Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment,[1] abbreviated in English as CEFR or CEF or CEFRL, is a guideline used to describe achievements of learners of foreign languages across Europe and, increasingly, in other countries. The CEFR is also intended to make it easier for educational institutions and employers to evaluate the language qualifications of candidates to education admission or employment. Its main aim is to provide a method of learning, teaching and assessing that applies to all languages in Europe.

It was put together by the Council of Europe as the main part of the project "Language Learning for European Citizenship" between 1989 and 1996. In November 2001, a European Union Council Resolution recommended using the CEFR to set up systems of validation of language ability. The six reference levels (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2) are becoming widely accepted as the European standard for grading an individual's language proficiency.


An intergovernmental symposium in 1991 titled "Transparency and Coherence in Language Learning in Europe: Objectives, Evaluation, Certification" held by the Swiss Federal Authorities in the Swiss municipality of Rüschlikon found the need for a common European framework for languages to improve the recognition of language qualifications and help teachers co-operate. A project followed to develop language-level classifications for certification to be recognised across Europe.[2]

As a result of the symposium, the Swiss National Science Foundation set up a project to develop levels of proficiency, to lead on to the creation of a "European Language Portfolio" – certification in language ability which can be used across Europe.

A preliminary version of the Manual for Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) was published in 2003. This draft version was piloted in a number of projects, which included linking a single test to the CEFR, linking suites of exams at different levels and national studies by exam boards and research institutes. Practitioners and academics shared their experiences at a colloquium in Cambridge in 2007 and the pilot case studies and findings were published in Studies in Language Testing (SiLT).[3] The findings from the pilot projects then informed the Manual revision project during 2008–2009.

Theoretical background[edit]

The CEFR divides general competences in knowledge, skills, and existential competence with particular communicative competences in linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence and pragmatic competence. This division does not exactly match previously well-known notions of communicative competence, but correspondences among them can be made.[4]

The CEFR has three principal dimensions: language activities, the domains in which the language activities occur, and the competencies on which a person draws when they engage in them.[5]

Language activities[edit]

The CEFR distinguishes among four kinds of language activities: reception (listening and reading), production (spoken and written), interaction (spoken and written) and mediation (translating and interpreting).[5]


General and particular communicative competences are developed by producing or receiving texts in various contexts under various conditions and constraints. These contexts correspond to various sectors of social life that the CEFR calls domains. Four broad domains are distinguished: educational, occupational, public and personal. These largely correspond to register.[citation needed]


A language user can develop various degrees of competence in each of these domains and to help describe them, the CEFR has provided a set of six Common Reference Levels (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2).[citation needed]

Common reference levels[edit]

The Common European Framework divides learners into three broad divisions that can each be further divided into two levels; for each level, it describes what a learner is supposed to be able to do in reading, listening, speaking and writing. The following table indicates these levels. A more thorough description of each level, with criteria for listening, reading, speaking and writing, is available on the Internet.[6]

Level group Level Description
Basic user
Breakthrough or beginner
  • Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type.
  • Can introduce themselves and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where they live, people they know and things they have.
  • Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.
Waystage or elementary
  • 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 their background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.
Independent user
Threshold or intermediate
  • 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 while travelling in an area where the language is spoken.
  • Can produce simple connected text on topics that are familiar or of personal interest.
  • Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.
Vantage or upper intermediate
  • Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in their 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.
Proficient user
Effective operational proficiency or advanced
  • Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer clauses and recognise implicit meaning.
  • Can express ideas 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.
Mastery or proficiency
  • 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 themselves spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in the most complex situations.

These descriptors can apply to any of the languages spoken in Europe and there are translations in many languages.

Relationship with duration of learning process[edit]

Educational bodies for various languages have offered estimates for the amount of study needed to reach levels in the relevant language.

Body Language Cumulative hours of study to reach level Ref
A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
Goethe-Institut German 80–200 200–350 350–650 600–800 800–1,000 1,000 [7]
Cambridge English Language Assessment English 180–200 350–400 500–600 700–800 1,000–1,200 [8]
Alliance Française French 60–100 160–200 360–400 560–650 810–950 1,060–1,200 [9]
Teastas Eorpach na Gaeilge Irish 80–100 160–200 350–400 500–600 1,000+ 1,500+ [10]

Certification and teaching ecosystem enabled by the CEFR[edit]

Multiple organisations have been created to serve as an umbrella for language schools and certification businesses that claim compatibility with the CEFR. For example, the European Association for Language Testing and Assessment (EALTA) is an initiative funded by the European Community[11] to promote the CEFR and best practices in delivering professional language training. The Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) is a consortium of academic organisations that aims at standardising assessment methods.[12] EAQUALS (Evaluation and Accreditation of Quality in Language Services) is an international association of institutions and organisations involved in language education, active throughout Europe and following the CEFR.[13]

In France, the Ministry for Education has created a government-mandated certificate called CLES, which formalises the use of the CEFR in language teaching programmes in French higher education institutions.[14]

In Germany, Telc, a non-profit agency, is the federal government's exclusive partner for language tests taken at the end of the integration courses for migrants, following the CEFR standards.[15]

Comparisons between CEFR and other scales[edit]

General scales[edit]

Studies have addressed correspondence with the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the United States ILR scale.

For convenience, the following abbreviations will be used for the ACTFL levels:

  • NL/NM/NH – Novice Low/Mid/High
  • IL/IM/IH – Intermediate Low/Mid/High
  • AL/AM/AH – Advanced Low/Mid/High
  • S – Superior
  • D – Distinguished (a name sometimes used for levels 4 and 4+ of the ILR scale instead of including them within Superior)[tone]

The following table summarises various proposed equivalences between CEFR and ACTFL:

CEFR Correspondance with ACTFL
Martínez, 2008[16] Tschirner, 2005[17] Buitrago, 2006[18]
<A1 NL, NM
C2 AH, S S S

In a panel discussion at the Osaka University of Foreign Studies, one of the coauthors of the CEFR, Brian North, stated that a "sensible hypothesis" would be for C2 to correspond to "Distinguished," C1 to "Superior," B2 to "Advanced-mid" and B1 to "Intermediate-high" in the ACTFL system.[19]

This agrees with a table published by the American University Center of Provence giving the following correspondences:[20]

A1 0/0+ NL, NM, NH
A2 1 IL, IM
B1 1+ IH
B2 2/2+ AL, AM, AH
C1 3/3+ S
C2 4/4+ D

However, a comparison between the ILR self-assessment grids (reading,[21] speaking,[22] listening [23]) and the CEFR assessment grid [24] could suggest a different equivalence:[25]

A1 0/1 NL, NM, NH
A2 1+ IL, IM
B1 2/2+ IH
B2 3/3+ AL, AM, AH
C1 4 S
C2 4+ D

A study by Buck, Papageorgiou and Platzek[26] addresses the correspondence between the difficulty of test items under the CEFR and ILR standards. The most common ILR levels for items of given CEFR difficulty were as follows:

  • Reading—A1: 1, A2: 1, B1: 1+, B2: 2+, C1: 3
  • Listening—A1: 0+/1, A2: 1, B1: 1+, B2: 2, C1: 2+ (at least)[27]

Canada increasingly uses the CEFR in a few domains. CEFR-compatible exams such as the DELF/DALF (French) and the DELE (Spanish) are administered. Universities increasingly structure their courses around the CEFR levels. Larry Vandergrift of the University of Ottawa has proposed Canadian adoption of the CEFR in his report Proposal for a Common Framework of Reference for Languages for Canada published by Heritage Canada.[28][29] This report contains a comparison of the CEFR to other standards in use in Canada and proposes an equivalence table.

A1 0/0+/1 Novice (Low/Mid/High) Unrated/0+/1 1/2 A
A2 1+ Intermediate (Low/Mid/High) 1+/2 3/4 B
B1 2 Advanced Low 2+ 5/6 C
B2 2+ Advanced Mid 3 7/8
C1 3/3+ Advanced High 3+ 9/10
C2 4 Superior 4 11/12
C2+ 4+/5

The resulting correspondence between the ILR and ACTFL scales disagrees with the generally accepted one.[32] The ACTFL standards were developed so that Novice, Intermediate, Advanced and Superior would correspond to 0/0+, 1/1+, 2/2+ and 3/3+, respectively on the ILR scale.[33] Also, the ILR and NB OPS scales do not correspond despite the fact that the latter was modelled on the former.[29]

A more recent document by Macdonald and Vandergrift[34] estimates the following correspondences (for oral ability) between the Public Service Commission levels and the CEFR levels:

A A2
B B1/B2
C B2/C1

Language schools may also propose their own equivalence tables. For example, the Vancouver English Centre provides a comprehensive equivalence table between the various forms of the TOEFL test, the Cambridge exam, the VEC level system, and the CEFR.[35]

Language-specific scales[edit]

