The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), its aims and objectives - Английский язык - Дипломные работы

Информация о документе

Цена	9000UZS
Размер	60.3KB
Покупки	0
Дата загрузки	26 Сентябрь 2019
Расширение	docx
Раздел	Дипломные работы
Предмет	Английский язык

The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), its aims and objectives

Купить

CONTENTS Introduction ………………………………………………………………3 Chapter I. The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), its aims and objectives ……………….………………………………………....6- 24 1.1. CEFR in the educational context…………………………………..….6 1.2. Descriptors of CEFR…………………………………………………11 Summary……………………………………………………………….25 Chapter II. Implementation of CEFR into the educational system of Uzbekistan ………………………………………………………………….27-50 2.1. CEFR and assessment in the educational system of Uzbekistan ……26 2.2. The role of intercultural competence in textbooks based on CEFR …33 2.2.1. Analysis of the textbook B1 for secondary specialized education..38 2.2.2. Analysis of the textbook Scale up for ESP learners…………………43 Summary…………..…………………………………………………49 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………50 The list of used literature ……

INTRODUCTION The topicality and importance of the theme of the graduation project work. Since the declaration of its independence, the continuing education system of the Republic of Uzbekistan has been extensively reformed in line with the global movement towards integration of education systems across the world and re-establishing the sense of nationhood. Undoubtedly, this was a hard and a demanding process which required the total reestablishment of the whole system. Along with the development of purely Uzbek model of education system by means of adopting documents such as Law on Education 1 and National Programme for Personnel Training 2 there have been established a comprehensive education system, aimed at creating harmoniously developed, highly educated, modern- minded younger generat

culture. Many scholars, educational experts and methodologists are working in this field. We believe that to study the process of implementation of CEFR in our educational system is one of the most actual themes to research. The main purpose and objectives of the theme. The aim of the paper is to study the role of CEFR in education and its implementation in the educational system of Uzbekistan. The tasks of the research are as follows: - to give general overview on CEFR’s history, its aims and objectives; - to study descriptors of the Common European Framework of Reference; - to highlight the role of intercultural competence in CEFR context; - to analyze the implementation of CEFR in the higher educational system of Uzbekistan The scope of study. CEFR was studied in the research works of t

- It can be used by teachers of schools, lyceums and vocational schools as a practical manual for teaching English; - It can be useful for everyone who wants to find out the level of his/her English. The structure and description of the research. The project paper consists of introduction, two chapters, five paragraphs, summaries, conclusion, the list of used literature and appendix. It deals with CEFR in the educational system of Uzbekistan. In introduction the following are given: the topicality and importance of the theme, the aim and tasks of the research, the scope of study of the theme, the object and subject matter of the research, the scientific novelty of the theme, the structure and description of the research. The first chapter includes 2 paragraphs and deals with the Common Eur

Chapter I. The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), its aims and objectives 1.1 CEFR in the educational context 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. 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 sak

The Common European Framework is designed to provide a common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc. across Europe and nowadays some Asian countries. It describes in a comprehensive way what language learners have to learn in order to use a language for communication and what knowledge and skills they have to develop so as to be able to act effectively. The description also covers the cultural context in which language is set. The Framework also de ﬁnes levels of pro ﬁciency which allow learners’ progress to be measured at each stage of learning and on a life-long basis. 4 The Common European Framework is intended to overcome the barriers to communication among professionals working in the ﬁeld of modern languages arising from

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). 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 applie

Language Indicator, SurveyLang. 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 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. CEF should be: Multi pu

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.

1.2 Descriptors of CEFROne of the aims of the Framework is to help partners to describe the levels of pro ﬁciency required by existing standards, tests and examinations in order to facilitate comparisons between different systems of quali ﬁcations. For this purpose the Descriptive Scheme and the Common Reference Levels have been developed. Between them they provide a conceptual grid which users can exploit to describe their system. Ideally a scale of reference levels in a common framework should meet the following four criteria. Two relate to description issues, and two relate to measurement issues: Description Issues: A common framework scale should be context-free in order to accommodate generalisable results from different speci ﬁc contexts. That is to say that a common scale should not

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 recognition), and the adaptations have seldom been reported and documented. 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 ar

Those readers who accessed the CEFR during the first few years after its publication will remember the impact caused by the descriptor forA1 in Table 1(see App.) in the CEFR, 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 clearly and is prepared to help. A brief overview of

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. 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.When one looks at these six levels, however, one sees that they are respectively higher and lower interpretations of the classic division into basic, intermediate and advanced. Also, some of the names given to Council of Europe speci ﬁcations for levels have proved resistant to t

pro ﬁle their main language skills, and decide at which level they might look at a checklist of more detailed descriptors in order to self-assess their level of pro ﬁciency.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. 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

■■ 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. Illustrative descriptors:The three tables used to introduce the Common Reference Levels (Tables 1, 2 and 3) are summarized from a bank of ‘illustrative descriptors’ developed and validated for the CEF in the research project. These formulations have been mathematically scaled to these levels by analyzing the way in which they have been interpreted in the assessment of large numbers of learners. ‘Can Do’ descriptors are provided for reception, interaction and

Descriptors need to remain holistic in order to give an overview; detailed lists of microfunctions, grammatical forms and vocabulary are presented in language speci ﬁcations for particular languages (e.g.Threshold Level 1990). An analysis of the functions, notions, grammar and vocabulary necessary to perform the communicative tasks described on the scales could be part of the process of developing new sets of languages speci ﬁcations. General competences implied by such a module (e.g. Knowledge of the World, Cognitive skills) could be listed in similar fashion. The set as a whole, whilst not being fully comprehensive and having been scaled in one (admittedly multi-lingual, multi-sector) context of foreign language learning in instructional settings: -is ﬂexible . The same set of descriptor

scaled the illustrative descriptors, identi ﬁed a band of language use, limited to the performance of isolated tasks, which can be presupposed in the de ﬁnition of Level A1. In certain contexts, for example with young learners, it may be appropriate to elaborate such a ‘milestone’. The following descriptors relate to simple, general tasks, which were scaled below Level A1, but can constitute useful objectives for beginners: - can make simple purchases where pointing or other gesture can support the verbal reference; - can ask and tell day, time of day and date; - can use some basic greetings; - can say yes, no, excuse me, please, thank you, sorry; - can ﬁll in uncomplicated forms with personal details, name, address, nationality, marital status; - can write a short, simple postcard. The de

Level A1 (Breakthrough) – is considered the lowest level of generative language use: – the point at which the learner can interact in a simple way, ask and answer simple questions about themselves, where they live, people they know, and things they have, initiate and respond to simple statements in areas of immediate need or on very familiar topics, rather than relying purely on a very ﬁnite rehearsed, lexically organised repertoire of situation-speci ﬁc phrases. Level A2 does appear to re ﬂect the level referred to by the Waystage speci ﬁcation. It is at this level that the majority of descriptors stating social functions are to be found, like use simple everyday polite forms of greeting and address; greet people, ask how they are and react to news; handle very short social exchanges; ask

have to compromise the message and search for words; interact with reasonable ease in structured situations, given some help, but participation in open discussion is fairly restricted; plus signi ﬁcantly more ability to sustain monologues, for example: express how he/she feels in simple terms; give an extended description of everyday aspects of his/her environment e.g. people, places, a job or study experience; describe past activities and personal experiences; describe habits and routines; describe plans and arrangements; explain what he/she likes or dislikes about something; give short, basic descriptions of events and activities; describe pets and possessions; use simple descriptive language to make brief statements about and compare objects and possessions. Level B1 re ﬂects the Thresh

The subsequent band seems to be a Strong Threshold (B1+). The same two main features continue to be present, with the addition of a number of descriptors which focus on the exchange of quantities of information, for example: take messages communicating enquiries, explaining problems; provide concrete information required in an inter- view/consultation (e.g. describe symptoms to a doctor) but does so with limited precision; explain why something is a problem; summarise and give his or her opinion about a short story, article, talk, discussion, interview, or documentary and answer further questions of detail; carry out a prepared interview, checking and con ﬁ rming information, though he/she may occasionally have to ask for repetition if the other person’s response is rapid or extended; desc

Secondly, running right through the level there are two new focuses. The ﬁrst is being able to more than hold your own in social discourse: e.g. converse naturally, ﬂuently and effectively; understand in detail what is said to him/her in the standard spoken language even in a noisy environment; initiate discourse, take his/her turn when appropriate and end conversation whenhe/she needs to, though he/she may not always do this elegantly; use stock phrases (e.g. ‘That’s a dif ﬁcult question to answer’) to gain time and keep the turn whilst formulating what to say; interact with a degree of ﬂuency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without imposing strain on either party; adjust to the changes of direc tion, style and emphasis normally found in

relationships between ideas; develop an argument systematically with appropriate highlighting of signi ﬁcant points, and relevant supporting detail. Finally, it is at this band that there is a concentration of items on negotiating: outline a case for compensation, using persuasive language and simple arguments to demand satisfaction; state clearly the limits to a concession. Level C1 , the next band, was labelled Effective Operational Pro ﬁciency. What seems to characterise this level is good access to a broad range of language, which allows ﬂuent, spontaneous communication, as illustrated by the following examples: Can express him/herself ﬂ uently and spontaneously, almost effortlessly. Has a good command of a broad lexical repertoire allowing gaps to be readily overcome with circumlocuti

of ﬁxed points of common reference offers transparency and coherence, a tool for future planning and a basis for further development. The intention of providing a concrete illustrative set of descriptors, together with criteria and methodologies for the further development of descriptors, is to help decision-makers design applications to suit their contexts. The levels used are the six main levels A1 (Breakthrough), A2(Waystage), B1 (Threshold), B2 (Vantage), C1 (Effective Operational Pro ﬁ ciency) and C2 (Mastery). The levels in the middle part of the scale – Waystage, Threshold and Vantage – often have a subdivision represented by a thin line, as mentioned above. Where this is the case, descriptors below the thin line represent the criterion level concerned. Descriptors placed above the

what is seen as salient or new at that level. They do not systematically repeat all the elements mentioned at the level below with a minor change of formulation to indicate increased dif ﬁculty. Summary of Chapter I In conclusion we want to state that CEFR is not a set of 6 points, nor a series of plateaus with vertical climbs at level boundaries. CEFR is a continuous scale of progress in language ability. As a language teacher, we find CEFR useful because it provides a common framework which can not only help us structure a course, but also monitor and assess students’ progress. It makes our lives as assessors easier by providing clear and unambiguous (at least theoretically) statements of students’ language ability. As it was pointed out in the discussion, can dos might also be used to m

I can interact in a simple way provided the other person is prepared to repeat or rephrase things at a slower rate of speech and help me formulate what I'm trying to say. (A1) Obviously, not all learners will feel the same about CEFR (or any other structured assessment program), but if the students are properly introduced and eased into the idea of self-assessment using the can do statements, they will benefit from it. The statements are positive, and therefore avoid the risk of intimidating or discouraging students with negative feedback.

Купить