The MLA's Articulation Initiative:
High School to College in Foreign Language Programs

Framing the Discussion: Guidelines for Talking across Levels and Institutions; or, What I Have Learned from Participating in Articulation Nondialogues
Paul Sandrock, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

1. Get a Common Vision

Standards--what better place to begin! The national document Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the Twenty-First Century presents a professional consensus that can frame our discussion. The standards are K through life! The context for the journey may change depending on numerous factors (students' age, community resources, prior experiences, other curricular and extracurricular interests to which language learning can connect); however, the overarching goals (communication, culture, connections, comparisons, communities) as described by the document's eleven standards serve to keep learning focused on a common pathway toward increasing levels of proficiency.

2. Let the Common Vision Influence Each Local Curriculum

Language learning does not really depend on a tightly controlled common vocabulary or exactly the same sequence and knowledge of prescribed structures. Growth depends on students' experimenting with language about new content. Why, then, must all students have a common background in order to be successful in a new unit? Each new unit is really a new set of expressions to learn and functions to refine. If the curriculum for any given course truly reflects the common vision of the standards, then placement should depend on what students can do with language, not on the exact same prior exposure to vocabulary and structures.

3. Design Assessments to Prove the Connection of the Vision to the Curriculum

Create a flow of assessment that moves from the language pieces (vocabulary and structures) to more skill-based use of these pieces (listening, speaking, reading, writing, viewing, and showing) and reaches a true application piece (where multiple skills and knowledge come into use in a more real-world assessment task). The goal of assessment changes from a deficit model (find out what the students still don't know) to a constant attempt to show where the student is on the continuum of proficiency. Charting progress means that multiple factors have to be considered in order to get a clear picture of a student's strengths and the areas needing work.

4. Focus on Articulation as Placement

The goal of discussion on articulation is really that as students move from one system to another (middle school to senior high, for example), they join a course where they will feel both comfortable and challenged: comfortable in their prior preparation to function along with their classmates; challenged to continue to grow rather than redo vocabulary and structures until they have "perfected" an unrealistic syllabus! Placement into an incompatible system is not articulation.

5. Let Students In on What Really Counts

This new focus for assessment allows students to know the indicators of success. Self-evaluation and reflection make teacher evaluation and peer comments more meaningful as each student sets goals for the quarter. Imagine a student identifying a goal that becomes the focus for one component of the quarter grade. A student might identify as a goal increased amount and accuracy of speech in spontaneous situations or virtual elimination of adjective-agreement errors. The teacher then makes sure that there are numerous opportunities for practice, assessment, and evaluation of these areas, so that both the teacher and the student can chart progress and see that reflected in the course grade.

Articulation in Progress:
The University of Wisconsin System Competency-Based Admission Project

To give an example of how these principles are beginning to be put into place, I share the story of the University of Wisconsin System Competency-Based Admission Project. After two years of piloting, the project is showing positive results. Two key questions are still being answered: (1) How do we ensure that classroom teachers assess the competencies consistently? and (2) How do students admitted in the competency-based system fare compared with those in the traditional system?

Recognizing the need for providing alternatives to Carnegie units with high school reforms such as block scheduling and interdisciplinary instruction, the University of Wisconsin asked five subject-area task forces to determine competencies for admission purposes. The foreign language group wrote competencies in five areas (listening, speaking, reading, writing, culture), trying to represent the current seat-time admissions requirement of two years of high school instruction.

The assessment of the competencies rests on the senior high teachers. In some schools, the assessment begins in ninth grade and continues through twelfth grade, charting student progress throughout the language course work. Rubrics showing a continuum of proficiency in each of the five competency areas are used to help teachers rate students and chart their progress.

The competency ratings tentatively show high correlation with traditional admissions practices but have yet to be linked to university language-course placement. University departments need to adopt the competencies as their goals for early levels of instruction. Then the system would truly be seamless, with compatible assessment helping students make the transition. Articulation would clearly be in place. As the competency-based admission process moves from piloting to wide-scale usage, this potential remains an unfulfilled promise.

[continue to next article] [table of contents]

Copyright © Modern Language Association. All rights reserved. This page updated 9/10/98. Questions/comments to Steve Olsen, Manager and Editor, ADFL Web Site.