I.

The Common European Framework of Reference for

Languages and the development of policies for the integration
of adult migrants
David Little
Trinity College, Dublin
Abstract......................................................................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 2
2 The CEFRs action-oriented approach................................................................................. 3
3 The CEFRs proficiency leels.............................................................................................. !
! The issue of tests for adult "i#rants..................................................................................... $
% &sin# the CEFR to support lan#ua#e course deelop"ent and deliery...........................1'
( Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 1!
) Appendi* 1 + CEFR Common Reference Levels: self-assessment grid .............................1%
Abstract
This discussion paper
summarizes the Council of Europes key aims and its policy regarding the language
needs of migrants;
explains how the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages CEFR! is
intended to ser"e the Council of Europes aims;
outlines the CEFRs action#oriented approach to the description of language use;
summarizes the CEFRs six proficiency le"els$ descri%ing in some detail the
communicati"e range that each le"el entails;
%riefly addresses the issue of tests for adult migrants; and
explains how the CEFR can %e used to support the de"elopment and deli"ery of language
programmes for adult migrants&
'
1 Introduction
The Council of Europe was esta%lished to defend human rights$ parliamentary democracy
and the rule of law& (n pursuit of these goals it de"elops continent#wide agreements to
standardize the social and legal practices of mem%er states and promotes awareness of a
European identity that is %ased on shared "alues and cuts across different cultures& These
concerns explain why the Council of Europe attaches great importance to the maintenance of
linguistic and cultural di"ersity and encourages language learning as a means of preser"ing
linguistic and cultural identity$ impro"ing communication and mutual understanding$ and
com%ating intolerance and xenopho%ia&
Language is central to many of the challenges posed %y migration$ especially integration and
the maintenance of social cohesion& )igrants access to education and training in the host
country is particularly important$ as is recognized %y *rticle '+&, of the European
Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers '-..!
'
/
To promote access to general and "ocational schools and to "ocational training centres$ the recei"ing
0tate shall facilitate the teaching of its language or$ if there are se"eral$ one of its languages to
migrant workers and mem%ers of their families&
(n a similar "ein$ a Report
2
of the Committee on )igration$ Refugees and 1opulation of the
Council of Europes 1arliamentary *ssem%ly noted in Fe%ruary ,223 that 4mastery of the
host countrys language and o%taining training$ if possi%le in keeping with la%our market
demand$ are prere5uisites if the pro%lems posed %y an under#5ualified la%our force are to %e
a"oided6& The report also detailed the growing tendency of mem%er states to make the
granting of citizenship conditional on the achie"ement of a stated le"el of proficiency in their
national or official language& Clearly$ language teaching and language testing ha"e a central
role to play in any ade5uate response to the challenges of migration and the integration of
migrants into the host society&
The Council of Europes Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
CEFR!
7
aims to pro"ide a transparent$ coherent and comprehensi"e %asis for the ela%oration
of language sylla%uses and curriculum guidelines$ the design of teaching and learning
materials$ and the assessment of language proficiency& (t is founded on the con"iction that
language learning outcomes are likely to %enefit internationally if sylla%uses and curricula$
text%ooks and examinations are shaped %y a common understanding& The CEFR does not
claim to %e that understanding$ %ut rather a means of promoting "arious forms of
international colla%oration out of which such understanding can arise and gradually %e
refined& (t is thus an apt %asis on which to de"elop a European response to the linguistic
challenges of migration&
There is a further reason why the CEFR is centrally rele"ant to policy de"elopment in this
area& (n harmony with the Council of Europes key aims$ it assigns central importance to the
plurilingualism of the indi"idual$ which it distinguishes from the multilingualism of
geographical regions& * plurilingual repertoire comprises the language "ariety referred to as
8mother tongue or 8first language and any num%er of other languages or "arieties learned to
any le"el of proficiency& (n multilingual areas some indi"iduals may %e monolingual and
others plurilingual& This perspecti"e places not languages %ut those who speak them at the
centre of language policies& The emphasis is upon "aluing and de"eloping the a%ility of all
'
Council of Europe/ http/99con"entions&coe&int
,
Migration and integration: a challenge and an opportunit for Europe :ocument '2+37!$ ,223$ p&'2&
;http/99assem%ly&coe&int<
7
Council of Europe 9 Cam%ridge =ni"ersity 1ress$ ,22'& *"aila%le on line/ www&coe&int9lang
,
indi"iduals to learn and use se"eral languages& The goal is to promote linguistic sensiti"ity
and cultural understanding as a %asis for democratic citizenship&
2 The CEFRs actionoriented approach
0ince the '-.2s the Council of Europe has promoted an action#oriented approach to the
description of language use& *s ela%orated in the CEFR this approach is complex$ technical
and extensi"e$ %ut its key features may %e summarized as follows/
Language is one of the foundations of human %eha"iour/ we use it continuously to
perform communicative acts& Those acts may %e external and social& For example$ we
ha"e con"ersations with family$ friends and colleagues; hold formal meetings; make
speeches and gi"e lectures; write personal and official letters; promote our political "iews
in written manifestos; extend knowledge in our domain of expertise %y pu%lishing articles
and %ooks& Communicati"e acts may also %e internal and pri"ate& *ll forms of reading
and some forms of listening are examples of this; so too are the many different ways in
which we use language for purposes of thinking things through > for example$ to plan the
spoken or written apology we ha"e to make for a%sence from an important %usiness
meeting$ or to prepare oursel"es for a difficult inter"iew %y trying to anticipate the
5uestions we shall %e asked and working out what our answers should %e&
Communicati"e acts comprise language activity$ which is di"ided into four kinds/
reception$ production$ interaction and mediation& Reception entails understanding
language produced %y others$ whether in speech or in writing$ while production entails
producing speech or writing& Interaction refers to spoken or written exchanges %etween
two or more indi"iduals$ while mediation often in"ol"ing translation or interpretation!
