1. CEFLING Project Overview
FiDiPro Seminar, 5 May 2008
Department of Languages, University of Jyväskylä

2. CEFLING Linguistic Basis of the Common European Framework for L2 English and L2 Finnish
Project funded by the Academy of Finland
Based at the University of Jyväskylä, and with collaborators at a number of universities in Europe (SLATE network)
Homepage:
Collaboration between SLA and Language Testing researchers in Lancaster and Jyväskylä. We are part of the SLATE network (Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK)

3. Research questions
What combinations of linguistic features characterise learners’ performance at the proficiency levels defined in the Common Framework and its Finnish adaptations?
To what extent do adult and young learners who engage in the same communicative tasks, at a given level, perform in the same way linguistically? To what extent are the adult-oriented CEFR levels and their Finnish adaptations for young learners equivalent?

4. 3. To what extent are the pedagogical tasks found in the teaching materials in the Finnish comprehensive school comparable with the tasks defined in the CEFR and the new curriculum?
4. What are the linguistic and communicative features that teachers (or National Certificates raters) pay attention to when assessing learners with the help of the Finnish adaptations of the CEFR scales? How do these features relate to the linguistic and communicative analysis of the same performances?

5. Tasks Core tasks: Subproject tasks: Email to a friend or colleague
to your teacher
to a store
Opinion piece
Narrative piece
Subproject tasks:
Translation task (L1 Finnish --> L2 English)
Word formation tasks
We designed this battery of tasks taking into account the following design features:
Topic (family and friends, school, etc.)
Functions (expressing greetings, requesting info, etc.)
Syntax (tense, questions, etc.)
Text form (note, letter, etc.)
Text type (opinion, narrative, etc.)
Target text length (short, long, open, etc.)
Proximity of the reader (known/unknown person)
Domain of language use (public, personal)
We were limited in choice given that part of our data come from existing tests, and we wanted to make the rest of the data comparable to that. So we tried to match the YKI tasks as much as possible.

6. Structure of the dataset

7. We are also planning to collect a second set of samples from some of the children ca. a year later, so we should end up having a small longitudinal corpus too.

8. Transcription and coding
We are adapting CHILDES tools for use with writing performances
The coding system is being developed. Some of it can be done semi-automatically (e.g., MOR analysis for English) but other codes have to be entered manually.

9. Sample performance

11. Ongoing and planned analyses
Development in a number of linguistic areas are currently being explored. See the list of current subprojects at