From learning targets to implemented curriculum: a new challenge for the Dutch secondary education program

International Seminar on Designing and Implementing Curriculae for Multilingual EducationAmsterdam, 31st Januari – 1st February, 2008

Hetty Mulder, program manager Upper Secondary Education SLODaniela Fasoglio, project manager Upper Secondary Education SLO

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)

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.

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

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

The process so far : alignment with Common European Framework

Learning targets as frameworks for systematic curriculum development

targets attainment

learning standards materialestablished taught curriculum assessed

A design-down process approach

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.

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

Spider web

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

Objectives

Objects and Actions

Ensure

• Suitable teaching materials

• Worked-out intermediate levels or targets

• Adequate assessment tools

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

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.