. Many recognize EPTs as crucial tools for accurately gauging students’ language proficiency levels. Several instructors view EPTs as critical for ensuring that students are placed in courses that correspond to their abilities, which allows for tailored instruction that meets their learning needs. This perspective underscores the significance of employing placement tests to create an optimal learning environment where students can thrive (Sheerah \u0026amp; Yadav, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother critical factor shaping instructors’ perceptions is their confidence in the validity and reliability of placement tests. Educators typically scrutinize whether these assessments accurately measure students’ language proficiency and produce consistent and dependable results. Concerns about validity frequently arise when instructors perceive that the tests fail to capture the full range of language skills or exhibit bias toward particular language varieties or cultural contexts. Such concerns can influence how instructors integrate these assessments into their teaching practices. Furthermore, some educators evaluate placement tests based on their alignment with the curriculum and instructional objectives of their language programs. Tests tend to be viewed more favorably when they effectively assess the skills and knowledge emphasized in classroom instruction. Conversely, if there are noticeable discrepancies between test content and the curriculum or if the assessments do not accurately reflect the learning goals of the program, instructors may express dissatisfaction. This misalignment can result in critical evaluations of placement tests and calls for adjustments to better serve educational objectives. Overall, instructors’ perceptions of these tests are influenced by their understanding of the tests’ purpose, their beliefs about validity and reliability, and how well these assessments align with their curriculum. Addressing these perceptions is crucial for enhancing the implementation and effectiveness of EPTs in language education (Fulcher, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIdentifying Potential Areas for Improvement in the Placement Test Process\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnhancing the efficacy, fairness, and accuracy of placement exams is crucial for optimizing student outcomes. Several key areas require attention to bolster the overall placement test process. First, the content of placement tests should be regularly updated to ensure that it accurately reflects the skills necessary for success in language programs. This involves aligning test content with current educational standards and the specific language competencies students need. This allows organizations to enhance the validity and reliability of these assessments by grounding them in students’ real learning contexts. Moreover, the administration of placement tests must be carefully designed to ensure accessibility for all students, including those with disabilities. Streamlining administrative procedures can help minimize errors and bias, creating a more equitable testing environment. Employing reliable and standardized technologies and processes is also essential to enhance the overall testing experience and ensure consistency across various testing instances (Bachman \u0026amp; Palmer, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStakeholder engagement is another critical area for improvement. Actively involving educators in the test development process provides valuable feedback and insights that can help shape the content and structure of assessments. Their perspectives are instrumental in aligning tests with both students’ academic needs and labor market demands, ensuring the continued relevance and effectiveness of placement exams. Finally, addressing ethical considerations is vital to uphold the integrity of placement testing. Upholding fairness, confidentiality, and respect for diversity must remain a priority. Institutions should proactively identify and mitigate biases within the testing process, promoting an inclusive environment where all students feel valued and fairly assessed. By focusing on these areas for improvement, organizations can optimize the effectiveness and fairness of placement tests, ultimately resulting in better educational outcomes for students (Taylor, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Questions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. What are instructors’ perceptions of the current English language placement test at the PAAET?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. What suggestions do instructors have for upgrading the English language placement test process?\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFunctions and Applications of Placement Tests\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLanguage placement assessments effectively evaluate students’ proficiency in a second language, particularly during educational transitions, such as the shift from high school to university. These assessments also help identify weaknesses in specific language competencies, encompassing reading, writing, grammar, and listening, providing insights that enable educators to adapt instructional strategies and resources,\u0026nbsp;which create a more tailored and successful classroom environment. According to Kadwa and Sheikh (2021), placement tests establish a baseline for tracking student progress, allowing educators to monitor improvements in proficiency over time. They also support multilevel teaching approaches by facilitating the customization of materials to address diverse learner needs, thereby creating more inclusive and impactful educational experiences. Long et al. (2018) highlight that language assessment is a fundamental component of language education, integrating diverse perspectives and critical considerations. Key components encompass validity and reliability, which ensure that assessments accurately measure intended constructs and produce consistent results across various contexts and time frames. The purpose of the assessment also plays a pivotal role, as the intended use of test scores, such as for placement, diagnostics, or progress monitoring, directly affects the design and interpretation of the assessment. For instance, placement tests seek to allocate students to courses that align with their proficiency levels, necessitating clear goals and robust methodologies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePeredrienko and Istomina (2017) affirm that comprehensive assessments should evaluate both receptive skills (listening and reading) and productive skills (speaking and writing), thereby offering a holistic understanding of students’ language abilities. Inaccurate assessments that cause misplacement can negatively affect students’ motivation and confidence, highlighting the significance of reliability and validity. The field of language assessment continues to evolve, driven by ongoing research, practitioner feedback, and technological advancements, with increasing emphasis on fairness and inclusivity to accommodate diverse learners and educational contexts. On another note, Nasem (2019) argues that cultural and contextual factors are equally critical, as assessment practices must align with the unique educational and linguistic contexts in which they are applied. Similarly, Akhidenor-Bamidele (2019) underscores the value of integrating modern technologies, such as computerized assessments, to enhance accessibility, efficiency, and adaptability to contemporary educational demands.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, Nasem (2019) highlights the importance of professional development for educators as a vital component of effective language assessment. Instructors’ perceptions of assessments, encompassing concerns about validity, reliability, and curricular alignment, can significantly affect the effectiveness of these tools. Hence, ongoing instructor training and the development of culturally adaptable assessments are crucial for optimizing the utility of language assessment tools. In sum, language assessment serves as a cornerstone of effective language education. It supports learning through accurate placement, informs teaching by providing diagnostic insights, and evolves to meet educational needs through technological and methodological innovations. By prioritizing validity, equity, and cultural relevance, language assessments can significantly enhance teaching practices, student learning, and overall educational outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerspectives on English Language Placement Tests\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere are numerous concerns regarding the validity and reliability of placement tests. For instance, educators typically question whether these assessments accurately measure students’ language abilities, particularly when the test content lacks alignment with students’ cultural backgrounds or the curriculum being taught (Nasem, 2019; Al-Adawi \u0026amp; Al-Balushi, 2016). Additional issues—such as statistical errors in scoring, the limitations of certain test formats like multiple-choice questions, and the potential for random guessing to influence outcomes—are frequently cited as factors that undermine the reliability of these assessments (Al-Adawi \u0026amp; Al-Balushi, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCultural relevance also emerges as a critical factor affecting both student performance and the overall effectiveness of placement tests. In multicultural and multilingual settings, it is crucial to design assessments that accommodate diverse student experiences to promote fairness and equity (Long et al., 2018). Furthermore, the increasing reliance on online testing formats introduces new challenges, particularly in relation to students’ computer literacy. Those with limited technological proficiency may encounter difficulties navigating digital platforms, which can distort test results and result in inappropriate placement decisions (Nasem, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo address these challenges, researchers advocate for continuous refinement in the design and implementation of placement tests. There is growing support for more comprehensive assessments that evaluate all four language skills—listening, speaking, reading, and writing—rather than relying on limited test formats (Al-Adawi \u0026amp; Al-Balushi, 2016). Such holistic approaches offer a more accurate reflection of students’ overall language proficiency and better prepare them for real-world communication, where multiple skills are typically employed simultaneously.