Here you can find detailed information on Intermediate and Advanced HL writers by level and by language.
By level
Strengths and weaknesses of Intermediate Heritage Language Writers
Category: Writing Proficiency of Heritage Learners
Glosssary
Heritage Language Learner
A student who is raised in a home where a non-English language is spoken, who speaks or at least understands the language, and who is to some degree bilingual in that language and in English. Based on Valdés 2000.
Input
The language a person listens to, hears, or sees (in the case of sign language) that has communicative intent.
Literacy
The process of meaning-making, in our case, from and through language, that is both creative and critical. As the multiliteracies movement advocates, meaning-making “should be regarded as a dynamic process of transformation, rather than process of reproduction.” Writers, in this sense, are not just replicating conventions, but questioning and transforming them. ‘Multiliteracies’: New Literacies, New Learning Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis
Proficiency
“The ability to use language in real world situations in a spontaneous interaction and non-rehearsed context and in a manner acceptable and appropriate to native speakers of the language. Proficiency demonstrates what a language user is able to do regardless of where, when or how the language was acquired.” ACTFL Performance Descriptors for Language Learners 2012, page 4.
References
Please note: The following references were consulted during the development of the WPHL research, but they are in no way an exhaustive representation of all the valuable research available on these topics on the date of publication, and the material that will be published in the future. We hope they are a useful starting point to orient yourself on these topics, with the understanding that these are fields that are quickly developing, and this list may no longer be actively maintained after August 2018.
Proficiency
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines [Electronic version]. Retrieved July 6, 2016 from https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL performance descriptors for language learners. Retrieved November 7, 2017.
Heritage Languages and Heritage Speakers
Beaudrie, S., Ducar, C., & Potowski, K. (2014). Heritage language teaching: Research and practice. Columbus, Ohio: McGraw-Hill Education.
Beaudrie, S., & Fairclough, M. (Eds). (2012). Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Nagano, T. (2015). Demographics of adult heritage language speakers in the United States: difference by region and language and their implications. The Modern Language Journal, 99(4), 771-792.
Carreira, M. & Kagan, O. (2011). The results of the National Heritage Language Survey: Implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign Language Annals, 44(1), 40-64.
Montrul, S. (2016). The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Polinsky, M. & Kagan, O. (2007). Heritage languages: In the ‘wild’ and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(5), 368-395.
Scontras, G., Fuchs, Z. & Polinski, M. (2015). Heritage language and linguistic theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1545), 1-20.
Swender, E., Martin, C., Rivera-Martinez, M. & Kagan, O.E. (2014). Exploring oral proficiency profiles of heritage speakers of Russian and Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 47(3), 423-446.
Valdés, G. (2000). Introduction. In Spanish for native speakers. AATSP professional development series handbook for teachers K–16, Vol. 1 (pp. 1–20). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College.
Heritage Language Instruction
Correa, M. (2011). Heritage language learners of Spanish: What role does metalinguistic knowledge play in their acquisition of the subjunctive? In L. A. Ortiz-López (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the 13th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 128-138). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Fairclough, M., & Beaudrie, S. M. (Eds). (2016). Innovative strategies for heritage language teaching: A practical guide for the classroom. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Intercultural Competence
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). The identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization at institutions of higher education in the United States, Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 241-266
Literacy
Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M. (2009). Multiliteracies: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4, 164-195.
Choi, J. (2015). A heritage language learner’s literacy practices in a Korean language course in a US university: From a multiliteracies perspective. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 11(2), 116-133.
Schleppegrell, M. J. & Colombi, M. C. (Eds.). (2002). Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Placement and Assessment
Beaudrie, S. & Ducar, C. (2012). Language placement and beyond: Guidelines for the design and implementation of a computerized Spanish heritage language exam. Heritage Language Journal, 9(1), 77-99.
Carreira, M. M. (2012). Formative assessment in HL teaching: Purposes, procedures, and practices. Heritage Language Journal, 9(1), 100-120.
Fairclough, M. (2012a). A working model for assessing Spanish heritage language learners’ language proficiency through a placement exam. Heritage Language Journal, 9(1), 121-138.
Fairclough, M. (2012b). Language assessment: Key theoretical considerations in the academic placement of Spanish heritage language learners. In S. Beaudrie & M. Fairclough (Eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field (pp. 259-278). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Llosa, L. (2014). Assessing heritage language learners. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (pp. 440-453). Chichester, U.K. and Malden, MA: Wiley.
Second Language Acquisition—General
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Ellis, R. (2004). Principles of instructed language learning. An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 33(2), 209-224.
Sociolinguistics & Critical Pedagogy
Leeman, J. (2005). Engaging critical pedagogy: Spanish for native speakers. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 35-45.
Leeman, J., Rabin, L. & Roman-Mendoza, E. (2011). Identity and activism in heritage language education. The Modern Language Journal, 95(4), 481-495.
Lynch, A., & Potowski, K. (2014). La valoración del habla bilingüe en los Estados Unidos: Fundamentos sociolingüísticos y pedagógicos en Hablando bien se entiende la gente. Hispania, 97(1), 32-46.
Martínez, G. (2003). Classroom-based dialect awareness in heritage language instruction: A critical applied linguistic approach. Heritage Language Journal, 1(1), 1-14.
Otheguy, R., Zentella, A. C. & Livert, D. (2007). Language and dialect contact in Spanish in New York: Toward the formation of a speech community. Language, 83(4), 770-802.
Writing
Callahan, L. (2010). U.S. Latino’s use of written Spanish: Realities and aspirations. Heritage Language Journal, 7(1), 1-27.
Elola, I. & Mikulski, A. (2013a). Revisions in real time: Spanish heritage language learners’ writing processes in English and Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 46(4), 646-660.
Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (2011). Exploring the learning potential of writing development in heritage language education. In R. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 209-233). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Loureiro-Rodriguez, V. (2013). Meaningful writing in the heritage language class: A case study of heritage learners of Spanish in Canada. L2 Journal, 5(1), 43-58.
Martínez, G. (2007). Writing back and forth: the interplay of form and situation in heritage language composition. Language Teaching Research, 11(1), 31-41.
Mikulski, A. M. & Elola, I. (2011). Heritage language learners’ allocation of time to writing process in English and Spanish. Hispania, 94, 715-733.
Reznicek-Parrado, L. (2014). The personal essay and academic writing proficiency in Spanish heritage language development. In E. Ene (Ed.), Arizona Working Papers in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching (pp. 71-83).
Yanguas, I. & Lado, B. (2012). Is thinking aloud reactive when writing in the heritage language? Foreign Language Annals, 45(3), 380-399.
Yi, Y. (2008). Voluntary writing in the heritage language: A study of biliterate Korean-heritage adolescents in the US. Heritage Language Journal, 6(2), 72-93.
Zapata, Gabriela C., and Manel Lacorte. (2009). Multiliteracies Pedagogy and Language Learning : Teaching Spanish to Heritage Speakers . Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.
Workshops
Our Workshops are available on-demand.
Contact ILETC@gc.cuny.edu
Developing the Writing Proficiency of Chinese Heritage Language Learners
During this workshop, presenters will discuss the linguistic profiles of intermediate and advanced Chinese heritage writers, as well as the instructional implications that derive from these profiles. Given that heritage language learners (HLLs) typically complete most of their formal education in English, it makes sense that writing (together with reading) is the area in which these learners display lower levels of proficiency in Chinese. Therefore, when HLLs arrive in college language classes, one important goal for them is to develop literacy skills and most academic courses reflect this aim with a curriculum heavily focused on writing. One way to support this classroom goal is to understand patterns in HLLs’ writing abilities and to implement instructional strategies that develop the weaker linguistic areas for these writers while taking advantage of their strengths.
In this workshop participants will (1) become familiar with or refresh their knowledge of the ACTFL proficiency guidelines for writing; (2) examine the linguistic profiles of Chinese HLLs illustrated through writing samples at intermediate and advanced levels, with a discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of these two levels; and (3) brainstorm concrete strategies and activities that will support progress toward achieving higher proficiency in writing.
Developing the Writing Proficiency of Spanish Heritage Language Learners
During this workshop, presenters will discuss the linguistic profiles of intermediate and advanced Spanish heritage writers, as well as the instructional implications that derive from these profiles. Given that heritage language learners (HLLs) typically complete most of their formal education in English, it makes sense that writing (together with reading) is the area in which these learners display lower levels of proficiency in Spanish. Therefore, when HLLs arrive in college language classes, one important goal for them is to develop literacy skills and most academic courses reflect this aim with a curriculum heavily focused on writing. One way to support this classroom goal is to understand patterns in HLLs’ writing abilities and to implement instructional strategies that develop the weaker linguistic areas for these writers while taking advantage of their strengths.
