Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

CEFR: Towards language education transformation in Malaysia

The Common European Framework
of Reference for Languages:
Purpose, origin, ethos
and implications
David Little
Trinity College Dublin
Ireland

Putrajaya, 29−30 October 2013


What most European education systems
know about the CEFR



Six levels of L2 proficiency
C2
C1
B2
B1
A2
A1


C2 − Mastery
C1 − Effective Operational
Proficiency
B2 − Vantage
B1 − Threshold
A2 − Waystage
A1 − Breakthrough


C2 − Mastery

Proficiente
ag user

gu s
lan erm
es ” t
rib do
esc can
d
B2 − Vantage
F R in “
Independent user
CE ncy
e
Th fi
B1 − Thresholdcie
pro
C1 − Effective Operational
Proficiency

A2 − Waystage

Basic user
A1 − Breakthrough

A global scale
C2

Basic user

Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise implicit meaning. Can express
him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. Can use language
flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes. Can produce clear, well-structured,
detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and
cohesive devices.
Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical
discussions in his/her field of specialisation. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that
makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party. Can produce
clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the
advantages and disadvantages of various options.

B1

Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work,
school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the
language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal
interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and
explanations for opinions and plans.

A2

Independent
user

C1

B2

Proficient
user

Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarise information from different
spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can
express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning
even in more complex situations.

Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance
(e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can
communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar
and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment
and maters in areas of immediate need.

A1

Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance
(e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can
communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar
and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment
and matters in areas of immediate need.

Self-assessment grid (CEFR and ELP language passport)

the
t o ls ,
ore leve
al m ncy
de cie
lf at
se
fi
re
a g ix pro and a
e’s n s
e r ha
le , t g r id
ca
Th R t
al s smen
EF glob es
C a
ass


My aim in this keynote
• To explain why the Council of Europe developed the
CEFR and what the CEFR itself sets out to achieve
• To elaborate on the CEFR’s “action-oriented” (“can do”)
approach to the description of communicative proficiency
• To explore the CEFR’s learner-centred ethos
• To consider the CEFR’s implications for curriculum,
pedagogy and assessment
• To conclude with the CEFR’s single most innovative
feature



Why the Council of Europe developed the
CEFR and what the CEFR itself sets out
to achieve



The Council of Europe’s agenda
• The Council of Europe’s foundational values
– Human rights
– Democracy
– Rule of law

• The Council of Europe’s education policies
– The individual citizen’s capacity to participate actively in the
democratic process
– The autonomy of the individual: self-regulation, self-governance

• The Council of Europe and L2 education
– L2 proficiency as a channel of the learner/user’s agency
– Hence the action-oriented approach: L2 proficiency described as
L2 use


The CEFR aims to …
support the implementation of the Council of Europe’s
language education policy, which recognises the need to
•intensify language learning and teaching in member
countries
•promote language learning as a lifelong task
•facilitate co-operation 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 coordinate their efforts” (Council of Europe 2001: 5−6)


FR
The three main aspects of the E h.
e C CEFR
f th proac s
1. “An attempt to characterise comprehensively, R’
rs o r ap F
tho uact of language cy
transparently and coherently the la
CE e n
au tic
the ici
communication in the ofar
terms p what competentflanguage
at pro
9
− competencesth
ave
y
users do and6
and
e
rs thete an ean (knowledge ot hskills)
ivxxxiv)n Chapters 4
pte oca ot m n cat
that enable them to act” (Trim i2012: es − ons
ha dv
n
u
C 5 a
do icati
Inand ot
es omm use
o
pl
d
2. dosurveyiof methods of learning, al im and
A n hs
of c guage ic teaching
ut t ption lan 6,gog and 9
assessment − Chapters 7, 8
B ri
of
da
c for establishing common reference levels for
3. Ades
scheme ms
l pe
ter communicative proficiency − Chapter 3
rfu
specifying
in owe
p


The CEFR’s “action-oriented” approach



ive
The action-oriented approachcencapsulated
at ey
h
uni comprises the r
“Language use, embracing language learning, en t
m h
bea
actions performed by persons who as individuals and o social
com ge w s t as a
op ua
agents develop a range oflcompetences, both general in in
e ng
nce ith and nd
particular communicative language competences. They draw
ete a w
dev a la
s atn disposal in various contextsts a e
mp end tex under
on the competences i their
er
co
rn cy under variousag
a
various conditions and ting
constraints to engage in
on rmanc
Le cien is
ive t of c rfto produce
languagefi
activities x
language
einvolving at seprocesses o
e
o
nic themes eispecific domains,
and/orr
texts
in r p
p receiveeir in relation to or
th strategies which seemtmost appropriate for
mu ext
activating those m
r h
o o be
ing the tasks to nt accomplished. The monitoring of
br n
ito
carrying out a c
c
on
r participants leads to the reinforcement or
o
these actions by la
u the so m
modification iof theirg
rt c in competences” (Council of Europe 2001: 9)
pa do
in


