AMERICAN COUNCIL ON THE TEACHING OF
FOREIGN LANGUAGES
(ACTFL)
DRAFT OF PROGRAM
STANDARDS
FOR
FOREIGN LANGUAGE
TEACHER PREPARATION
(INITIAL LEVEL)
Prepared by the NCATE Foreign Language
Teacher Standards Writing Team
March 6, 2002
Contact
persons:
Eileen W. Glisan,
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Spanish & Classical Languages,
472 Sutton Hall, Indiana, PA 15705; 724/935-0799; glisan@nauticom.net
June K.
Phillips, Dean, College of Arts & Humanities, Weber State University, 1904
University Circle, Ogden, UT 84408-1904; 801/626-6425; jphillips@weber.edu
NCATE FOREIGN LANGUAGE WRITING TEAM
June K. Phillips
(Co-Chair) Weber
State University, Ogden, Utah
Leroy Hopkins Millersville
University of Pennsylvania
Nancy Humbach Miami
University, Ohio
Stephen Levy American
Council on the Teaching of
Foreign Languages (ACTFL)
Mary Lynn
Redmond Wake
Forest University, North Carolina
Laurel
RasplicaRodd University
of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
Duarte Silva Stanford
University, California
Marjorie Tussing California
State University-Fullerton
Deborah Robinson Ohio
State Department of Education
Helene
Zimmer-Loew American
Association of Teachers of
German
(AATG), Cherry Hill, New Jersey
This project
is being funded by the National Foreign Language Standards Board.
II.
Introduction
The American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) is a national organization
for the foreign language teaching profession. It was created in 1967 by the
leadership of the Modern Language Association (MLA) to address issues regarding
teacher education, language instruction, and curriculum development. ACTFL is
the only national organization dedicated to the improvement and expansion of
the teaching and learning of all languages at all levels of instruction. It is
an individual membership organization of more than 7,000 foreign language
educators and administrators from elementary through graduate education, as
well as government and industry. ACTFL publishes the journal Foreign
Language Annals, which
includes a “Member News Section,” and a yearly foreign language
education series volume. It sponsors an annual conference and provides a wealth
of professional development workshops and seminars for its membership dealing
with a wide variety of topics such as oral proficiency testing, standards-based
instruction, authentic assessment, and second language acquisition research.
As a national
organization, ACTFL works closely with the language associations in all 50
states. Among the members of the ACTFL Executive Council are representatives of
the five regional conferences: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages (NECTFL), Southern Conference on Language Teaching (SCOLT), Central
States Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (CSC), Southwest
Conference on Language Teaching (SWCOLT),
and the Pacific Northwest Council for Foreign Languages (PNCFL). Working
in conjunction with ACTFL are the national language specific organizations on
the National Foreign Language Standards Board, together representing close to
40,000 foreign language educators:
American
Association of Teachers of French (AATF)
American
Association of Teachers of German (AATG)
American
Association of Teachers of Italian (AATI)
American
Association of Teachers of Spanish & Portuguese (AATSP)
American
Classical League (ACL)
American Council
of Teachers of Russian (ACTR)
Chinese Language
Association of Secondary-Elementary Schools (CLASS) and Chinese Language
Teachers Association (CLTA)
National Council
of Japanese Language Teachers (NCJLT) and Association of Teachers of Japanese
(ATJ)
The ACTFL Delegate
Assembly held during ACTFL’s annual conference includes representatives
from all 50 states, the regional organizations, the language specific
organizations listed above, as well as other language organizations.
In 1996, ACTFL,
in collaboration with the AATF, AATG, and AATSP, published its Standards for
Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century, which describe what students should know
and be able to do as a result of language study at the K-12 levels of
instruction. In 1999 ACTFL and the other language-specific organizations listed
above expanded the initial 1996 publication of generic standards to include
language-specific standards at the K-16 levels of instruction for nine
languages, Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st
Century, which build
upon the original generic standards.
In consonance
with its mission to serve teacher education, ACTFL developed “Provisional
Program Guidelines for Foreign Language Teacher Education” in 1988, which
have been used by teacher-preparation institutions as they develop and revise
their programs. ACTFL became a member organization of NCATE in 1998, with the
support of the National Foreign Language Standards Board. With student
standards in place and being implemented across the nation, ACTFL, in
collaboration with the National Foreign Language Standards Board, has developed
a draft of new Program Standards for Foreign Language Teacher Preparation for
final approval by NCATE in 2002. These standards, which represent a broad range
of involvement of the profession, will replace the 1988 program guidelines. As
in the case of the new student standards, these teacher education program
standards are performance-based and outline the knowledge, skills, and
dispositions necessary to be an effective foreign language teacher.
III. REQUIREMENTS FOR PROGRAMS OF
FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHER PREPARATION
The preparation of foreign
language teachers is the joint responsibility of the faculty in foreign
languages and education. In order for foreign language teacher candidates to
attain the knowledge, skills, and dispositions described in the ACTFL Program
Standards for Foreign Language Teacher Preparation, foreign language programs
of teacher preparation must demonstrate that they have the components and characteristics
described below.
1. Development of candidates’ foreign language
proficiency in all areas of communication, with special emphasis on developing
oral proficiency, in all language courses. Upper-level courses should be taught
in the foreign language.
2. Ongoing assessment of candidates’ oral
proficiency and provision of diagnostic feedback to candidates concerning their
progress in meeting required levels of proficiency.
3. Language, linguistics, culture, and literature
components.
4. A methods course that deals specifically with the
teaching of foreign languages, and which is taught by a qualified faculty
member whose expertise is foreign language education and who is knowledgeable
about current instructional approaches and issues.
5. Field experiences prior to student teaching that
include experiences in foreign language classrooms.
6. Field experiences, including student teaching, that
are supervised by a qualified foreign language educator who is knowledgeable
about current instructional approaches and issues in the field of foreign
language education.
7. Opportunities for candidates to experience
technology-enhanced instruction and to use technology in their own teaching.
8. Opportunities for candidates to participate in a
structured study abroad program and/or intensive immersion experience in a
target language community.
STANDARD #1: LANGUAGE, LINGUISTICS, COMPARISONS
STANDARD #2: CULTURES, LITERATURES, CROSS-DISCIPLINARY
CONCEPTS
STANDARD #3: LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES AND
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES
STANDARD #4: INTEGRATION OF STANDARDS INTO CURRICULUM
&
INSTRUCTION
STANDARD #5: ASSESSMENT OF LANGUAGES AND CULTURES
STANDARD #6: PROFESSIONALISM
STANDARD #1:
LANGUAGE, LINGUISTICS, COMPARISONS
Standard
1.a. Demonstrating Language Proficiency. Candidates demonstrate a high level of proficiency in the
target language, and they seek opportunities to strengthen their proficiency.
Standard
1.b. Understanding Linguistics. Candidates
recognize the changing nature of language, they know the linguistic elements of
the target language system, and they accommodate for any gaps in their own
knowledge of the target language system by learning on their own.
Standard
1.c. Identifying Language Comparisons.
Candidates know the similarities and differences between the target language
and other languages, they identify the key differences in varieties of the
target language, and they seek opportunities to learn about varieties of the
target language on their own.
Standard 1.a.
Demonstrating Language Proficiency. Candidates demonstrate a high level of
proficiency in the target language, and they seek opportunities to strengthen
their proficiency.
Supporting
Explanation
Candidates are
able to communicate successfully in the three modes of communication
(interpersonal, interpretive, presentational) in the target language they
intend to teach. The heart of language instruction is the ability to teach
students to communicate, which can only be possible if teachers themselves
exemplify effective communicative skills. Undergirding effective implementation
of the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st
Century (1999) is the expectation that teachers will
provide effective oral and written input in the classroom.
For
interpersonal communication (both speaking and writing) and written
presentational communication, candidates must demonstrate a specific level of
proficiency as described in the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines-Speaking (1999) and ACTFL Proficiency
Guidelines-Writing (2001).
Teacher candidates are expected to attain a certain level of proficiency
depending on the target language they teach. These program standards have categorized
languages into two groups: 1) those that use an alphabetic writing system
(e.g., French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish), and 2) those
that use a non-alphabetic writing system (e.g., Chinese, Japanese). It is
expected that candidates teaching target languages that use an alphabetic
writing system are able to attain a higher level of oral and written
proficiency in those languages because they are able to spend a sufficient
amount of time developing these skills and do not have to focus on learning a
new writing system. Candidates teaching target languages that use a
non-alphabetic writing system have to devote more time to learning the writing
systems of those languages and may not initially reach the same level of
speaking and writing proficiency as their counterparts in languages that use
alphabetic writing systems.
Therefore, for
target languages that use an alphabetic writing system, candidates must speak
and write the target language at the Advanced-Low level or higher. In the case
of target languages that use non-alphabetic writing systems, candidates must
speak and write at the Intermediate High level or higher.
Candidates must
be able to present orally information, concepts, and ideas to an audience of
listeners. They must know their audience and adjust their presentation
accordingly. Candidates must be able to deliver oral presentations that may be
pre-planned, but in which they speak extemporaneously, referring to notes as
needed, but not reading them verbatim. They must use connected discourse in
various time frames, vocabulary specific to the context of the presentation,
and extralinguistic support as necessary to make the message clear to the
audience (e.g., visuals). Presentations may consist of literary and cultural topics
as well as topics of personal interest to the presenter.
Candidates must also be able to comprehend and interpret printed and oral texts in the target language. Their ability to interpret texts is based on the type of text and the degree to which they are familiar with the content of the text. Regardless of the target language, candidates must comprehend and interpret printed texts including realia (e.g., signs, flyers, menus), social communication, newspaper and magazine articles, narratives and descriptions, and literary selections representing various genres. The level of detail of the comprehension is contingent on the interpreter’s familiarity with the topic of the text. For target languages that use an alphabetic writing system, candidates will demonstrate understanding and interpretation at a higher level of detail than would be expected of those that work with target languages that use a non-alphabetic writing system.
Candidates must comprehend and interpret oral texts including face-to-face and
telephone conversation, news broadcasts, narratives and descriptions in various
time frames, speeches, and debates. The level of detail of the comprehension is
contingent on the interpreter’s familiarity with the topic of the text.
Since the
primary goal of teachers of classical languages lies in the interpretation of
written texts, no specific speaking and writing proficiency levels are
established for candidates who teach these languages. However, teachers of
classical languages should be able to ask simple comprehension questions in the
target language based on the texts being read. They should also have the
ability to write simple sentences in the target language. Candidates teaching
classical languages must be able to comprehend and interpret original written
works in these languages. Their ability to interpret texts is based on the type
of text and the degree to which they are familiar with the content of the text.
Candidates seek opportunities to develop and strengthen their target language proficiency outside of the classroom. For example, they interact with target language speakers in the community, access target language materials via technology, and take advantage of study abroad/immersion opportunities.
Note: All rubrics are additive. “Meets Standard”
assumes that candidates have also met the criteria under “Approaches
Standard.” “Exceeds Standard” assumes that candidates have
also met the criteria under both “Approaches Standard” and
“Meets Standard.”
Elements |
Approaches Standard |
Meets Standard |
Exceeds Standard |
|
Interpersonal communication: Speaking |
For target languages that use an alphabetic writing system, candidates speak at the "Intermediate High" level on the ACTFL scale: they use mostly connected sentences and some paragraphs, speak accurately mostly in present time frame, do some narration and description in past and future time frames (although with greater inaccuracy), are unable to deal fully with a complicated survival situation, and are understood by listeners used to interacting with second language speakers. For target languages that use non- alphabetic writing systems, candidates speak at the “Intermediate Mid” level on the ACTFL scale: they speak at the sentence level in the present time frame, ask and answer questions, deal with a survival-level situation, and are understood by listeners used to interacting with second language speakers. |
For
target languages that use an alphabetic writing system, candidates speak at
the "Advanced Low" level on the ACTFL scale: they narrate and
describe in present, past, and future time frames, speak in paragraphs,
successfully manage a survival situation with a complication, and are
understood by listeners who may not be used to interacting with second
language speakers. For target languages that use non-alphabetic writing systems, candidates speak at the “Intermediate High” level on the ACTFL scale: they use mostly connected sentences and some paragraphs, speak accurately mostly in present time frame, do some narration and description in past and future time frames (although with greater inaccuracy), are unable to deal fully with a complicated survival situation, and are understood by listeners used to interacting with second language speakers. |
For target languages that use an alphabetic
writing system, candidates speak at the "Advanced Mid" level on the
ACTFL scale (or higher): they speak in paragraphs with the use of substantial
details, narrate and describe in all major time frames with good control of
aspect, have substantial fluency and extensive use of vocabulary, are often
able to state an opinion but may not be able to logically support it, and are
easily understood by listeners who are not used to interacting with second
language speakers. For target languages that use non-alphabetic writing systems, candidates speak at the "Advanced Low" level on the ACTFL scale: they narrate and describe in present, past, and future time frames, speak in paragraphs, successfully manage a survival situation with a complication, and are understood by listeners who may not be used to interacting with second language speakers. |
|
Presentational
communication: Speaking |
Candidates deliver oral presentations on a
wide variety of topics, including those of personal interest. They speak in
extended discourse and use specialized vocabulary. They use a variety of
strategies to tailor the presentation to the needs of their audience (e.g.,
circumlocution, selecting appropriate level of formality). |
||
|
Interpersonal
& presentational Communication: Writing |
For target languages that use an alphabetic
writing system, candidates write at the "Intermediate High" level
on the ACTFL scale: they meet most practical writing needs (uncomplicated
letters, summaries, paraphrases concerning familiar topics, biographical
data, work, school experience), they use mostly connected sentences and some
paragraphs, they write in some detail simple descriptions and narrations of
paragraph length in different time frames, they demonstrate sustained control
of simple sentence structures and partial control of more complex sentence
structures, and their writing is understood by readers accustomed to the
writing of second language learners. For
target languages that use non- alphabetic writing systems, candidates write
at the “Intermediate Mid” level on the ACTFL scale: they write
short simple letters and descriptions based on personal experiences and
immediate surroundings, they write in present time with minimal use of
grammatical and cohesive elements, and their writing is a collection of
discrete sentences and can be understood by readers accustomed to the writing
of second language learners. |
For target languages that use an alphabetic
writing system, candidates write at the "Advanced Low" level on the
ACTFL scale: they write routine
social correspondence, they write about familiar topics by means of narratives, descriptions and
summaries of a factual nature in major time frames, they join sentences in
texts of several paragraphs in length, and their writing demonstrates good
control of frequently used syntactic structures and is understood by readers
accustomed to the writing of second language learners. For
target languages that use non- alphabetic writing systems, candidates write
at the "Intermediate High" level on the ACTFL scale: they meet most
practical writing needs (uncomplicated letters, summaries, paraphrases
concerning familiar topics, biographical data, work, school experience), they
use mostly connected sentences and some paragraphs, they write in some detail
simple descriptions and narrations of paragraph length in different time
frames, they demonstrate sustained control of simple sentence structures and
partial control of more complex sentence structures, and their writing is
understood by readers accustomed to the writing of second language learners. |
For target languages that use an alphabetic
writing system, candidates write at the "Advanced Mid" level on the
ACTFL scale (or higher): they describe and narrate in all major time frames,
with good control of aspect, they write about a variety of topics with
detail, they handle most social and informal correspondence, they have good
control of a range of grammatical structures and a fairly wide vocabulary,
and their writing demonstrates a good sense of organization. For
target languages that use non-alphabetic writing systems, candidates write at
the "Advanced Low" level on the ACTFL scale: they write routine
social correspondence, they write about familiar topics by means of narratives, descriptions and
summaries of a factual nature in major time frames, they join sentences in
texts of several paragraphs in length, and their writing demonstrates good
control of frequently used syntactic structures and is understood by readers
accustomed to the writing of second language learners. |
|
Interpretive
communication: Listening,
reading, viewing |
For
target languages that use an alphabetic writing system, candidates identify
main ideas and most important details, move beyond literal comprehension, and
may identify author’s perspective and/or cultural perspectives. For
target languages that use non-alphabetic writing systems, candidates
demonstrate a literal level of comprehension. |
For target languages that use an alphabetic writing system, candidates move beyond literal comprehension, analyze author’s perspective and/or cultural perspectives, and offer personal interpretation of text. For target languages that use non-alphabetic writing systems, candidates identify main ideas and most important details, move beyond literal comprehension, and may identify author’s perspective and/or cultural perspectives. |
For target languages that use an alphabetic
writing system, candidates interpret the text on a number of levels, analyze
it from a number of perspectives, and offer a detailed personal
interpretation of the text supported by a rich range of cultural
knowledge. For target languages that use non-alphabetic writing systems, candidates move beyond literal comprehension, analyze author’s perspective and/or cultural perspectives, and offer personal interpretation of text. |
|
Dispositions
for acquiring proficiency |
Candidates maintain and enhance their proficiency by interacting in the target language outside of the classroom, reading, and using technology to access target language communities. |
Candidates have developed a systematic
approach for enhancing their language proficiency on an ongoing basis by
using a variety of effective materials, methodologies, and technologies. |
Standard 1.b.
Understanding Linguistics. Candidates
recognize the changing nature of language, they know the linguistic elements of
the target language system, and they accommodate for any gaps in their own
knowledge of the target language system by learning on their own.
Supporting
Explanation
In order to be
effective language teachers, candidates have a good understanding of the target
language system. They are able to describe its phonological features (phonemes
and allophones) and diagnose pronunciation problems of non-native speakers of
the target language. They understand and can describe how words are formed
(morphological rules) and used (semantics), how sentences are put together
(syntactic patterns) in the target language, and how connected discourse is
constructed. They understand and can explain the major components of the
grammatical system of the target language, including the verb system (time,
aspect, mood), agreement (nouns and adjectives/articles, verbs and subjects),
word order, the pronominal system, use of key prepositions/postpositions and
other grammatical elements, and interrogatives. They are familiar with
varieties of the spoken target language. They recognize that language changes
over time, and they are willing to keep abreast of these changes. When
confronted with gaps in their knowledge of the target language system, they
accommodate by investigating on their own.
Elements
|
Approaches Standard |
Meets Standard |
Exceeds Standard |
|
Phonology |
Candidates
recognize that the target language has different phonemes and allophones than
the native language. They describe how some of the target language sounds are
articulated. |
Candidates
identify phonemes and allophones of the target language. They diagnose
pronunciation problems of non-native speakers of the target language. |
Candidates
describe the differences between the phonological systems of the target and
native language. They identify potential pronunciation difficulties for
non-native speakers of the target language and describe ways to practice
articulation of specific sounds. |
|
Morphology |
Candidates
recognize that languages have different ways in which morphemes (parts of
words) are put together to form words.
|
Candidates
identify morphemes (affixes and stems) in the target language and how they
are put together to form words. They help students to recognize the meaning
of new words by using morphological clues (e.g., word families). |
Candidates
use strategies for identifying and using new words in the target language by
recombining morphemes. They provide systematic classroom practice in
identifying and using new words by recombining morphemes. |
|
Candidates
describe syntactic patterns of the target language, such as formation of
simple sentences and questions, and contrast them with those of other
languages. Candidates recognize key cohesive devices used
in connected discourse (e.g., conjunctions, adverbs). |
|||
|
Grammar |
Candidates
recognize that the target language has a set of grammatical rules that govern
the language. They identify key regularities such as those that are
characteristic of the verbal system, agreement, use of pronouns, prepositions
or postpositions, word order, and interrogatives. |
Candidates
explain the key grammatical rules of the target language such as those that
govern the verbal system, agreement, use of pronouns, prepositions and
postpositions, word order, and interrogatives in terms of regularities and
irregularities. They exemplify these rules with target language examples. |
Candidates
provide detailed descriptions of the regularities and irregularities of the
target language grammatical system. They compare the grammatical systems of
the target and native languages. They explain how grammar can be used to
express nuances of meaning. |
|
Changing nature of language |
Candidates
recognize that the target language has changed over time. They rely on target
language examples as presented in the textbook. |
Candidates
identify key changes in the target language that have occurred over time
(such as writing system, introduction of new words, spelling conventions,
grammatical elements, etc.). They identify discrepancies that may exist
between the target language of the textbook and contemporary usage. |
Candidates
describe the system of changes that have occurred in the target language over
time. They are familiar with contemporary target language usage and adapt the
language of the textbook accordingly. |
|
Dispositions for accommodating for gaps in
knowledge of target language system |
Candidates frequently ask questions when they
lack knowledge of specific aspects of the target language system. |
Candidates investigate the target language
system and examples on their own when faced with specific aspects of the
system with which they are not familiar. |
Candidates take courses and/or seek remedial
help in order to accommodate for gaps in their knowledge of the target
language system. |
Standard 1.c.
Identifying Language Comparisons.
Candidates know the similarities and differences between the target language
and other languages, they identify the key differences in varieties of the
target language, and they seek opportunities to learn about varieties of the
target language on their own.
Supporting
Explanation
One of the benefits of knowing a second language is that one gains a greater understanding of his or her own language. Teacher candidates must be able to compare and contrast the target language with the native/other languages in order to help their students gain insights into the nature of language systems. This knowledge enables teacher candidates to organize and sequence language instruction, diagnose their students’ linguistic difficulties, and assist them in understanding linguistic concepts. Candidates must also have knowledge of variations of the target language in order to expose students to authentic language from a variety of regions where the language is spoken.
Elements
|
Approaches Standard |
Meets Standard
|
Exceeds Standard
|
|
Comparisons
between target & other languages |
Candidates
recognize that differences exist between the target and other languages. |
Candidates
identify key differences between the target and other languages and include
this information in language instruction. |
Candidates
use comparisons of target and other languages to systematically plan for and
sequence language instruction. |
|
Language
variation |
Candidates
recognize that varieties of the target language exist. |
Candidates identify key features of varieties
of the target language in terms of gender and dialectical differences and
provide examples to students. |
Candidates
describe the system of rules that govern differences among varieties of the
target language and explain the factors that affect these differences such as
geography, culture, politics, level of education, gender, and social class.
They engage students in investigating target language varieties through a
variety of means including technology. |
|
Dispositions for
learning about target language varieties |
Candidates
learn target language varieties presented in formal educational contexts
(e.g., course work). |
Candidates
learn about target language varieties through interaction with native
speakers outside of class and by accessing authentic target language samples
through a variety of means such as technology. |
Candidates
learn about target language varieties through experiences in immersion
situations including study abroad. |
SAMPLE CANDIDATE EVIDENCE FOR STANDARD #1:
ü
Official or
Advisory OPI / SOPI (MUST HAVE ONE OF THESE)
ü
Analyses of
video taped or audio taped oral presentations
ü
Samples of
written interpersonal/presentational tasks
ü
Summaries
of interpretive tasks done (listening of news broadcast, reading of literary
text, viewing of film), together with reflections
ü
Evidence of
plan for continuous language and cultural growth
ü
Performance
on examinations demonstrating knowledge of linguistics
ü
Reports /
papers / class work in which language comparisons are made
ü
Analyses of
interviews demonstrating interaction with native speaker(s) of the target
language
ü
Reflections
on study abroad and/or immersion experiences and experiences in target language
communities
CONCEPTS
Standard 2.a.
Demonstrating Cultural Understandings. Candidates demonstrate that they
understand the connections among the perspectives of a culture and its
practices and products, and they integrate the cultural framework for foreign
language standards into their instructional practices.
Standard 2.b.
Demonstrating Understanding of Literary and Cultural Texts and
Traditions. Candidates
recognize the value and role of literary and cultural texts and use them to
interpret and reflect upon the perspectives of the target cultures over time.
Standard 2.c.
Integrating Other Disciplines In Instruction. Candidates integrate knowledge of other
disciplines into foreign language instruction and identify distinctive
viewpoints accessible only through the target language.
Standard
2.a. Demonstrating Cultural
Understandings. Candidates
demonstrate that they understand the connections among the perspectives of a
culture and its practices and products, and they integrate the cultural
framework for foreign language standards into their instructional practices.
Supporting
Explanation
Candidates
acquire knowledge of cultural perspectives as they are reflected in the
practices and products of the target language. That knowledge comes from direct study of culture, from
literary texts, and from direct experiences in the target culture. This
knowledge and experience enable candidates to recognize and counteract cultural
stereotypes. Candidates integrate textual and experiential knowledge into their
instructional practice.
Candidates
demonstrate an understanding of the relationship among the perspectives,
practices, and products of a culture which comprise the cultural framework for
foreign language standards. The
scope of cultural knowledge extends to daily living patterns and societal
structures and to geography, history, religious and political systems,
literature, fine arts, media, and a variety of cultural products. Candidates
demonstrate an understanding of the similarities and differences between the
target and heritage cultures, and they know how to make comparisons between
them. They know how to locate authentic cultural resources appropriate to
support instruction.
Given that no
one can be in possession of all the cultural concepts, contemporary and
historical, it is important that teacher education candidates know how to
investigate and hypothesize about the dynamic dimensions of culture. They
pursue new insights into culture and expand their repertoire of knowledge by
analyzing new cultural information that allows learners to join communities in
the target culture, including information contained in documents, interactions
with native speakers, and social and institutional frameworks.
Candidates
recognize cultural stereotypes and their effect on student perceptions of culture and acknowledge the importance
of viewing culture as a dynamic system while keeping abreast of cultural
changes. Using their experiences as learners of other cultures they help students make comparisons. They
follow processes to identify, analyze, and evaluate themes, ideas, and
perspectives related to the products and practices of the target culture(s).
They discuss and analyze expressive products of the target culture(s) and
reflect on such intangible products as social, economic, and political
institutions, and they explore relationships among these institutions and the
perspectives of the target culture(s). Candidates then present information
about the target culture products, practices, and perspectives to an audience
of listeners/speakers.
Candidates use
the framework of perspectives, practices, and products, not only for their own
learning, but to help students analyze and understand culture. They embed
culture into curriculum, instruction, and assessment. They distinguish between authentic cultural resources (that
is, those materials that are created by and for native speakers of the target
language) and those that may trivialize or provide an inaccurate view of the
culture. They engage students in cultural
investigations and projects.
Candidates teach cultural comparisons when appropriate for instruction,
engage students in investigating cultural comparisons, and conduct classroom
activities that heighten students’ awareness of their own culture(s).
They use the community and technology as resources for integrating and teaching
culture.
Native speakers
of the target language understand the language and culture of the community in
which they teach so that they can elicit linguistic and cultural comparisons,
make connections to the other disciplines in the curriculum, and reach out to
the broader community.
|
Elements |
Approaches
Standard |
Meets
Standard |
Exceeds
Standard |
|
Cultural knowledge |
Candidates cite examples of cultural
practices, products, perspectives, but the concepts they know tend to be
arbitrarily selected. |
Candidates cite key cultural perspectives and
provide support through description of products and practices. |
Candidates view the target culture as a system
in which cultural perspectives
are reflected through practices and products. |
|
Cultural experience |
Candidates’ experience with the target
culture has been limited to travel/tourism or instruction. |
Candidates have spent planned time in a target
culture or community so that they have personal experience to support
academic study. |
Candidates interpret journals or observations
from cultural informants, which narrate or describe experiences in studying,
living, or working in a target culture.
Candidates also collect their own cultural observations from extended
time in the target culture or, for native speakers, from their personal
experiences growing up in a target culture. |
|
Process of analyzing cultures |
Candidates rely on cultural analyses that are
ready available (in textbooks) or are learned (information they have acquired
through study and/or personal experiences). |
Candidates demonstrate that they can analyze
and hypothesize about unfamiliar or unknown cultural issues. They use the framework of the foreign
language standards or another cultural model to investigate hypotheses that
arise from materials or events that contain cultural questions or
assumptions. |
Candidates collect and use in instruction
materials that pose significant cultural questions or that illustrate
cultural changes. They use a
cultural framework to keep
abreast of the changing nature of culture and its cultural variations. |
|
Integrating culture into instruction |
|||
|
Dispositions for cultural learning |
Candidates limit their own and their
students’ cultural work to familiar and factual cultural content. |
Candidates integrate cultural insights with
the target language in its communicative functions and content areas. They work to extend their knowledge
of culture through independent work and interactions with native speakers. |
Candidates emphasize cultural concepts as they
teach language, analyze and synthesize cultural information from authentic
sources in various media and in relation to specific communities or
audiences. They work to build a
large repertoire of cultural knowledge and experiences. |
Standard
2.b. Demonstrating Understanding
of Literary and Cultural Texts and Traditions. Candidates
recognize the value and role of literary and cultural texts and use them to
interpret and reflect upon the perspectives of the target cultures over time.
Candidates have
a broad understanding of and an appreciation for traditions in the target
language. They are able to identify the contributions of major writers,
thinkers, artists, and cultural icons, the roles they play, and references made
to them in the culture. They are familiar with and able to interpret texts in
the variety of discourses that represent the target culture’s traditions
and contemporary variations.
Candidates read
at the level of analysis, interpretation, and synthesis. They use their knowledge of the
literary traditions to interpret changes in the culture over time. Candidates
are able to compare and contrast literary traditions in the target culture with
those of other cultures. In turn, candidates select and adapt literary texts in
ways that engage their students in activities that heighten awareness of target
cultures and advance students’ communicative proficiencies. Candidates
expand their own language proficiency and cultural knowledge through
independent and on-going work with literary and cultural texts.
|
Elements |
Approaches
Standard |
Meets
Standard |
Exceeds
Standard |
|
Knowledge of literary and cultural texts |
Candidates
are aware of major literary texts and have read excerpts, abridgements, or reviews of those
works and authors. |
Candidates interpret literary texts that
represent defining works in the target cultures. They identify themes,
authors, historical style preference, and text types that the cultures deem
important in understanding the traditions of the cultures. |
Candidates interpret and synthesize ideas and
critical issues from literary and other cultural texts that represent the
historical and contemporary works of a wide range of writers in a wide range
of forms and media. They
interpret from multiple viewpoints and approaches. |
|
Integrating texts from literature and other
media in instruction |
|
Candidates select literary and cultural texts appropriate to age, interests,
and proficiency level of their students. They integrate these texts into
lessons, design activities that develop language competencies based on these
texts, and engage students in interpreting their meaning and the cultural
perspectives that they represent. |
|
Standard
2.c. Integrating Other Disciplines
In Instruction. Candidates
integrate knowledge of other disciplines into foreign language instruction and
identify distinctive viewpoints accessible only through the target language.
Candidates use
their proficiency in the target language to access information on disciplines
and interdisciplinary perspectives that represent the target culture. Virtually
every document, oral or written, that has been created in the target language
provides insights, conveys ideas, or represents creative expression from the
culture. The foreign language
field has always been heavily interdisciplinary, and candidates derive much of
their knowledge of the culture from content in fields such as, history,
geography, art history, theater, and philosophy, as well as political and
natural sciences. Candidates are
expected to expand their academic knowledge by reading texts or listening to or
watching tapes, film, or video from a variety of disciplinary sources.
Candidates demonstrate knowledge in the target language of a variety of disciplines and their applications to the interpretation of cultures, they understand how to integrate content from other subject areas into the foreign language curriculum, and they locate content area sources that are appropriate for the level of instruction, age of students, program goals, and interests of students. Candidates can reinforce subject area content in the foreign language in a comprehensible and meaningful manner and provide their students with strategies for learning the content of other subject areas through the foreign language.
Candidates believe that other subject areas can be
enhanced through foreign language study and recognize that subject area content
motivates learners and connects the foreign language with other disciplines in
the curriculum. They are curious about and seek opportunities to collaborate
with colleagues from other disciplines to find appropriate areas of connection
between foreign language and other subjects in the curriculum. Recognizing the
value of using authentic texts to provide students with distinctive viewpoints,
they are willing to work collaboratively with students to learn new subject
area content.
Candidates believe that they can acquire new information and distinctive viewpoints that are accessible only through the target language. Therefore, candidates provide opportunities for their students to explore specialized topics or areas of interest through foreign language texts and materials. Since candidates may not be familiar with all areas of interest of their students, they are willing to work collaboratively with students to learn new subject content. Their classrooms, therefore, become communities of learners in which both the teacher and learner explore and learn new content together.
|
Elements |
Approaches Standard |
Meets Standard |
Exceeds Standard |
|
Integration of other
subject areas into language instruction |
Candidates may integrate
discrete pieces of information
from other subject areas, usually as they appear in the textbook. |
Candidates integrate
concepts from other subject areas such as math, science, social studies, art,
and music. They teach students strategies for learning this new content in
the foreign language. |
Candidates implement a
content-based approach to language instruction that is based on the
integration of language and subject-area content. |
|
Planning for cross-disciplinary
instruction |
Candidates
intermittently plan to integrate
subject-area content. Resources are limited to those that accompany the
textbook program. |
Candidates collaborate
with colleagues in making connections between language and other subject
areas. They locate authentic resources appropriate to the age, grade level,
program goals, and interests of their students. |
Candidates
systematically plan for instruction with colleagues from other subject areas.
They may do team-teaching in order to fully integrate instruction. |
|
Dispositions for
integrating other subject areas into language instruction |
Candidates’
philosophy of language teaching does not yet emphasize the integration of other subject areas
into language instruction. |
Candidates devote time
to finding ways to integrate subject-area content and to locating authentic
resources. They are willing to learn new content with students. |
Candidates create a
community of learners within the classroom, in which the teacher and learners
work together to acquire new information and perspectives across disciplines. |
ü
Projects /
technology-enhanced presentations on literary or cultural topics
ü
Performance
on examinations demonstrating understanding of cultural framework
ü
Capstone
projects / research reports dealing with the discipline
ü
Reports on
classroom experiences, describing cultural knowledge/perspectives acquired
ü
Journal
entries that illustrate knowledge and understanding of the culture, acquired as
a result of interaction with target-language communities
ü
Philosophy
of teaching statement that addresses the role of culture, literature, and
cross-disciplinary content
ü
Lesson
plans demonstrating the integration of culture and content from other
disciplines into language lessons
ü
P-12
student work samples that illustrate cultural learning
ü
Annotated
list of extra-curricular events attended, such as theatre, round-table
discussions, etc.
ü
Literary
interpretations of a variety of texts
ü
Annotated
list of websites that serve as sources of cultural and subject-matter content
Standard 3.a. Understanding Language Acquisition and
Creating Supportive Classroom. Candidates
demonstrate an understanding of language acquisition at various developmental
levels and use this knowledge to create a supportive classroom learning
environment that includes target language input and opportunities for
negotiation of meaning and meaningful interaction.
Standard 3.b. Developing Instructional Practices That
Reflect Language Outcomes and Learner Diversity. Candidates develop a variety of
instructional practices that reflect language outcomes and articulated program
models and address the needs of diverse language learners.
Standard 3.a.
Understanding Language Acquisition and Creating Supportive Classroom. Candidates demonstrate an understanding
of language acquisition at various developmental levels and use this knowledge
to create a supportive classroom learning environment that includes target
language input and opportunities for negotiation of meaning and meaningful
interaction.
Supporting
Explanation:
Candidates
understand how language acquisition occurs at various developmental levels
(e.g., elementary school students vs. adolescents) both within and outside of
the formal classroom setting. They use the target language in the classroom to
the maximum extent possible, provide meaningful target language input, and
assist students in understanding this input. Teachers build lessons around topics drawn from a variety of
subject areas; such content-based lessons integrate language, culture, and
student interests. Candidates
provide guided assistance to students to help them learn to negotiate meaning
and take risks with the language as they use it to express thoughts and ideas.
They provide opportunities for students to use the target language to express
meaning and fulfill a variety of communicative needs. They design tasks through
which students interact meaningfully with one another, with the teacher, and
with native speakers of the target language. Candidates possess the
dispositions necessary for creating a supportive classroom environment that is
reflective of student needs. They are able to assume a role as facilitator,
their feedback to students focuses not only on linguistic accuracy but also on
meaning of their messages, and they offer encouragement and affirmation of
their students’ progress in the target language. They recognize that
errors occur as part of the language acquisition process, and they encourage
students to take risks in using the target language.
|
Elements |
Approaches Standard
|
Meets Standard |
Exceeds Standard
|
|
Language acquisition theories |
Candidates
exhibit an awareness of the key concepts of language acquisition theories as
they relate to learners at various developmental levels. They illustrate an
ability to connect theory with practice. They show a growing awareness of the
connection between student learning and the use of instructional strategies. |
Candidates
exhibit an understanding of language acquisition theories, including the use
of target language input, negotiation of meaning, interaction, and a supportive
learning environment. They draw on their knowledge of theories, as they apply
to learners at various developmental levels, in designing teaching strategies
that facilitate language acquisition. |
Candidates
exhibit ease and flexibility in applying language acquisition theories to
instructional practice. They use a wide variety of strategies to meet the
linguistic needs of their students at various developmental levels.
Candidates exhibit originality in the planning, creation and implementation
of instructional strategies that reflect language theories. |
|
Target language input |
Candidates
use the target language for specific parts of classroom lessons at all levels
of instruction, but may avoid spontaneous interaction with students in the
target language. They may use some strategies to help students understand
oral and written input. |
Candidates
use the target language to the maximum extent in classes at all levels of
instruction. They designate certain times for spontaneous interaction with students in the target language.
They tailor language use to students’ developing proficiency levels.
They use a variety of strategies to help students understand oral and written
input. They use the target language
to design
content-based language lessons. |
Candidates
conduct classes in the target language at all levels of instruction. A key
component of their classes is their spontaneous interaction with students in
the target language. They assist
students in developing a repertoire of strategies for understanding oral and
written input. They use the target language to teach a variety of
subject-matter and cultural content. |
|
Negotiation of meaning |
Candidates
do not regularly negotiate meaning with students. They teach students some
expressions in the target language for negotiating meaning, such as
“Could you repeat that, please?” |
Candidates
negotiate meaning with students when spontaneous interaction occurs. They
teach students a variety of ways to negotiate meaning with others and provide
opportunities for them to do so in classroom activities. |
Negotiation
of meaning is an integral part of classroom interaction. Candidates negotiate
meaning regularly with students. They teach students to integrate negotiation
of meaning strategies into their communication with others. |
|
Meaningful classroom interaction |
Candidates
use communicative textbook activities as the basis for engaging students in
meaningful classroom interaction.
Meaningful contexts are those that occur in the textbook. |
Candidates
design activities in which students will have opportunities to interact
meaningfully with one another.
The majority of activities and tasks have meaningful contexts that
reflect curricular themes and students’ interests. |
Meaningful
classroom interaction is at the heart of language instruction. Candidates
engage students in communicative and interesting activities and tasks on a
regular basis. All classroom interaction reflects engaging contexts that are
personalized to the interests of students and reflect curricular goals. |
|
Dispositions
for creating a supportive classroom environment |
Candidates
employ exercises and activities that require students to provide predictable
and/or correct right answers. Candidates
assume a traditional role of teacher as director of learning. The
feedback that candidates offer students is primarily evaluative in nature and
focuses on the accuracy of their language. Candidates
encourage students to progress within the framework of the textbook. |
Candidates
employ exercises and activities that require students to provide open-ended,
personalized responses. Candidates
often assume the role of facilitator in classroom activities. Some activities
provide opportunities for them to learn with their students. Candidates
provide feedback to students that focuses on meaning as well as linguistic
accuracy. They view errors as a normal part of the language acquisition
process. Candidates
employ strategies to encourage and affirm student progress. Candidates
encourage students to take risks in using the target language. |
Candidates
use an approach in which personalized, creative language use is central to
all activities. The
principal role of the candidate is as facilitator of learning in the language
classroom. Candidates value opportunities to learn with their students. Candidates
engage students in monitoring their own progress and in asking for assistance
from the teacher. They engage students in tracking their own errors and their
progress and in providing feedback to their peers. Candidates
reward students for taking risks in using the target language. |
Standard 3.b.
Developing Instructional Practices That Reflect Language Outcomes and Learner
Diversity. Candidates
develop a variety of instructional practices that reflect language outcomes and
articulated program models and address the needs of diverse language learners.
Supporting
Explanation:
Candidates
demonstrate an understanding of the physical, cognitive, emotional, and social
development of students at all levels of instruction. They understand the
important effects of language acquisition theories and learner development on
instructional planning and practice. They understand the relationship of
foreign language program models and language outcomes. As schools develop
longer sequences, candidates recognize the benefits of well-articulated
sequences of instruction. They provide a range of learning opportunities for
learners of various ages, developmental and linguistic levels, language
backgrounds, and learning styles. They demonstrate the ability to adapt
language instruction to address students’ multiple ways of learning and
to meet their special needs. They are willing to seek out information about
their students’ needs in order to adapt instruction accordingly.
Candidates use a
variety of instructional strategies to engage students in critical thinking and
problem solving. They value the role of inquiry and collaboration in the
language classroom. They maximize learning and interaction through the use of
pair, small group, and large group activities. Candidates use questioning
strategies and task-based instruction as appropriate given the goals of
instruction in the language classroom.
|
Elements |
Approaches
Standard |
Meets
Standard |
Exceeds Standard |
|
Theories
of learner development and instruction |
Candidates
recognize that K-12 students have different physical, cognitive, emotional,
and social developmental characteristics. Candidates
recognize the need to tailor instruction to accommodate their
students’ developmental
needs. They are aware that many
different instructional models and techniques exist. |
Candidates
describe the physical, cognitive, emotional, and social developmental
characteristics of K-12 students. They implement a variety of
instructional models and
techniques to accommodate these differences. |
Candidates
plan for instruction according to the physical, cognitive, emotional, and
social developmental needs of their students. They tailor instruction to meet
the developmental needs of their students. |
|
Understanding
of relationship of articulated program models to language outcomes. |
Candidates
recognize that different foreign
language program models (e.g., FLES, FLEX, immersion) exist and lead to
different language outcomes. |
Candidates
describe how foreign language program models (e.g., FLES, FLEX, immersion)
lead to different language outcomes. |
Candidates
design and/or implement specific foreign language program models that lead to
different language outcomes. |
|
Adapting
instruction to address students’ language levels, language backgrounds,
learning styles |
Candidates
recognize that their students have a wide range of language levels, language
backgrounds, and learning styles. They attempt to address these differences
by using a limited variety of
instructional strategies. |
Candidates
seek out information regarding their students’ language levels,
language backgrounds, and learning styles. They implement a variety of
instructional models and techniques to address these student differences. |
Candidates
consistently use information about their students’ language levels,
language backgrounds, and learning styles to plan for and implement language
instruction. |
|
Adapting
instruction to address students’ multiple ways of learning |
Candidates
recognize that students approach language learning in a variety of ways. They
identify how individual students learn. |
Candidates
identify multiple ways in which students learn when engaged in language
classroom activities. |
Candidates
plan for and implement a variety of instructional models and strategies that
accommodate different ways of learning. |
|
Adapting
instruction to meet students’ special needs |
Candidates
identify special needs of their students, including cognitive, physical,
linguistic, social, and emotional needs. They recognize that they may need to
adapt instruction to meet these special needs. |
Candidates
implement a variety of instructional models and techniques that address
specific special needs of their students. |
Candidates
anticipate their students’ special needs by planning for alternative
classroom activities as necessary. |
|
Critical
thinking and problem solving |
Candidates
tend to implement activities that have a limited number of answers and allow
little room for critical thinking and/or problem solving. |
Candidates
implement activities that promote critical thinking and problem-solving
skills. |
Candidates
reward their students for engaging in critical thinking and problem solving. |
|
Grouping
|
Candidates
teach primarily with large-group instruction. Pair- and small-group activities generally consist of
students grouped together but working individually. |
Candidates
conduct activities in which students work collaboratively in pairs and small
groups. They define and model the task, give a time limit and expectations
for follow-up, group students, assign students roles, monitor the task, and
conduct a follow-up activity. |
Candidates
provide regular opportunities for students to work collaboratively in pairs
and small-groups. They teach their students strategies for assuming roles,
monitoring their progress in the task, and evaluating their performance at
the end of the task. |
|
Use
of questioning and tasks |
Candidates
use short-answer questioning as the primary strategy for eliciting language
from students. They use tasks as they appear in the textbook. |
Candidates
recognize that questioning strategies and task-based activities serve
different instructional objectives. They identify the effect of the questioning
or task on the nature of language use and the responses elicited from
students. |
Candidates
have an approach to planning and instruction that integrates the appropriate
use of both questioning strategies and task-based activities, based on
instructional objectives and the nature of language use that they want to
elicit from students. |
|
Dispositions
about student diversity |
Candidates
adapt instruction to address students’ needs if they are given specific
instructions of how to do so. |
Candidates
seek out opportunities to learn about their students, their backgrounds, and
their special needs. They adapt instruction to address students’ needs. |
Candidates
value diversity in their classrooms. They work with students, parents,
colleagues, and others to address the special needs of their students. |
SAMPLE CANDIDATE EVIDENCE FOR STANDARD #3:
ü
Performance
on examinations demonstrating understanding of language acquisition theories
and the relationship between theory and practice
ü
Reflections
on classroom observations and/or case study reports that include discussion of
theory and practice
ü
Lesson
plans (and reflections lessons) that illustrate teaching practices based on
language acquisition theories
ü
Self-evaluations/reflections
on video taped lessons taught by candidate
ü
Written
classroom learning scenarios in which the candidate describes expected outcomes
of the teaching segments, instructional decisions made prior to and during the
lessons, and an assessment of P-12 student learning and teaching performance
ü
Analysis of
teaching performance over time that addresses progress made in providing target
language input, using negotiation of meaning, engaging students in
interactions, serving as facilitator in the classroom, providing feedback that
focuses on meaning and accuracy, using questions and tasks appropriately, and
encouraging students to take risks in using the target language
ü
Lesson
plans (and reflections on lessons) that illustrate modifications to meet
specific learner needs, address multiple ways of learning, promote cultural
thinking and problem solving, and engage students in pair and group activities
ü
Written
summaries of professional journal articles that deal with current research
and/or teaching practices, together with a reflection on the information
learned
STANDARD #4:
INTEGRATION OF STANDARDS INTO CURRICULUM
AND INSTRUCTION
Standard 4.a. Understanding and Integrating Standards In
Planning. Candidates
demonstrate an understanding of the goal areas and standards of the Standards
for Foreign Language Learning and
their state standards, and they integrate these frameworks into curricular
planning.
Standard 4.b. Integrating Standards in Instruction. Candidates integrate the Standards for
Foreign Language Learning and
their state standards into language instruction.
Standard 4.c.
Selecting and Designing Instructional Materials. Candidates use standards and curricular
goals to evaluate, select, design, and adapt instructional resources.
Standard 4.a.
Understanding and Integrating Standards In Planning. Candidates demonstrate an understanding
of the goal areas and standards of the Standards for Foreign Language
Learning, and their
state standards, and they integrate these frameworks into curricular planning.
Supporting
Explanation:
Elements
|
Approaches Standard
|
Meets Standard
|
Exceeds Standard
|
|
Understanding of goal areas and standards |
|||
|
Integration of standards into planning |
|||
Standard 4.b.
Integrating Standards in Instruction. Candidates
integrate the Standards for Foreign Language Learning and their state standards into language
instruction.
Supporting
Explanation:
Elements
|
Approaches Standard
|
Meets Standard
|
Exceeds Standard
|
|
Candidates
design and implement activities that are standards-based, even if their
textbook and curriculum are not standards-based. They acquire knowledge and
skills to be able to do this. |
Standard 4.c.
Selecting and Designing Instructional Materials. Candidates use standards and curricular
goals to evaluate, select, adapt, and design instructional materials.
Supporting
Explanation:
The Standards
for Foreign Language Learning
have served as a catalyst for change, not only in the areas of planning and
classroom instruction, but also in the selection, adaptation, and design of
instructional materials. Candidates use the organizing principles of the standards
as they evaluate, select, and create instructional materials. Where in the past
the textbook was the primary resource, candidates now use the textbook as one
of many resources. These resources include visuals, realia, authentic printed
and oral texts, and other authentic materials obtained through technology
(e.g., internet). Candidates locate and use authentic materials in their
teaching, since the value of authentic materials is that they reflect
real-world language as it is used by native speakers in target cultures.
Candidates adapt the textbook and other materials to align them with
standards-based goals. They spend the time necessary to locate effective
materials, to adapt them, and to design their own.
Elements
|
Approaches Standard
|
Meets Standard
|
Exceeds Standard
|
|
Evaluation, selection, creation of
standards-based materials |
|||
|
Use of authentic materials |
|||
|
Dispositions
for locating resources and creating materials |
SAMPLE CANDIDATE EVIDENCE FOR STANDARD #4:
ü
Written
correlation of the candidate’s state standards to national standards
ü
Written
classroom learning scenarios that illustrate integration of standards into
teaching
ü
Unit /
lesson plans (with reflections) that illustrate standards-based lessons and
samples of P-12 student work
ü
Written
rationales for the selection of materials used in lessons
ü
List of
sources of standards-based lesson materials, including authentic materials and
those obtained through various technologies
ü
Journal
entries that describe how the candidate uses technology to integrate the
standards into instruction
ü
Written
critiques of instructional resources such as the text, websites, video segments
ü
Instructional
materials created by the candidate and a description of how materials are used
and for which learning outcomes
ü
Instructional
materials adapted by the candidate with a description of how and why materials
were adapted
STANDARD #5: ASSESSMENT OF LANGUAGES AND CULTURES
Standard 5.a.
Knowing assessment models and using them appropriately.
Candidates believe that assessment is ongoing, and they demonstrate
knowledge of multiple ways of assessment that are age- and level-appropriate by
implementing purposeful measures.
Standard 5.b.
Reflecting on assessment. Candidates reflect on the results
of student assessments, adjust instruction accordingly, analyze the results of
assessments, and use success and failure to determine the direction of
instruction.
Standard 5.c.
Reporting assessment results. Candidates interpret and report the
results of student performances to all stakeholders and provide opportunity for
discussion.
Standard
5.a. Knowing assessment models and
using them appropriately. Candidates believe that assessment is
ongoing, and they demonstrate knowledge of multiple ways of assessment that are
age- and level-appropriate by implementing purposeful measures.
Recent years
have seen dramatic changes in the formats of testing that are appropriate to
measuring foreign language performances. Although there are aspects of
assessment that may be addressed in general testing courses, assessment of communicative
and cultural competencies in foreign languages require processes, procedures,
and evaluation unique to specific languages.
Candidates
understand that appropriate assessment of students is a continual process that
informs classroom instruction. Foreign language assessments can be both
formative and summative and teachers recognize and utilize both models
purposefully. The various modes of
communication and the acquisition of cultural knowledge all require specific
measurement models that focus on student performance. Candidates are able to assess interpersonal communication,
interpretive communication, and
presentational
communication orally and in writing. Listening/speaking in the interpersonal mode is
assessed through oral interviews or tasks in which the student’s ability
to negotiate meaning can be observed.
An interview or variations thereof allow teachers to see at what level
students consistently perform as well as where they must compensate for their
evolving competence. Successful
communication requires more than words; it is also contingent upon appropriate
cultural behaviors and the approach to topics. Interpretive communication looks at how students, as
listeners or readers, derive meaning from authentic texts, literary and informational. Measures should reveal not only what is
understood but what is inferred from the cultural context, and responses should
include forced choice, short answer, and open-ended formats. Presentational communication, planned
speaking or writing, should assess the end product of the student’s work
and scoring should include a holistic measure and not just a detailing of
errors. Candidates should be
familiar with the ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of
Foreign Languages) Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners.
Candidates are able to assess student learning about the perspectives, practices, and products of the target cultures and comparisons to their own. Candidates seek opportunities to assess how students use their language in culturally appropriate ways beyond the classroom. Candidates also integrate assessment measures into regular classroom instruction and understand that performance assessment frequently encompasses multiple areas of student knowledge and skills.
|
Elements |
Approaches
Standard |
Meets
Standard |
Exceeds
Standard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formative
& summative assessment models |
Candidates
recognize the purposes of
formative and summative assessments as set forth in prepared testing
materials. |
Candidates
design formative assessments to measure progress within a unit of instruction
and summative assessments to measure performance at the end of a unit or
chapter. |
Candidates
design a system of formative and summative assessments to measure student
progress in an ongoing manner and at culminating points in the total program. |
|
Interpretive
communication |
Candidates
limit assessment measures to those found in textbooks and materials prepared
by others. The
reading/listening materials with which they work tend to be those prepared for
pedagogical purposes. |
Candidates
design performance assessments
that measure students’ abilities to comprehend and interpret authentic
oral and written texts from the target cultures. The assessments they design and use encompass a variety of
response types from forced choice to essays. |
Candidates
design assessment procedures that encourage students to interpret reading and
listening texts of their choice.
Many of these involve students’ developing self-assessment
skills to encourage independent reading/listening. |
|
|
Candidates
limit assessments of presentational communication to assignments that are
narrowly built upon material taught. |
Candidates
design and use assessments that capture how well student speak and write in planned contexts. The assessments focus on the final
products created after a drafting process and look at how meaning is conveyed
in culturally appropriate ways.
They create and use effective holistic and/or analytical scoring
methods. |
Candidates
create presentational tasks that
develop students’ abilities to self-assess which includes
self-correction and revision.
They encourage students to write or to speak on topics of interest to
the students. |
|
|
Candidates
limit assessments of culture to isolated facts presented in textbooks and
prepared materials. |
Candidates
devise assessments that allow students to apply the cultural framework to
authentic documents. Student
tasks may include identifying the products, practices, and perspectives
embedded in those documents. |
Candidates
design assessments of
problem-solving tasks in content areas of interest to students and possibly
on topics not familiar to the teacher. |
|
Integrated communication assessments |
|
Candidates utilize existing standards-based
performance assessments (e.g., IPAs: Integrated Performance Assessments),
that allow students to work through a series of communicative tasks on a
theme (e.g., wellness, travel).
They are able to evaluate performance in an overall fashion and on
subsets of skills and content. |
Candidates design standards-based performance
assessments for their students based upon models available in the literature or from professional
organizations. |
|
Dispositions toward global assessments |
Candidates may recognize the role of
performance assessment in the classroom and attempt to measure performances
periodically. However, they rely
primarily on assessments that are discrete point in nature or right answer
responses. |
Candidates assess what students know and are
able to do by using and designing assessments that capture successful
communication and cultural understandings. They commit the time and effort
necessary to measure end performances. |
Candidates demonstrate that they have shifted
most of their assessment practices to performances that are global and
integrative and from those they derive the analytical information that
informs their teaching. They
commit time and energy to assessment projects that are creative and
interesting to students. |
Standard
5.b. Reflecting on
assessment. Candidates reflect on the results
of student assessments, adjust instruction accordingly, analyze the results of
assessments, and use success and failure to determine the direction of
instruction.
Supporting
Explanation
Candidates systematically reflect upon the student performances in order to adapt their instruction. The results of assessment indicate to teachers where student strengths lie, where alternative instructional strategies are necessary, where skills or knowledge must be reinforced, where additional practice must be provided. Candidates recognize that students acquire proficiency over time and that the equation between what is taught and what is learned is imperfect; students’ performances provide evidence of different rates of acquisition.
|
Elements
|
Approaches Standard
|
Meets Standard
|
Exceeds Standard
|
|
|
Candidates
interpret assessments as
correct/incorrect student responses even when reflecting upon holistic measures. |
Candidates
observe and analyze the results of student performances so as to discern both
global success and underlying inaccuracies. |
Candidates
teach students to reflect upon their performances in both a global and
analytical fashion. |
|
Adjusting instruction |
Candidates tend to adjust instruction through whole group remediation
or review. |
Candidates skillfully use insights gained from
assessing student performances to adapt, change, vary, reinforce instruction. |
|
|
Dispositions for committing time to reflection |
Candidates use assessments that can be scored quickly and mechanically and move forward without
due consideration of how results affect student progress. |
Candidates incorporate what they have learned from assessments and
show how they have adjusted instruction. The commitment to do this is
established in their planning. |
Candidates design assessments and commit time
to seeing how results be used to improve teaching and student learning. |
Standard
5.c. Reporting assessment results.
Candidates interpret and report the results of student performances to
all stakeholders and provide opportunity for discussion.
Supporting
Explanation
Candidates
believe in the transparency embedded in performance assessment in that the
assessment tasks themselves reveal the strengths and areas for growth of
student knowledge and skills.
Candidates are able to help students understand the level at which they
perform most competently and how they progress to a more advanced level.
Performance assessments demonstrate how well and to what degree students can
use the language effectively for communication and behave appropriately in the
target cultures. Candidates are
able to describe what their students can do and begin to develop that message
for the various publics. They are
willing to take the time to report assessment results accurately and clearly.
|
Elements |
Approaches
Standard |
Meets Standard
|
Exceeds Standard
|
|
Interpreting
and reporting progress to students |
Candidates
interpret and report accurately the progress students are making in terms of
language proficiency and cultural knowledge. They use the
performances to illustrate both what students can do and how they can
advance. |
Candidates
identify ways of involving students in understanding testing procedures and
scoring mechanisms so that students gain confidence in self-assessment and in
planning for personal growth. |
|
|
Communicating with stakeholders |
Candidates report student progress to students
and parents. They use appropriate terminology and share
examples that illustrate student learning. |
Candidates communicate to audiences in the
schools and community how assessment reflects language proficiency and
cultural experiences. |
|
|
Dispositions
for taking time to report assessment results |
Candidates
find short-cut ways to report assessment results. |
Candidates
devote time to reporting assessment results accurately and clearly. |
Candidates
commit time to reporting assessment results in a way that is tailored to
particular groups of stakeholders. |
SAMPLE CANDIDATE EVIDENCE FOR STANDARD #5:
ü
Performance
on examinations demonstrating knowledge of assessment principles and models
ü
Samples of
formative and summative P-12 assessments/rubrics across the communicative modes
and cultural framework
ü
Analyses of
video taped student performances on assessment tasks, together with rubrics and
assessment results
ü
Samples and
analyses of integrated performance assessments
ü
Reports of
how assessment results were used to improve future instruction
ü
Summaries,
journal entries, and/or case studies describing parent-teacher conferences
and/or how student progress was reported
Standard 6.a. Engaging in Professional Development. Candidates engage in professional
development opportunities that strengthen their own linguistic and cultural
competence and promote reflection on practice.
Standard 6.b. Knowing the Value of Foreign Language Learning. Teacher candidates know the value of foreign language learning to the overall success of all students and understand that they will need to become advocates with students, colleagues, and members of the community to promote the field.
Standard 6.a.
Engaging in Professional Development. Candidates
engage in professional development opportunities that strengthen their own
linguistic and cultural competence and promote reflection on practice.
Candidates understand the importance and benefits of belonging to a professional community. They are aware that there are different communities that support them in different ways at various points in their careers. More importantly, they understand that professional development is a life-long endeavor and an indispensable asset to becoming a contributing member of the profession. Professional development may include such activities as participating in conferences and workshops, reading professional journals, and linking theory and practice by systematically reflecting on teaching, learning and assessment. Candidates believe that it is their responsibility to seek counsel from mentors as to which organizations might be most appropriate for their specific needs. Candidates develop the ability to reflect on the outcomes of their involvement in these professional communities and on how their continued participation will strengthen their own linguistic and cultural competence and refine their pedagogical practices. They understand the importance of seeking professional growth.
|
Elements |
Approaches Standard |
Meets
Standard |
Exceeds
Standard |
|
Awareness
of professional community |
Candidates
identify appropriate professional communities. |
Candidates
identify and participate in at least one professional organization. |
Candidates
identify and participate in multiple professional communities. |
|
Life-long
commitment to professional growth |
Candidates
articulate the need for ongoing professional development. |
Candidates
identify immediate professional development needs and a potential source of
support. |
Candidates
outline a process for identifying ongoing professional development needs and
the potential providers to meet these needs. |
|
Reflection
as a critical tool for growth |
Candidates
recognize the potential of reflection and research as essential tools for
becoming an effective practitioner.
They rely on others’ questions to frame reflection. |
Candidates
begin to frame their own reflection and research questions and show evidence
of engaging in a reflective process to improve teaching and learning. |
Candidates
systematically engage in a reflective process for analyzing student work and
planning future instruction.
They begin to identify possibilities of classroom-based research to
inform practice. |
|
Dispositions
for seeking professional growth |
Candidates
often respond to the suggestions that others make regarding candidates’
own professional growth. |
Candidates
seek opportunities for professional growth. |
Candidates
develop a plan for their continued
professional growth. |
Standard 6.b. Knowing the Value of Foreign Language Learning. Candidates know the value of foreign language learning to the overall success of all students and understand that they will need to become advocates with students, colleagues, and members of the community to promote the field.
Supporting Explanation
Candidates believe that all students can benefit from language study. They develop and learn how to articulate a rationale for the importance of foreign languages in the overall curriculum. Candidates learn how to access relevant data to support this position and make a case for foreign language programs that offer a variety of language options and engage all students. They can articulate the multiple benefits of foreign language learning and can communicate these messages to multiple audiences. Candidates understand the importance of building ongoing alliances with all stakeholders to promote the goal of language learning for all students and know how to incorporate diverse viewpoints into advocacy messages.
|
Elements |
Approaches Standard |
Meets Standard |
Exceeds Standard |
|
Development of a rationale for foreign language
learning |
Candidates realize the importance of developing a
rationale that supports foreign language learning. |
Candidates develop a rationale that includes key
benefits of foreign language learning. |
Candidates develop and articulate a rationale for
foreign language learning that includes the cognitive, academic, and
affective benefits to students and society. |
|
Accessing and employing data to support foreign
language learning |
Candidates identify the main data sources (both
print and online) for accessing foreign language-specific data. |
Candidates choose appropriate data sources to
develop products in support of foreign language learning for designated
audiences. |
Candidates access multiple sources of data and
synthesize findings to prepare a coherent rationale for foreign language
learning for diverse audiences. |
|
The importance of building alliances for advocacy |
Candidates understand the importance of networks and
the role they play in advocacy efforts. |
Candidates provide evidence of the importance of
building alliances to advocate for foreign language learning. |
Candidates demonstrate evidence that collaborating
with colleagues is a significant factor in successfully advocating for foreign
language learning. |
|
Dispositions regarding the value of language study |
Candidates believe that foreign language study
benefits mostly a particular group of students. |
Based on readings and field experiences, candidates
believe that all students should have opportunities to learn a foreign
language. |
Candidates argue or make a case for foreign language
opportunities for all students. |
SUMMARY OF CANDIDATE EVIDENCE FOR STANDARD #6:
ü
List of
professional organizations with which the candidate is familiar
ü
List of
professional membership(s) and evidence of participation
ü
Description
of professional activities in which the candidate has participated and benefits
to candidate (e.g., workshop/conference attendance)
ü
List of
research questions that the candidate has at this point in career
ü
A
professional development plan
ü
List of
sources for accessing data foreign-language specific data (e.g., types of
programs offered across state/nation, student enrollment figures)
ü
Philosophy
statement, position paper, or simulated presentation to the school board,
community members, and/or other stakeholders, to demonstrate advocacy for
foreign language learning