There is, perhaps, nothing more important in the design of FL instruction than carefully crafted goals and objectives. Either implicitly or explicitly, goals and objectives frame many different levels of instruction: the program itself, different levels within the program, different courses at a given level, specific units or chapters within a course, and individual lessons within a unit or chapter. As such, goals and objectives serve as road maps for learners, indicating what elements of their language study are viewed as important by the program and their instructor. For instructors, goals and objectives also help them to identify the types of activities and participation structures used during class sessions. In addition, goals and objectives should facilitate designing assessment of student learning: that is to say, the focus of instruction, as reflected in goals and objectives, should also be the focus of assessment. Put simply, there should be coherence among 1) instructional goals and objectives; 2) in-class activities and participation structures used and 3) the foci and types of assessments implemented.

Unfortunately, a lack of sustained reflection on instructional goals and objectives beyond the micro-level (i.e., individual lessons) is often the case in collegiate FL instruction, particularly for novice teachers who are, naturally, most concerned during early semesters in the classroom on simply getting through each activity within a class session and staying on pace with their textbook and course calendar. In addition, much conceptual confusion exists as to the definition of an instructional goal versus an objective. This confusion is exacerbated by the fact that professional publications often incorrectly use these two terms interchangeably.

Instructional goals and objectives

Instructional goals can be defined as general statements of educational direction or intended outcomes that serve as organizational principles for an FL program or course. Instructional objectives are more specific statements about how the goals will be achieved and what students are expected to be able to do as a result of their involvement in learning opportunities. There are three components to an instructional objective: a description of behaviors demonstrating the knowledge or skills to be learned, the conditions and context of performance, and the degree of expected performance (Graves, 1999; Hall, 2001). According to Graves, one way to think about the goal-objective distinction is of the L2 learning experience as a journey—the goals are the destination whereas the objectives are the different points that you pass through while on the journey to the destination.

An example of well crafted program goals for undergraduate students of German consistent with a multiliteracies-oriented approach to FL learning can be found here. In addition, level-specific learning objectives can be found in each of the syllabi on this page. You may have noticed when you read the Georgetown University German Department's program goals and course-level objectives that intended outcomes for student learning are not posited in terms of the “four skills”(i.e., speaking, listening, reading and writing). Instead, more integrative notions of learning are foregrounded. You may recall from the introductory module that, according to Kern, “Treating speaking, listening, reading, writing, and culture as separate ‘skills’ has led to limited, overly-compartmentalized goals described in terms of discrete behaviors or pieces of knowledge, rather than in terms of integrative abilities” (2000, p. 5).

Thus, in a multiliteracies-oriented approach, instructional goals are envisioned consistent with the three dimensions of literacy–not only its linguistic dimension but also its cognitive and sociocultural ones. Historically, collegiate FL programs and, in particular, lower-division language courses and the materials used in those courses have tended to emphasize the linguistic dimension of literacy while relegating its sociocultural dimension to the sideline and often ignoring altogether the cognitive dimension. Helpful for articulating instructional objectives consistent with a literacy-oriented approach are the seven principles of literacy outlined by Kern (2000, pp. 16-17): interpretation, collaboration, conventions, cultural knowledge, problem solving, reflection and self-reflection, and language use. To link instructional objectives coherently to in-class activities, the four curricular components (i.e., situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing and transformed practice) as proposed by the New London Group (1996) provide a framework for incorporating a variety of learning opportunities consistent with both the seven principles of literacy and the three dimensions of literacy suggested by Kern (2000).

Linking assessment to goals and objectives

Like articulating instructional goals and objectives, assessment is often a secondary consideration for new FL teachers during their first semesters in the classroom. However, the ongoing process of collecting information relevant to student learning and performance should help teachers determine whether students are making appropriate progress toward meeting instructional goals and objectives and evaluate the effectiveness of instructional activities carried out in class (Hall, 2001). The most prevalent type of assessment historically used in FL teaching has been summative assessment, i.e., occurring at the end of an instructional segment to determine the extent to which students have met instructional goals or objectives (Hall, 2001). An example of a summative assessment would be an end-of-chapter vocabulary or grammar test. Another important type of assessment is formative, i.e., occurring during the learning process to help teachers identify difficulties students are experiencing so that instruction and subsequent assessment can be adjusted accordingly (Hall, 2001). Examples of formative assessment include teacher comments on a written essay to improve it on a later draft or a diagnostic grammar quiz. One means of assessment that can function as either summative or formative assessment and has gained popularity in recent years in FL teaching in the U.S. is portfolio assessment, i.e., a systematic collection of work from multiple sources that represent a student's development and achievements (Hall, 2001). Distinguishing portfolio assessment from more traditional forms of assessment is the fact that students participate in selecting portfolio content to be formally evaluated.

But what elements of FL learning should be assessed in a multiliteracies-oriented approach and how should they be assessed? According to Kern (2000), three principles need to be considered:

“Assessment and evaluation must be based on a broad view of language and literacy … Assessment and evaluation must be multidimensional in nature … Assessment and evaluation cannot be divorced from teaching and learning” (pp. 270-273).

In other words, assessment, like instructional goals and objectives, should tap into not only the linguistic dimension of FL learning but also its sociocultural and cognitive dimensions. Similarly, a broader conception of assessment is also sought in terms of the forms of assessment included. Finally, Kern's ideas reflect the notion that coherence should exist between instruction and assessment and that ongoing formative assessment should be used alongside summative assessment.

The use of literacy-oriented assessment in relation to specific FL modalities will be further explored in other modules.

References

– Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

– Hall, J. K. (2001). Methods for teaching foreign languages: Creating a community of learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

– Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

This module includes:
• A short webinar led by an expert on the topic
• A few core readings and a set of reflective questions to consider before and after reading
• A series of pedagogical applications
• A reflective teaching prompt which engages teachers to think back on their experience preparing and implementing a literacy-oriented lesson
• A few additional resources, which will include: 2-4 annotated references, including one that focuses on advanced instruction; 4-6 additional references for those who wish to dig deeper into the topic; links