profes sional develo pment module iii-a - sedlprofes sional development module iii-a teks for lote:...

Languages Other Than English Center for Educator DevelopmentSouthwest Educational Development Laboratory

211 East 7th Street, Austin, Texas 78701

In collaboration with

Texas Education AgencyEducation Service Center, Region II

Professional

Development

Module III-A

TEKS for LOTE:Developing Curriculum/

Addressing Assessment

Professional

Development

Module III-A

TEKS for LOTE: Developing Curriculum/ Addressing Assessment

Table of Contents

I. IntroductionLOTE CED - What’s in a Name? ....................................... 7LOTE Writing Team for the Clarification

of the Essential Elements ............................................. 9LOTE Program Goals and the Emphasis

on Communication ...................................................... 10Producing the TEKS for LOTE .........................................11TEKS for LOTE Writing Procedure .................................. 12Frequently Asked Questions ............................................14

II. Background Information for FacilitatorsPreparing for the Workshop ............................................ 21Helpful Hints .................................................................... 22Overview of Module III-A ................................................. 23Sample Time Frame, Three-Hour Workshop .................. 24Sample Time Frame, Six-Hour Workshop ....................... 25Sample Facilitation Techniques ....................................... 26Background Information on Transparencies.................... 29

III. Talking Points

IV. Transparencies

V. Handouts

VI. AppendicesTexas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Languages Other Than English .............................. A

ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines .......................................... BResource List ....................................................................CTesting in an Age of Assessment: Some Theoretical and Practical Considerations ..........DStudent Self-Assessment Forms ....................................... EAdditional Information on Program Goals, Communication

Modes, and Progress Checkpoints ............................... F

This module was

prepared by

Paul Sandrock(primary author)

Wisconsin State Departmentof Public Instruction

Phyllis Thompson(reviewer)

Houston Baptist University

Elaine PhillipsLillian King

Kathleen TrailVanessa FloresLOTE Center for

Educator Development

Inés GarcíaCarl Johnson

Texas Education Agency

5

Introduction

7

LOTE CED:

What’s in a name?

The Languages Other Than English Center for EducatorDevelopment (LOTE CED) was established to assist PreK-12educators in enhancing the proficiency of Texas students of LOTE.

The LOTE Center for Educator Development was establishedin February 1998 and is located in the Southwest EducationalDevelopment Laboratory (SEDL) in Austin, Texas. It is acollaboration between SEDL, the Education Service Center,Region 2 (ESC II), and the Texas Education Agency (TEA).The Center’s multiple projects are designed to sharesuccessful strategies, current research, and up-to-datelanguage resources and information with LOTE educatorsaround the state.

The Purpose of this GuideThis guide is designed to be used in offering staff developmentto Texas teachers and administrators, as well as to informparents and community members who are interested indesigning curriculum and assessing student progress withregard to the TEKS for LOTE, PreK-12. We hope theProfessional Development Modules prove to be invaluableresources for educators across Texas.

Center Activities

Professional Development GuidesModule I - TEKS for LOTE: OverviewModule II - TEKS for LOTE:

Classroom ImplementationModule III-A - TEKS for LOTE:

Developing Curriculum/Addressing Assessment

These guides are used inworkshops provided by trainedfacilitators in ISCs and ESCs

Peer Coaching/Mentoring ProgramTen LOTE teachers from around thestate were trained in peer coachingand mentoring models of professionaldevelopment. These educators nowwork in their regions to train otherteachers with the goal of establishinga network of peer coaches/mentorsthroughout the state.

Information SourcesThe LOTE CED serves as a sourcefor information related to languagelearning and teaching, languageresearch, and language resources.It publishes a quarterly newsletter(including an on-line version) andhas establisheda webpage at::

http://www.sedl.org/loteced

The LOTE CED’s goals are:1) to provide resources for implementing the Texas

Essential Knowledge and Skills for Languages OtherThan English (TEKS for LOTE) and for improving theteaching and learning of languages in Texas;

2) to provide teachers and future teachers with athorough knowledge of the instructional principlesunderlying the TEKS for LOTE adopted by theState Board of Education;

3) to establish a coordinated system of professionaldevelopment in LOTE instruction; and

4) to increase LOTE educators’ access to high-qualityinstructional models for all students.

8

LOTE Center for


Advisory Committee

Walter Bartz*Indiana Department of Education

Inés GarcíaTexas Education Agency

MayDell JenksKaty ISD

Carl JohnsonTexas Education Agency

Doris KaysNorth East ISD

Lillian KingLOTE Center for Educator Development

Robert LaBouveAustin, TX

Annette LowryFort Worth, TX

Janet NordenBaylor University

Elaine Phillips, ChairLOTE Center for Educator Development

Paul Sandrock*Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction

Jo Anne Wilson*Glen Arbor, MI

*Indicates revolving out-of-state committee position

LOTE Center for


Staff

Lillian KingDirector

Elaine PhillipsField Specialist

Kathleen TrailInformation Assistant

9

LOTE Writing Team

for the Clarification of

the Essential Elements

Art Anderson, Brazoswood ISDNathan Bond, Austin ISDDulce-María Caba-Caraway, Pasadena ISD*Linda Calk, Ysleta ISDVictoria Contreras, University of Texas, PanAm*María Fierro-Treviño, Northside ISDCristela Garza, Corpus Christi ISDYvette Heno, Houston ISDBillie Hulke, Midway ISDMarla Jones, Denton ISDDoris Kays, North East ISDDavid Kleinbeck, Midland ISDAnnette Lowry, Fort Worth, TexasLuciano Martínez, McAllen, TexasLinda Nance, San Antonio ISDLuz Elena Nieto, El Paso ISDBarbara González Pino, University of Texas, San AntonioCindy Pope, Education Service Center, Region XXRose Potter, Programs Abroad Travel AlternativesMaría del Rosario Ramos, Socorro ISDKevin Roberson, Texas Tech UniversityElías Rodríguez, Dallas ISDKarin Sloan, Corpus Christi ISD*Phyllis Thompson, Houston Baptist University

*denotes team co-chair

Texas Education

Agency

James E. NelsonCommissioner of Education

Ann SmiskoAssociate Commissioner,Curriculum, Assessment

and Technology

David D. AndersonCoordinator, Curriculum andProfessional Development

Inés GarcíaDirector of Languages Other

Than English

Carl JohnsonAssistant Director of

Languages Other ThanEnglish

10

LOTE Program Goals

and the

Emphasis on Communication

There are five Program Goals that form the foundation of theTEKS for LOTE: Communication, Cultures, Connections,Comparisons, and Communities (also known as the five Cs).These five Cs have become a common framework for LOTEpolicy and planning. The national standards document,Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the21st Century, forged the path for the five Cs; many states havesince used the 5 Cs paradigm for their own state standards.Those who contributed to the writing and development of theTEKS for LOTE felt that the Texas standards should take adifferent look at the interrelationship of the 5 Cs. As theyworked on the document, they placed the emphasis and mostimportance on the Communication Program Goal.

Communication (listening,speaking, reading, writing, viewing,and showing) is the primary focusof language acquisition. It is thevehicle by which students of LOTEbecome linguistically proficient andreach the other four ProgramGoals. The other four ProgramGoals contribute to and enhancethe communicative languageexperience by supplying context,that is, what students communicateabout (topics, themes, literature,etc.) and in what contexts theircommunication takes place (face-to-face, in writing, outside theclassroom, via the Internet, etc.).

“When you learn a

new language

you gain another

world.”

– Goethe

COMMUNICATION

Cultures Connections

Comparisons Communities

11

Producing the TEKS for LOTE

Ten years after the first implementation of the EssentialElements, the Texas legislature directed the Texas State Boardof Education in 1995 to adopt the Texas Essential Knowledgeand Skills (TEKS) for all subject areas. The goals of the TEKSwere to meet the requirements of Senate Bill 1, to review andrevise the previously adopted state curriculum (the EssentialElements), to clarify what all students should know and beable to do, and to serve as the basis for textbook adoptionsand state tests, where appropriate.

To develop the TEKS for Languages Other Than English(TEKS for LOTE) and related products, the Texas EducationAgency, with the assistance of the Southwest EducationalDevelopment Laboratory (SEDL), implemented the projectknown as Project ExCELL (Excellence and Challenge:Expectations for Language Learners).

Project ExCELL worked with a group of mostly foreignlanguage educators, the Writing Team for the Clarification ofthe Essential Elements, to compose drafts of the TEKS forLOTE. This team was representative of the diversity inherentin the composition of Texas itself. The 23 team members camefrom all regions of the state, representing urban, suburban,and rural areas. They also came from diverse linguistic,cultural, and ethnic backgrounds. In addition, the team wascomposed of educators who work within many differenteducational structures (from public schools to administrativeoffices to businesses) and represented numerous and variedareas of expertise.

“I was continually

impressed by the knowledge

and dedication of my fellow

writing team members. We

didn’t always agree, but we

celebrated our ‘storms’ and

used that energy to move

forward. What a privilege

to work with such superb

language educators!”

– Writing Team Member

Texas

Essential Knowledge

and Skills

EssentialElements

Excellence and Challenge:Expectations for Language Learners

PROJECTE x C E L L

12

TEKS for LOTEWriting Procedure

The Writing Team began meeting in March 1995. Methodsused in the development of the TEKS for LOTE includedrecording, collecting, analyzing, and synthesizing thecollective knowledge and experience of the team and ProjectExCELL staff toward producing successive drafts. All ideaswere subject to debate, elaboration, refinement, andverification. Throughout the process, team members and stafflearned from one another, from invited speakers, fromreadings, and from continually addressing the importantissues in LOTE education. The project kept informed of workon LOTE standards in other states and with the NationalStandards Project. Each successive draft was shaped fromthe notes and discussion that came from the writing teammeetings. The TEKS for LOTE Writing Team used aconsensus-building process to approve each section of theTEKS for LOTE.

Expert Review and RevisionProject ExCELL employed expert state and nationalconsultants and used current literature and research to informits work. The utility and quality of the TEKS for LOTE werealso validated through field testing and through review byexpert professionals and public representatives. The majorityof these expert professionals and public representatives werepart of one of the following four groups:

• Field Advisory Committee: a panel of national and stateforeign language experts who reviewed the TEKS for LOTEin terms of their clarity, comprehensiveness, appropriatenessto the needs and conditions of LOTE education in Texas,and utility in terms of curriculum, assessment, teachereducation, and professional development.

• State Board of Education Curriculum Review Committee:This 15-member committee was composed of appointees ofthe Texas State Board members; they reviewed the TEKSseveral times and offered critical analysis and suggestions.

• Connections Team Feedback Committee: This 19-membercommittee consisted of one representative from each of thesubject area writing teams. They reviewed the TEKS forLOTE to ensure and reinforce collaboration and articulationamong disciplines.

• Foreign Language Congress: a committee made up ofcommunity and business leaders of various personal andprofessional backgrounds, they reviewed the TEKS forLOTE for applicability to the real world and for relevance tothe world of work.

The TEKS for LOTE Writing Team incorporated suggestionsfrom all reviewers into the final draft.

“Very coherent and logical

statement of what the state

expects from language students

at different levels.

Comprehensive and complete,

and reflective of current trends

in foreign language teaching

and programs.”– Field Advisory Committee member

“The TEKS for LOTE give

excellent direction to LOTE

programs. Programs which

follow these guidelines will have

academic rigor and should help

students to develop excellent

language skills.” – SBOE Curriculum Review Committee member

“I see most of our suggestions

as fine-tuning an already good

product.”– Foreign Language Congress member

“The community and cultural

components are important

elements, these prepare students

to speak a ‘real life’ language

that can be of great value when

they enter the professional

arena.”– Foreign Language Congress member

13

Feedback and Public

Commentary

Hundreds of respondents offered reactions to the publicdrafts of the TEKS. Both their responses to separateitems and their written comments were analyzed andused to edit the document. The majority of publicresponses showed a high degree of satisfaction with thedraft documents.

“TEKS for LOTE promote

the desire and need for excel-

lence.”– reviewer from the field

“Language learner descriptions

are well-developed. Perfor-

mance expectations at each level

are both challenging and

attainable.”– reviewer from the field

“The wording of this document

supports the goals of all

teachers of languages other

than English in that it is

succinct, yet comprehensive. I

feel it will be a good tool for

teaching and assessment.”– reviewer from the field

14

Frequently

Asked

Questions

The TEKS for LOTE give an overall picture of where studentsshould be headed within the various program goals. Theydescribe what all students should know and be able to do atcertain checkpoints in the PreK-12 sequence. The TEKS forLOTE do not constitute a curriculum; they are content andperformance standards that provide districts with guidelines tomeet the needs of their students. The TEKS for LOTE setclear performance expectations for novice, intermediate, andadvanced language learners. The goal is to develop advancedlevel proficiency that can be obtained when studentssuccessfully complete all the performance expectations in theTEKS for LOTE.

Since levels of entry into LOTE classrooms are so varied andstudent progress is not lock-step, the TEKS for LOTE were notbased on and should not be viewed as grade levelequivalents. The TEKS for LOTE are designed to mirror theACTFL guidelines of proficiency. In the LOTE acquisitionprocess, students can and will reach different levels ofproficiency (novice, intermediate, and advanced) in differenttime frames at different grade levels. The TEKS for LOTEdescribe what all students need to do to achieve an advancedlevel of proficiency and also the factors that will affect progresstoward that goal.

Knowledge of grammar was once viewed as a primary orisolated goal of language study. Now, the study of grammar isunderstood as a tool to support the broader goal of learning tocommunicate by listening, speaking, reading and writing.

(Excerpted from

A Texas Framework

for

Languages Other

Than English)

What is the role of

the TEKS for LOTE?

Why are the TEKS for

LOTE not described in terms

of grade levels?

What is the role of grammar

in proficiency-based

instruction?

15

Decisions regarding the teaching of grammar should be madeafter careful consideration of various factors affectinglanguage instruction, such as:

• Are the students beginning or advanced?

• What ages are the students?

• Do students have prior knowledge of grammar in otherlanguages?

• Is the language studied a modern or a classical language?

• Are students able to access their grammar knowledge tosupport communicative skills?

• Do the students themselves perceive that grammar study willbe useful to them?

If grammar is to be taught explicitly, the instructionalmethodology chosen to present grammar should becompatible with communicative language instruction. Forsome language educators, an appropriate methodology is topresent a brief explanation of grammar to students in order tofocus their attention on a linguistic structure when it appears insubsequent oral or written material. Some educatorsrecommend taking students through a series of contextualizeddrills which move from skill-acquiring activities to skill-usingactivities. For other educators, students are first introducedholistically to an oral or written narrative, then they discuss agrammar point occurring frequently in the narrative. Inwhatever methodology (or combination of methodologies)teachers choose regarding grammar, grammar instruction isan integral part of total language instruction, not a separate"add-on" piece nor an end in itself.

Decisions regarding the inclusion of grammar in the languagecurriculum, such as how much grammar, which grammarpoints, and the approach selected to teach grammar, shouldbe based on the usefulness of grammar in meetingcommunicative goals at different levels of instruction. As moreresearch is done on the supporting role of grammar incommunicative language classrooms, language educators willhave additional information to help make these decisions.

What is the role of grammar

in proficiency-based

instruction?(continued)

16

From the earliest levels of modern language instruction, theLOTE class should use English as a survival tool only. Whenthe overall goal of instruction is development of languageproficiency, the LOTE teacher should strive to use only thelanguage in the classroom. With each level of instruction, asstudents move up the proficiency ladder, the projects andtasks students are involved in should reflect the languagefunctions being taught. If the functions and tasks match thestudents' level of proficiency or are beginning to push studentsinto the next level, the students should not feel the need topresent projects in English. Sometimes, however, in novicelevel classes only, teachers and students might use Englishwhen learning about cultures or comparing languages andcultures. For the teaching of classical languages, English playsa different role, as students focus more on the interpretive useof language, rather than interpersonal production of it.

When teachers and program developers keep all the fiveProgram Goals in mind, they are able to create a balancedprogram of instruction. While all five Programs Goals may notbe evident in every single lesson, over the course of a week, aunit, or a quarter, students work on all five areas. Whenteachers design teaching units, they should determine whatsegments fit best with what goal(s). If they find a unit that hasan overemphasis on one Program Goal, they should adjust theunit and work on items that will bring in one or more of theother Program Goals. It is also important to keep in mind thatthe goals are not taught or practiced in isolation, rather contentor activities may come from cultures, connections,comparisons, and/or communities, with communication beinga constant part of the LOTE instruction.

What is the place of English in

the LOTE classroom?

Given that Communication is

the primary Program Goal of

LOTE education, how can

teachers make sure there is a

balance as they teach to the

other four Program Goals

(Cultures, Connections,

Comparisons, Communities)?

17

Connections and Communities should not be considered an"add-on" to the current instructional program. Connectionsshould be in the language learning process already. Forexample, when students are studying numbers, art,geography, and culture, these are true connections to theexisting curriculum. As the LOTE teacher is teaching reading,the reading process and the material being read can be theconnection.

Newspaper articles, magazine articles, and realia collected bythe students and teacher can bring the community into theschool when the classroom is far from places where thelanguage is used. E-mail, the Internet, pen pals, and localcelebrations can make the community an integral part of theclassroom.

The question should not focus on what needs to be taken outof the elementary curriculum in order to fit in LOTE instruction,rather it should focus on what content is already in the grade-level curriculum that could appropriately be taught through theLOTE. Elementary schools find time to include LOTE in theirinstructional program when they adopt content-based,content-enriched, or total and partial immersion programs.LOTE instruction in elementary grades should fit over existingtopics and concepts, rather than dealing with unrelatedcontent.

Distance learning, language-learning technology, and dualenrollment at colleges and universities all provide a means ofoffering more LOTE instruction than a school might normallybe able to provide.

How can I add Connections

and Communities to what I am

already doing?

When can I find time in the

elementary school for LOTE?

How can my school offer a

variety of languages and levels

when we don't have the

teachers?

19

Background

Information for

Facilitators

21

Materials• Professional Development Guide: Overview

• Overhead Transparencies

• Masters of Handouts for each of the participants

• Mastershow group activities

• Copy of TEKS for LOTE for each participant

Equipment• Overhead projector/marker

• Pencils

• Blank transparency/marker

• Scissors

• Small white envelope

Room Arrangement• Depending on group size, participants may be

Equipment and Materials• Professional Development Module III-A, TEKS for LOTE:

Addressing Assessment

• Copy of LOTE CED Module Workshop Roster (in the

back of the binder)

• Copies of Handouts for each of the participants

• Copies of TEKS for LOTE for each participant (in

Appendix A)

• Copies of A Texas Framework for Languages Other Than English

for each participant (ordering information on Handout 12)

• Color Transparencies (included in this manual) or Power

Point presentation (contact LOTE CED to obtain)

• Black and white transparencies from blackline masters

(found at the end of the transparencies section)

• Blank transparencies, transparency markers

• Flip charts and markers, masking tape

• Pencils/pens

• Overhead projector/screen

Room Arrangement• Depending on group size, participants may be grouped at

tables by language and/or levels taught.

Preparing for the WorkshopNotesThis Professional Development Guide is designed to help staff

developers show Texas educators how to create and evaluateperformance tasks based on the proficiency goals of theTexas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Languages OtherThan English (TEKS for LOTE).

The information is structured for a workshop of presentationand interaction. The presenter will take participants throughthe process of developing evaluation tasks that measure notonly what students know but also what they can do. Througha variety of small group and pair activities, participants con-sider fundamental characteristics of authentic assessment,develop TEKS for LOTE-based assessment tasks, experiencethe process of setting evaluation criteria, and create rubricsfor evaluating performance.

22

Notes

Material from Project ExCELL’s A Texas Framework for Languages Other ThanEnglish (hereafter referred to as the Framework) is used liberally throughout thismanual. Facilitators may find it useful to have the Framework on hand as areference tool and resource for preparing TEKS for LOTE workshops.

Helpful Hints

• Plan to arrive 30 to 45 minutes ahead of time to check theroom situation and equipment, to double-check handouts,and to rearrange the room if necessary.

• Whenever possible, find out ahead of time who theparticipants are: teachers? coordinators? administrators?others? languages represented? levels represented?years of experience? experience with the TEKS for LOTE?Take this information into account as you discuss andcomplete group activities. It can also help you plan howyou want to group participants for activities.

• Watch the time carefully when getting group reports. If youhave a large number of participants, you will only havetime to sample answers here and there, the “dipstick”approach. You may need to be skilled at cutting theconversation short.

