An
implementationof a CEFR-based
writing Can-Do
curriculum
Jean L. Ware
Tokai University

Charles Robertson
Tokai University

Steven Paydon
Tokai University

Reference data:
Ware, J. L., Robertson, C., & Paydon, S. (2011). An implementation of a CEFR-based writing Can-Do curriculum. In A. Stewart (Ed.), JALT2010 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.

A growing number of Japanese institutions are adopting CEFR-based Can-Do curricula because of worldwide trends in education and recent MEXT guidelines. The authors were instrumental in developing
and initiating the new Can-Do based writing curriculum at Tokai University. This article looks at (a) theelements of a Can-Do based curriculum, from the CEFR to students’ post-assessment self-evaluation
checklists, and (b) how self-assessment metrics work together to guide and inform both students andteachers in the learning process. This article presents Tokai’s CEFR-based Writing Can-Do objectives
and writing assessment rubrics and illustrates how Can-Do curricula can be applied in writing classes using multiple drafts and targeted teacher feedback. The intent of this article is to help readers contextualizeboth the challenges and opportunities posed by the inclusion of a CEFR-based Can-Do curriculum inrequired university writing courses.
世界的な教育の潮流となりつつある「ヨーロッパ共通参照枠（CEFR)」と、それを反映した最近の文部科学省(MEXT)のガイ
ドラインを受けて、多くの日本の教育機関がCEFRのCan-Do項目の概念に基づくカリキュラム構築を行っている。本稿の著者
達は東海大学におけるCan-Do型のカリキュラム開発と導入に関わってきた。本稿は、（１）CEFR自体に始まり学生が学習後の自己評価に使うチェック・リストに至る、本カリキュラムを構成する要素について、（２）それらの道具や要素の体系的な利用
が、学習プロセスにおいてどのように学生と教師を導き、必要な情報を提供したか、という２点をまとめたものである。特にここでは、ライティングのCan-Do項目（到達目標）と評価ルーブリックを取り上げ、Can-Do型のカリキュラムが、学生に何度も書き直しをさせ教師が重要点にフィードバックをするタイプのライティング指導にいかに効果的に適用できるかを事例を示しながら議論する。よって本稿の目的は、大学のライティング必修科目のカリキュラムにCEFRのCan-Do項目のアプローチを採用する試みが持つ大きな可能性と問題点について、 読者に文脈を 提供しながら詳説することである。

In Japan, recent Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)

guidelines urge higher educational standards. As a result, a growing number of Japaneseinstitutions are adopting Common European Framework of Reference for Languages(CEFR)-based curricula. The Foreign Language Center (FLC) at Tokai University has developed and initiated a new CEFR-based Can-Do curriculum for four required combined-skills
courses: Listening and Speaking 1 and 2, and Reading and Writing 1 and 2. This paper examines the elements of a Can-Do based curriculum, from the CEFR to students’ post-assessment
self-evaluation checklists, focusing on the writing portion of the new Reading and Writing
courses. It then explains how these elements work together to guide and inform both students
and teachers in the learning process. Next, it explains how a Can-Do based curricula was ap-

JALT2010 Conference Proceedings
ONLINE PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

8

Ware, Robertson, & Paydon • An implementation of a CEFR-based writing Can-Do curriculum

plied at Tokai. Finally, this paper looks at the institutional challenges of initiating this new curriculum.

The MEXT push for accountability
Since 2004, MEXT has required all universities in Japan tosubmit to external accreditation evaluation, which is repeatedin 7-year cycles. The aims of these evaluations are to increasetransparency and accountability, while also ensuring both ageneral raising of standards and a uniform level of quality. The
universities are given an assessment of pass, probation, or fail,and these results are publicized (Mulvey, 2010). In the current
education climate where institutions are facing a declining population of students and the concurrent closure and merging ofschools, a good public appearance is critical in the competition
for student enrollment. Influenced by this educational climate,
Tokai University began a major revision of its curriculum andrequired English language courses.

In 2007, management at Tokai decided to require each department to include Can-Do Statements in every course syllabi. For
example, “At the end of this course, students will be able to... .” In
addition, the FLC decided to base its Can-Do Statements (CDSs)
for all required English courses on the CEFR.

CEFR overview

successive stages of language learning. It includes descriptionsof what learners are able to understand and express in various
situations.

