The CEFRL and the Labour Market Options for Transferability

The CEFRL and the Labour Market Options for Transferability

Table of contents Introduction p. 1 1. Objectives and methodology p. 2 2. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and p. 4 its educational context 3 The implementation of the CEFRL in the scientific community and p. 6 VET systems: evidence from case studies in the partner regions 3.1. Role of the CEFRL in the organisation and provision of p. 7 language training 3.2. Use of the CEFRL in usersʼ selection p. 8 3.3. Language certification and the labour market p. 11 4. The role of language learning in the labour market p. 14 4.1. Main characteristics of the stakeholders involved p. 14 4.1. Language skills needs and relevant tasks p. 17 4.2. Language skills assessment methods p. 19 5. The CEFRL and the labour market: options for transferability p. 27 5.1. Perceived usability of the CEFRL as a tool to assess language skills p. 27 5.2. Options for transferability p. 39 Conclusions p. 42 Annex 1 Annex 1 Annex 2 Questionnaire on language skills needs and the use of the CEFRL in recruitment and human resources management The implementation of the CEFRL in the scientific community and VET systems. Profile of the responding organisations. The role of language learning in the labour market. Profile of the responding organisations. p. 43 p. 47 p. 50 2

Introduction The main objective of the LILAMA project is to set up a European network elaborating, exchanging and sharing views and best practices of linguistic policies aimed at the labour market. This objective presents two challenges: 1) to transform language skills into a concretely measurable asset to improve competitiveness of workers, thus favouring access, positioning and permanence in the global labour market 2) to embed the existing CEFRL (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) structure into linguistic policies aimed at the labour market, trying to transfer and/or adapt the CEFRL to the labour market context. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages was the starting point for our reflection on linguistic policies aimed at the labour market, which follows a preliminary scouting phase during which best practices of linguistic policies from various countries in and outside Europe were identified, analysed, assessed, and collected. 1 This report presents the views on the CEFRL, its usage and its transferability potential with regard to the labour market (in recruitment and skill assessment). The information was collected in 4 of the 5 countries involved in the LILAMA project: France, Italy, Spain, and Sweden. As regards the United Kingdom, LILAMAʼs fifth partner country, reference can be made to a number of existing studies on this theme. 2 The details of the responding organizations have been kept confidential. Profiles are available in Annexes 2 and 3. 1 Language and Training Policy: Best Practices for Employability and Competitiveness - A European perspective. 2 Decipher Survey Methodology & Analysis - East of England, March 2010. Passport to Export, http://www.ukti.gov.uk/export/howwehelp/passporttoexport.html. Gateway to Global Growth, http://www.ukti.gov.uk/export/howwehelp/gatewaytoglobalgrowth.html. Export Communications Review, http://www.ukti.gov.uk/export/howwehelp/exportcommunicationsreview.html. 1

1. Objectives and methodology This report comes under WP3 Policy research and recommendations of the LILAMA project, that is one of the project s three main axes - the other two being the Observatory of Good Practices in linguistic policy and language training and the Dissemination of the LILAMA Network and best practices in both policy- making and language training on a European level. The research and recommendations on language policy have the general objective of improving the potential of European linguistic policy through the design of a model that takes into account the following: 1. the lessons learned from the Good Practices identified and analysed in the course of the project (WP2); 2. the stakeholders views and perceptions on the usability and transferability of the Common European framework of Reference for Languages, collected through the analysis of a number of case studies concerning the implementation of the CEFRL in the scientific community and in the VET system and through the findings of a survey on language skills needs expressed by businesses in the partner regions and the use of the CEFRL as a supporting tool in language skill assessment and evaluation for access to employment and/or career development; This report presents the main results of the qualitative analysis of the transferability of the CEFRL into a linguistic policy oriented to the labour market collected through the abovementioned surveys and case studies carried out in the partner countries (14 case studies and 50 questionnaires). The research on experiences in the partner regions concerning the implementation of the CEFRL in the scientific community and in the VET systems means to verify the actual usage of this tool in the partner countries. The specific objective is to draw an outline of the perception of the CEFRL as a tool to support and assess language learning within traditional target groups such as schools, universities and VET providers. This research is the starting point for the following studies on the transferability of the CEFRL into a business context. The starting assumption is that focus on VET could provide information that are more likely to create a bridge to the business field - though it cannot be excluded that other target groups can provide useful hints. To perform this part of the research each partner identified significant cases in their countries where the CEFRL is commonly used in language learning contexts (courses, examinations, training materials, etc). The research involved the following actors: VET providers Language schools Universities Grammar schools 2

The research was carried out through primary information sources (interviews with representatives of the identified target groups to analyze the existing experiences in the implementation of the CEFRL and the relevant products/tools produced if any). The interviews aimed at identifying both successful experiences in implementing the CEFRL and possible critical positions concerning the CEFRL itself, as well as any suggestions for improvement of its usability in a business context. The survey on language skills shortage and relevant job profiles and of the investigation on the use of the CEFRL related to labour market aims at obtaining a picture of the language skills needs expressed by employers in the partner countries and understanding whether and to what extent the CEFRL is known and used in the business community as a tool to support HR management and career development. The specific objective of the survey is to draw an outline of the needs for language skills in nowadays labour market, of the actual diffusion of the CEFRL in the labour market, and of its potential. To perform this survey each partner administered a questionnaire to representatives of businesses in various economic sectors - according to the peculiarities of the territories involved in the survey - employers associations, employment centres, recruiting agencies, and temporary work agencies. The findings of the case studies and of the survey are reported here as a qualitative outline of the perception of representatives of the labour market towards the transferability of the CEFRL, that is to say towards its adoption as a tool to assess language skills in work environments. 3

2. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: its context and potential The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFRL) is a guideline designed to describe the achievements of language learners all over Europe though it can be applied also to other countries. It was developed by the Council of Europe as the main part of the project "Language Learning for European Citizenship" between 1989 and 1996. Below is the presentation of the CEFRL displayed in the website of the Council of Europe: 3 Developed through a process of scientific research and wide consultation, this document provides a practical tool for setting clear standards to be attained at successive stages of learning and for evaluating outcomes in an internationally comparable manner ( ) The CEFRL also provides a basis for the mutual recognition of language qualifications, thus facilitating educational and occupational mobility. It is increasingly used in the reform of national curricula and by international consortia for the comparison of language certificates ( ) The CEFRL is a document that describes in a comprehensive manner i) the competences necessary for communication, ii) the related knowledge and skills and iii) the situations and domains of communication. It defines levels of attainment in different aspects of its descriptive scheme with illustrative descriptors scales (...). The CEFRL is of particular interest to course designers, textbook writers, testers, teachers and teacher trainers - in fact to all who are directly involved in language teaching and testing. It facilitates a clear definition of teaching and learning objectives and methods and provides the necessary tools for assessment of proficiency. The CEFRL has become a key reference document and valuable tool for educational and professional mobility. The CEFRL defines skills in reading, writing, listening and speaking in any language. The Framework is broken down into six levels falling into three main groups as below: A B C Basic User Independent User Proficient User A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 Breakthrough or Beginner Waystage or Elementary Threshold or Pre-Intermediate Vantage or Intermediate Effective Operational Proficiency Mastery 3 http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre_en.asp 4

Language skills are evaluated separately as follows: Understanding (listening - reading) Speaking (spoken interaction spoken production) Writing (written production). The CEFRL is used in the school, university and training contexts and has a high potential for supporting educational and professional mobility, as is stated in the Council of Europeʼs presentation. Nevertheless, it seems to be actually well-known and used only in the educational context thus meeting the educational mobility need whereas it is scarcely known and even less used in the business context in spite of its structure and its actionoriented approach (as can be seen from the findings of the research). Hence the necessity to identify modalities that make the CEFRL tool successfully transferable into a business context one of the objectives of the LILAMA network. 5

3. The implementation of the CEFRL in the scientific community and VET systems: evidence from case studies in the partner regions The research on experiences in the partner regions concerning the implementation of the CEFRL in the scientific community and in the VET systems means to verify the actual usage of this tool in the partner countries. The specific objective is to draw an outline of the perception of the CEFRL as a tool to support and assess language learning within traditional target groups such as schools, universities and VET providers. This research is the starting point for the following survey on the transferability of the CEFRL into a business context. The starting assumption is that focus on how the CEFRL is currently implemented in the scientific community and VET systems could provide information that are more likely to create a bridge to the business field - though it cannot be excluded that other target groups can provide useful hints. To perform this part of the research 14 significant cases where identified in France, Italy, and Spain 4 where the CEFRL is commonly used in language learning contexts (courses, examinations, training materials, etc). The research involved the following actors: 2 VET providers (Italy) 4 language schools (Italy, Spain) 7 universities / research centres (Italy, Spain, France) 1 high school specializing in accountancy and international trade (Italy) The research was carried out through primary information sources (in-depth interviews with representatives of the identified target groups to analyze the existing experiences in the implementation of the CEFRL). The interviews aimed at identifying both successful experiences in implementing the CEFRL and possible critical positions concerning the CEFRL itself, as well as any suggestions for improvement of its usability in a business context. The interview was based on three main topics: Description of how the provision of language training is organised (main activities of the organisation, target groups, modalities adopted to provide language training etc.) with special focus on the role of the CEFRL in the design and provision of language training. Description of the usersʼ selection approach adopted by each organization (prerequisites, entry levels and associated tests) with special focus on the use of the 4 Sweden was not included in this part of the research since in that country, according to the results of the survey carried out by the Swedish partner VUX on the identified target groups, the CEFRL is not used at all. The reasons for this were shortly described as follows: Sweden is a meritocracy and does not accept any training that is not formal training whereby the learner receives a formal certificate. All adult education in Sweden is based on formal school-leaving certificates, even for adults. CEFRL is not used at all as a means of establishing levels, instead we carry out tests to identify levels and then send learners on to the next level. The only other means of being accepted is that learners have sent their certificates to the validation centre who then validates them and transposes them to equivalent Swedish levels. 6

