Reimagining Course Objectives in the Age of AI

By Deborah Cafiero, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer, School of World Languages and Cultures, University of Vermont

DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.69732/WCKE3888

Some educators may embrace generative AI as a pedagogical revolution, while others caution about its potential to replace human thought with an automated simulacrum of human thought (Warner 2025). This range of attitudes begs the question: what is our pedagogical purpose? Why do we teach world languages and cultures, and why do students study them? Many suggested uses of and limitations on generative AI try to meet or exceed the same course objectives as before, using current technology. In this category I would place “stoplight” approaches to AI use (see articles by Mecias or by Kostka et al.), as well as the many descriptions of designing chatbots for speaking practice (see articles by Reves & Bahtchevanov, Rosen, and Spirydovich). However, other teachers and scholars advocate for “[formulating] new learning outcomes for AI-enhanced classrooms” (Urlaub & Dessein).

Despite some skepticism towards the “AI-enhanced classroom,” I see the generative AI revolution/disruption as an opportunity to rethink our course objectives, and then to redesign course structure, assessments, and activities to optimize student learning. Following the teacher’s version of the Hippocratic oath — First do no harm! — here’s my blueprint for reimagining language course objectives in the age of AI, without sacrificing our language program priorities.

How Did I Get Here?

Back in 2024, I was tasked with designing common assessments for the first four semesters of Spanish at my university. As preparation, I consulted with my colleagues to define our common goals and priorities (Norris 2006). Several years earlier we had written shared syllabus language for course objectives, but I felt they were insufficient to communicate our true priorities.

In summer 2024 I revised our course objectives for the first four semesters. As organizing principles, I used ACTFL performance categories — interpretive, presentational, and interpersonal — adding performance indicators such as text type, language control, and communicative context, as I will show below in this article. Through this process, I created more explicit objectives for each level, received my colleagues’ approval, and got ready to craft new common syllabus language. I guessed at the time that generative AI would eventually force us to rethink our course objectives, but I decided to leave that can of worms for another day.

Then in September 2024, we hosted a symposium on generative AI and world languages instruction, with invited speakers Per Urlaub and Eva Dessein from MIT, Cory Duclos from Colgate University, and Thor Sawin from Middlebury College. The symposium compelled me to revisit our course objectives right away, with these main take-aways as a result of generative AI:

• Emphasize process over product (Duclos);
• Move beyond “instrumental” language instruction and “beyond proficiency markers,” even in beginner-level courses (Duclos);
• Emphasize “the transfer of knowledge through culture” as “uniquely human” (Duclos);
• Ask how generative AI can be incorporated into language pedagogy as a learning facilitator in the Zone of Proximal Development, offering “help from knowledgeable others” in a way that’s interactive and collaborative (Urlaub and Dessein);
• Make sure that generative AI doesn’t undermine the “process of discovery” conveyed through speaking and writing (Urlaub and Dessein).

In an educational landscape with generative AI, I concluded that we need to rethink the organizing principles of interpretive, presentational, and interpersonal performance. Instead, we should:

• Not separate linguistic performance from cultural competency;
• Not separate linguistic performance from pragmatics;
• Move course objectives beyond the fundamentally “instrumental”: at every level of language instruction, we should explicitly teach and assess uses of language that cannot be accomplished through an exchange of cellphones;
• Integrate tools for building multilingual identity (pragmatic competence, cultural and linguistic comparison, interpersonal proficiency in casual contexts) at every level.

At the same time, any course objectives in my Spanish program couldn’t sacrifice our program priorities: accuracy in the absence of technology, target language-only instruction, and a high reading level for programs in the major and minor.

In light of these conclusions, I replaced ACTFL performance categories with new organizing principles for our course objectives:

1. Interpersonal speaking and writing in casual contexts;
2. Interpretive + interpersonal reading/listening/speaking/writing on topics of cultural and societal interest (understanding and discussing a written or video text);
3. Complex ideas and interpretations across language skills;
4. Attention to similarities and differences across cultures;
5. Attention to similarities and differences between Spanish and English or other languages (keeping translanguaging to a minimum).

These principles blur the distinction between using language as an instrument to accomplish concrete, measurable tasks, and reaching for intercultural knowledge and identity through language learning. They place performance objectives in the service of “the transfer of knowledge through culture.” These organizing principles also blur the lines between interpersonal, interpretive and presentational performance, a shift which hopefully helps to “emphasize process over product.” On the other hand, the goal of level-appropriate expression and comprehension of complexity can’t be met without level-appropriate linguistic complexity and accuracy: this objective reframes ACTFL performance descriptors, bringing together linguistic performance with increasing complexity in cultural or social interpretation.

All in all, my revised framework for course goals attempts to place critical thinking, interpersonal competence, cultural reflection, and identity at the center of language learning. These are all things a machine can’t do for learners, but may be able to facilitate.

What Does This Look Like? Spanish Level 1

All three iterations of course objectives for our program — the original shared syllabus language, the expanded course objectives from summer 2024, and my current revised objectives from 2025 — include a description of language functions understood to be performed without technological assistance, at an appropriate level of accuracy. To show what I mean, here are the original shared syllabus objectives for first-semester Spanish:

At the end of this course, you’ll be able to:

• Describe yourself and others; 

• Initiate and maintain a basic conversation;

• Speak and write about current activities;

• Begin to speak and write about past activities;

• Express simple likes and dislikes;

• Fill out simple forms and documents, and provide basic biographical information;

• Engage in the reading of short, simple texts;

• Have a broader cultural knowledge of the Spanish-speaking communities  and countries of the world today.

In 2024 I shifted the emphasis for these objectives to ACTFL performance categories and descriptors. Most of the language functions in the 2024 objectives are similar to the above list, but more explicit. As I mentioned above, I never actually prepared new syllabus language in summer 2024, but here’s an example from the document I circulated to our Spanish instructors:

“Students can ask and respond to simple questions to get basic information on familiar topics.” 

The 2024 objectives also specified text type:

“​​Students can produce a few loosely connected sentences with one or two verbs.”

In the 2024 objectives, as per ACTFL performance descriptors, there was an awareness of audience:

“Often comprehensible (with clarification) on familiar topics for a sympathetic native speaker accustomed to interacting with learners.”

Finally, the objectives included more specific reference to transcultural competence: 

“Students know some specific information about cultural processes or products from at least one Spanish-speaking community/country.” 

Now, my emphasis has shifted again. On the one hand, many of the language features in the 2024 objectives still apply. However, the current objectives now frame the idea of audience or interlocutor through the student’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and communicative relationship with a target-language community. The ZPD is a theory developed by Lev Vygotsky, according to which the most effective learning takes place when learners are striving to complete tasks that they cannot quite accomplish by themselves, but can fulfill with guidance from an expert or more knowledgeable peer. (A simple but effective explanation of Vygotsky’s concept of the ZPD applied to language learning can be found in the New York State Education Department’s website for bilingual education.) One application of the ZPD for language learning describes this knowledgeable guide as an “N+1” interlocutor: if “N” is the learner’s proficiency level, then “N+1” describes an interlocutor whose proficiency is a little higher.

Before preparing new syllabus language (yet again) for our Spanish courses, I circulated and received approval in 2025 for detailed revised course objectives. Here are a few for our first-semester Spanish classes; keep in mind that the target audience for these objectives are  instructors, not students.

At the end of this course, students can:

• Communicate with an “N+1” interlocutor who uses short paragraphs; student responds with 1-2 sentences;

• Begin to hold a simple conversation on personal topics that have been studied with a native speaker who is patient and accustomed to communicating with language learners; the student’s communication breaks down with frustrating frequency.

The instructor or even a language tutor may function as the “N+1” interlocutor. This definition of an “N+1” interlocutor places students within a particular ZPD and situates their participation within a possible target language (TL) community. To describe the degree of their possible participation more precisely I included the other objective, which includes the caveat that the student isn’t yet equipped to participate effectively in a TL community and will probably experience significant frustration if they try to do so. I felt it was important to remind ourselves that the goal of all our Spanish courses is to help our students along a trajectory of multilingual identity, but that our level 1 students are just barely starting.

The 2025 Spanish level 1 objectives explicitly describe the student’s relationship with a TL text:

At the end of this course, students can:

• Offer a brief, simple description of main ideas from written texts that employ simple syntax, short paragraphs, mainly in present tense, on topics that have been studied;

• Offer a simple description of 1-2 main ideas of a brief video that uses simple syntax, mainly in present tense, slow rhythm, on a topic that has been studied.

• Offer a 1-2 sentence personal response in the beginning stages of ‘dialogue’ with the text.

The first two objectives in this section follow ACTFL performance descriptors fairly closely and echo the objectives I developed in summer 2024. However, I added an element of personal response, which hopefully encourages students to take a first step towards multilingual identity in relation to a TL text. In general, the line between comprehension and expression is blurred. Level 1 students are at an elementary level for both, but should be able to experience a personal, if basic sense of connection when interacting with simple TL texts by the end of the semester.

New Syllabus Language

I have shared some of the detailed course objectives I prepared for instructors, but our students needed syllabus language that would be simple and brief, yet communicate the priorities of the course. So a lot of the detail I just described is left out of the new syllabus for Level 1 Spanish. This table lets you compare the original course objectives with the current syllabus language:

At the end of this course, you’ll be able to:

Original (way back when)	2025 revised
Describe yourself and others	Offer simple descriptions of people and places
Initiate and maintain a basic conversation	Ask for and provide basic information in spontaneous conversation on everyday topics
Speak and write about current activities	Express politeness and friendship during conversations using appropriate expressions
Begin to speak and write about past activities
Express simple likes and dislikes	Express simple likes and dislikes
Fill out simple forms and documents, and provide basic biographical information
Engage in the reading of short, simple texts	Understand and express main ideas of simple written texts and short videos
Have a broader cultural knowledge of the Spanish-speaking communities and countries of the world today	Describe basic differences and similarities between a few practices, products or conventions of Spanish-speaking societies and your own culture.

There is not a drastic difference between the two versions, but there is a shift in emphasis. While the 2025 objectives contain largely the same general language functions as before, there’s no longer a description of purely instrumental language use removed from interpersonal relations or cultural comparison, such as filling out forms or understanding simple texts like public signs or announcements. This has been replaced with an explicit emphasis on using language to grow personal and cultural relationships. In keeping with this emphasis, there are fewer defined boundaries among presentational, interpretive, and interpersonal communication.

Some educators might point out that it is difficult to measure the factors that help grow personal and cultural relationships, and therefore might hesitate to include these in a list of course objectives. I have come to agree with John Norris that student learning outcomes “do not need to (and often should not) take the form of measurable targets” (Norris 579). ACTFL now offers descriptors for intercultural competence, but there is still no precise rubric for either intercultural competence or expanded identity. Even so, if we value these goals, students should be aware of them and have some sense of working towards them.

In the current semester – Spring 2026 – I have begun applying these new objectives to my current basic Spanish course. As one example, I have supplied students with simple expressions of courtesy, solidarity, and a few pragmatic strategies to help them conduct themselves with politeness and friendship in the target language throughout class. I had done this previously but have placed more emphasis this semester on these expressions and strategies. Another change involves more interpretative discussion in class around practices, products or conventions of target-language societies, and an explicit requirement for interpretation in assessments. 

We’re still in the first half of the semester, but I believe I’m seeing more camaraderie and less overall discomfort in target-language class discussion: the beginnings of a target-language ability to forge relationships. And the in-class cultural comparisons, which are conducted in the target language, are leading to short but coherent comparisons seen in assessments. One difference I seem to be noting this semester is that the ability to feel a sense of relationship in the target language, and to perceive and express cultural comparison, has always been present for some of the strongest students in an elementary-level course; but this semester it seems to be working its way through a larger percentage of the class. My shift in emphasis due to the new course objectives may be creating greater equity in the classroom.

Spanish Level 4

Here’s a glimpse of the process of course objective revision for our fourth-semester course. The original shared syllabus objectives for Level 4 Spanish were:

At the end of this semester, you’ll be able to:

• Compose and revise written assignments in present and past time frames with learned material while expressing personal opinions;

• Summarize and discuss short texts using critical reflection and cultural references;

• Converse about topics of cultural and social interest in all major time frames;

• Indicate a comprehension of authentic Spanish in personal and social contexts through verbal and written responses;

• Recognize and discuss some of the major historical events and cultural aspects of the Spanish-speaking world.

The detailed 2025 objectives contain some specifics on linguistic accuracy, but place equal emphasis on the pragmatics of interpersonal communication and the gradual construction of a multilingual social identity. Here are some details from the new objectives, as written for faculty (not students), that attempt to fuse linguistic proficiency with social identity and performance:

At the end of this course, students can:

• Usually understand a paraphrase and sometimes can paraphrase an unknown word;

• Hold more extended conversations on topics that have been studied with a patient native speaker accustomed to communicating with language learners; the student can often avoid breakdown with negotiation of meaning;

• Use an expanding repertoire of expressions of solidarity during conversation;

• Often ask clarifying questions to avoid communication breakdown;
• Effectively communicate with an “N+1” interlocutor who expresses complex viewpoints in different time frames using authentic but informal language; the student contributes with simple but coherent utterances and can produce complex interpretations with the help of an “N+1” interlocutor.

The description of communication with an “N+1” interlocutor situates the student within a ZPD defined by both linguistic ability and cultural interpretation. The original course objectives for this level not only ignored the ZPD, but also disregarded the goal of increasing complexity in transcultural competence. 

New Syllabus Language

A comparison between the original course objectives for Level 4 Spanish and the 2025 revised syllabus language clearly shows a shift in emphasis. Compare the two sets of syllabus objectives in this table:

At the end of this course, you’ll be able to:

Original (way back when)	2025 revised
Compose and revise written assignments in present and past time frames with learned material while expressing personal opinions	Understand and discuss personal stories and social topics in multiple time frames
Summarize and discuss short texts using critical reflection and cultural references	Summarize and express opinions on authentic texts such as newspaper articles or informational websites, as well as short literary texts and videos
Converse about topics of cultural and social interest in all major time frames	Participate in extended conversations in which you solicit and express information, preferences, opinions, and suggestions on both personal and social topics
Indicate a comprehension of authentic Spanish in personal and social contexts through verbal and written responses	Express politeness and friendship appropriately during conversation, ask clarifying questions to increase your understanding, and negotiate the meaning of unfamiliar words
Recognize and discuss some of the major historical events and cultural aspects of the Spanish-speaking world	Recognize and discuss some of the major historical events of the Spanish-speaking world
	Employ more extended vocabulary, together with common verb tenses and the main structures of Spanish syntax, to describe social issues
	Research and describe Spanish-speaking societies, express and justify your opinions, and draw comparisons among societies based on the information you have found

The 2025 syllabus language often blurs the lines between presentational, interpretive, and interpersonal objectives, as well as between reading, writing, speaking and listening. Additionally, it blurs the boundaries between acquiring cultural knowledge and engaging in cultural interpretation, a fusion which is not only the foundation of intercultural learning (Byram & Wagner 146) but also a crucial step towards multilingual identity and critical thinking about society.

This semester, I have the opportunity to teach fourth-semester Spanish with these new objectives. The course now incorporates a constant movement among interpretive, presentational, and interpersonal communication, along with the “four skills” of reading, writing, listening and speaking. To give an example, a typical assignment-class cycle consists of students reading or watching an authentic TL text, completing auto-graded comprehension, vocabulary, and grammar exercises, then writing a paragraph-long personal discussion response. In the next class we engage in initial conversation related to the discussion prompt, then extend the personal to a social interpretation of the text, for which students may conduct a write-pair-share activity. We will often return to the written discussion responses to enrich vocabulary use during the classroom discussion. Finally, students usually employ a challenging grammatical structure to respond to the topic with greater precision or complexity, writing their responses on the class board and analyzing the grammar collectively. This assignment-to-class sequence demonstrates a course and lesson design that eschews “information” (whether grammatical or cultural) without interpretation, and avoids separating interpretive, presentational, and interpersonal communication as much as possible. Additionally, no phase of the sequence isolates students from one another; they have the opportunity to address all components of learning collectively at different points along the way.

This approach to learning has encouraged almost every student in the class to participate in collective discussions, notably both online and in person: in this sense, it has increased equity in the classroom. I have found that students who are less confident in their linguistic abilities are often still motivated to share their social interpretations with the class. Perhaps a course structure that clearly values collective construction of a multilingual identity is a factor in helping these students overcome their hesitation. 

The Role of Generative AI

The 2025 course objectives explicitly merge linguistic, intercultural, and social learning. While generative AI tools may be able to simulate some of the course activities, they remain factually unreliable and dubiously authentic. In this way, the objectives underline the continued importance of being able to perform level-appropriate language functions independently of technology. For example, if a Level 1 Spanish student continues to use their computer or phone to generate target-language expressions and strategies for social solidarity during online or in-person interactions, they won’t experience authentic growth in their target-language sense of community. If a Level 4 student uses generative AI to produce a summary of an authentic target-language text, they won’t be able to collaborate with their peers in tracing extended personal and social interpretations, and this will rob them of the opportunity to experience intercultural empowerment by co-constructing complex viewpoints on personal and social topics.

The 2025 objectives are arguably more demanding than the original course objectives. Goals that allow students to separate out linguistic features from social or cultural context, and instructors to assess different linguistic or cultural competencies in isolation, are likely to demand less complex cognitive tasks or scaffolding than a design that attempts to fuse these types of learning and assessment. I felt the shift was necessary because many generative AI tools now excel at producing a level-appropriate product according to clearly divided language skills and functions, especially in the absence of social or cultural context. Rather than prioritizing skills that a machine can do, our course objectives should emphasize rigorous, interactive growth in the human realms of communication, interpretation, and identity.

How might generative AI help my students to reach these objectives? Taking my cue from Drs. Urlaub and Dessein, I will try to help my students situate generative AI tools as an “N+1” interlocutor, providing them with a ZPD to stretch their abilities. After the September 2024 symposium I experimented with using chatbots as an “N+1” interlocutor for different levels, but I found MS Copilot (our university-supported platform) to be an unreliable interlocutor for Spanish grammar, negotiation of meaning, and any sort of opinion requiring judgment.

However, in 2026 MS Copilot is now a serviceable Spanish grammar corrector and interlocutor for general discussion of social topics and generically appropriate expression of courtesy. It still shouldn’t be taken as an authentic source of intercultural perspectives or a reliable grammar tutor. In both these areas, MS Copilot conveys an impression of expertise but falls short of human intervention, making it a potentially misleading tool for students who don’t know better.

For this reason, I take the approach of giving students options for specific prompts to use in specific ways for different course levels if they choose to use generative AI, as well as strongly encouraging them to use a platform with greater privacy protections (MS Copilot for my institution). Additionally, I don’t recommend requiring students to use generative AI in the face of major concerns about ethics and environmental impact.

Course and Assessment Design

In keeping with my program’s priority of accuracy in the absence of technology, my 2025 course objectives call for combining language functions with intercultural growth, demonstrated without technological assistance. We can assess these abilities by conducting assessment on paper or in conversation, or some combination of both. In courses where this isn’t possible, the instructor would want to design assessments where AI text generation is harder to implement or minimally advantageous for the grade.

It would be a shame to go back to emphasizing paper tests that assess what a machine can now do. Instead, I’m finding that the Age of AI gives me an opportunity to explicitly state and assess my priorities beyond instrumental language learning. For example, I’ve adjusted several rubrics to include scores for both intercultural interpretation and pragmatic language strategies, and students at all levels know they will be asked to compare aspects of different societies in their oral exams. In-class written exams now include a section for the student’s personal reaction to specific information they’ve learned about a Spanish-speaking society. I’ve always placed a significant emphasis in my courses on written assignments that are scored for interpretation over accuracy, and video assignments where students describe personal reactions to a text, but I feel a new sense of legitimacy in emphasizing process over product. As a practical matter for students, I’m able to explicitly communicate to them how their course grade will be affected by factors beyond their Spanish performance in reading, writing, listening, and speaking.

In short, generative AI was the trigger I needed to revise my course objectives for the world my students and I live in, while still maintaining my program’s priorities. I have a long way to go for optimal course and assessment design to help my students achieve the objectives and measure their accomplishment, but at least I know where I’m heading.

AI disclosure

No use of AI.

References

Beals, J. (2024). Grounding AI: Understanding the implications of generative AI in world language & culture education. The FLTMAG. https://www.doi.org/10.69732/AHCN5851 

Billings, E., & Walqui, A. (2021). The zone of proximal development: An affirmative perspective in teaching ELLs/MLLs. NYSED Office of Bilingual Education and World Languages. https://www.nysed.gov/sites/default/files/programs/bilingual-ed/zone_proximal_development.pdf 

Byram, M., & Wagner, M. (2018). Making a difference: Language teaching for intercultural and international dialogue. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 140-151. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12319

Duclos, C. (2024, September 28). The limitations of generative AI and the role of language learning [Conference presentation]. AI and World Languages Instruction Symposium, University of Vermont.

Jennings, P. J., & Thunstedt, C. (2025). From grammar to strategy: Two perspectives on language education and AI from FLEAT 8. The FLTMAG. https://www.doi.org/10.69732/LJYY3571 

Kostka, I., Toncelli, R., & Fairfield, C. (2025). Red means stop and green means go: Creating AI guidelines with students. The FLTMAG. https://www.doi.org/10.69732/WNWY9538 

Mecias, M. L. (2025). Navigating the AI highway: A traffic light approach to language learning. The FLTMAG. https://www.doi.org/10.69732/FGOG9332 

Norris, J. M. (2006). Perspectives: The why (and how) of assessing student learning outcomes in college foreign language programs. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 576–583.

Pribble, K. (2025). Is it OK to use AI for this? A model for values-based decision making in language teaching and learning. The FLTMAG. https://www.doi.org/10.69732/NLOX4487 

Reves, C., & Bahtchevanova, M. (2025). Designing with purpose: Pedagogical reflections for the development of AI speaking tools. The FLTMAG. https://www.doi.org/10.69732/JWJF8837 

Rosen, L. (2025). Speakology AI: The future of conversational speaking practice is here. The FLTMAG. https://www.doi.org/10.69732/SNXT5205 

Spirydovich, N. (2025). Making space for real conversations: AI chatbots in the language classroom. The FLTMAG. https://www.doi.org/10.69732/YHRJ4554 

Urlaub, P., & Dessein, E. (2024). When disruptive innovations drive educational transformation: Literacy, pocket calculator, Google Translate, ChatGPT. MIT Open Publishing Services. https://mit-genai.pubpub.org/pub/6chtnd56 

Urlaub, P. (2024, September 27). From competition to collaboration: Chess, human development, and the future of language education in the age of AI [Conference presentation]. AI and World Languages Instruction Symposium, University of Vermont.

Warner, J. (2025). More than words: How to think about writing in the age of AI. Basic Books.