Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Theories
- Part II Methods
- Part III Skill Development
- Part IV Individual Differences
- Part V Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches
- 20 Pedagogical Interventions to L2 Grammar Instruction
- 21 Task-Based Language Learning
- 22 Task and Syllabus Design for Morphologically Complex Languages
- 23 Proficiency Guidelines and Frameworks
- 24 Technology-Mediated Language Learning
- 25 Content-Based L2 Teaching
- 26 Conceptions of L2 Learning in Critical Language Pedagogy
- Part VI Context and Environment
- Part VII Moving Forward
- Index
- References
23 - Proficiency Guidelines and Frameworks
from Part V - Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 June 2019
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Theories
- Part II Methods
- Part III Skill Development
- Part IV Individual Differences
- Part V Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches
- 20 Pedagogical Interventions to L2 Grammar Instruction
- 21 Task-Based Language Learning
- 22 Task and Syllabus Design for Morphologically Complex Languages
- 23 Proficiency Guidelines and Frameworks
- 24 Technology-Mediated Language Learning
- 25 Content-Based L2 Teaching
- 26 Conceptions of L2 Learning in Critical Language Pedagogy
- Part VI Context and Environment
- Part VII Moving Forward
- Index
- References
Summary
In the decades following the Second World War, there was a strongly felt need on both sides of the Atlantic to find ways of describing L2 proficiency in terms of functional capacity—the ability to perform communicative tasks in the real world—rather than grammatical knowledge. In the wake of wars against Japan and Korea, the United States government wanted to be able to gauge what its employees could do in the L2s they had learnt; in Europe, a major challenge was to enable adult language learners to develop communicative repertoires sufficient to support mobility. This chapter focuses on the two most influential instruments to emerge from this reorientation of L2 education, the Proficiency guidelines developed by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL PG; ACTFL, 1986, 2012a; Breiner-Sanders et al., 2000; Breiner-Sanders, Swender, & Terry, 2002) and the Council of Europe’s Common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR), originally published in the organization’s two official languages, English and French (Council of Europe, 2001a, 2001b).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning , pp. 550 - 574Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
ACTFL (2012b). ACTFL performance descriptors for language learners. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.Google Scholar
ACTFL (n.d.). Assigning CEFR ratings to ACTFL assessments. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/reports/Assigning_CEFR_Ratings_To_ACTFL_Assessments.pdf.Google Scholar
Alderson, J. C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 659–663.Google Scholar
ALTE (2011). Manual for language test development. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/1680667a2b.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (1988). Problems in examining the validity of the ACTFL oral proficiency interview. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(2), 149–164.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Savignon, S. J. (1986). The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: A critique of the ACTFL oral interview. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 380–390.Google Scholar
Berger, A. (2015). Validating analytic rating scales: A multi-method approach to scaling descriptors for assessing academic speaking. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
bmlv (2000). European language portfolio (Swiss model for adolescents and adults). Bern: Berner Lehrmittel- und Medienverlag.Google Scholar
Breiner-Sanders, K. E., Lowe, P. Jr., Miles, J., & Swender, E. (2000). ACTFL proficiency guidelines–Speaking, revised 1999. Foreign Language Annals, 33(1), 13–18.Google Scholar
Breiner-Sanders, K. E., Swender, E., & Terry, R. M. (2002). Preliminary proficiency guidelines—Writing revised 2001. Foreign Language Annals, 35(1), 9–15.Google Scholar
Byram, M., & Parmenter, L. (eds.) (2012). The common European framework of reference: The globalisation of language education policy. Bristol/Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (1992). Transparency and coherence in language learning in Europe: Objectives, evaluation, certification. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (1996a). Common European framework of reference for language learning and teaching. Draft 1 of a framework proposal. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (1996b). Modern languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. A common European framework of reference. Draft 2 of a framework proposal. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (1997a). Language learning for European citizenship: Final report (1989–96). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (1997b). European language portfolio: Proposals for development. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2000). European language portfolio (ELP): Principles and guidelines. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2001a). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2001b). Cadre europe´en commun de re´fe´rence pour les langues: apprendre, enseigner, e´valuer. Paris: Didier. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/16802fc3a8.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2011). European language portfolio (ELP): Principles and guidelines, with added explanatory notes. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/16804586ba.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989.Google Scholar
Díez-Bedmar, M. (2018). Fine-tuning descriptors for CEFR B1 level: Insights from learner corpora. ELT Journal, 72(2), 199–209.Google Scholar
European Commission (2012). First European survey on language competences. Final report. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/eslc/ESLC_Final%20Report_210612.pdf.Google Scholar
Figueras, N., North, B., Takala, S., Van Avermaet, P., & Verhelst, N. (2009). Relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR): A manual. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Fulcher, G. (1996). Invalidating validity claims for the ACTFL oral rating scale. System, 24(2), 163–172.Google Scholar
Fulcher, G. (2010). The reification of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and effect-driven testing. In Psaltou-Joycey, A. & Mattheoudakis, M. (eds.), Advances in research on language acquisition and teaching: Selected papers (pp. 15–26). Thessaloniki: Greek Applied Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Goullier, F. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the development of language policies: Challenges and responsibilities. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Green, A. (2012). Language functions revisited: Theoretical and empirical bases for language construct definition across the ability range. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A., & Filipovic´, L. (2012). Criterial features in L2 English: Specifying the reference levels of the Common European Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. J. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 663–667.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Frawley, W. (1985). Oral-proficiency testing: A critical analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 69(4), 337–345.Google Scholar
Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (2003). The ACTFL proficiency guidelines and the oral proficiency interview: A brief history and analysis of their survival. Foreign Language Annals, 36(4), 483–490.Google Scholar
Little, D. (2002). The European Language Portfolio: Structure, origins, implementation and challenges. Language Teaching, 35(3), 182–189.Google Scholar
Little, D. (2016). The European Language Portfolio: Time for a fresh start? International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 3(3), 162–172.Google Scholar
Little, D., Dam, L., & Legenhausen, L. (2017). Language learner autonomy: Theory, practice and research. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Little, D., Goullier, F., & Hughes, G. (2011). The European Language Portfolio: The story so far (1991–2011). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/16804595a7.Google Scholar
Little, D., & King, L. (2014). Talking with John Trim (1924–2013), Part II: Three decades of work for the Council of Europe. Language Teaching, 47(1), 118–132.Google Scholar
Met, M., & Byram, M. (1999). Standards for foreign language learning and the teaching of culture. The Language Learning Journal, 19(1), 61–68.Google Scholar
Ministry of Education and Sport, Albania (2016). Language education policy profile: Albania. Country report. Tirana: Ministry of Education and Sport. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/language-education-policy-profile-albania-country-report/168076362d.Google Scholar
Moeller, A. J., Theiler, J. M., & Wu, C. (2012). Goal setting and student achievement: A longitudinal study. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Standards Collaborative Board (2015). World-readiness standards for learning languages (4th edn.). Alexandria, VA: National Standards Collaborative Board.Google Scholar
NCSSFL & ACTFL (2015). NCSSFL–ACTFL can-do statements: Performance indicators for language learners. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.Google Scholar
Pulinx, R., Van Avermaet, P., & Extramiana, C. (2014). Linguistic integration of adult migrants: Policy and practice. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/16802fc1ce.Google Scholar
Scha¨rer, R. (2000). European Language Portfolio: Final report on the pilot project phase 1998–2000. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/16804586bb.Google Scholar
Swender, E. (2015). Response to letter to the editor. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 775–776.Google Scholar
Swender, E., & Duncan, G. (1998). ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K–12 learners. Foreign Language Annals, 31(4), 479–491.Google Scholar
Tschirner, E. (ed.) (2012). Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Tu¨bingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
van Ek, J. A., & Trim, J. L. M. (1998). Waystage 1990 (revised and corrected edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Ek, J. A., & Trim, J. L. M. (2001). Vantage. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. A. (2014). Fostering self-regulated learning through the European Language Portfolio: An embedded mixed methods study. The Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 921–936.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. A., & Moeller, A. J. (2012). Increasing self-regulated learning through the LinguaFolio. Foreign Language Annals, 45(3), 330–348.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by