Eve Haque and Antonella Valeo
York University
The importance of classroom-based official-language instruction for newcomers cannot be overstated. Almost half of the immigrants surveyed as part of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada (Chui 2003) participated in adult immigrant English-language training and, of this group, 85 percent found English-language training classes to be useful or very useful (Smit and Turcot 2010). Thus, the development of the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) is arguably one of the most significant endeavours to come out of the publicly funded arena of English as a second language in Canada. As such, the importance of the CLB for programming and instruction in these classes across Canada cannot be underestimated. Although described as a “foundation of shared philosophical and theoretical views on language ability that informs language instruction and assessment” (CIC and CCLB 2012, v), it is how the CLB ultimately inform language instruction in the classroom that is the focus of this chapter. The CLB are clearly labelled as a set of descriptive statements about communicative competencies and levels on a continuum of language ability, and a standard and reference framework for planning curriculum for teaching and learning. As well, it is clearly laid out what the CLB are not; that is, not a curriculum, instructional method, or assessment, nor are they a description of the discrete elements of knowledge and skills underlying communicative competence, such as cultural conventions, vocabulary, micro-functions, or grammatical structures (CIC and CCLB 2012, v).
Although it has been made clear that the CLB are not a curriculum, there is evidence that instructors continue to draw directly on the CLB to frame and organize their teaching practice in ways that they might do from a curriculum. Teachers in adult language training classrooms have to consider a number of issues when they are organizing their teaching. They have to incorporate learner needs as well as institutional requirements, constraints, and curricular mandates into their planning (Wette 2009). These issues are complicated even further across Canada, as instructors must balance their own autonomy with the need to inform their curricular planning with the institutionally organized and mandated CLB framework. This raises interesting questions about how teachers understand the place of the CLB in developing their classroom practice and how this understanding is mediated through their training, experience, and teaching contexts. In this chapter, we examine some particular facets of the CLB standards to understand how teaching and assessment is represented with regards to classroom practice, and we draw on research – including interviews with teachers – to explore these questions.
In 2010, the final report of the national consultation on the CLB 2000 was published (Smit and Turcot 2010). The consultation process included forums, interviews, and surveys to collect feedback from multiple stakeholders across the country, including instructors, learners, administrators, academics, and others who were users or in other ways had an impact on the CLB. The consultation asked stakeholders to identify the top three strengths of the document and responses were categorized according to different features of the document, including strengths related to the framework and its constructs, those aspects of the document that supported teaching and curriculum, the value of the CLB as a national standard, and the role of the CLB in assessment. Analysis of practitioner responses showed that 50 percent of focus-group participants cited aspects relevant to the value of the framework and its constructs, 19 percent described strengths relevant to CLB as a national standard, nearly 16 percent identified the role of the CLB in assessment, and almost 12 percent cited the CLB as a support for teaching and curriculum. When asked to rate aspects of the CLB according to value, over 80 percent of practitioners gave three specific aspects of the CLB the highest ratings: “a national framework for understanding and measuring language proficiency”; “a common language for stakeholders across the country”; and “comprehensive – covers all four aspects of language proficiency” (Smit and Turcot 2010, 10). Clearly the documents spoke to gaps for practitioners who saw the relevance of the CLB as a national standard, a tool for assessment, and support for teaching and curriculum, and drew on these views when implementing the CLB in their practice. In the first part of the chapter, we look at three specific features of the CLB: the notion of a continuum of development, the role of task (a framework for assessment), and how these features relate to the role of assessment as teachers apply the CLB to classroom contexts. In the second part of the chapter, we draw on teachers’ own thoughts about how the CLB informs their classroom practice as a framework for instruction.
The CLB have been used as a framework for assessment both inside and outside the classroom. Outside the classroom, two primary standardized tests have been developed, the long-standing Canadian Language Benchmarks Assessment (CLBA), used in the original Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) program for placement of learners, and the streamlined version, the Canadian Language Benchmarks Placement Test (CLBPT), developed for wider use in ESL programs. In the classroom, the CLB are used in formative and summative ways. The CLB 5-10 Exit Assessment Tasks were developed to guide formative assessment intended to help teachers move learners across courses within a program or in some cases exit the program. The summative assessment tool, Summative Assessment Manual for CLB Stage 1 (CLB 1-4), helps instructors plan instruction and support learners, while learners are able to use this information to direct their own learning as well. The diversity in this array of documents represents an attempt to respond to the needs of practitioners as they implement the CLB into their programs to support language assessment.
