SOME FEATURES OF THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This article analyses and compares assessment systems for the national language as a foreign language, using the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language), the HSK (Chinese Proficiency Test), and the TORFL (Test of Russian as a Foreign Language) as examples. The identification of similarities and differences in assessing abilities, skills, and requirements for the level of language proficiency determines the specifics of national education systems and differences in approaches to educational assessment systems.In the modern world, foreign language skills are becoming increasingly important due to various factors, such as the increasing processes of globalization and integration, the strengthening of trade, economic and political relations and academic exchanges, the development of tourism and business, the elimination of borders between countries through the forming interplanetary Internet network. Foreign language skills are an essential requirement of employers, and the growing competition in the labour market motivates applicants to learn foreign languages. The analysis and improvement of existing knowledge assessment systems are current research directions.In the XX century, researchers started to use the testing form of assessment in the educational process. Compared with the traditional forms, researchers have identified the test as a universal form of assessment that effectively evaluates the level of national language proficiency without the subjective attitude of the examiner towards the student.The article describes and compares three testing systems for assessing national language proficiency for foreign citizens.The TOEFL is an international examination used to assess the English proficiency of non-native speakers. The TOEFL has changed in structure and content parts since its development in 1964. To the present day, the TOEFL is one of the most popular foreign language exams required for admission to educational institutions in various countries such as the United States, Canada, and the European Union. The HSK is a test used to evaluate the Chinese language proficiency of foreign citizens from 1990. The HSK is equivalent to the TOEFL. However, the test has structural differences due to the specific of Chinese hieroglyphics. In the beginning, the HSK consisted of eleven levels. Then, the number of levels reduced to six in 2010. The HSK is going to be reformed in 2022. According to the statement, the new test will have nine proficiency levels.The TORFL is an international test of Russian language as a foreign language developed in 1995. The TORFL has not undergone any significant reform. The government announced new changes in the organization and structure of the exam for foreign citizens on 7 June 2021. This article compares the currently relevant testing systems.The study uses empirical and theoretical methods such as analysis, synthesis, comparison, and deductive method.The obtained results can help assess the quality of knowledge of students in learning foreign languages.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».