How can the CEFR be used to identify needs and learning objectives in a
university context?
A case study focussing on speaking skills.
Jennifer Meister
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
“Without a clear idea of the current knowledge and future aspirations of the learners, in terms of speaking English, effective teaching and learning are unlikely to be achieved.”
(Goh and Burns, 2012: 171-172)
“How do we set our objectives and mark our progress along the path from total ignorance to effective mastery?” (Council of Europe, 2001: xi)
Case Study: The students
21 students of English
3rd-7th semester
Majority (76%) in teaching degree programmes
Minority (24%) in BA programmes
Case Study: The course
“Conversation Practice”
15 sessions
90 minutes per week
No final exam
“[...] bei der Bewertung der mündlichen Leistung in Sprechfertigkeit dienen die Anforderungen des Gemeinsamen Europäischen Referenzrahmens für Sprachen auf dem Niveau C2 (Mastery) als Orientierung.”
Exam regulations for the state exam for future teachers of English in Bavaria
www.gesetze-bayern.de
Long-term goal: Teaching degree
“Weiterentwickelte englische Sprachkompetenz bis zur Niveaustufe C1+/C2 des Gemeinsamen Europäischen Referenzrahmens (GER) [...]”
Kompetenzprofil B.A. English and American Studies at FAU
www.phil.fau.de/studium-beruf
Long-term goal: Bachelor degree
Research Question 1
How do students self-assess their current speaking skills when presented with Tables 2 and 3 from the CEFR? • Table 2. Common Reference Levels: self-assessment grid
(Spoken Interaction and Spoken Production) • Table 3. Common Reference Levels: qualitative aspects of
spoken language use (range, accuracy, fluency, interaction, coherence)
(Council of Europe, 2001: 26-29)
Research Question 2
Which speaking skills, including aspects not included in the two CEFR tables, do students regard as their priorities for learning in Conversation Practice?
Research Question 3
How can the course content and class activities be linked to students’ priorities and CEFR descriptors?
Research Question 4
What do students perceive as the advantages and disadvantages of an explicit use of the CEFR in this context?
Methods
A questionnaire in week 1: self-assessment and identification of priorities
An overview of “contents and competences”
for each course meeting including CEFR descriptors
A questionnaire in week 8:
review of progress and use of the CEFR in the course
Results First Questionnaire (N=21)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
My spoken interaction
My spoken production
Table 2: Self-assessment grid
B1 B2 C1 C2
Self-assessment using Table 3
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Range
Accuracy
Fluency
Interaction
Coherence
Qualitative aspects of spoken language use
B1 B2 C1 C2
Other important skills
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Accurate pronunciation and intonation
Ability to translate between English and German
Knowledge of English-speaking countries and intercultural competence
Ability to describe the language and explain rules and vocabulary
Confidence in speaking English
Are these skills important to you as a student of English?
Yes No Maybe/Don't know
Priorities for learning in Conversation Practice
Vocabulary / range
Interaction
Pronunciation Grammar
Confidence
Fluency
Coherence
Accuracy
Register
Production Other
Priorities: both from CEFR tables and other skills
Weekly Overviews
Language Content and Competences
Overall topic
Skills focus (e.g. interaction, fluency, range)
Activities
CEFR descriptors for levels C1 and/or C2
Overview Week 4: Presentations
Interaction: explaining a planned presentation topic;
responding to questions and comments;
giving feedback in pairs
Production: speaking under pressure of time;
supporting the message of your presentation with images;
managing transitions between slides in a presentation
Listening: following a presentation at native speaker speed on an unfamiliar topic
Range: using persuasive techniques in a presentation
Overview Week 4: CEFR Descriptors
Addressing audiences – C2
Can present a complex topic confidently and articulately to an audience unfamiliar with it, structuring and adapting the talk flexibly to meet the audience's needs.
Can handle difficult and even hostile questioning.
(Council of Europe, 2001: 60)
Listening as a member of a live audience – C2
Can follow specialised lectures and presentations employing a high degree of colloquialism, regional usage or unfamiliar terminology.
(Council of Europe, 2001: 67)
Linking course content to CEFR
“[...] in relating a curriculum to the CEFR, the most important point is not to throw away what already exists.”
(North, 2014a: 111)
“Any real-world or classroom activity will almost certainly involve tasks and competences represented by clusters of descriptors.”
(North, 2014b: 232)
Results of Questionnaire Week 8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Provides focus
Other
Helps to set goals
Provides a structured overview
Self-assessment and check on progress
Benefits of linking course content and language competences to CEFR
Open question, statements (N=31) categorised into 5 groups:
Results of Questionnaire Week 8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Accurate self-assessment difficult Confusing/unclear
Distinguishing levels difficult Levels not a perfect fit Too general/imprecise
None Too restrictive
Other
Limitations in linking course content and language competences to CEFR
Open question, statements (N=23) categorised into 8 groups:
Positive Conclusions
Using the CEFR for needs analysis and setting objectives:
offers a basis for discussion and selection of competences
helps teachers and students to monitor progress and set goals
provides structure and focus to the course
Remaining Problems at C1/C2:
The native speaker issue:
“Level C2, whilst it has been termed 'Mastery', is not intended to imply native-speaker or near native-speaker competence.”
(Council of Europe, 2001: 36)
Formal Discussion and Meetings
C2: Can hold his/her own in formal discussion of complex issues, putting an articulate and persuasive argument, at no disadvantage to native speakers.
(Council of Europe, 2001: 78)
Interviewing and being interviewed
C2: Can keep up his/her side of the dialogue extremely well, structuring the talk and interacting authoritatively with complete fluency as interviewer or interviewee, at no disadvantage to a native speaker.
(Council of Europe, 2001: 82)
Remaining Problems at C1/C2: Pronunciation
PHONOLOGICAL CONTROL (Council of Europe, 2001: 117)
C2 As C1
C1 Can vary intonation and place sentence stress correctly in order to express
finer shades of meaning.
B2 Has acquired a clear, natural, pronunciation and intonation.
B1 Pronunciation is clearly intelligible even if a foreign accent is sometimes
evident and occasional mispronunciations occur.
A2 Pronunciation is generally clear enough to be understood despite a noticeable
foreign accent, but conversational partners will need to ask for repetition from
time to time.
A1 Pronunciation of a very limited repertoire of learnt words and phrases can be
understood with some effort by native speakers used to dealing with speakers
of his/her language group.
Remaining problems at C1/C2: differentiation
C1/C2 distinction not always clear
C2 descriptors could be extended
C1 often represents top end of the scale (publishers, other projects)
What next?
References
Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, CUP. Goh, C.C.M. and Burns, A. (2012) Teaching Speaking. A Holistic Approach. Cambridge, CUP. North, B. (2014a) The CEFR in Practice. Cambridge, CUP. North, B. (2014b) “Putting the Common European Framework of Reference to good use” in Language Teaching, 47.2: 228-249. www.gesetze-bayern.de www.phil.fau.de/studium-beruf Photographs from www.pixabay.com