The Politics of Disempowerment in
the CEFR: Rethinking EL Cores
Khadija Ghzaiel
Majmaah University
February 2017
In a recent interview, Noam Chomsky points to the Dangers of
Standardized Testing and its destruction of ‘any meaningful educational process’
because of their lack of creativity, imagination, and their indifference towards
individual needs : ‘The people sitting in the offices, the bureaucrats designing
this, claims Chomsky, ‘are not evil people, but they’re working within a system
of ideology and doctrines that turns what they’re doing into something
extremely harmful.’
**https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JVVRWBekYo
It is high time the persons involved in the Academia and the advocates of the
CEFR assumed their responsibility to work out the problems arising increasingly
from the different learning and assessment contexts
It is disquieting how within a few years from its introduction, the Common
European Framework of References for Languages, has deviated from its primary
empowering cores in search of an affirmative method of teaching and assessing in
various academic settings. Unfortunately, it turned into a disempowerment
machine giving little or no attention to its basic outcomes on learners, thus
debunking its foremost consistency, reliability and credibility.
• This paper puts the light on the shift in the agenda of the English language
assessment corpus under the CEFR. It rests on an intrinsic approach that
seeks criticism from within
• Indeed, the hysterically massive simulacra of English Language standardized
Profile tests did not cut with the standardized perspective of learners
prototypic of the CEFR. On the contrary, it continues to disregard the
pluralist contexts and multicultural aspects of learners' identities.
• At a macro level, it has emptied the CEF from humanist quintessence, which
is indeed an alarming bell in the field of English academia.
• What is dangerous is that the CEFR, with its robotic reiteration of standardized tests
might be engrossed into a neo-liberal practice contributing in the rise of a neo-capitalist
action seeking materialistic returns under the roof of Academia and Language Learning
Profiles.
• The study also highlights the need of an Action Research and a CEF self-reflexive
analysis to revisit this substrata, update its methods and question its ongoing politics of
empowerment/disempowerment, as a mandatory stride among other practical and
avant-gardist solutions especially that language has drastically started to lose its
functional role as a means of integrity and empowerment and has deteriorated to
accentuate the intellectual, physical, linguistic, cultural and ethnic gaps and barriers
between learners on one hand, and intensify the clash between the Target language and
the other on another hand
• ‘What [the CEFR] can do is to stand as a central point of reference, maintains John Trim, 'itself always open to amendment and further development, in an interactive international system of co-operating institutions ... whose cumulative experience and expertise produces a solid structure of knowledge, understanding and practice shared by all.’ (as cited in Green, 2011:xi)
There is no doubt that as it started, the CEFR had brought about many
advantages and benefits to the process of learning and teaching European
languages English Language.
Certainly, the CEFR enhanced the academic circles with its various insights
into leaning and in relation to testing and assessment as well
The Council of Europe itself has delineated its practices and usages in its
manifesto
The CEFR is a Framework that can be used for
the specification of the content of tests and examinations;
Second, for stating the criteria to determine the attainment of a learning
objective;
Third, for describing the levels of proficiency in existing tests and
examinations thus enabling comparisons to be made across different systems
of qualifications. (Council of Europe, 2001: 178)
•Furthermore, one can not deny the positive contribution of the CEFR
towards enhancing the transparency of curricula and examinations in the
different nation-states of Europe, and through that enhanced
transparency, to facilitating the mobility of students and labor across the
continent. (qtd in Alderson, J.C., 2007)
Indeed much criticism is leveled at CEFR, as it did not really improve the CEFR approach.
The main axes of criticism diagnosed are the following:
• One size fits all
• Levels of Proficiency
• Limitations regarding comparable examinations and tests developments
• Context Validity
• Scoring Validity
• Neoliberal Political discourse/ Discourse of Dis/Empowerment
• Dr Nick Saville (of Cambridge English Language Assessment)
pinpoints the problem of teaching English to foreigners and to migrants,
Raising the question: How Have We Failed to Integrate Our Migrant
Population?
He concludes that:
part of the problem has been our insistence on a 'one-
size fits all' approach to teaching English . It's a simple approach but one th
at has ultimately proven futile, whichever government has been in power. J
ust saying 'Well, here's the proficiency level you have to get to,' is not an eff
ective way of approaching this complex task.
