Cover not available
Article published In:
From Theory to Practice: Adopting the Chinese proficiency grading standards for international Chinese language education in North America
Edited by Jie Zhang and Ye Tian
[Chinese as a Second Language (漢語教學研究—美國中文教師學會學報) 58:2] 2023
► pp. 108–128

Approaches in aligning language frameworks

A review

 | Howard University
 | Chongqing University
Research on the alignment of “Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education” with other mainstream language frameworks is in its early stages. To provide practical suggestions for researchers of the Grading Standards, this literature review study investigated general approaches and specific techniques used to align three influential language proficiency frameworks (i.e., the CEFR, ACTFL, and CSE) with each other and with other frameworks. Through a review of alignment studies published between 2000 and 2023, this study introduced both direct and indirect approaches in aligning language frameworks, along with data collection and data analysis techniques associated with each approach. It also highlighted the prerequisites, advantages, and disadvantages of each approach and offered recommendations for future alignment research.
Keywords: language proficiency frameworks alignment, exemplar response method, test-mediated method, descriptor-oriented method
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Language proficiency frameworks
    • 1.2Alignment research of the grading standards
    • 1.3Major L2 language proficiency frameworks and their alignments
    • 1.4Item response theory and the Rasch model
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Article search and selection
    • 2.2Description and analysis of the articles
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Indirect approaches
      • 3.1.1Test-mediated approaches
      • 3.1.2Exemplar response approaches
    • 3.2Direct approach/Descriptor-oriented approach
  • 4.Discussion and conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 September 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/csl.00035.lin
References (52)
References
Alderson, J. C. (1991). Bands and scores. In J. C. Alderson and B. North (eds.). Language Testing in the 1990s (pp.71–86). London: British Council.Google Scholar
(2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1986). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL.Google Scholar
. (1999). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL.Google Scholar
. (2001). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from [URL]
. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. Retrieved August 15, 2018, from [URL]
. (2013). Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teacher (2013) (Initial Level – Undergraduate & Graduate) Retrieved Dec 15, 2018, from [URL]
Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. In Thorndike, R. L. (ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.) (pp.508–600.) Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
Bournot-Trites, M., Barbour, R., Jezak, M., Stewart, G., & Carbonneau, D. B. (2015). Theoretical framework for the Canadian Language Benchmarks/Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens. Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. [URL]
Chalhoub-Deville, M. & Lin, J. (2022). Foreign language testing constructs, frameworks, and assessments. In Susan M. Brookhart (ed.), Routledge resources online – education-assessment. Milton Park: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2009). Content validity considerations in language testing contexts. In R. Lissitz (Ed.), The concept of validity (pp. 241–263). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Chao, Ch. 赵家璧, Lan, P. 蓝珮君, & Chen, P. 陈柏熹. (2016). CEFR 与ACTFL 初级阅读能力描述对应研究：以[儿童华语文能力测验]为媒介. [CEFR yu ACTFL chuji yuedu nengli miaoshu duiying yanjiu: yi Ertong Huayuwen Nengli Ceyan wei meijie: Aligning ACTFL and CEFR proficiency levels: utilizing children’s Chinese competency certification]. 台湾华语教学研究 [Taiwan Huayu Jiaoxue Yanjiu: Taiwan Journal of Chinese as a Second Language], ( 13 ), 41–64.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2012). Seeking solid theoretical ground for the ACTFL-CEFR crosswalk. In E. Tschirner (Ed.), Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference (pp. 35–48). Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Cizek, G. J., & Bunch, M. B. (2007). Standard setting: A guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests. Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe, Council for Cultural Co-operation. Education Committee, Modern Languages Division. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. The Guilford PressGoogle Scholar
Dorans, N. J. (2004). Equating, concordance, and expectation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28 (4), 227–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, G. (2016). Standards and frameworks. In Tsagari, D. & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp.2–12). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, G., Davidson, F., & Kemp, J. (2011). Effective rating scale development for speaking tests: Performance decision trees. Language Testing, 28 (1), 5–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huynh, H., & Meyer, P. (2010). Use of robust Z in detecting unstable items in item response theory models. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 15 (2), 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S. (1997). Standard-setting: An alternative approach. Journal of Educational Measurement 34 1, 353–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jezak, M., & Piccardo, E. (2017). Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) and Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens (NCLC) – Canadian frameworks of reference for languages in the era of glocalization. In M. Jezak (Ed.), Twenty years of the Canadian Language Benchmarks and Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens: Policy, research and practice (pp. 7–31). University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2014). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (3rd ed.). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lan, P. 蓝珮君, Chen, P. 陈柏熹, & Hsu, Ch. 许嘉凌. (2014). 以 TOCFL 连结 CEFR 与 ACTFL: 标准设定程序的应用 [Yi TOCFL lianjie CEFR yu ACTFL: Biaozhun sheding chengxu de yingyong: Aligning the CEFR and ACTFL: utilizing the TOCFL Speaking Test]. 发表于2014年第三届标准本位评量国际研讨会 [Fabiao yu 2014 nian Disanjie Biaozhun Benwei Pingliang Guoji Yantaohui: Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Standards-Based Assessment]. Taiwan.Google Scholar
Lewis, M., Mitzel, H., Mercado, R., & Schulz, M. (2012). The bookmark standard setting procedure. In Cizek, G. (ed). Setting performance standards: Foundations, methods, and innovations. Routledge.Google Scholar
Li, Y. 李亚男 (2021). 《国际中文教育中文水平等级标准》解读 [Guoji Zhongwen Jiaoyu Zhongwen Shuiping Dengji Biaozhun jiedu: An introduction to the Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education]. 国际汉语教学研究 [Guoji Hanyu Jiaoxue Yanjiu: Journal of International Chinese Teaching], 1 1, 24–26.Google Scholar
Liao, Ts. 廖才仪, Lan, P. 蓝珮君, Liang, Ch. 梁绮容, & Chen, P. 陈柏熹. (2022). CEFR 与ACTFL 大纲口语指标对应研究: 以「华语文口语测验」为媒介 [CEFR yu ACTFL dagang kouyu zhibao duiying yanjiu: Yi Huayuwen Kouyu Ceyan wei meijie: Aligning the CEFR Oral Descriptors with the ACTFL Speaking Proficiency Guidelines Based on the TOCFL Speaking Test].华语文教学研究 [Huayuwen Jiaoxue Yanjiu: Journal of Chinese Language Teaching], 19 (2), 1–32.Google Scholar
Lin, C. (2022). Book review: Chinese proficiency grading standards for international Chinese language education. Journal of Sinology, 16 (2), 249–256.Google Scholar
Lin, J. (2024). Developing a reading proficiency scale for Chinese as a second language: a confirmatory factor analysis approach. Language Awareness, 1–27.Google Scholar
Linacre, J. M. (2014). A computer program for the analysis of multifaceted data. Mesa Press.Google Scholar
(2021). A user’s guide to FACETS, Rasch model computer program. [URL]
Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (2001). L2 speaking as proficiency. Paper presented at the annual meeting of AAAL-LTRUAAAL Joint Colloquium. St. Louis, MO.
(2003). The ACTFL proficiency guidelines and the oral proficiency interview: A brief history and analysis of their survival. Foreign Language Annals, 36 (4), 483–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, H., 刘欢 & Liang, X. 梁霞. (2023) 《国际中文教育中文水平等级标准》与《ACTFL 语文能力大纲》对接的必要性、可行性及教学应用. [Guoji Zhongwen Jiaoyu Zhongwen Shuiping Dengji Biaozhun yu ACTFl Yuwen Nengli Dagang duijie de biyaoxing、kexingxing ji jiaoxue yingyong: The necessity, feasibility, and pedagogical implication of aligning the Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education with the ACTFL Language Proficiency Guidelines] 国际汉语教学研究 [Guoji Hanyu Jiaoxue Yanjiu: Journal of International Chinese Teaching], ( 1 ), 11–20.Google Scholar
Liu, J., & Pan, M. (2019). English language teaching in China: Developing language proficiency frameworks. In X. Gao (Ed.), Second handbook of English language teaching (pp. 415–432). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MEPRC & NLSCPRC. (2018). 《中国英语能力等级量表》 [Zhongguo Yingyu Nengli Dengji Liangbiao: China’s Standards of English Language Ability]. 高等教育出版社[Gaodeng Jiaoyu Chubanshe: Higher Education Press].Google Scholar
National Language Commission. (2021). Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education. Beijing Language and Culture University Press.Google Scholar
North, B. (1991). Standardisation of Continuous Assessment Grades. In C. Alderson & B. North (Eds.) Language testing in the 1990s: The communicative legacy (pp.167–177). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
North, B., & Piccardo, E. (2018). Aligning the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) to the Common European Framework of References (CERF). Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks.Google Scholar
(2023). Aligning language frameworks: An example with the CLB and CEFR. Language Assessment Quarterly, 20 (2), 143–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peng, C. (n.d.). Linking China’s Standards of English Language Ability (CSE) to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR): Level Correspondence in Reading Skill. Available at SSRN: [URL]
Peng, C., Liu, J., & Cai, H. (2022). Aligning China’s Standards of English Language Ability with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 31 (6), 667–677. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Denmark’s Paedagogiske Institute.Google Scholar
Slagter, P. J., Surface, E. A., Watson, A. & Wilcox, S. (2012). ACTFL and CEFR scale comparability through perceived and actual writing proficiency. In E. Tschirner (Ed.), Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference (pp. 123–137). Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Swender, E., & Vicars, R. (2014). ACTFL oral proficiency interview tester training manual. Alexandria, VA: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.Google Scholar
Swender, E., Tschirner, E., & Bärenfänger, O. (2012). Comparing ACTFL/ILR and CEFR based reading tests. In E. Tschirner (Ed.), Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference (pp. 123–137). Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Taherbhai, H., & Seo, D. (2013). The philosophical aspects of IRT equating: Modeling drift to evaluate cohort growth in large scale assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 32 (1), 2–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trim, J. (2012). Provo Address. In E. Tschirner (Ed.), Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference (pp. 19–22). Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Tschirner, E., Bärenfänger, O., & Wanner, I. (2012). Assessing evidence of validity of assigning CEFR ratings to the ACTFL oral proficiency interview (OPI) and the oral proficiency interview by computer (OPIc). Institute for Test Research and Development.Google Scholar
Zhao, W., & Coniam, D. (2022). Using Self-Assessments to Investigate Comparability of the CEFR and CSE: An Exploratory Study Using the LanguageCert Test of English. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 4 (1), 169–186.Google Scholar
Zhao, W., Wang, B., Coniam, D., & Xie, B. (2017). Calibrating the CEFR against the China Standards of English for College English vocabulary education in China. Language Testing in Asia, 7 1, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar