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