From C1 Exit Standards to Enacted Proficiency: A Mixed-Methods Study of Score Interpretation and Assessment Alignment in an EFL Higher Education Programme

Technical Summary: From C1 Exit Standards to Enacted Proficiency

Problem Statement
The paper addresses a critical gap in outcome-oriented English as a Foreign Language (EFL) higher education programmes: the disconnect between formally declared advanced exit standards (specifically C1) and the actual "enacted proficiency" demonstrated by learners. While C1 standards are increasingly used to organize curriculum expectations and quality assurance, the study argues that a standard's assessment value is not inherent in its presence in a policy document. Instead, value is contingent on how the standard is translated into assessable tasks, interpretable score evidence, diagnostic feedback, and subsequent learner action. The central problem is not whether a C1 standard is declared, but how it becomes visible, interpretable, and usable within the specific learning practices and assessment ecology of a local programme.

Methodology
The study employs a mixed-methods design, treating a single undergraduate English Language programme at a public university in Vietnam as a "bounded analytic case" rather than a nationally representative sample. The research focuses on the transition from B2 to C1 proficiency.

• Participants: The quantitative strand involved the complete cohort of 91 third-year students. The qualitative strand included 12 instructors and one programme administrator.
• Instruments and Data Sources:
  1. Module Scores: Secondary data from four core practical English modules (Listening-Speaking 4, Reading-Writing 4, Advanced Reading-Listening, and Advanced Speaking-Writing). An internal score threshold of 8.6 was used as a C1-related indicator based on institutional credit transfer regulations, explicitly noted as not an externally validated CEFR measure.
  2. Student Survey: A 7-point Likert scale survey adapted from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), measuring Intrinsic Value, Time and Study Environment, and Learner Autonomy. It also captured self-assessment of CEFR levels and learning barriers.
  3. Instructor/Administrator Questionnaire: 35 Likert items covering standard awareness, proficiency perceptions, and feedback practices, alongside open-ended responses.
• Analysis: Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS 27.0 (Spearman correlations, Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests, descriptive statistics) due to non-normal distributions. Qualitative data underwent inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Triangulation was performed across module scores, student surveys, and instructor data.

Key Results

• Attainment Against Benchmark: Only 9.9% of students met the internal C1-related benchmark (score ≥ 8.6) in the Advanced Speaking-Writing module. In contrast, 33.0% met the benchmark in Advanced Reading-Listening. In the foundational Reading-Writing 4 module, 95.6% of students scored below 8.0.
• Skill Development: Listening was the only skill showing statistically significant improvement from the B2 foundation stage to the C1 advanced stage. Speaking, Reading, and Writing showed no significant development; Writing scores actually declined slightly.
• Learner Self-Regulation: While 90.5% of students acknowledged the importance of out-of-class self-study, only 40.9% reported studying independently for 2–4 hours weekly. There was a significant gap between valuing English (high Intrinsic Value) and organizing sustained self-study (lower Time and Study Environment scores).
• Correlations: Intrinsic Value was significantly associated only with Advanced Reading-Listening scores. No learner-side variables (including self-study behaviors and autonomy) were significantly associated with Advanced Speaking-Writing scores.
• Feedback and Barriers: Students rated teaching quality positively overall but gave the lowest ratings to "individualised instructor feedback." The primary reported barriers were the lack of real-life communicative practice, insufficient self-study discipline, and limitations in academic vocabulary/grammar.

Key Contributions
The paper contributes to the field by reframing advanced proficiency not merely as an attainment label but as an "assessment-use chain." It demonstrates that for a C1 standard to be enacted, it requires a coherent alignment of:

1. Interpretable Assessment Evidence: Moving beyond raw scores to evidence that students can locate their performance against a target.
2. Diagnostic Feedback: Feedback designed not just as information delivery but as a process supporting uptake and subsequent action.
3. Guided Self-Regulated Learning: The necessity of scaffolding learners to use criteria and feedback to plan and monitor their own progress, particularly in productive skills.

The study highlights that motivation (Intrinsic Value) alone is insufficient to drive advanced productive performance without the structural support of specific self-regulatory routines and actionable feedback loops.

Significance and Claims
The authors explicitly state that the empirical basis is local and the findings are not intended for statistical generalization to other Vietnamese or Asian programmes. The significance of the paper lies in the assessment questions it raises for EFL programmes relying on advanced exit standards.

The paper argues that the "C1 gap" observed is likely an "assessment-use problem" rather than a simple failure of student ability. It suggests that programmes must examine the alignment between:

• Exit standards and course tasks.
• The evidence used to interpret proficiency.
• Feedback opportunities attached to productive-skill work.
• Support structures for student self-study planning.

The study concludes that C1-oriented proficiency is best understood as a "pedagogically constructed outcome" that depends on internal assessment evidence, diagnostic feedback, and guided self-regulated learning. It calls for future work on scale-linking internal module scores to external CEFR levels and for programme reviews that focus on making advanced standards actionable through curriculum design and feedback literacy.