Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (2009) 29, 5163. Printed in the USA.

Copyright 2009 Cambridge University Press 0267-1905/09 $16.00

doi:10.1017/S0267190509090059

4. EUROPEAN LANGUAGE POLICY: ASSESSMENT, LEARNING,

AND THE CEFR

Neil Jones and Nick Saville

This article describes how language policy is formed at a European level, focusing on
the Common European Framework of Reference for Language (CEFR). The CEFRs
prominent role in assessment has led to criticisms of its adequacy as a model for
learning and fears that it is being used as an instrument of centralization and
harmonization. First, we argue for studying the CEFRs effect on language policy as
a case of impact, as this concept is understood within language assessment. We refer
to experience with Asset Languages, developed as part of the United Kingdoms
national languages strategy. Second, we agree with many commentators who insist
on the frameworks flexible and context-amenable nature. If use of the CEFR is
made prescriptive and closed, it indeed becomes a straitjacket. What is needed is
engagement with the complexity of specific contexts. We introduce the European
Survey on Language Competences, a European Union (EU) initiative scheduled for
2011, which will further raise the profile of the CEFR as an assessment framework.
This project should contribute to achieving comparability of measures and standards
across languages. At the same time it underlines the need to develop contextualized,
practical ways of realizing the CEFRs potential as a framework for teaching and
learning.

Language Policy and the CEFR

Language policy at a European level, as opposed to the national policies of

particular European states, is shaped by two organizations: the Council of Europe and
the European Union. The former is the larger organization (47 member countries)
and the older. It does not make economic policy and is most influential in the field of
human rights. The statutory institutions of the Council of Europe include the
Committee of Ministers, comprising the foreign ministers of each member state; the
Parliamentary Assembly, composed of members of Parliament (MPs) from the
Parliament of each member state; and the secretary general, heading the secretariat of
the Council of Europe. The European Cultural Convention states that the aim of the
Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose
. . . of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common

51
52 JONES AND SAVILLE

heritage (Council of Europe, 1954). The Council of Europes activities to promote

linguistic diversity and language learning are carried out within the framework of this
convention. Its Language Policy Division implements agreed intergovernmental
programs with a special emphasis on policy development. This work has emphasized
communication, exchange, and intercultural awareness. The influential Waystage and
Threshold learning objectives, first published in the 1970s (Van Ek & Trim, 1990a,
1990b), marked the beginning of efforts to identify a set of European levels of
language proficiency, work that culminated in the publication of the Common
European Framework of References for Language (CEFR) (Council of Europe,
2001).

The European Union (EU) is the political grouping of 27 countries. Political

leadership and the basis for policymaking in the EU comes from the European
Council, which is composed of one representative per member statethe head of
state or head of governmentplus the president of the Commission. The European
Commission (EC) acts as the EUs executive arm and is responsible for initiating the
legislation and for the day-to-day running of the EU. The European Parliament, with
785 directly elected members, forms half of the EUs legislature; the Council of the
European Union forms the other half.

Although the Council of Europe offers advice or advocacy, policy guidelines

at EU level tend to be concrete and binding. Education remains outside the EUs
direct control, according to the principle of subsidiarity. However, EU decisions
may strongly impact on education policies (Bonnet, 2007, p. 670).

Current language education policy themes are, of course, heterogeneous:

teacher training, lifelong and early learning, migrants and languages of schooling, the
language friendly school, CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), the
use of Information and communication technologies (ICTs), and so on. However, the
theme that brings these strands together at a European level is that of multilingualism.
The key concepts of multilingualism and plurilingualism are presented in Council of
Europe (2007). Multilingualism being a fundamental feature of European societies,
language education is an important aspect of social policy, particularly regarding
notions of social inclusion and shared democratic citizenship. The term
plurilingualism, which focuses on the individual rather than the collective, is a
specifically Council of Europe concept, not used in EU discourse.

The Language Policy Division section of the Council of Europe web site
illustrates the range of current areas of work. A recent focus is on the languages of
education (Fleming, 2008). The Council also assists member states in producing
self-evaluative language education policy profiles, as an aid to defining possible
future policy developments.

The EUs language policy is best seen as part of the so-called Lisbon
Strategy, the goal set in 2000 for Europe to become by 2010 the most competitive
and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world (Council of the European
Union, 2000, p. 2). In 2002 member countries agreed action to improve language
 EUROPEAN LANGUAGE POLICY 53

learning, in particular by teaching at least two foreign languages to all from a very
early age. A European Indicator of Language Competences was first mooted at this
time as one measure of progress toward the Lisbon goals. An action plan to promote
language learning and linguistic diversity (European Commission, 2003) stressed
among other things that English is not enough (p. 7); it reflected the concerns of
some member countries to counteract the increasingly dominant role of English as a
lingua franca seen to threaten other traditionally important languages such as French
and German. Multilingualism now has its own commissioner. The EU
Multilingualism Web site provides access to information about a wide range of
activities relevant to shaping language policy.

The CEFR is a key element in both organizations approach to framing

language policy. It sets out to provide a common basis for the elaboration of
language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc. across
Europe (p. 1). Developed by the Council of Europe and adopted by the EU as an
instrument of policy, it has rapidly become ubiquitous. Studies conducted by the
Council of Europe in 2005 and 2006 (Council of Europe 2006; Martyniuk & Noijons,
2007) concluded that in all countries the CEFR has had a major impact at the level of
policy. It was found to be most useful for the planning and the development of
curricula and syllabi, and equally for the development of tests and certification,
though somewhat less so for teacher education and training. However, at the level of
the classroom the impact was found to be less. The framework was widely accepted,
but its full potential not yet realized, because it is found difficult to understand and
teachers are not equipped to make use of it.

Thus some writers have concluded that the CEFRs major influence to date
has been on assessment (Coste, 2007; Fulcher, 2008; Little, 2007). Certainly the
publication of the CEFR and the subsequent preliminary pilot version of a manual for
relating language examinations to it (Council of Europe, 2003) has stimulated a great
deal of work by language testers. It has led to increasing insistence by governments
and other test users on proof of alignment, and a rush on the part of testers to provide
it. This influence is set to increase. A recent recommendation on the use of the CEFR
by the Council of Ministers (Council of Europe, 2008) includes the call for countries
to

ensure that all tests, examinations and assessment

procedures leading to officially recognised language qualifications
take full account of the relevant aspects of language use and
language competences as set out in the CEFR, that they are
conducted in accordance with internationally recognised principles
of good practice and quality management, and that the procedures to
relate these tests and examinations to the common reference levels
(A1-C2) of the CEFR are carried out in a reliable and transparent
manner.

The European Survey on Language Competences, now scheduled for

delivery in 2011, will deliver the long-awaited Indicator, and will use the CEFR as the
54 JONES AND SAVILLE

benchmark for reporting on the language competences of secondary-school pupils

across Europe, lending further visibility to the CEFR as an assessment
framework.

This somewhat one-sided adoption of the CEFR may be linked to a one-sided

reading of its text, as noted by Coste (2007): In various settings and on various levels
of discourse . . . people who talk about the Framework are actually referring only to
its scales of proficiency and their descriptors. Whatever the reason, one can identify
a disjunction between the current widespread adoption of the CEFR in assessment
and the framing of targets, and its generally less developed application to classroom
practice and to specific learning contexts.

For some commentators this situation illustrates the CEFRs lack of construct
validity as the framework for learning, teaching, and assessment that its title lays
claim to. For example, Fulcher (2004, 2008) comprehensively rejected the CEFR, on
the grounds that its descriptive scales, being empirically derived on the basis of
teacher judgments, are atheoretical, have no basis in second language acquisition
(SLA) research, and describe progression in a circular and reductive manner (Fulcher,
2008, p. 22).

Others interpret the situation described above as evidence that the CEFR is
being exploited as a tool of authority and controlmanipulated unthinkingly by
juggernaut-like centralizing institutions (Davies, 2008, p. 438, cited by Fulcher
2008, p. 21). As Trim, one of the principal framers of the framework, conceded,
there will always be people who are trying to use it as an instrument of power
(Saville, 2005, p. 282).

