Article published In: From Theory to Practice: Adopting the Chinese proficiency grading standards for international Chinese language education in North America
Edited by Jie Zhang and Ye Tian
[Chinese as a Second Language (漢語教學研究—美國中文教師學會學報) 58:2] 2023
► pp. 108–128
Approaches in aligning language frameworks
A review
Published online: 12 September 2024
https://doi.org/10.1075/csl.00035.lin
https://doi.org/10.1075/csl.00035.lin
Abstract
Research on the alignment of “Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education” with other mainstream language frameworks is in its early stages. To provide practical suggestions for researchers of the Grading Standards, this literature review study investigated general approaches and specific techniques used to align three influential language proficiency frameworks (i.e., the CEFR, ACTFL, and CSE) with each other and with other frameworks. Through a review of alignment studies published between 2000 and 2023, this study introduced both direct and indirect approaches in aligning language frameworks, along with data collection and data analysis techniques associated with each approach. It also highlighted the prerequisites, advantages, and disadvantages of each approach and offered recommendations for future alignment research.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Language proficiency frameworks
- 1.2Alignment research of the grading standards
- 1.3Major L2 language proficiency frameworks and their alignments
- 1.4Item response theory and the Rasch model
- 2.Method
- 2.1Article search and selection
- 2.2Description and analysis of the articles
- 3.Results
- 3.1Indirect approaches
- 3.1.1Test-mediated approaches
- 3.1.2Exemplar response approaches
- 3.2Direct approach/Descriptor-oriented approach
- 3.1Indirect approaches
- 4.Discussion and conclusions
- Notes
References
References (52)
Alderson, J. C. (1991). Bands and scores. In J. C. Alderson and B. North (eds.). Language Testing in the 1990s (pp.71–86). London: British Council.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1986). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL.
. (2001). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from [URL]
. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. Retrieved August 15, 2018, from [URL]
. (2013). Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teacher (2013) (Initial Level – Undergraduate & Graduate) Retrieved Dec 15, 2018, from [URL]
Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. In Thorndike, R. L. (ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.) (pp.508–600.) Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Bournot-Trites, M., Barbour, R., Jezak, M., Stewart, G., & Carbonneau, D. B. (2015). Theoretical framework for the Canadian Language Benchmarks/Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens. Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. [URL]
Chalhoub-Deville, M. & Lin, J. (2022). Foreign language testing constructs, frameworks, and assessments. In Susan M. Brookhart (ed.), Routledge resources online – education-assessment. Milton Park: Routledge.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2009). Content validity considerations in language testing contexts. In R. Lissitz (Ed.), The concept of validity (pp. 241–263). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Chao, Ch. 赵家璧, Lan, P. 蓝珮君, & Chen, P. 陈柏熹. (2016). CEFR 与ACTFL 初级阅读能力描述对应研究:以[儿童华语文能力测验]为媒介. [CEFR yu ACTFL chuji yuedu nengli miaoshu duiying yanjiu: yi Ertong Huayuwen Nengli Ceyan wei meijie: Aligning ACTFL and CEFR proficiency levels: utilizing children’s Chinese competency certification]. 台湾华语教学研究 [Taiwan Huayu Jiaoxue Yanjiu: Taiwan Journal of Chinese as a Second Language], (13), 41–64.
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, Council for Cultural Co-operation. Education Committee, Modern Languages Division. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Dorans, N. J. (2004). Equating, concordance, and expectation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28(4), 227–246.
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.
Huynh, H., & Meyer, P. (2010). Use of robust Z in detecting unstable items in item response theory models. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 15(2), 1–8.
Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S. (1997). Standard-setting: An alternative approach. Journal of Educational Measurement 341, 353–366.
Jezak, M., & Piccardo, E. (2017). Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) and Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens (NCLC) – Canadian frameworks of reference for languages in the era of glocalization. In M. Jezak (Ed.), Twenty years of the Canadian Language Benchmarks and Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens: Policy, research and practice (pp. 7–31). University of Ottawa Press.
Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2014). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (3rd ed.). Springer.
Lan, P. 蓝珮君, Chen, P. 陈柏熹, & Hsu, Ch. 许嘉凌. (2014). 以 TOCFL 连结 CEFR 与 ACTFL: 标准设定程序的应用 [Yi TOCFL lianjie CEFR yu ACTFL: Biaozhun sheding chengxu de yingyong: Aligning the CEFR and ACTFL: utilizing the TOCFL Speaking Test]. 发表于2014年第三届标准本位评量国际研讨会 [Fabiao yu 2014 nian Disanjie Biaozhun Benwei Pingliang Guoji Yantaohui: Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Standards-Based Assessment]. Taiwan.
