Common European Framework of

Reference for Languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,

Teaching, Assessment, abbreviated as CEFR, is a guideline used to describe
achievements of learners of foreign languages across Europe and, increasingly, in
other countries.[1] 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 assessing and teaching 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 (see below) are becoming widely accepted as the European
standard for grading an individual's language proficiency.

Contents
[hide]

• 1 Development
• 2 Levels
• 3 Self-evaluated equivalences to CEFR levels
• 4 Equivalence with common North American
standards
o 4.1 Canada
o 4.2 United States
• 5 See also
• 6 References

• 7 External links

[edit] Development
In 1991 the Swiss Federal Authorities held an Intergovernmental Symposium in
Rüschlikon, Switzerland, on "Transparency and Coherence in Language Learning in
Europe: Objectives, Evaluation, Certification". This symposium found that a common
European framework for languages was needed to improve the recognition of
language qualifications and help teachers co-operate, eventually leading to improved
communication and cooperation generally in 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.
[edit] Levels
The Common European Framework divides learners into three broad divisions which
can be divided into six levels:

A Basic Speaker
A1 Breakthrough or beginner
A2 Waystage or elementary
B Independent Speaker
B1 Threshold or pre-intermediate
B2 Vantage or intermediate
C Proficient Speaker
C1 Effective Operational Proficiency or upper intermediate
C2 Mastery or advanced

The CEFR describes what a learner is supposed to be able to do in reading, listening,

speaking and writing at each level.

level description
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
A1
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 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
A2
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.
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
B1
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.
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
B2
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.
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
C1
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.
 Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarise
information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments
C2 and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express him/herself spontaneously,
very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in the
most complex situations.

Deutsche Welle (sponsored by the German government) suggests A-1 is reached with
about 75 hours of German study. A-2.1 about 150 hours. A-2.2 about 225 hours. B 1.1
about 300 hours. B 1.2 about 400 hours.[2]

These descriptors can apply to any of the languages spoken in Europe, and there are
translations in many languages.

[edit] Self-evaluated equivalences to CEFR levels

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.[3]

Uni
vers
CI
ity
EP
of PT
/
Bat N E UNI
Alli
C h Q CL Ge cert TO
Ca Mic anc PT T
E Eng F ES ner (diff EF
mbr hig e DE Goethe IE E O Ve Y ALT
F lish (U (11 DC al ere L
idge an fra LE[ Institu L Aca EI rsa K E
R Lan K lang L 6] (for nt (IB
exa Exa nça te TS de C nt I level
lev gua On uag me [7] lang T)
m m ise mic [8]
el ge ly) es) rly uag
[5] dip
Test LT es)
lo
ing E)
ma
(UB
s
EL
T)[4]
C2 UB Le CA EC TC CL Certi Mae Zentral IE 85 Lev - UNI 79- 6. Leve -
ELT vel E PE F ES ficat stría e LT el 5 cert 80 ta l 5
4.0- 7-8 grad C2 3 ion Oberst S IV so
5.0 eA / IV ufenprü 8.
(Fro DA fung, 5-
m LF Kleines 9.
25 C2 Deutsc 0
Janu / hes
ary DH Sprach
201 EF diplom
0,
see:
[6])
 /
CPE
TC
Sup
F
erio
C1 IE
r
/ LT
Le Certi (sin Goethe 94 11
UB DA CL S UNI 5.
vel CA ficat ce - Lev 5+ 69- Leve 0-
C1 ELT - LF ES 7. 76 cert ta
s E ion Nov Zertifik el 4 poi 78 l4 12
3.5 C1 3 0- III so
4-6 III emb at C1 nts 0
/ 8.
er
DS 0
201
LC
0)
F
TC
F
B2
/
IE
DE 78
Goethe LT
LF Certi 5-
UB Le CL Ava - S UNI 4. 87-
EC B2 ficat Lev 94 58- Leve
B2 ELT vel FCE ES nza Zertifik 5. 59 cert ta 10
CE / ion el 3 5 68 l3
2.5 3 2 do at B2, 5- II so 9
Dip II poi
ZDfB 6.
lôm nts
5
e
de
Lan
gue
TC
F
B1 IE
55
/ LT
Zertifik 0-
UB Le DE CL Certi Inte S UNI 3.
at Lev 78 47- Leve 57-
B1 ELT vel PET - LF ES ficat rme 4. 43 cert ta
Deutsc el 2 5 57 l 2 86
2.0 2 B1 1 ion I dio 0- I so
h poi
/ 5.
nts
CE 0
FP
2
TC
F
A2
22
/
5-
UB Le DE Ele Start 2.
Lev 55 36- Leve
A2 ELT vel KET - LF men Deutsc 30 ta
el 1 0 46 l1
1.5 1 A2 tal h 2 so
poi
/
nts
CE
FP
1
 TC
12
F
En 0- Brea
UB no A1 Start Lev 1.
try Inic 22 26- kthro
A1 ELT scor - / Deutsc el ta -
Le ial 5 35 ugh
1.0 ed DE h1 A1 so
vel poi level
LF
nts
A1

[edit] Equivalence with common North American

standards
[edit] Canada

The following table establishes equivalences between the CEFR and some Canadian
and U.S. standards. It is based on the proposed "preliminary alignment tables of other
language frameworks with the CEFR" in the report Proposal for a Common
Framework of Reference for Languages for Canada by Larry Vandergrift of the
University of Ottawa, published by Heritage Canada.[9]

The standards compared are:

1. The CEFR itself

2. Interagency Language Roundtable Scale (ILR, United States)
3. American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages Proficiency
Guidelines (ACTFL)
4. New Brunswick Oral Proficiency Scale (NB OPS, English and French
only) [7]
5. Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB, English and French only)
6. Public Service Commission of Canada Second Official Language
Proficiency Levels (PSC, English and French only) [8]

The resulting correspondence between the ILR and ACTFL scales disagrees with the
generally accepted one.[10] 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.[11] Also, the ILR and NB OPS scales do not correspond
despite the fact that the latter was modelled on the former.[12]

CEFR ILR ACTFL NB OPS CLB PSC

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
4+/5

[edit] United States

Other work has addressed correspondence with the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines
and the United States ILR scale specifically.

For convenience, the following abbreviations will be used for the ACTFL levels:

• NL/NM/NH — Novice Low/Mid/High

• IL/IM/IH — Intermediate Low/Mid/High
• AL/AM/AH — Advanced Low/Mid/High
• S — Superior
• D — "Distinguished" (a name sometimes used for levels 4 and 4+ of
the ILR scale instead including them within "Superior")

A 2008 statistical study by Alfonso Martínez Baztán of Universidad de Granada based

on the performances of a group of subjects[13] determines the following ordering of the
ACTFL and CEFR levels, in which higher levels are placed further right.[14]

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,[15] the equivalences
between CEFR and ACTFL standards proposed in a 2005 paper by Erwin Tschirner
of Universität Leipzig[16] (also quoted by Martínez Baztán[17]), and the equivalences of
Buitrago (unpublished, 2006) as quoted in Martínez Baztán 2008.[18]

CEFR Martínez Tschirner Buitrago

<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

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.[19]

This agrees with a table published by the American University Center of Provence
giving the following correspondences:[20]

CEFR ILR ACTFL

A1 0/0+ NL, NM, NH
A2 1 IL, IM
B1 1+ IH
B2 2/2+ AL, AM, AH
C1 3/3+ S
C2 4/4+ D
A study by Buck, Papageorgiou and Platzek[21] 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:

• Reading — A1: 1, A2: 1, B1: 1+, B2: 2+, C1: 3

• Listening — A1: 0+/1, A2: 1, B1: 1+, B2: 2, C1: 2+ (at least)[22]