Foreign Language Annals Á VOL. 49, NO. 2 201 Listening and Reading Proficiency Levels of College Students Erwin Tschirner Universit€at Leipzig Abstract: This article examines listening and reading proficiency levels of U.S. college foreign language students at major milestones throughout their undergraduate career. Data were collected from more than 3,000 participants studying seven languages at 21 universities and colleges across the United States. The results show that while listening proficiency appears to develop more slowly, Advanced levels of reading proficiency appear to be attainable for college majors at graduation. The article examines the relationship between listening and reading proficiency and suggests reasons for the apparent disconnect between listening and reading, particularly for some languages and at lower proficiency levels. Key words: all languages, proficiency, postsecondary/higher education Introduction Despite the fact that the foreign language teaching profession has focused on oral proficiency for decades, reaching the Advanced Low (AL) level in oral proficiency has remained “an elusive endeavor” for many college graduates majoring in foreign languages, including prospective foreign language instructors (Brooks & Darhower, 2014, p. 593). According to Swender (2003, p. 523), only 47% of graduating majors at prestigious liberal arts colleges, many of whom spent an academic year abroad, were at the AL level or higher, 35% were Intermediate High (IH), and 18% were Intermediate Mid (IM) or lower. As Omaggio-Hadley (2001) noted, it may take up to 720 hours of instruction to reach the Advanced level of foreign language speaking proficiency, an amount of time that is not regularly available in an undergraduate program. Rifkin (2005, p. 12) calculated an average of 410 to 415 total hours of instruction necessary to complete an undergraduate major in French, German, Russian, or Spanish. In addition, reaching the Advanced level commonly requires spending a significant amount of time abroad, using the target language both in and outside of class (Fraga-Canadas,~ 2010; Schulz, 2002; Sieloff-Magnan & Back, 2007). Erwin Tschirner (PhD, University of California, Berkeley) is Gerhard Helbig Professor of German as a Foreign Language, Herder Institute, University of Leipzig, Germany. Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 49, Iss. 2, pp. 201–223. © 2016 by American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. DOI: 10.1111/flan.12198 202 SUMMER 2016 While writing proficiency has received study investigating proficiency levels of substantially less attention in language graduating college foreign language majors. learning research (but see, e.g., Bernhardt, However, as Rifkin (2005, p. 4) pointed out, Molitoris, Romeo, Lin, & Valderrama, Carroll used the Modern Language Associ- 2015), the ACTFL Writing Proficiency ation (MLA) Foreign Language Proficiency Test developed in 2001 allowed the profes- Tests for Teachers and Advanced Students, sion to gauge the development of writing a norm-referenced four-skills battery of in addition to speaking proficiency. This tests. To establish correlations between emphasis on the productive modalities the Interagency Language Roundtable may be directly related to the fact that (ILR; a proficiency scale aligned with national foreign language instructor licens- the ACTFL scale) scale and the MLA test, ing requires achieving AL in speaking and Carroll (1967, p. 133) conducted a separate writing (see e.g., Glisan, 2013; Moeller, study with 19 Russian, 30 Spanish, 39 2013; Tedick, 2013). As Bernhardt et al. French, and 39 German instructor trainees (2015, p. 339) noted, writing proficiency who were interviewed by teams from the levels tend to be a little higher than speaking Foreign Service Institute (FSI) and who ones, with proficiency levels of IM after one completed the FSI reading and speaking year of college foreign language instruction tests and also completed the MLA test in English cognate languages such as battery. The FSI speaking test scores were French, German, and Spanish, and of Inter- then correlated with the MLA speaking and mediate Low (IL) in noncognate languages listening results, and the FSI reading test such as Arabic, Japanese, and Russian. After scores were correlated with the MLA read- two years, students may reach IH to AL in ing and writing results. Correlations were cognate languages and IM in noncognate moderately strong for French and Spanish, languages. with 0.67 for French listening and speaking, In contrast, very little is known about 0.63 for French writing, 0.71 for French the reading and listening proficiency levels reading, 0.66 for Spanish speaking, 0.73 of U.S. college students because until for Spanish listening, 0.74 for Spanish read- recently there were no standardized tests ing, and 0.77 for Spanish writing (p. 145). associated with the ACTFL reading and Correlations were higher for German and listening proficiency guidelines. With the Russian. Carroll’s finding that the average publication of the ACTFL Proficiency graduating senior was ILR 2þ in speaking Guidelines—2012 (ACTFL, 2012), the and listening (equivalent to an ACTFL empirical validation of the reading and rating of Advanced Mid or High) and ILR listening Guidelines (Clifford & Cox, 3 in reading and writing (equivalent to an 2013; Cox & Clifford, 2014), and the ACTFL rating of Superior) can thus only development of the ACTFL Reading be interpreted with extreme caution, (RPT) and Listening Proficiency Tests particularly because these ratings were (LPT; ACTFL, 2013, 2014), it became much higher than those obtained from possible to investigate and set benchmarks subsequent studies that used ACTFL Oral in reading and listening. This article Proficiency Interviews (OPIs; e.g., Brecht, describes the design and reports the results Davidson, & Ginsberg, 1993; Magnan, of such a study. 1986; I. Thompson, 1996; Tschirner & Heilenman, 1998). Review of Literature Rifkin (2005) assessed the listening, reading, speaking, and writing proficiency Listening and Reading Proficiency of 353 college students attending the Levels Middlebury Russian School, a 9-week sum- Carroll (1967) has commonly been credited mer immersion program, over the course with having completed the first large-scale of three summers (2001 to 2003). His Foreign Language Annals Á VOL. 49, NO. 2 203 data yielded ratings for participants at the range, 32% were IL, and 10% were IM in point of entry into the immersion pro- reading, while 93% were IL in writing and gram, i.e., levels achieved while enrolled 43% were NH and 50% were IL in speaking in undergraduate programs elsewhere, as (pp. 115–119). well as postprogram results. Data from Davin, Rempert, and Hammerand the preimmersion interviews revealed (2014) also used the STAMP to investigate that, after 150 hours of previous instruc- the development of reading, speaking, and tion (approximately one college year), writing proficiency in secondary schools. students were Novice High (NH) in all The study included 3,881 students, most four modalities. Proficiency levels were of whom studied Spanish (2,166), Chinese lowest for listening, followed by reading (1,058), and French (606) (Davin et al., and speaking, and highest for writing. 2014, pp. 250–251). While the instruc- After 250 hours of previous instruction tional context certainly influenced the re- (approximately two college years), stu- sults, reading levels for Chinese were dents were NH to IL in listening and read- Novice Low (NL) for 86% of all students ing and IL in speaking and writing. After tested. The mean score was NL after the 350 hours of instruction (approximately first 2 years of instruction, reached Novice 3 years of college instruction), they were Mid (NM) after 3 years, and stayed at NM IL in listening and reading and Intermedi- afterasmanyas5yearsofstudy.For ate Mid (IM) in speaking and writing, and French, the mean score remained at NM after 450 hours of instruction (approxi- for the first 3 years and reached IL after mately four college years), they were IM 4 years of study. For Spanish, the mean in listening and reading and IM to Inter- score remained at NM for the first 2 years, mediate High (IH) in speaking and writ- reached NH after 3 years and remained ing. Only students who had more than at NH after 4 years. Writing scores in 600 hours of instruction were rated IH Chinese reached IL after 4 years and IM in listening and reading and AL in speak- after 5 years, and participants were rated ing and writing (pp. 8–9). It is interesting IL in French and Spanish after 4 years. to note that preimmersion students gener- Mean speaking scores were IL in French ally were weaker in the interpretive than in after 3 and 4 years, in Spanish after 4 years, the productive modalities. Postimmersion and in Chinese after 3, 4, and 5 years. listening and reading abilities, however, Davidson (2010) described the reading were often higher than speaking and writ- and listening proficiency gains of college ing ones. Rifkin also presented data from students in study abroad programs of vari- traditional classroom instruction at the ous durations (2-month, 4-month, and University of Wisconsin, Madison, from 9-month programs) in Russia from 1994 2000 to 2004, which yielded a mean of to 2009. He presented data from 1,234 read- IL in listening and a mean of IM in speak- ing assessments and 390 listening assess- ing and reading after 4 years of instruction ments at both the beginning and end of (p. 11). the study abroad period. Students begin- Schmitt (2016), using the Standards- ning a 2-month program were required based Measurement of Proficiency to have a minimum of 2 years of college (STAMP),1 found that 45% of French stu- Russian (or equivalent); all others were dents were rated NH in reading after three supposed to have a minimum of 3 years semesters of college study, 30% were IL, and of college Russian (or equivalent). Both 15% were IM. Students scored substantially groups began the program at IH in reading higher in writing and speaking, with 75% and IM in listening.