Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Language Testing in Asia
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
R E S E A R C H Open Access
Developing the China Standards of English:
challenges at macropolitical and
micropolitical levels
Yan Jin
1*
, Zunmin Wu
2
, Charles Alderson
3
and Weiwei Song
4
* Correspondence: yjin@sjtu.edu.cn
1
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai, China
Full list of author information is
available at the end of the article
Abstract
Background: A project has recently been proposed by the National Education
Examinations Authority, P. R. China, to develop a national framework of reference for
English language education, provisionally called China Standards of English (CSE). In
this article, we argue for the necessity of developing the framework of reference in
China and challenges facing such an important endeavor.
Methods: We first reviewed relevant documents of English language education in
China to identify the overlaps and inconsistencies in the curricular requirements at
different educational stages. We then explored the need for improving the
transparency in policies and practices of English language education. Finally,
challenges facing the development and implementation of the CSE were discussed
based on Alderson’s (2009) conceptualization of politics in language education.
Results: For governmental organizations, coordinating resources and negotiating views
of different educational stages may prove challenging due to the segmental
management structure of English language education in China. Micropolitically, the CSE
project may face technical challenges due to the innovative nature of the work involved.
Resistance may also be encountered from practitioners who may pay lip service to the
new framework and feel reluctant to change their pedagogical and assessment practices.
Conclusions: The discussion of challenges facing the development of a national
framework for English, the first of its kind in China, is intended to influence and inform
decisions on how the CSE can be developed, and more importantly, how the framework
can be implemented so as to achieve the ultimate purpose of improving English
teaching, learning and assessment in China.
Keywords: English language education, China Standards of English (CSE), Macropolitical
challenges, Micropolitical challenges
Background
English language education is currently a compulsory requirement for education at all
levels in China. Few attempts, however, have been made to investigate the consistency
of English curricula at different levels. Theoretical models underpinning curricular re-
quirements and empirical evidence supporting level descriptions are not publicly
available. To improve the coherence and efficiency of English language education, a
project was proposed and funded by the Foreign Language Teaching and Research
Press (FLTRP) to develop a national framework for English language education in
© The Author(s). 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and
indicate if changes were made.
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1
DOI 10.1186/s40468-017-0032-5
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
China, provisionally called the Common Chinese Framework of Reference for English
(CCFR-E): Teaching, Learning, Assessment.
The development of such a framework in a country where the number of English
learners exceeds that of English native speakers around the world conveys no doubt a
strongly political message. The CCFR-E project was initiated in 2014 by the FLTRP, which
invited the authors of this article to participate in the project as a member of the expert
group or a senior consultant. The project, however, was suspended 1 year after its incep-
tion because of the inauguration of the China Standards of English (CSE)
1
project (see Liu
2015) by the National Education Examinations Authority (NEEA) in late 2014. The NEEA
is an institution founded in 1987 under the supervision of the Ministry of Education and
appointed by the Ministry to undertake educational examinations. This transition from
the initiation of a project by a commercial publisher to a national project under the aus-
pices of a governmental organization has sent a clear message of the politics of such an
important endeavor, and of the challenges inherent in such an ambitious project.
Methods
The macropolitics of education, according to Alderson (2009), addresses the agendas and issues
within the purview of national or local government (p. 2). While recognizing the central role of
educational policy-making and implementation at the macropolitical level, Alderson (2009) also
attaches great weight to individual factors: the personality of the players themselves, their emo-
tions, their ambitions, their agendas and their influence (p. 2). Macro-level educational policy
often involves innovations in language education, which requires individuals within an educa-
tional institution to respond to and to take actions. It is therefore argued that “politics with a
small p includes not only institutional politics, but also personal politics: the motivation of the
actors themselves and their agendas. And personal politics can influence language education
both in day-to-day affairs, and in projects for innovation and change”(Alderson 2009, p. 3).
In this article, we will adopt Alderson’s (2009) view on the role of politics in language education
to examine the political dimensions of the CSE project. To be specific, we attempt to unravel the
complexities of the issues involved in the development and implementation of a national frame-
work of reference for English in China by seeking answers to the following questions:
1. Why do we need a national framework of reference for English in China?
2. Why do we create a new framework instead of adopting or adapting an existing one?
3. What are the challenges facing government organizations in the process of
constructing and implementing a national framework?
4. What are the challenges facing the individuals involved in or having stakes in
the construction and development of a national framework?
In the following sections, we will provide a rationale for such a national endeavor by
reviewing the management structure of education within the China’s government
system and the status quo of English language education and assessment in China
(Question 1). Based on this review, we discuss the issues with the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe 2001) and the bene-
fits of developing a national framework specific to the Chinese context (Question 2).
We will then discuss the macropolitical challenges facing the construction and imple-
mentation of a national framework (Question 3). Finally we will identify and pinpoint
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1 Page 2 of 19
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
the challenges posed by the CSE project to individuals who will be involved in or
affected by the project (Question 4). This will hopefully lead to the development of a
more nuanced approach to the very idea of such a national framework given the
complexities of the Chinese context.
Results and discussion
English language education in China: the need for a national framework
Inconsistencies in curricular requirements
The management structure of education in China is a segmented system with different
governmental departments taking charge of education at different stages (see Fig. 1,
retrieved on June 1, 2015 at http://en.moe.gov.cn/About_the_Ministry/Departments/).
The Department of Basic Education I, for example, is in charge of elementary and
junior secondary education; kindergarten and senior secondary education is the respon-
sibility of Department of Basic Education II. The divided management structure of
education is understandable given China’s large population and its vast area. Such a
“segmental”structure, however, has brought about an inconsistent and incoherent
English language education system in terms of educational requirements.
National curricula for English language education have been developed and implemented
under the auspices of the different departments of the Ministry of Education (see Table 1
below for a summary). One benefit of having a separate curriculum for English language
education at each stage is that curricular requirements can be fine-tuned to suit the needs
and levels of targeted learners. Instructional objectives for young learners (elementary and
junior secondary), for example, include not only language knowledge and skills but also
affective attitudes, learning strategies, and cultural awareness (Cheng and Dan 2012). The
curriculum for college English learners (non-English majors), on the other hand, encourages
the development of learner autonomy by promoting the “computer- and classroom-based
teaching model”. In such a model, the role of college English teachers should be more of a
facilitator than an instructor (Wang 2008).
A major problem arising from such a management structure is the inconsistent learn-
ing objectives specified in the curricula for Chinese learners of English at different edu-
cational stages. In other words, the benefit of having a separate curriculum for each
educational stage may well be offset by the apparent lack of coherence across the
Fig. 1 The management structure of education in China
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1 Page 3 of 19
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
requirements of the different stages. For example, there is no shared understanding of
what constitutes the ability to communicate in a foreign language among curricula
developers working for different departments of education. There is also a lack of
consistency in terms of the proficiency levels to be attained at each educational stage
(e.g., speed of reading, fluency in speaking, grammatical knowledge, etc.). A compre-
hensive and detailed analysis is beyond the scope of this article. Examples of the most
obvious inconsistencies are therefore used to support our argument. One such issue is
reflected in the requirement of vocabulary size (see Table 2) and vocabulary list (words
to be learnt), both clearly specified in curricula and playing a key role in textbook
writing and assessment development for learners at a particular educational stage.
Our review indicates that there is a lack of key information about the vocabulary
requirements and that the requirements do not form an inherently coherent system.
First, it is not clear whether the vocabulary sizes are cumulative across educational
stages or each stage is independent of the others. Nor is it clear whether lexical items
at a lower level are included in the lists of higher levels. Words of food and fruit such
as “pancake”,“dumpling”,“cherry”, and “watermelon”, for example, appear in the word-
list of junior secondary curriculum, but not that of the non-English-major undergradu-
ate curriculum. Second, no information is available as to whether lexical items in the
Table 1 National curricula for English language education in China
Educational stage Curriculum
Elementary & junior secondary English Curriculum of Basic Education, MOE, P. R. China (2012)
Senior secondary English Curriculum of Senior Secondary Education, MOE, P. R.
China (2003)
Secondary vocational Secondary Vocational English Curriculum Requirements, MOE, P. R.
China (2009)
Vocational Vocational English Curriculum Requirements, Department of Higher
Education, MOE, P. R. China (2000)
Undergraduate (non-English major) College English Curriculum Requirements, Department of Higher
Education, MOE, P. R. China (2007)
Undergraduate (English major) English Major Curriculum Requirements, Advisory Committee of
College Foreign Language Education (English Group), MOE, P. R.
China (2000)
Graduate (non-English major) Graduate School English Teaching Syllabus for Non-English Majors,
Editing Group of Graduate School English Teaching Syllabus for
Non-English Majors (1993)
Note. Detailed references of each curriculum are provided in References. MOE: Ministry of Education
Table 2 Requirements of English vocabulary sizes at different educational stages
Educational stage Requirement of vocabulary size
a
No. of word families new
to each list
b
Elementary (year 1–6) 700 404
Junior secondary (year 7–9) 1500 941
Senior secondary (year 10–12) 3500 1682
Non-English major undergraduate (basic) 4795 1204
Non-English major undergraduate (intermediate) 6395 1073
Non-English major undergraduate (advanced) 7675 1059
Notes.
a
The information was obtained from the national curricula;
b
The information was provided by Dr. Tan Jin and
Dr. Baichuan Li (Language Data 2016, retrieved on February 12, 2016 at http://languagedata.net/lpa/); A word family
is the base form of a word plus its inflected forms and derived forms made from affixes (https://en.wikipedia.org)
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1 Page 4 of 19
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
lists are word families or lemmas. Data provided on the Language Data (2016) shows
that they are certainly not word families. In the 700 items of the vocabulary list for
elementary education, for example, there are only 404 word families. Third, core lexical
items or items new to each educational stage are not indicated, making it difficult for
teachers, textbook writers and assessment developers to focus on the items essential to
education at a particular stage.
More importantly, the rationale for and utility of these vocabulary lists appears to be
lacking. These lists were developed by different groups of experts working for different
governmental departments, who probably conceptualized “core general vocabulary”or
“essential English vocabulary”in different ways and disagreed on the principles of creat-
ing a wordlist (see Brezina and Gablasova 2015). When a corpus-based approach was
adopted for developing a wordlist, different corpora may have been consulted and
different frequency and dispersion statistics may have been used, leading to inconsist-
encies in the selection and counting of vocabulary items (Han and Feng 2004; Huang
1999; Huang, Chen, Xu, Li, and Fu 2004; Xi 1998).
Inconsistencies in the proficiency levels of national assessments
The other type of inconsistency is reflected in the proficiency levels of national assess-
ments, which are aligned to the curriculum at each educational stage. The divided
management structure of education in China has led to the development of a number
of national English assessments. Depending on their purposes, these assessments fall
into three broad categories: admission test, program exit test and proficiency test. A
summary of major national English assessments currently in use is provided in Table 3.
At the elementary level of education, there are no unified national assessments of
English. Classroom assessments are used to monitor the progress of students. Junior
secondary school graduates take admission tests developed by local (provincial or
municipal) education examinations authorities. Senior secondary school graduates sit
the National Matriculation English Test (NMET). For higher education, there are exit
tests for various English programs: Practical English Test for Colleges (PRETCO) for
vocational school students, College English Test (CET) Band 4 and Band 6 for non-
English majors, and Test for English Majors (TEM) Band 4 and Band 8 for English
Table 3 National assessments for English language education in China
Educational stage Assessment
Elementary No national assessments for elementary education
Junior secondary Provincial or municipal assessments for senior secondary admission
Senior secondary National Matriculation English Test (NMET) for college admission
Secondary vocational & vocational Practical English Test for Colleges (PRETCO) for vocational English
program exit
Undergraduate (non-English major) College English Test (CET) Band 4 & Band 6 for College English
program exit
Undergraduate (English major) Test for English Majors (TEM) Band 4 & Band 8 for English major
program exit
Graduate (non-English major) Graduate School Entrance English Examination (GSEEE) for graduate
school admission
All stages Public English Test System (PETS) Band 1 ~ 5 for admission,
promotion, overseas study, etc.
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1 Page 5 of 19
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
majors. For graduate school admission, the Graduate School Entrance English Examin-
ation (GSEEE) is developed and administered by the NEEA. The Public English Test
System (PETS) Band 1 to Band 5 is a suite of English proficiency tests for learners at
all levels and used for a variety of purposes, including mainly admission, promotion,
overseas study, and so on.
These national tests are developed and administered by different testing organizations
under the auspices of local or national examinations authorities. Similar to curriculum
development, there is a lack of communication among assessment developers working
for different examinations authorities. Take the NMET as an example. There are one
national version and 16 provincial or municipal versions. The national version is devel-
oped and administered by the NEEA whereas local versions are operated by local
examinations authorities. A significant issue with these different versions is the lack of
a quality control mechanism in the process of test development and scoring. As the
design and the task difficulty differ from one version to another, scores of the local
versions are not comparable. Admission officers may wish to know, for example,
whether test takers in Beijing with a score of 100 are at the same proficiency level
asthosesittingtheShanghaiversiontestwiththesamescore.Acommonscale
will facilitate test construction and score interpretation. If we have a common Eng-
lish proficiency scale and local versions of the NMET are aligned to the scale, the
proficiency levels of the test takers in different parts of the country will be
comparable.
The need for a transparent English language education system
Apart from the internal needs and interests of the Chinese government to improve
English language education, there is increased external influence on the Chinese gov-
ernment to respond to the challenge of globalization by making its education system
more transparent to the outside world. The development of a national framework of
reference for English language education is one of such responses to the need for a
more transparent education system.
Since the late 1970s, following the major economic reforms that opened the
country to the outside world, China has witnessed a growing interest in English
language education and a substantial increase in the number of English learners.
The national college entrance examination was resumed in 1977 after a 10-year
hiatus due to the Cultural Revolution, a sociopolitical movement that took place
in China from 1966 to 1976 which brought China’s education system to a virtual
halt for a decade. In the examination, English language became one of the three
compulsory components, accounting for one third of the total score. This further
spurred educators at all levels to give great importance to English language
education. Over the three decades, English language education in China has
matured into a full-fledged system (see Dai 2008; Wang and Xu 2014; Wen and
Xu 2011, 2012, 2013). However, in response to the profound impact of
globalization on education, the English language education system in China needs
further opening up.
On the one hand, the Ministry of Education is aware of the influence of the CEFR in
Europe and around the world and hopes to learn from the European experience and
develop a scale of its own. The government hopes that, through the CSE project, the
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1 Page 6 of 19
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
standards of English language education in China can be aligned to international frame-
works. It is also hoped that the CSE would contribute to the recognition of China’s cur-
ricula and assessments by other countries and regions in the world. On the other hand,
China’s fast social and economic development and its growing influence in the global
arena make some people believe that it is now less urgent for Chinese to learn English
or other foreign languages. However, preparing learners to be a global citizen (Israel
2012) is not only about equipping them with the ability to communicate, but also about
enabling them to know about the culture, custom, and history of a foreign country so
as to better adjust themselves to the new working or living environment. It is therefore
hoped that the new framework of reference for English language education and the re-
vised curricula and assessments will better prepare Chinese people to become a global
citizen.
The review of the status quo of English language education in this section indicates
the internal needs and interests of the Chinese government to improve consistencies
and coherence of curricular requirements. Externally, the development of a national
framework will improve the transparency of China’s policies and practices of English
language education and better prepare Chinese people to live and work in an increas-
ingly globalized world. In the next section, we will address the second question, also a
key issue under debate at the outset of the CSE project, that is, how a national frame-
work should be developed so as to best suit the needs and interests of Chinese learners
of English.
Adopting, adapting or creating a language framework?
The nature of language proficiency measures
Measures of language proficiency are meant to be a meta language shared by language
teachers, learners and assessors. For various political, social, cultural and economic rea-
sons, however, different measures of language proficiency have been developed in
different parts of the world. Apart from the CEFR, important language frameworks
(or scales, guidelines, ratings) include the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR)
scale, American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Guide-
lines, Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) Can-Do Statements,
Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB), the British National Language Standards,
the Eurocentres Scale of Language Proficiency, Australian/International Second
Language Proficiency Ratings, and so on (see Fan and Jin 2010 for a review).
A measure of language proficiency is a complex multi-dimensional system that takes
into account language use situations, language functions, linguistic elements, strategic
abilities, and communicative competencies, and captures the so-called criterial features
(Hawkins and Filipović2012) that distinguish learners at different proficiency levels.
Within such a system, it is difficult to determine the number of levels needed for a lan-
guage proficiency measure and to measure the distance between the levels. The levels
of a language proficiency measure are in fact arbitrary. De Jong (2004) commented on
the strength of the CEFR, which was reflected in its comprehensiveness: a qualitative
dimension, i.e., a descriptive system or taxonomy of language activities, and a quantita-
tive dimension, i.e., the use of different reference levels (54 quantified sets of descrip-
tors and six consecutive intervals).
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1 Page 7 of 19
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
More importantly, measures of language proficiency can have powerful political,
economic, cultural, educational and social influences on virtually every aspect of life.
The CEFR has affected such aspects of life as social mobility, job opportunity, language
policy, language education, cultural identity of language learners and so on. North
(2000) said that the CEFR is “a common European metric for recording language
competence”and that “the motivation for a common framework (or metric) is more
pragmatic, more socio-political than academic”(p. 4).
Issues with the CEFR
Initiated as a means to encourage “language learning for European citizenship”(Coun-
cil of Europe 2001), the CEFR was intended to be a common credit system for adult
language learners in Europe. The political impetus, according to the Council of Europe
(1996, 2001, cited in Fulcher 2004), was “to encourage mobility, to promote under-
standing and cooperation, and to overcome prejudice and discrimination”(p. 256).
Since its inception, the framework has gained substantial influence in Europe and in-
creasingly world-wide. Alderson (2005) noted that the publication of the CEFR was
“the most significant event on the language education scene in Europe”(p. 275).
Some inherent limitations of the CEFR, however, have affected its applicability in
Europe and other parts of the world. One of the obvious limitations, according to
Alderson (2007), is the lack of empirical research to underpin the descriptive
scheme and reference-level descriptions of the CEFR. In particular, insufficient at-
tention has been paid to “empirical findings from 30 years of research into second
language acquisition”(p. 660). A better understanding of how second and foreign
language proficiency develops is considered essential for the CEFR to become truly
useful to language education in general. The other problem associated with the use
of the CEFR is that of “quality assurance, or, to put it bluntly, the policing of the
CEFR levels”(Bonnet 2007, p. 671). An example is that “examination providers,
textbook publishers, and curriculum developers make claims about the relationship
between their products and the CEFR, but little empirical evidence has been pro-
duced to back up their claims”(Alderson 2007, p. 661).
Issues have also been identified with the use of the CEFR for developing comparable
examinations or tests. Papageorgiou (2010), for example, identified problems with the
CEFR descriptors when used for setting cut scores. Participants of his standard-setting
study reported that the context-free characteristics of the framework made it less
applicable to a language testing context. Quoting North (2004), Papageorgiou explained
that “as a reference resource for language learning, teaching and assessment, the CEFR
was not designed specifically for test specifications and language testing contexts”(p.
