00-122 Benchmark C R

Zsuzsanna Liko

Informations

• Publié par: Sheaz
• Nombre de lectures: 89
• Langue: English

Extrait

Canadian
Language
Benchmarks
2000
English as a second language
– for adultsCanadian
Language
Benchmarks
2000
English as a second language
– for adults
Grazyna Pawlikowska-SmithTABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
II. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI
III. Introduction. . . VIII
A) Canadian Language Benchmarks: Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII
B) Features of the Canadian Language Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII
C) Purpose of the Canadian Language Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII
D) What Is a Benchmark? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX
E) What Does a Benchmark Number Mean? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX
F) An Overview of the CLB Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
IV. How To Use This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII
A) Who Will Use this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII
B) Organization and Best Use of this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII
C) Guidelines for Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII
D) Limitations of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV
V. The Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Stage I: Basic Proficiency – Benchmarks 1 - 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1: Speaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2: Listening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3: Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4: Writing . . . . . . 39
Stage II: Intermediate Proficiency – Benchmarks 5 - 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
1: Speaking. . . . . . 53
2: Listening . . . . . . 73
3: Reading . . . . . 85
4: Writing . . . . . . 97
Stage III: Advanced Proficiency - Benchmarks 9 - 12 109
1: Speaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
2: Listening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
3: Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
4: Writing . . . . . 167
Canadian Language Benchmarks www.language.ca IIII. PREFACE
Sutrisna, a 25-year old from Indonesia, arrived in Canada with limited some (possibly extensive) revisions. The work of those responsible
English language skills. Soon after his arrival he underwent a lan- for the development of the Working Document, however, has held
guage assessment and, based upon his assessment result, was up well. There was no pressing need for a revised set of Benchmarks.
referred to a Level 6 English language class. Later that same day, But the promise was made and improvements were suggested, and
Sutrisna met up with some of his immigrant friends and, eager a revision process was begun in early 1999.
to compare his English language ability designation with theirs,
The Board of Directors and staff of the Centre for Canadian Language
announced that he was at Level 6 in his English language ability
Benchmarks (CCLB) are pleased to release this new edition, which
and asked each of them their levels. One answered that she was an
we are calling Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000. The Bench-
Advanced Beginner and didn’t know what Sutrisna was talking about
marks contained herein are assigned an edition number, rather than
with all of this talk about “levels.” Another answered that he knew
defined into posterity, as The Canadian Language Benchmarks. We
about levels because at his English language institute he had been
are doing so, not because the benchmarks still need improvement,
designated as a Level 4. He went on to advise Sutrisna that Sutrisna’s
but because language acquisition is constantly being redefined. Redef-
school must have made a mistake or he had misunderstood, because,
inition will necessarily have an impact on the benchmarking of the
as they both agreed, it was not possible that Sutrisna’s English lan-
language acquired.
guage abilities were better than his.
We would like to take the opportunity presented to us by the publica-
This fictional exchange was no doubt similar to many conversations
tion of this edition of the Canadian Language Benchmarks to thank,
held in Canada prior to 1996. Things began to change in that year
and express a huge debt of gratitude, to ESL/EFL teachers and pro-
when the first version of the Canadian Language Benchmarks, the
gram administrators who have struggled valiantly with the Bench-
“Working Document,” was released and distributed across the coun-
marks over the past five years, to understand them first of all and
try. Since that time, English and French language training institutes
then to use them to reshape their programming and curricula. Much
have slowly, but very surely, opened their doors to the common lan-
of this work has been unrecognized and considered along with so
guage provided by the Canadian Language Benchmarks. As a result
many other things, as just “a part of the job.” Thank you for your
their learners have benefited.
efforts and talents.
Less frequently, adult immigrants are faced with the frustration of
We would also like to express our thanks to Grazyna Pawlikowska-
having to be reassessed and reclassified when moving from one lan-
Smith, who provided advice on how we should proceed with our
guage training institute to another. In small, but increasing numbers,
document revision work. We took her advice; then took her, to act
immigrants are able to demonstrate to employers, using the Canadian
on that advice. It took Grazyna the greater part of a year to carry
Language Benchmarks, that they have the language skills needed for
out extensive consultations across the country; synthesize the input
available jobs and to demonstrate to registrars that they have the lan-
received; make recommendations to the CCLB; and then, act on those
guage skills needed to succeed in non-ESL/EFL courses. In growing
recommendations supported by the CCLB in the document rewrite. An
numbers, they are able to compare their current level of ability in
individual or individuals are rarely recognized on the cover page of a
English or French with the ability they need to enter a program of
standards document such as this. We are more than happy to recog-
study, occupation or profession. At long last, immigrants can plot
nize, in this way, Grazyna’s contribution to this edition, as well as to
out for themselves, in advance, their own paths of language learning
the Working Document edition.
to attain their goals.
We invite you to visit the CCLB website (www.language.ca) regularly to
It seems such a simple task — getting everyone to “talk the same
learn more about CCLB initiatives and related activities.
language” when describing language ability. However, it has been far
from easy. Thanks, though, to the vision and hard work of many, the Board of Directors and Staff
Canadian Language Benchmarks are growing in popularity and use, Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks
and immigrants are beginning to experience the results.
September 2000
Central to the entire “CLB movement,” dare we say “revolution,”
are the Canadian Language Benchmarks themselves. When first pub-
lished, the revisions were promised two years down the road. The
view at the time was that, after some exposure, the original Canadian
Language Benchmarks would be found wanting and would need
Canadian Language Benchmarks www.language.ca VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many individuals, ESL programs and other organizations generously team. British Columbia: University of Victoria, The English Language
gave of their time and talents to develop the Canadian Language Bench- Centre, Victoria, with thanks to Maxine MacGillivray and the team
marks (CLB). The Board of Directors and the staff of the Centre for of teachers.
Canadian Language Benchmarks (CCLB) have tried to thank each indi-
The publication of this document requires that special thanks be
vidual over the course of this important ongoing work. For any ov