Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

Putrajaya, 29−30 October 2013

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



What most European education systems know about the CEFR



Six levels of L2 proficiencyC2

C1

B2

B1

A2

A1



Six levels of L2 proficiencyC2 − Mastery

C1 − Effective Operational Proficiency

B2 − Vantage

B1 − Threshold

A2 − Waystage

A1 − Breakthrough



Six levels of L2 proficiencyC2 − Mastery

Proficient userC1 − Effective Operational Proficiency

B2 − VantageIndependent user

B1 − Threshold

A2 − WaystageBasic user

A1 − Breakthrough

The CEFR describes language

proficiency in “can do” terms

A global scale

Proficient user

C2 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.

C1 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.

Independent user

B2 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.

Basic user

A2 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)

There’s a great deal more to the

CEFR than six proficiency levels,

a global scale, and a self-

assessment grid



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 co-ordinate their efforts” (Council of Europe 2001: 5−6)



The three main aspects of the CEFR

1. “An attempt to characterise comprehensively, transparently and coherently the act of language communication in terms of what competent language users do and the competences (knowledge and skills) that enable them to act” (Trim 2012: xxxiv) − Chapters 4 and 5

2. A survey of methods of learning, teaching and assessment − Chapters 6, 7, 8 and 9

3. A scheme for establishing common reference levels for specifying communicative proficiency − Chapter 3

In Chapters 6−9 the authors of the CEFR

do not advocate any particular approach.

But this does not m

ean that the CEFR’s

description of communicative proficiency

in terms of language use does not have

powerful pedagogical implications



The CEFR’s “action-oriented” approach



“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)

The action-oriented approach encapsulated

Learners develop communicative

proficiency in a language when they

bring their existing competences to bear

on a communicative agenda within a

particular context or set of contexts and

in doing so monitor their p

erformance



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

•Communicative language processes

•Texts

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

− Sociolinguistic

− 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

C1

B2

B1

A2

A1Learners can interact in a simple way rather than relying purely on words and phrases

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

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

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

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

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









• 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

C1

B2

B1

A2

A1 Physical and social survivalPhysical and social survival

Interaction (social) and transaction (getting things

done)

Interaction (social) and transaction (getting things

done)

Proficiency develops as a result of sustained

academic, professional or vocational engagement with the target language

Proficiency develops as a result of sustained

academic, professional or vocational engagement with the target language











• Progression is both horizontal and vertical






• 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




• 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







The action-oriented approach interpreted• In a classroom that seeks to promote autonomous

learning, monitoring begins as a conscious process of self-management

• 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 self-assessment

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

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

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 action-oriented 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

Education

l2 education l2 proficiency

l2 use putrajaya

european education systems

selfassessment grid

immediate environment

immediate relevance

areas of immediate need

familiar matters