I was just going over some of the numerous comments made in response to the original post of le Chevalier de l’Ouest (Robert) at:
https://benslavic.com/blog/2011/05/08/robert-harrell-on-assessment/
There are some amazing things in there. I just felt like going in and cutting and pasting a bit:
…here is what I’m thinking. Rather than applying standards (usually graded as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Below Basic, Far Below Basic) to the skills of listening, reading, speaking, writing, culture and language manipulation, I will apply them to the three modes of communication: interpersonal, interpretive and presentational….
…to me it is more than a matter of semantics but rather a different way of applying the standards. ACTFL supports the idea, indicated by this quote from the World Languages Skills Map: The language teaching community has reached strong consensus regarding the goals of a language program: to develop students’ language proficiency around modes of communicative competence reflecting real life communication….
…the danger of thematic and grammar-based curricula is the perceived necessity to “cover” a certain amount of material, to the detriment of acquisition, fluency, rigor and relevance…y making the primary requirement that the teacher communicate in the target language at least 90-95% of the time (ACTFL standards), the foundation and parameters for true rigor and relevance, as well as acquisition, are set…
…people in positions of authority usually get more concerned about maintaining their supposed authority than about doing what is right. Definite parallels to World Language instruction today. We are threatening the power structure. I got an oblique warning from my principal just today about letting things “come down from the district” rather than doing grassroots work….
The Problem with CI
Jeffrey Sachs was asked what the difference between people in Norway and in the U.S. was. He responded that people in Norway are happy and
