The impact of the CEFR

Neus Figueras

This article provides some context for the unquestionable influence of the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) on language learning, teaching, and
assessment ten years after its publication. If a survey about the most relevant
and controversial document in the field in the twenty-first century were to
be carried out, the CEFR would most surely be the top one. The document
itself has been translated into all European languages, and its scales are
now available in more than 40 languages, including sign language. The
CEFR levels and its scales have become currency in Europe and beyond, and
its recommendations—having seduced governments and institutions—are
slowly finding their way into everyday practice. The CEFR, however, is not
a model of absolute perfection, and criticisms and challenges will also be
reviewed and discussed.

Introduction Defining what students should learn and describing it in such a way
that it is useful and understandable for all parties involved has been for
many decades the Holy Grail for educators and for policymakers.

During much of the twentieth century, theorists, researchers, and

language professionals were very active in trying to describe what it
means to learn languages and how they could be operationalized and
sequenced for learning, for teaching, and for assessment purposes.
Work was triggered almost in parallel on both sides of the Atlantic
in the aftermath of World War II and the Korean War, international
conflicts that made very apparent the need to learn foreign languages
in order to be able to use them in everyday transactions, for social
interaction, and for information transfer. Being able to use a language
meant being able to put linguistic knowledge into practice; for the sake
of certification, it was necessary to identify different levels of mastery
along the learning continuum.
The publication of the Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) in 2001 by the
Council of Europe was the European response to the challenge, and its
authors acknowledged the two main aims they had in mind:

ELT Journal Volume 66/4 Special issue October 2012; doi:10.1093/elt/ccs037  477
© The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/66/4/477/384744/The-impact-of-the-CEFR
by 62324608-Swets. Subs. Service user
on 05 October 2017
 1 To encourage practitioners of all kinds in the language field,
including language learners themselves, to reflect on such questions as:
■■ What do we actually do when we speak (or write) to each other?
■■ What enables us to act in this way?
■■ How much of this do we need to learn when we try to use a new
language?
■■ How do we set our objectives and mark our progress along the
path from total ignorance to effective mastery?
■■ How does language learning take place?
■■ What can we do to help ourselves and other people to learn a
language better?
2 To make it easier for practitioners to tell each other and their
clientele what they wish to help learners to achieve and how they
attempt to do so. (Council of Europe 2001: xi)
However, despite the huge amount of work that has been put into
changing language syllabi, changing methodologies, and changing
assessment practice, and despite the discussions, debates, seminars,
and congresses on the usefulness of the CEFR, it is still not possible
to say that these language policies have been effectively transferred
to classrooms or to teaching materials. Not all teaching and learning
objectives are designed to meet communication needs, and not all
assessment is geared to outcomes,1 that is, specific descriptions of what
a student has demonstrated and understood at the completion of an
activity or course. A lot has changed, but there is still the feeling that
there is still much to be done before it can be said that policy matches
real life, if that is ever possible.
The CEFR: The success of the CEFR is due to two main factors. The first one
contributions made has been outlined in the Introduction, and it is both geopolitical and
scientific. Governments and applied linguists wanted to link language
learning, language teaching, and language assessment to a more real-life
oriented approach and were striving to find a common currency, in
terms of terminology and in terms of levels of attainment. The CEFR
was a timely publication in this respect and acted as a catalyst. It
provided a complex but operational definition of language that embodied
the work of many decades, presented as the ‘action-oriented approach’
and commonly referred to in the text as the ‘horizontal dimension’.

In addition, the CEFR included definitions of different levels along the

proficiency scale at six main levels, which were described in general terms
and in relation to language activities and language tasks in over 50 descriptor
scales, commonly referred to as the ‘vertical dimension’ (Figure 1).

1
f igure
The vertical
dimension

478 Neus Figueras

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/66/4/477/384744/The-impact-of-the-CEFR
by 62324608-Swets. Subs. Service user
on 05 October 2017

Common currency of
the CEFR level labels
and the influence
of the CEFR level
descriptors
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/66/4/477/384744/The-impact-of-the-CEFR
by 62324608-Swets. Subs. Service user
on 05 October 2017
The second crucial factor for the success of the CEFR has to do with the
characteristics of the approach it embodies, the positive wording of the
level descriptors, and its non-compulsory nature with a structure open
to multimodality and adaptations.
The construction of a comprehensive, transparent and coherent
framework for language learning and teaching does not imply the
imposition of one single uniform system. On the contrary, the
framework should be open and flexible, so that it can be applied, with
such adaptations as prove necessary, to particular situations. (Council
of Europe op.cit.:7)
The CEFR gained international attention and respect very soon after
its publication (Alderson 2002; Morrow 2004a, 2004b; Byrnes 2007),
and there were two features in the document, both closely related to the
‘vertical dimension’, which were the most salient and the most rapidly
put into use.
One of them was the reference level labels (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2)
which, especially in the field of testing, soon outshone all other aspects
in the document and became valuable currency for governments,
policymakers, and testing institutions to the dismay of many
researchers and testing specialists.
The second feature to be quickly adopted was the empirically developed
and validated reference level descriptors, which were to have an
enormous influence in the drafting of objectives, targets, and outcomes
in language learning programmes in different contexts for different
uses and purposes.
The impact of these two features is of a very different nature. The
use of the CEFR level labels, with or without their accompanying
level descriptors, is very visible and has become commonplace in all
educational levels in Europe (not only for adults and young adults
learning foreign languages, but also for young learners and for L1
learners)2 by different stakeholders (government officials, publishers,
admissions officers at universities, immigration authorities) with
different degrees of validity. Most CEFR level labels have been used to
report the results of the European Language Indicator, SurveyLang.3 The
majority of teachers and learners now seldom use terms like ‘beginner’
or ‘intermediate’, labels that have been replaced by the use of A1 or B1,
sometimes with very little awareness of what they mean. It is not always
the case that A1 is more transparent than ‘beginner’, especially if the
label is used in isolation without its corresponding descriptor or if the
descriptor is not clearly operationalized into outcomes.
The impact of the level descriptors has been less visible, although they
have been equally widely used. Curricula and language programmes
today are often outcome-based, drawn up with much more attention to
real-life uses, and focused on what students will be able or should be
able to do at the end of a course. The lack of direct acknowledgement
of the CEFR is probably due to the fact that language objectives
or outcomes have also been much adapted (sometimes beyond
The impact of the CEFR 479
 recognition), and the adaptations have seldom been reported and
documented (see ‘Designing syllabus and materials’ in Morrow 2004a,
for one of the few accounts of the use of the CEFR in published
curricula). The contribution of the European Language Portfolio (ELP)
in this respect needs to be taken into consideration. Whilst ‘using’ the
CEFR beyond the level labels implies careful reading of the document
itself before any direct, practical implementations are possible, ‘using’
the different components of the ELP is much more straightforward.
The different instruments in the ELP (Portfolio, Language Biography,
and Dossier) can be put into direct use with students, something that
facilitated the understanding and dissemination of the CEFR approach
and the familiarization with the phrasing of the descriptors, with the
result that these have influenced the drafting of language objectives in
curricula, in language programmes, and in lessons.
Characteristics of the The reference level descriptors are one of the important innovations
CEFR reference level contained in the CEFR, not only in their technical aspects and
descriptors recommendations on formulation (positiveness, definiteness, clarity,
brevity, independence), but also in the empirical methodology used for
developing them. The impact of both the technical recommendations
and the need for empirical validation was highlighted by two projects
which formulated descriptors during the period of development of the
CEFR and were closely based on Draft two of the document, circulated
in 1996, namely the DIALANG and the ALTE (Association of Language
Testers in Europe) ‘Can do’ project.

Despite the huge variation across countries, programmes, and

classrooms, it is common today to talk about what students ‘can do’
and describe it positively, in relation to what can be observed and not
in relation to what they cannot do, as was often previously the case.
Those readers who accessed the CEFR during the first few years after
its publication will remember the impact caused by the descriptor for
A1 in Table 1 in the CEFR (see Figure 2), where a level as low as A1 was
described in terms of what types of activity were carried out, how they
were done, and under which conditions and limitations. Underlining is
provided to highlight this.

A1 Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the

satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and
answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows, and

things he/she has. Can interact in a simple way, provided the other person talks slowly and
2
f igure clearly and is prepared to help.
Descriptor for level A1

Changing teaching A brief overview of the programmes of international teaching and

and assessment assessment conferences during the recent past is sufficient to see
practices how important the CEFR has been since its publication. Likewise,
publishing houses and testing companies have included the CEFR level
labels and the European stars in their brochures for some years now.

