Introduction The CEFR offers a framework for language teaching, learning and assessment for L2 learners. Importantly, the CEFR draws on a learner’s communicative language competence rather than linguistic competence (e.g. vocabulary, grammar). As such, the implementation of the CEFR in our four years bachelor program Teacher of Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) caused a shift in didactic approach from grammar-based to communication-centered. It has been acknowledged that didactic approaches associated with the CEFR are scarcely documented (Figueras, 2012) and the effectiveness on learner outcomes have not been investigated systematically. Moreover, for many languages the levels of the CEFR are not supported by empirical evidence from L2 learner data (Hulstijn, 2007). Purpose We will i) describe our communication-centered approach in detail and iii) present some preliminary findings on the effectiveness of this approach on student’s outcomes. Method We followed four student cohorts longitudinally: students in the first cohort (n=14) were taught in a grammar-based curriculum, students in the second (n=6), third (n=9) and fourth (n=14) cohort in a communication-centered curriculum. Data involved production (interviews) videos that are transcribed using ELAN. Results Comparing students in their first and second year, results show that students who followed a communication-based curriculum show more grammatical variability as compared to students who followed a grammar-based curriculum. Conclusions Interestingly, the communication-centered approach stimulates the development of linguistic competence. We attempt to fit the empirical evidence of L2 learners within the CEFR-levels. References Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66, 477 – 485. Hulstijn, J. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: quantitave and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 663 – 667.
In this paper we describe our work in progress on the development of a set of criteria to predict text difficulty in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). These texts are used in a four year bachelor program, which is being brought in line with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001). Production and interaction proficiency are assessed through the NGT Functional Assessment instrument, adapted from the Sign Language Proficiency Interview (Caccamise & Samar, 2009). With this test we were able to determine that after one year of NGT-study students produce NGT at CEFR-level A2, after two years they sign at level B1, and after four years they are proficient in NGT on CEFR-level B2. As a result of that we were able to identify NGT texts that were matched to the level of students at certain stages in their studies with a CEFR-level. These texts were then analysed for sign familiarity, morpheme-sign rate, use of space and use of non-manual signals. All of these elements appear to be relevant for the determination of a good alignment between the difficulty of NGT signed texts and the targeted CEFR level, although only the morpheme-sign rate appears to be a decisive indicator
Sign languages have been recognized as indigenous to Europe by the key European institutions. The European Parliament has passed resolutions on sign languages on three occasions (1988, 1998, 2016a). The Council of Europe’s (CoE) Parliamentary Assembly supported a resolution on sign languages in 2003 (Council of Europe, 2005), and the European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML; an organization established under the auspices of the CoE) has supported work on sign language teaching, learning and assessment (Leeson, Van den Bogaerde, Rathmann, & Haug, 2016
