Proficiency-Oriented Language Instruction and...
Transcript of Proficiency-Oriented Language Instruction and...
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . �
“Theessenceofsecondlanguageeducationisembodiedinitsattempttojoinindividualstogethersothattheymightcommunicateacrosslinguisticandculturalboundaries”(Tedicketal.,1993,p.44).Neverbeforehastheneedforsuchcommunicationbeengreater.ForstudentsintheU.S.,theneedtofunctioncompetentlyinmorethanonelanguagehasbecomeincreasinglyimportantinthisrapidlyshrinking,interdependentworldofthe21stcentury.Ithasbecomecrucialtopreparestudentswithsecondlanguagecompetence—beingabletotalkaboutlanguage,todescribeitsgrammar,andtoconjugateverbswillsimplynotsuffice.Inthisnewcentury,studentsmustbeabletocommunicateorallyandinwritingandtocomprehendbothoralandwrittenlanguage.Theymustbeabletoparticipateinculturallyappropriatewaysinface-to-faceinteractionwithmembersofothercultures,andtheymustalsobeabletointerprettheconcepts,ideas,andopinionsexpressedbymembersoftheseculturesthroughtheirmediaandliteratures(NationalStandardsinForeignLanguageEducationProject,1996,p.35). Itisindeedanexcitingtimetobeinvolvedinlanguageeducation.ThenationalstandardsforForeignLanguageLearning,unveiledinearly1996,describeachallengingyetstimulatingvisionforlanguageeducationinthe21stcentury,avisionthatrecognizestheneedforlanguageinstructiontofacilitategenuineinteractionbetweenandamongindividualswhorepresentdifferentculturalandlinguisticcommunities(NationalStandardsforForeignLanguageEducationProject,1996).ThisisavisionthattheArticulationProjectshares,soforthisreason,wemadethedecisiontoadoptthenationalstandardsfortheCurriculumHandbook.AsynopsisofthestandardsappearsintheKeyMaterialssection.1Moststateshavecreatedstatestandardsforworldlanguagesthatparallelorincorporatethenationalstandards.Themessageacrossthenationisclear.Itcallsforlanguageeducationtofocusonwhatstudentsshouldknowandbeabletodo;theemphasisisonlanguageuseandcultureisseenascentraltoacquiringlanguageforrealcommunicativepurposes.Thenationalstandardsrepresentbroad,long-termgoalsforlanguageinstruction.Theyareintendedtobeinterpretedbroadly,andwehavedonesowithinthecontextofthetasksandunitsinthisHandbook. Despiteemphasisthroughthe1980’sand90’sonproficiency-orientedlanguageinstructionforforeignlanguageclassroomsand,inthelate90’sthenationalstandards,grammarhasmaintaineditsroleasthekeyorganizingprincipleoflanguageinstructioninthevastmajorityoflanguageclassrooms.Inmostlanguageclassrooms,languageisviewedas“object”—somethingthatisactedupon,anentitytobescrutinized,analyzed,andbrokendownintoitssmallestcomponents(Tedicketal.,1993;Tedick&Walker,1994).ThisviewhasemergedinpartduetothehistoricalinfluencethatthefieldoflinguisticshashadinthefieldoflanguageeducationandalsoinpartbecauseofthelongroadlanguageteachershavehadtotravelinordertolegitimizetheirplaceinthearenaofU.S.schools.The“content”oflanguagecurriculumhasbeendefinedasthelexicon,syntax,morphology,andphonologyoflanguage,orasthenotionsandfunctions.Inordertoemphasizethecommunicativenatureoflanguageandtoacknowledgethatlanguagehasmeaningwhenitisembeddedwithinasocialcontext,itisnecessarytoviewlanguageas
Proficiency-Oriented LanguageInstruction and Assessment:
Standards, Philosophies, and Considerations for Assessment
Written by Diane J. Tedick
New Standards for Language Education
NOTES
p .10 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
“subject”(somethingthatacts)(Tedicketal.,1993;Tedick&Walker,1994)andtostriveforabalancebetweenlanguage-as-objectandlanguage-as-subjectincurriculumandinstruction.Balancingthetwoperspectivesmeansthatstudentsareengagedinlearningaboutlanguage—itsvocabulary,itsgrammarandmorphology,itsphonology(thatis,engagingwithlanguageasobject),yetalwayswithinthecontextofusinglanguagetocommunicatemeaning(thatis,engagingwithlanguageassubject).Inotherwords,it’simportantforateachertoteachlanguagerules(e.g.,verbconjugations),butit’salsoimportantalwaystofollowthatinstructionwithapplicationoftherules.Howwellcanstudentsuseconjugateverbscorrectlytowritealetter?Inanutshell,notonlydostudentsneedtoknowhowlanguageworks,theyalsoneedtoknowhowtouselanguageformeaningfulpurposesandtheopportunitiestopracticetheseapplications. Inordertostriveforabalancebetweenlanguage-as-objectandlanguage-as-subjectandtoemphasizelanguageusewithcultureascoreinthelanguageclassroom,arethinkingofcurriculumandinstructionneedstooccur.Traditionally,mostforeignlanguageclassroomshaveconcentratedonhow (grammar)tosay what (vocabulary),buthaveleftthe why, whom, where, andwhen outoftheequation(NationalStandardsforForeignLanguageEducationProject,1996;Tedick&Walker,1994).Whilegrammarandvocabularyremainimportantcomponents,theothers,whichhighlightthesociolinguisticandculturalaspectsoflanguage,areessentialforcommunication.“Inotherwords,grammarandstructurearenotthegoalofinstruction,butratheressentialtoolstowardachievingother,moreimportantgoals—languageuseinsocialcontextsandinterculturalcommunication”(Tedick&Walker,1994,p.306).Onewaytoachievethesemoreimportantgoalsistomakecontentandculturalthemestheorganizingprincipleforlanguagecurriculumandinstruction.Thisrethinkingofthecurriculum,towardcontent-based,task-basedlanguageinstructionandanemphasisonmeaningfullanguageuseisthefocusofthenationalstandardsandeffortsoftheCurriculumTeamoftheArticulationProject. Thefocusonmeaningandlanguageusedoesnotarguethatteachersshouldbeneglectingform.Onthecontrary,what’snecessaryisabalancebetweenmeaningandforminthecontextofcommunication.Inaway,thislanguageinstructionissueissimilartoanissuethathasdominatedthefieldofliteracyinstructionforsometime.Fordecadestherehasbeenadebateaboutliteracyinstructionthathascenteredonwholelanguagevs.phonicsinstruction.Thequestionhastoooftenbeen:Shouldteachersfocusonthewholeortheparts?Theansweris“neither,”becausethequestioniswrong—itissimplynotan“either/or”issue.Goodteachersknowthateffectiveliteracyinstructionprovidesabalancebetweenthewholeandtheparts.Childrenwhoarelearninghowtoreadneedtobesurroundedbyarichliteracyenvironmentthatinvolvesfrequentinteractionwithstimulating
NOTES
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .11
texts;atthesametime,theyneedtoknowhowlanguage“works.”Inotherwords,theyneedtounderstandthelanguagesystem—howthepartsworktogethertomakeupthewhole.Themorecontextualizedtheinstructionoftheparts,thebetterstudentsunderstandtheirrelationshiptothewhole.Acompletetreatmentofthewholelanguagevs.phonicsdebateisfarbeyondthescopeofthisintroduction.Weincludetheanalogyheretohelplanguageteachersunderstandthat in order for students to achieve high levels of proficiency in a language, there needs to be a balance between language and language use. Inordertounderstandfurtherhowtostrivetowardsuchabalanceinthelanguageclassroom,itisimportantforteacherstoconsiderthekeyphilosophicalprinciplesthathavedriventhedevelopmentofthe Handbook.
The Philosophical Principles: POLIA and CAPRII
ThephilosophicalprinciplesthatguidedtheArticulationProjectwereestablishedearlyonasworkontheProjectbegan.Astatementdescribingprinciplesofproficiency-orientedlanguageinstructionandassessment(POLIA)wasdevelopedbyAronsetal.(1994)andcontributedtothecurriculumteam’sphilosophicalprinciples(seePOLIAstatementandprinciplesintheKeyMaterialssection). ThephilosophicalprinciplesdescribedinthePOLIAstatementarefurthersupportedbysixkeyconceptsthatwebelieveshouldguidelanguageeducation:(1) Contextualizationoflanguageinstruction,(2)Authenticity oftaskandtext,(3)anemphasison Process,(4)thevalueofReflection forbothlanguagelearnersandlanguageteachers,(5)anemphasison Interaction withinandbeyondtheclassroom,and(6) Integration ofthefourmodalitiesandoflanguageandcontent,beitrelatedtootheracademicdisciplinesorculturalthemes.Whilethesesixconcepts—referredtobytheacronymCAPRII—areandindeedshouldbeunderstoodasinterrelatedandinseparableineffectivelanguageteaching,theycaneachbeconsideredinturn(Tedick,1996;Tedick&Tischer,1996).2Figure1providesabriefsummaryoftheconceptsthatmakeupCAPRII.
p .12 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
F igure 1 : CAPRI IContextualizationinvolvesmeaningfullanguageuseforrealcommunicativepurposes;lessons
thatarepresentedincontextenhancemeaning;contextualizedteachingrecognizesthatmeaning
changesdependinguponthecontextinwhichitoccurs.
AuthenticityofTextandTask—authentictextsandtasksreflecttheintentionofareal
communicativepurposeforarealaudience.
Process—languageacquisition(beitfirst,second,orthird...)isanongoingprocessthatrequires
agreatdealoftime,patience,thought,effort,andencouragement.Recognitionofthenatureof
thisprocessneedstoguideinstructionandassessment.
Reflection—bothteachersandstudentsneedtimefordeliberatethought,orreflection.
Interaction—learnersmustuselanguageinmeaningfulinteractioninordertolearnit.
Integration—anintegrativeapproachtolanguageteachingseestheconnectionoflanguagesand
culturestowhatwedo,howwethink,andwhoweare.
ofthefourmodalities—creatingclassroomactivitiesthatrequirestudentstouselanguagewithintwoormoreofthefourmodalities,withattentiontohowthosemodalitiesworkwithintheframeworkofcommunicativemodes,helpstoreinforcetheconceptsbeingemphasized.
oflanguageandcontent—languagemustbeintegratedwithcontent,beitotheracademicsubjectmattersorculturalthemes.Acontent-basedapproachtolanguageteachingemphasizeslanguageuse;languagestructuresareemphasizedinthecontextofthatuse.LanguageclassroomsmustbecomeplaceswherestudentsandteachersunderstandthemselvesasculturalbeingsandbegintodiscoverthecomplexityoftheconceptofcultureastheyviewculturesbothwithinandoutsideoftheU.S.fromanumberofperspectives.
NOTES
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .13
Contextualization
AccordingtoShrumandGlisan(1994):
Languagethatisintroducedandtaughtincontextpresentsrealsituationsthatencompassthephysicalsetting,thepurposeoftheexchange,therolesoftheparticipants,andthesociallyacceptablenormsofinteraction,inadditiontothemedium,topic,tone,andregisteroftheexchange(Hymes,1974).Grammaticalstructuresthatmightotherwisebedevoidofcontextbecomeanintegralpartofthecommunicativeactsthatoccurincontexts(p.23).
Contextualized teaching recognizes that meaning changes depending upon the context in which it occurs.Whenwebegintothinkaboutteachinglanguageforcommunicationratherthanasasystemofgrammaticalforms,weseethatgrammaticalcategoriesdonotnecessarilycorrespondtocommunicativefunctionsandthatgrammaralonecannotdeterminemeaning.Inotherwords,context(thetopicandsituation)playsamajorroleinestablishingmeaning.Forexample,onemightassumethattheimperativemoodasagrammaticalcategoryalwaysindicatestheactofcommanding.Widdowson(1978,inLyster,1990,p.162)providesexamplesillustratinghowcontext,notgrammaticalfunction,determinesmeaning:
“Bakethepieinaslowoven”isaninstruction,notacommand.
“Comefordinnertomorrow”isaninvitation,notacommand.
“Forgiveusourtrespasses”isaprayer,notacommand.
Contextreferstothetopicandsituationofacommunicativeactthatarenecessaryforunderstanding(Walz,1989).Walz(1989)pointsoutthatanumberoflanguagetextbooksprovidecontextualizedgrammarexercises.Theseexercisesprovidethematicallyrelatedsentencesrequiringmechanicalmanipulationofagrammaticalform,butoftendonotforcestudentstounderstand.Therefore,contextualizationofmechanicaldrillsinthissenseiscertainlynotthesamethingascreatingacontext(Walz,1989,p.162).ContextualizationasitisinterpretedinthisHandbookinvolvesmeaningfullanguageuseforrealcommunicativepurposesandhelpsstudentstounderstandhowmeaningisconstructedbylanguageusers(betheywriting,speaking,reading,orlistening)dependinguponcontext.
ManyofthetasksfoundintheHandbook arecontextualizedinthattheyprovideatopicandsituationinwhichstudentsneedtouselanguagewithoneanotherforsomemeaningfulpurpose.Forexample,
NOTES
p .14 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
inthetaskentitled“SenegalbyNumbers,”studentslearnaboutSenegalesedemographicsthroughaninformation-gapactivity.ThetaskgivesstudentsanopportunitytopracticeunderstandingandcommunicatingcomplexnumbersinthecontextofSenegalesedemographics.Inotherwords,thetopic(Senegalesedemographics) contextualizestheuseofnumbers.
Contextualizinglanguageinstructionmaybestbeaccomplishedbyorganizingthecontentofthelanguagecurriculumaccordingtothemesortopicsthatlendthemselvestore-entrythroughoutthecourseofstudy(assuggestedbywhatisknownasaspiralcurriculum).Ourtheme-basedcurriculumframework(seetheKeyMaterialssection)providesonesuchexampleofcurriculumorganizationthatwouldlenditselftocontextualizinglanguageinstruction.
Authenticity of Text and Task
Relatedtotheconceptofcontextualizationisthenotionofauthenticity.AuthentictextsormaterialshavebeendefinedbyVillegasRogersandMedley(1988)as“...languagesamples—bothoralandwritten—thatreflectanaturalnessofform,andanappropriatenessofculturalandsituationalcontextthatwouldbefoundinthelanguageasusedbynativespeakers”(p.468).Textsthatarepreparedfornativespeakersby nativespeakersreflectthecultureandsocietalvaluesofeverydaylife.“NotextbookculturenoteontheHispanicfamily,forexample,canreplacethestudyofauthenticbirthorchristening,weddinganddeathannouncements,where,undertheobservablelinguisticconventions,lietheritualsofevents,theconnotationsofritesofpassage,themeaningof‘family,’andthedynamicnatureofculture”(Galloway&Labarca,1990,p.139). Forourpurposes,anytextthatis purposeful, meaningful,andhasarealcommunicative intent forarealaudiencecanbeconsideredtobeauthentic.Inotherwords,itisauthenticinthesensethatitwasnotoriginallyproducedforlanguage-teachingpurposesbutratherforthepurposeofcommunicatingmeaning(Brintonetal.,1989,p.17).Thismeansthatane-mailmessagesentviatheInternetbyastudentofGermantoanotherstudentofGermanis“authentic”aslongasthemessageismeaningful(eventhoughthemessagewasnotwrittenbyanativespeakerforanothernativespeaker).Furthermore,authenticityinadeepersensedoesnotresideinthetextitselfbutratherisdeterminedbyhowthattextisused(Hutchinson&Waters,1987),i.e.,theauthenticityofthetask.Forexample,ifateacherusesanarticlefromatargetculturemagazineforthesolepurposeofhavingthestudentsunderlinealloftheinstancesinwhichthesubjunctiveappears,theauthenticityofthetaskdisappears. Let’sexamineataskandconsiderwaysinwhichitcanbeslightlyalteredtobecomemoreauthentic.3ImaginethatstudentsareengagedinaunitonCostaRica(oranyothertargetcountry).Asaculminatingactivityattheendoftheunit,theteacherdecidestohavestudentscreatetravel
NOTES
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .15
brochuresinthetargetlanguagetodemonstratetheirknowledgeofwhattheyhavelearned.Suchataskasksthatthestudentspretendtoactasnativespeakers,whichtheyclearlyarenot.Kramsch(1993)wouldarguethatauthenticityinvolveshavingstudentsbewhotheyare—learnersofthetargetlanguage.Torevisethetasksomewhatwithaneyetowardgreaterauthenticity,theteachercanhavestudentscreatetravelitinerariesforagroupofstudentswhowillbetravelingtoCostaRica,theintentbeingtodemonstratetheirknowledgeofwhattheyhavelearnedbycommunicatingittootherstudents. Anotherexamplewouldinvolvehavingstudentsatthebeginningoftheunitwritelettersinthetargetlanguagetovarioustravelagencies,touristbureaus,and“ChamberofCommerce”equivalentstoindicatethatthey(1)arestudentsofSpanish,(2)arestudyingaboutCostaRica,and(3)areinterestedinreceivingtravelinformationinSpanish.Suchataskhasarealpurposeandarealaudience.Theaddedbenefitisthatitwillalsoleadtoadditionalauthenticmaterialsforclassroomuse!(Thistask,titled“Let’sGotoCostaRica,”isdescribedindetailintheHandbookandappearsinthe“FromPresentationtoCreation”section.) AfinalexampleofanauthentictaskforthisinstructionalsettingistohavestudentswritetoCostaRicanstudentsaboutMinnesota(i.e.,theirhomestate),givenwhattheyhavelearnedaboutCostaRica.Aletterwrittenforthistaskmightinclude,forexample,acomparisonbetweenMinnesota’sBoundaryWatersandCostaRica’sTortugueroNationalParkintermsoftheirenvironmentalrestrictions. SomeofthetasksintheHandbook areauthenticinthattheyareintendedforarealaudience(beyondtheclassroom).Othersarenotauthenticinthissense.Forexample,in“MyFavoriteRecipe,”studentsworkwithpartnerstowriteafavoriterecipeinthesecondlanguage(notfromthetargetculture).Theysharetheserecipesinclass.Whileavaluableactivityforelicitingcommunicationintheclassroom,thetaskcannotbeconsideredauthenticbecauseit’snotdesignedforarealaudienceorpurpose—nativeEnglishspeakersdon’tneedtoreadarecipeformacaroniandcheese,forexample,writteninFrench.However,thetaskcanbeadaptedquiteeasilytoincreaseitsauthenticity.OneclassroomteacherhadstudentscompiletheirrecipesintoabooklettosendhomewithanAmityAidefromtheIvoryCoast,whohadbeenworkingintheirclassroomthatyear.Inthisway,thetasktookonarealpurposeandaudience,andthestudentswereveryexcitedtobeexplaining(inFrench)howtopreparetheirfavoritefoods,knowingtheAmityAidewouldsharetherecipeswithfriendsandfamilyuponherreturntohernativecountry. Thesesuggestionshighlighttheimportanceofcreatingtasksthatinvolvestudentsinusinglanguageforrealcommunicativepurposesandforrealaudiences.Manyofthetasksinthe Handbook areauthenticinthissense.Forexample,thetaskentitled“CreatingChildren’sLiterature”
NOTES
p .16 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
involveshavingstudentswritechildren’sbookstosharewithyoungstudentsinimmersionorFLESprograms.Itisimportanttonote,however,thatitisnotpossibletomakeeverytaskortextauthenticinthelanguageclassroom.Sometimesstudentsneedtopretendtobenativespeakersforaroleplay;sometimestheyneedtowriteforahypotheticalaudience;sometimestheyneedtoreadatextthathasbeenadaptedfornonnativespeakersofthelanguage.Suchactivitiesarevaluableandcertainlyhaveaplaceinthelanguagecurriculum.Whatisimportant(andpossible!),however,isforteacherstofindagoodbalanceintheircurriculumbetweentasksandtextsthatarelessauthenticandthosethatrepresenttheprinciplesofauthenticityasdescribedabove.Teachersshouldalsomakesurethatsomeofthetextstheyuseinthecurriculumcontainlanguageasusedbynativespeakerssoastoincorporateculturalandlinguisticauthenticity.Anumberofauthentictexts(i.e.,writtenbynativespeakersfornativespeakersofthetargetlanguage)areusedintheHandbookinconjunctionwithtasksandunits.See,forexample,thesamplerecipesin“ReadingRecipes,”themagazinearticlein“DeSolaSolSinDescanso,”andthegradereportintheunitcalled“LeBaccalauréatFrançais.”
ProcessLanguageacquisition(beitfirst,second,orthird...)isanongoing
processthatrequiresagreatdealoftime,patience,thought,effort,andencouragement.Ateacherwhorecognizestheimportanceofprocessinlanguagelearningunderstands,forexample,thatalthoughastudentisintroducedtoagrammaticalstructure(orfunctionortopic)earlyon,s/hewillneedtimetointernalizethatconceptbeforebeingabletoproducelanguageinspontaneousinteractionthatshowsanaccuraterepresentationofthatconcept.Forexample,studentsofFrench,German,andSpanisharetaughttheconceptofgenderandnumberagreementrelativelyearlyoninlanguageclassrooms.Whilethestudentsmaybeabletoproducelanguagewithaccurateagreementonquizzesandtests,theyoftencannotwhenaskedtoproducelanguagespontaneouslyforameaningfulcommunicativepurpose.Theyneedtimetobeabletosee,hear,produce,andexperiencenumberandgenderagreementinmanymeaningfulcontextsforavarietyofpurposesbeforetheydevelopa“feel”fortheconcept—beforeitbecomespartoftheirinternalizedlanguagerepertoire.Thisprocesstakesyears. HeilenmanandKaplan(1985)provideausefuldistinctionamongvariousdegreesofcontroloffunction,topic(orcontext),andformasstudentsdevelopproficiency.Theyarguethatatdifferentlevelsofproficiency,certaingrammaticalstructures,functions,andtopicsorcontextsneedtobetaughtforfull control,othersforpartial control,andstillothersfor conceptual control (authors’emphasis,p.63).Conceptsthataretaughtforpartialorconceptualcontrolatonelevelofproficiencyarerecycledatsubsequentlevelswherefullorpartialcontrolisthegoal(Heilenman&Kaplan,1985).ThesedegreesofcontrolinHeilenman
NOTES
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .17
andKaplan’sframeworkcorrelatewithlevelsofproficiencyasdefinedbytheACTFLguidelines.Inotherwords,ifstudents’proficiencyisintheNovicerange,theyshouldbeexpectedtodemonstratefullcontrolofcertainfunctions(e.g.,makinglists),topics(e.g.,dates,numbers,etc.),andaccurateproductionofcertainforms(e.g.,questionwords).TheycanbeexpectedtohavepartialcontrolofvariousconceptsthatcorrespondtotheIntermediate-Low/MidrangeandconceptualcontrolofconceptsthatarerepresentativeoftheIntermediate-HighandAdvancedrange.Thepointhereisthatacquisitionofthefunctions,topics,andformsoflanguageisatime-consumingprocessthatrequiresteacherstorecyclethosefunctions,topics,andformssystematicallyandpurposefullythroughouttheircurriculumsothatstudentscanachievehigherdegreesofcontrolastheyadvanceaslanguagelearners.Ourpreliminarymodelforathematiccurriculumframeworkisonewayofenvisioningthiscyclicalviewoflanguageinstruction.Thecurricularthemes(seeKeyMaterialssection)suggestsometopicsthatcanbeconsideredfororganizingthelanguagecurriculum;thecommunicativefunctionsandlanguagestructuresarestipulatedwithinthecontextofthetasksandunitsthatcorrespondtothevariousthemes. Processisalsorelatedtoclassroominstruction.Inthissense,processinvolvesseveralinstructionalphases—e.g.,preparingstudentsforanactivity,carryingouttheactivity,andprovidingafollow-upthatrequiresstudentstoapplywhattheylearned.ThetasksandunitsintheHandbook breaklessonsdownintopre-,during-,andpost-activitystagestoemphasizetheneedforanawarenessofprocessintheclassroom.Inaddition,othertasksorunitsillustrateprocessapproachestoinstruction:“Let’sgotoCostaRica”isataskthatdetailstheprocessapproachtowriting;the“GenderRoles”unittakesstudentsthroughaprocessofcross-culturalexploration.
Anawarenessofprocessinlanguagelearningcanalsobereflectedinassessmentpractices.Toooftenassessmentpracticesfocusontheproduct—thatis,whateverthestudentsproduce,beitapaper,anoralpresentation,avideotape,etc.Butitisequallyimportanttoassessstudents’workintheprocessofworkingtowardthefinalproduct.Forexample,ifstudentsareaskedtoworkinsmallgroupstoco-createaproject(e.g.,askit),theteachermaywanttoassessthestudents’abilitytocollaborateandworkcooperatively.Suchanassessmentgetsatprocess.Ifawritingassignmentrequiresdrafts,feedback,andrevision,theteachermaydecidetoassesshowwellstudentsattendtofeedbackintheirrevisions.Thisassessment,too,getsatprocess.
Theteacherwhorecognizestheimportanceofprocesscreatesaclassroomenvironmentwhereprocessisreflectedininstructionaswellasassessment,whererisk-takingisencouraged,andwheremeaningfulcommunicationisemphasizedoveraccuracyforthesake of accuracy.
NOTES
p .18 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
Reflection
Closelyrelatedtotheconceptofprocessisreflection.Reflectioninvolves deliberate thought.Inessence,itengagesanindividualina“conversation”withasituation,beitproblematic,confusing,orilluminating.Ourviewsofourselvesandourculturesandoftheviewsofothersandtheirculturesareneveruniformorstatic.AsClaireKramsch(1991)explains,“…alargepartofwhatwecallcultureisasocialconstruct,theproductofselfandother[s’]perceptions.”Indeed,languageuse,orcommunication,isembeddedalwayswithinculture,andthereforeislargelydependentuponpeoples’perceptionsofmeaning,whichmayormaynotmatchtheintendedmeaning.Itisthisverysocial,dynamicnatureoflanguageandculturethatmakessecondlanguagesdifferentfromandmorespecialthanotheracademicdisciplines,and,hence,makesreflectionsoimportantforbothstudentsandteachers. Students’reflectionshouldbebothculturallyandlinguisticallybased,aswellasfocusedonself-as-learner,self-as-human-being,andself-in-relationship-with-other.Studentswillnotbeabletoengageinprofoundreflectiononanyofthesetopicsovernight;reflectionrepresentsyetanotherprocessrelatedtolanguagelearningwhichneedstooccurgraduallyandcarefullyinanatmospherewherethestudentscanaskquestionsfreelyandwhererisk-takingisencouraged(Tedick,1992).Someactivitiesthatrepresentattentiontostudentreflectionincludelearningstrategies,self-assessment,peerreview,and“debriefing”exercises.ManyofthetasksintheHandbookinvolveactivitiesthatencouragestudentreflection.Forexample,“StrategicInteraction”includesadebriefingstagewherestudentsareaskedtoreflectbackonthelanguageusedduringtheroleplayandmakesuggestionsforimprovingit.“MyFavoriteRecipe”engageslearnersinapeerassessmentactivity,encouragingthemtoreflecteitheronthepresenter’slanguageuseorthelistener’sabilitytounderstand.Inthe“GenderRoles”unit,studentsareaskedtoreflectontheirownperceptionsofgenderrolesthroughouttheunitastheylearnabouttheperceptionsoftheirGermancounterparts.Reflectionshouldbeencouragedatalllevelsoflanguagelearning—eventhebeginninglevels.Seethe“MagazineScanning”activity,whichwasdesignedforstudentsatNoviceproficiencylevels. Teachersmustalsobeengagedinreflectionastheyplanforandcarryoutinstructionalactivities.Mostteachersdothisnaturally,askingthemselveshowalessoncouldhavebeenimproved,forexample.TheHandbookisdesignedtoencourageteacherstoreflectastheyusethetasksandunitsintheirclassrooms.Materialshavebeendesignedwithlargemarginsforwritingnotesandmakingchanges,andeachlessonisfollowedbyaspacefor“reflections”wheretheteachercanjotdownadditionalnotes,resources,andideasforfuturereference.
