{"title":"论 ACTFL 语言能力指南中描述词的有效性","authors":"Qijie Li, Hao Feng, Yiping Cui","doi":"10.1075/csl.00032.qij","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n ACTFL Language Proficiency Guidelines (hereinafter called Guidelines) are a\n multi-lingual framework mainly based on the language proficiency development of several European languages. Little consideration\n is given to the peculiarity of Chinese. Efforts are made to assess the validity of the descriptors in Guidelines\n in comparison with Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education\n (hereinafter called Standards). A total of five parameters from Guidelines that are not\n compatible with Standards have been selected and two questionnaires compiled by the authors are answered by local\n American Chinese language teachers to evaluate the validity of these descriptors. The study shows that the descriptors in\n Standards are more valid in differentiating language proficiency levels of Chinese. In accordance with this\n study, some revisions and amendments should be made to Guidelines.","PeriodicalId":517052,"journal":{"name":"Chinese as a Second Language (漢語教學研究—美國中文教師學會學報). The journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, USA","volume":"227 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the validity of descriptors in ACTFL Language Proficiency Guidelines\",\"authors\":\"Qijie Li, Hao Feng, Yiping Cui\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/csl.00032.qij\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n ACTFL Language Proficiency Guidelines (hereinafter called Guidelines) are a\\n multi-lingual framework mainly based on the language proficiency development of several European languages. Little consideration\\n is given to the peculiarity of Chinese. Efforts are made to assess the validity of the descriptors in Guidelines\\n in comparison with Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education\\n (hereinafter called Standards). A total of five parameters from Guidelines that are not\\n compatible with Standards have been selected and two questionnaires compiled by the authors are answered by local\\n American Chinese language teachers to evaluate the validity of these descriptors. The study shows that the descriptors in\\n Standards are more valid in differentiating language proficiency levels of Chinese. In accordance with this\\n study, some revisions and amendments should be made to Guidelines.\",\"PeriodicalId\":517052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chinese as a Second Language (漢語教學研究—美國中文教師學會學報). The journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, USA\",\"volume\":\"227 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chinese as a Second Language (漢語教學研究—美國中文教師學會學報). The journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, USA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/csl.00032.qij\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese as a Second Language (漢語教學研究—美國中文教師學會學報). The journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, USA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/csl.00032.qij","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
On the validity of descriptors in ACTFL Language Proficiency Guidelines
ACTFL Language Proficiency Guidelines (hereinafter called Guidelines) are a
multi-lingual framework mainly based on the language proficiency development of several European languages. Little consideration
is given to the peculiarity of Chinese. Efforts are made to assess the validity of the descriptors in Guidelines
in comparison with Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education
(hereinafter called Standards). A total of five parameters from Guidelines that are not
compatible with Standards have been selected and two questionnaires compiled by the authors are answered by local
American Chinese language teachers to evaluate the validity of these descriptors. The study shows that the descriptors in
Standards are more valid in differentiating language proficiency levels of Chinese. In accordance with this
study, some revisions and amendments should be made to Guidelines.