The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment,[1] abbreviated in English as CEFR, CEF, or CEFRL, is a guideline used to describe achievements of learners of foreign languages across Europe and, increasingly, in other countries. The CEFR is also intended to make it easier for educational institutions and employers to evaluate the language qualifications of candidates for education admission or employment. Its main aim is to provide a method of learning, teaching, and assessing that applies to all languages in Europe.
The CEFR was established by the Council of Europe between 1986 and 1989 as part of the "Language Learning for European Citizenship" project. 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 (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2) are becoming widely accepted as the European standard for grading an individual's language proficiency.
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 recognised across Europe.
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 (CEFR) 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 (SiLT).[2] The findings from the pilot projects then informed the Manual revision project from 2008 to 2009.
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.[3]
The CEFR has three principal dimensions: language activities, the domains in which the language activities occur, and the competencies on which a person draws when they engage in them.[4]
The CEFR distinguishes four kinds of language activities: reception (listening and reading), production (spoken and written), interaction (spoken and written) and mediation (translating and interpreting).[4]
General and particular communicative competencies 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.
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 (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2).[5]
The Common European Framework divides learners into three broad divisions that can each be further divided into two 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.[6]
| Level group | Level | Description |
|---|---|---|
| A Basic user | A1 Breakthrough |
|
| A2 Waystage |
| |
| B Independent user | B1 Threshold |
|
| B2 Vantage |
| |
| C Proficient user | C1 Advanced |
|
| C2 Mastery |
|
These descriptors can apply to any of the languages spoken in Europe and there are translations in many languages.
Educational bodies for various languages have offered estimates for the amount of study needed to reach levels in the relevant language.
| Body | Language | Cumulative hours of instruction to reach the level for an English speaker | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | A2 | B1 | B2 | C1 | C2 | |||
| Goethe-Institut[7] | German | 60–150 | 150–260 | 260–490 | 450–600 | 600–750 | 750+ | |
| Alliance française[8] | French | 60–100 | 160–200 | 360–400 | 560–650 | 810–950 | 1,060–1,200 | |
Multiple organisations 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 (EALTA) is an initiative funded by the European Community[9] to promote the CEFR and best practices in delivering professional language training. The Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) is a consortium of academic organisations that aims at standardising assessment methods.[10] Eaquals (Evaluation and Accreditation of Quality in Language Services) is an international association of institutions and organisations involved in language education, active throughout Europe and following the CEFR.[11]
In France, the Ministry for Education has created a government-mandated certificate called CLES, which formalises the use of the CEFR in language teaching programmes in French higher education institutions.[12]
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.[13]
The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages has published a one-directional alignment table of levels according to its ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the CEFR levels. It is based on the work of the ACTFL-CEFR Alignment Conferences that started in 2010. Generally, the ACTFL is stricter with regard to receptive skills than productive skills, compared to the CEFR. The following table may not be read as an indication of what ACTFL level follows from taking a CEFR-aligned test.
For convenience, the following abbreviations will be used for the ACTFL levels:
| ACTFL[14] | Correspondence with CEFR | |
|---|---|---|
| 0, NL, NM, NH | 0 | |
| IL | A1 | |
| IM, IH | A2 | |
| AL | B1 | |
| AM, AH | B2 | |
| S | C1 | |
| D | C2 |
Similar correspondence has been proposed for the other direction (test aligned to CEFR) in a panel discussion at the Osaka University of Foreign Studies by one of the coauthors of the CEFR, Brian North. He 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.[15]
This agrees with a table published by the American University Center of Provence giving the following correspondences according to "estimated equivalencies by certified ACTFL administrator":[16]
| CEFR | ACTFL | |
|---|---|---|
| A1 | NL, NM, NH | |
| A2 | IL, IM | |
| B1 | IH | |
| B2 | AL, AM, AH | |
| C1 | S | |
| C2 | D |
The following table summarises three earlier proposed equivalences between CEFR and ACTFL. Some of them only refer to one activity (e.g. speaking).
| CEFR | Correspondence with ACTFL | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [17] | ||||
| A1 | NL, NM | |||
| A1 | NH | NH | NL | |
| A2 | IL, IM | IM | NM | |
| B1 | IM, IH | IH | IL | |
| B2 | IH, AL | AM | IM, IH | |
| C1 | AM, AH | AH | AL, AM, AH | |
| C2 | AH, S | S | S | |
The French Academy Baltimore suggests the following different equivalence:[18]
| CEFR | ILR | |
|---|---|---|
| A1 | 0–1 | |
| A2 | 1+ | |
| B1 | 2–2+ | |
| B2 | 3–3+ | |
| C1 | 4 | |
| C2 | 4+ |
A study by Buck, Papageorgiou and Platzek[19] 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:
As Canada increasingly uses the CEFR, 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.[21] [22] This report contains a comparison of the CEFR to other standards in use in Canada and proposes an equivalence table.
| CEFR | ILR | ACTFL | NB OPS[23] | CLB | PSC PSC[24] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 0/0+/1 | Novice (Low/Mid/High) | Unrated/0+/1 | 1/2 | A | |
| A2 | 1+ | Intermediate (Low/Mid/High) | 1+/2 | 3/4 | B | |
| B1 | 2 | Advanced Low | 2+ | 5/6 | C | |
| B2 | 2+ | Advanced Mid | 3 | 7/8 | ||
| C1 | 3/3+ | Advanced High | 3+ | 9/10 | ||
| C2 | 4 | Superior | 4 | 11/12 | ||
| C2+ | 4+/5 |
The resulting correspondence between the ILR and ACTFL scales disagrees with the generally accepted one.[25] 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.[26] Also, the ILR and NB OPS scales do not correspond despite the fact that the latter was modelled on the former.[22]
A 2007 document by Macdonald and Vandergrift[27] estimates the following correspondences (for oral ability) between the Public Service Commission levels and the CEFR levels:
| PSC | CEFR | |
|---|---|---|
| A | A2 | |
| B | B1/B2 | |
| C | B2/C1 |
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.[28]
| Language | Certificate | A1 | A2 | B1 | B2 | C1 | C2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multiple | European Consortium for the Certificate of Attainment in Modern Languages. ECL exams can be taken in English, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Slovak, Russian, Spanish, Croatian, Czech, and Hebrew. | – | A2 | B1 | B2 | C1 | – |
| UNIcert | UNIcert I | UNIcert II | UNIcert III | UNIcert IV | |||
| TELC | A1 | A2 | B1 | B2 | C1 | C2 | |
| ALTE level | Breakthrough level | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 | Level 5 | |
| British General Qualifications[29] [30] | GCSE Foundation Tier | GCSE Higher Tier | GCE AS Level and lower grade A-Level | GCE A-Level | |||
| Basque | IVAP-HAEE | HE 1 – IVAP-HAEE | HE 2 – IVAP-HAEE | HE 3 – IVAP-HAEE | HE 4 – IVAP-HAEE | ||
| HABE | Lehenengo mailaHABE | Bigarren mailaHABE | Hirugarren mailaHABE | Laugarren mailaHABE | |||
| EGA | Euskararen Gaitasun Agiria | ||||||
| Catalan | Catalan Language Certificates | Bàsic-A2 | Elemental-B1 | Intermedi-B2 | Suficiència-C1 | Superior-C2 | |
| A1 | A2 | B1 | B2 | C1 | C2 | ||
| Mandarin Chinese | Chinese Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi (HSK)[31] (Levels according to French and German associations) | HSK Level 1HSK Level 3 | HSK Level 3HSK Level 4 | HSK Level 4HSK Level 5 | HSK Level 5HSK Level 6 | HSK Level 6 | |
| Test of Chinese As A Foreign Language (TOCFL) (Taiwan) | TOCFL Level 1 | TOCFL Level 2 | TOCFL Level 3 | TOCFL Level 4 | TOCFL Level 5 | TOCFL Level 6 | |
| Czech | Czech Language Certificate Exam (CCE)[32] | CCE-A1 | CCE-A2 | CCE-B1 | CCE-B2 | CCE-C1 | – |
| Danish | Prøve i Dansk (Danish Language Exam)[33] | Danskprøve A1 | Prøve i Dansk 1 | Prøve i Dansk 2 | Prøve i Dansk 3 | Studieprøven | |
| Dutch | CNaVT – Certificaat Nederlands als Vreemde Taal (Certificate of Dutch as Foreign Language)[34] | Profile tourist and informal language proficiency (PTIT) | Profile societal language proficiency (PMT) | Profile professional language proficiency (PPT), Profile language proficiency higher education (PTHO) | Profile academic language proficiency (PAT) | ||
| Inburgeringsexamen (Integration examination for immigrants from outside the EU) | Pre-examination at the embassy of the home country | Examination in the Netherlands | |||||
| Staatsexamen Nederlands als tweede taal NT2 (State Examination Dutch as second language NT2)[35] | NT2 programma I | NT2 programma II | |||||
| English | Anglia Examinations | Preliminary | Elementary | Intermediate | Advanced | Proficiency | Masters |
| OET[36] | 200–340 (C, C+) | 350–440 (B) | 450–500 (A) | ||||
| TrackTest[37] | A1 (Beginner) | A2 (Elementary) | B1 (Pre-Intermediate) | B2 (Intermediate) | C1 (Upper-Intermediate) | C2 (Advanced) | |
| TOELS: Wheebox Test of English Language Skills[38] | 11 (Beginner) | 20 (Pre-Intermediate) | 25 (Intermediate) | 30 (Graduate) | 33 (Advanced) | ||
| iTEP[39] | 0–1.9 | 2–2.4 | 2.5–3.4 | 3.5–4.4 | 4.5–5.4 | 5.5–6 | |
| Oxford Test of English | A2 (51–80) | B1 (81–110) | B2 (111–140) | ||||
| IELTS[40] [41] [42] | 4.0–5.0 | 5.5–6.5 | 7.0–8.0 | 8.5–9.0 | |||
| TOEIC Listening & Reading Test[43] | 60–105 listening 60–110 reading | 110–270 (listening) 115–270 (reading) | 275–395 (listening) 275–380 (reading) | 400–485 (listening) 385–450 (reading) | 490–495 (listening) 455–495 (reading) | ||
| TOEIC Speaking & Writing Test | 50–80 speaking 30–60 writing | 90–110 (speaking) 70–110 (writing) | 120–150 (speaking) 120–140 (writing) | 160–170 (speaking) 150–170 (writing) | 180–200 (speaking) 180–200 (writing) | ||
| CLB Canadian Language Benchmarks | 3/4 | 5 | 6/7 | 8/9 | 10–12 | ||
| Versant | 26–35 | 36–46 | 47–57 | 58–68 | 69–78 | 79–80 | |
| Speexx Language Assessment Center | 10–19 | 20–29 | 30–49 | 50–79 | 80–89 | 90–100 | |
| Duolingo English Test[44] | 10–20 | 25–55 | 60–85 | 90–115 | 120–140 | 145–160 | |
| Password English Tests | 2.0 – 2.5 | 3.0 – 3.5 | 4.0 – 5.0 | 5.5 – 6.5 | 7.0 or above | ||
| TOEFL (IBT)[45] | 10–15 (speaking) 7–12 (writing) | 42–71 (total) 4–17 (reading) 9–16 (listening) 16–19 (speaking) 13–16 (writing) | 72–94 (total) 18–23 (reading) 17–21 (listening) 20–24 (speaking) 17–23 (writing) | 95–120 (total) 24–30 (reading) 22–30 (listening) 25–30 (speaking) 24–30 (writing) | |||
| TOEFL ITP[46] | 337 | 460 | 543 | 627 | |||
| TOEFL Junior Standard[47] | 225–245 (listening) 210–245 (language form) 210–240 (reading) | 250–285 (listening) 250–275 (language form) 245–275 (reading) | 290–300 (listening) 280–300 (language form) 280–300 (reading) | ||||
| EF Standard English Test[48] | 1–30 | 31–40 | 41–50 | 51–60 | 61–70 | 71–100 | |
| City and Guilds[49] | Preliminary | Access | Achiever | Communicator | Expert | Mastery | |
| RQF (UK Only)[50] | Entry Level | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Levels 4–6 | Level 7–8 | |
| Cambridge exam[51] | A1 Movers | A2 Key | B1 Preliminary | C1 Advanced | C2 Proficiency | ||
| Michigan exam[52] | MET Go! Basic User (CEFR A1)[53] | Michigan English Test (MET) (0 to 39) / MET Go! Elementary User (CEFR A2) | Michigan English Test (MET) (40 to 52) / MET Go! Intermediate User (CEFR B1) | ECCE[54] / Michigan English Test (MET) (53 to 63) | Michigan English Test (MET) (64 to 80) | ECPE[55] | |
| LanguageCert International ESOL – Listening, Reading, WritingLanguageCert International ESOL – Speaking | A1 Preliminary (Entry Level 1) | A2 Access (Entry Level 2) | B1 Achiever (Entry Level 3) | B2 Communicator (Level 1) | C1 Expert (Level 2) | C2 Mastery (Level 3) | |
| LanguageCert Academic – Listening, Reading, Writing, Speaking | B1 Achiever (40–59) (Entry Level 3) | B2 Communicator (60–74) (Level 1) | C1 Expert (75–89) (Level 2) | C2 Mastery (90+) (Level 3) | |||
| LanguageCert General – Listening, Reading, Writing, Speaking | A2 Access (20–39) (Entry Level 2) | B1 Achiever (40–59) (Entry Level 3) | B2 Communicator (60–74) (Level 1) | C1 Expert (75–89) (Level 2) | |||
| PTE Academic | 30 | 43 | 59 | 76 | 85ƒ | ||
| PTE General (formerly LTE) | Level A1 | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 | Level 5 | |
| Trinity College London Integrated Skills in English (ISE) / Graded Examinations in Spoken English (GESE)[56] [57] | GESE 2 | ISE 0 GESE 3, 4 | ISE I GESE 5, 6 | ISE II GESE 7, 8, 9 | ISE III GESE 10, 11 | ISE IV GESE 12 | |
| Learning Resource Network | CEF A1 | CEF A2 | CEF B1 | CEF B2 | CEF C1 | CEF C2 | |
| GEP English Exams[58] | Dolphins Pre A1.1 Bears Pre A1.2 Lions Pre A1.3 GEP A1 (YL, Teens and Adults) | GEP A2 (Kids, Teens and adults) | GEP B1 | GEP B2 | GEP C1 | ||
| Eiken (Japanese test of English)[59] | 5,4,3 | Pre-2 | 2 | Pre-1 | 1 | ||
| Esperanto | A1 | A2 | B1 | B2 | C1 | C2 | |
| Finnish | YKI | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| French | CIEP / Alliance française diplomas | TCF A1 / DELF A1 | TCF A2 / DELF A2 / CEFP 1 | TCF B1 / DELF B1 / CEFP 2 | TCF B2 / DELF B2 / Diplôme de Langue | TCF C1 / DALF C1 / DSLCF | TCF C2 / DALF C2 / DHEF |
| CLB/NCLC Canadian Language Benchmarks | 3/4 | 5 | 6/7 | 8/9 | 10–12 | ||
| Speexx Language Assessment Center | 10–19 | 20–29 | 30–49 | 50–79 | 80–89 | 90–100 | |
| Galician | Certificado de lingua galega (CELGA)[60] | CELGA 1 | CELGA 2 | CELGA 3 | CELGA 4 | CELGA 5 | |
| German | Goethe-Institut | Goethe-Zertifikat A1 Start Deutsch 1 | Goethe-Zertifikat A2 Start Deutsch 2 | Goethe-Zertifikat B1 Zertifikat Deutsch (ZD) | Goethe-Zertifikat B2 Zertifikat Deutsch für den Beruf (ZDfB) | Goethe-Zertifikat C1 Zentrale Mittelstufenprüfung | Goethe-Zertifikat C2 – Großes Deutsches Sprachdiplom (GDS) Zentrale Oberstufenprüfung Kleines Deutsches Sprachdiplom |
| Speexx Language Assessment Center | 10–19 | 20–29 | 30–49 | 50–79 | 80–89 | 90–100 | |
| Österreichisches Sprachdiplom Deutsch | A1 ÖSD Zertifikat A1 (ÖSD ZA1) | A2 ÖSD Zertifikat A2 (ÖSD ZA2) | B1 ÖSD Zertifikat Deutsch Österreich (ÖSD B1 ZDÖ); B1 ÖSD Zertifikat B1 (ZB1) | B2 ÖSD Zertifikat B2 (ÖSD ZB2) | C1 ÖSD Zertifikat C1 (ÖSD ZC1) | C2 ÖSD Zertifikat C2 (ÖSD ZC2); C2 ÖSD Zertifikat C2 / Wirtschaftssprache Deutsch (ÖSD ZC2 / WD) | |
| Deutsch als Fremdsprache in der Wirtschaft (WiDaF)[61] | – | 0–246 | 247–495 | 496–735 | 736–897 | 898–990 | |
| TestDaF[62] | TDN 3—TDN 4[63] | TDN 4—TDN 5 | |||||
| Greek | Πιστοποίηση Ελληνομάθειας (Certificate of Attainment in Modern Greek)[64] | Α1 (Στοιχειώδης Γνώση) | Α2 (Βασική Γνώση) | Β1 (Μέτρια Γνώση) | Β2 (Καλή Γνώση) | Γ1 (Πολύ Καλή Γνώση) | Γ2 (Άριστη Γνώση) |
| Hebrew | Ulpan (as codified by the Rothberg International School)[65] | A1.1 Aleph Beginner A1.2 Aleph Advanced | A2 Bet | B1 Gimel | B2 Dalet | C1.1 HéC1.2 Vav | C2 Native Speaker |
| Icelandic | Íslenskupróf vegna umsóknar um íslenskan ríkisborgararétt[66] | Pass[67] | |||||
| Irish | Teastas Eorpach na Gaeilge (TEG)[68] | A1 Bonnleibhéal 1 | A2 Bonnleibhéal 2 | B1 Meánleibhéal 1 | B2 Meánleibhéal 2 | C1 Ardleibhéal 1 | |
| Italian | CELI | Impatto | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Roma Tre cert.it | A1-cert.it | A2-cert.it | B1-cert.it | B2-cert.it | C1-cert.it | C2-cert.it | |
| CILS | A1 | A2 | Uno | Due | Tre | Quattro / DIT C2 | |
| PLIDA (Dante Alighieri Society diplomas) | PLIDA A1 | PLIDA A2 | PLIDA B1 | PLIDA B2 | PLIDA C1 | PLIDA C2 | |
| Japanese | Japanese-Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) | JLPT N5 | JLPT N4 | JLPT N3 | JLPT N2 | JLPT N1 | |
| J-Test[69] | F | E | D | C | Pre-B B Pre-A | A Special A | |
| Japan Foundation Test for Basic Japanese (JFT-Basic)[70] | Pass | ||||||
| Certificate of Japanese as a Foreign Language (J-cert)[71] | N/A | A2.1 A2.2 | B1 | B2 | C1 | C2 | |
| Korean | Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK)[72] | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 | Level 5–Level 6 | |
| Luxembourgish | Institut National des Langues[73] | A2 | B1 | B2 | C1 | ||
| Norwegian | Norskprøve[74] | A1 | A2 | B1 | B2 | C1 – høyere akademisk nivå (advanced academic level)[75] | |
| Polish | Egzaminy Certyfikatowe z Języka Polskiego jako Obcego[76] | B1 (podstawowy) | B2 (średni ogólny) | C2 (zaawansowany) | |||
| Portuguese | CAPLE[77] | ACESSO | CIPLE | DEPLE | DIPLE | DAPLE | DUPLE |
| CELPE-Bras[78] | Intermediate | Intermediate | Superior Intermediate | Superior Intermediate | Advanced | Superior Advanced | |
| Russian | ТРКИТест по русскому языку как иностранному (TORFLTest of Russian as a Foreign Language)[79] | ТЭУ Элементарный уровень | ТБУ Базовый уровень | ТРКИ-1 (I Cертификационный уровень) (1st Certificate level) | ТРКИ-2 | ТРКИ-3 | ТРКИ-4 |
| Attestation exam at the Institute of the Romanian Language | Nivel A1 | Nivel A2 | Nivel B1 | Nivel B2 | Nivel C1 | Nivel C2 [→]|-| rowspan="3" | Spanish| DELE[80] | A1| A2| B1 (formerly "Inicial")| B2 (formerly "Intermedio")| C1| C2 (formerly "Superior")|-| Speexx Language Assessment Center|10–19|20–29|30–49|50–79|80–89|90–100|-| LanguageCert USAL esPro BULATS|10–19|20–39|40–59|60–74|75–89|90–100|-| rowspan="3" | Swedish| TISUS| –| –| –| –| Pass| –|-| Swedex| –| A2| B1| B2| –| –|-|YKI|1|2|3|4|5|6|-|-| rowspan="2" | Taiwanese| GTPT – General Taiwanese Proficiency Test[81] | 151–220| 221–290| 291–340| 341–380| 381–430| 431–500|-| Bân-lâm-gú Gú-giân Lîng-li̍k Jīn-tsìng[82] | A1| A2| B1| B2| C1| C2|-| Turkish| TYS[83] | A1| A2| B1 | B2 (55–70%) | C1 (71–88%)| C2 (89–100%)|-| Ukrainian[84] | UMI/ULF – Ukrainian as foreign language| UMI 1| UMI 2| UMI 3| UMI 4| UMI 5| UMI 6|-| Welsh| WJEC Defnyddio'r Gymraeg[85] | Mynediad (Entry)| Sylfaen (Foundation)| Canolradd (Intermediate)| Uwch (Advanced)| –| –|-|-|}Difficulty in aligning the CEFR with teaching programmesLanguage schools and certificate bodies evaluate their own equivalences against the framework. Differences in 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.[86] Non-Western areas and languagesThe CEFR, initially developed to ease human mobility and economic growth within the highly multilingual European Union, has since influenced and been borrowed by various other areas. Non-Western learnersIn Japan, the adoption of CEFR has been encouraged by academics, institutional actors (MEXT), politicians, business associations, and by learners themselves.[87] Adoption in Malaysia has also been documented.[88] In Vietnam, adoption of the CEFR has been connected to recent changes in English language policy, efforts to reform higher education, orientation toward economic opportunities and a tendency for administrators to look outwards for domestic solutions.[89] Noriyuki (2009) observes the "mechanical" reuse of the European framework and concepts by Japanese teachers of mostly Western languages, missing the recontextualisation part: the need to adapt the conceptual vocabulary to the local language and to adapt the framework to the local public, its language and practices.[90] Around 2005, the Osaka University of Foreign Studies developed a CEFR-inspired project for its 25 foreign languages, with a transparent and common evaluation approach. While major languages had long had well-defined tools for the Japanese public, able to guide teachers in teaching and performing assessments in a methodic way, this project pushed the adoption of similar practices to smaller languages, as requested by students. In late 2006–2010, the Keio University led the ambitious CEFR-inspired Action Oriented Plurilingual Language Learning Project to favour multi-campus and inter-language cooperation in creating teaching materials and assessment systems from child to university levels. Since 2015, the "Research on Plurilinguistic and Pluricultural Skill Development in Integrated Foreign Language Education" has followed up.[91] Non-European languagesThe framework was translated into Chinese in 2008.[92] In 2011, French sinologist Joël Bellassen suggests the CEFR together with its metalanguage could and should be adapted to distant languages such as Chinese, with the necessity to adapt and extend it with relevant concepts proper to the new language and its learners.[93] Various efforts on adaptation to Chinese have been made.[94] [95] In Japan, East-Asian language teaching is largely ignored due to Japanese society being mainly oriented toward Western language teaching, missing a valuable opportunity for Japanese to directly reach neighbouring countries and for smaller languages to solidify their languages teaching. See also
ReferencesWorks cited
External links |