Talk:Cambridge English Qualifications

Declaration of affiliation

Hello, my name is Louise and I work for Cambridge Assessment English. I'm here to update outdated content and suggest information that will improve the quality of Cambridge Assessment English related pages. I will abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and would welcome Wikipedians' views on the updates.

Many thanks Louise

LouisePope (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Improving the article

Hello,

My name is Louise. I work for Cambridge English Language Assessment, so I want to be completely open that I have a conflict of interest.

But I also want to help improve the article - particularly when there is out-of-date or inaccurate information.

Please let me know what you think of my suggestions, and which changes you think need making. It would be great to do this collaboratively.

The editors have flagged that some of the content is written too much like an advertisement. I therefore suggest removing the following:

• "designed to encourage continuous progression"
• "step by step"
• "designed to offer learners and teachers useful curriculum and examination levels" replace with "gave learners and teachers different curriculum and examination levels."
• "provided recognised accreditation 'stepping stones' along the language teaching/learning pathway" replace with "provided a range of different curriculum and examination levels."
• "the emerging system, with familiar terms such as 'preliminary' and 'advanced', formalised conceptual levels that English language teaching professionals had been using for many years and aimed to address the difficulties of relating different language courses and assessments."
• "provide a clear path for improving language skills" replace with "provide a path for improving language skills"
• Schools "These qualifications are designed specifically for school-aged students and are informed by research into how children developed language skills. The topics and tasks in the exam are targeted at the interests and experiences of school-aged learners and designed to reinforce the learning students do in class and help them develop English language skills to communicate in the real-world."
• General and higher education "These qualifications are targeted at the interests and experiences of adult learners and support those who aspire to get into university, start their own business or develop their career. They help learners to develop real-life communication skills they can use for everyday life, travel, study and work."
• Business " These qualifications test English language in a business context. They are designed to help learners develop the English language skills to communicate confidently in an international workplace and prove to employers that learners have the English language skills to succeed in the workplace."

The editors have also flagged that there is too much reliance on primary sources. I therefore have found some extra sources to include:

• History http://www.eltnews.gr/education/1520-the-history-of-the-cambridge-exams
• Cambridge English Qualifications: Schools, British Council, English Exams Guide, https://www.britishcouncil.cz/sites/default/files/british-council-english-exams-guide.pdf
• Cambridge English Qualifications: General, https://www.lingoda.com/en/language-examinations
• Cambridge English Qualifications: Business, https://www.languagepartners.nl/engels-en/cambridge-business-english-exams/?lang=en
• Links to the CEFR: http://www.linkeducationinc.com/2017/10/27/about-the-cambridge-english-language-assessment/
• The 'research basis' section already has a range of independent sources.

Cheers again Louise LouisePope (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the promotional language and made all the changes suggested above. I hope this addresses the maintenance template issues and will remove this too. But more than happy to make further changes if it hasn't been fully addressed. Cheers again LouiseLouisePope (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Louise, I sympathise - I first came across this series of articles some years ago and at that time they were little more than 'cut and pastes' of routine Cambridge communications (which I see professionally). The task of re-writing them was too daunting for me, so I just 'moved on'. I've rewritten the lead, my version might be improvable, but the prev. failed to address the basic what/who questions (for example failing to mention English or ESFL - "a path to language learning" could be referring to Javanese). A strict interpretation of WP guidelines would also probably rule out much of the present content as off-topic (being about language learning/motivation, rather than CEQ specifically). If it's any consolation, the 'competitors' were just as blatantly 'PR-jobs' last time I looked !Pincrete (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete Thank you for the rewritten lead paragraphs - they look fab. It's lovely to have another contributor. More than happy to make further changes if anything else in particular jumps out. Cheers again, Louise 82.1.212.13 (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Louise,, just a technical matter, but you should 'sign in'. There is nothing even remotely dishonest about your last post, but editors editing from IP addresses is sometimes misunderstood on WP, so getting into the habit of signing in is a good thing.

You'll find me a very lazy contributor in this topic area - too much of a 'busman's holiday', I'm afraid! Though if I can, I'll try to think of where you could go for help from other editors. The whole TEFL exam boards area is poor IMO, being little more than press releases and mission statements. This serves neither the reader - nor ultimately the exam boards IMO, but a thorough clean out would involve more effort than I'm willing to give.

If it were me - I'd consider merging the present content with the CamAssEng article - and then converting this article into a redirect (ie deleting present content). I could tell you how to do the second part of that technically if you wish. The present 'research' section reads as being generalised homilies about motivation, rather than being specific to CEQ - in Wiki-speak, it's off-topic. I would have thought that merging the institution with this overview of the exams it sets, but maintaining articles about individual exams, would make a more coherent overall coverage. Pincrete (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete Ah, sorry I did forget to sign-in last time. Complete oversight on my part. Unfortunately I'm short on time to do Wiki updates as well, at least for the next few weeks. I absolutely agree that the whole set of exam board pages need a thorough clean out. My first priority, when I have a bit more time, is to address the individual exam pages. I think they have the most issues at the moment! But hopefully once they're in better shape can then return to the overall pages ... Cheers again for now, Louise LouisePope (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)