B2 and the Maturity Factor
Angela Hasselgreen
Research Group for Language Testing and Assessment
University of Bergen
CEFR levels and YLs (primary school)
some examples of how these are perceived
• School curricula
British Council Survey of primary English language teaching (Rixon, 2013)
21 of 64 countries/regions surveyed have CEFR-related objectives:
A1: 8, A2: 12, B1: 1, B2: 0.
Finland – native-level Finnish 6th grade : B1.1 (productive) B1.2 (receptive)
• ELPs - Norwegian (Språkperm 6-12), UK (Cilt Junior): up to B1
• Tests: Cambridge - Young Learners: A2 (Preliminary for schools: B1)
Highest generally perceived level for primary school: B1
Is B2 out of the reach of children?
• Cognitive and social development
• L1 development: lexis, syntax, discourse
• L2 - Communicative language ability and domain
of use
• B2 descriptors
• A closer look at L1 and L2 production
Younger
children
5-8/9
Older
children
8/912/13
Cognitive and social development
- Limited limited short-term memory and attention span
- Concepts not organized into more adult categories
- Learning through concrete experience/personal knowledge
- Beginning to form friendships, still very adult-dependent.
- Speed of recalling and processing information increasing rapidly
- Organising concepts into categories, cope with more abstract ideas.
-Solving simple logical problems, carry out more complex tasks
- Appreciating ‘wholeness’ in tasks with coherent parts
-Dependent on friends and peer groups
- Learning to cooperate and collaborate
Teenagers Forming the gist of large amounts of information, sort essential ideas
up to 17 from non-essentials
Understanding of cause and effect, more complete notion of time
Abstract problems can be tackled using logic
World knowledge limited. Peers influential. Strong need to identify
Appreciating others’ perspectives; seeing several sides of complex issue.
Sources: Cameron (2001), McKay (2005), Nippold (2006), Pinter (2011),Morgan (2013)
L1 Lexical development
Young children
(5-8/9)
Older children
(8/9-12/13)
Teenagers
(13-17)
2-3000 wds/year
abstract nouns
figurative meanings
derivational morphology
Sources: Asch and Nerlove (1960), T. G. White, Power and S. White (1989),
Nagy & Scott (2000), Ward-Lonergan and Fanning (2005), Nippold (2006)
Adults
L1 Syntactic development
Young children
(5-8/9)
Older children
(8/9-12/13)
Intrasentential
growth (C-, T-units)
Conjunctions
and, then
but, before
Intersentential
growth
Adv.conjuncts
Also, So
Teenagers
(13-17)
Adults
even though,
so that
Provided
that
Furthermore
Conversely
Sources: Scott (1984), Karmiloff-Smith (1986), Katz and Brent (1986),
Crowhurst (1987).
L1 Discourse development
5-8/9
Conversation
basic
8/9-12/13
Less repetitive
Aware of others’
thoughts
13-17
More coherence
Generally best performance
with peers
Narrative
basic
Recall feelings and
desires
Complete episodes and
elaborate detail
Argument and
negotiation to solve
conflict, some other
awareness
Persuasion and negotiation
well organised, counter
arguments, others’
perspectives,
advantages/disadvantages
Sources: Selman, Schorin, Stone and Phelps (1983), Brinton and Fujiki (1984),
Dorval and Eckerman (1984), Nippold (2006)
Implications for L2 CLA
Older children (8/9-12/13)
Teenagers up to 17
MicroLexis: abstracts and derived
linguistic forms conceptually emerging
Syntax: less complex, limited
range of conjunctions and adv
conjuncts
Textual Cohesion in texts and lengths
of C- and T-units limited, e.g.
by limitation in linking words.
Limited range of
genres/discourse types
Lexis: Abstract concepts, derived
forms and figurative meanings
developing rapidly.
Syntax: complex, range conjunctions,
adv conjuncts incr.rapidly
Longer, more complex and coherent
texts.
Appreciate wholeness in texts and get
gist.
Linking words include markers such as
’smallwords’ in speaking
Wider range of genres/discourse types
SocioAwareness of others gradually Awareness of others, including outside
linguistic emerging.
own sphere ,strong sense of identity
Sources: Hasselgreen (2004), Hasselgreen & Moe (2006), Nippold (2006), Pinter (2011),
Hasselgreen and Caudwell (forthcoming)
L2 Domain
Older children (8/9-12/13)
Teenagers up to 17
Topics
The ’familiar’ is limited
Everyday life, interests, experience
Gradually more abstract and
relevant /familiar societal issues and
expressive topics.
World knowledge very limited
The ’familiar’ is expanding
Complex , ’distant’ and
controversial issues
World knowledge still
limited. The world of young
people most relevant.
Genre/
discourse
participants
Typically Informal, familiar
participants.
Conversation, problem solving,
personal communication,
Straightforward narrative,
description, explanation
Expanding range, includes
more formal, unfamiliar
participants.
Argumentative, persuasion,
discussion, negotiation.
Sources: Cekaite (2008), Drew and Sørheim (2009), Hasselgreen et al (2011),
Curriculum aims for English as Second Language, New Jersey, (2012), Current
National Curriculum aims for English as a foreign language, Sweden , Caudwell (2015)
B 1 and B2 – global scale
Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar
matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc.
Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of
personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes
and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions
and plans. (Council of Europe, 2001: 24)
Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and
abstract topics
Can explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and
disadvantages of various options. (Council of Europe, 2001: 24)
B 1 and B2 - general linguistic ability
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 (lower B1)
Has a sufficient range of language to describe unpredictable situations,
explain the main points in an idea or problem with reasonable precision
and express thoughts on abstract or cultural topics such as music and
films (upper B1).
(Council of Europe, 2001: 110).
Can express viewpoints and develop arguments without much
conspicuous searching for words, using some complex sentence forms to
do so.
(Council of Europe, 2001: 110)
B1 and B2 -sociolinguistic appropriateness
Can perform and respond to a wide range of language functions, using their
most common exponents in a neutral register. Is aware of the salient
politeness conventions and acts appropriately. Is aware of, and looks out for
signs of, the most significant differences between the customs, usages,
attitudes, values and beliefs prevalent in the community concerned and those
of his or her own.
(Council of Europe, 2001: 122).
Can express him or herself confidently, clearly and politely in a formal or
informal register, appropriate to the situation and person(s) concerned (upper
B2). Can express him or herself appropriately in situations and avoid crass
errors of formulation.
(Council of Europe, 2001: 122)
B1 and B2 - Discourse competences
Can initiate, maintain and close simple face-to-face conversation on
topics that are familiar or of personal interest. Can reasonably fluently
relate a straightforward narrative or description as a linear sequence of
points. Can link a series of shorter, discrete simple elements into a
connected, linear sequence of points. (Council of Europe, 2001: 125).
Can use a variety of linking words efficiently to mark clearly the
relationships between ideas. Can develop a clear description or narrative,
expanding and supporting his/her main points with relevant supporting
detail and examples. (Council of Europe, 2001: 125-26)
Average range of conjunctions compared in
L2 written texts of 7th and 10th graders.
Up to A2
Over A2, up to B1
Over B1, up to C1
7th grade (12/13
years)
3.3 (max 8)
5.1 (max 9)
10th grade 815/16
years)
4.3 (max 6)
6.9 (max 12)
9.9. (max 18)
7th grade: same pool of conjuctions used by virtually all pupils –
and, but, so, because, that, for, when , if.
10th grade: more variety demonstrated. Over B1 considerable
variety.
From Hasselgreen and Moe, 2006
Conclusion
Level B2 on the CEFR is normally beyond the reach
of pre-adolescent children owing to interdependent
factors of:
– Social and cognitive maturity, also manifested in
L1 development;
– The domain in which children normally use/learn
their L2.
But the questions remain …
• How far up the CEFR scale can children go?
• Is B1 sufficient to describe the performance of
a (near) native speaker child?
11-year old native speaker narrative
One day when I came home from school I found the door
wide open. I went inside and found my mum and dad on the
floor, I checked if they were breathing they were. I found a
gas bomb besides them it must of put them to sleep. I saw
the window smashed and glass on the floor, I heard a crash
upstairs so I went to see what it was. I ran upstairs I looked
out of a window and saw a robber on an eagal flying away with
a sack. The next morning I told my mum and dad but they
said “Nonsense!” so I went to school, I told my friends and
they said they saw it too. At break time we heard a sheak
like an eagal, it was an eagal with a funny man on the back.
“It’s him!” we shouted. In the lesson we saw a bird like
shadow on the wall, we turned round and it was gone.
On Sataday me and my friend met up to solve this mystery.
We got some meat and the eagal came. “Hear, birdy birdy
birdy”, we called and then the eagal came and landed on the
floor so I threw the meat. The burgular fell off and we
caught him. But then he threw a gas bomb and we dozed off
into a sleep. When I woke up I found it was all a dream.
One day when I came home from school I found the door wide
open. I went inside and found my mum and dad on the floor,
I checked if they were breathing they were. I found a gas
bomb besides them it must of put them to sleep. I saw the
window smashed and glass on the floor, I heard a crash
upstairs so I went to see what it was. I ran upstairs I looked
out of a window and saw a robber on an eagal flying away
with a sack. The next morning I told my mum and dad but
they said “Nonsense!” so I went to school, I told my friends
and they said they saw it too. At break time we heard a
sheak like an eagal, it was an eagal with a funny man on the
back. “It’s him!” we shouted. In the lesson we saw a bird like
shadow on the wall, we turned round and it was gone.
On Sataday me and my friend met up to solve this mystery. We
got some meat and the eagal came. “Hear, birdy birdy
birdy”, we called and then the eagal came and landed on the
floor so I threw the meat. The burgular fell off and we
caught him. But then he threw a gas bomb and we dozed off
into a sleep. When I woke up I found it was all a dream.
References
Asch, S. E. and Nerlove, H. (1960) ‘The development of double-function terms in children: An exploratory investigation’. In Kaplan, B. and Wapner, S. (Eds) Perspectives in Pschycological Theory:
Essays in honour of Heinz Werner: New York: International Universities Press, 47-60.
Brinton, B. and Fujiki, M. (1984) ‘Development of topic manipulation skills in discourse’. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 7: 350-350.
Cameron. L. (Council of Europe, 2001) Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Caudwell, G. (2015) Aptis for Teens Technical Report, British Council.
Cekaite, A. (2007) ‘A Child's Development of Interactional Competence in a Swedish L2 Classroom’. The Modern Language Journal 91/1: 45/62.
Council of Europe (Council of Europe, 2001). Common European Framework for Languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Crowhurst, M. (1987) ‘Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels’. Research in the Teaching of English, 21: 185-201.
Drew. I and Sørheim, B. (2009) English Teaching Strategies: Methods for English teachers of 10-16 year-olds. Oslo: Samlaget.
Dorval, B. and Eckerman, C. (1984) ‘Developmental trends in the quality of conversation achieved by small groups of acquainted peers’. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
49.
Hasselgreen, A. (2004) Testing the Spoken English of Young Norwegians: a study of test validity and the role of ‘smallwords’ in contributing to pupils' fluency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hasselgreen, A. And Caudwell, G. (forthcoming). Assessing the language of young learners. British Council publications.
Hasselgreen, A., Kaledaite, V., Maldonado Martin, N. and Pizorn, K (2011) Assessment of Young Learner Literacy linked to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Graz:
European Centre for Modern Languages.
Hasselgreen, A. and Moe, E. (2006) ‘Young learners’ writing and the CEFR: where practice tests theory’. Presentation at the 3rd EALTA Conference, Krakow.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1986) ‘Some fundamental aspects of langiage development after age 5’, in Fletcher, P. and Garman, M. (Eds) Language Acquisition: Studies in first language development(2nd
edition, 455-474) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Katz , E. and Brent, S. B. (1986) ‘Understanding connectives’. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 7: 501-509.
McKay, P. (2005) Assessing Young Language Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morgan, N. 2013. Blame my brain. The Amazing Teenage Brain Revealed. Walker,UK.
Nagy, W. E. and Scott, J. A. (2000) ‘Vocabulary processes’, in Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B. and Barr, R. (Eds) Handbook of Reading Research, 3. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum: 269-284.
Nippold, M. A. (2006) Later Language Development. Austin, Texas: Pro-ed.
Nippold, M. A., Ward-Lonergan, J. M. and Fanning, J. L. (2005) ‘Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults: A study of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic development. Language, Speech
and Hearing Services in Schools, 36: 125-138.
Pinter, A. (2011) 2011 Children Learning Second Languages.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Rixon, S. 2013. Survey of policy and practice in primary English language teaching worldwide. London: British Council
Scott, C. M. (1984). ‘Adverbial connectivity in conversations of children 6 to 12’. Journal of child language, 11, 423-452.
Selman, R. L., Schorin, M. Z., Stone, C. R. and Phelps, E. (1983) ‘A naturalistic study of children’s understanding’. Developmental Psychology, 19: 82-102.
White, T. G., Power, M. A.and White, S. (1989) ‘ Morphological analysis: Implications for teaching and understanding vocabulary growth’. Reading Research Quarterly, 24: 233-265.
WEBSITES
Cambridge English tests for young learners:
https://www.teachers.cambridgeesol.org/ts/exams/younglearnersandforschools
CILT portfolio:
http://www.primarylanguages.org.uk/resources/assessment_and_recording/european_languages_portfolio.aspx
Finnish basic school curriculum:
http://www.oph.fi/download/47672_core_curricula_basic_education_3.pdf
New Jersey Curriculum project 2012:
http://www.manchestertwp.org/cms/lib4/NJ01001700/Centricity/Domain/23/ESL/ESL-ELL%20Grades%203-5%20Curriculum.pdf
Språkperm Norway:
http://www.fremmedspraksenteret.no/nor/fremmedspraksenteret/larings---ressurser/den-europeiske-sprakpermen
Swedish national curriculum, English 4-6 grade:
http://www.skolverket.se/laroplaner-amnen-och-kurser/grundskoleutbildning/grundskola/engelska