4.3 Article

Generalizability of CEFR Criterial Grammatical Features in a Korean EFL Corpus across A1, A2, B1, and B2 Levels

期刊

LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT QUARTERLY
卷 18, 期 3, 页码 273-295

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15434303.2020.1855647

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent research identified grammatical criterial features for each CEFR proficiency level, but further investigation is needed to understand how English learners with different first language backgrounds use these features. While the use of criterial features became more frequent and widespread as proficiency levels increased, there were low frequencies of these features overall. Furthermore, discrepancies between criterial level and learner proficiency were observed, highlighting the potential influence of first language, test and task type, and rating on the study findings.
Recent research conducted as part of the English Profile identified grammatical criterial features that are characteristic of each Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) proficiency level. The extent to which these criterial features attest in English learners of various first language backgrounds call for an empirical examination. In this study, I investigated the use of the criterial features drawing upon a Korean EFL corpus. Data consisted of 6,486 essays produced by 3,243 Korean college students from A1 to B2 CEFR proficiency levels. I examined how 35 criterial features which pertain to levels A2, B1, and B2 attested in this corpus. Overall, although more frequent and wide use of the features was observed as proficiency level advanced, the features occurred in low frequencies. I also found some misalignments between the criterial level of the features and learner proficiency. I discuss the potential influence of first language, test and task type, and rating on the findings of this study. Moreover, I raise the need to reconsider the criteriality of the identified features depending on the context when adopting and applying them in local assessment contexts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据