Teaching Advanced Language Skills through Global Debate

Theory and Practice

Tony Brown, Jennifer Bown

• Publisher: Georgetown University Press
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781626164307
• eBook ISBN: 9781626161443
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Using debate to develop advanced competency in a second language is a method that is finding increased interest among instructors and students alike, whether in synchronous online teaching or the individual classroom. Through debate, students learn how to make hypotheses, support their conclusions with evidence, and deploy the rhetoric of persuasion in the target language. Though this method provides an exciting pedagogy for moving students from the advanced to the superior level, there is a paucity of materials available for instructors who wish to plan a curriculum focused on debate. Teaching Advanced Language Skills through Global Debate: Theory and Practice provides teachers with both the theoretical underpinnings for using debate in the foreign language classroom as well as practical advice for developing reading, listening, writing, and speaking skills through debate. It discusses task-based language learning and helps instructors design debate-related tasks for the classroom.

Teaching Advanced Language Skills through Global Debate will be useful for any instructor working at the advanced level, and particularly for those training future language instructors. One of the new digital short publications available through Georgetown University Press, it is an ideal complement to the press’s new titles on mastering languages through global debate.

Georgetown Digital Shorts—longer than an article, shorter than a book—deliver timely works of peer-reviewed scholarship in a fast-paced, agile environment. They present new ideas and original texts that are easily and widely available to students, scholars, libraries, and general readers.

1

Overview of Proficiency Guidelines

Description of Assessment Criteria for
ACTFL Advanced and Superior Levels

The year 2012 marked thirty years since the initial development of the ACTFL provisional proficiency guidelines for speaking (as part of the ACTFL Language Proficiency Projects in 1982).² The introduction of the guidelines sparked a proficiency movement in foreign language instruction as instructors became more concerned about what learners could do with the language rather than with what they knew about the language. Nevertheless, in 1998 Erwin Tschirner and L. Kathy Heilenman published the results of their examination of key studies of correlation between length of postsecondary language study and oral proficiency interview (OPI) ratings. Their meta-analysis revealed a mean rating of Intermediate Mid for students who completed two years of instruction, Intermediate High after three years, and Advanced Low after four years.

However, in the years since September 11, 2001, in particular, producing speakers with Superior-level proficiency has become a national priority. Not only has the outside world demanded users of languages at these levels for purposes of national security, but learners themselves have sought higher proficiency levels in order to take advantage of growing opportunities to use language skills in ways unimaginable just a few decades ago.

Defining Our Terms: What Does a Rating of Advanced or Superior on an OPI Tell Us?

In this volume, references to Advanced or Superior, according to the ACTFL proficiency guidelines, act as orientation descriptors for discussing higher levels of language use; therefore, it is important that the reader understand (1) how an OPI is administered, (2) what a rating in the Advanced or Superior range says about a speaker, and (3) what rating criteria are used for each level.

An official ACTFL OPI is conducted by a certified ACTFL tester either over the phone or in person, is recorded, and lasts between fifteen and thirty minutes. After the interview, the tester listens to the OPI recording in order to assign a rating. The OPI is then blind second-rated by another certified tester. If the first and second ratings do not agree exactly, the OPI is sent to a master tester or trainer for arbitration before a final rating is issued.³ The OPI itself is a “criteria referenced assessment,” with the criteria being those set forth in the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012—Speaking. The focus of the guidelines is on the speaker’s functional ability to perform certain tasks at each major level of the scale (Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, Superior). As a result of this focus on functional language use, an OPI can be used to assess the proficiency of any language user, regardless of his or her profile (a true second or foreign language learner, or a heritage or native speaker) and of how or where the language being assessed was learned or acquired. This focus on function also arguably explains the resiliency and flexibility of these guidelines since their conceptualization, which have enabled them to endure for decades in various contexts.⁴

The assessment criterion related to expected functions for a given level is referred to as Global Tasks and Functions. The “list,” so to speak, of functions is limited at each major level of the scale: Novice speakers can use memorized material, such as formulaic language, and they produce memorized lists in highly familiar topic domains; Intermediate speakers can create with the language to engage in simple conversation, ask questions, and handle a simple social transaction; Advanced speakers can narrate and describe in major time frames and handle a situation with an unexpected complication; and Superior speakers can discuss abstract issues extensively, support opinions, hypothesize, and handle linguistically unfamiliar situations. Following is a more detailed discussion of the Advanced and Superior functions, but it should be noted here that these lists of functions required at each major level are limited, meaning that an official OPI simply might not elicit or document many things that a speaker at a given level can or cannot do. All speakers who receive the same major rating on an official ACTFL OPI have one thing in common: they can perform the required functions for the level assigned and, unless rated Superior, cannot sustain performance of the required tasks at the next higher level.⁵

In addition to the category of Global Tasks and Functions, there are three other major assessment criteria used to rate a speaker’s language proficiency (discussed in detail in the following): Content/Context, Comprehensibility (including Accuracy), and Text Type. These other assessment criteria are logical extensions of what a speaker’s language actually has to be like in order to accomplish the functions of a given level. In order to be rated at a given major level, a speaker must sustain all of the criteria for the level over the course of the interview. The discussions presented in this volume of teaching, learning, and assessing at the levels of ACTFL Advanced and Superior are predicated upon a common understanding of how these criteria are defined and assessed in an actual OPI.

What Does a Rating in the Advanced Range Mean?

Speakers rated in the ACTFL Advanced range must be able to perform the following functions: narrating and describing in major time frames and handling situations in everyday social transactions that include an unexpected complication. In terms of the assessment criterion of Content/Context, the speaker must demonstrate the ability to perform Advanced-level functions across a range of concrete topic areas that include not only the autobiographical and familiar but also more general topic domains related to work as well as topics of interest to the broader community, whether local, national, or even international news. We think of an Advanced speaker as a “reporter.” The criterion Comprehensibility/Accuracy includes linguistic features such as pronunciation, intonation patterns, tones for tonal languages, and pace or “fluency” as well as structural control including grammar and syntax. These features are assessed in two primary ways in an official OPI: (1) In relation to the level of accuracy required to perform the function, are these linguistic features adequate to perform successfully the communicative task at the intended level? and (2) in relation to the kind of listener required for successful communication, does the speaker need a very sympathetic listener accustomed to dealing with non-natives in order to be understood, or a neutral, nonsympathetic listener? In order to be rated ACTFL Advanced, the speaker must control the basic structures of the language sufficiently (not perfectly!) so as not to miscommunicate or confuse the listener when performing Advanced-level functions. At the Advanced level, a speaker should no longer need a “sympathetic listener” in order to communicate. In terms of the assessment criteria of Text Type, paragraph-type oral discourse is required for a rating in the Advanced range because that is the text type required by the functions, such as narrations and descriptions. A speaker who produces only simple sentences, for example, simply will not be able to perform Advanced-level functions; a more sophisticated text type (such as extended discourse) is not required in order to perform those same functions.

A word about the sublevel ratings: A speaker rated Advanced Low can perform the functions of Advanced while sustaining the other assessment criteria, albeit minimally. At Advanced Low, a speaker does not usually show any evidence of Superior-level criteria. A speaker rated Advanced Mid is a speaker who performs the functions of Advanced while sustaining the other assessment criteria with good quantity and quality across a range of topics. A speaker rated Advanced Mid is likely to show some evidence of performance and linguistic features associated with the Superior. An Advanced High speaker is able to perform Superior-level functions most of the time but is not able to sustain that performance across a range of functions and topic areas. A rating of Advanced High is not just a superstar when performing Advanced functions; rather, an Advanced High should be thought of as an “almost Superior.”

What Does a Rating of Superior Mean?

The Global Tasks and Functions that a speaker must demonstrate to achieve a rating of ACTFL Superior include discussing an issue at the abstract level, supporting opinion, hypothesizing, and handling “linguistically unfamiliar situations” (usually indicated by the ability to circumlocute and to deal with any low-frequency or unfamiliar linguistic material). A Superior speaker is one who can “think aloud” in the target language about a range of general issues. In terms of the assessment criteria of Content/Context, this criterion expands to include most practical, social, and professional (not highly specialized) topics as well as settings where these topics might be discussed. In terms of the criterion of Comprehensibility/Accuracy, a Superior speaker is able to communicate effectively with speakers not used to dealing with learners; errors may occur, but they are sporadic (not patterned) and neither impede communication nor distract the listener from the message. In terms of the assessment criteria of Text Type, the ability to produce and control extended discourse is required for a rating of Superior because that is the text type required by the functions; less sophisticated text type simply will prove inadequate when a speaker is attempting Superior-level functions.

Description of Assessment Criteria for the Common European Framework of Reference

While ACTFL’s proficiency scales are the accepted norm in the United States, most of Europe follows a set of guidelines known as the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, and Assessment (CEFR). The CEFR describes what a learner can do at six specific levels: A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2, which correspond to three basic descriptors:

• Basic User (A1 and A2)

• Independent User (B1 and B2)

• Proficient User (C1 and C2)

While attempts to correlate the ACTFL and CEFR scales have met with mixed results, descriptors indicate that B2, C1, and C2 may well correspond to ACTFL’s Advanced High, Superior, and possibly even Distinguished levels.

For each level, the CEFR describes in depth the competencies necessary for effective communication skills and the situations (people, place, time, organization, etc.) and contexts (study, work, social, tourism, etc.) in which communication takes place.

The CEFR includes a global scale that describes the general competencies of learners at each of the six levels and includes descriptors of “qualities of spoken language” as well as a set of specific descriptors for a variety of language tasks. Whereas ACTFL stops with global descriptions of listening, speaking, reading, and writing proficiency, the CEFR scale includes separate descriptors for specific tasks. For example, with regard to speaking, the CEFR’s illustrative scales include such tasks as informal conversation, formal discussions, transactions for obtaining goods and services, and goal-oriented cooperation. For our purposes, we will focus on the global descriptors of speakers at levels B2, C1, and C2 as well as descriptors for formal discussions.

Qualities of spoken language, according to the CEFR scale, include range, accuracy, fluency, interaction, and coherence. Range most readily corresponds to ACTFL’s concept of “global tasks and functions.” It refers to the breadth of linguistic resources available to a learner and his or her ability to flexibly use those resources. Like Novice learners, according to the ACTFL scale, A1 learners have “a very basic repertoire of words related to personal details and particular concrete situations.” At C2, speakers can use their lexical and syntactic repertoire flexibly and convey subtle shades of meaning. CEFR guidelines define accuracy in much the same way that ACTFL guidelines do, except that no specific grammatical features are specified in any of the scales. By the time a speaker reaches the B2 range, his or her mistakes do not interfere with communication. At the C1 and C2 levels, grammatical mistakes are “rare” and “difficult to spot.” Fluency has no direct correlate in the ACTFL descriptors. This criterion describes the extent to which learners are able to express themselves fluidly and effortlessly. Coherence, to some extent, reflects ACTFL’s focus on “text types.” It concerns learners’ ability to create cohesive discourse by making appropriate use of a wide range of organizational patterns, connectors, and other devices. Finally, interaction refers to learners’ ability to engage with native speakers in culturally appropriate ways. It includes, among other things, knowing how to initiate and manage conversations and negotiate meaning with other people as well as knowing what sorts of body language, eye contact, and proximity to other people are appropriate.

A learner at B2 is often described as a “vantage speaker.” Speakers at this level can operate quite independently and are able to interact with native speakers easily, without too much strain for either of them. In many countries, a learner who has reached B2 is capable of working in native firms in most areas of specialty. At the B2 level, a speaker’s range is sufficient to give clear descriptions and express viewpoints on most general topics without much conspicuous searching for words and using some complex forms to do so. Speakers at this level demonstrate a relatively high degree of grammatical control; they do not make errors that cause misunderstanding. They are able to produce stretches of language with a fairly even tempo with few noticeably long pauses. In terms of interactional competence, they can initiate discourse, take turns when appropriate, and end conversations as necessary, though these may not always be done elegantly. Speakers at this level can facilitate discussion on familiar ground, confirming understanding, inviting others to participate, and so on. In terms of coherence, learners at the B2 level use a limited number of cohesive devices to link their utterances into clear, coherent discourse.

At C2, learners are considered “proficient.” Their range is broad, allowing them to select formulations to express themselves clearly and in an appropriate style on a wide range of topics. Errors at this level are rare, difficult to spot, and generally corrected by the learner when they occur. Only conceptually difficult subjects can hinder the natural, smooth flow of language for a C2 speaker. Learners at this level are also able to skillfully preface their remarks in order to get or keep the floor and to relate their own contributions to those of other speakers. Their speech is characterized by controlled use of organizational patterns, connectors, and cohesive devices.

Owing to their range, C2 learners enjoy great linguistic flexibility, sufficient to convey subtle shades of meaning precisely, to give emphasis, and to eliminate ambiguity. In terms of accuracy, C2 speakers maintain a high control of complex language. They express themselves with a natural colloquial fluency. In terms of interaction, such learners interact with ease and skill, picking up on and using nonverbal and intonational cues effortlessly. The coherence of their speech is such that they make full and appropriate use of a sophisticated range of organizational patterns and a wide range of connectors and other cohesive devices.

Both the ACTFL and the CEFR guidelines indicate that Advanced-level learners of a language must be able to argue viewpoints and convey their messages using sophisticated language, tailored to the audience. It is precisely these areas of proficiency that written persuasive essays and oral debates target. In the remainder of this document, we will reference the ACTFL guidelines, which are more familiar to American audiences.

2

Task-Based Language Learning

Definition

Simply put, a task is “an activity conducted in the foreign language that results in a product with a measurable result such that students can determine for themselves whether or not they have adequately completed the assignment” (Leaver and Kaplan 2004, 47). From an outcomes perspective, a task reflects an activity that requires learners “to arrive at an outcome from given information through some processes of thought” and that allows teachers “to control and regulate that process” (Prabhu 1987, 2). Additionally, some tasks involve goal-oriented activities aimed at accomplishing a concrete outcome, such as doing a puzzle or playing a game, and push learners to use whatever target language resources they have in order to solve a given problem (Willis 1996, 53).

Background

Debate in the foreign language classroom enables language to become a vehicle for communicating ideas for meaningful purposes rather than functioning solely as an object of study (Coyle, Hood, and Marsh 2010; van Lier 2005; Long 2007; Stryker and Leaver 1997; MLA Ad Hoc Committee 2007; Shaw 1997; Hedegaard 2005). Because competing positions evolve during the course of a debate, learners must pay careful attention to ongoing exchanges. In such a meaning-focused task, participants “are not simply displaying their control of particular patterns or structures or phrases, which would be a linguistic objective” (Willis 2004, 13). Rather, they are constructing meaning for a real purpose in order to learn the language. Likewise, debate forces learners to “push their linguistic competence to its limit as they attempt to express their ideas” (Swain 1993, 162) and negotiate meaning. Research conducted by J. Massie (2005) and Ulla Connor (1987) identifies the task of argumentation and debate as a valuable strategy for improving both L2 oral and written proficiency, particularly at the Advanced level.

In Practice

Incorporating debate in the foreign language classroom can take on many forms, and one is not necessarily better than another. Rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all method, program dynamics (e.g., open versus selective enrollment and proficiency testing) should factor into choosing a suitable approach.

Open versus Selective Enrollment

Both enrollment approaches have advantages and disadvantages that should be weighed carefully. The obvious advantage to an open-enrollment course is that it does not discriminate by proficiency; however, making such a course available to any upper-division student can result in a wide range of proficiencies in a single language class and, hence, create considerable imbalance. The cognitive aspect of debate reflects an Advanced-level task and,...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Introduction
• 1. Overview of Proficiency Guidelines
• 2. Task-Based Language Learning
• 3. Teaching Reading
• 4. Teaching Listening
• 5. Teaching Writing
• 6 Teaching Speaking
• Conclusion
• Appendices
• Notes
• References
• About the Authors