Yabancı Dil Eğitiminde Kullanılan Dil Yeterlik Çerçeveleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Öz

Dil yeterlilik çerçeveleri, dil öğretimi, öğrenimi ve değerlendirme süreçlerine rehberlik eden sistematik kılavuzlardır. Bu çalışmada yabancı dil eğitiminde yaygın olarak kullanılan “Amerikan Yabancı Dil Eğitimi Konseyi Yeterlik Kılavuzu”, “Kanada Dil Ölçütleri” ve “Diller için Avrupa Ortak Başvuru Metni” dil yeterlik çerçevesi bağlamında incelenmiştir. Bu çerçevelerin dil becerilerini nasıl tanımladığı ve yapılandırdığı değerlendirilmiş, gelişim süreçleri ve günümüzdeki kullanım alanları saptanmıştır. Bu çerçevelerin dil eğitimi politikalarına etkileri, öğretim programları ile ölçme ve değerlendirme süreçlerinde nasıl kullanıldıkları ele alınmıştır. Çerçevelerin, dil yeterlik seviyelerinin belirlenmesi, eğitim standartlarının oluşturulması ve uluslararası dil testlerinin geliştirilmesi açısından sağladığı katkılar incelenmiştir. Ayrıca, yapılan ampirik çalışmalar gözden geçirilerek, geçerlilik, güvenilirlik ve pedagojik kullanışlılık açısından elde edilen bulgular ortaya konmuştur. Çalışmada, bu üç çerçevenin dil öğretiminde sunduğu imkânlar ve sınırlılıklar ayrıntılı olarak değerlendirilmiş, farklı bağlamlarda nasıl uygulandıkları analiz edilmiştir. Çerçevelerin yabancı dil öğrenen bireyler, öğretmenler ve eğitim kurumları üzerindeki etkileri ele alınmış ve farklı eğitim bağlamlarına yönelik çıkarımlarda bulunulmuştur. Ayrıca, her çerçevenin belirli bağlamlarda sunduğu avantajlar ve karşılaşılan zorluklar incelenmiş, farklı eğitim sistemlerinde uygulanabilirliği tartışılmıştır. Son olarak, bu çerçevelerin yabancı dil eğitiminde daha etkin kullanılabilmesi için öneriler geliştirilmiştir. Çalışmanın, yabancı dil eğitimi ile ilgilenen politika yapıcılar, öğretmenler ve araştırmacılara yönelik kapsamlı bir kaynak sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Amerikan yabancı dil eğitimi konseyi yeterlik kılavuzu
• diller için Avrupa ortak başvuru metni
• dil yeterlik çerçeveleri
• Kanada dil ölçütleri
• yabancı dil eğitimi

An Analysis of Language Proficiency Frameworks Used in Foreign Language Education

Öz

Language proficiency frameworks serve as systematic guidelines that guide language teaching, learning, and assessment processes. This study examines three widely used language proficiency frameworks in foreign language education: “the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Proficiency Guidelines”, “the Canadian Language Benchmarks” and “the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages”. These frameworks have been evaluated in terms of how they define and structure language skills, and their development processes and current applications have been identified. The study also explores their impact on language education policies, as well as their integration into curriculum design and assessment practices. Their contributions to determining language proficiency levels, establishing educational standards, and developing international language tests have been examined. Additionally, empirical studies have been reviewed to present key findings regarding their validity, reliability, and pedagogical applicability. This study provides a detailed analysis of the opportunities and limitations these frameworks offer in language teaching, assessing their implementation in various contexts. The influence of these frameworks on language learners, teachers, and educational institutions have been explored, and insights into their applicability in different educational settings have been discussed. Furthermore, the advantages and challenges associated with each framework have been examined, along with their potential for integration into diverse educational systems. Finally, recommendations have been proposed for enhancing the effective use of these frameworks in foreign language education. This study aims to serve as a comprehensive resource for policymakers, educators, and researchers in the field of foreign language education.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ACTFL
• Canadian Language Benchmarks
• CEFR
• Foreign Language Education Language Proficiency Frameworks

Kaynakça

1. Alih, N. A. C., Raof, A. H. A., & Yusof, M. A. M. (2021). Policy change implementation: The case of the CEFR in Malaysian ESL classrooms. Journal of Nusantara Studies (JONUS), 6(2), 296-317.
2. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1986). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. ACTFL.
3. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1999). ACTFL proficiency guidelines – Speaking. ACTFL.
4. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2001). ACTFL proficiency guidelines – Writing. ACTFL.
5. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012a). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. ACTFL.
6. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012b). ACTFL performance descriptors for language learners. ACTFL.
7. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2017). NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements. ACTFL.
8. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2024). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. ACTFL.

9. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (t.y.). ACTFL Language Connects. Web: https://www.actfl.org adresinden 21 Ağustos 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
10. Apedaile, S. & Whitelaw, C. (2012). Roots and connections: A culturally integrated approach to EAL instruction. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL Du Canada, 30(1), 127-138.
11. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.
12. Bachman, L, F. (2007). What is the construct? The dialectic of abilities and contexts in defining constructs in language assessment. In J. Fox, M. Wesche, D. Bayliss, & L. Cheng (Eds.), Language testing reconsidered (pp. 41-47). University of Ottawa Press.
13. Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford University Press.
14. Bachman, F. & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.
15. Bournot-Trites, M., Friesen, L., Ruest, C. & Zumbo, B. (2020). A Made-in-Canada second language framework for K-12 education: Another case where no prophet is accepted in their own land. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique Appliquée, 23(2), 141-167.
16. British Council, UK Association for Language Testing and Assessment (UKALTA), European Association for Language Testing and Assessment (EALTA), & Association for Language Testers in Europe (ALTE). (2022). Aligning language education with the CEFR: A handbook. Web: https://ealta.eu/ adresinden 20 Ağustos 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
17. Campbell, C., MacPherson, S. & Sawkins, T. (2014). Preparing students for education, work, and community: Activity theory in task-based curriculum design. TESL Canada Journal, 31(8), 68-92.
18. Canale, M. (1983). On some dimensions of language proficiency. In J. W. Oller (Ed.), Issues in language testing research (pp. 333-342). Newbury House.
19. Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z. & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 5-35.
20. Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. (t.y.). Home. Web: https://www.language.ca/home/ adresinden 21 Ağustos 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
21. Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research. In L. F. Bachman, & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 32-70). Cambridge University Press.
22. Chapelle, C. A. (2021). Argument-based validation in testing and assessment. Sage..
23. Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. M. (Eds.). (2008). Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language. Routledge.
24. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (1996). Canadian language benchmarks: English as a second language for adults/English as a second language for literacy learners (working document). Ministry of Supply and Services of Canada.
25. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2012). Canadian language benchmarks: English as a second language for adults. Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
26. Clifford, R. & Cox, T.L. (2013). Empirical validation of reading proficiency guidelines. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 45-61.
27. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, and assessment. Cambridge University Press.
28. Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment–Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing.
29. Council of Europe. (t.y.). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Web: https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages adresinden 21 Ağustos 2025 tarihinde alınmıştır.
30. Cox, T.L. & Clifford, R. (2014). Empirical validation of listening proficiency guidelines. Foreign Language Annals, 47, 379-403.
31. Desyatova, Y. (2020). Comments from the chalkface margins: Teachers’ experiences with a language standard, Canadian Language Benchmarks. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 193-219.
32. Deygers, B., Zeidler, B., Vilcu, D. & Carlsen, C. H. (2018). One framework to unite them all? Use of the CEFR in European university entrance policies. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(1), 3-15.
33. Díez-Bedmar, M. B. & Byram, M. (2019). The current influence of the CEFR in secondary education: Teachers' perceptions. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 32(1), 1-15.
34. Doe, C., Douglas, S. & Cheng, L. (2019). Mapping language use and communication challenges to the Canadian language benchmarks and CELPIP-General LS within workplace contexts for Canadian new immigrants. Paragon Testing Enterprises.
35. Fişne, F. N., Güngör, M. N., Guerra, L. & Gonçalves, O. (2018). A CEFR-based comparison of ELT curriculum and course books used in Turkish and Portuguese primary schools. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 12(2), 129-151.
36. Fulcher, G. (2016). Standards and frameworks İçinde D. Tsagari ve J. Banerjee (Ed.), Handbook of Second Language Assessment (pp. 29-44). De Gruyter Mouton.
37. Hancock, C. R., Adams, M. J., & Kissau, S. (2023). The relationship between proficiency-based instruction and student oral proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 56, 280-298.
38. Harsch, C. & Hartig, J. (2015). What are we aligning tests to when we report test alignment to the CEFR? Language Assessment Quarterly, 12(4), 333-362.
