close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

CEFR in Finland – uses and adaptations – Possible

код для вставкиСкачать
CEFR in Finland – uses and
adaptations – Possible
implications for JS?
Sauli Takala
Tokyo, December 12, 2010
Drs Felianka Kaftandjieva and Frank Heyworth
have kindlly given permission to use some of
their slides.
Overview
• What is CEFR?
• Work on curriculum development
• Work on scale development and
scale validation
• Work on relating language
examinations to the CEFR levels
• Work on national assessments of
FL proficiency in schools
Before CEFR
• LOTS of seminars
• LOTS of case reports (language study provision)
• Narratives and anecdotes without a common frame
of reference:
• ”All Dutch speak English very well.”
• ”The further south you go in Europe, the less people
speak foreign languages.”
• Case 1: ”In my country…”
I SUPPOSE this is
useful …
• Case 2: ”In my country…”
….but it´s so BOOORING!
• Ad infinitum
(Wandering mind) ”I wonder if there isn´t a
better way?”
50 years work on language education by the
Council of Europe (Strasbourg)
1960s - A unit-credit scheme for languages
(adults; migrant workersВґ language needs)
1970s Development of a functional
communicative approach (Threshold etc)
1991 Coherence and transparency in language
learning and teaching (start work on the CEFR
and the European Language Portfolio, ELP)
2001 publication of the CEFR and the
European Languages Portfolio
2001 – 2008 Languages for Social Cohesion
2008 + Towards a plurilingual, pluricultural,
inclusive society; integration of all languages
See: www.coe.int (culture/educ: Lang. Policies)
CEFR (2001) & its Finnish translation (2004)
Very careful translation is needed, especially of the scales (level must remain
the same; neither lower nor higher than the original level)
After CEFR
Our B2 looks like
this. What is
your B2 like?
•65% of students reach the
target level, 15% one level
and 5% two levels above it,
10% one level and 5% two
levels below it.
What evidence do
you have for such
claims?
Our target is B1 at the end
of compulsory education
in ”A”-language.
Our goal is A2 in ”B”language at the end of
compulsory education.
”The Blue Bible” (??)
Moses brought the
people ten
commandments. The
Framework is not ”the
Bible”, not even five
commandments. It is
a reference tool to be
used thoughtfully to
suit the local purposes
and contexts. It is
descriptiive, not
prescriptive. It
encourages reflection
before decisionmaking.
You hear about
the Framework
everywhere; it is a
”baggage”
language
educators
increasingly carry
with them.
Look!
There are
the
Portflio
people.
How nice
to meet
them!
How do I
know that
my B1 is
your B1?
(The
”Alderson”
question)
What is the CEFR?
• Title: Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment
• Author: Council of Europe
• Published:
– in 2001
– by Cambridge University Press
– Available online:
http://www.coe.int/T/E/Cultural%5FCo%2Doperation/educati
on/Languages/Language%5FPolicy/Common%5FFramework%
5Fof%5FReference/
– Ten years of work, drawing on more than 30 years of prior
work. A synthesis with the scales as the most important new
element.
F. Kaftandjieva
CEFR construct of language proficiency (action-oriented
approach, p. 9))
Language use, embracing language learning, comprises the
actions performed by persons who as individuals and as social
agents
•develop a range of competences, both general and in particular
communicative language competences.
•They draw on the competences at their disposal in various
contexts under various conditions & under various constraints
•to engage in language activities involving language processes
•to produce and/or receive texts in relation to themes in specific
domains,
• activating those strategies which seem most appropriate for
•carrying out the tasks to be accomplished.
The monitoring of these actions by the participants leads to the
reinforcement or modification of their competences.
(This is a fundamental starting point of the CEFR.)
Pictorial representation of the approach (Frank Heyworth, Beijiing, 2010)
General competences
Strategies
Communicative competences
sociolinguistic
linguistic
pragmatic
Domains & topics
Situations
Language activities (rec/prod)
TASK
Identifiable result
Frank Heyworth 2010
12
Why was there a need of a framework?
