|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every newspaper reiterates our increasing responsibility for maintaining global leadership in order to protect our own way of life, as well as to work for the peace and security of the entire world. [. . .] What we have of technological know-how is eagerly sought by many peoples, but the technical experts we send, more often than not, lack the means of communicating directly with those they are attempting to help.
—Margit W. MacRae
In this world situation our country is called upon to serve a new role. [. . .] We are ill prepared as a people to serve this role. [. . .] Our understanding of other cultures is severely limited. [. . .] We have had to send hundreds of our people out on foreign assignment who could not speak the language of the country to which they went. [. . .]
—Hollis L. Caswell
IT IS of interest that these two comments were used to introduce this article when it was originally published seven years ago and that these comments first appeared in articles published in 1955 and 1975—the earliest over forty years ago! These warnings may appear similar to those we see in professional journals we read today. The good news is that we are experiencing a definite broadening in the concern about global education and second language acquisition in the United States.
In his article, Caswell listed four suggestions to provide for the language preparedness needed for the future:
Look at the key phrases in that list again: “teaching competence,” “early stimulation,” “for a sufficiently long time,” “functional mastery,” “study abroad,” “communication approach.” Today these words jump out at us from the many discussions of the challenge of making foreign language learning a national priority. Leaders in American government, business, labor, and education insist that language instruction be made an integral part of education in the increasingly interdependent world of today (Eisenberg).
Foreign language study, however, has failed to secure a central place in the American curriculum because of the lack of a smooth continuum from elementary through university studies and the lack of universally accepted methods for evaluating language development. The two are inextricably tied to each other. Foreign language educators agree that articulation is a pressing problem. Students frequently enroll in college language courses only to repeat the material they have studied in high school or enter college totally unprepared for college-level work. This nationwide problem exists because we do not have even a semblance of an articulated program of K-16 foreign language education in place across the United States.
We do, however, have national standards. The Standards for Foreign Language Learning have been developed through the work of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, the American Association of Teachers of French, the American Association of German, and the American Association of Spanish and Portuguese. If there could be a united method across the United States to establish these standards, our students would arrive at college with the ability to function in two or more languages. Given the resurgence of interest in foreign languages in the United States, foreign language department chairs need to take the initiative now and, using these national standards, push for reform in the educational system to create an articulated curriculum in language learning.
Heidi Byrnes describes articulation as “the well motivated and well designed sequencing and coordination of instruction toward certain goals, [. . .] with vertical articulation at the core of the issue” (281). Here, she refers to Dale L. Lange’s concept of vertical articulation, “the continuity of a program throughout the length of the program” (115). (Lange imposes no limit on this length of program, implying, I believe, that it should last as long as it takes.) If we apply the recommendations of the American Council on Education in its statement supporting foreign language education as a national priority, perhaps we can identify the means of developing an articulated system of sequenced and coordinated foreign language instruction from kindergarten through university. There are three basic premises:
Research on successful language learners has strongly indicated the need for continuous study of languages over a period of several years (see “Standards”). Dorothy James proposes that educators in the United States adopt a policy similar to the European practice of requiring foreign language study for a minimum of eight years. That our schools are so far behind European schools in the outcomes of our language students illustrates the need for such a change. Byrnes posits, “The younger our learners are at the beginning of instruction, the more holistic, semantically based their language learning is likely to be for a number of years” (284). Research also indicates that students exposed early to continuous second-language study that incorporates cultural components are more tolerant and appreciative of cultural differences and have fewer prejudices (Gardner and Lambert).
If we are to achieve continuity in language learning, we must strive for articulation; seat time is no longer sufficient. And if we are to achieve articulation, the educational system as a whole must change. For example, the maintenance and expansion of elementary school foreign language programs are severely constrained by a shortage of trained teachers proficient in foreign languages. The structure of undergraduate teacher preparation programs exacerbates this shortage by making it virtually impossible for a student to major in elementary education while taking sufficient foreign language coursework to attain a high level of proficiency. This lack of teacher preparation must be addressed in teacher-training programs, a fact that underscores the central role of the department chair in achieving articulation throughout foreign language education. Continuity requires planning and leadership across the entire curriculum. It does not occur without systematic guidance, which should come from the colleges and universities. (This should be interpreted not as a top-down directive on how to teach, what to teach, and when to teach but rather as a cooperative endeavor, an opportunity to work together to promote the level of language competence outlined in the National Standards.) The first step toward providing guidance must be for language department chairs to establish the level of foreign language competence we expect from students entering the college and university, and then we must work in cooperation with public schools to determine how high school students (involved in language learning from K to 12) can reach that desired level.
Two additional areas for department chairs to consider, which have recently been addressed nationally, are the importance of global education for all students and the increase of PhD graduates turning to teaching undergraduate language classes. The latter situation is due to the scarcity of positions available in research institutions. The problem here is that most PhDs have had extensive training in literature and linguistics but have had no experience or training in teaching second languages.
Regarding global education, the abstract from “New Paradigms for U.S. Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century” states, “Our present and future economic security depends on our ability as a nation to communicate effectively with potential business partners, customers, and competitors around the world. Our success in the global marketplace is directly related to our ability to understand, appreciate, value, and work with foreign cultures, differing sets of social customs, diverse economic contexts, and varied political systems” (Voght 269).
As John Halder has noted, “In Europe it is common for the college undergraduate to have command of three or perhaps four languages, prior to studying for a bachelor’s degree. It is common for the citizenry of the European countries to [. . .] be familiar with different customs [. . .] to be conversant [. . .] of events, trade policies, and political figures of [. . .] neighboring countries. How many of us can describe the same for our neighboring countries? How can we as a nation compete on a global playing field, when we fail to give our citizenry these similar life skills?” (qtd. in American Association of Community Colleges).
We in the foreign language profession have done a very poor job of informing the world that foreign language classes are the best answer to global education in our schools. Not only do we teach “the language,” but we teach the history, culture, politics, geography, art, and music of the countries where the target language is spoken. Imagine how much more in-depth this global perspective would be if our students had more than two years of language study.
Language Competence
Second-language competence (i.e., performance at a level expected of college and university students) can only be achieved through articulated foreign language education before the postsecondary level. As David W. Pankenier points out:
We delude ourselves [and, I would add, our students] if we think that merely requiring a year or two of language instruction in college is going to produce significant improvement in the cultural or linguistic sophistication of our graduates or enhance our ability to compete internationally. If we are as serious about the importance of linguistic sophistication as we profess to be, then language study ought to be required from elementary school onward, just as the study of mathematics and writing is. (B3)
And as Renate Schulz posits:
Compared to other countries, the United States has a weak language policy, and foreign language curricular guidelines and systematic outcomes assessments are practically nonexistent. [. . .] The prevalent practice of offering (or even requiring) one or two years of foreign language study for high school or college graduation is simply inadequate for giving students meaningful competence in foreign languages. (6)
Foreign language educators have known for many years that we place unreasonable demands on language students when we maintain that four semesters of foreign language study (which is currently the most that is required to obtain a bachelor’s degree at most universities and colleges in the United States) will result in communicative competence in a language. We never put this claim in writing, of course, but it is certainly implied in the program offerings of our institutions. Why would we require just two years of study if the outcome were not supposed to be a “college” level of academic achievement in the discipline? We certainly do not intimate that the level of achievement will be, say, at the junior high school level or the tenth grade level. But instead of competence in the language, the usual result is great frustration on the part of the students, who with little or no preparation are forced into up to four semesters of language study. And, to most of them, learning a second language is not relevant, as they have no knowledge of the possible future benefits they might derive from this study. If students arrived at the university with sufficient background in language training, perhaps two additional years of study at the postsecondary level would indeed develop foreign language competence at a level acceptable for a college graduate.
How is this to be accomplished? It will take some time. First, we have to convince foreign language faculty members and administrators that creating a system to promote articulation is essential. Faculty members with students inadequately prepared to succeed in college-level courses witness the students’ frustration and are themselves frustrated by a nonfunctioning system. Collaboration between community colleges and universities would provide a good start toward initiating the articulated curriculum. Articulation and collaboration are high-priority issues at postsecondary institutions today. A united front by university and community college department chairs could conceivably result in funding an adjunct faculty position or released time for a full-time college instructor interested in the issue of coordinating elementary, secondary, college, and university foreign language education. There is an excellent chance that a state or national organization might provide a grant to fund such a project in its first years. It is important to recognize that more responsibilities cannot be placed on department chairs who are already overworked. There must be commitment and involvement on the part of the administration from the very beginning.
Through careful research in collaboration with elementary and secondary teachers, we can determine how language acquisition occurs in various classroom settings, what methodologies are most successful at what levels of language development, and what are the best ways to organize the curriculum (Bailey, Hadley, Magnan, and Swaffar), working within the guidelines of the national standards. The university, college, or state foreign language “representative” will prove valuable at this stage—someone who can meet with foreign language teachers and explain the purpose behind collaboration. Meetings will be essential with the foreign language state coordinators. (There are many states that do not have foreign language state coordinators. It is a political decision. A letter-writing campaign from language educators at all levels, parent organizations, and a few business executives just might result in victory for education.) The consequences of such a collaboration can be widespread and most worthwhile.
