APPENDICES A Program Report Submissions for Graduate Foreign Language

APPENDICES A. Program Report Submissions for Graduate Foreign Language Teacher Preparation Programs B. A Brief History of Foreign Language Instruction C. The Knowledge Base Supporting the Standards D. Alignment of ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers with Other Professional Standards E. Samples of Candidate Performance Evidence Correlated to the Standards F. Sample Assessment #1 G. Sample Assessment #2 H. Sample Assessment #3 I. Sample Assessment #4 J. Sample Assessment #5 K. ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners L. Application Form for Program Reviewers M. Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (Overview) N. INTASC Model Standards for Licensing Beginning Foreign Language Teachers: A Resource for State Dialogue O. NBPTS World Languages Other Than English Standards P. ACTFL Revised Proficiency Guidelines—Speaking Q. ACTFL Revised Proficiency Guidelines—Writing 1 Appendix A Program Report Submissions for Graduate Foreign Language Teacher Preparation Programs 2 Appendix A Program Report Submissions for Graduate Foreign Language Teacher Preparation Programs ACTFL recognizes that graduate foreign language teacher preparation programs differ widely in their structure (e.g., post-baccalaureate, MAT). Therefore, as part of the Context Statement, graduate programs should describe their structure so that program reviewers have a clear idea regarding the typical profile of a student who is admitted to the program, the focus/goals of the program, and the types of course work and field experiences that are required. ACTFL recognizes that many foreign language teacher preparation programs at the graduate level work with graduate students after they have already studied the “content” of the discipline (the foreign language, linguistics, culture, for example) and after they have completed study abroad and/or immersion programs. Therefore, such graduate programs may not have all of the program characteristics described in these standards (e.g., development of candidates’ language proficiency; ongoing assessment of candidates’ oral proficiency; language, linguistics, culture, and literature components; opportunities for study abroad). Programs must identify any of the program characteristics that are not applicable to their particular programs and must justify their absence from the programs. All graduate programs, however, must have a methods course that deals specifically with the teaching of foreign languages, and that is taught by a qualified faculty member whose expertise is foreign language education and who is knowledgeable about current instructional approaches and issues; at least one field experience, such as an internship or student teaching, that is supervised by a qualified foreign language educator who is knowledgeable about current instructional approaches and issues in the field of foreign language education; and opportunities for candidates to experience technology-enhanced instruction and to use technology in their own teaching. Whereas undergraduate teacher certification programs include exit criteria for language proficiency and content knowledge, graduate programs must demonstrate and provide evidence that they have in place well-defined entrance criteria that are used in making decisions regarding the admission of students to the graduate foreign language teacher preparation program. Programs must show that, at the time of application and acceptance into the program, candidates have the necessary foreign language proficiency in the areas defined in the ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers, as well as the content knowledge described in Standards 1 and 2. Quantitative, aggregated data must be presented in the program report (i.e., in the Matrix for Evidence of Candidate Knowledge and Performance [Appendix L]) to document the use of entrance criteria for assessing and determining candidates’ language proficiency and their content knowledge. Additionally, programs must demonstrate that candidates have taken a core of courses in the foreign language that include study of the language at advanced levels, linguistics, culture, and literature. 3 To this end, graduate programs should describe the admission review process of undergraduate work in the foreign language and provide data that clearly indicate the outcome of these programs in terms of the language proficiency and content knowledge of candidates. Data must include 1. results of oral proficiency tests (official OPI, TOPT) taken prior to acceptance into the program; 2. documentation of the review process used to determine the areas of study in the foreign language completed in the undergraduate program, including review of study abroad and/or immersion experiences, and the criteria for meeting Content Standards 1 and 2 of the ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers; 3. overall student grade point average in these courses; 4. results of national teacher certification examinations (e.g., PRAXIS II) in the foreign language, if required for admission to the program. Graduate programs must stipulate that they also require native speakers and heritage language learners to provide evidence (1) of their language proficiency levels through the same means as all other students (e.g., official OPI, TOPT), and (2) that they have taken a core of courses in the foreign language that include study of the language at advanced levels, linguistics, culture, and literature. Native speaking ability does not serve as a rationale for waiving content course requirements. 4 Appendix B A Brief History of Foreign Language Instruction 5 A Brief History of Foreign Language Instruction The early history of modern foreign language instruction in the United States is characterized by the prevalent attitude expressed formally by the Committee of Twelve in 1892 that speaking ability was less important than “humanism, linguistic erudition and literary culture”(Mackey, 1965). The grammar-translation approach, employed for centuries for the instruction of classical languages, was simply applied, with few exceptions, as a model for modern language instruction from the late nineteenth century into the early 60s of the twentieth century. This model was further reinforced in the findings of the Modern Foreign Language Study when Algernon Coleman (1929) concluded that teaching of the spoken languages was “irrelevant” and “impractical” and that fluency in reading, command of the grammar, and the ability to translate literature were major goals of foreign language study. The opportunity to change the course of language teaching and, therefore, the training of preservice and in-service teachers came in 1958 with the introduction of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), brought about by the Soviet launching of Sputnik. In order to meet the perceived needs of a nation whose scientific and political status was being challenged, the NDEA established intensive summer institutes where the participants developed speaking skills, learned current information about the cultures of target language speakers, and were instructed in the latest methodology and linguistics. Many institutes were eventually held in the target language countries. The NDEA supported the establishment and expansion of language programs in the less-commonly taught languages of the world through foreign language area centers and graduate fellowships. The NDEA also gave language learning legitimacy in the school K-12 curriculum (Clowse, 1981). Although still targeted at the better students, schools made language study available to more students and in longer sequences. Along with these changes came a new way to teach languages: the audio-lingual approach (ALM) or language in the “new key.” Based on behaviorist principles, teachers used pattern drills to help students learn the spoken language through the mimicking and memorizing of dialogues presented in textbooks, often with native speakers on tapes. Teacher-directed methodologies remained prevalent throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Beginning in the 1980s, there was a growing awareness that behaviorist strategies inherent in the ALM were ineffective in producing speakers with functional language ability. Teachers in the field and researchers in second language acquisition took a look at new aspects of language in order to define communicative competence. Demands also came from real-world applications for languages that included sending Americans abroad to work with people in a wide variety of settings in a multitude of countries. The need to prepare these people as well as to assess their language competence called for functional assessment measures and a common yardstick that could be reliably applied in educational as well as non-educational settings. This necessitated a focus based on communicative approaches and even greater attention to the individual learner, the learning environment, and learner strategies. The result was the publication in 1986 of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages/ Interagency Language Roundtable (ACTFL/ILR) Proficiency Guidelines. These guidelines shifted the emphasis in language instruction from what learners knew about the language to what they could do with the language they were learning, and at the same time, established a “common metric” for describing student performance in listening, speaking, reading, and writing at the Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, and Superior levels. 6 The most recent development in the field is the publication of learner standards K-16, Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (1999), developed by a collaborative of nine foreign language associations that comprised the National Standards in Foreign Language Education Collaborative Project, representing close to 40,000 foreign language educators: the American Association of Teachers of French (AATF); the American Association of Teachers of German (AATG); the American Association of Teachers of Italian (AATI); the American Association of Teachers of Spanish & Portuguese (AATSP); the American Classical League (ACL); the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL); the American Council of Teachers of Russian (ACTR); the Chinese Language Association of Secondary-Elementary Schools (CLASS), the Chinese Language Teachers Association (CLTA), and the National Council of Japanese Language Teachers (NCJLT); and the Association of Teachers of Japanese (ATJ). The establishment of such a working collaborative and its active involvement in the development of the document represent a strong unified movement in the field. The Executive Council of the Modern Language Association (MLA) has also endorsed the standards. Today, foreign language study is attracting a much broader audience than in the past when a primary goal of many programs was nothing more than to reproduce those who were already teaching languages. Rather, the Standards’ “Statement of Philosophy” seeks to embrace foreign languages for all students. Language study is no longer only for the elite, collegebound student: “Language and communication are at the heart of the human experience. The United States must educate students who are equipped linguistically and culturally to communicate in a pluralistic American society and abroad. This imperative envisions a future in which ALL (emphasis in original) students develop and maintain proficiency in English and at least one other language, modern or classical” (National Standards in Foreign Language Project, 1999, p.7). The K-16 standards feature a description of what students should know and be able to do with an emphasis on learning content while acquiring language, and demonstrating what they know through their performance. Moving from the previous focus on language and culture to one on communication and culture, the standards are organized around the following five goals of language learning: 1. Communication: Communicate in Languages Other Than English Communication is characterized by three “communicative modes” that place primary emphasis on the context and purpose of the communication: • • • The interpersonal mode is characterized by two-way communication and active negotiation of meaning among individuals in written or spoken form. The interpretive mode focuses on the understanding and interpretation of oral and printed texts, in which no active negotiation of meaning is possible. The presentational mode refers to the oral and written presentation of information, concepts, and ideas to an audience of listeners or readers. 2. Cultures: Gain Knowledge and Understanding of Other Cultures Woven inextricably into language is the “world view” of those who live in a culture. This anthropological view of culture features three interrelated components: 7 • • • perspectives: meanings, attitudes, values, ideas; practices: pattern of social interactions; and products: books, tools, foods, laws, music and games. 3. Connections: Connect with Other Disciplines and Acquire Information Making connections to other disciplines expands the educational experiences of all students beyond the traditional “canon,” allowing them to acquire information through the second language by means of content-based learning experiences at all levels of instruction. 4. Comparisons: Develop Insight into the Nature of Language and Culture Students benefit from language learning by discovering different patterns among language systems and cultures and gaining insights into both the target and native languages and cultures. 5. Communities: Participate in Multilingual Communities at Home and Around the World Knowledge of other languages and cultures not only enables students to acquire job skills in multilingual communities but also encourages them to develop a life-long interest in languages and cultures for personal enjoyment and personal enrichment. The lead organization in the Collaborative Project to develop standards is the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), a national organization for the foreign language teaching profession established in 1967 by the leadership of the 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 8,000 foreign language educators and administrators from elementary through graduate education, as well as government and industry. ACTFL publishes the journal, Foreign Language Annals, and a yearly foreign language education series volume. It sponsors an annual conference and provides professional development workshops and seminars for its membership on topics such as oral proficiency testing, standards-based instruction, authentic assessment, and second language acquisition research. ACTFL works closely with the language associations in all 50 states. Among the members of its Executive Council are representatives of the five regional foreign language conferences: the Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (NECTFL), the Southern Conference on Language Teaching (SCOLT), the Central States Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (CSC), the Southwest Conference on Language Teaching (SWCOLT), and the Pacific Northwest Council for Foreign Languages (PNCFL). The ACTFL Delegate Assembly, held during its annual conference, includes representatives from all 50 states, the regional organizations, the language specific organizations listed above, as well as other language organizations. 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 8 became a member organization of NCATE in 1998, with the support and active involvement of the Collaborative Project. (See Appendix A) Now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, a number of important standards-related initiatives make up our professional agenda. The K-16 student standards have strongly influenced the development of standards for (1) the national recognition of initial programs of teacher preparation through the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), (2) initial teacher licensure through the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), and (3) recognition of accomplished foreign language teachers through the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). (This section was adapted in part from Fryer, T.B. (2001). Four decades of foreign language education. In C. M. Cherry (Ed.), The Odyssey Continues. Dimension 2001 (pp.1-14). Southern Conference on Language Teaching, Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University). 9 Appendix C The Knowledge Base Supporting the Standards 10 The Knowledge Base Supporting the Standards By Leslie L. Schrier, University of Iowa By reading the popular press or watching the media, one readily observes a variety of opinions about how teaching should be done and how teachers should be prepared. Possibly, more than any other aspect of education, the public struggles to understand what good teaching is. Perhaps as with any good performance, good teaching may look easy. When we witness a near-perfect performance in, for example, the long program of a figure-skating competition, we recognize the many hours of intensive work that lie behind the apparent ease of execution under demanding circumstances. We may not appreciate this effort when it comes to good teaching. It is only in the last decade that intensive attempts have been made to understand the complexity of knowledge needed to execute a “perfect” lesson. Explicating the constructs involved in developing a good teacher has been a focus of educational research that has expanded the construct of teaching to encompass both content in the discipline to be taught and the work of teaching itself (Shulman, 1988). Shulman’s concept of “pedagogical disciplinary knowledge” has brought about a shift that has broadened and rendered more sophisticated our understanding of what constitutes effective instruction. An excellent example of drawing upon the growing knowledge base on teaching lies in the efforts made to conceptualize what is understood to be effective practice in foreign language teaching and to translate these assumptions into the ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers as presented to NCATE. The development of these standards is essential to establishing clear expectations for teacher preparation. In the United States, it is at the secondary school level that the majority of our citizenry have the opportunity to study a least one foreign language for a period of one to four years (Watzke, 2002, 53). A Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) survey found that 86% of high schools offered foreign language study (Rhodes & Branaman, 1999. Finn (1998), using National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) data, studied the coursetaking patterns of high school seniors and school offerings in foreign language for the 1994 school year. This study found that all high schools represented in the data offered at least one foreign language (p. 292). In a further analysis of the CAL study cited above, it was found that 31% of elementary schools offer foreign language instruction, which is an increase from 22% a decade ago (Gilzow &Branaman, 2000, p. 1). Therefore, foreign language teachers in the United States are increasingly charged with and must be prepared to educate students in foreign languages in grades K-12. Additionally, given how we as a nation have changed our view of the world due to the tragic events of September 2001, the necessity of foreign language competency, the capacity for meaningful human communication between cultures and international communities, is of far greater significance. The ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers presented in this document represent the beginning of a reconceptualization of foreign language teaching. This reconceptualization is based on the assumption that learning to teach is a long-term, complex, developmental process that starts with competencies in language and culture and operates through participation in the social practices and contexts associated with learning and teaching. These standards form the basis of how we will ultimately redefine how we as teacher educators create professionals. 