480 Neus Figueras

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/66/4/477/384744/The-impact-of-the-CEFR
by 62324608-Swets. Subs. Service user
on 05 October 2017

The added value of
the CEFR: research
networks and teacher
training
From reference
level descriptors
to outcomes
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/66/4/477/384744/The-impact-of-the-CEFR
by 62324608-Swets. Subs. Service user
on 05 October 2017
However, only a few books have been published directly on the
didactic uses of the CEFR: Alderson (2002), Morrow (2004a), and
Goullier (2007), this last one being perhaps the most hands-on,
plurilingual attempt at describing how materials and methodologies
change when putting the CEFR into practice. Something similar can
be said about tests and assessment programmes. Despite the use of
level labels and despite the obvious changes in marking schemes and
in level definitions to match the recommendations already discussed
in the drafting of descriptors, there are no published studies on the
changes made in the tests and the effects on validity or enhanced
relevance.
This mismatch between reported influences and published accounts
is also present in textbooks. Although they may advertise themselves
as ‘towards C1’, or ‘CEF correlation: C1 advanced’, and although
they incorporate ‘portfolios’, ‘self-assessment charts’, and ‘can do
worksheets’, they include tables of contents that are still the same as ten
years ago, organized by topics or by language functions.
One of the most important contributions of the CEFR has been that of
stirring the waters of the teaching and the testing professions, which
has resulted in considerable professional growth (see Figueras 2007 for
a discussion on this). Alongside the presence of CEFR- or ELP-related
presentations, a myriad of projects and networks were set up in order
to provide forums for discussion among European professionals in
different fields who found themselves faced with a document worth
discussing, and which had already attracted the interest of government
officials. Activity was most visible in the field of testing, with projects
like CEFTrain (http://www.helsinki.fi/project/ceftrain/index.html) or
the Dutch CEFR construct project (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/projects/
grid/), and the creation of EALTA (European Association for Language
Testing and Assessment http://www.ealta.eu.org) with initial European
funding, and in the field of teacher training itself, with activities
initiated by the Council of Europe’s European Centre for Modern
Languages in Austria, like the European Portfolio for Student Teachers
of Languages, which eventually became a much consulted and useful
document (http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/fte/html/FTE_E_Results.htm).
The CEFR level descriptors are not objectives or outcomes. A level
descriptor in the CEFR states what is observable in a learner at a certain
level (see Appendix B in the CEFR for a summary; Council of Europe
op. cit.: 217–25). A learning outcome needs to state what the learner
will have learnt and will be able to do at the end of a course of study.
Shifting from observable behaviour to achievable and identifiable
targets is not always straightforward, but claiming CEFR-related
outcomes makes that absolutely necessary, as the implementation of
the action-oriented approach in the CEFR requires that curriculum,
pedagogy, and assessment are not only related but interdependent.
David Little (personal communication 2012) states that the CEFR level
descriptors may be used to:
The impact of the CEFR 481
 1 define a learning target
2 select and/or develop learning activities and materials
3 guide the selection and design of assessment tasks.
Therefore, curriculum designers and programme developers need to
look at reference level descriptors in the CEFR with the three aims
outlined by Little. For each level and each language activity (reading,
listening, speaking production and interaction, and writing production
and interaction), they need to work from the global scale in Table 1
of the CEFR, to the self-assessment scale in Table 2, and through to
the relevant scales, which for speaking production and interaction
are in Table 3: qualitative aspects of spoken language use (ibid.: 28),
followed by the 14 production and interaction illustrative scales (op.
cit.: 58–63). As they do this, they can flesh out the quality and quantity
dimensions—the ‘what’ and the ‘how well’ in each descriptor—thus
allowing for the formulation of objectives or outcomes. Here are some
sample outcomes, taken from Spanish curricula for adult language
schools (Escuelas Oficiales de Idiomas) for speaking production and
interaction, and claiming to be linked to B1:
■■ Make simple, rehearsed, presentations on familiar topics,
highlighting important points.
■■ Initiate and maintain conversations and intervene in discussions
in standard language on general topics and/or related with his/her
work, following social conventions.
■■ Interact, in a coherent and comprehensible way, in a variety of
learning and everyday situations to tell a story, share ideas and
information, or express feelings.
Another example is the attainment targets for speaking UK (Modern
Foreign Languages) Level 3, not explicitly correlated to a CEFR level but
definitely sharing the characteristics described:

Pupils take part in brief prepared tasks of at least two or three

exchanges, using visual or other cues to help them initiate and
respond. They use short phrases to express personal responses [for
example, likes, dislikes and feelings]. Although they use mainly
memorised language, they occasionally substitute items of vocabulary
to vary questions or statements. (http://www.education.gov.uk/
schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum/primary/b00199137/mfl/
attainment/speaking)
Challenges raised by The CEFR has not been without criticism, which has come from
the CEFR different sides but which may be grouped into two main areas: a
content area, and a political area. Many of the criticisms have pointed
at challenges which were already addressed by the authors in the
introductory chapters of the CEFR, and others, not foreseen, are shared
by authors and users alike and will need to be addressed in the future.