273). The participants of the study also found that the real-life descriptions used in the
CEFR were not helpful when making judgments in an exam context. The study has also
confirmed the findings of Alderson, Figueras, Kuijper, Nold, Takala, and Tardieu (2006)
that key words in some descriptors are ill defined and inconsistent in the scales. It is
not clear, for example, whether verbs such as “understand”and “follow”in the descrip-
tors of things that learners “Can Do”are used as synonyms or to indicate different pro-
cesses. It is also noted that the descriptors are adult-oriented and unsuitable for young
learners. And it is criticized for lacking descriptors for particular aspects of
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1 Page 8 of 19
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
performance and levels (e.g., grammar, task fulfillment criteria, missing C2 descriptors
in reading scales).
Adoption or adaptation of the CEFR in Asia
In countries and regions in Asia, the CEFR is also widely used, but not without problems.
In Taiwan, the CEFR has been adopted for establishing a common standard of English
proficiency and aligning local examinations to the standard. The experience of aligning
the GEPT (General English Proficiency Test, see www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw) with the CEFR has
suggested within the CEFR a lack of sufficiently detailed descriptors for describing how
well learners at a particular CEFR level perform (see Wu and Wu 2007; Wu 2014).
In Japan, efforts were made by the Japan Language Testing Association (JLTA) to
adapt the CEFR to the local context. A Japanese version of the CEFR, the CEFR-J, has
been developed and validated (www.cefr-j.org). The adaptation involves mainly two
things: adjusting the difficulty level of SASs (self-assessment statements) and investigat-
ing the distribution of learners’proficiency across the CEFR levels. Major changes to
the CEFR include level adjustment, wording of some descriptors, and supplementing
descriptors with examples to facilitate understanding. The surveys on Japanese learners’
English proficiency conducted by the Eiken Foundation in Japan among the lower sec-
ondary school students in a prefecture and employees of an electronics manufacturer
revealed that more than 80% of Japanese EFL learners are non/basic users (A1 or A2),
less than 20% at B levels (independent users) and almost none at C levels (proficient
users) (see Negishi 2012 for a report of the surveys). The resultant CEFR-J therefore
has a level A with six sub-levels (Pre-A1, A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A2.1, and A2.2), a level B
with four sub-levels (B1.1, B1.2, B2.1 and B2.2), and a level C with two sub-levels (C1
and C2) (see Negishi and Tono 2014).
Despite interest in the development and implementation of the CEFR-J, Runnels
(2014, p. 169) noted that the functioning of the CEFR-J as an assessment or a self-
assessment instrument in Japan is under-researched. One exception is the impact study
conducted through the analysis of “big data”, which contained 15,579,018 texts, written
in Japanese by researchers, practitioners, or news reporters in Japan from August 2012
to September 2013 on topics related to the CEFR-J (Negishi and Tono 2014). The study
showed that the impact of the CEFR-J on English language education in Japan had been
limited compared with that of language tests such as TOEIC and TOEFL. More import-
antly, it was found that “Can Do”descriptors were too narrowly focused to be useful
for teachers to reflect on teaching and construct teaching syllabus.
Creating a language framework for China
Byrnes (2007) cautioned against “simple and inappropriate transfer of CEFR content
decisions to other educational contexts”and called for CEFR-based research to focus
more on “how a context-free, though by no means context-indifferent, framework like
the CEFR can, should, and even must be translated into context-relevant forms in di-
verse educational environments in order to be implemented”(p. 642–643). In our view,
in a country as vast as China with a cultural, educational, and socio-economic context
dramatically different from that of Europe, either adoption or adaptation of the CEFR
would be a simplistic and problematic solution to the need for a national framework.
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1 Page 9 of 19
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
A key difference between the CEFR and the CSE lies in the targeted users of the frame-
work. The CSE has been intended for Chinese learners of English at all educational stages,
from young learners in elementary schools to adult learners in universities. The CEFR,
however, was developed to aid foreign language learning in the adult context in Europe.
In recent years, due to perceptions of its usefulness and currency and only a partial under-
standing of its aims, the CEFR, as noted by Figueras (2012), “has been used widely at all
education levels, also with L1, and with languages for specific purposes”(p. 483). The re-
search of the applicability of the CEFR for young learners, for L1 education, and for lan-
guages for specific purposes, however, is inadequate.
There is also an issue with the proficiency level of the CEFR if it were used in the
Chinese context. The six-level structure is neat and simple and has been substantiated
to some extent by empirical evidence. Such a structure, however, may not suit the need
of the CSE for providing guidance to English language teaching and learning in China.
Although the Council of Europe argues that the CEFR has an open and flexible struc-
ture which allows the breakdown of a major level into sub-levels (e.g., A1.1, A1.2), a
new framework with a structure of proficiency levels tailored to the needs of English
language education in China will no doubt be more functionally efficient and user
friendly (see The implementation plan of the CSE project below).
A further benefit of creating a framework to the Chinese context is that the process
of framework construction and implementation will offer us opportunities to effect
changes on a larger scale and at a deeper level than adopting a ready-made model or
adapting the CEFR to Chinese learners. The creation of a Chinese framework of refer-
ence for English (i.e. the CSE), by necessity, will involve investigation of the current
status of English language education in China and discussion or even debate on pos-
sible adjustments to educational policies. By so doing, the CSE project will hopefully
encourage policy makers, researchers and practitioners to reflect and try to reach
agreement on some fundamental questions on English language education in China.
For example, to determine the overall structure and the scope of the CSE, the
project team needs to investigate the motivations for Chinese people to learn
English and the major domains in which English is used in China; to define the
language proficiency model to be used in the CSE, the team needs to find out
what skills of English are useful to Chinese learners, the relative importance of
these skills and the urgency for Chinese learners to develop the skills; to describe
English listening ability, the team needs to make informed decisions on the var-
ieties of English to be taught and learnt in China; and most important of all, the
team needs to describe explicitly and in minute detail the proficiency levels to be
attained by learners of English at each educational stage.
