This document provides an overview of an EAQUALS session on CEFR-based curriculum and assessment. It discusses developing resources like the Core Inventory for French and reading/listening scenarios. The EAQUALS Certificate of Achievement scheme guarantees quality CEFR-implemented assessment and curriculum design through screening processes. Benefits include differentiating members and demonstrating academic competence. Main prerequisites for certification include a CEFR-based curriculum, standardization training, and moderation techniques. The session aims to help members implement CEFR-based approaches and identify areas of interest.

1. CEFR-based Curriculum and
Assessment
(the EAQUALS brand)
Mila Angelova
EAQUALS Members Meeting
London, November 21st – 23rd 2013

2. Aims of the session
• To present the current project work related
to the CEFR strand
• To introduce you to some of the resources
available to members in relation to CEFRbased assessment and curriculum design
• To identify areas of interest for members
on the CEFR topic

3. What will be presented
in today’s session
• Update on development of the Core
Inventory for French
• The final versions of the Reading &
Listening Scenarios + results from last
round of piloting
• Brief review of the EAQUALS Certificate of
Achievement Scheme
• Products of previous projects: speaking
samples, standardisation training
sessions, self-help questionnaire for

4. Main aims of the scheme
• To increase EAQUALS’ profile: the first
organisation to award CEFR certificates of
achievement across different languages Europewide
• To help members differentiate themselves from
their competitors and demonstrate their
academic competence
• To open the possibility, at a second stage, of
accrediting CEFR certificates awarded by
schools that are not yet accredited members of
EAQUALS

5. Core message
• A guarantee for quality assessment
in the accredited institutions by
thoroughly screening all assessment
processes
• CEFR-implemented approach to
syllabus and curriculum design
• Feasibility of standardisation and
moderation techniques used by the
institution

6. EAQUALS Certificate of
Achievement
• Phase 1: voluntary – Accredited
Members only: accreditation carried out as
a “top up” to the EAQUALS inspection
• Phase 2: compulsory for Accredited
Members; voluntary for schools which are
members of Associate Members: the
accreditation process is fully integrated into
the EAQUALS inspection and carried out
as a top up to inspections of Associate
Members

7. Why EAQUALS
Certificate?
Benefits for:
• the institution
• the course participants
• the stake holders
• EAQUALS profile

8. Main prerequisites to apply
for the Certification Scheme
A) CEFR-based curriculum
B) Standardisation training
C) Moderation techniques

9. CEFR-based curriculum
1. CEFR-related level descriptions and
syllabus documents
o the levels referenced to CEFR (CEFR criteria grids
adopted or adapted to local circumstances)
o learning aims specified by „can-do” statements based on ELP or CEFR scales and adapted to the
institution’s own needs
2. Written guidelines for teachers on
levels, teaching and assessment
3. Application of CEFR in teaching
o coherence between curriculum and syllabus aims
and classroom practice

10. Implementing CEFR-based
curriculum and syllabuses
• Core of the syllabuses is the practiceoriented background of the CEFR
• Can-do-statements developed for each
type of course and level / sub-level
• Can-do-statements serve as a basis for
tests development
• Can-do-statements used as a selfassessment instrument

11. Standardisation training
- requirements
•
•
•
Familiarisation with CEFR levels and
descriptors
Systematic standarisation training with
CEFR illustrative samples
(DVDs or scripts: the EAQUALS
Standardisation packs – for English,
French and German)
Procedures for CEFR-novice and CEFRexperienced teachers

12. Moderation
Systematic reduction of subjectivity
in the assessment.

13. Moderation techniques requirements
• Collective assessment techniques
o grading by two assessors
(all performances, a structured sample
or with less-experienced staff), or
o assessing initially as a panel
• Quality control
o liaison between teachers
o systematic monitoring by academic
managers

14. Examples of moderation
techniques
• Doing buzz observations during testing
periods to monitor application of
assessment standards
• Monitoring inexperienced teachers’
assessment of spoken production and
interaction / written work

15. Assessment procedures
should include at least two of:
a) teacher judgements through continuous
b)
c)
assessment in relation to CEFR/ELP
descriptors
performances in specific spoken/writen
tasks assessed with CEFR-related criteria
use of tests (progress test giving an
indication of good performance - e.g.15/20),
or an independent, validated “CEFR level
test” reporting a CEFR level

16. Procedure to accredit
assessment processes
Step 1: Introduction of a CEFRbased assessment approach
»Standardisation training
»Assessment procedures
»Moderation techniques
Step 2: A formal application
Step 3: Evaluation by the EAQUALS
Assessment Panel

17. How we plan to make the scheme
more accessible for schools
•
A proposal for a separate Certification
Scheme was put forward in order to:
a) open the scheme to the Associate
Members
b) allow schools to use the scheme even if
they are not accredited members
c) the mini-certification scheme should be
based on one-day audits.
• EAQUALS should decide on the costs to
be involved in the applications and audits
for the scheme

