rdearman wrote:reineke wrote:Active vs passive.
"A dramatic drop in proficiency level."
"
Discrepancies run up to 40% achieving a lower level on active language proficiency as opposed to the QPT (PASSIVE LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY)
at the C2 LEVEL, 35% for the C1 level and
5% at the B2.
Similar results in the difference of active and passive language skills have been found at Leiden University with 800 lecturers who did the Dialang and the same oral test. Apparently, it is much harder to activate passive language proficiency than assumed by most of us."
pp 322 - 323
http://pure.tudelft.nl/ws/files/3246921 ... 460240.pdf
So what does this tell us? What is your conclusion?
"Delft University of Technology (DUT) screened her (non-native English) scientific staff on their level of English proficiency in the academic year of 2006/2007."
People with high levels of language skill scored high. The majority of the staff would not have been able to pass the actual C2 exam. We're talking about academic staff at Delft, Netherlands:
"To sum up, the majority of the scientific staff have a language proficiency level at C1 of the Common
European Framework of Reference. This level is roughly equivalent to an IELTS Level of
6.5/7.0. At present, the IELTS 7.5 (minimum C2) recommended proficiency level by 3TU Federation
Committee is rather ambitious, as only 21% of the entire scientific staff included in the
test achieve a C2 level."
"The whole screening operation was a result of complaints of students about the poor level of
language proficiency of their lecturers. As the test results were rather reasonable, no more complaints
have been made by students for a long time. Contrary to the expectations of the Board of
Directors, however, student complaints have resumed, despite the effort to raise the proficiency
levels of the scientific staff. Therefore, the question remains whether the language proficiency
of staff is the central issue or whether it is the lack of student proficiency."
Conclusion
"The conclusion is that a first screening gives a representative picture of the language proficiency
level of the scientific staff at Delft University of Technology. On average the language proficiency
level is C1 (55%). Nevertheless, a large percentage of scientific staff members are not achieving
a C2 level, which means that establishing this goal of C2 language proficiency would certainly
not be feasible in the near future. A C1 level is certainly
feasible at a maintenance level."
The level of English language proficiency was lower at Leiden. Maybe things have changed since then.
Active & passive. A real thing, apparently. Computerized tests are good screening tools. Oral proficiency is the Achilles' heel of L2 learners. C2 is hard to achieve and measure (never mind through forum posts). Students complain too much.