39. Harsch, C. & Malone, M. (2020). Language proficiency frameworks and scales. In P. Winke, & T. Brunfaut. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing (pp. 33-44). Taylor & Francis Group.
40. Ilc, G., & Stopar, A. (2015). Validating the Slovenian national alignment to CEFR: The case of the B2 reading comprehension examination in English. Language Testing, 32(4), 443-462.
41. Levy, M. & Figueras, N. (2022). The action-oriented approach in the CEFR and the CEFR companion volume: A change of paradigm(s)? A case study from Spain. İçinde D. Little, E. Ushioda ve A. Neus (Ed.), Reflecting on the Common European Framework of Reference for language education (s. 63-80). Multilingual Matters.
42. Lin, J. (2023). ACTFL Chinese reading proficiency guidelines: Verifying the difficulty hierarchy. Foreign Language Annals, 56(3), 667-689.
43. Mohamed, S. (2023). The development of an Arabic curriculum framework based on a compilation of salient features from CEFR level descriptors. The Language Learning Journal, 51(1), 33-47.
44. Mudzingwa, C. (2020). The quest for standardization: The Canadian federal government and the Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Program. BC TEAL Journal, 5(1), 55-74.
45. Nagai, N., & O’Dwyer, F. (2011). The actual and potential impacts of the CEFR on language education in Japan. Synergies Europe, 6, 141-152.
46. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine. (2020). A principled approach to language assessment: Considerations for the U.S. Foreign Service Institute. National Academies Press.
47. Negishi, M. (2022). The impact of the CEFR in Japan. İçinde D. Little, E. Ushioda ve A. Neus (Ed.), Reflecting on the Common European Framework of Reference for language education (s. 11-22). Multilingual Matters.
48. Norris, J. M., & Pfeiffer, P. C. (2003). Exploring the uses and usefulness of ACTFL oral proficiency ratings and standards in college foreign language departments. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 572-581.
49. North, B. (2008). The relevance of the CEFR to teacher training. Babylonia, 2, 55-57.
50. North, B. (2014). The CEFR in practice. Cambridge University Press.
51. North, B. & Piccardo, E. (2023). Aligning language frameworks: An example with the CLB and CEFR. Language Assessment Quarterly, 20(2), 143-165.
52. Oller, J. W. (1979). Language tests at school. Longman.
53. Phakiti, A. (2008). Construct validation of Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) strategic competence model over time in EFL reading tests. Language Testing, 25(2), 237-272.
54. Piccardo, E. (2019). TIRF language education in review – The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in language education: Past, present, and future. TIRF & Laureate International Universities.
55. Purpura, J. E. (1998). Investigating the effects of strategy use and second language test performance with high- and low-ability groups: A structural equation modeling approach. Language Testing, 15(3), 333-379.
56. Shin, S. (2013). Proficiency scales. In Carol A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 2-7). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
57. Surface, R. & Dierdorff, E. (2003). Reliability and the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview: Reporting indices of interrater consistency and agreement for 19 languages. Foreign Language Annals, 36(4), 507-519.
58. Surface, R., & Dierdorff, E. (2004). Preliminary reliability and validity findings for the ACTFL Writing Proficiency Test. SWA Consulting.
59. Surface, E., Poncheri, R., & Bhavsar, K. (2008). Two studies investigating the reliability and validity of the English ACTFL OPIc® with Korean test takers. SWA Consulting.
60. Şentürk, B., & Yüce, E. (2021). The CEFR in Use: Cases Across the Globe. İçinde M. Bardakçı & İ. Ünaldı (Ed.), Current Discussions on Foreign/Second Language Education PEGEM Akademi.
61. The National Standards Collaborative Board. (2015). World-Readiness standards for learning languages. 4th ed. Author.
62. Tono, Y. (2019). Coming full circle: From CEFR to CEFR-J and back. CEFR Journal: Research and Practice, 1, 5-17
63. Vandergrift, L. (2006). New Canadian perspectives: Proposal for a common framework of reference for languages for Canada. Canadian Heritage.
64. Vyn, R. (2024). Leveraging the AAPPL to promote positive washback in K-12 language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 57, 675-697.
65. Wallo, O. & Godwin-Jones, M. (2021). To OPI or not to OPI: Proficiency-oriented instruction and assessment in U.S. university-level Russian programs. Russian Language Journal, 71(1), 163-188.
66. Wang, P., Coetzee, K., Strachan, A., Monteiro, S. & Cheng, L. (2020). Examining rater performance on the CELBAN Speaking: A Many-Facets Rasch measurement analysis. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique Appliquée, 23(2), 73-95.
67. WIDA. (2014). The WIDA standards framework and its theoretical foundations. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.
68. Zorba, M. G. & Arıkan, A. (2012). A study of Anatolian high schools’ 9th grade English language curriculum in relation to the CEFR. Uşak Üniversitesi Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 13-24.