See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237400732

The Common European Framework in teaching writing

Article · January 2006

CITATIONS READS

4 430

1 author:

Heini‐Marja Järvinen
University of Turku
3 PUBLICATIONS 38 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Heini‐Marja Järvinen on 25 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Common European Framework in teaching
writing

Heini-Marja Järvinen

Department of Teacher Education, University of Turku

Abstract
This paper gives an overview of how the Common European Framework can be applied in teaching
languages, and in the teaching of writing in particular. The paper describes a sub-project carried out
as part of a larger one, the European Language Portfolio project led by Professor Viljo Kohonen.
The objectives of the writing portfolio project were to investigate ways to integrate writing with the
Common European Framework (henceforth CEF), and the national curricula as reflected in text-
book and as adapted to local circumstances during the first year in upper secondary level in Finland.
The writing portfolio project was based on the flexible and wide approach to language learning and
teaching advocated by the CEF, especially in terms of increasing autonomy in learning with associ-
ated development of the learner-writers’ metacognitive skills, including self-assessment.

What is the Common European Framework?

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (2001) is a result of

years of collaboration of Europe’s top scholars covering a diversity of fields of expertise.
The product of this work, a 250-page volume, embraces the current understanding of the
learning, teaching and assessment of languages. It is a work of reference rather than a
practical guidebook, and it is clear that the dissemination, adoption and practical applica-
tion of the ideas it contains is a huge endeavour which takes time and a great deal of effort
from all parties involved. It is also obvious that its implementation would be greatly facil-
itated by sharing the work load among the parties with vested interest in language teach-
ing, such as educational planners, designers of national curricula, city, town and school
administrations, publishing houses and textbook writers to name but a few in addition to
the key players in the field, i.e. language teachers.

145
Why the present paper?

This paper reports on a teaching experiment which was conducted as part of the Finnish
European Language Portfolio project led by Professor Viljo Kohonen (Kohonen 2003).
The project was designed as a first exploration of what the Common European Frame-
work means to an individual practitioner. The paper is an attempt to account for this
understanding at the level of practical application. It is hoped that the paper will provide
the reader with practical ideas but also that it will invoke questions and spur the reader to
learn more about the Common European Framework.

Goal-setting: Common reference levels

At the onset of the writing portfolio project, the learners, i.e. our subjects, were at the
beginning of their first year at upper secondary school. Most of the students had gradu-
ated from the local comprehensive school the previous spring term, and they just contin-
ued their studies at the associated upper secondary school; some came from other com-
prehensive schools in the city. New study groups were formed, so all the three parallel
groups investigated consisted of students of which some but not all had previously been
classmates or collaborated with each other for some length of time. We, the three teach-
ers of the groups, each welcomed a new group. Our main concern was to find out the stu-
dents’ previous knowledge of English in order to launch the project on the right level. We
had reason to believe that the majority of our subjects were A2 level students, as this is
the level that is achieved by the majority of students in their first foreign language by the
end of comprehensive school (for national curricula for comprehensive school and upper
secondary school visit www.oph.fi). If this was the case we could set our goal on B1–B2
skill levels and focus on B level texts, tasks and strategies. As one of the objectives of the
project was to focus on and try to improve the students’ self-evaluation skills, we thought
it proper to start by administering the CEF self-assessment grid (CEF 2001: 26–27), on
which the students assessed themselves. The self-assessment grid descriptions are as fol-
lows (CEF 2001: 26–27):
A1
I can write a short, simple postcard, for example sending holiday greetings. I can
fill in forms with personal details, for example entering my name, nationality and
address on a hotel registration form.
A2
I can write short, simple notes and messages relating to matters in areas of imme-
diate need. I can write a very simple personal letter, for example thanking someone
for something.
B1
I can write simple connected texts on topics which are familiar or of personal
interest. I can write personal letters describing experiences and impressions.

146
 B2
I can write clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects related to my interests. I
can write an essay or a report, passing on information or giving reasons in support
of or against a particular point of view. I can write letters highlighting the per-
sonal significance of events and experiences.
C1
I can express myself in clear, well-structured text, expressing points of view at
some length. I can write about complex subjects in a letter, an essay or a report,
underlining what I consider to be the salient issues. I can select style appropriate
to the reader in mind.
C2
I can write clear, smoothly flowing text in an appropriate style. I can write complex
letters, reports or articles which present a case with an effective logical structure
which helps the recipient to notice and remember significant points. I can write
summaries and reviews of professional or literary works.
It turned out that the majority of the students estimated that they had indeed reached the
levels of A2 and B1in writing. They seemed to have the necessary skill of self-evaluation,
which was fortunate, as with much skill learning, it would have been wiser to learn and
teach the skills of self-evaluation step-by-step, progressing at a moderate speed, leaving
room for individual variation. Instead, we administered the whole grid at the same time.
In retrospect, our implicit objective was to gain an impressionistic understanding of our
students’ proficiency in writing – and also of their self-evaluation skills. Whether our pro-
cedure was unorthodox or not, at this phase we had gained valuable information about the
students’ level and could go on to the next step in our project. To sum up, our goal was to
make it possible for the majority of our subjects to progress to B2 level in writing and to
make it possible for some to reach even higher levels, i.e. C1 or C2 by the end of upper
secondary school.
The starting point for our goal setting was to define the target reference level of desired
student performance, which, as noted above, was later confirmed by the national curricu-
lum. At the beginning of the project, however, the national guidelines were under prepa-
ration as were the fine-grained sub-scales, which are useful to the teacher for planning
the syllabi and rewarding for the learner in measuring subtle changes in proficiency. The
branching approach provides the flexibility (see CEF, chapter 3.5.) which is necessary as
the scales are used in different circumstances and with varied language learning objec-
tives, such as in LSP courses (CEF 2001, 31 – 33).

147
The Common European Framework in a nutshell

General competences Domains

Communicative Communicative
language language
competences activities

Strategies Texts Tasks

Figure 1. Framework of the project (based on lecture notes and handouts given by Irma Hut-
tunen and Sauli Takala).

In addition to diagnostic assessment of the students’ level of language proficiency and

goal-setting, the course syllabus should draw on a number of identified components of
language proficiency. In considering what components to include in a course syllabus,
one has to take into account not only the targeted skill level but also other components of
language proficiency. The CEF approach to language use and the competences of the lan-
guage user is shown in Figure 1. Let us discuss the figure in more detail, starting from the
innermost box.

Texts, tasks, and strategies

Texts are defined as samples of spoken or written language. The approach that the CEF
adopts is called action-oriented. This means that tasks are related to texts in a way that
allows the utilisation of the language user’s linguistic and general competences (see also
Ellis 2003). If tasks are not automatic or routine, they necessitate the use of strategies in
language use and learning. Tasks, in turn, may be non-linguistic, they may be a mixture of
linguistic content and other components, such as action, or they may be purely linguistic.

Language activities

If the tasks have a linguistic component, they involve language activities that are neces-
sary in the processing (reception, production, interaction, or mediation) of oral or writ-
ten texts (CEF: 15 – 16). Clearly, the texts in the writing portfolio project were written
samples of language; their production involved a host of different strategies ranging from
learning strategies to specific strategies necessary for written communication. It must be
noted, though, that it is hardly possible to draw a clear line between learning and commu-
nication strategies and between linguistic tasks and tasks that involve other than purely
linguistic means for completion, such as the ability to use a tool for example. The recipro-
cal relationship between reading and writing is well-known. It was quite obvious from the

148
beginning that written tasks can and should by no means be limited to written production
only. The natural relationships between the various linguistic skills was utilised in the
course of the project (CEF: 99 – 100); it was even possible to transfer a spoken text into a
written one (see Table 1. Writing portfolio1, assignment number 3)
Table 1 below describes the writing portfolio project. The column headings are drawn
from the CEF in a nutshell (Figure 1 above). The rows in the first column on the left,
titled Text/Title refer to the data of the investigation, i.e. they comprise the major writing
texts produced in the course of three courses of English during one academic year
(August 2001 – May 2002). The table contains the texts, tasks and strategies that were
studied and practised. The majority of the essay titles were taken from the textbook in use
(Kallela et al. 2000), but other sources were also used. In task and strategy choice and a
number of sources proved useful (Dean 1988, Ellis & Sinclair 1989a,b, McKay & Abig-
ail 1993, Peregoy & Boyle 1993).

Communicative language competences

The last three columns on the right in Table 1 refers to the communicative language
competences that were drawn on in the course of the writing portfolio project. Chapter
5.2 (CEF: 108 – 130) discusses the different communicative language competences, the
linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences.

Table 1. Writing portfolio project.

Text/ Title Strategy Task / Objective Linguistic Pragmatic Sociolinguistic
competences competences competences
1
My home/ Prewriting: To learn how to There is, there are Descriptive
My dream house Mind mapping describe something or Adjectives
somebody
2
Thank you note Reproduction To learn to use the Use of formal and Text design To express
(functional) informal linguistic note/ short letter gratitude formal
language of thanking devices vs. informal
3
Written summary of a speech given Note-taking To locate macro and Direct > indirect Text type: Spoken >
by a native speaker ( “Why learning T-list micro propositions speech narrative/ written
foreign languages is important.”) Re-structuring of text expository
4
Then I was really embarrassed… Compensatory To tell a coherent story To find suitable Text type: Informal
strategies individual linguistic Narrative
Using means to express Anecdote
imagination one’s ideas
5
School – too much work?/ Teachers Pre-teaching To write a well To learn to identify Text type: Select and
– do we need them?/ Exams – are of argumenta- developed argument: and use the linguistic Argumentative maintain
they necessary?/ tive text giving reasons, devices of an Making a appropriate
Sports at school – what for?/ structure illustrative examples argument statement register:
School – good preparation for the (schema) and summarising (introduction, main polite
real world? body, conclusion) persuasion
7
CV Reproduction To write an authentic or To learn to use the Text design (CV) Neutral >
imaginary CV linguistic conventions Formal
of written CVs
8
Application letter Reproduction To write an (imaginary) To learn to use the Text design
Job application Using application linguistic conventions (application)
imagination of written
applications

149
General competences and domains of language use

The language user’s general competences include her or his 1. declarative knowledge
(i.e. the knowledge of the world, sociocultural knowledge, and intercultural awareness),
2. skills and know-how ( i.e. practical skills and know-how and intercultural skills and
know-how), 3. ‘existential’ competence (i.e. abilities, motivations, values, beliefs, cog-
nitive styles and personality factors), and finally, 4. ability to learn (i.e. language and
communication awareness, general phonetic awareness and skills, study skills and heuris-
tic skills). The language user’s general competences are probably more indirectly affected
by advances in language-related competences. This does not mean, however, that they are
less important. To take an example, successful intercultural communication may lead to
more understanding and more tolerance and less prejudice, xenophobia and racism. Inter-
cultural awareness, knowledge of ‘otherness’ and intercultural skills are teachable and
learnable. The CEF is flexible and versatile enough to allow any language teacher to use
it in order to emphasise general competences in a number of ways.
The domains of language use that the CEF finds most useful among the multitude of pos-
sible domains are the personal, public, occupational and educational domain. (CEF
2001: 45 – 50). One of the objectives of the writing portfolio project was to make it possi-
ble for the learner-writer to advance from level A2/B1 to B2 level or possibly C1 level. A
look at the level descriptions shows that there indeed is a transition from the personal
domain (A1 – B1) on to diversified external contexts, the public and the educational
domains. Even the occupational domain is touched upon by way of the tasks of writing a
CV and a job application.

Concluding remarks

The project described above is part one of a series of at least two writing portfolio
projects. The second part still awaits its implementation. If the emphases in this project
have been more on language matters and linguistic competence and less on pragmatic,
sociolinguistic and general competences, the emphases of the second project will be the
opposite. This does not mean that the linguistic competence would be any less important
in advanced writing. It means that the linguistic concerns are viewed in terms of stylistic
constraints, discourse structure, text design, roles, audiences, functions and themes (cf.
C1-2 level descriptions).
To one of the teachers, the principal researcher, and the writer of this paper, the CEF
project provided not only a rich, coherent and comprehensive account of language use,
but also a very flexible framework; one that allows for individual variation and caters for
the versatile needs of a wide range of language users and provides for new angles and
emphases to the learning and teaching of languages. During the process, I remained confi-
dent of having done ‘the right thing’ all along - just like many language teachers who on
learning about the CEF remark that there is nothing that is new or revolutionary in the
document as such. But it is a coherent and principled account of language learning and
teaching, and after having ‘taken in’ the approach, one is free to apply the framework in
any contexts and circumstances and do justice to both the framework and one’s own
integrity as a language user. By doing so, the user may feel more empowered and inde-

150
pendent as a practitioner. (The process of internalising the ideas of the framework is
bound to be remarkably easier for future Finnish users of the document as a Finnish trans-
lation (Eurooppalainen viitekehys 2004) will be published in February 2004,)
On the other hand, the Framework is just a framework, another attempt to describe lan-
guage proficiency, language learning and teaching. As such, it is and should be suscepti-
ble to critical evaluation. One criticism that has been raised concerns the role of the profi-
ciency scales and the nature of the scale descriptions. It has been pointed out that it is
deceptively easy to view the proficiency scales as representative of the entire Frame-
work. It has further been remarked that the scales and their descriptors have a behaviour-
istic flavour and that the approach of the whole framework, i.e. action-oriented and task-
centred, may trigger a behaviouristic interpretation. There is another, maybe more impor-
tant, consequence of the primacy of language competences in the scales and the promi-
nence of scales and scale descriptions in the Framework, which is the subsidiary role of
the general competences. This is obviously due to the fact that language-related compe-
tences lend themselves to measurement and description– at least we believe so – more
easily than general competences. However, it may be concluded that one of the major
strengths of the current framework is to include the general competences in a description
of language proficiency and aim at a holistic account of language learning and teaching.

Literature
CEF 2001 = Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching,
assessment. 2001. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dean, M. 1988. Write It. Writing skills for intermediate learners of English Learner’s Book.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, G & Sinclair, B. 1989 a. Learning to Learn English. A course in learner training. Learner’s
Book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, G & Sinclair, B. 1989 b. Learning to Learn English. A course in learner training. Teacher’s
Book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eurooppalainen viitekehys. Kielten oppimisen, opettamisen ja arvioinnin yhteinen eurooppalainen
viitekehys. 2003. Helsinki: WSOY. (CEF 2001, edited and translated into Finnish by Hanna Jaak-
kola and Irma Huttunen)
Kallela, M.-L., Kangaspunta, R., Suurpää, A.-L., Erma, T., Nikkanen, L. & Woods, M. 2000. English
Update Highlights, Courses 1—3. Helsinki: WSOY.
Kohonen, V. 2003. Eurooppalaisen kielisalkun keskeisiä periaatteita. [Key principles of the European
Language Portfolio] Tempus 5/2005, 10—11.
McKay, H, & Abigail, T. 1993. Write After. Group Projects as Pre-Writing Activities. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Regents/Prentice Hall.
Peregoy, S. F. & Boyle, O. F. 1993. Reading, Writing, & Learning in ESL. A resource book for K-8
teachers. White Plains, N.Y.: Longman.

151
 152

View publication stats