2
Teacher’ s Handbook: Contex tualizing Language Instruction (4 th ed., Shrum & Glisan)
Chapter 2 Summary
Contextualizing Language Instruction to Address Goals of the Standards for Foreign Language Learning
In this chapter, you will learn about:
2
§ the chronological development of language teaching
§ context
§ proficiency
§ Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21 st Century (philosophy, development, goal areas, content standard, progress indicator, learning scenario)
§ PreK–12 English Language Proficiency Standards
§ bottom-up/top-down approaches to teaching
§ textbook evaluation
2
Teach and Reflect: Developing a Learning Scenario; Contextualizing the Teaching of a Past Tense Grammar Point; Using the Standards at the Post-Secondary Level
Discuss and Reflect: Teachers Talking Textbooks
Conceptual Orientation
In the past several decades, language instruction in the U.S. has focused on the use of language for real-life, interactive purposes, and has been significantly influenced by (1) the concept of assessing and teaching for language proficiency and (2) student standards published at the national level for foreign languages and English as a Second Language, both of which have served as an impetus for contextualized language instruction. The goal of communicative language teaching can only be realized if instruction occurs within meaningful contexts. Context refers to the “interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs” (Merriam-Webster, 2003, p. 270). We might think of it as those events or circumstances that come before or after or surround a communication between or among people. Context includes the setting, topic, situation, purpose, actors, roles, cultural assumptions, goals, and motivation. For our purposes as language teachers, context refers to the degree to which meaning and situations from the world outside the classroom are present in an instructional approach, method, or classroom activity, thus engaging learners in constructing meaning and in using L2 to communicate and acquire new information.
In this chapter, you will see the history of the profession unfold and you will explore how methods, perspectives about language learning, assessment, and standards have led to a new view of language learning as meaningful, purposeful, and accomplished through contextualized practice.
A Historical View of Context in Foreign Language Instruction
Appendix 2.1illustrates the chronological development of language teaching in terms of key time periods when particular approaches and/or methods were used. This section presents a brief discussion of the key methods featured in Appendix 2.1, in terms of their impact on the development of foreign language teaching. The earliest method, used in the teaching of Latin and Greek, was the Grammar-Translation (G-T) method, which focused on translation of printed texts, learning of grammatical rules, and memorization of bilingual word lists. Context played no role in this teaching method, except to help explain the translation. The Direct Method appeared in reaction to G-T and its emphasis was on teaching speaking through visuals, exclusive use of the TL, and inductive teaching in which students subconsciously “pick up” grammar rules and guess meaning within context. The Audiolingual Method (ALM), which brought a new emphasis to listening and speaking, advocated teaching the oral skills by means of stimulus-response learning: repetition, dialogue memorization, and manipulation of grammatical pattern drills (Lado, 1964). Therefore, speaking in the ALM mode usually meant repeating after the teacher, reciting a memorized dialogue, or responding to a mechanical drill
You will notice the lack of context in such a drill—there is little apparent meaning nor a situation in the world outside the classroom where one would interact in this way. Since the language was presented in dialogues, drills typically used in the ALM method deceptively appeared to be contextualized. In actuality, students can complete a mechanical drill successfully by simply following the pattern, without even knowing the meaning of what is being said. Learners were seldom exposed to meaningful, contextualized input and were unable to transfer the memorized material into spontaneous communication. The ALM methodology dominated language teaching in the 1950s and 1960s, primarily because large numbers of pre- and in-service teachers were trained and re-trained in summer institutes funded by the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) (Hadley, 2001).
The cognitive approaches, first proposed in the 1960s, promoted more meaningful language use and creativity (Ausubel, 1968). This cognitive view was based largely on Chomsky’s (1965) claims that an individual’s linguistic knowledge does not reflect conditioned behavior but rather the ability to create an infinite number of novel responses. In this theoretical framework, learners must understand the rules of the language before they can be expected to perform or use the language. However, although the cognitive approaches advocate creative language practice, usually related to varied contexts, there is often little time left for communicative language use in real-world contexts due to extensive discussion about grammar rules in either a deductive or an inductive mode and mechanical practice.
The 1970s saw a more communicative approach to teaching language, as pointed out by Savignon: “the development of the learner’s communicative abilities is seen to depend not so much on the time they spend rehearsing grammatical patterns as on the opportunities they are given to interpret, to express, and to negotiate meaning in real-life situations” (1997, p. xi). She further suggested the development of a communicative approach that includes appealing topics, a functional treatment of grammar, and emphasis on communication rather than on formal accuracy in the beginning stages.
Several methods for teaching language that were developed since the late 1970s reflect many of Savignon’s ideas for a communicative approach. Detailed in Appendix 2.1, they include:
1. The Natural Approach (Terrell 1982), a modern-day version of the Direct Method;
2. Total Physical Response Method (TPR) by Asher, Kusudo, & de la Torre (1974);
3. Silent Way (Gattegno, 1976);
4. Community Language Learning (Curran, 1976); and
5. Suggestopedia (Lozanov, 1978).
The Role of Context in Proficiency-Oriented Instruction
By the end of the 1970s, it was clear that the profession needed a nationally recognized procedure for assessing language proficiency and some consensus on defining proficiency goals for second language programs. The President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies in 1978, the Modern Language Association-American Council on Language Studies (MLA-ACLS) Task Force, and the Educational Testing Service (ETS), initiated a project to adapt the U. S. Department of State’s Foreign Service Institute (FSI) proficiency scale and oral interview procedure for use in academic contexts (Liskin-Gasparro, 1984). This work, which was continued in 1981 by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), in consultation with MLA, ETS, and other professional organizations, ultimately led to the development and revisions of the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL, 1999).
These guidelines define what language users should be able to do with the language in speaking, listening, reading, and writing, at various levels of performance. These guidelines, which marked a shift from a focus on methodology to a focus on outcomes and assessment, continue to have a great impact on language instruction. Although neither a curricular outline nor a prescribed syllabus or sequence of instruction in and of themselves, the guidelines have implications for instructional strategies, the setting of performance expectations, and performance-based assessment.
The proficiency framework assesses language ability in terms of four interrelated criteria:
1. global tasks or functions: linguistic tasks, such as asking for information, narrating and describing past events, and expressing opinions;
2. contexts/content areas: the sets of circumstances, linguistic or situational, in which these tasks are performed and the topics that relate to these contexts (e.g., context—in a restaurant in Mexico; content—ordering a meal);
3. the accuracy with which the tasks are performed: the grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, fluency, sociolinguistic appropriateness or acceptability of what is being said within a certain setting, and the use of appropriate strategies for discourse management; and
4. the oral text type that results from the performance of the tasks: discrete words and phrases, sentences, paragraphs, or extended discourse (Swender, 1999, p. 2). Language practice that is contextualized and reflects real-world use forms the foundation for an approach that seeks to develop proficiency.2
Key point: The proficiency framework assesses language ability in terms of global tasks or functions,
contexts/content areas, accuracy, and oral text type.
An Introduction to the Standards for Foreign Language
Learning ( SFLL ) in the 21 st Century
In 2006, the third edition of the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21 st Century was published, containing standards for the elementary, secondary, and post-secondary levels (K–16) as well as language-specific versions of the standards and learning scencarios created by the professional organizations in Arabic, Chinese, classical languages, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. The vast majority of states have developed student standards based entirely or in large part on the national standards, abbreviated as SFLL in this text.
Organizing Principles: Philosophy, Goal Areas, Standards
The work on proficiency during the past two decades has placed the profession in an excellent position to define what students should know and be able to do with a foreign language they learn. Although influenced by the proficiency guidelines, the standards do not represent communication as four separate skill areas of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Standards define the central role of foreign language in the learning experiences of all learners, and they have the potential for a lasting impact in the future by placing content (i.e., gaining access to information in a range of areas of inquiry and human activity) as the central focus for instruction (NSFLEP, 2006). The NSFLEP task force developed a Statement of Philosophy, shown in Appendix 2.4, that describes key assumptions leading to five goal areas that reflect a rationale for foreign language education. These goals are known as the “Five Cs of foreign language education”: Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, Communities.
Key point: The Five Cs of foreign language education are Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, Communities.
As Figure 2.1 illustrates, these five goals interconnect to suggest the richness of human language; no one goal can be separated from the other, nor is any one goal more important than another. Each goal area contains two to three content standards that describe the knowledge and abilities that all students should acquire by the end of their high school education in order to achieve the goals. Figure 2.2 illustrates the five goals and eleven standards. Each goal area and standards, as they relate to topics in Teacher’s Handbook, will be explored in depth in subsequent chapters. The research base, theories, and instructional models related to each goal area will also be presented.
Key point: Content standard = what students should know and be able to do
These 11 standards are content standards, which describe what students should know and be able to do. They are not performance standards, which address the issue of how well students demonstrate competency in subject matter (e.g., the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines). Individual states and school districts are responsible for determining performance standards for their students and for answering the question, “How good is good enough?” However, to assist states and districts in this task, the standards document includes sample progress indicators for grades four, eight, and twelve that define student progress in meeting the standards but are not themselves standards. The following is an example of these progress indicators:
Goal area: Cultures – Gain understanding of other cultures
Standard 2.1: Students demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between the practices and perspectives of the cultures studied.
Sample progress indicators:
Grade 4: Students use appropriate gestures and oral expressions for greetings, leave takings, and common classroom interactions.
Grade 8: Students observe, analyze, and discuss patterns of behavior typical of their peer group.
Grade 12: Students identify, examine, and discuss connections between cultural perspectives and socially approved behavioral patterns. (NSFLEP, 2006, pp. 50–51)
Key point: Sample progress indicator = defines student progress in meeting standards
To assist teachers in addressing the standards in their classroom instruction, the SFLL include learning scenarios, each of which is a series of learner-centered activities based on a specific theme or unit of instruction and integrated so that one activity is the basis for the subsequent activity (e.g., a listening activity provides the content for a small-group discussion).
Key point: Learning scenario = series of learner-centered activities based on a specific theme and integrated so that
One activity is the basis for the next
To address expectations of what learners should be able to do in terms of both proficiency and key areas of the standards, ACTFL published its ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K–12 Learners (ACTFL, 1998). The guidelines take into account the various sequences of language instruction that typically exist in American schools and outline language performance expectations, depending on the length and nature of students’ learning experiences. These guidelines describe language performance evidenced by K–12 students at the benchmarks of language development labeled Novice Range, Intermediate Range, and Pre-advanced Range (see Appendix 2.5) Each of these learner ranges defines the following areas of student performance within the three modes of communication (Interpersonal, Interpretive, Presentational):
§ Comprehensibility: How well are they understood?
§ Comprehension: How well do they understand?
§ Language Control: How accurate is their language?
§ Vocabulary Use: How extensive and applicable is their vocabulary?
§ Communication Strategies: How do they maintain communication?
§ Cultural Awareness: How is their cultural understanding reflected in their communication?
Focus on Context: The Weave of Curricular Elements
The Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21 st Century (NSFLEP, 2006) broaden the definition of the content of the language curriculum. Figure 2.3 depicts the elements that should be woven into language learning: language system, cultural traits and concepts, communication strategies, critical thinking skills, and learning strategies. In addition, other subject areas and technology are also important elements in a standards-driven curriculum.
The language system goes beyond grammar rules and vocabulary; it also includes sociolinguistic elements of gestures and other forms of nonverbal communication, discourse style, and “learning what to say to whom and when” (p. 33). In addition to being able to use the language system, learners must be able to identify key cultural concepts that will facilitate sensitive and meaningful interaction. Communication strategies include circumlocution, guessing intelligently, making hypotheses, asking for clarification, and making inferences. Students use critical thinking skills to apply their existing knowledge to new tasks, incorporate new knowledge, and identify and analyze issues to arrive at informed decisions and to propose solutions to problems. In assuming greater responsibility for their own learning, students use learning strategies such as organizing their learning, previewing new tasks, summarizing, using questioning strategies, and inferring information from a text. By exploring interesting and challenging content and topics, students can enhance their learning of the language while expanding their knowledge of other subject areas. Additionally, increased access to a wide range of forms of technology enables learners to use their linguistic skills to establish interactions with peers and to learn about the contemporary culture of the target country.