The document discusses the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and how it could be adapted to improve language skills for Spanish children. It provides definitions for key terms like plurilingualism and examines advantages and disadvantages of plurilingual schools. It also analyzes which communicative language strategies from the CEFR would be most useful in Spanish classrooms. Finally, it proposes ways the CEFR could be modified, such as using its proficiency levels and terminology, differentiating instruction based on levels, and focusing on developing a positive attitude towards the target language.

1. TASK 2: About the Common European Frame of Reference
1. ACCORDING TO THE ARTICLE, WHAT IS "PLURILINGUALISM? DOES THE ARTICLE'S
DEFINITION MATCH YOUR DEFINITION?
The article said that the plurilingual is what an individual person’s experience of
language in its cultural contexts expands, from the language of the home to that of
society at large and then to the languages of other peoples, he or she does not keep
these languages and cultures in strictly separated mental communicative
compartments. There are metacognitive skills which are common to all languages.
I agree with this definition up a point because I think plurilingualism is an individual's
or a society's ability to speak at least three languages and switch between languages
according to the circumstances at hand. On the other hand, multilingualism is meant
to refer to a society in which different languages coexist side by side but are used
separately.
2. WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE
PLURILINGUAL SCHOOLS?
We may all have strong ideas about whether is better to have plurilingual school or
not. Even though we might like the idea of having plurilingual school, there are
advantages and disavantages in both situations.
Some people claim that the main advantage of plurilingualism is access to multiple
languages and cultures. Although there are other benefits ,as if you learn languages at
an early age, you learn them easier larger language sensitivity, and what’s more you
learn easier in general. Polyglots function better.
But, what are the disadvantages?

2. In many situations parents do not speak a language fluently, therefore the child will
copy the mistakes. The language offered is not always rich and varied enough. Children
with a language disorder may have extra trouble learning more than one language.
3. AFTER READING THE ARTICLE, DO YOU THINK THAT THE SPANISH SCHOOLS TEACH
ENGLISH FOLLOWING THE COMMON EUROPEAN FRAME OF REFERENCE?
In most countries there is general agreement that language learning can be organized
into three levels: basic/beginner, intermediate, and advanced.
Reflecting this, the Council of Europe developed the Common European Framework of
References for Languages to establish international standards for learning, teaching,
and assessment for all modern European languages.
The Common European Framework describes what a learner can do at six specific
levels: A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2.
• Basic User (A1 and A2)
• Independent User (B1 and B2)
• Proficient User (C1 and C2)
These levels match general concepts of basic, intermediate, and advanced and are
often referred to as the Global Scale. For each level, the full CEF document
complements this by describing in depth
• Competencies necessary for effective communication.
• Skills and knowledge related to language learningand competencies.
• Situations (people, place, time, organization, etc.) and contexts (study, work, social,
tourism, etc.) in which communication takes place.

3. The Global Scale is not language-specific. In other words, it can be used with virtually
any language and can be used to compare achievement and learning across languages.
I think that Spanish schools follow the Government instructions but then teachers
adapt it in their classroom, for example in lower proficiency levels, where students are
often tempted to revert back to their native language when they get confused or
frustrated.
4. WHICH OF THE COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE STRATEGIES DO YOU THINK WOULD BE
MORE USEFUL AND EFFECTIVE IN THE SPANISH CLASSROOMS?
There is a enormous variety of communicative language strategies, although I think the
following would be more useful in the classroom:
1. All students have equal opportunity to communicate.
2. Communication is focused on sharing tangible information.
3. Communication lessons are concentrated around students’ interests.
4. Communication scaffolding is provided to ensure student success.
5. Communication takes place in interesting, authentic contexts.
6. Teachers demonstrate how to stay in the target language. Especially in lower
proficiency levels, it is vital to stay in the target language as much as possible,
even if the teacher finds it to be more difficult.
7. The communication environment is a safe place for making mistakes. One of
the key issues in creating a communicative classroom is the institutionalized
idea that mistakes equal failure. In order to have an effective language learning
culture, teachers must create a space that encourages mistakes and celebrates
risk-taking.
8. Incorporates authentic resources into the conversation.
9. Recognize different communication tactics for different proficiency levels. As
students move from novice to intermediate, the role of the teacher changes
dramatically in a truly communicative classroom.

4. 10. Vary the types of communication that student’s produce. Several teachers
explained that “communication” discussions are often focused on verbal
interaction. In fact, communicative classes provide students a variety of ways
to share and develop language skills.
5. HOW WOULD YOU ADAPT OR MODIFY THE COMMON EUROPEAN FRAME OF
REFERENCE IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE SPANISH KIDS LANGUAGE SKILLS?
As I explain in the third question The Common European Framework describes what a
learner can do at six specific levels: A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2.
The Common European Framework of Reference cannot be applied to language
education without some difficulties. Therefore, the framework should be adapted to
the teaching, learning, and assessment of languages. The major challenge in this
process of adaptation will be to account for the status of language as a mother tongue
in part of the education system. The adapted instrument should at least take into
account the following key elements that are also characteristic of the Common
European Framework of Reference.
First, the adapted Common European Framework of Reference should encourage the
use of a transparent and international terminology in the communication about
language education.
Secondly, the adapted Common European Framework of Reference should be used for
differentiation in levels of proficiency in language education. While proficiency levels
of pupils or students in a language classroom vary in general, the Common European
Framework of Reference will be of great help to identify, evaluate and support
diversity in the language classroom.
Furthermore, the adapted Common European Framework of Reference should be used
in the efforts to consolidate a positive attitude towards the regional or minority
language in the language learner.

5. The positive formulation of the can do-statements and the action-based approach of
the Common European Framework of Reference make it a valuable incentive for
learners to appreciate the language and their own proficiency in it at different stages
of the learning process. The possibility to easily compare proficiencies and
competences in regional or minority languages with those in majority languages, for
instance by inclusion of the regional or minority language in a European Language
Portfolio, will further stimulate a positive attitude towards language.
A final recommendation regards the practical use of the Common European
Framework of Reference, in adapted form or not, in regional and minority language
education. Because of the difficulties of applying the CEFR in its actual form to mother
tongue teaching, it should be encouraged to implement the CEFR further, for now,
mainly for second language learning.
At the same time, the possibilities and limitations of the use of the framework for
mother tongue education should be further explored.