No abstract

No abstract

One of the central challenges faced by UNIcert ® , a system of certification for university language courses, is the establishment of comparability across languages and institutions at each proficiency level. But how is this to be achieved in practice? One possible approach is the one adopted by the project "Qualitative calibration of UNIcert ® Level I -Writing Skills ", in which representatives of nine universities developed and implemented non-language-specific writing tasks and rating grids for UNIcert ® Level I (B1). The article provides a detailed account of the background, aims and practical procedures of this quality assurance project. On the basis of sample student texts elicited within the project, it also discusses the methodological possibilities and limitations of a non-language-specific analysis and comparison of performance levels.Kurzfassung: Die Herstellung von Vergleichbarkeit der UNIcert ® -Niveaustufen über Sprach-und Institutionsgrenzen hinweg gehört zu den zentralen Herausforderungen des hochschulspezifischen Ausbildungs-und Zertifizierungssystems. Doch wie lässt sich diese Vergleichbarkeit in der Praxis herstellen? Einen mög-lichen Ansatz verfolgte das Projekt Qualitative Kalibrierung der Stufe UNIcert ® I -Schriftlicher Ausdruck, in dem Vertreter aus neun Hochschulen sprachenübergreifend Aufgaben zum schriftlichen Ausdruck für die Stufe UNIcert ® I (B1) sowie einheitlich einsetzbare Bewertungsraster entwickelten und einsetzten. Der Beitrag stellt die Hintergründe und Zielsetzung sowie das praktische Vorgehen innerhalb des Projektes zur Qualitätssicherung vor. Zudem werden die methodischen Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer sprachenübergreifenden Analyse und Vergleichbarkeit von Niveaustufen anhand der im Rahmen des Projektes erhobenen studentischen Textbeispiele diskutiert.

No abstract

This volume contains 13 articles based on papers given at a special workshop entitled "European Second Language Acquisition Research," which was held at the 1985 LSA/TESOL Summer Institute at Georgetown University. Intended as a follow-up to the workshop, the book aims to inform American linguists about projects in Europe. Can it really be necessary to hold workshops and publish collections like this in order to publicize the extensive research being done on the area of second language acquisition in Europe? This is regrettable. However, things may have changed since 1985. As the editor admits, the scope promised in "Current Trends" and "European SLA Research" is somewhat exaggerated. The fact is, it would be impossible to provide a comprehensive account of the vast fund of methodological approaches and topics currently under discussion in European SLA research. This collection is, however, impressive in the way in which it succeeds in conveying how controversial trends exist side by side in European SLA research. SLA remains a flexible label that unites the most diverse research interests. Despite this variety, it is possible to identify four main topics among the articles. The first is that of tutored language acquisition in adults and children. Contributions by ESF researchers Dietrich, Noyau, and Veronique examine the referential verbal means employed by elementary learners. The third topic consists of typological considerations by Hyltenstam and Sharwood Smith. Finally, the interaction between source and target language/culture is examined from different perspectives by Lethonen, Dechert, Titone, Noyau, Ringbom, Sharwood Smith, and Oksaar. Almost all the contributions give empirical accounts of European SLA situations. The book as a whole mirrors the increasing interest that is being shown in the inclusion of cognitive categories and processes in SLA research. The book is divided into four sections. In the first, theoretical/methodological part, Dietrich deals with the question of the structure of elementary learner lexicon and the areas that develop first. Differentiating between the categories of "noun" (i.e., object reference) and "verb" (i.e., predication), he puts forward the hypothesis that "nominal" development is more pronounced at the outset of the acquisition process and that "verbal" development is more gradual. In first language (LI) acquisition, similar differences are seen to be based on cognitive development. In the case of second language (L2) acquisition, Dietrich's observations would indicate a link with important everyday activities for which adult learners at first employ nominal referential means. Hyltenstam uses selected syntactical and phonological data to demonstrate that the criterion of "typological markedness" can be used in SLA research to describe data and to predict developmental sequences and transfer. Lethonen presents reaction time latencies as an aid in analyzing competent (i.e., automatized perception and production) linguistic behavior. In the second section, which deals w...