пЃ¬ Co-operation and co-ordination in educational
efforts
пЃ¬ Mutual recognition F.of
language qualifications
Kaftandjieva
For what uses is the CEFR
intended?
Language
learning
programmes
Self-directed
learning
F. Kaftandjieva
Language certification
What criteria must the CEFR meet?
F. Kaftandjieva
CEFR: Horizontal dimension (descriptive scheme:
overview of content structure
Overall Language Proficiency
Communicative
Language
Competence
Communicative
Language Activity
Use of
Strategies
Linguistic
Reception
Reception
Pragmatic
Interaction
Interaction
Socio-linguistic
Production
Production
Mediation
F. Kaftandjieva
F. Kaftandjieva
Language Proficiency:
Common Reference Levels
Mastery
Effective Operational Proficiency
Vantage
Threshold
Waystage
Breakthrough
F. Kaftandjieva
Language Proficiency:
Common Reference Levels
Broader Level Distinction
Mastery
Proficient user
Effective Operational
Proficiency
Vantage
Independent user
Threshold
Waystage
Basic user
Breakthrough
F. Kaftandjieva
Language Proficiency:
Common Reference Levels
Finer Level Distinction
C2.2
Mastery
C2.1
C1.2Effective Operational
C1.1 Proficiency
B2.2
Vantage
B2.1
B1.2
Threshold
B1.1
A2.2
Waystage
A2.1
A1.2
Breakthrough
A1.1
F. Kaftandjieva
Level A1 is the point at which the learner can interact in a
simple way rather than relying purely on a rehearsed
repertoire of phrases.
Level A2 (Waystage), (a) majority of descriptors stating social
functions (greet, short social exchanges…), and (b)
descriptors on getting out and about (simple transactions ..)
Level B1 (Threshold Level)- (a) maintain interaction and get
across what you want to: eg. give or seek personal views and
opinions in an informal discussion with friends…), (b) cope
flexibly with problems in everyday life
Level B2 (Vantage) reflects three new emphases: (a) effective
argument,(b) holding your own in social discourse, and (c) a
new degree of language awareness (eg. correct mistakes if
they have led to misunderstandings)
Level C1 is characterised by access to a broad range of
language: fluent, spontaneous communication.
Level C2 represents the degree of precision and ease with the
language of highly successful learners: convey finer shades
of meaning precisely; a good command of idiomatic
expressions etc. 100 hrs 200-300 hr s 450 hrs 1000s
hrs
A very useful characterisation of levels. See CEFR, Chapter 3.6, pp. 33-36
CEFR-adapted target levels
defined in the current
Finnish curricula in the
basic school (2003) and
the upper secondary
school (2004)
CEFR – adaptation to school curricula
• Needed to be adapted to the context, not just
•
•
•
•
adopted as such
Keep the well-established curriculum traditions:
balance between tradition and reform
Add as a new component the proficiency levels to
facilitate definition of progression
Indicate target levels for grades 6, 9 and 12
Need for more fine-grained levels at A1
– fast qualitative progress at lower levels
– to sustain and support motivation
– (Note: this is a CURRICULUM, adapted from the
CEFR; eg., constraints and limitations are
systematically stated.)
