Next Article in Journal
Impact of Assistive Technologies to Inclusive Education and Independent Life of Down Syndrome Persons: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda
Next Article in Special Issue
Understanding Novice and Experienced Teachers’ Cognitions and Practices for Sustainable Teacher Development: The Case of Form-Focused Instruction in English Language Teaching
Previous Article in Journal
Innovative Practice of Sustainable Landscape Architecture Education—Parametric-Aided Design and Application
Previous Article in Special Issue
EFL Teachers’ Spatial Construction of Linguistic Identities for Sustainable Development in Globalization
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/su14084629
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Examining English Ability-Grouping Practices by Aligning CEFR Levels with University-Level General English Courses in Taiwan

by
Li-Tang Yu
1,*,
Mei-Ching Chen
2,
Chao-Wen Chiu
2,
Chien-Che Hsu
2 and
Yun-Pi Yuan
3
1
Department of English Instruction, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu City 300193, Taiwan
2
Holistic Education Center, Fu Jen Catholic University, New Taipei City 242062, Taiwan
3
Department of English Language and Literature, Fu Jen Catholic University, New Taipei City 242062, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(8), 4629; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084629
Submission received: 17 March 2022 / Revised: 9 April 2022 / Accepted: 10 April 2022 / Published: 13 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Applied Linguistics and Language Education for Sustainable Development)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In higher education in Taiwan, mandatory general English courses like Freshman English adopt ability-grouping practices to assign students to classes of different proficiency levels. However, little research has explored the efficacy of ability-grouping criteria and standardized the language-proficiency description for general English courses of different proficiency levels. Thus, this study recruited 806 Taiwanese undergraduates from Freshman English classes of advanced, intermediate, and basic proficiency levels to take the Oxford Online Placement Test (OOPT), and compared their scores on the Joint College Entrance Examination English subject (namely the General Scholastic Ability Test, GSAT) with OOPT. The findings indicated that the ability-grouping criterion was effective to classify students into three groups of different proficiency levels. A positive relationship between the GSAT and OOPT scores was identified. A clear trend, but with some overlapping correspondence, was displayed between the class levels and Common European Framework of Reference levels derived from the OOPT scoring report. Pedagogical implications and suggestions for future studies are provided.

1. Introduction

English plays an important role in many fields, such as business, science, technology, and international politics. The significance of English to English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) countries’ competitiveness motivates educational authorities to formulate relevant practices to boost citizens’ English abilities. For example, English-medium newspapers, TV channels, and radio programs have been popular in South Korea [1]. The Japanese educational authorities initiated exchange programs to recruit native English-speaking university graduates to visit Japan as English teachers and to send their local English teachers overseas to cultivate their English proficiency [2]. Administrative authorities in Taiwan launched a series of projects to create English-learning environments for the promotion of students’ English proficiency and the encouragement of their English-skill practices [3].
To address the urgent need of upgrading English competence, educational authorities in many EFL countries place considerable emphasis on education and have integrated English into the curriculum as mandatory courses [4]. In Taiwan, English is a required subject for students of different academic levels in elementary and secondary schools [5]. Even in higher education, all freshmen have been required to take a “Freshman English” course for a year despite various curriculum plans designed by different universities [6]. It is crucial to make good use of the one-year period to promote freshmen’s English proficiency levels. Research suggests that instructional efficiency is low when learners with inconsistent competencies are placed together in one class [7]. Thus, one of the pedagogical approaches to resolve this difficulty is to adopt ability-grouping practices and then assign students to appropriate classes based on their proficiency levels. This is believed to meet students’ different learning needs, promote their learning affect, and help teachers better organize their teaching materials [8,9,10].
In the implementation of ability-grouping assignment practices, it is crucial to set a clear standard for distinguishing students’ levels. An objective proficiency indicator can be used to explore learners’ progress in language levels before and after they finish the course. The Common European Framework Reference (CEFR) developed by the Council of Europe [11] fulfills such a purpose. It provides a way to describe language levels for second-language learners.

2. Literature Review

To deal with students’ diverse language proficiency levels, ability grouping has been a common educational practice to place students of similar English abilities into the same classes. This practice has been conducted in various EFL contexts, such as Japan, Korea, UAE, and Vietnam [10,12,13,14]. Compared with other contexts in Asia, more relevant studies on ability grouping in English classes, specifically in higher education in Taiwan, were conducted. The following sections will respectively present studies on the ability-grouping practice in Taiwan, an internationally well-recognized language standard for proficiency descriptions (namely the Common European Framework of Reference—CEFR), and the application of CEFR into foreign-language education.

