Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Neus Figueras
Introduction
477
This article provides some context for the unquestionable influence of the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) on language learning, teaching, and
assessment ten years after its publication. If a survey about the most relevant
and controversial document in the field in the twenty-first century were to
be carried out, the CEFR would most surely be the top one. The document
itself has been translated into all European languages, and its scales are
now available in more than 40 languages, including sign language. The
CEFR levels and its scales have become currency in Europe and beyond, and
its recommendationshaving seduced governments and institutionsare
slowly finding their way into everyday practice. The CEFR, however, is not
a model of absolute perfection, and criticisms and challenges will also be
reviewed and discussed.
2 To make it easier for practitioners to tell each other and their
However, despite the huge amount of work that has been put into
changing language syllabi, changing methodologies, and changing
assessment practice, and despite the discussions, debates, seminars,
and congresses on the usefulness of the CEFR, it is still not possible
to say that these language policies have been effectively transferred
to classrooms or to teaching materials. Not all teaching and learning
objectives are designed to meet communication needs, and not all
assessment is geared to outcomes,1 that is, specific descriptions of what
a student has demonstrated and understood at the completion of an
activity or course. Alot has changed, but there is still the feeling that
there is still much to be done before it can be said that policy matches
real life, if that is ever possible.
The CEFR:
contributionsmade
The success of the CEFR is due to two main factors. The first one
has been outlined in the Introduction, and it is both geopolitical and
scientific. Governments and applied linguists wanted to link language
learning, language teaching, and language assessment to a more real-life
oriented approach and were striving to find a common currency, in
terms of terminology and in terms of levels of attainment. The CEFR
was a timely publication in this respect and acted as a catalyst. It
provided a complex but operational definition of language that embodied
the work of many decades, presented as the action-oriented approach
and commonly referred to in the text as the horizontal dimension.
In addition, the CEFR included definitions of different levels along the
proficiency scale at six main levels, which were described in general terms
and in relation to language activities and language tasks in over 50 descriptor
scales, commonly referred to as the vertical dimension (Figure1).
1
The vertical
dimension
f igure
478
Neus Figueras
clientele what they wish to help learners to achieve and how they
attempt to do so. (Council of Europe 2001: xi)
The second crucial factor for the success of the CEFR has to do with the
characteristics of the approach it embodies, the positive wording of the
level descriptors, and its non-compulsory nature with a structure open
to multimodality and adaptations.
The construction of a comprehensive, transparent and coherent
framework for language learning and teaching does not imply the
imposition of one single uniform system. On the contrary, the
framework should be open and flexible, so that it can be applied, with
such adaptations as prove necessary, to particular situations. (Council
of Europe op.cit.:7)
The CEFR gained international attention and respect very soon after
its publication (Alderson 2002; Morrow 2004a, 2004b; Byrnes 2007),
and there were two features in the document, both closely related to the
vertical dimension, which were the most salient and the most rapidly
put intouse.
One of them was the reference level labels (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2)
which, especially in the field of testing, soon outshone all other aspects
in the document and became valuable currency for governments,
policymakers, and testing institutions to the dismay of many
researchers and testing specialists.
The second feature to be quickly adopted was the empirically developed
and validated reference level descriptors, which were to have an
enormous influence in the drafting of objectives, targets, and outcomes
in language learning programmes in different contexts for different
uses and purposes.
The impact of these two features is of a very different nature. The
use of the CEFR level labels, with or without their accompanying
level descriptors, is very visible and has become commonplace in all
educational levels in Europe (not only for adults and young adults
learning foreign languages, but also for young learners and for L1
learners)2 by different stakeholders (government officials, publishers,
admissions officers at universities, immigration authorities) with
different degrees of validity. Most CEFR level labels have been used to
report the results of the European Language Indicator, SurveyLang.3 The
majority of teachers and learners now seldom use terms like beginner
or intermediate, labels that have been replaced by the use of A1 or B1,
sometimes with very little awareness of what they mean. It is not always
the case that A1 is more transparent than beginner, especially if the
label is used in isolation without its corresponding descriptor or if the
descriptor is not clearly operationalized into outcomes.
The impact of the level descriptors has been less visible, although they
have been equally widely used. Curricula and language programmes
today are often outcome-based, drawn up with much more attention to
real-life uses, and focused on what students will be able or should be
able to do at the end of a course. The lack of direct acknowledgement
of the CEFR is probably due to the fact that language objectives
or outcomes have also been much adapted (sometimes beyond
479
Common currency of
the CEFR level labels
and the influence
of the CEFR level
descriptors
Characteristics of the The reference level descriptors are one of the important innovations
CEFR reference level contained in the CEFR, not only in their technical aspects and
recommendations on formulation (positiveness, definiteness, clarity,
descriptors
brevity, independence), but also in the empirical methodology used for
developing them. The impact of both the technical recommendations
and the need for empirical validation was highlighted by two projects
which formulated descriptors during the period of development of the
CEFR and were closely based on Draft two of the document, circulated
in 1996, namely the DIALANG and the ALTE (Association of Language
Testers in Europe) Can doproject.
Despite the huge variation across countries, programmes, and
classrooms, it is common today to talk about what students can do
and describe it positively, in relation to what can be observed and not
in relation to what they cannot do, as was often previously the case.