NOTES
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .1�
Interaction
Learnersmustuselanguageinmeaningfulinteractioninordertolearnit.Inordertoacquirelanguage,learnerscannotsimplylistentoorread“input;”theymustinteractwithandnegotiatethetypeofinputtheyreceive(Long,1981).Theterm“interaction”impliesface-to-facecommunicationthatinvolvesnegotiationofmeaning,butitalsomeansactiveinvolvementwithalltypesoflanguageuse.Ofgreatvalueinthisdiscussionisthe“FrameworkofCommunicativeModes”usedinthenationalstandardsdocument(Brecht&Walton,1994,inStandardsforForeignLanguageLearning,1996).Inthisframework,therearethreecommunicativemodes—interpersonal,interpretive,andpresentational.Theinterpersonal modeinvolvesactivenegotiationofmeaningbetweenindividualswhoareinpersonalcontact,forexample,directoralcommunicationthatisface-to-faceorviatelephone.Itmayalsoinvolvedirectwrittencommunication,suchastheexchangeofpersonalletters,notes,ore-mailmessages.Therefore,thismodeincludesallfourlanguagemodalities—speaking,listening,reading,andwriting.Theinterpretive mode,whichfocusesonreceptiveabilities(listening,reading,viewing),involvesthecomprehensionorinterpretationoforalorwrittenmessages.Examplesincludereadingatext,listeningtotheradio,orwatchingamovie.Attimesthesereceptiveabilitiesaremistakenaspassiveratherthanactiveactivities.Yetresearchhasshownthatreadersandlistenersmustfunctionasactiveparticipantsintheactofcomprehending.Theymustco-construct meaning astheyworktointerprettheinputprovided.Thisactofco-constructionimpliesinteractionbetweentextandreader/listener/viewereventhoughtheopportunityfornegotiationofmeaningmaynotbepresent.Thepresentational mode,involvingtheproductiveskillsofwritingandspeaking,referstothecreationofspokenorwrittencommunicationforanaudiencewithwhomthereisnoimmediatepersonalcontact.Extendedoralpresentationsandwrittenessaysareexamplesoflanguageuseinthismode.Aswritersorspeakersworktoconstructmeaning,theymustconsidertheirpurposeandimagineinteractionwithanaudience.Thatis,theymustrelyonunderstandingofthepurposeforthecommunicationandknowledgeofaudienceastheychoosethewordsandputtogetherphrasestocommunicatemeaning.Thesethreecommunicativemodescorrespondtothethreenationalcommunicationstandards.Interaction,then,asit’sinterpretedintheHandbookandinCAPRII,involveslanguageusewithinthesethreecommunicativemodes.
Ateacherwhounderstandstheimportanceofinteractionorganizesthelanguageclassroomtominimizeteachertalkandmaximizestudentdiscourse.Thisinvolvesorganizingclassroomactivitiessothatstudentswillhavereasonstorespondtoandinteractwithoneanotheraswellasothersoutsideoftheclassroom.Atthesametime,itisnotenoughtohavestudentsinteractwithoutfeedbackorattentiontoform.Inother
NOTES
p .20 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
words,qualityofinteractioniskey.Teachersmustcreateabalancebetweenmeaning(functionandcontent)andaccuracy.Toachievethisbalance,itisimportanttoincorporatedifferentkindsofinteractiveactivitiesfordifferentpurposes.Attimes,spontaneousinteractionshouldoccur,wherethefocusisentirelyoncommunicatingmeaning,regardlessoftheaccuracy.Othertimes,studentsshouldbeexpectednotonlytocommunicatemeaning,butalsotodosoaccurately.Suchinstanceswillbecharacterizedbytasksthatarereflectiveofthepresentationalmodeofcommunication.Theyinvolvetimeforplanningand,whenappropriate,rehearsal.Mostimportantly,accuracymustalwaysbeaddressedinameaningfulcontext.Drawingstudents’attentiontoaccurateformsandprovidingthemwithconstructivefeedbackthatencouragesthemtoreflectonthelinguisticaccuracyoftheiroutputiscritical,yetneedstooccurinwaysthatencouragelanguageproduction,notinhibitit.Lyster’s(1998)recentworkontypesofcorrectivefeedbackinadvancedimmersionclassroomshasshownthatwhenteachersprovidefeedbackthatrequiresstudentstothinkaboutandrespondtothefeedbackinsomeway,thestudentsaremorelikelytorepairtheirerrorsandimprovetheirlinguisticaccuracy.
It’simportanttorememberthatthehigherthelevelofproficiency,thegreaterone’sexpectationsforlinguisticaccuracyshouldbe.HeilenmanandKaplan(1985)emphasizethatproficiency-orientedcurriculumandinstructionmuststriveforabalanceamongfunction,context(ortopic/content),andaccuracy,“whileatthesametimeallowingfortheimbalancefrequentlyseenattheNoviceorIntermediatelevelswhereonecomponentmaycompensateforanother”(p.60). VirtuallyalloftheclassroomtasksandunitsintheHandbookencourageinteractioninoneormorecommunicativemodes,becausethisHandbookisaboutlanguageuse.Thosetasksthatfocusonface-to-faceinteraction,characteristicoftheinterpersonalmode,arefoundinthe“NegotiatedInteraction”section.Thosethatfocusontheinterpretivemodearefoundinthesecondsectionoftasks,“FromComprehensiontoInterpretation.”Andthosethatemphasizethepresentationalmodecanbefoundinthesectionentitled“FromPresentationtoCreation.”ManyofthetasksthroughouttheHandbookalsosuggestwaysoffocusingonformandintegratingfeedbackinthecontextofinteractiveactivities.
Integration
ThefinalCAPRIIconceptreferstotheintegrationofavarietyoffactors.Itrepresentstheintegrationofcontentandlanguage,includingbothlanguageandcultureandalsolanguagewithotherdisciplines.Italsoreferstotheintegrationofthefourmodalities(reading,listening,writing,speaking). Integrationofthefourmodalitiesisimportant.Creatingclassroomactivitiesthatrequirestudentstouselanguagewithintwoormoreofthe
NOTES
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .21
fourmodalitieshelpstoreinforcetheconceptsbeingemphasized.Thisapproachalsolendsitselfwelltoavarietyoflearningstyles.Forexample,writinghelpssomestudentsimprovetheirlisteningskills.Ithasalsobeenshownthatreadinghelpsstudentsdevelopcompetenceinwriting.Practiceinonemodalityoftenresultsinimprovedcompetenceinothermodalities.Inaddition,byintegratingallmodalitiesincurriculumandinstruction,theteacherconsidershowstudentscanbeusinglanguageforavarietyofpurposes.ManyofthetasksandalloftheunitsintheHandbook integratethefourmodalities.Sometasksemphasizeonemodalityovertheothers,butincludeideasforextendingthetaskstoincorporateadditionalmodalities.Withtheincreasedfocusonthenationalstandards,itisalsoimportantforteacherstobegintounderstandhowthefourmodalitiesworktogetherintheframeworkofthecommunicativemodesdiscussedintheprevioussection. Integratingcontentandlanguagesuggestsfollowingacontent-basedapproachtolanguageteachingwhereinthelinguisticelementsthatmakeuplanguage(i.e.,grammaticalstructures,vocabulary,etc.)emergenaturallyfromthecontentandareunderstoodwithinthecontextofthatcontent.Acontent-basedapproachtolanguageteachingemphasizeslanguageuseandlendsitselfwelltointerdisciplinarycurriculumdesign.Incontent-basedinstruction,thepurposeistoteachorreinforcecontentviathetargetlanguage.Content,notlanguage,istheorganizingprincipleforthetaskorunit.Languageisthevehiclethatallowsaccesstothecontentareasandrelatedtasks.Contentmayberelatedtootheracademicdisciplinesinthecurriculum(science,anthropology)ormayberelatedtoculturalthemes. Languagesneedtobeintegratedwithotherdisciplinesintheschoolcurriculum.Infact,theimportanceofconnectinglanguageandotherdisciplinesishighlightedinthenationalstandards(NationalStandardsinForeignLanguageEducationProject,1996,seestandard3.1).Itistimeforlanguagestobeunderstoodascentral toawell-definedschoolcurriculumratherthanperipheral.“Learningtodayisnolongerrestrictedtoaspecificdiscipline;ithasbecomeinterdisciplinary”(NationalStandardsinForeignLanguageEducationProject,1996,p.50).Toapproachlanguageteachingfromacontent-basedorthematicperspectiveallowsonetoseehowavarietyofsubjectmatterareascanbemeaningfullyandpurposefullyintegrated.Forexample,aunitontheMayacaneasilyincorporateattentiontohistory,anthropology,mathematics,science,andart.SeveralofthetasksandunitsintheHandbook attendtotheconnectionbetweenlanguageandotherdisciplines,forexample,“CampaignGraffiti”and“LosMayayElNorte.” Anintegrationoflanguageandcontentalsooccurswhenthecontentisbasedonculturalthemes.Integratinglanguageandcultureiskeyineffectivelanguageteachingandlearning.Iflanguageisseenassocialpractice,thenculturemustbecomethecoreoflanguageteaching(Kramsch,
NOTES
p .22 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
1993).Aswearebecomingasmaller,moreinterdependentglobalcommunitythaneverbefore,culturemusttakecenterstageinthelanguageclassroom.Itcannolongerbelimitedtoasingleperspectiveonsurfaceelementsandcultural“facts”foundinmosttextbooks.Instead,languageclassroomsmustbecomeplaceswherestudentsandteachersunderstandthemselvesasculturalbeingsandbegintodiscoverthecomplexityoftheconceptofcultureastheyviewculturesbothwithinandoutsideoftheU.S.fromanumberofdifferentperspectives(Kramsch,1993;NationalStandardsinForeignLanguageEducationProject,1996;Tedicketal.,1993).Culturalaspectshavebeenconsideredforallofthetasksandunitsinthe Handbook,andarehighlightedonthefirstpageofeach.Someofthetasksplaceanemphasisonculturalissues,suchas“SoulofSenegal”and“CelebratingtheDayoftheDead.”Others,like“MarketaMovie”and“WeddingCelebration”don’temphasizeculturalissuesbutincorporatesomeattentiontoculturalaspectsnevertheless.
AlloftheunitsandsomeofthetasksintheHandbookprovidegoodexamplesofcontent-basedcurriculumandinstruction.Forexample,“SenegalbyNumbers”iscontent-basedbecauseitfocusesonhavingstudentsunderstandSenegalesedemographicsinrelationshiptoU.S.demographics.Thecontentinthiscasemightbesimilartocontentstudentsmightencounterinanotheracademicdiscipline,suchasgeography,andalsothroughculturalstudyinalanguageclassroom.Throughtheactivities,studentsgaingreaterinsightintothedifferencesbetweentheSenegalandtheU.S.andthereasonsthatunderliethosedifferences.Withinthecontextofthiscontent,studentspracticecomplexnumbers,comparativeconstructions,thepresenttense,andquestionformation.
MostofthetasksintheHandbookarenotcontent-based,however,becausethepurposebehindthedevelopmentofthe Handbook wastoprovideteacherswithprinciplesandarangeofexamplesthatwouldhelpthemtoincreaselanguageuseintheclassroom,keytoincreasingtheirstudents’languageproficiency.Thetasksareexcellentproficiency-orientedactivitiesthatengagestudentsinlanguageuseformeaningfulpurposes,butaren’tnecessarilydrivenbyparticularcontent.Forinstance,“StrategicInteraction”isawonderfulactivitythatcombinesroleplayandcooperativelearning.But“StrategicInteraction”inandofitselfisnotacontent-basedactivityorlesson.The“generic”strategicinteractionactivity(foundintheNegotiatedInteractionsectionoftheHandbook)canbecontrastedwithanapplicationofstrategicinteractionwithinacontent-basedactivity,“LasJóvenesMaquiladoras.”Inthisactivity,thefocusisonhavingstudentsunderstandthevariousperspectivesaroundtheissueofsweatshopsandexploitationofyoungworkerswhilecommunicatinginthetargetlanguagewithpeers.Thesameroleplayactivityisused,butthecontentinthiscaseisthekeyfactor.
NOTES
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .23
Theintegrationoflanguageandcontent(beitrelatedtoacademicsubjectmattersorculturalthemes)willlikelyreceivemuchmoreattentioninthefieldoflanguageeducationinyearstocome,particularlywiththefocusinthenationalstandardsonculturalunderstandingandthecalltoconnectlanguageswithotheracademicdisciplines.Integratinglanguageandcontentexpectsthatteachersattendtobothcontentcurriculumandlanguagecurriculumandfindwaystobalancethetwoininstruction.Anumberofexcellentresourcesareavailabletoassistlanguageteacherswhoareinterestedincontent-basedapproaches4.See,forexample,SnowandBrinton(1997),Genesee(1994),Met(1991),andSnow,Met&Genesee(1989).
Conclusion
Insummary,CAPRIIdescribesanumberofimportantpedagogicalprinciplesthatlanguageteachersshouldimplementintheirteachingpractices.TheseprinciplesarereflectedthroughoutthetasksandunitsinthisHandbook,thoughitisimportanttorememberthatnotalltasksincorporatealloftheprinciplessimultaneously.ItishopedthattheexamplesprovidedthroughouttheHandbookwillhelpteacherstoconsiderhowtheprinciplesofCAPRIIcanenhancetheirownteachingand,ultimately,studentlearning.
Performance Assessment5
Rethinking Assessment: Focus on Language Use
ThenationalstandardsandtheMinnesotaArticulationProjectemphasize what students should know and be able to do.Thetasksprovidedinthis Handbook requirethatstudentsuselanguageforavarietyofcommunicativepurposes.Itfollowsthatassessmentmustfocusonwhatstudentscandowithlanguageinadditiontowhattheyknowaboutlanguage.
Inthefieldoflanguageeducationagradualchangetowardmoreofafocusonperformancemeasureshasindeedbeenobserved.Certainly,large-scalelanguagetestshavemovedtowardmeasuresoflanguageperformancebeginningwiththeproficiencymovementthatcharacterizedthe1980’sintheU.S.(Bachman,1990).TheproficiencytestsdevelopedaspartoftheMinnesotaArticulationProject(forwhichthisHandbook wascreated)certainlyofferexcellentexamplesofcontextualized,performance-basedmeasures.TheCenterforAppliedLinguisticshasbeencompilingdescriptionsofassessmentinstrumentsforK-8foreignlanguagesettings,manyofwhichareperformance-based(Thompson,1997).Recentadditionstothecollectionshowanincreasinguseofalternative,
NOTES
p .24 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
performance-basedmeasures(Thompson,2000-2001).TheForeignLanguageTestDatabase,6containinginformationaboutsecondaryandcollege-levelforeignlanguagetests,showsasimilarpatternofmovementtowardalternative,performance-basedmeasures.Andanumberofstateshaveledlocalinitiatives(throughgrant-funding)demonstratingtheprevalenceofalternativemeasuresandperformance-basedassessment(e.g.,Assessment, Articulation and Accountability,1999).
Theemphasisonstandardsandlanguageuseinthe90’shasalsoledtomoreofafocusonperformancemeasures.Asafollow-uptothenationalstandards,ACTFL’sperformanceguidelineswerepublishedin1998(ACTFL,1998;Swender&Duncan,1998).Theseguidelinesredefineproficiencyrelatedtothethreecommunicativemodesincorporatedinthestandards(interpersonal,interpretive,andpresentational)anddescribelanguageperformanceatarangeoflevels.ThePerformanceAssessmentUnits(PAUs)beingdevelopedforclassroom-basedassessmentrelatedtothecommunicationstandards(NationalStandardsinForeignLanguageEducationProject,1996)arealsoperformance-based(“Stepthree,thePAUproject,”2000;Thompson,2000-2001).Atthesametime,what’sunclearisthedegreetowhichteachersareusingsuchassessmentsintheirclassrooms.Ithasbeenourexperiencethatitishappeninglessthanwewouldlike.
