This article exemplifies and discusses the path from assessment to the organisation of differentiated teaching in the course FVU-English.

The purpose of FVU-English is to improve the participants’ proficiency in English and increase their motivation for learning. The course is offered in four levels, with level 1 being the lowest and level 4 being the highest. The level placement of the participants is meant to ensure common benchmarks for the teaching so that participants at the same level join the course with a similar level of prior experience and knowledge from the outset. In addition, however, the teaching focuses on the participant’s individual needs, and participants at the same level can accordingly orient themselves towards learning objectives at the same level even though they may be studying different industry-specific topics and situations where communicating in English is required.

Expanding the target group

When the course was established in 2019, FVU-English was a solely company-oriented course, meaning it was only provided to employees whose company had signed an agreement with a provider of adult preparatory education. Starting in September 2020, however, the target group was expanded to include everyone in the workforce, including jobseekers and employees who on their own initiative want to improve their English skills.

The subsequent expansion of the target group in 2020 does not change the identity of the course as being labour market-oriented, but the starting point of the teaching no longer needs to be specifically tied to work-related tasks in a given company. Instead, the teaching can focus on communicative English skills that can be identified within the industries and careers that the participants are working in or hoping to work in.

Assessment and level placement

With the 2020 target group expansion, a mandatory interview guide was prepared for assessing applicants (see Annex 12 of the executive order). One of the aims of the interview guide is to assess the applicant’s Danish language skills. As the language of instruction in FVU-English is Danish, the same minimum Danish language proficiency requirement applies as in FVU-Danish and FVU-Mathematics, i.e. level B1 in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. The other aim of the interview is to understand the applicant’s background and motivation for seeking to enrol in FVU-English and ensure that they are not overqualified and thus belong to a target group of another English course. The final level of FVU-English (4), corresponds to B1.

The assessment of the applicant’s English language proficiency is based on the interview guide, which outlines a procedure for rating conversational, reading and writing skills on a scale of 1-5, where 1 corresponds to no or very limited English language proficiency and 5 corresponds to the degree of proficiency one would have upon completing Level 4. If, according to the assessment scale, the applicant’s skills are predominately rated 5 or higher, they do not fall under the target group.

Based on the assessment, the participant is placed in the level their proficiency corresponds to, and the teacher must plan the participant’s learning process on the basis of this level placement and through a dialogue-based understanding of the participant’s specific preferences and needs. In planning that process, it is relevant for the teacher to consider what the information from the interview can contribute with, but also to identify any further assessment needs. For example, this could include more specific sub-skills within one of the course’s competence areas that are relevant to assess during the teaching, e.g. through the teacher’s personal observations.

Organising the teaching

Once the participant has been placed in a level, the teacher needs to organise the FVU course for that individual to ensure coherence between their level placement, preferences and current or expected requirements for the participant’s English language proficiency; in other words, a needs analysis. In short, the purpose of such an analysis is to clarify what the English language proficiency requirements entail (necessities), how large the gap is between the participant’s current proficiency and the identified requirements (lacks) and what can be formulated as the participant’s own preferences and priorities (wants), as a way to create motivation and meaningful participation (Johnson 2018).

The analysis contributes to making the education application-oriented, setting realistic objectives and considerations on how to best achieve those objectives. For example, for participants with a large gap between their current level of proficiency and self-formulated wants, it may be helpful to identify meaningful sub-goals as a form of stepping stones on the path to the end goal. Additionally, the analysis can also aid considerations about the extent to which the objectives can be achieved through:

• training English language and communication skills,
• using compensatory strategies and tools (e.g. template tools and reading/writing technology)
• supporting the participant in creating/lobbying for better participation opportunities at work, e.g. through differentiated work duties that take into account their limited English language proficiency level.

Teaching differentiation

The teaching activities should be aimed at achieving the learning objectives that the teacher has discussed with the participants and which can change on a running basis as the participants gain new knowledge and become more cognisant of their everyday needs. It may also be the case that some of the objectives have been too ambitious or vaguely formulated and need to be adjusted or replaced.

Another dynamic factor in planning the course is that in some cases, new participants may join a class on a running basis in order to make the course more flexible for the target group. Additionally, in some classes not all the participants are at the same level and may progress at different speeds due to differences in attendance rates, for instance.

All of the above factors require that a teacher remains mindful of differentiation. To some extent, this differentiation can take the form of participant differentiation, e.g. by dividing the class into smaller groups; experienced and newcomers, Level 2 and Level 3 participants, etc., working on different assignments. However, teachers will quickly find themselves overworked if they need to plan lessons with differentiated content for each group within the same class. It therefore makes sense to consider the possibility of teaching differentiation, i.e. uniform teaching that takes into account the differences between the participants.

To start with, being able to appropriately differentiate teaching requires knowing the participants’ prior experience and knowledge,

highlighting the importance of the initial assessment that they all go through before being enrolled in the FVU course. Based on that information, the teacher can take into account that some participants should be able to get more help with activities that other participants can complete with less support.

For example, such help and support could include the teacher modelling strategies, giving access to work templates, image support and digital aids, or delegating different sub-tasks in a group work assignment (cf. Palinscar & Brown, 1984). Some assignments may be challenging, e.g. discussing aspects of a specific topic, while others such as identifying positively charged words in an oral presentation will be easier - while also potentially being an opportunity for more relevant learning - for participants without as much practice. In such situations, teachers can use learning taxonomies as a differentiation tool (e.g. Bloom et al. 1956).

At the lower taxonomic levels, the participants merely have to recognise, reproduce or exemplify speech actions, while participants at higher levels can show up with an expectation to try out, compare and combine different speech actions, e.g. in a role-play scenario.

The requirement for a pedagogical diploma programme

The Executive Order on Preparatory Adult Education stipulates that aspiring FVU-English teachers must have completed the subject modules of the pedagogical diploma programme. It specifies however that teachers who have not completed the subject modules may teach the course provided they have a professional pedagogical competence in the subject of English and knowledge of adult learning and didactics. According to the guide to the executive order, however, such corresponding qualifications cannot solely consist of teaching experience.

Considering that FVU-English is a new course without the same accumulated knowledge and experience one finds in FVU-Danish, for instance, it is even more important that FVU-English teachers enrol in relevant further education. The diploma programme modules enhance understanding of the course’s purpose and identity, building a bridge between the teachers’ prior practice and FVU-English. Additionally, they give teachers the competences to use the management tools of the course, manage its framework and safeguard its quality. Last but not least, the modules serve as an excellent starting point for forming professional networks across educational institutions.

References

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H. & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.

Annex 12 of the Danish Executive Order on Adult Preparatory Education. (BEK nr. 1292 of 01/09/2020). Retsinformation

Johnson, K. (2018). An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. 3^rd Ed. Routledge: Taylor and Francis.

Palinscar, A. S & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, s. 117-175.

Guide to the Danish Executive Order on Adult Preparatory Education. VEJ nr. 9606 af 01/09/2020. Retsinformation

Credit

This article was written by Martin Hauerberg Olsen, associate professor at University College Copenhagen - 2020, MSc in speech and language pathology and a minor in English.