Assessing Spoken Performance in relation to the Common European Framework of Reference

Brian North
Zürich

L’évaluation des compétences orales comprend deux aspects: a) la récolte d’éléments divers pour une performance et b) le jugement de la qualité de la performance. L’évaluation 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 l’enseignant/avec un autre élève.
Des exemples d’une approche particulière dans l’esprit de “bias for best” et tendant à l’autonomie sont illustrés dans un DVD pour l’anglais et un pour le français produits par le CERL. En effet, un des problèmes majeurs de l’évaluation de l’orale est lié à la difficulté d’établir une interprétation commune des critères. Il s’agit donc de vérifier que les examinateurs utilisent réellement ces critères et ne se basent pas sur une vision subjective des niveaux.
L’article présente des stratégies pour surmonter ce type de difficultés ainsi que des moyens pour comparer différents matériels d’évaluation 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@remove-this.eurocentres.com or
Johanna.Panthier@remove-this.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@remove-this.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. [...]