Aligning Language Frameworks: An Example with the CLB and CEFR

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a methodology for directly aligning ‘can do’ frameworks to each other. The methodology, inspired by the manual for relating examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2009) and Kane’s (2004, 2013) interpretative argument, takes account of both the horizontal dimension (content analysis) and the vertical dimension (benchmarking with Multifaceted Rasch Modelling – MFRM). The paper exemplifies the application of the methodology by introducing the research conducted to align the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB)/ Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens (NCLC) to the CEFR, presenting the resulting alignment, and discussing the rationale for the choices made.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

¹ The TELC examinations (The European Language Certificates) are a series of certificates for 10 different languages offered by a subsidiary of the Volkshochschulverband (DVV: German adult education association). TELC examinations are the successors to the examinations for Threshold Level (now B1) and Waystage (now A2) that the DVV developed for the International Certificate Conference (ICC) in the 1970s.

² The French version of the CLB, used in provinces other than Quebec, is called the Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens (NCLC).

³ A provisional version of the CEFR Companion Volume, containing revised CEFR descriptors, appeared online in May 2018 before final publication in 2020. The exceptions to the coverage were three scales from 2001: Planning and Compensating (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 64), and Vocabulary control (ibid., p. 112), and 11 new ones: Online conversation and discussion (Council of Europe, 2020, p. 84); Goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration (2020, p. 86); Reading as a leisure activity (2020, p. 58); Expressing a personal reaction to creative text (2020, p. 106); Analysis and criticism of creative text; (2020, p. 107); the mediation strategy: Linking to previous knowledge; (2020, p. 117) and five scales with a cross-linguistic aspect: Plurilingual comprehension (2020, p. 126), Building on plurilingual repertoire (2020, p. 127), Acting as an intermediary in informal situations (2020, p. 115), and Translating a written text in speech and Translating a written text in writing (2020, p. 102–104).

⁴ This disparity was caused by the fact that some participants were unable to undertake the task as planned.

⁵ In some cases the sample was shown a third time before the final judgement.

⁶ The rubrics were checked by the CLB and NCLC chief examiners, who coordinate training for entry test interviews before courses for immigrants.

⁷ Taken as Meansquare Infit/Outfit of 1.5 and/or Z score standardised misfit of 3.0.

Additional information

Funding

The research reported in this article was funded by the Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks – Grant IRCC-PBLA-18