Using the CEFR – Case of Finland

Sauli Takala, University of Jyväskylä

Successful Language Training: Setting StandardsAn overview of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and its relevance to Korean

language curriculum & evaluationSeoul, June 29, 2007

• Independent republic since 1917; 5,2 m

• Two national languages: Finnish c. 94%, Swedish c. 5%; Sami languages used in administration in some nothern communities – regional/”small” languages

• Comprehensive school reform in the 1970s - a real milestone: 9-years, no streaming (mixed-ability classes), no external examinations; L2 study by all

• Usual pattern: English from grade 3, Swedish from grade 7, optional language grade 8

• EU: 1 +2; Swedish/Finnish compulsory; English is not compulsory but all study it; c. 30% have 1 + 3

• 1 + 2 language profile: all between ages 16 and 48/50 -> national language competence capacity

CEFR & its Finnish translation

How has the CEFR been used in language education in Finland?

• Translated in 2003

• Widely used in various contexts and projects

Main applications:

a)Examination frameworks

b) Proficiency testing

c) Curriculum and course development

• Finnish language curricula have been impacted by the Council of Europe language projects since the mid-1960s

• This has been seen serving our own national interests

• First utilising and applying the CoE language project expertise

• Gradually becoming a more active partner in development work

What has been done with the CEFR in Finland?

• Quite a lot!

Project Time Target group

Purpose Use of CEFR

DIALANG

(Phase 1) – EU funded

1997-1999

(Young) Adults

Diagnosis of proficien- cy: Internet based

• Self-assessment• External Assess-ment/ Report Level• Give feedback

National Language

Certificates

2001-2002

Adults Certify proficiency

• Scale develop-ment & validat.• Report level

Tertiary lang. certi-

fication

2000-2001

Poly-technic

students

Harmonise assess-ment

• Scale develop-ment & validat.• Level linkage

Civil ser-vice lang. testing

2002-2003

Civil servants

Certify pro- ficiency

Scale developent & validat.Levels B1/B2/C1

Citizenship

lang. test

June1 2003

Immig-rants

Certify pro-ficiency

• Required level: B1

Project Time Target group

Purpose Use of CEFR

Immig-ration

Oct. 2003

Ingrian ”repatr.”

Certify proficien-cy

• A2 level required

• Computerized

National Curric.

2003-

2004

7-19 year olds

Linkage to CEFR

• Scale equation

• Level linkage

Matric. Exam.

2001- Upper second.

Certify proficien-cy

• Level linkage

National Assess-ment

2007 Lower second.

Assess proficien- cy levels

• Level linkage

(cf. ”European Indicator”)

Other projects

2001- Various Link courses, materials..

• Content

• Levels

CEFR in the Examination and National Assessment

context:

two examples

Linking Matriculation Examinations (high stakes) to the CEFR:

• What level is obtained at the end of the Upper Secondary School (age 19)?: tentative linkage during the first round of linkage

Distribution of Levels (%) in the Matric Exam (19yrs)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

En-10

Ger

-10

Rus-1

0Fi-1

0

Ger

- 3/5

Rus 3

/5

Fr 3/5

Sp3/5

Swe6

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

10: 10 years of study; 3/5: 3-5 years of study; 6 - 6 years of study

How to accommodate national grading and reporting systems and the CEFR (levels)?

• Matriculation exam grades from top to pass: roughly 5%, 15%, 20%, 24%, 20%, 11% <> CEFR 6 levels C2-A1

• One solution: by means of conversion tables/ charts, which show how national grades are related to the CEF levels.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

<B1

Matr Exam GradeCEFR-level

Laudatur -5%

Eximia -15%

Magna - 20%

Cum laude -24%

Lubenter - 20%

Approbatur -11%

Improbatur

>C1

C1

B2

B1

Su

m s

co

re (

ma

x. 2

99

)

Increased transparency and comparability

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

<B1

Matr Exam GradeCEFR-level

Laudatur -5%

Eximia -15%

Magna - 20%

Cum laude -24%

Lubenter - 20%

Approbatur -11%

Improbatur

>C1

C1

B2

B1

Sum

sco

re (

max

. 299

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Matriculation GradeCEF Level

Laudatur

Eximia

Magna

Cum laude

Lubenter

Approbatur

Improbatur

>B2B2

B1

A2

A1

Su

m S

core

(m

ax. 2

99

)

Linking National Assessment outcomes to the CEFR:

What level is obtained in English at the end of the Comprehensive School after seven years of study (age 15-16)?

• cf: European Indicator of Language Competence (EU-project)

Level in English (%): grade 9 (15-16 years; 7 years of English, Tuokko, 2007)

A225

A234

A240

B141

B139

B132

B2>29

B2>23

B2>25

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Receptive skills Speaking Writing

A1 A2 B1 B2>

Linking examinations results has only begun.

• More needs to be done:

• Replication to verify tentative linkages.

• International co-operation to develop compe-tence in linking examinations/tests to the CEFR (cf. EALTA workshop Barcelona, 2007; 34)

• International co-operation in mutual verifying of national efforts of linkage?

• International teams of judges?

• External validation by sharing tests?

CEFR – adaptation to school curricula

• Needed to be adapted to the context, not just adopted as such

• Keep the well-established curriculum traditions: balance between tradition and reform

• Add as a new component the proficiency levels to facilitate definition of progression

• Indicate target levels for grades 6, 9 and 12• Need for more fine-grained levels at A1

– fast qualitative progress at lower levels– to sustain and support motivation

C1.1

B2.2

B2.1

B1.2

B1.1

A2.2

A2.1

A1.3

A1.2

A1.1

Breakthrough

Waystage

Threshold

Vantage

Effective Operational Proficiency

Mastery

Language Proficiency Levels: in the Finnish Core Curriculum

A1.2A1.3

A2.1A2.2

B1.1B1.2

B2.1B2.2

C1.1C1.2

C2.1C2.2

A1.1

Breakthrough

Threshold

Vantage

Mastery

Language Proficiency Levels in the Finnish Core Curriculum – short labels

B1.2

C1.2

A1: Can manage limited communication in the most familiar situations

A2: Can satisfy basic needs for immediate social interaction and brief narration

B1: Can deal with language use situations in everyday life

B2: Can manage regular interaction with ’native´ speakers (-> also lingua franca speakers)

C1: Can manage in a variety of demanding language use situations

Breakthrough

Threshold

Vantage

Mastery

Language Proficiency Levels: in the Finnish Core Curriculum

B1.2

C1.2

• A1: Limited communication in the most familiar situations

• A1.1 First stage of elementary proficiency • A1.2 Developing elementary proficiency• A1.3 Functional elementary proficiency

• A2: Basic needs for immediate social interaction and brief narration

• A2.1: First stage of basic proficiency• A2.1 Developing basic proficiency

• B1: Dealing with language use situations in everyday life

• B1.1: Functional basic proficiency• B1.2: Fluent basic proficiency

• B2: Managing regular interaction with ’native´ speakers

• B2.1: First stage of independent proficiency• B2.2: Functional independent proficiency

• C1: Managing in a variety of demanding language use situations

• C1.1: First stage of fluent proficiency

A rough time/level estimate based on CEFR:

• In the Finnish context (L1 And L2 not related):

• Getting from A1.1 (age 9/10) to the average of B1 (age 15/16) takes about 300 lessons and perhaps 100 hours of homework -> 400 hours.

• Getting from the average of B1 to the average of B2 (at 18/19) takes about 250 lessons and probably some 200-250 hours of homework -> 450 – 500 lessons/hours

• A1 -> B2: 800 – 900 hours

Finnish perspective on the CEFR• A valuable tool in all national language education

• A valuable tool in international contacts and co-operation

• Not prescriptive or dogmatic but descriptive; responsibility for thoughtful application lies with the user

• A reference tool – is not a curriculum or programme

• While comprehensive, does not cover everything

• While the most useful tool around, needs to be elaborated through international co-operation

• Useful supplements: Manual for relating examinations to the CEFR, Reference Supplement

• CEFR and the Portfolio: excellent examples of transnational projects through voluntary co-operation, which serves enlightened national self-interests – no effort to force consensus or exercise power

Some references• Hildén, R. & Takala, S. (2007) Relating descriptors of the Finnish school scale to the CEF overall scales of communicative activities. (pdf available from sjtakala@hotmail.com; raili.hilden@helsinki.fi)

• Kaftandjieva, F. (2004) Standard setting. Section B in Reference Supplement to the Manual for relating language examinations to the CEFR. Council of Europe (available at: http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Default-en-asp)• Kaftandjieva, F. & Takala, S. (2002) Council of Europe Scales of Language Proficiency: A validation study.In Common European Framework of Reference. Case studies, Council of Europe, 106-129. (pdf available from sjtakala@hotmail.com)

• Kaftandjieva, F. & Takala, S. (2003) Development and Validation of Scales of Language Proficiency. In: W. Vagle (ed.) Vurdering av språkferdighet, NTNU. Trondheim, 31-38 (pdf available from Takala: sjtakala@hotmail.com)• Takala, S. & Kaftandjieva, F. (2002) Relating the Finnish Matriculation Examination English Test Results to the CEF Scales. Helsinki Seminar, June 31- July 2, 2002 (available by request from Takala: sjtakala@hotmail.com)• Tuokko, E. (2007) What level do pupils reach in English at the end of the comprehensive school? U of Jyväskylä, Finland. (PhD thesis in Finnish, with English summary: tuokko@pp.inet.fi)

Level

L R S W L R S W L R S W L R S W L R S W L R S W L R S W L R S W L R S W

C2.2

                                                                       

C2.1

                                                                       

C1.2

                                                                       

C1.1

                                                                       

B2.2

                                                                       

B2.1

                                                                       

B1.2

                        X X   X                                        

B1.1

                                                  X                    

A2.2

                        GF

GF

GF

GF

                    X X         X X    

A2.1

                        R R R R                                        

A1.3

                        GGF

                                           

A1.2

                        F                                              

A1.1

                        R R R R                                        

  Swedish A Swedish B1 English A Other A-langs English B1 English B2 Other B2 langs English B3 Other B3 langs

LIITE 1 Kielten opiskelun mahdollisuuksia kuvaava kaavio

LIITE Lukion opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2003