A comparative analysis of CEF level classification methods in a written learner corpus

In this study, various proficiency classification methods are explored in order to describe the relevant levels on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEF) that are represented by a group of 127 incoming English students at a Dutch university with respect to academic writing. The weakness of the widely-used group-based institutional status approach is demonstrated with two distinct student-centered approaches, self-assessment and test scores, both of which highlight the within-groups variation that is hidden in group-based approaches. Between-texts variation is further explored through the comparison of self-assessment and text-centered approaches to classification such as test item (response) scores, and widely used measures of lexical variation and syntactic complexity. Findings demonstrate the potential variation in the understanding of academic writing development depending on the the methods of proficiency classification used.

[1]  Heidi Byrnes,et al.  The Longitudinal Study of Advanced L2 Capacities , 2009 .

[2]  J. Norris,et al.  Towards an Organic Approach to Investigating CAF in Instructed SLA: The Case of Complexity , 2009 .

[3]  David Little,et al.  The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the Making of Supranational Language Education Policy , 2007 .

[4]  Averil Coxhead A New Academic Word List , 2000 .

[5]  W. P. Rivers Autonomy at All Costs: An Ethnography of Metacognitive Self-Assessment and Self-Management among Experienced Language Learners. , 2001 .

[6]  S. Ross Self-assessment in second language testing: a meta-analysis and analysis of experiential factors , 1998 .

[7]  John N. Williams LEARNING WITHOUT AWARENESS , 2005, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[8]  吉島 茂,et al.  文化と言語の多様性の中のCommon European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR)--それは基準か? (第10回明海大学大学院応用言語学研究科セミナー 講演) , 2008 .

[9]  Xiaofei Lu,et al.  Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing , 2010 .

[10]  Shunji Inagaki,et al.  Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity , 1998 .

[11]  Ari Huhta,et al.  The development of a suite of computer-based diagnostic tests based on the Common European Framework , 2005 .

[12]  S. Weigle Validation of automated scores of TOEFL iBT tasks against non-test indicators of writing ability: , 2010 .

[13]  J. Charles Alderson,et al.  Diagnosing Foreign Language Proficiency: The Interface between Learning and Assessment , 2005 .

[14]  Margaret Thomas,et al.  8. Research synthesis and historiography: The case of assessment of second language proficiency , 2006 .