Is Proficiency-Based Instruction Really More Effective? Research Says Yes.

Posted by on


As a world language educator and consultant, I constantly get asked the same question:

“Does proficiency-based instruction really work better than traditional grammar-based methods?”

It’s a valid question. After all, shifting to a proficiency-based approach isn’t a small undertaking—it requires a change in mindset, curriculum design, assessment strategies, and often a lot of professional learning. So, it’s no surprise that teachers and administrators want to see clear evidence that it’s worth the effort.

Although more research on this question is welcome, one of my favorite studies—"The relationship between proficiency‐based instruction and student oral proficiency," published in the Foreign Language Annals by Hancock, Adams, & Kissau (2022)—gives us solid data to back up what many of us have long believed: yes—proficiency-based instruction leads to stronger oral language skills.

Let’s break down what the researchers found—and what it means for your classroom.

🔍 The Study: Comparing Two Approaches

This mixed-methods study took place at a K–12 independent school in North Carolina that made a multi-year shift from a traditional grammar-based curriculum to a proficiency-based program. Researchers looked at:

  • Student oral proficiency scores (as measured by the ACTFL AAPPL test)

  • Interviews with teachers and students to capture their perceptions and experiences

They focused on students in Level III Spanish, French, and Chinese classes, comparing data from 2014 (pre-shift, traditional instruction) and 2018 (post-shift, proficiency-based instruction).

📈 Key Finding #1: Proficiency-Based Instruction Leads to Higher Proficiency

Students in the proficiency-based program scored significantly higher on the AAPPL interpersonal listening/speaking section than those in the traditional program:

  • Proficiency-Based Instruction Mean Score: 5.98 (≈ Intermediate Mid)

  • Traditional Instruction Mean Score: 4.25 (≈ Novice High)

That means that students in the traditional program had outcomes that were two sub-levels lower than those in the proficiency-based program!

In plain terms, students taught with proficiency-based instruction could sustain conversations and express themselves more comfortably in real-world scenarios than those in traditional classrooms.

🌍 Key Finding #2: Language Difficulty Matters, But Proficiency Still Wins

While Spanish and French students scored higher on average than Chinese students (likely due to how much longer it takes native English speakers to learn Chinese), all groups showed stronger outcomes under the proficiency-based model. That’s important—because it shows the approach holds up across languages. There isn't anything inherently unique about certain languages that make them incompatible with proficiency-based instruction.

🎙️ Key Finding #3: Students and Teachers Felt the Difference

Interview data revealed two big themes:

  1. Clear Paradigm Shift – Teachers moved from textbook-driven lessons focused on grammar and vocabulary lists to communicative, task-based lessons grounded in the three modes of communication (Interpretive, Interpersonal, and Presentational Communication). Students noticed—and appreciated—the change.

  2. Increased Motivation and Confidence – Students in the proficiency-based program felt more confident speaking the language, found the instruction more relevant, and were more engaged. One student shared, “You realize that you're much more proficient with Spanish than you actually thought you were. It's just kind of interesting.”

💡 Implications for Practice

This study offers actionable insights for world language educators and program leaders:

  • Set clear proficiency targets using Can-Do Statements focused on communication and authentic language use.

  • Focus instruction around the Three Modes of Communication – Interpretive, Interpersonal, and Presentational Communication – not isolated grammar drills, fill-ins, or vocab words without context.

  • Provide frequent speaking opportunities and use authentic resources to ground instruction in real-world contexts.

  • Implement performance-based assessments (such as Integrated Performance Assessments) and external assessments, such as AAPPL or STAMP to track growth over time.

🧭 A Word of Encouragement—and a Call for More Research

Making the shift to a proficiency-based program isn’t quick or easy—it took this school 5+ years to fully implement their vision. But the results? Stronger oral skills, more confident speakers, and a classroom environment that actually mirrors how languages are used in the real world.

Still, as powerful as this study is, we need more research like this. More data across different school settings, languages, and grade levels would help us understand how best to implement and support proficiency-based instruction at scale. It’s time to move beyond anecdotal evidence and continue building a strong, research-backed foundation for the future of language teaching.

So the next time someone asks, “Is proficiency-based instruction really better?”
You can say, with confidence: Yes—and the evidence is growing.

Reference:

Hancock, C.R., Adams, M.J., & Kissau, S. (2022). The relationship between proficiency‐based instruction and student oral proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 56(2), 280-298. https://doi-org.ezproxy.bu.edu/10.1111/flan.12667

Comments

Post a Comment