1. 《欧洲语言共同参考框架》 对我国大学英语教学的启示
韩宝成
北京外国语大学外国语言研究所
中国外语教育研究中心

2. 《欧洲语言共同参考框架：学习、教学、评估》
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching and Assessment (CEFR)
39个 语种 版本

3. 研讨会主题
形势 目标 能力 策略

4. 发言提纲
《欧框》出台背景
《欧框》的内容及其使用
《欧框》的启示

5. 一、欧洲理事会及其语言教育政策

6. European Union Council of Europe
Brussels
Strasbourg EU
28 member states
Created in 1950
CoE
47 member states
Created in 1949

9. Council of Europe (CoE)
Political international organisation
Main bodies: Committee of Ministers, Parliamentary Assembly, Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe and European Court of Human Rights.
Goal: democracy, human rights and rule of law.
In pursuit of that goal it promotes awareness of a European identity that is based on shared values.

11. Council of Europe Approach
Standards Diversity

12. CoE Language Education Policies aim to promote:
plurilingualism
linguistic diversity
mutual understanding
democratic citizenship
social cohesion

13. Guiding principles for language learning
Language learning is for all
Language learning is for the learner
Language learning is for intercultural communication
Language learning is for life

14. Guiding principles for language teaching
Language teaching is co-ordinated
Language teaching is coherent and transparent
Language learning and teaching are dynamic lifelong processes

15. A plurilingual person has:
a repertoire of languages and language varieties
competences of different kinds and levels within the repertoire

16. Plurilingual education promotes:
An awareness of why and how one learns the language one has chosen
An awareness of and the ability to use transferable skills in language learning
A respect for the plurilingualism of others and the value of languages and varieties irrespective of their perceived status in society

17. Plurilingual education promotes:
A respect for the cultures embodied in languages and the cultural identities of others
An ability to perceive and mediate the relationships which exist among languages and cultures
A global integrated approach to language education in the curriculum

18. Recommendations to the member states:
Encourage all Europeans to achieve a degree of communicative ability in a number of languages
Diversify the languages on offer and set objectives appropriate to each language
Encourage teaching programmes at all levels that use flexible approach and give them appropriate recognition in national qualification systems

19. Recommendations to the member states:
Encourage the use of foreign languages in the teaching of non-linguistic subjects
Support the application of communication and information technologies to disseminate teaching and learning materials for all European national and regional languages

20. Recommendations to the member states:
Support the development of links and exchanges with institutions and persons at all levels of education to offer the possibility of authentic experience of the language and culture of others
Facilitate lifelong learning of languages

21. Institutions Language Policy Unit (LPU)
Strasbourg, France
European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML)
Graz, Austria

22. Language Policy Unit
Development of policies to promote linguistic diversity and plurilingualism
Assistance to member states with policy analysis and planning
Common reference instruments for European standards and quality
Language education policy

23. European Centre for Modern Languages
Support for the implementation of language education policies
Promotion of innovative approaches to the learning and teaching of languages
Professionalism and professional status of language educators

24. LPU: Policy instruments and initiatives
The notional-functional syllabus (Wilkins, 1970s)
Threshold Level (Niveau Seuil, Kontaktschwelle, etc., etc.) Trim and Van Ek, 1970s
Vantage and Waystage Levels (1990)
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR, 1996)

25. LPU: Policy instruments and initiatives
European Language Portfolio (ELP)
Reference Level Descriptions for national / regional languages
Manual for Relating Language Examinations to the CEFR
Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies
Language Education Policy Profiles

26. Language Policies for Democratic Citizenship and Social Cohesion (2006-9) (new initiatives)
A framework of reference for language(s) of school education
Language testing and migration – a framework of reference
Curriculum reference framework for Romani

27. 二、《欧框》(CEFR) Versions 1996, 1998, 2001 (CUP)

28. The CEFR
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) was developed to support Council of Europe policy by providing
“a common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc. across Europe” (CEFR, p.1)

31. The CEFR A Descriptive Scheme (approach) Common Reference Levels
Illustrative scales of descriptors
Approaches to learning, teaching and assessmnet

32. Descriptive Scheme: An action-oriented approach
“Language use, embracing language learning, comprises 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”.

