IMPACTS OF THE CEFR-ALIGNED LEARNING OUTCOMES IMPLEMENTATION ON ASSESSMENT PRACTICE
Tập 127 Số 6B (2018), Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities
Tập 127 Số 6B (2018)

IMPACTS OF THE CEFR-ALIGNED LEARNING OUTCOMES IMPLEMENTATION ON ASSESSMENT PRACTICE

Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities
https://doi.org/10.26459/hueuni-jssh.v127i6B.4899
Đã xuất bản 2018-10-15
Hai Thi Thanh Le
University of Foreign Languages, Hue University

Tóm tắt

Abstract

This article reports the initial findings on the implementation of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) at tertiary level in Vietnam. It explores the impacts of the CEFR-aligned learning outcomes implementation on assessment practice for non-English major students at Hue University. Semi-structure in-depth interviews were employed. Eight general English (GE) teachers who teach non-English major students at Hue University participated in this qualitative study. The findings showed that GE teachers modified the assessment activities in such a way that can aid their non-English major students achieve the required learning outcomes. The strong impact of the CEFR-aligned outcomes on the assessment practice could be seen in the appearance of CEFR aligned tests and the focus on students’ self and peer assessments. The long-term effect of the activities, which is students’ language proficiency improvement, was difficult to achieve. The issue of extra training on capacity building and professional development for GE teachers at Hue University was thus put forward.

https://doi.org/10.26459/hueuni-jssh.v127i6B.4899
PDF (English)

Tài liệu tham khảo

  1. References
  2. Alderson, J. C. (ed.) (2002). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment: Case Studies. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
  3. Bérešová, J. (2011). The impact of the Common European Framework of Reference on teaching and testing in Central and Eastern European context. Synergies Europe, 6, 177-190.
  4. Bonnet, G. (2007). The CEFR and education policies in Europe. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 669-672.
  5. Byrnes, H. (2007). Developing national language education policies: Reflections on the CEFR. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 679-685.
  6. Casas-Tost, H., & Rovira-Esteva, S. (2014). New models, old patterns? The implementation of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages for Chinese. Linguistics and Education, 27, 30-38.
  7. Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  9. Despagne, C., & Grossi, J. R. (2011). Implementation of the CEFR in the Mexican Context. Synergies Europe, 6, 65-74.
  10. EF Education First (2013), “EF English proficiency index 2013”, available at: www.ef-australia.com.au/epi/ (accessed 10 August 2015).
  11. Faez, F., Majhanovich, S., Taylor, S., Smith, M., & Crowley, K. (2011a). The power of “Can Do” statements: teachers’ perceptions of CEFR-informed instruction in French as a Second Language Classrooms in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 1-19.
  12. Faez, F., Taylor, S., Majhanovich, S., Brown, P., & Smith, M. (2011b). Teachers’ reactions to CEFR’s task-based approach for FSL classrooms. Synergies Europe, 6, 109-120.
  13. Figueras, N. (2007). The CEFR, a lever for the improvement of language professionals in Europe. Modern Language Journal, 673-675.
  14. Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66(4), 477-485. Oxford University Press.
  15. Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
  16. Glover, P. (2011). Using CEFR level descriptors to raise university students’ awareness of their speaking skills. Language Awareness, 20(2), 121-133.
  17. Hoang Van Van (2010). The current situation and issues of the teaching of English in Vietnam (International symposium on the teaching of English in Asia: (2) Locating the teaching of English in Japan in Asian contexts: what we can learn from Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines). Nghiên cứu ngôn ngữ và văn hóa Ritsumeikan, 22(1), 7-18.
  18. Hulstijn, J. H. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language Proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 663-667.
  19. Jones, N., & Saville, N. (2009). European language policy: Assessment, learning, and the CEFR. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 51-63.
  20. Little, D. (2006). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: content, purpose, origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching, 39(3), 167–190.
  21. Little, D. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 645-655.
  22. Mison, S., & Jang, I. C. (2011). Canadian FSL teachers’ assessment practices and needs: Implications for the adoption of the CEFR in a Canadian context. Synergies Europe, 6, 99-108.
  23. MOET (2008). Decision No. 1400/QD-TTg Approval of the Project “Teaching and learning foreign languages in the national educational system for the 2008-2020 period”. Hanoi, September, 2008.
  24. Moonen, M., Stoutjesdijk, E., Graaff, de, R., Corda, A. (2013). Implementing the CEFR in secondary education: Impact on FL teachers' educational and assessment practice. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 23 (2), 226-246.
  25. Nagai, N., & O’Dwyer, F. (2011). The actual and potential impacts of the CEFR on language education in Japan. Synergies Europe, 2011, 141-152.
  26. Nakatani, Y. (2012). Exploring the implementation of the CEFR in Asian contexts: Focus on communication strategies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 771-775.
  27. Nguyen Van Huy & Hamid, M. O. (2015). Educational policy borrowing in a globalized world: A case study of Common European Framework of Reference for languages in a Vietnamese University. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 14(1), 60-74.
  28. Pham Thi Hong Nhung (2012). Applying the CEFR to the teaching and learning English in Vietnam: Advantages and challenges. Journal of Foreign Language Studies, 30, 90-102.
  29. Pham Thi Hong Nhung (2015, November). Setting the CEFR-B1 level as learning outcomes: Non-English major students’ voices. Paper presented at the proceedings of Regional Conference on Interdisciplinary Research in Linguistics and Language Education Hue, Vietnam (pp.53-62). Hue University of Foreign Languages.
  30. Pham Thi Hong Nhung (2017). Chapter 6. Applying the CEFR to renew a general English curriculum: Successes, remaining issues and lessons from Vietnam. In North Brian (Ed.) Critical, constructive assessment of CEFR-informed language teaching in Japan and beyond (pp. 97-117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  31. Takala, S. (2012). The Landscape of Language Testing and Assessment in Europe: Developments and Challenges. Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 8.
  32. Tono, Y., & Negishi, M. (2012). The CEFR-J: Adapting the CEFR for English language teaching in Japan. Framework & Language Portfolio SIG Newsletter, 8, 5-12.
  33. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Ed.). (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. Teachers College Press.
  34. Valax, P. (2011). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: A critical analysis of its impact on a sample of teachers and curricula within and beyond Europe. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Waikato).
  35. Westhoff, G. (2007). Challenges and opportunities of the CEFR for reimagining foreign language pedagogy. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 676-679.