Advertisement

Linking Proficiency Test Scores to Classroom Instruction

  • Charlene Polio
Chapter
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 37)

Abstract

This study relates scores on listening, reading, and speaking proficiency tests in a Chinese program to what happens in the classroom. Data were collected as part of the Flagship Proficiency Grant to document progress on the ACTFL scale. Qualitative data in the form of classroom observations and focus group interviews with a subset of students and teachers were also collected. Information from the observations was put into activity charts that documented the focus of lesson segments as well as the type of interaction and the amount of Chinese spoken. Comments from Chinese students and teachers were coded to determine what themes emerged and whether or not there was consistency in views of the program among the students and teachers. These themes were then related to test scores and progress. In some cases, such as speaking scores, we can see that the type of speaking activities may not have pushed to students to the higher levels. Throughout the chapter, I discuss what data were collected and contrast them with data that would have been helpful to collect so that an ideal mixed methods study could have been conducted.

Keywords

Program evaluation Chinese language teaching Mixed methods Classroom research Proficiency testing 

References

  1. Brown, J. D. (2014). Mixed methods research for TESOL. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Durán, L., Roseth, C., & Hoffman, P. (2015). Effects of transitional bilingual education on Spanish-speaking preschoolers’ literacy and language development: Year 2 results. Applied Psycholinguisitcs, 36, 921–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hashemi, M. R., & Babaii, E. (2013). Mixed methods research: Toward new research designs in applied linguistics. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 828–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hung, H.-T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28, 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Long, M. H. (1984). Process and product in ESL program evaluation. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 409–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lynch, B. K. (1996). Language program evaluation: Theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Mazgutova, D., & Kormos, J. (2015). Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for academic purposes programme. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Norris, J. M. (2016). Language program evaluation. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Norris, J. M., & Watanabe, Y. (2013). Program evaluation. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system™: Manual K-3. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Polio, C., & Friedman, D. (2017). Understand, evaluating, and conducting second language writing research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Riazi, A. M., & Candlin, C. N. (2014). Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 47, 135–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Smith, M. W., Brady, J. P., & Anastasopoulos, L. (2008). Early language and literacy classroom observation tool, pre-K (ELLCO pre-K). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Yasuda, S. (2011). Genre-based tasks in foreign language writing: Developing writers’ genre awareness, linguistic knowledge, and writing competence. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zyzik, E., & Polio, C. (2008). Incidental focus on form in Spanish literature classes. Modern Language Journal, 92, 50–73.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Second Language StudiesMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations