CEFR and the ELT practitioner: empowerment or enforcement (original) (raw)

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

Since its circulation in two draft versions in 1996, and especially since its commercial publication in English and French in 2001, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has come to dominate discussion of L2 curricula, the assessment of L2 proficiency, and L2 teaching and learning in Europe. Although it is widely referred to, however, the CEFR remains relatively little known beyond the summaries of its six proficiency levels presented in the so-called 'global scale' and 'self-assessment grid'. This article summarises the CEFR's content, purpose, and origins; describes its reception, paying particular attention to its impact on L2 teaching and learning (especially via its companion piece, the European Language Portfolio) and on the assessment of L2 proficiency; and concludes with a brief consideration of present challenges and future prospects.

KEY CONCEPTS IN ELT The Common European Framework

2014

Background The Common European Framework (CEF) has its origin in over 40 years of work onmodern languages in various projects of the Council of Europe (COE). This activity led to a series of detailed syllabus specifications, at several different language learning levels, namely the Threshold Level (van Ek 1977) and theWaystage andVantage Levels (vanEk andTrim 1991; 1997). All these documents illustrate a communicative, action-based, learner-centred view of language learning, similar to that in other Council of Europe projects, on, for example, needs analysis (Richterich andChancerel 1980) and learner autonomy and self-assessment (Oskarsson 1980). The Council’s work on language education has also historically embodied a political agenda, promoting plurilingualism as a means to facilitate mobility in Europe and encouraging linguistic tolerance and respect. What is the Common European Framework? All these trends are reflected in the development of the CEF, the COE’s most ambitiousproje...

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.pdf

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 recommendations-having seduced governments and institutions-are 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.

The Cefr Renewed: Inspiring the Future of Language Education

2020

This paper gives a brief overview of the significance of the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) and its key aspects for teaching and learning. Starting with a reminder of the key characteristics of the CEFR, the paper outlines its origins in the work of the Council of Europe in the 1970s and the development following the intergovernmental Symposium in Switzerland that recommended both a common European framework with an accompanying portfolio. The paper then goes on to discuss which of the innovative aspects of the CEFR were taken up quickly (e.g. levels, 'can do descriptors', self-assessment), and which largely had to wait until the field would be ready for them. Among the latter one finds concepts such as the learner as a social agent, the move beyond the four skills model, the action-oriented approach, mediation, and plurilingual/ pluricultural competence. It is precisely these aspects which, twenty years after the initial development, are the mai...

Arnott, S., Brogden, L. M., Faez, F., Peguret, M., Piccardo, E., Rehner, K., Taylor, S. K., Wernicke, M. (2017). Implementing the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) in Canada: A research agenda. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics.

Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2017

This article proposes a research agenda for future inquiry into the use of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in the plurilingual Canadian context. Drawing on data collected from a research forum hosted by the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers in 2014, as well as a detailed analysis of Canadian empirical studies and practice-based projects to date, the authors examine three areas of emphasis related to CEFR use: (a) K-12 education, including uses with learners; (b) initial teacher education, where additional language teacher candidates are situated as both learners and future teachers; and (c) postsecondary language learning contexts. Future research directions are proposed in consideration of how policymaking, language teaching and language learning are articulated across each of these three contexts. To conclude, a call is made for ongoing conversations encouraging stakeholders to consider how they might take up pan-Canadian interests when introducing various aspects of the CEFR and its related tools.

CEFR as Language Policy: Opportunities and Challenges for Local Agency in a Global Era

The English Teacher, 2021

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has become one of the most widely cited documents in language education across the globe, its influence now felt far beyond the confines of Europe, the context for which it was originally produced. In Malaysia, CEFR was given particular prominence in the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 and English Language Education Reform in Malaysia: The Roadmap 2015-2025, both of which positioned the framework as the primary yardstick by which curricula were to be developed and against which achievements (or lack thereof) were to be evaluated. This paper examines CEFR from the perspective of language policy, focussing particularly on the implications this document has for local agency in the Malaysian context. The paper begins by examining the constructs of language and language education underlying CEFR, pointing in particular to how these reflect the socio-political context for which the framework was developed. The next section examines how policy texts in the Malaysian context, in particular the 2015 Roadmap, have interpreted CEFR, highlighting in particular the way that these texts (as other policies across the globe) have tended to treat the CEFR reference levels as a global standard, with little scope for local agency. The final section considers alternative, localized models for using CEFR as language policy in Malaysia, in particular how the framework may be used in support of an inclusive agenda in which diversity and multilingualism are embraced.

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: A research agenda

Language Teaching, 2011

Editorial noteThis new strand in the journal provides a space for contributors to present a personal stance either on future research needs or on the perceived current applications of research in the classroom. Like much of our current content, it echoes the historical uniqueness of this journal in terms of its rich and expert overview of recent research in the field of L2 teaching and learning. However, this new strand takes such research as its starting point and attempts to look forward, using these findings both to debate their application in the language learning classroom and also to suggest where research would be best directed in the future. Thus, the objective of both papers is eminently practical: contributors to the research agenda will present suggestions for what research might usefully be undertaken, given what is currently known or what is perceived to be necessary. In the research into practice papers there will be critical appraisal both of what research is, and is ...