See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328952339

CEFR-Oriented Framework for Designing Arabic Language Proficiency Test

and Curricula

Article · November 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 4,974

1 author:

El-Hussein Aly
Helwan University
13 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sociology of translation, Quran translations, psycholinguistic approaches to the translation process, translation curriculum design and teaching View project

All content following this page was uploaded by El-Hussein Aly on 15 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CEFR-Oriented Framework for Designing

Arabic Language Proficiency Test and Curricula

Hussein Aly

Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics

Faculty of Arts,

Helwan University

‫ ﻋﺪد ﺧﺎص‬٢٠١٥ ‫ﻧﺸﺮت ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﻠﺔ إﺑﺪاع‬

1

 CEFR-Oriented Framework for Designing

Arabic Language Proficiency Test and Curricula

Abstract

This study is carried out as part of designing Test of Arabic Language

Proficiency (TALP) and Arabic Language Proficiency Curricula (CALP)

aligned to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). The CEFR

can be described as a point of reference and is characterized by much

flexibility; thus, in order to design a CEFR-aligned framework, many points are

adapted to suit the Arabic language. Therefore, the framework described in this

paper includes:

• A description of the lexical items in each level and how they are selected

and ordered;

• A description of the grammatical elements, categories, classes, structures,

processes and relations in each level, and the grammatical theory affecting that;

• A description of the morphological elements and processes in each level;

• A description of the semantic relations in each level;

• A description of the phonological skills and their distributions among the

various levels;

• A description of which social groups in the target community and, perhaps,

in the international community the learner need to be familiar with;

• A Description of the principles according to which macro- and

microfunctions are selected and ordered;

• A description of the domains and whether some domains are more important

than others and why;

• A description of which language activities to be included in the test and/or

curricula; and

• Whether or not more/less levels/hours are needed and why.

2

 ‫إطﺎر ﻧﻈﺮي ﯾﻘﻮم ﻋﻠﻰ اﻹطﺎر اﻷوروﺑﻲ اﻟﻌﺎم ﻟﻠﻐﺎت‬

‫ﻟﺘﺼﻤﯿﻢ اﺧﺘﺒﺎر ﻛﻔﺎﯾﺔ وﻣﻨﮭﺞ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ‬

‫ﻣﻠﺨﺺ‬
‫ھﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺟﺰء ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺮوع ﻟﺘﺼﻤﯿﻢ اﺧﺘﺒﺎر ﻛﻔﺎﯾﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ‪ ،‬وﻛﺬا ﻣﻨﮭﺞ‬

‫ﻟﺘﺪرﯾﺲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ‪ ،‬وﺗﻘﻮم اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻹطﺎر اﻷوروﺑﻲ اﻟﻌﺎم ﻟﻠﻐﺎت‪ ،‬وﯾﺘﻤﯿﺰ اﻹطﺎر‬

‫اﻷوروﺑﻲ اﻟﻌﺎم ﻟﻠﻐﺎت ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺮوﻧﺔ ﺑﺤﯿﺚ ﯾﻤﻜﻦ اﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﮫ ﻟﻠﻐﺎت ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ؛ أي أن اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻹطﺎر‬

‫اﻷوروﺑﻲ اﻟﻌﺎم ﻟﻠﻐﺎت ﯾﺘﻄﻠﺐ اﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪد ﻛﺒﯿﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ‪ ،‬وﻣﻦ ﺛﻢ ﺗﻀﻤﻦ ھﺬا اﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪:‬‬

‫وﺻﻔًﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﻔﺮدات ﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى وطﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﺧﺘﯿﺎرھﺎ وﺗﺮﺗﯿﺒﮭﺎ‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫وﺻﻔًﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺪرﺳﺔ اﻟﻨﺤﻮﯾﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ وﺻﻒ اﻟﻘﻮاﻋﺪ‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫وﺻﻔًﺎ ﻟﻠﻘﻮاﻋﺪ واﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﺼﺮﻓﯿﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫وﺻﻔًﺎ ﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫وﺻﻔًﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﮭﺎرات اﻟﺼﻮﺗﯿﺔ وﺗﻮزﯾﻌﮭﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫وﺻﻔًﺎ ﻟﻠﺠﻤﺎﻋﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﻗﺪ ﯾﺤﺘﺎج اﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻢ أن ﯾﺘﻌﺮف ﻋﻠﯿﮭﺎ وﯾﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻌﮭﺎ‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫وظﺎﺋﻒ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ وطﺮﯾﻘﺔ ﺗﺮﺗﯿﺒﮭﺎ واﺧﺘﯿﺎرھﺎ‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫وﺻﻒ ﻣﺠﺎﻻت اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬وﺗﺮﺗﯿﺒﮭﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺣﯿﺚ اﻷھﻤﯿﺔ‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫وﺻﻒ أﻧﺸﻄﺔ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻀﻤﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎر واﻟﻤﻨﮭﺞ‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫ﻋﺪد اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﯾﺎت\اﻟﺴﺎﻋﺎت اﻟﻤﻄﻠﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺒﺪاﯾﺔ ﺣﺘﻰ اﻹﺗﻘﺎن وﻣﺒﺮرات ذﻟﻚ‬ ‫‪-‬‬

