Jean M. Jimenez (PhD) is an Associate Professor in English Language and Translation at the University of Calabria, Italy. She is currently the coordinator of the degree course in Linguistic Mediation. Her research interests include corrective feedback, language testing, and the use of corpus linguistics in the second language classroom. She has presented papers at conferences in Europe and North America. Email: jean.jimenez@unical.it

Ian Michael Robinson is a researcher at the University of Calabria in Italy. He has taught in many different places, including Greece, Japan and the UK, as well as in Italy. He has been involved in teacher training and is especially concerned with CLIL training as well as testing and test development. e.mail: ian.robinson@unical.it

Ida Ruffolo (PhD) is a Researcher in English Language and Translation at the University of Calabria, Italy, where she teaches EAP and ESP. Her research interests are corpus linguistics, discourse analysis, and ESP, with particular interest in the language of tourism and environmental discourse. She has presented papers at national and international conferences. Email: ida.ruffolo@unical.it

 

Acknowledgement

Although the three authors collaborated in the research reported and in preparing this article, they individually devoted more time to the following sections: Jean M. Jimenez - Introduction, The study and Conclusion; Ian M. Robinson – Results and discussion; Ida Ruffolo – Theoretical background.

 

Introduction

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has had a considerable influence on language teaching since its introduction in 2001. It consists of descriptions of processes, domains, activities and strategies of language learning, teaching and assessment (the horizontal dimension) as well as descriptors of language competences in six levels (the vertical dimension) developed by the Council of Europe to provide a shared basis for reflection and interaction among practitioners across the member states (Council of Europe, 2001). Furthermore, as underlined by Savski (2023, 62), the “CEFR has spread far beyond the borders of Europe and has become one of the most referred documents in the field”.

Numerous studies have been conducted on the implementation of this framework in the language classroom (e.g., Little 2011; Broek and Van den Ende 2013; Fischer 2020; North 2020) as well as on students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the tool (Moonen et al. 2013; Díez-Bedmar and Byram 2019). Despite its worldwide influence and the vast literature available on the CEFR, an issue of debate still remains on how well known the CEFR is among teachers and how much they employ it in their teaching practice, even after more than twenty years since its publication.  Moreover, further research is needed to examine whether practitioners are actually employing the CEFR as a primary source to understand the levels rather than referring to secondary sources such as textbooks and exams to gather an understanding of the descriptors.

In light of this, this paper focuses on the impact of the CEFR on EFL teachers working in a Southern Italian university. In particular, the paper reports on a local exploratory study conducted to investigate to what extent university language teachers involved in language teaching and the development of language tests are familiar with the CEFR descriptors, as well as to understand if and how it is used by language practitioners and language learners.  The first part of the paper provides a brief overview of the CEFR, followed by its impact on language education. The second part outlines the study design and discusses key findings.

 

Theoretical background

Description of the CEFR

The CEFR, first published in 2001, was developed by the Council of Europe with the aim of providing common standards for levels of L2 proficiency and offering a shared basis of reflection among practitioners in the field of language learning and teaching. Originally, the CEFR was developed to be used mainly within the European borders, but its usage slowly spread worldwide and today it has been adopted in language syllabuses in countries across the globe, including Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Ecuador, and Canada (Alih, Yusoff and Raof 2020).  Specifically,

the Common European Framework provides a common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc. across Europe. It describes in a comprehensive way what language learners have to learn to do in order to use a language for communication and what knowledge and skills they have to develop so as to be able to act effectively.

 (Council of Europe 2001, 1)

The framework applies an action-oriented approach to foreign language education and considers

users and learners of a language primarily as “social agents”, i.e., members of society who have tasks (not exclusively language-related) to accomplish in a given set of circumstances, in a specific environment and within a particular field of action.

(Council of Europe 2001, 9)

Although the CEFR does not prescribe any particular pedagogical method, “the action-oriented view strongly suggests that communicative, task-based approaches are particularly compatible with the CEFR” (Little 2007,169). The CEFR also deliberately does not ascribe specific word lists or grammar functions to the various levels, but rather provides a very short description with appropriate adverbs of what a user “can do” in that language context / function. If these are to have any wide-ranging sense, it is necessary that they be clear enough so that everyone using the CEFR understands them in a similar way. Moreover, the CEFR views language learning as a lifelong process that is not limited to school but also includes informal learning.

The CEFR consists of (i) a descriptive scheme for analysing what is involved in language use and language learning and (ii) a set of six common reference levels of target language proficiency arranged in three bands—A1 and A2 (Basic User), B1 and B2 (Independent User), C1 and C2 (Proficient User). As highlighted by Little (2007), this tool is not language-specific, therefore, although it describes the functions that learners should be able to perform at different levels, it does not specify how those functions might be realized in any particular language. While the CEFR makes claims for plurilingualism and variations, it repeatedly refers to a standard form of the language.

In 2018, the CEFR descriptors and scales were updated with a provisional companion volume, which became official in 2020. In particular, the scales have been supplemented with new descriptors that improve the description and that cover various aspects of mediating text, concepts and communication, online interaction and plurilingual/pluricultural competence (see Council of Europe, 2018/2020). In this article when referring to the CEFR, we refer to both the original and the companion volumes.

 

The Impact and influence of the CEFR

Over the years, this tool “has become the most important reference document in the fields of language learning, teaching and assessment, both in Europe and beyond” (Barni and Salvati 2017, 417). North (2007) observes that the CEFR has provided professionals in the field of foreign language education with a common discourse. Indeed, much research has been conducted on the implementation of this tool in the classroom (see, for example, Little 2011; Broek and Van den Ende 2013), yet there are still some areas that need to be further investigated.

For instance, in 2005 the Council of Europe conducted a survey on the use of the CEFR at an institutional level revealing that it was mainly used in assessment and teacher training (see Martyniuk and Noijons 2007). In 2006, Little stated that “the CEFR has had a significant if partial and uneven impact on the teaching, learning and assessment of languages in Europe” (186). This is confirmed by Broek and Van den Ende (2013), who carried out an investigation on the use of the CEFR in the European education system in examination, curriculum development, schoolbooks and teacher training and discovered that, although there is an evident reference to the CEFR as far as materials and teacher training are concerned, there is still much to be explored as regards reference to language assessment, which appeared weak. In fact, other studies have found that the usage of the CEFR is mainly limited to standard-based assessment through alignment of local tests to the CEFR level (Fulcher 2004; Harsch and Martin 2012). Alignment to tests and assessment forms was strengthened in 2009 with the publication of a manual to help do precisely this. The Manual states that “the CEFR needs to be referred to at all stages of the linking process …. The approach adopted in this Manual is such that thorough familiarity with the CEFR is a fundamental requirement” (Council of Europe 2009, 7). Indeed, the suggestion when linking a test to the CEFR is to follow four stages: 1) familiarization, 2) specification, 3) standardization, 4) empirical validation. Although familiarization is fundamental, it may not be as straightforward as it appears. An example of this is illustrated by O’Sullivan (2011, 37), who found that when linking a set of tests to the CEFR following a series of familiarization activities, participants still had “some doubt about the true meaning of the levels, so it was decided to offer familiarisation training throughout the project”, testifying to how difficult this stage can be.

Previous studies also show that the CEFR has had little substantial impact on L2 pedagogy in general (Byrnes 2007; Westhoff 2007; Little 2011). As Little (2011, 383) states: “The overwhelming tendency to make only partial use of CEFR means that it has the least impact where it should make the greatest difference: in the L2 classroom”. This may be because teachers are not fully aware of the validity and potential of the CEFR in the classroom and, therefore, the weak relationship between the CEFR and teachers’ practice in school may be caused by the lack of appropriate training on the usage of the CEFR when teaching a foreign language (Maldina 2015). In fact, North (2008, 56) argues that “teachers’ view of the CEFR tends to be oversimplified, confusing it with the European Language Portfolio and focusing on the six levels”. 

Concerning this last aspect, various studies have been conducted on teachers’ perceptions of this tool (Moonen et al. 2013; Díez-Bedmar and Byram 2019). Moonen et al.’s (2013) study on the implementation of the CEFR in Dutch schools shows that, although individual teachers have a basic understanding of the CEFR, they still need to learn how to exploit the full potential of this tool. On the other hand, Figueras (2012) carried out a survey among primary, secondary and tertiary teachers in Spain and found that most of the teachers involved in the survey had good or very good knowledge of the CEFR, which came from training sessions and reading about the CEFR.  Finally, after conducting a small-scale study in Australian universities, Normand-Maconnet and Lo Bianco (2013) concluded that, although the teachers were familiar with the CEFR, there was also a lack of enthusiasm in its use. To aid people in the use and understanding of the CEFR and its levels, Díez-Bedmar (2018) found it useful to “fine-tune” the descriptors for use in the particular context and domain that these were being used in.

Despite the vast literature available on the CEFR, it is clear that more research is needed on how well known the CEFR is among teachers as well as how much they employ it in their teaching practice. Hence, this paper aims to contribute to the established knowledge in the field by shedding more light on the implementation of the CEFR in the language classroom, with a particular focus on the impact of this tool on EFL teachers working in a Southern Italian university. Specifically, the aim of the study was to investigate to what extent university language teachers involved in language teaching and the development of language tests are familiar with the CEFR descriptors, and elicit their perspectives regarding the CEFR as a practical tool.  For the purpose of this investigation, an online questionnaire was designed and administered to English language teachers working at the University Language Centre and University Departments. 

 

The study

The investigation took place in a medium-large sized university in the south of Italy. The university is organized in fourteen departments, which offer a wide range of undergraduate and postgraduate degree courses. The majority of these courses include obligatory languages courses, with English being the most prevalent language taught. While the University Language Centre coordinates the basic English courses through an interdepartmental project and has developed its own B1 level tests to be used as end-of-course achievement tests (see Argondizzo, Jimenez and Robinson 2018; Argondizzo, Jimenez and Marcella 2020), the more advanced modules are coordinated within each department, where individual lecturers are responsible for their own courses and for the final exams. As the university now requires all language courses to refer to the CEFR when discussing the objectives to be reached, it has become imperative for practitioners in the field of second language acquisition to be familiar with the framework.

Specifically, the study seeks to answer two research questions:

1) Do practitioners have a comprehensive understanding of what the CEFR is?

2) Can practitioners demonstrate effectively a shared understanding of the levels of the CEFR descriptors?

 

Methodology

As previously reported, the aim of the study was to investigate to what extent language instructors and test developers working at the University Language Centre and University Departments are familiar with the CEFR descriptors (global scales, self-assessment grid and illustrative descriptors) as well as to gain insights into their perspectives of the CEFR as a useful practical tool.

The data were collected through an online questionnaire purposely designed for this investigation (see Appendix). The questionnaire consists of 4 sections: Section A- General information about respondents; Section B- Classroom practices; Section C- CEFR in general; Section D- CEFR descriptors. Detailed information on the questionnaire and the participants is provided in the following sections.

 

The questionnaire

The questionnaire was prepared using Google Docs and included checklist, Likert scale and open-ended questions, for a total of 33 items.

Section A (items 1-4) included questions regarding the age, native languages, length of teaching experience, and involvement in test development of the participants. The questions in Section B (items 5-7) were related to the didactic practices in the classroom. Sections C (items 8-18) and D (items 19A- 19O) focused more specifically on the CEFR. In particular, Section C included items aimed at collecting information on the respondents’ self-assessed familiarization with the CEFR and their propensity to refer to it and use it in their teaching, test writing and with learners. For items 8- 12 participants indicated their level of agreement using a five-point Likert scale, while items 13-18 were open questions. Finally, Section D tapped into the participants’ knowledge of the descriptors.  Specifically, they were asked to read fifteen statements taken from the CEFR, some of which had been slightly adapted, and state what level they considered the statement to refer to (A1, A2, etc.)

Table One illustrates which statements were taken from the grids and the main language skill they refer to.

Table One: Descriptors used in the questionnaire

Table Two offers a clear breakdown of the number of statements from each level used in the questionnaire. The same number of items from each level was not used as we were primarily concerned to elicit information on those levels that are most frequently present in the university, where most basic language courses aim at a B1 level and the more advanced at a B2.

Table Two: Number of statements per level

 

Participants

The questionnaire was sent to twenty-six people involved in English teaching and test writing at the university, sixteen of whom completed the survey. The participants were invited to answer the questions as honestly as possible and without consulting any sources (e.g., the CEFR manual, the internet). Participants were reassured that their responses would be kept anonymous.

The respondents were aged between thirty and fifty-nine. Seven people were English native speakers; seven had Italian as their L1; while two were bilingual in these two languages. All of the respondents had more than two years of experience in teaching English as a foreign language, with the majority having more than sixteen years of experience. Eleven of the sixteen respondents were involved in test writing and development. All sixteen were teaching classes with between twenty-one and forty students, with six of them also teaching groups of more than fifty students.

 

Results and discussion

The replies to the questions regarding the CEFR in particular are of special interest to this paper.  Therefore, this section will first illustrate the results related to the respondents’ familiarization with the CEFR and the extent to which they refer to it and/or use it in their teaching and, if applicable, in test writing (Section C). The second part will focus on the participants’ knowledge of the descriptors related to the different CEFR levels. 

 

Section C

Using a five-point Likert scale (1=Not at all, 5=Very), 50% of the respondents replied that they were very well acquainted with the one-page CEFR global scale descriptors (item 8), while 44% said they were acquainted with this scale. For the self-assessment grid (item 9), the numbers were inferior with 44% of the participants stating that they were very well acquainted with it, 31% saying they were acquainted with it, and 19% choosing the middle option. As regards the other pages of the descriptors in the 260-page publication (i.e., illustrative descriptor scales), the replies were quite variable. None of the respondents claimed to know these descriptors very well, 31% said that they were familiar with them, with the same percentage choosing the middle option, 25% said they had little knowledge of them, and 12.5% claimed not to know them at all. 

The vast majority of the respondents think that the CEFR is either important or very important for them as teachers, with only 12.5% saying it is of little importance. As regards the importance of students being familiar with the CEFR, 75% of respondents felt that it is important or very important.

Turning to items 13-18, which were open-ended questions, all but one of the respondents said that they encourage their students to familiarize themselves with the CEFR: some just advise their students to consult it individually, while others take time in their lessons to discuss it or to let the students self-assess their levels using the CEFR. Similarly, all but one respondent said that the CEFR can be used in the classroom with self-assessment work, as a “tool for discussion”, “to explain why certain activities have been used”, or “by letting students think of real situations which can suit each of the CEFR levels”.  The person who replied that the CEFR could not be used in the classroom suggests that it is “too theoretical” or that the students’ language level is “too low” to use it.  This happens even though the CEFR is published in Italian, which is the L1 of the majority of the students involved.

The respondents were unanimous in declaring that teachers can benefit from using the CEFR descriptors, which can be helpful in “preparing students for certifications”, giving the “teacher a wider and clearer idea of what learners can do at any given level”, “selecting activities and writing tests according to the students’ level”, as well as being an aid in lesson planning and assessing students.

Another unanimous reply came from the item on whether test writers benefit from using the CEFR descriptors. The replies can be summed up with this answer given by one of the participants: “The CEFR gives a test writer a clearer idea of what learners can do at any given level. Given that, tests can be developed properly”.

The respondents all feel that the students can benefit from using the CFER descriptors. One person wrote that 

students who assess themselves have a clear view of what they can do in English and what level they are at. They can also set goals for themselves to improve their language skills and take a step forward to a higher level of the CEFR.

All of the respondents replied that they would like to learn more about the CEFR.

 

Section D

The final part of the questionnaire consisted of fifteen statements taken from the CEFR descriptors, some of which were slightly adapted for the purposes of this study. The participants were asked to indicate which CEFR level each descriptor listed belonged to. Only one of these descriptors was taken from the most well-known grid (the self-assessment grid), with the others coming from a range of other CEFR tables, as described above and shown in Table One.

The data presented in Table Three and Figure One refer to all of the answers provided for all fifteen statements (16 participants x 15 statements= 240 responses). As can be seen, 45% of the replies indicated the correct CEFR level, with almost a quarter of the replies under-estimating the level and just over a quarter over-estimating the level.