Language Certificate A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
Multiple European Consortium for the Certificate of Attainment in Modern Languages. ECL exams can be taken in English, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Slovak, Russian, Spanish, Croatian, Czech, and Hebrew. - A2 B1 B2 C1 -
UNIcert UNIcert I UNIcert II UNIcert III UNIcert IV
TELC A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
ALTE level Breakthrough level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
HABE Lehenengo maila – HABE Bigarren maila – HABE Hirugarren maila – HABE Laugarren maila – HABE
EGA Euskararen Gaitasun Agiria
Catalan Catalan Language Certificates Bàsic-A2 Elemental-B1 Intermedi-B2 Suficiència-C1 Superior-C2
Simtest A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
Mandarin Chinese Chinese Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi (HSK)[36]

(Levels according to French and German associations)

HSK Level 1

HSK Level 2

HSK Level 3

HSK Level 4

HSK Level 4

HSK Level 5

HSK Level 5

HSK Level 6

HSK Level 6
Test of Chinese As A Foreign Language (TOCFL) (Taiwan) TOCFL Level 1 TOCFL Level 2 TOCFL Level 3 TOCFL Level 4 TOCFL Level 5 TOCFL Level 6
Welsh WJEC Defnyddio'r Gymraeg[37] Mynediad (Entry) Sylfaen (Foundation) Canolradd (Intermediate) Uwch (Advanced) - -
Czech Czech Language Certificate Exam (CCE)[38] CCE-A1 CCE-A2 CCE-B1 CCE-B2 CCE-C1 -
Danish Prøve i Dansk (Danish Language Exam)[39] Danskprøve A1 Prøve i Dansk 1 Prøve i Dansk 2 Prøve i Dansk 3 Studieprøven
Dutch CNaVT - Certificaat Nederlands als Vreemde Taal (Certificate of Dutch as Foreign Language)[40] Profile tourist and informal language proficiency (PTIT) Profile societal language proficiency (PMT) Profile professional language proficiency (PPT), Profile language proficiency higher education (PTHO) Profile academic language proficiency (PAT)
Inburgeringsexamen (Integration examination for immigrants from outside the EU) Pre-examination at embassy of home country Examination in the Netherlands
Staatsexamen Nederlands als tweede taal NT2 (State Examination Dutch as second language NT2)[41] NT2 programma I NT2 programma II
English Anglia Examinations Preliminary Elementary Intermediate Advanced Proficiency Masters
TrackTest[42] A1 (Beginner) A2 (Elementary) B1 (Pre-Intermediate) B2 (Intermediate) C1 (Upper-Intermediate) C2 (Advanced)
TOELS: Wheebox Test of English Language Skills[43] 11 (Beginner) 20 (Pre-Intermediate) 25 (Intermediate) 30 (Graduate) 33 (Advanced)
iTEP[44] 0–1.9 2–2.4 2.5-3.4 3.5-4.4 4.5-5.4 5.5-6
IELTS[45][46][47] 2.0 3.0 3.5-5.5 (3.5 is the margin) 5.5-7 (5.5 is the margin) 7-8 (7 is the margin) 8.0-9.0 (8.0 is the margin)
TOEIC Listening & Reading Test[48] 60-105 listening
60-110 reading
110-270 (listening)
115-270 (reading)
275-395 (listening)
275-380 (reading)
400-485 (listening)
385-450 (reading)
490-495 (listening)
455-495 (reading)
TOEIC Speaking & Writing Test[48] 50-80 speaking
30-60 writing
90-110 (speaking)
70-110 (writing)
120-150 (speaking)
120-140 (writing)
160-170 (speaking)
150-170 (writing)
180-200 (speaking)
180-200 (writing)
Versant 26-35 36-46 47-57 58-68 69-78 79-80
Speexx Language Assessment Center 10-19 20-29 30-49 50-79 80-89 90-100
Duolingo English Test [49] 10-20 25-55 60-85 90-115 120-140 145-160
Password English Tests 2.0 - 2.5 3.0 - 3.5 4.0 - 5.0 5.5 - 6.5 7.0 or above
TOEFL (IBT)[50] 10-15 (speaking)
7-12 (writing)
42-71 (total)
4-17 (reading)
9-16 (listening)
16-19 (speaking)
13-16 (writing)
72-94 (total)
18-23 (reading)
17-21 (listening)
20-24 (speaking)
17-23 (writing)
95-120 (total)
24-30 (reading)
22-30 (listening)
25-30 (speaking)
24-30 (writing)
TOEFL ITP[51] 337 460 543 627
TOEFL Junior Standard[52] 225-245 (listening)
210-245 (language form)
210-240 (reading)
250-285 (listening)
250-275 (language form)
245-275 (reading)
290-300 (listening)
280-300 (language form)
280-300 (reading)
EF Standard English Test[53] 1-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-100
City and Guilds[54] Preliminary Access Achiever Communicator Expert Mastery
RQF (UK Only)[55] Entry Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Levels 4-6 Level 7-8
Cambridge exam[56] A1 Movers A2 Key B1 Preliminary B2 First C1 Advanced C2 Proficiency
Michigan exam[57] MET Go! Basic User (CEFR A1) [58] Michigan English Test (MET) (0 to 39)[59] / MET Go! Elementary User (CEFR A2) [58] Michigan English Test (MET) (40 to 52)[59] / MET Go! Intermediate User (CEFR B1) [58] ECCE[60] / Michigan English Test (MET) (53 to 63)[59] Michigan English Test (MET) (64 to 80)[59] ECPE[61]
LanguageCert International ESOL - Listening, Reading, Writing

LanguageCert International ESOL - Speaking

A1 Preliminary
(Entry Level 1)
A2 Access
(Entry Level 2)
B1 Achiever
(Entry Level 3)
B2 Communicator
(Level 1)
C1 Expert
(Level 2)
C2 Mastery
(Level 3)
PTE Academic 30 43 59 76 85ƒ
PTE General (formerly LTE) Level A1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Trinity College London Integrated Skills in English (ISE) / Graded Examinations in Spoken English (GESE)[62][63] GESE 2 ISE 0
GESE 3, 4
GESE 5, 6
GESE 7, 8, 9
GESE 10, 11
British General Qualifications[64][65] GCSE Foundation Tier GCSE Higher Tier GCE AS Level and lower grade A-Level GCE A-Level
Learning Resource Network CEF A1 CEF A2 CEF B1 CEF B2 CEF C1 CEF C2
Eiken (Japanese test of English)[66] 5,4,3 Pre-2 2 Pre-1 1
Esperanto Esperanto KER History [1] (Esperanto) A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
Finnish YKI 1 2 3 4 5 6
French CIEP / Alliance française diplomas TCF A1 / DELF A1 TCF A2 / DELF A2 / CEFP 1 TCF B1 / DELF B1 / CEFP 2 TCF B2 / DELF B2 / Diplôme de Langue TCF C1 / DALF C1 / DSLCF TCF C2 / DALF C2 / DHEF
Speexx Language Assessment Center 10-19 20-29 30-49 50-79 80-89 90-100
Galician Certificado de lingua galega (CELGA)[67] CELGA 1 CELGA 2 CELGA 3 CELGA 4 CELGA 5
German Goethe-Institut Goethe-Zertifikat A1
Start Deutsch 1
Goethe-Zertifikat A2
Start Deutsch 2
Goethe-Zertifikat B1
Zertifikat Deutsch (ZD)
Goethe-Zertifikat B2
Zertifikat Deutsch für den Beruf (ZDfB)
Goethe-Zertifikat C1
Zentrale Mittelstufenprüfung
Goethe-Zertifikat C2 - Großes Deutsches Sprachdiplom (GDS)
Zentrale Oberstufenprüfung
Kleines Deutsches Sprachdiplom
Speexx Language Assessment Center 10-19 20-29 30-49 50-79 80-89 90-100
Österreichisches Sprachdiplom Deutsch A1 ÖSD Zertifikat A1 (ÖSD ZA1) A2 ÖSD Zertifikat A2 (ÖSD ZA2) B1 ÖSD Zertifikat Deutsch Österreich (ÖSD B1 ZDÖ); B1 ÖSD Zertifikat B1 (ZB1) B2 ÖSD Zertifikat B2 (ÖSD ZB2) C1 ÖSD Zertifikat C1 (ÖSD ZC1) C2 ÖSD Zertifikat C2 (ÖSD ZC2); C2 ÖSD Zertifikat C2 / Wirtschaftssprache Deutsch (ÖSD ZC2 / WD)
Deutsch als Fremdsprache in der Wirtschaft (WiDaF)[68] - 0-246 247-495 496-735 736-897 898-990
TestDaF[69] TDN 3—TDN 4[70] TDN 4—TDN 5
Greek Πιστοποίηση Ελληνομάθειας (Certificate of Attainment in Modern Greek)[71] Α1
(Στοιχειώδης Γνώση)
(Βασική Γνώση)
(Μέτρια Γνώση)
(Καλή Γνώση)
(Πολύ Καλή Γνώση)
(Άριστη Γνώση)
Hebrew Ulpan (as codified by the Rothberg International School) [72] A1.1 Aleph Beginner

A1.2 Aleph Advanced

A2 Bet B1 Gimel B2 Dalet C1.1 Hé

C1.2 Vav

C2 Native Speaker
Icelandic Íslenskupróf vegna umsóknar um íslenskan ríkisborgararétt[73] Pass[74]
Italian CELI Impatto 1 2 3 4 5
Speexx Language Assessment Center 10-19 20-29 30-49 50-79 80-89 90-100
CILS A1 A2 Uno Due Tre Quattro / DIT C2
PLIDA (Dante Alighieri Society diplomas) PLIDA A1 PLIDA A2 PLIDA B1 PLIDA B2 PLIDA C1 PLIDA C2
Japanese Japanese-Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) JLPT 5 JLPT 4 JLPT 3 JLPT 2 JLPT 1
Japan Foundation Test for Basic Japanese (JFT-Basic)[75] Pass
Certificate of Japanese as a Foreign Language (J-cert)[76] N/A A2.1 A2.2 B1 B2 C1 C2
Korean Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK)[77] Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6
Norwegian Norskprøver Norskprøve 1 Norskprøve 2 Norskprøve 3 Bergenstest - Bestått Bergenstest - Godt bestått
Polish Egzaminy Certyfikatowe z Języka Polskiego jako Obcego[78] B1 (podstawowy) B2 (średni ogólny) C2 (zaawansowany)
CELPE-Bras[80] Intermediate Intermediate Superior Intermediate Superior Intermediate Advanced Superior Advanced
Russian ТРКИ – Тест по русскому языку как иностранному (TORFL – Test of Russian as a Foreign Language)[81] ТЭУ Элементарный уровень ТБУ Базовый уровень ТРКИ-1 (I Cертификационный уровень) (1st Certificate level) ТРКИ-2 ТРКИ-3 ТРКИ-4
Spanish DELE[82] A1 A2 B1 (formerly "Inicial") B2 (formerly "Intermedio") C1 C2 (formerly "Superior")
Speexx Language Assessment Center 10-19 20-29 30-49 50-79 80-89 90-100
LanguageCert USAL esPro BULATS 10-19 20-39 40-59 60-74 75-89 90-100
Swedish TISUS - - - - Pass -
Swedex - A2 B1 B2 - -
YKI 1 2 3 4 5 6
Turkish TYS[83] A1 A2 B1 B2 (55-70%) C1 (71-88%) C2 (89-100%)
Luxembourgish Institut National des Langues[84] A2 B1 B2 C1
Ukrainian[85] UMI/ULF - Ukrainian as foreign language UMI 1 UMI 2 UMI 3 UMI 4 UMI 5 UMI 6

Difficulty in aligning the CEFR with teaching programmes[edit]

Language schools and certificate bodies evaluate their own equivalences against the framework. Differences of estimation have been found to exist, for example, with the same level on the PTE A, TOEFL, and IELTS, and is a cause of debate between test producers.[86]

Non-Western areas and languages[edit]

The CEFR initially develop to ease human mobility and economic growth within the highly multilingual European Union has since influenced and been borrowed by various other areas.

Non-Western learners[edit]

In Japan, the adoption of CEFR have been encouraged by academics, institutional actors (MEXT), politicians and business associations, but also by learners themselves.[87] Adoption in Malaysia has also been documented.[88] In Vietnam, adoption of the CEFR have been connected to (1) recent changes in English language policy, efforts to reform higher education, oriented toward economic opportunities and tendency for administrators to look outwards for domestic solutions.[89]

Noriyuki (2009) observes the "mechanical" reuse of the European framework and concepts by Japanese teachers of mostly Western languages, missing the recontextualisation part: the need to adapt the conceptual vocabulary to the local to the local language and to adapt the framework to the local public, its language and practices.[90]

Around 2005, the Osaka University of Foreign Studies developed a CEFR-inspired project for its 25 foreign languages, with a transparent and common evaluation approach. While major languages had for long well defined tools for Japanese public, able to guide teachers teaching and assessments in a methodic war, this project pushed the adoption of similar practices to smaller languages, as requested by students.[90]

In late 2006–2010, the Keio University led an ambitious CEFR-inspired "Action Oriented Plurilingual Language Learning Project" to favour multi-campus and inter-languages cooperation in creating teaching materials and assessments systems from child to university levels.[90] Since 2015, the "Research on Plurilinguistic and Pluricultural Skill Development in Integrated Foreign Language Education" has followed up.[91]

Non-European languages[edit]

The framework have been translated in 2008 into Chinese.[92] In 2011, French sinologist Joël Bellassen suggests the CEFR together with its metalanguage could and should be adapted to distant languages such as Chinese, with the necessity to adapt and extend with relevant concepts proper to the new language and its learners.[93] Various efforts on adaptation to Chinese language have been lead.[94][95]

In Japan, East-Asian languages teaching are largely ignored due to the Japanese society being mainly oriented toward Western languages teaching, missing a valuable opportunity for Japanese to directly reach neighbouring countries and for smaller languages to solidify their languages' teaching.[90]

Computer languages[edit]

The CEFR methodology has been extended to describe and evaluate the proficiency of users of programming languages, when the programming activity is considered as a language activity.[96]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Council of Europe.
  2. ^ Jean-Claude 2010, p. 73.
  3. ^ Martyniuk, Waldemar (11 November 2010), Studies in Language Testing (book description), 33, UK, ISBN 9780521176842.
  4. ^ Carlos César, Jimenez (2011). El Marco Europeo Común de Referencia para las Lenguas y la comprensión teórica del conocimiento del lenguaje: exploración de una normatividad flexible para emprender acciones educativas (PDF) (Essay). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. p. 11. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 August 2019. Retrieved 30 July 2011.
  5. ^ a b "The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR)". Council of Europe. Retrieved 18 September 2015.
  6. ^ "European language levels - Self Assessment Grid". Archived from the original on 28 January 2017. Also available as PDF.
  7. ^ "Deutschprüfungen – Unsere Prüfungen – Goethe-Institut". Retrieved 27 July 2019.
  8. ^ "CEFR and ALTE Can Do statements". Archived from the original on 5 December 2011. Retrieved 5 December 2011.
  9. ^ "General Information". Archived from the original on 28 January 2020. Retrieved 3 January 2017.
  10. ^ "TEG Levels". Retrieved 31 August 2016.
  11. ^ "European Association for Language Testing and Assessment". EALTA. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  12. ^ "Association of Language Testers in Europe". ALTE. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  13. ^ "EAquals— Our aims". EAquals. Archived from the original on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  14. ^ "Certificate de Compétences en Langues de l'Enseignement Supérieur". SPIRAL. Archived from the original on 18 May 2007. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  15. ^ "The European Language Certificate". telc. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  16. ^ Baztán, Alfonso Martínez (2008). La evaluación oral: una equivalencia entre las guidelines de ACTFL y algunas escalas del MCER (PDF) (doctoral thesis). Universidad de Granada. p. 461. ISBN 978-84-338-4961-8.
  17. ^ Tschirner, Erwin (February 2005). "Das ACTFL OPI und der Europäische Referenzrahmen" (PDF). Babylonia (in German). Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 March 2006. Also quoted in Baztán 2008, p. 468
  18. ^ Buitrago (unpublished, 2006) as quoted in Baztán 2008, pp. 469–70
  19. ^ A reference of the talk can be found in the EP Bibliography of "English Profile", under "General materials" and then under North 2006, Link to English Profile (Bibliography)
  20. ^ "The correspondences are attributed by the center to an ACTFL administrator" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 January 2014.
  21. ^
  22. ^
  23. ^
  24. ^
  25. ^ "French Classes in Baltimore / French Academy DC MD VA".
  26. ^ "PowerPoint Presentation" (PDF). Retrieved 2 May 2013.
  27. ^ Level 2+ was the highest possible classification for listening items.
  28. ^ "New Canadian Perspectives: Proposal for a Common Framework of Reference For Languages for Canada (archived)" (PDF). Canadian Heritage. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 July 2011. Retrieved 15 July 2017.
  29. ^ a b "Proposal of a CFR for Canada". Archived from the original on 15 August 2011. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
  30. ^ "Post-Secondary Education, Training and Labour / Éducation postsecondaire, Formation et Travail". Retrieved 2 May 2013.[permanent dead link]
  31. ^ "Qualification Standards 3 / 3". 15 April 2013. Retrieved 2 May 2013.
  32. ^ "Correspondence of proficiency scales". 21 March 1999. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
  33. ^ "ILR Scale". Archived from the original on 17 August 2011. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
  34. ^ Jennifer Macdonald; Larry Vandergrift (6–8 February 2007). "The CEFR in Canada" (PowerPoint Presentation). Council of Europe. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
  35. ^ "TOEFL Equivalency table". Vancouver English Centre. Archived from the original on 1 January 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  36. ^ Kōtō kyōiku ni okeru gaikokugo kyōiku no arata na tenbō : shīīefuāru no ōyō kanōsei o megutte. [Place of publication not identified]: Tōkyōgaikokugodaigakusekaigengoshakaikyōikusentā. 2012. ISBN 9784925243858. OCLC 794365620.
  37. ^ "Welsh for Adults".
  38. ^ "Czech Language Certificate Exam, Institute for Language and Preparatory Studies, Charles University".
  39. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 March 2018. Retrieved 24 November 2013.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  40. ^ "Certificate of Dutch as a Foreign Language" (PDF). CNaVT. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 February 2013. Retrieved 27 October 2013.
  41. ^ "Wat zijn de Staatsexamens NT2?" (in Dutch). College voor Examens. Retrieved 26 March 2013.
  42. ^ "TrackTest Language levels". TrackTest. Retrieved 12 December 2013.
  43. ^ "Wheebox TOELS". Wheebox.
  44. ^ "iTEP Scores: Authentication and Equivalencies".
  45. ^ "IELTS — Common European Framework". IELTS. Retrieved 4 January 2013.
  46. ^ "IELTS and the Cambridge ESOL examinations in a European context" (PDF). British Council. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 May 2014. Retrieved 3 August 2014.
  47. ^ "IELTS band scores & CEF level scale for Clarity programs" (PDF). Clarity English. Retrieved 3 August 2014.
  48. ^ a b "Mapping the TOEIC Tests on the Common European Framework Reference" (PDF). ETS Website. ETS. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2011. Retrieved 22 September 2011.
  49. ^ "Duolingo English Test".
  50. ^ "TOEFL: For Academic Institutions: Compare Scores".
  51. ^ "Research". Retrieved 25 February 2013.
  52. ^ "Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR)". Retrieved 25 February 2013.
  53. ^ "Data" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 October 2015. Retrieved 6 October 2015.
  54. ^ Amega Web Technology. "City & Guilds English — The Common European Framework". Archived from the original on 9 January 2016. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
  55. ^ "Languages Ladder". Archived from the original on 28 August 2011. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
  56. ^ "International language standards". Cambridge ESOL. Archived from the original on 29 July 2015. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  57. ^ "MICHIGAN LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT". CAMLA. Archived from the original on 22 August 2019. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  58. ^ a b c "MET Go!". CaMLA. Archived from the original on 10 August 2019. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  59. ^ a b c d "MICHIGAN LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT". CaMLA. Archived from the original on 10 August 2019. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  60. ^ "ECCE". CAMLA. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  61. ^ "ECPE". CaMLA. Archived from the original on 9 August 2019. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  62. ^ "Trinity College London - Integrated Skills in English (ISE)".
  63. ^ "Trinity College London - Graded Examinations in Spoken English (GESE)".
  64. ^ Curcin, Milja; Black, Beth. "Investigating standards in GCSE French, German and Spanish through the lens of the CEFR" (PDF). OfQual. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  65. ^ "CEFR language learning levels explained and compared | Support | gostudylink". Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  66. ^ "Comparison table | Research | EIKEN | Eiken Foundation of Japan".
  67. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 September 2013. Retrieved 2013-09-20.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  68. ^ Deutsch-Französische Industrie- und Handelskammer. "Niveaubeschreibung" (PDF). ETS Global. Retrieved 12 September 2019.
  69. ^ "What is the TestDaF?" (PDF). TestDaF. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  70. ^ "Framework of Reference for Languages" (PDF). TestDaF. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  71. ^ "Information for the Centre for the Greek Language and the certificate of attainment in Greek". Retrieved 7 August 2012.
  72. ^ "Evaluation Scale of Communication Competence for Students of Hebrew - The Hebrew University of Jerusalem" (PDF). Retrieved 5 January 2020.
  73. ^ "Íslenskupróf vegna ríkisborgararéttar". Retrieved 16 February 2020.
  74. ^ Kristinsson, Ari (2013). "Innflytjendur og íslenskupróf" [Immigrants and Icelandic Language Tests]. Milli Mála (in Icelandic). 5: 73–94.
  75. ^ "About the JFT-Basic|JFT-Basic Japan Foundation Test for Basic Japanese". Retrieved 1 November 2019.
  76. ^
  77. ^ Won, Yunhee. "Common European Framework of Reference for Language (CEFR) and Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK)" (PDF). Pusan National University. Retrieved 19 November 2017.
  78. ^ "Egzaminy Certyfikatowe z Języka Polskiego jako Obcego". Archived from the original on 30 July 2015. Retrieved 4 August 2015.
  79. ^ "Centro de Avaliação de Português Língua Estrangeira". Archived from the original on 14 June 2012. Retrieved 4 September 2012.
  80. ^ "Certificado de Proficiência em Língua Portuguesa para Estrangeiros". Retrieved 4 September 2012.[permanent dead link]
  81. ^ "TKRI Overview". Archived from the original on 21 December 2012. Retrieved 22 November 2012.
  82. ^ "Descripción – Diplomas de Español Como Lengua Extranjera". Instituto Cervantes. Retrieved 19 August 2011.
  83. ^ "Türkçe Yeterlik Sınavı (TYS)". Yunus Emre Institute. Retrieved 10 March 2017.
  85. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 26 September 2015. Retrieved 2014-02-17.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  86. ^ de Jong, John H.A.L. "Unwarranted Claim about CEF Alignment of some International English Language Tests — Pearson" (PDF). Retrieved 15 July 2017.
  87. ^ Nishimura-Sahi, Oshie (29 November 2020). "Policy borrowing of the Common European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR) in Japan: an analysis of the interplay between global education trends and national policymaking". Asia Pacific Journal of Education: 1–14. doi:10.1080/02188791.2020.1844145. ISSN 0218-8791. S2CID 229434677.
  88. ^ Afip, Liyana Ahmad; Hamid, M. Obaidul; Renshaw, Peter (27 May 2019). "Common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR): insights into global policy borrowing in Malaysian higher education". Globalisation, Societies and Education. 17 (3): 378–393. doi:10.1080/14767724.2019.1578195. ISSN 1476-7724. S2CID 151143912.
  89. ^ Nguyen, Van Huy; Hamid, M. Obaidul (9 August 2021). "The CEFR as a national language policy in Vietnam: insights from a sociogenetic analysis". Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 42 (7): 650–662. doi:10.1080/01434632.2020.1715416. ISSN 0143-4632. S2CID 213016876.
  90. ^ a b c d Nishiyama, Noriyuki (2009). "L'impact du Cadre europeen commun de reference pour les langues dans l'Asie du Nord-Est : pour une meilleure contextualisation du CECR". Revue japonaise de didactique du français. 4 (1): 54–70. doi:10.24495/rjdf.4.1_54.
  91. ^ "Keio Research Center for Foreign Language Education". (in Japanese). Retrieved 11 September 2021.
  92. ^ 欧洲语言共同参考框架 (Ouzhou yu yan gong tong can kao kuang jia : xue xi, jiao xue, ping gu). Jun Liu, Rong Fu, Tingda Li, 刘骏., 傅荣., 李婷妲. (Di 1 ban ed.). Beijing Shi: Wai yu jiao xue yu yan jiu chu ban she. 2008. ISBN 978-7-5600-8032-1. OCLC 459867370.CS1 maint: others (link)
  93. ^ Bellassen, Joël (2011). Is Chinese Europcompatible? Is the Common European Framework Common?: The Common European Framework of References for Languages Facing Distant Language (PDF). Tokyo: New Prospect for Foreign Language Teaching in Higher Education —Exploring the Possibilities of Application of CECR—, Tokyo, World Language and Society Education Center (WoLSEC). pp. 23–31. ISBN 978-4-925243-85-8.
  94. ^ Bellassen, Joel; Zhang, Li (2008). « Ouzhou yuyan gongtong cankao kuangjia xin linian dui hanyu jiaoxue de qishi yu tuidong » <欧洲语言共同参考框架>新理念对汉语教学的启示与推动(Les incidences de la nouvelle approche du CECRL sur la didactique du chinois). Chinese Teaching in the World 世界汉语教学. 3. Beijing.
  95. ^ Tsai, Ya-hsun (2009). "以CEFR為華語能力指標之網路華語分級評量題庫建置 ». 新加坡: « Teaching and Learning of Chinese as a Second Language », Singapore Centre for Chinese Language". Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  96. ^ Raphael Poss (2 July 2014). "A CEFR-like approach to measure programming proficiency". Retrieved 18 July 2014.

Works cited[edit]

External links[edit]

Media related to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages at Wikimedia Commons