|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the fall 1999 issue, the Bulletin published nine comments in response to Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the Twenty-First Century (Yonkers: Natl. Standards in Foreign Lang. Educ. Project, 1996). We offer here nine additional comments. Our original solicitation invited opinion pieces on the implications of the Standards for higher education. Topics we suggested included the teaching of language and literature (the curriculum), the preparation of students entering postsecondary institutions, teacher education, student placement in college and university classes, and articulation. While the forum concludes with the following responses, we are gratified that the Standards will continue to foster constructive conversation between secondary and postsecondary foreign language professionals.
UNLESS they have children in elementary, middle, or high school, many college professors may have missed the educational reform movement of the nineties based on "standards." Listing things students should know and be able to do at grades 4, 8, and 12, these content standards have also become a way for schools, districts, and states to measure and compare the progress of their students. This educational reform movement also has significant political and economic implications: attracting dollars for education at state and local levels as well as federal support for identifying and implementing standards in schools across the nation.
The Standards for foreign language learning are less an indication of what students are currently capable of doing than the hope of what, in the best of circumstances, students might be able to do in the next century. While defining Standards for grades K-12 the authors recognize their idealistic nature, for few if any school programs in the United States have second-language instruction beginning in kindergarten and progressing through grade 12. (I am aware of none in Russian.)
Consequently, much of this reform has failed to attract our attention in higher education. The original audience was primary and secondary educators. The vision articulated may be even further from reality by the end of this century since foreign language education enrollments, other than Spanish, have declined. The Standards certainly provide a new context for the latest series of self-studies and reappraisals, at the college level, of what and how we have been teaching in the past decade. Should students be learning language skills or learning about a language? How should the acquisition of language competency, the development of communicative language skills, be complemented by theoretical knowledge about language?
Three of the Standards' five C's--communication, connections, and comparisons--offer a welcome balance for those feeling sidelined by proficiency in the quest of communicative competency. The importance and legitimacy of literary texts are explicitly recognized in Standard 1.2 "Students understand and interpret written and spoken language on a variety of topics" (9). Sample progress include a student's ability to "analyze the main plot, subplot, characters, their descriptions, roles, and significance in authentic literary texts" (40). The trend over the past decade to use language in context and in cross-disciplinary studies finds voice in Standards 3.1 and 3.2: "Students reinforce and further their knowledge of other disciplines and recognize the distinctive viewpoints that are only available through the foreign language and its cultures" (9). I find particularly heartening the recognition of language per se in Standard 4.1 and the attention to language as a system that has frequently been absent in American education in recent years. "Students demonstrate understanding of the nature of language through comparisons of the language studied and their own" (9). All these Standards mirror a reality in college foreign language classes today--certainly those at my institution. Amid the enthusiasm, we would do well to add a note of caution.
While the Standards indicate common ground for articulation, this topic has been around for the past twenty-five years and seems to defy solutions. Quite frankly, the needs and expectations of the college environment are dramatically different from high school realities. The variety afforded by over three thousand institutions of higher learning, each with its own culture and needs, defies any but the broadest of statements on shared goals. It is unrealistic to think that the aims of secondary and postsecondary education need to or even should coincide. There have also been some unforeseen consequences of the original Standards. There is concern that some local school boards may decide that no language learning is preferable to just a little when presented with a prescription for four-year, eight-year, thirteen-year sequences. In "Clarifying Statement" ACTFL recognizes that extended language study is "the ideal for achieving the highest levels of performance" but that "multiple entry points" must be available for the accommodation of students who, for whatever reason, come to the study of a language (1). Another reality check appears in the recently published ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners, which indicates that even after thirteen years of precollege language study most students can at best be expected to achieve the Intermediate level on the ACTFL proficiency scale. Such performance levels are often achieved by college students in an intensive or immersion program of a single year or summer.
The Standards sections on cultures and connections may at first glance prove problematic for the college audience. Some of my colleagues feel strongly that the products of culture (from caviar to vodka or from bagels to baked ziti) ought not to displace or replace other, more intellectual pursuits (from Pushkin to Pravda). Even though I wish to support the Standards, I recognize that many of us were not trained and do not feel qualified to do what the Standards require. Others question the presence of nonlinguistic communication and the social science aspect of little "c" culture, from a Russian's table manners to the etiquette on the Moscow metro. It is true that we in higher education need not embrace all aspects of the Standards equally. "Language and communication are at the heart of the human experience" (7). I try to provide a way for my students to acquire the skills to comprehend spoken and written Russian and to communicate in the language orally and in writing, to participate in Russian life at the university level, and ultimately to utilize their language skills and an appreciation for Russian culture and history as a context for using Russian in their future careers. But we offer college credit for demonstrable performance in our courses, not necessarily for experiential learning, valuable as it may be.
In my best-case scenario I hope that the Standards, much like the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (1982), will call forth a new dialogue and reexamination of what we teach and how, what students are or should be learning, and how we can best help our students achieve those standards of excellence. The vision promises, or at least lets us dream of, the day when more high school graduates will arrive in college with greater and more sophisticated language ability. As the foreign language Standards take hold in the American educational consciousness, ACTFL is drafting, along with core AATs, Standards expanded from levels K-12 to include K-16 (i.e., through the four-year undergraduate curriculum). The clarity and comprehensive quality of Standards and Performance Guidelines provide for a smooth transition between what is taught and learned at school and how we build on that knowledge and those skills in our classrooms. They encourage us to balance the learning and the study of language, practical skills with a sound theoretical foundation and appreciation of what language is. They provide new reasons to expand the study of language beyond English and Spanish to include others less commonly taught: Chinese, Japanese, and Russian and, until recently, some considered more commonly taught, such as French, German, and Italian. If embraced by our institutions the Standards should result in increased professional development opportunities and the necessary retraining to bring them to life in our own pedagogical practice.
Such a conversation will take place, however, only if the Standards move far beyond the confines of ACTFL to be embraced and hotly discussed by the professional organizations, including MLA and ADFL, that primarily address college professors and deans. Standards: What are they? How can they best be achieved? How can progress toward achieving them be measured? These are questions that will shape the future for students in college classrooms in the twenty-first century. Foreign languages at the college level are in serious danger of being marginalized by the social sciences, the humanities, and even the Internet. I fear there is a growing sense that the knowledge of English, plus current or future translation capabilities, is adequate for performing one's task competently. From the beginning those involved with formulating the Standards have sought to be as inclusive as possible. All are welcome to participate in the discussion of this issue, a discussion that will have an impact on our professional lives in the years to come. This is no time to ignore what promises to be the single most driving force in American education. To ignore the Standards is to be left on the sidelines as American education reinvents itself.
Thomas R. Beyer, Jr.
Middlebury College
"Clarifying Statement: Foreign Language Study--Multiple Entries and Extended Sequences." ACTFL Newsletter 11.2 (1998): 1, 3.
Swender, Elvira, and Glen Duncan. "ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners." Foreign Language Annals 31.4 (1998): 479-91.
I am always puzzled by the reactions of my colleagues when in a departmental meeting or at a professional conference I declare that language operates on grammar but that we must not let grammar presentations rule the format of our courses if we are truly interested in promoting and teaching communication skills. I usually see unanimous nods of approval at my statement, but someone invariably says that students must know the grammar to be able to communicate. At that point, I begin to speak of an approach to presenting and packaging grammar in such a way that students are not overwhelmed by traditional grammar terminologies. I assure my colleagues that I believe that, ideally, language learners should know the names and functions of the parts of speech but explain that there are varying ways of knowing grammar. After the discussion is over, I realize that most of the listeners have not accepted my arguments. I quickly see that it is quite difficult to persuade some college professors (and high school teachers also) that the age-old convenient practice of developing and teaching a syllabus built around grammar topics is perhaps not the best way.
In the mid-eighties, I played a lead role in a project at my institution designed to restructure our traditional language program into a proficiency-oriented one. With training and certification in the oral proficiency interview (OPI), I was convinced that two colleagues and I would be able to change our program by presenting a one-day workshop to other colleagues on the virtues and newness of proficiency-oriented instruction. The workshop itself was a success, and my colleagues and I received wonderful evaluations and applause. We convinced our colleagues to change the syllabi for our four-semester language sequence. What I discovered later, however, was that, while the syllabi were revised to reflect an emphasis on proficiency and communicative skills, instructors continued to teach and test the same way. In most of our language courses the restructuring project affected only the format of the syllabus. Instruction and course format remained essentially unaffected. Here again, a strict grammar orientation prevailed.
There are still among us college instructors who worship religiously the false divide between secondary-school and college-level language study and teaching. While I recognize and espouse the view that teaching strategies and instructional materials should be age- and population-specific, I dismiss the notion that the goals and objectives of college and university programs are significantly different from those of secondary education programs. In fact, they look very similar, on paper at least. I recall some years ago that our department considered changing the name of our beginning language courses from Language I, II, III, IV to College Language I, II, III, IV. The reason for the proposed change was to signal to students that they were now in college and that language study would be different, more involved, more communicative. The change was never made, but the proposal reflected the thinking of many postsecondary language teachers. What is dangerous and unfortunate is that this thinking is based on perceived notions. College instructors must be made aware of what goes on in foreign language instruction in elementary and secondary schools. We must not see ourselves as dwellers of ivory towers with no real connections to education in the schools. Our role is to continue to build on all the language skills (reading, writing, speaking, listening, and culture) when students enter our college programs. Education is a continuum. Language is language and communication is communication, regardless of the levels on which they are taught.
What are the implications of the Standards for foreign language programs at postsecondary institutions? The Standards have the potential of driving college-level instructors to standardize their thoughts on what language instruction should look like at the college level. But, clearly, we must first establish ways of encouraging college faculty members to study the Standards and accept them as a major step in producing high school graduates with similar experiences and abilities. Without the benefit of dialogue with high school teachers, college instructors usually blame high school teachers for the low performance and lack of achievement in college language programs. The Standards can provide an excellent opportunity to start discussions between K-12 and postsecondary language teaching professionals. Postsecondary language and literature teaching professionals should have a vested interest in the Standards because we are constantly looking for language majors and students who will pursue advanced studies in language, linguistics, and literature. Most students decide on a major in languages while in high school. This is reason enough for postsecondary educators to pay closer attention to the characteristics of the foreign language education of incoming students.
Articulation between K-12 and postsecondary institutions must include more than the traditional placement of college students in elementary and high schools to be student teachers and apprentices and classroom observers. Articulation projects must include a systematic study of the values, mores, and philosophies in the two institutional cultures involved. The Standards, which are not designed to be a prescribed curriculum, focus on content and performance outcomes. K-12 and postsecondary teachers can take advantage of the appearance of the Standards by discussing and influencing together the content of future generic textbooks and other materials for language teaching. Other discussions might center on how textbooks are selected and used at the various levels of instruction. Healthy discussions on performance expectations of both K-12 and postsecondary language programs can lead, perhaps, to a reconciliation of the varying views on the role of grammar in the communicative, proficiency-oriented classroom. These are clearly issues that affect all language teachers regardless of where they sit.
The Standards will undoubtedly require some transformations in teacher education and development programs in the new millennium. It should be understood that when I speak of teacher education programs here, I speak of the two major components: the professional training offered in departments of education and the content areas offered in foreign language departments. I am more concerned, however, about what goes on in foreign language departments because I think that university departments of education and the professional language associations have begun to look quite seriously at the area of professional standards for teachers. I make reference specifically to the following documents: The Teaching of French: A Syllabus of Competence (1989), Professional Standards for Teachers of German (1992), ACTFL Provisional Program Guidelines for Foreign Language Teacher Education (1988), and AATSP Program Guidelines for Education and Training of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese (1992). What is unsettling is that faculty members in foreign language departments, who teach undergraduate teacher education candidates, are generally not familiar with these documents. It was not surprising, but it is worth noting, that most of my colleagues had not heard of NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education) until a team from that council recently descended on our program of review for certification. Generally, until such a program review occurs, university foreign language programs have very few interactions with departments of education that handle teacher education programs.
It is my opinion that the Standards imply significant changes in the curriculum of foreign language departments at the postsecondary level. The Standards, I reiterate, deal with content in the domains of communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities. Those who teach prospective language teachers, especially in the content areas, must know what is proposed in each domain of the Standards. My review of postsecondary programs in foreign languages in many United States institutions reveals, however, that many programs continue to offer curricula in which traditional literary studies predominate. This is especially true in the few historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) that have teacher education programs in foreign languages. While I agree that teacher education candidates must be well versed in the literary traditions of the language and cultures that they will teach, I strongly believe that literature courses for the undergraduate major or teacher candidate should be restructured to focus on the cultural, sociological, humanistic, and anthropological aspects of literature. This will require the implementation of more interdisciplinary courses for the foreign language education major. Moreover, from where I sit, I am deeply concerned that the HBCUs are not producing a significant number of foreign language teacher candidates. I think that it is a moral responsibility of HBCUs to assist in producing more foreign language teachers. Many of the students who arrive at HBCU campuses with an interest in teaching foreign languages are turned off by our curricular offerings, however. I have used the example of the HBCUs because that is what I know well, but my general sense is that it is primarily the task of postsecondary institutions to ensure that teachers of foreign languages are prepared to teach in our constantly changing world. Teacher education programs and foreign language departments must form strong alliances to effect the curricular changes I have mentioned. The Standards for students, along with the standards for teachers cited above, should be the impetus.
Implementation of the Standards will certainly require more specialized teacher-training workshops on curriculum development and teaching in general. Foreign language teaching professionals have had, nationwide, more than a decade of specialized workshops on proficiency-oriented teaching, testing, and assessment. Our discipline is indeed ahead in that regard. My concern, however, is that these workshops have attracted a select few who were already convinced that changes need to be made. Postsecondary professionals in foreign language literature must also see value in their participation in such workshops. In my opinion, there must be widespread faculty development programs in the area of teaching language skills at the college and university levels. Teacher training must be viewed as a lifetime journey. When and how do we establish systematic teacher training (retraining) at the college level? A one-day workshop is clearly not the answer. Postsecondary institutions generally do not schedule discipline-based in-service workshops for faculty members. Should they? I would argue that they should. Many college-level language instructors are concerned about pursuing research agendas in literary studies--not language and culture teaching--for tenure or promotion. This is the case in many postsecondary institutions and explains why foreign language faculty members will not engage in serious language teaching training. We can only hope that the Standards will promote discussions in postsecondary programs on the importance and benefit of research and publications on classroom language teaching at all levels of instruction.
Finally, I appreciate all the fine efforts of K-12 school districts, ACTFL, and other foreign language organizations who have toiled arduously on the Standards. My optimism regarding the Standards will remain somewhat dim until we perform major surgery on teacher education programs, focus on faculty retraining and development at the postsecondary level, and implement widespread articulation projects between K-12 and postsecondary units. I am optimistic, however, that the Standards will help us provide a national framework for foreign language instruction at all levels. The alternative is the continued delivery of substandard foreign language programs in the United States. Nobody wants that, I hope.
James J. Davis
Howard University
STANDARDS for Foreign Language Learning has generated a great deal of speculation on possible new directions for language instruction and higher levels of communicative cooperation promised by the radical conceptual reorientation, which many believe the Standards represent. Most of the discussion, unfortunately, takes place in a vacuum. The document itself is highly theoretical, and given the seminal nature of the effort, this orientation is perfectly appropriate. Now, however, three years after its publication, the time has come to ground the discussion within the context of certain practical concerns that are all too familiar to those involved at any level of language instruction. We have a very impressive prototype, but will it fly?
The bottom line is this: without administrative support, the new Standards will have little or no appreciable effect on foreign language instruction. This is not a cynical or jaundiced view. It is the view of someone who, as the head of a language department, alternately wears the hat of administrator and faculty member, who has spent a good portion of his teaching career attempting to prepare teachers (and those who aspire to become teachers) to function competently in the classroom, and who happens to be married to a former middle-school French teacher. In short, it is the view of someone who is painfully aware of the practical constraints with which language teachers must constantly struggle, who has seen too many good teachers opt for early retirement, and who has seen too many promising students opt out of teaching altogether.
The discussion of the Standards, I would argue, needs to take into account the formidable constraints under which most language teachers in public secondary education are expected to perform. We are all aware of these constraints, of course, and many may find them irrelevant to the discussion. I would maintain that nothing could be more relevant to the eventual success or failure of the Standards than such factors as class size, combination of levels within a single class, budgetary constraints, staffing needs, and the use of distance learning and other technology. Any consideration of the Standards that ignores these constraints will be of limited value. The subtitle of Standards for Foreign Language Learning is Preparing for the Twenty-First Century. The underlying assumption seems to be that the classroom of the twenty-first century, radically different from the classroom of 1999, will offer a more favorable environment for innovative approaches to the learning of a foreign language. I would only observe, with some dismay and disbelief, that the twenty-first century is nearly upon us. Although we hope that the new century will bring long-awaited improvements to all aspects of education, all signs point to a worsening of conditions before we witness any amelioration. Indeed, many who study the history of secondary education warn of an impending crisis whose consequences may be far more damaging than most imagine.
In a recent article Eileen W. Glisan and June K. Phillips imagine a Spanish II class in the year 2005. In this scenario, all language classes, as a result of block scheduling, are now eighty minutes long. This particular class focuses on types of lodging and includes a variety of activities, such as small-group work, group presentations, and research on the Internet. The hypothetical class is indeed a model application of the Standards, and it is difficult to imagine how any language teacher could find fault in the structure of the lesson or the pedagogical efficacy of the approach on which it is based. Having often experimented with similar activities in my university-level French classes, I am well aware of the demands that collaborative learning places on the instructor, who must constantly circulate among the groups, providing guidance when necessary, answering questions, while simultaneously monitoring other groups and remaining on call should difficulties arise, as they inevitably will. These activities, as productive as they may be, consistently tax my energy, patience, experience, and creativity to the limit. The success of the Standards-based class described by Glisan and Phillips will depend largely on the number of students involved. Even with a class of twenty students, I believe the veteran teacher would be challenged to keep the class progressing smoothly and efficiently. I can imagine that in a class of thirty-five students, a number far closer to the typical enrollment one would expect to find in a Spanish II class at many high schools (including the class that my daughter is currently taking at one of the better high schools in North Carolina), this Standards-based lesson plan, even under the guidance of the most competent and experienced teacher, would quickly break down, reducing the classroom to a state of near chaos.
In the same article, Glisan and Phillips cite the need for continuing professional development for all language teachers--in particular, summer study abroad--"in order to strengthen and maintain proficiency in language and to acquire greater cultural perspectives," and for ongoing participation in workshops, institutes, and conferences "in order to update knowledge of innovative practices and to sharpen teaching skills" (13). Again, I find myself in total agreement with the authors, and again I find myself wondering who will pay the bill. Surely, we are not going to ask teachers, who are already forced to assume virtually the entire cost of their professional development, to take on an even heavier financial burden? Here again is where the enlightened school administration can and should facilitate the improvement of language teaching, realizing (one would hope) that any money invested for the purpose of upgrading the knowledge and skills of language teachers will pay a handsome dividend in the form of improved classroom instruction.
As a member of the MLA Teacher Education Project, initiated four years ago, I have been aware of the Standards from the outset and have followed their development with great interest and optimism. The MLA, ADFL, and NEH are all to be congratulated on their support and guidance for the Teacher Education Project, whose full impact has yet to be felt. Looking back on the effort, however, I cannot help wishing that the administrative level had been more fully represented. Most of the participants were faculty members from university and high school language departments and faculty members representing foreign language pedagogy (a colleague from the School of Education, in the case of our team). Conspicuously absent were those administrators--deans, superintendents, high school principals--who ultimately set the priorities and create the conditions under which all instruction is expected to be delivered. I regret that we missed a valuable opportunity for a dialogue on the expectations, limitations, and possible modifications of foreign language instruction as we move into the next century. I feel that it was a mistake to have left the administration out of the equation. I fully accept my own share of responsibility, as a member of one of six teams representing the area of foreign language instruction. What seems painfully clear to me at the present moment was simply not apparent to most of us at that time.
All is not lost. There is no need to abandon hope. I do not wish to assume the role of a doomsayer and to end this commentary on a note of despair. I remain convinced that unless the administrative level of public instruction buys into the concept of the Standards, and buys in heavily, the effort is destined to meet with very limited success. Nevertheless, I hope that the ongoing discussion generated by the Standards will provide an opportunity for a frank and productive dialogue between foreign language educators and administrators at all levels. There are, as I see it, three basic questions that need to be addressed: What objectives can we reasonably hope to attain in foreign language education as we move into the twenty-first century? What, in broad terms, will be the cost of meeting this objective? And, finally, and perhaps most important, are we prepared to pay this cost?
David A. Fein
University of North Carolina, Greensboro
Glisan, Eileen W., and June K. Phillips. "Making the Standards Happen: A New Vision for Foreign Language Teacher Preparation." ACTFL White Paper. ACTFL Newsletter 10.4 (1998): 7-14.
THE theories and research that form the basis for the national Standards for foreign language learning are different from the models and understandings that have traditionally framed foreign language pedagogy in elementary, middle, and high schools (Phillips and Terry). Thus successful implementation of a Standards-based curriculum calls for more than changing curricular goals, classroom textbooks, and assessment measures in these schools. Any long-term transformation of foreign language learning in grades pre-K-12 requires, at the very least, the transformation of professional development programs for foreign language teachers.
Clearly this idea is not new. Over the last few years many have put forth similar arguments calling for changes in foreign language and foreign language education programs in institutions of higher education (e.g., James; Swaffar). Sharing many of the concerns noted in these discussions, I have appreciated these efforts and so do not intend to repeat them here. Rather, I would like to offer for consideration a plan for how we might go about reconfiguring foreign language teacher preparation programs so that they are responsive to the vision of foreign language learning embedded in the Standards. It is my hope that the idea will spark further discussion among faculty members on ways they might go about transforming their pre-K-12 teacher preparation programs.
The first premise has to do with the nature of foreign language teacher expertise. Recent research (e.g., Shulman; Sternberg and Horvath) has found that the constitution of teachers' knowledge is vital to their effectiveness and that this knowledge is both specialized and domain specific. Three interlocking domains--content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge--are of particular significance. Content knowledge is knowledge of the subject matter to be taught. For foreign language teachers this includes knowledge of the communicative means, both oral and written, needed for successful participation in a range of intellectual and practical activities in the target language. Pedagogical content knowledge involves knowing how to create effective learning environments in classrooms and how to reflect on, assess, and make changes to these environments to maintain their effectiveness. For this, foreign language teachers need to understand theories of communication, communicative competence, and first- and second-language development. They also need to know about and be proficient in the use of effective methods and materials. Equally important to the development of teacher expertise is the third domain, pedagogical knowledge, the knowledge and skills teachers need to become legitimate members of their schooling communities. Included is knowledge of the administrative, social, and political operations of pre-K-12 schools; theories and practices of classroom management and motivation; and general educational research on such matters as teaching and learning through classroom discourse, writing effective lesson plans, developing effective teacher-student and student-student relationships, and working with linguistically, socially, and culturally diverse students.
The second premise concerns the nature of learning. As pointed out in recent research on development (e.g., Smagorinsky and Fly; Vygotsky), both the form and content of what we learn are inextricably tied to our learning experiences. Given time with those who are more experienced, novices learn to appropriate the knowledge and skills they need to become full-fledged, active, and independent participants. They also come to understand the importance of the values and goals associated with their learning activities and the roles that all participants play. Eventually, the behaviors that were once conjointly enacted between the expert teacher and the learners become the psychological tools that give shape to the individual learner's social, intellectual, and communicative development.
Given this intrinsic link between our learning experiences and development, the environments for learning in the three different domains are of great consequence for the development of foreign language teaching expertise. Since most of the preparation of aspiring foreign language teachers occurs at the university level, the learning experiences in these classrooms form the fundamental core of the students' communicative development in the target language. Of equal importance are the learning experiences contained in language education and education classes. The learning opportunities provided in these environments shape the aspiring teachers' understanding of and ability to create conditions in their classrooms that facilitate language development, to assume responsibility for their own learning, and, ultimately, to maintain themselves as lifelong learners in their chosen profession. As significant are the learning experiences that occur outside the traditional university classroom, in actual pre-K-12 classrooms. During these times, mentor teachers guide students from the apprentice role of student to the more official role of "teacher." In doing so, they provide models of what they consider appropriate learning environments and how to go about creating them.
The teachers representing each of the three interlocking domains--faculty of language departments, of language education departments, and of pre-K-12 schools--play an equally consequential role in the professional development of foreign language teachers. However, in most states the official responsibility for granting teacher certification usually resides with only one of the groups involved, the colleges or programs of education. While this compartmentalization may make it easy to administer such programs, it renders the key roles played by members of the other two groups invisible. Their invisibility makes it equally easy to single out education programs when some deficiency or change in teacher preparation is noted. But transforming education programs alone will not transform foreign language learning in grades pre-K-12. For change to be truly effected, systemic reform is needed.
The proposal I am making speaks to this need for the systemic reform of professional development. Specifically, I propose that official responsibility for teacher certification no longer reside with colleges and programs of education. Instead, I suggest the creation of a new, interdisciplinary structure, composed of faculty members from each of the three groups of investors in professional development: language program faculties, language education program faculties, and foreign language teachers in pre-K-12 schools. Using the Standards as a guiding framework, this association--the faculty for foreign language teacher preparation--would be the governing body responsible for the creation of sound programs of study and for the design and implementation of appropriate courses in the target language, in language education, and in clinical experiences. It would also be held accountable for the continual assessment of its interdisciplinary program and, ultimately, the certification and assurance of the quality of its graduates.
Unlike traditional notions of teacher preparation, in this model no one program or group of faculty members is held solely or primarily accountable for the development of pre-K-12 foreign language teachers. Rather, responsibility is equally shared among the various key players. The involvement of the three groups of faculty members would thus be made visible and official while benefiting professional development in at least three ways. It would elevate the status of teacher preparation programs; it would improve the quality of all learning experiences across the domains; it might also lead to the kindling of collaboration among faculty members on the scholarly study of foreign language education at all levels from pre-K to 16.
I should point out that successful implementation of such a plan does not require the dismantling of current language or language education programs and, as such, does not compromise the disciplines at the university level. Creating an interdisciplinary governing body can allow us to address concerns specific to foreign language teacher preparation, while maintaining the integrity of the other existing programs within each discipline. What will be required is sanctioned institutional support and special recognition of the involvement of faculty members, not only from the various programs and the schools and colleges that house them, but also from the official state organizations that approve certification programs. On the individual level, it is important that members of the foreign language teacher preparation faculty be committed to teacher education, to sharing resources and expertise, and to providing sufficient support to ensure the successful development of effective teachers of foreign languages.
Aligning the curricula of foreign language education with the Standards, in grades pre-K-12, will depend on our success in transforming professional development programs. The idea for change proposed here is one step that may help us attain this goal. We can begin by identifying university and pre-K-12 faculty members who are interested in forming such an alliance and in creating a forum for reconceptualizing foreign language teacher preparation in ways that bring us closer to the vision articulated by the Standards.
Joan Kelly Hall
University of Georgia
James, Dorothy. "The Impact on Higher Education of Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the Twenty-First Century." ACTFL White Paper. ACTFL Newsletter 11.1 (1998): 11-14.
Phillips, June K., and Robert M. Terry, eds. Foreign Language Standards: Linking Research, Theories, and Practices. Lincolnwood: Natl. Textbook, 1999.
Shulman, Lee. "Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform." Harvard Educational Review 57 (1987): 114-35.
Smagorinsky, P., and Pamela Fly. "The Social Environment of the Classroom: A Vygotskian Perspective on Small Group Process." Communication Education 42.2 (1993): 159-71.
Sternberg, Robert, and John Horvath. "A Prototype View of Expert Teaching." Educational Researcher 24.6 (1995): 9-17.
Swaffar, Janet. "Major Changes: The Standards Project and the New Foreign Language Curriculum." ADFL Bulletin 30.1 (1998): 34-37. [Show Article]
Vygotsky, Lev S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1978.
Lo más asombroso de las cosas [. . .] es que no cambian . . . tan sólo pierden o ganan realidad.
LEARNING a foreign language does not change, and, obviously, Americans have been learning languages for centuries. The difference is in how we define second-language competency in a changing world. This is the crux of the argument in favor of the Standards in foreign language learning, surely the most promising movement that has occurred in our field in decades. Finally, our professional associations are collaborating on a K-16 plan that has the potential for revitalizing foreign language teaching and for placing us among major educational visionaries. The Standards are a map for guiding us through the maze of articulation issues that have so long plagued us. We are moving way beyond the teaching of cultural vignettes as generic truisms to a focus on comparisons and the development of intercultural comprehension. Our new emphasis is on learning as a process, not solely on teaching a composite of information or the acquisition of the traditional four skills. Most important, the Standards are not a short-term fix (although they are a useful guide for curricular design); they support the whole trajectory of long-term language study whereby learners will ultimately achieve the competence to be citizens of the world (Welles).
My enthusiasm for the foreign language Standards is tempered by a concern that the scope of what we are proposing is so broad that it may be simply more than the traffic will bear. Let's face it; foreign language learning has never been a top priority in the United States. Some language professionals are optimistic (Brecht and Walton). I fear that the implementation of the Standards is at risk unless we work toward implementation in stages that are palpable to our market segments. There is the real possibility that the public will view the tasks of changing thinking and practice as so difficult and expensive that they will reject the Standards either in part or in toto.
The implementation of foreign language Standards for learners does not simply involve languages; more important, we are advocating a strong liberal arts education as a preparation for lifelong learning. My hope is that we can immediately move out of our traditional sphere of influence into the larger arena of American education, where the humanities are frequently at risk. To do this, we have to take risks and enter the fray of turf battles, articulation, language versus literature, assessment, teacher education, and the like. It is an opportunity for us to branch out, and, I believe, we will ultimately be involved in foreign language learning that is far more in tune with what the public wants and expects for the twenty-first century.
The term standards may be misinterpreted unless we take pains to explain it to the general public. Standards, frequently assumed to be minimal requirements stipulated by state or local agencies to ensure quality education, carry a pejorative connotation of governmental interference. Heretofore, in most fields, standards have usually been top-down mandated requirements that are assessed by examination. Elementary and secondary school instructors, worried that their own future depends on the results of the assessment, often teach to the test. These practices neither encourage teacher creativity nor consider learner differences.
Unlike basic competency standards, the foreign language Standards are maximal expectations that will require major retooling of teachers and instructors and considerable finances to accomplish these goals. Moreover, the Standards, as currently stated, are probably met by few, if any, learners at this stage. Our Standards have been developed by people in the field, from the ground up, and they are being made accessible to foreign language professionals. Assessment of the Standards has purposefully been left open-ended for the time being. The more immediate task is to define and understand our market in order to entice it to buy our product.
As stipulated by the title, the foreign language Standards are for learners. Our learner pool is no longer easily definable since today's college students are increasingly diverse in background, economic status, race and ethnicity, learning style, previous experience, and age. What they seemingly have in common, spurred by economic and societal factors, is a sense of entitlement to services and to a guarantee that their college training will prepare them for immediate employment. No matter how much we cringe when administrators remind us that college is a business in which we have to please students (our customers), we cannot deny the reality of today's market-driven economy.
The learner market is a tough one. Our students lack what we have always assumed to be basic knowledge (Swaffar), but they are very knowledgeable about popular culture, they are sophisticated users of the Internet, and they are frequent viewers of TV and videos. They are generally streetwise, have short attention spans, and may suffer the impact of difficult homes or personal lives. This is compounded by the fact that more and more students are juggling full-time jobs and family obligations while pursuing an education. The Standards build on the diversity of learners and move beyond insistence on the linguistic accuracy that causes much learner anxiety into the realm of true cultural understanding. This new emphasis will be attractive to many types of learners, not simply those who can manipulate a language system. A learner-centered program places the responsibility for learning squarely on the shoulders of the learners and encourages critical thinking, thereby generating more intellectual activity in our classes (Jurasek). We can only hope that the learner-centered Standards set the course for reaching the level of intercultural understanding that learners will need to acquire for lifelong success.
Economic realities affect both learners and their parents, who expect to see surefire results from their hard-earned education money. Probably the key is to feed their need for short-term gratification and their economic expectations. If we can prove that knowing a foreign language and dealing effectively with speakers of that language are critical to securing and keeping a job in the competitive market of the twenty-first century, we will engage students and their parents in the Standards process. This engagement should affect local school districts, where parents determine how to spend their tax dollars, as well as colleges, where tuition dollars are so important to program implementation.
The next nut to crack is the instructor pool. Implementation of the Standards requires that instructors at all levels be comfortable in the language and culture that they teach and that they have extensive training in the psychology of learners in order to create instructional segments that will appeal to diverse learners. This includes effective use of instructional technology, focus on teamwork, and encouragement of learners to find out how speakers of the language they are studying live and work in the community. The Standards also have major implications for teacher certification, recertification, and faculty development.
The historic lack of understanding between secondary schools and colleges is detrimental to our case. On the one hand, the poor showing on college foreign language placement exams makes college instructors wonder what is going on in secondary school language classes (James). On the other hand, teachers in the schools assume that these tests are limited to difficult multiple-choice grammar items that have little to do with what is being taught in secondary schools. Until we are mutually respectful and conversant to the extent of collaborating on an outline of programs that will help students move smoothly from secondary school into college, we are doomed to failure. Standards for Foreign Language Learning is the document that can serve as the starting point for this level of collaboration and articulation activities.
In terms of instruction, colleges and universities are generally not equipped to provide learners with the total package of courses that will ensure linguistic proficiency coupled with the level of intercultural competency that is stipulated by the Standards. The old language-literature split, while resolved in some programs, is still alive and well in many universities, and one wonders what, other than the threat of unemployment, will finally get people to change their ways. One hopes that if enough linguistically qualified students, trained under the new Standards, come into upper-division classes, senior instructors will be pleasantly surprised and will see the merits of the new approach. Obviously, this will not be an overnight development, and, depending on the institution, it may require a generation to make substantial headway toward full Standards implementation.
Now we progress to the next market: school and college administrators who tend to make decisions on the basis of quantitative, rather than qualitative, data. Faculty development is costly, and the Standards are suggesting that most faculty members will need help to be able to deliver what is required for the twenty-first century learners. Only if administrators perceive that the money they provide for staff development will immediately result in better and more efficient instruction will they buy into this process. If we convince learners and parents that future success depends on linguistic and intercultural savvy, any efforts that administrators make toward these goals should enhance their image in the community. A reward system for Standards-oriented instructors, developed with administrative approval, is critical to the successful implementation of Standards. As long as promotion and tenure are linked solely to publishing literary criticism and not to the development of courses that provide Standards-level intercultural competence, instructors cannot afford to deal with the Standards. While some of this is institution-specific, the general appeal for administrators will be to see increased enrollments of better-qualified students who will be pleased to find themselves easily employable.
A broader group of consumers of the Standards consists of our colleagues in other disciplines. Hard as we tried to get the public to understand the foreign language proficiency guidelines, few outsiders could or would grasp the concept of the ACTFL proficiency scale. Likewise, it could prove difficult to talk about the implications of the Standards in terminology that will encourage non-foreign language professionals to work with, not against, us. The Standards suggest that learners and their instructors be steeped in knowledge of a variety of fields. Dialogue is critical with colleagues in psychology, anthropology, sociology, history, political science, and communications, as well as with colleagues involved in languages across the curriculum--area studies, study abroad, and other multidisciplinary programs. Unless we handle this carefully and involve these instructors in program development, they may well feel threatened enough to engage in the all-too-familiar turf battles that plague college campuses. Again, administrative support that includes incentives and a tenure and promotion reward system that makes team-teaching attractive will be instrumental in convincing the non-foreign language faculty members to work with us in the implementation of the Standards.
The final market focus, I believe, should be the broader base of professional associations and agencies that deal with educational issues. We are certainly on the right track with the language associations. Although not specifically designated as Standards discussions, the local and regional MLA-sponsored articulation projects include productive conversations about mutually determined goals and objectives. ACTFL's publications and annual meeting presentations have also been featuring items related to the Standards. In August 1999 AATSP had a preconvention workshop devoted entirely to Standards. Other language groups at the national and regional levels are planning similar opportunities related to the Standards.
Where we still have work to do is in the wider range of associations that focus on general education, such as the American Council of Education, the American Council on Higher Education, associations of deans and administrators, philanthropic institutions like the Pew Charitable Trust, and government agencies such as the National Endowment for the Humanities. To date, our efforts to promote the Standards have been limited to professionals in the field of foreign languages. I hope that we can learn from the past. The proficiency movement, while an important turning point for foreign language educators, had lesser impact in broad-based educational circles. Since the Standards are far more inclusive than the proficiency scale, we have a shot at interesting a wider range of the public, again assuming that we promote them vigorously and collaboratively.
As the Spanish poet and his girlfriend tell us, each of us sees things in a different light, depending on our individual vision. The languages we teach and the cultural perspectives of the people who speak these languages cannot be defined in absolute terms. The difference is in the viewers, that is, the learners, of these languages and cultures who color the processes of acquiring and internalizing knowledge by a worldview formed very early in life (Fantini).
Just as we will be asking our students to take risks as they involve themselves in new cultural understanding, we, too, must be willing to shed the comfort of old ways and venture into the new arena of the Standards, where we will reward our students' development of keen observational skills instead of solely assessing the accuracy of their knowledge (Lange).
The development of the new Standards for foreign language learners is a wake-up call telling us that what we have been doing in foreign language programs is not good enough for the new age. Now we should have the tools for improvement, assuming that we can garner support from students, parents, administrators, and the colleagues and associations that have traditionally been out of our sphere of influence.
Carol Ebersol Klein
Beaver College
The epigraph is from Andrés Ibáñez, La música del mundo (Barcelona: Seix Barral, 1995) 188. The passage is in reference to two characters' thinking aloud about what they might encounter as they venture for the first time into a majestic park. The poet, Jaime, says that everyone finds something meaningful in the park. Estrella, his girlfriend, asks whether things there change according to who is perceiving them. Jaime responds, as quoted, that it is most astonishing that things do not change but simply lose or gain reality (according to the perceiver).
Brecht, Richard D., and A. Ronald Walton. "The Future Shape of Language Learning in the New World of Global Communication: Consequences for Higher Education and Beyond." Foreign Language Learning: The Journey of a Lifetime. Ed. Richard Donato and Robert M. Terry. Lincolnwood: Natl. Textbook, 1995. 110-52.
Fantini, Alvino E. "Comparisons: Towards the Development of Intercultural Competence." Phillips and Terry 165-218.
James, Dorothy. "The Impact on Higher Education of Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the Twenty-First Century." ACTFL White Paper. ACTFL Newsletter 11.1 (1998): 11-14.
Jurasek, Richard. "Intermediate-Level Foreign Language Curricula: An Assessment and a New Agenda." ADFL Bulletin 27.2 (1996): 18-27. [Show Article]
Lange, Dale L. "Planning for and Using the New National Culture Standards." Phillips and Terry 57-136.
Phillips, June, and Robert N. Terry, eds. Foreign Language Standards: Linking Research, Theories, and Practices. Lincolnwood: Natl. Textbook, 1999.
Swaffar, Janet. "Major Changes: The Standards Project and the New Foreign Language Curriculum." ADFL Bulletin 30.1 (1998): 34-37. [Show Article]
Welles, Elizabeth. "Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Implications and Perceptions." ACTFL White Paper. ACTFL Newsletter 11.1 (1998): 7-9.
ALTHOUGH the national Standards for Foreign Language Learning were developed under a federal program for K-12, most national foreign language (FL) organizations have subsequently adopted them as K-16 guidelines. Are university language departments, however, willing participants in that extended articulation figure? What would K-16 standards imply? Can most of those teaching FL at institutions of higher education identify any of the Standards' five C's (communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities)? Are university FL programs preparing future K-12 teachers for these Standards?
Much of what has been written on the topic so far alludes to a "mandatory" K-16 inclusion and cites dire consequences for higher education if it does not heed the warning for preparation and change. For example, according to Dorothy James, the Standards document "signals the end of business as usual in departments of national languages and literature in our colleges and universities. [. . .] When the groundswell fully hits the postsecondary level, it will rock the boat" (1). Dale Lange speaks of a tragic step in the evolution of second language programs at all levels if postsecondary programs do not take the Standards seriously ("Models" 40).
Is this hype or should we be concerned, for, after all, as Elizabeth Welles succinctly stated, "The proof-in-the-pudding--the students prepared by a Standards-oriented course of study--has not yet arrived in the freshman classes" (7). Not only have the students not arrived, many college professors have no idea they are even coming. In an informal survey given to randomly selected professors at three different types of universities, 75% of the professors stated they did not know what the Standards were about.1 Of those who did, the majority did not think that college classes and curricula would need to change to accommodate the various skills of incoming freshmen. As reasons for maintaining the status quo, several mentioned that most university classes are already up to "Standards" standards; others implied that any change to accommodate articulation with the high schools would mean lowering their own expectations and standards.
The remarks are interesting, for they raise two important, interrelated questions for universities: first, are our classes and curriculum Standards-like? (If so, we can ignore the warnings of James and Lange, for there will be no articulation problem, and Standards-prepared high school students will be welcomed with open arms.) Second, are we preparing K-12 teachers for this "best practice" environment to ensure more competent incoming freshmen in the future? The remainder of this article addresses those two questions by looking at the student experience from placement test to final field experience. Although this student experience will vary depending on institution, the following problems not only appear in the literature but also are ones that I have encountered as I teach students in a wide range of courses (beginning and intermediate language, advanced culture and civilization, and FL methods).
Regardless of standards, the first wedge in the articulation puzzle is and has been the placement test. Although many high school programs have attempted to emphasize communicative competence over the past twenty years, most college placement tests are grammar- rather than proficiency-oriented. To test large numbers of students, most universities have compromised the ideal, oral interview with an instrument that measures skills correlated with oral proficiency. Although some universities are currently working on exams that accurately assess all competencies, the best placement "tool" is often the recommendation by a high school teacher who is knowledgeable about the student's ability and the university's curriculum.
The placement problem spills over into beginning-level classes. They are often filled with nonbeginners because of flaws in placement tests or because of intentionally poor performances by students desiring an easier, less threatening level. Incentives such as retroactive credit have been introduced to encourage appropriate student placement, but they have only partially solved the problem. Yet for Standards learning to be effective, course placement (K-16) needs to be based on proficiency level and not on seat time (Spinelli).
What and how these "beginning" students are taught are second concerns. Historically, the lower-level courses have been first to adapt to the pedagogic winds of change. Most college language classes attempt to be communicative--they are conducted almost exclusively in the target language and normally include many activities for negotiating meaning. Likewise, textbooks have changed. Studies like Carolyn Lally's comparing college French textbooks of the late 1980s with recent textbooks have revealed some progress--publishers have responded by increasing communicative activities and reducing mechanical drills. Although a narrow definition of "communicative" to mean oral continues (VanPatten), beginning textbooks have recently expanded on Standard 1 (communication) to include not only interpersonal (1.1), but interpretive (1.2) and presentational (1.3) as well.
Textbooks and classrooms alike, however, will have to address the other four Standards. For example, even though FL teachers have agreed that culture needs to be an integral part of the curriculum, culture still remains a superficial aspect of language learning in K-12 and in postsecondary programs (Lange, "Planning" 58). The third, fourth, and fifth goals are also missing--there is little connection with other disciplines, comparison with other cultures, or use of language beyond the classroom despite technological advances. More than ever, teaching and learning cannot be limited to a textbook.
Some contend that the greatest articulation juncture in the university curriculum occurs between the language courses and the content classes. Over the past twenty years, the methodology, goals, and textbooks of the former have changed much more dramatically than those of the latter. While teachers of language courses are critical of "status quo" teaching at the upper level, teachers of content courses are just as critical of the "communicative movement" and are equally pessimistic about the Standards. In the previously mentioned survey, many professors do not think that high school students are being prepared better (especially in grammar) or that they communicate better than in the past. They also do not see how the Standards document applies to their subject or to the university curriculum. This is not just a matter of academic freedom; it is their sincere belief that strong, teacher-centered content courses can and should be different from language courses. It matters little to them that the document was written in part by university people because the authors were not representative of their specialties (e.g., literature).
A different piece of the articulation puzzle comes from students who complain that they lose their oral skills in many of these upper-level courses. They listen more than they speak, and the readings involve many words they never use in conversation. According to Gail Gunterman, this situation is widespread. She cites surveys showing that the typical format of content courses is a lecture combined with oral presentation; that there is little use of portfolios, technology, or authentic materials (except for literature); and that few language majors reach the Advanced level on the ACTFL scale before graduation. Elizabeth Bernhardt concurs with this generalization, stating that "somewhere along the way, the literature curriculum started servicing itself rather than students' language skills" (15).
This does not happen at every university, however. At universities where professors teach both lower- and upper-level classes, there is usually less dichotomy between levels--content courses are also student-centered and highly interactive. Those teaching across levels are often very aware of student needs for systematic spiraling of both language and meaningful content--the first step in curricular change.
In my opinion, the Standards' biggest impact is in the methods courses, which may prove to be the motor for dissemination. Not only do FL methods courses influence the new generation of teachers, but they also serve as instigators for awareness and change within the university department, especially if the courses are housed in FL rather than in education departments. Virtually every methods course in the country is changing. To be prepared to teach in a Standards-based environment, our pre-service teachers must be competent both linguistically and pedagogically. June K. Phillips states that to accomplish the tasks of Standards 1.1-1.3, a minimal speaking proficiency equivalent to the Advanced level on the OPI is necessary. To prepare students to communicate at this level is the task of the whole department. Our university, like many, has instituted a language proficiency requirement for students taking the methods course. (This four-part exam will soon be used to assess every major.) Because all faculty members help evaluate different sections of the test, there have been many positive side effects. Not only have upper-level professors become acquainted with the ACTFL guidelines, many have already begun integrating communicative tasks in their classes. The test has also had a positive effect on students by forcing them to seek additional exposure opportunities; for example, listening to language tapes, watching videos, connecting to the Internet, using interactive computer programs, attending conversation hours, and studying abroad. We hope that the minimal proficiency level we currently require can be raised in future years.
For most students preparing to be teachers, the methods course is now their first encounter with the Standards. Unless they had an immersion elementary or excellent high school or college experience, they are overwhelmed by what it involves. Many students thought they would be teaching grammar, but now the "subject matter" is tossed out. They struggle with contextualization, connections with other disciplines, and integration of culture. According to Gunterman, most students complain that one course in FL teaching methods is not enough; they want more specific courses in FL pedagogy and less in general education (27). Exit interviews with our graduating education seniors corroborate Gunterman's findings. One semester is not enough time for knowledge to become practice. If we cannot change how pre-service teachers view teaching, Standards learning will never be achieved in K-12.
A methods course is only one component of pedagogical preparation. Students need to see Standards-based teaching in midtier practicums and to experience it in their student teaching. As pointed out by D. Potthoff and R. Alley, the most crucial consideration in placement needs to be the appropriate preparation of the cooperating teacher; however, most placements are made for a variety of other reasons, including, frequently, the principals' recommendations (Blocker and Swetnam). This presents a major obstacle for our students, especially in the light of a 1997 survey showing that few secondary FL teachers use the target language in the classroom most of the time (Oxford 2). The situation is more acute for elementary placements. Although the Standards refer to longer sequences of study beginning in elementary schools, there are few elementary programs in which to place teaching candidates. Many of the exisiting programs offer only introductory exposure to languages and are neither proficiency-based nor content-embedded. (See Branaman and Rhodes.)
What can be done to improve this situation? First, Standards-based teachers need to mentor student teachers. Second, those who are not linguistically or pedagogically prepared need further training--they need to continue to grow professionally, to study abroad to improve their proficiency and to gain cultural knowledge. As I visit student teachers around our state, I encounter every week middle and high school teachers who are unaware of the Standards and who have no idea how to teach language in context. For these teachers, reading a copy of the Standards is not enough, nor are the thirty-four scenarios or the Standards video. They give ideas to the already-Standards-minded teacher, but for the teacher in the trenches who has been teaching about language, the specific how-to is missing. They, like my methods students, need a multitude of experiences--videos of complete classes, in-service training, weekend workshops, local support groups of team teachers, postgraduate classes, and summer-abroad workshops that combine opportunities to enhance linguistic, cultural, and pedagogical competence. (See Schmidt-Rinehart and LeLoup.) We have just begun to tap the cooperative role universities play in this arena.
If we return to the questions set forth in the first paragraph, the answers paint a rather bleak picture for the prospect of an articulated K-16, Standards-based scenario in the near future. Not only does there appear to be a lack of awareness or concern for the Standards at the university level, there is also a lack of "best practice" in K-12 schools, a factor that influences not only our incoming freshmen but our teaching candidates as well. Yet the Standards document does not pretend to describe what is; it describes rather what can be. Most of us involved in foreign language, from "lower to upper," have the same vision. We want for our students what most of them want: proficiency in these languages. That every state is supporting the Standards document reflects a united desire for change. This common goal should join us in dialogue and help with the dissemination of information--the first step in achieving the vision.
Susan Knight
Central Michigan University
1To determine if my colleagues were familiar with the Standards and did not have them confused with the proficiency ACTFL guidelines, a seven-question survey was constructed and given to a sample of 40. Thirty-four responded: 3 from a small university (under 2,000), 14 from a midsize university (16,000), and 17 from a large university (over 40,000).
Bernhardt, Elizabeth B. "Victim Narratives or Victimizing Narratives? Discussion of the Reinvention of Language Departments and Language Programs." ADFL Bulletin 29.1 (1997): 13-19. [Show Article]
Blocker, L. S., and L. A. Swetnam. "The Selection and Evaluation of Cooperating Teachers: A Status Report." Teacher Educator 30.3 (1995): 19-30.
Branaman, L. E., and N. C. Rhodes. A National Survey of Foreign Language Instruction in Elementary and Secondary Schools. Report submitted to US Dept. of Educ., Office of Postsecondary Educ., 1998.
Gunterman, Gail. "Prospects for Significant Teacher Education Reform." ADFL Bulletin 28.3 (1997): 26-31. [Show Article]
James, Dorothy. "The Impact on Higher Education of Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the Twenty-First Century." ACTFL White Paper. ACTFL Newsletter 11.1 (1998): 11-14.
Lally, Carolyn. "Back to the Future: A Look at Present Textbooks and Past Recommendations." Foreign Language Annals 31 (1998): 307-14.
Lange, Dale. "Models of Articulation: Struggles and Successes." ADFL Bulletin 28.2 (1997): 30-42. [Show Article]
------. "Planning for and Using the New National Culture Standards." Foreign Language Standards: Linking Research, Theories, and Practices. Ed. June K. Phillips and Robert M. Terry. Lincolnwood: Natl. Textbook, 1999. 57-135.
Oxford, Rebecca. "Where Is the United States Headed with K-12 Foreign Language Education?" ERIC/CLL News Bulletin 22.1 (1998): 1-4.
Phillips, June K. "Changing Teacher/Learner Roles in Standards-Driven Contexts." The Coming of Age of the Profession. Ed. J. Harper, M. Lively, and M. Williams. New York: Heinle, 1998. 3-14.
Potthoff, D., and R. Alley. "Selecting Placement Sites for Student Teachers and Pre-Student Teachers: Six Considerations." Teacher Educator 31.2 (1996): 85-98.
Schmidt-Rinehart, Barbara, and Jean LeLoup. "From Mexico to the Classroom: Lessons That Work." Annual Meeting of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Chicago. 20-22 Nov. 1998.
Spinelli, Emily. "State Standards: Connecting a National Vision to Local Implementation. ACTFL White Paper. ACTFL Newsletter 9.2 (1997): 7-13.
VanPatten, Bill. "Perceptions of and Perspectives on the Term 'Communicative.'" Hispania 81 (1998): 925-32.
Welles, Elizabeth. "The Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Implications and Perceptions." ACTFL White Paper. ACTFL Newsletter 11.1 (1998): 7-9.
AS A card-carrying member of both the Modern Language Association and the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, I envision the new millennium as an opportunity for all instructors of foreign languages and literatures in the United States to build on the ongoing changes in our collective discipline. At century's end, significant commonalities are emerging from the K-12 Standards movement, recent curricular reforms in higher education, and trends in literary criticism. The megatrends of foreign language education are explored in this paper.
The five C's--communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities--as outlined in the Standards are moving foreign language instruction toward contextualized, content-based instruction that is embedded in culture. Over the years, both language instructors and learners have called for enhanced cultural instruction in foreign language learning. In the modern K-12 classroom, teaching culture is moving to the center for the following reasons:
In the eighties, the term contextualization became canonized. Contextualization is an accepted tenet of current foreign language pedagogy. Contextualization as outlined in Alice Omaggio Hadley's landmark text Teaching Language in Context signifies that language is learned in real situations. Real situations imply culturally based language experiences.
Standards for Foreign Language Learning clearly articulates culture as an integral part of foreign language learning. Culture is mentioned explicitly in Standards 2 and 4 and is implicit in the other Standards. In the second part of the Standards document, the sample learning scenarios are fully contextualized and present convincing capsules for instruction in language and culture.
K-12 foreign language instructors are more proficient in their languages than ever before. They will be the first generation of foreign and second language instructors who have studied abroad (or lived domestically in a second culture) and experienced language learning in its cultural context. This experience allows for an enhanced level of language proficiency and cultural transmission. Foreign language teachers who have experienced the language and culture firsthand possess the pedagogical perspective that language and culture are not separable entities.
Currently, digital media offers unprecedented access to culture. Authentic, up-to-date access to the target culture is readily available online to the learner and instructor alike. High-quality print and video materials modeling Standards-based cultural instruction (e.g., the ACTFL video The Five Cs; the special issue of Materiales titled Materiales para enseñar los estándares) are widely available. Discussions linking theory to practice rooted in second language acquisition research about cultural learning are accessible to teachers and teachers in training (i.e., Phillips and Terry; Heusinkveld).
There has been pressure for curricular reform from administrators, faculty members, students, and the community on the college level. Foreign language departments have responded, and continue to do so, by broadening the scope of their courses. On examining the college foreign language undergraduate curriculum, one sees a growing number of culturally and lexically based foreign language courses like Spanish for the Health Professionals, The Language and Culture of Business in France, Service Learning in the Chicano/Latino Community, Technology and Languages, and Commodities and National Myths. In these courses, students not only learn the vocabulary of a particular context but also must become culturally sensitive to language use. The titles of these courses suggest a greater variety of content than the grammar-based language and literature courses that dominated the traditional curriculum.
Content-based foreign language instruction in higher education parallels the Standards movement. There are an increasing number of foreign language courses with extensive content. The content-based instruction (CBI) movement in higher education is chronicled in the volume Content-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Education: Methods and Models edited by Stephen B. Stryker and Betty Lou Leaver.2 CBI centers on the infusion of core subject matter into language learning. Teaching more subject matter corresponds to K-12 Standards-based instruction, which develops seamless connections with other disciplines and offers diverse content in language learning. There are well-documented elementary- to advanced-college-level case studies that demonstrate foreign language content-oriented change in higher education (Stryker and Leaver iii-iv). Many of these models were developed before Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the Twenty-First Century was published. Courses such as French for Journalism Students, Foreign Language News Coverage of International Events, and Politics and Cultural Expression in Twentieth-Century Mexico, are examples of the growing interdisciplinary approaches that many academicians associate with the foreign languages across the curriculum (FLAC) movement. These are programs in which learners study traditional subject matter in a second language. Although many universities do not have FLAC programs, observers notice diversification within the foreign language department's undergraduate curriculum. There are more content-based approaches that substantially broaden the traditional foreign language curriculum.
Because of the development of cultural studies, the interpretation of culture is central in much current literary criticism. A textbook definition of the cultural studies movement identifies culture as a context for literary analysis. Cultural studies is rooted in the new historicism. It is primarily concerned with emphasizing textuality and the problems of "representation." It also recognizes the sociohistorical connections between text and world and the text as a product of social causes as well as a producer of social effects (Keesey 420, 426). Culturally based literary analysis is by necessity initiating more foreign language study of culture. The study and interpretation of literary texts are performed on cultural artifacts (e.g., poetry, novels, film, lyrics, art). Despite debates about multiple representations and divergent interpretations of culture, the cornerstone of foreign language study is culture.
Current pedagogical practices in higher education are uniting and broadening language and literature studies. Many elementary and intermediate foreign language textbooks include guided encounters with authentic literature and other forms of cultural expression (e.g., posters, reviews, graffiti, chants) from the beginning of foreign language learning. Task-based approaches in reading pedagogy have facilitated the need for a holistic approach to the teaching of language, literature, and culture. The study of literature for literature's sake is being replaced by literature as an entrance into the foreign culture (Spinelli). The study of significant texts is alive and well in higher education; however, the focus on these texts is changing.
The K-12 Standards movement advocates raising the level of foreign language instruction in this country. It lobbies for starting language education earlier. The effort involves instruction of multiple languages and language instruction through cultural context. Eventually, therefore, university professors can expect better-prepared foreign language students. However, what goes around comes around. Colleges and universities must produce better-trained foreign language teachers to meet the demands of the Standards-based foreign language classroom. Performance levels are being raised in K-12, so higher education must also raise its standards.
Over the next decade, the university-level foreign language instructor must be prepared to deal with some students who have been traditionally trained and with others from Standards-based environments. This diverse classroom is not unique to college instructors; any foreign language teacher who receives students with prior knowledge of the language, literature, and culture must grapple with instructing learners from a variety of backgrounds. This transitional phase will require patience in the foreign language profession.
The Standards movement is not causing reform from the bottom up because less than one-third of all elementary school children in the United States are enrolled in foreign language study (Oxford 1). For the most part, Standards reform comes from the high schools, where foreign languages traditionally have been taught. Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the Twenty-First Century has inspired changes, and they are being made laterally in secondary schools and spreading up and down from elementary- to university-level instruction. The Standards K-12 is one of the megatrends in foreign language study. The other megatrends include culturally based inquiry in literary criticism, a reform movement to broaden the curriculum in higher education, and instantaneous digital access to foreign culture. These trends are steering us to the common ground of culturally based foreign language education. In the foreign language profession, the common ground is culture. The significance of common ground will only be made evident through the production of better foreign language students who are critical thinkers and who are able to engage language and culture in scholarly and meaningful ways.
Sheri Spaine Long
University of Alabama, Birmingham
1From 1992 to 1995, I served as the Alabama Association of Foreign Language Teachers appointee to the Board of Reviewers for the National Task Force on Student Standards in Foreign Language Education, a collaborative project of ACTFL, AATF, AATG, and AATSP, sponsored by the U. S. Department of Education and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The culmination of this project was the publication, in 1996, of Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the Twenty-First Century.
2This volume has a wealth of program examples for the less commonly taught languages as well as for the commonly taught languages.
The Five Cs: The Standards for Foreign Language Learning Video. Boston: ACTFL and Heinle, 1998.
Glisan, Eileen W., and June K. Phillips. "Making the Standards Happen: A New Vision for Foreign Language Teacher Preparation." ACTFL White Paper. ACTFL Newsletter 10.4 (1998): 7-14.
Hadley, Alice Omaggio. Teaching Language in Context. 2nd ed. Boston: Heinle, 1993.
Heusinkveld, Paula, ed. Pathways to Culture. Yarmouth: Intercultural, 1997.
James, Dorothy. "The Impact on Higher Education of Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the Twenty-First Century." ACTFL White Paper. ACTFL Newsletter 11.1 (1998): 11-14.
Keesey, Donald. Contexts for Criticism. 2nd ed. Mountain View: Mayfield, 1994.
Lafayette, Robert C., ed. National Standards: A Catalyst for Reform. Lincolnwood: Natl. Textbook, 1996.
Materiales para enseñar los estándares. Ed. Consejería de educación, Embajada de España. Spec. issue of Materiales 27 (1998): 4-33.
Oxford, Rebecca L. "Where Is the United States Headed with K-12 Foreign Language Education?" ERIC/CLL News Bulletin 22.1 (1998): 1-4.
Phillips, June K., and Robert Terry, eds. Foreign Language Standards: Linking Research, Theories, and Practices. Chicago: Natl. Textbook, 1999.
Spinelli, Emily. "Language Teaching and Learning in the Twenty-First Century." Southern Conference on Language Teaching. Cavalier Hotel, Virginia Beach. 12 Mar. 1999.
Stryker, Stephen B., and Betty Lou Leaver, eds. Content-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Education: Models and Methods. Washington: Georgetown UP, 1997.
THOSE of us who teach or are in charge of the educational process in language departments at the college and university level have paid little or no attention to the release and subsequent implementation activities that have ensued since the publication of Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the Twenty-First Century.
Maybe we have not paid attention because the Standards were developed by the K-12 Student Standards Task Force and were not intended to apply to students in higher education settings. Or is it because college and university professors do not want to be told by anyone what to do in their classes, and thus they invoke their academic freedom beliefs as reason to ignore the Standards. It may be because the college and university faculties believe that the Standards, at least at the postsecondary level, apply to those who are working to train teachers and not to those who do the more "acceptable" jobs within language departments. Or perhaps it is because members of language departments in higher education are not as active as they might be in the professional organizations that helped develop and later endorsed the new Standards.1
Whatever the reasons, the Standards have not become a part of a college or university language professor's daily planning or class presentations.2 The preparation of the K-12 students who are already arriving or soon will arrive in our postsecondary language classes will be very different. That is not to say that they will be any less prepared or any better prepared than those we teach now. But they may have acquired language in programs focused on what students should know and be able to do with the language rather than on the number of years (semesters) the language is studied. Why should we not as postsecondary language instructors want to meet the students where they are when they enter our programs? Why would we not want to send a message to our K-12 colleagues that we endorse what they are doing and, yes, even want to continue what they have begun?
Within my own division at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, we have approached the Standards on two levels. The first, as featured in many second-language teacher preparation programs across the country, is to incorporate the discussion and use of the Standards into the Methods of Teaching Second Languages course required of all pre-service and in-service students seeking teaching credentials in second languages. Not only do students at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock purchase and actively use Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the Twenty-First Century, but they are also required to have ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students. Both standards documents are covered and incorporated into the traditional methods discussions of language acquisition theories: the role of grammar, listening, speaking, reading, writing, culture, assessment, and so on. The course has taken on a completely different flavor with the use of the standards documents and, in fact, the five foreign language Standards and the three ESL goals have become the organizing principles for the course. By using the standards documents in the methods course, about twenty to thirty teachers annually enter the language teaching profession or return weekly to their classrooms with new information about and techniques focused on what their students should know and be able to do in the second-language classroom.
The second approach the division has taken related to the Standards was to invite foreign language teachers from the ten schools that serve as the most common feeder high schools for students coming to the university. With money obtained through an internal curriculum grant funded by the university's provost, teachers received their own copy of the Standards document and attended an all-day workshop conducted by June K. Phillips.3 Her visit to campus was funded by the same internal grant. Phillips worked through a discussion of each Standard during the morning session, and, following lunch, the teachers worked in language-specific groups to develop sample learning scenarios following the Standards model. These were later copied and distributed for all participants. More important for the postsecondary programs was the attendance at the workshop of both the university second-language faculty members and the secondary school teachers. Each received a copy of the Standards document, heard the discussion led by Phillips, and participated in the scenario writing with language-specific counterparts. This was the first time many of the postsecondary faculty members had seen or heard of the Standards. It was also the first time that they had met and worked with the teachers who are sending language students to their classes.
While the above approaches are a good beginning in bringing the Standards into the postsecondary world, the Standards still have not changed the way the university language faculty delivers its courses. At several faculty meetings the suggestion of using the Standards to redesign the university language program has been met with a lukewarm response. Discussions about what university students should "know" and "be able to do" are difficult for a chairperson to lead. The corpus that is considered sacred within language departments and the way in which that knowledge is transmitted are slow to change. Why wouldn't faculty members want to embrace standards that focus on communication strategies, cultural content, learning strategies, connections with other subjects within the curriculum, critical thinking skills, and technology? Do we believe that these arenas are beyond our scope as university professors? I think not. In fact, they are probably the areas on which we, as language professors, should concentrate as we attempt to justify the existence of language study within the university curriculum.
Not having a concrete, home-turf example of how the K-12 Standards can be used by faculty members and not knowing whether such an example yet exists within our postsecondary language communities, I can only offer my perceptions on how to incorporate the Standards into a college or university foreign language curriculum. The Standards are framed in five goal areas:
1. CommunicationStandard 1.1: Students engage in conversations, provide and obtain information, express feelings and emotions, and exchange opinions.
Standard 1.2: Students understand and interpret written and spoken language on a variety of topics.
Standard 1.3: Students present information, concepts, and ideas to an audience of listeners or readers on a variety of topics. (9)
These three standards, also known as the interpersonal, the interpretive, and the presentational standards, respectively, ask students to know and do exactly what, I suspect, most university faculty members want their students to know and do. All language skills development courses either do (or should) ask their students to give and follow simple instructions and directions; ask and answer questions about topics such as family, classes, celebrations, personal events, and memorable experiences; express likes and dislikes; describe people and things; compare, contrast, and express opinions; develop and pose solutions to issues and problems; and exchange, support, and discuss their opinions. As I consider these progress indicators, I am not surprised that they match the outcomes that most language departments would consider the goals of their first- and second-year programs.4
Likewise, do we not expect students in these programs to comprehend main ideas from both oral and written narratives, to comprehend main themes and ideas, to interpret visual cues, to begin to comprehend significant details from authentic materials, and to understand cultural nuances?
What university faculty member teaching today's undergraduates would not be thrilled to teach students who can tell or write about people and things in their environment, prepare a brief oral or written report, perform a scene from a play or recite a piece from literature, and cogently compare cultural concepts from the two cultures? I doubt anyone would answer "Not me!" Many of the college-level textbooks we use today offer us the opportunities to teach to these Standards without having to make substantive changes in the lower-level curriculum.
2. CulturesStandard 2.1: Students demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between the practices and perspectives of the cultures studied.
Standard 2.2: Students demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between the products and perspectives of the cultures studied. (9)
College and university language faculty members, whether they teach first- and second-year courses or are assigned the civilization and culture courses common in language major and minor programs, will want to have students who are able to integrate "big C" (formal) and "little c" (daily life) cultures and to understand how the perspectives (meanings, attitudes, values, and ideas) of the cultures they teach manifest themselves in either practices (patterns of social interactions) or products (books, tools, foods, laws, music, games, etc.) of the people. These two Standards in particular have caused the profession to rethink the separation of big C and little c cultures and to focus on the inextricable weave of the products and practices of the people whose language we teach. Can you imagine the impact of these two Standards on university civilization and culture courses that, for years, have focused on the historical time line of the culture and paid scant attention to the daily lives of the people?
Few faculty members would admit not wanting to teach students who can observe, identify, and analyze patterns of behavior and who can demonstrate the cultural nuances of appropriate verbal and nonverbal behavior. Likewise, they should relish teaching students who can identify, read about, and discuss products of the culture (e.g., artwork, crafts, music, dance, literature) and, above all, who can articulate the relation of these products and practices to the underlying values that govern the culture.
3. ConnectionsStandard 3.1: Students reinforce and further their knowledge of other disciplines through the foreign language.
Standard 3.2: Students acquire information and recognize the distinctive viewpoints that are only available through the foreign language and its cultures. (9)
Today, as college and university language departments continue to justify their existence within the university curriculum, it is more and more important that we search for reasons to convince others about our valuable contribution to the education of students. Standards 3.1 and 3.2 provide us with those reasons.
Many language departments already have been engaged in language-across-the-curriculum projects at their institutions. Helping students develop the tools for understanding concepts learned in other disciplines in the target language, ranging from basic facts to political, historical, or environmental issues, makes us a valuable university resource. Providing students with the opportunity to read, listen to, and talk about content that is not specific to the discipline of foreign languages but to do it in the foreign language may be enough to justify the continuance of programs. These two Standards encourage us as language professionals to provide our students with opportunities to connect with language through authentic materials and technology, especially the Internet. Few university administrators will frown on those who are actively using technology to enhance their classroom activities. Language professors and department administrators should capitalize on Standards 3.1 and 3.2 as they lobby upper-level administrators for technology resources.
4. ComparisonsStandard 4.1: Students demonstrate understanding of the nature of language through comparisons of the language studied and their own.
Standard 4.2: Students demonstrate understanding of the concept of culture through comparisons of the cultures studied and their own. (9)
For many colleges and universities the foreign language requirement courses are the bread and butter of the department. The students enrolled in the courses, as well as many university administrators and even some colleagues, continually need to be reminded of the value of second language study. Standards 4.1 and 4.2 may do more to justify why we ask students to experience another language and culture than do any of the others.
Who can argue with the value of learning another language to enhance the knowledge of one's native language? Students need to have opportunities to recognize cognates, discuss origins of idioms, compare sound and writing systems, discuss register, and recognize word order and the importance of tense. If some of these topics remind readers of grammar, this may be the Standard that will help university colleagues realize that adopting a Standards-based curriculum will still allow them to discuss their favorite grammar topic.
Likewise, for many students who are just satisfying the foreign language requirement, discussions comparing their own culture with that of the target language may be what they remember best from our classes. While we all hope that we are offering students more than just comparative culture and language study, many of our students may never master the language concepts we present, but they probably will retain information about products and practices of the target culture.
5. CommunitiesStandard 5.1: Students use the language both within and beyond the school setting.
Standard 5.2: Students show evidence of becoming life-long learners by using the language for personal enjoyment and enrichment. (9)
The final set of Standards may be easier to meet at the college and university level than at the K-12 level because we are able to encourage and sometimes even require students to use their language in settings other than the classroom. Most universities either sponsor or have connections with study-abroad programs that will allow their students to use the language in a target culture. Many postsecondary institutions have added service-learning or co-op courses as a required part of a major. Standards 5.1 and 5.2 are easily met by students who have a real-life experience in either a domestic or a foreign setting that requires them to use their language and cultural knowledge. Here we are able to see the relation of the connections Standard to the communities Standard as other departments ask their students to do a service-learning or co-op project, and the students can do it in a setting requiring them to use their language skills or cultural knowledge.
With the growth of a sizable Hispanic community in many locations in the United States, it is becoming easier for students who study Spanish to use the language domestically, both in urban and rural settings. Students of French, German, and the less commonly taught languages may have greater difficulty using their languages outside the classroom unless they study abroad, but even those languages can be used daily through the Internet and real audio and video connections. Nothing is more satisfying to a language teacher, at no matter what level of instruction, than to hear a student say, "I used my Spanish (French, German) last night when I was working at Wal-Mart," for example.
The goal of many major, minor, or required courses in any discipline at the postsecondary level is to enhance the lives of those who choose university education. Many of our students will not go on to graduate school, nor will they ever again use a foreign language as a major tool in their life. Therefore, if we can provide them with the ability to use language to enjoy leisure activities, such as reading, going to movies, or traveling, we have accomplished something. How wonderful it would be for us to have a citizenry able to function comfortably in a second language. Could the Standards help us create that citizenry?
While the national Standards in foreign language were not conceived to serve the postsecondary community, there is nothing they advocate that is not appropriate to college or university students. The Standards could easily be the organizing principle of an entire university-level foreign language program. After all, communication (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), cultures (both big C and little c), connections (making what we do relevant to the entire university curriculum), comparisons (learning about our own language and culture), and communities (active use of the language for today and tomorrow) are the goals we should have for our college and university language students too. There is most certainly a place for the national foreign language Standards at the postsecondary level.
David C. McAlpine
University of Arkansas, Little Rock
1The Standards project is founded on the collaboration of nine language associations: the American Association of Teachers of French, the American Association of Teachers of German, the American Association of Teachers of Italian, the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese, the American Classical League, the American Council of Teachers of Russian, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, the Chinese Language Association of Secondary-Elementary Schools and Chinese Language Teachers Association, and the National Council of Secondary Teachers of Japanese and Association of Teachers of Japanese. The Standards have been endorsed by some forty-three language organizations, including the MLA.
2Dorothy James of Hunter College makes excellent points on the misunderstandings about the Standards by postsecondary faculty in her article in the ACTFL Newsletter.
3Phillips served as director of the National Standards Project and is editing the language-specific document for the National Standards in Foreign Language Education Collaborative Project.
4The term progress indicators is used in the Standards document to define student progress in meeting the Standards. The skills progress indicators reflect can realistically be achieved at some level by all students and allow for a variety of content to demonstrate the indicator.
ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students. Alexandria: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 1997.
James, Dorothy. "The Impact on Higher Education of Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the Twenty-First Century." ACTFL White Paper. ACTFL Newsletter 11.1 (1998): 11-14.
RECENTLY I read Deborah Tannen's The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue, from which I borrow part of my title. Tannen decries the fact that our society sees every issue as a binary opposition debate where one side must win at any cost. Moreover, Tannen emphasizes lost opportunities for productive dialogue when only the two extreme positions in the argument become salient rather than many perspectives. June K. Phillips reminds us often that the content Standards are at the heart of education reforms today. Whether we embrace them, reject them, or maintain an uncomfortable wait-and-see attitude toward them, it is imperative that we take advantage of them to engage in productive dialogue. It is essential that we view articulation not merely as K-12 versus postsecondary language curricula, as language versus literature, or as language departments versus language education departments. The Standards speak to articulation between and among all levels and fields of the educational continuum.
More than three years ago, when I was invited to participate in the development of the Spanish and Portuguese Standards, I agreed to join the group reluctantly. Of the sixteen-member task force, I was the only representative from a traditional literature department whose culture is defined by literary criticism, the education of future Romance language professors, and not by the education of K-12 foreign language teachers. Indeed, I was the only representative from an institution that proudly separates "teacher training" from "content areas" by departmental, college, and geographical boundaries. During the work of the task force and beyond, I have become convinced that the integrative approach of the Standards will have an enormous impact on language and literature departments throughout the country. I have had several opportunities to remind task force colleagues, as well as others in the field, that departments and institutions like mine must become engaged in the dialogue from the beginning lest we continue to see the issue as a debate. I have also had the opportunity to remind myself that most of us delight in a good debate, and, as Tannen points out, debates or arguments presuppose winners and losers.
The five C's of the Standards need not be a threat to the integrity of our fields--regardless of the cultural beliefs associated with them. In a recent ACTFL White Paper, Elizabeth Welles states, "The bulk of the faculty members [in higher education] who will encounter the high school graduates trained using the Standards are not yet informed about them." I believe that we need to add that the bulk of the foreign language teachers who will be faced with Standards-based frameworks adopted by the states will not yet be well informed about them if we in language and literature departments do not attempt to become better informed ourselves. My colleague in foreign language education, Joan Kelly Hall, poses an implicit incongruity between what future K-12 teachers need and what they get from departments like mine, where faculty members "rarely have background knowledge in theories and practices of foreign language learning" (49). She goes on to say, "Until the curricula of all university language programs themselves are organized around the communication standards, the successful transformation of K-12 programs is likely to be problematic" (49). I tend to disagree with these implicit discontinuities. It is by our essential differences reflected in our various cultures that future K-12 teachers may begin to experience "the weave" of language learning.
During the work on the Spanish and Portuguese Standards, the task force began to grapple with issues of dialogue among the many cultures in our profession. It became clear to all of us that the Standards, as we envisioned them, could not be designed only for K-12 but needed to be thought through as a K-16 project. When freshmen arrive at our institutions after having had a long sequence of the five C's in one language, they will expect more from us. However, before we look for them to enter our classes, we need to be cognizant of those who are currently in our classes and who will be their future teachers. I see the Standards-based reform as an opportunity for us. We can decide to engage in meaningful dialogue and, by so doing, begin to see the multifaceted role that our institutions play in the educational enterprise, or we can spend precious time and energy engaged in chicken-versus-egg debates.
The Standards for foreign language learning in general and the language-specific Standards in particular provide us with a common language, a useful vocabulary, and an emerging common culture to allow us a better understanding of our individual roles and of our individual fields. The Standards are not a threat to the integrity of our fields of endeavor whether we pursue analyses of literary texts and other cultural aesthetic products or whether we pursue the analyses of second language acquisition and other cultural connections. The Standards give us a (pre)text, a common ground on which to map our interests and academic pursuits.
Whether we joined this conversation at the beginning or whether we are just now joining it, we need to heed Dorothy James's advice and "no longer slough off [connections among curriculum, instruction, and assessment] as something that concerns someone else" (14). James concludes that "we at the colleges need, with some humility, to inform ourselves about what is going on, and become a part of it" (14). I would like to add that this conversation is meant to be inclusive of all of us. If we choose not to participate, we will have only ourselves to blame.
Carmen Chaves Tesser
University of Georgia
Hall, Joan Kelly. "The Communications Standards." Foreign Language Standards: Linking Research, Theories, and Practices. Ed. June K. Phillips and Robert M. Terry. Lincolnwood: Natl. Textbook, 1999. 15-56.
James, Dorothy. "The Impact on Higher Education of Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the Twenty-First Century." ACTFL White Paper. ACTFL Newsletter 11.1 (1998): 11-14.
Phillips, June K. "Introduction: Standards for World Languages--on a Firm Foundation." Foreign Language Standards: Linking Research, Theories, and Practices. Ed. Phillips and Robert M. Terry. Lincolnwood: Natl. Textbook, 1999. 1-14.
Tannen, Deborah. The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue. New York: Random, 1998.
Welles, Elizabeth B. "Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Implications and Perceptions." ACTFL White Paper. ACTFL Newsletter 11.1 (1998): 7-9.
© 2000 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
