In my previous post about the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), I mentioned how certain EAL assessment descriptors are more aligned with the CEFR than we might think..

What I should have said is that the Bell Assessment Framework is *connected* to the CEFR, and that many of its descriptors are clearly derived from the CEFR. However, it’s not *aligned* with it in the sense that its band descriptors actually mirror the (linear?) complexity outlined in CEFR levels. Consider the following table (again):

From this snapshot, you can see that Band C descriptors on the Bell Assessment Framework connect to descriptors from the CEFR across a wide range of levels. It’s not like Band C = B1, Band D = B2, etc.

One challenge for users of the Bell Assessment Framework, including myself, is that the descriptors don’t fit with our *perceived* need for linear progression of certain skills. Take listening as an example: one minute we are searching for evidence that our students can follow classroom instructions, then the next we are expecting learners to follow specialized terminology or understand idiomatic language – all at the same Band level. Sometimes, it just doesn’t compute. Our preconceived ideas of linear progression in line with a CEFR-level framework, often a hangover from our time teaching EFL, makes the Bell Framework seem scatty and unrealistic. It sometimes feels like someone was aimlessly throwing darts at random descriptors when they put the Bell Assessment Framework together.

However, there is clearly some logic behind the Bell Assessment Framework. Many descriptors, it appears, are not only principled and contextually relevant, they are organized more in keeping with how the CEFR is intended to be used. I’ll contradict myself straight away here and say that section 2.1 of the CEFR Companion Volume states that assessment is *not* the primary focus of the tool. That said, if it *is* going to be used for assessment purposes, you might as well use it appropriately, and Bell do.

Section 2 of the Companion Volume makes the purpose of the CEFR clear.

• It is focused on the improvement of teaching and learning
• It empowers the language user as a social agent
• It is action-oriented and focuses on notions and functions, however…
• …it does not, or is not intended to, focus on a predefined *series* of notions and functions – choices depend on learner needs/context
• It does not promote linear progression through a series of language structures either.
• The emphasis is on proficiency – what learners ‘can do’, not on deficiency – what they have not yet acquired.

And arguably the key point:

‘the CEFR is a tool to assist the planning of curricula, courses and examinations by working backwards from what the users/learners need to be able to do in the language.’

As I stated before – it is a highly pragmatic tool, and we as educators are meant to use it in a pragmatic way.

We are not meant to view CEFR levels as some linear progression, although, sure – for convenience and for ballpark levelling we sometimes do.

The CEFR levels were not intended to be used in a rigid way for syllabus or curriculum design. We were never meant to divvy up language into bitesize, levelled chunks like we do, or to view skills and functions as a comprehensive checklist to cover.

What we are supposed to do, as I interpret it, is to build our teaching and learning around action-oriented targets that are most relevant to learner needs within our specific context. Unfortunately, we can’t dictate that those needs are going to fit neatly within a particular ‘CEFR level’!

Let’s not forget why CEFR descriptors are levelled in the first place: they are supposed to represent the relative task complexity and complexity of linguistic/social/pragmatic/plurilingual skill needed in order to perform a certain action. With that in mind, it is no surprise that some C1 level (‘advanced’) CEFR listening targets would appear in Band C on the Bell Framework (‘developing independence in the use of basic listening skills’) – because the learning contexts within which the Bell Framework is used are bloody complex! Having a general understanding of a science teacher’s input on atomic structure (in English) is, unsurprisingly, a challenging skill for a learner of English with developing proficiency – but that’s what ‘basic listening’ might constitute in a particular classroom context.

The Bell Assessment Framework does feel like a truer application of CEFR descriptors in many ways, and does capture more authentic teaching and learning within an assessment tool. However, it’s worth remembering that the Framework is still a classroom tool for assessing performance in pedagogic tasks (not real-world ones). When we use the tool, we are specifically evaluating how well learners can demonstrate classroom-based language skills – moving towards the expected performance of their peers. There is some discussion in the companion volume and in previous CEFR iterations regarding pedagogic versus real world tasks, and the extent to which CEFR connected ‘can do’ descriptors can be authentically demonstrated through contrived classroom tasks.

Anyway/Either way, I do feel there are still areas for development with the Bell Framework. Examples:

1. It is not always clear what the expectation for certain descriptors exactly is. Some descriptors are a bit vague (Speaking Band C4: ‘Can comment briefly on the views of others’ is my go-to example) and what constitutes success is potentially subjective.
2. The extent to which we should account for the scaffolding we provide in order for learners to demonstrate certain descriptors is unclear. I feel like if I used the Bell descriptors to assess learners who are not on our EAL programme, I believe some would struggle to demonstrate certain skills without support. So, what’s an acceptable level of scaffolding to provide (for all then for some) while still considering a descriptor to be ‘met’?
3. While I understand that some academic focused tasks will be complex, I still feel that the comparative complexity of functions at certain levels is not always obvious. This may be because Bell merge BICS and CALP related targets – meaning some descriptors tend to read as more general or attainable compared to others. I’m not suggesting that’s wrong though.
4. There are some unusually specific descriptors which are not befitting of the overall approach in the framework (Speaking Band B, Descriptor 9: Can indicate time by such phrases as ‘next week’, ‘last Friday’, ‘in November’,‘at three o’clock’). The decision to drill down into very specific language targets seems out of place.
5. There’s not much in the way of plurilingual competences addressed. I’d have thought that would be more of a Belly thing tbh.
6. Similar to point 1, but where there is a sense of linear progression, the details are not explicit enough. Example: Writing, Band B: Can show some awareness of the differences between formal and informal language, but writing still has features of everyday spoken language (e.g. ‘I mean’, ‘come on’, ‘you know’,‘gonna’). Then later Band D: Is showing greater awareness of the differences between formal and informal language.

I do think the Bell Assessment Framework should be viewed positively. It is refreshing to use a tool that disregards task/linguistic complexity as definitive of ‘level’, instead choosing to forefront learners’ immediate needs. That said, it’s probably one or two iterations away from being a much more usable tool.

Categories: General, reflections

Tags: assessment, CEFR, eal, international schools