‫ ‪3‬‬
‫ ‬
 CEFR-Oriented Framework for Designing

Arabic Language Proficiency Test and Curricula

1. Introduction

This study is carried out as part of designing Test of Arabic Language Proficiency

(TALP) aligned to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and

Arabic Language Proficiency Curricula (CALP). The study aims at describing the

CEFR-aligned framework for Arabic language proficiency test and curricula. The

framework encompasses details of the adopted language proficiency model, language

competences, language activities, proficiency levels and dimensions, description of

the material, and contexts of language use for both test and curricula.

2. Testing and Curricula Architecture

To build a test which makes you able to decide that Person Y is having language

skills to perform activity Z, the first step is to have an understanding of what language

proficiency is. That is, “Each language proficiency test should be based on a

defensible model or definition of language proficiency” (Vecchio & Guerrero, 1995,

p. 3). Models provide constructs. These constructs are embodied in frameworks. A

framework is “the system that describes what language learning is really like and

what levels learners really pass through” (Davidson & Fulcher, p. 232). In other

words, the framework is “the system to which language tests can really be linked”

(Davidson & Fulcher, p. 232). Hence, the frameworks are operationalized in test

specifications. Figure 1 below indicates the three levels of architectural

documentation required in test designing:

4


Figure 1. Levels of Test Documentation (adapted from Davidson & Flucher, 2007, p. 232)

Frameworks are also operationalized in curricula designs. Thus, this paper describes a

framework upon which both Test of Arabic Language Proficiency (TALP) and

Curricula of Arabic Language Proficiency (CALP) will be based.

3. Models of Language Proficiency Assessment

Language is a very complex phenomenon, and it includes more than any linguist

has yet been able to describe (Yule, 1996). It is not surprising, then, that the review of

literature on language testing is characterized by “lack of consensus as to the exact

nature of language proficiency” (Vecchio & Guerrero, 1995, p. 3). As Oller and

Damico (1991) claim the definition is still controversial among academicians and

practitioners.

Nevertheless, Oller and Damico (1991) classify language proficiency tests as

belonging to three distinctive trends: the discrete point approach, the holistic

approach, and the pragmatic approach. The discrete point approach views language

proficiency as consisting of separate components of phonology, morphology, syntax

etc. Within this model, language can also be organized according to the four skills

(e.g., Coleman, 1934; Grosse, 1991; Handschin, 1923; Long & Richards, 1987).

Perhaps the major weakness of that approach is that language does not operate like

that in reality. For example, in a phonology exercise, it is difficult to decide that

5

students distinguish between 'share' and 'chair' because of the different sounds alone,

and not because of their knowledge of vocabulary and/or human experience.

Contrary to the discrete point approach, the holistic approach is based on the

belief that language processing involves more than one domain and skill. In a test

based on the holistic approach, the test taker may be asked to listen to a dialogue and

then write a composition. The third approach, the pragmatic approach, is similar to the

holistic approach, but it requires language tasks to be authentic. That is to say, in the

example above, if people in real life listen to dialogues and write compositions on the

basis of what they listened to, then the task follows the pragmatic approach; if not,

then the task is just holistic-approach-based. Within this model, language is organized

by communicative tasks (e.g., Bachman & Palmer, 1996; McNamara, 1996; Pica,

Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993; Skehan, 1995; Wesche, 1987). Within the holistic and

pragmatic approaches, several models exist. For example, some models organize

language in terms of grammatical, discourse, sociolinguistic, and strategic

competence (Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980), whereas, some organize language

in terms of grammatical competences, sociolinguistic competences, and pragmatic

competences (The Council of Europe, 2012). In the following section, some models

of language proficiency are reviewed with much focus on the CEFR.

6

 4. Models of Communicative Competence

4.1. Canale's (1983) Model of Communicative Competence

Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) propose a comprehensive model of

communicative competence consisting of four competences:

Grammatical Competence. The grammatical competence refers to the language code

(grammatical rules, vocabulary, pronunciation etc.).

Sociolinguistic Competence. The sociolinguistic competence refers to the mastery of

the sociocultural code of language use (appropriate use of language in a given

situation).

Discourse Competence. The discourse competence refers to the ability to combine

language structures into a cohesive text.

Strategic Competence. The strategic competence refers to the ability to use verbal and

non-verbal communication strategies to enhance communication. Figure 2 below

presents Canale’s (1983) model:

7

 Figure 2.Canale’s (1983) Model of Communicative Competence

4.2. Bachman and Palmer's (1996) Model of Communicative Competence

Bachman (1990) and Bachman and Palmer (1996) propose a model that

divides language knowledge into two main categories: organizational and pragmatic.

Organizational knowledge refers to knowledge of the formal structure of language.

Organizational knowledge includes (a) grammatical knowledge and (b) textual

knowledge. The pragmatic knowledge refers to the ability to use language in context.

The pragmatic knowledge includes (a) lexical knowledge, (b) functional knowledge,

and (c) sociolinguistic knowledge. When language is used in a situation, language

knowledge interacts with metacognitive strategies. The metacognitive strategies

include (a) assessment, (b) goal-setting, and (c) planning. Figure 2 below presents

Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) model:

Figure 3. Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) Model of Communicative Competence

8

4.3 The CEFR as a Language Proficiency Model

The CEFR adopts a comprehensive approach to language proficiency. The

approach adopted is, generally speaking, an action-oriented approach (Council of

Europe, 2012). It views language users as social agents who use language to

accomplish tasks. Language use when related to a certain task is only meaningful

when described in terms of a set of circumstances, in a specific environment and

within a specific field of action. According to Council of Europe (2012)

Language use, embracing language learning, comprises the actions performed

by persons who as individuals and as social agents develop a range of

competences, both general and in particular communicative language

competences. They draw on the competences at their disposal in

various contexts under various conditions and under various

constraints to engage in language activities involving language

processes to produce and/or receive texts in relation to themes in

specific domains, activating those strategies which seem most

appropriate for carrying out the tasks to be accomplished. The

monitoring of these actions by the participants leads to the

reinforcement or modification of their competences. (p. 9)

Competences are “the sum of knowledge skills and characteristics that allow a

person to perform actions” (Council of Europe, 2012, p. 9). There are two

types of competences that affect language use: general competences and

communicative language competences. Both types of competences empower a

9

person to use language to carry out tasks, but whereas the general

competences are not specific to language, the communicative language

competences depend mainly on linguistic resources.

4.3.1 General Competences

General Competence includes declarative knowledge, skills and know-

how, existential knowledge, and ability to learn. The following figure

presents the CEFR typology of general competences:

10

Figure 4. CEFR Typology of General Competences

11

 Declarative knowledge is the shared knowledge which people resort to in all

communications. It results from experience as well as from formal learning. This type

of knowledge is necessary for all language activities because the knowledge that

comes into play in the management of language activities are not exclusively nor

directly related to language and culture.

Skills and know-how are essential for the management of language activities.

For example, it is not possible to speak a language without having the skill to

pronounce its sounds. Producing a certain sound may be difficult at the beginning and

requires concentration, but once the skill is mastered, it becomes easy and automatic.

Existential knowledge refers to "the sum of the individual characteristics,

personality traits and attitudes" (Council of Europe, 2012, p. 11). Personal traits such

as introversion/extroversion affect language use and learning and so existential

knowledge needs to be included in a language proficiency model.

Ability to learn is necessary for any type of learning. It employs all the

different knowledge and skill sets described above, namely, the declarative

knowledge, the skills and know-how and the existential knowledge.

4.3.2 Communicative Language Competences

In order to carry out a task using language, the language user/learner brings his

general competences together with more-language-related competences to the task.

The language-related competences are the communicative language competences,

which can be classified into: linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences.

12

The following figure presents the three types of the communicative language

competences:

Figure 5. The Communicative Language Competences

4.3.2.1 Linguistic Competences

The action-oriented approach "attempts to identify and classify the main

components of linguistic competence defined as knowledge of, and ability to use, the

formal resources from which well-formed, meaningful messages may be assembled

and formulated" (The Council of Europe, 2012, p. 109). The linguistic competence

includes dimensions of language as system, "independently of the sociolinguistic

value of its variations and the pragmatic functions of its realizations" (The Council of

Europe, 2012, p. 14). The following figure presents the linguistic competences:

13

 14

Figure 6. The Linguistic Competences

4.3.2.2 Sociolinguistic Competences

Sociolinguistic competences refer to language as affected by the socio-cultural

conventions (such as the norms governing the relationship between sexes, generations

etc.). The sociolinguistic competences include (a) linguistic markers of social

relations, (b) politeness conventions, (c) expressions of folk wisdom, (d) register

differences, and (e) dialect and accent.

Figure 7. Sociolinguistic Competences

15

 4.3.2.3 Pragmatic Competences

Pragmatic competences are concerned with the "functional use of linguistic

resources" (p. 13). It includes two main competences: discourse competence and

functional competences. Discourse competence refers to the ability to arrange

sentences in a coherent sequence. Functional competence refers to the use of

language to achieve certain functional purposes.

Figure 8. Pragmatic Competences

16

 4.3.3 Language Activities

The CEFR combines the modality approach (using the four skills) with the

pragmatic approach using a model based upon language activities. The CEFR outlines

four language activities that the language user/learner goes through: reception,

production, interaction and mediation. Reception and production are considered in

contexts where they can be isolated as in silent reading and following the media or

giving a presentation and writing diaries. Interaction involves at least two people. In

interaction, both production and reception alternate and overlap. Furthermore,

interaction involves more than reception and production of language. For example,

seizing the opportunity to take the floor may be an important part of interaction.

Mediation involves two people who are unable to communicate directly, and so they

need a third party to mediate. Translation and interpretation are mediation activities.

