Communicative
competence and Proficiency
q
Communicative
Competence and the notion of proficiency
-
as concept of c.c. was reaction to Chomsky, the
proficiency guidelines were a reaction to c.c.
-
before communicative language teaching (clt), (bef. 1970s)
proficiency was often defined as structural accuracy
-
now teachers have started to understand that more is
involved than mastery of grammar
è
whole range of abilities needs to be described to make
sense
-
the ACTFL Provisional Guidelines (1982)
è
1st attempt by FL teaching profession to define
and describe levels of functional competence for an academic context in
a comprehensive fashion
q
The move towards
national standards: defining and assessing proficiency
-
MLA-ACLS Language Task Force
-
Recommendation:
-
“adoption of nationally recognized performance or
proficiency standards”
-
“revision and redevelopment of tests for the measurement
of proficiencies in the four language skills in all the most commonly
taught and wide-use languages”
at same time:
-
ETS (Educational Testing Service – Princeton – TOEFL,
GRE) approached proficiency from another perspective
Common yardstick (term coined as early as in 1970s) by 1980
è
a project attempting to define language proficiency levels
for academic context
è
used a scale similar to the one used by the federal
government
FSI (Foreign
Service Institute):
-
government scale had been developed in 1950s by one of the
major government language schools, the FSI
-
goal: to
describe language abilities of candidates for foreign service positions
-
11 major ranges for proficiency: 0-5 and + between levels
è
government mostly interested in higher levels (4 and 5)
-
in addition FSI had an interview-based evaluation
procedure for rating
Common
Yardstick/ ILR:
è
both the rating + the interview were of interest to ETS
-
organizations of countries such as US, GB and Germany
worked together
ð
outcome: adaptation of government scale w/ expansion of
lower levels
reason:
allow for greater latitude and precision in describing proficiency below
the ILR level two (that’s what teachers mostly deal with)
ð
project: ILR = Interagency Language Roundtable
ACTFL:
-
ACTFL continued work in 1981 (consulting MLA, ETS) and
came up with the:
ACTFL Provisional Proficiency Guidelines
(see App. A or actfl.org)
ð
this move towards proficiency guidelines is important
because it is a “grassroots” movement which relates to the perceived
needs of language teachers & programs, rather than being based on
one particular theory that might have been fashionable at the time
[yet guidelines share many of the same components
of theoretical frameworks]
q
Assessing language
proficiency using the ACTFL proficiency guidelines
-
the ACTFL prof. Guidelines define and measure language
ability in speaking, listening, reading, and writing
è
samples are elicited and evaluated according to certain
criteria*
! the proficiency scale is not linear, but more
like a multidimensional, expanding spiral
è
comparison: inverted
pyramid
-
see Ill. 1.2, p. 13
-
Superior = 3,4,5 on FSI scale
-
Easy to go form novice to intermediate; not so easy to go
from advanced to superior
*How are
levels of proficiency distinguished on ACTFL scale?
ð
4 interrelated assessment criteria underlying the
proficiency description:
1.
global tasks/functions, 2. Context/content, 3. Accuracy, 4. Text
type
ð
from ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview Tester Training
Manual
ð
see Ill. 1.3 , p.
14
ð
aiming for global evaluation, not for discrete points
(each little mistake is not counted)
1.
global tasks/funtions:
è
have to do w/ real-world tasks that the speaker can do in
language
lowest
level:
-
naming various objects
-
basic greetings
intermediate
range:
-
responding to simple questions
-
asking for information
advanced:
-
paragraph-length description + narration in different time
frames
superior:
-
developing an argument cogently & persuasively
-
support an opinion
-
discuss a hypothetical situation extensively and w/
sophistication
ð
increase of proficiency ≈ increase of accuracy &
precision
2.
a. Context
è
“refers to circumstances or settings in which a person
uses language”
lower
levels:
-
predictable situations (use of memorized, scripted
material)
higher
levels:
-
less predictable situations -> puts more demands +
flexibility on participant
[order food vs. political discussion => latter
requires more flexibility]
2.b. Content
è
refers to topics or themes of conversation (‘most
variable element of OPI’)
lower
levels:
-
autobiographical info
-
personal experiences & interests
è
“here and now” or concrete character
higher
levels:
-
content areas widen -> close to native language use
! content not hierarchical list of topics or
themes. Every topic can be
discussed at every level.
Example:
The family
Novice:
list family members
Intermediate:
brief description of family members
Advanced:
-
talk about family members in detail
-
recount common experiences, future plans
Superior:
more abstract topics, such as role of family, threats to family,
etc.
3.
Accuracy
è
acceptability, quality, and precision of message conveyed
features when assessing accuracy: fluency, grammar,
pronunciation, vocab, pragmatic competence, socioling. Comp.
Novice:
-
errors in almost all areas (accuracy possible through
memorization tough)
-
often incomprehensible to native speakers not used to
dealing with foreigners
-
native speaker bears responsibility of conversation
(filling in gaps)
Higher
levels:
-
decrease of above
4.
Text type
è
refers to structure of the discourse, i.e. “the quantity
and the organizational aspects of speech”
novice:
production of mainly isolated words and phrases
intermediate-level:
sentence-length discourse
advanced:
paragraph-length discourse
superior:
ability to speak extensively in an organized and sequenced fashion
ð
more specific characteristics of each level will make even
clearer how the components of communicative competence described by
Canale and others can be measured on a hierarchical scale within the
context of these four assessment criteria
