Using CEFR Descriptors in Scenario Design

subheader extendedexp | Action-oriented Approach|Plurilingualism|Tech-mediated

Now that you’ve explored the foundations of action-oriented scenarios and backward design, this extended guide will help you put those ideas into practice.

Here, we focus on one core design element that often gets overlooked or misunderstood: the use of CEFR descriptors. Rather than treating descriptors as sentence-level “Can Do” tasks, we’ll explore how to select and apply them to support authentic learner agency, scenario coherence, and real-world communication.

Moving beyond micro-tasks and toward meaningful learning ⏭️

This document builds on the theoretical foundations of the CEFR by offering a practical guide to using its “Can Do” descriptors in the design of action-oriented scenarios. It is not intended as a general introduction to the CEFR, but rather as an applied extension — focusing specifically on how to maintain coherence between real-world communicative goals and scenario design. For a broader overview of CEFR levels, history, and general competences, please refer to Introduction to the CEFR and CEFR & Language Learning and Use in the CEFR section of this toolkit.

In designing Action-Oriented Approach (AoA) scenarios, CEFR descriptors are meant to serve as anchors. They help educators keep their planning transparent, focused, and aligned with real-world language use. Yet in practice, many scenario designers find themselves drifting back toward task-based lesson planning — breaking learning down into small functional “Can Do” steps like “Can say thank you” or “Can ask for water.”

While well-intentioned, these procedural breakdowns can reduce learner agency and obscure the broader purpose of the scenario. In the AoA, the learner is not merely completing tasks, but taking social action — making a decision, solving a problem, creating something new, or mediating between perspectives.

So how can CEFR descriptors be used effectively without reverting to checklists? And what does it look like to plan with descriptors in a way that reflects the complexity of authentic communication?

Descriptors as anchors, not scripts ⚓

CEFR descriptors are not meant to be invented anew for each lesson. Nor are they meant to list out everything a learner might say. Rather, they are validated and calibrated indicators of what a learner can do with language at a particular level of proficiency.

When used in the AoA scenario planning, descriptors help you:

  • Define real-world learning goals
  • Identify communicative functions- that is, what the learner is doing with language, such as requesting, describing, apologizing, or offering help – across modes of communication  (reception, production, interaction, mediation)
  • Keep scenarios grounded in learner level and agency

For instance, instead of inventing a descriptor like “Can say ‘Do you have vegetarian options?’”, you might draw from A2 interaction descriptors such as “Can order a meal” or “Can make simple purchases by stating what is wanted and asking the price.” These are validated descriptors from the CEFR’s “Obtaining Goods and Services” scale. You’re free to adapt the context — e.g., “Can request a vegetarian dish” — as long as the communicative function and proficiency level remain aligned. What matters is that the descriptor still reflects real-world use and matches your learners’ level and task.

From action to descriptor 💡

Scenario planning in AoA begins not with functions, but with social action: What will learners actually do in the world? What challenge or opportunity will they navigate? From this, descriptors can be mapped back into the plan to support the intended outcome. Let’s take a simple but rich scenario: Helping a new classmate navigate their school or community. The learner’s action involves more than memorized phrases; it involves:

  • Understanding directions, schedules, or signs
  • Asking questions and offering guidance
  • Reassuring or welcoming someone unfamiliar
  • Explaining routines or expectations

Rather than scripting every exchange, we can select 1–2 descriptors from relevant domains:

  • Reception (A2): Can understand basic written signs and simple spoken announcements (from Reading for Orientation/Listening to Announcements)
  • Mediation (B1): Can explain a simple process (e.g., how to get to the library or register for lunch) (from Mediating a Text)
  • Production (B1): Can describe a familiar place or daily routine in connected speech from Sustained Monologue: Describing Experience

These descriptors are drawn from the CEFR Companion Volume, under domains such as Reception, Production, and Mediation. They are not invented for this scenario—they are selected from validated CEFR scales (within modes of communication such as Reception, Mediation, and Production) based on what learners will actually need to do.

When used this way, descriptors support the learner’s journey — they do not limit the journey to a series of decontextualized bits.

What to watch for: common pitfalls in descriptor use 🚨

Many scenario designers—especially those coming from a strong communicative or task-based background—unintentionally fall into patterns that undercut the richness of the CEFR. One frequent misstep is breaking the scenario into micro-tasks, each linked to a “Can Do” statement that describes discrete speech acts.

Instead of supporting learner development, this can lead to mechanical role-plays and a checklist mentality. A scenario that should build toward reflection, negotiation, and mediation risks becoming a sequence of lines to rehearse.

Another challenge is overloading the scenario with too many descriptors. With six CEFR levels and multiple descriptor scales, it’s tempting to include as many descriptors as possible. But in practice, a well-designed scenario is coherent and intentional, centered around just a few key communicative goals that unfold across time.

Finally, there is often uncertainty about whether and how to adapt descriptors. Teachers might wonder, is it acceptable to rephrase a descriptor? What if the original one doesn’t quite fit the scenario?

The answer lies in intention: adapt the context, not the function. If the descriptor reads “Can give advice on everyday matters,” you can contextualize that to “Can give advice to a new student on where to eat lunch.” What matters is preserving the functional purpose—advice-giving—and ensuring that the context matches your learners’ lived reality.

Teaching time is not scenario time ⏲️

A final consideration is time. Many scenario drafts are written with the implicit assumption that all of the various steps, and even reflection, can happen within a single lesson. This is rarely the case. Real-world action takes time. So does language development.

A strong scenario is best understood as a learning sequence, not a one-off performance. It often unfolds over several days or weeks, allowing learners to build knowledge, reflect, revisit key moments, and revise their work—just as they would do in life.

Designing a scenario with CEFR descriptors in mind requires thinking beyond the 45-minute block and into what kind of communicative growth can emerge over time.

Using the CEFR descriptor tool effectively 🎯

For teachers unfamiliar with the full CEFRCV, the online descriptor filtering tool (link below) is a helpful entry point. It allows you to search by:

  • Level (A1–C2)
  • Activity (Reception, Production, Interaction, Mediation)
  • Specific domains (e.g., online communication, creative texts, informal conversation)

A good starting point is to identify the main communicative function of your culminating task, and then filter to find descriptors that match that goal. Choose 1–2 descriptors per mode that you want your learners to demonstrate, and let those anchor your scenario. You may want to use an excel tool provided on the CEFR webpage to create your own selection of descriptors. To get detailed guidance, please refer to Deeper Dive: Creating your own descriptors selection

Final thought: designing for communication and action, not completion 💭🔚

Using CEFR descriptors well is not about ticking off boxes — it’s about designing for meaningful engagement. In the AoA, the descriptors are not endpoints but waypoints: tools that support learners in doing something real, with language, in context.

When used with intention, the descriptors help shift our focus from “What do I need to cover?” to “What can learners do — with and for others — in the world?”

AALE Toolkit Home | Action-oriented Approach | Plurilingualism | Tech-mediated | AALE Infosheets Exploration