New Finnish FL Syllabuses (outline of levels)
Level
Listening Speaking Reading
A1.1
A1.2
A1.3
A more fine-grained level breakdown is
needed (faster qualitative progress at this
level; needed also as a motivation booster)
A2.1
A2.2
B1.1
B1.2
B2.1
B2.2
C1.1
Writing
Language Proficiency Level Labels in the Finnish Core Curriculum
• A1: Limited communication in the most familiar situations
• A1.1 First stage of elementary proficiency
• A1.2 Developing elementary proficiency
• A1.3 Functional elementary proficiency
• A2: Basic needs for immediate social
interaction and brief narration
Mastery
• A2.1: First stage ofC1.2
basic proficiency
• A2.1 Developing basic proficiency
• B1: Dealing with language use situations
Vantagein everyday life
B1.2 basic proficiency Threshold
• B1.1: Functional
• B1.2: Fluent basic proficiency
• B2: Managing regular interaction with ’native´ speakers
• B2.1: First stage of independentBreakthrough
proficiency
• B2.2: Functional independent proficiency
• C1: Managing in a variety of demanding language use situations
• C1.1: First stage of fluent proficiency
New Finnish FL Syllabuses
Level
Listening Speaking Reading
Writing
A1.1
First stage of elementary proficiency
A1.2
A1.3
A2.1
A2.2
B1.1
B1.2
B2.1
B2.2
C1.1
Developing elementary proficiency
Functional elementary proficiency
First stage of basic proficiency
Developing basic proficiency
Functional basic proficiency
Fluent basic proficiency
First stage of independent proficiency
Functional independent proficiency
First stage of skilled proficiency
The following slide (in Finnish) shows the
key terms underlined. This was done in the
drafting stage to help check the internal
consistency of the level characterizations
across the levels. This is an important step
also both in developing JS descriptors and
subsequent possible curriculum/course
definitions.
Taitotaso
Kuullun ymmärtäminen
Puhuminen
Luetun ymmärtäminen
Kirjoittaminen
A1.
1
Kielitaidon
alkeiden
hallinta
*Ymmärtää erittäin rajallisen
määrän tavallisia sanoja ja fraaseja
(tervehdyksiä, nimiä, lukuja,
käskyjä) arkisissa yhteyksissä.
*Tarvitsee erittäin paljon apua:
toistoa, osoittamista, käännöstä.
*Osaa vastata häntä koskeviin
yksinkertaisiin kysymyksiin lyhyin
lausein. Vuorovaikutus on
puhekumppanin varassa ja puhuja
turvautuu ehkä äidinkieleen tai eleisiin.
* Puheessa voi olla paljon pitkiä
taukoja, toistoja ja katkoksia.
* Ääntäminen voi aiheuttaa suuria
ymmärtämisongelmia.
* Osaa hyvin suppean perussanaston ja
joitakin opeteltuja vakioilmaisuja.
* Puhujan hallitsemat harvat
kaavamaiset ilmaisut voivat olla melko
virheettömiä.
*Tuntee kirjainjärjestelmän,
mutta ymmärtää tekstistä vain
hyvin vähän.
*Tunnistaa vähäisen määrän
tuttuja sanoja ja lyhyitä
fraaseja ja osaa yhdistää niitä
kuviin.
*Kyky lukea entuudestaan
tuntemattomia sanoja on
hyvin rajallinen.
*Osaa kirjoittaa kielen kirjaimet ja
numerot, merkitä muistiin
henkilökohtaiset perustietonsa ja
kirjoittaa joitakin tuttuja sanoja ja
fraaseja.
*Osaa viestiä välittömiä tarpeita hyvin
lyhyin ilmaisuin.
*Vähänkin vieraampien sanojen
kirjoittaminen virheellistä.
A1.
2
Kehitty-vä
alkeiskielitaito
*Ymmärtää rajallisen määrän
sanoja, lyhyitä lauseita,
kysymyksiä ja kehotuksia, jotka
liittyvät henkilökohtaisiin asioihin
tai välittömään tilanteeseen.
*Joutuu ponnistelemaan suuresti
ymmärtääkseen yksinkertaistakin
puhetta ilman selviä tilannevihjeitä.
*Tarvitsee hyvin paljon apua:
puheen hidastamista, toistoa,
näyttämistä ja käännöstä.
*Pystyy lukemaan nimiä,
kylttejä ja muita hyvin lyhyitä
ja yksinkertaisia tekstejä,
jotka liittyvät välittömiin
tarpeisiin ja tunnistaa niistä
yksittäisen tiedon, jos voi
lukea tarvittaessa uudelleen.
