Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching (JLLT)

Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching

Volume 9 (2018) Issue 1
pp. 11-33

Aims and effects of the language policy of the Council of Europe - 

Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Inez De Florio-Hansen (Kassel, Germany)

Abstract (English)

In the first section, ot the present article, the overall language policy aims of the CoE and its organizations are briefly presented. In the following, the benefits and limits of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and its preceding documents are explained, taking the CEFR what it is conceived for and not expecting unjustified results from a policy paper. Afterwards, an essential shortcoming of the CEFR and its follow-up documents is exemplified: the difficulty of implementing scales and proficiency levels in the foreign language classroom. The third section is dedicated to the Companion Volume (2017) which presents additional descriptors but only partly covers the objectives of Intercultural Discourse Competence. Subsequently, it is shown that the specifications of the notions of plurilingualism and pluriculturalism still do not meet the more ambitious goals of multilingual and intercultural approaches to foreign language pedagogy. The last section is dedicated to the European Language Portfolio, describing its main intention to promote learner self-assessment. Finally the question of how teachers can prepare and train their students to make a meaningful use of the European Language Portfolio (ELP) and similar portfolios is explained. 

Keywords: Language policies of the CoE, CEFR and Companion Volume with New Descriptors, benefits and shortcomings, plurilingualism and pluriculturalism, European Language Portfolio

Abstract (Deutsch)

Im ersten Abschnitt werden kurz die vorrangigen Ziele der Sprachenpolitik des Europarats und der angeschlossenen Organisationen umrissen. Anschließend geht es um die Vorzüge und Grenzen des Gemeinsamen europäischen Referenzrahmens (GeR) und der Vorläufer-Dokumente. Besondere Betonung liegt darauf, den Referenzrahmen seiner Bestimmung gemäß zu betrachten und von einer sprachenpolitischen Empfehlung keine ungerechtfertigten Ergebnisse zu erwarten. Im Anschluss daran wird ein wesentlichen Defizit des GeR und seiner Nachfolgepapiere dargestellt, nämlich die schwierige Implementierung der Skalen und Niveaus in der Unterrichtspraxis. Danach erfolgt eine nähere Beschäftigung mit dem Companion Volume (2017), welches zusätzliche Deskriptoren auflistet, die nur zum Teil das Ziel der Interkulturellen Diskurskompetenz abdecken. Daraufhin wird gezeigt, dass die Spezifizierungen des propagierten Plurilingualismus und Plurikulturalismus von den ambitionierten Zielen fremdsprachlicher Bildung noch weit entfernt sind. Der letzte Abschnitt ist dem Europäischen Portfolio der Sprachen gewidmet, dessen Hauptziel darin besteht, die Selbstevaluation der Nutzer zu unterstützen. Schließlich wird die Frage, wie Lehrpersonen ihre Schüler darauf vorbereiten und darin schulen können, das ELP (European Language Portfolio) und ähnliche Portfolios sinnvoll zu nutzen, ausführlich erläutert. 

Schlüsselwörter: Sprachenpolitik des Europarats; GeR und Companion Volume with New Descriptors, Nutzen und Mängel; Plurilingualismus und Plurikulturalismus; Europäisches Portfolio der Sprachen     

1   Main Aims of the Language Policy Division of the Council of Europe (CoE)

The Council of Europe (CoE) is an international organization whose overall aims are to uphold human rights and democracy as well as to promote culture. The organization, which presently counts 47 member states, was founded in 1949. It is completely independent from the European Union even though it is often confused with its institutions, e.g. with the European Council or the Council of the European Union. The CoE has its headquarters in Strasburg; its two official languages are English and French.

An important institution of the CoE is the Language Policy Division, which focuses on the development of language policies and coordinates European language policy, promoting dialogue among decision makers. The Language Policy Division cooperates with another important institution of the CoE, the European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML), based in Graz (Austria). The ECML is responsible for the implementation of the European language policy (De Florio-Hansen 2018: pp. 99).

The most important projects of the Language Policy Division comprise the Threshold Level and, above all, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) (Council of Europe 2001). This highly influential document was followed by a series of papers destined to clarify and deepen relevant issues of the CEFR. Among the best known are the manual entitled Relating Language Examinations to the CEFR, published in 2009 (after the pre-version of 2005), and the guide Using the CEFR: Principles of Good Practice (2011), which offers more detailed advice than the short Notes for the User published within the CEFR (Council of Europe 2001: XII).Late in 2017, the CoE released a provisional edition of a document entitled CEFR: Companion Volume with New Descriptors, which comprises more than 200 pages. Even though some scholars, administrators and practitioners call it the “new CEFR”, we will see that new descriptors are mostly additional descriptors (see below). Instead of a necessary - or at least recommendable - revision of the CEFR, most additions and specifications proposed by the experts of the Companion Volume closely follow the goals, the approach and the communication categories published in the 2011 document.

On the basis of the CEFR, the ECML has edited and widely implemented the European Language Portfolio, whose different versions exist in all important European languages (Dobson ²2017; De Florio-Hansen 2018: 99)

Both the Language Policy Division and the ECML are engaged in promoting linguistic diversity on the basis of European cultures. Their aim is to foster the multilingual and multicultural identity of individuals in Europe and all over the world. In the CoE’s documents, a distinction is made between multilingualism and plurilingualism (e.g. Sheils 2001, Companion Volume 2017: passim). The term multilingualism mostly refers to countries with more than one official language such as Belgium or Switzerland. The term plurilingualism underscores the necessity of making connections between the languages an individual speaks in order to promote language learning and communication. The terms plurilingualism and pluriculturalism may serve as reminders of the intentions of the CoE to consciously interconnect languages (CoE 2001: 4).

2   From the Threshold Level to the CEFR

2.1 Possibilities and Limits of the CEFR

Since the 1970s, different groups of CoE experts, among whom one of the best-known is Brian North, worked in various projects on the compilation of scales and levels for (foreign) language learning and use (cf. the overview of the projects by Schneider & North 2000). As early as in 1975, the Language Policy Division published the so-called Threshold Level (Niveau Seuil) in English and French (van Ek 1975, 1977).

This influential document indicates explicit learning objectives for communication in specific languages, i.e. what users of a specific language are most likely to wish or need to be able to do in the communicative situations in which they take part, and consequently what they have to know and the skills they have to develop to be able to communicate effectively in those situations. (van Ek & Trim 2001)

The dissemination and the success of the Threshold Level were sustained by an important coincidence: the decisive shift to Communicative Language Teaching in most Western countries. These developments caused further specifications explained by Joseph Sheils, the former head of the Language Policy Division:

The “Threshold Level” is the central element that aims to identify the minimal linguistic means that are necessary for a learner to deal independently with the more predictable transactional and interactional situations of daily life as a visitor or temporary resident. A more elementary objective known as “Waystage” has been developed to deal with the most urgent survival requirements. More recently “Vantage Level” has been produced as an objective for learners who have reached “Threshold Level” in their chosen language and wish to go further. This may mean not so much doing completely new things as needing to do them in a more adequate way, for example, with a greater range of vocabulary, more fluency and more accuracy to deal with the complexities of daily life. (Sheils 2001)

The three above-mentioned levels Threshold, Waystage and Vantage form the basis of the proficiency scales of the CEFR, first published in 1996 under the denomination Common European Framework for Language Teaching and Learning.

As the CEFR is a widely known and well-described document, it may suffice to recall its main features:

The CEFR follows an action-oriented approach giving tasks an eminent role in language teaching and learning.

• Language users develop a range of competences, e.g. general competences as well as communicative language competences.
• Communicative language competences focus on the interplay between linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences broadly referring to the well-known notions of communicative competence.
• Language activities take place in different domains which refer to broad sectors of social life, limiting these to educational, occupational, public and personal domains.
• In order to carry out a task chosen by an individual, the line of action is called strategy (CEFR 2001: 10 for further details).
• The CEFR distinguishes three dimensions - basic user, independent user and proficient user - that recall the conventional distinction between beginners, intermediate and advanced learners. Each of these dimensions is divided into two levels:

Basic user:

A 1: Breakthrough: Can communicate in basic English with help from the listener;

A 2: Waystage: Can communicate in English within a limited range of contexts;

Independent user:

B 1: Threshold: Can communicate essential points and ideas in familiar contexts;

B 2: Vantage: Can use English effectively, with some fluency, in a range of contexts;

Proficient user:

C 1: Effective Operational Proficiency: Able to use English fluently and flexibly in a wide range of contexts;

C 2: Mastery: Highly proficient – can use English very fluently, precisely and sensitively in most contexts.

As these levels are not equidistant and the duration of the learning processes depends on the learner's native language – e.g. Germans learn English within a shorter period of time than French –, additional levels have been created: A 2+, B 1+, B 2+.

The CEFR levels represent a compilation derived from prior scales backed up by research and, above all, the judgements of several thousand teachers of different foreign languages coming from different types of institutions, with public schools being only one of these types. Besides the above mentioned description by Schneider & North (2000), the basis of the CEFR scales and their descriptors is the PhD thesis of Brian North, first published in 1996 (North 2000; also Trim ²2017a: 130; ²2017b).

In general, the CEFR is overestimat in that it is not taken for what it wants (or wanted) to be. In the document, there are multiple indications that the CEFR is not prescriptive, but conceived as a basis for reflection and discussion (e.g. CoE 2001: XII; Trim ²2017: 12).

Nevertheless, there is widespread criticism (e.g. Harsch 2007) which, to my view, is mostly unjustified. By no means have the authors of the CEFR claimed for an evidence-based approach or a meta-analysis. How can we expect from a policy paper, compiled to promote dialogue between language professionals of at least 47 countries, to take experimental research into account? By what means would it be possible to give more than a comprehensive (not a complete) view of language proficiency levels in the most relevant domains? Could a document that aims at comparing foreign language achievement in a wide range of institutions really operate without cut-off points (Vogt ²2017).

Apart from the criticism of the scales, the levels and the formulation of the descriptors (Quetz 2010a, 2010b), others negatively rate the fact that the CEFR does not offer a complete introduction to foreign language teaching methodology. It is not possible to give detailed and complete information with regards to the different educational systems and the different learning contexts in schools and adult courses (CoE 2001: 10).

In this context, a publication edited by Michael Byram and Lynne Parmenter (2012) offers useful insights. It compares the impact of the CEFR in 11 different countries in Europe, the Americas and Asia, seen by a policy maker and an academic from each of the respective countries. In their publication, the editors underline the possibility of comparative education perspectives enabled through globalization processes.

In order to help providers of examinations relate tests to the CEFR descriptors, the Language Policy Division released a document of approximately 200 pages in 2009 entitled Relating Language Examinations to the CEFR. The manual aims to:

• contribute to competence building in the area of linking assessments to the CEFR;
• encourage increased transparency on the part of examination providers;
• encourage the development of both formal and informal national and international networks of institutions and experts
• This information is accompanied by the following reminder:

It is not the role of the Council of Europe to verify and validate the quality of the link between language examinations and the CEFR’s proficiency levels; rather than vis-à-vis the Council of Europe, it is towards one’s own learners and one’s European partners that one has a responsibility for making coherent, realistic use of the CEFR. (https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/relating-examinationonss-to-the-cefr; 20-01-2018)

This manual does not provide the necessary clarifications, at least not for teachers and learners. This is also true for the users’ guide of about 30 pages (+ appendices), published by Cambridge University Press in 2011.

Despite certain shortcomings (Morrow 2004), the CEFR is a valuable and indispensable instrument for education practitioners. In some way, it has put an end to the differing perspectives and goals expressed in the curricula and syllabuses used in different countries. Taken for what it is conceived for, i.e. a framework of reference and not a prescriptive list of can-do tasks, The CEFR helps promote worldwide discussion and gives orientation to experts, administrators and practicing teachers.

2.2 Important Issues for Teachers

Even though the CEFR continuously underlines the usefulness of the approach, the scales and the reference levels for teachers and learners, it is quite difficult for them to apply the details of the document into classroom practice.

Most teachers and some learners have had a look at the Global Scale of the reference levels:

Such a simple ‘global’ representation will make it easier to communicate the system to non-specialist users and will also provide teachers and curriculum planners with orientation points. (CoE 2001: 24).  

Another well-known scale is the Self-Assessment Grid destined to learners (CoE 2001: pp. 26), but it is not useable without the help of teachers.

For teachers, it is not easy to consult the scales and proficiency levels deployed in Chapter 4 and 5. Therefore, Cambridge University Press, the editor of the English versions of the CoE’s documents, has published the following overview of the 54 different scales available in the CEFR in its Introductory Guide to the CEFR for English Language Teachers (Cambridge 2013: pp. 6). This list does not only allow a more purposeful consultation, it also facilitates a comparison with the “new” descriptors of the Companion Volume (Section 3):

 Communicative Activities

1. Overall Listening Comprehension

2. Understanding Interaction between Native Speakers

3. Listening as a member of a Live Audience

4. Listening to Announcements & Instructions

5. Listening to Radio & Audio Recordings

6. Audio/Visual Watching TV & Film

    7. Overall Reading Comprehension

8. Reading Correspondence

           9. Reading for Orientation

         10. Reading for Information and Argument

         11. Reading Instructions

     12. Overall Spoken Interaction

        13. Understanding a Native Speaker Interlocutor

        14. Conversation

        15. Informal Discussion

        16. Formal Discussion (Meetings)

        17. Goal-oriented Co-operation

        18. Obtaining Goods and Services

        19. Information Exchange

        20. Interviewing & Being Interviewed

     21. Overall Written Interaction

        22. Correspondence

        23. Notes, Messages & Forms

     24. Overall Spoken Production

        25. Sustained Monologue: Describing Experience

        26. Sustained Monologue: Putting a Case (e.g. Debate)

        27. Public Announcements

        28. Addressing Audiences

     29. Overall Written Production

        30. Creative Writing

        31. Writing Reports and Essays

 Communication Strategies

        32. Identifying Cues and Inferring

        33. Taking the Floor (Turntaking)

        34. Co-operating

        35. Asking for Clarification

        36. Planning

        37. Compensating

        38. Monitoring and Repair

 Working with Text

        39. Notetaking in Seminars and Lectures

        40. Processing Text

  Communicative Language Competence

        41. General Linguistic Range

        42. Vocabulary Range

        43. Grammatical Accuracy

        44. Vocabulary Control

        45. Phonological Control

        46. Orthographic Control

        47. Sociolinguistic

        48. Sociolinguistic

        49. Flexibility

        50. Taking the Floor (Turntaking) – repeated

        51. Thematic Development

        52. Coherence

        53. Propositional Precision

        54. Spoken Fluency

The following concrete example taken from practice illustrates the difficulties of teachers to benefit from the CEFR. In an online article published by The Guardian, Davidson & Fulcher (2006) sustain that Flexibility is a proof of a good ‘Framework’. With their practice-oriented example entitled How to bend the rules of test writing with Europe’s guide to language ability, they underline the fact that the CEFR does not only offer guidance to agencies and governments interested in language teaching and testing:

It can also provide help to language teachers who prepare tests and exams regularly, whether as a formal check assessment for progress, as an informal quiz, or even as part of a lesson plan. (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2006/nov/17/tefl.glennfulcher; 20-01-2018)

The basis for their reflections is an excerpt from Section 7.2.2 of the CEFR which indicates how to conceive the design of a task for reading and listening comprehension:

Comprehension tasks may be designed so that the same input may be available to all learners but different outcomes may be envisaged quantitatively (amount of information required) or qualitatively (standard of performance expected). Alternatively, the input text may contain different amounts of information or degrees of cognitive and/or organizational complexity, or different amounts of support (visuals, key words, prompts, charts, diagrams, etc.) may be made available to help learners. Input may be chosen for its relevance to the learner (motivation) or for reasons extrinsic to the learner. A text may be listened to or read as often as necessary or limits may be imposed. The type of response required can be quite simple (raise your hand) or demanding (create a new text). In the case of interaction and production tasks, performance conditions can be manipulated in order to make a task more or less demanding … (CoE 2001: 159)

Without clarifying what is meant by “language teachers who prepare tests and exams regularly”, Davidson & Fulcher continue:

Suppose a teacher is working on listening comprehension. Having consulted this paragraph and designed a listening test, naturally she asks: How do I know if I’ve got it right?” (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2006/nov/17/tefl.glennfulcher; 20-01-2018

The teacher is supposed to write details in her background notes without any further help provided by the CEFR. These notes form part of a test specification or “spec” that “is a blueprint from which actual test tasks can be created” (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2006/nov/17/tefl.glennfulcher; 20-01-2018). However, many (especially school) teachers do not have the time to create a spec and different samples of a test in order to find out which of the alternatives works best.

In my opinion, Davidson & Fulcher do not give a satisfactory answer to their above-stated question when saying:

The CEFR is not a bank of specifications. It is a high-level set of claims about language ability from which tests and teaching activities can be created. Between the CEFR and actual implementation should sit specs in which its user sets forth crucial decisions as permitted by the CEFR.                                                                                                    (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2006/nov/17/tefl.glennfulcher; 20-01-2018)

When it comes to proficiency levels, teachers generally trust in their textbooks which in most cases display them explicitly, e.g. A2 or B1. Who can expect them, especially of school teachers, to compare the levels and the descriptors indicated in the textbooks with the respective proficiency levels of the CEFR? In this context, the answer of the Cambridge Introductory Guide is realistic:

How do I know whether a course-book is properly aligned to the CEFR?

It is not easy for those involved with teaching to judge whether a publication or an exam is properly aligned to the CEFR. There is no validation body to check that such claims are well-founded. Teachers don’t have the time to check claims themselves and so it can be a confusing situation. Our one comment on this is that aligning materials or tests to the CEFR requires a lot of work and research capability to do in any reliable form, and if CEFR alignment is important to you, you should ask about the level of research undertaken by the publisher or test developer. (Cambridge 2013: 10)

3   From the CEFR to the Companion Volume with New Descriptors

3.1 Possibilities and Limits

A provisional edition of the CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors was released in September 2017. In their online announcement, North & Piccardo briefly (2017) explain the purpose and the main features of the new document. They see it as another important step in a process pursued by the CoE since 1971. Furthermore, they stress that the Companion Volume owes a lot to language teachers across Europe and beyond.

North & Piccardo see the Companion Volume as the CoE’s response to requests made by professional language teachers who asked for the original scales to be complemented with additional descriptors based on the goals and main principles of the CEFR.

The Companion Volume thus contains:

• a text explaining key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning;
• updated versions of the 2001 scales (gaps filled; better description of A 1 and C-levels, new analytic scale for phonology);
• descriptors for new areas: mediation (including reactions to creative text/literature), online interaction, and plurilingual/pluricultural competence;
• examples of the mediation descriptors for the four domains public, personal, occupational, educational;
• a brief rationale for each descriptors scales [sic] (old as well as new);
• a brief account of the development project.

(www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages; 20-01-2018)

Scholars, teachers and other education practitioners can easily deduce from this bulleted list that the main proficiency levels from A1 to B2 have remained unchanged. Major alterations of these scales would have caused huge consequences for examination providers which the CoE is indebted to (Appendices CoE 2001: pp. 205) and above all for textbook publishers. Moreover, the intentions of the CoE - and especially those of the Language Policy Division - would have been questioned.

A closer look at the changes or, rather, the additions made shows that the new descriptors are limited to mediation, interaction, and plurlingualism / pluriculturalism (bullet point three in the above list). After an introduction (CoE 2017: pp. 23), an explanation of the key aspects of the CEFR (CoE 2017: pp. 25) and its illustrative descriptor scales (CoE 2017: pp. 45), the experts of the Companion Volume summarize the changes resulting from their project (CoE 2017: pp. 50). They explain the reasons why they did not make substantial changes to the descriptors from A1 to C1 by stating:

Very few changes are proposed to other descriptors [beside C 2]. It was decided not to ‘update’ descriptors merely because of changes in technology (e.g. references to postcards or public telephones). The scale for Phonological control has been replaced (see below). Changes are also proposed to certain descriptors that refer to linguistic accommodation (or not) by ‘native speakers’, because this term has become controversial since the CEFR was published. (CoE 2017: 50)

Yet, the Companion Volume with its explanations (CoE 2017: 25) and the additional descriptors represents a useful complement to the CEFR. They clarify the aims of the 2001 document and help better understand the compilation processes that have led to the different proficiency scales.

3.2 Important Issues for Teachers

In general, it can be stated that one of the shortcomings of the CEFR has not been amended by the experts of the Companion Volume. They do not take into account that school teachers in many European countries teach a foreign language that is not their mother tongue. The possibilities of these non-native teachers to implement crucial issues of the two CoE documents in their classrooms, without necessary changes in teacher education being made, are rather limited: most school teachers will continuously depend on the expertise of textbook publishers when it comes to additional specifications regarding mediation, literature, and online communication.

The objectives of plurilingualism and pluriculturalism propagated by the CoE need to be revisited and specified. Even though in a multilingual and multicultural Europe with its multiple languages and cultures of different statuses, the concept of ‘plurilingualism’ should be imperative, the CEFR had contributed to its marginalization.

Plurilingualism is “the capacity of individuals to speak, read and write two or more languages or language varieties to differing degrees and for changing purposes throughout their lives” (Hu ²2017: 535). Plurilingualism and pluriculturalism are closely related to intercultural competence, “the ability to move and mediate among people of different languages and cultures” (Coste et al. 2009). This multifaceted competence includes all languages an individual masters. The individual, thus, is seen as a social agent in a multilingual society.

In its introduction to the political and educational context of the framework, the CEFR only briefly explains what plurilingualism is:

… the plurilingual approach emphasizes the fact that as an individual person’s experience of language in its cultural contexts expands, from the language of the home to that of society at large and then to the languages of other peoples (whether learnt at school or college, or by direct experience) he or she does not keep these languages and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact. (CoE 2001: 4)

This explanation might create misunderstandings: no one can keep different languages apart in the brain (Sousa 2011). It is impossible to store them “in strictly separated mental compartments”. Even without the language user intending this, the different languages he or she masters will somehow interact. Furthermore, many individuals display awareness of their multilingual repertory when acting in situations that entail communication in several languages. What is probably hinted to by the experts of the CEFR is the task of language teachers and learners to raise learners' awareness to a more conscious level. As will be seen below, this does not only mean to train learners ability for intercultural communication, but to develop their knowledge, skills and, above all, attitudes.

In any case, plurilingualism as defined by the CEFR is only one facet of today’s overall goal of language teaching and learning, i.e. Intercultural Discourse Competence (IDC). Since the 1970s, Communicative Competence has evolved to Intercultural Communicative Competence and further on to intercultural discourse competence. With the Communicative Turn, the main focus was on the use of adequate vocabulary and appropriate grammatical structures as well as on the competent mastery of pragmatic features in different languages. However, the knowledge and skills required revealed to be by far insufficient, as linguistic competencies are nothing but prerequisites of successful communication among interlocutors of different languages and cultures. Meaningful multilingual communication in globalized societies with multifaceted populations including migrants requires much more than that, i.e. adequate multicultural knowledge, skills and attitudes.

Since the 1990s, Intercultural Communicative Competence has come to the fore, seen as the 'third view’, related to a concept of language as symbolic power (Kramsch 2000). In the course of internationalization and globalization, Intercultural Communicative Competence was mostly limited to accept or tacitly reject the views of interlocutors from other cultures without any discussion having taken place between them. This divide caused discomfort and even misunderstandings. The question of how to deal with cultural differences became more detailed (De Florio 2018: pp. 232):

• What is expected from these foreign language interlocutors?
• Why not discuss the differences between the interlocutors in order to enrich meaningful aspects with views of both sides?
• How to deal with cultural differences that remain unacceptable for the interlocutors?
• How to conceptualize cross-cultural dialogue that involves “the recognition of common human needs across cultures and of dissonance and critical dialogue within cultures” (Nussbaum 1998: 82)?

Intercultural Discourse Competence (IDC) above all means to put aside the idea of 'homogeneous' cultures. Real life communication and interaction across languages and cultures is based on effective critical intercultural dialogue, i.e. on IDC. How can the term discourse, however, be defined so that it can be explained by teachers and students in TEFL and other foreign language classrooms? Among the myriad of definitions, the following explications have to be taken into account. Discourse refers at least to:

• conceptual generalizations of conversation,
• social practice as an entity of consequences and signs which form an enouncement or statement in conversation,
• relations between discourses, i.e. the meaning of concepts used in a special field such as medical, juridical or educational discourse,
• a social boundary which statements can be made about a topic.

   (De Florio-Hansen 2018: 237)

In a subsequent paper entitled From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Guide for the development of Language Education Policies in Europe (2007), the experts of CoE do nothing more than deliver a declaration of intent, e.g.:

2.1 What principles for language policies for Europe?

2.1.1 The linguistic principles used in nation-states are not relevant to Europe

2. Only common principles can provide the basis of a language policy for Europe
3. The principles for a language policy in Europe can only be part of the democratic framework

2.1.4 These principles should take into account current social developments
These principles are also connected with the issue of a feeling of belonging to Europe

(CoE 2007: VI)

It is obvious to proclaim “plulingualism as shared goal” (CoE 2007: VI), but without the creation of concrete descriptors, all these statements of intent do not guide foreign language teaching in European schools towards more plurilingual and pluricultural awareness.

This gap is, in a way, filled by the Companion volume:

Pluricultural

The Scale Building on pluricultural repertoire describes the use of pluricultural competences in a communicative situation. Thus, it is skills rather than knowledge or attitudes that are the focus. The scale shows a high degree of coherence with the existing CEFR scale Sociolinguistic appropriateness, although it was developed independently.

Plurilingual

The level of each descriptor in the scale Building on plurilingual repertoire is the functional level of the weaker language in the combination. Users may wish to indicate explicitly which languages are involved.

(Companion Volume 2017: 50)

As mentioned above, a competence that deserves this name is always based on knowledge, skills and attitudes (Weinert 2001: 27). In what way do the new descriptors of the Companion Volume correspond to concepts such as IDC? What do they add? As stated above, the experts make a difference between Building on pluricultural repertoire and Building on plurilingual repertoire, placing pluricultural comprehension between the two main sub-competences.

The following overviews are limited to A 1, A 2 and B 1 which represent the objectives of compulsory education in most European schools.

Building on Pluricultural Repertoire

A 1 Can recognize differing ways of numbering, measuring distance, telling the time, etc. even though he/she may have difficulty applying this in even simple everyday transactions of a concrete type.

A 2 Can recognize and apply basic cultural conventions associated with everyday social exchanges (for example different greeting rituals).

Can act appropriately in everyday greetings, farewells, and expressions of thanks and apology, although he/she has difficulty coping with departure from any routine.

Can recognize that his/her behavior in an everyday transaction may convey a message different to the one he/she intends, and can try to explain this simply.

Can recognize when difficulties occur in interaction with members of other cultures, even though he/she may well not be sure how to behave in the situation.

B 1 Can generally act according to convention regarding posture, eye contact, and distance from others.

Can generally respond appropriately to the most commonly used cultural cues.

Can explain features of his/her own culture to members of another culture or explain features of the other culture to members of his/her own culture.

Can explain in simple terms how his/her own values and behaviors influence his/her views of other’s people’s values and behaviors.

Can discuss in simple terms the way in which things that may look ‘strange’ to him/her in another sociocultural context may well be ‘normal’ for the other people concerned.

Can discuss in simple terms the way his/her own culturally-determined actions may be perceived differently by people from other cultures.

(CoE 2017: 159)

Building on Plurilingual Repertoire

A 1 Can use a very limited repertoire in different languages to conduct a very basic, concrete, everyday transaction with a collaborative interlocutor.

A 2 Can mobilize his/her limited repertoire in different languages in order to explain a problem or to ask for help or clarification.

Can use words or phrases from different languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire to conduct simple, practical transaction or information exchange.

Can use a word from another language in his/her plurilingual repertoire to make him/herself understood in a routine everyday situation, when he/she cannot think of an adequate expression in the language being spoken.

B 1 Can exploit creatively his limited repertoire in different languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire for everyday contexts in order to cope with an unexpected situation.

(CoE 2017: 162)

In this context, publications that explain what is denominated ‘intercomprehension’ are useful for teachers and learners. In the above-mentioned paper From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education (CoE 2007), intercomprehension is defined “as a form of communication in which each person uses his or her own language and understands that of the other” (De Florio-Hansen 2011: 12). A paper published in 2012, in which, independently from the CoE and the Language Policy Division, plurilingual competence is specified in more detail, is of particular interest for educational practitioners who teach a second foreign language besides English and for all those who aim at promoting individual multilingualism and interculturalism.This document elaborated by Michel Candelier is entitled FREPA – A Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures. Competences and Resources. It is accompanied by numerous download activities regarding classroom practice and teacher education.

4   The European Language Portfolio (ELP)

4.1 The Structure of the ELP

In general, educational portfolios such as the European Language Portfolio based on the CEFR invite learners to collect certificates, attestations and good pieces of work to document and inform others about their learning achievements:

Learners can also use a portfolio to describe, reflect on and plan their learning process and to improve their learning strategies. (De Florio-Hansen 2018: 109)

In 2009, the website of the ELP listed 99 validated models of the Portfolio. Unfortunately, the CEFR and the ELP do not cooperate sufficiently, especially when it comes to formative and summative assessment. In a document that summarizes the 8^th International Seminar on the European Language Portfolio in 2009, Little engages in showing the close relationship between

pedagogy and an assessment that is implied by the CEFR’s action oriented (“can do”) approach to the description of language use and L2 proficiency and the ELP’s emphasis on self-assessment. (Little 2009: 2)

Most educational scientists stress the distinction between continuous feedback on learning processes and summative assessment, which states learner achievement at a particular point in time (e.g. Hattie & Timperley 2007). However, most learners are not accustomed to distinguish between these two forms of assessment. The main point of concern is that most teachers do not know how to assess themselves. There is always the danger that they overestimate their proficiency in the target language. Nevertheless, self-assessment is one of the most important benefits the use of portfolios may generate as it promotes reflective language learning (Little 2009: 4).

Up to now, learning and assessment have often been perceived as two separate endeavours, whereas an assessment for learning was propagated by the Assessment Reform Group (ARG) in the UK as early as at the end of the 20^th century. The experts argued that improving learning through assessment depends on five key factors:

• the provision of effective feedback to pupils;
• the active involvement of pupils in their own learning;
• adjusting teaching to take account of the results of assessment;
• a recognition of the profound influence that assessment has on pupils' motivation and self-esteem, both of which are crucial influences on learning;
• the need for pupils to be able to assess themselves and understand how to improve. (ARG 1999: 4-5)

Black and Wiliam (2006) also see self-assessment as a precondition for successful learning as it is:

essential to learning because students can only achieve a learning goal if they understand that goal and can assess what they need to do to reach it. Thus the criteria for evaluating any learning achievements must be made transparent to students to enable them to have a clear overview both of the aims of their work and of what it means to complete it successfully. Insofar as they do so they begin to develop an overview of that work so that they can manage and control it; in other words, they develop their capacity for meta-cognitive thinking. (Black & Wiliam 2006, 15)

For Little (2009: 9), the ELP embodies a special version of portfolio learning, and its pedagogical function is underpinned by the same philosophy as assessment for learning, which assigns a key role to learner self-assessment. Assessment for learning also implies the varieties of – exploratory and interpretative – classroom talk that are fundamental to dialogic pedagogies. Their aim is to bring school knowledge into interaction with learners’ action knowledge, which is indispensable for real world communication.

4.2 How to use the ELP in the classroom

A good option to make use of the ELP is the following PDF file entitled The European Language Portfolio. A Guide for Language Learners (15+) (ELP n.d.). As it contains eight pages, students might easily be distracted or frustrated by the length of the paper as well as by the complexity of the ELP. Yet, it is hard to understand why the ELP portfolio was conceived in such a way that it is difficult for students, especially younger learners, to use. It is evident that the documents of the CoE, the CEFR (2001) and the Companion Volume (2017) as well as the follow-up papers are not formulated in such a way that (at least) intermediate learners can benefit from them without help?

For the use of the ELP, detailed scaffolding is necessary. In order to rest in Vygostky’s Zone of Proximal Development (Vygostky 1978), teachers need to be aware of their individual students' knowledge, skills and attitudes:

Furthermore, they have to anticipate if the majority of the learners are willing to consider working with a portfolio like the ELP. Are the students motivated to enter in the details of this assessment document? It would be counterproductive to exert pressure. Moreover, the students might lose any interest in assessing their proficiency if they get the impression that the portfolio will be a further source for testing and grading. It must be clear that learners do by no means have to show their portfolio entries to the teacher if they do not want to. (De Florio-Hansen 2018: pp. 109)

As an introduction, the teacher may start with general issues about self-assessment and its benefits for any individual learner. An important task of the teacher consists in helping students to realistically perceive their level in English and other foreign languages. As describe above, many students overestimate their knowledge and skills, whereas others are pessimistic when it comes to evaluate their achievement. In this context, students have to learn that self-assessment is the first step towards self-improvement as it allows setting realistic objectives. It is up to the teacher to decide if students are open to consider self-evaluation, using a complex instrument like the ELP.

If learners are ready to make use of the ELP, a motivated, competent one may briefly summarize the answers to these two questions: What is the European Language Portfolio (ELP)? and What are the main goals of the ELP?. In the following classroom discourse, the proficiency levels should be explained in order to help students decide in which box to place the descriptions on the bottom of page 2 of the ELP.

The following pages 3 to 7 of the ELP have to be studied by students with the aid of more knowledgeable peers and the withitness of the teacher.

First, the teacher or a student presents the three components of the ELP:

1. Language Biography

2. European Language Passport

3. Dossier

What follows is a description of how to use the three components of the ELP:

Language Biography

Diary: personal history of the owner’s language learning experience and progress.

It includes:

→ information on linguistic and cultural experiences in and outside the classroom;

→ self-assessment checklists

European Language Passport

→ provides an overview of the language competences at a given moment, defined

in terms of skills and the common reference levels;

→ it includes a self-evaluation grid, and

→ records formal qualifications and certification

Dossier

A selection of materials to document and illustrate achievements, such as:

→ personal work of the learner (e.g. Projects, written work, audio cassettes,

videos, computer programmes etc.)

→ certificates. The learners may change the contents as their skills and

knowledge develop.

       (ELP n.d.: 3)

After having been iinformed about the ELP and its main parts, students discuss the aims and the use of the Language Biography on the basis of the following questions: What is the Language Biography? How do I use it to assess my language level and my objectives?

In order to evaluate their respective language level, students make use of the Grid for Self-Assessment, incorporated in the Language Passport (p. 5 of the ELP). This grid shows and describes five skills from A1 to C2: Understanding: listening, reading; Speaking: spoken interaction, spoken production and Writing, e.g.:

Reading

A1 I can understand familiar names, words and very simple sentences, for example on notices, posters or in catalogues.

A2 I can read very short, simple texts.

I can find specific, predictable information in simple everyday material such as advertisements, prospectuses, menus and timetables and I can understand short simple personal letters.

B1 I can understand texts that consist mainly of high frequency every-day or job-related language.

I can understand the description of events, feelings and wishes in personal letters.

B2 I can read articles and reports concerned with contemporary problems in which the writers adopt particular attitudes and viewpoints.

C1 I can understand long and complex factual and literary texts, appreciating distinctions of style. I can understand specialized articles and longer technical instructions, even when they do not relate to my field.

