Standards

Description

The artifact chosen for C&T 898 1C-Standards, was the ᏗᏕᏲᏙᏗ ᎢᏡᎬᎢ Curriculum Framework Outline (CFO) for the ᏣᎳᎩ ᎦᏬᏂᎯᏍᏗ ᎠᏂᏫᏒᏍᎩ Cherokee Language Master Apprentice Program (CLMAP). This was developed by myself along with the aid of Curriculum Specialist Don Dugger, and Master Speakers Doris Shell and Cora Flute in the spring of 2018. This artifact was evaluated by five of the criteria given from the references in M6 CT824 Problems in Second Language Instruction. The five criteria that would best evaluate the CFO that were bold were enumerated above, but described in detail below. CLMAP was a two year program. This is a full time program meaning it was sustained for eight hours a day, five days a week for the entire two years, for each learner cohort. The second year program participants utilized the curriculum and the Master Speakers (highly proficient first language native Cherokee speaking elders) as resources to facilitate the first year cohort’s learning in language proficiency and cultural content. The curriculum for CLMAP is divided into quarters, subdivided into months and weeks. The artifact selected was the CFO document created for the first quarter in the program and it covered the first three months of one year in the program. The second year participants shared the same learning space as the first year participants and were expected to act as teachers aids for the Cherokee Master Speakers (teachers). Through reviewing the same curriculum they were expected to develop mastery over the content through learning to teach alongside the native Cherokee speaking teachers. Through reviewing and learning to teach the same yearly content they would not only grow in language proficiency but develop working knowledge in hands-on teaching methodology and lesson planning.

Rationale

The first criterion chosen was “(Is the text) stating purpose(s) and objective(s): for the total course, and for individual units (Ansary and Babaii, 2002)?” This is something that was considered to be crucial for the selection of any curriculum material or text book. Without aligning the chosen curriculum to the educational institution’s primary goals and philosophy, there will be little buy-in and coordination. Specifically, aligning the stated objectives in the class and units with the curriculum was necessary to present clear and authentic goals for the program’s learners to follow. By explicitly communicating the teaching objectives, the learners benefited by being able to focus on their own learning goals and expectations, this allowed them a more effectively safe and comfortable learning environment and a supportive language framework that allowed them a sense of security by delineating clear expectations for learning while outlining the expected processes and timeline for the language sessions in the program. The artifact was designed to meet specific formal programmatic and unit objectives, as well as weekly and daily informal objectives, all of which were communicated in the CLMAP CFO. Each quarter had a clear theme, as each month targets each quarterly theme to specific settings and tasks related to the activities that would take place in those settings. The weekly activities were scaffolded to loop content related to field trips, traditional skills, and cultural values associated with each theme. The specific CLMAP language and content objectives were detailed to the days, weeks, months, and quarters. These objectives were tied to daily informal formative assessments, weekly informal formative and summative assessment, monthly formal summative assessments as well as quarterly formal summative assessments in both content and Cherokee language proficiency.

Language Development

The second criterion that was used to evaluate the CLMAP CFO was “Do the exercises and activities in the textbook promote learners’ language development (Garinger, 2002, p. 2)?”. As mentioned above, the CLMAP curriculum was tightly girded with specific formal summative quarterly and monthly objectives and evaluations that targeted both content and language proficiency. Further, the curriculum was also evaluated with formative informal assessments on a weekly and daily basis. The content was orchestrated to teach traditional subsistence knowledge and cultural skills like farming, gathering wild plants, preparing food, cooking food, making traditional tools and arts, as well as cultural activities associated with traditional spirituality and social customs. This required skill based knowledge as well as an understanding of etiquette, cultural values, nonverbal communication associated with communicative competencies. There was overt in class preparation and lexical instruction with the goal of multiple field trips or cultural activities to practice the knowledge in social context. Ultimately, the language proficiency evaluations on a consistent basis were targeted to ensure adequate language development for the program participants as they followed the daily learning tasks in the language sessions.

Motivate and Challenge

The third criterion “Are the exercises and activities varied in format so that they will continually motivate and challenge learners (Garinger, 2002, p. 2)?” when used to evaluate CLMAP’s Curriculum Framework Outline (CFO) did send up some red flags. Even though the CFO is divided into quarterly themes, and monthly units, the systematic approach to content and proficiency evaluations, as well as the weekly or bi-weekly activities and field trips, seem to bog down in execution by the middle of the third month. I believe this was a failure in the curriculum planning process, a failure to provide novel variations to inspire and excite the program participant learners. Even though the content was consistently changing and the language discourse was consistently building and evolving, the repetitive nature of the CFO did not allow for spontaneity and creativity to grow at the rate that is needed as it did not engage the inherent motivation of the learners through novel approaches to lesson delivery. Amendments should be made to the curriculum to allow for scheduled guest speakers, and changes in teaching patterns that could potentially provide a change in delivery or context to the degree that would intrigue learners and allow them a wider range of learning experiences. Another suggestion would be to implement extended activities that require group work as well as individualized tasks that challenge the learners to stretch their abilities by asking them to team up on projects to produce presentations, or create teaching materials. Another suggestion is to provide program participants opportunities to conduct interviews in a community setting with Cherokee speakers that were not associated with the program on a daily basis. A change in setting, speaker, or learning dynamic could produce the innovation needed to increase learner motivation.

