Student-Teacher Judgements on Common European Framework: Efficacy, Feasibility and Reality

Student-Teacher Judgements on Common European Framework: Efficacy, Feasibility and Reality Gülden İlin Çukurova University, Faculty of Education, English Language Teaching Department guldenilin@cu.edu.tr Abstract Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), which originally aims to provide a method of learning, teaching and assessing was soon adopted by various countries. Similarly, in Turkey, the curriculum designed for teaching English went through changes based on this framework. In line with this innovation, education programmes were implemented throughout the country to provide the in-service teachers with a ground to become familiar with the framework. In addition, two new courses were added to the curricula of language teacher education programmes at universities. However, not very much has been questioned on how teachers viewed this change. Inspired by this fact, this study attempts to describe how CEFR is perceived by one of the parties of the actual teaching learning community: student-teachers. The participants, at the time of the study were studying the framework in the fourth semester of their education in the English Language Teaching (ELT) Department of a Turkish university. Their views on the issue were elicited by means of three main standpoints; what they think about CEFR in general, the extent to which the framework can be followed in Turkey in their opinion, and finally, the probable positive and negative sides the framework brings to the system. The data were gathered through the field notes of the weekly discussion meetings and reflective essays student-teachers wrote on CEFR. Triangulation was realised by the follow-up interviews where final remarks of the participants were elicited. The results reveal problematic areas as orientation of teachers, adaptation of materials and providing and sustaining equal educational opportunities for all students. Keywords: Common European Framework, Teacher education, Student-teachers Introduction As Byrnes, (2007) argues, due to globalization, migration, multiculturalism, and multilingualism governments deal with more complex educational issues. Inasmuch as education is inherently about learners ability to use language in the ways it is used for schooling, governments are in effect being challenged to devise suitable language education policies. The Council has enshrined this policy in a Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for language learning at all levels in order to promote and facilitate cooperation among educational institutions in different countries; provide a sound basis for the mutual recognition of language qualifications; [and] assist learners, teachers, course

designers, examining bodies and educational administrators to situate and co-ordinate their efforts (p.641). The CEFR s action-oriented descriptive scheme embraces general competences as knowledge, skills and know-how, existential competence, interaction, and mediation. It also covers four domains of language use as personal, public, occupational, and educational. Finally, it deals with three types of parameters that shape language use; situational context, text type or theme, and conditions or constraints (Little, 2007). Regarding the context in which CEFR will be used, together with Little, we may refer to Jones and Saville (2009). They argue that the framework is inadequate in that there appears a need to develop contextualized, practical ways of realizing the CEFR s potential as a framework for teaching and learning. Similar to Little, Coste (2007) claims that the context where CEFR will be used should be carefully analysed. In his study, he tries to reveal how contextual uses take various forms, apply on different levels, have different aims, and involve different types of player. In his view, All of these many contextual applications are legitimate and meaningful but, just as the Framework itself offers a range of (as it were) built-in options, so some of the contextual applications exploit it more fully, while others extend or transcend it. There may be tensions, and even contradictions, between these various levels of use. Cole suggests that solving the emerging problems, we may need to adopt a position outside and above the Framework, and focus on the fundamental values of democratic citizenship, social cohesion, and intercultural understanding and co-operation not as a platform for bandying facile slogans and mouthing pious platitudes, but as an inspiration and point of reference for practical action in specific contexts (p.60). In line with many other countries around the world, Common European Framework of Reference was soon adopted by Turkey. Thus, the curriculum designed for teaching English is based on this framework (Demirel, 2007). This study aims to draw a picture of how the framework is evaluated by the ELT students, and their views on the probable consequences of CEFR within the Turkish context. Research questions 1. What do the student-teachers in the ELT Department think about Common European Framework of Reference in general? 2. How would they comment on the efficacy of the framework? 3. In their opinion, can the framework be feasibly followed in Turkey? 4. What, in their opinion, are the probable positive and negative features the framework brings to the foreign language education in the Turkish context? The study This study, investigates the student-teachers opinions on the efficacy, feasibility and relevance to reality of CEFR in the Turkish ELT context. The study bears similar features with Little s, (2005a) study through which he explored the content, purpose, origin, reception and impact of CEFR and Little, (2005 b) which involves learners and their judgements in the assessment process. Data for the study were obtained by means of three instruments; the 9