But the impact of the CEFRs rise to prominence as an instrument of policy is

far more complex than is suggested by any such simple interpretations, and this raises
issues that language testers cannot but engage with. Coste (2007) identified several
trends and tensions. It has stimulated a new market in language testing, throwing
doubt on test quality and on comparability of standards. Tests are tending to simplify
reporting of outcomes, neglecting the CEFRs potential for profiling abilities, and
limiting possible differentiation of contexts. Doubts are raised about the adequacy of
the current CEFR as an assessment framework. In this context some would see the
Manual for Relating Examinations to the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages as an obligatory prescriptive methodology. Alternatively,
some would replace the CEFR with a different, more precisely graduated framework.
From many quarters come demands for some centralized authority to be appointed: a
CEFR police to enforce standards. Let us take this last proposal as the starting point
for presenting our own viewpoint on these issues.

The notion of policing the CEFR assumes some authorization to use it

properly. The metaphor seems faulty: people speak of applying the CEFR to some
context, as a hammer gets applied to a nail. We should speak rather of referring a
context to the CEFR. The transitivity is the other way round. The argument for an
alignment is to be constructed, the basis of comparison to be established. It is the
 EUROPEAN LANGUAGE POLICY 55

specific context that determines the final meaning of the claim. By engaging with the
process in this way, we put the CEFR in its correct place as a point of reference and
also contribute to its future evolution. A policed CEFR would almost by definition be
a closed-down, fossilized system, whereas we should certainly be thinking in terms of
its further development, as Coste himself foresees.

We can assert that the notion of policing implies elevating a quantitative,

reliability-driven conception of the framework over a qualitative, validity-driven one.
Also, readiness expressed to take on such a policing role (Alderson, 2007, p. 662)
must raise the question quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

But although policing the use of the CEFR is certainly not the way to go,
there is certainly a great deal of work to be done to guarantee its sensible use and
ensure that its impact on the learning and teaching of languages turns out on balance
positive. This work involves actors at every level of language education, and in every
field, and there is a large role for assessment and measurement expertise. The use of
the CEFR for assessment carries risks, as is true of any large-scale assessment
initiative. It is reasonable that language testers should work to understand these, and
even to mitigate or overcome them. The CEFR is a fit object for the study of impact,
as that concept has been developed within language testing (Alderson & Wall, 1993;
Hawkey, 2006).

Within language testing, the concept of impact has emerged as a fundamental

consideration for test developers. The notion of washback, that is, the effects of
examinations on learning and teaching, has been expanded in recent years to cover the
interaction of examinations with societal processes more generally. Researchers now
realize that to understand the consequences and effects of assessment procedures
more effectively, they need to gain better understandings of the ways in which their
tests and examinations fit within complex educational systems; these systems are
themselves influenced by sociopolitical and economic factors and the relevant policy
decisions made at different levels within society (local, national,
regional).

Saville (2009) included the concept of impact by design in his model of

impact; he suggested that test developers, in responding to policy initiatives and
requirements for new tests, should anticipate scenarios resulting from the uses of their
tests and plan to take action of various kindsto find out what happens and to
mitigate risks of negative impacts. This planning needs to be built in at the start of the
design and development process and should be an aspect of ongoing validation over
the long term.

In a similar vein, Chalhoub-Deville (2008) referring to the case of the No

Child Left Behind legislation in the United States, argued that those engaged with
large-scale educational initiatives have a duty to anticipate and attempt to influence
the effect that they exert. In this respect she suggested that language planners and
policy advisers on assessment should look to the literature on social impact
assessment (SIA) for guidance (see her article in this volume).
56 JONES AND SAVILLE

This concept of impact by design acknowledges that it is not possible to

predict impact based on the implementation of policy-related initiatives and
recognizes the complexity of the contexts within which assessments operate. Much of
it lies beyond the control of the assessment provider, or possibly anyone else and
therefore causal models and expectations of linearity are not realistic. Nonetheless, a
couple of case studies may illuminate some of the factors that bear on the impact of
assessment initiatives, and show where effort and attention may need to focus in order
to secure intended benefits or mitigate predictable problems.

Case Studies: Asset Languages and the European Language Portfolio

Asset Languages, a project coordinated by Cambridge ESOL (English for

speakers of other languages) during its development phase, is a multilingual
assessment framework developed as part of the United Kingdoms national languages
strategy. It represents a particularly explicit national language policy initiative that
aligns closely with European concerns: specifically, with the use of a proficiency
framework to organize learning and interpret learning outcomes. The national
languages strategy was launched in 2002 to counteract a serious downward trend in
language learning. A key element of this strategy was to provide a complementary
assessment framework as an alternative to current schools assessments. Called the
Languages Ladder, this framework was presented as a new voluntary recognition
system to complement existing national qualifications frameworks and the Common
European Framework (DfES, 2002).

The study that proposed this new recognition system (Nuffield Languages
Programme, 2002) found existing qualifications inadequate as mechanisms for
promoting successful language learning. They could not function formatively, given
their summative role at the end of an extended period of study. Consequently, the new
framework should embody a set of graded, accessible learning targets. Also, many
qualifications in languages were found to be confusing and uninformative about the
levels of competence they represented (p. 8); thus the new framework should
embody meaningful proficiency levels. For both these purposes the CEFR was
identified as a model to be followed.

Other shortcomings of current qualifications included their lack of

availability for a wide range of languages, including those spoken as community
languages. Neither did they provide a suitable framework for lifelong learning.

Despite these criticisms, the framers of the original recommendations did not
see the new framework entering the field of formal qualifications, but somehow
operating alongside it and offering informal certification. However, the scheme as
launched envisaged twin strands of accreditation: an informal, teacher-led one of
micro-levels, and an externally administered assessment scheme at six major levels
having equal formal status to other language qualifications within the National
Qualifications Framework. This was the scheme that Cambridge Assessment was
awarded by tender and developed under the brand name Asset Languages. It
encompasses 25 languages; the skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking
 EUROPEAN LANGUAGE POLICY 57

separately accredited; and three contexts (primary, secondary, adult), with

differentiation of test content for each context. The external assessments are offered
frequently throughout the year, enabling a test-when-ready approach.

The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) provided approximate

equivalences between the Languages Ladder and the CEFR. In practice the two could
be treated as broadly equivalent, and Cambridge ESOL made close reference to the
CEFR and to reference test material in English at different CEFR levels, in
developing and scaling the tests.

The system is now fully operational, if not complete in terms of the levels
covered by each language; however, it is still too early to begin to evaluate its success.
But working on the project has been instructive in a number of ways. Beyond the
merely technical challenge of bringing multiple languages onto a common
proficiency framework, it reveals challenges of a different order related to introducing
a new assessment, having its rationale and values, into an education system with its
own rather different drivers. Simply accommodating individualized
testing-when-ready is difficult within a system used to a cohort-based lockstep
approach; likewise, a proficiency-testing approach based on minimal exam
preparation, when the norm is achievement testing of closely specified and heavily
prepared objectives. The value of clear criterion-referenced proficiency levels may
count for little to school heads focused on the value of performance points attached to
achieving exam grades. Moreover, the end users of exam results may not value
evidence of useful language skills, however acquired, if they are accustomed to
valuing them simply as evidence of transferable academic ability. Some of these may
be specifically UK issues, and others may have more general resonance.

Asset Languages offers the two options of external assessment and informal
teacher-led certification. The latter, intended to be used formatively, takes the form of
short tasks that can be used off-the-shelf or adapted for particular contexts. Feedback
from teachers suggests that incorporating the scheme into their teaching is seen as
introducing a considerable amount of extra work, which they may feel too busy or
insufficiently confident to deal with. This is one reason why they tend to use the
supposedly formative tests unchanged, as mini-summative events unconnected to their
teaching. Teachers also want more detailed information on the content of the external
exams, to prepare pupils better. Generally, they want more guidance in relating their
classroom work to the functional, can-do framework of the Languages Ladder.

This parallels the findings of surveys into the use of the CEFR mentioned
above, and also of another Council of Europe initiative, the European Language
Portfolio (ELP), which is closely linked to the CEFR and has focused the most
coherent and principled attempts to integrate it into classroom learning. The ELP
serves the pedagogical function of encouraging reflection on the language learning
process and the development of learner autonomy; at the same time it documents the
learners developing proficiency (Little, 2007, p. 649). Little is an advocate for the
ELP and has produced extensive support material for teachers using it (Little &
Perclova, 2001), but admits himself that it is impossible to say how widely it is
58 JONES AND SAVILLE

actually used and refers to a wealth of anecdotal evidence to suggest that because
most models have been developed independently of curricula, teachers and learners
see the ELP as an optional extra whose use will involve them in extra work (Little,
2007, p. 652). He concludes that wide uptake of the ELP in the longer term depends
on establishing an integral relationship between ELP models and curriculum, as has
successfully been done with the primary level ELP in Ireland.

Thus the issues faced by both the ELP and Asset Languages may to some
extent result from their voluntary status. Compare this with the situation in France,
where the CEFR has been integrated more completely into the national curriculum
(Bonnet, 2007, p. 670). This began with the establishment of performance indicators
and targets in CEFR terms, and continued with fundamental reforms of foreign
language teaching explicitly organized around the CEFR. Targets are set for three
stages of education, and foreign language (FL) curricula have been rewritten.
Professional development of language teachers is accordingly being refocused on
teaching and assessing in relation to the CEFR. The French example is likely to be
followed elsewhere. Certainly the previously mentioned recommendation on the use
of the CEFR by the Council of Ministers (Council of Europe, 2008) points strongly in
this direction.

The European Survey on Language Competences

The European Survey on Language Competences, which will deliver the

European Language Indicator, is currently under development by SurveyLang, an
international consortium of eight partners. These are the Centre International dEtudes
Pedagogiques (CIEP) of France, Gallup Europe, Goethe Institut of Germany, Instituto
Cervantes of Spain, National Institute for Educational Measurement (Cito) of The
Netherlands, Universidad de Salamanca of Spain, Universita per Stranieri di Perugia
of Italy, University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations of the United Kingdom.

As members of this team, we will introduce the project and relate it briefly to
the context discussed earlier. The survey is intended to provide information on the
general level of foreign language knowledge of the pupils in the participating
countries and provide strategic information to policymakers, teachers, and learners
with the aim of improving teaching methods and outcomes. The language tests and
interpretation of results must relate to the CEFR and cover the levels A1 to B2.

SurveyLang was awarded the contract in February 2008, the European

Language Indicator having been first proposed in 2002. This long gestation reflects
difficulty in agreeing on terms of reference. In the structure of the Commission the
project is being managed by a unit dealing with several educational indicators, within
a directorate concerned with lifelong learning and the pursuit of Lisbon policy
objectives, within the Directorate-General for Education and Culture. The terms of
reference have been agreed in consultation with an advisory board comprising
nominated experts for each country. Finally, considerations of practicality have kept
the scope of this first run of the survey quite narrow: pupils at the end of lower
 EUROPEAN LANGUAGE POLICY 59

secondary education (or higher secondary if that is where a second foreign language
is first taught), and only the two most taught foreign languages in a given country, out
of English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish. Reading, listening, and writing are
included in the first iteration, with speaking deferred for practical reasons. Only
individuals currently learning a language will be sampled, and nobody is to be tested
in more than one language. The Commission has stated that future iterations of the
survey will include all European languages, and the skill of speaking, something
which will entail a rather different approach.

Clearly, to measure and compare language proficiency levels in school

settings across Europe is quite a challenge. Languages are introduced at very different
ages, taught with differing duration and intensity, and as compulsory or optional
subjects. Exposure to languages outside school varies, as does the impact of the
culture that the language represents. The range of achievement within a grade-based
cohort will be very wide, which is a challenge for efficient test design. Given the
terms of reference, and the very different profiles of language study across countries,
making meaningful comparisons will not be straightforward. Reporting a league
table of outcomes by country, though it will doubtless be done, is to be discouraged.

These comparisons will be based on two kinds of data: from the language
tests and from questionnaires administered to students, teachers, and school heads.
The questionnaires will investigate, at a number of levels from the individual learner
to the country, how educational outcomes relate to malleable processes (such as
teaching methods) and antecedent or contextual conditions. The CEFR has a dual
status in the survey: It is both the explicit point of reference and one of the variables
whose impact may emerge in the analysis of outcomes.

At the time of writing, detailed proposals on conducting the survey have been
presented to, and accepted by, the Commission and its advisory board of participating
countries. From a language assessment point of view, key issues are the design of the
language tests themselves, the alignment of tests across languages, and the
assignment of testees to CEFR levels. Space precludes discussion here. Suffice it to
say that the design of the tests aims to reflect the CEFRs action-oriented, functional
model of language use while ensuring relevance for 15-year-olds in a school setting.
Cross-language alignment and standard setting against the CEFR levels are current
active areas of research in the language testing community that the survey aims to
move forward. It is hoped that the survey will provide as one of its outcomes useful
resources that can be made available to others engaged in this area.

The developers remit is, of course, limited: the task is to construct valid
assessment tools, collect good response data, and provide interpretable results. In the
process we will, we believe, be able to contribute to the empirical construction of the
CEFR as a practical multilingual framework. Beyond that, however, the surveys
developers have no remit to promote the CEFR, or develop the links between
pedagogy and assessment which this article has suggested are desirable and
necessary. However, we see the survey, and the subsequent discussion of outcomes, as
60 JONES AND SAVILLE

a favorable context for progress in this area. What is needed is thoughtful and positive
engagement, including that of the language assessment community. The impact of the
CEFR on language education is complex and heterogeneous. Coste (2007) insisted on
careful analysis of each context of use. He merits quoting at length:

I have tried to show that these contextual uses, seen as

deliberate intervention in a given environment, can take various
forms, apply on different levels, have different aims, and involve
different types of player. All of these many contextual applications
are legitimate and meaningful but, just as the Framework itself offers
a range of (as it were) built-in options, so some of the contextual
applications exploit it more fully, while others extend or transcend it.
There may be tensions, and even contradictions, between these
various levels of use. The only way of resolving them is probably to
adopt a position outside and above the Framework, and focus on the
fundamental values of democratic citizenship, social cohesion, and
intercultural understanding and co-operationnot as a platform for
bandying facile slogans and mouthing pious platitudes, but as an
inspiration and point of reference for practical action in specific
contexts.

There is much in this for the language assessment community to take to

heart. The program of work indicated here by Coste offers them substantive issues to
engage with, and real opportunities to impact positively on language education in the
European context.

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

Coste, D. (2007). Contextualising uses of the Common European Framework of

Reference for Languages. Paper presented at Council of Europe Policy
Forum on use of the CEFR, Strasbourg 2007. Retrieved September 25, 2008,
from http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Source/SourceForum07/D-
Coste_Contextualise_EN.doc

Council of Europe (n.d.). [home page]. Retrived from: http://www.coe.int/

In the area of European language policy much of the most relevant

documents are to be found online, on the European Commission or Council
of Europe websites, which are well worth browsing. For the Council of
Europe this is the easiest starting point: follow the menu options Education,
culture and heritage > Language policies. Alternatively, go direct to:
http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Default_en.asp

The Council of Europe website gives access to a wealth of

documentation about language policy and the Common European
 EUROPEAN LANGUAGE POLICY 61

Framework in particular. The full text of the Common European Framework

of Reference itself (Council of Europe, 2001) is available in English and
many other languages. The pilot version of a Manual for relating exams to
the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2003) and the reference supplement to it have
been influential in shaping how the practical process of aligning assessments
to the CEFR is understood. Case studies of using the pilot Manual were the
subject of a seminar in Cambridge in 2007 and are currently being finalized
for publication by the Council of Europe. The final version of the Manual is
also scheduled for publication by the end of 2008. It is worth noting that the
Manual itself disclaims the promotion of any single obligatory set of
procedures.

European Commission (n.d.). Multilingualism [home page]. Retrieved from,

http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/eu-language-policy/doc112_en.htm

For the European Commission, this is the best starting point.

European Commission. (2003). Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity:

An action plan 20042006 COM(2003) 449 final. Brussels: European
Commission. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/site/en/com/2003/com2003_0449en01.pdf

This document sets out actions in pursuit of achieving the aims of

the Lisbon Strategy agreed in 2000. It describes a lifelong language learning
strategy, beginning at an early age, and measures to improve teaching. It
supports an inclusive vision of linguistic diversity, including regional,
minority and migrant languages.

OTHER REFERENCES

Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2),
115129.
Alderson, J. C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. Modern Language
Journal, 91(4), 659663.
Bonnet, G. (2007). The CEFR and education policies in Europe. Modern Language
Journal, 91(4), 669672.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2008). Standards-based assessment in the USA: Social and
educational impact. Presentation at 3rd ALTE International Conference,
Cambridge, April 1012, 2008.
Coste, D. (2007). Contextualising uses of the common European framework of
reference for languages. Paper presented at Council of Europe Policy Forum
on use of the CEFR, Strasbourg, 2007. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from
http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Source/SourceForum07/
D-Coste_Contextualise_EN.doc
62 JONES AND SAVILLE

Council of Europe. (1954). European Cultural Convention. Strasbourg: Council of

Europe. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/018.htm
Council of the European Union (2000). Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March
2000. Presidency Conclusions. Retrieved from:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe. (2003). Manual for relating examinations to the Common
European Framework of Reference for languages [Preliminary pilot version].
Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
Council of Europe. (2006). Survey on the use of the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (CEFR). Synthesis of results. Strasbourg, France:
Council of Europe. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from
http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Source/Surveyresults.pdf
Council of Europe. (2007). From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Guide
for the development of language education policies in Europe. Council of
Europe: Strasbourg. Retrieved from: http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/
Linguistic/Source/Guide_Main_Beacco2007_EN.doc
Council of Europe. (2008). Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)7 of the Committee of
Ministers to member states on the use of the Council of Europes Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the
promotion of plurilingualism. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
Davies, A. (2008). Ethics and professionalism. In E. Shohamy (Ed.), Language
testing and assessment: Vol. 7. Encyclopedia of language and education
(pp. 429443). New York: Springer.
DfES (2002). Languages for All: Languages for Life. Department for Education and
Skills. Retrieved from: http://www.cilt.org.uk/nls/index.htm
European Commission. (2003). Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity:
An action plan 20042006 COM(2003) 449 final. Brussels, Belgium:
European Commission. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2003/com2003_0449en01.pdf
Fleming, M. (2008). Languages of schooling within a European framework for
languages of education: Learning, teaching, assessment. Conference report.
Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Prague2007_ConferReport_EN.
doc
Fulcher, G. (2004). Deluded by artifices? The Common European Framework and
harmonization. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1(4), 253266.
Fulcher, G. (2008, July). Testing times ahead? Liaison Magazine, (1).
Hawkey, R. A. H. (2006). Impact theory and practice: Studies of the IELTS test and
Progetto Lingue 2000, Studies in Language Testing 24. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press and Cambridge ESOL.
Little, D., & Perclova, R. (2001). European language portfolio guide for teachers and
teacher trainers. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
Little, D. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy.
Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 645653.
 EUROPEAN LANGUAGE POLICY 63

Martyniuk, W., & Noijons, J. (2007). Executive summary of results of a survey on the
use of the CEFR at national level in the Council of Europe Member States.
Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from
http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Source/Survey_CEFR_2007_EN.doc
Nuffield Languages Programme. (2002). A learning ladder for languages:
Possibilities, risks and benefits. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from
http://languages.nuffieldfoundation.org/filelibrary/pdf/learning_ladder.pdf
Saville, N. (2005). An interview with John Trim at 80. Language Assessment
Quarterly, 2(4), 263288.
Saville, N. (2009). Developing a model for investigating the impact of language
assessment within educational contexts by a public examination provider.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Bedfordshire.