Historically, as students were preparing to exit their language program as majors or minors at Brigham Young University, we would assess the students with an ACTFL OPITM with Diagnostic Comments which provides details around the rating/evaluation of their language. It was a tool in their toolbelt, but one that we gave them when they were leaving the university. It was a time when they’d no longer have access to instructors and no longer have access to the same educational resources and opportunities they had as students.
Agentive learning suggests that students are able to use their agency or power of individual choice in determining aspects of their learning process. Many times, instructors hope students will use their agency to take certain actions (e.g. spend time in the language lab, live in the foreign language student residence, see a professor during office hours, etc.). However, it’s less common for instructors to actively engage or empower agentive learning with good information and resources to guide learners in their choices. This is one reason why BYU has reconsidered the timing of when they deliver Diagnostic Grids.
Diagnostic Grids as Learning Supports
For some context, at Brigham Young University, we have a lot of students who come to the university at a higher than Novice proficiency level, due to prior experience living abroad during mission service. We had an optional placement test they could take if they were unsure what class to enroll in, but in 2021, we began experimenting with a new strategy. We transitioned to using the ACTFL OPIc rather than OPI, coupled with Diagnostic Grids, and with different timing.
Diagnostic Grids can be ordered (for an additional fee) when requesting an OPIc/OPI/WPT. A Diagnostic Grid provides a brief description of the type of performance typically observed at a specific level of proficiency (based on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2024) as well as evaluates language performance indicators (e.g., functional ability in the target language). The grid provides a sense of what a test candidate demonstrated they can and cannot do, as evidenced by the language they produced during their assessment.
With the award of some grant money, we began looking at administering ACTFL OPIc tests with Diagnostic Grids at the start of their language program. We have students do a self-assessment based loosely on NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements, and then they also take an OPIc with a Diagnostic Grid. We then ask students to look at the Diagnostic Grid and consider whether it confirms what they identified as being able to do in their self-assessment. We ask them what kind of language learning plan they can create to expand their proficiency throughout the rest of their studies. The reality is it’s hard for students to reach higher levels of proficiency without some kind of independent study and exploration, especially when they come to our university already at an intermediate or advanced proficiency level.
Empowering Students and Faculty
The use of the Diagnostic Grid has the potential to empower students to see that they can work on text type or accuracy, for example, beyond what might be the slated curriculum in a given language course. And the power of this at the start of a program is that they still have access to language labs, their faculty, and other rich resources.
Using the Diagnostic Grid as an instructional support becomes a tool for the student, as an agentive learner, but also for the faculty. We are in the beginning stages, but the potential is for faculty to be aware of what students have identified as specific areas they want to target in their language development and what personal plans the students have developed for themselves.
Ultimately, this is a strategy to have students use information in the OPIc Diagnostic Grid to develop personal/independent strategies to expand their language growth throughout their time at the university.
To guide them in developing their personal proficiency plan, in our department we’ve developed some tutorials with insights and tips to help them move from Intermediate High to Advanced Low, for example. We want to help them have some concrete ideas on how they can continue developing their language skills.
Is It Working?
As with any new intervention, it takes time to monitor the impact of what we’re doing. We’re still in the very early stages and taking baby steps each year. What we know we’re doing with this initiative at a minimum is helping students develop noticing skills (Schmidt, 1990). The practice of self-assessing and comparing that to an external diagnostic evaluation is noteworthy in and of itself. A peripheral benefit might also be increased awareness and understanding of the ACTFL proficiency scale and what a rating means, starting early on in a language program.
Developing a personal proficiency plan takes the evaluation of information one step further and turns it into an actionable item that can facilitate growth and development. Facilitating student creation of a personal plan also helps them exercise agency in their language development that happens independently or outside of the classroom and assigned activities. We are interested to see how students and faculty evolve as we continue this assessment strategy.
Watch highlights from a recent interview with Troy Cox.