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe alignment of placement tests with the curriculum is another significant area of discussion. Educators argue that tests should reflect the content and skills taught in the classroom to enhance their relevance for both placement decisions and instructional planning. While placement tests are primarily designed for initial student placement, they can also serve as tools for monitoring progress over time. By tracking development, placement tests offer valuable data to inform decisions about advancing students to higher instructional levels (Nasem, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, both educators and researchers highlight the significance of professional development for instructors. Those who are well versed in the structure, purpose, and scoring of placement tests are better equipped to interpret results, integrate them into instructional planning, and communicate findings effectively to students and stakeholders (Nasem, 2019; Long et al., 2018). Professional training ensures that placement tests are utilized to their fullest potential, ultimately contributing to students’ success in language learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInstructors’ Perspectives on Placement Tests\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Long et al. (2018), instructors’ opinions regarding assessment procedures, classroom environments, and personal experiences all affect how they see language placement exams. Test validity and reliability issues are widespread, particularly when they do not match curricula nor adequately assess students’ skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eA. Validity and Reliability\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Kadwa and Sheikh (2021), instructors’ perceptions of language placement exams vary considerably, influenced by their professional backgrounds, teaching environments, and the design of the tests themselves. A common concern among educators is the validity of these assessments—whether they accurately measure students’ language proficiency and reflect the competencies necessary for academic success and real-world communication. In many cases, this skepticism extends to broader concerns about the overall quality of English language instruction. Instructors typically observe that students continue to struggle with achieving basic proficiency levels. This perceived disconnect leads to frustration, not only with the placement tests but also with the educational system as a whole. Furthermore, it is believed that a heavy reliance on quantitative evaluation techniques, such multiple-choice questions, is insufficient for assessing qualitative language abilities like speaking and writing, which are essential for achieving comprehensive language competency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA variety of factors, such as instructional environments, educational ideologies, and professional experiences, shape educators’ perspectives on examinations, particularly in the context of language assessment and standardized testing. Instructors’ views typically reflect a nuanced understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of evaluations in accomplishing learning objectives. According to Lai and Waltman (2008), educators’ top concerns encompass test validity and fairness. Many instructors question whether standardized tests truly capture students’ knowledge and abilities, particularly for learners with diverse educational needs or those from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Another source of skepticism lies in the potential mismatch between what these tests measure and broader educational goals, such as fostering creativity and critical thinking. Additionally, high-stakes testing is often perceived as encouraging a “teaching to the test” approach, which may narrow the curriculum and detract from more holistic, learner-centered educational practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLai and Waltman (2008) further highlight ongoing concerns regarding the validity and reliability of such tests, despite their widespread use and significance. Considering that variables like exam anxiety, cultural differences, or unfamiliarity with test forms may affect results, educators and stakeholders frequently wonder if these tests accurately reflect students’ language proficiency. The significance of ensuring that placement tests are reliable (they produce consistent results in several contexts) and valid (they evaluate the required competencies) is therefore becoming increasingly important. A test that is remarkably too simple or difficult could compromise the reliability of the placement procedure. Instructors also consider the test’s equality and fairness, highlighting the significance of providing each student with an equal chance to showcase his/her skills. Strong and reliable evaluations are essential to ensuring that placement choices are based on accurate and meaningful information. The impact of placement examinations on students’ academic trajectories is also widely acknowledged. Their academic paths may be greatly influenced by the results; hence, it is crucial that these exams are impartial and provide a fair evaluation of language skills. As such, placement tests are regarded as vital tools for guiding students toward appropriate educational opportunities (Outias \u0026amp; Belaoura, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eB. Curriculum and Design\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe discrepancy between curricula and the style or content of the exams is another common criticism. Several instructors believe that students’ learning experiences are fragmented because the resources they utilize in the classroom do not match the evaluations. Another major issue is cultural relevance. Several educators believe that these assessments, which are typically created from a Western viewpoint, ignore the backgrounds, values, and beliefs of students in diverse cultural contexts. Placement tests are also valued for the insights they provide into students’ strengths and weaknesses. Such information allows instructors to modify their lesson plans to meet the requirements of individual students and enhance their overall efficacy. Thus, placement tests are useful instruments for directing curriculum design in addition to determining course placement. Instructors and institutions can better align their programs with students’ needs by examining the results of placement tests, ensuring curricula remain both effective and relevant (Lai \u0026amp; Waltman, 2008).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Akhidenor-Bamidele (2019), students’ performance may be shaped by various factors, encompassing cultural differences, prior educational experiences, and test-taking anxiety. These factors may result in inaccurate assessments of students’ actual language proficiency. Additionally, there is a drive for assessments that consider students’ particular needs, learning experiences, and circumstances. Moreover, limiting assessments to specific skills such as reading, vocabulary, and grammar is viewed as insufficient for providing a comprehensive evaluation of English proficiency. Many educators advocate for the inclusion of speaking and listening components to ensure a more holistic assessment of students’ language abilities. Another critical consideration is the role of computer literacy. In Ouitas and Belaoura’s (2021) study, instructors have noted that students may suffer in online tests if they are unfamiliar with technology, highlighting the necessity of evaluating students’ technological proficiency while assessing test results.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research seeks to elucidate instructors\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the EPT administered at the LC of the PAAET. Their insights significantly help us determine the efficacy of the test from their perspectives. To gather the necessary data that supports the study\u0026rsquo;s objectives and provides robust answers to the research questions, instructors at the LC of the PAAET were invited to share their views through two surveys integrating Likert-scale items and open-ended questions. This mixed-methods approach allowed for the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data, yielding rich findings that deepened our understanding of the topic under investigation. The survey method provided our participants with an opportunity to express their opinions freely by ensuring honesty, anonymity, and confidentiality, which minimized any personal reactions and interpretations. Prior to data collection, a letter of ethical consent was sent to the LC director, securing approval to conduct the research within the LC of the PAAET.