The document discusses the Glastonbury Foreign Language Assessment Initiative (FLAP) from 2008-2013. It details two ambitious objectives: 1) Developing national assessment tools to improve curriculum articulation over time, and 2) Developing an electronic portfolio system for collecting student work samples. It also discusses the development and piloting of the AAPPL assessment tool for measuring foreign language proficiency during this period.

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

5. Expert Administrators - 1957

6. Collaboration of Higher Education -1957

8. Creation of Glastonbury Foreign Language Materials - 1958

9. Implementation of Russian Language Program - 1958

11. Training of All Staff in ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interviews - 1983

12. 100% Local Funding for the Continuation of Foreign Language Program - 1983-2000

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

20. Dilemma solved: start over!!

21. American Council of Teachers of Russian (ACTR) to the rescue

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

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

67. Collaboration with the University of Connecticut

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