Dialang validity and reliability?

[Jar-Ptitsa]

There'd be absolutely no profit motive for them to lie about my level. They're in Belgium and I'm in Canada and there's been no talk about me flying over to Belgium (which would be cost prohibitive for me) and getting lessons from them.

I'm from Belgium too. Which langauge school is that, or has said that he works for? if you prefer to not say, of course no problem!!

Do you know about the linguistic "war" in Belgium? It includes, for example that the flemish have stated officially that the Walloons are intellectually incapable of learn Dutch well? I wouldn't trust a flemish's advice about your Dutch level. They have got a linguistic agenda.

Please don't feel upset, i didn't mean that you lied or something, absoulutely not at all, and if you prefer to feel b1, no problem.

I feel b2 in German althouhg the nosey parker doctor in London had arranged that I did a 'freindly informal' test wiht the person who knows the exams to discover my german level and the person said c1. So I mean, I understand when the results conflict with your feeling.

I just took an official NT2 listening sample exam for B2 online and passed

Congratulations

[tarvos]

I think the truth is always somewhere in the middle. It could be that your vocabulary is B1 and the rest is higher, which leads to a skewed assessment. It could be that they assess a little conservatively. It could be that your skills don't hold up under duress (e.g. when you're not given time to correct yourself). It could be they tested you on a bad day. Who knows? Language schools do do that thing where they try to get a bit more money out of you, but they also don't want to do it too much because that will also lose them clients.

I don't really think that they were dishonest when they evaluated you. I think their evaluation was probably honest, but like I said, they may have been a little conservative with their guess (based on what I don't know because I'm not the one evaluating you.)

It's easy to judge when you don't have all the facts at your disposal. For what it's worth, trui, I think you could probably be B2 grammatically without trouble. Vocabulary is something that will remedy itself over time and a lot of reading and a lot of composition will do the trick. I don't think these levels are as important as the things you can do with them in real life, so I'm not really fussed about how off their evaluation could or could not be. I could probably give you a second opinion, but that would be boring and I'd have to test you.

[trui]

There'd be absolutely no profit motive for them to lie about my level. They're in Belgium and I'm in Canada and there's been no talk about me flying over to Belgium (which would be cost prohibitive for me) and getting lessons from them.

I'm from Belgium too. Which langauge school is that, or has said that he works for? if you prefer to not say, of course no problem!!

Do you know about the linguistic "war" in Belgium? It includes, for example that the flemish have stated officially that the Walloons are intellectually incapable of learn Dutch well? I wouldn't trust a flemish's advice about your Dutch level. They have got a linguistic agenda.

Please don't feel upset, i didn't mean that you lied or something, absoulutely not at all, and if you prefer to feel b1, no problem.

Seriously? Why do you care so much whether I'm B2 or well on my way towards B2? And no, I'm not worried about you thinking that I'm lying, I'm just frankly annoyed by your constant doubting of the person who gave me a friendly estimate's motives and intentions. First you say that they gave a bad estimate because they want to give me lessons, and now you're saying that because they're Belgian they're biased against people from... Canada? who learn Dutch? What even...

I swear, by the time I convince you that I could very well be B1 in writing, I'll be B2 already. And no, it's not a matter of me 'preferring' to be B1. It's that B1 is my and others best guess at my written level and I'd rather round down/be on the side of caution than round up (though rounding up seems to be the trend these days).

I think the truth is always somewhere in the middle. It could be that your vocabulary is B1 and the rest is higher, which leads to a skewed assessment. It could be that they assess a little conservatively. It could be that your skills don't hold up under duress (e.g. when you're not given time to correct yourself). It could be they tested you on a bad day. Who knows? Language schools do do that thing where they try to get a bit more money out of you, but they also don't want to do it too much because that will also lose them clients.

I don't really think that they were dishonest when they evaluated you. I think their evaluation was probably honest, but like I said, they may have been a little conservative with their guess (based on what I don't know because I'm not the one evaluating you.)

It's easy to judge when you don't have all the facts at your disposal. For what it's worth, trui, I think you could probably be B2 grammatically without trouble. Vocabulary is something that will remedy itself over time and a lot of reading and a lot of composition will do the trick. I don't think these levels are as important as the things you can do with them in real life, so I'm not really fussed about how off their evaluation could or could not be. I could probably give you a second opinion, but that would be boring and I'd have to test you.

There was no formal test. This was just their friendly opinion after seeing me chatting online for a while and I asked for their opinion, they didn't offer it out of the blue. Yes, it's certainly not official but neither is you two judging my polished, written with a dictionary, writing official.

And yes, I do think that my vocabulary is my main weak point, but that doesn't lead to a skewed assessment. Everyone has weak points and strong points. If you only took someone's strongest points as the determination of their level then things would get very skewed indeed.

I personally wouldn't be so fussed about this if you two, especially Jar-Ptitsa, didn't immediately jump to conclusions of bias and lying instead of just accepting that maybe you don't know my Dutch level better than I and others do based on a few carefully constructed posts. Like, I could honestly care less if my writing was almost B2 but not quite or B2. I personally am more conservative on my own estimates and sometimes I think I'm too conservative, which is why I've asked other people's opinions, like said teacher from Belgium. But I'd much rather be conservative than wildly overestimate myself. I'm not accusing you two of doing that for your languages but you have to admit that many people online drastically overestimate their own levels.

Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is with my estimate. Is it a desire for dialang to be accurate because you use it to self evaluate? Like, what's your issue with me doubting that I'm C2 in all areas and thus doubting dialang's and other tests validity? IMO this is why such unofficial online tests are silly. People put way too much stock in them.

[tarvos]

It doesn't matter to me. If you say so, then so be it.

[Jar-Ptitsa]

Seriously? Why do you care so much whether I'm B2 or well on my way towards B2?

Ok, I don't care any more.

[reineke]

Active vs passive.

"A dramatic drop in proficiency level."

"Discrepancies run up to 40% achieving a lower level on active language proficiency as opposed to the QPT (PASSIVE LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY) at the C2 LEVEL, 35% for the C1 level and 5% at the B2.

Similar results in the difference of active and passive language skills have been found at Leiden University with 800 lecturers who did the Dialang and the same oral test. Apparently, it is much harder to activate passive language proficiency than assumed by most of us."

pp 322 - 323

http://pure.tudelft.nl/ws/files/3246921 ... 460240.pdf

[rdearman]

Active vs passive.

"A dramatic drop in proficiency level."

"Discrepancies run up to 40% achieving a lower level on active language proficiency as opposed to the QPT (PASSIVE LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY) at the C2 LEVEL, 35% for the C1 level and 5% at the B2.

Similar results in the difference of active and passive language skills have been found at Leiden University with 800 lecturers who did the Dialang and the same oral test. Apparently, it is much harder to activate passive language proficiency than assumed by most of us."

pp 322 - 323

http://pure.tudelft.nl/ws/files/3246921 ... 460240.pdf

So what does this tell us? What is your conclusion?

[Random Review]

There'd be absolutely no profit motive for them to lie about my level. They're in Belgium and I'm in Canada and there's been no talk about me flying over to Belgium (which would be cost prohibitive for me) and getting lessons from them.

I'm from Belgium too. Which langauge school is that, or has said that he works for? if you prefer to not say, of course no problem!!

Do you know about the linguistic "war" in Belgium? It includes, for example that the flemish have stated officially that the Walloons are intellectually incapable of learn Dutch well? I wouldn't trust a flemish's advice about your Dutch level. They have got a linguistic agenda.

Please don't feel upset, i didn't mean that you lied or something, absoulutely not at all, and if you prefer to feel b1, no problem.

