POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . �

“Theessenceofsecondlanguageeducationisembodiedinitsattempttojoinindividualstogethersothattheymightcommunicateacrosslinguisticandculturalboundaries”(Tedicketal.,1993,p.44).Neverbeforehastheneedforsuchcommunicationbeengreater.ForstudentsintheU.S.,theneedtofunctioncompetentlyinmorethanonelanguagehasbecomeincreasinglyimportantinthisrapidlyshrinking,interdependentworldofthe21stcentury.Ithasbecomecrucialtopreparestudentswithsecondlanguagecompetence—beingabletotalkaboutlanguage,todescribeitsgrammar,andtoconjugateverbswillsimplynotsuffice.Inthisnewcentury,studentsmustbeabletocommunicateorallyandinwritingandtocomprehendbothoralandwrittenlanguage.Theymustbeabletoparticipateinculturallyappropriatewaysinface-to-faceinteractionwithmembersofothercultures,andtheymustalsobeabletointerprettheconcepts,ideas,andopinionsexpressedbymembersoftheseculturesthroughtheirmediaandliteratures(NationalStandardsinForeignLanguageEducationProject,1996,p.35). Itisindeedanexcitingtimetobeinvolvedinlanguageeducation.ThenationalstandardsforForeignLanguageLearning,unveiledinearly1996,describeachallengingyetstimulatingvisionforlanguageeducationinthe21stcentury,avisionthatrecognizestheneedforlanguageinstructiontofacilitategenuineinteractionbetweenandamongindividualswhorepresentdifferentculturalandlinguisticcommunities(NationalStandardsforForeignLanguageEducationProject,1996).ThisisavisionthattheArticulationProjectshares,soforthisreason,wemadethedecisiontoadoptthenationalstandardsfortheCurriculumHandbook.AsynopsisofthestandardsappearsintheKeyMaterialssection.1Moststateshavecreatedstatestandardsforworldlanguagesthatparallelorincorporatethenationalstandards.Themessageacrossthenationisclear.Itcallsforlanguageeducationtofocusonwhatstudentsshouldknowandbeabletodo;theemphasisisonlanguageuseandcultureisseenascentraltoacquiringlanguageforrealcommunicativepurposes.Thenationalstandardsrepresentbroad,long-termgoalsforlanguageinstruction.Theyareintendedtobeinterpretedbroadly,andwehavedonesowithinthecontextofthetasksandunitsinthisHandbook. Despiteemphasisthroughthe1980’sand90’sonproficiency-orientedlanguageinstructionforforeignlanguageclassroomsand,inthelate90’sthenationalstandards,grammarhasmaintaineditsroleasthekeyorganizingprincipleoflanguageinstructioninthevastmajorityoflanguageclassrooms.Inmostlanguageclassrooms,languageisviewedas“object”—somethingthatisactedupon,anentitytobescrutinized,analyzed,andbrokendownintoitssmallestcomponents(Tedicketal.,1993;Tedick&Walker,1994).ThisviewhasemergedinpartduetothehistoricalinfluencethatthefieldoflinguisticshashadinthefieldoflanguageeducationandalsoinpartbecauseofthelongroadlanguageteachershavehadtotravelinordertolegitimizetheirplaceinthearenaofU.S.schools.The“content”oflanguagecurriculumhasbeendefinedasthelexicon,syntax,morphology,andphonologyoflanguage,orasthenotionsandfunctions.Inordertoemphasizethecommunicativenatureoflanguageandtoacknowledgethatlanguagehasmeaningwhenitisembeddedwithinasocialcontext,itisnecessarytoviewlanguageas

Proficiency-Oriented LanguageInstruction and Assessment:

Standards, Philosophies, and Considerations for Assessment

Written by Diane J. Tedick

New Standards for Language Education

NOTES

p .10 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

“subject”(somethingthatacts)(Tedicketal.,1993;Tedick&Walker,1994)andtostriveforabalancebetweenlanguage-as-objectandlanguage-as-subjectincurriculumandinstruction.Balancingthetwoperspectivesmeansthatstudentsareengagedinlearningaboutlanguage—itsvocabulary,itsgrammarandmorphology,itsphonology(thatis,engagingwithlanguageasobject),yetalwayswithinthecontextofusinglanguagetocommunicatemeaning(thatis,engagingwithlanguageassubject).Inotherwords,it’simportantforateachertoteachlanguagerules(e.g.,verbconjugations),butit’salsoimportantalwaystofollowthatinstructionwithapplicationoftherules.Howwellcanstudentsuseconjugateverbscorrectlytowritealetter?Inanutshell,notonlydostudentsneedtoknowhowlanguageworks,theyalsoneedtoknowhowtouselanguageformeaningfulpurposesandtheopportunitiestopracticetheseapplications. Inordertostriveforabalancebetweenlanguage-as-objectandlanguage-as-subjectandtoemphasizelanguageusewithcultureascoreinthelanguageclassroom,arethinkingofcurriculumandinstructionneedstooccur.Traditionally,mostforeignlanguageclassroomshaveconcentratedonhow (grammar)tosay what (vocabulary),buthaveleftthe why, whom, where, andwhen outoftheequation(NationalStandardsforForeignLanguageEducationProject,1996;Tedick&Walker,1994).Whilegrammarandvocabularyremainimportantcomponents,theothers,whichhighlightthesociolinguisticandculturalaspectsoflanguage,areessentialforcommunication.“Inotherwords,grammarandstructurearenotthegoalofinstruction,butratheressentialtoolstowardachievingother,moreimportantgoals—languageuseinsocialcontextsandinterculturalcommunication”(Tedick&Walker,1994,p.306).Onewaytoachievethesemoreimportantgoalsistomakecontentandculturalthemestheorganizingprincipleforlanguagecurriculumandinstruction.Thisrethinkingofthecurriculum,towardcontent-based,task-basedlanguageinstructionandanemphasisonmeaningfullanguageuseisthefocusofthenationalstandardsandeffortsoftheCurriculumTeamoftheArticulationProject. Thefocusonmeaningandlanguageusedoesnotarguethatteachersshouldbeneglectingform.Onthecontrary,what’snecessaryisabalancebetweenmeaningandforminthecontextofcommunication.Inaway,thislanguageinstructionissueissimilartoanissuethathasdominatedthefieldofliteracyinstructionforsometime.Fordecadestherehasbeenadebateaboutliteracyinstructionthathascenteredonwholelanguagevs.phonicsinstruction.Thequestionhastoooftenbeen:Shouldteachersfocusonthewholeortheparts?Theansweris“neither,”becausethequestioniswrong—itissimplynotan“either/or”issue.Goodteachersknowthateffectiveliteracyinstructionprovidesabalancebetweenthewholeandtheparts.Childrenwhoarelearninghowtoreadneedtobesurroundedbyarichliteracyenvironmentthatinvolvesfrequentinteractionwithstimulating

NOTES

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .11

texts;atthesametime,theyneedtoknowhowlanguage“works.”Inotherwords,theyneedtounderstandthelanguagesystem—howthepartsworktogethertomakeupthewhole.Themorecontextualizedtheinstructionoftheparts,thebetterstudentsunderstandtheirrelationshiptothewhole.Acompletetreatmentofthewholelanguagevs.phonicsdebateisfarbeyondthescopeofthisintroduction.Weincludetheanalogyheretohelplanguageteachersunderstandthat in order for students to achieve high levels of proficiency in a language, there needs to be a balance between language and language use. Inordertounderstandfurtherhowtostrivetowardsuchabalanceinthelanguageclassroom,itisimportantforteacherstoconsiderthekeyphilosophicalprinciplesthathavedriventhedevelopmentofthe Handbook.

The Philosophical Principles: POLIA and CAPRII

ThephilosophicalprinciplesthatguidedtheArticulationProjectwereestablishedearlyonasworkontheProjectbegan.Astatementdescribingprinciplesofproficiency-orientedlanguageinstructionandassessment(POLIA)wasdevelopedbyAronsetal.(1994)andcontributedtothecurriculumteam’sphilosophicalprinciples(seePOLIAstatementandprinciplesintheKeyMaterialssection). ThephilosophicalprinciplesdescribedinthePOLIAstatementarefurthersupportedbysixkeyconceptsthatwebelieveshouldguidelanguageeducation:(1) Contextualizationoflanguageinstruction,(2)Authenticity oftaskandtext,(3)anemphasison Process,(4)thevalueofReflection forbothlanguagelearnersandlanguageteachers,(5)anemphasison Interaction withinandbeyondtheclassroom,and(6) Integration ofthefourmodalitiesandoflanguageandcontent,beitrelatedtootheracademicdisciplinesorculturalthemes.Whilethesesixconcepts—referredtobytheacronymCAPRII—areandindeedshouldbeunderstoodasinterrelatedandinseparableineffectivelanguageteaching,theycaneachbeconsideredinturn(Tedick,1996;Tedick&Tischer,1996).2Figure1providesabriefsummaryoftheconceptsthatmakeupCAPRII.

p .12 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

F igure 1 : CAPRI IContextualizationinvolvesmeaningfullanguageuseforrealcommunicativepurposes;lessons

thatarepresentedincontextenhancemeaning;contextualizedteachingrecognizesthatmeaning

changesdependinguponthecontextinwhichitoccurs.

AuthenticityofTextandTask—authentictextsandtasksreflecttheintentionofareal

communicativepurposeforarealaudience.

Process—languageacquisition(beitfirst,second,orthird...)isanongoingprocessthatrequires

agreatdealoftime,patience,thought,effort,andencouragement.Recognitionofthenatureof

thisprocessneedstoguideinstructionandassessment.

Reflection—bothteachersandstudentsneedtimefordeliberatethought,orreflection.

Interaction—learnersmustuselanguageinmeaningfulinteractioninordertolearnit.

Integration—anintegrativeapproachtolanguageteachingseestheconnectionoflanguagesand

culturestowhatwedo,howwethink,andwhoweare.

ofthefourmodalities—creatingclassroomactivitiesthatrequirestudentstouselanguagewithintwoormoreofthefourmodalities,withattentiontohowthosemodalitiesworkwithintheframeworkofcommunicativemodes,helpstoreinforcetheconceptsbeingemphasized.

oflanguageandcontent—languagemustbeintegratedwithcontent,beitotheracademicsubjectmattersorculturalthemes.Acontent-basedapproachtolanguageteachingemphasizeslanguageuse;languagestructuresareemphasizedinthecontextofthatuse.LanguageclassroomsmustbecomeplaceswherestudentsandteachersunderstandthemselvesasculturalbeingsandbegintodiscoverthecomplexityoftheconceptofcultureastheyviewculturesbothwithinandoutsideoftheU.S.fromanumberofperspectives.

NOTES

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .13

Contextualization

AccordingtoShrumandGlisan(1994):

Languagethatisintroducedandtaughtincontextpresentsrealsituationsthatencompassthephysicalsetting,thepurposeoftheexchange,therolesoftheparticipants,andthesociallyacceptablenormsofinteraction,inadditiontothemedium,topic,tone,andregisteroftheexchange(Hymes,1974).Grammaticalstructuresthatmightotherwisebedevoidofcontextbecomeanintegralpartofthecommunicativeactsthatoccurincontexts(p.23).

Contextualized teaching recognizes that meaning changes depending upon the context in which it occurs.Whenwebegintothinkaboutteachinglanguageforcommunicationratherthanasasystemofgrammaticalforms,weseethatgrammaticalcategoriesdonotnecessarilycorrespondtocommunicativefunctionsandthatgrammaralonecannotdeterminemeaning.Inotherwords,context(thetopicandsituation)playsamajorroleinestablishingmeaning.Forexample,onemightassumethattheimperativemoodasagrammaticalcategoryalwaysindicatestheactofcommanding.Widdowson(1978,inLyster,1990,p.162)providesexamplesillustratinghowcontext,notgrammaticalfunction,determinesmeaning:

“Bakethepieinaslowoven”isaninstruction,notacommand.

“Comefordinnertomorrow”isaninvitation,notacommand.

“Forgiveusourtrespasses”isaprayer,notacommand.

Contextreferstothetopicandsituationofacommunicativeactthatarenecessaryforunderstanding(Walz,1989).Walz(1989)pointsoutthatanumberoflanguagetextbooksprovidecontextualizedgrammarexercises.Theseexercisesprovidethematicallyrelatedsentencesrequiringmechanicalmanipulationofagrammaticalform,butoftendonotforcestudentstounderstand.Therefore,contextualizationofmechanicaldrillsinthissenseiscertainlynotthesamethingascreatingacontext(Walz,1989,p.162).ContextualizationasitisinterpretedinthisHandbookinvolvesmeaningfullanguageuseforrealcommunicativepurposesandhelpsstudentstounderstandhowmeaningisconstructedbylanguageusers(betheywriting,speaking,reading,orlistening)dependinguponcontext.

ManyofthetasksfoundintheHandbook arecontextualizedinthattheyprovideatopicandsituationinwhichstudentsneedtouselanguagewithoneanotherforsomemeaningfulpurpose.Forexample,

NOTES

p .14 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

inthetaskentitled“SenegalbyNumbers,”studentslearnaboutSenegalesedemographicsthroughaninformation-gapactivity.ThetaskgivesstudentsanopportunitytopracticeunderstandingandcommunicatingcomplexnumbersinthecontextofSenegalesedemographics.Inotherwords,thetopic(Senegalesedemographics) contextualizestheuseofnumbers.

Contextualizinglanguageinstructionmaybestbeaccomplishedbyorganizingthecontentofthelanguagecurriculumaccordingtothemesortopicsthatlendthemselvestore-entrythroughoutthecourseofstudy(assuggestedbywhatisknownasaspiralcurriculum).Ourtheme-basedcurriculumframework(seetheKeyMaterialssection)providesonesuchexampleofcurriculumorganizationthatwouldlenditselftocontextualizinglanguageinstruction.

Authenticity of Text and Task

Relatedtotheconceptofcontextualizationisthenotionofauthenticity.AuthentictextsormaterialshavebeendefinedbyVillegasRogersandMedley(1988)as“...languagesamples—bothoralandwritten—thatreflectanaturalnessofform,andanappropriatenessofculturalandsituationalcontextthatwouldbefoundinthelanguageasusedbynativespeakers”(p.468).Textsthatarepreparedfornativespeakersby nativespeakersreflectthecultureandsocietalvaluesofeverydaylife.“NotextbookculturenoteontheHispanicfamily,forexample,canreplacethestudyofauthenticbirthorchristening,weddinganddeathannouncements,where,undertheobservablelinguisticconventions,lietheritualsofevents,theconnotationsofritesofpassage,themeaningof‘family,’andthedynamicnatureofculture”(Galloway&Labarca,1990,p.139). Forourpurposes,anytextthatis purposeful, meaningful,andhasarealcommunicative intent forarealaudiencecanbeconsideredtobeauthentic.Inotherwords,itisauthenticinthesensethatitwasnotoriginallyproducedforlanguage-teachingpurposesbutratherforthepurposeofcommunicatingmeaning(Brintonetal.,1989,p.17).Thismeansthatane-mailmessagesentviatheInternetbyastudentofGermantoanotherstudentofGermanis“authentic”aslongasthemessageismeaningful(eventhoughthemessagewasnotwrittenbyanativespeakerforanothernativespeaker).Furthermore,authenticityinadeepersensedoesnotresideinthetextitselfbutratherisdeterminedbyhowthattextisused(Hutchinson&Waters,1987),i.e.,theauthenticityofthetask.Forexample,ifateacherusesanarticlefromatargetculturemagazineforthesolepurposeofhavingthestudentsunderlinealloftheinstancesinwhichthesubjunctiveappears,theauthenticityofthetaskdisappears. Let’sexamineataskandconsiderwaysinwhichitcanbeslightlyalteredtobecomemoreauthentic.3ImaginethatstudentsareengagedinaunitonCostaRica(oranyothertargetcountry).Asaculminatingactivityattheendoftheunit,theteacherdecidestohavestudentscreatetravel

NOTES

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .15

brochuresinthetargetlanguagetodemonstratetheirknowledgeofwhattheyhavelearned.Suchataskasksthatthestudentspretendtoactasnativespeakers,whichtheyclearlyarenot.Kramsch(1993)wouldarguethatauthenticityinvolveshavingstudentsbewhotheyare—learnersofthetargetlanguage.Torevisethetasksomewhatwithaneyetowardgreaterauthenticity,theteachercanhavestudentscreatetravelitinerariesforagroupofstudentswhowillbetravelingtoCostaRica,theintentbeingtodemonstratetheirknowledgeofwhattheyhavelearnedbycommunicatingittootherstudents. Anotherexamplewouldinvolvehavingstudentsatthebeginningoftheunitwritelettersinthetargetlanguagetovarioustravelagencies,touristbureaus,and“ChamberofCommerce”equivalentstoindicatethatthey(1)arestudentsofSpanish,(2)arestudyingaboutCostaRica,and(3)areinterestedinreceivingtravelinformationinSpanish.Suchataskhasarealpurposeandarealaudience.Theaddedbenefitisthatitwillalsoleadtoadditionalauthenticmaterialsforclassroomuse!(Thistask,titled“Let’sGotoCostaRica,”isdescribedindetailintheHandbookandappearsinthe“FromPresentationtoCreation”section.) AfinalexampleofanauthentictaskforthisinstructionalsettingistohavestudentswritetoCostaRicanstudentsaboutMinnesota(i.e.,theirhomestate),givenwhattheyhavelearnedaboutCostaRica.Aletterwrittenforthistaskmightinclude,forexample,acomparisonbetweenMinnesota’sBoundaryWatersandCostaRica’sTortugueroNationalParkintermsoftheirenvironmentalrestrictions. SomeofthetasksintheHandbook areauthenticinthattheyareintendedforarealaudience(beyondtheclassroom).Othersarenotauthenticinthissense.Forexample,in“MyFavoriteRecipe,”studentsworkwithpartnerstowriteafavoriterecipeinthesecondlanguage(notfromthetargetculture).Theysharetheserecipesinclass.Whileavaluableactivityforelicitingcommunicationintheclassroom,thetaskcannotbeconsideredauthenticbecauseit’snotdesignedforarealaudienceorpurpose—nativeEnglishspeakersdon’tneedtoreadarecipeformacaroniandcheese,forexample,writteninFrench.However,thetaskcanbeadaptedquiteeasilytoincreaseitsauthenticity.OneclassroomteacherhadstudentscompiletheirrecipesintoabooklettosendhomewithanAmityAidefromtheIvoryCoast,whohadbeenworkingintheirclassroomthatyear.Inthisway,thetasktookonarealpurposeandaudience,andthestudentswereveryexcitedtobeexplaining(inFrench)howtopreparetheirfavoritefoods,knowingtheAmityAidewouldsharetherecipeswithfriendsandfamilyuponherreturntohernativecountry. Thesesuggestionshighlighttheimportanceofcreatingtasksthatinvolvestudentsinusinglanguageforrealcommunicativepurposesandforrealaudiences.Manyofthetasksinthe Handbook areauthenticinthissense.Forexample,thetaskentitled“CreatingChildren’sLiterature”

NOTES

p .16 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

involveshavingstudentswritechildren’sbookstosharewithyoungstudentsinimmersionorFLESprograms.Itisimportanttonote,however,thatitisnotpossibletomakeeverytaskortextauthenticinthelanguageclassroom.Sometimesstudentsneedtopretendtobenativespeakersforaroleplay;sometimestheyneedtowriteforahypotheticalaudience;sometimestheyneedtoreadatextthathasbeenadaptedfornonnativespeakersofthelanguage.Suchactivitiesarevaluableandcertainlyhaveaplaceinthelanguagecurriculum.Whatisimportant(andpossible!),however,isforteacherstofindagoodbalanceintheircurriculumbetweentasksandtextsthatarelessauthenticandthosethatrepresenttheprinciplesofauthenticityasdescribedabove.Teachersshouldalsomakesurethatsomeofthetextstheyuseinthecurriculumcontainlanguageasusedbynativespeakerssoastoincorporateculturalandlinguisticauthenticity.Anumberofauthentictexts(i.e.,writtenbynativespeakersfornativespeakersofthetargetlanguage)areusedintheHandbookinconjunctionwithtasksandunits.See,forexample,thesamplerecipesin“ReadingRecipes,”themagazinearticlein“DeSolaSolSinDescanso,”andthegradereportintheunitcalled“LeBaccalauréatFrançais.”

ProcessLanguageacquisition(beitfirst,second,orthird...)isanongoing

processthatrequiresagreatdealoftime,patience,thought,effort,andencouragement.Ateacherwhorecognizestheimportanceofprocessinlanguagelearningunderstands,forexample,thatalthoughastudentisintroducedtoagrammaticalstructure(orfunctionortopic)earlyon,s/hewillneedtimetointernalizethatconceptbeforebeingabletoproducelanguageinspontaneousinteractionthatshowsanaccuraterepresentationofthatconcept.Forexample,studentsofFrench,German,andSpanisharetaughttheconceptofgenderandnumberagreementrelativelyearlyoninlanguageclassrooms.Whilethestudentsmaybeabletoproducelanguagewithaccurateagreementonquizzesandtests,theyoftencannotwhenaskedtoproducelanguagespontaneouslyforameaningfulcommunicativepurpose.Theyneedtimetobeabletosee,hear,produce,andexperiencenumberandgenderagreementinmanymeaningfulcontextsforavarietyofpurposesbeforetheydevelopa“feel”fortheconcept—beforeitbecomespartoftheirinternalizedlanguagerepertoire.Thisprocesstakesyears. HeilenmanandKaplan(1985)provideausefuldistinctionamongvariousdegreesofcontroloffunction,topic(orcontext),andformasstudentsdevelopproficiency.Theyarguethatatdifferentlevelsofproficiency,certaingrammaticalstructures,functions,andtopicsorcontextsneedtobetaughtforfull control,othersforpartial control,andstillothersfor conceptual control (authors’emphasis,p.63).Conceptsthataretaughtforpartialorconceptualcontrolatonelevelofproficiencyarerecycledatsubsequentlevelswherefullorpartialcontrolisthegoal(Heilenman&Kaplan,1985).ThesedegreesofcontrolinHeilenman

NOTES

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .17

andKaplan’sframeworkcorrelatewithlevelsofproficiencyasdefinedbytheACTFLguidelines.Inotherwords,ifstudents’proficiencyisintheNovicerange,theyshouldbeexpectedtodemonstratefullcontrolofcertainfunctions(e.g.,makinglists),topics(e.g.,dates,numbers,etc.),andaccurateproductionofcertainforms(e.g.,questionwords).TheycanbeexpectedtohavepartialcontrolofvariousconceptsthatcorrespondtotheIntermediate-Low/MidrangeandconceptualcontrolofconceptsthatarerepresentativeoftheIntermediate-HighandAdvancedrange.Thepointhereisthatacquisitionofthefunctions,topics,andformsoflanguageisatime-consumingprocessthatrequiresteacherstorecyclethosefunctions,topics,andformssystematicallyandpurposefullythroughouttheircurriculumsothatstudentscanachievehigherdegreesofcontrolastheyadvanceaslanguagelearners.Ourpreliminarymodelforathematiccurriculumframeworkisonewayofenvisioningthiscyclicalviewoflanguageinstruction.Thecurricularthemes(seeKeyMaterialssection)suggestsometopicsthatcanbeconsideredfororganizingthelanguagecurriculum;thecommunicativefunctionsandlanguagestructuresarestipulatedwithinthecontextofthetasksandunitsthatcorrespondtothevariousthemes. Processisalsorelatedtoclassroominstruction.Inthissense,processinvolvesseveralinstructionalphases—e.g.,preparingstudentsforanactivity,carryingouttheactivity,andprovidingafollow-upthatrequiresstudentstoapplywhattheylearned.ThetasksandunitsintheHandbook breaklessonsdownintopre-,during-,andpost-activitystagestoemphasizetheneedforanawarenessofprocessintheclassroom.Inaddition,othertasksorunitsillustrateprocessapproachestoinstruction:“Let’sgotoCostaRica”isataskthatdetailstheprocessapproachtowriting;the“GenderRoles”unittakesstudentsthroughaprocessofcross-culturalexploration.

Anawarenessofprocessinlanguagelearningcanalsobereflectedinassessmentpractices.Toooftenassessmentpracticesfocusontheproduct—thatis,whateverthestudentsproduce,beitapaper,anoralpresentation,avideotape,etc.Butitisequallyimportanttoassessstudents’workintheprocessofworkingtowardthefinalproduct.Forexample,ifstudentsareaskedtoworkinsmallgroupstoco-createaproject(e.g.,askit),theteachermaywanttoassessthestudents’abilitytocollaborateandworkcooperatively.Suchanassessmentgetsatprocess.Ifawritingassignmentrequiresdrafts,feedback,andrevision,theteachermaydecidetoassesshowwellstudentsattendtofeedbackintheirrevisions.Thisassessment,too,getsatprocess.

Theteacherwhorecognizestheimportanceofprocesscreatesaclassroomenvironmentwhereprocessisreflectedininstructionaswellasassessment,whererisk-takingisencouraged,andwheremeaningfulcommunicationisemphasizedoveraccuracyforthesake of accuracy.

NOTES

p .18 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

Reflection

Closelyrelatedtotheconceptofprocessisreflection.Reflectioninvolves deliberate thought.Inessence,itengagesanindividualina“conversation”withasituation,beitproblematic,confusing,orilluminating.Ourviewsofourselvesandourculturesandoftheviewsofothersandtheirculturesareneveruniformorstatic.AsClaireKramsch(1991)explains,“…alargepartofwhatwecallcultureisasocialconstruct,theproductofselfandother[s’]perceptions.”Indeed,languageuse,orcommunication,isembeddedalwayswithinculture,andthereforeislargelydependentuponpeoples’perceptionsofmeaning,whichmayormaynotmatchtheintendedmeaning.Itisthisverysocial,dynamicnatureoflanguageandculturethatmakessecondlanguagesdifferentfromandmorespecialthanotheracademicdisciplines,and,hence,makesreflectionsoimportantforbothstudentsandteachers. Students’reflectionshouldbebothculturallyandlinguisticallybased,aswellasfocusedonself-as-learner,self-as-human-being,andself-in-relationship-with-other.Studentswillnotbeabletoengageinprofoundreflectiononanyofthesetopicsovernight;reflectionrepresentsyetanotherprocessrelatedtolanguagelearningwhichneedstooccurgraduallyandcarefullyinanatmospherewherethestudentscanaskquestionsfreelyandwhererisk-takingisencouraged(Tedick,1992).Someactivitiesthatrepresentattentiontostudentreflectionincludelearningstrategies,self-assessment,peerreview,and“debriefing”exercises.ManyofthetasksintheHandbookinvolveactivitiesthatencouragestudentreflection.Forexample,“StrategicInteraction”includesadebriefingstagewherestudentsareaskedtoreflectbackonthelanguageusedduringtheroleplayandmakesuggestionsforimprovingit.“MyFavoriteRecipe”engageslearnersinapeerassessmentactivity,encouragingthemtoreflecteitheronthepresenter’slanguageuseorthelistener’sabilitytounderstand.Inthe“GenderRoles”unit,studentsareaskedtoreflectontheirownperceptionsofgenderrolesthroughouttheunitastheylearnabouttheperceptionsoftheirGermancounterparts.Reflectionshouldbeencouragedatalllevelsoflanguagelearning—eventhebeginninglevels.Seethe“MagazineScanning”activity,whichwasdesignedforstudentsatNoviceproficiencylevels. Teachersmustalsobeengagedinreflectionastheyplanforandcarryoutinstructionalactivities.Mostteachersdothisnaturally,askingthemselveshowalessoncouldhavebeenimproved,forexample.TheHandbookisdesignedtoencourageteacherstoreflectastheyusethetasksandunitsintheirclassrooms.Materialshavebeendesignedwithlargemarginsforwritingnotesandmakingchanges,andeachlessonisfollowedbyaspacefor“reflections”wheretheteachercanjotdownadditionalnotes,resources,andideasforfuturereference.

NOTES

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .1�

Interaction

Learnersmustuselanguageinmeaningfulinteractioninordertolearnit.Inordertoacquirelanguage,learnerscannotsimplylistentoorread“input;”theymustinteractwithandnegotiatethetypeofinputtheyreceive(Long,1981).Theterm“interaction”impliesface-to-facecommunicationthatinvolvesnegotiationofmeaning,butitalsomeansactiveinvolvementwithalltypesoflanguageuse.Ofgreatvalueinthisdiscussionisthe“FrameworkofCommunicativeModes”usedinthenationalstandardsdocument(Brecht&Walton,1994,inStandardsforForeignLanguageLearning,1996).Inthisframework,therearethreecommunicativemodes—interpersonal,interpretive,andpresentational.Theinterpersonal modeinvolvesactivenegotiationofmeaningbetweenindividualswhoareinpersonalcontact,forexample,directoralcommunicationthatisface-to-faceorviatelephone.Itmayalsoinvolvedirectwrittencommunication,suchastheexchangeofpersonalletters,notes,ore-mailmessages.Therefore,thismodeincludesallfourlanguagemodalities—speaking,listening,reading,andwriting.Theinterpretive mode,whichfocusesonreceptiveabilities(listening,reading,viewing),involvesthecomprehensionorinterpretationoforalorwrittenmessages.Examplesincludereadingatext,listeningtotheradio,orwatchingamovie.Attimesthesereceptiveabilitiesaremistakenaspassiveratherthanactiveactivities.Yetresearchhasshownthatreadersandlistenersmustfunctionasactiveparticipantsintheactofcomprehending.Theymustco-construct meaning astheyworktointerprettheinputprovided.Thisactofco-constructionimpliesinteractionbetweentextandreader/listener/viewereventhoughtheopportunityfornegotiationofmeaningmaynotbepresent.Thepresentational mode,involvingtheproductiveskillsofwritingandspeaking,referstothecreationofspokenorwrittencommunicationforanaudiencewithwhomthereisnoimmediatepersonalcontact.Extendedoralpresentationsandwrittenessaysareexamplesoflanguageuseinthismode.Aswritersorspeakersworktoconstructmeaning,theymustconsidertheirpurposeandimagineinteractionwithanaudience.Thatis,theymustrelyonunderstandingofthepurposeforthecommunicationandknowledgeofaudienceastheychoosethewordsandputtogetherphrasestocommunicatemeaning.Thesethreecommunicativemodescorrespondtothethreenationalcommunicationstandards.Interaction,then,asit’sinterpretedintheHandbookandinCAPRII,involveslanguageusewithinthesethreecommunicativemodes.