18. Greater publicity of the scheme
• Promote it among extensive schools, e.g.
inspectors might act as advisors
• Approach different institutions which might
be of help or be interested in the scheme:
universities, other institutions, etc.
• Create a set of descriptors for academic
language (might present interest to
universities)

19. Relating
to CEFR
Speaking Samples
Descriptors - aims
• To exemplify the relationship between
speaking performances at different levels
and the most salient features of these
levels acc. to CEFR
• To exchange experience on tasks formats
for the assessment of speaking
• To ensure that assessment of Speaking
production and interaction is based on
CEFR-derived criteria

20. CEFR Table 3
RANGE
ACCURACY
FLUENCY
INTERACTION COHERENCE
C2
Shows great flexibility reformu­
lating ideas in differing linguistic
forms to convey finer shades of
meaning precisely, to give em­
phasis, to differentiate and to
eliminate ambiguity. Also has a
good command of idiomatic
expressions and colloquialisms.
Maintains consistent gram­mati­cal
control of complex language, even
while atten­tion is otherwise engaged
(e.g. in forward planning, in
monitoring others' reactions).
Can express him/herself
spontaneously at length with a
natural colloquial flow, avoiding or
backtracking around any difficulty so
smoothly that the interlocutor is
hardly aware of it.
Can interact with ease and skill,
picking up and using non­verbal and
intonational cues apparently
effortlessly. Can inter­weave his/her
con­tribution into the joint discourse
with fully natural turntaking,
referencing, allu­sion making etc.
Can create coherent and cohesive
discourse making full and
appropriate use of a variety of
organisational patterns and a wide
range of connectors and other cohe­
sive devices.
C1
Has a good command of a broad
range of language allow­ing
him/her to select a formulation to
express him/ herself clearly in an
appropriate style on a wide range
of general, academic, professional
or leisure topics without having to
restrict what he/she wants to say.
Consistently maintains a high degree
of grammati­cal accu­racy; errors are
rare, difficult to spot and generally
corrected when they do occur.
Can express him/herself fluently and
spontaneously, almost effortlessly.
Only a con­ceptually difficult subject
can hinder a natural, smooth flow of
language.
Can select a suitable phrase from a
readily available range of discourse
functions to preface his remarks in
order to get or to keep the floor and
to relate his/her own contri­butions
skil­fully to those of other speakers.
Can produce clear, smoothly flowing,
well­structured speech, showing
controlled use of organisa­tional
patterns, con­nectors and cohesive
devices.
Has a sufficient range of language
to be able to give clear
descriptions, express viewpoints on
most general topics, without much
con­spicuous searching for words,
using some complex sentence
forms to do so.
Shows a relatively high de­gree of
grammatical control. Does not make
errors which cause misun­
derstanding, and can correct most of
his/her mistakes.
Can produce stretches of language
with a fairly even tempo; although
he/she can be hesitant as he or she
searches for patterns and
expressions, there are few noticeably
long pauses.
Can initiate discourse, take his/her
turn when appropriate and end
conversation when he/she needs to,
though he/she may not always do
this elegantly. Can help the
discussion along on familiar ground
confirm­ing comprehen­sion, inviting
others in, etc.
Can use a limited number of
cohesive devices to link his/her
utterances into clear, coherent
discourse, though there may be
some "jumpiness" in a long con­
tribution.
Has enough language to get by,
with sufficient vocabulary to
express him/herself with some
hesitation and circum­locu­tions on
topics such as family, hobbies and
interests, work, travel, and current
events.
Uses reasonably accu­rately a
repertoire of frequently used
"routines" and patterns asso­ciated
with more predictable situations.
Can keep going compre­hensi­bly,
even though pausing for grammatical
and lexical plan­ning and repair is
very evident, especially in longer
stretches of free produc­tion.
Can initiate, maintain and close
simple face­to­face conversa­tion on
topics that are familiar or of personal
interest. Can re­peat back part of
what someone has said to con­firm
mutual understand­ing.
Can link a series of shorter, discrete
simple elements into a connected,
linear sequence of points.
B2+
B2
B1+
B1

21. Template for
documenting speaking performances
Names of the
students
info about the students (names as minimum)
Phases and
length
Names of different phases and length of the different
phases (plus total length)
Tasks
Production: (task + topic)
Interaction: (task + topic)
Name of 1st
candidate
(=person on
left in video )
Expressions in italics are citations from CEFR
Table 3 (=EAQUALS CEFR Standardisation
grid)
Range – comment* + quote(s) from what was said
Accuracy – ditto
Fluency – ditto
Interaction – ditto
Coherence - ditto
*Quotations of exact wording of CEFR Table 3 in italic
plus your own general comment

22. Higher-order outcomes
of the project
• Positive back-wash effect on the assessment
systems and processes of the accredited
institutions (going into further depth with the
different CEFR applications)
• More options for benchmarking and
standardisation of CEFR criteria application
to assessment

23. Further steps to be taken
• Putting up on the EAQUALS website
different case studies on CEFR-based
assessment
• Designing speaking samples for Business
English / ESP by relating those to the CEFR
descriptors for Business English
• Producing Speaking Scenarios for the
purposes of standardised CEFR assessment