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 likely
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 Main Suite, BEC and
CELS candidates. 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 www.CambridgeESOL.org/recognition
for 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, Cambridge Main Suite, BEC and CELS 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.