Another support document that attempted to address the challenges of CLB-based assessment is Integrating CLB Assessment into your ESL Classroom (Holmes 2005). This document draws on the distinction between assessment of learning and assessment for learning, and acknowledges the “tensions” inherent for teachers in classroom-based assessment. This highlights the challenge of playing a supportive role for learners while, at the same time, participating in summative decision making that may carry a high-stakes impact on program and funding access, and employment opportunities. The document also draws attention to the complexity of language in that a document such as the CLB may not fully capture the range of an individual’s abilities that reflect proficiency. This is related both to limitations of task, which will be dealt with later on in this chapter, as well as to the range of contexts that instructors work within and across. The last area explored concerns the descriptive nature of the CLB and the extent to which the connections between task performance and description of abilities are interpretive in nature. This interpretation is mediated through multiple factors for teachers, including individual experiences and the contextual constraints in which they teach.
The descriptive quality in the CLB is defined as a continuum of development, a concept well aligned with research and theory in second-language acquisition, and intuitively comfortable for teachers who are in a position to see dynamic change in their learners and appreciate how much this varies across individuals and contexts. In terms of assessment, however, it presents certain challenges: in using the document for assessment, the concept of the continuum becomes difficult to reconcile with the realities of the classroom. The continuum is conceptualized along a set of benchmarks intended to help teachers describe change in proficiency. In order to document movement from one level to another, there must be points along the continuum that will act to some degree as discrete points. Programs with clearly defined levels rely on assessment that is discrete in outcome, if not in process, so that the levels are clear to learners and instructors. In describing how learners progress though the benchmarks, the document notes “lateral development and progress within a benchmark” (CIC and CCLB 2012, xii). It further notes that the ways proficiency is described, with terms such as “fluent,” are intended to describe “a degree of ability within a stage … not an absolute descriptor of discourse. … It means that a learner has reached a successful degree of ability in the types of tasks and at the level of demand associated with a particular stage of the CLB” (x). Learners at a CLB 4 level, for example, are therefore functioning within that benchmark, and will be at various points along the continuum with respect to the range of skills and knowledge that characterize that benchmark. In the classroom, this is not problematic, in that a learner centred pedagogy allows learners to develop at their pace within a range of proficiency. It becomes challenging when teachers are required to plan instruction and test outcomes in order to “move” learners across levels within a program. In a program of instruction, when students complete CLB 4, they are moved to CLB 5 with the understanding that they will begin learning the competences of the new level. However, when a learner arrives for the first time in a program, if the placement of CLB 4 is interpreted as a test result, the learner would logically be placed in CLB 5. As if in acknowledgement of the need to clarify interpretation of CLB assessment, the National Language Placement and Progression Guidelines issued by CIC in 2013 state that an assigned benchmark indicates that “the learner has achieved, and demonstrated, the level of communicative ability associated with most or all (traditionally, 70 to 100 percent) of the descriptors for the benchmarks assigned in each of the four skills” (CIC 2013, 3). In fact, a learner may be able to perform some tasks at one or two benchmarks higher or lower than the one assigned.
Context, as described in the CLB, plays a prominent role in helping teachers assess proficiency. It is described across the three stages as non-demanding, moderately demanding, and demanding, characterized as basic, familiar, and high-stakes. Likewise, the complexity of language is described as simple, moderately complex, and complex. This language is vague and difficult to interpret and demands an acceptance of highly nuanced perspectives that are aligned with a dynamic perspective of development, but poses difficulties when looking for how to judge the appropriateness of materials or tasks. “Demanding” is also a reflection of ability, yet it seems here that the quality is being judged as normative, though it is unclear against what norm, while “simplicity” and “complexity” are dependent on purpose of task, where language may need to be simple in some tasks and more complex in others. Profiles of ability use descriptive language to illustrate how learners may differ in the way they use language. Knowledge and strategies indicate abilities that need to be “acquired” in order to “achieve a benchmark.” This is where the CLB become a tool for assessment, and it underscores the impact of assessment on teaching. The suggestion here is that the learner can “acquire” specific abilities, which can be assessed at particular levels, so the teacher can teach specific abilities in order to help learners attain those levels.