The implementation plan of the CSE project
To develop the CSE, the NEEA has set up a project team which consists of eight
groups, each working on one of the eight components of essential knowledge or skills
of English language ability: listening, reading, speaking, writing, translation, interpret-
ation, pragmatics, and linguistic knowledge (see National Education Examinations
Authority 2014, p. 19 for the theoretical model of the CSE). It is interesting to note that
the structure of the CSE includes both translation and interpretation, in addition to the
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1 Page 10 of 19
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
four major language skills. As mediating activities, translation and interpretation occupy
an important place in the normal linguistic functioning of the Chinese society and are
taught and learnt as a language skill in tertiary education. Translation is also employed in
locally developed language tests to assess learners’ability to reproduce the source text
content in fluent and idiomatic target language. The project team, therefore, decided to
develop sub-scales of translation and interpretation at the upper-intermediate to advanced
levels of the CSE. The other interesting point to note is that master or PhD students
majoring in linguistics and applied linguistics have been invited to participate in the pro-
ject and work under the guidance of the group leaders because the construction of the
CSE involves highly labor-intensive work (see the implementation plan discussed below).
A three-stage implementation plan has been designed for the development of the
CSE (see Fig. 2). The first stage aims at establishing a descriptor pool through a review
of documents for collecting existing descriptors and writing new descriptors. A pool of
typical language activities for Chinese learners of English is also expected to be devel-
oped at this stage. The second stage focuses on the categorization of the descriptors
based on the theoretical framework developed for each component skill and revision of
the categories through expert judgment and teacher surveys. The third stage is to de-
cide the level of the descriptors through expert judgment and large-scale surveys
among teachers, learners and users.
The flowchart in fact provides only a thumbnail sketch of the stages involved in the
project. The actual development and implementation of the CSE will prove to be much
more complex than what has been expected. Initially the CSE will be only a descriptive
scheme, or a multi-functional framework of reference. Similar to the CEFR, the CSE
will use can-do statements with calibrated difficulty levels to facilitate communica-
tion among teachers, learners, and curriculum and assessment developers and
users. After the initial construction stage, the NEEA has planned to take a step
furtherbyusingtheframeworkasaguidelineandworkingcloselywithlanguage
policy makers, i.e., various departments of education in the Ministry of Education,
curriculum developers working for these departments, and assessment developers
working for examinations authorities (see Inconsistencies in curricular requirements
and Inconsistencies in the proficiency levels of national assessments) to turn the
framework into national standards of English.
Fig. 2 The procedure of developing the CSE (adapted from National Education Examinations Authority,
2014, p. 114)
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1 Page 11 of 19
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The use of the term “standards”as the title of the framework has signaled the
NEEA’s expectation to exert significant influence on national curricula and assess-
ments. As noted by Fulcher (2010a), standards are “powerful expressions of what
political authorities wish an educational system to deliver in the interests of the
nation’sfuture”(p. 226). Therefore, to effectively implement the CSE, reform of
English language education in China is inevitable, and this will meet resistance,
both active and passive. In the next sections, we will follow Alderson’s (2009) view
on politics in language education and discuss the challenges at the macro and
micro-political levels facing the CSE project.
Constructing and implementing the CSE: macro-political challenges
Coordination between the NEEA and educational policy-makers
The aim of the CSE is to increase communication among policy-makers within and
across educational stages in order to achieve greater consistency in policies and prac-
tices. This may involve a common curricular structure, a common credit system, con-
tent comparability for various language programs (e.g., vocational, non-English major
undergraduate, English major undergraduate and graduate programs), and content
specifications for entrance and exit assessments of English (e.g., NMET, PRETCO, CET,
TEM, GSEEE). The CSE, therefore, is expected to introduce a degree of commonality
in terms of the national-level educational policy in English teaching, learning and
assessment, leading ultimately to improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of
English education in China. The “consistency”or “commonality”intended by the CSE,
however, is likely to meet resistance from educational policymakers.
As mentioned in Inconsistencies in curricular requirements, policies of English lan-
guage education at different educational stages are made by various governmental de-
partments (see Fig. 1). The construction of the CSE, however, was the responsibility of
the NEEA, an institution under the supervision of the Ministry of Education to under-
take educational examinations. It is true that the NEEA is more suitable than other
educational departments to undertake the CSE project because it is able to mobilize
and coordinate resources at all levels of English language education in China. Reconcil-
ing and negotiating the different views and vested interests of different educational
stages will however be challenging due to an apparent lack of effective communication
between the NEEA and the educational departments and among professionals and
policymakers working with or for these different departments.
The very essence of constructing a unified framework is to accurately measure and
describe the distance between the levels in order to provide specific guidance on the
revision or re-design of curricula. There is a danger, however, that this objective could
be hijacked by policymakers due to the inherent governmental resistance to change.
For example, it is likely that the Department of Basic Education II thinks senior sec-
ondary is a key stage and a level on the CSE (e.g., CSE4 in Table 4 below) should be
designated to English education in senior secondary schools. The potential benefit is
that future alignment of the senior secondary curriculum with the CSE might be easier
and minimum efforts might be needed to revise its existing curriculum, assessments and
textbooks. If each department of education had such an expectation, the CSE would have
to designate a level to each stage of English language education (i.e., elementary, junior
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1 Page 12 of 19
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
secondary, senior secondary, secondary vocational, vocational, non-English-major
undergraduate, English-major undergraduate, graduate). Empirical data however
may not support such a division of Chinese learners’English proficiency.
The power of enforcement
The implementation of the CSE may present an even greater challenge to the NEEA
than the construction of the framework. Similar to the Council of Europe, which “can
only propose, advise, and encourage”but “cannot intervene directly in the educational
policy and practice of its member states”(Little 2007, p. 647), the NEEA, which is lead-
ing the development of the CSE, has a strong voice in educational assessment, but not
in curricula, nor in pedagogy.
The curricula for English language education at different stages are developed by
committees or working groups under the auspices of governmental departments of
each educational stage (see Table 1). These committees or groups consist of experts in
English language education, most of whom may not have participated in the CSE pro-
ject. It is therefore uncertain whether the new framework will be accepted and wel-
comed by these governmental departments and the curriculum developers working for
the departments, and how motivated they will be to redesign curricula and prepare
teachers for new curriculum requirements. The relationship of the CSE and English
curricula will not be established if the governmental departments and curricula devel-
opers are unwilling to align their curricular requirements to the new framework. The
NEEA, therefore, is expected to engage stakeholders, especially policymakers, in the de-
velopment of the new framework so as to facilitate the implementation of the CSE. A
vice minister of the Ministry of Education, for example, was invited by the NEEA to
participate in the inaugural meeting of the CSE project in October 2014, when she had
an opportunity to listen to experts’views and gain a better understanding of the com-
plexity involved in such an important endeavor.
