- •Using the electronic version
- •Bookmarks
- •Moving around the text
- •Finding a word or phrase in the text
- •Using the hyperlinks in the text
- •Copying the text
- •Printing the text
- •CONTENTS
- •PREFATORY NOTE
- •NOTES FOR THE USER
- •SYNOPSIS
- •1 The Common European Framework in its political and educational context
- •1.2 The aims and objectives of Council of Europe language policy
- •1.4 Why is CEF needed?
- •1.5 For what uses is CEF intended?
- •1.6 What criteria must CEF meet?
- •2 Approach adopted
- •2.1.1 The general competences of an individual
- •2.1.2 Communicative language competence
- •2.1.3 Language activities
- •2.1.4 Domains
- •2.1.5 Tasks, strategies and texts
- •2.3 Language learning and teaching
- •2.4 Language assessment
- •3 Common Reference Levels
- •3.1 Criteria for descriptors for Common Reference Levels
- •3.2 The Common Reference Levels
- •3.3 Presentation of Common Reference Levels
- •3.4 Illustrative descriptors
- •Communicative activities
- •Strategies
- •3.5 Flexibility in a branching approach
- •3.6 Content coherence in Common Reference Levels
- •3.7 How to read the scales of illustrative descriptors
- •4 Language use and the language user/learner
- •4.1 The context of language use
- •4.1.1 Domains
- •4.1.2 Situations
- •4.1.3 Conditions and constraints
- •4.1.4 The user/learner’s mental context
- •4.2 Communication themes
- •4.3 Communicative tasks and purposes
- •4.3.4 Ludic uses of language
- •4.3.5 Aesthetic uses of language
- •4.4 Communicative language activities and strategies
- •4.4.1 Productive activities and strategies
- •4.4.2 Receptive activities and strategies
- •4.4.4 Mediating activities and strategies
- •4.4.5 Non-verbal communication
- •4.5 Communicative language processes
- •4.5.1 Planning
- •4.5.2 Execution
- •4.5.3 Monitoring
- •4.6 Texts
- •4.6.1 Texts and media
- •4.6.2 Media include:
- •4.6.3 Text-types include:
- •4.6.4 Texts and activities
- •5 The user/learner’s competences
- •5.1 General competences
- •5.1.1 Declarative knowledge
- •5.1.2 Skills and know-how
- •5.1.4 Ability to learn
- •5.2 Communicative language competences
- •5.2.1 Linguistic competences
- •5.2.2 Sociolinguistic competence
- •5.2.3 Pragmatic competences
- •6 Language learning and teaching
- •6.1 What is it that learners have to learn or acquire?
- •6.1.3 Plurilingual competence and pluricultural competence
- •6.1.4 Variation in objectives in relation to the Framework
- •6.2 The processes of language learning
- •6.2.1 Acquisition or learning?
- •6.2.2 How do learners learn?
- •6.3 What can each kind of Framework user do to facilitate language learning?