CEFRL levels and descriptors and on the recognition of previously attained language certifications. Opinions and experiences on the importance of language certification with respect to the needs and expectations of the labour market. 3.1. Role of the CEFRL in the organisation and provision of language training The first section of the interview aimed at investigating on how the provision of language training is organised in terms of main activities, target groups, modalities adopted to provide training, etc. Most of the organisations analysed provide language training in several forms besides traditional classroom training: small group training, online training, distance training, blended training, cultural immersion, intensive courses. Two of the universities involved include one or two mandatory years of study abroad in the programme for students of Languages. Though most of the organisations state they base their language training on the CEFRL, it appears that the CEFRL actually applies mainly to language skills assessment and entry/exit tests but not to training content design. Among the language schools analysed, only one underlines that the CEFRL is also used as a reference for training content design, while others mainly those targeting business users design their training contents on the usersʼ specific needs (classes being composed of homogeneous groups of staff belonging to the same sectors and/or to the same company) and use the CEFRL levels only for evaluation purposes. It is interesting to notice that one of the language schools analysed applies the CEFRL to language tests carried out on behalf of employers as a part of the recruiting process. This remark is worthy of note if compared with the results of the survey on the use of the CEFRL in language skill assessment by recruiters and HR managers, 5 where none of the respondents declares to outsource applicantsʼ language skills assessment to language specialists. Only the two VET providers involved in the research do not use the CEFRL as a reference. One of them makes no mention of the CEFRL as a reference at all, while the other explains that though the CEFRL ideally applies to informal assessment tests it is not used as a reference in training content design since the centre is not a certificate body, therefore it is not obliged to stick to mandatory standards. 6 Such statements raise a first issue that is worth reflecting upon: in some cases CEFRL and language certification are considered to be all in one and the CEFRL is not thought of as a tool that could be used for other purposes than language certification (e.g., in recruitment and in business training), meaning that its transfer potential is not fully appreciated. In this respect one possible suggestion for designing a European model of linguistic policy could 5 See section 4.3. below. 6 Nevertheless, they specify that they have been appointed to provide mandatory training that is a part of the National Education programme, within that particular framework they consider the CEFRL as a reference for exit levels. 7

be to fully explore the transfer potential of the CEFRL, i.e. its enhancement and adaptation in a business context, with the support of language, business, HR management, and training experts and produce a transfer and adaptation plan. It is however important to underline that the two VET centres analysed do not specialise in language training but provide short language courses (mainly in general English) as smalls parts of wider training programmes; hence the scarce interest and commitment to the CEFRL, which is erroneously seen as a specialist tool for focussed language training. 3.2. Use of the CEFRL in users selection This section investigates on the users selection approach adopted by the responding organizations and on how it is influenced and/or informed by reference to the CEFRL. The respondents were asked to provide information on prerequisites if any - required of the users to access language training and on the administration of assessment tests and entry tests focussing on reference to the CEFRL as regards the design of the tests and the assessment/self-assessment criteria. Whereas formal prerequisites in terms of language skills are not commonly required for access to training 7 a language test in the form of a placement test or entry test 8 either formal or informal - is administered to users by most of the responding organizations as a first step of their language learning path. Only two of the responding organizations state they do not administer any kind of entry test to the users, whereas all the others except for one who does not mention this issue at all - assess the users language skills through several kinds of tests. In 3 cases (one language school and two university institutes) language tests are administered irrespective of the candidates possession of a language certificate. Below are the descriptions of how language skills assessment is performed, collected from the respondents: A placement test [is administered] to set up homogeneous class groups and informal language tests in the form of one-to-one interviews with the teacher/examiner. (VET provider, Italy) An informal language test [is administered]. (VET provider, Italy) A language test designed by the teachers [is administered] together with a needs analysis interview. Certifications are considered to be helpful in determining the students level, but focus is on the relationship between the student and the language after certification is acquired, and for this reason 7 This is true for VET providers and language schools as well as for the only high school involved in the research. All of the university institutes involved both the public and the private ones simply require graduation from a secondary school. One of the latter a private Italian university institute offering courses in Multilingual Mediation, Translation and Interpretation, and International Relations - ranks candidates according to their performance in Italian, History, English, and in a second language during the third, fourth, and fifth year at high school. 8 Both terms were used by the respondents. 8

