The Common European Terms of Reference for Languages: Lessons, Teaching, Assessment , abbreviated in English as CEFR or CEF or CEFRL (compared to the German acronym GeR or GeRS, the French abbreviation CECRL, Italian QCer, or Spanish MCER), are guidelines used to describe the achievements of foreign language learners throughout Europe and, increasingly, in other countries. It was unified by the Council of Europe as a major part of the "Language Learning for European Citizenship" project between 1989 and 1996. Its main objective was to provide learning methods, teaching and assessment that apply to all languages ​​in Europe. In November 2001, the EU Council Resolution recommended the use of CEFR to set up a language capability validation system. The six reference levels (see below) are becoming widely accepted as European standards for assessing a person's language skills.
Video Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
Development
The 1991 intergovernmental symposium entitled "Transparency and Coherence in European Language Learning: Goals, Evaluations, Certifications" organized by the Swiss Federal Authority in the municipality of Switzerland RÃÆ'¼schlikon found the need for a common European framework for languages ​​to improve the introduction of qualifying languages ​​and help teachers work same. Projects followed to develop the language level classification for certification should be recognized throughout Europe.
The CEFR is also intended to facilitate educational institutions and employers to evaluate candidate language qualifications for educational or occupational acceptance.
As a result of the symposium, the Swiss National Science Foundation established a project to develop a level of proficiency, to lead to the creation of a "European Language Portfolio" - certification in language skills that can be used throughout Europe.
Early versions of the Manual for Connecting the Language Examination to the European Common Terms of Reference for Languages ​​(CEFR) were published in 2003. The draft version was piloted on a number of projects, which included linking one test to the CEFR, linking exam suites at various levels, and national studies by exam boards and research institutes. Practitioners and academics shared their experiences at colloquium at Cambridge in 2007, and pilot case studies and findings were published in the Study in Language Testing (SiLT). The findings from the pilot project then inform the Manual revision project during 2008-2009.
Maps Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
​​â € <â €
The CEFR shares common competencies in knowledge, descriptive skills, and existential competencies with certain communicative competencies in linguistic competence. > i>, sociolinguistic competence , and pragmatic competence . This division is not exactly the same as the previously known notion of communicative competence , but correspondence between them can be made.
CEFR has three main dimensions: the activity of the language, the domain in which the language activity takes place, and the competencies in which we draw when we engage in it.
- Language activity
The CEFR distinguishes between four types of language activity: acceptance (listening and reading), production (oral and written), interaction (oral and written), and mediation (translating and interpreting).
- Domains
General and specialized communicative competencies are developed by producing or accepting text in various contexts under various conditions and constraints. This context corresponds to the various sectors of social life called the CEFR domain. Four broad domains are differentiated: education, work, public, and personal.
- Competence
A language user can develop various levels of competency in each of these domains and to help explain them, the CEFR has provided six sets of General Reference Level (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2).
General reference level
The Joint European Framework divides the learners into three major divisions that can be divided into six levels; for each level, it illustrates what a student should be able to do in reading, listening, speaking, and writing. The following table shows these levels. A more thorough description of each level, with criteria for listening, reading, speaking, and writing, is available on the Internet.
This descriptor can apply to any language used in Europe, and there are translations in many languages.
Relation to learning process duration
The multi-lingual education body has offered estimates for the number of studies needed to reach the level in the relevant language.
Certification and teaching ecosystem enabled by CEFR
Some organizations have been created to serve as an umbrella for language schools and certification businesses that claim compatibility with CEFR. For example, the European Association for Language Testing and Assessment (EALTA) is an initiative funded by the European Community to promote CEFR and best practice in providing professional language training. The European Language Testing Association (ALTE) is a consortium of academic organizations aimed at standardizing assessment methods. EAQUALS (Evaluation and Accreditation of Quality in the Language Service) is an international association of institutions and organizations involved in language education, active throughout Europe, and following CEFR.
In France, the Ministry of Education has created a government-mandated certificate called the CLES, which formalizes the use of CEFR in a French language teaching program in higher education.
In Germany, telc GmbH, a non-profit organization, is the federal government's exclusive partner for language tests taken at the end of the integration course for migrants, following the CEFR standard.
Comparison between CEFR and other scale
General scale
The study has addressed correspondence with the ACTFL Skills Guidance and ILR scale of the United States.
For convenience, the following abbreviations will be used for the ACTFL level:
- NL/NM/NH - Novice Low/Mid/High
- IL/IM/IH - Medium Low/Medium/High
- AL/AM/AH - Low/Medium/High High
- S - Superior
- D - Distinguished (names sometimes used for levels 4 and 4 of the ILR scale rather than putting them into Superior)
A 2008 statistical study by Alfonso MartÃÆ'nez BaztÃÆ'¡n of Universidad de Granada based on the appearance of a group of subjects determined the following sequence of ACTFL and CEFR levels, where higher levels were placed further precisely.
NL ___ NM__A1 ___ NH ___ A2/IL _____ IM__B1____IH____B2 _AL____ AM__C1___AH___C2__S_
The following table summarizes the results of MartÃÆ'nez BaztÃÆ'¡n, the similarities between CEFR and the ACTFL standard proposed in a 2005 paper by Erwin Tschirner of Università © Leipzig (also quoted by MartÃÆ'nez BaztÃÆ'¡n), and Buitrago (unpublished), 2006) equality as quoted in MartÃÆ'nez BaztÃÆ'¡n 2008.
In a panel discussion at Osaka University of Foreign Studies, one of the co-authors of the CEFR, Brian North, states that "a plausible hypothesis" is for C2 to match "Distinguished," C1 to "Superior," B2 to "Advanced-mid, "and B1 to" Intermediate-high "in the ACTFL system.
This is in accordance with the table published by the American University Center of Provence which provides the following correspondence:
A study by Buck, Papageorgiou and Platzek discusses the correspondence between the difficulties of test questions under CEFR and ILR standards. The most common ILR levels for CEFR difficulties items are given as follows:
- Reading - A1: 1, A2: 1, B1: 1, B2: 2, C1: 3
- Listen - A1: 0/1, A2: 1, B1: 1, B2: 2, C1: 2 (at least)
Canada is increasingly using CEFR in multiple domains. CEFR-compatible exams like DELF/DALF (France) and DELE (Spanish) are provided. Universities are increasingly drawing up their programs around the CEFR level. Larry Vandergrift of the University of Ottawa has proposed the adoption of the Canadian CEFR in its report Proposal for Canada's Common Language Terms of Reference published by Heritage Canada. This report contains a comparison of CEFR with other standards used in Canada and proposes an equity table.
The correspondence generated between the ILR and ACTFL scales is not generally accepted. The ACTFL standard was developed so that Novice, Intermediate, Advanced and Superior will correspond to 0/0, 1/1, 2/2 and 3/3, respectively on the ILR scale. Also, the scale of ILR and NB OPS is not appropriate despite the fact that the latter is modeled on the first.
More recent documents by Macdonald and Vandergrift estimate the following correspondence (for oral competency) between the level of the Public Service Commission and the CEFR level:
Language schools may also propose their own equality tables. For example, the Vancouver English Language Center provides a comprehensive equivalent table between the various forms of the TOEFL test, the Cambridge exam, the VEC and CEFR level systems.
The language-specific scale
Difficulty in aligning CEFR with the teaching program
Language schools and certificate bodies evaluate their own equity of the framework. Differences in estimates have been found to exist, for example, at the same rate in PTE A, TOEFL, and IELTS, and are the cause of the debate between test manufacturers.
Other apps
The CEFR methodology has been extended to describe and evaluate the capabilities of users of programming languages, when programming activity is considered a language activity.
See also
- Basic Language and Learning Capability
- European Language Day (September 26)
- ILR or Foreign Language Level service level measurement
- List of language proficiency tests
- Study in Language Testing (SiLT)
- Task-based language learning
References
The work cited
External links
Media related to the European Common Terms of Reference for Languages ​​in Wikimedia Commons
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments