Standards Movement in Language Teaching: A Panacea?

Marzieh Rezabeigi and Nima Shakouri, Iran

Marzieh Rezabeigi is an instructor of TEFL at State, Payame Noor and Islamic Azad universities. She has published both nationally and internationally and also presented in a number of international conferences. She is also active in teacher training courses. E-mail: marzieh.rezabeigi@gmail.com

Nima Shakouri is currently a faculty member of Islamic Azad University. He has taught English courses for over a decade at different universities. Moreover, he has published nationally and internationally. E-mail: shakouri.ni@gmail.com

Menu

Abstract
Introduction
A path to Standards Movement
Standards Movement
Standards and equity
Criticisms of Standards Movement
Conclusion
References

Abstract

Many educators deem standards as an important factor in improving the quality of education. Hence, schools and educational centers have been looking at ways to develop high-quality curricula which are based on standards. In a sense, developing the quality of teaching involves not only changes in the way teachers teach and schools are run, but also the promotion of the belief that students simply do need equal access to the quality of education necessary to achieve high standards of learning. And this fact is accessible only if strong standards are set. The present paper is an attempt to take a critical look at standard movement.

Introduction

Generally, standards are defined as a point of reference. However, the understanding of standards by grammarians is closely linked to the concepts of prescriptivism versus descriptivism. Accordingly, Davison and Cummins (2007) defined the term ‘standard’ as indicating both expected types and levels of achievement (a prescriptive sense) and the shared understanding of a particular type and level of achievement (a descriptive sense). The term standards, in the former, is often used by administrators and policy-makers to convey a sense of the performance that should be reached by students, teachers and/or educational programs, while in the latter, standards has less of a top-down connotation, being used more as a descriptive and formative statement of the achievement that has been attained. Undoubtedly, in both cases standards are usually presented as stages of progress, attempting to provide diverse stake-holders with a set of common descriptors or pathways that are assumed to be applicable in paticular contexts (Davison & Cummins, 2007). However, Huddleston and Pullum (2002) take a very clear stance against prescriptivism when they state:

Our aim is to describe and not prescribe: we outline the principles that govern the construction of words and sentences in the present-day language without recommending or commending particular choices. ... We report that sentences of some types are now widely found and used, but we will not advise to use them. We state that sentences of some types are seldom encountered ... but we will not tell you that you should avoid them or otherwise make recommendations about how you should speak or write (p. 2).

According to International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English (1996), we are motivated by three core beliefs in defining standards for the English language arts. Standards are needed (1) to prepare students for the literacy requirements of the future and the present; (2) to articulate a shared vision of what teachers, researchers, parents, and others expect students to attain; and (3) to promote high educational expectations for all students and to bridge the documented disparities that exist in educational opportunities.

A path to Standards Movement

Diana Ravitch, former Assistant Secretary of Education of the United States, is commonly held as the chief architect of the modern standards movement. She puts it in straightforward manner that standards are created because they improve the activity of life. Everyone expects strict standards while building a house; shoddy work would put lives at risk. Even if you wish to drink a glass of water, you have some standards for the water to be drunk. In fact, considering these standards is a necessity to improve our daily lives. Following this, many educators see the publication of the now famous report, ‘A Nation at Risk’, as the initiating event of modern standards movement (Marzano & Kendall, 1996) In this report, the Reagan administration’s appraisal of American education talked of the poor quality of schooling in the U.S. The Bush administration officially launched the standards movement in 1989. The project that was initially called “America 2000” and later changed to be “Goals 2000” under Clinton’s presidency had 6 broad goals for education to be reached by the year 2000, two of which were related to academic achievement.

Goal 3: by the year 2000, American students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matters including English, math, science, history, and geography.

Goal 4: by the year 2000, US students will gain the first place in science and mathematics achievement in the world.

The project originally began with five subject areas (English, mathematics, science, history, and geography). Foreign languages was the 11th member which was proved on political stances and attained standards. The standards movement for Foreign Languages ended up with standards in 5 categories entitled “the five C’s of foreign language education”: Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, and Communities.

According to National Standards in Foreign Language Education (1994), these five C’s are as follows:

Communication is at the heart of second language study, whether the communication takes place face-to-face, in writing, or across centuries through the reading of literature.

Through the study of other languages, students gain a knowledge and understanding of the cultures that use that language and, in fact, cannot truly master the language until they have also mastered the cultural contexts in which the language occurs.

Learning languages provides connections to additional bodies of knowledge that may be unavailable to the monolingual English speaker.

Through comparisons and contrasts with the language being studied, students develop insight into the nature of language and the concept of culture and realize that there are multiple ways of viewing the world.

Finally, these elements enable the student of languages to participate in multilingual communities at home and around the world in a variety of contexts and in culturally appropriate ways.

The standards movement was also linked to the failed behavioural objectives movement of the 1960s. Most of the controversy in objective movement has to do with performance objectives. The key characteristic of a behavioural objective is more about what the learner rather than a teacher has to do. (Nunan, 2007) However, we may find programs with objectives for the teacher of the program, such as the review of the simple past. According to Nunan (2007), another significant feature of a behavioural objective is that it must specify observable learner behaviour. ‘To appreciate Hemingway’s the Old Man and The Sea is not a performance objective because the behaviour is invisible. One cannot see appreciation or understanding. Mager (1984 as cited in Nunan, 2007) lists the following words as being ‘dangerous’ because they do not describe observable behaviours and are open to many interpretations: to know, to understand, to enjoy, to believe, to internalize, to fully appreciate, to grasp. Richards (2001) views the major criticisms of (behavioural) objectives as follows:

1. Objectives turn teaching into technology. It is argued that objectives are linked to an efficiency view of education; that is, the most efficient means to an end is justified. But to ensure that the curriculum addresses educationally important goals, objectives should address meaningful experiences. One way to do so is to include both language outcomes and nonlanguage outcomes.
2. Objectives trivialize teaching and are product-oriented. It is assumed that every purpose in teaching has an objective; the only worthwhile goal results in changes in students' behaviour. But, objectives need not be limited to observable outcomes. They can also describe processes and experiences.
3. Objectives are unsuited to many aspects of language use. Objectives might be suitable for describing the mastery of skills, but less suited to such areas as critical thinking, literary appreciation or negotiation of meaning. Nonetheless, objectives can be written in domains such as critical thinking and literary thinking but will focus on the experiences the curriculum will provide rather than specific learning outcomes (pp. 127-128).

In sum, formal performance objectives are meant to include three elements: (a) a performance or task statement (what learner has to do); (b) a conditions statement (conditions under which learners are to perform the task); (c) a standard or criterion statement (how well the task is to be performed) (Nunan, 2007).

Hence, Eisner (1967) holds that behavioural objectives used as standards fail to measure achievement. In support of his claim, Eisner (1967) outlines three limitations of educational objectives:

1. Due to complexity and dynamicity of language instruction, behaviour of students is hardly predictable (e.g., a student who performs well in algebra, cannot necessarily be good at writing sonnets too); the amount, type, and quality of learning that occurs in a classroom, especially when there is interaction among students, are only partly predictable.
2. The constrains that various subject matters place on objectives make it difficult to specify the behaviour a student is to show after instruction. For example, uniformity in response in courses such as math and languages are desirable, while in other courses especially the arts, such specification is frequently impossible. In arts, where creativity is required, the particular behaviour which is going to develop cannot be easily identified.
3. Those activities which are qualitative are less amenable to quantitative assessment. For example, the extent to which a student is able to produce an aesthetic object is determined by judgment. Here standards are inapplicable; that is; a particular product is judged with respect to the unique properties it displays.

During the 1980s, CB instruction developed as an alternative to the use of objectives in program planning. Although there is no consensus about the definition of the term competency, in order for the authors to further the discussion, it suffices to define it as observable behaviours necessary for the completion of real-world activities. However, such definitions are not devoid of weaknesses. Richards, (2001) asserts traditional planners in language teaching are concerned with content or process of learning rather than its ends. Richards (2001) further adds, “CBLT seeks to improve accountability in teaching through linking instruction to measurable outcomes and performance standards” (p. 128). Nunan (2007) contends that CBLT focuses on what learners should be able to do at the end of the course. Thus, it calls on a need to define educational goals in terms of precise measurable description of the knowledge, skills and behaviours students should possess at the end of a course of study (Wong, 2007).

Performance-based approaches to competence can be placed into one of the following three categories:

1. competence as a list of discrete parts (tasks are analyzed into components and each component part is stated a desired behaviour
2. competence as the ability to transfer previous learning to new situation
3. competence as the application of a combination of knowledge, understanding, experience and executive ability to task performance in specific context. (Leung & Teasdale, 1998, cited in Nunan, 2007)

On the other hand, a number of scholars have criticized the use of competencies in language learning. As Tollefson (1986, cited in Richards, 2001) claims, no valid procedures are available to develop competency specifications. Typically competencies are described in terms of intuition and experience (Richards, 2001). Furthermore, as Richards (2001) holds CBLT seeks to enable learners to participate effectively in society. Thus, the competencies selected as a basis for instruction typically represent value judgment about what such participation involves (p. 130).

Standards Movement

Education standards are the starting point for defining what (all) students should know and be able to do in order to live and work in the 21st century. If there is no clarity or consensus about what students are supposed to know and be able to do, expectations for learning will be defined by the textbooks and traditional tests which causes many students to leave school without ever being challenged to their full potential. Thus the lack of clear standards for what and how well students should learn has become a drawback in efforts to improve students’ achievement.

About the significance of standards, Lachat (1999) holds:

Defining clear standards for student learning is thus an important first step in the process of educating children to be effective thinkers, problem-solvers, and communicators so they can reap the rewards of full participation in a technology-driven information age. (p.4)

According to Lachat (1999), there are two types of standards: content standards and performance standards. The former describes the knowledge, skills, and understanding students should have in order to attain proficiency in a subject area. Marzano and Kendall (1996) have identified three categories of content standards: procedural, declarative, and contextual.

• Procedural standards are based on "procedural knowledge, the skills and processes important to a given content area" (p. 12). Editing an essay can be considered as an example of procedural standards.
• Declarative standards are based on "declarative knowledge, [which] can be thought of as 'information' and usually involves component parts. For example, knowledge of the concept of 'democracy' includes understanding that decisions are made by the people, each person has a single vote, votes are weighted equally, and so on" (p. 12).
• Contextual standards are based on contextual knowledge—"knowledge in context, information, and/or skills that have particular meaning because of the conditions that form part of their description" (p. 12). Examples of contextual knowledge include: "modeling numbers using number line and classifying organisms" (p. 12).

According to Nunan (2007), Content Standard is defined as what students should know and be able to do as a result of instruction. To him standards are characterized in terms of:

1. ‘descriptors’ which are broad categories of discrete, representative behaviours.
2. ‘progress indicators’ which are the assessable, observable activities that students may perform to show progress towards meeting the designated standard.
3. ‘classroom vignettes’ which are drawn from a wide range of classroom contexts and describe instructional sequences so that a clear idea of what the standards might look like can be understood.

The latter (performance standards), in contrast, spells out what students must demonstrate to be considered proficient in the subject matter defined in the content standards. Borthwick and Nolan (1996) describe the three components of performance standards as follows:

• Performance descriptions. These distill the content standards to identify what is essential and what can be assessed.
• Samples of student work. The performance descriptions are matched with samples of student work that have been judged to illustrate the quality of work expected to meet the standard at a given grade level.
• Commentaries on student work. The student work samples are accompanied by commentaries that explain how the student work illustrates the quality required to meet the expectations set out in the performance descriptions.

Standards and equity

The vision guiding these standards is that all students must have the opportunities, resources, time, and support needed to achieve mastery. From an equity perspective, education standards will not improve student achievement unless they are accompanied by policies and practices that directly address inequities in the resources available to schools (Lachat, 1999) Thus, opportunity-to-learn standards were proposed. The opportunity-to-learn standards challenge us to confront inequities that exist in our school system. In fact, schools must ensure that all students have the equal opportunity to achieve their goals. Hence, there is a new mission and emphasis on accountability for the success of all students. Opportunity-to-learn standards address the following areas:

• The quality and availability of curricula, instructional programs, and instructional materials
• The extent to which curriculum, instruction, and assessment align with standards that reflects high expectations for students
  • Teacher capacity to provide high-quality instruction
  • Financial and programmatic resources that support high levels of learning, including technology, laboratories, and school libraries
  • Teacher and administrator access to sustained, long-term professional development
  • A safe and secure learning environment
  • Parent and community involvement with the schools
  • Non-discriminatory school policies (Lachat, 1999)

Hence, there is a new mission and emphasis on accountability for the success of all students. The term ‘mission’ implies that students, alone, are not responsible for their own learning. Although the nature of standards provokes the belief that individuals are responsible for their learning, McKey (2001, cited in McKey, 2007) states that this individualistic, rationalistic, competition-driven path leads to “blame the victim mentality” which can be destructive to learning.

Criticisms of Standards Movement

Some of the criticisms that have been levelled at standard-based evaluation are as follows:

1. it leads to fragmentation of the curriculum, and its approach to instruction is atomistic
2. evaluating the overall worth of a program by tallying lists of items on a checklist is problematic (since it assumes the whole is simply the sum of the parts/since checklists provide quantitative information)
3. The extent to which one can understand one’s underlying competence from samples of observable behaviour. (Nunan, 2007)

According to Marzano and Haystead (2008), the other problem with educational standards in America is lack of uni-dimentionality. Principle of Unidimentionality assumes that there is a single real latent variable to be measured in a test (Johnson & Junker, 2003, cited in Birjandi & Mosallanejad, 2010, p. 239). Marzano and Haystead (2008) believe that the standards are not written with unidimensionality or effective assessment in mind, and thus mix multiple dimensions in a single statement which makes it almost impossible to effectively assess the content in standards.

Conclusion

If not traced in our action, the wish for improved education in our country can be found in the hearts of many of us. Standards can fulfill the expectation that all students can learn to produce work of high quality. Despite the contrary, educational centers have failed to live up to such expectations in a consistent way. The standards movement is at a crossroads. Behind us lie some extraordinary areas of progress and more than a few mistakes. When standards are properly implemented, students, parents and teachers can know the rules of the discipline, and this in turn, will help adults have reasonable expectations. According to Snow and Katz (2009), standards are systemic. Effectiveness in a system is tied to how well different parts of it –teachers, students and programs—perform. Also, standards are dynamic meaning that some standards which were set 50 years ago need to be revised now. When educators write standards, they incorporate their beliefs into them. And since such beliefs reflect a specific time and place, they need to be reviewed. For example, accreditation bodies such as NCATE in the United States require standards to be revised periodically. Lastly, standards encompass a range of performance levels. Performance levels provide educators with a means to understand what teachers or students know and are able to do in a certain period, and a measure against target culture.

Despite compelling evidence that standards are fair and effective, there is a growing movement which seeks to do away with standards and represent standards as impediments to students’ success. The occasional misuse of a syringe does not justify the abandonment of smallpox vaccinations. There is consensus that school children should be vaccinated not because there is universal agreement on all health issues, but because there are some central truths about disease prevention. The academic and emotional health of our students must be taken as seriously as their physical health. Just in the same manner that we do not send a child to school without the necessary vaccinations, we should not leave them alone in the community without the required knowledge and skills for success. We nurture the emotional health of students not by coddling them or lowering our expectations, but by giving them the tools and the time necessary to succeed, by setting standards.

References

Birjandi, P., & Mosallanejad, P. (2010). An overview of testing and assessment. Tehran: Sepahan Publication.

Borthwick, A., & Nolan, K. (1996). Performance standards: How good is good enough? Paper presented at the National Education Summit held March 26-27, in Palisades, NY.

Davison, C., & Cummins, J. (2007).Assessment and evaluation in ELT: Shifting paradigms and practices. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.) International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 415-420). New York: Springer.

Eisner, E. W. (1967). Educational objectives: Help or hindrance? The School Review, 52(3), 250-260.

Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

International Reading Association & National Council of Teachers of English (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Newark, DE; Urbana, IL: Authors.

Lachat, M. A. (1999). Standard, equity and cultural diversity. South Hampton: The Education Alliance.

Marzano, R. J., & Haystead, M. W. (2008). Making standards useful in the classroom. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (1997). The fall and rise of standards-based education. Retrieved 2011from www.mcrel.org/pdf/standards /5962ir_fallandrise

McKay, P. (2007). The standards movement and ELT for school-aged learners: Cross-National perspectives. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.) International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 439-456). New York: Springer.

National Standards in Foreign Language Education (1994). Unpublished draft

Nunan, D. (2007). Standardized-based approaches to the evaluation of ESL instructions. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.) International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 421-438). New York: Springer

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Snow, M. H., & Katz, A. (2009). Standards and second language teacher education. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 66-76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wong, R. M. H. (2007). Competency-based English teaching and learning: Investigating pre-service teachers of Chinese’s learning experience. PORTA LINGUARUM, 9, 179-198.

Please check the How to be a Teacher Trainer course at Pilgrims website.