2.1. Ability Grouping in the Taiwanese EFL Context

Ability grouping has been widely implemented in higher education since 2001 when the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan demanded that universities place students into freshman English classes in reference to individual students’ English abilities to promote their English proficiency [15]. Thus, universities would place their students into suitable classes based on one of the following criteria: students’ English scores from Joint College Entrance Examinations (the General Scholastic Ability Test (GSAT) or the Advanced Subjects Test (AST)), results of placement tests administered by each university, or results of examinations organized by some authoritative institutions or publishers such as the General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) or TOEIC [16,17,18].
Due to the implementation of the ability-grouping practice in general English courses, it is expected that students can learn with classmates of similar English abilities to lower their learning anxiety and stress in class. Teachers can also use suitable teaching materials and methods to help students improve their English skills. Relevant studies about the effectiveness of the ability-grouping practice on English education in Taiwan were popular a decade ago. For example, Luo [19] reported that students of the basic level benefited from the achievement-leveling practice. They made considerable progress because they were more greatly interested in and felt more comfortable learning English than they were in high school. Lee and Su [20] found that ability-grouping teaching helped students improve their English performance, especially the intermediate-level students who used English-learning strategies more frequently than basic and high-intermediate students. Liu’s study [21] showed that ability grouping indeed improved students’ listening and reading skills except for the students with high proficiency. Wen [22] found ability grouping practice worked for high achievers and medium achievers, but not for low achievers who were not motivated. Even though the practice did not seem to be effective for low achievers (especially those who were not motivated), judging from their performance, those low achievers felt it was still helpful.
In addition to facilitating students’ learning, the ability-grouping practice boosts students’ confidence or alleviates students’ anxiety and stress. Su [23] found that students’ stress levels in English class were lowered because they could understand the teaching contents and follow teachers’ teaching. The researcher also found that male students with low proficiency levels from the college of engineering specifically tended to support the ability-grouping practice.
Several studies explored teachers’ or students’ positive perceptions about the ability-grouping practice. Liu [24] found that students and teachers had positive views about ability grouping. The students felt that ability grouping was beneficial to their English learning. Similarly, the teachers also supported this practice because they could better adapt their teaching materials and teaching methods to meet student needs. Kung and Wu [25] also found that students, especially low achievers, were satisfied with ability grouping because it could relieve their learning stress.
Other studies examined the correlation between the ability-grouping test and other examinations. Su and Lin [17] found students’ scores on the university-made English placement test positively correlated with those of the Joint College Entrance Examination administered by the Testing Center for Technological and Vocational Education (TVE) and those of online basic GEPT mock examinations. The correlation result indicated that the placement test was reliable. Feng and Chang [16] further performed a similar study. They compared freshmen’s scores on the TVE English examination with those on the Global English Tests and found a significant correlation between these two. It implies that TVE English scores can be used to place students into classes of different levels.
Previous studies aforementioned evidenced that the implementation of the ability-grouping practice in general English courses benefited university students with various proficiency levels and was favored by teachers and students. However, few studies worked further to set standards for each proficiency level resulting from ability-grouping practices. Thus, there is a need to adopt a well-developed framework to define standards specifically for language classes of various proficiency levels. The Common European Framework of Reference is a viable option for this purpose, as it affords its users “a descriptive tool that allows them to reflect on their decisions and practice, and to situate and co-ordinate their efforts, as appropriate, for the benefit of language learners in their specific contexts” [26]. The next sections describe the CEFR and its application in foreign-language education.

2.2. The Common European Framework of Reference

The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) was developed by the Council of Europe in an effort to provide common reference levels for teaching, learning, and assessment for all European languages. It has become widely accepted and used to describe learners’ proficiency levels in foreign languages. Moreover, the CEFR has constructed a set of standards to which most major language-testing institutes have already adhered to or are in the process of linking their tests [27].
The CEFR divides language learners into three broad categories—proficient, independent, and basic—that can be further divided into six levels. First, proficient language learners include the C2 and the C1 levels in the CEFR framework. While C2 learners can use the language spontaneously, fluently, and precisely, C1 learners can do almost the same thing but with some obvious searching for expressions. Second, independent learners are divided into the B2 and the B1 levels. Compared to B2 learners who can make regular interaction with native speakers quite possible with diverse subjects, B1 learners tend to produce language limited to familiar topics or of personal interest. Third, basic learners consist of the A2 and the A1 levels. Unlike A2 learners who can use expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance, A1 learners can use similar expressions only with rudimentary phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. In conclusion, for each level, the CEFR describes what a learner is supposed to be able to do in reading, listening, speaking, and writing [28]. A more thorough description of each level, with criteria for the four skills, is reported in the handbook published by the Council of Europe [28].

2.3. The CEFR and Foreign-Language Education

As assessment is an indispensable part of the foreign-language teaching and learning process [29], the CEFR levels have been studied to relate to language examinations [30]. Reputational language-testing organizations, such as IELTS and TOEFL, have adopted CEFR levels to present test-takers’ skills and language proficiency levels [31]. The CEFR thus provides a common basis for language educators to reflect on assessment and draw out wide-ranging implications for language teaching and learning [32].
In the era of globalization, foreign-language instructors come from diverse backgrounds, and language proficiency is oftentimes assessed with different systems [33]. For a common framework, more and more countries are aligning their institutional standards with the CEFR [34,35]. Indeed, one of the main purposes of CEFR is to offer institutions the description of language proficiency for language education policy development [34]. Additionally, international language proficiency examinations have made adjustments to CEFR levels, so that validity around the world has been yielded [34]. All across Europe, there is increasingly more implementation of the CEFR of language qualification since a widespread public concern appears to urge that curricula and examinations should be related to the CEFR levels [36]. For example, the CEFR is often employed to determine if international students satisfy language proficiency requirements for enrolling in university English-medium-instruction programs [37]. In sum, not only in Europe but around the world, the CEFR has considerably changed university entrance policies, examinations, and curricula [38].

