Evaluating the English Proficiency of Faculty Members of a Higher Education Institution: Using Results to Develop Responsive Professional Development Program st. Mei "me Roya Corman Yi, Sa Ana arpa: Jt. Mens, Eni ang is, Yb nul Cts, Yn I Nad, ‘Sins nbs to menace evi0sssevings? URL gel ose iaght ‘Corer lets ee ht Eg profes f Pip wks fas ened sgh heya The Sse sd mn i ca Rly meds sping ecare. Wthe ef aeng ‘Selinger, ty evil fee Ents oie of ay member of be edu tte he line ad proposal» progon hat aud evens be em el {ig ied nn a ie sly enn sng sa fan ot ‘Segunge ant teow th jority of beech pd in Ala A eve (Dae Ue Enetve Business and Repo Writg, while hgh educator tition seed in tis sy nese ‘ot es eal ender. pe wean ia eg ty Keywords Eagih prin Pipe ihr ofa ‘ung poten development Bao eta anton, ie pn es dn iy ‘ings! causing eon, tcvehng bu howl ud eng how stows, os ‘nrmaand vee lennon pscn Als iow level othe er hand, Engi wed ec ty aod dope scl a inn ‘ne Mapp, i ge ip ey apr nee st of ips He ahh More th gone tis andes pring ph os dey th Engh comma a al is naa, deel oye, te ea he sary cinta rts mater he eugene more no cals grits oy hve Engin pons ya snr say condo by EF Edun a (anne Minor ayes ba Eek motley of ug mare ade de epelyaecing Mie bal cei nd fen rest eres The eo pes ange were carer he mel get Hes Imraan Pane Db, 1) aga tb rege ony nl os Pin Coegs ce ‘Wimamedite CEFR Bt wo ths lows than be sl ier lvl CEFR CH. Te se Coe nan hen of hh in Ug ny eres ctu ply ahh bp Bete ‘ul sevne the sn ocr. Spey ti me be ein gon) Wat 2 eel {gh fens the aes by merge hl a eve an 2) Wh pce ly ‘hey mast be proficient enought nfece stews by ering» elec modes aus attr i ccemey in English can ars the Engl language efinces ad ics of