ALTE "Can Do" statements

Open Forum in English
1

I have found a very interesting document: http://www.alte.org/cando/alte_cando.pdf

ALTE are the Association of Language Testers in Europe. They have been working for at least 12 years on the Common European Framework of References for Language (on which the LingQ proficiency levels are based, see Council of Europe Language Policy Portal - Language policy). They have come up with a set of “Can Do” statements, designed to help teachers, language learners and their employees and supervisors to quickly, easily and cheaply assess a person’s language level. It is designed to work across all languages.

Basically, for general language (in social and tourism contexts), business language (in the context of a learner’s own work environment, academic language (in seminar and independent study contexts), across the 4 major skill areas of speaking, reading, writing and listening, ALTE have devised a serious of statements saying what, at each level, a person can do.

Eg At A2 can understand maps, fill out a landing card, read a timetable.
At B1 can read a guide book.
At B2 can understand the main points of a car rental agreement.

It contains a lot of words and I haven’t ploughed through most of them yet. However, this seems like a fantastically useful resource for language teachers and learners, a way we can assess a student’s level without actually making them prepare for and sit a [stupid?] language examination. You just look at the level of language skills they are already using and can easily demonstrate that they can use.

Does anyone share my excitement about this?

2

If I know more about how they assess listening skill, I would be more excited.

3

I really like this. As a learner I can use this to assess my own level, as well as an idea of things I can work toward to go to the next level. I do wish that they had listening and speaking as separate categories.

Thanks so much!

4

@skyblueteapot You’ve done it again. A very interesting read. Thank you!

5

@3kingdoms, @aybee77:

Well, I’ve just found another set of “Can Do” statements that breaks down speaking and listening into a lot more detail. This document is described as a structed overview of the CEFR scales. It contains things such as:

“Overall Listening Comprehension:
Understanding Interaction between Native Speakers.
Upper B2: Can keep up with an animated conversation between native speakers.
Lower B2: Can with some effort catch much of what is said around him/her, but may find it difficult to participate effectively in discussion with several native speakers who do not modify their language in any way.
B1: Can generally follow the main points of extended discussion around him/her, provided speech is clearly articulated in standard dialect.
A2: Can generally identify the topic of discussion around her that is conducted slowly and clearly.”

The document’s URL is: http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Portfolio/documents/All%20scales%20CEFR.DOC and I found it here:
http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Portfolio/?L=E&M=/documents_intro/Data_bank_descriptors.html

How it relates to the ALTE descriptors I haven’t worked out yet, but it’s on the Council Of Europe website, so it’s presumably an approved document and not just a working draft. Maybe the ALTE descriptors document was used as a source in writing this one.

6

@skyblueteapot Thanks so much! I also saw the below document, which also breaks things down for each level, and with different skills: http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Portfolio/documents/EAQUALS%20Bank%20as%20checklists%20-%20Dec%202008.pdf

7

Now, that one is interesting, because it breaks down each level into two sub-levels. I’ve been thinking for a while that the intermediate levels could do with being broken down further.

8

These, for instance, could be used to help assess a student’s speaking level after a Skype discussion:

UNDERSTANDING A NATIVE SPEAKER INTERLOCUTOR
C2 Can understand any native speaker interlocutor, even on abstract and complex topics of a specialist nature beyond his/her own field, given an opportunity to adjust to a non-standard accent or dialect.
C1 Can understand in detail speech on abstract and complex topics of a specialist nature beyond his/her own field, though he/she may need to confirm occasional details, especially if the accent is unfamiliar.
B2 Can understand in detail what is said to him/her in the standard spoken language even in a noisy environment.
B1 Can follow clearly articulated speech directed at him/her in everyday conversation, though will sometimes have to ask for repetition of particular words and phrases.
A2 Can understand enough to manage simple, routine exchanges without undue effort.
Can generally understand clear, standard speech on familiar matters directed at him/her, provided he/she can ask for repetition or reformulation from time to time.
Can understand what is said clearly, slowly and directly to him/her in simple everyday conversation; can be made to understand, if the speaker can take the trouble.
A1
Can understand everyday expressions aimed at the satisfaction of simple needs of a concrete type, delivered directly to him/her in clear, slow and repeated speech by a sympathetic speaker.
Can understand questions and instructions addressed carefully and slowly to him/her and follow short, simple directions.