2.4. The CEFR and Foreign-Language Education in Taiwan

The CEFR has become the reference for language teaching, learning, and assessment around the world. Education authorities and language educators in Taiwan have put considerable effort into the incorporation of the CEFR into various aspects of foreign-language teaching and learning. In 2005, the MOE in Taiwan decided to adopt the CEFR as a common standard of English proficiency level [39]. In 2008, the “Trial Program of University Second Language Courses for Senior High School Students” was launched. Senior high school students who took college-level second foreign-language (SFL) courses would be exempted from certain credits in university. The CEFR has then been used as a standard for students to waive courses. High school students who had studied an SFL course in the aforementioned program were required to “demonstrate a minimum level at CEFR-A2 of the second foreign language” [40]. To ensure that students’ SFL levels could be recognized in all universities, students were encouraged to pass an official language-proficiency test aligned with the CEFR. The certificate of the language proficiency test was also required when students wanted to apply for an exchange program in an overseas university. In addition, to facilitate the SFL teaching at university, it was recommended that teachers follow the CEFR guidelines in their teaching to ensure “the consistency in the course design of different teachers” and allow “students to change classes if necessary” [41].
Many language-testing institutes accordingly began to align their tests with the CEFR. The GEPT developed by the Language Training and Testing Center (LTTC) was mapped onto the CEFR levels [42]. Through the GEPT-CEFR mapping projects, the four levels of the GEPT reading comprehension tests and writing tests—elementary, intermediate, high intermediate, and advanced levels—were generally compatible with the CEFR A2 to C1 levels [39,43]. The elementary, intermediate, and high intermediate levels of GEPT listening tests matched the CEFR A2 to B2 levels, respectively. The advanced level of the GEPT listening test was comparable to the CEFR B2+ to Cl levels [44].
The CEFR guidelines also facilitate teachers to help students enhance their communicative competencies. Chow [45] found that the CEFR “Can Do” indicators could be adapted and implemented to teach Japanese in Taiwan. In her case, the CEFR could be used to differentiate Japanese learners’ listening proficiency levels. While Chow [45] focused on Japanese learners’ listening competence, Wen [22] concentrated on Japanese learners’ speaking practice. She also utilized the CEFR “Can Do” indicators to design an elementary-level Japanese conversation course. Through undertaking conversation tasks, Japanese learners could proceed with conversation naturally, apply their language knowledge in real situations, and understand the extent of conversation competencies they had mastered.
Besides teaching, the CEFR can also be applied to assess teachers’ performance. Parchwitz [46] stated that many German teachers in Taiwan’s universities or colleges did not perfectly understand communicative language teaching, which has been an approach recommended by the CEFR. By observing recordings of German lessons, he found that almost two-thirds of the German lessons were conducted in the Grammar Translation Method. Most of the observed classes were dominated by teachers speaking in Chinese. What the students did was listen to the teachers’ lectures, take notes, and sporadically repeat after the teacher. Finally, he suggested that in-service training be offered to language teachers in Taiwan so that they could be familiar with contemporary teaching approaches.
To our knowledge, there has been so far only one study exploring the correlation of CEFR levels and the English subject in the college entrance examination. Yang and Li [18] compared students’ English levels of GSAT and AST with those of the Oxford Online Placement Test (OOPT). The result of OOPT has been aligned with CEFR levels. The result displayed that these two scores were moderately correlated to OOPT scores. They concluded that students’ English levels of GSAT and AST could be used as a basis for placement for university-level general English courses. However, their participants were all medical-majoring students, disadvantaging the generalization of findings to students with other academic backgrounds. Furthermore, their ability-grouping criteria were unreported in the study.
In conclusion, ability grouping has been a common practice in universities in Taiwan to assign freshman students to general English courses of different proficiency levels. However, it is under-researched to examine the validity of ability-grouping criteria for general-English class assignments. To fill the gap, the current study aims to prove the efficacy of the ability-grouping criteria by providing empirical evidence. The study also attempts to offer a concrete indicator of proficiency-level reference for the general English courses of different proficiency levels. Therefore, an international, well-developed standard for describing language ability (i.e., CEFR) would be adopted to align with the investigated classes. Two key research questions were thus investigated:
  • Does the ability-grouping criterion for Freshman English classes effectively differentiate freshman students of various proficiency levels?
  • What CEFR levels correspond to Freshman English classes of various proficiency levels?

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Context

The study was conducted in a private, comprehensive university in northern Taiwan in 2018. The university consists of 12 colleges, aiming to develop professionals in the field of liberal arts, art, communication, education, medicine, science and engineering, foreign languages and literature, human ecology, law, social science, management, and fashion and textile.
The university has put great effort to develop its English-language curriculum. All freshmen are mandatory to take “Freshman English” classes during their first two semesters. When the students complete the required Freshman English classes in their first year, they can continue taking more English classes in their second year or taking other foreign languages, such as Japanese, French, Korean, Italian, Spanish, German, or Vietnamese.
Aiming to fulfill the learning needs of students with various English proficiency competence, the university devises the Freshman English classes into three proficiency levels: basic, intermediate, and advanced. Thus, all freshmen are assigned into three groups based on their English performance in the College Entrance Examinations, namely, the GSAT or the AST. The GAST is yearly conducted at the end of January or the beginning of February. It was comprised of 56 multiple-choice items, measuring test-takers’ vocabulary, grammar, discourse structures, and reading comprehension, and two non-multiple-choice questions for translation and composition. All test-takers’ English scores were divided into 15 scales, ranging from 1 (the lowest) to 15 (the highest). Scale 0 means that the test-taker did not take the test. Moreover, the AST is regularly administered once at the beginning of July. It consisted of 51 multiple-choice items of vocabulary, grammar, discourse structures, reading comprehension, and items of Chinese–English translation and a short composition. The scoring report showed five ranks: top, advanced, average, underdeveloped, and bottom levels, accounting for individual test-taker’s scores better than 88%, 75%, 50%, 25%, and 12% of the group of test-takers, respectively. Both tests in the College Entrance of Examination have been demonstrated to be highly reliable and valid [47]. Yet, English subject has not been included in the AST since 2022 [48].
Regarding the university ability-grouping policy, students who were assigned to the advanced-level classes received at least 14th scaled level in the GSAT or scored top 25% in the AST of all freshmen at the university. Students with 11th (or below) scaled scores in the GSAT or whose score was at the bottom 25% in the AST of all freshmen at the university, are assigned to the basic-level classes. The rest of the freshmen are put in the intermediate-level classes.

3.2. Participants

There were 806 university freshmen from 12 colleges involved in the study (see Table 1 about the profile of the participants). A total of 132 (16.38%), 342 (42.43%), and 346 (41.93%) students were in the advanced-level, intermediate-level, and basic-level Freshman English classes respectively.

3.3. Research Instruments

The current study adopted the OOPT as the key data collection instrument because of its reliability and validity to measure language proficiency and its practicality to serve as a campus-wide computerized test that allows a large number of test-takers to take the test at the same time. Additionally, participants’ English scales in the GSAT were used in the study.
The OOPT was developed by Oxford University Press with three primary goals: (1) to measure test-takers’ English-language knowledge and to place them into appropriate class levels; (2) to provide students, teachers, and university curriculum administrators with information about the test outcomes so that they can adjust teaching and learning approaches; (3) to function as a reliable and practical English proficiency measurement tool [49]. It aims to assist teachers and curriculum planners in placing students into the appropriate level class for a language course.
There are two sections in the test. The first section, Use of Language, is used to measure test-takers’ grammatical and pragmatic knowledge. It covers four tasks, which measure knowledge of grammatical forms, semantic forms, grammatical form and meaning, and pragmatic meanings in contextual interactions, respectively. The second section, Listening, aims to examine test-takers’ listening abilities with three tasks, which measure their understanding of literal meanings and implied meanings encoded in different contexts [49]. There are a total of 45 questions in the two sections. The testing time is 90 min.
According to the test developer [50], the OOPT is an adaptive test, aligned to the CEFR. Its scoring system is based on test-takers’ selection of their current proficiency levels and their answer correctness. Each test-taker has different series of test items. After the completion of the OOPT, test-takers would receive three scores, which are Use of Language, Listening, and Overall (i.e., the average of the first two), and their corresponding CEFR levels.
The other instrument was GSAT. The scales of the GSAT English subject served as an absolute (rather than relative) criterion to assign students to the Freshman English classes of different proficiency levels. It was considered to be more straightforward for the purpose of the current study to examine the efficacy of the ability-grouping criterion and to associate the scales of GSAT with the internationally well-developed language standards, namely CEFR. The scaled levels of English in GSAT range from 0 to 15. The higher the scale test-takers received, the better their performance was.

3.4. Data Collection Procedure and Data Analysis

The first step was to recruit the participants to take the OOPT. A careful step was taken to ensure that students from all colleges and levels were involved. The second step was to reserve computer labs on campus for the OOPT administration. Then, 13 teachers who taught 26 classes in various colleges took their students to the assigned lab during the allocated time. Each student was equipped with one computer and a headset in the lab to take the test. When the students completed the OOPT, they received the test results (including their three scores: Use of English, Listening, Overall, and their corresponding CEFR levels) immediately shown on the computer screen and a copy of the certificate and relevant information afterward. The test results of each class were sent to the class teachers by e-mail as well.
Descriptive and inferential statistical approaches were used to analyze the GSAT English scales, the OOPT scores, and the corresponding CEFR levels. Firstly, descriptive statistics were used to obtain information about how each participant in Freshman English classes of different proficiency levels performed in the OOPT. Regarding inferential statistics, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to detect significant differences in OOPT scores among the different proficiency-level classes. If significant results were found, follow-up post hoc analyses were implemented for pairwise comparison. Finally, Kendall’s coefficient of rank correlation tau-sub-b was used to examine the relationship between the GSAT scales (ordinal variable) and the OOPT scores (continuous variable) as well as between the GSAT scales (ordinal variable) and the CEFR levels (ordinal variable), according to Khamis [51].

4. Results

4.1. RQ 1. Does the Ability-Grouping Criterion for Freshman English Classes Effectively Differentiate Freshman Students of Various Proficiency Levels?

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the OOPT results achieved by the students in advanced-level, intermediate-level, and basic-level classes. It can be observed that, regarding “Use of Language,” “Listening,” and “Overall,” the students in advanced-level classes outperformed other students, and the students in the intermediate-level classes did better than those in the basic-level classes.
Furthermore, one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine any difference in the GSAT scales and the OOPT performance of the students in advanced-level, intermediate-level, and basic-level classes. Bonferroni Correction was done to set the α level as 0.013. As seen in Table 3, all aspects reached a significant difference with all p-values less than 0.001. Scheffe post hoc analyses were implemented to investigate which proficiency-level classes were significantly different from the others in terms of the GSAT scales, the OOPT Use of Language, Listening, and Overall. The findings confirm the trend that the higher the students’ class levels were, the better they performed in the GSAT and OOPT (i.e., Advanced > Intermediate > Basic), indicating the valid ability-grouping practice.
Inferential statistics, Kendall’s coefficient of rank correlation tau-sub-b, was conducted. As shown in Table 4, it was found that the GSAT scales were significantly, positively related to all OOPT scores and the CEFR levels, which were Use of Language, Listening, and Overall. This implies a trend that the higher the students’ GSAT scales were, the higher their OOPT scores and CEFR levels.

4.2. RQ 2. What CEFR Levels Correspond to Freshman English Classes of Various Proficiency Levels?

Descriptive statistics were conducted to sum the number of CEFR levels in the three proficiency-level classes. As Table 5 demonstrates, the majority of the advanced-level students fell to B2 and C1 levels, which were 46.21% and 33.33%, respectively. The two levels accounted for 79.54% of all advanced-level participants in the study. As for intermediate-level participants, most of them fell into the levels of B1 (42.86%) and B2 (42.27%), with a total of 85.13%. Finally, 78.02% of the students in the basic-level classes were reported to fall in A2 (26.51%) and B1 (51.51%). As a consequence, a tendency was found: the more advanced the participants were (in terms of their proficiency-level classes), the higher their CEFR levels were. However, there were overlaps in their CEFR levels between advanced-level and intermediate-level classes as well as intermediate-level classes and basic-level classes. For example, most students in the advanced-level classes had CEFR levels whose level was nearly the most frequent in the intermediate-level classes. In the same vein, B1 was the most common CEFR level in the intermediate-level classes, which was the same as the basic-level classes.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The given study examines the efficacy of the ability-grouping criterion on Freshmen English classes and attempts to align freshmen English classes of different proficiency levels with CEFR. The university freshmen in the study were assigned to classes with different proficiency levels based on their GSAT scales. The OOPT results provided indicators of their CEFR levels. From the administrative perspective of universities, it is the most feasible and straightforward approach to utilizing the scores of the College Entrance Examination as an ability-grouping validation, since all the freshmen are required to be assigned to different levels of general English classes before the semester begins. Thus, the OOPT offers a venue to ascertain freshman students’ language abilities, hence presenting evidence to explore the effectiveness of the ability-grouping criterion. It also aligns with the CEFR levels, enabling the connection between the GSAT scales and the CEFR levels. The correspondence between the GSAT scales and the CEFR levels provides stakeholders (e.g., students, teachers, and administrators) with useful information about what students can achieve at various stages of their learning. The aim of the current study is to set a comprehensive framework of ability-grouping more suitable for students rather than the GSAT scores. Therefore, through our study, corresponding teaching and learning plans can be formulated.
According to the findings, there was a positive association between Freshman English classes of various proficiency levels and the OOPT scores. The higher levels of class the students were assigned to, the better they performed in the OOPT. This result corroborates previous research [14,52] that the ability-grouping criterion for Freshmen English courses was confirmed effective to differentiate students into various groups of different proficiency levels. This result also echoes previous studies that students could be placed into appropriate university-level general English courses in correspondence with their performance in the English subject of the College Entrance Examinations [16,17,18].
A correspondence between a certain range of the CEFR levels and class proficiency levels appeared to be displayed. Apparently, the higher the class levels of the students, the better the CEFR level they reached. This moderate, positive correlation is in line with Yang and Li [18]. As for the correspondence between the class levels and the CEFR levels, most students in the basic-level classes were reported to fall in A2 and B1. In the intermediate-level classes, most of the students reportedly reached B1 and B2 levels, whereas the majority of the advanced-level students were aligned to B2 and C1 levels. The finding partially confirms Yang and Li’s [18] study in terms of the correspondence between the student proficiency-level classes and the aligned CEFR levels. In both Yang and Li [18] and the given study, 76% and 85% of intermediate-level students fall into B1 and B2 respectively. Nonetheless, the top two CEFR levels in the beginning-level and advanced-level classes were different. In Yang and Li’s [18] study, there were a total of 76% of the beginning-level students in B1 and B2 levels and a total of 62% of the advanced-level students in B2 and C2 levels, while in the given study 78% of the beginning-level students were in A2 and B1 levels and 79% of the advanced-level students were in B2 and C1 levels. The student proficiency levels in Yang and Li’s study [18] seem to be better than those in the present study. One possible explanation could be the difference in the sampling pool. The participants in Yang and Li’s study [18] were from a medical university in Taiwan, which required higher academic performance for admission, whereas the participants in the current study were from a comprehensive university, whose admission requirement was not as demanding as the medical university. The other possibility is the different criteria for assigning students to classes of various proficiency levels. However, the criterion adopted by Yang and Li [18] was not reported.
Pedagogical implications are gleaned from the study. Firstly, universities in Taiwan have their own ability-grouping criteria to assign students to various general English classes of different proficiency levels. Therefore, it may be unknown if the basic, intermediate, and advanced proficiency levels in one university’s general English courses are the same as those in another university. Therefore, it is of importance to align each proficiency-level class with standardized language-proficiency descriptions, such as the internationally well-recognized CEFR. Secondly, as found in the given study, the ability-grouping criterion by means of the GSAT scales was proved to be effective in differentiating students into three groups of various proficiency levels in the context where the current research was conducted. A larger, longitudinal databank to record freshman students’ performance in the English subject of the GSAT and their CEFR levels can be built; thus the reliability of the ability-grouping criterion can be assured. Thirdly, the CEFR level information for each Freshman English class of various proficiency levels enables Freshman English teachers to understand their students’ proficiency in English. Therefore, they can set reasonable learning and teaching goals for the class. Besides, the teachers can design their instructional activities and select learning materials appropriate to the students. Lastly, based on the OOPT outcomes, each level of Freshman English was in correspondence to a certain range of CEFR levels. There were overlapping CEFR levels between the advanced-level and the intermediate-level classes as well as between the intermediate-level and the basic-level classes. University authorities may consider adding more proficiency levels to Freshman English classes, such as pre-advanced and pre-intermediate levels so that ability-grouping practices can be fine-tuned to assign students to appropriate classes more effectively.