• Be very familiar with A Texas Framework for LanguagesOther Than English as well as the material in this guide sothat you are prepared to field participants’ questions.Prepare a generic statement to use to deflect questionsthat are off-topic or not within the purview of the workshopsuch as, “That’s an excellent question, but it’s reallybeyond the scope of what we’re doing today. Perhaps wecould discuss it after the session?”

• Avoid controversy by knowing your audience and beingaware of local politics. You are not a district consultant andare not there to solve district problems.

23

* Segment Goals Activities

Welcome/Overview/Reconnectingto the TEKSfor LOTE

T 1-T 3

ComparingTraditional &Performance-BasedAssessment

T 4-6

Developing aPerformance-BasedAssessmentTask

T 7-T 15

Developing aRubric, orHow GoodIs “GoodEnough”?

T 16-T 21

Review andPlan of Action

T 22-T 23

• Icebreaker• TEKS for LOTE: True or False• K-W-L activity

• Two “sample” tests• T-Chart• Criteria for Authenticity• Jigsaw of the Liskin- Gasparro article (Appendix D)• Fundamental characteristics

• Develop performance- based assessment tasks, then share and critique

• “I Remember Reading...” activity• Determining Criteria and Indicators

• Pre-service standards chart• Tweaking the Test• K-W-L activity• Teaching to the test• Fundamental characteristics• Plan of action• Conclude

• To explain the purpose and main sections of the workshop• To preview and prime participants for Module III-A• To reconnect participants to what they already know about the TEKS for LOTE

• To match goals and type of assessment• To recognize differences between traditional and authentic assessment

• To recognize the multiple components affecting assessment (Concentric Circles)• Review 5 Cs and Progress Checkpoints• To use those components to develop an appropriate performance task

• To prime the design of a performance assessment rubric• To determine relevant criteria for the rubric at the three progress checkpoints• To determine key indicators for the selected criteria

• To review key ideas learned in the workshop• To identify short- and long-term goals for implementing what was learned• To conclude the workshop

Overview of Module III-A

*

*

*

Notes

It is unlikely you will havetime to complete all theactivities in these sections.Choose those mostappropriate to the group astime allows.

24

Notes Sample Time Frame

Three-Hour Workshop

T 1-3 Welcome/Overview; 20 minutes*Reconnecting to theTEKS for LOTE

T 4-6 Comparing traditional 25 minutes*and performance-based assessment

T 7-13 Components considered 15 minutesin developing authenticassessment tasks; reviewof 5 Cs and ProgressCheckpoints

T 14-15 Developing a performance- 15 minutesbased assessment task

BREAK 15 minutes

T 16-17 Reflecting on important 10 minutesevaluation critera

T 18-21 Selecting criteria; identifying 50 minutesindicators

T 22-23 Review and plan of action; 20 minutes*adapting textbook orcurrently-used tests;completing KWL; etc.

CONCLUDING REMARKS/ 10 minutesEVALUATION

* Choose activities from available options as time allows

25

NotesSample Time Frame

Six-Hour Workshop

T 1-3 Welcome/Overview; 30 minutesReconnecting to theTEKS for LOTE

T 4-6 Comparing traditional 60 minutesand performance-based assessment

BREAK 15 minutes

T 7-13 Components considered 45 minutesin developing authenticassessment tasks; reviewof 5 Cs and ProgressCheckpoints

T 14-15 Developing a performance- 30 minutesbased assessment task

LUNCH BREAK

T 16-17 Reflecting on important 20 minutesevaluation critera

T 18-21 Selecting criteria; identifying 90 minutesindicators

BREAK 15 minutes

T 22-23 Review and plan of action 45 minutes

CONCLUDING REMARKS/ 10 minutesEVALUATION

26

Sample Facilitation

TechniquesThe following techniques may be used to get workshopparticipants to interact with each other and to respond to atext or handout that they have read in preparation for thetraining or which they will skim during the workshop. You canalso use these strategies—or others of your own invention—to have participants process their understanding of a trainingsegment or the training as a whole. The activity list is notexhaustive, but it does provide varied strategies to engageparticipants.

Circle the WagonsDivide participants into two or three large groups, and seat themin circles (without tables) where they will comment on somethingthey found interesting in the reading/discussion. Assign oneperson the responsibility for ensuring that every person sayssomething. For groups of ten or more, this facilitator can handeach person a lapel sticker or post-it flag as they offer a commentso that those who haven’t spoken yet may be easily identified.When the time designated for the activity is up, groups shouldshare their topics of discussion with the larger group.

CarouselPlace flip charts or giant post-it notes around the room, each with aheading or key words from the reading/handout written at the top.Divide participants into the same number of groups as you havecharts. Each group stands before a different chart and responds tothe heading by writing comments on the chart with a coloredmarker. You may have labeled columns under the heading, e.g.,Pros/Cons or Looks like/Sounds like, etc. After three minutes,groups rotate clockwise to the next chart, adding their comments/reactions in a different color marker. This process forces partici-pants to think beyond the most obvious reactions, since these willhave already been noted by the first group. Have groups continuerotating and responding until each has reacted to several cues.Finally, have groups select what they believe is the most important(or interesting, etc.) statement on the chart before which they arecurrently standing. Once participants return to their seats, arepresentative from each group will share the statement theyselected and explain why it was chosen.

On the Road AgainHave participants stand in two concentric circles with those in theinside circle facing those in the outside circle. The inner circle willrotate clockwise and the outer circle will rotate counter-clockwise.Participants rotate as you play lively music (such as “On the Road

27

Again”!). When the music stops, they take turns sharing with theperson standing opposite them the ideas they found most interest-ing (important, etc.) in the reading/discussion. Continue untilparticipants have shared with several partners. As an alternative,you may provide participants with note cards that have key ideasfrom the reading/handout that they will share with their partner.

Insiders/OutsidersOrganize participants into groups of five. Three participantsfrom each group will sit in a circle with their knees touching; theremaining two participants will sit outside the circle. For fourminutes, the “insiders” will react to the reading/handout/discus-sion; the “outsiders” may not speak—but they can take notes!After four minutes, two of the insiders change places with theoutsiders; repeat the entire process twice again. Often duringthis activity, typically reticent participants find they really want totalk—because they can’t! Once they become insiders, it’seasier for them to make a contribution to the discussion.

Key IdeasAsk each participant to use a marker and write a main idea (ofthe text as a whole or of an assigned sub-section of a text) ona sheet of construction paper. Post these pages around theroom. Stop periodically throughout the training session andask participants to respond to one of the posted statements.Participants can write their comments on post-it notes andattach them to the relevant page.

Visual RepresentationsThis activity can be used with a longer text/topic of discussion or tohave participants summarize the completed training. Divided intogroups of three, participants consider a way to symbolically repre-sent the important ideas they have learned. They may use anysupplies you have provided, but they must use at least one wholesheet of construction paper. Allow a half-hour for groups to work,then ask them to display and explain their products. (Samplesupplies to have on hand: construction paper, string, scissors,drinking straws, straight pins, chart paper, masking tape, glue, etc.)

JigsawThis activity works well if you wish to have participants interactwith a text they have not seen previously. Divide the text intosections, and divide the participants into the same number ofgroups as you have sections. Assign each section to onegroup. In these groups, participants study and discuss theirsection, becoming the “experts” for the section. Next, partici-pants form new groups (called “home” groups) so that eachhome group contains (at least) one person from each of theexpert groups. Experts share their sections with other mem-

28

bers of the home group so that all participants have an under-standing of the whole text, even though they have discussedonly one section in detail.

Four CornersParticipants are given a statement or question to which theyrespond by going to one of four corners of the room labeled:Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree. Once in thecorner, participants have a designated amount of time to discussthe reasons for their choice. They may also change their mindand move to another corner during the process. When time iscalled, groups report on their discussion. The process is re-peated with additional questions/statements if desired.

Equal TimeDivide participants into groups of 4 to 5, and ask each person inthe group to talk for about 5 minutes on the reading/discussiontopic. Once all the members have talked, allow them to discussfor a few minutes more, then ask them to create a visual illus-trating the most important ideas to come out of their discussion.

Discussion HostsAsk individuals to “host” a small round-table discussion abouta selected reading or handout. There should be 4 to 5 partici-pants at each table, and after a given period of time, each“group” moves to a different “host’s” table. To conclude, have“hosts” share salient ideas from the various group discussions.

Mapping for UnderstandingAsk participants to map their understanding of the new infor-mation (reading, discussion, etc.) as it applies to their class-rooms. (Mappings are flow charts, also called clusterings orwebbings.) Providing colored markers and construction paperfor the task adds to the participants’ interest.

I Talk, You Listen/You Talk, I ListenDivide the group in half and have them sit in two rows of chairsfacing each other. Ask one row of participants to talk to theother row for 3-5 minutes about what they have learned fromthe material. NB! The roles are definitive; the talking rowtalks; the listening row listens—a one-way exchange of infor-mation. After 3-5 minutes, ask one row to move down oneseat, then reverse the talker and listener rows. The talkersbecome listeners and vice versa. Repeat the process severaltimes. At the end, ask individuals to share learnings theyfound interesting.

29

Background Information onTransparencies

The information contained in this section is designed to providethe facilitators with background details needed to thoroughlydiscuss the Module III-A transparencies and to respond toparticipants’ questions. Detailed instructions for workshop activitiesare also integrated into this section; you will find them in shadedboxes at the end of the background information for the correspon-ding transparency. If the content of a transparency correspondsentirely to a workshop activity, then all of the information for thattransparency is in the shaded box. (The Talking Points sectioncontains brief prompts for the actual presentation with cross-references to pages in this Background Information section.)

Important Notes About Module III-AThe goal of this module is to help participants:

• review the differences in traditional and performance-based assessment;

• recognize the match between performance-based as-sessment and the TEKS for LOTE; and

• learn about and practice a process for designing andevaluating performance-based assessment tasks.

To that end, participants are lead through numerous activities includ-ing individual thinking, reflecting, and writing; small group discussions,creating or critiquing; and whole group discussion and analysis.Participants will reflect on/review what they already know about theTEKS for LOTE, compare traditional and performance-based assess-ment, identify fundamental characteristics of authentic assessment,review the LOTE Program Goals and Progress Checkpoints, developa performance-based task based on a particular Knowledge and Skillat a particular Progress Checkpoint, and identify evaluation criteria forthe performance task as well as indicators of those criteria. This laststep is a critical and time-consuming one. Please note that thelength of various sections in the Background Information doesnot necessarily correspond to the amount of time that shouldbe devoted to the corresponding transparencies.

Rationale for this Training ModuleIn order to know how to proceed in the classroom, instructors mustfirst consider what they want students to be able to do in the targetlanguage at the end of the course or unit or lesson. In essence,curriculum development begins with assessment. The TEKS forLOTE outline content and performance standards for languagestudents; developing sample performance assessment taskshelps teachers operationalize those standards. Furthermore, thecontent and methodology used in evaluation tells students what istruly valued in the classroom. It also tells teachers if there is a match,

Notes

30

or not, between objectives and instruction. Finally, assess-ment that is multi-faceted and ongoing is both appropriate andmotivating for learners. (Shohamy, 1991)

Suggestion: As educators, we often think of assessment interms of testing and assigning grades. In this workshop, we viewassessment more broadly. Traditionally, a “test” suggests a “one-shot,” summative evaluation. Assessment includes such “bigassessable moments,” but they are seen as only a portion of anevaluative process that is multi-faceted and ongoing; assessmentis both formative and summative in nature. As teachers, we canassess as we listen to students’ questions or pair work, as wereflect on their written assignments and oral responses, as well aswhen we mark their vocabulary quizzes or chapter tests. Weassess in order to help students be more effective learners aswell as to provide us feedback on instruction. Evaluation isanother term often used interchangeably with assessment andtesting. Evaluation, however, goes beyond assessment andsuggests a judgment associated with deciding “how good is goodenough.” As participants develop performance-based tasks, pointout that the tasks can also be used for communicative practice,formative as well as summative evaluation.

The LOTE CED’s goals are:

1) to provide teachers and future teachers with athorough knowledge of the instructionalprinciples underlying the TEKS for LOTEadopted by the State Board of Education.

2) to establish a coordinated system ofprofessional development in LOTE instruction;and

3) to increase LOTE educators’ access to high-quality

Workshop Activity Directions

IcebreakerTransparencies 1-2/Handouts 1-2Welcome the participants, introduce yourself, and talk about whythe ideas in this module are important to you. (See rationaleabove.) Review the main components of the agenda(Transparency 1/Handout 1), then, to facilitate the flow of theworkshop and to prime participants’ thinking about the TEKS forLOTE, do the following activities:

• Find out who your audience is. How many are teachers?What languages do they teach and what levels? How manyare administrators? coordinators? How many have partici-pated in Module I training? Module II training? Ask a veryfew participants to briefly share their previous TEKS forLOTE training experience in a sentence or two.

• Ask participants to work with a partner to complete the TEKSfor LOTE: True or False? worksheet (Handout 2). Youshould be able to easily judge participants’ familiarity with theTEKS for LOTE from their responses. If they are veryfamiliar, the worksheet at least serves to get them thinkingagain about the standards.

Notes

For the True/False activity(Transparency 2/Handout 2),participants may, in somecases, reasonably argue eitheranswer depending on theirinterpretation of the statement.There is not always one “right”answer. The activity isdesigned to stimulatediscussion and review.

31

Reconnecting to the TEKS for LOTETransparency 3/Handout 3

This workshop examines the implementation of the TEKS forLOTE in the classroom through the lens of assessment. Thepriming activity will engage participants’ thinking and helpthem focus on the topic: How should the TEKS be reflected inassessment? In a K-W-L activity, (see Framework, pp. 92-93),participants brainstorm a list of items that they Know about thetopic and that they Want to know. At the end of the workshop,they return to the activity and fill in the column listing what theyLearned. This information helps the presenter direct the flowof the workshop and gives participants an opportunity for realinput, a key criteria in obtaining “buy-in.”

Notes






K-W-L ActivityTell participants that nothing shows what is valued in theclassroom quite as much as what gets assessed. Whatmatters gets measured! Since the TEKS for LOTE obviously“matter,” participants will begin thinking about how they are/should be reflected in assessment practices. Ask participantsto fill in the first two columns on Handout 3 (What I think IKnow and What I Want to learn). Transparency 3 (but notHandout 3) contains examples of statements participantsmight make. Reveal these examples after participants have acouple of minutes to work on their own. Allow five minutestotal for participants to record their responses, then use a“dipstick” approach to elicit them; i.e., randomly call on a fewindividuals to share one thing they wrote in column one; repeatfor column two. Record responses on chart paper and leavethem taped to the wall for reference throughout the workshop.Refer back to them as the various questions are addressedduring the session. After receiving four comments for eachcolumn, ask if anyone has one more general idea that has notbeen mentioned. Tell participants they should feel free to addany other “want to learns” as they come up during the work-shop. Let them know they will return to the final column, What

I Learned, at the end of the workshop.

32

Notes Matching Goals and EvidenceTransparency 4

Before designing an assessment task, teachers must firstexamine their goals and then determine what type of proce-dure will provide evidence of students’ progress in attainingthese goals. The ultimate goals for language students in thestate of Texas are expressed in the TEKS for LOTE, and thesegoals are described in terms of student performance. That is,they describe what students should know and be able to do.Therefore, assessment of students’ progress in meeting thesegoals must also be performance-based. This does not imply,however, that there is no place for more traditional types oflanguage tests focused on what students know. It simplymeans that the type of assessment used should provide thekind of observable data needed to make an appropriatejudgment. For example, to find out if students have studiedtheir vocabulary words, a two-minute translation quiz may beentirely appropriate. It will not, however, provide evidence ofstudents’ progress in attaining the goal of, for example, ex-pressing preferences. In other words, the information ob-tained in a short translation quiz (a list of words) is not evi-dence of the students’ ability to express preferences.






Two Types of Tests: A ComparisonUse this activity to help reach consensus that a starting pointin developing appropriate assessments for the TEKS for LOTEis in understanding the need for the aforementioned matchbetween the established goals and the “evidence” provided bythe performance task. In this activity, participants “experience”the difference between two types of tests and discuss theircharacteristics, including the “evidence” provided. First, askparticipants to close their eyes and try to remember what lifewas like when they were in elementary school. You play therole of the teacher and “administer” the two tests. (Participantsdon’t actually write anything down; they only visualize.)

(Workshop Activity Directions continued on the following page.)

33

Notes





Workshop Activity Directions (continued)

Test One:

Okay, class, this is a test! Get out a piece of paper and followmy instructions. (Remember, no talking!)

1) Write the name of your elementary school.2) Write the names of your elementary school teachers, in order, K-6th grade.3) List the room numbers next to the teachers’ names.4) List one field trip taken each year.5) List how many students were in your class each year… (You get the picture?)

Test Two:

1) Okay, class, close your eyes and imagine you’rebeing honored as an “outstanding graduate” of yourelementary school. Try to conjure up a picture ofthat school. You have one minute to think of asmany associations as you can.

2) Finished? Okay, now spend two minutes listing theimages you associated with your elementary school.Add to the list if you have extra time.

3) Ready? Okay, now share your list with a partner.What words are the same? Which ones are differ-ent? Do you want to add anything else to your list?Do it!

4) Next, re-examine your list of images and choosethe three words that are most important to you.

5) Okay, now prepare your “acceptance speech,”take each word in turn and write a few sentencesexplaining why you chose this word… (You getthe picture?)

To process the activity, ask participants to discuss thequestions on Transparency 4 in groups of two or three, thenelicit a random sample of group responses. Participantsshould note that the second test felt more like a “real” task andrequired them to do more than write down things they had (orhadn’t) memorized. Test Two probably produces the mostpertinent information and allows for a better “performance”although it is “messy” as Liskin-Gasparro (1997) says (seefollowing page) and not as easy to evaluate.

34

Notes

Contrasting Traditional and

Authentic AssessmentTransparency 5a-5b/Handout 4As mentioned above, performance-based standards demandperformance-based assessment. The following excerpt wasedited from a paper presented by Dr. Judith Liskin-Gasparroat the Symposium on Spanish Second Language Acquisitionheld at the University of Texas at Austin in October, 1997. (SeeAppendix D for the paper in its entirety.) It presents a cleardescription of performance-based assessment and contrasts itwith traditional language testing.

The language teaching profession in the United Statesis now having a love affair with a new kind of assessment,one that is variously called “authentic assessment,” “alter-native assessment,” or “performance assessment.” Theseare being hailed as the true path to educational reform.With assessment that is performance-oriented, the thinkinggoes, with assessment that aims to measure not only thecorrectness of a response, but also the thought processesinvolved in arriving at the response, and that encouragesstudents to reflect on their own learning in both depth andbreadth, the belief is that instruction will be pushed into amore thoughtful, more reflexive, richer mode as well.Teachers who teach to these kinds of alternative assess-ments will naturally teach in ways that emphasize reflec-tion, critical thinking, and personal investment in one’s ownlearning. Surely this is a good thing.

Grant Wiggins (1989a, 1989b, 1990, 1994) haswritten extensively on authentic assessment and on thedifferences between traditional tests and the new assess-ment models. His discussion (Wiggins, 1994) on theetymologies of the words “test” and “assessment” providessome interesting insights. The original testum was anearthenware pot that was used as a colander, to separategold from the surrounding ore. The term was later ex-tended to the notion of determining the worth of a productor of a person’s effort. The key notion here is that a testmeasures knowledge or ability after the fact, with theassumption that the product of learning will contain initself all of the information that the evaluator needs toknow about the learners and the quality of their thinkingprocesses.

The root of the term “assessment” is assidere, whichis also the root of the French asseoir, to seat or set. It wasfirst used in the sense of setting the value of property toapportion a tax. Assessors traditionally make a site visit --they inspect the property or the situation and its docu-ments, they categorize its functions, they hear from theowner of the property, they evaluate it by setting it againstalready-existing standards, and so forth. The assessmentrequires time, as well as interaction between the assessorand the person or property being assessed, so that the

35

Notes

congruence of perception with reality or, in our case, thecongruence between underlying mental processes andsurface observation, can be verified. The idea here is thatthe product is not sufficient evidence of the quality of thethinking processes that produced it.

The discussions of the new assessment models inmuch of the education reform literature are admittedlyquite polemic, with authentic assessment cast as the heroand standardized, paper-and-pencil tests as the villain.However, some of the more salient distinctions drawn arethe following. (Haney and Madaus, 1989; Wiggins, 1990)

• First, authentic assessments are viewed as “direct”measures of student performance, since tasks aredesigned to incorporate the contexts, problems, andsolution strategies that students would use in reallife. Traditional standardized tests, in contrast, areseen as “indirect” measures, since test items aredesigned to “represent competence” by extractingknowledge and skills from their real-life contexts.

• Second, items on standardized instruments tend totest only one domain of knowledge or skill so as toavoid ambiguity for the test taker. Authentic assess-ment tasks are by design “ill-structured challenges”(Frederiksen, 1984), since their goal is to help studentsprepare for the complex ambiguities of the “real” world.

• Third, authentic assessments focus on processes andrationales. There is no single correct answer; instead,students are led to craft polished, thorough, and justifi-able responses, performances, and products. Traditionaltests, on the other hand, are one-time measures thatrely on a single correct response to each item; theyoffer no opportunity for demonstration of thoughtprocesses, revision, or interaction with the teacher.Because they usually require brief responses, which areoften machine-scored, students construct their re-sponses in only the most minimal way and often by onlyplugging in a piece of knowledge. There is limitedpotential for traditional tests to measure higher-orderthinking skills since, by definition, those skills involveanalysis, interpretation, and multiple perspectives.

• Fourth, the new assessment models involve long-rangeprojects, exhibits, and performances that are linked tothe curriculum. Students are aware of how and on whatknowledge and skills they are to be assessed. Assess-ment is conceived of as both an evaluative device and alearning activity. Traditional tests, in contrast, must bekept under lock and key so students do not haveknowledge about or access to them ahead of time.Thus, traditional tests may seek to improve studentperformance in a general way via the washback effect— they will study in a particular way in the hope thatthis will improve their test performance — but there isvirtually no way that students can “learn by doing” whiletaking a traditional test in the way that they learn whileengaging in a performance-based assessment.

• Fifth, in the new assessment models, the teacher is animportant collaborator in the creating of tasks as well as

36

Notes

in developing guidelines for scoring and interpretation.Teachers may write traditional tests for their own studentsand then be responsible for fitting the content and formatof the test to the curriculum, but many large-scale testsare developed externally and do not involve at all theteachers whose students are being evaluated. In addition,little or no teacher judgment is required to decide whethera response on a traditional test is correct or incorrect. Allof this promotes greater distance between teachers andtraditional assessment activities in general and has histori-cally made the study of assessment a pretty dry andunappealing topic in teacher education programs.

• Finally, there is the sticky area of validityvalidityvalidityvalidityvalidity and reliabilityreliabilityreliabilityreliabilityreliability,both of which are essential features of good assessmentinstruments. ValidityValidityValidityValidityValidity has to do with the faithfulness of atest to its purpose; in other words, how well it measureswhat it actually purports to measure. ReliabilityReliabilityReliabilityReliabilityReliability refers tothe consistency and precision of test scores; in other words,how closely the score an individual gets on a particularassessment measure reflects what could be considered hisor her “true score.” Traditional tests can’t be beaten when itcomes to reliability, not to mention efficiency. When re-sponses are obviously right or wrong, there is little chancethat the scores on a test will vary between one rater andanother or if the student takes two parallel versions of thesame test. This means that traditional tests lend them-selves to a wide range of statistical analyses and compari-sons because we can be fairly confident that the true scoreon a test is very close to the reported score.

The new assessments, on the other hand, are by designill-structured, messy, open-ended, and complex. And thedesigners of authentic assessments like that this is the case.Because authentic assessments involve students constructingcomplex, open-ended responses, those who use them willhave to struggle with issues of reliability. Where authentic,performance-based assessments shine is when it comes tovalidity. They reflect real-life tasks, as well as the multi-faceted character of curriculum and pedagogy in ways that aone-shot evaluation cannot. To use an analogy, an authenticassessment is like a videotape of student learning, while atraditional test is more like a single snapshot.

Authentic assessments have been criticized for theirsubjectivity (largely the reliability issue), and it is certainlytrue that it is far more difficult to develop standards forevaluation and to apply them consistently across a group ofportfolios or oral performances or research projects than it isto do the same for an objective paper-and-pencil test. Butthe apparent objectivity of traditional tests hides a host ofunanswered — and often unasked - questions: Who selectedthe domains of knowledge to be tested? On what basis? Whywere the omitted domains left out? The biases that underliethe development and evaluation of alternative assessmentsare right there on the surface to be seen, critiqued and, wehope, addressed and corrected, whereas the biases built intotraditional tests usually go undetected because they arehidden beneath the surface-level meanings of the test itemswhich in isolation might seem just fine.

37

Notes

If we think about the kinds of foreign language assess-ments that could be classified as “authentic” or “perfor-mance-based” assessments, what would they be? If in thecourses you teach or have taken, students have worked on aresearch project that had stages where they turned in draftsand had conferences with you and where the learning overtime was documented as part of the project in addition tothe final product, then that was an example of an authenticassessment. If a group of students wrote a skit, got feed-back on drafts of the script, staged it and performed it, thatwould be an authentic assessment. What I am talking aboutis a multi-staged project that involves reiterative rounds ofplanning, researching, and producing language and culmi-nating in a product or a performance.

While there are various definitions of authentic assessment, allinvolve tasks that focus on the communicative, real-worldpurposes of language rather than on the separate skills of reading,listening, speaking, and writing. They also “involve the learner’sability to solve problems or perform meaningful tasks using avariety of techniques that are age-appropriate, meet curriculargoals,” and provide an opportunity for students to “activelydemonstrate what they can do” (The College Board, 1996, p. 30).

Alternative Activities• Use the handout Criteria for

Authenticity (Appendix G) tohelp participants process theinformation. Copy and cut textinto strips and ask pairs tosummarize their section forthe group.

• Photocopy and use the LiskinGasparro article as a jigsawactivity. (See FacilitationTechniques, p. 27.)






T-ChartTransparency 5/Handout 4Use the T-chart (Transparency 5/Handout 4) to further processparticipants’ experiences with the two sample tests and to help themreflect on the fundamental differences in traditional and performance-based assessment. To complete the activity, have pairs or groupsexamine the traditional testing descriptors in the left-hand column andcome up with contrasting descriptors under the authentic assessmentcolumn. After ten minutes, supply transparencies and a marker toeach group. (Remember, you need to make these transparenciesyourself from the blackline masters found at the end of theTransparencies section.) Each transparency has one of the traditionaltesting items on the left and an empty block on the right that the groupwill fill in. (For smaller workshops, you may have one group pertransparency; for larger ones, give out multiple copies of the sametransparency. Just be sure to cover all the points and all the groups!)Give a minute for the groups to complete their transparencies andthen call up a representative from each to share what they wrote. Askfor any clarification, comments, suggestions, revisions. Your goal is tobring them closer to consensus on the completed transparency (T-5b)and to lead groups to see that the column on the left better describesTest One and the column on the right better describes Test Two.

38

NotesFundamental Characteristics of

Authentic AssessmentTransparency 6/Handout 5

Teachers who are already trying to incorporate au-thentic/performance-based assessment in theirclasses may be aware that the fundamental attributesof such assessment have been much discussed in theliterature. For example, the following key characteris-tics of authentic assessment were proposed duringthe K-8 Assessment Workshop sponsored by theNational Foreign Language Resource Center at IowaState University in the summer of 1998:

• Assessment should be authentic, connected toeveryday life.

Tasks represent activities students would belikely to undertake in the “real world.” Taskssuch as letter writing, phone conversations,shopping trips, and role-plays closely resem-bling real-life experiences are suggested inArticulation and Achievement: ConnectingStandards, Performance, and Assessment inForeign Language (The College Board, 1996).

• Keep in mind who will use the information(why and for what).

The reliability of the “evidence” of learners’progress towards a goal is strengthened asmore information is collected and a greatervariety of sources is used. Parents maywant to know generally how their child isprogressing, whereas the next level’steacher may require a more detailed descrip-tion of what the student can and can not dowith the language. Useful information forassessing growth comes not only fromtesting, the big evaluative moments, butalso from homework, classwork, groupwork, informal teacher observation, peerevaluation, portfolios, and self-evaluation(among others).

• Use a universal grading scale, appropriate tothe age of the speaker and provide an expla-nation of the results of assessment.

Rather than using “secure tests” kept underlock and key, Wiggins advocates providingstudents “transparent and demystifiedcriteria and standards” from day one. He

39

Notes

contends the assessment should allow for “thoroughpreparation, as well as accurate self-assessmentand self-adjustment by the student; questions andtasks may be discussed, clarified and evenappropriately modified, etc. through discussion withthe assessor and/or one’s colleagues.” (Wiggins,1994, pp. 75-76)

• Look at both the process and product to evaluate students.Wiggins (1994, p. 73) says:

When we perform we try to “execute a task or processand to bring it to completion.” Our ability to performwith knowledge therefore can only be assessed by ourhaving to produce some work of our own, using arepertoire of knowledge and skills while responsive tothe particular tasks and contexts at hand. (The use ofthe plural is important: we assess “performance”through many different “performances” in diversesettings and situations, whether we are consideringprofessional athletes or doctors.)

• Involve students in the process of evaluation.As mentioned above, both peer and self-evaluationsprovide strong motivation and hold students account-able for their own progress. (Appendix E providesan example of a self-evaluation rating form. Oncestudents indicate they can accomplish a task, theyperform the task for the teacher who checks it off ona tally sheet.)

• Use multiple samples of students’ language.Shohamy (1991) contends that assessment should bemultiple and ongoing to improve reliability. Homeworkassignments, interactions with classmates, self-assessment checklists, quickie quizzes, reactionpapers, video and audio tapes, etc., provide multipleevidences of students’ progress towards a goal.

• Provide an opportunity for students to show what theycan do as well as what they know.

According to Wiggins (1994, p. 74):Mastery is never about producing pat answers oncue. Thoughtful and effective understanding andcommunication in context implies being able to dosomething effective, transformative, or novel with acomplex situation. An authentic test enables us towatch a learner tackle, pose and solve open-endedand context-bound problems.

Jorgensen (1994) characterizes authentic assessment asinvolving a collaboration between teacher and learner (andlearner and learner) and emphasizes the open-endedness of

40

Notes

the assessment task, i.e., multiple response options. Shebelieves authentic assessment is characterized by:

• incorporating production tasks,• involving the teacher as participant and observer,• requiring collaboration,• allowing investigation,• providing motivation and promoting curiosity,• facilitating response preference,• allowing multiple strategies,• having multiple solutions and incorporating multiple goals,• having relevance and topic currency, and• tapping higher-order thinking skills.






Fundamental Characteristics of Performance-Based AssessmentAsk participants to synthesize the discussion of traditional vs.performance-based assessment by coming up with a few“fundamental characteristics” of an assessment they believewill provide evidence of students’ progress towards meetingthe goals of the TEKS for LOTE. Have the original smallgroups combine with others to form groups of 4-6 participantsfor this brainstorming activity, using Handout 5 to make theirlists. Allow five minutes for groups to discuss and come upwith their top three or four suggestions. Go around to eachgroup in random order, asking for just one of their suggestions.If their top idea has already been expressed, they should givethe next idea on their list. As the fundamental characteristicsare given, record them on Transparency 6, guidingparticipants as needed to identify key characteristicsmentioned above. (Refer back to the participants’ K-W-Lquestions and point out any that have been addressed by thepreceding discussion.)

Developing a Performance-BasedAssessment Task

Transparencies 7-15/Handout 6There are numerous elements that figure in the development ofquality assessment aimed at evaluating students’ progresstowards the goals established in the TEKS for LOTE (Transpar-ency 7). Real-life demands, the Program Goals (5 Cs) and thethree communication modes (interpersonal, interpretive, and

41

Notes

presentational), the three Progress Checkpoints (Novice, Inter-mediate, and Advanced proficiency levels), and relevant lan-guage components needed to accomplish real-life tasks (suchas vocabulary, structures, and communicative strategies) mustall be taken into consideration. Most traditional assessmentfocuses on language components, the blue ring on Transpar-ency 7. The transparency illustrates that these components playa supportive role as students move closer to the bull’s-eye ofthe target: Program Goals and real-life demands.

Real-Life DemandsFocusing the goals of language instruction on the ways lan-guage is used in real-life links classroom learning with theworld beyond. Rather than simply learning about the lan-guage, students learn to function in the language. Appropriateassessment, therefore, provides students with the opportunityto actively demonstrate their ability to function in the targetlanguage for communicative purposes.

Program GoalsEmphasizing the communicative nature of language learning in theTEKS for LOTE is the Communication Program Goal (Transpar-ency 8), the hub around which the other Program Goals (Cultures,Connections, Comparisons, and Communities) revolve. Throughthe Communication Goal, students develop the skills necessary tomanipulate the content of the other four Program Goals.

All performance-based assessment involves some type ofcommunication, and that communication may be divided intothree modes (Transparency 9):

• Interpersonal. This communication mode involves anexchange of information between two or more personsthat is important to both the speaker(s) and the listener(s)(or the readers and writers). Examples include aconversational exchange of opinions or the negotiation ofa decision via e-mail.

• Interpretive. This mode involves the receptive communica-tion of an oral or written message, entailing understandingfirst the gist of the message, then increasing levels of detail,moving from a general to a complex interpretation of some-thing heard, read, or viewed. The communicative source(e.g., the author, speaker, or actor) is not present or acces-sible; therefore, negotiation of meaning is not possible. Anexample would be reading and looking through severaltravel brochures to decide where to take a vacation.

• Presentational. The presentational mode calls for thecreation of formal messages (e.g., public speaking or anewspaper editorial) to be interpreted by listeners or readerswhere there is no opportunity for active negotiation of mean-ing between listeners and speakers or readers and writers.

42

Progress Checkpoints

Teachers should keep in mind students’ proficiency levels asthey develop assessment tasks. Language proficiency is notdeveloped in a strict linear progression of equal-sized blocksof material learned and tested, but rather develops over timewith guidance and practice (Transparencies 10-13). For thisreason, in a performance-based classroom test, assignedtasks must be appropriate for the students’ current proficiencylevel. The goal of a classroom test is to evaluate students’progress towards meeting the goals of the TEKS for LOTE attheir current proficiency level.

(See Appendix F for a detailed description of the ProgressCheckpoints.)

Language ComponentsAs previously mentioned, the development of curriculum beginswith decisions about how to best assess instructional objec-tives. Language components (vocabulary, grammatical struc-tures, communicative strategies) are the tools students use tohelp them meet those objectives. Thus, the language compo-nents chosen for use in class at a given time should be basedon what tools students will need to do the assessment task.

Notes

As they devise performance-based assessment tasks,teachers should provide opportunities for students to functionin each of the three communication modes while using theother four Cs for content. Sample objectives for these Pro-gram Goals are listed below:

• Cultures - interact in the target culture in a culturally appropriate way - identify social practices from the target culture

• Connections - use authentic resources to learn new information

about another subject area - use technology to communicate with native speakers

• Comparisons - accurately compare a target language social

custom to a native social custom - recognize the influences of the target language

on English• Communities

- use the target language to communicate withnative speakers in the community

- use the target language to obtain informationabout a career of interest

(See Appendix F for a detailed description of the ProgramGoals and Communication Modes.)

43

Notes

Sample Assessment Tasks Based on the Fi ve CsBelow are examples of sample assessment tasks related to thetopic of school and focusing on the three modes and 5 Cs.

Communication• Interpersonal mode

- Exchange opinions with a partner or in groups onschool courses.

- Work with a partner to negotiate agreement onan ideal school schedule.

• Interpretive mode- Choose a summer school immersion program to

participate in by looking through severalbrochures.

• Presentational mode- Write a letter to the editor of the school

newspaper describing changes you’d like to seein course offerings.

- Present a five-minute talk to native speakers onwhat makes your school unique.

Cultures- Interact in the target language in culturally appropriate ways when greeting teachers, fellow students, friends, visitors.

- Identify practices in the target culture related toschool (lunchtime, extracurricular activities, etc.).

Connections- Use the Internet to find a study abroad program

that interests you.- Use target language magazines, newspapers,

etc., to find information on a research paper topicfor another class.

Comparisons- Compare the school system in your own and the

target culture(s).- Talk to a foreign exchange student to find out how

they view the American educational system.

Communities- Use the language to communicate with key pals

in a “sister” school in the target culture.- Use the Internet or other library resources to find

out about the qualifications required to become aschool teacher in the target culture.

44

Notes The LOTE CED’s goals are:





Practice in Designing a Performance-BasedAssessment TaskFollow the steps below to review briefly the CommunicationModes and Progress Checkpoints before asking participants todesign a performance task.• Point out the various components that must be taken into

consideration when developing assessment tasks(Transparencies 7-10).

• Elicit several examples of tasks illustrating the threecommunication modes that could be used for assessmentpurposes. Record responses on chart paper.

• Now choose one of the activities suggested by participants inStep 1 that you believe is appropriate for the IntermediateProgress Checkpoint. Explain your reasoning as you reviewthe Intermediate TEKS-pectations (Transparency 11).Ask participants for suggestions on adapting the activityto the Novice level, discussing and reviewing NoviceTEKS-pectations (Transparency 12) as you go. Repeat, tryingto adapt the original activity to the Advanced Progress Check-point and reviewing those TEKS-pectations (Transparency 13).

• Divide groups into those with experience teaching students ateach Progress Checkpoint: Novice, Intermediate, or Advanced.Sub-divide these into groups of two or three, if necessary.

• To develop the task (Transparency 14/Handout 6), askparticipants to think of a real class, envisioning the age,interests, and language ability of these students. Ask them tochoose a topic (e.g., school, leisure activities, food!) and showTransparency 7 again as you lead them through the followingsteps. First, they should be clear on the communication goal:interpersonal, interpretive, or presentational. They should alsotake language level into consideration; the tip of the arrow(Transparency 14/Handout 6) illustrates how the ProgressCheckpoints serve as a filter for the task design. Second, theyshould consider content goals from the other Cs (Cultures,Communities, Comparisons, Connections) related to theirchosen topic. (They do not need a goal from every C butshould look for valid objectives related to the topic andappropriate for the students.) Finally, they will take intoconsideration relevant vocabulary, structures, and commun-icative strategies. (Refer participants to pages 40-71 in theFramework for examples.)

(Workshop Activity Directions continued on following page.)

• If your group is fairly familiarwith the TEKS for LOTE, youmight prefer to review theProgram Goals, ProgressCheckpoints, and LanguageComponents by passing outTransparencies 8-13 andasking the volunteers tobriefly summarize orelaborate.

45

Notes

Developing a Rubric or

Transparencies 16-17/Handout 7

The performance assessment task tells “how” students aregoing to show their progress toward meeting the goals of theTEKS for LOTE. Evaluating that progress meansdetermining how good is “good enough.” Rubrics are usedto capture signs of students’ progress. Although there is noset formula for developing a rubric, one model involves firstidentifying key criteria for the task and then determining, foreach criteria, indicators describing “meets expectations,”“exceeds expectations,” and “not there yet” performances.The selection of the initial criteria is crucial because theyreveal what is most valued as evident in the instructionalobjectives. In general, rubrics should:

• focus on the performance objectives,• capture the proficiency level of the students, and• reflect the stage of the process from which the sample

is taken (for example, first draft, peer-edited draft, finalcopy, etc.)

How Good Is ‘Good Enough’?






• You may want to walk participants through an exampleof the steps mentioned above, then allow adequate timefor groups to devise and write down their performancetasks (Handout 6). As they do so, remind them that thetask should match the expectations for the designatedProgress Checkpoint and allow students to activelydemonstrate what they can do in the target language.Use the suggestions provided in the preceding pages tohelp groups that are “stuck.” (Keep Transparency 15 onthe overhead projector as groups develop theirassessment tasks.)

• Finally, have groups prepare a one-minute description oftheir assessment task that they then share with theother groups at their same Progress Checkpoint level.As they do so, members of their level group will commenton the key questions found on Transparency 15.

• Note any points from the K-W-L activity that have been

addressed in this section of the workshop.

46

The second point mentioned above, capturing the students’proficiency level with the rubric’s indicators, is especiallyimportant. Rubrics should not confound indicators of what is“good” for a native speaker with what might be evidence of a“good” performance for a novice-level learner. Considerationmust also be given as to how indicators change from thenovice to the advanced level. Consider the followingexamples of what may be expected at the three ProgressCheckpoints for some common evaluation criteria:

FluencyNovice – Sticks to memorized words, phrases, andsentence structuresIntermediate – Creates some sentencesAdvanced – Comfortably extends the description/narration

AccuracyNovice – Some accuracy because most language ismemorizedIntermediate – Frequent errors as student tries to createwith languageAdvanced – Frequent errors only on more complexlanguage usage

Depth of VocabularyNovice – Memorized wordsIntermediate – Some variety expected, somecircumlocutionAdvanced – Accurate vocabulary, greater variety

Organization/Complexity/Depth of DescriptionNovice – Single words; details given in lists; phrases morerandom and briefIntermediate – Short, concrete statements; minimal detail;some sentence-length expansionsAdvanced – Uses transition and increasing detail; narratesup to paragraph-length; can tell a full story

As mentioned before, there are numerous procedures forcreating both holistic and analytic rubrics. But because mostteachers are very familiar with and may tend to focus onanalytic evaluation to the exclusion of holistic, this workshopstresses a more holistic rubric with only three key criteriasubdivided into three levels of performance. Obviously,certain situations will necessitate more key criteria and per-haps more levels of performance, but these are issues to beworked out by teachers and districts in context.

Notes

47

Notes

• Participants are likely to pointout that most of what theyread was already gram-matically correct. The mainpoint, however, is that theyalso value other criteria, andsome consideration shouldalso be given those whenevaluating students’ work.






I Remember Reading...This activity primes the development of rubrics forevaluating the assessment tasks just created. Participantsreflect on something they’ve read recently that made animpression on them, identify the characteristics that gave itimpact, and compare that to criteria usually used toevaluate students’ work.

• Ask participants to think about something they have readin the past six months that made a strong impression onthem. It might be a formal essay or a novel, but morelikely it was a memo, an article, a card, a cartoon, aletter, or a thank-you note. They should reflectindividually and jot down on Handout 7 what it was andwhat gave the writing its impact (a list of characteristics).

• After three minutes, process their responses. Using thedipstick approach again, elicit examples of the types ofwriting they thought of. Record these on the left ofTransparency 16, then elicit and record thecharacteristics they mention on the right side of thetransparency. If participants respond with vague criteria,push them to come up with indicators of that criteria. Forexample, if a criteria is style, ask what about the stylemade the writing memorable (e.g., clarity, word choice,directness). Some ideas you hope to get: emotionalimpact, pleasure to read, hard-hitting or interesting topic,simpl ici ty, etc.

• After eliciting the characteristics that gave the writing itsimpact, compare their criteria with those of a traditionalscoring guide for writing assignments used in manylanguage classrooms (Transparency 17). Haveparticipants respond to the following questions regardingthe traditional rubric:

– Does it indicate what gave the writing its impact?– Does it focus on communication? (getting the idea

across?)– Based on what we’ve indicated we value, what

components should we add to/delete from the rubric?

48

Notes

• This is a crucial and difficultactivity, so allow plenty oftime – 40 minutes to an hour.If you are conducting a six-hour workshop, you’ll havetime for participants topractice using more than oneevaluation task.






Determining Criteria andIndicatorsTransparencies 18-21/Handouts 8-9Now that participants have considered, in general, theimportance of choosing valued criteria for their rubrics, theywill begin to devise a rubric of their own for the assessmenttask they just developed.

• Participants return to the small groups that developed theoriginal assessment task at a given proficiency level.Keeping in mind the descriptors for their ProgressCheckpoint, have them write down (Transparency 18,Handout 8) what they feel are the most important, “valued”criteria, the ones that prove student achievement of thegoals for their performance task.

– What is my goal for the students’ performance?– What is the best evidence of that goal?

These criteria will be broad and may include such items ascommunicative effort, comprehensibility, completion of thetask, appropriateness, fluency, grammatical accuracy, depthof vocabulary, clarity, organization, and others.

• Elicit criteria from the “Novice” group(s) until four to five arerecorded on a flip chart. Do the same for the Intermediateand Advanced Groups.

• Groups select the three most important criteria from their list(or any they may have added during the discussion) andwrite those in the rectangles on Handout 9.

In the next step, groups identify “indicators” of their valuedcriteria, that is, descriptions of How good is “good enough”?(Transparency 19). Prompt groups to stay focused on theirProgress Checkpoint, encouraging them, for example, to thinkof students in terms of “good for a beginner” rather than “badcompared to a native speaker.” Ask what would be good for abeginner on the criterion of, say, fluency? How does thatexpectation change for the intermediate level learner? Whatcharacterizes good fluency for the advanced student?


49

Notes

Review and Plan of ActionTransparencies 22-23

Focusing on rubrics that capture curriculum goals helpsteachers look for assessable moments rather than just bigassessment “events.” The performance assessment tasksmake it clear to students (and teachers) what is important tolearn and how well students are learning it. The pre-servicestandards outlined in Preparing Language Teachers to Imple-ment the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Lan-guages Other Than English, produced by Project ExCELL,make clear that the ability to “select and design assessmenttools that support and document the development of knowledgeand skills” in the 5 Cs is crucial. (See chart on following page.)






• Now participants must decide on indicators for the criteria:exceeds expectations, meets expectations, not there yet.For each criterion, groups decide how they would describe astudent’s performance that meets their expectations, takinginto consideration their instructional mode and the student’sproficiency level. That “indicator” is filled in the rubrictemplate (Handout 9), and participants repeat the processfor indicators of less than satisfactory work (“not there yet”)for the same criterion, then impressive or exemplary work.Tell them to describe students’ work in term of what it doescontain and does look like, not in terms of what is missing.Repeat for the remaining criteria. Also caution groups not toquantify their indicators. (Briefly show Transparency 20,Don’t Turn a Rubric into a Checklist). If you feel the groupswould benefit from an example, show them the holistic rubricon Transparency 21.

• Have groups share their indicators for the key criteria.Remind participants that there is no one right way toproceed and that experience using the rubric will reveal anyneed for change. The key question to be answered is: Doesthe rubric provide the information needed? The rubric is atool for providing feedback, helping students improve theirperformance and the teacher her instruction.

The concluding section of theworkshop contains a variety ofactivities to help participantssynthesize what they’ve learnedand begin planning for thefuture. Each has a slightlydifferent focus, so, based onyour “take” on participants’enthusiasm and the amount oftime remaining, complete asmany of them as possible.

•

50

• This chart may be used in asix-hour workshop under the“Review and Plan of Action”section. Choose one of thesuggested facilitation tech-niques or use one of your ownto help participants processthe information.

Knowledge

Teachers:

Know how to identify andinterpret students’ affectiveand cognitive needs.

Know how to guide studentsin the use of language-learningstrategies that will allow themto grow into independent, self-assessing language learners.

Know how to analyze assess-ment data and use informationto guide teaching and learning.

Know how to select and designassessment tools that supportand document the develop-ment of knowledge and skillsin the program goal areas ofcommunication, cultures,connections, comparisons,and communities.

Notes

Performance

Teachers:

Use a variety of formal and/orinformal methods to:• ascertain students’ attitudes

about language learning• assess students’ language

strengths and weaknessesand their culturalunderstandings.

Guide students in self-assess-ment, the use of metacognitivelearning strategies, and theirunderstanding of the language-learning process.

Use student data, observationsof teaching, and interactionswith colleagues to reflect onand improve teaching practiceand to guide student learning.

Use assessment results inreporting student achieve-ment to students, parents,administrators, and otherpolicymakers.

Select and design assessmenttools that are content-embed-ded, performance-based, andthat simulate real-world tasks.

Use achievement,prochievement, and proficiencytests as appropriate.

Teachers use assessment strategies to evaluate languagedevelopment, knowledge of culture, and the design andeffectiveness of the language program itself.

51

Performance

Teachers:

Use varied formal and informalassessment methods to gatherstudent data, such as studentobservation, portfolios,independent and group projects,checklists, student self-rating,peer rating, holistic writing, tapes,anecdotal records, research,surveys, questionnaires,journals, and conferences.

Employ technology in studentassessment; for example, usetechniques such as video- tapingor website creation as a meansto evaluate student performance.

Use alternative forms ofassessment that are varied,continuous, interactive,collaborative, and process- aswell as product-oriented.

Provide assessment opportun-ities that accommodatestudents’ varied learning styles.

Use formal and informal methodsthat simulate the students’ actuallanguage domain as well asdomains that are new to them.

Help analyze scope, sequence,and articulation of a program forsuccessful application of content,language, culture, and teachingstrategies.

Knowledge

Teachers:

Understand the need for multiple,ongoing formal and informalassessments.

Know how to assess nativespeakers’ oral and writtenlanguage proficiency.

Know how to contribute tothe evaluation of a languageprogram.

Understand that individualstudents have differing learningstyles and hence, differingassessment needs.

Notes

52

Notes

• For six-hour workshops,provide several examples ofpublisher test items onhandouts and have groupsbrainstorm, then share waysto improve these existingassessments.






Review and Plan of Action• Tweaking the Test – No teacher has time to “reinvent the wheel.”

While still encouraging participants to begin developing their ownperformance-based assessments, show them how they may be

able to revise the tests already available to bring them more intoline with the “fundamental characteristics” of authentic assessment

that they have been discussing. Show Transparency 22, anexample of a test item from a publisher’s test bank. Ask about the

characteristics of the test (authentic? real-world tasks?performance-based? focuses on higher order thinking skills?

allows for a variety of responses?). Ask participants forsuggestions on “tweaking” the test to make it more authentic. If

needed, suggest that a real-world response to a letter would beresponding to the letter! Point out that comprehension is checked

by the way students respond, addressing questions asked andsharing information about their own courses, etc. Point out that the

change to authentic assessment does not occur overnight, andsuggest they modify and/or use what they already have that

“works.” Remind them that activities they develop forcommunicative practice in class can be retooled and used as

summative test tasks.• K-W-L Activity – Ask participants to reflect on the larger concepts

dealt with in the workshop, and to look back to the K-W-L activity.After individually filling in the third column, What I Learned, they

should share two key thoughts with a partner.• Teaching to the Test – Have participants read and respond to the

question on Transparency 23. The obvious desired response is“C”—if the test is designed around the TEKS for LOTE and

provides evidence (observable data) of students’ progress towardmeeting those goals!

• Fundamental Characteristics – Now that they have designed aperformance-based task and developed a sample evaluation

rubric, have participants look back at the FundamentalCharacteristics of Authentic Assessment they listed earlier. Are

there any revisions they would make? Ask for their feedback onimplementing performance-based assessment in the classroom

and how they feel their students and teaching will benefit.

Ideas you might want to share include:

- Assessment based on rubrics allows teachers to chartprogress for a wider variety of students, moving along a

continuum from novice to intermediate to advanced.


53

Notes

DON’T FORGET THE EVALUATION ORSIGN-IN ROSTER!Allow ten minutes for participants to complete the evaluationincluded at the end of the Handouts section of this manual.Send copies of the evaluation forms to the LOTE CED in oneof the large postage-paid envelopes provided in this binder.

Also, please send a LOTE CED Module Workshop Rosterback to the LOTE CED every time you conduct a workshop(also included in this binder.) If the workshop venue alreadyuses another type of sign-in sheet, please photocopy thatsheet and send in a copy. Please ensure that whatever yousend includes your name, your co-presenter’s name, the dateof the workshop, the module presented, the workshoplocation, and the number of participants.






- Students with learning disabilities or other exceptional needswill benefit from the focus on clear criteria and indicators in

learning and assessing.- Heritage speakers benefit from the built-in challenge to

“exceed” the regular expectations in a course.

• Plan of Action – Using Transparency 24 and Handout 10, haveparticipants brainstorm a plan of action for the school year andshare with their group. (To implement what I’ve learned aboutperformance-based assessment, I will...) If you will be offeringPart B of Module III later in the year, ask participants to committo something they will do between now and then to movetoward more authentic assessment. Tell them you will “debrief”at the next workshop to see what they have been able to put intopractice and to discuss questions and issues that arose. Finally, letparticipants know that Part B of Module III builds on the sorts ofperformance assessment tasks developed in Part A, linkingassessment and instruction. It will focus on how to designcurriculum that captures the goals of the TEKS for LOTE and thatclearly shows the path for students to move from novice tointermediate to the advanced Progress Checkpoints.

54

References

The College Board (1996). Articulation and achievement: Connecting standards, performance, andassessment in foreign language. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.

Frederiksen, N. (1984). The real test bias: Influences of testing on teaching and learning. AmericanPsychologist, 39, 3: 193-202.

Haney, W. and Madaus, G. (1989). Searching for alternatives to standardized tests: Whys, whats,and whithers. Phi Delta Kappan, 70,9: 683-687.

Jorgensen, M. (1994). Assessing habits of mind: Performance-based assessments in scienceand mathematics. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, andEnvironmental Education.

Liskin-Gasparro, J. (1997, October). Testing in an age of assessment: Some theoretical andpractical considerations. Address given at Symposium on Spanish Second-Language Acquisitionat the University of Texas, Austin, Texas.

Shohamy, E (1991). Connecting testing and learning in the classroom and on the program level. InJ. Phillips (Ed.), Building Bridges and Making Connections (pp. 88-122). South Burlington, Vermont:Northeast Conference.

Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi DeltaKappan, 70,9: 703-713.

Wiggins, G. (1989). Teaching to the (authentic) test. Educational Leadership, 46, 7: 41-47.

Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERICClearinghouse on Tests, Measurement, and Evaluation.

Wiggins, G. (1994). Toward more authentic assessment of language performance. In Charles R.Hancock (Ed.), Teaching, testing, and assessment: Making the connection. (pp. 69-79.) LincolnWood, IL: National Textbook Company.

55

Talking Points

57

Transparency 1 Agenda

• Have the transparency on theoverhead projector and passout handout packets asparticipants enter the room.

• Introduce yourself, then explainthe purpose and main sectionsof the workshop.

• Choose and complete one orboth icebreaker activities.

True/False Quiz

• Guide participants through theTrue/False quiz (T2/HO2) and/or the K-W-L Activity below.

K-W-L Activity

• Have participants fill in the firsttwo columns on HO-3. After acouple of minutes, put up T-3 tospur their thinking.

• Call on participants to shareitems on their handout, andencourage them to add to theirlists throughout the workshop.

Transparency 3

Transparency 2

58

Transparency 4

Transparencies 5a & 5b

Comparing Traditionaland Performance -Based Assessment

• Lead participants to“experience” two differenttypes of tests, then processtheir reactions using thequestions on T-4, and/or

• Have them complete anddiscuss the T-chart onT-5a-b/HO 4, helping bringthem to consensus on thedifferences in traditionaland authentic assessment(BI pp. 30-33), and/or

• Use a technique of yourchoice to help participantsprocess Criteria forAuthenticity (Appendix G) orthe Liskin-Gasparro article(Appendix D).

• To summarize, askparticipants to proposea list of fundamentalcharacteristics ofauthentic assessmentthat they will use indeveloping a performance-based assessment task,(T-6/HO-5).

Developing TEKS-Based Assessment

• Show Transparency 7 anddiscuss the importance ofthe various componentsthat go into developing aperformance-basedassessment task.

Transparency 6

Transparency 7

59

Program Goals,Communication Modes,and Progress Checkpoints

• Use Transparencies 8-10to briefly review the ProgramGoals, Communication Modes,and Progress Checkpoints.

• Provide examples as neededdepending on participants’background knowledge.

Review of ProgressCheckpoints

• Elicit examples of performance-based tasks in the variouscommunication modes, thenuse one of participants’examples at the intermediateProgress Checkpoint to reviewthe TEKS-pectations for thatlevel (T-11).

• Ask participants to adaptthe task to the other twoProgress Checkpoints anduse Transparencies 12-13,as needed, to review thoseTEKS-pectations.

Transparencies 8, 9, & 10


60

Developing aPerformance-BasedAssessment Task

• Using Transparency 14, leadparticipants through a sampletask development, consideringall components. Elicit a sampletopic; sample Program Goalsand mode; sample proficiencylevel; and sample vocabulary,structures, or languagefunctions to be assessed.

• Have groups work on develop-ing their own performance-based assessment task usingHandout 6.

• Use the “key questions” onTransparency 15 to guidediscussion and critique asgroups’ share the tasks they’vedeveloped.

I Remember Reading…

• Ask participants to completeHandout 7, identifying thecharacteristics that madesomething they recently readmeaningful or important to them.

• As you elicit their responses,record them on Transparency 16.

• Have them evaluate the“traditional” scoring rubric(T-17) and compare it’s criteriawith the criteria they mentionedabove.

Transparencies 14

Transparency 15

Transparency 17

Transparency 16

61

Rubrics: IdentifyingKey Criteria

• Give participants time tobrainstorm key evaluationcriteria for the group’sperformance task (T-18/HO-8) that will reflect the goalfor the students’ performance,keeping in mind the targetedproficiency level.

• Record four or five key criteriafrom each proficiency level ona flip chart.

Rubrics: How Good is‘Good Enough’?

• Now have groups identify“indicators” for three of theirvalued criteria (T-19/HO-9):exceeds expectations, meetsexpectations, not there yet.

• Encourage groups to think interms of “good for a beginner”rather than “bad for a nativespeaker, ” and direct them notto turn the rubric into a checklist(T-20).

• Provide the sample holisticrubric if groups need guidance(T-21).

• Guide groups to reflect onwhether or not the rubricprovides the informationneeded as they share theircriteria and indicators.

Transparency 18

Transparency 19

Transparency 20

Transparency 21

62

Ordering Project ExCELL Publications

The following documents were prepared by Project ExCELL and were developed through acontract with the Texas Education Agency with funding provided by the U.S. Department ofEducation’s Fund for the Improvement of Education.

A Texas Framework for Languages Other Than English

Professional Development for Language Teachers: Implementing the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Languages Other Than English

Preparing Language Teachers to Implement the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Languages Other Than English

All documents include the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Languages Other ThanEnglish and may be purchased from the Texas Foreign Language Association or the TexasEducation Agency.

� Photocopied versions of all three documents are available from TFLA for the cost of duplicating and mailing:

TFLA members: $2.50 each or $6.00 for all threeNon-members: $3.50 each or $9.00 for all three

Send Checks, payable to TFLA, to:Phyllis B. ThompsonHouston Baptist University7502 FondrenHouston, Texas 77074

� An original version of A Texas Framework for Languages Other Than English can be obtained from TEA.

Schools: $8.00Profit: $10.00

To order, contact:Publications Distribution and SalesTexas Education Agency1701 North CongressAustin, Texas 78701Tel (512) 463-9744

Prepaid orders may be addressed to:Skip BaylorP.O. Box 13817Austin, Texas 78711-3817

HO-12

Review and Plan ofAction

• Tell teachers they do not needto start from scratch indeveloping new assessmentmeasures. Encourage them toadapt what’s already in theirrepertoire, discussing how thesample test item (T-22) couldbe modified.

• Ask participants to look back toHandout 3, the K-W-L activity,and have them complete andcomment on the final column,What I Learned.

• Conclude by havingparticipants respond to thequestion on Transparency 23,revise their fundamentalcharacteristics of authenticassessment, and/or developtheir own plan of action formatching their assessments tothe goals described in theTEKS for LOTE (use T-24 andHO-10).


• Allow ten minutes forparticipants to completethe evaluation included atthe end of the Handoutssection of this manual(Handouts 11a-b).

• Draw Handout 12 to theirattention if they’reinterested in ordering anyProject ExCELLpublications.

II. Usi ng a scale fr om 1 to 5, where 1 means “strongly disagree” and 5 means “st

agree,” please indicate the degree to wh ich you concur with the following

s tatements.

a. Overall, what I learned during the workshop will be useful to me in my

classroom / dis trict.

strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agre

b. There was a sufficient amount of participant involvement in the workshop .


c . The present er was effective in communicating the information.


III. Please feel free to share your thoughts on the following.

a. N ew ideas I’ve gotten as a result of the workshop

b. Questions that have been raised in my mind as a result of the workshop

c . Act ions I ’m going to take as a result of the workshop

HO- 11b

Handouts 11a, 11b, & 12

HO- 11a

Ev aluation Form for Module III

TEKS for LO TE: Developing Curriculum/A ddressing Assessment (Part

.Using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means “not at all helpful” and 5 means “veryhelpful,” please indicate the degree to which the following sections of theworkshop were useful for you.

a. Review of the TEKS f or LOTE

not at all helpful 1 2 3 4 5 very helpful

b. Discussion and comparison of tradit ional and performance-based assessmnot at all helpful 1 2 3 4 5 very helpful

c. Development of fundamental characteristics of authentic assessment


d. Discussion and examples of components considered in developing assessm

tasks


e. Development of a performance-based assessment task


f. Development of assessment criteria and indicators for the task


g. Discussion of how to adapt materials currently used


h. Establishment of a plan of action for inco rporating authentic assessment in the

cla ssroom


DON’T FORGET

THE EVALUATION!

profes sional develo pment module iii-a - sedlprofes sional development module iii-a teks for lote:...

Documents