tests are administered also to users possessing a certificate. (Language school, Spain) Just a written language test [is administered]. Users possessing official certificates are directly admitted to language courses with no further tests. (Language school, Spain) A CEFRL-based entry test [is administered] to position learners in the relevant CEFRL entry level, plus a needs analysis interview. The entry test includes a written test (on paper), an online test to assess passive language skills, and an oral test to assess speaking and conversation skills. Entry tests are administered to all users irrespective of their statements concerning language certification or self-assessment of language skills. (Language school, Italy) Assessment is carried out through the CEFRL, which is distributed in an amphitheatre. Students tick where they think they are at in each of the five competences. This assessment method has proved to be very much costeffective and satisfactory ( ) Students from non-francophone countries are required to take a proficiency test in French managed by the Education Ministry: the TCF. Apart from this case, external language certifications are not mandatory. No further tests are performed to test the users entry level. However for admission to certain postgraduate degree courses oral language examinations are carried out for all applicants. (University, France) Language skills are pre-tested through an in-house pre-test that is not based on the CEFRL. Entry level varies from B1 to B2. Language certification is not taken into account at entry level. Language tests are administered at the beginning and at the end of the university year to have an idea of the students level, but they are not CEFRL-based. (University, France) Language skills are assessed through the e-elp (electronic European Language Portfolio). As regards the English and Spanish language, Cambridge ESOL and Instituto Cervantes DELE tests are also used. (University, France) A written language test is administered together with a survey on experience in learning the language. Tests in German, Chinese, Basque, Spanish, and French are designed by the teachers, whereas for English the Cambridge tests are used, plus a composition and a survey regarding language knowledge. (University, Spain) Tests in both Italian and foreign language skills are administered to all users to verify the possession of a B1 level (minimum level for admission to the course). The tests designed on the basis of the guidelines set by international certifications (listening comprehension, reading comprehension, use of language, composition, interview). Possession of language certification does not exempt candidates from taking the entry test. In case of insufficient results in the entry test, candidates are advised to attend a one and a half 9

month s language course [provided by the university institute itself] to reach the expected entry level. (University, Italy) Candidates who are not native Italian speakers must possess an officially recognized C2 certification in Italian: otherwise they must take a written and oral language test. (University, Italy) As can be seen, possession of a language certificate is not always considered in the entry phase of a training course. On the other hand, further remarks on certification regarded its validity period. These remarks, raised by two of the university institutes involved in the study, are connected to the need to maintain one s language skills, which fade if not continuously practiced and updated, and to check them periodically. While one of the respondents hopes for the establishment of an expiry date for language certification, the other already accepts certifications only if they have been obtained no more than two years earlier. With regard to the connection of language training to the needs of the labour market, a frequent issue reported by one of the respondents an Italian language school - concerns a tendency of HR managers to underrate the importance of entry levels in language training and to ask for undifferentiated training for learners having different language skill levels, whereas assessment of entry level is crucial to guarantee satisfactory results of training. A reason for this could be that seldom HR managers and training managers are also experts in the field of learning: they often do not possess theoretical knowledge of how learning processes work, how learning styles can be different, and how learning and training - performances can be affected by a heterogeneous group of learners having different language skills level. On the other hand, it is quite common for businesses mainly for smaller ones to consider training as a mere business cost instead of an investment. Staff training thus becomes one more item whose cost must be limited or reduced; the ROI of language training is often scarcely considered by businesses when deciding to involve their staff in a training course. This rather shortsighted approach should be taken into account in designing adequate linguistic policies addresses to the business world that should include strong actions aimed at raising awareness of the ROI of language training over the medium term. As regards language certification, 3 respondents state that they accept it as a credit to substitute totally or partially - for one or more language exams. If a candidate possesses a language certificate certifying skills according to the CEFRL levels (B1 or B2) and approved of by the Ministry of Education and University, this may be recognised as a credit for admission to the second year or partially recognised for the first year examination. (University, Italy) Language certificates are accepted as credits provided they comply with the CEFRL levels. Not CEFRL-based certificates are not accepted. Students are also encouraged to acquire language certifications during the course of their studies. (University, Italy) 10

( ) the Centre accepts formal external language certificates acquired by the users: the certifications accepted are those by Cambridge UCLES, Trinity College, London ISE, Alliance Française, according to a correspondence chart. 9 No further tests are carried out to verify the users level if the certificate is issued by one of the abovementioned boards. (University, Italy). 3.3. Language certification and the labour market The third and last section of the interview aimed at collecting the respondents opinions and experiences on the importance of language certification with respect to the needs and expectations of the labour market. 10 Some of the university institutes involved showed to interpret the notion of employment and employer only as connected to work within the university or the school system, i.e., they expressed their view on the importance of certification both as education providers and as employers, with no reference to the business world outside the school/university boundaries. According to those respondents, certification: is considered as a real plus particularly for foreign students. It is generally considered that holding a language certificate helps when applying for international institutions, for a training course at a foreign university, or for getting an internship or a job. (University, France) is becoming mandatory for taking the competitive examination to become a teacher with a civil servant status. (University, France) Other universities involved proved to be business-oriented and sensitive to what employers expect, do, know and ignore concerning language skills: In many cases certification may represent a concrete benefit for users for career at university, though the importance of certification in general and of the CEFRL in particular are not at all considered by the majority of Italian businesses. (University, Italy) Apart from private language testing firms, there has not been enough publicity given to internationally recognised language certification (e.g., Cambridge or Cervantes) for employers to be influenced. In many cases it appears to be little more than a filter to slim down the number of candidates to interview ( ) Employers sometimes ask for TOEIC certification but in our opinion don t always understand the points system or the skills implied by a certain number of points ( ) From our experience a work placement abroad or better still an international degree will be more likely to impress employers than a language certificate. (University, France) 9 http://www.unibas.it/centri/cla/certint.htm 10 Six of the fourteen organizations involved in the study (1 VET centre, 1 language school and 5 university institutes) are certificate bodies or official test centres for one or more certifications. 11

Though some employers may consider certification as a plus when recruiting staff, most of them do not even know what it is exactly. A language certificate can be interesting for an employer only if it clearly describes the CEFRL levels and contains a clear description of the applicant s skills. In this case and provided the employer is familiar with the CEFRL, understands what certification means, and trusts the CEFRL tool - it might influence the final decision to hire an applicant. (University, Italy) Certification is essential for the selection and recruitment of applicants, but employers need to get more familiar with the CEFRL and its levels in order to better understand its usefulness. (University, Italy) Even more pragmatic is the opinion of VET centres and language schools on this matter: Certification is seldom considered as a preferential requirement when selecting human resources, though employers [mainly large-sized and multinational companies, that are the respondents main customers] often refer to the CEFRL descriptors to assess their staff members or applicants language skills. (Language school, Italy) Certificates issued by some institutions have enough reputation to endorse the certification is a guarantee for the applicants skill level. Nevertheless they rarely are a decisive factor. (Language school, Spain) Not always do employers believe that certified skills correspond to the applicants actual skills. (VET centre, Italy) Certification works better in the school system. (VET centre, Italy) though the only language school that is also an official certification test centre has a different view: Companies usually consider qualifications and certificates. They are also increasingly understanding the meaning of the different standards set by the CEFRL. Although in the recruiting process companies often require specific language tests, it is important that the applicant have acquired an official certification especially now that there is a uniform grading scale for all languages. When a company really requires languages, having an official certificate can be crucial to be chosen for the position. (Language school, Spain) One of the responding universities an Italian private university institute states that ( ) the certification issue should not be relevant to employers but to schools, that are not able to prepare students to enter the labour market: schools should be made aware of the importance of language certification and it would be important to involve both schools and businesses in common information events on this matter. (University, Italy) To summarize, it appears that most of the VET and school/university systems representatives involved in the study see language certification as a qualification that does 12

not significantly increase the chances of being hired except for the case of jobs specifically connected with language learning. The point of view of employers, as reported by the respondents on the basis of their experience, is that when it comes to hiring a person in a position requiring good knowledge or mastery of one or more foreign languages, a piece of paper is not deemed sufficient to prove the applicants proficiency. If we compare this views by the VET/school/university respondents with the results of the survey carried out on employers and recruiters, we will notice that on the one hand, less than 40% of the organizations involved usually administer language skills test to applicants, 11 and 66% think language certification is an added value to the applicants profile; nevertheless, when asked to rate to what extent an applicants possession of a language certificate influences their final decision in hiring or not that person, the answers provided by most of the respondents show that possessing a language certificate does not influence their final decision in a relevant way. 12 On the other hand, certification is considered to be beneficial for learners, not only as regards employability: Certification is always a benefit for users: enhances chances to enter the labour market, to better communicate in a multicultural context, and for immigrants can be the first step towards social and work inclusion. (VET centre, Italy) Certification is a benefit in access to the labour market, but only for jobseekers with little or no work experience. For those who are employed, what matters is only their skills, irrespective of formal certification. (Language school, Italy) The benefit of certification for users is that it allows language skills levels to be recognisable in every country. (University, Italy) Very often students ignore the importance of language skills certification because no one at school has ever explained it to them. (University, Italy) 11 12 See section 4.3. below. See secton 5.1. below. 13