The generalizability of the study findings was restricted because of the following limitations. First of all, convenient sampling was carried out to recruit students due to the limited access to the computer labs on campus and English teachers’ willingness to involve their students in the study. Next, the number of participants from the three proficiency levels was unequal. In particular, the number of participants from the advanced-level classes was significantly less than in the other two levels. Moreover, the OOPT is a computerized adaptive test, whereas the GSAT is a paper-based one. The different testing modalities might affect students’ performance. These factors need to be considered in future studies. Finally, as a number of studies [53,54,55,56,57] have found, teachers’ assessment literacy is an essential component of implementing effective grouping practices. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted with caution, as the study did not measure how much teachers knew about language assessment/testing.
Despite its aforementioned limitations, this study demonstrates the efficacy of the ability-grouping practice in general English courses and a correspondence between the categorization of proficiency-based classes and their CEFR levels in general. Based on the result of the study, suggestions are provided for future studies. Firstly, a post-test of the OOPT can be included at the end of Freshman English classes so as to examine the learning outcomes of students and the teaching effectiveness of teachers throughout the one-year course. Secondly, interviews with teachers and students involved in the OOPT can be conducted in order to understand their perceptions about the employment of ability grouping and their awareness of their own English proficiency levels. Thirdly, ability grouping is a common practice in language education to place students of similar language-proficiency levels in the same class groups. However, it is acknowledged that many aspects are attributed to the development of language competence, such as affective factors (e.g., attitudes and motivation), cognitive factors (e.g., learning styles and aptitude), and metacognitive factors (e.g., strategies and learning beliefs) [58]. In addition to test scores, a more comprehensive consideration, involving these factors, is required when it comes to grouping together students with similar features. Finally, enhancing teachers’ assessment literacy is essential and fundamental to the successful implementation of such grouping practices. Thus, an optimal learning environment can be expected.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.-T.Y., C.-C.H. and Y.-P.Y.; formal analysis, L.-T.Y. and C.-C.H.; funding acquisition, L.-T.Y. and Y.-P.Y.; methodology, L.-T.Y. and C.-C.H.; project administration, L.-T.Y., M.-C.C., C.-W.C., C.-C.H. and Y.-P.Y.; supervision, L.-T.Y. and Y.-P.Y.; writing—original draft, L.-T.Y., M.-C.C., C.-W.C., C.-C.H. and Y.-P.Y.; writing—review and editing, L.-T.Y., M.-C.C. and Y.-P.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We thank the Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan under grant numbers 110-2410-H-007-093 for supporting this research publication. We are also grateful that this research was supported by the Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education in Taiwan.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Choi, T.H. English fever: Educational policies in globalised Korea, 1981–2018. Hist. Educ. 2021, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hashimoto, K.; Glasgow, G.P. English language policy in Japan: History, current realities and challenges ahead. In English in East and South Asia Policy: Features and Language in Use; Low, E.L., Pakir, A., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; pp. 33–46. [Google Scholar]
  3. Wu, L.Y.; Lau, K. Language education policy in Taiwan. In The Routledge International Handbook of Language Education Policy in Asia; Kirkpatrick, A., Liddicoat, A.J., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 151–162. [Google Scholar]
  4. Kirkpatrick, R. English Language Education Policy in Asia; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ministry of Education. Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education. 2018. Available online: https://www.naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-14113,c639-1.php?Lang=zh-tw (accessed on 15 January 2021).
  6. Chern, C.L. General English programs at universities in Taiwan: Curriculum design and implementations. Chang. Gung J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2010, 3, 253–274. [Google Scholar]
  7. Robinson, J.P. Evidence of a differential effect of ability grouping on the reading achievement growth of language-minority Hispanics. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 2008, 30, 141–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, H.-C. A study of ability grouping practice in an EFL context: Perspectives of junior college nursing students. Asian EFL J. 2016, 90, 4–27. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ghanbari, N.; Abdolrezapour, P. Group Composition and Learner Ability in Cooperative Learning: A Mixed-Methods Study. TESL-EJ. 2020, 24. Available online: http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume24/ej94/ej94a7 (accessed on 7 March 2021).
  10. Kim, Y. Implementing ability grouping in EFL contexts: Perceptions of teachers and students. Lang. Teach. Res. 2012, 16, 289–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Council of Europe. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR). Available online: https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/home (accessed on 16 April 2021).
  12. Do, T.; Carey, M.D. Ability grouping and scaffolded learning with large classes: Vietnamese students’ attitudes to learning approaches. Engl. Aust. J. 2016, 32, 22–49. [Google Scholar]
  13. Howling, C. The need for ability grouping in English classes in public schools in the UAE. Policy Paper 2017, 19, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sheppard, C.; Manalo, E.; Henning, M. Is ability grouping beneficial or detrimental to Japanese ESP students’ English language proficiency development? Engl. Specif. Purp. 2018, 49, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lin, L.X. Freshmen placed in different classes based on results of English examinations. Min.-Sheng Bao 2001, A4. [Google Scholar]
  16. Feng, M.Y.; Chang, H. Effects of ability grouping and development of English graduation benchmarks in a National Technological University in Taiwan. J. Appl. Foreign Lang. 2010, 13, 71–101. [Google Scholar]
  17. Su, H.H.; Lin, T.Y. An investigation of the effectiveness of freshman English placement test at a University of Technology in Taiwan. Chaoyang J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2008, 6, 221–242. [Google Scholar]
  18. Yang, L.C.; Li, G.L. Examining the ability grouping and textbook selection by analyzing the learning achievement in general English curricula: Illustration of the freshman English reading course of a Medical University. Kaohsiung Med. Univ. J. Gen. Educ. 2014, 9, 129–164. [Google Scholar]
  19. Luo, B. Achievement grouping and students’ progress in freshman English classes at Feng Chia University. Feng Chia J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2005, 11, 253–279. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lee, C.L.; Su, H.H. The effectiveness of English ability-grouping teaching—A case study of a University of Technology in central Taiwan. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. NHCUE 2009, 2, 233–253. [Google Scholar]
  21. Liu, H.J. Assessing the effects of ability grouping on EFL student English listening and reading proficiencies. NPUST Humanit. Soc. Sci. Res. 2009, 3, 144–148. [Google Scholar]
  22. Wen, Y.-C. An implementation report on introducing CEFR into Japanese language education: Taking an elementary-level Japanese conversation course as an example. Provid. Forum Lang Humanit. 2013, 6, 109–143. [Google Scholar]
  23. Su, S.W. English placement practice and instruction: A needs analysis from the perspective of technological university students. Kaohsiung Norm. Univ. J. Humanit. Arts 2010, 29, 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  24. Liu, H.J. An analysis of the effects of ability grouping on student learning in university-wide English classes. Feng Chia J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2008, 16, 217–249. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kung, C.C.; Wu, H.R. A survey on students’ perceptions toward freshmen English ability grouping instruction. J. Natl. Hu Wei Univ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 29, 65–80. [Google Scholar]
  26. Council of Europe. Use of the CEFR. Available online: https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/uses-and-objectives (accessed on 26 June 2021).
  27. Milanovic, M.; Weir, C.J. Series editors’ note. In Aligning Tests with the CEFR: Reflections on Using the Council of Europe’s Draft Manual; Martyniuk, W., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010; pp. 8–20. [Google Scholar]
  28. Council of Europe. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  29. Brown, H.D.; Abeywickrama, P. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices, 3rd ed.; Pearson: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  30. Council of Europe. Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. A Manual. 2009. Available online: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001680667a2d (accessed on 26 June 2021).
  31. Lowiea, W.M.; Haines, K.B.; Jansma, P.N. Embedding the CEFR in the academic domain: Assessment of language tasks. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 3, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Piccardo, E. Multidimensionality of assessment in the common European framework of reference for languages. Cah. deL’Ilob. 2012, 4, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Runnels, J.; Runnels, V. Impact of the common European framework of reference—A bibliometric analysis of research from 1990–2017. CEFR J. Res. Pract. 2018, 18, 18–32. [Google Scholar]
  34. Afip, L.A.; Hamid, M.O.; Renshaw, P. Common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR): Insights into global policy borrowing in Malaysian higher education. Glob. Soc. Educ. 2019, 17, 378–393. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hai, L.T.; Nhung, P.T. Implementing the CEFR at a Vietnamese university: General English language teachers’ perceptions. CEFR J. Res. Pract. 2018, 41, 41–55. [Google Scholar]
  36. Council of Europe. Relating Language Curricula, Tests and Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference. 2019. Available online: https://www.ecml.at/TrainingConsultancy/RelatingLanguageExaminationstotheCEFR/tabid/1726/language/en-GB/Default.aspx (accessed on 8 October 2021).
  37. Green, A. Linking tests of English for academic purposes to the CEFR: The score user’s perspective. Lang. Assess. Q. 2018, 15, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Deygers, B.; Zeidler, B.; Vilcu, D.; Carlsen, C.H. One framework to unite them all? Use of the CEFR in European university entrance policies. Lang. Assess. Q. 2018, 15, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Wu, J.R.W.; Wu, R.Y.F. Relating the GEPT reading comprehension tests to CEFR. In Aligning Tests with the CEFR; Martyniuk, W., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010; pp. 204–224. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wu, J. Policy perspectives from Taiwan. In The Common European Framework of Reference: The Globalization of Language Education Policy; Byram, M., Parmenter, L., Eds.; Multilingual Matters: Bristol, UK, 2012; pp. 213–223. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lin, L.H.-I. How the CEFR serves as a guideline for foreign language learning, teaching and assessment in Taiwan: Examples with French as a foreign language. In The CEFR in an East Asian Context; Merkelbach, C., Ed.; National Taiwan University Press: Taipei, Taiwan, 2014; pp. 119–147. [Google Scholar]
  42. Language Training and Testing Center. Corresponding Table for the Center’s own Tests and CEFR. Available online: https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/CEFRbyLTTC_tests.htm (accessed on 20 October 2021).
  43. Knoch, U.; Frost, K. Linking the GEPT Writing Sub-Test to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR); LTTC-GEPT Research Report No. RG-08; The language Training and Testing Center: Taipei, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  44. Brunfaut, T.; Harding, L. Linking the GEPT Listening Test to the Common European Framework of Reference; LTTC-GEPT Research Report No. RG-05; The Language Training and Testing Center: Taipei, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  45. Chow, S.-J. A study of the feasibility of applying the CEFR to Japanese language education in Taiwan. Soochow J. Foreign Lang. Lit. 2009, 28, 99–140. [Google Scholar]