*Kyky lukea entuudestaan
tuntemattomia sanoja on
rajallinen.
*Osaa viestiä välittömiä tarpeita lyhyin
lausein.
*Osaa kopioida perustietoja ohjeista ja
aikatauluista ja kirjoittaa muutamia
lauseita ja fraaseja itsestään ja
lähipiiristään (esim. vastauksia
kysymyksiin tai muistilappuja).
* Ulkoa opetellut fraasit voivat olla
oikein kirjoitettuja, mutta
itsenäisemmässä tekstissä vilisee
kaikenlaisia virheitä.
A1.
3
Toimiva
alkeiskieli-taito
*Ymmärtää henkilökohtaisia
kysymyksiä ja jokapäiväisiä
ohjeita, pyyntöjä ja kieltoja
rutiinimaisissa keskusteluissa
tilanneyhteyden tukemana.
*Ymmärtää huomattavin
ponnistuksin yksinkertaisia
keskusteluja kiinnostavista asioista.
*Ymmärtäminen edellyttää
normaalia hitaampaa ja kuulijalle
kohdennettua yleiskielistä puhetta.
*Osaa viestiä suppeasti joitakin
välittömiä tarpeita ja kysyä ja vastata
henkilökohtaisia perustietoja
käsittelevissä vuoropuheluissa.
Tarvitsee usein puhekumppanin apua.
*Puheessa on taukoja ja muita
katkoksia.
*Ääntäminen voi aiheuttaa usein
ymmärtämisongelmia.
*Osaa suppean sanavaraston, joitakin
tilannesidonnaisia ilmaisuja ja
peruskieliopin aineksia.
*Puheessa esiintyy hyvin paljon
kaikenlaisia virheitä.
*Osaa kertoa lyhyesti itsestään ja
lähipiiristään. Selviytyy kaikkein
yksinkertaisimmista vuoropuheluista ja
palvelutilanteista. Tarvitsee joskus
puhekumppanin apua.
* Kaikkein tutuimmat jaksot sujuvat,
muualla tauot ja katkokset ovat hyvin
ilmeisiä.
*Ääntäminen voi joskus tuottaa
ymmärtämisongelmia.
*Osaa rajallisen joukon lyhyitä, ulkoa
opeteltuja ilmauksia, keskeisintä
sanastoa ja perustason lauserakenteita.
*Puheessa esiintyy paljon virheitä.
*Pystyy lukemaan tuttuja ja
joitakin tuntemattomia sanoja
ja lyhyitä tekstikappaleita,
jotka käsittelevät arkielämää,
rutiinitapahtumia tai
yksinkertaisia ohjeita.
*Osaa paikantaa ja verrata
yhtä tai useampaa
yksityiskohtaa laajemmassa
tekstissä.
*Lukeminen ja
ymmärtäminen on hyvin
hidasta.
*Selviytyy yksinkertaisista helposti
ennustettavista kirjoitustehtävistä
tutuimmissa arkitilanteissa. Osaa
kirjoittaa yksinkertaisia viestejä
(postikortin, lyhyen esittelyn)
todellisista tai kuvitteellisista
henkilöistä ja hyvin tutuista aiheista.
Osaa kopioida yksittäisiä tietoja ja
kirjoittaa muistiin yksinkertaista
sanelua.
*Osaa muutamia kaikkein
tavallisimpia sanoja ja ilmauksia, jotka
liittyvät oman elämän yksityiskohtiin
tai konkreettisiin tarpeisiin. Osaa
kirjoittaa yksilauseisia virkkeitä tai
rinnasteisia lauseita, joissa esiintyy
perusaikamuotoja.
*Tekstissä esiintyy hyvin paljon
virheitä.
Commented sample: A1.1 Speaking: First stage of
elementary proficiency
• Can answer simple personal questions with short phrases. ((CAN
DO)Needs considerable assistance and depends on gestures to
express meaning. May also switch to first language at times.
