The current ACFTL guideline to promote proficiency is for the L2 to be used at least 90% of the time in the classroom, including transactional and procedural exchanges.
In order to establish a “where we are” as a district and to have a baseline the second round of observations is focused on this (most important) of the ACTFL suggestions for high achieving programs.
The ACTFL standard assumes the Krashen stance of not merely 90% but teacher adapted communication so that whatever the level the L2 is comprehensible. (L2 + 1)
Methodology:
In each class the second consecutive 10 minutes (usually after the beginning of class) is the observation period. Each statement or response of the teacher or student during the lesson is recorded. (Conversations in English between students while the teacher was presenting were not included. This is a classroom management issue. For this to be a “true” representation those comments/remarks etc would be included.)
When more than one class was observed in one hour there was a ‘pause’ before recording (to allow for the distraction of my entrance) but not necessarily 10 minutes.
Native speaker classes will considered separately: use of the L2 is not a guideline in these cases, it is an expectation.
Limitations: the study assumes the time of the recording is as language rich as any other time during the lesson cycle, so a ‘true’ representation would require recording the entire hour. In theory, however, the 90% guideline should always be the goal, so the sample of any segment of the class should ostensibly be just as L2 language rich. It is also possible that some exchanges (both in English and the L2 were not heard by the observer. Hopefully the percentages would not vary.
The study will be shared generically with Smith teachers at an inservice to begin a conversation about our practices as language teachers. Hopefully this will help encourage teachers to be aware of their use of the L2 in class.
The summer 2018 LMAM and future PDs will address this challenge. This World Language Specialist suggests that this be a yearly study in order to provide feedback to teachers and department chairs.
All classes studied are non-native (or predominately non-native). NS classes were consistently at 90%+ during the observation period when instruction was ongoing. 8 non-native classes were omitted from the study because there was no instruction observed.
Level 1:
Range: teacher: 9% to 75%; student: 0% to 40%
L2
|
global
| |
students
|
14%
|
28%
|
teacher
|
35%
|
Level 2:
Range: teacher:11% to 95%; student: 0% to 67%
L2
|
global
| |
students
|
35%
|
54%
|
teacher
|
73%
|
Level 3/4:
Range: teacher: 37% to 100%; student: 0% to 100%
L2
|
global
| |
students
|
53%
|
63%
|
teacher
|
73%
|
First round:
Pre-PD observations:
Classes non observable during one week of rounds:
2 classes showing movie whole period
2 classes using quizzle etc. all period
1 class students just talking, using phones etc.
Second round:
Global trends: (focus of post PD was on level one classes: 8 of 13 classes observed)
Level one: Whole class: 28% to 58% Teacher: 35% to 60% Students: 14 % to 56%
Level two: Whole class: 54% to 52% Teacher: 73% to 61% Students: 53% to 43%
Levels ¾: 63% to 90% (too small of a sample in second round to be significant: the result is hopeful)
Only 1 class was observed but not recorded (students were organizing binders and completing a writing task using the language. Not inappropriate but not suitable for the study.)
All other classes had observable environments.
Caveat: 8 of the 13 classes observed in the second round were level 1, which should artificially lower the overall global score. Since the exact same classes were not necessarily observed in the second round the study can only demonstrate trends in the
Round one:
Level 1:Range: teacher: 9% to 75%; student: 0% to 40%
Round two:
Level 1: Range: teacher: 17% to 90%; student: 42% to 75%
Level 2:Range: teacher:11% to 95%; student: 0% to 67%
Round 2:
Level 2: Range: teacher:15% to 100%; student: 28% to 50%
Level 3/4:Range: teacher: 37% to 100%; student: 0% to 100%
Round 2:
Level 3/4: Range: teacher: 100%; student: 80%
(Only one level ¾ class was observed so the score may not represent all ¾ classes)
Round two:
Level 1: Range: teacher: 17% to 90%; student: 42% to 75%
L2
|
global
| |
students
|
56%
|
58%
|
teacher
|
60%
|
Level 2: Range: teacher:15% to 100%; student: 28% to 50%
L2
|
global
| |
students
|
43%
|
52%
|
teacher
|
61%
|
Level 3/4: Range: teacher: 100%; student: 80%
(Only one level ¾ class was observed so the score may not represent all ¾ classes)
L2
|
global
| |
students
|
80%
|
90%
|
teacher
|
100%
|
No comments:
Post a Comment