The action-oriented approach elaborated
Language use
•Context: domains → situations →
conditions and constraints
•Communication themes
•Communicative tasks and purposes
•Communicative language activities
and strategies → productive
(speaking and writing), receptive
(listening and reading), interactive
(spoken and written), mediating

The user/learner’s
competences
•General competences: declarative
knowledge; skills and know-how;
existential competence; ability to learn
•Communicative language
competences:
− Linguistic → lexical, grammatical,
semantic, phonological,
orthographic, orthoepic

•Communicative language processes

− Sociolinguistic

•Texts

− Pragmatic



The illustrative scales (“can do” descriptors)
Language use
•5 scales for spoken production
•3 scales for writing
•3 scales for production strategies
•6 scales for listening/viewing
•5 scales for reading
•1 scale for reception strategies
•9 scales for spoken interaction
•3 scales for written interaction
•3 scales for interaction strategies
•2 scales for handling text

The user/learner’s competences
•One scale each for
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–

General linguistic range
Vocabulary range
Vocabulary control
Grammatical accuracy
Phonological control
Orthographic control
Sociolinguistic appropriateness
Flexibility
Turntaking
Thematic development
Coherence and cohesion
Spoken fluency
Propositional precision



Progression
• The CEFR’s common reference levels are not points on
a linear scale, but increasingly broad bands of
proficiency


A summary of CEFR levels
C2

Learners can communicate with a high degree of precision,
appropriateness and ease

C1

Learners have good access to a broad range of language
that allows fluent, spontaneous communication

B2

Learners can engage in sustained and effective argument and
have an enhanced language awareness

B1

Learners can maintain interaction in a range of contexts and
cope flexibly with problems in everyday life

A2

Learners can cope with a basic range of social interaction
and make simple transactions in shops, post offices or banks

A1

Learners can interact in a simple way rather than relying
purely on words and phrases


Progression
proficiency
• The purposes of language use change as the user/
learner moves up the proficiency scale: self-identification
and survival → transaction and interaction → L2 as
medium of academic and/or professional activity


A shifting focus of communication
C2
Proficiency develops as a
Proficiency develops as a
result of sustained
result of sustained
academic, professional or
academic, professional or
vocational engagement
vocational engagement
with the target language
with the target language

C1
B2
B1
A2
A1

Interaction (social) and
Interaction (social) and
transaction (getting things
transaction (getting things
done)
done)

Physical and social survival
Physical and social survival


Progression
proficiency
• Progression is both horizontal and vertical



Progression
proficiency
• Progression is both horizontal and vertical
• The image of the cone, used by the CEFR itself (Council
of Europe 2001: 18), is seriously misleading because it
blurs the distinction between communicative activity and
the user-learner’s competences


The CEFR’s learner-centred ethos



Some preliminary considerations
• The Council of Europe’s earliest modern languages
projects were conducted under the aegis of the Committee
for Out-of-School Education, which believed that
– Adult education should develop skills of lifelong learning while
meeting learners’ immediate needs
– Learners themselves have much to contribute as agents of their
own learning and self-assessment should play a central role
(Oscarsson 1978, Holec 1979)

• Key report: Organization, content and methods of adult
education (Janne 1977)
– Democratization of education: “From the idea of man ‘product of
his society’, one moves to the idea of man ‘producer of his
society’” (Janne 1977: 15)


Some preliminary considerations
• The action-oriented approach is concerned with the individual
language learner viewed as an autonomous social agent, and
the second half of the CEFR’s title puts learning before teaching
and teaching before assessment
• The CEFR notes that relatively few learners “learn proactively,
taking initiatives to plan, structure and execute their own
learning processes. Most learn reactively, following the
instructions and carrying out the activities prescribed for them
by teachers and by textbooks” (Council of Europe 2001: 141)
• The CEFR continues: “However, once teaching stops, further
learning has to be autonomous. Autonomous learning can be
promoted if ‘learning to learn’ is regarded as an integral part of
language learning …” (ibid.)


The action-oriented approach interpreted
“Language use, embracing language learning, comprises the
actions performed by persons who as individuals and as social
agents develop a range of competences, both general and in
particular communicative language competences. They draw
on the competences at their disposal in various contexts under
various conditions and under various constraints to engage in
language activities involving language processes to produce
and/or receive texts in relation to themes in specific domains,
activating those strategies which seem most appropriate for
carrying out the tasks to be accomplished. The monitoring of
these actions by the participants leads to the reinforcement or
modification of their competences” (Council of Europe 2001: 9)




• L2 proficiency develops from sustained interaction
between the learner’s competences and the
communicative tasks whose performance requires
him or her to use the target language
• Language use is autonomous behaviour
• As a variety of language use, L2 learning should
also be rooted in autonomous behaviour



• In a classroom that seeks to promote autonomous learning,
monitoring begins as a conscious process of selfmanagement
• But using the TL as the channel of that explicit monitoring
helps to develop the capacity for involuntary and implicit
monitoring that is fundamental to spontaneous/autonomous
language use



Implications of the CEFR for curricula,
pedagogy and assessment



Curricula
• According to the CEFR’s summary of its action-oriented
approach, spontaneous, authentic use of the target
language (TL) is a precondition for effective learning
• In formal contexts the site of learning is the classroom,
which must therefore become a community of TL speakers
• Spontaneous use of the TL entails that learners have an
equal right to take discourse initiatives − i.e. to manage
their own learning
• Authentic use of the TL entails that learners focus on the
here-and-now of their own learning, not on the as-if of
communication in the “real world” outside the classroom


Curricula
• The CEFR identifies four domains of language use:
personal, public, occupational, educational
• My interpretation of the action-oriented approach requires
that educational use of the TL frames public, personal and
occupational use (e.g., CLIL)
• This challenges us to rethink the CEFR’s interactive
routines and scenarios in terms of the language
classroom, using its descriptive apparatus to explore
implications for classroom discourse (cf. Little 2011)
• We mistake the nature of the CEFR if we imagine that
language teaching should progress steadily up the ladder,
starting with A1


Pedagogy
• If spontaneous, authentic use of the TL is a precondition
for effective learning, our first task as teachers is to
engage our learners in interaction in the TL
• This means that we do not set out to teach them A1
tasks: they rapidly acquire them by being thoroughly
engaged in A2 interaction
• Similarly, we do not teach them A2 routines: they
gradually acquire them by being drawn into B1
interaction … and so on
• Note that B1 descriptors already include activities that
can be mastered only via sustained TL use


Assessment
• In parallel with the CEFR the Council of Europe
developed the concept of a European Language Portfolio
(ELP)
• The ELP is intended to promote autonomous learning by
helping learners to
– identify learning targets
– monitor progress
– self-assess learning outcomes

• The ELP helps learners to monitor their actions as
learners and users of the TL and thus to reinforce or
modify their competences (cf. Council of Europe
2001: 9)

How self-assessment is meant to work
Language passport
•Summarizes owner’s linguistic identity
and experience of learning/using L2s
•Records owner’s self-assessment

Language biography
•Accompanies learning and use of L2s
•Encourages reflection on learning styles,
strategies and intercultural experience
•Supports goal-setting, monitoring and selfassessment

Dossier
•Collects evidence of owner’s L2
proficiency and intercultural experience
•May be used to store work in progress

Periodic updating of overall
(“summative”) self-assessment
against CEFR’s self-assessment
grid

Checklists of “I can”
descriptors arranged by
communicative activity and
scaled according to the levels
of the Common European
Framework of Reference for
Languages (CEFR; Council of
Europe 2001)

Periodic selection of work
that reflects the owner’s
current level of proficiency


Assessment
• My interpretation of the action-oriented approach implies the
need for a new assessment culture that brings formative and
summative assessment into a new relation
• Tools for formative and summative assessment should be
informed by the CEFR’s understanding of language learning
as language use
• Assessment tasks should be continuous with the tasks that
shape learning environments framed by the CEFR’s actionoriented approach
• Rating criteria should be continuous with the reflective
processes by which the implications of descriptors are
explored − and should be used to support and inform that
exploration


Conclusion



The CEFR’s most innovative feature
• The Council of Europe’s L2 education projects have always
aimed to
– “make the process of language learning more democratic by providing
the conceptual tools for the planning, construction and conduct of courses
closely geared to the needs, motivations and characteristics of the learner
and enabling him so far as possible to steer and control his own
progress” (Trim 1978, p.1; emphasis added)

• It is no accident that
– The Council of Europe first introduced the concept of learner autonomy to
L2 education (Holec 1979/1981)
– Learning precedes teaching and assessment in the CEFR’s sub-title
– The European Language Portfolio was developed as a means of
mediating the CEFR’s ethos to L2 user/learners and helping them to take
control of their learning



The CEFR’s most innovative feature
•

The action-oriented approach brings curriculum, pedagogy and
assessment into closer interaction than is traditionally the case:
each “can do”/“I can” descriptor may be used to
– specify a learning outcome
– provide a learning focus
– imply an assessment task

•

The CEFR challenges us to attempt the “democratization” of L2
education by
– Developing curricula that reflect learner needs and accommodate
learner initiative and control of the learning process
– Implementing curricula in ways that foster learner autonomy (the
learner’s exercise of agency through the TL)
– Working towards an assessment culture in which external tests and
exams exist on a continuum with teacher assessment, peer assessment
and learner self-assessment

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

More from Sivabala Naidu

Recently uploaded

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages