The CEF Levels & Descriptor Scales
Brian North
Eurocentres Foundation
Developing the CEF Descriptor Scales
• Full account: North, B. (2000). The development of a
common framework scale of language proficiency. New
York, Peter Lang.
• More Technical: North, B. and Schneider, G. (1998).
Scaling descriptors for language proficiency scales.
Language Testing 15, 2, 217–262.
• Less Technical: North, B. (2002a). Developing
descriptor scales of language proficiency for the CEF
common reference levels. In Alderson, J.C.A. (ed.) Case
Studies in applying the Common European Framework,
Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 87-105.
Common Framework of Reference
• Relevant areas of concern
– Descriptive scheme
• based on descriptive theory
• Stages of attainment in those areas
– Common reference levels
• based on measurement theory
Descriptive Scheme
• “….. actions performed by a social agent who, as
an individual, has at his or her disposal and
develops a range of general competences and in
particular communicative language competence.
He or she draws on these competences in different
kinds of language activities in order to process
text (receptively or productively) in relation to
specific domains, activating those strategies
which seem most appropriate for carrying out the
tasks to be accomplished”.
Scales in Descriptive Scheme
• Communicative language
competence
– Linguistic, Pragmatic, Socio-linguistic
• Communicative language activities
– Reception, Interaction, Production, (Mediation)
• Use of Strategies
– Reception, Interaction, Production
CEF Scales: C.L. Competences
Linguistic Competence
Pragmatic Competence
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
General Linguistic Range
Vocabulary Range
Grammatical Accuracy
Vocabulary Control
Phonological Control
Orthographic Control
Sociolinguistic Competence
•
Sociolinguistic Appropriateness
Flexibility
Turntaking
Thematic Development
Cohesion and Coherence
Propositional Precision
Spoken Fluency
CEF Scales: C.L. Activities.
RECEPTION
Overall Listening Comprehension
•
•
•
•
•
Understanding conversation between native-speakers
Listening as a member of an audience
Listening to announcements and instructions
Listening to audio media and recordings
Watching TV and film
Overall Reading Comprehension
•
•
•
•
Reading correspondence
Reading for orientation
Reading for information and argument
Reading instructions
CEF Scales: C.L.Activities
INTERACTION
Overall Spoken Interaction
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Understanding a native-speaker interlocutor
Conversation
Informal discussion
Formal discussion and meetings
Goal-oriented co-operation
Transactions to obtain goods and services
Information exchange
Interviewing and being interviewed
Overall Written Interaction
•
•
Correspondence
Notes, messages and forms
CEF Scales: C.L. Activities
PRODUCTION
Overall Spoken Production
•
•
•
•
Sustained monologue: Describing experience
Sustained monologue: Putting a case (e.g. in debate)
Public announcements
Addressing Audiences
Overall Written Production
•
•
Creative Writing
Reports and Essays
CEF Scales: C.L. Activities
HANDLING TEXT
•
•
Note-taking
Processing Text
CEF Scales: C.L. Strategies
Reception Strategies
Production Strategies
•
•
•
•
Identifying cues/ inferring
Interaction Strategies
•
•
•
Turntaking
Cooperating
Asking for clarification
Planning
Compensating
Monitoring and Repair
Common Reference Levels
• A1
• A2
Breakthrough
Waystage
• B1
• B2
Threshold
Vantage
• C1
• C2
Effective Operational Proficiency
Mastery
Common Reference Levels
• Table 1 Global Scale
 Table 2 Self-assessment Grid
(Listening, Reading, Spoken Interaction,. Spoken
Production, Writing)
 Table 3 Assessor Grid
(Range, Accuracy, Fluency, Interaction, Coherence)
 50 Individual Scales for PROFILING
Common Reference Levels
C2
Proficient
User
C1
B2
Independent
User
B1
A2
Basic
User
A1
Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarise information from different spoken
and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express
him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in more
complex situations.
Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise implicit meaning. Can express
him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. Can use language
flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes. Can produce clear, well-structured,
detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive
devices.
Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical
discussions in his/her field of specialisation. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes
regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party. Can produce clear, detailed
text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and
disadvantages of various options.
Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work,
school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language
is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe
experiences and events, dreams, hopes & ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and
plans.
Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g.
very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate in
simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters.
Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of
immediate need.
Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of
needs of a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about
personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has. Can interact in a
simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.
Common Reference Levels
• Where do the CEF Levels come from?
• How were the descriptors developed and
scaled?
• How were the “cut-points” between levels set?
• How coherent is the scaling of content?
• How stable are the scale values?
Common Reference Levels
• 1913 Cambridge Proficiency
C2
• 1990-91 Cambridge Advanced; DALF
C1
• 1938 Cambridge First Certificate
B2
• 1975 The Threshold Level
B1
• 1978? Waystage
A2
•
A1
Common Reference Levels
Wilkins 1978
UCLES 1992
CoE 1992-6
•
•
•
Proficiency
•
Mastery
•
CAE
•
•
FCE Vantage
•
Effective Operational
Proficiency
Vantage
•
PET Threshold
•
Threshold
•
KET Waystage
•
•
Waystage
Breakthrough
•
•
•
•
•
Ambilingual Proficiency
Comprehensive Operational
Proficiency
Adequate Operational
Proficiency
Limited Operational Proficiency
Basic Operational Proficiency
(Threshold Level)
Survival Proficiency
Formulaic Proficiency
Developing the CEF Levels
Swiss Research Project 1993-7 to develop:
• scaled descriptor bank for the CEF levels
• overview of language learning achievement
in Swiss educational sectors
• prototype European Language Portfolio.
Proficiency Scales before CEF
 Wording tended to be relative. The descriptors
were seldom stand-alone criteria one could rate
“Yes” or “No”
 Situation of descriptors at a particular level was
arbitrary - following convention/cliché
 Wording often created semantic appearance of a
scale, without actually describing anything
 Lower levels tended to be worded negatively
CEF scaled criterion statements
• Can take an active part in informal discussion in familiar
contexts, commenting, putting points of view clearly,
evaluating alternative proposals and making and
responding to hypotheses.
• Can with some effort catch much or what is said around
him/her in discussion, but may find it difficult to
participate effectively in discussion with several native
speakers who do not modify their language in any way.”
• Can account for and sustain his/her opinions in discussion
by providing relevant explanations, arguments and
comments.
B2 Informal Discussion
Swiss Research Project 1993-7
A learner model:
"… a simplified description of selected aspects of the infinite
varieties of skills and knowledge that characterise real
students" (Mislevy 1995:343)
"A learner’s state of competence at a given point in time is a
complex constellation of facts and concepts, and the networks that interconnect them; of automatized procedures and
conscious heuristics, ….; of perspectives and strategies, and
the management capabilities by which the learner focuses his
efforts. There is no hope of providing a description of such a
state. Neither is there any need to." (Mislevy 1993: 28)
Swiss Research Project 1993-7
A measurement model:
“…the scale values of the statements should not be affected
by the opinions of the people who helped to construct it.
This may turn out to be a severe test in practice, but the
scaling method must stand such a test before it can be
accepted as being more than a description of the people
who construct the scale. At any rate, to the extent that the
present method of scale construction is affected by the
opinions of the readers who help sort out the original
statements into a scale, to that extent the validity of the
scale may be challenged. ” (Thurstone 1928: 547–8)
Swiss Research Project 1993-7
• Intuitive Phase:
– Creating a pool of classified, edited descriptors
• Qualitative Phase:
– Analysis of teachers discussing proficiency
– 32 teacher workshops sorting descriptors
• Quantitative Phase:
– Teacher assessment of learners on questionnaires
– Assessment (by all) of videos of some learners
• Interpretation Phase:
– Setting “cut-points” for common reference levels
Swiss Research Project 1993-7
• 1994: English
• 1995: French, German, English
• 1996: Portfolio
2,800 learners, 500 classes, 300 teachers
Lower & upper secondary, vocational, adult
Swiss Research Project 1993-7
Data Collection:
Quest. C
Quest. B
Quest. A
Swiss Research Project 1993-7
Setting the cut-points between levels
1. Marking out equal intervals on the scale
2. Identifying „jumps“ in content described, gaps
between clusters of descriptors
3. Comparing to original scale author intention
4. Comparing to Waystage, Threshold
5. Fine-tuning for equal intervals
6. Checking for consistency, coherence
Common Reference Levels
Finer Levels
(Swiss)
Council of Europe
Cut-off
on logit
scale
Range
on logit
scale
Mastery
M
Mastery
3.90
Effectiveness
E
Effectiveness
2.80
1.10
Vantage +
V+
1.74
1.06
Vantage
V
0.72
1.02
Threshold +
T+
-0.26
0.98
Threshold
T
-1.23
0.97
Waystage + s
W+
-2.21
0.98
Waystage
W
Waystage
-3.23
1.02
Breakthrough
B
Breakthrough
-4.29
1.06
Tourist
Tour
---
-5.39
1.10
Vantage
Threshold
Content coherence
Level A1
is the point at which the learner can:
 interact in a simple way, ask and answer simple questions
about themselves, where they live, people they know, and
things they have, initiate and respond to simple statements in
areas of immediate need or on very familiar topics,
rather than relying purely on a rehearsed repertoire of phrases.
Content coherence
Level A2 reflects Waystage
• majority of descriptors stating social functions:
greet people, ask how they are and react to news; handle
very short social exchanges; ask and answer questions about
what they do at work and in free time; make and respond to
invitations; discuss what to do, where to go and make
arrangements to meet; make and accept offers.
• descriptors on getting out and about:
make simple transactions in shops, post offices or banks; get
simple information about travel; ask for and provide
everyday goods and services.
Content coherence
Level B1 reflects Threshold Level
• maintain interaction and get across what you want to:
give or seek personal views and opinions in an informal
discussion with friends; express the main point he/she wants
to make comprehensibly; keep going comprehensibly, even
though pausing for grammatical and lexical planning and
repair is very evident, especially in longer stretches of free
production.
• cope flexibly with problems in everyday life:
deal with most situations likely to arise when making travel
arrangements through an agent or when actually travelling;
enter unprepared into conversations on familiar topics; make
a complaint.
Content coherence
Level B2 reflects three new emphases:
 effective argument: account for and sustain opinions in
discussion by providing relevant explanations, arguments and
comments; explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the
advantages and disadvantages of various options.
 holding your own in social discourse: interact with a degree of
fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with
native speakers quite possible without imposing strain on
either party; adjust to the changes of direction, style and
emphasis normally found in conversation.
 a new degree of language awareness: correct mistakes if they
have led to misunderstandings; make a note of "favourite
mistakes" and consciously monitor speech for them.
Content coherence
Level C1 is characterised by access to a broad range of
language: fluent, spontaneous communication:
 express him/herself fluently and spontaneously, almost
effortlessly; Has a good command of a broad lexical repertoire
allowing gaps to be readily overcome with circumlocutions.
There is little obvious searching for expressions or avoidance
strategies; only a conceptually difficult subject can hinder a
natural, smooth flow of language.
 produce clear, smoothly-flowing, well-structured speech,
showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors
and cohesive devices
Content coherence
Level C2 represents the degree of precision and ease
with the language of highly successful learners:
• convey finer shades of meaning precisely by using, with
reasonable accuracy, a wide range of modification devices;
• has a good command of idiomatic expressions and
colloquialisms with awareness of connotative level of meaning;
Stability of scale values
Validation Studies:
– Swiss Replication Year 2:
0.99
– DIALANG (List; Read; Write): 0.90
– Basle: University entrance:
0.90
– ALTE / UCLES: (anchors):
0.97
Developing the CEF Descriptor Scales
• Full account: North, B. (2000). The development of a
common framework scale of language proficiency. New
York, Peter Lang.
• More Technical: North, B. and Schneider, G. (1998).
Scaling descriptors for language proficiency scales.
Language Testing 15, 2, 217–262.
• Less Technical: North, B. (2002a). Developing
descriptor scales of language proficiency for the CEF
common reference levels. In Alderson, J.C.A. (ed.) Case
Studies in applying the Common European Framework,
Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 87-105.