Approaches in aligning language frameworks

References

1. Alderson, J. C.
   (1991) Bands and scores. InJ. C. Alderson and B. North (eds.). Language Testing in the 1990s (pp.71–86). London: British Council.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Alderson, J. C.
   (2000) Assessing reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511732935
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732935 [Google Scholar]
3. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
   American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (1986) ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL.
   [Google Scholar]
4. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
   American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (1999) ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL.
   [Google Scholar]
5. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
   American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (2001) ACTFL proficiency guidelines. RetrievedOctober 1, 2018, fromhttps://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/writingguidelines.pdf
   [Google Scholar]
6. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
   American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (2012) ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. RetrievedAugust 15, 2018, fromhttps://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012/english
   [Google Scholar]
7. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
   American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (2013) Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teacher (2013) (Initial Level – Undergraduate & Graduate)RetrievedDec 15, 2018, fromhttps://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/CAEP/ACTFLProgramStandards2013.pdf
8. Angoff, W. H.
   (1971) Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. InThorndike, R. L. (ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.) (pp.508–600.) Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bournot-Trites, M., Barbour, R., Jezak, M., Stewart, G., & Carbonneau, D. B.
   (2015) Theoretical framework for the Canadian Language Benchmarks/Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens. Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. https://www.language.ca/product/pdf-e-003-theoretical-framework-for-the-clb-and-nclc/
   [Google Scholar]
10. Chalhoub-Deville, M. & Lin, J.
    (2022) Foreign language testing constructs, frameworks, and assessments. InSusan M. Brookhart (ed.), Routledge resources online – education-assessment. Milton Park: Routledge. 10.4324/9781138609877‑REE195‑1
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781138609877-REE195-1 [Google Scholar]
11. Chalhoub-Deville, M.
    (2009) Content validity considerations in language testing contexts. InR. Lissitz (Ed.), The concept of validity (pp.241–263). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Chao, Ch. 赵家璧, Lan, P. 蓝珮君, & Chen, P. 陈柏熹
    (2016) CEFR 与ACTFL 初级阅读能力描述对应研究：以[儿童华语文能力测验]为媒介. [CEFR yu ACTFL chuji yuedu nengli miaoshu duiying yanjiu: yi Ertong Huayuwen Nengli Ceyan wei meijie: Aligning ACTFL and CEFR proficiency levels: utilizing children’s Chinese competency certification]. 台湾华语教学研究 [Taiwan Huayu Jiaoxue Yanjiu: Taiwan Journal of Chinese as a Second Language], (13), 41–64.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Chapelle, C.
    (2012) Seeking solid theoretical ground for the ACTFL-CEFR crosswalk. InE. Tschirner (Ed.), Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference (pp.35–48). Stauffenburg Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Cizek, G. J., & Bunch, M. B.
    (2007) Standard setting: A guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests. Sage. 10.4135/9781412985918
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985918 [Google Scholar]
15. Council of Europe, Council for Cultural Co-operation. Education Committee, Modern Languages Division
    Council of Europe, Council for Cultural Co-operation. Education Committee, Modern Languages Division (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. de Ayala, R. J.
    (2009) The theory and practice of item response theory. The Guilford Press
    [Google Scholar]
17. Dorans, N. J.
    (2004) Equating, concordance, and expectation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28(4), 227–246. 10.1177/0146621604265031
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621604265031 [Google Scholar]
18. Fulcher, G.
    (2016) Standards and frameworks. InTsagari, D. & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp.2–12). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614513827‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513827-005 [Google Scholar]
19. Fulcher, G., Davidson, F., & Kemp, J.
    (2011) Effective rating scale development for speaking tests: Performance decision trees. Language Testing, 28(1), 5–29. 10.1177/0265532209359514
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209359514 [Google Scholar]
20. Huynh, H., & Meyer, P.
    (2010) Use of robust Z in detecting unstable items in item response theory models. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 15(2), 1–8. 10.7275/ycx6‑e864
    https://doi.org/10.7275/ycx6-e864 [Google Scholar]
21. Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S.
    (1997) Standard-setting: An alternative approach. Journal of Educational Measurement341, 353–366. 10.1111/j.1745‑3984.1997.tb00523.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1997.tb00523.x [Google Scholar]
22. Jezak, M., & Piccardo, E.
    (2017) Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) and Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens (NCLC) – Canadian frameworks of reference for languages in the era of glocalization. InM. Jezak (Ed.), Twenty years of the Canadian Language Benchmarks and Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens: Policy, research and practice (pp.7–31). University of Ottawa Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L.
    (2014) Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (3rd ed.). Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4939‑0317‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0317-7 [Google Scholar]
24. Lan, P. 蓝珮君, Chen, P. 陈柏熹, & Hsu, Ch. 许嘉凌
    (2014) 以 TOCFL 连结 CEFR 与 ACTFL: 标准设定程序的应用 [Yi TOCFL lianjie CEFR yu ACTFL: Biaozhun sheding chengxu de yingyong: Aligning the CEFR and ACTFL: utilizing the TOCFL Speaking Test]. 发表于2014年第三届标准本位评量国际研讨会 [Fabiao yu 2014 nian Disanjie Biaozhun Benwei Pingliang Guoji Yantaohui: Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Standards-Based Assessment]. Taiwan.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Lewis, M., Mitzel, H., Mercado, R., & Schulz, M.
    (2012) The bookmark standard setting procedure. InCizek, G. (ed). Setting performance standards: Foundations, methods, and innovations. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Li, Y. 李亚男
    (2021) 《国际中文教育中文水平等级标准》解读 [Guoji Zhongwen Jiaoyu Zhongwen Shuiping Dengji Biaozhun jiedu: An introduction to the Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education]. 国际汉语教学研究 [Guoji Hanyu Jiaoxue Yanjiu: Journal of International Chinese Teaching], 11, 24–26.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Liao, Ts. 廖才仪, Lan, P. 蓝珮君, Liang, Ch. 梁绮容, & Chen, P. 陈柏熹
    (2022) CEFR 与ACTFL 大纲口语指标对应研究: 以「华语文口语测验」为媒介 [CEFR yu ACTFL dagang kouyu zhibao duiying yanjiu: Yi Huayuwen Kouyu Ceyan wei meijie: Aligning the CEFR Oral Descriptors with the ACTFL Speaking Proficiency Guidelines Based on the TOCFL Speaking Test].华语文教学研究 [Huayuwen Jiaoxue Yanjiu: Journal of Chinese Language Teaching], 19(2), 1–32.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Lin, C.
    (2022) Book review: Chinese proficiency grading standards for international Chinese language education. Journal of Sinology, 16(2), 249–256.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Lin, J.
    (2024) Developing a reading proficiency scale for Chinese as a second language: a confirmatory factor analysis approach. Language Awareness, 1–27.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Linacre, J. M.
    (2014) A computer program for the analysis of multifaceted data. Mesa Press.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Linacre, J. M.
    (2021) A user’s guide to FACETS, Rasch model computer program. https://www.winsteps.com/a/Facets-Manual.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
32. Liskin-Gasparro, J. E.
    (2001) L2 speaking as proficiency. Paper presented at theannual meeting of AAAL-LTRUAAAL Joint Colloquium. St. Louis, MO.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Liskin-Gasparro, J. E.
    (2003) The ACTFL proficiency guidelines and the oral proficiency interview: A brief history and analysis of their survival. Foreign Language Annals, 36(4), 483–490. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.2003.tb02137.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb02137.x [Google Scholar]
34. Liu, H., 刘欢 & Liang, X. 梁霞
    (2023) 《国际中文教育中文水平等级标准》与《ACTFL 语文能力大纲》对接的必要性、可行性及教学应用. [Guoji Zhongwen Jiaoyu Zhongwen Shuiping Dengji Biaozhun yu ACTFl Yuwen Nengli Dagang duijie de biyaoxing、kexingxing ji jiaoxue yingyong: The necessity, feasibility, and pedagogical implication of aligning the Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education with the ACTFL Language Proficiency Guidelines] 国际汉语教学研究 [Guoji Hanyu Jiaoxue Yanjiu: Journal of International Chinese Teaching], (1), 11–20.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Liu, J., & Pan, M.
