The CEF Levels & Descriptor Scales

Brian North

Eurocentres Foundation

Developing the CEF 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.

Common Framework of Reference

• Relevant areas of concern

– Descriptive scheme• based on descriptive theory

• Stages of attainment in those areas

– Common reference levels • based on measurement theory

Descriptive Scheme

• “….. 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

CEF 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

CEF 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

CEF 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

CEF 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

CEF Scales: C.L. Activities

HANDLING TEXT

• Note-taking

• Processing Text

CEF 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

• 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

Common Reference Levels

ProficientC2

Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarise information from different spokenand written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can expresshim/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in morecomplex situations.

User C1Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise implicit meaning. Can expresshim/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. Can use languageflexibly 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 cohesivedevices.

Independ-ent

B2Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technicaldiscussions in his/her field of specialisation. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makesregular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party. Can produce clear, detailedtext on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages anddisadvantages of various options.

User B1Can 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 languageis spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. Can describeexperiences and events, dreams, hopes & ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions andplans.

Basic

A2Can 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 insimple 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 ofimmediate need.

User A1Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction ofneeds of a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions aboutpersonal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has. Can interact in asimple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.

Common Reference Levels

• Where do the CEF 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 CEF Levels

Swiss Research Project 1993-7 to develop:

• scaled descriptor bank for the CEF levels

• overview of language learning achievement in Swiss educational sectors

• prototype European Language Portfolio.

Proficiency Scales before CEF 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

CEF scaled criterion statements• Can take an active part in informal discussion in familiar

contexts, commenting, putting points of view clearly, evaluating alternative proposals and making and responding to hypotheses.

• Can with some effort catch much or what is said around him/her in discussion, but may find it difficult to participate effectively in discussion with several native speakers who do not modify their language in any way.”

• Can account for and sustain his/her opinions in discussion by providing relevant explanations, arguments and comments.

B2 Informal Discussion

Swiss Research Project 1993-7

A learner model: "… a simplified description of selected aspects of the infinite

varieties of skills and knowledge that characterise real students" (Mislevy 1995:343)

"A learner’s state of competence at a given point in time is a complex constellation of facts and concepts, and the net-works that interconnect them; of automatized procedures and conscious heuristics, ….; of perspectives and strategies, and the management capabilities by which the learner focuses his efforts. There is no hope of providing a description of such a state. Neither is there any need to." (Mislevy 1993: 28)

Swiss Research Project 1993-7A measurement model:“…the scale values of the statements should not be affected by

the opinions of the people who helped to construct it. This may turn out to be a severe test in practice, but the scaling method must stand such a test before it can be accepted as being more than a description of the people who construct the scale. At any rate, to the extent that the present method of scale construction is affected by the opinions of the readers who help sort out the original statements into a scale, to that extent the validity of the scale may be challenged. ” (Thurstone 1928: 547–8)

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

• 1994: English

• 1995: French, German, English

• 1996: Portfolio

2,800 learners, 500 classes, 300 teachers

Lower & upper secondary, vocational, adult

Swiss Research Project 1993-7

Data Collection:

Quest. C

Quest. B

Quest. A

Swiss Research Project 1993-7

1. Marking out equal intervals on the scale

2. Identifying „jumps“ in content described, gaps between clusters of descriptors

3. Comparing to original scale author intention

4. Comparing to Waystage, Threshold

5. Fine-tuning for equal intervals

6. Checking for consistency, coherence

Setting the cut-points between levels

Common Reference Levels

Finer Levels(Swiss)

Council of Europe Cut-offon logit

scale

Rangeon logit

scale

Mastery M Mastery 3.90

Effectiveness E Effectiveness 2.80 1.10

Vantage + V+ 1.74 1.06

Vantage V Vantage 0.72 1.02

Threshold + T+ -0.26 0.98

Threshold T Threshold -1.23 0.97

Waystage + s W+ -2.21 0.98

Waystage W Waystage -3.23 1.02

Breakthrough B Breakthrough -4.29 1.06

Tourist Tour --- -5.39 1.10

Content coherence

Level A1 is the point at which the learner can: interact in a simple way, ask and answer simple questions

about themselves, where they live, people they know, and things they have, initiate and respond to simple statements in areas of immediate need or on very familiar topics,

rather than relying purely on a rehearsed repertoire of phrases.

Content coherenceLevel A2 reflects Waystage

• majority of descriptors stating social functions: greet people, ask how they are and react to news; handle very short social exchanges; ask and answer questions about what they do at work and in free time; make and respond to invitations; discuss what to do, where to go and make arrangements to meet; make and accept offers.

• descriptors on getting out and about: make simple transactions in shops, post offices or banks; get simple information about travel; ask for and provide everyday goods and services.

Content coherenceLevel B1 reflects Threshold Level • maintain interaction and get across what you want to:

give or seek personal views and opinions in an informal discussion with friends; express the main point he/she wants to make comprehensibly; keep going comprehensibly, even though pausing for grammatical and lexical planning and repair is very evident, especially in longer stretches of free production.

• cope flexibly with problems in everyday life:deal with most situations likely to arise when making travel arrangements through an agent or when actually travelling; enter unprepared into conversations on familiar topics; make a complaint.

Content coherenceLevel B2 reflects three new emphases: effective argument: account for and sustain opinions in discussion

by providing relevant explanations, arguments and comments; explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.

holding your own in social discourse: interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without imposing strain on either party; adjust to the changes of direction, style and emphasis normally found in conversation.

a new degree of language awareness: correct mistakes if they have led to misunderstandings; make a note of "favourite mistakes" and consciously monitor speech for them.

Content coherenceLevel C1 is characterised by access to a broad range of

language: fluent, spontaneous communication: express him/herself fluently and spontaneously, almost

effortlessly; Has a good command of a broad lexical repertoire allowing gaps to be readily overcome with circumlocutions. There is little obvious searching for expressions or avoidance strategies; only a conceptually difficult subject can hinder a natural, smooth flow of language.

produce clear, smoothly‑flowing, well-structured speech, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors

and cohesive devices

Content coherenceLevel C2 represents the degree of precision and ease

with the language of highly successful learners:

• convey finer shades of meaning precisely by using, with reasonable accuracy, a wide range of modification devices;

• has a good command of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms with awareness of connotative level of meaning;

Stability of scale values

Validation Studies:

– Swiss Replication Year 2: 0.99

– DIALANG (List; Read; Write): 0.90

– Basle: University entrance: 0.90

– ALTE / UCLES: (anchors): 0.97

Developing the CEF 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.