makes communication possi%le %etween indi"iduals or groups who are una%le to
communicate directly& Clearly$ interaction and mediation in"ol"e %oth reception and
production&
(n order to engage in language acti"ity$ we draw on our communicative language
competence$ which includes knowledge not necessarily conscious! of the words$ sounds$
and syntactic rules of the language we are using$ together with the a%ility to use such
knowledge in order to understand and produce language&
The language acti"ity re5uired to perform communicati"e acts always occurs in a
context that imposes conditions and constraints of many different kinds& The CEFR
proposes four main domains of language use/ personal$ public$ educational and
occupational&
?ecause communicati"e acts are always contextualized$ our communicati"e language
competence also includes sociolinguistic and pragmatic components& @ur sociolinguistic
competences > again to %e thought of as a com%ination of not necessarily conscious!
knowledge and a%ility > ena%le us to cope with the social and cultural dimensions of
communicati"e %eha"iour$ for example$ %y adhering to social con"entions and cultural
norms& Aorking in harness with our sociolinguistic competences$ our pragmatic
competences underpin our a%ility to use language appropriately to fulfil particular
functions$ for example$ greeting$ lea"e#taking$ re5uesting$ thanking&
Finally$ communicati"e acts entail the performance of tasks$ and to the extent that
they are not routine or automatic$ those tasks re5uire us to use strategies in order to
understand and9or produce spoken or written texts&
7
The CEFR does not say how languages should %e taught$ %ut it is fundamental to the action#
oriented approach that language learning is a "ariety of language use$
+
which means that
according to the CEFR$ language learning too re5uires us to use strategies to draw on
linguistic resources in order to perform communicati"e acts&
3 The CEFRs proficienc! levels
The CEFRs action#oriented approach to the description of language use supports what might
%e descri%ed as the horizontal dimension of language learning and teaching& *t any le"el of
proficiency it ena%les us to consider how the capacities of the language learner$ the different
aspects of language acti"ity$ and the conditions and constraints imposed %y context com%ine
to shape communication& ?ut the CEFR also has a vertical dimension/ it uses some parts of
its descripti"e apparatus to define language proficiency at six le"els arranged in three %ands
> *' and *, %asic user!; ?' and ?, independent user!; C' and C, proficient user!& Ae
can use these common reference le"els as a starting point for the ela%oration of language
sylla%uses and curriculum guidelines$ the design of learning materials$ and the assessment of
learning outcomes& Ae can also use them to plot the progress of indi"idual language learners
o"er time and as a %asis for comparing language courses$ text%ooks$ examinations$ and
5ualifications& (t is important to emphasize that the le"els are not normati"e& The CEFR
should rather %e thought of as 4a concertina#like reference tool that ;B< educational
professionals can expand or contract$ ela%orate or summarise$ according to the needs of their
context6&
3
*s we ha"e seen$ the action#oriented approach proposes that when we perform
communicati"e acts we use strategies to make appropriate and effecti"e use of our linguistic
resources& *ccordingly$ the common reference le"els are defined %y three different kinds of
scale& The first is concerned with language activities$ what the learner9user can do in the
target language at each le"el/ the CEFR presents 7+ scales of listening$ reading$ spoken
interaction$ spoken production and writing$ which are summarized in the self#assessment
grid Ta%le , in the CEFR; see *ppendix ' of this document!& The second kind of scale
refers to the strategies we use when we perform communicati"e acts$ for example$ planning
our utterances or compensating for gaps in our proficiency& *nd the third kind of scale
focuses on our communicative language competence/ the words we know$ the degree of
grammatical accuracy we can achie"e$ our control of the sounds of the language$ and so on&
(n order to understand the common reference le"els fully it is essential to read these three
kinds of scale in interaction with one another$ %ecause each helps to define the other two&
The common reference le"els were defined partly %y applying appropriate statistical
procedures to the Cudgements of experienced teachers&
D
Those teachers were drawn from
0wiss lower and upper secondary schools$ "ocational schools and adult education& (n other
words$ collecti"ely they were concerned with language learners who ranged in age from
early adolescent to adult& This may help to explain an important feature of the common
reference le"els when they are "iewed as a continuum/ they descri%e a traCectory of learning
from %eginner *'! to ad"anced C' and C,! that in most educational systems is completed
only %y a minority of learners after many years of learning& Ahat is more$ from ?, upwards
the language acti"ities descri%ed %y the CEFR increasingly interact with significant
+
CEFR$ p&-&
3
?& Eorth$ 4The CEFR Common Reference Le"els/ "alidated reference points and local strategies6$ in
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages !CEFR" and the development of language
policies: challenges and responsi#ilities$ report on an (ntergo"ernmental Language 1olicy Forum$
0tras%ourg/ Council of Europe$ ,22.$ p&'-& *"aila%le online at www&coe&int9lang&
D
0ee CEFR$ *ppendix ?$ pp&,'.>,,3&
+
educational achie"ement and the practice of particular academic$ professional or "ocational
skills& Consider the following three 4can do6 descriptors$ taken more or less at random from
the CEFRs illustrati"e scales/
B2 Reading for information and argument: Can o%tain information$ ideas and
opinions from highly specialized sources within his9her field&
.
C !istening as a member of a live audience: Can follow most lectures$ discussions
and de%ates with relati"e ease&
F
C2 "riting reports and essays: Can produce clear$ smoothly flowing$ complex
reports$ articles or essays which present a case$ or gi"e critical appreciation of proposals
or literary works&
-
(t is impossi%le to master any of these tasks simply %y sitting in a language classroom; we
learn to perform them only %y engaging in extensi"e real#world communication$ and this
should ser"e to remind us that in the action#oriented approach language learning is a "ariety
of language use&
*t this point it may %e appropriate to summarize the communicati"e range of the successi"e
common reference le"els$ drawing on the discursi"e summary pro"ided in Chapter 7 of the
CEFR/
*t !evel # learners 4can
G interact in a simple wa$
G ask and answer simple %uestions a#out themselves$ where the live$ people the know$
and things the have$
G initiate and respond to simple statements in areas of immediate need or on ver
familiar topics$
rather than relying purely on a "ery finite rehearsed$ lexically organized repertoire of
situation#specific phrases6&
'2
(n other words$ *' is the first identifia%le le"el of
proficiency at which learners can com%ine elements of the target language into a personal
if still "ery limited communicati"e repertoire&
(n listening learners at *' le"el can recognize and understand familiar words and "ery
%asic phrases that mostly refer to their personal situation and their immediate concrete
surroundings$ always pro"ided that their interlocutors speak clearly and slowly& (n
reading they can recognize and understand names$ words and "ery simple sentences with
the same limited range of reference& They can engage in "ery simple spoken interaction$
asking and answering "ery simple 5uestions$ %ut their interlocutors must again speak
slowly and %e prepared to repeat and rephrase& (n spoken production they can use simple
phrases and sentences to say where they li"e and who they know; and they can $rite a
short simple text e&g&$ a message on a postcard! and fill in a form with personal details& (n
spontaneous language use$ *' learners ha"e only limited control of a few simple
grammatical structures and sentence patterns that they use to exploit their %asic repertoire
of isolated words and phrases& They can link words or phrases with "ery %asic connectors&
*t !evel #2 4the maCority of descriptors stating social functions are to %e found$ like
G use simple everda polite forms of greeting and address&
G greet people$ ask how the are and react to news&
G handle ver short social e'changes&
.
CEFR$ p&.2&
F
CEFR$ p&D.&
-
CEFR$ p&D,&
'2
CEFR$ p&77&
3
G ask and answer %uestions a#out what the do at work and in free time&
G make and respond to invitations&
G discuss what to do$ where to go and make arrangements to meet&
G make and accept offers(
Here too are to %e found descriptors on getting out and a%out/ ;B<
G make simple transactions in shops$ post offices or #anks&
G get simple information a#out travel&
G use pu#lic transport: #uses$ trains$ and ta'is$ ask for #asic information$ ask and give
directions$ and #u tickets&
G ask for and provide everda goods and services6&
''

?etween *, and ?' the learner %ecomes a more acti"e participant in con"ersation
pro"ided that his9her interlocutors pro"ide support and allow for limitations&
(n listening learners at *, le"el can understand a growing num%er of e"eryday phrases
and an increasing 5uantity of highest#fre5uency "oca%ulary$ especially when it has
immediate personal rele"ance; they are also a%le to catch the main point in short$ clear
announcements& (n reading they can understand "ery short$ simple texts and find specific$
predicta%le information in texts that they cannot understand in detail e&g&$ written notices
and instructions!& (n spoken interaction they can perform simple and routine tasks that
in"ol"e the direct exchange of information and they can engage in "ery short social
exchanges& (n spoken production they can use a series of phrases and sentences to
descri%e in simple terms their family and other people$ where they li"e$ where they work$
and their main leisure interests& They can $rite short$ simple notes and messages and a
"ery simple personal letter& (n spontaneous language use *, learners can use %asic
sentence patterns and memorized phrases to exchange a limited range of information in
simple e"eryday situations& They ha"e sufficient "oca%ulary to express %asic
communicati"e needs and can link phrases with simple connectors& They can use some
simple structures correctly %ut they still make %asic mistakes&
!evel B 4reflects the Threshold Le"el specification for a "isitor to a foreign country and
is perhaps most categorized %y two features& The first feature is the a%ility to maintain
interaction and get across what you want to in a range of contexts$ for example/
G generall follow the main points of e'tended discussion around him)her$ provided
speech is clearl articulated in standard dialect&
G give or seek personal views and opinions in an informal discussion with friends&
G e'press the main point he)she wants to make comprehensi#l&
G e'ploit a wide range of simple language fle'i#l to e'press much of what he or she
wants to&
G maintain a conversation or discussion #ut ma sometimes #e difficult to follow when
tring to sa e'actl what he)she would like to&
G keep going comprehensi#l$ even though pausing for grammatical and le'ical plan*
ning and repair is ver evident$ especiall in longer stretches of free production&
The second feature is the a%ility to cope flexi%ly with pro%lems in e"eryday life$ for
example
G cope with less routine situations on pu#lic transport&
G deal with most situations likel to arise when making travel arrangements through an
agent or when actuall traveling&
G enter unprepared into conversations on familiar topics&
G make a complaint&
''
CEFR$ pp&77>7+&
D
G take some initiatives in an interview)consultation !e(g( to #ring up a new su#+ect" #ut is
ver dependent on interviewer in the interaction& ask someone to clarif or ela#orate
what the have +ust said&6
',

?etween ?' and ?, learners are a%le to exchange increasingly large 5uantities of
information&
(n listening ?' learners can understand the main points of clear standard speech dealing
with familiar topics that they encounter regularly; they can also follow many radio and
TI programmes$ pro"ided that deli"ery is relati"ely slow and clear& (n reading they can
understand texts that descri%e situations and e"ents in mainly high#fre5uency language;
they can also understand the expression of feelings and wishes in personal letters& (n
spoken interaction they can engage with confidence in unprepared con"ersation
pro"ided that topics are familiar and of personal interest or pertinence; they can also cope
with most situations likely to arise when interacting with nati"e speakers& (n spoken
production they can connect phrases in a simple way to tell a story or gi"e a description$
and they can %riefly explain their opinions and plans& They can $rite simple connected
text dealing with topics that are familiar to them or of personal interest$ and they can write
personal letters descri%ing their experiences and impressions& (n spontaneous language
use ?' learners ha"e enough language to get %y and sufficient "oca%ulary to conduct
routine e"eryday transactions and communicate a%out familiar situations and topics& They
are reasona%ly accurate in deploying a repertoire of fre5uently used routines and patterns$
and they can link a series of discrete elements into a connected se5uence&
!evel B2 4represents a new le"el as far a%o"e ?' ;B< as *, ;B< is %elow it& (t is
intended to reflect the Iantage Le"el specification&
'7
The metaphor is that$ ha"ing %een
progressing slowly %ut steadily across the intermediate plateau$ the learner finds he has
arri"ed somewhere$ things look different$ he9she ac5uires a new perspecti"e$ can look
around him9her in a new way& This concept does seem to %e %orne out to a considera%le
extent %y the descriptors cali%rated for this le"el& They represent 5uite a %reak with the
content so far& For example at the lower end of the %and there is a focus on effecti"e
argument/
G account for and sustain his opinions in discussion # providing relevant e'planations$
arguments and comments&
G e'plain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of
various options&
G construct a chain of reasoned argument&
G develop an argument giving reasons in support of or against a particular point of
view&
G e'plain a pro#lem and make it clear that his)her counterpart in a negotiation must
make a concession&
G speculate a#out causes$ conse%uences$ hpothetical situations&
G take an active part in informal discussion in familiar conte'ts$ commenting$ putting
point of view clearl$ evaluating alternative proposals and making and responding to
hpotheses&
0econdly$ running right through the le"el there are two new focuses& The first is %eing
a%le to more than hold your own in social discourse/ e&g&
G converse naturall$ fluentl and effectivel&
',
CEFR$ p&7+&
'7
J& *& "an Ek and J& L& )& Trim$ ,antage$ Cam%ridge/ Cam%ridge =ni"ersity 1ress$ ,222 first
pu%lished 0tras%ourg/ Council of Europe$ '--.!&
.
G understand in detail what is said to him)her in the standard spoken language even in a
noise environment&
G initiate discourse$ take his)her turn when appropriate and end conversation when
he)she needs to$ though he)she ma not alwas do this elegantl&
G use stock phrases !e(g( -.hat/s a difficult %uestion to answer/" to gain time and keep the
turn while formulating what to sa&
G interact with a degree of fluenc and spontaneit that makes regular interaction with
native speakers %uite possi#le without imposing strain on either part&
G ad+ust to the changes of direction$ stle and emphasis normall found in conversation&
G sustain relationships with native speakers without unintentionall amusing or irritating
them or re%uiring them to #ehave other than the would with a native speaker&
The second new focus is a new degree of language awareness/
G correct mistakes if the have led to misunderstanding&
G make a note of -favourite mistakes/ and consciousl monitor speech for it)them&
G generall correct slips and errors if he)she #ecomes conscious of them&
G plan what is to #e said and the means to sa it$ considering the effect on the
recipient)s6&
'+

(n listening ?, learners can understand extended speech that contains complex lines of
argument pro"ided that the topic is reasona%ly familiar; they can also understand most
radio and TI programmes in the dialect they are familiar with& (n reading they can
understand articles and reports that express attitudes and "iewpoints$ and contemporary
literary prose& They can engage with some fluency and spontaneity in spoken interaction
and participate acti"ely in discussion& Regular interaction with nati"e speakers is 5uite
possi%le& (n spoken production they can gi"e clear$ detailed descriptions$ explain their
"iewpoint$ summarize the opinions of others$ and weigh ad"antages and disad"antages&
They can $rite clear$ detailed text co"ering a wide range of su%Cects; they can de"elop an
argument$ gi"ing reasons for and against; they can communicate detailed information and
highlight the personal significance of e"ents& (n spontaneous language use ?, learners
ha"e a sufficient range of language to %e a%le to gi"e clear descriptions and express
"iewpoints& They ha"e a good range of "oca%ulary to deal with most general topics and
their own special interests& They ha"e a relati"ely high degree of grammatical control and
are a%le to use a limited num%er of cohesi"e de"ices to link utterances into clear$ coherent
discourse& The errors they make do not impair communication and they are often a%le to
self#correct&
!evel C is characterized %y 4good access to a %road range of language$ which allows
fluent$ spontaneous communication$ as illustrated %y the following examples/
G Can e'press him)herself fluentl and spontaneousl$ almost effortlessl(
G 0as a good command of a #road le'ical repertoire allowing gaps to #e readil
overcome with circumlocutions(
G .here is little o#vious searching for e'pressions or avoidance strategies& onl a
conceptuall difficult su#+ect can hinder a natural$ smooth flow of language6&
'3
!evel C2 4is not intended to imply nati"e#speaker or near nati"e#speaker competence&
Ahat is intended is to characterize the degree of precision$ appropriateness and ease with
the language which typifies the speech of those who ha"e %een highly successful learners&
:escriptors cali%rated here include/
G conve finer shades of meaning precisel # using$ with reasona#le accurac$ a wide
range of modification devices&
'+
CEFR$ p&73&
'3
CEFR$ p&7D&
F
G has a good command of idiomatic e'pressions and collo%uialisms with awareness of
connotative level of meaning&
G #acktrack and restructure around a difficult so smoothl the interlocutor is hardl
aware of it6&
'D
The issue of tests for adult migrants
*ccording to the CEFR$ then$ proficiency in a second or foreign language is a highly
complex phenomenon& (ts de"elopment to ad"anced le"els is a matter not simply of
attending language classes; it also re5uires extensi"e engagement in real#world
communication in the target language$ which means that ad"anced proficiency is strongly
oriented to the learners academic and9or professional concerns& 1rogress from *' all the
way to C, is a minority achie"ement$ ne"er a foregone conclusion$ and usually far from
rapid; it certainly cannot %e guaranteed %y a fixed 5uantity of language teaching expressed in
terms of hours spent in the classroom& (t is also important to emphasize here that the a%ility
to perform say! a ?' listening task does not automatically imply the a%ility to perform all
other tasks specified for ?'& These considerations should %e %orne in mind when deciding
whether or not to re5uire migrants to su%mit to language tests; and if tests are introduced$ the
same considerations should play a role in determining the le"el of proficiency to %e aimed at&
Language tests for migrants are designed to ser"e one of two purposes/ either to %ar them
from entering the country in the first place or$ when they are already resident in the country$
to determine whether or not they ha"e achie"ed a stated le"el of proficiency in the language
of the host community& Tests that ser"e the former purpose are usually administered in the
migrants country of origin$ and their le"el depends on the immigration policy of the country
in 5uestion& (f there is a need for unskilled la%our$ the test may focus only on oral
communication at a "ery %asic le"el& (f on the other hand there is a need for 5ualified
professionals$ the test will %e at a more ad"anced le"el and may pay as much attention to
reading and writing as to listening and speaking& (n %oth cases the test is likely to %e
designed independently of any course of instruction$ and it will reflect the percei"ed needs of
the recei"ing country rather than the needs of the would#%e immigrants&
Ahen migrants already li"ing in the host community are re5uired to pass a language test in
order to %e granted citizenship or lea"e to remain in the country long#term$ they usually take
the test only after attending a course of instruction in the host community language& The test
should thus focus on the skills that the course of instruction was designed to de"elop& (f the
course and the test are intended to support migrants integration into the host community$
%oth should take account of the percei"ed needs of migrants as well as of the host
community& This is emphatically not a matter simply of selecting a CEFR le"el that
intuiti"ely seems a%out right and proceeding from there& @n the contrary$ it re5uires a
detailed process of analysis that results in one or more profiles of the immigrant community
and the de"elopment of appropriate programmes of instruction and methods of assessment&
The CEFR pro"ides us with tools to undertake such an analysis$ as the next section explains&
(f the analysis is sufficiently thorough and differentiated$ the assessment procedures should
not %e %iased against migrants who decide to su%mit themsel"es to assessment without first
attending a course&
! "sing the CEFR to support language course development and deliver!
The CEFR is exactly what its title says it is/ a framework of reference& *s we noted in the
introduction$ it is intended to pro"ide a transparent$ coherent and comprehensi"e %asis for
'D
(%id&
-
the ela%oration of language sylla%uses and curriculum guidelines$ the design of teaching and
learning materials$ and the assessment of proficiency& (n other words$ it offers tools that can
support the work of curriculum designers$ materials de"elopers and testing agencies$ %ut it
does not pro"ide ready#made solutions& This is especially the case when its descripti"e
apparatus and proficiency le"els are applied to the communicati"e linguistic and
sociolinguistic! needs of migrants&
(n section 7 we noted that the CEFRs proficiency le"els were defined on the %asis of
teachers Cudgements$ and that the teachers in"ol"ed were drawn from four educational
domains/ lower secondary$ upper secondary$ "ocational$ and adult& This helps to explain four
closely related characteristics of the proficiency le"els& First$ they plot a traCectory of
learning that reflects the structure and organization of European educational systems;
secondly$ they descri%e the kind of %eha"ioural repertoire that learners need as temporary
"isitors to a foreign country rather than as long#term residents; thirdly$ at the lower le"els
*'$ *,$ ?'! their descriptors correspond closely to the typical content of foreign language
text%ooks; and fourthly$ ad"anced language proficiency is insepara%le from ad"anced le"els
of educational achie"ement and9or professional in"ol"ement& Eone of these characteristics is
necessarily rele"ant to the needs of migrant language learners& Ahat is more$ the CEFR does
not take account of the sociolinguistic$ socio#structural and socio#historical dynamics of
multilingualism$ the often truncated plurilingual repertoires of migrants$ or the indi"iduals
need for a "ariety of repertoires in polycentric contexts&
(f we are concerned to support migrants integration$ we shall aim to design and deli"er
language programmes that help them to de"elop the communicati"e repertoire they need in
the shortest possi%le time& Ae shall do our %est to ensure that they do not waste time learning
things they do not need$ and that e"erything they do learn can %e put to immediate use in
their daily interactions with the host community& (n e"ery aspect of course design and
implementation our efforts will take account of two fundamental facts& First$ although adult
migrants need to learn the language of their host community as part of the integration
process$ they will continue to use their mother tongues! at home$ in communication with
others from their country or region of origin$ and in those domains of the host society where
the language "ariety used can %e a matter of negotiation& @ur programmes should treat this
positi"ely$ finding ways of affirming the "alue of all languages$ all cultures and all
ethnicities; they should ne"er carry the implication that the language of the host community
is in some way superior to and if possi%le should replace the migrants mother tongues!&
0econdly$ our goal is to ena%le adult migrants to use the language of the host community for
purposes of essential communication& (t is thus more important that they can get their
message across than that their grammar is correct or that after many weeks or months of
instruction their pronunciation still sounds foreign&
Eone of this is to claim that the process of integration should %e complete %y the end of our
language course& @n the contrary$ the most the course can do is to ena%le participants to gain
their first communicati"e access to the host community& Research confirms what common
sense suggests/ integration that includes a shift to use of the host community language takes
a long time$ typically se"eral generations& Failure to understand this can mean that migrants
retention of their language of origin is misinterpreted as unwillingness to learn the language
of the host community and thus to integrate&
There is no fixed way of applying the CEFRs descripti"e apparatus to the analysis of
language learners needs$ the design of programmes of instruction$ and the de"elopment of
tests& (n the case of migrant learners$ howe"er$ it seems appropriate to %egin %y considering
the domains of language use in which they need to %e a%le to communicate; then to consider
'2
the tasks they need to %e a%le to perform in each domain; and finally to define the le"el of
proficiency re5uired for the successful performance of each task&
The CEFRs action#oriented approach identifies four domains$ or external contexts$ of
language use/ personal$ pu%lic$ occupational and educational& Each of these domains may %e
rele"ant to migrant learners$ %ut with significant differences of emphasis compared with the
needs of a foreign language learner at school& For example$ language learning at school is
often supported %y student exchanges that gi"e say! an English learner of French the
opportunity to li"e for a few weeks as a mem%er of a French family; in other words$ one of
the aims of language learning at school is to extend the learners %eha"ioural repertoire in
the personal domain& ?y contrast$ while adult migrants need to %e a%le to gi"e an account of
themsel"es and their personal and family circumstances$ they may ha"e little prospect of
de"eloping close personal relationships with nati"e speakers of the host community
language& The pu%lic domain$ on the other hand$ is likely to %e "ery significant for migrants
since their integration depends among other things on dealing successfully with officialdom
and pu%lic ser"ices& Thus in the pu%lic domain they need to %e a%le to perform with
confidence and fluency tasks that will mostly lie %eyond the experience of language learners
who are not themsel"es migrants& This does not mean$ howe"er$ that it is possi%le to deal
successfully with officialdom and pu%lic ser"ices only at the more ad"anced le"els of
communicati"e proficiency& The re5uirements of the occupational domain will depend on the
extent to which migrant learners need to use the language of the host community in the
workplace& (n many cases it will %e sufficient for them to understand %asic health and safety
regulations$ though this is likely to include a certain amount of written text& Ahate"er work
they are engaged in$ they will almost certainly %e re5uired to fill in forms of one kind or
another& Finally$ the educational domain can impinge on adult migrants in two ways/ "ia
their programme of language learning and$ if they ha"e children$ in their need to interact
with teachers and educational officials of "arious kinds&
:etailed analysis of the domains in which adult migrants re5uire to use the language of the
host community ine"ita%ly entails consideration of the tasks they need to perform and the
language "ariety standard or dialect! in which they need to perform them& Tasks can %e
analysed and descri%ed with reference to the fi"e language acti"ities the CEFR is centrally
concerned with/ L(0TEE(EK$ RE*:(EK$ 01@LEE (ETER*CT(@E$ 01@LEE 1R@:=CT(@E$
AR(T(EK& *t this point it is useful to distinguish %etween the educational context in which
migrants do their language learning and the domains in which they need to operate in their
e"eryday li"es& (t may %e that outside the language classroom they are mostly concerned
with oral communication; %ut inside the classroom reading and writing should still play an
important role in the de"elopment of their language proficiency$ for three reasons& First$ in
all educational contexts the technology of literacy writing things down! helps us to organize
and memorize whate"er it is we are trying to learn; secondly$ the written form of a language
helps to make its structures "isi%le and thus easier to analyse and understand; and thirdly$ in
most forms of employment it is difficult to escape the need to exercise at least %asic
functional literacy writing short notes$ filling in forms!&
Ha"ing determined the domains in which migrant language learners need to communicate
and the communicati"e tasks they need to perform$ we must determine the proficiency le"els
they need to attain& This is partly a function of the communicati"e tasks themsel"es/
greetings and lea"e#takings$ for example$ are 5uickly mastered and %elong to the lowest le"el
of communicati"e proficiency; on the other hand$ it is not possi%le to engage in detailed
negotiations or write a %usiness report if ones proficiency le"el is *,& Howe"er$ we should
also consider whether the special needs of migrant learners re5uire a different approach from
the one typically adopted in programmes of general language learning& The "oca%ulary that
''
migrant learners need is a case in point& The CEFR defines "oca%ulary range for *'$ *, and
*,M as follows/
'.
# 1 0as a #asic voca#ular repertoire of isolated words and phrases related to
particular concrete situations&
#2 1 0as a sufficient voca#ular for the e'pression of #asic communicative needs( 0as a
sufficient voca#ular for coping with simple survival needs(
#2% 1 0as sufficient voca#ular to conduct routine$ everda transactions involving
familiar situations and topics(
(n de"eloping a programme of instruction for these le"els$ it is necessary to define in some
detail 4particular concrete situations6$ 4%asic communicati"e needs6$ 4simple sur"i"al
needs6$ 4routine$ e"eryday transactions6 and 4familiar situations and topics6& (n the case of
adult migrants such definition may entail ac5uiring a "oca%ulary that seems ad"anced and
specialized when compared with the "oca%ulary contained in course %ooks designed for
general language learners at the same le"els& For example$ for a refugee in the early stages of
an intensi"e English language course in (reland$ 4particular concrete situations6 included
taking a sick child to the doctors surgery& *ccordingly$ in the first weeks of his course his
personal dictionary included the following entries/ ill$ sick$ health$ therap$ #lood pressure$
operation$ inflamed$ ta#lets$ temperature$ dehdrated$ di22$ headache& The same learner
was simultaneously coming to terms with an approach to language learning that emphasizes
learner in"ol"ement in the setting of learning targets$ colla%orati"e proCect work$ and learner
self#assessment& This explains why at the same early stage his personal dictionary also
contained assessment$ self*assessment$ pro+ect$ topic$ theme$ prepare$ organi2e& ?earing in
mind that the CEFRs higher le"els ?,$ C'$ C,! increasingly imply educational
achie"ement and professional in"ol"ement$ those responsi%le for designing language
programmes for adult migrants might usefully spend time trying to identify communicati"e
tasks adult migrants need to %e a%le to perform that do not lie within the first three le"els
*'$ *,$ ?'!& The list is likely to %e "ery short&
*t this point it is necessary to confront an awkward fact& Ahen we design a foreign language
curriculum as part of general education$ we can make a num%er of assumptions/ the learners
will all %e in the same age range; they will ha"e the same general educational experience;
e"en if they do not all share the same mother tongue$ they share the same language of
education; most of them will ha"e %roadly similar social and cultural %ackgrounds; and they
are likely to share the same general orientation to language learning and interaction with the
societies and cultures associated with whate"er languages! they learn& Ahen we design
language programmes for adult migrants the situation is "ery different& The client group is
likely to come from a wide "ariety of linguistic$ ethnic$ cultural and social %ackgrounds; it
may range in age from young adult late teens9early twenties! to elderly sixties or
se"enties!; educational experience and achie"ement are almost infinitely "aria%le; some
mem%ers of the group may already ha"e a measure of communicati"e proficiency in the
target language$ whereas others are %eginners; among the %eginners there may %e some who
are not literate in their mother tongue; and so on& (t is pro%a%ly true %ut certainly unhelpful to
say that each adult migrant has a uni5ue communicati"e needs profile& The 5uestion is/ how
can we design and implement language programmes that are cost#effecti"e$ clearly related to
the proficiency le"els of the CEFR$ and meet the needs of indi"idual migrant learnersN
'.
CEFR$ p&'',&
',
The Council of Europes European Language 1ortfolio
'F
EL1! pro"ides us with a way of
responding to this 5uestion at the le"els of course design and course deli"ery& The EL1
comprises
a language passport$ which summarizes the owners linguistic identity and his9her
experience of learning and using languages other than the mother tongue;
a language biography$ which supports the planning$ monitoring and e"aluation of
language learning$ and encourages reflection on the intercultural dimension of
second9foreign language learning and use and on the language learning process;
a dossier$ in which the owner keeps work in progress$ e"idence of de"eloped
second9foreign language skills$ and certificates and other documents that attest learning
achie"ement&
:esigned to foster the de"elopment of learner autonomy a matter of learners doing things
for themsel"es!$ the EL1 pro"ides the owner with checklists of tasks e&g&$ 3 can introduce
mself and sa where 3 come from! arranged according to the le"els and language acti"ities
of the CEFR& These can %e used to plan$ monitor and e"aluate learning from day to day and
week to week& Eote that indi"idual learners may work simultaneously on tasks at two or
more le"els; for example$ listening tasks at ?'$ spoken interaction tasks at *,$ reading and
writing tasks at *'& *t longer inter"als learners can undertake a summary self#assessment in
the language passport$ using the self#assessment grid from the CEFR *ppendix ' of this
paper!& (n "ersions of the EL1 designed for use %y adult migrants the goal#setting and self#
assessment checklists focus on domains of language use and communicati"e tasks that
pre"ious analysis has shown to %e especially rele"ant& The checklists pro"ide a general
framework for the language programme and can %e used to identify i! needs that are
common to all participants in the programme$ ii! needs that are shared %y some %ut not all
participants$ and iii! needs that are specific to indi"idual participants& 1rogramme deli"ery
can then proceed "ia whole#class$ group and indi"idual learning acti"ities that are planned$
monitored and e"aluated in the indi"idual learners EL1&
'-

There seems to %e a growing tendency to attach two kinds of test to citizenship and
permission to remain long#term in the host country/ a test of communicati"e proficiency in
the host communitys language$ and a test of cultural and9or ci"ic knowledge& This may
encourage the "iew that learning a language and learning a%out the society in which the
language is used are two 5uite different things& 0uch a "iew is misleading& Ahile it is true
that one can gain many kinds of knowledge a%out a particular society or culture without
learning its language$ it is also true that language learning has an inescapa%le cultural
dimension& This is clearly recognized %y the CEFRs action#oriented approach$ which
assigns a key role to our sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences$ %oth of which
presuppose a degree of not necessarily explicit! cultural knowledge/ for instance$ knowing
how to greet and take lea"e of someone& Furthermore$ when language programmes for adult
migrants are designed on the %asis of the kind of needs analysis descri%ed a%o"e$ it should
follow that they focus directly on communicati"e acti"ity within the host community&
Learning to communicate in the world of work$ for example$ includes learning how to read
and understand a payslip; and payslips are cultural artefacts that differ from country to
country& Cultural or ci"ic knowledge that can %e ac5uired independently of the host
community language should ne"ertheless %e included in the language programme$ for two
'F
www&coe&int9portfolio
'-
For a detailed account of how the EL1 has %een used as the %asis for English language courses for
adult migrants with refugee status in (reland$ see the paper 4Responding to the language needs of adult
refugees in 3reland: an alternative approach to pedagog and assessment6&
'7
reasons& First$ in most cases migrants will pro%a%ly ha"e to use the host community language
to ac5uire the knowledge; and secondly$ this kind of learning can pro"ide appropriate content
for a language programme that is also an induction into the social practices of the host
community& Ahen the programme entails portfolio learning %ased on a "ersion of the EL1$ it
may %e possi%le to use portfolio assessment as an alternati"e not only to language tests %ut
also to tests of cultural and9or ci"ic knowledge&
,2

" Conclusion
(ncreasingly Council of Europe mem%er states use the le"els of the CEFR to define the
communicati"e proficiency that migrants must achie"e if they are to %e granted citizenship
or long#term residence rights& (t has %een the purpose of this paper to summarize the
conceptual complexity that lies %ehind the le"els$ to descri%e in some detail the range of
communicati"e %eha"iour that each of the le"els entails$ and to pro"ide a preliminary
illustration of the procedures that take us from the CEFR as a framework of reference to the
design and deli"ery of needs#%ased$
,'
CEFR#related language programmes for adult
migrants&
(n order to fulfil its intended function the CEFR stri"es to %e comprehensi"e$ transparent and
coherent& The same features should characterize efforts to apply its descripti"e apparatus and
proficiency le"els to the design of language courses$ text%ooks and other learning materials$
and assessment instruments& Ahen we %ring the CEFR to %ear on the de"elopment and
implementation of policies for the integration of adult migrants$ we should %egin %y
recognizing that it was not designed to address the particularities of their linguistic situation$
which are often %ewilderingly complex& Ae should also recognize that the CEFR cannot
present us with ready#made solutions; that effecti"e language courses for adult migrants and
Cust methods of assessment depend on careful and detailed analysis of their general
educational %ackground$ their social and sociolinguistic context$ the domains in which they
must %e a%le to use the language of the host community$ and the communicati"e tasks they
must %e a%le to perform& This re5uires much painstaking effort&
Ahen the CEFR is used as a con"enient short cut$ a su%stitute for hard work$ the resulting
simplifications and distortions can easily lead to inCustice& (t may %e a matter of policy to
re5uire adult migrants to attend a programme of instruction in the language of the host
community and to assess their communicati"e proficiency at the end of the programme& ?ut
such a policy is defensi%le only if the programme and the assessment instruments take full
account of the needs of the learners$ their situation in the host community$ the multilingual
reality that surrounds them$ the context of polycentricity in which they li"e$ and the
constraints to which their language learning is su%Cect& To determine that adult migrants
should attain say! *, in the language of the host community and then to imagine that any
*, course will meet their needs and any assessment at *, le"el will %e appropriate$ is to
misunderstand the nature of language learning$ language use and language itself$ and to work
against the principles on which the CEFR is founded&
,2
*gain$ see the paper 4Responding to the language needs of adult refugees in 3reland: an alternative
approach to pedagog and assessment6 for a practical example&
,'
For further discussion of needs see 1iet Ian *"ermaet and 0ara Kysen$ 4From needs to tasks/ language
learning needs in a task#%ased approach6$ in Lris Ian den ?randen ed&!$ .ask*#ased language education$
Cam%ridge/ Cam%ridge =ni"ersity 1ress$ ,22D$ pp&'.>+D&
'+
# Appendi# $
CEFR Common Reference Le$els% self&assessment gri' () Council of Europe*
A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
U
N
D
E
R
S
T
A
N
D
I
N
G
Listening
I can understand familiar words
and very basic phrases concerning
myself, my family and immediate
concrete surroundings when
people speak slowly and clearly.
I can understand phrases and the
highest frequency vocabulary
related to areas of most
immediate personal relevance
(e.g., very basic personal and
family information, shopping, local
area, employment). I can catch
the main point in short, clear,
simple messages and
announcements.
I can understand the main points
of clear standard speech on
familiar matters regularly
encountered in work, school,
leisure, etc. I can understand the
main point of many radio or TV
programmes on current affairs or
topics of personal or professional
interest when the delivery is
relatively slow and clear.
I can understand etended speech
and lectures and follow even
comple lines of argument
provided the topic is reasonably
familiar. I can understand most TV
news and current affairs
programmes. I can understand
the ma!ority of films in standard
dialect.
I can understand etended speech
even when it is not clearly
structured and when relationships
are only implied and not signalled
eplicitly. I can understand
television programmes and films
without too much effort.
I have no difficulty in understanding
any kind of spoken language,
whether live or broadcast, even
when delivered at fast native speed,
provided I have some time to get
familiar with the accent.
Reading
I can understand familiar names,
words and very simple sentences,
for eample on notices and
posters or in catalogues.
I can read very short, simple
tets. I can find specific,
predictable information in simple
everyday material such as
advertisements, prospectuses,
menus and timetables and I can
understand short simple personal
letters.
I can understand tets that
consist mainly of high frequency
everyday or !ob"related language.
I can understand the description
of events, feelings and wishes in
personal letters.
I can read articles and reports
concerned with contemporary
problems in which the writers
adopt particular attitudes or
viewpoints. I can understand
contemporary literary prose.
I can understand long and
comple factual and literary tets,
appreciating distinctions of style. I
can understand specialised
articles and longer technical
instructions, even when they do
not relate to my field.
I can read with ease virtually all
forms of the written language,
including abstract, structurally or
linguistically comple tets such as
manuals, specialised articles and
literary works.
S
P
E
A
K
I
N
G
Spoken
Interaction
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. I can ask and
answer simple questions in areas
of immediate need or on very
familiar topics.
I can communicate in simple and
routine tasks requiring a simple
and direct echange of
information on familiar topics and
activities. I can handle very short
social echanges, even though I
can#t usually understand enough
to keep the conversation going
myself.
I can deal with most situations
likely to arise whilst travelling in
an area where the language is
spoken. I can enter unprepared
into conversation on topics that
are familiar, of personal interest or
pertinent to everyday life (e.g.,
family, hobbies, work, travel and
current events).
I can interact with a degree of
fluency and spontaneity that
makes regular interaction with
native speakers quite possible. I
can take an active part in
discussion in familiar contets,
accounting for and sustaining my
views.
I can epress myself fluently and
spontaneously without much
obvious searching for epressions.
I can use language fleibly and
effectively for social and
professional purposes. I can
formulate ideas and opinions with
precision and relate my
contribution skilfully to those of
other speakers.
I can take part effortlessly in any
conversation or discussion and have
a good familiarity with idiomatic
epressions and colloquialisms. I
can epress myself fluently and
convey finer shades of meaning
precisely. If I do have a problem I
can backtrack and restructure
around the difficulty so smoothly
that other people are hardly aware
of it.
Spoken
Prodction
I can use simple phrases and
sentences to describe where I live
and people I know.
I can use a series of phrases and
sentences to describe in simple
terms my family and other
people, living conditions, my
educational background and my
present or most recent !ob.
I can connect phrases in a simple
way in order to describe
eperiences and events, my
dreams, hopes and ambitions. I
can briefly give reasons and
eplanations for opinions and
plans. I can narrate a story or
relate the plot of a book or film
and describe my reactions.
I can present clear, detailed
descriptions on a wide range of
sub!ects related to my field of
interest. I can eplain a viewpoint
on a topical issue giving the
advantages and disadvantages of
various options.
I can present clear, detailed
descriptions of comple sub!ects
integrating sub"themes,
developing particular points and
rounding off with an appropriate
conclusion.
I can present a clear, smoothly"
flowing description or argument in a
style appropriate to the contet and
with an effective logical structure
which helps the recipient to notice
and remember significant points.
!
R
I
T
I
N
G
!riting
I can write a short, simple
postcard, for eample sending
holiday greetings. I can fill in
forms with personal details, for
eample entering my name,
nationality and address on a hotel
registration form.
I can write short, simple notes
and messages. I can write a very
simple personal letter, for
eample thanking someone for
something.
I can write simple connected tet
on topics which are familiar or of
personal interest. I can write
personal letters describing
eperiences and impressions.
I can write clear, detailed tet on
a wide range of sub!ects related
to my interests. I can write an
essay or report, passing on
information or giving reasons in
support of or against a particular
point of view. I can write letters
highlighting the personal
significance of events and
eperiences.
I can epress myself in clear, well"
structured tet, epressing points
of view at some length. I can
write about comple sub!ects in a
letter, an essay or a report,
underlining what I consider to be
the salient issues. I can select a
style appropriate to the reader in
mind.
I can write clear, smoothly"flowing
tet in an appropriate style. I can
write comple letters, reports or
articles which present a case with
an effective logical structure which
helps the recipient to notice and
remember significant points. I can
write summaries and reviews of
professional or literary works.
'3
'D