• (Saville, N, 1996:1)
One-size fits all
• Indeed, the CEFR was a solution to the lack of transparency of policy makings and a corpus
of directions as to how can learners of the English language learn, upgrade, and therefore
ensure their integration.
• In its manifesto, The CEFR does not claim to go beyond the level of European learners
• Itself is a European creation for the sake of European: The CEFR is but a part of a project
towards a more comprehensive European languages and citizenship,
• However, as it is implemented in almost 40 countries in the world, providing ‘a common
basis for the explicit description of objectives, content and methods’ and to promoting
‘international co-operation in the field of modern languages’ (CEFR: 1)
• Whether adaptable to all European/non European countries or privileging some at the
expense of others, this raises the issue of globality which research in education borrowed
from geography and literature.
One size/context fits all
• The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) is an
extremely useful and influential instrument with constant valuable impulses for
innovations in the teaching and learning of languages.
• However, in a world of social, cultural, and individual heterogeneity, one
instrument and approach can neither address all situations and contexts nor meet
all need (KRUMM, H., 2007)
• For instance, as for the speaking test assessment of CAE (C1) and FCE (B2)
the topics which the candidates deal with must be taken into consideration.
Since all candidates around the world sit for the same speaking test, some
topics seem less common in certain countries. Second, the assessment criteria
of FCE also should not be standardized.
• As you might know there are 5 criteria of assessment for FCE, and
pronunciation is one important one. In some cases you can hardly understand
the candidates utterances (youtube an FCE assessment example so that you
know what I'm talking about).
The context difference is a mandatory factor in the whole testing task
• The following Internal construct Validity framework outlined by Cecil, Weir, determines the key elements indispensable for a transparent testing milieu
• The eventual scoring of examinees would be affected by the presence or absence of one/all of these validity constructs
Internal construct Validity framework
Proficiency Levels
• The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) posits six levels of proficiency and defines these largely in relation to empirically derived difficulty estimates based on stakeholder perceptions of what language functions expressed by ‘Can-do’ statements can be successfully performed at each level.
• A key idea always present in the development of the CEFR was to use the descriptor scales … to profile the content of courses, assessments and examinations. These can then be related to each other through their CEFR profile without making direct comparisons between them or claiming that one is an exact equivalent of the other. (North, Brian (2004)
• The early European framework of languages is criticized for being not particularly helpful in distinguishing between levels of proficiency
• Alderson (n.d.), in a rare substantive review of the early European language benchmarks, notes that even these earlier Council of Europe publications (Waystage, Threshold and Vantage Level documents) are not particularly helpful in distinguishing between levels of proficiency in terms of contextual variables ( Weir, C 2007 :282 )
In fact, It is an undeniable limitation of which the CEFR itself is conscious, and has undergone some effort and action towards a more comprehensive and thorough description of its scales
In his last article Mediation and the CEFR: descriptors for an undervalued concept, Brian North pointed out a project to develop CEFR descriptors for areas that were not covered in the original set of descriptive scales, namely mediation activities and strategies, online interaction, reactions to literature and art, and plurilingualand pluri-cultural competences.The CEFR in Practice, CUP, 2014
There is an ongoing call for the universities to align their courses and assessment with the proficiency levels of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and why they should use a version of the European Language Portfolio (ELP) to support the development of students’ skills of self-management and reflective learning (Little, D, 2016)
Nonetheless, the Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) doesn't not see the vertical system( the descriptors scale) of ‘natural levels’ in the scales as providing a transparent basis for building arguments about how their own examinations could be aligned to this common reference tool. Furthermore, they do not regard it as a suitable basis for developing their examinations
The lack of comprehensive description of the proficiency levels
may lead to ‘the possibility of false assumptions of equivalence
where tests constructed for different purposes and audiences and
which view and assess language constructs in different ways are
located together on the same scale point
Internal construct Validity framework
Test development is problematic
1. The scales are premised on an incomplete and unevenly applied range of contextual variables/performance conditions (context validity)
2. little account is taken of the nature of cognitive processing at different levels of ability (theory-based validity)
3. Activities are seldom related to the quality of actual performance expected to complete them (scoring validity);
4. the wording for some of the descriptors is not consistent or transparent enough in places for the development of tests.
(Weir, C: 2004)
Limitations
language tests designed by states aim to achieve political goals (Fulcher, 2004, 2008; Shohamy, 2001)
The euphoria gradually subsided of at last having a framework we could claim was genuinely European influence of Wilkins [1976], Canale and Swain [1980], and Bachman [1990] is particularly evident in the CEFR). ( Alderson (Weir, C: 2004)
• In DIALANG, it was realized at an early stage that the CEFR did not provide enough information for test develop ment, and we needed recourse to other publica tions by the Council of Europe in order to develop the DIALANG Assessment Framework and the
DI ALANG Assessment Specifications (Alderson, C,J, 2005).
DIALANG is a diagnostic language assessment system that offers tests of different language skills in 14 European languages by integrating self-assessments and external assessments. It is computer-based, delivered via the Internet, and can be downloaded free of charge.
• The universities ‘need to align their courses and assessment with the proficiency levels of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and why they should use a version of the European Language Portfolio (ELP) to support the development of students’ skills of self-management and reflective learning (Little, D, 2016)
No reference to specific languages• No reference to specific languages: It is deliberately language
independent. It is "action-oriented" and, as Little points out, it is assumed that "any communicative task requires a comparable level of proficiency from language to language“, (as cited in Alderson)• This assumption has not, however, to my knowledge been put to
the test, and it is precisely this lack of empirical research to underpin the CEFR that is giving rise to increasing misgivings about the applicability of the Framework in its current form. • ( Alderson )
• Jones (as cited in Weir, C, 2005) states that ‘different people tend to understand “Can-do’’
somewhat differently’ is indicative of the need to search for greater precision and
explicitness in test specification than is currently provided by the CEFR.
• Kaftandjieva and Takala (ibid) argue for making the CEFR more comprehensive when
they report: ‘the construct of language proficiency in writing is not quite so well defined as
the other two constructs
• As for the speaking test assessment of CAE (C1) and FCE (B2) the topics which the candidates deal with must be taken into consideration. Since all candidates around the world sit for the same speaking test, some topics seem less common in certain countries. Second, the assessment criteria of FCE also should not be standardized. As you might know there are 5 criteria of assessment for FCE, and pronunciation is one important one. In some cases you can hardly understand the candidates utterances (youtube an FCE assessment example so that you know what I'm talking about).
• The issue of context standardization an example of this is that the cultural load is not taken into consideration
• The issue of context standardization an example of this is that the cultural load is not taken into consideration
• The contemplation of a video of the Cambridge task is obviously insightful and the feedback provided as well.
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdeZp0n0JHw
-problems scoring
Internal construct Validity framework (weir, C)
• Always referring to CEF: among the analytical scales of FCE speaking
assessment "interactive communication" is taken into consideration.
During the test candidates are asked to discuss a certain topic (8 mns
for 2 candidates, 11 mns for 3 candidates) interaction is requires
during this collaborative task. Sometimes a candidate gets "stuck" so
the other one is obliged to sustain the interaction, which might be
challenging.
• Saira Waseem, (Majmaah University) a Pakistani lecturer teaching with me questions the choice
of questions by the examiners themselves.. The professor states that the CEFR lacks
comprehensive /clear delineation of the topic
• Waseem came to England to finish her MA. She took the IELTS in England and however well
prepared and confident about her English, she said, she was surprised by the topic given to her
which is archeology.
• The scoring for sure would be influenced by the task response, The latter is the utterance of the
test s understanding of the task
• She took it again in SA but the result was different, which again points to the problem of
scoring
(Internal construct Validity framework)
• Need to say that the examiner’s profile is also among the key factors in task solving/test
performance.
• Maram AlTurki and Shadha Alaskar (Majmaah University) raise the issue of Tests validity again
and again as regards the time validity of the CEFR English Standardized tests: some of these
tests validity are so short-termed that testees have to sit again for the exam after 2 years
• For the Council of Europe, learning languages for purposes of
communication and exchange is a political priority that should be given
educational priority (Little, 2014)
• Nonetheless:
• Discussing how tests can be misused, GLENN FULCHER examples
draw upon ethical theory, or the less developed and controversial notions
of “test fairness”.
• Where social theory comes into play, the appeal is to revisit Foucault’s
view of a test as the normalizing judgment of authority (Foucault, 1975).
• Dangers of Standardized Testing by N, Chomsky
Glenn Fulcher inAnnual Review of Applied Linguistics
Since Messick (Messick, 1989 ) included test use in his validity matrix, there has been
extensive debate about professional responsibility for test use. To theorize test use, some
researchers have relied upon Foucault’s social criticism, thereby stressing the negative
role of tests in the surveillance of the marginalized. From a wider perspective, Shohamy
(2001a) sees negative test impact as stemming from centralizing agencies, which still
leaves open the possibility of positive test use (Fulcher, G: 2009)
Questioning the validity and transparency of the Cefr
As a teacher of English I welcome the undoubtedly search for academic excellence and to
maintain good and academic proficiency of English
However, the simulacra* (Baudrillard) of Standardized EL Proficiency tests raise not only
a confusion at the level of the choice of taking the tests itself, but pinpoints a more
critical fact that is the efficiency of these reiterated forms of almost the same Tests
Moreover, it questions their credibility validity and doubts their ideological agenda
*(IELTS /TOEFL/TOIC/ BULATS/The Trinity Esol /the APE/
CAE/FCE/the Michigan Test/TEEP Not to cite others run for Business reasons and not
to mention the new ones for Migration/entry purposes. )
• The CEFR is a European creation: At the level of policy, the CEFR quotes
Recommendation
• R(82)18 of the Committee of Ministers: [...] it is only through a better
knowledge of European modern languages that it will be possible to facilitate
communication and interaction among Europeans of different mother tongues
in order to promote European mobility, mutual understanding and co-
operation, and overcome prejudice and discrimination. (CEFR: 2)
• In the same vein, Recommendation R(98)6 affirms the importance of equipping ‘all
Europeans for the challenges of intensified international mobility and closer co-
operation not only in education, culture and science but also in trade and industry’;
‘developing the ability of Europeans to communicate with each other across linguistic
and cultural boundaries, which requires a sus- tained, lifelong effort’; and averting ‘the
dangers that might result from the marginalization of those lacking the skills necessary
to communicate in an interactive Europe’ (CEFR: 3-4).
•Hence For the Council of Europe, learning languages for purposes of communication
and exchange is a political priority that should be given educational priority.
• More Validity problems arise at the level of pronunciation as The Standardized set of CEFR tests
in EL takes into account the widely mainstream accents namely the RE: received English and the
American English
• The globalization of a natural language, claims Kołaczyk , inevitably has consequences for the
language itself. How English is International English, we may ask. For linguists, this is a question
of language change. For teachers, this is a matter of choice between a full-fledged native version of
the language vs. the so-called ELF (English as a Lingua Franca a term defined functionally, that is
"independently of the linguistic history or structure of the language)
• (Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk: 2008)
• English pronunciation models: A changing scene
• More critical arenas are foregrounded as much deconstruction of the Target language/
Mainstream Accent is considered
• Jenkins, J goes further to examine the phonological core of the maintream English
accents (required by CEFR testers) and surprisingly concludes that ‘phonetic syllabuses
contain features which are ‘unnecessary, unrealistic, and harmful’ (Jenkins, 2000)
• *The Phonology of English as an International Language
• *Beware the natives and their norms
• English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: OUP. Lingua Franca
functionally, that is "independently of the linguistic history or structure of the language
• The conflict between theory and practice becomes more evident in the area of L2
pronunciation teaching. (A, Slghazo: 2016)
• JOANNA PRZEDLACKA in Models and Myth: Updating the (Non)standard Accents tackles
the issue of standardized pronunciation requested by examiners and how it is a key element
taken into account in the scoring
• RP (received Pronunciation), attitudes towards this accent and its role in language teaching. one
shall also compare its situation with that of Estuary English (as a new model for standardized
accent)
• In Europe, the most popular model accent for EFL purposes has been, throughout the 20th
century, RP. Even though originally not necessarily the most widely intelligible one, it is
unquestionably “the most thoroughly described accent of English” (Wells 1982: 279), as cited
in (PRZEDLACKA , J: 2014)
• Example of Cambridge English: First Speaking Sample test with examiner’s comments
• http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/138447-first-examiners-speaking-commentary.pdf