Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:32:00.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Putting the Common European Framework of Reference to good use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2011

Brian North
Brian North*
Affiliation:
EAQUALS; Eurocentres Foundation, [email protected]; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper recapitulates the aims of the CEFR and highlights three aspects of good practice in exploiting it: firstly, taking as a starting point the real-world language ability that is the aim of all modern language learners; secondly, the exploitation of good descriptors as transparent learning objectives in order to involve and empower the learners; and thirdly, engaging with the communality of the CEFR Common Reference Levels in relating assessments to it. The second part of the paper focuses on good practice in such linking of assessments to the CEFR. It outlines the recommended procedures published by the Council of Europe for linking language examinations to the CEFR and the adaptation of those procedures for teacher assessment in language schools that has recently been undertaken by EAQUALS. The paper concludes by discussing certain aspects of criterion-referenced assessment (CR) and standard setting that are relevant to the linking process.

Type
Plenary Speeches
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 228 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alderson, J. C. (ed.) (2002). Case studies in the use of the Common European Framework. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Alderson, J. C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal 91.4, 659–662.Google Scholar
Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, Norms and Equivalent Scores. In Thorndike, R. L. (ed.) Educational measurement. Washington DC: American Council on Education, 508–600.Google Scholar
Baker, R. (1997). Classical test theory and item response theory in test analysis. Extracts from an investigation of the Rasch model in its application to foreign language proficiency testing. Language Testing Update Special Report No 2. Lancaster, CRILE, Department of Linguistics and Modern English Language.Google Scholar
Breton, G., Lepage, S. & North, B. (2008). Cross-language benchmarking seminar to calibrate examples of spoken production in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish with regard to the six levels of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). CIEP, Sèvres, 23–25 June 2008. Strasbourg: CIEP/Council of Europe, www.coe.int/lang.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H. (ed.) (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference. The Modern Language Journal 91.4, 641–685.Google Scholar
Cizek, G. J. & Bunch, M. B. (2007). Standard setting: A guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2003). Relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). DGIV/EDU/LANG (2003) 5, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the development of language policies: Challenges and responsibilities. Intergovernmental Language Policy Forum, Strasbourg, 6–8 February 2007. www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Forum07_webdocs_EN.aspGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe (2009). Relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Manuel1_EN.aspGoogle Scholar
De Jong, J. (2010). Aligning PTE Academic score results to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. http://pearsonpte.com/research/Documents/AligningPTEtoCEF.pdfGoogle Scholar
Department for Education and Skills (2003). Pathways to proficiency: The alignment of language proficiency scales for assessing competence in English language. QCA/DfES Publications. http://rwp.excellencegateway.org.uk/readwriteplus/bank.cfm?section=549Google Scholar
ETS (2004). Mapping TOEFL, TSE, TWE, and TOIEC on the Common European Framework, Executive summary. 18 March, 2011. www.besig.org/events/iateflpce2005/ets/CEFsummaryMarch04.pdfGoogle Scholar
ETS (2008). Mapping TOEFL iBT on the Common European Framework of Reference, Executive summary. 18 March, 2011. www.ets.org/toefl/researchGoogle Scholar
Figueras, N. & Noijons, J. (eds.) (2009). Linking to the CEFR levels: Research perspectives. Arnhem: Cito-EALTA.Google Scholar
Glaser, R. (1963). Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some questions. American Psychologist 18.8, 519–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, R. (1994a). Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some questions. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 13.4, 6–8.Google Scholar
Glaser, R. (1994b). Criterion-referenced tests: Part 1. Origins. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 13.4, 9–11.Google Scholar
Glass, G. V. (1978). Standards and criteria. Journal of Educational Measurement 15.4, 237–261.Google Scholar
Hambleton, R. K. (1994). The rise and fall of criterion-referenced measurement? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 13.4, 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmer, J. (1998). How to teach English. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Henning, G. (1987). A guide to language testing. Development, evaluation, research. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Impara, J. C. & Plake, B. S. (1998). Teachers’ ability to estimate item difficulty: A test of the assumptions in the Angoff standard-setting method. Journal of Educational Measurement 35.1, 69–81.Google Scholar
Jones, N. (2002). Relating the ALTE Framework to the Common European Framework of Reference. In Alderson (ed.), 167–183.Google Scholar
Jones, N. (2005). Seminar to calibrate examples of spoken performance. CIEP, Sèvres, 2–4 December, 2004. Report on analysis of rating data, final version. 1 March, 2005. www.coe.int/lang.Google Scholar
Jones, N. (2009). A comparative approach to constructing a multilingual proficiency framework constraining the role of standard-setting. In Figueras & Noijons (eds.), 35–44.Google Scholar
Jones, N., Ashton, K. & Walker, T. (2010). Asset languages: A case study of piloting the CEFR manual. In Martyniuk, (ed.), 227–248.Google Scholar
Kaftandjeva, F. (2009). Basket procedure: The breadbasket or the basket case of standard-setting methods? In Figueras & Noijons (eds.), 21–34.Google Scholar
