|
Assessing Spoken
Performance in relation to the Common European Framework of Reference
Brian North
Zürich
Lévaluation des compétences
orales comprend deux aspects: a) la récolte déléments
divers pour une performance et b) le jugement de la qualité
de la performance. Lévaluation suppose une tâche
qui permette de produire différents types de discours.
Quelques variables-clé: production/interaction, thème
reçu/thème choisi, présentation préparée/discussion
spontanée, interaction avec lenseignant/avec un autre
élève.
Des exemples dune approche particulière dans lesprit
de bias for best et tendant à lautonomie
sont illustrés dans un DVD pour langlais et un pour
le français produits par le CERL. En effet, un des problèmes
majeurs de lévaluation de lorale est lié
à la difficulté détablir une interprétation
commune des critères. Il sagit donc de vérifier
que les examinateurs utilisent réellement ces critères
et ne se basent pas sur une vision subjective des niveaux.
Larticle présente des stratégies pour surmonter
ce type de difficultés ainsi que des moyens pour comparer
différents matériels dévaluation régionaux.
|
Perhaps the major problem in oral assessment is assuring that
there is a common interpretation of the assessment criteria concerned.
With regard to assessment in relation to the Common European Framework
of Reference (CEFR) (Council of Europe 2001), this means a common
interpretation of the CEFR levels.
1. CEFR Standardisation Videos
To assist in achieving a common interpretation of the levels and
criterion descriptors when assessing spoken performance in relation
to the CEFR a DVD for French has been released this summer by
the CIEP and Eurocentres (Lepage et North 2005a). This DVD is
the product of the first international benchmarking conference
in relation to the CEFR held in Sèvres in December 2005
for the Council of Europe by the CIEP and Eurocentres and for
which the report (Lepage and North 2005b, 2005c) is available
with documentation to the DVD on the Council of Europe website
www.coe.int/lang. One third of the 38 participants at this seminar
were from the CIEP and Eurocentres France, whilst the others were
from the Alliance Française and other language schools
in France, plus French specialists and CEFR specialists from around
Europe. The DVD provides 23 calibrated spoken performances by
young adults of 14 nationalities at all levels from below A1 to
C2. A video for English of samples calibrated to the CEFR was
also produced by Eurocentres and the Migros club schools in late
2003 (North and Hughes 2003) based on recordings of Swiss adult
learners made during the research project that produced the CEFR
levels and descriptors (North and Schneider 1998; North 2000;
Schneider and North 2000). Information on the French and English
videos can be obtained from bjnorth@eurocentres.com or
Johanna.Panthier@coe.int. DVDs for German and Italian will appear
early next year as a follow-up to seminars being organised by
the Goethe Institute and the University of Perugia on the Sèvres
model taking place in late 2005. Plans for a Spanish DVD also
exist. Information on progress with the German, Italian and Spanish
DVDs can be obtained from Waldemar.Martyniuk@coe.int.
2. Assessment in Relation to the CEFR
The assessment of spoken language proficiency consists of two
aspects: (a) the elicitation of a sample of performance and (b)
the judgement of the quality of that performance. In order for
any comparisons to be made between the results obtained in the
assessment and in order for any generalisations to be made between
those assessment results and the results obtained by other candidates
on other assessments, some form of standardisation as regards
both the tasks performed and the interpretation of the criteria
is necessary. Clearly there are limits in the extent to which
such standardisation is achievable or desirable in a European
context. The CEFR is not an exercise in European harmonisation;
it is a tool intended to help language professionals to reflect
on their current practice and to adopt a similar metalanguage
in order to communicate with each other about the decisions they
take. Those decisions should be defined by the context; the CEFR
is not in any way intended to prescribe what the results of those
decisions should be. [...]
|