CC BY
40
УДК 371.212:81'243
Р. Шерер
Почетный доктор МГЛУ и Почетный член Ученого совета МГЛУ; e-mail: info@rolfschaerer.ch
К ВОПРОСУ О ПРИНЦИПАХ И ФУНКЦИЯХ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО ЯЗЫКОВОГО ПОРТФЕЛЯ ДЛЯ ВЫСШЕЙ ШКОЛЫ1
Европейский языковой портфель (ЕЯП) основан на принципах, в рамках которых подвергаются пересмотру традиционные методы изучения и обучения иностранным языкам, что отражается на образовательной политике и системе. Владельцем ЕЯП является студент, в процессе изучения им иностранного языка ЕЯП выполняет три основные функции: педагогическую, проверочную и каталитическую. Для эффективности использования ЕЯП в период получения высшего образования и овладения основными теоретическими знаниями необходимы научное руководство и диалог преподавателя и студента, в результате чего вузы и преподаватели становятся совладельцами портфеля. ЕЯП -это инструмент для коллективного использования целым рядом дополнительных совладельцев (и групп совладельцев), каждый из которых преследует определенную цель: например, внедрение новых идей и методов, повышение качества образования и нормотворчество; многоязычие, взаимопонимание и мобильность в различных политических условиях; сопоставимость и взаимное признание квалификаций и компетенций при устройстве на работу в европейских странах. Инновационная мощь ЕЯП состоит не в отдельных принципах и функциях, а в том, насколько они взаимосвязаны, насколько изучающий иностранный язык непосредственно вовлечен в этот процесс и как со временем проявляются результаты обучения. Говоря о высшем образовании, автор данной статьи считает, что необходим больший объем дифференцированной языковой и межкультурной информации, чтобы привлечь внимание и оценить ее актуальность при проведении итогового контроля.
Ключевые слова: Европейский языковой портфель; владелец; совладельцы; катализатор; проверка знаний, актуальность.
Rolf Schärer
Honorary doctor at MSLU, Honorary member of the Academic Council of MSLU; e-mail: info@rolfschaerer.ch
REVISITING THE PRINCIPLES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE EUROPEAN LANGUAGE PORTFOLIO WITH A FOCUS ON TERTIARY EDUCATION
The European Language Portfolio (ELP) is based on principles which tend to challenge traditional learning and teaching practices and thus impact on education
1 Статья печатается в авторской редакции.
policy and systems. The primary owner of the ELP is the learner, and as a personal language learning companion, the ELP has three core functions: pedagogic, reporting and catalytic. For it to be effective, guidance and dialogue are needed during the highly formative years of formal education, and teachers and educational institutions have to accept the role of co-owners. The ELP as a collective tool is used by a variety of additional stakeholders and stakeholder groups pursuing their own purposes, e.g. innovation, quality development and standard setting in educational domains; plurilingualism, mutual understanding and mobility in political contexts; comparability and mutual recognition of qualifications and competences across workplaces in Europe. The innovative strength of the ELP lies not in its individual principles and functions but in the ways in which they interrelate, involve the learner directly, and bundle outcomes and effects of learning over time. With particular reference to tertiary education, this article argues that more differentiated language and intercultural profiles are needed in order to sharpen the focus and increase the relevance of such information in high-stakes situations.
Key words: European Language Portfolio; ownership; stakeholders; catalyst; reporting; relevance.
1. Introduction
The Council of Europe (CoE), the European Union (EU), and their member states recognize the rich heritage of languages and cultures in Europe as a valuable common resource and promote language policies that aim to convert that diversity from a barrier to communication into a source of mutual enrichment and understanding through education. The idea of a European Language Portfolio (ELP) was introduced at a CoE symposium in 1991, shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, at a time when the need to foster dialogue beyond historic divides was particularly manifest. The ELP is based on a set offive principles which tend to challenge traditional learning and teaching practices: it is the property of the learner; it focuses on what the learner can do; it values learning, competence and experience regardless of whether they were acquired inside or outside formal education; it has a lifelong perspective; and it is based on a common European framework. As a personal tool the ELP has three core functions, pedagogical, reporting and catalytic. As a collective tool it serves a variety of purposes identified in policy statements by stakeholder groups at various hierarchical levels in different contexts. For example, in policy documents it is seen as supporting the promotion of plurilingualism (CoE) and multilingualism (EU) and the development of the communicative and intercultural competence of individuals as a way of
Вестник МГЛУ. Выпуск 14 (725) / 2015
living together, enhancing life options and employability, and facilitating mobility. It can be used to protect and promote linguistic and cultural diversity, strengthen social cohesion, deepen mutual understanding among European citizens, and foster respect for diversity of cultures and ways of life. It can also help to promote transparent descriptions of language competence and qualifications, stimulate criterion-based dialogue, and enhance comparability of educational provision and outcomes. In administrative documents it is seen as supporting the development of the language learner, promoting plurilingualism in a lifelong perspective, fostering learner autonomy and independent learning, and contributing to coherence and continuity in educational provision. In pedagogical documents it is seen as clarifying learner and teacher roles, supporting dialogue and the negotiation of learning objectives, facilitating learner self-assessment, helping learners when they transfer from one educational level to the next, and motivating learners by enabling them gradually to take charge of their own learning.
Ideally, visions, concepts and principles would directly translate into actions and produce the desired outcomes quickly and economically. Reality is different, however: coherent and sustained effort is needed over prolonged periods of time to bring about change in any complex system. The pan-European ELP project is no exception to this rule, but some unique characteristics add unusual challenges as well as potential for innovation.
1.1. Oscillating scope
The ELP is primarily a personal learning companion. It is the property of individual learners, yet teachers and schools have to accept co-ownership for the period of formal education; cooperation and dialogue are essential. The ELP is also a tool to promote linguistic and cultural diversity through education; yet educational provision is inevitably limited to key subjects and key competences to be reached within a limited time span.
1.2. Oscillating ambitions
The ELP promotes a learner-centred, communicative and inclusive approach to language learning in a lifelong perspective; yet formal education is organised into sectors with more or less selective transfer points. The ELP is designed to promote plurilingualism, intercultural competence and mobility. However, these are political goals not shared in equal measure by educational decision makers or influential sections of society.
1.3 Oscillating accountability
Education is in general organised in multi-layered systems and decisions are often decentralised. Visions, concepts, guidelines and principles tend to be reinterpreted at different levels, where decisions are taken on the basis of specific goals, priorities and evaluation criteria. Both achievement in educational programmes and competence gained in and outside formal settings are valid and have to be taken into account.
2. The ELP as physical instrument: common European core and variations
Altogether 118 ELP models have been validated by a European ELP Validation Committee (EVC) set up under the authority of the Steering Committee for Education of the CoE (CDED) from 2000 to 2010. Each of these ELP models has been designed around a common European core, making it recognisable and comprehensible across Europe and user-friendly, relevant and effective for specific learner groups in national, regional, local and institutional contexts. The steps from the concept of "a European Language Portfolio" to "the ELP" as a common label, to the different operational ELP models, are governed by common Principles and Guidelines approved by the Education Committee of the Council of Europe (for the latest version, see Council of Europe 2011) [5]. Authorities who undertake to produce an ELP for one or more groups of learners are expected to develop the ELP models in conformity with the aims and principles described in that document and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR; Council of Europe 2001) [3].
These include:
- adhering to terminological conventions, standard headings and rubrics as specified by the CoE, in at least one of the two official languages (English or French) and the relevant national language(s);
- respecting the basic division of the ELP into three parts (language passport, language biography and dossier) so that the learners can use each of these according to their particular needs in different learning and reporting contexts;
- developing where appropriate distinctive ELP models for different age groups whilst taking measures to ensure mutual recognition of all models and continuity between different educational institutions, levels, sectors, regions and countries;
- respecting the European character of the ELP so as to promote mutual recognition within and across national boundaries, including the reporting of competences in an internationally transparent manner by relating them to the categories and levels of proficiency described in the CEFR;
- seeking to improve the ELP in the light of experience.
Explanatory notes were added in a new edition to the Principles and
Guidelines in 2003 (Council of Europe 2011) [5]. They reconfirm that the ELP should reflect the political and educational concerns of the CoE, including:
- the development ofplurilingualism as a lifelong process: increasingly the individual's language learning needs are likely to be dynamic rather than static, evolving over a lifetime in response to educational, vocational / professional and individual / social requirements;
- transparency and coherence in language learning programmes: these are key principles underlying the CEFR. When they are transferred to the ELP, they imply that each model should be coherent in its structure and fully self-explanatory. They also require that ELPs should be designed in such a way that they help learners in formal educational contexts to understand the purpose and direction of the language learning programmes they are following;
- clear descriptions of language competence and qualifications in order to facilitate mobility: the ELP's international reporting function depends on its use of the common reference levels of the CEFR.
The CoE promotes common European goals through recommendations and descriptive documents, leaving implementation to the member states and INGOs. The CEFR provides a descriptive, transparent, coherent and comprehensive framework for the development of curricula, programmes, tools, systems and procedures for language and intercultural learning, teaching and assessment. The ELP is intended to mediate the visions, values and concepts promoted by the CoE to learners, teachers and schools, fostering effective language learning both in formal educational settings and as a lifelong process. There is a strong interconnection between the ELP and the CEFR. They are both descriptive and promote reflection, coherence and transparency in language learning provision. There are explicit links between the two tools: the global reference levels, illustrative descriptors, checklists and self-assessment grids cross-referenced by competences and
levels. However, neither of the two documents prescribes the learning goals to be reached or the methods to be employed.
It is remarkable that between 10,000 and 15,000 professionals have been involved in the Europe-wide processes of designing, piloting and implementing ELPs. They have had to make choices when creating age-and context-specific ELPs for their specific contexts. They have had to decide on the potential role of the ELP in their educational environments and, in so doing, open but also limit the choices available to ELP users: learners, teachers and schools. ELPs document choices made by educational authorities and designers. The relative weight given to pedagogic, reporting or catalytic functions can vary considerably from model to model. Taken together, validated and non-validated ELPs illustrate a wide range of interpretations of the European common core.
There are good reasons for producing different ELP models, including the following: ELP models should reflect the linguistic and cultural diversity of Europe; creating and designing ELPs requires reflection and builds up know-how; innovation and development might adversely be affected by over-regulation. There are also reasons for restricting the proliferation of ELP models, including the following: the need for guidance and consultation cannot be satisfied as the pan-European project grows; one or a few generic ELP models might be more suitable to maintain quality and protect the common European core; generic electronic ELP models might prove more adaptable and cost-effective.
Views on whether and how the common core should be strengthened differ. Three basic questions should be considered:
(i) Is it desirable to maintain the pan-European dimensions of the ELP?
(ii) Is it feasible to maintain a convincing common core?
(iii)Is it really essential and feasible to limit the proliferation of ELP models?
Although opinions differ on how and to what extent the European common core should be strengthened, it seems clear that proliferation is perceived as undue when varieties of ELP models compete, crossing the boundaries between areas of responsibility or spheres of influence. ELP models can be considered as useful scaffolds supporting language learning in changing contexts over a lifetime. But to be relevant they have to stimulate and facilitate age- and context-appropriate processes which lead to desirable outcomes for individual learners and learner groups.
2.1. Age- and contex-specific variations
Each ELP model is unique, but broad patterns of age- and context-specific variation are discernible. Among the validated ELP models, there are three for very young learners, aged from four to seven and 26 for learners in the primary sector, aged from six to eleven. ELP models for very young and primary learners generally constitute or directly reflect the language and intercultural learning curriculum and programme. These models cover periods of personal development characterised by dramatic shifts from unstructured learning by trial and error to structured, formalised learning. Primary ELP models generally promote a ludic approach to language and cultural learning. They contain age-appropriate foreign language learning objectives and encourage the pupils to bring their out-of-school experience into the classroom.
The language and the "can do" statements used in these models have been simplified. Mon premier Portfolio des langues, developed in 1997 by Francis Debyser and his team at CIEP in France [4], exemplifies how the cognitive and affective development of young learners can be taken into account. ELP models for very young and young pupils seek to address two challenges: to develop language in order to succeed in the educational programme provided and to give value to the linguistic and cultural competence that children from minority and migrant backgrounds acquire outside school. Pupils at the end of primary education tend to be divided into different educational streams, yet the competence levels reached in the first and second foreign language taught are rarely used in these screening processes, in contrast to the level reached in the language of general instruction.
Thirty-five ELP models have so far been validated for lower secondary education, the 10-15 age group. The allocation of teaching hours and the levels to be reached in the foreign languages taught by the end of lower secondary education are generally described in the curricula. Benchmarks for each school year tend to be reflected in the teaching materials used and in the checklists of lower secondary ELP models. The ELP is intended to foster the declared language learning goals, skills and competences necessary for learners to gradually take charge of their own learning. Learners complete compulsory education in most European countries at the age of 15 or 16, when lower secondary education ends. Some take up work, some enter vocational training, and many transfer to higher secondary education.
ELP models for post-compulsory education mirror that added diversity. Altogether 23 ELP models have been validated for higher secondary and professional education (the 15-20 age group) and 22 for adult education (the 16+ age group). Typically, checklist descriptors are modified and adapted to specific social, educational and professional needs. The emphasis is on reflection and reporting beyond the educational contexts.
2.2. ELP models for tertiary education
So far six ELP models have been validated for tertiary education. These are listed below in chronological order with their validation number:
1. Model no. 27.2002 for language teachers, translators and interpreters, Moscow State Linguistic University, Moscow RF.
2. Model no. 29.2002, CERCLES, European Confederation of Language Centres in higher education.
3. Model no. 35.2002, ELC, the European Language Council.
4. Model no. 40.2003, Universita della Calabria, Italy.
5. Model no. 98.2009, for academic and professional purposes, Technical University Madrid.
6. Electronic ELP model no. 112.2010, Universita degli Studi Guglielmo Marconi, Italy.
Two electronic ELP platforms based on validated ELP models from different sectors have been developed in higher education contexts:
• EPOS is an interactive ELP platform. It bundles descriptors of different accredited ELP models; facilitates individual learning and communication between students, tutors and teachers; and is actively supported by the Fremdsprachenzentrum der Hochschulen im Land Bremen, Germany [2].
• LOLIPOP is a multilingual, interactive on-line version of an ELP with enhanced intercultural dimensions. It is the result of a three-year project (2004-2007). It has been developed in partnership by twelve institutions of higher education from eight countries across Europe [10].
A number of ELP models have been developed for specific purposes in academic contexts, but have not been validated, including:
• ELP model for academic purposes developed by a group of students supported by the Student Union and the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia (ISBN 961-6211-88-9);
• ELP model for economists (2004), British Council, Kiev, Ukraine (ISBN 966-7043-74-6);
• ELP model for business and the professions, City University, London.
• ELP for students of the faculty of economics and business (20052006), University of Maribor, Slovenia;
• EPOSTL (European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages, 2007), European Centre for Modern Languages, Graz, Austria.
• Selected features of validated and non-validated ELP models for tertiary education, and where relevant from other sectors, will be considered and discussed in the following section, focusing on the pedagogic, reporting and catalytic functions of the ELP.
3. The ELP in practice
An estimated total of 3,500,000 ELPs has been produced, distributed and to a large degree used in different contexts, more or less intensively, for varying periods of time. The primary owner of the ELP is the language learner. The concept of ownership goes beyond having and maintaining an ELP. It includes the right to be involved in decision making and responsibility for gradually taking charge of one's own learning. Teachers and educational institutions are co-owners for highly formative but limited periods of time. Co-ownership between learners, teachers and educational institutions means partial rights and shared responsibilities. Dialogue and cooperation are needed for co-ownership to flourish; procedures and boundaries have to be mapped out, objectives and criteria for success negotiated.
"Learning for life, not for school" is a slogan most people willingly accept, but a concept not easy to live up to in practice. In formal education, tangible short-term results are needed to maintain a dynamic process and learner motivation. Taking a lifelong perspective is a challenge because empowering learners to take charge of their own learning requires structured and sustained effort that crosses the boundaries of traditional subject divisions and educational sectors. Effects show over time but rarely immediately. Yet learning to learn, to assess one's own competence and to report learning outcomes are educational objectives transversally useful in and beyond school.
The ELP values learning, competence and experience regardless of whether these are acquired in or outside formal education; its focus is on what learners can do. Living up to these principles broadens and enriches
learning environments but also adds complexity. To be relevant learning needs focus, and to be meaningful it needs depth. In an ideal world, these requirements would be complementary; in practice they tend to compete.
The ELP has a further dimension. Because it aims to fulfil an international reporting function in order to facilitate mobility, it describes language competence and qualifications, referenced to the CEFR, in a coherent, transparent and meaningful way. This poses a serious challenge to educational institutions in the vocational, tertiary and adult education sectors: learning outcomes have to be assessed and reported in terms of achievement and in terms of competence.
The challenge of finding and maintaining an appropriate balance between competing needs and priorities in education is not new; yet the high-level goals and underlying principles of the ELP affect a range of influential stakeholder groups involved in educational processes, in planning and in providing services and products. Stakeholders and stakeholder groups pursue their own goals and priorities, focussing on activities that are important from their perspective and assessing outcomes according to their own criteria and time horizons. Their beliefs and attitudes impact on the conditions, scope and status attributed to the ELP as a personal and collective pedagogic instrument and as a recognised reporting tool in international contexts, in education and in the world of work.
4. The ELP as learning companion
Discussing and evaluating the Finnish pilot project (1998-2001), V. Kohonen [7; 8] reports that the ELP:
- provides an important interface between learning, teaching and assessment;
- motivates and enables learners to gradually take more responsibility for their own learning;
- produces "invisible learning outcomes" such as tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty in communicative situations, and learning skills and strategies necessary for continuous, independent language learning;
- helps to develop learners' ability to assess their own language competence.
These findings are based on a relatively small sample of data collected during a pilot project in a geographically and culturally limited context.
Yet, they seem generalisable since they coincide with formal and informal feedback received from a wide variety of other contexts.
There does not seem to be a single right way of using the ELP. This is one of the reasons why "if used appropriately" is a qualifier generally added in reports when claims are made that the ELP works and that it produces desirable effects. A generally acceptable definition of "appropriate" does not exist; appropriate as a quality dimension has to be negotiated by the stakeholders in specific contexts.
R. Perclová [11, p. 218-220] focuses on teacher and learner beliefs and attitudes and relates her findings to key issues of innovation and collective ELP use. She argues that in order to achieve success in language and intercultural learning and to develop the ability gradually to take ownership of one's learning the following factors are of key importance: learner confidence and motivation; the creation of a rich positive environment and a wide variety of opportunities; frequent practice; and the ability to evaluate one's own work. In a qualitative empirical evaluation of working with the ELP in Irish post-primary schools, Ushioda and Ridley [18, p. 12] report: "Ultimately, the success or effectiveness of the ELP as a pedagogical tool must be gauged with reference to the particular teaching-learning context in which it is implemented, and validated in relation to the evolving experiences of those engaged in working with it."
Given the encouraging impact of the ELP on individual learning processes and learning outcomes, it could be assumed that the shift from individual to collective use would be a smooth, unproblematic process. Yet moving from individual use in voluntary groups to collective use that is recommended or compulsory for whole educational institutions, can have far-reaching consequences. Educational authorities and teachers deciding how to make collective use of the ELP may be faced with a dilemma. Recommended use seems to be in line with the principle of learner ownership, but might split a group into users and non-users, leading to undue problems in the use of the ELP and a potential loss of benefits; while compulsory use may be beneficial for all learners but seems to be in conflict with the concept of learner ownership and may provoke resistance.
5. Creating favourable conditions
For widespread implementation to succeed it is necessary to reach broad agreement on purpose, status and roles of the ELP and to communicate that
agreement to all stakeholders. Formal and informal feedback show that the relation between purpose, strategies and resources in given contexts impacts considerably on ELP use and its outcomes. It is important that stated objectives and available resources are perceived as equitable. Ideally there should be a balance between prescribed requirements and free space for spontaneity and local initiatives.
The attitude of teachers towards the ELP is a key factor in its effective use both by individual learners and across educational institutions. Feedback gathered via interviews, reflection meetings and questionnaires indicates that a large majority of teachers using the ELP believe that it can make a difference in educational practice. However, adequate teacher and learner preparation and ongoing support beyond the initial phases of implementation are essential.
Ownership and co-ownership have a strong impact on motivation for a majority of learners and teachers, but not all students and teachers favour a shift of responsibility to the learner.
Dialogue and mutual respect are needed to balance out interests: "beliefs and attitudes are inseparable from human learning and the context in which they are formed" [11, p. 244].
Focusing on what the learner can do means building on success rather than concentrating on deficits. It is a strategy which allows learners to experience a sense of achievement, however limited that might be at any one time, without limiting high-flyers.
Taking a lifelong perspective is a challenge for learners, teachers, parents and educational institutions for the following reasons:
- the benefits of investing effort and time in learning how to reflect, how to negotiate goals, how to learn, how to assess and report learning outcomes are in general not immediately visible, hence hard to appreciate;
- it seems close to impossible to predict the competences needed in evolving individual circumstances in a fast changing world;
- a lack of continuity at transfer points between educational sectors as well as different time horizons among users of the ELP can negatively affect motivation to use the ELP;
- educational institutions can generally not include all minority and migrant languages and cultures in their official curricula.
The principle that "all learning counts" is an invitation to transfer and apply competence gained outside formal education, including partial
competence, across the curriculum. It is an effective strategy to balance out short- and long-term goals and to improve the relationship between effort invested and effects produced.
Feedback includes statements such as the following:
• The main reason for the students' enthusiasm for the ELP approach was due to working on topics of their own interests [7, p. 239-267];
• Das Schönste war die Anerkennung von Kompetenzen in jenen Sprachen, die sonst bei uns nichts gelten [13];
• The ELP is particularly relevant in migrant language learning due to:
1) the potential for the development of "learner autonomy" which gradually transforms into "real-life autonomy"
2) the acknowledgement and promotion of plurilingualism and pluriculturalism
3) the value placed on all language and all intercultural learning, whether gained in formal educational contexts or outside them (Lazenby Simpson 2006).
An increasing number of examples of strategies and practice illustrate the extent to which a reasonable balance between competing variables has been found and how it has influenced implementation. See ELP project reports [14-17].
