Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

 

Language Learning in Higher Education

Journal of the European Confederation of Language Centres in Higher Education (CercleS)

Editor-in-Chief: Szczuka-Dorna, Liliana / O’Rourke, Breffni

Online
ISSN
2191-6128
See all formats and pricing
Online
Institutional Subscription
€ [D] 233.00 / US$ 350.00 / GBP 191.00*
Individual Subscription
€ [D] 49.00 / US$ 74.00 / GBP 40.00*
Print
Institutional Subscription
€ [D] 233.00 / US$ 350.00 / GBP 191.00*
Individual Subscription
€ [D] 233.00 / US$ 350.00 / GBP 191.00*
Print + Online
Institutional Subscription
€ [D] 277.00 / US$ 420.00 / GBP 227.00*
Individual Subscription
€ [D] 277.00 / US$ 420.00 / GBP 227.00*
*Prices in US$ apply to orders placed in the Americas only. Prices in GBP apply to orders placed in Great Britain only. Prices in € represent the retail prices valid in Germany (unless otherwise indicated). Prices are subject to change without notice. Prices do not include postage and handling if applicable. RRP: Recommended Retail Price.
More options …

The Common European Framework of Reference down under: A survey of its use and non-use in Australian universities

Nadine Normand-Marconnet / Joseph Lo Bianco
Published Online: 2015-10-02 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2015-0014

30,00 € / $42.00 / £23.00

Get Access to Full Text

Abstract

Today, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR; Council of Europe 2001) is widely recognised as emblematic of globalization in education, both in the realms of policy and in educational practice (Byram et al. 2012a). In Europe the CEFR is regularly cited as a reference point for curriculum planning, and is often claimed to support greater transparency and coherence across the entire spectrum of language education. Despite substantial adoption of the CEFR beyond Europe, it has gained little ground in Australian higher education institutions. In order to understand this anomaly, and to analyse the underlying causes of the low traction the CEFR commands in Australia, this article reports on a study of the attitudes, knowledge and perceptions of academics and students collected through a nationwide online survey. The results suggest a perplexing situation, a combination of general unfamiliarity contrasted with pockets of positive acceptance of the CEFR in Australian universities. Moreover, the data suggest that respondents who are teachers are rather less concerned by claimed impediments to learning standards than some researchers and applied linguists who have made such criticism of the CEFR. The article also discusses some controversies that surround attempts to promote the CEFR for wider use. The aim is to contribute to local and international debate on the CEFR and to stimulate discussion about the roles and limits of its use as a universal language learning reference document and as a practical resource to support language teaching and assessment.

Keywords: Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR); higher education; Australia; language learning; language assessment

References

  • Alderson, J. Charles, Neus Figueras, Henk Kuijper, Guenter Nold, Sauli Takala & Claire Tardieu. 2006. Analysing tests of reading and listening in relation to the Common European Framework of Reference: The experience of the Dutch CEFR construct project. Language Assessment Quarterly 3(1). 3–30. doi:10.1207/s15434311laq0301_2.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bellassen, Joёl & Li Zhang. 2008. The enlightenment and the impetus of the new approach of the Common European Framework of Reference for Language on the Chinese language teaching. Chinese Teaching in the World 3. 58–73.

  • Byram, Michael & Lynne Parmenter (eds.). 2012a. The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Byram, Michael & Lynne Parmenter. 2012b. Introduction. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 1–11. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Byrnes, Heidi. 2012. Academic perspectives from the USA. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 169–181. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Castellotti, Véronique. 2012. Academic perspectives from France. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 45–52. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Coste, D. 2007. Contextualising uses of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Paper presented at the Report of the Intergovernmental Forum The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the development of language policies: challenges and responsibilities. Council of Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/SourceForum07/ForumFeb07_%20Report_EN.doc (accessed 18 June 2015).

  • Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Council of Europe. 2007. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the development of language policies: Challenges and responsibilities. Report on an Intergovernmental Language Policy Forum. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/conference_bis_en.asp#P40_1517 (accessed 10 June 2015).

  • Davidson, Fred & Glenn Fulcher. 2007. The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and the design of language tests: A matter of effect. Language Teaching 40(3). 231–241.Google Scholar

  • Despagne, Colette & John Roby Grossi. 2011. Implementation of the CEFR in the Mexican context. Synergies Europe 6. 65–74.Google Scholar

  • Elder, Catherine & Kieran O’Loughlin. 2007. ELICOS language levels feasibility study: Final report. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.

  • Faez, Farahnaz, Suzanne Majhanovich, Shelley Taylor, Maureen Smith & Kelly Crowley. 2012. The power of “can do” statements: Teachers’ perceptions of CEFR-informed instruction in French as a Second Language classrooms in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée 14(2). 1–19.Google Scholar

  • Finch, Andrew E. 2009. Europass and the CEFR: Implications for language teaching in Korea. English Language and Literature Teaching 15(2). 71–92.Google Scholar

  • Fleming, Mike. 2006. The use and mis-use of competence frameworks and statements with particular attention to describing achievements in literature. https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Fleming-paper.doc (accessed 19 September 2014).

  • Fulcher, Glenn. 2004. Are Europe’s tests being built on an “unsafe” framework. The Guardian Weekly 18.

  • Glover, Philip. 2011. Using CEFR level descriptors to raise university students’ awareness of their speaking skills. Language Awareness 20(2). 121–133.Google Scholar

  • Hu, Adelheid. 2012. Academic perspectives from Germany. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 66–75. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Hulstijn, Jan H. 2007. The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal 91(4). 663–667. doi:10.2307/4626094.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ingram, David E. 1984. Report on the formal trialling of the Australian second language proficiency ratings (ASLPR). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar

  • Jones, Neil & Nick Saville. 2009. European language policy: Assessment, learning and the CEFR. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 29(1). 51–63.Google Scholar

  • Komorowska, Hanna. 2012. Academic perspectives from Poland. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 104–113. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Krumm, Hans-Jürgen. 2007. Profiles instead of levels: The CEFR and its (ab)uses in the context of migration. The Modern Language Journal 91(4). 667–669. doi:10.2307/4626095.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Little, David. 2007. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. The Modern Language Journal 91(4). 645–655. doi:10.2307/4626091.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Little, David, Francis Goullier & Gareth Hughes. 2011. The European Language Portfolio: The story so far (1991–2011). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/elp/elp-reg/Source/Publications/ELP_StorySoFar_July2011_Final_EN.pdf (accessed 3 July 2015).

  • Lo Bianco, Joseph. 2004. A site for debate, negotiation and contest of national identity: Language policy in Australia. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/LoBiancoEn.pdf (accessed 9 June 2015).

  • Lockwood, Jane. 2012. Are we getting the right people for the job? A study of English language recruitment assessment practices in the business processing outsourcing sector: India and the Philippines. Journal of Business Communication 49(2). 107–127.Google Scholar

  • López Mendoza, Alexis Augusto & Gerriet Janssen. 2011. Estudio de validación de la prueba de inglés de ECAES en Colombia. Lenguaje 38(2). 423–448.Google Scholar

  • Mackey, Alison & Susan M. Gass. 2005. Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • McBeath, Neil. 2011. The Common European Framework of Reference for Language: Learning, teaching, assessment. Arab World English Journal 2(1). 186–213.Google Scholar

  • McKay, Penny & Geoff Brindley. 2007. Educational reform and ESL assessment in Australia: New roles and new tensions. Language Assessment Quarterly 4(1). 69–84.Google Scholar

  • McNamara, Tim. 2011. Managing learning: Authority and language assessment. Language Teaching 44(4). 500–515.Google Scholar

  • McNamara, Tim & Catherine Elder. 2010. Beyond scales. In Anthony J. Liddicoat & Angela Scarino (eds.), Languages in Australian education: Problems, prospects and future directions. 193–201. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Martyniuk, Waldemar & José Noijons. 2007. Executive summary of results of a survey on the use of the CEFR at national level in the Council of Europe member states. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

  • Mejía, Anne-Marie de. 2012. Academic perspectives from Colombia. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 149–157. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Noriyuki, Nishiyama. 2009. L’impact du Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues dans l’Asie du Nord-Est: pour une meilleure contextualisation du CECR. 54 –70.

  • Normand-Marconnet, Nadine. 2013. Pedagogical challenges of self-assessment in an Islamic context: A case of Iranian learning French students. International Journal of Pedagogies & Learning 7(3). 200–210.Google Scholar

  • North, Brian. 2014. Putting the Common European Framework of Reference to good use. Language Teaching 47(2). 228–249. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000206.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • O’Dwyer, Fergus & Noriko Nagai. 2011. The actual and potential impacts of the CEFR on language education in Japan. Synergies Europe 6. 141–152.Google Scholar

  • O’Loughlin, Kieran. 2011. The interpretation and use of proficiency test scores in university selection: How valid and ethical are they? Language Assessment Quarterly 8(2). 146–160.Google Scholar

  • Porto, Melina. 2012. Academic perspectives from Argentina. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 192–138. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Rong, Fu. 2010. Une contribution à la diffusion en Chine des notions de didactique des langues: le cas de l’expérience de traduction du Cadre européen commun de référence du français en chinois. Synergies Chine 5. 171–177.Google Scholar

  • Scarino, Angela. 2012. A rationale for acknowledging the diversity of learner achievements in learning particular languages in school education in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 35(3). 231–250.Google Scholar

  • Sugitani, Masako & Yuichi Tomita. 2012. Perspectives from Japan. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 198–211. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Suzuki, Elli & Yumiko Togashi. 2013. Le «JF Standard», copie conforme du CECRL?. In Joël Bellassen, Héba Medhat-Lecocq & Louise Ouvrard (eds.), Ecritures, politiques linguistiques et didactique des langues, 77–91. Paris: Editions des Archives Contemporaines.Google Scholar

  • Trim, John L. M. 2012. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and its background: A case study of cultural politics and educational influences. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 4–34. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Üstünlüoğlu, Evrim, Kısmet Funda Akgül Zazaoğlu, Michelle N. Keskin, Beril Sarayköylü & Gülfem Akdoğan. 2012. Developing a CEF based curriculum: A case study. International Journal of Instruction 5(1). 115–128.Google Scholar

  • Vandergrift, Larry. 2006. Nouvelles perspectives canadiennes. Proposition d’un cadre commun de référence pour les langues pour le Canada. Ottawa: Patrimoine Canadien.Google Scholar

  • Weir, Cyril J. 2005. Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparable examinations and tests. Language Testing 22(3). 281–300.Google Scholar

  • Wernicke, Meike & Monique Bournot-Trites. 2012. Introducing the CEFR in BC: Questions and challenges. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée 14(2). 106–128.Google Scholar

  • Wu, Jessica. 2012. Policy perspectives from Taiwan. In Michael Byram & Lynne Parmenter (eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy, 213–223. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Wu, Jessica R. W. & Rachel Y. F. Wu. 2007. Using the CEFR in Taiwan: The perspective of a local examination board. The Language Training and Testing Center Annual Report 56. Taipei: National Taiwan University.Google Scholar

About the article

Nadine Normand-Marconnet

Dr Nadine Normand-Marconnet is a lecturer and current convenor of French Studies at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Since 2015 she has directed the Intercultural Communication program taught across different campuses of Monash University (Australia, Italy and Malaysia). Her research interests include innovative curriculum design for teaching and assessment, second language acquisition, language policy, and transnational education.

Joseph Lo Bianco

Dr Joseph Lo Bianco is Professor of Language and Literacy Education at the University of Melbourne, Australia. He is also Research Director for the UNICEF Language Policy and Peacebuilding Program in Southeast Asia, specifically Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand. His principal research interest is in Italian language and culture studies, Asian education, language policy and planning, bilingual studies, and connections between social cohesion and language issues.

Published Online: 2015-10-02

Published in Print: 2015-10-01

Citation Information: Language Learning in Higher Education, Volume 5, Issue 2, Pages 281–307, ISSN (Online) 2191-6128, ISSN (Print) 2191-611X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2015-0014.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in