 So, Carl mentioned a really important point in his previous session, which is that a lot of educators who are starting to become curious about open educational resources ask themselves, yes, but there's a lot of stuff out there, pedagogical materials. How do we know if they're viable materials? Is this something that I can trust? And this has been a big issue, right? So starting when first materials came out, there's been this explosion. So for the flight approach and for the flight project, we've developed a system when Carl had indicated to you that there's a list of editorial board members, so people, language program directors, people who have been kind of curious and working in this kind of vein who understand the objectives, then act as reviewers. And we have a very professional development, so it's not about rejection or acceptance of your lessons. It's about helping you to actually publish your lesson. What might be missing? What can you tweak? We're going to give you professional feedback. So we also have a handout, which we'll be giving you soon. Okay, I wasn't going to go there quite yet. Sorry. Don't peek. That's the thing. Of course, if you have the handout, everyone says look at the handout. In any case, this checklist is really the kind of criteria that, well, actually it serves two purposes. It's the criteria that the reviewer wants to look at to make sure that you have successfully and it's got a Likert scale, the degree of success that you've incorporated that in your lesson. But there are also other questions that are then included with each category to help the reviewer to think about additional feedback that he or she may wish to provide. So in a few moments, we're going to take a look specifically at the criteria. And afterwards, when we get to the application session, you're going to work with someone who has not yet seen your lesson and you're going to do a peer kind of feedback using these criteria to see, oh, where might you go? And understanding, of course, that this isn't a polished lesson yet. But just these ideas of, hmm, where might you need to go to better satisfy this or, oh, yeah, this part really seems to fit what they're looking for here, et cetera. Before we do that, though, I wanted to just kind of go back and give a little bit of a summary of the broad strokes or the broad goals of the approach. And this is going to kind of summarize what we've been looking at up until now. And this responds to a number of different questions that have come up in our discussions with you. So the first goal is reinforcing. So what is the flight approach? What are we trying to do? The first goal is reinforcing norms and conventions. Now you might say, well, that sounds counterintuitive. You keep talking about the literary. How come you're now talking about reinforcing norms and conventions? Well, here's a quote. The pleasure we experience from linguistic deviation in everyday language depends upon our knowledge of the norms and conventions of ordinary usage. Deviation only becomes pleasurable and interesting. And I added here, unutilizable for language learners, when we know what it deviates from. So at the introductory level, it's not about overwhelming your students with all of the possibilities that something, you know, meaning, it's endless, right? It's infinite, the way that we can construe meaning. But as you're introducing, and so my textbook initially was meant as a complement, a supplement to Français Intractif. So what I wanted to do is to say Français Intractif introduces and scaffolds very nicely the literal meanings and uses and functions of grammar, for example, in the grammar syllabus. And so actually, I would change a little bit, Carl, what you said earlier about communicative language teaching. Does grammar play, but we want to do more with other kinds of play? They don't do grammar play, right? So what they do is do very well literal understanding of grammar and everything else at these lower levels. I'm a spoke, I'm a spoke. I completely agree with you. It's okay, just for the record, for the record. We just do grammar, grammar not play. Right, it does grammar, but not grammar play. And that was the thing, I mean, I love grammar play. I mean, that is really, my entrance point into my whole concept of flight was really about, but grammar, they just don't get what's going on here with the grammar. So anyway, so the idea is that at the introductory levels, along with introducing the norms and the conventions for grammar, for genre, for whatever it is that you're looking at or cultural products and processes, is that you want to at least show one example, one way that you can play with that system in order to generate meaning. It's not an end in itself either. It just opens them up to, there is this kind of inherent flexibility to language. And it means that as they're developing over the course of each lesson, each unit, where along with the norms and conventions, you're showing one way of playing with it, is that they start to notice things about language. They start to become more open, more flexible instead of being locked down. Why is it that you say this in English when in my language we say this or vice versa, whatever? No, right, and there are different ways of construing. So very important that the goal is nonetheless reinforcing norms and conventions and then also how to play with them. Another goal is expanding the communicative range and proficiency without increasing the quantitative load of grammar topics and vocabulary, some people have said, yes, but I already have to do so much, right? It's not about giving more grammar, more vocabulary. If they learn how to foreground meaning with the structures and lexical items that they're already learning, you're accomplishing two things at the same time. And it just gives them a greater range of, and that's the irony too for me with the notion of communicative language teaching. It's not communicative really if you're only working with literal levels of meaning, right? So let's build on that concept and include the literary. A third goal is fostering critical feeling along with critical thinking. So critical feeling, Ralph Rieber who's an interdisciplinary concept that he seems to be the kind of generator of drawn from cognitive psychology, social psychology, and philosophy of education. I included here, I mean eventually after this workshop we're gonna upload the PowerPoints, the videos and everything so that you will have access to all of this information. I included a little link for a short video where he talks about this concept of critical feeling. And I also included