|
 |
Criticism of the CEFRL Standards | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| dmg Diglot Senior Member Canada dgryski.blogspot.comRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 7013 days ago 555 posts - 605 votes  1 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Dutch, Esperanto | Message 1 of 4 24 May 2009 at 12:55am | IP Logged | ||
|
I found this article interesting. It talks about how the overcomplicated and overbearing Common European Framework of Reference for Languages has affected (negatively) the teaching of languages in Europe.
Talk for the British Council conference in Sicily. March 2003. "The Common European Framework is more of the wrong thing". edit: fixed link mangled by forum Edited by dmg on 24 May 2009 at 4:46am 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| ExtraLean Triglot Senior Member France languagelearners.myf Joined 5996 days ago 897 posts - 880 votes Speaks: English*, French, Spanish Studies: German | Message 2 of 4 24 May 2009 at 4:04am | IP Logged | ||
|
As I promised,
Well, first of all I'm not sure this is overly relevant to the majority of learners that one finds on HTLAL; autodidacts and language learning junkies the lot of them. Secondly, there is a lot of criticism in the critique that just centres around the 'stuffy and vague language used in the text', which is ultimately worthless. The author isn't the only person who can dumb the level of language used down, and I skipped through most of it. I hardly think that 'The vagueness of the descriptors just encourages cheating and superficiality!' It's up to the individual whether they cheat and learn superficially...a political, governmental document written by people with a 'European English' (oh woe is me) of a rather high level isn't going to change that. The proposition of learning through 'new fashioned grammar', is in my view just; I for one understand its importance, and do not shy away from it. But the manner in which languages have been taught in schools for the last eternity, is the reason that there are so many people here on HTLAL, if they were taught well, effectively, and with joy and wonder: there'd be no need of anything else. Now, I wasn't aware that the CERFL had effects that reached down into the schooling of various countries. I just always figured it was an exam/qualification/standardisation thing. And was fine with it. In the end; as a young-adult learner this doesn't bother me in the least, I've taken my language learning into my own hands, for the kids of Britain and Europe it could be another matter, but I don't really see how it could hurt. Thom. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| dmg Diglot Senior Member Canada dgryski.blogspot.comRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 7013 days ago 555 posts - 605 votes 1 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Dutch, Esperanto | Message 3 of 4 24 May 2009 at 4:42am | IP Logged | ||
I agree .. a lot of the article was fluff. However, I find it so interesting that in attempting to create a rigorous definition of language ability the various levels, it's obvious (in retrospect) that teachers and materials would be geared towards and thus reduced to practicing specific tasks and checking off little boxes. Being self-taught, the issue I see with trying to determine ones level is that because ones skills develop at different rates (speaking vs. reading vs. writing vs. listening), it's very easy to give ones-self a lopsided education. The benefit to schooling is that (in theory) they all develop "in sync" with each other. Although, as I posted with the Canadian Language Benchmarks a while ago, it's nice to have a list (the Can Do's) that represent roughly equivalent levels of difficulty so you can attempt to make your schooling horizontal. But again, I can see how it could be hard to use it _only_ for evaluation and not for targetting ones learning. However, in the end, it's going to be like misusing any tool. The language standards were created to grade language competencies. Using them for anything else is going to screw you up. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6013 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 4 of 4 25 May 2009 at 12:40pm | IP Logged | ||
Now wait a minute. We all know that if you tell people what they're going to be tested on, they'll learn what they need. If you give a teacher a list of things that their students have to know they will teach them the contents of the list. If you were to teach a class a grammar-heavy course that doesn't teach the context-specific vocabulary needed to satisfy the guidelines, your students would fail the exam, even if they were really good at the language. If you teach them everything on the list they will pass, even if they couldn't hold a normal conversation. Teachers have to get their students through exams, so once you define the exam material, you define what is taught. The criticisms in the article are all well-founded and I agree with them -- it's only his delivery and his "alternative" way I find lacking (it's pretty vague itself and doesn't seem as different from existing methods as he's trying to paint it). 1 person has voted this message useful |
If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login. If you are not already registered you must first register
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
