New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards

for

World Languages

INTRODUCTION

The Vision

New Jersey hosts a growing economy that is oriented toward agriculture, industry, finance, education, and research—an economy that demands contact and interaction with the global marketplace.   For New Jersey students, the need to function competently in more than one language has therefore become increasingly important in order to participate fully in the economic, political, and social life of a state with over 100 ethnic groups, and where more than 150 different languages are spoken.  In the twenty-first century, students must be able to participate in culturally appropriate ways in face-to-face interaction with members of other cultures in order to be productive members of the diverse communities in which we all live.  Only by preparing students with an education comparable to the best that schools around the world offer—one that includes the study of world languages—can the goal of leaving no child behind be achieved.

The New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards for World Languages envision all of New Jersey’s students prepared for the demands of an interdependent world by:

• Teaching world languages for communication;

• Heightening students’ linguistic and cultural awareness of their local, state, and world community;

• Encouraging interdisciplinary and workplace readiness connections that may involve business and community members as mentors and models; and

• Preparing students for using a world language(s) in whatever career choices they make.

The spirit and intent for second language education in New Jersey revolves around what takes place in the learning environment.  If the goal of communicative-based language instruction is to prepare students for authentic language use in the real world, then the organization of curriculum and instruction should reflect those purposes.  As more New Jersey teachers incorporate the goals of the standards and the knowledge of how children best learn languages into their teaching, educators and parents should be able to see:

Students enthusiastically engaged in meaningful, motivating, and cognitively challenging activities.  Children are excited about their ability to understand and be understood in a second language and are encouraged to use language in activities embedded in authentic, real-life contexts and connected to content learned in other core areas.

Students actively using language rather than memorizing vocabulary lists and analyzing grammatical concepts.  Students are interacting with one another and their teacher, and communicating about things that interest them.  Rote exercises have been replaced by tasks that require learners to find ways to communicate meaning beyond classroom walls.

Students being assessed by a variety of assessment strategies.  Because effective language learning is meaningful, enjoyable, and interactive, assessment reflects a similar focus. Classroom instructional activities mirror assessment tasks and track student progress through portfolios, journals, performances or multimedia presentations that focus on authentic performance tasks, not just traditional pencil-and-paper tests.  This allows students to revisit their work and critique their own progress, and most importantly, to become more involved in their own learning.

The Necessity of the Vision

Despite progress in the last decade toward communicative-based instruction in world languages, grammar continues to be the key organizing principle in most language classrooms in the state.  This emphasis on the learning of the language system to the exclusion of meaningful, interactive activities in the classroom has led to frustration and dissatisfaction of students.  As a result, many students perceive that they do not have the ability to learn to speak a second language and feel that world languages will never be useful in their lives.  Many adults acknowledge that although they took two or more years of a world language and obtained high grades on grammar examinations, they are unable to speak the language at all.  In this country, world language study to date has resulted in few people who can engage in meaningful interactions in a variety of settings in the language studied.

The focal point of standards-driven language instruction is communication, and grammar plays a supporting role to communication needs. However, a language curriculum that focuses on grammatical mastery as the primary basis for instructional activities will not serve the needs of students.  It merely proliferates the false assumption that only college-bound students can be successful language learners.  Most significantly, it promotes disparities of equity and access to language learning for the great majority of our students.  All New Jersey students should be given the opportunity to achieve a high level of proficiency in a world language and be able to converse in a language(s) other than English by the time they complete high school. 

Time to Meet the Vision

While numerous factors contribute to the acquisition of a second language, two key factors are time and intensity or length and quality of instruction.  Because providing a thorough and efficient education remains a priority in New Jersey schools, all students should be given the opportunity to learn a world language in a program that offers appropriate time allocations and quality instruction.  A program that does not offer a sufficient amount of contact time and frequency of instruction assumes less student proficiency from the outset and denies district students access to excellence and equity in achieving the standards.  Success for all students in world languages depends not only on specifying the appropriate content, but also on establishing learning environments that facilitate student learning of a world language (i.e., classes meet consistently for multiple times per week throughout the school year). 

The number of years spent studying a language will impact the degree of proficiency that we can expect learners to attain.  In 1998, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) released performance guidelines for K-12 learners.  This project outlined what levels of performance can be realistically achieved after certain sequences of study.  Levels of performance are defined in terms of novice, intermediate and advanced (terminology originally developed for the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, 1982) with ranges specified within each level.  The standards and indicators developed here are based upon and reflect an understanding of the stages of novice, intermediate, and pre-advanced language proficiency.

While the department does not prescribe the number of minutes of instruction per week to achieve these standards, it recognizes that students will not have sufficient opportunities to learn without scheduled instruction.

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON THE TEACHING OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES  LEARNER RANGE DESCRIPTIONS

Adapted from Articulation & Achievement Project, 1996.

The following chart provides a visual representation of anticipated student performance outcomes (ACTFL, 1998).

Visual Representation of Anticipated Performance Outcomes

as described in the ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners

Descriptors of student language use found in the ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners are based on information gathered from foreign language professionals representing a variety of programs and articulation sequences. They are appropriate for languages most commonly taught in the U.S. and assume a sustained sequence of standards-based and performance-based language instruction.  To attain the level indicated above for grades K-8 requires students to be enrolled in elementary programs that meet from 3-5 days per week for no less than 30 minutes per class, and in middle school programs that meet daily for no less than 40 minutes per class (ACTFL, 1998).

There are many variables for student learning. A student who begins second language study in the early elementary grades and continues an uninterrupted sequence of study will advance further than a student who begins in high school.  However, the expectations for performance at any stage may be attained over different periods of time depending on such factors as:      

·        Age of the learner;

·        Varying learning speeds and learning styles of learners;

·        Methodology employed;

·        Abilities and interests of the instructor;

·        Scheduling patterns of the language program;

·        Scope and sequence of the language program; and

·        Authenticity of the cultural environment and materials.

 The cumulative progress indicators found in this document reflect an uninterrupted sequence of language study. Teachers will consequently need to modify the content and related language activities in the world language program to effectively address the cumulative progress indicators dependent upon the student’s age and when he/she begins the study of a particular language. For example, the novice stage applies to all students beginning to learn a second language. This may occur at any age. The novice stage may encompass a four- to five-year sequence that begins in elementary or middle school, or a three-year high school program depending upon the factors listed above.  This has important implications for curriculum design and development. Language learning activities should consistently be cognitively engaging, intrinsically interesting, and age-appropriate for the learner. 

Multiple Entry Points

It is important to emphasize that the goal of having students experience the study of a world language at an early age is not intended to limit the choice of language or the opportunity to begin study at predetermined points.  In the early grades, districts are often only able to offer a limited number of languages due to staffing constraints and/or the size of the schools, but in the middle and high school years provisions for other languages can be made.  It would not serve learners if the effort to have extended sequences resulted in districts offering only one language K-12. 

Multiple entry points accommodate students who develop interests in specific languages during their middle or high school years because of career choices or personal motivation. Learner choice becomes an increasingly important factor as students mature and their eventual competency is linked with interests and motivation.  Students who choose to start a new language in the high school will reach levels of competency commensurate with the sequence available; and their previous experience with language study in general often contributes to more rapid acquisition of a second language.

Another reason for multiple entry points is that New Jersey has a highly mobile population and students will enter schools coming from other districts or states where they have had no previous study of a world language or studied a language not offered in their current district.  Schools will need to have options for these students to begin the study of a language later in the sequence. Chapter five of The New Jersey World Languages Curriculum Framework provides additional information on this concept of multiple entry points and also on the concept of language layering (the study of a second world language while continuing to study the first world language). 

Meeting the Needs of All Students

The term “all students” includes students who are college-bound, academically talented, those whose native language is not English, those with disabilities, students with learning deficits, and students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

It is time to dispel the myth that students who tend to encounter difficulties with learning in general will not be successful language learners.  Research on how children learn languages justifies the inclusion of all students in the world language classroom.  Findings indicate that all students can benefit from learning another language and culture when instruction is based on second language acquisition theories and appropriate methodology and materials are used. 

As with all learners, teachers of students with special needs should accommodate for differences in learning styles, rates of learning, and areas of relative strength or weakness.  Consequently, teachers should assess individual progress, emphasizing the student’s ability to understand and convey a message, rather than focusing on the disability. If a student’s disability entitles him/her to receive special education services, the study of world languages should be included in the student’s Individualized Educational Plan (IEP), wherein appropriate modifications are delineated.

High expectations for all students form a critical part of the learning environment. The belief of teachers, administrators, and parents that a student can and will succeed in learning a world language often makes it possible for that student to succeed. Non-college bound students and special needs students will have as many opportunities to use their knowledge of a world language in their community, and within the workplace, regardless of their chosen career paths.

Revised Standards

In May 1996, the New Jersey State Board of Education adopted two world languages standards. This represented a key moment in the “evolution” of the study of world languages in New Jersey.  World languages was then recognized as an essential component of the core curriculum for all students. 

The goals of the new world languages standards are essentially the same as the 1996 version.  However, the standards are different in that:

      ·        The standards and cumulative progress indicators reflect more clarity and specificity.

·        The standards are organized according to the modes of communication (interpretive, interpersonal, and presentational) that place emphasis on the context and purpose of communication.

·        The standards and cumulative progress indicators emphasize connections with other core content areas to facilitate contextualized and purposeful language learning and to prepare students for the workplace.

·        The cumulative progress indicators reflect student expectations at the Novice, Intermediate, and Pre-Advanced learner ranges as outlined by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners.

·        The standards include expectations at grade 2 as well as at grades 4, 8, and 12.

The New Jersey standards reflect the philosophy and goals found in the national standards, Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21^st Century (ACTFL, 1999), and were developed by consulting the best work that has been done throughout the United States and internationally.  These standards were developed to reflect the latest research on second language acquisition and best practice for instructional methodologies and assessment.  The standards are generic in nature, are designed for a core subject, and are meant to be inclusive for all languages taught in New Jersey schools. 

Standards and Strands

There are two standards, each of which has three lettered strands followed by cumulative progress indicators for each strand at benchmark levels 2, 4, 8, and 12.   These standards and their associated strands are:

7.1 Communication

    A. Interpretive Mode

    B. Interpersonal Mode

    C. Presentational Mode

7.2 Culture

    A. Interpretive Mode

    B. Interpersonal Mode

    C. Presentational Mode

Bulleted items below cumulative progress indicators delineate content material or concepts addressed in a particular indicator.  Examples that follow content bullets are suggested topics that may be incorporated into thematic teaching.  The focal point for a thematic center may be a topic from the grade level curriculum or it may be drawn from the literature or culture of the language taught. 

The standards set forth here presume that the sequential study of a language for an extended period of time is the ideal for achieving the highest levels of performance in the two content standards and related cumulative progress indicators.

To summarize, the standards:

• Envision New Jersey students who are fully prepared for the demands of an interdependent world. 

• Present a departure from the traditional grammar-based approach to instruction.

• Acknowledge that in each world language classroom, there is a diverse pool of talent and potential.

References

                American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1998). ACTFL performance guidelines for K-12 learners. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL.

                American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1999). Standards for foreign language learning in the 21^st century. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL.

                College Entrance Examination Board. (1996). Articulation and achievement: Connecting standards, performance, and assessment in foreign language.  New York, NY: College Board.

                Florida Department of Education. (1996). Florida curriculum framework. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

                New Jersey State Department of Education. (1996). Core curriculum content standards. Trenton, NJ: Author.

                New Jersey State Department of Education. (1999). New Jersey world languages curriculum framework. Trenton, NJ: Author.

                Massachusetts Department of Education. (1998). Massachusetts foreign languages curriculum framework. Malden MA: Author.

                Met, M. (2001). Why language learning matters. Educational Leadership 59 (2), 36-40.

                Nebraska Department of Education. (1996). Nebraska K-12 foreign language frameworks. Lincoln, NE: Author.

                Pesola-Dahlberg, C. A. (1991). Culture in the elementary school foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals 24 (4), 331-346.

                Rosenbush, M. (Ed.). (1997). Bringing the standards into the classroom: A teacher’s guide. Ames, IA: Iowa State University National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center.

                Tedick, D. (Ed.). (1996). The Minnesota articulation project: Proficiency-oriented language instruction and assessment. University of Minnesota: The Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.