Assessing Speaking Proficiency in the Undergraduate Curriculum: Data from French

Abstract

Studies (22, p. 42) recommended the establishment of "language proficiency achievement goals for the end of each year of study at all levels, with special attention to speaking proficiencf In this same year, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) launched the oral proficiency interview in academia through the Testing Kit workshops. Now, seven years later, academic interest in oral proficiency testing has developed to the point where some institutions are beginning to associate expectations for student performance with specific proficiency levels, as measured by the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI).' We see the effects of this phenomenon both in the creation of proficiency-based requirements to replace credit-based requirements and in the appearance of articles and course material that focus instruction toward proficiency-oriented goak3However, such association of proficiency levels with levels of study is, at present, problematic, since we cannot yet adequately describe our students' linguistic competence in proficiency-based terms. As Lalande (14, p. 2) states, "it was never clear what differences in communicative skills were reasonable to expect from one level of language instruction to the next!' Before we can set standards in terms of the OPI, and then rely on those standards to orient curricular change, we need to identify the ability of our students. In other words, we need to understand the result of current instruction before we establish expectations for future performance.Another problem is that the OPI assesses only the speaking skill. Unfortunately, until we have adequate testing instruments-perhaps analagous to, perhaps essentially different from, the OPI-we cannot systematically gather information on listening, reading, writing, and culture.

A Ceiling Effect in Traditional Classroom Foreign Language Instruction: Data from Russian

“…of classroom instruction are also consistent with those of Magnan (1986) and Tschirner (1996) for French and German, respectively. The second question posed in this study is whether or not immersion instruction offers students a richer basis for the acquisition of Russian than that offered by traditional classroom instruction.…”

Lecturer and student perceptions on CLIL at a Spanish university

“…This belief may be due to the fact that lecturers' average level of English is very close to that of students' (upper-intermediate) and that this falls short of students' expectations of being exposed to a rich input. In fact, the recommended pre-requisite for university teaching assistants in many US universities is advanced plus or superior (Magnan 1986). Along the same lines, no student mentions that the students' insufficient English is a problem while lecturers stress that local students are not enough proficient.…”

Assessing Students' Oral Proficiency in an Outcome‐Based Curriculum: Student Performance and Teacher Intuitions

“…For example, in a study of 40 students of French at the University of Wisconsin, Magnan (1986) found a median proficiency level of Intermediate Low for the end of the 1st year of study (range from Novice Mid to Intermediate Mid/High); a median of Intermediate Mid for the end of the 2nd year (range from Intermediate Low to Advanced); a median of Intermediate High/Advanced for the end of the 3rd year (range from Intermediate Mid/High to Advanced/Advanced High); and a median of Advanced for the end of the 4th year (range from Intermediate Mid to Advanced High). Of utmost interest in the study, Magnan finds that "Students at the same level of oral proficiency may be en-3 rolled in different levels of study, and students of the same level of study may be at different levels of oral proficiency" (p. 430).…”