Ateacherwhounderstandstheimportanceofinteractionorganizesthelanguageclassroomtominimizeteachertalkandmaximizestudentdiscourse.Thisinvolvesorganizingclassroomactivitiessothatstudentswillhavereasonstorespondtoandinteractwithoneanotheraswellasothersoutsideoftheclassroom.Atthesametime,itisnotenoughtohavestudentsinteractwithoutfeedbackorattentiontoform.Inother

NOTES

p .20 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

words,qualityofinteractioniskey.Teachersmustcreateabalancebetweenmeaning(functionandcontent)andaccuracy.Toachievethisbalance,itisimportanttoincorporatedifferentkindsofinteractiveactivitiesfordifferentpurposes.Attimes,spontaneousinteractionshouldoccur,wherethefocusisentirelyoncommunicatingmeaning,regardlessoftheaccuracy.Othertimes,studentsshouldbeexpectednotonlytocommunicatemeaning,butalsotodosoaccurately.Suchinstanceswillbecharacterizedbytasksthatarereflectiveofthepresentationalmodeofcommunication.Theyinvolvetimeforplanningand,whenappropriate,rehearsal.Mostimportantly,accuracymustalwaysbeaddressedinameaningfulcontext.Drawingstudents’attentiontoaccurateformsandprovidingthemwithconstructivefeedbackthatencouragesthemtoreflectonthelinguisticaccuracyoftheiroutputiscritical,yetneedstooccurinwaysthatencouragelanguageproduction,notinhibitit.Lyster’s(1998)recentworkontypesofcorrectivefeedbackinadvancedimmersionclassroomshasshownthatwhenteachersprovidefeedbackthatrequiresstudentstothinkaboutandrespondtothefeedbackinsomeway,thestudentsaremorelikelytorepairtheirerrorsandimprovetheirlinguisticaccuracy.

It’simportanttorememberthatthehigherthelevelofproficiency,thegreaterone’sexpectationsforlinguisticaccuracyshouldbe.HeilenmanandKaplan(1985)emphasizethatproficiency-orientedcurriculumandinstructionmuststriveforabalanceamongfunction,context(ortopic/content),andaccuracy,“whileatthesametimeallowingfortheimbalancefrequentlyseenattheNoviceorIntermediatelevelswhereonecomponentmaycompensateforanother”(p.60). VirtuallyalloftheclassroomtasksandunitsintheHandbookencourageinteractioninoneormorecommunicativemodes,becausethisHandbookisaboutlanguageuse.Thosetasksthatfocusonface-to-faceinteraction,characteristicoftheinterpersonalmode,arefoundinthe“NegotiatedInteraction”section.Thosethatfocusontheinterpretivemodearefoundinthesecondsectionoftasks,“FromComprehensiontoInterpretation.”Andthosethatemphasizethepresentationalmodecanbefoundinthesectionentitled“FromPresentationtoCreation.”ManyofthetasksthroughouttheHandbookalsosuggestwaysoffocusingonformandintegratingfeedbackinthecontextofinteractiveactivities.

Integration

ThefinalCAPRIIconceptreferstotheintegrationofavarietyoffactors.Itrepresentstheintegrationofcontentandlanguage,includingbothlanguageandcultureandalsolanguagewithotherdisciplines.Italsoreferstotheintegrationofthefourmodalities(reading,listening,writing,speaking). Integrationofthefourmodalitiesisimportant.Creatingclassroomactivitiesthatrequirestudentstouselanguagewithintwoormoreofthe

NOTES

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .21

fourmodalitieshelpstoreinforcetheconceptsbeingemphasized.Thisapproachalsolendsitselfwelltoavarietyoflearningstyles.Forexample,writinghelpssomestudentsimprovetheirlisteningskills.Ithasalsobeenshownthatreadinghelpsstudentsdevelopcompetenceinwriting.Practiceinonemodalityoftenresultsinimprovedcompetenceinothermodalities.Inaddition,byintegratingallmodalitiesincurriculumandinstruction,theteacherconsidershowstudentscanbeusinglanguageforavarietyofpurposes.ManyofthetasksandalloftheunitsintheHandbook integratethefourmodalities.Sometasksemphasizeonemodalityovertheothers,butincludeideasforextendingthetaskstoincorporateadditionalmodalities.Withtheincreasedfocusonthenationalstandards,itisalsoimportantforteacherstobegintounderstandhowthefourmodalitiesworktogetherintheframeworkofthecommunicativemodesdiscussedintheprevioussection. Integratingcontentandlanguagesuggestsfollowingacontent-basedapproachtolanguageteachingwhereinthelinguisticelementsthatmakeuplanguage(i.e.,grammaticalstructures,vocabulary,etc.)emergenaturallyfromthecontentandareunderstoodwithinthecontextofthatcontent.Acontent-basedapproachtolanguageteachingemphasizeslanguageuseandlendsitselfwelltointerdisciplinarycurriculumdesign.Incontent-basedinstruction,thepurposeistoteachorreinforcecontentviathetargetlanguage.Content,notlanguage,istheorganizingprincipleforthetaskorunit.Languageisthevehiclethatallowsaccesstothecontentareasandrelatedtasks.Contentmayberelatedtootheracademicdisciplinesinthecurriculum(science,anthropology)ormayberelatedtoculturalthemes. Languagesneedtobeintegratedwithotherdisciplinesintheschoolcurriculum.Infact,theimportanceofconnectinglanguageandotherdisciplinesishighlightedinthenationalstandards(NationalStandardsinForeignLanguageEducationProject,1996,seestandard3.1).Itistimeforlanguagestobeunderstoodascentral toawell-definedschoolcurriculumratherthanperipheral.“Learningtodayisnolongerrestrictedtoaspecificdiscipline;ithasbecomeinterdisciplinary”(NationalStandardsinForeignLanguageEducationProject,1996,p.50).Toapproachlanguageteachingfromacontent-basedorthematicperspectiveallowsonetoseehowavarietyofsubjectmatterareascanbemeaningfullyandpurposefullyintegrated.Forexample,aunitontheMayacaneasilyincorporateattentiontohistory,anthropology,mathematics,science,andart.SeveralofthetasksandunitsintheHandbook attendtotheconnectionbetweenlanguageandotherdisciplines,forexample,“CampaignGraffiti”and“LosMayayElNorte.” Anintegrationoflanguageandcontentalsooccurswhenthecontentisbasedonculturalthemes.Integratinglanguageandcultureiskeyineffectivelanguageteachingandlearning.Iflanguageisseenassocialpractice,thenculturemustbecomethecoreoflanguageteaching(Kramsch,

NOTES

p .22 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

1993).Aswearebecomingasmaller,moreinterdependentglobalcommunitythaneverbefore,culturemusttakecenterstageinthelanguageclassroom.Itcannolongerbelimitedtoasingleperspectiveonsurfaceelementsandcultural“facts”foundinmosttextbooks.Instead,languageclassroomsmustbecomeplaceswherestudentsandteachersunderstandthemselvesasculturalbeingsandbegintodiscoverthecomplexityoftheconceptofcultureastheyviewculturesbothwithinandoutsideoftheU.S.fromanumberofdifferentperspectives(Kramsch,1993;NationalStandardsinForeignLanguageEducationProject,1996;Tedicketal.,1993).Culturalaspectshavebeenconsideredforallofthetasksandunitsinthe Handbook,andarehighlightedonthefirstpageofeach.Someofthetasksplaceanemphasisonculturalissues,suchas“SoulofSenegal”and“CelebratingtheDayoftheDead.”Others,like“MarketaMovie”and“WeddingCelebration”don’temphasizeculturalissuesbutincorporatesomeattentiontoculturalaspectsnevertheless.

AlloftheunitsandsomeofthetasksintheHandbookprovidegoodexamplesofcontent-basedcurriculumandinstruction.Forexample,“SenegalbyNumbers”iscontent-basedbecauseitfocusesonhavingstudentsunderstandSenegalesedemographicsinrelationshiptoU.S.demographics.Thecontentinthiscasemightbesimilartocontentstudentsmightencounterinanotheracademicdiscipline,suchasgeography,andalsothroughculturalstudyinalanguageclassroom.Throughtheactivities,studentsgaingreaterinsightintothedifferencesbetweentheSenegalandtheU.S.andthereasonsthatunderliethosedifferences.Withinthecontextofthiscontent,studentspracticecomplexnumbers,comparativeconstructions,thepresenttense,andquestionformation.

MostofthetasksintheHandbookarenotcontent-based,however,becausethepurposebehindthedevelopmentofthe Handbook wastoprovideteacherswithprinciplesandarangeofexamplesthatwouldhelpthemtoincreaselanguageuseintheclassroom,keytoincreasingtheirstudents’languageproficiency.Thetasksareexcellentproficiency-orientedactivitiesthatengagestudentsinlanguageuseformeaningfulpurposes,butaren’tnecessarilydrivenbyparticularcontent.Forinstance,“StrategicInteraction”isawonderfulactivitythatcombinesroleplayandcooperativelearning.But“StrategicInteraction”inandofitselfisnotacontent-basedactivityorlesson.The“generic”strategicinteractionactivity(foundintheNegotiatedInteractionsectionoftheHandbook)canbecontrastedwithanapplicationofstrategicinteractionwithinacontent-basedactivity,“LasJóvenesMaquiladoras.”Inthisactivity,thefocusisonhavingstudentsunderstandthevariousperspectivesaroundtheissueofsweatshopsandexploitationofyoungworkerswhilecommunicatinginthetargetlanguagewithpeers.Thesameroleplayactivityisused,butthecontentinthiscaseisthekeyfactor.

NOTES

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .23

Theintegrationoflanguageandcontent(beitrelatedtoacademicsubjectmattersorculturalthemes)willlikelyreceivemuchmoreattentioninthefieldoflanguageeducationinyearstocome,particularlywiththefocusinthenationalstandardsonculturalunderstandingandthecalltoconnectlanguageswithotheracademicdisciplines.Integratinglanguageandcontentexpectsthatteachersattendtobothcontentcurriculumandlanguagecurriculumandfindwaystobalancethetwoininstruction.Anumberofexcellentresourcesareavailabletoassistlanguageteacherswhoareinterestedincontent-basedapproaches4.See,forexample,SnowandBrinton(1997),Genesee(1994),Met(1991),andSnow,Met&Genesee(1989).

Conclusion

Insummary,CAPRIIdescribesanumberofimportantpedagogicalprinciplesthatlanguageteachersshouldimplementintheirteachingpractices.TheseprinciplesarereflectedthroughoutthetasksandunitsinthisHandbook,thoughitisimportanttorememberthatnotalltasksincorporatealloftheprinciplessimultaneously.ItishopedthattheexamplesprovidedthroughouttheHandbookwillhelpteacherstoconsiderhowtheprinciplesofCAPRIIcanenhancetheirownteachingand,ultimately,studentlearning.

Performance Assessment5

Rethinking Assessment: Focus on Language Use

ThenationalstandardsandtheMinnesotaArticulationProjectemphasize what students should know and be able to do.Thetasksprovidedinthis Handbook requirethatstudentsuselanguageforavarietyofcommunicativepurposes.Itfollowsthatassessmentmustfocusonwhatstudentscandowithlanguageinadditiontowhattheyknowaboutlanguage.

Inthefieldoflanguageeducationagradualchangetowardmoreofafocusonperformancemeasureshasindeedbeenobserved.Certainly,large-scalelanguagetestshavemovedtowardmeasuresoflanguageperformancebeginningwiththeproficiencymovementthatcharacterizedthe1980’sintheU.S.(Bachman,1990).TheproficiencytestsdevelopedaspartoftheMinnesotaArticulationProject(forwhichthisHandbook wascreated)certainlyofferexcellentexamplesofcontextualized,performance-basedmeasures.TheCenterforAppliedLinguisticshasbeencompilingdescriptionsofassessmentinstrumentsforK-8foreignlanguagesettings,manyofwhichareperformance-based(Thompson,1997).Recentadditionstothecollectionshowanincreasinguseofalternative,

NOTES

p .24 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

performance-basedmeasures(Thompson,2000-2001).TheForeignLanguageTestDatabase,6containinginformationaboutsecondaryandcollege-levelforeignlanguagetests,showsasimilarpatternofmovementtowardalternative,performance-basedmeasures.Andanumberofstateshaveledlocalinitiatives(throughgrant-funding)demonstratingtheprevalenceofalternativemeasuresandperformance-basedassessment(e.g.,Assessment, Articulation and Accountability,1999).

Theemphasisonstandardsandlanguageuseinthe90’shasalsoledtomoreofafocusonperformancemeasures.Asafollow-uptothenationalstandards,ACTFL’sperformanceguidelineswerepublishedin1998(ACTFL,1998;Swender&Duncan,1998).Theseguidelinesredefineproficiencyrelatedtothethreecommunicativemodesincorporatedinthestandards(interpersonal,interpretive,andpresentational)anddescribelanguageperformanceatarangeoflevels.ThePerformanceAssessmentUnits(PAUs)beingdevelopedforclassroom-basedassessmentrelatedtothecommunicationstandards(NationalStandardsinForeignLanguageEducationProject,1996)arealsoperformance-based(“Stepthree,thePAUproject,”2000;Thompson,2000-2001).Atthesametime,what’sunclearisthedegreetowhichteachersareusingsuchassessmentsintheirclassrooms.Ithasbeenourexperiencethatitishappeninglessthanwewouldlike.

Inmanylanguageclassrooms,teachershaveincorporatedcommunicativeactivitiesthatemphasizelanguageuse,yetoftenassessmentremainsfocusedongrammaticalstructuresandvocabulary.Thisleadstoasignificantmismatchbetweeninstructionandassessmentandalsosendsstudentsthemessagethatonlygrammarandvocabularyareimportant.Thereareveryrealreasonswhyassessmenttendstobebasedondiscrete-pointtestsofgrammarandvocabulary—it’srelativelystraightforwardtoassessstudents’knowledgeofgrammarandvocabulary,it’stime-efficient,andteachersandstudents(nottomentionparentsandadministrators)arecomfortablewiththesetypesofassessments.Itishumannaturetobecomfortablewithwhatweknowwellandtobeskepticalofanduncomfortablewiththeneworunknown. Assessinggrammaticalandvocabularyknowledgeisrelativelystraightforward,becausetestitemsusuallyhavejustonerightanswerandthereforecreatetheillusionofbeing“objective.”Inmostschools,studentsaretaughtfromthetimetheyenterkindergartenthatwhat’simportantisknowingtheonerightanswer.Yetintherealworld,fewifanyquestionsorproblemshaveonlyonerightanswer.Andintheworldoflanguagelearning,thesameapplies.There’sneveronerightwaytocommunicatemeaning—languageisbyitsverynaturesubjectiveandcreative.Tocommunicateotherwisetostudentsistodothemadisservice.Moreover,researchonlanguageacquisitioninpastdecadeshasrepeatedlydemonstratedthatknowledge about languagedoesnotreflectone’sability to use languagetocommunicateeffectively.HeilenmanandKaplan(1985)

NOTES

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .25

describethedilemmaasfollows:

Learningacertainnumberofadjectivesalongwiththeirmorphologicalchangesdoesnottranslatedirectlyintobeingabletodescribe,justaslearningthevarioususesandformsofthesubjunctiveisnotthesamethingasbeingabletodefendone’sopinionsandstateone’sfeelings.Thisisthegapthatthetraditional,structurallybasedlanguageprogramhasnotbeenabletobridge....Thestatedgoalofsuchprograms,languageuse,[is]notmetbecausetherealgoal,in terms of what students [are] expected to do, pertain[s]primarilytoformratherthantofunctionand[is]moreconcernedwithcompletesentencesthanwithdiscourse-levelcompetence(p.58,emphasisadded).

Nowhereisthisgapmorepronouncedthaninthearenaofclassroomassessment. Discrete-pointtestsofgrammarandvocabularyalsodominateclassroomassessmentbecausetheyaretime-efficient.Intoomanydistricts,teachersareexpectedtogivefinalexamsandtosubmitfinalgradestotheadministrationwithin24hoursaftertheexam.Suchpoliciesforceteachersintorelyingondiscrete-pointmeasures.Withtheadventofstandards-basedcurriculumandinstructionthesepolicieswillneedtochangebecausetheemphasisison what students can do.Forteacherswhoneedtoassesswhatstudentscandowithlanguage,theonlyoptionisamovetowardsperformancemeasures. Thismovetowardsperformanceassessmentisdifficult,becausebothteachersandstudentsarecomfortableandfamiliarwithdiscrete-pointassessmentsofgrammarandvocabulary.Manylanguageteachershadtheseexperiencesaslanguagelearnersyearsago,anditisdifficultforthemtochangewhattheyperceiveworkedforthem.Performancemeasuresthatinvolvequalityjudgmentsofstudents’abilitytouselanguageareadmittedlydifficult,subjective,andtime-consuming.Teachersandstudents(andparentsandadministrators!)needtolearntobecomfortablewiththesubjectivenatureofperformanceassessments.Teachersshouldspeakopenlyaboutthesemeasureswithstudentsandparentsandhelpthemtobecomemoretolerantoftheambiguitythataccompaniesthem.Itmayhelptopointouthowperformancemeasuresarecommonlyusedinourculture.Thesportsworldoffersanumberofexamples.Whileobjectivemeasuresofminutesandsecondsormetersandcentimeterscanbeusedtojudgeperformanceinthe100-meterrace,orthehighjump,subjectivemeasures(usuallyonascaleof1-10)mustbeusedtojudgeperformanceineventslikeice-skatinganddiving.Similarly,intheworkworld,performanceismeasuredsubjectivelyonthebasisofqualityjudgments—consider,forexample,howateacher’sabilitytoteachisassessed!Ifweare

NOTES

p .26 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

comfortablewiththesetypesofperformanceassessments,sotoomustwelearntobecomfortablewithanemphasisonperformanceassessmentinthelanguageclassroomwherethefocusisonstudents’abilitytouselanguage.Justaswithanysignificant,meaningfulchange,teachersandstudentswillneedtoproceedgraduallyandtolearntobecomfortabletakingrisksbytryingnewwaysofdemonstratingandassessinglanguageuse. Itisimperativetonotethatanemphasisonlanguageuseandperformanceassessmentisnotintendedtoencourageteacherstoneglectattentiontoformoraccuracy.Instead,itshouldcontextualizeattentiontoformandaccuracy.ThetasksandunitsinthisHandbook haveallbeendesignedtoemphasizelanguageuseandprovidedetaileddescriptionsofhowtoassessstudents’performance,oftenwithaccompanyingchecklistsorrubrics.Attentiontoformandaccuracyisembeddedintherubricsandmustnotbeoverlooked.WehopethatthemanycontextualizedexamplesofperformanceassessmentthroughouttheHandbookwillhelpeasethetransitionforlanguageteacherstoperformance-basedinstructionandassessment.

Moving Towards Performance Assessment:

The Changing Role of the Student in the Process

Intheclassroom,performanceassessment[alsoreferredtoas“authenticassessment”and“alternativeassessment”intheliterature(e.g.,Hart,1994)]ischaracterizedbytasksthatareworthwhile,significant,meaningful,andformpartofthecurriculum.Itprovidesinformationonwhatstudentscanactually dowithlanguageandtheirreflectiononthatprocess.Itiscongruentwithalearner-centered,communicativeapproachtolanguageteaching.Performanceassessmentsarenotonlydesignedandstructureddifferentlyfromtraditionaltests,butarealsogradedorscoreddifferently.Studentperformanceisevaluatedonthebasisofclearlydefinedperformanceindicators,criteria,orstandardsthatemphasizestudents’strengthsinsteadofhighlightingtheirweaknesses. Inadditiontotraditionalmeasuresoflanguagecompetence,performanceassessmentshavebeendevelopedinresponsetocurrentinterestinlearner-centeredpedagogy.Proponentsoflearner-centeredpedagogybelievethatteachersandlearnersshouldsharepowerandthatlearnersshouldhavemorecontrolovertheireducationalprocess(c.f.,Nunan,1988).Inthissense,theprimarygoaloflearner-centeredinstructionistoincreasestudents’participationinthelearningprocessbyassistingtheminestablishinglearningandself-improvementgoals,choosingeffectivelearningmethodsandstrategies,andbecominginvolvedinevaluatingtheirownworkandthatoftheirpeers. Learner-centeredinstructionimpliesthatteachersmustdedicatesomeclasstimetoactivitiesnotnormallyobservedintraditionallanguage

NOTES

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .27

classes,suchasteachinglearnershowtolearnalanguage,howtomakeuseofavailabletoolsandresources,howtouselanguagelearningstrategies,andhowtoreflectontheirownlearning.Languagelearnersassumeresponsibilitiestraditionallytakenonsolelybytheinstructor,includingtheevaluationoftheirownlearning,aswellastheprovisionoffeedbacktotheirclassmates. Assessmentproceduresinanyeducationalprocessshouldbecongruentwithteachingprocedures.Inotherwords,assessmentpracticesshouldalignwithclassroomobjectivesandinstruction.TheassessmentproceduresthatweemphasizeintheHandbook arebasedontheideathatstudentscanlearntoevaluatetheirownlearningand,inturn,learnfromthatprocess.Theyreflectthebeliefthatlearnersshouldbeinvolvedindeterminingcriteriaforsuccessfulcompletionofcommunicativetasksandshouldhavetheopportunitytoassesstheirownperformanceandthatoftheirpeers.Inaddition,justaslearner-centeredpedagogyemphasizesboththelearning processandtheproduct,variousformsofalternativeassessmentgivelearnersopportunitiestoreflectnotonlyontheirlinguisticdevelopment,butalsoontheirlearningprocesses(i.e.,whathelpsthemlearnandwhatmighthelpthemlearnbetter).Assessmentthusbecomesmoreformativeratherthansummative.Learnerscanprovideoneanotherwithfeedbackontheirperformance,forexamplereflectingonhowwelltheyperformedacommunicativetaskthroughgroupprocessing(Johnson,Johnson,&Holubec,1993). Timespentonteachingstudentshowtoevaluatetheirownworkthroughself-reflectionandhowtoevaluatetheworkoftheirpeersisnottimelostforinstruction.Onthecontrary,byunderstandingthetraitsofeffectivewritersandspeakers,studentsinternalizethetraitsandbecomemoreeffectivecommunicators.AsBaron(1991)states:“Whenstudentsinternalizeadefinitionofwhatqualitymeansandcanlearntorecognizeit,theyhavedevelopedaveryvaluablecriticalability.Theycantalkwith[...]theirteacheraboutthequalityoftheirworkandtakestepstoacquiretheknowledgeandskillsrequiredtoimproveit”(p.190).

What are the challenges that come with this process?

Aswithanychangefromanaccustomedapproach,theuseofperformanceassessmentscancreatespecialchallenges.Firstandforemost,teacherswillneedtoreadaboutandpracticeextensivelywithvariousformsoftheseassessmentssothattheybecomecomfortablewiththem.Atthesametime,teacherswillneedtopreparetheirstudentsfortheuseoftheseassessments.Learnerswhoareusedtotraditional,teacher-centeredclassroomsmaybereluctanttoassumenewrolesandresponsibilities.Theymayalsobeskepticalthatpeerscanprovidethemwithfeedbackthatwillenhancetheirlearning.Teachersmustbesuretoexplaintherationaleforperformanceassessmentfullytolearners.Theywillalsoneedto

NOTES

p .28 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

providestudentswithguidanceandinstructiononhowtoreflectontheirperformanceandevaluateitandhowtoevaluatetheirpeers’performance.Concretesuggestionsonhowtogoaboutthisareofferedthroughoutthe Handbook. Itisalsoimportanttoemphasizetheneedtocreateacooperativelearningenvironmentbeforeattemptingtouseperformanceassessments.Studentsmustbeinasupportiveenvironmentiftheyareexpectedtoreflectthoughtfullyontheirlearningprocesses.Theymustalsofeelcomfortablewithoneanothertoprovideconstructiveandhonestfeedbackontheirpeers’work.Otherwise,theywillprovideperfunctorycommentsonotherstudents’worktoavoidhurtfeelings.

Forthesereasons,itisimportanttointroducetheuseofperformanceassessmentsgradually.Notonlydoteachersneedtotaketimetobecomeaccustomedtotheseassessments;learnersalsoneedtounderstandhowtheywillbenefitfromthemandhowtheycanusethemeffectively.Theseassessmentscaneasilybeusedalongsidethemoretraditionalmeansofassessmentcommontoforeignlanguageclassrooms.Acombinationofalternativemeasuresandmoretraditionalformsofassessmentmakesitpossiblefortheteachertocomparetheresultsofthevariousapproaches,leadingtoamorecomprehensivepictureofstudents’languageperformancethaneitheralternativeortraditionalmeasuresalonewouldprovide.Toallowstudentstobecomeaccustomedtothem,theteachershouldbeginusingchecklists,scales,andrubrics(describedinasubsequentsection)toevaluatestudents’performance.Thisenablesstudentstoseetheirusemodeledandbecomeaccustomedtothem.Infact,ateachermaywishtobeginwithjustonerubric(eitherholisticoranalyticsincethesetypeslendthemselvestousewithavarietyoftasks)anduseitconsistentlyforaperiodoftimesothatstudentsbecomecomfortablewithit;otherrubriccanthenbeintroducedgradually.Oncestudentsarefamiliarwiththeuseofchecklists,scales,andrubricsforevaluation,theycanbegintoassesstheirownlearningandprovidefeedbacktotheirpeers.Alternativeassessmentsaregenerallydesignedtobeanintegralpartoranaturalculminationofasequenceoflearningactivities,buttheirusebybothteachersandstudentsrequirescarefulpreparationandshouldbeimplementedgradually.

The benefits that accompany the challenges

Changingthewaywethinkaboutassessmentsimultaneouslychangesthewaywethinkaboutteachingandthewaystudentsthinkaboutlearning(Hart,1994).Thisisperhapsoneofthegreatestbenefitstoimplementingperformanceassessment—itfocusesteachers’andstudents’attentiononlanguageuse.Studentsbecomeactiveparticipantsinassessmentactivitiesthataredesignedtorevealwhattheycandowithlanguageratherthanemphasizingtheirweaknesses.Teachersfindthese

NOTES

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p .2�

assessmenttechniquesvaluableinhelpingthemtoaligninstructionandassessmentandemphasizingforstudentscommunicationformeaningfulpurposes. AsBaron(1991)states,“manyeducatorsbelievethatperformance-basedassessmentsmorecloselyrepresentthekindsofactivitiesthatwewantourstudentstobeabletoundertakeasmembersofsocietyandthatpracticingfortheassessmentimprovesthesevaluedskillsandunderstandings”(p.187).Certainlythisistrueinthecaseoflanguageclassroomswherestudentsarelearningtocommunicateinsituationssimilartothosetheywillencounterinthe“realworld.”Baron(1991)alsopointsoutthat“thereisagrowingnumberofeducatorsaroundtheworldwhobelievethatthereislittledifferencebetweenaneffectiveperformanceassessmenttaskandaneffectivecurriculumorlearningtask”(p.191).Thismeansthatmanyoftheactivitiesthatstudentsdoinacommunicative,proficiency-orientedclassroomcanbeusedasassessmenttasks,althoughyoushouldmakesuretoincludeawidevarietyoftasktypesthatreflectreallanguageuse.Alloftheactivitiesdescribedinthe Handbooklendthemselvestoperformanceassessmentbecausetheyemphasizewhatstudentscandowiththelanguage.Moreover,thetasksareaccompaniedbyadetaileddescriptionoftheassessmentproceduresandbysamplerubricsorcheckliststhatcanbeusedtoevaluatestudentperformanceonthetasks.

Thedetaileddescriptionsintherubricshelpteachersfirsttoarticulateandsecondlytointernalizeasenseofwhatconstitutesqualityofperformanceandmakesiteasierforteacherstojudgestudents’performanceconsistently.Theyalsohelpto“sell”thenotionofsubjectivityintheassessmentprocess.Themoreexplicitlyagradeorpointisdefined,themorecomfortablestudents(andteachers)willbewiththeuseofperformancetasksandassessmentsinthelanguageclassroom.

Using checklists and rubrics for assessing student performance

on various language tasks

Whereasachecklistsimplyprovidesanindicationofwhetheraspecificcriterion,characteristic,orbehaviorispresent,arubricprovidesameasureofqualityofperformanceonthebasisofestablishedcriteria.Itisimportanttomentionthatstudentsshouldbegivencopiesofthechecklistorrubricthatwillbeusedtoevaluatetheirperformanceonatask prior todoingthetaskorbeginningtheprojectsothatexpectationsaremadeclear.Teachersshouldalsodiscusstherubricswithstudentsand,ifpossible,provideexamplesofstudentworkthatcorrespondstothedifferentpointsorcriteriaonthescale.Itisalwayshelpfulforstudentstoseemodelsofworkthatwouldbe“excellent”vs.“satisfactory”vs.“belowstandard”or“inneedofimprovement.”

p .30 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

Checklists

Checklistsareoftenusedforobservingperformanceorbehaviorinordertokeeptrackofastudent’sprogressorworkovertime.Theycanalsobeusedtodeterminewhetherstudentshavemetestablishedcriteriaonatask.Belowisanexampleofaspeakingtaskandasamplechecklistthatmightbeusedtocheckwhetherstudentsmeetthecriterianeededtocompletethetasksuccessfully. TaskDescription.ForaunitonLatinosintheU.S.,studentsareexploringissuesrelatedtoLatinosinMinnesota.TheyareinstructedtomakecontactwithanativeSpanishspeakerwhohasimmigratedtoMinnesota(teacherprovidesalistofresourcesformakingcontact).Studentsaretoconductashortinterviewwiththisindividualandreportbacktotheclass.Inanoralpresentation,theyareto(1)brieflydescribetheinterviewee(gender,age,placeofbirth,occupation,etc.),(2)explainwhatbroughthim/hertoMinnesota,(3)describeatleastonechallengetheintervieweehasfacedorfacesinMinnesota,(4)describehowthisindividualmaintainsaconnectiontohis/herheritage,and(5)describeoneitemofinterestthatcameoutoftheinterview.Studentsaretoldthattheywillneedtospeakforaminimumofthreeminutesandthattheyarenottoreadtotheclassandcanonlyrefertominimalnoteswhilepresenting.Theyareadvisedtorehearse,butnottomemorize.Achecklistforassessingstudents’completionofthetaskcomponentsmightlookliketheoneinFigure2.

Notethatachecklistlikethissimplyindicateswhetherthestudentaddressedaspecificportionofthetaskintheirperformance;itdoesnotofferajudgmentofthequalityofperformance. BrownandYule(1983)suggestachecklist-typescoringmatrixforusewithinformation-gapactivities.Theintentionistoassessthespeaker’scommunicativeeffectiveness.Thefirststepistoselectorcreateaninformation-gaptaskinwhichaspeakermustdescribeorprovideinstructionstoalistener,whofollowstheinstructionsorcompletessometaskbasedonthedescription.Forexample,aspeakermustexplaintoalistenerhowtoassembleakitchenutensilhavingfivepartsorcomponents.Thelistenerhasthevariouspartsoftheutensilinfrontofhimandisrequiredtoassemblethepartsonthebasisofthespeaker’sinstructions.Thespeakermustbeseatedinsuchawaysothatshecannotseewhatthelistenerisdoing.Thespeakerbeginsbyidentifyingthefirstpart,thenthesecondpartandexplainstheirrelationshiptooneanother,orhowtheyfittogether.

Criteria Yes No

DescribesInterviewee(gender,age,placeofbirth,occupation).

Explainsinterviewee’simmigrationtoMinnesota.

Describesatleastonchallengetheintervieweefaces.

Describeshowintervieweemaintainsconnectiontoculture.

Describespointofinterest.

Speaksforaminimumof3minutes.

Evidenceofrehearsal(notreadingtoclass).

Fig. 2 Checklist for Oral Presentation of Interview

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . 31

Shecontinuesinthismanneruntilallfivepartsareidentifiedandtheirrelationshipwithoneanotherisdescribed.Whilesuchtasksmaynotbeconsidered“authentic”inthepuresenseoftheterm,theydoelicitthekindsoflinguisticstructuresthatstudentsneedtointernalizeduringtheprocessoflanguageacquisition(Brown&Yule,1983).Achecklistforassessingthespeaker’sabilitytocommunicateeffectivelyissetupasinFigure3.

Theteacherlistenstospeaker“a’s”instructionsandmarksacheckwheneversheidentifiesacomponentanddescribesitsrelationshiptoanothercomponent.Thesameprocedureisfollowedforspeaker“b,”“c,”etc.InthesamplechecklistinFigure3,speaker“b”wasabletocommunicateallinformationeffectively,whereasspeaker“a’s”performancelackedsomeimportantdetails.Inassessingcommunicativeeffectiveness,theteachermustbecarefultolistentowhatthespeakersaysandnotbeinfluencedbywhatalistenerdoesordoesnotdo.Thatis,alistenermayfigureoutataskandcompleteitwithoutnecessarilyhavingexplicitinstructionsfromthespeaker;conversely,thespeakermaydescribealloftherequiredinformationandthelistenermaynotfollowtheinstructionscorrectly.Figure3mayalsobeadaptedtoassesslisteningcomprehension,inwhichcasetheteacherwillpayattentiontowhatalistenerdoesonthebasisofwhataspeakersays.Checklistssuchastheseforassessingbothspeakers’andlisteners’performanceinaninformationgapactivityappearintheHandbookalongwiththe“MyFavoriteRecipe”task. Checklistscanbeusefulforclassroomassessmentbecausetheyareeasytoconstructanduse,andtheyaligncloselywithtasks.Theycanalsobeusedveryeffectivelyforpeerassessmentoflanguageuse.Atthesametime,theyarelimitedinthattheydonotprovideanassessmentoftherelativequalityofastudent’sperformanceonaparticulartask.

Required Information Speaker(a) (b) (c) (d)...

component1 √ √

component2 √ √

relationshipbetween2and1 √

component3 √ √

relationshipbetween3and2/1 √ √

component4 √ √

relationshipbetween4and3/2/1 √ √

component5 √

relationshipbetween5andtherest √

Fig. 3 Checklist for Information Gap Exercise

p .32 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

Rubrics

Incontrasttochecklists,rubricsorscalesprovideanindicationof quality ofperformanceonaparticulartask.Rubricshavereceivedmuchattentioninrecentyearsduetotheincreasedemphasisonperformance-basedassessment.Theyareprimarilyusedforlanguagetasksthatinvolvesomekindofproductiononthepartofthestudent,beitoralorwritten.Rubricsarecreatedonthebasisoffourdifferentscaletypes—holistic,analytic,primarytrait,andmultitrait—eachofwhichwasdevelopedoriginallyforlargescalewritingassessment.Scoringrubricsareoftenusedwithbenchmarksorexemplars—samplesthatactasstandardsagainstwhichothersamplesarejudged(Hart,1994). Holistic rubrics.Whenteachersuseholisticscalesorrubrics,theyarerespondingtolanguageperformance(writingorspeaking)asawhole.Eachscoreonaholisticscalerepresentsanoverallimpression;oneintegratedscoreisassignedtoaperformance.Theemphasisinholisticscoringisonwhatastudentdoeswellratherthanwhatheorshehasnotdonewell(White,1985).Holisticrubricscommonlyhavefourorsixpoints.Figure4showsasamplefour-pointholisticscalecreatedforthepurposesofassessingwritingperformance.

MoreexamplesofholisticrubricscanbefoundintheHandbook—see,forexample,therubricsdevelopedfor“Tic-Tac-ToeStoryGrids”and“FablesthroughComics.”Thosetwoexamplesshowholisticrubricsthathavebeenwrittentoaligncloselywiththetask.However,holisticrubricsareoftenwrittengenericallysothattheycanbeusedoverandoverwithavarietyoftasks.Holisticrubricshavetheadvantageofleadingtoefficientassessmentofstudents’writtenororalperformance,buttheydonotprovidestudentswithspecificfeedbackonaspectsoftheirperformancethatwerestrongorneedimprovement.

Fig. 4 Holistic Scale for Assessing Writing*

4 Excellent–Communicative;reflectsawarenessofsociolinguisticaspects;well-organizedandcoherent;containsarangeofgrammaticalstructureswithminorerrorsthatdonotimpedecomprehension;goodvocabularyrange.

3 Good–Comprehensible;someawarenessofsociolinguisticaspects;adequateorganizationandcoherence;adequateuseofgrammaticalstructureswithsomemajorerrorsthatdonotimpedecomprehension;limitedvocabularyrange.

2 Fair–Somewhatcomprehensible;littleawarenessofsociolinguisticaspects;someproblemswithorganizationandcoherence;reflectsbasicuseofgrammaticalstructureswithverylimitedrangeandmajorerrorsthatattimesimpedecomprehension;basicvocabularyused.

1 Poor–Barelycomprehensible;noawarenessofsociolinguisticaspects;lacksorganizationandcoherence;basicuseofgrammaticalstructureswithmanyminorandmajorerrorsthatoftenimpedecomprehension;basictopoorvocabularyrange.*adaptedfromscalesfoundinCohen(1994)andShohamy(1985)

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . 33

Score Range Criteria Comments30-27 ExcellenttoVeryGood–ó addressesallaspectsoftheprompt

ó providesgoodsupportforanddevelopmentofallideaswithrangeofdetail ó substantive

26-22 GoodtoAverage–ópromptadequatelyaddressedó ideasnotfullydevelopedorsupportedwithdetail,thoughmainideasareclearó lesssubstance

21-17 Fair–ó promptmaynotbefullyaddressed(writermayappeartoskirtaspectsofprompt)óideasnotsupportedwell,mainideaslackdetaileddevelopmentó littlesubstance

16-13 Poor–ódoesn’tadequatelyaddresspromptólittletonosupportordevelopmentofideasónon-substantive

CONTENT-30 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE

Fig. 5 Analytic Writing Scale for the Spanish FLIP Program*

University of Minnesota, Revised July, 1996

Score Range Criteria Comments20-18 ExcellenttoVeryGood–ó well-framedandorganized(withclear

introduction,conclusion)ó coherent ó succinctócohesive(excellentuseofconnectivewords)

17-14 GoodtoAverage–óadequate,butlooseorganizationwithintroductionandconclusion(thoughtheymaybelimitedoroneofthetwomaybemissing)ó somewhatcoherentómorewordyratherthansuccinctósomewhatcohesive(gooduseofconnectivewords)

13-10 Fair–ó lacksgoodorganization(noevidenceofintroduction,conclusion)óideasmaybedisconnected,confusedólackscoherenceówordyandrepetitiveólacksconsistentuseofcohesiveelements

9-7 Poor–óconfusing,disconnectedorganizationólackscoherencesomuchsothatwritingisdifficulttofollowólackscohesion

ORGANIZATION–20 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE

Holisticrubricsareoftenusedinlarge-scaleassessmentbecauseoftheirefficiencyandtheirtendencytoleadtogreaterconsistencyamongmultipleraters.Atthesametime,theycanbeusedveryeffectivelywithclassroom-basedperformancetasks. Analytic rubrics. Analyticscalesaredividedintoseparatecategoriesrepresentingdifferentaspectsordimensionsofperformance.Eachdimensionisscoredseparately,thendimensionscoresareaddedtodetermineanoverallscore.Commonaspectsforwritingperformanceincludecontent,organization,vocabulary,grammar,andmechanics.Onascalehavingthesedifferentcategories,anessaywouldbeevaluatedbyapplyingadifferentscoretoeachcategory.Thisallowstheteachertoweighcertainaspectsmoreheavilythanothers.Forexample,contentmayhaveatotalpointrangeof30whereasmechanicsmaybeattributedatotalof10or15points. OneofthebestknownanalyticrubricsusedforwritingassessmentinthefieldofEnglishasasecondlanguage(ESL)wasdevelopedbyHugheyetal.(1983,p.140).Thisrubrichasfivecategories—content,organization,vocabulary,languageuse,andmechanics.DrawingheavilyuponcharacteristicsoftheHugheyetal.scale,TedickandKleedevelopedananalyticrubricforuseinscoringessayswrittenforanimmersionquarterforundergraduatesstudyingSpanish(Klee,Tedick,&Cohen1995).ArevisedversionoftherubricappearsinFigure5. NotethatthescaleinFigure5assignsdifferentweightstodifferentfeatures.Thisallowsateachertogivemoreemphasistocontentthantogrammarormechanics,forexample.Theoptiontoweighcharacteristicsonthescalerepresentsanadvantagetoanalyticscoring.Thedecisiontoweighcertaincriteriaornotrestswiththetask,thepurpose,andthelevelofthestudents.

p .34 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

Score Range Criteria Comments25–22 ExcellenttoVeryGood–ó greatvarietyofgrammaticalforms(e.g.,

rangeofindicativeverbforms;useofsubjunctive)ócomplexsentencestructure(e.g.,compoundsentences,embeddedclauses)óevidenceof“Spanish-like”constructionómasteryofagreement(subj/verb;number/gender)óveryfewerrors(ifany)overallwithnonethatobscuremeaning

21–18 GoodtoAverage–ósomevarietyofgrammaticalforms(e.g.,attempts,thoughnotalwaysaccurate,ofrangeverbforms,useofsubjunctive)óattempts,thoughnotalwaysaccurate,atcomplexsentencestructure(e.g.,compoundsentences,embeddedclauses)ólittleevidenceof“Spanish-like”construction,thoughwithoutcleartranslationsfromEnglishóoccasionalerrorswithagreementósomeerrors(minor)thatdon’tobscuremeaning

17–11 Fair–ó lessvarietyofgrammaticalforms(e.g.,littlerangeofverbforms;inaccurate,ifany,attemptsatsubjunctive)ósimplisticsentencestructureóevidenceof“English-like”construction(e.g.,somedirecttranslationofphrases)óconsistenterrors(e.g.,withagreement),butfewofwhichmayobscuremeaning

10–5 Poor–óverylittlevarietyofgrammaticalformsósimplisticsentencestructurethatcontainsconsistenterrors,especiallywithbasicaspectssuchasagreementóevidenceoftranslationfromEnglishófrequentandconsistenterrorsthatmayobscuremeaning

LANGUAGE USE/GRAMMAR/MORPHOLOGY–25 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE

Score Range Criteria Comments5 ExcellenttoVeryGood–ó demonstratesmasteryofconventions

ófewerrorsinspelling,punctuation,capitalization,&useofaccents4 GoodtoAverage–óoccasionalerrorsinspelling,punctuation,

capitalization,anduseofaccents,butmeaningisnotobscured3 Fair–ó frequenterrorsinspelling,punctuation,capitalization,and

useofaccentsthatattimesconfusesorobscuresmeaning2 Poor–ónomasteryofconventionsódominatedbyerrorsinspelling,

punctuation,capitalization,anduseofaccents

TOTALSCORE COMMENTS:

MECHANICS–5 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE

Score Range Criteria Comments20-18 ExcellenttoVeryGood–ó sophisticated,academicrangeóextensive

varietyofwordsóeffectiveandappropriateword/idiomchoiceandusageóappropriateregister

17-14 GoodtoAverage–ógood,butnotextensive(lessacademic),rangeorvarietyóoccasionalerrorsofword/idiomchoiceorusage(someevidenceofinventionof“false”cognates),butveryfewornonethatobscuremeaningóappropriateregister

13-10 Fair–ó Limitedand“non-academic”range(frequentrepetitionofwords)ómoreconsistenterrorswithword/idiomchoiceorusage(frequentevidenceoftranslation;inventionof“false”cognates)thatmay(thoughseldom)obscuremeaningósomeevidenceofinappropriateregister

9-7 Poor–óverylimitedrangeofwordsóconsistentandfrequenterrorswithword/idiomchoiceorusage(ampleevidenceoftranslation)ó meaningfrequentlyobscuredóevidenceofinappropriateregister

VOCABULARY/WORD USAGE–20 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE

Figure6providesanexampleofananalyticrubricthatcanbeusedforassessingspeaking.Thisrubricdoesnotemphasizeonefeatureoveranother,butcertainlycanbeadaptedtodoso.Likeholisticrubrics,analyticrubricsareoftendesignedtobeverygenericsothattheycanbeusedwithavarietyoftasks.

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . 35

Pronunciation

4 Excellent–Noconsistentorconspicuousmispronunciation;approachesnative-likepronunciationwithgoodintonationandjuncture.

3 Good –Someidentifiabledeviationsinpronunciation,butwithnophonemicerrors.Non-nativeaccentevidentwithoccasionalmispronunciationsthatdonotinterferewithunderstanding.

2 Fair–Identifiabledeviationsinpronunciationwithsomephonemicerrors.Non-nativeaccentrequirescarefullisteningandmispronunciationsleadtooccasionalmisunderstanding.

1 Poor –Frequentpronunciationerrorswithaheavynon-nativeaccent.Manyphonemicerrorsthatmakeunderstandingdifficult.

Fluency

4 Excellent–Speechiseffortlessandsmoothwithspeedthatapproachesthatofanative-speaker.

3 Good–Speechismostlysmoothbutwithsomehesitationandunevennesscausedprimarilybyrephrasingandgropingforwords.

2 Fair–Speechislowandoftenhesitantandjerky.Sentencesmaybeleftuncompleted,butspeakerisabletocontinuehoweverhaltingly.

1 Poor –Speechisveryslowandexceedinglyhalting,strainedandstumblingexceptforshortormemorizedexpressions.Difficultforalistenertoperceivecontinuityinutterancesandspeakermaynotbeabletocontinue.

Grammar/Language Use

4 Excellent –Verystrongcommandofgrammaticalstructureandsomeevidenceofdifficult,complexpatternsandidioms.Makesinfrequenterrorsthatdonotimpedecomprehension.

3 Good–Goodcommandofgrammaticalstructuresbutwithimperfectcontrolofsomepatterns.Lessevidenceofcomplexpatternsandidioms.Limitednumberoferrorsthatarenotseriousanddonotimpedecomprehension.

2 Fair –Faircontrolofmostbasicsyntacticpatterns.Speakeralwaysconveysmeaninginsimplesentences;someimportantgrammaticalpatternsareuncontrolledanderrorsmayoccasionallyimpedecomprehension.

1 Poor–Anyaccuracyislimitedtosetormemorizedexpressions;limitedcontrolofevenbasicsyntacticpatterns.FrequenterrorsimpedeComprehension.

Vocabulary

4 Excellent–Verygoodrangeofvocabularywithevidenceofsophisticationandnative-likeexpression.Strongcommandofidiomaticexpressions.In-frequentuseofcircumlocutionbecauseparticularwordsarerarelylacking.

3 Good–Goodrangeofvocabularywithlimitedevidenceofsophistication.Someexpressionsdistinctlynonnative-likebutalwayscomprehensible.Limitedevidenceofidiomaticexpressions.Speakeriscomfortablewithcircumlocutionwhenlackingaparticularword.

2 Fair–Adequaterangeofvocabularywithnoevidenceofsophistication.Somedistinctlynonnativeexpressionsorerrorsinwordchoicemayimpedecomprehension.Noevidenceofidiomaticexpressions.Speakerhasdifficultywithcircumlocutionwhenlackingaparticularword.

1 Poor–Limitedrangeofvocabulary.Lackofrepertoireandfrequenterrorsinwordchoiceoftenimpededcomprehension.Speakershowsnoattemptincircumlocutionwhenlackingaparticularword.

Total Score _______ *adaptedfromshohamy(1985)pp.183-4

Fig. 6 Analytic Scale for Assessing Speaking*

p .36 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

Analyticrubricsalsohavetheadvantageofprovidingmoreinformationtostudentsaboutthestrengthsandweaknessesofvariousaspectsoftheirlanguageperformance.Oneofthegreatestcriticismsofanalyticscoring,however,isthatthepartsdonotnecessarilyadduptothewhole,or“thewholeisgreaterthanthesumofitsparts.”Inotherwords,providingseparatescoresfordifferentaspectsofastudent’swritingorspeakingperformancemaybeconsideredartificialinthatitdoesnotgivetheteacher(orstudent)agoodassessmentofthe“whole”ofaperformance.Inaddition,analyticrubricsarebytheirverynaturemorecumbersomeandtime-consumingtouse.Yet,someteachersfindtheiradvantagestooutweightheirdisadvantagesbecausetheylikebeingabletoprovidestudentswithmoredetailedfeedback. Primary trait rubrics.Theprimarytraitscoringmethod(Lloyd-Jones,1977)involvespredeterminingthemaincriterionforsuccessfulperformanceonatask.The“primarytrait”isdefinedbytheteacherandvariesdependinguponthetask.Thisapproachthusinvolvesnarrowingthecriteriaforjudgingperformanceonatasktoonemaincategoryordimension.Asanexample,considerataskthatrequiresthatastudentwriteapersuasivelettertoaneditoroftheschoolnewspaper.TheprimarytraitrubricmightlooksomethingliketheoneinFigure7.

Aprimarytraitrubrichastheadvantageofallowingteachers(andstudents)tofocusononeaspectordimensionoflanguageperformance.Itisalsoarelativelyquickandeasywaytoscorewritingorspeakingperformance—especiallywhenateacherwantstoemphasizeonespecificaspectofthatperformance.Primarytraitscalesaccompanysomeofthetasksinthe Handbook,forexample“InterpretingtheMessageofaSong.”Theyarebetterrubricsforformativeassessmentratherthansummativeassessment,becausetheyarelimitedintermsoftheinformationtheyprovideaboutthestudent’sperformance. Multitrait rubrics. Amultitraitapproachtoscoringlanguageperformanceissimilartotheprimarytraitapproachbutallowsforratingperformanceonanumberofdimensions(usuallythreeorfour)ratherthanemphasizingjustone.Althoughsimilartoanalyticrubricsinthatseveralaspectsarescoredindividually,multitraitrubricsaredifferentintermsofthenatureofthedimensions,ortraits,thatmakeuptherubric.Asexplainedabove,ananalyticrubriccomprisesmoretraditionaldimensions,suchascontent,organization,andgrammar.Amultitraitrubric,incontrast,involvesdimensionsthataremorecloselyalignedwithfeaturesofthetaskusedtoelicitlanguageperformance.Forexample,inaninformation-gapspeakingtaskwherestudentsareaskedtodescribeapictureinenoughdetailforalistenertochooseitamongasetofsimilarpictures,amultitraitrubricmightbecreatedthatwouldincludedimensionssuchasqualityofdescription,fluency,andlanguagecontrol(seeFigure8).

Fig. 7 Primary Trait Rubric

Primary Trait: Persuading an audience

0––Failstopersuadetheaudience.

1––Attemptstopersuadebutdoesnotprovidesufficientsupport.

2––Presentsasomewhatpersuasiveargumentbutwithoutconsistentdevelopmentandsupport.

3––Developsapersuasiveargumentthatiswelldevelopedandsupported.

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . 37

Inthismultitraitexample,themaximumtotalscoreis12.Studentsareassignedascoreof1–4foreachofthethreecategories,andtheseareaddedtocreateatotalscore.Thealignmentofthescalewiththetaskisperhapsthegreateststrengthofthemultitraitrubric;atthesametimethisveryalignmentmakesamultitraitrubriclesstransferableforusewithothertasks.Inotherwords,itislikelythateachtimeadifferenttaskisused,adifferentrubric(oratleastoneortwodimensionsofthatrubric)willhavetobedeveloped.ThemajorityofrubricsintheHandbookareofthemultitraittype,becausetheywerecreatedtoaligncloselywiththetask.See,forexample,therubricsthataccompany“GuessWho,”“StrategicInteraction,”“Newscast,”and“MarketaMovie.”

Creating and Using Rubrics

Whilesomerubricsarecreatedinsuchawayastobegenericinscopeforusewithanynumberofwritingorspeakingtasks,itisbesttoconsiderthetaskfirstandmakesurethattherubricrepresentsagoodfitwiththetaskandyourinstructionalobjectives.Justasavarietyoftask-typesshouldbeusedinlanguageclassrooms,soshouldavarietyofrubricsandchecklistsbeusedforassessingperformanceonthosetasks.Recallthatitisimportanttoincorporatetheuseofrubricsgradually,however,soitisappropriatetobeginwithone(moregeneric)rubricandtoaddothersasthereaderandstudentsbecomemorecomfortablewiththeprocess.Creatinggoodrubricsthatlendthemselveswelltoconsistent,accurateassessmentstakespractice.Itisagoodideaforteacherstobegintocollectsamplesofrubricsthattheycanrefertoandborrowfromtodeveloptheirown.TheHandbook containsmultipleexamples

Fig. 8 Multitrait Rubric*

Quality of description Fluency Language Control

4Highlevelofaccuracyindescriptionisreflected;highdegreeofdetailincludedindescription.

Smoothandfluidspeech;fewtonohesitations;noattemptstogropeforwords.

Excellentcontroloflanguagefeatures;awiderangeofwell -chosenvocabulary;accuracyandvarietyofgrammaticalstructures.

3Goodaccuracyindescription,thoughsomedetailmightbelacking.

Speechisrelativelysmoothbutischaracterizedbysomehesitationandunevennesscausedbyrephrasingand/orgropingforwords.

Goodlanguagecontrol;goodrangeofrelativelywell-chosenvocabulary;someerrorsingrammaticalstructurespossiblycausedbyattempttoincludeavariety.

2Descriptionlackssomeaccuracyandsomecriticaldetailsaremissingthatmakeitdifficultforthelistenertocompletethetask.

Speechisfrequentlyhesitantandjerky,withsomesentencesleftuncompleted.

Adequatelanguagecontrol;vocabularyrangeislacking;frequentgrammaticalerrorsthatdonotobscuremeaning;littlevarietyinstructures.

1Descriptionissolackingthatthelistenercannotcompletethetask.

Speechisslowandexceedinglyhesitantandstrainedexceptforshortormemorizedphrases;difficulttoperceivecontinuityinutterances.

Weaklanguagecontrol;basicvocabularychoicewithsomewordsclearlylacking;frequentgrammaticalerrorseveninsimplestructuresthatattimesobscuremeaning.

Total Score: *adaptedfromscalesfoundinCohen(1994)andShohamy(1985)

p .38 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

ofrubricsandcheckliststoaccompanythetasksandunits.Thesecanbeadaptedtocreatenewones. Unliketraditionalformsofassessment,whichofteninvolvemoreobjectivemethodsofscoringandgrading,performanceassessmentsandtheiraccompanyinguseofrubricsinvolvesubjectivejudgments,asexplainedabove.Thissubjectivitymakesitmorechallengingtoestablishreliability,orconsistency,inscoringandgrading.AlthoughathoroughdiscussionofthenotionofreliabilityasrelatedtotheuseofrubricsusedforperformanceassessmentisbeyondthescopeofthisportionoftheHandbook,afewpiecesofadvicecanbeoffered.Itisrecommendedthattheychecktheirownreliabilityinsomeway.Forexample,asstudents’writtenessaysaregraded,teacherscankeeptrackofthescoresonaseparatesheetofpaper.Afewdayslater,theteacherrandomlyselectsanumber(e.g.,five)oftheessaysandevaluatesthemagain,beingsurenottolookattheoriginalscoresassigned.Thentheteachercomparesthetwosetsofscorestoensurethats/heassignedthesameornearlythesamescoresbothtimes.Ifthetwoscoresarequitedifferent,youwillneedtoexaminetherubriccarefullyandre-evaluatetheessays.Thissameprocedurecanbefollowedforcheckingreliabilityinevaluatingstudents’oralperformanceaslongasaudioorvideorecordingsoftheperformanceareavailable.Alsokeepinmindthatfatiguecanaffectateacher’sabilitytoscorestudents’workconsistently.Itisagoodidea,therefore,tolimitthenumberofwrittenessaysororalperformancestobegradedatonesitting.Themorepracticeteachersgetwiththerubricsandthemorecomfortabletheybecomewiththeprocess,themorereliablethescoringwillbecome.Foradetaileddiscussiononreliabilityinscoring,see,forexample,Cohen(1994).

Encouraging Reflection through Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment

Ithasbeensuggestedthatgoodlanguagelearnersareawareoflanguagelearningprocesses(e.g.,Carrell,1989;Devine,1993;O’Malley&Chamot,1990;Schmidt&Frota,1986).Theyareawareofandabletoreflectontheirownandothers’languagelearningstrategiesandprogressaslanguagelearners.Reflection,asoneoftheconceptscomprisingCAPRII,hasbeendefinedaboveandhasbeenemphasizedasakeycomponentofeffectivelanguageinstruction. Secondlanguagestudentsshouldbeprovidedwithopportunitiestoengageinsystematicreflectiononaregularbasis.Reflectionrequirescommitment,time,andthewilltobeopen,flexible,andsensitive.Peopleneedtobeginwithsituationsthattheyarecomfortablewithandgraduallybuildtowardothermorerisk-takingventures.Onewaytoencouragereflectioninstudentsistoprovideopportunitiesforthemtoassesstheirownlanguageperformanceandthatofothers.

Self-Assessment

Thebenefitsofhavingstudentsassesstheirownprogresshavebeenestablishedinresearchonfirst-languageliteracyacquisitioninyoungchildren(e.g.,Brown,1988;Glazer,1992;Graves,1983;Routman,1991).Itisbelievedthatopportunitiesforself-assessmenthelpstudentstobecomeindependentlearners.Inaddition,anumberofsecondlanguagestudieshavefoundthatself-assessmentleadstoincreasedmotivationinlearners(Blanche&Merino,1989).However,studentsdonotlearntomonitororassesstheirlearningontheirown.Studentsmustbetaughtstrategiesforself-monitoringandself-assessment.Inthecaseofself-assessments,iftimeisnottakentoinstructstudentsintheiruse,theirvalidityisquestionable.BlancheandMerino(1989),inareviewofsixteenstudiesthatemployedmeasuresofself-assessment,foundthatamongthefactorsthatcanthreatenthevalidityofself-assessmentwas“thelackofcommon,validcriteriathatbothlearnersandinstructorscouldusetomakesoundjudgments”(p.325)andlearners’lackoftraininginhowtoperformthetypesofself-assessmentthathadbeenasked

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . 3�

ofthem.Techniquesforteachingstudentsstrategiesforself-assessmentareparalleltothoseusedforteachinglearningstrategies.Detaileddescriptionsofsuchtechniquescanbefound,forexample,inO’MalleyandChamot’sbookonlearningstrategies(1990)orChamotetal.’s(1999)handbookonlearningstrategies. Self-assessmenttoolscanbeusedtoencouragestudents’reflectionontopicstheyhavestudied,vocabularytheyhavelearned,theirstudyhabits,andtheirsenseoftheiroverallstrengthsandweaknesses.BlancheandMerino(1989)furthersuggestthatstudentslatersharetheirself-assessmentswithapeerorinasmallgroup,withinstructionsthattheycomparetheirimpressionswithothercriteriasuchastestscores,teacherevaluations,andpeers’opinions.Thiskindofpracticeisvaluableinthatithelpsstudentstobeawareoftheirlearning;inaddition,itnotonlyinformstheteacheraboutstudents’thoughtsontheirlearningandprogress,butalsoprovidestheteacherwithfeedbackaboutcoursecontentandinstruction. Self-assessmentscanalsobeusedtoallowstudentstoevaluatebothlanguageprocessesandproductsthatarespecifictothevariousmodalities.Studentscantakepartinassessmentbyevaluatingtheirownperformance(andthatoftheirpeers)onthebasisofchecklistsandrubricsthataredeveloped.Inordertoratetheirownspeakingperformance,studentswouldneedtoaudio-tapeorvideo-tapetheirperformanceandevaluateitusingarubricorchecklist.Writingcaneasilybeevaluatedwithrubrics.Weofferexamplesofself-assessmentsinthecontextofavarietyoftasksintheHandbook.See,forexample,thefinalevaluationinthe“GenderRoles”unit.

Peer Assessment

Oneofthewaysinwhichstudentsinternalizethecharacteristicsofqualityworkisbyevaluatingtheworkoftheirpeers.However,iftheyaretoofferhelpfulfeedback,studentsmusthaveaclearunderstandingofwhattheyaretolookforintheirpeers’work.Forexample,whentheyreadapeer’sessayorlistentoapresentation,shouldtheyfocusonlyongrammaticalaccuracy?content?organization?orsomethingelse?Theinstructormustexplainexpectationsclearlytothembeforetheybegin.Ifstudentsareaskedtogiveoneanotherfeedbackontheiressays,onewaytomakesuretheyunderstandwhattheyaretoevaluateisbyprovidingstudentswithasamplecompositiononanoverheadand,asagroup,determiningwhatshouldbeassessed(i.e.,howdoesonedefinegoodwriting),carryingouttheassessment,andthendetermininghowtoconveyclearlytothefictitiousstudenthowheorshecouldimprovetheessay. Studentsalsobenefitfromtheuseofrubricsorcheckliststoguidetheirassessments;theserubricscanbeprovidedbytheinstructor,oroncethestudentshavemoreexperience,theycandevelopthemthemselves.Inadditiontopeerassessmentofwriting,studentscanalsoevaluatetheirpeers’oralpresentations,roleplays,skits,ordebates.Again,itisimportantthatstudentsreceiveguidanceonwhattoevaluate.Theuseofrubricsorchecklistshelpsstudentsfocusontheaspectsthattheyshouldassess.Forpeerevaluationtoworkeffectively,thelearningenvironmentintheclassroommustbesupportive.Studentsmustfeelcomfortableandtrustoneanothertoprovidehonestandconstructivefeedback.ThetasksintheHandbookprovideavarietyofopportunitiesandsuggestionsforpeerassessment.Thecheckliststhataccompanythe“MyFavoriteRecipe”taskofferstudentstheopportunitytoassesslisteners’andspeakers’performance.Similarly,peerreviewguidelinessuchasthosethataccompany“GuessWho?”and“Let’sgotoCostaRica”askstudentstogivefeedbackoneachother’swriting. Itisabsolutelycriticaltospendtimewithstudentstopreparethemforself-assessmentandpeer-assessmentactivities.Beforeaskingstudentstoratetheirownortheirpeers’performance,teachersneedtobesurethattheyunderstandthecriteriaandhowtoapplythem.Themoreateachermodelsanddiscussestheprocess,themorestudentswillbenefitfromparticipatingintheevaluationoftheirwork.

p .40 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

Assessing Cultural Understanding

Inadditiontoparticipatingintheassessmentoftheirlanguageperformance,studentsneedtobeinvolvedinassessingtheirculturalunderstandingandknowledge.IntheHandbook,wehaveemphasizedthatcultureneedstobeatthecoreoflanguageinstruction.Itfollowsthatwemustalsodevisewaysofassessingstudents’culturalknowledgeandunderstanding.Wiggins(1989)andothershavearguedquiteconvincinglythatifwevaluesomething,wemustassessit,fortoneglectaconceptinassessmentistocommunicatetostudentsthattheconceptisn’timportant. Kramsch(1993)hassuggestedthatstudentsneedtolearnaboutthemultiplicityofperspectivesthatdefineculturalconstructs.Shearguesthatinsteadofhavingstudentssimplystatetheirinterpretationofaculturalconstruct,theyshouldbeengagedintasksthatrequirethemtoreflect an understandingofaconstruct.Forexample,studentshavebeenlearningabouttheeducationalsysteminGermany.TheirtaskistocreateavideotapeabouttheeducationalsystemintheU.S.foragroupofGermanstudentswhowillbeonanexchangeintheU.S.thefollowingyear.TheyareinstructedtocreateadescriptionoftheU.S.systemthatreflectstheirunderstandingofwhattheyhavelearnedabouttheGermansystem.Inthisway,teachersareabletotapintodeeperlevelsofcross-culturalunderstanding. Followingisanexampleofaperformancetaskcreatedforcollege-levelstudentsofFrenchthatincludesareflectionofstudents’understandingoftheFrenchconceptof“home.”Thetaskandassessmentsdescribedbelowareintendedtobeinterpretedasbothteacherandstudentassessments.Inotherwords,thetasksaredesignedinsuchawayastoallowforteacherassessmentandstudents’self-assessment.Thisdescriptionincorporatesmanyofthetechniquesandideasdiscusseduptothispoint. SuzanneCook,formerFrenchinstructorattheU.S.AirForceAcademyandPh.D.studentinSecondLanguagesandCulturesEducationattheUniversityofMinnesota,createdthisassessmentforacourseattheUniversitywhileonleavefromherpositionattheAcademy(Cook,1994).Theperformancetaskofthissummativeassessmentisintegrativeinthatitcombinesreadingcomprehension,writing,andculturalunderstanding.BeforereadingatextinFrench,studentsareinstructedtoreflectontheirbackgroundknowledgeof“theFrenchandtheirhomes”byrespondingtothefollowingquestionsinEnglish.Theyareassuredthattherearenorightorwronganswers.

1. DescribetheimageyouhaveofaFrenchhome.Whatistheimagebasedon(TV,magazines,textbooks,visittoFrance—whereinFrance?,etc.)?Inotherwords,reflectonwhatyoubelievehasledyoutoformthisimage.

2. WouldyoucharacterizetheFrenchashospitabletovisitorsintheirhomeornot?Supportyouranswer.

3. HowwouldyoudescribeAmericansintermsoftheirhospitality?Feelfreetouseyourownexperiencehere.Howdoesyourfamilydealwithguestsinyourhome?

Bybeginningtheassessmentinthisway,Cookcommunicatestostudentsthevalueofusingpre-readingstrategiessuchasactivatingpriorknowledge.Shealsogatherscriticalinformationthatmayhelpherunderstandastudent’sperformanceontheassessment.Next,studentsareinstructedtoreadanexcerptfromthebookEvidences Invisibles(Carroll,1987).Theyarepromptedwiththefollowing:

ThefollowingexcerptcomesfromthebookEvidences Invisibles,byRaymondeCarroll,aFrenchanthropologistwhoismarriedtoanAmericananthropologist

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . 41

andwhohaslivedintheU.S.forsome20years.ShestudiedthecommonmisunderstandingsbetweenFrenchandAmericanpeople,misunderstandingsthatareusuallyduetodifferentassumptionsabouthowoneshouldliveandthatarenotexplicitlyconsideredwhenindividualsareinteracting.Thefollowingpassagerevealssomeofthefundamentalassumptions,which,accordingtoCarroll,theFrenchgenerallyhaveaboutthehome.Readthetextcarefullyforunderstandingandwithaneyefordifferencesfromyourownconceptof“home.”

Forassessingbasiccomprehension,CookasksstudentstorespondinEnglishtosomeliteral-levelquestionsaboutthetext.Shealsoasksthattheyreflectinwriting“ontheauthorofthistextandtheimplicationthismighthaveontheinformationshepresents,inparticularonhowrepresentativeitmightbeofthewholepopulationofFrance.”Byaskingstudentstoconsiderthisinferentialquestion,Cookattemptstotapstudents’understandingthattheauthor’sinterpretationisdirectlyrelatedtoherindividualviewoftheworld,basedonherstatusandeducationallevelandthattheinformationpresentedmaynotrepresentallFrenchpeople.Sheassessesstudents’responsestothisquestionwithachecklist(seeFigure9).

Thebasiccomprehensionquestionsandcriticalthinking/inferentialquestionarefollowedbythisperformancetask:

ImagineyoujustreceivedthefollowingpostcardfromafriendwhorecentlyarrivedinLyontospendthesummerwithaFrenchfamily.Thisfriendishavingsomedifficultyunderstandingthewaysofhis/herhostfamily.Withwhatyou’velearnedfromthereadingpassage,writearesponsetoyourfriendinFrenchtohelphim/heradjust.Whatshoulds/hedodifferently?Includeinformationfromthetext(atleast3mainideas),inyourownwords,andrelateittoyourfriend’sknowledgeofthewayAmericansdothings.

ThefollowingpostcardtextispresentedinFrench,butitsEnglishtranslationisprovidedinFigure10.

Thewritingportionrepresentsanintegrativetask,wherestudentsareaskedtolinkpriorknowledge(ofAmericanhomesandhowAmericanstreatvisitorsintheirhomes)tonewknowledgegainedfromthereadingpassage.Amultitraitrubric(seeFigure11)havingthreecategoriesisusedtoassessthestudents’writingperformance.Totalscoresmayrangefrom3to12.

Fig. 9 ChecklistSituatesauthoraseducatedand/or(atleast)middleclass. YesNo

Demonstratesanunderstandingthatinformationmightnot/doesnotrepresentallFrenchpeople,ormoregenerallythatsocialvariablesaffectthewaypeoplebehave. YesNo

Fig. 10 PostcardDear_______________,IjustarrivedattheFourniers’house,andIseemtohavebegunmystaywiththemonthewrongfoot!Thefamilypreparedadinnertocelebratemyarrivalandinvitedsomefriends.IdecidedtohelpMrs.Fournierinthekitchen,butsheinsistedthatIleaveandstayoutofthekitchen.Later,IgreetedsomeguestsatthedoorwithMr.Fournierandwashappytohelpbytakingthewoman’scoatandputtingitonthebedinMr.andMrs.Fournier’sroom.ButwhenIcameoutoftheroom,Mrs.Fournierhadasurprisedlookonherfaceanddidn’tseemverypleased.Lateron,soasnottobotherMr.orMrs.Fournier,Iwentintothekitchenandgrabbedabeeroutofthefridge.WhenIreturnedtothelivingroom,Mr.andMrs.Fournierseemedcompletelyshocked.ItrulycannotunderstandwhatIdidtomakethemsoangry.Tellmewhatyouthink.Pleasewritesoon! Michael/Michelle

p .42 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

SeveralofthetasksandunitsintheHandbookincorporateattentiontoculturalissuesintheassessmentprocess.Forexample,therubricthataccompaniesthe“Newscast”taskasksthatstudentsincorporatethetargetcultureperspectiveintheirpresentations.

Fig. 11 Multitrait Rubric

Content Cultural Sensitivity Language Control

4 Writingreflectsthoroughcomprehensionofthereadingpassage;effectivelyaddressesthetopic(isconvincingtoareader);mentionsaleast3mainideasfromthereadingpassageassupport;demonstratesintegrationofnewandpriorknowledge.

Ideasexpressedinthewritingaboutthetargetcultureavoidmakingjudgmentastowhetherthetargetculture(e.g.,France)orhomeculture(e.g.,U.S.)isbetterorworse.

Excellentcontroloflanguagefeatures;awiderangeofwell-chosenvocabularyandappropriateregister;accuracyandvarietyofgrammaticalstructures;usesownwordstoconveyideasfromthereadingpassage.

3 Writingreflectsgoodcomprehensionofthereadingpassage;adequatelyaddressesthetopic;mentionsatleast2mainideasfromthereadingpassageassupport;demonstratesattemptsatintegrationofnewandpriorknowledge.

Ideasexpressedinthewritingaboutthetargetculturegenerallyavoidmakingjudgmentastowhetherthetargetculture(e.g.,France)orhomeculture(e.g.,U.S.)isbetterorworse,thoughsomelanguageusedmightsuggestjudgment.Lessthatmorejudgmental.

Goodlanguagecontrol;goodrangeofrelativelywell-chosenvocabulary;appropriateregister;someerrorsingrammaticalstructurespossiblycausedbyattempttoincludeavariety;clearattemptstouseownwordstoconveyideasfromthereadingpassage.

2 Writingreflectssomecomprehensionofthereadingpassage;fairlyaddressesthetopic,thoughmaymisssomecriticalpoints;mentionsatleast1mainideafromthereadingpassageassupport;demonstratesattemptsatintegrationofnewandpriorknowledge,butwritingmightreflectsomemisunderstanding.

Ideasexpressedinthewritingaboutthetargetcultureattimesseemtoreflectjudgmentastowhetherthetargetculture(e.g.,France)orhomeculture(e.g.,U.S.)isbetterorworse.Morethanlessjudgmental.

Adequatelanguagecontrol;vocabularyrangeislacking;registermay/maynotbeconsistentlyappropriate.Frequentgrammaticalerrorsthatdonotobscuremeaning;littlevarietyinstructures.Doesn’talwaysattempttouseownwordstoconveyideasfromreadingpassage(has“lifted”portions).

1 Writingdoesnotconsistentlyreflectcomprehensionofthereadingpassage;topicisnotadequatelyaddressedandcriticalpointsaremissing;littletonosupportfromreadingpassage;writingreflectssomemisunderstanding.

Ideasexpressedinthewritingaboutthetargetcultureoftenreflectjudgmentastowhetherthetargetculture(e.g.,France)orhomeculture(e.g.,U.S.)isbetterorworse.Veryjudgmental.

Weaklanguagecontrol;basicvocabularychoicewithsomewordsclearlylacking;frequentgrammaticalerrorseveninsimplestrurctuesthatattimesobscuremeaning.Inconsistentuseofregister.Consistently“lifts”largeportionsofreadingpassageratherthanattemptingtouseownwords.

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . 43

A Final Word on Performance Assessment

Thisratherlengthydiscussiononperformanceassessmentisnotintendedtocommunicatetoteachersthateverysingleclassroomactivityneedstobeevaluatedinasystematicwaywithafullydevelopedrubricorchecklist.Toattempttodosowouldbeexhaustingforteachersandstudentsandwouldlimitopportunitiesforspontaneityintheclassroom.Instead,thisdiscussionisintendedtohelpteachersunderstandthecomplexityofassessinglanguageuseandtoofferthemavarietyofalternatives,somemorecomplicatedandextensivethanothers.Moreover,thetime-consumingnatureofperformanceassessmentscanrendertheminaccessibleifateacherbelievesthats/hemustassesseverystudent’sperformanceoneveryclassroomactivity.Infact,teachersmayfinditusefulattimestoassesstheperformanceofonlyfivestudentsorsoatagiventime—suchanapproachisparticularlyimportantinthecontextoforalassessment.Thepointistodevelopanapproachthatworksforteachersandprovidesconstructivefeedbacktostudents.Theonlystipulationisthattheapproachincorporateassessmentoflanguageuseinadditiontoknowledgeaboutlanguage.WehopethatteachersfindthesamplesintheHandbookhelpfulastheydeveloptheirapproach.

Notes1 Thesynopsisofthenationalstandards(NationalStandardsforForeignLanguageEducation

Project,1996)hasbeenreprintedwithpermissionfromtheAmericanCouncilontheTeachingofForeignLanguages.WeencouragereaderstopurchaseacopyoftheentireStandardsdocumentfromACTFL.Theexpandedversion,publishedin1999,providesthestandardsastheyhavebeenmodifiedforeightmodernlanguagesaswellastheclassicallanguagesandincludeexcitingexamplesofhowtheycanbeputintopractice.AnorderformisincludedalongwiththeHandbook,orcopiescanbeordereddirectlyfromACTFL(seecontactinformationintheTeachersResourcesSection).

2 PortionsofthesectiononCAPRIIhavebeenadaptedorreprintedfromTedick(1996).

3 TheseexamplesofadaptingatasktomakeitmoreauthenticappearinTedickandKlee(1998)andarereprintedherewithpermissionfromtheCenterforAppliedLinguistics.

4 WehavedrawnmuchfromtheworkoftheMinnesotaArticulationProject’sCurriculumTeamtoformthefoundationofanewprojectatCARLAentitledCoBaLTT—Content-BasedLanguageTeachingthroughTechnology.Inthisprogram,teacherslearntheprinciplesofcontent-basedlanguageinstructionandthetechnologytoolsthatcanenhancecontent-basedinstruction.Therearemanylessons,developedbyCoBaLTTparticipants,availableon-lineinadditiontoanextensiveannotatedbibliographyaboutcontent-basedinstructionandotherresources.Pleasevisitat<http://carla.acad.umn.edu/cobaltt>.

5 SignificantportionsofthesectiononPerformanceAssessmenthavebeenreprintedfromTedickandKlee(1998)withpermissionfromtheCenterforAppliedLinguistics.

6 TheForeignLanguageTestDatabase,maintainedbytheNationalCapitalLanguageResourceCenter<http://www.cal.org/nclrc>,containsmorethan140testsin63languages.Itcanbefoundat<http://www.cal.org/db/flt/flt-dir.htm>.

p .44 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

References

AmericanCouncilontheTeachingofForeignLanguages.(1986).ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Yonkers,NY:AmericanCouncilontheTeachingofForeignLanguages.

AmericanCouncilontheTeachingofForeignLanguages.(1998).ACTFL performance guidelines for K-12 learners. Yonkers,NY:AmericanCouncilontheTeachingofForeignLanguages.

Arons,R.,Eckers,C.,&Jarvis,S.(1994).Characteristics of proficiency-oriented language instruction. DocumentpreparedforMinnesota’sArticulationProject,Minneapolis,MN:CenterforAdvancedResearchonLanguageAcquisition,UniversityofMinnesota.(http://acad.carla.umn.edu).

Bachman,L.F.(1990).Fundamental considerations in language testing.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Baron,J.B.(1991).SEA usage of alternative assessment: The Connecticut experience. (ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.ED349816)

Blanche,P.,&Merino,B.J.(1989).Self-assessmentofforeignlanguageskills:Implicationsforteachersandresearchers.Language Learning, 39, (3),313-340.

Brecht,R.D.,&Walton,A.R.(1994).Thefutureshapeoflanguagelearninginthenewworldofglobalcommunication:Consequencesforhighereducationandbeyond.InR.Donato&R.M.Terry(Eds.),Foreign language learning: The journey of a lifetime. Lincolnwood,IL:NationalTextbookCo.

Brinton,D.M.,Snow,M.A.,&Wesche,M.B.(1989). Content-based second language instruction. Boston,MA:Heinle&Heinle.

Brown,C.S.(1988).Thinkaloud:Amethodforteachingtheprocessesofcomprehension.The Reading Instruction Journal, 32, (1),13-17.

Brown,G.,&Yule,G.(1983).Teaching the spoken language.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Carrell,P.L.(1989).Metacognitiveawarenessandsecondlanguagereading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121-133.

Carroll,R.(1987).Evidences invisibles: Américains et Français au quotidien.Paris:Seuil.

Chamot,A.U.,Barnhardt,S.,El-Dinary,P.B.,&Robbins,J,(1999).The learning strategies handbook.WhitePlains,NY:Addison-WesleyLongman.

Cohen,A.D.(1994).Assessing language ability in the classroom(2nded.).Boston,MA:Heinle&Heinle.

Cook,S.(1994,Fall).The concept of home: Assumptions not shared.Unpublishedmanuscript.Minneapolis,MN:UniversityofMinnesota.

Devine,J.(1993).Theroleofmetacognitioninsecondlanguagereadingandwriting.InJ.G.Carson&I.Leki(Eds.),Reading in the composition classroom(pp.105-127).Boston,MA:Heinle&Heinle.

Finocchiaro,M.,&Brumfit,C.(1983).The functional-notional approach.NY:OxfordUniversityPress.

Galloway,V.,&Labarca,A.(1990).Fromstudenttolearner:Style,process,andstrategy.InD.W.Birckbichler(Ed.),New perspectives and new directions in foreign language education (pp.111-158).Lincolnwood,IL:NationalTextbookCo.

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . 45

Genesee,F.(1994).Integrating language and content: Lessons from immersion.EducationalPracticeReportsNo.11.NationalCenterforResearchonCulturalDiversityandSecondLanguageLearning.Washington,DC:CenterforAppliedLinguistics.(http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/ncrcds11/epr11.htm).

Glazer,S.M.(1992).Reading comprehension: Self-monitoring strategies to develop independent readers.NewYork:ScholasticProfessionalBooks.

Graves,D.H.(1983).Writing: Teachers and children at work.Portsmouth,NH:Heinemann.

Hart,D.(1994).Authentic assessment: A handbook for educators.Reading,MA:Addison-WesleyPublishingCompany.

Heilenman,L.K.,&Kaplan,I.M.(1985).Proficiencyinpractice:Theforeignlanguagecurriculum.InC.J.James(Ed.),Foreign language proficiency in the classroom and beyond (pp.55-77).ACTFLForeignLanguageEducationSeries,Vol.16.Lincolnwood,IL:NationalTextbookCo.

Hughey,J.B.,Wormuth,D.R.,Hartfiel,V.F.,&Jacobs,H.L.(1983).Teaching ESL composition: Principles and techniques. Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.

Hutchinson,T.,&Waters,A.(1987).English for specific purposes: A learning centered approach. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Hymes,D.(1974).Foundation of sociolinguistics.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvania.

Johnson,D.W.,Johnson,R.T.,&Holubec,E.(1993).Cooperation in the classroom.Edina,MN:InteractionBookCompany.

Johnson,K.(1979).Communicativeapproachesandcommunicativeprocesses.InC.J.Brumfit&K.Johnson(Eds.),The communicative approach to language teaching(pp.192-205).NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Klee,C.A.,Tedick,D.J.,&Cohen,A.D.(1995,March).“Content-BasedInstructioninSpanish,French,andGermanattheUniversityofMinnesota:TheDevelopmentandEvaluationofaNewProgram.”PaperpresentedattheAmericanAssociationofAppliedLinguistics,LongBeach,CA.

Kramsch,C.(1991,May).“Towardapedagogyofcross-culturalcompetence.”Paperpresentedatthecolloquium:InterdisciplinaryPerspectivesonCultureLearningintheSecondLanguageCurriculum,UniversityofMinnesota,Minneapolis,MN.

Kramsch,C.(1993).Context and culture in language teaching.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Lloyd-Jones,R.(1977).Primarytraitscoring.InC.R.Cooper&L.Odell(Eds.),Evaluating writing(pp.33-66).Urbana,IL:NCTE.

Long,M.H.(1981).Input,interaction,andsecondlanguageacquisition.InH.Winitz(Ed.),Native language and foreign language acquisition(pp.259-278).AnnalsoftheNewYorkAcademyofSciencesNo.379.NewYork:AcademyofSciences.

Lyster,R.(1990).TheroleofanalyticlanguageteachinginFrenchimmersionprograms.Canadian Modern Language Review, 47, (1),159-176.

Lyster,R.(1998).Negotiationofform,recasts,andexplicitcorrectioninrelationtoerrortypesandlearnerrepairinimmersionclassrooms.Language Learning, 48, (2),183-218.

p .46 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t

Met,M.(1991).Learninglanguagethroughcontent:Learningcontentthroughlanguage.Foreign Language Annals, 24, (4),281-295.

NationalStandardsinForeignLanguageEducationProject.(1996). National standards for foreign language learning: Preparing for the 21st century.Lawrence,KS:AllenPress,Inc.

Nunan,D.(1988).The learner-centered curriculum: A study in second language teaching. NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

NorthCarolinaDepartmentofPublicInstruction.(1999).Assessment, articulation, and accountability.Raleigh,NC:DepartmentofPublicInstruction.

O’Malley,J.M.,&Chamot,A.U.(1990).Learning strategies in second language acquisition. NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Routman,R.(1991).Invitations: Changing as teachers and learners K-12.Portsmouth,NH:Heinemann.

Schmidt,R.W.,&Frota,S.N.(1986).Developingbasicconversationalabilityinasecondlanguage:AcasestudyofanadultlearnerofPortuguese.InR.R.Day(Ed.),Talking to learn(pp.237-326).Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.

Shohamy,E.(1985).A practical handbook in language testing for the second language teacher. Israel:ShoshanaGoldberg.

Shrum,J.L.,&Glisan,E.W.(1994).Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction. Boston,MA:Heinle&Heinle.

Snow,M.A.,&Brinton,D.M.(Eds.).(1997).The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content.WhitePlains,NY:Longman.

Snow,M.A.,Met,M.,&Genesee,F.(1989).Aconceptualframeworkfortheintegrationoflanguageandcontentinsecond/foreignlanguageeducation.TESOL Quarterly, 23, (2),201-217.

Stepthree,thePAUproject:Afterstandardsandguidelines,howdoweassessperformanceintherealworld?(2000).Foreign Language Annals, 33, (2),237,253-254.

Swender,E.,&Duncan,G.(1998).ACTFLperformanceguidelinesforK-12learners. Foreign Language Annals, 31, (4),479-491.

Tedick,D.J.(1992).Reflectionsonreflection.Elsie speaks, 3, (1),4-6.

Tedick,D.J.(1996).ReportfromthecurriculumteamofMinnesota’sArticulationProject:IntroductiontoCAPRIIandinvitationtoparticipate. Minnesota Language Review, 24, (2),28-38.

Tedick,D.J.,&Klee,C.A.(1998).Alternativeassessmentinthelanguageclassroom.InG.S.Burkart(Ed.),Modules for the professional preparation of teaching assistants in foreign languages.Washington,DC:CenterforAppliedLinguistics.

Tedick,D.J.,&Tischer,C.A.(1996).Combiningimmersionexperiencesandpedagogyforlanguageteachers:Lessonslearnedandchangesimplemented.Foreign Language Annals, 29, (3),415-427.

Tedick,D.J.,&Walker,C.L.(1994).Secondlanguageteachereducation:Theproblemsthatplagueus.Modern Language Journal, 78, (3),300-312.

POLIA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t p . 47

Tedick,D.J.,Walker,C.L.,Lange,D.L.,Paige,M.,&Jorstad,H.L.(1993).Secondlanguageeducationintomorrow’sschools.InG.Gunterman(Ed.),Developing language teachers for a changing world (pp.43-75).ACTFLForeignLanguageEducationSeries.Lincolnwood,IL:NationalTextbookCompany.

Thompson,L.(1997).Foreign language assessment in grades K-8: An annotated bibliography of assessment instruments.McHenry,IL,andWashington,DC:DeltaSystemsandCenterforAppliedLinguistics.

Thompson,L.(2000-2001).Foreignlanguageassessment:30yearsofevolutionandchange.ERIC/CLL Newsbulletin,Winter,3-5.

VillegasRogers,C.,&Medley,Jr.,F.W.(1988).Languagewithapurpose:Usingauthenticmaterialsintheforeignlanguageclassroom.Foreign Language Annals, 21,467-478.

White,E.(1985).Teaching and assessing writing.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Widdowson,H.G.(1978).Teaching language as communication.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Wiggins,G.(1989).Atruetest:Towardmoreauthenticandequitableassessment.Phi Delta Kappan, May, 703-704.

p .48 POL IA : S t anda rd s , Ph i l o s oph i e s , and Con s i d e ra t i on s f o r A s s e s s smen t