The Politics of Disempowerment in

the CEFR: Rethinking EL Cores

Khadija Ghzaiel

Majmaah University

February 2017

In a recent interview, Noam Chomsky points to the Dangers of

Standardized Testing and its destruction of ‘any meaningful educational process’

because of their lack of creativity, imagination, and their indifference towards

individual needs : ‘The people sitting in the offices, the bureaucrats designing

this, claims Chomsky, ‘are not evil people, but they’re working within a system

of ideology and doctrines that turns what they’re doing into something

extremely harmful.’

**https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JVVRWBekYo

It is high time the persons involved in the Academia and the advocates of the

CEFR assumed their responsibility to work out the problems arising increasingly

from the different learning and assessment contexts

It is disquieting how within a few years from its introduction, the Common

European Framework of References for Languages, has deviated from its primary

empowering cores in search of an affirmative method of teaching and assessing in

various academic settings. Unfortunately, it turned into a disempowerment

machine giving little or no attention to its basic outcomes on learners, thus

debunking its foremost consistency, reliability and credibility.

• This paper puts the light on the shift in the agenda of the English language

assessment corpus under the CEFR. It rests on an intrinsic approach that

seeks criticism from within

• Indeed, the hysterically massive simulacra of English Language standardized

Profile tests did not cut with the standardized perspective of learners

prototypic of the CEFR. On the contrary, it continues to disregard the

pluralist contexts and multicultural aspects of learners' identities.

• At a macro level, it has emptied the CEF from humanist quintessence, which

is indeed an alarming bell in the field of English academia.

• What is dangerous is that the CEFR, with its robotic reiteration of standardized tests

might be engrossed into a neo-liberal practice contributing in the rise of a neo-capitalist

action seeking materialistic returns under the roof of Academia and Language Learning

Profiles.

• The study also highlights the need of an Action Research and a CEF self-reflexive

analysis to revisit this substrata, update its methods and question its ongoing politics of

empowerment/disempowerment, as a mandatory stride among other practical and

avant-gardist solutions especially that language has drastically started to lose its

functional role as a means of integrity and empowerment and has deteriorated to

accentuate the intellectual, physical, linguistic, cultural and ethnic gaps and barriers

between learners on one hand, and intensify the clash between the Target language and

the other on another hand

• ‘What [the CEFR] can do is to stand as a central point of reference, maintains John Trim, 'itself always open to amendment and further development, in an interactive international system of co-operating institutions ... whose cumulative experience and expertise produces a solid structure of knowledge, understanding and practice shared by all.’ (as cited in Green, 2011:xi)

There is no doubt that as it started, the CEFR had brought about many

advantages and benefits to the process of learning and teaching European

languages English Language.

Certainly, the CEFR enhanced the academic circles with its various insights

into leaning and in relation to testing and assessment as well

The Council of Europe itself has delineated its practices and usages in its

manifesto

The CEFR is a Framework that can be used for

the specification of the content of tests and examinations;

Second, for stating the criteria to determine the attainment of a learning

objective;

Third, for describing the levels of proficiency in existing tests and

examinations thus enabling comparisons to be made across different systems

of qualifications. (Council of Europe, 2001: 178)

•Furthermore, one can not deny the positive contribution of the CEFR

towards enhancing the transparency of curricula and examinations in the

different nation-states of Europe, and through that enhanced

transparency, to facilitating the mobility of students and labor across the

continent. (qtd in Alderson, J.C., 2007)

Indeed much criticism is leveled at CEFR, as it did not really improve the CEFR approach.

The main axes of criticism diagnosed are the following:

• One size fits all

• Levels of Proficiency

• Limitations regarding comparable examinations and tests developments

• Context Validity

• Scoring Validity

• Neoliberal Political discourse/ Discourse of Dis/Empowerment

• Dr Nick Saville (of Cambridge English Language Assessment)

pinpoints the problem of teaching English to foreigners and to migrants,

Raising the question: How Have We Failed to Integrate Our Migrant

Population?

He concludes that:

part of the problem has been our insistence on a 'one-

size fits all' approach to teaching English . It's a simple approach but one th

at has ultimately proven futile, whichever government has been in power. J

ust saying 'Well, here's the proficiency level you have to get to,' is not an eff

ective way of approaching this complex task.

• (Saville, N, 1996:1)

One-size fits all

• Indeed, the CEFR was a solution to the lack of transparency of policy makings and a corpus

of directions as to how can learners of the English language learn, upgrade, and therefore

ensure their integration.

• In its manifesto, The CEFR does not claim to go beyond the level of European learners

• Itself is a European creation for the sake of European: The CEFR is but a part of a project

towards a more comprehensive European languages and citizenship,

• However, as it is implemented in almost 40 countries in the world, providing ‘a common

basis for the explicit description of objectives, content and methods’ and to promoting

‘international co-operation in the field of modern languages’ (CEFR: 1)

• Whether adaptable to all European/non European countries or privileging some at the

expense of others, this raises the issue of globality which research in education borrowed

from geography and literature.

One size/context fits all

• The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) is an

extremely useful and influential instrument with constant valuable impulses for

innovations in the teaching and learning of languages.

• However, in a world of social, cultural, and individual heterogeneity, one

instrument and approach can neither address all situations and contexts nor meet

all need (KRUMM, H., 2007)

• For instance, as for the speaking test assessment of CAE (C1) and FCE (B2)

the topics which the candidates deal with must be taken into consideration.

Since all candidates around the world sit for the same speaking test, some

topics seem less common in certain countries. Second, the assessment criteria

of FCE also should not be standardized.

• As you might know there are 5 criteria of assessment for FCE, and

pronunciation is one important one. In some cases you can hardly understand

the candidates utterances (youtube an FCE assessment example so that you

know what I'm talking about).

The context difference is a mandatory factor in the whole testing task

• The following Internal construct Validity framework outlined by Cecil, Weir, determines the key elements indispensable for a transparent testing milieu

• The eventual scoring of examinees would be affected by the presence or absence of one/all of these validity constructs

Internal construct Validity framework

Proficiency Levels

• The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) posits six levels of proficiency and defines these largely in relation to empirically derived difficulty estimates based on stakeholder perceptions of what language functions expressed by ‘Can-do’ statements can be successfully performed at each level.

• A key idea always present in the development of the CEFR was to use the descriptor scales … to profile the content of courses, assessments and examinations. These can then be related to each other through their CEFR profile without making direct comparisons between them or claiming that one is an exact equivalent of the other. (North, Brian (2004)

• The early European framework of languages is criticized for being not particularly helpful in distinguishing between levels of proficiency

• Alderson (n.d.), in a rare substantive review of the early European language benchmarks, notes that even these earlier Council of Europe publications (Waystage, Threshold and Vantage Level documents) are not particularly helpful in distinguishing between levels of proficiency in terms of contextual variables ( Weir, C 2007 :282 )

In fact, It is an undeniable limitation of which the CEFR itself is conscious, and has undergone some effort and action towards a more comprehensive and thorough description of its scales

In his last article Mediation and the CEFR: descriptors for an undervalued concept, Brian North pointed out a project to develop CEFR descriptors for areas that were not covered in the original set of descriptive scales, namely mediation activities and strategies, online interaction, reactions to literature and art, and plurilingualand pluri-cultural competences.The CEFR in Practice, CUP, 2014

There is an ongoing call for the universities to align their courses and assessment with the proficiency levels of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and why they should use a version of the European Language Portfolio (ELP) to support the development of students’ skills of self-management and reflective learning (Little, D, 2016)

Nonetheless, the Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) doesn't not see the vertical system( the descriptors scale) of ‘natural levels’ in the scales as providing a transparent basis for building arguments about how their own examinations could be aligned to this common reference tool. Furthermore, they do not regard it as a suitable basis for developing their examinations

The lack of comprehensive description of the proficiency levels

may lead to ‘the possibility of false assumptions of equivalence

where tests constructed for different purposes and audiences and

which view and assess language constructs in different ways are

located together on the same scale point

Internal construct Validity framework

Test development is problematic

1. The scales are premised on an incomplete and unevenly applied range of contextual variables/performance conditions (context validity)

2. little account is taken of the nature of cognitive processing at different levels of ability (theory-based validity)

3. Activities are seldom related to the quality of actual performance expected to complete them (scoring validity);

4. the wording for some of the descriptors is not consistent or transparent enough in places for the development of tests.

(Weir, C: 2004)

Limitations

language tests designed by states aim to achieve political goals (Fulcher, 2004, 2008; Shohamy, 2001)

The euphoria gradually subsided of at last having a framework we could claim was genuinely European influence of Wilkins [1976], Canale and Swain [1980], and Bachman [1990] is particularly evident in the CEFR). ( Alderson (Weir, C: 2004)

• In DIALANG, it was realized at an early stage that the CEFR did not provide enough information for test develop ment, and we needed recourse to other publica tions by the Council of Europe in order to develop the DIALANG Assessment Framework and the

DI ALANG Assessment Specifications (Alderson, C,J, 2005).

DIALANG is a diagnostic language assessment system that offers tests of different language skills in 14 European languages by integrating self-assessments and external assessments. It is computer-based, delivered via the Internet, and can be downloaded free of charge.

• The universities ‘need to align their courses and assessment with the proficiency levels of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and why they should use a version of the European Language Portfolio (ELP) to support the development of students’ skills of self-management and reflective learning (Little, D, 2016)

No reference to specific languages• No reference to specific languages: It is deliberately language

independent. It is "action-oriented" and, as Little points out, it is assumed that "any communicative task requires a comparable level of proficiency from language to language“, (as cited in Alderson)• This assumption has not, however, to my knowledge been put to

the test, and it is precisely this lack of empirical research to underpin the CEFR that is giving rise to increasing misgivings about the applicability of the Framework in its current form. • ( Alderson )

• Jones (as cited in Weir, C, 2005) states that ‘different people tend to understand “Can-do’’

somewhat differently’ is indicative of the need to search for greater precision and

explicitness in test specification than is currently provided by the CEFR.

• Kaftandjieva and Takala (ibid) argue for making the CEFR more comprehensive when

they report: ‘the construct of language proficiency in writing is not quite so well defined as

the other two constructs

• As for the speaking test assessment of CAE (C1) and FCE (B2) the topics which the candidates deal with must be taken into consideration. Since all candidates around the world sit for the same speaking test, some topics seem less common in certain countries. Second, the assessment criteria of FCE also should not be standardized. As you might know there are 5 criteria of assessment for FCE, and pronunciation is one important one. In some cases you can hardly understand the candidates utterances (youtube an FCE assessment example so that you know what I'm talking about).

• The issue of context standardization an example of this is that the cultural load is not taken into consideration

• The issue of context standardization an example of this is that the cultural load is not taken into consideration

• The contemplation of a video of the Cambridge task is obviously insightful and the feedback provided as well.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdeZp0n0JHw

-problems scoring

Internal construct Validity framework (weir, C)

• Always referring to CEF: among the analytical scales of FCE speaking

assessment "interactive communication" is taken into consideration.

During the test candidates are asked to discuss a certain topic (8 mns

for 2 candidates, 11 mns for 3 candidates) interaction is requires

during this collaborative task. Sometimes a candidate gets "stuck" so

the other one is obliged to sustain the interaction, which might be

challenging.

• Saira Waseem, (Majmaah University) a Pakistani lecturer teaching with me questions the choice

of questions by the examiners themselves.. The professor states that the CEFR lacks

comprehensive /clear delineation of the topic

• Waseem came to England to finish her MA. She took the IELTS in England and however well

prepared and confident about her English, she said, she was surprised by the topic given to her

which is archeology.

• The scoring for sure would be influenced by the task response, The latter is the utterance of the

test s understanding of the task

• She took it again in SA but the result was different, which again points to the problem of

scoring

(Internal construct Validity framework)

• Need to say that the examiner’s profile is also among the key factors in task solving/test

performance.

• Maram AlTurki and Shadha Alaskar (Majmaah University) raise the issue of Tests validity again

and again as regards the time validity of the CEFR English Standardized tests: some of these

tests validity are so short-termed that testees have to sit again for the exam after 2 years

• For the Council of Europe, learning languages for purposes of

communication and exchange is a political priority that should be given

educational priority (Little, 2014)

• Nonetheless:

• Discussing how tests can be misused, GLENN FULCHER examples

draw upon ethical theory, or the less developed and controversial notions

of “test fairness”.

• Where social theory comes into play, the appeal is to revisit Foucault’s

view of a test as the normalizing judgment of authority (Foucault, 1975).

• Dangers of Standardized Testing by N, Chomsky

Glenn Fulcher inAnnual Review of Applied Linguistics

Since Messick (Messick, 1989 ) included test use in his validity matrix, there has been

extensive debate about professional responsibility for test use. To theorize test use, some

researchers have relied upon Foucault’s social criticism, thereby stressing the negative

role of tests in the surveillance of the marginalized. From a wider perspective, Shohamy

(2001a) sees negative test impact as stemming from centralizing agencies, which still

leaves open the possibility of positive test use (Fulcher, G: 2009)

Questioning the validity and transparency of the Cefr

As a teacher of English I welcome the undoubtedly search for academic excellence and to

maintain good and academic proficiency of English

However, the simulacra* (Baudrillard) of Standardized EL Proficiency tests raise not only

a confusion at the level of the choice of taking the tests itself, but pinpoints a more

critical fact that is the efficiency of these reiterated forms of almost the same Tests

Moreover, it questions their credibility validity and doubts their ideological agenda

*(IELTS /TOEFL/TOIC/ BULATS/The Trinity Esol /the APE/

CAE/FCE/the Michigan Test/TEEP Not to cite others run for Business reasons and not

to mention the new ones for Migration/entry purposes. )

• The CEFR is a European creation: At the level of policy, the CEFR quotes

Recommendation

• R(82)18 of the Committee of Ministers: [...] it is only through a better

knowledge of European modern languages that it will be possible to facilitate

communication and interaction among Europeans of different mother tongues

in order to promote European mobility, mutual understanding and co-

operation, and overcome prejudice and discrimination. (CEFR: 2)

• In the same vein, Recommendation R(98)6 affirms the importance of equipping ‘all

Europeans for the challenges of intensified international mobility and closer co-

operation not only in education, culture and science but also in trade and industry’;

‘developing the ability of Europeans to communicate with each other across linguistic

and cultural boundaries, which requires a sus- tained, lifelong effort’; and averting ‘the

dangers that might result from the marginalization of those lacking the skills necessary

to communicate in an interactive Europe’ (CEFR: 3-4).

•Hence For the Council of Europe, learning languages for purposes of communication

and exchange is a political priority that should be given educational priority.

• More Validity problems arise at the level of pronunciation as The Standardized set of CEFR tests

in EL takes into account the widely mainstream accents namely the RE: received English and the

American English

• The globalization of a natural language, claims Kołaczyk , inevitably has consequences for the

language itself. How English is International English, we may ask. For linguists, this is a question

of language change. For teachers, this is a matter of choice between a full-fledged native version of

the language vs. the so-called ELF (English as a Lingua Franca a term defined functionally, that is

"independently of the linguistic history or structure of the language)

• (Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk: 2008)

• English pronunciation models: A changing scene

• More critical arenas are foregrounded as much deconstruction of the Target language/

Mainstream Accent is considered

• Jenkins, J goes further to examine the phonological core of the maintream English

accents (required by CEFR testers) and surprisingly concludes that ‘phonetic syllabuses

contain features which are ‘unnecessary, unrealistic, and harmful’ (Jenkins, 2000)

• *The Phonology of English as an International Language

• *Beware the natives and their norms

• English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: OUP. Lingua Franca

functionally, that is "independently of the linguistic history or structure of the language

• The conflict between theory and practice becomes more evident in the area of L2

pronunciation teaching. (A, Slghazo: 2016)

• JOANNA PRZEDLACKA in Models and Myth: Updating the (Non)standard Accents tackles

the issue of standardized pronunciation requested by examiners and how it is a key element

taken into account in the scoring

• RP (received Pronunciation), attitudes towards this accent and its role in language teaching. one

shall also compare its situation with that of Estuary English (as a new model for standardized

accent)

• In Europe, the most popular model accent for EFL purposes has been, throughout the 20th

century, RP. Even though originally not necessarily the most widely intelligible one, it is

unquestionably “the most thoroughly described accent of English” (Wells 1982: 279), as cited

in (PRZEDLACKA , J: 2014)

• Example of Cambridge English: First Speaking Sample test with examiner’s comments

• http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/138447-first-examiners-speaking-commentary.pdf