Language%20Policy%20Implementation%20and%20Assessment%20Instruments:%20The%20Canadian%20Language%20Benchmarks

1
Language Policy Implementation and Assessment
Instruments The Canadian Language Benchmarks

• Dr. Douglas Fleming
• Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa
• Faculté déducation, Université dOttawa
• dfleming_at_uottawa.ca

2

• As Shohamy (2007) points out, assessment
  instruments often take on the character of
  curriculum documents and implementers of language
  policy.
• This is especially true in the absence of formal
  curricula.
• Despite claims to the contrary, I believe that
  such is the case here.

3

• Major changes to Canadian language policy and
  planning have been undertaken in recent years
  (Fleming, 2007).
• The creation of the Canadian Language Benchmarks
  has been a major part of this process.
• The CLBs official character
• consultation process (Pierce Stewart, 1997)
• newcomer language training is based on the
  Canadian Language Benchmarks (Citizenship and
  Immigration, 2003)
• Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks.

4

• The CLB
• covers the full range of English proficiency that
  features stand-alone descriptors for 12 levels
• incorporates literacy and numeracy
• includes proficiencies related to learning
  strategies, socio-cultural and strategic
  competencies
• focuses on pedagogical tasks.

5

• Related Documents
• The Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000
  Theoretical Framework (Pawlikowska-Smith, 2002)
• The Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000 ESL for
  Literacy Learners (Johansson, et al., 2002)
• The Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000 A Guide to
  Implementation (Holmes, Kingwell, Pettis
  Pidlaski, 2001)
• Summative Assessment Manual - SAM (volumes 1 and
  2) (Pawlikowska-Smith, 2005)

6

• The Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000 Additional
  Sample Task Ideas (Pawlikowska-Smith, 2002)
• Developing an Occupation-Specific Language
  Assessment Tool (CCLB, 2004)
• Integrating CLB Assessment into your ESL
  Classroom (Holmes, 2005)
• The LINC 1 - 5 curriculum guidelines A computer
  integrated curriculum based on Canadian language
  benchmarks 2000. Toronto Catholic District School
  Board (1997)
• The LINC 4 5 curriculum guidelines. Toronto
  Catholic District School Board (1999)
• The LINC 5- 7 Curriculum Guidelines. Toronto
  Catholic District School Board (2007).

7

• Although the CLBs introduction states that it
  is not a curriculum guide,
• the document does describe what adult ESL
  instruction should prepare adult ESL learner to
  do. (p. V111).
• Extensive exemplar tasks within benchmarks.
• Teachers are expected to organize learning
  opportunities for the successful completion of
  these tasks.

8

• Since the dominance of the communicative approach
  in SLE, tasks have been used as criteria for
  linking assessment with the organisation of
  pedagogical content (Fleming Walter, 2004
  Skehan, 2002).
• Fluency in the communicative process can only
  develop within task-orientated teaching,
  (Johnson 1979, 200).
• Through its task-based organization, the CLB
  thus informs both
• pedagogical content and
• treatment options.

9

• Practioners are led to use document as a
  curriculum guideline because the document
  provides high degree of detail regarding sample
  tasks, (Fox and Courchêne, 2005 Haque Cray,
  2008).
• The CLB privileges particular curricular content
  and treatment options.
• An example of governmentality (Foucault, 1978)
• governed less through centralized, top-down
  authority
• managed more through strategic alignments of
  ostensibly non-political micro-practices.

10

• References to citizenship within the CLB are rare
  and vague
• only three found (all at the very highest levels
  of English language proficiency)
• developing opinions about current events
• writing letters to the editors of newspapers
• participating in meetings.
• the word "vote" does not appear throughout
• rights and responsibilities almost exclusively
  related to being good consumers

11

• tendency to represent learners as somewhat
  isolated and passive
• client, customer, patient and student (p. 95),
  but not as workers, family members, participants
  in community activities, or advocates
• labor rights are almost nonexistent
• in great contrast to the way that citizenship is
  conceptualized by ESL students (Fleming, 2007).

12

• CLB is a hidden curriculum (Jackson, 1968)
• encapsulates a privileged body of content and
  methods meant to socialize learners (and
  teachers)
• promotes a dutiful, obedient and passive
  engagement with the politics of the nation-state
• links (rarely attainable) normative English
  language fluency with full citizenship
• promotes a radicalized hierarchy of citizenship.

13

• Related documents contain
• increasingly unapologetic references to the CLBs
  use as a document that informs curriculum,
• and the inclusion of explicit themes and tasks
  that use critical-analytic and participatory
  models of citizenship.
• Many sites for and multiple forms of contestation
  (Pennycook, 2006 Rose, 1996).

14
Language Policy Implementation and Assessment
Instruments The Canadian Language Benchmarks

• Dr. Douglas Fleming
• Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa
• Faculté déducation, Université dOttawa
• dfleming_at_uottawa.ca

end