1 / 15

COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 2 0 people 16 nations

STUDY GROUP 1. COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 2 0 people 16 nations. Food for thought. Outline. Why (are we interested)? How (have nations been approaching the topic)? What (have we found out so far)? What next?. WHY?.

teigra
Download Presentation

COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons 2 0 people 16 nations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. STUDY GROUP 1 COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK / STANAG 6001 comparisons • 20 people • 16 nations

  2. Food for thought

  3. Outline Why (are we interested)? How (have nations been approaching the topic)? What (have we found out so far)? What next?

  4. WHY? • There is a need to relate STANAG to CEFR in order for • Military personnel to have recognition in civilian society • Civil servants trained within military institutions to have recognised civilian qualifications • There is a need for a “common currency” • WHAT WE NEED IS A MEANS OFCOMPARISON WE CAN RELY ON!

  5. How? • Comparison of testing outcomes (ACTFL) • Comparison of descriptors (ITA, DEU, HUN) • ...

  6. WHAT’S UP? • There are many academic bodies conductingsimilar comparison exercises that should be drawn upon for BILC purposes. Many countries are involved in these initiatives.

  7. WHAT’S BEEN REPORTED? *Level awarded

  8. WHAT’s BEEN PUBLISHED? • University of Westminster: http://www.westminster.ac.uk/schools/humanities/modleb/ • Macmillan English: Campaign – English for the Militaryhttp://www.campaignmilitaryenglish.com/Contact-Us/faq.htm • Centre international d’études pédagogiques – CIEP: http://www.ciep.fr/publi_evalcert/dvd-productions-orales-cecrl/index.php • Informationsstellen der EU-/EWR-Staaten: National Academic Recognition Information Centre – NARIC / Informationsstellen der Staaten des Europarats und der UNESCO, Region Europa: European National Information Centre – ENIC: http://www.enic-naric.net/index.aspx?c=Germany • Rita Green and Dianne Wall: “Language testing in the military: problems, politics and progress”, Sage publications: http://ltj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/22/3/379

  9. WHAT’s BEEN PUBLISHED? • José Ramón Parrondo Rodríguez, Instituto Cervantes 1: “X Seminario de Administradores de Programas Educativos de Cooperación Internacional - „Keynote: Standards in Spanish - language testing, a global perspective“, 11-13 de mayo de 2009 • Jenny Bradshaw, Catherine Kirkup, National Foundation for Educational Research: “Inventory of Language Certification in Europe - A Report to the European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture”, March 2006 • Marianne Driessen, Anja van Kleef and Anthony Fitzpatrick, CINOP, ’s-Hertogenbosch: “Testing languages - From language competency profiles to evidences of proficiency”, April 2007 • Manual for relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Default_en.asp • English Profile Can Do Project – University of Bedfordshire. http://www.beds.ac.uk/research/bmri/crella/cando

  10. WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? • We cannot exactly match STANAG levels and CEFR levels- because the descriptors do not cover the same areas- not all CEFR descriptions include functions/tasks, content/context and accuracy- the language used in the descriptors does not correspond- the approach to formulating the descriptors is different (can do/cannot do vs can do)- the language used in the CEFR is ambiguous

  11. WHAT CAN BE DONE? • A CEFR level can provide information regarding a person’s functional language competence in a given foreign language. European Language Portfolio can provide evidence of this competency. Samples will be achievement in nature. • Comparisons are in the interest of the learner.

  12. WHAT CAN BE DONE? • When lookıng for comparisons between the two scales, it is a fairly good assumption, for purposes of predictability and placement: • If an ındividual is operating at CEFR A 2 level, they are operating in the range of SLP 1 • If an ındividual is operating at B2, they are operating in the range of SLP 2 • If an individual is operating at C1, they are operating in the range of SLP3.

  13. WHAT NEXT? • Are there appropriate mechanisms for providing information about CEFR ‘equivalents’ for STANAG profiles? • Are there appropriate mechanisms for awarding CEFR equivalents for STANAG ratings? • Are there appropriate mechanisms to award STANAG scores for CEFR levels? • Does BILC want to have a process put into place tomake this happen? • What evidence would be acceptable?

  14. Do you know what happens when you combine S T A N A G C E F R - ???

  15. - S T A N A G C E F R - -

More Related