Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

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. 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. Its main aim is to provide a method of learning, teaching and assessing which applies to all languages in Europe. 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.

"CEFR" redirects here. For the Chinese nuclear reactor, see China Experimental Fast Reactor.

Development

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 recognized across Europe.[2]

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.

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

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 we draw when we engage in them.[5]

Language activities

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]

Domains

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.

Competences

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).

Common reference levels

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
A
Basic user		 A1
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.
A2
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.
B
Independent user		 B1
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.
B2
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 specialization.
  • 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.
C
Proficient user		 C1
Effective operational proficiency or advanced
  • Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer clauses, and recognize 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 organizational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.
C2
Mastery or proficiency
  • Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read.
  • Can summarize 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

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

BodyLanguageCumulative hours of study to reach levelRef
A1A2B1B2C1C2
DW AkademieGerman75150 (A2.1)
225 (A2.2)		300 (B1.1)
400 (B1.2)		[7]
Goethe-Institut German 80–200 200–350 350–650 600–800 800–1,000 1,000 [8]
Cambridge English Language AssessmentEnglish180–200350–400500–600700–8001,000–1,200[9]
Alliance FrançaiseFrench60–100160–200360–400560–650810–9501,060–1,200[10]
Teastas Eorpach na GaeilgeIrish80–100160–200350–400500–6001,000+1,500+[11]

Certification and teaching ecosystem enabled by the CEFR

Multiple organizations 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[12] 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 organizations that aims at standardizing assessment methods.[13] EAQUALS (Evaluation and Accreditation of Quality in Language Services) is an international association of institutions and organizations involved in language education, active throughout Europe, and following the CEFR.[14]

In France, the Ministry for Education has created a government-mandated certificate called CLES, which formalizes the use of the CEFR in language teaching programs in French higher education institutions.[15]

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.[16]

Comparisons between CEFR and other scales

General scales

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)

A 2008 statistical study by Alfonso Martínez Baztán of Universidad de Granada based on the performances of a group of subjects[17] determines the following ordering of the ACTFL and CEFR levels, in which higher levels are placed further right.[18]

NL___NM__A1___NH___A2/IL_____IM__B1____IH____B2_AL____ AM__C1___AH___C2__S_

The following table summarizes the results of Martínez Baztán,[19] the equivalences between CEFR and ACTFL standards proposed in a 2005 paper by Erwin Tschirner of Universität Leipzig[20] (also quoted by Martínez Baztán[21]), and the equivalences of Buitrago (unpublished, 2006) as quoted in Martínez Baztán 2008.[22]

CEFR Martínez Tschirner Buitrago
<A1 NL, NM
A1 NH NH NL
A2 IL, IM IM NM
B1 IM, IH IH IL
B2 IH, AL AM IM, IH
C1 AM, AH AH AL, AM, AH
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.[23]

This agrees with a table published by the American University Center of Provence giving the following correspondences:[24]

CEFR ILR ACTFL
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,[25] speaking,[26] listening [27]) and the CEFR assessment grid [28] could suggest a different equivalence:[29]

CEFR ILR ACTFL
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[30] 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)[31]

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.[32][33] This report contains a comparison of the CEFR to other standards in use in Canada and proposes an equivalence table.

CEFR ILR ACTFL NB OPS[34] CLB PSC PSC[35]
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
4+/5

The resulting correspondence between the ILR and ACTFL scales disagrees with the generally accepted one.[36] 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.[37] Also, the ILR and NB OPS scales do not correspond despite the fact that the latter was modelled on the former.[33]

A more recent document by Macdonald and Vandergrift[38] estimates the following correspondences (for oral ability) between the Public Service Commission levels and the CEFR levels:

PSC CEFR
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.[39]

Language-specific scales
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
Basque IVAP-HAEE HE 1 - IVAP-HAEE HE 2 - IVAP-HAEE HE 3 - IVAP-HAEE HE 4 - IVAP-HAEE
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)[40]

(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[41] Mynediad (Entry) Sylfaen (Foundation) Canolradd (Intermediate) Uwch (Advanced) - -
Czech Czech Language Certificate Exam (CCE)[42] CCE-A1 CCE-A2 CCE-B1 CCE-B2 CCE-C1 -
Danish Prøve i Dansk (Danish Language Exam)[43] 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)[44] 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)[45] NT2 programma I NT2 programma II
English Anglia Examinations Preliminary Elementary Intermediate Advanced Proficiency Masters
TrackTest[46] A1 (Beginner) A2 (Elementary) B1 (Pre-Intermediate) B2 (Intermediate) C1 (Upper-Intermediate) C2 (Advanced)
TOELS: Wheebox Test of English Language Skills[47] 11 (Beginner) 20 (Pre-Intermediate) 25 (Intermediate) 30 (Graduate) 33 (Advanced)
iTEP[48] 0–1.9 2–2.4 2.5-3.4 3.5-4.4 4.5-5.4 5.5-6
IELTS[49][50][51] 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[52] 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[52] 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 10-20 25-55 60-85 90-115 120-140 145-160
TOEFL (IBT)[53] 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[54] 337 460 543 627
TOEFL Junior Standard[55] 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 [56] 1-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-100
City and Guilds[57] Preliminary Access Achiever Communicator Expert Mastery
RQF (UK Only)[58] Entry Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Levels 4-6 Level 7-8
Cambridge exam[59] A2 Key (45 to 69)[60] B1 Preliminary (45 to 69)[61] / A2 Key Pass, Pass with Merit[62] B2 First (140 to 159)[63] / B1 Preliminary Pass, Pass with Merit[64] / A2 Key Pass with Distinction[62] C1 Advanced (160 to 179)[65] / B2 First grade B or C[63] / B1 Preliminary Pass with Distinction[64] C2 Proficiency (180 to 199)[66] / C1 Advanced grade B or C[65] / B2 First grade A (180 to 190) 200-230
Michigan exam[67] MET Go! Basic User (CEFR A1) [68] Michigan English Test (MET) (0 to 39)[69] / MET Go! Elementary User (CEFR A2) [68] Michigan English Test (MET) (40 to 52)[69] / MET Go! Intermediate User (CEFR B1) [68] ECCE [70] / Michigan English Test (MET) (53 to 63)[69] Michigan English Test (MET) (64 to 80)[69] ECPE[71]
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) / Spoken English for Work (SEW)[72][73][74] GESE 2 ISE 0
GESE 3, 4		 ISE I
GESE 5, 6
SEW 1		 ISE II
GESE 7, 8, 9
SEW 2, 3		 ISE III
GESE 10, 11
SEW 4		 ISE IV
GESE 12
British General Qualifications[75][76] 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)[77] 5,4,3 Pre-2 2 Pre-1 1
Gymglish Certification 0 - 1,4 1.5 - 1.9 2 - 2.9 3 - 3.9 4 - 4.9 5 - 5.5
Esperanto Esperanto KER History (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
Frantastique Certification (Gymglish) 1 2 3 4 5 5
Galician Certificado de lingua galega (CELGA)[78] 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)[79] - 0-246 247-495 496-735 736-897 898-990
TestDaF[80] TDN 3—TDN 4[81] TDN 4—TDN 5
Greek Πιστοποίηση Ελληνομάθειας (Certificate of Attainment in Modern Greek)[82] Α1
(Στοιχειώδης Γνώση)		 Α2
(Βασική Γνώση)		 Β1
(Μέτρια Γνώση)		 Β2
(Καλή Γνώση)		 Γ1
(Πολύ Καλή Γνώση)		 Γ2
(Άριστη Γνώση)
Hebrew Ulpan (as codified by the Rothberg International School) [83] 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[84] Pass[85]
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) No clear relation.[86][87][note 1]
Japan Foundation Test for Basic Japanese (JFT-Basic)[88] Pass
Certificate of Japanese as a Foreign Language(J-cert)[89] N/A A2.1 A2.2 B1 B2 C1 C2
Korean Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK)[90] 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[91] B1 (podstawowy) B2 (średni ogólny) C2 (zaawansowany)
Portuguese CAPLE[92] Accesso CIPLE DEPLE DIPLE DAPLE DUPLE
CELPE-Bras[93] 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)[94] ТЭУ Элементарный уровень ТБУ Базовый уровень ТРКИ-1 (I Cертификационный уровень) (1st Certificate level) ТРКИ-2 ТРКИ-3 ТРКИ-4
Spanish DELE[95] 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[96] A1 A2 B1 B2 (55-70%) C1 (71-88%) C2 (89-100%)
Ukrainian [97] 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

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.[98]

Other applications

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.[99]

See also

References
  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.
  5. "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. "Deutsche Welle". dw.com. Retrieved 28 March 2017.
  8. "Deutschprüfungen – Unsere Prüfungen – Goethe-Institut". Retrieved 27 July 2019.
  9. "CEFR and ALTE Can Do statements". Archived from the original on 5 December 2011. Retrieved 5 December 2011.
  10. "General Information". www.alliancefr.ph.
  11. "TEG Levels". Retrieved 31 August 2016.
  12. "European Association for Language Testing and Assessment". EALTA. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  13. "Association of Language Testers in Europe". ALTE. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  14. "EAquals— Our aims". EAquals. Archived from the original on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  15. "Certificate de Compétences en Langues de l'Enseignement Supérieur". SPIRAL. Archived from the original on 18 May 2007. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  16. "The European Language Certificate". telc. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  17. 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. ISBN 978-84-338-4961-8.
  18. Martínez Baztán, Alfonso (2008). La evaluación oral: una equivalencia entre las guidelines de ACTFL y algunas escalas del MCER (PDF) (doctoral thesis). Universidad de Granada. p. 459. ISBN 978-84-338-4961-8.
  19. 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.
  20. Tschirner, Erwin (February 2005). "Das ACTFL OPI und der Europäische Referenzrahmen" (PDF). Babylonia (in German). Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 March 2006.
  21. 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. 468. ISBN 978-84-338-4961-8.
  22. 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. pp. 469–70. ISBN 978-84-338-4961-8.
  23. 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)
  24. "The correspondences are attributed by the center to an ACTFL administrator" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 January 2014.
  25. https://www.govtilr.org/Skills/readingassessment.pdf
  26. https://www.govtilr.org/Skills/speakingassessment.pdf
  27. https://www.govtilr.org/Skills/listeningassessment.pdf
  28. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168045bb52
  29. "French Classes in Baltimore / French Academy DC MD VA". french-baltimore.com.
  30. "PowerPoint Presentation" (PDF). Retrieved 2 May 2013.
  31. Level 2+ was the highest possible classification for listening items.
  32. "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.
  33. "Proposal of a CFR for Canada". Elp-implementation.ecml.at. Archived from the original on 15 August 2011. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
  34. "Post-Secondary Education, Training and Labour / Éducation postsecondaire, Formation et Travail". Gnb.ca. Retrieved 2 May 2013.
  35. "Qualification Standards 3 / 3". Tbs-sct.gc.ca. 15 April 2013. Retrieved 2 May 2013.
  36. "Correspondence of proficiency scales". Sil.org. 21 March 1999. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
  37. "ILR Scale". Utm.edu. Archived from the original on 17 August 2011. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
  38. Jennifer Macdonald; Larry Vandergrift (6–8 February 2007). "The CEFR in Canada" (PowerPoint Presentation). Council of Europe. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
  39. "TOEFL Equivalency table". Vancouver English Centre. Archived from the original on 1 January 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  40. 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.
  41. "Welsh for Adults".
  42. "Czech Language Certificate Exam, Institute for Language and Preparatory Studies, Charles University".
  43. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 March 2018. Retrieved 24 November 2013.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  44. "Certificate of Dutch as a Foreign Language" (PDF). CNaVT. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 February 2013. Retrieved 27 October 2013.
  45. "Wat zijn de Staatsexamens NT2?" (in Dutch). College voor Examens. Retrieved 26 March 2013.
  46. "TrackTest Language levels". TrackTest. Retrieved 12 December 2013.
  47. "Wheebox TOELS". Wheebox.
  48. "iTEP Scores: Authentication and Equivalencies".
  49. "IELTS — Common European Framework". IELTS. Retrieved 4 January 2013.
  50. "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.
  51. "IELTS band scores & CEF level scale for Clarity programs" (PDF). Clarity English. Retrieved 3 August 2014.
  52. "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.
  53. "TOEFL: For Academic Institutions: Compare Scores".
  54. "Research". Retrieved 25 February 2013.
  55. "Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR)". Retrieved 25 February 2013.
  56. "Data" (PDF). efset.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 October 2015. Retrieved 6 October 2015.
  57. Amega Web Technology. "City & Guilds English — The Common European Framework". Cityandguildsenglish.com. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
  58. "Languages Ladder". Cilt.org.uk. Archived from the original on 28 August 2011. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
  59. "International language standards". Cambridge ESOL. Archived from the original on 29 July 2015. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  60. "Understanding your Statement of Results – Cambridge English: Key" (PDF). Cambridge ESOL. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  61. "Understanding your Statement of Results – Cambridge English: Preliminary" (PDF). Cambridge ESOL. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  62. "Cambridge English: Key (KET) - Results". Cambridge ESOL. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  63. "Cambridge English: First (FCE) - Results". Cambridge ESOL. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  64. "Cambridge English: Preliminary (PET) - Results". Cambridge ESOL. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  65. "Cambridge English: Advanced (CAE) - Results". Cambridge ESOL. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  66. "Cambridge English: Proficiency (CPE) - Results". Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  67. "MICHIGAN LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT". CAMLA. Archived from the original on 22 August 2019. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  68. "MET Go!". CaMLA. Archived from the original on 10 August 2019. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  69. "MICHIGAN LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT". CaMLA. Archived from the original on 10 August 2019. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  70. "ECCE". CAMLA. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  71. "ECPE". CaMLA. Archived from the original on 9 August 2019. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  72. "Trinity College London - Integrated Skills in English (ISE)".
  73. "Trinity College London - Graded Examinations in Spoken English (GESE)".
  74. "Trinity College London - Spoken English for Work (SEW)".
  75. Curcin, Milja; Black, Beth. "Investigating standards in GCSE French, German and Spanish through the lens of the CEFR" (PDF). gov.uk. OfQual. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  76. "CEFR language learning levels explained and compared | Support | gostudylink". gostudylink.net. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  77. "Comparison table | Research | EIKEN | Eiken Foundation of Japan". www.eiken.or.jp.
  78. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 September 2013. Retrieved 2013-09-20.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  79. Deutsch-Französische Industrie- und Handelskammer. "Niveaubeschreibung" (PDF). ETS Global. Retrieved 12 September 2019.
  80. "What is the TestDaF?" (PDF). TestDaF. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  81. "Framework of Reference for Languages" (PDF). TestDaF. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
  82. "Information for the Centre for the Greek Language and the certificate of attainment in Greek". Retrieved 7 August 2012.
  83. "Evaluation Scale of Communication Competence for Students of Hebrew - The Hebrew University of Jerusalem" (PDF). Retrieved 5 January 2020.
  84. "Íslenskupróf vegna ríkisborgararéttar". Retrieved 16 February 2020.
  85. Kristinsson, Ari (2013). "Innflytjendur og íslenskupróf" [Immigrants and Icelandic Language Tests]. Milli Mála (in Icelandic). 5: 73–94.
  86. "Relation between JFS-based evaluation and JLPT pass or fail determination" (PDF). The Japan Foundation. April 2017. Retrieved 5 October 2019.
  87. "JF日本語教育スタンダードに基づいた評価と日本語能力試験の合否判定との関係 最終報告書" (PDF). The Japan Foundation. April 2017. pp. 8–9. Retrieved 5 October 2019.
  88. "About the JFT-Basic｜JFT-Basic Japan Foundation Test for Basic Japanese". www.jpf.go.jp. Retrieved 1 November 2019.
  89. https://www.j-cert.org/
  90. 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.
  91. "Egzaminy Certyfikatowe z Języka Polskiego jako Obcego". Archived from the original on 30 July 2015. Retrieved 4 August 2015.
  92. "Centro de Avaliação de Português Língua Estrangeira". Archived from the original on 14 June 2012. Retrieved 4 September 2012.
  93. "Certificado de Proficiência em Língua Portuguesa para Estrangeiros". Retrieved 4 September 2012.
  94. "TKRI Overview". Archived from the original on 21 December 2012. Retrieved 22 November 2012.
  95. "Descripción – Diplomas de Español Como Lengua Extranjera". Instituto Cervantes. Retrieved 19 August 2011.
  96. "Türkçe Yeterlik Sınavı (TYS)". Yunus Emre Institute. Retrieved 10 March 2017.
  97. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 26 September 2015. Retrieved 2014-02-17.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  98. de Jong, John H.A.L. "Unwarranted Claim about CEF Alignment of some International English Language Tests — Pearson" (PDF). Ealta.eu.org. Retrieved 15 July 2017.
  99. Raphael Poss. "A CEFR-like approach to measure programming proficiency". Retrieved 18 July 2014.
  1. Because the JLPT is two thirds reading and one third listening comprehension (neither writing nor speaking is tested), there is no clear relation between overall CEFR level and JLPT level. Especially the distinction whether or not a test taker's native language uses Kanji or not has high impact on the JLPT level passable at a given overall CEFR level.

Works cited

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

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.