CONVERSATION
C2 Can converse comfortably and appropriately, unhampered by any linguistic limitations in conducting a full social and personal life.
C1 Can use language flexibly and effectively for social purposes, including emotional, allusive and joking usage.
B2 Can engage in extended conversation on most general topics in a clearly participatory fashion, even in a noisy environment.
Can sustain relationships with native speakers without unintentionally amusing or irritating them or requiring them to behave other than they would with a native speaker.
Can convey degrees of emotion and highlight the personal significance of events and experiences.
B1 Can enter unprepared into conversations on familiar topics.
Can follow clearly articulated speech directed at him/her in everyday conversation, though will sometimes have to ask for repetition of particular words and phrases.
Can maintain a conversation or discussion but may sometimes be difficult to follow when trying to say exactly what he/she would like to.
Can express and respond to feelings such as surprise, happiness, sadness, interest and indifference.
A2 Can establish social contact: greetings and farewells; introductions; giving thanks.
Can generally understand clear, standard speech on familiar matters directed at him/her, provided he/she can ask for repetition or reformulation from time to time.
Can participate in short conversations in routine contexts on topics of interest.
Can express how he/she feels in simple terms, and express thanks.
Can handle very short social exchanges but is rarely able to understand enough to keep conversation going of his/her own accord, though he/she can be made to understand if the speaker will take the trouble.
Can use simple everyday polite forms of greeting and address
Can make and respond to invitations, invitations and apologies.
Can say what he/she likes and dislikes.
A1 Can make an introduction and use basic greeting and leave-taking expressions.
Can ask how people are and react to news.
Can understand everyday expressions aimed at the satisfaction of simple needs of a concrete type, delivered directly to him/her in clear, slow and repeated speech by a sympathetic speaker.

INFORMAL DISCUSSION (WITH FRIENDS)
C2 No descriptor available
C1 Can easily follow and contribute to complex interactions between third parties in group discussion even on abstract, complex unfamiliar topics.
B2 Can keep up with an animated discussion between native speakers
Can express his/her ideas and opinions with precision, present and respond to complex lines of argument convincingly.
Can take an active part in informal discussion in familiar contexts, commenting, putting point of view clearly, evaluating alternative proposals and making and responding to hypotheses.
Can with some effort catch much of what is said around him/her in discussion, but may find it difficult to participate effectively in discussion with several native speakers who do not modify their language in any way.
Can account for and sustain his/her opinions in discussion by providing relevant explanations, arguments and comments.
B1 Can follow much of what is said around him/her on general topics provided interlocutors avoid very idiomatic usage and articulate clearly.
Can express his/her thoughts about abstract or cultural topics such as music, films. Can explain why something is a problem.
Can give brief comments on the views of others.
Can compare and contrast alternatives, discussing what to do, where to go, who or which to choose etc.
Can generally follow the main points in an informal discussion with friends provided speech is clearly articulated in standard dialect.
Can give or seek personal views and opinions in discussing topics of interest.
Can make his/her opinions and reactions understood as regards solutions to problems or practical questions of where to go, what to do, how to organise an event (e.g. an outing).
Can express belief, opinion, agreement and disagreement politely.
A2 Can generally identify the topic of discussion around her which is conducted slowly and clearly.
Can discuss what to do in the evening, at the weekend.
Can make and respond to suggestions.
Can agree and disagree with others.
Can discuss everyday practical issues in a simple way when addressed clearly, slowly and directly.
Can discuss what to do, where to go and make arrangements to meet.
A1 No descriptors available

from the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment: Structured overview of all CEFR scales

9

And here are the descriptions for speaking fluency SPOKEN FLUENCY
C2 Can express him/herself at length with a natural, effortless, unhesitating flow. Pauses only to reflect on precisely the right words to express his/her thoughts or to find an appropriate example or explanation.
C1 Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously, almost effortlessly. Only a conceptually difficult subject can hinder a natural, smooth flow of language.
B2 Can communicate spontaneously, often showing remarkable fluency and ease of expression in even longer complex stretches of speech.
Can produce stretches of language with a fairly even tempo; although he/she can be hesitant as he/she searches for patterns and expressions, there are few noticeably long pauses.
Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without imposing strain on either party.
B1 Can express him/herself with relative ease. Despite some problems with formulation resulting in pauses and “cul-de-sacs”, he/she is able to keep going effectively without help.
Can keep going comprehensibly, even though pausing for grammatical and lexical planning and repair is very evident, especially in longer stretches of free production.
A2 Can make him/herself understood in short contributions, even though pauses, false starts and reformulation are very evident.
Can construct phrases on familiar topics with sufficient ease to handle short exchanges, despite very noticeable hesitation and false starts.
A1 Can manage very short, isolated, mainly pre-packaged utterances, with much pausing to search for expressions, to articulate less familiar words, and to repair communication.

10

I don’t agree in some points. It depends on each person’s background. For example, "At B2 can understand the main points of a car rental agreement. " As I don’t have any knowledge of driving, I have some difficulty to understand its main point even in my mother tongue. As for C2 or C1 description, I also have some difficulty in Japanese. When speaking or listening, I don’t analyze what I am doing. There is too much detail in descriptions.

11

I forgot to say. If this statement is true, I won’t be C2 in Japanese because I have a certain difficulty to understand some abstract and complex topics of a specialist nature beyond my own field.

12

I am sure Helen, that you will not be surprised to learn that I do not find this kind of attempt to define language skills in great detail to be very useful. We have the same in Canada, with our Canadian Benchmarks system with 12 levels. I can just imagine the number of committee meetings, over years, that lead to this, all paid for by public funds.

I prefer our simple 6 levels, Beginner 1 and 2, Intermediate 1 and 2, and Advanced 1 and 2, leaving a little subjectivity there. The passive word count is easy to measure and a good indication of the language potential of an individual. The ability to convert this to active vocabulary and speaking ability will depend on the opportunity of the learner to speak more. And if we need to learn more about the active speaking ability it is enough to look at a short video such as Milan provided us.

But that is just me.

13

Thanks a lot, skyblueteapot. Interesting information.

14

@dilemme:

There’s no reason why a person should be C2 in their own native language. Plenty of people leave school unable to read or write. I think you reach C2 only after a university education (maybe even postgraduate), or a lot of self-study, or a lot of professional studying. And of course you can operate at that level only in the area you’ve studied. A doctor won’t understand a couple of archaeologists talking shop.

The Russians have a language scale that goes up to C3, which is something like “university professor with a PhD in linguistics”. Presumably because Russians like to know that there is always a higher level to aim for :wink:

@Steve:
Do you have a URL for the Canadian 12-step ladder? I would be interested to see how that works.

As you know, I find your definitions of language proficiency very encouraging. Although I still struggle to speak and write in Russian, I can understand more and more complex texts. The belief that I’m “getting there” by improving my passive vocabulary, which will one day translate into writing and speaking ability, keeps me going.

I presume these last statements that I quoted are designed to be assessed by a teacher rather than by the student themselves. It would be a daunting job for a student to decide whether “Can account for and sustain his/her opinions in discussion by providing relevant explanations, arguments and comments”

15

Helen, http://www.language.ca/. Help yourself!

16

In my opinion a healthy marriage dont happen by chances,just because you fall in love with someone and make you blisfuly happy. Doesnt mean it will always be that way. A marriage doesn`t just go along with no care or upkeeping reaguared.It is like your car. Need reguare regular gas and attention. for you have a good marriage need very comunication,attention and trust him or her.
I hope to help you…
bye,bye.
Best Reguards.

17