The other macro-level challenge facing the implementation of the new framework is
that national or local governmental organizations may pay lip service to the new frame-
work by claiming a link between the curricula or assessments and the CSE levels in
Table 4 A hypothetical proficiency scale of the CSE (adapted from National Education
Examinations Authority, 2014, p. 43)
CSE
level
Targeted Chinese learners of English Major proficiency
levels
CSE1 Elementary year 1–3 Basic level: A1
CSE2 Elementary year 4–6 Basic level: A2
CSE3 Junior secondary year 7–9 Basic level: A3
CSE4 Senior secondary year 10–12, secondary vocational Intermediate level: B1
CSE5 Vocational, undergraduate year 1–2 (non major), undergraduate year 1
(major)
Intermeidate level: B2
CSE6 Undergraduate year 3–4 (non major), undergraduate year 2 (major) Intermediate level: B3
CSE7 Undergraduate year 3–4 (major) Advanced level: C1
CSE8 Postgraduate (major) Advanced level: C2
CSE9 Advanced learners of interpretation and translation Advanced level: C3
Note. “non major”= students whose major is not English language and literature; “major”= students majoring in English
language and literature
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1 Page 13 of 19
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
order to be considered politically correct. A superficial alignment could be detrimental
to the development of English language education in China, where diversity is perhaps
unavoidable and transition to a new system will have to be gradual and smooth.
Constructing and implementing the CSE: micro-political challenges
The construction of the framework
Similar to the CEFR, whose level labels and level descriptors have high value, or
“common currency”(Figueras 2012, p. 479), the reference levels and illustrative
descriptors of a national framework would be most useful for English language
education in China. The experience of developing a speaking proficiency scale for
Chinese learners of English, however, has proved that constructors of a national
framework would face great challenges in the way in which reference levels are
described and scaled (see Yang et al. 2012). Funded by the National Philosophy
and Social Science Project, the team spent 3 years in drafting and validating a
pool of descriptors of speaking proficiency for tertiary-level English learners.
Based on the data collected from 183 experienced teachers/raters, who were
trained to use the descriptors for evaluating performances of 10 students at dif-
ferent levels of oral proficiency, a total of 65 descriptors were categorized and
scaled.
In terms of the levels of the CSE, we would welcome a framework with a finer
grained scale of levels because it would be more informative and motivating to
learners and easier for the alignment with curricula and assessments. It is however
difficult to empirically construct and validate a framework with many levels, be-
cause distances between the levels need to be determined empirically by scaling
the difficulty of descriptors as perceived by experts and experienced teachers. A
proper balance between the usefulness of a framework and the practicality of de-
veloping the framework needs to be maintained when the decision on the number
ofreferencelevelsistobemade.
As a starting point of the CSE project, a nine-level structure of the framework
has been hypothesized based on China’s educational system and the annual test
population of some national English assessments (e.g., NMET, CET, GSEEE) (see
Table 4 above). In such a structure, the CSE could have a basic level with three
sub-levels (CSE1-3), an intermediate level with three sub-levels (CSE4-6), and an
advanced level with three sub-levels (CSE7-9). The hypothesis will be verified at
thethirdstageoftheproject.
When purposes of English use are considered, it would be challenging, but espe-
cially significant, for the CSE to meet the needs of using English for a variety of
purposes, including English for professional purposes, for workplaces, for academic
exchanges, for social interactions, and so on. Scales of English for specific purposes
(ESP) will be most useful to address the needs of adult learners and the future
needs of learners at school.
It is also a great challenge to construct and validate the illustrative descriptors of a
language framework (Zhu 2015). On the one hand, descriptors are difficult to write as
they “need to be expressed in language-specific functional, linguistic, and socio-cultural
exponents”(Figueras 2007, p. 674). If CEFR descriptors or descriptors of other existing
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1 Page 14 of 19
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
frameworks are to be translated into Chinese and used in the CSE, care needs to be
taken of embedded cultural values and pragmatic appropriateness. On the other hand,
descriptors are often criticized for being not informative about what learners should
have learnt in order to perform the tasks specified at a particular level. Can-do descrip-
tors describe performances typical of a proficiency level, which are observable, measur-
able and describable, rather than underlying competences, which are not directly
observable and therefore difficult to measure and describe. Westhoff (2007) noted that
“although the CEFR descriptors tell us a lot about what learners at a certain level can
do, very little is stated about what they should know in order to carry out these
language tasks”(p. 676). Therefore, in addition to teacher/rater perceptions of what
second language learner proficiency entails, attention also needs to be paid to the
theory of second-language acquisition when typical performances of a proficiency level
are described (Hulstijn 2007; Westhoff 2007).
Difficulties of framework construction also lie in the selection of so-called typical
tasks to be described in illustrative scales. On the one hand, given the large number
and various backgrounds of learners in the country, it is difficult to reach consensuses
on the typical communicative tasks of a particular proficiency level. “Casual/informal
conversation”, for example, might be a typical oral interactive task for learners in major
cities where there are opportunities for them to communicate with foreigners in
English. In less developed areas, learners can only practise English speaking with
teachers or classmates through typical instructional activities like “role play”. On the
other hand, while illustrative scales are useful for describing proficiency levels, a frame-
work can only include a limited number of typical communicative tasks. That is, it is
not possible for the framework to be sufficiently comprehensive to cover all the tasks
that are being used or hoped to be used in classroom teaching and assessment. As a
result, the message conveyed by the framework might be misinterpreted by teachers
and assessors, who are likely to pay particular attention to the tasks illustrated in the
framework and ignore other less typical but nonetheless important ones.
The implementation of the framework
At the stage of implementation, the project is likely to meet considerable individual re-
sistance. Practitioners of English language education in China may find it difficult to
understand and apply the proficiency levels and illustrative descriptors in their routine
practices. Little (2007, p. 648) noted that “its (the CEFR’s) impact on language testing
far outweighs its impact on curriculum design and pedagogy”because “supporting for-
eign language proficiency development through the stages described in the CEFR re-
quires a shift in pedagogic routines for those practitioners who are used to teaching in
traditional ways”(Westhoff 2007, p. 676). Eleven years after its official publication, few
empirical investigations have been conducted to look into the impact of the CEFR on
teachers and learners. Figueras (2012) questioned with some regret the usefulness of
the CEFR for classroom teaching and learning: “despite the huge amount of work that
has been put into changing language syllabi, changing methodologies, and changing as-
sessment practice, and despite the discussions, debates, seminars, and congresses on
the usefulness of the CEFR, it is still not possible to say that these language policies
have been effectively transferred to classrooms or to teaching materials”(p. 478).
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1 Page 15 of 19
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
It is envisaged that there is a long way to go before the CSE could have a significant
impact on English teaching and learning in China. Existing large-scale assessments will
be aligned to the framework and the NEEA has planned to develop a new assessment
system of English proficiency based on the new framework. Benchmark samples at each
of the levels on the proficiency scale will be selected through standard-setting from per-
formances on assessments aligned to the new framework. These samples will be used
for training teachers to evaluate their students. Even so, it is anticipated that teachers
may be reluctant to explore new pedagogic approaches and take on a new set of re-
quirements; publishers might be keen to apply the CSE, but they might do it inad-
equately and not sufficiently empirically; local or school-based assessment developers
may feel obliged to align their assessments to the CSE levels, but the alignment is a
highly professional job with many caveats (see Fulcher 2004, 2010b; Weir 2005). A
mechanism for quality assurance must be in place to monitor the application of the
CSE at the implementation stage of the project. It is also worth noting that, in the revi-
sion or re-designing process of curricula and assessments, voices of learners and their
parents, both important stakeholders of the CSE, should be heard in such matters as
the clarity of descriptions of learning objectives, the feasibility of achieving the objec-
tives, and resources available to help learners achieve the objectives.
Conclusions
The chief purpose of the CSE, similar to the CEFR, is to increase communication about
aims and outcomes of English language education through the use of a common ter-
minology and interpretation of its meaning so as to facilitate the implementation of
language education policy in China. Scaled curricula and assessments will improve the
coherence of curriculum and assessment requirements, as well as the coherence of cur-
riculum and assessment content specifications, leading to better efficiency of teaching
and learning. A sensible way forward for English language education in China therefore
is to use the framework as a guide to “bring curricula, pedagogy, and assessment into
fruitful interaction with one another”(Little 2007, p. 652).
The construction and implementation of such a national framework will necessitate
substantial research and strategic planning to form a coherent theory and systematic
practice of English language education specific to the Chinese context. English teach-
ing, learning and assessment in China will hopefully benefit from the process of devel-
oping such a framework of reference. The project is also hoped to promote
cooperation among educational institutions and facilitate communication between edu-
cational institutions and government organizations. In addition, the project is intended
to contribute to the debate on whether a common European framework (i.e., the CEFR)
would suffice for language education worldwide, whether local versions of the CEFR
(e.g., the CEFR-J) should be developed, or whether new frameworks (e.g., the CSE)
should be developed and implemented in a country where English is taught, learnt and
used as a foreign language.
The aim of the CSE project is not simply to search for or borrow a yardstick against
which learners’proficiency can be measured, but to develop, validate and continuously
improve the yardstick. This ongoing process intends to improve the coherence and
transparency of English language education at different levels and contexts within and
across China. More importantly, the process could improve the understanding and
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1 Page 16 of 19
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
increase the acceptability of the CSE because stakeholders, including policymakers, will
be involved in or informed of the development of the framework. Posteriori studies of
the impact of the CSE on English language education in China are essential to empiric-
ally validate and improve the newly developed language framework. A number of align-
ment projects have been planned to link English language assessments, domestically
produced or internationally recognized, to the CSE. The alignment studies will feed
back into and further improve the CSE.
A language framework could have a pervasive effect on society, institutions as well as
individuals. The power of the framework however could be both a blessing and a curse.
While the CSE has the potential to improve the coherence and transparency of English
language education system in China, the dominance of one framework could mean less
diversity and less choice when the framework is used for setting educational standards.
Fulcher (2010b) cautioned against “the indiscriminate exportation of the CEFR for use
in standards-based education and assessment in non-European contexts, such as Hong
Kong and Taiwan”(p. 16). In a country as vast as China, where there are 56 ethnic
groups, a large number of dialects, and 34 provinces and municipalities, we should be
fully aware of the possible dangers of implementing one national language framework
for standards-setting. Therefore, in our view, the development and the implementation
of a language framework is not simply a professional endeavor but a complex political
initiative, at both macro and micro levels.
Endnotes
1
To avoid possible confusion, we decided to use CSE, instead of CCFR-E, to refer to
the national framework of reference for English to be developed by the NEEA.
Acknowledgements
This article was based on the project “The Applicability of the CEFR for English Language Education in China”
(GZ20140100) funded by Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press and the Key Project of Philosophy and
Social Sciences “The Development of China Standards of English”(15JZD049) funded by the Ministry of Education,
P. R. China.
Authors’contributions
YJ and ZW participated in the China Standards of English (CSE) project as group leaders. CA was invited by the
Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press (FLTRP) to be the senior consultant to the Common Chinese
Framework of Reference for English (CCFR-E) project. WS was in charge of the CCFR-E project on behalf of the FLTRP.
YJ drafted the manuscript; the other authors, in particular CA, provided insightful comments on the draft. All authors
read and approved the final manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author details
1
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
2
Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.
3
Lancaster University,
Lancaster, UK.
4
Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Beijing, China.
Received: 21 September 2016 Accepted: 27 January 2017
References
Advisory Committee of College Foreign Language Education (English Group), Ministry of Education, P. R. China. (2000).
English Major Curriculum Requirements. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Alderson, J. C. (2005). Diagnosing Foreign Language Proficiency: the interface between learning and assessment. London:
Continuum.
Alderson, J. C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 659–663.
Alderson, J. C. (2009). The politics of language education: individuals and institutions. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Alderson, J. C., Figueras, N., Kuijper, H., Nold, G., Takala, S., & Tardieu, C. (2006). Analysing tests of reading and listening
in relation to the Common European Framework of Reference: the experience of the Dutch CEFR Construct
Project. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(1), 3–30.
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1 Page 17 of 19
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Bonnet, G. (2007). The CEFR and education policies in Europe. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 669–672.
Brezina, V., & Gablasova, D. (2015). Is there a core general vocabulary? Introducing the new general service list. Applied
Linguistics., 36(1), 1–22.
Byrnes, H. (2007). Perspectives. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 641–645.
Cheng, X., & Dan, W. (2012). Interpretation of the core rationale of English Curriculum of Basic Education. Curriculum,
Teaching Material and Method., 32(3), 57–63.
