Judgmental evaluation of the CEFR by stakeholders in language testing
This study provides insights into the judgmental evaluation of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) by stakeholders or users. Given its widespread use and the debates surrounding it, a deeper analysis was required regarding their experiences when applying the CEFR in their daily practice of language testing, their perceptions on possible improvements and priorities. One hundred eighty-eight users, representing several groups of stakeholders, attended a conference on the topic and participated in discussion groups. These discussion groups were nourished by data obtained by a pre-conference survey and followed by a voting process on priorities for improving the Framework. The results show that the respondents have a positive attitude towards the CEFR. They use it for several purposes and consider its usefulness, authenticity and applicability as positive aspects. The degree of detail and practicality are assessed less positively. The most important recommendation for improvement lies in further fine-tuning and in improving practice and implementation.
Alderson, J.C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency. The interface between learning and assessment. London: Continuum.
Alderson, J.C. and Huhta, A. (2005). “The development of a suite of computer-based diagnostic tests based on the Common European Framework”, Language Testing, 22/3, 301-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt310oa
Alderson, J.C., Figueras, N., Kuijper, H., Nold, G., Takala, S. and Tardieu, C. (2006). “Analysing Tests of Reading and Listening in Relation to the Common European Framework of Reference: The Experience of The Dutch CEFR Construct Project”, Language Assessment Quarterly, 3/1, 3-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15434311laq0301_2
Alderson, J.C. (2007). “The CEFR and the need for more research”, The Modern Language Journal, 91/4, 659–663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_4.x
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching and Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Figueras, N., North, B., Takala, S., Verhelst, N. and Van Avermaet, P. (2005). “Relating examinations to the Common European Framework: a manual”, Language Testing, 22/3, 261-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt308oa
Figueras, N. (2012). “The impact of the CEFR”, ELT Journal, 66/4, 477-485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs037
Fulcher, G. (2004a). “Are Europe’s tests being built on an ‘unsafe’ framework?”. Retrieved 11/11/2014 from http://education.guardian.co.uk/tefl/story/0,5500,1170569,00.html
Fulcher, G. (2004b). “Deluded by artifices? The Common European Framework and harmonization”, Language Assessment Quarterly, 1/4, 253-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15434311laq0104_4
Fulcher, G. (2009). "Test use and political philosophy". Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 3-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190509090023
Fulcher, G. (2010). “The reification of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and effect-driven testing”, Advances in research on language acquisition and Teaching: Selected Papers, 15-26.
Hulstijn, J.H. (2007). “The Shaky Ground Beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and Qualitative Dimensions of Language Proficiency”, The Modern Language Journal, 91/4, 663–667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_5.x
Kaftandjieva, F. (2007). “Quantifying the quality of linkage between language examinations and the CEFR”, in C. Carlsen and E. Moe (eds.) A human touch to language testing. Oslo: Novus Press, 33-43.
Keddle, J.S. (2004). “Insights from the Common European Framework, 2004”, The CES and secondary school syllabus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 43-54.
Little, D. (2005). “The Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio: involving learners and their judgements in the assessment process”, Language Testing, 22/3, 321-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt311oa
Little, D. (2007). “The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the Making of Supranational Language Education Policy”, The Modern Language Journal, 91/4, 645-655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_2.x
North, B. (2007). “The CEFR illustrative descriptor scales”, The Modern Language Journal, 91/4, 656-659. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_3.x
Papageorgiou, S. (2010). “Investigating the decision-making process of standard setting participants”, Language Testing, 27/2, 261-282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265532209349472
Picardo, E. (2011). “Du CECR au développement professionnel : pour une démarche stratégique”, Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée, 14/2, 20-52.
Picardo, E. (2013). “(Re)conceptualiser l’enseignement d’une langue seconde à l’aide d’outils d’évaluations:comment les enseignants canadiens perçoivent le CECR”, Canadian Modern Language Review, 386-414. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1737.386
Shohamy, E. and McNamara, T. (2009). “Language tests for citizenship, immigration, and asylum”, Language Assessment Quarterly, 6/1, 1-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15434300802606440
Urkun, Z. (2008). “Re-evaluating the CEFR: an attempt”, In The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFRL): Benefits and Limitations. IATEFL TEA SIG Croatia Conference Proceedings, pp. 10-14, Canterbury.
Weir, C. (2005). “Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparable examinations and tests”, Language Testing, 22/3, 281-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt309oa
Metrics powered by PLOS ALM
This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
Universitat Politècnica de València
e-ISSN: 1886-6298 https://doi.org/10.4995/rlyla