COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK

							          STUDY GROUP 2


  COMMON EUROPEAN
     FRAMEWORK
• 16 people
• 12 nations
   CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY
       PARTICIPANTS
• There is a need to relate STANAG to CEFR in
  order for
  – Military personnel to have recognition in civilian
    society
  – Civil servants trained within military institutions to
    have recognised civilian qualifications
• There is a “pressure” to relate CEFR to
  STANAG
• Military institutions dealing with STANAG want a
  better understanding of CEFR
                                         CEFR                                        STANAG


Status of reference documents            Used as incentive for                       Enforced
                                         Benchmarking                                Mandatory (military & civilians on
                                         Course design                               missions abroad/at home)
                                         Materials development

Set of Descriptors                       Ambiguous in different areas
                                         e.g. topic areas (CEF broader; STANAG more specific)


Purpose                                  Teaching                                    Global proficiency or area proficiency
                                         Testing to progress to higher performance   (prochievement)
                                         levels                                      International reporting


Course objectives                        Can be determined                           Can be determined

Kinds of tests to be developed           Performance                                 Performance
                                         Criterion referenced                        Proficiency
                                         Academic
                                         All sorts of purposes

Internationally recognised calibration   CoE peer review against descriptors (not    BAT in progress (calibration undertaken
document                                 reference document)                         at nation state level)


Scale equivalence                        ?                                           ?

Certificate equivalence                  ?                                           ?
  RECOMMENDATION



BILC Working Group
                    AIMS
•To provide guidance to employers, trainers and
users on the interpretation of CEFR
qualifications in relation to SLP levels in order
to allow informed decisions to be made on
appropriate linguistic competence
•To provide a framework to military institutions
in nation states operating STANAG
qualifications who need to equate them with
CEFR for the purpose of gaining civilian
recognition of military qualifications
         ESSENTIAL TASKS
• To request any nation for research or studies in
  the area of CEFR / STANAG mapping so as to
  inform and expedite work of the study group
• To identify current practices of nations using
  both scales
• To evaluate the reliability of the current practices
  identified
• To identify any similarities and discrepancies
  between the STANAG and CEFR
• Report to BILC on the feasibility of the outputs
               OUTPUTS
• Clear, simple guidance for non-language
  experts to evaluate a CEFR qualification
  and identify competence gaps and
  thereby determine whether an individual is
  capable of undertaking a job requiring a
  given SLP
• To produce, if possible, a table converting
  STANAG levels to CEFR levels, but not
  vice versa