- •6.4 Some methodological options for modern language learning and teaching
- •6.4.1 General approaches
- •6.5 Errors and mistakes
- •7 Tasks and their role in language teaching
- •7.1 Task description
- •7.2 Task performance
- •7.2.1 Competences
- •7.2.2 Conditions and constraints
- •7.2.3 Strategies
- •7.3.1 Learner competences and learner characteristics
- •7.3.2 Task conditions and constraints
- •8.2 Options for curricular design
- •8.2.2 From the partial to the transversal
- •8.3 Towards curriculum scenarios
- •8.3.1 Curriculum and variation of objectives
- •8.3.2 Some examples of differentiated curriculum scenarios
- •8.4.1 The place of the school curriculum
- •8.4.3 A multidimensional and modular approach
- •9 Assessment
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.2.2 The criteria for the attainment of a learning objective
- •9.3 Types of assessment
- •9.3.3 Mastery CR/continuum CR
- •9.3.5 Formative assessment/summative assessment
- •9.3.6 Direct assessment/indirect assessment
- •9.3.7 Performance assessment/knowledge assessment
- •9.3.8 Subjective assessment/objective assessment
- •9.3.9 Rating on a scale/rating on a checklist
- •9.3.10 Impression/guided judgement
- •9.3.11 Holistic/analytic
- •9.3.12 Series assessment/category assessment
- •9.4 Feasible assessment and a metasystem
- •General Bibliography
- •Descriptor formulation
- •Scale development methodologies
- •Intuitive methods:
- •Qualitative methods:
- •Quantitative methods:
- •Appendix B: The illustrative scales of descriptors
- •The Swiss research project
- •Origin and Context
- •Methodology
- •Results
- •Exploitation
- •Follow up
- •References
- •The descriptors in the Framework
- •Document B1 Illustrative scales in Chapter 4: Communicative activities
- •Document B2 Illustrative scales in Chapter 4: Communication strategies
- •Document B3 Illustrative scales in Chapter 4: Working with text
- •Document B4 Illustrative scales in Chapter 5: Communicative language competence
- •Document B5 Coherence in descriptor calibration
- •Appendix C: The DIALANG scales
- •The DIALANG project
- •The DIALANG assessment system
- •Purpose of DIALANG
- •Assessment procedure in DIALANG
- •Purpose of self-assessment in DIALANG
- •The DIALANG self-assessment scales
- •Source
- •Qualitative development
- •Translation
- •Calibration of the self-assessment statements
- •Other DIALANG scales based on the Common European Framework
- •Concise scales
- •Advisory feedback
- •References
- •Document C1 DIALANG self-assessment statements
- •Document C3 Elaborated descriptive scales used in the advisory feedback section of DIALANG
- •The ALTE Framework
- •The development process
- •Textual revision
- •Anchoring to the Council of Europe Framework
- •References
- •Document D1 ALTE skill level summaries
- •Document D2 ALTE social and tourist statements summary
- •Document D3 ALTE social and tourist statements
- •Document D4 ALTE work statements summary
- •Document D5 ALTE WORK statements
- •Document D6 ALTE study statements summary
- •Document D7 ALTE STUDY statements
- •Index
Appendix C: The DIALANG scales
The DIALANG self-assessment scales
Source
Most of the self-assessment statements used in DIALANG were taken from the English version of the Common European Framework (Draft 2, 1996). In this respect, DIALANG is a direct application of the Framework for assessment purposes.
Qualitative development
The DIALANG Working Group on Self-Assessment1 reviewed all CEF statements in 1998 and chose those which appeared to be the most concrete, clear and simple; North’s (1996/2000) empirical results on the statements were also consulted. More than a hundred statements were selected for reading, listening and writing. In addition, statements about speaking were chosen but as speaking is not part of the present DIALANG system, they were not included in the validation study described below and are thus not presented in this appendix.
The wording of the statements was changed from ‘Can do’ to ‘I can’ because they were to be used for self-assessment rather than teacher assessment purposes. Some of the statements were modified to simplify them further to suit the intended users; a few new statements were also developed where there was not enough material in the CEF to draw on (the new statements are in italics in the tables). All statements were audited by Dr Brian North, the originator of the statements in the CEF, and by a group of four language testing and teaching experts before the final wording of the statements was agreed.
Translation
Because DIALANG is a multilingual system, the self-assessment statements were then translated from English into the other thirteen languages. The translation followed an agreed procedure. Guidelines for translation and negotiation were agreed; comprehensibility to learners was a prime quality criterion. Initially, two to three experts per language translated the statements into their language independently and then met to discuss differences and to agree a consensus wording. The translations were forwarded to the Self-Assessment Group whose members had the linguistic proficiency to additionally cross-check the quality of the translations in nine languages. The translators were contacted and any questions related to wording were discussed and modifications agreed.
Calibration of the self-assessment statements
So far, the DIALANG project has carried out one calibration study on the selfassessment statements. (Calibration is a procedure in which the level of difficulty of
1The group consisted of Alex Teasdale (chair), Neus Figueras, Ari Huhta, Fellyanka Kaftandjieva, Mats Oscarson, and
Sauli Takala.
228