Lewis, M., Mitzel, H., Mercado, R., & Schulz, M. (2012). The bookmark standard setting procedure. In Cizek, G. (ed). Setting performance standards: Foundations, methods, and innovations. Routledge.
Li, Y. 李亚男 (2021). 《国际中文教育中文水平等级标准》解读 [Guoji Zhongwen Jiaoyu Zhongwen Shuiping Dengji Biaozhun jiedu: An introduction to the Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education]. 国际汉语教学研究 [Guoji Hanyu Jiaoxue Yanjiu: Journal of International Chinese Teaching], 11, 24–26.
Liao, Ts. 廖才仪, Lan, P. 蓝珮君, Liang, Ch. 梁绮容, & Chen, P. 陈柏熹. (2022). CEFR 与ACTFL 大纲口语指标对应研究: 以「华语文口语测验」为媒介 [CEFR yu ACTFL dagang kouyu zhibao duiying yanjiu: Yi Huayuwen Kouyu Ceyan wei meijie: Aligning the CEFR Oral Descriptors with the ACTFL Speaking Proficiency Guidelines Based on the TOCFL Speaking Test].华语文教学研究 [Huayuwen Jiaoxue Yanjiu: Journal of Chinese Language Teaching], 19(2), 1–32.
Lin, C. (2022). Book review: Chinese proficiency grading standards for international Chinese language education. Journal of Sinology, 16(2), 249–256.
Lin, J. (2024). Developing a reading proficiency scale for Chinese as a second language: a confirmatory factor analysis approach. Language Awareness, 1–27.
(2021). A user’s guide to FACETS, Rasch model computer program. [URL]
Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (2001). L2 speaking as proficiency. Paper presented at the annual meeting of AAAL-LTRUAAAL Joint Colloquium. St. Louis, MO.
(2003). The ACTFL proficiency guidelines and the oral proficiency interview: A brief history and analysis of their survival. Foreign Language Annals, 36(4), 483–490.
Liu, H., 刘欢 & Liang, X. 梁霞. (2023) 《国际中文教育中文水平等级标准》与《ACTFL 语文能力大纲》对接的必要性、可行性及教学应用. [Guoji Zhongwen Jiaoyu Zhongwen Shuiping Dengji Biaozhun yu ACTFl Yuwen Nengli Dagang duijie de biyaoxing、kexingxing ji jiaoxue yingyong: The necessity, feasibility, and pedagogical implication of aligning the Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education with the ACTFL Language Proficiency Guidelines] 国际汉语教学研究 [Guoji Hanyu Jiaoxue Yanjiu: Journal of International Chinese Teaching], (1), 11–20.
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.
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
MEPRC & NLSCPRC. (2018). 《中国英语能力等级量表》 [Zhongguo Yingyu Nengli Dengji Liangbiao: China’s Standards of English Language Ability]. 高等教育出版社[Gaodeng Jiaoyu Chubanshe: Higher Education Press].
National Language Commission. (2021). Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education. Beijing Language and Culture University Press.
North, B. (1991). Standardisation of Continuous Assessment Grades. In C. Alderson & B. North (Eds.) Language testing in the 1990s: The communicative legacy (pp.167–177). New York: Macmillan.
North, B., & Piccardo, E. (2018). Aligning the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) to the Common European Framework of References (CERF). Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks.
(2023). Aligning language frameworks: An example with the CLB and CEFR. Language Assessment Quarterly, 20(2), 143–165.
Peng, C. (n.d.). Linking China’s Standards of English Language Ability (CSE) to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR): Level Correspondence in Reading Skill. Available at SSRN: [URL]
Peng, C., Liu, J., & Cai, H. (2022). Aligning China’s Standards of English Language Ability with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 31(6), 667–677.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Denmark’s Paedagogiske Institute.
Slagter, P. J., Surface, E. A., Watson, A. & Wilcox, S. (2012). ACTFL and CEFR scale comparability through perceived and actual writing proficiency. In E. Tschirner (Ed.), Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference (pp. 123–137). Stauffenburg Verlag.
Swender, E., & Vicars, R. (2014). ACTFL oral proficiency interview tester training manual. Alexandria, VA: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Swender, E., Tschirner, E., & Bärenfänger, 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. 123–137). 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., Bärenfänger, O., & Wanner, I. (2012). Assessing evidence of validity of assigning CEFR ratings to the ACTFL oral proficiency interview (OPI) and the oral proficiency interview by computer (OPIc). Institute for Test Research and Development.
