Designing and Sustaining a Foreign Language Writing Proficiency Assessment Program at the Postsecondary Level

Abstract

Writing in postsecondary foreign language contexts in North America has received far less attention in the curriculum than the development of oral proficiency. This article describes one institution's process of confronting the challenges not only of recognizing the contribution of writing to students' overall linguistic development, but also of implementing a program‐wide process of assessing writing proficiency. The article reports writing proficiency ratings that were collected over a 5‐year period for more than 4,000 learners in 10 languages, poses questions regarding the proficiency levels that postsecondary learners achieved across 2 years of foreign language instruction, and relates writing proficiency scores to Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview ratings for a subset of students. The article also articulates the crucial relationship between professional development and writing as well as the role of technology in collecting and assessing writing samples.

An Integrated Curriculum in Collegiate‐Level German Studies with Accompanying Proficiency Ratings

“…The curricular documents discussed above also describe parallel targets for writing proficiency. Indeed, the ratings are in the ranges revealed by previous research (Bernhardt et al, 2015). Figure 3 reveals that almost 30% of the students completing first year rate in the Intermediate High range.…”

“…Inter‐rater reliability is calculated each year and ranges from .87 to .99 across all languages. In 2008, the Center added WPA, anchored in the procedures for the Writing Proficiency Test (WPT) (Bernhardt, Molitoris, Romeo, Lin, & Valderrama, 2015). Each WPA is assessed by two WPT certified raters, many of whom test regularly for LTI.…”

Redefining writing in the foreign language curriculum: Toward a design approach

“…Subscribing to such a view may contribute to the idea that writing need not be explicitly taught given adult learners’ L1 literacies (Vyatkina, ). Bernhardt et al (), however, critiqued the continued lack of attention to FL writing, particularly because it is viewed as more challenging to acquire than oral language, given speaking's more spontaneous, unplanned nature. A related, longstanding view is that FL writing is “the last and most difficult language skill … something students will take up after having acquired the language through oral communication and reading” (Racelis & Matsuda, , p. 384).…”

“…However, in recent years, numerous scholars have critiqued the lack of focus on FL writing in the second language acquisition research base and in U.S. FL curricula (e.g., Belcher, ; Bernhardt, Molitoris, Romeo, Lin, & Valderrama, ; Byrnes et al, ; Hubert, ; Lefkowitz, ; O'Donnell, ; Reichelt, Lefkowtiz, Rinnert, & Schultz, ; Ruiz‐Funes, ; Schultz, ; Scott, ; Vyatkina, ). Among them, Schultz wrote:

Within the context of globalization, which should make the contributions of foreign language education so compelling … it seems to me ironic and disheartening that the teaching of writing within foreign language departments in the United States should still lag in terms of incorporating into the curriculum the growing body of L2 research … just as globalization reconfigures the teaching of literature and other disciplines, so, too, must the teaching of foreign language writing be reconfigured.

…”

“…However, in recent years, numerous scholars have critiqued the lack of focus on FL writing in the second language acquisition research base and in U.S. FL curricula (e.g., Belcher, 2012;Bernhardt, Molitoris, Romeo, Lin, & Valderrama, 2015;Byrnes et al, 2010;Hubert, 2014;Lefkowitz, 2011;O'Donnell, 2007;Reichelt, Lefkowtiz, Rinnert, & Schultz, 2012;Ruiz-Funes, 2011;Schultz, 2011;Scott, 1996;Vyatkina, 2011). Among them, Schultz wrote:…”