In 1988, linguists James P. Lantolf and William Frawley stated that, in the quest to characterize just what exactly is meant by language proficiency, “we are no closer to understanding the concept today than we were 20 years ago” (Lantolf & Frawley, 1988, p. 185). Another quarter century has passed since Lantolf and Frawley’s disheartening declaration, yet the question remains: How do we untangle the construct of proficiency? Although theoretical and empirical efforts over the years have attempted to identify the components of proficiency, anything resembling a consensus has yet to be reached. With more than four decades devoted to delineating this seemingly simple idea, doubt emerges as to whether a single definition indeed exists that can satisfy the factions of professionals in the second language acquisition field. However, recent paths of thought have trod in a promising direction. Researchers are painting a more sophisticated picture of proficiency through the application of measurable linguistic features to traditionally subjective competency descriptions. As this linguistic quantification process continues, we can begin to examine how a deeper, more precise understanding of proficiency can inform the curriculum and assessments that determine student readiness to enter university study. Thus, this paper serves two purposes. First, it reviews historical and contemporary interpretations of proficiency and, in doing so, outlines the measurement strategies in use in the realm of English for academic purposes. Second, it crosses the bridge from English proficiency testing to university academia, analyzing the factors in play in student academic readiness and the role of language proficiency in student success.
In 1988, linguists James P. Lantolf and William Frawley stated that, in the quest to characterize just what exactly is meant by language proficiency, “we are no closer to understanding the concept today than we were 20 years ago” (Lantolf & Frawley, 1988, p. 185). Another quarter century has passed since Lantolf and Frawley’s disheartening declaration, yet the question remains: How do we untangle the construct of proficiency? Although theoretical and empirical efforts over the years have attempted to identify the components of proficiency, anything resembling a consensus has yet to be reached. With more than four decades devoted to delineating this seemingly simple idea, doubt emerges as to whether a single definition indeed exists that can satisfy the factions of professionals in the second language acquisition field. However, recent paths of thought have trod in a promising direction. Researchers are painting a more sophisticated picture of proficiency through the application of measurable linguistic features to traditionally subjective competency descriptions. As this linguistic quantification process continues, we can begin to examine how a deeper, more precise understanding of proficiency can inform the curriculum and assessments that determine student readiness to enter university study. Thus, this paper serves two purposes. First, it reviews historical and contemporary interpretations of proficiency and, in doing so, outlines the measurement strategies in use in the realm of English for academic purposes. Second, it crosses the bridge from English proficiency testing to university academia, analyzing the factors in play in student academic readiness and the role of language proficiency in student success.
Using domestic student teaching assistants (SAs) in the ESOL classroom has been widely accepted as an effective tool for enhancing student learning. SAs have been shown to facilitate student participation in the classroom, foster students’ confidence in interacting with native speakers, and serve as a connection to the local culture (Lynch & Anderson, 2001). To capitalize on the benefits afforded by SAs, the AEC has, since 2007, integrated SAs into level one courses. However, research literature underscores that, to maximize SA efficacy, SAs must be purposefully trained for their roles (Gube & Phillipson, 2011; Kachi & Choon-hwa, 2001; Underhill & McDonald, 2010; Williams, 1991). As new GTAs, we observed that the AEC’s SAs represent a broad range of personalities, facilities, and experiences. Given these variances in SAs’ skills, we found ourselves questioning to what standard of knowledge we could and should hold them. Defining such a standard would enable teachers to design class activities that most productively draw upon the strengths of SAs without overstepping the boundaries of their expertise. Three lines of inquiry arose out of this realization: 1) What are the expectations of SAs at the AEC? 2) Do the AEC’s current, procedure-focused SA training practices satisfactorily prepare SAs to meet these expectations? If not, 3) how can the training program be improved to make the presence of SAs in the classroom more fruitful for students, teachers, and SAs alike?
No abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.