Proficiency-Based Instruction

CHAPTER 1

Introduction and Foundational Understandings

In this book, our goal is to equip teachers of any language and of any level with specific, practical, and straightforward tools to bring input and interaction to life in the classroom. Teaching for proficiency is fun and engaging for both students and their teachers, and the practices that are found in proficiency-based classrooms—while they may appear daunting at first—are easily implemented with the right guidance. Whether you are an experienced teacher looking to shift your practice toward proficiency-based instruction, or a beginning teacher just starting on your teaching journey, you will find numerous resources in this book to support your teaching—coupled with sample lessons from real teachers’ classrooms—that will make proficiency-based teaching a reality for you and your students.

While we believe that proficiency-based instruction leads to stronger student learning outcomes across all age groups and levels, we also feel strongly that it can help address issues of inequity and inequality in our classrooms. In many ways, the world language teaching profession is at a critical juncture. Will language learning continue to be viewed as elite and unattainable for the many students who have experienced the traditional grammar-driven approach or simply not had access to our courses? Or will teachers embrace proficiency-based instruction and teaching for equity, justice, and sustainability to ensure that every student has access to and is successful in language classrooms? Disparities in access to world language education are evident for different racial groups and genders (Baggett, 2016; Murphy & Lee, 2019; National Center for Education Statistics, 2017, qtd. in Glynn & Wassell, 2018, p. 19), and more private schools offer world language programs (particularly at the elementary level) than public schools (Pufahl & Rhodes, 2011). Students of color withdraw from language courses with more frequency than white students, and many are discouraged from even enrolling through counseling (Glynn & Wassell, 2018; Pratt, 2012). Teachers must examine their own implicit biases around who can succeed in world language learning, as well as take a close look at their curriculum. The curriculum that teachers engage students with must be culturally relevant and culturally sustaining, allowing all students to see themselves in the curriculum while also engaging with other cultures. We encourage our readers to explore Words and Actions: Teaching Languages Through the Lens of Social Justice (Glynn, Wesley, & Wassell, 2014) to begin the important work of reframing the curriculum to teach for social justice.

For students who are enrolled in language courses, do all learners have access to a similar quality of instruction? Morris (2005) found that teachers reserved communicative teaching for elite students, while students in non-honors tracks experienced more teaching in English, more drill-based activities, and more worksheets (p. 236). This finding supports our own experiences as world language teachers, where we regularly observed lower expectations for non-honors classes, stemming from beliefs that those students just wouldn’t be successful. As Morris states, foreign language educators must act to ensure that all learners have the opportunity to actually learn a language—not merely to study one (2005, p. 247). We couldn’t agree more. Proficiency-based instruction can provide the tools teachers need to ensure that students of all levels can experience success in their classes.

Reframing the curriculum to teach for social justice provides an opportunity to make world language education relevant and engaging for all learners, while affirming and sustaining their wonderfully diverse cultural identities and backgrounds. Retooling classroom practices to teach for proficiency equips teachers with the frameworks and strategies needed to provide high-quality instruction for all learners and at all levels. Teaching for social justice and proficiency-based instruction offers huge potential for world language education that is impactful, relevant, and effective and will help language teachers unlock the incredible potential of their learners. We hope the strategies and models of instruction presented in this book can be paired with a framework of teaching for equity and inclusion so that proficiency in another language can become a reality for all learners.

FIGURE 1.1.

The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines

Foundations of Proficiency-Based Instruction

The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines

Teaching for proficiency starts with a clear focus on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL, 2012), with the goal of supporting students in developing their proficiency with the target language. These guidelines help teachers describe and recognize what learners can do with language at different major proficiency levels: Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, Superior, and Distinguished. Each of these proficiency levels except for Superior and Distinguished is broken down into three sub-levels: Low, Mid, and High. Figure 1.1 provides a graphic visualization of the proficiency levels and sub-levels. These levels can help you be more precise in understanding what students can do with language as they progress through your program. While a deep dive into the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines is beyond the scope of this book, we invite you to dig into some of the resources included in the Level Up Your Learning section at the end of this chapter for more information, and to consult Appendix A, which includes the can-do descriptors for each proficiency level from the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements (ACTFL, 2017). We want to highlight that teaching for proficiency focuses first and foremost on what learners can do with language, not simply what learners know about language. Teaching for proficiency means that grammar is a tool for communication, not the primary focus or goal of instruction.

FIGURE 1.2.

The World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages

The World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages

Teaching for proficiency also asks you to build your curriculum and focus your instruction on the World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages (National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015), which center around the 5 Cs: Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, and Communities (Figure 1.2). The World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages guide curriculum and instruction.

While each of the 50 states in the United States directs the standards or curriculum frameworks for education within the state, a majority of states have either adopted or adapted the World-Readiness Standards (Phillips & Abbott, 2011). Table 1.1 provides a summary of each of the 5 C goal areas and standards.

The 5 C goal areas are designed to be interconnected, not focused on in isolation. Your curriculum and instruction, therefore, should ask students to communicate while investigating cultures, making comparisons, connecting to other content areas, and engaging with local and global target-language communities. As you will see in this book, the Classroom Close-Up examples included at the end of each chapter do not focus on only one C at a time. Communication in the target language is the bedrock of instruction, but students communicate about culture, making comparisons and connections to other disciplines while they engage with target-language communities. The 5 Cs are interwoven in proficiency-based instruction.

Proficiency vs. Performance

In proficiency-based instruction, the focus on developing students’ proficiency means engaging them in performance in the classroom. Proficiency levels indicate what students can do outside of the classroom when engaging with native speakers in unrehearsed, authentic contexts. Performance levels, on the other hand, indicate what students can do with support and appropriate scaffolds with learned and rehearsed material connected to their classroom learning. As you might imagine, students can perform at a higher level than their proficiency level. So you might have a class where you are targeting Novice High proficiency and expecting Intermediate-level performances. As learners build their performance levels across different topics and themes, their proficiency level advances as well. Performance is most often thought of when discussing performance assessments, but any classroom task that engages students in the three modes of communication (interpretive, interpersonal, and presentational) can be considered a performance if it attempts to replicate a real-world task. (We will explore communicative tasks in depth in Chapter 5.) For more information on performance assessment, we refer you to The Keys to Assessing Language Performance: A Teacher’s Manual for Measuring Student Progress (Sandrock, 2010).

The Core Practices for World Language Learning

The World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages (National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015) help teachers understand what they teach and the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL, 2012) help them understand what their learners can do with language and how they can progress through language programs. But how do teachers go about the task of actually teaching in a proficiency-based classroom? While certainly not an exhaustive list of teaching practices, the Core Practices for World Language Learning (ACTFL, n.d-a.) outline six specific practices that make up the heart of teaching for proficiency: facilitating target-language comprehensibility, guiding learners through interpreting authentic resources, designing oral interpersonal communication tasks, planning with a backward design model, teaching grammar as a concept and using it in context, and providing appropriate oral feedback. The Core Practices are shown in Figure 1.3.

FIGURE 1.3.

The Core Practices for World Language Learning

As you review these six core practices, you may notice that all but one of them involve input and interaction, the focus of this book. Target-language comprehensibility, using authentic resources, and teaching grammar as a concept all rely heavily on providing input in your instruction. Designing oral interpersonal tasks and providing oral feedback both involve interaction, either between teacher and student or student to student. Planning with the backward design model is a framework for unit and lesson design, which you will encounter in the Classroom Close-Up sections that are included in each chapter. In this book, you will find frameworks and strategies that will support you in putting many of the core practices into practice in your own classrooms.

Writing Communicative Student Learning Outcomes

We would like to highlight one additional concept that is essential when teaching for proficiency: writing communicative student learning outcomes. Writing learning outcomes is part of the backward design model, but in a world language classroom that is proficiency based, it is worth looking closely at a simple yet effective format for writing learning outcomes that will keep your focus on communication and support proficiency development:

I can + language function + context (+ proficiency level information).

I can keeps the focus on the learner and what the learner is able to do with the language. The language function identifies the communicative task (describe, identify, explain, ask and answer questions, debate, express my opinion, and so on). The context says what students are communicating about: family, friends, school, and so on. Proficiency level information may also be included to emphasize the type of language that is expected (using simple sentences and some detail, asking simple questions, and so on) (Sauer, 2016; Ritz, 2021). Here are a few examples:

Secondary-Level Lesson Learning Target:

I can

+ ask and answer questions (language functions)

+ about hunger and food waste in France. (context)

Elementary-Level Lesson Learning Target:

I can

+ find out and list (language functions)

+ favorite recess games here and in Mexico. (context)

Secondary-Level Unit Performance Target:

I can

+ identify, interact, and present information

(language function in each of the three modes)

+ on what makes a dish unique (context)

+ using simple sentences and questions with some detail.

(proficiency level information) (Ritz, 2021, p. 73, 76)

You will see this structure for writing communicative student learning outcomes used in all of the Classroom Close-Ups throughout this book.

The Interaction Approach in Second Language Acquisition

The importance that proficiency-based instruction places on input and interaction grew out of decades of research in second language acquisition. In this section, we will briefly highlight some of the major areas of research that underpin the classroom practices discussed in this book.

Input

A groundbreaking model that has greatly influenced the field, Stephen Krashen’s (1985) Monitor Model—including its Input Hypothesis—was revolutionary in reconceptualizing second language acquisition. The Input Hypothesis claims that humans acquire language in only one way—by understanding messages, or by receiving ‘comprehensible input’ (p. 2). Krashen defined comprehensible input as i + 1, with i being learners’ current level and +1 being learners’ next level (p. 2). The role of world language teachers, therefore, is to use the target language with their students at a level that is slightly above their current level. Forty years later, providing input in the language classroom continues to be viewed as vital for language learning and acquisition: In all approaches to second language acquisition, input is an essential component for learning in that it provides the crucial evidence from which learners can form linguistic hypotheses (Gass & Mackey, 2015, p. 180). The importance and necessity of comprehensible input for learners led directly to the ACTFL (2010) Position Statement on the Use of the Target-Language in the Classroom, which will be discussed more fully in Chapter 2. This position statement established a 90%+ target-language use standard in the world language classroom. That world language teachers should provide learners with significant quantities of comprehensible input is well established and without debate. However, research shows that only 36% of K-12 world language teachers use the target language for at least 75% of classroom time (Pufahl & Rhodes, 2011, p. 266).

Despite the unanimous consensus on the importance of input, Krashen’s Input Hypothesis remains highly controversial for a number of reasons, one of which is its stance that speaking is a result of acquisition and not its cause (Krashen, 1985, p. 2). In other words, from Krashen’s perspective, speaking is not a part of language acquisition, but is instead evidence of language acquisition. Many researchers and teachers (including us) disagree on this point, and some have gone so far as to call this a second language acquisition myth (Brown & Larson-Hall, 2012).

Output

Among those who disagreed with Krashen’s stance was Merrill Swain, who had been teaching in French immersion programs in Canada and observed the lack of progress among her students when only comprehensible input was provided (Gass & Mackey, 2015). Input alone allows learners to succeed in comprehending L2 texts, while only partly processing them (Mitchell, Myles, & Marsden, 2019, p. 59). Learners focus primarily on semantics (e.g., meaning) to make sense of what they read or listen to, and not on syntax (word order) or morphology (the way words are formed) (Mitchell, Myles, & Marsden, 2019, p. 59). Swain saw a role for output—pushing learners to focus on how they were constructing sentences and forming words—that was an important part of second language acquisition, and not simply the result of acquisition, as Krashen contended.

In Swain’s Output Hypothesis, output is viewed as having three clear functions that support language acquisition:

1.A noticing/triggering function, or what might be referred to as a consciousness-raising role

2.A hypothesis-testing function

3.A metalinguistic function, or what might be referred to as its reflective role (Swain, 1985, qtd. in Mitchell, Myles, & Marsden, p. 223)

Essentially, when students create output (speak or write) as part of the learning process, they become aware of what they know how to say and do not know how to say in the language, realizing that there are gaps in their language that they would otherwise not have noticed; they are able to test what they know about the language; and they may engage in reflection on their language use, as happens when learners ask for vocabulary words they need to communicate or ask to check if what they said was comprehensible. Other researchers would also point out that producing output helps learners use it more fluently (what is called automaticity) (Gass & Mackey, 2015) as well as receive feedback on their language use (Gass, 2013), which we will discuss more below.

While there are indeed limits on the effects of output (learner production) on language acquisition (VanPatten & Williams, 2015, p. 11), which may lead some to believe it is unimportant in our classrooms, we agree with the sentiment that "[w]e do not need research to tell us that using a language is beneficial for learning it" (Mitchell, Myles, & Marsden, 2019, p. 209, emphasis added).

Interaction

Along with Merrill Swain, researcher Michael Long (1996, qtd. in Lightbown & Spada, 2013) disagreed that input alone was sufficient for second language acquisition. His pioneering work focused on the importance of interaction, outlined in his Interaction Hypothesis. When learners interact (either with a native speaker or with another language learner), they

•Check for understanding;

•Negotiate for meaning, making both input and output comprehensible; and

•Receive positive and negative feedback on their language use. (Lightbown & Spada, 2013)

Like producing output, engaging in interaction is a powerful language learning opportunity because learners are able to check if what they are saying makes sense (i.e., check for understanding). When there is a breakdown in communication (either the learner says something that is incomprehensible, or the learner hears something they do not understand), learners engage in negotiation for meaning. They ask clarification questions—Sorry, what do you mean?—that require their speaking partner to rephrase what was said so that it becomes comprehensible. Or they are asked clarification questions by their speaking partner that help them realize where they have gaps in their knowledge and are pushed to rephrase what they have said (if they can) in order to make their output comprehensible. Furthermore, learners receive feedback on their language use, which can either be positive or negative. Positive feedback does not mean that the learner is told, good job! by the speaking partner. Rather, this means that the learner has communicated successfully. This should not be overlooked! For a learner who is nervous about using the target language, realizing that they understand what the other person is saying and that the other person understands them is quite a confidence booster. For a thorough discussion of providing oral corrective feedback (or negative feedback; the sixth ACTFL Core Practice, discussed above), we refer you to Chapter 6 of Enacting the Work of Language Instruction: High-Leverage Teaching Practices (Glisan & Donato, 2017).

The Interaction Approach

The Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985), the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985), and the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996) are subsumed into what researchers now refer to as the Interaction Approach (Gass & Mackey, 2015). Input remains an essential and necessary component of language acquisition; output pushes learners to use syntax (word order), morphology (the way words are formed), and vocabulary while developing more automatic and fluent language use and becoming aware of gaps in their knowledge; interaction allows learners to obtain needed feedback on their language use when they engage in negotiation for meaning. Without question, it is commonly accepted in the [second language acquisition] literature that there is a robust connection between interaction and learning (Gass & Mackey, 2015, p. 181). We couldn’t agree more! There are clear and strong connections between the Interaction Approach and our teaching practices, which will be explored throughout this book.

Overview of This Book

The Chapters

In Chapter 2, we look closely at how you can provide input through teacher target-language use. We start by identifying when English is appropriate to use in the classroom, which helps clarify the 90%+ expectation. We then dig into numerous specific strategies to ensure that your teacher target-language use is comprehensible to your students.

In Chapter 3, we shift our focus to providing input through the use of authentic resources, materials made by and for native speakers of the target language. We start by discussing how learners process what they read or hear, which will help you understand how to carefully select authentic resources that are appropriate for learners’ proficiency level. We then walk through the Interactive Model for Interpretive Communication, which provides specific steps and strategies for effectively using authentic resources in your classes.

Chapter 4 explores how to use input to support a focus on form in the world language classroom. We use an input first approach to teaching grammar as a concept