Modern Languages Self-Reflection

During the spring of 2016, the faculty members of the Modern Language department engaged
in a series of self-reflective conversations on the following areas:

shared goals and objectives

current leveling and language requirements
program retention beyond language requirements
the language waiver at Milton Academy
immersion and experiences
extra-curricular programming
use of technology

Based on these conversations, the following emerged as the departments strengths:

dedicated faculty with diverse areas of interest and expertise
departmental structure that includes and acknowledges disparate needs of teachers of
different languages
opportunities for students to pursue a range of levels of language learning
commitment to teaching culture, history, and literature alongside listening and
speaking skills
commitment to engaging students with multiple kinds of authentic sources of
language
The areas of inquiry that emerged from these conversations raise the following questions:
I.

What does it mean to offer language instruction for our times?

A. How can we develop a shared understanding of current research on language
instruction?
B. How does our teaching of culture support the skills of navigating cultural
difference?
1. Does teaching culture (through music, literature, art, etc.) necessarily
result in cultural competency?
2. Do our courses cultivate more tolerant mindsets in our students?
3. What are the most effective approaches for teaching both culture and
cultural competency?
C. How do translation technologies challenge and/or support currently used
approaches of language instruction?

II.

To what extent do our current program offerings, including our pace of instruction,
meet the language goals and needs of current students?
A. What kinds of reading and writing experiences should each student encounter
at every level of our program?
B. How can we better motivate students to pursue language courses upon
completion of the level 3 graduation requirement?
C. To what extent do our language offerings, including the possibility of a language
waiver, meet the needs of all language learners, including those with
language-based learning disabilities?

III.

What shared goals and practices should be cultivated across our department?
A. What shared pedagogical practices inform our teaching of literature, history and
cultural competency?
B. How do we balance these aspects of language instruction within our curriculum?
C. What feedback and assessment methods best serve our programs goals?
1. To what extent do current homework and grading practices allow for
growth and mastery of the target language?
2. To what extent do our assessments reflect the variety of pedagogical
approaches (writing, listening, conversation, etc.) that we use in daily
instruction?
D. What shared approaches to course design might we consider?
1. Might we design instruction with course groups as an ongoing practice?
2. Might we design instruction with level-based groups as an ongoing
practice?
E. What is the role of the textbook in the modern language course?
What structures have we inherited that are no longer aligned with department
goals/values?
A. How does our current graduation requirement serve heritage speakers, native
speakers, and bilingual students?
B. To what extent does leveling, particularly the 2/3 designation, serve our students
learning?
1. Might we consider leveling by desired outcome (i.e, speaking proficiency,
written proficiency, literary proficiency)?
2. Might we consider some other kind of leveling that allows students more
choice in their desired outcome?
C. How does our current schedule for language instruction align with how we now
know students learn languages?

IV.