The Girls Are Fighting Part II: Duolingo Response (kind of)
I wrote about the girls fighting Part I here.
tl;dr: legacy test providers positioning themselves against newer entrants like Duolingo English Test (DET) by emphasizing human evaluation and research-backed validity; evidence for claims is iffy.
I promised to keep you all posted if there were any clapbacks from modern test providers, and I'm considering the whitepaper from The Quantum Hub (sponsored by DET) published yesterday as a response. It's not a direct one, but I need to craft the narrative of an actual fight, therefore here I am calling this Round I (punch and counterpunch) 😂
The white paper argues for an accelerated transition to online-only testing. Funding, research data, and clear bias from DET aside, I buy quite a few of their arguments.
- Test centers are clustered in Tier-1 cities, effectively "redlining" rural applicants who must travel overnight and pay for hotels just to sit for an exam. An at-home model removes this infrastructure barrier, allowing mobility from regions with no physical testing facilities.
- The paper argues that physical centers are actually more prone to fraud, mentioning vulnerability to "dummy candidate" rings and leaked fixed-format papers. Digital providers can create "adaptive" tests (where no two exams are alike) and require biometrics to counter the rote memorization and impersonation fraud common in physical centers.
*3. The authors challenge the validity of 3-hour exams, arguing they often measure endurance rather than language skill. By using Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) to adjust difficulty in real-time, the DET claims to pinpoint proficiency in under an hour, removing the fatigue factor.
*This is a point I disagree with. Fatigue in a target language is real, and must be trained for and tested for. Work environments requiring 8 hours in TL, study or lectures or group projects requiring hours and hours in TL, there is absolutely a stamina component to real life utilization of language.
Strategic Positioning
Since the pandemic, the world has moved online, and every legacy test provider was forced to adapt, creating at-home testing products. Those who have been slower to embrace modern formats have seen their market share eaten by newer entrants like DET or established firms who have been a bit more nimble (PET).
A real battleground developing is how quickly governments and institutions can be convinced to actually cut over to digital-only. The UK Home Office, as a recent example, is moving to online-first testing as a part of its new tender process. It also shouldn't be lost on anyone that DET chose a consulting company in India, one of the fiercest battlegrounds for English testing, to sponsor a study directly appealing to government initiatives.
If DET, LanguageCert, or some other AI-powered start up in development can accelerate the cutover to digital, they can potentially win on several fronts: leveling the playing field for students, boosting revenue, and turning their legacy competitors' massive test center infrastructure (test prep centers, commercial leases, complex licensing structures to unwind, etc.) to balance sheet liabilities overnight.
Round I Fight Card
IELTS threw some light punches on human in-the-loop and research-backed validity. If they can keep commissioning studies to hammer on this and create a real corpus of evidence, they might be able to position themselves as the more traditional but better option to serve students. But academic sentiment is far from unified on this and easily countered by commissioned studies from newer entrants.
DET went right to the body, going after the core of the testing landscape: student fairness and institutional adoption. If they can soften up legacy providers here a headshot in later rounds opens up.
Winner: DET