• Globalization = act of deterritorialization.• Positive aspects

– Policy traveling as a rational undertaking.– Proof of lesson drawing.– Evidence-based

• Negative aspects– Abandonment of idiosyncratic conceptions of ‘good

education’ for an ‘international model.’– Imposition of ‘best practices’ by global players.

• The Standards Movement– Homogenization?– Access?– Quality?– Equity?– Social justice?– Reterritorialization!

• Cross-national attraction.– Internal dissatisfaction.– Negative external evaluation.– Novel configurations (“New World Order”)

• Decisions.• Implementation.• Internalization/Indigenization.

Phillips & Ochs

• Why did the transfer occur?

• How was the transfer implemented?

• Who were the agents involved in the transfer?

• Example of voluntary transfer.• Examples of social learning.

– A deliberate attempt to adjust the goals or techniques of policy in response to past experiences and new information. If policy changes as result of this process we have learning (Hall, 1993)

• “Political” policy borrowing:– Build coalitions.– healthful effect on protracted

policy conflict.

• Standards ≠ standardization.

• Standard:– reference points that

provide accountability on the attainment of learning goals set for teachers or students.

• New way of colonial education?

• Criterion-referenced.• How to read a standard:

– Literal reading: questioning the words.

– Interpretive reading: contextualized in the theoretical background.

– Critical reading: question the standard and its wording.

Diaz Maggioli, 2009

Course-based curriculum Standards-based curriculum

• NTEC – 32 campuses + private offer.• MFL Department in Teacher Education.• How could we create a community which moves

the profession forward while respecting the inherent identity of each of the languages?

• In other words:– What procedures, cultures, and activities should the

new Department promote as policy aimed at identity-fashioning?

• Creation of action tank.• Research.• Training.• Development.• Validation.• Application.• Review.• Analysis.

• Review of different standards developmentmodels.

• One-week seminar: What does it mean tobe an educated L2 teacher?

• Interest groups: drafting.• A goal-oriented process.• Validation by stakeholders.

•Research and History of ForeignLanguage Teaching•Professionalism and collegiality

•Intercultural approach• Sociocultural knowledge

•Language as a system for social communication• Language learning and development• Proficiency in the Foreign Language

• Issues in assessing foreign languages.•Assessment of languageproficiency•Classroom assessment

• Planning for content-based instruction• Management and delivery of content-based instruction• Use of resources and technology in teaching language and content.

• Conscientization–Negotiation of meaning

• Creation of contextualized domains

–Standard»DescriptorsLevel Indicators

• Piecemeal approach.• Needs assessment by

outsiders.• Pre-packaged decisions.• Information and training.• Change management.• Implementation.• Evaluation.• RESULT: mandate

• Systemic approach.• Problem identification and

construction of «needs.»• Stakeholder «action» tank.• Validation for buy-in.• Clarification and «editing».• Piloting and

experimentation.• RESULT: community of

practice.

LANGUAGE CULTURE INSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT PROFESSIONALISM1.a – Language as a system of systems.1.B – Language acquisition and development

2.a – Culture as it affects student learning.

3.a – Planning for standards-based English and Content Instruction.3.b – Implementing and managing standards-based English and Content Instruction.3.c – Using resources and technology effectively in English and Content Instruction.

4.a – Issues of assessment of English Language Learners.4.b – Language proficiency assessment.4.c – Classroom-based assessment for English Language Learners

5.a – EFL research, history and legislation.5.b – Professional development, partnerships and advocacy.

LANGUAGE CULTURE INSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT PROFESSIONALISM1.a – English language proficiency.1.b – Language as a social system for communication.1.c – Language learning.

2.a – Inter cultural approach.2.b –Sociocultural knowledge.

3.a – Planning for Content-based instruction.3.b – Implementing and managing content-based instruction.3.c – Using resources and technology effectively in Content-based Instruction.

4.a – Issues of assessment of English Language Learners.4.b – Language proficiency assessment.4.c – Classroom-based assessment for English Language Learners

5.a – EFL research, history and legislation.5.b – Professionalism and collegiality.

LANGUAGE CULTURE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT PROFESSIONALISM & ETHICAL

COMMITMENT1.a – The structure of English and Communication.1.B – Language acquisition and Development

2.a – Culture as it affects student learning.

3.a – Planning for standards-based English and Content Instruction.3.b – Implementing and managing standards-based English and Content Instruction.3.c – Using resources and technology effectively in English and Content Instruction.

4.a – Issues of assessment of English Language Learners.4.b – Language proficiency assessment.4.c – Classroom-based assessment for English Language Learners

5.a – EFL research, history and legislation.5.b – Professional development, partnerships and advocacy.5.c – Ethical commitment.

LANGUAGE CULTURE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT PROFESSIONALISM & ETHICAL

COMMITMENT1 – Structural components of the language (+ Tchg).2. The receptive communication skills (+ Tchg).3. The productive communications skills (+ Tchg).4. Integration of the four skills in communication (+ tchg)5. Accuracy and fluency (Teacher’s own language).

7. Culture and Literature.

6. English Teaching Methodology.8. Design of physical and virtual materials.

(1) Monitoring and evaluation of students’ performance.

(2) (3) & (4) Design of assessment instruments.

(5) Self-monitoringof language proficiency and use.

8. Leadership, participation in networks and learning communities.

• Standards development as social learning.• Reterritorialization for regionalization.• Focus on language proficiency.• Focus on language and content integrated learning.• Use of CEFR = Sense of urgency.• Emphasis on communities of practice and collaborative

work for teachers.• Recognition of multiculturalism.• Same/Similar template = different processes.• Validation of grounded practices in policy development.• Need for standards to be made into formal policy.

• Processes– Adaptation– Modification– Resistance

• Outcomes– Accountability and

accreditation (USA)– Curriculum renewal

(Ecuador).– Coalitions (Uruguay).– Chile: ?

• Other future social learning enterprises:– A Common Latin American

Framework of Reference for the Learning, Teaching and Assessment of Foreign Language?

• Lingering question:– Are the policy changes the

result of people’s learning, governments’ learning or lessons drawn from abroad?

Diaz Maggioli, G. (2009). Los estándares para la educación de docentes de lenguas extranjeras en Uruguay. In Diaz Maggioli, G. and Kuhlman, N. (Eds). Estándares para la educación de docentes de lenguas extranjeras. Montevideo, UY: Dirección de Formación y Perfeccionamiento Docente.

Hall, P. A. (1993) 'Policy paradigms, social learning, and the State: the case of economic policymaking in Britain', Comparative Politics, 25 (3): 275-296.

Ministerio de Educación. (2012). Estándares de calidad educativa: Ecuadorian in-service English teacher standards. Quito, EC: Autor.

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2009). Standards for the Accreditation of Teacher Education in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Phillips, D., & Ochs, K. (2004). Researching Policy Borrowing: Some Methodological Challenges in Comparative Education. British Educational Research Journal, 30 (6), 773-784.

Steiner-Khamsi, G and Waldow, F. (Eds.). World Yearbook of Education 2012: Policy Borrowing and Lending in Education. London, UK: Routledge.

Universidad Alberto Hurtado (2013). Disciplinary and Teaching/Pedagogical Standards. Santiago, CL: Unpublished draft manuscript.

• Content:– To the concept of standards.– The specific standards model.– To using standards for further curriculum development.

• Process:– Academic dogmatism.– There is no “I” in team…wish there were!

• Product:– To implementing standards.– To aligning assessment and standards.– To varying one’s mode of instruction or assessment.– To acknowledging implementation efforts.

• Professor “X” volunteered to be in the standards development team even asking national authorities to appoint her to the team in an official manner. She advocates for a particular school of linguistics and insisted that only that perspective be used to develop proficiency standards. When the rest of the team decided to go in another direction, she quit and became a very verbal opponent of the project, even denying her initial voluntary participation. Team leaders eventually compromised to include aspects of her perspective in the framework. She returned to the team but insisted on writing significant portions of the document herself. During the validation process, these parts came under heavy criticism and had to be rewritten. She declined to rewrite the document. Since then, she has dedicated particular efforts to boycotting standards implementation, mostly mobilizing students against them on the grounds that the process was not democratic.

• What does the case tell us?– Participation does not result in adherence.– The individual cannot be overlooked in the effort to build a

collective.– All communities of practice have anomalies.

• What can be done?– Make commitment visible from the onset.– Hold focus groups during the development process to validate

the work of teams.– Create spaces for dissent and discussion.– Focus on the validation.– Involve current students from the beginning.

• University “Y” has a long tradition of delivery of teacher education courses. Their curriculum was one of the foundational models in teacher education. They agreed to participate and contributed significantly to the process and product. However, after validation, they refused to implement the standards based on the opinion that they would be detrimental to their own exemplary curriculum.

• What does the case tell us?– Participation does not result in adherence.– The individual takes precedence over the collective.– Participation = politically correct.

• What can be done?– Confront reality and perception.– Invite small-case intervention (a “pilot”).– Follow up on the intervention.

• The teaching collective at University “W” did not participate directly in the original standards team though they were all part of the validation phase. However, they have used the document to align teaching and assessment. They even have involved professors in other departments in helping them apply some of the standards and develop new assessment methods. They also communicated standards to students and involved them in true collaborative action research projects aimed at understanding their process of standards implementation. Standards are now a “common language” that everyone in the department uses to communicate about academic matters.

• What does the case tell us?– Non participation does not result in

resistance.– Situated implementation examples will always

exist.• What can be done?

– Develop a case study on the implementation experience.

– Communicate this experience broadly.– Empower community to continue exploration.

• Some of the professors in Department “Z” participated in the original development team, the rest were part of the validation process. They gladly adopted the standards and reviewed their assessment and instruction so that they were aligned to the standards. However, in order to do so, they split the team into sub-teams, each dealing with one particular standard. This led to duplication of assessments and double emphasis on some indicators to the detriment of others.

• What does the case tell us?– Participation does not guarantee understanding.– The framework used can lead to balkanization.

• What can be done?– Clearly communicate the ethos of the standards.– Promote case studies to disclose misunderstandings.– Invest time and resources in training professors on

how to understand, unpack and implement standards and assessment.

• Fear of the unknown• Lack of information• Misinformation• Historical factors• Threat to core skills and competencies• Threat to power base• No perceived benefits• Low trust organizational culture• Fear of failure• Reluctance to experiment• Custom bound• Reluctance to let go• Strong peer group norms

• When people resist change they are not usually working in activeopposition to it as such, but demonstrating that a threat to theirpersonal and professional security has been experienced.

• Initiators of change need to accept this response as natural andinevitable.

• A key task for initiators is to listen to the experiences of those involvedin change and seek to understand what is felt to be threatened.

• Initiators need to be deeply caring and concerned about what it is thatparticipants feel they are having to give up and to be seen as an ally inthis process, and not as an opponent.

• Initiators also need to help colleagues to protect what they perceive tobe under threat while moving them toward new methods andstrategies.

• In the process of change it is vital to try to avoid undermining theindividual’s sense of competence and professional well-being byappearing to reject or undervalue their established practices.

• Engage and connect• Keep listening• Provide constant feedback (confirmatory/corrective/motivation)

• Stimulate reflection and review• Vary the leadership style• Walk about• Encourage collaboration• Improve delegation• EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED

• If you do not change the direction in which you are going, you may end up where you are heading.