4. The role of language learning in the labour market This section and the following one present the key findings emerged from the survey on the role of language learning in the labour market and the use of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFRL) to assess workers language skills, based on an ad hoc questionnaire (see Annex 1). 50 questionnaires were administered to as many stakeholders in the partner countries in order to investigate on language skills needs and relevant associated tasks with reference to nowadays labour market, the language skills assessment methods adopted and the perceived usability of CEFRL to assess language skills as well as to provide some options for its transferability. Particular attention was devoted to understanding to what extent the CEFRL is actually used in the labour market, to what extent its use could be extended, and in what way it could possibly be adapted in order to be successfully transferred to the labour market. 4.1 Main characteristics of the interviewed stakeholders Most of the 50 respondents 13 were private organisations, although public employment agencies, recruitment companies, development agencies, research institutes, schools and other kinds of organisations were also involved in the survey (See Annex 2). Numerous questionnaires (46%) were filled in primarily by people having a specific role in the Human Resources Area of the involved organisations (HR Director/Manager/Expert/Assistant/Specialist, etc.) as detailed in Annex 2. Analysing in further detail the characteristics of the responding organisations, it can be noticed that (Table 4.1): The head offices are located in Italy in more than half of the cases (56%), although sometimes they are multinational companies (such as like BASF, Cargill, KLM, etc.). 14 Only 12% of the organisations involved operate in the public sector. In most cases (46%), the organisations involved operate in the Services macro-sector (and its sub-sectors) 15. Only 12% of the organisations classified themselves in the Manufacturing or in the Public Administration. As regards the size (number of employees), the interviewed organizations are mainly large-sized (more than 250 employees, 40%) or small-sized (less than 50 employees, 32%). 13 14 15 Given the limited number of observations and the high concentration of cases in Italy, in the Services sector and in the "less than 50 employees" and "over 250 employees" size brackets, all percentages calculated and reported in this chapter and in the following one are to be analyzed and read with extreme caution, especially when disaggregated by country, size brackets, sectors. 28 organisations are from Italy. In particular, 10 are from Basilicata (Southern Italy) and 18 are form Northern Italy (Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna). Some of them are multinational companies. We adopted the classification as resulting from the answers of the responding organisations. Many organisations chose the Other item to classify themselves though most of them operate in the services sector (Transport; Training; Health and Social Services; etc.). 14

On average, the highest share of public organisations is registered for Spain (22,2%), where more than half of the respondents (55,6%) work in the Services macro-sector (Figure 4.1). In Sweden all the responding organisations are large-sized (more than 250 employees) and in the majority of the cases (28,6%) they pertain to the manufacturing sector. Italy presents the highest proportion (46,4%) of small-sized organisations (less than 50 employees). Table 4.1 Responding organisations by country, number of employees, sector and legal status Country No. % France 6 12.0 Italy 28 56.0 Spain 9 18.0 Sweden 7 14.0 Employees (No) No. % < 50 16 32.0 50-100 6 12.0 100-250 7 14.0 > 250 20 40.0 Not specified 1 2.0 Sector No. % Public administration 6 12.0 Manufacturing 6 12.0 Services 23 46.0 Other 15 30.0 Legal status No. % Private 41 82.0 Public administration 9 8.0 Total 50 100.0 Figure 4.1 Responding organisations by number of employees, sector and legal status and by country 15

16

4.2 Language skills needs and associated tasks Nearly all of the interviewed organisations have staff possessing language skills sufficient for them to handle several everyday work situations or activities. Figure 4.2 shows that a percentage ranging from 84% to 96% of the responding organisations have personnel with the language skills necessary to perform effectively in all the specific activities or situations described in the questionnaire. Furthermore, some of them state they have staff possessing language skills to manage other activities or to tackle other situations besides those expressly indicated, namely: creation of brochures, communication and promotion tools, press realises, writing of technical documents and manuals, provision of helpdesk and technical assistance. The share of organisations having ad hoc language skilled staff able to handle various daily situations or activities requiring the use of foreign languages is not significantly different between countries, size brackets and sectors. It seems that globalization and international competition have stimulated organisations - at least those surveyed in the analysed countries - to hire or employ staff possessing the language skills required to manage specific tasks and situations. In all the cases analyzed the foreign language mainly used to manage the above activities and situations is English. In less than half of the responding organisations the staff is able to competently handle them also using French and/or German and/or Spanish in addition to English. In a couple of cases, also Italian and Portuguese are included among the languages used to perform daily activities/situations with international customers/suppliers. Figure 4.2 Organisations with staff able to handle various activities/situations using foreign languages 17

Half of the interviewed organisations declare that during the past three years they have recruited staff with specific language skills for their customers (Figure 4.3). Of course, it consistently depends on the activities developed by the organisations and on the sectors in which they operate, being easier for an employment agency or a recruitment company to recruit staff with specific language skills for their customers or for certain companies (multinationals, for example) to have a specific human resource management area which select the staff (also with attention to the language skills) to be employed in other specific business areas. The analysis disaggregated by country, sector and size bracket (Table 4.2) shows that the highest percentages of respondents that recruited staff with specific language skills in the past three years are registered for Spain (all of the interviewed organisations), in the Manufacturing sector (2/3 of the respondents) and in the medium-sized organisations (100-250 employees, 71,4%). Country Table 4.2 Organisations with staff able to competently handle different activities/situations using foreign languages by country, sector and size bracket (row %) Yes No Not answering Total (%) Total (No.) France 50.0 33.3 16.7 100 6 Italy 35.7 35.7 28.6 100 28 Spain 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 9 Sweden 42.9 42.9 14.3 100 7 Sector Public administration 33.3 33.3 33.3 100 6 Manufacturing 66.7 33.3 0.0 100 6 Services 47.8 34.8 17.4 100 23 Other 53.3 20.0 26.7 100 15 No of employees < 50 25.0 50.0 25.0 100 16 50-100 50.0 33.3 16.7 100 6 100-250 71.4 14.3 14.3 100 7 > 250 60.0 20.0 20.0 100 20 Not specified 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 1 Total 50.0 30.0 20.0 100 50 18

The organisations that have recruited personnel with language skills in the past three years hired different staff categories, the highest percentage of which consisted of technical staff (68%) (Figure 4.3). The percentage of managerial and administrative or secretarial staff with language skills recruited in the same period is also relevant (48% in both cases). 8 organisations hired various staff categories: language teachers or trainers, translators, international traders. Figure 4.3 - Staff category with specific language skills recruited in the past three years 4.3 Language skill assessment methods The administration of a language test to applicants does not seem to be a particularly widespread practice: less than half (40%) of the surveyed organizations state that they usually check and assess applicants language skills (Figure 4.4). The administration of language tests to applicants seems to be related to country, sector and business size (Table 4.3): whereas about 56% of the Spanish organizations and 48% of the Italian organisations involved usually administer a language test to applicants this practice seems to be less usual in France and Sweden; 60% of the organisations in the Public administration sector assess the new applicants language skills (versus 16,7% in Manufacturing ); the share of organisations adopting language skills assessment methods is higher in middle-sized organisations (50-100 employees: 50%; 100-250 employees; 19

71,4%). Figure 4.4 - Usual administration of language tests to applicants Table 4.4 - Usual administration of language tests to applicants by country, sector, size bracket (row %) Yes No Total (%) Total (No.) Country France 16.7 83.3 100 6 Italy 48.1 51.9 100 27 Spain 55.6 44.4 100 9 Sweden 14.3 85.7 100 7 Sector Public administration 60.0 40.0 100 5 Manufacturing 16.7 83.3 100 6 Services 34.8 65.2 100 23 Other 53.3 46.7 100 15 No of employees < 50 37.5 62.5 100 16 50-100 50.0 50.0 100 6 100-250 71.4 28.6 100 7 > 250 26.3 73.7 100 19 Not specified 100.0 0.0 100 1 Total 40.8 59.2 100 49 20

Focussing only on the organisations that usually assess applicants language skills by adopting specific methods, it is possible to identify different kinds of language tests administered to applicants. The most frequently administered tests (70%) are those aimed at assessing the applicants conversational skills (Figure 4.5). In some cases the tests also request that applicants write a business letter (25%). Among the less frequently used tests are those based on the simulation of a business phone call (15%), the translation of a newspaper article or another document into the applicant s native language (15%), the knowledge of language for specific purposes (10%), the translation of a newspaper article or another document into a foreign language (5%). Figure 4.5 Types of language skill tests administered to applicants More than 1/3 of the interviewed organisations (36%) require applicants to fill in a prescribed application form (Table 4.5). In particular, in 24% of the cases the language skills section of this form is organised providing the choice between a number of pre-set levels (usually distinguishing the levels in text-book, sufficient, good, excellent, fluent, mother tongue), whilst in other cases (12%) the language skills section is open (at the applicant s discretion). Another 14% of the respondents say that they do not have prescribed forms or specific forms, but they only require that the applicants list the foreign languages they can speak. In all the remaining cases, there is not a prescribed application form to verify the language skills owned by the applicants. 21

Table 4.5 Language skills section of a prescribed application form for applicants No. % Choice between a number of pre-set levels 12 24.0 Open 7 14.0 Other (There are not prescribed forms) 1 2.0 Other (It is only required to list the languages spoken) 1 2.0 Other (There is no specific form) 5 10.0 Not answering 24 48.0 Total 50 100.0 Applicants are required to fill in a prescribed application form with a section on language skills only in one organisation in France and one in Spain (Table 4.6). In both cases the language skills section is open (i.e. applicants are free to describe their language skills according to their own evaluation). A prescribed application is more frequently used by the organisations in Italy and Sweden, where the language skills section is often organised in order to allow applicants to choose between a number of pre-set levels. Probably due to the market in which they operate or to workforce organisational reasons, organisations of the Services sector and large-sized organisations are more likely to adopt prescribed application forms with a language skills section offering a choice between a number of preset levels. Table 4.6 Language skills section of a prescribed application form for applicants by country, section, size bracket (no. of observations) Open Choice between a number of pre-set levels Other Total Country France 1 0 0 1 Italy 3 8 7 18 Spain 1 0 0 1 Sweden 2 4 0 6 Sector Public administration 1 1 0 2 Manufacturing 2 3 0 5 Services 3 4 5 12 Other 1 4 2 7 No of employees < 50 1 2 5 8 50-100 1 1 1 3 100-250 1 0 1 2 > 250 4 9 0 13 Total 7 12 7 26 22

The language skills section in prescribed forms does not seem to refer to specific skills. About 2/3 of the organisations requiring applicants to fill in a prescribed application form declare that in the language skills section there is no reference to any specific skills (Figure 4.6). Only six organisations (23,1%) refer to specific skills such as understanding written texts (2), understanding spoken language (2), speaking (4), conversation (4), and writing (4). Figure 4.6 - Reference to specific skills in the language skills section of the form More than 1/3 of the respondents (38%) find the applicants statements concerning their language skills are not consistent with their performance in language tests (Figure 4.7). Considering only the valid answers (Table 4.7), it is possible to notice that the highest percentages of respondents considering the applicants statements on their language skills NOT consistent with their performance in language tests are to be found in Spain (83,3%) and in organisations with 100 to 250 employees (100%). On average, no differences are detected by size bracket. 23

Figure 4.7 - Consistency of applicants statements with their performance in language tests Table 4.7 - Consistency of applicants statements with their performance in language tests by country, sector and size bracket (row %) No Yes Total Total (No.) Country France 40.0 60.0 (%) 100 5 Italy 57.1 42.9 100 21 Spain 83.3 16.7 100 6 Sweden 0.0 100.0 100 6 Sector Public administration 50.0 50.0 100 4 Manufacturing 50.0 50.0 100 4 Services 50.0 50.0 100 20 Other 50.0 50.0 100 10 No of employees < 50 50.0 50.0 100 14 50-100 33.3 66.7 100 3 100-250 100.0 0.0 100 4 > 250 37.5 62.5 100 16 Not specified 100.0 0.0 100 1 Total 47.4 50.0 100 38 Note: percentage calculated on valid responses. 24

The main reason why the applicants statements are not considered to be consistent with the test results is that according to 83% of the respondents they tend to overrate their language skills (Figure 4.8). Figure 4.8 - Reasons for non-consistency of applicants statements with their performance in language tests Finally, the majority of the respondents think knowledge of language for specific purposes is relevant against general knowledge of a language (Figure 4.9). In a 1-6 rating scale (where 1 = not at all important and 6 = extremely important), 24% rated this item 4, 32% rated it 5, and 12% rated it 6. The average rating by all of the respondents is 4,1 (Table 4.8). In detail, knowledge of language for specific purposes against the general knowledge of a language receives (on average) a high rating in Italy (4,3) and Spain (4,2), in the manufacturing sector (5,2) and in organisations with 50 to 100 employees (4,5). Knowledge of language for specific purposes is considered to be relevant according to the industry (e.g., ICT, international sales) as well as to the professional profile (e.g., technical staff, research staff). Nevertheless, learning language for specific purposes is considered to be an easier task if it is supported by good general knowledge of a language. 25

Figure 4.9 Rating of the importance of language for specific purposes against general knowledge of a language Table 4.8 Average rating of the importance of language for specific purposes against general knowledge of a language, by country, sector and size bracket Average rating No. Country France 3.2 6 Italy 4.3 28 Spain 4.2 9 Sweden 3.7 6 Sector Public administration 4.5 6 Manufacturing 5.2 6 Services 4.0 22 Other 3.6 15 Totale 4.1 49 No of employees < 50 4.4 16 50-100 4.5 6 100-250 3.1 7 > 250 4.1 19 Not specified 4.0 1 Totale Note: percentage calculated on valid responses. 4.1 49 26