ABSTRACT
Twenty years have passed since the ELP was first conceived, and ten years since it was launched, together with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001b). It is thus time to take stock, and this chapter does so in three ways. First, it summarizes the history of the ELP from 1991 to 2010, concluding that although the ELP has been the focus of a great deal of work and significant international cooperation, it has not been adopted on the scale that at first seemed possible. Second, the chapter offers a critical reflection on the ELP’s three key concerns – learner autonomy, plurilingualism and interculturality. It argues that whereas the focus on learner autonomy encourages use of the ELP to support the teaching and learning of particular languages, full justice can be done to plurilingualism and interculturality only if the ELP underpins all the language learning in which the user engages. It also explains that ELP design and use have been influenced by different understandings of the concept of learner autonomy and the educational implications of plurilingualism. Third, the chapter considers possible future trends in light of this critical reflection. Noting the Council of Europe’s continuing commitment to the ELP as defined in the Principles and Guidelines (Council of Europe, 2000, 2011), this section of the chapter argues that while the ELP in this form arguably remains appropriate for adult, further and university education, the school sector might be better served by dividing the ELP into two complementary instruments. One would support the development of autonomy in the learning of particular languages, while the other would focus on plurilingualism and interculturality. The two instruments could be brought together in a new curriculum space designed to explore the nature and potential of learners’ developing plurilingual and intercultural repertoires. (Since the ELP was launched in 2001, there has been a steady growth in the development of electronic versions. These raise issues of design and implementation that lie beyond the scope of this chapter, which focuses exclusively on paper portfolios.)
