Test de Francais Laval-Montreal: Does It Measure What It Should Measure?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on a study conducted as part of a larger investigation of the predictive validity of the Test de Français Laval-Montreal (TFLM), a high-stakes French language test used for admission and placement purposes for Teacher- Training Programs (TTPs) in major francophone universities in Canada (Schmitt, 2015). The objective of this study is to examine the validity of TFLM tasks for measuring language abilities required by tasks common to the Target Language Use (TLU; Bachman & Palmer, 2010) domains in which preservice teachers are expected to function. Adopting Messick’s conception of construct validity (1989) and Bachman & Palmer’s Framework of Task Characteristics (2010), the study features a comprehensive task analysis detailing the characteristics of TFLM tasks in contrast to those of three major TLU academic and instructional contexts linked to the test. The results of the study are discussed in terms of the standards of validity (Messick, 1996) and qualities of usefulness (Bachman & Palmer, 1996). Findings suggest that TFLM tasks and constructs do not represent those of the TLU contexts and do not address the language needs of preservice teachers as identified by the Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS). The implications for the consequential aspect of TFLM validity and the potential nega- tive consequences of TFLM use as an admission test are discussed. Cet article présente une partie d’une étude plus complète sur la validité prédictive du Test de Français Laval-Montréal (TFLM), test de langue française à enjeux critiques utilisé comme test d’admission et de placement dans les programmes de formation initiale en enseignement d’importantes universités francophones au Canada (Schmitt, 2015). Le but de ce e étude est d’analyser la validité des tâches du TFLM à des fins d’évaluation des compétences linguistiques exigées dans les tâches communes aux domaines d’utilisation de la langue cible dans lesquels les enseignants en formation doivent fonctionner (Target Language Use (TLU); Bachman & Palmer, 2010). Basée sur la conception de la validité conceptuelle de Messick (1989) et le cadre d’analyse des caractéristiques des tâches de Bachman & Palmer (2010), l’étude compare de manière détaillée les tâches du TFLM à celles de trois contextes académiques et pédagogiques d’emploi de la langue cible. Les résultats de cette analyse sont évalués en termes de validité (Messick, 1996) et des qualités des tests (Bachman & Palmer, 1996). Les résultats indiquent que les tâches du TFLM et les construits qu’il est sensé évaluer ne correspondent pas à ceux des contextes d’emploi de la langue cible et ne répondent pas aux besoins des ensei- gnants en formation tels qu’identi és par le Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS). La validité du TFLM, les conséquences ainsi que les aspects potentiellement négatifs de son utilisation comme test d’admission sont discutés.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".