Fairness in assessment can be one of the important goals in the field of language teaching and assessment. Assessment experts acknowledge the relations hip between validity and fairness. Some believe that validity itself is part of fairness. On the other hand, some believe that achieving fairness is in fact the achieving a test validity. The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) has developed a system of descriptors to achieve educational equality and assessment of learning. The purpose of this research is to validate a test consisting of 25 items based on CEFR descriptors. In order to obtain the necessary information to determine the validity of the test, 150 male and female participants answered multiple-choice questions. Then, the data were analyzed to determine the differential functioning of each item (DIF) by item response theory (IRT). In addition, a 75-item questionnaire was used to separate groups of participants based on their interests and goals. The results showed that in addit ion to the usual criteria for categorizing participants, including gender and linguistic and cultural background, personal interests and goals can be considered. It also became clear that these criteria could be used for determining test validity.

The Japanese adaptation of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR-J) is a tailored version of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), designed to better meet the needs of Japanese learners of English. The CEFR-J, like the CEFR, uses illustrative descriptors known as can-do statements, that describe achievement goals for five skills (listening, reading, spoken production, spoken interaction and writing) across twelve levels instead of the CEFR’s original six. The goal of the present analysis is to provide validity evidence in support of the inherent difficulty hierarchy within the 5 A level sub-categories (A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A2.1 and A2.2) in two ways: 1) by testing whether the difficulty of the can-do statements for each skill increases with the levels, and 2) by determining if there are significant differences in difficulty ratings between each level. It was found that for most skills, the rank ordering from difficulty ratings made by Japanese university students somewhat matched the level hierarchy of the CEFR-J but that significant differences between many adjacent levels were not found. The localization of a general framework for use by a specific population of users and the limitations related to using a system of can-dos that is derived from estimates of difficulty are discussed.

The purpose of this study was to determine a listening level based on Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for undergraduate students of engineering and also to compare the self-reporting of their listening comprehension on the DIALANG and the CEFR listening self-assessment descriptors with their level on the academic and general listening tasks. The participants of this study were 200 Iranian male and female learners (male=148, female=52) at the BS level at the Iran University of Science and Technology. The instruments of this research were the CEFR and the DIALANG listening self-assessment grids and eight listening comprehension tasks at four levels (i. e., A2, B1, B2, & C1) and in two different genres (academic and general). The results revealed that female learners performed better on the general and academic listening tasks than male learners did. The results also indicated that the learners' self-assessment did not correspond closely with their performance on the listening tasks as both groups rated their listening comprehension higher on the CEFR and DIALANG grids. The number of matches on the DIALANG grid was also greater than that of the CEFR, and the matches on the academic tasks were greater than those of the general tasks.

The purposes of this study were to determine a reading ability level based on the CEFR for male and female engineering students and to compare their reading levels on the CEFR and DIALANG self-assessment grids with the level based on their performance on the reading tasks. The participants were 162 Iranian male and female undergraduate students at the Iran University of Science and Technology. DIALANG and CEFR reading self-assessment grids and four reading tasks at four levels (i. e., A2, B1, B2, and C1) were administered to the participants. Considering the students’ performance on the reading tasks, the results revealed that female learners outperformed the male learners; however, a considerable number of learners (about 40%) in both groups were considered ‘ Below B1’ . The results also showed that learners’ self-assessment did not closely correspond with their performance on the reading tasks as both groups of learners rated their reading ability lower on the CEFR and DIALANG grids; nevertheless, the highest matches were related to the female learners' ratings on the DIALANG grid.

The importance of words in speech and writing is so much so that in the absence of words, it would be impossible to talk, converse or communicate with others. At the same time, not every word will create or maintain a connection. Improper and misleading use of words may even lead to a loss of verbal or written communication with misunderstanding.Since so far most of the researches have been done on how to practice vocabulary, due to the importance of using the right vocabulary and lexical combinations in conveying and communicating with the audience and in order to improve and upgrade the educational level of German language teaching institutions, this article examines the errors of Iranian language learners in grade B from the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).The criterion for this study is a field study conducted at the beginning of 2019 in one of the German educational institutions. This study shows the type and amount of mistakes of Iranian adult language learners in using German language

The validity supporting factors of the EPT reading comprehension test, a standard language proficiency test held monthly in Iran, were investigated in this research paper. To this end, each of the test questions was assigned to one of the known effective linguistic and non-linguistic components used by different readers in comprehending a reading text. Our ability to read in a second language, at first, depends on our familiarity with linguistic knowledge, which is the words and grammar of the target language, and under the influence of our non-linguistic knowledge,that if the assessment of reading comprehension ability is unfairly mixed with our "non-linguistic knowledge", the result will not reflect the content validity of the test. Since high-stake tests like EPT are designed for examinees with different experiences and other intrapersonal cognitive abilities, balancing the content of the test will lead us to more favorable results. 85 questions from 22 expository texts were randomly selected, and 150 female students graduated from the theoretical fields of humanities, experimental, and mathematics from Malayer city participated in the test. The data were analyzed using Pearson's correlation statistical analysis, Heterotrait-monotrait ratio, Exploratory Factor Analysis, and the Partial Least Square model. The results showed that non-linguistic knowledge has a significant and more than expected effect on the performance of the testees. Teachers, lecturers, and institutes implementing and designing second language reading comprehension standardized tests will use the results of this research.

This study aims to provide foreign language professionals with a sound methodology for selecting a suitable lexicon apropos of their students’ level in the language. The justification of said selection is, herein, rooted in a cognitive argument: If we are able to observe the manner in which words are organized within the mind, we will be better able to select the words needed for the natural process of communication. After analyzing over lists of lexical availability compiled by previous analyses, this study puts forth a glossary filtered by way of an objective procedure based on the mathematical concept known as Fuzzy Expected Value. I begin first by rigorously defining the concept of lexical availability and then thoroughly examining and explaining the manner in which I have obtained the results. Next, I employ the cognitive theory of prototypes to expound upon the organizational apparatus which arranges words within speakers’ minds. Subsequently, and in accordance with objective criteria, a lexical selection is proposed. To end, I contemplate and muse upon the significance of a program that would enable us to identify the most appropriate vocabulary according to the students’ level of linguistic competence. In order to further substantiate this study, it will be juxtaposed with the specific notions outlined by the curriculum of The Cervantes Institute. Moreover, it will relate to the teaching levels proposed by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) and Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).

The study on second language (L2) argumentative writing has explored various surfaces and dimensions of learner behavior and presentation, although fewer studies have studied effective pedagogical strategies to boost students’ argumentative skills. The current study mentions the gap by exploring the effect of explicit argumentative instruction on the writing abilities of 30 Iranian IELTS candidates, according to CEFR ranging from B1 to B2, in an English Language Institute in Karaj - Iran in both Persian and English, the former their native language and the latter their foreign language . As a set of authentic IELTS Task 2 prompts were used and taken from the language learners, the study analyzed 180 argumentative essays, both in English and Persian, written by the participants prior, while and after instruction. The outcomes had shown noteworthy enhancement in the students’ English argumentative performance, with the recurrent use of argumentation key elements such as ‘claim’, ‘data’, and the ‘counterarguments’. Though, less emphasis was put on advanced argumentative structures such as ‘counterclaims’ and ‘rebuttals’. The results suggest that structured pedagogy in  teaching argumentation can positively influence learners’ proficiency in both first language (L1) and second language (L2) writing. The insinuations for teaching argumentative writing in multilingual contexts will be further discussed.

IntroductionMaking errors in the process of learning German, generally also has positive aspects, because it indicates the level of linguistic knowledge and specifies ambiguous points in the learning process of the learner. Many of the mistakes of language learners are hidden because such errors are only identified by the practical use of language, orally or in writing or after clarification by the speaker.  Basically, hidden errors can be seen in sentences despite a grammatically accepted structure, or after the additional explanations of the language learner or after a complete study of the text. The present article follows the hypothesis that one of the causes of hidden or latent errors is the lack of knowledge of language learners (especially Iranian learners) in pragmatics or semantics, which are linguistic fields that discuss  the impact of context on meaning. They include the speaker's attitudes and beliefs and his level of understanding, including his knowledge of how to use language. The existence of cultural and social differences between the origin of the two languages (Iran and Germany) fhas a major effect on the occurrence of errors. This requires additional explanations.While investigating the factors causing errors in the field of pragmatics and the possibility of reducing and eliminating such errors, the present article examines the question of whether paying attention to pragmatics along with learning the different meanings of words in the structure of a text and paying attention to the intended meaning is effective in reducing errors and using the correct words.Background researchMost of the articles and theses in the field of German language education have dealt with the topics of teaching grammar, practicing vocabulary and other educational topics and literary approaches. However, so far, there has been no mention of pragmatics in the process of teaching and learning German.MethodologyIn order to investigate the presence of pragmatic errors in learners and to obtain a reliable result, 66 written answer sheets of Iranian language learners engaged in learning German have been investigated by field method. Language learners were required to write a text related to a given subject. Students were present and were not allowed to use dictionaries or mobile phones.ConclusionThe detailed examination of the written sentences of the experimental group clearly shows the weakness and lack of knowledge of the majority of Iranian language learners about pragmatics or semantics, which is the cause of errors, namely those that can only be recognized by considering the text and the topic.The presence of the mentioned errors will lead to the non-compliance of the language knowledge of Iranian language learners according to the approved standards of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Therefore, teachers should pay close attention to pragmatics and semantics in order to teach the language learners the ability to present correct and appropriate sentences. This is considered one of the most important duties of the teacher in the educational course.Considering the fact that most language learners due to various personal reasons rarely participate in practical activities of the German language their teachers will be their main motivators to practically apply the learned language.It is mainly the continuous use of the language that reduces the number of errors, especially those in pragmatics and semantics. Therefore, teachers are required to pay attention to the existence of linguistic and cultural differences between the language of origin and the destination language in order to reduce errors in the mentioned category.