Draft:Companion Volume to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

• Comment: Has this been copypasted from somewhere, or why are there those "[edit]" tags in the headings, and other odd remnants from some other text? DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Companion Volume to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (2020)

The Companion Volume to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR-CV) is an update and supplement to the original CEFR of 2001. Coordinated by the Council of Europe’s Language Policy Division, it was developed between 2014 and 2020. Approximately 1500 European experts and over 300 institutions were involved in its development. This was supported by numerous validation workshops and over 60 piloting projects. (Council of Europe 2020: Appendix 6)

Council of Europe - Strasbourg

The Council of Europe promotes the rule of law, human rights and democracy in its member states. With social cohesion as a major aspect of this policy, it aims at supporting European linguistic diversity. The Council of Europe has therefore actively pursued language policies and focussed in particular on languages spoken by minorities in Europe. The preface to the CEFR 2001 therefore mentions "Multilingualism and cultural competence” as its central aims (Council of Europe 2001: 3)  

The original CEFR was published by the Council of Europe in 2001. One component of the CEFR 2001 which has had a lasting impact both on the academic and general public are the reference levels A1-A2-B1-B2-C1-C2. The CEFR was created to make curricula, textbooks, tests, etc. comparable with each other. It provides 54 scales on specific aspects of language, which can be used in a variety of different contexts, thus making differentiated descriptions of competence profiles possible. These include

• linguistic competences, e.g. the range of vocabulary and grammar and the correctness and appropriateness of these in their use,    
• sociolinguistic competences, which concern the way social relations are marked in language, e.g. politeness conventions, idioms, register differences, dialects and accents.
• pragmatic competences, which address the circumstances of specific communication situations (e.g. situational, cultural contexts) and aspects of communication such as turn-taking, topic development, coherence and cohesion.
• functional competences, which address aspects of language such as fluency and accuracy.  

For all aspects of these competences, descriptors (i.e. meta-linguistic descriptions) are provided corresponding to the progressive competence levels A1 to C2.

The Council of Europe’s authoring team repeatedly emphasised that the CEFR was not written primarily as a framework for assessment and test development.{{1|<name>}} This is important to note since some of the critical reception in the years following its publication was based on the misconception that CEFR descriptors are to be understood as test criteria

"The real problem lies in the use of the word "framework" in the CEFR, for it is not a framework in the sense of a document that allows the generation of test specifications, but much more like a model without actually being a model." (Fulcher 2004: 260)

Similarly, linguists such as Alderson, Quetz and others criticised the lack of system in the descriptors and the context-free nature of these, which made CEFR-based test development difficult. (Quetz 2003; Alderson 2004; Alderson 2007, Harsch 2007) Other critics invoked the danger of a rigid "pan-European" language testing system for which the CEFR seemed to provide a framework. (Fulcher 2004: 262f.; Tönshoff 2003: 83; Christ 2003: 62).  Brian North, one of the authors of the CEFR team, addressed such criticisms in a Guardian article in 2004:

“The aim of the CEFR is to empower and to facilitate, not to prescribe or control. The CEFR is not a super-specification for producing new examinations. There is no "Official European Test" around the corner. The Council of Europe (COE) fully respects the diversity of educational and assessment systems in its 45 member states. It does not and could not promote "a shared language testing system", as one misguided commentator was cited as claiming in Dr Fulcher's article. What actually does exist is a modest, Dutch-led project funded by the European Union - a separate body - to collect a small bank of test items calibrated to the CEFR levels that could be used to help "anchor" tests to one another.” (The Guardian 15 Apr 2004)

The "Dutch-led project" mentioned here involved some of the critics mentioned above and showed that – setting off from selected CEFR descriptors - several carefully considered steps are necessary to develop valid, reliable and practicable test items. {{2|<name>}} (Schneider, North 2000; Martyniuk 2010).

Other commentators criticised a one-sided functional understanding of language that negatively shaped the CEFR. Aesthetic, affective, creative, ethical and cultural aspects of language and language acquisition were said to be neglected. (Krumm 2003; Hu 2004)

Other critics warned of a possible misuse of the CEFR, e.g. when dealing with migration and the denial of political rights to minorities. (Shohamy 2006)

The critical voices contrasted with positive assessments, which above all praised the impulse emanating from the CEFR to fundamentally re-discuss questions of foreign language acquisition and foreign language competences at a European level. (Hu 2012: 67)

After its publication in 2001, the CEFR quickly became a globally influential language policy document. This is underlined by the 40 translations which are available today, including translations into Arabic, Chinese, Japanese and Korean.

CEFR-Companion Volume 2020

The Companion Volume to the CEFR (2020)

The Council of Europe gave the new version of the CEFR the title of "Companion Volume", as it quotes central passages from the original CEFR and elucidates and explains these. At the same time, it supplements and clarifies the descriptive model by redefining the underlying construct (i.e. "language as social action").

In several respects, the Companion Volume takes into consideration the discussions which have taken place since 2001.Social and technological developments are taken into account (online communication, sign language, literary reception) and new scales have been added, e.g. for mediating texts and concepts.

The descriptors in the Companion Volume replace and supplement those published in 2001. Existing scales were updated, especially for A1 and the C-levels. Many scales now also provide descriptors for the new pre-A1 level.

What is completely new is an embedding of the descriptive scales in a social constructivist approach, a theoretical basis that was developed only rudimentarily in the 2001 CEFR. {{3|<name>}}

Macro-functions instead of "skills”

The concept of macro-functions is fundamentally new: Reception, Production, Interaction, Mediation (instead of Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening). The concept of mediation in particular represents a decisive change. The CEFR-CV is thus explicitly based on a social-constructivist approach: language is seen as the social action of several language users who jointly co-construct meaning. This is in line with the current state of sociology, anthropology, psychology, and other disciplines in social science. (Piccardo, North 2019).

Mediation

The construct of "mediation" is absolutely innovative. In the 2001 edition, “mediation” meant translating, interpreting, summarising, reporting, etc. (CEFR 2001, section 2.1.3). As such, it had become part of the foreign language curricula of secondary schools in Germany, Austria and other European states (“Sprachmittlung” in German). In the CEFR-CV, however, mediation is used differently. Now it refers to processes involving more than one language user when jointly constructing meaning. As such mediation can occur in all communication. (Piccardo, North 2019: 230 f.)

Mediation = co-construction of meaning

„Understanding the other requires an effort of translation from one’s own perspective to the other, keeping both perspectives in mind; sometimes people need a third person or a third space in order to achieve this. Sometimes there are delicate situations, tensions or even disagreements that need to be faced in order to create the conditions for any understanding and hence any communication.“ (Council of Europe 2020: 114)

The new, social-constructivist conception of mediation can be presented in this way: {{4|<name>}}

An important distinction is made between "Cognitive Mediation" and "Relational Mediation". The scales on Cognitive Mediation connect with corresponding scales of the CEFR 2001 and describe the process of facilitating access to knowledge and concepts, especially if a person is not able to create this access directly him/herself, perhaps because of the novelty of and lack of familiarity with the concepts or because of language or cultural barriers. In contrast, the scales under Relational Mediation focus on processes of establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships in order to create a positive and cooperative environment. Examples include the communicative competencies needed when "leading group work", to promote "pluricultural space" or in "delicate situations and disagreements".

Mediation - overview

The following overview is taken from the CEFR-CV and highlights the two areas of Cognitive and Relational Mediation. However, the authoring team repeatedly emphasise that it is only in reflection that separate naming of different aspects of mediation is possible and that this is not possible in practice. Therefore, only a "holistic" understanding of communicative competence is appropriate. (Council of Europe 2020: 30, 108).

No native speaker standards

Unlike the original CEFR, the CEFR-CV avoids all references to a native speaker standard. In the 2001 edition, the use of ‘native speaker’ sometimes led to misunderstandings and controversy. In the CEFR-CV, pronunciation at C2, for example, is described as follows:

“Can employ the full range of phonological features in the target language with a high level of control – including prosodic features such as word and sentence stress, rhythm and intonation – so that the finer points of their message are clear and precise. Intelligibility and effective conveyance and enhancement of meaning are not affected in any way by features of accent that may be retained from other language(s).” (Council of Europe 2020: 134)

Any reference to native speaker competences, previously used to define competences to be achieved by learners, are avoided.

Contexts and context-relevant standards

The CEFR-CV corrects a fundamental misunderstanding in the reception of the CEFR 2001, which was shared by curriculum developers, publishers, test providers and other users. In many cases, the CEFR’s 54 descriptor scales had been reduced to a single scale, i.e. the "Global Scale". This misunderstanding is documented by the widespread use of a six-step staircase to illustrate the competence model suggested by the CEFR. This misrepresentation is corrected in the CEFR-CV with all due clarity:

“The illustrative descriptors are one source for the development of standards appropriate to the context concerned; they are not in themselves offered as standards. They are a basis for reflection, discussion and further action. The aim is to open new possibilities, not to pre-empt decisions. The CEFR itself makes this point very clearly, stating that the descriptors are presented as recommendations and are not in any way mandatory.” (Council of Europe 2020: 41)

In the CEFR-CV, several passages and graphics underline this point: the descriptor scales are intended to describe context-specific, differentiated competence profiles. A fictional competence profile for a postgraduate programme in science (i.e. a possible context) could thus look like this:

Fictional competence profile - CEFR-CV p. 39

Specified contexts are indispensable, whether personal, situational, cultural or similar. For meaning is not created purely "linguistically" and does not reside solely in linguistic elements (words, sentences, pronunciation, etc.). Instead, it is primarily contexts, within which the meaning of linguistic features is "co-constructed" by several language users. Contextuality of language is a central aspect of contemporary linguistics and philosophy of language. (Kramsch 2004)

Contexts for mediation and online communication: Appendix 5

The CEFR-CV’s Appendix 5 contains examples of the use of the descriptors for online interaction and mediation activities in all four domains: Personal, Public, Occupational, Educational. The examples were created and validated in a series of online workshops during development phase 3. They are intended to help educators select activities for each descriptor that are appropriate for their learners. All appendices are included in the CEFR-CV volume, which is available as a free download from the Council of Europe’s website.

Plurilingual - pluricultural - multilingual - multicultural – intercultural

The CEFR-CV defines these central terms as follows:

• Plurilingual and pluricultural competences refer to individual language users, e.g. people with experience of migration or internationally experienced people who have such repertoires.
• Multilingual and multicultural can refer to groups of people, e.g. a group of learners, a football team or a nation such as Switzerland. In a sense, these terms view languages and cultures as separate and static entities that coexist in groups or societies.
• Intercultural, on the other hand, refers to situations, e.g. encounters in personal or professional contexts.

The concept of pluricultural competences, as advocated by the CEFR-CV, is widely shared today. Pluricultural competence is understood as a hybrid construct that is neither adequately described by socio-cultural, regional and other knowledge nor by personality traits such as openness and tolerance. Only when knowledge and personality traits are combined with practical communicative skills - and inevitably in relation to identifiable contexts - can it be called "competence" in the true sense of the word. All three areas are jointly constitutive of the construct of intercultural competence. (Piccardo, North 2019: 200f.) {{5|<name>}}

For the CEFR-CV’s authoring team, communicative practice is paramount. This is made clear by the sheer number and comprehensiveness of descriptors given.

“The scale ‘Building on pluricultural repertoire’ describes the use of pluricultural competences in a communicative situation. Thus, it is skills rather than knowledge or attitudes that are the focus. (Council of Europe 2020: 24)

The new scales with descriptors on plurilingual and pluricultural competences have generally been well received, since "multilingualism" and living in several cultures has become the norm in Europe and worldwide.

These scales, and the descriptors for "Relational Mediation" (see above), provide meta-linguistic descriptions of communicative competences as required both in pedagogical contexts and in professional contexts - e.g. in international companies and organisations. (Hu, de Saint-Georges 2020; Camerer 2021; Debray, Spencer-Oatey 2022)

More new scales with descriptors

The CEFR-CV provides scales with new descriptors in areas that are important in many educational systems in Europe and the absence of which was criticised after 2001. Literature, for example, plays a central role in upper grades of secondary schools. Even in "modern languages" such as English and French, foreign language learning serves often as preparation for the reading of classical literature. The CEFR-CV addresses this criticism by providing scales on "Creative Texts (including Literature)" (Council of Europe 2020, Ch. 3.4.1). In the reception of these scales, however, critical voices predominate. Some critics, for example, miss a clear concept of text and a specification of what exactly constitutes creative text production and text reception. (Schädlich 2019, Burwitz-Melzer 2021)

Digitalisation is also addressed in the CEFR-CV. It can be seen, however, that the speed of technical developments in this field has made the scale on "Online Communication" seem somewhat outdated very quickly.

Finally, in many scales the new level "below A1" was inserted. This takes into account that in foreign language learning, for example in migrants' language use and generally at a basic level, specific language-acquisition phenomena ("pidginisation") occur. These can be useful in a transitional phase and may change as learning progresses.

Sign language

Another important innovation is the inclusion of scales on "signing skills". These are based on a project of the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) and take into account the aims of inclusion as promoted by UNESCO.

Further reception

In its central concerns, the CEFR Companion Volume 2020 ties in with the CEFR 2001. This is underlined by the use of many direct quotations. Thus, the CEFR-CV repeats a passage by which the overall goal of language education was defined in 2001:

"The aim of language education is profoundly modified. It is no longer seen as simply to achieve ‘mastery’ of one or two, or even three languages, each taken in isolation, with the ‘ideal native speaker’ as the ultimate model. Instead, the aim is to develop a linguistic repertory, in which all linguistic abilities have a place." (Council of Europe 2001: 17; Council of Europe 2020: 144)

In 2022, a first thorough assessment addressed the impact of the CEFR-CV on professional and educational policy discussions in Europe and beyond (Little, Figueras 2022). In an epilogue, O'Sullivan outlined what he sees as the most important next steps, emphasising the issues of plurilingualism, mediation and localisation. (O'Sullivan 2022)

"Localisation" concerns, among other things, the global influence of both the CEFR and the CEFR Companion Volume. Currently (2023). "Localised" versions of the CEFR exist in Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico and Canada. "CEFR is a suitable and credible benchmark for English standards in Malaysia," is how for example the Malaysian government sees it.   The global "export" of the CEFR means encounters with different cultural, historical, institutional, pedagogical etc. contexts. In addition to the CEFR’s widespread reduction to test-taking and regardless of often varying pedagogical practices, this kind of "localisation" also raises questions concerning the value-oriented parts of numerous descriptors. To what extent "European" values, articulated by the Council of Europe in various descriptors of the CEFR, can make a universal claim is a debatable question.

Individual references

#{{1|<name>}} “As the subtitle ‘learning, teaching, assessment’ makes clear, the CEFR is not just an assessment project. CEFR 2001 Chapter 9 outlines many different approaches to assessment, most of which are alternatives to standardised tests. It explains ways in which the CEFR in general, and its illustrative descriptors in particular, can be helpful to the teacher in the assessment process, but there is no focus on language testing and no mention at all of test items.” (Council of Europe 2020: 289)

#{{2|<name>}} ”The CEFR should not be taken to present a set of specifications for test development at the different levels it posits, but rather it can act, and has indeed so acted within the project reported in this article, as a fruitful starting point for the analysis and development of items and tasks intended to measure reading and listening abilities.” Alderson, J. C., Figueras, N., Kuijper, H., Nold, G. Takala, S., Tardieu, C. (2004): 21.

#{{3|<name>}} “The constructivist approach to social identity is represented in sociology …, anthropology …, psychology …, and in the history and philosophy of science. Just about the only social science that has not developed a social constructivist paradigm is linguistics.” Ochs, Elinor (2005). Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective. In: Kiesling, Scott F. / Bratt, Christina (eds.) (2005). Intercultural discourse and communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 78–91.

#{{4|<name>}} Interestingly, the CEFR-CV contains an illustration on mediation which does not take the social constructivist approach into account. (Council of Europe 2020: 35).

#{{5|<name>}} For a discussion of the concept of competence, cf. the European Centre for Modern Languages (2010): 15 ff. / Piccardo& North (2019): chpt. 2

Literature

Alderson, J. C.(2004): The shape of things to come .Will it be the normal distribution. In Milanovic, M.; Weir, C.J (2004). European language testing in a global context: proceedings of the ALTE Barcelona conference, July 2001. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:. 1-26.

Alderson, J. C., Figueras, N., Kuijper, H., Nold, G. Takala, S., Tardieu, C. (2004): The development of specifications for item development and classification within The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment: Reading and Listening: Final report of The Dutch CEF Construct Project. Working Paper. Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK (Unpublished). Online: https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/44.

Alderson, J. C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 659–663.

Bausch, K-R., Christ, H.; Königs; F.G.; Krumm, H-J. (Hg.)(2003); Der Gemeinsame Europäische Referenzrahmen für Sprachen in der Diskussion. Arbeitspapiere der 22. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts. Tübingen: Narr.

Burwitz-Melzer (2021): Skalen zur Literaturdidaktik im Fremdsprachenunterricht im Begleitband zum GeR 2020. In Vogt, Quetz (2021): Der neue Begleitband zum Gemeinsamen europäischen Referenzrahmen für Sprachen.137-156.

Camerer, R.; Quetz, J. (2020): Mediation im Begleitband zum Gemeinsamen europäischen Referenzrahmen für Sprachen. Herausforderungen und Chancen für den Fremdsprachenunterricht in der Weiterbildung. In Tinnefeld, T.; Kühn, B. (Hg.) (2020): Die Menschen verstehen: Genzüberschreitende Kommunikation in Theorie und Praxis. Festschrift für Albert Raasch zum 90. Geburtstag. Tübingen. Narr. 277-291

Camerer, R. (2021): Plurikulturelle Kompetenzen. Anmerkungen zur Theorie und Praxis. In Vogt, Quetz (2021): Der neue Begleitband zum Gemeinsamen europäischen Referenzrahmen für Sprachen.77-96.

Christ, H. (2003): Was leistet der Gemeinsame Europäische Referenzrahmen für Sprachen: lernen, lehren, beurteilen? In Bausch, Christ, Königs, Krumm (Hg.) Der Gemeinsame Europäische Referenzrahmen für Sprachen in der Diskussion. Arbeitspapiere der 22. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts (pp.  57–66). Tübingen: Narr.

Council of Europe (ed.) (2001): A Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Strasbourg. Deutsch: Goethe-Institut et al. (Hg.) (2001): Gemeinsamer europäischer Referenzrahmen für Sprachen: Lernen, lehren, beurteilen. München, Berlin und: www.goethe.de/referenzrahmen. Autoren: J. Trim, B. North, D. Coste& J. Sheils, Übersetzung J. Quetz et. al.

Debray, C.; Spencer-Oatey; H. (2022): Co-constructing good relations through troubles talk in diverse teams. Journal of Pragmatics 192 (2022) 85-97.

Europarat (2020): Gemeinsamer Referenzrahmen für Sprachen. Lernen, lehren, beurteilen. Begleitband. Stuttgart. Klett. Autorinnen B. North, E. Piccardo, T. Goodier et al. Übersetzung J. Quetz & R. Camerer.

European Centre for Modern Languages (2010). Referenzrahmen für Plurale Ansätze zu Sprachen und Kulturen. Online: https://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/publications/C4_RePA_090724_IDT.pdf [4.7.2023]

Fäcke, C. (2021): Plurikulturelle Kompetenz im schulischen Fremdsprachenunterricht. In Vogt, Quetz (2021): Der neue Begleitband zum Gemeinsamen europäischen Referenzrahmen für Sprachen.59-75.

Fulcher, G. (2004): Deluded by Artifices? The Common European Framework and Harmonization. In:  Language Assessment Quarterly 1(4), 253-266

Harsch, C. (2007). Der gemeinsame europäische Referenzrahmen für Sprachen : Leistung und Grenzen.  Saarbrücken : VDM-Verl. Müller.

Hu, A. (2012): Academic Perspectives from Germany. In: Byram, M./Parmenter, L. (eds.) (2012): The Common European Framework of Reference: The Globalisation of Language Education Policy. 66-75.

Adelheid  Hu, A., de Saint-Georges, I.(2020) Multilingualism  as a resource  for  learning – insights  from  a multidisciplinary  research project. European Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2020; 8(2): 143–156.

Kiesling, S. F. / Bratt, C. (eds.)(2005). Intercultural discourse and communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell

Kramsch, C. (2004): Context and culture in language teaching. 4^th impr. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Krombach, L. (2021): Wegweisende Expansion oder unscharfes Konstrukt? Zu Konzeption und Umsetzungsmöglichkeiten von Mediation im begleitband zum Gemeinsamen europäischen Referenzrahmen für Sprachen. In Vogt, Quetz (2020): Der neue Begleitband zum Gemeinsamen europäischen Referenzrahmen für Sprachen.115-136.

Krumm, H-J. (2003) Der Gemeinsame europäische Referenzrahmen – ein Kuckucksei für den Fremdsprachenunterricht? In Bausch, Christ, Königs, Krumm (Hg.) Der Gemeinsame Europäische Referenzrahmen für Sprachen in der Diskussion. Arbeitspapiere der 22. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts (pp.  120–126). Tübingen: Narr.

Little, D.; Figueras, N. (eds.) (2022): Reflecting on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and its Companion Volume. Bristol. Multilingual Matters.

Martyniuk, W. (2010) (ed.): Aligning Tests with the CEFR: Reflections on using the Council of Europe’s draft Manual. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Ochs, Elinor (2005). Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective. In: Kiesling, Scott F. / Bratt, Christina (eds.). Intercultural discourse and communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 78–91.

O’Sullivan, B. (2022): Making the CEFR work. Considerations for a future roadmap. In Little, D.; Figueras, N. (eds.) (2022): Reflecting on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and its Companion Volume. 187-202.

Piccardo, E.& North, B. (2019). The Action-oriented Approach. A Dynamic Vision of Language Education. Bristol.

Quetz, J. (2003): Der Gemeinsame europäische Referenzrahmen: Ein Schatzkästlein mit Perlen, aber auch mit Kreuzen und Ketten. In Bausch, Christ, Königs, Krumm (eds)(2003): Der Gemeinsame Europäische Referenzrahmen für Sprachen in der Diskussion. Arbeitspapiere der 22. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts (pp.  145–155). Tübingen: Narr

Quetz, J.; Vogt, K. (2009): Bildungsstandards für die Erste Fremdsprache: Sprachenpolitik auf unsicherer Basis. In: ZFF – Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung, 20 (2009)1:63–89.

Schädlich, Birgit (2019): Die neuen Skalen des Companion Volume zu Literatur: ein Beitrag zur Modellierung literarisch-ästhetischer Kompetenzen im schulischen Fremdsprachenunterricht? Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 30: 2, 2019: 199-213.

Schneider, G.& North, B. (2000): Fremdsprachen können – was heißt das? Skalen zur Beschreibung, Beurteilung und Selbsteinschätzung der fremdsprachlichen Kommunikationsfähigkeit. Rüegger. Chur.

Shohamy, Elana (2006): Language policy Hidden agendas and new approaches. Routledge. London.

Tönshoff, W. (2003) Referenzrahmen: Zwischen Ansprüchen und Erwartungen. In K-R. Bausch, H. Christ, F.G. Königs and H-J. Krumm (eds) Der Gemeinsame Europäische Referenzrahmen für Sprachen in der Diskussion. Arbeitspapiere der 22. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts (pp.  180–191). Tübingen: Narr.

Vogt, K. & Quetz, J. (2021): Der neue Begleitband zum Gemeinsamen europäischen Referenzrahmen für Sprachen. Lang. Berlin.

WEBLINKS

The Guardian 15 Apr 2004. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/apr/15/tefl6  (28.07.2023)

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) (coe.int)

Daniel Coste (2007). Contextualising uses of the CEFR  https://rm.coe.int/contextualising-uses-of-the-common-european-framework-of-reference-for/16805ab765 (28.07.2023)

https://www.moe.gov.my/en/menumedia/printed-media/newspaper-clippings/what-the-cefr-is-and-isn-t-free-malaysia-today-27-mei-2019 (31.07.2023)