Language Standards：An International Perspective，Part 2

ational, regional, and state conferences, that is, in Italy, Australia, and the United States. These individuals give academic papers (e.g., at the international colloquium at TESOL 2000, from which this paper has emerged) and organize seminars and workshops for teachers. They write articles for professional journals and newsletters as well. The standards are also disseminated through other avenues, such as preservice and graduate teacher education courses at colleges and universities; again, these standards are used for teacher preparation or investigation by concerned and informed professionals (teacher educators) in the field.

How Do Schools and Teachers Respond to and Use Standards?

The response from schools and teachers to the different language standards and frameworks under discussion appears to vary according to the nature of the standards (pedagogical or administrative) and according to the amount of ownership and in-service support received by teachers. As we discussed in Part 1, standards written as bullet points used to meet administrative measurement purposes may not be as useful to teachers as more holistic, goal-based and "well-rounded" descriptions of ability. Teachers' reactions to features such as these, and their use of standards in the classroom, needs further investigation, as we discuss below. Schools generally find the standards useful, assisting them to plan and ensure accountability. In Italy, where syllabus planning has been organized mainly in terms of content and objectives, the CEF descriptors have provided a basis for target outcomes. There are frustrations among teachers, however, especially those who have not participated in in-service, as they try to move to new ways of planning through descriptors. Breen, Barratt-Pugh, Derewianka, House, Hudson, Lumley, and Rohl (1997) have reported on ESL teachers' reactions to and uses of a number of ESL assessment frameworks in Australia. Teachers' frustrations are evident, as are differences in the ways they use and interpret the frameworks in their teaching. On the other hand, as reported in the colloquium on which this article is based, teachers find that standards provide them with a common language with which to talk about their teaching.

There is an urgent need for research to better understand how tea

chers, schools, and students learn about and use language standards. A predominant finding of the small amount of research that has been done so far is that there is variability among teachers in the use of standards. For instance, even in the same school, some language teachers may not use mandated language standards at all, whereas others may make extensive use of them in planning their courses, developing activities for student learning, and assessing student achievement (Cumming, 2001). Likewise, when teachers use language standards to assess student learning, there seems to be considerable variability in how they apply the criteria underlying these standards (Brindley, 2000). Two challenges exist here. Teachers interpret and apply language standards in distinct ways, according to their perceptions of their students' needs and the aims of their curricula. This is perhaps inevitable, but it defies the idea of standards being uniform across different educational contexts. The second challenge is that language standards do not, in themselves, inherently define any particular instruments for student assessment. Therefore, when teachers apply language standards to evaluate their students' learning, one cannot expect this to be done uniformly. TESOL's (2001) Scenarios for ESL Standards-Based Assessment includes a variety of exemplars and assessment tools that can be adapted by teachers to determine whether students are meeting the standards.

An especially useful way to implement and evaluate language standards is through action research projects where teachers document and study their own processes of applying standards to their classrooms (e.g., Bottomley, Dalton, & Corbel, 1994). The Italian Ministry of Education, in collaboration with TESOL Italy and other associations, is currently committed to bringing about such a project, which will devise sets of testing and assessment materials geared to the levels of language proficiency described in the CEF and also investigate effective instructional practices.

How Do Standards Affect Language Education and How Do We Assess the Effects?

One example of a positive effect of language standards has been the perceived increased stature of ESL professionals in, for example, the United States and Australia, which has spurred dialogues with educators in other content areas about how best to help English language learners achieve academically. Using the ESL standards book (TESOL, 1997), many pre-K-12 teachers in the United States have been able to show colleagues what learning a second language means and what learning content through a second language requires.

However, we do not know of any research that has systematically tried to evaluate the effects of language standards. We believe it vital that this be done, particularly in the variety of contexts in which language standards are being implemented. Without any indications of whether standards affect language education positively, there is little empirical basis on which to argue for their values or benefits. Case study evidence suggests that some teachers find that standards help them conceptualize what their students should learn, enable some students to focus their studies, and help teachers integrate classroom and assessment tasks in meaningful ways (Cumming, 2001). But how do standards affect learning? How much do they really improve teaching? What benefits might they produce for society or particular groups of people? These are large, fundamental questions that our profession is only starting to ask.

---

《Language Standards：An International Perspective，Part 2》