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSurveys\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe use of survey research in this study aligns with Cohen et al. (2018), who emphasize that quantitative data helps distinguish values from facts, allowing for clearer correlations and comparisons with other studies. Similarly, Williams (2007) affirms that quantitative findings can be both explanatory and confirming, while Wellington (2015) underscores the ability of surveys to also capture qualitative insights. Furthermore, Creswell and Clark (2018) stress the significance of crafting simple and direct questions to effectively capture respondents\u0026rsquo; attitudes toward the EPT. This can eventually offer empirical evidence to inform policymakers, instructors, and students about the test\u0026rsquo;s efficiency. Cohen et al. (2018) recommend online surveys to capture participants\u0026rsquo; beliefs and views in an effective and speedy fashion. Thus, in this research, Microsoft Forms was employed as the survey platform due to its familiarity among instructors. Moreover, as this study involved multiple researchers, online surveys were practical and reduced potential bias, encouraging more honest responses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were initially asked several Likert questions, and the findings resulted in the subsequent stage where they were asked for more in-depth responses through another online survey with open-ended questions to generate data that explains and supports the descriptive and inferential findings obtained in the earlier phase.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSample\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe surveys were distributed to all language instructors teaching English across the PAAET\u0026rsquo;s colleges under the LC. This approach aimed to gather diverse perspectives, enhance the robustness of the analysis, and establish causal relationships that could be applicable to a broader population. The online questionnaires were distributed electronically to all the instructors, encompassing those holding PhD, master\u0026rsquo;s, and bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degrees. At the time of data collection, the LC included 79 active teaching members, but only 64 instructors volunteered to participate in the study. The sample predominantly comprised female participants, reflecting the overall composition of PAAET\u0026rsquo;s instructional staff, with women accounting for 76.0% of participants and men comprising 24%. Most respondents were aged 31\u0026ndash;40 years, representing 55% of the sample. This was followed by those aged 41\u0026ndash;50 (20%), 51\u0026ndash;60 (17%), and 61 years or older (8%). Participants aged 21\u0026ndash;30 made up the smallest group at just 1%. This distribution indicates that all age categories are represented within the sample, although younger individuals (21\u0026ndash;30 years) were the least represented.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost participants held a master\u0026rsquo;s degree (64%), followed by those with PhDs (32%). Participants with bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degrees comprised 5% of the sample. Regarding teaching experience, two groups\u0026mdash;those with 11\u0026ndash;15 years and those with 21 years or more\u0026mdash;each accounted for 26% of respondents. Participants with 16\u0026ndash;20 years of experience represented 23%, while those with 6\u0026ndash;10 years made up 18%. The smallest group, at 8%, comprised instructors with 1\u0026ndash;5 years of teaching experience. A significant majority (76%) reported not being involved in designing the EPT at the PAAET, while only 24% indicated participation in this activity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReliability\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a mixed-methods research strategy, integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches to validate findings and deepen understanding. It enhances the validity and reliability of research by cross-checking evidence from multiple\u0026nbsp;perspectives (Creswell, 2013; Tashakkori, 1998; Bryman, 2012). In the social sciences, this methodology is particularly effective for capturing the complexity of human behavior\u0026nbsp;(Cohen \u0026amp; Manion, 2001). In this research, a mixed-methods questionnaire was administered, incorporating open-ended questions (qualitative) alongside Likert-scale items (quantitative), conducted concurrently to assess instructors\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the placement test. The quantitative data was prioritized, with qualitative data supporting and validating the findings. The integration of both methods allowed for confirmation of researcher interpretations, provision of more comprehensive insights, and increased confidence in the results (Stake, 1995; Robson, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnalysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data was explored using SPSS for the quantitative responses, which facilitated processing and interpreting numerical data efficiently through descriptive and inferential analysis. For the open-ended questions employed in the subsequent stage, NVivo software was applied to generate thematic analysis by identifying recurring themes and patterns in participants\u0026rsquo; responses. This integration of methods offered a comprehensive understanding of both the statistical trends and the qualitative insights from the participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA total of 64 respondents from the LC of the PAAET participated in the quantitative data collection phase. This sample size is ideal for a total population of 79, yielding a confidence level of 90% and a margin of error of 10%, which is considered appropriate for the study\u0026rsquo;s objectives. To ensure data adequacy and quality, the reliability of the study instruments was examined using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha. The scale comprised 14 items rated on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The internal consistency coefficients ranged from 0.674 to 0.940, all exceeding the critical t-value at the 0.05 significance level. The overall Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha was 0.873, which is higher than the acceptable threshold of 0.70, indicating strong reliability of the study instruments (see Table 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter answering the first research question that generated quantitative data, nearly half of the respondents (30 participants) volunteered to share their opinions in our open-ended questions that aimed at answering our second research question regarding instructors\u0026rsquo; suggestions for enhancing the EPT process. This stage generated thematic qualitative data,\u0026nbsp;which, as Braun and Clarke (2006) argue, is the foundational analytical method for qualitative data. The data were examined to offer a rich thematic description of the findings, and the themes were identified through an inductive approach. Qualitative research, in contrast to quantitative study, allowed our participants to inject their own personal experiences that further explain and justify their responses in the quantitative phase.\u0026nbsp;According to Creswell and Clark (2018), data gathered through a mixed-methods approach provide greater explanatory power and validity, which could not be obtained if the research only relied on the collation of one set of data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLimitations\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne of the drawbacks of online data collection was the absence of face-to-face interaction with the instructors, which may have deterred some of them from participating in the study.\u0026nbsp;Nonetheless, it should be noted that the electronic survey helped in maintaining anonymity between the researchers and their participants, who are also their colleagues at the PAAET. Conveniently, this allowed them the opportunity to share their opinions freely, which increased the reliability of the research findings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFindings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study sought to explore instructors\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the PAAET\u0026rsquo;s current EPT and gather their insights on potential improvements. Accordingly, the data were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative measures, as detailed in the following sections.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInstructors\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the EPT\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo answer the first research question regarding instructors\u0026rsquo; perceptions, participants were asked some quantitative Likert questions to gain a better understanding of the current situation. Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 present the results regarding instructors\u0026rsquo; current perceptions of the EPT, its impact on students\u0026rsquo; language learning experiences, and their suggestions for improvement, respectively. Each table includes an explanation of the findings, along with the mean scores, standard deviations, and mean score percentages for each question.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Insert Table 1]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mean \u0026plusmn; SD for the effectiveness of the test in assessing language proficiency was 3.25 \u0026plusmn; 0.94, with a mean score percentage of 65.0%, indicating that participants moderately agree with this statement. The relatively low standard deviation reflects a fair level of consensus among respondents. When asked about the test\u0026rsquo;s reflection of necessary academic language skills, the mean \u0026plusmn; SD was 3.02 \u0026plusmn; 1.25, with a mean score percentage of 60.31%, suggesting moderate agreement. However, the higher standard deviation suggests more varied opinions on this aspect. Instructors generally agreed that the test is fair to all students (mean score = 66.56%), though the standard deviation of 1.31 indicates significant diversity in their responses. The results indicate that the placement test is moderately aligned with students\u0026rsquo; actual language abilities, as reflected by a mean score of 2.97 and a standard deviation (SD) of 1.28, suggesting notable variability in participants\u0026rsquo; responses. A mean score of 4.16 demonstrates strong agreement among participants that the instructions and format of the test are clear, with the low SD of 0.80 indicating a high level of consensus. Similarly, the time allocated for completing the placement test was viewed positively, with a Mean \u0026plusmn; SD of 4.14 \u0026plusmn; 0.89, showing strong agreement and consistent responses across participants. Finally, the mean score of 3.02 and SD of 1.32 suggest moderate agreement that the test\u0026rsquo;s range of question types effectively assesses various language abilities, though there is considerable variation in opinions on this aspect.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data suggests that participants generally view the EPT at the PAAET positively, particularly regarding the clarity of instructions and sufficiency of the time allocated. Nonetheless, there is more varied feedback on other aspects such as the test\u0026rsquo;s reflection of academic language skills, fairness, and alignment with actual language abilities, highlighting potential areas for improvement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Insert Table 2]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs exhibited in Table (2), participants indicated that the EPT motivates students to enhance their language skills, with a mean score of 2.41 \u0026plusmn; 1.09 and a mean score percentage of 48.13%. This suggests that a significant portion of the respondents either disagreed or remained neutral about the motivational impact of the placement test. Additionally, respondents affirmed that students placed into higher proficiency levels tend to exhibit greater confidence in their language skills. This statement received a mean score of 3.83 \u0026plusmn; 1.03 and a mean score percentage of 76.56%, reflecting a strong belief among participants that placement in higher levels boosts student confidence. Conversely, students assigned to lower proficiency levels may encounter challenges in their academic coursework. With a mean score of 3.67 \u0026plusmn; 1.22 and a mean score of 73.44%, the data suggests that instructors believe that many students at lower proficiency levels may experience significant academic hurdles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to our participants, the EPT adequately predicts students\u0026rsquo; success in subsequent language courses. This statement obtained a mean score of 3.27 \u0026plusmn; 1.12 and a mean score percentage of 65.31%, demonstrating mixed opinions among the respondents regarding the predictive validity of the placement test. This detailed breakdown highlights both strengths and areas needing improvement in the EPT process, particularly in its impact on students\u0026rsquo; language learning experiences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Insert Table 3]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3 provides an overview of the distribution of study subjects (N = 64) based on their responses to three key suggestions for enhancing the placement test experience. The analysis highlights that most respondents favor optimizing the accessibility of placement tests and providing additional resources, with mean scores of 3.86 and 3.80, respectively. Nonetheless, there is a moderate level of satisfaction with the current placement tests, indicated by a lower mean score of 2.97. This proposes areas for improvement in upgrading the overall placement test experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Insert Table 4]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4 presents the descriptive statistics for the examined aspects of the EPT. Overall, participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the placement test are positive, with responses showing a fair level of consistency. The mean scores and their percentages exhibit that participants generally agree that the time allocated for the placement test is sufficient and that the test positively impacts students\u0026rsquo; language learning experiences. The suggestions for improvement were also well received, highlighting areas where further enhancements could add value.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Insert Table 5]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5 exhibits no statistically significant relationship between any of the variables and the socio demographic data, as the significance level was bigger than 0.05 (p \u0026gt; 0.05). This table illustrates the distribution of responses across low, moderate, and high frequency levels. Most respondents reported moderate to high perceptions of the placement test, reflecting generally positive feedback, with only seven responses at the low level. Similarly, participants indicated a moderate to high impact of the placement test on their language learning experiences, with only four low-level responses. Finally, nearly half of the respondents offered moderate suggestions for improvement, while a substantial number (30 responses) provided high-level suggestions, demonstrating interest in enhancing the placement test.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInstructors\u0026rsquo; opinions regarding the EPT\u0026rsquo;s challenges and their recommendations for improvement\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second research question yielded qualitative data that included instructors\u0026rsquo; opinions regarding the EPT\u0026rsquo;s challenges and their recommendations for upgrading this test. There were common categories among the data, which were grouped together to avoid any redundancies; thus, the data were examined thematically to accentuate the dominant categories and themes across the dataset. According to Braun and Clarke (2006), researchers do not simply identify themes because they emerge in the data; instead, they are also inspired by their epistemological and theoretical positions. Hence, we presented participants\u0026rsquo; voices by integrating several pieces of evidence that we \u0026ldquo;select, edit, and deploy to border our arguments\u0026rdquo; (Fine, 2002: 218).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe key themes identified from instructors\u0026rsquo; insights included enhancing the EPT\u0026rsquo;s content, addressing administrative and technical hurdles, and enhancing students\u0026rsquo; preparation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eA. Enhancing the EPT\u0026rsquo;s content\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants highlighted that the test content presents several issues that negatively impede its effectiveness and fairness. First, multiple-choice questions commonly feature options that are closely similar, causing confusion among test-takers. Consequently, this can undermine their ability to accurately demonstrate their semantic knowledge. Second, the inclusion of multiple comprehension passages was noted as particularly challenging for slower readers, potentially disadvantaging them during the assessment. To address this, participants suggested \u0026ldquo;mitigating the number of reading/comprehension questions.\u0026rdquo; Furthermore, while slightly more than 31% of the participants believed that the exam adequately reflected the language abilities required for academic success, 42% criticized the test for not covering \u0026ldquo;all language skills.\u0026rdquo; This deficiency failed to offer a comprehensive evaluation of students\u0026rsquo; overall language proficiency. Furthermore, 17.2% of the respondents expressed concern that the test does not accurately align or \u0026ldquo;match the actual language competency level of the students,\u0026rdquo; nor does it effectively measure their actual English proficiency levels. This discrepancy can misrepresent their abilities and hinder appropriate placement or advancement. \u0026ldquo;The majority of test content is directed toward testing grammar. It does not test learners\u0026rsquo; analytical ideas.\u0026rdquo; Critically, the test\u0026rsquo;s difficulty level has been questioned, with feedback suggesting that it is too easy and lacks items that \u0026ldquo;engage students\u0026rsquo; critical thinking skills.\u0026rdquo; This emphasis on straightforward grammar assessment neglects critical abilities that are crucial for real-world language use.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, these content-related issues highlight the need for a comprehensive review and revision to guarantee that the test accurately reflects students\u0026rsquo; true proficiency levels and effectively evaluates a broad range of language skills. A clear consensus emerged among respondents (68.8% of participants) advocating for the inclusion of additional language skills in the assessment framework. Many instructors noted that the test \u0026ldquo;does not test all four skills\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;include other academic language skills.\u0026rdquo; Specifically, 23% of participants recommended incorporating a listening section to evaluate students\u0026rsquo; comprehension abilities in real-life scenarios. This addition would assess their capacity to understand spoken English effectively. Similarly, there was strong support for integrating a speaking component, with suggestions for interviews or interactive tasks to evaluate students\u0026rsquo; oral proficiency and ability to communicate fluently and coherently.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, participants emphasized the need for increased focus on vocabulary assessment within the test. Including more vocabulary questions would enable a more thorough evaluation of students\u0026rsquo; linguistic knowledge across diverse domains, optimizing the test\u0026rsquo;s overall effectiveness in measuring language proficiency. Moreover, respondents underscored the significance of including a \u0026ldquo;general writing section.\u0026rdquo; This would allow evaluators to \u0026ldquo;gauge students\u0026rsquo; abilities\u0026rdquo; in producing written English, including their grammar, vocabulary usage, and overall writing skills. Feedback on the test\u0026rsquo;s content and format revealed a strong desire for enhancements that better reflect practical language use and provide a more comprehensive evaluation of students\u0026rsquo; abilities. Several respondents stressed the significance of creating a more interactive test by incorporating real-life applications of English. This approach seeks to move beyond traditional grammar and vocabulary assessments by offering tasks that simulate everyday language contexts and interactions, as one participant noted: \u0026ldquo;It must include more real-life uses of English rather than the usual English grammar and vocabulary.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSome instructors recommended that \u0026ldquo;new exams should be written for each new academic year\u0026rdquo; to maintain its relevance and rigor. They also argued that creating new exams annually guarantees that the test reflects current language learning objectives and challenges students appropriately. Hence, this continuous adaptation helps maintain the test\u0026rsquo;s effectiveness in assessing students\u0026rsquo; language proficiency levels. Other participants advocated following \u0026ldquo;some examples from the TOEFL and IELTS,\u0026rdquo; as well-established standardized tests, to further optimize the EPT\u0026rsquo;s credibility and reliability. They believe that drawing upon established frameworks and assessment criteria from recognized tests ensures that the EPT measures language skills in a way that is widely accepted and understood to benefit both students and the PAAET.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, these recommendations highlight the desire to create a more comprehensive and balanced assessment that accurately measures a wide range of language skills\u0026mdash;listening, speaking, and writing\u0026mdash;in addition to traditional reading and comprehension tasks. Respondents believe that by incorporating these components, the EPT of the PAAET can offer a more thorough evaluation of students\u0026rsquo; language abilities and adequate preparation for academic and real-world language use.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2. Addressing administrative and technical challenges\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to respondents, the administrative and technical challenges correlated with the testing process can cause significant obstacles for students and administrators. Administratively, managing the test becomes complex, particularly when dealing with large numbers of students and with late arrivals who disrupt ongoing sessions. This logistical issue adds stress and potential delays to the testing environment. Proctoring also emerged as a major concern, with reports of inadequate supervision during testing sessions: \u0026ldquo;Proctoring has been less than adequate for years, which may have affected the ability to properly evaluate the actual test.\u0026rdquo; This inadequacy can compromise the integrity of test administration and affect the reliability of test results. Thus, participants emphasized the need for proper proctoring to ensure a controlled testing environment that minimizes distractions and prevents unauthorized behaviors that could affect outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTechnically, some students face challenges due to limited digital literacy. As respondents noted, may students \u0026ldquo;do not know how to use the computer\u0026rdquo; and struggle with navigating traditional keyboards, logging in, and submitting responses electronically. One participant observed, \u0026ldquo;The student\u0026rsquo;s modest level of digital literacy makes it even harder for him/her to navigate the test,\u0026rdquo; while another added, \u0026ldquo;They are used to the touch-screen experience, and this results in them starting the test with a sense of struggle.\u0026rdquo; Students\u0026rsquo; lack of proficiency can hinder their test performance, while technical issues during the exam further exacerbate these challenges, compromising the reliability and fairness of computer-based test outcomes. For instance, the use of outdated and slow computers adds to the difficulty, disrupting smooth test administration and timely completion. Hence, addressing these challenges is crucial for optimizing the testing process and ensuring a fair and effective assessment environment. Some participants suggested \u0026ldquo;fixing the software and computer problems\u0026rdquo; to optimize the overall reliability and fairness of the EPT and to minimize disruptions during testing sessions, thereby allowing students to focus solely on demonstrating their language skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3. Improving students\u0026rsquo; preparation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral respondents emphasized the need to offer students with training in using the test platform, noting that \u0026ldquo;students\u0026rsquo; inability to use technology\u0026rdquo; has been a significant barrier. Ensuring that students are proficient in utilizing the test platform and familiar with basic computer operations mitigates the likelihood of technical difficulties during the assessment. This preparation ensures a smoother testing process and allows students to focus more on demonstrating their language skills rather than troubleshooting technical issues. Moreover, numerous participants highlighted that students often lack readiness for the test, while others underscored the impact of psychological barriers on performance: \u0026ldquo;The psychological barrier that students carry with them. They are always certain that they are not capable of doing well and subsequently do not even bother.\u0026rdquo; This lack of readiness typically leads students to guess answers instead of applying proper knowledge and reasoning, potentially skewing results and undermining the validity of the assessment. Preparation and training are essential components to optimize students\u0026rsquo; performance in assessments. Suggestions included \u0026ldquo;giving them additional materials to prepare for the test\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;prepping students for what they need to know before coming to the test.\u0026rdquo; To support this, some participants recommended offering pre-test preparation materials or mock tests that familiarize students with the test format and enhance their expectations. These resources allow students to practice and gain confidence in navigating the test structure, which can alleviate anxiety and upgrade their overall test-taking experience. Additionally, instructors believe preparing students for the test helps them understand its procedures, timing, and specific requirements. Moreover, clear instructions contribute to a more organized testing environment and facilitate a fair and consistent assessment for all participants.