Introduction

A growing number of studies are dedicated to examining future teachers’ language proficiency levels. This trend may be linked to the increasing graduation requirements of educational institutions, which mandate certification of proficiency levels for upcoming generations of educators (Kostina, 2012; Ramírez-Draughn & Cárdenas-Tamburini, 2023). To certify language proficiency, institutions commonly adhere to an international standard for assessment, such as the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR; Charttrakul & Damnet, 2021; Hishamudin & Li, 2023; Kostina, 2012). This framework seeks to provide “a common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc. across Europe” (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 1). The CEFR (Council of Europe, 2020) describes language proficiency across six levels (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2) grouped into three bands: Basic User (A1-A2), Independent User (B1-B2), and Proficient User (C1-C2). This proficiency scale serves not only to assess language testing but also to support curricular and teaching aspects addressed in second or foreign language education (Little, 2007, 2011). Furthermore, it must be noted that each level of proficiency possesses descriptors that, according to the Council of Europe (2020), are consistently positive, avoiding any mention of what the learner is unable to do. In addition, these descriptors should be understood as guidelines rather than objectives or outcomes (Council of Europe, 2020; Little, 2011), as they emphasize expected performance criteria rather than providing flexible, supportive benchmarks for learners’ progress (Figueras, 2012; Little, 2007).

Given the global recognition of the CEFR, research indicates that English education programs are adopting this framework to assess the language proficiency levels of preservice teachers (Charttrakul & Damnet, 2021; Hishamudin & Li, 2023; Naser & Ali, 2023; Phoolaikao & Sukying, 2021; Ramírez-Draughn & Cárdenas-Tamburini, 2023). The overarching goal of these teaching contexts is to guide preservice teachers toward advanced proficiency in English, specifically at the C1 level (Hishamudin & Li, 2023; Ramírez-Draughn & Cárdenas-Tamburini, 2023; Shukor & Sulaiman, 2022). Despite these expectations, empirical studies reveal that preservice teachers struggle to achieve the level of proficient users (e.g., Kostina, 2012; Naser & Ali, 2023; Ramos-García & Fernández-Viciana, 2019). Kostina (2012) reports that in a Colombian teacher education program, on average, only half of the participants achieved the expected national English proficiency level, corresponding to B2 (intermediate level). Similarly, in a Spanish context, Ramos-García and Fernández-Viciana (2019) observed that only 7.4% of preservice teachers in a sample of 135 achieved a proficient user level (C1). Most of the sample consisted of intermediate users, with B1 representing 35.6%, followed closely by B2 at 34.1%. The study concluded that these future teachers were still far from reaching advanced English proficiency. Furthermore, as noted by Yee and Periasamy (2019), this issue appears to extend to in-service teachers who face challenges in attaining the C1 benchmark in both public and private sectors, as highlighted by Cárdenas and Chaves (2013).

Beyond English proficiency attainment, research has also explored preservice teachers’ attitudes toward language proficiency testing. These findings are noteworthy because, despite acknowledging their lack of English language mastery, most preservice teachers hold positive attitudes toward C1 testing and certification (Kaur & Jian, 2022; Nii & Yunus, 2022; Phoolaikao & Sukying, 2021; Shukor & Sulaiman, 2022). Other findings indicate that preservice teachers have limited or uncertain knowledge of the CEFR and its proficiency bands (Basic User, Independent User, Proficient User) and practical implications (Figueras, 2012). Similarly, Cárdenas and Chaves (2013) reported discrepancies between preservice teachers’ perceived linguistic competence and their proficiency test results. These studies highlight the need for further attention to both language proficiency attainment and preservice teachers’ familiarity with standardized frameworks like the CEFR, which can play a crucial role in their professional preparation.

C1 English Proficiency in Chilean English Teacher Education

Chilean teacher education aligns with international English language proficiency standards. In 2021, the Chilean Ministry of Education (MINEDUC) released new standards for English language teaching (ELT), titled Estándares de la profesión docente: carreras de pedagogía en inglés (Standards for English Language Teaching Programs). In this framework, preservice teachers are expected to master both teaching and disciplinary English language knowledge (MINEDUC, 2021). In particular, the disciplinary knowledge domain is composed of five standards: (a) Communicative Competence and Language Teaching, (b) Fundamentals of English Language Teaching and Learning, (c) Development of Communicative Skills, (d) Resources for Learning, and (e) Cultural and Intercultural Competence. In particular, Standard A evidences a direct connection to CEFR levels of proficiency, stating that preservice teachers must “communicate in English, both orally and in writing, at an expert C1 level” (MINEDUC, 2021, p. 79, translated by the authors). It is important to note that these new standards are being implemented but have not yet become graduation requirements for English language teaching programs.

Three years after the publication of the ELT standards, there remains a need for empirical research in Chilean teacher education on the attainment of C1 English proficiency from multiple perspectives and methods. The work by Ramírez-Draughn and Cárdenas-Tamburini (2023) marks an important starting point for understanding preservice teachers’ experiences with proficiency testing. Building on their foundation, this study aims to further explore these experiences and expand the empirical efforts in this area.

This study aims to explore preservice teachers’ perceptions of C1 English proficiency by focusing on their perceived linguistic competence, understanding of the C1 level, attitudes toward it, and challenges in attaining it. In light of the new standards for ELT, it is hoped that the results from this study will help teacher education programs better understand this phenomenon. To meet this goal, the study centered on the following subsidiary aims:

1. To determine the linguistic competence perceived by EFL preservice teachers.

2. To identify EFL preservice teachers’ understanding of C1 English proficiency.

3. To identify EFL preservice teachers’ attitudes toward C1 English proficiency.

4. To identify EFL preservice teachers’ perceived challenges of C1 English proficiency.

Method

Based on an explanatory sequential design, this mixed-methods study emerged from the need to understand EFL teachers’ perspectives and experiences in attaining an advanced proficiency level, specifically C1. The lack of empirical research on this topic and the pressing need to integrate new ELT standards further motivated this study. A group of researchers, comprising three teacher candidates guided by an academic, designed the study and research instruments and collected data over six months. The research site was located in Ñuble, Chile, within the English education program of a private university. This program comprises five years of education, incorporating modules delivered in Spanish (30%) and English (70%). Preservice teachers in this program must take an external English proficiency test upon completing their fifth year of the teacher education program. At the time of the study, participants had not yet taken this test.

Thirteen participants (eight women and five men) were selected through convenience sampling. Their age ranged between 20 and 40 years, and they all were in their final years of professional education (5th and 4th years). While most participants did not possess language certifications, two reported having C1 proficiency certificates in English and French prior to entering the teaching program. This information was gathered during the quantitative questionnaire administration phase (see Appendix A). The questionnaire was specifically designed to gather insights into participants’ perceived linguistic competence and explore potential relationships with other study dimensions: understanding, attitudes, and challenges. To analyze the perceived linguistic competence, the researchers adapted the descriptors of Communicative Language competencies, centering on the linguistic competence of the Council of Europe (2020), to a Likert scale. This adaptation involved simplifying the language and adding response options ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree for each area (see Appendix A). Next, the instrument was validated by three ELT academics and piloted with six preservice teachers who shared characteristics similar to those of the study participants. These steps ensured the instrument’s reliability and appropriateness for the study.

Subsequently, data were collected and analyzed both at the individual participant level and by group to identify similarities and differences in the linguistic competence of 4th-year and 5th-year participants. Means and standard deviations were calculated, and the comparison was performed using the t-test for independent samples. All analyses were conducted with Jamovi software version 2.3.21.0 with a significance level of 0.05.

Three weeks after administering the questionnaire, the researchers began the qualitative data collection phase. This phase involved semi-structured interviews (see Appendix B) conducted in focus groups with 4th- and 5th-year participants. We decided to interview the participants separately to ensure their comfort. We recorded the interviews and used a question checklist to provide consistent questions and address emergent questions for each group. Subsequently, the data were transcribed with minor style corrections to preserve the participants’ original modes of expression. Data were grouped by dimension (understanding, attitudes, challenges) and further analyzed using the software Atlas.ti.

It is important to underscore that our study adhered to the ethical considerations of the research site. Participants were fully informed about the study and voluntarily participated, understanding they could withdraw anytime. To participate, they signed an informed consent form in both phases of data collection.

Results

Discussion and Conclusion

The findings of this study provide insights into the perceived linguistic competence, understanding, attitudes, and challenges of Chilean EFL preservice teachers regarding C1 English proficiency as one of the key aspects in standards for English language teaching.

The starting point of this study was to determine the identified linguistic competence of the participants, establishing a reference point for a more comprehensive understanding of their perceptions of the C1 level. The analysis of each participant indicates that learners with prior experience in proficiency tests report a higher perceived linguistic competence. This finding underscores the importance of exposing preservice teachers to proficiency testing or incorporating student-centered instruction, as reported by Van Loi and Hang (2021) or implementing curricular changes, as suggested by Kostina (2012). This aspect is crucial, particularly when implementing national teaching standards in English language education. This emphasis is further highlighted by extensive research, which consistently shows that English language proficiency in foreign language contexts often falls short of the expected C1 proficiency level (Cárdenas & Chaves, 2013; Kostina, 2012; Naser & Ali, 2023; Ramos-García & Fernández-Viciana, 2019). Hence, in addition to proficiency testing, English education programs should prioritize the quality of practicum experiences, as the present study found that 5th-year participants’ perceived linguistic competence was higher than that of their 4th-year counterparts. This difference can be attributed to their academic progression, particularly their practicum experiences, which may enhance their linguistic confidence and perceived competence. These experiences likely enable them to apply their language skills in real teaching contexts, reinforcing their self-perception as capable language users and teachers. Consequently, practicum experiences may play a significant role in boosting perceived linguistic competence among more advanced preservice teachers.

In terms of participants’ understanding of C1 English proficiency, the present study reveals a complexity in both groups of participants to fully conceptualize the C1 level. Although participants possessed information about this benchmark, their understanding was fragmented even in participants with higher perceived linguistic competence. This finding aligns with previous research (Phoolaikao & Sukying, 2021), which suggests that EFL preservice teachers should be well-versed in the CEFR and its framework for language proficiency. In this context, Figueras (2012) emphasizes the need for a systematic approach to CEFR descriptors, as both educators and students often refer to the proficiency levels (A1 to C2) without fully understanding what learners can accomplish at each level. A lack of this knowledge may explain the discrepancies noted by Cárdenas and Chaves (2013), where self-perceptions of linguistic competence differed from actual proficiency test results. Future research could further explore this issue. In the present study, however, no significant discrepancies were found between participants’ perceived linguistic competence and their perceptions of C1 English proficiency. Participants generally acknowledged that C1 level is the expected goal upon graduation, though they recognized it as challenging to achieve, particularly due to the mastery of grammatical competence—an area emphasized mainly by 5th-year participants.

Regarding participants’ attitudes toward C1 English proficiency, it was found that they hold favorable views regardless of their perceived linguistic competence. This finding aligns with previous research, which highlights participants’ favorable perceptions of C1 English proficiency, recognizing it as a valuable benchmark for foreign language education programs (Kaur & Jian, 2022; Nii & Yunus, 2022; Phoolaikao & Sukying, 2021; Shukor & Sulaiman, 2022). In addition to recognizing C1 English proficiency as a high-quality standard, as noted by Ramírez-Draughn and Cárdenas-Tamburini (2023), participants in this study believed that achieving this level of language proficiency may be directly linked to enhanced pedagogical skills and classroom practices, an area that could be further explored in subsequent studies.

Regarding the challenges of attaining advanced language proficiency, both 4th-participants and 5th-year participants have similar experiences identified in three main areas, encompassing language skills, self-directed learning, and preparation and resources. Although this study did not observe major anxiety and stress problems as addressed by Ramírez-Draughn and Cárdenas-Tamburini (2023), we did identify perceived nervousness associated with the language proficiency exam format. Hence, it is highly recommended that EFL education programs expose teacher candidates to more instances of standardized testing and the overarching implications of such assessments (Figueras, 2012; Van Loi & Hang, 2021), enabling preservice teachers to assess and monitor their own language proficiency (Cárdenas & Chaves, 2013). Participants in this study believe that feedback and language learning materials play a fundamental role in enhancing their linguistic competence. Future research could explore the relationship between achieving C1 proficiency and the amount and quality of feedback provided to preservice teachers.

It is worth noting that this study’s small sample size limits the generalizability of the findings, suggesting a need for future research with a larger sample to validate and expand upon these results. The significance of these findings lies in their potential to inform EFL education programs, emphasizing the importance of addressing CEFR and its overarching framework, integrating more standardized testing, and providing comprehensive feedback mechanisms to better prepare preservice teachers for the demands of achieving C1 English proficiency.