The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), its aims and objectives - Ingliz tili - Diplom ishlar

The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), its aims and objectives

Yuklangan vaqt:

26.09.2019

Ko'chirishlar soni:

0

Hajmi:

63.103515625 KB

Ko'chirib olish

CONTENTS Introduction ………………………………………………………………3 Chapter I. The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), its aims and objectives ……………….………………………………………....6- 24 1.1. CEFR in the educational context…………………………………..….6 1.2. Descriptors of CEFR…………………………………………………11 Summary……………………………………………………………….25 Chapter II. Implementation of CEFR into the educational system of Uzbekistan ………………………………………………………………….27-50 2.1. CEFR and assessment in the educational system of Uzbekistan ……26 2.2. The role of intercultural competence in textbooks based on CEFR …33 2.2.1. Analysis of the textbook B1 for secondary specialized education..38 2.2.2. Analysis of the textbook Scale up for ESP learners…………………43 Summary…………..…………………………………………………49 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………50 The list of used literature …………………………………………………53 Appendix …………………………………………………………………..56

INTRODUCTION The topicality and importance of the theme of the graduation project work. Since the declaration of its independence, the continuing education system of the Republic of Uzbekistan has been extensively reformed in line with the global movement towards integration of education systems across the world and re-establishing the sense of nationhood. Undoubtedly, this was a hard and a demanding process which required the total reestablishment of the whole system. Along with the development of purely Uzbek model of education system by means of adopting documents such as Law on Education 1 and National Programme for Personnel Training 2 there have been established a comprehensive education system, aimed at creating harmoniously developed, highly educated, modern- minded younger generation, and further integration of the republic into the world community by breaking up the old-dated principles of education. Based on the analysis of the system of organization of learning foreign languages, which showed that educational standards, curricula and textbooks did not fully meet modern requirements, especially in the use of advanced information and media technologies, there was issued the Decree No. 1875 on December 10, 2012 On Further Measures of Improving the System of Learning Foreign Languages by the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov, which clearly outlined the further aims and tasks of reforming the system of learning foreign languages. 3 One of the first things that have been done in order to implement the reforms was the designing and adoption of new framework CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference) which include intercultural competence based on our 1 O`zbekiston Respublikasining “Ta’lim to`g`risida”gi Qonuni. O`zbekiston Respublikasi Oliy Majlisining Axborotnomasi, 1997-yil. 9-son, 225-modda. 2 Kadrlar tayyorlash milliy dasturi. O`zbekiston Respublikasi Oliy Majlisining Axborotnomasi, 1997-yil. 11-12-son, 295-modda. 3 O`zbekiston Respublikasi Prezidentining 2012-yil 10-dekabrdagi “Chet tillarni o`rganish tizimini yanada takomillashtirish chora-tadbirlari to ` g ` risida”gi PQ-1875-sonli Qarori.

culture. Many scholars, educational experts and methodologists are working in this field. We believe that to study the process of implementation of CEFR in our educational system is one of the most actual themes to research. The main purpose and objectives of the theme. The aim of the paper is to study the role of CEFR in education and its implementation in the educational system of Uzbekistan. The tasks of the research are as follows: - to give general overview on CEFR’s history, its aims and objectives; - to study descriptors of the Common European Framework of Reference; - to highlight the role of intercultural competence in CEFR context; - to analyze the implementation of CEFR in the higher educational system of Uzbekistan The scope of study. CEFR was studied in the research works of the following researchers: Trim J.L.M., Girard D., North B., Schneider G. and others. As well as foreign experts, our Uzbek methodologists Iriskulov A.T. and Rashidova F.M. has been conducting researches on the implementation of CEFR in the educational system of Uzbekistan. The object and subject matter of the research. The object of the research is the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), while CEFR descriptors and its role in knowledge assessment may be said its subject matter. The scientific novelty of the theme is to find information about CEFR, its descriptors, its role in intercultural competence as well as learning its role in the educational system of Uzbekistan. Many researchers worked on this theme before, but from the point of view of studying CEFR in the educational system of Uzbekistan has not been done yet. Besides, we consider CEFR from the point of view of intercultural competence which is one of the novelties of our work. The results may be implemented in the following spheres: - In higher educational establishments it can be successfully used by teachers as a material for writing research works dealing with CEFR and assessment;

