Common European Framework
Test users frequently ask how IELTS scores
‘compare’ with scores from other examinations (including those
produced by the University of Cambridge
ESOL Examinations); they also want to know how IELTS
‘maps’ onto the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR)
published by the Council of Europe (2001).
An article discussing the notion of ‘test
comparability’ in Cambridge ESOL’s Research Notes (Issue 15, Feb
2004) explains how the different design, purpose and format of the
examinations make it very difficult to give exact comparisons
across different tests and test scores, even when the scores they
generate are used for similar purposes. Candidates’ aptitude and
preparation for a particular type of
test will also vary from individual to
individual (or group to group), and some candidates are more l
ikely to perform better in certain tests than
in others.
Cambridge ESOL has been working since the mid
1990s to gain a better understanding of the
relationship between its different assessment
products, in both conceptual and empirical terms. The conceptual
framework presented in Research Notes 15 (page 5) showed strong
links between the suites of level-based tests, i.e. Main Suite,
BEC, CELS and YLE. These links derive from the fact that tests
within these suites are targeted at similar
ability levels as defined by a common measurement scale (based on
latent trait methods); many are also similar in terms of test
content and design
(multiple skills components, similar
task/item-types, etc). Work completed under the ALTE Can Do Project
also established a coherent link between the ALTE/Cambridge Levels
and the Common European Framework of Reference (see Jones,
2001).
The relationship of IELTS with the other
Cambridge ESOL tests and with the Common European Framework of
Reference is rather more complex; IELTS is not a level-based test
(like FCE or CPE) but is designed to stretch across a much broader
proficiency continuum. So when seeking to compare IELTS band scores
with scores on other tests, it is important to bear in mind the
differences in test purpose, measurement scale, test format and
test-taker populations for which IELTS was originally designed.
Figure 1 in the Research Notes 15 article acknowledged this complex
relationship by maintaining a distance between the IELTS scale (on
the far right) and the other tests and levels located within the
conceptual framework.
Since the late 1990s, Cambridge ESOL has
conducted a number of research projects to explore how IELTS band
scores align with the Common European Framework levels. In 1998 and
1999 internal studies examined the relationship between IELTS and
the Cambridge Main Suite Examinations, specifically CAE (C1 level)
and FCE (B2 level). Under test conditions, candidates took
experimental reading tests containing both IELTS and CAE or FCE
tasks. Although the studies were limited in scope, results
indicated that a candidate who achieves a Band 6.5 in IELTS would
be likely to achieve a passing grade at CAE (C1 level).
Further research was conducted in 2000 as part
of the ALTE Can Do Project in which Can-do responses by IELTS
candidates were collected over the year and matched to their
grades; this enabled Can-do self-ratings of IELTS and Main Suite
candidates to be compared. The results, in terms of mean ‘can-do
self-ratings’, supported placing IELTS Band 6.5 at the C1 level of
the CEFR alongside CAE.
More recently, attention has focused on
comparing IELTS candidates’ writing performance with that of
candidates taking Cambridge ESOL exams. This work forms part of
Cambridge ESOL’s Common Scale for Writing Project – a long-term
research project which has been in progress since the mid-1990s
(see Hawkey and Barker, 2004). Results confirm that, when different
proficiency levels and different domains are taken into account, a
strong Band 6 performance in IELTS Writing (IELTS Speaking and
Writing do not currently report half-bands) corresponds broadly to
a passing performance at CAE (C1 level).
Additional evidence for the alignment of IELTS with other
Cambridge ESOL examinations and with the Common European Framework
of Reference comes from the comparable use made of IELTS, CPE, CAE
and BEC Higher test scores by educational and other institutions
(see for www.CambridgeESOL.org more
details).
The accumulated evidence to date - both
logical and empirical - means that the conceptual framework
presented in Research Notes 15 in Feb 2004 has now been revised to
accommodate IELTS more closely within its frame of reference.
Figure 1 below illustrates how the IELTS band scores and Cambridge
ESOL examinations align with one other and with the levels of the
Common European Framework of Reference and the UK National
Qualifications Framework. Note that the IELTS band scores referred
to are the overall band scores, not the individual module band
scores.
Figure 1:
It is important to recognise that the purpose
of Figure 1 is to communicate relationships between tests and
levels in broad terms within a common frame of reference; they
should not be interpreted as reflecting strong claims about exact
equivalence between assessment products or the scores they
generate, for the reasons explained in Research Notes 15.
The current alignment is based upon a growing
body of internal research, combined with long established
experience of test use within education and society, as well as
feedback from a range of test stakeholders regarding the uses of
test results for particular purposes. As we grow in our
understanding of the relationship between IELTS, other examinations
and the CEFR levels, so the frame of reference may need to be
revised accordingly.
References
- Hawkey, R and Barker, F (2004) Developing a common scale for
the assessment of writing, Assessing Writing, 9 (2), 122-159.
- Jones, N and Hirtzel, M (2001) Appendix D:
The ALTE ‘Can Do’ Statements, in the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Council of
Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Morrow, K (2004) (Ed.) Insights from the
Common European Framework, Oxford: Oxford University Press.