CEFR

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

Language assessment rubric


The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment,[1] abbreviated in English as CEFR, CEF, or CEFRL, is a guideline used to describe achievements of learners of foreign languages across Europe and, increasingly, in other countries. The CEFR is also intended to make it easier for educational institutions and employers to evaluate the language qualifications of candidates for education admission or employment. Its main aim is to provide a method of learning, teaching, and assessing that applies to all languages in Europe.

The CEFR was established by the Council of Europe between 1986 and 1989 as part of the "Language Learning for European Citizenship" project. In November 2001, a European Union Council Resolution recommended using the CEFR to set up systems of validation of language ability. The six reference levels (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2) are becoming widely accepted as the European standard for grading an individual's language proficiency.

Development

An intergovernmental symposium in 1991 titled "Transparency and Coherence in Language Learning in Europe: Objectives, Evaluation, Certification" held by the Swiss Federal Authorities in the Swiss municipality of Rüschlikon found the need for a common European framework for languages to improve the recognition of language qualifications and help teachers co-operate. A project followed to develop language-level classifications for certification to be recognised across Europe.[2]

As a result of the symposium, the Swiss National Science Foundation set up a project to develop levels of proficiency, to lead on to the creation of a "European Language Portfolio"  certification in language ability which can be used across Europe.

A preliminary version of the Manual for Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) was published in 2003. This draft version was piloted in a number of projects, which included linking a single test to the CEFR, linking suites of exams at different levels and national studies by exam boards and research institutes. Practitioners and academics shared their experiences at a colloquium in Cambridge in 2007 and the pilot case studies and findings were published in Studies in Language Testing (SiLT).[3] The findings from the pilot projects then informed the Manual revision project from 2008 to 2009.

Theoretical background

The CEFR divides general competences in knowledge, skills, and existential competence with particular communicative competences in linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence and pragmatic competence. This division does not exactly match previously well-known notions of communicative competence, but correspondences among them can be made.[4]

The CEFR has three principal dimensions: language activities, the domains in which the language activities occur, and the competencies on which a person draws when they engage in them.[5]

Language activities

The CEFR distinguishes four kinds of language activities: reception (listening and reading), production (spoken and written), interaction (spoken and written) and mediation (translating and interpreting).[5]

Domains

General and particular communicative competencies are developed by producing or receiving texts in various contexts under various conditions and constraints. These contexts correspond to various sectors of social life that the CEFR calls domains. Four broad domains are distinguished: educational, occupational, public and personal. These largely correspond to register.[citation needed]

Competences

A language user can develop various degrees of competence in each of these domains and to help describe them, the CEFR has provided a set of six Common Reference Levels (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2).[citation needed]

Common reference levels

The Common European Framework divides learners into three broad divisions that can each be further divided into two levels; for each level, it describes what a learner is supposed to be able to do in reading, listening, speaking and writing. The following table indicates these levels.[6]

More information Level group, Level ...

These descriptors can apply to any of the languages spoken in Europe and there are translations in many languages.

Relationship with duration of learning process

Educational bodies for various languages have offered estimates for the amount of study needed to reach levels in the relevant language.

More information Body, Language ...

Certification and teaching ecosystem enabled by the CEFR

Multiple organisations have been created to serve as an umbrella for language schools and certification businesses that claim compatibility with the CEFR. For example, the European Association for Language Testing and Assessment (EALTA) is an initiative funded by the European Community[9] to promote the CEFR and best practices in delivering professional language training. The Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) is a consortium of academic organisations that aims at standardising assessment methods.[10] Eaquals (Evaluation and Accreditation of Quality in Language Services) is an international association of institutions and organisations involved in language education, active throughout Europe and following the CEFR.[11]

In France, the Ministry for Education has created a government-mandated certificate called CLES, which formalises the use of the CEFR in language teaching programmes in French higher education institutions.[12]

In Germany, Telc, a non-profit agency, is the federal government's exclusive partner for language tests taken at the end of the integration courses for migrants, following the CEFR standards.[13]

Comparisons with other scales

General scales

ACTFL

The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages has published a one-directional alignment table of levels according to its ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the CEFR levels. It is based on the work of the ACTFL-CEFR Alignment Conferences that started in 2010. Generally, the ACTFL is stricter with regard to receptive skills than productive skills, compared to the CEFR.[14] The following table may not be read as an indication of what ACTFL level follows from taking a CEFR-aligned test.

For convenience, the following abbreviations will be used for the ACTFL levels:

  • NL/NM/NH – Novice Low/Mid/High
  • IL/IM/IH – Intermediate Low/Mid/High
  • AL/AM/AH – Advanced Low/Mid/High
  • S – Superior
  • D – Distinguished
More information ACTFL, Correspondence with CEFR ...

Similar correspondence has been proposed for the other direction (test aligned to CEFR) in a panel discussion at the Osaka University of Foreign Studies by one of the coauthors of the CEFR, Brian North. He stated that a "sensible hypothesis" would be for C2 to correspond to "Distinguished," C1 to "Superior," B2 to "Advanced-mid" and B1 to "Intermediate-high" in the ACTFL system.[15]

This agrees with a table published by the American University Center of Provence giving the following correspondences according to "estimated equivalencies by certified ACTFL administrator":[16]

More information CEFR, ACTFL ...

The following table summarises three earlier proposed equivalences between CEFR and ACTFL. Some of them only refer to one activity (e.g. speaking).

More information CEFR, Correspondence with ACTFL ...

ILR

The French Academy Baltimore suggests the following different equivalence:[20]

More information CEFR, ILR ...

A study by Buck, Papageorgiou and Platzek[21] addresses the correspondence between the difficulty of test items under the CEFR and ILR standards. The most common ILR levels for items of given CEFR difficulty were as follows:

  • Reading—A1: 1, A2: 1, B1: 1+, B2: 2+, C1: 3
  • Listening—A1: 0+/1, A2: 1, B1: 1+, B2: 2, C1: 2+ (at least)[22]

Canada

As Canada increasingly uses the CEFR, Larry Vandergrift of the University of Ottawa has proposed Canadian adoption of the CEFR in his report Proposal for a Common Framework of Reference for Languages for Canada published by Heritage Canada.[23][24] This report contains a comparison of the CEFR to other standards in use in Canada and proposes an equivalence table.

More information CEFR, ILR ...

The resulting correspondence between the ILR and ACTFL scales disagrees with the generally accepted one.[27] The ACTFL standards were developed so that Novice, Intermediate, Advanced and Superior would correspond to 0/0+, 1/1+, 2/2+ and 3/3+, respectively on the ILR scale.[28] Also, the ILR and NB OPS scales do not correspond despite the fact that the latter was modelled on the former.[24]

A 2007 document by Macdonald and Vandergrift[29] estimates the following correspondences (for oral ability) between the Public Service Commission levels and the CEFR levels:

More information PSC, CEFR ...

Language schools may also propose their own equivalence tables. For example, the Vancouver English Centre provides a comprehensive equivalence table between the various forms of the TOEFL test, the Cambridge exam, the VEC level system, and the CEFR.[30]

Language-specific scales

More information Language, Certificate ...

Difficulty in aligning the CEFR with teaching programmes

Language schools and certificate bodies evaluate their own equivalences against the framework. Differences in estimation have been found to exist, for example, with the same level on the PTE A, TOEFL, and IELTS, and is a cause of debate between test producers.[89]

Non-Western areas and languages

The CEFR, initially developed to ease human mobility and economic growth within the highly multilingual European Union, has since influenced and been borrowed by various other areas.

Non-Western learners

In Japan, the adoption of CEFR has been encouraged by academics, institutional actors (MEXT), politicians, business associations, and by learners themselves.[90] Adoption in Malaysia has also been documented.[91] In Vietnam, adoption of the CEFR has been connected to recent changes in English language policy, efforts to reform higher education, orientation toward economic opportunities and a tendency for administrators to look outwards for domestic solutions.[92]

Noriyuki (2009) observes the "mechanical" reuse of the European framework and concepts by Japanese teachers of mostly Western languages, missing the recontextualisation part: the need to adapt the conceptual vocabulary to the local language and to adapt the framework to the local public, its language and practices.[93]

Around 2005, the Osaka University of Foreign Studies developed a CEFR-inspired project for its 25 foreign languages, with a transparent and common evaluation approach. While major languages had long had well-defined tools for the Japanese public, able to guide teachers in teaching and performing assessments in a methodic way, this project pushed the adoption of similar practices to smaller languages, as requested by students.[93]

In late 2006–2010, the Keio University led the ambitious CEFR-inspired Action Oriented Plurilingual Language Learning Project to favour multi-campus and inter-language cooperation in creating teaching materials and assessment systems from child to university levels.[93] Since 2015, the "Research on Plurilinguistic and Pluricultural Skill Development in Integrated Foreign Language Education" has followed up.[94]

Non-European languages

The framework was translated into Chinese in 2008.[95] In 2011, French sinologist Joël Bellassen suggests the CEFR together with its metalanguage could and should be adapted to distant languages such as Chinese, with the necessity to adapt and extend it with relevant concepts proper to the new language and its learners.[96] Various efforts on adaptation to Chinese have been made.[97][98]

In Japan, East-Asian language teaching is largely ignored due to Japanese society being mainly oriented toward Western language teaching, missing a valuable opportunity for Japanese to directly reach neighbouring countries and for smaller languages to solidify their languages teaching.[93]

See also


References

  1. Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Council of Europe.
  2. Martyniuk, Waldemar (11 November 2010), Studies in Language Testing (book description), vol. 33, UK, ISBN 9780521176842{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link).
  3. Carlos César, Jimenez (2011). El Marco Europeo Común de Referencia para las Lenguas y la comprensión teórica del conocimiento del lenguaje: exploración de una normatividad flexible para emprender acciones educativas (PDF) (Essay). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. p. 11. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 August 2019. Retrieved 30 July 2011.
  4. "Frequently Asked Questions". Goethe-Institut. Retrieved 13 August 2022.
  5. "FAQ – Alliance Française de Leeds". Alliance Française de Leeds. Retrieved 1 May 2023.
  6. "EAquals— Our aims". EAquals. Archived from the original on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  7. "Certificate de Compétences en Langues de l'Enseignement Supérieur". SPIRAL. Archived from the original on 18 May 2007. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  8. "The European Language Certificate". telc. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  9. "Assigning CEFR Ratings to ACTFL Assessments" (PDF). actfl.org. ACTFL American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Retrieved 16 May 2023.
  10. A reference of the talk can be found in the EP Bibliography of "English Profile", under "General materials" and then under North 2006, Link to English Profile (Bibliography)
  11. Baztán, Alfonso Martínez (2008). La evaluación oral: una equivalencia entre las guidelines de ACTFL y algunas escalas del MCER (PDF) (doctoral thesis). Universidad de Granada. p. 461. ISBN 978-84-338-4961-8.
  12. Tschirner, Erwin (February 2005). "Das ACTFL OPI und der Europäische Referenzrahmen" (PDF). Babylonia (in German). Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 March 2006. Also quoted in Baztán 2008, p. 468
  13. Buitrago (unpublished, 2006) as quoted in Baztán 2008, pp. 469–70
  14. "PowerPoint Presentation" (PDF). Retrieved 2 May 2013.
  15. Level 2+ was the highest possible classification for listening items.
  16. "New Canadian Perspectives: Proposal for a Common Framework of Reference For Languages for Canada (archived)" (PDF). Canadian Heritage. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 July 2011. Retrieved 15 July 2017.
  17. "Proposal of a CFR for Canada". Elp-implementation.ecml.at. Archived from the original on 15 August 2011. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
  18. "New Brunswick Second Language Oral Proficiency Scale" (PDF). www.gnb.ca/en/departments/ed (GNB Department of Education and Early Childhood Development). Retrieved 5 August 2023."Oral Language Proficiency Scale". www.gnb.ca/en/departments/finance/human_resources (GNB Finance and Treasury Board, Linguistic Services). 16 December 2019. Retrieved 5 August 2023."Information Booklet — Language Proficiency Guide: Oral, Reading, Writing. Linguistic Services, Finance and Treasury Board, January 2022" (PDF). www2.gnb.ca. GNB Finance and Treasury Board. Retrieved 5 August 2023.
  19. "Qualification Standards 3 / 3". Tbs-sct.gc.ca. 15 April 2013. Retrieved 2 May 2013.
  20. "Correspondence of proficiency scales". Sil.org. 21 March 1999. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
  21. "ILR Scale". Utm.edu. Archived from the original on 17 August 2011. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
  22. Jennifer Macdonald; Larry Vandergrift (6–8 February 2007). "The CEFR in Canada" (PowerPoint Presentation). Council of Europe. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
  23. "TOEFL Equivalency table". Vancouver English Centre. Archived from the original on 1 January 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  24. Curcin, Milja; Black, Beth. "Investigating standards in GCSE French, German and Spanish through the lens of the CEFR" (PDF). Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  25. Kōtō kyōiku ni okeru gaikokugo kyōiku no arata na tenbō : shīīefuāru no ōyō kanōsei o megutte. [Place of publication not identified]: Tōkyōgaikokugodaigakusekaigengoshakaikyōikusentā. 2012. ISBN 9784925243858. OCLC 794365620.
  26. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 March 2018. Retrieved 24 November 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  27. "Certificate of Dutch as a Foreign Language" (PDF). CNaVT. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 February 2013. Retrieved 27 October 2013.
  28. "Wat zijn de Staatsexamens NT2?" (in Dutch). College voor Examens. Retrieved 26 March 2013.
  29. "TrackTest Language levels". TrackTest. Retrieved 12 December 2013.
  30. "IELTS — Common European Framework". IELTS. Archived from the original on 16 January 2013. Retrieved 4 January 2013.
  31. "IELTS and the Cambridge ESOL examinations in a European context" (PDF). British Council. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 May 2014. Retrieved 3 August 2014.
  32. "IELTS band scores & CEF level scale for Clarity programs" (PDF). Clarity English. Retrieved 3 August 2014.
  33. "Mapping the TOEIC Tests on the Common European Framework Reference" (PDF). ETS Website. ETS. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2011. Retrieved 22 September 2011.
  34. "Duolingo English Test". englishtest.duolingo.com.
  35. "Research". Archived from the original on 7 January 2013. Retrieved 25 February 2013.
  36. "Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR)". Archived from the original on 15 January 2013. Retrieved 25 February 2013.
  37. "Data" (PDF). efset.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 October 2015. Retrieved 6 October 2015.
  38. Amega Web Technology. "City & Guilds English — The Common European Framework". Cityandguildsenglish.com. Archived from the original on 9 January 2016. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
  39. "Languages Ladder". Cilt.org.uk. Archived from the original on 28 August 2011. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
  40. "International language standards". Cambridge ESOL. Archived from the original on 29 July 2015. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  41. "MICHIGAN LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT". CAMLA. Archived from the original on 22 August 2019. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  42. "MET Go!". CaMLA. Archived from the original on 10 August 2019. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  43. "MICHIGAN LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT". CaMLA. Archived from the original on 10 August 2019. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  44. "ECCE". CAMLA. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  45. "ECPE". CaMLA. Archived from the original on 9 August 2019. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  46. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 September 2013. Retrieved 20 September 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  47. Deutsch-Französische Industrie- und Handelskammer. "Niveaubeschreibung" (PDF). ETS Global. Retrieved 12 September 2019.
  48. "What is the TestDaF?" (PDF). TestDaF. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 July 2015. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  49. "Framework of Reference for Languages" (PDF). TestDaF. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  50. Kristinsson, Ari (2013). "Innflytjendur og íslenskupróf" [Immigrants and Icelandic Language Tests]. Milli Mála (in Icelandic). 5: 73–94.
  51. "TEG Levels". Retrieved 16 July 2023.
  52. Won, Yunhee. "Common European Framework of Reference for Language (CEFR) and Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK)" (PDF). Pusan National University. Retrieved 19 November 2017.
  53. "Egzaminy Certyfikatowe z Języka Polskiego jako Obcego". Archived from the original on 30 July 2015. Retrieved 4 August 2015.
  54. "Centro de Avaliação de Português Língua Estrangeira". Archived from the original on 14 June 2012. Retrieved 4 September 2012.
  55. "TKRI Overview". Archived from the original on 21 December 2012. Retrieved 22 November 2012.
  56. "Descripción – Diplomas de Español Como Lengua Extranjera". Instituto Cervantes. Retrieved 19 August 2011.
  57. "Türkçe Yeterlik Sınavı (TYS)". Yunus Emre Institute. Retrieved 10 March 2017.
  58. Afip, Liyana Ahmad; Hamid, M. Obaidul; Renshaw, Peter (27 May 2019). "Common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR): insights into global policy borrowing in Malaysian higher education". Globalisation, Societies and Education. 17 (3): 378–393. doi:10.1080/14767724.2019.1578195. ISSN 1476-7724. S2CID 151143912.
  59. Nguyen, Van Huy; Hamid, M. Obaidul (9 August 2021). "The CEFR as a national language policy in Vietnam: insights from a sociogenetic analysis". Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 42 (7): 650–662. doi:10.1080/01434632.2020.1715416. ISSN 0143-4632. S2CID 213016876.
  60. "Keio Research Center for Foreign Language Education". flang.keio.ac.jp (in Japanese). Retrieved 11 September 2021.
  61. 欧洲语言共同参考框架 (Ouzhou yu yan gong tong can kao kuang jia : xue xi, jiao xue, ping gu). Jun Liu, Rong Fu, Tingda Li, 刘骏., 傅荣., 李婷妲. (Di 1 ban ed.). Beijing Shi: Wai yu jiao xue yu yan jiu chu ban she. 2008. ISBN 978-7-5600-8032-1. OCLC 459867370.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  62. Bellassen, Joël (2011). Is Chinese Europcompatible? Is the Common European Framework Common?: The Common European Framework of References for Languages Facing Distant Language (PDF). Tokyo: New Prospect for Foreign Language Teaching in Higher Education —Exploring the Possibilities of Application of CECR—, Tokyo, World Language and Society Education Center (WoLSEC). pp. 23–31. ISBN 978-4-925243-85-8.
  63. Bellassen, Joel; Zhang, Li (2008). " Ouzhou yuyan gongtong cankao kuangjia xin linian dui hanyu jiaoxue de qishi yu tuidong " <欧洲语言共同参考框架>新理念对汉语教学的启示与推动(Les incidences de la nouvelle approche du CECRL sur la didactique du chinois). Vol. 3. Beijing. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  64. Tsai, Ya-hsun (2009). "以CEFR為華語能力指標之網路華語分級評量題庫建置 ». 新加坡: " Teaching and Learning of Chinese as a Second Language ", Singapore Centre for Chinese Language". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

    Works cited

    Media related to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages at Wikimedia Commons


    Share this article:

    This article uses material from the Wikipedia article CEFR, and is written by contributors. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.