2.2 Writing proficiency of pre-service EFL teachers:Expectations and Assessments

As mentioned,the recognition of the important role of language proficiency has given rise to concerns about language teachers'proficiency,particular for EFL teachers(Arva&Medgyes,2000;Coniam&Falvey,1996,2000,2001,2007;Elder,2001).It should also be noted that nonnative speakers constitute a large majority of EFL teachers worldwide,for whom language proficiency provides the essential foundation for most of the other prerequisites.Though some researchers have argued that high proficiency in the targeted language is the most valued aspect of a nonnative teacher's competence,for EFL teachers,what is important is how much a language a teacher needs to know to be able to teach it effectively(Bailey,2006;Canagarajah,1999).Researchers thus call for establishing a threshold proficiency level for teacher candidates in the target language(Medgyes,2001).EFL teachers as a profession,therefore,must meet the standards or requirements set out in language teacher certifications/qualifications for the profession,which serve as the key to delineate the territory of teaching and learning(Nunan,2007).These issues will be discussed in detail in the following section.

2.2.1 Writing proficiency in professional standards/requirements

Many countries and regions worldwide offer language teacher certifications and professional qualifications,encouraging both practicing teachers and pre-service language teachers to complete the necessary requirements for the profession.Although these requirements routinely include training courses in English teacher education,the language proficiency of teachers is only sometimes addressed.This section thus discusses current proficiency expectations for EFL teachers to explore the writing construct underlying teachers'writing proficiency.Table 2-1 reports the standards/requirements of language teacher qualifications/certifications regarding writing proficiency offered by countries/regions in both English-speaking and EFL contexts.The settings and objectives for developing standards differ across countries and initiatives,so the resulting standards vary in terms of their different conceptualizations of the knowledge,skills,and proficiency levels required of language teachers.

Though the standards/requirements of countries/regions differ to some extent,two main dimensions are evident in terms of the language proficiency requirements for pre-service EFL teachers.On the one hand,a performance-oriented approach has been adopted to examine teachers'language proficiency,which requires them to complete specific language-related tasks.Requirements thus are illustrated in the form of competencies,essential skills and profiles,etc.On the other hand,teachers are required to engage in assessments that directly examine their general language proficiency.Requirements of this kind are outlined in terms of benchmarks or band-scales.

2.2.1.1 Performance-oriented

As shown in Table 2-1,in the United States and the United Kingdom,assessment of language skills of language teachers are left to the discretion of the teacher preparation institutions or registration agencies,resulting in a variety of program requirements,such as the demonstration of language proficiency by using a written essay,and/or an oral proficiency measure—microteaching or interview.Often,the completion of a number of target language credit hours serves to fulfill the language requirements of the programs.The completion of these requirements sometimes may result in essentially no assessment of language proficiency.

(Table 2-1 continued)

(Table 2-1 continued)

In the United States,beginning EFL teachers are required to demonstrate a minimum writing proficiency level of Advanced-Low as outlined in the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines(2001),which serves as the profession's current standards to describe a hierarchy of knowledge and skills needed to function linguistically in a teaching capacity.The ACTFL/NCATE Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers(The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages,2002),the gate-keeping standards for EFL teacher candidates,have been set by The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education(NCATE)and the American Council on The Teaching of Foreign Languages(ACTFL).The ACTFL/NCATE standards are also 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.Regarding language proficiency,the ACTFL recognizes that“candidates demonstrate a high level of proficiency in the target language,and they seek opportunities to strengthen their proficiency”(ACTFL,2002,p.3).The supporting explanation and rubrics outline the requirements on writing proficiency for English teachers in both interpersonal writing(i.e.,two-way written interactive communication)and presentational writing(i.e.,one-way written communication to an audience of readers).

In the United Kingdom,for instance,teaching certificates such as the Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages(CELTA),Diploma in English Language Teaching to Adults(DELTA)or Certificate in TESOL(CertTESOL)are generally regarded as professional standards for teacher qualification,since no mandatory formal subject-specific qualification is required to teach English language in the United Kingdom(Barduhn&Johnson,2009).The teaching practice and a piece of classroom writing assignment are employed to assess teachers'writing proficiency(Cambridge ESOL examinations,2010),which are set as a point of reference against the Common European Framework of Reference(CEFR)(Council of Europe,2001).The CEFR provides a common language for describing communicative performance and serves as a basis for elaborating language syllabi,curriculum guidelines,examinations,and textbooks regardless of the target language(Council of Europe,2001).

2.2.1.2 Assessment-oriented

Pre-service teachers can also provide evidence of English language proficiency by meeting criteria of several recognized large-scale language assessments to demonstrate their proficiency in the target language.Among English-speaking countries,Canada,for example,scores of writing sub-tests of a series of English language proficiency assessments can be used as proof for a satisfactory writing proficiency,such as Test of English as a Foreign Language(TOEFL)(Computer-based and Paper-based),International English Language Testing System(IELTS),Michigan English Language Assessment Battery(MELAB),Cambridge Suite Assessment(CAE,CPE and BEC Higher),Canadian Test of English for Scholars and Trainees(CanTEST),Canadian Academic English Language Assessment(CAEL)and Canadian Language Benchmark Assessment(CLBA)(TESL Canada Federation,2012).In Australia,three tests are recognized by the Australian Teacher Registration Board as evidence of teacher candidates'language proficiency,namely,IELTS,International Second Language Proficiency Rating(ISLPR)and Professional English Assessment for Teachers(PEAT)(Australian Council of TESOL Associations,2012).

In EFL settings,in such countries as Mainland China,pre-service EFL teachers are required to complete programme coursework to receive their teaching certification.In other words,as pre-service teachers complete their programmes,they are eligible for certification from the country.No separate assessment of language proficiency is required.In the case of Mainland China,though pre-service EFL teachers are required to pass a language proficiency test,Test for English Majors (TEM),as one of the degree requirements,the government has not yet created proficiency guidelines for EFL teachers at the secondary school level.The TEM,however,is not specifically targeted at pre-service teachers but also all undergraduate English major students in Mainland China.No referenced knowledge thus can be attained to describe or certify the EFL teachers'language proficiency levels.

Finally,most of the certification tests for language teachers focus solely on the subject matter knowledge rather than the language ability of teachers(Coniam&Falvey,2007);few countries have initiated proficiency tests to assess the language proficiency of teachers.In Hong Kong,the Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers(LPAT)was developed to benchmark the language proficiency of language teachers(see Coniam&Falvey,2000).The government of South Australia also designed the Professional English Assessment for Teachers(PEAT)to determine the level of English language proficiency of teacher applicants to teach in educational settings(Teacher Registration Board of South Australia,2011).

In addition to the standards/requirements on pre-service teachers'writing proficiency,some of the major initiatives to develop instruments to measure foreign language learners'proficiency in the target language have been adopted to test foreign language teachers'language.For example,the influential CEFR(2001)by The Council of Europe is employed by certification agencies including Cambridge ESOL as the benchmark for language proficiency among different languages and cultural backgrounds in European countries.The descriptions of language proficiency,couched as a list of“can do”statements,facilitate the recognition of language qualifications in different learning contexts and provide educators with a consistent frame of reference for designing and evaluating language programs and practices.In the United States,the ACTFL proficiency guidelines suggest that language teachers at secondary and college levels develop their skills to“Advanced”level for writing skills(ACTFL,1988).

A review of the research on the requirements regarding teachers'writing proficiency brings to light several interrelated issues in need of investigation.First,more empirical data are needed on the current proficiency levels of pre-service EFL teachers to gain an accurate picture of their writing proficiency.As a related matter,what then constitutes the writing proficiency required by pre-service EFL teachers deserves further exploration.To gain knowledge of pre-service teachers'writing proficiency,analyzing teachers'actual writing performance from an assessment perspective may be a logical starting point in this respect.However,few studies to date have been conducted on the writing proficiency of EFL teachers who are the key stakeholders involved in the teaching and learning of writing.To this end,the following section explores the writing construct underlying the writing proficiency of pre-service EFL teachers.

2.2.2 Construct of writing proficiency of pre-service EFL teachers

Given the standards/requirements outlined on examining the writing proficiency of pre-service EFL teachers,empirical studies examining EFL teachers'writing proficiency are therefore of great significance for investigation in this regard.Among writing studies with teachers as participants,the majority have focused on teachers'writing instruction and their instructional routines(Cumming,1992;Cumming,2003;Pennington et al,1997).None of these studies,however,has analyzed the actual writing performance of EFL teachers and/or examining how their writing performance varies across levels.Efforts are thus needed to identify the construct underlying the writing performance of pre-service EFL teachers across different levels of writing proficiency.

In examining the writing proficiency in language assessments,an empirically-based approach has been advocated which involves analyzing samples of actual writing performance in an attempt to construct assessment criteria(North&Schneider,1998).For this reason,the construction of writing assessment criteria and scales combines both quantitative(analysis of candidate performance)and qualitative analysis(judgments derived from experts).

In the current study,two procedures are therefore pursued to identify the writing proficiency construct of pre-service EFL teachers.First,a preliminary identification of potential discourse features has been conducted on the basis of a documentary analysis of well-established existing rating scales(TOEFL iBT and IELTS)and requirements or standards of qualification/certification examinations of English language teachers of major English-speaking countries(the United States,Canada,Australia and Britain)and non-English speaking countries and regions(Mainland China and Hong Kong).

Six categories of writing features have been initially identified based on an analysis of the Teaching Syllabus for English Majors in Colleges and Universities(TSEM)(Ministry of Education,2000),the Test for English(TEM)Test Syllabus,and Sample Test Paper(Revised Version)(National Advisory Commission on Foreign Language Teaching in Higher Education,2005):Lexical Resources,Grammatical Range and Accuracy,Cohesion and Coherence,Content,Mechanics,Fluency.^[1]Features that are usually analyzed qualitatively such as reader awareness are excluded from the current study.

Second,the broad categories identified can be further divided into several discourse features consistent with features inherent in the standards/requirements for the writing proficiency of pre-service EFL teachers(see Table 2-2).Specifically,Lexical Resources is further divided into lexical range and lexical complexity.Grammatical Range and Accuracy includes features including grammatical complexity and grammatical accuracy.Content covers such features as task completion/achievement and topic relevance.The five broad categories of features constituting framework for discourse analysis are described in more detail in Section 2.3.2.

Mechanics is regarded to include spelling,punctuation, capitalization,and indentation following Polio(2001).A few studies have attempted to examine aspects of mechanics,which did not focus on the objective measures of mechanics.Only two studies,however,have been located that tried to examine mechanics in the literature(Kennedy &Thorp,2002;Mugharbil,1999).Another concern raised by researchers is that whether mechanics can be regarded as a construct or not(Polio,2001).Due to the lack of a reliable and meaningful operationalization of mechanics,mechanics is not singled out as one of the features in the current study.Only errors in mechanics were analyzed,which will be further discussed in Chapter 4.

Fluency,as can be seen in Table 2-2,though regarded as a construct by several writing assessments,is excluded from the analysis in the current study.The reason for this lies in the fact that measures developed by researchers to examine fluency are applicable in the context of speech rather than in the written discourse(Skehan,2003).In the context of writing,fluency can be measured by a break in the writing process in term of the number of repairs(Chenowith&Hayes,2001;Kellogg,1996).The number of repairs,however,cannot be examined on the basis of the writing product alone.

Based on the above discussion,four categories of features are finally identified for the current study:(1)Lexical Resources,(2)Grammatical Range and Accuracy,(3)Cohesion and Coherence and(4)Content.As mentioned,each category has been initially sub-divided into several sub-features,as outlined in Table 2-3.