|
 |
A simplified CERF | ||
Tags: CEFR Language Levels | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| zerrubabbel Senior Member United States Joined 4605 days ago 232 posts - 287 votes  Speaks: English* Studies: Japanese, Mandarin | Message 17 of 44 11 February 2013 at 8:03am | IP Logged | ||
not sure what it is about the way you said it, but you made it seem like fluency isnt so far away XD motivating IMO 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5435 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 18 of 44 13 February 2013 at 4:20pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I'm not sure why one would try to define a personal CEFR when the purpose of the CEFR is to provide a reasonably objective and standard scale for assessing language proficiency. Aren't we going backwards when we try to reinterpret the CEFR to our personal standards? Why not simply say "I use a 6-level scale as defined as follows." and leave CEFR alone?
3 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| kanewai Triglot Senior Member United States justpaste.it/kanewai Joined 4894 days ago 1386 posts - 3054 votes Speaks: English*, French, Marshallese Studies: Italian, Spanish | Message 19 of 44 13 February 2013 at 6:11pm | IP Logged | ||
|
It's not about redefining CEFR, it's about choosing a simpler metric to represent each
level. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5435 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 20 of 44 13 February 2013 at 6:33pm | IP Logged | ||
But that is the whole point. The CEFR is based on a clearly defined system of can-dos. You can't use a simpler metric and still call it the CEFR. As I said, if you use a 6-level scale such as Low Beginner, High Beginner, Low Intermediate, High Intermediate, Low Advanced and High Advanced, then by all means use any metric you desire. But to say that your C1 as you define it is the same as the CEFR C1 can only lead to confusion. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| kanewai Triglot Senior Member United States justpaste.it/kanewai Joined 4894 days ago 1386 posts - 3054 votes Speaks: English*, French, Marshallese Studies: Italian, Spanish | Message 21 of 44 13 February 2013 at 8:47pm | IP Logged | ||
Of course you can. We do it all the time in the sciences. For example, if we're measuring water quality we can either run dozens of tests for an exact measurement, or we can choose one or two indicator tests (such as turbidity, or e coli amounts) that have a strong correlation with overall water quality. And the Council of Europe (COE) themselves do it. In the framework put out by the COE you will see both very detailed descriptions of each level (ex: Tables 2 and 3, pages 26-29) as well as the simpler "Common Reference" table (Table 1, the one I copied in the previous post). And almost everyone on HTLAL simplifies things - as do almost all linguistic websites. I might say I'm B-1 in French, but to be accurate I'm closer to Listening B-1 Reading B-2 + Spoken Interaction B-1 Spoken Production B-1 (range B-1, accuracy A-2, fluency A-2, interaction B-1, coherence B-1) Writing A-2 + It's a bit much, eh? I think the more complex charts are useful (and I'd copy them here if I could figure out how to embed a table), but on a day-to-day basis it's much easier, and almost as accurate, to ask, "Can I comfortably hold a job in French? Probably not. Could I hold a job if I reach B-2? I think I could." 5 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| daegga Tetraglot Senior Member Austria lang-8.com/553301 Joined 4526 days ago 1076 posts - 1792 votes Speaks: German*, EnglishC2, Swedish, Norwegian Studies: Danish, French, Finnish, Icelandic | Message 22 of 44 13 February 2013 at 11:03pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I usually use something like this:
A (I don't care to distinguish between A1 and A2): not yet ready to read easy novels for native speakers with ease B1: I'm able to read easy novels for native speakers extensively B2: I feel like I don't need to study anymore, I just use the language C1: I practically have near-native passive skills (this doesn't mean that I understand 60000+ words, but rather that I understand 99%+ of speech and 98%+ of modern novels and scientific articles, ie. nothing can get me out of the comfort zone) C2: I practically have near-native active skills (I'm only distinguishable from a native speaker by accent) It's a very individual interpretation of the scale though and it probably won't work for most people. 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| cwcowellshah Newbie United States Joined 4384 days ago 34 posts - 52 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Swedish | Message 23 of 44 14 February 2013 at 1:57am | IP Logged | ||
|
The official CEFR descriptions are good, but it's hard to wrap your head around all of them at once.
I use a shorthand way of thinking about the levels (which I hope is faithful to the spirit of CEFR -- just easier to remember): A1/A2: you can be a tourist comfortably B1/B2: you can be a resident comfortably C1/C2: you can have a white-collar job comfortably Does that seem accurate? Edited by cwcowellshah on 14 February 2013 at 1:57am 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5435 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 24 of 44 14 February 2013 at 4:07am | IP Logged | ||
|
I see the idea of reinterpreting the CEFR to something that is more meaningful for the individual. So, instead of the long C1 description, I can say that for me C1 means "I can hold a professional job" or "I can have a white-collar job comfortably" or "I practically have near-native passive skills". That's fine. I'll let the other people fight over the definition of what a professional job means or what near-native passive skills mean. I don't object to people using these home-made criteria. I just object to people referring to them by the CEFR names.
As I said earlier, the CEFR attempts to define objective and scientifically sound criteria for the assessment of linguistic proficiency. Sure the long definitions can be awkward and very detailed but they are designed to be comprehensive and accurate. Bur frankly, to say that B2 means to you "I feel like I don't need to study any more. I just use the language" leaves me scratching my head in bewilderment. What in the world does that mean? I wonder how you could test for that. How does that B2 compare to my B2? This is not the same as reducing the number of criteria to a smaller number that correlates with the others. Where in the CEFR scale is there reference to the ability to understand the target language in a loud bar? As I said, nothing prevents you from devising your own definitions, just don't call it CEFR. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