In this workshop participants will (1) become familiar with or refresh their knowledge of the ACTFL proficiency guidelines for writing; (2) examine the linguistic profiles of Spanish HLLs illustrated through writing samples at intermediate and advanced levels, with a discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of these two levels; and (3) brainstorm concrete strategies and activities that will support progress toward achieving higher proficiency in writing.
External Links
Innovations in Language Education (ILE) Grants
The text below provides general instructions on ILETC’s ILE grants, which are currently on hiatus due to changes in funding.
For information on past projects and recipients, visit: 2014-2015; 2016-2017; 2017-2018; 2019-2020.
Purpose
The purpose of the ILE grants is to foster and sustain a culture of research, collaboration, and creativity in language education across the CUNY campuses that will impact language instruction and research, as well as recruitment and retention of language students.
Proposals will be accepted in all areas of language pedagogy, second language acquisition theory, and translingual and transcultural communication. Special, but not exclusive, consideration will be given to projects impacting one or more of the following areas:
- The teaching and learning of heritage languages;
- The teaching and learning of less commonly taught languages;
- The integration of technology into the language classroom (e.g., telecollaboration, hybrid instruction, computerized testing, etc.)
- The connection between classroom instruction and linguistic communities of NYC (e.g., community-based service learning, internships, etc.);
- Intercampus collaborations.
Awards
Awards may be individual or collaborative (i.e., within a department or between departments or colleges). Individual grants will be in the amount of $2,000. Collaborative grants shared by two or more group members will be in the amount of $5,000. The awards will be in the form of honoraria disbursed directly to the grantees.
Eligibility
All full-time and part-time instructors at all CUNY campuses are eligible to apply. Priority will be given to applicants who have not previously received an ILE Grant.
Expectations
Grant recipients must:
- Contribute 100-word project abstracts, 50-word bios, and photos to be published on the ILETC website;
- Submit a progress report in April 2020;
- Commit to participate in a dissemination activity (examples of past dissemination activities include: presentation at the ILETC Forum, delivery of a workshop based on research results, and on-line publication of pedagogical recommendations based on research results);
- Submit a final report in June 2020.
Selection Process
Grants will be awarded on a competitive basis through blind review by an ad-hoc ILETC committee. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of several criteria, including relevance, feasibility, innovation, and potential impact.
Proposal
- Submissions are now closed.
Important Dates
- There will be no competition in 2022-2023, due to changes in funding.
- Check back here for more updates.
Questionnaire
Instructors can use this questionnaire to learn more about their students’ language backgrounds and usage patterns. This questionnaire is editable (download the Word doc below) and can be adapted for use with bilingual speakers of English and any heritage language by replacing [HL] with the name of the language in question.
To edit, use the link below to download in Word format.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of Advanced Heritage Language Writers?
Criteria
The following tables reproduce the ACTFL descriptors for Advanced and Superior writing proficiency. Use them to understand what an Advanced writer can do and what this writer needs to master to become a Superior writer. We recommend you explore the complete publication of the ACTFL Guidelines 2012, available on the ACTFL site as well as the ACTFL Performance Descriptors for Language Learners.
Writers at the Advanced level are characterized by the ability to write routine informal and some formal correspondence, as well as narratives, descriptions, and summaries of a factual nature. They can narrate and describe in the major time frames of past, present, and future, using paraphrasing and elaboration to provide clarity. Advanced-level writers produce connected discourse of paragraph length and structure. At this level, writers show good control of the most frequently used structures and generic vocabulary, allowing them to be understood by those unaccustomed to the writing of non-natives.
Writers at the Superior level are able to produce most kinds of formal and informal correspondence, in-depth summaries, reports, and research papers on a variety of social, academic, and professional topics. Their treatment of these issues moves beyond the concrete to the abstract. Writers at the Superior level demonstrate the ability to explain complex matters, and to present and support opinions by developing cogent arguments and hypotheses. Their treatment of the topic is enhanced by the effective use of structure, lexicon, and writing protocols. They organize and prioritize ideas to convey to the reader what is significant. The relationship among ideas is consistently clear, due to organizational and developmental principles (e.g., cause and effect, comparison, chronology). These writers are capable of extended treatment of a topic which typically requires at least a series of paragraphs, but can extend to a number of pages. Writers at the Superior level demonstrate a high degree of control of grammar and syntax, of both general and specialized/professional vocabulary, of spelling or symbol production, of cohesive devices, and of punctuation. Their vocabulary is precise and varied. Writers at this level direct their writing to their audiences; their writing fluency eases the reader’s task. Writers at the Superior level do not typically control target-language cultural, organizational, or stylistic patterns. At the Superior level, writers demonstrate no pattern of error; however, occasional errors may occur, particularly in low-frequency structures. When present, these errors do not interfere with comprehension, and they rarely distract the native reader.
Find here a simplified rendition of the descriptors organized by the four assessment criteria: Functions, Context/Content, Accuracy/Comprehensibility, and Text Type. This table and the profiles that follow are designed to assist in identifying strengths and weaknesses of writers in support of specific pedagogical approaches and interventions. Always keep in mind that proficiency is global, and all criteria develop interdependently—a writer moves to a higher proficiency level only by mastering all criteria (i.e., demonstrating the evidence to sustain all criteria across the topics and tasks of the level all the time).
Criteria
Advanced
Superior
Functions
-narrates and describes on topics of a factual nature in all major time frames
-explains complex matters
-presents and supports opinions by developing cogent arguments and hypotheses
-able to treat issues abstractly
Context/Content
-informal and some formal topics and contexts
-informal and some formal topics and contexts
-most kinds of formal and informal correspondence
Accuracy
-control of major time frames of past, present, and future
-control of the most frequently used structures and generic vocabulary
-understood by those unaccustomed to the writing of non-natives
-effective use of structure, lexicon, and writing protocols
-high degree of control of grammar and syntax
-high degree of control of spelling or symbol production, of cohesive devices, and of punctuation
-precise and varied vocabulary
-no pattern of error
Text Type
-connected discourse of paragraph length and structure
– extended discourse
General Considerations
While considering the profiles that follow, keep in mind that
- proficiency is global, and all criteria develop interdependently—a writer moves to a higher proficiency level only by mastering all criteria (i.e., demonstrating the evidence to sustain all criteria across the topics and tasks of the level all the time).
- While the elements of proficiency cannot be taught or learned discretely, an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of learners in discrete domains allows instructors to use strengths to scaffold and develop targeted activities to address specific weaknesses.
- Moving from one sublevel to the next may be a lengthy process; one semester might not be enough to observe such advancement, and as such, instructors and learners must set realistic expectations for both short term and long term growth.
- Levels (with the exception of Superior) are divided in sublevels: Low (minimal performance at level), Mid (quantity and quality at level), and High (showing ability at the next major level, but unable to sustain it). The strengths and needs of learners at the different sublevels are diverse; and it follows that writers at the High sub-level attempting the functions of the next major level will show less breakdown than their Low and Mid counterparts. These writers might require less time to move to the next major level than their Low and Mid peers. Differentiated instruction—using, for example, an increasing complexity of writing prompts—is essential for a curriculum that is aligned with realistic and equitable goals for growth.
Mandarin Chinese
What are the strengths and weaknesses of Advanced heritage Mandarin Chinese writers when they attempt Superior level functions?
Criteria
Strengths
Weaknesses
Functions
– signs of breakdown when attempting to explain complex matters in detail
-unable to treat issues abstractly
-unable to present and support opinions by developing cogent arguments and hypotheses
Context/ Content
-writing about social, professional, and academic topics
-formal writing
Accuracy
-no interference from English
-lack of precise vocabulary
-problems with accuracy in linguistic features and orthography
-lack of appropriate connective devices
-reliance on the style of oral discourse
Text Type
-struggle with extended discourse
Korean
What are the strengths and weaknesses of Advanced heritage Korean writers when they attempt Superior level functions?
Criteria
Strengths
Weaknesses
Functions
– no breakdown when attempting description on topics of general interest
-signs of breakdown when treating issues abstractly
-signs of breakdown when presenting and supporting opinions by developing cogent arguments and hypotheses
Context/ Content
-writing about social, professional, and academic topics
-formal writing
Accuracy
-robust vocabulary
-strong control of grammar
-no interference from English
-general decline in quality or quantity under the pressure of Superior-level functions
Text Type
-struggle with extended discourse
Spanish
What are the strengths and weaknesses of Advanced heritage Spanish writers when they attempt Superior level functions?
Criteria
Strengths
Weaknesses
Functions
-successful at explaining complex matters in detail
-breakdown when attempting description on topics of general interest
-breakdown when presenting and supporting opinions by developing cogent arguments and hypotheses
Context/ Content
-writing about social, professional, and academic topics
-formal writing
Accuracy
-no interference from English
-lack of precise vocabulary
-problems with structural control
Text Type
-struggle with extended discourse
Moving from Advanced to Superior: Implications for instruction
Note: For a more extensive discussion see Gatti, A. and O’Neill, T. (Forthcoming), Writing Proficiency Profiles of Heritage Learners of Chinese, Korean, and Spanish.
For all issues: Input is the key to linguistic development. Improvement of all of the identified issues will require rich input at the Superior level. Selecting the appropriate input activities is key for the success of all pedagogical strategies in the context of linguistic development.
Issue: Lack of control of the Superior level-functions
Pedagogical strategies: Combine explicit instruction (i.e. how to structure presentation and support of opinions, the difference between concrete and abstract treatment of issues), with a wealth of examples (input). For practice, start with using Superior level functions on contexts/content that are familiar to your learners, and once they are comfortable using the functions in these contexts, proceed to the formal sphere. In preparation for this more demanding task, the formal contexts should be introduced beforehand through input.
Issue: Inconsistency in error type and frequency (as expected as part of a developmental process)
Pedagogical strategies: Expose learners to input.
Issue: Mechanical errors (e.g., norms for spelling, punctuation, and diacritic/accent marks)
Pedagogical strategies: Teach writers to use the electronic tools available to them (spellcheck, grammar check), and help them learn to discern when these tools are helpful and how to assess the validity of their suggestions.
Issue: Inability to produce Superior-level text type, which consists of extended discourse.
Pedagogical strategies: Some level of explicit instruction will help writers understand the difference between different text types (e.g., skeletal paragraph, paragraph, extended discourse). To practice, provide a paragraph for writers to flesh out into extended discourse. Beyond this, the ability to produce extended discourse relies heavily on full development of the other criteria, as well as nuanced knowledge of the subject matter of the writing task. We hypothesize that a massive amount of targeted input (and time) will be required for writers to move successfully from producing paragraphs to producing extended discourse.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of Intermediate Heritage Language Writers?
Criteria
The following tables reproduce the ACTFL descriptors for Intermediate and Advanced writing proficiency. Use them to understand what an Intermediate writer can do and what this writer needs to master to become an Advanced writer. We recommend you explore the complete publication of the ACTFL Guidelines 2012, available on the ACTFL site as well as the ACTFL Performance Descriptors for Language Learners.
Criteria ↓ Level →
Intermediate
Advanced
Functions
-writes simple messages and letters, requests for information, and notes
-asks and responds to simple questions in writing
-creates with the language
-narrates and describes on topics of a factual nature in all major time frames
Context/Content
-topics of personal interest and social needs
-informal and some formal topics and contexts
Accuracy
-basic vocabulary and structures
-comprehensible to those accustomed to the writing of non-natives
-control of major time frames of past, present, and future
-control of the most frequently used structures and generic vocabulary
-understood by those unaccustomed to the writing of non-natives
Text Type
-loosely connected sentences
-connected discourse of paragraph length and structure
General Considerations
While considering the profiles that follow, keep in mind that
- proficiency is global, and all criteria develop interdependently—a writer moves to a higher proficiency level only by mastering all criteria (i.e., demonstrating the evidence to sustain all criteria across the topics and tasks of the level all the time).
- While the elements of proficiency cannot be taught or learned discretely, an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of learners in discrete domains allows instructors to use strengths to scaffold and develop targeted activities to address specific weaknesses.
- Moving from one sublevel to the next may be a lengthy process; one semester might not be enough to observe such advancement, and as such, instructors and learners must set realistic expectations for both short term and long term growth.
- Levels (with the exception of Superior) are divided in sublevels: Low (minimal performance at level), Mid (quantity and quality at level), and High (showing ability at the next major level, but unable to sustain it). The strengths and needs of learners at the different sublevels are diverse; and it follows that writers at the High sub-level attempting the functions of the next major level will show less breakdown than their Low and Mid counterparts. These writers might require less time to move to the next major level than their Low and Mid peers. Differentiated instruction—using, for example, an increasing complexity of writing prompts—is essential for a curriculum that is aligned with realistic and equitable goals for growth.
Mandarin Chinese
What are the strengths and weaknesses of Intermediate heritage Mandarin Chinese writers when they attempt Advanced level functions?
Criteria
Strengths
Weaknesses
Functions
-no breakdown when attempting factual narration
-breakdown when attempting description on topics of general interest
Context/ Content
-difficulty with moving beyond the autobiographical
Accuracy
-control of the linguistic strategies needed to move between major timeframes
-no lexical interference from English
-deterioration in comprehensibility when moving beyond everyday and autobiographical topics to topics of general interest
-lack of variety of connectors
Text Type
-inability to craft texts at the paragraph level
Korean
What are the strengths and weaknesses of Intermediate heritage Korean writers when they attempt Advanced level functions?
Criteria
Strengths
Weaknesses
Functions
– no breakdown when attempting description on topics of general interest
– Regarding the function of narration, data was inconclusive: when narrating on topics of a factual nature, half of the Intermediate writers exhibited breakdown, and half did not.
-Regarding the function of narration, data was inconclusive: when narrating on topics of a factual nature, half of the Intermediate writers exhibited breakdown, and half did not.
Context/ Content
-for IM and IH writers, writing remains comprehensible when attempting contexts and content beyond the autobiographical
– for IL writers, writing deteriorates when attempting contexts and content beyond the autobiographical
Accuracy
-strong control of the linguistic strategies needed to move between major timeframes
-no breakdown in the control of temporal markers
-morphological errors that interfered with the successful accomplishment of the task
-lack of variety of connectors
-lexical interference from English
Text Type
-inability to craft texts at the paragraph level
Spanish
What are the strengths and weaknesses of Intermediate heritage Spanish writers when they attempt Advanced level functions?
Criteria
Strengths
Weaknesses
Functions
-successful at explaining complex matters in detail
-breakdown when attempting description on topics of general interest
-breakdown when presenting and supporting opinions by developing cogent arguments and hypotheses
Context/ Content
-writing about social, professional, and academic topics
-formal writing
Accuracy
-no interference from English
-lack of precise vocabulary
-problems with structural control
Text Type
-struggle with extended discourse
Moving from Intermediate to Advanced: Implications for instruction
Note: For a more extensive discussion, see Gatti, A. and O’Neill, T. (Forthcoming), Writing Proficiency Profiles of Heritage Learners of Chinese, Korean, and Spanish.
For all issues: Input is the key to linguistic development. Improvement of all of the identified issues requires rich input at the Advanced level. Selecting the appropriate input activities is key for the success of all pedagogical strategies in the context of linguistic development.
Issues:
- Difficulty with moving from familiar contexts (Intermediate) to contexts of general interest (Advanced)
- Correlated issue of accuracy: Lack of vocabulary needed for writing about topics beyond familiar contexts
Pedagogical strategy: Develop content-based and/or project-based courses that are organized around topics of general interest, so your HLLs get exposed to non-familiar contexts in a coherent and extended (semester-long) fashion.
Issue: Uneven performance in Advanced-level functions (i.e., able to narrate in major timeframes, but unable to describe)
Pedagogical strategy: Use some functions and context/content to scaffold the development of others. For instance, develop prompts that require practicing description (weakness) in the context of familiar topics (strength), and then use the practiced descriptive strategies to work with a topic of general interest.
Issue: Difficulty with producing paragraph-length text
Correlated issue of accuracy: Limited use of connective words and phrases
Pedagogical strategies:
- Scaffold text type development using activities that build paragraphs from the sentence level, where Intermediate writers are comfortable.
- Explicit instruction can help writers understand the difference between strings of sentences, skeletal paragraphs, and paragraphs.
- Paragraph composition benefits from increased time and opportunities to revise and use a variety of resources beyond those stored in memory.
- Provide learners with sample connective words and phrases they can use with working on assignments.
Writing Proficiency
The following material is informed by a research project conducted at the Center for Integrated Language Communities (CILC) from 2014 to 2018 with 187 heritage learners of Mandarin Chinese (henceforth “Chinese”), Korean, and Spanish. For this research, the definitions of writing proficiency were based on the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Proficiency Guidelines 2012 – Writing. This study sought to address the following three research questions:
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of writers at the Intermediate and Advanced levels of proficiency?
- What prevents writers at the Intermediate and Advanced levels from consistently functioning at the next higher level of proficiency?
- What are the implications of the proficiency profiles for instruction?
For full descriptions of profiles identified by the study, as well as for details on research methods and participants, please see Gatti, A. and O’Neill, T. (2017), Who Are Heritage Writers? Language Experiences and Writing Proficiency (Foreign Language Annals, 50: 734-753) and Gatti, A. and O’Neill, T. (Forthcoming), Writing Proficiency Profiles of Heritage Learners of Chinese, Korean, and Spanish.
Writing Proficiency
The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines describe functional proficiency, i.e. what an individual can do with language “in real-world situations in a spontaneous and non-rehearsed context” (ACTFL Guidelines 2012). The guidelines assess functional proficiency. When using them to assess writing with the Writing Proficiency Test (WPT), functional proficiency is gauged by documenting the writer’s ability to perform the functions belonging to the major levels (Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, or Superior)
• in specific context and content areas,
• with a level of comprehensibility and accuracy required by the functions,
• demonstrating control over a specific text type (sentence, paragraph, etc.).
For a description of the criteria at each major level, see pages 10-14 of https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf
Why identify the proficiency of learners?
At any given point in time, a writer functions primarily within a specific proficiency level (Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, or Superior) with evidence of writing ability across a contiguous higher level. This is true for ALL writers, independently of how they have acquired the language; that is, independently of their categorization as native, heritage, or L2 writers of the language in question.
In the context of the language classroom, identifying proficiency levels ensures that learning goals, curriculum, and assessments
- support linguistic development
- are appropriate to the abilities of the learners in a given class or program
Support of linguistic development
A main goal of the proficiency-oriented classroom should be to help learners strengthen their abilities at one level and to progress to the next higher level of proficiency. Such movement will not take place if the learning goals, curriculum, and assessments are designed to work only within the learners’ current proficiency level. For instance, Intermediate-level writers, while broadening the context/content areas and expanding the text type of their writing at the Intermediate level, must also be focused on systematically targeting the functions and other assessment criteria of the Advanced level in order to develop and ultimately sustain Advanced-level writing proficiency.
Appropriateness
Working to develop the next higher level of proficiency supports proficiency growth. Working on criteria that are too far from a learner’s current level (i.e., criteria that are two levels beyond the learner’s current ability) will not. Expecting Intermediate-level writers to work at the Superior level not only does not support development, but moreover, essentially asks learners to do something they are not linguistically able to do yet, even with an instructor’s support. For example, Intermediate learners who are asked to work on Superior level functions, contents/contexts, and text type will fail at the task since they lack control over the Advanced level criteria upon which moving into the Superior level rests. This scenario of setting unrealistic expectations for learning outcomes is simply unfair to learners: it sets them up for failure, and it creates a situation of ongoing frustration for learner and instructor alike.
What about Heritage Language Learners (HLLs)?
While the statements above are true for both L2 and HL learners, instructors who work with both populations immediately recognize that L2 learners and HLLs at the same level of proficiency may be linguistically and sociolinguistically different from each other. The goal of this guide is to highlight some of the particular ways in which HLLs perform at Intermediate and Advanced in order to support instructors and learners in the development of HL proficiency toward the next level.
Read more
For additional information on the use of the ACTFL Guidelines with HLLs, see
ACTFL. (2017). ACTFL OPI Testing of Heritage Speakers. Unpublished manuscript
Kagan, O. (2005). In support of a proficiency-based definition of heritage language learners: The case of Russian. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(2&3), 212-21.
Martin, C. (2010). Assessing the oral proficiency of adult learners, “heritage” and “native” speakers using the ILR descriptions and ACTFL proficiency guidelines: Considering the Challenges. Russian Language Journal/Русский язык, 60, 167–181.
Martin, C., Swender, E., & Rivera-Martinez, M. (2013). Assessing the oral proficiency of heritage speakers according to the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012–Speaking. Heritage Language Journal, 10(2), 73–87.
Swender, E., Martin, C. L., Rivera-Martinez, M., & Kagan, O. E. (2014). Exploring oral proficiency profiles of heritage speakers of Russian and Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 47(3), 423–446.
Detailed information on Intermediate and Advanced HL writers can be found in Profiles.
