The Common European Framework for Languages: Language Policy, Language

Testing and SLA

The CEFR and language learning and teaching in Europe

Sauli Takala

AILA

Essen, August 26, 16-19 hrs, 2008

The CEFR – Current Agenda in Europe and in Finland

Some questions/issues

• Why has the CEFR been so influential? • What kind of reception have CEFR and its

manuals (also including profile for various languages) received?

• How has the CEFR been adapted to regional and local needs? Who decides on implementation?

• What kind of feedback has been received by the Council of Europe?

• How has EALTA reacted to the CEFR?• Where are various institutions now as far as

CEFR and other related materials are concerned? What is at stake and for whom in the years immediately ahead?

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:

Learning, teaching, assessment

•

•What is this CEFR they all talk about? Should I read it?

• I think this is more interesting for

someone at level A1.

•What is this CEFR they all talk about? Should I read it?

• I think this is more interesting for

someone at level A1.

CEFR & its Finnish translation (2001/2003)

Before CEFR• LOTS of seminars in Europe• LOTS of case reports about language study

provision• Narratives and anecdotes without a common

frame of reference: • ”All Dutch speak English very well.”• ”The further south you go in Europe, the less

people speak foreign languages.”• Case 1: ”In my country…”• Case 2: ”In my country…”• Ad infinitum

I SUPPOSE this is useful

…

I SUPPOSE this is useful

…

….but it´s so BOOORING!….but it´s so BOOORING!

(Wandering mind) ”I wonder if there isn´t a better way?”

(Wandering mind) ”I wonder if there isn´t a better way?”

Look! There are

the Portflio people.

How nice to meet them!

Look! There are

the Portflio people.

How nice to meet them!

”The Blue Bible” (??)

European Language Education Policy Contributors

Europe – A Linguistic Overview

• Some 800 m people; 15%

• 110- 120 languages spoken (cf. 6000) – 2% of languages

• EU – 34 minority languages spoken

• Promotion of linguistic diversity official goal

European language and language-in-education policy initiatives (1)

Council of Europe – 1949, 46 members; language projects since 1954

•Recommendations

• Language Education Policy Profiles

• CEFR – basis of all CoE and EU language programmes – 2001-> Manual for Relating Examination to the CEFR

• Portfolio – 89 validated portfolios

•Language Policy Division, European Centre for Modern Languages ECML, 1994/1995

• www. coe.int, www.ecml.at

European language and language-in-education policy initiatives (2)

European Union (27 members): www. eu.org

• Language first discussed in 1976

• Lingua: 1989 -

• EU: White Paper – 1995: 1+2 language profile• DIALANG 1996 - (EU-project for web-based diagnostic self-assessment of language proficiency) www.dialang.org•Framework Strategy for Multilingualism 2005-> 1.1.2007

• European Indicator of Language Competence (2010)

• EBAFLS, EURYDICE, EUROBAROMETER

• Bologna process - 1999

Non-govermental organisations in Europe: language and language-in-education policy initiatives and activities

• CercleS – 1991 – Confédération Européenne des Centres de l´enseignement Supérieur/ European Confederation of Language Centres in Higher Education, 22 countries, c. 300 centres

• European Language Council, 1999, www.celec.org

• ALTE (Association of Language Testers in Europe) – 1990- 31 members, 26 languages (www.alte.org

• EALTA (European Association for Language Testing and Assessment) - 2004, 750+ members (free membership) in 42 countries, 81 associate members in 29 non-European countries, 12 expert members, 34 institutional members, www.ealta.eu.org, 5th Conference, Athens May 10-12

•etc, etc

Why has the CEFR been so influential?

• A growing need in Europe (CoE, EU) for tools to implement fundamental policies of multilingualism and plurilingualism (linguistic diversity)• The CEFR provides the basic elements for such a tool – a concrete reference work; built on a coherent and comprehensive theoretical rationale.• It responds to all important stakeholders´ perceived needs. It appeared relevant and useful for many purposes.• Its use increases awareness of various shared needs (eg. transparency, co-operation) - for the first timemakes certain solutions technically possible (cf. a number of offshoots/manuals/support materials have emerged and continue to emerge).

Response to the CEFR

• It is a major achievement, but some argue

• ”Its theoretical foundation is ”shaky” Eg. SLA not fully taken on board.”

• ”Methodology one-sided: scales based on teacher perceptions.”

• ”It has gaps, is not very specific, lacks language-specific specifications, does not serve very well as a basis for test development, privileged framework,etc.”

The Modern Language Journal, 91, iv, (2007), 640-684.

Perspectives edited by Heidi Byrnes, Associate Editor, Georgetown University.

Heidi Byrnes, Introduction; ”Developing National Language Education Policies - Reflections on the CEFR”

David Little: The Common European Framework of Reference for Language: Perspectives on the Making of Supranational Education Policy”

Brian North: The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales

J. Charles Alderson: The CEFR and the Need for More Research

Jan H. Hulstijn: The Shaky Ground Beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and Qualitative Dimensions of Language Proficiency

Hans-Jürgen Krumm: Profiles Instead of Levels: The CEFR and its (Ab)Uses in the Context of Migration

Gerard Bonnet: The CEFR and Education Policies in Europe

Neus Figueras: The CEFR, a Lever for the Improvement of Language Professionals in Europe

Gerard Westhoff: Challenges and Opportunities for Reimagining FL dagogy

Linking Curricula, Exams, textbooks etc to the CEFR

Curricula, courses

Curricula, courses

Exams, textbooks etc

Exams, textbooks etc

CoE Surveys of CEFR Use 2005 & 2006: Summary

• Useful reference tool• Significant impact• Need for a reader-friendly

summary• Full potential not yet realised -

need for further dissemination, mediation, guidance and training

How was and is the CEFR adapted to regional How was and is the CEFR adapted to regional and local needs, and who decides on and local needs, and who decides on implementation?implementation?

Usually curricula are set by national or regional/state educational authorities:

Finland: National Board of Education sets the curricula: Upper secondary school 2003, Comprehensive school 2004

France: Ministry of Education (2005: CEFR the basis); starting in 2007

Estonia: Ministry of Education

etc

Immigration language requirements

- Government/Ministries: A2-B1

How was and is the CEFR adapted to regional How was and is the CEFR adapted to regional and local needs, and who decides on and local needs, and who decides on implementation?implementation?

Stage

Finland France

1st

FL

2nd

FL

1st

FL

2nd

FL

End of primary

A1.3-A2.1

-A1

-

End of compulsory B1.1

A1.2-A1.3 B1 A2

End of upper secondary B2.1

A2.1-A2.2

B2 B1

After CEFR ?•65% of students reach the target level, 15% one level and 5% two levels above it, 10% one level and 5% two levels below it.

•65% of students reach the target level, 15% one level and 5% two levels above it, 10% one level and 5% two levels below it.

Our target is B1 at the end of compulsory education in ”A”-language.

Our target is B1 at the end of compulsory education in ”A”-language.

Our B2 looks like this. What is your B2 like?

Our B2 looks like this. What is your B2 like?

What evidence do you have for such claims?

What evidence do you have for such claims?

Our goal is A2 in ”B”-language at the end of compulsory education.

Our goal is A2 in ”B”-language at the end of compulsory education.

How do I know

that my B2 is

your B2?

How do I know

that my B2 is

your B2?

Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework

Helsinki Seminar, June 30-July 2, 2002

 

It´s a tough job, but perhaps we could work out a feasible solution

together…

It´s a tough job, but perhaps we could work out a feasible solution

together…

Council of Europe responded: it set up of an Authoring Group

• Brian North (Chair)

• Neus Figueras

• Piet van der Avermaet

• Norman Verhelst

• Sauli Takala

Council of Europe: Language Policy Division

CEFR-related supporting material

• Manual for Relating Examinations to the CEFR, Preliminary pilot version (2004)

• Thorough devision (soon ready for release)

Council of Europe: Language Policy

Division• CEFR-related supporting material

• Manual for Relating Examinations to the CEFR, Preliminary pilot version (2004)

• Reference Supplement to the Manual (2004)

Council of Europe: Language Policy Division

• CEFR: 31 versions (5 in translation)

• Council of Europe tools for language teaching (Francis Goullier, Didier 2007) – good overview

• European Language Portfolios (ELPs): 89 ”validated” versions

• Language Education Policy Profiles: 14

• Illustrations of the European Levels of Language Proficiency

* DVDs

* CDs

Council of Europe: Language Policy Division

Reference Level Descriptions

CoE reference levels:

Breakthrough (A1) -

Waystage (A2) – CUP (1990/1991)

Threshold (B1) 1976 – several national language versions; Kontakschwelle (1981)

Vantage (B2) – CUP (1996)

National and regional languages (some examples)

Niveau A1 pour le français. Un référentiel (2007)

Niveau B2 pour le français. Un référentiel (2004)

Profile deutsch (A1-C2), 2005

Yes, the CEFR is good, no question, but it is

not perfect.

Yes, the CEFR is good, no question, but it is

not perfect.

Well…No-thing

is per-fect!

Well…No-thing

is per-fect!

This ”Dutch CEF-

Grid” is promis-

ing.

This ”Dutch CEF-

Grid” is promis-

ing.

www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/ projects/grid/grid/php

Close encounters between the CoE, CEFR and

Finland – a short guided tour

Close encounters between the CoE, CEFR and

Finland – a short guided tour

Finnish context in brief

• Part of Sweden for 8 centuries• Swedish the only official language until the

late 1800s • Part of Russia with a status of Grand Duchy

from 1809 until 1917• A battleground between Sweden and Russia

for centuries• A borderland with cultural influences from the

west and east (Roman Catholicism – reformation: Lutheranism vs. Orthodox

• Member of EU in 1995; not a member of NATO

• Independent republic since 1917; 5,2 m

• Two national languages: Finnish c. 94%, Swedish c. 5%; Sami languages used in administration in some nothern communities – regional/”small” languages

• Comprehensive school reform in the 1970s - a real milestone: 9-years, no streaming (mixed-ability classes), no external examinations; L2 study by all

• Usual pattern: English from grade 3, Swedish from grade 7, optional language grade 8

• EU: 1 +2; Swedish/Finnish compulsory; English is not compulsory but all study it; c. 30% have 1 + 3

• 1 + 2 language profile: all Finns between ages 16 and 48/50 -> national language competence capacity

Linguistic policy context• Finnish not related to most European languages

(except Estonian and Hungarian), spoken by 5 million people

• After independence, declared a bilingual state with Finnish and Swedish having an equal status

• Åland Islands a region with specific linguistic guarantees of Swedish monolingual status

• Rules for language requirements for civil servants

• Rules for deciding linguistic status of municipalities

• Recent new constitution strengthens the position of the Sami language

Economic context – Finland in the world

• Population – c. 1 per mille - 0.001%• About 5-7 per mille of world´s industrial

production • C. 10 per mille of world´s total export • Number of nationals working abroad

started to grow fast in the 1980s• Investments abroad and foreign

investments in Finland grown substantially• ”Nokialand”, ”PISA-champion”, cruise

ships, paper machinery, sauna….

• Finnish language curricula have been impacted by the Council of Europe language projects since the mid-1960s.

• This has been seen serving our own national interests – no imposition

• First very actively utilising and applying the CoE language project expertise – ”early adopters/adapters.

• Gradually becoming a more active partner in development work.

What has been done with the CEFR in Finland?

• Quite a lot!

Project Time Target group

Purpose Use of CEFR

DIALANG

(Phase 1) – EU funded

1997-1999

(Young) Adults

Diagnosis of proficien- cy: Internet based

• Self-assessment• External Assess-ment/ Report Level• Give feedback

National Lang. Cer- tificates

2001-2002

Adults Certify proficiency

• Scale develop-ment & validat.• Report level

Tertiary lang. certi

Fication

2000-2001

Poly-technic

students

Harmonise assess-ment

• Scale develop-ment & validat.• Level linkage

Civil ser-vice lang. testing

2002-2003

Civil servants

Certify pro- ficiency

Scale developent & validat.Levels B1/B2/C1

Citizenship

lang. test

June1 2003

Immig-rants

Certify pro-ficiency

• Required level: B1

Project Time Target group

Purpose Use of CEFR

Immig-ration

Oct. 2003

Ingrian ”repatr.”

Certify proficien-cy

• A2 level required

• Computerized

National Curric.

2003-

2004

7-19 year olds

Linkage to CEFR

• Scale equation

• Level linkage

Matric. Exam.

2001- Upper second.

Certify proficien-cy

• Level linkage

National Assess-ment

2007 Lower second.

Assess proficien- cy levels

• Level linkage

(cf. ”European Indicator”)

Other projs

2001- Various Link courses, materials..

• Content

• Levels

CEFR – adaptation to school curricula (2004-2004)

• Needed to be adapted to the context, not just adopted as such

• Keep the well-established curriculum traditions: balance between tradition and reform

• Add as a new component the proficiency levels to facilitate definition of progression

• Indicate target levels for grades 6, 9 and 12• Need for more fine-grained levels at A1

– fast qualitative progress at lower levels– to sustain and support motivation

Breakthrough

Threshold

Vantage

Mastery

Language Proficiency Levels: in the Finnish Core Curriculum

B1.2

C1.2

• A1: Limited communication in the most familiar situations

• A1.1 First stage of elementary proficiency • A1.2 Developing elementary proficiency• A1.3 Functional elementary proficiency

• A2: Basic needs for immediate social interaction and brief narration

• A2.1: First stage of basic proficiency• A2.1 Developing basic proficiency

• B1: Dealing with language use situations in everyday life

• B1.1: Functional basic proficiency• B1.2: Fluent basic proficiency

• B2: Managing regular interaction with ’native´ speakers

• B2.1: First stage of independent proficiency• B2.2: Functional independent proficiency

• C1: Managing in a variety of demanding language use situations

• C1.1: First stage of fluent proficiency

Linking National Assessment outcomes to the CEFR:

What level is obtained in English at the end of the Comprehensive School after seven years of study (age 15-16)?

• cf: European Indicator of Language Competence (”Barcelona Indicator”, EU-project, data collection 2010)

CEFR in the Examination and National Assessment

context:

two examples

Linking Matriculation Examinations (high stakes) to the CEFR:

• What level is obtained at the end of the Upper Secondary School (age 19)?: tentative linkage during the first round of linkage

Distribution of Levels (%) in the Matric Exam (19yrs)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

En-10

Ger

-10

Rus-1

0Fi-1

0

Ger

- 3/5

Rus 3

/5

Fr 3/5

Sp3/5

Swe6

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

10: 10 years of study; 3/5: 3-5 years of study; 6 - 6 years of study

Level in English (%): grade 9 (15-16 years; 7 years of English, Tuokko, 2007)

A225

A234

A240

B141

B139

B132

B2>29

B2>23

B2>25

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Receptive skills Speaking Writing

A1 A2 B1 B2>

How to accommodate national grading and reporting systems and the CEFR (levels)?

• Matriculation exam grades (7 levels) from top to pass: roughly 5%, 15%, 20%, 24%, 20%, 11% <> CEFR 6 levels C2-A1; in practice A1-C1, 5 levels or less

• One solution: by means of conversion tables/ charts, which show how national grades are related to the CEF levels.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

<B1

Matr Exam GradeCEFR-level

Laudatur -5%

Eximia -15%

Magna - 20%

Cum laude -24%

Lubenter - 20%

Approbatur -11%

Improbatur

>C1

C1

B2

B1

Su

m s

co

re (

ma

x. 2

99

)

Increased transparency and comparability: English/10 vs Swedish/6

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

<B1

Matr Exam GradeCEFR-level

Laudatur -5%

Eximia -15%

Magna - 20%

Cum laude -24%

Lubenter - 20%

Approbatur -11%

Improbatur

>C1

C1

B2

B1

Sum

sco

re (

max

. 299

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Matriculation GradeCEF Level

Laudatur

Eximia

Magna

Cum laude

Lubenter

Approbatur

Improbatur

>B2B2

B1

A2

A1

Su

m S

core

(m

ax. 2

99

)

A rough time/level (English) estimate based on CEFR-linking projects:

• In the Finnish context (L1 And L2 not related):

• Getting from A1.1 (age 9/10) to the average of B1 (age 15/16) takes about 300 lessons and perhaps 100 hours of homework -> 400 hours.

• Getting from the average of B1 to the average of B2 (at 18/19) takes about 250 lessons and probably some 200-250 hours of homework -> 450 – 500 lessons/hours

• A1 -> B2: 800 – 900 hours

Linking examinations results has only begun.

• More needs to be done:

• Replication to verify tentative linkages.

• International co-operation to develop compe-tence in linking examinations/tests to the CEFR (cf. EALTA workshop Barcelona, 2007; 34 part.)

• International co-operation in mutual verifying of national efforts of linkage? Benchmarks

• International teams of judges?

• External validation by sharing tests?

Finnish perspective on the CEFR• A valuable tool in all national language education

• A valuable tool in international contacts and co-operation

• Not prescriptive or dogmatic but descriptive; responsibility for thoughtful application lies with the user

• A reference tool – is not a curriculum or programme

• While comprehensive, does not cover everything

• While the most useful tool around, needs to be elaborated through international co-operation

• Useful supplements: Manual for relating examinations to the CEFR, Reference Supplement

• CEFR and the Portfolio: excellent examples of transnational projects through voluntary co-operation, which serves enlightened national self-interests – no effort to force consensus or exercise power

Possible future scenarios• National language goals are increasingly related to the CEFR (Finland, France…)

• National curricula are increasingly adapted to take into account what the CEFR can offer

• Teacher education familiarizes teachers with the CEFR

• Courses and study programmes are linked to the CEFR

• Textbooks and other instructional materials draw on the CEFR

• International support and training is arranged in linking exams/certificates to the CEFR

• Internationally validated benchmarks are produced

• International co-operation in R & D on the CEFR

• International chart of proficiency levels certified by examination and certification bodies

Matr Gr 9 VWO/RC

(NL)

VWO/

LC (NL)

VWO/

SP (NL)

Havo/

RC (NL)

Havo/SP

(NL)

C1.2 Laud

C1.1 Eximia

B2.2 Magna

B2.1 Cum l..

B1.2 Lubent.

B1.1 Approb

A2.2 Improb

A2.1

A1.2

A1.1

How has the CEFR been used in language education in Finland?

• Translated in 2003

• Widely used in various contexts and projects

Main applications:

a)Examination frameworks

b) Proficiency testing

c) Curriculum and course development

• Finnish language curricula have been impacted by the Council of Europe language projects since the mid-1960s

• This has been seen serving our own national interests

• First utilising and applying the CoE language project expertise

• Gradually becoming a more active partner in development work

Linking examinations results has only begun.

• More needs to be done:

• Replication to verify tentative linkages.

• International co-operation to develop compe-tence in linking examinations/tests to the CEFR (cf. EALTA workshop Barcelona, 2007; 34)

• International co-operation in mutual verifying of national efforts of linkage?

• International teams of judges?

• External validation by sharing tests?

CEFR – adaptation to school curricula

• Needed to be adapted to the context, not just adopted as such

• Keep the well-established curriculum traditions: balance between tradition and reform

• Add as a new component the proficiency levels to facilitate definition of progression

• Indicate target levels for grades 6, 9 and 12• Need for more fine-grained levels at A1

– fast qualitative progress at lower levels– to sustain and support motivation

C1.1

B2.2

B2.1

B1.2

B1.1

A2.2

A2.1

A1.3

A1.2

A1.1

Breakthrough

Waystage

Threshold

Vantage

Effective Operational Proficiency

Mastery

Language Proficiency Levels: in the Finnish Core Curriculum

A1.2A1.3

A2.1A2.2

B1.1B1.2

B2.1B2.2

C1.1C1.2

C2.1C2.2

A1.1

Breakthrough

Threshold

Vantage

Mastery

Language Proficiency Levels in the Finnish Core Curriculum – short labels

B1.2

C1.2

A1: Can manage limited communication in the most familiar situations

A2: Can satisfy basic needs for immediate social interaction and brief narration

B1: Can deal with language use situations in everyday life

B2: Can manage regular interaction with ’native´ speakers (-> also lingua franca speakers)

C1: Can manage in a variety of demanding language use situations

Breakthrough

Threshold

Vantage

Mastery

Language Proficiency Levels: in the Finnish Core Curriculum

B1.2

C1.2

• A1: Limited communication in the most familiar situations

• A1.1 First stage of elementary proficiency • A1.2 Developing elementary proficiency• A1.3 Functional elementary proficiency

• A2: Basic needs for immediate social interaction and brief narration

• A2.1: First stage of basic proficiency• A2.1 Developing basic proficiency

• B1: Dealing with language use situations in everyday life

• B1.1: Functional basic proficiency• B1.2: Fluent basic proficiency

• B2: Managing regular interaction with ’native´ speakers

• B2.1: First stage of independent proficiency• B2.2: Functional independent proficiency

• C1: Managing in a variety of demanding language use situations

• C1.1: First stage of fluent proficiency

Some references• Hildén, R. & Takala, S. (2007) Relating descriptors of the Finnish school scale to the CEF overall scales of communicative activities. (pdf available from sjtakala@hotmail.com; raili.hilden@helsinki.fi)

• Kaftandjieva, F. (2004) Standard setting. Section B in Reference Supplement to the Manual for relating language examinations to the CEFR. Council of Europe (available at: http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Default-en-asp)• Kaftandjieva, F. & Takala, S. (2002) Council of Europe Scales of Language Proficiency: A validation study.In Common European Framework of Reference. Case studies, Council of Europe, 106-129. (pdf available from sjtakala@hotmail.com)

• Kaftandjieva, F. & Takala, S. (2003) Development and Validation of Scales of Language Proficiency. In: W. Vagle (ed.) Vurdering av språkferdighet, NTNU. Trondheim, 31-38 (pdf available from Takala: sjtakala@hotmail.com)• Takala, S. & Kaftandjieva, F. (2002) Relating the Finnish Matriculation Examination English Test Results to the CEF Scales. Helsinki Seminar, June 31- July 2, 2002 (available by request from Takala: sjtakala@hotmail.com)• Tuokko, E. (2007) What level do pupils reach in English at the end of the comprehensive school? U of Jyväskylä, Finland. (PhD thesis in Finnish, with English summary: tuokko@pp.inet.fi)

LIITE 1 Kielten opiskelun mahdollisuuksia kuvaava kaavio

LIITE Lukion opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2003