33. Scales in Descriptive Scheme
Communicative language competence
Linguistic, Pragmatic, Socio-linguistic
Communicative language activities
Reception, Interaction, Production, (Mediation)
Use of Strategies
Reception, Interaction, Production

34. CEFR Scales: C.L. Competences
Linguistic Competence
General Linguistic Range
Vocabulary Range
Grammatical Accuracy
Vocabulary Control
Phonological Control
Orthographic Control
Sociolinguistic Competence
Sociolinguistic Appropriateness
Pragmatic Competence
Flexibility
Turntaking
Thematic Development
Cohesion and Coherence
Propositional Precision
Spoken Fluency

35. CEFR Scales: C.L. Activities.
RECEPTION
Overall Listening Comprehension
Understanding conversation between native-speakers
Listening as a member of an audience
Listening to announcements and instructions
Listening to audio media and recordings
Watching TV and film
Overall Reading Comprehension
Reading correspondence
Reading for orientation
Reading for information and argument
Reading instructions

36. CEFR Scales: C.L. Activities
INTERACTION
Overall Spoken Interaction
Understanding a native-speaker interlocutor
Conversation
Informal discussion
Formal discussion and meetings
Goal-oriented co-operation
Transactions to obtain goods and services
Information exchange
Interviewing and being interviewed
Overall Written Interaction
Correspondence
Notes, messages and forms

37. CEFR Scales: C.L. Activities
PRODUCTION
Overall Spoken Production
Sustained monologue: Describing experience
Sustained monologue: Putting a case (e.g. in debate)
Public announcements
Addressing Audiences
Overall Written Production
Creative Writing
Reports and Essays

38. CEFR Scales: C.L. Activities
HANDLING TEXT
Note-taking
Processing Text

39. CEFR Scales: C.L. Strategies
Reception Strategies
Identifying cues/ inferring
Interaction Strategies
Turntaking
Cooperating
Asking for clarification
Production Strategies
Planning
Compensating
Monitoring and Repair

40. Common Reference Levels
A1 Breakthrough
A2 Waystage
B1 Threshold
B2 Vantage
C1 Effective Operational Proficiency
C2 Mastery

41. Common Reference Levels

42. Common Reference Levels
Table 1 Global Scale
Table 2 Self-assessment Grid (Listening, Reading, Spoken Interaction, Spoken Production, Writing)
Table 3 Assessor Grid (Range, Accuracy, Fluency, Interaction, Coherence)
50 Individual Scales for PROFILING
Table 1 + Table 2 + Table = 53 Tables

43. Common Reference Levels: Global
Proficient
User 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 more complex situations. 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.
Independ-ent 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. 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.
Basic 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. 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.

44. “Can Do Statements”

45. “Can Do Statements”

46. Common Reference Levels
Where do the CEFR 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?

47. Common Reference Levels
1913 Cambridge Proficiency C2
Cambridge Advanced; DALF C1
1938 Cambridge First Certificate B2
1975 The Threshold Level B1
1978? Waystage A2 A1

48. Common Reference Levels
Wilkins 1978
Ambilingual Proficiency
Comprehensive Operational Proficiency
Adequate Operational Proficiency
Limited Operational Proficiency
Basic Operational Proficiency (Threshold Level)
Survival Proficiency
Formulaic Proficiency
UCLES 1992
Proficiency
CAE
FCE Vantage
PET Threshold
KET Waystage
CoE
Mastery
Effective Operational Proficiency
Vantage
Threshold
Waystage
Breakthrough

49. Developing the CEFR Levels
Swiss Research Project to develop:
scaled descriptor bank for the CEFR levels
overview of language learning achievement in Swiss educational sectors
prototype European Language Portfolio.