(constraints/limitations.)itatio
• Makes often long pauses and repetitions. (constraints/limitations:
“how well”)
• Pronunciation difficulties may seriously impede communication.
(constraints/limit.:”how well)”
• Has a very limited repertoire of basic vocabulary and a few
memorised sentence patterns. (CAN DO/KNOW)
• Cannot produce extended speech, but shows reasonable control of
the very limited linguistic repertoire. (Limitation + CAN DO/KNOW)
• Note that this is a quite general description of a language user at a
certain level: what he/she can do with language (knows about
language) and what limitations there are in his/her competence.
Categories incuded in the Finnish syllabus
adaptation
Listening
Reading
1) Themes, texts, tasks 1) Themes, texts, tasks
2) Conditions &
2) Conditions & constraints
constraints
Speaking
Writing
- Themes/texts/tasks
Themes/texts/tasks
(narrative/interaction)
Range of language
- Fluency
Accuracy
- Pronunciatton
- Range of language
- Accuracy
- In speaking and Writing, Constraints are seen in the
descriptions.
A- English
(starts
usually in
grade 3)
B1- Swedish
(starts in
grade 7)
B2/3language,
starts in
Grade 8/10
Grade
6/targets
Grade
9/targets
Grade 12/targets
LC – A1.3
S – A1.2
RC – A1.3
W – A1.2
LC – B1.1
S – A2.2
RC – B1.1
W - A2.2
LC – B2.1
S – B2.1
RC – B2.1
W – B2.1
LC – A2.1
S – A1.3
RC – A2.1
W – A1.3
LC - B1.2
S – B1.1
RC – B1.2
W – B1.1
LC – A2.2
S – A2.1 – A2.2
RC – A2.2 – B1.1
W – A2-1 – A2.2
Developing rating scales for assessing
oral performance (computerized testing)
Story line (travelling in Britain) with 6
different tasks
Task-specific criteria for:
•Telephone conversation
• Reading aloud
• Summarizing a tex (mediation: L1-> L2)
• Description (of pictures)
• Pragmatic: situated responses
• Monologue/speech
Task-specific rating scales are needed
as tasks differ
Two main parts in the criteria:
a) Task performance and interaction
(task-specific)
b) Language-related part (basically
indentical for all tasks, as the same
language resources are used
across all the tasks) See next slide for a schematic
overview).
Levels
Task
Range of
perforlanguage
mance
and interction
xx
xx
Pronunciation
Fluency
Accuracy
xx
xx
Xx
Below
A1.1
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
A1.1
xx
xx
xx
xx
Xx
A1.3
xx
xx
xx
xx
Xx
A2.1
xx
xx
xx
xx
Xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
Xx
xxx
xx
xx
xx
xx
0
C1.1>
Scale development and
scale validation
CEFR Scale Validation/National Scale
Validation
Interrater reliability: 0.87-0.99
Correlation with CEFR: above 0.92
Pattern matching (Trochim 1999): theory vs. empirical
outcomes: L: .89, R: .91, W: .84
Discriminant analysis: probability of ”correct” membership > .985
Aiken agreement coefficient: L .90, R .90, W .80
EXACTLY SAME level as CEFR: L 75%, R 65%, W 52%
Conclusion: CEFR scales are valid enough to be used
as a framework for FL teaching & assessment
Several scales have been developed/adapted
and validated for different contexts in Finland
CEFR in the Examination and
National Assessment context
Linking Matriculation Examinations
(high stakes) to the CEFR:
• What level is obtained at the end
of the Upper Secondary School
(age 19)?
Distribution of Levels (%) in the Matric Exam (19yrs)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
En
-1
0
G
er
-1
0
R
us
-1
0
Fi
-1
0
G
er
-3
/5
R
us
3/
5
Fr
3/
5
Sp
3/
5
Sw
e6
0%
A1
A2
B1
B2
C1
C2
10: 10 years of study; 3/5: 3-5 years of study; 6 - 6 years of study
How to accommodate national grading and
reporting systems and the CEFR (levels)?
• Matriculation exam grades from top to pass:
roughly 5%, 15%, 20%, 24%, 20%, 11% <> CEFR
6 levels C2-A1
• One solution: by means of conversion tables/
charts, which show how national grades are
related to the CEF levels.
•The following slide shows how cut scores for
CEFR levels are defined for the scale (sum
score: 0-300). CEFR level vs. national grades
300
>C1
L a u d a tu r -5 %
280
260
C1
E x im ia -1 5 %
M agna - 20%
240
220
B2
C u m la u d e -2 4 %
Sum score (m ax. 299)
200
L u b e n te r - 2 0 %
180
160
A p p ro b a tu r -1 1 %
140
B1
120
100
80
60
Im p ro b a tu r
<B1
40
20
0
C E F R -le v e l
M a tr E x a m G ra d e
The figure on the previous slide shows how the CEFR
level cut scores and rhe national grade cut scores
relate to each other.
The best students, getting a ”Laudatur”, are at level
C1/high B2.
The passing level is B1; anyone below B1 fails
(Improbatur).
In this way, results can be compared across
languages and syllabuses as the next slide shows.
Even if the same labels (based roughly on the nornal
curve) are usedfor all language/syllabuses, the actual
proficiency level can vary considerably.
300
Increased transparency and comparability: English
(10 yrs) vs Swedish (6 years)
>C1
300
L a u d a tu r -5 %
260
C1
>B2
B2
280
E xim ia -1 5 %
E xim ia
250
M agna - 20%
240
220
B2
B1
M agna
C u m la u d e -2 4 %
200
L u b e n te r - 2 0 %
160
A p p ro b a tu r -1 1 %
140
B1
120
100
80
60
S u m S co re (m a x . 2 9 9 )
S u m s c o re (m a x . 2 9 9 )
200
180
L a u d a tu r
C u m la u d e
L u b e n te r
150
A2
A p p ro b a tu r
100
Im p ro b a tu r
Im p ro b a tu r
<B1
50
40
A1
20
0
0
C E F R -le ve l
M a tr E xa m G ra d e
C E F L e ve l
M a tric u la tio n G ra d e
FIGURE 1a. Distribution of CEF levels: FIGURE 1b Distribution of CEF_levels:
A1 English
B1-Swedish
1=A1
2=A2
3=B1
4=B2
5=C1
6=C2
60
50
1=A1
2=A2
3=B1
4=B2
5=C1
6=C2
60
50
40
Per cent
Per cent
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
CEF level
5
6
1
2
3
CEF level
4
5
Linking National Assessment outcomes
to the CEFR
What level is obtained in English at the
end of the Comprehensive School after
seven years of study (age 15-16)?
• cf: EU-project ”SurveyLang” to be
reported in the near future (Finland is
not taking part.) Check EUВґs webpage
for more information.
Level in English (%): grade 9 (15-16 years; 7
years of English, Tuokko, 2007)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
B2>
29
B2>
23
B2>
25
B1
39
B1
32
A2
34
A2
40
Speaking
Writing
B1
41
A2
25
0%
Receptive skills
A1
A2
B1
B2>
Linking examinations results has only begun.
• Replication is needed to verify tentative linkages.
•International co-operation to develop compeence in
linking examinations/tests to the CEFR (cf. EALTA
workshops Barcelona, 2007; Budapest, Turku;
workshop in Siena, May 2011)
•International co-operation in mutual verifying of
national efforts of linkage?
• International teams of judges? Sweden has done
this (Gudrun Erickson; Gothenburg university)
• External validation by sharing tests?
A rough time/level (English) estimate based on
CEFR
• In the Finnish context (L1 And L2 not related):
• Getting from A1.1 (age 9/10) to the average of B1
(age 15/16) takes about 300 lessons and perhaps
100 hours of homework -> 400 hours.
