The Common European Framework of Reference: a Developing Standard

1. The Common European Framework of Reference:a Developing Standard Gary Buck, Ph.D. University of Michigan

2. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, AssessmentA Developing International Standard Gary Buck, Ph.D. University of Michigan

3. In order to standardize language education we need standards • Standards of attainment • Standard terminology to describe that For: • Teacher accreditation • Curriculum design • Student learning objectives • Program evaluation • Student assessment • Etc. etc.

4. false beginner? intermediate learner? advanced learner? Roughly speaking, we think we know what these mean. But in reality, such labels are quite meaningless. We have no clear idea what they can do! And no clear idea what they cannot do! Historically we have described L2 attainment in such terms as:

5. And that is just talking among our colleagues Are these the same in: • Taiwan? • Canada? • Chile? • Etc. etc. Of course not! So how do they differ? • Taiwanese vs Philippine intermediate? • Mexican vs Indian Advanced? Most of us have no idea at all.

6. In order to discuss language education … We need standard terminology: • That specifies meaningful levels of attainment • Across the whole ability range • With precise definitions of each level • That describe what learners can do • In meaningful terms

7. The Common European Framework of Reference does just that … and more! Usually called the CEFR

8. First Planned at: 1991 Intergovernment Symposium, Ruschlikon, Switzerland In order to: • promote and facilitate cooperation among educational institutions in different countries; • provide a sound basis for the mutual recognition of language qualifications; • assist learners, teachers, course designers, examining bodies and educational administrators to situate and co-ordinate their efforts

9. System Requirements: • Comprehensive • covers the full range of possible knowledge, skills and uses • covers all dimensions on which proficiency is described • needs a range of reference points on which progress can be calibrated • Transparant • clearly formulated, explicit, readily comprehensible • Coherent - with harmonious relation between uses • identification of needs • determination of objectives • definition of content • selection or creation of material • establishment of teaching and learning programs • teaching and learning methods employed • evaluation, testing and assessment

10. System Requirements (cont) • Multipurpose • Usable for a full variety of purposes • Flexible • Adaptable for different circumstances • Open • Capable of extension and refinement • Dynamic • Continuous evolution • User-friendly • Readily understandable • Non-dogmatic • not attached to any particular linguistic or educational theory

11. CEFR • Developed by an international working party (John Trim, Daniel Coste, Brian North & Joe Sheils) between 1993 and 1996, followed by review and revision. • Then, published in 2001, by the Council of Europe (CoE) • Introduced six Common Reference Levels: A1 (lowest), A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 (highest) - often expanded to nine with A2+, B1+, and B2+ • Based on earlier CoE work: especially, the Threshold Level (Van Ek, 1975) and the notional-functional approach (Wilkins, 1976)

12. CEFR Common Reference Levels - Global Scale

13. The Complete System • But the CEFR has lots of other scales. • There are over 50 in fact.

14. Other Scales: Receptive Communication Skills • Spoken Language - 5 scales • Overall listening comprehension • Understanding interaction between native speakers • Listening as a member of a live audience • Listening to announcements and instructions • Listening to radio and audio recordings • Audio Visual - 1 scale • Watching TV and Film • Written Language - 5 scales • Overall reading comprehension • Reading correspondence • Reading for orientation • Reading for information and argument • Reading instructions

15. Other Scales: Interactive Communication Skills • Spoken - 10 scales • Overall spoken interaction • Comprehension in interaction • Understanding a native speaker interlocutor • Conversation • Informal discussion • Formal discussion (meetings) • Goal oriented cooperation • Obtaining goods and services • Information exchange • Interviewing and being interviewed • Written - 3 scales • Overall written interaction • Correspondence • Notes, messages and forms

16. Other Scales: Productive Communication Skills • Spoken - 5 scales • Overall spoken production • Sustained monologue; describing experience • Sustained monologue: putting a case (e.g. debate) • Public announcements • Addressing audiences • Written - 3 scales • Overall written production • Creative writing • Writing reports and essays

17. Other Scales: Communication Strategies • Reception - 1 scale • Identifying cues and inferring • Interaction - 3 scales • Taking the floor (turntaking) • Cooperating • Asking for clarification • Production - 2 scales • Planning compensating • Monitoring and repairing • Text - 2 scales • Note taking in seminars and lectures • Processing text

18. Other Scales: Communicative Language Competence • Linguistic: Range - 2 scales • General range • Vocabulary range • Linguistic Control - 4 scales • Grammatical accuracy • Vocabulary control • Phonological control • Orthographic control • Sociolinguistic - 1 scale • Sociolinguistic • Pragmatic - 5 scales • Flexibility • Thematic development • Coherence • Propositional precision • Spoken fluency

19. International Adoption of the CEFR • Europe • The whole of the European Union • Other countries who wish to interact with the EU countries in educational terms • Anyone who needs standards and descriptive levels of attainment • Immense amount of interest internationally • (I can’t find a list of adopters, but there is a lot of activity, with teachers and testers considering the adoption of the CEFR in Asia, South America, etc.) • My view: • the CEFR will become the international standard

20. But there are alternatives • The ILR scale • Developed and used by the US government • 5 base levels 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5, with intermediate + levels • From lowest level to native speaker Proficiency • First developed in 1950s, expanded in 1984 • The ACTFL scale • Derived from the ILR scale • Expanded at the lower ability levels, and • Truncated at the higher ability levels • Canadian Language Benchmarks • 12 levels; full ability range • Developed mid 1990s • Australian Second Language Proficiency Ratings • Developed in 1978, by Ingrams and Wylie • 12 levels; full ability range • Re-named in 1997 to International Second Language Proficiency Ratings

21. Would these other scales work? • Yes … in my view • They are all good scales • Developed by competent professionals • But the CEFR is a better choice … in my view • Because • The CEFR is far more comprehensive • The major scales are empirically derived (from scaling can-do statements) • There is already a much greater research base • There is a huge ongoing research effort in Europe into the CEFR • Also • The EU is the 800 lb gorilla • So the CEFR is rapidly becoming the international standard … like it or not! • You might as well start with it, now.

22. Some problems with Language Proficiency Scales • Language use and and language ability is radically multidimensional • Although these dimensions (sub-skills, if you like) are fairly closely correlated among language learners • The sub-skills of language are partially ordered • Which means that different learners follow different development tracks • Some have better listening, and some have better reading • Some have better grammar, and some have better fluency • Some have better phonological control, and some have fossilized pronunciation, etc. • Scales show a neat progression • With all sub-skills, or all descriptors, progressing in fairly close lockstep • The development of second-language skills is far more complex than these scales can every describe.

23. Some problems with Language Proficiency Scales (cont) • It is not always clear what the descriptors mean • “Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions…“ (CEFR, A1 level) • What does “understand” mean, and what exactly are, and are not, “familiar everyday expressions?” • “…a high degree of mastery of the specialized language of learners’ vocational fields…” (ISLPR, Level 4) • How much is a “high degree,” what exactly is “specialized language,” do all vocational fields require language at the same level? • “Sufficient comprehension to understand most factual material in non-technical prose as well as some discussions on concrete topics related to special professional interests.” (ILR level 2+) • There is no objective way to know exactly what this means. • There is no way to know whether your interpretation is the same as mine.

24. Some problems with Language Proficiency Scales (cont) • The descriptors and levels do not represent the actual order in which language is acquired. • But after using the scale over time, users tend to believe that the levels represent reality: i.e. an acquisitional hierarchy. • They do not.

25. Getting Around the Problems Using Proficiency Scales • For general use: • We have to accept that they are only approximate (perhaps average) descriptions of attainment, and they do not represent how language is acquired. • For assessment, and more precise use: • We need extensive training of users / raters • Only through extensive training can users develop a shared understanding of what the levels mean. • This takes a lot of time and effort • We need close monitoring of rater agreement • Standard measures of inter-rater and intra-rater agreement are necessary • This needs to be ongoing and continual

26. Problems with All Global Proficiency Scales • They are not discriminating enough at the lower levels • Scales which cover the whole L2 ability range are not fine-grained enough to show the small gains made in foreign language learning situations. • This is a fairly common problem for foreign language learners. • This is why ACTFL modified the ILR scale • It is possible/probable/likely that this issue will be addressed as the use of the CEFR expands internationally.

27. Criticism of CEFR Specifically • Technical: • Fulcher has expressed the concern that the integral role of teachers in the scale development process means that the scale may represent not actual proficiency, but teacher perceptions of learner proficiency. • North replies that process was cross-validated with many different languages, and so this does not apply. • ‘Linguistic Imperialism:’ • McNamara argues that the CEFR is a construct, and the imposition of that construct is an exercise in power, and forces one view of language on users. • I argue that the same applies to almost any process of standardization. If the advantages of standardization outweigh the disadvantages, then use it.

28. Conclusion • The CEFR is a huge development for language teaching and language testing generally. • It enables and facilitates international communication about second language attainment. • It will get better and better, as a large numbers of L2 specialists, scholars, researchers, educators and policy-makers use it more and more. Because, it is an integral and practical need of the EU; the drive to unify Europe will ensure the success and dominance of the CEFR. • In a few short years it has already become the dominant paradigm. This trend will continue.

29. Concluding Conclusion • The CEFR has limitations and problems; as do all standardized proficiency scales. If the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, use it if not, don’t!