Standard Setting to an International Reference Framework: Implications for Theory and Practice

Lim, Gad S.; Geranpayeh, Ardeshir; Khalifa, Hanan; Buckendahl, Chad W.

doi:10.1080/15305058.2012.678526

Cited by 31 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The C-test results (M = 0.25; SD = 1.01; range = −2.18 to +3.80 logits) coupled with the speaking test results (M = 5.95; SD = 0.70; range = 3.5 to 8.0 on the IELTS scale) suggest a range of ability levels spanning CEFR levels A2 to C2 (Lim, Geranpayeh, Khalifa, & Buckendahl, 2013).…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Topic and background knowledge effects on performance in speaking assessment

Khabbazbashi

2016

Language Testing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores the extent to which topic and background knowledge of topic affect spoken performance in a high-stakes speaking test. It is argued that evidence of a substantial influence may introduce construct-irrelevant variance and undermine test fairness. Data were collected from 81 non-native speakers of English who performed on 10 topics across three task types. Background knowledge and general language proficiency were measured using self-report questionnaires and C-tests respectively. Score data were analysed using many-facet Rasch measurement and multiple regression. Findings showed that for two of the three task types, the topics used in the study generally exhibited difficulty measures which were statistically distinct. However, the size of the differences in topic difficulties was too small to have a large practical effect on scores. Participants' different levels of background knowledge were shown to have a systematic effect on performance. However, these statistically significant differences also failed to translate into practical significance. Findings hold implications for speaking performance assessment.

show abstract

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Topic and background knowledge effects on performance in speaking assessment

Khabbazbashi

2016

Language Testing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) suggested that the level of C1 (proficient users) could meet the minimum proficiency level (tertiary) (Council of Europe, 2001;Klaassen and Bos, 2010). The C1 cut-off score corresponds to an internetbased test of TOEFL score of 83 or IELTS band of 6.5 (ETS, 2010;Lim et al, 2013). However, teachers' general English proficiency cannot guarantee their classroom language proficiency (Freeman et al, 2015).…”

Section: Emi Teachers' Classroom Language Proficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship Between Teachers' Classroom English Proficiency and Their Teaching Self-Efficacy in an English Medium Instruction Context

Wang

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the relationship between English medium instruction (EMI) teachers' classroom English proficiency and their teaching self-efficacy. The literature review highlights the difference between general language proficiency and classroom language proficiency by focusing on the EMI teachers' language of instruction and their language of interaction. Self-reported data were obtained using two measuring scales from 188 EMI teachers from a Chinese public university. The Pearson correlational analysis indicated that there was a strong positive relationship between the EMI teachers' classroom English proficiency and their teaching self-efficacy. Among the four constructs of the Classroom English Proficiency Scale, both language of instruction and language of interaction have a higher correlation with teaching self-efficacy than grammar or pronunciation. The linear regression analysis suggests that language of instruction has a significant contribution to the variance of teaching self-efficacy. The findings reveal the need to prioritize the strategic training of language of instruction skills to EMI teachers who are not so proficient in English. Arguably, this helps to foster the achievement and maintenance of higher teacher self-efficacy.

show abstract

“…Tannenbaum and Wylie (2008) expressed concern about potential discrepancies between the definition of proficiency in the framework and the content of the test, but omitted a specification phase, arguing that TOEFL iBT coverage of reading, writing, listening and speaking little justification for conducting a standard-setting study" (p.9). The authors identified similarities between the TOEFL iBT Speaking descriptors at level 3 of the scoring rubric and B2 descriptors taken from CEFR scales for Grammatical Accuracy, Vocabulary Control, Vocabulary Range and Spoken Fluency Lim et al (2013). reported a similar standard setting study for IELTS.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Linking Tests of English for Academic Purposes to the CEFR: The Score User’s Perspective

Green

2017

Language Assessment Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The specification stage addresses what is tested: content standards. It is concerned with how test content relates to the qualitative descriptive scheme or 'horizontal dimension' of the framework. This includes the question of how test tasks relate to social activities in the target language use domain to which test results are intended to generalise. According to the action-oriented perspective adopted by the CoE, the linguistic resources required to understand textbooks and produce essays in the educational domain are distinct in important ways from those needed to, for example, engage with sacred texts and participate in religious services ('public domain') or to interpret recipes and cook meals ('personal domain'). Results from a test that addresses one context may not readily generalise to another. Responding to criticism that the CEFR lacks the level of detail required to build test specifications (see for example Weir 2005), North (2014) and the other CEFR authors stressed that the framework is not itself a content standard, but a generative "apparatus to develop a differentiated standard appropriate to the context" (p.62). The CEFR offers guidance for building contextually relevant standards: what [specified] learners have to learn to do in order to use a [specified] language (or languages) for [specified forms of] communication and what knowledge and skills they have to develop so as to be able to act effectively [in specified contexts]. Contrary to Kaftandjieva (2007), who believed that limitations in the coverage of the 53 illustrative scales by a test would invalidate any claim of linkage for that test, North (2014) emphasised that tests might draw on the framework selectively. Some of the elements to be specified might be found in the CEFR, but users should add others according to need. In relation to languages for academic purposes, he listed eight CEFR scales as relevant to academic language use, but suggested these could provide no more than a point of departure for specifying the content domain of academic language use. He stressed that because, "two examinations may both be "at

show abstract

Standard Setting to an International Reference Framework: Implications for Theory and Practice

Cited by 31 publications

References 16 publications

Topic and background knowledge effects on performance in speaking assessment

Topic and background knowledge effects on performance in speaking assessment

The Relationship Between Teachers' Classroom English Proficiency and Their Teaching Self-Efficacy in an English Medium Instruction Context

Linking Tests of English for Academic Purposes to the CEFR: The Score User’s Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About