The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
and its effect on the teaching, learning, and assessment of languages in the U.S

On October 26 th and 27 th, Ute Maschke and the Institute for German Cultural Studies organized a conference devoted to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and its effect on the teaching, learning, and assessment of languages in the U.S. The conference consisted of a keynote lecture, a plenary panel and a series of workshops and group discussions designed to bring together professionals in language instruction, assessment, second language acquisition and curriculum development from across different Cornell departments, across the country and across the Atlantic, in order to share experiences and opinions of the usefulness of the CEFR in the US. Ute Maschke’s introductory remarks stressed the significance of the CEFR for rethinking language study in an era marked by globalization, migration, and developments in media technology. The keynote lecture that followed, given by Sauli Takala of the University of Jyväskylä, Finland and Chair of the European Association of Language Testing and Assessment, addressed the history and reception of the CEFR in Europe. He stressed the usefulness of the framework in providing a common basis for the elaboration of syllabi, curricula, exams and textbooks and for emphasizing an “action-oriented” view of language use. He also mentioned the two main criticisms that the framework has received, namely that, in the estimation of SLA professionals, its theoretical framework is shaky and overly “teacher-based,” and secondly that the framework is not language-specific, i.e. it does not take into account structural differences between languages that might make the learning-process of, say, Finnish by a English speaker unfold differently that the learning of Portuguese by a Spanish speaker. His overall emphasis was on the possibility of adapting the framework, not necessarily adopting it wholesale, i.e. on the adaptability of the framework to suit the needs and ideas of students and teachers who will use in a specific context. (Josh Dittrich)

The plenary discussion that took place the following morning consisted of short contributions by panelists who had had extensive and varied experience implementing the CEFR in their professional work. The first speaker was Ally Muller (Professor of Education Research, University of Nebraska), who discussed the implementation of a CEFR-based “Linguafolio” portfolio system in the K-12 school system in Nebraska, and its positive effects on student learning and professional development. The second speaker Randall Lund (German, Brigham Young University) discussed the positive impact of portfolio-based assessment on student motivation as a result of his systematic implementation of the framework during the last five years. Both Lund and Muller suggested the possibility that portfolio-based assessment could affect curriculum changes not just in language departments, but across all curricula in both K-12 and higher education. Uwe Rau, of New York City’s GoetheInstitut, affirmed the usefulness of the CEFR in standardizing the teaching and testing of German as a foreign language across the 80+ Goethe Institutes worldwide. Finally Gunhild Lischke (Cornell) raised the point that, beyond the experiences of Muller and Lund, the framework is not necessarily just an assessment tool, but rather has the capability of impacting the curriculum as a whole, i.e. instructors, learners, teaching materials, and the progression of learning from one level to the next. In her experience the framework leads to more transparency and teamwork in the functioning of a language program, allowing intellectual space for the autonomy of both students and teachers (including junior instructors). (Josh Dittrich)

In the focus session entitled “Framework Levels, Portfolios, and other Assessment Systems,” Randall Lund (Brigham Young University) discussed the educational functions, principles and purposes of the Language Portfolio as conceived for the CEFR. Stressing the importance for language portfolios of learner ownership, positive focus, and life-long perspective upon language learning, Lund gave examples of various types of scales used to describe language ability. CEFR scales include global scales used by instructors and self-assessment grids that the students use to evaluate themselves. In both kinds of scales, Lund maintained, good descriptors of language ability had to be positive, concrete, clear, brief and independent. According to the ELP Interim Report of 2006, portfolios and self-assessment appeared to stimulate a positive change in school culture and allow students and instructors alike to value learning as a whole. He then pointed to possible problems with the portfolio system, which could arise if portfolios are not adapted locally to a language program or to a specific language, or if the program focuses narrowly on checklists, assessment and reporting only, without adapting other elements of the CEFR. (Gizem Arslan)

Gunhild Lischke (Cornell University) led another focus session that presented how the Cornell German Studies Department uses the CEFR in all levels of German language instruction. She emphasized that the CEFR focuses on the learner’s proficiencies rather than his deficiencies. Both instructor and learner employ “can-do” descriptions of how the learner uses the target language to measure individual progress and set goals for future learning. These goals allow the learner to take a more responsible role in their language learning by making them aware of the extent of their abilities and highlighting areas where they may desire to become more proficient, thus providing the opportunity to pursue personal learning goals.

The Cornell German Studies Department has employed the CEFR by writing detailed “can-do” descriptions for each of their courses. This creates transparency for learners about what they can expect from both themselves and instruction, and creates a learning continuity connecting all language instruction courses. The CEFR avoids the use of language instruction jargon, which allows teachers of all abilities to work within the cohesive teaching system and also allows the CEFR to be used with any language, though some re-working of the “can-do” descriptions is necessary when tailoring them to other languages or courses. (David Low)

The focus groups on the introduction to the Common European Framework and on language policy were combined. UteMaschke opened the discussion by asking whether a single language policy could be devised for the entire country. She also proposed to consider the problem of collaboration among language teaching professionals interested in the CEFR: what makes collaboration (not) work. Maschke cited stiff competition and the volume of work required as possible obstacles.

Some participants of the focus group who were school teachers inquired about sources of basic information about the framework. An abundance of such sources exists, as well as possibilities for funding and teacher professional development, but one recommended starting point is a resource housed on the Goethe Institute website (www.goethe.de/usa) or the Wikipedia entry on the CEFR.

Jacque van Houten joined the discussion over the telephone. She informed the participants on the latest developments in implementing the CRFR in the United States. For example, schools are adopting a kind of thinking that is informed by the framework. Also, much of the work on intercultural descriptors has been completed, and they are in the stage of being piloted. Participants further contemplated ways of relating the framework to existing grading practices and methodologies. There seems to exist certain anxiety about the framework challenging some established testing practices and curricula, which might affect the institutional advancement of students. Yet the framework acts as a tool of reference, not as a testing device or prescriptive set of methodologies. (Martins Masulis)

The conference ended with a plenary session that summarized and further discussed each workshop. Participants from the workshop on customizing the CEFR to specific institutional environments asserted that effective use of the CEFR entailed incorporating it with both language and literature aspects of language teaching, and that the “can-do” descriptors must be tailored to each course and undergo constant revision. There was some confusion about how the CEFR should be applied, as some participants hoped to apply the CEFR verbatim. In response to this, Gunhild Lischke emphasized that the CEFR is not a one-size-fits-all program.

The group on the development, purposes, and standards of portfolios discussed how portfolios work in different learning contexts and how the levels of the CEFR and the OPI systems compare and correlate to each other. The topic of comparison led to a discussion of standards of evaluation for the CEFR, which have been developed by some institutions for their own use but are not an implicit part of the CEFR. A discussion of the pros and cons of standard evaluation and its application to the CEFR followed, which concluded that research had only scratched the surface of this area and any final analysis would have to wait until more inquiries have been conducted. One final voice suggested that instructors should concentrate on working with the CEFR in such a way that doesn't reduce it to mere testing.

The Language Quality and CEFR Introduction sessions were combined for the sake of time and discussed the current state of language teaching in the United States and the possibility of establishing a uniform language policy involving the CEFR. Many institutions are implementing the CEFR, but a change in the mentality of both teachers and students is necessary for the CEFR to become an effective tool on a wider scale. Examples of this include developing mentalities for more personal work in the language learning process and the harmonization of the CEFR with already established language learning paradigms. In order for these to take place, a sense of ownership in the CEFR and a support network that creates communities of CEFR practitioners must come into existence. Ute Maschke pointed out that learning paradigms already in place are compatible with CEFR since it is only a tool and does not determine methodology. There are already some websites that foster CEFR communities, many of which may be found on the CEFR Wikipedia entry or by googling the CEFR. An on-line self-assessment test using the CEFR is also available at www.langportfolio.unl.edu. (David Low)