Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Theory of Bilingual Education
Adriana Sandí Cascante
Teaching Language in Context. Alice Omaggio Hadley
Chapter 1 Summary
On Knowing a Language: Defining and Assessing Proficiency
• Introduction
Our profession has recently had a growth. We have new approaches, materials, ideas, and
methodologies. This book helps teachers, educators, and students to understand the learning &
teaching process and its theoretical and practical issues in the classroom. It reviews several theories
about language acquisition.
What does proficient means?
It implies that a person knows a language. Not only ‘cause a student can carry on a simple conversation
or handle his/her needs as a tourist it means that he/she knows the language.
Chapter 1 looks at the issue of language proficiency and how it might be defined and understood.
• Defining Language Proficiency
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1978) defines it as “performing in a given
art, skill or branch of learning with expert correctness and facility.” It also implies “a high degree of
competence through training.”
Chomsky’s theory of transformationalgenerative grammar (1965)
It was based on abstractions of language and not on records of natural speech.
It is essentially based on the distinction between competence and performance. It distinguishes
between the ideal native speaker’s underlying competence and the individual’s performance.
It claims that performance does not accurately reflect underlying competence. Because the native
speaker’s performance is often so imperfect, & current performance did not reflect the underlying
knowledge sought by linguistic theory.
From grammatical competence to communicative competence
Chomsky’s theory served of basis of many other works. Canale & Swain (1980) reviewed the
competence & performance in Chomsky’s theory. They pointed Campbell & Wales (1970) as an
extension of Chomsky’s theory. Campbell & Wales accepted the distinction between competence &
performance but they feel the theory didn’t include any reference to the appropriateness of an utterance
to a particular situation or its sociocultural significance.
Hymes (1972) states that grammatical competence is just one component of the overall knowledge the
native speaker has. “Communicative competence” incorporates sociolinguistic contextual and
grammatical competence.
Savignon states that communicative competence is the ability to function in a truly communicative
setting and it is a dynamic (‘cause it changes) interpersonal trait that involves two or more persons
negotiating meaning together.
It applies to written & spoken language. It is contextspecific. The user will know how to choice in
register & style to fit the particular situation.
Competence is what one knows, performance is what one does.
Performance is observable, competence don’t. Competence can be developed, maintained & evaluated.
Linguistic accuracy, though of some importance in communication, should be considered as only one
of the major constituents of a communicative exchange (p.4)
Canale and Swain’s definition of communicative competence contains the 4 competences are:
1. Grammatical. The language user applies the linguistic code, including vocabulary, pronunciation,
& spelling, word formation, & sentence structure.
2. Sociolinguistic. Speakers can change their vocabulary, syntax, pronunciation, intonation, & non
verbal features to tailor their message for a particular person or situation.
3. Discourse. It’s the ability to combine ideas to achieve cohesion in form & coherence in thought. To
use cohesive devices, pronouns & grammatical connectors (conjunctions, adverbs, transitional
phrases)
4. Strategic. The use of verbal or nonverbal strategies to compensate language gaps or performance
breakdowns. It can be used to enhance rhetorical effectiveness. Students with lower proficiency
levels can learn communication strategies like paraphrasing, gestures, & to ask others to repeat,
speak slower or for meaning.
(pp. 56).
Bachman incorporates some of the same components identified by Canale and Swain, but arranged
and explained in a somewhat different fashion (p. 7)
He proposes psychophysiological mechanisms as part of the theoretical framework of "communicative
language ability" with strategic competence & Language Competence.
Language Competence is “ knowledge of language”
Language Competence
Organizational Competence Pragmatic Competence
(formal structure) (functional use of language)
Grammatical Textual Illocutionary Sociolinguistic
Competence Competence Competence Competence
emotions) Ideational functions
speechCultural referents & figures of
Heuristic functions (teaching, learning,
Sensitive to dialect or variety
Sensitive to register
Syntax
Phonemic & Graphemic
Cohesion
Rhetorical Organization
Morphology
Vocabulary
Imaginative functions (creativity)
Manipulative functions (doing things)
Sensitive to naturalness (nativelike)
solving problems)
Communicative Competence & the Notion of Proficiency
“Communicative Competence” at the 70’s had components of language ability needed to develop and
know a language well enough to use it. This early models didn’t specify levels of competence to
measure students proficiency. A clear meaning of proficiency was needed. By 1982, the ACTFL
Provisional Proficiency Guidelines described levels of functional competence for the academic
context.
The Move Toward National Standards
Because of the need of standards, The President’s 5 Native or Bilingual
Proficiency
Commission On Foreign Language & International Studies
4+
was formed, in Jimmy Carter’s administration (1978) 4 Distinguished
Superior
This commission proposed a “National Criteria & Proficiency
Assessment Program” to apply foreign language 3+
3 Professional Working
proficiency tests.
Proficiency
The Standards are the product of a collaborative effort Advanced High 2+
between ACTFL and several professional language 2 Limited Working
Advanced
associations. Proficiency
Intermediate High 1+
The Standards documents include “sample progress
Intermediate Mid
indicators for the 4th, 8th, and 12th grades and a set of Intermediate Low
1 Survival Proficiency
“sample learning scenarios” that were developed by Novice High 0+
teachers. Novice Mid
The Standards are not prescriptive and are not a Novice Low 0 No Practical Proficiency
curriculum guide. The Standards attempt to outline the
content of instruction.
In early 50’s the Foreign Service Institute FSI developed the government scale with 11 ranges of
proficiency:
Assessing Language Proficiency Using the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines
ACTFL are based in part on
work originally carried out by
the Foreign Service Institute.
It define & measure language
ability in speaking, listening,
reading, & writing.
It includes ratings that range
from 0 to 5. But it differs from
the ILR scale through the
expansion of descriptions of
performance. As one goes up
the scale, more language skill
is needed to attain the next
level.
The ratings of the Foreign
Service Institute (FSI) range
from 0 to 5, using "+"
designations between levels; the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines use ratings from Novice to Superior
(p. 11).
The assessment criteria include (1) global tasks/functions, (2) context/content, (3) accuracy, (4) text
type.
Novice (IRL Level 0/0+)
Limiting expression in the language. No real functional ability to communicative with what they know.
Using of a few memorized word or phrases. Unable to handle a typical “survival situation”.
Intermediate (IRL Level 1/1+)
Creating with the language. Expressing thoughts. Asking & answering questions. A minimal leel of
sociolinguistic competence. Can handle “survival situations”. Present tense, and limited vocabulary.
Maintaining simple facetoface conversations
Advanced (IRL Level 2/2+)
Narrating & describing. Speaking in paragraph, not in sentences. Facing a “survival situation” and
solving complications. A greater degree of sociolinguistic competence. Strategic & discourse
competence are improved. Comprehensive to native speakers.
Superior (IRL Level 3/3+ 4/4+ 5)
Professional level of proficiency. Giving opinions, hypothesizing, explaining, & describing with
details. Strategic & discourse competence are at high level.
• Proficiency & Language Acquisition Theory
Ellis (1985) concludes that there are 4 universal microstages of linguistic development:
1. Stage One, interlanguage forms resemble those of pidgin languages, with more or less standard
word order, regardless of the target language.
2. Stage Two, learners begin to use targetlanguage features in their speech but inaccurately.
3. Stage Three, learners begin to use grammatical elements systematical & meaningful.
4. Stage Four, learners acquire complex structures and basically use them correctly.
Testing experience has shown that learner languge can differ substantially on a microlevel.
• Some Research Findings About
Oral Proficiency
Magnan’s study (1986) found that student
performance reaches a plateau between
the third and fourth year of language
study.
As students progress from semester to
semester, they tend to become more
heterogeneous in their language
proficiency.
It is difficult for students in
undergraduate language programs to
reach the Superior level of proficiency.
The median graduate with a foreign
language major can speak and
comprehend the language only at about an
FSI Speaking rating of 2+' [2+ on ILR
scale = Advanced on ACTFL scale]
Expected Levels Of Speaking Proficiency
In Languages Taught At The Foreign Service Institute:
It’s important to keep in mind that this information comes from an intensive language training of adults
at the FSI.
• Issues In Language Proficiency Assessment: Caveats, Clarifications, & New Directions
Several scholars have critized the IRL and ACTFL Guidelines. They’ve questioned the appropiateness
of the oral proficiency interview.
Questions Regarding Oral Proficiency Assessment
Lantolf & Frawley said that The criteria used in oral proficiency testing are the same as those used by
native speakers engaged in conversation with nonnatives, and object to the use of “the educated native
speaker” as a reference point. They didn’t propose a clear alternative to the guidelines.Bachman,
Savignon, clark & Lett disagree with this point of view & consider the current guidelines a good
starting point. The development of proficiency guidelines and the use of common metric tests are a
good beginning point, but there are needs to be clearer distinction made between the differences in
performance assessment procedures.
The current oral interview procedure, while eliciting a realistic sample of formal conversation between
strangers, does not sample well other sociolinguistic contexts calling for different styles and/or
registers.
Tester training emphasizes that the content and context samples given in the guidelines are not meant
as checklists of discrete points to be included in every conversation, but rather serve as indicators of
the kinds of topics and situations that might be used to elicit a speech sample.
Clark & Lett suggest that in order to know a person’s language proficiency, it is neede to test language
in different contexts.
Questions Regarding Proficiency Assessment in Other Skills
Dandonoli & Henning’s investigation provided that strong support for the use of the guidelines to
develop proficiency tests.
Lee & Musumeci have questioned the validity of reading proficiency definitions.
The Notion of Language Proficiency: Some Further Clarifications
Proficiency is not a theory of language acquisition.
Proficiency is not a method of language teaching. It is focused on measurement (p. 33)
Proficiency is not a syllabus or curricular outline since it focuses on evaluation rather than sequential
language learning.
Proficiency doesn’t imply a preoccupation with grammar or error.
It shows some congruence between the global stages of language development and the overall
developmental progress discussed in the research.
It is characterized at the higher levels by a concern with accuracy and precision in the use of language,
but there is much debate on the precise role and value of grammatical instruction.