ارزیابی توانایی شنیداری دانشجویان مهندسی از طریق توصیفگرهای سطح بندی شده CEFR و فعالیت های شنیداری عمومی و آکادمیک

نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه زبان‌های خارجی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران

2 کارشناس ارشد گروه آموزشی زبان‌های خارجی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران

10.22047/ijee.2019.178761.1633

چکیده

هدف از انجام دادن این مطالعه تعیین سطح مهارت شنیداری دانشجویان مهندسی مقطع کارشناسی بر اساس چارچوب اروپایی مشترک مرجع برای زبان‌ها در ((CEFR و همچنین مقایسه خودارزیابی دانشجویان در آزمون خودارزیابی CEFR و دایلنگ با عملکرد واقعی آنها در انجام دادن فعالیت­های شنیداری عمومی و آکادمیک بود. شرکت کنندگان در این مطالعه 200 دانشجوی کارشناسی زن و مرد ایرانی (شامل 148 مرد و 52 زن) در رشته­های مهندسی در دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران بودند. ابزار پژوهش شامل آزمون­های خودارزیابی شنیداری دایلنگ و CEFR و همچنین هشت فعالیت درک شنیداری در چهار سطح (ابتدایی، متوسط، فوق متوسط و پیشرفته) و دو دسته متفاوت آکادمیک و عمومی بود. نتایج تحقیق نشان داد که دانشجویان زن در فعالیت­های شنیداری عمومی و آکادمیک عملکرد بهتری نسبت به همتایان مرد خود داشتند. نتایج همچنین نشان داد که خودارزیابی دانشجویان با عملکرد واقعی آنها در فعالیت شنیداری تطابق ندارد، زیرا هر دو گروه دانشجویان درک شنیداری خود را در آزمون خودارزیابی CEFR و دایلنگ بیشتر از واقع ارزیابی کرده بودند. همچنین تعداد تطابق­ها در آزمون خودارزیابی دایلنگ بیشتر از آزمون خودارزیابی  CEFRو تعداد تطابق­ها درفعالیت­های آکادمیک بیشتراز فعالیت­های عمومی بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Estimating engineering students' listening ability through level-specific CEFR-based descriptors and general and academic listening tasks

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mahboubeh Taghizadeh 1
  • Kafiyeh Asadollahi 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Foreign Languages, Iran University of Science and Technology
2 Instructor, Department of Foreign Languages, Iran University of Science and Technology
چکیده [English]

The purpose of this study was to determine a listening level based on Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for undergraduate students of engineering and also to compare the self-reporting of their listening comprehension on the DIALANG and the CEFR listening self-assessment descriptors with their level on the academic and general listening tasks. The participants of this study were 200 Iranian male and female learners (male=148, female=52) at the BS level at the Iran University of Science and Technology. The instruments of this research were the CEFR and the DIALANG listening self-assessment grids and eight listening comprehension tasks at four levels (i.e., A2, B1, B2, & C1) and in two different genres (academic and general). The results revealed that female learners performed better on the general and academic listening tasks than male learners did. The results also indicated that the learners' self-assessment did not correspond closely with their performance on the listening tasks as both groups rated their listening comprehension higher on the CEFR and DIALANG grids. The number of matches on the DIALANG grid was also greater than that of the CEFR, and the matches on the academic tasks were greater than those of the general tasks.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • academic listening task
  • can do statement
  • CEFR
  • DLALANG
  • Self-assessment
Alderson, C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. London: Continuum.

Alderson, J. C., Figueras, N., Kuijper, H., & Nold, G. (2006). Analysing tests of reading and listening in relation to the common European framework of reference: The experience of the Dutch CEFconstruct project. Language Assessment Quarterly, An International Journal, 3(1), 3-30.

Alvarez, M., & Rice, J. (2006). Web-based tests in second/foreign language self-assessment. The 29th Annual Proceedings, 2, 13-21.

Coste, D. (2007). The common European framework of reference for languages: Traditions, traductions, translations. Synergies Europe, 1, 39-46.

Fallows, S., & Chandramohan, B. (2001). Multiple approaches to assessment: Reflections on use of tutor, peer and self-assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 229-246.

Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66(4), 477-485.

Fok, A. C. Y. Y. (1981). Reliability of student self-assessment. Hong Kong: HKU Language Centre.

Glover, P. (2010). Using CEFR level descriptors to raise university students’ awareness of their speaking skills. Language Awareness, 20(2), 21-133.

Haahr, J. H., & Hansen, M. E. (2006). Adult skills assessment in Europe: Feasibility study. Danish Technological Institute.

Heindler, D. (1980). Teaching English in secondary schools: Third project report. (English at comprehensive schools [3. Project Report]). Klagenfurt, Austria: Government Ministry for Art and Education. Center for Experimental School Education and Development (Federal Ministry of Education and Art, Center for School Trials and School Development).

Hulstijn, J. H., Aldersen, J. C., & Schoonen, R. (2010). Developmental stages in second-language acquisition and levels of second-language proficiency: Are there links between them? In I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.). Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 11-20). Netherlands: European Second Language Association.

Kim, A. Y. (2011). Examining second language reading components in relation to reading test performance for diagnostic purposes: A fusion model approach (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Teachers College, Columbia University.

Lee, V. L. (1981). Terminological and conceptual revision in the experimental analysis of language development: Why. Behaviorism, 9, 25-53.

Little, D. (2005). The common European framework and the European language portfolio: Involving learners and their judgments in the assessment process. Language Testing, 22, 321-336.

Low, G. D. (1982). The direct testing of academic writing a second language. System, 10, 247-57.

Martyniuk, W. (2005). Relating language examinations to the council of Europe’s common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR). Multilingualism and Assessment: Achieving Transparency, Assuring Quality, Sustaining Diversity-Proceedings of the ALTE Conference, Berlin.

Negishi, M., Takada, T., & Tono, Y. (2013). A progress report on the development of the CEFR-J. In E. D. Galaczi, and C. J. Weir (Eds.). Exploring language frameworks: Proceedings of the ALTE Kraków Conference (pp. 135-163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

North, B. (2007). The CEFR: Development, theoretical and practical issues. Babylonia, 1, 22-29.

North, B., & Schneider, G. (1998). Scaling descriptors for language proficiency scales. Language Testing, 15(2), 217-262.

Oscarson, M. (1989). Self-assessment of language proficiency: Rationale and applications. Language Testing, 6(1), 1-13.

Ross, J. A. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 11(10), 1-13.

Runnels, J. (2013). Preliminary validation of the A1 and A2 sub-levels of the CEFR-J. Shiken Research Bulletin, 17(1), 3-10.

Sadlier, L., van den Bogaerde, B., & Oyserman, J. (2012). Preliminary collaborative steps in establishing CEFR sign language levels. In D. Tsagari & I. Csépes (Eds.). Language testing and evaluation: Collaboration in language testing and assessment (185-197). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Taghizadeh, M., Alavi, S. M., & Rezaee, A. A. (2015). Diagnosing the Iranian L2 writing ability using self-Assessment and level specific approaches. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 34(1), 145-173.

Von Elek, T. (1982). Test of Swedish as a second language: An experiment in self-assessment. Gothenburg University: Language Teaching Research Center.

Yoneoka, J. (2005). The striking similarity between Korean and Japanese English vocabulary: Historical and linguistic relationships. Asian Englishes, 8(1), 26-47.

Zhang, S., & Thompson, N. (2004). DIALANG: A diagnostic language assessment system. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(2), 290-293.