CEFR was created by the Council of Europe’s Language
Policy Division between 1989 and 1996 as part of its “Language
Learning for European Citizenship” project. CEFR is the resultof research by applied linguists and pedagogical specialists
from the 41 member states of the Council of Europe. In November 2001, a European Union Council Resolution recommended
using CEFR to create validation systems for language ability.
CEFR provides a basis for (a) an international recognition of
language qualifications and (b) an international comparison of
language certificates. CEFR documents are available in over 30
languages. CEFR has over 240 pages and contains approximately 925 ability descriptors. CEFR’s six levels are listed below.

CEFR’s 6 Levels
A:

B:

C:

Basic Speaker

A1 Breakthrough (Beginner)
A2 Waystage (Elementary)
Independent Speaker

B1 Threshold (Pre-intermediate)
B2 Vantage (Intermediate)

Proficient Speaker
CEFR is an acronym for The Common European Framework of
C1 Effective Operational Proficiency (Upper intermediReference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, and Assessment. CEFR
ate)
(also known as CEF) is a set of guidelines for foreign language
learning, teaching, and assessment criteria. CEFR describes
C2 Mastery (Advanced) [However, not necessarily
in a comprehensive manner: (a) the competences necessary
equivalent to a native speaker level.]for communication, (b) the related knowledge and skills (i.e.,
For more details about CEFR, see Appendix 1.
vocabulary and grammar), and (c) the situations and domains ofcommunication. CEFR provides clear standards to be attained at

JALT2010 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

9

Ware, Robertson, & Paydon • An implementation of a CEFR-based writing Can-Do curriculum

Advantages of CEFR-based Can-Do statements
There are three main advantages for using CEFR-based CDSs.
Done well, they assure that students have the necessary foundation for later learning. They increase both teachers’ and students’ awareness of teaching and learning objectives. They alsoestablish consistency between the objectives, teaching content,
and learner assessment. Further, CDSs help develop students’learner autonomy.

Building Tokai’s CEFR-based English curriculum
The FLC also decided that it would revise its required English curriculum to use integrated-skills courses: Listening andSpeaking 1 and 2 (LS1 & LS2) and Reading and Writing 1 and 2(RW1 & RW2) instead of offering separate classes for each skill(listening, speaking, reading, and writing).
The FLC Director wanted students to achieve higher proficiency levels after finishing their required English courses.
Furthermore, the Director established the following goals forstudents who had completed Tokai’s new required curriculum:

Table 1. Student goals
Class Level
Basic
Intermediate
Advanced

CEFR Targets
A1+ ~ A2
B1
B2

Developing Tokai’s Can-Do statements
In April 2008, four committees began working on separate CDSs
for reading, writing, listening, and speaking. They produced
two documents with six course objectives for each of the sepa-

JALT2010 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINErate skills and three integrated skill objectives (listening andspeaking, reading and writing).

In April 2009, new committees refined the previous year’s
work and then integrated the two skill areas. Textbooks wereselected and grading criteria were decided. Syllabi were thenwritten for four different levels: Basic, Lower Intermediate, Upper Intermediate, and Advanced. Classes meet twice a week for
90 minutes for 14 weeks with common reading tests given at themidterm and end of the semester.

Then in late 2009, FLC management decided that our student-oriented Can-Do statements should be expressed as 10
single sentences. (This is the reason the FLC’s writing Can-Do
statements contain many clauses.) Also during 2009, a variety
of classes piloted the new Can-Do statements using the new
textbooks and assessment rubrics. Teacher and student feedback
was incorporated into additional training and revised course
syllabi.

Numeric scales and grades
Tokai’s required English course titles make no distinction between students’ levels. However, students’ final course grades
need to reflect their relative language proficiency. In addition, it
was too difficult to use different numeric scales for the different levels. Therefore, spreadsheets were developed that would
take the raw scores from the writing assessments and recalibratethem to produce grades that reflect students’ class levels.
The committee decided to have common reading (and listening) tests: twice in the 1st year but only a final test during the
2nd year. The rationale was that giving two tests during the
1st year would help students understand the difficulty of thereading tests and give them more motivation to develop better
study skills. For reading, both tests would use passages fromthe chapters students had studied in their textbooks. In order PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

10

Ware, Robertson, & Paydon • An implementation of a CEFR-based writing Can-Do curriculum

to make the common reading midterm and final tests in the 1styear fair, teachers needed to cover the same materials by themidterm date. As a result, our 1st year syllabi had to specify
which materials should be covered on each of the 28 days ofthe semester. Grades for the 1st year are assigned based on the
allocation shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows an example gradespreadsheet.

ments through detailed, evaluative criteria. The RW committee
agreed that four genres (descriptive, narrative, expository, andcompare & contrast) would form the basis of evaluation andthat these genres would be repeated in both the 1st and 2ndyears, regardless of class level. Following common practicewithin L1 and L2 composition instruction, descriptive/narrative writing was adopted as the first assignment. (The rationale
behind this decision lies in their grammatical simplicity since
descriptive writing and narrative writing require students toemploy more implicit language while recalling past events,
persons, places, or objects.) For the final writing exam, expository (thesis-driven or compare & contrast) writing assignments
were designed.

The process of creating meaningful linkage between the
CERF-based goals (i.e., Can-Do statements) and the evaluative
metrics required careful consideration. First, the committee
decided that assessment rubrics had to be created in a top downmanner, meaning that our course goals should be directly linked
to our assessment Can-Do statements, and, in turn, to individual
assessment rubrics. Second, in order to make these assessment
rubrics more skill targeted and meaningful, the committee also
concluded that the assessment rubrics needed to be both genre
and class-level specific. Figure 3 illustrates the relationshipbetween these goals and assessment rubrics.

Figure 1. Grade proportions

CEFR-Based Course Goals

Figure 2. Grade spreadsheet

Genre Objectives

Linking writing assessment rubrics to course goals
Once course goals were established, work began on creating
writing curricula that could be linked to our CEFR-based state-

JALT2010 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE

Genre- and Level-Specific Assessment Rubrics

Figure 3. From course goals to assessment rubrics

 PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

11

Ware, Robertson, & Paydon • An implementation of a CEFR-based writing Can-Do curriculumThus, in the end, the committee created 10-point analyticbased assessment rubrics for three class levels (basic, intermediate, advanced) and four writing genres (descriptive, narrative,
simple expository, and compare & contrast). These assessment
rubric descriptors were carefully written to reflect both Tokai’s
CEFR-based Can-Do goals and individual genre requirements.
The final products were nine writing assessment rubrics for our
1st-year course, and an additional nine for our 2nd-year course(RW1 and RW2, respectively). In brief, these final rubrics clearlyreflect a progression of writing skills (within each genre) thatthe new curriculum hoped to develop. Moreover, for instructors, these rubrics illustrate course expectations and establish
clear goals for student performance and learning. See Appendix
2 for course goals for Basic RW1 and RW2 courses. Appendix 3
gives a Basic Narrative assessment rubric with its 10 assessment
criteria.

After these core Can-Do curricula documents had been created, work on ancillary materials began. In particular, CanDo definitions and new curricula guidelines were written toprovide more support at both the student and teacher level.
Definitions of each discourse genre along with clear guidelines
regarding number of required drafts, word count, formatting, and so on were prepared. In addition, the RW Handbook
provides teachers with “tips” to help link textbook chapters andexercises to midterm and final writing exam prompts. Next, explanations of writing criteria terminology (in simplified English
and Japanese) were also created to help teachers and students
understand the areas within a given text that were being examined. Finally, student self-assessment sheets were made sothat students could reflect upon their own perceptions of theirproficiency levels for each genre before and after each writing
assignment was completed. (See Appendix 4 for an example.)
As an important hallmark of CEFR-based programs, the student
self-assessment sheets provide a valuable opportunity for “noticing” to occur within the learner. In addition, the student self-

JALT2010 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE

assessment sheets provide teachers with an important tool when
conferencing with their students and help to bridge the gap that
often exists between students’ perceptions of their performance(noticing) and teacher evaluation of actual performance.

Faulty development training
The new CEFR-based curriculum represents a significant
institutional shift for the Foreign Language Center at Tokai forseveral reasons. First, it established clearer guidelines for course
content and evaluation. Second, as mentioned earlier, the FLC
decided to introduce a combined-skills approach for its required
courses in order to encourage more communicative-based classroom teaching. Thus, the next critical step for the committee wasto prepare a series of five mandatory faculty development (FD)sessions to orient and prepare our 150+ RW1 and RW2 teachers
for these changes.

Explaining the new Can-Do-based curriculum
The first FD session began by outlining the goals and principles of CEFR-based programs, as well as illustrating how thecommittee had adopted and refined CEFR to balance Tokai’s
institutional goals with incoming freshmen English proficiency
levels. Moreover, in the first FD session, the committee situatedthe new curriculum within several language acquisition frameworks in an effort to better define and explain the rationale for
its adoption. Specifically, the committee utilized the simultaneous
acquisition model to argue that our new curriculum, which wasbuilt upon limited but systematic input, would lead to enhanced
student writing performance. The committee explained frommultiple perspectives (curriculum development, teacher planning, and student learning) how the Plan, Do, Check, Action(PDCA) cycle was used to create the new program, and, more
importantly, how it would be used to refine and improve the PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

12

Ware, Robertson, & Paydon • An implementation of a CEFR-based writing Can-Do curriculum

program moving forward. Great care was taken to explain anddiscuss how adjustments and modifications would be made asa natural course of events, thus assuring that continued teacher
input was vital for the success of the program. With each FD
session, presentations and discussions grew increasingly tactical, focusing on the flow of each learning unit and the importance of student checklists within that flow. More concretely, thecommittee discussed how these checklists help to raise learners’
awareness of the gaps between their inter-language and thetarget language, again creating more opportunities for noticing
to occur.

Writing feedback & evaluation: Giving targetedteacher feedback
Under the previous 2-year required English curriculum at Tokai,
individual skills had been taught separately. Typically, nativespeaker and nonnative-speaker (NNS) teachers had segregatedthemselves by requesting to teach either productive or receptive skills. However, under the new CEFR-based curriculum,
reading and writing skills were combined. As a result, the focusof the second and third FD trainings was devoted to illustrating how the new curricula, which include multiple opportunities for student self-assessment and reflection, would fit wellwith a process approach to writing instruction. For many NNS
teachers, L2 composition instruction was often taught through agrammar-translation method. Thus, FD trainings attempted toillustrate how and why a process approach to writing, utilizing
multiple drafts with targeted teacher feedback, is more pedagogically sound. In particular, the FD sessions included typicalwriting task sequences along with detailed examples of appropriate reader response feedback given on actual student essays
at each draft level.

JALT2010 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE

Norming: Evaluating student writing using CanDo rubrics
As inter-rater reliability is always a concern when utilizing any
scoring system, the committee took great care to prepare teachers to evaluate their students’ in-class timed-writing exams.
Therefore, the final two FDs were devoted to norming teachers on the scoring rubrics just days prior to the testing periods.
These norming sessions provided teachers with the opportunity
to use the rubrics on actual student paragraphs/essays (for theteacher’s class level), and then to explain and negotiate scoreswith other teachers and committee members. If a teacher’s score
differed significantly (by more than 1 point under any of thecriterion on a 5-point scale) from either the committee’s scoresor from their peers’ scores, then teachers were asked to argue
their rationale while citing specific areas or features within the
text. Finally, large-group discussions were held within each classlevel (utilizing clear benchmarks) to discuss the more contentious areas of a particular composition until a consensus wasreached. This style of norming hopes to ensure greater rater
reliability across the new curriculum.
The FDs were performed in a number of steps. First, teachers were given sample student compositions and were asked
to grade them using the rubric assessment sheets. Later, they
were given the same writing samples that the committee had
graded and annotated. Next, teachers were asked to compare
the two sets of scores. Teachers were also asked to make note ofany areas where their grades differed significantly from thoseof the committee. Later, at the Faculty Development session,teachers were broken into class levels and placed into groups oftwo to three. Each group went through their sample paragraphs
or essays and discussed the points they had given under eachcriterion.

 PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

13

Ware, Robertson, & Paydon • An implementation of a CEFR-based writing Can-Do curriculum

Outstanding issues: Going forward
The new curriculum represents substantial increases in institutional control, standardization, and educational quality.
However, there are still challenges ahead. While some teachers
appreciate the tighter curricula, others do not. In the absence of
empirical data, there is presently no objective way to quantify
what percentage this applies to on either side of the spectrum,
but emotions do run strong at either extreme. What is clear,
however, is a considerable decrease in teacher autonomy.

textbook series and follows a tight, content-rich syllabus. Thissituation requires teachers and students to primarily engage
with content, taking valuable time away from the negotiationof learning objectives. Moreover, while assessment rubrics havebeen developed from course goals, they are not explicitly linked
to the textbook series. Simply put, often there is little linkage
between the appointed textbooks and these rubrics. This creates a disconnection between students’ needs (as identified in
students’ self-assessment sheets) and course content. As a result,
this compromise weakens the curriculum’s potential to empower students to take control of their own learning goals.

There are two possible approaches to bridge this shortcominginthe current curriculum. The first would be to develop suppleAutonomy and control exist at two ends of a scale. Like the swing
mentarymaterials which would more effectively link textbook
of a pendulum, with an increase in institutional control andstandardization comes a corresponding loss in teacher autonomy. content to the rubrics and student-learning goals. A second
The concern here is that one of the most important principles of a solution would be to allow teachers the freedom to choose their
Can-Do system is learner autonomy, teaching students to take re- own teaching materials (or from a set of materials). Because allsponsibility for their own learning. The question is, as Little (1995, students will be tested on the same reading passages, and withstandardization being essential, this latter alternative might2004) raises, without teacher autonomy, is it possible to teachseem difficult. However, a compromise would be to supply
learners to be autonomous? Little contends that learner autonteachers with designated readings that must be covered for theomy depends on teacher autonomy, and that “only pedagogies
common reading tests. These two solutions would effectively
rooted in negotiation, sharing and reflection are apt to develop
enable teachers to work more directly with the Can-Do checklearner autonomy” (2009, p. 172). Furthermore, he states thatsheets to reach students’ learning goals.
“if we are serious about learner autonomy, we must be equallyserious about its mirror image, teacher autonomy” (2004, p. 2).
Teachers need the flexibility and the capacity to plan not just lesPortfolio systemsons, but trajectories of learning. To paraphrase Anderson (1987;
cited in Raya, 2007), a curriculum which is excessively controlled Another concern is implementing a version of the European
Language Portfolio (ELP). The Portfolio is an integral element of abecomes too rigid to function effectively; unbridled, it becomes
Can-Do system. It is a tool that encourages learners to take primarylaissez faire. Somewhere in between these extremes, a curriculum
responsibility for their learning and provides learners and teachers
provides the freedom needed by teachers to function professionwith a record of learners’ linguistic achievements, learning history,
ally and effectively in their classrooms.
and evidence of proficiency. Currently, a portfolio system has not
With this particular curriculum, the pendulum is firmly on theyet been implemented for this Can-Do curriculum. However, theside of institutional control. It rigidly enforces the use of a single
committee is aware that it needs to become a future focus.

Autonomy

JALT2010 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

14

Ware, Robertson, & Paydon • An implementation of a CEFR-based writing Can-Do curriculum

Conclusion

Biodata

In conclusion, this paper gave an overview of a CEFR-based
Can-Do curriculum. It described each element in detail andhow these elements all work together to guide and inform bothteachers and learners in the learning process. It also described
how a Can-Do-based curriculum was implemented at Tokai
University, including both the challenges already surmounted
and those yet to be overcome.

Jean Ware has been teaching English and computer-skills for
the Foreign Language Center (FLC) at Tokai University for over
7 years. For the last 2 years, she has worked on the reading andwriting committees for the FLC’s new curriculum. Her researchinterests include optimizing students’ learning through technology and multimedia and via extensive reading and extensive
listening. She has an MA in English: TESOL from Eastern Washington University and has been teaching in Japan since 1999.

The adoption of a CEFR-based Can-Do curriculum can help
institutions attain substantial increases in standardization andaccountability, as called for by new MEXT guidelines. In thissense, Tokai’s new curriculum has effectively achieved its goal.
However, while the new curriculum represents significant gains
in institutional control and transparency of learning objectives, these gains have come at a cost to teacher autonomy. The
complication is that teacher autonomy is central to the successof a CEFR-based curriculum. Without autonomy, teachers are
not able to plan trajectories of learning in negotiation with theirstudents. When it comes to the implementation of CEFR-based
curricula, what is needed is a balance between control andautonomy. However, this is only one of the issues in implementing CEFR-based curricula. Implementing any new curricula
requires a balance between program objectives, institutional
goals, and operational limitations. At this point, the FLC is stillworking to develop and improve its new curriculum.

Charles Robertson holds a degree in English Education and amaster’s degree in Composition Studies (with an emphasis in
L2 composition instruction and sociolinguistics) from Humboldt
State University, Arcata, California. Research interests include L2composition theory/instruction, ESP (Science communication), andproject-based learning. He is Vice-Chair of the Unified Curriculum
committee at Tokai University in the Foreign Language Education
Center in Hiratsuka, Japan. He has published articles on the benefits of utilizing CALL technologies in L2 composition classrooms.
Steven Paydon teaches English for the Foreign Language Center at
Tokai University. He has an MA in Applied Linguistics and a postgraduate certification in TESOL. He taught English in Australia
and Taiwan before coming to Japan in 1999, and has been involved
with the writing committees since joining the Tokai University FLC
full-time in 2006. Otherwise, his teaching and research interests
generally revolve around motivation, more specifically group dynamics, and are presently focused on cohesion and autonomy.

Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Professor Kahoko Matsumoto (Assistant
References
Executive Director, Tokai University’s Foreign Language Center) ALTE wiki. (n.d.). Association of Language Testers in Europe. Retrieved
and the other members of the Unified Curriculum committees
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Language_Testers_in_Europe
for their contributions in creating our new curriculum.
Anderson, L. W. (1987). The decline of teacher autonomy: tears or
cheers? International Review of Education, 33, 357-373.

JALT2010 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

15

Ware, Robertson, & Paydon • An implementation of a CEFR-based writing Can-Do curriculum
COE Language Policy Division (2009). Relating language examinations
to the Common European Framework of Reference for languages: learning,teaching, assessment (CEFR). Table C4: Written assessment criteria grid(p. 187). Retrieved from www.coe.int/t/dg4/portfolio/?l=e&m=/
documents_intro/common_framework.html
Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System 23(2), 175-81.
Little, D. (2004). Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy and the European
Language Portfolio. Retrieved from www.utc.fr/~untele/2004ppt/
handouts/little.pdf

Little, D. (2009). Learner autonomy, the European language portfolio andteacher development. Maintaining control: Autonomy and language learning. Hong Kong University Press.

Mulvey, B. (2010). University accreditation in Japan: Problems andpossibilities for reforming EFL education. The Language Teacher, 34(1),15-24.

Raya, M. J. (2007). Developing professional autonomy: A balance between
license and responsibility. Retrieved from www.learnerautonomy.org/
raya2007.pdf

CEFR level

TOEFL

TOEFL iBTTOEIC

IELTS exam

A2

96 - 125

38 - 56

246 - 3803

176 - 235

87 - 109541 - 700B1

126 - 175C1

236 - 275

B2

C2

276+

JALT2010 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGS-

57 - 86

110 - 120-• Can write simple isolated phrases and sentences.

• Can write simple phrases and sentences about themselves andimaginary people, where they live and what they do, etc.

• Longer texts contain expressions and show coherence problems
that make the text very hard or impossible to understand.
B1 level• Can write straightforward connected texts on a range of familiar
subjects within his field of interest, by linking a series of shorter
discrete elements into a linear sequence.
• Can write accounts of experiences, describing feelings and reactions in simple connected text.

• Can write a description of an event, a recent trip – real or imagined.
• Can write straightforward, detailed descriptions on a range offamiliar subjects within his field of interest.

The table below compares CEFR levels with other common
English proficiency exams (ALTE wiki, n.d.).
-A1 level• Can narrate a story.

Appendix 1
Additional CEFR information

A1

The following table gives examples of general Writing Can-Do’s
and Assessment Criteria for two CEFR levels (COE Language
Policy Division, 2009). Notice that as language learners’ gain
proficiency, the Can-Do statements become more numerous.

-

1-2

381 - 540

3.5 - 4.5

701 - 910

6.5 - 7910+

ONLINE

5-6• Can write short, simple essays on topics of interest.

• Can summarize, report, and give his/her opinion about accumulated factual information on familiar routine and non-routine matters,
within his field with some confidence.
• Can write very brief reports using a standard format, which passon routine factual information and state reasons for actions.

• Texts are understandable, but occasional unclear expressions and/or inconsistencies may cause break-ups in reading.

7.5+

 PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

16

Ware, Robertson, & Paydon • An implementation of a CEFR-based writing Can-Do curriculum

Appendix 2
Tokai’s Basic Writing Course objectives

JALT2010 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

17

Ware, Robertson, & Paydon • An implementation of a CEFR-based writing Can-Do curriculum

Appendix 3
Basic Narrative Writing assessment sheet

JALT2010 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

18

Ware, Robertson, & Paydon • An implementation of a CEFR-based writing Can-Do curriculum

Appendix 4
Basic-level student checklist

JALT2010 CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGSONLINE PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE 

FULL SCREEN

19