Camille Booker


The issues in languages education identified in all major languages reports suggest that too much ‘chopping and changing’ of program goals and assessment outcomes have deeply impacted languages education in Australia (Liddicoat, Curnow, Kohler, Scrimgeour and Morgan, 2007). This has resulted in levels of language proficiency that could be considered useful for students (LoBianco and Slaughter, 2009). By working from the notion of a language progression framework, the study draws on proficiency models developed for TESOL in Australia and the CEFR in Europe, in order to analyse current assessment practices in French language education. Then, through an exploration of teacher perceptions of the usefulness of a K-10 French Learning Progression Framework, the study found that teachers agreed on the ability of such an assessment tool to reveal students’ levels of language proficiency, and that this would help to increase learner motivation. The findings revealed that considerable differences exist in the approaches to assessment between primary and secondary programs and that this significantly impacts the implementation of such a framework. The study exposed pedagogical implications for assessment, such as the need for clearer assessment outcome descriptions and the need to assist teachers in their assessment of intercultural competence.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter



French language; assessment outcomes; language progression; language proficiency; teacher perceptions; assessment; intercultural competence

Full Text:



Alderson, J.C. (2007). The CEFR and the Need for More Research. The Modern Language Journal, 91: 4.

Arrowsmith, C. and Ravibabu Mandla, V. (2017). Institutional approaches for building intercultural understanding into the curriculum: an Australian perspective. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 41(4): 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2017.1337733

Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2016). Foundation to Year 10 Curriculum: Language, Language for Interaction (ACELA1428). Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/english/Curriculum/F10?y=F&y=7&y=8&y=9&y=10&s=LA&s=LT&s= LY&layout=1

Bazeley, P. (2009). Analysing Qualitative Data: More Than ‘Identifying Themes’. Malaysian Journal of Qualitative Research, 2, pp.6-22.

Board of Studies (BOS). (2013). Languages K-6: Syllabus and support documents. Sydney: Board of Studies.

Council of Europe (1996). Modern languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. A Common European Framework of Reference. Draft 2 of a framework proposal. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Djité, P.G. and Australian National Languages and Literacy Inst., Deakin. (1994). From Language Policy to Language Planning an Overview of Languages Other Than English in Australian Education. Washington, D.C.: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse,. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED381001

Donnelly, K. and Wiltshire, K. (2014). Review of the Australian Curriculum. Australian Government Department of Education

Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D. and McCormack-Steinmetz, A. (1991). Doing Qualitative Research: Circles within Circles. London: The Falmer Press.

Hasselgreen, A. (2013). Adapting the CEFR for the classroom assessment of young learners' writing. The Canadian Modern Language Review / La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 69(4): 415–435. DOI: 10.3138/cmlr.1705.415.


Hulstijn, J.H. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4): 663–667. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.006275.x.

LeComple, M.D., and Schensul, J.J. (1999). Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data. Book Five of The Ethnographer’s Toolkit, J.J. Schensul & M.D. LeCompte (Eds.). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, a division of Sage Publications.

Liddicoat A.J., Scarino A., Curnow T.J., Kohler M., Scrimgeour A. and Morgan A. (2007). An Investigation of the State and Nature of Languages in Australian Schools (190). Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). Retrieved from

Liddicoat, A.J. (2007). Language Planning and Policy: Issues in Language Planning and Literacy. Multilingual Matters, Buffalo, Toronto, 9781853599774.

Liddicoat, A.J. and Scarino, A. (2010). Introduction: Languages in Australian Education. In Anthony J. Liddicoat and Angela Scarino (eds) Languages in Australian Education: Problems, Prospects and Future Directions (pp. 1–8). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.

Liddicoat, A.J., Papademetre, L., Scarino, A. and Kohler, M. (2003). Report on intercultural language learning. Retrieved 11 May 2015, from http://www1.curriculum.edu.au/nalsas/pdf/intercultural.pdf on

Little, D. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. Modern Language Journal, 91(4): 645–653.

LoBianco, J. (2013). Language Policy: At the Centre and the Margins of Australian Multiculturalism. In A Jakubowicz and C Ho (eds), For those who've come across the seas… Australian multicultural theory, policy and practice (pp. 198–209). Australian Scholarly Publishing, North Melbourne.

LoBianco, J. and Slaughter, Y. (2009). Australian Council for Educational Research, Second languages and Australian schooling. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER.

McCracken, G. (1988). Qualitative Research Methods: The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412986229

Meisel J.M. (1980). Linguistic simplification. In S. Felix (ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues (pp. 13–40). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.

Mislevy, R.J. (1995). Test Theory and Language-Learning Assessment. Language Testing, 12(3): 341–369.

Ozolins, U. (1993). The Politics of Language in Australia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Melbourne, 1993.

PISA. (2012). Programme for International Student Assessment. OECD. Retrieved 4 October 2015, from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/

Scarino, A. (2012). A rationale for acknowledging the diversity of learner achievements in learning particular languages in school education in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 35(3): 231–250.

Scarino, A. (2014). Situating the challenges in current languages education policy in Australia–unlearning monolingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism, 11(3): 289–306. DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2014.921176.

Trim, J.L.M. (1978). Some Possible Lines of Development of an Overall Structure for a European Unit/Credit Scheme for Foreign Language Learning by Adults, Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Appendix B.

Wright, B.D., and Grosse, M. (1993). How to set standards. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7(3), 315-316.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.2368


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2019 Camille Booker

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2021. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).