CEFR與ACTFL大綱口語指標對應研究：以「華語文口語測驗」為媒介

Aligning the CEFR Oral Descriptors with the ACTFL Speaking Proficiency Guidelines Based on the TOCFL Speaking Test

廖才儀(Tsai-Yi LIAO)；藍珮君(Pei-Jiun LAN)；梁綺容(Chi-Jung LIANG)；陳柏熹(Po-Hsi CHEN)

ACTFL大綱 ； CEFR ； Exemplar Response法 ； 口語測驗 ； 標準設定 ； the ACTFL Guidelines ； the CEFR ； Exemplar Response method ； speaking test ； standard-setting

華語文教學研究

19卷2期（2022 / 06 / 01）

1 - 32

繁體中文

本研究主旨為建立歐洲共同語文參考架構（CEFR）與美國外語教學協會能力指標（ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines）這兩大架構之口語指標的對應關係，所採用之華語文口語測驗（TOCFL Speaking test）是以CEFR為基礎；作法為邀集17位專家透過Exemplar Response法標準設定程序，使用該測驗各題型各級分之標準音檔，連結CEFR與ACTFL大綱的各等級口語指標，並提出程序性效度、內部效度做為證據。研究結果顯示，CEFR框架A1程度的華語口語能力介於ACTFL大綱初級高等至中級初等之間；A2位於中級初等與中級中等之間；B1略低於中級高等；B2落在高級初等與高級中等之間；C1介於高級高等至優秀級之間；C2程度高於優秀級。此外，亦發現數項共同特徵可作為未來研究者進行兩個指標對應研究時的參考依據。

This study aims to build an alignment between the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, utilizing the TOCFL Speaking test, which is designed based on the CEFR. 17 experts participated in a standard-setting process applying the Exemplar Response method which used the sample soundtracks for each test band and item type. The study provided procedural and internal validity to support the results of the proposed alignment between CEFR and the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. The results showed that, in terms of speaking proficiency, CEFR level A1 is equivalent to ACTFL Novice High and Intermediate Low sublevels, while level A2 is equivalent to the Intermediate Low and Intermediate Mid sublevels. CEFR level B1 is lower than the ACTFL Intermediate High sublevel , while level B2 is equivalent to the Advanced Low and Advanced Mid sublevels. CEFR level C1 is equivalent to the ACTFL Advanced High sublevel and Superior level , while C2 is higher than the Superior level. The study revealed some shared characteristics between the CEFR and the ACTFL Guidelines which would be useful to guide further studies.

1. 趙家璧, Chia-pi,藍珮君, Pei-jiun,陳柏熹, Po-hsi(2016)。CEFR 與 ACTFL 初級閱讀能力描述對應研究：以「兒童華語文能力測驗」為媒介。臺灣華語教學研究，13，41-64。
   連結：
2. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 2012. ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Accessed online, May 1, 2014. http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf
3. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 2016. Assigning CEFR Ratings to ACTFL Assessments. Accessed online, May 1, 2016. https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/reports/Assigning_CEFR_Ratings_To_ACTFL_Assessments.pdf
4. Bärenfänger, Olaf,Tschirner, Erwin(2012).,White Plains, NY:Language Testing International.
5. Cizek, Gregory J.(2006).Standard setting.Handbook of Test Development,Mahwah, NJ:
6. Cizek, Gregory J.(1993).Reconsidering standards and criteria.Journal of Educational Measurement,30(2),93-106.
7. Council of Europe. 2018. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (Companion Volume). Accessed online, February 16, 2018. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989
8. Council of Europe. 2009. Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment-A Manual [On-line]. Accessed online, August 1, 2012. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001680667a2d
9. Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge, UK: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Accessed online, January 17, 2007. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf
10. Jaeger, Richard M.,Mullis, Ina V. S.,Bourque, Mary L.,Shakrani, Sharif(1996).Setting performance standards for performance assessments: Some fundamental issues, current practice, and technical dilemmas.Technical Issues in Large-Scale Performance Assessment,Washington, DC:
11. Jones, Neil,Ashton, Karen,Walker, Tamsin(2010).Asset languages: A case study of piloting the CEFR manual.Aligning Tests with the CEFR: Reflections on Using the Council of Europe’s Draft Manual (Studies in Language Testing) 33,Cambridge:
12. Kane, Michael(1994).Validating the performance standards associated with passing scores.Review of Educational Research,64,425-461.
13. Language Testing International. 2016. Alignment of the ACTFL Proficiency Ratings to the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB). Accessed online, October 15, 2016. https://www.languagetesting.com/pub/media/wysiwyg/research/white_papers/Alignment_of_the_ACTFL_Proficiency_Ratings_to_the_CLB_D7.pdf.
14. Lewis, Daniel M.,Mitzel, Howard C.,Green, Donald R.(1996).Standard Setting: A Bookmark Approach.Council of Chief State School Officers National Conference on Large Scale Assessment,Phoenix, AZ:
15. Martínez Baztán, Alfonso(2008).Granada,Universidad de Granada.
16. Papageorgiou, Spiros,Tannenbaum, Richard J.,Bridgeman, Brent,Cho, Yeonsuk(2015).,Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service.
17. Swender, Elvira,Tschirner, Erwin,Bärenfänger, Olaf(2012).Comparing ACTFL/ILR and CEFR based reading tests.Aligning Frameworks of Reference in Language Testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference,Tübingen:
18. Tannenbaum, Richard J.,Wylie, E. Caroline(2008).TOEFL iBT Research ReportTOEFL iBT Research Report,Princeton, NJ:ETS.
19. Waldemar, Martyniuk(ed.)(2010).Aligning Tests with the CEFR.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
20. 王伯韜, Botao(2015)。江蘇=Jiangsu，揚州大學=Yangzhou University。
21. 王昕, Xi(2014)。新 HSK 四級聽力測試效果與《歐洲語言共同參考框架》匹配度研究。華西語文學刊，1，193-201。
22. 國家華語測驗推動工作委員會=Steering Committee for the Test Of Proficiency-Huayu(2015).華語文能力測驗技術報告 2013（3）口語測驗信效度.新北=New Taipei:國家華語測驗推動工作委員會=SC-TOP.
23. 國家華語測驗推動工作委員會=Steering Committee for the Test Of Proficiency-Huayu(2017)。教育部委託計畫案成果報告教育部委託計畫案成果報告,教育部=Ministry of Education。
24. 國家華語測驗推動工作委員會=Steering Committee for the Test Of Proficiency-Huayu(2016).華語文能力測驗技術報告 2014（3）口語測驗信效度.新北=New Taipei:國家華語測驗推動工作委員會=SC-TOP.
25. 國家華語測驗推動工作委員會=Steering Committee for the Test Of Proficiency-Huayu(2018).華語文能力測驗技術報告 2016（1）口語測驗信效度.新北=New Taipei:國家華語測驗推動工作委員會=SC-TOP.
26. 鹿士義, Shiyi(2011)。商務漢語考試 (BCT) 閱讀能力與歐盟框架的匹配研究。語言文字應用，1，81-90。
27. 鹿士義, Shiyi(2011)。商務漢語考試 (BCT) 與歐洲語言共同參考框架 (CEFR)的等級標準關係研究。華文教學與研究，2，56-63。
28. 黃婷, Ting賈國棟, Guodong(2012)。語言測試與《歐洲語言共同參考框架》匹配的可行性研究。外語測試與教學，1，38-49。
29. 劉靜觀, Jingguan(2012)。河南=Henan，河南師範大學=Henan Normal University。
30. 藍珮君, Pei-jiun,陳柏熹, Po-hsi張可家, Ko-chia,施泰亨, Tai-heng,林玲英, Ling-ying(2013)。Yes/No Angoff 法在華語文口語測驗的應用。2013 年第二屆標準本位評量國際研討會，臺北=Taipei:
31. 羅蓮, Lian(2017)。漢語分級測試與 CEFR 等級的連接研究。語言文字應用，2，110-118。