Advanced Low Language Proficiency–An Achievable Goal? Aleidine Kramer Moeller University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Amoeller2@Unl.Edu

Home , Foreign Language Annals

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Learning and Teacher Education Education

5-2013 Advanced Low Language Proficiency–An Achievable Goal? Aleidine Kramer Moeller University of Nebraska–Lincoln, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub Part of the Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education Commons, and the Secondary Education and Teaching Commons

Moeller, Aleidine Kramer, "Advanced Low Language Proficiency–An Achievable Goal?" (2013). Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education. 158. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub/158

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in The Modern Language Journal 97:2 (2013), pp. 549-553; doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12021.x Copyright © 2013 The Modern Language Journal; published by John Wiley Inc. Used by permission. Published online May 24, 2013 digitalcommons.unl.edu

Advanced Low Language Proficiency– An Achievable Goal? Aleidine J. Moeller University of Nebraska–Lincoln

A standard of language proficiency recommended of transferability have not been addressed, there- for world language preservice teachers has been fore precluding these assessments from recogni- set at advanced low as defined by the ACTFL Pro- tion by IHE. ficiency Guidelines. The National Council for the The ACTFL OPI, and WPT are the most cited Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) re- and preferred measures for scholarly inquiry in quires that foreign language teacher candidates the area of language acquisition and assessment. in specific languages (e.g., French, German, Span- However, issues have emerged in the literature ish) achieve the Advanced Low (AL) rating on the citing a lack of empirical research that has veri- American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Lan- fied their validity and reliability (Salaberry, 2000) guages (ACTFL) Oral Proficiency interview (OPI) and the interview format rather than a conversa- and the Writing Proficiency Test (WPT). They stip- tion format has been called into question (Johnson, ulate that 80% of preservice teachers must suc- 2001). Matters of expense of the test and lack of cessfully demonstrate an AL level of language feedback are additional areas of concern that have proficiency in order to achieve NCATE program been voiced. accreditation. Many questions and concerns have emerged as a result of this policy that can benefit Why has Advanced Low been Designated as the from national inquiry and discussion. Minimum Proficiency Standard for Beginning Many states have complied with this standard Language Teachers? and set the bar for entry into the teaching profession at advanced low (AL) for western languages, The AL level was based largely upon SLA theories such as Spanish, French, German, Italian, and In- that emphasize the importance of input in the tar- termediate High (IH) for nonwestern languages, get language that focuses on meaning and induces such as Japanese, Chinese and Russian. How- communicative interaction (Chambless, 2012). ever, this policy has posed challenges for insti- Speakers negotiate meaning with one another tutions of higher education (IHE) and has been (Long, 1996), they make use of strategies such received with mixed reviews and numerous ques- as turn-taking to enhance communication (Hall, tions about how this language proficiency pol- 2010) and they participate in real-life conversa- icy was determined and how it will be assessed tions (Hall, 1999, 2004). According to the ACTFL and documented. Several states have established Web site (http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/In- a formal testing protocol with the ACTFL Test- dex.cfm?pageid=3385), the AL level has been es- ing Office, Language Testing International (LTI), tablished for beginning teachers because in order to assess teacher candidate speaking and writ- to provide learning experiences that are in conso- ing proficiency using the ACTFL OPI and WPT nance with the expectations outlined in the stu- tests, while others have developed and adminis- dent standards, foreign language teachers must be tered their own assessments. In addition to these able to provide effective oral input that is charac- tests, international language exams such as DELF terized by fluency and spontaneity. Teachers must (France) and Test DaF (Germany) exist, but issues be able to speak in paragraphs and in major time

549 550 A l e i d i n e M o e l l e r i n T h e M o d e r n L a n g u a g e J o u r n a l 97 (2013) frames (i.e., present, past, future). Teachers at the students themselves must play a pivotal role in this pro- AL level and higher have the ability to speak in cess as they self-assess their abilities against established spontaneous, connected discourse and thus are standards. Systematic self-assessment of language able to provide the type of classroom environment skills as measured against a standard will ensure that is necessary for language acquisition to oc- students are aware of their language strengths and cur. Teachers who cannot speak in connected dis- weaknesses. Once language gaps are recognized, course and in major time frames do not have the they can be addressed through a variety of options tools necessary for addressing communication in that support development toward advanced low the 3 modes as defined in the K–16 student stan- proficiency (see Pearson, Fonseca–Greber, & Foell, dards. That is, they cannot provide target lan- 2006). When the end goal of AL proficiency is not guage input in the classroom at a level necessary integrated into the course work, nor made transpar- to develop students’ interpretive skills or to guide ent throughout the preservice (see further down, students in interacting with others in interpersonal consistency) and language programs, a one time contexts. Teachers who are not at least AL speak- high stakes proficiency test prior to student teachers have difficulty serving effectively as facilitators ing is feared and test takers often express frustra- in helping students to negotiate meaning with one tion that the test didn’t really reflect what they can another and to function spontaneously in the TL. do with language (Burke, 2013). When a preservice Teachers below the AL of oral proficiency are typ- teacher has achieved a strong GPA in his/her ma- ically, at best, “textbook teachers” who need the jor, successfully completed field experiences and answer key in order to function in the classroom. then fails to achieve an acceptable language profi- It is difficult to counter these arguments. The ciency score, there is surely a major disconnect in foundational cornerstone of teaching competen- program goals. Having invested 4 years in the pur- cies is strong content knowledge in one’s chosen suit of their profession, these individuals are forced discipline. Research has documented that optimal to reevaluate their careers. Consequently, several use of L2 increases language proficiency among states have lowered the required proficiency level learners (Larsen–Freeman, 1985; Lightbown, 1991; to IH (i.e., Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, Wiscon- Liu, 2008; Turnbull, 2001). It thus seems logical to sin), arguing that the challenges to reach AL have assume that teachers who possess language skills been too great. In Ohio, which is experiencing a that allow them to provide meaningful input and shortage of language teachers, fear exists that set- create a learning environment rich in language ting the bar at AL may discourage future teachers and culture will result in higher language learning from entering the field. Utah, however, requires AL among her students. There is, however, little em- for all language teachers and AM for dual immer- pirical research to support the hypothesis that, all sion schools. These states exemplify the dissonance other things being equal, teachers with higher lev- that exists between professional beliefs and practi- els of language proficiency provide higher profi- cal reality (Swender, 2003). ciency learning for their students. One of the major questions that emerges is In the scholarly literature, subject matter whether exclusively classroom-based learning knowledge is explored primarily through a mea- is able to bring students from zero proficiency to sure of content coursework credits; occasionally the AL level during a 4 year university experi- actual tests of subject–matter knowledge are ad- ence. Swender (2003, p. 525) noted that “reaching ministered to teachers. The latter are considered to the AL level of oral proficiency requires not just be more valid than the former primarily because more foreign language study at the University, contextual evidence is rarely provided concerning but also a minimum of 1 year of study abroad.” the nature of the coursework or the performance Schulz (2002, p. 5) notes “it is generally accepted, of individuals in content–related courses. Research and documented by research, that few learners tends to indicate that what teachers know about will be able to jump the hurdle from an ‘Interme- what they are teaching has a positive effect on pu- diate’ to an ‘Advanced’ rating on the ACTFL OPI pils’ learning gains (Darling–Hammond, 2000; scale without an experience abroad,” an assertion Harris & Sass, 2007; Monk, 1994). supported by Fraga–Canadas (2010), Malone et al. An important issue regarding assessment is (2003) and Sieloff–Magnan and Back (2007). how preservice programs and teachers and lan- According to Ericsson and Smith’s theory of ex- guage learners use proficiency assessments to en- pertise, excellence at performing a complex task sure progress toward the AL proficiency goal. The (i.e., teaching, basketball, leadership) requires a A d v a n c e d L o w L a n g u a g e P r o f i c i e n c y —A n A c h i e v a b l e G o a l ? 551 critical minimum level of practice (Ericsson & that allow the students to document and, more im- Smith, 1991). The magic number for true exper- portantly, reflect on their own learning process to tise has been set by researchers at 10,000 hours, or assess their skills. This will lead to more critical the equivalent of 10 years of practice. Much has thinking about what they must and can do to meet been written and studied about excellent teach- these milestones during the entire teacher educa- ing and the variables involved in assessing “highly tion process. Consistent effort, goal setting and qualified” teachers. Shulman (1986) introduced much practice, and a standard by which to mea- the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) frame- sure progress will ensure that students are aware work which represents the combination of con- of their language abilities. The better teacher can- tent and pedagogy needed in order to understand didates understand what is expected of them to how particular aspects of content matter are ade- meet the requirement of speaking and writing at quately represented for instruction. According to the AL level prior to seeking teaching certification, Shulman, content knowledge “refers to the amount the more likely they are to achieve this goal (Ball, and organization of knowledge per se in the mind 2010). Much like the vertical model created by the of the teacher” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9). Pedagogy re- AP College Board that posits that preparation for fers to how knowledge goes beyond the knowledge the AP exam should begin in level one language of subject matter, thus getting to the dimension classes and be reinforced in each subsequent class of teaching. PCK thus encompasses both knowl- to ensure success on the AP exam, the preparation edge of subject matter as well as how that knowl- for the ACTFL OPI and WPT must begin at the on- edge can be effectively taught. To determine some- set of the language experience, be modeled in each one’s ability, or PCK, by focusing on content alone subsequent language class, and carried into the may eliminate a potentially strong candidate from world language teacher education program. the teaching pool. For a profession as complex as teaching, perhaps a professional development plan Self–Fulfilling Prophecy that follows language teachers into the teacher in- duction period and beyond, that clearly identifies A powerful argument for setting the bar high short- and long-term goals specific to language pro- at Advanced Low (AL) is research that shows ficiency, might offer a pathway to continual lan- that when teachers expect their students to show guage growth and meaningful professional de- greater intellectual development, their students velopment that can be documented and measured tend to conform to those expectations, a dynamic over time rather than through one single measure- that Merton (1968) and Rosenthal and Jacobson ment at one point in time. It would seem that a (1992) term “self–fulfilling prophecy” and the teaching portfolio that presents multiple forms of “Pygmalion effect.” Chambless (2012) reports that, evidence of teaching skills, knowledge and dispo- based on 2 large-scale studies that examined pro- sitions as determined by the NCATE/ACTFL Be- ficiency levels of FL teacher candidates (Hamlyn, ginning Teacher Standards would provide a more Surface, & Swender, 2007; Swender et al., 2011) comprehensive profile of the skills and knowledge the overwhelming majority who took the OPI, of a beginning and developing teacher. be it with a score of IH or AL, reached that stan- The responsibility for creating a successful lan- dard. She concludes: “It is reasonable to assume guage program that optimizes language profi- that candidates tend to rise to the level that is ex- ciency within the IHE structure requires collabora- pected of them” (Chambless, 2012, p. 151). The tion and cooperation across departments, colleges, power of a teacher’s expectations to either encour- and education agencies and organizations—not a age student achievement or discourage it has been lowering of standards! demonstrated to exist at every level of schooling. Simply studying abroad will not necessar- Rhem (1999) interviewed Rosenthal about the role ily improve language proficiency as individu- of self-fulfilling prophecy and posed the question als can choose not to integrate into the commu- of how the Pygmalion phenomenon may show nity and can surround themselves with friends up in higher education. Rosenthal responded: “In who speak their native language. However, care- what you teach, if you think your students can’t ful identification of stepping stones, or milestones achieve very much, are perhaps not too bright, that guide the language acquisition process and you may be inclined to teach simple stuff, do a lot the study abroad experience can provide much of drills, read from your lecture notes, give simple direction if accompanied by self-assessment tools assignments calling for simplistic factual answers; 552 A l e i d i n e M o e l l e r i n T h e M o d e r n L a n g u a g e J o u r n a l 97 (2013) that’s one important way it can show up” (Rhem, References 1999, p. 2). Upon a thorough review of beginning Ball, M. I. (2010). Levels of the oral proficiency skills of and intermediate language textbooks it becomes foreign language teacher candidates as rated by teacher evident that in many such books, low expecta- educators: A descriptive study. (Unpublished doc- tions are set for student achievement by “teaching toral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Co- the simple stuff,” a focus on informal conversa- lumbus, OH). tion and interaction, and “simple assignments that Chambless, K. S. (2012). Teachers’ oral proficiency elicit simplistic factual answers.” in the target language: Research on its role in lan- We have seen this confirmed in language class- guage teaching and learning. Foreign Language An- rooms through teachers’ use of the target lan- nals, 45, S141–S162. guage. Teachers who don’t believe their students Darling–Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and can comprehend the message if they use L2 in student achievement: A review of state policy ev- the classroom revert to using L1. An understand- idence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 1–50. ing of comprehensible input, how to apply this in Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Toward a general the language classroom (e.g., dual coding in teach- theory of expertise. New York: Cambridge Univer- ing vocabulary), and evaluating the effect, or im- sity Press. pact on language learning and motivation would Fraga–Canadas, C. P. (2010). Beyond the classroom: provide compelling reasons to reevaluate one’s Maintaining and improving language proficiency. beliefs. Much as language and culture are inter- Foreign Language Annals, 45, 395–421. twined, so are language development and lan- Hall, J. K. (1999). The communication standards. In J. guage teaching. As has been pointed out in the K. Phillips & R. M. Terry (Eds.), Foreign language research, teachers often teach the way they were standards: Linking research, theories, and practices taught. It is most important, therefore, that lan- (pp. 15–56). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook guage professors use the latest language peda- Co. gogy/best practices in teaching language that Hall, J. K. (2004). Language learning as an interac- models this for future teachers. When an individ- tional achievement. Modern Language Journal, 88, ual experiences this firsthand, the process of un- 607– 612. derstanding is significantly enhanced as there is Hall, J. K. (2010). Interaction as method and result of a frame for reference from which one can unpack language learning. Language Teaching, 43, 202–215. the experience and reevaluate one’s beliefs. Hamlyn, H., Surface, E. A., & Swender, E. (2007). Change is always uncomfortable, but neces- What proficiency testing is telling us about teacher sary for continued growth. The decision to re- certification candidates. Presentation at the Annual quire an AL level of proficiency is a natural Conference of the American Council of Teachers consequence of standards we have set for our of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), San Antonio, TX. profession and our students. Required will be Harris, D. N.,& Sass, T. R. (2007). Teacher training, a thoughtful examination of how we teach lan- teacher quality, and student achievement. Calder guage, how we prepare teachers, how we collab- Working Paper #3. Washington DC: The Urban orate across colleges in order to ensure that our Institute. Retrieved from http://www.calder- students are optimally prepared to teach lan- center.org/ publications.cfm#2007 guage and content with an ease of use that does Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support not interfere with communication and that pro- Consortium. (2013). INTASC standards devel- motes a language and culture rich learning envi- opment. Retrieved from http://programs.cc- ronment. Rather than viewing this as a top-down sso. org/projects/interstate_new_teacher_as- decision, it should be regarded as being at the sessment_ and_support_consortium/projects/ heart of setting standards to ensure that all stu- standards_development/ dents have the same opportunity to learn and be Johnson, M. (2001). The art of non-conversation: A reex- optimally prepared for life in the 21st century. All amination of the validity of the oral proficiency inter- constituents (learners, teachers, language depart- view. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ments, education departments) have a role in en- Larsen–Freeman, D. (1985). State of the art on input suring that AL is not an elusive, but both a desir- in second language acquisition. In S. M. Gass & C. Input in second language acquisi- able and an achievable goal. G. Madden (Eds.), tion (pp. 433–444). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. A d v a n c e d L o w L a n g u a g e P r o f i c i e n c y —A n A c h i e v a b l e G o a l ? 553

Lightbown, P. (1991). What do we have here? Some Rhem, J. (1999). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Na- observations on the influence of instruction on tional Teaching and Learning Forum, 8, 1–4. L2 learning. Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Re- Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1992). Pygmalion in the search, 97–212. classroom. New York: Irvington. Liu, J. (2008). L1 use in L2 vocabulary learning: Fa- Salaberry, R. (2000). Revising the revised format of cilitator or barrier? International Education Studies, the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview. Language 1, 66–70. Testing, 17, 289–310. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environ- Schulz, R. (2002). Changing perspectives in foreign ment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie language education: Where do we come from? & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language ac- Where are we going? Foreign Language Annals, 35, quisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic 285–292. Press. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowl- Malone, M., Rifkin, B., Christian, D., & Johnson, D. edge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, (2003). Attaining high levels of proficiency: Challenges 15, 4–14. for language education in the United States. Paper Sieloff–Magnan, S., & Back, M. (2007). Social interac- presented at the Conference on Global Challenges tion and linguistic gain during study abroad. For- and U.S. Higher Education, Duke University, Dur- eign Language Annals, 40, 43–61. ham, NC. January 23, 2003. Swender, E. (2003). Oral proficiency testing in the real Merton, R. K. (1968). The reward and communica- world: Answers to frequently asked questions. tion systems of science are considered. Science, 159 Foreign Language Annals, 36, 520–526. (3810), 56–63. Swender, E., Surface, E., Cahoon, M., & Glisan, E. Monk, D. (1994). Subject area preparation of second- (2011). Advancing professional standards: Are teach- ary mathematics and science teachers and student ers and programs making the grade? Presentation at achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13, Annual Conference of the American Council of 125–145. Teachers of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), Denver, Pearson, L., Fonseca–Greber, B., & Foell, K. (2006). CO, November 18, 2011. Advanced proficiency for foreign language Turnbull,M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in sec- teacher candidates: What can we do to help them ond and foreign language teaching, but . . . Cana- achieve this goal? Foreign Language Annals, 39, dian Modern Language Review, 57, 531540. 507– 519.