Inmanylanguageclassrooms,teachershaveincorporatedcommunicativeactivitiesthatemphasizelanguageuse,yetoftenassessmentremainsfocusedongrammaticalstructuresandvocabulary.Thisleadstoasignificantmismatchbetweeninstructionandassessmentandalsosendsstudentsthemessagethatonlygrammarandvocabularyareimportant.Thereareveryrealreasonswhyassessmenttendstobebasedondiscrete-pointtestsofgrammarandvocabulary—it’srelativelystraightforwardtoassessstudents’knowledgeofgrammarandvocabulary,it’stime-efficient,andteachersandstudents(nottomentionparentsandadministrators)arecomfortablewiththesetypesofassessments.Itishumannaturetobecomfortablewithwhatweknowwellandtobeskepticalofanduncomfortablewiththeneworunknown. Assessinggrammaticalandvocabularyknowledgeisrelativelystraightforward,becausetestitemsusuallyhavejustonerightanswerandthereforecreatetheillusionofbeing“objective.”Inmostschools,studentsaretaughtfromthetimetheyenterkindergartenthatwhat’simportantisknowingtheonerightanswer.Yetintherealworld,fewifanyquestionsorproblemshaveonlyonerightanswer.Andintheworldoflanguagelearning,thesameapplies.There’sneveronerightwaytocommunicatemeaning—languageisbyitsverynaturesubjectiveandcreative.Tocommunicateotherwisetostudentsistodothemadisservice.Moreover,researchonlanguageacquisitioninpastdecadeshasrepeatedlydemonstratedthatknowledge about languagedoesnotreflectone’sability to use languagetocommunicateeffectively.HeilenmanandKaplan(1985)
NOTES
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .25
describethedilemmaasfollows:
Learningacertainnumberofadjectivesalongwiththeirmorphologicalchangesdoesnottranslatedirectlyintobeingabletodescribe,justaslearningthevarioususesandformsofthesubjunctiveisnotthesamethingasbeingabletodefendone’sopinionsandstateone’sfeelings.Thisisthegapthatthetraditional,structurallybasedlanguageprogramhasnotbeenabletobridge....Thestatedgoalofsuchprograms,languageuse,[is]notmetbecausetherealgoal,in terms of what students [are] expected to do, pertain[s]primarilytoformratherthantofunctionand[is]moreconcernedwithcompletesentencesthanwithdiscourse-levelcompetence(p.58,emphasisadded).
Nowhereisthisgapmorepronouncedthaninthearenaofclassroomassessment. Discrete-pointtestsofgrammarandvocabularyalsodominateclassroomassessmentbecausetheyaretime-efficient.Intoomanydistricts,teachersareexpectedtogivefinalexamsandtosubmitfinalgradestotheadministrationwithin24hoursaftertheexam.Suchpoliciesforceteachersintorelyingondiscrete-pointmeasures.Withtheadventofstandards-basedcurriculumandinstructionthesepolicieswillneedtochangebecausetheemphasisison what students can do.Forteacherswhoneedtoassesswhatstudentscandowithlanguage,theonlyoptionisamovetowardsperformancemeasures. Thismovetowardsperformanceassessmentisdifficult,becausebothteachersandstudentsarecomfortableandfamiliarwithdiscrete-pointassessmentsofgrammarandvocabulary.Manylanguageteachershadtheseexperiencesaslanguagelearnersyearsago,anditisdifficultforthemtochangewhattheyperceiveworkedforthem.Performancemeasuresthatinvolvequalityjudgmentsofstudents’abilitytouselanguageareadmittedlydifficult,subjective,andtime-consuming.Teachersandstudents(andparentsandadministrators!)needtolearntobecomfortablewiththesubjectivenatureofperformanceassessments.Teachersshouldspeakopenlyaboutthesemeasureswithstudentsandparentsandhelpthemtobecomemoretolerantoftheambiguitythataccompaniesthem.Itmayhelptopointouthowperformancemeasuresarecommonlyusedinourculture.Thesportsworldoffersanumberofexamples.Whileobjectivemeasuresofminutesandsecondsormetersandcentimeterscanbeusedtojudgeperformanceinthe100-meterrace,orthehighjump,subjectivemeasures(usuallyonascaleof1-10)mustbeusedtojudgeperformanceineventslikeice-skatinganddiving.Similarly,intheworkworld,performanceismeasuredsubjectivelyonthebasisofqualityjudgments—consider,forexample,howateacher’sabilitytoteachisassessed!Ifweare
NOTES
p .26 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
comfortablewiththesetypesofperformanceassessments,sotoomustwelearntobecomfortablewithanemphasisonperformanceassessmentinthelanguageclassroomwherethefocusisonstudents’abilitytouselanguage.Justaswithanysignificant,meaningfulchange,teachersandstudentswillneedtoproceedgraduallyandtolearntobecomfortabletakingrisksbytryingnewwaysofdemonstratingandassessinglanguageuse. Itisimperativetonotethatanemphasisonlanguageuseandperformanceassessmentisnotintendedtoencourageteacherstoneglectattentiontoformoraccuracy.Instead,itshouldcontextualizeattentiontoformandaccuracy.ThetasksandunitsinthisHandbook haveallbeendesignedtoemphasizelanguageuseandprovidedetaileddescriptionsofhowtoassessstudents’performance,oftenwithaccompanyingchecklistsorrubrics.Attentiontoformandaccuracyisembeddedintherubricsandmustnotbeoverlooked.WehopethatthemanycontextualizedexamplesofperformanceassessmentthroughouttheHandbookwillhelpeasethetransitionforlanguageteacherstoperformance-basedinstructionandassessment.
Moving Towards Performance Assessment:
The Changing Role of the Student in the Process
Intheclassroom,performanceassessment[alsoreferredtoas“authenticassessment”and“alternativeassessment”intheliterature(e.g.,Hart,1994)]ischaracterizedbytasksthatareworthwhile,significant,meaningful,andformpartofthecurriculum.Itprovidesinformationonwhatstudentscanactually dowithlanguageandtheirreflectiononthatprocess.Itiscongruentwithalearner-centered,communicativeapproachtolanguageteaching.Performanceassessmentsarenotonlydesignedandstructureddifferentlyfromtraditionaltests,butarealsogradedorscoreddifferently.Studentperformanceisevaluatedonthebasisofclearlydefinedperformanceindicators,criteria,orstandardsthatemphasizestudents’strengthsinsteadofhighlightingtheirweaknesses. Inadditiontotraditionalmeasuresoflanguagecompetence,performanceassessmentshavebeendevelopedinresponsetocurrentinterestinlearner-centeredpedagogy.Proponentsoflearner-centeredpedagogybelievethatteachersandlearnersshouldsharepowerandthatlearnersshouldhavemorecontrolovertheireducationalprocess(c.f.,Nunan,1988).Inthissense,theprimarygoaloflearner-centeredinstructionistoincreasestudents’participationinthelearningprocessbyassistingtheminestablishinglearningandself-improvementgoals,choosingeffectivelearningmethodsandstrategies,andbecominginvolvedinevaluatingtheirownworkandthatoftheirpeers. Learner-centeredinstructionimpliesthatteachersmustdedicatesomeclasstimetoactivitiesnotnormallyobservedintraditionallanguage
NOTES
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .27
classes,suchasteachinglearnershowtolearnalanguage,howtomakeuseofavailabletoolsandresources,howtouselanguagelearningstrategies,andhowtoreflectontheirownlearning.Languagelearnersassumeresponsibilitiestraditionallytakenonsolelybytheinstructor,includingtheevaluationoftheirownlearning,aswellastheprovisionoffeedbacktotheirclassmates. Assessmentproceduresinanyeducationalprocessshouldbecongruentwithteachingprocedures.Inotherwords,assessmentpracticesshouldalignwithclassroomobjectivesandinstruction.TheassessmentproceduresthatweemphasizeintheHandbook arebasedontheideathatstudentscanlearntoevaluatetheirownlearningand,inturn,learnfromthatprocess.Theyreflectthebeliefthatlearnersshouldbeinvolvedindeterminingcriteriaforsuccessfulcompletionofcommunicativetasksandshouldhavetheopportunitytoassesstheirownperformanceandthatoftheirpeers.Inaddition,justaslearner-centeredpedagogyemphasizesboththelearning processandtheproduct,variousformsofalternativeassessmentgivelearnersopportunitiestoreflectnotonlyontheirlinguisticdevelopment,butalsoontheirlearningprocesses(i.e.,whathelpsthemlearnandwhatmighthelpthemlearnbetter).Assessmentthusbecomesmoreformativeratherthansummative.Learnerscanprovideoneanotherwithfeedbackontheirperformance,forexamplereflectingonhowwelltheyperformedacommunicativetaskthroughgroupprocessing(Johnson,Johnson,&Holubec,1993). Timespentonteachingstudentshowtoevaluatetheirownworkthroughself-reflectionandhowtoevaluatetheworkoftheirpeersisnottimelostforinstruction.Onthecontrary,byunderstandingthetraitsofeffectivewritersandspeakers,studentsinternalizethetraitsandbecomemoreeffectivecommunicators.AsBaron(1991)states:“Whenstudentsinternalizeadefinitionofwhatqualitymeansandcanlearntorecognizeit,theyhavedevelopedaveryvaluablecriticalability.Theycantalkwith[...]theirteacheraboutthequalityoftheirworkandtakestepstoacquiretheknowledgeandskillsrequiredtoimproveit”(p.190).
What are the challenges that come with this process?
Aswithanychangefromanaccustomedapproach,theuseofperformanceassessmentscancreatespecialchallenges.Firstandforemost,teacherswillneedtoreadaboutandpracticeextensivelywithvariousformsoftheseassessmentssothattheybecomecomfortablewiththem.Atthesametime,teacherswillneedtopreparetheirstudentsfortheuseoftheseassessments.Learnerswhoareusedtotraditional,teacher-centeredclassroomsmaybereluctanttoassumenewrolesandresponsibilities.Theymayalsobeskepticalthatpeerscanprovidethemwithfeedbackthatwillenhancetheirlearning.Teachersmustbesuretoexplaintherationaleforperformanceassessmentfullytolearners.Theywillalsoneedto
NOTES
p .28 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
providestudentswithguidanceandinstructiononhowtoreflectontheirperformanceandevaluateitandhowtoevaluatetheirpeers’performance.Concretesuggestionsonhowtogoaboutthisareofferedthroughoutthe Handbook. Itisalsoimportanttoemphasizetheneedtocreateacooperativelearningenvironmentbeforeattemptingtouseperformanceassessments.Studentsmustbeinasupportiveenvironmentiftheyareexpectedtoreflectthoughtfullyontheirlearningprocesses.Theymustalsofeelcomfortablewithoneanothertoprovideconstructiveandhonestfeedbackontheirpeers’work.Otherwise,theywillprovideperfunctorycommentsonotherstudents’worktoavoidhurtfeelings.
Forthesereasons,itisimportanttointroducetheuseofperformanceassessmentsgradually.Notonlydoteachersneedtotaketimetobecomeaccustomedtotheseassessments;learnersalsoneedtounderstandhowtheywillbenefitfromthemandhowtheycanusethemeffectively.Theseassessmentscaneasilybeusedalongsidethemoretraditionalmeansofassessmentcommontoforeignlanguageclassrooms.Acombinationofalternativemeasuresandmoretraditionalformsofassessmentmakesitpossiblefortheteachertocomparetheresultsofthevariousapproaches,leadingtoamorecomprehensivepictureofstudents’languageperformancethaneitheralternativeortraditionalmeasuresalonewouldprovide.Toallowstudentstobecomeaccustomedtothem,theteachershouldbeginusingchecklists,scales,andrubrics(describedinasubsequentsection)toevaluatestudents’performance.Thisenablesstudentstoseetheirusemodeledandbecomeaccustomedtothem.Infact,ateachermaywishtobeginwithjustonerubric(eitherholisticoranalyticsincethesetypeslendthemselvestousewithavarietyoftasks)anduseitconsistentlyforaperiodoftimesothatstudentsbecomecomfortablewithit;otherrubriccanthenbeintroducedgradually.Oncestudentsarefamiliarwiththeuseofchecklists,scales,andrubricsforevaluation,theycanbegintoassesstheirownlearningandprovidefeedbacktotheirpeers.Alternativeassessmentsaregenerallydesignedtobeanintegralpartoranaturalculminationofasequenceoflearningactivities,buttheirusebybothteachersandstudentsrequirescarefulpreparationandshouldbeimplementedgradually.
The benefits that accompany the challenges
Changingthewaywethinkaboutassessmentsimultaneouslychangesthewaywethinkaboutteachingandthewaystudentsthinkaboutlearning(Hart,1994).Thisisperhapsoneofthegreatestbenefitstoimplementingperformanceassessment—itfocusesteachers’andstudents’attentiononlanguageuse.Studentsbecomeactiveparticipantsinassessmentactivitiesthataredesignedtorevealwhattheycandowithlanguageratherthanemphasizingtheirweaknesses.Teachersfindthese
NOTES
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .2�
assessmenttechniquesvaluableinhelpingthemtoaligninstructionandassessmentandemphasizingforstudentscommunicationformeaningfulpurposes. AsBaron(1991)states,“manyeducatorsbelievethatperformance-basedassessmentsmorecloselyrepresentthekindsofactivitiesthatwewantourstudentstobeabletoundertakeasmembersofsocietyandthatpracticingfortheassessmentimprovesthesevaluedskillsandunderstandings”(p.187).Certainlythisistrueinthecaseoflanguageclassroomswherestudentsarelearningtocommunicateinsituationssimilartothosetheywillencounterinthe“realworld.”Baron(1991)alsopointsoutthat“thereisagrowingnumberofeducatorsaroundtheworldwhobelievethatthereislittledifferencebetweenaneffectiveperformanceassessmenttaskandaneffectivecurriculumorlearningtask”(p.191).Thismeansthatmanyoftheactivitiesthatstudentsdoinacommunicative,proficiency-orientedclassroomcanbeusedasassessmenttasks,althoughyoushouldmakesuretoincludeawidevarietyoftasktypesthatreflectreallanguageuse.Alloftheactivitiesdescribedinthe Handbooklendthemselvestoperformanceassessmentbecausetheyemphasizewhatstudentscandowiththelanguage.Moreover,thetasksareaccompaniedbyadetaileddescriptionoftheassessmentproceduresandbysamplerubricsorcheckliststhatcanbeusedtoevaluatestudentperformanceonthetasks.
Thedetaileddescriptionsintherubricshelpteachersfirsttoarticulateandsecondlytointernalizeasenseofwhatconstitutesqualityofperformanceandmakesiteasierforteacherstojudgestudents’performanceconsistently.Theyalsohelpto“sell”thenotionofsubjectivityintheassessmentprocess.Themoreexplicitlyagradeorpointisdefined,themorecomfortablestudents(andteachers)willbewiththeuseofperformancetasksandassessmentsinthelanguageclassroom.
Using checklists and rubrics for assessing student performance
on various language tasks
Whereasachecklistsimplyprovidesanindicationofwhetheraspecificcriterion,characteristic,orbehaviorispresent,arubricprovidesameasureofqualityofperformanceonthebasisofestablishedcriteria.Itisimportanttomentionthatstudentsshouldbegivencopiesofthechecklistorrubricthatwillbeusedtoevaluatetheirperformanceonatask prior todoingthetaskorbeginningtheprojectsothatexpectationsaremadeclear.Teachersshouldalsodiscusstherubricswithstudentsand,ifpossible,provideexamplesofstudentworkthatcorrespondstothedifferentpointsorcriteriaonthescale.Itisalwayshelpfulforstudentstoseemodelsofworkthatwouldbe“excellent”vs.“satisfactory”vs.“belowstandard”or“inneedofimprovement.”
p .30 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
Checklists
Checklistsareoftenusedforobservingperformanceorbehaviorinordertokeeptrackofastudent’sprogressorworkovertime.Theycanalsobeusedtodeterminewhetherstudentshavemetestablishedcriteriaonatask.Belowisanexampleofaspeakingtaskandasamplechecklistthatmightbeusedtocheckwhetherstudentsmeetthecriterianeededtocompletethetasksuccessfully. TaskDescription.ForaunitonLatinosintheU.S.,studentsareexploringissuesrelatedtoLatinosinMinnesota.TheyareinstructedtomakecontactwithanativeSpanishspeakerwhohasimmigratedtoMinnesota(teacherprovidesalistofresourcesformakingcontact).Studentsaretoconductashortinterviewwiththisindividualandreportbacktotheclass.Inanoralpresentation,theyareto(1)brieflydescribetheinterviewee(gender,age,placeofbirth,occupation,etc.),(2)explainwhatbroughthim/hertoMinnesota,(3)describeatleastonechallengetheintervieweehasfacedorfacesinMinnesota,(4)describehowthisindividualmaintainsaconnectiontohis/herheritage,and(5)describeoneitemofinterestthatcameoutoftheinterview.Studentsaretoldthattheywillneedtospeakforaminimumofthreeminutesandthattheyarenottoreadtotheclassandcanonlyrefertominimalnoteswhilepresenting.Theyareadvisedtorehearse,butnottomemorize.Achecklistforassessingstudents’completionofthetaskcomponentsmightlookliketheoneinFigure2.
Notethatachecklistlikethissimplyindicateswhetherthestudentaddressedaspecificportionofthetaskintheirperformance;itdoesnotofferajudgmentofthequalityofperformance. BrownandYule(1983)suggestachecklist-typescoringmatrixforusewithinformation-gapactivities.Theintentionistoassessthespeaker’scommunicativeeffectiveness.Thefirststepistoselectorcreateaninformation-gaptaskinwhichaspeakermustdescribeorprovideinstructionstoalistener,whofollowstheinstructionsorcompletessometaskbasedonthedescription.Forexample,aspeakermustexplaintoalistenerhowtoassembleakitchenutensilhavingfivepartsorcomponents.Thelistenerhasthevariouspartsoftheutensilinfrontofhimandisrequiredtoassemblethepartsonthebasisofthespeaker’sinstructions.Thespeakermustbeseatedinsuchawaysothatshecannotseewhatthelistenerisdoing.Thespeakerbeginsbyidentifyingthefirstpart,thenthesecondpartandexplainstheirrelationshiptooneanother,orhowtheyfittogether.
Criteria Yes No
DescribesInterviewee(gender,age,placeofbirth,occupation).
Explainsinterviewee’simmigrationtoMinnesota.
Describesatleastonchallengetheintervieweefaces.
Describeshowintervieweemaintainsconnectiontoculture.
Describespointofinterest.
Speaksforaminimumof3minutes.
Evidenceofrehearsal(notreadingtoclass).
Fig. 2 Checklist for Oral Presentation of Interview
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . 31
Shecontinuesinthismanneruntilallfivepartsareidentifiedandtheirrelationshipwithoneanotherisdescribed.Whilesuchtasksmaynotbeconsidered“authentic”inthepuresenseoftheterm,theydoelicitthekindsoflinguisticstructuresthatstudentsneedtointernalizeduringtheprocessoflanguageacquisition(Brown&Yule,1983).Achecklistforassessingthespeaker’sabilitytocommunicateeffectivelyissetupasinFigure3.
Theteacherlistenstospeaker“a’s”instructionsandmarksacheckwheneversheidentifiesacomponentanddescribesitsrelationshiptoanothercomponent.Thesameprocedureisfollowedforspeaker“b,”“c,”etc.InthesamplechecklistinFigure3,speaker“b”wasabletocommunicateallinformationeffectively,whereasspeaker“a’s”performancelackedsomeimportantdetails.Inassessingcommunicativeeffectiveness,theteachermustbecarefultolistentowhatthespeakersaysandnotbeinfluencedbywhatalistenerdoesordoesnotdo.Thatis,alistenermayfigureoutataskandcompleteitwithoutnecessarilyhavingexplicitinstructionsfromthespeaker;conversely,thespeakermaydescribealloftherequiredinformationandthelistenermaynotfollowtheinstructionscorrectly.Figure3mayalsobeadaptedtoassesslisteningcomprehension,inwhichcasetheteacherwillpayattentiontowhatalistenerdoesonthebasisofwhataspeakersays.Checklistssuchastheseforassessingbothspeakers’andlisteners’performanceinaninformationgapactivityappearintheHandbookalongwiththe“MyFavoriteRecipe”task. Checklistscanbeusefulforclassroomassessmentbecausetheyareeasytoconstructanduse,andtheyaligncloselywithtasks.Theycanalsobeusedveryeffectivelyforpeerassessmentoflanguageuse.Atthesametime,theyarelimitedinthattheydonotprovideanassessmentoftherelativequalityofastudent’sperformanceonaparticulartask.
Required Information Speaker(a) (b) (c) (d)...
component1 √ √
component2 √ √
relationshipbetween2and1 √
component3 √ √
relationshipbetween3and2/1 √ √
component4 √ √
relationshipbetween4and3/2/1 √ √
component5 √
relationshipbetween5andtherest √
Fig. 3 Checklist for Information Gap Exercise
p .32 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
Rubrics
Incontrasttochecklists,rubricsorscalesprovideanindicationof quality ofperformanceonaparticulartask.Rubricshavereceivedmuchattentioninrecentyearsduetotheincreasedemphasisonperformance-basedassessment.Theyareprimarilyusedforlanguagetasksthatinvolvesomekindofproductiononthepartofthestudent,beitoralorwritten.Rubricsarecreatedonthebasisoffourdifferentscaletypes—holistic,analytic,primarytrait,andmultitrait—eachofwhichwasdevelopedoriginallyforlargescalewritingassessment.Scoringrubricsareoftenusedwithbenchmarksorexemplars—samplesthatactasstandardsagainstwhichothersamplesarejudged(Hart,1994). Holistic rubrics.Whenteachersuseholisticscalesorrubrics,theyarerespondingtolanguageperformance(writingorspeaking)asawhole.Eachscoreonaholisticscalerepresentsanoverallimpression;oneintegratedscoreisassignedtoaperformance.Theemphasisinholisticscoringisonwhatastudentdoeswellratherthanwhatheorshehasnotdonewell(White,1985).Holisticrubricscommonlyhavefourorsixpoints.Figure4showsasamplefour-pointholisticscalecreatedforthepurposesofassessingwritingperformance.
MoreexamplesofholisticrubricscanbefoundintheHandbook—see,forexample,therubricsdevelopedfor“Tic-Tac-ToeStoryGrids”and“FablesthroughComics.”Thosetwoexamplesshowholisticrubricsthathavebeenwrittentoaligncloselywiththetask.However,holisticrubricsareoftenwrittengenericallysothattheycanbeusedoverandoverwithavarietyoftasks.Holisticrubricshavetheadvantageofleadingtoefficientassessmentofstudents’writtenororalperformance,buttheydonotprovidestudentswithspecificfeedbackonaspectsoftheirperformancethatwerestrongorneedimprovement.
Fig. 4 Holistic Scale for Assessing Writing*
4 Excellent–Communicative;reflectsawarenessofsociolinguisticaspects;well-organizedandcoherent;containsarangeofgrammaticalstructureswithminorerrorsthatdonotimpedecomprehension;goodvocabularyrange.
3 Good–Comprehensible;someawarenessofsociolinguisticaspects;adequateorganizationandcoherence;adequateuseofgrammaticalstructureswithsomemajorerrorsthatdonotimpedecomprehension;limitedvocabularyrange.
2 Fair–Somewhatcomprehensible;littleawarenessofsociolinguisticaspects;someproblemswithorganizationandcoherence;reflectsbasicuseofgrammaticalstructureswithverylimitedrangeandmajorerrorsthatattimesimpedecomprehension;basicvocabularyused.
1 Poor–Barelycomprehensible;noawarenessofsociolinguisticaspects;lacksorganizationandcoherence;basicuseofgrammaticalstructureswithmanyminorandmajorerrorsthatoftenimpedecomprehension;basictopoorvocabularyrange.*adaptedfromscalesfoundinCohen(1994)andShohamy(1985)
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . 33
Score Range Criteria Comments30-27 ExcellenttoVeryGood–ó addressesallaspectsoftheprompt
ó providesgoodsupportforanddevelopmentofallideaswithrangeofdetail ó substantive
26-22 GoodtoAverage–ópromptadequatelyaddressedó ideasnotfullydevelopedorsupportedwithdetail,thoughmainideasareclearó lesssubstance
21-17 Fair–ó promptmaynotbefullyaddressed(writermayappeartoskirtaspectsofprompt)óideasnotsupportedwell,mainideaslackdetaileddevelopmentó littlesubstance
16-13 Poor–ódoesn’tadequatelyaddresspromptólittletonosupportordevelopmentofideasónon-substantive
CONTENT-30 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE
Fig. 5 Analytic Writing Scale for the Spanish FLIP Program*
University of Minnesota, Revised July, 1996
Score Range Criteria Comments20-18 ExcellenttoVeryGood–ó well-framedandorganized(withclear
introduction,conclusion)ó coherent ó succinctócohesive(excellentuseofconnectivewords)
17-14 GoodtoAverage–óadequate,butlooseorganizationwithintroductionandconclusion(thoughtheymaybelimitedoroneofthetwomaybemissing)ó somewhatcoherentómorewordyratherthansuccinctósomewhatcohesive(gooduseofconnectivewords)
13-10 Fair–ó lacksgoodorganization(noevidenceofintroduction,conclusion)óideasmaybedisconnected,confusedólackscoherenceówordyandrepetitiveólacksconsistentuseofcohesiveelements
9-7 Poor–óconfusing,disconnectedorganizationólackscoherencesomuchsothatwritingisdifficulttofollowólackscohesion
ORGANIZATION–20 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE
Holisticrubricsareoftenusedinlarge-scaleassessmentbecauseoftheirefficiencyandtheirtendencytoleadtogreaterconsistencyamongmultipleraters.Atthesametime,theycanbeusedveryeffectivelywithclassroom-basedperformancetasks. Analytic rubrics. Analyticscalesaredividedintoseparatecategoriesrepresentingdifferentaspectsordimensionsofperformance.Eachdimensionisscoredseparately,thendimensionscoresareaddedtodetermineanoverallscore.Commonaspectsforwritingperformanceincludecontent,organization,vocabulary,grammar,andmechanics.Onascalehavingthesedifferentcategories,anessaywouldbeevaluatedbyapplyingadifferentscoretoeachcategory.Thisallowstheteachertoweighcertainaspectsmoreheavilythanothers.Forexample,contentmayhaveatotalpointrangeof30whereasmechanicsmaybeattributedatotalof10or15points. OneofthebestknownanalyticrubricsusedforwritingassessmentinthefieldofEnglishasasecondlanguage(ESL)wasdevelopedbyHugheyetal.(1983,p.140).Thisrubrichasfivecategories—content,organization,vocabulary,languageuse,andmechanics.DrawingheavilyuponcharacteristicsoftheHugheyetal.scale,TedickandKleedevelopedananalyticrubricforuseinscoringessayswrittenforanimmersionquarterforundergraduatesstudyingSpanish(Klee,Tedick,&Cohen1995).ArevisedversionoftherubricappearsinFigure5. NotethatthescaleinFigure5assignsdifferentweightstodifferentfeatures.Thisallowsateachertogivemoreemphasistocontentthantogrammarormechanics,forexample.Theoptiontoweighcharacteristicsonthescalerepresentsanadvantagetoanalyticscoring.Thedecisiontoweighcertaincriteriaornotrestswiththetask,thepurpose,andthelevelofthestudents.
p .34 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
Score Range Criteria Comments25–22 ExcellenttoVeryGood–ó greatvarietyofgrammaticalforms(e.g.,
rangeofindicativeverbforms;useofsubjunctive)ócomplexsentencestructure(e.g.,compoundsentences,embeddedclauses)óevidenceof“Spanish-like”constructionómasteryofagreement(subj/verb;number/gender)óveryfewerrors(ifany)overallwithnonethatobscuremeaning
21–18 GoodtoAverage–ósomevarietyofgrammaticalforms(e.g.,attempts,thoughnotalwaysaccurate,ofrangeverbforms,useofsubjunctive)óattempts,thoughnotalwaysaccurate,atcomplexsentencestructure(e.g.,compoundsentences,embeddedclauses)ólittleevidenceof“Spanish-like”construction,thoughwithoutcleartranslationsfromEnglishóoccasionalerrorswithagreementósomeerrors(minor)thatdon’tobscuremeaning
17–11 Fair–ó lessvarietyofgrammaticalforms(e.g.,littlerangeofverbforms;inaccurate,ifany,attemptsatsubjunctive)ósimplisticsentencestructureóevidenceof“English-like”construction(e.g.,somedirecttranslationofphrases)óconsistenterrors(e.g.,withagreement),butfewofwhichmayobscuremeaning
10–5 Poor–óverylittlevarietyofgrammaticalformsósimplisticsentencestructurethatcontainsconsistenterrors,especiallywithbasicaspectssuchasagreementóevidenceoftranslationfromEnglishófrequentandconsistenterrorsthatmayobscuremeaning
LANGUAGE USE/GRAMMAR/MORPHOLOGY–25 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE
Score Range Criteria Comments5 ExcellenttoVeryGood–ó demonstratesmasteryofconventions
ófewerrorsinspelling,punctuation,capitalization,&useofaccents4 GoodtoAverage–óoccasionalerrorsinspelling,punctuation,
capitalization,anduseofaccents,butmeaningisnotobscured3 Fair–ó frequenterrorsinspelling,punctuation,capitalization,and
useofaccentsthatattimesconfusesorobscuresmeaning2 Poor–ónomasteryofconventionsódominatedbyerrorsinspelling,
punctuation,capitalization,anduseofaccents
TOTALSCORE COMMENTS:
MECHANICS–5 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE
Score Range Criteria Comments20-18 ExcellenttoVeryGood–ó sophisticated,academicrangeóextensive
varietyofwordsóeffectiveandappropriateword/idiomchoiceandusageóappropriateregister
17-14 GoodtoAverage–ógood,butnotextensive(lessacademic),rangeorvarietyóoccasionalerrorsofword/idiomchoiceorusage(someevidenceofinventionof“false”cognates),butveryfewornonethatobscuremeaningóappropriateregister
13-10 Fair–ó Limitedand“non-academic”range(frequentrepetitionofwords)ómoreconsistenterrorswithword/idiomchoiceorusage(frequentevidenceoftranslation;inventionof“false”cognates)thatmay(thoughseldom)obscuremeaningósomeevidenceofinappropriateregister
9-7 Poor–óverylimitedrangeofwordsóconsistentandfrequenterrorswithword/idiomchoiceorusage(ampleevidenceoftranslation)ó meaningfrequentlyobscuredóevidenceofinappropriateregister
VOCABULARY/WORD USAGE–20 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE
Figure6providesanexampleofananalyticrubricthatcanbeusedforassessingspeaking.Thisrubricdoesnotemphasizeonefeatureoveranother,butcertainlycanbeadaptedtodoso.Likeholisticrubrics,analyticrubricsareoftendesignedtobeverygenericsothattheycanbeusedwithavarietyoftasks.
