John Trim of the Council of Europe describes the development of the influential Threshold series and how he sees English Profile taking this work to the next stage.
Presentation to the English Profile Seminar, Cambridge, February 2007
I have been asked to contribute to this conference by saying a few words about the background to the English Profile project in the work of the Council of Europe Modern Languages Projects from 1970 onwards and in particular the German language project Profile deutsch.
In 1971, following an intergovernmental symposium held in Rüschlikon, Switzerland, I was asked to chair a small working party to investigate the feasibility of a European unit-credit system for adult language learning. We were agreed that the system should be learner-centred and needs-oriented, and comprehensive in the sense that nobody should be deliberately excluded, and that all stages of language development from the earliest to the most advanced should be covered. This was a vast canvas and the problem was how it should, or could, be articulated. We embraced the systems approach of educational technology of the time: target group analysis (needs, motivations, learner characteristics and resources) leading to the specification of objectives in terms of what the learners should be able to do and what knowledge and skills they needed in order to be able to act. Then the methods to enable them, given their characteristics as learners and their prior knowledge and experience, to attain the objectives by acquiring the knowledge and skills required to turn them into action and then finally, assessment of the extent to which the objective had been reached. This seems fine as a model, but on a social scale not unproblematic. With different agencies involved at each stage of the process, how can coherence be assessed? How is the enormous diversity of learner needs and characteristics to be accommodated? How is the continuous, apparently seamless, process of language development to be segmented? We were very sceptical as to the concept of ‘level’. For one thing it seemed to imply an even development of all skills, which conflicts with psycholinguistic findings. Recognition skills are always ahead of recall skills. Phonetics and morphological processes are necessarily habituated and then increasingly withdrawn from consciousness, so that attention can be concentrated on the expression of content. Again, there appear to be no natural breaks in the process, though breaks are imposed by the social organisation of learning. However, patterns of organisation vary widely, especially in adult education, across a continent of independent states large and small and even within them, with a multiplicity of providers.
Rather than attempting to set up a large-scale overall system at that point, we decided to provide an exemplar. We considered that in the chain of objectives–methods–assessment, agreement on objectives was central to achieving coherence. We thought that one possible natural level might be found at the point when the learning of particular bits and pieces of language first evolves into an overall communicative competence. We thought that a highest common factor (not lowest common multiple!) of learner needs and motivations might be found in the ability to make one’s way about as an independent agent in an environment where the target language was the general means of communication for all purposes. Putting these considerations together, we came up with the Threshold Level concept, which attempted to define the minimum that a language learner should know and be able to do in order to move as an independent agent in the foreign language environment, in terms of the functions language performs, the concepts or notions, both general and theme-specific, to be expressed and consequentially, the grammatical categories and structures, and the vocabulary needed for the purpose.
This approach placed the Threshold level in strong contrast to that generally followed hitherto, which saw the teacher’s responsibility as being to build up the learner’s knowledge of grammatical structure from the simple to the complex and vocabulary from the most common to the less common items, seeing their use as entirely the responsibility of the individual learner.
The model and the approach to language learning it implied, had an immediate and powerful impact and was soon assimilated into the general practice of the EFL field, giving substance to the communicative approach. Its influence on curriculum design, course construction, textbook writing, teacher training and examination syllabuses and procedures did in fact produce consensus and coherence in EFL development over a generation. It also had a strong influence on the teaching of other languages, as in the ‘graded objectives’ movement in the UK, and versions were elaborated in over 20 European languages and published by the Council of Europe.
Pressure from user interests also led to the extension to a multi-level system, with Waystage and later Breakthrough at lower levels and Vantage at a higher level, though these never had the same impact and only the Centre for Greek Language in Thessaloniki (and more recently Lithuania) developed the full gamut for another language.
Initially, however, the Threshold level was not universally welcomed. Some regarded it as minimalist and lacking in cultural value. It was also criticised for its apparent neglect of grammar. In fact, Jan van Ek, who wrought a shapeless mass of material into a clearly structured systematic exposition, was first and foremost a grammarian. The chapter on General notions is very rich in its grammatical content, but was, perhaps for that reason, the least used aspect of the work.
French colleagues, especially at CREDIF, were anxious that an objective designed for one target audience, however substantial, might be taken as the sole objective for early language learning and thus betray the needs-oriented, learner-centred ideology of the project. They produced a counter-version, significantly entitled Un Niveau-Seuil, which followed a different approach. Rather than define a single objective, they produced in addition what was in effect a reservoir of material for the early learning of French from which users would have to select according to the needs, motivations, characteristics and resources of their clients. In particular, they included a communicative grammar of French and an extensive section of ‘Actes de parole’. This distinguished initiating acts (e.g. asking questions) from responsive acts (e.g. answering questions) and provided an extensive range of language exponents for each, from the most formal to the most colloquial and from the laconic to the verbose, the sardonic to the sunnily optimistic, in order to allow learners to express their own personality rather than be forced to adopt a different persona. The work’s amplitude, especially taken together with a brilliant, but untranslatable study of L’écrit et les écrits (writing and writings), was found daunting and over-demanding by users and was not widely followed. Only the Portuguese version followed it at all closely, while the German Kontaktschwelle attempted a synthesis of the English and French archetypes. In both cases the effect was to raise the level of the objective more towards that of Vantage than of Threshold, which reduced their value for early learning.
In 1977, following the recommendations of an intergovernmental symposium, the Council of Europe decided to abandon the development of a unit-credit system and to concentrate on the development and application of the Threshold level and the communicative approach across the whole educational system, especially at school level. Teacher training was seen as a key element and absorbed most effort during the 1980s and in Eastern Europe in the 1990s. However, social and economic changes, especially the phenomenon of globalisation, revived interest in a more general framework for modern languages across Europe and especially in the problem of equivalence of qualifications for vocational and educational mobility. The initiative was again taken by the Swiss government, which faced this problem internally, owing to its cantonal system. After a symposium at Rüschlikon, a small authoring group was charged with drafting a Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). I attempted to identify the parameters and categories needed to characterise language as action and the various aspects of communicative competence. David Coete examined the question of curriculum design. Brain North, on the basis of a Swiss research project and taking into account the ALTE ‘Can Do’ statements, provided both global and activity-specific descriptors of language proficiency at six levels, corresponding to what seemed to be the most widespread practice in the field. This latter work had an immediate and powerful impact, especially on language policy and qualifications at national and international level, whilst the whole work has had a strong effect on teacher training.
As I have said, Un Niveau-Seuil and to a large extent Kontaktschwelle were more a survey of communicative resources for the relatively early stages of learning for the languages concerned, than the definition of a learning objective for a defined audience. The appearance of CEFR, published simultaneously in French and English, prompted the Goethe-Institut and others concerned with the teaching of German as a foreign language, to revise and recast Kontaktschwelle as a multilevel survey of resources for the learning of German, distributing the functions, general and specific notions of Kontaktschwelle and their lexical and structural exponents, over the four levels A1–B2, supplemented as was felt necessary. This survey would then provide a concrete basis for each learner, or provider, to extract what was relevant to their needs, motivations, characteristics and resources and to construct individual learning profiles. A project was set up, entitled Profile deutsch (Profiles for German). One innovative feature was the tripartite composition of the steering committee and authoring team: Germany, Austria and Switzerland. German was recognised as polycentric and regional variants were listed available to be drawn upon as relevant to the learner.
Profile deutsch does not simply follow the same organisational principle as Kontaktschwelle, but incorporates many of the features of CEFR. Notably, a much greater part is played by ‘Can Do ‘ descriptions, global and detailed, with specific examples. The descriptions are classified by activity type as set out in CEFR: production, reception, interaction and mediation, oral and written. More attention is given to scenarios, text-types and strategies of learning and use. All these factors are then combined, not all necessarily at the same level, to form individual or group profiles by working interactively with the central tool, a CD-ROM, together with an accompanying book.
The setting up of a group profile proceeds, in principle, in five steps (p. 64): 1) naming the group; 2) defining scenarios (e.g. taking part in a seminar); 3) describing the elements of the scenarios (e.g. preparatory reading of an article); 4) selecting appropriate ‘Can Do’ statements for each element (e.g. can understand detailed content analyses and commentaries in which different points of view are stated, explained and discussed); 5) developing one’s own examples and eliminating irrelevant ones. The users then go on to select from the listed speech acts, general notions and thematic vocabulary and supplement them as appropriate.
However, when the group came to work on Levels C1 and C2, they were entering virtually new territory. Could the existing methodology simply be extended further? Their conclusion was that while the procedures for the establishment of a profile remained valid, it was no longer possible to specify a language content appropriate to those levels. The reasons, perhaps debatable, which they give (p. 46) are that:
1 the higher the level, the more complex is language use
2 the higher the level, the more specific, concrete and needs oriented are the learner's expectations
3 the higher the level, the less can level-specific linguistic means be specified
4 as their proficiency level rises, learners have more strongly differentiated and very different individual needs, leading to many smaller target groups
5 institutions must take account in their offerings of the needs and expectations of the different target groups
6 differentiated, complex learning and teaching objectives demand a modular organisation of the offering (courses and examinations)
7 curricula must be appropriate to the specific needs and therefore be formulated anew.
The specification of Levels C1 and C2 is therefore primarily in terms of an elaborate, rather daunting, scheme of ‘Can Do’ statements, taking up almost 40 pages of the book (p. 175–213). It is not possible to present this scheme in detail, but it may be of use to give a sample to communicate its flavour. Thus for C1 ‘oral interaction’, the global ‘Can Do’ statements include these items :
9 Can express himself/herself almost effortlessly, spontaneously and fluently; only with abstract and different topics are pauses frequently made in order to search for appropriate formulations.
10 Can for the most part understand idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms in the course of conversation and can himself/herself use the most common as appropriate to the situation.
11 Can express his/her thoughts and opinions with precision and can link his/her contributions to the conversations skilfully.
12 Can take part in conversations flexibly and appropriately, giving expression to his/her own emotions, making allusion and performing other functions (Sprachabsichten).
13 Can make use of appropriate linguistic means to take the floor in a conversation, to link one’s contribution to those of others, to gain time for thought whilst speaking and show that he/she wishes to keep the floor (also C2).
14 Can, in a larger group, steer communications, give the floor to others, or invite them to make a contribution.
15 Can, when faced with difficulties of expression in the course of a conversation, show flexibility in starting afresh, correcting himself/herself, or reformulating a statement.
16 Can use different linguistic means in a conversation to emphasise or clarify statements and thoughts.
17 Can make clear and well-structured contributions to a conversation showing command of the means of organisation and linkage of content and language.
18 Can present arguments in conversations and discussions clearly, combining different themes, handling some items of content in more exact detail, and rounding off the presentation with an appropriate ending.
19 Can express himself/herself almost effortlessly thanks to his/her extensive vocabulary, and, where this is a lexical group, have no problem in using periphrases, so that word-finding problems are rarely obvious.
20 Can express himself/herself with reasonable precision as a result of his/her large vocabulary and is able to modulate his/her utterances so that, for example, the degree of certainty, doubt or probability is made clear.
21 Can, thanks to his/her large vocabulary, express himself/herself in conversations to a large extent correctly and appropriately, so that errors in word usage rarely occur.
22 Can select from a large repertoire of grammatical structures and organise even longer contributions to a conversation using complex structures.
23 Can produce ever lengthy contributions to a conversation with such grammatical correctness that errors are rare and scarcely noticeable.
24 Can vary intonation and stress in conversation to express nuances of meaning.
Detailed ‘Can Do’s and examples include:
7 can, in official or service conversation, exchange information even on unusual themes or problems, e.g. ‘can, when involved in an accident, discuss with an assessor from the insurance company, who is to blame and what equitable solutions are possible’
or:
8 can lead a discussion, opening it, acting as moderator and bringing it to a conclusion, e.g. ‘can, at a school parents’ evening, welcome those present, open the round of discussion and react to critical questions and complaints raised by parents’.
Compare this with C2: ‘can, as a teacher at a parents’ evening, summarise questions and complaints concerning teaching and set out and justify in clear statements one’s own practice’.
Clearly, this range is enormous. It is not proposed that any learner at Level C1 should be able to do all these things. The global description summarises an advanced competence. The detailed statements and especially the examples rather stimulate users to reflect on their needs and to formulate in similar terms the appropriate requirements.
In all, Profile deutsch is a valuable pioneering effort. Its profiling procedures and ways of exploiting the interactive possibilities of new media deserve careful study and consideration with regard to the English Profile project. Among the issues for discussion may be the following:
- A glance at any of the examples given show how German language requirements are rooted in the cultural values and social organisation of the German-speaking countries. It requires careful consideration how far such cultural presuppositions are appropriate to English in its role as a hypocentral language. It may be more appropriate for learners to be aware of their own cultural point of departure and able to articulate it for others.
- Is it true that the higher levels of language proficiency entail greater specialisation and the abandonment of any attempt to find a highest common factor amongst learners? The global 'can-do' statements .are not specialised, but appear to apply to all users. Are there no definable linguistic features attached to them, characteristic of all fully proficient users and not already present at level B2? Perhaps the comparison of marginally successful candidates for FCE and CPE may shed light on this issue.
- The inclusion of an advanced learners' dictionary in the Profile deutsch package seems to imply that new language learning beyond B2 is purely lexical. Is this so? Is there no need for an advanced grammar? What, if any, is the role of encyclopaedic knowledge at these levels? CEFR recognises the importance of general competences in communication. Do they play a larger part at the C levels? Is there an expectation or even presupposition of some common cultural capital underlying conversation at this level? Is English in a special position in this respect(see above)?
- In so far as 'can-do' statements identify tasks, many will appear at a number of different levels. In real communication, it is often a matter of 'must-do' rather than 'can do'! Level distinctions are then generally qualitative, usually expressed through adjectival or adverbial words and phrases. These are notoriously open to widely different interpretations. Transparency demands proper attention to means of minimalising such divergency.
- The polycentric approach to German in levels A1-B2 is not apparent in C1 & C2. What should be the stance of English Profile to this issue at all levels?
Overall, English Profile will be seen to be firmly rooted in the work of the Council of Europe over the past 30 years and ideally placed not only to make effective use of that tradition, but also to make a distinctive and valuable contribution to its further development
John L. M. Trim Cambridge, February 2007