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe analysis reveals a moderate agreement among instructors that the EPT effectively assesses students\u0026rsquo; language proficiency (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.25, 65%), as exhibited in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. This reflects a general sense of efficacy, proposing that while the test meets some expectations, there may be room for improvements in accuracy and reliability. Moreover, instructors expressed mixed opinions about the extent to which the test reflects the necessary academic language skills for success (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.02, 60.31%), as displayed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. The variability indicated by the higher standard deviation (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.25) proposes that some instructors may feel that certain skills are undervalued or not adequately tested (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). This demonstrates a perceived gap that demands attention, which addresses the research question by highlighting specific concerns. With instructors agreeing (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.33, 66.56%) that the test is fair, there is a positive general sentiment regarding its impartiality (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Nonetheless, the significant variation in opinions (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.31) depicts a divide on this issue, pointing to potential biases or concerns that some instructors believe should be addressed to ensure equitable assessment for all students (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). The analysis addressing Research Question 1 indicates moderate agreement that the test results align with students\u0026rsquo; actual language abilities (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.97, 59.38%), as demonstrated in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. This reflects some skepticism about the validity of the test results in accurately reflecting students\u0026rsquo; true language skills, stressing another aspect of instructors\u0026rsquo; perceptions that could be improved upon. The finding regarding the EPT\u0026rsquo;s limited motivational impact (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.41, 48.13%), as exhibited in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, strongly correlates with the overall perception of the test\u0026rsquo;s effectiveness. If instructors perceive the test as not motivating students, then this could have implications for how students engage with their learning, which aligns with their concerns about the test\u0026rsquo;s role in supporting language development. The instructors\u0026rsquo; strong support for optimizing accessibility (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.86 and offering additional resources (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.80), as indicated in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, reflects the perception that while the test is somewhat effective, enhancements are necessary for it to become more beneficial for students. This directly reveals instructors\u0026rsquo; desires for a more supportive testing environment that caters to diverse student needs, which addresses their concerns about the current test structure. Tables depicting descriptive statistics and socio-demographic analysis demonstrate that while the overall perception of the placement test is positive, there is a consistent call for enhancement and modifications. This reflects an acknowledgment among instructors of both the strengths of the test and the areas requiring improvement, providing a balanced view of their perceptions. In conclusion, the analysis clearly affirms that instructors at the PAAET have a generally positive perception of the EPT but also highlight notable concerns regarding its effectiveness in reflecting academic skills, fairness, and motivational impact. These perceptions propose a nuanced understanding of the test\u0026rsquo;s role in the educational process, highlighting both strengths and areas for potential improvement. The insights gathered can guide future developments of the EPT, ensuring that it not only assesses proficiency accurately but also supports student engagement and success effectively. The researcher believes that addressing these considerations will lead to more meaningful and impactful outcomes from the EPT.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study\u0026rsquo;s literature review underscores the critical role of language placement tests, particularly the EPT, in assessing students\u0026rsquo; language proficiency and facilitating appropriate course placements. It emphasizes the significance of validity and reliability, ensuring that assessments accurately capture students\u0026rsquo; language skills and effectively support their academic journey. This context frames the discussion on instructors\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the EPT and its effectiveness. The literature posits that effective placement tests not only determine students\u0026rsquo; current proficiency levels but also optimize their learning experiences by ensuring that they are placed in suitable courses (Akhidenor-Bamidele, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Lai \u0026amp; Waltman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). The discussion reflects a moderate agreement among instructors on the efficacy of the EPT, corroborating the literature\u0026rsquo;s assertion that placement tests can positively impact educational outcomes. Nonetheless, the literature also stresses the need for continuous improvement in test design and implementation (Nasem, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), which aligns with the discussion\u0026rsquo;s acknowledgment of the EPT\u0026rsquo;s room for enhancement concerning accuracy and reliability. Moreover, the mixed opinions in the discussion regarding the EPT\u0026rsquo;s ability to reflect essential academic language skills (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.02), as exhibited in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, align with literature highlighting the significance of designing placement tests that assess the skills required for academic success (Long et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The literature affirms the need for assessments to capture a comprehensive view of students\u0026rsquo; language abilities, which is echoed in the instructors\u0026rsquo; concerns about undervalued skills. This gap signals a need for reevaluation to ensure that the test adequately prepares students for their academic challenges. The study\u0026rsquo;s literature discusses the significance of fairness in language assessments and the critical implications of biases in placement decisions (Peredrienko \u0026amp; Istomina, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, the discussion indicates a generally positive perception of the EPT\u0026rsquo;s fairness (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.33), as displayed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, but also reveals variability in opinions, proposing potential biases that must be explored further. This highlights the need for ongoing dialogue around best practices to optimize perceived fairness and guarantee equitable assessments for all students. Instructors expressed skepticism about the alignment of test results with actual language abilities (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.97), as exhibited in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, reflecting broader concerns in the literature about the validity of placement testing. The literature underscores that accurate assessments should genuinely reflect students\u0026rsquo; language skills to foster effective learning environments (Kadwa \u0026amp; Sheikh, 2021). This noted skepticism among instructors presents an opportunity for further investigation and enhancement in test development. The discussion raises significant concern concerning the limited motivational impact of the EPT (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.41), as demonstrated in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, which could impede student engagement. Literature underlines that effective assessments should not only evaluate proficiency but also serve to motivate students in their learning journeys (Ouitas \u0026amp; Belaoura, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This lack of motivation stresses the necessity for reforms in the EPT to engage students meaningfully and upgrade their learning experience. The instructors\u0026rsquo; strong support for enhancing accessibility and offering additional resources aligns with the literature\u0026rsquo;s advocacy for tailored instructional strategies and support mechanisms that cater to diverse learner needs (Lai \u0026amp; Waltman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Akhidenor-Bamidele, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). The call for improvements demonstrates an understanding of the necessity to create a supportive testing environment that maximizes learning opportunities for every student. Finally, both the literature and the discussion underscore the significance of recognizing strengths and areas needing improvement in language placement tests. The written literature encourages a reflective approach to optimize test designs in alignment with evolving educational needs (Nasem, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This is mirrored in the instructors\u0026rsquo; insights, which acknowledge the strengths of the EPT while also proposing concrete areas for development, thereby contributing to a richer dialogue on optimizing the testing process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding instructors\u0026rsquo; recommendations for refining the EPT process, there was a call