Standards-Driven PreK-12 WL Licensure Programs: New Realities for TN and MS Patricia Davis-Wiley, The University of Tennessee Kelly Moser, Mississippi State University ACTFL Friday, November 22, 2013
Introduction and Overview Program Standards for the Preparation of WL Teachers Current realities in TN/MS Research related to WL Education program development McAlpine & Dhonau (2007): Identifying assessments Huhn (2012): Innovative program characteristics Chambless (2012): Proficiency expectations of candidates Shrum & Fox (2010): Writing the NCATE report Faber (2010): Spanish in the elementary schools (SITES) Creating/implementing a new paradigm for Elementary WL programs at The University of Tennessee (UT) and Mississippi State University (MSU) Elementary and MS programs in the US Questions, discussion, considerations
Description of Current WL Programs Program Item The University of Tennessee Program Level Graduate Initial P-12 Licensure Program Role of Content Knowledge Candidates pursue a major in the target language (or complete minimum hours) prior to admission to the program. Mississippi State University Undergraduate K-12 Initial Licensure Program; Spanish, French, German Candidates pursue an undergraduate BS degree in Secondary Education with a concentration in Foreign Language Education and are highly encouraged to double major in the target language since they are required to take the same number of credit hours in the language
Program Item Proficiency Expectation Courses in Methodology (Field Experience at multiple levels) Description of Current WL Programs The University of Tennessee Candidates must demonstrate IH/AL level prior to admission to the Teacher ED; one to two-semester study abroad required prior to Admission Interview Candidates complete two courses in 7-12 WL Methodology and one generic methods course Mississippi State University Candidates must demonstrate proficiency at the IM level for admission to FLE and must demonstrate AL proficiency via an official OPIc prior to the teaching internship Candidates complete one course in WL Methodology that requires field experience hours under the supervision of an experienced educator
Description of Current WL Programs Program Item Teaching Internship The University of Tennessee Candidates complete a year-long Graduate teaching internship at the 9-12 level following completion of UG Secondary Minor; G coursework taken during internship and following internship to earn a master s degree in Teacher ED Mississippi State University Candidates complete a semester-long internship at the 9-12 level upon the successful completion of all program area coursework.
Changes in WL Programs for 2014 Innovative Characteristic (Huhn, 2012) Development and Assessment of Candidates World Language Proficiency Blend Language and Content The University of Tennessee No change. No change. Interns already hold BA in target language prior to matriculating the graduate internship as 2/3 of MS degree. Mississippi State University No change: Program already included proficiency expectations and diagnostics No change: Program already encouraged double major (i.e., target language and education)
Changes in WL Programs for 2014 Innovative Characteristic (Huhn 2012) The University of Tennessee Mississippi State University Collaboration with Colleagues in Education Opportunities for Professional Development No change. New PreK-5 (preinternship year) field experience component with light elem methods overview; MS experience remains the same; 15 hours Elem; 15 hours MS. New summer PreK-6 WL Methods course No change: Program already relied on collaboration New K-8 Methods course with servicelearning field experience component (15 hours K-5 and 15 hours 6-8)
New Elementary WL Programs: Questions to Consider How do we provide maximum K-8 field experience when the pre-service teachers know very little about teaching at that level? What are the goals of this experience for MSU/UT and K-8 students? How do we structure the K-8 field experience so that UT and MSU students receive the maximum benefit at the elementary and middle levels? How can we overcome the challenge that very few, if any, elementary WL programs exist in our states/regions? How can MSU/UT pre-service teachers benefit from providing K-8 instruction when they are not under the supervision of an experienced K-8 WL teacher?
New Elementary WL Programs: Questions to Consider What will be the focus of MSU/UT students lessons? How many lessons will be designed and delivered? How will UT/MSU students receive crucial feedback if they are not under the supervision of experienced K-8 WL educators? How will MSU/UT students use reflective practices while engaging with learners/educators at the K-8 level?
TN/MS Collaborative Efforts The MSU WLE initial licensure program was modified in 2011 using the ACTFL/NCATE Program Standards (2002) and relevant research as a guide. UT did the same in 2013. Discussions between faculty at UT and MSU highlighted areas of strength and current limitations of both the MSU and UT program revisions. Discussions led to changes in both the MSU and UT WLE programs for initial licensure. Faculty at both institutions shared similar concerns of initial licensure changes (from 7-12 to PreK-12). Faculty collaborated to determine potential solutions to these concerns; however, these solutions will be evaluated as they are put into practice in 2014.
UT and MSU New Elementary WL Methods Course Components Eval & Reflection Varied Pedagogies Appropriate Content L1 & L2 Acquisition Research Theories
Elementary and Middle School WL Programs in the U.S. From 1997-2008, the percentage of schools that offer WL in the elementary schools dropped from 31% to 25% WL in the middle schools from 75% to 58% (Rhodes & Pufahl, 2010)
Questions Discussion Considerations
References Chambless, K. (2012). Teachers oral proficiency in the target language: Research on its role in language teaching and learning. Foreign Language Annals, 45(S1), S141-S162. Faber, K. (2010). Early language learning, teaching, and advocacy through community-based service learning. The Language Educator, 5(6), 22-26. Huhn, C. (2013). In search of innovation: Research on effective models of foreign language teacher preparation. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 163-183. McAlpine, D., & Dhonau. S. (2007). Creating a culture for the preparation of an ACTFL/NCATE program review. Foreign Language Annals, 40(2), 247-259. Rhodes, N., & Pufahl, I. (2010). Foreign language teaching in the US schools: Results of a national survey. Washington, D.C. Center for Applied Linguistics. Shrum, & Fox, (2010). Unifying our profession through standards: Writing the ACTFL/NCATE program report. In C. Wilkerson (Ed.), Dimension: Communication beyond the classroom (pp. 1-22). Roswell, GA: SCOLT Publication.