Government and Military Assessment

Brooks, Rachel; Hoffman, Mika

doi:10.1002/9781118411360.wbcla069

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some fifty years after the launch of STANAG 6001, some fundamental problems still prevent it from being a vehicle for full comparability of language proficiency levels across NATO member states. A major issue has to do with interpretability (Brooks & Hoffman, 2013;Dubeau, 2006). Much like the CEFR or the ILR descriptors, the wording in the STANAG 6001 descriptors may be somewhat vague and may leave room for interpretation.…”

Section: Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Much like the CEFR or the ILR descriptors, the wording in the STANAG 6001 descriptors may be somewhat vague and may leave room for interpretation. Additionally, because they include both general purpose and specifically military descriptions of language proficiency the STANAG 6001 descriptors may not always be entirely suited to the specifics of military communication (Brooks & Hoffman, 2013;Fulcher, 2015). Other problems that may impede the optimal operationalization of the STANAG 6001 descriptors in the field include a lack of theoretical basis in second language acquisition theory, and somewhat vague level demarcations (Green & Wall, 2005).…”

Section: Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By the mid-to-late 1970s, the interest in proficiency guidelines and curricula started growing in academic circles (Green & Wall, 2005), and in the 1980s and 1990s a growing concern for accountability helped spur the creation and proliferation of the ACTFL guidelines (Cox et al, 2018;Ricardo-Osorio, 2008). In 1982, ETS and ACTFL had begun work on the development of provisional proficiency guidelines that would translate the ILR scale to an academic context (Brooks & Hoffman, 2013;Liskin-Gasparro, 1984. For a detailed overview of ACTFL's history, see Cox et al, 2018).…”

Section: Actfl: An Academic Language Proficiency Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Standards in language proficiency measurement

Deygers¹

2021

The Routledge Handbook of Language Testing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

encompassing a vast array of contexts. The standards managed by ISO need to meet the key characteristics of a robust industrial standard: exactness, transparency, impartiality, effectiveness, relevance, and coherence (International Organization for Standardization, 2018).Arguably, none of the traditional standards in language testing (e.g., CEFR, ACTFL, etc.) check all six boxes associated with a quality ISO standard. Perhaps the most common problem in language standards, is vagueness or "descriptional inadequacy" (Fulcher et al., 2011, p. 9). Quite possibly, the context-dependency and elusiveness of language proficiency (Hudson, 2012) together with the history and genealogy of the standards in use today help to explain why this is the case. To better understand the standards used in language performance measurement today, this chapter takes a broad and historical perspective. TYPES OF LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY STANDARDSIn this chapter, we distinguish between three types of standards: educational performance indicators (e.g., PISA, PIRLS, NAEP, PIAAC), language proficiency frameworks (e.g., ACTFL, CEFR), and institutionalized language tests (e.g., IELTS, TOEFL). These three types of standards have received wide and often voluntary uptake by a community of users, but serve dissimilar goals.The goal of educational performance indicators is to compare the performance of L2 learners or L1 users by administering the same test in different educational settings. These assessment-driven standards typically focus on a range of domains (e.g., science, mathematics), but often include a linguistic component. Educational performance indicators allow policy makers and researchers to monitor the performance of their own educational system over time, but also trace its international ranking in relation to the educational systems in other states or countries. As such, they aim to impact policy or spur policy change (Singer et al., 2018). International educational performance assessments reside under the auspices of organizations such as IEA (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement) or OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) and often rely on international research teams to conduct and analyze the assessments.

show abstract

Section: Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Actfl: An Academic Language Proficiency Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Standards in language proficiency measurement

Deygers¹

2021

The Routledge Handbook of Language Testing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Uses of Language Assessments

Nguyen¹

2021

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language assessments and tests are used in many contexts and for a variety of purposes. This entry presents their various uses and explains the relationship between language test use and validity. In assessment of individual test takers, language tests can be used for gatekeeping, placement, and diagnostic purposes as well as for assessing learners' achievements. Additionally, language tests are used to evaluate the effectiveness of language programs or for research purposes. Language test use plays a central role in test validation, driving the validity argument. A validity argument provides an overall evaluation of the proposed interpretations and uses of test scores through an analysis of evidence for and against the intended interpretations and uses in addition to their consequences.

show abstract

Government and Military Assessment

Cited by 2 publications

References 7 publications

Standards in language proficiency measurement

Standards in language proficiency measurement

Uses of Language Assessments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About