6. The ELP as a reporting tool
The most important criterion in reporting is relevance. Information passed for a purpose from sender to receiver should be as undistorted as possible, and what is reported should be concise and of interest to the addressee(s); information overload or lack of focus can reduce relevance. Reporting is a demanding activity, but it is also rewarding because it can satisfy the need to experience a sense of achievement and thus boost self-confidence. Reporting according to ELP principles includes language and intercultural competence and experience, regardless of whether they were acquired in or outside formal education, whether they have been formally certified or self-assessed. It covers a wide spectrum from the early years, through education, to adult life.
Self-assessment is a competence central to purposeful action and meaningful reporting. It belongs to an assessment culture with a wide range of assessment strategies and formats, including third-party assessment, examinations and tests. Self-assessment may lack face-validity and reliability in high-stakes situations, yet it is relevant in assessing
opportunities, requirements, one's own strengths, and the potential benefits of deciding whether, when and how to act in particular situations. Adequate self-assessment can be decisive for success in educational settings and beyond in real-life situations. Regular opportunities for assessment and teacher guidance are crucial if learners are to develop the capacity to adequately gauge their linguistic, communicative and intercultural competences.
Reporting can be a serious challenge when reports have to satisfy multiple purposes, addressees are not clearly identifiable, and assessment criteria are defined according to different categories. There is a striking similarity in the structure and format of language passports and of standard reporting requirements in validated ELP models. Differences in language requirements and language needs are generally taken into account in the language biography section, but do not show in standard Passports. In compulsory education, the purpose and hence the relevance of competences reported in learning contexts and at transfer points differ from sector to sector, inside sectors, from teaching establishment to teaching establishment, from class to class. In competitive high-stakes situations, such as gaining admission to prestigious vocational or academic institutions or applying for a job, information seems insufficient if language is of primary concern in a specific domain and cumbersome if language is not a specific requirement.
The standard language passport and the ELP as a whole are only partially adequate in these diverse situations; more differentiating profiles are needed to increase relevance. It can be desirable to reduce complexity in some cases but to add domain-specific competence in others. The CEFR describes aspects of language learning and language use which are not so far reflected in standard profiles in the passports. The variety of reference scales in the CEFR may facilitate the inclusion of more context- and task-relevant information and the development of more focused reporting formats for language and non-language specialists.
ELP models produced and used by employers typically feature work-relevant competences and benchmarks. Companies tend to state their needs in fundamentally different categories from those used by language specialists: e.g. customer satisfaction in frontline offices has to be improved; accidents in a production line must be reduced; new markets need to be won. Language might be considered an important factor in
Вестник МГЛУ. Выпуск 14 (725) / 2015
reaching stated goals but it is not the only one. Work-specific profiles may have to include additional competence domains. Spider diagrams can be helpful in capturing these and more flexible then checklists and grids in representing relevant competence in work contexts. Enriching reporting profiles by adding competence domains may reduce comparability, but it increases focus and relevance in specific contexts. A prerequisite for using spider diagrams is a set of coherent and transparent domains-specific scaling frameworks that may be widely accepted as common standards or limited to more narrowly defined contexts.
The goal in the current programme of the CoE is the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education. This implies a significant increase in scope compared with previous programmes, which focussed on foreign language learning, and non-language specialists will outnumber language specialists. As objectives evolve from educational sector to educational sector, the need to adapt to new environments reoccurs at each transfer point. The ELP can facilitate these processes provided that there is meaningful reporting and a willingness to take account of what learners can already do; to relate what they can do to new learning objectives; and to engage in dialogue instead of relying heavily on administrative procedures. Again, where language competence is not of primary concern, breaking down language profiles into five skill areas and six levels is cumbersome; where it is of primary concern more specific information, on quality, range, communication skills, etc. may be useful.
In the educational context the division of the ELP into three parts -language passport, language biography and dossier - stimulates activities which parallel reporting requirements. The three parts have different functions but interrelate; how to use them, however, needs reflection. The outcome of these processes and the quality of competence achieved does not seem to be sufficiently reflected in the standard profile and the standard language passports currently in use. It might be productive and of general interest to revise the standard profile by increasing its flexibility, providing space for domain-specific aspects of competence and promoting the use of additional sets of competence scales from the CEFR and from the world of work.
Samples of successful attempts to move in this direction include the following:
• The Griglia per l'autovalutazione delle competenze linguistic-accademiche developed and used in validated ELP model no.
40.2003 (Universita della Calabria, Italy), the rationale and development of which are reported in C. Argondizzo [1];
• The descriptions of modules for Banking and Finance, Local Administration, Tourism, developed for vocational purposes with validated ELP model no. 48.2003 [9];
• The self-assessment scale developed over a five-year period by Linguistic Gymnasium No. 23 in the City of Vladimir, Russian Federation, to value the competence gained by learners and to profile and promote the school in a highly competitive educational market. One of the conclusions of this project is that self-assessment is a competence which can be successfully taught and learnt.
6. The ELP as catalyst
Richterich and Schneider [12] foresaw that the ELP might facilitate innovation and bundle outcomes and effects of different teaching approaches and learning activities. This third set of ELP key functions does not seem to have been developed further or promoted over the years. However, outcomes of ELP use show that the ELP has been producing effects and added value as predicted by Richterich and Schneider. The innovative strength of the ELP is not in its individual principles and functions but in the ways these interrelate and, by addressing the learner directly, change from a top-down to a bottom-up strategy.
ELP work stimulates innovation, produces considerable pools of added know-how, and a significant enrichment of dialogue and cooperation at international, national, regional and institutional levels. Motivation to implement the ELP is generally based on broad educational considerations. Language competence (first, second, foreign) is viewed as a prerequisite for dialogue and communication in education and the outside world. The ELP is considered a potentially useful tool to foster participation, self-awareness and social integration.
Decision makers at different hierarchical levels adopt and implement the ELP for multiple reasons and purposes, e.g. to position and value languages in the curriculum, to set standards and evaluate outcomes, to foster quality and continuity across educational sectors, to cope with diversity, and to introduce and manage change. What is of interest in discussing the ELP's function as catalyst is how the relation between purpose, strategies and available resources has influenced outcomes in different contexts.
The catalytic function is of particular relevance for institutions of tertiary education. Communication and language competence play a crucial role in developing domain-specific knowledge and expertise in all fields of study. The savoir, savoir-faire, savoir-être, savoir apprendre of students at tertiary level are valuable assets to be taken into account and put to good use.
Academic study programmes and activities are specialised and focused, yet the choice of courses on offer is diversified and varied. Individual students with individual learning and language biographies and own backgrounds and aspirations select the courses and learning paths which seem appropriate and desirable to them.
Higher academic institutions are complex entities with declared and implied education and language policies, with varieties of teaching and research agendas, with formal and informal cooperation and competition for recognition and resources in- and outside the institution in an international context. Furthermore, higher academic institutions are at the crossroads between formal education and the wide world of social and professional life beyond education.
When individuals change from educational to 'real life' contexts they switch their roles from learners to autonomous users of competence. Communication and language use is no longer shaped by pre-set learning curricula and activities. It is geared to prevailing circumstances: the intentions, roles and backgrounds of the actors involved.
A key group of actors in the world beyond education are employers. They act for smaller, mid-size and large institutions rendering service and producing products, generally for profit, in competitive environments. They are in their large majority non-language specialist but buy in communicative, language and intercultural competence as required to fulfil tasks directly related to the company's policy and goals.
The ELP has proved its value as learning companion, reporting and catalytic tool in a wide variety of contexts and settings in formal education. And, it has also helped foster the declared political goals such as social cohesion and European citizenship, mutual respect and understanding, plurilingualism and intercultural competence during the highly formative periods of compulsory education. And, foreign language teaching and learning also produced 'invisible learning outcomes' as reported by V. Kohonen.
The language profiles promoted through the standard Language Passport of the ELP do not seem to reflect these added values, yet these seem highly relevant in tertiary education, communication and 'real-life' language use as well as in relation to life-long and autonomous learning. Chapter 4 of the CEFR (43-93) Language use and the language user / learner describes in some detail further aspects which affect the catalytic function but are not reported in the standard ELP Language Passport [3].
Reporting and catalytic functions interrelate. Both are needed to produce meaning and the basis for informed dialogue in multi-faceted ventures, processes and tasks. Informed dialogue is essential to achieve coherent processes when participants with different backgrounds and roles need to bring in their specific know-how, competences and skills to achieve agreed goals in given circumstances.
The common principles and guidelines for the ELP and CEFR, both descriptive tools, were formulated in 1991 out of the perspectives of the time and primarily focused on policies and processes in foreign language and intercultural learning in formal educational settings. In the meantime, general contexts, options and challenges around us have evolved (i.e. information technology, the Bologna declaration, Pisa studies, etc.) while in parallel pools of know-how and experience in the application and use of the CEFR and the ELP grew.
Descriptive tools leave users room for interpretation. Guidelines supplementing descriptive tools focus and at the same time limit users interpretation: i.e. in relation to context (CEFR: political and educational; ELP: foreign language learning in formal education settings), in relation to approaches (CEFR: action-oriented; ELP: life-long perspective), in relation to principles (CEFR: transparency and coherence; ELP: learner ownership of own learning, inclusion of all learning).
The pools of information of know-how, experience and studies on ELP use relate in their majority to applications within the common principles and guidelines. There are considerable variations between those applications but all closely respect the defined common European core. There are, however, also examples in which the Common European Core itself has been stretched, adapted or modified:
Alternative approaches followed in other projects include: • The authors of Profile deutsch [6] emphasise that goal and level definitions should be used for purposes of orientation rather than
as normative standards and that users should be enabled to produce their own specific profiles. The open framework thus created is designed to serve practitioners as a compass in interrelating goal definitions, "can do" descriptors, communicative means and level definitions.
• The talxx-language profiles for the sales and train staff of the Swiss National Railway System (2002)
• The ELP models of Integrate Ireland Language and Training (IILT) for migrant learners feature checklists organised by tasks and spreading over two to three language levels.
• The ELP models of employers tend to incorporate spider diagrams to add work-relevant domains.
• The Europass is a set of documents promoted by the EU and the CoE. It is a framework which comprises five transparency tools, among them a Europass Language Passport. This passport is a more user-friendly format for the world of work than the standard passport generally promoted as part of the common core in ELP models.
The principles and functions of the ELP proofed adequate and productive in a wide variety of contexts and educational settings throughout Europe over the last two decades. Yet experience shows that the importance of ELP functions shift as language, learning and communication needs evolve; that ownership changes meaning as learner autonomy develops; that guidelines may serve in one context but not be suitable in another.
Both ELP and CEFR primarily reflect formal learning / teaching perspectives. Institutions of higher and professional education, standing at the crossroad between formal education and the wide world of social and professional life, could find it beneficial to analyse the potential of the ELP (and CEFR) beyond education, taking the perspectives of autonomous social agents and language users.
REFERENCES
1. Argondizzo C. European Skills in Academic Modern Language Classrooms: new challenges and old beliefs. - Rende, Italy: Centro Editoriale e Librario Universita delgi Studi della Calabria, 2001.
2. Bremen U. EPOS Sprachen lernen mit e Portfolio. - Bremen, Land Bremen, Germany (kein Datum).
3. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment / Council of Europe, M. L. - Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2001.
4. Debyser F. Mon premier Portfolio des langues // Babylonia. - 1997-1999. -P. 45-46.
5. ELP. Principles and Guidelines / Council of Europe, E. C. - Strasbourg : CoE, 2004. - (Doc/EDU/LANG 2000, 33 rev. 1).
6. Glaboniat M., Müller M., Rusch P., Schmitz H. & Wertenschlag L. Profile deutsch: Lernzielbestimmungen, Kannbeschreibungen, Kommunikative Mittel, Niveau A1 - C2. Berlin und München: Langenscheit KG, 2005.
7. Kohonen V. Student perspectives to the ELP: voices from the classrooms // Koskensalo A., Smeds J., Kaikkonen P. & Kohonen V. (eds). Foreign languages and multicultural perspectives in the European contexts. - Münster: LIT Verlag, 2007. - P. 239-267.
8. Kohonen V. Student autonomy and the European language portfolio: evaluating the Finish pilot project (1998-2001). - Tampere : University of Tampere, 2003. - 78 p.
9. Leonardo da Vinci project, 1. Languages at Work: Descriptions of Moduls; Banking and Finance, Local Administration, Tourism : English, German, French, Italian. - Sofia, 2003.
10. LOLIPOP: Language on-line portfolio project. - Dublin : Dublin City University, 2004-2007.
11. Perclova R. The Implementation of European language Portfolio pedagogy in Czech primary and lower-secondary schools: beliefs and attitudes of pilot teachers and learners. - Joensuu : University of Joensuu, 2006.
12. Richterich R. & Günther S. Transparency and Coherence: Why and for Whom? - Strasbourg : Council of Europe, 1992.
13. Rieder L. (2001). Das Schönste war die Anerkennung für Kompetenzen in jenen Sprachen, die sonst bei uns nichts gelten. - Wien : Handelsakademie Wien, 2001.
14. Schärer R. ELP Pilot project phase 1998-2000: Final report. - Strasbourg : Council of Europe, 2000. - (DHVI/EDU/LANG (2000) 31 rev.).
15. Schärer R. European Language Portfolio: Final Report 2008. Excecutive summary. - 2009 (draft).
16. Schärer R. European Language Portfolio: Interim Report. - Strasbourg : Council of Europe, 2005, 2006, 2007.
17. Schärer R., David L., & Goullier F. A European Language Portfolio: From piloting to implementation (2001-2004): Consolidated report. - Strasbourg : Council of Europe, 2004.
18. Ushioda E. & Ridley J. Working with the European Language Portfolio in Irish post-primary schools: report on an evaluation project / Centre for Language and Communication Studies. - Dublin : Trinity College Dublin, 2002.
