Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
THE GLASTONBURY FOREIGN LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE: FLAP 2008-2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

THE GLASTONBURY FOREIGN LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE: FLAP 2008-2013

818
views

Published on

Presenters: …

Presenters:

Rita Oleksak, Director of Foreign Languages, GPS

Barbara Lindsey, University of Connecticut

Dan Conrad, ACTFL

Published in: Education

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
818
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. THE GLASTONBURY FOREIGN LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE: FLAP 2008-2013
    Presenters:
    Rita Oleksak,Director of Foreign Languages, GPS
    Barbara Lindsey, University of Connecticut
    Dan Conrad, ACTFL
    NECTFL CONFERENCE
    BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
    April 2, 2011
  • 2. Receipt of Foreign Language Assessment Grant 2008-2013
    Ambitious Objective 1:
    Development of national assessment tools to improve the articulation of curriculum and instruction over time and from schools to colleges and universities
  • 3. Receipt of Foreign Language Assessment Grant 2008-2013
    Ambitious Objective 2:
    Develop a process that is replicable across the nation and across levels for the collection of student work samples in an electronic portfolio system
  • 4. Historical Significance of the Glastonbury Foreign Language Program
    • Visionary Leadership - 1956
    • 5. Expert Administrators - 1957
    • 6. Collaboration of Higher Education -1957
    • 7. Funding from the National Defense Education Act - 1957
  • Historical Significance of the Glastonbury Foreign Language Program
    • Creation of Elementary Foreign Language Program - 1957
    • 8. Creation of Glastonbury Foreign Language Materials - 1958
    • 9. Implementation of Russian Language Program - 1958
    • 10. Construction of 1st Foreign Language Laboratory - 1959
  • Historical Significance of the Glastonbury Foreign Language Program
    • Continued Funding from the Sale of Audio-Lingual Materials (Harcourt Brace/Ivanovich) 1959-1968
    • 11. Training of All Staff in ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interviews - 1983
    • 12. 100% Local Funding for the Continuation of Foreign Language Program - 1983-2000
    • 13. Grants Received for Standards-Based Articulation of Curriculum, Assessments, and Teacher Training - 2000-2009
  • 14. OUR RUSSIAN STUDENTS ARE…
    • successful in their first(other) foreign language(s)
    • 15. love learning about another culture
    • 16. enthusiastic learners
    • 17. aware that they have been afforded a unique opportunity
    • 18. sometimes native speakers with or without formal language training
    • 19. standouts in the college application process
  • THE COLLEGE EXPERIENCE: 6 years of Russian…now what??
    • Colleges ponder where to place a student who has already had an extended sequence of Russian
    • 20. Dilemma solved: start over!!
    • 21. American Council of Teachers of Russian (ACTR) to the rescue
    • 22. Pilot AP Russian Program initiated in 2004
  • OUR STUDENTS SPEAK
    QUIA survey to upper level students and Glastonbury graduates to probe:
    • Metacognitive skills/recognition
    • 23. Successful study habits/skills
    • 24. Efficacy of foreign language assessments
    • 25. Influence on their lives and advanced study
    • 26. Success in other courses due to knowledge of another language/culture
    • 27. Effect on cultural awareness and acceptance of cultural diversity
  • MLA High School to CollegeArticulation Project
    Glastonbury Public Schools
    University of Connecticut
    1998-1999
  • 28. Measuring Student Preparedness
    Two Vehicles Used
    Student attitudinal survey
    Purpose: To determine if current articulation efforts
    between Glastonbury and the University of Connecticut
    are effectively meeting the needs of these students
    Traditional placement exam
    Purpose: To establish a baseline cutoff score for incoming
    students wishing to place in the first two years of
    language study at the university and to compare
    performance levels of Glastonbury students (high school
    levels 3-6 in predominately high achievement classes)
    with University of Connecticut students
  • 29. Findings from survey
    Similarities
    In both groups, only 19 percent continued to study a foreign language at UCONN
    Nearly two-thirds (60 percent) in each group were studying a foreign language to fulfill a requirement
    Lack of awareness (almost 75 percent) of facilities which support language learning such as the multimedia language center, foreign language residence floor, Linkage Through Language Program
  • 30. Findings from survey
    Differences
    Students who began learning a foreign language prior to sixth grade were more likely to continue studying a language in college (Numbers in the survey not large enough to draw a firm conclusion)
    Number of students who began the study of a foreign language because of a requirement but continued due to personal interest was nearly three times higher among Glastonbury graduates (eighteen versus seven percent)
    None of the general population surveyed started a new language at college, two percent of Glastonbury students did
    A slightly higher percentage of Glastonbury graduates are majoring in languages (five percent) than those from the general population (two percent)
  • 31. Placement exam findings
    Less than twenty percent of the variance among test scores for UCONN students could be explained by current enrollment, total number of years studied and outside language experience.
    Additional testing and continued collection of background information should explain more of the variance between test scores
    Lack of inclusion of background information during scoring for Glastonbury students precludes a comparison between the two groups of students
  • 32. DOE National FL Survey Grant
    4 years: 2000-2004
    Students
    Teachers
    Administrators
    Self-reported perceptions on various aspects of language study in the U.S.
  • 33. College Administrators: Percentage of student population enrolled in foreign language courses(2003: n = 309)
  • 34. College Administrators: Course offerings(2003: n = 309)
    Literature in translation
    Conversation/Composition
    Content-based
    Linguistics
    Other
  • 35. College FL Students: Type of foreign language course in fall of 2002 (n = 309)
  • 36. College FL Students: Type of foreign language course in spring of 2003 (n = 309)
  • 37. College FL Students: Took placement exam to determine which foreign language class to take in college (2003: n = 895)
  • 38. College Administrators: Placement of students who do not use foreign language placement exams(2003: n = 94)
  • 39. College Instructors: Perceptions of which aspects should be measured by a college foreign language placement exam* (2003: n = 304)
    * multiple responses accepted
  • 40. 2003: College Administrators: Foreign language skills measured on placement test (n = 215)
  • 41. College Administrators: Satisfaction with placement procedure (2003: n = 309)
  • 42. College Instructors: High school foreign language classes have adequately prepared students for college-level classes (2003: n = 304)
  • 43. College FL Students: College foreign language class repeated material already mastered in high school(2003: n = 309)
  • 44. College FL Students: High school foreign language classes prepared them well for college level classes (2003: n = 309)
  • 45. College FL Students: College foreign language class required material not learned in high school to be prepared for class (2003: n = 309)
  • 46. High School Teachers: Main cause for some students to perform less well in college foreign language classes than in high school (2002: n = 189)
  • 47. College Instructors: Main cause for some students to perform less well in college foreign language classes than in high school (2003: n = 92)
  • 48. High School Teachers: Importance of high school to college foreign language articulation initiatives(2002: n = 401)
  • 49. College Instructors: Importance of high school to college foreign language articulation initiatives(2003: n = 304)
  • 50. High School Teachers: Articulation efforts could support a student’s transition from high school to college(2002: n = 401)
  • 51. College Instructors: Articulation efforts could support a student’s transition from high school to college(2003: n = 304)
  • 52. High School Teachers: Familiarity with any high school to college foreign language articulation efforts(2002: n = 401)
  • 53. College Instructors: Familiarity with any high school to college foreign language articulation efforts(2003: n = 304)
  • 54. High School Teachers: Involvement in any program to address high school to college foreign language articulation (2002: n = 401)
  • 55. College Instructors: Involvement in any program to address high school to college foreign language articulation(2003: n = 304)
  • 56. High School Teachers: If not already involved, interest in participation in high school to college foreign language articulation program(2002: n = 374)
  • 57. College Instructors: If not already involved, interest in participation in high school to college foreign language articulation program (2003: n = 221)
  • 58. High School Teachers: Frequency of sharing information about foreign language programs between high school teachers and college instructors (2002: n = 399)
  • 59. College Instructors: Frequency of sharing information about foreign language programs between high school teachers and college instructors (2003: n = 304)
  • 60. High School Teachers: Important components of high school to college foreign language articulation initiatives* (2002: n = 401)
    * multiple responses accepted
  • 61. College Instructors: Important components of high school to college foreign language articulation initiatives* (2003: n = 304)
    * multiple responses accepted
  • 62. College Administrators: Areas of collaboration with school/department of education for pre-service teachers (2003: n = 309)
  • 63. Task Force Members
    Marty Abbott, Director of Education, American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
    Kelly Aceto, Associate Director of the Center for International Business Education and Research (CIBER), University of Connecticut
    Gilbert Andrada, Psychometrician, Connecticut State Department of Education
    Carol Any, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Language and Culture Studies (Russian) Trinity College
    Dana Bourgerie, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Chinese, Brigham Young University
    Christine Brown, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, Glastonbury Public Schools
    Lynne Campbell, Teacher of Russian, Glastonbury Public Schools
    Carol Chen-Lin, Ph.D., Teacher of Chinese, Choate Rosemary Hall, Wallingford, CT
    Dorie Conlon, Teacher of Spanish, Glastonbury Public Schools
  • 64. Task Force Members
    Daniel Conrad, Principal Assessment Specialist, American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
    Hanadi Dayyeh, Arabic Language and Curriculum Specialist, American School of Beirut
    Muhammad Eissa, Ph.D., Consulting in Arabic/Islamic Studies, Lecturer of Arabic, University of Chicago
    Carine Feyten, Ph.D., Professor, Foreign Language Education, Miami University Ohio
    Wafa Hassan, Ph.D., Outreach Coordinator for the Arabic Language Instruction Program, Michigan State University
    Bonnie Hoskins, Teacher of Spanish, Glastonbury Public Schools
    Mei Ju Hwang, Lead Chinese Teacher, Springfield Public Schools
    Hong Gang Jin, Ph.D., Director of Chinese, Hamilton College
    Catharine Keatley, Ph.D., National Capital Language Resource Center, George Washington University
    Barbara Lindsey, Director, Multimedia Language Center, University of Connecticut
  • 65. Task Force Members
    Kevin McKenna, Ph.D., Professor of Russian Language, Literature and Culture in the German and Russian Department University of Vermont
    Priscilla Meyer, Ph.D., Professor of Russian Language & Literature Russian, Wesleyan University
    Rita Oleksak, Director of Foreign Languages, ELL, Glastonbury Public Schools
    Mark Pearsall, Teacher of Latin and Ancient Greek, Glastonbury Public Schools
    Ken Peterson, Internet Administrator, American Council of Teachers of Russian
    Tony Smith, Technology Specialist Consultant, American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
    Roger Travis, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Classics, Department of Modern and Classical Languages, University of Connecticut
    Manuela Wagner, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Foreign Language Education, Department of Modern and Classical Languages, University of Connecticut
    Kathleen Wang, Principal, Chinese Charter School, Springfield Public Schools
    Tina Wu, Chinese Professor, Central Connecticut State University
  • 66. Activities Accomplished to Date
    • Collaboration with ACTFL on the development of the AAPPL Test item
    • 67. Collaboration with the University of Connecticut
    • 68. Meetings of the Portfolio Task Force, November 2009, May 2010 and October 2010
  • Evidence efforts in place in Glastonbury to date:
    Common monthly performance checks, midterm and final exams
    Digital speaking samples
    Video and audio blogs
    Digital evidence from study abroad
    Evidence from distance learning
    Cross-grade level student service learning projects
    Capstone projects
  • 69. How the AAPPL became part of this project:
    Worked from the AAPPL Framework
    Met to discuss curricula within GPS
    Created prototype
    Created proof of concept
    Finalized content and met with GPS
    Conducted a very small scale tryout in early November
    Preparing to conduct small pilot in GPS and elsewhere in December
  • 70. AAPPL: A history
    Indefinite postponement of NAEP FL led to formation of task force, grant
    Grant focused on development of a Framework describing a new, standards-based national assessment
    Result was AAPPL and an AAPPL prototype
    On-line, on-demand, standards-based, curriculum linked test of four skills across three modes
  • 71. AAPPL: A history
    AAPPL became a component of the Glastonbury FLAP grant
    Started with Chinese
    Piloted Interpersonal Listening/Speaking 2008
    Piloted all skills/modes in 2009
    Began building the delivery infrastructure in 2009/2010
    Greatly refined the concept in 2010
    Continued to pilot in Glastonbury throughout 2010
    Began development on Russian and Arabic in 2010
    Expect to be operational in 2011
  • 72. AAPPL: The experience
    Task-based role play in which student is him- or herself (a student of a FL in best-practice classroom)
    Sits at the computer with headphone and microphone
    Is greeted by the FL teacher who provides (in English) an overview of tasks.
  • 73. AAPPL: Response modes
    Create
    Compose
    Converse
  • 74. AAPPL: Examples
    Russian
    Arabic
    Chinese