Assessment of University Students’ English Grammar Proficiency in terms of CEFR Criterial Achievement Levels: the Case of Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences

Gerda Mazlaveckienė



Alignment of language teaching and learning with the CEFR is a complicated process. One of the steps in this process is the analysis and evaluation of student performances characteristic of one or another achievement level (Council of Europe, 2018). The current paper focuses on the exploration of university students’ English grammar proficiency in terms of CEFR proficiency levels. However, CEFR levels are underspecified with respect to key properties that are tested and assessed by FL teachers and examiners when they assign a learner a particular proficiency level. Therefore, the Cambridge English Profile Programme is employed for a more detailed analysis, as it outlines criterial features for all CEFR proficiency levels. Hence, the present study aims at investigating to what extent the list of grammatical criterial features proposed by the English Profile Programme (EPP) at the University of Cambridge is applicable to students of English Philology in their final year of BA studies when defining their proficiency level according to the CEFR. The findings of the study suggest that Lithuanian students of English Philology tend to make do with a restricted repertoire of grammatical structures which mainly range from level B1 to B2. The author of the paper does not wish to extend the obtained results to the national scale, yet strongly believes that the findings might shed light on and reveal major tendencies in the development of foreign language proficiency of English Philology students in Lithuania.


Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR); English Profile Programme (EPP); English Grammar Profile (EGP); grammar proficiency; grammatical criterial features (GCFs); learner corpus; Lithuanian students of English Philology

Full Text:



Abe, M. (2007). “Grammatical Errors Across Proficiency Levels in L2 Spoken and Written English.” The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics, No. 49 (3-4), 117-129.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Leech, G. (2002). Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.

Biber, D. & Reppen, R. (1998). “Comparing native and learner perspectives on English grammar: a study of complement clauses.” In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on Computer. London, New York: Longman, 145-158.

Callies, M. & Zaytseva, E. (2013). “The Corpus of Academic Learner English (CALE): a new resource for the study and assessment of advanced language proficiency.” In S. Granger, G. Gilquin and F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking back, Moving ahead. Corpora and Language in Use - Proceedings 1. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Leuvain, 49-59.

Council of Europe (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion Volume with New Descriptors. Retrieved from:

Gilquin, G., De Cock, S. & Granger, S. (2010). LINDSEI: Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Leuvain.

Granger, S. (2002). “A bird's-eye view of learner corpus research.” In S. Granger, J. Huang & S. Petch-Tyson (eds.). Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3-33.

Granger, S. (2003). International Corpus of Learner English: a new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 538-546.

Grigaliūniene, J. & Juknevičienė, R. (2012). “Corpus-based learner language research: contrasting speech and writing.“ Darbai ir dienos, 58, 137-152.

Hawkins, J. A. & Buttery, P. (2010). “Criterial features in learner corpora: theory and illustrations.” English Profile Journal, 1 (1), 1-23. DOI: 10.1017/ S2041536210000103.

Hawkins, J. A. & Filipovic, L. (2012). Criterial Features in L2 English: Specifying the Reference Levels of the Common European Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hulstijn, J. H. (2014). “The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: a challenge for applied linguistics.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 165 (1), 3-18. DOI: 10.1075/itl.165.1.01hul.

Juknevičienė, R. & Šeškauskienė, I. (2014). “The national examination of English in Lithuania: searching for evidence of CEFR criterial achievement levels.” Studies About Languages, 25, 88-96. DOI: 10.5755/j01.sal.0.25.8579.

Milanovic, M. (2009). “Cambridge ESOL and the CEFR.” University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations Research Notes, 37, 2-5.

O'Keeffe, A. & Mark, G. (2017). “The English Grammar Profile of learner competence: methodology and key findings.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22 (4), 457-489. DOI: 10.1075/ijcl.14086.oke.

Rimkutė, E. (2006). “The usage of grammatical forms of contemporary Lithuanian language in the morphologically annotated corpus.” Lituanistika, 66 (2), 34¬-55.

Salamoura, A. & Saville, N. (2010). “Exemplifying the CEFR: criterial features of written learner English from the English Profile Programme.” In I. Bartning,M. Martin and I Vedder (eds). Communicative Proficiency and Linguistic Development: Intersections between SLA and Language Testing Research. European Second Language Association (Eurosla). Retrieved from: http://

Springer, P. E. (2012). “Advanced Learner Writing. A Corpus-based Study of the Discourse Competence of Dutch Writers of English in the Light of the C1/C2 Levels of the CEFR (doctoral dissertation).” Uitgeverij: Boxpress Oisterwijk. Retrieved from: complete%20dissertation.pdf.

Thewissen, J. (2013). “Capturing L2 Accuracy Developmental Patterns: Insights from an Error-tagged EFL Learner Corpus.” The Modern Language Journal, 97 (S1), 77-101.

UCLES/CUP (2011). English Profile. Introducing the CEFR for English (version 1.1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from: http://www.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

ISSN 2392-1196 (online)

Partnerzy platformy czasopism