Mapping ACTFL can-dos, how to backwards-design a unit from a single statement.

Every Spanish department I know prints out the NCSSFL-ACTFL can-do statements at the start of the year. By October they are taped to a wall and ignored. The can-dos are the single most useful standards document we have. The problem is how teachers are taught to use them.

What the can-do statements actually do

The Can-Do Statements (NCSSFL-ACTFL, 2017 revision) describe what a learner can do with the language at each proficiency sublevel from Novice Low to Distinguished. They are organized across the three communicative modes (interpretive, interpersonal, presentational) plus the newer intercultural communication strand.

A Novice Mid interpersonal can-do reads like this: I can use a few courtesy expressions and ask and respond to simple questions about familiar topics.

An Intermediate Low interpersonal can-do reads like this: I can ask and answer questions and exchange information about familiar topics, using short sentences in simple conversations.

The statements are deliberately vague at the headline level and concrete at the “performance indicator” level. Each can-do has bulleted sub-statements that give you observable behaviors. The framework is built to be unwrapped downward into curriculum, not used as posters.

Why most teachers do not unwrap them

Three reasons.

First, the documents are dense. The 2017 revision is over forty pages of cross-referenced descriptors. Reading them cover to cover in August is a punishment. Most departments skim the level headlines and stop.

Second, the can-dos are written in adult standards-language. They have to be edited into student-facing language before they become useful in a classroom. That editing work is rarely budgeted. New teachers especially are handed the PDF and told to align.

Third, the unwrap-to-curriculum step is not in the document itself. You need a backward-design framework on top, and most teacher preparation programs introduce backward design and the can-dos in different semesters with different instructors. The connection between them never gets made explicit.

Backward design from a single can-do

Wiggins and McTighe wrote the standard text on backward design (Understanding by Design, ASCD 2005). The argument is deceptively simple. Start with the outcome. Identify the evidence that would prove the outcome has been reached. Design the assessment that would generate that evidence. Then design the learning activities backward from the assessment.

Apply that to a single can-do and you get a unit skeleton in an hour. Here is the one I use in workshops.

Step 1: Pick the can-do

Pick one. Resist the urge to align a unit to seven of them. Multi-aligning is how the can-dos became wallpaper. One target can-do, one supporting can-do from a different mode, maximum.

For a Spanish 2 unit on food and restaurants, the target might be Intermediate Low interpersonal: I can interact with others in everyday situations, often using memorized phrases and short sentences. The supporting can-do might be Intermediate Low presentational: I can tell about myself, my family, and my friends and describe basic personal experiences.

Step 2: Write the evidence statement

What would I see a student do that would prove they hit the target? Be specific. For the food can-do, evidence might be: order a complete meal in a Spanish-language restaurant role play, including a clarifying question, a substitution, and a thank-you exchange, sustaining the interaction for at least ninety seconds without breaking into English.

Notice the verbs are observable. Notice the time and length constraints are specified. Notice the criteria are tight enough that two raters would agree.

Step 3: Design the assessment

Build the task that would produce the evidence. For the food can-do, the assessment is a paired role play with random partner assignment, a menu the students have not seen before, and a server who is instructed to make one unexpected move (ask about an allergy, recommend a substitution, tell the customer the dish is out). The unfamiliarity forces the student to do real negotiation rather than recite a rehearsed script.

Step 4: Identify the language students need

Now work backward. What vocabulary, structures, and chunks will the student need to complete the assessment? List them. For the food role play: ordering verbs (querer, pedir, tomar), polite forms (quisiera, podría), food vocabulary from the relevant cuisine, clarifying expressions (perdón, cómo se dice, qué es eso), and the past tense of one or two verbs in case the server asks how the meal was.

Step 5: Design the learning sequence

Now design the two weeks of class that get them there. Anchor text on food. Vocabulary practice. Pop-up grammar on the polite forms when they cause problems. Interpersonal practice with low-stakes versions of the role play. A presentational mini-task (describe your favorite meal in a recorded voice memo) that primes the language. Then the assessment.

We propose backward design as a more thoughtful and effective alternative to the “coverage” approach in which teachers march through the textbook a chapter at a time.

The intercultural strand most teachers skip

The 2017 revision added intercultural communication can-dos as a separate strand. The wording deliberately separates knowledge (what the student understands about a culture) from behavior (what the student does in cross-cultural interaction). For a heritage learner, the intercultural can-dos are often the most generative starting point for a unit, because they connect directly to identity questions the student already navigates.

Pick one intercultural can-do per unit at minimum. The framework supports a fully bilingual, bicultural design. Most teachers run the linguistic can-dos and add culture as garnish. That gets the standards backwards.

What about proficiency progression across a year

The other common misuse is treating the can-dos as a static target. A Spanish 2 student does not stay Intermediate Low all year. By May they should be solidly there or pushing Intermediate Mid. Plan your year so the can-do targets ratchet up across the four quarters.

First quarter targets near the bottom of the level. Second quarter targets the middle. Third targets the top. Fourth quarter touches the next sublevel up. Run periodic performance checks (the can-dos work as self-assessments too) and watch where students plateau. The plateau is your diagnostic data, not a failure.

What this means for your Monday

Pick the next unit you have to teach. Find the one can-do that the unit is genuinely about. Write the evidence statement in two sentences. Design the assessment that would produce that evidence. Then look at your existing unit plan and ask whether the activities in it actually feed the assessment.

For most of us, the honest answer is: some of them do, and the rest are there because they were in the textbook chapter. Drop the ones that do not feed the assessment. Use the time you bought to add a second cycle of practice on the ones that do. Your students will hit the can-do this time.