• Getting from the average of B1 to the average of
B2 (at 18/19) takes about 250 lessons and probably
some 200-250 hours of homework -> 450 – 500
lessons/hours
I could never
• A1 -> B2: 800 – 900 hours
have predicted
such developments!
A rough estimation of time needed to achieve various CEFR levels. Note that
progress across levels is fast in the beginning but after that increasingly more time is
needed to reach a next qualitatively higher level of proficiency.
5
C E FR Level
4
3
2
1
0
500
1000
1500
T im e
2000
2500
3000
Summing up
Finnish perspective on the CEFRImplications?
• A valuable tool in all national language education
• A valuable tool in international contacts and cooperation
• Not prescriptive or dogmatic but descriptive;
responsibility for thoughtful application lies with
the user (eg. Japanese context)
• A reference tool – it is not a curriculum or a
programme
• While comprehensive, does not cover everything
Finnish perspective on the CEFR –
Implications?
• While the most useful tool around, needs to be
elaborated through international co-operation
• Useful supplements: Manual for relating
examins to the CEFR, Reference Supplement....
•CEFR and the Portfolio: excellent examples of
transnational projects through voluntary cooperation, which serves enlightened national
self-interests – no effort to force consensus or
exercise power
The basis of the CEFR lies in the
descriptions of:
The language user – what kind of
person is s/he?
How s/he uses language
The texts to be processed, the tasks
to be accomplished
The competences needed to do this
Are these relevant and applicable in all
contexts and for all languages? JS?
The global levels, the general
competence descriptors, many of
the activities can probably be
transferred relatively directly??
New activities needed to be added or
put at a different level – for example:
Greetings: more complicated in
Japanese?? Inter-cultural
knowledge needs to be stressed??
DIFFERENT LANGUAGES
Spoken reception, production and
interaction probably progresses in
parallel with other languages??
Development of reading and writing in
L2 is probably slower and requires
additional В« can do В» statements in JS
for recognising and producing the Latin
alphabet??
Some references
• Hildén,
R. & Takala, S. (2007) Relating descriptors of the
Finnish school scale to the CEF overall scales of communicative
activities. (pdf available from sjtakala@hotmail.com;
raili.hilden@helsinki.fi)
• Kaftandjieva, F. (2004) Standard setting. Section B in
Reference Supplement to the Manual for relating language
examinations to the CEFR. Council of Europe (available at:
http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Default-en-asp)
• Kaftandjieva, F. & Takala, S. (2002) Council of Europe Scales
of Language Proficiency: A validation study.In Common
European Framework of Reference. Case studies, Council of
Europe, 106-129. (pdf available from sjtakala@hotmail.com)
Kaftandjieva, F. & Takala, S. (2003) Development and
Validation of Scales of Language Proficiency. In: W. Vagle
(ed.) Vurdering av sprГҐkferdighet, NTNU. Trondheim, 31-38
(pdf available from Takala: sjtakala@hotmail.com)
• Takala, S. & Kaftandjieva, F. (2002) Relating the Finnish
Matriculation Examination English Test Results to the CEF
Scales. Helsinki Seminar, June 31- July 2, 2002 (available
by request from Takala: sjtakala@hotmail.com)
• Tuokko, E. (2007) What level do pupils reach in English at
the end of the comprehensive school? U of Jyväskylä,
Finland. (PhD thesis in Finnish, with English summary:
tuokko@pp.inet.fi)
•
Some useful website addresses:
www.coe.int (Council of Europe; look for Language
Platform)
www.ecml.at (European Centre for Modern
Languages, in Graz, Austria; many useful tools and
reports downloadable; part of the Council of Europe)
htpp://europa.eu (EU has several language-related
projects, including ”SurveyLang”)
www.ealta.eu.org (free membership; joining welcome)
www.oph.fi (The National Board of Education in
Finland)
www.skolverket.se (Swedish Agency for Education)
Документ
Категория
Презентации
Просмотров
8
Размер файла
6 602 Кб
Теги
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа