34. GAL-Jahrestagung an der
Universität Tübingen, 25.-27.09.2003
Plenarvortrag am
25.09.2003
Measuring Language Performance in the Knowledge Economy: The
Challenge of Aligning UK and European Language Proficiency Scales
Professor Nigel B
R Reeves
Aston University,
UK
Herr Pro-Rektor, Herr Präsident, Mitglieder der Gesellschaft für Angewandte
Linguistik, meine Damen und Herren!
Zunächst möchte ich mich herzlichst bei dem Tagungsvorstand für die
Einladung bedanken, diesen ersten Plenarvortrag zu geben. Mein besonderer Dank gilt Herrn Professor
Kohn, mit dem ich an vielen interessanten und fruchtbaren europäischen
Projekten beteiligt gewesen bin.
Es ist mir eine besondere Freude hier in Tübingen zu sein, fast möchte ich
sagen Hiersein ist herrlich, aber als ich als Humboldtianer in Tübingen
geforscht habe (im vorigen Jahrhundert übrigens), war mein Hauptinteresse weder
Rilke noch Hölderlin sondern Schiller, und zwar Schillers zum Teil unbekannter
Beitrag zur Wissensgesellschaft seiner Zeit, nämlich als früher Student und
Theoretiker der Psychologie in der Akademie Karl Eugens in Stuttgart.
Sie werden schon bemerkt haben, meine Damen und Herren, daß der Titel
meines Vortrages auf Englisch ist. Ich
habe es mir ernsthaft überlegt, den Vortrag auf deutsch zu halten, aber zum
Schluß habe ich den Weg des geringsten Widerstandes gewählt die Materialien
zu meiner Untersuchung über Sprachkompetenzskalen sind fast ausschließlich auf
Englisch, wie die Veröffentlichung, Pathways to Proficiency. Die britischen Skalen gibt es nur auf
Englisch; die Regierungsinstanzen, die sie und unsere Untersuchung
gefördert haben, haben, sofern ich weiß, keine offiziellen Titel auf
Deutsch. Also, ich entschuldige mich
für dieses Manko: Dadurch trage ich zur
Vorherrschaft des Englischen bei, eine Vorherrschaft, die leider eine geistige
Verarmung für die Briten bedeutet, wenn auch eine finanzielle Bereicherung,
nicht nur für die Verlage und Autoren, sondern auch für die Universitäten durch
die vielen ausländischen Studenten, die zu uns kommen.
The traditional approach to the assessment of an individuals capability in a foreign language in Britain as, probably, in most countries has been based less on capability in the sense of what you could do with the language in real-life or quasi reality situations than on what you could demonstrate that you knew of the language its syntax, morphology and its vocabulary in domains pertaining to literature rather than to history, politics or economics (though learning for a specific purpose such as for gaining access to foreign language science journals may have been the exception). Certainly, such grammatical knowledge was the stuff of language teaching and learning and of the examinations, which in Britain, at least if not everywhere else, determined the nature of the curriculum. Employers seeking recruits with a foreign language would typically look to their school or university examination record and not ask what the examination tested and what learning had been entailed.
The concept of language proficiency as what you can do in the foreign language in oral and written communicative situations and the desire to measure that proficiency in a standardised descriptive manner arose in part as a reaction to the inadequacies of the schools sector approach. This approach derived from 19th century pedagogy designed for the teaching and learning of the dead languages, Ancient Greek and Latin, which continued to be pre-eminent in prestige until the 1950s. True, there had long been other traditions for the learning of foreign languages for practical purposes: the children of the aristocracies of Europe and those of the wealthy bourgeoisie could afford to employ a French or German governess or an English Miss for their children, and more often than not even as a nanny during the childrens tender years. Thus, the children learnt informally, anticipating Krashens claims for natural language acquisition through immersion. And for privileged young adults there was the Grand Tour. Later, in the industrialised age, Berlitz pioneered his Direct Method for middle-class learners of more modest means, followed at a technological level by Linguaphone with its 12 78 gramophone records. Those who benefited simply used whatever they had acquired. The idea of measuring any consequent proficiency was alien to such commercial provision.
It was not until the 1970s, astoundingly a century or more after the introduction of compulsory state schooling, that pressures for the establishment of standardised and transparent systems for the measurement of individuals language proficiency were mounting. Unsurprisingly the drivers for change were external to the educational sector. One of the earliest was military in origin. The US National Defense Act was passed following the USSRs launch of the Sputnik. It was recognised in the US that there was a pressing need for foreign language expertise for intelligence gathering and for an effective command structure in multi-national forces such as NATO. The ability of individuals to speak foreign languages had, moreover, to be measured against agreed standards to ensure appropriate appointments and to serve as a yard stick for training.
The full alert was sounded in the 1979 Report of the Presidents Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies, Strength Through Wisdom: A Critique of US Capability[1]. In 1985 The Interagency Language Round Table published Language Skill Level Descriptions for each of the four main skills, followed in 1986 by The Proficiency Guidelines of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages[2].
In Europe the pressure came from a different quarter. With the continent still divided in the Cold War into the major confrontational military blocs and a further group of neutral countries, the Council of Europe was active in trying to promote bases for cooperation outside the directly political sphere, above all in the cultural area. Europes diversity of languages was a challenge that needed to be tackled and the preamble to recommendation R(82)18 of the Councils Committee of Ministers recognised this diversity both as a valuable resource yet also as an obstacle to understanding and cooperation. Specifically it hindered the mobility of European citizens. There should be active exchange of knowledge and experience of language teaching and learning methodologies, the production of learning materials and of key importance in our context this morning the development of methods for the evaluation of language learning. Furthermore, not only did the recommendation have in mind the comprehensive improvement of mutual understanding and of cultural and scientific exchange: learners language competence should be related through appropriate teaching and learning to their specific needs.[3]
Building on the previous development of the Threshold Level by Van Ek in the late 1970s and then Trim, followed by the projects sponsored by the Council between 1982 and 1987 and extensive work on descriptors and scales by North,[4] The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages; Learning, Teaching, Assessment (Gemeinsamer europäischer Referenzrahmen für Sprachen: lernen lehren, beurteilen) appeared in its first edition in 1996. This comprehensive manual goes far beyond the publication of scales of general proficiency and of the four skills for specified functions and tasks and includes extensive commentary on the nature of language learning and on the applications of the scales and descriptors to teaching and learning, and particularly task-based learning, on the development of the curriculum, on testing, and on the standardised formulation of descriptors.[5]
It was, however, preceded by an earlier milestone in the history of languages proficiency scales, the English-Speaking Union Framework of 1989 authored by my own co-writer Richard West and by Brendan Carroll[6]. The world-wide use of English was established before the Second World War, largely as a result of the use of English in the administrations of the colonies and dominions of the British Empire and the growing economic and political power of the United States.
The English-Speaking Union is a society devoted to the nurture of the English language in the many countries where English is an official language and also acts as a club for scholars world-wide. The need for a Framework of levels and of descriptors of what speakers could do at these levels was becoming imperative with the proliferation of English Language examinations and with the growth in trade, mobility and therefore employment possibilities. This Framework enabled the English language examinations to be matched against explicit descriptions of implied proficiency. The ESU Framework was elaborate, with nine levels from the most basic achievement to high professional level and in addition to the core general language proficiency scale it had twenty further scales in the four skills, Speaking, Listening, Writing and Reading subdivided into areas of application in social, business and academic/educational domains. Indeed it was arguably more comprehensive than the later Common European Framework as far as scales were concerned.
British Awarding Bodies for English as a Foreign Language whose qualifications were mapped to the ESU Framework formed the Association of British ESOL Examining Boards in 1989 but the Cambridge Syndicate withdrew in 1993, having set up in 1990 an association of national language testing bodies across Europe that offered the officially recognised qualifications in their national languages. It took the name Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE), aligned its qualifications with the Common European Framework and published its own outline Framework of descriptors for use by teachers and candidates of the Associations examinations.
I turn now to the more immediate developments in the UK which led to the work carried out between 2001 and 2003 by Richard West and myself with the support of Angela Simpson as consultant and Janet White, Principal English Language Officer in the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, on behalf of that Authority (the Government body charged with the supervision of standards in examinations and teaching (of all subjects) in schools), and of the Ministry of Education, The Department for Education and Skills.
When the Labour Government came to power in 1997 one of its major electoral slogans was education, education, education. There was an acute awareness that basic achievement in literacy and numeracy among school-leavers and adults was lower in Britain than in other advanced industrial countries, leading both to reduced competitiveness and to social problems. This culminated in 1999 in Sir Claus Mosers working group report, A Fresh Start. Improving Literacy and Numeracy,[7] which recommended a national strategy, targets for basic skills, national standards and a national system of qualifications. The newly established Qualifications and Curriculum Authority was to lead and oversee these reforms.
Britain had had an economy primarily based on service industries since the 1970s. The dominance of service industries contributed to the move into what is now called the Knowledge Economy. This is not to say that the Knowledge Economy does not embrace manufacturing but competition calls for an ever greater concentration on products and services that require leading-edge expertise, and that based on the latest research. The work opportunities for the poorly educated and the inarticulate are constantly declining. While overall figures for unemployment in Britain are only some 2.6% (September 2003), that conceals high unemployment in pockets of urban deprivation and segments of the population with low qualifications.
The challenge in Britain was not restricted to improving the communication and numeracy skills of the L1 population. Another driver was the pressing need to supply a framework for measuring and encouraging the performance in the English language of immigrants and refugees from the many trouble spots in the world. English language is required for almost any job in the UK unless the job is entirely within a non-English-speaking community. Moreover, unless immigrants can achieve basic levels of English language proficiency, the possibilities of social integration are also seriously restricted.
The expectation of basic competence in English in order to qualify for citizenship is a hot topic, fiercely debated in the 2002 Asylum Bill, but it now seems likely that a test in English language proficiency will be a required condition. The Department for Education and Skills publication of 2000, Breaking the Language Barriers,[8] examined the needs of ESOL speakers (English for Speakers of Other Languages) and made recommendations designed to give access to relevant English language teaching that leads to nationally recognised qualifications.
All this activity came within the Governments vocational and professional education policy entitled Skills for Life. Proficiency scales were produced for adult literacy from a basic level in five ascending stages, applicable to both native speakers and to those learning English as a second language (National Standards for Adult Literacy).[9] Another five-stage scale had already been created for Communication and for Numeracy by the QCA in 1999 called Key Skills,[10] units of which are intended to be offered in schools and further education and for post-experience lifelong learning. Attention was also focussed on the language needs of very young children from non-mother tongue English backgrounds and a basic scale was set up for the early learning stages, published also by the QCA in 2000, A Language in Common: Assessing English as an Additional Language.[11]
Nor had measuring proficiency in speaking Modern Foreign Languages other than English been forgotten. The national organisation responsible for standards in vocational languages education, the Languages Lead Body, now the Languages National Training Organisation, had already published its own National Language Standards in 1993 as a core contribution to the National Vocational Qualifications scheme. This was up-dated in 2000.[12]
With this flurry of activity and proliferation of language proficiency scales, each with its own purpose, target clientele, approach and even numbers of levels (ESU 9; CEF 6 with sub-levels, 11 in all; Adult Literacy, Key Skills Units, National Language Standards 5 each but not all covering the same range of achievement from top to bottom), there was a pressing need to map these scale levels on to the National Qualifications Framework, which had six levels. Richard West of Manchester University, and I, were asked by QCA to ascertain:
1 Whether it was possible to align these scales into a single coherent framework or map, notwithstanding their varying provenance, target audience, approach and number of levels. And above all, and this was perhaps the most novel aspect of the venture, could the existing levels of proficiency be aligned for English for native speakers, English for Speakers of Other Languages and also for learners of Modern Foreign Languages?
2
Secondly, whether it was feasible to
produce a set of composite maps of scales levels that could subsequently be
used for the comparison and accreditation of Awarding Bodies qualifications
(ie in order formally to lay down what level of achievement within the National
Qualifications Framework a pass in a particular examination indicated). Such maps, if they reproduced the level
descriptors from the various scales, could help teachers, students, examiners,
and even the authors and setters of examinations, to pitch their teaching and
tests at an appropriate level with specific learning outcomes and competences
in mind.
Despite the differences in numbers of levels, range of proficiency covered, target users and the fullness or thickness of description we found elements in common that made the project feasible:
1
They were all written for the purpose
of planning language learning at
personal, institutional, national or international levels, though some have
also been used for assessment.
2
They all take a purely descriptive approach, focussed on actual
performance without regard to numbers of learning hours, consideration of
any prior aptitude or intelligence test, or indeed consideration of the
speakers first language, whether it be English itself or a linguistically
distant language such as Chinese.
3
All were therefore essentially Output Models, describing in positive
terms what the speaker could do, framed in so-called can-do statements.
4 All of them, even the briefest (or thinnest, such as the Key Skills Communication Specifications), feature layers of descriptive detail, referring to three aspects or manifestations of language proficiency:
a)
Global or overall language
proficiency. At this level descriptors
take a more abstract form
E2
At this level, adults can:
write to communicate information with some awareness of the intended audience
National Standards for Adult Literacy, QCA 2000
b) Proficiency in each of the four language skills, reading, writing, listening, speaking.
c) Applications (or situational use) eg speaking at meetings, writing reports.
These three common features, despite differing emphases and degrees of specificity meant that the basic task was feasible.
Our work went through eight research stages:
i) Data gathering, assembling the scales in current use and their associated documentation
ii) Selection of scales (we decided we had to eliminate the ESU Framework and that of ALTE as they were proprietary, and not therefore in the public domain).
iii) Preliminary alignment through scrutiny and comparison of descriptors. It was at this early stage that we had distinguished the three layers of increasing descriptive specificity.
iv) Stage four required the checking and matching of descriptors down the layers. This helped us to amplify, verify (or falsify, to use Karl Poppers term) our preliminary alignment, and also to produce an overview map showing the alignment of levels from the five selected scales.
v) Drafting the composite skills maps, quoting directly, with page references, from the source scales.
vi) Triangulation through reference to a variety of external documents and reports that already laid claim to making comparisons between some of the scales.
vii) Drawing up a summary or overview map of the scales levels matched against the National Qualifications Framework (which includes reference to national school examinations) and also against the Common European Framework of Reference so that UK qualifications could be compared with European qualifications at accredited levels of the scale.
viii) Circulation and assessment of responses and final editing. Over one hundred copies of the draft report and the Maps were circulated to the Awarding Bodies and other interested bodies and experts, followed by discussion meetings. While there were comments on a number of aspects of the report, there were no suggestions that the alignment was incorrect or unacceptable.
The Report and the Maps were published in May 2003. They were issued by the Department for Education and Skills and the QCA under the title Pathways to Proficiency. The Alignment of Language Proficiency Scales for assessing competence in English Language.[13]
Map 1 shows the overall alignment of the five scales under consideration.[14]
The Map immediately suggests the complexity of the situation with, to take one example, Level 1 of the National Standards for Adult Literacy and Key Skills corresponding to CEF B2 and Level 3 of the National Language Standards (NLS), while Level 1 of A Language in Common is at CEF A1 Breakthrough and Entry 1 NLS. Clearly this was a source of confusion to learners, employers and probably teachers, itself justifying the alignment.
MAP 1:
General language proficiency scales
|
QCA |
Council of Europe Framework |
National Language Standards |
|||
|
National Qualifications Framework |
National Standards for Adult Literacy |
Key Skills |
National Curriculum |
|
|
|
Level 5 |
|
(Level 5) |
National Curriculum Levels 2-8 ¯ |
|
|
|
Level 4 |
|
Level 4 |
|
(C2.2) |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
Level 3 |
|
C2 Mastery |
Level 5 |
|
Level 2 |
Level 2 |
Level 2 |
|
C1 Operational Proficiency |
Level 4 |
|
Level 1 |
Level 1 |
Level 1 |
|
B2 Vantage |
Level 3 |
|
Entry level |
Entry 3 |
|
|
B1 Threshold |
Level 2 |
|
|
Entry 2 |
|
|
A2 Waystage |
Level 1 |
|
|
Entry 1 |
|
Level 1 Secure/ |
A1 Breakthrough |
(Entry) |
|
|
|
|
EAL Step 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
EAL Step 1 |
|
|
|
Notes & sources: 1 |
2 QCA, National
Standards for adult literacy and numeracy, 2000 |
3 QCA, Key Skills
Units, 2000 |
4 QCA, A Language
in Common, 2000 |
5 Council of Europe, Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages, CUP 2001 |
6 Languages National Training Organisation, The National Language Standards, 2000 |
Our second map aligns the descriptors of general language proficiency from the four main scales under consideration, National Standards for Adult Literacy, incorporating the Key Skills Specifications, the Common European Framework and the National Language Standards (for Modern Foreign Languages).[15] I have chosen to show here the highest levels:
MAP
2: General language proficiency
|
National standards for adult literacy |
Common European Framework |
National Language Standards |
|
Key Skills Specification Level 4 At this level an adult can: ·
develop a strategy for using communication skills over an extended
period of time. ·
take the lead role in a group discussion about a complex subject. ·
write extended documents about complex subjects. ·
evaluate your overall strategy and present the outcomes from your
work. |
C 2 Mastery The language user can: ·
understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. ·
summarise information from different spoken and written sources,
reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. ·
express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely,
differentiating finer shades of meaning even in more complex situations. ·
[Mastery is not intended to imply native or near-native competence]. |
Level 5 The user at this level: ·
is accepted socially as native or near native
speaker. ·
is competent in the full range of complex language tasks across a
wide and often unpredictable variety of contexts. ·
has a command of idiom and grammatical structures which permits
expression of the finest nuances. ·
applies a significant range of language strategies from an extensive
repertoire, continuously updated to meet changing requirements. ·
has interactive skills which allow complete and harmonious control of
any discussion and constant review of its content and direction. |
|
Key Skills Specification Level 3 At this level an adult can: ·
contribute to a group discussion about a complex subject. ·
make a presentation about a complex subject ·
read and synthesise information from extended documents about a
complex subject ·
write different types of documents about complex subjects. |
The common features give a closely related, arguably unified, portrait of the users competences at this level. The subject matter and the accompanying language are complex. The user can summarise (synthesise) complex information. The sources are varied and unpredictable. The user has a range of language strategies at his/her disposal. The user can combine listening, reading, writing and speaking skills in preparing and presenting complex material and then in discussing it.
(It is however interesting to note that while CEF C2 specifically lays no claim at this level to native or near-native competence, National Language Standards highlight the receivers perception of the users native or near-native competence.)
The Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Scales (Maps) are composite maps of Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing Skills.
Let me take a different level as the example, Listening Scales (Map 3)[16] at National Standards for Adult Literacy Entry 3, CEF B1 Threshold and National Language Standards Level 2. Common to them all is the relative (though not, exclusive) familiarity of the source, understanding the detail needed for the purpose of listening and coverage of a range of contexts from the everyday to general technical and professionally relevant.
MAP 3: Listening scales
|
National standards for adult literacy |
Common European Framework |
National Language Standards |
|
Entry 3 An adult can: ·
listen to and follow the gist of explanations, instructions and
narratives in different contexts. ·
listen for detail in explanations, instructions and narratives in
different contexts. ·
listen for and identify relevant information and new information from
discussions, explanations and presentations. ·
listen to and respond appropriately to other points of view. in familiar formal exchanges connected with education, training, work
and social roles. |
B1 Threshold The listener can: ·
understand straightforward factual information about common everyday
or job-related topics, identifying both general messages and specific
details, provided speech is clearly articulated in a generally familiar
accent.. ·
understand the main points of clear standard speech on familiar
matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. including short
narratives. ·
follow a lecture or talk within his/her own field, provided the
subject matter is familiar and the presentation straightforward and clearly
structured. ·
understand simple technical information, such as operating
instructions for everyday equipment. ·
follow detailed instructions.. |
Level 2 The listener can effectively: ·
obtain information about routine and daily activities. ·
listen for specific details from familiar and directly accessible
sources. ·
listen for general information from familiar and directly accessible
sources. ·
understand simple everyday spoken language, including manipulated
forms of set expressions with some less familiar elements. ·
obtain both specific details from, and the general meaning of, a
range of conversations, announcements, messages, instructions and directions
spoken at normal speed. ·
cope with common survival situations involving travel, accommodation
and obtaining goods and services. ·
obtain common numerical, social facts and simple data from public
announcements and broadcasts. |
Please note that we were able to conflate Key Skills and National Standards for adult literacy, having established that the alignment confirmed that Key Skills 2 & 1 matched Adult Literacy 2 & 1, Adult Literacy continuing down to Entry 3, Entry 2 and Entry 1.
If I now deconstruct this level, I can show you the layers of specificity to which I referred earlier.
The overall or general level (Layer 1) descriptor features in both the General Language Proficiency Scales and the Listening Skills Scales of CEF:
B1
Threshold
The language user can:
·
Understand the main points of clear
standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school,
leisure
In der deutschen Fassung (Globalskala, p 35.)
