Talk:STEP Eiken

message: Someone with better English ability should rewrite this entry.
One sentence tells a similarity of Karate belts and Eiken grades saying that learners try to get higher levels. But is it necessary to mention karate belts? Is it also necessary to say that learners try to get higher grades as their English improve? This is rather obvious.
:This comparison actually makes a lot of sense.  Both karate (and many other disciplines in Japan) and the Eiken are graded in "kyuu" rankings.  E.g., a student testing for the third grade is testing for "third kyuu" (sankyuu).  --219.208.179.163 (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, this comment is basically saying that the edit from 210.196.68.66 is affiliated with the eiken administration somehow, and is requesting a revision.  (Just going at a glance; not sure.)  --219.208.179.163 (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: English ability

message: No reference was provided for comparison of Eiken levels and school levels (i.e., Eiken Grade 1 = "university level") and I can't find anything online except for the MEXT benchmarks on the STEP website, and these are only for three of the levels; changed to a table with CEFR comparisons instead; I think this gives a better idea of what the Eiken levels mean. If anyone feels differently, maybe the school levels AND CEFR levels can be given? (If they can be verified.)--Yeswikican (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Eiken itself claims their tests correspond to certain CEFR levels, but having taught both systems for years, I firmly disagree. Without independent source, their claim should not be taken at face value. The Eiken demands a larger vocabulary but in several areas it is extremely easier to pass than European CEFR tests of the claimed levels. Speaking being the most obvious difference. 220.111.137.188 (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eiken grades table 

message: I have just been looking at some research that might be able to improve this article. Here are the links:
*http://www5d.biglobe.ne.jp/~chujo/eng/data/rodopi.pdf - The purpose of this study was to create a means for comparing the vocabulary levels of Japanese junior and senior high school (JSH) texts, Japanese college qualification tests, English proficiency tests, and EGP, ESP and semi-ESP college textbooks in order to determine what the vocabulary levels are, and what additional vocabulary is required for students to understand 95% of these materials.This study found that although most college students should be prepared to take the TOEIC, and high school students should be able to pass both the Daigaku Center Nyushi and Eiken 2nd grade tests, most college entrance exams contain vocabulary that is significantly above the level of high school graduates. Specialized vocabulary lists can be helpful in bridging vocabulary gaps between JSH and ESP, and between JSH and the TOEFL.
*http://ksw.shoin.ac.jp/lib/thesis/takahashi/takahashi2005.pdf - mostly about grammar, but with some background on Eiken and some comparisons with other tests.
*http://ir.iwate-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10140/3747/1/550.pdf
*About Eiken in Japan:
**http://jalt.org/test/mcc_1.htm
--Boy.pockets (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: This article uses both EIKEN and Eiken to refer to the test. Need to clean this up for consistency, but which is more appropriate? The trademark is all caps (see http://stepeiken.org/user-agreement, etc.). Any thoughts?Yeswikican (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  EIKEN or Eiken? 

message: "The Eiken test has attracted criticism over its level of reliability. When comparing to similar tests like TOEIC, the reliability of the Eiken test has been shown to be lower.The consequence of this is that the test discriminates poorly between test takers." Reference: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110000062740/en
The above comment has been deleted from the main article due to the inappropriate nature of its inference and the misuse of a source article to imply support for generalizations made in the comment which are not justified by the original source. The study cited was a small-scale study, which when read in context is a useful investigation of the use of one elementary-level grade of the seven-grade Eiken framework for students in one school. However, the referenced article itself clearly cautions that "it would be unwise to draw any conclusions on the basis of the coefficient obtained from this EIKEN test, as it is based on a test sample of only 119 students, whereas the actual test population would yield a completely different reliability co-efficient." Not only did the comment disregard these clearly stated limitations of the original article, but it compounded the problem by using language which could be interpreted as making inferences about all seven grades of the test, including those not covered in the original research. This raises serious questions about the intentions and impartiality of the comment. Giving the comment such prominence would be seriously misleading to readers who do not take the time to read through the cited article, and who are not familiar with the issues and background theory necessary to interpret that one article in its proper context. 
The main article would benefit from a "criticism" section if somebody can find reliable sources (reliable as defined by Wikipedia) that also meet the Wikipedia neutrality policy that viewpoints be "weighted in proportion to their prominence." Yeswikican (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Criticism of test reliability and quality" comment