Performance indicators in curriculum standards.

The above picture 1 is a general description of WIDA's classification of language proficiency indicators for second language learners in grade 6- 12. It can be seen that the description corresponding to each level is very logical, and three sentences basically correspond to three dimensions: vocabulary, sentence and discourse. The following figure shows examples of themes and types. That's a topic we often talk about. Of course, teachers can't be restricted by this at all, but can only give examples to illustrate how to teach students to achieve a better life with language.

Then there is the scoring target under each topic. The picture above shows the language and formal framework of social research. Taking the economic development trend as an example, the first-level goal is to draw economic data charts based on phrases or simple sentences and supported by graphics. From this sentence, we can clearly know the following four points:

1. Activity content or basis (task content): simple phrases and sentences related to economic changes.

2. What kind of activities should students complete (nature of tasks): After reading relevant materials, you can make a table of changes in economic data.

3. How to evaluate (evaluation criteria): Can students complete the activities?

4. Do you need support (task requirement): Yes, graphic support.

These four points also constitute the description framework of pi, which is called CAAS (CAAS (c-content; ; A- activities; A- evaluation; S-shaped bracket). Then if we use a similar framework to analyze the compulsory education curriculum standards of CEFR and China, we can find the differences. First, let's look at CEFR.

European standards are not classified by subject, but described by understanding, speaking and writing, which is also consistent with the global scope of CEFR. Taking the oral output of A 1 as an example, I can describe the place where I live and the people I know with simple phrases and sentences.

1. The activity content is to describe the residence and the people around it.

2. Nature of activity: oral output

3. Evaluation criteria: the activity can be completed

4. Support: None

Obviously, CEFR's description is more abstract than American standards, but they all pay attention to "doing things" with language. In contrast, WIDA's curriculum standards obviously pay more attention to students' lives. Classify the situations that students encounter in daily life, then consider what students may do (or what problems need to be solved) in these situations, and then use language knowledge (vocabulary, sentences and texts) through listening, speaking, reading and writing. In this way, these activities can be combined with language skills and knowledge, and regarded as a means to complete the activities, so as to realize how to learn and how to teach, that is, "learning by doing." Therefore, their evaluation methods are unified with the activities themselves. In other words, how to evaluate a student's language ability depends on whether he can complete the activities. From the teaching point of view, teachers can find teaching materials according to the corresponding topics, and then design teaching objectives according to the functions pointed out in the curriculum standards and combined with materials. Language points have become the means to realize these functions, so that in the teaching of vocabulary and grammar, we have jumped out of the traditional mode of teaching only pronunciation, meaning, discrimination and spelling, and put more emphasis on the functions of specific language forms in specific contexts-functions (such as why interjections should be used and why past tense should be used). European standards also emphasize the function of language, but CEFR emphasizes four things: understanding, communication and output. Therefore, we can see that the structure at each level is consistent: understanding, interaction and production.

Finally, the Compulsory Education Curriculum Standard 20 1 1 published by China. The grading goal of China's curriculum standards describes English language ability in five dimensions: language knowledge, language ability, emotional attitude, cultural literacy and learning strategies, and gives a clear grading description of each item. The picture above shows the four-level and two-level classification of language ability and language knowledge. Comparing CEFR and WIDA, the first difference is the understanding of English language proficiency indicators. China's overall description of "English Language Competence" (now called "English Core Literacy") is very comprehensive, including not only vocabulary, grammar, listening and speaking of CEFR and WIDA, but also cultural literacy, learning strategies and emotional attitude. However, in the newly promulgated 20 17 curriculum standard for senior high schools, the core literacy is formally put forward, and the item of thinking quality is added on the original basis. Obviously, from this perspective, China's should be called "curriculum goal or core literacy", which is quite different from "language ability referred to by PI".

But the question is, which way is more convenient for users and which way can be more transformed into teaching productivity. Can the emotion, thinking and culture in the overall goal (or core literacy) be described in different levels, and what is the significance of classification (The English Curriculum Standard for Senior High School promulgated at the end of 20 17 puts the classification standard of core literacy in the appendix, leaving only descriptive content about core literacy)? Should they be included in the teaching objectives of each class, and how significant are these in guiding teaching?

I believe that the above problems will definitely lead to a bloody battle between the rivers and lakes, and various princes will kill each other. However, it is undeniable that western standards have three characteristics: simplicity and operability. Specifically, CEFR's language competence description framework includes understanding, interaction and output. Vida's definition of language description includes words, sentences and chapters, and how to do things with them. However, the overall goal of our country is very complicated: language knowledge, language ability, cultural literacy and learning strategies. Each item contains three or four items (such as listening, speaking, reading and writing), and then the grade of each item is 1-5. The goal is too complex, which makes it difficult for teachers to translate complex standards into specific teaching goals when designing classrooms. In addition, the complexity of grading leads to the same complex internal logic structure, so it is difficult for teachers to find the internal logic of each level and another level. Without a unified structure, it is naturally difficult to translate it into practice. The last two paragraphs are personal opinions, so be careful! )