Those readers who accessed the CEFR during the first few years after
its publication will remember the impact caused by the descriptor for
A1 in Table1 in the CEFR (see Figure2), where a level as low as A1 was
described in terms of what types of activity were carried out, how they
were done, and under which conditions and limitations. Underlining is
provided to highlightthis.
A1
Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the
satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and
answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows, and
things he/she has. Can interact in a simple way, provided the other person talks slowly and
2
Descriptor for level A1
f igure
Changing teaching
and assessment
practices
480
Neus Figueras
One of the most important contributions of the CEFR has been that of
stirring the waters of the teaching and the testing professions, which
has resulted in considerable professional growth (see Figueras 2007 for
a discussion on this). Alongside the presence of CEFR- or ELP-related
presentations, a myriad of projects and networks were set up in order
to provide forums for discussion among European professionals in
different fields who found themselves faced with a document worth
discussing, and which had already attracted the interest of government
officials. Activity was most visible in the field of testing, with projects
like CEFTrain (http://www.helsinki.fi/project/ceftrain/index.html) or
the Dutch CEFR construct project (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/projects/
grid/), and the creation of EALTA (European Association for Language
Testing and Assessment http://www.ealta.eu.org) with initial European
funding, and in the field of teacher training itself, with activities
initiated by the Council of Europes European Centre for Modern
Languages in Austria, like the European Portfolio for Student Teachers
of Languages, which eventually became a much consulted and useful
document (http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/fte/html/FTE_E_Results.htm).
From reference
level descriptors
tooutcomes
481
Challenges raised by
theCEFR
The CEFR has not been without criticism, which has come from
different sides but which may be grouped into two main areas: a
content area, and a political area. Many of the criticisms have pointed
at challenges which were already addressed by the authors in the
introductory chapters of the CEFR, and others, not foreseen, are shared
by authors and users alike and will need to be addressed in thefuture.
In terms of content, the challenges that have emerged as the CEFR has
increasingly been put into practice are related to the comprehensiveness
and usefulness of the level descriptors for assessment, and their
relevance and validity from the second language acquisition (SLA)
482
Neus Figueras
The field of SLA has been very critical of the CEFR. Hulstijn (2007)
challenges what he refers to as the two pillars of the CEFR descriptors:
the quantity and the quality dimensions (the what and the how well
an activity can be carried out). He does so on the basis of individual
differences and variability among non-native speakers and identifies
three types of second language users:
a) L
2 users who can only do a few things in terms of quantity but
whose performance is characterized by high linguistic quality.
b) L2 language users who can do many things in terms of quantity but
whose performance is characterized by low linguistic quality, and
c) L2 users whose quantity range matches their performance quality,
as suggested by the CEFR scales of the mixed type. (ibid.:666)
Hulstijn calls for empirical longitudinal studies that focus on learners
proficiency development and can contribute to the refinement of the
CEFR reference descriptors so far based only on raters assessment(s),
an action that Little (2011) incorporates in his research agenda. In
this respect, the development of the English Profile (http://www.
englishprofile.org/), a project that is currently looking at evidences of
learner language and their characteristics in relation to the CEFR levels
for English has a lot to offer.
A number of the uses to which the CEFR has been put were never called
for by the authors or by the Council of Europe, and it is therefore not
surprising that, in relation to these uses, it has been perceived by many as
not adequate. The CEFR was developed to aid foreign language learning
in the adult context in Europe butbecause of its perceived usefulness
and currencyit has been used widely at all education levels, also with
L1, and with languages for specific purposes. Such uses were identified
in a survey carried out by Martyniuk and Noijons (2007) prior to the
Intergovernmental Policy Forum (The Common European Framework
of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and The Development of Language
Policies: Challenges and Responsibilities) held in February 2007 in
Strasbourg. This event led to the publication of a Recommendation CM/
Rec(2008)7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the use
483
Insufficient
definition, gaps,
and terminological
incoherences
Conclusion
The issues addressed in this article outline two possible areas for
action, already pointed out here, and which are, somehow, in the air
in the field. The first area is related to the responsibility of users and
was already suggested by Keith Morrow, who lucidly responded to the
question Does the CEF work? with The jury is out (2004a: 10), and
The CEFR treats us like adults, are you grown up enough to handle
it?(2004b: 6), and was clearly specified in the Recommendation issued
by the Committee of Ministers already quoted. The second area for action
has to do with research, and a number of significant areas (11 tasks) are
identified in Little (op.cit.), among which are L2 pedagogy and how it can
be improved, the development of additional descriptors (for classroom
language, for written interaction, ), the development of CEFR-based
curricula, or the exploration of the application of existing descriptors in
L1. It looks as if the next decade will still have the CEFR and its related
documents at the forefront of discussion. Let us hope that the profession
lives up to the challenge.
Notes
1 The use of the term outcome in this article
should be considered equivalent to other terms
used in language learning programmes to
describe a learning target, a learning objective,
or a standard of attainment, phrased in terms
of what a learner will be able to do with the
language in a real-life situation if the course of
study is completed successfully.
2 The Council of Europe has undertaken the
Languages of Schooling project to address
the issue of teaching and learning languages
in mainstream education. The activities and
publications of the project can be accessed
at http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/
Schoollang_en.asp
484
Neus Figueras
485