Part 1: The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Past, Present and Future
Introduction to Part 1
David Little
The publication of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages 20 years ago (CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001a) marked the culmination of three decades of work on foreign language teaching and learning by a succession of Council of Europe projects. To begin with, the work was carried out under the aegis of the Committee for Out-of-School Education and focused on the needs of adult learners. Traditionally, language learning had been conceived as a years-long progress from âzero beginnerâ to (rarely attained) ânative-likeâ proficiency; the learnerâs progress was measured with reference to the target language system (Trim, 1984: 11). Against this tradition, the first Council of Europe modern languages project sought ways of developing programmes of limited duration that would enable learners to meet clearly defined communicative objectives. This entailed a shift of focus from language system to learner needs, from lexicogrammatical features to communicative purposes. The projectâs earliest products were proposals for a European unit/credit scheme of adult language learning (Trim, 1978) and The Threshold Level (van Ek, 1975), which specified the repertoire needed to cross the threshold into temporary membership of the target language community. The unit/credit scheme turned out to be shortlived, but The Threshold Levelâs functional approach had a profound impact on the development of communicative approaches to language teaching and laid the foundations on which, in due course, the CEFR was built.
From the beginning, the Council of Europeâs modern languages projects were informed by the organizationâs core values: human rights, democratic governance and the rule of law. The projects aimed to facilitate the free movement of people and ideas, to make the language learning process more democratic, and to provide a framework for international cooperation (Trim, 1984: 9). The CEFR was developed with the same goals in mind. In 1991 the RĂŒschlikon Symposium, âTransparency and Coherence in Language Learning in Europeâ, hosted by the federal Swiss authorities, recommended that the Council of Europe should establish âa comprehensive, coherent and transparent framework for the description of language proficiencyâ (Council of
Europe, 1992: 39). This task was undertaken by the project âLanguage Learning for European Citizenshipâ. At an intergovernmental conference held in Strasbourg in 1997, the second draft of the CEFR (Council of Europe, 1996) was launched for dissemination, discussion and feedback, and over the next three years further work resulted in the version of the CEFR that was published in English and French in 2001 (Council of Europe, 2001a, 2001b).
Those who are unfamiliar with the CEFR often assume that it consists entirely of proficiency âstandardsâ expressed in scales of âcan doâ descriptors. But to focus on the scales without engaging with their immediate and broader context is to miss a large part of their point. The CEFRâs illustrative scales are embedded in detailed taxonomic descriptions of communicative language activities (CEFR, Chapter 4) and the language user/learnerâs competences (Chapter 5). These central chapters are preceded by a summary of the political and educational context in which the CEFR was developed (Chapter 1), an explanation of its action-oriented approach to the description of proficiency (Chapter 2) and an overview of the common reference levels on which the illustrative scales are based (Chapter 3). Chapter 6 discusses the processes of language learning and the methodological options available for language teaching, Chapter 7 considers the role of tasks in language learning and teaching, Chapter 8 explores the implications of linguistic diversification for curriculum design, and Chapter 9 focuses on the purposes and types of assessment.
In keeping with the CEFRâs underlying ethos, the second half of its title puts learning before teaching and teaching before assessment. Nevertheless, over the past 20 years the CEFRâs impact has been most obvious in the area of language testing. Its proficiency levels were quickly adopted by major testing agencies across Europe; in some countries, so-called reference level descriptions were developed as a way of putting language-specific flesh on the CEFRâs language-neutral skeleton;1 and the Council of Europe developed manuals for linking language tests to the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2009) and developing new language tests in conformity with the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2011a). In addition, there has been a large number of alignment projects, and additional descriptors have been developed by language-testing and other agencies in many countries in Europe and around the world.
Projects linking curricula to the CEFRâs proficiency levels in a systematic and detailed way have been undertaken especially by organizations in the private and semi-state sectors; one thinks, for example, of the Core Inventory for English developed by EAQUALS and the British Council2 and, on a more limited scale, Integrate Ireland Language and Trainingâs English Language Proficiency Benchmarks, based on the first three proficiency levels (A1, A2, B1) of the CEFR (Integrate Ireland Language and Training, 2003a, 2003b) and used to support the educational inclusion of pupils and students from immigrant families. As regards foreign language learning in the school sector, it was widely assumed that A1 and A2 applied to lower secondary, B1 and B2 to upper secondary and C1 and C2 to tertiary education. This may help to explain why, soon after publication of the CEFR, ministries of education began to attach CEFR proficiency levels to the learning outcomes proposed in their curricula without following systematic linking procedures (see Part 4). The First European Survey on Language Competences (European Commission, 2012), based on the CEFR, showed that in many cases actual learning outcomes fell a long way short of the levels specified in curricula.
As for teaching and learning, the RĂŒschlikon Symposium recommended that âonce the Common Framework has been elaborated, there should be devised, at the European level, a common instrument allowing individuals who so desire to maintain a record of their language learning achievement and experience, formal or informalâ (Council of Europe, 1992: 39). Instead of developing this common instrument, destined to become the European Language Portfolio (ELP), the Council of Europe issued Principles and Guidelines that described the ELPâs structure and purposes (Council of Europe, 2011b). The ELP was to have three obligatory components: a language passport that would summarize the ownerâs experience of foreign language learning and use; a language biography that would provide a reflective accompaniment to learning; and a dossier in which the owner would keep evidence of learning achievement. The pedagogical function of the ELP was to promote learner autonomy, plurilingualism and intercultural awareness and competence. It was linked to the CEFR by checklists of âI canâ descriptors derived from the illustrative scales and used for the purposes of goal-setting and self-assessment.
From 1998 to 2000 versions of the ELP were developed and piloted in 15 member states of the Council of Europe, in private language schools under the auspices of EAQUALS, and in universities in various countries under the auspices of CercleS (ConfĂ©dĂ©ration EuropĂ©enne des Centres de Langues de lâEducation SupĂ©rieure) and the European Language Council (Little et al., 2011: 8â10). Thereafter it was left to interested agencies and institutions to develop their own ELPs and submit them to the ELP Validation Committee in Strasbourg for validation and accreditation. By the end of 2010, when validation was replaced by registration, the committee had accredited 118 ELPs from 32 Council of Europe member states and 8 INGOs/international consortia (Little et al., 2011: 10).3 Between 2001 and 2009 some eight European seminars were organized to support ELP development and implementation.4
To begin with, there was a widespread expectation that the ELP would effect a transformation of language teaching and learning across Europe. Ministries of education funded projects to develop, pilot and disseminate ELPs, and the European Centre for Modern Languages in Graz funded a succession of projects designed to support ELP development and use.5 But pilot projects came to an end, continuation funding was scarce, and several years before validation came to an end it was already difficult to find evidence of widespread ELP use. By now, the ELP is mostly history, though in some countries there are echoes of its influence in the self-assessment component of language coursebooks.
There are multiple and complex reasons for the ELPâs failure to take root in Europeâs education systems (Little, 2019a). Chief among them perhaps is the fact that the ELP was rarely part of an integrated and coherent reform of curricula, teaching/learning and assessment. As a consequence, in most contexts it was extraneous to established classroom practice and its checklists of âI canâ descriptors bore little discernible relation to curriculum goals. The idea of learners setting their own learning targets and assessing their own progress was alien to most education systems, the concept of interculturality was poorly understood, and the plurilingual approach to language education advocated by the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001a: 4â5; see Part 3) was mostly overlooked. The ELPâs early demise is a fair measure of the extent to which the CEFR has failed to make its mark on language education in schools, colleges and universities across Europe. It is also a measure of the need for a renewed effort following the publication of the CEFRâs Companion Volume (CEFR-CV), first in a provisional and then in its definitive version (Council of Europe, 2018, 2020).
Since the provisional version was released in 2018, the CEFR-CV has been received with a great deal of interest, especially by associations of language education professionals. Inevitably there is a risk that existing users will discard and new users will ignore the CEFR in favour of the CEFR-CV. In doing so they will easily lose sight of the human rights basis of Council of Europe language education policy, and they will deprive themselves of the detailed taxonomic description of communicative language activities and the language user/learnerâs competences contained in Chapters 4 and 5 of the CEFR. If the CEFR-CV is to make a lasting impact on language curricula, teaching/learning and assessment, we must explore critically the relevance and utility of its illustrative scales â especially in relation to mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural competences â in conjunction with the CEFRâs taxonomy of language use in different contexts. It has always been the Council of Europeâs intention that the CEFR should be used selectively, taking account of local priorities and issues. The large number of new scales and descriptors included in the CEFR-CV means that the need for a disciplined approach to selection and localization is more urgent than ever.
Outside Europe the impact of the CEFR has nowhere been greater than in Japan, which developed its own version, CEFR-J, to guide the teaching and learning of English in Japanese schools and colleges. Chapter 1, by Masashi Negishi, provides a detailed summary of this work. As in Europe so in Japan: most interest seems to centre around levels and can-do descriptors; much less attention is paid to key concepts like the action-oriented approach, the social agency of language user/learners, plurilingualism and pluriculturalism, and mediation. In Negishiâs view more time is needed for these concepts to filter through to language learning, teaching, and assessment. At the same time, he argues that principled localization of the CEFR as exemplified in the work inspired by CEFR-J has the potential to strengthen the original framework by reflecting back local contexts and needs.
In the US the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines perform much the same function as the CEFR does in Europe (for a detailed comparison of the two systems, see Little, 2019b). In Chapter 2, Margaret E. Malone reports on the progress of a transatlantic initiative to explore the feasibility of creating a âcrosswalkâ between the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the CEFR and considers possible next steps in light of the publication of the CEFR-CV and the growing importance of plurilingualism. Drawing on her experience with the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, Malone argues that the success of the CEFR-CV is likely to depend on a sustained effort of public education. It will be necessary, for example, to find ways of communicating the complexity of its content in relatively straightforward terms and persuading the general public that language learning is a challenging process that takes a long time.
Chapter 3, by Brian North, provides an essential point of reference for the remainder of the book. As one of the authors of the 2001 CEFR and coordinator of the project that developed the CEFR-CV, Brian North is ideally placed to outline the CEFR-CVâs aims, summarize its content, explain its conceptualization of mediation, and detail the conceptual and technical achievements on which it rests.
Notes
(1) For details see the Council of Europeâs CEFR website: https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/reference-level-descriptions-rlds-developed-so-far (accessed 20 August 2020).
(2) Available at https://www.eaquals.org/resources/the-core-inventory-for-general-english/ (accessed 24 August 2020).
(3) Full details of accredited and registered ELPs are provided on the Council of Europeâs ELP website: https://www.coe.int/en/web/portfolio/accredited-and-registered-elp (accessed21 August 2020).
(4) The reports on the ELP seminars are available on the Council of Europeâs ELP website: https://www.coe.int/en/web/portfolio/reports (accessed 21 August 2020).
(5) Details of these projects will be found on the ECML website: https://www.ecml.at.
References
Council of Europe (1992) Transparency and Coherence in Language Learning in Europe: Objectives, Evaluation, Certification. Report on the RĂŒschlikon Symposium. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Council of Europe (1996) Modern Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. A Common European Framework of Reference. Draft 2 of a Framework proposal. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Council of Europe (2001a) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97 (accessed 20 August 2020).
Council of Europe (2001b) Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues: Apprendre, enseigner, évaluer. Paris: Didier. https://rm.coe.int/16802fc3a8 (accessed 17 December 2020).
Council of Europe (2009) Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR): A Manual. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001680667a2d (accessed 20 August 2020).
Council of Europe (2011a) Manual for Language Test Development and Examining. For Use with the CEFR. Produced by ALTE on behalf of the Language Policy Division of the Council of Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available at https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001680667a2b (accessed 20 August 2020).
Council of Europe (2011b) European Language Portfolio (ELP) Principles and Guidelines, with added explanatory notes. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available at https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016804586ba (accessed 21 August 2020).
Council of Europe (2018) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion Volume with New Descriptors. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989 (accessed 17 December 2020).
Council of Europe (2020) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion Volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4 (accessed 21 August 2020).
European Commission (2012) First European Survey on Language Competences. Brussels: European Union. Available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/42ea89dc-373a-4d4f-aa27-9903852cd2e4/language-en/format-PDF/source-119658026 (accessed 21 August 2020).
Integrate Ireland Language and Training (2003a) English Language Proficiency Benchmarks for non-English-speaking Pupils at Primary Level. Dublin: Integrate Ireland Language and Training. Available at https://ncca.ie/media/2064/english_language_proficiency_benchmarks.pdf (accessed 24 August 2020).
Integrate Ireland Language and Training (2003b) English Language Proficiency Benchmarks for non-English-speaking Students at Post-primary Level. Dublin: Integrate Ireland Lan...