Common European Framework of Reference for Languages


The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, abbreviated in English as CEFR or CEF or CEFRL, is a guideline used to describe achievements of learners of foreign languages across Europe and, increasingly, in other countries. 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 learning, teaching and assessing 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 are becoming widely accepted as the European standard for grading an individual's language proficiency.

Development

An intergovernmental symposium in 1991 titled "Transparency and Coherence in Language Learning in Europe: Objectives, Evaluation, Certification" held by the Swiss Federal Authorities in the Swiss municipality of Rüschlikon found the need for a common European framework for languages to improve the recognition of language qualifications and help teachers co-operate. A project followed to develop language-level classifications for certification to be recognized across Europe.
The CEFR is also intended to make it easier for educational institutions and employers to evaluate the language qualifications of candidates to education admission or employment.
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.
A preliminary version of the Manual for Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages was published in 2003. This draft version was piloted in a number of projects, which included linking a single test to the CEFR, linking suites of exams at different levels, and national studies by exam boards and research institutes. Practitioners and academics shared their experiences at a colloquium in Cambridge in 2007, and the pilot case studies and findings were published in Studies in Language Testing. The findings from the pilot projects then informed the Manual revision project during 2008–2009.

Theoretical background

The CEFR divides general competences in knowledge, skills, and existential competence with particular communicative competences in linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, and pragmatic competence. This division does not exactly match previously well-known notions of communicative competence, but correspondences among them can be made.
The CEFR has three principal dimensions: language activities, the domains in which the language activities occur, and the competencies on which we draw when we engage in them.

Language activities

The CEFR distinguishes among four kinds of language activities: reception, production, interaction, and mediation.

Domains

General and particular communicative competences are developed by producing or receiving texts in various contexts under various conditions and constraints. These contexts correspond to various sectors of social life that the CEFR calls domains. Four broad domains are distinguished: educational, occupational, public, and personal. These largely correspond to register.

Competences

A language user can develop various degrees of competence in each of these domains and to help describe them, the CEFR has provided a set of six Common Reference Levels.

Common reference levels

The Common European Framework divides learners into three broad divisions that can be divided into six levels; for each level, it describes what a learner is supposed to be able to do in reading, listening, speaking and writing. The following table indicates these levels. A more thorough description of each level, with criteria for listening, reading, speaking, and writing, is available on the Internet.
Level groupLevelDescription
A
Basic user		A1
Breakthrough or beginner
  • Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type.
  • Can introduce themselves and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where they live, people they know and things they have.
  • Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.
ABasic userA2
Waystage or elementary
  • Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance.
  • 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 their background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.
BIndependent userB1
Threshold or intermediate
  • 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 while travelling in an area where the language is spoken.
  • Can produce simple connected text on topics that are familiar or of personal interest.
  • Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.
BIndependent userB2
Vantage or upper intermediate
  • Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in their field of specialization.
  • 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.
CProficient userC1
Effective operational proficiency or advanced
  • Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer clauses, and recognize implicit meaning.
  • Can express ideas 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 organizational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.
CProficient userC2
Mastery or proficiency
  • Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read.
  • Can summarize information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation.
  • Can express themselves spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in the most complex situations.
These descriptors can apply to any of the languages spoken in Europe, and there are translations in many languages.

Relationship with duration of learning process

Educational bodies for various languages have offered estimates for the amount of study needed to reach levels in the relevant language.

Certification and teaching ecosystem enabled by the CEFR

Multiple organizations have been created to serve as an umbrella for language schools and certification businesses that claim compatibility with the CEFR. For example, the European Association for Language Testing and Assessment is an initiative funded by the European Community to promote the CEFR and best practices in delivering professional language training. The Association of Language Testers in Europe is a consortium of academic organizations that aims at standardizing assessment methods. EAQUALS is an international association of institutions and organizations involved in language education, active throughout Europe, and following the CEFR.
In France, the Ministry for Education has created a government-mandated certificate called CLES, which formalizes the use of the CEFR in language teaching programs in French higher education institutions.
In Germany, Telc, a non-profit agency, is the federal government's exclusive partner for language tests taken at the end of the integration courses for migrants, following the CEFR standards.

Comparisons between CEFR and other scales

General scales

Studies have addressed correspondence with the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the United States ILR scale.
For convenience, the following abbreviations will be used for the ACTFL levels:
A 2008 statistical study by Alfonso Martínez Baztán of Universidad de Granada based on the performances of a group of subjects determines the following ordering of the ACTFL and CEFR levels, in which higher levels are placed further right.
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, the equivalences between CEFR and ACTFL standards proposed in a 2005 paper by Erwin Tschirner of Universität Leipzig, and the equivalences of Buitrago as quoted in Martínez Baztán 2008.
CEFRMartínezTschirnerBuitrago
NL, NM
A1NHNHNL
A2IL, IMIMNM
B1IM, IHIHIL
B2IH, ALAMIM, IH
C1AM, AHAHAL, AM, AH
C2AH, SSS

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.
This agrees with a table published by the American University Center of Provence giving the following correspondences:
CEFRILRACTFL
A10/0+NL, NM, NH
A21IL, IM
B11+IH
B22/2+AL, AM, AH
C13/3+S
C24/4+D

However, a comparison between the ILR self-assessment grids and the CEFR assessment grid could suggest a different equivalence:
CEFRILRACTFL
A10/1NL, NM, NH
A21+IL, IM
B12/2+IH
B23/3+AL, AM, AH
C14S
C24+D

A study by Buck, Papageorgiou and Platzek 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:
Canada increasingly uses the CEFR in a few domains. CEFR-compatible exams such as the DELF/DALF and the DELE are administered. Universities increasingly structure their courses around the CEFR levels. Larry Vandergrift of the University of Ottawa has proposed Canadian adoption of the CEFR in his report Proposal for a Common Framework of Reference for Languages for Canada published by Heritage Canada. This report contains a comparison of the CEFR to other standards in use in Canada and proposes an equivalence table.
CEFRILRACTFLNB OPSCLBPSC PSC
A10/0+/1Novice Unrated/0+/11/2A
A21+Intermediate 1+/23/4B
B12Advanced Low2+5/6C
B22+Advanced Mid37/8
C13/3+Advanced High3+9/10
C24Superior411/12
4+/5

The resulting correspondence between the ILR and ACTFL scales disagrees with the generally accepted one. 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. Also, the ILR and NB OPS scales do not correspond despite the fact that the latter was modelled on the former.
A more recent document by Macdonald and Vandergrift estimates the following correspondences between the Public Service Commission levels and the CEFR levels:
Language schools may also propose their own equivalence tables. For example, the Vancouver English Centre provides a comprehensive equivalence table between the various forms of the TOEFL test, the Cambridge exam, the VEC level system, and the CEFR.

Language-specific scales

Difficulty in aligning the CEFR with teaching programmes

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.

Other applications

The CEFR methodology has been extended to describe and evaluate the proficiency of users of programming languages, when the programming activity is considered as a language activity.

Works cited

*