proficiency attainment of k 16
play

Proficiency attainment of K-16 language students: Implications for - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Proficiency attainment of K-16 language students: Implications for language programs Boston University November 11, 2019 Fernando Rubio, University of Utah ACTFL levels of proficiency ACTFL levels of proficiency NOVICE Communicate minimally


  1. Proficiency attainment of K-16 language students: Implications for language programs Boston University November 11, 2019 Fernando Rubio, University of Utah

  2. ACTFL levels of proficiency

  3. ACTFL levels of proficiency NOVICE Communicate minimally with formulaic or memorized phrases or with isolated words or lists of words.

  4. ACTFL levels of proficiency NOVICE Communicate minimally with INTERMEDIATE formulaic or memorized phrases Create with the language, ask or with isolated words or lists of and answer simple questions on words. familiar topics and handle a simple situation or transaction

  5. ACTFL levels of proficiency ADVANCED Narrate and describe in all timeframes and handle a situation with a complication NOVICE Communicate minimally with INTERMEDIATE formulaic or memorized phrases Create with the language, ask or with isolated words or lists of and answer simple questions on words. familiar topics and handle a simple situation or transaction

  6. ACTFL levels of proficiency SUPERIOR Argue, hypothesize, discuss topics concretely and abstractly, handle a linguistically complex task. ADVANCED Narrate and describe in all timeframes and handle a situation with a complication NOVICE Communicate minimally with INTERMEDIATE formulaic or memorized phrases Create with the language, ask or with isolated words or lists of and answer simple questions on words. familiar topics and handle a simple situation or transaction

  7. How long does it take? ▪ An English speaker needs 240+ hours of instruction to reach the Intermediate level in Category I (Romance, Dutch, Norwegian) ▪ 480+ in Category II (Russian, Vietnamese, Turkish) ▪ Even longer in Category III (Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean) ▪ Typical university programs provide 180-300 hours of instruction in two years (3-5 hours/week; 30 weeks/year) “The vast majority of American citizens remain monolingual” American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2017 (p. viii) 7

  8. Ideal distribution of the population according to language skills 5% Expert skills Distinguished 15% Global, professional skills Superior 30% Basic language skills Intermediate/Advanced 100% Exposure to language and culture Novice/Intermediate (Adapted from Abbot et al., 2013)

  9. K-12 9

  10. Percentage of elementary schools offering world languages in the US 53% 51% 34% 31% 25%* 24% 22% 17% 15%* Public Private Total 1987 1997 2008 (Adapted from Pufahl & Rhodes, 2011)

  11. Percentage of secondary schools offering world languages in the US 95% 91% 90% 87% 86% 79% 75% 72% 58% Middle schools High schools Total 1987 1997 2008

  12. Articulation ▪ Fewer than 40% of elementary schools reported some form of articulation with middle school. ▪ 25% of high schools reported that their incoming students had not received foreign language instruction during their middle school years. (Pufhal & Rhodes, 2011, p. 267) ▪ Only 12 of the 400 K-8 schools surveyed reported having some form of collaboration with other elementary, middle or high schools (American Councils for International Education, 2017, p. 33).

  13. Proficiency in K-12

  14. ChineseSTAMPresults 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Novice Intermediate Advanced Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High

  15. FrenchSTAMPresults 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Novice Intermediate Advanced Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High

  16. GermanSTAMPresults 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Novice Intermediate Advanced Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High

  17. SpanishSTAMPresults 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Novice Intermediate Advanced Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High

  18. Takeaways  Even after an extended sequence, most students are still solidly at the Intermediate level.  Reading tends to be the strongest skill  Speaking is the weakest  Except for AP students, WL learners are often still in the Novice range after 3 or even 4 years of instruction

  19. DLI as a potential solution  Students receive academic instruction in two languages  Explosive growth:  2000 (260 programs)  2017 (2000 programs)  2019 (3000 programs)  Different models: 50/50, 90/10, One-way/Two-way  English learners in DLI programs academically outperform those in other programs (Steele et al., 2017; Watzinger-Tharp et al., 2016)

  20. The Utah model  Six languages: Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish  45,000 students in 2019-2020 year  247 schools  15 districts

  21. AAPPL ▪ ACTFL Assessment of Performance toward Proficiency in Languages (AAPPL) ▪ Performance (not proficiency) test ▪ Two forms: Form A: Novice-Intermediate (typically grades 5-8) ▪ Form B: Intermediate-Advanced Low (typically grades 9-12) ▪ ▪ Computer-based ▪ Assesses all three modes of communication Interpretive Listening (IL) ▪ Interpretive Reading (IR) ▪ Interpersonal Listening and Speaking (speaking component) (ILS) ▪ Presentational Writing (PW) ▪

  22. Utah DLI performance benchmarks Interpersonal Interpretive Interpretive Presentational Listening/Speaking Reading Listening Writing Grade Alphabetic Chinese Alphabetic Chinese Alphabetic Chinese Alphabetic Chinese Languages Languages Languages Languages 3 N3 N2 4 N3-N4 N2-N3 N4-I1 N3-N4 N3-N4 N2-N3 5 N4-I1 N3-N4 6 I1-I2 N4-I1 I2-I3 I1-I2 I1-I2 N4-I1 7 I2-I3 I1-I2 8 I3-I4 I2-I3 I4-I5 I3-I4 I3-I4 I2-I3 9 I4-I5 I3-I4

  23. Proficiency data from Utah DLI (2017-18)  Students tested: 23,546  Total number of tests: 42,528  ILS: 12,799  PW: 9,814  IL: 9,952  IR: 9,963  Districts: 26  Schools: 96

  24. Spanish data

  25. Spanish ILS-3 rd grade Form A (n=2840) I4 10% I3 16% Benchmark: N3 I2 24% I1 53% N4 74% N3 86% N2 92% N1 97% Below N1 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

  26. Spanish ILS-5 th grade Form A (n=2168) I4 30% I3 44% Benchmark: N4-I1 I2 56% I1 84% N4 95% N3 97% N2 98% N1 99% Below N1 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  27. Spanish ILS-7 th grade Form B (n=987) A 12% Benchmark: I2-I3 I5 29% I4 70% I3 77% I2 84% I1 94% N4 98% Below N4 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  28. Spanish ILS-9 th grade Form B (n=451) A 30% Benchmark: I4-I5 I5 48% I4 84% I3 88% I2 93% I1 99% N4 100% Below N4 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  29. Spanish PW-8 th grade Form B A 6% (n=722) I5 12% Benchmark: I4 26% I2-I3 I3 75% I2 84% I1 94% N4 99% Below N4 100%

  30. Takeaways from Spanish data  By 5 th grade students are already well into the Intermediate range in speaking  Most students reach IH/A in speaking by the end of 9 th grade  Writing progresses at a similar rate, with students at IM by 8 th grade

  31. French data

  32. French ILS-3 rd grade I4 4% Benchmark: I3 8% N3 I2 13% I1 19% N4 45% N3 79% N2 94% N1 98% Below N1 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

  33. French ILS-5 th grade I4 31% Benchmark: I3 44% N4-I1 I2 59% I1 84% N4 98% N3 99% N2 100% N1 100% Below N1 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

  34. French ILS-7 th grade A 9% Benchmark: I5 27% I2-I3 I4 70% I3 74% I2 81% I1 93% N4 97% Below N4 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

  35. French ILS-9 th grade A 20% Benchmark: I5 45% I4-I5 I4 89% I3 92% I2 95% I1 99% N4 100% Below N4 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

  36. French PW-8 th grade Benchmark: A 7% I2-I3 I5 15% I4 48% I3 52% I2 56% I1 70% N4 94% Below N4 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

  37. Takeaways from French data  More than half of the students are IM by 5 th grade  Almost half are IH in 9 th grade (20% Advanced)  Writing progresses at a slower rate but still solidly IM in 8 th grade

  38. Chinese data

  39. Chinese ILS-3 rd grade I4 Benchmark: 2% N2 I3 3% I2 5% I1 17% N4 45% N3 78% N2 91% N1 98% Below N1 100%

  40. Chinese ILS-5 th grade I4 4% Benchmark: N3-N4 I3 9% I2 19% I1 54% N4 85% N3 97% N2 99% N1 100% Below N1 100%

  41. Chinese ILS-7 th grade A 0% Benchmark: I1-I2 I5 1% I4 8% I3 17% I2 28% I1 57% N4 83% Below N4 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

  42. Chinese ILS-9 th grade Benchmark: A 0% I3-I4 I5 1% I4 22% I3 34% I2 44% I1 69% N4 84% Below N4 100%

  43. Chinese PW-8 th grade Benchmark: A 1% I2-I3 I5 1% I4 24% I3 32% I2 43% I1 66% N4 86% Below N4 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

  44. Takeaways from Chinese data  Slower progress through the Novice level  By 9th grade, the majority are at the lower end of the Intermediate level in speaking  Similar growth pattern in writing

  45. Articulation  What happens post-AP?  The Utah Bridge Program for Advanced Language Learning  Why take AP early when it’s the highest/final language course offered?  High schools are not prepared to offer language beyond AP  University programs don’t normally articulate well with K -12  Most of these students are not prototypical language majors

Recommend


More recommend