A common misconception in English Education lies in the confounding intermingling between Academic English and Basic Interactive Communication Strategies. The discombobulation resides not only between the two conceptual entities per se but also with each’s respective scope.
Academic English pertains to language use that delves into learning lexicons and other grammatical units inherent to specific subject matters within academic contexts. A type of language that demands a higher level of linguistic stringency because the goal is to satisfy the conventions of subject-specific communication within the borders of academic discourses, conditions, and contexts. On the other hand, Basic Interactive Communication Strategies concerns learning lexicons that enable one to procure fundamental day-to-day human interactions. A type of language used with a more lenient level of linguistic stringency because the goal is to communicate what one means to communicate concerning basic etiquette and human decency. In this regard, the latter can be qualified as effective or efficient within fundamental human interactions.
Given the contrastive picture painted above, the discussion then moves on to qualifying English Proficiency in Formal Education. However, the qualification of English Proficiency in Formal Education concerns the two aforementioned concepts. Not one or the other. The point of this article is to decentralize the focus of other stakeholders or perhaps, even teachers on the latter. If a student speaks ‘fluent’ English in simple communicative situations within or without the academic context, this must only be seen as half the deal. It is because the varying contexts of the two must be the determining criteria for qualifying English Proficiency in each or overall.
Consequently, the qualification of English Proficiency in Formal Education boils down to one crucial parameter, whether the students demonstrate the tangible and intangible actualizations of the performance standard, content standard, learning competencies, learning goals, and the hidden curriculum relating to language proficiency. At least, by measuring those three components, stakeholders or teachers will not be able to prematurely claim that a student is proficient in English solely on one or the other. All in all, quantifying English Proficiency depends on the goals mentioned above and objectives to be demonstrated and actualized by the students.
By: MRS. NORALYN G. AGBAY |TEACHER I | BATAAN NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL | BALANGA CITY, BATAAN
