Good point. I think I mean “informed by”.
If you’re doing any test, both students and teachers need to know what the goals are. The Cambridge tests are obviously aimed at getting candidates to reach certain levels of English as stated in the CEFR descriptors. So the Cambridge tests and the CEFR have a connection.
I just read some descriptors for TOEIC. They seem pretty vague, but this is the link:
[quote="C.J.Smith] So the Cambridge tests and the CEFR have a connection.
[/quote]
No, they were not developed in the same decade. Any perceived connection is simply because all language learners have overlapping goals. Also, even within the Cambridge suite, there are huge differences in the competencies measured. Compare for example, CAE and IELTS Listening papers.
If you could find a list of academic CEF competency descriptors (university of Geneva, I think, did some good ones), many would overlap with elements of TOEFL, Cambs, etc, but competency descriptors aren’t always possible to assess in traditional exams.
Exam boards are wary of publishing extensive lists of assessment criteria, as they wish to protect their IP. Sounds stupid, but think about how little tangible info you can google about IELTS.
The jury’s still out as to whether it’s an expensive EU white elephant. Unassessable by traditional and costt effective means, unwieldy (ever created an A1-C1 syllabus from a 70 page PDF? Which descriptors do you choose? All of them? Impossible to market a 1000 hr course. Some of them? Then what’s the point?). Doesn’t work in Asia because literacy in roman alphabets develops at a different rate from roman alphabet competent Euros. Doesn’t work with children and teens because of differing rates of cognitive development and socially inappropriate descriptors.
It’s a lovely marketing tool, though. Our courses/materials have SCIENCE!
I’m not so sure about this.
Of course, before the CEFR the tests couldn’t reflect the descriptors, but it wouldn’t make any sense not to afterwards, especially as Cambridge was largely responsible in producing the descriptors. It would be like not eating your own cakes.
As for the 1000 hour course, I don’t think such a thing would ever have been conceived. The point is that by mapping out descriptors that cover all the main areas where language is used such as academic, business, general purposes, etc., teachers are more able to set specific goals for the students they are teaching.
You and I know just a fraction of the language our native tongue offers, yet we are native speakers. We’re not expected to know everything.
The intellectual property idea is interesting, but as there are already so many descriptors out there, I don’t see it as being the real issue. It seems to me that putting your standard out there should be a benefit.
As I was hunting for the spread of the CEFR, I found this:
iaea2008.cambridgeassessment … halifa.pdf
[quote] Approaches to alignment
In this paper we share an examination board’s experience, namely Cambridge ESOL’s, with the alignment procedures suggested by the Manual. A discussion on alignment cannot really take place without reference to the unique relationship the CEFR has with Cambridge ESOL Main Suite Examinations in terms of their shared purposes, namely, provision of a learning ladder and proficiency framework and in terms of informing each other’s evolution and development (see North 2008, Taylor & Jones 2006 for a full discussion of this relationship).[/quote]
The UN also use it as a training standard. Does anyone know how I can find out the global useage of this standard?
[quote=“C.J.Smith”]As I was hunting for the spread of the CEFR, I found this:
The UN also use it as a training standard. Does anyone know how I can find out the global useage of this standard?[/quote]
I did a survey on this subject in 2006 and posted it here: tou.com.tw/get/e_GET/framework.htm
I’d be very interested in updating it if you would be willing to share your findings.
You learn English in Elementary school (so I am told) and then you go to Junior and Senior High School for a further six years, where you have an average of six hours per week of English classes. Take out the ninth and twelfth grades because they’re only about exam preparation, and assume something like forty weeks a year in school.
Four years high school, forty weeks a year, six hours a week, gives you 960 hours, on top of elementary school. Maybe it’s time someone came up with a 1000hr course for Taiwan that teaches to international standards?
In the absence of a national curriculum, is there anything else to demonstrate Taiwan’s commitment to working to the CEF? At the public high school I work at nobody has ever heard of it. (I met a girl yesterday who had taken the FCE as a requirement of her Junior College course though.) Is there anything anywhere to explain how the government actually measures language competence in order to set policy? Is it done on JCEE results? Or what?
I ask the last question because it occurred to me recently that scores in standardised international tests may not be very good indicators. It’s like this: the country getting the consistently highest IELTS grades is Germany, a country I happen to have lived in. It’s a lot easier getting things done in English in Taipei than it was in Berlin 10 years ago, and it seems that more ordinary people in ordinary jobs speak at least basic English. Up to a point, Taiwan is a lot more English-friendly than Germany, but if you believe the test results the reverse is true - at least if you look at the summaries of the numbers that are easily available.
I have a feeling that in Germany, only the brightest and the best are going to be taking the test, whereas in Taiwan pretty much everyone goes to University and then sets their sights on further study. This leads to a situation where people with an overly optimistic view of their own language ability take a test they are not ready for, fail miserably, and bring the average down for the whole country.
Are there any hard numbers available for how many students in each country take the test, how many times individuals take the test, etc. Can we see. for instance. that X% of Taiwanese (as a proportion of population) reach a given standard compared to Y% in Germany? Or can we see that X% of Taiwanese take the test before they are ready, go away and learn how to do better, and come back to get the grade they want - and can we see how that pattern compares to Germany?
In short, how does the entire population stack up against the entire population of other countries, instead of how do the test-takers compare, or how do the anonymised test scores compare?
For teachers involved in preparing students for the GEPT tests, there is a Yahoo group set up to disseminate relevant info.
groups.yahoo.com/group/ezgept/
Please visit and join if this is relevant to you.
Please help to make this group the best resource for both students and teachers alike on learning how to succeed with the GEPT exams.
For teachers:
For students (of all levels)
And much more!
In coming weeks we will add polls, links, useful files etc. and members are encouraged to do the same.
great post!
Regarding the college entrance test: There are two versions, one given in February and another more difficult one given in July. The one for February is an early-admissions test while the July test is for the massess.
The test (let’s lump the two into one since they are quite similar) is a blend between the GEPT and TOEFL (and IELTS). It is paper-based and tests reading, writing, and translation ability; there is no listening component. The test is weak IMO and has little published research to state its reliability or validity. (To be honest, I have found none – perhaps research is in Taiwan-based Chinese language journals.) However, I wouldn’t be surprised if little is done with scores once students are placed in university.
The test uses a lot of fact-heavy and dense articles with test items mostly asking students to fill in gaps and answer reading comprehension questions. Reading level is basically at a FOG 12 or 13, but on occassion are a 7 or 8. You can find more information about the test and samples on the CEEC’s webpage http://www.ceec.edu.tw/, and many books have been published with old tests and prep materials (check your local school textbook supplier). Of course, lots of material is available online.
I am very curious what (foreign) teachers at private senior schools think of this test.
-----Perhaps off-topic, but:
As for the TOEIC, IMO, this test is not valuable. Little research has been done on the test and at times, it is hard to pinpoint what test items are testing. Unfortunately, other tests, like the GEPT have adopted parts of the TOEIC (such as the question response part). But, employers feel the score is helpful and people continue to pay to take the test. So, if it ain’t broke, ETS doesn’t have to fix it. Australia’s far better Occupational English Test, which is geared for various health-related fields, sets a better example of a non-general language proficiency test.
TOEIC is not designed for schoolchildren. It’s fairly valid, in what it seeks to test.
Not always sure what its purpose is, apart from the generation of Yen, but as someone working in testing, I can appreciate its unique beauty.