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

Definiteness: Descriptors should describe concrete tasks and/or concrete degrees of
skill in performing tasks. There are two points here. Firstly, the descriptor should
avoid vagueness, like, for example ‘Can use a range of appropriate strategies’. What
is meant by strategy? Appropriate to what? How should we interpret ‘range’? The
problem with vague descriptors is that they can read quite nicely, but an apparent
ease of acceptance can mask the fact that everyone is interpreting them differently.
Secondly, since the 1940s, it has been a principle that distinctions between steps on
a scale should not be dependent on replacing a qualifier like ‘some’ or ‘a few’ with
‘many’ or ‘most’ or by replacing ‘fairly broad’ with ‘very broad’ or ‘moderate’ with
‘good’ at the next level up. Distinctions should be real, not word-processed and this
may mean gaps where meaningful, concrete distinctions cannot be made.
•
Clarity: Descriptors should be transparent, not jargon-ridden. Apart from the barrier
to understanding, it is sometimes the case that when jargon is stripped away, an
apparently impressive descriptor can turn out to be saying very little. Secondly, they
should be written in simple syntax with an explicit, logical structure.
•
Brevity: One school of thought is associated with holistic scales, particularly those
used in America and Australia. These try to produce a lengthy paragraph which
Appendix A: developing proficiency descriptors
206
Table A1. Assessment: positive and negative criteria
Positive
Negative
•
has a repertoire of basic language and 
•
has a narrow language repertoire,
strategies which enables him or her to
demanding constant rephrasing and 
deal with predictable everyday situations.
searching for words. (ESU Level 3)
(Eurocentres Level 3: certificate)
•
basic repertoire of language and
•
limited language proficiency causes
strategies sufficient for most everyday
frequent breakdowns and
needs, but generally requiring
misunderstandings in non-routine
compromise of the message and searching
situations. (Finnish Level 2)
for words. (Eurocentres Level 3: assessor
•
communication breaks down as language 
grid)
constraints interfere with message. (ESU 
Level 3)
•
vocabulary centres on areas such as basic
•
has only a limited vocabulary. (Dutch 
objects, places, and most common
Level 1)
•
kinship terms. (ACTFL Novice)
•
limited range of words and expressions 
hinders communication of thoughts and
ideas. (Gothenburg U)
•
produces and recognises a set of words 
•
can produce only formulaic utterances
and short phrases learnt by heart. (Trim 
lists and enumerations. (ACTFL Novice)
1978 Level 1)
•
can produce brief everyday expressions 
•
has only the most basic language
in order to satisfy simple needs of a 
repertoire, with little or no evidence of a
concrete type (in the area of salutation, 
functional command of the language. 
information, etc.). (Elviri; Milan Level 1
(ESU Level 1)
1986)

---

comprehensibly covers what are felt to be the major features. Such scales achieve
‘definiteness’ by a very comprehensive listing which is intended to transmit a
detailed portrait of what raters can recognise as a typical learner at the level
concerned, and are as a result very rich sources of description. There are two
disadvantages to such an approach however. Firstly, no individual is actually
‘typical’. Detailed features co-occur in different ways. Secondly, a descriptor which is
longer than a two clause sentence cannot realistically be referred to during the
assessment process. Teachers consistently seem to prefer short descriptors. In the
project which produced the illustrative descriptors, teachers tended to reject or split
descriptors longer than about 25 words (approximately two lines of normal type).
•