ANALYSIS OF 8th GRADE STUDENTS' ENGLISH SPEAKING LEVELS ACCORDING TO CEFR

The aim of this study is to analyse 8th grade students' English speaking levels in the academic year 2020–2021 according to the speaking criteria of the Common European Language Framework of Reference for Languages. This study also aims to identify the speaking difficulties which are experienced by the students and find out the possible problems related to being able to carry out tasks which necessitate share data on known themes and exercises such as describing experiences, events, hopes and ambitions, understanding what the discussion is about and having the option to keep the discussion going successfully. Being able to speak in English or any target language is a vital skill and can be difficult at times. For the speaking analysis, a questionnaire was administered to 32 8th grade students of N20 R. Isetov school in Turkistan, Kazakhstan in the academic year 2020–2021. The results of the questionnaires were assessed statistically. The findings in the research indicate that students think they are competent with the A1 speaking criteria the most according to the CEFR. In other words, as the students reach higher levels of competencies in their current levels (A1, A2, B1), the means that show their speaking performance levels tend to go down.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Common European framework of reference for languages, European language portfolio, speaking level

ANALYSIS OF 8th GRADE STUDENTS' ENGLISH SPEAKING LEVELS ACCORDING TO CEFR

Keywords:

Common European framework of reference for languages, European language portfolio, speaking level,

PDF

___

1. Malmir, A., & Shoorcheh, S. (2012). An investigation of the impact of teaching critical thinking on the Iranian EFL learners’ speaking skill // Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4). – P. 608–617.
2. Nazara, S. (2011). Students’ perception on EFL speaking skill development // Journal of English Teaching, 1(1). – P. 28–42.
3. Bahrani, T., & Soltani, R. (2012). How to teach speaking skill? // Journal of Education and Practice, 3(2). – P. 25–29. 4. Omer, O.Z.E.R., & Parmaksiz, R.Ş. (2013). Comparative Analysis of Lower Secondary Education 3rd Grade Curriculum for English Language and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages // Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2). – S. 171–189.
5. Sak, Ö. (2013). A comparative analysis of English language curriculum for primary education in Turkey and Finland according to common European framework for languages. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu.
6. Shaarawy, H. Y., & Lotfy, N. E. (2013). Teaching Writing within the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR): A Supplement Asynchronous Blended Learning Approach in an EFL Undergraduate Course in Egypt // Higher Education Studies, 3(1). – P. 123–135.
7. Nakatani, Y. (2012). Exploring the implementation of the CEFR in Asian contexts: Focus on communication strategies // Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46. – P. 771–775.
8. Fischer, J. (2020). The underlying action-oriented and task-based approach of the CEFR and its implementation in language testing and assessment at university // Language Learning in Higher Education, 10(2). – P. 301–316.
9. Eizaga-Rebollar, B., & Heras-Ramírez, C. (2020). Assessing pragmatic competence in oral proficiency interviews at the C1 level with the new CEFR descriptors // Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 16(1). – P. 87–121.
10. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.