Table Three: Breakdown of replies to items 19A-O

 

Figure One: Percentage of correct and incorrect replies (Items 19 A-O)

Many of the incorrect answers indicated an answer that was either one level above (n=54) or below the correct answer (n=47), which together with the correct answers represents 88% of the total replies. 

Not surprisingly, a much lower number of incorrect replies overestimated the level (n=14) or underestimated the level (n=10) by 2 levels. This may be attributed to the fact that adjacent levels (e.g., A2/B1; B2/C1) have more features in common than, for example, A2 and B2.  Another, more obvious, reason may be that for the A1-A2 and C1-C2 statements there is a limit to the range of levels below or above.

Looking specifically at the 12 items focusing on A2-B1-B2 items (respectively 4, 4, and 3 items), 84 answers (47.7%) indicated the correct level, which is higher than the percentage of correct answers if we consider all of the items (see Figure 1). The reason for this may be that, as mentioned previously, the courses that the participants teach fall within these levels and so they should be more familiar with the A2 to B2 levels. As regards the incorrect answers given, 39 replies indicated a lower level (22.2%), 49 a higher level (27.8%), and 4 (2.3%) gave no reply (see Figure Two). If we consider correct answers together with incorrect answers indicating one level below and one level above the correct level, the percentage in this category is 88.6%.

Figure Two: Percentage of correct and incorrect replies for level A2, B1, B2

 

Conclusion

The current study presents some limitations, namely the small sample size of respondents, that should be taken into account when drawing conclusions. Nevertheless, the findings contribute to the established knowledge in the field by shedding more light on the implementation of the framework in the language classroom and underlining the importance of practitioners further familiarizing themselves with the CEFR.

While the CEFR has become increasingly important since its publication with more and more people referring to it in a range of situations including assessment, material development and course design, not everyone has a full understanding of it. In education, in particular, it is often presumed that practitioners are informed experts when they refer to the CEFR and that the same understanding of the CEFR levels is shared. This project aimed to investigate whether this may be true in a specific limited context. By consulting a sample of people involved in language teaching and assessment in the academic context in which we work, we explored to what extent teachers are familiar with the CEFR, what they understand by the term CEFR, and whether they all share a standard understanding of the levels in the CEFR.

The findings indicate that while practitioners are aware of the potential importance of the CEFR, they are mainly familiar only with the global scales and self-assessment grid. Indeed, when presented with statements from some of the tables in the CEFR, fewer than half of the replies were correct in determining the level of the statement, although the percentage rises substantially when considering incorrect responses which fall into the +1/-1 range. 

These results would suggest that more work is still needed to further familiarize EFL practitioners with the full CEFR scales if we are to fulfil one of the aims of the CEFR, namely to “take such steps as are necessary to complete the establishment of an effective European system of information exchange covering all aspects of language learning, teaching and research” (Council of Europe, 2001, 2). For example, University Language Centres and Departments could devote more space than they currently do to organizing workshops and seminars on the CEFR, which would certainly benefit practitioners by providing useful input and offering them the opportunity to share and exchange ideas with colleagues and experts in the field.

Finally, further research should involve a greater number of participants from a wider range of contexts, including schoolteachers in primary as well as secondary education. Principal language training starts at school, hence it is crucial for familiarisation with the CEFR to start at this level of education so that practitioners involved in language teaching and curriculum design are fully aware of the CEFR and how it applies to their particular context.

 

References

Alih, Nur Ashiquin C., Yusoff, Masdinah Alauyah & Raof, Abdul Halim Abdul (2020). Teachers’ Knowledge and Belief on the CEFR Implementation in Malaysian ESL Classroom, International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Current Educational Research (IJMCER), 2 (5): 126-134. 

Argondizzo, Carmen, Jimenez, Jean M. & Marcella, Vanessa (2020). Creating a technology-based language assessment system at a University Language Centre: Accepting the challenge, Testing, Evaluation & Assessment Today, 3: 6-12.

Argondizzo, Carmen, Jimenez, Jean M. & Robinson Ian Michael (2018). Meeting the needs for computer-based testing at university level, Humanising Language Teaching, 20 (6), www.hltmag.co.uk/dec18/.

