Jump to content

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.231.143.75 (talk) at 16:27, 15 June 2011 (→Self-evaluated equivalences to CEFR levels). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, abbreviated as CEFR, is a guideline used to describe achievements of learners of foreign languages across Europe and, increasingly, in other countries.[1] It was put together by the Council of Europe as the main part of the project "Language Learning for European Citizenship" between 1989 and 1996. Its main aim is to provide a method of assessing and teaching which applies to all languages in Europe. 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 (see below) are becoming widely accepted as the European standard for grading an individual's language proficiency.

Development

In 1991 the Swiss Federal Authorities held an Intergovernmental Symposium in Rüschlikon, Switzerland, on "Transparency and Coherence in Language Learning in Europe: Objectives, Evaluation, Certification". This symposium found that a common European framework for languages was needed to improve the recognition of language qualifications and help teachers co-operate, eventually leading to improved communication and cooperation generally in Europe.

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.

Levels

The Common European Framework divides learners into three broad divisions which can be divided into six levels:

A Basic Speaker
A1 Breakthrough or beginner
A2 Waystage or elementary
B Independent Speaker
B1 Threshold or intermediate
B2 Vantage or upper intermediate
C Proficient Speaker
C1 Effective Operational Proficiency or advanced
C2 Mastery or proficiency

The CEFR describes what a learner is supposed to be able to do in reading, listening, speaking and writing at each level.

level description
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 clearly and is prepared to help.
A2 Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.
B1 Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes & ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.
B2 Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialisation. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.
C1 Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise implicit meaning. Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes. Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.
C2 Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarise information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in the most complex situations.

Deutsche Welle (sponsored by the German government) suggests A-1 is reached with about 75 hours of German study. A-2.1 about 150 hours. A-2.2 about 225 hours. B 1.1 about 300 hours. B 1.2 about 400 hours.[2]

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

Self-evaluated equivalences to CEFR levels

Language schools and certificate bodies evaluate their own equivalences against the framework. Differences of 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.[3]

CEFR level City and Guilds [4] University of Bath English Language Testing (UBELT)[5] NQF (UK Only)[6] Cambridge exam[7] Michigan Exam CIEP / Alliance française diplomas HSK [8] [9] CLES (11 languages) DCL DELE[10] Goethe Institute IELTS PTE Academic PTE General (formerly LTE) TOEIC [11] UNIcert (different languages) Versant YKI ALTE level TOEFL (IBT)
C2 Mastery Level 7-8 CPE / CAE grade A [12] ECPE TCF C2 / DALF C2 / DHEF HSK Level 6 CLES 3 Certification IV Maestría Zentrale Oberstufenprüfung, Kleines Deutsches Sprachdiplom IELTS 8.5-9.0 85 Level 5 - UNIcert IV 79-80 6.taso Level 5 - -
C1 Expert Levels 4-6 CAE, FCE grade A[13] - TCF C1 / DALF C1 / DSLCF HSK Level 5 CLES 3 Certification III Superior (since November 2010) Goethe-Zertifikat C1 IELTS 7.0-8.0 76 Level 4 945+ points UNIcert III 69-78 5.taso Level 4 110-120
B2 Communicator Level 3 FCE ECCE TCF B2 / DELF B2 / Diplôme de Langue HSK Level 4 CLES 2 Certification II Avanzado Goethe-Zertifikat B2, ZDfB IELTS 5.5-6.5 59 Level 3 785 - 945 points UNIcert II 58-68 4.taso Level 3 87-109
B1 Achiever Level 2 PET - TCF B1 / DELF B1 / CEFP 2 HSK Level 3 CLES 1 Certification I Intermedio Zertifikat Deutsch IELTS 4.0-5.0 43 Level 2 550 - 785 points UNIcert I 47-57 3.taso Level 2 57-86
A2 Access Level 1 KET - TCF A2 / DELF A2 / CEFP 1 HSK Level 2 Elemental Start Deutsch 2 30 Level 1 225 - 550 points 36-46 2.taso Level 1
A1 Preliminary Entry Level no scored - TCF A1 / DELF A1 HSK Level 1 Inicial Start Deutsch 1 Level A1 120 - 225 points 26-35 1.taso Breakthrough level -

Equivalence with common North American standards

Canada

The following table establishes equivalences between the CEFR and some Canadian and U.S. standards. It is based on the proposed "preliminary alignment tables of other language frameworks with the CEFR" in the report Proposal for a Common Framework of Reference for Languages for Canada by Larry Vandergrift of the University of Ottawa, published by Heritage Canada.[14]

The standards compared are:

  1. The CEFR itself
  2. Interagency Language Roundtable Scale (ILR, United States)
  3. American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL)
  4. New Brunswick Oral Proficiency Scale (NB OPS, English and French only) [6]
  5. Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB, English and French only)
  6. Public Service Commission of Canada Second Official Language Proficiency Levels (PSC, English and French only) [7]

The resulting correspondence between the ILR and ACTFL scales disagrees with the generally accepted one.[15] 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.[16] Also, the ILR and NB OPS scales do not correspond despite the fact that the latter was modelled on the former.[17]

CEFR ILR ACTFL NB OPS CLB PSC
A1 0/0+/1 Novice (Low/Mid/High) Unrated/0+/1 1/2 A
A2 1+ Intermediate (Low/Mid/High) 1+/2 3/4 B
B1 2 Advanced Low 2+ 5/6 C
B2 2+ Advanced Mid 3 7/8
C1 3/3+ Advanced High 3+ 9/10
C2 4 Superior 4 11/12
4+/5

United States

Other work has addressed correspondence with the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the United States ILR scale specifically.

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" (a name sometimes used for levels 4 and 4+ of the ILR scale instead including them within "Superior")

A 2008 statistical study by Alfonso Martínez Baztán of Universidad de Granada based on the performances of a group of subjects[18] determines the following ordering of the ACTFL and CEFR levels, in which higher levels are placed further right.[19]

NL___NM__A1___NH___A2/IL_____IM__B1____IH____B2 _AL____ AM__C1___AH___C2__S_

The following table summarizes the results of Martínez Baztán,[20] the equivalences between CEFR and ACTFL standards proposed in a 2005 paper by Erwin Tschirner of Universität Leipzig[21] (also quoted by Martínez Baztán[22]), and the equivalences of Buitrago (unpublished, 2006) as quoted in Martínez Baztán 2008.[23]

CEFR Martínez Tschirner Buitrago
<A1 NL, NM
A1 NH NH NL
A2 IL, IM IM NM
B1 IM, IH IH IL
B2 IH, AL AM IM, IH
C1 AM, AH AH AL, AM, AH
C2 AH, S S S

In a panel discussion at the Osaka University of Foreign Studies, one of the coauthors of the CEFR, Brian North, 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.[24]

This agrees with a table published by the American University Center of Provence giving the following correspondences:[25]

CEFR ILR ACTFL
A1 0/0+ NL, NM, NH
A2 1 IL, IM
B1 1+ IH
B2 2/2+ AL, AM, AH
C1 3/3+ S
C2 4/4+ D

A study by Buck, Papageorgiou and Platzek[26] 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)[27]

See also

References

  1. ^ Using the CEFR in Taiwan. [www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/academics/geptresearch/East_Meets_West_abstract.pdf]
  2. ^ http://deutschkurse.dw-world.de/dw_static_content/langerklaerung_en.html
  3. ^ http://www.ealta.eu.org/conference/2009/docs/friday/John_deJong.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.cityandguildsenglish.com/CEFR
  5. ^ http://www.bath.ac.uk/ubelt
  6. ^ Languages Ladder
  7. ^ http://www.cambridgeesol.org/exams/index.html
  8. ^ http://www.chinesetesting.cn
  9. ^ http://www.fachverband-chinesisch.de/fachverbandchinesischev/thesenpapiereundresolutionen/FaCh2010_ErklaerungHSK.pdf
  10. ^ DELE Diplomas at the Instituto Cervantes London: official qualifications which prove your level of proficiency in Spanish
  11. ^ http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEIC/pdf/toeic_cef_mapping_flyer.pdf
  12. ^ http://cambridgeesol.org/exams/general-english/cae.html#l4
  13. ^ http://www.cambridgeesol.org/exams/general-english/fce.html
  14. ^ Proposal for a Common Framework of Reference for Languages for Canada, May 2006, Laurens Vandergrift. [1] [2]
  15. ^ Correspondence of proficiency scales
  16. ^ ILR Scale
  17. ^ Proposal of a CFR for Canada
  18. ^ 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. ISBN 978-84-338-4961-8.[page needed]
  19. ^ 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. 459. ISBN 978-84-338-4961-8.
  20. ^ 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.
  21. ^ Das ACTFL OPI und der Europäische Referenzrahmen, Erwin Tschirner, February 2005 in the journal Babylonia [3][4]
  22. ^ 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. 468. ISBN 978-84-338-4961-8.
  23. ^ 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. 469–70. ISBN 978-84-338-4961-8.
  24. ^ Untitled Page
  25. ^ [5] The correspondences are attributed by the center to "an ACTFL administrator."
  26. ^ PowerPoint Presentation
  27. ^ Level 2+ was the highest possible classification for listening items.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages&oldid=434433139"