a link to Chantel's talk at UC Berkeley on this topic. Chantel has done some really interesting work with critical feeling. So coming back to this notion of the musical metaphor, we also want in our flight lessons to foster language along with language, right? So this notion of that kind of feeling for the melodies of the harmony, sorry, of language along with the melodies. And how do we develop that sense of being a, we did improv yesterday to being able to do a little bit of improv along with your very structured techniques. The goal for is empowering students and teachers to become authentic users of a foreign language. This goes back to my definition of an authentic text, right? As opposed to it has to be a native user for a native user audience, right? Is that what is the essence of communication? Well, it's really that coming together of the literal and the literary. That's what is the basis of authentic use of language. And again, it doesn't mean that literal text aren't also authentic, right? But it's not the focus really and the goal pedagogically we want students to become, oops, sorry. Fuller users of the limited numbers of structures and vocabulary items that they have, right? How do you use those to full extent as opposed to adding more and more other things on and increasing the cognitive load? Goal five is about reframing foreign language studies. So becoming content based to come back to this question. So language and language culture as creative systems of meaning making becomes the content of your course. I mean, it drove me crazy at Cornell, a research institution, with such a divide between language and literature where to this day, they talk about language classes as being content less. There's no content to language classes and I just want to scream, right? The content of a language course when it is properly conceptualized and scaffolded is language and language culture. That is content, right? It's not just a mechanical process of filling in blanks. Reframing foreign language studies also for this curricular arc that for American university systems, right? At least this articulation between or across language, culture, and literary studies. It's there. And Claire Cromch, I think at one point, said she was sort of paraphrasing the read my lips kind of notion. It's all about language. Literature is language, right? All of these things. They're instantiations of language. So, do you remember the quote? That's something to that effect. It was kind of like the read my lips. It's all about language, anyway. And finally, it's also transdisciplinary across the humanities. Because when you think of a field of study, it's its own culture. It has its own cultural conventions, its own language, right? So, the strategies and skills that students can gain from working with the literary are applicable to any discipline. And I had an interesting conversation with Irani, who works with legal texts and translation of legal texts, right? So, even what's fascinating is that even legal text or the striving is to eliminate the literary, right? Because you don't want these gray areas. You don't want people to interpret too much. You want to try to get to the absolute essence. Well, guess what? It's impossible, right? So, you're still going to have layers of potential interpretation. But also, even those texts have to use foregrounding in order to get their meaning across. So, there's a lot of repetition in those texts. There's a lot of things that you can use that are going to bring out that students need to become aware of even in a literal text that's going to be an embodiment of foregrounding of meaning in order to get that meaning across. Okay, so those were the overreaching goals. And what I want to do now is to take a look and actually, I need a copy of the editorial checklist. Sorry, thank you. So, now, what are we looking for? What are reviewers in when you submit a flight lesson? And I'm sorry, yeah, I don't have it on screen. So, let's just look at this. The handout that you worked with yesterday morning, which is called preparatory steps for conceptualizing a flight lesson, that's kind of synthesized here in the very first section about preparatory steps. So, the first has to do with norms and conventions. Does the lesson show evidence of a sufficient level of understanding of genre conventions, language norms, and conventional cultural practices embedded in the texts? So, the reviewer might say, yeah, definitely. Or might say, students not sure that they really understood this particular cultural convention fully, I'm not seeing evidence of that, I'm seeing. So, that gives them the possibility of commenting on that, giving further information or asking the author to provide further information. The literary, does the textual analysis adequately identify the meta functions and types of play in the texts? Is there another or other types of play that could be identified that would improve the lesson? Different eyes, sets of eyes are going to see different things in a text. And maybe the submitter captured one category of play that they work with quite nicely. But maybe there's another category of play that would actually work quite nicely in conjunction with that and for the overall objectives of the course. So, the reviewer can say, ah, here's another category that could be exploited. Messages, themes are the stated messages and themes adequately supported by evidence in the text. Evidence in the text, it's so much about that, right? So, we're not asking students especially at the first levels and even at any level, we're not asking them to produce an interpretation of the text that would be the equivalent of a literary scholar. No, it's everything is relative to their level of language proficiency. However, the goal is getting students to be able to carry out a viable interpretation based on at least sufficient evidence from the text. Not all of the evidence, not everything, right? But it's that greatable sense of what is sufficient evidence. Because sometimes, you know, left to their own devices, students are just going to interpret based on their kind of cultural frame. And they're just going to throw an interpretation at something without really saying, oh, I see this in the text and this and blah, blah, blah. Okay, so that's the goal for messages, themes. And that's really from how you as the author of the text, how you're scaffolding that, how you're scaffolding students, adding to that point of understanding some of the basic messages or themes of the text. Now the lesson structure itself, text choice, objectives and level appropriateness are the text objectives and level well matched to the intended course level. Would the text and lesson be better fitted to a different level? And can the objectives be better stated or envisioned? What's so interesting is that over the years that we've done this workshop, a lot of people will find a great text, construct a nice lesson. And they always put it at a higher level because they think working with the literary is sophisticated and difficult. I'm asking my students to do something they've never done before. Therefore, they gear it to a much higher level. And I've also done reviewing of lessons and I'll say, you can do this in second semester. You don't have to wait to the advanced level. This is a text that could readily be done in second semester. Now, here is a question that some teachers have to work with. If you're in a program where it is submersion-like philosophy, where you're not supposed to use, let's say English as the common language in American University System, you're not supposed to use English in your course, that may be a question that you have to work around and say the goals of getting students the goals that we just went through kind of supersede the need in this particular case. Clearly, you don't want your class to turn into a discussion class in English. That's not the point, right? So how much of this is done maybe outside of class, that analytical work, that meta level thinking, which research shows is much more effectively done in the native language, first language, primary language. So those are decisions that you need to make. But my philosophy is, and you can see in my textbook, that I start very much in English with a lot of the instructions slowly built in French. Because otherwise, you would have to cut this all out and wait until a much more advanced level before you can really talk about the literary, which is what a lot of standard textbooks do. And yet, they never really talk about the literary. So, next one is scaffolding. Are there a variety of pedagogical modes or acts incorporated? Are the activities sequenced coherently to support learners in these two ways? A, moving beyond basic comprehension questions or formal competencies and requiring students to interpret meaning when reading, viewing, listening. So going back to Chantel's presentation yesterday, right? So these pedagogical acts, analysis, right? So comprehension questions are the, really the, how should I say? Often the only way that standard textbooks gets to know what students understood about a text. And often those questions are anchored in the literal understanding, the who, what, when, where, why. And they don't go beyond that into really getting students to notice certain aspects of what is foregrounded, how is meaning really construed in this text. So we want to see in submitted lessons going beyond comprehension questions, getting students to really think more about how meaning is made. And the second part is developing students' understanding of language use through application of the pertinent areas of language play in the redesigning task, right? So here is where they become empowered. Here is where so much of that learning then comes into play for their own use, is taking what they've seen through all this analysis and then making it their own in a new task, in a new context, in a new situation, and possibly even a different genre, right, that redesigning task. Instructional languages, so the L1 or English and the L2 or possibly L3, whatever those languages are in your lesson. Are these used purposefully and clearly, right? So again, my feeling is that you can code switch in particularly depending on the level. But at the lower levels, you can code switch. But you want to make sure that the languages of instruction are clear and are going to get the results that you're stating. Yeah. So is it possible to code a switch if you're dealing with parallel students? That's a call for you to make. So depending on what you're asking, if it's a concept that you wouldn't, well, how should I say, if it's really a new cultural concept, that they don't have a readily usable term for or notion for, you can. I mean, my feeling is that if it's justifiable, if you, as the lesson constructor, author, if you can justify use of English or whatever native language you want, yes. So I guess that I am. But the balance then becomes what, yeah, what is, if it overbalances, what, you know, yeah. So I talked about the idea of, or not I, but the MLA report talks about Translingual Transcultural Competence. To me, that often, it requires you to at sometimes evoke different cultural framework. So it's easy to do when you go back and forth. Code switching allows you to evoke the different framework. So I do, what she's talking about, what Joanna's saying is that it should be purposeful. So if you intentionally want to draw their attention, students' attention to it, here's the conceptual system of English. When you use this word in English, it has this baggage and here's what happens in another language. That's purposeful. So we're, what we're saying is you can do that as long as it's clear to other people what you're doing, right? And it makes sense, I think, in this approach to go back and forth between languages, since that's how it was to operate between two languages, but to do it kind of with an awareness that that's what you're doing. Yeah. Yeah. So again, within this Section B lesson structure, background and context is sufficient background and contextual information given to students or made available to them through student research. So that's a kind of a question when we ask, what do students need to know when it comes to cultural constructs and practices or even grammatical, whatever, what do they need to know at this moment of time within, for this text in order for them to make sufficient meaning out of this text? So you have the choice. You've got three things that you need to decide. One is how much information, then what form do you want that information to come in? Do you want to provide it for them? It can be links to something that's online. It can be something that you write. It can be, you know, whatever, an image. It can be a video. It can be, or do you want students to go out and do a little bit of research? So again, in that flipped concept, if you want them as preparation for the next class to do some research on something, sometimes maybe for historical information, if you're talking about a different period of time, you want them to do a little bit of research, but make your research focused, right? If you just say, you know, look at the Enlightenment era, right? Well, yeah, they can go to Wikipedia and they can get a pretty quick sense of it, but be a little bit more precise in what you want them to look for so they're not just spending hours or coming up with something that's so vague or broad that it's not really applicable or not sufficiently applicable. Yeah. Mariana, she went to Wikipedia. She's looking at a Brazilian author and it has a lot of information, but she adapted the Wikipedia, Wikipedia is obviously open. Yeah. So she has that background information about the author. A lot of you will probably want to do that. Yes. So that's, yeah, that's good practice. And that is something that came up. So even images, if you want to include background information about the author, they'll often, in Wikipedia, they'll often have a picture of the author that is open and they'll have a text about the author that you can modify and there. You can include that very readily in your open lesson. So turning your sheet over and continuing still with the notion of lesson structure is critical feeling and languageality. Does the lesson invoke a critical feeling along with critical thinking? Does it effectively foster languageality along with languaging? Now these are things that everyone has to kind of define for themselves. And so the reviewer, we're getting into something that is far from being black and white, right? And it's something that we're all developing a sense of as we go along. So when you first start writing a flight lesson, you may not yet really get that. But the reviewer might be able to give you some input feedback that might help you to go a little bit further with that. But the goal is helping students to then also engage in these dimensions in developing those skills and strategies. Again, when it comes to rich points, for example, a lot of it is going to have to be intuitive. We can't depend when we're out in the real world. We can't depend on, and yes, we do often depend on technology. Well, we go to Wikipedia and say, oh, I have this question. What does this mean? What does this mean? You can often get it. But let's say you don't have your technology and you don't have a native informant or whatever you want right there to answer your questions. Well, you need to develop an intuition about, oh, maybe I'm encountering a cultural construct here that I don't really understand. And once you start developing that sense, that noticing, then you also start to develop a different way of asking questions and a different way of negotiating those moments. It doesn't mean that you'll avoid all pitfalls. That's impossible. But it makes you better able to manage those moments and to not be as maybe potentially frightened by them or stressed or surprised. I mean, surprise can be a positive thing. It's like, whoa, that's cool. Yes, you want those moments. Those aha moments. Perspectivizing cultural activities. So does the lesson consider what kind of social action the text is engaging? And does the lesson relate the text to larger practices or cultural activity? So kind of, yeah, perspectivizing or contextualizing cultural activities kind of works against that notion of culture with a capital C that's often transmitted in textbooks. But are you looking further to a more interpersonal systems based approach of what this activity means within that cultural context to other people, et cetera? And finally, for this section, assessment. Assessment is not something that is specifically part of this workshop. But formative assessment is kind of embedded in lessons. And so we do want to be thinking about this. And Chantel is going to be talking a little bit further about assessment this afternoon. But here is at least something we wanted to start planting seeds. Because as you go along, we're hoping that you will remain in touch with the website and with the flight project and with us. And as we go along and as we start, we are planning to write a teacher's guide, which is going to bring together all of these different dimensions of what we're working with. And once you have that kind of a resource, we'll be able to talk a lot more about assessment and give examples, et cetera. A quick tip that I say about assessment for the flight approach is that it's not about creating new unseen modes of assessment. It's about changing your criteria. So you can use rubrics. But the rubric has to include questions about the literary along with the literal. It has to also include maybe broader questions about all of these areas of language play, right? Whatever areas of language play you're embedding in your lesson, that has to be reflected in assessment. Going beyond comprehension questions, et cetera. So here for the editorial checklist, we have our formative assessment modes built into the lesson. Do these modes reflect flight principles? Process over products, so designing and redesigning. Peer editing or peer response, so social meaning making or design and reflection, creative and critical awareness of available designs. And formative assessment, of course, is profoundly different from summative. Summative is where we get into these standardized tests and practices. And we also have responses to how over time, and you can't change standardized tests overnight. I mean, it's a long process. But once you start working with the flight approach, it's going to start changing the way that you think about language and about teaching. And it's not an overhaul. It's not overwhelming. You introduce one lesson in your curriculum. And little by little, you start to tweak here and there. And before you know it, over time, you've changed in some kind of profound way your assessment. And so you change the way, I mean, your curriculum. You change the way that you view assessment and include those aspects. You modify that notion of backwards planning that was introduced a number of years ago in foreign language teaching is that you look at your end goals and then you make sure that your curriculum and then within that curriculum, your lessons, are building toward those end goals. So finally, section C about open education reflects what you've been doing this morning, the licensing and citations. Does the lesson give a URL for copyrighted content, the text, image, video, et cetera? And a CC-CY or a CC-BY essay license for open content. So these are all the things that the editorial board members go through, their checklist, and provide you feedback for. Because again, this is about professional development, not about, oh, you failed. No thanks. It's about, no, we want you to publish. We want you to share. We want you to be part of this project.