among respondents for diversifying the EPT\u0026rsquo;s question types to avoid restricting them to the standard multiple-choice formats only. This resonates with Al-Adawi and Al-Balushi\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) concerns regarding the negative impact of certain test formats, such as multiple-choice questions, and the potential for random guessing, which may compromise test reliability. There was also a clear consensus among respondents (68.8% of participants as exhibited in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e), advocating for a more comprehensive and balanced assessment that accurately evaluates a wide range of language skills\u0026mdash;listening, speaking, and writing\u0026mdash;in addition to traditional reading and comprehension tasks. This corroborates with Ouitas and Belaoura\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) proposition that testing only specific skills does not offer a complete evaluation of students\u0026rsquo; proficiency levels. This also echoes Peredrienko and Istomina\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) argument that comprehensive assessments should explore both receptive skills (listening and reading) and productive skills (speaking and writing) to present a holistic vision of students\u0026rsquo; language abilities. By incorporating these components, the EPT of the PAAET can provide a more thorough evaluation of students\u0026rsquo; language abilities that can serve in both academic and real-world contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn another note, numerous participants in this research discussed the need to offer students with pre-test training, which is a matter that has been raised by many researchers such as Nasem (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), who emphasize the importance of familiarizing students with technology to upgrade their results in placement tests. It is worth noting that while numerous respondents discussed the necessity of students\u0026rsquo; preparation, none mentioned professional development for educators. This implies that they do not view the training required for the EPT as a shared responsibility between educators and students. Moreover, several participants recommended adopting universal models such the TOEFL and IELTS and overlooked students\u0026rsquo; cultural differences and prior educational experiences. Thus, further future studies should explore the perspectives of both students and instructors to enhance their experiences with the EPT of the PAAET.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eWhile previous literature focused on discussing the benefits of employing the EPT, in addition to certain limited aspects such as the validity and reliability of this test (e.g., Almutairi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), the current research offered novel detailed insights that seek to improve the usage of the EPT at PAAET\u0026rsquo;s LC in Kuwait. This research filled a gap in the literature by elucidating instructors\u0026rsquo; perceptions of this test and identifying hurdles and areas for improvement that can result in promising outcomes, not only in Kuwait but also in other prestigious academic institutions in other parts of the world. This study utilized surveys that integrated Likert and open-ended questions to generate quantitative and qualitative data. On the one hand, the quantitative findings, which were explored using SPSS, demonstrated that instructors generally view the test positively, specifically concerning the clarity of instructions and the time allotted for completion. Nevertheless, there was a variability in opinions about whether the test accurately reflects students\u0026rsquo; language abilities. Additionally, instructors highlighted the need to optimize the test\u0026rsquo;s accessibility and offer more resources for students. Conversely, the qualitative data identified key themes regarding participants\u0026rsquo; suggestions for upgrading the EPT, encompassing redesigning the test and enhancing students\u0026rsquo; preparations for it. Concerns about students\u0026rsquo; confidence, motivation, and proctoring were also highlighted. Many participants also suggested incorporating additional language skills\u0026mdash;such as listening, speaking, and writing\u0026mdash;and modifying the test format to better reflect real-life communication scenarios. Hence, the EPT of the PAAET should be optimized by updating it on a frequent basis to ensure its efficacy. This can be achieved by addressing students\u0026rsquo; cultural backgrounds, needs, and aligning the test with the LC\u0026rsquo;s curriculum to maximize its effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eRecommendations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research not only elucidates instructors\u0026rsquo; insights about the EPT employed at the PAAET\u0026rsquo;s LC but also leverages its findings to recommend modifications aimed at enhancing the test\u0026rsquo;s validity and reliability, as well as enriching both students\u0026rsquo; learning and instructors\u0026rsquo; teaching experiences. Additionally, this research advocates for future research to explore students\u0026rsquo; and instructors\u0026rsquo; experiences with an improved version of the EPT, assessing its impact on both stakeholders and the overall teaching and learning process. Moreover, a follow-up study should be undertaken to compare students\u0026rsquo; results in the previous and new EPTs to identify gaps and areas for further improvement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionList\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003ePAAET\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePublic Authority for Applied Education and Training\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eEPT\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnglish Placement Test\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eLC\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLanguage Center\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eESP\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnglish for Specific Purposes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eTOEFL\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTest of English as a Foreign Language\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eIELTS\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInternational English Language Testing System\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eSPSS\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStatistical Package for the Social Sciences\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eNVivo\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Not expanded; refers to NVivo qualitative data analysis software)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003ePhD\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDoctor of Philosophy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ethical approval was obtained from the Language Center (LC) at the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET), Kuwait. Instructors participated voluntarily, and anonymity/confidentiality were maintained.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Not applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAkhidenor-Bamidele, A. (2019). The roles of online placement test in English language teaching. \u003cem\u003eKnE\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 1-9. doi:10.18502/kss.v3i24.5163.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAl-Adawi, S.S., \u0026amp; Al-Balushi, A.A. (2016). Investigating content and face validity of\u0026nbsp;English\u0026nbsp;language placement test designed by colleges of applied sciences. \u003cem\u003eEnglish Language Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 107-121. doi:10.5539/elt.v9n1p107.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAl Faraj, A. (2021). \u003cem\u003eTeacher and student perceptions of academic and professional literacies in ESP at tertiary and applied colleges in Kuwait\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation,\u0026nbsp;University of Leeds).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlAdl, A.E.A. (2018). Investigating validity, reliability and perception of English language placement test: The model of Delta University.\u0026nbsp;مجلة کلية التربية فى العلوم التربوية, 42(1), 15\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlmutairi, M. (2024). Reliability and validity of the electronic English placement test (EPT) conducted by the\u0026nbsp;Language Center, Public Authority\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;Applied Education \u0026amp; Training.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEgyptian Journal of Educational Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 113-128. doi:10.21608/ejes.2024.380393.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlzankawi, M.A., \u0026amp; Alenezi, Y.M. (2021). English language teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of\u0026nbsp;PAAET\u0026apos;s\u0026nbsp;professional development programs: Implications on guideline formulation for training programs. \u003cem\u003eInternational Education Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(9), 90-107. doi:10.5539/ies.v14n9p90.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBachman, L.F., \u0026amp; Palmer, A.S. (2010\u003cem\u003e). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBryman, A. (2012). \u003cem\u003eSocial research methods\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCohen, L., Manion, L., \u0026amp; Morrison, K. (2001). \u003cem\u003eResearch methods in education\u003c/em\u003e. London:\u0026nbsp;Routledge Falmer.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCohen, L., Manion, L., \u0026amp; Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education. \u003cem\u003eResearch methods in education\u003c/em\u003e. New York: Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCreswell, J.W. (2013). \u003cem\u003eResearch design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches\u003c/em\u003e. SAGE Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCreswell, J.W., \u0026amp; Plano Clark, V.L. (2018).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eResearch design: Qualitative, quantitative,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;and mixed methods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eapproaches.\u003c/em\u003eThousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFine, M. (2002). \u003cem\u003eDisruptive voices: The possibilities for feminist research\u003c/em\u003e. Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFulcher, G. (1997). An English language placement test: Issues in reliability and validity. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Testing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 113-139. doi:10.1177/026553229701400201.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFulcher, G. (2010). \u003cem\u003ePractical Language Testing\u003c/em\u003e. Hodder Education.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIsbell, D.R., \u0026amp; Kremmel, B. (2020). Test\u0026nbsp;review: Current options in at-home language proficiency tests for making high-stakes decisions. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Testing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(4), 600-619. doi:10.1177/0265532220943483.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKadwa, M.S., \u0026amp; Sheik, A. (2021). A critical review of the Oxford Q-skills placement test at a Saudi Arabian university. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 198-209. doi:10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.1.19.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLai, E.R., \u0026amp; Waltman, K. (2008). Test preparation: Examining teacher perceptions and practices. \u003cem\u003eEducational Measurement: Issues and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(2), 28-45. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2008.00120.x.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLong, A., Shin, S.Y., Geeslin, K., \u0026amp; Willis, E. (2018). Does the test work? Evaluating a web-based language placement test. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Learning \u0026amp; Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(1), 137-151. doi:10125/44585.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNasem, H., \u0026amp; Mohammed, A. (2019). \u003cem\u003eTeachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions on the effectiveness of the Oxford online placement test at King Abdulaziz University\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Doctoral dissertation, Durham University).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOuitas, R., \u0026amp; Belaoura, A. (2021). \u003cem\u003eAn investigation of EFL teachers\u0026rsquo; and learners\u0026rsquo; perceptions towards the placement test assessment\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Doctoral dissertation, University of Jijel).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePastor, A.J., Guilot, S., \u0026amp; Mora, C. (2011).\u0026nbsp;Validity and reliability in placement test design\u003cem\u003e. Language Learning in Higher Education, 1\u003c/em\u003e(2), 2-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePeredrienko, T., \u0026amp; Istomina, E. (2017). Placement test validation: Ways of improvement. In \u003cem\u003eINTED2017 proceedings\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 6287-6293). IATED.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRobson, C. (2011). \u003cem\u003eReal world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eBlackwell Publishing\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSheerah, H.A., \u0026amp; Yadav, M.S. (2022). The use of English placement test (EPT) in assessing the EFL students\u0026rsquo; language proficiency level at a Saudi university. \u003cem\u003eRupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1-24. doi:10.21659/rupkatha.v14n3.24\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStake, R.E. (1995). \u003cem\u003eThe art of case study research\u003c/em\u003e. SAGE Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTashakkori, A., \u0026amp; Teddlie, C. (1998). \u003cem\u003eMixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;approaches\u003c/em\u003e. SAGE Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTaylor, L. (2013).\u0026nbsp;Language testing and assessment: Ethics and professionalism\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eIn A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eThe companion to language assessment\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 115-132). Wiley-Blackwell\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUNESCO-UNEVOC. (n.d.). The Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET). In Explore the UNEVOC Network. https://unevoc.unesco.org/home/Explore+the+UNEVOC+Network/centre=403. Accessed 26 March 2024.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, Y. (2019). The impact of TOEFL on instructors\u0026apos; course content and teaching methods. \u003cem\u003eTESL-EJ\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(3), n3.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWellington, J. (2015). \u003cem\u003eEducational research: Contemporary issues and practical approaches\u003c/em\u003e. Bloomsbury.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWilliams, C. (2007). Research methods. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business \u0026amp; Economic Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(3), 65-72\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables 1 to 5 are available in the Supplementary Files section\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"English Placement Test (EPT), Language Center (LC), Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET), Reliability, Validity, Language Proficiency, Kuwait","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7545830/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7545830/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eEnglish language placement tests are essential tools employed globally for assessing students\u0026rsquo; English proficiency levels. In Kuwait, such evaluations are widely implemented across higher educational institutions, as English serves as the second most widely used language after Arabic. Nonetheless, the literature reveals a lack of in-depth studies that explore instructors\u0026rsquo; perspectives and recommendations for enhancing the use of these tests. Such insights are crucial for informing educators and policymakers not only in Kuwait but also across the region. Hence, this study investigated instructors\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the English Placement Test (EPT) administered at the Language Center (LC) of the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET) in Kuwait. It aimed to identify challenges correlated with the EPT and propose potential areas for improvement from the perspective of PAAET\u0026rsquo;s language instructors. A total of 64 out of 79 instructors participated in an electronic survey designed to ensure anonymity between researchers and respondents. The questionnaire incorporated Likert-scale items and open-ended questions, generating both quantitative and qualitative data to enrich the analysis. Quantitative data from the Likert-scale responses were analyzed using SPSS, while qualitative data from the open-ended responses underwent thematic analysis via NVivo. This approach provided comprehensive insights into statistical trends and instructors\u0026rsquo; nuanced perspectives. Findings revealed that although instructors generally viewed the EPT positively, there were diverse opinions about its effectiveness in accurately reflecting students\u0026rsquo; language proficiency. Drawing on these insights, the research concludes with instructors\u0026rsquo; recommendations to incorporate additional language skills and modify the test format to better align with real-life language use.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The English Language Placement Test at the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET) in Kuwait: A Survey of Instructors’ Perspectives","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-26 11:36:07","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7545830/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"3f56368b-a423-4516-90fc-c82fe9b865e2","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 26th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-05T09:11:06+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-26 11:36:07","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7545830","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7545830","identity":"rs-7545830","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}