Changing approaches to proficiency specification and testing and assessment

Language proficiency benchmarking involves determining the overall proficiency of language learners in relation to different levels of achievement. Until towards the end of the 2000s, most proficiency scales were related, either directly or indirectly, to the United States Foreign Service Institute (FSI) scale developed in the 1950s (Wilds, 1975). There have, however, been a number of important developments in which proficiency scales have not taken the FSI as a starting point and have, instead, placed emphasis on communicative competence/communicative competencies, conceptualizing proficiency as involving a hierarchy of global characterisations of integrated performance (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 1986).

For Bachman and Palmer (1996), proficiency is conceptualized as involving knowledge of language (not knowledge about language) and the ability to make use of that knowledge in performing a range of communicative activities. It therefore involves a combination of operational competence and pragmatic competence, with operational competence relating to grammatical competence and textual competence, and pragmatic competence relating to illocutionary competence and sociolinguistic competence.

Within the context of recent developments in proficiency assessment, transparency, in both testing and test reporting, is considered to be of paramount importance and results are, therefore, generally indicated as bands to which proficiency descriptor statements are attached rather than as numbers. It is also now generally considered to be important that proficiency assessment instruments designed for different languages are based on the same types of design so that it is possible to compare proficiency levels across languages and at an inter-institutional and international level.

Proficiency benchmarking frameworks tend to have between six and twelve levels (or bands), with level 1 (or sometimes level 0) representing the lowest level. Thus, for example, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe 2001, pp. 21-42), which is intended to be applicable to all languages, includes six bands in three categories (which can be subdivided); the Canadian Language Benchmarks (2012), relating to adult ESL (English as a second language), have twelve bands organized into three stages, and the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), academic version and general training version, has nine bands, from 0 (did not attempt the test) to 9 (expert user) (International English Language Testing System, n.d). Each proficiency 'level' is intended to cover a range - or band - of achievement.

Some proficiency benchmarking frameworks have only one general proficiency descriptor for each level; others have, for each level/ band, both a general proficiency descriptor statement and proficiency descriptor statements for different skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking). The latter are particularly useful because language learners who have a similar overall level of proficiency may have

different skills profiles. Thus, for example, a language learner whose overall proficiency level falls within band 3 of a particular benchmarking system may have reading skills that are at the lower end of band 4 and writing skills that are at the upper end of band 2. In some proficiency benchmarking systems, there are different sets of proficiency descriptors for different contexts. There may be, for example, descriptors relating to general language proficiency, descriptors relating to academic language proficiency and descriptors relating to proficiency in professional settings (e.g. legal or medical settings).

Some proficiency benchmarking frameworks are designed to apply specifically to one language (e.g. the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) which are designed to relate specifically to English as a second language); others are intended to be applicable to a range of languages (e.g. the Common Reference Levels (CRLs) (Council of Europe 2001, pp. 21-42).

Proficiency descriptors generally avoid making reference to specific vocabulary or specific constructions because proficiency benchmarking is about overall language competencies, not about the precise details of how these competencies are realised in individual cases. However, they do generally make reference, particularly at the lower levels, to micro-functions (e.g. greetings; apologies) and/or notions (e.g. past time reference; degrees of certainty). Thus, for example, at level A1 (the lowest level) of the Common Reference Levels (CRLs) of the CEFR, the following occurs: Can introduce him/herself and others . . . (Council of Europe 2001, p. 24). Another characteristic of proficiency descriptors is that they generally try to avoid using simple comparative statements (e.g. a variety of everyday tasks; a greater variety of everyday tasks) as a way of discriminating between and among levels.

The proficiency descriptors developed within the context of the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001) are potentially particularly useful in that they were developed within the context of the design of a framework that was not intended to be specific to a particular language, one that is oriented towards facilitating international comparison of objectives and qualifications and aims to assist educational administrators to situate and coordinate their efforts. However, although many examining bodies have attempted to align their assessment to the CEFR, a number

of fundamental problems associated with this have been identified (see, for example, Alderson (2007, p. 660); Alderson et al. (2006, p. 12); Weir (2005, pp. 282 & 293)).

An important aspect of any discussion of target language proficiency as it relates to language teaching is what teachers believe about their own proficiency and, in particular, whether they consider it adequate in the context in which they operate. Butler (2004) explored the beliefs of teachers of English at elementary school level in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan about their own English language proficiency and the level of proficiency they considered appropriate in the context in which they taught. Five hundred and twenty two (522) teachers took part in a questionnaire-based survey. Of these teachers, the vast majority assessed their own overall proficiency as being lower than the level they considered necessary (p. 258). However, teachers often assess their own proficiency as being higher than it actually is. Thus, for example, in a survey of one hundred and sixty six (166) teachers of English in Taiwan conducted by Wang (2007), the average self-assessed proficiency was level 7 (good user) or above on the IELTS17 _{scale. However, the lessons observed as part}

of the same research project were sometimes marked by inaccurate teacher language and there was evidence at times of lack of comprehension on the part of learners (pp. 208-209). The problem here, however, was not simply one of teacher proficiency. As Wang (2007) indicates, it had more to do with (a) a tendency on the part of these teachers to create teacher-centred lessons in which they did most of the talking (providing plenty of opportunity for errors on their part), and (b) the fact that they had not developed a useful repertoire of instructional language (resulting in plenty of opportunities for incomprehension on the part of the learners). It is clearly, therefore, not necessarily overall teacher proficiency that matters most but whether teachers are able to operate effectively within the constraints of their own proficiency, something that highlights the importance of pedagogic knowledge (Andrews, 2003, p. 82).

Richards (1998, p. 7) has observed that there are two key questions that arise from consideration of the significance of language proficiency in the case of second

language teachers - what components of language proficiency are most crucial for language teachers, and how language proficiency interacts with other aspects of teaching skill. In relation to the first of these issues, Heaton (1981) earlier proposed a specific set of speech acts that he regarded as being critical (requesting, ordering and giving rules, giving instructions, questioning, and giving reasons and explanations) and Willis (1996) has provided examples of expressions and routines that can be used at various stages in an English lesson. A version of Willis' examples relating to te reo Maori would be likely to be of considerable value to teachers of the language.

In any consideration of language teaching, it is important to bear in mind the complexities involved. Borg (2006) consulted over 200 practising and prospective teachers about what they considered made language teaching essentially different from the teaching of other subjects. Among the things they identified were (a) its unique scope and complexity; (b) its greater diversity of methodology (aimed at creating contexts for communication and maximising student involvement); and (c) the greater need for creativity, flexibility and freedom (p. 24).

2.3 The teaching and learning of te reo Māori in English-medium secondary