A Decade of foreign language standards Influence Impact Future Directions TITLE VI International...
-
Upload
bridget-sharp -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of A Decade of foreign language standards Influence Impact Future Directions TITLE VI International...
A Decade of foreign language standards
InfluenceImpactFuture Directions
TITLE VI International Research and Studies Program
Goals of the project1) create a bibliography of standards as they appear in the professional literature; categorize topics addressed and annotate major works
2) assess how standards have been institutionalized in educational programs and identify the degree to which standards have forged connections between K-12 and higher education
Goals of the project3) advance work toward expanding standards development and implementation in the U.S. Government’s identified critical needs languages.
4) identify areas in which research and professional development could more effectively promote teaching toward standards.
Task Forces and Members
Literature Survey: Sally Magnan, Chair
TF members: Katherine Arens, Frank (Pete) Brooks, Robert Davis, Virginia Scott Assistants: Jacques Arceneaux, Barbara Bird
Institutional Impact: Debbie Robinson, Chair
TF members: Michael Everson, David Jahner, Ursula Lentz, Aleidine Moeller
Professional Development: Eileen Glisan, Chair
TF members: Elizabeth Bernhardt, Nathan Bond, Iman Hashem, Grisel Lopez-Diaz
Research & activities – 3 years
Year 1: SurveyAs of Feb. 2010 respondents = 1286
Year 2: Analysis
Year 3: Implications, Recommendations
Where are we with standards?
What do the data mean?
Where do we go from here?
Literature Review
Task Force Charge
Review professional literature
With ACTFL, create a searchable site of Standards literature
Literature Review
Database search to locate Standards references
23 databases
22 search terms
1998 to 2009
Literature Review
Reference typesArticles, 425
Book reviews, 134
Dissertations, 42
Books and chapters, 101
News articles, 135
TOTAL, 900
Literature Review
Classifications
Primary focus
Substantial mention
Passing mention
Literature Review
Top journals for StandardsModern Language Journal, 181
Hispania, 68
Die Unterrichtspraxis, 49
Foreign Language Annals, 35
French Review, 32
ADFL Bulletin, 24
Literature Review
Results will be available in new searchable ACTFL library
Literature Review
Select a topic
Literature Review
Pick a “C”
Literature Review
Pick an instructional level
Literature Review
Select a language(s)
Literature Review
Reference and short annotation
Literature Review
Conference presentations
Trends from 1998-2009 from the report
Will not be listed individually in the library
Institutional Impact
State Supervisors
The National Standards have influenced policy in my state.
Yes 80 %
No 20 %
Institutional Impact
The state has produced tools or products related to NSFL
Yes 74 %No 21 %Other 37 %
Ex.Curriculum frameworks, model units and lessons, classroom application documents, targets by proficiency level
Institutional Impact
Standards revision based on:Benchmarking—other states 37 %International Benchmarking 47 %21st Century Skills 58 %College/career readiness 37 %Stronger performance-based 58 % assessmentCredit by proficiency 21 %Other 26 %
Institutional Impact
Institutional Impact: All respondentsState standards based on National Standards
77 % yes 7 % no16 % don’t know
Local or departmental curriculum/program of study based on National Standards
80 % yes14 % no 6 % don’t know
Institutional Impact
Concerted effort to implement standards-based program
Strongly Agree 37%
Agree 27%
Neutral 19%
Disagree 8 %
Strongly Disagree 8%
Institutional Impact
Perceptions: Standards-based program vs. non standards-based
66% of teachers can compare
34% cannot compare
Institutional Impact
Foster more positive attitudes towards language learning in students
Strongly Agree 37 %
Agree 33 %
Neutral 22 %
Disagree 4 %
Strongly Disagree 4 %
Institutional Impact
Retention of students improved and students take more language
Strongly Agree 22 %
Agree 28 %
Neutral 35 %
Disagree 9 %
Strongly Disagree 6 %
Institutional Impact
Easier to communicate goals and objectives to various stakeholders
Strongly Agree 47 %
Agree 36 %
Neutral 12 %
Disagree 2 %
Strongly Disagree 3 %
Institutional Impact
Students’ communicative ability has improved
Strongly Agree 28 %
Agree 35 %
Neutral 26 %
Disagree 7 %
Strongly Disagree 5 %
Institutional Impact
Increased professional dialogue among language colleagues
Strongly Agree 32 %
Agree 34 %
Neutral 22 %
Disagree 6 %
Strongly Disagree 6%
Institutional Impact
Increased dialogue among colleagues of all disciplines
Strongly Agree 20 %
Agree 27 %
Neutral 30 %
Disagree 12 %
Strongly Disagree 11 %
Institutional Impact
Easier to promote concept of life-long learning to students
Strongly Agree 33 %
Agree 35 %
Neutral 21 %
Disagree 5 %
Strongly Disagree 6 %
Institutional Impact
Standards-based assessment has facilitated articulation
Strongly Agree 24 %
Agree 33 %
Neutral 29 %
Disagree 8 %
Strongly Disagree 7%
Strongly Agree 9 %
Agree 21 %
Neutral 40 %
Disagree 15 %
Strongly Disagree 14%
Can Compare Cannot Compare
Institutional Impact
AssessmentStatewide assessment of communicative ability?
District/department common assessment of communicative ability?
Yes 13% 11%
Yes 37% 32%
No 70% 68%
No 60% 66%
Don’t know 15% 20%
Other 27% 22 %
Other 10% 8%
can/cannot compare
can/cannot compare
Professional Development
5 Cs: Primary Focus of Formal or Informal PD
Communication 90 %
Cultures 56 %
Connections 37 %
Comparisons 32%
Communities 25 %
Professional Development
Formal Professional Development (PD) on Standards
51% of respondents received formal PD on Standards
Format of PD:Workshop 79 %Session/seminar/lecture 56 %Course 28 %Summer institute 24 %Series of workshops/package 12 %
Professional Development
Setting for Formal PD
School District 44 %College/university 41 %State conference 40 %Regional conference 35 %National conference 29 %State DOE 15 %NFLRC 9 %
Professional Development
Type of Support Received after PD to incorporate new skills
NONE 60 %Collegial/administrative support 24 %Resources 21 %Time 15 %
50% reported NO follow-up by school/ dept. chair to determine extent of implementation of new learning
Professional Development
Informal PD on Standards
Talking with colleagues 76%Reading professional literature 59 %Peer coaching/mentoring 46 %Independent study 34 %Study group 22 %Online discussions 15 %Conducting action research 10 %
Professional Development
PD Prompted Re-examination of Instructional Practices 74% reported that their PD prompted
them to implement new ideas and/or change their instructional practices.Prompted them to re-examine to greatest degree:
philosophy of teaching languagesinstructional practicesassessment practices
Professional Development
Responses to PD on Standards
Made few/no changes to teaching 7 %
Connected classroom activities to standards 38 %
Connected textbook/curriculum to standards 21 %
Implemented standards-based approach 34 %
Professional Development
Results: Respondents Never or Almost Never….
Teach students the terms products, practices, perspectives 46%
Provide opportunities for students to communicate with others via technology—i.e., key pals, blogs, online discussions, etc.
48%
Assess students’ ability to interact with TL communities 48%
Professional Development
Results: Respondents Always or Almost Always…
Use the target language 90% of the time or more in most of their lessons.
57 %
Provide students with the tools to engage in lifelong learning of the FL.
75%
Professional Development
Easiest & Most Difficult Goal Areas to Teach
Easiest: CommunicationCultures
Most Difficult:CommunitiesConnections
Professional Development
Methods Courses: Resources for Addressing Standards
Book: Standards for FL Learning in 21st Century 76 %Professional literature 72 %Textbook 68 %Websites & online materials 66 %State standards/frameworks 61 %Video clips of standards lessons 49 %Standards-based thematic units 48 %
Professional Development
Top 5 Topics Addressed*2-way tie for 2nd place, 3-way tie for 5th place
Communicative language ability 94 %
Importance of using TL, Integrationof Technology 93 %
Cultural 3 Ps 91%
Making input comprehensible, Making content meaningful, Teaching grammar in context 90 %
Professional Development
Activities Done in Methods Courses by Teacher Candidates
Top Two:Design oral, written, multimedia presentational communication tasks 88 %
Select an authentic text as basis for lesson or unit 84 %
Bottom Two:Design assessment to measure students’ understanding of 3 Ps 41 %Design a task to assess learners’ ability to interact in TL communities 34 %
Professional Development
District Supervisors: New teachers’ understanding of Standards is determined
through:
Interview questions 85 %Sample lesson plans 34 %Portfolios 34 %Demonstration lesson 32 %Teacher work samples 18 %None of the above 11 %Essay 6 %
Professional Development
Professional Development Being “well versed” in Standards
New teacher education graduatesYES 56 %NO 44 %
University mentorsCompletely 37 %Minimally 58 %Not at all 5 %
Professional Development
Input from professional Colleagues
Discussion of FL Standards in professional literature (not textbooks) outside our field District / university collaborations not in the literature for professional developmentResearch or data gathering projects with standards associated focus or reference