    (2019) English language teaching in China: Developing language proficiency frameworks. InX. Gao (Ed.), Second handbook of English language teaching (pp.415–432). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑02899‑2_28
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02899-2_28 [Google Scholar]
36. Lord, F. M.
    (1980) Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
37. MEPRC & NLSCPRC
    MEPRC & NLSCPRC (2018) 《中国英语能力等级量表》 [Zhongguo Yingyu Nengli Dengji Liangbiao: China’s Standards of English Language Ability]. 高等教育出版社[Gaodeng Jiaoyu Chubanshe: Higher Education Press].
    [Google Scholar]
38. National Language Commission
    National Language Commission (2021) Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education. Beijing Language and Culture University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
39. North, B.
    (1991) Standardisation of Continuous Assessment Grades. InC. Alderson & B. North (Eds.) Language testing in the 1990s: The communicative legacy (pp.167–177). New York: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
40. North, B., & Piccardo, E.
    (2018) Aligning the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) to the Common European Framework of References (CERF). Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks.
    [Google Scholar]
41. North, B., & Piccardo, E.
    (2023) Aligning language frameworks: An example with the CLB and CEFR. Language Assessment Quarterly, 20(2), 143–165. 10.1080/15434303.2023.2184266
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2023.2184266 [Google Scholar]
42. Peng, C.
    (n.d.). Linking China’s Standards of English Language Ability (CSE) to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR): Level Correspondence in Reading Skill. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4257311
    [Google Scholar]
43. Peng, C., Liu, J., & Cai, H.
    (2022) Aligning China’s Standards of English Language Ability with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 31(6), 667–677. 10.1007/s40299‑021‑00617‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00617-2 [Google Scholar]
44. Rasch, G.
    (1960) Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Denmark’s Paedagogiske Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Slagter, P. J., Surface, E. A., Watson, A. & Wilcox, S.
    (2012) ACTFL and CEFR scale comparability through perceived and actual writing proficiency. InE. Tschirner (Ed.), Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference (pp.123–137). Stauffenburg Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Swender, E., & Vicars, R.
    (2014) ACTFL oral proficiency interview tester training manual. Alexandria, VA: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Swender, E., Tschirner, E., & Bärenfänger, O.
    (2012) Comparing ACTFL/ILR and CEFR based reading tests. InE. Tschirner (Ed.), Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference (pp.123–137). Stauffenburg Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Taherbhai, H., & Seo, D.
    (2013) The philosophical aspects of IRT equating: Modeling drift to evaluate cohort growth in large scale assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 32(1), 2–14. 10.1111/emip.12000
    https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12000 [Google Scholar]
49. Trim, J.
    (2012) Provo Address. InE. Tschirner (Ed.), Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference (pp.19–22). Stauffenburg Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Tschirner, E., Bärenfänger, O., & Wanner, I.
    (2012) Assessing evidence of validity of assigning CEFR ratings to the ACTFL oral proficiency interview (OPI) and the oral proficiency interview by computer (OPIc). Institute for Test Research and Development.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Zhao, W., & Coniam, D.
    (2022) Using Self-Assessments to Investigate Comparability of the CEFR and CSE: An Exploratory Study Using the LanguageCert Test of English. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 4(1), 169–186.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Zhao, W., Wang, B., Coniam, D., & Xie, B.
    (2017) Calibrating the CEFR against the China Standards of English for College English vocabulary education in China. Language Testing in Asia, 71, 1–18. 10.1186/s40468‑017‑0036‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-017-0036-1 [Google Scholar]