Presentation on theme: "The CEF Levels & Descriptor Scales"— Presentation transcript:
1The CEF Levels & Descriptor Scales Brian NorthEurocentres Foundation
2Developing the CEF Descriptor Scales Full account: North, B. (2000). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. New York, Peter Lang.More Technical: North, B. and Schneider, G. (1998). Scaling descriptors for language proficiency scales. Language Testing 15, 2, 217–262.Less Technical: North, B. (2002a). Developing descriptor scales of language proficiency for the CEF common reference levels. In Alderson, J.C.A. (ed.) Case Studies in applying the Common European Framework, Strasbourg, Council of Europe,
3Common Framework of Reference Relevant areas of concernDescriptive schemebased on descriptive theoryStages of attainment in those areasCommon reference levelsbased on measurement theory
4Descriptive Scheme“….. actions performed by a social agent who, as an individual, has at his or her disposal and develops a range of general competences and in particular communicative language competence. He or she draws on these competences in different kinds of language activities in order to process text (receptively or productively) in relation to specific domains, activating those strategies which seem most appropriate for carrying out the tasks to be accomplished”.
5Scales in Descriptive Scheme Communicative language competenceLinguistic, Pragmatic, Socio-linguisticCommunicative language activitiesReception, Interaction, Production, (Mediation)Use of StrategiesReception, Interaction, Production
6CEF Scales: C.L. Competences Linguistic CompetenceGeneral Linguistic RangeVocabulary RangeGrammatical AccuracyVocabulary ControlPhonological ControlOrthographic ControlSociolinguistic CompetenceSociolinguistic AppropriatenessPragmatic CompetenceFlexibilityTurntakingThematic DevelopmentCohesion and CoherencePropositional PrecisionSpoken Fluency
7CEF Scales: C.L. Activities. RECEPTIONOverall Listening ComprehensionUnderstanding conversation between native-speakersListening as a member of an audienceListening to announcements and instructionsListening to audio media and recordingsWatching TV and filmOverall Reading ComprehensionReading correspondenceReading for orientationReading for information and argumentReading instructions
8CEF Scales: C.L.Activities INTERACTIONOverall Spoken InteractionUnderstanding a native-speaker interlocutorConversationInformal discussionFormal discussion and meetingsGoal-oriented co-operationTransactions to obtain goods and servicesInformation exchangeInterviewing and being interviewedOverall Written InteractionCorrespondenceNotes, messages and forms
9CEF Scales: C.L. Activities PRODUCTIONOverall Spoken ProductionSustained monologue: Describing experienceSustained monologue: Putting a case (e.g. in debate)Public announcementsAddressing AudiencesOverall Written ProductionCreative WritingReports and Essays
10CEF Scales: C.L. Activities HANDLING TEXTNote-takingProcessing Text
11CEF Scales: C.L. Strategies Reception StrategiesIdentifying cues/ inferringInteraction StrategiesTurntakingCooperatingAsking for clarificationProduction StrategiesPlanningCompensatingMonitoring and Repair
15Common Reference Levels Where do the CEF Levels come from?How were the descriptors developed and scaled?How were the “cut-points” between levels set?How coherent is the scaling of content?How stable are the scale values?
16Common Reference Levels 1913 Cambridge Proficiency C2Cambridge Advanced; DALF C11938 Cambridge First Certificate B21975 The Threshold Level B11978? Waystage A2A1
18Developing the CEF Levels Swiss Research Project to develop:scaled descriptor bank for the CEF levelsoverview of language learning achievement in Swiss educational sectorsprototype European Language Portfolio.
19Proficiency Scales before CEF Wording tended to be relative. The descriptors were seldom stand-alone criteria one could rate “Yes” or “No”Situation of descriptors at a particular level was arbitrary - following convention/clichéWording often created semantic appearance of a scale, without actually describing anythingLower levels tended to be worded negatively
20CEF scaled criterion statements Can take an active part in informal discussion in familiar contexts, commenting, putting points of view clearly, evaluating alternative proposals and making and responding to hypotheses.Can with some effort catch much or what is said around him/her in discussion, but may find it difficult to participate effectively in discussion with several native speakers who do not modify their language in any way.”Can account for and sustain his/her opinions in discussion by providing relevant explanations, arguments and comments.B2 Informal Discussion
21Swiss Research Project 1993-7 A learner model:"… a simplified description of selected aspects of the infinite varieties of skills and knowledge that characterise real students" (Mislevy 1995:343)"A learner’s state of competence at a given point in time is a complex constellation of facts and concepts, and the net- works that interconnect them; of automatized procedures and conscious heuristics, ….; of perspectives and strategies, and the management capabilities by which the learner focuses his efforts. There is no hope of providing a description of such a state. Neither is there any need to." (Mislevy 1993: 28)
22Swiss Research Project 1993-7 A measurement model:“…the scale values of the statements should not be affected by the opinions of the people who helped to construct it. This may turn out to be a severe test in practice, but the scaling method must stand such a test before it can be accepted as being more than a description of the people who construct the scale. At any rate, to the extent that the present method of scale construction is affected by the opinions of the readers who help sort out the original statements into a scale, to that extent the validity of the scale may be challenged. ” (Thurstone 1928: 547–8)
23Swiss Research Project 1993-7 Intuitive Phase:Creating a pool of classified, edited descriptorsQualitative Phase:Analysis of teachers discussing proficiency32 teacher workshops sorting descriptorsQuantitative Phase:Teacher assessment of learners on questionnairesAssessment (by all) of videos of some learnersInterpretation Phase:Setting “cut-points” for common reference levels
26Swiss Research Project 1993-7 Setting the cut-points between levels1. Marking out equal intervals on the scale2. Identifying „jumps“ in content described, gaps between clusters of descriptors3. Comparing to original scale author intention4. Comparing to Waystage, Threshold5. Fine-tuning for equal intervals6. Checking for consistency, coherence
28Content coherence Level A1 is the point at which the learner can: interact in a simple way, ask and answer simple questions about themselves, where they live, people they know, and things they have, initiate and respond to simple statements in areas of immediate need or on very familiar topics,rather than relying purely on a rehearsed repertoire of phrases.
29Content coherence Level A2 reflects Waystage majority of descriptors stating social functions: greet people, ask how they are and react to news; handle very short social exchanges; ask and answer questions about what they do at work and in free time; make and respond to invitations; discuss what to do, where to go and make arrangements to meet; make and accept offers.descriptors on getting out and about: make simple transactions in shops, post offices or banks; get simple information about travel; ask for and provide everyday goods and services.
30Content coherence Level B1 reflects Threshold Level maintain interaction and get across what you want to: give or seek personal views and opinions in an informal discussion with friends; express the main point he/she wants to make comprehensibly; keep going comprehensibly, even though pausing for grammatical and lexical planning and repair is very evident, especially in longer stretches of free production.cope flexibly with problems in everyday life: deal with most situations likely to arise when making travel arrangements through an agent or when actually travelling; enter unprepared into conversations on familiar topics; make a complaint.
31Content coherence Level B2 reflects three new emphases: effective argument: account for and sustain opinions in discussion by providing relevant explanations, arguments and comments; explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.holding your own in social discourse: interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without imposing strain on either party; adjust to the changes of direction, style and emphasis normally found in conversation.a new degree of language awareness: correct mistakes if they have led to misunderstandings; make a note of "favourite mistakes" and consciously monitor speech for them.
32Content coherenceLevel C1 is characterised by access to a broad range of language: fluent, spontaneous communication:express him/herself fluently and spontaneously, almost effortlessly; Has a good command of a broad lexical repertoire allowing gaps to be readily overcome with circumlocutions. There is little obvious searching for expressions or avoidance strategies; only a conceptually difficult subject can hinder a natural, smooth flow of language.produce clear, smoothly‑flowing, well-structured speech, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices
33Content coherenceLevel C2 represents the degree of precision and ease with the language of highly successful learners:convey finer shades of meaning precisely by using, with reasonable accuracy, a wide range of modification devices;has a good command of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms with awareness of connotative level of meaning;
34Stability of scale values Validation Studies:Swiss Replication Year 2:DIALANG (List; Read; Write): 0.90Basle: University entrance:ALTE / UCLES: (anchors):
35Developing the CEF Descriptor Scales Full account: North, B. (2000). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. New York, Peter Lang.More Technical: North, B. and Schneider, G. (1998). Scaling descriptors for language proficiency scales. Language Testing 15, 2, 217–262.Less Technical: North, B. (2002a). Developing descriptor scales of language proficiency for the CEF common reference levels. In Alderson, J.C.A. (ed.) Case Studies in applying the Common European Framework, Strasbourg, Council of Europe,