Cover not available

Article published In: Chinese as a Second Language (漢語教學研究—美國中文教師學會學報)
Vol. 58:3 (2023) ► pp.299–322

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

On the validity of descriptors in ACTFL Language Proficiency Guidelines

A study based on Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education

 | Capital Normal University
 | Capital Normal University
 | Hangzhou Normal University
Published online: 21 February 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/csl.00032.qij
Abstract
ACTFL Language Proficiency Guidelines (hereinafter called Guidelines) are a multi-lingual framework mainly based on the language proficiency development of several European languages. Little consideration is given to the peculiarity of Chinese. Efforts are made to assess the validity of the descriptors in Guidelines in comparison with Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education (hereinafter called Standards). A total of five parameters from Guidelines that are not compatible with Standards have been selected and two questionnaires compiled by the authors are answered by local American Chinese language teachers to evaluate the validity of these descriptors. The study shows that the descriptors in Standards are more valid in differentiating language proficiency levels of Chinese. In accordance with this study, some revisions and amendments should be made to Guidelines.
提要
《美国外语教学学会语言熟练度指南》描述语效度研究： 基于《国际中文教育中文水平等级标准》
《美国外语教学学会语言熟练度指南》（以下简称ACTFL《指南》）主要是依据若干欧洲语言能力发展特征制定的多语种量表，缺乏对汉语能力发展特殊性的考虑。本研究参照《国际中文教育中文水平等级标准》（以下简称《等级标准》）考查ACTFL《指南》描述语效度。先通过比较筛选出ACTFL《指南》中的五种与《等级标准》不匹配的描述语，再针对不匹配的ACTFL《指南》描述语和与之相关的《等级标准》描述语编制两份问卷，由美国本土汉语老师对两者分别进行评价。分析研究的结果说明依据《等级标准》编制的描述语对汉语能力等级区分更准确有效， ACTFL《指南》应据此作出相应补充修改。
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Research design
    • 2.1Research plan
    • 2.2Correlation of Guidelines and Standards
    • 2.3Screening out descriptors
    • 2.4Questionnaire design of descriptors
  • 3.Survey through questionnaires
    • 3.1Survey One: A validity study of both questionnaires
      • 3.1.1Subjects
      • 3.1.2Content of questionnaires
      • 3.1.3Reliability of questionnaires
      • 3.1.4Results of statistical analysis
    • 3.2Survey Two: A validity study of two questionnaires about cognates, dialects, and strokes
      • 3.2.1Subjects
      • 3.2.2Content of questionnaires
      • 3.2.3Reliability of questionnaires
      • 3.2.4Results of statistical analysis
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1About time and aspect
    • 4.2About cognates
    • 4.3About strokes
    • 4.4About dialects
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (39)
References
Abbott, M. G., & Phillips, J. K. (2011). A Decade of Foreign Language Standards: Influence, Impact, and Future Directions: Survey Results (Unpublished raw data). ACTFL, Alexandria, VA, USA, & Weber State University, Ogden, UT, USA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ACTFL (2012). ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, Retrieved from [URL]
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing Reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 85–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F., Savignon, S. J. (1986). The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: a critique of the ACTFL oral interview, Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 380–390. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clifford, R., & Cox, T. L. (2013). Empirical validation of reading proficiency guidelines. Foreign Language Annals, 46(1), 45–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2009). Relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR): A manual. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. Retrieved from [URL]
Cox, T. L., & Clifford, R. (2014). Empirical validation of listening proficiency guidelines, Foreign Language Annals, 47 (3), 379–403. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cox, T. L., & Malone, E. (2018). A validity argument to support the ACTFL Assessment of Performance Toward Proficiency in Languages (AAPPL), Foreign Language Annals, 51(3), 548–574. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cox, T. L., Malone, M. E., & Winke, P. (2018). Future directions in assessment: Influences of standards and for language learning, Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 104–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuieford, J. (1965). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dandonoli, P., & Henning, G. (1990). An investigation of the construct validity of the ACTFL proficiency guidelines and oral interview procedure, Foreign Language Annals, 23(1), 11–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis-Becker, S. L., & Buckendahl, C. W. (2013). A proposed framework for evaluating alignment studies. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 32(1), 23–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gong, Q. (1994). Xiandai Hanyu de Shijian Xitong 现代汉语的时间系统 [Time System of Modern Chinese Language]. Chinese Teaching in The World 世界汉语教学, 27(1), 1–6.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Green, A. (2018). Linking Tests of English for Academic Purposes to the CEFR: The Score User’s Perspective, Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(1), 59–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herzog, M. (2012). How did the language proficiency scale get started? Retrieved from [URL]
