The Common European Framework in its political and educational context What is the Common European Framework?

specification for the content of the assessment, for example based upon a
framework of reference common to the context involved
•
using 
pooled judgements to select content and/or to rate performances
•
adopting 
standard procedures governing how the assessments should be carried 
out
•
providing 
definitive marking keys for indirect tests and basing judgements in direct
tests on 
specific defined criteria
•
requiring 
multiple judgements and/or weighting of different factors
•
undertaking appropriate 
training in relation to assessment guidelines
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment
188

---

•
checking the quality of the assessment (validity, reliability) by 
analysing assessment
data
As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, the first step towards reducing the subjec-
tivity of judgements made at all stages in the assessment process is to build a common
understanding of the construct involved, a common frame of reference. The Framework
seeks to offer such a basis for the 
specification for the content and a source for the develop-
ment of 
specific defined criteria for direct tests.
9.3.9
Rating on a scale/rating on a checklist
Rating on a scale: judging that a person is at a particular level or band on a scale made up
of a number of such levels or bands. 
Rating on a checklist: judging a person in relation to a list of points deemed to be rele-
vant for a particular level or module. 
In ‘rating on a scale’ the emphasis is on placing the person rated on a series of bands.
The emphasis is vertical: how far up the scale does he/she come? The meaning of the dif-
ferent bands/levels should be made clear by scale descriptors. There may be several scales
for different categories, and these may be presented on the same page as a grid or on dif-
ferent pages. There may be a definition for each band/level or for alternate ones, or for
the top, bottom and middle. 
The alternative is a checklist, on which the emphasis is on showing that relevant
ground has been covered, i.e. the emphasis is horizontal: how much of the content of the
module has he/she successfully accomplished? The checklist may be presented as a list of
points like a questionnaire. It may on the other hand be presented as a wheel, or in some
other shape. The response may be Yes/No. The response may be more differentiated, with
a series of steps (e.g. 0–4) preferably with steps identified with labels, with definitions
explaining how the labels should be interpreted.
Because the illustrative descriptors constitute independent, criterion statements
which have been calibrated to the levels concerned, they can be used as a source to
produce both a checklist for a particular level, as in some versions of the Language
Portfolio, and rating scales or grids covering all relevant levels, as presented in Chapter
3, for self-assessment in Table 2 and for examiner assessment in Table 3.
9.3.10
Impression/guided judgement
Impression: fully subjective judgement made on the basis of experience of the learner’s
performance in class, without reference to specific criteria in relation to a specific assess-
ment.
Guided judgement: judgement in which individual assessor subjectivity is reduced by
complementing impression with conscious assessment in relation to specific criteria.
An ‘impression’ is here used to mean when a teacher or learner rates purely on the
basis of their experience of performance in class, homework, etc. Many forms of subjec-
tive rating, especially those used in continuous assessment, involve rating an impres-
sion on the basis of reflection or memory possibly focused by conscious observation of