field notes of weekly discussion meetings, reflective essays participants wrote on CEFR and follow-up interviews for triangulation purposes. Totally 59 student-teachers participated in the study. They, at the time of the study, were studying CEFR in their fourth semester in the English Language Teaching department. Findings and Discussion This study aimed to set out to find answers to three questions about CEFR. The issues under investigation were the efficacy, feasibility and relevance of the framework to the Turkish context. To achieve this aim, qualitative data were collected by means of field notes of weekly discussion meetings, reflective essays on CEFR student-teachers wrote and follow-up interviews held at the end of the study. In this section, the findings obtained through field notes and essays are displayed in tables and interview findings are used as excerpts to give depth to the study. In the content analysis of the data collected, totally 541citations which went under five categories emerged in regard to the efficacy of CEFR. These are displayed in below. Table 1. Areas of Efficacy of CEFR n Efficacy of CEFR F 1 Student language skills 191 2 Teaching /Method 105 3 Assessment 97 4 Cultural interaction 76 5 Standardisation 72 Total 541 As seen in the table above, the most frequently cited efficacy of CEFR was related to the contribution of the framework to the students language skills (191 citations). According to the beliefs student-teachers hold, CEFR can satisfy the needs of Turkish learners of English who come from a more traditional educational background where grammar teaching is valued rather than teaching of four skills. In such a case, CEFR, which brings a new perspective to language teaching, can be said to lead to more successful learning outcomes in that, students may finally become able speakers as opposed to the past. The participants find the framework bearing an up-to date approach and as they emphasise, the descriptors such as Asks and answers questions about personal details e.g. where he lives, people he knows, things he has (A1) or Can give descriptions of events and give opinions (B1) are parallel to what students are exposed to in their real-life situations. Thus, 10

students will find the classroom activities logical. The following excerpt may elaborate. Excerpt: Instead of memorising grammar structures, as was the case in our contexts as language learners, students will be involved in meaningful and more enjoyable activities which will ease language learning. The participants discuss that realising that the language learners are functioning in the target language in situations similar to the ones they experience every day, they may start internalising English and their motivation may increase. In addition, according to the student-teachers opinions, students may develop a more positive attitude toward language classes. The reason why they think so was elaborated in the interviews. Excerpt: CEF also adds to students self-study and survival strategies. For example, in one of the CEF descriptors, we see that students are taught to point at objects the names of which they do not know. Thus, students keep talking fluently although they do not know the word. When we were language learners, no one taught us something like that. If I were a learning English now, I would be more enthusiastic than I was before. The participants believe that these innovations may bring about changes in students way of looking at teaching- learning issues and develop in them a desire to learn more and on their own which may contribute to their lifelong learning as well. In addition, the participants note the influence of CEFR on the way it changes the teaching or methodology in the language classes (105 citations). In this respect, student-teachers find CEFR as a revolution. The reason why they view the framework as such is, as revealed during the interviews, because it may bring a totally new approach to teaching languages as compared to the previous one in Turkey. Teachers who have long been benefitting from traditional teaching methods such as grammar based teaching can be considered as rather out-of-date or oldfashioned in Turkey (similarly discussed in Koc, Isıksal and Bulut (2007). However, with the changing world and globalisation, the need for communication and interaction between countries and cultures has become undeniably irresistible. With the CEFR based curriculum, both governmental and non-governmental institutions will have a guide in their hands and teachers working at all contexts seem to be having to make adaptations in the way they teach. They, inevitably, will need to teach more communicatively instead of focusing on structures. Thus, the CEFR the student-teachers believe that the classes will turn from teachercentred into learner-centred ones. The role of both parties will gain new definitions; learners will have a more active role in the classroom instead of passive recipients of knowledge. Teachers, on the other hand, will take the role of guides, facilitators, cooperators instead of authorities and the only decision-makers. Grammar and skill teaching will go hand in hand and none will bear the superiority as in real-life use. The participants view CEFR also as an assessment tool which harmonises with the European Union standards (97 citations). According to their opinion, as opposed to the previous understanding of the issue, the concept of assessment will shift from a 11

product-based approach to a process-based one. Thus, they expect to see the positive effects of CEFR on the way students are assessed. One of the most important aspects CEFR brings to assessment is that the students will be in a situation that they will be making evaluations of their own learning, and as the levels are clearly defined in the framework they will have the chance to learn how to plan their forthcoming learning goals and activities. These will also add to students cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies by the strategy training embedded in the activities. Therefore, they will take the responsibility of their own learning and become more autonomous learners. In this age we have been living, life-long learning seems to gain more emphasis. Consequently, the student-teachers find this feature of the framework as very contributing to students development as persons as well. Cultural interaction (76 citations) is another theme that emerged in the analyses of the data gathered through discussion meetings and reflections. When we consider the geo-political situation of Turkey, as a bridge between Europe and Asia, cultural interaction with the neighbouring countries is inevitable. No matter what profession the language learners will be or have been involved in, it is a fact that they will need to communicate with members of cultures if they want to develop either themselves or their careers. As the student-teachers state, there is an increasing need for interaction among cultures of both the east and west. English as a lingua franca (Wardhaugh, 1986) will help to realise this, and CEFR based syllabi will ease to achieve this aim. To go in detail, in the participants point of view, the framework is efficient in that it provides the learners with adequate opportunities to grasp an understanding of the meaning and use of structures as opposed to the Turkish system by which learners concentrate on form only. Pragmatic competences as discourse and functional competences go hand in hand with sociolinguistic and linguistic competences in CEFR, which may well turn out to guide learners for effective communication (ESOL Examinations, 2011). The participants additionally favoured the standardisation of various learning/teaching matters via CEFR (72 citations). As they put it, the curricula, methods and approaches to teaching, the content of course books, materials, assessment system can be standardised by the framework. With such a development, anyone learning English in Turkey may easily go on his/her education in other countries without interruptions if needed. In addition, in any country, according to the participants view, learners of English may prove that their levels clearly by means of this standardisation. To sum up, owing to all these findings above we can say that the participants find CEFR highly efficient regarding various aspects ranging from its contribution to positive change in the language teaching system, to curricula, course books, materials, teacher student roles, its communicative approach, among others. Although the participants of this study find CEFR highly efficient by various means, when it comes to the feasibility, we do not come up with optimistic comments (476 citations). The analysis reveals four main themes why student-teachers do not think that CEFR can feasibly be used in the Turkish context. These are, in the order of 12

frequency of citations, to do with teachers, Ministry of National Education (MoNE), students and the economical inequalities in the country as displayed in the table and discussed below. Table 2. Feasibility of CEFR n Feasibility 1 Teachers 191 2 Ministry of National Education 157 3 Students 66 4 Economical inequalities 62 Total 476 Of totally 476 citations about the feasibility of the framework in the Turkish context, 191 are related to the teachers. Student-teachers do not find the adaptation and feasible use of CEFR very realistic mainly due to the teacher qualities in Turkey. Coming from and working in a rather traditional educational system, teachers may not be adequately aware of the new criteria the framework brings to language teaching. This thought appears to have derived from the student-teachers experiences and beliefs as former language learners because they observed that teachers have long been using methods handed down by more experienced teachers at their schools and these teachers take them as role models. Thus, without worrying about how to teach, they have guides tested and proved by at least some. According to the student-teachers, teachers who developed themselves by such a manner may not adapt themselves to the more innovative approach CEFR brings. This finding echoes in Westhoff s (2007) criticism toward CEFR. As he writes, one explanation might be that supporting foreign language (FL) proficiency development through the stages described in the CEFR requires a shift in pedagogic routines for those practitioners who are used to teaching in traditional ways, especially in the role they conceive for grammar in the language classroom. The authors of the CEFR were not very explicit about its implications for classroom teaching. Thus, although the CEFR descriptors tell us a lot about what learners at a certain level can do, very little is stated about what they should know in order to carry out these language tasks. In particular, the question of whether a certain level requires mastery of specific grammar items is left open. Grammatical competence is seen as clearly central to communicative competence (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 151), however, it is discussed only in general terms (p. 676). 13

On the other hand, teachers are given a more central role in Turkey; they direct the classroom happenings. In such a context, grammar teaching is valued rather than teaching of four skills. In addition, teachers seem to favour product oriented assessment as sit down or oral exams instead of process based assessment techniques such as observation, portfolio and the like which the framework suggests. Considering the class-sizes in Turkey, teachers may find it highly challenging to conduct communicative lessons. On the other hand, teachers may rightfully find it hard to cover the sections of units only in four class hours. While trying to catch up with the curriculum requirements, teachers may partially have lost some of their communicative competence which may make the framework hard to apply. Similarly, the student-teachers see the practices of MoNE as another obstacle for the effective use of the framework (157 citations). For example, the changes realised in the course books, curriculum, materials, activities are viewed inadequate because, in the participants opinion, these are documented but cannot be turned into practice. The reason why the student-teachers hold such a belief is that in spite of the socalled changes, the remaining application is the English Level Determination Exam (ELDE) at primary and tertiary level (MEB, 2007). As revealed during the interviews, the student-teachers think that the back wash effect of this exam creates a dilemma which makes it impossible to follow the framework (Ilin & Yildirim, 2007; Ilin & Yildirim, 2012). In addition, the nature of the exam is totally irrelevant to the characteristics of children at this age group (Halliwell, 1992; Cameron, 2001). Along with these discussions, literature accommodates other studies that dwell deeper in this issue from other perspectives which have not yet been discussed in our country. For example, Hasselgreen (2005) poses questions as to how far the special needs of young language learners are being catered for by assessment practices in European schools by means of CEFR. When we go into more detail, it appears that the adaptations we need to realise in the Turkish context would even be more challenging than thought. In fact, when we look at the nature of the ELDE, we encounter a multiple choice test prepared with the intention to assess mainly students grammar reading and vocabulary knowledge, which is not compatible with CEFR. The teachers who value the approach of the framework may have students who can effectively communicate in the target language but most probably fail in the ELDE or vice versa. North (n.d.) complains about a similar situation. In his criticism, he finds it surprising that any secondary school language teachers should still give grades by counting mistakes, like in the 1950 s. In his opinion, it is equally astonishing to claim to test language ability without assessing speaking. He alleges that the main effect of the CEFR on school systems so far notably in Germany has been to finally win the argument that oral assessment is necessary and should be based on criteria for qualitative aspects of language use (e.g. complexity, accuracy, fluency, interaction and discourse coherence, as in CEFR Table 3). On the other side of the mirror, we see the language learners (66 citations). The participants think that the learners, influenced by the curricula, teachers 14

methodology, course books and materials used, limited class hours, assessment techniques and consequently ending with the habit of studying for multiple choice exams do not seem to be capable enough to take the responsibility of their own learning. Innovations brought by the CEFR as self-assessment, real-life like activities, taking the language out of the classroom and the like may not make sense to them and they need time and effort to get an understanding of what is in fact expected from them. All in all, the student-teachers believe that learners need to go through a change which requires time and effort from all parties. Finally, the participants see the economical inequalities among regions, cities and even schools as a barrier for feasible application of CEFR (62). The following may throw more light to their views: Excerpt: Not all schools around the country have the same standards. The quality of education at schools in the west part of the country cannot be said to be equal with the ones located in the east. As a matter of fact, the participants concern may be true for even in more developed regions that it is highly probable to find schools depriving of teachers, necessary teaching equipment, technology, heating systems or even running water. When we refer to Maslow s (1943) pyramid of hierarchy of needs, we may clearly see why CEFR may not make any sense to teachers and students trying to achieve things under such circumstances. On the other hand, the difference between public and private schools is another facet of discussion. Facilities of these schools in some cases may be said to be coming from two separate worlds. Furthermore, the student population teachers face varies from school to school. Some more fortunate students may be supporting their education by means of private lessons or language courses; some may have more educated or more interested parents among other countless variables. Thus, teachers, no matter how devoted they are, may find it hard to conduct lessons following the guidelines of the framework. As the findings reveal, the participants do not think that CEFR can feasibly be used in the Turkish context. In fact, the following principles of Council of Europe that constituted the base for the utilisation of CEFR may somehow reveal the irrelevance of the framework with the Turkish context; Language learning is for all: opportunities for developing their pluralingual repertoire is a necessity for all citizens in contemporary Europe, Language learning is for the learner: it should be based on worthwhile, realistic objectives reflecting needs, interests, motivation, and abilities, Language learning is for intercultural communication: it is crucial for ensuring successful interaction across linguistic and cultural boundaries and developing openness to the plural-lingual repertoire of others. Language learning is for life: it should develop learner responsibility and the independence necessary to respond to the challenges of lifelong language learning. 15

Language teaching is co-ordinated: it should be planned as a whole, covering the specification of objectives, the use of teaching/learning. (p.2) The final inquiry of this study was how the student-teachers regarded the probable positive or negative aspects CEFR brought to the foreign language teaching context. Their views are shown in the table below. Table 3. Summary of reactions to CEFR n Positive Negative 1 Brings variety 31 May lead to chaos 2 Fosters communication 3 Opens a way for lifelong learning 4 Leads to cooperation of all parties involved 5 Focuses on student characteristics 6 Enhances ways of assessment Eases language learning 25 Is not relevant to Turkish standards 25 Brings economic burdens 24 7 Integrates skills 13 8 Guides 13 Total 189 62 21 20 17 26 23 13 At the end of the analysis, totally 189 positive, and 62 negative opinions toward the framework emerged. In terms of positive criticism toward CEFR, the participants believe that the framework brings variety to the classroom (31 citations), fosters communication (25 citations), opens a way for life-long learning (25 citations), and leads to cooperation between teacher and students and among students themselves (24 citations). They think that CEFR designed in a way that learner characteristics are considered, which is good (21 citations). It also enhances ways of assessment (20 citations) and maybe with the combination of all these aspects, it eases language 16

learning (17 citations). Finally, they say that CEFR is good regarding its nature by which various skills are presented in an integrated manner (13 citations) and guides both teachers and learners alike (13 citations). In addition to positive remarks, the student-teachers also negatively criticised the framework. To illustrate, student-teachers state that CEFR may lead to a chaos (26 citations) because it seems to bring fundamental changes to the system which may not be easily adopted by all parties involved and are not relevant to conventional Turkish standards (23 citations). The framework also brings economic burdens (13 citations). Conclusion In this study, the views of student-teachers studying CEFR in the ELT department of a Turkish university were explored from three perspectives. First, the participants opinions on CEFR in general were elicited. Secondly, they were asked to comment on the efficacy and feasibility of the framework in the Turkish context. Finally, the probable positive and negative features the framework brings to the foreign language instruction were questioned. The results obtained at the end of the analysis reveal that the student-teachers find CEFR effective in terms of its contribution to learners language skills as it promotes communication and integration of all four skills, which they regard as a positive change in the philosophy of language teaching. With CEFR, teaching methods used needs a shift from more traditional to innovative approaches placing the language learners in the centre of the classroom. Parallel to these modifications, means of assessment may vary and become more relevant to the learners characteristics at different levels. The framework, according to the student-teachers, can appropriately serve to satisfy the learner needs in our globalised world, with its emphasis on cultural interaction. Finally, CEFR is a successful means for bringing standards to the field of language learning. In spite of the efficacy of the framework, it does not seem to be proved itself in the participants viewpoint when it comes to its feasibility in the Turkish context. Among the inhibiting factors, teachers who utilise more traditional practices appear to hold the primary responsibility. MoNE which needs to go through its decisions carefully and synchronise its objectives and practices, should take steps to train more self-reliant language learners, and eliminate the economical inequalities which play their parts in preventing the feasible use of CEFR in Turkey. In addition, student-teachers expect MoNE to prepare in-service teacher education programmes by which teachers can refresh their knowledge, be informed about the latest developments in the field, and have the chance to exchange and discuss ideas with colleagues as well as trainers. This type of activities may eventually contribute to the teachers better understanding and clearer conceptualisation of CEFR. MoNE should also create better conditions for teachers, with new schools and newly appointed teachers, the classes should be made less crowded and equally technological, and teachers should somehow be motivated probably with better wages, rewards, or international teacher exchange programmes, which in turn may 17

end up with teachers who can resist teacher burn-out. To conclude, from the student-teachers point of view, MoNE needs to make more investments on education. The final inquiry of the study, the pros and cons of CEFR, we encounter more positive remarks as compared to negative ones. The factors that were criticised were mainly concerning with the irrelevance of the framework to the Turkish context rather than the framework itself. As Figueras (2007) points out, there is an obvious need to take time to do things correctly, with much common sense and a willingness to undertake this hard work. learning, teaching, and assessment has attracted renewed attention, and those professionals in charge of tackling the task of linking curricula and assessments to the CEFR are increasingly empowered to do so in an empirical manner suiting the educational context in question. The challenge now is to see how far the ministries of education in the different member states, on the one hand, and the European Union directives on actions such as the European Language Indicator, on the other hand, can be accommodated on this long-term horizon (p.675). References Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coste, D. (2007). Contextualising uses of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Paper presented at Council of Europe Policy Forum on use of the CEFR, Strasbourg 2007. Retrieved 1 April, 2013, from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/sourceforum07/dcoste_ Contextualise_EN.doc Demirel, Ö (2007). Yabancı Dil Öğretimi. Pagem A Yayıncılık. Esol Examinations (2011). Retrieved from http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/ March 2013 Figueras, N. (2007). The CEFR, a Lever for the Improvement of Language Professionalsin Europe. The Modern Language Journal, Volume 91, issue 4, pp.673-675, Halliwell, S. (1992). Teaching English in the Primary Classroom. London: Longman Hasselgreen, A. (2005). Assessing the language of young learners. Language Testing 2005 22 (3) 337 354 10.1191/0265532205lt312oa 2005 Edward Arnold Ltd. Ilin, G. & Yildirim, R. (2007). Level Determination Exam: Contribution or Hindrance to Learning English? Paper presented at IATEFL (TEA) Special Interest Group Conference 17-18 Oct. 2008, Dublin, Ireland. Ilin & Yildirim (2012). Are we really assessing our learners or just pretending? Paper presented at IATEFL teasig Conference, 12-13 October Czech Republic, Prague 18

Jones, N. & Saville, N. (2009). European language policy: assessment, learning, and the CEFR. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 29, 51 63. USA: CUP. Koç, Y., Isşıksal, M & S.Bulut (2007). Elementary school curriculum reform in Turkey. International Education Journal, 2007, 8(1), 30-39. ISSN 1443-1475 2007 Shannon Research Press.http://iej.com.au Little, D. (2005a). The common European framework and the European Portfolio: involving learners and their judgements in the assessment process. Retrieved from ltj.sagepub.com at Cukurova Universitesi on January 28, 2013 Little, D. (2005b). The common European Framework of Reference for Languages: content, purpose, origin, reception and impact Language Teaching, Volume 39, Issue 03/July 2006 pp.167-190 Little, D., (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the Making of Supranational Language Education Policy. The Modern Language Journal, Volume 91, issue 4,pp. 645-655 MEB. (2007). Ortaöğretim kurumları öğrenci seçme ve yerleştirme sınavı kılavuzu.ankara: Eğitim Teknolojileri Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50(4) 370-96 Morrow, K., (2004). (ed). Insights from the common European Framework, NY Oxford University Press. North, B. (n.d.) The Relevance of the CEFR toteacher Training. 57 Babylonia 2/08 www.babylonia.ch Waldemar, M. (2005). Multilingualism and Assessment: Achieving Transparency, AssuringQuality, Sustaining Diversity - Proceedings of the ALTE Berlin Conference, May 2005 Wardhaugh, R. (1986). How conversation works. Oxford: Blackwell Westhoff, G. (2007). Challenges and Opportunities of the CEFR for Reimagining Foreign Language Pedagogy The Modern Language Journal, Volume 91, issue 4 pp. 676-679 The Common European Framework. Retrieved from www.uk.cambridge.org/elt feb.2013 (n.a.) (2011). Using the CEFR: Principles of good Practice. University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations 19