Abstract
Today, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR; Council of Europe 2001) is widely recognised as emblematic of globalization in education, both in the realms of policy and in educational practice (Byram et al. 2012a). In Europe the CEFR is regularly cited as a reference point for curriculum planning, and is often claimed to support greater transparency and coherence across the entire spectrum of language education. Despite substantial adoption of the CEFR beyond Europe, it has gained little ground in Australian higher education institutions. In order to understand this anomaly, and to analyse the underlying causes of the low traction the CEFR commands in Australia, this article reports on a study of the attitudes, knowledge and perceptions of academics and students collected through a nationwide online survey. The results suggest a perplexing situation, a combination of general unfamiliarity contrasted with pockets of positive acceptance of the CEFR in Australian universities. Moreover, the data suggest that respondents who are teachers are rather less concerned by claimed impediments to learning standards than some researchers and applied linguists who have made such criticism of the CEFR. The article also discusses some controversies that surround attempts to promote the CEFR for wider use. The aim is to contribute to local and international debate on the CEFR and to stimulate discussion about the roles and limits of its use as a universal language learning reference document and as a practical resource to support language teaching and assessment.
About the authors
Dr Nadine Normand-Marconnet is a lecturer and current convenor of French Studies at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Since 2015 she has directed the Intercultural Communication program taught across different campuses of Monash University (Australia, Italy and Malaysia). Her research interests include innovative curriculum design for teaching and assessment, second language acquisition, language policy, and transnational education.
Dr Joseph Lo Bianco is Professor of Language and Literacy Education at the University of Melbourne, Australia. He is also Research Director for the UNICEF Language Policy and Peacebuilding Program in Southeast Asia, specifically Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand. His principal research interest is in Italian language and culture studies, Asian education, language policy and planning, bilingual studies, and connections between social cohesion and language issues.
References
Alderson, J. Charles, Neus Figueras, Henk Kuijper, Guenter Nold, Sauli Takala & Claire Tardieu. 2006. Analysing tests of reading and listening in relation to the Common European Framework of Reference: The experience of the Dutch CEFR construct project. Language Assessment Quarterly 3(1). 3–30. doi:10.1207/s15434311laq0301_2.10.1207/s15434311laq0301_2Search in Google Scholar
Bellassen, Joёl & Li Zhang. 2008. The enlightenment and the impetus of the new approach of the Common European Framework of Reference for Language on the Chinese language teaching. Chinese Teaching in the World 3. 58–73.Search in Google Scholar
Byram, Michael & Lynne Parmenter (eds.). 2012a. The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847697318Search in Google Scholar
Byram, Michael & Lynne Parmenter. 2012b. Introduction. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 1–11. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847697318Search in Google Scholar
Byrnes, Heidi. 2012. Academic perspectives from the USA. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 169–181. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar
Castellotti, Véronique. 2012. Academic perspectives from France. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 45–52. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar
Coste, D. 2007. Contextualising uses of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Paper presented at the Report of the Intergovernmental Forum The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the development of language policies: challenges and responsibilities. Council of Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/SourceForum07/ForumFeb07_%20Report_EN.doc (accessed 18 June 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 2007. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the development of language policies: Challenges and responsibilities. Report on an Intergovernmental Language Policy Forum. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/conference_bis_en.asp#P40_1517 (accessed 10 June 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Davidson, Fred & Glenn Fulcher. 2007. The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and the design of language tests: A matter of effect. Language Teaching 40(3). 231–241.10.1017/S0261444807004351Search in Google Scholar
Despagne, Colette & John Roby Grossi. 2011. Implementation of the CEFR in the Mexican context. Synergies Europe 6. 65–74.Search in Google Scholar
Elder, Catherine & Kieran O’Loughlin. 2007. ELICOS language levels feasibility study: Final report. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.Search in Google Scholar
Faez, Farahnaz, Suzanne Majhanovich, Shelley Taylor, Maureen Smith & Kelly Crowley. 2012. The power of “can do” statements: Teachers’ perceptions of CEFR-informed instruction in French as a Second Language classrooms in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée 14(2). 1–19.Search in Google Scholar
