Warning: include(../master.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/CaslsWebsite/curriculum/benchmarks_gen.php on line 2

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '../master.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php') in /var/www/CaslsWebsite/curriculum/benchmarks_gen.php on line 2
Generic and Oregon-specific
Oral and Literacy Benchmarks

These benchmarks are a statement to students, teachers, and parents of what students of Japanese need to know and do in order to make progress toward proficiency in Japanese. In Oregon, students will need to demonstrate proficiency in second languages to receive Certificates of Initial Mastery (CIMs) or to gain admission to public universities.

Generic Benchmarks
Oral Benchmarks
Literacy Benchmarks
Oregon Benchmarks
European Benchmarks
Japanese
Oral Benchmarks
Japanese
Literacy Benchmarks
It is important to remember that these benchmarks are statements of minimum expectations. Better students should exceed these levels. It is also important to remember that these benchmarks articulate what students can do in a face-to-face interview with a stranger. Students will certainly be able to perform at higher levels in the classroom where they feel more confortable and have more contextual clues. These benchmarks do not specify curriculum or teaching methodology. Teachers and districts are free to teach whatever they wish in whatever manner they see fit as long as students meet the minimum standards articulated here.

This document outlines six benchmarks of student performance. They are analogous to nationally recognized proficiency guidelines established by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). Because most English-speaking students require longer to become proficient in Japanese than in European languages, we have delineated six levels of performance rather than the three ACTFL proficiency levels. Another key difference between these two scales is that the Benchmarks specify particular topics and functions whereas ACTFL guidelines are written in much more general terms.