 My name is Carl Blythe, and I want to welcome everybody to Coral's webinar today, presented by Joanna Lux, who is coming to us from Cornell University, and of course she'll be talking to us about the project. Her project, Foreign Languages and the Literary in the Everyday, is actually a joint project between Coral and another National Foreign Language Resource Center, and that's Circle at the University of Arizona. There are really three co-directors. There's Joanna, who will be speaking today, and then myself, and Chantel Warner, who I hope is joining us from the University of Arizona. Coral stands for the Center for Open Educational Resources and Language Learning. We are one of 16 National Foreign Language Resource Centers, and we're all funded by the U.S. Department of Education as a Title VI grant. If you want to follow up this webinar and visit our website, we ask you to do that, and you'll find more information about this project. Flight.org, it's a very easy URL to remember. Assessment, of course, is crucial to foreign language learning and teaching, and it was a topic that came up during our workshop this past summer. Joanna and I and our collaborator Chantel from Arizona, the three of us, were leading a workshop, and a lot of the people in the workshop asked for more information about how to assess this kind of multiliteracy learning. And so, of course, we're responding to the demand out there. Joanna has been thinking a lot about this. So let me just say Joanna is, as the slide says, the senior lecturer in the French program at the Department of Romance Studies at Cornell University. I've known Joanna for many years. And I think one of the things that I think is kind of the hallmark of her teaching is an interest in cognitive approaches to language learning and language teaching, cognitive linguistics. And so she came to me a couple of years ago. She was using one of our OER, an open educational resource, something that's free and carries an open copyright. And she was using it in her lower division classes. And she said, I really like it, but I like to tweak it. I'd like to change it. And so she came up with some great ideas for using literary works for beginning French language learning. And out of that collaboration grew this entire project because I started talking to her about open education and how to create more open materials. And then she ended up finishing this entire manual of materials, literacy materials that she called the Litteraire dans le quotidien, or the literary in the everyday. So she's going to be talking to us today about assessment. So let me turn things over to Joanna. Joanna, take it away. All right, this webinar is the third in our series for providing professional development in relationship to the flight approach. The first that we gave last spring was an introduction to the concept of flight. And as Carl has already mentioned, that's the acronym for foreign languages and the literary in the everyday. And it was also that first webinar, an introduction to the project as a whole, which included the notion of publishing. The second webinar was on creating flight lessons. And that's one that Chantel Warner gave. And now for this third webinar, the focus is on assessment. So I'm going to begin actually recapping the first webinars. I'll provide an overview of assumptions for the flight approach. And then I'm going to talk a little bit about some contrasts with rule-based assumptions. I'll then talk about flight categories of literary play and the aim of flight pedagogy. And those are things that for those of you who have listened to previous webinars you'll be broadly familiar with. And then we'll look more specifically for this webinar about flight learning outcomes for reading and a brief discussion of cultural gaps and thinking trans-culturally. We'll move on to assessment tools for reading and then do the same for writing, learning outcomes, and then the assessment tools. And I will say, since I hope to cover a lot of material in this, that for the Q&A I'll already give you a heads up. If you need to leave early or if I don't get to finish responding to questions that you may have, we can continue this in written form on the Facebook page. And we'll be giving you more information about that at the end. So, okay, before I actually begin then I would like to do a bit of polling, which I see people are already responding to. I want to get an idea of your assessment practices for literacy development. So there are two questions that I would like you to take a few moments to answer. The first you will see is the question, what kinds of formats do you typically use to assess learners, and it's supposed to be reading ability in the target language. And we have a number of options already available for you, including other, and we'll be able to broadcast those results. When you finish with that question, the second question I would like you to answer is, what criteria do you typically include in rubrics you use for assessing target language writing? So I will give you a few moments to answer those questions. All right, we can, I'll be able to take a look at your responses a little bit later, but in essence for those of you who are new to the flight approach, you may begin to guess that flight involves non-standard assessment practices. So by the end of this webinar, you will begin to see which of your practices would be a good fit for flight, which ones might be tweakable, and which ones are incompatible with flight principles. So I'm going to give a quick review or overview of some of the primary flight assumptions. The first is, as Carl mentioned earlier, that flight is a text-based approach that aligns with multiple literacies. So two things that really come to the fore. The first is that it acknowledges texts as internally coherent systems of meaning. So that can involve written, spoken, visual, cultural, personal modes. The second is that it assumes that framing texts in this way, meaning framing them as internally coherent systems, is instrumental for acquisition not only for the foreign language, but also for the foreign culture. And all of this particularly in the context of K through 16 competencies and curricular articulation. Because very importantly, one of the goals of this approach is to help bridge the gap between language, cultural, and literary studies. So this aligns completely with multiple literacies, but flight, because it has built into this notion of the literary in the everyday, which I'll talk about a little bit more in a moment, it has its own particularities as well. So more specifically, we see that flight acknowledges languages, not only texts, but languages as dynamic systems of meaning making. So a language provides prototypes, and this is a notion that comes specifically from prototype theory. It provides prototypes of meanings and forms that are available for possible manipulation. So agency on the part of the speaker or writer to fit the context and the writer or speaker's control. And we can talk about this as metaphorical extensions of prototypical meanings. And these can range from standard connotations to idiomatic and poetic usage. Now, this is heady stuff, and it's not easy to grasp in a nutshell. So something that may help to consider is the contrast in assumptions and principles that flight, which is a systems-based approach, presents in relationship to rule-based assumptions and practices. So rule-based methodologies, which are the norm, they are the dominant paradigm, conceptualized languages as static sets of rules and exceptions to rules. And as a result, idiomatic and poetic usage fall outside the paradigm. And therefore, students cannot be expected to independently comprehend idiomatic poetic usage when they encounter it for the first time. So they're dependent upon explanations given either by the teacher or by the textbook. They also cannot learn idiomatic or poetic usage other than by memorization or through frequent exposure and practice, which may not be the aim of the curriculum, right? We don't necessarily want to spend a lot of time learning usage that is specific to a particular text. So going back then to the literary in the title, The Literary in the Everyday, it refers to this plasticity of language and the many dimensions of metaphorical extensions that a language permits. But here's the thing, right? So most language teachers do not have training in working with language in this way, nor do they have quick and easy reference resources to consult, at least not at this point. So in order to make this way of thinking and working with language more accessible to teachers and students alike, the flight approach aims to scaffold intuitive knowledge. And we do this by conceptualizing the kinds of mechanisms that are used for manipulating meanings and forms as categories of literary play. So these categories cover the full range of, let's say, dimensions of language. So sounds, images, words, grammar. And here we talk about paradigm subversion and grammatical metaphors. Genre play that can involve intertextuality or genre mixing. Narrative play, which is similar to genre play but more specific because there are so many different modes for storytelling. Pragmatic play involves interactional modes, perspective play, symbolic play, and culture play. Because when a writer, this is now talking about authentic materials, when a writer is involving cultural notions and the assumption is that his or her readers understand those things, they often play with stretching, manipulating those references, those associations in order to produce new meaning. So keeping in mind the ultimate objective of learning to make meaning in a foreign language, we can say that the most fundamental aim of flight pedagogy is helping learners to become effective users of target language systems and language play. So I'm going to repeat that. The fundamental aim of flight pedagogy is helping learners to become effective users of target language systems and language play. All right, so we're ready to talk about learning outcomes that are specific to the flight approach. And these outcomes are meant to be tailored to a given language proficiency level, and this is from beginning to advanced. So again, people who are new to this approach might think, oh, this sounds very sophisticated. Can this really be done from the very beginning? And the answer is yes. So the can-dos are the same, but the language structures, tasks, strategies, questions, responses all, of course, need to be geared to the student's proficiency level. And this includes the use of English for meta-level work at the introductory and even intermediate levels when needed. And this use of English is seen as helping to contribute to language acquisition. It is not simply avoiding talking about things in the target language, because it might be difficult. It really is getting students to work in different ways than standard textbook approaches do. So all right, learning outcomes for reading. There are five, essentially, and the first is about interpreting. So the can-dos interpret the meaning of designated elements of a text or whole text. This is just basic comprehension, something that we all assume as a learning outcome for reading. The second is find evidence in the text to support interpretations. This is also commonly utilized, but now we start getting into other areas that are perhaps more specific to flight. So number three is make connections between multimodalities in the text. Because often there are multimodalities, even if it's not as explicit as a combination of an image and text. There may be differences more subtly within genres, etc. So making connections between multimodalities and making hypotheses about the implications of an author's choices of language or imagery in order to confirm interpretations. What does it mean when an author has a number of choices in expressing a certain notion? What does it mean that the author chooses what is evident in the text? And how does this contribute to this internally coherent system? The fourth is about intuiting new meanings and based on knowledge of relevant prototypes and context. So we will be talking more about prototypes, but the notion of intuiting new meanings as opposed to stumbling along and just assuming taking meaning at face value. And the last has to do with questioning assumptions and possible gaps in knowledge that might clarify instances of miscomprehension. Students are frustrated by not understanding things and part of this is about helping them to gain agency instead of just glossing over, stopping and saying, okay, here is this tension point in the text from you and helping them to do something about them. Okay, so the first outcome pertains to comprehension, so let's turn to an assessment tool. In this workshop that we mentioned this past summer, one of the participants, Carol Orloff, so Carol shared a technique used in elementary education for helping students to write a summary of a story as assessment for their reading comprehension. And it's a nice, concise technique that could be useful at the introductory levels of college foreign language courses. So I'm going to expand on the idea and provide examples of what I'll call prompted summary writing. And it's a technique that can be applied to any text type. The key for the teacher is identifying the organization of a given text and then providing effective prompts. So I'll give the example that Carol had shared with us. And this is for what you might think of as a prototypical European narrative. So on the left you have the narrative arc or structure going from exposition, which is the introduction, and the prompt could be very simply character that the name of the character was. Then you have your rising action. What is the character's objective? And this could be prompted by simply indicating character wanted. Then you have the problem that arises, the crisis indicated by but. The climax, which complicates that crisis further, becomes yet, the falling action, so. Here is your solution indicated by so, and finally the resolution indicated by then. So you don't need to provide the structure to the students, simply the prompts. The character was, character wanted, but yet so then. And this is also nice at the introductory levels, of course, because it gets students working directly with conjunctions and logical connectors that are so important for them to understand in reading and also then to produce in writing for this coherence of a text and understanding. All right, so you can now take this notion of prompted summary writing, and if you're working with, say, a hero's journey narrative, you can change your prompts to character was, character wanted, but then, and then, finally, so. And if you're working with a news article, here you have your typical event, who, what, when, where. But when it comes to the why, I think it might be useful to add in how and so, because often the why doesn't give a sense of closure. How does this really pull together, again, as an internally coherent message or text. And finally, if we go to opinion piece, it could simply be for the topic, the who, what, and then the prompts, but and so. All right, so you get the gist, right? So prompted summary writing becomes a productive pattern for any kind of text type, and summary writing can then, of course, be used both for formative and summative assessment. But here's the rub. So Swaffer and Arons provide an example of what they call cultural gaps in their book, remapping the foreign language curriculum and approach through multiple literacies. And this was published in 2005. This next slide is a long text. I'm going to ask you to do two things. I'm going to ask you to read the text, and I'm also going to ask you to afterwards post a quick reaction or response. And if you would do this quite simply in the questions box, that would be great. Okay, so I'll give you a few moments to read and then write your reaction or response. Okay, I think I'm going to pick up again. I see some really interesting comments. I like the notion of, yeah, it makes me think how much I might be missing when I'm reading, whether it's in your native language or foreign language is inevitably going to be the case to some degree. But also, Abby's question, how do we help our students not fall into the trap of reading from their culture, which may or may not be the same as our own? Yes, clearly, this is the objective. This is where I'm trying to lead. So to some extent, while it is always, in a sense, surprising to see results presented with such clarity, in a certain sense, it's not that surprising. We do know that we run into these cultural conflicts when we're encountering a text, thoughts from someone who comes from another language and culture, and that this is going to impact our comprehension when we don't know or have the same associations for words that are referenced. But further research has brought to light something that is unanticipated and extremely important for defining learning outcomes and assessment for reading comprehension, and that is the consequences of the inability to think trans-culturally. So this is, again, something that Swafer and Aaron's put so nicely together as an example in their book. So the unanticipated consequences of this inability to think trans-culturally, one would presume that after reading additional text about American wedding practices, the Indian readers would find their earlier inferences inadequate or inappropriate. However, subsequent research on foreign language reading suggests that students resist correction of first impressions, that initial misapprehensions about textual features can become entrenched misreadings. Now this is, you know, when I first read this, when the book came out, a light went off for me and I thought, wow, I don't want to just always have to explain. And yes, there are things that students will miss and that's fine. There are things that I'll miss because I'm not a native speaker of French. I'm not from, you know, from that culture, from that language. So there's only so much that I can do as being a voice of authority. But that's just fine because really ultimately the goal is getting the kinds of tools and strategies to help ourselves when we encounter another language and culture. So this is why the flight approach aims to articulate interpretation. It's not just when we talk about reading comprehension. We have to go a step further and we can even call this receptive meaning making for reading. So let's look again at the intended outcomes, the learning outcomes and how we can scaffold interpretation through these outcomes. So beyond just comprehension, yes, finding evidence in the text, making connections between multimodalities and the author's choices, intuiting new meanings using knowledge of prototypes and context, and questioning assumptions to find possible instances of misunderstanding. So the assessment tools that I developed and that I developed in general are designed to get students to rethink, to question, to reassess their first impressions. And the first tool that I'm going to show you is actually a modified version of what I had presented in the summer workshop as this reading worksheet, and I'm going to walk you through the key steps. So getting students to write down their first impressions. So after they've read a text, one first step is then read the text once fairly quickly and without consulting a dictionary, then write a summary of the text in the target language in three or four sentences. And the second question is identify the type or genre of the text. So the instructions here are intentionally vague, right, they're unprompted, in order to get students to exactly fall into the likely trap of miscomprehension. And this includes the genre because in my experience when students are left to their own devices, they often don't take genre into consideration when they're reading. And if you're reading a text that involves genre play, some kind of maybe blended or non-canonical genre, they often don't realize that genre play is involved and this constitutes a kind of cultural gap in and of itself. Right, if they can't understand the genre, that's going to impact their comprehension of the text. So the next steps involve data collecting. And that's on three levels, vocabulary, ideas, and context. So for vocabulary, I ask students to read the text a second time and to underline the words, phrases that they cannot decode, and then look for those translations or definitions in a dictionary. This is typical stuff, right, paying attention to the grammar of the keywords in their context. And I ask them to write the English translations for the prototypical or primary meanings in the margins. And I do this specifically because this is what students normally do. They look for meanings, they tend to jump on the first one that they see, and without questioning that. So I want to sort of consciously make that separation between the primary meaning and what may in fact be a more metaphorical extension of that meaning. And we'll work on that in the following step, but for now, get down those primary meanings. The next step is related to ideas. What do you understand to be one or more of the main themes of a text? Now themes may be something that you have to do a little work with with your students. Give them some examples before you expect them to be able to do this on their own. And then the fifth has to do with contexts. And so here they do some basic research in English or the target language about the text, the author, and any cultural or historical phenomena referenced in the text. So of course they could do this online rather quickly. And then note three or four pieces of information that might help you to better understand the text. And what's interesting is that very often one key piece of information that they discover about a text can really help them to start rethinking their understanding. And this leads us then to the reassessment stage. And here is where, in the note two instructor, you should, before you give them this kind of reading worksheet, you would choose words, phrases, dimensions of the text in advance, whose meanings are impacted by flight categories of play. So for those of you who have already been working with the idea of creating a lesson, you'll understand this notion better. But the text that you choose should have some kind of play involved in it. And so that's what you want to focus on here. And so the instructions to the students, with your research in mind, look for evidence in the text to confirm or modify your first interpretations. Make connections into it, new meanings, question assumptions. So here you would have your list now of, or iteration in some form of, what it is you want them to really look at and question. Did they really understand that word, wedding, you know? Also ask them to rethink the type or genre of text as a result of this. And then finally, their summary. So again, not to think that this is necessarily going to give them full comprehension of a text. There may still be things that they will miss. But having them go through these steps can bring out areas of miscomprehension that would have just simply been glossed over otherwise. And it gets them developing those intuitions about, hmm, there's something going on here I don't quite get. Yeah, let me rethink this and let me see what I can do to resolve this problem on my own. They may not be able to, but it's already a very important step to take. And I will say that also notice here that for the text summary, it might be a nice idea to use the prompted summary writing technique that I mentioned earlier. It might better guide interpretations in comparison to the first call for them to just write a summary, right, unprompted. All right. Well, this master reading worksheet, which includes additional tasks, can be found actually on the flight website. And if you go to the how to page and scroll down to flight resources on that page, I think this document is now under teacher guides. So again, you can find the full document, which includes additional tasks. The next model for a scaffolding formative assessment for reading that I wanted to touch on is social reading. And I've talked about this in a number of presentations. So for those of you who may not be familiar with it, social reading is an internet based activity in which students collaboratively read, annotate, and comment upon a shared text. So I have uploaded to this same website that's indicated here about the flight resources, a document that's called social reading and interpretation strategies. And it also includes background information that might be helpful for students and perhaps to yourselves. It also involves an example activity in French that guides students through the intended steps. There are many applications that one can use for social reading. I happen to use e comma because it is hosted by it was created actually and hosted by coral. It's also therefore an open resource. So free to use. And it's also very user friendly. So if you want to take a look at what that is you have here the website and the web link. Okay, what I want to do now is walk you through just the interpretation strategies that I asked students to follow. And then I'll show you the corresponding performance rubric. So the first strategy is what I call red flagging. So I asked students to read the text with your gut. Now whenever you experience a point of tension, surprise, annoyance, curiosity, disappointment, disapproval, confusion, emotional distance, right? All of these things, these emotional triggers. Flag the word or passage by highlighting it and then write a comment that identifies your reaction and the source of tension that produced it. So I'm getting here back to the notion of how do we help students to develop more concrete strategies for getting at these moments of conflict of coming up against another cultural construct. So it's about following your gut. Next we have questioning the text and assumptions. So students are as they're reading, red flagging, they're writing comments. So the idea is to ask yourself not only about your own comments or questions but reading your classmates. What sort of assumptions might you or your classmates be making? What questions can be raised to help identify a possible cause for a tension point in comprehension? Next is about finding evidence. So since this is an internet-based activity, they have access to various tools for doing research. And one includes the word cloud because in e-comma, in any event, it does generate a word cloud. And in the document that I mentioned about social reading and interpretation strategies, there are some suggestions for how you may use word cloud, the word cloud for helping to get at finding evidence. And then the obvious other kinds of references, resources, etc. that you can use for getting meanings of words or historical cultural information. The fourth and final step then is formulating an evidence-based interpretation. So when you have a working interpretation that is founded on evidence, and here the way I define it is context clues plus supplemental information. So this can be linguistic or cultural, historical, social. Then share your interpretation. And again, I define this as a definition, a synonym and explanation with the group, citing sources where necessary. And this is where a very important point to get across for students. Do not make guesses about meaning based on what you feel or imagine. We all tend to do that. That's our reference point. But that's exactly where we run into problems. So look for evidence that goes beyond what we may feel or imagine. Alright, so then the performance rubric that goes along with this is very simply taking those strategies of red flagging, questioning the text, finding evidence, formulating an evidence-based interpretation, putting it into a rubric. And of course here I'm just putting a basic rubric of excellent good competence, etc. You can adapt that accordingly as with any rubric. It has to be effective for your particular audience and context. Alright, so moving on to summative assessment for reading. Summative assessment is quite a different story, particularly at the lower levels. I've noticed that already in your quick responses, oops I'm going to go back here for a moment, that most people use the standard true, false, multiple choice, etc. kinds of questions at the lower levels. This tends to be what we rely on. But I'm going to show you a technique for tweaking this kind of assessment tool for multiple choice questions in particular, whether they're short answer or multiple choice comprehension questions. And to help it to begin to align with some of the principles of flight. So it's kind of a hybrid solution. It's not elegant, but it's at least a bit of an improvement. So we have tweaking a standardized reading comprehension question. So based on the reading passage, write the answers to the following questions. So I've broken it up into part A, part B. For part A you write your answers in English and part B, note all of the language in the text in, whatever your target language is, that provides proof for your answer in part A. So this was from a very simple test. What was Jeanne's profession before he began making films? And part A would be their English answer, part B would be the language from the text. And here's the tweaked answer key. So you can break it down into two points per part. But then you also want students focusing on details. So very often a question will have maybe an answer will have two parts to it and you want to get them to provide as much information as they can. So the one and the part A, the part B are each two points, but then you can subdivide those further into one point per detail and partial credit were applicable. So the answer in fact is he was a technician for the PTT or the Postal Service. And in the B part you see the full sentence that the student could potentially write down that embeds that answer or those answers. Now anecdotally, last spring I taught a section of a course that was designed along the lines of a traditional communicative language teaching curriculum. And I suggested this approach for the reading comprehension sections of the chapter tests. And interestingly, we found that students had higher success rates in answering the questions. And my very informal conclusion, right, so this is not a study, but I mean it seems fairly reasonable to assume, is that while this technique doesn't involve most of the flight principles, at the very least getting students to look for evidence in the text helps them to avoid, let's say, misreading the questions or making hasty choices to answers. This is often why students in fact generate errors. It's not necessarily about the potential to understand, it's that they're not looking carefully for evidence. So in thinking about your answers to the poll that you gave earlier about your own assessment criteria after the webinar, think about how you might tweak your assessments and work backwards of course from there into how you might tweak your reading tasks. Okay, so we're running out of time, let's jump to writing. The outcomes for writing, the first is demonstrate mastery of designated prototypes. So can the student write a coherent text in a given genre? But the second is demonstrate ability to manipulate language systems through categories and mechanisms of literary play in order to improve textual coherence and style, right? This is bringing it all together. So a writing assignment, this is flight lessons for those of you who are not yet familiar with it. The text that encodes some kind of category of play is then carried through into the writing assignment so students are asked to now work with that category of play in the writing tasks. So here is an example of a writing assignment. Write a simple poem on the theme of introducing a fellow student, real or imagined, to the class by characterizing an aspect of his or her interests, activities or personality. Use the vocabulary of this chapter in your textbook and incorporate rhyming and the use of base nouns as adjectives for standard and metaphorical meanings. Now this was related, I'm sorry, to an activity that I gave. This is in my textbook for Le Laitérieur dans le quotidien, the French textbook that I ended up producing, which is the starting point for the flight project. And before I go further in explaining this, I did want to just take a step back for a moment and talk about the word creativity. It's a hot button item these days and I see it frequently used in talks and articles about language pedagogy. So when you're working with rule-based practices, creativity tends to take the form of multimodality, combining images or film, music, text, and also in the content of the ideas that are expressed. So asking students to recount an unusual experience, for example, or I don't know, to sell an idea or to convince someone by using unexpected arguments. And I've even seen with projects or writing assignments that instructions will sometimes read be creative. So creativity about combining and also about content of ideas. So the thing is that with the flight approach, creativity also involves the way that language systems can be used to express nuances of meaning and construal. And this is actually why flight is so important for language acquisition. So keep in mind the literary is about language, not literature per se. And we will expand on this in future webinars but for now let's continue with this notion of creativity in the writing. So again, my textbook, so I linked the reading with the writing in each chapter and the writing assignment then leads to peer editing tasks that center on how meaning is made in the text. So again, here is the writing assignment and I asked them, the poem that they read for this included base nouns used as adjectives, which generated metaphorical meanings. So I asked students to do that in writing their poem. And they include some online tools for writing, which we don't have to look at here, but here let's get to the peer editing tasks. So topic development. Is the theme, and the theme here was introducing someone and characterizing his or her interests or activities or personality. Is the theme successfully developed? Is there enough information for having a clear picture of the person described? If not, what other information could be provided? And again, think about this. Normally with peer editing tasks, students tend to, and research corroborates this, students tend to focus on grammar and spelling. But the peer editing tasks that I provide are specifically related to how meaning is made in the text. So the second has to do with the choice and use of base nouns as adjectives. So I asked them to circle all the nouns that were used in this way and to tell your partner what you think the meanings are. And if you cannot understand a meaning, what suggestions can you offer for modifying the context or for choosing a different noun to use? Finally, the rhyme scheme. Read your partner's poem out loud and underline the words that seem to rhyme. If you don't know the pronunciation, ask your partner, etc. And then does the rhyme scheme seem successful to you, etc. So I then take these peer editing tasks. I mean, I want students to understand that their peer editing is extremely important for their final grade. And so the performance rubric, in fact, just takes those peer editing tasks. And I add a final one at the bottom, overall control of grammar and vocabulary being studied, because of course that is important. But I'm not asking them initially to focus on that with each other. That's something that I will give them feedback on. So the textbook that I wrote was conceived as a supplement to François Intractif, which is the first year textbook, an open textbook that was created at Coral. And it follows the grammar and vocabulary syllabus. But it's meant to provide reading, writing lessons that replace what is offered in François Intractif. And I designed the chapters to follow an inductive problem solving process for noticing and uncovering layers of meaning. So essentially, you can, if you go to the collections page of the flight website, which is actually under components. That's not shown here, but at the very top of the menu you can see the third category of components. You go there, you go to collections. And if you go down, the chapters of my textbook are included here. But if you click on the link to the textbook itself, you can see the full textbook. You can actually see the progression of activities. This is for the very first semester and second semester of French at the college level. And the instructional language of the first chapters are, the instructional language is in English. So regardless of the language that you teach and whether or not you understand French, you can read how I'm scaffolding and creating these lessons, the criteria and the assessment policies. And if you read German, you can also find Chantal Warner's lessons on this collections page. These are also all the French and the German examples linked to the examples page on the website. So we're trying to get you to focus, to access these things in different ways. But I think it may be easier if you're looking at the textbook to go through from this linked section. Because on the examples page, they're not organized in the same way. So you won't get that sequencing of strategies and knowledge. Okay, so a quick wrap up. There are two general aims for designing assessment tools. The first of course is matching assessment to the intended learning outcomes. And the second is keeping the grading workload manageable for instructors. This is just a huge part of the work that we do as teachers is grading. So I hope this webinar has given you ideas for both of these things in relationship to the flight approach. Keep in mind that it's possible to start integrating flight objectives on a small scale, if you're working with a more traditionally designed communicative language teaching curriculum. Also, remember that open education is about retaining, reusing, revising, reusing and redistributing materials. So we're keen to hear about your results, the results of your experiments. And Carl is going to show you the form that you can use. Actually, I guess I'll go to it and then I'll turn it over to Carl to speak for you. Yes, thank you so much, Joanna, for just filling us in quickly all the things that we missed. I'm glad that we were able to finish things. So I'm going to show the very last slide. Well, let me just make one comment about this slide. Flight, of course, as I said at the beginning, is a collaborative project where we're doing these things together. We have assembled an editorial team of language instructors from around the country who will give you feedback on your own lessons. So submit your work to us. We'll give you feedback on how to improve or how to make it conform more to the flight principles that Joanna was talking about. Today, we've been discussing assessment and the previous webinar we were talking about, the components of a lesson, building your lesson. So how do you actually publish this? We'll be our focus on the next webinar. How do you publish it to our archive? How do you go through the editorial process and get feedback and so forth? So we'll walk you through that process. How can you participate in flight? Some of you would like to have CPE credits, and we've given you the information there on how to do that. There's a link that you need to click on and then fill out the form and send it back to us. That information is in the lower left box there. And of course, you can get credit if you've registered for this. Let's see, I think Joanna, let's have a little bit of Q&A because there's a number of participants here. And instead of moving directly to the Facebook page, although we've also given you the link here and the questions to go online and take a look at the Facebook page, that would be great. But let's go ahead and just have a couple of minutes for any kind of questions. Write your questions in the box right there, and Joanna will answer them. Okay, so Joanna, take it over. Okay, so are any sample lessons for Spanish language classes forthcoming? Yes, there are. In fact, our choral collaborators that we mentioned at the beginning, that Carl mentioned at the beginning of the session, are actually all developing Spanish lessons. So we're very excited to have that included in the archive. Let me see, next question. Access to Survey, okay. Are there lessons from Mandarin Chinese? Not yet. Could you please get involved and help create some? Interestingly, my undergraduate major actually at Barnard and Columbia was Mandarin years and years and years ago. So I have a personal interest, I would love to have people develop lessons for Chinese. Not yet. Yes, so I hope people do see the point that we will be posting the webinar and the recorded webinar version and the slides in the flight page, that resources page that we indicated earlier. I really am sorry that it seems rather disjointed because my audio, I don't know why, cut out for a period of time. So I hope perhaps you can regain continuity by listening and looking at the slides anew. So another question, how much of the activities you describe for teaching, reading and writing are done in class and how much outside of class? Yes, in fact a lot of it is done outside of class with the goal of course of having them come in and have something concrete to discuss. When I do, when I've done social reading for example, that is done outside of class. And I prepare, I have time before class begins to then read through their various comments and I can provide more targeted kinds of feedback instead of just opening up discussion in a very broad way. I can see more explicitly where they're having problems understanding a text and if there is a cultural conflict, you know, constructs that are coming into play, I can help to break that down for them. And I found really just, it's such a wonderful tool, social reading for, it's a little bit like, what is the technique, think aloud. It's a little bit like think aloud except that people are writing instead of speaking. So yes, a lot of this work is done outside of class once again and at the lower levels if it involves a certain amount of use of English again then when they come into class that can be transposed in various ways into the target language. Let me see. Okay, so a little, very good for my Chinese. It's really hard for me now but I miss speaking Chinese, I have to say. Okay, I see that Carl is typing. Whoops. How do you get involved? Yes, okay, so if, yeah, on the resources page of the flight website for those of you who wish to get more involved, go to flight.org, so F-L-L-I-T-E.org. And in that resources page you have a number of videos and the slides, the PowerPoint slides from previous webinars. This is again the third in the series so you have the three, you will have this third one there too. You will also have documents that are teacher's guide kind of documents. And from my textbook I actually wrote a teacher's guide for the original textbook and that is included as well in that category of teacher guides. So you have a lot of materials to work with and you can also contact us. I mean we, as Carl was mentioning, have editorial boards and also you can contact me or Carl or Chantel. If you have a particular question and it might be easier or through the Facebook page, we are really trying to get the Facebook page up and active. I mean it's been up for some time, but getting people, as they become more familiar with and the flight approach and start applying it in the classroom, even in very small ways. You can then post not only a lesson that you've created, right, once you submit that for publication, but we're also interested in case studies, very informal case studies. I'm not talking about a paper here, a full study, just something that says informally, what did you do? How did students respond to it? What seemed to work? What didn't work? This is the way that we can really help to make an impact in teacher's practices, not just getting them listening to something, but getting you doing things, right? Getting involved in creating materials, experimenting, etc. Yes, so Carl posts, be sure to attend the next webinar on November 9th. So that's coming up just before Actful. Questions to address. Should the teacher know all the answers of any cultural questions in advance? Oh, that's an interesting question. The short answer is no, of course not. It's impossible for a teacher to know all the answers to cultural questions. And here's the interesting thing about the flight approach. It really is not just about students. It's about us as teachers opening ourselves up to the idea of exploring nuances of meaning and language play. And so for some teachers, this is going to be a difficult leap of faith, you know, to... I think you need to gain a certain amount of confidence in the sort of approaches and strategies to getting at cultural constructs, but not necessarily knowing definitely definitively the answer, right? It's about interpretation. It's about processes. It's about trying to make meaning, not about answers. So if there are any other questions that have been unanswered, again, we'll bring this over to the Facebook page. And in the next few days or whatever, we can continue the conversation there. So thank you so very much for joining. Hope to hear from you. Speak with you all soon.