Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 Faculty of Literature and Foreign Languages, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad university, Tehran, Iran

2 English Language Department, Faculty of humanities, Tarbiyat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Evaluating teacher candidates’ competencies, demonstrating that they are prepared to teach at high school level is inconceivable without clearly defined and agreed upon standards. Since EFL teachers’ language proficiency levels in the target language is a significant factor in teaching effectiveness, this study intended to set threshold listening, speaking, reading and writing proficiency levels for the Iranian high school EFL teachers based on ACTFL proficiency guidelines. To this end, a concurrent mixed-method qualitative quantitative approach was conducted. Data were collected through conducting semi-structured interviews with 40 teacher educators and administering a seven-point Likert scale questionnaire to 212 high school EFL teachers. The results indicated that high school EFL teachers must be able to understand, speak, and write English at a minimum level of Advanced-Low and be able to read English at a minimum level of Advanced-Mid as defined in the ACTFL proficiency scale in order to teach English effectively. The results of this study can be used as benchmarks in prospective high school EFL teachers’ initial certification and licensing and in the design of pre-service EFL teacher education program at Farhangian University.

Keywords

ACTFL. (2002). ACTFL program standards for the preparation of foreign language teachers. New York: ACTFL.

ACTFL. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. New York: ACTFL.

Aldridge, A., & Levine, K. (2001).Surveying the social world: Principles and practice in survey research. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Andrews, S. (2003). Teacher language awareness and the professional knowledge base of the L2 teachers. Language Awareness, 12(2), 81–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658410308667068

Baily, K. M. (2006). Language teacher supervision: A case-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Banno, E. (2003). A cross-cultural survey of students’ expectations of foreign language teachers. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 339-346. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb02118.x

Ben-Peretz, M. (2010). Teacher knowledge: What is it? How do we uncover it? What are its implications for schooling. Teacher and Teacher Education, 27(2), 3-9. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.015

Butler,Y.G.(2004). What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers need to attain to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 245-278.doi: 10.2307/3588380

Cambridge English Teaching Framework. (2015). Cambridge English teaching framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. California: Sage Publications.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-44. Retrieved from http://epaa. asu.edu/epaa/v8n1

Elder, C., & Ok Kim, S. H. (2014). Assessing teachers’ language proficiency. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (pp.1-17). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Farrell, T. S., & Richards. J. C. (2007). Teachers’ language proficiency.  In T. S. Farrell (Ed.), Reflective language teaching: From research to practice (pp. 55–66). London: Continuum.

Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2009). Teacher preparation and nonnative English-speaking educators. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp.91-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Katz, A., & Snow, M. A. (2003). Process and product in educational innovation: Implementing standards in Egypt. Prospect, 18(1), 53-63.

Katz, A., & Snow, M. A. (2009). Standards and second language teacher education. IN A. Burns & J.C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 66-76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kuhlman, N. (2010). Developing foreign language teacher standards in Uruguay. Gist, 4(1), 107-126.

Kuhlman,N., & Knezevic, B. (2013). The TESOL guidelines for developing EFL professional teaching standards. Alexandria: TESOL Press.

Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (2003). The ACTFL proficiency guidelines and the oral proficiency interview:  A brief history and analysis of their survival. Foreign Language Annals, 36(4), 483-490. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb02137.x

Marzano, R. J. (2003). Classroom management that works: Research-based strategies for every teacher. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Medgyes, P. (2001). When the teacher is a nonnative speaker. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 415-427). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods resource book. California: Sage Publication.

Murdoch, G. (1994). Language development provision in teacher training curricula. ELT Journal, 48(3), 253-265. doi: org/10.1093

Richards, J. C. (2012). Competence and performance in language teaching. In A. Burns & J.C. Richards (Eds.), Pedagogy and practice in language teaching (pp. 46-56). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, H., Conway, C. Roskvist, A., & Harvey, S. (2013). Foreign language teachers’ language proficiency and their language teaching practice. The Language Learning Journal, 41(2), 231-246. doi: 10.1080/09571736.2012.707676

Seidlhofer, B. (1999). Double standards. Teacher education in the expanding circle. World Englishes, 18(2), 233-245. doi: 10.1111/1467-971X.00136

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 achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 339– 355. doi: 10.1177/002248711140424

Velez-Rendon, G. (2002). Second language teacher education: A review of the literature. Foreign Language Annals, 35(4), 457-467. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2002.tb01884.x