1 / 27

A Decade of foreign language standards

Goals of the project. 1) create a bibliography of standards as they appear in the professional literature; categorize topics addressed and annotate major works2) assess how standards have been institutionalized in educational programs and identify the degree to which standards have forged connections between K-12 and higher education.

oshin
Télécharger la présentation

A Decade of foreign language standards

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. A Decade of foreign language standards Influence Impact Future Directions TITLE VI International Research and Studies Program

    2. Goals of the project 1) create a bibliography of standards as they appear in the professional literature; categorize topics addressed and annotate major works 2) assess how standards have been institutionalized in educational programs and identify the degree to which standards have forged connections between K-12 and higher education

    3. Goals of the project 3) advance work toward expanding standards development and implementation in the U.S. Governments identified critical needs languages. 4) identify areas in which research and professional development could more effectively promote teaching toward standards.

    4. Task Forces and Members Literature Survey: Sally Magnan, Chair TF members: Katherine Arens, Frank (Pete) Brooks, Robert Davis, Virginia Scott Assistants: Jacques Arceneaux, Barbara Bird Institutional Impact: Debbie Robinson, Chair TF members: Michael Everson, David Jahner, Ursula Lentz, Aleidine Moeller Professional Development: Eileen Glisan, Chair TF members: Elizabeth Bernhardt, Nathan Bond, Iman Hashem, Grisel Lopez-Diaz

    5. Research & activities 3 years Year 1: Survey As of Feb. 2010 respondents = 1286 Year 2: Analysis Year 3: Implications, Recommendations Where are we with standards? What do the data mean? Where do we go from here?

    6. Literature Review Task Force Charge Review professional literature With ACTFL, create a searchable site of Standards literature

    7. Literature Review Database search to locate Standards references 23 databases 22 search terms 1998 to 2009

    8. Literature Review Reference types Articles, 425 Book reviews, 134 Dissertations, 42 Books and chapters, 101 News articles, 135 TOTAL, 900

    9. Literature Review Classifications Primary focus Substantial mention Passing mention

    10. Literature Review Top journals for Standards Modern Language Journal, 181 Hispania, 68 Die Unterrichtspraxis, 49 Foreign Language Annals, 35 French Review, 32 ADFL Bulletin, 24

    11. Literature Review Results will be available in new searchable ACTFL library

    13. Literature Review Select a topic

    14. Literature Review Pick a C

    15. Literature Review Pick an instructional level

    16. Literature Review Select a language(s)

    17. Literature Review Reference and short annotation

    18. Literature Review Conference presentations Trends from 1998-2009 from the report Will not be listed individually in the library

    19. Institutional Impact State Supervisors The National Standards have influenced policy in my state. Yes 80 % No 20 % (We only had 18 SEA responses to date. We do not have state supervisors in each state.)(We only had 18 SEA responses to date. We do not have state supervisors in each state.)

    20. Institutional Impact The state has produced tools or products related to NSFL Yes 74 % No 21 % Other 37 % Ex.Curriculum frameworks, model units and lessons, classroom application documents, targets by proficiency level

    21. Institutional Impact Standards revision based on: Benchmarkingother states 37 % International Benchmarking 47 % 21st Century Skills 58 % College/career readiness 37 % Stronger performance-based 58 % assessment Credit by proficiency 21 % Other 26 % While the national standards have not been revised, most states have undergone or are undergoing standards revision. The cycle is anywhere from 5 to 10 years, depending on the state. As states revise, they are considering While the national standards have not been revised, most states have undergone or are undergoing standards revision. The cycle is anywhere from 5 to 10 years, depending on the state. As states revise, they are considering

    22. Institutional Impact Institutional Impact: All respondents State standards based on National Standards 77 % yes 7 % no 16 % dont know Local or departmental curriculum/program of study based on National Standards 80 % yes 14 % no 6 % dont know

    23. Institutional Impact Concerted effort to implement standards-based program Strongly Agree 37% Agree 27% Neutral 19% Disagree 8 % Strongly Disagree 8%

    24. Institutional Impact Perceptions: Standards-based program vs. non standards-based 66% of teachers can compare 34% cannot compare Speaks to age of teaching force and fact that many will retire soon. Before we jump to unwarranted conclusions about old dinosaurs, lets look closely at these data. Speaks to age of teaching force and fact that many will retire soon. Before we jump to unwarranted conclusions about old dinosaurs, lets look closely at these data.

    25. Institutional Impact Foster more positive attitudes towards language learning in students Strongly Agree 37 % Agree 33 % Neutral 22 % Disagree 4 % Strongly Disagree 4 %

    26. Institutional Impact Retention of students improved and students take more language Strongly Agree 22 % Agree 28 % Neutral 35 % Disagree 9 % Strongly Disagree 6 % clearly we have not found the magic bullet with standards-based programs. clearly we have not found the magic bullet with standards-based programs.

    27. Institutional Impact Easier to communicate goals and objectives to various stakeholders Strongly Agree 47 % Agree 36 % Neutral 12 % Disagree 2 % Strongly Disagree 3 % Clearly a forte of the standards. Has given language educators a common language to talk about what it means to know a language and understand culture. More transparency for learners, parents, administrators as to what our field is all about.Clearly a forte of the standards. Has given language educators a common language to talk about what it means to know a language and understand culture. More transparency for learners, parents, administrators as to what our field is all about.

    28. Institutional Impact Students communicative ability has improved Strongly Agree 28 % Agree 35 % Neutral 26 % Disagree 7 % Strongly Disagree 5 % This may be a function not of the standards per se, but rather an assessment issue as we shall see.This may be a function not of the standards per se, but rather an assessment issue as we shall see.

    29. Institutional Impact Increased professional dialogue among language colleagues Strongly Agree 32 % Agree 34 % Neutral 22 % Disagree 6 % Strongly Disagree 6% It would be interesting to probe the neutral respondents to see if this is simply a function of isolation or some other reason.It would be interesting to probe the neutral respondents to see if this is simply a function of isolation or some other reason.

    30. Institutional Impact Increased dialogue among colleagues of all disciplines Strongly Agree 20 % Agree 27 % Neutral 30 % Disagree 12 % Strongly Disagree 11 % Again, we want to probe more deeply as to why this may be. Is it a function of the perceived unimportance of language education vis--vis the whole curriculum? The fact that most language teachers work in their own silos?Again, we want to probe more deeply as to why this may be. Is it a function of the perceived unimportance of language education vis--vis the whole curriculum? The fact that most language teachers work in their own silos?

    31. Institutional Impact Easier to promote concept of life-long learning to students Strongly Agree 33 % Agree 35 % Neutral 21 % Disagree 5 % Strongly Disagree 6 % Clearly the message that learning can occur 24/7 and continues beyond a formal course is catching on. Probes may reveal that the digital natives on our classes are used to finding information on their own.Clearly the message that learning can occur 24/7 and continues beyond a formal course is catching on. Probes may reveal that the digital natives on our classes are used to finding information on their own.

    32. Institutional Impact Standards-based assessment has facilitated articulation While more than half of teachers who can compare models do believe that articulation has improved under standards-based programs, it should be of concern to the profession that those who know only standards-based neutral at best, and evening split at worst over this.While more than half of teachers who can compare models do believe that articulation has improved under standards-based programs, it should be of concern to the profession that those who know only standards-based neutral at best, and evening split at worst over this.

    33. Institutional Impact Assessment We all have heard that that which is assessed is valued. It is heartwarming to see that some states and about 1/3 of programs do assess students communicative language ability. Yet, we have a long way to go. If we truly believe in beginning with the end in mind and assessing outcomes based on the standards, these preliminary data show us where our energies need to focus.We all have heard that that which is assessed is valued. It is heartwarming to see that some states and about 1/3 of programs do assess students communicative language ability. Yet, we have a long way to go. If we truly believe in beginning with the end in mind and assessing outcomes based on the standards, these preliminary data show us where our energies need to focus.

    34. Professional Development 5 Cs: Primary Focus of Formal or Informal PD Communication 90 % Cultures 56 % Connections 37 % Comparisons 32% Communities 25 %

    35. Professional Development Formal Professional Development (PD) on Standards 51% of respondents received formal PD on Standards Format of PD: Workshop 79 % Session/seminar/lecture 56 % Course 28 % Summer institute 24 % Series of workshops/package 12 %

    36. Professional Development Setting for Formal PD School District 44 % College/university 41 % State conference 40 % Regional conference 35 % National conference 29 % State DOE 15 % NFLRC 9 %

    37. Professional Development Type of Support Received after PD to incorporate new skills NONE 60 % Collegial/administrative support 24 % Resources 21 % Time 15 % 50% reported NO follow-up by school/ dept. chair to determine extent of implementation of new learning

    38. Professional Development Informal PD on Standards Talking with colleagues 76% Reading professional literature 59 % Peer coaching/mentoring 46 % Independent study 34 % Study group 22 % Online discussions 15 % Conducting action research 10 %

    39. Professional Development PD Prompted Re-examination of Instructional Practices 74% reported that their PD prompted them to implement new ideas and/or change their instructional practices. Prompted them to re-examine to greatest degree: philosophy of teaching languages instructional practices assessment practices

    40. Professional Development Responses to PD on Standards Made few/no changes to teaching 7 % Connected classroom activities to standards 38 % Connected textbook/curriculum to standards 21 % Implemented standards-based approach 34 %

    41. Professional Development Results: Respondents Never or Almost Never. Teach students the terms products, practices, perspectives 46% Provide opportunities for students to communicate with others via technologyi.e., key pals, blogs, online discussions, etc. 48% Assess students ability to interact with TL communities 48%

    42. Professional Development Results: Respondents Always or Almost Always Use the target language 90% of the time or more in most of their lessons. 57 % Provide students with the tools to engage in lifelong learning of the FL. 75%

    43. Professional Development Easiest & Most Difficult Goal Areas to Teach Easiest: Communication Cultures Most Difficult: Communities Connections

    44. Professional Development Methods Courses: Resources for Addressing Standards Book: Standards for FL Learning in 21st Century 76 % Professional literature 72 % Textbook 68 % Websites & online materials 66 % State standards/frameworks 61 % Video clips of standards lessons 49 % Standards-based thematic units 48 %

    45. Professional Development Top 5 Topics Addressed* 2-way tie for 2nd place, 3-way tie for 5th place Communicative language ability 94 % Importance of using TL, Integration of Technology 93 % Cultural 3 Ps 91% Making input comprehensible, Making content meaningful, Teaching grammar in context 90 %

    46. Professional Development Activities Done in Methods Courses by Teacher Candidates Top Two: Design oral, written, multimedia presentational communication tasks 88 % Select an authentic text as basis for lesson or unit 84 % Bottom Two: Design assessment to measure students understanding of 3 Ps 41 % Design a task to assess learners ability to interact in TL communities 34 %

    47. Professional Development District Supervisors: New teachers understanding of Standards is determined through: Interview questions 85 % Sample lesson plans 34 % Portfolios 34 % Demonstration lesson 32 % Teacher work samples 18 % None of the above 11 % Essay 6 %

    48. Professional Development Professional Development Being well versed in Standards New teacher education graduates YES 56 % NO 44 % University mentors Completely 37 % Minimally 58 % Not at all 5 %

    49. Professional Development Input from professional Colleagues Discussion of FL Standards in professional literature (not textbooks) outside our field District / university collaborations not in the literature for professional development Research or data gathering projects with standards associated focus or reference

More Related