- It can be used by teachers of schools, lyceums and vocational schools as a practical manual for teaching English; - It can be useful for everyone who wants to find out the level of his/her English. The structure and description of the research. The project paper consists of introduction, two chapters, five paragraphs, summaries, conclusion, the list of used literature and appendix. It deals with CEFR in the educational system of Uzbekistan. In introduction the following are given: the topicality and importance of the theme, the aim and tasks of the research, the scope of study of the theme, the object and subject matter of the research, the scientific novelty of the theme, the structure and description of the research. The first chapter includes 2 paragraphs and deals with the Common European Framework of Reference, its aims, objectives and descriptors. Chapter 2, which consists of 3 paragraphs, deals with CEFR implementations in the educational system of Uzbekistan. In conclusion we have given conclusive ideas of the research.

Chapter I. The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), its aims and objectives 1.1 CEFR in the educational context During much of the twentieth century, theorists, researchers, and language professionals were very active in trying to describe what it means to learn languages and how they could be operationalized and sequenced for learning, for teaching, and for assessment. Work was triggered almost in parallel on both sides of the Atlantic in the aftermath of World War II and the Korean War, international conflicts that made very apparent the need to learn foreign languages in order to be able to use them in everyday transactions, for social interaction, and for information transfer. Being able to use a language meant being able to put linguistic knowledge into practice; for the sake of certification, it was necessary to identify different levels of mastery along the learning continuum. The publication of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) in 2001 by the Council of Europe was the European response to the challenge, and its authors acknowledged the two main aims they had in mind: 1. To encourage practitioners of all kinds in the language field, including language learners themselves, to reflect on such questions as:  What do we actually do when we speak (or write) to each other? What enables us to act in this way?  How much of this do we need to learn when we try to use a new language?  How do we set our objectives and mark our progress along the path from total ignorance to effective mastery? How does language learning take place?  What can we do to help ourselves and other people to learn a language better? 2. To make it easier for practitioners to tell each other and their clientele what they wish to help learners to achieve and how they attempt to do so.

The Common European Framework is designed to provide a common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc. across Europe and nowadays some Asian countries. It describes in a comprehensive way what language learners have to learn 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. The description also covers the cultural context in which language is set. The Framework also de ﬁnes levels of pro ﬁciency which allow learners’ progress to be measured at each stage of learning and on a life-long basis. 4 The Common European Framework is intended to overcome the barriers to communication among professionals working in the ﬁeld of modern languages arising from the different educational systems in Europe. It provides the means for educational administrators, course designers, teachers, teacher trainers, examining bodies, etc., to re ﬂect on their current practice, with a view to situating and co-ordinating their efforts and to ensuring that they meet the real needs of the learners for whom they are responsible. 5The success of the CEFR is due to two main factors. The first one has been outlined above, and it is both geopolitical and scientific. Governments and applied linguists wanted to link language learning, language teaching, and language assessment to a more real-life oriented approach and were striving to find a common currency, in terms of terminology and in terms of levels of attainment. The CEFR was a timely publication in this respect and acted as a catalyst. It provided a complex but operational definition of language that embodied the work of many decades, presented as the ‘action-oriented approach’ and commonly referred to in the text as the ‘horizontal dimension’. 4 Figueras N. The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal Volume 66/4 Special issue October 2012; doi:10.1093/elt/ccs037 477 © The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. 5 Council of Europe. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

In addition, the CEFR included definitions of different levels along the proficiency scale at six main levels, which were described in general terms and in relation to language activities and language tasks in over 50 descriptor scales, commonly referred to as the ‘vertical dimension’ (Figure 1). The second crucial factor for the success of the CEFR has to do with the characteristics of the approach it embodies, the positive wording of the level descriptors, and its non-compulsory nature with a structure open to multimodality and adaptations. The construction of a comprehensive, transparent and coherent framework for language learning and teaching does not imply the imposition of one single uniform system. On the contrary, the framework should be open and flexible, so that it can be applied, with such adaptations as prove necessary, to particular situations. The CEFR gained international attention and respect very soon after its publication and there were two features in the document, both closely related to the ‘vertical dimension’, which were the most salient and the most rapidly put into use. One of them was the reference level labels (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2) which, especially in the field of testing, soon outshone all other aspects in the document and became valuable currency for governments, policymakers, and testing institutions to the dismay of many researchers and testing specialists. The second feature to be quickly adopted was the empirically developed and validated reference level descriptors, which were to have an enormous influence in the drafting of objectives, targets, and outcomes in language learning programmes in different contexts for different uses and purposes. The impact of these two features is of a very different nature. The use of the CEFR level labels, with or without their accompanying level descriptors, is very visible and has become commonplace in all educational levels in Europe (not only for adults and young adults learning foreign languages, but also for young learners and for L1 learners) by different stakeholders (government officials, publishers, admissions officers at universities, immigration authorities) with different degrees of validity. Most CEFR level labels have been used to report the results of the European

Language Indicator, SurveyLang. The majority of teachers and learners now seldom use terms like ‘beginner’ or ‘intermediate’, labels that have been replaced by the use of A1 or B1, sometimes with very little awareness of what they mean. It is not always the case that A1 is more transparent than ‘beginner’, especially if the label is used in isolation without its corresponding descriptor or if the descriptor is not clearly operationalized into outcomes.The construction of a comprehensive, transparent and coherent framework for language learning and teaching does not imply the imposition of one single uniform system. On the contrary, the framework should be open and ﬂexible, so that it can be applied, with such adaptations as prove necessary, to particular situations. CEF should be: Multi purpose : usable for the full variety of purposes involved in the planning and pro-vision of facilities for language learning; ﬂexible : adaptable for use in different circumstances; open : capable of further extension and re ﬁnement; dynamic : in continuous evolution in response to experience in its use; user-friendly : presented in a form readily understandable and usable by those to whom it is addressed; non-dogmatic : not irrevocably and exclusively attached to any one of a number of com peting linguistic or educational theories or practices. However, despite the huge amount of work that has been put into changing language syllabi, changing methodologies, and changing assessment practice, and despite the discussions, debates, seminars, and congresses on the usefulness of the CEFR, it is still not possible to say that these language policies have been effectively transferred to classrooms or to teaching materials. Not all teaching and learning objectives are designed to meet communication needs, and not all assessment is geared to outcomes, that is, specific descriptions of what a student has demonstrated and understood at the completion of an activity or course. A lot

has changed, but there is still the feeling that there is still much to be done before it can be said that policy matches real life, if that is ever possible.

1.2 Descriptors of CEFROne of the aims of the Framework is to help partners to describe the levels of pro ﬁciency required by existing standards, tests and examinations in order to facilitate comparisons between different systems of quali ﬁcations. For this purpose the Descriptive Scheme and the Common Reference Levels have been developed. Between them they provide a conceptual grid which users can exploit to describe their system. Ideally a scale of reference levels in a common framework should meet the following four criteria. Two relate to description issues, and two relate to measurement issues: Description Issues: A common framework scale should be context-free in order to accommodate generalisable results from different speci ﬁc contexts. That is to say that a common scale should not be produced specifically for, let us say, the school context and then applied to adults, or vice-versa. Yet at the same time the descriptors in a common Framework scale need to be context-relevant , relatable to or translatable into each and every relevant context – and appropriate for the function they are used for in that context. This means that the categories used to describe what learners can do in different contexts of use must be relatable to the target contexts of use of the different groups of learners within the overall target population.

The impact of the level descriptors has been less visible, although they have been equally widely used. Curricula and language programmes today are often outcome-based, drawn up with much more attention to real-life uses, and focused on what students will be able or should be able to do at the end of a course. The lack of direct acknowledgement of the CEFR is probably due to the fact that language objectives or outcomes have also been much adapted (sometimes beyond recognition), and the adaptations have seldom been reported and documented. The contribution of the European Language Portfolio (ELP) in this respect needs to be taken into consideration. Whilst ‘using’ the CEFR beyond the level labels implies careful reading of the document itself before any direct, practical implementations are possible, ‘using’ the different components of the ELP is much more straightforward. The different instruments in the ELP (Portfolio, Language Biography, and Dossier) can be put into direct use with students, something that facilitated the understanding and dissemination of the CEFR approach and the familiarization with the phrasing of the descriptors, with the result that these have influenced the drafting of language objectives in curricula, in language programmes, and in lessons. The reference level descriptors are one of the important innovations contained in the CEFR, not only in their technical aspects and recommendations on formulation (positiveness, definiteness, clarity, brevity, independence), but also in the empirical methodology used for developing them. The impact of both the technical recommendations and the need for empirical validation was highlighted by two projects which formulated descriptors during the period of development of the CEFR and were closely based on Draft two of the document, circulated in 1996, namely the DIALANG and the ALTE (Association of Language Testers in Europe) ‘Can do’ project. Despite the huge variation across countries, programmes, and classrooms, it is common today to talk about what students ‘can do’ and describe it positively, in relation to what can be observed and not in relation to what they cannot do, as was often previously the case.

Those readers who accessed the CEFR during the first few years after its publication will remember the impact caused by the descriptor forA1 in Table 1(see App.) in the CEFR, where a level as low as A1 was described in terms of what types of activity were carried out, how they were done, and under which conditions and limitations. Underlining is provided to highlight this. A1 Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows, and things he/she has. Can interact in a simple way, provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help. A brief overview of the programmes of international teaching and assessment conferences during the recent past is sufficient to see how important the CEFR has been since its publication. Likewise, publishing houses and testing companies have included the CEFR level labels and the European stars in their brochures for some years now. However, only a few books have been published directly on the didactic uses of the CEFR: Alderson (2002), Morrow (2004a), and Goullier (2007), this last one being perhaps the most hands-on, plurilingual attempt at describing how materials and methodologies change when putting the CEFR into practice. Something similar can be said about tests and assessment programmes. Despite the use of level labels and despite the obvious changes in marking schemes and in level definitions to match the recommendations already discussed in the drafting of descriptors, there are no published studies on the changes made in the tests and the effects on validity or enhanced relevance. This mismatch between reported influences and published accounts is also present in textbooks. Although they may advertise themselves as ‘towards C1’, or ‘CEF correlation: C1 advanced’, and although they incorporate ‘portfolios’, ‘self- assessment charts’, and ‘can do worksheets’, they include tables of contents that are still the same as ten years ago, organized by topics or by language functions.

One of the most important contributions of the CEFR has been that of stirring the waters of the teaching and the testing professions, which has resulted in considerable professional growth. Alongside the presence of CEFR- or ELP- related presentations, a myriad of projects and networks were set up in order to provide forums for discussion among European professionals in different fields who found themselves faced with a document worth discussing, and which had already attracted the interest of government officials.When one looks at these six levels, however, one sees that they are respectively higher and lower interpretations of the classic division into basic, intermediate and advanced. Also, some of the names given to Council of Europe speci ﬁcations for levels have proved resistant to translation (e.g. Waystage , Vantage ). The scheme therefore proposed adopts a ‘hypertext’ branching principle, starting from an initial division into three broad levels – A, B and C: A B C Basic User Independent User Proﬁc ient User A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 (Breakthrough)(Waystage) (Threshold) (Vantage) (Effective (Mastery) Operational Pro ﬁciency) Figure1 In order to orient learners, teachers and other users within the educational system for some practical purpose, however, a more detailed overview is likely to be necessary. Such an overview can be presented in the form of a grid showing major categories of language use at each of the six levels. The example in Table2 (App.) is a draft for a self-assessment orientation tool based on the six levels. It is intended to help learners to

pro ﬁle their main language skills, and decide at which level they might look at a checklist of more detailed descriptors in order to self-assess their level of pro ﬁciency.The CEFR level descriptors are not objectives or outcomes. A level descriptor in the CEFR states what is observable in a learner at a certain level. A learning outcome needs to state what the learner will have learnt and will be able to do at the end of a course of study. Shifting from observable behaviour to achievable and identifiable targets is not always straightforward, but claiming CEFR-related outcomes makes that absolutely necessary, as the implementation of the action-oriented approach in the CEFR requires that curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment are not only related but interdependent. David Little (personal communication 2012) states that the CEFR level descriptors may be used to: 1. define a learning target 2. select and/or develop learning activities and materials 3. guide the selection and design of assessment tasks. Therefore, curriculum designers and programme developers need to look at reference level descriptors in the CEFR with the three aims outlined by Little. For each level and each language activity (reading, listening, speaking production and interaction, and writing production and interaction), they need to work from the global scale. As they do this, they can flesh out the quality and quantity dimensions —the ‘what’ and the ‘how well’ in each descriptor—thus allowing for the formulation of objectives or outcomes. Here are some sample outcomes, taken from Spanish curricula for adult language schools ( Escuelas Oficiales de Idiomas ) for speaking production and interaction, and claiming to be linked to B1: ■■ Make simple, rehearsed, presentations on familiar topics, highlighting important points.

■■ Initiate and maintain conversations and intervene in discussions in standard language on general topics and/or related with his/her work, following social conventions. ■■ Interact, in a coherent and comprehensible way, in a variety of learning and everyday situations to tell a story, share ideas and information, or express feelings. Illustrative descriptors:The three tables used to introduce the Common Reference Levels (Tables 1, 2 and 3) are summarized from a bank of ‘illustrative descriptors’ developed and validated for the CEF in the research project. These formulations have been mathematically scaled to these levels by analyzing the way in which they have been interpreted in the assessment of large numbers of learners. ‘Can Do’ descriptors are provided for reception, interaction and production. There may not be descriptors for all sub-categories for every level, since some activities cannot be undertaken until a certain level of competence has been reached, whilst others may cease to be an objective at higher levels. ‘Can Do’ descriptors are provided for some of the strategies employed in performing communicative activities. Strategies are seen as a hinge between the learner’s resources (competences) and what he/she can do with them (communicative activities). The principles of a) planning action, b) balancing resources and compensating for de ﬁciencies during execution and c) monitoring results and undertaking repair as necessary are described in the sections dealing with interaction and production strategies. Scaled descriptors are provided for aspects of linguistic competence and pragmatic competence, and for sociolinguistic competence. Certain aspects of competence do not seem to be amenable to de ﬁnition at all levels; distinctions have been made where they have been shown to be meaningful.

Descriptors need to remain holistic in order to give an overview; detailed lists of microfunctions, grammatical forms and vocabulary are presented in language speci ﬁcations for particular languages (e.g.Threshold Level 1990). An analysis of the functions, notions, grammar and vocabulary necessary to perform the communicative tasks described on the scales could be part of the process of developing new sets of languages speci ﬁcations. General competences implied by such a module (e.g. Knowledge of the World, Cognitive skills) could be listed in similar fashion. The set as a whole, whilst not being fully comprehensive and having been scaled in one (admittedly multi-lingual, multi-sector) context of foreign language learning in instructional settings: -is ﬂexible . The same set of descriptors can be organised – as here – into the set of broad ‘conventional levels’ identi ﬁed at the Rüschlikon Symposium, used by the European Commission’s DIALANG Project , as well as by ALTE (The Association of Language Testers in Europe) . They can also be presented as narrower ‘pedagogic levels’. -is coherent from the point of view of content. Similar or identical elements which were included in different descriptors proved to have very similar scale values. These scale values also, to a very large extent, con ﬁrm the intentions of authors of the scales of language pro ﬁciency used as sources. They also appear to relate coherently to the content of Council of Europe speci ﬁcations, as well as the levels being proposed by DIALANG and ALTE. Level A1 (Breakthrough) is probably the lowest ‘level’ of generative language pro ﬁciency which can be identi ﬁed. Before this stage is reached, however, there may be a range of speci ﬁc tasks which learners can perform effectively using a very restricted range of language and which are relevant to the needs of the learners concerned.The1994–5 Swiss National Science Research Council Survey, which developed and

scaled the illustrative descriptors, identi ﬁed a band of language use, limited to the performance of isolated tasks, which can be presupposed in the de ﬁnition of Level A1. In certain contexts, for example with young learners, it may be appropriate to elaborate such a ‘milestone’. The following descriptors relate to simple, general tasks, which were scaled below Level A1, but can constitute useful objectives for beginners: - can make simple purchases where pointing or other gesture can support the verbal reference; - can ask and tell day, time of day and date; - can use some basic greetings; - can say yes, no, excuse me, please, thank you, sorry; - can ﬁll in uncomplicated forms with personal details, name, address, nationality, marital status; - can write a short, simple postcard. The descriptors above concern ‘real life’ tasks of a tourist nature. In a school learning context, one could imagine a separate list of ‘pedagogic tasks’, including ludic aspects of language–especially in primary schools. Secondly, the Swiss empirical results suggest a scale of 9 more or less equally sized, coherent levels as shown in Figure 2. This scale has steps between A2 (Waystage) and B1 (Threshold), between B1 (Threshold) and B2 (Vantage), and between B2 (Vantage) and C1 (Effective Operational Pro ﬁciency). The possible existence of such narrower levels may be of interest in learning contexts, but can still be related to the broader levels conventional in examining contexts. An analysis of the functions, notions, grammar and vocabulary necessary to perform the communicative tasks described on the scales could be part of the process of developing new sets of language speci ﬁcations.

Level A1 (Breakthrough) – is considered the lowest level of generative language use: – the point at which the learner can interact in a simple way, ask and answer simple questions about themselves, where they live, people they know, and things they have, initiate and respond to simple statements in areas of immediate need or on very familiar topics, rather than relying purely on a very ﬁnite rehearsed, lexically organised repertoire of situation-speci ﬁc phrases. Level A2 does appear to re ﬂect the level referred to by the Waystage speci ﬁcation. It is at this level that the majority of descriptors stating social functions are to be found, like use simple everyday polite forms of greeting and address; greet people, ask how they are and react to news; handle very short social exchanges; ask and answer questions about what they do at work and in free time; make and respond to invitations; discuss what to do, where to go and make arrangements to meet; make and accept offers. Here too are to be found descriptors on getting out and about: the simpli ﬁed cut-down version of the full set of transactional speci ﬁcations in ‘The Threshold Level’ for adults living abroad, like: make simple transactions in shops, post of ﬁ ces or banks; get simple information about travel; use public transport: buses, trains, and taxis, ask for basic information, ask and give directions, and buy tickets; ask for and provide everyday goods and services. The next band represents a strong Waystage (A2+) performance. What is noticeable here is more active participation in conversation given some assistance and certain limitations, for example: initiate, maintain and close simple, restricted face-to-face conversa tion; understand enough to manage simple, routine exchanges without undue effort; make him/herself understood and exchange ideas and information on familiar topics in predictable everyday situations, provided the other person helps if necessary; communicate successfully on basic themes if he/she can ask for help to express what he wants to; deal with everyday situa tions with predictable content, though he/she will generally

have to compromise the message and search for words; interact with reasonable ease in structured situations, given some help, but participation in open discussion is fairly restricted; plus signi ﬁcantly more ability to sustain monologues, for example: express how he/she feels in simple terms; give an extended description of everyday aspects of his/her environment e.g. people, places, a job or study experience; describe past activities and personal experiences; describe habits and routines; describe plans and arrangements; explain what he/she likes or dislikes about something; give short, basic descriptions of events and activities; describe pets and possessions; use simple descriptive language to make brief statements about and compare objects and possessions. Level B1 re ﬂects the Threshold Level speci ﬁcation for a visitor to a foreign country and is perhaps most categorised by two features. The ﬁrst feature is the ability to maintain interaction and get across what you want to, in a range of contexts, for example: generally follow the main points of extended discussion around him/her, provided speech is clearly articulated in standard dialect; give or seek personal views and opinions in an informal discussion with friends; express the main point he/she wants to make comprehensibly; exploit a wide range of simple language ﬂexibly to express much of what he or she wants to; maintain a conversation or discussion but may sometimes be dif ﬁcult to follow when trying to say exactly what he/she would like to; keep going comprehensibly, even though pausing for grammatical and lexical planning and repair is very evident, especially in longer stretches of free production. The second feature is the ability to cope ﬂexibly with problems in everyday life, for example cope with less routine situations on public transport; deal with most situations likely to arise when making travel arrangements through an agent or when actually travelling; enter unprepared into conversations on familiar topics; make a complaint; take some initiatives in an interview/consultation (e.g. to bring up a new subject) but is very dependent on interviewer in the interaction; ask someone to clarify or elaborate what they have just said.

The subsequent band seems to be a Strong Threshold (B1+). The same two main features continue to be present, with the addition of a number of descriptors which focus on the exchange of quantities of information, for example: take messages communicating enquiries, explaining problems; provide concrete information required in an inter- view/consultation (e.g. describe symptoms to a doctor) but does so with limited precision; explain why something is a problem; summarise and give his or her opinion about a short story, article, talk, discussion, interview, or documentary and answer further questions of detail; carry out a prepared interview, checking and con ﬁ rming information, though he/she may occasionally have to ask for repetition if the other person’s response is rapid or extended; describe how to do something, giving detailed instructions; exchange accumulated factual information on familiar routine and non-routine matters within his/her ﬁ eld with some con ﬁ dence. Level B2 represents a new level as far above B1 (Threshold) as A2 (Waystage) is below it. It is intended to re ﬂect the Vantage Level speci ﬁcation. The metaphor is that, having been progressing slowly but steadily across the intermediate plateau, the learner ﬁnds he has arrived somewhere, things look different, he/she acquires a new perspective, can look around him/her in a new way. This concept does seem to be borne out to a considerable extent by the descriptors calibrated at this level. They represent quite a break with the content so far. For example at the lower end of the band there is a focus on effective argument: account for and sustain his opinions in discussion by providing relevant explanations, arguments and comments; explain a view point on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options; construct a chain of reasoned argument; develop an argument giving reasons in support of or against a particular point of view; explain a problem and make it clear that his/her counterpart in a negotiation must make a concession; speculate about causes, consequences, hypothetical situations; take an active part in informal discussion in familiar contexts, commenting, putting point of view clearly, evaluat ing alternative proposals and making and responding to hypotheses.

Secondly, running right through the level there are two new focuses. The ﬁrst is being able to more than hold your own in social discourse: e.g. converse naturally, ﬂuently and effectively; understand in detail what is said to him/her in the standard spoken language even in a noisy environment; initiate discourse, take his/her turn when appropriate and end conversation whenhe/she needs to, though he/she may not always do this elegantly; use stock phrases (e.g. ‘That’s a dif ﬁcult question to answer’) to gain time and keep the turn whilst formulating what to say; interact with a degree of ﬂuency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without imposing strain on either party; adjust to the changes of direc tion, style and emphasis normally found in conversation; sustain relationships with native speakers without unintentionally amusing or irritating them or requiring them to behave other than they would with a native speaker. The second new focus is a new degree of language awareness: correct mistakes if they have led to misunderstandings; make a note of ‘favourite mistakes’ and consciously monitor speech for it/them; generally correct slips and errors if he/she becomes conscious of them; plan what is to be said and the means to say it, considering the effect on the recipient/s. In all, this does seem to be a new threshold for a language learner to cross. At the next band – representing a Strong Vantage (B2+) performance – the focus on argument, effective social discourse and on language awareness which appears at B2 (Vantage) continues. However, the focus on argument and social discourse can also be interpreted as a new focus on discourse skills. This new degree of discourse competence shows itself in conversational management (co-operating strategies): give feedback on and follow up statements and inferences by other speakers and so help the develop ment of the discussion; relate own contribution skillfully to those of other speakers. It is also apparent in relation to coherence/cohesion: use a limited number of cohesive devices to link sentences together smoothly into clear, connected discourse; use a variety of linking words ef ﬁ ciently to mark clearly the

relationships between ideas; develop an argument systematically with appropriate highlighting of signi ﬁcant points, and relevant supporting detail. Finally, it is at this band that there is a concentration of items on negotiating: outline a case for compensation, using persuasive language and simple arguments to demand satisfaction; state clearly the limits to a concession. Level C1 , the next band, was labelled Effective Operational Pro ﬁciency. What seems to characterise this level is good access to a broad range of language, which allows ﬂuent, spontaneous communication, as illustrated by the following examples: Can express him/herself ﬂ uently and spontaneously, almost effortlessly. Has a good command of a broad lexical repertoire allowing gaps to be readily overcome with circumlocutions. There is little obvious searching for expressions or avoidance strategies; only a conceptually dif ﬁ cult subject can hinder a natural, smooth ﬂow of language. The discourse skills characterizing the previous band continue to be evident at Level C1, with an emphasis on more ﬂuency, for example: select a suitable phrase from a ﬂuent repertoire of discourse functions to preface his remarks in order to get the ﬂoor, or to gain time and keep it whilst thinking; produce clear, smoothly ﬂowing, well-structured speech, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices. Level C2 , whilst it has been termed ‘Mastery’ , is not intended to imply native-speaker or near native-speaker competence. What is intended is to characterise the degree of precision, appropriateness and ease with the language which typi ﬁes the speech of those who have been highly successful learners. Descriptors calibrated here include: convey ﬁ ner shades of meaning precisely by using, with reasonable accuracy, a wide range of modi ﬁ cation devices; has a good command of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms with awareness of connotative level of meaning; back track and restructure around a dif ﬁculty so smoothly the interlocutor is hardly aware of it. The Common Reference Levels can be presented and exploited in a number of different formats, in varying degrees of detail. Yet the existence

of ﬁxed points of common reference offers transparency and coherence, a tool for future planning and a basis for further development. The intention of providing a concrete illustrative set of descriptors, together with criteria and methodologies for the further development of descriptors, is to help decision-makers design applications to suit their contexts. The levels used are the six main levels A1 (Breakthrough), A2(Waystage), B1 (Threshold), B2 (Vantage), C1 (Effective Operational Pro ﬁ ciency) and C2 (Mastery). The levels in the middle part of the scale – Waystage, Threshold and Vantage – often have a subdivision represented by a thin line, as mentioned above. Where this is the case, descriptors below the thin line represent the criterion level concerned. Descriptors placed above the line de ﬁne a level of pro ﬁciency which is signi ﬁcantly higher than that represented by the criterion level, but which does not achieve the standard for the following level. The basis for this distinction is the empirical calibration. Where there is no subdivision of A2 (Waystage), B1 (Threshold) or B2 (Vantage), the descriptor represents the criterion level. In those cases no formulation was found to fall between the two criterion levels concerned. Some people prefer to read a scale of descriptors from the lowest to the highest levels; some prefer the reverse. For consistency all scales are presented with C2 (Mastery) at the top, and A1 (Breakthrough) at the bottom. Each level should be taken to subsume the levels below it on the scale. That is to say, someone at B1(Threshold) is considered also to be able to do whatever is stated at A2 (Waystage), to be better than what is stated at A2 (Waystage). That means that provisos attached to a performance placed at A2 (Waystage) for example ‘provided speech is clearly and slowly articulated’ will have less force, or be non-applicable to a performance at B1 (Threshold). Not every element or aspect in a descriptor is repeated at the following level. That is to say that entries at each level describe selectively

what is seen as salient or new at that level. They do not systematically repeat all the elements mentioned at the level below with a minor change of formulation to indicate increased dif ﬁculty. Summary of Chapter I In conclusion we want to state that CEFR is not a set of 6 points, nor a series of plateaus with vertical climbs at level boundaries. CEFR is a continuous scale of progress in language ability. As a language teacher, we find CEFR useful because it provides a common framework which can not only help us structure a course, but also monitor and assess students’ progress. It makes our lives as assessors easier by providing clear and unambiguous (at least theoretically) statements of students’ language ability. As it was pointed out in the discussion, can dos might also be used to motivate our learners by showing them the progress they have made. In addition, CEFR really help teachers design the courses, prepare materials and track students’ progress, because the can do statements are transferable to other languages. Despite other testing systems CEFR has self-assessment grids, where learners can compare what they can do - in reading, writing, speaking and listening - with the CEFR levels. For example, when speaking to people, which describes you best?  I can take part effortlessly in any conversation or discussion and have a good familiarity with idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms. (C2)  I can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible (B2)

I can interact in a simple way provided the other person is prepared to repeat or rephrase things at a slower rate of speech and help me formulate what I'm trying to say. (A1) Obviously, not all learners will feel the same about CEFR (or any other structured assessment program), but if the students are properly introduced and eased into the idea of self-assessment using the can do statements, they will benefit from it. The statements are positive, and therefore avoid the risk of intimidating or discouraging students with negative feedback.

O'xshashlar

Efficient ways in teaching writing in esl classesfor b1 level students

The selection and evaluation of words in teaching vocabulary to ESP students on the material of scale up

Teaching English for Specific Purposes in the tourism sphere

Teaching English to children at a primary school applying new methods

Satirical description of the vices of English society in the novel “Gulliver’s Travels” by Jonathan Swift