ALIGNING THE TOEFL PREDICTION SCORES TO THE COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE FOR LANGUAGES (CEFR) LEVEL

Sri Supeni; Anna Fauziah

doi:10.37110/jell.v5i01.93

Sri Supeni Binawan University
Anna Fauziah Binawan University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37110/jell.v5i01.93

Keywords: TOEFL, CEFR, Proficiency

Abstract

TOEFL as a kind of English test is used to measure students’ language proficiency. Binawan University applies TOEFL Prediction test to predict students’ English competence. The TOEFL score then is aligned and mapped to CEFR to indicate the level of language ability and qualification. This study was conducted to analyze TOEFL score of Binawan students at CEFR level. The sample was 169 students from several study programs at Binawan University. The research instrument used a package of PBT TOEFL test. Descriptive statistics was used as data analysis technique, mean and percentage. The calculation shows that the mean of the TOEFL prediction score reached by all participants is 413 and the median is 397. Based on CEFR, the students’ competence in English is in level A2 (Basic User). Individually, the number of students who is in level A1 (Basic User) is 78 or 46.2 %, level A2 (Basic User) is 35 or 20.7 %, level B1 (Independent User) is 43 or 25.4 %, level B2 (independent User) is 12 or 7.1 %, and the last is level C1 which is occupied by 1 student only that is in level C1 (0.6 %). To conclude almost 50 % of the students were at low level or A2 (Basic User) at CEFR.

References

Alyousef, H.S. (2005). Teaching reading comprehension to ESL/ EFL learners. the reading matrix. Retrieved April 4, 2019 from http://www.readingmatrix.com/ articles/alyousef/article.pdf.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L and Razavieh. A. (2002). Introduction to research. 6th edition. Wadsworth: Belmont.
Aziz, M. S. A and Uri, N. F. M. (2017, Dec. 2 – 3). CEFR in Malaysia: Current issues and challenges in the implementation of the framework. The 3rd International Conference on Language Testing and Assessment and the 5th British Council New Directions in Language Assessment Conference. Shanghai, China.
Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. in language testing and assessment (part 2). Retrieved March 8, 2019 from http://journals.cambridge.org.
Brown, H. Douglas. (2001). Teaching by principle: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Pearson Education.
Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2001). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. New York: Regents Publishing Company.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Council of Europe. (2013). Retrieved March 2, 2019 from http://conventions.coe.int.
Crystal, D. (2003a). English as a global language. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2003b). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Donald, Ary. (2002). Introduction to research method in education. Singapore: Wadsworth.
Grabe, W. (1988). English, information access, and technology transfer: A Rationale for English as an International Language. World English’s, 7 (1), 63-72. Retrieved March 2, 2019 from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971x.1988.tb.00215x.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: moving from theory to practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. Harlow: Longman.
Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach english. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Haviland, William A. (1993) Cultural anthropology. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Kridalaksana, Harimurti. (1993). Kamus linguistik . Jakarta: Gramedia
Kunnan, A.J. (2008). Large scale language assessment. In E. Shohamy & N. Hornberger (Eds). Encyclopedia of Language and Education. 2nd Edition. Vol: 7. Language Testing and Assessment. Amsterdam: Springer Science
Little, David. (2006). The common European framework of reference for languages and the development of policies for the integration of adult migrants.
Nunan, D. (2003). Practice English language teaching. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Nurhayati, Iis Kurnia at all. (2014). Analisis perbandingan nilai TOEFL dengan nilai mata kuliah bahasa Inggris mahasiswa. Jurnal Sosioteknologi. Vol. 13 No. 2.
Oxford, R.L. (1993). Research update on teaching l2 listening. System 21 (2). In listening anxiety and its relationship with listening strategy use and listening comprehension among Iranian IELTS Learners. Retrieved April 4, 2019 from http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n4p115.
Richards, Platt and Platt. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. In English Language Teaching. Vol. 5 No. 7. July 2012.
Sucahyo, S. A. (2016). Peta nilai TOEFL mahasiswa program studi pendidikan bahasa Inggris Institut Agama Islam Negeri Samarinda. Fenomena Jurnal Penelitian Vol. 8 No. 1.
Temple, C. and Gillet, J.V. (1984). Language arts. In student perspective using social media as a tool in english language learning. Retrieved March 8, 2019 from https://ojs.umsida.ac.id/index.php/madrostun
University of Cambridge. (2011). Using the CEFR: Principles of good practice. Cambridge: Cambridge ESOL.
Wibowo, Wahyu. (2001). Manajemen bahasa. Jakarta: Gramedia
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/proficiency. Retrieved February 25, 2019