The Common European Framework For Languages English Language Essay

The instruction and acquisition of linguistic communications in Germany in school contexts changed a batch in the last old ages. The tendency in footings of instruction policy of standardisation and competency orientation dominates more and more the German linguistic communication instruction. The policy supports in an active manner this reform. One of the most influential paperss of this development is the Common European model for linguistic communications. Its influence is in Germany particularly strong since the writers of the German instruction criterions for the first foreign linguistic communication adopted about wholly its construct.

In this work I will demo what the reform of linguistic communication instruction in Germany mean. I will happen replies for the inquiry what competency orientated foreign linguistic communication instruction is and I will see how the Common European model for linguistic communications and the German instruction criterions for the first foreign linguistic communication are related to this tendency. Finally I will burden the positive aspects up against the debatable points of this development.

2. Reform of German foreign linguistic communication instruction

– development of a competency orientated acquisition and instruction

For rather a while the instruction and acquisition of linguistic communications in Germany in school contexts is influenced from a tendency in footings of educational policy, called ‘competence orientated learning ‘ . ( Hu 2008: S. 1 )

But what precisely is this tendency, which dominates the treatment of the scientific community of those concerned with foreign linguistic communication instruction and research? What is the potency of the alterations which are accompanied by the ‘competence orientated learning ‘ and which facets of this tendency are controversial?

A long clip linguistic communication learning in German schools aimed to the direction for four linguistic communication accomplishments: unwritten comprehension, written comprehension, speech production and authorship. The instruction and acquisition of foreign linguistic communications was hence clearly geared toward the linguistic communication system of the several linguistic communication. ( Hu, Leupold 2008: 52 )

Changes of the conditions of the external universe, such as the patterned advance of the globalization, an addition of mobility of the people, associating to the development of globalization and the phenomenon of migration lead to a different mark of linguistic communication instruction. The aim of linguistic communication instruction in German schools was now the preparation of a alleged competency of communicating.

Before that clip, the linguistic communication system of the several linguistic communication was the focal point of linguistic communication instruction. After the alteration of the function of foreign linguistic communications in the life, the focal point of acquisition and instruction linguistic communications was that the scholars become able to show whatever it is they want to show. ( Hu, Leupold 2008: 53 )

The Pragmatics, a subfield of lingual, explained the complexness of the competency of communicating by spliting it in several parts: lingual competency, socio-linguistic competency, competency of discourse, strategically competency, socio-cultural competency, societal competency. ( Hu, Leupold 2008: 53 )

All in all, the development of linguistic communication instruction in Germany is frequently described by scientific community as a alteration from orientation towards the ‘input ‘ to an orientation towards the ‘output ‘ . No longer the contents that the student has to larn are considered as the most of import inquiry of educational policy. The competencies, abilities that the students can accomplish by larning rather different contents are now the focal point of the treatment in footings of educational policy. ( Weil 2010: 16 )

In Germany that restructuring was particularly driven frontward after the alleged daze of Pisa in 2000.

The Kultusministerkonferenz[ 1 ]( KMK ) developed a scheme, a cardinal component of which are the German instruction criterions for the first foreign linguistic communication ( English/French ) and the included thought of competency orientated instruction. The program is to develop medium or long term purposes for each topic of the German instruction system. The marks should be competency orientated and clearly fixed, so that it is possible to peer-review them. This undertaking both challenged and changed the instruction and acquisition of linguistic communications in Germany.

The thought of competency orientated linguistic communication instruction is reflected in different parts of the German school system: in the instruction criterions for the first foreign linguistic communication, which is based on the Common European model for linguistic communications, in exams comparing the achievement of all German students at a certain age, in types of exercisings, which have to be involved in all linguistic communication categories of German schools, etc.

One of the most of import or possibly the most of import event of the described reform of acquisition and instruction linguistic communications is the Common European model of linguistic communications in Germany. That is why this papers will be the focal point of the following portion of my work.

In the first portion of this chapter I will look into what sort of papers the CEFR is. In the 2nd portion I will demo the execution of the papers in the German instruction system of linguistic communication instruction. In the 3rd portion I will see the response of the CEFR and the thought of competency orientated instruction.

3. The Common European model for linguistic communications

3.1 What is the CEFR?

The CEFR was published in 2000 as consequence of many old ages of work on the European degree. One twelvemonth subsequently a version in German linguistic communication was published. The primary end of the papers was to make a closer integrity between the member provinces. Therefore the mark of the CEFR is first of all politically motivated. ( Hu 2008: 4 )

Other of import purposes of the CEFR can be summarized as follows:

Intensification of acquisition and instruction linguistic communications, so that the people of the European Union have more mobility and so that a international communicating can be more effectual

support of the construct of a European plurilingualism

womb-to-tomb linguistic communication acquisition

to do the acknowledgment of linguistic communication makings easier

to make the possibility of comparing of programmes for linguistic communication acquisition, for linguistic communication certifications

to make more transparence and to depict realistic ends of linguistic communication acquisition ( chapter 1 of the CEFR )

In the CEFR linguistic communication is ever considered, as we can see in the first chapter of the long papers, as sort of a human action. In the construct of the CEFR larning a linguistic communication serves for communicating.

The division of the complex ability to hold mastered a foreign linguistic communication in several parts, that can be assessed, has an particularly immense influence of linguistic communication instruction.

Here you can see which different competencies, considered as of import for larning a linguistic communication, are listed in the CEFR:

declaratory cognition ( savoir )

cognition about the universe

socio-cultural cognition

intercultural consciousness

accomplishments and procedural cognition ( address )

practical accomplishments

intercultural accomplishments

competencies of personality ( savoir-etre )

ability to larn ( savoir-apprendre )

So the traditional marks of linguistic communication acquisition are extended in the CEFR by up to other purposes, that where inconsiderate until so: Techniques and schemes about how to larn are presented as of import facets of linguistic communication acquisition. The cultural dimension of larning foreign linguistic communications is represented and the CEFR besides pays some attending to the demands of the personality of the scholar which are related to the procedure of linguistic communication acquisition.

Besides this, the procedure of larning linguistic communications was, in the CEFR, for the first clip analysed in an instrumental-functional manner by spliting the procedure of larning in six degrees. ( Caspari, Grunewald etc. 2008: 1 ) The mention degrees of the CEFR service to depict the advancements in the procedure of acquisition.

It is hence apparent that the underlying construct of linguistic communication of the CEFR is an instrumental-functional 1.

Appropriate to his competencies a linguistic communication scholar belongs after the construct of the CEFR to one of the three wide divisions, which can be divided into six degrees.

Here the structuring of larning linguistic communications which is developed by the writers of the CEFR:

A Basic Speaker

A1 Breakthrough or novice

A2 Waystage or simple

B Independent Speaker

B1 Threshold or pre-intermediate

B2 Vantage or intercede

C Proficient Speaker

C1 Effective Operational Proficiency or upper intermediate

C2 Mastery or advanced

3.2 The execution of the CEFR in Germany:

the CEFR as underlying construct of the instruction criterions for the first foreign linguistic communication

After I have outlined what sort of papers the CEFR is, I will depict his execution in the German instruction criterions for the first foreign linguistic communication and with that his tremendous influence on linguistic communication instruction in German schools.

In 2000, for the first clip the international school survey PISA ( Programme for International Student Assessment ) was performed. This is an international rating of the scholastic public presentation of 15-year-old students, which is coordinated by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development ( OECD ) . The comparatively bad consequences of the German students ( Born 2003 ) revealed the disagreement between the marks and the demands of the educational system and the existent consequences.

Because of the PISA consequences of 2000, the German educational policy was under large political force per unit area for action. ( Caspari, Grunewald etc. 2008: 1 ) In this conditions, the Kultusministerkonferenz passed instruction criterions for the first foreign linguistic communication ( English/French ) in 2003. These criterions give information about the needed criterion of a student after holding been at school for ten old ages, after the lower secondary school. These actions in term of educational policy should, at least at medium-term, better the scholastic public presentation of German students and give Germany the opportunity to acquire a better ranking in the hereafter. ( Klieme, Leutner 2006: 876 )

The standardisation of larning linguistic communications was a particular instance because a system of degrees already existed from the CEFR. So the bing work signifier the Council of Europe was taken up. The B1 degree was used as the footing for the degree, which was expected at the terminal of lower secondary school. The educational criterions describe accordingly every bit good as the CEFR the expected ‘normal ‘ degree and non a minimum degree. ( Kunze 2007: 236 )

Since the educational criterions practically adopted the accomplishments of the CEFR, two more or less coincident developments in educational policy with original different purposes, coincided: the possibility to compare linguistic communication competencies in Europe and the end in term of educational policy to depict accurately which competencies are expected from the students at a certain class, so that the scholastic public presentation can be assessed in a well founded manner. ( Hu 2008: 5 )

In malice of the different purposes the instruction criterions for the first foreign linguistic communication are clearly based on the CEFR.

Besides the division of the really complex competency to hold mastered a linguistic communication follows the illustration of the CEFR. Merely the footings and the presentation are different. The construct is about the same:

accomplishments of communicating

unwritten comprehension

written comprehension

talking

composing

interpreting

handling of the linguistic communication system ( grammar and vocabulary )

vocabulary

grammar

pronunciation and modulation

writing system

intercultural competencies

socio-cultural cognition

comprehensive manner to manage cultural differences

get bying with intercultural state of affairss in pattern

competencies of methods

response of texts ( unwritten and written comprehension )

ability to interact with texts

production of texts ( talking and composing )

schemes of larning

presentation ; to manage with mediums

being witting about the procedure of larning

By the execution of the CEFR in the German instruction criterions, the European Council ‘s papers of acquisition and instruction of linguistic communications has a big influence on the linguistic communication instruction in German schools. That is the ground why the CEFR is conspicuously frequently discussed by the German scientific community of those concerned with foreign linguistic communication instruction and research.

3.3 Reception of the Common European model for linguistic communications in Germany

In this last portion of my work I will see the controversial treatment about the CEFR, its positive facets and its weak musca volitanss. First I will talk about the positive points of the CEFR. Later I will show facets which are criticised and at last I will give a short personal position on the CEFR and the implicit in construct of linguistic communication acquisition.

3.3.1 Positive facets of the CEFR

The CEFR led to a cardinal treatment of the instruction and acquisition of linguistic communications and it brought up the inquiry about what the planetary marks of larning foreign linguistic communications are. The map of the CEFR as a stimulation to believe about the being of linguistic communication instruction is clearly profitable for future instruction and acquisition of linguistic communications. The procedure of rethinking traditions which was activated this manner has shown for illustration one more clip that the grammar focussed linguistic communication instruction can non be justified by the existent point of position. ( Neuner 2003 )

Many see the standardisation of linguistic communication larning positively, particularly in Germany. Since the 16 federal provinces of the Federal Republic of Germany have developed their ain marks up to that clip, the demands in the assorted parts of Germany were frequently rather different. Therefore a standardisation of the planetary purpose and the expected competencies from the student, was necessary to back up the students in accomplishing mobility and to make more justness for the students in Germany. ( Caspari, Grunewald etc. 2008: 9 )

A great measure frontward for linguistic communication instruction, which is related to the CEFR, is the alteration of position on the procedure of larning. Before that, the opinions of the students ‘ public presentation was normally made shortage orientated. Mistakes and facets of the linguistic communication at which the students are n’t good were the focal point of traditional linguistic communication instruction. The CEFR lead nevertheless to a position in which the already acquired competencies are focused. ( Caspari, Grunewald etc. 2008: 9-10 )

Like this alteration of position, the division of the planetary language-competence in several parts, every bit good as the organisation in six degrees influence the motive of scholar and instructor in a positive manner. The procedure of larning a linguistic communication is acquiring more structured and can be better organized. ( Caspari, Grunewald etc. 2008: 10 )

3.3.2 Criticised facets of the CEFR and his execution in the German instruction system

After the presentation of all this positive facets I will demo some illustrations of of import points that are criticised.

Problematic in the reform of the German instruction system by the execution of the described criterions is, that the instructors are n’t sufficiently involved. There are merely really small workshops for presenting the instructor to the new manner. ( Caspari, Grunewald etc. 2008: 11 )

Besides the underlying construct of linguistic communication is frequently considered as nonreversible: merely the instrumental-functional facet of linguistic communication is taken into consideration. Aesthetic, originative and cultural dimensions of linguistic communication are for illustration neglected. ( Caspari, Grunewald etc. 2008: 12 )

Another paradox job related to the construct of competency orientated instruction is, that competencies like intercultural competencies, that are difficult to measure, will be likely neglected in this reform, even if it is listed in the CEFR and the German instruction criterions. Under the force per unit area of turn outing, that certain marks are reached, it is non surprising, that at foremost those ends which are difficult to measure will be neglected. ( Hu 2008: 6 )

All in all the emotional facet of larning a linguistic communication is non sufficiently taken into consideration. The importance to see the demands and involvements of scholars are non truly appreciated. ( Konigs 2003: 115 )

4. Decision

The case in point considerations about the development in educational policy show that a reform of linguistic communication instruction in Germany was necessary. The consequences of the Pisa-studies 2000 made this necessity obvious. Nevertheless the alterations are discussed in a controversial manner and there are many facets which have to be criticised. Particularly the construct of linguistic communication which underlie the thought of competency orientated linguistic communication instruction is in several facets debatable. It is nonreversible instrumental-functional and overlook the originative, aesthetic and cultural dimension of linguistic communications. In my personal experience this facets of foreign linguistic communications were ever really of import in the procedure of larning a linguistic communication – a manner which is sometimes difficult to travel. That is why the demands and involvement of linguistic communication scholars are highly of import facets in the language-learning-process and why they it is of import to affect them more in the existent development.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *