1. From learning targets to implemented curriculum: a new challenge for the Dutch secondary education program International Seminar on Designing and Implementing Curriculae for Multilingual Education Amsterdam, 31st Januari – 1st February, 2008 Hetty Mulder, program manager Upper Secondary Education SLO Daniela Fasoglio, project manager Upper Secondary Education SLO

2. 2005 - 2007 Revision of learning targets for upper secondary education: –Synthetized standards for all subjects –Further implications for modern foreign languages: Relating standards to the levels of the CEFR (SLO) Relating language examinations to the CEFR (CITO) August, 2007: new learning targets become operative for all subjects (FL: 2008)

3. Relating FL learning targets for secondary education to the CEFR (SLO) Look for the match between existing targets and the CEFR Assign CEFR levels to learning targets according to language and ability New FL examination programs : –One global standard for each ability – same for all foreign languages (English, Arabic, French, Italian, German, Russian, Spanish, Turkish); –Differentiation in programs determined by the CEFR levels to be attained in each language and ability.

4. One example of a learning target Oral production Global learning target: The candidate is able to tailor subject information to a target group and goal and present it adequately. He is able to describe people and objects and to illustrate points of view and arguments. Workout: English vwo: B2 French vwo: a very good B1 Russian vwo: A2

5. Relating language examinations to the CEFR (CITO) Attributing CEFR level to assignments contained in past examinations Developing examinations calibrated to the levels of the CEFR New FL examinations: –Provided with a CEFR ‘label’ –Old targets are in fact replaced by CEFR descriptors –School certificate reports CEFR levels attained

6. The process so far : alignment with Common European Framework Learning targets as frameworks for systematic curriculum development targets attainment learning standards material established taught curriculum assessed A design-down process approach

7. Next challenges Educational purpose: Base FL curriculum on levels of communicative competence and provide criteria for planning and assessment of language learning in order to reach such levels.

8. Agents national education office school teacher teacher’s team class learner parents society (applied) linguist curriculum developer Actions unpack/work out negotiate teach (strategy/methodology) assess evaluate support develop curriculum plan organize manage Objects learning targets goals needs content materials tests time location (teacher’s) skills

9. Spider web

10. Objectives Agents Ensure that the teacher : –is willing to change –feels directly involved (  ownership) –feels co-responsible (  leadership) Ensure that the learner : –participates in curriculum design A bottom-up approach

11. Objectives Objects and Actions Ensure Suitable teaching materials Worked-out intermediate levels or targets Adequate assessment tools

12. CEFR master plan Co-ordinate and synchronize actions by all important actors in the implementation process; provide for all partners’ involvement Synchronize design of materials and tools and organize teacher training Calibrate assessment tools and integrate in curriculum Develop adequate communication plan

13. Quality criteria for curriculum development Rational and relational A strong problem analysis – widely supported – able to generate need for change Teachers’ key rol must not be underestimated Small-scale pilots from early phase Design phase can last several years Core team includes experts (curriculum development, assessment, evaluation) and users Constant attention to formative/summative evaluation, information, network, evidence-based research.