《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

《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

研讨会主题 形势 目标 能力 策略

发言提纲 《欧框》出台背景 《欧框》的内容及其使用 《欧框》的启示

一、欧洲理事会及其语言教育政策

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

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.

Council of Europe Approach Standards - Diversity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Common Reference Levels

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 3 +50 = 53 Tables

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.

“Can Do Statements”

“Can Do Statements”

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?

Common Reference Levels 1913 Cambridge Proficiency C2 1990-91 Cambridge Advanced; DALF C1 1938 Cambridge First Certificate B2 1975 The Threshold Level B1 1978? Waystage A2 A1

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 1992-6 Mastery Effective Operational Proficiency Vantage Threshold Waystage Breakthrough

Developing the CEFR Levels Swiss Research Project 1993-7 to develop: scaled descriptor bank for the CEFR levels overview of language learning achievement in Swiss educational sectors prototype European Language Portfolio.

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

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

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

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, 87-105.

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

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

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)

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.”

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.

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

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”

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

CEFR: Assessment

三、《欧框》的启示 宏观、中观、微观

宏 观 Policy & Approach

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》

周有光, 108岁

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

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

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

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

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

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?

Instruments & Implementation 微 观 Instruments & Implementation

“Guidelines” “Syllabuses” Professionalism

谢 谢！ baocheng_han@163.com