Barni, Monica & Salvati, Luisa (2017). The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). In Shohamy, Elana, Iair, G. Or and May, Stephen (eds) Language Testing and Assessment Third Edition. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_29

Broek, Simon & Van den Ende, Inge (2013). The Implementation of the Common European Framework for Languages in European Education Systems, European Union, 2013, available http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies. DOI: 10.2861/29795

Byrnes, Heidi (2007). Developing National Language Education Policies: Reflections on the CEFR, The Modern Language Journal, 91 (iv): 679-675. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_10.x

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

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

Council of Europe (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment Companion Volume with New Descriptors. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989

Council of Europe (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment: Companion volume, Council of Europe, Strasbourg: www.coe.int/lang-cefr.

Díez-Bedmar, Maria Belèn (2018). Fine-tuning descriptors for the CEFR B1 level: insights from learner corpora, ELT Journal 72 (2): 199-209. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx052

Díez-Bedmar, Maria Belèn & Byram, Michael (2019). The current influence of the CEFR in secondary education: teachers’ perceptions, Language, culture and curriculum, 32 (1):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2018.1493492

Figueras, Neus (2012). The Impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal 66 (4): 477-485. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs037

Fischer, Johann (2020). The underlying action-oriented and task-based approach of the CEFR and its implementation in language testing and assessment at university, CercleS 2020, 10(2): 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2020-2021

Fulcher, Glenn (2004). Deluded by artifices? The Common European Framework and harmonization. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1, 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15434311laq0104_4

Harsch, Claudia & Martin, Guido (2012). Adapting CEF-descriptors for rating purposes: Validation by a combined rater training and scale revision approach, Assessing Writing (17): 228–250.     DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2012.06.003

Little, David (2006). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Content, purpose, origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching, 39 (3):167–190.     DOI: 10.1017/S0261444806003557

Little, David (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. Modern Language Journal, 91: 645–655.     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_2.x

Little, David (2011). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 44: 381 - 393.     DOI: 10.1017/S0261444811000097

Maldina, Eleonora (2015). The Impact of the Common European Framework of Reference on Foreign Language Instruction: the Case of Sociolinguistic and Pragmatic Competence. MA Thesis, University of Toronto. https://hdl.handle.net/1807/70472

Martyniuk, Waldemar & Noijons, José (2007). Executive summary of results of a survey on the use of the CEFR at national level in the Council of Europe Member States, available at: https://rm.coe.int/168069b7ad. 

Moonen, Machteld, Stoutjesdijk, Evelien, de Graaf, Rick & Corda, Alessandra (2013) Implementing CEFR in Secondary education:  Impact on FL Teachers’ Educational and Assessment Practice. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2): 226–246.      DOI: 10.1111/ijal.12000

Normand-Maconnet, Nadine & Lo Bianco, Joseph (2013). Importing Language Assessment? The Reception of the Common European Framework of Reference in Australian Universities. Retrieved from: http://iafor.org/archives/offprints/ecll2013-offprints/ECLL2013_0468.pdf.

North, Brian (2007). The CEFR illustrative descriptor scales, The Modern Language Journal, 91: 656- 659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_3.x

North, Brian (2008). Levels and Goals: Central Frameworks and Local Strategies. In The Handbook of Educational Linguistics, Spolsky, Bernard & Hult, Francis M. (eds.) Blackwell Publishing Ltd: 220-232.

North, Brian (2020). The CEFR renewed: Inspiring The Future of Language Education, Italiano LinguaDue, 1: 549-560.     DOI: 10.1002/9780470694138.ch16

O’Sullivan, Barry (2011). The City & Guilds Communicator examination linking project: a brief overview with reflections on the process.  In Martyniuk, Waldemar. (ed), 2011, Studies in Language Testing 33: Aligning Tests with the CEFR, Cambridge University Press: 33-49.

Savski, Kristof (2023). CEFR and the ELT practitioner: empowerment or enforcement? ELT Journal, Volume 77, Issue 1, January 2023, Pages 62–71, https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccac013

Westhoff, Gerard (2007). Challenges and Opportunities of the CEFR for Reimagining Foreign Language Pedagogy, The Modern Language Journal, 91 (iv): 676-679. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4626098

 

Appendix

Questionnaire: CEFR in use

We are conducting a study on the use of the CEFR in EFL and would appreciate your collaboration. Please complete the following questionnaire, which is anonymous. The data will be used for research purposes only.  

 

Part A

1. Age: 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69

2. Native language/s ______________________________

3. How much experience do you have of teaching English (in years)?

0-1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16+

4. Are you involved in test development?     Yes No

If so, what are you are your tasks in particular? You can choose more than one.

looking for material writing items proofreading/revising     other(specify)

 

Part B

5. On average, how many students do you have in class?

Fewer than 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 50+

6. Which of the following do you use to help achieve your teaching aims? You can choose more than one.

7.  How much of the time do you use Italian in the classroom?   _____/100

Use a scale of 0-100%

No Italian spoken All in Italian

0%------------------------------------------------------100%

 

Part C

Please answer questions (8-12) using a scale from 1–5 (1=Not at all, 5=Very)

 

8. How well acquainted are you with the one-page CEFR descriptors (i.e., global scale)?

1 2 3 4 5

9. How well acquainted are you with the self-assessment grids?

1 2 3 4 5

10. How well acquainted are you with the other pages of the CEFR descriptors (e.g. turn taking, film watching)?

1 2 3 4 5

11.  How important is the CEFR for you as a teacher?       

1 2 3 4 5

12.  How important is it for your students to be familiar with the CEFR?

1 2 3 4 5

Please provide as much information as possible to answer the following questions:

13.  Do you encourage your students to familiarise themselves with the CEFR?

If yes, how? If not, why not?

________________________________________________________________________________

14. Can the CEFR be used in the EFL classroom? If yes, how? If not, why not?

________________________________________________________________________________

15. Can teachers benefit from using the CEFR descriptors? If yes, how? If not, why not?

________________________________________________________________________________

16. Can test writers benefit from using the CEFR descriptors? If yes, how? If not, why not?

________________________________________________________________________________

17. Can students benefit from using the CEFR descriptors? If yes, how? If not, why not?

________________________________________________________________________________

18. Are you interested in learning more about the CEFR? Why or why not?

________________________________________________________________________________

 

Part D

For items 19a – 19o choose the level (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2) which you think the descriptor refers to.  Please do not consult any external references. 

 

19a. Can follow the essentials of talks, lectures and reports and other types of professional/ academic presentation which are linguistically and propositionally complex.

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

19b. Can write a short, simple text, e.g. a postcard sending holiday greetings. Can complete forms with personal information, e.g. putting in name, address and nationality on an accommodation registration form.

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

19c. Can start, continue and end simple, face to face conversation on familiar topics or ones of personal interest.

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

19d. Can ask for clarification to check that she/he has understood what a speaker meant to say, and clarify vague points.

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

19e. Can mediate between speakers of the L2 and that of his/her community of origin effectively taking into consideration sociolinguistic and sociocultural differences.

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

19f. Can scan longer texts to find information, and get information from different parts of a text, or from different texts so as to complete a specific task.

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

19g. Can explain the key points in an idea or problem with reasonable precision.

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

19h. Can tell a story or describe something in a simple list of points.

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

19i. Can understand long, complex instructions in her/his field, including details on warnings and conditions, as long as she/he can read difficult sections again.

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

19j. Can write with reasonable phonetic accuracy (although not necessarily fully standard spelling) short words that are in her/his oral vocabulary.

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

19k. Has a good range of vocabulary for issues connected to her/his field and the majority of general topics. Can vary formulation so as to avoid frequent repetition, although lexical gaps may still cause hesitation and circumlocution.

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

19l. Has a repertoire of basic language which allows her/him to deal with everyday situations with predictable content, although she/he will normally have to compromise the message and look for words.

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

19m. Can use language for social purposes effectively and flexibly, including allusive, emotional and joking usage.

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

19n. Can understand straightforward factual information about work related or common everyday topics, identifying general messages as well as specific details, as long as speech is articulated clearly in a generally familiar accent.

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

19o. Can understand basic standard routine faxes and letters (orders, enquiries, letters of confirmation, etc.) on familiar topics.

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
 

Thank you for your input!

 

Please check the Pilgrims f2f courses at Pilgrims website.

Please check the Pilgrims online courses at Pilgrims website.