Seriously? Why do you care so much whether I'm B2 or well on my way towards B2? And no, I'm not worried about you thinking that I'm lying, I'm just frankly annoyed by your constant doubting of the person who gave me a friendly estimate's motives and intentions. First you say that they gave a bad estimate because they want to give me lessons, and now you're saying that because they're Belgian they're biased against people from... Canada? who learn Dutch? What even...

I swear, by the time I convince you that I could very well be B1 in writing, I'll be B2 already. And no, it's not a matter of me 'preferring' to be B1. It's that B1 is my and others best guess at my written level and I'd rather round down/be on the side of caution than round up (though rounding up seems to be the trend these days).

I think the truth is always somewhere in the middle. It could be that your vocabulary is B1 and the rest is higher, which leads to a skewed assessment. It could be that they assess a little conservatively. It could be that your skills don't hold up under duress (e.g. when you're not given time to correct yourself). It could be they tested you on a bad day. Who knows? Language schools do do that thing where they try to get a bit more money out of you, but they also don't want to do it too much because that will also lose them clients.

I don't really think that they were dishonest when they evaluated you. I think their evaluation was probably honest, but like I said, they may have been a little conservative with their guess (based on what I don't know because I'm not the one evaluating you.)

It's easy to judge when you don't have all the facts at your disposal. For what it's worth, trui, I think you could probably be B2 grammatically without trouble. Vocabulary is something that will remedy itself over time and a lot of reading and a lot of composition will do the trick. I don't think these levels are as important as the things you can do with them in real life, so I'm not really fussed about how off their evaluation could or could not be. I could probably give you a second opinion, but that would be boring and I'd have to test you.

There was no formal test. This was just their friendly opinion after seeing me chatting online for a while and I asked for their opinion, they didn't offer it out of the blue. Yes, it's certainly not official but neither is you two judging my polished, written with a dictionary, writing official.

And yes, I do think that my vocabulary is my main weak point, but that doesn't lead to a skewed assessment. Everyone has weak points and strong points. If you only took someone's strongest points as the determination of their level then things would get very skewed indeed.

I personally wouldn't be so fussed about this if you two, especially Jar-Ptitsa, didn't immediately jump to conclusions of bias and lying instead of just accepting that maybe you don't know my Dutch level better than I and others do based on a few carefully constructed posts. Like, I could honestly care less if my writing was almost B2 but not quite or B2. I personally am more conservative on my own estimates and sometimes I think I'm too conservative, which is why I've asked other people's opinions, like said teacher from Belgium. But I'd much rather be conservative than wildly overestimate myself. I'm not accusing you two of doing that for your languages but you have to admit that many people online drastically overestimate their own levels.

Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is with my estimate. Is it a desire for dialang to be accurate because you use it to self evaluate? Like, what's your issue with me doubting that I'm C2 in all areas and thus doubting dialang's and other tests validity? IMO this is why such unofficial online tests are silly. People put way too much stock in them.

Gosh dude, I feel like you're reading hostility into posts where it isn't there a little here. I say this as someone who maybe has been known to do exactly the same thing on occasion. Afterwards I've always looked back and wished someone had given me a friendly nudge to wind my neck in, so here I am (and maybe next time I do it you can return the favour ).

On a purely practical level, if it upsets you this much, it clearly is more important to you than even you realise. Why not take an official CEFR test for your own satisfaction?

[reineke]

Active vs passive.

"A dramatic drop in proficiency level."

"Discrepancies run up to 40% achieving a lower level on active language proficiency as opposed to the QPT (PASSIVE LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY) at the C2 LEVEL, 35% for the C1 level and 5% at the B2.

Similar results in the difference of active and passive language skills have been found at Leiden University with 800 lecturers who did the Dialang and the same oral test. Apparently, it is much harder to activate passive language proficiency than assumed by most of us."

pp 322 - 323

http://pure.tudelft.nl/ws/files/3246921 ... 460240.pdf

So what does this tell us? What is your conclusion?