Council of Europe. (1996). Common European framework of reference for language learning and teaching: Language
learning for European citizenship. Stragbourg, France: Author.
Council of Europe. (2001). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dai, W. (Ed.). (2008). Book series on China’s Foreign Language Education Development over 30 years of reform and opening-
up. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
De Jong, J. (2004). Relating tests to the Common European Framework. Language Testing Update., 35,80–83.
Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, P. R. China. (2000). Vocational English Curriculum Requirements.
Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, P. R. China. (2007). College English Curriculum Requirements.
Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Editing Group of Graduate School English Teaching Syllabus for Non-English Majors. (1993). Graduate School English
Teaching Syllabus for Non-English Majors. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press.
Fan, J., & Jin, Y. (2010). A study of language testing standards: review, reflection and inspiration. Foreign Language
World., 1,82–91.
Figueras, N. (2007). The CEFR, a lever for the improvement of language professionals in Europe. The Modern Language
Journal, 91(4), 673–675.
Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal (Special issue), 66(4), 477–485.
Fulcher, G. (2004). Deluded by artifices? The Common European Framework and harmonization. Language Assessment
Quarterly, 1(4), 253–266.
Fulcher, G. (2010a). Practical language testing. London: Hodder Education.
Fulcher, G. (2010b). The reification of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and effect-driven testing.
In A. Psyaltou-Joycey & M. Matthaioudakis (Eds.), Advances in Research on Language Acquisition and Teaching (pp.
15–26). GALA: Thessaloniki.
Han, B., & Feng, Q. (2004). On the principles and problems in the selection of lexical items for College English Teaching
Syllabus. Journal of Shanghai University (Social Science), 11(5), 96–101.
Hawkins, J. A., & Filipović, L. (2012). Criterial features in L2 English: specifying the reference levels of the Common European
Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, J. (1999). On the wordlist of College English Teaching Syllabus (revised version). Foreign Language World,
4,26
–30.
Huang, J., Chen, Y., Xu, Y., Li, J., & Fu, Y. (2004). On the revision of the wordlist of College English Curriculum
Requirements. Foreign Language World, 1,2–9.
Hulstijn, J. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency.
The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 663–667.
Israel, R. C. (2012). What Does it Mean to be a Global Citizen? Kosmos. Spring.Summer. Retrieved on December 12, 2016
from http://www.kosmosjournal.org/article/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-global-citizen/
Language Data. (2016). The development and use of English Vocabulary Profile: A manual. Retrieved on February 12, 2016
at http://languagedata.net/lpa/
Little, D. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: perspectives on the making of
supranational language education policy. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 645–655.
Liu, J. (2015). On the development of China Standards of English. China Examinations., 273(1), 7–11.
Ministry of Education, P. R. China. (2003). English Curriculum of Senior Secondary Education. Beijing: People’s Education
Press.
Ministry of Education, P. R. China. (2009). Secondary Vocational English Curriculum Requirements. Beijing: Higher
Education Press.
Ministry of Education, P. R. China. (2012). English Curriculum of Basic Education (2011 Version). Beijing: Beijing Normal
University Press.
National Education Examinations Authority. (2014). The Implementation Plan of the National Scale Project.Document
issued by the NEEA on October, 12, 2014.
Negishi, M. (2012). The development of the CEFR-J: where we are, where we are going. In N. Tomimori, M. Furihata, K.
Haida, N. Kurosawa, & M. Negishi (Eds.), New perspectives for foreign language teaching in higher education: Exploring
the possibilities of application of CEFR (pp. 105–116). Tokyo: WOLSEC, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. Retrieved
on August 18, 2016 from http://www.tufs.ac.jp/common/fs/ilr/EU_kaken/_userdata/negishi2.pdf.
Negishi, M., & Tono, Y. (2014). An update on the CEFR-J project and its impact on English language education in Japan.
Paris: ALTE.
North, B. (2000). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. New York: Peter Lang.
North, B. (2004). Europe’s framework promotes language discussion, not directives. Retrieved 31 January 2007, from
http://education.guardian.co.uk/tefl/story/0,1191130,00.html.
Papageorgiou, S. (2010). Investigating the decision-making process of standard setting participants. Language Testing,
27(2), 261–282.
Runnels, J. (2014). Japanese English learners’self-assessments on the CEFR-J’s A-level can-do statements using four and
five-point response scales. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 167–177.
Wang, S. (2008). On the revision of College English Curriculum requirements. Foreign Language in China., 5(1), 4–10.
Wang, W., & Xu, H. (2014). Annual Report of Foreign Language Education in China (Year 2014). Beijing: Foreign Language
Teaching and Research Press.
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1 Page 18 of 19
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Weir, J. C. (2005). Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparable examinations and tests.
Language Testing, 22(3), 1–20.
Wen, Q., & Xu, H. (2011). Annual report of foreign language education in China ( Year 2011). Beijing: Foreign Language
Teaching and Research Press.
Wen, Q., & Xu, H. (2012). Annual report of foreign language education in China ( Year 2012). Beijing: Foreign Language
Teaching and Research Press.
Wen, Q., & Xu, H. (2013). Annual report of foreign language education in China ( Year 2013). Beijing: Foreign Language
Teaching and Research Press.
Westhoff, G. (2007). Challenges and opportunities of the CEFR for reimagining foreign language pedagogy. The Modern
Language Journal, 91(4), 676–679.
Wu, J., & Wu, R. (2007). Paper presented at the Four th European Association for Language Testing and Assessment (EALTA)
Conference, June, 2007. Spain: Sitges. Using the CEFR in Taiwan: the perspective of a local examination board.
Wu, R. (2014). Validating Second Language Reading Examinations: Establishing the validity of the GEPT through alignment
with the Common European Framework of Reference (Studies in Language Testing 41). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Xi, Z. (1998). On the wordlist of teaching syllabus for College English majors. Journal of Shaanxi Normal
University (Social Science), 27, 113–116.
Yang, H., Zhu, Z., & Fang, X. (2012). Research of the common framework of english for China: theory, methodology and
empirical studies. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Zhu, Z. (2015). Issues in the development of a descriptor bank for China Standards of English. China Examinations.,
273(4), 11–17.
Submit your manuscript to a
journal and benefi t from:
7 Convenient online submission
7 Rigorous peer review
7 Immediate publication on acceptance
7 Open access: articles freely available online
7 High visibility within the fi eld
7 Retaining the copyright to your article
Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropen.com
Jin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2017) 7:1 Page 19 of 19
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
