Proficiency

Abstract

The notion of ‘proficiency’ is generally taken for granted in ELT. It is widely assumed that proficiency is the goal of language learning and teaching, as is suggested, for example, by the title of the Cambridge ‘Certificate of Proficiency in English’ (CPE), now known as ‘Cambridge English: Proficiency’, with its history of over a hundred years (Weir, Vidakovic, and Galaczi 2013). Another assumption is that levels of proficiency can be identified, at least in broad terms, as implied by the typical division of classes or coursebooks into ‘elementary’, ‘intermediate’ (lower and upper), and ‘advanced’ levels. Thus, it is worth unpacking the notion of ‘proficiency’, due to the fundamental role it plays in language teaching, learning, and assessment. It is generally recognized that the concept of proficiency in a second or foreign language comprises the aspects of being able to do something with the language (‘knowing how’) as well as knowing about it (‘knowing what’). Accordingly, language proficiency encompasses a language learner’s or user’s communicative abilities, knowledge systems, and skills (for example Canale 1983). One widely accepted definition states that proficiency refers to ‘what someone can do/knows in relation to the application of the subject in the real world’ (Council of Europe 2001: 183). Serious thought began to be given to the concept of language proficiency in the 1970s, when researchers were striving to conceptualize what it is that is elicited in language tests and to make tests more ‘communicative’, that is, related less to knowledge about and more to skills in ‘how to do things’ with language (cf. the overview in Harsch 2014). Their efforts were related to the general development of successive models of communicative competence (for example Hymes 1972; Canale and Swain 1981) and to considerations with regard to capturing the nature of actual ‘language performance’. Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) influential conceptualization of language proficiency built on the earlier work of Hymes (ibid.) and Canale and Swain (ibid.). While the two earlier models described different aspects of what is needed to communicate appropriately in a language, that is, sociolinguistic and discourse competences besides linguistic knowledge (for example grammar and vocabulary), Bachman and Palmer ‘s (ibid.) model is more comprehensive and better related to actual performance. It specifically acknowledges the intertwinedness of pragmatic, textual, strategic, and grammatical competences and their mutual dependence on context, persons, and purpose. According to this conceptualization, proficiency can be regarded as the purposeful and appropriate application of one’s communicative competences. In parallel with this line of relatively applied linguistic work, research was being undertaken in the educational domain which resulted in another way of conceptualizing proficiency, in terms of Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) versus Communicative Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) (Cummins 1979). BICS are skills needed to interact with other people in everyday situations, while CALP refers to academic knowledge and skills acquired in formal schooling, thereby denoting a kind of proficiency which is needed for academic tasks such as comparing, contrasting, or evaluating. In the 1980s, an important debate arose in the language testing community regarding whether proficiency is unitary or divisible. The debate was instigated by Oller’s (1979) claim that there is one unitary factor underlying all language use, in other words that proficiency is indivisible (as represented, in cruder terms, in the way coursebooks assume that ‘levels’ apply across all skills equally). This claim was refuted, for example by Palmer and Bachmann (1981), who regarded proficiency as a divisible concept, as something which could be broken down into smaller parts, such as different skills (for example speaking or writing) and different aspects of competence (for example pragmatic or linguistic competences). The 1980s, then, saw the emergence of conceptualizations of proficiency which acknowledged its complex, multifaceted nature (Oller 1983). Nowadays, a relatively complex and multidimensional conceptualization of language proficiency tends to underlie the teaching, learning, and assessment of foreign languages, one which acknowledges that there are different communicative skills, communicative strategies, and a variety of linguistic competences (for example vocabulary, grammar, socio-pragmatic). This complex conceptualization is represented in one of the most influential frameworks for language teaching, learning, and assessment, the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for Languages (Council of Europe op.cit.). The CEFR describes six ascending levels of proficiency, replacing previous ‘elementary’, ‘intermediate’, and ‘advanced’ labels with a set of letters and numbers (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2). Since its publication in 2001, the CEFR has strongly influenced many foreign language classrooms, coursebooks, curricula, and tests, as well as learners more directly by way of the European Language Portfolio. One noteworthy aspect is that the CEFR describes proficiency on different layers of specificity and abstractness. On the top layer, a general, abstract overall perspective on proficiency is presented1 while successive layers break proficiency down into levels of ever-increasing specificity, thereby distinguishing oral and written forms of productive, interactive, and receptive skills, and communicative strategies as well as linguistic competences such as vocabulary, grammar, and orthography. Depending on the focus of teaching, learning, or assessment, the proficiency model in the CEFR allows teachers to focus on different degrees of specificity, ranging from diagnostic information on a very detailed level to generalized information on a learner’s overall level of proficiency. While the widespread use of the CEFR implies a relative degree of harmony about how proficiency is currently conceived, the CEFR’s conceptualization is not without critics. Hulstijn (2011a,b), for instance, critiques it for not differentiating between what he calls Basic Language Cognition, referring to aspects such as pronunciation and vocabulary needed for social interaction, and Higher Language Cognition, referring to more academic language usage such as summarizing texts or giving a presentation. Hulstijn’s critique chimes with Cummins’ earlier work on BICS and CALP (Cummins 1979, 2008). Hulstijn’s and Cummins’ conceptualizations have in common that they can inform higher-order learning and teaching goals in the ELT classroom. They show that proficiency is a concept which can be viewed from different angles, even when there is such a dominant conception of it as portrayed in the CEFR. Hence, ongoing research will add to and continue to enhance our understanding of what proficiency encompasses and how it can best be modelled. Claudia Harsch is a Professor at the University of Bremen, specializing in language learning, teaching, and assessment. She has worked in Germany and in the United Kingdom and is active in teacher training worldwide. Her research interests focus on areas such as language assessment, educational evaluation and measurement, intercultural communication, and the implementation of the CEFR. Claudia is the current President of the European Association of Language Testing and Assessment.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.