C2 I can read with ease virtually all forms of the written language, including abstracts, structurally or linguistically complex texts such as manuals, specialized articles and literary works

(ELP n.d.: 6)

The question arises if these descriptors, which are taken from the CEFR, still conform to those for Overall Reading Comprehension of the Companion Volume In the section Written Reception, these descriptors are formulated in a more research-oriented way, but there is no fundamental difference between the two documents (CoE 2017: 60).

An important detail that inspires the whole ELP is the self-relating character of the documentation: it is not the teacher but the student who decides what is best for him or her. Step Three in the section of how to use the Language Biography specifies:

Read the statements [the single I can-do descriptions; IFH] carefully one by one and identify if this is something you really want to be able do, if it is important for you” (ELP n.d.: 4).

In Page 4, entitled How do I use the European Language Passport?, the above statement is somehow relativised. Furthermore, it deals with the aforementioned problem of over- or underestimating the learner's personal language level and ends in an interesting recommendation:

Reflect for a few minutes on how objective/subjective you are when it comes to evaluating your own activity, results, ability to complete certain tasks, etc. Remember that the Language Passport is yours in the first place, that you have to be true to yourself and as objective as possible in assessing your own language level, although this document is also meant to be shown to other people who may decide on whether you can obtain a scholarship or a job abroad. (ELP n.d.: 5)

The statement that the users of the ELP often have different levels in different skills points in the same direction. These differences are often times due to their future plans that may make them insist more on some skills than on others.

On the last introductory page, the documents that a student's dossier might contain are listed:

The contents of your Dossier could be any of the following:

• examples of good written language work
• audio / video recordings
• descriptions and results of project work
• documents, diplomas and certificates
• course descriptions
• reflections on language learning progress reports from tutor or teachers
• statement from others about your language skills
• things you’d like to keep and show others.

(ELP n.d.: 7)

There is some evidence that the CEFR (2001) and the Companion Volume with New Descriptors (2017) are mostly conceived for decision makers and examination providers, but not for practicing teachers and their learners in foreign language classrooms. We may admit that it would have been difficult to provide documents that cover the interests of all people involved. The fact that many learners are not able to use the ELP without the help of teachers or more knowledgeable peers is not really fruitful for plurilingualism and pluriculturalism.

5   Conclusions

In the context of the projects published by the Language Policy Division of the CoE, taking the CEFR and the related documents as an introduction to foreign language teaching and learning is one of the greatest misunderstandings. Their content, especially the specification of the different proficiency levels from A1 to C2, cannot be directly implemented in foreign language classrooms. What the CEFR and the following documents are not, has often been explained by the CoE itself as in the following statement:

It is not the role of the Council of Europe to verify and validate the quality of the link between language examinations and the CEFR’s proficiency levels: rather than vis-à-vis the Council of Europe, it is towards one’s own learners and one’s European partners that one has the responsibility for making coherent, realistic use of the CEFR.

(https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-referencelanguages/

relating-examinations-to-the-cefr; 02-06-2018)

It should be clear that the CEFR and the related documents of the CoE do not set out to tell practitioners what to do and how to do it. They do not provide ready-made answers, but are intended to raise questions. The CoE language related documents do not list the objectives that teachers should pursue nor do they indicate the methods to employ.

Despite some justified criticism concerning the lack of concrete advice provided in these documents, the CEFR (CoE 2001) and the Companion Volume with New Descriptors (2017) are useful instruments of assessment of foreign language learning at different levels in differing domains. In a comprehensive way, these documents describe what linguistic materials learners need to learn in order to effectively use a given foreign language for communication and which knowledge and skills they need to develop in order to act successfully. These descriptions also cover the cultural contexts in which the respective languages are set.

Moreover, the publications of the Language Policy Division provide a common basis for the elaboration of curricula, syllabuses, textbooks, examinations, and teacher training programs across Europe so that the partners involved can reflect on their procedures and coordinate their efforts in order to provide better outcomes for learners. In this sense, these documents offer the chance to equate examinations and qualifications in the European context and beyond (De Florio-Hansen 2018: 102).

Overall, the CEFR and the ELP are two highly useful documents for teachers and learners of foreign languages, especially when the Framework and the Portfolio as well as related publications are considered as complementary to each other (De Florio-Hansen 2018: 115). In the German context, the CEFR has put an end to the divergent perspectives and goals expressed in the curricula and syllabuses of the sixteen federal states. Furthermore, it allows for a consistent comparison of foreign language teaching practiced in other European countries and all over the world (De Florio-Hansen 2018: 108). No one can deny that the documents of the Language Policy Division have a great impact on the teaching and learning of foreign languages:

Directly or indirectly they are present in most TEFL classrooms as teaching materials are conceived in order to correspond to the proficiency levels of the CEFR and partly to those of the Companion Volume with New Descriptors. There is no textbook that does not display on its cover the respective level (mostly from A1 to B2) even though the specifications remain quite vague. All evaluations and examinations fixed in the curricula and syllabuses of different regions and countries refer to the proficiency levels of the CEFR. (De Florio-Hansen 2018: 115)

     References

ARG (Assessment Reform Group) (1999). Assessment for Learning – Beyond the Black Box. Faculty of Education University of Cambridge. Cambridge: ARG (http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/assessment-reform-group; 20-06-2018).

Black, Paul & Dylan William (1998, 2006). Assessment and Classroom Learning. In: Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, Practice 5 / 1, 7-74 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 ; 20-01-2018).

Byram, Michael & Lynne Parmenter (eds.) (2012). The Common European Framework of Reference. The Globalisation of Language Education Policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, Michael & Adelheid Hu (eds.) (²2017). Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge.

Cambridge University Press (2013). Introductory Guide to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Candelier, Michel (ed.) (2012). FREPA – A Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures. Competences and Resources. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages (http://carap.ecml.at; 20-01-2018)

Coste, Daniel / Danièle Moore & Geneviève Zarate (2009). Plurilingual and Pluricultural Competence. Strasbourg: CoE.

Council of Europe (1996). Common European Framework for Language Teaching and Learning. Strasbourg: CoE.

Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Council of Europe (2007). From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Guide for the development of Language Education Policies in Europe. Strasbourg: CoE.

Council of Europe (2009). Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. A Manual. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division.

Council of Europe (2011). Using the CEFR: Principles of Good Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Council of Europe (2017). CEFR: Companion Volume with New Descriptors. Provisional Edition. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Council of Europe (n.d.). European Language Portfolio. (https://www.coe.int/en/web/portfolio; 20-01-2018).

Davidson, Fred & Glenn Fulcher (2006). Flexibility is a proof of a good ‘Framework’. How to bend the rules of test writing with Europe’s guide to language ability. (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2006/nov/17/tefl.glennfulcher; last accessed Jan. 2018)

De Florio-Hansen, Inez (2008). Das Europäische Portfolio der Sprachen im Rahmen der Portfolio Pädagogik – eine Einführung. In: französisch heute 39.1/2, 4-12.

De Florio-Hansen, Inez & Tobias Altmann (2008). Mit dem Europäischen Portfolio der Sprachen arbeiten – chacun à son goût? In: französisch heute 39.1/2, 34-51.

De Florio-Hansen, Inez (ed.) (2011). Towards Multilingualism and the Inclusion of Cultural Diversity. Kassel: kassel university press.

De Florio-Hansen, Inez (2018). Teaching and Learning English in the Digital Age. Münster & New York: Waxman (UTB).

Dobson, Alan (²2017). European Language Portfolio. In: Byram, Michael & Adelheid Hu (eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge, 232-233.

ELP (n.d.). The European Language Portfolio. A Guide for Language Learners (15+). (http://www.prosper.ro/EuroIntegrELP/materiale%20pentru%20site%20EuroIntegrELP_12%20sept/Materials/for%20students/EN_ELP%20Guide%20for%20learners.pdf; 20-01-2018).

Europarat (2001). Gemeinsamer europäischer Referenzrahmen für Sprachen: Lernen, lehren, beurteilen. Berlin et al.: Langenscheidt.

Hallet, Wolfgang & Frank, G. Königs (Hrsg.) (²2010). Handbuch Fremdsprachendidaktik. Seelze-Velber: Klett Kallmeyer.

Harsch, Claudia. 2007. Der gemeinsame europäische Referenzrahmen für Sprachen: Leistung und Grenzen. Saarbrücken: Akademischer Verlag.

Hattie, John & Helen Timperley (2007). The Power of feedback. In: Review of Educational Research 77/1, 81-112.

Hu, Adelheid (²2017). Plurilingualism. In: Byram, Michael & Adelheid Hu (eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge, 535-538.

Kramsch, Claire (2000). Second Language Acquisition, Applied Linguistics, and the Teaching of Foreign Languages. In: The Modern Language Journal 84/3, 311-326.

Little, David (2009). The European Language Portfolio: where pedagogy and assessment meet. 8^th International Seminar on the European Language Portfolio, Graz, Document 4 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265112928_The_European_Language_Portfolio_where_pedagogy_and_assessment_meet; 20-01-2018).

Meißner, Franz-Joseph (2011). Teaching and learning intercomprehension: a way to plurilingualism and learner autonomy. In: De Florio-Hansen (ed.): Towards Multilingualism and the Inclusion of Cultural Diversity. Kassel: Kassel university press, 37-58.

Morrow, Keith (ed.) (2004). Insights from the Common European Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

North, Brian (1995 / 2000). The Development of a Common European Scale of Language Proficiency. Ph.D. thesis, Thames Valley University, reprinted 2000. New York: Peter Lang.

North, Brian & Enrica Piccardo (2017). CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors. (www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages; 20-01-2018).

Quetz, Jürgen (2010a). Gemeinsamer europäischer Referenzrahmen. In: Hallet, Wolfgang & Frank G. Königs (Hrsg.). Handbuch Fremdsprachendidaktik. Seelze-Velber: Klett Kallmeyer, 45-49.

Quetz, Jürgen (2010b). Der Gemeinsame europäische Referenzrahmen als Grundlage für Sprachprüfungen. Eine kritische Beschreibung des Status quo. In: Deutsch als Fremdsprache 47/4, 195-202.

Schneider, Günther & Brian North (2000). Fremdsprachen können – was heißt das? Skalen zur Beschreibung, Beurteilung und Selbsteinschätzung der fremdsprachlichen Kommunikationsfähigkeit. Chur / Zürich: Rüegger.

Sheils, Joseph (2001). The Modern Languages Projects of the Council of Europe and the development of language policy. Council of Europe: ELC Bulletin 7 (http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/elc/bulletin/7/en/shiels.html; 20-01-2018).

Sousa, David A. (⁴2011). How the brain learns. Thousand Oaks: Corvin.

Surkamp, Carola (Hrsg.) (²2017). Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachendidaktik. Stuttgart: Metzler.

Trim, John L. M. (²2017a). Common European Framework of Reference. In: Byram, Michael & Adelheid Hu (eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge, 128-131.

Trim, John L. M. (²2017b). Council of Europe Modern Languages Projects. In: Byram, Michael & Adelheid Hu (eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge, 166-169.

Ek, van Jan A. (1975; 1977). The Threshold Level for modern language Learning in schools. Harlow: Longman (for the CoE).

Ek, van Jan A. & Trim, John L. M. (2001). Vantage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vogt, Karin (²2017). Gemeinsamer europäischer Referenzrahmen. In: Surkamp, Carola (Hrsg.). Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachendidaktik. Stuttgart: Metzler, 100-102.

Vygotsky, Lew S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Weinert, Franz Emanuel (1999). Konzepte der Kompetenz. Paris: OECD.

Weinert, Franz Emanuel (Hrsg.). (2001). Leistungsmessungen in Schulen. Weinheim & Basel: Beltz.

Author:

Professor Inez De Florio-Hansen

Foreign Language Teaching and Acquisition Research, Intercultural Communication
Kassel University

3, Georg-Forster-Street

34109 Kassel

Germany

E-mail: deflorio@uni-kassel.de