Version:
4/13/10

materials:
CBI in the News - ACTFL newsletter "The Language Educator" (April 2010), p. 26 "Including Foreign Language in the Higher Education Professional Curriculum";

ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (speaking 0012; writing 0013) - this should be review reading, not new;

Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century (0001, "5 C's")

Subject-area standards for exiting high-schoolers in the state of Oregon (0691 Second Languages; 0693 Visual & Performing Arts; 0694 English; 0695 Mathematics; 0696 Science; 0697 Social Science)

√

(30') Review of previous meeting (see topics immediately below), since many were absent; expansion of those topics. Need info: how long will you be at PSU? Reminder: Turn in your initial reflections; what categories should the scoring guide include? Weighting?

√

(10') How does CBI relate to the "standard" pedagogies of language teaching? (0120, "The Standard Sequence and the Non-Traditional Methodologies"; 0156 [handout in class] "Comparison of Methods in Terms of Proficiency Orientation" - applied to CBI orientation). While we're at it: more about EGI (explicit grammar instruction) and grammar teaching/learning in general - a major point being the "acquisition syllabus" of grammatical features (discussion example: the German negative: nein, nicht (word itself, placement), nichts, kein-, (noch) nie, noch nicht/kein, nicht/kein mehr, keinerlei, weder noch (with noun, with clause), nichtsdestoweniger, keinesweges comments: very useful discussion

√

(10') Some examples of CBI - see above / meeting 3 "materials", especially "Seattle Schools" and Business Spanish Course. What complaints might people make about CBI for language learning? What cautions would you have about trying to bring Seattle math to PPS? PSU? Comments about your reading in Stryker?

+

(10') Language standards: the necessary foundation for CBI implementation (see documents above) comments: CBI projects need to include clear, detailed description of their language-learning objectives, in the terms used by recognized standards documents (probably ACTFL proficiency & "5 C's")

√

(20') What (will) this class (will) do? Reading, reflection, discussion, reports, writing, small & large project(s) (individual, ?group?), field trips and outreach, grant-seeking? Problem in previous versions of the course: the one-meeting CBI lesson, the first major assignment, was particularly troublesome. People felt they needed more context (at the course level). But maybe we can use SpeakEasy as that initial context.

Suggestion: 1-2 classroom hours / week "SE Maintenance" (including pedagogical discussion); Project 1 NOT related to SE; small SE lesson as part of preparing "marching orders" for the fall group; Project 2 each person prepares a segment of fall marching orders (ex: financial history and directions for money management under new accounting system, investigation of sustainable inks and packaging); Project 3 large-scale SpeakEasy activity (example: here's how we develop a new product) OR something else (whether Humboldt-related OR something else) comments: yes, Project 1 as group discussion

√

(50') SpeakEasy maintenance (with Brett Condron there, we hope): 1) Allgemeine Planung, mit Bezug auf die Abteilungen und ihre Tätigkeiten - was kann die Herbstgruppe erreichen? 2) Wie sollen die dringendsten kurzfristigen Aufgaben erledigt werden? (holländische Karten, Verkauf bei University Place)?

Pedagogical summation of those discussions, with "do-overs" now that the participants understand the pedagogy and the specific linguistic goals

Lookahead to more pedagogy, with a tentative idea: create modules involving either reading & writing, or in-class discussions supported by authentic materials. Also: setting up meetings outside class ("employees"; BC & I separately?)