Jump to content

User:Kmbaich/Language Proficiency: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Jolie E H (talk | contribs)
38 edits
I added more information and citations
Jolie E H (talk | contribs)
38 edits
No edit summary
 
(21 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Language proficiency''' is the ability of an individual to use language with a level of accuracy that transfers meaning in production and comprehension. There is no singular definition of language proficiency, however, and this has implications for its application in other language domains such as literacy, testing, endangered languages, language impairment, etc. There is little consistency as to how different organizations define it<u>, and it is evaluated in different ways by different organizations.</u> <u>L2 proficiency develops differently from L1 proficiency, and can be impacted by the L1, by age of acquisition and by individual learner motivations and behaviors.</u>
⚫
== Second Language Proficiency ==

⚫
== Second Language (L2) Proficiency ==
⚫
=== Defining L2 Proficiency - Jolie ===
⚫
Over the last half century, there has been much debate as to how to define [[Second language|L2]] proficiency. An early theory by [[Robert Lado|Lado]] focused on the four "skills" of language--reading, writing, speaking, and listening<ref>{{Cite book|last=Lado|first=Robert|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/395065271|title=Language testing: The construction and use of foreign language tests: A teacher's book|date=|publisher=McGraw-Hill|year=1964|location=New York|oclc=395065271}}</ref>. These skills are still emphasized today in many instructional materials. <ref name=":0">{{Cite book|last=Leclerq|first=Pascale|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/870699275|title=Measuring L2 proficiency : perspectives from SLA|last2=Edmonds|first2=Amanda|last3=Hilton|first3=Heather|date=2014|publisher=Multilingual Matters|others=|isbn=978-1-78309-228-4|location=Bristol|oclc=870699275}}</ref> While early theories by [[Noam Chomsky|Chomsky]] and Lado, among others, focused almost exclusively on grammatical knowledge, in the 1970s, [[Dell Hymes|Hymes]] popularized the idea of pragmatic [[communicative competence]], with competence defined as encompassing both knowledge of and use of language.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite book|last=Hymes|first=Dell|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/651225|title=Sociolinguistics: selected readings|date=1972|publisher=Penguin|others=|isbn=0-14-080665-2|editor-last=Pride|editor-first=J. B.|location=Harmondsworth|chapter=On communicative competence|oclc=651225|editor-last2=Holmes|editor-first2=Janet}}</ref> In 1980, Canale and [[Merrill Swain|Swain]] published their own framework for communicative competence, based on 3 sub-competencies: grammatical, sociolinguistic, and strategic.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Canale|first=M.|last2=Swain|first2=M|date=1980-03-01|title=Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/1.1.1|journal=Applied Linguistics|volume=1|issue=1|pages=1–47|doi=10.1093/applin/1.1.1|issn=0142-6001}}</ref> There has also been much debate as to the difference between competence and performance, and whether proficiency encompasses, or is encompassed by, one or both of these concepts. In the 1980s, Ingram, followed by Taylor, argued that proficiency should not only consider knowledge, but how that knowledge is put to use in a given context.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Iyldyz|first=Leila B.|date=2007|title=Rethinking Validity of the L2 Proficiency Concept: Lessons for EIL|url=https://www.eilj.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1-april%202007.pdf|journal=Asian EFL Journal|volume=9|issue=1|pages=65-85|doi=|issn=1738-1460}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Taylor|first=D|date=1988|title=The meaning and use of the term 'competence' in linguistics and applied linguistics|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/9.2.148|journal=Applied Linguistics|volume=9(2)|pages=146-168}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Ingram|first=D.|title=Modelling and assessing second language development|publisher=Multilingual Matters|year=1985|isbn=0905028414|editor-last=Hyltenstam|editor-first=K.|location=Clevedon|pages=216-276|chapter=Assessing proficiency: An overview of some aspects of testing|editor-last2=Pienemann|editor-first2=M.}}</ref> More recently, Hulstijn has proposed his own detailed definition of proficiency which can be applied to both native and non-native speakers. Per his definition, proficiency comprises the ability to function in any given situational context in any given modality--listening, reading, writing and speaking. His definition also includes metacognitive and metalinguistic components in addition to core components such as [[phonology]] and [[morphosyntax]].<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite book|last=Hulstijn|first=Jan H.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/lllt.41|title=Language Proficiency in Native and Non-native Speakers|date=2015|publisher=John Benjamins Publishing Company|isbn=978-90-272-1324-2|series=Language Learning & Language Teaching|location=Amsterdam}}</ref> Still, there is much debate about defining proficiency, and these differing definitions of proficiency can greatly affect how proficiency is measured.


=== Developing L2 Proficiency - Katie ===
=== Developing L2 Proficiency - Katie ===


=== Defining and Measuring L2 Proficiency - Jolie ===
==== Developing L2 Proficiency ====
To develop L2 proficiency, an individual needs to have active, self-directed involvement.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Green|first=John M.|last2=Oxford|first2=Rebecca|date=1995|title=A Closer Look at Learning Strategies, L2 Proficiency, and Gender|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587625|journal=TESOL Quarterly|volume=29|issue=2|pages=261|doi=10.2307/3587625|issn=0039-8322}}</ref> A self-directed learner actively engages in comprehending the material and is motivated to learn the L2. According to Skehan, this would include acquiring language through language learning strategies, which is an essential aspect of developing L2 proficiency.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Skehan|first=Peter|date=2014-04-04|title=Individual Differences in Second Language Learning|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315831664|doi=10.4324/9781315831664}}</ref> Language learning strategies are applied for all parts of a language ([[phonology]], [[Morphology (linguistics)|morphology]], [[syntax]], [[semantics]], and [[pragmatics]]).<ref name=":10" /> <ref name=":3" /> For example, in word learning, some strategies include looking words up in a dictionary and reviewing learned materials.<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|last=author.|first=Lightbown, Patsy M.,|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/968094719|title=How Languages are Learned 4th edition.|date=2013|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-454129-9|oclc=968094719}}</ref> These strategies enhance language learning by provoking specific actions, behaviors, or techniques, such as word association with a synonym.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Phoocharoensil|first=Supakorn|date=2014-12-01|title=Exploring Learners’ Developing L2 Collocational Competence|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.12.2533-2540|journal=Theory and Practice in Language Studies|volume=4|issue=12|doi=10.4304/tpls.4.12.2533-2540|issn=1799-2591}}</ref><ref name=":2" /> Not all methods are observable because of cognitive processes occurring while learning the language. The strategies differ depending on which part of the language one is trying to learn. An example is the branch of pragmatics, which applies how words are practically used.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last=Bardovi-Harlig|first=Kathleen|date=2013-02-13|title=Developing L2 Pragmatics|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x|journal=Language Learning|volume=63|pages=68–86|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x|issn=0023-8333}}</ref><ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Kasper|first=Gabriele|date=1992-10|title=Pragmatic transfer|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026765839200800303|journal=Interlanguage studies bulletin (Utrecht)|volume=8|issue=3|pages=203–231|doi=10.1177/026765839200800303|issn=0165-9960}}</ref> Kasper found that when utilizing [[interlanguage pragmatics]], the learner uses a more comparative approach instead of acquisition (how L1 is generated).<ref name=":11" />

Age of second language acquisition can affect the facility and speed of developing L2 proficiency. Patkowski performed research to see if a relationship exists in second language acquisition between age and acquisition of features.<ref name=":8">{{Cite journal|last=Patkowski|first=Mark S.|date=1980-12|title=THE SENSITIVE PERIOD FOR THE ACQUISITION OF SYNTAX IN A SECOND LANGUAGE1|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1980.tb00328.x|journal=Language Learning|volume=30|issue=2|pages=449–468|doi=10.1111/j.1467-1770.1980.tb00328.x|issn=0023-8333}}</ref> He found that age plays a role in achieving native mastery for L2 when learning a second language in a natural setting.<ref name=":8" /> Additionally, another study was performed on Chinese and Korean speakers learning English as an L2 at different ages. This research aimed to see if the age of arrival to the United States affected grammatical judgments.<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Johnson|first=Jacqueline S|last2=Newport|first2=Elissa L|date=1989-01|title=Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0|journal=Cognitive Psychology|volume=21|issue=1|pages=60–99|doi=10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0|issn=0010-0285}}</ref> The results support Patkowski, showing that the earlier a participant arrived in the United States, the more success they had at determining grammaticality judgments.<ref name=":9" /><ref name=":8" /> In terms of speed, Snow and Hoefnagel performed an experiment looking at how age impacts the rate of learning. At first, adolescents and adults learned language faster than children, but after a year, the children had surpassed the adults in language performance levels.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Snow|first=Catherine E.|last2=Hoefnagel-Hohle|first2=Marian|date=1978-12|title=The Critical Period for Language Acquisition: Evidence from Second Language Learning|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1128751|journal=Child Development|volume=49|issue=4|pages=1114|doi=10.2307/1128751|issn=0009-3920}}</ref> Based on these studies, age can affect a learner's capabilities in developing a second language. Second language proficiency is possible at any age, but different ages have distinct paces and abilities.

==== L1 Influence on L2 Proficiency - Brenna ====
There is much debate pertaining to the effect that a speaker’s L1 may have on learning a second language and how a speaker’s L1 can later influence L2 proficiency. This cross-linguistic influence in second language acquisition is known as transfer, and Lado was among the first to refer to it as such.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Wang|first=Zhanming|date=2014-10-26|title=Review of the Influence of L1 in L2 Acquisition|url=http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/sll/article/view/5721|journal=Studies in Literature and Language|language=en|volume=9|issue=2|pages=57–60|doi=10.3968/n|issn=1923-1563}}</ref> Some components of L1 transfer include sounds, words, syntax and culture - and there are numerous perspectives regarding how these influences come into play in second language acquisition.

As previously mentioned, age of second language acquisition can play a role in an L2 learner’s capabilities. However, similarities and differences between a speaker’s L1 and their target L2 can play a role in second language acquisition as well. For example, for intermediate and late bilinguals, it has been widely found in studies that an L2 learner’s pronunciation is influenced by their L1.<ref name=":1" /> [[Phonetics|Phonetic]] similarities between a speaker’s L1 and target L2 can lead to less deviation from native-like pronunciation of the L2.<ref name=":1" /> Another idea relating L1 and L2 is the [[Contrastive analysis|Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis]], defined as “a way of comparing language in order to determine potential errors for the ultimate purpose of isolating what needs to be learned and what does not need to be learned in a second-language-learning situation.”<ref name=":1" /> For example, by this way of thinking, a direct correspondence between structures of two different languages may come easier to an L2 learner as opposed to having to learn a structure that is absent in their L1 but present in the L2.<ref name=":1" /> [[Error analysis (linguistics)|Error Analysis]], like the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, is another perspective that pertains to the relationship between L1 and L2, but focuses on the comparison of the target language form and the target language produced.<ref name=":1" /> While some linguists argue that incorrect productions of the target language (L2) may indicate some kind of influence from L1, there are also many who argue against it, claiming that an L1’s influence on L2 shouldn’t be limited to the errors found in L2 production.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Håkan.|first=Ringbom,|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/913056523|title=The role of the first language in foreign language learning|date=1987|publisher=Multilingual Matters Ltd|isbn=0-905028-81-3|oclc=913056523}}</ref>

With the various perspectives regarding if and how L1 can influence L2 and so many other additional variables, it is difficult to pinpoint how each of the components of a speaker's L1 may impact the learning of an L2, let alone how these factors may influence proficiency. Further research is necessary to specify how L1 transfer can impact L2 proficiency in detail.

=== Evaluating L2 Proficiency and Proficiency Levels - Jolie ===
Because proficiency encompasses many different modalities and types of competencies, it can be difficult for educators to evaluate. Some measures of proficiency assess multiple modalities or competencies for an overall proficiency evaluation, whereas others evaluate only one specific facet of proficiency.<ref name=":0" /> The criteria for different scores or levels of proficiency can also vary between systems of measurement. In creating and defining proficiency scales, it is important to reference corpora which indicate natural and common stages of language development in order to align proficiency levels with typical stages of L2 acquisition.<ref name=":0" />

There exist a number of popular frameworks for understanding and organizing proficiency levels--though they are not, in themselves, actual assessments. One of the most widely used frameworks for proficiency is the [[Common European Framework of Reference for Languages]]. It serves as a standard for proficiency measurement across Europe and in many other countries outside of Europe. It measures general and communicative competences via activities and tasks. The three main levels, A (Basic User), B (Independent User), and C (Proficient User) are broken into sub-levels 1 and 2, with C2 being the highest level.<ref name=":4">{{Cite book|last=Council of Europe|title=Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching and Assessment|publisher=Council of Europe|year=2001|pages=9-27}}</ref> In the US, the [[American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages|American Council of the Teaching of Foreign Languages]] (ACTFL) proficiency guidelines are widely used. The guidelines break proficiency into five levels (Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, Superior, Distinguished), with the lowest three levels subdivided into low, mid and high.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|title=ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012 {{!}} ACTFL|url=https://www.actfl.org/resources/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012|access-date=2021-04-04|website=www.actfl.org}}</ref> It is important to note that the ACTFL guidelines and Common European Framework are intended to be used ''not'' as assessments, but as ''guidelines'' in creating curricula and assessments.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":6">{{Cite web|title=NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements {{!}} ACTFL|url=https://www.actfl.org/resources/ncssfl-actfl-can-do-statements|access-date=2021-04-04|website=www.actfl.org}}</ref> They ''can'' serve as a tool for helping learners self-assess during the course of their learning.<ref name=":6" /> CEFR actually provides a self-assessment grid for learners.<ref name=":4" />

There are a number of tests designed for proficiency assessment, many of them following the Common European Framework proficiency levels. ACTFL has created a number of tests by skill based on the ACTFL guidelines.<ref>{{Cite web|title=ACTFL Assessments {{!}} ACTFL|url=https://www.actfl.org/assessment-research-and-development/actfl-assessments|access-date=2021-04-04|website=www.actfl.org}}</ref> Please see the Proficiency Tests section below for more information and tests.

==== Proficiency Frameworks - Jolie ====
(underlined info was added by Jolie to existing article info)

Note that levels may not correlate reliably:

* [[ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines]] ACTFL recognizes five different levels of proficiency: novice, intermediate, advanced, superior, and distinguished, of which the first three are each subdivided into low, mid, and high. <u>These levels of proficiency are defined by Can-Do statements in three modes of communication--interpersonal, interpretive and presentational.</u><ref name=":5" /><ref name=":6" /> <u>There has been some concern that the ACTFL Can-Do Statements are too vague and that the difficulty of some skills may not match appropriately with proficiency levels. In a study by Tigchelaar et al., fifteen of the 50 selected Can-Do Statements were found to be inconsistent with the prescribed proficiency levels.</u><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tigchelaar|first=Magda|last2=Bowles|first2=Ryan P.|last3=Winke|first3=Paula|last4=Gass|first4=Susan|date=2017-08-11|title=Assessing the Validity of ACTFL Can-Do Statements for Spoken Proficiency: A Rasch Analysis|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/flan.12286|journal=Foreign Language Annals|volume=50|issue=3|pages=584–600|doi=10.1111/flan.12286|issn=0015-718X}}</ref>
* <u>[[Common European Framework of Reference for Languages|CEFR]] - [[Common European Framework of Reference for Languages]]: The Common European Framework defines levels of proficiency based on general and communicative competence. It consists of six levels: A1 and A2 (Basic Users), B1 and B2 (Independent Users), and C1 and C2 (Proficient Users), with C2 being the highest and A1 being the lowest. Proficiency levels are defined by descriptors of what the user can understand, produce and communicate. It addresses the structural accuracy of speaker utterances and, to some extent, speaker performance in varying sociolinguistic contexts. For example, a C1 speaker can read and understand a variety of texts, produce detailed, structurally-sound utterances, and interact appropriately in social, academic and professional contexts, to name a few.<ref name=":4" /> However, the CEFR has been criticized for being overly subjective, making it hard to to ensure inter-rater reliability.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hulstijn|first=Jan H.|date=2007|title=The Shaky Ground Beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and Qualitative Dimensions of Language Proficiency1|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_5.x|journal=The Modern Language Journal|volume=91|issue=4|pages=663–667|doi=10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_5.x|issn=0026-7902}}</ref></u> <u>Additionally, the highest levels (B2, C1, and C2) may require very high levels of education for L1 and L2 speakers alike to achieve them.<ref name=":0" /></u>
*[[Foreign Service Institute]] School of Language Studies. Levels range from 0 to 5. ''(deprecated)''
* [[ILR scale|Interagency Language Roundtable]] Levels range from 0 to 5. ''(evolved from FSI)''
* [[Language Proficiency Index]]

==== Proficiency Tests - Jolie ====
(underlined info was added by Jolie to existing article info)
* Online language proficiency test (Level 4, Level 5, Level 6) for pilots in English or German
* Avant STAMP (STAndards-based Measurement of Proficiency)
* [[Cambridge English Language Assessment|Cambridge English Assessment]] tests.
**<u>Tests include the [[Cambridge English Qualifications]] and [[International English Language Testing System|IELTS]] (see below).</u> <u>Aligned to the [[Common European Framework of Reference for Languages|CEFR]] levels.</u><ref>{{Cite web|title=Exams and tests {{!}} Cambridge English|url=https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-and-tests/|access-date=2021-04-04|website=www.cambridgeenglish.org}}</ref>
* [[CaMLA]] (Cambridge Michigan Language Assessments)


* [[CELI]] (Certificato di Conoscenza della Lingua Italiana)
⚫
==== Defining L2 Proficiency ====
* [[CELPE-Bras]] (Certificate of Proficiency in Portuguese for Foreigners)
⚫
Over the last half century, there has been much debate as to how to define L2 proficiency. An early theories by Lado focused on the four "skills" of language--reading, writing, speaking, and listening<ref>{{Cite book|last=Lado|first=Robert|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/395065271|title=Language testing: The construction and use of foreign language tests: A teacher's book|date=|publisher=McGraw-Hill|year=1964|location=New York|oclc=395065271}}</ref>. These skills are still emphasized today in many instructional materials. <ref name=":0">{{Cite book|last=Leclerq|first=Pascale|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/870699275|title=Measuring L2 proficiency : perspectives from SLA|last2=Edmonds|first2=Amanda|last3=Hilton|first3=Heather|date=2014|publisher=Multilingual Matters|others=|isbn=978-1-78309-228-4|location=Bristol|oclc=870699275}}</ref> While early theories by Chomsky and Lado, among others, focused almost exclusively on grammatical knowledge, in the 1970s, Hymes popularized the idea of pragmatic communicative competence, with competence defined as encompassing both knowledge of and use of language.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite book|last=Hymes|first=Dell|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/651225|title=Sociolinguistics: selected readings|date=1972|publisher=Penguin|others=|isbn=0-14-080665-2|editor-last=Pride|editor-first=J. B.|location=Harmondsworth|chapter=On communicative competence|oclc=651225|editor-last2=Holmes|editor-first2=Janet}}</ref> In 1980, Canale and Swain published their own framework for communicative competence, based on 3 sub-competencies: grammatical, sociolinguistic, and strategic.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Canale|first=M.|last2=Swain|first2=M|date=1980-03-01|title=Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/1.1.1|journal=Applied Linguistics|volume=1|issue=1|pages=1–47|doi=10.1093/applin/1.1.1|issn=0142-6001}}</ref>
* [[Certificazione di Italiano come Lingua Straniera|CILS]] (Certificazione di Italiano come Lingua Straniera)
* [[DALF]] (Diploma in Advanced French Language)
**<u>French proficiency test for advanced speakers of French. Aligns with CEFR levels C1 and C2.</u><ref name=":7">{{Cite web|title=DELF-DALF – French Institute Alliance Française (FIAF)|url=https://fiaf.org/exams/delf-dalf/|access-date=2021-04-04|language=en-US}}</ref>
* [[Defense Language Proficiency Tests]]
* [[DELF]] (Diplôme d'études en langue française)
**<u>French proficiency test for speakers of French. Aligns with CEFR levels A1-B2.</u><ref name=":7" />
* [[Diplomas de Español como Lengua Extranjera|DELE (Diplomas of Spanish as Foreign Language)]]
**<u>Issued by the Spanish [[Instituto Cervantes]] and the [[Spanish Ministry of Education and Science]]. Proficiency levels correspond to the [[Common European Framework of Reference for Languages|CEFR]].</u><ref>{{Cite web|title=DELE - DELE Exams, deadlines and exam dates {{!}} Spanish Diplomas|url=https://www.dele.org/|access-date=2021-04-04|website=www.dele.org}}</ref>
* [[Examination for Japanese University Admission]]
* [[General English Proficiency Test]]
* GOETHE
* [[Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi|HSK]] (汉语水平考试 Hànyǔ Shuǐpíng Kǎoshì-Chinese Proficiency Test)
**<u>Standardized test for [[Standard Chinese]] proficiency. Administered by an agency of the [[Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China|Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China.]] Scores I-VI.</u><ref>{{Cite web|title=考试介绍--汉语考试服务网|url=http://www.chinesetest.cn/gosign.do?id=1&lid=0|access-date=2021-04-04|website=www.chinesetest.cn}}</ref>
* [[IELTS]] (International English Language Testing System)
** <u>Created by [[Cambridge Assessment English]]. In addition to [[Test of English as a Foreign Language|TOEFL]], One of the most widely used English language tests.</u> <u>Divided into listening, reading, writing and speaking sections. Scores range from 0 to 9, and scores 4 to 9 correspond to [[Common European Framework of Reference for Languages|CEFR]] levels B1, B2, C1, and C2.</u><ref>{{Cite web|title=What is IELTS?|url=https://www.ielts.org/en-us/about-ielts/what-is-ielts|access-date=2021-04-04|website=www.ielts.org}}</ref>
* [[International Test of English Proficiency|iTEP]] (International Test of English Proficiency)
* [[Japanese Language Proficiency Test]] (日本語能力試験 Nihongo Nōryoku Shiken)
* [[Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers]]
* [[Pearson Language Tests#Pearson%20Test%20of%20English%20Academic|Pearson Test of English Academic (PTE-A)]]
* Pipplet Fluency Exam CEFR oral and writing
* [[PLIDA]] (Progetto Lingua Italiana Dante Alighieri)
* [[The European Language Certificates]] (telc - language tests)
**Corresponds to the CEFR proficiency levels.
* [[TOEFL]] (Test of English as a Foreign Language)
** <u>Created by the [[Educational Testing Service]]. In addition to [[International English Language Testing System|IETLS]], one of the mostly widely used English language tests. Divided into reading, listening, speaking and writing sections. Each section has a maximum score of 30 points, for a maximum total of 120 points.</u><ref>{{Cite web|title=Understanding Your TOEFL iBT Scores (For Test Takers)|url=https://www.ets.org/toefl/test-takers/ibt/scores/understanding/|access-date=2021-04-04|website=www.ets.org}}</ref>
* [[TOEIC]] (Test of English for International Communication)
* [[TOPIK]] (한국어능력시험 Test of Proficiency in Korean)
**<u>Scores from 1-6. 1-2 are TOPIK-I (beginner) scores and 4-6 (intermediate/advanced) are TOPIK-II scores.</u><ref>{{Cite web|title=About the Test|url=https://www.topik.go.kr/usr/cmm/subLocation.do?menuSeq=2210101#none|url-status=live|access-date=21-04-04|website=TOPIK: Test of Proficiency in Korean}}</ref>
* [[TEPS]] (Test of English Proficiency developed by Seoul National University)
* [[Test of Russian as a Foreign Language]]
**<u>Scores correspond to the [[Common European Framework of Reference for Languages|CEFR]] proficiency levels.</u><ref>{{Cite web|title=TORFL - Saint Petersburg University|url=https://english.spbu.ru/torfl|access-date=2021-04-04|website=english.spbu.ru}}</ref>
* [[Test de français international]]
* [[Test de connaissance du français]]
* [[Test of Chinese as a Foreign Language|TOCFL]] (華語文能力測驗 Test of Chinese as a Foreign Language)
* UBELT ([[University of Bath]] English Language Test)


See also: [[:Category:Language certification|Language tests category]]
=== [Brenna's Topic Here] ===


== References ==
== References ==

Latest revision as of 00:27, 16 April 2021

Language proficiency is the ability of an individual to use language with a level of accuracy that transfers meaning in production and comprehension. There is no singular definition of language proficiency, however, and this has implications for its application in other language domains such as literacy, testing, endangered languages, language impairment, etc. There is little consistency as to how different organizations define it, and it is evaluated in different ways by different organizations. L2 proficiency develops differently from L1 proficiency, and can be impacted by the L1, by age of acquisition and by individual learner motivations and behaviors.

Second Language (L2) Proficiency

[edit]

Defining L2 Proficiency - Jolie

[edit]

Over the last half century, there has been much debate as to how to define L2 proficiency. An early theory by Lado focused on the four "skills" of language--reading, writing, speaking, and listening[1]. These skills are still emphasized today in many instructional materials. [2] While early theories by Chomsky and Lado, among others, focused almost exclusively on grammatical knowledge, in the 1970s, Hymes popularized the idea of pragmatic communicative competence, with competence defined as encompassing both knowledge of and use of language.[2][3] In 1980, Canale and Swain published their own framework for communicative competence, based on 3 sub-competencies: grammatical, sociolinguistic, and strategic.[4] There has also been much debate as to the difference between competence and performance, and whether proficiency encompasses, or is encompassed by, one or both of these concepts. In the 1980s, Ingram, followed by Taylor, argued that proficiency should not only consider knowledge, but how that knowledge is put to use in a given context.[5][6][7] More recently, Hulstijn has proposed his own detailed definition of proficiency which can be applied to both native and non-native speakers. Per his definition, proficiency comprises the ability to function in any given situational context in any given modality--listening, reading, writing and speaking. His definition also includes metacognitive and metalinguistic components in addition to core components such as phonology and morphosyntax.[2][8] Still, there is much debate about defining proficiency, and these differing definitions of proficiency can greatly affect how proficiency is measured.

Developing L2 Proficiency - Katie

[edit]

Developing L2 Proficiency

[edit]

To develop L2 proficiency, an individual needs to have active, self-directed involvement.[9] A self-directed learner actively engages in comprehending the material and is motivated to learn the L2. According to Skehan, this would include acquiring language through language learning strategies, which is an essential aspect of developing L2 proficiency.[9][10] Language learning strategies are applied for all parts of a language (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics).[11] [12] For example, in word learning, some strategies include looking words up in a dictionary and reviewing learned materials.[11] These strategies enhance language learning by provoking specific actions, behaviors, or techniques, such as word association with a synonym.[13][9] Not all methods are observable because of cognitive processes occurring while learning the language. The strategies differ depending on which part of the language one is trying to learn. An example is the branch of pragmatics, which applies how words are practically used.[12][14] Kasper found that when utilizing interlanguage pragmatics, the learner uses a more comparative approach instead of acquisition (how L1 is generated).[14]

Age of second language acquisition can affect the facility and speed of developing L2 proficiency. Patkowski performed research to see if a relationship exists in second language acquisition between age and acquisition of features.[15] He found that age plays a role in achieving native mastery for L2 when learning a second language in a natural setting.[15] Additionally, another study was performed on Chinese and Korean speakers learning English as an L2 at different ages. This research aimed to see if the age of arrival to the United States affected grammatical judgments.[16] The results support Patkowski, showing that the earlier a participant arrived in the United States, the more success they had at determining grammaticality judgments.[16][15] In terms of speed, Snow and Hoefnagel performed an experiment looking at how age impacts the rate of learning. At first, adolescents and adults learned language faster than children, but after a year, the children had surpassed the adults in language performance levels.[17] Based on these studies, age can affect a learner's capabilities in developing a second language. Second language proficiency is possible at any age, but different ages have distinct paces and abilities.

L1 Influence on L2 Proficiency - Brenna

[edit]

There is much debate pertaining to the effect that a speaker’s L1 may have on learning a second language and how a speaker’s L1 can later influence L2 proficiency. This cross-linguistic influence in second language acquisition is known as transfer, and Lado was among the first to refer to it as such.[18] Some components of L1 transfer include sounds, words, syntax and culture - and there are numerous perspectives regarding how these influences come into play in second language acquisition.

As previously mentioned, age of second language acquisition can play a role in an L2 learner’s capabilities. However, similarities and differences between a speaker’s L1 and their target L2 can play a role in second language acquisition as well. For example, for intermediate and late bilinguals, it has been widely found in studies that an L2 learner’s pronunciation is influenced by their L1.[18] Phonetic similarities between a speaker’s L1 and target L2 can lead to less deviation from native-like pronunciation of the L2.[18] Another idea relating L1 and L2 is the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, defined as “a way of comparing language in order to determine potential errors for the ultimate purpose of isolating what needs to be learned and what does not need to be learned in a second-language-learning situation.”[18] For example, by this way of thinking, a direct correspondence between structures of two different languages may come easier to an L2 learner as opposed to having to learn a structure that is absent in their L1 but present in the L2.[18] Error Analysis, like the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, is another perspective that pertains to the relationship between L1 and L2, but focuses on the comparison of the target language form and the target language produced.[18] While some linguists argue that incorrect productions of the target language (L2) may indicate some kind of influence from L1, there are also many who argue against it, claiming that an L1’s influence on L2 shouldn’t be limited to the errors found in L2 production.[19]

With the various perspectives regarding if and how L1 can influence L2 and so many other additional variables, it is difficult to pinpoint how each of the components of a speaker's L1 may impact the learning of an L2, let alone how these factors may influence proficiency. Further research is necessary to specify how L1 transfer can impact L2 proficiency in detail.

Evaluating L2 Proficiency and Proficiency Levels - Jolie

[edit]

Because proficiency encompasses many different modalities and types of competencies, it can be difficult for educators to evaluate. Some measures of proficiency assess multiple modalities or competencies for an overall proficiency evaluation, whereas others evaluate only one specific facet of proficiency.[2] The criteria for different scores or levels of proficiency can also vary between systems of measurement. In creating and defining proficiency scales, it is important to reference corpora which indicate natural and common stages of language development in order to align proficiency levels with typical stages of L2 acquisition.[2]

There exist a number of popular frameworks for understanding and organizing proficiency levels--though they are not, in themselves, actual assessments. One of the most widely used frameworks for proficiency is the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. It serves as a standard for proficiency measurement across Europe and in many other countries outside of Europe. It measures general and communicative competences via activities and tasks. The three main levels, A (Basic User), B (Independent User), and C (Proficient User) are broken into sub-levels 1 and 2, with C2 being the highest level.[20] In the US, the American Council of the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) proficiency guidelines are widely used. The guidelines break proficiency into five levels (Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, Superior, Distinguished), with the lowest three levels subdivided into low, mid and high.[21] It is important to note that the ACTFL guidelines and Common European Framework are intended to be used not as assessments, but as guidelines in creating curricula and assessments.[20][22] They can serve as a tool for helping learners self-assess during the course of their learning.[22] CEFR actually provides a self-assessment grid for learners.[20]

There are a number of tests designed for proficiency assessment, many of them following the Common European Framework proficiency levels. ACTFL has created a number of tests by skill based on the ACTFL guidelines.[23] Please see the Proficiency Tests section below for more information and tests.

Proficiency Frameworks - Jolie

[edit]

(underlined info was added by Jolie to existing article info)

Note that levels may not correlate reliably:

  • ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines ACTFL recognizes five different levels of proficiency: novice, intermediate, advanced, superior, and distinguished, of which the first three are each subdivided into low, mid, and high. These levels of proficiency are defined by Can-Do statements in three modes of communication--interpersonal, interpretive and presentational.[21][22] There has been some concern that the ACTFL Can-Do Statements are too vague and that the difficulty of some skills may not match appropriately with proficiency levels. In a study by Tigchelaar et al., fifteen of the 50 selected Can-Do Statements were found to be inconsistent with the prescribed proficiency levels.[24]
  • CEFR - Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: The Common European Framework defines levels of proficiency based on general and communicative competence. It consists of six levels: A1 and A2 (Basic Users), B1 and B2 (Independent Users), and C1 and C2 (Proficient Users), with C2 being the highest and A1 being the lowest. Proficiency levels are defined by descriptors of what the user can understand, produce and communicate. It addresses the structural accuracy of speaker utterances and, to some extent, speaker performance in varying sociolinguistic contexts. For example, a C1 speaker can read and understand a variety of texts, produce detailed, structurally-sound utterances, and interact appropriately in social, academic and professional contexts, to name a few.[20] However, the CEFR has been criticized for being overly subjective, making it hard to to ensure inter-rater reliability.[2][25] Additionally, the highest levels (B2, C1, and C2) may require very high levels of education for L1 and L2 speakers alike to achieve them.[2]
  • Foreign Service Institute School of Language Studies. Levels range from 0 to 5. (deprecated)
  • Interagency Language Roundtable Levels range from 0 to 5. (evolved from FSI)
  • Language Proficiency Index

Proficiency Tests - Jolie

[edit]

(underlined info was added by Jolie to existing article info)

See also: Language tests category

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Lado, Robert (1964). Language testing: The construction and use of foreign language tests: A teacher's book. New York: McGraw-Hill. OCLC 395065271.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g Leclerq, Pascale; Edmonds, Amanda; Hilton, Heather (2014). Measuring L2 proficiency : perspectives from SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. ISBN 978-1-78309-228-4. OCLC 870699275.
  3. ^ Hymes, Dell (1972). "On communicative competence". In Pride, J. B.; Holmes, Janet (eds.). Sociolinguistics: selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-080665-2. OCLC 651225.
  4. ^ Canale, M.; Swain, M (1980-03-01). "Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing". Applied Linguistics. 1 (1): 1–47. doi:10.1093/applin/1.1.1. ISSN 0142-6001.
  5. ^ Iyldyz, Leila B. (2007). "Rethinking Validity of the L2 Proficiency Concept: Lessons for EIL" (PDF). Asian EFL Journal. 9 (1): 65–85. ISSN 1738-1460.
  6. ^ Taylor, D (1988). "The meaning and use of the term 'competence' in linguistics and applied linguistics". Applied Linguistics. 9(2): 146–168.
  7. ^ Ingram, D. (1985). "Assessing proficiency: An overview of some aspects of testing". In Hyltenstam, K.; Pienemann, M. (eds.). Modelling and assessing second language development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp. 216–276. ISBN 0905028414.
  8. ^ Hulstijn, Jan H. (2015). Language Proficiency in Native and Non-native Speakers. Language Learning & Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN 978-90-272-1324-2.
  9. ^ a b c Green, John M.; Oxford, Rebecca (1995). "A Closer Look at Learning Strategies, L2 Proficiency, and Gender". TESOL Quarterly. 29 (2): 261. doi:10.2307/3587625. ISSN 0039-8322.
  10. ^ Skehan, Peter (2014-04-04). "Individual Differences in Second Language Learning". doi:10.4324/9781315831664. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  11. ^ a b author., Lightbown, Patsy M., (2013). How Languages are Learned 4th edition. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-454129-9. OCLC 968094719. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. ^ a b Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen (2013-02-13). "Developing L2 Pragmatics". Language Learning. 63: 68–86. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x. ISSN 0023-8333.
  13. ^ Phoocharoensil, Supakorn (2014-12-01). "Exploring Learners' Developing L2 Collocational Competence". Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 4 (12). doi:10.4304/tpls.4.12.2533-2540. ISSN 1799-2591.
  14. ^ a b Kasper, Gabriele (1992-10). "Pragmatic transfer". Interlanguage studies bulletin (Utrecht). 8 (3): 203–231. doi:10.1177/026765839200800303. ISSN 0165-9960. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  15. ^ a b c Patkowski, Mark S. (1980-12). "THE SENSITIVE PERIOD FOR THE ACQUISITION OF SYNTAX IN A SECOND LANGUAGE1". Language Learning. 30 (2): 449–468. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1980.tb00328.x. ISSN 0023-8333. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  16. ^ a b Johnson, Jacqueline S; Newport, Elissa L (1989-01). "Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language". Cognitive Psychology. 21 (1): 60–99. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0. ISSN 0010-0285. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  17. ^ Snow, Catherine E.; Hoefnagel-Hohle, Marian (1978-12). "The Critical Period for Language Acquisition: Evidence from Second Language Learning". Child Development. 49 (4): 1114. doi:10.2307/1128751. ISSN 0009-3920. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  18. ^ a b c d e f Wang, Zhanming (2014-10-26). "Review of the Influence of L1 in L2 Acquisition". Studies in Literature and Language. 9 (2): 57–60. doi:10.3968/n. ISSN 1923-1563.
  19. ^ Håkan., Ringbom, (1987). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Multilingual Matters Ltd. ISBN 0-905028-81-3. OCLC 913056523.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  20. ^ a b c d Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching and Assessment. Council of Europe. pp. 9–27.
  21. ^ a b "ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012 | ACTFL". www.actfl.org. Retrieved 2021-04-04.
  22. ^ a b c "NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements | ACTFL". www.actfl.org. Retrieved 2021-04-04.
  23. ^ "ACTFL Assessments | ACTFL". www.actfl.org. Retrieved 2021-04-04.
  24. ^ Tigchelaar, Magda; Bowles, Ryan P.; Winke, Paula; Gass, Susan (2017-08-11). "Assessing the Validity of ACTFL Can-Do Statements for Spoken Proficiency: A Rasch Analysis". Foreign Language Annals. 50 (3): 584–600. doi:10.1111/flan.12286. ISSN 0015-718X.
  25. ^ Hulstijn, Jan H. (2007). "The Shaky Ground Beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and Qualitative Dimensions of Language Proficiency1". The Modern Language Journal. 91 (4): 663–667. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_5.x. ISSN 0026-7902.
  26. ^ "Exams and tests | Cambridge English". www.cambridgeenglish.org. Retrieved 2021-04-04.
  27. ^ a b "DELF-DALF – French Institute Alliance Française (FIAF)". Retrieved 2021-04-04.
  28. ^ "DELE - DELE Exams, deadlines and exam dates | Spanish Diplomas". www.dele.org. Retrieved 2021-04-04.
  29. ^ "考试介绍--汉语考试服务网". www.chinesetest.cn. Retrieved 2021-04-04.
  30. ^ "What is IELTS?". www.ielts.org. Retrieved 2021-04-04.
  31. ^ "Understanding Your TOEFL iBT Scores (For Test Takers)". www.ets.org. Retrieved 2021-04-04.
  32. ^ "About the Test". TOPIK: Test of Proficiency in Korean. Retrieved 21-04-04. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  33. ^ "TORFL - Saint Petersburg University". english.spbu.ru. Retrieved 2021-04-04.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Kmbaich/Language_Proficiency&oldid=1018043428"