·
Kann die Hauptpunkte verstehen, wann
klare Standardsprache verwendet wird, und wenn es um vertraute Dinge aus
Arbeit, Schule und Freizeit usw geht.[17]
This item re-appears at Layer 2 in the German version of the Common European Framework in the scale Hörverstehen allgemein:
Kann die Hauptpunkte verstehen, wenn in deutlich artikulierter
Standardsprache über vertraute Dinge gesprochen wird, denen man normalerweise
bei der Arbeit, in der Ausbildung oder der Freizeit begegnet; kann auch kurze
Erzählungen verstehen.
In our specific Listening Scale we
reproduce this general descriptor but then conclude it with the more specific
CEF reference, including short narratives.
We add the further descriptor (at layer 2) from the B1 Listening Scale:
(Hörverstehen allgemein:)
can
·
Can understand straightforward factual
information about common everyday or job-related topics, identifying both
general messages and specific details provided speech is clearly articulated in
a generally familiar accent.
In der deutschen Fassung:
Kann unkomplizierte Sachinformationen über gewöhnliche alltags- oder
berufsbezogene Themen verstehen und dabei die Hauptaussagen und
Einzelinformationen erkennen, sofern klar artikuliert und mit vertrautem Akzent
gesprochen wird.[18]
At Layer 3, specific applications, we
include the descriptor from the scale for listening as member of an
audience. This descriptor is found in
the German edition in the scale Als Zuschauer/Zuhörer im Publikum verstehen.
·
Can follow a lecture or talk within
his/her own field, provided the subject matter is familiar and the presentation
straightforward and clearly structured.
Kann Vorträge oder Reden auf dem eigenen Fachgebiet verstehen, wenn die
Thematik vertraut und die Darstellung unkompliziert und klar strukturiert ist.[19]
The second and third items from Layer 3, applications,
read in our composite map:
·
understand simple technical
information, such as speaking instructions for everyday equipment.
· follow detailed directions.
In the German edition these descriptors are
found in the Scale Ankündigungen, Durchsagen und Anweisungen verstehen[20]
·
Kann einfache technische Informationen
verstehen, wie z.B. Bedienungsanleitungen für Geräte des täglichen Gebrauchs.
Kann detaillierten Wegbeschreibungen folgen.
In our composite maps we can further compare this with National Standards for Adult Literacy, Entry 3, which includes for example,
An adult can:
·
listen to and follow the gist of
explanations, instructions and narratives in different contexts.
·
listen for detail in explanations,
instructions and narratives in different contexts.
·
listen for and identify relevant
information and new information from discussions, explanations and
presentations .
in familiar formal exchanges connected with education, training, work and
social roles.
Further the National Language Standards
Level 2, also quoted in the composite map, states as three items (chosen by us
from seven in the original scale):
The listener can effectively:
·
listen for specific details from
familiar and directly accessible sources.
·
obtain both specific details from, and
the general meaning of, a range of conversations, announcements, messages,
instructions and directions spoken at normal speed.
· obtain common numerical, social facts and simple data from public announcements and broadcasts ..[21]
Thus what I hope these brief examples
demonstrate is not only that the alignment is valid (as was confirmed in the
very extensive feedback process) but that:
1
The composite maps provide an easily
accessible and user-friendly summary of the descriptors in the original scales,
while, I must add if not highlight
that the scales in the Common European Framework are not necessarily
easy to use for rapid reference purposes because they are embedded in the
explanatory text.
2 Through cross-reference between the scales the teacher, examiner, setter and indeed learner - are provided with richer information than in the single original (certainly the case with regard to the UK scales, but rather less so with regard to the more detailed if rather diffusely presented European Framework scale.)
I should also
add that each column of our scales supplies the page reference to the original.
We hope, therefore, to have brought some transparency to the understanding of the scales in use in the UK and Europe more widely, to have enabled comparison and amplification of detail at the aligned levels through the construction of the composite maps, notwithstanding the difference in number of those levels, in target users and even in languages in the scales under consideration.
Beyond this exercise the UK QCA is now situating Awarding Bodies English language examinations on the scales by an objective scrutiny of the explicit or implicit can-do elements or competences with subsequent matching against the maps. This allows the many disparate English (and MFL examinations on the market) to be placed within the overall National Qualifications Framework. This will be of use to learner candidates to inform them of what the examinations offer them in terms of practical outcomes, to teachers when advising learners which examination to choose, and to employers who can check on what recruits with these qualifications can do (or should be able to do!).
Finally I should add that there is to be a further publication from the Department for Education and Skills and QCA which Richard West and I have also drafted which will exemplify the standards with authentic, but, naturally, anonymous examination scripts for written language at levels up to Threshold B1. The texts are marked up for the features that display the descriptors. This document is intended to assist teachers and examiners, above all, to understand through practical examples, what characteristics learners work displays at a variety of pass levels, thus indicating also the range of competence that can be contained within a proficiency band. We hope that this publication also might be seen as a practical supplement or background document against which to view the Language Proficiency Scales that we scrutinised.
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY SCALES INCLUDED IN THE STUDY
National Standards for Adult Literacy
QCA, London, 2000 (English)
Key Skills Specifications
QCA, London, 1999, 2000 (Communications)
A Language in Common: assessing English as an additional language
QCA, London, 2000
The National Language Standards
Languages National Training Organisation, London, 1993, 2nd edn 2000 (Modern Foreign Languages)
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
Council of Europe, 1996, 1997, 2001
Pathways To Proficiency.
The Alignment Of Language Proficiency
Scales For Assessing Competence In English Language
Department for Education and Skills Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, London, 2003
Also Consulted
The ALTE Framework, The Association of Language Testers in Europe, 2001
The English-Speaking Union Framework Longman/English-Speaking Union, 1989
[1] Strength through Wisdom: A Critique of US Capability, Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1979.
[2] See Ray T Clifford and Donald C Fischer, Foreign Language Needs in the US Government, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, special edition: Foreign Languages in the Workplace, 511, September 1990, pp 109-121.
[3] Recommendations R(82) and R(98) 6 18 of Committee of Ministers to Member States concerning modern languages, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 1982.
[4] J A van Ek, The Threshold Level for modern language learning in schools, Longman, London, 1977; J L M Trim, H Holec, D Coste. L Porcher (eds) Towards a more comprehensive framework for the definition of language learning objectives. Vol I: Analytical summaries of the preliminary studies; Vol II Preliminary studies, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 1984.
D Gerard, J L M Trim eds, Project no 12. Learning and teaching modern languages for communication. Final Report of the Project Group (activities 1982-87), Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 1988.
J D van Ek, J L M Trim, Threshold Level 1990, CUP, Cambridge, 1991.
J D van Ek, J L M Trim, Waystage, 1990 CUP, Cambridge, 1991.
B North, Perspectives on language proficiency and aspects of competence: a reference paper discussing issues in defining categories and levels, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 1994.
[5] Revised German language edition, Gemeinsamer europäischer Referenzrahmen für Sprachen: lernen, lehren, beurteilen, Langenscheidt, Berlin, Munich, Vienna, Zurich, New York, 2001 (2000 English)
[6] The English Speaking Union Framework, B Carroll and R West,
ESU, London, 1989.
[7] A Fresh Start, Improving Literacy and Numeracy. The report of the working group chaired by Sir Claus Moser, DfEE, London, 1999.
[8] Breaking the Language Barriers, DfES, London 2000.
[9] National Standards for Adult Literacy, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), London, 2000.
[10] Key Skills Specifications, QCA, London, 1999, 2000.
[11] A Language in Common: assessing English as an additional language, QCA, 2000.
[12] The National Language Standards, Languages National Training Organisation, London, 1993, 2nd edn 2000.
[13] Pathways to Proficiency. The Alignment of Language Proficiency Scales for assessing competence in English language, (Richard West, Nigel Reeves with Angela Simpson), DfES, QCA, London, 2003.
[14] Pathways to Proficiency, p 27.
[15] Pathways to Proficiency, pp 29-32.
[16] Pathways to Proficiency, p 33-34.
[17] Gemeinsamer europäischer Referenzrahmen für Sprachen: lernen, lehren, beurteilen, S 35
[18] Gemeinsamer europäischer Referenzrahmen für Sprachen: lernen, lehren,
beurteilen, S 72
[19] Gemeinsamer europäischer Referenzrahmen für Sprachen: lernen, lehren,
beurteilen, S 72
[20] Gemeinsamer europäischer Referenzrahmen für Sprachen: lernen, lehren, beurteilen, S 73.
[21] Pathways to Proficiency,
p 35.