یک مفاله تحقیقاتی

Title
A Survey on the Relationship between English Language Proficiency and the Academic Achievement of Iranian EFL Students

Authors
Ataollah Maleki and Ebrahim Zangani

Bio Data:
Dr. Attaollah Maleki is an associate professor of TEFL at University of Medical Sciences at Zanjan. He received his Ph.D from Tehran University in 1996, and holds a B.A degree in English, an M.A in TEFL, and Diploma in Applied Linguistics, Phonetics, and the Teaching of English. He has taught English at different levels for 20 years, and has published a number of books and articles on language in general and the English language-related topics in particular.

Ebrahim Zangani is a lecturer of TEFL at Zanjan Islamic Azad University and English Language teacher in the Ministry of Education. He received his M.A in TEFL from Tehran Science and Research Campus in 2003, and holds a B.A degree in English Translation. He has taught general English at different levels and ESP courses for 12 years. He has written general English books for university students and papers in English language teaching.

Abstract

One of the most serious problems that Iranian EFL students face in their field of study is their inability to communicate and handle English after graduating from university. This is due to their weaknesses in general English, which influence their academic success. The intent of the present study was to examine the strength of the relationship between English language proficiency and the academic achievement of Iranian EFL students. Accordingly, the relation between English language proficiency and academic achievement was examined in this study, and a significant connection was found between proficiency and grade point averages of academic achievement. Similarly, the results revealed significant correlation between English language proficiency and achievement in English speaking and writing subjects.

Key Words: Language proficiency, General English, EFL Writing and speaking

Introduction
Many students who are majoring in English language in Iran have chosen their field of study with little degree of capability in language use and its components, in other words, they have low ability or proficiency in English language use and usage when they begin to study. The term "capability" can refer to the ability of the examinee to recognize, comprehend, or produce language elements, in other words, "… at a given point in time the language learner may be a listener, speaker or both" (Farhady et al., 1994).

Having difficulties in grasping fully the contents and concepts of the course given in the target language seems to be one of the most serious problems that EFL students face in their particular course of study. This might be due to their weaknesses in general English, which may have a drastic impact on their academic success. Passing some courses successfully is not a determining yardstick in assessing students’ overall language ability. Having passed some courses and having graduated, Iranian EFL students in general seem not to be as proficient and qualified in language use and components as might be expected (Farhady, et al., 1994). In other words, they fail to understand fully the context of language use – the contexts of discourse and situations. Savignon (1983) states that communication takes place in an infinite variety of situations and success in a particular role depends on one’s understanding of the context and on the prior experience of a similar kind (pp. 8-9). Therefore, the overall performance of EFL students in language use depends on their English language proficiency. To determine whether this proficiency affects the academic achievement of the EFL students, we decided to conduct the present research. The intent of this study was to examine the strength of the relationship between English language proficiency and the academic achievement of Iranian EFL students.
In this connection, the following research questions were proposed:

1. Is there any relationship between English language proficiency and the academic achievement of Iranian EFL students?
2. Does English language proficiency have a significant impact on achievement in English speaking subjects (lessons) of Iranian EFL students?
3. Does English language proficiency have a significant impact on achievement in English writing subjects (lessons) of Iranian EFL students?

On the basis of the above-mentioned research questions, the following null hypotheses were formulated:
1. There is no relationship between English language proficiency and the academic achievement of Iranian EFL students.
2. English language proficiency does not have a significant impact on achievement in English speaking subjects (lessons).
3. English language proficiency does not have a significant impact on achievement in English writing subjects (lessons).

Review of Literature
According to Stern (1983), proficiency can be looked at as a goal and thus be defined in terms of objectives or standards. These can then serve as criteria by which to assess proficiency as an empirical fact, that is, the actual performance of given individual learners or groups of learners. He states that “proficiency ranges from zero to native - like proficiency. The zero is not absolute because the second language learner as speaker of at least one other language, his first language, knows language and how it functions. Complete competence is hardly ever reached by second language learners” (p.341). Bachman (1990) defines language proficiency as the language ability or ability in language use. Oller (1983) states that language proficiency is not a single unitary ability, but that it consists of several distinct but related constructs in addition to a general construct of language proficiency. Farhady, et al. (1983) state that the term 'proficiency' refers to the examinee’s ability in a particular area of competency in order to determine the extent to which they can function in a real language use situation.
According to Best and Kahn (1989) achievement tests attempt to measure what an individual has learned. They are particularly helpful in determining individual or group status in academic learning. Achievement test scores are used in diagnosing strengths and weaknesses and as a basis for awarding prizes, scholarship, or degrees. They are used also in evaluating the influences of courses of study, teachers, teaching methods, and other factors considered to be significant in educational practice. Graham (1987) pointed out the problems associated with research that attempts to delineate the relationship between language proficiency and academic performance, including the nature of the measures used to define L2 proficiency; the definition of academic success, especially when the reported GPA may be based on unequal numbers of courses or on dissimilar courses; and the possible influence of other variables in determining academic success.

Butler and Castellon-Wellington (2000) compared student content performance to concurrent performance on a language proficiency test. This study established a correlation relationship between English language proficiency and performance on standardized achievement tests in English. Ulibarri, et al. (1981) compared the performance of 1st, 3rd, and 5th-grade Hispanic students on three English language tests with their achievement data for reading and math; they found that the language test data were not very useful in predicting achievement in reading and math.

Stevens et al. (2000) investigated the relationship between the language and performance of seven-grade English language learners on two tests- a language proficiency test and a standardized achievement test. They stated that the correspondence between the languages of the two tests was limited. Bayliss and Raymond (2004) examined the link between academic success and second language proficiency in the context of two professional programs. They conducted two studies. First, they investigated the link between ESL scores on an advanced ESL test and the grade point average (GPA) obtained over two semesters. Second, they investigated the link between French second language scores on an advanced L2 test and both the number of courses failed and the first semester GPA. In recent years, researchers have examined the relationship between language proficiency and such various areas as intelligence, aptitude, and language skills. Garcia-Vasquez et al. (1997) compared the reading achievement scores of Hispanic middle and high school students with measures of their proficiency in English and found that the highest correlations were between English proficiency and English academic achievement (r = 0.84). Lower, significant correlations were observed between Spanish reading and English reading (r = 0.24), and no correlation was found between Spanish proficiency and English academic achievement (r = 0.03). Ulibarri et al. (1981) demonstrated that English language proficiency is the best predictor of English reading achievement for students with lower levels of English proficiency, even when students are just beginning to read. De Avila (1990) observes that the relationship between academic achievement and language proficiency disappears as students approach native- like proficiency levels. Methodology
Participants
EFL students majoring in English translation at the Islamic Azad University, Takestan campus, were randomly selected to participate in this study. The selection procedures yielded a sample of 50 students, all in the last semester of their course of study. Of the 50 participants, 80% were female and 20% were male.

Procedure
As mentioned earlier, the purpose of this study was to find out the relationship between language proficiency and academic achievement of Iranian EFL students. So, in order to achieve this goal, a standardized TOEFL paper test was first administered to the participating students, so as to decide their overall English language proficiency. The subtests included listening, reading comprehension, grammar and written expressions, and vocabulary. To test the speaking ability of the subjects, we also arranged an interview. The grading criteria for assessing the interview were pronunciation, style, vocabulary, grammar, suitability, fluency, and accuracy, to all of which equal points were assigned. Data on academic achievement was obtained from students’ cumulative folders. After administrating the TOEFL paper test and conducting the interview, the results of different parts of the test and the interview were used in total as an indicator of each student’s estimated English language proficiency score. Grade point averages (GPAs) included those specialized subjects, which were in the areas of language learning and teaching. The computed GPA was comprised of content areas such as linguistics, methodology, testing, English literature, phonology, and advanced writing which students had passed in subsequent semesters. Then the coefficient of correlation between two sets of scores obtained from the students’ GPAs and the results of language proficiency test was calculated.

To decide whether the calculated proficiency scores have a significant impact on the students' achievement in speaking and writing subjects, the authors computed two different GPAs for each student. The first GPA was comprised of oral contents, that is, those subjects that had been assessed orally such as oral reproduction of a story etc. The second GPA was restricted to the written language, that is, those subjects which had been evaluated in a written form.

Later, the correlation analysis was used to determine the relations between scores on language proficiency and achievement in speaking and writing subjects. This was done to demonstrate the impact of language proficiency on achievement in speaking and writing subjects respectively.

Results
The results of descriptive analysis of the data showed that the mean of the language proficiency score of participating students was 9.49, and the standard deviation was 1.62. This indicates that the language ability of almost all students was low. The mean of the English speaking and writing subjects (lessons) scores were 14.68 and 13.60 while the standard deviations were 1.72 and 2.14 respectively. This demonstrates that these EFL students performed much better on English speaking subjects than on English writing subjects (see Table 1).

The result of the correlation revealed a significant relation between English language proficiency and academic achievement (GPA). The correlation coefficient of the two sets of scores was 0.48. This suggests that as English proficiency increases, so does academic success. In other words, there is a positive correlation between the two variables.

Significant correlations were also observed between English proficiency and achievement in speaking and writing subjects. The results of the Pearson correlation revealed that the English language proficiency of Iranian EFL students correlates positively with achievement in speaking subjects (0.36) and achievement in writing subjects (0.40) respectively (see Table 2). These findings indicate that proficiency in English influences achievement in English writing subjects of students more than achievement in English speaking subjects.
Table 1 - Descriptive Statistics of Data Variable N Mean Median Tr Mean St Dev SE Mean Language Proficiency
48 9.49 9.75 9.43 1.72 0.315 Speaking Subjects Score
48 14.684 14.675 14.588 1.728 0.249 Writing Subjects Score
48 13.608 13.745 13.595 2.141 0.309 Table 2 - Correlation Analysis
Language proficiency Academic achievement 0.48 Writing subjects 0.40 Speaking subjects 0.36
Discussion
The results of data analysis demonstrated that the first null-hypothesis of this study, which asserts, “there is no relationship between English language proficiency and the academic achievement" was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, there is a relationship between these two variables; in other words, the English language proficiency correlates positively with the academic success.

This study presents some evidence that success in completing university assessment tasks may be related to proficiency in English, especially for students studying English. Students with lower levels of proficiency in English had low academic performance. This suggests that there is a direct relationship between academic success and language proficiency. Researchers have long noted that there seems to be a correlation between first and second language proficiency, and academic achievement in the first and second language. Feast (2002) found a significant and positive relationship between English language proficiency as measured by IELTS test scores, and performance at university as measured by Grade Point Average (GPA).

Although, it is logical to assume that English proficiency influences scores on academic achievement grade point average, the findings of this study revealed that the goals of educating language learners to be proficient have not been fulfilled. Stern (1992) states that proficiency goals include general competence, mastery of the four skills, or mastery of specific language behaviors. The low results of the administered TOEFL test indicated that the EFL students in undergraduate programs of Iranian universities are not sufficiently proficient and capable to act as English language experts. Their weak overall language ability affects drastically the academic success of the students in subsequent semesters. It seems that present general English courses have not been sufficient or successful in preparing students for their future careers. Graves (2001) points out that the tests that measure proficiency are also a part of needs assessment because they help determine what students already know and where they are lacking. Accordingly, we believe that the Iranian University Entrance Examinations for the admission of EFL students should be reviewed critically; otherwise, the academic achievement of the admitted EFL students may not meet the intended course goals.

The results of statistical analysis of data also showed that the second and third null-hypotheses of this study, which assert that "English language proficiency does not have any significant impact on achievement in English speaking and writing subjects, were rejected at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, there is a positive correlation between English language proficiency and achievement in English speaking and writing subjects. In other words, it should be asserted that, in the light of this finding, as English language proficiency increases, so doe’s performance of EFL students on English speaking and writing subjects.

Another important point which is worth highlighting is that language proficiency had greater impact on achievement in writing subjects than in speaking subjects. That is, those with higher language proficiency had higher achievement scores in written language compared with spoken language. However, this does not undermine the significance of proficiency in relation to student’s spoken language, as Farhady (1983) observed performance on language proficiency tests was closely related to students’ educational background, major field of study, sex, and nationality. So, the students’ performance and proficiency are related, even though a variety of parameters such as subjectivity of scoring, affective variables, physical conditions, and backwash effect of test produce varying scores.

Conclusion
In summary, English language proficiency is a good indicator and predictor of academic achievement for those students who are majoring in English (the EFL area), at least in the Iranian context. It is also representative of the performance of EFL students in written and spoken subjects respectively. In the Iranian case, EFL students with higher proficiency perform much better in writing subjects than speaking subjects. It seems that the deficiency is due to non-standardized university entrance screening tests that need to be corrected. Therefore, it is recommended that the selection process be appraised and changed carefully. This requires the attention of higher education authorities in Iran and elsewhere in order to choose more proficient candidates from the very beginning. Such a measure will have potential implications in all areas of academic development. Also, general English should be given special attention at university level not only for EFL students, but also for students majoring in other fields.

References
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental consideration in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bayliss, D., & Raymond, P.M. (2004). The link between academic success and L2 proficiency in the context of two professional programs. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(1), 29-51.

Best, J. W., & Kahn, J.V. (1989). Research in education. Englewood cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Butler, F. A., & Castellon-Wellington, M. (2000). Students' Concurrent performance on tests of English language proficiency and academic achievement. In, the validity of administrating large-scale content assessments to English language learners: An investigation from three perspectives. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and student testing. University of California, Los Angeles.

De Avila, E. (1990). Assessment of language minority students: Political, technical, practical and more imperatives. Proceedings of the first research symposium on limited English proficient student issues. OBEMLA.

Farhady, H. (1983). New directions for ESL proficiency testing. In J.W. Oller (Ed.), Issues in language testing research. (pp.253-268). U.S.A: Newbury House.

Farhady, H., Jafarpoor, A., and Birjandi, P. (1994). Testing language skills: From theory to practice. Tehran: SAMT Publications.

Feast, V. (2002). The impact of IELTS scores on performance at university. International Education Journal, 3(4), 70- 85.
Garcia-Vazquez, E., Vazquez, L. A., Lopez, I. C., & Ward, W. (1997).

Language proficiency and academic success: Relationships between proficiency in two languages and achievement among Mexican American students. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(4), 334 – 347.

Graham, J.G. (1987). English language proficiency and the prediction of academic success. TESOL Quarterly, 21(3),505-521.

Graves, K. (2001). A framework of course development processes.

In D.R. Hall, & A. Hewings (Eds.), Innovation in English language teaching (pp. 178- 196). London: Routledge.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Oller, J. W. (Ed.) (1983). Issues in language testing research. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.

Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stevens, R. A., Butler, F. A., & Castellon-Wellington, M. (2000). Academic language and content assessment: Measuring the progress of English language learners. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and student testing. University of California, Los Angeles.

Ulibarri, D., Maria, M., Spencer, L., & Rivas, G. A. (1981). Language proficiency and academic achievement: A study of language proficiency tests and their relationships to school rating as predictors of academic achievement. NABE Journal, 5, 47- 80.