ILR. (1985). ILR language proficiency skill level descriptions. Retrieved from [URL]
Jin, C., & Zhang, X. (1998). Xiandai Hanyu Shiti Yanjiu Shuping 现代汉语时体研究述评 [A Review of Time and Aspect Research in Modern Chinese]. Chinese Language Learning 汉语学习, 19 (4), 32–37.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jin, L. (2002). Ciwei Le de Shiti Yiyi Jiqi Jufa Tiaojian词尾“了”的时体意义及其句法条件[The Aspectual Significance of the Suffix Le and Its Syntactic Conditions]. Chinese Teaching in The World 世界汉语教学, 15 (1), 34–44.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lantolf, J., & Frawley, W. (1985). Oral proficiency testing: a critical analysis, Modern Language Journal, 4, 337–345.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1988). Proficiency, understanding the construct, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(2), 181–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). Rejecting the OPI again: a response to Hagen, ADFL Bulletin, 23(2), 34–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, F. L., & Musumeci, D. (1988). On hierarchies of reading skills and text types, Modern Language, 72(2), 173–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, R. (1985). Guanyu Hanyu Fangyan Fenqu de Yijian 关于汉语方言分区的意见[The division of Chinese dialects]. Dialect方言, 6(3), 161–162.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Hanyu de Tedian Yu Duiwai Hanyu Jiaoxue 汉语的特点与对外汉语教学 [Characteristics of Chinese and Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language]. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies 语言教学与研究, 17(3), 1–10.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Y., Li, P. & Li, Y. (2020). Hanyu Guoji Jiaoyu Hanyu Shuiping Dengji Biaozhun Quanqiuhua zhi Lu 汉语国际教育汉语水平等级标准全球化之路 [A Path to The Globalization of Chinese Proficiency Standards]. Chinese Teaching in The World 世界汉语教学, 34(2), 147–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lu, Ji. (2015). Hanyu Tedian zhi Wojian汉语“特点”之我见 [My Understanding of the Characteristic of Chinese Language]. Journal of Chinese Studies, Xiamen University厦大中文学报, 89(2), 16–26.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Magnan, S. S. (1987). Rater reliability of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview. The Canadian ModernLanguage Review, 43(4), 267–279.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ministry of Education of People’s Republic of China. (2021). Guoji Zhongwen Jiaoyu Zhongwen Dengji Biaozhun 国际中文教育中文水平等级标准[Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education]. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
North, B. (2000). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. New York: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
National Language Work Committee and National Education Commission. (1988). 国家语言文字工作委员会和国家教育委员会. Guójiā yǔyán wénzì gōngzuò wěiyuán huì héguó jiājyù wěiyuánhuì “List of Commonly Used Characters in Modern Chinese”《现代 汉语常用字表》xiàndài hànyǔ chángyòng zìbiǎo, Retrieved from [URL]
Spolsky, B. (1986). A multiple choice for language testers. Language Testing, 3(2),147–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stockwell, R., & Minkova, D. (2001). English Words: History and Structure. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Surface, E., & Dierdorff, E. (2003). Reliability and the ACTFL oral proficiency interview: Reporting indices of 36(4), 507–519. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, I. (1995). A study of interrater reliability of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Iinterview in five European languages: Data from English, French, German, Russian, and Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 28(3), 407–422. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yan, Y. (2013). Pinyin Wenzi Beijing Chuji Xuexizhe Xide Hanzi de Renzhi Fangshi he Jiagong Danyuan Diaocha拼音文字背景初级学习者习得汉字的认知方式和加工单元调查 [An Investigation in Chinese Character Cognitive Mode and Processing Units of Elementary Learners with Alphabetic-writing Background]. Chinese Language Learning 汉语学习, (33)31, 77–88.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, J., & Sheng, H. (1999). Zhengti Yu Bufen de Guanxi Dui Hanzi de Zhijue Fenli Yingxiang de Yanjiu 整体与部分的关系对汉字的直觉分离影响的研究 [Study on the Influence of the Relationship of the Wholes and Their Parts in the Perceptual Separation of Chinese Characters]. Acta Psychologica Sinica 心理学报, 31(4), 369–376.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue