Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Aligning China's Standards of English Language Ability with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the field of second language assessment, there is limited empirical research on the alignment of different language proficiency standards. This study aims to establish level correspondences for overall language proficiency between China's Standards of English Language Ability (CSE) and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). All 467 CEFR descriptors and 104 CSE anchor descriptors were used in 15 questionnaires. Approximately 5441 teacher ratings and 23,260 student ratings were collected and analysed by Rasch analysis, fixed common item equating, and statistical comparison. The results show that CSE descriptors of a certain level tend to scatter at several adjacent CEFR levels, one of which is relatively predominant. CSE level 1 corresponds mainly to the CEFR below A1 level, level 2 to A1, level 3 to A2, level 4 and level 5 to B1, level 6 to B2, level 7 to B2 and C1, level 8 to C1 and C2, and level 9 to C2. This study enriches the literature on alignment between standards. It has implications for language teaching, learning, and assessment for different stakeholders in China and abroad.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. North (2000) only published part of the scaling results in the CEFR project. The authors can only find the scaling results of 288 CEFR descriptors in North (2000) to make correlation analysis.

References

  • ACTFL. (2012). The ACTFL Proficiency Guideline. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012

  • Alderson, J. C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 659–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., & Pan, M. (2019). English language teaching in China: Developing language proficiency frameworks. In X. Gao (Ed.), Second handbook of English language teaching (pp. 415–432). Springer.

  • Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckland, S., Seo, D., De Jong, J., & Mayor, M. (2017). Aligning EIKEN descriptors to GSE. Retrieved from https://www.english.com/ gse/researchers

  • Chapelle, C. (2012). Seeking solid theoretical ground for the ACTFL-CEFR crosswalk. In E. Tschirner (Ed.), Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference (pp. 35–48). Stauffenburg Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cizek, G. J., & Bunch, M. B. (2007). Standard setting: A guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests. Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (2008). 《欧洲语言共同参考框架学习、教学、评估》(J. Liu & R. Fu, Trans.). Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

  • Council of Europe. (2009). Relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for languages: A manual. Language Policy Division.

  • Council of Europe. (2018). Companion volume with new descriptors-Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/documents

  • De Jong, J., Mayor, M., & Hayes, C. (2016). Developing global scale of English learning objectives aligned to the common European framework. Retrieved from https://www.english.com/gse/researchers.

  • Dunlea, J., Spiby, R., Wu, S., Zhang, J., & Cheng, M. (2019). China's standards of English language ability: Linking UK exams to the CSE. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/linking_cse_to_uk_exams_5_0.pdf

  • Fulcher, G. (2016). Standards and frameworks. In Tsagari, D & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 2–12). De Gruyter Mouton.

  • Fulcher, G., Davidson, F., & Kemp, J. (2011). Effective rating scale development for speaking tests: Performance decision trees. Language Testing, 28(1), 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harsch, C. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Strengths and limitations. VDM.

  • Huynh, H., & Meyer, P. (2010). Use of robust Z in detecting unstable items in item response theory models. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 15(2).

  • Jones, N. (2002). Relating the ALTE framework to the Common European Framework of Reference. In C. Alderson (Ed.), Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment: Case studies (pp. 167–181). Council of Europe.

  • Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2014). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (3rd ed.). Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O. (2018). English language proficiency standards aligned with content standards. Educational Researcher, 47(5), 317–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linacre, J. M. (2014). A computer program for the analysis of multi-faceted data. Mesa Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayor, M., Seo, D., De Jong, J., & Buckland, S. (2016). Aligning CEFR-J descriptors to GSE. Retrieved from https://www.english.com/ gse/researchers.

  • McNamara, T., Morton, J., Storch, N., & Thompson, C. (2018). Students’ accounts of their first-year undergraduate academic writing experience: Implications for the use of the CEFR. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(1), 16–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MEPRC & NLSCPRC. (2018).《中国英语能力等级量表》[China’s Standards of English Language Ability]. Higher Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosher, A. (2012). The determination of equivalent ranges on the ACTFL proficiency guidlines -speaking and the scale used for speaking on the test of German as a foreign language (TestDaF). In E. Tschirner (Ed.), Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL proficiency guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference (pp. 139–150). Stauffenburg Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • North, B. (2000). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. Peter Lang.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • North, B. (2014). The CEFR in practice. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papageorgiou, S. (2014). Issues in aligning assessments with the Common European Framework of Reference. Language Value, 6(1), 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papageorgiou, S., Wu, S., Hsieh, C.-N., Tannenbaum, R. J., & Cheng, M. (2019). Mapping the TOEFL iBT® test scores to China’s Standards of English language ability: Implications for score interpretation and use. ETS Research Report Series, 2019, 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson. (2017). Global scale of English learning objectives for young learners. Retrieved from http://testwww.english.com/gse/resources

  • Piccardo, E. (2014). Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL proficiency guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference for languages by Erwin Tschirner (ed.) (review). The Canadian Modern Language Review, 70, 268–271.

  • Saville, N. (2012). The CEFR: An evolving framework of reference. In E. Tschirner (Ed.), Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference (pp. 57–70). Stauffenburg Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swender, E., Tschirner, E., & Barenfanger, O. (2012). Comparing ACTFL/ILR and CEFR based reading tests. In E. Tschirner (Ed.), Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference (pp. 123–138). Stauffenburg Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taherbhai, H., & Seo, D. (2013). The philosophical aspects of IRT equating: Modeling drift to evaluate cohort growth in large- scale assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 32(1), 2–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trim, J. (2012). Provo Address. In E. Tschirner (Ed.), Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference (pp. 19–22). Stauffenburg Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschirner, E. (Ed.). (2012). Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference. Stauffenburg Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weir, C. J. (2005). Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparable examinations and tests. Language Testing, 22(3), 281–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisniewski, K. (2017). Empirical learner language and the levels of the Common European Framework of Reference. Language Learning, 67(S1), 232–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisniewski, K. (2018). The empirical validity of the Common European Framework of Reference scales. An exemplary study for the vocabulary and fluency scales in a language testing context. Applied Linguistics, 39(6), 933–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Ms. Wu Sha and Ms. Cheng Mengmeng, the leaders in the Department of Foreign Language Testing and Assessment in the National Education Examinations Authority, National Ministry of Education, China. They invited us to join in the CSE project. They also shared the first-hand CSE material and provided the national platform for the data collection.

Funding

This work was supported by the State Council, China (Grant Number 18BYY100).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

CP and JL contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by CP. The first draft of the manuscript was written by CP, and HC provided some insightful suggestions on how to revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chuan Peng.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: CSE Levels and Target Group of English Learners

CSE

Target group of English learners

Level 1

Grade 3 primary school pupils

Level 2

Grade 6 primary school pupils

Level 3

Junior high school graduates

Level 4

Senior high school graduates

Level 5

Non-English major sophomores

Level 6

Non-English major undergraduates or English major sophomores

Level 7

English major undergraduates

Level 8

English major postgraduates

Level 9

Professional users such as professional translators or interpreters

Appendix 2: Rating Scale in the Main Study (English Translation)

Category

Interpretation

0

In any circumstances, I can't perform like this; my English proficiency is obviously lower than this descriptive standard

1

In favorable circumstances, I can merely perform like this; my English proficiency is a little lower than this descriptive standard. Favorable circumstances may involve external help, familiar topics or situations, time to prepare or think, favorable surroundings or personal states, etc

2

In normal circumstances, I can do it by myself; my English proficiency corresponds to this descriptive standard in general. Normal circumstances refer to the general situation in daily life

3

In unfavorable circumstances, I can still perform like this; my English proficiency is a little higher than this descriptive standard. Unfavorable circumstances may involve unfamiliar topics or situations, no time to prepare or think, unfavorable surroundings or personal state, etc

4

In any circumstances, I can perform like this; my English proficiency is obviously higher than this descriptive standard

Appendix 3: Sample Items in the Questionnaires (English Translation)

Scale category

Descriptor

Rating

Creative Writing

Can write very short, basic descriptions of events, past activities and personal experiences

 

Spoken Fluency

Can make him/herself understood in short contributions, even though pauses, false starts and reformulation are very evident

 

Asking for Clarification

Can ask very simply for repetition when he/she does not understand

 

Co-operating

Can indicate when he/she is following

 

Reading for Orientation

Can find specific, predictable information in simple everyday material such as advertisements, prospectuses, menus, reference lists and timetables

 

Listening to Announcements & Instructions

Can understand simple directions relating to how to get from X to Y, by foot or public transport

 

Watching TV & Film

Can identify the main point of TV news items reporting events, accidents etc. where the visual supports the commentary

 

Informal discussion

Can discuss everyday practical issues in a simple way when addressed clearly, slowly and directly

 

Conversation

Can say what he/she likes and dislikes

 

Appendix 4: Number of the CEFR Descriptors in Different Sub-skills

CEFR level

Listening descriptors (n.)

Speaking descriptors (n.)

Reading descriptors (n.)

Writing descriptors (n.)

Total descriptors (n.)

A1

2

21

5

10

38

A2

12

121

20

21

174

B1

23

107

16

36

182

B2

16

86

13

28

143

C1

14

32

7

16

69

C2

2

23

2

11

38

Appendix 5: Number of the CSE Descriptors in Different Sub-skills

CSE level

Listening descriptors (n.)

Speaking descriptors (n.)

Reading descriptors (n.)

Writing descriptors (n.)

Total descriptors (n.)

Level 1

12

35

3

17

67

Level 2

14

51

18

26

109

Level 3

23

67

36

34

160

Level 4

26

84

34

35

179

Level 5

24

72

31

30

157

Level 6

16

69

25

30

140

Level 7

13

58

19

21

111

Level 8

12

41

15

16

84

Level 9

6

24

7

7

44

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peng, C., Liu, J. & Cai, H. Aligning China's Standards of English Language Ability with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 31, 667–677 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00617-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00617-2

Keywords

Navigation