  46. Parchwitz, J.-A. The CEFR and German as a Foreign Language in Taiwan: A “Glocalized” Variety? In The CEFR in an East. Asian Context; Merkelbach, C., Ed.; National Taiwan University Press: Taipei, China, 2014; pp. 99–118. [Google Scholar]
  47. College Entrance Examination Center. Announcement on “Examination Instructions” for UNIVERSITY Entrance Exams that Apply from the 111 Academic Year Onwards. 2019. Available online: https://www.ceec.edu.tw/xmdoc/cont?xsmsid=0J018585845010094026&sid=0J270516560005218952 (accessed on 15 October 2021).
  48. College Entrance Examination Center. Explanation about the General Scholastic Ability Test and the Advanced Subjects Test. 2019. Available online: https://www.ceec.edu.tw/xcepaper/cont?xsmsid=0J066588036013658199&qunit=0J066614378153514816&sid=0J091620310613655840 (accessed on 3 January 2022).
  49. Purpura, J. The Oxford Online Placement Test: What does it Measure and How? 2007. Available online: https://www.oxfordenglishtesting.com/uploadedfiles/6_New_Look_and_Feel/Content/oopt_measure.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2021).
  50. Pollitt, M. The Oxford Online Placement Test: The Meaning of OOPT Scores. Available online: https://www.oxfordenglishtesting.com/uploadedFiles/Buy_tests/oopt_meaning.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2021).
  51. Khamis, H. Measures of association: How to choose? J. Diagn. Med. Sonogr. 2008, 24, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Khazaeenezhad, B.; Barati, H.; Jafarzade, M. Ability grouping as a way towards more academic success in teaching EFL—A case of Iranian undergraduates. Engl. Lang. Teach. 2012, 5, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Bennett, R.E. Formative assessment: A critical review. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Prac. 2011, 18, 5–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Davison, C. Using assessment to enhance learning in English language education. In Second Handbook of English Language Teaching; Gao, X., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 433–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Dixon, H.; Hawe, E. Developing assessment-capable teachers through engagement in assessment for learning (AfL): A New Zealand study. In Teacher Learning with Classroom Assessment: Perspectives from Asia Pacific; Jiang, H., Hill, M.F., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 59–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wu, X.M.; Zhang, L.J.; Dixon, H.R. EFL teachers’ understanding of assessment for learning (AfL) and the potential challenges for its implementation in Chinese university EFL classes. System 2021, 101, 102589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wu, X.M.; Zhang, L.J.; Liu, Q. Using Assessment for Learning (AfL): Multi-case studies of three Chinese university English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) teachers engaging students in learning and assessment. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 4033. [Google Scholar]
  58. Horwitz, E.K. Becoming a Language Teacher: A Practical Guide to Second Language Learning and Teaching; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. The profile of the participants.
Table 1. The profile of the participants.
CollegeNumber of the Participants
Liberal arts 26 (3.2%)
Communication27 (3.3%)
Education28 (3.5%)
Foreign Languages and Literature31 (3.8%)
Social Science38 (4.7%)
Human Ecology39 (4.8%)
Law48 (6.0%)
Art48 (6.0%)
Medicine74 (9.2%)
Fashion and Textile111 (13.8%)
Science and Engineering 154 (19.1%)
Management182 (22.6%)
Note: N = 806; percentages were rounded to the second decimal point.
Table
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of student performances in OOPT.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of student performances in OOPT.
Aspects ProficiencynMeanSD
GSATAdvanced13214.110.31
Intermediate34212.400.49
Basic3329.172.03
Use of LanguageAdvanced13282.0317.54
Intermediate34267.6516.46
Basic33250.3918.48
ListeningAdvanced13263.9116.52
Intermediate34254.5515.80
Basic33237.7516.64
OverallAdvanced13272.9214.48
Intermediate34261.1013.49
Basic33244.0515.69
Note. N = 806.
Table
Table 3. Results of students from different proficiency-level classes.
Table 3. Results of students from different proficiency-level classes.
AspectsSSdfMSFpPost Hoc Result
GSAT2959.8421479.92812.180.00 ***Advanced > Intermediate > Basic
OOPT-Use of Language10,7961.37253,980.69176.420.00 ***Advanced > Intermediate > Basic
OOPT-Listening81,875.79240,937.90154.700.00 ***Advanced > Intermediate > Basic
OOPT-Overall94,045.12247,022.56220.810.00 ***Advanced > Intermediate > Basic
*** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 4. Correlation between GSAT scales, OOPT scores, and CEFR levels.
Table 4. Correlation between GSAT scales, OOPT scores, and CEFR levels.
Use of LanguageListeningOverallCEFR Levels
GSAT ScaleCorrelation Coefficient0.51 **0.47 **0.43 **0.53 **
Sig. (2-tailed)0.000.000.000.00
N = 806; ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 5. Alignment of class levels and CEFR levels.
Table 5. Alignment of class levels and CEFR levels.
CEFR LevelC2C1B2B1A2A1n
Class Level
Advanced
(GSAT scales: 14–15)		2
(1.51%)		44
(33.33%)		61
(46.21%)		23
(17.42%)		2
(1.51%)		0
(0%)		132
Intermediate
(GSAT scales: 12–13)		0
(0%)		34
(9.94%)		145
(42.40%)		147
(42.98%)		16
(4.68%)		0
(0%)		342
Basic
(GSAT scales: 0–11)		0
(0%)		4
(1.20%)		45
(13.55%)		171
(51.51%)		88
(26.51%)		24
(7.23%)		332
Note. N = 806; percentages were rounded to the second decimal point.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yu, L.-T.; Chen, M.-C.; Chiu, C.-W.; Hsu, C.-C.; Yuan, Y.-P. Examining English Ability-Grouping Practices by Aligning CEFR Levels with University-Level General English Courses in Taiwan. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4629. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084629

AMA Style

Yu L-T, Chen M-C, Chiu C-W, Hsu C-C, Yuan Y-P. Examining English Ability-Grouping Practices by Aligning CEFR Levels with University-Level General English Courses in Taiwan. Sustainability. 2022; 14(8):4629. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084629

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yu, Li-Tang, Mei-Ching Chen, Chao-Wen Chiu, Chien-Che Hsu, and Yun-Pi Yuan. 2022. "Examining English Ability-Grouping Practices by Aligning CEFR Levels with University-Level General English Courses in Taiwan" Sustainability 14, no. 8: 4629. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084629

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop