evaluation report: the chinese language program at...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Evaluation Report:
The Chinese Language Program at
Western Academy of Beijing
京西学校中文课程评估报告
Shuhan C. Wang, Ph.D.
May 2013
2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Uses for Evaluation 1.3 Intended Audience 1.4 Organization and Content of the Report
2. The Evaluation
2.1 Background and Goals 2.2 Objectives 2.3 Evaluation Questions 2.4 Timeline, Components, and Process of the Evaluation 2.5 The Evaluator 2.6 Evaluation Framework 2.7 Methodology 2.8 Data Collection 2.9 Data Analysis 2.10 Limitations of the Evaluation
3. Findings and Discussion 3.1 Findings 3.2 Discussion
3.2. a Evaluation Question 1 3.2. b Evaluation Question 2 3.2. c Evaluation Question 3
4. Conclusion and Recommendations
4.1 Conclusion 4.2 Recommendations: Evaluation Questions 4 & 5
References
Appendices Appendix A: Analysis of WAB STAMP Results on the ACTFL Proficiency Scale Matrix Appendix B: Relation to Internationally Recognized Language Levels Appendix C: WAB STAMP Results on the ACTFL Scale and WAB Course Map Appendix D: WAB, CASLS, and STAMP AP Students National (US) Data Comparison Appendix E: WAB IB Results Statistics (Year 2007 to 2012) Appendix F: Wang’s Findings Based on the Continua of Biliteracy and SWOT Matrix Appendix G: Junior Proficiency Scale Developed by the Center for Applied Linguistics Appendix H: WAB Course Map Appendix I: Sample Data of Parent and Student Surveys (THEIR FEELINGS) Appendix J: Quotes for LinguaFolio from the Center for Applied Second Language Studies
at the University of Oregon Appendix K: PPT Presentation made at 2013 National Chinese Language Conference:
Create a School-wide System through Professional Development
3
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACTFL: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
NL: Novice Low, NM: Novice Mid, NH: Novice High
IL: Intermediate Low; IM: Intermediate Mid; IH: Intermediate High
AL: Advanced Low; AM: Advanced Mid; AH: Advanced High
CASLS: Center for Applied Second Language Studies (at the University of Oregon)
CEFR: Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
IB: International Baccalaureate
DP: Diploma Programme
MYP: Middle Years Programme
PYP: Primary Years Programme
LFO: LinguaFolio
STAMP: Standards-based Measurement of Proficiency
WL: World Languages
Acknowledgement
Shuhan Wang, the evaluator, would like to thank all the parents, teachers, staff, and students at Western Academy of Beijing who opened not only their doors but also their hearts in providing valuable insights, perspectives, and ideas to enrich this evaluation. Special thanks go to Geoff Andrews, Courtney Lowe, Donna Connolly, Joergen Glittenberg, Huiman Cheng, Lili Jia, Linda Meng, Kayee Fu, Muhammad Azeem, and all the Chinese language teachers for their time, efforts, and collaboration.
4
Executive Summary
Over the past few years, the WAB Chinese language program has been pressured by demands from two forces. On the one hand, it has been striving to produce students with high oral proficiency and literacy in Chinese by the end of the twelfth grade, as required by the IB Diploma Program and as evidenced by students’ IB examination results. At the same time, the growing importance of China and the Chinese language has put the program under increased scrutiny. A number of parents and students are concerned about the orientation, focus, and efficacy of the program in general. The Board of Directors has requested that the current administration conduct a curriculum audit and evaluation of the Chinese language program in the elementary, middle, and high schools at WAB. The goal is to enhance the program so that it is effective in fostering proficiency in Chinese and serves as a model for other IB Chinese programs throughout the world.
Two preliminary meetings took place in September and December 2012, which led to the
decision to invite Dr. Shuhan Wang to conduct this evaluation. The evaluation took place between March and May 2013, and consisted of the following components: document review (IB and WAB documents and requested materials collected from each course in the Chinese language program at WAB); assessment of student language proficiency using the STAMP (Standards-based Measurement of Proficiency); a site visit, which included focus group meetings and interviews with parents, teachers, students, and administrators and board members, and classroom observations; parent and student surveys; and data analysis and report writing.
This evaluation was guided by the following questions in relation to the fact that WAB is an IB World School:
1) What is a typical WAB student’s oral language proficiency and literacy
in the Chinese language as measured by the ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 2012) proficiency scale in relation to the stated goals of the course that the student is taking?
2) What are the curricular and pedagogical approaches used in the classrooms vis a vis those stated in the WAB Language Policy and IB Program Guides for the PYP, MYP, and DP Programs?
3) What are strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement regarding WAB's Chinese programs as perceived by different stakeholder groups (students, teachers, administrators, parents, and board members)?
4) Based on the findings related to questions a through c, what recommendations can be made to WAB’s Chinese language program?
5) What professional development can the Chinese language teachers at WAB engage in in order to lead the charge in making the WAB Chinese program a model for other Chinese IB programs throughout the world?
The intended audience includes but is not limited to the following groups of stakeholders:
(1) the Board of Directors and Administrators at WAB; (2) WAB parents and students; (3) WAB Chinese language teachers; (4) peers who are interested in the Chinese language program at WAB; and (5) other international schools or IB organizations in and outside China that are concerned with Chinese language education in a global context.
5
This report includes the following sections: Section 1 is the Introduction. Section 2 describes the background for the evaluation, the goals, timeline, evaluator, evaluation framework, scope, methods, and data collection and analysis. Section 3 discusses the findings, and Section 4 draws a conclusion and makes recommendations for next steps with the WAB Chinese language program. This report should be read in relation to the extensive Appendices included, which provide supporting evidence to the findings, conclusion, and recommendations.
Findings are categorized as answers to the five evaluation questions. To the first
question about WAB students’ oral and literacy competency, Grade 6 and Grade 9 students took the STAMP (Standards-based Measurement of Proficiency) in March 2013. Their results were painstakingly analyzed by WAB staff and Dr. Wang, respectively. Dr. Wang then mapped the results to WAB courses and the ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching For Languages) proficiency scale, which revealed gaps between some of the WAB courses. On the other hand, students’ results showed that WAB students are at levels comparable to U.S. high school students who have studied Chinese for four years or taken the Advanced Placement Course and Examination sponsored by the College Board in the United States. Given that WAB is in China and strives for higher achievement, implications about how to move these students to a higher level are also discussed.
The second question asked about the curricular and pedagogical approaches used in
the classroom as compared with those stated in the WAB Language Policy and IB Program Guides. It is found that, although the Chinese language program produces excellent outcomes in the DP program, it may benefit from taking actions in the following areas:
Set goals and communicate a clear vision for the Chinese language program, because the stated and enacted curricula and goals are not well aligned;
Improve elementary, middle, and high school course mapping and articulation by aligning learning outcomes with IB benchmarks and internationally recognized proficiency scales such as the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines or CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages);
Review and close the gaps between elementary and middle school and between the MYP (Middle Years Program) and DP (Diploma Program);
Consider adding Chinese to the Early Childhood Center and more time in Kindergarten class;
Create a balanced approach to language learning and real-world usage vis a vis the requirements of IB program;
Create opportunities to showcase student learning to enhance students’ and teachers’ sense of achievement;
Collaborate with the Center for Advanced Second Language Studies (CASLS) at the University of Oregon to build a WAB online LinguaFolio system for student self-assessment; and
Enrich course content by connecting with other subject matter and with issues of global significance, which reflect better core principles of the IB World School.
The third question asks about the strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement
regarding WAB’s Chinese programs as perceived by different stakeholder groups such as parents, students, teachers, administrators, board members, and staff and community members at WAB. The strengths of the program include the fact that WAB is located in Beijing, where China and Chinese language have been valued as an important global currency for the past two decades and will continue to be the trend. The program is thus simultaneously receiving special
6
attention while also being scrutinized. Above all, there are dedicated and highly qualified Chinese language teachers in the program.
The weaknesses of the program include the fact that WAB has not fully tapped into its
rich human, cultural, and social capital within the school or the local community. As such, there is a sense of missed opportunity to cultivate the resources in the micro and macro environments of WAB. Meanwhile, it is apparent that WAB needs to manage parent expectations, including those who are native speakers and non-native speakers and who are long-term and short-term expatriates. Parent workshops would be beneficial for establishing open communication, managing expectations, and brainstorming ways to bring China to WAB and vice versa. Finally, WAB leadership needs to ensure that all Chinese teachers understand that a one-size-fits-all uniform approach to language learning and teaching is not effective and that the IB philosophy and requirements need not be so narrowly interpreted and still get good results.
Based on these findings, a four-pronged approach to taking action on a short-term and
long-term basis is recommended. The four areas of focus and short- and long-term actions within each include the following:
WAB and the Chinese Language Program: Short-term: Use teacher workshops to discuss ways to diversify the types,
genres, and formats of homework; establish ways to communicate with parents.
Mid- and Long-term: Consider ways to redesign the curriculum and re-align courses to move away from seat-time-based to competency-based instruction that is aligned with an internationally recognized proficiency scale.
Face to Face and Virtual Professional Development and Coaching for Chinese Language Teachers:
Short-term: Expand teachers’ views of a language learning framework and familiarize them with principles of language learning and teaching, especially in light of IB parameters and real life application.
Mid- and Long-term: Engage in designing and implementing thematically-organized and performance-based WAB IB language curriculum, instruction, material selection/development, and assessment.
Student Assessment: Short-term: Consider collaborating with Center for Applied Second Language
Studies at the University of Oregon (CASLS) to build a WAB online LinguaFolio system.
Mid- and Long-term: Continue to administer the STAMP assessment to Grades 6 and 9 students to measure the effects of program change.
“Chinese Is Cool” Initiatives at WAB: Short-term: Implement a more innovative homework assignment policy;
communication mechanism with parents; develop graded reading materials and accompanying audio support for home; conduct parent and student workshops; student tutoring clubs; various Chinese language and cultural activities, including involvement in arts and sports; and opportunities for students to “Adopt a Teacher” and help the teacher or administrator to learn Chinese.
7
Mid- and Long-term: Continue the effort to send the message that “knowing Chinese is cool.”
This is a daunting task for WAB to engage in transforming its Chinese language program from “Good to Great,” borrowing the term from Jim Collins (2001). It can be done, provided that WAB and its community members are determined to make the necessary commitment to create synergy for effecting change.
8
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this evaluation is to examine the design, implementation, and outcomes
of the Chinese language program at the Western Academy of Beijing (WAB) in order to
determine the overall strength and value of the program. This evaluation also identifies and
suggests strategies for program improvement, student learning, teacher effectiveness, and
parent and community communication and outreach.
1.2 Uses for the Evaluation
This evaluation report may be used by various constituents in the following ways:
(1) Illuminate the value and strengths of the program;
(2) Provide a framework upon which to redesign or align the curriculum with the WAB-
specific and International Baccalaureate (IB) − related learning goals;
(3) Determine the needs of students and teachers in order to develop a professional
development plan for teachers;
(4) Manage expectations of different groups of stakeholders, including parents and the
WAB community; and
(5) Encourage and increase the continued accountability and participation of all
stakeholders.
1.3 Intended Audience
The intended audience includes but is not limited to the following groups of stakeholders:
(1) the Board of Directors and Administrators at WAB; (2) WAB parents and students; (3) WAB
Chinese language teachers; (4) peers who are interested in the Chinese language program at
WAB; and (5) other international schools or IB organizations in and outside China that are
concerned with Chinese language education in a global context. Each stakeholder group may
find helpful answers to their questions and concerns while also identifying essential elements
and core principles related to the outcomes of student learning, issues of learning and teaching
9
Chinese language and culture, and the design and implementation of a Chinese language
program in the WAB-specific and international context.
1.4 Organization and Content of the Report
The remainder of this report describes the evaluation. Section 2 describes the
background for the evaluation, the goals, timeline, evaluator, evaluation framework, scope,
methods, and data collection and analysis. Section 3 discusses the findings, and Section 4
draws a conclusion and makes recommendations for next steps with the WAB Chinese
language program.
2. The Evaluation
In September 2012, Dr. Shuhan C. Wang was invited to meet with Mr. Geoffrey Andrews,
the director of WAB. During the visit, Mr. Andrews gave her a tour of the school and described
the history and current concerns of the Chinese language program. In December 2012, Dr.
Wang returned to the school and met with the principals and coordinators of the IB PYP, MYP,
and DP programs in the elementary, middle, and high schools. In addition to observing Chinese
classes briefly, she met with Chinese language teachers in the elementary and high schools.
Shortly afterwards, Dr. Wang was commissioned by WAB to evaluate and make
recommendations regarding the Chinese language program. This section provides information
about the background, objectives, scope, timeline, and the process of the evaluation. Besides
explaining the qualifications of Dr. Wang, it describes her conceptual framework and
methodological approach in conducting the evaluation. Finally, data collection and analysis are
discussed along with caveats about the limitations of the evaluation.
2.1 Background and Goals
Over the past few years, the WAB Chinese language program has been pressured by
demands from two forces. On the one hand, it has been striving to produce students with high
oral proficiency and literacy in Chinese by the end of the twelfth grade, as required by the IB
Diploma Program and as evidenced by students’ IB examination results. At the same time, the
10
growing importance of China and the Chinese language has put the program under increased
scrutiny. A number of parents and students are concerned about the orientation, focus, and
efficacy of the program in general. The Board of Directors has requested that the current
administration conduct a curriculum audit and evaluation of the Chinese language programs in
the elementary, middle, and high schools at WAB. The goal is to enhance the program so that it
will be effective in fostering proficiency in Chinese and serve as a model for other IB Chinese
programs throughout the world.
2.2 Objectives
The objectives of the evaluation include the following:
a) Assess student learning outcomes against an internationally standardized language
proficiency scale to determine if WAB students are performing at the same levels as
those who study Chinese in other international contexts
b) Identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement within the WAB Chinese
language program
c) Make recommendations to WAB and their stakeholders about how to improve
WAB's Chinese language program
d) Develop a plan for professional development of Chinese language faculty at WAB
2.3 Evaluation Questions
Based on the stated goals and objectives and in light of the context that WAB is an IB
World School, the following questions guided the evaluation:
1) What is a typical WAB student’s oral language proficiency and literacy in the Chinese
language as measured by the ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages, 2012) proficiency scale in relation to the stated goals of the course that the
student is taking?
2) What are the curricular and pedagogical approaches used in the classrooms vis a vis
those stated in the WAB Language Policy and IB Program Guides?
11
3) What are strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement regarding WAB's Chinese
programs as perceived by different stakeholder groups (students, teachers,
administrators, parents, and board members)?
4) Based on the findings related to questions a through c, what recommendations can be
made to WAB’s Chinese language program?
5) What professional development can the Chinese language faculty members at WAB
engage in order to lead the charge in making the WAB Chinese program a model for
other Chinese IB programs throughout the world?
2.4 Timeline, Components, and Process of the Evaluation Two preliminary meetings took place in September and December 2012, which led to the
decision to conduct this evaluation. The evaluation itself took place between March and May
2013, and consisted of the following components: document review (IB and WAB documents
and requested materials collected from each course in the Chinese language program at WAB);
assessment of student language proficiency using the STAMP (Standards-based Measurement
of Proficiency); a site visit, which included focus group meetings and interviews with
administrators, board members, parents, teachers, and students, and classroom observations;
parent and student surveys; and data analysis and report writing. The details are listed in the
table below.
Timeline Components Stakeholder Participants Products September 14 & December 12, 2012
Pre-evaluation visits
Geoffrey Andrews, Casey Cosgray, Donna Connolly, Rena Mirkin, Angela Meikel, Trish McNair, Joergen Glittenberg, Linda Meng, Huiman Cheng, Lili Jia, and Shuhan Wang
An orientation for Shuhan Wang to become familiar with the program at WAB: observed Chinese classes and determined a preliminary course of action and documents to review Donna Connolly’s and Shuhan Wang’s meeting notes
December Document review Joergen Glittenberg, Geoffrey WAB Language Policy and
12
2012 – February 2013
Andrews, and Shuhan Wang other related documents were sent by Joergen Glittenberg to Shuhan Wang for review; Geoffrey Andrews and Shuhan Wang developed an agreement and scope of work for the evaluation
January – March 2013
WAB arranged and contracted with Avant Assessment to administer the STAMP assessment with Grade 6 & 9 students
Geoffrey Andrews, Courtney Lowe, Donna Connolly, Shuhan Wang, and Avant representatives
STAMP assessments were administered to Grade 6 & 9 students March 11-13
February-March 2013
Arrangements were made for the March site visit
Donna Connolly led the effort to make the arrangements; Courtney Lowe, Kayee Fu, Geoffrey Andrews, Joergen Glittenberg, Linda Meng, Huiman Cheng, Lili Jia, and Shuhan Wang Courtney Lowe and Shuhan Wang communicated online and via Skype regarding the project
Developed an extensive agenda for each day of the visit; a comprehensive list of documents requested by Shuhan Wang were sent via Dropbox for review (see Data Collection section below)
March 11-15, 2013
Site visit at WAB: Shuhan Wang and Courtney Lowe
See Data Collection section below See Data Collection section below Daily debriefing with key personnel
April-May 2013
Student and parent surveys
Shuhan Wang, Courtney Lowe, Muhammad Azeem
Results of Student and Parent Surveys via Survey Monkey
May 20, 2013 Data analysis and report writing
Shuhan Wang, in collaboration with Courtney Lowe
Evaluation Report
2.5 Evaluator
Shuhan C. Wang, Ph.D., is president of ELE Consulting International, which provides
curriculum and materials development, teacher professional development, and program
evaluation to schools, districts, states, institutions of higher learning, businesses, and
governments interested in foreign/world language education.
13
Dr. Wang is former Deputy Director of the National Foreign Language Center (NFLC) at
the University of Maryland. During her tenure there from 2009-2012, she was Co-Principal
Investigator of the STARTALK Project. This multiyear federally funded project under the National
Security Language Initiative promotes the study and teaching of critical languages such as
Arabic, Chinese, Dari, Hindi, Persian, Portuguese, Russian, Swahili, Turkish, and Urdu in K-16
educational settings across the United States. From 2006 to 2009, Dr. Wang was Executive
Director for Chinese Language Initiatives at the Asia Society. From 1998 to 2006, Dr. Wang was
Education Associate for World Languages and International Education for the Delaware
Department of Education.
Dr. Wang is recognized as an expert by Confucius Institutes Headquarters (Hanban) and
serves as an Advisor to the Ministry of Education in Singapore on the Mother Tongue and
Elementary Curriculum and Textbook Development Projects. She also serves as a consultant
for Sesame Workshop on their global Chinese language project for preschool children, Chinese
American International School for its development of Pre-K to Grade 8 dual language immersion
curriculum, and the Maryland State Department of Education for its Elementary STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Math) - focused World Language Curricular Module Development
Project, with support from the U.S. Race to the Top effort.
Dr. Wang’s work is published in books and peer-reviewed journals nationally and
internationally, including in two Chinese textbook series for high school and elementary school
students. She holds a BA in Foreign Languages and Literatures from the National Taiwan
University, an MA in Communication from the Ohio State University, and an MA in
Bilingualism/Teaching English as a Second Language from the University of Delaware. She
received her PhD in Educational Linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania.
2.6 Evaluation Framework
This evaluation adopts a conceptual framework called the Continua of Biliteracy
(Hornberger & Skilton-Sylvester, 2003; Hornberger & Wang, 2008), which explains factors that
14
are critical for the development of biliteracy. In this model, four interrelated and nested sets of
continua interface at various points: context, media, content, and development.
In each set, there are three intersecting continua. For example, context refers to
language environments that range from monolingual to bilingual; oral to literate use of
languages; and micro to macro contexts in which a language is allowed, prohibited, required, or
preferred. Media includes the degree to which the linguistic structures of the languages (i.e.,
native languages, English, and Chinese) are similar or dissimilar; if their scripts are convergent
or divergent; and if a biliterate individual’s exposure to the language is simultaneous or
successive. Content includes the range of perspectives in oral and written texts that reflect
minority to majority experience; the extent to which styles and genres incorporate vernacular to
literary use of the language; and the degree to which language texts vary from contextualized to
decontextualized. Development includes biliteracy development along intersecting skills from
the first language to the second (or additional) language; from receptive to productive skills; and
from oral to written language. In total, there are twelve continua within these four sets. The more
points in these continua that are available for individuals to draw on, the more favorable the
conditions are for developing biliteracy. Figure 1 shows the nestled relationship of these four
continua in an individual’s development of biliteracy.
Figure 1: Four Continua of Biliteracy
Context
Media
Content
Development
15
Context:
micro macro oral literate
bi(multi)lingual monolingual
Media
simultaneous exposure successive exposure dissimilar structures similar structures
divergent scripts convergent scripts
Content
minority majority vernacular literary
contextualized decontextualized
Development
reception production oral written L1 L2
In the section on Data Analysis, I discuss how I have applied this model to the evaluation of the
WAB Chinese language program.
2.7 Methodology
This evaluation employed mixed methods that included focus group interviews,
classroom observations, surveys, student assessment data, document review, and site visits.
There were two preliminary meetings and site visits, September and December 2012, and an
intensive period of data collection and analysis from March to May 2013, as explained in section
2.4: Timeline, Components, and Process of the Evaluation.
2.8 Data Collection
Several key points deserve special attention, the first of which is student assessment.
The heart of the evaluation is to determinethe learning outcomes of students in the WAB
Chinese language program. Specifically, how developed are a typical WAB student’s Chinese
oral proficiency and literacy as shown on an internationally recognized language proficiency
16
scale? To what extent is a student’s proficiency and performance in the Chinese language
influenced by the curriculum and instruction received at WAB?
To answer these questions, a decision between the administration and the evaluator was
made to administer a STAMP assessment to Grade 6 and Grade 9 students. These two grades
are at the thresholds of transition from elementary to middle school and from middle to high
school at WAB. The assessment of these students’ learning outcomes will not only reveal the
proficiency levels of these students and their achievement in the program but also provide
information for WAB to determine how to close gaps or remove overlaps in curriculum and
course mapping in the coming years.
STAMP, Standards-based Measurement of Proficiency, was chosen for various reasons.
First, it is based on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, 2012),
and the data have been normed and scaled to reflect its reliability and validity. Second, it is
administered and scored online, so it can be scaled up and is cost-effective. Third, it is
proficiency-based, which can reveal how WAB students function in simulated real-life situations
instead of on achievement tests, which have been driving assessment at WAB1. Avant, the
company that owns STAMP, was contracted to conduct the online assessment March 11-13,
2013. All classes in Grades 6 and 9 (G6 and G9) administered the assessment according to the
predetermined schedules. Because WAB’s Chinese program has a heavy emphasis on using
pen and pencil only (in order to prepare for the requirements of DP exams in high school), a
good number of students are not used to taking language assessments online, although they
are not strangers to using technology. Some students found reading the prompts in English
challenging, primarily because assessment in Chinese at WAB has always been done in
1 In language assessment, an achievement test refers to the content and format of tests that determine
what an individual has learned in a program. A proficiency test assesses an individual’s ability to function
in real-life situations based on a set of linguistic criteria, without being confined by the scope of a
language program.
17
Chinese only. The scores were available within one week of the administration of the STAMP.
The G6 and G9 Chinese HOD (Head of Department) and IB coordinators painstakingly further
marked the student data by each student’s current class and past history of Chinese learning at
WAB. Such a detailed level of data collection yielded rich data for analysis, discussed in the
section on Findings.
The second noteworthy point about data collection is that numerous groups of people
were interviewed during the March site visit, for the purpose of finding out the perspectives of
different stakeholders and answering the question related to the strengths, weaknesses, and
areas for improvement regarding WAB's Chinese programs. Meetings and focus group
interviews of MS and HS students; Chinese language teachers; Elementary School (ES), Middle
School (MS), High School (HS), and WAB administrators, board members, and other school
staff; and parents were scheduled. Interviews with the coordinator of China Engagement and a
former board member were also conducted. In addition to taking extensive notes, Shuhan Wang
also took pictures and audiotaped most of the interviews and meetings. Before each taping, she
requested verbal consent of the participants. All data remain anonymous, and no one is
identified individually.
Third, to ensure triangulation of data, classroom observations were conducted. Generally,
Shuhan Wang stayed in each classroom for 20-30 minutes, long enough to take notes on
curricular and lesson focus, instructional strategies, classroom management, and climate of the
class. Extensive documents such as IB program guides; WAB Language Policy; the curriculum
for the ES, MS, and HS; the syllabus for each class; sample lesson plans; student writing; and
assessments were collected and transmitted online to Wang. They were analyzed and
categorized according to an analytical matrix, which is discussed in the next section. The
findings form the basis for the recommendations and plan for professional development of the
Chinese language teachers.
18
During the site visit in March, a debriefing with Geoff Andrews, Courtney Lowe, and
Donna Connolly took place at the end of the day, during which Wang shared her observations
and reflections. The discussion helped to chart the course for and focus of the next day’s data
collection.
Finally, during the month of April, in collaboration with Courtney Lowe, Wang developed
a parent and student survey. The IT team at WAB helped to convert these surveys into online
formats and administered them in early May. As of May 15, there were 311 parent and 297
student responses. The responses to these surveys were analyzed by Survey Monkey and then
analyzed further by Wang.
2.9 Data Analysis
Documents went through several extensive readings and analysis. Notes were taken in
terms of trends and areas for special attention. Many of these notes formed the basis for
interview questions, observations, and data analysis checklists.
Classroom observation notes from ES, MS, and HS classes were analyzed, and major
trends were identified.
Chinese curricula, syllabi, and sample materials from all schools and classes were
analyzed and categorized by themes and notes.
Notes from parent, administrator, board members, staff, teacher, and student
meetings and interviews were reviewed and analyzed. Major themes emerged and
were categorized.
Parent and student surveys: The notes from all data sources mentioned above were
used to develop parent and student surveys. The results were analyzed and categorized.
STAMP test results: Data were categorized by course and grade on the matrix of the
ACTFL proficiency scale (Appendix A).
19
WAB student data were then aligned with WAB’s language policy, course
mapping, and the ACTFL proficiency scale. They were plotted on the WAB
course map and ACTFL proficiency scale (Appendix C). For readers’ reference,
a chart developed by the IB program is provided in Appendix B, which aligns IB
scores with major internationally recognized proficiency scales.
WAB student assessment data were compared with two other data sources: a
report conducted by the Center for Applied Second Language Studies (CASLS)
at the University of Oregon, sponsored by the United States Department of
Education (2010); and data compiled by Avant, aligning student data on a
STAMP assessment as well as those who earned a 5, the highest score possible,
on the Advanced Placement (AP) Chinese Examination offered by the College
Board. This side analysis report is listed in Appendix D.
Curriculum and course mapping: Shuhan Wang exchanged emails and held two
Skype calls with Lili Jia, Huiman Cheng, Linda Meng, and Joergen Glittenberg to verify
accuracy of findings and understanding. The focus of the discussions was on the
changes that WAB will begin to implement in the fall 2013 in aligning its MYP Chinese
courses according to the IB Guidelines published in 2011.
WAB IB DP test statistics: The scores of WAB students on IB examinations are listed
separately in Appendix E.
2.10 Limitations of the Evaluation
While every effort is made to ensure a deep understanding and accurate analysis of the
Chinese language program at WAB, it is a daunting task for an outsider to understand the
complexity of the program from a few days’ visit and document review. The various parent
meetings; interviews with students, teachers, administrators, board members, and other
program staff; the anonymous parent and student surveys conducted online; and the student
20
learning outcomes obtained from the STAMP assessment were of enormous help in increasing
triangulation and offering various perspectives and richness of meaning. Nonetheless, readers
should be mindful that this evaluation tells only a partial story. The future actions taken as part of
program improvement must engage all stakeholders, particularly administrators and teachers, to
develop ownership of the change that the program will embark on as a result of this evaluation
effort.
3. Findings and Discussion
3.1 Findings
An analytical matrix was developed by employing two frameworks. One is the Continua
of Biliteracy explained in Section 2.6. Evaluation Framework. The other is a SWOT analysis of
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
(http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_section_main_1049.aspx).The matrix is shown below,
and the detailed analysis is provided in Appendix F.
Wang’s WAB Evaluation Analytical Matrix
Categories of Analysis Findings
Strengths Weaknesses & Threats
Opportunities
3.1 Context: 3.1a Macro: China in the world 3.1b Macro: School: WAB 3.1c Micro: Chinese language program
3.2 Content: Curriculum Connections with other subject matters Materials and homework
3.3 Media: About Chinese Course mapping and expectations Emphasis of knowledge and skills in
Chinese language and culture
3.4 Development: Framework for language learning and teach-
ing Instructional strategies Pedagogical skills Assessment of student learning
21
3.2 Discussion
The discussion of findings is organized by answering the evaluation questions listed in
Section 2.3.
3.2.a Evaluation Question 1: What is a typical WAB student’s oral language proficiency and literacy in the Chinese language as measured by the ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 2012) Proficiency Guidelines in relation the stated goals of the course that the student is taking?
The data used to answer this question are from the STAMP assessment that G6 and G9
students took in March. It is important to keep in mind that (1) these data are only a snapshot of
two groups of students, and (2) the students’ linguistic backgrounds and history of taking
Chinese vary tremendously, so that only general trends can be inferred. Nonetheless, based on
the comparison of national data of students of 4th year Chinese and STAMP data of students
who scored 5 on the Advanced Placement (AP) Examination offered by the College Board, it is
safe to conclude that WAB G9 students are at the comparable AP level. This is in concordance
with the knowledge that AP is geared at the Intermediate level, and IB aims at higher levels, as
shown in Appendix B. Again, details of analysis are in Appendix A. For ease of reference, an
explanation of the ACTFL Proficiency Scale is included. What follows is supporting evidence:
Reading:
1) G9 WAB students’ scores are comparable to the scores of AP students on the
STAMP.
2) WAB G6 and G 9 students are more spread out across proficiency levels than are
students in national 4th year and AP data.
3) G6 data: 29% of students concentrate on the NL level, which must be moved up to
NM, considering that most students at WAB have been taking Chinese for a few years.
This means that the ES Chinese program may need to enhance its instruction on
literacy. This point needs to be verified with the ES teachers.
22
4) G9 data: WAB data (41%) is comparable to AP data (53%) on the NM level, while the
4th year national data show the heaviest concentration at the IM level (40%). This
means that the WAB Chinese program may wish to examine its approach to and
selection of the genre, type, and breadth of reading material. As observed in the
curriculum analysis, WAB’s materials are heavy on literature, and the approach to
reading focuses on literary analysis. The STAMP and AP assessments are more
related to real-life topics and include a wider range of reading materials and activities,
which seem to be in line with the philosophy and approach in the IB language
program. This point will be elaborated in Section 3.2.b.
Writing:
1) WAB students are spread across the levels from NM-AM. Neither national nor AP data
show students above the IH level. This means that some WAB students have higher
writing abilities than students in other groups.
2) G6 data: The highest concentration for the national 4th year data is on NH (61%), and
AP is on IM (53%). WAB G6 students are on NH (24%), and G9 students are on IL
(32%). Generally speaking, WAB students are comparable with the national and AP
data due to the fact that WAB also has a high concentration of students scoring at the
levels between the national (NH) and AP (IM).
Listening:
1) There are no national data available for comparison, only the AP data. 37% of AP
students scored at the IH level, while 48% of WAB G6 students and 22% of G9
students scored at the IL level. The data pose an interesting and important question for
the WAB Chinese language program. Do students have lots of opportunity to listen to
materials in Chinese? What types of listening materials and activities are there? Are
there opportunities and resources that can be tapped into by the program to increase
23
students’ listening skills? This warrants special consideration, because the WAB
program is located in China, where many such tasks and materials are available.
Speaking:
1) In speaking, WAB students are on par with the national and AP data.
2) The national data do not show students above the IM level, which is the highest
concentration for AP students (41%). The majority (48%) of G6 students at WAB are in
IL level. The highest concentration of G9 students are in IM (33%), with a fairly high
percentage in the AL (25%) level. This means that some WAB students have higher
speaking ability than students in other groups. Given the fact that WAB is in China, it
would be a reasonable and achievable goal for the Chinese language program to push
students’ speaking ability higher.
Implications
On the positive side, WAB staff can be assured that the students are performing on par
with high school students across the United States who have studied Chinese for four years or
have successfully taken an AP course and examination. Interested readers should also review
the data and comments in Appendix D. In addition to mapping student data from each course on
the ACTFL Proficiency Scale, I describe the typical profile of learners at each level and suggest
implications on pedagogy for WAB to consider. For example, Reading and Listening may be
areas to pay attention to, in terms of increasing the variety of genre, text, source, type (narrative,
informative, persuasive/opinion), content, and activities and tasks. Opportunities to speak on a
wider variety of topics and occasions and with speakers with various proficiencies, accents,
styles, and roles would also be beneficial, particularly in light of the fact that WAB is located in
the heart of China.
WAB may also consider allowing students to type to compose instead of only allowing
and requiring handwriting of Chinese characters (hanzi) in essay writing. While handwriting of
hanzi is an IB requirement, it is counterproductive when students can use technological tools to
24
enhance the efficacy of their learning. As shown in Table 4, Appendix A, there was one outlier
student, whose scores were outstanding. Huiman Cheng noted that they are aware of this
student’s ability, whose weakness is in handwriting and composing essays in hanzi. Because
STAMP’s writing is conducted online, via the typing of Pinyin, the writing task is much easier
than WAB’s usual practice of handwriting to compose. In fact, the use of the computer to write
requires the writer to rely on his/her oral proficiency to type in Pinying. Then he/she needs to
select the correct hanzi from a word bank that pops up as a result of the Pinyin input. The
cognitive load on the writer is much lower than actually producing hanzi by hand. Based on this
fact and the finding that the writing scores for WAB students are relatively higher than scores in
reading, WAB may consider allowing students to type under various circumstances while also
asking them to handwrite to compose. The typed materials can become reading materials for
students. Meanwhile, students may mark the hanzi that they cannot handwrite and make an
effort to practice them. In this way, the practice of writing new or unfamiliar hanzi is
contextualized and more meaningful than copying them ten times in isolation (Appendix F).
3.2.b Evaluation Question 2: What are the curricular and pedagogical approaches used in the classrooms vis a vis those stated in the WAB Language Policy and IB Program Guides?
Set Goals and Communicate a Clear Vision for the Chinese Language Program
at WAB. WAB needs to communicate clearly the goals, learning expectations, value, strengths,
curriculum framework, and pedagogical approach of its Chinese language program to its board,
staff, teachers, parents, students, and prospective families.
Presently, although the program follows the IB course mapping and philosophy, different
groups of stakeholders have their own perceptions and interpretations of the Chinese language
program. For example, parents who are native speakers of Chinese emphasized children’s
ability to read and write, because these children already know how to speak the language.
Parents and students of non-Chinese language background, however, value the ability to listen
and speak (See Appendices F & I). There is also a mismatch between the stated goals and
25
philosophy in the document, implementation and practice in the classroom, and management of
expectations of parents and the WAB community at large. It is obvious that a great deal of
energy has been put into the Chinese programs in ES, MS, and HS, particularly by Chinese
language teachers, Chinese HODs, and IB coordinators, and there are numerous pockets of
excellence. However, they remain isolated and are not tapped into to create synergy and
excitement across and about the program. As a result, parents, teachers, administrators, and
students find it challenging to understand the multiple perspectives represented and identify
entry points for collaboration to move forward.
While the board and administration are ambitious in advocating the vision that WAB will
have one of the best Chinese programs in and outside the IB program globally, it needs to
implement this vision with key stakeholders sitting together to re-examine and revise statements
outlining the program’s goals, curricular and course map, pedagogical approach, and course-by-
course learning objectives. It also needs to build a mechanism with which open and responsive
communication can take place, while allowing students and teachers to showcase their
achievements together. These tasks are seemingly simple and straightforward; however, they
require a fundamental shift in thinking about the program and making an investment of time,
resources, collaboration, and commitment to achieve the desired outcomes.
Improve Elementary, Middle, and High School Program Mapping and Articulation
by Aligning Learning Outcomes with IB Benchmarks and an Internationally Recognized
Proficiency Scale. As stated earlier, WAB Chinese courses are designed and mapped out
based on the prescribed IB scope and sequence in PYP, MYP, and DP. While the descriptors of
what students need to know and be able to do are clearly benchmarked in the IB documents,
two major issues emerge in practice.
One is the lack of common terms understood and shared by all stakeholders to describe
what students know and can do. For example, it is difficult to talk about a student’s oral
26
proficiency and literacy with a set of characteristics such as the following for a student in the
MYP Phase Five course:
The student should be able to:
Oral communication: understand, analyze and respond to a range of spoken
texts, and so on.
Visual interpretation: analyze information presented in visual texts, and so on.
Reading Comprehension: analyze specific information, ideas, opinions and
attitudes presented in written texts, and so on.
Writing: communicate information, ideas and opinions in social situations and
some academic situations, and so on (excerpt from MYP Language B
Continuum).
When stakeholders talk, it is important to provide a label that reflects the profile
described in the IB document. Second and more serious is the threat that each division, ES, MS
or HS, has its own nomenclature used for naming courses. While they follow the prescriptions
from IB that also outline the descriptors clearly, these courses do not translate easily into
language proficiency levels of students, particularly when they transition from grade to grade
and from school to school. Therefore, it is difficult to pinpoint how the ability of a student in the
Intermediate 2 course in PYP would compare with that of a student in the (new) Phase 3 course
in the MYP, other than the fact that teachers know the student’s skill set. It is thus challenging to
explain to a parent or other outside stakeholder about the linguistic competency of the child.
As a result, there are gaps and overlaps found within and between the same or adjacent
courses, as is discussed below. Without a common tool to communicate, it is frustrating for
teachers, students, and parents to talk to one another. More important, it is difficult for students
to see the progress they have made between courses. To outsiders who are not familiar with the
IB world, it is also impossible to understand what it means to be a Phase Five student in the
27
MYP program. Eventually, the moving of students becomes a seat-time instead of competency
approach.
To resolve this issue, I recommend that WAB align its IB descriptors with the ACTFL
Proficiency Guidelines or CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages),
as IB itself has done. These can be viewed in Appendix B. My proposal is not for WAB to throw
away the IB nomenclature for courses but rather to follow the IB nomenclature and align it with
that of ACTFL or CEFR. In this way, the abilities of WAB Chinese students can be understood at
a glance when they transition to other schools or institutions of higher learning around the world,
beyond the IB program. Otherwise, this will not be possible, and it is likely that there will be gaps
or overlaps within and across courses from ES, MS, to HS.
Review and Close the Gaps Between PYP and MYP and Between MYP and DP
Programs. The results on the STAMP and the ACTFL Proficiency Scale (Appendix C) show
possible gaps in the WAB MYP and DP programs. It needs to be emphasized first that WAB
course mapping in the MYP is accurate and reflective of students’ progression in language
learning. As discussed in 3.1.a, WAB G6 and G9 students are on par with other students who
have studied Chinese for a number of years. The results of G6 and G9 also demonstrate the
developmental differences between sixth graders and ninth graders, although both sets of
courses are called by the same nomenclature, which is another example of why it is better and
more accurate to align the courses with the ACTFL or CEFR scale.
However, when looking at the end point of Standard 3 (Int-Mid) or Language A (Adv-Mid)
Chinese, it is easy to understand why many parents complain that it is difficult for their children
to find a good fit in the DP program. Ab Initio would be too easy for many of them, but there is a
huge gap between these courses and DP B SL (in the Advanced level) or HL (in the Superior
level). As language proficiency increases, the distance between levels also increases. Therefore,
students will need intensive study to catch up in a short period of time after they enter the DP
28
program. Similarly, the orientation and focus between the ES and MS Chinese program are
vastly different, which needs to be closely examined as well.
Consider Reconfiguring Courses in the MYP Program (Appendices G & H). Based
on the courses laid out in the MYP program shown in Appendix H, it might be worthwhile to
consider eliminating Language B Pre-Phase 2 and combining it with Phase 2. The planned
Phase 1 and Pre-Phase 2 are both crowded into the Novice Low to Novice-Mid levels, and it
does not take long to move up to Novice Mid. However, it takes a long time to move from Novice
Mid to Intermediate levels. It might be desirable to institute Phase 6, thus creating more time
and opportunity for students in the MYP to move from Novice High to Advanced Low or
Advanced-Mid levels. Currently in each MYP course, the span for proficiency level is quite large,
which makes it challenging for many students and teachers. Reconfiguring the MYP courses
would allow more time and space for students to better transition into the DP program. Similarly,
it might be necessary to reconfigure courses in the ES to allow for a better transition into MS.
Differentiation of instruction should occur within each course and not only in course
designation. This point cannot be overemphasized, because WAB serves students with a wide
range of linguistic, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds, whose experiences and exposures to
languages are not the same. The Chinese program must be built on the belief that all students
can learn, albeit their paces and styles may be different. The one-size-fits all approach in
instruction does not serve students well.
Consider Adding Chinese Instruction to the Early Childhood Center or the
Kindergarten Class, or at least adding time for Chinese learning to the Kindergarten class. In
the responses to the parent survey, many parents suggested adding Chinese to ECC and
Kindergarten, “as this is the crucial time to learn a language” (Appendix F). In the 3E School in
Beijing, the policy for preschool children is that English-speaking staff speaks English and
Chinese-speaking staff speak Chinese either in teaching or taking care of the children. In such a
natural language use environment, children can become bilingual in speaking different
29
languages with different interlocutors. This can be done without adding much cost in terms of
staffing or demands in terms of curriculum development.
Create a Balanced Approach to Language Learning and Real World Usage Vis à
Vis the Requirements of the IB Program. It is true that IB has a high standard, and the
requirements favor reading and writing skills and literary analysis. This does not mean, though,
that language learning and use must be limited to classroom study and literary analysis. Given
the fact that language learning is not linear, and literacy and oral proficiency are actually the two
sides of a mirror, a focus on oral language use will enhance the acquisition of literacy, and vice
versa.
Based on the review of IB philosophy and documents and notes from classroom
observations, the WAB Chinese program seems to take a narrow interpretation of the IB
program. IB structures its framework around Michael Halliday’s (1985) description of the three
strands of language and learning: learning language, learning through language, and learning
about language (Language and Learning in IB Programmes, 2011). In the first strand, learning
language, learners pay attention to acquisition of the vocabulary, grammatical structures, and
conventions of the language. In doing so, they focus on the learning of social language to meet
the needs of everyday functions while also acquiring literacy and the art of language. In the
strand of learning through language, learners begin to learn content in various subject areas, in
addition to learning language. In fact, learning rich content only increases interest in, motivation
to, and meaning for learning the language, instead of taking time away from language learning.
Finally, in the strand of learning about language, learners develop the ability to undertake
literary analysis and critical literacy for interpreting and producing all sorts of texts. Their focus
has moved from what is being said and written to interpretation of what is said and written
based on speakers, perspectives, and viewpoints. They are able to read between the lines.
While the three strands follow linguistic developmental stages, they are not mutually
exclusive and must be interwoven throughout the process of language acquisition. Somehow, at
30
WAB, in the process of meeting the IB requirements, the need to help learners develop
competence in these three domains has taken a turn to privileging reading and writing skills on
decontextualized content and formal usage of language for academic purposes, with a focus on
literature. This privileging of the formal aspects of language learning and use creates the
phenomenon that instructional content and approaches focus on reading and writing with limited
focus on listening and speaking Chinese for real-life communicative purposes. The statements
made in parent and student interviews and surveys must be heeded (Appendices F & I), and
WAB will benefit from re-examining the focus of the program and its development of students'
skills in the Chinese language. Teachers will also benefit from a deeper understanding of the IB
approach and goals from a broader perspective.
Create Opportunities to Showcase Student Learning to Enhance Students’ and
Teachers’ Sense of Achievement. The current view of the Chinese program is from a deficit
perspective; i.e., the program is not good enough. Although the program has several
weaknesses, there is a tremendous amount of learning taking place, and all Chinese teachers
are dedicated and hard-working. Because of the influence of Chinese culture, they are not good
in beating their own drums. As a result, a good number of parents are not satisfied, teachers are
frustrated, and many students do not enjoy a sense of success or confidence (Appendices F &
I). There is an urgent need to demonstrate students’ achievement and show parents and the
WAB community what students are able to do in Chinese. Additionally, it is important to keep in
mind that language learning must be validated and improved through use in real life. The more
language is treated as a school subject, the less students will be able to communicate through it.
Conversely, the more it is used as a tool for communication, the more students will use it
proficiently and effectively. If students cannot find ways to use Chinese in China, where else can
they use it more?
This is low-hanging fruit for WAB to improve its Chinese program. The entire community
can and should find ways to showcase student learning. For example, in the school assembly or
31
student shows, Chinese classes can have performances in Chinese, through singing, band,
drama, folk tales, or plays. Many parents said that they retain tutors for Chinese at home
(Appendix I). Why not have HS students establish Chinese tutoring clubs to organize and
provide tutoring for younger students? How about finding local people, who do not speak
English, to teach Chinese calligraphy, brush painting, arts and crafts, martial arts, Chinese
opera, storytelling, or Toast Master in Chinese? Can students form clubs and investigate
solutions to problems identified in the school community? How about establishing student
exchange, varsity games, or science or music camps with local schools? Chinese parents and
teachers have their local contacts. WAB can tap into these resources.
Collaborate with the Center for Advanced Second Language Studies (CASLS) at
the University of Oregon to Build a WAB Online LinguaFolio (LFO) System. The LFO is an
online student self-assessment system in which students can check periodically what they can
do in Mandarin and other language(s) they study or know. When they check off certain skills at a
certain level, they can upload a reading, writing, audio, or video sample as evidence of their
competence. Parents can also go online to see their children’s real performances, beyond
pencil-and-paper tests or essays. Research has shown that LFO increases students’ and
teachers’ goal setting and self-efficacy. With initial set-up fees and at approximately $2.00 USD
per student per year, this is an excellent investment to ensure that students will take learning
into their own hands and have many opportunities for communication. See Appendix J for a
brief proposal from CASLS about establishing LinguaFolio online for WAB.
Enrich Content Learning by Connecting With Other Subject Matter Areas and With
Issues of Global Significance. Align the content of the Chinese program with units of inquiry in
PYP and MYP. Students must receive rich language input with content related to Chinese
culture and other subject matters, beyond Chinese literature. It may be worthwhile for WAB to
consider the goals of the program, from developing junior Chinese literature scholars to
developing junior China specialists who can tap into their experiences of living in China. When
32
they are ready for advanced study or future career development, they will be able to analyze
Chinese culture in greater depth than their counterparts who have never had the advantage of
living in China in an international school setting. If courses are arranged by IB’s units of inquiry,
they should be taught with the same IB philosophy and approach. This point invites WAB to
rethink and research the relationship between curriculum and instruction in the Chinese
program.
3.2.c Evaluation Question 3: What are strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement regarding WAB's Chinese programs as perceived by different stakeholder groups (i.e. students, teachers, administrators, parents, and board members)?
The WAB Chinese language program is a solid program that produces good results. In
the spirit of “Good to Great” (Collins, 2001), there are areas of weaknesses for improvement. In
what follows are some key points:
Recognize and Build on the Importance of China and Chinese Language Learning
in the World. The status and identity of the People’s Republic of China and the Chinese
language in the global economy and world affairs have been significantly enhanced in recent
decades. When asked about why the students are learning Chinese, parents and students
responded that it is because they live in China (e.g., 80.2% of parent survey responses to Q.
15). Both groups also agreed or strongly agreed that “Learning Chinese is important for my
child’s future” (67.4%; Q. 15, Parent Survey) and ‘Learning Chinese will help me get a better job
in my future career” (93% , Q. 15, Student Survey).
Capitalize on the School’s Location in Beijing. The strengths and opportunities of
WAB include its location in the heart of Beijing. The school serves families that are highly
educated and affluent, and the school community is multicultural and multilingual and advocates
for the learning of languages, particularly the host country language. The Chinese language
program clearly is a priority of WAB, which is evident from the initiation of this evaluation.
The weaknesses and threats come primarily from the fact that WAB has not tapped into
the high human and cultural capital of the school. Almost one third of the parents who
33
responded to the survey or their spouses are native speakers of Chinese, 70% of responding
parents who are not native speakers of Chinese indicated that they know Chinese, and 22.3%
responded that they are fluent in Chinese (Qs 1-8, Parent Survey). These parents can be invited
as guest speakers to share their experiences of learning Chinese and how their proficiency in
Chinese or other languages has been an asset for them.
Another topic mentioned in responses to the parent survey is the missed opportunity to
engage local community and China-at-large. WAB has not tapped into its location of being in
Beijing to enhance students’ learning of the language (See Appendix F). Appendix I lists parents’
and students’ responses to a wide variety of questions, ranging from their interactions with local
people to their opinions about the Chinese classes. For example,
“Programme needs to be overhauled. It is not on par with the other offerings in Beijing,
let alone the quality that WAB should aspire to. We live in China, it is tragic that the
programme is so weak” (Parent survey, Q 23, #104).
“We live in China. Make it practical and engaging with the community!” (PS, Q 23, #178)
The written responses in the parent survey, and to a lesser extent the student survey,
also suggest that it is important to create opportunities for more meaningful and deeper
engagement on the regular basis with the local community, in which students are required to
apply what they have learned in various content areas and the Chinese language to carry out
projects with community members (Qs 23 & 24, Parent Survey; Q. 29, Student Survey). While
not all students are taking Chinese at WAB, those who are should be required to complete tasks
in Chinese. This kind of project-based learning requires interdisciplinary coordination and
integration. After proper training and with the time and tools to engage, China Engagement will
be rooted in the school culture and the local community, instead of being an interesting field trip
once in a while.
On the other hand, WAB must manage parents’ expectations. Parents need to
understand that living in a country does not mean that one will easily pick up the language
34
without making an effort. Many factors influence the acquisition of a language or languages. It is
critical for parents and WAB staff to know the challenges that students face, especially in
developing their linguistic, ethnic, and socio-cultural identities. It would be beneficial if a parent
workshop on language acquisition can be offered, in which parents can develop realistic and
achievable expectations for their children and the program, while collectively brainstorming
strategies to bring Chinese into their lives at home and in the community.
Initiate a Schoolwide Culture Change. WAB staff can identify ways to increase the
perceived power status of Chinese. Although parents and students identified Chinese as
important for future jobs, at WAB, Chinese is often associated with a language of helpers and
servants. Almost none of the program administrators who are in decision making positions at
WAB know Chinese. There is little effort made to promote the use of Chinese in the hallway or
outside Chinese classes. This does not mean that everyone must learn Chinese at highly
proficient levels. At the same time, it sends a powerful message to students who see that role
models at school are learning Chinese and that staff are experiencing sense of joy and pride in
learning, speaking, and showcasing Chinese. The school must demonstrate that Chinese is
valued, beyond the decorations of artifacts on the walls. This can include working with parents
who indicate that they know Chinese and inviting them to speak to the students, share their
stories of how they learned the language and culture, and ways that their linguistic and cultural
competence has had an impact on them personally and professionally.
Because WAB is global, the entire school community can be educated and motivated to
foster a climate that truly values global diversity, languages, and cultures. WAB must give all of
its languages and cultures faces and voices and celebrate them! As the IB program emphasizes
and is discussed above, the affirmation and negotiation of multiple identities is key to developing
a true global community, which is the hallmark of an international school. Besides suggesting
that parent workshops be held, respondents to the surveys suggested that student workshops
be offered to enhance their strategies for learning Chinese and other content. This kind of
35
opportunity for parents and students will not only create a sense of shared community, it will
also raise students’ interest in investigating the impact of language and culture in a contact
situation. Such a discussion will bring language and culture alive and infuse new energy and
purpose into the learning of Chinese.
One other thing that non-Chinese speaking school administrators, teachers, and other
staff can do is to begin their own journeys of learning Chinese. When Chinese is omnipresent
and alive, students naturally will want to learn and use it. This is a leveraging practice that will
costs nothing but will affect students’ mindsets and attitudes.
In the next section, Conclusion and Recommendations, I address the last two evaluation
questions, 4) Based on the findings, what recommendations can be made to WAB’s Chinese
language program? and 5) What professional development can the Chinese language faculty
members at WAB engage in in order to lead the charge in making the WAB Chinese program a
model for other Chinese IB programs throughout the world?
4. Conclusion and Recommendations
4.1 Conclusion
The Chinese language program at WAB has produced excellent outcomes in terms of
preparing students for passing the requirements of the DP program in IB. On the other hand, the
concerns and discontent of parents and students with the orientation to, focus of, and instruction
in the program have become louder. To identify the value, strengths, and weakness of the
program and how the program can be improved, this evaluation was conducted from March to
May 2013. In addition to explaining the purpose, uses, and intended audience, this report
provides the background, scope, methodology, timeline, and data sources of the evaluation. It
includes a brief introduction of the evaluator, Dr. Shuhan Wang, and the conceptual framework
employed. The process of data collection and analysis and the findings are discussed.
Based on the data from the STAMP test that students in Grades 6 and 9 took in March, it
can be concluded that WAB students’ language proficiency (with the exception of new beginners)
36
is on par with those high school students across the United States who have taken Chinese for
four years or have taken the Chinese AP examination. On the other hand, classroom
observations confirmed concerns expressed by parents and students that the instruction,
content, and homework are not engaging or meaningful and lack of variety and relevance (See
Appendices F & I). When approximately 25% of responses from students are in disagreement or
strong disagreement about their Chinese classes (student survey, Questions 16-29, Appendix J),
their voices must be heard and reflected on.
The Chinese language program needs to find ways to make language learning and use
more real-world related, increase students’ interactional and communicative competence, and
connect better with the local community to take advantage of being in China. The articulation of
the program among the ES, MS, and HS must be improved to create seamless transitions from
grade to grade and school to school. The expectations of each course must be clearly stated
and aligned with IB benchmarks and an internationally recognized language proficiency scale. It
will be worthwhile to consider reconfiguring the courses in the PYP or MYP to ensure that
students are prepared to meet the rigorous requirements of DP. The content must be enriched
and connected with IB’s units of inquiry instead of focusing entirely on literature and literary
analysis. Instruction must be performance-based and foster students’ development in the five
skills of listening, speaking, viewing, reading, and writing. Finally, it is crucial to showcase
student learning outcomes within the school community. WAB should tap into its incredible rich
human and cultural capital and its multicultural and multilingual community.
4.2 Recommendations: Evaluation Questions 4 and 5
The following recommendations take a four-pronged approach, which are based on the
findings of this report. They are organized by categories of WAB and the Chinese program;
Chinese language teachers; student assessment, and the creation of “Chinese is Cool”
initiatives at WAB. To the extent possible, I also differentiate short-term or long-term activities.
4.2.a WAB and the Chinese Language Program
37
Short-term: The low-hanging fruit is to improve communication with parents about what
students are doing in school and explain homework assignments. During the August
professional development workshop with Chinese teachers, time can be set aside for Chinese
teachers to discuss, by ES, MS, and HS or by courses, how to increase the type, format, and
variety of homework, instead of copying hanzi or making phrases or sentences with them (See
#3 Content in Appendix F). Another topic would be how to communicate with parents, including
using blogs or weekly newsletters. In fact, under the guidance of teachers, students can be the
authors of these blogs or newsletters.
Mid- and Long-term: Develop end-of-course expectations for every course, which are
based on student assessment data and an internationally recognized proficiency scale that is
aligned with IB benchmarks.
Redesign curriculum and re-align courses to move away from a seat-time approach to
one that is in line with IB units of inquiry and is also standards- and performance-based,
designed around themes of global and local significance; and includes hands-on experiences
that enable students to apply and transfer their knowledge and skills learned in Chinese courses
to real life. For example, with the assistance of IB coordinators in ES, MS, and HS, Shuhan
Wang will collaborate with Chinese language teachers to analyze current units of inquiry used in
Chinese and other content areas and identify entry points upon which to “tweak” or redesign the
Chinese curriculum. Together, they will develop student “can-do” statements in Oral
Communication, Visual Interpretation, Reading, and Writing (as required by IB MYP), which can
be used for student self-assessment and teacher assessment. While students are learning
about the language and content, they will undertake tasks that require them to apply what they
have learned in real life to investigate issues or propose solutions. (See attached PowerPoint
slides, Appendix K), presented at the 2013 National Chinese Language Conference in Boston,
US. The slides provide detail about how Shuhan Wang guides the Chinese-American
International School (an English-Chinese dual language immersion school for PK-8 students) in
38
its curriculum redesign project. The components and process for WAB will be similar, although
they will also be tailored according to WAB’s needs within the context of being an IB World
School in Beijing.
4.2.b Face-to-Face and Virtual Professional Development and Coaching for Chinese
Language Teachers
Short-term: In August 2013, Shuhan Wang will provide professional development on
topics such as:
Developing a framework for language learning and teaching
Understanding and applying principles of language and learning
Understanding characteristics of students at WAB and providing differentiated
instruction
Increasing homework variety and communication policy with parents
Understanding the philosophy and emphasis of the IB language program in PYP,
MYP, and DP and instructional strategies to implement the IB curriculum curricula
Improving intercultural communication with parents and the school
Designing a personal plan for growth in instructional strategies, lesson planning, and
assessment
Mid- and long-term: Shuhan Wang will work with the Chinese language teachers to
develop a WAB K-12 end-of-course articulation chart that includes profiles of a typical student in
a designated course, along with can-do statements of learning outcomes in the four skills of
Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing. Such a process and product will provide hands-on
training for Chinese teachers to examine their current practice and rethink the goals of the
course/program. Through the process, teachers will develop ownership of the new articulation
expectations to be implemented in their classes. They will also become familiar with research-
based principles and best practices in language learning and teaching, including performance-
based assessment and instructional strategies for moving students from one level to the next.
In the future, if desired or feasible, WAB should undergo curriculum redesign. There is a
need to build the Chinese curriculum around units of inquiry in the PYP and MYP. Such redesign
39
will help retain the focus on proficiency and ensure that students are engaged in meaningful
content and purposeful learning embedded in the units of inquiry throughout the curriculum.
Given the distance between China and the United States where Shuhan Wang lives, the
professional development provided will incorporate both face-to-face workshops and online
resources and technological tools. For example, when Shuhan Wang is in China, she will
provide workshops to get teachers started on scheduled topics, tasks, or projects. She will also
observe classes and provide feedback to teachers immediately afterwards to initiate
personalized change. Between the visits, teachers will be provided with guiding questions to
complete assignments such as reading articles and books and watching teacher development
videotapes from STARTALK (startalk.umd.edu) or the Annenberg Series on Foreign Languages
http://www.learner.org/resources/browse.html?discipline=3. They will write reflective journals
documenting their learning and their classroom application of newly acquired knowledge and
skills, and reflecting upon lessons learned. (Shuhan Wang has taught online courses for teacher
preparation and professional development, so she is experienced in communicating with
teachers in the online environment. They can also schedule Skype calls to engage in more in-
depth discussion as needed.) These are just some examples; more details will be discussed
later.
4.2.c Student Assessment
Short-term: Consider developing WAB’s online LinguaFolio from CASLS, University of
Oregon. LinguaFolio will enhance students’ ownership of learning, allowing students to
demonstrate their “can-do’s” in the Chinese language and increasing program and parent
communication.
Mid- and long-Term: Consider administering STAMP for students in Grade 6 and Grade
9, or for students in Grades 5, 8, and 10. By administering these assessments, WAB can
40
measure the effects of program reform efforts in terms of selective students’ language
proficiency development. IB results will also need to be considered.
4.2.d “Chinese is Cool” Initiatives
Short-term: Improve homework assignment, communication, and institute a Parent-
Child Bonding Activity. For example, Chinese teachers can select readers that are age- and
proficiency-level appropriate. They can read and audiotape the books, either in a CD or
streaming it online. Students may select and take a book home. They can read and listen to the
book with their parents and family members. This kind of activity will increase parent-child
bonding while also enhancing children’s motivation to learn and use Chinese outside the
classroom. Several examples that WAB and Chinese program staff can develop are cited
earlier. The key is to create a stronger connection between Chinese and the world surrounding
the students and WAB.
Mid- and Long-term: Continue the effort to send the message that “knowing Chinese is
cool.”
4.3. Final Words
It has been a privilege for Shuhan Wang to be welcomed by WAB administers, Chinese
language teachers, staff, board, students, and parents and to have a glimpse of the excellent
Chinese language program there. The program is promising to be a model for other IB pro-
grams around the world. This may be a tall order that requires time, resources, and commitment
from the top and grass roots of WAB community. With mutual trust, strategic planning, collabo-
ration, and hard work, the Chinese language program will be successful in reaching its goals
and becoming a model for other IB World Schools.
41
References
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Alexandria, VA: Author. http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t. New
York, NY: HarperCollins.
Halliday, M. (1985). Three aspects of children’s language development: Learning language, learning through language, learning about language. Unpublished manuscript. Sydney, Australia. University of Sydney, Department of Linguistics.
Hornberger, N. H., & Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2003). Revisiting the continua of biliteracy: International
and critical perspectives. In N.H. Hornberger (Ed.), Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research and practice in multilingual settings (pp. 35-67). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hornberger, N. H., & Wang, S. C. (2008). Who are our heritage language learners? Identity and
biliteracy in heritage language education in the United States. In D. Brinton, O. Kagan, & S. Bauckus (Eds.),, Heritage language education: A new field emerging (pp. 3-35). New York: Routledge.
STAMP (Standards-based Measurement of Proficiency). (2010). Avant
Assessment.http://www.stamptest.net/stamp0708/stamptest/
42
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Analysis of WAB STAMP Results on the ACTFL Proficiency Scale Matrix
Appendix B: Relation to Internationally Recognized Language Levels
Appendix C: WAB STAMP Results on the ACTFL Scale and WAB Course Map
Appendix D: WAB, CASLS, and STAMP AP Students National (US) Data Comparison
Appendix E: WAB IB Results Statistics (Year 2007 to 2012)
Appendix F: Wang’s Findings Based on the Continua of Biliteracy and SWOT Matrix
Appendix G: Junior Proficiency Scale Developed by the Center for Applied Linguistics
Appendix H: WAB Course Map
Appendix I: Sample Data of Parent and Student Surveys (THEIR FEELINGS)
Appendix J: Quotes for LinguaFolio from the Center for Applied Second Language Studies
at the University of Oregon
Appendix K: PPT Presentation made at 2013 National Chinese Language Conference:
Create a School-wide System through Professional Development
43
APPENDIX A
ANALYSIS OF WAB STAMP RESULTS ON THE ACTFL PROFICIENCY SCALE MATRIX
Preface: According to the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)
Proficiency Scale, the lowest level is Novice, which is subdivided into Low, Mid, and High;
Intermediate and Advanced are the levels above Novice, which are also subdivided into these
three levels. Superior follows Advanced. In recent years, Distinguished level was added above
Superior. These two levels do not subdivide into sublevels of Low, Mid, or High. The following
diagram shows the ACTFL Proficiency Scale at a glance. For details about each of these levels,
please see 2012 ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines at
http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf
44
The following table shows how the STAMP levels are mapped on the ACTFL proficiency scale:
ACTFL Pro-ficiency Scale
Novice Intermediate Advanced Superior Distinguished
Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High
STAMP levels
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
9th Grade STAMP Result
Note: Yellow highlight indicates the highest and blue highlight the second highest number of
students in a particular level.
Superior and Distinguished are not included here because none of the students reached those
levels.
Table 1: G9 Chinese A: 25 students
1 NL
2 NM
3 NH
4 IL
5 IM
6 IH
7 AL
8 AM
9 AH
Reading 0 1 0 0 3 9 5 4 1
Writing 0 1 0 0 2 2 14 2 0
Listening 0 0 0 2 3 6 11 1 2
Speaking 0 0 0 1 7 2 14 1 0
Note: 12 students are first year at WAB, 13 studied from G6 -8 in Chinese A courses, who also started
learning Chinese since G4 or G5.
Comments from Wang: Grade 9 Chinese A students who took STAMP are nicely distributed
across IM-AM, which means they are beginning, and some of them are already, to function in
the paragraph level, and can deal with not just familiar social topics, but also more academic
related topics and situations with some complications. They are able to show pretty good control
of the vocabulary and common grammatical structures.
Table 2: G9 Chinese Adv: 28 students (some students with non-ratable scores)
1 NL
2 NM
3 NH
4 IL
5 IM
6 IH
7 AL
8 AM
9 AH
Reading 1 5 2 3 7 4 1 1 0
Writing 0 1 0 7 11 3 3 0 0
Listening 0 1 2 3 5 7 6 0 1
Speaking 0 0 0 4 11 3 4 0 0
Note: 5 students are first year at WAB, most others started in G4.
Comments: G9 Advanced students are solidly Intermediate levels, with some in Advanced
Low. Hallmarks of Intermediate level students are they try to create with the language; they
begin to interact with people or text in the language, instead of being reactive as those in the
Novice level. This is the most challenging level for many learners because they are in the stage
where they may over-generate the rules while experimenting with the language. There are many
45
errors appearing in their language production, however, the types of errors are often more
sophisticated than those occurred in the Novice level.
Table 3: G9 Chinese Standard 3: 14 students (some students with non-ratable scores)
1 NL
2 NM
3 NH
4 IL
5 IM
6 IH
7 AL
8 AM
9 AH
Reading 1 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Writing 0 0 3 5 4 0 0 0 0
Listening 0 0 1 6 4 2 0 0 0
Speaking 0 1 0 3 7 0 0 0 0
Note: 1 student was at first year at WAB, 11 students studied in G6-8, 5 started in G4.
Comments: G9 Standard 3 Students are in the NH – IM levels. These students are
functioning beyond words, phrases or memorized chunks to be at the sentence level. They
make efforts in connecting sentences, instead of simply producing a string of sentences. They
are expanding the topics from learned to familiar ones and are able to function in most common
social situations.
Table 4: G9 Chinese Standard 2: 12 students (some students with non-ratable scores)
1 NL
2 NM
3 NH
4 IL
5 IM
6 IH
7 AL
8 AM
9 AH
Reading 1 9 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Writing 0 0 1 8 1 1 0 0 0
Listening 0 0 6 5 0 1 0 0 0
Speaking 0 1 3 7 1 0 0 0 0
Note: (1) There is an outlier in this group, whose Reading is at 7; Writing and Listening at 6, while
Speaking is at 5, while the majority of students are in the 3-4 range. (2) One student is first year in
Chinese, 4 started in G4, 2 in G5, and 7 had studied in G6-8 in MS.
Comments: G9 Standard 2 Students are mostly in the NM – IL levels, although there are a
few in IM-IH. These students are functioning at the sentence level, and begin to speak or write
in connected sentences, instead of simply producing a string of sentences. Their topics are still
within the range of familiar and learned ones and are able to “survive” most common tourist
situations. Notice there are nine students in NM in Reading. This may be because the genre
and type of reading from the assessment are not the familiar ones they do in the classroom. It
may be worthwhile to familiarize students with reading materials and activities that are more real
life oriented.
I had a conversation with Huiman Cheng about this outlier. Huiman said that they are aware of
this student’s ability, who is weaker in handwriting and composing essays in hanzi. Because
STAMP’s writing is conducted online, via the typing of Pinyin to write, the writing task is much
easier than WAB’s usual practice of requiring students to handwrite, by producing hanzi while
composing text as well. (The use of computer to write requires the writer to rely on his/her oral
proficiency to type in Pinying. Then he/she simply needs to select the correct hanzi from a word
bank that pops up as a result of the Pinyin input. The cognitive load on the writer is much lower
than actually producing hanzi by hand.) Based on this fact and the writing scores for WAB
46
students are relatively higher than reading, WAB may consider allowing students to type to
compose instead of only handwrite to compose. The typed materials can become reading
materials for all students. Meanwhile, the students may mark the hanzi that they cannot
handwrite and practice them. In this way, the practice of new or unfamiliar hanzi is
contextualized and more meaningful than simply copying them ten times for no purpose other
than rote memorization.
Table 5: G9 Chinese Standard 1: 6 students (some students with non-ratable scores)
1 NL
2 NM
3 NH
4 IL
5 IM
6 IH
7 AL
8 AM
9 AH
Reading 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Writing 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0
Listening 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0
Speaking (3 N/R)
0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Note: 5 students are first year students of Chinese, one started in G4.
Comments: G9 Standard 1 Students are mostly in the NM – IL levels. These students are
beginning to function at the sentence level, moving beyond isolated words, phrases, and
memorized chunks. Their topics are within the range of familiar and learned ones and are able
to “survive” most common tourist situations. Somehow there is a gap in NH, while most students
are in NM or IL. This may be because a high number of students are first year at WAB.
6th Grade STAMP Result
Table 6: G6 Chinese A: 13 students
1 NL
2 NM
3 NH
4 IL
5 IM
6 IH
6+ IH
Reading 0 0 0 0 1 6 6
Writing 0 0 1 2 1 9
Listening 0 0 0 0 1 12
Speaking 0 0 0 5 0 8
Note: Two are first year Chinese students; 5 started in G1.
Comments: Grade 6 Chinese A students who took STAMP are nicely distributed across (IL-
IH). Notice they are one notch below the same course in G9 (IM-AM), which is logical and
reasonable from the developmental perspective because G6 students are much younger. This
group of students is solidly in the Intermediate range. They are basically functioning in the
sentence level, and a good number of them are moving towards paragraph production. They are
able to deal with familiar social and some academic topics appropriate to their age.
47
Table 7: G6 ALP Chinese A: 1 students
1 NL
2 NM
3 NH
4 IL
5 IM
6 IH
6+ IH
Reading 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Writing 0 0 0 0 0 1
Listening 0 0 0 0 0 1
Speaking 0 0 0 0 0 1
Note: This student started in G2.
Table 8: G6 ALP Chinese A: 1 students
1 NL
2 NM
3 NH
4 IL
5 IM
6 IH
6+ IH
Reading 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Writing 0 0 0 1 0 0
Listening 0 0 0 0 1 0
Speaking 0 0 0 1 0
Note: Enrolled at WAB at G5. No indication of his Chinese course record.
Comments on Tables 7 and 8: There is only one student in each course, however, when we
put them together with regular Chinese A students, we can see they fall into the range of other
students. This also means that ALP courses are working rather well. When these students
willing to use the lunch hour to study, they are motivated.
Table 9: G6 Chinese B Adv: 17 students (L & S: 1 non-ratable)
1 NL
2 NM
3 NH
4 IL
5 IM
6 IH
7 AL
8 AM
Reading 0 0 2 3 7 5
Writing 0 2 3 6 0 6
Listening 0 0 0 1 7 8
Speaking 0 0 1 13 0 2
Note: One student is first year at WAB. Three students were first year at WAB in 2011-12. Seven started
in G1.
Table 10: G6 ALP Chinese B Standard 3/ Adv: 2 students
1 NL
2 NM
3 NH
4 IL
5 IM
6 IH
6+ IH/AL
8 AM
Reading 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Writing 0 0 0 0 0 2
Listening 0 0 0 1 0 1
Speaking 0 0 0 1 0 1
Note: No indication of their past class history, but both were enrolled in WAB in G3.
Comments on Tables 9 & 10: G6 Advanced students are NH-IH, or mostly in in the
Intermediate levels. Again, there is a difference between the G6 and G9 students, but not that
48
much. Hallmarks of Intermediate level students are they try to create with the language; they
begin to interact with people or text in the language, instead of being reactive as those in the
Novice level. This is the most challenging level for many learners because they are in the stage
where they may over-generate the rules while experimenting with the language. There are many
errors appearing in their language production, however, the types of errors are often more
sophisticated than those occurred in the Novice level.
Table 11: G6 Chinese B Standard 3: 12 students
1 NL
2 NM
3 NH
4 IL
5 IM
6 IH
7 AL
8 AM
Reading 1 2 3 4 0 0
Writing 0 1 3 6 1 1
Listening 0 1 2 4 3 2
Speaking 0 0 5 5 0 2
Note: One student is first year at WAB; 11 students were in G5 Intermediate or Adv courses.
Comments: G6 Standard 3 Students are in the NM-IM/IH range, mostly in NH-IL, as
compared with G9 Standard 3 students who are in the NH – IM levels. These students are
functioning beyond words, phrases or memorized chunks to be at the sentence level. They
make efforts in connecting sentences, instead of simply producing a string of sentences. They
are expanding the topics from learned to familiar ones and are able to function in most common
social situations. Notice there are students in NL in Reading, and NM in Reading, Writing, and
Listening. It could be the new student at WAB. However, given the fact that most students were
in G5 Intermediate or Advanced courses, these students should be moved out of NM as soon as
possible.
Table 12: G6 Chinese B Standard 2: 7 students
1 NL
2 NM
3 NH
4 IL
5 IM
6 IH
7 AL
8 AM
Reading 4 1 2 0 0 0
Writing 1 2 4 0 0 0
Listening 0 3 1 2 1 0
Speaking 0 0 3 4 0 0
Note: Five students were in Chinese Intermediate in G5, one in G5 Beginner 2.
Comments: G6 Standard 2 Students are mostly in the NM – IL levels, although there are four
in NL in Reading. These students are beginning to function in sentence level. Their topics are
still within the range of familiar and learned ones and are able to “survive” most common tourist
situations. Notice most students were in Chinese Intermediate in G5, their Reading should be
higher than NL. Again, this may be because the genre and type of reading from the assessment
are not the familiar ones as they do in the classroom. It may be worthwhile to familiarize
students with reading materials and activities that are more real life oriented.
49
Table 13: G 6 ALP Chinese B Standard 1/2: 1 student
1 NL
2 NM
3 NH
4 IL
5 IM
6 IH
7 AL
8 AM
Reading 1 0 0 0 0 0
Writing 0 0 1 0 0 0
Listening 0 0 1 0 0 0
Speaking 0 1 0 0 0 0
Note: The student enrolled at WAB in G4. No information for G5.
Table 14: G6 Chinese B Standard 1: 14 students (R & W: 1 not ratable)
1 NL
2 NM
3 NH
4 IL
5 IM
6 IH
7 AL
8 AM
Reading 12 1 0 0 0 0
Writing 0 9 4 0 0 0
Listening 5 6 2 1 0 0
Speaking 0 2 8 3 1 0
Note: Four students are first year at WAB. Last year, six students were in G5 Beginner 1; two in G5
Beginner 2; and one in G5 Intermediate.
Comments on Tables 13 & 14: G6 Standard 1 Students are mostly in the NL – NH levels.
Some of them are still functioning on isolated words, phrases, and memorized chunks, while
some others are moving toward making sentences. Their topics are within the range of familiar
and learned ones and some of them are able to “survive” common tourist situations. Notice
some students are able to talk in a string of sentences.
50
APPENDIX B
p. 14, Guidance for language provision in groups 1 and 2, IB document (from Courtney Lowe)
51
APPENDIX C
ACTFL WAB G6-G10 Mandarin (MYP) WAB DP G9-G12
Distinguished
DP A Chinese
Literature HL/SL
Superior
DP Chinese A Lang & Litera-
ture HL/SL
Advanced-High (AH)
DP B HL
Adv-Mid (AM)
Lang A
G9 STAMP
IM-AM (Level 5-8)
Adv-Low
(AL)
Lang B Adv (Phase 5)
G9 Chinese
Adv: IL-AL
(Lev 4-7)
Intermediate
Hi (IH)
G6 Chinese B
ST 3/Adv: IL- IH (4-6)
G6 Lang B
Adv NH-IH (3-6)
G6
Chinese A IL-IH (4-6)
DP B SL
Intermediate
Mid (IM)
G6 ST 3:
NM-IM (2-5)
Lang B ST 2
(Phase 3)
G 9 ST 2: NM- IM (2-5)
Lang B ST 3
(Phase 4):
G9 ST 3: NM-IM
(Lev 2-5) Mostly IL-IM (4-5)
Intermediate
Low (IL)
G6 Chinese B
ST 2: NL-IL (1-4)
Lang B ST 1
(Phase 2) G9 ST 1:
NM-IL (2-4)
Novice High (NH)
G6 Chinese B
ST 1: NL-NH (1-3)
DP Ab Initio
Novice Mid (NM)
Novice Low (NL)
Lang B Foun-dation 2 (pre-
phase 2)
Lang B Foun-dation 1
(Phase 1)
52
APPENDIX D
WAB, CASLS, and STAMP AP Students National (US) Data Comparison
In what follows are the comparisons of data obtained from three sources. The first set of
data is taken from the report compiled by the Center for Applied Second Language Studies
(ACSLS) at the University of Oregon sponsored by the United States Department of Education
(2010). The study uses a database of students enrolled in foreign language classes nationwide
to develop a profile of the typical high school language learner. In all, CASLS looked at results
from students who were studying Spanish, French, German, Japanese, or Chinese in thirty
states across the U.S. It used reading scores for 16,556 students, writing scores for 14,330, and
speaking scores for 12,908. (Listening results were not available.) The research question was:
What level of foreign language proficiency does the typical student achieve in a high school
program? The answer is that “the majority of students studying a foreign language in a
traditional high school program reach benchmark level 3 or 4 by end of the fourth year of
study, regardless of the language studied. These levels are similar to the ACTFL levels
Novice-High and Intermediate-Low” (CASLS, 2010, p. 1).
The second set of data came from the study compiled by Avant, aligning student data on
a STAMP assessment as well as those who earned a 5, the highest score possible, on the
Advanced Placement (AP) Chinese Examination offered by the College Board. The final set
came from WAB Grade 6 and Grade 9 student STAMP assessment data (March 2013).
The tables below show the percentage of students at each benchmark proficiency level
for each year in a high school program (CASLS), the Advant AP student data, and WAB
students in G6 and G9 in March 2013.
53
Reading
Table 1: Percentage of Students for Chinese Reading
Prof Level & N0. Of Exam Takers
NL NM NH IL IM IH IH AL AM AH
Lev 1 Lev 2 Lev 3 Lev 4 Lev 5+ Lev 6 Lev 6+ (WAB only*)
Lev 7 Lev 8 Lev 9
CASLS Yr 1: 699
80.1% 8.3% 4.3% 1.3% 1.1%
CASLS Yr 2: 256
62.9% 15.6% 12.1% 3.1% 3.9%
CASLS Yr 3: 156
26.3% 20.5% 16.0% 6.4% 4.5%
CASLS Yr 4: 45
4.4% 20.0% 24.4% 8.9% 40.0%
Advant AP/5
53% 12% 6% 12% 6% 6% 6% 0%
WAB: G6: 68
29.0% 7.0% 10.0% 10.0% 12.0% 18.0% 13.0% 0% 0% 0%
WAB G9: 80
4.0% 41.0% 5.0% 4.0% 12.0% 16.0% 9.0% 8.0% 1.0%
(CASLS, original Table 2, p.2; Table7, p. 3; Advant data, PPT, May 7, 2013; and WAB STAMP data of G6 and G9 students, March 2013)
*Note: WAB used 4e-cs version of the STAMP for the 6th graders, which was adapted for students in elementary schools. The version used by the 9th graders was 4s-cs that was the typical version used for the national data taken during 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years. The scaling for both the versions on the proficiency scale developed by the American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) is comparable. This applies to all tables regarding WAB G6 student data. Wang’s Comments on Reading:
1. G9 WAB students are comparable to the scores of AP students on STAMP.
2. WAB G6 and G 9 students are more spread out across proficiency levels than either the
national 4th year or AP data do.
3. G6: 29% of students concentrate on the NL level, which must be moved up to at NM,
considering most students at WAB have been taking Chinese for a few years. This means that
54
ES Chinese program may need to enhance its instruction on literacy. This needs to be verified
with the ES teachers.
4. G9 students: WAB data (41%) is comparable to the AP data (53%) on NM level, while
the 4th year national data show the heaviest concentration at the IM level (40%). This may mean
that WAB may examine its approach and selection on the genre, type, and breadth of reading
material. As observed and from the curriculum analysis, WAB’s materials are heavy on literature
and approach to reading is on literary analysis. The STAMP and AP assessment are more
related to real life and on a wider range of reading materials and activities.
Writing
Table 2: Percentage of Students for Chinese Writing
Prof Level & N0. of Takers
NR (non-ratable)
NL NM NH IL IM IH AL AM AH
Lev 1 Lev 2 Lev 3 Lev 4 Lev 5+ Lev 6 Lev 7 Lev 8 Lev 9
CASLS Yr 1: 596
20.1% 26.5% 38.3% 3.4% 0.0%
CASLS Yr 2: 237
4.6% 16.0% 62.4% 13.5% 0.0%
CASLS Yr 3: 154
1.9% 12.3% 61.7% 18.8% 5.2%
CASLS Yr 4: 44
2.3% 2.3% 61.4% 11.4% 22.7%
Avant AP 5
0% 0% 0% 47% 53% 0% 0% 0% 0%
WAB G6: 68
1.0% 21.0% 24.0% 22.0% 3.0% 28.0% 0% 0% 0%
WAB G9: 80
3.0% 1.0% 3.0% 5.0% 32.0% 25.0% 8.0% 22.0% 3.0% 0%
(CASLS, original Table 8, p. 4; Table13, p. 5; Avant PPT, May 7, 2013; and WAB STAMP data of G6 and G9 students, March 2013)
Wang’s Comments on Writing:
1. WAB students spread across the levels from NM-AM. Either the national or AP data do
not show students above IH level.
55
2. G6 data: The highest concentration for the national 4th year data is on NH (61%), AP is
on IM (53%), and WAB G6 students are on NH (24%), and G9 students are on IL (32%).
Generally speaking, WAB students are comparable with the national and AP data due to the fact
that WAB also have high concentration of students scoring at the levels between the national
(NH) and AP (IM).
Listening
Table 3: Percentage of Students for Chinese Listening
Prof Level & N0. of Takers
NL NM NH IL IM IH AL AM AH
Lev 1 Lev 2 Lev 3 Lev 4 Lev 5+ Lev 6 Lev 7 Lev 8 Lev 9
Avant AP 5 N/A
0% 15% 9% 13% 19% 37% 0% 0% 0%
WAB G6: 68
7.0% 0.0% 24.0% 48.0% 2.0% 21.0% 0% 0% 0%
WAB G9: 80
0.0% 4.0% 12.0% 22.0% 15.0% 20.0% 21.0% 1.0% 4%
(Adapted from Avant PPT, May 7, 2013 and WAB STAMP data of G6 and G9 students, March 2013)
Wang’s Comments on Listening:
1. There is no national data available for comparison. 37% of AP students scored at the IH
level, while WAB G6 students at the IL (48%) and G9 also at the IL (22%) level. The data post
an interesting and important question for WAB Chinese language program. Do students have
lots of opportunity to listen to materials in Chinese? What types of materials and activities are
there? Are there opportunities and resources that can be tapped into by the program to increase
students’ listening skills? This should be an alarm considering that students live in China.
Speaking
Table 4: Percentage of Students for Chinese Speaking
Prof Level
NR (non-
NL NM NH IL IM IH AL AM AH
56
& N0. of
Takers
ratable)
Lev 1 Lev 2 Lev 3 Lev 4 Lev 5+ Lev 6 Lev 7 Lev 8 Lev 9
CASLS Yr 1: 489
4.5% 32.5% 28.8% 6.1% 0.0%
CASLS Yr 2: 214
0.9% 25.7% 50.0% 11.2% 0.0%
CASLS Yr 3: 104
0.0% 12.5% 63.5% 19.2% 1.0%
CASLS Yr 4: 44
0.0% 0.0% 47.7% 29.5% 22.7%
Avant AP 5
0% 0% 6% 35% 41% 18% 0% 0% 0%
WAB G6: 68
0.0% 5.0% 24.0% 48.0% 2.0% 21.0% 0% 0% 0%
WAB G9: 80
5.0% 0.0% 4.0% 5.0% 21.0% 33.0% 7.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0%
(Adapted from CASLS, original Table 14, p. 5; Table19, p. 6; Avant PPT, May 7, 2013; and WAB STAMP data of G6 and G9 students, March 2013)
Wang’s Comments on Speaking:
1. In speaking, WAB students are on par with the national or AP data.
2. WAB students spread across the levels from NM-IH. The national data do not show
students above IM level, which is the highest for AP students.
Data sources:
1. What Proficiency Level Do High School Students Achieve? Report by Center for Applied Second Language Studies (CASLS), University of Oregon. Updated April 23, 2010. This report, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, is part of the Ten Burning Ques-tions series, in which CASLS investigates educators’ questions about language teaching and learning. http://casls.uoregon.edu.
2. Personal communication between Drs. Shuhan Wang and Zhaohui Chen at
Avant: “…attached please find 4 slides that represent the 4 domains in STAMP 4S Chi-nese. They probably will give you some idea of the national trends in terms of years of study and proficiency. Please note that in Writing and Speaking, the Proficiency markers of 0 and NS (0 stands for no response, and NS stands for Non-ratable responses). In addition, the high percentage of No Response and Non-ratable Response might have skewed the data a bit” (Zhaohui Chen, Advant, May 7, 2013)
57
APPENDIX E
WAB IB Results Statistics (Year 2007 to 2012)
58
APPENDIX F
Wang’s Findings Based on the Continua of Biliteracy and SWOT Matrix
An analytical matrix was developed by employing two frameworks. One is the Continua
of Biliteracy explained in Section 2.6. The other is the SWOT analysis that, in a nutshell, stands
for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
(http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_section_main_1049.aspx).The matrix is shown below, which
is how my discussion of findings is organized:
Wang’s WAB Evaluation Analytical Matrix
Categories of Analysis Findings
Strengths Weaknesses & Threats
Opportunities
3.1 Context: 3.1a Macro: China in the world 3.1b Macro: School: WAB 3.1c Micro: Chinese language program
3.2 Content: Curriculum Connections with other subject matters Materials and homework
3.3 Media: About Chinese Course mapping and expectations Emphasis of knowledge and skills in
Chinese language and culture
3.4 Development: Framework for language learning and
teaching Instructional strategies Pedagogical skills Assessment of student learning
59
Categories of Analysis Findings: SWOT Analysis
Strengths Weaknesses & Threats Opportunities
1. Context:
Macro: China; the status and identity of Chi-nese language in the global economy and world affairs
School macro: WAB’s rela-tionship with the Chinese so-ciety and local community: in a bubble; elit-ist; interna-tional; protec-tion orienta-tion; global di-versity
School micro: status of lan-guages; status of Chinese lan-guage pro-gram; status of Chinese teach-ers
Being in Beijing, China
Chinese lan-guage being viewed as an important part of human capital for the children
Highly educated parents and af-fluent back-ground
Global diversity
Multicultural and multilingual community
Engagement with the local communities or China: a strong desire; in the form of trips, China engage-ment activities; and fund raising
WAB is re-sourceful
Not having tapped into the high human and cultural capital of the school demographics—
Engagement with the local communities or China: needs to go deeper and involve students as part of cur-riculum for learning, language, culture, and content.
2. Chinese Language Program:
Goals
Language learning phi-losophy, ap-proach, policy
Communica-tion with par-ents
library
dedicated teachers
The Board, school, and parents val-ue it
Has lots of support and resources
“Programme needs to be over-hauled. It is not on par with the other offerings in Beijing, let alone the quality that WAB should aspire to. We live in China, it is tragic that the pro-gramme is so weak.” (Parent survey, Q 23, #104). “We live it in China. Make it practical and engaging with the community!” (PS, Q 23, #178)
Chinese pro-gram has the potential for WAB to set itself apart from the crowd Differentiated tracks based on student back-grounds: herit-
60
Homework
Support for students and family
outreach
IB program sets clear goals and curriculum
Disconnected from the rest of the school programs/courses Not in an inquiry approach More time in ECC and ES, as this is the crucial time to learn a language
Communication be-tween parents and teachers
Homework: amount, type, purpose, and communication
Different levels
More time in ECC and K
“waste of time” Review and evaluation of the program Each school operates on its own course flow, not preparing students to move to the upper school/lvels More time for Chinese les-sons/courses Needs of students whose L1 is not English: need more time to learn English before learning Chinese DP Ab Initio is not for true be-ginners
age vs non-heritage; long-term expat vs short-term ex-pat kids: differ-ent expectations and needs Communicate goals of the pro-gram and each course clearly; send home what students are working on Integrate Chi-nese into the fabrics of WAB life, not just dur-ing Chinese. Language class in ECC; more time in K; start Chinese in ECC, Workshops for parents and school commu-nity: what to expect and how to help both students and teachers and WAB Workshop for students: how to learn Use the library effectively Extra-curricular activities for learning, tutor-ing, and using Chinese
61
Local school ex-changes/buddy system Better articula-tion of ES, MS, and HS pro-grams Better commu-nication be-tween parents and teach-ers/program Language learn-ing as part of China experi-ences More high tech/interactive programming for memorizing hanzi Instill Chinese ASA, e.g., sport Develop a sense of community within the school, esp the Chinese pro-gram; increase the interaction of Chinese and non-Chinese students
3. Content:
Course design
Curriculum
Connections with other sub-ject matters
Material
IB Units of inquiry More interesting content Relevant and engaging Too vs not challenging enough More history, geography, cul-ture More contemporary content
Daily use Related to other subject matters Easy readers, or non-fictions for older children to bring home and
62
homework
(one parent: too much history) With other content areas Too much literature and liter-ary analysis Format and type of homework; mostly on characters: copying, memorization; and making phrases or sentences (Qs 23 & 24, Parent Survey) ES: dry and uninteresting More aligned with IB MYP, in-quiry based curriculum; units of inquiry More cultures, but not just dumplings (PS, Q 24, #20) Homework: worksheets, mean-ingless, not engaging or inter-esting Stronger connection with PYP and MYP
read; Chinese version of popu-lar books or fic-tions Songs, poems, rhymes, Learning Sup-port Experts Homework: use more language resources; more interactive
4. Media (language):
Facts about Chinese lan-guage oral pro-ficiency and lit-eracy (FSI and ILR data)
Course Level Proficiency and literacy expec-tations
Emphasis of language skill areas
Chinese is not more difficult, but needs more time to master reading and writing; There are already internationally rec-ognized language proficiency scale that provides clear benchmarks
Reading skills: More reading, vocabulary, Writing skills: More writing Not enough vs too much R & W More test/better assessment of student learning and program evaluation More L & Speaking vs. More useful language for daily life Assessment of student learning in Chinese
Differentiating social vs aca-demic language; Taking a differ-entiated ap-proach in teach-ing the four skills in Chinese
5. Development: based on the framework of
“The teacher’s atti-tude really affects
Teaching styles: traditional; old-fashioned; boring; memori-
Teachers: Hard working
63
language learning and teaching
Approach to language learn-ing and teach-ing: WL field vs. Teachers’ ori-entation
Instructional strategies & pedagogical skills
Assessment
Students’ atti-tude and moti-vation toward language learn-ing
the students. The teacher gets passion in Chinese will raise the students’ inter-ests.” (PS, last Q, # 153) A few parents ex-pressed apprecia-tion for teachers
zation Lack of Fun; enjoy; to like; in-teractive; meaningful Build confidence; fluency Classroom climate: too strict; not good feelings about the class Students struggling; less and less enthusiasm as students progressed through the pro-gram See the purpose and use of learning and knowing Chinese Understanding of what the content is about Rote memorization More activities to learn; More activities to use in real life More speaking daily at home and in school Use more drama, role plays, singing; story telling; etc. systemic Student assessment Differentiation of instruction Individualized attention Grouping More practice Field trips; outings; market Too many substitute teachers; stability Classroom management Young children: forced to sit still for 40 or 80 minutes
and dedicated; highly trained; but are poor communicators; and are thus poorly misun-derstood An example of cross-cultural misunderstand-ing: cultural per-spectives and practices of schooling, teaching, and relationship be-tween teachers and parents are vastly different across global cultures, not just between one or two cultures; connection with students (examples: too strict; classroom management; not warm; lack of communica-tion; They need sup-port; so are par-ents who need a better under-standing of lan-guage learning in a global con-text and how children grow up in the third space Workshops for teachers
64
Spiraling of language to avoid disconnect and forgetting; more review or repeating Teachers’ assumption about whether non-Chinese students can learn Chinese; expectations either too high or too low (par-ent survey, p.7, Q1, #122) “GOOD teachers who LIKE what they do, and want to TEACH the students.” (PS, Q23, #133) How to teach R & W Students in Chinese A is “far behind the local Chinese school Chinese.” (PS, Q 23, #163) Offer more meaningful and frequent feedback to students; Teacher belief: that all students can learn and should reach their highest potential; Teach learning strategies Examples of favorite activities: Posters, brochures, field trips,
Reexamine how to conduct Chi-na engagement better
65
APPENDIX G
66
APPENDIX H
WAB Course Map
(Developed in May 2013)
67
APPENDIX I
Select Parent and Student Survey Results Parent Survey Question 20
68
Parent Survey Question 21
69
Parent Survey Question 22
70
Student Survey Question 15
71
72
Student Survey Questions 16 - 29
Question Strongly agree
Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
16 My teacher uses different pictures or other materials to help us understand Chinese better.
25.3 % 49.3% 20.9% 4.4%
74.6% 25.3%
17 We have many opportunities to speak Chinese in class, not just listening to our teachers.
43.0% 43.0% 12.6% 1.3%
86% 13.9%
18 We do lots of different activities be-sides reading or writing Chinese
25.4% 34.8% 30.8% 8.9%
60.2% 39.7%
20 We do different projects in Chinese besides writing essays?
28.3% 49.3% 18.4% 4.0%
77.6% 22.4%
22 I feel confident in speaking Chinese with local people.
33.6% 40.4% 18.4% 7.6%
74% 26%
24 I feel I have made a lot of progress in this year’s Chines class.
25.2% 50.5% 18.9% 5.4%
75.7% 24.3%
26 Generally speaking, my Chinese class is excellent.
23.4%% 45.5% 25.7% 5.4%
68.9% 31.1%
28 My Chinese class needs improvement. 18.9% 43.2% 29.3% 8.6%
62.1% 37.9%
19, 21, 23, 25, 27 & 29
These questions require open responses
73
APPENDIX J
CASLS LinguaFolio Quotes
Proposal for Western Academy of Beijing
for
Delivery of LinguaFolio Online
From the Center for Applied Second Language Studies (CASLS)
University of Oregon, USA
Background
The Western Academy of Beijing (WAB), in an effort to document and improve the learning of Chinese,
wishes to use LinguaFolio Online. The e-portfolio system will allow learners to self-assess their ability
on specific CanDo statements, developed by the National Council of State Supervisors For Languages
(NCSSFL) and to attach evidence to substantiate those claims. The tool will also record information of
student background and intercultural experiences. In so doing, learners will become more goal-directed
and conscious of their learning. Research has shown that this improves student outcomes and cognitive
development.
Delivery System
CASLS will provide WAB with 500 unique student logins for use during the 2013-14 academic year. Each
student will maintain his or her own e-portfolio. They will be able to self-assess, upload multimedia and
textual evidence, and make that evidence available for review by peers or teachers. Teachers will receive
separate logins that will allow them to see aggregate data on student performance. Both students and
teachers can access LinguaFolio Online using standard browsers such as Chrome, Safari, or Firefox.
CASLS will provide basic technical support regarding issues arising on its servers or protocols.
Consideration
WAB will provide to CASLS a $1000 one-time set up fee and $1000 for one-year subscriptions at $2 per
student. This subscription will be valid through June 30, 2014. If WAB wishes to continue the service, it
will contact CASLS before the following academic year commences.
CENTER FOR APPLIED S ECOND LANGUAGE STUDI ES (CASLS)
THE NORTHWEST NATION AL FOREIGN LANGUAGE RESOURCE CENTER
5290 Unive rs i ty o f Oregon, Eugene OR 97403 -5290 T (541) 346 -5699 F (541) 346 -6303 casls.uoregon.edu
An equal-opportunity, affirmative-action institution committed to cultural diversity and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
74
Appendix K
A PPT Presentation made at 2013 National Chinese Language Conference: Create a
School-wide System through Professional Development See attached PPT set.