The
Questions
Jose Diaz
Articulation
has been discussed by the foreign language community for so long, and we have
so little to show in terms of accomplishment.
That is why, when asked to participate in this panel about articulation,
I thought: "Please, do not waste my time"!
So,
I am going to tell it as I see it. My
colleagues at the high school level may question my assertions or accuse me of
not being aware of the challenges we face, but perhaps one way to approach the
issue of articulation is to put aside all our "perceptions" about the
levels before and the levels after so we can ask some questions. I do not have answers, but these questions
have been on my mind and may help us reflect, or even take a small step on our
long journey to make a difference in the articulation process.
The “Enough Blame to Spread Around”
Questions
Who
is to blame with regard to working out good articulation models within our
schools? Many are to blame. For example, I believe that the problem at
the high school level rests with both primary sets of people involved: teachers
and chairs. Chairs who take the
"top-down" approach and want to "make a difference" and
"fix" the department, and teachers who are not willing to be
flexible, share, communicate or realize that there is always room to learn and
to grow.
When
was the last time we were asked to write curriculum for our department? Both grudgingly, and enthusiastically, we
accept the task. We commit to it and we
do it. And, we do it right! But once the curriculum is in place, after
taking into consideration the national standards, our individual states
frameworks and our student population, how often do we refer to it? How useful is the curriculum to us? Do we make sure that we have translated our
aim in every lesson? Do we meet
regularly with teachers of the same level to coordinate and discuss problems
and successes? Do we become familiar
with ALL levels, not just the ones we teach?
Do we coordinate the type of tests we give on a regular basis? Do we go back at the end of the year and
check ourselves to see how much we have accomplished? Do we sit down with the teachers who teach the next level and
frankly discuss the pitfalls, the successes, and the next steps to take? This is where the chair comes in. Do chairs try to foster the right
environment where there is no right answer and all opinions are valid? Do chairs try to lower the anxiety of
teachers who are open and want to share in a non-threatening way?
The “Fun” Questions
We
need to treat our subject as a regular "academic" subject if we want
to have the credibility and the support we so badly need for both horizontal
and vertical articulation. Making it
"fun" works against us.
Students get a false sense of what it takes to study a foreign language. How much time do we really spend trying to
teach students the learning skills needed to learn a foreign language? When was the last time you heard the Math
teacher asking how he or she could make the Pythagoras theorem fun? If we are seen as the "fun"
Spanish/French/Chinese/German, etc., teacher, it has a direct effect on
administrators who need to make a decision as to where to make cuts in order to
bring the budget under control. They
are the ones who "took four years of a language and cannot speak
it." Yet no matter how much we try
to explain how the teaching of foreign languages has changed, they pass by our
rooms and we are making crêpes, making a piñata or dancing away to the tune of
a German folk song.
We
need to foster high expectations and realistic outcomes as early as
possible. That may combat the tendency
of some high school teachers to look down on the elementary school teachers
because they are not teaching a curriculum rigorous enough. The same is true of some college professors'
ideas of what goes on in high school classrooms.
The Uncertainty Questions
At
the same time, we may shortchange ourselves by wondering if we have prepared
our students for the "rigorous" college level curriculum. Does the uncertainty of not knowing what the
"college level curriculum" is work against us? Do we need to take the time to research what
is being taught at the college level?
Can we do this when each college has a different set of standards and
placement tests that emphasize different skills?
Some
teachers and college professors maintain an ongoing dialogue, but do we try to
do this conscientiously and regularly?
Are we afraid, at the high school level, to be looked upon as less than
able to begin the dialogue? Do we, at
the high school level, continue to foster the isolation that college professors
sometimes create by not initiating dialogue?
Do colleges and universities ever bother to look at their local high
school foreign language curriculum or at the textbooks and materials used
there?
The Placement/Test Questions
The
tests used to place incoming first-year students in college classes are often
antiquated, and they do not really evaluate what the students can do with the
language and what they have studied. Do
colleges and university professors try to become familiar with the curriculum
and examination of the Advanced Placement Program? And what is the impact of relying on adjunct professors for
beginning level college courses as opposed to asking permanent and
well-integrated faculty members to teach them?
Here
again, though, there is blame to spare.
How many of our students work against those of us at the high school
level (and themselves) by enrolling in lower-level college courses for an easy
high grade, rather than accepting the more challenging courses? I have given up counting how many of my
students come back from college and tell me they are taking a particular
course. And when I ask them, “Isn't that
too easy for you?” “Well, yes… we are
doing everything we already did in your class, but I am getting A’s!"
Unfortunately,
tests lead to accountability. Perhaps
what we need is a national test at different points in the foreign language
learning. Why do teachers become
serious all of the sudden when they have to teach a course such as the Advanced
Placement? Why do we all of the sudden
begin to criticize our colleagues because they have not taught anything to our
students at the moment we are faced with the AP Exam? Should we take a good look at ourselves? Starting at level one, did we make our
students write? Did we make sure that
all students had the opportunity to show what they can do with the language,
not only grammatically but also creatively in every lesson, every week, every
semester? Did we live up to the expectations
of our curriculum all along? Hmmmm…
The Materials Questions
Finally,
we must also reflect on the type of material we get from publishers. Publishers bombard us with an overwhelming
number of CDs, videos, web sites, etc., which works against our curriculum and
our aim. We waste time trying to
present everything and anything that comes with the textbook. Do we carefully study our curriculum and
make the textbook just a tool to accomplish our aim? Or, do we allow the textbook to drive our curriculum? Is there anything really innovative about
new textbooks that supposedly address the National Standards and the
proficiency-oriented curriculum?
Final Thoughts
No
question that in a short paper I have not addressed every single aspect that
comes into play when we discuss articulation.
I have not dealt with it in the "research" mode by citing
wiser foreign languages researchers.
But, I am just trying to keep it simple as the regular high school
teacher sees it. Some will agree, some
will disagree, but at least I hope I have made you think. It may all be about perception. But,
perceptions can hide the questions whose answers would help our profession to
articulate the different levels of learning.
Maybe we should try to dispel all the erroneous perceptions others have
of us. But maybe we should focus instead on answering some basic questions.
Meaningful Tests Promote Articulation
Bill Heller
In
the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act there has been much consternation
among teachers about the deleterious effects of “high stakes” testing. In some states, it has been shown that the
obsession with scores on reading and mathematics tests has caused detrimental
effects to world language programs.
While some language teachers may be relieved that they don’t have to
deal with the pressure and accountability that come with standardized testing,
the existence of a well-defined, reliable and valid proficiency testing in New
York State has helped to facilitate K-16 articulation.
The
New York State curriculum in Languages Other than English (LOTE) is outlined in
Modern Languages for Communication (1986).
It defines 15 topics and four language functions at three levels of
proficiency called “checkpoints.” The
first benchmark, Checkpoint A, is assessed with a locked-box on-demand test
called the Second Language Proficiency (SLP).
This test is administered in five languages on the same date in June
across the state to students having had two years of language instruction prior
to the end of grade 8. The on-demand
portion tests listening comprehension, reading comprehension and writing. A speaking portion with well-defined
protocols is administered prior to the written portion and represents 30% of
the test score. What makes the SLP
different from much of the NCLB testing is that a passing score gives one high
school and meets the NYS graduation requirement for all students.
After
two more years of LOTE instruction, students can take the New York State
Regents Exam for Level III, Checkpoint B.
The Regents is a parallel assessment to the SLP. There is a speaking portion worth 24% and
on-demand paper and pencil tests of listening comprehension, reading
comprehension and writing. In addition
to giving credits for earning a passing grade, there is an additional incentive. Students earning a grade of at least 85%
meet the SUNY system-wide LOTE minimum graduation requirement for all degree
programs. In other words, you can get
in to SUNY without a LOTE, but you can’t get a degree without at least the
equivalent of two semesters.
These
real incentives for achievement have encouraged more students to persevere in
their LOTE study and to work harder to earn more than minimum passing
grades. However, the greatest boon of
the testing program has been to facilitate articulation at all levels of LOTE
instruction.
Middle
School teachers who give the SLP are accountable to teach the curriculum
because their students will be tested individually on their language skills.
They can’t spend two weeks on craft projects or cooking. On the other side,
high school teachers can’t just teach a cavalcade of verb tenses because, at
the end, students must speak, read authentic texts, listen and write. All
teachers have had to learn how to adapt instruction to a more diverse group of
language learners than they may have previously taught. The testing program
helps teachers focus on increasing student language proficiency. State
standards, which spiral across these levels, promote a common language for
making curricular decisions.
The
increasing popularity of AP programs offers another example in which a
meaningful, reliable and valid testing program can promote articulation. The College Board has recognized the
importance of enriching the Pre-AP levels of instruction in order to help more students
be successful on the AP exams and is helping to facilitate that dialogue
through its workshops. The College
Board has made modifications to AP exams based on feedback from the field from
high school and university instructors.
The most recent revisions of the Spanish AP exam make it much more
aligned to the Regents Exam and will make it a more fitting assessment of
checkpoint C than it has been in the past.
“Teaching
to the test” can be very positive if the tests are good. World language teachers can use results of
standardized testing tied to granting credit or meeting advanced requirements
as a way of retaining students and defending programs in times of
scarcity. The common goal of measurable
student achievement becomes the basis for initiating the conversations that
lead to curricular alignment and increased language proficiency for all
students.
The Community College Perspective: Articulating New Visions, Responsibilities,
and Pervasive Issues
Margarita E. Hodge, Ed.D
In
the wake of ACTFL’s Year of Languages 2005, our profession continues to move
forward in 2006 with the challenging mission of guiding our Nation in valuing the importance of
language learning and cultural understanding.
A working knowledge of a language
and the ability to behave appropriately in the culture that it represents has
placed us at the forefront in helping combat terrorism and promoting freedom
and democracy. In January 2006,
President George Bush announced plans to promote foreign language learning, in
particular the critical languages necessary for national security. Graham (2006) reports in the Washington Post
that the plans “aim to involve children in foreign-language courses as early as
kindergarten while increasing opportunities for college and graduate school
instruction.” In this K – 16 continuum,
we expect to empower our learners with proficiency in a second language and the
ability to interact in multicultural settings.
We view this as a critical need for today’s world citizens, who regardless
of career paths will be required to interact globally in situations involving
economic, social and environmental issues.
Our
own community college role is vital! As institutions of
higher education, our community colleges articulate
clearly a critical need in serving very diverse student populations. According to the American Association of
Community College’s Fact Sheet (Phillippe, 2000), we enroll 46% of all U.S.
undergraduates, 45% of first-time freshmen, 58% women; 42% men, 62% part time
and 38% full time students. Our student
profiles include 47% of black undergraduate students, 56% of Hispanic, 48%
of Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 57% of Native Americans. The average student age is 29
years.
At
local levels, we serve our surrounding communities responding to their
particular needs. For example,
demographic trends and world events indicate a greater need for teaching the
less commonly-taught languages, many now considered critical, e.g., Arabic,
Chinese, Farsi, Hindi, Korean, Russian and Vietnamese. The promotion of heritage language classes
to strengthen near-native language skills has resulted from the increasing
Hispanic population growth throughout our communities. Arabic, Korean and Chinese are also on the
rise. The specialty courses targeted
for social sciences, business, tourism, and the hotel industry reflect a
curriculum tailor-made for the workplace, e.g., Spanish for the Medical
Professions, Spanish for Policemen and Firefighters, Spanish for Teachers,
French for Tourism, and German for Business.
Due to the need and popularity of American Sign Language, first and
second-year programs have been developed with full-time positions being filled
wherever ASL is offered.
Our
students are those who attain associate degrees, those who earn certificates,
and also those who take non-credit and workforce training classes. Most often, our students take language courses to fulfill humanities requirement,
transfer credits to another institution, or for personal enrichment. Therefore, the role of world languages
programs affects the service area directly in understanding and respecting
other cultures through the study of foreign languages, and by providing
lifelong learning skills for career paths, enjoyment, and globalization efforts
in enriching the community.
Our vision is clear! Our
roles are defined! Our primary
challenge is to embrace the best practices in second language learning in light of the continually changing phase of new and
diverse student profiles, hybrid and online courses, heritage language
programs, dual enrollment, and languages for the workplace. However, we have many new, persistent and
unresolved issues! Our institutions
give us the most advanced technological equipment and training to integrate
technology into our classrooms. We are
given “smart rooms,” and opportunities to offer online and hybrid classes. Yet, we still have a long way to go in the
full implementation of technology. We
can still do more in promoting communicative-oriented language instruction, and
validating a student’s level of proficiency using both formative and summative
methods of measuring language skills.
This assessment is crucial in placement and exit exams if we expect to
create a smooth transition for students transferring into community college
programs and later transferring on to colleges and universities. Due to budgetary issues, we are generally
under-staffed, and fortunately rely heavily on our adjunct faculty
colleagues—these making up 50% of our teaching faculty. Many are seasoned secondary educators
coming to teach during our evening programs.
Our teaching faculty has grown older, some complacent having lost the
passion of their younger years, others retiring and leaving leadership voids
that will be hard to replace. If we
prioritize our greatest need for change, there is one pervasive and critical
issue! We have not yet fully addressed
the needs of providing a truly inclusive and productive classroom environment
for our students with language-based learning difficulties.
Spinelli
(2004) notes that the K-12 and post-secondary population is showing
greater academic diversity due in part to the mainstreaming of physically,
emotionally, and learning-disabled students and to the increasing paths of
access to higher education for all students.
She states that faculty must learn to deal with these students. Whether we are offering dual language
programs, languages for the workplace, or heritage language classes, we will
find a cross-section of LD learners or other exceptional learners having
emotional and behavior disorders, physical disabilities, or visual and deaf
impairments in all of our courses.
We
cannot espouse the vision and the role of world languages and cultures in
today’s society as a necessary requirement for all learners if we fail to avail
it to all. We cannot argue that we can
only work with what the learner brings to the classroom, but rather, argue that
we can successfully provide second language and cultural enrichment with what
we can afford to all learners. The
focus is on us to create change!
Therefore, we need to revisit our past approaches, and make strident
efforts to produce truly inclusive classrooms.
We need to articulate with educators at all levels to provide “best
practices’ for teaching LD learners, and coordinate a smooth transition from
one level to the next whenever applicable.
Why has it been so difficult to provide
intervention strategies for our exceptional students that learn
differently? Do we not boast about the
quality and impact of our world languages
programs? Do we provide very practical and
innovative learning and teaching approaches in student-centered and safe
learning environments?
The answer is simple but the solution is
complex. Research studies estimate that fourteen percent of community college
learners have learning disabilities.
When attempting to study a second language, these students most always
fail due to language-learning difficulties.
Many or most of these learners are undocumented learners, who have never
been identified. Other documented
students refuse to come forward in requesting accommodation because they see
their difficulties as a stigma. In our
profession, it is a critical issue for teaching these students since they
students require very specialized language instruction. In most cases, when there is no
intervention with accommodation, remediation, and compensatory strategies,
these learners are doomed to fail. They
generally make up the “C- through F grade profiles” of language learners. Almost certainly, these students are part of
the silent majority that makes up the attrition numbers. This scenario is mirrored at other
postsecondary institutions!
It
is important first to provide some background and connections between current
foreign language (FL) study and learning disabilities, disabilities primarily
seen as language-based disorders by experts.
In two-year institutions, Spanish represented 63 percent of language
enrollments (Welles, 2002). It is
likely that fifteen to twenty percent of this population includes LD
students. The review of literature
reveals that LD learners generally meet with failure in learning a second
language (L2) since LD difficulties are language-based disorders (Sparks &
Ganschow, 1993). Problems in the first
language (L1), e.g., learning to read and spell, are mirrored in learning a
second language. One can mention just a
few more of the other language-based difficulties. For example, auditory processing deficits create difficulties in
developing listening, the core skill in developing speaking, reading and
writing. Attentional problems undermine
developing listening and reading comprehension skills.
Very
few language instructors are trained in sophisticated intervention
measures. Teachers
need guidelines and professional development for differentiating
instruction. Citing Lerner (2000), Kirk
et al (2006), advocate that the best help for teachers is to provide them with
tools for identifying the academic and social problems that LD individuals
have, and to provide a curriculum with strategies and materials that will help
learners use their strengths to overcome their weaknesses (p. 136). LD
learners (dyslexic and ADHD/ADD) need to be identified very early on in
beginning language classes. Their
learning modality preference can quickly be identified. By using learning styles assessment
instruments, instructors and learners can easily identify and capitulate on
learning strengths, and accommodate weaker learning modalities. These learners can benefit greatly by
providing accommodation regardless of proof of documentation, and by providing
compensatory strategies that include direct instruction in study skills and
language learning strategies. For
example, use of teaching strategies, e.g., mnemonic devices, facilitates the
learning of vocabulary. Also, these
learners learn best in multisensory setting, using computer software tutorials
and the Internet to enhance their tactile/kinesthetic strengths, and to build
either auditory or visual modalities.
Not only can instructors make use of this instructional technology, but
also incorporate assistive technology when necessary, e.g., the use of computer screen readers
– “JAWS” for dyslexic or visually impaired learners.
Whenever
possible, these students need much individual attention and tutorial assistance
with mastery learning strategies to help break instruction into learnable units
according to an individual’s level of understanding. In essence, we must help these learners learn how to learn.
How
then, do we articulate with each other to provide for successful inclusion in
our classrooms? Are intervention
strategies similar at primary, secondary, and higher education levels? How can we adapt our curricula and
incorporate effective teaching strategies?
A
promising and hopeful endeavor has been the recent efforts of the Italian Cultural Society and Casa Italiana in Washington, DC. to
provide Italian teachers a graduate 500 level course in effective teaching
strategies for second language learners with special needs. Twenty Italian teachers, representative of
the K-16 continuum from surrounding school jurisdictions, colleges and
universities are now applying the “best practices” for teaching second language
learning to LD learners. Most
important, efforts such as these are needed across our disciplines and K-16
levels. We need to advocate as a
profession to find funding for professional training, create SIGs specific for
teaching LD learners, and participate in listservs to continue the dialogue of
what is working in our classrooms. It
will be through our organizations like ACTFL, the Northeast Conference on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages, the AATs, and our state foreign language
associations where we can share our knowledge and experience, and continue to
articulate our hopes, dreams and concerns for our world languages profession.
References
Graham, B. (January 06,
2006). Foreign-Language Learning
Promoted. The Washington Post. Page A04.
Sparks, R. & Ganschow, L.
(1993). The impact of native language learning problems on foreign language
learning: Case study illustrations of the linguistic coding deficit hypothesis.
The Modern Language Journal, 77, 58-74.
Phillipe, K. A. (2000).
National profile of community colleges: Trends and statistics. Washington:
Community College Press. Online:
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutCommunityColleges/Fast_Facts1/Fast_Facts.htm
Spinelli, E. (2004). The
culture of the foreign language profession: Expanding our horizons.
Online: http://www.aatsp.org/scriptcontent/custom/members/AATSPAcapulco2004.doc
Welles, E. (2002). Foreign
language enrollments in United States institutions of higher education, Fall
2002. Online: http://www.mla.org/adfl/resources/enrollments.pdf
Kirk, S. A.. & Gallagher, J. J., Anastasiow, N.J., Coleman, M. R.
(2006). Educating exceptional children.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
These Boots
Are Made for Puddlejumping
Carol L. Meyer
As
early as 1955, NECTFL’s report on “Foreign Language Instruction in Secondary
Schools” raised the issue of articulation and suggested a bottom-up approach to
dealing with it. It is now fifty years later and we still ask students to do,
what I call, puddlejump, as they move from course to course and/or context to
context. As far as I can see, there are three principal puddles: the grammar
puddle, the communicative puddle (informed by the proficiency movement), and
the content puddle (informed by FLES programs, the National Standards,
literature programs, and, for me, conceptual teaching).
At
this point in my teaching career, I have taught at almost every level. I
started as a high school Spanish teacher, taught in an elementary age program
(grades 1-5), had a brief two-year experience in middle school, and currently
teach at the college level. In my trajectory as a teacher, I have taught from
and played in all three of the puddles. In my first day of teaching high
school, I taught the grammar sequence right from the textbook because I didn’t
know what else to do. I spent a number of years in the grammar puddle,
completely overwhelmed by the thought of teaching culture, never mind anything
else that was not in the textbook.
I
have grown as a teacher and my professional experiences have pushed me to learn
about the other puddles and, in so doing, I have become increasingly aware of
the burden we are placing on students to jump from puddle to puddle without the
right kind of boots. For example, the worst day of the year for me is in
September when incoming students take the placement test and, after having
studied languages for three years in high school, place into the college-level
first-year class. Clearly, their high school language-learning experiences have
not prepared them for college-level language learning. At the same time, I now
have my own beliefs and convictions about what it means to teach and learn a
language, and more and more I
situate myself in the content/conceptual puddle.
I
faced the issue of students needing to jump from one puddle to another head on
when I taught in a middle school and saw the placement test that my students
would have to take upon arriving at the high school. Before designing the
curriculum for the 7th and 8th graders, I examined the
high school placement test, which included verb conjugation charts, vocabulary
matching items, and grammatical fill in the blanks. I, on the other hand, had
the idea of creating a virtual trip to Spain, where they would design and
describe their experiences as they learned about different facets of the
country. Two different puddles for sure. At the same time, I felt a deep
responsibility to the students to not set them up for failure. It was this
feeling of responsibility that pushed me to think hard about the issue of
articulation.
My
solution was to design the curriculum based on ideas from the content and
communicative puddles (for example, I started the first two months using only
the I and you verb forms and then would add another subject as needed for the
experiences I had designed) while at the same time making sure that the
students would have the tools necessary for passing their placement test (for
example, I went through a number of first year books and most of the verbs and
vocabulary). Thus, in the terms I’m using today, I worked from the content and communicative puddles and, in
the last month, I helped them jump into the grammar puddle. We put what they
already knew in the form of verb charts and fill in the blank exercises,
thereby providing the students with the boots they needed to jump from one
puddle to another. They all passed the placement test and were able to go into
and have considerable success in Spanish II.
This
experience has influenced my thinking about articulation in significant ways.
Based on the existent literature, the main solutions that have been proposed
are: more effective communication between and amongst different levels and
languages; and the development of a common framework for teaching languages. As
I have argued, these solutions have not been effective. However, inherent
within them are seeds of possibility, which raise as many questions as they
answer.
I
don’t think it is realistic to think that all teachers will teach from the same
configuration of puddles. Moreover, I am not sure it would desirable. I think
having differing informed perspectives
is useful. Discussions such as these create a synergy that would be easy to
avoid if we were to use a common framework.
Moreover, historical forces are too strong and too well embedded. Still,
I don’t capitulate to the thinking that we should continue to do what we are
doing because that is what we have always done.
We
need to focus on the learners, and prepare them to puddlejump. That is, all
students should be able to function in each of the three areas. Within the field, we must prepare
students to be able to function in the grammar, communicative, and
content/conceptual puddles; this ability would serve as their metaphorical
boots. As teachers, we need to design courses that contain all three elements,
but foregrounding and backgrounding different puddles based on our informed
judgments.
The
process of foregrounding and backgrounding could be implemented in different
ways; two possibilities from potentially many are presented here. Teachers
could prepare students for the placement tests, which is a sequential model of
foregrounding and backgrounding, as illustrated above. That is, students spent
time exclusively in the content and communicative puddle and then, in the last
month, learned about the grammatical puddle. Alternatively, the process could
happen dynamically, as classes are taught over time. Either way, it would mean
understanding and being able to work within each of the areas as we design the
courses we teach. (It would also effectively change the role of the textbook.)
This
approach raises a number of questions. Is it possible to prepare learners to be
able to navigate all three puddles? Is it possible for teachers to design
instruction that facilitates puddle jumping? What are students’ experiences, as
they are required to jump from puddle to puddle?
To
date, there is little empirical evidence addressing articulation. As a
profession, we have relied on the number of students who continue language
study to try to understand this issue. Based on a search of the ERIC database,
using the terms “foreign language” and “articulation”, there were 77 articles
published within the last ten years, of which 4 were empirical studies. This lacuna suggests an obvious need; we
know very little about students’ experiences as they move from one context to
another, especially from their perspective.
I
have suggested that, as a field, our approach to articulation has not been
effective. I think it is time to think creatively of other possibilities to
address this daunting issue. I put forth the idea that there are three main
puddles in which we teach languages –grammar, communicative, content - and that
we ask students to jump from one puddle to the other without having the
appropriate boots. In order to provide them
with the appropriate boots, we will all have to examine and (re)consider both
our approaches and the implementation of our teaching. This is a tall order.
However, I would argue that, as teachers, we care deeply both about our
students and the field, and that is a powerful foundation from which to work.
Challenges and Opportunities
Michele Montas
In
thinking about the need for articulation models, the lack of existing models,
and the challenges in developing, implementing, and maintaining
well-articulated language programs, I revisited my experience at Manhattan
Country School (MCS). In 1999, with the support of the
administration, I undertook a small-scale articulation project for the preK-8
Spanish program at MCS. I was
responsible for the Upper School Spanish Program grades 4-8, and another
teacher was responsible for the Spanish Program in the Lower School grades
preK-3. After two years of working at
the school it became clear that the Lower School teacher and I needed to join
efforts to define the direction and goals of the program, to unify our methods
and strategies, and to clarify the progression of language experience students
were going to have in our program. With
the help of several mentors the Lower School teacher and I embarked on what turned
out to be a three-year-long process of adjustment, discovery, countless
conversations, and at times frustration.
What follows is a list of practices we implemented that were helpful in
the process and some of the challenges we encountered.
Keeping
in mind the developmental stages of our student body, the character and nature
of our school, and the ACTFL Standards, the Lower School teacher and I put the
following practices in place:
Þ
Discussed the time
allotted to the Spanish Program with the administration in order to set
realistic expectations about the language gains students could be expected to
meet at each level of instruction and at the exit point (8th
grade). The Spanish program is allotted
an average of 60 hours a year grades 4-8 and a little less than that in grades
preK-3.
Þ
Outlined the outcomes
for the program (grade by grade and at the end of their preK-8 experience) in
weekly meetings.
Þ
Held meetings with
classroom teachers about their curriculum, the student population, and the
potential for the FLES program to support and enhance students’ day-to-day
experience. These discussions were
intended to help us align and develop units that made connections with the
regular classroom curriculum.
Þ
Looked for models of
articulation in other school areas. I
also visited other programs to observe their structures.
Þ
Encouraged classroom
teachers to be part of the foreign language experience so they could
communicate with parents about the Spanish program with greater clarity.
Þ
Initiated communication
with parents and students about the structure and goals of the Spanish
program. We used ACTFL’s Performance
Guidelines to begin a discussion about what constituted realistic language
gains given the time and intensity of our program.
Þ
Started discussions with
the administration about ways to assess students’ progress at different points
of their language experience.
Þ
Invited guest speakers
for professional development that included classroom teachers that were not
language specialists.
Once
we had developed our initial outline of entry points for various themes and
concepts and some exit goals for each grade and for the program, we searched
for materials and developed units that would help us attain our goals. For the first three years we adjusted our
objectives for each level of instruction which in turn led us to adjust some of
the exit goals. Some of the challenges
we faced in the articulation and adjustment process were:
Time Allotment – because of the limited number of hours allotted to
the program we had to decide on the best use of time in terms of the concepts
that were going to be presented and the points at which concepts were going to
be revisited. The number of hours
required to have the discussions necessary to clearly articulate a program presented
a challenge. The process is time consuming.
Lack of Models – at the onset of our project we had difficulty
finding existing models of preK-8 Spanish programs that were articulated
well. Many programs began in 6th
grade or above. Other programs met for
more hours or a lot less time than our program. This left us to our own creative devices. In the end we adapted the themes of an
already existing Social Studies Curriculum model MCS uses.
Lack of Communication with High School
Coordinators. MCS feeds students to many different High
Schools. Each High School has its own
character, approach to, and philosophy about foreign language teaching. Because of this it was difficult to
anticipate the students’ future experience.
The materials and methods used to teach language in the programs we visited
varied as well. Not knowing how to
prepare students properly for a seamless transition into their High School
experience made our task extremely challenging.
In
the course of three years the Lower School teacher and I began to clarify the
entry points for various concepts, the grades where concepts would be spiraled,
and the exit goals that we felt students would be able to attain after their
preK-8 experience. We began to see
improvement in student performance.
While
MCS’s articulation project was on a very small scale, the challenges we
encountered and the practices we put in place to articulate our Spanish program
can inform other language coordinators planning to undertake a similar
task. Ultimately, a clear and seamless
progression of language development
within any foreign language curriculum is essential to a rich and successful
experience for our students.
Communication, vision, time, and collaboration among all levels are
essential in the success of the articulation process.
AP Research In Support Of
Secondary-Tertiary Articulation
Peter Negroni
“Where
courses descriptions are out of sync with best practices, we will bring them in
line. Where exam specifications call
for measurements not aligned with best practices, we will change them.”
The
College Board was born with the concept of articulation at the heart of its
mission — connecting students with college success. Throughout its 104
year history, the organization has remained devoted to the issues surrounding
this enduring concept. In recent years, specifically, the organization
has grown far beyond the familiar standardized exams that have traditionally
served as rites of passage for decades of students as they moved from one level
of schooling to another. Now, through College Board programs like
Springboard and My Road, as well as the vastly improved feedback we provide to
students who have participated in the PSAT, we actively support student
learning as they move through their middle and high school years. But
perhaps more than in any other single College Board unit, the AP Program’s
offering of college level courses and exams to students still in high school
epitomizes our commitment to articulation. The AP Program spends its days
at the nexus of the secondary and tertiary worlds, continually seeking to
strike a precious balance between them, while resisting the oftentimes
competing gravitational pulls of each. Most recently, the Program has
launched an exciting research project that will further the cause of articulation,
not only in world languages, but across all disciplines represented by AP
courses and exams.
Traditionally,
the majority of AP courses and exams have been designed to parallel the
requirements of typical introductory college courses. The one notable
exception to this rule, of course, is in modern languages and literatures,
where the courses normally seek to match the typical course at the third year
college level. Mapping to typical college courses, however, whether at
the first- or third-year level, does not ensure that AP courses are in the
vanguard of improvements in teaching and learning. By aligning AP courses with
typical college courses, we are helping high schools create a successful bridge
between high school courses and typical college courses, but if typical college
courses are not always examples of “best practices,” the AP Program needs to be
willing to differentiate itself from a typical college course and instead align
itself with college courses that represent “best practices” in a particular
discipline. To these specific ends, the College Board is conducting a national
research project to identify best practices in all AP subjects at the college
level. This carefully designed study, begun this year for science and
history courses and scheduled to take place for world languages during the
2007-08 academic year, will draw upon the expertise of faculty from over 850
colleges and universities as well as the leadership of the various professional
associations in languages. These
experts will develop and fine tune the lens through which the study will
examine college teaching to identify exemplary practices. In brief, the
details of the study are as follows.
In
the fall, an initial panel of experts will nominate college faculty who have
been recognized for their exemplary work teaching the target course. From these nominations, a team will be
assembled for the purpose of designing the instrument to be used in identifying
best practices in existing courses. In
early spring, a five-member panel comprised of different individuals will
validate the instrument developed in the fall.
This panel will be selected by consensus among various stakeholders,
some of which include ACTFL, AATSP, AATG, AATF, ATJ, NCJLT, ACTR, CLTA, CLASS,
AATI, and AAIS, as well as the College Board’s Development Committees and its
World Languages Academic Advisory Committee.
Throughout the remainder of the spring term, the instrument will then be
applied to 200 college and university classes, examining collected syllabi,
assignments, and exams. A third panel,
also nominated by the professional associations, will then analyze the
collected data and materials, ensuring that the courses and materials
identified with the instrument do, indeed, exemplify “best practices.” A complete report of the research will be
published in June, followed by a series of meetings at which AP Commissions for
each language course will apply the research to the production of revised AP
Course Descriptions and new exam specifications.
Although
the primary purpose of the study is to identify the types of college
experiences the College Board should be targeting in its AP courses and exams,
the findings of such a study will surely strengthen the field’s existing
knowledge base regarding articulation, both across languages and across levels
of schooling. Educators across
languages, for example, will be able to discern the degrees to which best
practices resemble and/or differ from one another by specific language or by
language family. Some previously held
beliefs may be dispelled; new insights may serve to illuminate fresh
directions; and certain findings may confirm what many have known intuitively
all along. As well, K-12 teachers will
become better informed about the types of experiences their students will
encounter within the best college programs.
But again, the findings may call into question certain accepted
“truths”; they may shed light on previously overlooked aspects of pedagogy; or
they may simply parallel the practices of the best secondary teachers.
The
study will undoubtedly reveal some good news.
For the College Board, some of our courses and exams may already be
reflective of the study’s ultimate findings, requiring little by way of
modification. For college and K-12
educators, some will clearly see and hear their own practices echoed in the
findings, confirming for them the validity of their approaches. But what of the challenges? What of the data that calls into question
long-held beliefs and revered practices?
What of the data that points to an AP exam clearly out of step with what
is happening in the best college programs?
Will each of us reflect on our current practice with relation to these
findings? Will we possess the vision to
see the disconnect between our own practice and those identified as
exemplary? Will we summon the
wherewithal to change and to grow?
For
our part, the College Board commits to a thorough review of each of its AP
courses and examinations. We will
examine them in light of the research findings and make appropriate
adjustments. Where courses descriptions
are out of sync with best practices, we will bring them in line. Where exam specifications call for
measurements not aligned with best practices, we will change them. Our commitment to our mission of connecting
students to college success demands nothing less. We also recognize the central and critical importance of teachers
in any student’s success, and that the teacher’s roles in a student’s successes
cannot be overstated. We further
recognize and embrace our obligation to support teachers in the design and
implementation of AP courses of the highest quality. As such, where our professional development products and services
do not support the study’s findings, we will make the appropriate adjustments. In the end, we will widely share the
findings of our research and the resultant and necessary changes that will
occur among College Board products and services following our reflection. We will also invite you to join us in that
reflection and grow along with us in the process.
Articulation Agreements as a Tool to
Advance Foreign Language Learning
Linda M. Wallinger, Ph.D.
Abstract
Articulation
agreements between public schools and postsecondary institutions provide a
consistent procedure for high school graduates who demonstrate proficiency in a
content area to move smoothly into college programs without duplication of
instruction or testing. Such agreements
are already common in career and technical education programs, thus allowing
high school work to count towards college degree credit rather than as general
education credits. This article
explores the possibility that such articulation agreements would be beneficial
to foreign language students as well.
Has
this scenario occurred in the foreign language program at your
institution? As the school year ends,
the department chairman places an order for instructional materials to expend
the rest of the funds before the fiscal year expires on June 30. When the order arrives for the start of the
new school year, all the Spanish teachers are excited about the new DVDs,
books, games, and software that have arrived, and immediately put them to good
use. In fact, the same DVD is shown to
all the language classes because it’s new – after all, every Spanish student
should know something about Madrid, or have the opportunity to see the Spanish
version of the latest Disney film. The
trouble is, by the end of that school year, all the Spanish students – regardless
of their level – have seen the same DVD or used the same software, so there’s
nothing new for the coming year. Even
if you’re the only Spanish teacher in your school, the temptation is great to
share the new materials with all your students, regardless of their level and
preparation.
What
might have prevented the circumstances above?
Of course, better articulation of the foreign language program from one
level to the next within the same school or school district. Without tightly articulated programs,
students are destined to duplicate information and activities as they move from
one level to the next or from one teacher to another. Such duplicated effort results in boredom on the part of students
as well as stagnation in learning – they could produce so much more if their
skills built on one another rather than repeating the same information from
year to year.
This
same circumstance presents itself as students leave the K-12 education world
and enter a community college or four-year college. One of the best groups of students I ever taught was in a
second-year undergraduate French course.
Most of the students had completed three or four years of high school
French, but had just barely missed the cut score to either place into a higher
level of language study or be exempted from the school’s foreign language
requirement altogether. Generally,
there are not clear-cut expectations for students to progress from one level of
foreign language study to the next, either in elementary, middle, and high
schools or from the K-12 programs to those at the postsecondary level. Under the best of circumstances, there are
state foreign language standards that provide guidance for K-12 foreign
language teachers. However, unless there
is an accountability system in place at the K-12 level, the teachers have a
certain amount of latitude in determining how closely to adhere to the
standards. Furthermore, it is likely
that the K-12 standards have been developed with only limited (if any) input
from the postsecondary institutions within the state. Conversely, the cut-scores for college-level placement tests
again have likely been developed in isolation from the K-12 world. Thus, students who have completed several
years of foreign language study in middle and high school may be placed in a
beginning-level language class as they begin their postsecondary studies. Yes, it’s an easy A – but it’s a waste of
time as well as stifling the progress a student might make in developing
greater proficiency in his or her foreign language skills. And the circumstances are even more
challenging in states that do not have a centralized university system, i.e.,
each individual public and private institution sets its own proficiency
entrance and placement requirements. So
students who apply to several colleges or universities really don’t know until
they enroll at an institution exactly if or how their foreign language course
work will count toward college degree requirements.
What
can we as foreign language educators do to address this ongoing challenge of
articulation from high school to postsecondary foreign language programs? Clearly, foreign language standards are a
start – and even stronger if they are accompanied by performance-based
assessments. Externally validated
assessments such as those provided by Advanced Placement (AP) and International
Baccalaureate (IB) programs offer a universal metric that is more readily
acceptable at multiple institutions than local assessments or even dual
enrollment courses.
But
what if, in addition to those third-party validators, there could be foreign
language articulation agreements between high school programs and postsecondary
programs? Such agreements already exist
within the world of career and technical education, and are readily applicable
to performance-based content areas. I
will cite a model within my home state of Virginia as an example that might be
considered for replication in the world of foreign language instruction.
Working
in close collaboration, the Department of Education (K-12) and the Virginia
Community College System have created a statewide articulation agreement
template to be used by local K-12 school divisions and community colleges in
developing a closely articulated program of performance-based career and
technical studies in specific areas.[1] Using this template, the first
program-specific agreement to be completed enables students who complete
specified business and information technology courses at the high school level
and who earn industry certifications in this area to earn from three to twelve
college degree credits (rather than general education credits) toward an
associate’s degree in science or applied science without having to complete the
comparable courses at the community college.[2] The purpose of this statewide articulation
agreement is to provide a consistent procedure for high school graduates who
were Business and Information Technology career and technical education (CTE)
students to move easily into community college degree programs in Information
Technology without duplication of instruction or testing.
This
means that students build upon
their high school course work rather than repeat information and courses at the
community college, thus accelerating their studies to become more proficient in
information technology at a faster pace.
Since Virginia’s 23 community colleges are part of a centralized
community college system, the articulation agreement for this information
technology program is universally available to students within all of
Virginia’s high school programs.
The
high school students validate their learning both by taking courses and
demonstrating proficiency with an industry certification. To transfer this concept to the area of
foreign languages, consideration must be given to a proficiency-based external
validator of a student’s foreign language skills. Possible external validators include the Oral Proficiency
Interview (OPI), Modified Oral Proficiency Interview (MOPI), Simulated Oral
Proficiency Interview (SOPI), Visual Oral
Communication Instrument (VOCI), or Computerized Oral Proficiency Interview
(COPI). Crucial elements of an
articulation agreement for foreign language programs would be the establishment
of test examiner training and credentials, scoring methodology, and cut-scores
required to award college degree credit.[3]
A
separate challenge exists for high school students who wish to enter a
four-year college in Virginia.
Virginia’s four-year college programs are not administered by a central
system office. All four-year
institutions, both public and private, operate independently, so creating any
kind of universal agreement is very challenging. However, the State Council for Higher Education in Virginia
(SCHEV) was instrumental in creating the Commonwealth College Course Collaborative
(CCCC), a common set of subjects that give Virginia students the chance to earn
a semester’s worth of college degree
credit while in high school rather than counting them as general education
credits. The CCCC is comprised of 13
credit hours that are accepted at all of the participating institutions for degree credit. At some institutions,
students also may have the option to earn as many as 20 additional degree credit hours. In some cases, a
high school student could earn more than 30 credits through CCCC. That means
less time needed to earn a college degree — and more savings for students and
their families.
These
courses can be taken through dual enrollment, Advanced Placement (including
virtual and online AP courses), and/or International Baccalaureate programs.
Every public college in Virginia (except Virginia Military Institute)
participates as do the 24 undergraduate private institutions that make up the
Council of Independent Colleges in Virginia. Some colleges evaluate and accept
dual enrollment courses on a limited, case-by-case basis. Currently, courses that meet these criteria
are offered in the areas of biology, United State history, psychology, English,
economics, music appreciation, general physics, mathematics, and art history. A review of additional courses is ongoing,
with a significant amount of discussion and agreement required to enable more
than 50 separate institutions to agree to accept these credits toward
satisfying degree requirements rather than as general education and/or elective
requirements.[4]
The
fact that Virginia’s four-year colleges operate outside of a central university
system also presents challenges related to how college-level coursework
completed in high school is counted toward completion of college degree
requirements. As is often true in other
states, even externally validated course offerings such as AP and IB courses do
not receive the same recognition at all institutions. To help high school and transfer students make informed decisions
about how their coursework will transfer, SCHEV has also created a Transfer
Tool that allows high school students and transfer students to evaluate more
clearly how their college-level coursework will be accepted at colleges in
which they are interested.[5]
As
we think more about articulation of foreign language programs, it is important
to acknowledge the gathering momentum toward increasing the rigor of high
school programs. Several influential
organizations and entities such as the U.S. Department of Education, the
Council of Chief State School Officers, the Education Commission of the States,
the National Governors Association, and the Southern Regional Education Board
have promoted major high school reform initiatives in recent years.[6] A key component of these initiatives is the
opportunity for high school students to accelerate their learning so that a
certain amount of college-level work may be completed at the high school level,
thus enabling students to study at a higher level or complete their
postsecondary studies earlier.
Currently, the major focus is on accelerating learning in English,
mathematics, and science, but the national momentum offers a prime time for the
foreign language community to jump on the bandwagon and benefit from the
increased focus on rigorous, performance-based learning.
