The B2 Level and the Dream of a Common Standard

In Flanders, Belgium, university admission of undergraduate international L2 students requires a certificate of an accredited test of Dutch. The two main university entrance tests used for certification share highly comparable oral components and CEFR-based oral rating criteria. This article discuss...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Language assessment quarterly 2018-01, Vol.15 (1), p.44-58
Main Authors: Deygers, Bart, Van Gorp, Koen, Demeester, Thomas
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
College Admission
College Entrance Examinations
College students
Comparative Analysis
Correlation
Dutch language
Educational standards
Evaluation Criteria
Foreign Countries
Foreign Students
Indo European Languages
Item Response Theory
Language proficiency
Language Tests
Measures
Oral Language
Rasch model
Rating Scales
Regression (Statistics)
Scores
Second language tests
Undergraduate Students
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In Flanders, Belgium, university admission of undergraduate international L2 students requires a certificate of an accredited test of Dutch. The two main university entrance tests used for certification share highly comparable oral components and CEFR-based oral rating criteria. This article discusses to what extent ratings on the oral components of these tests can be compared. The data used are the ratings of the oral performances of the same 82 candidates on both oral test components, which were administered within the same week. The correlation on the overall scores is high, but lower on the oral test component. Further analyses, including linear regression and multifaceted Rasch analysis, indicate that the B2 level was interpreted differently in the two tests. The results show that using the same language proficiency scales as the basis for rating scale criteria may lead to superficial correspondences or a perceived equivalence but does not necessarily lead to greater comparability of shared criteria. The findings of this study are especially useful for contexts in which different tests use similar criteria that are based on the same descriptors, and comparability is only assumed.
ISSN:1543-4303
1543-4311
DOI:10.1080/15434303.2017.1421955