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.
Similar content being viewed by others
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.
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.
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.
Cizek, G. J., & Bunch, M. B. (2007). Standard setting: A guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests. Sage.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. CUP.
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.
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.
Lee, O. (2018). English language proficiency standards aligned with content standards. Educational Researcher, 47(5), 317–327.
Linacre, J. M. (2014). A computer program for the analysis of multi-faceted data. Mesa Press.
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.
MEPRC & NLSCPRC. (2018).《中国英语能力等级量表》[China’s Standards of English Language Ability]. Higher Education Press.
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.
North, B. (2000). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. Peter Lang.
North, B. (2014). The CEFR in practice. Cambridge University Press.
Papageorgiou, S. (2014). Issues in aligning assessments with the Common European Framework of Reference. Language Value, 6(1), 15–27.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tschirner, E. (Ed.). (2012). Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference. Stauffenburg Verlag.
Weir, C. J. (2005). Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparable examinations and tests. Language Testing, 22(3), 281–300.
Wisniewski, K. (2017). Empirical learner language and the levels of the Common European Framework of Reference. Language Learning, 67(S1), 232–253.
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.
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
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
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
About this article
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
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00617-2