"Delft University of Technology (DUT) screened her (non-native English) scientific staff on their level of English proficiency in the academic year of 2006/2007."

People with high levels of language skill scored high. The majority of the staff would not have been able to pass the actual C2 exam. We're talking about academic staff at Delft, Netherlands:

"To sum up, the majority of the scientific staff have a language proficiency level at C1 of the Common
European Framework of Reference. This level is roughly equivalent to an IELTS Level of
6.5/7.0. At present, the IELTS 7.5 (minimum C2) recommended proficiency level by 3TU Federation
Committee is rather ambitious, as only 21% of the entire scientific staff included in the
test achieve a C2 level."

"The whole screening operation was a result of complaints of students about the poor level of
language proficiency of their lecturers. As the test results were rather reasonable, no more complaints
have been made by students for a long time. Contrary to the expectations of the Board of
Directors, however, student complaints have resumed, despite the effort to raise the proficiency
levels of the scientific staff. Therefore, the question remains whether the language proficiency
of staff is the central issue or whether it is the lack of student proficiency."

Conclusion

"The conclusion is that a first screening gives a representative picture of the language proficiency
level of the scientific staff at Delft University of Technology. On average the language proficiency
level is C1 (55%). Nevertheless, a large percentage of scientific staff members are not achieving
a C2 level, which means that establishing this goal of C2 language proficiency would certainly
not be feasible in the near future. A C1 level is certainly
feasible at a maintenance level."

The level of English language proficiency was lower at Leiden. Maybe things have changed since then.

Active & passive. A real thing, apparently. Computerized tests are good screening tools. Oral proficiency is the Achilles' heel of L2 learners. C2 is hard to achieve and measure (never mind through forum posts). Students complain too much.

[trui]

Gosh dude, I feel like you're reading hostility into posts where it isn't there a little here. I say this as someone who maybe has been known to do exactly the same thing on occasion. Afterwards I've always looked back and wished someone had given me a friendly nudge to wind my neck in, so here I am (and maybe next time I do it you can return the favour ).

On a purely practical level, if it upsets you this much, it clearly is more important to you than even you realise. Why not take an official CEFR test for your own satisfaction?

I was already done with this but since you brought it up again--I originally posted my results here to show how ridiculously off some tests could be. But when I was told essentially 'how do you know that you're not C2? your written Dutch looks very good' I laughed, but I appreciated the comment. So I talked about the Dutch people don't see here. The Dutch that I don't use a dictionary for to look up gender, certain words, etc., and how someone who teaches Dutch agreed with my assessment of my skills. Aaand then I was told that I was still wrong, that the person who estimated my level had ulterior motives, etc., etc. and that's when I started to get annoyed.

I do think that many people overestimate their level and sure, some people underestimate it too, but I'm not about to walk up to specific people and say 'you're wrong!', though I do often talk about overestimation (and sometimes underestimation) in general terms and the unreliability of many online tests. So when people doubted my assessment of my level, people I knew's assessment of my level, and so forth, while having little exposure to my Dutch, and said stuff like 'if you prefer to feel b1' which came across as a passive agressive way of saying 'if lying to yourself makes you happy'--yes, that annoyed me. And sure, maybe I read some hostility or meaning into posts when it wasn't there, but the constant doubting of me and my experience and what I know about the CEFR frustrated me.

As for taking an official test, yes, I want to, but I'm debating between the NT2 programma II (B2) and the CNaVT EDUP (C1) tests. I could maybe pass the B2 test now, but I want to make sure before spending a couple hundred euros. Plus I'd prefer to pass the writing and speaking sessions with flying colours (I already know I'll do quite well on the reading/listening due to passing those sample exams. ). Also, I'd like to take the C1 test sometime so maybe I should just wait until I'm confident about passing that. There is no C2 exam. I wish I could just spent a couple hundred euros for curiosity's sake but I really can't afford to right now.