50. Proficiency Scales before CEFR
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/cliché
Wording often created semantic appearance of a scale, without actually describing anything
Lower levels tended to be worded negatively

51. Swiss Research Project 1993-7
Intuitive Phase:
Creating a pool of classified, edited descriptors
Qualitative Phase:
Analysis of teachers discussing proficiency
32 teacher workshops sorting descriptors
Quantitative Phase:
Teacher assessment of learners on questionnaires
Assessment (by all) of videos of some learners
Interpretation Phase:
Setting “cut-points” for common reference levels

52. Swiss Research Project 1993-7
2,800 learners, 500 classes, 300 teachers
Lower & upper secondary, vocational, adult

53. Developing the CEFR 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,

54. Problems with the CEFR Scales
Terminology problems: synonymy or not?
Gaps
Inconsistencies
Lack of definition

55. Terminology problems: synonymy or not?
Operations at A2
Understand
Take
Get
Follow
Identify
Infer
Operations at B2
Understand
Scan
Monitor
Obtain
Select
Evaluate
Locate
Identify

56. Synonyms?
“I can understand familiar names, words and very simple sentences, for example on notices and posters or in catalogues” (page 26)
“Can recognise familiar names, words and very basic phrases on simple notices in the most common everyday situations” (page 70)

57. Synonyms?
Can identify the main conclusions in clearly signalled argumentative texts.
Can recognise the line of argument in the treatment of the issue presented, though not necessarily in detail.”

58. Gaps in the CEFR
A description of the operations that comprehension consists of and a theory of how comprehension develops.
A specification of micro-skills or subskills of comprehension.
Concepts introduced in the text but not incorporated in the scales or related to the six levels in any way.

59. Gaps in the CEFR
competence, general competence, communicative language competence
activities, processes, text, domain, strategy, task
context
ludic and aesthetic uses of language
texts
text to text activities
socio-cultural knowledge
study skills
tasks, including description, performance (conditions, competences, linguistic factors), strategies, difficulty

60. Inconsistencies
Operation recognise only mentioned at the levels A1, B1 and C1 and not at the other levels
The use of a dictionary only mentioned at B2 and C1
Clear, slow and carefully articulated speech (A1)
Clear, slow and articulated speech (A2)
Clear, standard speech, familiar accent (B1)
Normal speed, standard language (B2)
“Simple notices” A1,
“everyday notices” A2.
No other references to “notices”

61. CEFR: Learning & teaching
Learn-centered, tasked-based

62. CEFR: Assessment

63. 三、《欧框》的启示
宏观、中观、微观

64. 宏 观
Policy & Approach

65. Standards vs. Diversity
Goal of CoE: HR, D, RL
Standards vs. Diversity
“大学英语”的地位、目标
《大纲》、《要求》、《指南》

66. 周有光, 108岁

71. Approaches to language learning, teaching & assessment
中 观
Approaches to language learning, teaching & assessment

72. CoE: Principles for language learning
Language learning is for all
Language learning is for the learner
Language learning is for intercultural communication
Language learning is for life

73. CoE: Principles for language teaching
Language teaching is co-ordinated
Language teaching is coherent and transparent
Language learning and teaching are dynamic lifelong processes

74. CoE: Recommendations
A global integrated approach to language education in the curriculum
Encourage teaching programmes at all levels that use flexible approach and give them appropriate recognition in national qualification systems
Encourage the use of foreign languages in the teaching of non-linguistic subjects
Support the application of communication and information technologies to disseminate teaching and learning materials

75. CoE: Recommendations
Support the development of links and exchanges with institutions and persons at all levels of education to offer the possibility of authentic experience of the language and culture of others
Facilitate lifelong learning of languages

76. New approaches? The change of context
How do we look at language learning?
How do we look at language teaching?
How do we look at language assessment?

77. Instruments & Implementation
微 观
Instruments & Implementation

78. “Guidelines”
“Syllabuses”
Professionalism

79. 谢 谢！