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . 35
Pronunciation
4 Excellent–Noconsistentorconspicuousmispronunciation;approachesnative-likepronunciationwithgoodintonationandjuncture.
3 Good –Someidentifiabledeviationsinpronunciation,butwithnophonemicerrors.Non-nativeaccentevidentwithoccasionalmispronunciationsthatdonotinterferewithunderstanding.
2 Fair–Identifiabledeviationsinpronunciationwithsomephonemicerrors.Non-nativeaccentrequirescarefullisteningandmispronunciationsleadtooccasionalmisunderstanding.
1 Poor –Frequentpronunciationerrorswithaheavynon-nativeaccent.Manyphonemicerrorsthatmakeunderstandingdifficult.
Fluency
4 Excellent–Speechiseffortlessandsmoothwithspeedthatapproachesthatofanative-speaker.
3 Good–Speechismostlysmoothbutwithsomehesitationandunevennesscausedprimarilybyrephrasingandgropingforwords.
2 Fair–Speechislowandoftenhesitantandjerky.Sentencesmaybeleftuncompleted,butspeakerisabletocontinuehoweverhaltingly.
1 Poor –Speechisveryslowandexceedinglyhalting,strainedandstumblingexceptforshortormemorizedexpressions.Difficultforalistenertoperceivecontinuityinutterancesandspeakermaynotbeabletocontinue.
Grammar/Language Use
4 Excellent –Verystrongcommandofgrammaticalstructureandsomeevidenceofdifficult,complexpatternsandidioms.Makesinfrequenterrorsthatdonotimpedecomprehension.
3 Good–Goodcommandofgrammaticalstructuresbutwithimperfectcontrolofsomepatterns.Lessevidenceofcomplexpatternsandidioms.Limitednumberoferrorsthatarenotseriousanddonotimpedecomprehension.
2 Fair –Faircontrolofmostbasicsyntacticpatterns.Speakeralwaysconveysmeaninginsimplesentences;someimportantgrammaticalpatternsareuncontrolledanderrorsmayoccasionallyimpedecomprehension.
1 Poor–Anyaccuracyislimitedtosetormemorizedexpressions;limitedcontrolofevenbasicsyntacticpatterns.FrequenterrorsimpedeComprehension.
Vocabulary
4 Excellent–Verygoodrangeofvocabularywithevidenceofsophisticationandnative-likeexpression.Strongcommandofidiomaticexpressions.In-frequentuseofcircumlocutionbecauseparticularwordsarerarelylacking.
3 Good–Goodrangeofvocabularywithlimitedevidenceofsophistication.Someexpressionsdistinctlynonnative-likebutalwayscomprehensible.Limitedevidenceofidiomaticexpressions.Speakeriscomfortablewithcircumlocutionwhenlackingaparticularword.
2 Fair–Adequaterangeofvocabularywithnoevidenceofsophistication.Somedistinctlynonnativeexpressionsorerrorsinwordchoicemayimpedecomprehension.Noevidenceofidiomaticexpressions.Speakerhasdifficultywithcircumlocutionwhenlackingaparticularword.
1 Poor–Limitedrangeofvocabulary.Lackofrepertoireandfrequenterrorsinwordchoiceoftenimpededcomprehension.Speakershowsnoattemptincircumlocutionwhenlackingaparticularword.
Total Score _______ *adaptedfromshohamy(1985)pp.183-4
Fig. 6 Analytic Scale for Assessing Speaking*
p .36 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
Analyticrubricsalsohavetheadvantageofprovidingmoreinformationtostudentsaboutthestrengthsandweaknessesofvariousaspectsoftheirlanguageperformance.Oneofthegreatestcriticismsofanalyticscoring,however,isthatthepartsdonotnecessarilyadduptothewhole,or“thewholeisgreaterthanthesumofitsparts.”Inotherwords,providingseparatescoresfordifferentaspectsofastudent’swritingorspeakingperformancemaybeconsideredartificialinthatitdoesnotgivetheteacher(orstudent)agoodassessmentofthe“whole”ofaperformance.Inaddition,analyticrubricsarebytheirverynaturemorecumbersomeandtime-consumingtouse.Yet,someteachersfindtheiradvantagestooutweightheirdisadvantagesbecausetheylikebeingabletoprovidestudentswithmoredetailedfeedback. Primary trait rubrics.Theprimarytraitscoringmethod(Lloyd-Jones,1977)involvespredeterminingthemaincriterionforsuccessfulperformanceonatask.The“primarytrait”isdefinedbytheteacherandvariesdependinguponthetask.Thisapproachthusinvolvesnarrowingthecriteriaforjudgingperformanceonatasktoonemaincategoryordimension.Asanexample,considerataskthatrequiresthatastudentwriteapersuasivelettertoaneditoroftheschoolnewspaper.TheprimarytraitrubricmightlooksomethingliketheoneinFigure7.
Aprimarytraitrubrichastheadvantageofallowingteachers(andstudents)tofocusononeaspectordimensionoflanguageperformance.Itisalsoarelativelyquickandeasywaytoscorewritingorspeakingperformance—especiallywhenateacherwantstoemphasizeonespecificaspectofthatperformance.Primarytraitscalesaccompanysomeofthetasksinthe Handbook,forexample“InterpretingtheMessageofaSong.”Theyarebetterrubricsforformativeassessmentratherthansummativeassessment,becausetheyarelimitedintermsoftheinformationtheyprovideaboutthestudent’sperformance. Multitrait rubrics. Amultitraitapproachtoscoringlanguageperformanceissimilartotheprimarytraitapproachbutallowsforratingperformanceonanumberofdimensions(usuallythreeorfour)ratherthanemphasizingjustone.Althoughsimilartoanalyticrubricsinthatseveralaspectsarescoredindividually,multitraitrubricsaredifferentintermsofthenatureofthedimensions,ortraits,thatmakeuptherubric.Asexplainedabove,ananalyticrubriccomprisesmoretraditionaldimensions,suchascontent,organization,andgrammar.Amultitraitrubric,incontrast,involvesdimensionsthataremorecloselyalignedwithfeaturesofthetaskusedtoelicitlanguageperformance.Forexample,inaninformation-gapspeakingtaskwherestudentsareaskedtodescribeapictureinenoughdetailforalistenertochooseitamongasetofsimilarpictures,amultitraitrubricmightbecreatedthatwouldincludedimensionssuchasqualityofdescription,fluency,andlanguagecontrol(seeFigure8).
Fig. 7 Primary Trait Rubric
Primary Trait: Persuading an audience
0––Failstopersuadetheaudience.
1––Attemptstopersuadebutdoesnotprovidesufficientsupport.
2––Presentsasomewhatpersuasiveargumentbutwithoutconsistentdevelopmentandsupport.
3––Developsapersuasiveargumentthatiswelldevelopedandsupported.
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . 37
Inthismultitraitexample,themaximumtotalscoreis12.Studentsareassignedascoreof1–4foreachofthethreecategories,andtheseareaddedtocreateatotalscore.Thealignmentofthescalewiththetaskisperhapsthegreateststrengthofthemultitraitrubric;atthesametimethisveryalignmentmakesamultitraitrubriclesstransferableforusewithothertasks.Inotherwords,itislikelythateachtimeadifferenttaskisused,adifferentrubric(oratleastoneortwodimensionsofthatrubric)willhavetobedeveloped.ThemajorityofrubricsintheHandbookareofthemultitraittype,becausetheywerecreatedtoaligncloselywiththetask.See,forexample,therubricsthataccompany“GuessWho,”“StrategicInteraction,”“Newscast,”and“MarketaMovie.”
Creating and Using Rubrics
Whilesomerubricsarecreatedinsuchawayastobegenericinscopeforusewithanynumberofwritingorspeakingtasks,itisbesttoconsiderthetaskfirstandmakesurethattherubricrepresentsagoodfitwiththetaskandyourinstructionalobjectives.Justasavarietyoftask-typesshouldbeusedinlanguageclassrooms,soshouldavarietyofrubricsandchecklistsbeusedforassessingperformanceonthosetasks.Recallthatitisimportanttoincorporatetheuseofrubricsgradually,however,soitisappropriatetobeginwithone(moregeneric)rubricandtoaddothersasthereaderandstudentsbecomemorecomfortablewiththeprocess.Creatinggoodrubricsthatlendthemselveswelltoconsistent,accurateassessmentstakespractice.Itisagoodideaforteacherstobegintocollectsamplesofrubricsthattheycanrefertoandborrowfromtodeveloptheirown.TheHandbook containsmultipleexamples
Fig. 8 Multitrait Rubric*
Quality of description Fluency Language Control
4Highlevelofaccuracyindescriptionisreflected;highdegreeofdetailincludedindescription.
Smoothandfluidspeech;fewtonohesitations;noattemptstogropeforwords.
Excellentcontroloflanguagefeatures;awiderangeofwell -chosenvocabulary;accuracyandvarietyofgrammaticalstructures.
3Goodaccuracyindescription,thoughsomedetailmightbelacking.
Speechisrelativelysmoothbutischaracterizedbysomehesitationandunevennesscausedbyrephrasingand/orgropingforwords.
Goodlanguagecontrol;goodrangeofrelativelywell-chosenvocabulary;someerrorsingrammaticalstructurespossiblycausedbyattempttoincludeavariety.
2Descriptionlackssomeaccuracyandsomecriticaldetailsaremissingthatmakeitdifficultforthelistenertocompletethetask.
Speechisfrequentlyhesitantandjerky,withsomesentencesleftuncompleted.
Adequatelanguagecontrol;vocabularyrangeislacking;frequentgrammaticalerrorsthatdonotobscuremeaning;littlevarietyinstructures.
1Descriptionissolackingthatthelistenercannotcompletethetask.
Speechisslowandexceedinglyhesitantandstrainedexceptforshortormemorizedphrases;difficulttoperceivecontinuityinutterances.
Weaklanguagecontrol;basicvocabularychoicewithsomewordsclearlylacking;frequentgrammaticalerrorseveninsimplestructuresthatattimesobscuremeaning.
Total Score: *adaptedfromscalesfoundinCohen(1994)andShohamy(1985)
p .38 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
ofrubricsandcheckliststoaccompanythetasksandunits.Thesecanbeadaptedtocreatenewones. Unliketraditionalformsofassessment,whichofteninvolvemoreobjectivemethodsofscoringandgrading,performanceassessmentsandtheiraccompanyinguseofrubricsinvolvesubjectivejudgments,asexplainedabove.Thissubjectivitymakesitmorechallengingtoestablishreliability,orconsistency,inscoringandgrading.AlthoughathoroughdiscussionofthenotionofreliabilityasrelatedtotheuseofrubricsusedforperformanceassessmentisbeyondthescopeofthisportionoftheHandbook,afewpiecesofadvicecanbeoffered.Itisrecommendedthattheychecktheirownreliabilityinsomeway.Forexample,asstudents’writtenessaysaregraded,teacherscankeeptrackofthescoresonaseparatesheetofpaper.Afewdayslater,theteacherrandomlyselectsanumber(e.g.,five)oftheessaysandevaluatesthemagain,beingsurenottolookattheoriginalscoresassigned.Thentheteachercomparesthetwosetsofscorestoensurethats/heassignedthesameornearlythesamescoresbothtimes.Ifthetwoscoresarequitedifferent,youwillneedtoexaminetherubriccarefullyandre-evaluatetheessays.Thissameprocedurecanbefollowedforcheckingreliabilityinevaluatingstudents’oralperformanceaslongasaudioorvideorecordingsoftheperformanceareavailable.Alsokeepinmindthatfatiguecanaffectateacher’sabilitytoscorestudents’workconsistently.Itisagoodidea,therefore,tolimitthenumberofwrittenessaysororalperformancestobegradedatonesitting.Themorepracticeteachersgetwiththerubricsandthemorecomfortabletheybecomewiththeprocess,themorereliablethescoringwillbecome.Foradetaileddiscussiononreliabilityinscoring,see,forexample,Cohen(1994).
Encouraging Reflection through Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment
Ithasbeensuggestedthatgoodlanguagelearnersareawareoflanguagelearningprocesses(e.g.,Carrell,1989;Devine,1993;O’Malley&Chamot,1990;Schmidt&Frota,1986).Theyareawareofandabletoreflectontheirownandothers’languagelearningstrategiesandprogressaslanguagelearners.Reflection,asoneoftheconceptscomprisingCAPRII,hasbeendefinedaboveandhasbeenemphasizedasakeycomponentofeffectivelanguageinstruction. Secondlanguagestudentsshouldbeprovidedwithopportunitiestoengageinsystematicreflectiononaregularbasis.Reflectionrequirescommitment,time,andthewilltobeopen,flexible,andsensitive.Peopleneedtobeginwithsituationsthattheyarecomfortablewithandgraduallybuildtowardothermorerisk-takingventures.Onewaytoencouragereflectioninstudentsistoprovideopportunitiesforthemtoassesstheirownlanguageperformanceandthatofothers.
Self-Assessment
Thebenefitsofhavingstudentsassesstheirownprogresshavebeenestablishedinresearchonfirst-languageliteracyacquisitioninyoungchildren(e.g.,Brown,1988;Glazer,1992;Graves,1983;Routman,1991).Itisbelievedthatopportunitiesforself-assessmenthelpstudentstobecomeindependentlearners.Inaddition,anumberofsecondlanguagestudieshavefoundthatself-assessmentleadstoincreasedmotivationinlearners(Blanche&Merino,1989).However,studentsdonotlearntomonitororassesstheirlearningontheirown.Studentsmustbetaughtstrategiesforself-monitoringandself-assessment.Inthecaseofself-assessments,iftimeisnottakentoinstructstudentsintheiruse,theirvalidityisquestionable.BlancheandMerino(1989),inareviewofsixteenstudiesthatemployedmeasuresofself-assessment,foundthatamongthefactorsthatcanthreatenthevalidityofself-assessmentwas“thelackofcommon,validcriteriathatbothlearnersandinstructorscouldusetomakesoundjudgments”(p.325)andlearners’lackoftraininginhowtoperformthetypesofself-assessmentthathadbeenasked
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . 3�
ofthem.Techniquesforteachingstudentsstrategiesforself-assessmentareparalleltothoseusedforteachinglearningstrategies.Detaileddescriptionsofsuchtechniquescanbefound,forexample,inO’MalleyandChamot’sbookonlearningstrategies(1990)orChamotetal.’s(1999)handbookonlearningstrategies. Self-assessmenttoolscanbeusedtoencouragestudents’reflectionontopicstheyhavestudied,vocabularytheyhavelearned,theirstudyhabits,andtheirsenseoftheiroverallstrengthsandweaknesses.BlancheandMerino(1989)furthersuggestthatstudentslatersharetheirself-assessmentswithapeerorinasmallgroup,withinstructionsthattheycomparetheirimpressionswithothercriteriasuchastestscores,teacherevaluations,andpeers’opinions.Thiskindofpracticeisvaluableinthatithelpsstudentstobeawareoftheirlearning;inaddition,itnotonlyinformstheteacheraboutstudents’thoughtsontheirlearningandprogress,butalsoprovidestheteacherwithfeedbackaboutcoursecontentandinstruction. Self-assessmentscanalsobeusedtoallowstudentstoevaluatebothlanguageprocessesandproductsthatarespecifictothevariousmodalities.Studentscantakepartinassessmentbyevaluatingtheirownperformance(andthatoftheirpeers)onthebasisofchecklistsandrubricsthataredeveloped.Inordertoratetheirownspeakingperformance,studentswouldneedtoaudio-tapeorvideo-tapetheirperformanceandevaluateitusingarubricorchecklist.Writingcaneasilybeevaluatedwithrubrics.Weofferexamplesofself-assessmentsinthecontextofavarietyoftasksintheHandbook.See,forexample,thefinalevaluationinthe“GenderRoles”unit.
Peer Assessment
Oneofthewaysinwhichstudentsinternalizethecharacteristicsofqualityworkisbyevaluatingtheworkoftheirpeers.However,iftheyaretoofferhelpfulfeedback,studentsmusthaveaclearunderstandingofwhattheyaretolookforintheirpeers’work.Forexample,whentheyreadapeer’sessayorlistentoapresentation,shouldtheyfocusonlyongrammaticalaccuracy?content?organization?orsomethingelse?Theinstructormustexplainexpectationsclearlytothembeforetheybegin.Ifstudentsareaskedtogiveoneanotherfeedbackontheiressays,onewaytomakesuretheyunderstandwhattheyaretoevaluateisbyprovidingstudentswithasamplecompositiononanoverheadand,asagroup,determiningwhatshouldbeassessed(i.e.,howdoesonedefinegoodwriting),carryingouttheassessment,andthendetermininghowtoconveyclearlytothefictitiousstudenthowheorshecouldimprovetheessay. Studentsalsobenefitfromtheuseofrubricsorcheckliststoguidetheirassessments;theserubricscanbeprovidedbytheinstructor,oroncethestudentshavemoreexperience,theycandevelopthemthemselves.Inadditiontopeerassessmentofwriting,studentscanalsoevaluatetheirpeers’oralpresentations,roleplays,skits,ordebates.Again,itisimportantthatstudentsreceiveguidanceonwhattoevaluate.Theuseofrubricsorchecklistshelpsstudentsfocusontheaspectsthattheyshouldassess.Forpeerevaluationtoworkeffectively,thelearningenvironmentintheclassroommustbesupportive.Studentsmustfeelcomfortableandtrustoneanothertoprovidehonestandconstructivefeedback.ThetasksintheHandbookprovideavarietyofopportunitiesandsuggestionsforpeerassessment.Thecheckliststhataccompanythe“MyFavoriteRecipe”taskofferstudentstheopportunitytoassesslisteners’andspeakers’performance.Similarly,peerreviewguidelinessuchasthosethataccompany“GuessWho?”and“Let’sgotoCostaRica”askstudentstogivefeedbackoneachother’swriting. Itisabsolutelycriticaltospendtimewithstudentstopreparethemforself-assessmentandpeer-assessmentactivities.Beforeaskingstudentstoratetheirownortheirpeers’performance,teachersneedtobesurethattheyunderstandthecriteriaandhowtoapplythem.Themoreateachermodelsanddiscussestheprocess,themorestudentswillbenefitfromparticipatingintheevaluationoftheirwork.
p .40 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
Assessing Cultural Understanding
Inadditiontoparticipatingintheassessmentoftheirlanguageperformance,studentsneedtobeinvolvedinassessingtheirculturalunderstandingandknowledge.IntheHandbook,wehaveemphasizedthatcultureneedstobeatthecoreoflanguageinstruction.Itfollowsthatwemustalsodevisewaysofassessingstudents’culturalknowledgeandunderstanding.Wiggins(1989)andothershavearguedquiteconvincinglythatifwevaluesomething,wemustassessit,fortoneglectaconceptinassessmentistocommunicatetostudentsthattheconceptisn’timportant. Kramsch(1993)hassuggestedthatstudentsneedtolearnaboutthemultiplicityofperspectivesthatdefineculturalconstructs.Shearguesthatinsteadofhavingstudentssimplystatetheirinterpretationofaculturalconstruct,theyshouldbeengagedintasksthatrequirethemtoreflect an understandingofaconstruct.Forexample,studentshavebeenlearningabouttheeducationalsysteminGermany.TheirtaskistocreateavideotapeabouttheeducationalsystemintheU.S.foragroupofGermanstudentswhowillbeonanexchangeintheU.S.thefollowingyear.TheyareinstructedtocreateadescriptionoftheU.S.systemthatreflectstheirunderstandingofwhattheyhavelearnedabouttheGermansystem.Inthisway,teachersareabletotapintodeeperlevelsofcross-culturalunderstanding. Followingisanexampleofaperformancetaskcreatedforcollege-levelstudentsofFrenchthatincludesareflectionofstudents’understandingoftheFrenchconceptof“home.”Thetaskandassessmentsdescribedbelowareintendedtobeinterpretedasbothteacherandstudentassessments.Inotherwords,thetasksaredesignedinsuchawayastoallowforteacherassessmentandstudents’self-assessment.Thisdescriptionincorporatesmanyofthetechniquesandideasdiscusseduptothispoint. SuzanneCook,formerFrenchinstructorattheU.S.AirForceAcademyandPh.D.studentinSecondLanguagesandCulturesEducationattheUniversityofMinnesota,createdthisassessmentforacourseattheUniversitywhileonleavefromherpositionattheAcademy(Cook,1994).Theperformancetaskofthissummativeassessmentisintegrativeinthatitcombinesreadingcomprehension,writing,andculturalunderstanding.BeforereadingatextinFrench,studentsareinstructedtoreflectontheirbackgroundknowledgeof“theFrenchandtheirhomes”byrespondingtothefollowingquestionsinEnglish.Theyareassuredthattherearenorightorwronganswers.
1. DescribetheimageyouhaveofaFrenchhome.Whatistheimagebasedon(TV,magazines,textbooks,visittoFrance—whereinFrance?,etc.)?Inotherwords,reflectonwhatyoubelievehasledyoutoformthisimage.
2. WouldyoucharacterizetheFrenchashospitabletovisitorsintheirhomeornot?Supportyouranswer.
3. HowwouldyoudescribeAmericansintermsoftheirhospitality?Feelfreetouseyourownexperiencehere.Howdoesyourfamilydealwithguestsinyourhome?
Bybeginningtheassessmentinthisway,Cookcommunicatestostudentsthevalueofusingpre-readingstrategiessuchasactivatingpriorknowledge.Shealsogatherscriticalinformationthatmayhelpherunderstandastudent’sperformanceontheassessment.Next,studentsareinstructedtoreadanexcerptfromthebookEvidences Invisibles(Carroll,1987).Theyarepromptedwiththefollowing:
ThefollowingexcerptcomesfromthebookEvidences Invisibles,byRaymondeCarroll,aFrenchanthropologistwhoismarriedtoanAmericananthropologist
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . 41
andwhohaslivedintheU.S.forsome20years.ShestudiedthecommonmisunderstandingsbetweenFrenchandAmericanpeople,misunderstandingsthatareusuallyduetodifferentassumptionsabouthowoneshouldliveandthatarenotexplicitlyconsideredwhenindividualsareinteracting.Thefollowingpassagerevealssomeofthefundamentalassumptions,which,accordingtoCarroll,theFrenchgenerallyhaveaboutthehome.Readthetextcarefullyforunderstandingandwithaneyefordifferencesfromyourownconceptof“home.”
Forassessingbasiccomprehension,CookasksstudentstorespondinEnglishtosomeliteral-levelquestionsaboutthetext.Shealsoasksthattheyreflectinwriting“ontheauthorofthistextandtheimplicationthismighthaveontheinformationshepresents,inparticularonhowrepresentativeitmightbeofthewholepopulationofFrance.”Byaskingstudentstoconsiderthisinferentialquestion,Cookattemptstotapstudents’understandingthattheauthor’sinterpretationisdirectlyrelatedtoherindividualviewoftheworld,basedonherstatusandeducationallevelandthattheinformationpresentedmaynotrepresentallFrenchpeople.Sheassessesstudents’responsestothisquestionwithachecklist(seeFigure9).
Thebasiccomprehensionquestionsandcriticalthinking/inferentialquestionarefollowedbythisperformancetask:
ImagineyoujustreceivedthefollowingpostcardfromafriendwhorecentlyarrivedinLyontospendthesummerwithaFrenchfamily.Thisfriendishavingsomedifficultyunderstandingthewaysofhis/herhostfamily.Withwhatyou’velearnedfromthereadingpassage,writearesponsetoyourfriendinFrenchtohelphim/heradjust.Whatshoulds/hedodifferently?Includeinformationfromthetext(atleast3mainideas),inyourownwords,andrelateittoyourfriend’sknowledgeofthewayAmericansdothings.
ThefollowingpostcardtextispresentedinFrench,butitsEnglishtranslationisprovidedinFigure10.
Thewritingportionrepresentsanintegrativetask,wherestudentsareaskedtolinkpriorknowledge(ofAmericanhomesandhowAmericanstreatvisitorsintheirhomes)tonewknowledgegainedfromthereadingpassage.Amultitraitrubric(seeFigure11)havingthreecategoriesisusedtoassessthestudents’writingperformance.Totalscoresmayrangefrom3to12.
Fig. 9 ChecklistSituatesauthoraseducatedand/or(atleast)middleclass. YesNo
Demonstratesanunderstandingthatinformationmightnot/doesnotrepresentallFrenchpeople,ormoregenerallythatsocialvariablesaffectthewaypeoplebehave. YesNo
Fig. 10 PostcardDear_______________,IjustarrivedattheFourniers’house,andIseemtohavebegunmystaywiththemonthewrongfoot!Thefamilypreparedadinnertocelebratemyarrivalandinvitedsomefriends.IdecidedtohelpMrs.Fournierinthekitchen,butsheinsistedthatIleaveandstayoutofthekitchen.Later,IgreetedsomeguestsatthedoorwithMr.Fournierandwashappytohelpbytakingthewoman’scoatandputtingitonthebedinMr.andMrs.Fournier’sroom.ButwhenIcameoutoftheroom,Mrs.Fournierhadasurprisedlookonherfaceanddidn’tseemverypleased.Lateron,soasnottobotherMr.orMrs.Fournier,Iwentintothekitchenandgrabbedabeeroutofthefridge.WhenIreturnedtothelivingroom,Mr.andMrs.Fournierseemedcompletelyshocked.ItrulycannotunderstandwhatIdidtomakethemsoangry.Tellmewhatyouthink.Pleasewritesoon! Michael/Michelle
p .42 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
SeveralofthetasksandunitsintheHandbookincorporateattentiontoculturalissuesintheassessmentprocess.Forexample,therubricthataccompaniesthe“Newscast”taskasksthatstudentsincorporatethetargetcultureperspectiveintheirpresentations.
Fig. 11 Multitrait Rubric
Content Cultural Sensitivity Language Control
4 Writingreflectsthoroughcomprehensionofthereadingpassage;effectivelyaddressesthetopic(isconvincingtoareader);mentionsaleast3mainideasfromthereadingpassageassupport;demonstratesintegrationofnewandpriorknowledge.
Ideasexpressedinthewritingaboutthetargetcultureavoidmakingjudgmentastowhetherthetargetculture(e.g.,France)orhomeculture(e.g.,U.S.)isbetterorworse.
Excellentcontroloflanguagefeatures;awiderangeofwell-chosenvocabularyandappropriateregister;accuracyandvarietyofgrammaticalstructures;usesownwordstoconveyideasfromthereadingpassage.
3 Writingreflectsgoodcomprehensionofthereadingpassage;adequatelyaddressesthetopic;mentionsatleast2mainideasfromthereadingpassageassupport;demonstratesattemptsatintegrationofnewandpriorknowledge.
Ideasexpressedinthewritingaboutthetargetculturegenerallyavoidmakingjudgmentastowhetherthetargetculture(e.g.,France)orhomeculture(e.g.,U.S.)isbetterorworse,thoughsomelanguageusedmightsuggestjudgment.Lessthatmorejudgmental.
Goodlanguagecontrol;goodrangeofrelativelywell-chosenvocabulary;appropriateregister;someerrorsingrammaticalstructurespossiblycausedbyattempttoincludeavariety;clearattemptstouseownwordstoconveyideasfromthereadingpassage.
2 Writingreflectssomecomprehensionofthereadingpassage;fairlyaddressesthetopic,thoughmaymisssomecriticalpoints;mentionsatleast1mainideafromthereadingpassageassupport;demonstratesattemptsatintegrationofnewandpriorknowledge,butwritingmightreflectsomemisunderstanding.
Ideasexpressedinthewritingaboutthetargetcultureattimesseemtoreflectjudgmentastowhetherthetargetculture(e.g.,France)orhomeculture(e.g.,U.S.)isbetterorworse.Morethanlessjudgmental.
Adequatelanguagecontrol;vocabularyrangeislacking;registermay/maynotbeconsistentlyappropriate.Frequentgrammaticalerrorsthatdonotobscuremeaning;littlevarietyinstructures.Doesn’talwaysattempttouseownwordstoconveyideasfromreadingpassage(has“lifted”portions).
1 Writingdoesnotconsistentlyreflectcomprehensionofthereadingpassage;topicisnotadequatelyaddressedandcriticalpointsaremissing;littletonosupportfromreadingpassage;writingreflectssomemisunderstanding.
Ideasexpressedinthewritingaboutthetargetcultureoftenreflectjudgmentastowhetherthetargetculture(e.g.,France)orhomeculture(e.g.,U.S.)isbetterorworse.Veryjudgmental.
Weaklanguagecontrol;basicvocabularychoicewithsomewordsclearlylacking;frequentgrammaticalerrorseveninsimplestrurctuesthatattimesobscuremeaning.Inconsistentuseofregister.Consistently“lifts”largeportionsofreadingpassageratherthanattemptingtouseownwords.
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . 43
A Final Word on Performance Assessment
Thisratherlengthydiscussiononperformanceassessmentisnotintendedtocommunicatetoteachersthateverysingleclassroomactivityneedstobeevaluatedinasystematicwaywithafullydevelopedrubricorchecklist.Toattempttodosowouldbeexhaustingforteachersandstudentsandwouldlimitopportunitiesforspontaneityintheclassroom.Instead,thisdiscussionisintendedtohelpteachersunderstandthecomplexityofassessinglanguageuseandtoofferthemavarietyofalternatives,somemorecomplicatedandextensivethanothers.Moreover,thetime-consumingnatureofperformanceassessmentscanrendertheminaccessibleifateacherbelievesthats/hemustassesseverystudent’sperformanceoneveryclassroomactivity.Infact,teachersmayfinditusefulattimestoassesstheperformanceofonlyfivestudentsorsoatagiventime—suchanapproachisparticularlyimportantinthecontextoforalassessment.Thepointistodevelopanapproachthatworksforteachersandprovidesconstructivefeedbacktostudents.Theonlystipulationisthattheapproachincorporateassessmentoflanguageuseinadditiontoknowledgeaboutlanguage.WehopethatteachersfindthesamplesintheHandbookhelpfulastheydeveloptheirapproach.
Notes1 Thesynopsisofthenationalstandards(NationalStandardsforForeignLanguageEducation
Project,1996)hasbeenreprintedwithpermissionfromtheAmericanCouncilontheTeachingofForeignLanguages.WeencouragereaderstopurchaseacopyoftheentireStandardsdocumentfromACTFL.Theexpandedversion,publishedin1999,providesthestandardsastheyhavebeenmodifiedforeightmodernlanguagesaswellastheclassicallanguagesandincludeexcitingexamplesofhowtheycanbeputintopractice.AnorderformisincludedalongwiththeHandbook,orcopiescanbeordereddirectlyfromACTFL(seecontactinformationintheTeachersResourcesSection).
2 PortionsofthesectiononCAPRIIhavebeenadaptedorreprintedfromTedick(1996).
3 TheseexamplesofadaptingatasktomakeitmoreauthenticappearinTedickandKlee(1998)andarereprintedherewithpermissionfromtheCenterforAppliedLinguistics.
4 WehavedrawnmuchfromtheworkoftheMinnesotaArticulationProject’sCurriculumTeamtoformthefoundationofanewprojectatCARLAentitledCoBaLTT—Content-BasedLanguageTeachingthroughTechnology.Inthisprogram,teacherslearntheprinciplesofcontent-basedlanguageinstructionandthetechnologytoolsthatcanenhancecontent-basedinstruction.Therearemanylessons,developedbyCoBaLTTparticipants,availableon-lineinadditiontoanextensiveannotatedbibliographyaboutcontent-basedinstructionandotherresources.Pleasevisitat<http://carla.acad.umn.edu/cobaltt>.
5 SignificantportionsofthesectiononPerformanceAssessmenthavebeenreprintedfromTedickandKlee(1998)withpermissionfromtheCenterforAppliedLinguistics.
6 TheForeignLanguageTestDatabase,maintainedbytheNationalCapitalLanguageResourceCenter<http://www.cal.org/nclrc>,containsmorethan140testsin63languages.Itcanbefoundat<http://www.cal.org/db/flt/flt-dir.htm>.
p .44 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
References
AmericanCouncilontheTeachingofForeignLanguages.(1986).ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Yonkers,NY:AmericanCouncilontheTeachingofForeignLanguages.
AmericanCouncilontheTeachingofForeignLanguages.(1998).ACTFL performance guidelines for K-12 learners. Yonkers,NY:AmericanCouncilontheTeachingofForeignLanguages.
Arons,R.,Eckers,C.,&Jarvis,S.(1994).Characteristics of proficiency-oriented language instruction. DocumentpreparedforMinnesota’sArticulationProject,Minneapolis,MN:CenterforAdvancedResearchonLanguageAcquisition,UniversityofMinnesota.(http://acad.carla.umn.edu).
Bachman,L.F.(1990).Fundamental considerations in language testing.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Baron,J.B.(1991).SEA usage of alternative assessment: The Connecticut experience. (ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.ED349816)
Blanche,P.,&Merino,B.J.(1989).Self-assessmentofforeignlanguageskills:Implicationsforteachersandresearchers.Language Learning, 39, (3),313-340.
Brecht,R.D.,&Walton,A.R.(1994).Thefutureshapeoflanguagelearninginthenewworldofglobalcommunication:Consequencesforhighereducationandbeyond.InR.Donato&R.M.Terry(Eds.),Foreign language learning: The journey of a lifetime. Lincolnwood,IL:NationalTextbookCo.
Brinton,D.M.,Snow,M.A.,&Wesche,M.B.(1989). Content-based second language instruction. Boston,MA:Heinle&Heinle.
Brown,C.S.(1988).Thinkaloud:Amethodforteachingtheprocessesofcomprehension.The Reading Instruction Journal, 32, (1),13-17.
Brown,G.,&Yule,G.(1983).Teaching the spoken language.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Carrell,P.L.(1989).Metacognitiveawarenessandsecondlanguagereading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121-133.
Carroll,R.(1987).Evidences invisibles: Américains et Français au quotidien.Paris:Seuil.
Chamot,A.U.,Barnhardt,S.,El-Dinary,P.B.,&Robbins,J,(1999).The learning strategies handbook.WhitePlains,NY:Addison-WesleyLongman.
Cohen,A.D.(1994).Assessing language ability in the classroom(2nded.).Boston,MA:Heinle&Heinle.
Cook,S.(1994,Fall).The concept of home: Assumptions not shared.Unpublishedmanuscript.Minneapolis,MN:UniversityofMinnesota.
Devine,J.(1993).Theroleofmetacognitioninsecondlanguagereadingandwriting.InJ.G.Carson&I.Leki(Eds.),Reading in the composition classroom(pp.105-127).Boston,MA:Heinle&Heinle.
Finocchiaro,M.,&Brumfit,C.(1983).The functional-notional approach.NY:OxfordUniversityPress.
Galloway,V.,&Labarca,A.(1990).Fromstudenttolearner:Style,process,andstrategy.InD.W.Birckbichler(Ed.),New perspectives and new directions in foreign language education (pp.111-158).Lincolnwood,IL:NationalTextbookCo.
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . 45
Genesee,F.(1994).Integrating language and content: Lessons from immersion.EducationalPracticeReportsNo.11.NationalCenterforResearchonCulturalDiversityandSecondLanguageLearning.Washington,DC:CenterforAppliedLinguistics.(http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/ncrcds11/epr11.htm).
Glazer,S.M.(1992).Reading comprehension: Self-monitoring strategies to develop independent readers.NewYork:ScholasticProfessionalBooks.
Graves,D.H.(1983).Writing: Teachers and children at work.Portsmouth,NH:Heinemann.
Hart,D.(1994).Authentic assessment: A handbook for educators.Reading,MA:Addison-WesleyPublishingCompany.
Heilenman,L.K.,&Kaplan,I.M.(1985).Proficiencyinpractice:Theforeignlanguagecurriculum.InC.J.James(Ed.),Foreign language proficiency in the classroom and beyond (pp.55-77).ACTFLForeignLanguageEducationSeries,Vol.16.Lincolnwood,IL:NationalTextbookCo.
Hughey,J.B.,Wormuth,D.R.,Hartfiel,V.F.,&Jacobs,H.L.(1983).Teaching ESL composition: Principles and techniques. Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.
Hutchinson,T.,&Waters,A.(1987).English for specific purposes: A learning centered approach. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Hymes,D.(1974).Foundation of sociolinguistics.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvania.
Johnson,D.W.,Johnson,R.T.,&Holubec,E.(1993).Cooperation in the classroom.Edina,MN:InteractionBookCompany.
Johnson,K.(1979).Communicativeapproachesandcommunicativeprocesses.InC.J.Brumfit&K.Johnson(Eds.),The communicative approach to language teaching(pp.192-205).NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Klee,C.A.,Tedick,D.J.,&Cohen,A.D.(1995,March).“Content-BasedInstructioninSpanish,French,andGermanattheUniversityofMinnesota:TheDevelopmentandEvaluationofaNewProgram.”PaperpresentedattheAmericanAssociationofAppliedLinguistics,LongBeach,CA.
Kramsch,C.(1991,May).“Towardapedagogyofcross-culturalcompetence.”Paperpresentedatthecolloquium:InterdisciplinaryPerspectivesonCultureLearningintheSecondLanguageCurriculum,UniversityofMinnesota,Minneapolis,MN.
Kramsch,C.(1993).Context and culture in language teaching.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Lloyd-Jones,R.(1977).Primarytraitscoring.InC.R.Cooper&L.Odell(Eds.),Evaluating writing(pp.33-66).Urbana,IL:NCTE.
Long,M.H.(1981).Input,interaction,andsecondlanguageacquisition.InH.Winitz(Ed.),Native language and foreign language acquisition(pp.259-278).AnnalsoftheNewYorkAcademyofSciencesNo.379.NewYork:AcademyofSciences.
Lyster,R.(1990).TheroleofanalyticlanguageteachinginFrenchimmersionprograms.Canadian Modern Language Review, 47, (1),159-176.
Lyster,R.(1998).Negotiationofform,recasts,andexplicitcorrectioninrelationtoerrortypesandlearnerrepairinimmersionclassrooms.Language Learning, 48, (2),183-218.
p .46 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t
Met,M.(1991).Learninglanguagethroughcontent:Learningcontentthroughlanguage.Foreign Language Annals, 24, (4),281-295.
NationalStandardsinForeignLanguageEducationProject.(1996). National standards for foreign language learning: Preparing for the 21st century.Lawrence,KS:AllenPress,Inc.
Nunan,D.(1988).The learner-centered curriculum: A study in second language teaching. NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
NorthCarolinaDepartmentofPublicInstruction.(1999).Assessment, articulation, and accountability.Raleigh,NC:DepartmentofPublicInstruction.
O’Malley,J.M.,&Chamot,A.U.(1990).Learning strategies in second language acquisition. NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Routman,R.(1991).Invitations: Changing as teachers and learners K-12.Portsmouth,NH:Heinemann.
Schmidt,R.W.,&Frota,S.N.(1986).Developingbasicconversationalabilityinasecondlanguage:AcasestudyofanadultlearnerofPortuguese.InR.R.Day(Ed.),Talking to learn(pp.237-326).Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.
Shohamy,E.(1985).A practical handbook in language testing for the second language teacher. Israel:ShoshanaGoldberg.
Shrum,J.L.,&Glisan,E.W.(1994).Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction. Boston,MA:Heinle&Heinle.
Snow,M.A.,&Brinton,D.M.(Eds.).(1997).The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content.WhitePlains,NY:Longman.
Snow,M.A.,Met,M.,&Genesee,F.(1989).Aconceptualframeworkfortheintegrationoflanguageandcontentinsecond/foreignlanguageeducation.TESOL Quarterly, 23, (2),201-217.
Stepthree,thePAUproject:Afterstandardsandguidelines,howdoweassessperformanceintherealworld?(2000).Foreign Language Annals, 33, (2),237,253-254.
Swender,E.,&Duncan,G.(1998).ACTFLperformanceguidelinesforK-12learners. Foreign Language Annals, 31, (4),479-491.
Tedick,D.J.(1992).Reflectionsonreflection.Elsie speaks, 3, (1),4-6.
Tedick,D.J.(1996).ReportfromthecurriculumteamofMinnesota’sArticulationProject:IntroductiontoCAPRIIandinvitationtoparticipate. Minnesota Language Review, 24, (2),28-38.
Tedick,D.J.,&Klee,C.A.(1998).Alternativeassessmentinthelanguageclassroom.InG.S.Burkart(Ed.),Modules for the professional preparation of teaching assistants in foreign languages.Washington,DC:CenterforAppliedLinguistics.
Tedick,D.J.,&Tischer,C.A.(1996).Combiningimmersionexperiencesandpedagogyforlanguageteachers:Lessonslearnedandchangesimplemented.Foreign Language Annals, 29, (3),415-427.
Tedick,D.J.,&Walker,C.L.(1994).Secondlanguageteachereducation:Theproblemsthatplagueus.Modern Language Journal, 78, (3),300-312.
POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . 47
Tedick,D.J.,Walker,C.L.,Lange,D.L.,Paige,M.,&Jorstad,H.L.(1993).Secondlanguageeducationintomorrow’sschools.InG.Gunterman(Ed.),Developing language teachers for a changing world (pp.43-75).ACTFLForeignLanguageEducationSeries.Lincolnwood,IL:NationalTextbookCompany.
Thompson,L.(1997).Foreign language assessment in grades K-8: An annotated bibliography of assessment instruments.McHenry,IL,andWashington,DC:DeltaSystemsandCenterforAppliedLinguistics.
Thompson,L.(2000-2001).Foreignlanguageassessment:30yearsofevolutionandchange.ERIC/CLL Newsbulletin,Winter,3-5.
VillegasRogers,C.,&Medley,Jr.,F.W.(1988).Languagewithapurpose:Usingauthenticmaterialsintheforeignlanguageclassroom.Foreign Language Annals, 21,467-478.
White,E.(1985).Teaching and assessing writing.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
Widdowson,H.G.(1978).Teaching language as communication.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Wiggins,G.(1989).Atruetest:Towardmoreauthenticandequitableassessment.Phi Delta Kappan, May, 703-704.