




































  Mudzingwa 55 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

Theoretical Analysis, Classroom Practice, Opinion Essays 

 

The Quest for Standardization: The Canadian Federal Government and the Language 

Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Program 

 

Calisto Mudzingwa 

 

Abstract 

 

Since the inception of the Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Program in 

1992, the Canadian federal government, through the ministry responsible for immigration, has 

diligently sought to bring consistency to the program through a variety of government initiatives. 

These include operational bulletins, curriculum guidelines, standardized placement assessments, 

in-class assessment procedures and protocols, standards for describing and measuring the 

language proficiency of adult immigrants speaking English as an additional language (EAL), and 

a variety of other guidelines (e.g., waitlist management). This paper introduces a novel LINC 

standardization model as a tool for describing and analyzing how the synergies of these 

government initiatives converge to bring consistency to the entire LINC Program. The model 

comprises four stages: a Pre-Entry Stage, Entry Stage, Language Training Stage, and Exit Stage. 

These stages represent phases an adult LINC learner goes through on their LINC English 

language learning journey. The model highlights the centrality of the Canadian Language 

Benchmarks (CLBs) by showing how they are the mainstay of most, if not all, of the other 

government initiatives. Both positive and negative implications for the government’s quest for 

standardization are discussed. 

 

Introduction 

 

There is widespread agreement among those who study settlement and integration that being able 

to speak the official language of the host country is critical for successful integration (Ager & 

Strang, 2008; Jezak & Piccardo, 2017; Johns, 2011; Segal & Mayadas, 2005; Xhelili, 2014). 

Cognizant of this fact, in 1992, the federal ministry responsible for language training launched 

the Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Program for adult learners of 

English as an additional language (EAL) and the Cours de langue pour les immigrants au Canada 

(CLIC) for learners of French as a second language (FSL)1. The overarching goal was to assist 

newcomers to Canada to communicate in either English or French to meet their settlement needs 

for meaningful integration.  

 

The LINC Program is a massive language training program spanning all English-

speaking parts of Canada. It is indisputable that, for a program of this magnitude, standardization 

and consistency are a challenge. The federal ministry responsible for the LINC Program has 

pledged to tackle this recalcitrant problem. Speaking at the Teachers of English as a Second 

Language (TESL) Ontario Conference in 2015, Cliff Fast, an integration manager with the 

Ministry of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, underscored the government’s 

commitment to standardizing the LINC Program: “An important priority for CIC [Citizenship 

                                                           
1 Henceforth the focus will be exclusively on the LINC Program. 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347


  Mudzingwa 56 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

and Immigration Canada] is improving standardization and nationwide consistency in the interest 

of delivering equitable, comparable programming nationally.”  

 

In this context, this paper describes and analyzes the federal ministry’s concerted effort to 

bring standardization, consistency, and regularity to the LINC Program. To this end, this paper 

introduces a novel LINC Standardization Model that is used in this paper to examine seven 

major federal government initiatives pertinent to the LINC Program. The initiatives are a 

combination of curriculum guidelines, theoretical frameworks, assessment protocols and 

procedures, official government policies, and operational bulletins. In this paper, the term 

“standardization” is used interchangeably with “consistency” to mean the process of equipping 

things of the same type with the same basic features.  
 

Significance of this Paper 

 

This paper analyzes seven government initiatives introduced to date. To the best of my 

knowledge, available literature, including conference presentations, have focussed on one, or at 

most three government initiatives. Admittedly, there are merits in concentrating on a single 

initiative or a few initiatives. However, this inevitably obscures the federal government’s robust 

efforts to bring standardization to all aspects of the LINC Program, and consequently, precludes 

sufficient recognition. Furthermore, literature focussing on a single government initiative is often 

silent on standardization.  

 

Examples of studies which focussed on a single initiative, namely, the Portfolio-Based 

Language Assessment (PBLA), include the works of Deystova, (2018; 2020); Drew and 

Mudzingwa (2017); Fox (2014); Fox and Fraser (2012); Holmes (2016); Mohammadian 

Haghighi (2016); Mudzingwa, (2018); Pettis (2014); and Ripley (2013), amongst others. Peirce 

and Stewart (1997), as well as Rossiter and Pawlikowska-Smith (1999), examined the Canadian 

Language Benchmark Assessment (CLBA). In independent studies, Cray (1997) and Pinet 

(2006) focussed on the LINC Curriculum Guidelines. 

 

 In the literature, there are a few examples that cover more than one government initiative. 

First, Cliff Fast’s presentation at the 43rd Annual TESL Ontario Conference (2015) diverged 

significantly from most of the literature. Focussing on Ontario, Fast discussed how three major 

federal government initiatives, namely, the National Language Placement and Progression 

Guidelines, the LINC Curriculum Guidelines, and the PBLA, brought consistency to the LINC 

Program. Similarly, some chapters in a book edited by Jezak (2018) discuss more than one 

government initiative. The main focus of the book is the CLBs, considered paramount in the 

standardization of the government-funded EAL adult immigrant program. The overarching goal 

of the book is to demonstrate how “the great efforts involved in the development of the 

Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) and the Niveaux de competemce linguistique canadiens 

(NCLC) gave birth to the highly efficient system of official language training that we know 

today” (Jezak, 2017, p. 1). Finally, a chapter by Haque and Valeo (2017) illustrated how the 

CLBs bring standardization to in-class and placement assessments. On the other hand, a chapter 

by Senior (2017) outlined the evolution and the expanding focus of the CLBs. It explained how 

the CLBs are used for placement assessment, high stakes assessment (i.e., PBLA), and 

curriculum development.    

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347


  Mudzingwa 57 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

This paper goes beyond Fast’s conference presentation and Jezak’s book in several 

respects: first, the paper examines all the major government initiatives announced to date—seven 

in total. This work allows for a holistic and comprehensive examination of the synergies between 

the initiatives. Second, the LINC Standardization Model is introduced and used as an 

organizational and explanatory tool. The model illustrates the discrete but interrelated features of 

the LINC Program. It is hoped that this paper will help readers appreciate the complexity of the 

LINC Program in ways that may have so far escaped us.  

 

The Birth of the LINC Program 

 

The LINC Program came into existence in 1992. In 1991, the federal government’s Ministry of 

Employment and Immigration constituted an advisory board to assess the language training 

needs of adult immigrants. One of the top recommendations was the need for standardized 

language training. In response, the government created the LINC Program. Its mandate was to 

provide basic language instruction to adult newcomers in both official languages, in order to 

facilitate and expedite the social, cultural, and economic integration of immigrants into Canadian 

society (Bettencourt et al., 2003; Cleghorn, 2000; Fleming, 2007; Jezak, 2017; Lim, Siemiatycki 

& Doucet, 2005; Papillon, 2002; Thomson & Derwing, 2004). The program has since evolved 

and expanded. Language training is provided in a variety of ways, such as full time, part-time, 

home study, distance learning, and blended learning. The progress of each student is rated and 

monitored based on CLB level descriptors, and students are awarded a LINC Certificate upon 

successful completion of the training. 

 

Before the LINC Program, there was no standardized curriculum, standardized in-class 

assessments, or standardized placement assessments tests in the teaching of adult immigrants 

learning EAL. Individual teachers catered to the needs of their learners. It would be fair to say 

that this was an era of unregulated adult EAL teaching and learning, characterized by 

inconsistency and ad-hoc practice. The birth of the LINC Program in 1992 marked a watershed 

in the history of government-funded adult EAL teaching in Canada. It was the beginning of a 

move towards more formalized, standardized teaching, and assessment practices in adult EAL 

programs across Canada (Barrett & Bennett, 2012). Over the years, the government continued to 

gradually but steadily introduce different initiatives to bring consistency to the entire LINC 

Program.  

 

LINC Standardization Model 

 

To account for the government initiatives in a logical, systematic, and elegant fashion, this paper 

devised the novel LINC Standardization Model. The discussion of the LINC Standardization 

Model is in two sub-sections. First, I present an introduction to the model and the government 

initiatives, followed by a diagrammatic presentation of the model and how it works. 

 

Components of the LINC Standardization Model 

 

The proposed model comprises four stages: Pre-Entry Stage, Entry Stage, Language Training 

Stage, and Exit Stage. The stages are not arbitrary; they represent phases adult LINC learners go 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347


  Mudzingwa 58 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

through on their English language learning journey. The model explains how standardization 

occurs at each stage. Table 1 below presents the four stages and what occurs at each stage. 

 

Table 1 

 

The Four Stages of the LINC Standardization Model 

 

LINC Stage What is involved 

Pre-Entry Stage  EAL learner goes to assessment centre to take a Placement Test 

 Government initiatives focus on placements tests and waitlist 

management. These initiatives give guidance to Assessment Centres 

Entry Stage   EAL learner is placed in a LINC class by a Language Training 

Organization (LTO) 

 EAL learner is placed on a waitlist by an LTO if no vacancies are 

available 

 The government initiatives focus on waitlist management and give 

guidance to LTO. 

Language Training Stage  EAL learner studies English 

 EAL learner progresses from one CLB level to the next 

 Government initiatives focus on in-class assessments, progressing 

learners, and curriculum. The guidelines give guidance to LTOs 

Exit Stage 

 EAL learner leaves the LINC Program 

 Government initiatives focus on the issuance of LINC Certificates 

and give guidance to LTOs. 

 

Below is a list of the government initiatives discussed in this paper. These fall under different 

stages.    

 

1. The Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLBs) 

2. The LINC Curriculum Guidelines 

3. The Portfolio-Based Language Assessment (PBLA) Model 

4. Placement Assessment Tests 

5. National Language Placement and Progressions Guidelines 

6. Waitlist Management and Language Referral Guidelines 

7. LINC and CLIC certificate issuance policy 

 

The next section presents the LINC Standardization Model, the government initiatives, and the 

stages. 

 

The LINC Standardization Model 

 

The four stages and the government initiatives combine to form the proposed LINC 

Standardization Model, which is used for the first time in this paper. The LINC Standardization 

Model is presented in Figure 1 on the next page.  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347


  Mudzingwa 59 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

 

Figure 1. LINC Standardization Model 

 

Save for the CLBs, all the other government initiatives fall under a stage or stages. The 

CLBs are the foundation of all the other initiatives. To capture this, they are placed at the centre 

of the model with thinner arrows pointing away from the CLBs to the other initiatives. On the 

other hand, thicker arrows show the interaction between stages. The initiatives are placed under 

different stages and bring consistency to that stage. Some initiatives fall under two stages, 

meaning that such initiatives bring consistency to more than a single stage. For example, the 

Waitlist Management and Language Referral Guidelines belong to both the Pre-Entry Stage and 

the Entry Stage. The same policy document gives guidance to different institutions, focussing on 

different aspects of a student’s English language learning journey.  

 

The LINC Standardization Model allows for a systematic and elegant analysis of current 

and future government initiatives. For instance, in the future, if the government proposes a new 

initiative, it will be easy to identify the stage it falls under and how it interacts with other 

initiatives. Furthermore, using this model, policymakers may introduce an initiative that 

deliberately targets a specific stage: for example, the Exit Stage. The model is adaptable to suit 

any discussion about the LINC program, making it an essential and efficient tool in the 

purposeful representation of the program.  

  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347


  Mudzingwa 60 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

The Canadian Language Benchmarks and the Four Stages 

 

The CLBs are discussed first because they are the pillar of all the other government initiatives. In 

turn, the stages and government initiatives are explored together because stages comprise 

initiatives.   

 

The Canadian Language Benchmarks 
 

The CLBs are the official national standard for describing, measuring, and recognizing the 

English-language proficiency of immigrants and prospective immigrants (Hajer & Kaskens, 

2012; Haque & Valeo, 2017; Pettis, 2014; Senior, 2017). The CLBs provide descriptions of 

communicative competencies and performance tasks through which the learner demonstrates the 

application of linguistic competence and proficiency. The CLBs cover the four language skills of 

listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The CLB Framework consists of twelve language 

benchmarks divided into beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels.  

 

 The Federal Government first introduced the CLBs in 1996, in response to a need for 

“reliable tools … to measure the language skills possessed by clients against standard language 

proficiency criteria” (Rogers, 1993, p. 1) (see also, Bergin, da Silva, Peirce, & Stewart, 1996; 

Haque & Valeo, 2017). The CLBs were revised twice, with published documents in 2000 and 

then in 2012. Haque and Valeo (2017) aptly summarized the evolution of the CLBs by saying, 

“since the development of the first CLB in 1996, each successive edition has identified and 

attempted to respond to gaps and challenges that emerged through practice” (p. 69). In short, the 

federal government supported the inception of the Canadian Language Benchmarks in 1996 and 

the subsequent revisions of the document.  

 

 The Canadian Language Benchmarks are ubiquitous in the LINC Program and have had 

the most far-reaching effects on consistency, regularity, and standardization of the LINC 

Program. In the literature, there is unanimity that the CLBs are the foundation of all the other 

federal government initiatives on learning, teaching, curriculum development, and assessments 

(Hajer & Kaskens, 2012; Jezak & Piccardo, 2018; Pettis, 2014; Senior, 2017). Senior (2017) 

observed that “since 1996, they [Canadian Language Benchmarks] have become the backbone of 

Canada’s publicly-funded adult second-language training programs” (p. 72). In short, the CLBs 

are the vanguard of standardization of the LINC Program.  

 

The Four Stages and the Government Initiatives 

 

This section discusses the four stages of the LINC Standardization Model and the government 

initiatives in depth, beginning with the Pre-Entry Stage, followed by the Entry Stage, Language 

Training Stage, and finally the Exit Stage. Each stage is unique and focusses on a set of different 

activities occurring on an individual’s English language learning journey. 

 

The Pre-Entry Stage  

 

Newcomers are assessed using the CLB framework to determine their level of language 

proficiency for placement in the LINC Program. The relevant initiatives are the CLBs; 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347


  Mudzingwa 61 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

Assessment Placement Tests; National Language Placement and Progressions Guidelines; and 

Waitlist Management and Language Referrals Guidelines. Placement Assessment Tests measure 

an individual’s proficiency in English for appropriate placement in the LINC Program. The 

Canadian Language Benchmarks Assessment (CLBA), Canadian Language Benchmarks 

Literacy Assessment, and Canadian Language Benchmarks Literacy Placement Tool (CLB-LPT) 

are the most-used placement assessment tests.  

 

The Canadian Language Benchmarks Assessment and the Canadian Language 

Benchmarks Literacy Assessment were published in 1997 in response to a lack of common 

standardized placement assessments. The federal government contracted the Peel Board of 

Education in Mississauga, Ontario, in 1995 to develop CLB-referenced placement assessment 

instruments. Pierce and Stewart (1997) described the development as representing “one step in a 

lengthy process of federal and local initiatives to establish a common framework for the 

description and evaluation of the language proficiency of adult newcomers to Canada” (p. 17). 

All the Placement Assessment Tests use CLBs to measure the adult EAL learners’ language 

abilities. Hajer et al. (2012) emphasized the benefits of standardized placement assessment tests: 

“[All] assessments based on the CLB[s] facilitate the portability of ESL [English as a second 

language] learners’ credentials, as well as their movement between classes or programs, across 

provinces and territories, or between post-secondary institutions” (p. 8).  

 

The LINC Evaluation Report (2004), for instance, stated how there are divergent 

opinions on which assessment tool is more effective. Different provinces and different 

assessment centres within the same province may choose to use either the CLB-LPT or the 

CBLA. Nonetheless, the implementation of placement assessments tests brought greater 

consistency compared to the period before. The LINC Evaluation Report (2010) concluded that 

the current placement tests are effective and students are placed in the appropriate program level. 

Teachers who participated in the survey for the LINC Evaluation Report, for example, concurred 

and mentioned that very few LINC students are moved to a different level in their first week or 

two in a class. To the teachers, this was an indication of the accuracy of the placement tests. 

(CIC, 2010).  

 

 Placement and progression guidelines. The LINC Placement Grid of 2007 and the 

National Language Placement and Progression Guidelines of 2013 fall under the category of 

Placement and Progression Guidelines. They give instructions on the placement of learners 

(Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2013b).  

 

 National Placement Grid. In 2007, the federal government introduced the National 

Placement Grid to standardize placement of LINC students into classes based on their placement 

results. The National Placement Grid made use of CLB scores achieved by a learner at the 

assessment centre and was used to indicate the level in which a learner should be placed. The 

National Language Placement and Progression Guidelines later replaced the National Placement 

Grid. 

 

 The National Language Placement and Progression Guidelines. In 2013, Citizenship 

and Immigration Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Integration, and International 

Trade (MCIT) jointly funded an initiative to revise the National Placement Grid of 2007. The 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347


  Mudzingwa 62 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

National Language Placement and Progression Guidelines give directives to LTOs and LINC 

Assessment and Referral Centres. The document would “ensure a common understanding and 

interpretation of assessment results based on the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB), and … 

establish national guidelines for placement and progression in language classes” (Citizenship and 

Immigration Canada, 2013a, p. 2). The guidelines provided other factors that assessors may need 

to take into consideration when deciding the placement of a learner.  

 

 Waitlist Management and Language Referral Guidelines. In February of 2006, 

Citizenship and Immigration Canada issued the Waitlist Management and Language Referral 

Guidelines document. At the Pre-entry Stage, the relevant section of the Waitlist Management 

and Language Referral Guidelines is the one giving direction to LINC Assessment and Referral 

Centres and the directive to follow the guidelines: “Settlement Program funding recipients 

delivering language assessment … are expected [emphasis added] to apply the Department’s 

Waitlist Management and Language Referral Guidelines when … referring clients to language 

training classes” (IRCC, 2016, p. 2). The guidelines explain that an assessment centre should 

issue clients a referral form, which includes CLB scores achieved and the recommended CLB 

level (class) for placement. The clients take this form to a language training organization for 

enrolment into a LINC class. 

 

 A Summary of the Pre-Entry Stage. The discussion of the Pre-Entry Stage included the 

Canadian Language Benchmarks, the Placement Assessment Tests, the National Language 

Placement and Progression Guidelines, and the Waitlist Management and Referrals Guidelines. 

The four initiatives collectively interact to bring consistency and standardization to this stage. 

The discussion of the Pre-Entry Stage is summarized in Table 2 below.  

 

Table 2 

 

A Summary of the Pre-Entry Stage 

 
LINC Standardization 

Model Stage 

Government Initiatives 

 

Pre-Entry Stage 

Assessment Placement Tests & The Canadian Language Benchmarks 

 English Proficiency assessed using CBLs 

 Placement Tests results reported as CLB scores 

National Language Placement and Progressions Guidelines & The 

Canadian Language Benchmarks 

 Placement Tests use CLBs for placement in LINC Program 

 CLB levels for placement are based on CLB scores achieved by the 

learner 

Waitlist Management and Language Referrals & The Canadian 

Language Benchmarks 

 A learner is given a referral form with CLB scores and recommended 

CLB level (class) 

 

  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347


  Mudzingwa 63 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

The Entry Stage 

 

At the Entry Stage, the Canadian Language Benchmarks and the Waitlist Management and 

Language Referral Guidelines are still relevant.  

 

 The Waitlist Management and Language Referral Guidelines. The Waitlist 

Management and Language Referral Guidelines carry specific instructions for LTOs regarding 

the registration of language learners—new students, returning students, or students transferring 

from other LTOs. The guidelines explain how to place a learner on a waitlist in cases where seats 

are not available. Additionally, the guidelines explain who has priority from the waitlist when a 

seat becomes available. Further instructions are included on what to do when learners change 

their initial course selection; how learners can register in a course or on a course waitlist; and 

how to organize waitlists using either CLBs or course name in the government database iCARE. 

 

 A Summary of the Entry Stage. Waitlist Management and Language Referral 

Guidelines and the Canadian Language Benchmarks are the two initiatives that directly bring 

consistency to the Entry Stage. The discussion of this section is summarized in Table 3.  

 

Table 3 

 

A Summary of the Entry Stage  

 
LINC Standardization 

Model Stage 

Government Initiatives 

Entry Stage 

Waitlist Management and Language Referrals & The Canadian 
Language Benchmarks 

 Referral card that learners take to LTO have results based on CLB 

scores guided by the National Language Placement and Progression 

Guidelines 

 Referral cards have recommended CLB level for placement 

 Waitlists can be organized based on CLBs 

 Waitlist Management and Language Referrals explains how to place 

learner on waitlist 

 

Language Training Stage 

 

A variety of government-funded organizations provide language training. The progress of each 

client is rated and monitored based on CLB descriptors. The relevant initiatives at the Language 

Training Stage are the LINC Curriculum Guidelines, the Portfolio-Based Language Assessment, 

the Canadian Language Benchmarks, and the National Placement and Progressions Guidelines.  

 

 The LINC Curriculum Guidelines. When LINC was established in 1992, there was no 

curriculum for teachers, administrators, and LTOs to use. It was an ad hoc and inconsistent 

practice whereby each teacher taught what they considered suitable and appropriate to meet the 

needs of their learners. To address this situation, in 1993, CIC funded the development of LINC 

1–3 Curriculum Guidelines. The guidelines mirrored the LINC levels at the time. In 1999, LINC 

4 and 5 Curriculum Guidelines referenced to CLBs were developed to match the expanded LINC 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347


  Mudzingwa 64 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

Program. Five years later, in 2002, LINC Curriculum Guidelines 1–3 were merged with LINC 4 

and 5 Curriculum Guidelines. Later, in 2006, LINC Curriculum Guidelines 5–7 were developed 

to match the expanded LINC Program. The Curriculum Guidelines have twelve settlement 

themes referenced to the CLBs.  

 

The design and implementation of the LINC Curriculum Guidelines, however, did not 

completely solve the consistency problems. Since the LINC 5–7 Curriculum Guidelines 

document is not prescriptive, instructors are free to adapt and use the materials to meet the needs 

and goals of their learners (Hajer, Kaskens & Stasiak, 2006, p. i). Thus, content taught at the 

same level varies across teachers, organizations, and provinces. Furthermore, the LINC 

Curriculum Guidelines are “Ontario-centric”—some of the content does not apply to other 

provinces. Considering this challenge, CIC’s LINC Evaluation Report of 2010 said, “the lack of 

consistency across Canada in the way in which LINC is taught makes it much harder to create 

content and exit tests” (p. 62). Some people who participated in the survey for the LINC 

Evaluation Report, suggested that a more standardized curriculum with little room for variation 

would be more appropriate. On the other hand, the non-prescriptive nature of the LINC 

Curriculum Guidelines is also a benefit. It allows for regional flexibility, which helps meet the 

varied needs of learners and the community context in which the immigrants are learning.  

 

 The Portfolio-Based Language Assessment. Of all the government initiatives 

introduced to date, PBLA has likely generated the most rhetoric, polarized debates, and 

intransigent positions. In the literature, three schools of thought have emerged as a result. The 

first school of thought is pro-PBLA and demonstrates its benefits, while the second school of 

thought is mostly critical—raising academic, philosophical, and pragmatic questions about 

PBLA. The third school of thought is anti-PBLA: they agitating for its total banishment.  

 

The Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks (n.d.) describes the PBLA as a teaching 

and assessment model designed to enhance nationwide consistency and standards of quality in 

EAL training for adult newcomers to Canada. The CLBs are the mainstay of PBLA. They are 

used to design teaching and learning materials, develop assessments tools, and report learners’ 

progress (Pettis, 2014). PBLA is embedded in the curricula and is an integral part of the 

teaching, learning, and assessment cycle.  

 

The PBLA was born out of the need for standardized in-class assessment practices and 

protocols. Several studies have underlined the inconsistency and ad hoc nature of in-class 

assessments in the LINC Program at the time (CIC, 2004, 2010; Makosky, 2008; Nagy & 

Stewart 2009; Singh & Blakey, 2012). When introducing PBLA as the sole authorized 

assessment method for the LINC Program, CIC clearly stated that “PBLA is being introduced to 

address the need for a standardized in-class language assessment protocol in LINC and CLIC” 

(CIC, 2013b, p. 1).   

 

In 2011, CIC successfully piloted PBLA in Ottawa, Edmonton, Moncton, St. John, and 

Fredericton. PBLA was later introduced nationally in 2013. Before its introduction, using the 

train-the-trainer model, CIC funded the training of PBLA lead teachers, who train and support 

other LINC instructors in the implementation of PBLA. Beaulieu and Le Thiec (2017) said, 

“training instructors to use PBLA is a vital step in implementing the portfolio and ensuring 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347


  Mudzingwa 65 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

standardized practices” (p. 97). Furthermore, the Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks 

(n.d.) provided criteria and guidelines for creating assessments and on giving action-oriented 

feedback. Teachers are also trained on how to review portfolios to determine a learner’s 

progress.  

 

Literature highlighting the benefits of PBLA includes the works of Mudzingwa (2016); 

Drew and Mudzingwa (2018); Jezak, (2017); O’Shea, (2017); Senior (2017). Senior (2017) called 

PBLA “a major initiative that will change the face of adult ESL training in Canada” (p. 80). 

However, works that critically question the benefits of PBLA to teachers, students, and the LINC 

program include Desyatova (2018, 2020), Abbot (2019), Fox (2014), Ripley (2013), and 

Mohammadian Haghighi (2016). Abbot (2019), like Fox (2014), contended that PBLA is not a 

standardized assessment approach and, in its current format, cannot be evaluated using 

conventional psychometric methods. As elaborated by Abbot (2019), the inconsistencies include 

the actual PBLA tasks, the time allotted to complete tasks, the amount of help students receive, 

the scoring, and the evaluation criteria.  

 

There has also been a huge outcry against PBLA, with the contention that it is a 

“dramatic increase in teacher workload” (Desyatova, 2018, p. 43). Abbot (2019) made a similar 

observation, emphasizing that PBLA brought “onerous workload for instructors” (p. 9). Such 

observations are frequent in the literature, for instance in Fox and Fraser (2012), Mohammadian 

Haghighi (2016), and Ripley (2018). The major contention is how the workload is not 

commensurate with the remuneration and working conditions of most instructors. Furthermore, 

there are reports of teachers feeling overwhelmed by the demands of PBLA, and consequently, 

believing that PBLA is adversely impacting their classroom practices (Desyatova, 2018, 2020; 

Fox, 2014; Mohammadian Haghighi, 2013; Ripley, 2013, 2018). In addition, works calling for 

the outright ban of PLBA include Vanderveen (2018) and (Lachini, 2017). Lachini (2017) 

reported of a petition that called for the immediate halting of PBLA. Deystova (2020) mentioned 

that the petition “signals persistent exclusion of teachers as engaged and capable stakeholders, 

relegating them to an unquestioning group at the bottom of PBLA implementation hierarchy” (p. 

47). Despite the challenges raised in the literature, it is irrefutable that the introduction of PBLA 

was a milestone in the LINC Program, particularly with the constant and continuous training and 

support on how to implement it. 

 

 National Language Placement and Progression Guidelines. The National Language 

Placement and Progression Guidelines document informs assessors on how to assign benchmarks 

after the placement assessment tests (The Pre-Entry Stage). The same document “is intended for 

instructors and coordinators in CIC funded language training programs, to ensure a common 

understanding and interpretation of assessment results based on the Canadian Language 

Benchmarks (CLB)” (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2013a, p. 2). The document provides 

strict guidelines, to LTOs, on how to progress learners from one level to the next. 

 

 A summary of the Language Training Stage. The LINC Curriculum Guidelines, the 

Portfolio-Based Language Assessment, the Canadian Language Benchmarks, and the National 

Placement and Progressions Guidelines together bring consistency and regularity to the 

Language Training Stage. These initiatives inform teachers and LINC administrators on how to 

interpret the achieved PBLA assessment scores. Equally important, these initiatives guide 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347


  Mudzingwa 66 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

teachers and LINC administrators on how to progress learners to the next level. Table 4, 

presented below, sums up the discussion of the Language Training Stage.  

 

Table 4 

 

A Summary of the Language Training Stage  

 
LINC Standardization 

Model Stage 

Government Initiatives 

 

Language Training 

Stage 

 

LINC Curriculum Guidelines& The Canadian Language Benchmarks 

 Level outcomes taken directly from CLBs 

 Theoretical Framework of Guidelines same as that of CLBs 

Portfolio-Based Language Assessment & The Canadian Language 

Benchmarks 

 CLBs used to determine teaching materials 

 CLB-aligned assessments used to assess learners 

 Learners progress measured using CLBs and promoted to the next level 

National Language Placement and Progressions Guidelines and the 

Canadian Language Benchmarks 

 Formula for progressing students between classes is based on CLBs 

 Explains how class levels are organized in accordance with CLB scale   

 

The Exit Stage 

 

The Exit Stage is when learners leave the program for whatever reasons. LINC and the CLIC 

Certificate Issuance Policy, the Canadian Language Benchmarks, and the Waitlist Management 

and Language Referral Guidelines are relevant to the Exit Stage.  

 

 LINC and CLIC Certificate Issuance Policy. In February 2017, Immigration, Refugees 

and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), then CIC, issued Operational Bulletin 472-A, updating IRCC 

staff and LINC/CLIC service providers on the issuance of LINC/CLIC certificates. The Bulletin 

was revised in March 2018. It underscored how LINC certificates had become high stakes: “The 

issuance of standard certificates takes on even greater importance as the Department accepts 

LINC and CLIC certificates as proof of language ability for citizenship purposes” (IRCC, 2018, 

n.p.). Cognizant of this, IRCC gave strict guidelines on the issuance of LINC Certificates. The 

Operational Bulletin (IRCC, 2018) specifies the criteria to be met by LTOs for eligibility to issue 

LINC Certificates. First, the LTO should be delivering the LINC program. Second, the LTO 

should only accept learners who have taken a CLB-based placement assessment from an 

authorized assessment centre. Third, the assessment centre should follow the National Language 

Placement and Progression Guidelines. Finally, the LTO should use PBLA for teaching and in-

class assessment.  

 

LINC Certificates are issued to learners at the end of a progress reporting period, with 

results reported as CLBs. The CLB scores are established after reviewing the collected 

assessment (evidence) in the learners’ portfolios. The Bulletin is clear that placement results and 

the CLB levels not addressed in a class cannot be used for the issuance of a LINC certificate. A 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347


  Mudzingwa 67 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

learner has to demonstrate proficiency using evidence in the portfolio in order to be issued a 

LINC certificate.  

 

 Waitlist Management and Language Referral Guidelines. The Waitlist Management 

and Language Referral Guidelines were shown to be relevant at the Pre-Entry Stage and Entry 

Stage, and now at the Exit Stage. The Waitlist Management and Language Referral Guidelines 

carry specific instructions on transfers across LTOs, and the mandatory compliance to these 

guidelines by all LTOs.   

 

 A Summary of the Exit Stage. The relevant initiatives at this stage are the LINC and 

CLIC Certificate Issuance Policy, the Canadian Language Benchmarks, and the Waitlist 

Management and Language Referral Guidelines. They collectively bring consistency to the Exit 

Stage. Table 5 below summarizes the discussion of the Exit Stage. 

 

Table 5 

 

A Summary of the Exit Stage 

 
LINC Standardization 

Model Stage 

Government Initiatives 

 

Exit Stage 

Issuance of LINC and CLIC Certificate & The CLBs 

 Learners are given a LINC certificate with CLB scores they 

achieved 

 Operation bulletin together with PBLA protocols gives guidance on 

how to assign CLBs 

Waitlist Management and Language Referral Guidelines 

 Guidelines on how to refer a learner from one LTO to another 

 

 In the literature, there are calls for the introduction of Standardized Exit Tests, similar to 

the placement assessment tests given to clients before they enter the LINC Program (see Pre-

Entry Stage). The LINC Evaluation Report of 2010 echoed this view: “One design flaw is the 

lack of progress and exit tests” (CIC, 2010, p. 62). The argument for Standardized Exit Tests is 

that they would adequately gauge the extent to which LINC learners are acquiring language 

skills in English. 
 

British Columbia 

 

A discussion of the federal government initiatives would not be complete without acknowledging 

the role played by provinces, service providers, and other stakeholders. In British Columbia, for 

example, service providers and other stakeholders have a long history of seeking consistency in 

adult immigrant EAL training. For instance, LINC Net emerged from grassroots beginnings in 

1992 on the Lower Mainland, and provided a sector-driven opportunity for providers of LINC to 

work together cooperatively. The organization later changed to ELSA Net, or English Language 

Services for Adults Network, then to Language Instruction Support and Training Network 

(LISTN). “ELSA Net has evolved to play a key role in establishing standards, policies and 

guidelines [emphasis added] for the sector, and in the on-going development of the capacity of 

the sector to deliver high-quality settlement language services” (ELSA Net, 2012, p. 5). ELSA 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347


  Mudzingwa 68 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

Net was committed to the standardization and consistency of the LINC program, and it produced 

the comprehensive ELSA Operational Policy Guidelines. In 2014, the document was revised by 

the BC-LINC Guidelines Committee “to better reflect a LINC delivery environment” (ELSA 

Net, 2012, p. 5). 

 

 Fast forward to 2018, when the BC LINC Guidelines Committee produced the BC LINC 

Guidelines under Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies (AMSSA). 

AMSSA took over the responsibilities of (LISTN), the successor of ELSA Net. The BC LINC 

Guidelines cover aspects such as eligibility, progressing students, exiting students from LINC, 

and attendance. Issues such as attendance are not covered by the federal government’s initiatives 

and are unique to the BC Guidelines. Such initiatives illustrate how the provinces’ guidelines 

complement those of the federal government. In 2011, ELSA Net launched the ELSA 

Curriculum Guidelines, which were unique to BC. These were influenced by the national LINC 

Curriculum Guidelines (see Language Training Stage) and made use of the CLBs. To this day, 

some organizations in BC are still using the ELSA Curriculum Guidelines.  

 

 The Citizenship and Immigration Canada Report of 2010 found mixed opinions on the 

balance between the federal government’s standardization of the LINC program and the need for 

regional flexibility. Some participants believed that the federal government should provide a 

consistent policy direction and the regions should have flexibility in program delivery to 

accommodate provincial priorities and community needs. In contrast, others thought that too 

much flexibility would result in too much variation across regions.  

 

Implications and Consequences of Standardization 

 

The consequences and implications of the government’s quest for standardization of the LINC 

Program warrant discussion. First, there is a risk that the introduction of so many government 

initiatives may obscure the centrality of the CLBs, especially with the rhetoric around PBLA. 

Some teachers and administrators may lose sight of how the CLBs are the cornerstone of PBLA.  

Obfuscating the importance of the CLBs has adverse consequences for the practical 

implementation of PBLA, and in turn, for the consistency and reliability of in-class assessments.  

 

The portfolio as an assessment method has failed to shrug off the perennial tag of lacking 

standardization. In addition, it is still dogged by problems of validity, reliability, and 

subjectivity; some scholars still view it as a non-scientific assessment method (Brookhart 2008; 

Gillespie, Ford, Gillespie, & Leavell, 1996; Hamp-Lyons, & Condon, 2000; Shavelson, Klein, & 

Benjamin, 2009; Sweygers et al., 2009). The PBLA, which is a portfolio, is not immune to this 

kind of criticism. This then begs the question: Did the advent of PBLA bring in a new kind of 

inconsistency? The question is legitimate and calls for empirical studies. Abbot (2019), for 

instance, mentioned how “there is limited empirical evidence to support the appropriateness of 

PBLA results for such high-stakes accountability purposes” (p. 3). Foremost, IRCC could 

examine the consistency of assessments across teachers, service providers, and provinces. 

Considering how LINC Certificates are now high stakes, this is a matter the government cannot 

afford to postpone or ignore. 

 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347


  Mudzingwa 69 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

The sustainability of PBLA is an issue that has already attracted the attention of scholars. 

Holmes (2016) introduced a model of sustainability and proffered the following 

recommendation:  

 

As we move forward, sustainability of PBLA initiative will be key, but will require 

ongoing support for professional learning and classroom resources, development of 

agreed-upon standards and moderation sessions to ensure consistent application of these 

standards, and initiation of research to measure the impact of PBLA. (p. 122) 

 

The million-dollar question is whether the government is prepared to provide the necessary 

funding and resources critical for the sustainability of PBLA. 
 

In the literature, there are conflicting views on whether imposing a standard curriculum is 

beneficial or not. For instance, Pinet (2006) found that the CLB framework does not significantly 

restrict teachers’ autonomy in curricular planning (see also, Fleming, 1998). In contrast, Haque 

and Cray (2010) found that if curriculum guidelines leave too much room for interpretation, this 

may lead to confusion. Given these divergent views on curriculum development, there is need for 

research so that IRCC makes an informed decision.  

 

 It is indisputable that the LINC Program is employing a significant number of EAL 

teachers nationally. Based on anecdotal evidence, these teachers often join LINC service 

providers directly from TESL teacher education programs with zero-to-minimal knowledge of 

the LINC Program, the CLBs, and PBLA. Often, these teachers are thrown into the classroom 

with little or minimal PBLA training, and this may negatively impact the implementation of 

PBLA. To better prepare newly qualified teachers, the government and other stakeholders could 

include a comprehensive course on the LINC Program, Canadian Language Benchmarks, and 

PBLA as part of the EAL teacher education curriculum—even as an elective.  

 

As briefly mentioned under the section Portfolio-Based Language Assessment, 

(Language Training Stage), there is a lack of consistency in the working conditions, salaries, and 

welfare of LINC Instructors. Haque and Valeo (2017) observed, “Survey data with teachers of 

ESL to adults, however, have shown enormous [emphasis added] variation in working contexts 

and conditions, including full-time unionized positions and part-time contact positions” (p. 61). 

If not addressed, these disparities may lead to disgruntlement, and consequently, have adverse 

effects on classroom practice. 

 

Critical literature on different features of the LINC Program, particularly PBLA, have 

shown how the effort to standardize the LINC Program and the actual impact may be divorced, 

demonstrating that the task of standardization encounters a variety of obstacles. Appreciating the 

importance of these obstacles and the critiques of standardization does not undermine the value 

of studying standardization of the LINC Program. On the contrary, this appreciation enriches it 

and underscores the complex dynamics associated with the standardization of an equally 

complex language training program. Indeed, there is a need for further research that would 

improve the LINC Program.  

  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347


  Mudzingwa 70 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

Conclusion 

 

The implementation of the LINC Program in 1992 was the initial step towards formalized 

standardized teaching and assessment practices in the federally funded LINC Program. Over the 

years, the government continued to gradually, but consistently, introduce policies and procedures 

to standardize different aspects of the LINC Program. This paper introduced for the first time, 

the LINC Standardization Model, which was used to describe and analyze these government 

policies and procedures These included curriculum guidelines; procedures for better co-

ordination among service providers; standardization of tests and certification procedures; and 

greater consistency to in-class language assessment. It would be naïve to see the move towards 

standardization of the LINC Program as the singular sustained effort of the federal government. 

Provincial governments, scholars, instructors, LTOs, and all other non-government stakeholders, 

deserve credit for their unwavering commitment to the process. In conclusion, notwithstanding 

the challenges cited in this paper and elsewhere, the federal government has made commendable 

progress towards the standardization of the LINC Program; the march towards standardization 

should continue—ad infinitum.  

 

Acknowledgements 

 

I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and 

suggestions. I would also like to thank Kamurai Mudzingwa for the robust conversations about 

the LINC Standardization Model. Lastly, I am grateful to Shingirai Makaye; Mufaro 

Mudzingwa; and Tavonga Mudzingwa, for encouraging me to continue working on this paper 

until its publication.  

 

References 

 

Abbott, M. L. (2019). Developing an interpretive argument to guide the use of portfolio-based 

language assessment in beginning adult English language literacy classes. University of 

Alberta: Pathways to Prosperity Project. Retrieved from http://p2pcanada.ca/wp-

content/blogs.dir/1/files/2019/07/Portfolio-based-Language-Assessment-in-Beginning-

Adult-English-Language-Literacy-Classes.pdf  

Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding integration: A conceptual framework. Journal of 

Refugee Studies, 21(2), 166–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fen016 

AMSSA, (2013). BC LINC guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.amssa.org/wp-

content/uploads/2018/03/BC-LINC-Guidelines-2018.pdf  

Barrett, F., & Bennett, A. (2012) Guidelines for LINC Assessment Centres in Ontario. CLT: 

Ontario. 

http://atwork.settlement.org/downloads/linc/Guidelines_for_LINC_Assessment_Centres_

ENG_BM.pdf   

Bettencourt, E., Caranci, R., Hoo, S., Millard, J., O’Gorman, K., & Wilder, H. (2003) 

Understanding LINC: Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada, Ottawa, ON: 

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. 

Beaulieu, E., & Le Thiec, M. (2018). The NCLC in minority settings: Past and future projects. In 

J. Muse (Ed.), Language is key: Canadian Language Benchmark Model (pp. 89–106). 

Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press. 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347
http://p2pcanada.ca/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2019/07/Portfolio-based-Language-Assessment-in-Beginning-Adult-English-Language-Literacy-Classes.pdf
http://p2pcanada.ca/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2019/07/Portfolio-based-Language-Assessment-in-Beginning-Adult-English-Language-Literacy-Classes.pdf
http://p2pcanada.ca/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2019/07/Portfolio-based-Language-Assessment-in-Beginning-Adult-English-Language-Literacy-Classes.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fen016
https://www.amssa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/BC-LINC-Guidelines-2018.pdf
https://www.amssa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/BC-LINC-Guidelines-2018.pdf
http://atwork.settlement.org/downloads/linc/Guidelines_for_LINC_Assessment_Centres_ENG_BM.pdf
http://atwork.settlement.org/downloads/linc/Guidelines_for_LINC_Assessment_Centres_ENG_BM.pdf


  Mudzingwa 71 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

Bergin, M., da Silva, T., Peirce, B. N., & Stewart, G. (1996). Introduction to the Canadian 

Language Benchmarks Assessment. Mississauga, ON: Peel Board of Education. 

Bournot-Trites, M. (2017). Teaching and assessment with the CLB: Teacher experiences and 

perspectives. In J. Muse (Ed.), Language is key: Canadian Language Benchmark Model 

(pp. 31–54). Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press. 

Brookhart, S. (2008). Portfolio assessment. In T. L. Good 21st century education: A reference 

handbook (Vol. 2, pp. I-443-I-450). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.  

Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. (n.d.). [Website]. Retrieved from 

https://www.language.ca/home/  

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2004). Evaluation of the Language Instruction for 

Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Program. Retrieved from 

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-

statistics/evaluations/language-instruction-newcomers-canada.html 

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2010). Evaluation of the Language Instruction for 

Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Program. Retrieved from 

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-

statistics/evaluations/language-instruction-newcomers-canada-2010.html  

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2013a). National Language Placement and Progression 

Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.language.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2017/12/National_Placement_Guidelines_2014-1.pdf  

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2013b). Settlement Program—Introducing Portfolio-

Based Language Assessment as a standard feature of LINC and CLIC. Retrieved from 

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-

manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/bulletins-2013/510-march-15-2013.html  

Cleghorn, L. J. (2000). Valuing English: An ethnography of a federal language training program 

for adult immigrants. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto. 

Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/14699/1/MQ49781.pdf  

Cray, E. (1997). Teacher’s perception of a language policy: “Teaching LINC”. TESL Canada 

Journal, 15(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v15i1.690 

Desyatova, Y. (2020). When inquiry is seen as resistance to change: Expert teachers’ experiences 

with the implementation of portfolio-based language assessment (PBLA). Critical 

Inquiry in Language Studies, 17(1), 42–63. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2020.1713788 

Desyatova, Y. (2018). “Batting the piñata and swallowing camels”: Teachers learn to PBLA in 

the absence of dialogic interaction. TESL Canada Journal, 35(2), 51–77. 

https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v35i2.1290  

Drew, R., & Mudzingwa, (2018). The Portfolio-based Language Assessment Model: Perceptions 

of adult immigrant English language learners. BC TEAL Journal, 3(1), 1–21. Retrieved 

from: https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/267 

ECDS (n.d.). ECSD LINC Program: CLB Curriculum Guidelines CLB 1–6. Edmonton: 

Unpublished. 

ELSA Net. (2012). English language services for adults network ELSA NET: Contributions to 

the Settlement Language Sector. Retrieved from https://listn.tutela.ca/wp-

content/uploads/ELSA-Net-Contributions-to-the-Sector-Dec20123.pdf  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347
https://www.language.ca/home/
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/evaluations/language-instruction-newcomers-canada.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/evaluations/language-instruction-newcomers-canada.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/evaluations/language-instruction-newcomers-canada-2010.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/evaluations/language-instruction-newcomers-canada-2010.html
https://www.language.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/National_Placement_Guidelines_2014-1.pdf
https://www.language.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/National_Placement_Guidelines_2014-1.pdf
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/bulletins-2013/510-march-15-2013.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/bulletins-2013/510-march-15-2013.html
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/14699/1/MQ49781.pdf
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v15i1.690
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2020.1713788
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v35i2.1290
https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/267
https://listn.tutela.ca/wp-content/uploads/ELSA-Net-Contributions-to-the-Sector-Dec20123.pdf
https://listn.tutela.ca/wp-content/uploads/ELSA-Net-Contributions-to-the-Sector-Dec20123.pdf


  Mudzingwa 72 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

Fox, J. (2014). Portfolio based language assessment (PBLA) in Canadian immigrant language 

training: Have we got it wrong? In Contact: English Language Learning Magazine, 

Special Research Symposium Issue 40 (2), 68–83.  

Fox, J., & Fraser, W. (2012, January). Report on the impact of the implementation of PBLA on 

LINC teachers and students from September to December 2011. Internal technical report 

submitted to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Government of Canada.  

Fast, C. (2015). Expanding experience and knowledge. Panel discussion at the 42nd Annual 

TESL Ontario Conference. Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from 

http://www.teslontario.org/uploads/paneldiscussion/Panel_2015.pdf  

Fleming, D. (1998). Autonomy and agency in curriculum decision-making: A study of 

instructors in a Canadian adult settlement ESL program. TESL Canada Journal, 16(1), 

19–35. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v16i1.708  

Fleming, D. (2007). Adult Immigrant ESL Programs in Canada. International handbook of 

English language teaching (pp. 185-198). Boston, MA: Springer.  

Gillespie, C. S., Ford, K. L., Gillespie, R. D., & Leavell, A. G. (1996). Portfolio assessment: 

Some questions, some answers, some recommendations. Journal of Adolescent & Adult 

Literacy, 39(6), 480–491. 

Hajer, A., & Kaskens, A. (2012). Canadian language benchmarks 2012. Ottawa: Centre for 

Canadian Language Benchmarks. 

Hajer, A., Hammond, K., Hope, A., Kotilehti, S., Light, J., MacPherson, S., & Waugh, E. (2012). 

CLB support kit. Ottawa, ON: Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. 

Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Principles for practice, theory, 

research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 

Haque and Valeo (2017). Teaching and assessment: Using the CLB in a range of contexts under 

the stewardship of the Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. In M. Jezak (Ed.), 

Language is key: Canadian Language Benchmark Model (pp. 55–70). Ottawa, ON: 

University of Ottawa Press. 

Holmes, T. (2016). PBLA: moving toward sustainability. TESL Canada Journal, 32, 113–123. 

https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v32i0.1220  

Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada. (2018). Operational bulletin 472-A. Retrieved 

from https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-

manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/bulletins-2017/472-modified-february-28-

2017.html  

Johns, L. (2011). Why learning English is the key to integration. Mail Online. Retrieved from 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2052958/Why-learning-English-key-

integration.html. 

Jezak, M., & Piccardo, E. (2018). Canadian Language Benchmarks and Niveaux de compétence 

linguistique canadiens—Canadian Language Framework in the era of glocalization. In J. 

Muse (Ed.), Language is Key: Canadian Language Benchmark Model (pp. 7–30). 

Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. 

Lim, A., Siemiatycki, M., & Doucet, M. (2005). Newcomer services in the Greater Toronto 

Area: An exploration of the range and funding sources of settlement services. CERIS 

Working Paper Series, 35, (pp. 1–68). Retrieved from 

file:///C:/Users/shing/Downloads/OBJ%20Datastream%20(2).pdf 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347
http://www.teslontario.org/uploads/paneldiscussion/Panel_2015.pdf
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v16i1.708
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v32i0.1220
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/bulletins-2017/472-modified-february-28-2017.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/bulletins-2017/472-modified-february-28-2017.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/bulletins-2017/472-modified-february-28-2017.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2052958/Why-learning-English-key-integration.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2052958/Why-learning-English-key-integration.html
file:///C:/Users/AppData/Local/Temp/WPDNSE/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/AppData/Local/Packages/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/Downloads/OBJ%20Datastream%20(2).pdf


  Mudzingwa 73 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

Makosky, L. (2008). The feasibility and way forward for a standardized exit assessment and test 

for newcomers in LINC training. Internal report prepared for Citizenship and 

Immigration Canada, Ottawa, ON. 

Mohammadian Haghighi, F (2016). Investigating teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness of 

Portfolio-Based Language Assessment (PBLA) in Language Instruction for Newcomers 

to Canada (LINC) programme (Unpublished masters thesis) University of British 

Columbia. Retrieved from 

https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0340525. 

Mudzingwa, C. (2017). The Portfolio-Based Language Assessment (PBLA): Suitable for Adult 

Learners? BC TEAL Journal, 2(1), 14–24. Retrieved from https://ojs-

o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/264  

Nagy, P. & Stewart, G. (2009). Research study on potential approaches to second language 

assessment. Ottawa, ON: Citizenship and Immigration Canada 

O’Shea, R. (2017). Portfolio-based language assessment: Perspectives of newcomer adult 

English second language learners (Unpublished master thesis).University of New 

Brunswick. Retrieved from 

https://unbscholar.lib.unb.ca/islandora/object/unbscholar%3A9079  

Papillon, M. (2002). Immigration, diversity and social inclusion in Canada’s cities. Discussion 

Paper F/27, Canadian Policy Research Networks.1–43. Retrieved from 

http://rcrpp.ca/documents/17243_en.pdf. 

Pinet, R. (2006). The contestation of citizenship education at three stages of the LINC 4 & 5 

curriculum guidelines: Production, reception, and implementation. TESL Canada 

Journal, 24(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v24i1.25.  

Peirce, B. N., & Stewart, G. (1997). The development of Canadian Language Benchmarks 

Assessment. TESL Canada Journal, 14(2), 17–31. 

https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v14i2.683  

Pettis, J. (2014). Portfolio-based language assessment (PBLA): Guide for teachers and 

programs. Ottawa ON: Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. 

Rogers, E. (1993). National working group on language benchmarks meets. TESL Canada 

Bulletin, 1, 1–11.  

Rossiter, M., & Pawlikowska-Smith, G. (1999). The use of CLBA scores in LINC Program 

placement practices in Western Canada. TESL Canada Journal, 16(2), 39–52. 

https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v16i2.717 

Ripley, D. (2018). PBLA from the bottom up: LINC instructors share the benefits and challenges 

of portfolios. TEAL News, Winter 2018, 16–18. Retrieved from 

https://www.bcteal.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/04/TEAL-News-Winter-2018-FINAL-

2.pdf  

Ripley, D. (2013). Implementing portfolio-based language assessment in LINC Programs: 

Benefits and challenges. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 69–86. 

https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v30i1.1126  

Shavelson, R. J., Klein, S., & Benjamin, R. (2009). The limitations of portfolios. Inside Higher 

Ed, 16. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/10/16/limitations-

portfolios 

Segal, U. A., & Mayadas, N. S. (2005). Assessment of issues facing immigrant and refugee 

families. Child Welfare, 84(5), 563–578. 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347
https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0340525
https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/264
https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/264
https://unbscholar.lib.unb.ca/islandora/object/unbscholar%3A9079
http://rcrpp.ca/documents/17243_en.pdf
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v24i1.25
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v14i2.683
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v16i2.717
https://www.bcteal.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/04/TEAL-News-Winter-2018-FINAL-2.pdf
https://www.bcteal.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/04/TEAL-News-Winter-2018-FINAL-2.pdf
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v30i1.1126
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/10/16/limitations-portfolios
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/10/16/limitations-portfolios


  Mudzingwa 74 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 55–74 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347 

Senior, A. (2017). Teaching and Assessment: Using the CLB in a range of contexts under the 

stewardship of the Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. In M. Jezak (Ed.), 

Language is key: Canadian Language Benchmark Model (pp.71–88). Ottawa, ON: 

University of Ottawa Press. 

Singh, D., & Blakely, G. (2012). Federal and provincial policy initiatives–LINC and CLIC: 

Looking back, looking forward. International Settlement Canada Special Issue on 

Settlement Language Training, 7–11. 

Sweygers, A., Soetewey, K., Meeus, W., Struyf, E., & Pieters, B. (2009). Portfolios for prior 

learning assessment: Caught between diversity and standardization. The Journal of 

Continuing Higher Education, 57(2), 92–103. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/07377360902978194  

Taborek, E. (1993, fall-winter). The national working group on language benchmarks. TESL 

Toronto Newsletter, 93–94. 

Thomson, R. I., & Derwing, T. M. (2004). Presenting Canadian values in LINC: The roles of 

textbooks and teachers. TESL Canada Journal, 21(2), 17–33. 

https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v21i2.172 

Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB). (2002). LINC 1 - 5 Curriculum Guidelines 

TCDSB. Retrieved from http://settlement.org/downloads/linc/LCG1to5/overview.pdf. 

Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB). (1999). The LINC 4 & 5 curriculum 

guidelines: A computer-integrated curriculum based on Canadian Language Benchmarks 

4–6. Toronto, ON: TCDSB 

Vanderveen, T. (2018). The nature and impact of portfolio-based language assessment (PBLA). 

Contact Magazine, 5–11. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED591438.pdf 

Xhelili, L. (2014). The key to integration? A study of language as a policy strategy for social 

integration of immigrants in Sweden (Unpublished master’s thesis). LUP Student Papers, 

Lund University. Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4448217  

 

 

 
The BC TEAL Journal is licensed under a 

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 

Copyright rests with the authors. 

 

 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/347
https://doi.org/10.1080/07377360902978194
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v21i2.172
http://settlement.org/downloads/linc/LCG1to5/overview.pdf
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED591438.pdf
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4448217
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

