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

identify what raters focus on at different levels of 
cognition and assessment. Studies in Language 
proficiency.
Testing 3. Selected papers from the 15
th
Language Testing Research Colloquium, 
Cambridge and Arnhem, 2–4 August 1993. 
Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local 
Examinations Syndicate: 74–91.
Scarino, A. 1996: Issues in planning, describing 
Criticises the use of vague wording and lack of 
and monitoring long-term progress in 
information about how well learners perform in 
language learning. In Proceedings of the 
typical UK and Australian curriculum profile 
AFMLTA 10
th
National Languages Conference: 
statements for teacher assessment.
67–75.
Scarino, A. 1997: Analysing the language of 
As above.
frameworks of outcomes for foreign language 
learning. In Proceedings of the AFMLTA 11
th
National Languages Conference: 241–258.
Appendix A: developing proficiency descriptors
214

---

Schneider, G and North, B. 1999: ‘In anderen 
Short report on the project which produced the 
Sprachen kann ich’ . . . Skalen zur Beschreibung, 
illustrative scales. Also introduces Swiss version of 
Beurteilung und Selbsteinschätzung der 
the Portfolio (40 page A5). 
fremdsprachlichen Kommunikationsfähigkeit. 
Bern/Aarau: NFP 33/SKBF (Umsetzungsbericht). 
Schneider, G and North, B. 2000: ‘Dans d’autres As above. 
langues, je suis capable de …’ Echelles pour la 
description, l’évaluation et l’auto-évaluation 
des competences en langues étrangères. Berne/
Aarau PNR33/CSRE (rapport de valorisation)
Schneider, G and North, B. 2000: 
Full report on the project which produced the 
Fremdsprachen können – was heisst das? 
illustrative scales. Straightforward chapter on 
Skalen zur Beschreibung, Beurteilung und 
scaling in English. Also introduces Swiss version of 
Selbsteinschätzung der fremdsprachlichen 
the Portfolio.
Kommunikationsfähigkeit. Chur/Zürich, Verlag 
Rüegger AG.
Skehan, P. 1984: Issues in the testing of English 
Criticises the norm-referencing and relative wording 
for specific purposes. In: Language Testing 1/2, 
of the ELTS scales.
202–220.
Shohamy, E., Gordon, C.M. and Kraemer, R. 
Simple account of basic, qualitative method of 
1992: The effect of raters’ background and 
developing an analytic writing scale. Led to 
training on the reliability of direct writing 
astonishing inter-rater reliability between untrained 
tests. Modern Language Journal 76: 27–33. 
non-professionals.
Smith, P. C. and Kendall, J.M. 1963: 
Retranslation of expectations: an approach to 
The first approach to scaling descriptors rather than 
the construction of unambiguous anchors for 
just writing scales. Seminal. Very difficult to read. 
rating scales. In: Journal of Applied Psychology, 
47/2.
Stansfield C.W. and Kenyon D.M. 1996: 
Use of Rasch scaling to confirm the rank order of 
Comparing the scaling of speaking tasks by 
tasks which appear in the ACTFL guidelines. 
language teachers and the ACTFL guidelines. 
Interesting methodological study which inspired the 
In Cumming, A. and Berwick, R. Validation in 
approach taken in the project to develop the 
language testing. Clevedon, Avon, Multimedia 
illustrative descriptors.
Matters: 124–153.
Takala, S. and F. Kaftandjieva (forthcoming). 
Report on the use of a further development of the 
Council of Europe scales of language 
Rasch model to scale language self-assessments in 
proficiency: A validation study. In J.C. Alderson 
relation to adaptations of the illustrative 
(ed.) Case studies of the use of the Common 
descriptors. Context: DIALANG project: trials in 
European Framework. Council of Europe.
relation to Finnish.
Tyndall, B. and Kenyon, D. 1996: Validation of a Simple account of the validation of a scale for ESL 
new holistic rating scale using Rasch 
placement interviews at university entrance. Classic 
multifaceted analysis. In Cumming, A. and 
use of multi-faceted Rasch to identify training needs.
Berwick, R. Validation in language testing.
Clevedon, Avon, Multimedia Matters: 9–57.
Appendix A: developing proficiency descriptors
215

---

Upshur, J. and Turner, C. 1995: Constructing 
Sophisticated further development of the primary 
rating scales for second language tests. English 
trait technique to produce charts of binary decisions.
Language Teaching Journal 49 (1), 3–12.
Very relevant to school sector.
Wilds, C.P. 1975: The oral interview test. In: 
The original coming out of the original language 
Spolsky, B. and Jones, R. (Eds): Testing language 
proficiency rating scale. Worth a careful read to spot
proficiency. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied 
nuances lost in most interview approaches since 
Linguistics, 29–44.
then.
Appendix A: developing proficiency descriptors
216

---