In terms of content, the challenges that have emerged as the CEFR has
increasingly been put into practice are related to the comprehensiveness
and usefulness of the level descriptors for assessment, and their
relevance and validity from the second language acquisition (SLA)

482 Neus Figueras

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/66/4/477/384744/The-impact-of-the-CEFR
by 62324608-Swets. Subs. Service user
on 05 October 2017

Insufficient
definition, gaps,
and terminological
incoherences
The level descriptors
are not based on
SLA development
and do not cater for
learning diversity
along the proficiency
continuum
Misuses of the CEFR
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/66/4/477/384744/The-impact-of-the-CEFR
by 62324608-Swets. Subs. Service user
on 05 October 2017
perspective. In addition, they have to do with the ‘foul’ use of level
labels and descriptors in some educational contexts.
The Dutch CEFR construct project (Alderson, Figueras, Kuijper, Nold,
Takala, and Tardieu 2006) evidenced flaws in the CEFR when put
into use for developing specifications for assessment. The fact that the
aims of the CEFR were to cater for language learning in general with
no concrete reference to one language in particular, the fact that the
CEFR did not specify what was meant by ‘long’ or ‘short’ or ‘familiar’,
the incoherence in the use of terminology (does ‘read’ mean the same
as ‘understand’? And ‘look for’ or ‘identify’ the same as ‘find’?), and the
lack of descriptors in some areas at higher levels (C1 and C2) presented
problems for testing, which needs precise descriptions across the
proficiency scales.
The field of SLA has been very critical of the CEFR. Hulstijn (2007)
challenges what he refers to as the ‘two pillars’ of the CEFR descriptors:
the quantity and the quality dimensions (the ‘what’ and the ‘how well’
an activity can be carried out). He does so on the basis of individual
differences and variability among non-native speakers and identifies
three types of second language users:
a) L2 users who can only do a few things in terms of quantity but
whose performance is characterized by high linguistic quality.
b) L2 language users who can do many things in terms of quantity but
whose performance is characterized by low linguistic quality, and
c) L2 users whose quantity range matches their performance quality,
as suggested by the CEFR scales of the mixed type. (ibid.: 666)
Hulstijn calls for empirical longitudinal studies that focus on learners’
proficiency development and can contribute to the refinement of the
CEFR reference descriptors so far based only on raters’ assessment(s),
an action that Little (2011) incorporates in his research agenda. In
this respect, the development of the English Profile (http://www.
englishprofile.org/), a project that is currently looking at evidences of
learner language and their characteristics in relation to the CEFR levels
for English has a lot to offer.
A number of the uses to which the CEFR has been put were never called
for by the authors or by the Council of Europe, and it is therefore not
surprising that, in relation to these uses, it has been perceived by many as
not adequate. The CEFR was developed to aid foreign language learning
in the adult context in Europe but—because of its perceived usefulness
and currency—it has been used widely at all education levels, also with
L1, and with languages for specific purposes. Such uses were identified
in a survey carried out by Martyniuk and Noijons (2007) prior to the
Intergovernmental Policy Forum (The Common European Framework
of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and The Development of Language
Policies: Challenges and Responsibilities) held in February 2007 in
Strasbourg. This event led to the publication of a Recommendation CM/
Rec(2008)7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the use
The impact of the CEFR 483
 of the Council of Europe’s Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages (CEFR) and the promotion of plurilingualism (available at
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1318855&Site=CM).

In relation to the political implications of the adoption and adaptation

of the CEFR, the debate in The Guardian Weekly (2004) initiated by
Glenn Fulcher is an example of the animosity that the CEFR has
generated in Europe and beyond. Fulcher builds his argument on
content issues already mentioned in earlier sections in this article and
gives them a political turn, claiming that the CEFR (despite its open,
adaptable nature) is ‘rapidly becoming “the” system’, and hence, he
argues, having been ‘institutionalised, the danger of reification is great’.
Fulcher’s fears are based on dangers that North (2004) attributes to a
partial understanding of the aims of the CEFR, but which unfortunately
are very much in line with research into the uses of the CEFR as
reported by the 2007 Council of Europe survey already quoted.
Conclusion The issues addressed in this article outline two possible areas for
action, already pointed out here, and which are, somehow, ‘in the air’
in the field. The first area is related to the responsibility of users and
was already suggested by Keith Morrow, who lucidly responded to the
question ‘Does the CEF work?’ with ‘The jury is out’ (2004a: 10), and
‘The CEFR treats us like adults, are you grown up enough to handle
it?’(2004b: 6), and was clearly specified in the Recommendation issued
by the Committee of Ministers already quoted. The second area for action
has to do with research, and a number of significant areas (11 tasks) are
identified in Little (op.cit.), among which are L2 pedagogy and how it can
be improved, the development of additional descriptors (for classroom
language, for written interaction, …), the development of CEFR-based
curricula, or the exploration of the application of existing descriptors in
L1. It looks as if the next decade will still have the CEFR and its related
documents at the forefront of discussion. Let us hope that the profession
lives up to the challenge.

Notes 3 Information about this European project can be

1 The use of the term ‘outcome’ in this article
should be considered equivalent to other terms
used in language learning programmes to
describe a learning target, a learning objective,
or a standard of attainment, phrased in terms
of what a learner will be able to do with the
language in a real-life situation if the course of
study is completed successfully.
2 The Council of Europe has undertaken the
Languages of Schooling project to address
the issue of teaching and learning languages
in mainstream education. The activities and
publications of the project can be accessed
at http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/
Schoollang_en.asp
found at http://www.surveylang.org/
References
Alderson, J. C. (ed.). 2002. Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
Teaching, Assessment: Case Studies. Strasbourg,
France: Council of Europe. Available at http://
www.coe.int/T/DG4/Portfolio/documents/case_
studies_CEF.doc (accessed on 24 April 2012).
Alderson, J. C., N. Figueras, H. Kuijper, G. Nold,
S. Takala, and C. Tardieu. 2006. ‘Analysing tests
of reading and listening in relation to the CEFR:
the experience of the Dutch CEFR construct
project’. Language Assessment Quarterly 3/1:
3–30.

484 Neus Figueras

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/66/4/477/384744/The-impact-of-the-CEFR
by 62324608-Swets. Subs. Service user
on 05 October 2017
 Byrnes, H. 2007. ‘The Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages:
perspectives on the making of supranational
language education policy’. The Modern Language
Journal 91/4: 641–4.
Council of Europe. 2001. The Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Figueras, N. 2007. ‘The CEFR, a lever for the
improvement of language professionals in
Europe’. The Modern Language Journal 91/4:
673–5.
Fulcher, G. 2004. ‘Are Europe’s tests being built
on an “unsafe” framework?’ Guardian Weekly
Thursday 18 March. Available at http://www.
guardian.co.uk/education/2004/mar/18/tefl2
(accessed on 24 April 2012).
Goullier, F. 2007. Council of Europe Tools for
Language Teaching. Common European Framework
and Portfolios. Paris: Didier.
Hulstijn, J. 2007. ‘The shaky ground beneath the
CEFR: quantitative and qualitative dimensions
of language proficiency’. The Modern Language
Journal 91/4: 663–7.
Little, D. 2011. ‘The Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages: a
research agenda’. Language Teaching 44/3:
381–93.
Martyniuk, W. and J. Noijons. 2007. Executive
Summary of Results of a Survey on the Use of the
CEFR at National Level in the Council of Europe
Member States. Available at http://www.coe.int/t/
dg4/linguistic/Source/Survey_CEFR_2007_
EN.doc (accessed on 24 April 2012).
The impact of the CEFR
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/66/4/477/384744/The-impact-of-the-CEFR
by 62324608-Swets. Subs. Service user
on 05 October 2017
Morrow, K. (ed.). 2004a. Insights from the
Common European Framework. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Morrow, K. 2004b. ‘Framing the future’. English
Teaching Professional Issue 34. Available from
the publisher at http://www.etprofessional.
com/
North, B. 2004. ‘Europe’s framework promotes
language discussion, not directives’. Guardian
Weekly Thursday 15 April. Available at http://
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/apr/15/
tefl6 (accessed on 24 April 2012).
The author
Neus Figueras has a PhD in language testing
from the University of Barcelona and is currently
working in the Departament d’Educació de la
Generalitat de Catalunya, where she coordinates
the certificate exams for the Escoles Oficials
d’Idiomes. She is also lecturing part-time at
the University of Barcelona and the Universitat
Pompeu Fabra. She has been involved in
a number of international research and
development projects and collaborates with the
Council of Europe in the dissemination of the
CEFR. She has published articles in the field
of language teaching and assessment and is
one of the authors of the Manual for Relating
Examinations to the CEFR (Council of Europe
2009). She has been a teacher trainer for
more than 20 years and has given courses and
presented in universities in Spain and in different
European countries. She was the first President
(2004–2007) of EALTA (European Association
for Language Testing and Assessment).
Email: nfiguera@xtec.cat
485