|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IN 1991, Sophie Jeffries and I reported in this journal on articulation efforts in foreign languages in New York State (“Articulation”). Appended to our report was the definition of the all-important checkpoints A, B, and C, which assessed performance in five areas of language use: listening, speaking, reading, writing, and culture. These checkpoints describe the proficiency-based learning outcomes for the beginning (A), intermediate (B), and advanced (C) levels of the New York State syllabus Modern Languages for Communication , implemented at the secondary level in 1985. Work on articulation in this state has continued since then, primarily under the auspices of NYSAFLT (New York State Association of Foreign Language Teachers), and continues to build on this syllabus, which represents a sound approach to language learning.
I am pleased to give an update on NYSAFLT articulation work in New York. That a national task force is currently drafting the K-12 Student Standards Framework in Foreign Language Education is an added enhancement and gratifying, considering that in 1991 Jeffries and I had traced simultaneous macro and micro standards developments in our work on articulation that might serve as a model for emerging national standards. It was and is our view that national, state, and local efforts must be synchronized if educational reform is to succeed. What follows must, however, be seen in the larger context of a massive initiative by the State University of New York (SUNY) to assist the schools in better preparing youngsters for college entry and for the first year of study. The latter is recognized by many experts as the crucial transition period for ultimate success in college (i.e., graduation).
Let me summarize the charge and work of the SUNY Task Force on College Entry-Level Knowledge and Skills. In the summer of 1991, SUNY provost Joseph Burke appointed thirty-eight faculty members, students, and professional staff members from the postsecondary sector to the task force and in August 1991 at the Rensselaerville Institute in New York, SUNY Chancellor Bruce Johnstone gave the group the following charge:
(State U of New York 3)
In spring 1992, twenty-two teacher-consultants from the elementary, middle, and secondary levels were added to the task force to provide input on the draft report. During the six two-day meetings of the task force in 1992–93, chaired effectively by the SUNY vice provost, Richard S. Jarvis, the group often split into disciplinary subgroups, and each subgroup drafted its discipline's recommendations.
In October 1992, the task force published SUNY 2000: College Expectations: The Report of the SUNY Task Force on College Entry-Level Knowledge and Skills . Since then, the university, under the energetic leadership of Kevin Reilly of the SUNY central administration, has actively implemented the report's recommendations. SUNY's many initiatives have included statewide distribution of the task force's report; the chancellor's spring 1993 forum for SUNY presidents; a joint SUNY-City University of New York position paper on preparing youth for the workforce; the Mathematics Alert Program; the twelfth-grade transition partnership program; a college transition course; a statewide conference on assessment in English and mathematics; a SUNY assessment file for future applicants to SUNY colleges; a draft for school reform (i.e., the restructuring of schools); a letter from the chancellor to eighth graders and their parents; a publication on SUNY school-college partnerships; Monograph on American College Preparation and Admission Policies (which placed the SUNY College Expectations report in the national context of college admission preferences); and SUNY faculty members-schoolteacher teams in the disciplines. 1
All these initiatives are ongoing and guarantee that our efforts will reach many if not all educational sectors. It is anticipated that the tasks will not be completed in the near future and may well be continued into the next century. And while these signs of reform are encouraging, we must make sure that the collective will for change and improvement will endure.
The most visible outcome of the task force's work on school-college foreign language articulation is the section of the report entitled “Foreign Languages and Culture,” (see app.). The task force's two foreign language specialists, Ernest Scatton of SUNY, Albany, and I, drafted the section and then circulated it in selected schools for feedback. Later, the foreign language teacher-consultants on the task force reacted to and amended it. Thus many professionals from all levels reached consensus on the document.
The report was disseminated through print, workshops, and conferences, including foremost the 1 October 1993 interactive teleconference on high school to college articulation of foreign language programs “Bridging the Gap,” sponsored by SUNYSAT (SUNY Satellite, the SUNY television network), and NYSAFLT, which was the first New York State teleconference for foreign language teachers. Besides delivering the message of College Expectations and key points of a report by the LOTE (Languages Other Than English) Committee, the conference broke new ground for communicating and interacting across the state through modern technology. 2 As of this writing, a follow-up conference in February 1995 is planned, largely because of the very positive reception of the 1993 teleconference.
The planning for and format of the teleconference are important. All-day meetings between secondary and postsecondary teachers were held simultaneously at nine sites across the state and were headed by a coordinator at each site. There were over 300 registered participants, including administrators, representing at least eighty-six different schools and twenty-two public and private postsecondary institutions. The NYSAFLT Articulation Committee cochair, Beth Bossong, moderated the conference. After initial presentations by NYSAFLT President Albert Martino, Reilly, Jeffries (of LOTE), and me, local-site groups held discussions, faxed their reactions and questions to SUNYSAT, heard responses, and spoke with the panel members by telephone. The charge of each group was to discuss the same three topics: (1) existing and future models for collaboration among secondary and postsecondary teachers, (2) implications and recommended changes in public school curricula for college programs and placement, and (3) graduation portfolios as tools for college placement. In addition, each group was charged with planning local follow-up conferences before the end of November.
It would exceed the boundaries of this paper to list all the ideas produced during the brainstorming sessions on these three topics; suffice it to say that the groups prepared fertile ground for future discussion and action. Some of the most pressing issues are considering of high school portfolios for evaluation and placement, revising of college courses to articulate better with the communicative approach followed in the schools, collaborating on checkpoint C, and possibly developing a fourth checkpoint as a requirement for graduation from college, at least for majors.
Most participants at the local sites were enthusiastic about the content and format of the conference and have since attended the follow-up meetings. This response was confirmed at the May 1994 NYSAFLT colloquium when coordinators met to report on the progress their groups made. At SUNY, Cortland, for example, we applied for and received a local SUNY Assessment Incentive Grant in November 1993, which triggered internal departmental standards and placement discussions, numerous meetings with our secondary school colleagues, textbook comparisons, attendance at portfolio conferences, consultants' input, acquisition of relevant assessment publications, and a college-wide seminar on exploring foreign language placement by portfolio. At SUNY, Albany, a group of graduate students explored pathways to checkpoint C during a summer workshop under Jeffries' guidance. The efforts at other sites overlapped in part with these activities or went in different directions, but the important point is that discussions for future plans and changes continued and were shared again at the May NYSAFLT colloquium.
It can be argued that much of what is happening is a rehashing of old issues, that we are treading water and reinventing wheels, that there is much talk and little action, and that in spite of years of effort in articulation we are no nearer the final goal: building a longer, stronger sequence through seamless transitions from level to level that will make American students competitive in foreign language skills with students from other industrialized nations. Such criticism is partially valid. But I have come to the conclusion that bringing professionals from different levels together is in itself of prime importance and a necessary first, lengthy step, even if it is accompanied by much redundancy. Unfortunately, this collaboration is still far from perfect. Participants at the teleconference noted that far too few university faculty members take interest (only twenty-seven attended), a pattern that we on the Articulation Committee have observed since the committee's inception. This attitude is explained partly by the university reward system and by colleges' and universities' relative freedom from accountability measures (no regents' exam, no standard syllabus, no external exit requirements). Membership in NYSAFLT also attests to postsecondary faculty members' lack of interest in collaboration with secondary education: only a small percentage of the membership comes from postsecondary institutions. Yet higher education cannot escape at least partial blame for the deplorable downward drift in standards that resulted in the national educational crisis, as Barbara McKenna notes in On Campus :
At the heart of the K-12 standards movement are two fundamental questions: What do we want kids to know and be able to do at various stages in their education? And, how do we measure whether kids have mastered the content and performance expectations so defined? Higher Education used to play a primary role in answering the first question, especially for secondary schools. … Historically, this link, through the admission office, was our most concrete and consistent connection to the secondary school world. Coupled with our work preparing teachers who would train the students for our entering classes, the K-12 higher education circle was complete. In recent years, this relationship has begun to unravel … the leverage of our admission policies has failed to result in high school graduates who can handle college-level work. Increasing numbers … need remediation. Further, the colleges are not producing teachers as capable as they once were.… The circle has broke in pieces. (4)
There is much truth in this passage, with the exception of the statement that this downslide took place “in recent years”; the decline goes back to the late sixties and early seventies, when colleges and universities, bending to student and political pressures, eliminated many requirements. This move had disastrous effects in the other sectors of education. What was lost in standards in a very short time will take decades to recover. Many of today's educational reform efforts, including the SUNY initiative, are belated responses to what we recognize as mistakes made then. The Wingspread Group on Higher Education's 1993 report An American Imperative: Higher Expectations for Higher Education states that “there is no single silver bullet cure” for the current dilemma but urges each campus to rethink its mission (i). The report's self-assessment checklist for individual campuses repeatedly mentions close collaboration with the K-12 system as a prerequisite for improvement (39). I believe that for secondary-postsecondary collaboration to happen nationwide, a critical mass of college and university presidents will have to proclaim it a priority and include faculty efforts in that direction in their institutions' reward systems.
In summary, higher education stands to gain much through collaboration with the schools. Fortunately, there are indications that this potential has been recognized in crucial places. Professional publications now frequently refer to the need for articulation; the topic appears more often in the programs of conferences; local and federal funding for this goal is more generous (see, e.g., Natl. Endowment); the entire National Standards in Foreign Language Education initiative is predicated on the seamless transition—that is, intense collaboration—between educational levels. But much remains to be done. For instance, at SUNY, we sense a need now for closer horizontal collaboration among foreign language departments and for the formation of a SUNY foreign language council that would meet regularly to discuss standards and foreign language requirements.
Should foreign language professionals care more deeply about articulation and collaboration than other disciplines? Yes, because foreign language learning is sequential! Its building blocks need to be mapped out carefully and jointly to avoid gaps as well as repetition, and all foreign language professionals are responsible for this task. That is why the work at the micro level—the local level—is so important. Dialogue is easiest in small geographical areas, as was recognized years ago when Academic Alliances were created. Through our teleconference we forged again numerous such alliances that must be nurtured and made aware of their crucial role. Guided by macro developments, namely, a future national framework document (on which every professional could offer input), these local alliances are the ultimate implementers of the many small steps we must take to achieve the longer, stronger foreign language sequence, the seamless transition.
Progress in articulation is slow but discernible. We need patience, perseverance, and the collective will to succeed more than ever, because “setting goals is easy compared to the next step” (Thomas H. Kean, qtd. in Jaschik 24). Many states and regions are engaged in similar efforts, not least among them the New England initiative Articulation and Achievement: The Challenge of the 1990s in Foreign Language Education led by Claire Jackson. 3 This huge new federally funded effort seeks to design the optimal language sequence and to include assessment instruments at each stage. Will the articulation question ever be settled? No, because that would defy the open-ended, fluid nature of the educational process, with its neverending feedback loops. Will teaching and curriculum design ever become easier? No, because “the better we become, the more work it is” (Mayer). The work of the NYSAFLT Articulation Committee, along with the work of SUNY and LOTE, demonstrates that we gain momentum when we join forces but that improvement occurs only in increments. Nothing short of a joint effort will work. Participating actively in the ongoing collaboration is our best reward.
The author recently retired as Professor of German from the Department of International Communications and Culture at the State University College of New York, Cortland.
1 The task force report and more information on these initiatives are available from Kevin P. Reilly, Acting Associate Provost for Academic Programs, State Univ. of New York Central Administration, Room S-301, State University Plaza, Albany 12246; 518 442–5505; fax: 518 443–5506.
2 The LOTE Committee is one of seven committees, appointed by the Board of Regents, serving under the New York State Curriculum and Assessment Council. The committee is designing outcomes and assessments of second language learning acquisition in connection with the implementation of the New Compact for Learning in New York State. Jeffries served on the LOTE Committee.
3 The College Board, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), and the New England Network of Academic Alliances in Foreign Languages and Literatures are collaborating now to design and pilot test a well-articulated 7–14 foreign language framework with appropriate assessment strategies.The results will be reflected in the work of ACTFL on national standards. See the article in this issue by Claire Jackson and Karen Masters-Wicks for a detailed discussion of the project.
Jaschik, Scott. “New Achievement Test Is Recommended for Seniors.” Chronicle of Higher Education 6 Feb. 1991: A19+.
Jeffries, Sophie, and Irmgard C. Taylor. “Articulation in New York State: Toward a Model for a National Foreign Language Curriculum.” ADFL Bulletin 23.1 (1991): 22–27. [Show Article]
Mayer, Virginia. Presentation. Portfolio Workshop: Process for Progress, Northeast Conference. New York, 7 Apr. 1994.
McKenna, Barbara. “What Is This Thing Called Standards, and Why Should We Care?” On Campus 13.8 (1994): 4–10.
National Endowment for the Humanities Division of Education Programs. Special Opportunity in Foreign Language Education and Related Foreign Language Education Funded Projects FY90 to FY94 . N.p.: NEH, 1994.
State University of New York: SUNY 2000 College Expectations: The Report of the SUNY Task Force on College Entry-Level Knowledge and Skills . Albany: State U of New York, 1992.
Wingspread Group on Higher Education. An American Imperative: Higher Expectations for Higher Education . N.p.: Johnson Foundation, 1993.
As the world becomes increasingly interdependent, the Task Force recognizes the growing importance of the ability to communicate well in a second language. Unfortunately, foreign language instruction in the United States is woefully inadequate to meet these needs. For instance, while it is well known that natural language acquisition most easily occurs before the middle-school years, programs in the United States are generally concentrated in the later years of adolescence and often limited to one or two years of study at the high school level. The widespread lack of highly defined entrance and/or graduation requirements in postsecondary education discourages serious study at the high school level or continued study in college or university.
If foreign language study cannot begin in the elementary grades, then at least it should be a continuum beginning in middle school and developed further in high school and college. Disrupting this sequence weakens the learning process significantly. On the other hand, a well articulated sequence could allow a large number of young Americans to reach language proficiency in at least one foreign language, a goal so far unattained in this country. The Task Force does not in any way wish to rule out the study of additional languages. Rather, we suggest a goal that is reasonable although admittedly not equal to the foreign language standards of other industrial nations (6–8 years of study of one or several languages). In order to encourage sophisticated second language acquisition, the Task Force recommends that student should enter college instruction at the appropriately challenging level and not be encouraged to repeat instruction at a level already mastered in the high school classroom. Here as in other recommendations of this report, there must be appropriate academic support services and programs to provide the necessary enhancement for students with differing learning styles and abilities.
In addition, a communicative approach to language learning is necessary if students are to function as world citizens in a global society. This approach includes using the language in real-life situations in the four skills; listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Students must also be well informed on cultural issues of the target language and should be able to use the language in real-life situations appropriate to the culture—to be able to say the right thing at the right time, rather than merely using language that is grammatically correct.
Students should be able to demonstrate the following competencies and skills:
Listening
The student should comprehend the essential points of extended discussions and presentations on familiar topics.
Speaking
The student should participate with some repetition and rewording in face-to-face conversations on familiar topics.
Reading
The student should detect the overall tone or intent of a text.
Writing
The student should analyze and interpret selected, basic literary texts and other materials (e.g., infer conclusions, justify characters' actions, describe preferences).
Culture
Pursuing these outcomes, the Modern Languages for Communications New York State syllabus (1986) defined three proficiency levels named Checkpoints A, B, and C.…Students entering college must first have completed Checkpoints A and B, usually after 10th grade (Regents Examination for Checkpoint B). During the remaining year(s) in high school students should begin work on Checkpoint C without interruption or work toward and take the AP test or other college credit-granting programs and examinations.
Special attention should be directed during the latter years in high school toward the development of writing skills with emphasis on increased accuracy. The development of reading for information and appreciation should be part of exploring the foreign culture at all levels. Exposure to various literary genres is recommended for optimum articulation. With this preparation, the “seamless transition” to the third, fourth, or fifth semester of college foreign language study (depending on Regents score and class grades) is assured provided there is no hiatus between 12th grade and the first semester in college.
Since knowledge and skills for Checkpoint C will be the domain of both high school and college levels, and since Checkpoint C curricula and examinations are still in development by school districts, close collaboration in the development of Checkpoint C between the faculties of both levels is recommended to enhance chances for success for entering freshmen students.
After suitable placement tests assessing communicative ability have been developed, they can be administered to those students who enter the language sequences, from points other than the one described above (such students would include nontraditional students, out-of-state students, and two-year college students who did not study language in their community college or college of technology). These tests should reflect the communicative competence students have attained in New York State high schools.
Any language should be considered an acceptable language for study and should be assessable at the levels described above. Performance criteria should be modified to reflect the difficulties of the “typical” American student's learning languages which are structurally very different from Western European languages. In the case of Ancient Language proficiency, in addition to meeting the minimum performance criteria for reading listed above, students are expected to comprehend classical texts normally taught in the third semester of college with the appropriate level of proficiency in vocabulary, grammar, and composition. For students whose native language is other than English, foreign language proficiency can be illustrated by earning a satisfactory score on a recognized test (such as the College Entrance Examination Board Achievement, Advanced Placement, or the Test of English as a Foreign Language tests).
© 1995 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