11 Eventually, the ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers, as the foundation of the developing knowledge base in foreign language teacher education, will improve the practices that constitute our professional self-definition. The essence of these standards is found in the emerging research base in education on learning to teach and in research on second-language acquisition and communicative competency. In the section that follows a selective review of teacher learning and teacher knowledge is presented. Within this brief review, work in foreign language education is connected to studies in teacher education and to a contemporary reconceptualization of its knowledge base. Blending the Past With the Present: How Foreign Language Teaching Is Understood The history of foreign language education, summarized in the previous section of this document, has shaped the current understanding of foreign language teaching, which is reflected in the ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers. While the teacher was viewed as a conduit of knowledge in the 1970s, the teacher is now seen as a constructor of knowledge. This change in the conceptualization of teaching occurred in part because the focus of educational research before the mid-1970s did not emphasize the decision-making processes used by teachers in organizing or executing instruction. Research and thinking that lead up to the mid-1970s viewed the teacher as a doer, as an implementer of other people’s ideas about curriculum, methodology, and even about how students learned. The style of research in education at that time drew strongly on the process-product paradigm. Content was separated from teaching processes so that the what and how of teaching fell into neat categories, each with its own set of discipline-derived definitions. Learning to teach involved mastering specific content and separately mastering methodologies for conveying that content to learners. Theories of learning supported the methodologies of the time. The autobiography offered by Smith describing his forty years of teaching French (2000) illustrates the evolution and continuity of this process in foreign language teaching. During the 1970s and the 80s in foreign language teaching, learning to teach was largely viewed as a matter of mastering content on the linguistic and meta-linguistic levels, practicing teaching methodologies and techniques, and learning the theoretical rationales for their use. This view of language teaching derives from the process-product paradigm (Chaudron, 1988), and it is supported by a network of key assumptions about how to organize and teach language as knowledge. Currently in foreign language instruction, the form of language used in the content of instruction is defined by applied linguistics, while culture as knowledge has largely subsumed literature in defining the content of language used in classroom settings (Kramsch & Kramsch, 2000). Likewise, teaching methodologies have undergone periodic shifts in the past century as definitions of good methodological practice in foreign language teaching have moved from grammar translation to the direct method to audiolingualism to communicative language teaching (e.g. Richards & Rodgers, 2000) to the standards for foreign language education, which envision goals that emphasize not only communication but also the learning of content in cultures and interdisciplinary areas (see Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st century, 1999). Throughout this evolution, cognitive psychology, and more recently second language acquisition, have provided theoretical and empirical input into the direction of these methodological movements (Byrnes, 2000). 12 Principles for Content Standards 1 and 2: Demonstrating Knowledge of Language, Culture, Literature The principles that the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) have outlined within the ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers reflect the changes in our knowledge base and emphasize what is currently understood about foreign language teaching and learning. Most importantly, the standards reflect the close partnership that is necessary between foreign language departments and those institutional entities responsible for the development of precollegiate teachers: departments of languages and literatures and departments, schools, or colleges of education. Foreign language departments have a great influence on and obligation to the teachers they prepare. The course work taken in the language major influences how the future teacher conceptualizes what it means to know the target language, culture, and literature and, most importantly, how the language is taught. Therefore, within this standards document, there is a tremendous amount of detail as to what the content of the major should provide the teacher candidate as well as the level of content area expertise the language teacher candidate should have to become a skillful language teacher. In particular the standard required for oral proficiency will challenge departments to assure that their teacher education candidates progress in their language proficiency throughout the curriculum. Language study cannot be relegated to lower division courses, but faculty will need to attend to proficiency in upper division content courses as well. They will need to plan for regular diagnosis of students’ developing proficiency, to assure that opportunities to meet the requisite level are provided; study abroad or immersion experiences are no longer a luxury but a necessity. Content standards 1 and 2 deal specifically with the outcomes that the teacher education candidate should expect to achieve throughout course work and related experiences offered in departments of languages and literatures. Standard 1 reflects a performance-based, proficiency-oriented view of language competency. Understanding linguistics refers to much more than words and rules; it includes the sociolinguistic elements such as knowing how to tailor language for a particular social context and how to express and understand intending meanings of language segments (Canale & Swain, 1980). “Knowing” a language entails, but is not limited to, an understanding of linguistic forms; it also includes the ability to use the language in order to communicate (in both oral and written forms) within a variety of contexts and for a variety of purposes. Standard 2 reflects the sociocultural knowledge base for understanding another culture through its system of interconnected perspectives, products, and practices (Fantini, 1997). Cultural content includes the study of literatures, the arts, and other interdisciplinary topics that enrich the field of foreign language learning. Principles for Content Standards 3-6: Blending Content Area and Teaching Processes Being a successful language student, however, does not ensure becoming a competent language teacher. To help the teacher candidate acquire the skills necessary to become a competent professional, it is necessary for the departments and schools of education to collaborate with informed practitioners to create a valid and meaningful preparation experience. 13 The ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers are based on the assumption that content area expertise (foreign language and cultural competencies) must be blended with pedagogical content knowledge. Standards 3-6 reflect expectations of candidates for their planning, teaching, assessment, reflection, and professionalism, based on current research in teacher learning. The years from 1980-1999 mark two full decades of a changing view of what the teacher brings to instruction and a renaissance of research on teaching. Concepts that are now taken for granted — teaching as decision-making or the role of beliefs and assumptions in teaching; notions of the ‘hidden’ pedagogy and curriculum; the ‘apprenticeship of observation,’ of ‘pedagogical content knowledge’— were all generated and took root during this time (i.e., Shavelson & Stern, 1981; Shulman, 1987; Clandinin, 1985). The challenge of the decade was twofold: teachers’ work and their decisions had to be repositioned in the study of teaching; simultaneously, different research methodologies needed to evolve and be adopted to do so. The first major appearance of research on concepts of decision-making in foreign language teaching came in a case study by Woods (1995). Furthering his work, Johnson (1995) connected decision-making to other mental activities. She describes foreign language teachers’ theoretical beliefs as filters through which they make instructional judgments and decisions’ (p.33). Additionally, in her book, Understanding language teaching: Reasoning in action, Johnson (1999) extends her analysis to provide a very useful overview of how the concept of decision-making has developed in foreign language teaching and has been linked to other ideas such as pedagogical judgments, beliefs, and knowledge structures. In additional studies exploring foreign language teachers’ beliefs about the teaching of reading, Graden (1996) and Gebel & Schrier (2002), set the stage for understanding how teachers’ beliefs about a pedagogical construct and their actual classroom decision-making come into conflict. This conflict occurs largely because of the context of the classroom setting and the teachers’ prior knowledge of the construct of comprehension. Bridging previous assumptions about teaching with the new millennium of teacher research are investigations of how content and teaching processes interrelate. Challenging the separation of content and how it is taught, McDiarmid and his colleagues (1989) argued for what they called subject-matter representation. Subject-matter representation mediates between how the teacher conceives of, and represents, content to students and how they conceive of, and learn, that content. This concept transfers well to foreign language teaching. Concern for subject-matter representation, or redefining how content and teaching processes fit together in the language classroom, has been a central concern for foreign language teaching in this decade. Standard 3 is based on current research in second language acquisition, which stresses the importance of providing “comprehensible” target language input in the classroom, a supportive classroom environment that encourages students to use the target language to express themselves, and opportunities for them to negotiate meaning with others (Ellis, 1994; Krashen, 1982; Long, 1983). This standard embraces the notion that our linguistic, cognitive, and social development is “socioculturally” constructed; i.e., we learn and develop through social interaction with others (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978). Standard 3 also reflects the professional literature that addresses diverse learners in the foreign language classroom, including attention to multiple ways of learning, critical thinking skills, special 14 learner needs, and learning styles (Gardner, 1995; Oxford and Lavine, 1992). Standard 4 is predicated on the profession’s K-12 Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (1999), which define language learning in terms of five integrated goals: communication, cultures, comparisons, connections, communities. This standard places connections to other subject-content areas, target cultures, and target-language communities at the center of language learning and teaching. Just as language learning and language teaching have experienced a paradigm shift over the past several decades, theories of assessment design have also undergone significant changes to reflect an emphasis on integrated performance as opposed to regurgitation of facts about the language system and target cultures. Standard 5 reflects the current research in authentic assessment, which focuses on language performance within real-world tasks and communication with an actual audience and actual conversational partners (Wiggins, 1998). This assessment model also encompasses the idea of “integrated” assessments, through which the learner uses multiple modes of communication (interpretive, interpersonal, presentational) in demonstrating language abilities (Shrum and Glisan, 2000). The standard responds to today’s realities concerning the need for accurate reporting and interpreting of assessment results to a range of stakeholders and the use of results to improve instruction. Standard 6 undergirds the other five standards in that it addresses the pivotal role of commitment to the foreign language profession, without which attainment of the other standards would be impossible. Standards 3-6 illustrate the symbiotic relationship between content knowledge and pedagogical processes. The expectation is that teacher candidates will understand that what they learn in their language, linguistics, culture, and literature courses is inextricably linked to what they learn to do in education courses. The Challenges Ahead Developing a foreign language teacher preparation program that provides candidates with a high degree of subject-matter competencies and teaching is the challenge ahead for teacher educators. A critical role of teacher education programs is to make the complexity of teaching visible. This occurs through well-crafted teacher preparation programs that prepare candidates in subject-matter and pedagogical content so that they are ready to assume the ultimate challenge of practice teaching and the first stages as beginning teachers. Connections need to be forged with experienced foreign language teachers not only in student teaching but throughout the candidate’s teaching career. The intent of the ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers is to serve as a catalyst to programs so that they in turn may prepare highly qualified teacher candidates for an educational system that increasingly needs a globally educated citizenry. 15 Appendix D Alignment of ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers with Other Professional Standards 16 Alignment of ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers with Other Professional Standards Over the past six years, the foreign language profession has developed expectations for what students should know and be able to do as a result of foreign language study and what knowledge, skills, and dispositions foreign language teachers should demonstrate at various points in their teaching careers. The following is the continuum of standards that will now set the stage for what should happen in foreign language classrooms and programs of foreign language teacher preparation: K-16 Foreign Language Students Foreign Language Teacher Candidates Beginning Foreign Language Teachers Accomplished Foreign Language Teachers Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century, 1999 ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers (NCATE-approved), 2002 INTASC Standards for Licensing Beginning Foreign Language Teachers, 2002 NBPTS World Languages Other Than English Standards, 2001 K-12 Student Standards for Foreign Language Learning The cornerstone of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of foreign language teacher candidates described in the ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers is the set of expectations for what K-12 foreign language students should know and be able to do as a result of language study. National student standards for foreign languages were released for the first time in 1996 — National Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century — which were expanded in 1999 to include language-specific K-16 standards in Chinese, Classical Languages, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish (Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century). (See Appendix B for a summary of the student standards.) The development of the student standards marked an important shift from an input-based view of language instruction — focused on the information and knowledge students learn in a curriculum — to an output-based view centered on what students should know and be able to do as a result of language study. The student standards also established a new context that defines the central role of foreign language in the learning career of every student. Language learning is no longer reserved for the college-bound student who plans to major in a foreign language; instead, it is a key component in the total educational experience of every student. This new focus on student performance served logically as a catalyst for redefining the goals of foreign language teacher preparation programs. If the student performance-based standards are to be realized, we must have clear expectations for what our language teachers should know, be able to do, and be disposed to do in their teaching. The student standards are the foundation of the ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers, since they focus on the need for teacher candidates to provide language learning 17 experiences for all K-12 students and the need to address the performance-based expectations of their students, as described in the student standards. As illustrated in Appendix B, the student standards are organized around five goals of language learning: Communication: Students communicate in languages other than English. Cultures: Students gain knowledge and understanding of other cultures. Connections: Students connect with other disciplines and acquire information. Comparisons: Students develop insight into the nature of language and culture. Communities: Students participate in multilingual communities at home and around the world. These five goal areas and corresponding standards are interwoven in the ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers, as illustrated in the following chart, which identifies the ACTFL standard in which each goal area is addressed in terms of teacher knowledge, skills, and dispositions: Knowledge Communication Cultures Connections Comparisons Communities 1.a., 3.a., 4.a., 4.b., 5.a. 2.a., 4.a., 4.b., 5.a. 2.c., 4.a., 4.b., 5.a 1.c., 4.a., 4.b., 5.a. 4.a., 4.b., 5.a. Skills 1.a., 3.a., 4.a., 4.b., 5.a. 2.a., 4.a., 4.b., 5.a. 2.c., 4.a., 4.b., 5.a 1.c., 4.a., 4.b., 5.a. 4.a., 4.b., 5.a. Dispositions 1.a., 3.a., 4.a., 4.b., 5.a. 2.a., 4.a., 4.b., 5.a. 2.c., 4.a., 4.b., 5.a 1.c, 4.a., 4.b., 5.a. 4.a., 4.b., 5.a. Note: ACTFL program standard 6 is not represented in the above chart since it deals with the professionalism of the teacher, which is not a theme in the K-12 student standards. INTASC Standards for Licensing Beginning Foreign Language Teachers The ACTFL Program Standards for Foreign Language Teacher Preparation and the INTASC Standards for Licensing Beginning Foreign Language Teachers were developed at the same time and an attempt was made to maintain parallelism between the two sets of standards. The Co-Director of the Writing Team for the ACTFL Standards was also a member of the INTASC Committee and was able to inform each committee of the work of the other. The INTASC standards address foreign language teachers’ knowledge of their content, and their ability to adapt instruction to individual learner diversity, create learning environments, use teaching strategies, foster communication, plan instruction, assess learners, function as reflective practitioners, and relate to the communities in which their schools are located. (See Appendix C for a summary of the INTASC foreign language standards.) The ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers integrate all of these 18 areas, and both sets of standards have a focus on the student standards, the central role of the learner, and the importance of language learning for all students. The following table illustrates the relationship of each ACTFL standard to the ten core foreign language principles of INTASC: INTASC Principles Standard 1 ACTFL PROGRAM STANDARDS Standard 2 X Standard 3 Standard 4 Standard 5 Standard 6 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1. Content Knowledge 2. Learner Development 3. Diversity of Learners 4. Instructional Strategies 5. Learning Environment 6. Communicati on 7. Planning for Instruction 8. Assessment 9. Reflective Practice and Professional Development 10. Community X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS): World Languages Other Than English Standards 19 In 2001, our profession released its NBPTS Standards for what accomplished foreign language teachers should know and be able to do, based on the five core propositions of NBPTS: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Teachers are committed to students and their learning. Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students. Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning. Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience. Teachers are members of learning communities. The NBPTS World Languages Other Than English Standards describe the actions that accomplished foreign language teachers take to advance student achievement, and they specify the essential knowledge, skills, dispositions, and commitments that enable teachers to practice at a high level. (See Appendix D for a summary of the NBPTS Standards.) The ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers were developed so that there would be a logical continuum of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions expected of a foreign language teacher candidate and those of a more experienced, accomplished foreign language teacher. Members of the ACTFL Standards Writing Team were familiar with the NBPTS standards and referred to them and discussed them throughout the standards writing process. The following table depicts the relationship between each ACTFL standard and each NBPTS standard: NBPTS Standards ACTFL Program Standards Standard 1 I. Knowledge of Students II. Fairness III. Knowledge of Language IV. Knowledge of Culture V. Knowledge of Language Acquisition VI. Multiple Paths to Learning Standard 2 Standard 3 Standard 4 Standard 5 Standard 6 X X X X X X X 20 VII. Articulation of Curriculum and Instruction VIII. Learning Environmen t IX. Instructional Resources X. Assessment XI. Reflection as Professional Growth XII. Schools, Families, and Communitie s XIII. Professional Community XIV. Advocacy for Education in World Languages Other Than English X X X X X X X X X X X With the publication of the ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers, the profession will have a continuum of well-articulated expectations for foreign language teacher candidates, beginning foreign language teachers, and accomplished foreign language teachers, all of which are based on the performance-based expectations of K-12 foreign language students. 21 Appendix E Samples of Candidate Performance Evidence Correlated to ACTFL/NCATE Standards 22 Appendix E Samples of Candidate Performance Evidence Correlated to ACTFL/NCATE Standards Analyses •Analyses of video taped or audio taped oral presentations •Analysis of teaching performance over time, addressing progress in target language input, using negotiation of meaning and engaging students in interactions. •Serving as facilitator in the classroom and providing feedback that focuses on meaning and accuracy •Using questions and tasks appropriately. •Analyses of integrated performance assessments. Annotated list •Extra-curricular events attended, such as theatre, round-table discussions, etc. •Professional activities citing benefits. •Websites that serve as sources of cultural and subject-matter content Assessment and performance on examinations •Official or Upgraded Advisory OPI/TOPT •Performance on examinations demonstrating knowledge of assessment principles and models •Performance on examinations demonstrating knowledge of linguistics •Performance on examinations demonstrating understanding of language acquisition theories and the relationship between theory and practice •Performance on examinations demonstrating understanding of cultural framework Case studies and illustrations of student work samples •K-12 student work samples that illustrate cultural learning, curriculum, instruction and assessment •Reflections on classroom observations and/or case study reports that include discussion of theory and practice Critiques •Instructional resources such as the texts, websites, video segments Evaluation •Self-evaluations/reflections on video taped lessons taught by candidate Instructional Materials •Adapted by the candidate with a rationale •Created by the candidate with a rationale Journal Entries •Describe how the candidate uses technology to integrate the standards •Illustrate knowledge and understanding of the culture, acquired as a result of interaction with target-language communities Lesson Plans and Learning Scenarios •Demonstrating the integration of culture and content from other disciplines •Reflective illustrations of teaching practices based on language acquisition theories Standards 1 2 3 4 x x 5 x x 6 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 23 •Reflective modifications to meet specific learner needs, address multiple ways of learning, promote cultural thinking and problem solving, and engage students in pair and group work. •Scenarios illustrating integration of standards •Scenarios describing expected outcomes of the teaching •Teaching segments, instructional decisions made prior to and during the lessons, and an assessment of learning and teaching performance. Lists of Sources •Professional membership(s) and evidence of participation •Research questions that the candidate has at this point in career •Sources for accessing foreign-language specific data (e.g., types of programs offered across state/nation, student enrollment figures). Philosophy Statement Position paper, or simulated presentation to the school board, community members, and/or other stakeholders, to demonstrate advocacy for foreign language learning •Teaching statement that addresses the role of culture, literature, and cross-disciplinary content Professional development plan •Based on portfolio self-evaluation •Evidence of plan for continuous language and cultural growth Projects •Technology enhanced presentations which integrate the standards Reflections •Assessment results were used to improve future instruction •Samples of written interpretative/presentational tasks •Study abroad and/or immersion experiences and experiences in target language communities •Unit/lessons plan illustrating standards-bases lessons and samples of K-12 student work Reports •Capstone projects addressing cross-disciplinary content •Comparison of State Standards to National Standards •Papers on language/cultural comparisons Rubrics •Analyses of video-taped students' performances on assessment tasks, with rubrics and results •Samples of formative and summative K-12 assessments on the communicative modes and cultural framework Synthesis •Interpretive tasks on listening of news broadcast, reading of literary text, viewing of film, with reflections •Journal entries, case studies describing parent-teacher conferences, and/or how student progress was reported •Professional journal articles that address current research and/or teaching practices, together with reflections on the information learned. Standards 1 2 3 4 x x x x x x 5 6 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 24 x Appendix F Sample Assessment #1 25 SECTION IV—EVIDENCE FOR MEETING STANDARDS ASSESSMENT 1 Licensure Test—Professional Examination of CONTENT KNOWLEDGE Description of Oklahoma Subject Area Test (OSAT) and its Use in the Program. The Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation (OCTP) contracts with National Evaluation Systems, Inc. to develop, validate, and administer a series of competency-based teacher assessment tests for initial licensure. The OSAT examines subject matter competencies based on the K-12 ”national standards” and the standards of the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). The exams undergo regular review to ensure alignment with any new standards. The exams contain six sub-areas: listening comprehension, reading and vocabulary, language structures, cultural understanding and language acquisition, written expression, and oral expression. Oklahoma State University does not recommend foreign language candidates for licensure if they have not passed the OSAT and two additional state-required exams, the Oklahoma General Education Test and the Oklahoma Professional Teaching Exam Alignment with ACTFL/NCATE Standards The purpose of the OSAT is to ensure that certified teachers have the knowledge and skills that are important for the job of a foreign language educator. Texts presented on the exams are examples of language used by native speakers in authentic situations to serve genuine communicative functions among educated adults. The ACTFL/NCATE standards require that candidates “know about” and “be able to use” their language of emphasis in the real world. The OCTP has aligned the OSAT competencies with the national K-12 standards (Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century). Furthermore, ACTFL has aligned the K-12 Standards with the ACTFL/NCATE Standards (Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers, pg. 11). See Attachment A for a composite matrix demonstrating how the Oklahoma content-area exams, subsequently, align with ACTFL/NCATE standards. Analysis of Data Findings (See Attachment C) As seen in the matrix “Alignment of the OSAT Exams with ACTFL/NCATE Standards” (Appendix A), the OSAT exams address various sub-sets of ACTFL/NCATE Standards 1 and 2. Test questions/constructed responses assess the candidates’ language proficiencies (especially writing and speaking) and their knowledge of the target language system (Standard 1a, 1b). Questions/assignments also test candidates’ ability to use idiomatic language and a broad vocabulary appropriate to language varieties (Standard 1c). Candidates’ skills in these sub-areas should be evident in the scaled scores for all six sub-areas of the OSAT licensure exam. Test questions address Standard 2 in three ways: by assessing the candidates’ understanding of cultural perspectives, practices and products (Standard 2a); by assessing their recognition of the role of literary and other texts in understanding the target culture (Standard 2b); and by assessing their use of the target language to access new information and viewpoints (Standard 2c). Candidates’ skills in these sub-areas should be evident in the scaled scores for the “Reading and Vocabulary” and “Culture” sub-areas of the OSAT. Aggregated data for the past 2 years (2003-2004) show that the mean score in each of the OSAT exam sub-areas met or surpassed the minimum required mean score. 100% of candidates 26 passed the sub-areas “Listening Comprehension,” and “Language Structures,” while 94% passed the sub-area “Cultural Understanding and Language Acquisition” (Tables 1 and 3). For each of the past 3 years (2002-2004), the mean overall exam score met or surpassed the required mean score (Table 2). In other words, 100% of completers over the 3-year period have successfully passed the state licensure exam in their target language. For the three year period, the overall (total) mean scores range from a minimum of 241 to a high of 282 out of 300 (Table 1). Pass rates expressed in percentages (%) can be misleading when the number of program candidates is low, and therefore licensure test scores are also disaggregated and analyzed by language groups, year, and exam sub-areas. The disaggregated data show that both French and Spanish candidates struggle in “Written Expression” (65% pass rate over 3 years) and “Oral Expression” (71% pass rate over 3 years). The “Reading and Vocabulary” sub-area shows only a 70% pass rate over 3 years. However, the pass rate percentage is somewhat deceptive because the total number of candidates is very low (12 Spanish, 2 French). It is significant, though, that no French candidate has yet passed the “Reading and Vocabulary” sub-area. Spanish candidates show improved scores during the past 2 years in five of the six subareas, but particularly in “Written Expression” and “Oral Expression.” The lone French candidate in 2004 showed much higher scores in both “Written Expression and “Oral Expression,” than the single French candidate in 2003 (Table 4). Interpretation of Data as Evidence for Meeting Standards The teacher preparation program uses the OSAT as an external, objective means of identifying target-language content knowledge and skills that need attention. The exam results are shared with the Foreign Language Department, which uses the OSAT data for their University Assessment Report and for program planning. The three years of data reported in Attachment C do not indicate that all candidates meet Standard 1(a, b, and c) with equal degrees of success. Clearly, our French and Spanish candidates do not perform well in the presentational mode of communication, as evidenced by the low OSAT scores in written and oral expression. Candidates perform much better in the interpretive modes of communication, although listening comprehension skills are stronger than vocabulary and reading comprehension skills. All candidates scored quite well in their ability to manipulate language structures. In terms of Standard 2, cultural and literary knowledge, candidates in both French and Spanish are generally strong in their ability to respond to literary texts as cultural artifacts (2b). They read well enough to gain distinctive viewpoints from authentic texts (2c). Candidates understand cultural products and perspectives; however, the OSAT does not provide much insight into their ability to integrate that understanding of the cultural framework (perspectives/practices/products) into their own teaching (2a). Those skills are more appropriately addressed in another required state exam—the Oklahoma Professional Teaching Exam—and in assessments from the foreign language methods courses. Candidates’ dispositions for improving their language proficiencies (Standard 1a,b,c) are not measured at all by the OSAT, which is a criterion-referenced test. 27 ATTACHMENT A. ASSESSMENT TOOL Additional Information Regarding Oklahoma Licensure Exams: Alignment of the OSAT Exams With ACTFL/NCATE Standards ACTFL Standards National Standards for Foreign Language Learning CEOE Competencies for OK Subject Area Tests (French, German, Spanish) Communication 0001 Understand spoken questions or other oral messages. 1.1 Students engage in conversations, provide and Knowledge, Skills & obtain information, express feelings and emotions, and Dispositions exchange opinions. 0002 Derive essential information from oral messages in real-life situations. 1a, 3a, 4a, 4b, 5a 1.2 Students understand and interpret written and 0003 Infer meaning from oral communications. spoken language on a variety of topics. 0004 Understand the literal content of a variety of authentic materials. 0005 Apply inference & interpretation skills in variety of authentic materials. 1.3 Students Present information, concepts, and ideas 0006 Select words, phrases, or sentences, including idiomatic expressions, to to an audience of listeners or readers on a variety of complete passages in target language. topics. 0007 Select words, phrases or sentences, including idiomatic expressions, to complete passages in target language. 0008 Analyze sentences to determine grammatically correct words or phrases to complete them. 0009 Revise written passages to correct errors in structure and syntax that interfere with accurate communication. 0013 Write a well-organized passage of several paragraphs (approximately 300-500 words) in target language that is appropriate in style and diction for a given audience, purpose, and occasion and that communicates a message effectively through use of a range of vocabulary, idiomatic expressions, and simple and complex linguistic constructions. 0014 In response to a prompt, construct connected oral discourse in target language that communicates a message effectively and that demonstrates command of a range of vocabulary, idiomatic expressions, and simple and complex language structures. Cultures 0010 Understand the historical developments, geographic features, and social 2.1 Students demonstrate an understanding of the Knowledge, Skills & characteristics of francophone cultures. relationship between the practices and perspectives of Dispositions the culture studied. 0011 Understand the achievements of francophone cultures in the area of literature, the nonliterary arts, science, and technology. 2c, 4a, 4b, 5a 2.2 Students demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between the products and perspectives of the culture studied. 28 Knowledge, Skills & Dispositions 2c, 4a, 4b, 5a Knowledge, Skills & Dispositions 1c, 4a, 4b, 5a Connections 3.1 Students reinforce and further their knowledge of other disciplines through the foreign language. 3.2 Students acquire information and recognize the distinctive viewpoints that are only available through the foreign language and its cultures. Comparisons 4.1 Students demonstrate understanding of the nature of language through comparisons of the language studies and their own. 4.2 Students demonstrate understanding of the concepts of culture through comparisons of the cultures studied and their own. 0004 0010 0011 0007 0008 0009 0010 0011 Understand the literal content of a variety of authentic materials. Understand the historical developments, geographic features, and social characteristics of target language cultures. Understand the achievements of target language cultures in the area of literature, the nonliterary arts, science, and technology. Select words, phrases or sentences, including idiomatic expressions, to complete passages in target language. Analyze sentences to determine grammatically correct words or phrases to complete them. Revise written passages to correct errors in structure and syntax that interfere with accurate communication. Understand the historical developments, geographic features, and social characteristics of francophone cultures. Understand the achievements of francophone cultures in the area of literature, the nonliterary arts, science, and technology. Understand spoken questions or other oral messages. Derive essential information from oral messages in real-life situations. Infer meaning from oral communications. Understand the literal content of a variety of authentic materials. Apply skills of inference and interpretation in a variety of authentic materials. Select words, phrases, or sentences, including idiomatic expressions, to complete passages in target language. Write a well-organized passage of several paragraphs (approximately 300-500 words) in target language that is appropriate in style and diction for a given audience, purpose, and occasion and that communicates a message effectively through use of a range of vocabulary, idiomatic expressions, and simple and complex linguistic constructions. In response to a prompt, construct connected oral discourse in target language that communicates a message effectively and that demonstrates command of a range of vocabulary, idiomatic expressions, and simple and complex language structures. Knowledge, Skills D & Dispositions 4a, 4b, 5a Communities 5.1 Students use the language both within and beyond the school setting. 5.2 Students show evidence of becoming life-long learners by using the language for personal enjoyment and enrichment. 0001 0002 0003 0004 0005 0006 0013 0014 29 ATTACHMENT B. SCORING GUIDELINES (Extracted from the 2004 Study Guide for OSAT 019, Spanish) GENERAL INFORMATION. The OSAT exams are criterion referenced. Content validation surveys were conducted for each test. The test questions were matched to specific competencies and were verified as valid by panels of Oklahoma educators. The exams contain six sub-areas: listening comprehension, reading and vocabulary, language structures, cultural understanding and language acquisition, written expression, and oral expression. Candidates must score 240/300 on a compilation scaled score to pass each sub-area, and will earn an overall pass on the OSAT exam as long as their Total Mean Score also meets the minimum scaled requirement of 240/300. The test includes two constructed-response assignments in addition to selected-response questions. One assignment assesses written expression in Spanish and requires a written response in Spanish. One assignment assesses oral expression in Spanish and requires an audio-taped oral response in Spanish. The selected-response questions account for 70%, the written expression assignment 15%, and the oral expression assignment 15% of the total test scaled score. CONSTRUCTED-RESPONSE ASSIGNMENT SCORING. All responses to OSAT constructed-response assignments are scored using scales that describe varying levels of performance. Each response is scored by multiple scorers according to standardized procedures during scoring sessions held immediately after each administration of the exam. Scorers with relevant professional backgrounds are oriented to these procedures before the scoring session and are carefully monitored during the scoring sessions. A response is designated unscorable if it is blank, not on the assigned topic, illegible or unintelligible, not in the appropriate language, or of insufficient length to score. If the candidate does not provide a scorable response for each constructed-response assignment on the test, he/she cannot pass the test regardless of his/her scores on the other section(s) of the test. SCORING CRITERIA for WRITTEN EXPRESSION. Sample 4-Point Scoring Scale for Written Expression Assignment: The "4" response reflects a thorough application and strong command of the performance characteristics for the written assignment. • response thoroughly fulfills purpose of the assignment & is completely appropriate for intended audience • candidate's ideas well organized, clearly expressed • ideas extensively developed, well supported with relevant information • response shows comprehensive command of syntax & grammar, containing only minor errors that do not interrupt communication • vocabulary reflects broad command of language & appropriate use of idiomatic expressions • spelling, diacritical marks, & punctuation are mastered, with few, if any, errors The "3" response reflects a general application and command of the performance characteristics for the written assignment. • response satisfactorily fulfills purpose of assignment & is generally appropriate for the intended audience • candidate's ideas show some organization, are generally clear • ideas adequately developed, some elaboration & support of specific points • response shows good command of syntax & grammar, though some errors may cause minor interruptions in communication • vocabulary & idiomatic expressions are general, do communicate complete message • minor errors in spelling, diacritical marks, and punctuation do not interfere with communication 30 The "2" response reflects a partial application and limited command of the performance characteristics for the written assignment. • response partially fulfills purpose of assignment & may not be entirely appropriate for intended audience • candidate's ideas show limited organization, are somewhat unclear • ideas developed in limited way with minimal support • response shows limited command of syntax & grammar, containing frequent errors that partially impede communication • simple vocabulary, lacks key words & expressions, communicates partial message • some errors in spelling, diacritical marks, & punctuation, which partially interfere with communication The "1" response reflects a weak application and little or no command of the performance characteristics for the written assignment. • response does not fulfill purpose of assignment & is inappropriate for intended audience • candidate's ideas unorganized and unclear • ideas developed minimally & lack any relevant supporting detail • response shows little command of basic elements of grammar or syntax, containing numerous & frequent errors that impede communication • vocabulary, with numerous usage errors, does not communicate complete message • errors in spelling, diacritical marks, & punctuation are so numerous that they impede communication. SCORING CRITERIA for ORAL EXPRESSION. Sample 4-Point Scoring Scale for Oral Expression Assignment: The "4" response reflects a thorough application and strong command of the performance characteristics for the speaking assignment. • candidate's ideas well developed and elaborated • candidate's ideas logically sequenced, well connected, and consistently clear • response shows comprehensive command of syntax & grammar, with only minor errors that do not interfere with comprehensibility • candidate demonstrates extensive command of appropriate vocabulary and expressions • candidate maintains strong flow of speech with few, if any, hesitations or pauses • candidate's pronunciation is easily intelligible with few, if any, errors The "2" response reflects a partial application and limited command of the performance characteristics for the speaking assignment. • ideas show limited development, elaboration • ideas only partially organized, at times unclear • response shows limited command of syntax & grammar; frequent errors partially impede comprehensibility • candidate demonstrates limited range of expression, uses very simple vocabulary, & lacks some key words & phrases • candidate does not maintain consistent flow of speech; frequent hesitations and pauses • pronunciation contains several errors; occasionally difficult to understand The "3" response reflects a general application and command of the performance characteristics for the speaking assignment. • candidate's ideas adequately developed, with some elaboration • candidate's ideas adequately organized and generally clear. • response shows good command of syntax & grammar, though some errors may cause minor interruptions in comprehensibility • candidate demonstrates good command of appropriate vocabulary & expressions • candidate generally maintains steady flow of speech, occasional hesitations & pauses • candidate's pronunciation generally intelligible with only minor errors The "1" response reflects a weak application and little or no command of the performance characteristics for the speaking assignment. • response provides few comprehensible ideas, with minimal development • ideas not organized, are largely unclear • response shows little command of basic elements of grammar or syntax; numerous & frequent errors make ideas incomprehensible • candidate demonstrates little knowledge of vocabulary beyond most common words; may misuse and misform numerous words and expressions • candidate fails to maintain any flow of speech; frequent hesitations and pauses interrupt comprehensibility • pronunciation contains numerous errors and is at times unintelligible 31 ATTACHMENT C. DATA TABLE 1 Mean of Sub-Area Scores and Mean of Total Scores, 2002-2004 Aggregated by Year and Exam Sub-Areas Sub-Areas, Aligned to ACTFL Standards 1 & 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Listening Comprehension (ACTFL 1) Reading & Vocabulary (ACTFL 1, 2) Language Structures (ACTFL 1) Cultural Understanding & Lg. Acq. (ACTFL 2) Written Expression (ACTFL 1) Oral Expression (ACTFL 1) 2003-2004* Sub-Area Mean Score 282 253 278 270 257 257 266 2002-2003* Sub-Area Mean Score 291 260 280 280 244 250 267 2001-2002 Sub-Area Mean Score 287 247 260 269 215 228 251 3-Yr. Period Range of Candidate Scores 260-300 204-291 245-292 226-300 199-300 214-262 Range of Candidates’ Mean Scores 241-282 Mean Total Score, All Sub-Areas & Candidates Red indicates Fail in a particular Sub-Area TABLE 2 Scaled Scores and Overall Mean Scaled Scores for 14 Completers, 2002-2004 Disaggregated by Language (Spanish, French),* Year, and Exam Sub-Areas 2003-2004 Sub-Areas, Aligned to ACTFL Standards 1 & 2 Sp Sp Sp Sp 1. Listening Comprehension (ACTFL 1) 282 282 282 291 2. Reading & Vocabulary (ACTFL 1, 2) 226 263 282 272 3. Language Structures (ACTFL 1) 254 291 272 291 4. Cultural Understanding & Lg. Acquisition (ACTFL 2) 226 291 272 282 5. Written Expression (ACTFL 1) 199 249 249 300 6. Oral Expression (ACTFL 1) 257 257 257 257 Overall Mean Scaled Score 241 273 270 282 per Candidate Overall Exam Pass / Fail Score P P P P Per Candidate Red indicates Fail in a particular Sub-Area Required Scaled Score for Pass in each Sub-Area: 240 out of 300 maximum Required Scaled Score for Overall Pass: 240 out of 300 maximum Sp 300 272 272 272 249 257 271 P FR 260 204 292 279 300 262 274 P Sp 300 282 291 300 249 257 281 P 2002-2003 Sp Sp Sp 291 282 282 263 263 291 282 272 291 272 272 291 249 249 249 257 257 257 270 266 278 P P P FR 300 204 267 269 226 224 251 P 2001-2002 Sp Sp Sp 272 300 291 263 245 235 245 263 272 282 245 282 249 199 199 257 214 214 262 246 251 P P P *There were no Program Completers in German for the 2002-2004 time period. 32 TABLE 3 Pass Rates and Range of Scores per Sub-Area for 14 Completers, 2002-2004 Aggregated by Year and Exam Sub-Area Range Listening Comp. Year and ‘04 ‘02 ‘03 # of Completers (6) (5) (3) Below 200 200-219 220-239 240-259 1 260-279 1 280-300 5 5 2 SUB-AREA PASS RATE (%) per Year 100 100 100 3-Yr. PASS RATE (%) per SUB-AREA 100% Red indicates Fail in a particular Sub-Area Reading & Vocab. ‘04 ‘02 ‘03 (6) (5) (3) 1 1 3 1 66 1 2 2 80 70% 1 1 1 66 1 1 2 3 100 2 3 100 1 2 100 1 3 2 83 3 2 100 2 100 3 2 83 80 33 100 80 71% 33 1 4 1 5 1 1 4 1 Lg. Structures ‘04 ‘02 ‘03 (6) (5) (3) Culture, Lg. Acq. ‘04 ‘02 ‘03 (6) (5) (3) Written Expression ‘04 ‘02 ‘03 (6) (5) (3) 1 2 Oral Expression ‘04 ‘03 ‘02 (6) (5) (3) 2 100% 94% 65% Required Scaled Score for Pass in each Sub-Area: 240 out of 300 maximum TABLE 4 Pass Rates and Range of Scores per Sub-Area for 14 Completers, 2002-2004 Disaggregated by Completion Date and Language (Spanish, French) RANGE Year and # of Completers Below 200 200-219 220-239 240-259 260-279 280-300 Listening Comp. ‘04 ‘02 ‘03 (6) (5) (3) Sp FR Sp FR Sp FR Sp FR Sp FR Sp FR Sp Reading & Vocab. ‘04 ‘03 ‘02 (6) (5) (3) ‘04 (6) Lg. Structures ‘02 ‘03 (5) (3) Culture, Lg. Acq. ‘04 ‘02 ‘03 (6) (5) (3) Written Expression ‘04 ‘02 ‘03 (6) (5) (3) 1 2 Oral Expression ‘04 ‘03 ‘02 (6) (5) (3) 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 100 1 1 3 100 1 2 2 1 2 83 2 1 2 100 1 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 2 100 1 4 1 1 1 5 4 1 100 2 3 1 80 0 2 2 100 0 1 SUB-AREA 100 100 PASS RATE (%) FR 100 100 ---Red indicates Fail in a particular Sub-Area 66 ---- 100 1 1 80 100 33 100 100 0 33 ---33 100 100 100 ---100 100 ---0 ---100 Required Scaled Score for Pass in each Sub-Area: 240 out of 300 maximum Appendix G Sample Assessment #2 34 ATTACHMENT A: ASSESSMENT TOOL Linguistic Analysis of a Speech Sample: Spanish Interview a native Spanish speaker informant in order to obtain a speech sample of approximately 20-30 minutes in length. Ask for permission to tape record the interview. Talk as little as possible and structure questions to elicit most of the sample from the interviewee so that you have a rich sample of speech to analyze. Asking the interviewee to discuss specific topics will result in a richer sample than if you were to ask a series of questions. You might ask your informant to talk about: his/her life as a child in _____________ (country); the details of moving to the U.S.; what he/she recalls about coming to the U.S.; a description of his/her job/profession and interests; how often and where he/she speaks the native language; what they know about varieties of his/her native language (i.e., dialectical differences); their experiences learning English. After the interview, write a paper that presents your analysis of the tape recorded speech sample. In your analysis you should: 1. Describe at least three dialectical features of your native informant’s speech. You might identify specific phonemes and/or allophones that are characteristic of a particular geographical region. Perhaps there are morphological features that are distinctive as well. 2. Identify two phonemes from the speech sample that have similar phonemic and allophonic distributions with English. For each, explain the rules for allophonic distribution and illustrate how they are similar to English. 3. Identify two phonemes from the speech sample that have different phonemic and allophonic distributions with English. For each, explain the rules for allophonic distribution and illustrate how they are different from English. 4. Identify two syntactic patterns that are characteristic of your native informant’s speech (e.g., question formation). Contrast with typical syntactic patterns in English. 5. Identify two pragmatic/sociolinguistic features of the speech sample, such as a politeness convention or formal/informal form of address. 6. Select at least two additional features of the speech sample and analyze them. Your paper should be written in Spanish and be 4-6 pages in length. Your paper will be evaluated using the rubrics that appear on the next page. 35 ATTACHMENT B: SCORING GUIDELINES Unacceptable Description of dialectical features Description either lacks sufficient detail or is at least partly inaccurate. Or fewer than three features are described. Acceptable Describes accurately at least three dialectical features of the speech sample in terms of phonological and morphological aspects. Analyzes accurately the four phonemes / allophones selected and makes appropriate comparisons to English. Target Provides a full description of the phonological and morphological rules, how they operate within the dialect, and how they compare to other dialects of Spanish. Gives the linguistic rules plus a detailed written explanation of the distribution of the phonemes, with supporting examples, and comparisons to other dialects of Spanish and to English. Provides a detailed analysis of the syntactic patterns, with examples, and comparisons to other dialects of Spanish and to English. Provides a detailed analysis of the pragmatic / sociolinguistic features, with examples, and comparisons to other dialects of Spanish and to English. Provides a detailed analysis of the additional features with examples, and comparisons to other dialects of Spanish and to English. Description of phonemes/allophones Analysis either lacks sufficient detail or is at least partly inaccurate. Or fewer than four phonemes are described. Description of syntactic patterns Analysis either lacks sufficient detail or is at least partly inaccurate. Or only one pattern is described. Analysis either lacks sufficient detail or is at least partly inaccurate. Or only one pattern is described. Analyzes accurately the two syntactic patterns selected and makes appropriate comparisons to English. Analyzes accurately the two pragmatic / sociolinguistic features selected and makes appropriate comparisons to English. Identifies and analyzes accurately two additional features of the speech sample. Description of pragmatic/sociolinguistic features Description of additional features Analysis either lacks sufficient detail or is at least partly inaccurate. Or only one feature is described. 36 Appendix H Sample Assessment #3 37 SECTION IV—EVIDENCE FOR MEETING STANDARDS ASSESSMENT 3 Teaching Units—PLANNING CLASSROOM-BASED INSTRUCTION Description of Unit Planning Assessment and Its Use in the Program. Foreign Language Education candidates take two methods courses: Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages in the Elementary Schools, and Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages in the Secondary School. The elementary course is taken the semester after candidates have been admitted to Professional Education and have completed the early field experience in two K-12 school settings; the secondary methods course is taken in the semester preceding the K-12 clinical practice. The major projects developed in these two courses are Unit Plans of Instruction. In both language methods classes, candidates work on the unit plans throughout the second half of the semester, and the finished product constitutes approximately 40% of the course grade, as the unit plan should demonstrate the application of all the teaching and learning principles studied that semester. The assessment reported here is the Secondary Unit Plan, because the assignment represents what candidates have learned over the span of two semesters about planning for classroom-based instruction. Candidates are required to develop specific learning objectives that relate to national K-12 Standards and Oklahoma curriculum standards (Priority Academic Student Skills); to create lesson activities that address different learning styles, multiple intelligences, and levels of critical thinking; to select, create and/or adapt teaching materials and authentic texts; to plan daily lessons that will motivate learners and offer language input and output; to develop assessment instruments appropriate to the grade level and content; to plan for effective time management. While the Elementary Unit Plan is almost entirely a “teachercreated” integrated unit, the Secondary Unit Plan is largely “text-based.” Candidates receive detailed instructions for the Secondary Unit Plan, as seen in Attachment A. Alignment with ACTFL/NCATE Standards The Secondary Unit Plan assignment integrates ACTFL/NCATE standards and allows candidates to demonstrate skills of planning for instruction. Candidates use their knowledge of language acquisition and cognitive development to plan appropriately for language input and interactive activities for the classroom (Standard 3a), and must create a variety of instructional strategies while anticipating the need for modifications for special needs students (Standard 3b). All of the lesson plans included in the Unit must identify specific Oklahoma curriculum standards, which are aligned to ACTFL Standards for Foreign Language Learning (Standard 4a). Candidates must also use those standards in designing or adapting teaching materials to accompany the unit (Standard 4c). Although candidates are not implementing the Secondary Unit Plan with real students, they must include examples of a variety of assessment instruments that they believe will be appropriate (Standard 5a). The rubrics published in the ACTFL/NCATE Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers (2002) were used as a guide in the design of categories for the project evaluation and in the elaboration of basic descriptors for the various achievement levels expected of students. The SPA-aligned rubric (see Attachment B) has been used for two groups of Secondary Unit Plans and Elementary Unit Plans (2003, 2004). 38 Analysis of Data Findings The Secondary Unit Plan assignment addresses various sub-sets of ACTFL/NCATE Standards 3, 4, and 5. The level of knowledge and skills acquired by candidates is evident in their scores for the content-based categories of the scoring rubric (see Attachment C). Candidates must score a minimum of 7/10 points to be rated “Acceptable” in each sub-area, and will earn an overall “Acceptable” rating if their total mean score meets the minimum of 7/10 points. Aggregated data (Table 1) show that, for the past 2 years (2002-2004), the mean score for each of the Unit’s required sub-areas surpassed the minimum “Acceptable” score of 7.0 out of 10. In addition, the total/overall mean scores surpassed the minimum “Acceptable” score, ranging from a low of 7.35 to a high of 8.70. Overall, candidates performed best in their planning for language input by using integrated, interactive activities for the classroom (mean scores of 7.9 – 8.7). Candidates as a group showed a good grasp (100% “Acceptable”) of standards-based instructional planning, with a mean score of 8.4 for this sub-area. Although candidates did not implement their Unit Plan with real students, they did develop “Acceptable” daily lesson plans that revealed careful and detailed planning (mean score of 7.85 for sub-area). The Secondary Unit Plan assessment data were also disaggregated and analyzed by language groups, by individual candidates, and by year of completion. Since the total number of candidates reported is only eleven, percentage calculations show that 83% of candidates (5 of 6) in 2003-2004, and 100% of candidates (5 of 5) in 2002-2003, achieved a mean “Acceptable” rating (7.0 minimum) on the Secondary Unit Plan. The disaggregated data show one “Unacceptable” overall/total mean score (6.8) for a French candidate who scored low in two subareas: Critical Thinking and Planning for Assessment. One Spanish candidate had “Unacceptable” scores in the sub-areas of Planning for Diverse Students and Planning for Assessment, but achieved an overall “Acceptable” mean score (7.5). Two Spanish candidates were “on the cusp” of a rating of “Target” (Exceeding the Standard) with mean total scores of 9.3. They were the only candidates in 2003-2004 to earn a score of 10.0 in several sub-areas of the Unit Plan assignment. The data also show that individual candidates in 2003-2004 generally out-scored the candidates in 2002-2003. Interpretation of Data as Evidence for Meeting Standards The teacher preparation program uses the Secondary Unit Plan as an internal measure of candidates’ preparation for student teaching. Candidates’ strengths are in proposing a variety of engaging and interactive activities (Standards 3a, 3b); identifying state and national standards to address in the unit (Standard 4a); and creating/adapting teaching materials (Standard 4c). Weaknesses in carrying out the Secondary Unit Plan assignment have been in the areas of planning for assessment (Standard 5a) and planning for diverse student needs (Standard 3b). Although candidates do present some “micro-teaching” activities drawn from their Secondary Unit Plan, their actual teaching skills (Standard 4b, 5b, 5c) will not be “tested” and consistently observed until the Clinical Practice/ Student Teaching experience. It must be acknowledged that unit planning is a very complex task. The wide range of scores in all sub-areas indicates that some candidates consistently perform better than others. It should also be noted that planning for an “imaginary” audience will always have an air of artificiality. Imagining how to plan realistic assessments for fictional characters does require a stretch of the imagination! 39 ATTACHMENT A. ASSESSMENT TOOL Secondary Unit Planning Template—Instructions to Candidates 1) Cover Sheet must include the following information: Your Name Title of Text Publisher & Publication Year Language Level of Students to be taught Unit/Chapter Title 2) Correlation to National Standards/Objectives: Use the SDE template, “Standards-based Textbook Evaluation Guide,” to evaluate the textbook materials you find for the unit of instruction you have chosen. Attach the completed form. [ACTFL 4a, 4b] 3) Learning Scenario – Task-based Teaching and Learning: Provide an overview of the teaching and learning topics, activities, and projects that you envision for the Unit. Describe in sufficient detail so that an administrator, parent, or student can understand what real-world language performance tasks will be practiced and learned during the time period specified. Utilize materials provided by the text as well as ideas you have generated to supplement the text. Indicate which of the K-12 National Standards (Oklahoma PASS Objectives) you will address in the unit. [ACTFL 4a, 4b] 4) Analysis of Chapter. Based on the above evaluation, be prepared to adapt or supplement the textbook’s information, activities, materials, etc. in order to develop the best unit of instruction possible. [ACTFL 2a, 2c, 4a, 4b] Summarize your findings in the following chart: Curricular Weave of Essential Skills & Knowledge Found in text or ancillaries To be added from other sources 1) Essential Grammar: 1) Essential Grammar: 2) Essential Vocabulary: 2) Essential Vocabulary: Receptive-Receptive-Expressive-Expressive-3) Cultural Information: 3) Cultural Information: Perspectives-Perspectives-Products-Products-Practices-Practices-4) Learning strategies to be taught or used: 4) Learning strategies to be taught or used: 5) Communication strategies to be taught or 5) Communication strategies to be taught or used: used: 6) Connections to other subject areas: 6) Connections to other subject areas: 7) Technology to be used: 7) Technology to be used: 40 5) Higher Order Thinking Skills: In the appropriate squares, describe specific learning activities that students will perform. One reason to supplement textbook activities is to ensure that instruction addresses multiple levels of critical thinking. [ACTFL 3b] Found in text or ancillaries Memory: Comprehension: Application: Analysis: Synthesis: Evaluation: To be added from other sources Memory: Comprehension: Application: Analysis: Synthesis: Evaluation: 6) Creation/adaptation of teaching materials: As a minimum, you must include the following: [ACTFL 4c] Photos/pictures to illustrate specific language concepts or vocabulary; At least 1 language game, illustrating a specific language concept or vocabulary; At least 1 song, illustrating a specific language, vocabulary, or cultural concept; 2 writing tasks with grading rubrics; 1 oral performance task with grading rubric; Annotated list of useful web-site. 7) Pre-test (Activity, Survey, etc.): [ACTFL 5a] 1—Describe what you will do to interest students in the topic of the unit, to activate their prior knowledge, and to involve them in the planning of the Unit. 2—Design an instrument that will indicate what level of understanding pupils already have of the various elements of the Unit. Attach the instrument or pre-test. 8) Communication Standards/Domains: List here the specific language skills/tasks the student will demonstrate during the unit—“The student will be able to . . .” (SWBT) [ACTFL 3a, 4a] Found in text or ancillaries 1) Interpretive Listening--SWBAT Reading--SWBAT 2) Presentational Speaking--SWBAT Writing—SWBAT 3) Interpersonal--SWBAT To be added from other sources 1) Interpretive Listening--SWBAT Reading—SWBAT 2) Presentational Speaking—SWBAT Writing--SWBAT 3) Interpersonal--SWBAT 41 9) Assessments: Include copies of all quizzes (and the grading rubrics) that will be used in the unit. [ACTFL 5a] Student performance: For all assessments, indicate any modifications/adaptations that might be made for special needs students. Include a post-test instrument, which is usually the Unit Exam. The exam should include: vocabulary, language structures, listening skills, reading skills, writing skills, and cultural content. Student Reflection on Learning. You might also plan to have your future students complete a copy of the “Pupil Self-assessment of Language Performance” from the State Dept. web site, edited to list just the goals addressed in your Unit. 10) Time Distribution: On a blank calendar page, briefly indicate how you will distribute the “content” of your Unit over the designated time period (2-3 weeks). 11) Daily Lesson Plans: Follow the DAILY LESSON PLAN TEMPLATE provided below. Include complete, detailed lesson plans, with all necessary materials, for a minimum of 1) the vocabulary of the unit; 2) at least two grammar points from the unit; 3) one reading selection from the unit; 4) one cultural concept from the unit. It should be clear that you are using a variety of input (presentation) techniques and that students will be engaged in output via a combination of mechanical, meaningful, and communicative activities. Possible modifications/adaptations for particular students should be noted throughout the lesson plans. [ACTFL 2a, 4b, 4c] 42 DAILY LESSON PLAN TEMPLATE (Secondary Instruction) Name Circle Central Focus of Lesson: PROCEDURES Anticipatory Set—get attention, state objectives, warm-up or recall Providing Input, engaging learners—teaching new concepts Guided Participation— student output (Mechanical, Meaningful) Application—Free Communication Closure and Assessment Extension Activities— homework, projects, etc. CULTURAL CONTENT (Perspectives, Practices, Products): CONNECTIONS to other content areas: Date Class/Level Unit Context/Theme Cultural Concept Writing Vocabulary Language/Grammar Reading Selection Listening/Speaking MATERIALS, RESOURCES, TECHNOLOGY TIME Give additional information to clarify what you & students will do. Describe such things as: P.A.S.S.; Bloom’s Taxonomy; Multiple intelligences; Performance goals; etc. Modifications or Adaptations; Receptive or Expressive Vocabulary; etc. Learning Strategies; Communicative Modes; PASS; etc. Communicative Mode—Interpretive, Interpersonal, Presentational; PASS; etc. Assessment Instrument(s) and rubric(s); etc. P.A.S.S.; Bloom’s Taxonomy; Multiple intelligences; Performance goals; etc. [ACTFL 2c, 4b, 4c] [ACTFL 2c, 4b] Self-Reflection on potential for lesson effectiveness: 43 ATTACHMENT B. SCORING GUIDELINES Secondary Units: Planning for Instruction Rubric is used to evaluate Secondary and Elementary unit plans in the foreign language methods courses CIED 4263 and CIED 4713 ACTFL Standards Overall Presentation Unacceptable (Approaches Standard) 0-6 points Sloppy or disorganized presentation with little or no attention to details. Includes some required components, but not all are complete, typed and arranged according to guidelines. Descriptions not complete, or lack accuracy. Unit planning applies national & state standards in minimal ways based on text materials. Little or no attention given to curricular weave. Plan does not follow required format and/or some required elements are missing or unclearly stated. No plans for addressing critical thinking . Unit and/or selected lessons refer to one or more of the cultural standards. Acceptable (Meets Standard) 7-9 points Neat presentation with some attention to details. Includes most required components, typed and arranged according to guidelines. Descriptions are generally well presented and accurate. Candidate creates objectives and activities that address national and state standards. Unit plan follows required format and includes most required elements. Some attention given to curricular weave. Critical thinking skills are present, but not stretched to higher levels. Unit and/or lessons include planned activities to allow exploration of the target-language cultural practices, products, and/or perspectives. Candidate consults with colleagues to make relevant connections to other subject areas and to identify materials appropriate for strengthening content connections for students. Selection and design of materials reflects standards and curricular goals (National Standards and P.A.S.S.). Technology resources identified and integrated. Candidate includes visual, aural, print materials in lesson planning. Materials neat. Candidate adapts commercial materials as necessary to reflect standardsbased goals and instruction. Target (Exceeds Standard) 10 points Exceptionally professional presentation with attention to detail. Includes all required components, typed and arranged according to guidelines. Descriptions are clearly presented and accurate. Candidate utilizes “5 Cs” as the backbone of the unit and designs objectives and activities that creatively implement state and national standards. Activities require higher order thinking. Skillful incorporation of technology and connections to other disciplines. The unit and lessons are clearly organized around the cultural framework of practices, products and perspectives, and activities will lead to student understanding of the anthropological view of culture. Candidate systematically consults with colleagues to make relevant connections to other subject areas. May plan team teaching. Together, locates authentic resources appropriate to content goals and grade level. Selection and design of materials is clearly based on national and state standards and curricular goals. Incorporates wide variety of visual, aural, & print resources, including realia. Technology resources identified and integrated. Materials are creative, neat, legible, easy to use. Plans and is successful in adapting commercial materials to make standards-based learning more effective. Learning Scenario & Integration of Standards into Planning [ACTFL 4a, 4b] Integration of Cultural Products, Practices, & Perspectives in Planning [ACTFL4b,4c] Integration of Other Subjects in Instructional Planning [ACTFL 2c, 4b] Evaluation, Selection, Creation/ adaptation of Standards-based Materials [ACTFL 4c] Candidate plans to connect to subject-area content by using re-sources that accompany instructional materials (text). Connections may be of discrete pieces of information, not integrated. Selection and design of materials is not clearly based on standards and curricular goals (National Standards and P.A.S.S.). Candidate uses instructional materials that accompany text or are commercially produced. 44 Critical Thinking & Problem Solving [ACTFL 3b] Planning for Students’ Diverse Needs [ACTFL 3b] Planned activities have a limited number of answers and allow little room for critical thinking and/or problem solving. Planned materials and activities acknowledge the possibility of diverse needs, but specific strategies are very limited and show no variety. Candidate is aware that some students may have special cognitive or physical needs. Candidate shows awareness of connections between student learning and use of instructional strategies. Lesson plans focus on communicative modes, but in isolation. Lesson plans do not follow required format and/or required elements are missing or unclearly stated. May focus on only one mode of communication at a time. Cultural content and interdisciplinary connections are minimal. Instructional materials are inadequate to meet needs. Candidate recognizes purposes of formative & summative assessments and plans to use assessments (LRSW) found in instructional materials. Planned assessments use primarily discrete-point questions. Modifications not addressed. Many of the planned activities promote critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Planned materials and activities anticipate a wide range of student needs: learning styles, language levels, affective needs. Many lesson plans address diversity with some variety of instructional strategies. Candidate models strategies that address special needs. Candidate demonstrates under-standing of language acquisition, language input, and negotiation of meaning by designing specific teaching strategies (e.g., TPR, comprehensible input) in daily lessons. Several modes of communication are planned. Lesson plans follow required format & include most required elements. Lessons integrate multiple skills. Accompanying materials adequate for the purpose described. Lesson plans promote language input, and pupil production of language. Activities include exploration of culture and make connections to other disciplines. Candidate designs formative & summative assessments for achievement at unit’s end. Locates authentic materials for interpretative assessments, designs performance assessments for interpersonal & presentational communication. Plans both holistic and analytical rubrics. Possible modifications for specific students are included. Planning for Language Acquisition [ACTFL 3a] Daily Lesson Plans [ACTFL 2a, 4a, 4b, 4c] Most of the planned activities are intended to engage students in critical thinking and problem solving. Candidate plans to discover information about students’ learning styles, intelligences, and language background. Most lesson plans address diversity with a wide variety of instructional strategies. Alternative classroom activities planned & available as needed by special students. Candidate purposefully designs a wide variety of specific teaching strategies that promote language acquisition on a daily, ongoing basis. Activities thoughtfully integrate interpretive, interpersonal, and presentational modes of communication. Lesson objectives are performance-based & integrate all modes of communication. Activities include both comprehensible input and output. Materials/resources appealing, neat and easy to use. Activities and materials lead to cultural understanding & acquiring information from other disciplines in the target language. Candidate designs formative & summative assessments to measure ongoing development of LSRW proficiencies. Higher-order thinking skills are included in assessments. Uses assessments that are based on national student standards. Both formal and informal assessments are described clearly. Rubrics are clear and appropriate. Modifications are planned for better pupil learning. Assessing Pupil Learning [ACTFL 5a] 45 ATTACHMENT C. DATA TABLE 1 Mean Sub-Area Scores and Mean Total (Overall) Scores Aggregated by Year (2002-2004) and Range Sub-Areas, Aligned to ACTFL/NCATE Standards 2, 3, 4, & 5 Overall Presentation Learning Scenario & Integration of Standards [4a, b] Integration of Cultural Products, Practices, & Perspectives [2a, 4b, c] Integration of Other Subject Areas [2c, 4b] Evaluation, Selection, Creation/adaptation of Materials [4c] Critical Thinking & Problem-solving [3b] Planning for Diverse Student Needs [3b] Planning for Language Acquisition [3a] Daily Lesson Plans [2a, 4a, b, c] Planning for Assessment [5a] MEAN TOTAL SCORE, All Sub-Areas & Candidates 2003-2004 Sub-Area Mean Score 8.8 8.2 8.0 7.8 8.3 8.3 7.5 8.0 7.7 7.2 8.0 2002-2003 Sub-Area Mean Score 8.6 8.6 7.6 8.0 7.2 7.4 7.2 7.8 8.0 7.8 7.8 2-Yr. Period Sub-Area Mean Score 8.70 8.40 7.80 7.90 7.75 7.85 7.35 7.90 7.85 7.50 Range of Total Mean Scores 7.35 – 8.70 T = Target (Exceeds Standard—10 pts) Red indicates Unacceptable in a particular Sub-Area Scale: U = Unacceptable (Approaches Standard—0-6 pts) A = Acceptable (Meets Standard—7-9 pts) TABLE 2 Sub-Area Scores, Range, and Total (Overall) Mean Score for 11 Completers Disaggregated by Language (9 Spanish, 2 French)* and Year (2002-2004) 2003-2004 2002-2003 Sub-Areas, Aligned to ACTFL/NCATE Standards 2, 3, 4, & 5 Sp 2-Yr. Range of Scores Sp Sp Sp Sp FR Sp Sp Sp Sp FR Overall Presentation 9 10 8 10 9 7 10 8 7 10 8 7.0 – 10.0 Learning Scenario & Integration of Standards [4a, b] 7 10 7 10 8 7 9 8 8 10 8 7.0 – 10.0 Integration /Cultural Products, Practices, & Perspectives [2a, 4b, c] 8 9 7 9 8 7 8 7 7 9 7 7.0 – 9.0 Integration of Other Subject Areas [2c, 4b] 7 9 7 9 8 7 8 8 7 9 8 7.0 – 9.0 Evaluation, Selection, Creation/adaptation of Materials [4c] 8 10 7 10 7 8 7 7 7 8 7 7.0 – 10.0 Critical Thinking & Problem-solving [3b] 9 10 7 10 8 6 8 7 7 8 7 6.0 -10.0 Planning for Diverse Student Needs [3b] 7 9 7 9 6 7 7 7 7 8 7 6.0 – 9.0 Planning for Language Acquisition [3a] 8 9 7 9 8 7 8 8 7 8 8 7.0 – 9.0 Daily Lesson Plans [2a, 4a, b, c] 8 8 8 8 7 7 9 7 7 9 8 7.0 – 9.0 Planning for Assessment [5a] 7 9 7 9 6 5 8 7 7 8 9 6.0 – 9.0 MEAN SCORE per CANDIDATE 7.8 9.3 7.2 9.3 7.5 6.8 8.2 7.4 7.1 8.7 7.7 6.8 – 9.3 OVERALL RATING per CANDIDATE (U, A, T) A A/T A A/T A U A A A A A OVERALL PASS RATE per YEAR (%) 83% ACCEPTABLE 100% ACCEPTABLE *There were no Program Completers in German for the 2003-2004 time period. Red indicates Unacceptable in a particular Sub-Area. Scale: U = Unacceptable (Approaches Standard—0-6 pts) A = Acceptable (Meets Standard—7-9 pts) T = Target (Exceeds Standard—10 pts) 46 Appendix I Sample Assessment #4 47 ATTACHMENT A: ASSESSMENT TOOL Part II Teacher Education: Evaluation of Student Teaching Student's Name_________________________________________ Banner ID #______________________________Date_________________________ Based on observation of your student teacher’s performance and/or examination of his/her records and other product outcomes, please assess his/her development of the following competencies as an entry level teacher. Please make heavy black marks in the squares for the rating of the competency level. Refer to the suggested list of performance indicators on the separate outcomes sheet to assist in the evaluation process. These performance indicators are not finite. Superior (SU) ------ Beyond what is expected at this point in the program Satisfactory (S)-----As expected at this point in the program Needs Improvement (NI)------Less than expected at this point in the program NOTA------- No Opportunity To Assess SPANISH EDUCATION Minimal Teaching Field Outcomes 1. Integrates foreign language standards into planning, instruction, and assessment. 2. Creates a classroom environment that supports language learning and acquisition. 3. Demonstrates a satisfactory level of proficiency in the target language. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Provides maximum opportunities for students to communicate meaningfully in the target language. Engages students in negotiating meaning with the teacher and with one another. Introduces and practices vocabulary in context. Teaches grammar as the vehicle for using the target language to communicate in real-world contexts. Provides opportunities for students to practice oral interpersonal communication in pairs and in small groups. SU S NI NOTA 9. Provides opportunities for students to interpret authentic oral and printed texts . 10. Engages students in written interpersonal and presentational communication. 11. Integrates culture into instruction by engaging students in exploring the relationships between and among cultural products, practices, and perspectives. 12. Assesses students’ progress through contextualized assessment practices. 13. Makes connections between other school subjects and foreign language instruction. 14. Provides opportunities for students to interact with target-language communities through a variety of means such as technology and authentic materials. 15. Participates effectively as a professional in school and community settings and within the larger foreign language profession. SUMMARY - OVERALL RATING Photocopies should be provided to the following: Student Teacher/Cooperating Teacher/University Supervisor. The original goes to: Teacher Education Office. Revised 9/02 48 ATTACHMENT B: SCORING GUIDE STUDENT TEACHING COMPETENCIES SECONDARY EDUCATION/SPANISH (K-12 CERTIFICATION PROGRAM) Note: • Knowledge Dispositions Teaching skills Target / foreign language = Spanish Target culture = Spanish-speaking regions 1. Integrates foreign language standards into planning, instruction, and assessment. • • Knows the goal areas and standards of the national Standards for Foreign Language Learning framework. Knows how to write performance-based lesson/unit objectives. Believes in using the Five Cs for Foreign Language Learning for planning, instruction, and assessment: Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, Communities. Plans and conducts daily lessons that integrate the interpretive, interpersonal, and presentational modes of communication. Plans and conducts daily lessons that integrate at least two goal areas of the standards. Designs unit or long-term plans that reflect the Five Cs and standards. Evaluates, selects, designs, and adapts instructional materials including visuals, realia, authentic printed and oral materials, and other resources obtained through technology. Assesses student progress toward achieving standards. 2. • • • Creates a classroom environment that supports language learning and acquisition. Knows how students acquire first and second languages and the similarities and differences between the two processes. Knows how to provide comprehensible input in the target language. Is familiar with a variety of special needs that students may have in the foreign language classroom. Believes that all students can learn/acquire a second language. Demonstrates sensitivity to individual learners’ needs in a language environment. Demonstrates an enthusiasm for target language teaching. Demonstrates a sincere effort to understand students’ communicative efforts. Tolerates students’ language errors that occur as part of the acquisition process. Conducts the class in the target language at least 75% of the class period. Uses the target language appropriately for handling classroom routines, giving directions, making transitions between activities, and talking to students before and after class. Encourages students to create with the target language within a non-threatening environment. Offers praise and encouragement in the target language. Shows acceptance of students’ ideas and messages through non-verbal behavior such as smiles, headnodding, facial expressions, etc. Enables students to gain confidence in speaking by providing opportunities for them to rehearse/practice in pairs and small groups. Adapts lessons and materials to address individual students’ needs. 49 3. • • Demonstrates a satisfactory level of proficiency in the target language. Knows the target language system (grammatical, phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic). Identifies the pragmatic and sociolinguistic features of target language discourse (e.g., politeness conventions, formal/informal forms of address). Demonstrates a willingness to accommodate for any gaps in his/her own knowledge of the target language by learning on his/her own. Demonstrates an interest in maintaining/strengthening his/her proficiency in the target language. Uses the target language to the maximum extent possible in the classroom. Speaks in the target language with a high degree of linguistic accuracy and fluency. Writes directions, narratives, exercises, test items with a high degree of accuracy in the target language. Recognizes students’ patterns of errors in speaking and/or writing. 4. • • Provides maximum opportunities for students to communicate meaningfully in the target language. Knows how to plan for and facilitate meaningful communication in the classroom. Knows the difference between mechanical and meaningful/communicative exercises. Is willing to spend time creating communicative contexts and designing meaningful activities. Believes that a maximum amount of classroom time should be devoted to meaningful communication. Provides meaningful and engaging contexts for interpersonal and presentational communication. When using a question-answer format for speaking, uses appropriate wait-time to allow students to process questions and formulate responses. Uses task-based instruction to elicit language beyond word level from students. Designs and implements a variety of activities that incorporate students’ various learning styles. Provides feedback that focuses on the meaning of the message. 5. • • Engages students in negotiating meaning with the teacher and with one another. Knows the conditions in which negotiation of meaning is likely to occur in the classroom. Understands the facilitator role of the language teacher. Is willing to assume the role of facilitator in the classroom. Is willing to learn along with students. Helps students to understand the target language by using comprehensible input, gestures, visuals. Teaches students to use gambits (passwords) and other strategies as they negotiate meaning in the target language. Develops conversations with students by using assisting questions, verbal prompts, clarification requests, comprehension checks. Provides individual as well as whole class guided assistance and scaffolding. Expands on students’ responses. 50 6. • • Introduces and practices vocabulary in context. Knows how vocabulary is acquired. Understands how to select vocabulary that relates to the context /unit being explored and students’ interests. Is willing to spend time designing contexts, visuals, and other materials for presenting vocabulary. Presents new vocabulary in a context using familiar grammar and re-entered vocabulary. Uses effective visuals, realia, and props in introducing and practicing new vocabulary. Provides opportunities for students to internalize new words by using active. participation (e.g., TPR, manipulation of objects) and personalized discussion. Checks for comprehension of new vocabulary by using guided questioning. Designs contextualized exercises and activities for practicing new vocabulary. 7. • • Teaches grammar as the vehicle for using the target language to communicate in real-world contexts. Knows the grammatical system of the target language. Knows how to present grammar in real-world functions and contexts. Recognizes that it takes time for students to internalize and be able to operationalize grammar rules. Is willing to adapt the textbook’s grammatical explanations and practice as necessary to meet learners’ needs. Values the importance of presenting grammar as a vehicle for communication rather than as an end in and of itself. Recognizes that the target language/grammar changes over time and that discrepancies may exist between the target language of instructional materials and contemporary usage. Selects grammatical structures from the textbook as necessary for use in communication. Provides clear, accurate explanation of grammar when necessary. Presents and practices grammar in real-world functions and contexts. Provides target language input which exemplifies a specific grammatical structure so that students can understand its use in context. Guides students to construct an understanding of a grammatical principle through inductive reasoning, coaching, and questioning strategies. Responds to students’ questions without needless elaboration, complication, or extraneous detail. Uses a variety of techniques to correct students’ errors, such as elicitation, self-correction, and peer correction. 8. • • Provides opportunities for students to practice oral interpersonal communication in pairs and in small groups. Knows how to integrate interpretive and interpersonal communication. Knows how to design and implement cooperative learning activities. Recognizes that students will often resort to English in group tasks if they don’t understand the task, don’t have enough target language to complete it, or know they will not be expected to do a follow-up task afterwards. 51 Understands that pair/group activities maximize the time students have to use the target language. Designs and implements activities that promote cooperation and interaction such as jigsaw and information-gap activities, paired interviews, role plays, group problem-solving, role plays, debates. Provides clear directions and models for all activities. Groups students appropriately. Monitors group activities appropriately. Conducts appropriate follow-up tasks. 9. • • • • Provides opportunities for students to interpret authentic oral and printed texts, including literary and cultural texts. Interprets literary texts that represent defining works in the target cultures. Identifies themes, authors, style, and text type in a variety of media that are important in representing the traditions of the target cultures. Knows where to find authentic texts and how to select them. Knows how to guide students through authentic oral and printed texts. Believes in the value of using authentic oral and printed texts in the target language. Believes that the difficulty of a given authentic text lies not in the text itself, but rather in the task that students are asked to do. Believes that students should not be expected to understand every word of an authentic text. Integrates authentic oral and printed texts into instruction on a regular basis (e.g., audio tapes, video tapes, music, magazine / newspaper articles, etc.). Provides students with pre-listening / pre-reading / pre-viewing activities. Provides opportunities for students to listen and read for various purposes. Enriches classroom content with literary and cultural texts and topics valued by the target cultures. Designs comprehension tasks appropriate to students’ language levels. Guides students through the comprehension / interpretation process helping them to skim for the gist, scan for details, recognize new vocabulary, interpret between the lines, and summarize. Guides students to interpret texts by drawing inferences, thinking critically, and expressing their own ideas and opinions about them. Uses interpretive tasks as a springboard to other communicative activities. 10. Engages students in written interpersonal and presentational communication. • • Knows how to treat writing as a process. Understands the difference between writing as a tool for learning language and as a vehicle for communication. Values the importance of writing for self-expression and as a tool for learning. Is willing to devote class time to using a process-oriented approach to writing. Designs activities in which students use writing to help them to communicate using new grammar and vocabulary. Designs activities in which students use writing for purposeful interpersonal communication. Provides opportunities for students to prepare and present written messages to an audience of readers. Guides students through the various iterative processes involved in creative writing such as prewriting, composing the draft, revising. Provides opportunities for group brainstorming and peer editing in the writing process. Provides feedback on both linguistic accuracy and the content/ideas of the written product. Uses a variety of correction strategies as appropriate to the writing task. 52 Holds students responsible for their written errors by helping them to correct their own errors and make revisions. 11. Integrates culture into instruction by engaging students in exploring the relationships between and among cultural products, practices, and perspectives. • • • Recognizes the integral relationship between language and culture. Demonstrates a familiarity with one or more countries where the target language is spoken. Understands the theoretical framework for analyzing and comparing cultures (products, practices, perspectives). Is willing to investigate the dynamic dimensions of culture in terms of products, practices, and perspectives. Recognizes cultural stereotypes and their effect on student perspectives of culture. Embeds culture into planning, instruction, and assessment. Uses the 3-P framework for helping students to analyze and understand culture. Teaches products, practices, and perspectives of at least one country where the target language is spoken. Uses authentic materials in teaching culture. Identifies cultural concepts in literary texts and integrates culture and literature. Uses the community and technology as resources for integrating and teaching culture. Engages students in making comparisons between the native and target cultures. Presents culture without promoting cultural stereotypes and biases. Uses a variety of techniques for teaching culture such as role play, discussions, and brainstorming. 12. Assesses students’ progress through contextualized assessment practices. • • • • Knows a variety of techniques for assessing student progress for both formative and summative purposes. Knows multiple ways for measuring student progress in achieving foreign language standards. Knows how to use assessment results to inform and improve classroom instruction. Knows how to design scoring rubrics for assigning a rating to assessment tasks. Understands the need to devote time to conduct meaningful performance assessments (e.g., oral testing). Recognizes the value of informing students of assessment expectations and how they will be graded. Assesses student progress through holistic assessment (TPR, oral interviews, role plays, portfolios) in addition to traditional test formats such as fill-in-the-blank and multiple choice. Incorporates both discrete-point items and global items appropriately on written tests. Embeds all assessments. Engages students in personalizing vocabulary/grammar on written tests. Integrates the three modes of communication into assessment. Integrates culture into assessment. Conducts formative and summative assessment. Provides ongoing assessment of students’ oral performance and offers feedback. Conducts individual and/or pair testing of oral communication. Reports assessment results clearly and accurately. 53 13. Makes connections between other school subjects and foreign language instruction. • • Knows how to integrate and teach content from other subject areas into the foreign language curriculum. Knows how to locate content-area sources that are appropriate for the level of instruction, age of students, and program goals. Recognizes that subject-area content motivates learners and connects the target language with other subjects in the curriculum. Is willing to work collaboratively with students to learn new subject-area content along with them. Identifies connections between the foreign language curriculum and other subject areas. Guides students through comprehending and interpreting texts from other subject areas in the target language. 14. Provides opportunities for students to interact with target-language communities through a variety of means such as technology and authentic materials. • • Demonstrates an understanding of how to connect with target-language communities beyond the classroom. Demonstrates an understanding of how to help heritage learners in the foreign language classroom. Validates the heritage and linguistic backgrounds of all students. Values opportunities to interact with members of target-language communities. Is willing to find language resources within the school, local, and world-wide community. Integrates resources from target-language communities into instruction. Provides opportunities for students to use the target language with members of target-language communities. 15. Participates effectively as a professional in school and community settings and within the larger foreign language profession. • • Demonstrates familiarity with professional literature and key professional foreign language organizations at the national, state, regional, and local levels. Knows the federal laws and regulations that govern educational practices. Recognizes the importance of life-long professional growth as a foreign language educator. Believes in the value of foreign language learning to the overall success of all students. Is a member of and participates in at least one professional organization. Engages in reflection to improve teaching and learning. Makes changes to teaching as a result of reflection. Communicates effectively with parents, colleagues, agencies, and the community at large. These competencies reflect the PDE Chapter 354 Foreign Language Program Guidelines and the ACTFL/NCATE Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers. Revised May 2003 54 Appendix J Sample Assessment #5 55 SECTION IV—EVIDENCE FOR MEETING STANDARDS ASSESSMENT 5 Student Teacher Work Sample—EFFECT ON STUDENT LEARNING Description of Work Sample Assessment and Its Use in the Program. Although O.S.U. student teachers have been required for many years to submit all the unit plans and daily lessons they produce during their clinical practice, that requirement did not take the form of a Student Teaching Work Sample until academic year 2002-2003. Going beyond the unit plans produced in methods courses, the Work Sample has additional, mandatory components: a pre-test; data tables charting student learning based upon pre- and post-test results; descriptions of “authentic” assessments administered while teaching the work sample unit; pupil samples of excellent, average, and below average work; and a pupil survey on teacher effectiveness, with accompanying data and data analysis. For instructions to candidates and guidelines for the “Clinical Practice (Student Teaching) Work Sample,” see Attachment A. Alignment with ACTFL/NCATE Standards Requirements for the Work Sample are established to ensure that candidates meet as many ACTFL/NCATE Standards as possible through this comprehensive performance assessment. The evaluation of theWork Sample is very similar to the scoring of Unit Plans prepared in the methods courses. However, special attention is paid to Work Sample components identified as essential to measure the candidates’ effect on student learning: diagnosis/pre-test; planning appropriate instructional sequences to advance pupils’ learning; using post-test documentation that student learning occurred; and candidates’ written reflection on changes in teaching that might improve their pupils’ learning (Standards 3, 4, and 5). See the “coring Guidelines” in Attachment B for descriptions of the criteria, which are aligned with ACTFL/NCATE Standards. Students tend to score well on those Work Sample criteria that match tasks they have done previously in Unit Planning assignments. The most telling data from the Work Sample are those related to five specific criteria—evaluation by supervisors; pupil survey of instruction; pre-and post-assessment of student learning; reflecting on assessment and planning for improvement of instruction; and analyzing and reporting results of pupil work. Thus, the analysis of data is reported for only those five criteria from the overall scoring rubric. Analysis of Data Findings (See Attachment C) The Work Sample assignment addresses various sub-sets of ACTFL/NCATE Standards 3, 4, and 5. The level of knowledge and skills demonstrated by candidates is evident in their scores for the specified sub-areas of the scoring rubric (see Attachment C). Candidates must score a minimum of 7/10 points to be rated “Acceptable” in each sub-area, and will earn an overall “Acceptable” rating if their mean overall/total score meets or exceeds the minimum of 7/10 points. Aggregated data (Table 1) for the two-year period 2002-2004 show that the mean score for each of the Work Sample’s required sub-areas met or surpassed the minimum “Acceptable” score of 7.0 out of 10. In addition, the total/overall mean scores for that period ranged from 7.0 to 8.40. Although these aggregated overall scores fall within the “Acceptable” range, several 56 sub-area mean scores hover near the border of being unacceptable. The mean sub-area scores of the 2002-2003 cohort of candidates far surpass the mean scores of the 2003-2004 cohort. The Work Sample assessment data were also disaggregated and analyzed by language groups, by individual candidates, and by year of completion (Table 2). Interestingly, 100% of candidates in the 2003 cohort achieved the rating of “Acceptable” in every one of the five critical sub-areas. That cohort’s overall/total mean scores per candidate ranged from a low of 7.4 to a high of 9.4. French and Spanish candidates showed similar strengths and weaknesses. In sharp contrast, the scores of the 2004 cohort reveal that only 33% (2 of 6) candidates, both in Spanish, presented an “Acceptable” Work Sample. Four of six candidates (66%), including both Spanish and French candidates, presented “Unacceptable” work, with total/overall mean scores ranging from 5.8 to 6.8. Weaknesses among the 2004 cohort group were clear in the sub-areas of Pre/Post-testing (mean 6.1), Reflection and planning for improvement (mean 6.1), and Analysis of pupil work (mean 6.1). Interpretation of Data as Evidence for Meeting Standards In part, the program uses the Work Sample to assess if candidates indeed learn what we are teaching them. Further, the Work Sample assessment results are compared to the results of the Summative Evaluation of the student teacher by the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor. It is not surprising that the dispositions and work ethic of individual candidates, as observed by supervisors, can impact their effect on student learning and achievement. Those 2004 candidates who presented “Unacceptable” Work Samples had, in every case, been apprised of those areas of weakness by student teaching supervisors. Candidates did not follow the clearly written instructions that specified the required components of the Work Sample assignment; in fact, they simply collected no data to analyze and report! The typical “analysis” by candidates was simply a statement that, for example, “Most of the pupils did better on the post-test than they did on the pre-test;” or “A lot of my students did well on the quizzes, but not on the final exam;” or “They did a pretty good job with their skits.” Only one candidate offered an excuse for the incomplete Work Sample, saying, “My cooperating teacher doesn’t do any of that stuff.” The lines of communication with the majority of candidates in 2004 were obviously broken. Even on the occasion of supervisory visits, candidates simply indicated that they had not finished their project yet. Such results certainly reflect negatively on the professional attitudes and dispositions of those particular candidates. The onus is on the Foreign Language Program Coordinator to ensure that every future candidate understands why the Work Sample is required, and how important it is that procedures be followed. 57 ATTACHMENT A. ASSESSMENT TOOL Secondary Student Teaching Work Sample Template—Instructions to Candidates The Oklahoma Commission on Teacher Preparation has designated General Competencies that beginning teachers must demonstrate in order to be licensed for the first year of teaching. The Student Teacher Work Sample that you prepare during your clinical practice in the secondary school language classroom (CIED 4720) will provide evidence that you have fostered a high level of learning in your pupils by 1) planning instruction thoroughly; 2) using best practices that provide opportunities for pupil success; 3) using a variety of assessment strategies to foster the continuous development of your pupils; and 4) evaluating the effects of your actions and adapting instruction based upon assessment and reflection. REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF THE WORK SAMPLE A. Title Page Student Teacher Work Sample Your name Date_______________________________ School site Grade/Level and Subject B. Description of the Learning Environment 1) Describe the school district, community and classroom environmental considerations, and demographic information (gender, cultural, ethnic make-up). Consult a copy of the most recent School Report Card, local newspapers, district patrons, and teachers for information. 2) Describe courses you taught during the internship. 3) Describe the students in the class(es) included in your Work Sample: gender, ethnicity, developmental characteristics (social, physical, intellectual), language learning background, academic performance, etc. [Do not use actual names anywhere in the project report.] C. Overview of the Instructional Design of the Unit in the Work Sample (Learning Scenario) 1) State title of unit; length/duration of unit; students' role/input in unit design; 2) Discuss P.A.S.S. Standards and K-12 National Standards addressed by the unit. [At the OK World Languages web site there is a “Monthly Checklist of Language Performance” for Novice and Intermediate Ranges, based on the P.A.S.S. objectives. Since P.A.S.S. is correlated to the K-12 National Standards, you might complete and include the checklist--based on the period of time covered by the Work Sample--as evidence of addressing the Standards.] http://title3.sde.state.ok.us/languages 4) Describe goals or objectives particular to the District /school curriculum plan; 5) Describe adaptations to instruction and assessment for diverse learners. 58 D. Planning for Instruction 1) Write a detailed unit plan Follow the unit plan template or guidelines from secondary methods class). 2) Include an explanation of the critical thinking skills to be addressed; 3) Include all daily lesson plans from the unit, with accompanying materials; 4) Include all assessment instruments (with rubrics); 5) Indicate provisions made for various learning styles and special needs. Implementing Instruction Provide evidence of effective implementation of instruction by including the following items that have been planned for and completed during the Unit: 1) At least 1 observation evaluation by the Cooperating Teacher that confirms effective implementation of instruction (on forms provided by University); 2) At least 1 observation evaluation by the University Supervisor that confirms effective implementation of instruction; 3) At least 2 self-assessments of teaching effectiveness; 4) A video tape of a complete class period and an accompanying self-analysis of teaching effectiveness (narrative developed by you); 5) A pupil survey on teacher effectiveness (on forms developed by you), with an accompanying analysis of the results; [At the OK World Languages web site http://title3.sde.state.ok.us/languages there is an “End of Instruction Student Self-Evaluation Reflection” form based on the P.A.S.S. and K-12 National Standards. You could adapt the checklist to reflect the goals addressed during the Work Sample, and use the student responses as additional evidence of their learning. ] Assessment of Pupil Learning Provide evidence that you have formally and informally assessed your pupils’ performance to show that they have accomplished high levels of learning. Include: 1) A "pre-test" activity or survey to discover what pupils already know at the outset. Compile the data/results. 2) Two or three informal assessments conducted during the course of the unit, with an explanation of the modifications you made to your teaching based on the assessments. Describe any modifications used for special needs learners. 3) One formal, graded, oral assessment activity. Include a copy of the assignment provided to the pupils, the rubric used to assess their performance, and an analysis of the data with grade breakdowns for all students. If possible, include an audiotape or videotape sample of 3-6 pupil performances at different levels of proficiency. Follow all school district and OSU Portfolio guidelines to gain permission to record or videotape pupils. Describe any modifications used for special needs learners. 4) One formal, graded, written assessment activity. Include a copy of the initial assignment provided to the pupils, the rubric used to assess their performance, and an analysis of the data with grade breakdowns for all students. Provide at least one pupil sample of an Excellent, an Average, and a Below Average performance. The pupil samples should show your feedback. Follow all school district and E. F. 59 OSU Portfolio guidelines to gain permission to provide written samples to the university supervisor. Describe any modifications used for special needs learners. 5) A "post-test" instrument (typically the "unit exam") to discover what pupils know at the conclusion of the unit. Compile the data/results. Describe any modifications used for special needs learners. Compare the results of the post-test to the results of the pre-test and try to describe the differences. G. Reflection on Teaching Effectiveness and Plans for Revision of Instruction Reflect on the effectiveness of your instruction and plan modifications of future instruction to better meet pupils’ needs. Complete the following in a typed essay: 1) Identify successful and unsuccessful activities and assessments, and give plausible reasons for their success or lack thereof. Discuss any steps you took to remediate students who did not perform at high levels, and tell how you will modify those activities in the future. 2) Discuss your most significant learning insight from teaching this unit. 3) Reflect on your training thus far and identify what professional knowledge, skills or dispositions would improve your performance in the future. Discuss your strengths and needs as a teacher and set some specific goals for improvement. 60 ATTACHMENT B. SCORING GUIDELINES SCORING GUIDELINES—Clinical Practice (Student Teaching) Work Sample ACTFL Standards Overall Presentation Unacceptable (Approaches Standard) 0-6 pts Sloppy or disorganized presentation with little or no attention to details. Includes some required components, but not all are complete, typed and arranged according to guide-lines. Descriptions not complete, lack accuracy. Descriptions of school site, class-room environment, classes taught, and aspects of student diversity are missing or provide minimal relevant information. Description of National and State standards, school curriculum plan, and adaptations planned for instruction & assessment is missing or provides minimal relevant information. Unit planning applies National & State standards in minimal ways based on text materials. Little or no attention given to curricular weave. Plan does not follow required format and/or some required elements are missing or unclearly stated. Plans are minimal or are not included for addressing critical thinking. Lesson plans do not follow required format and/or required elements are missing or unclearly stated. Lessons may focus on only one mode of communication at a time. Cultural content and interdisciplinary connections are minimal. Instructional materials are inadequate to meet needs. Acceptable (Meets Standard) 7-9 pts Neat presentation with some attention to details. Includes most required components, typed and arranged according to guidelines. Descriptions are generally well presented and accurate. Descriptions of school site, class-room environment, courses taught, and aspects of student diversity are included, but lack depth. Description of National and State standards, school curriculum plan, and adaptations planned for instruction & assessment is included, but lacks detail or depth. Candidate creates objectives and activities that address National and State standards. Unit plan follows required format and includes most required elements. Some attention given to curricular weave. Critical thinking skills are present, but not stretched to higher levels. Target (Exceeds Standard) 10 pts Exceptionally professional presentation with attention to detail. Includes all required components, typed and arranged according to guidelines. Descriptions are clearly presented and accurate. Complete, appropriate and clear descriptions of school site, classroom environment, classes taught, aspects of student diversity. Complete, appropriate and clear description of National and State standards, school curriculum plan, and adaptations planned for instruction & assessment. Candidate utilizes “5 Cs” as the backbone of the unit and designs objectives and activities that creatively implement State and National standards. Activities require higher order thinking. Skillful incorporation of technology and connections to other disciplines. Description of Learning Environment Instructional Design & Standards Addressed [ACTFL 4a, 4b] Planning for Instruction: Unit Plan [ACTFL 2c, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 4c] Planning for Instruction: (3) Selected Lesson Plans [ACTFL 2c, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 4c] Lesson plans follow required format and include most required elements. Lessons integrate multiple skills. Accompanying materials are adequate for the purpose described. Lesson plan promotes language input, and pupil production of language. Activities include exploration of culture and makes connections to other disciplines. Lesson objectives are performance-based & integrate all modes of communication. Activities include both comprehensible input and output. Materials/resources appealing, neat and easy to use. Activities and materials lead to cultural understanding and acquiring information from other disciplines in the target language. 61 Implementing Instruction: Evaluation by supervisors [ACTFL 4b, 4c] Implementing Instruction: Pupil survey, Selfassessment [ACTFL 4b, 4c, 5b, 5c] Assessing Pupil Learning: Pre- & PostSurveys of Pupil Learning [ACTFL 5a,5b] Minimal use of target language for instruction. Observations of mentors indicate that student teacher is generally approaching level of expectations for instruction [see studentteaching evaluation rubric]. Self-assessment does not reflect thorough or careful attention to actual behaviors. Pupil surveys indicate low level of student learning and dissatisfaction with instruction. Candidate recognizes purposes of formative & summative assessments; uses assessments (LRSW) found in instructional materials prepared by others; assesses cultural facts; uses some assessments combining skills, but tends to score skills in isolation; uses primarily discrete-point questions; Description of assessments is minimal; Modifications not addressed. Candidate interprets assessment as primarily right/wrong responses; Reflection fails to explain why pupils were able or unable to meet expectations, and may view assessment as an end in itself; Remediation is directed at wholegroup review; Plan of action to remediate students is inadequate or not effectively designed. Candidate reports student progress in form of grades or scores on discrete aspects of language (structures, vocabulary, cultural facts); Analysis of data is not provided and/or no description of reporting assessment results to stakeholders is given. Adequate use of target language for instruction. Observations of mentors indicate that student teacher has met expectations in most areas [see student-teaching evaluation rubric]. Self-assessment is generally accurate and reflective. Pupil surveys indicate good level of student learning and general satisfaction with instruction. Candidate designs formative & summative assessments for achievement at unit’s end; uses authentic materials for interpretative assessments; designs performance assessments for interpersonal & presentational communication; utilizes holistic and analytical rubrics; assesses cultural concepts; Descriptive rubrics included; modifications for specific students are explained. Candidate analyzes results of student performance in order to measure student success and mis-learning; Explanation of why pupils were able or unable to meet expectations may need more clarity; Uses insights to adapt and reinforce instruction and plan future lessons. Candidate interprets and accurately reports student progress in all language skills; Analysis shows what students can and cannot do; Candidate reports progress to students clearly and appropriately, and can provide examples of student learning. Maximum use of target language for instruction. Observations of mentors indicate that expectations have been met or exceeded [see student-teaching evaluation rubric]. Self-assessment is appropriate, accurate, and reflective. Pupil surveys indicate high level of student learning and satisfaction with instruction. Candidate designs formative & summative assessments to measure ongoing development of LSRW proficiencies; encourages student selfassessment of skills; utilizes process writing; incorporates critical thinking in assessments; uses assessments that are based on K-12 Standards; Formal and informal assessments described clearly; Rubrics clear, appropriate; Modifications promote better learning. Thorough and clear explanation of why individual pupils were able or unable to meet expectations; Plan of action to remediate students is well conceived and includes encouraging students to analyze their own performances; Uses assessment results to improve teaching and student learning. Candidate helps students to understand testing procedures and rubrics, and has students participate in self-assessment; Summary and analysis of grading data is complete and accurate, and is communicated to students and parents effectively. Reflect on Assessment & Planning for Improvement of Instruction: [ACTFL 5b] Analyzing Learning & Reporting Assessment Results: Analysis of Pupil Work [ACTFL 5c] 62 ATTACHMENT C. DATA [The sub-areas or scoring criteria listed here for analysis of data are excerpted from the Work Sample Scoring Guide. The sub-areas are limited to those criteria dealing with Assessment of Student Learning.] TABLE 1 Mean Sub-Area Scores and Mean Total (Overall) Scores Aggregated by Year (2002-2004) and Range Sub-Areas, Aligned to ACTFL/NCATE Standards 5a, 5b, 5c Implementing Instruction: Evaluation by Supervisors [ACTFL 4b, 4c] Implementing Instruction: Pupil Survey [ACTFL 4b, 4c, 5b, 5c] Assessing Pupil Learning: Pre- and Post Tests/Surveys [ACTFL 5a, 5b] Reflecting on Assessment & Planning for Improvement of Instruction [ACTFL 5b] Analyzing & Reporting Results: Analysis of Pupil Work [ACTFL 5c] MEAN TOTAL SCORE, All Sub-Areas & Candidates Red indicates Unacceptable in a particular Sub-Area Scale: U = Unacceptable (Approaches Standard—0-6 pts) 2003-2004 Sub-Area Mean Score 7.8 8.0 6.1 6.2 6.1 6.84 A = Acceptable (Meets Standard—7-9 pts) 2002-2003 Sub-Area Mean Score 9.0 8.6 7.8 8.2 9.0 8.52 2-Yr. Period Sub-Area Mean Scores 8.40 8.30 7.00 7.15 7.55 Range of Total Mean Scores 7.00 – 8.40 T = Target (Exceeds Standard—10 pts) TABLE 2 Sub-Area Scores, Range, and Total (Overall) Mean Score for 11 Completers Disaggregated by Language (9 Spanish, 2 French)* and Year (2002-2004) Sub-Areas, Aligned to ACTFL/NCATE Standards 5a, 5b, 5c Sp Implementing Instruction: Evaluation by Supervisors [ACTFL 4b, 4c] 8 Implementing Instruction: Pupil Survey 8 [ACTFL 4b, 4c, 5b, 5c] Assessing Pupil Learning: Pre- and Post Tests OR Surveys [ACTFL 5a, 6 5b] Reflecting on Assessment & Planning for Improvement of Instruction 5 [ACTFL 5b] Analyzing & Reporting Results: Analysis of Pupil Work [ACTFL 5c] 5 MEAN SCORE per CANDIDATE 6.4 OVERALL RATING per Candidate (U, A, T) U OVERALL PASS RATE per YEAR (%) *There were no Program Completers in German for the 2003-2004 time period. Scale: U = Unacceptable (Approaches Standard—0-6 pts) Sp 9 10 8 9 2003-2004 Sp Sp 8 8 7 8 6 6 7 6 Sp 6 7 5 6 FR 8 8 5 5 5 6.2 U Sp 10 9 8 10 Sp 6 9 7 7 2002-2003 Sp Sp 9 10 8 8 7 7 10 9 2-Yr. Range of Scores FR 10 9 7 8 6.0 – 10.0 7.0 – 10.0 5.0 – 10.0 5.0 – 10.0 8 7 6 5 8.8 6.8 7.0 5.8 A U A U 33 % ACCEPTABLE 10 8 8 10 9 5.0 – 10.0 5.8 – 9.4 9.4 7.4 7.8 9.4 8.6 A A A A A 100 % ACCEPTABLE Red indicates Unacceptable in a particular Sub-Area. T = Target (Exceeds Standard—10 pts) 63 A = Acceptable (Meets Standard—7-9 pts) Appendix K ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners 64 Appendix K ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners NOVICE LEARNER RANGE (Grade K-4, Grade 5-8, Grade 9-10) COMPREHENSIBILITY: How well are they understood? Interpersonal Rely primarily on memorized phrases and short sentences during highly predictable interactions on very familiar topics; Are understood primarily by those very accustomed to interacting with language learners; Imitate modeled words and phrases using intonation and pronunciation similar to that of the model; May show evidence of false starts, prolonged and unexpectedly-placed pauses and recourse to their native language as topics expand beyond the scope of immediate needs; Are able to meet limited practical writing needs, such as short messages and notes, by recombining learned vocabulary and structure to form simple sentences on very familiar topics. Presentational Use short, memorized phrases and sentences in oral and written presentations; Are understood primarily by those who are very accustomed to interacting with language learners; Demonstrate some accuracy in pronunciation and intonation when presenting well-rehearsed material on familiar topics; May show evidence of false starts, prolonged and unexpectedly-placed pauses, and recourse to their native language as topics expand beyond the scope of immediate needs; Show abilities in writing by reproducing familiar material Rely heavily on visuals to enhance comprehensibility in both oral and written presentations. COMPREHENSION: How well do they understand? Interpersonal Comprehend general information and vocabulary when the communication partner uses objects, visuals, and gestures in speaking or writing; Generally need contextual clues, redundancy, paraphrase or restatement in order to understand the message. 65 Interpretive Understand short, simple conversations and narratives (live and recorded material), within highly predictable and familiar contexts; Rely on personal background experience to assist in comprehension; Exhibit increased comprehension when constructing meaning through recognition of key words or phrases embedded in familiar contexts; Comprehend written and spoken language better when content has been previously presented in an oral and/or visual context; Determine meaning by recognition of cognates, prefixes, and thematic vocabulary. LANGUAGE CONTROL: How accurate is their language? Interpersonal Comprehend messages that include predominately familiar grammatical structures; Are most accurate when communicating about very familiar topics using memorized oral and written phrases; Exhibit decreased accuracy when attempting to create with the language; Write with accuracy when copying written language but may use invented spelling when writing words or producing characters on their own; May exhibit frequent errors in capitalization and punctuation when target language differs from native language in these areas. Interpretive Recognize structural patterns in target language narratives and derive meaning from these structures within familiar contexts; Sometimes recognize previously learned structures when presented in new contexts. Presentational Demonstrate some accuracy in oral and written presentations when reproducing memorized words, phrases and sentences in the target language; Formulate oral and written presentations using a limited range of simple phrases and expressions based on very familiar topics; Show inaccuracies and/or interference from the native language when attempting to communicate information which goes beyond the memorized or pre-fabricated; May exhibit frequent errors in capitalization and/or punctuation and/or production of characters when the writing system of the target language differs from the native language. VOCABULARY USE: How extensive and applicable is their vocabulary? Interpersonal Comprehend and produce vocabulary that is related to everyday objects and actions on a limited number of familiar topics; Use words and phrases primarily as lexical items without awareness of grammatical structure; 66 Recognize and use vocabulary from a variety of topics including those related to other curricular areas; May often rely on words and phrases from their native language when attempting to communicate beyond the word and/or gesture level. Interpretive Recognize a variety of vocabulary words and expressions related to familiar topics embedded within relevant curricular areas; Demonstrate increased comprehension of vocabulary in spoken passages when these are enhanced by pantomime, props, and/or visuals; Demonstrate increased comprehension of written passages when accompanied by illustrations and other contextual clues. Presentational Use a limited number of words and phrases for common objects and actions in familiar categories; Supplement their basic vocabulary with expressions acquired from sources such as the teacher or picture dictionaries; Rely on native language words and phrases when expressing personal meaning in less familiar categories. COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES: How do they maintain communication? Interpersonal Attempt to clarify meaning by repeating words and occasionally selecting substitute words to convey their message; Primarily use facial expressions and gestures to indicate problems with comprehension. Interpretive Use background experience to anticipate story direction in highly predictable oral or written texts; Rely heavily on visuals and familiar language to assist in comprehension. Presentational Make corrections by repeating or rewriting when appropriate forms are routinely modeled by the teacher; Rely heavily on repetition, non-verbal expression (gestures, facial expressions), and visuals to communicate their message. CULTURAL AWARENESS: How is their cultural understanding reflected in their communication? Interpersonal Imitate culturally appropriate vocabulary and idiomatic expressions; 67 Use gestures and body language that are generally those of the student’s own culture, unless they are incorporated into memorized responses. Interpretive Understand both oral and written language that reflects a cultural background similar to their own; Predict a story line or event when it reflects a cultural background similar to their own. Presentational Imitate the use of culturally appropriate vocabulary, idiomatic expressions and non-verbal behaviors modeled by the teacher. ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners INTERMEDIATE LEARNER RANGE COMPREHENSIBILITY: How well are they understood? Interpersonal Express their own thoughts using sentences and strings of sentences when interacting on familiar topics in present time; Are understood by those accustomed to interacting with language learners; Use pronunciation and intonation patterns which can be understood by a native speaker accustomed to interacting with language learners; Make false starts and pause frequently to search for words when interacting with others; Are able to meet practical writing needs, such as short letters and notes, by recombining learned vocabulary and structures demonstrating full control of present time and evidence of some control of other time frames. Presentational Express their own thoughts, describe and narrate, using sentences and strings of sentences, in oral and written presentations on familiar topics; Use pronunciation and intonation patterns that can be understood by those accustomed to interacting with language learners; Make false starts and pause frequently to search for words when interacting with others; Communicate oral and written information about familiar topics with sufficient accuracy that listeners and readers understand most of what is presented. COMPREHENSION: How well do they understand? Interpersonal Comprehend general concepts and messages about familiar and occasionally unfamiliar topics; May not comprehend details when dealing with unfamiliar topics; 68 May have difficulty comprehending language supported by situational context. Interpretive Understand longer, more complex conversations and narratives as well as recorded material in familiar contexts; Use background knowledge to comprehend simple stories, personal correspondence, and other contextualized print; Identify main ideas and some specific information on a limited number of topics found in the products of the target culture such as those presented on TV, radio, video or live and computer-generated presentations, although comprehension may be uneven; Determine meaning by using contextual clues; Are aided by the use of redundancy, paraphrase, and restatement in order to understand the message. LANGUAGE CONTROL: How accurate is their language? Interpersonal Comprehend messages that include some unfamiliar grammatical structures; Are most accurate when creating with the language about familiar topics in present time using simple sentences and/or strings of sentences; Exhibit a decline in grammatical accuracy as creativity in language production increases; Begin to apply familiar structures to new situations; Evidence awareness of capitalization and/or punctuation when writing in the target language; Recognize some of their own spelling or character production errors and make appropriate adjustments. Interpretive Derive meaning by comparing target language structures with those of the native language; Recognize parallels between new and familiar structures in the target language; Understand high-frequency idiomatic expressions. Presentational Formulate oral and written presentations on familiar topics, using a range of sentences and strings of sentences primarily in present time but also, with preparation, in past and future time. May show inaccuracies as well as some interference from the native language when attempting to present less familiar material; Exhibit fairly good accuracy in capitalization and punctuation (or production of characters) when target language differs from native language in these areas. VOCABULARY USE: How extensive and applicable is their vocabulary? Interpersonal Use vocabulary from a variety of thematic groups; 69 Recognize and use vocabulary from a variety of topics including those related to other curricular areas; Show some understanding and use of common idiomatic expressions; May use false cognates or resort to their native language when attempting to communicate beyond the scope of familiar topics. Interpretive Comprehend an expanded range of vocabulary; Frequently derive meaning of unknown words by using contextual clues; Demonstrate enhanced comprehension when listening to or reading content which has a recognizable format. Presentational Demonstrate control of an expanding number of familiar words and phrases and of a limited number of idiomatic expressions; Supplement their basic vocabulary, for both oral and written presentations, with expressions acquired from other sources such as dictionaries; In speech and writing, may sometimes use false cognates and incorrectly applied terms, and show only partial control of newly acquired expressions. COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES: How do they maintain communication? Interpersonal May use paraphrasing, question-asking, circumlocution, and other strategies to avoid a breakdown in communication; Attempt to self-correct primarily for meaning when communication breaks down. Interpretive Identify the main idea of a written text by using reading strategies such as gleaning information from the first and last paragraphs; Infer meaning of many unfamiliar words that are necessary in order to understand the gist of an oral or written text; Use contextual clues to assist in comprehension. Presentational Make occasional use of reference sources and efforts at self-correction to avoid errors likely to interfere with communication; Use circumlocution when faced with difficult syntactic structures, problematic spelling, or unfamiliar vocabulary; Make use of memory aids (such as notes and visuals) to facilitate presentations. CULTURAL AWARENESS: How is their cultural understanding reflected in their communication? Interpersonal Use some culturally appropriate vocabulary and idiomatic expressions; Use some gestures and body language of the target culture. 70 Interpretive Use knowledge of their own culture and that of the target culture(s) to interpret oral or written texts more accurately; Recognize target culture influences in the products and practices of their own culture; Recognize differences and similarities in the perspectives of the target culture and their own; Presentational Use some culturally appropriate vocabulary, idiomatic expressions and non-verbal behaviors; Demonstrate some cultural knowledge in oral and written presentations. ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners PRE-ADVANCED LEARNER RANGE (Grade K-12) COMPREHENSIBILITY: How well are they understood? Interpersonal Narrate and describe using connected sentences and paragraphs in present and other time frames when interacting in topics of personal, school, and community interest; Are understood by those with whom they interact, although there may still be a range of linguistic inaccuracies, and on occasion the communication partner may need to make a special effort to understand the message; Use pronunciation and intonation patterns that are understandable to a native speaker unaccustomed to interacting with language learners; Use language confidently and with ease, with few pauses; Are able to meet practical writing needs such as letters and summaries by writing descriptions and narrations of paragraph length and organization, showing sustained control of basic structures and partial control of more complex structures and time frames. Presentational Report, narrate and describe, using connected sentences, paragraph-length and longer discourse, in oral and written presentations on topics of personal, school, and community interest; Use pronunciation and intonation patterns that are understood by native users of the language, although the listener/reader may on occasion need to make a special effort to understand the message; Use language confidently and with ease, with few pauses; Communicate with a fairly high degree of facility when making oral and written presentations about familiar and well-researched topics. 71 COMPREHENSION: How well do they understand? Interpersonal Comprehend main ideas and most details on a variety of topics beyond the immediate situation; Occasionally do not comprehend but usually are able to clarify details by asking questions; May encounter difficulty comprehending language dealing with abstract topics. Interpretive Use knowledge acquired in other settings and from other curricular areas to comprehend both spoken and written messages; Understand main ideas and significant details on a variety of topics found in the products of the target culture such as those presented on TV, radio, video or live and computer-generated presentations, although comprehension may be uneven; Develop an awareness of tone, style and author perspective; Demonstrate a growing independence as a reader or listener and generally comprehend what they read and hear without relying solely on formally learned vocabulary. LANGUAGE CONTROL: How accurate is their language? Interpersonal Comprehend messages that include unfamiliar grammatical structures; Are most accurate when narrating and describing in connected sentences and paragraphs in present time with decreasing accuracy in past and future times; May continue to exhibit inaccuracies as the amount and complexity of language increases; Communicate successfully by applying familiar structures to new situations; Rarely make errors in capitalization and in punctuation; Are generally accurate in spelling or production of characters. Interpretive Deduce meaning in unfamiliar language passages by classifying words or concepts according to word order or grammatical use; Apply rules of language to construct meaning from oral and written texts; Understand idiomatic expressions; Move beyond literal comprehension toward more critical reading and listening. Presentational Accurately formulate paragraph-length and longer oral and written presentations in present time, on topics of personal, school, community and global interest; May show some inaccuracies and/or interference from the native language when presentations deal with multiple time frames and/or other complex structures; Successfully communicate personal meaning by applying familiar structures to new situations and less familiar topics, and by integrating information from audio, visual, and written sources; 72 Exhibit awareness of need for accuracy in capitalization and/or punctuation (or production of characters) when target language differs from native language in these areas. VOCABULARY USE: How extensive and applicable is their vocabulary? Interpersonal Understand and often use idiomatic and culturally authentic expressions; Recognize and use vocabulary from a variety of topics including those related to other curricular areas; Use more specialized and precise vocabulary terms within a limited number of topics. Interpretive Comprehend a wide range of vocabulary in both concrete and abstract contexts; Infer meaning of both oral and written texts by recognizing familiar words and phrases in new contexts; Use context to deduce meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary; Recognize and understand the cultural context of many words and phrases. Presentational Demonstrate control of an extensive vocabulary, including a number of idiomatic and culturally authentic expressions, from a variety of topics; Supplement their basic vocabulary by using resources such as textbooks and dictionaries; May use more specialized and precise terms when dealing with specific topics that have been researched. COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES: How do they maintain communication? Interpersonal Are able to sustain an interaction with a native speaker by using a variety of strategies when discussion topics relate to personal experience or immediate needs; Show evidence of attention to mechanical errors even when these may not interfere with communication. Interpretive Use background knowledge to deduce meaning and to understand complex information in oral or written texts; Identify the organizing principle(s) or oral or written texts; Infer and interpret the intent of the writer. Presentational Demonstrate conscious efforts at correct formulation and self-correction by use of self-editing and of reference sources; Sustain length and continuity of presentations by appropriate use of strategies such as simplification, reformulation, and circumlocution; 73 Make use of a variety of resource materials and presentation methods to enhance presentations. CULTURAL AWARENESS: How is their cultural awareness reflected in their communication? Interpersonal Use culturally appropriate vocabulary and idioms; Use appropriate gestures and body language of the target culture. Interpretive Apply understanding of the target culture to enhance comprehension of oral and written texts’ Recognize the reflections of practices, products, and/or perspectives of the target cultures(s) in oral and written texts; Analyze and evaluate cultural stereotypes encountered in oral and written texts. Presentational Demonstrate increased use of culturally appropriate vocabulary, idiomatic expressions and non-verbal behaviors; Use language increasingly reflective of authentic cultural practices and perspectives. From ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners. (1998). Yonkers, NY: The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 74 Appendix L Application Form for Program Reviewers 75 Appendix L Application For ACTFL/NCATE Program Reviewers Name: _____________________________ Affiliation: _________________________ Current position/responsibilities: _____________________________________________ Work ______________________________ Address Home _____________________________ Address ____________________________ Phone E-mail _____________________________ Fax ______________________________ _____________________________ ___________________________________ Please briefly describe your knowledge and experience working with the K-16 Standards for Foreign Language Learning. Please describe your knowledge and experience working with the Program Standards for Preparing Foreign Languages Teachers: Why are you interested in becoming a program reviewer? Availability for training at the ACTFL Annual Convention in November? Institutional support for your training? Yes No Availability to review one program per semester? Yes No Yes No Please attach an abbreviated CV that includes experience relevant to program review and/or teacher education and two letters of recommendation that focus on your abilities to make program judgments. Mail to: ACTFL/NCATE Program Review, ACTFL, 6 Executive Plaza Yonkers, NY 10701 76 On-Line Appendices M - Q Appendix M. Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (Overview) http://www.actfl.org/files/public/execsumm.pdf Appendix N. INTASC Model Standards for Licensing Beginning Foreign Language Teachers: A Resource for State Dialogue http://www.ccsso.org/intaspub.html#ForLang Appendix O. NBPTS World Languages Other Than English Standards http://www.nbpts.org/pdf/ecya_wloe.pdf Appendix P. ACTFL Revised Proficiency Guidelines—Speaking http://www.actfl.org/files/public/Guidelinesspeak.pdf Appendix Q. ACTFL Revised Proficiency Guidelines—Writing http://www.actfl.org/files/public/writingguidelines.pdf 77