Summary of the final report

Overview

More than 450 classes covering all educational sectors from the lower secondary level upward took part in the Swiss ELP piloting which started in mid-1999 and ended in July 2000. The pilot classes were based in 19 different cantons, around half of them in the canton of Ticino alone, where the ELP was actually disseminated rather than piloted in a narrow sense during that period.

The evaluation measures taken consisted primarily of two questionnaire surveys of learners, teachers and coordinators. The first was conducted only a few weeks after the ELP was introduced into the classes, the second at the end of the pilot phase. In between, telephone interviews, teacher-coordinator meetings and personal contacts were used for evaluation purposes.

The present report is based mainly on the data gathered from the final questionnaire survey. Certain points are complemented and highlighted by insights gained on other occasions. The final evaluation focussed on known or expected problem areas and tried to gather as many suggestions for solutions and improvements as possible. For that reason, positive aspects may not be treated as extensively as they would deserve.

Working with the ELP

An analysis of how the ELP was actually used by teachers and learners showed that the self-assessment instruments based on the scaled descriptors (grid and checklists) were used by virtually all learners: usually once at the beginning of the pilot phase and a second (and sometimes third) time at the end of a semester or school year. Much more seldom, the descriptors in the checklists were also used to plan learning objectives. The only other instrument that was used by most learners was the overview of one's language learning biography (form 2.2). A mere 25% of all learners used the dossier to file evidence of their language proficiency, and this evidence consisted mainly of school products like tests and compositions. Hardly any learners presented their ELP in a "real-world" context – a fact the experimental status of the ELP may be responsible for. Few classes worked continuously with the ELP. Some teachers, on the one hand, argued positively in favor of using the ELP that way. Others, on the other hand, gave reasons that prevented them from using the ELP more frequently, such as lack of time, difficulties embedding the ELP into regular teaching, learners' disinterest or even resistance, levels which are too broad to show progress etc. Some teachers reported that they had used the ELP successfully in the context of stays abroad and for counseling otherwise self-directed (adult) learners. A large majority of teachers found that the ELP was particularly useful for themselves as teachers: in order to plan courses and organize assessment. They also consider the ELP as a good basis for modifying exams. Some exams have already been modified under the influence of the ELP.

The conditions under which teachers piloted the ELP were rather varied: some of the teachers were thoroughly introduced to the ELP and its applications, worked with colleagues who also piloted the ELP, had regular regional meetings with other pilot teachers, and had to teach 1 hour less every week; others had one introductory meeting at best and otherwise worked on their own. It seems that a good introductory meeting with concrete suggestions how the ELP can be integrated into teaching/learning, and a number of follow-up meetings with colleagues (and coaches) would have been helpful for all teachers. Moreover, most teachers consider a one hour reduction in their weekly timetable during the pilot phase as appropriate.

During the pilot phase, the ELP also had an influence on reforms undertaken by educational authorities: most prominently on the Swiss CDIP's global concept for language learning in schools but also on new foreign language curricula in the cantons of central Switzerland and in the canton of Zurich. In the cantons of Ticino and Jura, the ELP has been declared obligatory for certain school sectors.

How good is the ELP?

At the end of the pilot phase, nearly all teachers who participated in the survey still think that piloting the ELP was an enriching experience although their attitude towards the ELP became tendentially more critical, mainly due to problems with the use of the ELP in class (compatibility with regular teaching, lack of time, negative learner reactions).

Most of the central functions and features of the ELP are still valued highly by learners and teachers, particularly:

• the central role of self-assessment, and the self-assessment instruments provided;
• the reporting tools which facilitate a comprehensive overview of one's plurilingual language proficiency and which allow for transparency, transnational comparability and the recognition of in- and out-of-school learning;
• the usefulness of the ELP as a pedagogic instrument supporting reflective language learning and teaching.

Negative comments most often concerned the physical appearance of the ELP and problems with its use under the given circumstances. The following aspects were often mentioned:

• The ELP ring binder is too big and too heavy
• A lack of guidance and visual aids makes the file appear complex and hard to access by its users
• The usefulness of the ELP is doubtful because it is not known well enough in schools and among employers
• Working with the ELP takes more time than there is available
• There is not enough coherence with regular teaching (curricula, textbooks, exams; use of self-assessment)
• Teachers need more ideas and supporting materials (corresponding tests in particular) to introduce the ELP into their courses and sustain its use

It also came out that many learners were poorly motivated to work with the ELP and that – often as a result – working with the ELP in class was not very motivating for a number of teachers, either. Motivation problems were often connected with doubts concerning the usefulness of the ELP.

As had been expected by the authors from the outset, the piloting showed that the present Swiss ELP model is hardly suitable for learners of less than 15 years of age.

While the checklists were often used during the piloting and are considered, by teachers and learners, as one of the best elements of the ELP, they were still quite often criticized for the following sorts of reason:

• The checklists tend to be too long
• The tasks described by the descriptors are too remote from school reality
• Many descriptors are not suitable for younger learners
• There are too many descriptors which seem almost identical nad are difficult to distinguish from each other
• Some descriptors are too open to interpretation
• Progress can hardly be established using the checklists because the levels are too broad
• Cultural competence should play a more important role if the ELP is to be used in a school context

Revision of the ELP

The data gathered in the evaluation process allows for a number of suggestions concerning modifications of the present ELP model:

• A graphic design that provides more guidance to users of the ELP should be developed; it should facilitate access to the file and make clearer the uses that can be made of the ELP; improved versions of the colored divider pages may help to achieve this goal
• The newly developed common European ELP Passport should be adopted instead of the present passport booklet because it helps to highlight the transnational dimension and therefore the potential usefulness of the ELP as a reporting tool
• The ELP needs to be lighter and less bulky; the "portability" of the ELP, or of each of its parts, needs to be improved; the collection of forms to photocopy should be presented in such a way that they can be kept separately. They should, however, not be eliminated. Certain sample forms (e.g. attestations) should be made available in another fashion (e.g. in print: several forms on one A4 page; via the Web: as downloadable electronic forms)
• The inclusion of pages that are mainly targeted at teachers and/or institutions (e.g. scale for the calibration of exams) should be reconsidered; they might be included in a separate booklet and made available on the Web
• The checklists should be revised: the instructions at the top of each page should be clearer and more helpful; the number of items should be distributed more equally between the different skills and aspects; very similar items should be eliminated; the number of items should generally be reduced etc. (see criticism above)
• Checklists for (narrower) intermediate levels should be made available
• A very practical teacher's guide providing practical advice and containing supplementary material like the existing Oral assessment grid should be considered
• The different language versions should be cross-checked again; the language of the French version needs to be checked for stylistic and linguistic errors

For younger learners a separate, more suitable ELP model should be developed.

Wider dissemination

The majority of teachers and learners support a general introduction of revised and adapted (age of learners) versions of the ELP into the Swiss school system. Teachers and coordinators think that such a large scale launch needs to be accompanied by supporting measures that help to create more coherence between the ELP and curricula, exams (esp. at interfaces between educational sectors), report cards, etc.

Many doubts concerning the usefulness of the ELP would not arise if the ELP was widely known and recognized within the school system and by employers. If the educational authorities adopt a clear position in favor of the ELP, this would facilitate changes in curricula, exams etc., which again would make it easier to work with the ELP in class. However, as many teachers pointed out, it might be counter-productive to force teachers who are opposed to the ELP to adopt it in their teaching right away. Therefore, solutions will have to be found so that the introduction of the ELP will be large-scale enough to assume the "critical mass" it needs in order to be successful, but does not generate unwanted and unnecessary resistance among those who hesitate.

Experience shows that the ELP is not entirely self-explanatory for teachers so they should be supported at least initially. Measures that were most often suggested by the pilot teachers include: introductory workshops, in-service training, regular meetings with experienced colleagues and experts, team work within schools and a user's guide.

Quite many pilot teachers are ready to work as disseminators for the ELP: as in-service trainers, by participating in meetings to pool experience, by collaborating in school-internal professional development, as members of project teams, or simply on a personal basis within their respective teams.