common european framework / stanag 6001 comparisons 20 people 16 nations study group 1

15
COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 20 people 16 nations STUDY GROUP 1

Upload: justina-walters

Post on 02-Jan-2016

250 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 20 people 16 nations STUDY GROUP 1

COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons

• 20 people• 16 nations

STUDY GROUP 1

Page 2: COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 20 people 16 nations STUDY GROUP 1

Food for thought

Page 3: COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 20 people 16 nations STUDY GROUP 1

Outline

• Why (are we interested)?• How (have nations been approaching the topic)?• What (have we found out so far)?• What next?

Page 4: COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 20 people 16 nations STUDY GROUP 1

WHY?

• There is a need to relate STANAG to CEFR in order for – Military personnel to have recognition in civilian

society– Civil servants trained within military institutions

to have recognised civilian qualifications

• There is a need for a “common currency”• WHAT WE NEED IS A MEANS OF

COMPARISON WE CAN RELY ON!

Page 5: COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 20 people 16 nations STUDY GROUP 1

How?

• Comparison of testing outcomes (ACTFL)• Comparison of descriptors (ITA, DEU, HUN)• ...

Page 6: COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 20 people 16 nations STUDY GROUP 1

WHAT’S UP?

There are many academic bodies conducting similar comparison exercises that should be drawn upon for BILC purposes. Many countries are involved in these initiatives.

Page 7: COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 20 people 16 nations STUDY GROUP 1

WHAT’S BEEN REPORTED?

*Level awarded

A 1 A2 B 1 B 2 C 1 C 2

AUT Level 1 Level 2 Level 2+ Level 3

DEU Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

ESP Level 2*

HUN Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

ITA Level 1 Level 2 Level 2+ Level 3

Page 8: COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 20 people 16 nations STUDY GROUP 1

WHAT’s BEEN PUBLISHED?

– University of Westminster: http://www.westminster.ac.uk/schools/humanities/modleb/

– Macmillan English: Campaign – English for the Militaryhttp://www.campaignmilitaryenglish.com/Contact-Us/faq.htm

– Centre international d’études pédagogiques – CIEP: http://www.ciep.fr/publi_evalcert/dvd-productions-orales-cecrl/index.php

– Informationsstellen der EU-/EWR-Staaten: National Academic Recognition Information Centre – NARIC / Informationsstellen der Staaten des Europarats und der UNESCO, Region Europa: European National Information Centre – ENIC: http://www.enic-naric.net/index.aspx?c=Germany

– Rita Green and Dianne Wall: “Language testing in the military: problems, politics and progress”, Sage publications: http://ltj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/22/3/379

Page 9: COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 20 people 16 nations STUDY GROUP 1

WHAT’s BEEN PUBLISHED?

– José Ramón Parrondo Rodríguez, Instituto Cervantes 1: “X Seminario de Administradores de Programas Educativos de Cooperación Internacional - „Keynote: Standards in Spanish - language testing, a global perspective“, 11-13 de mayo de 2009

– Jenny Bradshaw, Catherine Kirkup, National Foundation for Educational Research: “Inventory of Language Certification in Europe - A Report to the European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture”, March 2006

Marianne Driessen, Anja van Kleef and Anthony Fitzpatrick, CINOP, ’s-Hertogenbosch: “Testing languages - From language competency profiles to evidences of proficiency”, April 2007

Manual for relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Default_en.asp

English Profile Can Do Project – University of Bedfordshire. http://www.beds.ac.uk/research/bmri/crella/cando

Page 10: COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 20 people 16 nations STUDY GROUP 1

WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?

• We cannot exactly match STANAG levels and CEFR levels- because the descriptors do not cover the same areas- not all CEFR descriptions include functions/tasks, content/context and accuracy- the language used in the descriptors does not correspond- the approach to formulating the descriptors is different (can do/cannot do vs can do)- the language used in the CEFR is ambiguous

Page 11: COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 20 people 16 nations STUDY GROUP 1

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

• A CEFR level can provide information regarding a person’s functional language competence in a given foreign language. European Language Portfolio can provide evidence of this competency. Samples will be achievement in nature.

• Comparisons are in the interest of the learner.

Page 12: COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 20 people 16 nations STUDY GROUP 1

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

• When lookıng for comparisons between the two scales, it is a fairly good assumption, for purposes of predictability and placement:– If an ındividual is operating at CEFR A 2 level,

they are operating in the range of SLP 1– If an ındividual is operating at B2, they are

operating in the range of SLP 2– If an individual is operating at C1, they are

operating in the range of SLP 3.

Page 13: COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 20 people 16 nations STUDY GROUP 1

WHAT NEXT?

• Are there appropriate mechanisms for providing information about CEFR ‘equivalents’ for STANAG profiles?

• Are there appropriate mechanisms for awarding CEFR equivalents for STANAG ratings?

• Are there appropriate mechanisms to award STANAG scores for CEFR levels?

• Does BILC want to have a process put into place to make this happen?

• What evidence would be acceptable?

Page 14: COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 20 people 16 nations STUDY GROUP 1

STANAG - CEFR

Do you know what happens when you combine

???

Page 15: COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 20 people 16 nations STUDY GROUP 1

STANAG - CEFR

--