Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 391 356 FL 023 463
AUTHOR Kemis, Mari; Lively, MandiTITLE National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center
Evaluation Report.INSTITUTION Research Inst. for Studies in Education, Ames, IA.
SPONS AGENCY Department of Education, Washington, DC.PUB DATE Aug 95CONTRACT P229A30005NOTE 140p.
PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC06 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Curriculum Study Centers; Educational Technology;
*Education Service Centers; Elementary SecondaryEducation; *Inservice Teacher Education;*Instructional Improvement; Language Teachers;Program Effectiveness; Program Evaluation; SecondLanguage Instruction; *Second Languages; *StudentEvaluation
IDENTIFIERS Center for Applied Linguistics DC; *National K 12Foreign Language Resource Center
ABSTRACTThis report evaluates the activities from February 1,
1994 to May 31, 1995 of the National K-12 Foreign Language ResourceCenter at Iowa State University. The center's purpose is to supporttraining of elementary and secondary school foreign languageteachers. Initiatives of the center focus on professional developmentin three areas: use of effective teaching strategies; development andinterpretation of foreign language assessment; and use of newtechnologies. The evaluation is based on stated objectives in each ofthese areas. Specific activities included 4 summer institutes with 86foreign language educators from around the United States, a projectinvolving 20 teachers and researchers in a collaborative effort withthe Center for Applied Linguistics in researching classroom foreignlangunge assessment practices and techniques, continuation of contactwith institute and workshop participants through collaborativeprojects, completion of an extensive annotated bibliography offoreign language assessment instruments, and teacher training in theuse of electronic mail as an effective communication tool. Statedgoals in each area were met. (MSE)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
********************************************************A**************
NATIONAL K- 2FOREIGN LANGUAGERESOURCE CENTER
EVALUATION REPORT
U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOfhoo Of EduCaOona Reselmcn MO
Improvement
DUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)his document has been reproduced ascalved from tne person or organization
originating it
0 Minor changes have been made to
,mprove reproouction quality
' Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily represe,-.I
official OERI position or policy
111=IMINIOMIIMP
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Prepared byMari KemisMandi Lively
Under the Direction ofJan Sweeney
August 1995
RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION
ECM LAGOMARCINO COL.LECv. OF EDUCATION
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY AMES, IOWA 50011
2
NATIONAL K- 1 2
FOREIGN LANGUAGERESOURCE CENTER
EVALUATION REPORT
Prepared byMari KemisMandi Lively
Under the Direction ofJan Sweeney
August 1995
RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION
E005 LAGOMARCINO COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY AMES, IOWA 50011
Table of Contents
Page
The Evaluation Plan 1
Results of the Evaluation of Center Activities - February 1, 1994 May 31, 1995
Evaluation of Activities Related to Initiatives I and III 4
Initiative I: Use of Effective Teaching StrategiesTeacher Educator Partnership Institute 6
Initiative I: Use of Effective Teaching StrategiesCurriculum Institute 24
Initiative III: Use of New TechnologiesNew Technologies Institute 29
Initiative III: Use of New TechnologiesInteractive Multimedia Authoring Institute 42
Evaluation of Activities Related to Initiative II 54
Initiative II: Administration and Interpretation of ForeignLanguage Performance AssessmentAssessment Guidelines and Strategies Workshop 54
Initiative II: Administration and Interpretation of ForeignLanguage Performance AssessmentAnnotated Assessment Bibliography Preparation 57
Evaluation of Center-Based Activities 57
Summary and Discussion 60
Appendix A Evaluation Plan
Appendix B Evaluation Instruments
Suppot t for this report was provided in part by LLS Department of Education Title VI- LanguageResource Centers grant 011'229A30005.
National K-12 Foreign Language Resource CenterEvaluation Report
February 1, 1994 - May 31, 1995
The National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center, one of six centers funded by the
U.S. Department of Education, was established at Iowa State University to support K-12
foreign language education nationally. Its purpose is to support training of elementary and
secondary school foreign language teachers, particularly in light of the new national standards
for elementary and secondary school foreign language. Initiatives of the Center focus on
professional development in three areas: the use of effective teaching strategies, development
and interpretation of foreign language assessment, and the use of new technologies.
The Evaluation Plan
Evaluation of the National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center is based on the
goals and objectives of the Center and the intended impact of the activities on its target
audiences. The focus of the evaluation is on assessing the degree to which the goals are
accomplished. The goals and objectives, projects, and organizational structure have been
designed to reflect the Center's overall purpose of contributing to the knowledge base, skills,
and resources of foreign language teachers in grades kindergarten through twelve (K-12). The
evaluation considers the resources, techniques, procedures, and strategies employed to
accomplish the goals and objectives. Assessments of the effectiveness and efficiency of the
Center provide information by which accurate judgments can be made about the strengths and
weaknesses of operations and of program impact.
The evaluation provides (1) input A feedback from the teachers participating in the
Center's activities and (2) an assessment of the status of Center activities. Needs assessments,
formative evaluation, and summative evaluation are components of the conceptual and
operational evaluation framework. The evaluation plan includes both quantitative and
1
qualitative methods to describe Center initiatives and measure participant attitudes and
knowledge. Data sources include documents, records, survey instruments, products (e.g.,
manuals, publications, videotapes, logs of e-mail use), and observations.
Formative evaluation throughout the first 16 months of Center operation has been of
immediate use to those involved in administering the Center and carrying out its initiatives.
Information collected through the internal evaluation of formative. issues is to be included as a
part of the summative evaluation activities to be completed for each funding period.
Evaluation Pint Development
The plan for evaluating activities of the National K-12 Foreign Language Resource
Center was developed by staff at the Research Institute for Studies in Education (RISE) and
was approved by the Center's steering committee on May 10, 1994 (Appendix A). The plan
outlines a summary of the goals, outcomes, and benefits for each of the three initiatives
proposed by the Center and the relationship of formative and summative measures to these
goals, outcomes, and benefits. For each initiative, an action plan further describes each
activity, a listing of appropriate evaluation measures, the parties responsible for conducting
the evaluation activities, and an approximate timeline for conducting specific evaluation
activities. Three groups, RISE, Center staff, and the Center for Applied Linguistics, agreed to
provide evaluation data. The plan includes all activities for the proposed 30-month grant
period.
The plan for evaluating activities related to the summer Institutes is based on a
planning cycle (Figure 1). The planning cycle details the order of evaluation events and their
relationship to each other, as well as describing the responsibilities of the Center and
evaluators with regard to evaluation activities.
Results of the Evaluation of Center Activities - February 1, 1994 - May 31, 1995
Center activities of the first period consisted of a series of summer institutes, a two-day
workshop at the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, D.C., and several Center-based
2
Conduct NeedsAssessment of
Participants
DevelopInstitute
Curriculum
ProvideEvaluationResults to
Center Personnel
ModifyCurriculum
Se Sea on
Identified Needs
Determine Levelof Participant
skill andExpertise
Conduct Follow-up Activities
votnParticipants
Hold SuMmerInstitute
Determine Levelof Participant
Skill andExpertise
Participants 1411111
Apply Knowledge
.0ConductInstitute
I valuation
LEGEND
* Sian 01 Gyn.
0 Cntal Rasp:tomb Jay
0 Evaluator Rastoonatollay
/ ParICOant RosoonsOkly
Figure 1. Planning cycle for Evaluation of Institutes Conducted by the National K-12 Language Resource Center
activities. RISE's responsibility was to evaluate the institutes, the workshop and ,:elected
Center-based activities. RISE conducted and analyzed needs assessment data, collected and
analyzed evaluation data from teacher and researcher participants, e.nd analyzed Center-
provided information, according to the evaluation plan. The fo'lowing sections describe the
results for each of the evaluation activities, including descriptions of the methodologies and
instrumentation when appropriate. A summary and discussion of the results follows.
Evaluation of Activities Related to Initiatives I and HI
The Center conducted a series of institutes during the summer of 1994. The institutes
addressed two of the three initiatives, Initiative I: Training Teachers in the Use of Effective
Teaching Strategies and Initiative III: Training Teachers in the Use of New Technologies.
This section begins with a discussion of the instruments used to conduct the evaluation,
followed by the results of the evaluations for each institute. Copies of the instruments are
included in Appendix B.
Instruments
Three of the four institutes had an instructional focus and a common set of evaluation
instruments: needs assessment, content understanding, and overall evaluation. The fourth
institute, Curriculum, focused on critical analysis and strategy development rather than
instruction. In that case, participants responded to open-ended questions about outcomes and
strategies rather than the needs assessment and content understanding instruments. Curriculum
Institute participants also completed an overall evaluation.
Needs Assessment. Prior to each institute, participants were asked to complete a needs
assessment that asked them to rate their level of previous experience with the topics that were
to be covered in the Institute. The four categories provided to characterize their experience
included: 1 = This will be basically new information, or a thorough review would be welcome; 2
= I have some experience with the topic but do not feel entirely competent in the area; 3 = I
have considerable experience with this topic and feel well informed; 4 = I could assist in the
presentation of this topic by providing riformation and examples. The results of the needs
assessment were used in modifying institute topics and activities.
Content Understanding. To assess the impact of the institute on content knowledge,
participants were asked to describe their understanding of the topic areas before and after the
institute. The categories used to describe their perceived level of understanding included: 1 =
no understanding; 2 = understand basic concepts and techniques; 3 = understand basi,: concepts and
techniques and feel comfortable experimenting with their application; and 4 = am quite
4
comfortable with applying the concepts and techniques presented. When appropriate,
participants indicated that a topic was not covered in the Institute on the "after" portion of the
survey.
Evaluation. Participants were also asked to complete a short survey designed to
evaluate the institute in general. A 5 point Likert-type scale (1=poor to 5=excellent) was used
to evaluate approximately 10 aspects of the institute, such as clarity of the objectives, effective
use of time, and effectiveness of the institute leaders. In addition, participants were given the
opportunity to provide written comments regarding their impressions of the Institutes through
three open-ended questions: Which aspects of the Institute did you find to be most useful and
why? What suggestions do you have to improve the Institute? Other comments.
Outcomes and Strategies. Participants in the Curriculum Institute responded to two
open-ended questions: What do you perceive as the major outcomes of the Institute? What
steps should the Center take with regard to foreign language curriculum?
Follow-up. At the end of the academic year, participants from each of the institutes
were asked to complete a survey prepared by RISE staff. Respondents were asked to describe
the amount of communication with Center staff, institute leaders, and other participants and
express their opinions about Center and Institute leader support. Sevexal open-ended questions
asked them to describe (1) how they have changed their teaching as a result of the past year's
experiences with the National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center and (2) formal and
informal information sharing and presentations given since the Institute. The respondents could
choose to answer the survey through e-mail, postal mail, or fax. Of the 58 respondents, 45%
answered via e-mail.
5
Initiative I: Use of Effective Teaching StrategiesTeacher Educator Partnership Institute
Introduction
The Teacher Educator Partnership Institute was designed to address the first of the
Center's initiAtives: training teachers in the use of effective teaching strategies. The goal of
the Institute was to provide a professional development opportunity in effective teaching
strategies for K-12 foreign language teacher educators who serve as methods professors at
institutions of higher education. Special consideration was given to providing training and
classroom experiences at the K-6 level because most teacher educators do not have direct
experience at those levels. A unique feature of the Institute was the formation of partnerships
between teacher educators and practicing teachers foi collaboration on a project during the
coming year.
Description of Participants
Twenty-two participants attended the summer workshop of the Teacher Partnership
Institute. All but one of the participants were female. Nine of the participants were teacher
educators. Eleven of the 13 teacher practitioners were elementary school foreign language
teachers.
Teacher practitioners had an average of 71 years experience teaching grades K-6. Six
taught Spanish, three taught Spanish and French, two taught Japanese, one taught French, and
one taught Spanish and Latin. Six of the teacher educators taught post-secondary Spanish, one
taught Japanese, and twr- taught Spanish and Japanese.
Needs Assessment
Table 1 presents the results of the needs assessment for all participants, as well as
disaggregated results for teacher educator and teacher participant. Participants as a whole
felt that they had considerable experience and/or could assist facilitators in developing
language skills in listening, speaking, reading, writing, and interactive writing. They had the
6
Tab
le 1
. Nee
ds A
sses
smen
t ;.o
r th
e19
94 T
each
er E
duca
tor
Part
ners
hip
Inst
itu-
Frea
uc
All
Part
icip
ants
Tea
cher
Edu
cato
rsT
each
er P
ract
ition
ers
'4 a r
4. p
aa
=04
t.)
pV
= "
LU
0)
.....
44 c
t13
tti.
4" 0
) 0)
a E
4...
Qgo
4 "t
z31
14 g '
r E ... u Z
. -c . o tr)
0, u r 01 .r 0) . .. .r., ,:f ... o t...)
0,) ,4 .'.
4. ... ,.., , ij o 4..
Cl.
. . = 13, r
r ... Z
q, u r 04 *r04
a 0
t.I
t..,
....
cu.4
-c..,
en
taC
ten
v..
4"
cAP o
oC
)i.
(J)
(...)
R.
en = 0 u
r ... tli Z 0 2 0 2 2 0 3 9 5
, E . Z tu A.
E 0 tn 8 3 5 5 5 4 5 4 8
th u 04=
*r 0) w t, ...8 )..
..t:
... 4/1 = 0 U 5 6 6 5 3 8 5 0 0
04 t.) ts . .. tn _. en V)
..tt ." 4 o CI, 2 2 1 3 1 0 0 0
tu en X AL
w 46-- x 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
I lis
tory
and
rat
iona
le f
or e
lem
enta
ry a
ndsc
hool
for
eign
lang
uage
pro
gram
s
Prog
ram
mod
els:
Em
phas
is o
nFE
ES
and
Imm
ersi
on
Prog
ram
pla
nnin
g
Prog
ram
eva
luat
ion
Art
icul
atio
n
Seco
nd la
ngua
ge a
cqui
sitio
n
Chi
ld d
evel
opm
ent t
heor
y: P
iage
t
Chi
ld d
evel
opm
ent t
heor
y: K
iera
n E
gan
Chi
ld d
evel
opm
ent t
heor
y: in
form
atio
npr
oces
sing
per
spec
tives
4 6 4 0 6 15 10
13 9 10 9 10 6 11 7 10
8 8 6 6 5 15 5 0 1
0 2 2 1 3 1 0 0 0
22 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 21
1 0 4 4 2 0 3 6 5
53
0
62
0
50
0
41
0
52
0
27
0
60
0
30
0
21
0
9 .. 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 8
Tab
le 1
(co
n't)
All
Part
icip
ants
Tea
cher
Edu
cato
rsT
each
er P
ract
ition
ers
% ... ,
la r
t.. 4
.,..,
g ^t
t t'''.
..04
4,
r ...
.....
got .
3:A
liN
r o +4 E 0 , '1
4, u -c .., E o vi
r 'C te sa.
k tu .., o g o U
4, ta r a 4. v, . ._ a o ...P
-..
v) ., = r
r o .... 4,
,..)
-c L4-*
4, a te,
r T cu o. 1. ki , ul o U
.4,
t./ r a 1/1 t t, A Or
V/ t 4. Q Z
r ....
4.0 ,.
t..i
01 E 0 tn
r .r 0.1 os k 04 u. VI g 0 U
tt, 1.. r Ct
44 1/1 0: a o L P..
p 1. ti rD
evel
opin
g lis
teni
ng s
kills
Dev
elop
ing
spea
king
ski
lls
Dev
elop
ing
read
ing
skill
s
Dev
elop
ing
writ
ing
skill
s
Dev
elop
ing
inte
ract
ive
writ
ing
skill
s:di
alog
ue jo
urna
ls
Inte
grat
ing
with
the
elem
enta
ry s
choo
lcu
rric
ulum
/sub
ject
con
tent
inst
ruct
ion
Tea
chin
g cu
lture
and
glo
bal e
duca
tion
Prin
cipl
es a
nd p
roce
sses
for
curr
icul
umde
velo
pmen
t
Issu
es a
nd s
trat
egie
s in
ass
essm
ent a
ndgr
adin
g
Use
s of
tech
nolo
gy fo
r te
ache
rs a
ndst
uden
ts
0 0 0 3
4 4 6 5 4 6 7 8 10 12
17 15 16 17 9 4 10 8 8 I
3 ' 0 2 3 2 2 2
22 22 22 22 22 21 22 20 22 22
0 0 0 0 3 5 2 2 1 1
1 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 7
7 6 7 8 4 0 4 2 4 1
1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
9 9 9 9 9 8 9 7 9 9
0 0 0 0 4 3 1 2 1 6
3 3 4 4 2 3 4 5 7 5
10 9 9 9 5 4 6 6 4 0
0 1 0 0 2 , 2 0 I 2
13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
Tab
le I
(co
n't)
All
Part
icip
ants
Tea
cher
Edu
cato
rsT
each
er P
ract
ition
ers
LI g
gA
I U
aU
a ..
,X
-4:
2 tt
gp 4
.'3
A ig
4
0 ... 44 E ,..,
... ,11.
1
tu u ca .c ot E 0
LI V Cl
. Z tu ft) ru 40 . .. to x 0 U
0./ u t:9 (A -.
.. V/ g . -,
1 ... 0, c.,, 4;
(II
tai
IA n 0 .., i. s.--
,0 X
0 ....
4... .ts E ....E
,... 0)
tat
ru 'r . Al E
CI g A
A. C u 1.
t oi :1-5 .. .. to = d
0.1 tr 0 vi ." EA V) g -,I .. 0 4.:
%i
vi 0 , . 4) 4--, 0 g
0 , .. V)) z
ta ,.. VA E 0 trl
(.1 g AJ
. Z AL s -g, .. to 0 (-)
A) u 0 .14 o ct
trs "ti u
Act
iviti
es a
nd g
ames
Use
of m
usic
and
son
gs
Rhy
mes
and
cha
nts
Usi
ng c
omm
unity
res
ourc
es
Par
tner
and
sm
all g
roup
wor
k
1.ea
rnin
g ce
nter
s
Pro
gram
pub
licity
and
pub
licre
latio
ns
Wor
king
with
par
ents
and
par
ent g
roup
s
Wor
king
with
adm
inis
trat
ors,
clas
sroo
mte
ache
rs, a
nd o
ther
sub
ject
spe
cial
ists
1 1 2 7 0 6 7 11 5
10 10 14 7 8 9 8 3 8
8 9 4 7 10 5 3 6 7
3 2 2 1 4 2 2 2 2
22 22 22 22 22 22 20 22 22
. 1 1 2 4 0 2 2 6 3
6 6 7 4 3 7 4 2 6
2 2 0 1 4 0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
9 9 9 9 9 9 7 9 9
0 0 0 3 0 4 5 5 2
4 4 7 3 5 2 4 1 2
6 7 4 6 6 5 2 5 7
3 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
" " *
Tea
k he
r pr
actit
ione
rs r
epor
t vgm
hcan
tly m
ore
expe
rienc
eth
an d
o te
ache
r ed
ucat
ors
(p,
5).
New
info
rmat
ion
Thi
s w
ill h
e ha
sica
ll) n
ew in
form
atio
n, o
r a
thor
ough
res
iew
wou
ld b
ew
ekom
e
Som
e E
xper
lent
eIha
ve s
ome
expe
rienc
e w
Ith th
e to
pic
but d
ono
t fre
l ent
irely
com
pete
nt
Con
side
rabl
e F
ercr
ienc
eI h
ave
cons
idffa
ble
expe
rienc
e w
ith th
is to
pic
and
feel
wel
l inf
orm
ed
Prot
ide
Ass
ISI.1
11C
rI c
ould
ass
ist i
n pr
esen
tatio
n of
this
topi
cby
pros
Klin
g in
form
atio
n an
d ex
ampl
es
r
least experience with theories of child development and uses of technology for teachers and
students.
Teacher practitioners and teacher educators differed on the level of experience reported
for the topics that were to be covered in the Institute. In general, teacher practitioners reported
greater experience in all of the topic areas. These differences were statistically significant
(p<.05) in the following areas: program planning; integrating foreign language with the
elementary school curriculum/subject content instruction; activities and games; use of music and
songs; rhymes and chants; and working with administrators, classroom teachers, and other
subject specialists.
All participants were asked to indicate those areas or topics they felt should receive
special emphasis during the Institute. There was considerable variation in the responses and
the items marked to receive special emphasis were not necessarily the areas of least
experience. The topic selected most frequently (by 7 of 21 participants) was integrating the
foreign language with elementary school curriculum/subject content instruction. The topic
marked most frequently by teacher practitioners was articulation. Over half of the nine'
teacher educators selected integration (6 participants) and specific strategies for the classroom
(5 participants). Teaching culture and global education, and principles and processes for
curriculum development were each selected by three participants.
Content Understanding
In general, participants believed that they had a better understanding of all of the
topics following the Institute (Table 2). For all topics, participant ratings of understanding
after the Institute were significantly higher (p<.05) than their ratings before the Institute.
There were some differences between the teacher educators (Table 3) and teacher
practitioners (Table 4) on self-reported understanding before the Institute. Again, the ratings
for teacher practitioners tended to be higher than those of teacher educators. These differences
were statistically significant (p.05) for the following topics: history and rationale for
elementary and school foreign language programs; program models; program planning; child
10
1"
Tab
le 2
. Per
cept
ions
of
Part
icip
ant U
nder
stan
ding
Bef
ore
and
Aft
er th
e 19
94 T
each
er E
duca
tor
Part
ners
hip
Inst
itute
-
Freq
uenc
y of
Res
ons
e- (
all
artic
i ant
s)
Pre-
Inst
itute
Post
-Ins
titut
e
I.1
.4 te) 0 0. = C
UC
Su'
lI
tyt.)
t01
..b
g0 ti
0 .41
(A U 'es t 4 0
% t 0 0 ../ U .0 ' t: 0 .4., t 'tt z
4.4
0a,
...
o.
.`...
::E
. a A
scu
k41
.1eu
b.tlz
.... 01 0.1
.....
4.."
.
o p.
."i
t6
= 0U
w
0/ U) r 0 Fi
4 -
it, ' tip r
b0 0 .4.4 t "3 4 p Z_
t. 0/ U = 0 U U 1.0
"Ct 0 et . . t "0 t
t ..E
.0 4..., E r
iuo
..4 . c ....
tU
Z.;
14.1
tIJ
b.3 0 0'1 i ti tlf
;,a
,e-
E 9
.P
t5'
C..)
t.
.P..
.. 0 CS
14 t,. U
" I
.."u ry
a44
..,4
0 tz
tif CY V/ 0 m vl 0
I lis
tory
and
rat
iona
le fo
r el
emen
tary
and
scho
ol
fore
ign
lang
uage
pro
gram
s
Pio
gram
mod
els:
Em
phas
is o
nF
LES
and
Imm
ersi
on
Pro
gram
pla
nnin
g
Pro
gram
eva
luat
ion
Art
icul
atio
n
Sec
ond
lang
uage
acq
uisi
tion
Chi
ld d
evel
opm
ent t
heor
ies
(i.e.
, Pia
get,
Kie
ran
Ega
n, in
form
atio
n-pr
oces
sing
per
spec
tives
)
Dev
elop
ing
liste
ning
ski
lls
I )ev
ekyi
ng s
peak
ing
skill
s
Dev
elop
ing
read
ing
skill
s
0 2 4 6 3 0 4 0 0 1
8 9 9 11 5 3 11 4 4 4
6 6 4 3 II 9 7 6 8 8
8 5 5 2 3 10 0 I 1 9 8
22 22 22 22 22 22 22 21 21 21
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
4 5 9 14 8 3 10 2 4 5
16 16 10 7 7 17 11 19 18 17
1 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0
22 22 21 22 22 22 21 21 22 22
* * * * ' ' " * *
Tab
le 2
(co
n't)
Pre-
Inst
itute
Post
-Ins
titut
e
. ti) 0 0. "ct i
n
0...
44 '
...g
'13
u 4.
..,..
._.
4-.
....,
got>
cn ..
,
(so r .... .tt g g 4. en A 0 N o Z
4 42J
Ca g o u ... VI
Ct
.30 -0 r g t 4:3 x
u .1:5 g
';-.:0
A. A I...
c:, 4
-.`,
....,g
E i'
0 t.) E
'il tu Li,
,,,
t30 r ... 0. 0. 4 01 --.
..ts g 't 41 0. A
.4- r
, Eu
tj
V. 04 V. r 4-, g X
to A 'CI g es ... VI
-0 g g g
.1!
2 01 le r o u V. q .0 -es X .1i
en ... . -gt g
...0 +. I. - +.
0 0 --
tJ -- t14
4el
l
bou
... t.1 -...
.1z, o
44.
I ti)
,9 o
v t.J
u ... 0. 0. X) 0 -t
t1.
1ty
0. 4
.... .
..,*
0 t
t.i til g Z,' 4., °
Dev
elop
ing
writ
ing
skill
s
Dev
elop
ing
inte
ract
ive
writ
ing
skill
s: d
ialo
gue
jour
nals
inte
grat
ing
with
the
elem
enta
ry s
choo
lcu
rric
ulum
/sub
ject
con
tent
inst
ruct
ion
Tea
chin
g cu
lture
and
glo
bal e
duca
tion
Prin
cipl
es a
nd p
roce
sses
for
curr
icul
umde
velo
pmen
t
Issu
es a
nd s
trat
egie
s in
ass
essm
ent a
nd g
radi
ng
Use
s of
tech
nolo
gy fo
r te
ache
rs a
nd s
tude
nts
Act
iviti
es a
nd g
ames
Use
of m
usic
and
son
gs
0 5 4 1 0 2 4 0 0
6 5 8 6 9 13 12 5 5
7 4 5 10 8 5 6 7 9
8 6 5 5 5 2 0 10 8
21 20 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 6 7 7 12 8 14 2 7
16 13 13 14 9 14 7 20 15
, 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
22 20 22 22 22 22 21 22 22
* * * "
Tab
le 2
(co
n't)
Pre-
Inst
itute
Post
-Ins
titut
e
44.
V/ a c 0J
a Q
1E
ttIf.
1,/"
..
t.14.
`C-,
Zv.
...
". r
t")
bo c .F.t. cu is a
4 a. OJ t.) 0 t.t .t.) ZA ti c Zt.. r
tU ..., c
4..., tV
5,
..,. a% as 14.
n,
u0
g t..I
VI 4., r
bo r r 4., VI a. 'a
a. tU tJ t t., ::: tn q 'a Ct
n) 0. Z
411
. .o a
otl
$. 4-6
o .
C.
11,
4 ... a, a. Ta
..a . .sz o
a,
,ts
,1
t./ o ... I tl/ a ,T
3
rt. ,
.,-
.---
1
tn t
Rhy
mes
and
cha
nts
Usi
ng c
omm
unity
res
ourc
es
Par
tner
and
sm
all g
roup
wor
k
1.ea
rnin
g ce
nter
s
Pro
gram
pub
licity
and
pub
licre
latio
ns
Wor
king
with
par
ents
and
par
ent g
roup
s
Wor
king
with
adm
inis
trat
ors,
clas
sroo
m te
ache
rs,
and
o th
er s
ubje
ct s
peci
alis
ts' "
--
1 1 0 1 0 2 2
7 7 3 10 13 8 7
7 6 9 5 3 6 3
7 7 9 4 4 4 10
22 21 21 20 20 20 22
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 5 3 4 2
10 8 8 4 10 8 6
12 7 13 5 5
.
7 12
0 5 1 8 4 3 2
22 21 22 22 22 22 22
.. * * * * * * *
inhs
sig
ni Ic
an h
iv t%
Igtle
r 11
1311
pre
-tns
liut
e ra
ttngc
(p<
0.
Nen
info
rmat
ion
= T
Ins
%%
ill b
e ba
snal
ly n
ew in
lorm
atiti
lt or
a th
orm
igh
re%
iew
wou
ld b
e w
elco
nw
Som
e F
irw
ncI h
a, t,
som
e ex
perie
nce
nith
the
topn
bin
do
not f
eel e
ntire
ly s
ompe
tent
onsi
dera
ble
bipe
rieni
eI i
lOt t
Col
lsId
erab
k i.p
rleul
i. 1
% R
h th
is to
pic
and
feel
%%
ell i
nfor
med
Pro
% id
e A
ssis
taik
eI i
uld
assi
st in
pre
wnt
atum
of t
his
topi
c by
pro
vidi
ng in
form
atio
nan
d ex
ampl
e%
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
Tab
le 3
. Per
cept
ions
of
Part
icip
ant U
nder
stan
ding
Bef
ore
and
Aft
er th
e 19
94 T
each
er E
duca
tor
Part
ners
hip
Inst
itute
-Fr
eque
ncy
of R
es o
nses
(te
ache
r ed
ucat
ors
Pre-
Inst
itute
Post
-Ins
titut
e
b0 0 0 4.,
CA 4-1 -tt a a o Z
14.
tu tJ t 0 U (A .0 "CS Z ti , t -ta t
0 b0
a 4-
.'4
...., Q.-
. C 1.1
pt..%
'
04 tl
b0 Z X. t .1
:)
`4-.
...°
EL
E tt
,o u
CA tta 14 O' x
I
... 44 C
yC
A0
=U
4...
%,
cla
44
sla
t4
I.R
.44"
- . t
sc4
4034
0.1
44 z
44
gotI
ti
'
b41
cl 4... -a 1
t., C) = 0 .) ,.. -e:
Zil
-cs
b0 0
4.,
44
t' '6-
(A 0 a.
.44
Al
th 0
tv
ta r
U m
;.:
l'U0.
1 4.
1
44;C
Z t
. go
wt4
His
tory
and
rat
iona
le fo
r el
emen
tary
and
sch
ool
fore
ign
lang
uage
pro
gram
s0
54
09
*0
13
50
9"
Pro
gram
mod
els:
Em
phas
is o
n F
LES
and
Imm
ersi
on2
51
19
*0
12
6
Pro
gram
pla
nnin
g4
41
09
*0
26
10
9*
Pro
gram
eva
luat
ion
.4
41
09
01
71
Art
icul
atio
n3
14
19
11
32
Sec
ond
lang
uage
acq
uisi
tion
02
34
90
03
60
9"
Chi
ld d
evel
opm
ent t
heor
ies
(i.e.
, Pia
get,
Kie
ran
Ega
n, in
form
atio
n-pr
oces
sing
per
spec
tives
)3
51
09
"0
04
5
Dev
elop
ing
liste
ning
ski
lls0
22
48
00
27
Dev
elop
ing
spea
king
ski
lls0
23
38
00
27
09
Dev
elop
ing
read
ing
skill
s0
24
28
(10
27
09
Tab
le 3
(co
n't)
Pre-
Inst
itute
Post
-Ins
titut
e
1:0
g ... .tt g VI
13 ...0 4
0.1
t..) g 0 V .. et ..gl g tt4
V11 q
"t .
..
o .Z E
144
4.1
tNO 0 .. rx.
q t 4.v.,
.. 4.
,..-.
.°e-
c)E
C.)
u
tU 4., g 13.
in v.s x
..14
III
vl 0
001
i.. a
i..)
....
:t...
i: o
4.,
,N_
t 'et
4:1
C.)
Z.
." '4
11 t
1:1
u t.)
utg
....
Oi
::-...
.6..z
,1go
-Z "
4-
,:u ,
c.n.
.a e
t
tt.) u g t 4..
"ftt t Z
t/J %../ 0 0 V ...4 VI
.4:1
.'3 g in ... .
g "
4...
Zbs
....
0 .E , E
b0 t g. tg c*
E). C.1
tu...
.i.
tot g o
.61
t3J
CII
0 0 0
V,..
ts, -
.4, 0
.14.
sE_
t .2t
t:N.'
1."
44C
l.)oa
.... 4
...x
Dev
elop
ing
writ
ing
skill
s
Dev
elop
ing
inte
ract
ive
writ
ing
skill
s: d
ialo
gue
joum
als
Inte
grat
ing
with
the
elem
enta
rysc
hool
curr
icul
um/s
ubje
ct c
onte
nt in
stru
ctio
n
Tea
chin
g cu
lture
and
glo
bale
duca
tion
Prin
cipl
es a
nd p
roce
sses
for
curr
icul
umde
velo
pmen
t
Issu
es a
nd s
trat
egie
s in
ass
essm
ent a
nd g
radi
ng
Use
s of
tech
nolo
gy fo
r te
ache
rs a
nd s
tude
nts
Act
iviti
es a
nd g
ames
Use
of m
usic
and
son
gs
0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0
2 2 6 3 4 6 6 4 5
3 4 0 6 5 3 2..
3 3
3 1 0 0 () 0 0 2 1
8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
* * "
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1 4 3 5 3 5 2 5
6 6 4 6 4 6 3 7 4
0 0
Tab
le 3
(co
n't)
Pre-
Inst
itute
Post
-Ins
titut
e
.
.. r Z.: e, .13 r 4
tA ... tJ t C.) 4 alt
Jo 't3 ta .1... E "4 Z
Ca a bo
t 'S
04
4....
., =
E '
a .E
c) 'i4u1t 2 1 4 4 1 2 0
(:. Z .. 4. ° -lt .a a a U
2
1 2 4 0 1 0 1
sei r a t.. 4.:. r 9 8 9 9 8 8 9
IA ...,,
0 ga..
ty4,
t: =
tY tj
CI
"' 4 4 4
X.
4-..
e,.
taM
4. ,
..
-...
.
ED
"14
- tu
aen
as
es
* " *
4 .1'
ru t 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LA
A 4. .41 t.) r 0 t..) ll til '13 U :..3. t 'CI r 0 1 0 1 2 2 2
Cu t -F.
0 4"
Q E
4.,
eu
6 3 3 4 4 4 4
t%'1 Z .. 4'> 4. v :"
0 a a.
%,-
, ,1.
1E
`4 or
(-)
ea
3 3 6 2 2 2 3
La
. E.
4Z.)
.
a et ..
,:s
,;:.3
4.,
....
1..
q E
),...
.. 4.
0 a
Z
0 2 0 2 1 1 0
A tu % o '. 4.... 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Va I. (
40
4..1
.4tlj
VI
t3=
'14
1Jc3
4 4
....
tl) A
s
,:s..r
4-
ts 4
A.
et u
.0.
I V
r 4.
...r
',:--
,.". k
:.'.'
,
kre
'CI
Is)
r
*
Rhy
mes
and
cha
nts
Usi
ng c
omm
unity
res
ourc
es
Par
tner
and
sm
all g
roup
wor
k
Lear
ning
cen
ters
Pro
gram
pub
licity
and
pub
lic r
elat
ions
Wor
king
with
par
ents
and
par
ent g
roup
s
Wor
king
with
adm
inis
trat
ors,
cla
ssro
om te
ache
rs,
and
othe
r su
bjec
t spe
cial
ists '
-"
1 1 0 0 0 2 2
5 4 1 5 6 4 6
sign
itica
ntly
toss
er th
an te
ache
r pr
aclo
ners
p.
.
New
Info
rmat
ion
Thi
s w
ill b
e ba
sica
lly n
ew in
form
atio
n, o
r a
thor
ough
rev
iew
wou
ld b
e w
elco
me
Som
e F
pelie
n, e
I bas
e so
me
expe
rienc
e w
ith th
e to
pic
but d
o no
t fee
l ent
irely
com
ptte
nt
Con
side
rabl
e E
xper
ienc
eI h
ave
cons
ider
able
exp
erie
me
is it
h th
is to
pic
and
feel
wel
l inf
orm
ed
Pro
sni
e A
ssN
dike
coul
d as
sist
in p
rese
ntat
ion
of th
is to
pic
by p
ros
idin
g in
form
atio
n an
d ex
ampl
es
Tab
le 4
. Per
cept
ions
of
Part
icip
ant U
nder
stan
ding
Bef
ore
and
Aft
er th
e 19
94 T
each
er E
duca
tor
Part
ners
hip
Inst
itute
-
Freq
uenc
y of
Res
ons
es (
teac
herp
ract
ition
ers
_
Pre-
Inst
itute
Post
-Ins
titut
e
60 t .. r 0 44 1/5 , 0O -0
0 .... o U u .., C
O1
.o .0 = 0 44
01 .".. cs
bot.E 0
1".
....,
0E
44
0.E
r Z 1
Ta. Z.. ' -II
.0 0 t 4T
a°
LI-
4-,
u, 4, (I) = a Itl'
r.
0 0 b.
a m
..E
:Flu
:'4.
.".:
kt4
...k
..izt
t.)-,
.et
is4.
CY
0,)
...,
a E
4S
. 41
.:.4.
,
b0 t ;e:" r 13 44 ,,, t -0 =
0 .4.4
.
= o U c.) .. . ...o
'CI 0 0 ... . ... ti
tla t . F
.
49...
...E
.E
'4 0,...
...1.
,E
be) r ..- tX.
"U. t 4....
° tk
....,
C)
a
t.) .. o. 4.4 a IS:1 3
7, ...
4-0 ,
..s, 4
8,,.
.,
gl 0 4, .... 0
-0 0
II.
44 ly
tnI:
1 r
a U
0
ii C
I 4.
.... 4
4 ,,g
't-s'
c. ,
)...
4 4
..,
His
tory
and
rat
iona
le fo
r el
emen
tary
and
scho
ol
fore
ign
lang
uage
pro
gram
s
Pro
gram
mod
els:
Em
phas
is o
nF
1,E
S a
ndIm
mer
sion
Pro
gram
pla
nnin
g
Pro
gram
eva
luat
ion
Art
icul
atio
n
Sec
ond
lang
uage
acq
uisi
tion
C h
ild d
evel
opm
ent t
heor
ies
(i.e.
, l'ia
get,
Kie
ran
Ega
n, in
form
atio
n-pr
oces
sing
per
spec
tives
)
Dev
elop
ing
liste
ning
ski
lls
Dev
elop
ing
spea
king
ski
lls
Dev
elop
ing
read
ing
skill
s
0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1
3 4 5 7 4 1 6 2 2 2
2 5 3 2 7 6 6 4 5 4
8 4 5 2 2 6 0 7 6 6
13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
* * ' .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 (1 0
1 3 3 7 5 0 6 0 2 3
11 10 9 6 5 11 6 12 11 10
1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0
13 13 12 13 13 13 12 12 13 13
* 4
3i
Tab
le 4
(co
n't)
Pre-
Inst
itute
Post
-Ins
titut
e
bo .r .. = Za v) el,
X U ....0 4
, a t. u . o SZI
"el = .:1.. t
"GI =
,,, t . 7
.1g
4. , E at I4,
tu
m ta.
4/'
...A t Z
.'42
,e-
E Q 0
U u
/01
(/) r .. x
I.)
U .
t '13
:64
t u tu
4.)
a '' Is
'.1
13 %
/4.
et4.
1.
4 ...
ttu
Sk ..
.%
,.. tu
rtn
.sz
et
be r..t
3".' 4. te ,... x 0 Z.
. t CZ
) 0 ll .. et a:,
es 4., t r
eu S) ,..)
g
L4
i . 4
. 4,
b0 . = to.
;1, O
J
or%
U u
1.J v. 0 44 . 0) et w
.... 04
8Z
rI. '4-,
47 e
t gt.)
,.,E
7,1
,49.
, t-
..4.
Dev
elop
ing
wri
ting
skill
s
Dev
elop
ing
inte
ract
ive
wri
ting
skill
s: d
ialo
gue
jour
nals
Inte
grat
ing
with
the
elem
enta
ry s
choo
lcu
rric
ulum
/sub
ject
con
tent
inst
ruct
ion
Tea
chin
g cu
lture
and
glo
bal e
duca
tion
Prin
cipl
es a
nd p
roce
sses
for
cur
ricu
lum
deve
lopm
ent
Issu
es a
nd s
trat
egie
s in
ass
essm
ent a
nd g
radi
ng
Use
3 of
tech
nolo
gy f
or te
ache
rs a
nd s
tude
nts
Act
iviti
es a
nd p
ines
Use
of
mus
ic a
nd s
ongs
0 4 1 1 0 2 3 0 0
4 3 2 3 5 7 6 1 0
4 0 5 4 3 2 4 4 6
5 5 5 5 5 2 0 8 7
13 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
* * *
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 5 3 4 7 5 9 0 2
10 7 9 8 5 8 4 13 11
,
0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 133
LI
Tab
le 4
(co
n't)
Pre-
Inst
itute
Post
-Ins
titut
e
r r a 40 04 ..t3 X r o
.1 X .. .a - = Zji VI t .es r
"4.
, . I,14
0. ce E
tu k
V./
to
b0 o ta 4.4 ei o
0..
.i.-,
tu o 0
Li v
til 01 r o o. tn Z..' 44,
o X
4440
1> 0
X41
0 ..
.
-....
`' c
4..
0 14
to o
i13
r t.
1
:,S4-
.Z1
r...
.bo
-1. tu
rtr
) .0
CS
Is 0 44 a. %a
'et r a Zi_
al Ce X 0 a `0 cs 4..
tn 1..
to *a
..a a 60 I. t '4.5
:4,
FE
E
(1)
Lir
to
ta3 r a a ''' 4 ...o ts t:-.1 1r
)L.
)s.
a
C.>
.a... 0 .... . o, -. "r:q
?,
.--.
., 0
ac Z
fk X
44 tj
tfl
0g
CU
()
0C
.) 0
..,
U .1
3 :4
4ba
cu
...
r I. ,
tliC
,-4 -a
.4 0
1r
tx)
0
Rhy
mes
and
cha
nts
Usi
ng c
omm
unity
res
ourc
es
Par
tner
and
sm
all g
roup
wor
k
Lear
ning
cen
ters
Pro
gram
pub
licity
and
pub
lic r
elat
ions
Wor
king
with
par
ents
and
par
ent g
roup
s
Wor
king
with
adm
inis
trat
ors,
clas
sroo
m te
ache
rs,
and
othe
r su
bjec
t spe
cial
ists
..
0 0 0 1 0 0 0
2 3 2 5 7 4 1
5 5 5 1 2 4 3
6 5 5 4 3 4 9
13 13 12 11 12 12 13
* "
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 4 1 2 0
4 5 5 0 6 4 2
9 4 7 3 3 5 9
0 3 1 6 3 2 2
13 12 13 13 13 13 13
-X
*
eac
ter
e1uc
aIor
s ra
ttngs
sig
n! ic
ant y
low
er t
tan
teac
er
prac
titio
ners
(p<
.05)
.
New
Info
rmat
ion
Thi
s w
ill b
e ba
sica
lly n
ew in
form
atio
n, o
r a
thor
ough
rev
iew
wou
ld b
ew
ekom
e
Som
e E
xpen
ewe
=.
I hav
e so
me
expe
rienc
e w
ith th
e to
pic
but d
o no
t fee
l ent
irely
com
pete
nt
Con
side
rabl
e E
xper
ienc
e =
I ha
ve c
onsi
dera
ble
expe
rienc
e w
ith th
is to
pic
and
feel
wel
l inf
orm
ed
Pro
s id
e A
ssis
tanc
e .,.
I cou
ldav
sist
in p
rese
ntat
ion
of th
is to
pic
by p
rovi
ding
info
rmat
ion
and
exam
ples
.
development theories; integrating foreign language with elementary school curriculum/subject
content instruction; activities and games; use of music and songs; rhymes and chants; working
with parents and parent groups; and working with administrators, classroom teachers, and
other subject specialists.
After the Institute, differences between teacher practitioners and teacher educators
remained on the following three topics: history and rationale; program plamiing; and working
with administrators, classroom teachers, and other subject specialists. There was an
additional post-institute difference between teacher practitioners and teacher educators in the
area of second language acquisition. Again, the ratings for teacher practitioners were higher
than those of the teacher educators.
Institute Evaluation
Evaluation ratings indicate that the participants were generally pleased with the
Institute (Table 5). Averages ranged from 3.41 (electronic mail training) to 4.86 (applicability
of information) on a 5-point scale.
Participant comments provide additional information about the most useful aspects of
the Institute. Over half of the respondents indicated that providing opportunities to interact
with Institute leaders and other participants was very beneficial. Many also mentioned
gaining a better perspective of current practice in foreign language educationas well as new
ideas for their own classrooms. Several commented specifically on the value of leaders
modeling teaching methods discussed during the Institute.
Suggestions for improving the Institute often included allowing more time for
interaction among participants. Several commented on the intensity of the Institute, but could
not identify topics or activities that were of little value that could be eliminated. A few
suggested improving the e-mail training, perhaps by pairing more experienced participants
with those less experienced. Overall, many of the general comments expressed feelings similar
to one participant who said, "I found this to be a very valuable experience . . . I will change the
way I do some things."
20 3 ()
Tab
le 5
. 199
4 T
each
er E
duca
tor
Part
ners
hip
Eva
luat
ion
-Fr
eque
ncy
of R
espo
nses
I- o o Or s
1-4
eo et 4... cu a et o e4 r-4
to bo a t a il
of.) ti u. t, a et co a o az v
4.. r o.)
1,1 c., k 14
, tnM
ean
S.D
.N
Cla
rity
of in
stitu
te o
bjec
tives
01
86
73.
860.
9422
Org
aniz
atio
n of
the
inst
itute
00
46
124.
360.
7922
Effe
ctiv
e us
e of
tim
e0
06
79
4.14
0.83
22
App
licab
ility
of i
nfor
mat
ion
00
11
204.
860.
4722
Ele
ctro
nic
mai
l tra
inin
g1
013
53
3.41
0.91
22
Tec
hnol
ogy
info
rmat
ion
02
47
94.
051.
0022
Effe
ctiv
enes
s of
the
inst
itute
lead
er(s
)0
02
614
4.55
0.67
22
Ove
rall
ratin
g of
the
inst
itute
00
25
144.
570.
6ft
21
Q
Follow-up
Twenty-two participants were surveyed at the end of the 1994-95 academic year to
obtain follow-up information about their institute-related activities during the school year.
Sixteen responded (73% return rate).
The majority of the respondents from the Teacher Educator Partnership Institute agreed
that the amount of their communication with Center staff, Institute leaders, and other
participants was about right (Table 6).
Table 6. Amount of Communication by Participants of the 1994 Teacher Educator PartnershipInstitute - Frequency of Responses
Too little About right Too much
with Center staff 1 15 0with Institute leaders 1 15 0with other participants 6 10 0
Almost all of the respondents agreed that communication with Center staff, Institute
leaders, and other participants was useful. In addition, the majority agreed that the Center
has been a valuable source of materials and information and has been supportive of projects and
that Institute leaders have been supportive of teaching efforts and projects. All respondents
agreed that the skills and information gained from the Institute have been useful, and all but
four agreed that their project has been useful. See Table 7 for detailed frequency information.
Participants of the Teacher Educator Partnership Institute attributed several changes
to their participation in the Institute. While some teachers indicated that they had not had
time to implement any ideas, most of the participants commented that they had incorporated
several of the strategies they had seen modeled at the Institute into their own classrooms.
Some specific examples included the use of "language signing" and using "thematic units."
22
Tab
Se 7
. Fol
low
-uPe
rce
tions
of
Part
ici a
nts
for
Cle
199
4 T
each
er E
duca
torP
artn
ers
-
ix iv to tt tit N
D 0 0 1.
4111
11.1
11
Z .? /.. 60 0 14 I est
t., o, ts is
13 {A 'az"
' 0 01 E cn en
cu ea u. to a 4. 0 01 E c cn 1 ,tt.
01 to cl ILi
-)
su tt L b<1
CZ t 0 t.. 4. I us
it to ei c to c 0 1. th 1. 0 01 ge
o 0
VI 0/ t 0 0
My
com
mun
icat
ion
with
Cen
ter
staf
f was
use
ful.
My
com
mun
icat
ion
with
Inst
itute
lead
er(s
) w
asus
eful
.
My
com
mun
icat
ion
with
oth
er p
artic
ipan
ts w
asus
eful
.
The
Cen
ter
has
been
a v
alua
ble
sour
ce o
f mat
eria
lsan
d in
form
atio
n th
roug
hout
the
scho
ol y
ear.
Inst
itute
lead
er(s
) ha
ve b
een
supp
ortiv
e of
my
teac
hing
effo
rts
thro
ugho
ut th
e sc
hool
year
.
Cen
ter
staf
f has
bee
n su
ppor
tive
ot m
y pr
ojec
t thr
ough
out
the
scho
ol y
ear.
Inst
itute
lead
ers
have
bee
n su
ppor
tive
of m
y pr
ojec
t thr
ough
out
gle
scho
ol y
ear.
rho
skill
s an
d in
form
atio
n I g
aine
d fr
om th
e in
stitu
teha
ve b
een
usef
ul to
me
priit
essi
onal
ly.
My
inst
itute
pro
ject
has
bee
n us
eful
to m
epr
ofes
sion
ally
.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?
(1 0 0 2 2 1 0 (1 2
0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0
2 1 2 4 2 1 0 2 6
8 7 7 4 6 8 9 2 4
6 8 7 5 4 5 5 12 2
14 15 14 9 10 13 14 14 6
16 16 16 16 14 16 16 16 16
'
A number of these teachers commented that they now felt more comfortable with
computers and technology, especially with e-mail. Several indicated thae. they were now
"looking for opportunities to incorporate the technology."
Overall the respondents felt that one of the biggest gains was networking with other
teachers. The Institute created opportunities to make contacts that they had maintained after
it ended. As one participant put it, "I have been able to network with teachers around the
nation. I am now able to discuss my work and ideas with others in similar situations."
Ten respondents indicated that they had given a total of 36 presentations,
demonstrations, or workshops related to the institute; the presentations were attended by
approximately 775 other high school teachers, university professors, student teachers, and
other colleagues at state and national conferences. The presentations covered a wide range of
topics, including e-mail, articulation and proficiency, strategies for teaching reading and
vocabulary, storytelling, and music.
In addition to formal presentations, most indicated that they had shared information
about the Institute informally. As one participant commented, "I talk about it all the time."
Participants indicated that most sharing was done through "word of mouth;" a few also
communicated through e-mail and newsletters.
Additional comments about the Institute indicated that the support from Institute staff
and the opportunity to network were the most appreciated aspects. They recommended that
funding for the Institute be continued and expressed the desire to involve more people.
Initiative I: Use of Effective Teaching StrategiesCurriculum Institute
Introduction
The purpose of the Curriculum Institute was to engage experienced practicing foreign
language educators in the critical analysis of traditional curricula for foreign languages and to
develop new strategies and frameworks for the emerging long sequences of language study.
24
Description of Participants
There were 24 participants in the Institute. All were from K-12 institutions; all but two
were from public schools. Over half of the participants reported holding district level
positions such as director or chair of the foreign language department. At the same time, 17 of
the 24 respondents listed "teacher" as their position title. Six of the participants indicated
that they were elementary teachers.
Participants reported K-12 teaching experience ranging from 3 to 42 years, with an
average of 17.8 years. One third of the respondents (8) taught more than one language, eight
listed Spanish as their major second language, and seven reported teaching French.
Participants also reported teaching Chinese and Russian.
Outcomes and Strategies
Three themes emerged from responses to the question: What do you perceive as the
major outcomes of the Institute? By far the most frequent recommendation made was for the
Center to disseminate the information put together at the Institute (15 of 23 participants).
Many suggested strategies for dissemination of information, such as publishing the materials
and having the participants distribute the information in the states in their areas. The Sc,ond
most frequently mentioned outcome was the specific products that were started and/or
completed during the Institute, especially the Guiding Assumptions document. The third theme
reflected appreciation for the training and experience and a commitment to share their
experiences with others.
Institute Evaluation
All but one of the participants completed the eight item evaluation form (Table 8).
Average responses ranged from 4.00 (clarity of Institute objectives) to 5.00 (effectiveness of the
Institute leader(s)).
Two themes were prominent in the comments about what participants liked best about
the Institute. The first was the opportunity to interact with a diverse group of educators. As
one participant stated: "The opportunity to interact with educators from across the country. It
25
Tab
le 8
. 199
4 C
urri
culu
m I
nstit
ute
Eva
luat
ion
- Fr
eque
ncy
of R
eson
ses
1... o CZ
,
t
t. ct 1... tu a m o c,1
%to
m I. o, eI)
%.
es 4..
tu a et cu a o AZ I
,tt.
46 ct k t inM
ean
S.D
.N
Cla
rity
of in
stitu
te o
bjec
tives
01
69
84.
000.
8824
Org
aniz
atio
n of
the
inst
itute
00
27
154.
540.
6624
Effe
ctiv
e us
e of
the
grou
ppr
oces
s us
ed in
the
inst
itute
00
15
184.
710.
5524
Effe
ctiv
e us
e of
tim
e0
14
910
4.17
0.87
24
App
licab
ility
of i
nfor
mat
ion
00
06
184.
750.
4424
App
licab
ility
of t
he r
eadi
ngs
00
15
184.
710.
5524
Use
fuln
ess
of th
e cu
rric
ulum
res
ourc
es p
rovi
ded
00
13
204.
710.
5124
Ele
ctro
nic
mai
l tra
inin
g0
14
613
4.25
0.91
24
Effe
ctiv
enes
s of
the
inst
itute
lead
er(s
)0
00
024
5.00
0.00
24
Ove
rall
ratin
g of
the
inst
itute
00
04
204.
830.
3824
A
ti
has been exciting and motivating. We need more opportunities like this one to share, to learn:
to network." The other theme focused on the quality of the Institute's facilitators. Various
strengths cited included their knowledge, skill, organization, and flexibility.
To improve the Institute, some participants suggested less time be spent on introductions
and team-building activities to maximize time devoted to the projects. Others wanted more
time to interact with other participants. Still others suggested ways to lengthen the Institute,
including making provisions for this group of participants to return next summer. The only other
dominant theme was the recommendation that the information distributed to participants be
more specific, particularly with regard to the e-mail project.
Follow-up
Twenty-four participants were sent surveys at the end of the 1994-95 academic year to
obtain follow-up information about their institute-related activities during the school year.
Fourteen responded (58% return rate).
The majority of the respondents from the Curriculum Institute agreed that the amount
of their communication with Center staff, Institute leadeis, and other participants was about
right (Table 9). As shown in Table 10, the majority of respondents agreed that communication
with Center staff, Institute leaders, and other participants was useful. Half or more agreed
that the Center has been a valuable source of materials and information and has been
supportive of projects and that Institute leaders have been supportive of teaching efforts and
Table 9. Amount of Communication by Participants of the 1994 Curriculum Institute - Frequency
of Responses
Too little About right Too much
with Center staff 2 12 0
with Institute leaders 3 11 0
with other participants 4 10 0
27 .1' G
Tab
le 1
0. F
ollo
w-u
p Pe
rce
tions
of
Part
ici a
nts
for
the
1994
Cur
ricu
lum
Ins
titut
e-
Fre
uenc
of
01 0) tO 0 .0... b0 o .. ....
cn,
)..1
tO ci IA ... CI I ei
OJ A b0 0 VI
1:4 a E 0 knI
et)
0) 01 A b0 14 1 E 0 t.fi I
'44
ijo lt)
01 0.1 0 o 4.a I
4:,
'60 0 be) 0 A -1
-a w ts r
101 0) o it. t/1 A o .:.
My
com
mun
icat
ion
with
Cen
ter
staf
f was
use
ful.
My
com
mun
icat
ion
with
Inst
itute
lead
er(s
) w
as u
sefu
l.
My
com
mun
icat
ion
with
oth
er p
artic
ipan
ts w
as u
sefu
l.
The
Cen
ter
has
been
a v
alua
ble
sour
ce o
f mat
eria
ls a
nd in
form
atio
n th
roug
hout
the
scho
ol y
ear.
Inst
itute
lead
er(s
) ha
ve b
een
supp
ortiv
e of
my
teac
hing
effo
rts
thro
ugho
ut th
e sc
hool
year
.
Cen
ter
staf
f has
hem
sup
port
ive
of m
y pr
ojec
t thr
ough
out t
he s
choo
l yea
r.
Inst
itute
lead
ers
have
bee
n su
ppor
tive
of m
y pr
ojec
t thr
ough
out t
he s
choo
l yea
r.
The
ski
lls a
nd in
form
atio
n I g
aine
d fr
om th
e in
stitu
te h
ave
been
use
ful t
o m
epr
ofes
sion
ally
.
My
inst
itute
pro
ject
has
bee
n us
eful
to m
e pr
ofes
sion
ally
.
0 0 1 I 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
2 2 1 4 3 2 3 0 4
5 5 4 3 1 3 2 4 4
7 7 8 4 7 7 7 9 6
12 12 12 7 8 10 9 13 10
14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
projects. Most respondents agreed that the skills and information gained from the Institute
have been useful and that their project has been useful to them professionally.
The following comment from one of the Curriculum Institute participants is illustrative
of the feedback gathered regarding the impact of this institute, "This institute provided food
for thought, expertise, and resources which fueled our work."
A number of participants indicated that they were incorporating the computer as a
teaching tool, using it to help students learn new vocabulary and grammatical concepts.
Several commented that resources they picked up at the Institute had fit in with activities
they were trying in their classrooms. Many also indicated that they were using the Internet to
share ideas and get information.
Eight of the respondents noted that they had made a total of 32 presentations to 855
other teachers, administrators, and parents at workshops at their schools and at conferences.
Presentation topics included curriculum development, curriculum rationale and implementation,
and classroom activities. Respondents enthusiastically shared information about their
institute-related experiences through informal discussions, other conferences, open meetings,
and newsletters.
Additional comments from these participants indicated that they felt the Institute
had been very valuable and that the greatest benefit was the opportunity to network. As one
participant wrote, "the collegiality that was established was powerful."
Initiative III: Use of New TechnologiesNew Technologies Institute
Introduction
The New Technologies Institute was designed to introduce participants to the benefits
of using newly developed technologies in foreign language education. Participants examined
recent developments in the application of new technologies to the learning of foreign languages;
previewed exemplary foreign language courseware, including multimedia programs;
implemented use of telecommunications networks to enhance students' reading, writing, and
29 4
cross-cultural communications skills; developed telenetworking lessons for use with existing
curricula; gained expertise in the use of electronic mail, forums, and bulletin boards; and
continued dialogue with Institute personnel and participants during the academic year via
telecommunications.
Description of Participants
A total of 20 participants attended the New Technologies Institute. Nineteen of the
participants were from public schools; one was from a private school. Four were elementary
teachers (K-8), 14 taught at the secondary level, and two participants did not indicate their
grade level. Eleven of the participants taught French and 10 taught Spanish. German,
Japanese, and Romanian were among the languages taught by participants. Five of the
participants reported teaching more than one language. Participants had from 2 to 31 years of
K-12 teaching experience, averaging 17.9 years.
Needs Assessment
Responses to the needs assessment are summarized in Table 11. Overall, very few of the
participants indicated that they had considerable experience or felt they could assist in the
presentation of any of the topics to be covered in the Institute.
Fourteen of the 20 participants indicated the topics they thought should receive
special emphasis during the Institute. At least half of the 14 respondents felt that the topic
areas of setting up sister schools networking and educational uses of e-mail should receive
special emphasis.
Responses to the open-ended questions suggested that there was a wider range of
experiences with technology among participants than was evident in the responses to the
content portion of the survey. These responses indicated that a few of the participants had
little or no experience with technology, while some had experience with quite sophisticated
technologies. The discrepancy between the content and the open ended responses might mean
that participants underestimated their own capabilities and/or had high expectations for the
Institute.
30
Tab
le 1
1. N
eeds
Ass
essm
ent f
or th
e 19
94 N
ewT
echn
olo
-
+4
4.1. 0 ... %.% Z 5 5 2 11 14 14 11 7 7 1
5
044- E 0 tn 14 12 10 9 4 5 6 9 10 3
,.,°' t E .0 0 tt vl r: o 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 1
zi - ,,, 'CI
.... a 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
0 0 444
4.4 i.. o 19 19 12 20 20 19 19 18 20 1
9
Com
pute
r as
sist
ed in
stru
ctio
n
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of fo
reig
n la
ngua
geso
ftwar
e
Sel
ectio
n of
app
ropr
iate
fore
ign
lang
uage
sof
twar
e
Sat
ellit
e pr
ogra
ms
Dis
tanc
e le
arni
ng c
ours
es
Mul
timed
ia p
latfo
rms
Loca
l and
wid
e ar
ea n
etw
orks
Ilard
war
e an
d so
ftwar
e
flow
to s
end
and
rece
ive
emai
l
l'ele
cont
eren
cing
Tab
le 1
1 (c
on't)
o E,..
..0, r ...
fu i., E .c . v)
u = .4,
1: H o: Oi
..c c vu 7,
(...)
0, .2 41 , cu ... o
0. c Fri
..
ET
P
Am
eric
a O
nlin
e
Inte
rnet
acc
ess
serv
ices
Min
itel
Gop
her
Wor
ld W
ide
Web
Bul
letin
boa
rds
New
sgro
ups
List
serv
s
I'duc
atio
nal u
se o
f e-m
ail
Pla
nnin
g te
leco
mm
unic
atio
ns le
sson
s
18 14 11 11 12 13 10 9 10 8 14
1 3 5 7 5 4 5 8 3 JO 3
0 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 1
0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 2
19 17 19 19 18 18 18 18 15 20 20
Tab
le 1
1 (c
on't)
i
r o 4. E 49,
M .... Z
ti, Li t o.1 w ni E a tri
te Li r 'C ..c tS L. 't3 ....
tri = o t../
t, r Z (A CA
CA
t% 0, -0 ...
0 tu CA = 0 a" L. o
Plan
ning
tdea
mim
unic
atio
ns le
sson
s
Sitti
ng u
p si
ster
sch
ools
net
wor
king
con
nect
ions
14 18
3 1
1 1
2 0
20 20
ewor
mat
ion
= h
its i
rla
sica
lly n
ew in
form
atio
n, o
r a
thor
ough
rex
iew
wou
ld b
e w
elco
me
Stu
nt. I
per
C =
I ba
se ;o
nce
expe
rienc
e ix
ith th
e to
pic
bin
do n
ot fe
el e
nth
ely
com
pete
nt
I. on
side
rabl
e I '
,per
mit
eI h
as e
tons
Ider
able
exp
erie
nce
with
this
topi
c an
d fe
el w
ell i
nfor
med
Ass
ista
ike
tI s
outh
ass
ist i
n pr
ewnl
atio
n of
this
topi
c by
pro
vidi
ng in
form
atio
n an
d ex
ampl
es
Participants goals for the Institute were of three very general types. The first included
information and experience with specific hardware, software, or telecommunication systems.
This goal also reflected a range of sophistication regarding the use of technology. For example,
some wanted information about software programs to use in their classrooms, while others
wanted information to facilitate distance communication and multimedia platforms. Second,
they wished to address specific problems, including promoting the importance and use of
technology, and telecommunication among their colleagues and administration and overcoming
resource limitations. Finally, they indicated introducing or expanding the use of technology in
the classroom as a broader goal.
Content Understanding
Participants showed significant improvements in all topics covered by the New
Technologies Institute (Table 12).
Institute Evaluation
Participant ratings indicated general satisfaction with all parts of the Institute (Table
13). Each aspect was rated above average or excellent by at least three fourths of the
respondents. The highest rated aspect was effectiveness of the Institute leaders, which was
rated "excellent" by all but one participant. Nineteen of the 20 participants also assigned an
overall rating of excellent to the Institute.
Several common themes were apparent in the participants' comments about the most
useful aspects of the Institute. Learning to effectively use e-mail and the Internet was
mentioned by over half the respondents. Participants also appreciated the hands-on format of
instruction, the opportunity to meet and exchange ideas with other teachers, the textbook, and
the exposure to different software.
Participants responded with a variety of ideas for improving the Institute, including
making the Institute longer. Participants wanted more time to explore programs and software
and to practice using their new skills. Other suggestions included adhering to announced dates
34
Tab
le 1
2. P
erce
tion
s of
Par
tici a
nt U
nder
stan
ding
Bef
ore
and
Aft
er th
e 19
94 N
w.
Pre-
Inst
itute
Post
-Ins
titut
e
4.. (,) o 1:4.
.
'10
In0
u 0.
u.,
t..pi
0.)
4)
got:
..4 X
v)
b0 0 ... g ... 0) -0 r a c, Z
sa. u r 0 ,U tel
40 11 t -,a a
tu 0 b° E '
0 .E
-' ^..t_
tot
bO T:
.... 0. 0. 14 t Z
' ta
to &' r
b0 0 "c.1 0 .., t -r
o.. u r 0 U r.
4 .0 0 4.,
..a a
tu 0 b°
,..-
E 1
1o
..,
-,i;
a,. k JA
I 4,
bc)
... 0. a. t3 --- 44
Z.4
9-e-
Et*
'0
tV
t.)
t., ... 0. .2 I r -,
,,...
!.:
- ...
.`"
a 0 r
tn kn --, a r
Com
pute
r as
sist
ed in
stru
ctio
n
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of f
orei
gn la
ngua
geso
ftw
are
Sele
ctio
n of
App
ropr
iate
for
eign
lang
uage
soft
war
e
Sate
llite
pro
gram
s
Dis
tanc
e le
arni
ng c
ours
es
Mul
timed
ia p
latf
orm
s
Loc
al a
nd w
ide
area
net
wor
ks
1 la
rdw
are
and
soft
war
e
1 lo
w to
sen
d an
d re
ceiv
e e-
mai
l
Tel
econ
fere
ncin
g
3 2 3 5 7 4 11 9 8 10
9 10 6 11 12 13 7 6 6 7
8 7 6 3 0 3 1 3 3 0
0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 3 1
20 20 16 19 20 20 20 19 20 18
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 6 6 5 2 3 0 10
15 10 9 9 12 13 13 14 7 5
5 9 7 1 2 1 5 3 13 1
0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3
20 20 16 19 20 19 20 20 20 19
* * ' * " * ' * * *
5 c_
t
9E
..7"..
,:.
-: ..r
Z e:. "'"
x
--; c "0 ..r
7-" - = = "
I=
- 9
...
'''..
E:
. E et.
rls. C"
, - , '7.i = ,
7, .7....
= :-
.-
F.' g
,-) n r: ti) CA et .-, ..: F. rs (r.
> B
- ,- -. .7..'
= ra (.7.
--.
.i..
-
cil
-
._.
a
-.
..-.
co
,-.
. cn
.-
. cr,
.-
.--.
(.4
-.
.--
c..n
o
c)
o
No understanding
Understand basic concepts
Feel comfortable experimenting
Comfortable applying concepts
'..0 ..., ? '5
E. g
Iv 0 iv na 0
na 0
NJ 0
.--. sO
..-+ CO 5 I>-)
n of responses
-
-
=
c...2
-.
o
r.....)
-
o
(.4
.-
o
NJ
-
o
'`
-
o
' _,
o
(.n
-
--,
.-
(,..)
r5
0
No understanding
Understand basic concepts
Feel comfortable experimenting
Comfortable applying concepts
"Z ccg
i 5. co
. E Fo"
- o Not applicable - topic not covered
NJ 0
NJ 0
NJ 0
rs.) 0
NJ CD .-8 NJ
c --, CO 18 n of responses
. . . . . . . Significant pre- and post-
institute differences
Tab
le 1
2 (c
on't)
Pre-
Inst
itute
Post
-Ins
titut
e
4I .. th a -ts
trl
tsLI 0
It t
V 4
4.
S.1
. g
tw)
X a ... tn -a t
.1.1 la..
,...
t.. 0 to to V)
.713 -a tn t -ts
(4) X t>
0t .
F. ""
EE
0 .
c.,
Z ... a.,
0. C3
4," .0 0
10.
N..-
.
V) v X cn via
......
,
bo 0 c: .4'
nzt u 0
,n ii.,.. t., o to to ... .st g Zi ,a,
,,:i g
,41 .4 =
16 .4
o "-
..,._
, rE
i'8
. c. c
..,tu
0,
r -.. 0. ....
4 . -
-,°
e -
E '.
.) Z
- .. a. t a
-ti
to .....,
,,
V) ul g 4..,
Edu
catio
nal u
se o
f em
ail
1'la
nnin
g te
leco
mm
unic
atio
nsle
sson
s
Set
ting
up s
iste
r sc
hool
s ne
twor
king
conn
ectio
ns
8 9 9
7 7 6
4 3 3
1 1 1
_
20 20 19
0 0 0
0 5 3
8 9 10
12 5 6
0 0 1
20 19 20
* * *
osst
ile r
a in
gs s
lgnh
laca
ntly
ugh
cr t
an p
re-in
stitu
te r
atin
gs (
p<).
New
lnlo
rmat
unc
Tlu
s w
ill b
e ba
sica
lly n
ew in
form
atio
n, o
rath
orou
gh r
evie
w w
ould
be
wel
com
e
:som
e 1:
aper
ienc
e =
!bas
e so
me
esfw
rienc
e cs
ith th
e to
pic
but d
u no
t fee
l ent
irely
com
pete
nt
Con
side
rabl
e tn
perie
nce
= !h
at e
cm
eode
rabl
e ex
perie
nce
wIth
this
topi
cand
feel
wel
l inf
orm
ed
row
ide
Ass
ista
nce
= I
coul
d as
sist
in p
rese
ntat
ion
ot th
is to
pic
by p
rovi
ding
mic
e tn
ahon
and
exa
mpl
es
I
CO
Tab
le 1
3. 1
994
New
Tec
hnol
o ie
s In
stitu
te E
valu
atio
n -
Fre 1. 0 0 '
cu t50
CI
a. ta 0 0".
41; ' ev
tll 1:10 0 t1) 1 rn
3.1 tJ t a. cu 0 t1.1 CI
.t) i tr.
4.0 = VW 1.1 i in
Mea
nS.
D.
N
Cla
rity
of In
stitu
te o
bjec
tives
Org
aniz
atio
n of
the
inst
itute
Effe
ctiv
e us
e of
tim
e
App
licab
ility
of i
nfor
mat
ion
Info
rmat
ion
on s
ettm
g up
sis
ter
scho
ols
netw
orki
ngco
nnec
tions
Info
rmat
ion
on e
duca
tiona
l use
s of
em
ail
Info
rmat
ion
on fo
reig
n la
ngua
ge s
oftw
are
Effe
ctiv
enes
s of
the
inst
itute
lead
er(s
)
Ove
rall
ratin
g of
the
inst
itute
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 2 1 0 5 0 2 0 0
4 4 6 4 5 4 7 1 1
14 14 13 16 10 16 11 19 19
4.68
4.60
4.60
4.80
4.25
4.80
4.45
4.95
4.95
0.58
0.68
0.60
0.41
0.85
0.41
0.69
0.22
0.22
19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
and times, specifying in advance the Macintosh-only environment and a required follow-up
project, and adding follow-up sessions.
Follow-up
The twenty participants were sent surveys at the end of the 1994-95 academic year to
obtain follow-up information about their institute-related activities during the school year.
Seventeen responded (85% return rate).
All but one of the respondents from the New Technologies Institute agreed that the
amount of their communication with Center staff and Institute leaders was about right, while
six t-,!: the 20 respondents felt that there was too little communication with other participants
(Table 14). As shown in Table 15, over three-fourths of the respondents agreed that
communication with Center staff, Institute leaders, and other participants was useful. Half or
more than half agreed that the Center has been a valuable source of materials and information
and has been supportive of projects. Most agreed that Institute leaders have been supportive of
teaching efforts and projects and that their project has been useful to them professionally.
Table 14. Amount of Communication by Participants of the 1994 New Technologies Institute -Frequency of Responses
Too little About right Too much
with Center staff 1 16 0
with Institute leaders 1 16 0
with other participants 6 11 0
Almost all felt that the skills and information gained from the Institute have been useful to
them professionally.
Changes in practice indicated by the participants of the New Technologies Institute
included greater use of e-mail, greater awareness of the possibilities for incorporating
technology in the classroom, and increased networking.
cc39
Tab
le 1
5. F
ollo
w-u
p Pe
rce
tions
of
Part
ici a
nts
for
the
1994
New
Tec
hnol
o2ie
s ln
stih
it-
th,
oh ti .., .. L. (4;1 7
v-4
1%,
,,, i N
o, L.
a:am a E o 7 in
oh a a .
oh L. bo trl
1.1 o 44 I
bo ts t,ox
....
th C r
o.) r wh
1.. Q r
My
com
mun
icat
ion
with
Cen
ter
staf
f was
use
ful.
My
com
mun
icat
ion
with
Inst
itute
lead
er(s
) w
as u
sefu
l.
My
com
mun
icat
ion
with
oth
er p
artic
ipan
ts w
as u
sefu
l.
The
Cen
ter
has
been
a v
alua
ble
sour
ce o
f mat
eria
ls a
nd in
form
atio
nth
roug
hout
the
scho
ol y
ear.
Inst
itute
lead
er(s
) ha
ve b
een
supp
ortiv
e of
my
teac
hing
effo
rts
thro
ugho
ut th
e sc
hool
year
.
Cen
ter
staf
f has
bee
n su
ppor
tive
ofm
y pr
ojec
t thr
ough
out t
he s
choo
l yea
r.
Inst
itute
lead
ers
have
bee
n su
ppor
tive
ofm
y pr
ojec
t thr
ough
out t
he s
choo
l yea
r.
l'he
skill
s an
d in
form
atio
n I g
aine
d fr
om th
e in
stitu
te h
ave
been
use
ful t
om
epr
ofes
sion
ally
.
My
inst
itute
pro
ject
has
bee
n us
eful
to m
e pr
ofes
sion
ally
.
1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 (1
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
3 2 1 6 2 4 2 1 3
8 7 7 7 6 7 6 3 5
5 7 8 2 7 4 8 13 8
13 14 15 9 13 11 14 16 13
17 17 17 17 17 16 17 17 17
While some were just starting to use e-mail in their classes, many indicated that they
were trying a variety of applications. One respondent commented, "We have used computers to
write diary entries, [have] done peer editing, [have] participated in [producing a] cooperative
newsletter among four schools, and [have] used Internet resources for research projects." Others:
however, were not so fortunate. They did not have the hardware and software nor access to
Internet in their schools. "E-mail is not accessible, but I talk with staff and students about the
Internet. There haven't been any changes yet. I need funds to purchase hardware and
software."
Eleven respondents indicated that they had made a total of 30 formal presentations to
790 attendees. These included presentations to local, state, regional, and national foreign
language associations, inservice workshops, and presentations to students. Presentation topics
included the use of the Internet, foreign language applications, and writing. Participants also
indicated that they were actively sharing Institute information, such as sharing Hyper Studio
stacks with other instructors, writing articles for newsletters, and sharing information at
conferences and workshops on an informal basis.
Additional comments from participants reiterated the role of the Institute in promoting
the use of technology in schools and in developing teacher skills and confidence in using
technology. As a result of the Institute, many of these teachers have assumed leadership roles
in their districts and/or states. The following comments illustrate these points. "The Institute
gave me the push needed to .. . become an avid computer user and advocate of use of technology
in the classroom." ". .. thanks to the New Technologies Institute and the NFLRC . . . I am so far
one of the few teachers [in my district] with really practical training and some level of skill on
the Internet." "[As a result of the institute] my principal and the district technology
coordinator view me as a major contributor to integrating technology into [school name]
curriculum. They respect my work, use it as models for other curriculum areas, and solicit advice
and ideas from me I am co-chair of the Standards Framework Writing Committee for foreign
lanuage in [state name]. This responsibility resulted from my project "
t.;41
Initiative III: Use of New TechnologiesInteractive Multimedia Authoring Institute
Introduction
The Interactive Multimedia Authoring Institute was designed to introduce participants
to the benefits of using multimedia, including CD ROM and videodisk, in foreign language
education. Participants examined exemplary multimedia hardware and software; authored a
Hyper Studio (rather than HyperCard, as originally proposed) stack and produced lessons that
effectively met objectives of the foreign language curriculum; prepared a Hyper Studio lesson
linked to segments on a CD ROM and/or videodisk or a segment of motion video; incorporated
multimedia into foreign language instruction; and continued dialogue with Institute personnel
and participants during the academic year via telecommunications.
Description of Participants
Of the 20 participants, 18 were from public schools and two were from private schools.
Eight reported teaching in elementary grades (K-8) and 11 at the secondary level. Seven of the
participants were Spanish teachers and four taught French. German, Japanese, Russian, and
Chinese were among the languages taught by participants. Three of the participants reported
teaching more than one language. The average K-12 teaching experience reported by
participants was 11.4 years, with a range of 3 to 23 years.
Needs Assessment
Responses to the needs assessment are presented in Table 16. Most of the participants
indicated that they had some experience in the topic areas or that the content of the Institute
would provide them ith new information. Because only five of the participants marked the
topics they thought should receive special emphasis during the Institute, these data provided
little insight.
Open-ended responses suggested that there may have been a wider range of experiences
with technology among participants than was evident from responses to other parts of the
survey. Participants indicated that their experiences ranged from basic word processing to
,
V
42
Tab
le 1
6. N
eeds
Ass
essm
ent f
or th
e 19
94M
ultim
edia
Aut
hori
ng I
nstit
ute
- Fr
eque
ncy
of R
es o
nses
= o ... 44 E 0 ,... t t,, Z
t. Q E -t 0) R'.
0) E a vi
u u x u ....
.0 tt L. ....
01 x a Ci
u = tt .. . ... V)
Vi t: .... o 4
w VI t 0 L. o t
Wor
king
kno
wle
dge
ofM
acin
tosh
wor
d pr
oces
sing
pro
gram
Wor
king
kno
wle
dge
of d
atab
ase/
spre
adsh
eet
softw
are
prog
ram
Wor
king
kno
wle
dge
of g
raph
ics
or p
aint
pro
gram
Wor
king
kno
wle
dge
ofte
leco
mm
unic
atio
ns s
oftw
are
and
use
ofe-
mai
l
Wor
king
kno
wle
dge
of D
OS
/Win
dow
s(I
BM
com
patib
le)
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of g
ener
al fo
reig
n la
ngua
geso
ftwar
e: d
rill a
nd
prac
tice
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of g
ener
al fo
reig
n la
ngua
geso
ftwar
e: tu
toria
ls
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of g
ener
al fo
reig
n la
ngua
geso
ftwar
e: g
ames
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of g
ener
al fo
reig
n la
ngua
geso
ftwar
e:sn
nula
tions
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of g
ener
al fo
reig
n la
ngua
geso
ftwar
e: w
ord
proc
essi
ng
0 6 5 9 11 10 12 14 14 q
10 7 I 1 7 2 5 3 1 1 3
8 4 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 '3
1 1 1 I 1 0 0 0 0 0
19 18 18 19 15 18 15 15 15 15
Tab
le 1
6 (c
on'l)
Q r., E 2
-c . 0. Ca E a (e)
v tJ Z or to k to z , t ... 0 t o L)
t) Z ul (A (A ti w 0 o .. a.
,.:
tn 41 0 0 b. ,.... o
.
=
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of m
ultim
edia
fore
ign
lang
uage
pro
gram
s:V
ideo
disc
(le
vel 1
and
2)
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of m
ultim
edia
fore
ign
lang
uage
pro
gram
s:V
ideo
disc
with
sof
twar
e
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of m
ultim
edia
fore
ign
lang
uage
pro
gram
s: C
D-
RO
M p
rogr
ams
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of m
ultim
edia
fore
ign
lang
uage
pro
gram
s:ex
istin
g H
yper
Car
d st
acks
Wor
king
kno
wle
dge
of IB
M o
r co
mpa
tible
l'C
Kno
wle
dge/
use
of m
odem
Kno
wle
dge/
use
of s
cann
er e
quip
men
t
Kno
wle
dge/
use
of d
igita
l cam
era
equi
pmen
t
Kno
wle
dge/
use
of v
ideo
disc
pla
yer
Kno
wle
dge/
use
of C
D-R
OM
pho
to-C
O p
laye
rt
14 15 11 13 11 12 13 15 13 13
3 ,) ,. 6 3 2 4 3 1 5 9
0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0
17 17 18 17 14 18 18 18 18 18
Tab
le 1
6 (c
on't)
g
0 E o%
,..... r .... o
0) -c w 4, o tn
tu u x t.J k ti q N. t., -ts ...., u, o (.)
4.1 - CA ct ta ci .... a N.
V,
th VI r o r...
cA 0.,
N. o r
Wor
king
kno
wle
dge
of 1
lype
rCar
d
Wor
king
kno
wle
dge
of a
noth
er a
utho
ring
tool
pro
gram
for
mul
timed
ia p
rodu
ctio
n (e
.g. D
irect
or 4
.0)
Wor
king
kno
wle
dge
of Q
uick
lime
or o
ther
vid
eo-e
ditin
g pr
ogra
m(e
.g. V
ideo
Spi
got,
Vid
eofu
sion
)
Sou
nd p
rodu
ctio
n so
ftwar
e
9 15 14 15
7 1 2 1
1 0 0 1
0 1 0 3
17 17 16 20
en n
orm
atio
n =
ibis
s il
l he
bacs
ally
new
into
rmat
nin,
or
a th
orou
gh r
es w
w w
ould
be w
ekom
e
5om
e E
petie
nse
= I
have
som
e ex
pene
oce
with
Me
topi
c bu
t do
not f
eel e
ntue
ly c
ompe
tent
Con
side
rabl
e F
sper
ienc
e =
I ha
s e
cons
ider
able
esp
enen
ce is
nth
this
topx
and
feel
wel
l inf
orm
ed
hoc
!de
Acs
ittau
ceI s
iitild
ass
ist i
n pr
esen
tatio
n of
this
huf
f ta)
pom
adin
g in
ksrm
atiii
it an
d ex
ampl
es
rij
presentations and distance education. Again, the discrepancy between the checklist and the
open ended responses might mean that participants had underestimated their own capabilities
and/or had high expectations for the Institute.
There were a number of common themes among participants goals for the Institute. One
theme was networking with students in other districts and countries through e-mail and other
means of communication. Another theme was incorporating a number of technologies into
lessons; a third was integrating technology into the classroom. Specific goals in this area dealt
with classroom management, managing limited resources, facilitating students' use of
technology to develop their own presentations, and using technology for assessing student
progress. Finally, there was considerable interest in promoting the use of technology in their
schools. This theme was evident in the desire to learn about software and hardware and to be
able to demonstrate its use, and to learn how to evaluate software and hardware to facilitate
purchasing decisions.
Content Understanding
Participants showed significant improvements in all topics related to foreign language
multimedia programs, their computer-based hardware experience, and background in
multimedia (Table 17). However, participants reported gains in only two out of the five topics
related to general computer software and foreign language specific software. This may indicate
that a majority of the topics in these areas were not covered or that they were not covered in
enough depth to increase understanding. Participants' understanding of word processing,
database and spreadsheet programs, drill and practice, and tutorials did not increase
significantly. Over half of the participants commented about the lack of instruction on
DOS/Windows (IBM compatibles).
Institute Evaluation
All aspects of the Institute were rated above average or excellent by at least three
quarters of the respondents (Table 18). The highest rated aspects were effectiveness of the
46
Tab
le 1
7. P
erce
ptio
ns o
f Pa
rtic
ipan
t Und
erst
andi
ngB
efor
e an
d A
fter
the
1994
Int
erac
tive
Mul
timed
ia A
utho
ring
Inst
itute
-
Freq
uenc
y of
Res
ons
es-
Pre-
Inst
itute
Post
-Ins
titut
e
. ... 0 rk.
'et v
, rq.
II.
t4 4
.
E0:
631
,A...
.
b-sz
"t1 .2 tr) F. tu .0
.1.4
. 4. E c) u -:-.
1 tt..S
Z)
"0 X Z, E
u Z tt"
44 X
4, p 44
`4.,
R
2 .r
:
tso r .- r-,
sr.
13 1) .....
.X1
CI ,a, t
-
VI
,LI ,f) X 0 . t." 4...,
,0
ro = "3"' = 4. (/) t -ts r X o
., .... .....
4, Z r, u .c., t .SZ
I
..C1 X CI
...., 4.r.
'CI r
..1;) I. ..
.4.
.4.
.., r
.z o.
lV til
FiL
-
bItl,
-,.. ^- 44 Q
ttu
L,
- r. 1 2.1 CI
Tzt
.....0
,..,
48
0 ... °
Wor
king
kno
wle
dge
of M
acin
tosh
wor
d pr
oces
sing
prog
ram
Wor
king
kno
wle
dge
of d
atab
ase/
spre
adsh
eet
soft
war
e pr
ogra
m
Wor
king
kno
wle
dge
of g
raph
ics
or p
aint
pro
gram
Wor
king
kno
wle
dge
of te
leco
mm
unic
atio
nsso
ftw
are
and
use
ot e
-mai
l
Wor
king
kno
wle
dge
of D
OS/
Win
dow
s (I
BM
com
patib
le)
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of g
ener
al f
orei
gn la
ngua
geso
ftw
are:
dri
ll an
d pr
actic
e
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of g
ener
al f
orei
gn la
ngua
geso
ftw
are:
tuto
rial
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of g
ener
al f
orei
gn la
ngua
geso
ftw
are:
gam
es
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of g
ener
al f
orei
gn la
ngua
geso
ftw
are:
sim
ulat
ions
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of g
ener
al f
orei
gn la
ngua
geso
ftw
are:
wor
d pr
oces
sing
1 7 1 9 8 4 6 4 8 2
4 3 10 2 0 7 4 8 4 5
8 3 5 6 2 2 3 1 4 4
4 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 0 4
17 14 18 19 11 15 14 15 16 15
0 6 1 0 7 1 2 1 I I
4 3 2 I 0 7 5 8 8 4
8 4 12 12 1 4 6 4 6 5
5 1 2 7 1 3 I 1 1 5
3 6 1 0 11 I 2 3 2 3
20 20 18 20 20 16 16 17 18 18
*
* "
Tab
le 1
7 (c
on't)
Pre-
Inst
itute
Post
-Ins
titut
e
....
v, o o. nts
tn
0.1
A
14 4
.S
Z
v>...
r" ... izi 4 12 ,11 X X
a u r o U .... v, o 41:)
.. ,3 r o +4 A ,1J tt
a .....
-tz .C
S b0
....-
0 4-
.k.
..., =
Er°
'
t.)E
p ..') o. o. t2
1 .0 0 t ' ,...,
a ,
v., C 0 lo. .
tx "I- a tt X
u r o J.) q -,4 r:
.F1.
., t -o
..o ,.... 4.
0 4, r E '
o .E
t.)Z
.....
tr
box
.5 ....., ..z t,
'Ao
44.
4.4,
01
E t-
1
u o. 0 a (3,
.." 1.. t
jIt
x.'
0 e
. /ZL
r., A
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of m
ultim
edia
fore
ign
lang
uage
2rog
ram
s: V
ideo
disc
(le
vel 1
and
2)
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of m
ultim
edia
fore
ign
lang
uage
prog
ram
s: V
ideo
disc
with
sof
twar
e
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of m
ultim
edia
fore
ign
lang
uage
prog
ram
s: C
D-R
OM
pro
gram
s
Kno
wle
dge
and
use
of m
ultim
edia
fore
ign
lang
uage
prog
ram
s: e
xist
ing
Ilype
rCar
d st
acks
Kno
wle
dge/
use
of m
odem
Kno
wle
dge/
use
of s
cann
er e
quip
men
t
Kno
wle
dge/
use
of d
igita
l cam
era
equi
pmen
t
Kno
wle
dge/
use
of v
ideo
disc
pla
yer
8 11 9 li 8 12 14 10
5 6 5 2 I 4 4 5
4 2 5 4 6 2 0 3
1 0 0 2 2 1 1 1
18 19 19 19 17 19 19 19
0 0 1 0 3 0 0 1
6 6 6 I 5 6 7 3
8 9 9 13 7 9 9 11
5 5 4 6 3 5 4 5
0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
* ., * " *
Tab
le 1
7 (c
on't)
Pre-
Inst
itute
Post
-Ins
titut
e
i 44 VI o r.. x a m
.tu
t. ta
es a
u 4.
4 a
goV
i-...
.... * * " "
i:. o a".
"
a Z1 0/ 'a a a o Z 10 10 11 14 12
4 rt.
01 U rbo
zo
...t.. Z
Aa.
.a
..o..s
5et
"'''S
"Xt '
Z'1
1
44E
Wt 4
-A1
0 .E
Eu
Cs.
...--
.° e
"
xo
0Z
utt
35
1
61
2
44
0
40
1
51
0
tn co ut o t 1..
i.....
.,o 19 19 19 19 18
"a X el ul ... 0/ "a a = 3 2 0 0 1
`11 zt.
0.1 U r o u u .... v, a ttZ '03 r a 4.4 in t -tt 4 5 3 9 6
.a ... .. X "
, ...
o 1-
s,-,
= rto
i'S.E
a E
--
9 10 11 9 10
'50 = a. a. X ...., -a a t i .... E %
.+
Li e 4 3 6 1 2
.. a q .1
.3.1
4.It
4., o "8 .
0 0 0 0 1
VI
41 g 4....
,o . 20 20 20 19 20
Kno
wle
dge/
use
of C
D-R
OM
pho
to-C
I) p
laye
r
Wor
king
kno
wle
dge
of I
lype
rCar
d
Wor
king
kno
wle
dge
of a
noth
er a
utho
ring
tool
prog
ram
for
mul
timed
ia p
rodu
ctio
n (e
.g. D
irect
or4.
0)
Wor
king
kno
wle
dge
of Q
uick
time
orot
her
vide
o-ed
iting
pro
gram
(e.
g. V
ideo
Spi
got,
Vid
eofu
sion
)
Sou
nd p
rodu
ctio
n so
ftwar
e-
-«r
prt
ue
rain
igs
p<.
.
New
Iffio
rmat
ion
Thi
% V
I, ill
be
hass
alli
new
info
rmat
ion.
or
a th
orou
gh le
i new
wou
ld b
e w
elco
me
Sin
ai...
I 1
pig
wis
e -A
I ha%
e s
ome
rpe
r w
oce
with
the
top,
: but
do
not f
ed e
ntire
ly c
ompe
tent
isid
erab
le IA
per
sin
ce A
I ha
% e
inos
s,er
able
Ts
Ft..
.wis
e is
ith
this
tops
: and
feel
ivel
linfo
rmed
.
pro%
ide
Ass
eaar
, T I
coul
d ss
ist i
n pr
ewnt
atio
n ol
this
tops
prov
idin
g in
form
atio
n an
d er
ampl
es
U-1
Tab
le 1
8. 1
994
Mul
timed
ia A
utho
ring
Ins
titut
e E
valu
atio
n -
Freq
uenc
y of
Res
pons
es'4
1111
111,
t, cu 4.7 o
ca No
o ... 0..
1
cu ,.. cu a et cu a o 1
zt.
Cla
rity
of in
stitu
te o
bjec
tives
01
69
Org
aniz
atio
n of
the
inst
itute
02
7
Effe
ctiv
e us
e of
the
grou
p pr
oces
s us
ed in
the
inst
itute
00
15
Effe
ctiv
e us
e of
tim
e0
19
App
licab
ility
of i
nfor
mat
ion
00
06
App
licab
ility
of t
he r
eadi
ngs
00
15
Use
fuln
ess
of th
e cu
rric
ulum
res
ourc
es p
rovi
ded
00
13
Ele
ctro
nic
mai
l tra
inin
g0
14
6
Effe
ctiv
enes
s of
the
insh
tute
lead
er(s
)0
00
0
Ove
rall
ratin
g of
the
inst
itute
00
4
8 15 18 10 18 18 20 13 24 20
Mea
nS
.D.
4.00
0.88
24
4.54
0.66
24
4.71
0.55
24
4.17
0.87
24
4.75
0.44
24
4.71
0.55
24
4.79
0.51
24
4.29
0.91
24
5.00
0.00
24
4.83
0.38
24
Institute leaders (5.00), overall rating of the Institute (4.83), usefulness of the curriculum
resources provided (4.79), and applicability of information (4.75).
Topics frequently mentioned as most valuable included e-mail training, learning to use
authoring software (particularly Hyper Studio), and the emphasis on hands-on activities.
Participants appreciated the helpfulness of Institute staff and the opportunity to meet and
exchange ideas with other foreign language teachers.
Participants suggestions for improving the Institute included allowing more time to
work on projects, to share ideas with other teachers, and to preview commercial software.
Follow-up
Twenty participants were sent surveys at the end of the 1994-95 academic year to obtain
follow-up information about their institute-related activities during the school year. Eleven
responded (55% return rate).
Most of the respondents from the Interactive Multimedia Authoring Institute agreed
that the amount of their communication with Center staff, Institute leaders, and other
participants was about right (Table 19). As shown in Table 20, approximately half of the
respondents agreed that communication with Center staff, Institute leaders, and other
participants was useful. Only two agreed that the Center has been a valuable source of
materials and information, while seven of the respondents somewhat agreed. Five agreed that
Institute leaders have been supportive of teaching efforts, but fewer reported that the Center
and Institute leaders were supportive of their projects. All agreed that the skills and
Table 19. Amount of Communication by Participants of the 1994 Interactive MultimediaAuthoring Institute - Frequency of Responses
Too little About right Too much
with Center staff 1 10 0
with Institute leaders 3 8 0
with other participants 3 8 0
Tab
le 2
0. F
ollo
w-u
p Pe
rcep
tions
of
Part
icip
ants
far
the
1994
Inte
ract
ive
Mul
timed
ia A
utho
ring
Ins
titut
e -
Freq
uenc
y of
Res
onse
s41
110.
CU
, .01 bi Ch
'Cl..
. r" o ti.) . "
0) A bb ta cn CI , esi
01 A bb (0 ..C1
.44 t: 01 E vi ,
01 01 A bb 13 40;
Oi E in .
0: tu TC ,
01 L11 bb
c o trI
tu 0.! 0. tt 60 (3 A A C)
Q.) q
tA t1/ = 0 la.
tn 4, o
My
com
mun
icat
ion
with
Cen
ter
staf
f w
as u
sefu
l.
My
com
mun
icat
ion
with
Ins
titut
e le
ader
(s)
was
use
ful.
My
com
mun
icat
ion
with
oth
er p
artic
ipan
ts w
as u
sefu
l.
The
Cen
ter
has
been
a v
alua
ble
sour
ce o
f m
ater
ials
and
info
rmat
ion
thro
ugho
ut th
esc
hool
yea
r.
Inst
itute
lead
er(s
) ha
ve b
een
supp
ortiv
e of
my
teac
hing
eff
orts
thro
ugho
ut th
e sc
hool
year
.
Cen
ter
staf
f ha
s be
en s
uppo
rtiv
e of
my
proj
ect t
hrou
ghou
t the
sch
ool y
ea..
Inst
itute
lead
ers
have
bee
n su
ppor
tive
of m
y pr
ojci
ct th
roug
hout
the
scho
olye
ar.
The
ski
lls a
nd in
form
atio
n I
gain
ed f
rom
the
ini-
titut
e ha
ve b
een
usef
ul to
me
prof
essi
onal
ly
My
inst
itute
pro
ject
has
bee
n us
eful
to m
e pr
ofel
sion
ally
.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
1 4 1 1 4 3 4 0 1
4 3 3 7 1 4 4 0 0
5 3 4 1 4 3 2 4 5
'
1 1 2 1 1 0 0 7 3
6 4 6 2 5 3 2 11 8
11 11 11 10 11 10 10 11 11
information gained from the Institute have been useful and most agreed that their project has
been useful to them professionally.
Participant comments reflected a variety of changes in their teaching as a result of
participation in the Institute. Some noted that they had incorporated Hyper Studio
applications into their classroom activities and many mentioned using e-mail. In the words of
one participant, "I have had my students develop Hyper Studio stacks in our new six-station
multimedia lab. We have recently had an e-mail exchange with a French class in Russia
(facilitated by [namel, one of last summer's participants) and are now exchanging messages
with a class in Oregon." Another explained, "I pushed to have our computer lab installed . . . I
solicited funds from various organizations to support our technology needs. I have been using
the lab facility approximately ten times more than I have in the past with more confidence in
my abilities and the abilities of my students."
However, several indicated that they were not able to apply in their classrooms what
they had learned at the Institute due to a lack of resources at the building level. As one said,
"[My teaching] did not change directly ... because our school does not have computer access for
our foreign language students." This participant did report using e-mail to obtain information
for classroom use.
Six teachers indicated that they had given a total of 13 presentations to
approximately 400 attendees. Presentation topics included use of HyperStudio, discovering the
Internet, and technology for foreign language classrooms. Participants also shared information
gained at the Institute with parents, building administrators, and other colleagues through
informal discussions and newsletters.
Additional comments indicated that, in general, participants felt that the Institute
was valuable and that the Institute staff was supportive. A few indicated, however, that the
project was too time consuming and that one semester was not long enough to implement the
project. Comments also suggested that opportunities to "put ideas into practice" fell short due
to a lack of resources at the building level.
Evaluation of Activities Related to Initiative H
During Fall 1994, a two-day workshop addressed Initiative II: Administration and
Interpretation of Foreign Language Performance Assessment. This section begins with a
description of the workshop and its goals, followed by the results of the evaluation.
Initiative II: Administration and Interpretation of Foreign Language Performance AssessmentAssessment Guidelines and Strategies Workshop
Introduction
The Assessment Guidelines and Strategies Workshop was designed to find out from
classroom foreign language teachers how they currently use assessment, how they view
assessment, and what can be expected of teachers in the classroom related to assessment. This
workshop, co-sponsored by the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL), was the first step in
teachers working in collaboration with researchers to develop guidelines, or a framework, for
assessing the language of students in their own classrooms. The guidelines will be based on the
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language's (ACTFL) national K-12 standards for
foreign language education and will target grades four and eight. The outcome of the workshop
will be a better understanding by both teachers and researchers of actual practices and various
assessment techniques and the national standards.
Description of Participants
Participants included 12 teachers and eight researchers/collaborators with expertise in
assessment. Five of the teachers taught Spanish, four taught French, one taught French and
was a resource teacher, one taught Japanese, and one had taught Chinese and was a resource
teacher; eight of the teachers reported teaching at the elementary level, and the two resource
teachers work at both the elementary and middle school levels. Teachers were selected upon
recommendation by their principal or foreign language coordinator for their demonstrated
competence in the classroom and their interest in foreign language assessment.
54
Workshop Evaluation
Fourteen of the 20 participants completed the evaluation form developed by CAL and
Center personnel and distributed at the end of the workshop (Table 21). In general, respondents
were pleased with the workshop. Hotel accommodations, variety of participants, agenda, and
applicability of the information were rated good or excellent by all respondents. Two
respondents who rated information provided in advance as fair indicated that they would
have liked to have had the agenda in advance.
There was clearly a consensus among respondents regarding the most useful aspect of the
workshop: meeting other teachers and learning what they are doing in their programs.
Respondents frequently mentioned sharing, discussion, interaction, and networking.
Portfolios and rubrics were mentioned most frequently as assessment strategies that
respondents learned about and thought could be used in their classrooms. Journals, report card
formats, and self-assessments were also mentioned. Even those who were aware of some of
these strategies suggested that they learned more about them and had new ideas for using them
in their classrooms.
Most of the participants made suggestions for specific topics to be covered at next year's
meeting. Topics included pilot programs, interpreting assessment results, specific training (e.g.,
computers, instrument testing), new instruments, and ACTFL guidelines. Recommendations for
format changes included increased time for discussion, grade level and/or program-specific
focus groups, and more small group interaction.
Closing comments by respondents expressed appreciation for the opportunity to
participate in the workshop. Interacting with and learning from participants with similar
interests and needs seemed to be extremely valuable. One respondent expressed the sentiment of
many, saying, "Thank you for this opportunity. I am learning so much that will be
immediately applicable at home. It was so nice to be treated like a valuable, intelligent
individual. This was wonderful!"
55
Tab
le 2
1. 1
994
CA
L W
orks
hop
Eva
luat
ion
L. 0 0L. .. t1
-ct 0 0
48 .1". c. k
La tn r o r. tn cs.
).. a
u, L. cI r o o. ill:
v..., o
I lot
el a
ccom
mod
atio
ns
Var
iety
of p
artic
ipan
ts
Info
rmat
ion
prov
ided
in a
dvan
ce
Age
nda
App
licab
ility
of i
nfor
mat
ion
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0
4 1 8 4 7
8 13 3 10 6
2 0 1 0 1
14 14 14 14 14
Follow-up
In the winter of 1995, the Center published an assessment newsletter highlighting the
activities of the participants of the workshop and the progress they made. Summaries of
workshop presentations by teachers and students were also featured. E-mail addresses were
included to facilitate communication and future collaborations. Summaries of two research
projects and suggestions for designing assessments completed this first newsletter.
Initiative II: Administration and Interpretation of Foreign Language Performance AssessmentAnnotated Assessment Bibliography Preparation
Center staff have prepared an annotated bibliography of assessment instruments.
Published and made available through the ERIC system, the bibliography contains
standardized instruments and authentic tools such as oral assessment inventories, language
portfolios, and student-teacher conferencing forms. In addition to each instrument, information
on the target audience, appropriateness of the test, age level/grade level and a point of contact
were included. Selected bibliographies of recent articles, books and documents on assessment,
and commercially available tests were provided. All tests were cross-referenced by skill area
and purpose.
Evaluation of Center-Based Activities
As agreed to in the evaluation plan, Center staff provided additional evaluative
information to the internal evaluators about products completed by institute and workshop
participants; electronic communication among the participants, leaders, and Center staff; and
institute participant computer anxiety. This information is presented below.
Summer institute participants were encouraged to implement ideas and strategies in
their classrooms by working together on follow-up projects. They formed small collaborahve
groups of three to five individuals and identified and designed a research project based on a
topic addressed at the institute. The projects gave participants a practical opportunity to
,
57 0 .2
implement what they had learned. Project topics covered a wide range of themes and
applications. Participants in the Teacher Educator Partnership Institute conducted several
studies examining teacher certification in states with mandates for elementary school foreign
language programs, perceived obstacles to implementing the National Foreign Language
Standards, national standards in Rhode Island, Japanese immersion programs, and articulation
in foreign language programs. Other projects included preparation of thematic units.
Curriculum Institute participants developed a prototype for curriculum information networking
in low population states; identified existing second language curriculum guides; identified
classroom-tested, learner-centered activities; studied obstacles to implementing standards;
identified state, regional, and national resources for curriculum specialists; and identified
factors that make for successful transition from middle school to high school. Projects
completed by the participants in the New Technologies Institute included compilatiOn of a list
of Internet applications in the foreign language classroom, creation of a literary magazine and
various classroom applications using Hyper Studio, publication of a Spanish newsletter, and
development of a technology usage survey. Participants in the Interactive Multimedia
Authoring Institute examined effective ways of using the Internet in the classroom, developed
Hyper Studio stacks, studied teachers use of technology in the classroom, made videos, and
used distance learning classrooms.
According to Center staff, these projects were challenging for the participants to
complete because of: (1) limited precedence in the field for a similar model of institute-related
projects, (2) a limited amount of time due to the busy schedules of K-12 teachers during the
academic year and that the final reports were due by the following January, (3) a request by the
Center that communication among small group members about the project be carried out by e-
mail whenever possible, and (4) lack of experience among classroom teachers in carrying out
projects of this type. Despite these challenges, 80% of the small group projects were completed
and offer the profession information on a variety of topics.
The Center is making the results of the research projects available to the profession. by
publishing summaries in the nationally distributed Center newsletter, submitting complete
project reports for publication on ERIC, submitting three reports for review by professional
journals, and proceeding with plans to develop a World Wide Web page on the Internet.
A key component of each project was the use of e-mail for communication between
institute staff and teachers. All of the participants attending each of the four summer
institutes learned how to exchange e-mail using the Iowa State University Vincent gateway to
the Internet.. Their previous computer experience ranged from "none" to "quite a bit of
experience," with only one participant having extensive experience. Participants were
encouraged to continue e-mail communication with each other and with institute leaders during
their post-institute collaborative projects.
To assist institute staff in the e-mail training and follow-up throughout the academic
year, a survey to measure computer anxiety was completed by institute participants both prior
to and after each institute. Overall, institute participants had relatively low computer
anxiety. Elementary teachers who participaz2d in the Teacher Educator Partnership tended to
have a higher level of anxiety about using computers, although their scores were not
statistically different than those of other participants. A comparison of pre-institute and post-
institute scores indicated that participant computer anxiety was reduced significantly.
Table 22 summarizes data about e-mail access and usage following the summer
institutes. As indicated, there was a substantial increase in the number of e-mail accounts
activated as of February 1995,. when compared to the number at the time of the Institute,
particularly foi participants of the Teacher Educator Partnership and Curriculum Institutes.
The table also provides a record of the number of messages sent following the Institutes. The
number of messages (while providing only limited information since no comparison data are
available and not all participants forwarded all of their messages to Center staff for
tabulation) suggests active e-mail correspondence. Overall, the growth in the number of e-mail
accounts and the volume of e-mail communication suggest an increased usage of e-mail following
59 ;t,
Table 22. Summary of E-mail Use by 1994 NFLRC Participants
Institute Number ofparticipants
E-mail addressbefore institute
E-mail addresscurrently*
Total messagesexchanged
Teacher 22 23% 86% 216EducatorPartnership
Curriculum 24 17% 91% 154
New 20 40% 100% 293Technologies
Interactive 20 50% 85% 96MultimediaAuthoring
Totals 86 31% 89% 759
As of 2/6/95
the institutes. This conclusio., is consistent with follow-up data collected by RISE at the end of
the 1994-1995 academic year.
Summary and Discussion
The first 16 months of activities at the National K-12 Foreign Language Resource
Center were positive and successful. Specific activities included conducting four summer
institutes with 86 foreign language educators from across the nation, involving 20 teachers and
researchers in a collaborative effort with the Center for Applied Linguistics in researching
assessment practices and techniques in foreign language classrooms, continuing post-institute
and post-workshop contact with participants through their collaborative projects, completing
an extensive annotated bibliography of foreign language assessment instruments, and training
and encouraging foreign language teachers to use e-mail as a viable, important, and effective
communic.-'..on tool. The goals of training teachers in the use of effective teaching strategies,
9 "60
developmenr and interpretation of foreign language assessments, and the use of new
technologies and their related objectives were met.
These activities received consistently high ratings from participants. Foreign language
teachers in grades kindergarten through twelve (K-12) and teacher educators directly
benefited from the knowledge, skills, and resources provided through their experiences with
the Center. These educators reported that they made approximately 110 presentations to over
2800 other teachers and professional colleagues, school administrators, foreign language
associations, parent groups, and student teachers in their school districts, at inservice sessions,
and at local, state, regional, and national conferences. Additionally, Center activities also
indirectly affected many other K-12 foreign language teachers through numerous informal
discussions with institute participants, newsletters, and resource sharing, suggesting that the
impact of the Center is being felt among other K-12 teachers as well.
Participants of all institutes gave positive evaluations. The effectiveness of the
institute leaders had the highest average rating of all aspects surveyed on three of the four
Institutes. Participants gave overall ratings to the institutes that were above average to
excellent. They appreciated the opportunity to interact and share ideas with other
participants who were interested in foreign language. In those institutes that focused on
learning experiences, participants believed that they had improved their understanding of the
content covered in the Institutes. Suggestions for improvement included lengthening the
institutes or reallocating time during the institute to allow more time for interacting with other
participants and exploring new ideas and materials. Further, they suggested that receiving
either a reading list or the reading materials for the institute, a detailed explanation or
schedule of activities, and greater clarification of their post-institute commitment would
enable them to better evaluate their abilities to ulfill the commitments and enhance their
participation.
The participants post-institute collaborative projects were not all as successful as
hoped. While participants were enthusiastic about planning the projects and networking with
61
other teachers, the short time line for project completion dictated by the length of the grant
funding period and the teachers' lack of experience were barriers to successful implementation.
Future institutes might consider alternatives to the small group project. One possibility is to
encourage presentations as the primary follow-up activity, with consistent and thorough record
keeping about the nature of the presentation, the number of attendees, and the audiences
served. Such an alternative would be consistent with the institutes oal of integrating and
sharing knowledge about foreign language education with the profession. This emphasis would
also capitalize on the enthusiasm generated at the institutes, as well as provide a practical
way to encourage networking and dissemination.
Overall, the National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center has made great strides
toward achievement of its goals. Adding the information gained from the evaluation to what
was learned from the experience of operating the Center during this first funding period results
in an expectation of further and potentially greater success in the future.
962
Appendix A
Evaluation Plan
National K-1 2 Language Resource Center
Evaluation Plan
Evaluation of the activities of the National K-12 Language Resource Center is based onthe goals and objectives of the Center and the impact of the activities on the target audiences.
The focus of the evaluation is on assessing the degree to which the goals are accomplished. The
goals and objectives, projects, and organizational structure have been designed to reflect theCenter's overall purpose of contributing to the knowledge base, skills, and resources of foreignlanguage teachers in grades kindergarten through twelve (K-12). The evaluation will considerthe resources, techniques, procedures, and strategies employed to accomplish the goals andobjectives. Assessments of the effectiveness and efficiency of the Center will provideinformation by which accurate judgments can be made about the strengths and weaknesses ofoperations and of program impact.
The evaluation provides (1 ) input from the teachers and participants in the activitiesrelated to the Center's initiatives and (2) an assessment of the status of Center activities.Needs assessments, formative evaluation, and summative evaluation are components of theconceptual and operational evaluation framework. The evaluation plan utilizes both quantitativeand qualitative methods to measure Center initiatives and participant attitudes and knowledge.The measures include documents, data from records, data from survey instruments, products(e.g., manuals, publications, videotapes, logs of e-mail use), and observations. Whilequantifiable measures are a significant component of the evaluatic .1 plan, there are also plans
for interviewing participants in the initial activities to allow them to express concerns and
opinions through both formal and informal measures.
The formative evaluation results will be of immediate use to those involved inadministering the Center and carrying out its initiatives. The information collected through thisinternal evaluation will be included as a part of the summative evaluation activities that will be
completed each funding period.
lotMay 10, 1994
Sum
mar
y of
the
Eva
luat
ion
Pla
n fo
r In
itiat
ive
1:T
rain
ing
Tea
cher
s in
the
Use
of E
ffect
ive
Tea
chin
g S
trat
egie
s
Goa
l
Tea
cher
Edu
cato
r P
artn
ersh
ipIn
stitu
te
Cur
r.cu
h.lin
Inst
itute
Aut
hent
ic L
itera
ture
Inst
itute
Cul
ture
Inst
itute
Out
com
e
Con
tent
of t
each
er e
duca
tors
'm
etho
ds c
ours
es c
hang
e to
pro
vide
qual
ity p
re-s
ervi
ce te
ache
rpr
epar
atio
n fo
r th
e K
8 le
vel.
Enh
ance
men
t of K
-12
teac
her's
abili
ty to
des
ign
and
eval
uate
aqu
ality
K-1
2 fo
reig
n la
ngua
gecu
rric
ulum
.
Enh
ance
men
t of K
12
teac
hers
'st
rate
gies
for
teac
hing
aut
hent
iclit
erat
ure.
Enh
ance
men
t of K
12
teac
hers
'st
rate
gies
for
cultu
re a
nd m
oder
nte
chno
logi
es.
Ben
efits
Impr
oved
per
form
ance
of p
re-
serv
ice
and
in-s
ervi
ce te
ache
rs in
the
K-1
2 cl
assr
oom
;In
crea
sed
oppo
rtun
ities
for
K-1
2st
uden
ts to
lear
n a
fore
ign
lang
uage
in a
long
, art
icul
ated
sequ
ence
;T
each
er e
duca
tors
and
cla
ssro
omte
ache
rs c
omm
unic
ate
and
acce
ssso
urce
s of
info
rmat
ion
thro
ugh
natio
nal c
ompu
ter
netw
orks
.
Incr
ease
d op
port
uniti
es fo
r K
-12
stud
ents
to le
arn
a fo
reig
nla
ngua
ge in
a lo
ng, a
rtic
ulat
edse
quen
ce;
Mod
el K
-12
fore
ign
lang
uage
curr
icul
a ar
e av
aila
ble
thro
ugho
utna
tion;
Cla
ssro
om te
ache
rs c
omm
unic
ate
and
acce
ss s
ourc
es o
f inf
orm
atio
nth
roug
h na
tiona
l com
pute
rne
twor
ks.
Mod
el te
achi
ng s
trat
egie
s fo
rau
then
tic li
tera
ture
are
ava
ilabl
eth
roug
hout
nat
ion.
Mod
el te
achi
ng s
trat
egie
s fo
rcu
lture
are
ava
ilabl
e th
roug
hout
natio
n;C
lass
room
teac
hers
com
mun
icat
ean
d ac
cess
sou
rces
of i
nfor
mat
ion
thro
ugh
natio
nal c
ompu
ter
netw
orks
.
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
For
mat
ive
Nee
ds a
sses
smen
t and
corr
espo
ndin
g ev
alua
tion
of th
ein
stitu
te;
Con
tent
rel
ated
pre
/pos
tas
sess
men
t;F
ollo
w-u
p su
rvey
of p
artic
ipan
ts;
Jour
nal e
ntrie
s of
par
tner
s;1
ape
reco
rded
pra
ctic
e te
achi
ngse
ssio
ns.
Nee
ds a
sses
smen
t and
corr
espo
ndin
g ev
alua
tion
of th
ein
stitu
te;
Fol
low
-up
surv
ey o
f par
ticip
ants
;In
stan
ces
and
cont
ent a
naly
sis
of E
-m
ail c
orre
spon
denc
e.
Nee
ds a
sses
smen
t and
corr
espo
ndin
g ev
alua
tion
of th
ein
stitu
te;
Con
tent
rel
ated
pre
/pos
tas
sess
men
t;F
ollo
w.u
p su
rvey
of p
artic
ipan
ts;
Inst
ance
s an
d co
nten
t of E
-mai
lco
rres
pond
ence
.
Nee
ds a
sses
smen
t and
corr
espo
ndin
g ev
alua
tion
of th
ein
stitu
te;
r..o
nten
t rel
ated
pre
/pos
tas
sess
men
t;F
ollo
w u
p su
rvey
of p
artic
ipan
ts;
Inst
ance
s an
d co
nten
t of E
mai
lco
rres
pond
ence
.
Sum
mat
ive
Sum
mar
ies
of p
artn
ersh
ip p
roje
cts.
Num
ber
and
inst
ance
s pa
rtic
ipan
tspr
esen
t to
othe
rs;
Num
ber
of a
rtic
les
publ
ishe
d,pr
otot
ype
desi
gns
etc.
that
com
eou
t of t
he in
stitu
te.
Num
ber
and
inst
ance
s pa
rtic
ipan
tspr
esen
t to
othe
rs (
loca
l, st
ate,
regi
onal
);C
ompi
latio
n an
d us
e of
pre
limin
ary
plan
ning
uni
ts b
ased
on
child
ren'
slit
erat
ure.
Num
ber
and
inst
ance
s pa
rtic
ipan
tspr
esen
t to
othe
rs;
Dev
elop
men
t and
use
of a
ctiv
ities
and
mat
eria
ls.
May
10,
Act
ion
Pla
n fo
r In
itiat
ive
1:T
rain
ing
Tea
cher
s in
the
Use
of E
ffect
ive
Tea
chin
g S
trat
egie
s
Tea
cher
Edu
cato
r P
artn
ersh
ip In
stitu
tele
athe
r ed
ucat
ors
K -
8 te
ache
rs
Cur
ricul
um In
stitu
teK
12
teac
hers
Aut
hent
ic L
itera
ture
Inst
lute
K 1
2 te
ache
rs
Cul
ture
Inst
itute
K 1
2 te
ache
rs
1
hts.
oure
Nee
ds a
sses
smen
tC
onte
nt r
elat
ed p
re/p
ost a
sses
smen
tIn
stitu
te e
valu
atio
nF
ollo
w u
p su
rvey
of p
artic
ipan
tsP
rodu
cts/
Act
iviti
es:
Jour
nal e
ntrie
s an
d do
cum
enta
tion
ofpa
rtne
rshi
p pr
ojec
tsT
ape
reco
rded
pra
ctic
e te
achi
ngse
ssio
ns
Nee
ds a
sses
smen
tIn
stitu
te e
valu
atio
nF
ollo
w u
p su
rvey
of p
artic
ipan
tsE
-m
ail c
omm
unic
atio
nsP
rodu
cts/
Act
iviti
es:
Pre
sent
atio
ns to
oth
ers
Sub
sequ
ent r
esea
rch
Nee
ds a
sses
smen
tC
onte
nt r
elat
ed p
re/p
ost a
sses
smen
tIn
stitu
te e
valu
atio
nF
ollo
w u
p su
rvey
of p
artic
ipan
tsE
mai
l com
mun
icat
ions
Pro
duct
s/A
ctiv
ities
:P
rese
ntat
ions
to o
ther
sU
nits
Nee
ds a
sses
smen
tC
onte
nt r
elat
ed p
re/p
ost a
sses
smen
tIn
stitu
te e
valu
atio
nF
ollo
w u
p su
rvey
of p
artic
ipan
tsE
mai
l com
mun
icat
ions
Pro
duct
s/A
ctiv
ities
:P
rese
ntat
ions
to o
ther
sA
ctiv
ities
and
mat
eria
ls
Who
Cen
ter
for
App
lied
Ling
uist
ics
RIS
E
RIS
E
RIS
E
Cen
ter
staf
f
RIS
E
RIS
E
RIS
E
Cen
ter
staf
fC
ente
r st
aff
RIS
E
RIS
E
RIS
E
RIS
E
Cen
ter
staf
fC
ente
r st
aff
RIS
E
RIS
E
RIS
E
RIS
E
Cen
ter
staf
fce
nter
sta
ff
Whe
n
Com
plet
edP
rior
to a
nd a
t con
clus
ion
of in
stitu
teA
t con
clus
ion
of in
stitu
teN
ine
mon
ths
follo
win
g in
stitu
teO
ngoi
ng
Prio
r to
inst
itute
At c
oncl
usio
n of
inst
itute
Nin
e m
onth
s fo
llow
ing
inst
itute
Ong
oing
Ong
oing
Prio
r to
inst
itute
Prio
r to
and
at c
oncl
usio
n of
inst
itute
At c
oncl
usio
n of
inst
itute
Nm
e m
onth
s fo
llow
ing
inst
itute
Ong
oing
Ong
oing
Prio
r to
inst
itute
Prio
r to
and
at c
oncl
usio
n of
inst
itute
At c
oncl
usio
n of
inst
itute
Nin
e m
onth
s fo
llow
ing
inst
itute
Ong
oing
Ong
oing
May
10,
199
4 1.!')
Sum
mar
y of
the
Eva
luat
ion
Pla
n fo
r In
itiat
ive
2:T
rain
ing
Tea
cher
s in
Adm
inis
trat
ion
and
Inte
rpre
tatio
n of
For
eign
Lan
guag
e P
erfo
rman
ce A
sses
smen
t
Goa
l
Ass
essm
ent G
uide
lines
and
Str
ateg
ies
Wor
ksho
p
Ann
otat
ed A
sses
smen
tB
iblio
grap
hy P
repa
ratio
n
For
eign
Lan
guag
e S
tand
ards
Ass
essm
ent W
orks
hop
For
eign
Lan
guag
e A
sses
smen
tG
uide
lines
Pre
para
tion
Out
com
e
Impr
ove
the
abili
ty o
f K 1
2te
ache
rs to
ass
ess
thei
r ow
nst
uden
ts.
Pub
lish
anno
tate
d bi
blio
grap
hy o
fst
anda
rdiz
ed te
sts
and
auth
entic
asse
ssm
ent t
ools
.
Dev
elop
abi
lity
of K
-12
teac
hers
toas
sess
thei
r st
uden
ts' a
chie
vem
ent
of n
atio
nal f
orei
gn la
ngua
gest
anda
rds.
Ben
efits
K-1
2 te
ache
rs e
ffect
ivel
y em
ploy
alte
rnat
ive
asse
ssm
ents
of
stud
ents
' per
form
ance
.
Res
ourc
es fo
r K
-12
fore
ign
lang
uage
teac
hers
on
asse
ssm
ent
tool
s m
ade
acce
ssib
le.
Mod
el a
sses
smen
t of s
tude
ntac
hiev
emen
t of n
atio
nal f
orei
gnla
ngua
ge s
tand
ards
.
Pub
lish
guid
elin
es fo
r as
sess
men
t of
Gui
delin
es fo
r K
-12
fore
ign
stud
ent a
chie
vem
ent b
ased
on
lang
uage
teac
hers
on
asse
ssm
ent
natio
nal f
orei
gn la
ngua
gepr
oced
ures
rel
ated
to n
atio
nal
su,n
dard
s.fo
reig
n la
ngua
ge s
tand
ards
mad
eav
aila
ble.
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
For
mat
ive
Wor
ksho
p ev
alua
tion;
Tea
cher
sel
f eva
luat
ion
and
dial
ogue
jour
nals
;S
umm
ary
of th
e w
orks
hop
proc
eedi
ngs.
Dev
elop
men
t tas
ks c
ompl
eted
acco
rdin
g to
spe
cifie
d tim
elin
es.
Wor
ksho
p ev
alua
tion;
Sum
mar
y of
wor
ksho
p pr
ocee
ding
s;P
ropo
sed
guid
elin
es a
nd s
trat
egie
s.
Rep
orts
of r
esul
ts o
f pilo
t tes
ting
incl
assr
oom
;C
ompl
etin
g in
itial
dra
ft, p
ilot
test
ing,
and
fina
l dra
ft ac
cord
ing
tosp
ecifi
ed ti
mel
ines
.
ium
m a
tivt
Fol
low
up
surv
ey o
f par
ticip
ants
toas
sess
the
exte
nt to
whi
ch th
eyin
corp
orat
e au
then
tic a
sses
smen
tsin
to th
eir
clas
ses,
with
que
stio
nsba
sed
on r
evie
w o
f jou
rnal
s.
Ann
otat
ed b
iblio
grap
hy p
ublis
hed.
Stu
dent
out
com
es, e
xpec
ted
leve
lof
per
form
ance
at v
ario
usde
velo
pmen
tal s
tage
s fo
r gr
ades
4an
d 8;
Str
ateg
ies
to b
e us
ed to
mee
t the
outc
omes
.
Gui
delin
es p
ublis
hed
by N
atio
nal K
-12
Lan
guag
e R
esou
rces
Cen
ter;
Pre
sent
atio
ns a
nd o
ther
publ
icat
ions
.
May
10,
199
4
107
Act
ion
Pla
n fo
r In
itiat
ive
2:T
rain
ing
Tea
cher
s in
Adm
inis
trat
ion
and
Inte
rpre
tatio
n of
For
eign
Lan
guag
e P
erfo
rman
ce A
sses
smen
t
Act
ivity
/Par
ticip
ants
Ass
essm
ent G
uide
lines
and
Str
ateg
ies
Wor
ksho
p1(
.8 te
ache
rsR
esea
rche
r/co
llabo
rato
r s
Ann
otat
ed A
sses
smen
t Bib
liogr
aphy
Pre
para
tion
Cen
ter
cons
ulta
nts
For
eign
Lan
guag
e S
tand
ards
Ass
essm
ent W
orks
hop
K 8
teac
hers
Res
earc
her/
colla
bora
tors
For
eign
Lan
guag
e A
sses
smen
tG
uide
lines
Pre
para
tion
Cen
ter
cons
ulta
nts
Mea
sure
Wor
ksho
p ev
alua
tion
Fol
low
up
surv
ey o
f par
ticip
ants
Pro
duct
s/A
ctiv
ities
:T
each
er s
elf e
valu
atio
n an
d di
alog
uejo
urna
lsS
umm
ary
of w
orks
hop
proc
eedi
ngs
Pro
duct
s/A
ctiv
ities
:D
evel
opm
ent o
f ann
otat
edbi
blio
grap
hy
Wor
ksho
p ev
alua
tion
Fol
low
up
surv
ey o
f par
ticip
ants
Pro
duct
s/A
ctiv
ities
:*S
umm
ary
of w
orks
hop
proc
eedi
ngs
Gui
delin
es/s
ampl
e as
sess
men
tst
rate
gies
Stu
dent
out
com
es fo
r gr
ades
4 a
nd 8
Pro
duct
s/A
ctiv
ities
:'D
evel
opm
ent o
f gui
delin
esR
epor
ts o
f res
ults
of p
ilot t
estin
gP
ublic
atio
n/di
ssem
inat
ion
of g
uide
lines
Pre
sent
atio
ns b
y pr
ojec
t sta
ff
Whe
RIS
E/C
ente
r fo
r A
pplie
d Li
ngui
stic
sR
ISE
Cen
ter
staf
f
Cen
ter
staf
f
RIS
E/C
ente
r fo
r A
pplie
d Li
ngui
stic
sR
ISE
Cen
ter
staf
f
Cen
ter
staf
f
Whe
n
At c
oncl
usio
n of
wor
ksho
pS
ix m
onth
s fo
llow
ing
wor
ksho
pO
ngoi
ng
To
be c
ompl
eted
in 1
995
At c
oncl
usio
n of
wor
ksho
pS
ix m
onth
s fo
llow
ing
wor
ksho
pO
ngoi
ng
To
be c
ompl
eted
in 1
996
May
10,
199
4
Sum
mar
y of
the
Eva
luat
ion
Pla
n fo
r In
itiat
ive
3:T
rain
ing
Tea
cher
s in
the
Use
of N
ew T
echn
olog
ies
Goa
l
New
Tec
hnol
ogie
s in
the
For
eign
Lang
uage
Cla
ssro
om In
stitu
te
inte
ract
ive
Mul
timed
ia A
utho
ring
Inst
itute
Out
com
e
Dev
elop
the
abili
ty o
f K-1
2te
ache
rs to
use
tele
com
mun
icat
ions
net
wor
ks fo
rco
mm
unic
atio
n an
d to
acc
ess
info
rmat
ion;
Impr
ove
abili
ty o
f K-1
2 te
ache
rs to
succ
essf
ully
inte
grat
e ne
wte
chno
logi
es in
to r
egul
ar fo
reig
nla
ngua
ge in
stru
ctio
n;D
evel
op a
bilit
y of
K-1
2 te
ache
rs to
use
vario
us te
leco
mm
unic
atio
nste
chno
logi
es a
s a
peda
gogi
cal t
ool
to e
nhan
ce fo
reig
n la
ngua
ge s
kills
inre
adin
g, w
ritin
g, a
nd c
ultu
ral
unde
rsta
ndin
g.
Dev
elop
abi
lity
of K
-12
teac
hers
toau
thor
inte
ract
ive
mul
timed
iale
sson
s us
ing
Hyp
erca
rd w
ithex
istin
g vi
deod
isks
of C
D R
OM
(C
D-
i) in
fore
ign
lang
uage
s.
Ben
efits
Dev
elop
a k
now
ledg
e ba
se a
nd s
kill
in u
se o
f new
tech
noio
gies
,pa
rtic
ular
ly te
leco
mm
unic
atio
ns,
amon
g K
-12
fore
ign
lang
uage
teac
hers
;E
ncou
rage
effe
ctiv
e us
e of
new
tech
nolo
gies
in K
-12
clas
sroo
ms.
Enc
oura
ge s
tude
nts'
rea
ding
and
writ
ing
skill
s an
d cu
ltura
lun
ders
tand
ings
thro
ugh
mul
ti-m
edia
.
For
mat
ive
Nee
ds a
sses
smen
t and
corr
espo
ndin
g ev
alua
tion
of th
ein
stitu
te;
Con
tent
rel
ated
pre
/pos
tas
sess
men
t;A
ttitu
de a
bout
com
pute
rs;
Con
tent
of E
-mai
l tra
nsm
issi
ons.
Nee
ds a
sses
smen
t and
corr
espo
ndin
g ev
alua
tion
of th
ein
stitu
te;
Con
tent
rel
ated
pre
/pos
tas
sess
men
t;A
ttitu
de a
bout
com
pute
rs;
Res
ults
of p
artic
ipan
t rat
ings
of
exis
ting
softw
are;
Pre
limin
ary
Hyp
erca
rd le
sson
.
Sum
mat
ive
Less
on p
lans
and
oth
er m
ater
ials
deve
lope
d as
par
t of t
he in
stitu
te;
Inte
rnat
iona
l net
wor
ks b
etw
een
part
icip
ants
and
teac
hers
in o
ther
coun
trie
s;P
roto
type
uni
t of s
tudy
in th
eta
rget
lang
uage
with
obj
ectiv
es a
ndac
tiviti
es fo
r in
tern
atio
nal
exch
ange
.
Hyp
erca
rd fi
nal p
roje
cts;
Pub
licat
ions
and
pre
sent
atio
ns.
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LEM
ay 1
0, 1
994
Act
ion
Pla
n fo
r In
itiat
ive
3:T
rain
ing
Tea
cher
s in
the
Use
of N
ew T
echn
olog
ies
Act
ivity
/Par
ticip
ants
New
Tec
hnol
ogie
s in
the
For
eign
Lang
uage
Cla
ssro
om In
stitu
teK
-12
teac
hers
Inte
ract
ive
Mul
timed
ia A
utho
ring
Inst
itute
K 1
2 te
ache
rs
Mea
sure
s
Nee
ds a
sses
smen
tC
onte
nt r
elat
ed p
re/p
ost a
sses
smen
tC
ompu
ter
anxi
ety
ques
tionn
aire
Inst
itute
eva
luat
ion
Fol
low
-up
surv
ey o
f par
ticip
ants
Em
ail c
omm
unic
atio
nsP
rodu
cts/
Act
iviti
es:
Est
ablis
h ne
twor
king
pro
ject
*Uni
ts
Nee
ds a
sses
smen
tC
onte
nt r
elat
ed p
re/p
ost a
sses
smen
tC
ompu
ter
anxi
ety
ques
tionn
aire
Inst
itute
eva
luat
ion
Fol
low
-up
surv
ey o
f par
ticip
ants
E-m
ail c
omm
unic
atio
nsP
rodu
cts/
Act
iviti
es:
Res
ults
of p
artic
ipan
t rat
ings
of
softw
are
Hyp
erca
rd le
sson
Pre
sent
atio
ns to
oth
ers
RIS
E
RIS
E
RIS
E
RIS
E
RIS
E
Cen
ter
staf
fC
ente
r st
aff
RIS
E
RIS
E
RIS
E
RIS
E
RIS
E
Cen
ter
staf
fC
ente
r st
aff
Who
Whe
n
Prio
r to
inst
itute
Prio
r to
and
at c
onLI
Jsio
n of
inst
itute
Prio
r to
inst
itute
At c
oncl
usio
n of
inst
itute
Nin
e m
onth
s fo
llow
ing
inst
itute
Ong
oing
Ong
oing
Prio
r to
inst
itute
Prio
r to
and
at c
oncl
usio
n of
inst
itute
Prio
r to
inst
itute
At c
oncl
usio
n of
inst
itute
Nin
e m
onth
s fo
llow
ing
inst
itute
Ong
oing
Ong
oing
May
10,
199
4
Appendix B
Evaluation Instruments
Needs Assessment for the Teacher Educator Partnership InstitutePlease use the following categories to indicate the level of previous experience you have had with thetopics to be covered in this institute. Plate a "*" to the left of those topics you think should receivespecial emphasis during the institute.
1 This will be basically new information, OR a thorough review would be welcome.2. I have some experience with the topic but do not feel entirely competent in the area.3. I have considerable experience with this topic and feel well informed.4. I could assist in presentation of this topic by providing information and examples.
Topics to be covered in the institute Newinformation
Someexperience
Considerableexperience
Provideassistance
History and rationale for elementary and schoolforeign language programsProgram models
Emphasis on FLES and Immersion
Program planningProgram evaluationArticulationSecond language acquisition
Child developmentPiagetKieran EganInformation-processing perspectives
Developing language skills for communication
ListeningSpeakingReading ,
WritingInteractive writing: Dialogue journals
Integrating with the elementary schoolcurriculum /subject content insfructionTeaching culture and global education
..._.--,
Principles and processes for curriculumdevelopmentIssues and strategies in assessment and gradingUses of technology for teachers and studentsSpecific strategies for the classroom
Activities and gamesUse of music and songs
Rhymes and chantsUsing community resources
Classroom organizationPartner and small group workLearning centers
,
Program publicity and public relationsWorking with parents and parent groupsWorking with administrators, classroomteachers, and other subject specialists
_
t 3
National K-12 Foreign Language CenterTeacher Educator Partnership Institute
Evaluation
Your name(This is for organizational purposes only. Your name will remain confidential.)
To assess the impact of the institute, we are interested in comparing perceptions ofyour understanding of the topic areas before and after the institute. Please use thefollowing categories to indicate the extent to which you understood the informationcovered in the institute before and after your participation. Place a check in the boxthat corresponds to your perception. (Imply the past tense of these categories whencompleting the "Before" portion of the form.)
Before
1= No understanding2= Understand basic concepts and techniques3= Understand basic concepts and techniques and feel conifortable experimenting
with their application4= Am quite comfortable with applying the concepts and techniques presented5= Topic not covered in the institute ("After" portion only)
After1 2 3 4 Topics 1 2 3 4 5
History and rationale for elementary and schoolforeign language programsProgram models: Emphasis on FLES and ImmersionProgram planningPro:ram evaluationArticulationSecond language acquisitionChild development theories (i.e., Piaget, KieranEgan, information-processing perspectives)Dev, loping language skills for communication
ListeningSpeaking
,
ReadingWritingInteractive writing: Dialogue journals
Integrating with the elementary schoolcurriculum/subject content instructionTeaching culture and global educationPrinciples andprocesses for curriculum development
,
Issues and strategies in assessment and gradingUses of technology for teachers and students
OVER
June 27, lqQ4
1 ti
Before
1= No understanding2= Understand basic concepts and techniques3= Understand basic concepts and techniques and feel comfortable experimenting
with their application4= Am quite comfortable with applying the concepts and techniques presented5= Topic not covered in the institute ("After" portion only)
After
2 3 4 Topics 1 2 3 4 5
...S.yecific strategies for the classroomActivities and gamesUse of music and songsRhymes and chantsUsing community resourcesClassroom organization
Partner and small group workLearning centers
Program publicity and public relationsWorking with parents and parent groups
_
Working with administrators, classroom teachers,and other subject specialists
J une 27, 19Q4
National K-12 Foreign Language CenterTeacher Educator Partnership Institute
Evaluation
Please use the following 5 point scale to evaluate the Institute. Place a check in thebox that corresponds to your rating.
1=Poor 2 = Below Average 3 = Average 4 = Above Average 5 = Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
1. Clarity of Institute objectives
2. Organization of the Institute
3. Effective use of time
4. Applicability of information
5. Electronic mail training
6. Technology information
7. Effectiveness of the Institute leader(s)
8. Overall rating of the Institute
Please indicate which aspects of the Institute were most useful to you and explainwhy.
June 27, 1994
OVER
AL.
Please provide suggestions for improving the Institute.
Other comments.
Thank you for your feedback.
lune 27, 1994
National K-12 Foreign Language CenterCurriculum Institute
Evaluation
We are interested in your opinions about the Curriculum Institute. Would you pleaseanswer the questions below and on the back of this page? Your responses are anonymous.Please complete the survey and return it to the person who distributed it to you. Thank youfor your help!
1. What did you like best about the Institute?
2. What would have made the Institute more useful?
OVER
11 420August 10, 1994
3. What do you perceive as the major outcomes of the Institute?
4. What steps should the Center take with regard to foreign language curriculum?
121August 10, 1994
National K-12 Foreign Language CenterCurriculum Institute
Evaluation
Please use the following 5 point scale to evaluate the Institute. Place a check in thebox that corresponds to your rating.
1= Poor 2 = Below Average 3 = Average 4 = Above Average 5 = Excellent
2 3 4
. Clarity of Institute objectives
. Organization of the Institute
. Effective use of the group process used in the Institute
. Effective use of time
. Applicability of information
. Applicability of the readings
. Usefulness of the curriculum resources provided
. Electronic mail training
. Effectiveness of the Institute leader(s)
10. Overall rating of the Institu:se
August 10, 1994
Needs Assessment for the New Technologies Institute
Please use the following categories to indicate the level of previous experience you have had with the topics to be
covered in this institute. Place a * to the left of those topics you think should receive special emphasis during the
institute.1. This will be basically new information, OR a thorough review would be welcome.
2. I have some experience with the topic but do not feel entirely competent in the area.
3. I have considerable experience with this topic and feel well informed.
4. I could assist in presentation of this topic by providing information and examples.
Topics to Be Covered in the InstituteNew Some Considerable ProvideInformation Experience Experience Assistance
Computer Assisted Instruction
Knowledge and Use of Foreign Language Software
Selection of appropriate software
Satellite Programs 1,1Distance Learning Courses
Multimedia Platforms
TelecommunicarionsLocal and wide area networksHardware and.softwareHow to send and receive e-mail
Teleconferencing
FTP
Commercial Wide Area Networks Available
America onlineInternet access servicesMinitel
Internet Areas of InterestGopherWorld Wide WebBulletin boardsNewsgroups
Listservs
Educational Use of E-mail
Planning Telecommunications Lessons
Setting lip Sister Schools Networking Connections
Nlauonal K-12 Foreign Ltnguage CenterJune 1994
Describe to what extent and how you currently use technology in instruction in your classroom.
Describe to what extent and how you use technology for personal use (e-mail, word processing, etc.)
What are your main goals for learning in this workshop?
)
tianonal is-12 Foreign Language CenterJune 1994
National K-I2 Foreign Language CenterNew Technologies Institute
Evaluation
Your name(This is for organizational purposes only. Your name will remain confidential.)
To assess the impact of the institute, we are interested in comparing perceptions ofyour understanding of the topic areas before and after the institute. Please use thefollowing categories to indicate the extent to which you understood the informationcovered in the institute before and after your participation. Place a check in the boxthat corresponds to your perception. (Imply the past tense of these categories whencompleting the "Before" portion of the form.)
Before
1= No understanding2= Understand basic concepts and techniques3= Understand basic concepts and techniques and feel comfortable experimenting
with their application4= Am quite comfortable with applying the concepts and techniques presentedNA= Not applicable. This topic was not covered in the institute.
After
2 3 4 apics 1 2 3 4 NAComputer Assisted InstructionKnowledgeand Use of Foreign Language Software
Selection of appropriate softwareSetellite ProgramsDistance Learning CoursesMultimedia PlatformsTelecommunications
Local and wide area networksHardware and softwareHow to send and receive e-mailTeleconferencingFTP
Commercial Wide Area Networks AvailableAmerica onlineInternet access servicesMinitel
Internet Areas of InterestGopherWorld Wide WebBulletin boardsNewsgroupsListservs
Educational Use of E-mailPlannin. Telecommunications LessonsSetting Up Sister Schools Networking Connections
August 10, 1994 1 21)
National K-12 Foreign Language CenterNew Technologies Institute
Evaluation
Please use the following 5 point scale to evaluate the Institute. Place a check in thebox that corresponds to your rating.
1= Poor 2 = Below Average 3 = Average 4 = Above Average 5 = Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
I. Clarity of Institute objectives
2. Organization of the Institute
3. Effective use of time
4. Applicability of information
5. Information on setting up sister schools networkingconnections
6. Information on educational uses of Email,
7. Information on foreign language software
8. Effectiveness of the Institute leader(s)
9. Overall rating of the Institute
Please indicate which aspects of the Institute were most useful to you and explainwhy.
August 10, 1994
OVER
t)
Please provide suggestions for improving the Institute.
Other comments about the Institute.
Thank you for your feedback.
August 10, 1q94
Needs Assessment for the Interactive Multimedia Authoring Institute
Please use the following categories to indicate the level of previous experience you have had with the topics to becovered in this institute. In the column "Program Names or Name/Brand," write in the appropriate names ofsoftware or hardware. Place a * to the left of those topics you think should receive special emphasis during the
institute.1. This will be basically new information, OR a thorough review would be welcome.9. I have some experience with the topic but do not feel entirely competent in the area.
3. I have considerable experience with this topic and feel well informed.
4. I could assist in presentation of this topic by providing information and examples.
Topics to Be Covered in the InstituteNewInformation
SomeExperience
Considerable Experience
ProvideAssistance
General Computer Software Program Names
Working knowledge of:
Macintosh word processing programDatabase/spreadsheet software program
Graphics or paint programTelecommunication software and use of e-mail
DOS/Windows (IBM compatibles) -Foreign Language Specific Software Program Names
Knowledge and use of general foreignlan.zuaze software:Drill and practiceTutorialGamesSimulationsWord processing
Knowledge/use of multimedia foreignlanzuage pro7arns:
Videodisc (level 1 and 2)Videodisc with softwareCD-ROM programsExisting hypercard stacks
Computer-based Hardware Experience Name/ Brand:
Working knowledge of IBM or compatible PC
Knowledge/use of modemKnowledge/use of scanner equipmentKnowledge/use of digital cameraequipment
Knowledge/ use of videodisc playerKnowledge/use of CD-ROM/photo-CD
player
National K-12 Foreign Language CenterJune 1994
Topics to be Covered in the Institute (con't) NewInformation
SomeExperience
Considerable Experience
ProvideAssistance
Multimedia Background Program Name
Working knowledge of:
HyperCardOther authoring tool program formultimedia production (e.g. Director 4.0)
Quicktime or other video-editing program(e.g. VideoSpigot, Video Fusion)
.Sound production software
- _
Describe to what extent you currently use technology in instruction.
List several specific goals you hope to achieve during this workshop.
National K-12 Foreign Language CenterJune 1994
National K-12 Foreign Language CenterInteractive Multimedia Authoring Institute
Evaluation
Your name(This is for organizational purposes only. Your name will remain confidential.)
To assess the impact of the institute, we are interested in comparing perceptions ofyour understanding of the topic areas before and after the institute. Please use thefollowing categories to indicate the extent to which you understood the informationcovered in the institute before and after your participation. Place a check in the boxthat corresponds to your perception. (Imply the past tense of these categories whencompleting the "Before" portion of the form.)
I= No understanding2= Understand basic concepts and techniques
. 3= Understand basic concepts and techniques and feel comfortable experimenting
with their application4= Am quite comfortable with applying the concepts and techniques presentedNA= Not applicable. This topic was not covered in the institute.
Before After
1 2 3 4 Topics 1 2 3 4 N A
General Computer SoftwareMacintosh word processingprogram
1 Database/spreadsheet software program liiiGra .hics or aint ro:ramTelecommunication software and use of E-mailDOS/Windows (IBM corn atibles)
ill Foreign Language Specific SoftwareDrill and practiceTutorialGames liiiSimulationsWord processingForel :.. Lan 3...: e Multimedia Pro: . sVideodisc (level 1 and 2)
Existing hypercard
Knowled:e/uSe of modem In...,1- ...inziaigamasaulatra_11
g playerKnowledge/use P player 111i IIIIHypercard
IIIIIIII
IIIQ . j5 S S Aragawill1111111Sound production software
August 17, 1994
National K-12 Foreign Language CenterInteractive Multimedia Authoring Institute
Evaluation
Please use the following 5 point scale to evaluate the Institute. Place a check in thebox that corresponds to your rating.
1= Poor 2 = Below Average 3 = Average 4 = Above Average 5 = Excellent
1. Clarity of Institute objectivesr12345
2. Organization of the Institute
3. Effective use of time
4. Applicability of information
5. Electronic Mail Training
6. Effectiveness of the Institute leader(s)
7. Overall rating of the Institute
Please indicate which aspects of the Institute were most useful to you and explainwhy.
August 17, 1994
OVER
13i
Please provide suggestions for improving the Institute.
Other comments about the Institute.
Thank you for your feedback.
L't 4 It
4- 4.4
August 17, 1994
Follow-up Survey of National K-12 ForeignLanguage Center Institute Participants
We know you are busy, but we need your help in improving the activities of the National
K-12 Foreign Language Center! As you may know, the Research Institute for Studies in
Education (RISE) is completing the evaluation ofCenter activities for this year. Earlier
this month, we emailed this survey to you, but we haven't received your responses yet.Would you please access your email to complete the survey and email it back to
[email protected] by May 29?
If you need help replying to the email version of the survey, please call (515-294-7009) or
fax (515-294-9284). If you prefer to respond by paper, Please complete this paper version
of the survey and mail in the enclosed pre-paid envelope or fax by May 29.
*********************************************************************
Which institute did you attend?
Teacher Educator PartnershipCurriculumNew Technologies in the Foreign Language Classroom
Interactive Multimedia Authoring
The amount of communication I have with staff at the Foreign Language Center is
too little [] about right [1 too much []
2. The amount of communication I have with Leader(s) of the Institute I attended is
too little [I about right [] too much []
The amount of communication I have with other participants is
too little [] about right [] too much []
Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements (questions 4-13). Use thescale below.
6= strongly agree5= agree4= somewhat agree3= somewhat disagree2= disagreeI= strongly disagree
If you answer 1, 2, or 3 (some level of disagreement) for any of these questions, pleaseuse the final question of the survey to elaborate.
4. My communication with Center 1 2 3 4 5 6staff was useful. 0 0
5. My communication with Institute 1 2 3 4 5 6Leader(s) was useful. 0
My communication with otherparticipants was useful.
7. The Center has been a valuablesource of materials andinformation throughout theschool year.
8. Institute leader(s) have beensupportive of my teaching effortsthroughout the school year.
9. Center staff has beensupportive of my projectthroughout the school year.
10. Institute leaders have beensupportive of my projectthroughout the school year.
1 2 3 4 5 60 0 U El 0
1 2 3 4 5 6000000
1 2 3 4 5 6
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6
0
11. The skills and information Igained from the institute havebeen useful to me professionally.
12. My institute project has beenuseful to me professionally.
1 2 3 4 5 6
0
I 2 3 4 5 6
0 0 0
13. How have you changed your teaching as a result of this past year's experience with
the National K-I2 Foreign Lanauage Center? Be specific.
Many of you have given formal presentations, demonstrations, and workshops relating to
the institute you attended. The following questions ask you to describe those activities.
I4a. How many presentations, demonstrations, and workshops have you given since the
institute?
14b. Approximately how many people attended?
I4c. Please describe the topics of your presentations.
14d. Describe the audiences and/or organizations presented to.
15. How have you informally shared information gained from the institute withcolleagues, administrators, students, and the community?
16. Comments
Thank you for taking the time to respond. If you have any questions or commentsreearding this survey, contact the Research Institute for Studies in Education. Your
answers will help improve Center activities.
RISEE005 Lagomarcino HallIowa State UniversityAmes, Iowa 50011phone: 515-294-7009
fax: 515-294-9284
email. [email protected]
Evaluation ReportExecutive Summary
Prepared by
Man Kemis
Mandi Lively
Under the Direction ofJan Sweeney
August 1995
4.1
41
II I
ft
RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION
4
E005 1.460 \FAKING HALL COLLEGE OF EDVCATION IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY AMES, IOWA 50011
131
National Kai 2 ForeignLanguage Resource CenterEvaluation Report Executive Summary
The National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center. one of
sLx centers funded by the U.S. Department of Education, was
established at Iowa State University (ISM Ames. Iowa to
support K-12 foreign language education nationally.
Initiatives of the Center focus on professional development of
elementary and secondary school foreign language teachers.
with particular emphasis on activities related to the national
standards for elementary and secondary school foreign
language. These initiatives and related activities during the
first 16 months included four summer institutes at Iowa State,
a two-day workshop at the Center for Applied Linguistics
(CAL) in Washington, D.C., and development of an annotated
assessment bibliography.
Center Initiativesand Key Activities
Initiative I: Use of Effective Teaching StrategiesTeacher Educator Partnership Institute
Curriculum Institute
Initiative II: Administration and Interpretation ofForeign Language Performance AssessmentAssessment Guidelines and Strategies Workshop
Annotated Assessment Bibliography Preparation
Initiative III: Use of New TechnologiesNew Technologies Institute
Interactive Multimedia Authoring Institute
Evaluation of the Center and its activities was conducted by
the Research Institute for Studies in Education (RISE) at 1SU.
The major findings of the evaluation are presented in thisexecutive summary. (The complete report is available from
the Center.) Descriptions of each of the institutes and the
workshop is followed by a description of follow-up projects.
the assessment bibliography, on-going Center support, and a
summam
138
Teacher EducatorPar Znership Institute
The Teacher Educator Partnership Institute was designed toprovide a professional development opportunity in effective
teaching strategies for foreign language teacher educators who
serve as methods professors at institutions of highereducation. Special consideration was given to providing
training and classroom experiences at the K-6 level because
most teacher educators do not have direct experience at thoselevels. Nine teacher educators and 13 elementary schoolforeign language teachers attended the Teacher Educator
Partnership Institute. The teacher practitioners had an
average of 8 years of experience teaching Spanish, French.
Japanese. and/or Latin in grades K-6. The teacher educators
taught post-secondary Spanish and/or Japanese.
in general, participants believed that they bad a better
understal, ng of all of the topics following the Institute.
Evaluation ratings indicate that participants were positive
about the Institute, citing opportunities to interact withInstitute leaders and other participants as one of the most
useful aspects of the Institute. Many also mentioned the
benefit of gaining a better perspective of current practice inforeign language education and the value of leaders modeling
teaching methods discussed during the Institute.
Curriculum InstituteThe purpose of the Curriculum Institute was to engageexperienced and practicing foreign language educators in the
critical analysis of traditional curricula for foreign languages
and to develop new strategies and frameworks for theemerging long sequences of language study. Participants were
24 K-12 teachers. many of whom hold district level positions
such as director or chair of the foreign language department.
They had an average of 18 years of experience teaching
Spanish. French. Chinese, and,or Russian.
At the conclusion of the Institute. most participants stressedthe importance of disseminating the information that had
been put together. Many suggested strategies for this, such as
publishing the materials and having the participants distribute
the information in the states in their areas. Many also
expressed their appreciation for the training and experience
and their commitment to sharing their experiences with
others. As one participant stated, "The opportunity to interaci.
with educators from across the country. ... has been exciting
and motivating. \X'e need more opportunities like this one to
share, to learn, to network." Others commented on the
quality of the Institute's facilitators, citing their knowledge,
skill, organization. and flexibility.
"The Institute gave me the pushneeded to . . . become an avidcomputer user and advocate ofuse of technology in theclassroom." ". thanks to theNew Technologies Institute andthe NFLRC . . I am so far one ofthe few teaohers [in my district]with really practical training andsome level of skill on the .
Internet." "[As a result of theInstitute] 'my pihicipal and thedistrict technology coordinatorview me is a major contributorto integrating technology into myschool's curriculum. ,They`iespect thy work, use It asmodels for other curriculumareas, and Solicit advice andideas from me. I am co-chair ofthe Standaids Framework WritingCommittee for foreign languagein my state. This responsibilityresulted from my project."
New Technologies InstituteThe New Technologies Institute was designed to introduce
participants to the benefits of using newly developed
technologies in foreign language education. Participants
examined recent developments in the application of new
technologies, previewed exemplary foreign language
courseware, implemented use of telecommunications
networks, developed telenetworking lessons, and gained
expertise in the use of electronic mail, forums, and bulletin
boards. A total of 20 elementary and secondary school
teachers attended thc New Technologies Institute. The
139
participants taught French, Spanish. German, Japanese. and/or
Romanian and had an average of 18 !iears of experience.
Participants showed significant improvements in all topics
covered by the New Technologies Institute. They reported
that the most useful aspects of the Institute included learning
to effectively use e-mail and the Internet, the hands-on format
of instruction, the opportunity to meet and exchange ideas
with other teachers, the textbook, and the exposure to
varied software.
Interactive MultimediaAuthoring Institute
The Interactive Multimedia Authoring Institute was designed
to introduce participants to the benefits of using multimedia
in foreign language education. Participants examined
exemplary multimedia hardware and software, authored a
HyperStudio stack, and prepared a HyperStudio lesson linked
to CD ROM, videodisk, and/or motion video. The 20
participants taught elementary and secondary school Spanish,
French, German, Japanese, Russian, and/or Chinese. Their
average K-12 teaching experience was 11 years.
Participants showed significant improvements in all topics
related to foreign language multimedia programs. They
indicated that the most valuable aspects of the Institute
included e-mail training, learning to use authoring software.
and the emphasis on hands-on activities. Participants
appreciated the helpfulness of Institute staff and the
opportunity to meet and exchange ideas with other foreign
language teachers.
Assessment Guidelines andStrategies Workshop
The Assessment Guidelines and Strategies Workshop, co-
sponsored by the Center for Applied Linguistics, was designed
to find out from K-8 classroom foreign language teachers how
they currently use assessment, how they view assessment, and
what can be expected of teachers in the classroom related to
assessment. Twelve teachers worked in collaboration with
eight researchers to begin development of an assessment
framework based on the American Council on the Teaching of
Foreign Language's (ACTFL) national K-12 standards.
Participants felt that the most useful aspects of the workshop
included sharing, discussing, interacting, and networking with
other teachers and learning what they are doing in their
programs. Portfolios, rubrics, journals, report card formats.
and self-assessments were mentioned frequently as
assessment strategies that respondents learned about and
thought could be used in their own classrooms.
"I have had my students developHyper Studio stacks in our new six-station multimedia lab. We haverecently had an e-mall exchangewith a French class in Russia(facilitated by one of lastsummer's participants) and arenow exchanging messages with aclass in Oregon."
Follow-up ProjectsSummer institute participants implemented ideas andstrategies from the institutes hy working together in small
groups on follow-up projects. The projects gave participants a
practical opportunity to implement what they had learned.
The Center is making the results of selected projects available
to the profession by publishing summaries in the Center
newsletter, publishing complete reports through ERIC,
submitting articles to professional journals. and developing a
World Wide Web page on the Internet.
Examples of projects include examining K-6 teacher
certification and implementation of the national standards,
preparation of thematic units, effective articulation strategies
across levels of instniction. lice and application of comontermediated communication in the foreign language classroom,
exploration of the Internet for the novice.
Annotated AssessmentBibliography Preparation
In collaboration with CAL, center staff have prepared an
annotated bibliography of assessment instruments. Publishedand made available through the ERIC system, the bibliography
contains standardized instruments and authentic tools such as
oral assessment inventories, language portfolios, and student-
teacher conferencing forms. In addition to each instrument.
information on the target audience, appropriateness of thetest. age level/grade level, and a point of contact were
included. Selected bibliographies of recent articles, books and
documents on assessment, and commercially available tests
were provided. All tests were cross-referenced hy skill area
and purpose.
On-going Center SupportOverall, most of the respondents agreed that communication
with Center staff, institute leaders, and other participantsthroughout the project period was useful and about the right
amount. In addition, the majority agreed that the Center has
been a valuable source of materials and information.
Respondents also generally agreed that the skills and
information gained from the institutes have been useful, and
that their project has been useful.
A key component of each project was the use of e-mail for
communication between and among institute staff and
teachers. All of the participants attending each of the foursummer institutes learned how to exchange e-mail, resulting
in a substantial increase in the number of e-mail accounts and
in the volume of e-mail communication.
SummaryThe first 16 months of activities at the National K-12 Foreign
Language Resource Center were positive and successful.
Specific activities included conducting four summer institutes
with 86 foreign language educators from across the nation,involving 20 teachers and researchers in a collaborative effort
with the Center for Applied Linguistics in researchingassessment practices and techniques in foreign language
classrooms, continuing post-institute and post-workshopcontact with participants through their collaborative projects,completing an extensive annotated bibliography uf foreign
language assessment instruments, and training andencouraging foreign language teachers to use e-mail as a
viable, important. and effective communication tool. Thegoals of training teachers in the use of effective teaching
strategies, development and interpretation of foreign language
assessments. and the use of new technologies and their
related objectives were met.
As one participant stited, "Thank.you for this opportunity. I am.learning so much that will beimmediately applicable at home.It was so nice to be treated like avaluable, intelligent individual.'This was wonderful!"
RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION
F.005 1AGOMARCINO flku COLLEGE OF EDUCATION IOWA STATE UNIVERSE!) Amis. IOWA 50011
140