To view this content, you must be a member of Ben's Patreon at $10 or more
Already a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to access this content.
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
Subscribe to be a patron and get additional posts by Ben, along with live-streams, and monthly patron meetings!
Also each month, you will get a special coupon code to save 20% on any product once a month.
3 thoughts on “World-Readiness Standards”
When I read these standards information packages I get annoyed. These organizations articulate their points in such a contrived and unreal way. It could be simpler and should be simpler. Not all teachers and administrators or parents or students are into reading and interpreting this information. They want a bottom line…they want to know what they are going to get for the time spent in a classroom.
I do like that there is a spirit of inclusion when discussing the various languages. I think this idea can bring people together…but in the end it probably will just try and make the approach to learning various languages to use the exact same model.
Oh great…from paragraph 3 of the link.
We now have a road map to learning languages…just when you thought you were lost, this road map will help you navigate the 5 C’s, the modes of communication, the assessment schedules, and the proficiency standards, and put all language learners and teachers on the same path. I did not see this road map yet but my question is…Who is ACTFL trying to convince with this?
“The World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages create a road map to guide learners to develop competence to communicate effectively and interact with cultural competence to participate in multilingual communities at home and around the world.”
The key phrases are “Learners use the language to…” (which is used in 6 of the standards) and “Learners…while using the language to…” (which are used in the 2 connections standards).
In the MA Framework this is not so clear. One must read the adaptations for Classical Languages to see that in Classical languages English may be used. That was in 1999. Now (as of 2012) ACTFL even supports the oral use of the language in Latin and Greek classes. This is huge step in the right direction.
So there are two distinct point here. 1) It is crystal clear that the four benefit Cs are derived from, dependent on, and impossible without the core C (communication). 2) There are no exceptions for any languages.
It is frustrating that ACTFL may not be as crystal clear about language is acquired, but the key word is “yet.” Am I overly optimistic? Maybe. But for the Latinists, the following statement is a big platform from which to question the old use of substantial L1 in the Classical Language classroom:
Unique Applications to Classical Languages
The Performance Descriptors are also intended to be applied to the classical languages (Latin and Greek). While often falsely assumed that students of Latin and classical Greek spend all of their instructional time reading and translating, these Performance Descriptors provide a further context for a more comprehensive view of the instructional components to be found in such classes. The importance of the three modes of communication as an applicable principle to the learning of the classical languages is evident in the communication standards from the Standards for Classical
Languages:
• Students read, understand and interpret Latin or Greek
• Students use orally, listen to, and write Latin or Greek as part of the language learning process.
Therefore, while reading and understanding the written messages of the ancient world is a key to communication in the study of Latin and classical Greek, the oral use of the language can also be employed to help students avoid reading or translating word-for-word as they must listen in “chunks” (several words holding the meaning or phrases) and respond spontaneously during oral communication. This practice also builds student interest and heightens understanding of and appreciation for the languages and their cultures.
http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/PerformanceDescriptorsLanguageLearners.pdf
Also note the use of “share.”
Interpersonal Communication:
Learners interact and negotiate meaning in spoken, signed, or written conversations to share information, reactions, feelings, and opinions.
The focus here seems to be on output. “Sharing” is a synonym for saying or telling something.
But if people share a room or a car, there is more a 50-50 ownership /usership. This reflects students doing their 50%. It is also a logical and necessary understanding of the word. How can a learner be involved in and interpersonal situation and all she does is talk? Monopolizing the conversation is bad manners in L1 and worse in L2.
This is a part that should be addressed in the next revision. Negotiation of meaning and interact focus on the 50-50 aspect, but the rest of the standard (the purpose) is not to understand, but rather to produce.
Of course, another aspect of this is that I see the interpersonal mode as the primary setting for providing CI. Thus the focus of the standard is on where a student will be. My concern, as Michael says above, is on how we get there.