A second focal point of this section, the notion of task, is central to the CLB. They are designed to capture purposeful communication and provide the basis for assessment. Description of an individual’s proficiency is expressed in terms of the person’s ability to perform a task, one that provides “demonstrable and measurable performance outcomes” (CIC 2013, ix). The use of tasks as tools of measurement poses challenges. A critical dimension of task as measurement is a consideration of “features of communication”; however, this includes an attempt to quantify change. Fox and Courchêne (2005) reviewed the CLB 2000 and noted several key features of this version, including the incongruencies stemming from an effort to measure progression through tasks by, for example, using text length to show progression in writing from one benchmark to another. They further note disparities such as an increase from providing a three- to four-paragraph text at CLB 8 to writing a four- to five-page essay at CLB 9.
While Fox and Courchêne (2005) wrote about the 2000 version, the same challenges are found in the current document (CIC CLB 2012). When we examine the development of speaking skills, dialogues are described in terms of length (two turns at CLB 1, four turns at CLB 2, six at CLB 3, and eight at CLB 4), while speech is described as ranging from “clear and at a slow rate” (CLB 1) to “clear and at a slow to normal rate” (CLB 4). Rate of speech, however, is highly dependent on a range of purposes, such as context and individual factors, not captured in these descriptions. In other examples, at CLB 4 writers are expected to produce seven sentences in the context of business or service messages, but one paragraph when writing for the purpose of sharing information about an event or experience. Presentations at speaking CLB 5 are up to five minutes long, at CLB 6 they are up to seven minutes, at CLB 7 they are up to ten minutes long, and at CLB 8 they are up to twenty minutes long, yet they all require connected discourse and are delivered in a context that is “moderately demanding.” Teachers need to interpret these criteria – especially as they are used for assessment – relative to the learners they work with and their teaching contexts, as well as their own teaching experience across both contexts and groups of learners; thus, it is worth exploring how teachers themselves think about the CLB in relation to their teaching practice.
The findings of the national consultation included an in-depth look at appropriate support for teachers using CLB (Smit and Turcot 2010). The first important finding was the correlation between the length of time teachers had been working with the CLB and their levels of knowledge and satisfaction with their ability to use the CLB (32). Specifically, instructors with ten or more years of experience (even five or more years) rated their satisfaction at 9 or 10 out of a possible 10. However, the majority of instructors with less than a year’s experience rated their satisfaction with their abilities using the CLB lower than 5. The role of experience in engendering teacher confidence and comfort in using CLB is an important element in considering the variable experiences of teachers with the CLB. However, teachers working with the Benchmarks also have a wide range of training: from no training at all to college and university-based TESL certificates, and all the way up to graduate degrees in Applied Linguistics. Working with provincially accredited teachers, Faez and Valeo (2012) investigated the degree to which TESL program graduates felt prepared to implement the CLB. They found that on a scale of 1 to 10, the mean response was 7, without significant variation across programs. Survey data with teachers of ESL to adults, however, have shown enormous variation in working contexts and conditions, including full-time unionized positions and part-time contract positions (see Haque and Cray 2007, Valeo 2013, Valeo and Faez 2013). Thus, not only the number of years of teaching experience, but also teaching context and training are significant factors in levels of teacher confidence and comfort with the CLB.
Back in 1997, Fleming interviewed instructors about the CLB and found that although most teachers were positive about the Benchmarks, they still had concerns about how this might impact their curricular autonomy, especially regarding selection of teaching materials (Fleming 1998). In the years since, CLB-informed LINC (Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada) curriculum guidelines and teaching materials have been created, and these are now commonly used in most adult immigrant language training programs. In this way, almost all programs now draw on CLB to provide the backbone for curriculum development; nonetheless, there is still considerable program variation in how these curricula are developed and implemented in the classroom. Specifically, teachers continue to want to structure their own needs assessments and classroom activities in order to be able to respond to variable learner needs, even as the Benchmarks have become a central reference point for LINC teachers, structuring what is taught and how it is taught (Haque and Cray 2010). In his research on the development and implementation of the CLB-informed LINC 4 and 5 curriculum guidelines, Pinet (2006) found that the CLB framework does not significantly restrict teachers’ autonomy in curricular planning; however, other researchers have found that if curriculum guidelines are left too widely open to interpretation, this may lead to confusion in curricular planning (Haque and Cray 2010, Melles 2008).
In order to examine the question of how the Benchmarks inform teachers’ curriculum planning and teaching practice, in this section we draw on interview material – some previously published in Haque and Cray (2010) and some not – with twenty-five LINC instructors (in levels ranging from Literacy to LINC 5), conducted one-on-one, in a moderately sized Ontario city that receives a large number of newcomers every year. All interviewees had TESL certification and university degrees, with a range of classroom experience from novice to over twenty years of TESL. Interviewees were approached through snowball sampling and taught in a wide range of programs, including those run by school boards, colleges, community organizations, and private schools; therefore, some teachers worked in well-resourced institutional contexts with colleagues and program co-ordinators on site, while others worked in isolated physical spaces not designed for teaching, including portables, church basements, and “classrooms” under gyms.
What immediately became clear during the interviews was that teachers were all aware of the central importance of the CLB for guiding both the teaching and the assessment of their learners. The importance of the Benchmarks had been impressed upon teachers, not only through CIC directives and local and regional conferences/workshops, but also by local program co-ordinators and supporting instruction documentation. Instructors’ acknowledgement of the importance of Benchmarks was consistently captured in such statements as, “You have to use the Benchmarks” and “We have all fallen in line” [with the Benchmarks] (Haque and Cray 2010, 72). Where teachers were less consistent in their responses was when they discussed how the Benchmarks were to be used.
Many teachers began by outlining how they used the Benchmarks for in-class assessment. Although initial placement assessment is done externally, and ideally all learners arrive with a set of four Benchmark levels (for speaking, writing, reading, and listening), once enrolled in class, instructors must assess learners in order to chart learner progress and also to determine when the learner can move into the next class level. Many teachers use the Benchmarks, with their detailed competency tables and profiles of ability, to guide these in-class assessments. For example, one instructor stated, “The Benchmarks themselves are an outcome based test,” and another teacher echoed, “The Benchmarks are only the skills that you can test” (Haque and Cray 2010, 72). In this way, the Benchmarks were used as set learning objectives to be mastered and subsequently assessed. The centrality of the CLB was also felt as teachers tried to determine if learners were ready to move to the next LINC level; specifically, teachers needed to find ways to assess their learners’ proficiency through Benchmark-based reports. One teacher described using assessments calibrated to Benchmarks in order to “justify placements.” The CLB-based resource that instructors mentioned most often when talking about assessment was the CLB Can Do Statements (CCLB 2014), as these provided the most direct way to assess if learners were able to do what they were expected to do at their level. As an echo to many such comments, one teacher stated, “The Can Do’s are the easiest way for me to make sure I’m keeping to the CLB.”
Although the detailed competency tables and profiles of ability provided useful standards for assessment, not all teachers believed that the CLB enabled precise assessments. As one instructor explained, students in her particular level did not exactly fit the learner profile implicit in the CLB level descriptors, and this meant that she had to reinterpret the objectives to fit the class. Another instructor stated that the Benchmarks were not particularly relevant for her learners’ needs, so she managed assessment by “doing it backwards.” Specifically, she first ascertained the level at which her learners should be placed, then she would “plug in the Benchmarks that is [sic] going to get them into the class where I think they fit” (Haque and Cray 2010, 72). In this way, the CLB regulated the continuum along which learners were assessed and the measures that marked student progress in language training. Therefore, by establishing and placing the learning objectives against which student progress was measured, the CLB served a curricular function for teaching and assessment, with instructors inevitably “teaching to” the Benchmarks.
The CLB figured significantly in how instructors organized in-class assessments; they also served to structure what was taught and how. Some instructors gleaned themes from the CLB Sample Tasks, using them as “guidelines” around which they could organize their lesson plans and teaching activities. As well, the CLB provided guidelines for the teaching of skills, particularly through the organizational layout, which was based on the four skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. As one instructor explained, “I try to be sure that Benchmarks are covered in the reading, writing and speaking part of it. … I do make sure that I do stay within those guidelines” (73). She added that “depending on the [student] needs, you might have to fudge around with Benchmarks a bit.” Still, instructors found that the CLB provided a “good foundation,” and another instructor explained her close use of Benchmarks this way: “I set my outcome according to the outcomes in the guidelines and that is what I am working towards when I am making my lesson plans” (73).
Instructors had varied opinions about both the importance and the method of grammar instruction in their classrooms. However, they were all keenly aware that grammar instruction was something they needed to do in their classes, especially given the specification of “grammatical knowledge” at the start of each skills section in the CLB. For example, each of the CLB skills sections lists a set of “things that may need to be learned as an individual moves through Stage 1 [or II or III] Reading [or Listening or Speaking or Writing].” Items listed under grammatical knowledge include knowledge of such things as “simple and continuous verb tenses, simple modals” (CIC 2013, 75) or “past conditionals, past or future perfect, passive subordinate adverbial clauses” (99), and so on. Teachers cited these types of specifications in the CLB as part of their awareness of the importance of grammar instruction in LINC classes. One instructor stated that since she taught a LINC 2 level, she felt that students needed explicit instruction on verb tenses, prepositions, and basic sentence structure, and another teacher echoed her call, stating “If they [learners] don’t have good grammar, they don’t speak well or write well and so we tend to emphasize grammar” (Haque and Clay, 76).
Instructors did not all agree as to how grammar instruction should proceed, with some teachers stating that they built their grammar instruction into their lesson content or instruction themes, and others outlining the need for and importance of explicit grammar instruction. For example, one teacher described how she integrated modals into her lesson theme on housing through an activity that was designed around looking for an apartment, because modals “fit in with the theme” (76). Another instructor determined what grammar points learners should be learning at their level by checking the Benchmarks to see, “Is it reported speech at this point or is it just asking questions?” (76). Many instructors also felt that explicit grammar instruction was important; one teacher explained, “I think that the grammar is important and you can never get too good in grammar,” therefore explicit instruction is important, since “the grammar might get lost in the themes. I like to keep them separate.” (76). Finally, there was a group of instructors who would introduce a grammatical concept through their thematic teaching content and then would “apply that grammar” through repeated focused activities. Thus, the CLB created an awareness of the importance of grammar instruction for teachers, but the CLB’s lack of direction (in contrast to what might be specified in a curriculum) as to how grammar instruction should proceed meant that instructors used a range of methods for bringing grammar instruction into the classroom.
The CLB also guided how teachers filled out their monthly reports, which were how their institutions – community organizations, school boards, private schools, and others – reported to CIC, which in turn used these reports in part to monitor the programs and allocate/renew funding. Almost all teachers we interviewed had to fill out monthly reports on what they had taught, and these reports were based on the Benchmarks, in that they indexed skills, materials, and activities to the CLB descriptors. As one instructor stated, “I don’t know if mine [the monthly report] is helpful, but I realize that the bosses have to account for what they are doing” (73). A second teacher elaborated, “Monthly, they ask us to do a report about what happened in the class in terms of our performance outcomes and our teaching objectives for the month. … That shows whatever we have done in class for that month. I do the usual reading and writing for the month” (73). Another instructor confirmed that these monthly reports served not only as a monitor for CIC but also a way to ensure that teachers used the Benchmarks. Some teachers also confirmed that they referred to the CLB mainly when they were writing up their reports and not as much for developing lesson plans, as they felt that the Benchmarks’ objectives were not necessarily appropriate for their learners’ needs. This tied into a common thread in the interviews, particularly with experienced teachers. They often reported that they had a better understanding of their learners’ needs and could draw on their professional training and experience to determine best what was useful and appropriate for their learners. These teachers stated that their experience and training meant they often trusted their “gut feelings” over the Benchmarks when determining what their students needed for language learning, and what they should be able to do at their level. As one teacher explained, “I have been here for fifteen years and I know what I’m doing” (75).
It is clear that teachers in adult immigrant language training programs have an extensive awareness of the Benchmarks. Furthermore, the CLB have a significant influence on how teachers develop curriculum and teaching content for their classes as well as how teachers think about their teaching. Nonetheless, despite the influence of the CLB, it is also clear that teachers have their own thoughts about the extent to which the Benchmarks are useful for their teaching practice. One common concern teachers expressed was that the Benchmarks did not fit the profile of their learners: some learners already possess the skills and knowledge that are specified to be taught at their level, and other learners may need skills and knowledge that are not identified in their Benchmark level. This problem extends to assessment, where instructors often feel that they are basing their assessments on descriptors that they do not believe fully reflect what their students need to learn or have learned (Haque and Cray 2010, 74). Although the CLB state clearly in the introduction that they are a set of descriptors and not a curriculum, the lack of specificity around how to translate these descriptors into the classroom also meant that instructors had a wide range in their interpretation of the Benchmarks for classroom practice, even if they didn’t completely believe that Benchmarks were fully applicable to their teaching context. One instructor summarized the Benchmarks this way, “What a pain … ”, and another elaborated, “The Benchmarks still need some work. You have to read an enormous amount of clap-trap in order to understand what you need” (75).
This broad range of understandings and interpretations, as well as the amount of informational material that needs to be understood by instructors, indicates the importance of support and training for teachers. As the final report on the national consultation on the CLB 2000 detailed, teachers identified a variety of supports that would help them in applying the CLB to their teaching contexts. Over 80 percent of instructors identified supports, such as workshops on developing skills to apply the CLB, sharing and problem solving among practitioners working in the same organization, and having formal training on the CLB, including orientations to the CLB; and over 90 percent of instructors wanted resources that would provide models and tools to help them apply the CLB (Smit and Turcot 2010, 33–34). Although there are already supports in place, which some teachers have access to, particular kinds of support – which many teachers identified as very beneficial – were not available to between 50 and 75 percent of teachers; these included e-learning or on-site mentoring, on-site training by outside professionals, and formal training on the CLB (34). Given the importance of training for effective use of the CLB, many instructors commented on this lack of access, “The lack of training results in people not understanding and they don’t buy-in and don’t use the CLB,” and, “There is a huge difference between the amount of training being provided to users of the CLB” (35). Instructors were clear about what they would like to see in terms of training and support, “I would like on-site delivery of training because of the uniqueness of so many programs but also because there would be a mentor with ongoing involvement,” and, “Instructors are at different levels of understanding of the CLB. Award a certificate in CLB. It is even more important than a TESL certificate” (35). Thus, given the wide range of teachers and their needs, practitioners called for a national standard in CLB-implementation support that would include training to build and retain competencies in the CLB through orientation and ongoing informal and formal training, along with mentoring, peer support, and access to required resources (Smit and Turcot, 2010).
Lack of consistency in access to training also meant that there were calls for more CLB-focused pre-service training, and enforcement of these standards through program-certification bodies such as TESL Canada and TESL Ontario. The CCLB and other service delivery organizations were called upon to ensure provision, support, and access to CLB-related training – both nationally and in-house – and funders were asked to also adequately fund professional development. As instructors commented, “We need a national strategy to train teachers. CCLB needs to take a stronger role in making that happen,” and, “If the cost barrier would be removed, a lot more teachers would get training. I am the only one in my organization who takes workshops. I am punished because my time is not paid for” (Smit and Turcot 2010, 36). Thus, the development of a national training framework specifying best practices for adequately funded pre-service and in-service supports for the CLB implementation was a priority for many practitioners.
Finally, practitioners commented on the importance of CLB-related resources for their language-teaching support. Between 50 and 75 percent of teachers mentioned the importance of resources from the CCLB main website, including the CLB theoretical framework, among others, and the most highly rated resource identified by teachers was the CLB Can Do checklists/statements (Smit and Turcot 2010, 37). Instructors were also specific in identifying exactly what kinds of resources and materials would help them best to implement CLB-informed language training. By far the top identified resources (90 percent) were those that could be used directly to inform classroom teaching. These included both print and audio-visual sample tasks/exemplars, CLB-based classroom-ready materials, and CLB-based curriculum model/s (37). Although there are a host of support materials available, such as the LINC curriculum guidelines, as well as many published support textbooks and materials, teacher demand for new and CLB-based materials is ongoing, given the challenges of CLB implementation and often limited time/support for material and resource development.
The national consultation report outlined what stakeholders identified as gaps, needs, and challenges related to implementing the CLB. While there was variation across Canada, a number of common areas emerged and led to the articulation of a critical question: “Are the CLB [and the NCLC] frameworks or [are they] standards for understanding and measuring language proficiency, or both?” (Smit and Turcot 2010, 18). Indeed, as a framework, the CLB will help teachers work with the strengths and challenges learners bring to the newcomer classroom experience. As a standard, the CLB can support placement in the programs and classrooms that will provide the most appropriate instruction. Recommendations emerging from the consultation highlighted the need to “enhance rigour” to support the CLB as a standard, including greater distinction in how the levels are differentiated, clearer descriptors, increased “capacity to track outcomes and differences between outcomes across levels” (22), and a clearer rationale for the twelve-point scale. However, it is in the detailed responses from the instructors of adult immigrant language training programs that we can see exactly how the CLB informs assessment and classroom practice, how teachers interpret the CLB, and therefore what exactly the remaining gaps, challenges, and needs are for implementing the CLB.
It is clear that the CLB provide a clear range of descriptors; however, the importance of context, particularly for assessment, cannot be emphasized enough. This is particularly true in the implementation of tasks as tools for measurement and in interpreting the complexities of individual learner characteristics and language-skill abilities in relation to a continuum of descriptors of proficiency. Even as the lack of specificity in the descriptors is a strength of the CLB, this lack also means that instructors often have a wide range in their interpretations of the CLB for both assessment and their classroom practice. Although instructors have a high degree of awareness about the CLB and acknowledge the importance of the CLB for guiding their teaching and assessment, their interpretation and implementation of the CLB for these purposes is highly dependent on their training and experience. This becomes clear in their discussions of how the CLB informs their assessment of learners, and in how they develop instructional content – including grammar teaching content – as well as how they report on these activities in their monthly reports. However, most instructors still want further support, including both pre-service and in-service training, mentoring, and specific resources to help guide them in the use of the CLB to inform their teaching and assessment. Since the development of the first CLB in 1996, each successive edition has identified and attempted to respond to gaps and challenges that emerged through practice. While a sound theoretical framework is essential, it is also critical that the process of renewal continue to draw on the classroom and the experiences of instructors, who ultimately give the CLB the greatest purpose.
Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. 2014. Can Do Statements. Ottawa: Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks.
Chui, Tina. 2003. Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada: Process, Progress and Prospects. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Accessed May 30, 2016. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-611-x/89-611-x2003001-eng.pdf?contentType=application%2Fpdf.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. 2012. Canadian Language Benchmarks: English as a second language for adults. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada. 2013. National Language Placement and Progression Guidelines. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
Faez, Farahnaz, and Antonella Valeo. 2012. “TESOL teacher education: Novice teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness and efficacy in the classroom.” TESOL Quarterly 46(3): 450–470.
Fleming, Douglas. 1998. “Autonomy and agency in curriculum decision-making: A study of instructors in a Canadian adult settlement ESL program.” TESL Canada Journal 16(1): 19–35.
Fox, Janna, and Robert Courchêne. 2005. “The Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB): A critical appraisal.” Contact: Research Symposium Issue 31(2): 7–29.
Haque, Eve, and Ellen Cray. 2010. “LINC-ing policy and practice in the immigrant language training classroom.” Contact: Research Symposium Issue 36(2): 68–83.
_____. 2007. “Constraining teachers: Adult ESL settlement language training policy.” TESOL Quarterly 41(3): 634–642.
Holmes, Tara. 2005. Integrating CLB assessment into your ESL classroom. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
Melles, Gavin. 2008. “Curriculum documents and practice in the NZ polytechnic sector: consensus and dissensus.” Research in Post-Compulsory Education 13(1): 55–67.
Pinet, Ron. 2006. “The contestation of citizenship education at three stages of the LINC 4 & 5 curriculum guidelines: Production, reception, and implementation.” TESL Canada Journal 24(1): 1–20.
Smit, Pamela, and Paul Turcot. 2010. National Consultation on the Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000 and Niveaux de competence linguistique canadiens 2006: Final report. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
Valeo, Antonella. 2013. “The TESL Ontario member survey: A brief report.” Contact 39(1): 54–58. Accessed May 30, 2016. http://www.teslontario.net/uploads/publications/contact/ContactSpring2011.pdf.
Valeo, Antonella, and Farahnaz Faez. 2013. “Career development and professional attrition of novice ESL teachers.” TESL Canada Journal 31(1): 1–19.
Wette, Rosemary. 2009. “Making the instructional curriculum as an interactive, contextualized process: case studies of seven ESOL teachers.” Language Teaching Research 13(4): 337–365.