Kaftandjieva, F. & Takala, S. (2002). Council of Europe scales of language proficiency: A validation study. In Alderson (ed.), 106–129.Google Scholar
Kantarcioğu, E., Thomas, C., O'Dwyer, J. & O'Sullivan, B. (2010). Benchmarking a high-stakes proficiency exam: The COPE linking project. In Martyniuk (ed.), 102–118.Google Scholar
Kecker, G. & Eckes, T. (2010). Putting the manual to the test: The TestDaf–CEFR linking project. In Martyniuk (ed.), 50–79.Google Scholar
Keddle, J. S. (2004). The CEF and the secondary school syllabus. In Morrow, K. (ed.), Insights from the Common European Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 43–54.Google Scholar
Khalifa, H. & Weir, C. (2009). Examining reading: Research and practice in assessing second language reading. Studies in Language Testing 29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Khalifa, H., ffrench, A. & Salamoura, A. (2010). Maintaining alignment to the CEFR: The FCE case study. In Martyniuk (ed.), 80–102.Google Scholar
Lado, R. (1961). Language testing. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Linacre, J. M. (1989). Multi-faceted measurement. Chicago: MESA Press.Google Scholar
Linacre, J. M. (2008). A user's guide to FACETS, Rasch model computer program. www.winsteps.com.Google Scholar
Lissitz, R. W. & Huynh, H. (2003). Vertical equating for state assessments: Issues and solutions in determination of adequate yearly progress and school accountability. Practical Assessment: Research & Evaluation 8.10. http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=10.Google Scholar
Little, D. (2005). The Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio: Involving learners and their judgements in the assessment process. Language Testing 22.3, 321–336.Google Scholar
Martyniuk, W. (ed.) (2010). Aligning tests with the CEFR: Reflections on using the Council of Europe's draft manual. Studies in Language Testing 33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McNamara, T. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Moe, E. (2009). Jack of more trades? Could standard-setting serve several functions? In Figueras & Noijons (eds.), 131–138.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2005). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Language Testing 22.3, 399–406.Google Scholar
North, B. (1995). The development of a common framework scale of descriptors of language proficiency based on a theory of measurement. System 23, 445–465.Google Scholar
North, B. (1997). Perspectives on language proficiency and aspects of competence. Language Teaching 30, 92–100.Google Scholar
North, B. (2000a). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. New York: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, B. (2000b). Linking language assessments: An example in a low stakes context. System 28, 555–577.Google Scholar
North, B. (2002). A CEF-based self-assessment tool for university entrance. In Alderson (ed.), 146–166.Google Scholar
North, B. & Jones, N. (2009). Relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR): Further material on maintaining standards across languages, contexts and administrations by exploiting teacher judgment and IRT scaling. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Manuel1_EN.aspGoogle Scholar
North, B. & Lepage, S. (2005). Seminar to calibrate examples of spoken performances in line with the scales of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. CIEP, Sèvres, 2–4 December, 2004. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, www.coe.int/lang.Google Scholar
North, B. & Schneider, G. (1998). Scaling descriptors for language proficiency scales. Language Testing 15.2, 217–262.Google Scholar
North, B., Ortega Calvo, Á. & Sheehan, S. (2010). British Council–EAQUALS core inventory for General English. London: British Council/EAQUALS. www.teachingenglish.org.uk and www.eaquals.orgGoogle Scholar
Ortega Calvo, Á. (2010). ‘Qué son en realidad los niveles C? Desarrollo de sus descriptores en el MCER y el PEL’. In Calvo, Ortega (ed.), Niveles C: Currículos, programación, enseñanza y certificación. Madrid: IFIIE – Ministerio de Educación, 21–85.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, B. (2010). The City & Guilds Communicator examination linking project: A brief overview with reflections on the process. In Martyniuk (ed.), 33–49.Google Scholar
Pollitt, A. (2009). The Oxford Online Placement Test: The meaning of OOPT scores. Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.oxfordenglishtesting.com.Google Scholar
Reckase, M. D. (2009). Standard-setting theory and practice: Issues and difficulties. In Figueras & Noijons (eds.), 13–20.Google Scholar
Schneider, G., North, B. & Koch, L. (2000). A European language portfolio. Berne: Berner Lehrmittel- und Medienverlag.Google Scholar
Szabo, G. (2010). Relating language examinations to the CEFR: ECL as a case study. In Martyniuk (ed.), 133–144.Google Scholar
Takala, S. (2009) (ed.). Relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR): Reference supplement. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Manuel1_EN.aspGoogle Scholar
Tannenbaum, R. J. & Wylie, E. C. (2004). Mapping test scores onto the Common European Framework: Setting standards of language proficiency on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), the Test of Spoken English (TSE), the Test of Written English (TWE) and the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service, April 2004. 18 March, 2011. www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/CEFstudyreport.pdfGoogle Scholar
Tannenbaum, R. J. & Wylie, E. C. (2008). Linking English language test scores onto the Common European Framework of Reference: An application of standard-setting methodology. Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service, TOEFL iBT Research Report RR–08–34, June 2008. 18 March, 2011. www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-08-34.pdfGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. & Kantarcioğlu, E. (2009). Bilkent University School of English language COPE CEFR linking project. In Figueras & Noijons (eds.), 119–124.Google Scholar
Verhelst, N. (2009). Linking multilingual survey results to the Common European Framework of Reference. In Figueras & Noijons (eds.), 45–58.Google Scholar
Weir, C. (2005). Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparable language examinations and tests. Language Testing 22.3, 281–300.Google Scholar