Language Placement and Beyond: Guidelines for the Design and Implementation of a Computerized Spanish Heritage Language Exam
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
77 Heritage Language Journal, 9(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.1.5 Spring, 2012 Language Placement and Beyond: Guidelines for the Design and Implementation of a Computerized Spanish Heritage Language Exam Sara Beaudrie University of Arizona Cynthia Ducar Bowling Green State University Abstract This paper outlines the design, implementation, and analysis of a computerized Spanish heritage language (SHL) placement exam. The exam created by the authors exemplifies how to design a simple yet effective placement exam with limited resources. It is suggested that an SHL placement exam should be developed in-house due not only to the diversity of student populations but also to the unique structure and content of distinct SHL programs. The paper contends that SHL placement should be a fluid process that allows for the input of students, instructors and administrators. The paper concludes by reminding readers that an essential component of the SHL placement examination process is a strong and well thought out recruitment and promotion program that needs to both precede and follow placement. Background Hispanics continue to be the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population; according to 2010 census data, the Hispanic/Latino population in the United States reached 50.5 million, more than double the 1990 population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). By 2050, the U.S. Hispanic population is expected to more than double again, reaching 132.8 million people, or 30% of the total U.S. population. In the fall of 2008, 12% of college students and 20% of K-12 students were Hispanic (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). These data alone warrant continued intense investigation of the pedagogical needs of Hispanic students throughout the educational system and particularly in institutions of higher education. Community colleges, small liberal arts colleges, and large universities alike are experiencing growing Hispanic enrollment. As Beaudrie (2011) notes, “Data from NCES (2007) shows that Hispanic student enrollment in degree-granting institutions increased from 353,000 to 1,667,000 from 1976 to 2004, a 372% rate of growth” (p. 1). More recently, between 2009 and 2010 there was a 24% increase in Hispanic student enrollment at these institutions (Tavernise, 2011). The desire of this growing population to maintain and develop their Spanish language abilities has fueled a growing interest in Spanish as a heritage language (SHL) classes at the university level. In fact, a recent survey by Beaudrie found that 40% of responding institutions now offer a SHL program, “a remarkable increase from the previous percentages of 18% in 1990…” (forthcoming). The growth in SHL programs has led to a simultaneous boom in research on SHL in the United States (see Beaudrie and Fairclough, forthcoming), yet there continues to be a dearth of research on how best to place these students into SHL classes (but see Fairclough, 2006; Fairclough, Belpoliti, and Bermejo, 2010; and Fairclough and Ramírez-Vera, 2009; this issue of the HLJ). As Schwartz (2001) states, “The issue of assessment is particularly difficult for the heritage languages profession and an area in Downloaded from Brill.com10/08/2021 03:49:34PM via free access 78 Heritage Language Journal, 9(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.1.5 Spring, 2012 which there has not been much work, either in the design of new instruments or in the validation of existing instruments (p. 242).” The present study addresses that issue by (a) providing concrete data on the reliability and validity of an SHL placement exam recently created at the University of Arizona, and (b) providing a step-by-step guide for the design and implementation of that same SHL exam. Perhaps most importantly, this paper also addresses the issue of what should be done after the exam to ensure both the retention and success of SHL students. Defining the SHL Learner Before addressing the myriad of issues complicating placement testing of this population, we must first define who precisely we consider to be an SHL learner, specifically in the University of Arizona context. At the University of Arizona, given the breadth of SHL program offerings (see Appendix), we include as many students as possible under the definition of SHL learner. We concur with Duisberg that a definition of the group should do “nothing to limit the diversity of students (thus) classified” (sic, 2001, p. 24). Thus, we define SHL students as “all individuals that have experienced a relatively extended period of exposure to the language, typically during childhood, through contact with family members or other individuals, resulting in the development of either receptive and/or productive abilities in the language, and varying degrees of bilingualism” (Beaudrie & Ducar, 2005, p. 13). Importantly, this definition allows for the inclusion of students who may not be Hispanic but may “feel” Hispanic (this group often includes students who were raised by a Spanish-speaking caretaker, students who married and/or are dating a Spanish-speaking individual, etc., to give but two examples). In this respect, we concur with Lynch (2008), that “the most decisive factors leading to the linguistic similarities…are of a social nature” (p. 270); in other words, students’ social networks play a decisive role in the formation of their linguistic abilities. Thus defined, SHL learners exhibit “…linguistic processes and social factors attributed to both second language acquisition and to situations of language contact” (Lynch, 2003, p. 31). We recognize that our definition does not include students who feel a connection with the heritage language but have not been exposed to this language and therefore lack even receptive skills in the heritage language (i.e., what van Deusen-Scholl (2003) terms “learners with a heritage motivation”). This distinction is important, and is not meant to be exclusionary, for although we too consider these students to be heritage learners, their linguistic needs most parallel those of L2 students and therefore they will not be best served in an SHL class (see also Wiley, 2001). SHL classes at the University of Arizona thus include a range of individuals, from receptive bilinguals to students who have been formally schooled in their home countries in the heritage language. As Beaudrie (2009) found, even receptive bilinguals demonstrate greater listening comprehension abilities than their beginning level L2 peers. Lynch (2003) further notes that the typical SHL student tends to have better developed basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS). Krashen (2000) notes that L2 students often outperform their SHL peers on grammar tests; clearly both groups have distinct linguistic strengths and weaknesses, not to mention substantially different affective needs. These generalizations still lack much empirical research, however, and the precise linguistic differences between the two groups have not yet been clearly delineated. However, researchers do agree that there are indeed differences; in short, SHL students appear to outperform L2 peers in oral production and aural perception of the language (i.e., phonology); however, Downloaded from Brill.com10/08/2021 03:49:34PM via free access 79 Heritage Language Journal, 9(1) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.1.5 Spring, 2012 differences between the two groups are less clear at the morphosyntactic level (see Montrul (2010) for an overview). SHL Placement Exams: Goals and Realities Despite the growth in SHL programs, only half of those responding to Beaudrie’s survey reported using a placement exam for student placement (forthcoming 2). As González-Pino and Pino (2000) note, most SHL programs in U.S. universities utilize questionnaires, self-placement, interviews, and/or locally designed paper and pencil examinations. As can be seen, there is little agreement about what constitutes a placement exam in the SHL context. The inherent diversity of SHL students discussed previously adds a second complicating factor, for not only do SHL students encompass a wide range of linguistic competencies, but due to the diverse origins of the U.S. Hispanic population, they also have a wide range of cultural backgrounds, from those who can trace their Spanish heritage back to the sixteenth century to recently arrived immigrants from numerous Latin American nations. It is safe to say that all the Spanish-speaking nations of the world are represented in today’s U.S. Spanish-speaking population, although a majority (66%) continues to be of Mexican origin (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). This complicates the issue of diversity by adding not only the obvious cultural element but also a linguistic element. Real Academia Española (n.d.) recognizes 22 separate academies of language, and thus 22 “standard” dialects of Spanish. Add to that the fact that some individuals have not been formally schooled in Spanish, and the linguistic heterogeneity of the population is multiplied yet again. Ideally, all universities would be able to offer a range of courses to accommodate this heterogeneous group of students. However, as Beaudrie (in press) documents, “The vast majority of programs offer one (72, or 43%) or two (64, or 38%) courses, whereas programs with four or more courses are practically nonexistent.” The fact that a majority of universities (81%) offer only one or two SHL courses presents an additional set of placement issues. Who qualifies as an SHL student and what competence levels are necessary to qualify for the SHL course(s) clearly depend on the nature of the courses offered. Even more problematic is the reality that many programs call upon students to self-identify as heritage learners, yet the linguistic insecurity prevalent in this group of learners frequently leads them to underestimate their abilities (see Beaudrie & Ducar, 2005; Beaudrie, 2009). A well-designed placement exam must address all of these issues. Additionally, an SHL placement exam that is practical in one context may be entirely impractical in another. As a case in point, the University of Arizona’s current exam was devised for an institution offering six levels of SHL courses, but Beaudrie (forthcoming 2) found that only 2.4% of those responding programs offer such a range of courses.