Flexibility

The next criterion used to evaluate the Curriculum Framework Outline was “(Does) scope and sequence allow for flexibility to adjust instruction according to various levels of proficiency in speaking (Hoffman & Dahlman, 2007, p. 19)?”. This is directly addressed in the format of CLMAP’s CFO. The formal quarterly and monthly summative evaluations were supported by the weekly and daily informal summative assessments. Some informal group work, including peer teaching, was already integrated into the daily lesson plans and learners are consistently and repeatedly using similar lexicon in different contexts as the lessons were looped every week and a half. New content was introduced in rotation in conjunction with older content that was expanded when reviewed. This allowed for the learners that had fallen behind, or were absent to grasp content they may have missed associated with core language or cultural content. At the same time, more adept learners were used to facilitate the review process while new content was introduced and older content was expanded, this allowed learners at different capacities to be challenged in each language session while growing in proficiency with their cohort. Within the weekly and daily framework there were suggested expansion content suggestions iterated in the CFO as well as open places that allowed the learners and facilitating teachers to introduce content and activities that wasn’t written into the CFO.

Backgrounds and Interests

The fifth and final criterion that was used to evaluate the CLMAP’s CFO was “Is the textbook sensitive to the cultural background and interests of the students (Garinger, 2002, p. 2)? Culture, Religion, Gender (Ansary and Babaii, 2002)?”. For the most part, the language and cultural content in the curriculum was exactly what the students were looking for, according to their informal feedback in language sessions. Despite that, there were exceptions, and at times a learner would voice their opinions about how content and leaching processes could have been improved. Each year there are new dynamics at play when it comes to the students’ interests, and even though the program tries to maintain consistency in its content delivery, adjustments were made yearly and at times weekly or daily. Whenever possible, these adjustments often were able to be worked into the open spaces of the CFO. However idiosyncrasies among learner preferences and interests did occur and the suggestions they provided must be assessed within the context of the program as a whole. Some years, we have had learners that were more religious and preferred a more biblically based curriculum, and yet other years some program participants found the biblical influence confining and not “Cherokee” enough in regard to Indigenous knowledge systems and ways of knowing. The Master Speakers that were the consistent teachers throughout the program’s cycling classes of learners were generally devout Cherokee Baptist Association leaders, and some were also practicing healers and culture bearers, the expertise and knowledge base of the Cherokee speakers in sessions was a great asset and finding the balance needed while still following the CFO is quite possible. Often content was adjusted to fit the needs of the teaching context and the interests of the learners. The CFO was flexible and adaptable enough to shift emphasis from one subject area to the next while still able to stay on target with lexical and content specific objectives. However, it was the experienced guidance and wisdom of the program staff that was what really enabled the language sessions to meet the diverse needs of the learners. The program participants come from diverse backgrounds indeed. The program has had learners that were “two spirit” GLBT+ activists and leaders, medicine people, preachers, atheists, PHD professors, and everyone in-between. CLMAP has taught culturally traditional students from tribally dense and rural backgrounds as well as more assimilated, urban students that have had little to no exposure to Cherokee cultural values, life ways, or traditional skills. The successes the program has had in regard to meeting the widely diverse needs of the learners were not entirely due to the curriculum and other teaching materials, but to the staff. That last criterion showed another gap in the CFO material. This is a cultural challenge, and will need to be addressed in the curriculum with further deliberation with program staff and under the guidance of our first language Cherokee speaking elders.

Resources

Ansary, H., & Babaii, E. (2002). Universal characteristics of EFL/ESL textbooks: A step towards systematic textbook evaluation. The

Internet TESL Journal, 2, 1-8. Retrieved from: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Ansary-Textbooks/

Garinger, D., (2002). Textbook selection for the ESL classroom. Eric Digest, EDO-FL-02-10. Retrieved from

http://www.cal.org/content/search.SearchText=Textbook+selection+for+the+ESL+classroom

Hoffman, P., & Dahlman, A. (2007). Making decisions about ESL curriculum. Minnesota and Wisconsin Teachers of English to Speakers

of Other Languages. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, http://hdl.handle.net/11299/109986

1) (Is the text) dissemination of a vision (theory or approach) about the nature of language and learning, and how the theory can be put to applied use (Ansary and Babaii, 2002)?

2) (Is the text) stating purpose(s) and objective(s): for the total course, and for individual units (Ansary and Babaii, 2002)?

3) Does the textbook support the goals and curriculum of the program (Garinger, 2002, p. 2)?

4) Do the exercises and activities in the textbook promote learners’ language development (Garinger, 2002, p. 2)?

5) Is there a balance between controlled and free exercises (Garinger, 2002, p. 2)?

6) Do the exercises and activities reinforce what students have already learned and represent a progression from simple to more complex (Garinger, 2002, p. 2)?

7) Are the exercises and activities varied in format so that they will continually motivate and challenge learners (Garinger, 2002, p. 2)?

8) (Do) materials help teachers diagnose what students can and cannot yet do and prescribe how to use curriculum to address student needs (Hoffman & Dahlman, 2007, p. 19)?

9) (Does) scope and sequence allows for flexibility to adjust instruction according to various levels of proficiency in speaking (Hoffman & Dahlman, 2007, p. 19)?

10) Is the textbook sensitive to the cultural background and interests of the students (Garinger, 2002, p. 2)? Culture, Religion, Gender (Ansary and Babaii, 2002)?