1 Who, What, Where, WENS? The Native Speaker in the ILR ECOLT 2010 October 2010 ILR Testing Committee ECOLT 2010 October 2010 ILR Testing Committee.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Enabling successful communication of geographical understanding in written assessments AE SIG GA Conference 2013.
Advertisements

Rick.
Introducing the NCSSFL - ACTFL Can-do Statements 2013 ACTFL Convention Orlando, FL Friday, November 22, 2013 Jacqueline Van Houten Elvira Swender.
3 levels: Foundation, Standard, Advanced Language B Spanish Criteria.
How to Write a Critique. What is a critique?  A critique is a paper that gives a critical assessment of a book or article  A critique is a systematic.
Mapping our language programmes Vicky Wright Centre for Language Study
C HINESE 318 Introduction to Applied Chinese Linguistics.
1 Novice Intermediate Advanced Superior. 2 Adapted by Helena Curtain.
This speech/presentation is authorized by the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center and the Department of Defense. Contents of this presentation.
Consistency of Assessment
Testing 09. Problems and Directions Past experience with language help us come to the conclusion that we should keep a balance between linguistic and.
Continuing dominance of “language of instruction” debate.
Stages of Second Language Acquisition
National Curriculum Key Stage 2
Curriculum Framework for Romani Seminar for decision makers and practitioners Council of Europe, 31 May and 1 June 2007 An introduction to the Curriculum.
Assessment and Performance-based Instruction
ESL Phases & ESL Scale Curriculum Corporation 1994.
WHAT IS PROFICIENCY? White Station High School, Honor’s Spanish III and IV.
ACADEMIC DIRECTION / TESTING OFFICE. Language proficiency scale 0 No practical proficiency 1 Elementary 2 Fair Limited working 3 Good Minimum professional.
Assessment Report School of TAHSS Department: Modern Languages and Cultures Chair: Andrea Parada Assessment Coordinator: Donna Wilkerson- Barker.
(2) Using age-appropriate activities, students expand their ability to perform novice tasks and develop their ability to perform the tasks of the intermediate.
ACTFL Immersion. Who uses this?  US Department of Defense  Missionary training schools.
Study Group 5 STANAG for Non-Specialists. Task Simplify the STANAG document for administrative purposes Outline salient aspects in non-technical.
Romanian Speaking Evaluation Cpt. Corina Ispas Romania.
ELD Transition Sessions
ELA Common Core Shifts. Shift 1 Balancing Informational & Literary Text.
The new languages GCSE: STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION.
The Interpersonal Mode
Riverside County Assessment Network CCSS SBAC Update.
HOW TO FORM AN ESSAY Mr. Bermudez. HEADING  Name  Course Title  Period  Date  Title.
Mark COMMUNICATION Criteria 9-10 Very Good Information, ideas and points of view are presented and explained with confidence. Can narrate events when appropriate.
An account of my holiday WALT: be competent in writing about your holiday WILF: Grade D – Grade E + what you are going to do Grade C – Grade D + what you.
1 The Dual Role of the Dual Immersion Educator: Teacher of Content and Language Greg Duncan
Advanced Language Learners Levels V, VI, VII (2) Using age-appropriate activities, students master novice tasks, expand their ability to perform intermediate.
OPI Testing at ILR Levels 3, 4 & 5 ILR Plenary Presentation September 19, 2008 Monika Ihlenfeld, DLIFLC Pardee Lowe, Jr., DOD Elvira Swender, ACTFL.
HYMES (1964) He developed the concept that culture, language and social context are clearly interrelated and strongly rejected the idea of viewing language.
U.S. Government ILR Summits on Listening Sponsored by DLIFLC An Interagency Effort to Expand, Supplement, Define and Revise the ILR Listening Proficiency.
DLIFLC 7-9 FEB 01 Diagnostic Assessment Thomas S. Parry Directorate of Continuing Education Defense Language Institute BILC Professional Seminar 2005 Sofia,
Language Issues Constructs, Theories, and Scales.
Paraprofessionals and Language Proficiency Requirement Bilingual Paraprofessional Conference March 23, 2005 Hamline University
Anchor Standards ELA Standards marked with this symbol represent Kansas’s 15%
Do we summarize in our daily lives? YES! Like?. -You have had experience summarizing in reading courses. -In future translation courses, you will read,
TRANSLATION GUIDELINES Under ILR/STANAG 6001 Ed. 4 James Dirgin
Benjamin Rifkin The College of New Jersey.  Background  Development  ACTFL and ILR  Modalities  Levels and sublevels.
ELACC7W1 Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.
Listening comprehension is at the core of second language acquisition. Therefore demands a much greater prominence in language teaching.
Essay Questions. Two Main Purposes for essay questions 1. to assess students' understanding of and ability to think with subject matter content. 2. to.
NOVICE MID NOVICE MID Speakers at the Novice-Mid level communicate minimally and with difficulty by using a number of isolated words and memorized phrases.
Intermediates Here is a simple profile for Intermediate proficiency speakers from ACTFL 2012.
The new GCSE 2018: Specification change as an opportunity to build best practice.
Goal :Communicative Competence
Discourse Analysis Week 10 Riggenbach (1999) Chapter 1 - Quotes.
Interactive Lecture 2: Discourse, Competency, Proficiency and the Implications for Methodology Dr. Douglas Fleming Faculty of Education.
New ELA Guidelines Shifts in ELA Common Core  Rise in Nonfiction Texts.  Content Area Literacy Close and careful reading of text  Increase Complexity.
ELA - 3 Common Core Vs Kansas Standards. DOMAIN Standards For Literature (RL)
To my presentation about:  IELTS, meaning and it’s band scores.  The tests of the IELTS  Listening test.  Listening common challenges.  Reading.
Higher RP3a [Technology]
AP FRENCH: UNPACKING THE SCORING GUIDELINES FOR INTERPERSONAL TASKS
STANAG for Non-Specialists
STANAG 6001 Speaking Test Observations; Lessons learned
Common European Framework of References (CEFR)
Introduction of IELTS Test
SPEAKING ASSESSMENT Joko Nurkamto UNS Solo 11/8/2018.
SPEAKING ASSESSMENT Joko Nurkamto UNS Solo 12/3/2018.
Team Composition Group Director: Cooperation and Time Management Group Artist: Conceptualization and Design Group Stenographer: Copying Standards Atop.
Intermediates Here is a simple profile for Intermediate proficiency speakers from ACTFL 2012.
IELTS: International English Language Testing System
Intermediates Here is a simple profile for Intermediate proficiency speakers from ACTFL 2012.
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
BILC Testing Workshop Tours, France September 3-5, 2019
Presentation transcript:

1 Who, What, Where, WENS? The Native Speaker in the ILR ECOLT 2010 October 2010 ILR Testing Committee ECOLT 2010 October 2010 ILR Testing Committee

Native Speaker in the Literature  Sociolinguists, theoretical, computational and applied linguists all discuss the native speaker  Davies’ (2001) native speaker  Native speaker usage  Method of acquisition  Ultimate goal of acquisition  Meanings are used interchangeably  Sociolinguists, theoretical, computational and applied linguists all discuss the native speaker  Davies’ (2001) native speaker  Native speaker usage  Method of acquisition  Ultimate goal of acquisition  Meanings are used interchangeably 2

“Native Speaker” in the ILR Skill Level Descriptions: the “FE HA WENS”  Functionally Equivalent  Highly Articulate  Well-educated Native Speaker  ILR FE HA WENS is a special breed of NS  Exists, though rarely  Is defined in greater detail in training materials and practical examples  Functionally Equivalent  Highly Articulate  Well-educated Native Speaker  ILR FE HA WENS is a special breed of NS  Exists, though rarely  Is defined in greater detail in training materials and practical examples 3

History of the ILR Scale  Functional origin dating from FSI needs in the 1950’s  ILR Skill Level Descriptions published by OPM in1985 and used across the government: Speaking, Reading, Listening and Writing  Added Translation and Interpretation  Working on Audio Translation and Cultural Guidelines  Functional origin dating from FSI needs in the 1950’s  ILR Skill Level Descriptions published by OPM in1985 and used across the government: Speaking, Reading, Listening and Writing  Added Translation and Interpretation  Working on Audio Translation and Cultural Guidelines 4

Definitions  Native Speaker  Heritage Speaker (not our focus today)  Language Learner and Non-Native Speaker  Native Speaker  Heritage Speaker (not our focus today)  Language Learner and Non-Native Speaker 5

Context for Our Tests  Functional Scale  Language professionals who USE their language  OPI summits determined need for keeping the reference point at Level 5  Need for a FE HA WENS at the top of the ILR Scale  Functional Scale  Language professionals who USE their language  OPI summits determined need for keeping the reference point at Level 5  Need for a FE HA WENS at the top of the ILR Scale 6

ILR Skill Level Descriptions’ Conundrum  intended to test second language speakers  functionally equivalent to well-educated native speaker’s standards = yardstick for assessing proficiency scores  intended to test second language speakers  functionally equivalent to well-educated native speaker’s standards = yardstick for assessing proficiency scores 7

Who We Test Federal government personnel who represent the U.S. regardless of when, where or how they learned the language of the test 8

Who We Test  No assumptions are made about how the language of the test has been acquired  Examinees are treated like well educated native speakers, then the language of the test is scaled to their level  No assumptions are made about how the language of the test has been acquired  Examinees are treated like well educated native speakers, then the language of the test is scaled to their level 9

Native vs. Non-Native Speaker Irrelevant ! 10

HS/College Learners Typical Proficiency Ranges by Acquisition Method 0 Language Majors Heritage Speakers Native Speakers Articulate Native Speakers FE HA WENS

Differences Between Level 2 and Level 3 Level 2Level 3 OverallAble to satisfy routine social demands and limited work requirements Able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations in practical, social and professional topics. HallmarksSpeaks with confidence, but not with facility Commits errors that virtually never interfere with understanding and rarely disturb the native speaker. 12

Differences Between Level 2 and Level 3 Level 2Level 3 FunctionsCan handle routine work- related interactions that are limited in scope Professional contexts include matters of shared knowledge and/or international convention Can participate in personal and accommodation-type interactions with elaboration and facility Can discuss particular interests and special fields of competence with reasonable ease. 13

Differences Between Level 2 and Level 3 Level 2Level 3 Functions continued Can handle most normal, high-frequency social conversational situations including extensive, but casual conversations about current events, as well as work, family and autobiographical information. Normal professional duties such as answering objections, clarifying points, justifying decisions, understanding the essence of challenges, stating and defending policy, conducting meetings, delivering briefings, or other extended and elaborate informative monologues. Can typically ask and answer predictable questions in the workplace. 14

Differences Between Level 2 and Level 3 Level 2Level 3 OrganizationUses utterances that are minimally cohesive Uses discourse that is cohesive. StructuresUses simple structures and basic grammatical relations that are typically controlled; however, there are areas of weakness Can effectively use structures to convey meaning accurately Uses linguistic structure that is usually not very elaborate and not thoroughly controlled Has structural inaccuracy, but it is rarely the major cause of misunderstanding Commits frequent errors. Commits errors in low- frequency and highly complex structures 15

Differences Between Level 2 and Level 3 Level 2Level 3 VocabularyCan participate in personal interactions with elaboration and facility. Can effectively use vocabulary to convey meaning accurately. Uses vocabulary that is appropriate for high- frequency utterances, but unusual or imprecise elsewhere. Uses the language clearly and relatively naturally to elaborate concepts freely and make ideas easily understandable to native speakers without searching for words or phrases. 16

Differences Between Level 2 and Level 3 Level 2Level 3 FluencySpeaks with confidence, but not with facility. Speaks readily and fills pauses suitably. PronunciationHas mispronunciations that sometimes result in miscommunication. Commits errors that virtually never interfere with understanding and rarely disturb the native speaker. 17

Differences Between Level 2 and Level 3 Level 2Level 3 Socio-cultural awareness Can handle most normal, high-frequency social conversational situations including extensive but casual conversations. Can participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations in practical, social and professional topics. Although cultural references, proverbs and the implications of nuances and idiom may not be fully understood, the individual can easily repair the conversation. 18

Disclaimer! Government testers do NOT make an overall rating based on one sample! The samples we are going to play for you today are being used to illustrate our discussion, not to provide firm evidence of an individual’s overall language proficiency 19

Samples of NS and NNS performing Level 3 tasks  Non-native speaker (“Ben”) successfully performing a supported opinion task at L3.  Non-native speaker (“Mary Ann”) unsuccessfully performing a supported opinion task at L3.  Native speaker (“Lucas”) unsuccessfully performing a supported opinion task at L3.  Native speaker (“Michael”) successfully performing a supported opinion task at L3.  Non-native speaker (“Ben”) successfully performing a supported opinion task at L3.  Non-native speaker (“Mary Ann”) unsuccessfully performing a supported opinion task at L3.  Native speaker (“Lucas”) unsuccessfully performing a supported opinion task at L3.  Native speaker (“Michael”) successfully performing a supported opinion task at L3. 20

Conclusion  What someone can DO with the language at any given level is important  Not HOW they acquired their language proficiency  What someone can DO with the language at any given level is important  Not HOW they acquired their language proficiency 21