The Common European Framework in its political and educational context What is the Common European Framework?
Download 5.68 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
CEFR EN
Definiteness: Descriptors should describe concrete tasks and/or concrete degrees of
skill in performing tasks. There are two points here. Firstly, the descriptor should avoid vagueness, like, for example ‘Can use a range of appropriate strategies’. What is meant by strategy? Appropriate to what? How should we interpret ‘range’? The problem with vague descriptors is that they can read quite nicely, but an apparent ease of acceptance can mask the fact that everyone is interpreting them differently. Secondly, since the 1940s, it has been a principle that distinctions between steps on a scale should not be dependent on replacing a qualifier like ‘some’ or ‘a few’ with ‘many’ or ‘most’ or by replacing ‘fairly broad’ with ‘very broad’ or ‘moderate’ with ‘good’ at the next level up. Distinctions should be real, not word-processed and this may mean gaps where meaningful, concrete distinctions cannot be made. • Clarity: Descriptors should be transparent, not jargon-ridden. Apart from the barrier to understanding, it is sometimes the case that when jargon is stripped away, an apparently impressive descriptor can turn out to be saying very little. Secondly, they should be written in simple syntax with an explicit, logical structure. • Brevity: One school of thought is associated with holistic scales, particularly those used in America and Australia. These try to produce a lengthy paragraph which Appendix A: developing proficiency descriptors 206 Table A1. Assessment: positive and negative criteria Positive Negative • has a repertoire of basic language and • has a narrow language repertoire, strategies which enables him or her to demanding constant rephrasing and deal with predictable everyday situations. searching for words. (ESU Level 3) (Eurocentres Level 3: certificate) • basic repertoire of language and • limited language proficiency causes strategies sufficient for most everyday frequent breakdowns and needs, but generally requiring misunderstandings in non-routine compromise of the message and searching situations. (Finnish Level 2) for words. (Eurocentres Level 3: assessor • communication breaks down as language grid) constraints interfere with message. (ESU Level 3) • vocabulary centres on areas such as basic • has only a limited vocabulary. (Dutch objects, places, and most common Level 1) • kinship terms. (ACTFL Novice) • limited range of words and expressions hinders communication of thoughts and ideas. (Gothenburg U) • produces and recognises a set of words • can produce only formulaic utterances and short phrases learnt by heart. (Trim lists and enumerations. (ACTFL Novice) 1978 Level 1) • can produce brief everyday expressions • has only the most basic language in order to satisfy simple needs of a repertoire, with little or no evidence of a concrete type (in the area of salutation, functional command of the language. information, etc.). (Elviri; Milan Level 1 (ESU Level 1) 1986) comprehensibly covers what are felt to be the major features. Such scales achieve ‘definiteness’ by a very comprehensive listing which is intended to transmit a detailed portrait of what raters can recognise as a typical learner at the level concerned, and are as a result very rich sources of description. There are two disadvantages to such an approach however. Firstly, no individual is actually ‘typical’. Detailed features co-occur in different ways. Secondly, a descriptor which is longer than a two clause sentence cannot realistically be referred to during the assessment process. Teachers consistently seem to prefer short descriptors. In the project which produced the illustrative descriptors, teachers tended to reject or split descriptors longer than about 25 words (approximately two lines of normal type). • Download 5.68 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling