{"id":4932,"date":"2025-10-02T14:28:41","date_gmt":"2025-10-02T14:28:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.languagetesting.com\/blog\/?p=4932"},"modified":"2026-02-03T23:01:04","modified_gmt":"2026-02-03T23:01:04","slug":"preparing-learners-for-the-aappl","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.languagetesting.com\/blog\/preparing-learners-for-the-aappl\/","title":{"rendered":"Preparing Learners for the AAPPL"},"content":{"rendered":"

Should I teach to the test?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

That sounds like the wrong approach, at least wrong if the test is not the right evidence of learners reaching the learning goals. But what if the test is the right test? What if the test accurately represents your learning targets, that is, what you want learners to be able to do as a result of the learning you guide every day?<\/p>\n

During my 16 years teaching Spanish to middle school and high school students, I was on a constant quest to ensure that my assessments mirrored how students were developing their language proficiency. As a result, assessments changed from focusing on specific vocabulary and grammatical structures to engaging tasks through which learners could demonstrate their application of what they had learned. Feedback also changed to highlight specific things that learners did to show how they were approaching, meeting, or exceeding the targeted proficiency level. I wish the ACTFL Assessment of Performance toward Proficiency in Languages (AAPPL)<\/a> had existed when I was teaching, as it represents the kind of evidence of growth along the proficiency continuum that I was trying to capture through my unit level formative and summative assessments. What a great match; of course I want to teach to this test!<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

So, how can I best prepare my learners for the AAPPL?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

I should not be surprised that learners do better on classroom-based assessments than an external assessment that focuses on proficiency since they are based on what the students have practiced, are tailored to the proficiency range targeted for the course, and focus on familiar content (i.e., the current unit). This archery analogy from expert OPI trainer Arnold Bleicher helped me understand why.\u00a0 As teachers, we guide the development of our learners\u2019 proficiency. Think of our learners\u2019 language performance like an arrow in the hands of a skilled archer: if I as the archer\/teacher, aim instruction directly at the target (e.g., Intermediate Low), when I let go and remove my support and scaffolding, the arrow (learners\u2019 performance) will drop and fall below the target. I need to aim higher with the familiar content in my classroom, so that when I let go of the arrow (my scaffolded guidance) and have learners show what they can do on their own, the drop due to unfamiliarity will actually get learners to hit the target! To prepare learners for an outside measure, if I design classroom tasks so learners can perform consistently at the Intermediate Low level on familiar content, when they encounter tasks without that familiarity learners will most likely perform at a slightly lower level (like Novice High). To guide learners to hit Novice High on the AAPPL, help learners feel comfortable performing at Intermediate Low by practicing creating sentences, using simple connecting words (e.g., because, when<\/em>), and asking follow-up questions.<\/p>\n

How can I create effective tasks for learners when I am not trying to act like an OPI tester? <\/strong><\/h3>\n

Focus on the broad proficiency range (Novice, Intermediate, Advanced); do not focus on the sublevels. That way you can design broader tasks using the characteristics of the major level and then provide feedback on learners\u2019 performance based on how consistently and accurately they demonstrated that level. Use the Proficiency Benchmarks in the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements<\/a>, which describe the major levels, to design tasks. Use the Performance Indicators in the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements which delineate Low, Mid, and High, to evaluate learners\u2019 performance. The bonus is that the task does not have a ceiling to limit learners. If I were to focus on just Intermediate Low to design a task, I may inadvertently limit learners\u2019 performance as they would only need to create sentences to be successful and would not need to stretch to use series of connected sentences.\u00a0 But, instead, if I design a task targeting the full range of Intermediate, I can encourage learners to go beyond merely an Intermediate Low performance by using in the prompt words like \u201cgive a detailed explanation\u201d or \u201cstate and support your viewpoint.\u201d Learners may or may not be able to give a performance with characteristics of Intermediate Mid or Intermediate High, but at least I would not have imposed a \u201cceiling\u201d of Intermediate Low. Follow-up feedback might ask learners to identify what specifically they could add to demonstrate the next higher sublevel.<\/p>\n

When should I remove my support or scaffolding?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Gradually but intentionally! I do not want to overwhelm my learners when a skill is new, so it helps to provide support, such as sentence or question frames, images and manipulatives, or a word wall. Learners can get really good at the skill but become dependent on the supports unless I consciously lessen their reliance on them. Early in a unit, a chat mat with useful words and phrases provides just the right amount of scaffolding to encourage learners to take more risk in Interpersonal tasks. Learners experience a stronger performance, but I need to keep in mind that this is only evidence of \u201cI can do this with a lot of support.\u201d<\/p>\n

To gradually remove this dependence, in the middle of the unit have learners turn the chat mat face down and peek at it only as needed, now providing evidence of \u201cI can do this occasionally with some support.\u201d Near the end of the unit, have learners challenge themselves to do Interpersonal tasks without the chat mat to see if they are ready to say, \u201cI can do this on my own!\u201d This gradual release of responsibility, shifting responsibility for the outcome from the teacher to the learners, effectively guides the planning of a single lesson, guides the design of tasks from beginning to end of a unit, and should characterize the intentional development of independence across the course or year, preparing learners well for an external assessment measure like the AAPPL.<\/p>\n

My lessons learned and applied to prepare learners for the AAPPL<\/strong><\/h3>\n