Teachers’ Oral Proficiency in the Target Language: Research on Its Role in Language Teaching and Learning

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. S1 S141

Krista S. Chambless (PhD, The University of Alabama) is Assistant Professor of Spanish at The University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Teachers’ Oral Profi ciency in the Target Language: Research on Its Role in Language Teaching and Learning

Krista S. ChamblessThe University of Alabama at Birmingham

Abstract: In the past decade, the foreign language (FL) profession has established standards for beginning language teachers that are used by accrediting agencies and state licensing agencies to make decisions regarding teacher preparation program recognition and teacher certifi cation. Among these expectations is the requirement that beginning teachers demonstrate a minimum level of Advanced-Low on the ACTFL Profi ciency Guidelines for Speaking. Consequently, the role that teachers’ oral profi -ciency in the target language (TL) plays in classroom instruction has become a critical issue in the fi eld of FL education. This review presents current research related to teach-ers’ TL profi ciency and its impact on classroom practices, teacher effectiveness, and student learning. The article raises questions that merit investigation in future research as it strives to clarify the role that teacher TL profi ciency plays in classroom instruction and learning of the TL.

Key words: foreign language education, methods, oral profi ciency, teacher prepara-tion, teacher standards

Introduction Over the past 10 years, a key focus of discussion in the fi eld of education in the United States has been on teacher effectiveness and student learning or achieve-ment (see for example, Darling-Hammond, 2000; Stronge, Ward, & Grant, 2011). Undoubtedly student achievement is one of the most critical issues in education today, often framed in foreign language (FL) education around the level of language profi ciency that students are able to demonstrate after a program of study. On a national level, the teacher’s role in student achievement has been brought to the forefront by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which called for “highly quali-fi ed” teachers (2001), on the grounds that knowledgeable teachers are effective teachers. According to NCLB, a “highly qualifi ed” teacher possesses a college degree with full certifi cation and demonstrates content knowledge in the subject taught.

Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 45, Iss. S1, pp. S141–S162. © 2012 by American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. DOI: 10.111/j.1944-9720.2012.01183.x.

S142 SUMMER 2012

learning has become a critical issue in the FL education fi eld.

Certainly, a teacher’s oral profi ciency in the TL is not the sole determining factor in student achievement, but it has been gen-erally accepted as an essential characteris-tic for effective teaching. This review seeks to explore the research related to teachers’ TL oral profi ciency and its effect on class-room practices, teacher effectiveness, and student learning. First, the concept of pro-fi ciency is defi ned and current profi ciency expectations for K–12 FL teachers are dis-cussed. Next, research on the profi ciency levels of FL teachers is examined, followed by research on FL classroom practices and teacher effectiveness. Finally, a research agenda with regard to the role of TL teacher profi ciency is presented.

Teacher Profi ciency: Assessment and Expectations In FL education in the United States, the ACTFL Profi ciency Guidelines—Speaking (ACTFL, 1986, 1999, 2012) are widely accepted as the model of speaking abil-ity in an FL, and the levels on the ACTFL scale are the FL profession’s current best attempt to describe a hierarchy of knowl-edge and skills that range from beginners in language learning to the profi ciency needed to function linguistically in a professional capacity. As Omaggio Hadley stated, “lan-guage profi ciency is not a monolithic con-cept representing an amorphous ideal that learners rarely attain; rather it is comprised of a whole range of abilities that must be described in a graduated fashion to be meaningful” (2001, pp. 8–9). Following initial work by the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) at the U.S. Department of State start-ing in the 1950s, the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR), a consortium of federal agencies concerned with language profi -ciency testing, developed a scale to describe profi ciency levels as well as an assessment interview to assign profi ciency ratings. ACTFL, in collaboration with the Modern Language Association and the Educational

Similarly, a U.S. Department of Education report (2002) stated that content knowl-edge is one of the most important compo-nents of teacher effectiveness. Because of the unique nature of the FL class, in which the language is not only the subject studied but also the medium of instruction, it seems uncontroversial to say that teachers must be able to speak the language in order to teach it. As Sullivan asserted, “all can agree that the French teacher who cannot speak French will not be a successful teacher of French” (2011, p. 241). Thus, a teacher’s oral profi ciency in the target language (TL), a major component of subject matter knowledge, would seem to be a signifi cant factor in both teaching effectiveness and student learning.

The intuitive assumption of a causal connection between a teacher’s oral profi -ciency in the TL and the teaching and learn-ing that take place in classrooms enjoys scant support in the empirical research lit-erature. However, an indirect connection can be made through research in second language acquisition (SLA) that indicates that the quantity and variety of TL input will indeed affect student learning. Propo-nents of the major theories of SLA argue that both abundant exposure to meaningful language (i.e., comprehensible input) and abundant opportunities to create meaning and solve linguistic problems in speak-ing and writing (i.e., “pushed output”; see Swain, 1985) promote language learning. Thus, it is intuitive to assume that teachers who have not attained a certain profi ciency level will be hard pressed to provide a lin-guistically rich instructional environment that will enable student learning to progress beyond the basics. Based on this common-sense assumption, several national organi-zations and state licensing authorities have established the level of Advanced Low in the ACTFL Profi ciency Guidelines—Speaking (ACTFL, 1999, 2012) as the minimum profi ciency standard for new teachers. Consequently, the role that a teacher’s oral profi ciency in the TL plays in classroom practices, teacher effectiveness, and student


gram Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers in 2002 (ACTFL, 2002a). NCATE, a national organization that accred-its teacher education programs at colleges and universities, uses a performance-based model in which institutions must provide evidence of teacher competence through teacher performance. The ACTFL/NCATE standards provide a framework for what FL teacher candidates should know and be able to do as they graduate from teacher preparation programs and enter the foreign language teaching profession.

The ACTFL/NCATE standards are aligned with the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) state licensing standards for beginning teachers, as well as the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) for accomplished teachers. These three sets of standards describe expectations across the career continuum of language teachers, while calling for a high level of TL profi ciency for FL teachers. INTASC (2002) states that teachers should have “suffi cient command of the target language to commu-nicate on a variety of topics in both formal and informal contexts. They can effectively conduct classes in the target language at all levels of instruction” (p. 13). Similarly, the NBPTS asserts that accomplished world language teachers should “exemplify a high profi ciency in the languages they teach” (2010, p. 27). Likewise, the ACTFL/NCATE standards call for candidates to demonstrate a high level of profi ciency in the target lan-guage (2002a, p. 3).

The ACTFL/NCATE standards state that teacher candidates should achieve an oral profi ciency level of Advanced Low or Intermediate High, depending on the language. ACTFL recognizes that the “expected level of oral profi ciency for teacher candidates is contingent on the spe-cifi c target language as well as the native language” (2002a, p. 4). Research con-ducted by the FSI has shown that it takes more time to develop a specifi c level of oral profi ciency in languages that are typo-logically distant from the learners’ native

Testing Service, adapted the ILR scale and interview procedure for academic use. Breiner-Sanders, Lowe, Miles, and Swender (2000) stated that the ACTFL Guidelines were designed to describe learners’ “func-tional competency, that is, their ability to accomplish linguistic tasks representing a variety of levels” (p. 1). The Guidelines have defi ned language speaking ability in terms of global profi ciency (i.e., the abil-ity to function within specifi c contexts in the TL with a certain level of grammatical accuracy). First published in a provisional form by ACTFL in 1982 (ACTFL, 1982), the Guidelines have undergone several revisions, the most recent one occurring in 2012, in an effort to continue to refi ne and expand performance descriptions.

The Oral Profi ciency Interview (OPI), adapted from the early ILR assessment interview procedure, is the tool used to assess a speaker’s oral profi ciency level. Administered in person or by phone in a conversational interview format, the OPI results in a rating of Novice, Intermedi-ate, Advanced, or Superior, with sub-levels of Low, Mid, and High for all of the lev-els except Superior. The interview is con-ducted by an ACTFL-certifi ed tester and is recorded to receive a second independent rating to ensure reliability.

The dissemination of the ACTFL Pro-fi ciency Guidelines through tester-training workshops, curriculum projects, teaching methods courses and textbooks, and lan-guage textbook publishing contributed to a paradigm shift in FL education that focused on meaningful, autonomous communica-tion in FL teaching. The increased attention to oral communication skill development from the beginning levels of language study created a demand for a higher level of oral profi ciency by language teachers as well. A review of the standards set by various agencies charged with assuring the quality of K–12 education reveals a convergence on Advanced Low on the ACTFL scale as the oral profi ciency standard for beginning FL teachers. In partnership with NCATE, ACTFL released The ACTFL/NCATE Pro-

S144 SUMMER 2012

dents to communicate, which can only be possible if teachers themselves exemplify effective communicative skills” (ACTFL, 2002a, p. 4). To this end, the choice of Advanced Low is based upon current SLA theories that assert the crucial role of input in the TL that focuses on meaning and prompts communicative interaction. (For a detailed description of Advanced Low pro-fi ciency, see Appendix A.) That is, speakers make sense of the input they hear by nego-tiating meaning with one another (Long, 1996), they engage in interaction using strategies such as turn-taking (Hall, 2010), and they interact with others in real-life conversations (Hall, 1999, 2004). Teach-ers need to be able to rely on their strong language skills to provide abundant and varied input as well as guide students to interact, interpret, and negotiate meaning. According to ACTFL, “teachers who are not at least Advanced Low level speakers [will] have diffi culty serving effectively as a facili-tator [sic] in helping students to negotiate meaning with one another and to func-tion spontaneously in the target language” (ACTFL, 2002b). It is further asserted that profi ciency at Advanced Low is the thresh-old needed for speakers to be able to pro-vide the type of input necessary and create the environment in which language acquisi-tion can occur. Phillips argued:

The teacher must have the facility to manage classroom communica-tion through negotiated meaning with students. That means possessing the ability to work spontaneously and crea-tively in the target language. To assist students to interpret texts as readers or listeners and to present information or creative works, teachers have to be highly skilled themselves. (1998, p. 5)

Although there is now a consensus among the various national FL professional organizations that Advanced Low is the minimum level needed to function effec-tively as a teacher, the states also impose licensing standards for teacher certifi ca-tion. On the one hand, to earn national

language than those that are typologically similar; for example, learners will typically need considerably more instructional time to reach the Advanced level of profi ciency in Arabic than in Spanish when the learn-ers’ native language is English (Liskin-Gas-parro, 1982).

In setting its oral profi ciency standards for beginning teachers, ACTFL assumes that most teacher candidates will be native English speakers. Based on the FSI’s esti-mate of the number of hours of study needed to reach the Speaking 3 level for its four groups of languages, ACTFL has set oral profi ciency standards for each group. Most languages taught in U.S. public high schools belong to Group I (e.g., French, Italian, Spanish) or Group II (e.g., German); less commonly taught languages belong to Group III (e.g., Russian) or Group IV (e.g., Arabic, Chinese, Japanese). While the ACTFL/NCATE standards have used this FSI paradigm to a large degree, they ulti-mately set profi ciency levels for teachers based on the recommendations of the vari-ous national language-specifi c organizations (e.g., American Association of Teachers of German). According to the ACTFL/NCATE standards, candidates who teach French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish must attain an oral profi ciency rating of Advanced-Low, mean-ing that they “contribute to the conversa-tion with suffi cient accuracy, clarity and precision to convey their intended message without misrepresentation or confusion,” and that “their speech can be under-stood by native speakers unaccustomed to dealing with non-natives” (ACTFL, 2012, p. 6). Candidates who teach Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean must reach the Inter-mediate High level of oral profi ciency, which means that they “handle a substan-tial number of tasks associated with the Advanced level, but they are unable to sus-tain performance of all of these tasks all of the time” (ACTFL, 2012, p. 7).

The authors of the ACTFL/NCATE standards asserted that “the heart of lan-guage instruction is the ability to teach stu-


the research is outdated (e.g., Carroll, 1967; Hiple & Manley; 1987; Thompson, 1996; Tschirner, 1996; Tschirner & Heilenman, 1998), and virtually none of the profi ciency testing followed the current ACTFL norm of OPIs conducted and independently rated by certifi ed testers. In the most recent large-scale study of the speaking skills of FL majors, Swender (2003) compiled offi cial ACTFL ratings on 501 FL majors in seven different languages from universities across the United States. It is important to note that there was no breakdown of how many of these majors were teacher education can-didates. She reported that only 47% of FL majors were rated at the Advanced level or higher. The most frequent profi ciency levels across the whole sample were Intermediate High (35%) and Advanced Low (21%).

The results of Swender (2003) may help explain the differences in state profi -ciency standards for entry-level FL teach-ers. Hypothetically speaking, if all of the FL majors in Swender (2003) were prospective FL teachers, just under half of them (47%) would qualify for certifi cation in the states in which the standard is Advanced Low. If the requirement were relaxed to include Intermediate High, 82% would qualify. Per-haps the lack of uniformity in oral profi -ciency standards for FL teacher certifi cation across states can be explained by dissonance between professional beliefs and practical reality: Some states may opt for the stand-ard that can be achieved by most teacher candidates, whereas NCATE and other states have chosen a higher standard based on professional principles; still other states have decided not to take a stand.

Two large-scale studies (Hamlyn, Surface, & Swender, 2007; Swender, Surface, Cahoon, & Glisan, 2011) have examined the profi ciency levels of FL teacher candidates, who constitute a dis-tinct subset of FL majors but also include college graduates who apply for certifi ca-tion through an alternate route. Both stud-ies analyzed data from offi cial, double-rated OPIs administered through Language Test-ing International (LTI). Hamlyn et al. (2007)

recognition by ACTFL/NCATE, college and university programs of FL teacher prepara-tion must assess their candidates’ oral profi -ciency with an offi cial form of the OPI (e.g., telephonic OPI, Advanced Level Check, OPIc) and must require a minimum level of Advanced Low (or Intermediate High in some languages, as discussed earlier). On the other hand, there is sometimes a disconnect between the level of oral profi -ciency required by the state and the level required by the institution. While the state may require a minimum level of Intermedi-ate-High, for example, the preparation pro-gram must still require Advanced Low if it is in an NCATE institution and aspires to attain ACTFL/NCATE national recognition.

Furthermore, despite the existence of national standards, teacher licensing requirements vary from state to state. Cur-rently, only 21 states have elected to defi ne “oral profi ciency” (the NCATE require-ment) as a specifi c profi ciency level on the ACTFL scale. Sixteen of these states require Advanced Low or higher, whereas the other four require Intermediate High. Some states require demonstration of oral profi ciency in some languages but not others. Some states allow individual institutions to decide how teacher candidates will demonstrate mas-tery of the profi ciency standard. Table 1 illustrates the list of the 21 states that cur-rently require the OPI or OPI/Writing Profi -ciency Test (WPT) for some component of their FL teacher certifi cation process.

Profi ciency Level of FL Majors/Teacher Candidates Given that most candidates for FL teacher certifi cation are also undergraduate stu-dents completing a major in the TL, research on the oral profi ciency ratings attained by both groups of students—FL majors and FL teacher candidates—can reveal the reasons for divergent state policies for FL teacher certifi cation. Research on the oral profi ciency levels of graduating FL majors paints an inconsistent picture, both across institutions and across languages. Much of

S146 SUMMER 2012

TAB

LE 1

Am

eric

an C

ou

nci

l on

th

e Te

ach

ing

of

Fore

ign

Lan

gu

ages

Th

e fo

llow

ing

stat

es a

re u

sin

g O

ffi c

ial A

CT

FL

tes

tin

g in

for

eign

lan

guag

es f

or s

ome

com

pon

ent

of t

hei

r te

ach

er c

erti

fi ca

tion

pro

cess

. T

hes

e st

ates

hav

e es

tabl

ish

ed a

for

mal

tes

tin

g pr

otoc

ol w

ith

th

e A

CT

FL

Tes

tin

g O

ffi c

e, L

TI,

to

asse

ss t

each

er c

andi

date

spe

akin

g an

d w

riti

ng

profi

cie

ncy

. T

he

min

imal

leve

l of

profi

cie

ncy

is e

stab

lish

ed b

y th

e in

divi

dual

sta

te.

Stat

eTe

stP

urp

ose

Req

uir

ed f

orM

inim

al le

vel r

equi

red:

OPI

/WPT

Ala

ska

OP

I/W

PT

Hig

hly

Qu

alifi

ed

Stat

us

(NC

LB)

Ch

ines

e, J

apan

ese,

an

d R

uss

ian

Adv

ance

d M

id/A

dvan

ced

Low

Ari

zon

aO

PI/

WP

TTe

ach

er C

erti

fi ca

tion

Wor

ld L

angu

ages

exc

ept f

or S

pani

sh,

Ger

man

, Fre

nch,

or

Eng

lish

Adv

ance

d L

ow/A

dvan

ced

Low

Ark

ansa

sO

PI/

WP

TTe

ach

er C

erti

fi ca

tion

—W

LC

hin

ese

Man

dari

nIn

term

edia

te H

igh

/In

term

edia

te

Hig

hC

onn

ecti

cut

OP

I/W

PT

*O

PI

Teac

her

Cer

tifi

cati

on—

WL

*To

w

aive

24

sem

este

r h

ours

of

cred

it

for

nat

ive/

nea

r-n

ativ

e sp

eake

rs

tow

ard

cert

ifi c

atio

n w

ith

an

A

dvan

ced

Low

rat

ing

on t

he

OP

I.

Wor

ld L

angu

ages

Inte

rmed

iate

Hig

h/I

nte

rmed

iate

H

igh

*A

dvan

ced

Low

(O

PI

only

)

Del

awar

eO

PI/

WP

TTe

ach

er C

erti

fi ca

tion

Bili

ngu

al o

r E

SOL

—L

angu

ages

u

sin

g R

oman

bas

ed a

lph

abet

Adv

ance

d L

ow/A

dvan

ced

Low

OP

I/W

PT

Bili

ngu

al o

r E

SOL

—L

angu

ages

u

sin

g n

on-R

oman

bas

ed a

lph

abet

Adv

ance

d L

ow/I

nte

rmed

iate

Hig

h

OP

I/W

PT

*Pra

xis

II S

pan

ish

, Fre

nch

, or

Ger

man

mu

st o

nly

be

use

d fo

r W

L S

pan

ish

, Fre

nch

or

Ger

man

ap

plic

ants

.

WL

—L

angu

ages

usi

ng

Rom

an

base

d al

phab

etA

dvan

ced

Low

/Adv

ance

d L

ow

WL

—L

angu

ages

usi

ng

non

-R

oman

bas

ed a

lph

abet

Adv

ance

d L

ow/I

nte

rmed

iate

Hig

h

OP

I/W

PT

*Pra

xis

II G

erm

an e

ffec

tive

Se

ptem

ber

1, 2

010


TAB

LE 1

Co

nti

nu

ed

Am

eric

an C

ou

nci

l on

th

e Te

ach

ing

of

Fore

ign

Lan

gu

ages

Th

e fo

llow

ing

stat

es a

re u

sin

g O

ffi c

ial A

CT

FL

tes

tin

g in

for

eign

lan

guag

es f

or s

ome

com

pon

ent

of t

hei

r te

ach

er c

erti

fi ca

tion

pro

cess

. T

hes

e st

ates

hav

e es

tabl

ish

ed a

for

mal

tes

tin

g pr

otoc

ol w

ith

th

e A

CT

FL

Tes

tin

g O

ffi c

e, L

TI,

to

asse

ss t

each

er c

andi

date

spe

akin

g an

d w

riti

ng

profi

cie

ncy

. T

he

min

imal

leve

l of

profi

cie

ncy

is e

stab

lish

ed b

y th

e in

divi

dual

sta

te.

Stat

eTe

stP

urp

ose

Req

uir

ed f

orM

inim

al le

vel r

equi

red:

OPI

/WPT

Flo

rida

OP

I/W

PT

Teac

her

Cer

tifi

cati

onA

rabi

c, H

aiti

an C

reol

e, H

ebre

w,

Hin

di, I

talia

n, J

apan

ese,

Man

dari

n,

Adv

ance

d L

ow/A

dvan

ced

Low

Per

sian

Far

si, P

ortu

gues

e, a

nd

Ru

ssia

n

Geo

rgia

OP

I/W

PT

Teac

hin

g P

erm

it—

WL

Lan

guag

es u

sin

g R

oman

bas

ed

alph

abet

Adv

ance

d L

ow/A

dvan

ced

Low

OP

I/W

PT

Lan

guag

es u

sin

g N

on-R

oman

ba

sed

alph

abet

sIn

term

edia

te H

igh

/In

term

edia

te

Hig

h

Mai

ne

OP

I/W

PT

Teac

her

Cer

tifi

cati

on—

WL

*as

an

alt

ern

ativ

e to

cou

rsew

ork

to

docu

men

t la

ngu

age

profi

cie

ncy

Wor

ld L

angu

ages

Adv

ance

d L

ow/A

dvan

ced

Low

Mar

ylan

dO

PI

or

OP

Ic

and

WP

T

Teac

her

Cer

tifi

cati

on—

WL

Ara

bic,

Ch

ines

e, I

tali

an, J

apan

ese,

an

d R

uss

ian

Inte

rmed

iate

Hig

h/I

nte

rmed

iate

H

igh

OP

I or

O

PIc

an

d W

PT

Teac

her

Cer

tifi

cati

on—

WL

as

an

alte

rnat

ive

to P

raxi

s II

Fre

nch

, Ger

man

, an

d Sp

anis

hIn

term

edia

te H

igh

/In

term

edia

te

Hig

h

S148 SUMMER 2012

TAB

LE 1

Co

nti

nu

ed

Am

eric

an C

ou

nci

l on

th

e Te

ach

ing

of

Fore

ign

Lan

gu

ages

Th

e fo

llow

ing

stat

es a

re u

sin

g O

ffi c

ial A

CT

FL

tes

tin

g in

for

eign

lan

guag

es f

or s

ome

com

pon

ent

of t

hei

r te

ach

er c

erti

fi ca

tion

pro

cess

. T

hes

e st

ates

hav

e es

tabl

ish

ed a

for

mal

tes

tin

g pr

otoc

ol w

ith

th

e A

CT

FL

Tes

tin

g O

ffi c

e, L

TI,

to

asse

ss t

each

er c

andi

date

spe

akin

g an

d w

riti

ng

profi

cie

ncy

. T

he

min

imal

leve

l of

profi

cie

ncy

is e

stab

lish

ed b

y th

e in

divi

dual

sta

te.

Stat

eTe

stP

urp

ose

Req

uir

ed f

orM

inim

al le

vel r

equi

red:

OPI

/WPT

New

Jer

sey

OP

ITe

ach

er C

erti

fi ca

tion

—W

LC

ateg

ory

I, I

I, I

II la

ngu

ages

Adv

ance

d L

ow (

OP

I on

ly)

Teac

her

Cer

tifi

cati

on—

WL

Cat

egor

y IV

lan

guag

esIn

term

edia

te H

igh

(O

PI

only

)O

PI/

WP

TTe

ach

er C

erti

fi ca

tion

—E

SLE

ngl

ish

Adv

ance

d L

ow/A

dvan

ced

Low

OP

I/W

PT

Teac

her

Cer

tifi

cati

on—

Bili

ngu

alE

ngl

ish

Adv

ance

d L

ow/A

dvan

ced

Low

Wor

ld L

angu

age

Adv

ance

d L

ow/A

dvan

ced

Low

New

Yor

kO

PI/

WP

TTe

ach

er C

erti

fi ca

tion

—L

angu

ages

O

ther

Th

an E

ngl

ish

(L

OT

E)

Rom

an a

lph

abet

bas

ed la

ngu

ages

A

dvan

ced

Low

/Adv

ance

d L

ow

OP

I/W

PT

*For

indi

vidu

als

wh

o ar

e n

ativ

e sp

eake

rs o

r th

ose

wh

o ar

e sk

ille

d an

d pr

ofi c

ien

t in

th

e la

ngu

age,

th

e O

PI

and

WP

T c

an b

e u

sed

in li

eu o

f co

lleg

e st

udy

in

con

ten

t kn

owle

dge,

incl

udi

ng

lan

guag

e(s)

an

d cu

ltu

re(s

), t

o sa

tisf

y u

p to

30

Con

ten

t H

ours

fo

r pu

rpos

es o

f ap

plyi

ng

for

teac

her

cer

tifi

cati

on (

Gra

des

5–9

or G

rade

s 7–

12).

Bot

h t

he

OP

I an

d W

PT

mu

st b

e ta

ken

in o

rder

to

mee

t th

e re

quir

emen

ts.

Non

-Rom

an a

lph

abet

bas

ed

lan

guag

esIn

term

edia

te H

igh

/In

term

edia

te

Hig

h


TAB

LE 1

Co

nti

nu

ed

Am

eric

an C

ou

nci

l on

th

e Te

ach

ing

of

Fore

ign

Lan

gu

ages

Th

e fo

llow

ing

stat

es a

re u

sin

g O

ffi c

ial A

CT

FL

tes

tin

g in

for

eign

lan

guag

es f

or s

ome

com

pon

ent

of t

hei

r te

ach

er c

erti

fi ca

tion

pro

cess

. T

hes

e st

ates

hav

e es

tabl

ish

ed a

for

mal

tes

tin

g pr

otoc

ol w

ith

th

e A

CT

FL

Tes

tin

g O

ffi c

e, L

TI,

to

asse

ss t

each

er c

andi

date

spe

akin

g an

d w

riti

ng

profi

cie

ncy

. T

he

min

imal

leve

l of

profi

cie

ncy

is e

stab

lish

ed b

y th

e in

divi

dual

sta

te.

Stat

eTe

stP

urp

ose

Req

uir

ed f

orM

inim

al le

vel r

equi

red:

OPI

/WPT

Nor

th

Car

olin

aO

PI/

WP

TL

ater

al E

ntr

y an

d A

dded

Are

a C

erti

fi ca

tion

Wor

ld L

angu

ages

Inte

rmed

iate

Hig

h/I

nte

rmed

iate

H

igh

Oh

ioO

PI/

WP

TTe

ach

er L

icen

sure

—W

LA

ll o

ther

Wor

ld L

angu

ages

be

gin

nin

g Se

ptem

ber

1, 2

009

Inte

rmed

iate

Hig

h/I

nte

rmed

iate

H

igh

OP

I/W

PT

“*Te

ach

er L

icen

sure

as

an

alte

rnat

ive

to P

raxi

s II

”*S

pan

ish

, Fre

nch

, an

d G

erm

anIn

term

edia

te H

igh

/In

term

edia

te

Hig

hP

enn

sylv

ania

OP

I/W

PT

Teac

her

cer

tifi

cati

on a

s an

al

tern

ativ

e to

th

e P

raxi

sW

orld

/For

eign

Lan

guag

esIn

term

edia

te H

igh

/In

term

edia

te

Hig

hTe

xas

OP

I/W

PT

Teac

her

Cer

tifi

cati

on-

LO

TE

Ara

bic,

Ch

ines

e, H

indi

, Ita

lian

Adv

ance

d L

ow/A

dvan

ced

Low

(lan

guag

es o

ther

than

Eng

lish

)Ja

pan

ese

and

Ru

ssia

nIn

term

edia

te H

igh/

Inte

rmed

iate

Hig

hTu

rkis

hA

dvan

ced

Low

/In

term

edia

te H

igh

Vie

tnam

ese

Adv

ance

d M

id/A

dvan

ced

Low

OP

I/W

PT

Teac

her

Cer

tifi

cati

on—

Bili

ngu

al

Ara

bic,

Ch

ines

e, J

apan

ese,

an

d V

ietn

ames

eIn

term

edia

te H

igh

/In

term

edia

te

Hig

hU

tah

OP

ITe

ach

er C

erti

fi ca

tion

—W

LA

ll a

vail

able

Wor

ld L

angu

ages

Adv

ance

d L

ow

OP

ID

ual

Im

mer

sion

All

ava

ilab

le W

orld

Lan

guag

esA

dvan

ced

Mid

Ver

mon

tO

PI

Teac

her

Cer

tifi

cati

on—

WL

Rom

an a

lph

abet

bas

ed la

ngu

ages

(o

ther

th

an F

ren

ch, G

erm

an,

Lat

in a

nd

Span

ish

)

Adv

ance

d L

ow

Non

-Rom

an a

lph

abet

bas

ed

lan

guag

esIn

term

edia

te H

igh

/In

term

edia

te

Hig

h

S150 SUMMER 2012

TAB

LE 1

Co

nti

nu

ed

Am

eric

an C

ou

nci

l on

th

e Te

ach

ing

of

Fore

ign

Lan

gu

ages

Th

e fo

llow

ing

stat

es a

re u

sin

g O

ffi c

ial A

CT

FL

tes

tin

g in

for

eign

lan

guag

es f

or s

ome

com

pon

ent

of t

hei

r te

ach

er c

erti

fi ca

tion

pro

cess

. T

hes

e st

ates

hav

e es

tabl

ish

ed a

for

mal

tes

tin

g pr

otoc

ol w

ith

th

e A

CT

FL

Tes

tin

g O

ffi c

e, L

TI,

to

asse

ss t

each

er c

andi

date

spe

akin

g an

d w

riti

ng

profi

cie

ncy

. T

he

min

imal

leve

l of

profi

cie

ncy

is e

stab

lish

ed b

y th

e in

divi

dual

sta

te.

Stat

eTe

stP

urp

ose

Req

uir

ed f

orM

inim

al le

vel r

equi

red:

OPI

/WPT

Vir

gin

iaO

PI/

WP

TTe

ach

er C

erti

fi ca

tion

—W

L a

s an

alt

ern

ativ

e to

cou

rsew

ork

to

docu

men

t la

ngu

age

profi

cie

ncy

All

ava

ilab

le W

orld

Lan

guag

esA

dvan

ced

Low

/Adv

ance

d L

ow

Was

hin

gton

OP

I or

O

PIc

/ an

d W

PT

“Bili

ngua

l Edu

cati

on E

ndor

sem

ent

for

Teac

her

Cer

tifi c

atio

n”A

ll a

vail

able

Wor

ld L

angu

ages

Adv

ance

d M

id /

Adv

ance

d M

id

OP

I or

O

PIc

an

d W

PT*

“Des

ign

ated

Wor

ld L

angu

age

En

dors

emen

t fo

r Te

ach

er

Cer

tifi

cati

on”

“Ch

ines

e, F

ren

ch, G

erm

an,

Japa

nes

e, N

orw

egia

n*,

Ru

ssia

n,

Span

ish

, Sw

edis

h*

*For

Nor

weg

ian

an

d Sw

edis

h t

he

WP

T is

not

req

uir

ed

Adv

ance

d L

ow /

Adv

ance

d L

ow

Wis

con

sin

OP

I/O

PIc

an

d W

PT

Des

ign

ated

Wor

ld L

angu

age

En

dors

emen

t fo

r Te

ach

er

Cer

tifi

cati

on

Ch

ines

e M

anda

rin

, Fre

nch

, G

erm

an, H

ebre

w, I

tali

an,

Japa

nes

e, P

ortu

gues

e, R

uss

ian

, an

d Sp

anis

h

Inte

rmed

iate

Hig

h/I

nte

rmed

iate

H

igh

Wyo

min

gO

PI

Teac

her

Cer

tifi

cati

on—

WL

All

Mod

ern

Lan

guag

esA

dvan

ced

Low

(O

PI

only

)


(See also the Huhn article in this volume.) Second, the data illustrated wide differences in OPI pass rates from one language to the next. For example, pass rates tended to be higher in Mandarin, Italian, and Span-ish than they were for Arabic, Russian, and Japanese. Future studies are certainly needed to examine possible factors that might explain these results and strengthen an understanding of how Advanced Low profi ciency might be attained by greater numbers of teacher candidates across all languages.

In a related study that explored FL teacher candidates’ preparation strategies for the OPI, Sullivan (2011) also reported OPI ratings. In a survey of 734 teacher can-didates, 72% reported OPI ratings of at least Advanced Low (p. 243). These OPI results differed signifi cantly from the fi ndings in Swender (2003), Hamlyn et al. (2007), and Swender et al. (2011). One possible expla-nation for the discrepancy is the source of the data: Sullivan’s came from self-reports, whereas the data in the other three studies came from ACTFL/LTI and state depart-ment of education records, respectively. Other possible sources of inconsistent fi ndings across these studies include the distribution of languages, as well as the percentage of the OPI test-takers who were native or heritage speakers of their respec-tive languages.

A comparison of the results of Swender (2003), Hamlyn et al. (2007), Swender et al. (2011), and Sullivan (2011) leads to sev-eral preliminary conclusions about the oral profi ciency levels of beginning FL teachers. It appears that the vast majority of both FL majors and FL teacher candidates could demonstrate at least an Intermediate High rating in speaking profi ciency. However, the two populations diverged in their success in reaching Advanced Low, with a greater percentage of FL teacher candidates achiev-ing oral profi ciency at this level: 47% for FL majors (Swender, 2003, p. 523) compared to at least 55% for FL teacher candidates (Swender et al., 2011, n.p.). This may be the case because teacher candidates often

collected OPI data on 3,198 teacher candi-dates from 10 states over a two-year period, 2005–2007. Heritage and native speakers were included in the sample. The research-ers looked at two types of data. First, they analyzed the data from NCATE institu-tions, where the Advanced Low level was the oral profi ciency standard. The fi ndings showed that 59% of teacher candidates met the standard. Subsequently they also ana-lyzed OPI data on teacher candidates in the states where the minimum profi ciency level was either Intermediate High or Advanced Low. They found that 85% of teacher can-didates reached the minimum standard set by their respective states on their fi rst OPI attempt. Because the overwhelming major-ity of candidates reached the standard, be it Intermediate High or Advanced Low, it is reasonable to assume that candidates tend to rise to the level that is expected of them.

Preliminary data were released from a recent follow-up study that examined OPI scores for 1,957 teacher candidates from FL teacher preparation programs in NCATE institutions for a four-year period, from 2006 to 2010 (Swender et al., 2011, n.p.). Languages tested were French, German, Italian, Spanish, Arabic, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, and Russian. Overall, 55% of test takers met the ACTFL/NCATE requirement in speaking (i.e., Advanced Low for French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Russian; Intermediate High for Arabic, Japanese, Korean, and Mandarin). Several additional fi ndings of importance were revealed by these data. First, universities had differ-ential results in terms of the number of teacher education candidates demonstrat-ing the ACTFL/NCATE standard in speak-ing; that is, some programs had a 100% pass rate of candidates on the OPI, while others had 88%, 33%, 13%, and even 0% (Swender et al., 2011, n.p.). The preliminary results of the Swender et al. (2011) study have not produced details regarding how the specifi c context of the preparation program may have impacted candidates’ success in devel-oping oral profi ciency, but this is certainly a question that begs future investigation.

S152 SUMMER 2012

Typical college programs provide only about 320 hours of instruction. Even taking into account that majors in most FLs start their study of the language in high school (cf. Rhodes & Pufahl, 2011, p. 263, who reported 10.5 million FL enrollments at the secondary level), students whose language study is largely or exclusively limited to classroom instruction face linguistic chal-lenges in attaining speaking profi ciency at the Advanced level (personal communica-tion, Liskin-Gasparro, September 2, 2011; Schulz, 2002).

All FL majors, including prospective FL teachers, can increase their chances of achieving an OPI rating of Advanced Low or higher if they study abroad. According to Schulz (2002), “it is generally accepted, and documented by research, that few learners will be able to jump the hurdle from an ‘Intermediate’ to an ‘Advanced’ rating on the ACTFL OPI scale without an experience abroad” (p. 5). Research that supports this assertion has been reported by Fraga-Caña-das (2010) in Spanish; Malone et al. (2003) in less commonly taught languages; and Sieloff-Magnan and Back (2007) in French. Study abroad, however, does not guaran-tee that learners can, in Schulz’s words, “jump the hurdle” from the Intermediate to Advanced level in speaking ability. Sullivan’s (2011) study revealed that although 97% of candidates who reached the Advanced Low level had studied abroad, 90% of candidates who did not reach the Advanced level had also studied abroad (p. 247). She found that one of the most signifi cant factors in achieving Advanced-level profi ciency was the amount of time spent using the TL out-side of class. Students who reported a pro-fi ciency rating of Advanced Low or higher also reported spending three times as many hours using the TL outside of class (19 vs. 6 hours per week) than those who did not reach the Advanced level. Therefore, it seems that study abroad may be neces-sary but not suffi cient to reach Advanced-level profi ciency, perhaps because students may not take advantage of the study abroad context to engage in extensive and varied

must meet the Advanced Low level as a pre-requisite for teacher certifi cation, whereas FL majors may not have to demonstrate a certain level of profi ciency to graduate. In addition, there are multiple factors that may play a role in a teacher candidate’s attain-ment of the Advanced Low level: (1) contex-tual factors such as the program’s awareness of the need to address profi ciency and its commitment to developing a program based on profi ciency goals and ensuring growth in the language profi ciency of its students, (2) the amount of time on task necessary for candidates to achieve the required pro-fi ciency level in a specifi c language, and (3) motivational factors such as candidates’ willingness to spend time outside of class to gain practice in speaking. These factors deserve further research attention.

An unknown consideration when ana-lyzing the profi ciency levels of today’s lan-guage teachers is the speaking profi ciency of FL candidates in the 29 states that do not specify a profi ciency level for begin-ning FL teachers and, consequently, whose teacher candidates do not take the OPI. Further, there is no research at all on the speaking ability of experienced teachers, either on those who entered the fi eld before the establishment of state-level profi ciency standards, or on the strengthening (or, pos-sibly, deterioration) of speaking skills over time.

Achieving Advanced-Level Profi ciencyThe research reported in the previous section presents a discouraging picture, especially the fi nding that fewer than half (47%) of a large sample (501) of FL majors failed to attain an oral profi ciency rating at the Advanced level (Swender, 2003, p. 523). One of the reasons for this result may be the time and experience with the FL needed for a learner to reach the Advanced level. According to Malone, Rifkin, Chris-tian, and Johnson (2003), it can take up to 720 hours of instruction to reach the Advanced level of language profi ciency.


opportunities to create meaning (output) to become profi cient. Consequently, national-level organizations have asserted that FL teachers must be suffi ciently profi cient in the TL to provide appropriate amounts and types of communicative experiences for their students. Based on these understand-ings, ACTFL issued a position statement that calls for near-exclusive (90%) use of the TL in the classroom to create an envi-ronment in which students can “develop language and cultural profi ciency” (ACTFL, 2010).

Given such widespread acceptance of the importance of exposing students to culturally and linguistically rich input and guiding them to engage in oral inter-actions, the use of the TL in the classroom should be embraced by FL teachers in their teaching practice. The research on teach-ers’ language use in the classroom does not support the application of theory to prac-tice. This general fi nding appears to hold across languages, instructional levels, and national boundaries. For example, Turnbull (2001) found that native language (L1) use ranged from 24 to 72% in a study of four French teachers at the secondary level in Canada (p. 536). In other studies, L1 use was found to range from 40 to 60% (Kim & Elder, 2005; Liu, Ahn, Baek, & Han, 2004; Macaro, 1997). Littlewood and Yu (2011) surveyed 50 second-year high school stu-dents of English in Hong Kong and Main-land China about their teachers’ use of the TL. Students in the Hong Kong sample reported that the TL was used 80% of the time, whereas students in the Mainland China sample reported TL by their teach-ers only 36% of the time (p. 67). While the disparity of these fi ndings is consistent with previous studies, it raises the question of the impact of teachers’ use or non-use of the TL on students’ beliefs about the purpose of FL learning and the (non)importance of developing speaking ability themselves, as revealed in the comment of a student who said that “in China we teach English through the medium of Chinese” (Little-wood & Yu, 2011, p. 67).

oral interactions with members of the TL community.

Extensive and varied use of the TL should be a goal of domestic undergraduate language programs as well as of programs abroad. Just as study abroad cannot guaran-tee engagement with the TL and the TL cul-ture, neither can it be assumed that students will continue to progress in their speaking skills when their courses shift from those that focus on language skill development to those that focus on literature and culture (Swaffar, 2004). Research on student dis-course in upper-division literature courses (e.g., Brooks & Donato, 2004; Mantero, 2006; Polio & Zyzik, 2009) has shown that students do not often engage in either the type or amount of speaking that will enable them to progress beyond the Intermediate level. For example, in their analysis of dis-cussions of literary texts in an upper-level undergraduate Spanish literature class, Donato and Brooks (2004) discovered that the instructor’s questions had one right answer only and enabled her to take the fl oor in the discussion rather than the stu-dents, the classroom discourse pattern did not encourage students to respond beyond the word and sentence level, and the range of time frames used in discussions was limited mostly to the present. It is unfor-tunate that the development of language profi ciency often appears to stop in upper-level language courses, especially given the fact that the very content of these courses has the potential to spark discussions and interactions that incorporate characteristics of advanced-level speech as defi ned in the ACTFL Profi ciency Guidelines.

Role of Teacher Profi ciency in Language Learning and TeachingTeacher TL Profi ciency and Classroom PracticeAs discussed earlier, it is widely accepted in FL education that students need rich comprehensible input as well as abundant

S154 SUMMER 2012

teacher use of the L1: establishing social relationships, maintaining classroom con-trol, and explaining diffi cult concepts. Thus, it appears that the profi ciency level of teachers may be only one factor in the use of TL in the classroom. Further research on teachers’ reasons for L1 use is essential to designing professional development pro-grams that will enable teachers to fulfi ll all important teaching functions through the medium of the TL.

Teacher TL Profi ciency and Teaching EffectivenessAlthough the research discussed in this lit-erature review makes indirect links among teacher profi ciency, TL use, and student learning, there is no research that estab-lishes a direct connection between teach-ers’ TL profi ciency and effective teaching. A major obstacle to research in this area is the lack of consensus on the defi nition of good/effective teaching (Brophy & Good, 1986; Brown & McIntyre, 1993; Kern, 1995). More specifi cally, there is a great deal of debate on whether language educators should defi ne teacher effectiveness accord-ing to “teacher inputs (e.g. qualifi cations), the teaching process (e.g., instructional practices), the product of teaching (e.g., effects on student learning), or a compos-ite of these elements” (Stronge et al., 2011, p. 340).

One promising approach to under-standing the complex construct of teacher effectiveness is to undertake a research pro-gram that would identify teaching behav-iors that have a positive effect on student learning (Andrews & Barnes, 1990; Schrier & Hammadou, 1994; Schulz, 2000) within and across languages and instructional con-texts. Such a broad-based project would require a coordinated effort by multiple research teams using both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies.

Research on teacher effectiveness will necessarily rely on the beliefs and percep-tions of the major stakeholders in FL edu-cation: the teachers and their students.

One obvious explanation for the per-vasive L1 use in FL classrooms is the low profi ciency levels of teachers. In several studies, prospective FL teachers reported that their TL profi ciency, or lack thereof, was a hindrance to success in their student teaching (Cooper, 2004; Fraga-Cañadas, 2010; Franklin, 1990). Likewise, Bateman (2008) found that “one overriding issue for many student teachers is a lack of confi -dence in their ability to conduct class in the target language” (p. 16).

Research in English as a foreign lan-guage (EFL) has also found oral profi ciency to be a factor in the amount of the TL used in the classroom. In a study of mid-dle school English teachers in Venezuela, Chacón (2005) found a correlation between language profi ciency and high teacher effi -cacy to engage students and teach them. The author concluded that EFL teachers who tended to focus on traditional gram-mar instruction at the expense of com-munication did so because the “lack of fl uency affects teachers’ judgments about their capability to speak English, prevent-ing them from orchestrating mastery expe-riences that foster real life communication” (p. 13). Chacón’s fi ndings are consistent with other research in the fi eld that also suggests that EFL teachers focus on gram-mar because of lack of confi dence in their oral skills (Chacón, 2003; Li, 1998; Sato, 2002; Sato & Kleinsasser, 1999).

Although lack of confi dence or low profi ciency level does seem to be one expla-nation for teachers’ use of the L1, other research indicates that teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about TL use also play a role in their classroom practice. In Bateman’s (2008) case study of 10 student teach-ers to discover their attitudes and beliefs toward TL use in the classroom, the par-ticipants reported that a number of factors limited their TL use in the classroom: stu-dent confusion, discipline problems, lack of time (the need to “cover the book”), and a desire to build rapport with the students. Reporting similar fi ndings, Littlewood and Yu (2011) identifi ed three explanations for


levels but also how much their students have learned. However, this type of inves-tigation is sorely needed, but fi rst neces-sitates a defi nition of “student learning.” While this term can be used to refer to stu-dent performance on traditional classroom achievement tests or performance in terms of specifi c performance-based standards, within the language curriculum it might also refer to the development of language profi ciency by students (i.e., the levels of oral profi ciency they attain at benchmark points in language study). In fact, perhaps this type of student learning is the one that is impacted most by the TL profi ciency of the teacher. This remains to be confi rmed by future empirical investigations.

If one defi nes student learning in terms of advancement of oral profi ciency, what observations can be made concern-ing the possible impact of teacher TL pro-fi ciency, in the current absence of empirical research? A body of studies has examined the levels of oral profi ciency (as measured by the ACTFL OPI) attained by students in secondary and postsecondary settings compared to length of time engaged in lan-guage study (Adair-Hauck & Pierce, 1998; Glisan & Foltz, 1998; Huebner & Jensen, 1992). While a detailed description of these studies is beyond the scope of this review, it is important to note that the results of these studies revealed that students at the secondary level who studied an FL for four years demonstrated a level of speaking pro-fi ciency in the Intermediate Low to Inter-mediate Mid range. OPI data for students at the postsecondary level are scant at best in the research; the most signifi cant study to date was reported by Swender (2003) and described earlier in this review. Perhaps the most revealing fi nding emanating from all of these OPI studies is that students at a given level of study exhibit a range of oral profi ciency levels. Magnan’s (1986) study corroborated this claim and proposed that profi ciency levels form “bands” at each level of study and that there is overlap with these bands from one year of study to the next. This might suggest that time is not

Despite the challenges of assessing beliefs, researchers have undertaken the task of analyzing both teacher and student beliefs about FL learning (Bateman, 2008; Law-rence, 1982; Levine, 2003). Most of the research in this area has been concerned with English as a Second Language (ESL) and EFL, where fi ndings have consistently reported teacher profi ciency in the TL as an important factor for effective teaching (Consolo, 2002; Lazaraton, 2004; Turnbull & Arnett, 2002). In a study of perceptions of EFL teacher effectiveness in Israel that employed surveys of both teachers and stu-dents, Brosh (1996) found that the most important factor identifi ed by both groups was TL profi ciency. Brosh found that stu-dents whose teachers were profi cient in English reported more positive attitudes about the TL. Similarly, Takamizawa (cited in Banno, 2003) found that, for students of English in Japan, the most important qual-ity for effective teaching was profi ciency in the language. In Harmer’s (1998) survey of students and teachers of English in the United Kingdom, Spain, and Finland about the qualities of a good teacher, qualities of empathy were the most highly valued, such as the ability to conduct interesting classes, empathize with the students, and demon-strate genuine caring about student learn-ing. Left unexplored was the relationship between such qualities and the respondents’ perception of the teachers’ TL profi ciency. It may be that in instructional contexts where the FL instruction is provided by native or near-native speakers, the issue of TL profi -ciency is not as salient.

Teacher TL Profi ciency and Student LearningIt may not come as a surprise that research examining the role of teacher TL profi ciency on student learning or achievement is virtu-ally nonexistent. Designing research of this kind has its unique challenges for various reasons, not the least of which is the hesita-tion of teachers to participate in studies that will examine not only their own profi ciency

S156 SUMMER 2012

maintenance, or deterioration of teachers’ profi ciency over time. Finally, a research program should be established to explore explicit connections between teacher TL profi ciency, classroom practices, and stu-dent learning (i.e., development of oral pro-fi ciency). Each of these topics is discussed below.

Profi ciency Levels of Beginning FL TeachersGiven that ACTFL and NCATE have set Advanced Low as the minimum profi -ciency level for beginning teachers based on the judgment that teachers at this level will be able to conduct class consistently in the TL, more data are needed about whether teacher candidates are reaching this level. Current research on teacher can-didates is scant at best. The LTI data from the studies by Hamlyn et al. (2007) and Swender et al. (2011) refl ected profi ciency scores of teacher candidates from NCATE-accredited institutions and from other institutions in 10 of the 21 states that have set profi ciency expectations and have also adopted the OPI as the tool for assessing the profi ciency level of their teacher candi-dates. However, there are currently no data on the profi ciency level of teacher candi-dates from non-NCATE institutions in the remaining 10 states that have an oral pro-fi ciency standard or from the 29 states in which no oral profi ciency requirement for beginning teachers has been established. A concerted effort is in order to determine the oral profi ciency levels achieved by teacher candidates using a single assess-ment method, which most logically should be the OPI.

Reaching the Advanced Level: Research on Best PracticesResearch on FL majors and teacher can-didates indicates that, overall, students achieve the Intermediate High level of profi ciency far more consistently than Advanced Low in their undergraduate FL

the only factor involved in advancing stu-dents’ oral profi ciency. Glisan and Donato (2004) maintained that a more critical factor might be “the type of classroom instruction that learners experience and the degree to which they are engaged in meaningful, goal-directed interaction with others in the TL” (cited from Shrum & Glisan, 2010, p. 253).

Taking these studies into account, it seems reasonable to assume that students would probably not advance in oral pro-fi ciency beyond the level of profi ciency of their teachers, given what is known regarding theories of SLA (see earlier dis-cussion), and if the only TL input they receive is from the teacher. Is students’ progress in developing their oral profi -ciency (i.e., student learning) impacted by how profi cient their teachers are in the TL? This is a research question that begs to be answered if language educators are to more completely understand the con-nection between teachers’ profi ciency and the degree to which their students develop oral profi ciency.

Agenda for Future Research A review of the research on teacher oral pro-fi ciency and its effect on student learning brings to light several interrelated issues in need of investigation. First, more data are needed on the current profi ciency levels of beginning FL teachers to gain an accurate picture of their speaking skills. As a related matter, educators need more information on how pre-service teachers achieve pro-fi ciency at the Advanced level—informa-tion about which undergraduate programs regularly produce a large number of profi -cient speakers and what features of these programs contribute to this outcome. In addition, data are needed on the current profi ciency levels of experienced FL teach-ers and of beginning teachers to understand the overall status of teacher profi ciency in K–12 FL education. A related research ini-tiative should investigate the factors that contribute to the continued improvement,


participating in a study abroad experi-ence in terms of linguistic gain? From this research, guidelines could be developed to better help institutions and academic advi-sors in selecting and recommending study abroad programs to their students. Finally, Sullivan’s fi nding that those students who attained an Advanced level of profi ciency spent almost three times as many hours per week engaged in activities using the TL out-side the classroom as they spent in the class-room, excluding study abroad, indicates the need to investigate students’ language use outside the classroom and identify practices that are most productive in helping stu-dents to reach the Advanced level.

Oral Profi ciency of Experienced FL TeachersThanks to ACTFL’s and NCATE’s efforts to promote an oral profi ciency standard for FL teachers entering the profession, there are some data on the profi ciency levels of pre-service FL teachers. However, this review of the literature has revealed no corresponding information on the TL profi ciency levels of in-service FL teachers. Therefore, research on the oral profi ciency levels of in-service teachers would provide a more accurate picture of the current state of TL teacher profi ciency.

Beyond the identifi cation of the cur-rent state of TL profi ciency within the pro-fession, further investigation is needed to determine what happens to a teacher’s profi -ciency level post-graduation. Do in-service teachers tend to maintain their Intermedi-ate High or Advanced Low oral profi ciency over time? Do they continue to progress in their speaking skills, or do they experience skill attrition over time? Undoubtedly, vari-ous factors affect teachers’ speaking ability over their professional careers, including language, regular contact (or not) with col-leagues who speak and teach the language, opportunities to travel and study abroad, and the level of instruction, among others. Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies of teachers’ profi ciency level could provide

programs. Are there any institutions or pro-grams that consistently produce Advanced-level speakers? If so, is the success exhibited by these programs consistent across their language offerings, or is it limited to some languages? Research is needed to identify college and university programs that con-sistently produce FL majors and teacher candidates with Advanced-level speaking skills. (See also the Huhn review in this volume.) These programs then need to be examined to determine how they philo-sophically and/or pedagogically differ from other programs. From this research, a set of best practices could be developed, dissemi-nated, and used as the basis for professional development programs for postsecondary FL faculty, particularly in institutions with large pre-service programs in FL education.

An important component of acquiring profi ciency at the Advanced level is out-of-class experience with the language. As shown in the statistics reported by Malone et al. (2003) on the correlation between instructional time and profi ciency levels, as well as the survey results reported in Sul-livan (2011), it is apparent that signifi cant experience with the language outside the classroom is needed to reach the Advanced level. Most FL professionals believe that study abroad is a necessary component of pre-service teacher education to progress in oral profi ciency as well as cultural knowl-edge and experience. However, as Sullivan (2011) pointed out, study abroad does not necessarily mean that a student will achieve profi ciency at the Advanced level. Ninety percent of the teacher candidates in Sul-livan’s study who did not attain a rating of Advanced Low or higher had studied abroad. This fi nding raises questions about the quality of students’ linguistic experience during study abroad. Research is needed on the types of study abroad programs, includ-ing length of stay, that are most predictive of producing Advanced-level speakers. In addition, the timing of study abroad dur-ing a student’s study of the language needs to be investigated to research the ques-tion, When do students benefi t most from

S158 SUMMER 2012

answers to these questions. Case stud-ies could also be conducted to determine what experiences teachers fi nd benefi cial to improvement or maintenance of their TL profi ciency.

There is little research on how teachers maintain or improve their TL profi ciency post-graduation. Fraga-Cañadas (2010) assessed the types of professional develop-ment opportunities available to in-service FL teachers. She found that the majority of language teachers had been involved only in professional development pro-grams designed for the improvement and maintenance of pedagogical knowledge. Moreover, many language teachers par-ticipated only in professional development programs applicable to all teachers, rather than in content area–specifi c development activities. Needs analysis research would be helpful to determine how best to support FL teachers in maintaining and improving their TL profi ciency. Consequently, profes-sional development guidelines could be developed and recommended for in-service FL teachers.

Connections Between TL Profi ciency and Effective TeachingThe explicit connection between teacher TL profi ciency and classroom practices needs to be established. Does the TL profi ciency of teachers shape the kinds of classroom practices in which they engage? This would be a long-term project building on some of the research proposals outlined above. Using the data on the profi ciency levels of FL majors and teacher candidates, teach-ers (both board-certifi ed and non-board-certifi ed) from programs producing highly profi cient speakers could be identifi ed. A sample of these teachers could be surveyed concerning the pedagogical methods used in their classrooms, after which these sur-veys could be analyzed and best practices identifi ed. In addition, the classrooms of these teachers could be observed and ana-lyzed for the specifi c practices that lead to students’ use of the TL and development

of profi ciency. This type of research would need to be conducted at all levels of FL edu-cation. These best practices could then be disseminated to teachers via professional development workshops. These initiatives could set the stage for additional research to discern connections between TL pro-fi ciency and the use of the identifi ed best practices.

Impact of Teacher TL Profi ciency on Student LearningFinally, the profession is in great need of research that examines how teachers’ TL profi ciency might play a role in student learning, specifi cally in the development of their speaking profi ciency. What is the connection between how well teachers can speak the TL and how well their students speak upon completion of a language pro-gram? The answer to this question would go a long way toward clarifying an under-standing of TL use in the classroom and the progress students make in advancing their oral profi ciency.

ConclusionResearch on teachers’ TL profi ciency stands to have a far-reaching impact at all levels of FL education, and the implications of teacher profi ciency for student learning has the potential to connect various research strands in FL education. FL learning is a multifaceted process with many complex factors that make producing valid and reli-able research a challenge. For this reason, many of the existing beliefs, standards, and practices in the fi eld of FL education have been based largely on professional consensus rather than on empirical data. To improve student learning of FLs, best practices must be established through valid and reliable empirical research, particu-larly research on the relationship between teachers’ TL profi ciency and the classroom practices that facilitate student learning in terms of the development of their oral profi ciency.


AcknowledgmentsI would like to express my sincere appre-ciation to Judy Liskin-Gasparro for her dedication as the reviewer on this Research Priorities Grant. Her detailed comments and suggestions regarding content and bibliographic resources were invaluable. It was a blessing to work with her. I would also like to thank Eileen Glisan and Richard Donato for their feedback during the writing of this article. Finally, I would also like to thank ACTFL for the oppor-tunity to contribute to the fi eld of foreign language education.

ReferencesAdair-Hauck, B., & Pierce, M. (1998). Inves-tigating the simulated oral profi ciency inter-view (SOPI) as an assessment tool for second language oral profi ciency. Pennsylvania Lan-guage Forum, LXX, 6–25.

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1982). ACTFL provisional profi -ciency guidelines. Yonkers, NY: Author.

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1986). ACTFL profi ciency guide-lines. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Author.

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1999). ACTFL profi ciency guide-lines—speaking. Retrieved January 10, 2011, from http://www.actfl .org/fi les/public/Guideli-nesspeak.pdf

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2002a). ACTFL/NCATE program standards for the preparation of foreign language teachers (Initial level-undergraduate and gradu-ate) (For K–12 and secondary certifi cation). Retrieved January 10, 2011, from http://www.actfl .org/fi les/public/ACTFLNCATEStandard-sRevised713.pdf

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2002b). Frequently asked ques-tions about the new ACTFL/NCATE program standards for the preparation of foreign lan-guage teachers. Retrieved January 10, 2011, from http://www.actfl .org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3385#4

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2010). Position statement on the use of the target language in the classroom. Retrieved January 10, 2011, from http://www.actfl .org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=4368#targetlang

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL profi ciency guide-lines—speaking (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.

Andrews, T. E., & Barnes, S. (1990). Assess-ment of teaching. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education: A project of the Association of Teacher Educators (pp. 569–598). New York: Macmillan.

Banno, E. (2003). A cross-cultural survey of stu-dents’ expectations of foreign language teach-ers. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 339–346.

Bateman, B. (2008). Student teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about using the target language in the classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 11–28.

Breiner-Sanders, K. E., Lowe Jr., P., Miles, J., & Swender, E. (2000). ACTFL profi ciency guidelines–speaking. Revised 1999. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 13–18.

Brooks, F., & Donato, R. (2004). Literary dis-cussions and advanced speaking functions: Researching the (dis)connection. Foreign Lan-guage Annals, 37, 183–199.

Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.; pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan.

Brosh, H. (1996). Perceived characteristics of the effective language teacher. Foreign Lan-guage Annals, 29, 125–136.

Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1993). Making sense of teaching. Buckingham, UK: Open Uni-versity Press.

Carroll, J. B. (1967). Foreign language profi -ciency levels attained by language majors near graduation from college. Foreign Language Annals, 1, 131–151.

Chacón, C. T. (2003). Hacia el desarrollo de una práctica pedagógica refl exiva mediante la actualización de los docentes de inglés de la tercera etapa de educación básica: Evaluación de una experiencia [Towards the develop-ment of refl ective teaching through profes-sional development of middle school English teachers: Evaluation of an experience]. Acción Pedagógica, 12, 120–129.

Chacón, C. T. (2005). Teachers’ perceived effi cacy among English as a foreign language teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 257–272.

Consolo, D. A. (2002). Oral interaction in the foreign language classroom: Reviewing roles

S160 SUMMER 2012

Huebner, T., & Jensen, A. (1992). A study of foreign language profi ciency-based testing in secondary schools. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 105–115.

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Sup-port Consortium. (2002). INTASC stand-ards for beginning foreign language teachers. Retrieved July 16, 2011, from http://www.lhup.edu/evalerio/Web%20Docs/Stand-ard%20Forms/INTASC%20Stds%20for%20LPs.doc

Kern, R. (1995). Students and teachers’ beliefs about language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 71–92.

Kim, S. H., & Elder, C. (2005). Language choices and pedagogic functions in the for-eign language classroom: A cross-linguistic functional analysis of teacher talk. Language Teaching Research, 9, 355–380.

Lawrence, J. (1982). Descriptions of exemplary teachers: An exploratory study of awards. Ann Arbor: Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan.

Lazaraton, A. (2004). Gesture and speech in the vocabulary explanations of one ESL teacher: A microanalytic inquiry. Language Learning, 54, 79–114.

Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, fi rst language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. Modern Language Jour-nal, 87, 343–364.

Li, D. (1998). “It’s always more diffi cult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’ perceived diffi culties in introducing the Communicative Approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 677–703.

Liskin-Gasparro, J. (1982). ETS oral profi -ciency testing manual. Princeton, NJ: Educa-tional Testing Service.

Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011). First lan-guage and target language use in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44, 64–77.

Liu, D., Ahn, G. S., Baek, K. S., & Han, N. O. (2004). South Korean high school English teachers’ code switching: Questions and chal-lenges in the drive for maximal use of English in teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 605–638.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.

and prospects for language development. Tra-balhos em Linguística Aplicada, 40, 87–100.

Cooper, T. (2004). How foreign language teachers in Georgia evaluate their professional preparation: A call for action. Foreign Lan-guage Annals, 37, 37–48.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher qual-ity and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8. Retrieved September 27, 2011, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1

Donato, R., & Brooks, F. (2004). Literary dis-cussions and advanced speaking functions: Researching the (dis)connection. Foreign Lan-guage Annals, 37, 183–199.

Fraga-Cañadas, C. (2010). Beyond the class-room: Maintaining and improving teachers’ language profi ciency. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 395–421.

Franklin, C. E. M. (1990). Teaching in the target language: Problems and prospects. Lan-guage Learning Journal, 2, 20–24.

Glisan, E. W., & Donato, R. (2004). It’s not just a matter of “time”: A response to Rifkin. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 465–471.

Glisan, E. W., & Foltz, D. A. (1998). Assess-ing students’ oral profi ciency in an outcome-based curriculum: Student performance and teacher intuitions. Modern Language Journal, 82, 1–18.

Hall, J. K. (1999). The communication stand-ards. In J. K. Phillips & R. M. Terry (Eds.), Foreign language standards: Linking research, theories, and practices (pp. 15–56). Lincol-nwood, IL: NTC/Contemporary Publishing Group.

Hall, J. K. (2004). Language learning as an interactional achievement. Modern Language Journal, 88, 607–612.

Hall, J. K. (2010). Interaction as method and result of language learning. Language Teach-ing, 43, 202–215.

Hamlyn, H., Surface, E. A., & Swender, E. (2007). What profi ciency testing is telling us about teacher certifi cation candidates. Presen-tation at the ACTFL Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Harmer, J. (1998). How to teach English. Essex, UK: Pearson Education.

Hiple, D., & Manley, J. (1987). Testing how well foreign language teachers speak: A state mandate. Foreign Language Annals, 20, 147–153.


Schrier, L., & Hammadou, J. (1994). Assess-ment in foreign language teacher education. In C. Hancock (Ed.), Northeast conference reports. Teaching, testing, and assessment: Mak-ing the connection (pp. 211–234). Lincoln wood, IL: National Textbook Company.

Schulz, R. (2000). Foreign language teacher development: MLJ perspectives 1916–1999. Modern Language Journal, 84, 495–522.

Schulz, R. (2002). Changing perspectives in foreign language education: Where do we come from? Where are we going? Foreign Lan-guage Annals, 35, 285–292.

Shrum, J. L., & Glisan, E. W. (2010). Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction (4th ed.). Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning.

Sieloff-Magnan, S., & Back, M. (2007). Social interaction and linguistic gain during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 43–61.

Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achieve-ment. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 339–355.

Sullivan, J. H. (2011). Taking charge: Teacher candidates’ preparation for the oral profi -ciency interview. Foreign Language Annals, 44, 241–257.

Swaffar, J. (2004). A template for advanced learner task: Staging genre reading and cultural literacy through the précis. In H. Byrnes & H. Maxim (Eds.), Advanced for-eign language learning: A challenge to college programs (pp. 19–45). Boston: Thompson Heinle.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative compe-tence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its develop-ment. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). New York: Newbury House.

Swender, E. (2003). Oral profi ciency test-ing in the real world: Answers to frequently asked questions. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 520–526.

Swender, E., Surface, E., Cahoon, M., & Glisan, E. (2011, November 18). Advanc-ing professional standards: Are teachers and programs making the grade? Presentation at ACTFL Annual Conference, Denver, CO.

Thompson, I. (1996). Assessing foreign lan-guage skills: Data from Russian. Modern Lan-guage Journal, 80, 47–65.

Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collabo-rative learning and autonomy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Magnan, S. S. (1986). Assessing speaking profi ciency in the undergraduate curriculum: Data from French. Foreign Language Annals, 19, 429–438.

Malone, M., Rifkin, B., Christian, D., & John-son, D. (2003, January 23). Attaining high levels of profi ciency: Challenges for language education in the United States. Paper presented at the Conference on Global Challenges and U.S. Higher Education, Duke University, Durham, NC.

Mantero, M. (2006). Applied literacy in sec-ond language education: (Re)Framing dis-course in literature-based classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 39, 99–114.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2010). The standards. Retrieved July 16, 2011, from http://www.nbpts.org/the_standards

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2001). Public Law (PL) 107-110, Title II 120 U. S. C. 6601 sec. 201. Retrieved July 16, 2011, from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/hqtfl exibility.html

Omaggio Hadley, A. (2001). Teaching language in context. Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning.

Phillips, J. K. (1998). Changing teacher/learner roles in standards-driven contexts. In J. Harper, J. Lively, & M. Williams (Eds.), The coming of age of the profession (pp. 3–14). New York: Heinle.

Polio, C., & Zyzik, E. (2009). Don Quijote meets ser and estar: Multiple perspectives on language learning in Spanish literature class. Modern Language Journal, 93, 550–569.

Rhodes, N., & Pufahl, I. (2011). Foreign lan-guage instruction in U.S. schools: Results of a national survey of elementary and second-ary schools. Foreign Language Annals, 44, 258–288.

Sato, K. (2002). Practical understandings of communicative language teaching and teacher development. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teach-ing: Contexts and concerns in teacher education (pp. 41–81). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1999). Com-municative language teaching (CLT) practical understandings. Modern Language Journal, 83, 494–517.

S162 SUMMER 2012

Turnbull, M., & Arnett, K. (2002). Teachers’ use of target and fi rst languages in second and foreign language classrooms. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 204–218.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Meeting the highly qualifi ed teachers chal-lenge: The Secretary’s annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Education, Offi ce of Postsecondary Education, Offi ce of Policy, Planning, and Innovation.

Tschirner, E. (1996). Scope and sequence: Rethinking beginning foreign language instruc-tion. Modern Language Journal, 80, 1–14.

Tschirner, E., & Heilenman, L. K. (1998). Reasonable expectations; Oral profi ciency goals for intermediate-level students of Ger-man. Modern Language Journal, 82, 147–158.

Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but . . . Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 531–540.

APPENDIX A

Advanced Low Oral Profi ciency

Speakers at the Advanced Low sublevel are able to handle a variety of communicative tasks. They are able to participate in most informal and some formal conversations on topics related to school, home, and leisure activities. They can also speak about some topics related to employment, current events, and matters of public and community interest.

Advanced Low speakers demonstrate the ability to narrate and describe in the major time frames of past, present, and future in paragraph-length discourse with some control of aspect. In these narrations and descriptions, Advanced Low speakers combine and link sentences into connected discourse of paragraph length, although these narrations and descriptions tend to be handled separately rather than interwoven. They can handle appropriately the essential linguistic challenges presented by a complication or an unexpected turn of events.

Responses produced by Advanced Low speakers are typically not longer than a single para-graph. The speaker’s dominant language may be evident in the use of false cognates, literal translations, or the oral paragraph structure of that language. At times their discourse may be minimal for the level, marked by an irregular fl ow, and containing noticeable self-correc-tion. More generally, the performance of Advanced Low speakers tends to be uneven.

Advanced Low speech is typically marked by a certain grammatical roughness (e.g., incon-sistent control of verb endings), but the overall performance of the Advanced-level tasks is sustained, albeit minimally. The vocabulary of Advanced Low speakers often lacks specifi c-ity. Nevertheless, Advanced Low speakers are able to use communicative strategies such as rephrasing and circumlocution.

Advanced Low speakers contribute to the conversation with suffi cient accuracy, clarity, and precision to convey their intended message without misrepresentation or confusion. Their speech can be understood by native speakers unaccustomed to dealing with non-natives, even though this may require some repetition or restatement. When attempting to per-form functions or handle topics associated with the Superior level, the linguistic quality and quantity of their speech will deteriorate signifi cantly.

Source: http://www.actfl .org/fi les/public/ACTFLProfi ciencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf, p. 6 (ACTFL, 2012).

Documents

Teachers’ Oral Proficiency in the Target Language: Research on Its Role in Language Teaching and Learning