EXPLORING TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF ASSESSMENT IN LANGUAGES: THE FRENCH LEARNING PROGRESSION FRAMEWORK K-10
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.2368Keywords:
French language, assessment outcomes, language progression, language proficiency, teacher perceptions, assessment, intercultural competenceAbstract
The issues in languages education identified in all major languages reports suggest that too much ‘chopping and changing’ of program goals and assessment outcomes have deeply impacted languages education in Australia (Liddicoat, Curnow, Kohler, Scrimgeour and Morgan, 2007). This has resulted in levels of language proficiency that could be considered useful for students (LoBianco and Slaughter, 2009). By working from the notion of a language progression framework, the study draws on proficiency models developed for TESOL in Australia and the CEFR in Europe, in order to analyse current assessment practices in French language education. Then, through an exploration of teacher perceptions of the usefulness of a K-10 French Learning Progression Framework, the study found that teachers agreed on the ability of such an assessment tool to reveal students’ levels of language proficiency, and that this would help to increase learner motivation. The findings revealed that considerable differences exist in the approaches to assessment between primary and secondary programs and that this significantly impacts the implementation of such a framework. The study exposed pedagogical implications for assessment, such as the need for clearer assessment outcome descriptions and the need to assist teachers in their assessment of intercultural competence.
Article visualizations:
References
Alderson, J.C. (2007). The CEFR and the Need for More Research. The Modern Language Journal, 91: 4.
Arrowsmith, C. and Ravibabu Mandla, V. (2017). Institutional approaches for building intercultural understanding into the curriculum: an Australian perspective. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 41(4): 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2017.1337733
Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2016). Foundation to Year 10 Curriculum: Language, Language for Interaction (ACELA1428). Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/english/Curriculum/F10?y=F&y=7&y=8&y=9&y=10&s=LA&s=LT&s= LY&layout=1
Bazeley, P. (2009). Analysing Qualitative Data: More Than ‘Identifying Themes’. Malaysian Journal of Qualitative Research, 2, pp.6-22.
Board of Studies (BOS). (2013). Languages K-6: Syllabus and support documents. Sydney: Board of Studies.
Council of Europe (1996). Modern languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. A Common European Framework of Reference. Draft 2 of a framework proposal. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Djité, P.G. and Australian National Languages and Literacy Inst., Deakin. (1994). From Language Policy to Language Planning an Overview of Languages Other Than English in Australian Education. Washington, D.C.: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse,. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED381001
Donnelly, K. and Wiltshire, K. (2014). Review of the Australian Curriculum. Australian Government Department of Education
Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D. and McCormack-Steinmetz, A. (1991). Doing Qualitative Research: Circles within Circles. London: The Falmer Press.
Hasselgreen, A. (2013). Adapting the CEFR for the classroom assessment of young learners' writing. The Canadian Modern Language Review / La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 69(4): 415–435. DOI: 10.3138/cmlr.1705.415.
http://e-publications.une.edu.au/1959.11/15374
Hulstijn, J.H. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4): 663–667. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.006275.x.
LeComple, M.D., and Schensul, J.J. (1999). Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data. Book Five of The Ethnographer’s Toolkit, J.J. Schensul & M.D. LeCompte (Eds.). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, a division of Sage Publications.
Liddicoat A.J., Scarino A., Curnow T.J., Kohler M., Scrimgeour A. and Morgan A. (2007). An Investigation of the State and Nature of Languages in Australian Schools (190). Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). Retrieved from
Liddicoat, A.J. (2007). Language Planning and Policy: Issues in Language Planning and Literacy. Multilingual Matters, Buffalo, Toronto, 9781853599774.
Liddicoat, A.J. and Scarino, A. (2010). Introduction: Languages in Australian Education. In Anthony J. Liddicoat and Angela Scarino (eds) Languages in Australian Education: Problems, Prospects and Future Directions (pp. 1–8). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Liddicoat, A.J., Papademetre, L., Scarino, A. and Kohler, M. (2003). Report on intercultural language learning. Retrieved 11 May 2015, from http://www1.curriculum.edu.au/nalsas/pdf/intercultural.pdf on
Little, D. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. Modern Language Journal, 91(4): 645–653.
LoBianco, J. (2013). Language Policy: At the Centre and the Margins of Australian Multiculturalism. In A Jakubowicz and C Ho (eds), For those who've come across the seas… Australian multicultural theory, policy and practice (pp. 198–209). Australian Scholarly Publishing, North Melbourne.
LoBianco, J. and Slaughter, Y. (2009). Australian Council for Educational Research, Second languages and Australian schooling. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER.
McCracken, G. (1988). Qualitative Research Methods: The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412986229
Meisel J.M. (1980). Linguistic simplification. In S. Felix (ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues (pp. 13–40). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
Mislevy, R.J. (1995). Test Theory and Language-Learning Assessment. Language Testing, 12(3): 341–369.
Ozolins, U. (1993). The Politics of Language in Australia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Melbourne, 1993.
PISA. (2012). Programme for International Student Assessment. OECD. Retrieved 4 October 2015, from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/
Scarino, A. (2012). A rationale for acknowledging the diversity of learner achievements in learning particular languages in school education in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 35(3): 231–250.
Scarino, A. (2014). Situating the challenges in current languages education policy in Australia–unlearning monolingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism, 11(3): 289–306. DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2014.921176.
Trim, J.L.M. (1978). Some Possible Lines of Development of an Overall Structure for a European Unit/Credit Scheme for Foreign Language Learning by Adults, Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Appendix B.
Wright, B.D., and Grosse, M. (1993). How to set standards. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7(3), 315-316.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