Translation and interpretation may mean, in a broader sense, re-processing of an

existing text. They occupy "an important place in the normal linguistic functioning of

our societies" (Council of Europe, 2012, p. 14).

Language activities occur within contexts. These contexts can be classified

into four domains: public, personal, educational and occupational. The public domain

refers to all ordinary social interactions of a public nature such as public services,

public celebrations etc. The personal domain has to do with family relations and

individual social practices. The occupational domain has to do with activities related

to one's occupation. The educational domain is concerned with activities in the

learning/training context.

Language communication involves the performance of tasks. A task is defined

as "any purposeful action considered by an individual as necessary in order to achieve

17

a given result in the context of a problem to be solved, an obligation to fulfill or an

objective to be achieved" (Council of Europe, 2012, p. 10). These tasks may require

the use of strategies. A strategy is "any organised, purposeful and regulated line of

action chosen by an individual to carry out a task" (Council of Europe, 2012, p. 10).

4.3.4 Common Reference Levels of Language Proficiency

The CEFR describes language proficiency levels in terms of two dimensions:

vertical dimension and horizontal dimension. The vertical dimension describes the

development of language proficiency from zero functional ability to full mastery of

the language along six levels. The horizontal dimension describes tasks that a

language learner has to carry out. These tasks develop in complexity, and so they

require more competences.

Full mastery of language

C2

C1

B2

B1

A2

A1
Zero functional ability Ability to perform simple tasks Ability to perform complex tasks

Figure 9. Horizontal and Vertical Language Proficiency Levels

18

 5. Reification of the CEFR as a Framework

The CEFR can be described as “a tool for reflection, communication and

empowerment” (trim, 2010). Jones and Saville (2009) describe the CEFR as a “point

of reference” (p. 55) which cannot be applied as a hammer gets applied to a nail.

“Thus, when considering issues of alignment, it is important to remember that the

CEFR is not intended to be used prescriptively and that there can be no single ‘best’

way to account for the alignment of an examination within its own context and

purpose of use” (Council of Europe, 2011, p. 7). The can-do statements are described

as “illustrative,” and not “exhaustive, prescriptive, a definition, a curriculum, a

checklist” (Council of Europe, 2011, p. 7). This flexibility makes the CEFR suitable

for a wide range of languages including Arabic and a wide range of purposes

including assessment, curricula, and teaching methods. As it is stated in the

introduction, it is used in this study as a framework for assessment and curricula

purposes.

In order to use the CEFR as an assessment and curricula framework, users may

need to state;

• the lexical items in each level and how they are selected and ordered;

• the grammatical elements, categories, classes, structures, processes and

relations in each level, and the grammatical theory affecting that;

• the morphological elements and processes in each level;

• the semantic relations in each level;

• the phonological skills and their distributions among the various levels;

• the orthographic and orthoepic needs of learners in each level;

19

 • the range of greetings, address forms and expletives learners need to acquire;

• which politeness conventions learners need to acquire;

• which proverbs, cliches and folk idioms learners need to acquire;

• which registers learners need to acquire;

• which social groups in the target community and, perhaps, in the international

community the learner need to be familiar with;

• what discourse features the learner is required to control;

• which macrofunctions the learner is required to produce;

• which microfunctions the learner is required to produce;

• what interaction schemata the learner is required to control;

• according to what principles macro- and microfunctions are selected and

ordered;

• description of the domains and whether some domains are more important

than others and why;

• which language activities to be included in the test and/or curricula; and

• whether or not more/less levels are needed and why.

The above points/questions are addressed in (a) the domain definition of SCE Test of

Arabic Language Proficiency (TALP) and SCE curricula of Arabic Language

Proficiency (CALP) and (b) Task Design Characteristics and Variables for TALP and

CALP.

6. TALP and CALP CEFR-Aligned Framework

6.1 TALP and CALP Domain Definition

20

 The following statement of TALP purpose provides the basis of the test

development and validation framework:

The purpose of the SCE CEFR-Aligned Test of Arabic Language

Proficiency (TALP) is to measure the communicative language

competence of individuals to whom Arabic is a second or foreign

language, in situations corresponding to the four CEFR language

domains (personal, educational, occupational, and public) and within

three CEFR language activities: reception, production, and

interaction (for practical reasons, mediation which includes at least

another language besides Arabic is not measured in the TALP).

Reports of language competences corresponding to the CEFR

language proficiency levels can be used for placement decisions of

learners into the different levels of the SCE CEFR-Aligned Arabic

Language Program, for admission decisions for programs using

Arabic as a medium of instruction, and for occupation purposes such

as teaching Arabic as a foreign language.

The following statement describes the CALP domain definition:

The purpose of the SCE CEFR-Aligned Curricula of Arabic Language

Proficiency (CALP) is to enhance the communicative language

competence of individuals to whom Arabic is a second or foreign

language, in situations corresponding to the four CEFR language

domains (personal, educational, occupational, and public) and within

three CEFR language activities: reception, production, and

21

 interaction. The curricula will cover 5 levels: Pre A1, A1, A2, B1 and

B2.

6.2 Task Design Characteristics and Variables

This part focuses on two important variables: (a) language use, and (b) test and

curricula content

6.2.1 Language Use

Language use varies according to the context; in fact, text and context are

inextricably related (Mey 2001; van Dijk 1985, 1997; Verschueren 1999). This is

because "the need and the desire to communicate arise in a particular situation and the

form as well as the content of the communication is a response to that situation"

(Council of Europe, 2012, p. 45). According to Council of Europe (2012), context can

be described in terms of domains, situations, and conditions and constraints.

6.2.1.1 Domains and Situations

There are four main domains that vary according to seven situational

variables. The following table presents the various domains and situations (Council of

Europe, 2012, pp. 48-49):

Domain Personal Public Occupational Educational

Locations Home: house, rooms, Public spaces: street Offices Schools: hall,
garden etc etc Factories classroom,
Own space in a hostel, Public transport Workshops playground, sports
hotel etc Shops, Ports, railways fields, corridors
Others' space in a hostel, (super)markets Farms Colleges
hotel etc. Hospitals, surgeries Airports Universities
The countryside, seaside etc. Stores, shops Lecture theatres
etc Sports stadia, fields, Etc. Seminar rooms
halls Etc.
Entertainment
Restaurant, pub, hotel
Places of worship
Institutions The family Public authorities Firms School
Social networks Political bodies Multinational University

22

 Public health corporations Learned societies
Services clubs Nationalized Professional
Societies industries institutions
Trade unions Adult education
bodies
Persons (Grand) parents, offspring, Members of the Employers/ees Class teachers
siblings ,aunts, uncles, public Managers Teaching staff
cousins, in-laws, spouses, Officials Colleagues Caretakers
intimates, friends, Shop personnel Subordinates Assistant staff
acquaintances Police, army, security Workmates Parents
Drivers, conductors Clients Classmates
Passengers Customers Fellow students
Players, fans, Receptionists, Library and
spectators secretaries laboratory staff
Waiters Cleaners porters, secretaries
Receptionists
Men of religion
Objects Furnishing and furniture Money, purse, wallet Business machinery Writing materials
Clothing Forms Industrial School uniform
Household equipments Goods machinery Games equipment
Toys, tools, personal Weapons Industrial and craft and clothing
hygiene Rucksacks tools Food
Objets d’art, books, Cases, grips Audio-visual
wild/domestic animals, Balls equipment
pets Programs Blackboards and
Trees, plants, lawn, ponds Meals, drinks, snacks chalk/markers
Household goods Passports, licenses Computers
Handbags Briefcases and
Leisure/sports equipment school bags
Events Family occasions Incidents Meetings Return to
Encounters Accidents, illnesses Interviews school/entry
Incidents, accidents Public meetings Receptions Breaking up
Natural phenomena Law suits, court trials Conferences Visits and
Parties, visits Rag-days, fines, Trade fairs exchanges
Walking, cycling arrests Consultations Parents’
Motoring Matches, contests Seasonal sales days/evenings
Holidays, excursions Performances Industrial accidents Sports days,
Sports events Weddings, funerals Industrial disputes matches
Disciplinary
problems
Operations Living routines: dressing, Buying and obtaining Business Assembly
undressing, cooking, public services administration Lessons
eating, washing, Using medical Industrial Games
gardening, reading, radio services management Play time
and TV Journeys by Productions Clubs and societies
Entertaining road/rails/ship/ operations Lectures, essay
Hobbies Air Office procedures writing
Games and sports Public entertainment Trucking Laboratory work
and leisure activities Sales operation Library work
Religious services Office maintenance Seminars and
tutorials
Homework
Debates and
discussions
Texts Teletext Public Business letter Authentic texts (as
Guarantees announcements and Report above)
Recipes notices memorandum Textbooks, readers
Instructional materials Labels and packaging Life and safety Reference books
Novels, magazines Leaflets, graffiti notices Blackboard text
Newspapers Tickets, timetables Instructional OP text
Junk mail Notices, regulations manuals Computer screen
Brochures Programs Regulations text
Personal letters Contracts Advertising Videotext
Broadcast and recorded Menus materials Exercise materials
spoken texts Sacred texts Labeling and Journal articles
Sermons, hymns packaging Abstracts
Job description dictionaries

23

 Sign posting
Visiting cards

Table 1. Language Use (adapted from Council of Europe, 2012, pp. 48-49)

6.2.1.2 Conditions and Constraints

Domains and situations are also affected by conditions and constraints. According

to Council of Europe 2012, there are three types of conditions and constraints:

6.2.1.2.1 Physical Conditions

Physical conditions for speech:

• clarity of pronunciation;

• ambient noise (trains, aircraft, ‘static’, etc.);

• interference (crowded street, markets, pubs, parties, discos, etc.);

• distortions (poor telephone lines, radio reception, public address systems);

• weather conditions (wind, extreme cold, etc.).

Physical conditions for writing:

• poor reproduction of print;

• difficult handwriting;

• poor lighting, etc.

6.2.1.2.2 Social Conditions

• • number and familiarity of interlocutors;

• • relative status of participants (power and solidarity, etc.);

• • presence/absence of audience or eavesdroppers;

• • social relationships between participants (e.g. friendliness/hostility, co-

operativeness).

6.2.1.2.3 Time Pressures

24

• • different pressures for speaker/listener (real time) and writer/reader (more

flexible);

• • preparation time (e.g. improvised vs routinised vs prepared in advance) for

speeches, reports, etc.;

• • limitations on time allowed (e.g. by rules, expense, competing events and

commitments,

etc.) for turns and interactions;

• • other pressures: financial; anxiety-producing situations (e.g. examinations),

etc.

According to Council of Europe (2012), language use is viewed as horizontal

development of language proficiency. This horizontal development interacts with

another dimension, namely the vertical development of language proficiency which

extends along six levels (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2). This framework includes only

four levels: A1, A2, B1, and B2 because the number of learners to be tested beyond

B2 is not expected to be significant. In addition, there may be a need for a level below

A1. Thus, the total levels will be five. The following table includes the levels that will

be included in the TALP and CALP.

CEFR
Description
Levels

Pre A1 Can communicate minimally and with difficulty by using a number of isolated words and

memorized phrases limited by the particular context in which the language has been learned.

A1 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

25

 and answer questions about personal details such as 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,

A2 employment). 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 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
B1
travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can 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

B2 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.

Table 2. CEFR Levels for TALP and CALP (adapted from Council of Europe, 2012)

The interaction of the vertical and the horizontal dimensions for the purpose of

the TALP and CALP can be shown in the following figure:

26

Figure 10. Language Proficiency Levels for the TALP and CALP

As figure 10 indicates, language proficiency develops both vertically (in terms of 5

levels from pre-A1 to B2) and horizontally (in terms of domain overlap and the

presence of more conditions and constraints). For example, in a situation where

interlocutors are more than one, the conversation includes personal, public,

occupational and educational interests, and there are constraints such as noise, the

proficiency required is definitely higher than that required for a situation of one to one

simple personal interaction.

For the purpose of TALP and CALP, both vertical and horizontal dimensions

will be used. However, the four domains of language use will be employed

disproportionately. On the basis of needs analysis of non-native speakers of Arabic

studying Arabic at School of Continuing Education, it is clear that the main reason of

studying Arabic is to be familiar with the Arabic culture and integrate with an Arab

society. The personal and public domains are the most needed by those learners.

Learners of Arabic as a foreign language can be divided into two groups: those who

27

are interested in the Arab culture and those who are studying Arabic for occupational

and educational purposes (managers at Bticino and Sony Ericsson, for example, and

non-native students at Alazhar University). For the latter group, the occupational and

educational domains are important. They are still interested, however, in the personal

and public domains. The dominance of personal and public domains over the

occupational and educational domains is reflected in the interest of non-native

speakers in Caireen Arabic rather than Modern Standard Arabic. Most learners at

School of Continuing Education study Caireen Arabic with or without Modern

Standard Arabic. Although the four domains will be included in the TALP and CALP,

more emphasis will be laid upon the personal and the public domains.

6.3 Test and Curricula Content

6.3.1 Language Activities

As mentioned above (Section 4.3.3), the CEFR addresses four language

activities that the language user/learner goes through: reception, production,

interaction and mediation. The TALP focuses on reception, production and

interaction. Mediation which covers translation and interpretation is not included for

two main reasons: (a) it involves at least one more language besides Arabic, and (b) it

involves more skills than the command of language and familiarity with culture.

Therefore, involving mediation may threaten the validity of the TALP as it

encompasses more skills than the TALP claims to assess.

28

 6.3.2 Text Format

The CEFR adopts a pragmatic approach to language testing (see Section 3).

The pragmatic approach requires language tasks to be authentic. Accordingly,

channel, form and length of test tasks are decided.

Channel. Channel for test tasks are both aural and visual print language. All

language tasks will be valid for the TALP as far as they occur in reality. For

example, a listening task may involve writing as when people listen to

instructions of how to fill in a form, and so they listen and write

simultaneously. In addition, tasks will usually include situation visuals and

sometimes content visuals.

Form. The form of all test tasks will be language. However, as in reality,

language may be supported with gestures, pictures, diagrams etc.

Length. The length will be measured by number of words for reading and

writing, number of words together with time duration for listening, and time

duration alone for speaking.

6.3.3 Learner's Competences

Learner's competences according to the CEFR include both general

competences and communicative language competences. However, both general

competences as well as the interplay between general competences and

communicative language competences must be kept to a minimum as the TALP

claims to measure only the linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences of

the learner. The linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences as presented in

the test tasks will include the following features:

29

6.3.3.1 Linguistic Competences

6.3.3.1.1 Lexical Competence

This section includes the components of the lexical competence as well as a

model for ordering the lexical component. The following table presents the CEFR

model of lexical competence:

Sentential Greetings Good morning

Fixed Expressions

formulae Proverbs Birds of feather,

Relict archaisms Be off with you
Phrasal idioms Frozen metaphors Kick the bucket

Fixed frames Please may I have

Fixed Colocation Make a mistake

Closed word Articles a, the

Single word forms

classes Quantifiers some, all, many, etc.

Open Class Words
Table 3.Lexical competence
Demonstratives this, that, these, those
personal pronouns I, we, he, she, it, they, me, you, etc.)
question words and relatives who, what, which, where, how, etc.)
Possessives my, your, his, her, its, etc.)
Prepositions in, at, by, with, of, etc
auxiliary verbs be, do, have, modals
Conjunctions and, but, if, although
Technical
Pan-technical
Non-technical

Lexical items belonging to the above classification will be ordered according to two

criteria: familiarity and intended meaning. The more the lexical items are familiar to

the language learner/user, the smoother language processing is (Rost, 1990).

Therefore, the more the test questions address higher proficiency levels, the more

unfamiliar lexical items will be included. Furthermore, lexical items are ordered

according to whether the meaning of the word is common to all disciplines or specific

to a particular discipline (Anderson & Lynch, 1988). Thus, the open-class words are

divided into technical words (specific to a certain discipline), pan-technical (common

30

to a number of disciplines) and non-technical (common to all disciplines and people).

The following scale indicates the order of words in terms of familiarity and intended

meaning along a scale from easy to difficult.

Figure 11. A model for ordering lexical items

6.3.3.1.2 Grammatical Competence

The following table presents the CEFR model of grammatical competence:

Elements Morphs
morphemes-roots and affixes
Words
Categories number, case, gender
concrete/abstract, countable/uncountable
(in)transitive, active/passive voice
past/present/future tense
progressive, (im)perfect aspect
Classes Conjugations
Grammatical Competences

Declensions
open word classes
Closed word classes
Structures compound and complex words
phrases: (nounphrase, verbphrase, etc.)
clauses: (main, subordinate, co-ordinate)
sentences: (simple, compound, complex)
Processes nominalisation
Affixation
Suppletion
Gradation
transposition
transformation
Relations government
Concord
Valency
Table 4. Grammatical Competence

31

 Role and reference grammar (Van Valin, 1993, 1997, 2003) is used for the

purpose of analyzing grammatical competence because it views language as a

system of communicative action and because it lends itself easily to the

description of Arabic.

6.3.3.1.3 Semantic Competence

The following table includes the components of semantic competence:

Relation of word to general context: connotation;
Competence
Semantic

reference;
exponence of general specific notions;
Interlexical relations synonymy/antonymy;
hyponymy;
collocation;
Table 5. Semantic Competence



6.3.3.1.4 Phonological Competence

The following table includes the components of phonological competence:

Segmental Phonemes
Phonetic competence

Allophones
Syllables
Strong and weak forms
Assimilation
Elision
Suprasegmental Stress
Intonation
Table 6. Phonological Competence

Since suprasegmental phonetics is based upon segmental phonetics, the normal order

of teaching and acquisition is taken to be the one presented in the table above.

32

 6.3.3.1.5 Orthographic Competence

the form of letters

the proper spelling of words
Orthographic
Competence

punctuation marks and their conventions of use
typographical conventions and varieties of font

logographic signs in common use (e.g. @, &, $, etc.)

Table 7. Orthographic Competence

6.3.3.1. 6 Ortheopic Competence

knowledge of spelling conventions
Orthoepic

ability to consult a dictionary and knowledge of the conventions used there for
the representation of pronunciation
knowledge of the implications of written forms, particularly punctuation marks,
for phrasing and intonation
ability to resolve ambiguity (homonyms, syntactic ambiguities, etc.) in the light o
the context
Table 8. Ortheopic Competence

6.3.3.2 Sociolinguistic Competence

Use and choice of greetings On arrival

Introductions
Leave taking
Use and choice of address forms Frozen
Formal
Informal
Familiar
Peremptory
Ritual insult
Conventions of turn-taking

Use and choice of expletives

Positive politeness

Negative politeness

Impoliteness

Expressions of folk wisdom Proverbs

33

 Idioms
Quotations
Expressions
Register differences Frozen
Formal
Neutral
Informal
Familiar
Intimate
Dialect and Accent Social class
Regional Provenance
National origin
Ethnicity
Occupational group
Table 9. Sociolinguistic Competence


6.3.3.3 Pragmatic Competence

Discourse Manage Sentences in terms of Topic/focus

features Given/new
Natural sequencing
Cause/effect
Managing discourse in terms thematic organization
of coherence/cohesion
logical ordering
style/register
rhetorical effectiveness
Observing the cooperative principle (quality, quantity,
manner, relation)
Text design how stories, anecdotes, jokes, etc. are told;
conventions how a case is built up (in law, debate, etc.);
how written texts (essays, formal letters, etc.) are laid out, signposted and sequenced.
Microfunctions imparting and seeking factual Identifying
(single information: Reporting
utterance) Correcting
Asking
Answering
expressing and finding out •factual (agreement/disagreement)
attitudes: • knowledge (knowledge/ignorance, remembering,
forgetting, probability, certainty)
• modality (obligations, necessity, ability, permission)
• volition (wants, desires, intentions, preference)
• emotions (pleasure/displeasure, likes/dislikes,
satisfaction, interest, surprise,
hope, disappointment, fear, worry, gratitude)
• moral (apologies, approval, regret, sympathy)
Suasion Suggestions
Requests
Warnings
Advice
Encouragement
asking help
Invitations
Offers
Socializing attracting attention
Addressing
Greetings

34

 Introductions
Toasting
leave-taking
structuring discourse Opening
Turntaking
Closing etc.
communication repair Turn-taking
Keeping the floor etc.
Macrofunctions Description
(sequence of Narration
sentences) Commentary
Exposition etc.
Interactional Simple interaction in the form Question-answer
Schemata of language pairs Statement-Agreement/Disagreement etc.
Complex interaction Identify goals
Establish relations
Identify roles etc.
Table 10. Pragmatic Competence

7. Conclusion

As indicated above, this study is carried out as part of SCE's development of

Arabic test and curricula. The CEFR-aligned framework described in this paper will

be the basis for the development of Arabic proficiency test and Arabic curricula. The

CEFR can be described as a point of reference and is characterized by much

flexibility; thus, in order to design a CEFR-aligned framework, many points are

adapted to suit the Arabic language. Therefore, the framework described in this paper

includes:

• A description of the lexical items in each level and how they are selected and

ordered;

• A description of the grammatical elements, categories, classes, structures,

processes and relations in each level, and the grammatical theory affecting

that;

• A description of the morphological elements and processes in each level;

• A description of the semantic relations in each level;

• A description of the phonological skills and their distributions among the

various levels;

35

 • A description of which social groups in the target community and, perhaps, in

the international community the learner need to be familiar with;

• A Description of the principles according to which macro- and microfunctions

are selected and ordered;

• A description of the domains and whether some domains are more important

than others and why;

• A description of which language activities to be included in the test and/or

curricula; and

• Whether or not more/less levels are needed and why.

36

 References

Anderson, A. & Lynch, T. (1988). Listening. New York: Oxford University Press

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Bachamn, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Canale, M. (1983). From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language

Pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.). Language and communication.
New York: Longman.

Canale, M. & Swain M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to

second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 87-112

Coleman, A. (1934). A survey of tendencies in modern language teaching, 1927-33:

Retrospect and prospect. In A. Coleman (Ed.), Experiments and studies in modern
language teaching (pp. 50-99). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Council of Europe. (2011). Manual for language test development and examining:
For use with the CEFR. Language Policy Division. Council of Europe (Strasbourg).
Available on-line at www.coe.int/lang

Davidson, F. & Fulcher, G. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference

(CEFR) and the design of language tests: A Matter of Effect. Lang.Teach.(40), 231-
241.

Grosse, C. U. (1991). The TESOL methods course. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 29-50.

Handschin, C. (1923). Methods of teaching modern languages. Yonkers-on-Hudson,

NY: World Book Company.

Jones, N. & Saville, N. (2009). European Language Policy: Assessment, Learning and
the CEFR, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 29, 51-63

Long, M., & Richards, J. (Eds.). (1987). Methodology in TESOL, a book of readings.
New York: Newbury House.

McNamara, T. F. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London:

Longman.

Mey, J. L. (2001) Pragmatics: An Introduction, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.

37

 Oller, J. W. Jr. & Damico, J. S. (1991). Theoretical considerations in the assessment
of LEP students. In E. Hamayan & J. S. Damico (Eds.). Limiting bias in the
assessment of bilingual students. Austin: Pro-ed publications.

Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks
for second language instruction and research. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks
and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Philadelphia:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL: A book of readings. New York: Newbury

House.

Rost, M. (1991). Listening in language learning. New York: Longman

Skehan, P. (1995). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction.

Applied Linguistics, 17, 1: 38-62.

Trim, J. L. M. (2010). Plenary presentation at ACTFL-CEFR alignment conference,

Leipzig, June 2010

Van Dijk, T.A. (ed.) (1985) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vols 1–4. London:
Academic Press.

Van Dijk, T.A. (ed) (1997) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vols
1 and 2. London: Sage Publications.

Verschueren, J. (1999) Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.

Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (1993). A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In R. D.

Van Valin, Jr. (Ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar (pp. 1–164).
Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (2003). Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Van Valin, R. D., Jr.; & Polla, R. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning and function.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vecchio, A. D. & Guerrero, M. (1995). Handbook of English language proficiency

tests. Available On-line:
file:///Users/morganeriquez/Desktop/untitled%20folder/BE020503.webarchive.
Accessed Nov. 11, 2014.

Wesche, M. B. (1987). Communicative testing in a second language. In M. H. Long

& J. Richards, (Eds.). Methodology in TESOL, a book of readings. New York:
Newbury House.

38

View publication stats