Finch, Andrew E. 2009. Europass and the CEFR: Implications for language teaching in Korea. English Language and Literature Teaching 15(2). 71–92.Search in Google Scholar
Fleming, Mike. 2006. The use and mis-use of competence frameworks and statements with particular attention to describing achievements in literature. https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Fleming-paper.doc (accessed 19 September 2014).Search in Google Scholar
Fulcher, Glenn. 2004. Are Europe’s tests being built on an “unsafe” framework. The Guardian Weekly 18.Search in Google Scholar
Glover, Philip. 2011. Using CEFR level descriptors to raise university students’ awareness of their speaking skills. Language Awareness 20(2). 121–133.10.1080/09658416.2011.555556Search in Google Scholar
Hu, Adelheid. 2012. Academic perspectives from Germany. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 66–75. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar
Hulstijn, Jan H. 2007. The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal 91(4). 663–667. doi:10.2307/4626094.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_5.xSearch in Google Scholar
Ingram, David E. 1984. Report on the formal trialling of the Australian second language proficiency ratings (ASLPR). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Search in Google Scholar
Jones, Neil & Nick Saville. 2009. European language policy: Assessment, learning and the CEFR. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 29(1). 51–63.10.1017/S0267190509090059Search in Google Scholar
Komorowska, Hanna. 2012. Academic perspectives from Poland. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 104–113. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar
Krumm, Hans-Jürgen. 2007. Profiles instead of levels: The CEFR and its (ab)uses in the context of migration. The Modern Language Journal 91(4). 667–669. doi:10.2307/4626095.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_6.xSearch in Google Scholar
Little, David. 2007. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. The Modern Language Journal 91(4). 645–655. doi:10.2307/4626091.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_2.xSearch in Google Scholar
Little, David, Francis Goullier & Gareth Hughes. 2011. The European Language Portfolio: The story so far (1991–2011). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/elp/elp-reg/Source/Publications/ELP_StorySoFar_July2011_Final_EN.pdf (accessed 3 July 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Lo Bianco, Joseph. 2004. A site for debate, negotiation and contest of national identity: Language policy in Australia. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/LoBiancoEn.pdf (accessed 9 June 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Lockwood, Jane. 2012. Are we getting the right people for the job? A study of English language recruitment assessment practices in the business processing outsourcing sector: India and the Philippines. Journal of Business Communication 49(2). 107–127.10.1177/0021943612436975Search in Google Scholar
López Mendoza, Alexis Augusto & Gerriet Janssen. 2011. Estudio de validación de la prueba de inglés de ECAES en Colombia. Lenguaje 38(2). 423–448.10.25100/lenguaje.v38i2.4916Search in Google Scholar
Mackey, Alison & Susan M. Gass. 2005. Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
McBeath, Neil. 2011. The Common European Framework of Reference for Language: Learning, teaching, assessment. Arab World English Journal 2(1). 186–213.Search in Google Scholar
McKay, Penny & Geoff Brindley. 2007. Educational reform and ESL assessment in Australia: New roles and new tensions. Language Assessment Quarterly 4(1). 69–84.10.1080/15434300701348383Search in Google Scholar
McNamara, Tim. 2011. Managing learning: Authority and language assessment. Language Teaching 44(4). 500–515.10.1017/S0261444811000073Search in Google Scholar
McNamara, Tim & Catherine Elder. 2010. Beyond scales. In Anthony J. Liddicoat & Angela Scarino (eds.), Languages in Australian education: Problems, prospects and future directions. 193–201. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Martyniuk, Waldemar & José Noijons. 2007. Executive summary of results of a survey on the use of the CEFR at national level in the Council of Europe member states. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Search in Google Scholar
Mejía, Anne-Marie de. 2012. Academic perspectives from Colombia. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 149–157. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar
Noriyuki, Nishiyama. 2009. L’impact du Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues dans l’Asie du Nord-Est: pour une meilleure contextualisation du CECR. 54 –70.Search in Google Scholar
Normand-Marconnet, Nadine. 2013. Pedagogical challenges of self-assessment in an Islamic context: A case of Iranian learning French students. International Journal of Pedagogies & Learning 7(3). 200–210.10.5172/ijpl.2012.7.3.200Search in Google Scholar
North, Brian. 2014. Putting the Common European Framework of Reference to good use. Language Teaching 47(2). 228–249. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000206.10.1017/S0261444811000206Search in Google Scholar
O’Dwyer, Fergus & Noriko Nagai. 2011. The actual and potential impacts of the CEFR on language education in Japan. Synergies Europe 6. 141–152.Search in Google Scholar
O’Loughlin, Kieran. 2011. The interpretation and use of proficiency test scores in university selection: How valid and ethical are they? Language Assessment Quarterly 8(2). 146–160.10.1080/15434303.2011.564698Search in Google Scholar
Porto, Melina. 2012. Academic perspectives from Argentina. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 192–138. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar
Rong, Fu. 2010. Une contribution à la diffusion en Chine des notions de didactique des langues: le cas de l’expérience de traduction du Cadre européen commun de référence du français en chinois. Synergies Chine 5. 171–177.Search in Google Scholar
Scarino, Angela. 2012. A rationale for acknowledging the diversity of learner achievements in learning particular languages in school education in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 35(3). 231–250.10.1075/aral.35.3.01scaSearch in Google Scholar
Sugitani, Masako & Yuichi Tomita. 2012. Perspectives from Japan. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 198–211. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar
Suzuki, Elli & Yumiko Togashi. 2013. Le «JF Standard», copie conforme du CECRL?. In Joël Bellassen, Héba Medhat-Lecocq & Louise Ouvrard (eds.), Ecritures, politiques linguistiques et didactique des langues, 77–91. Paris: Editions des Archives Contemporaines.Search in Google Scholar
Trim, John L. M. 2012. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and its background: A case study of cultural politics and educational influences. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 4–34. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar
Üstünlüoğlu, Evrim, Kısmet Funda Akgül Zazaoğlu, Michelle N. Keskin, Beril Sarayköylü & Gülfem Akdoğan. 2012. Developing a CEF based curriculum: A case study. International Journal of Instruction 5(1). 115–128.Search in Google Scholar
Vandergrift, Larry. 2006. Nouvelles perspectives canadiennes. Proposition d’un cadre commun de référence pour les langues pour le Canada. Ottawa: Patrimoine Canadien.Search in Google Scholar
Weir, Cyril J. 2005. Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparable examinations and tests. Language Testing 22(3). 281–300.10.1191/0265532205lt309oaSearch in Google Scholar
Wernicke, Meike & Monique Bournot-Trites. 2012. Introducing the CEFR in BC: Questions and challenges. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée 14(2). 106–128.Search in Google Scholar
Wu, Jessica. 2012. Policy perspectives from Taiwan. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 213–223. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar
Wu, Jessica R. W. & Rachel Y. F. Wu. 2007. Using the CEFR in Taiwan: The perspective of a local examination board. The Language Training and Testing Center Annual Report 56. Taipei: National Taiwan University.Search in Google Scholar
Appendix: Questionnaire for students and staff
1. Are you a/an: undergraduate student / honours student / postgraduate student / sessional academic staff / permanent academic staff
2. Have you visited the new Monash website on “CEFR in Australia, an international language framework”?
Yes/No
3. Do you know what the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages is?
Yes/No
4. Do you know what the Common Reference Levels are?
Yes/No
5. If so, how have you heard about it?
In class, during previous language studies
Through material used in language classes
Through scientific literature
By visiting the Monash website
Other (please specify)
6. Do you think that the adaptation of CEFR to language programs in your institution could be helpful?
Absolutely
Somewhat
Not really
Not at all
Don’t know
7. You think that the use of Common Reference Levels will give you:
(Please grade following proposal as follows: 1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = no opinion; 4 = disagree; 5 = strongly disagree)
Academic benefits / Professional benefits / No benefits
8. You think that the adaptation of CEFR to language programs in your institution is/could be helpful because …
(Please grade following proposal as follows: 1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = no opinion; 4 = disagree; 5 = strongly disagree)
The CEFR is now implemented not only in Europe but all around the world
The “can do” descriptors are easy to use to map language levels
It evaluates outcomes against an international standard
It promotes better curriculum design across languages
It provides ways to align assessment with proficiency level
8.a Are there other benefits that are not listed above? (Please specify)
9. You think that the adaptation of CEFR to language programs in your institution is/could be not helpful because …
(Please grade following proposal as follows: 1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = no opinion; 4 = disagree; 5 = strongly disagree)
The CEFR and its 6 Reference Levels are not well known in Australia
This framework is not adapted to the Australian context
The use of this framework is too complicated
The 6 Reference Levels do not give a clear picture of language proficiency
Standardisation and harmonisation mean less flexibility and less diversity in language programs
9. a Are there other negative aspects that are not listed above? (Please specify)
10. Do you think that your institution should promote the use of CEFR and Reference Levels?
Absolutely / Somewhat / Not really / Not at all / Don’t know
11. Do you think that your institution should provide training sessions to better understand the use of the CEFR and Common Reference Levels?
Absolutely / Somewhat / Not really / Not at all / Don’t know
12. Any other comments:
©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton
