Alignment of World Language Standards and Assessments: A Multiple Case Study

Abstract

Previous research has examined world language classroom‐based assessment practices as well as the impact of the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project, 1999) on practice. However, the extent to which K–12 teachers’ assessment practices reflect national and state standards has not been made clear. This article presents a multiple case study examining how the classroom‐based assessments used by four secondary world language teachers provided insight into students’ progress toward achieving the competencies that are specified by Ohio's Learning Standards for 9–12 World Language Programs and the five goal areas as they were described in the 1999 version of the nationally accepted standards framework. Qualitative analysis of assessment artifacts and interview transcripts showed that assessments principally targeted presentational writing and interpretive reading and that some assessments did not directly align with any of the goals or standards. Findings provide continuing evidence to support the results of the Standards Impact Survey (ACTFL, 2011) and have implications for world language teachers’ professional development needs and the role of standards in world language education.

Curriculum, instruction, and assessment: A snapshot of world language education in Massachusetts

“…Oral interpersonal communication was found to be an area of the standards that had been poorly applied, with grammatical accuracy often taking precedence over true interpersonal communication (Glisan, 2012). This finding was supported by a multiple case study of world language teachers (Kaplan, 2016) where teachers "reported that interpersonal speaking was assessed infrequently" due to the difficulty and time needed for the assessment (p. 513). Although not widely implemented (Pufahl & Rhodes, 2011), teaching in the target language 90% or more of instructional time and engaging learners in using the target language through interpersonal communication are widely believed by teachers as being important practices (Kissau et al, 2012).…”

Closing the pre and in‐service gap: Perceptions and implementation of the IPA during student teaching

“…One perception is that the IPA takes too much time to implement and assess (Adair‐Hauck et al 2006; Glisan et al, 2007; Kaplan, 2016). Discrete point test items are quick and easy to create and score.…”

Future directions in assessment: Influences of standards and implications for language learning

“…Other researchers, and even ACTFL itself through its 2011 Standards Impact Survey (ACTFL, ), have also summarized that even experienced foreign language teachers use assessments that are more grammar‐based and less standards‐based. Even when the assessments are standards‐based, the assessments tend to focus on the Communication standard (Kaplan, ; Kissau & Adams, ). Kaplan and Kissau and Adams, in their two respective studies, found that the Communities and Connections goal areas were the least‐frequently addressed, which is somewhat surprising given that in many ways technology has made world language learning more relevant, authentic, and compelling; students can connect with learners across the globe, view authentic materials with ease, investigate areas of personal and professional interest, and easily share their opinions of current events in the target culture(s) and around the globe.…”

“…The apparently unequal emphasis on the 5 Cs highlights additional key areas for future work. For example, if teachers are not equally familiar with all 5 Cs, as researchers have reported (ACTFL, ; Kaplan, ; Kissau & Adams, ), do the teachers concomitantly not know how to approach instruction and assessment in some of these domains, or perhaps do they value the goal areas differently and thus deliberately choose to focus on some areas and essentially ignore others? Or is it that the 5 Cs are actually not equally important?…”

“…In addition, reiterating suggestions by Glisan () and White (), research is needed on the way in which service learning, study abroad, and computer‐mediated communication, among other approaches, support the five goal areas and the extent to which teachers across levels and languages help learners take advantage of these emerging learning opportunities. Finally, more studies like Kaplan's () that investigate assessment instruments and how they align with the Standards, particularly computer‐scored assessments, are needed as communication norms and technological trends evolve. These lines of inquiry will help future educators better understand the ways in which the 5 Cs inform language instruction and assessment.…”