Cambridge ESOL exams and the CEFR
Common Scale levels and the CEFR
The figure shows the Common Scale for objectively marked papers at each Cambridge level. Thresholds for each level are shown on a logit scale (logits being the IRT unit of measurement). A candidate’s result depends on performance in all papers - individual papers are not passed or failed. Thus the ability thresholds shown in the figure are related to the pass grade for the exam via expectations of typical profiles of performance across all skills.
The figure also shows illustrative ability distributions for the candidates at each level.
It is noticeable that in measurement units the levels become narrower as proficiency increases. This may seem surprising, because in terms of learning hours it is well known that the higher the level the more time and effort must be expended to reach it. However, learning gains are most rapid at the lowest levels, and in terms of the observable difference in performance, learning gains per unit of effort become progressively smaller.
This proportional relationship between the levels is interesting and can be used to support the case that the Cambridge levels system – though evolved piecemeal and without statistical support – perfectly reflects the requirements of a ‘learning ladder’ of objectives. Low levels, we see, represent readily achievable but substantive goals. Higher levels are less clearly separated, but each is needed as a terminal goal or an intermediate step for serious learners who are investing much greater effort in order to progress.
Cambridge ESOL’s exam system has developed in interaction with the Council of Europe language policy initiatives which have culminated in the publication of the CEFR – a process described by Taylor and Jones 2006, North 2006. This history of interaction gives Cambridge ESOL a very strong, one might say organic, relationship to the CEFR.
More information: Cambridge ESOL exams and the CEFR (PDF, 92Kb)
This does not mean, of course, that we treat the Cambridge ESOL levels as definitive of CEFR levels; however, the Common Scale is based on a huge item bank covering all CEFR levels, and this makes it a uniquely valuable tool for exploring the nature of progression in objectively-tested English language skills, and thus of clear relevance to the CEFR.
In this context it is worth pointing out that the logit intervals which define the Common Scale cannot be compared with the logit values provided for the CEFR reference levels as defined by the illustrative scales (North 2002). This is because they have been derived in completely different ways: the Common Scale from learners’ responses to objective test tasks, vertically anchored across five exam levels; the CEFR scales from teacher ratings of learners’ observed behaviour. But if the scales are not comparable, neither are they contradictory. Both refer to the same broad conceptual framework of language proficiency levels.
More information on the Council of Europe, including descriptor scales (Word, 9.8Mb), is available in the Case studies document on the Council of Europe website.
References:
North, B (2002) Developing descriptor scales of language proficiency for the CEF common reference levels. In: Council of Europe (2002): Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment: Case Studies. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
North, B (2006) The Common European Framework of Reference: Development, Theoretical and Practical Issues, paper presented at the symposium ‘A New Direction in Foreign Language Education: The Potential of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages’, Osaka University of Foreign Studies, Japan, March 2006.
Taylor, L and N. Jones (2006). Cambridge ESOL exams and the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) (PDF, 92Kb). Research Notes 24.