Research. University department chairs could encourage graduate students preparing to teach foreign languages to work with elementary and secondary teachers in the field. No one knows better than the teacher what works or doesn’t work in a classroom situation. Teachers are eager to be informed of new methodologies and theories in second language acquisition but seldom have the time to do the research that graduate students do. Working together would better prepare the graduate student and also give the teacher access to new theories and methods to apply in the classroom. It is essential that researchers and practitioners be provided with opportunities to communicate with one another if meaningful theory building in language learning is to take place (Bailey, Hadley, Magnan, and Swaffar).
Foreign language department chairs can investigate some of the programs that are now in practice and network with community colleges, four-year colleges, and universities. For example, Preparing Future Faculty Project, a joint effort of the Association of American Colleges and Universitites and the Council of Graduate Schools supported by the Pew Charitable Trust, works with clusters of diverse colleges to expose graduate students to a variety of teaching experiences. This ambitious program involves eighty-five institutions and gives graduate students opportunities to gain experience with faculty members, students, and academic values beyond the research university.
Loyola University, Chicago, prepares its doctoral candidates for the job of an academic professional through the Teaching Fellows Program (Henschen). The University of Arizona has an outstanding graduate program, Second Language Acquisition Teaching, in which students majoring in languages study second language (L2) learning theories, teaching methodologies, and evaluation processes and teach as adjunct faculty members at Pima Community College and the university. These students have excellent L2 skills, are knowledgeable about the culture and language, and are learning how to effectively teach languages.
These kinds of cooperative ventures among foreign language programs at different institutions benefit students and colleges alike. Working together results in better articulation across language studies as we understand the desired student outcome at different levels.
Summer workshops for L2 teachers. There is an urgent need to better prepare teachers with limited second-language training to teach in classes where L2 instruction is now mandated by the states. Four weeks of intensive practice with the target language, cultural awareness training, and study of new material would greatly increase foreign language effectiveness and enthusiasm in the classroom. (There are grants available for these types of programs.)
Foreign language teachers have a continuing need for professional development that provides opportunities to improve their target language competence and their teaching skills. This is particularly crucial for elementary school teachers, most of whom have no special training or certification to teach languages at that level. (Schulz 11)
Assessment and evaluation. This is the most challenging task facing foreign language educators. Development of a process or system of evaluation of language competency that can be understood, used, and accepted at all levels of L2 instruction is at the core of successful articulation. How can we provide years of articulated curriculum in language study without a consistent means of evaluating student performance? This immense problem has baffled foreign language educators for years. We know that neither class seat time nor discrete-point grammar and vocabulary tests are adequate for predicting overall language competence, especially in regard to the communicative aspect of language. Today’s emphasis is on how well students use the language, especially in speaking proficiency, not on how much they know about the language.
The ACTFL guidelines for oral proficiency have provided much needed insight into evaluation issues. The oral proficiency interview is a useful instrument for determining how well students speak the target language. More than any other evaluative tool, it has influenced how we organize our curricula and how we state goals for student performance. It is not, however, a panacea for L2 assessment problems. Training teachers to administer the tests is expensive, and the testing itself is time-consuming. We have learned a great deal from this approach, though, and there are various ways it can be adapted for use at different levels. For example, in most college courses, steps one and two might be completely eliminated, and perhaps another category, such as “cultural awareness” or “sociolinguistic-culture,” might be added.
Compare the SOLOM (Student Oral Language Observation Matrix) (app. 1), developed by the Department of Bilingual Education in California, with the ACTFL criteria on speaking proficiency (app. 2). These examples demonstrate that evaluation criteria can be adapted to measure proficiency at different levels of foreign language education. The SOLOM is similar to the ACTFL criteria in that it rates competency in five categories. It is different in that it is more classroom-oriented and bases evaluation not on a single interview but rather on observation of a student over a period of weeks or months in differing situations. This instrument is used as one of the determining factors for the placement of elementary students in bilingual or ESL classes. Teachers are trained to use the SOLOM by listening to tapes of students and rating their oral proficiency; after a period of practice with others, teachers exhibit a high interrater reliability.
This type of evaluation can be utilized at many levels of foreign language education. An examination of “authentic” (performance outcomes) testing in Britain found that neither the old nor the new assessment tests told teachers more than they already knew about the attainments and abilities of individual students (Madaus and Kellaghan). Why not use a form of evaluation based on long-term observation by the teacher, if teachers can be trained to use this method and can gain a common understanding of the terminology?
One such possible instrument for evaluation that could be accepted across the United States is the portfolio concept proposed by the Eurocentre Foundation in Switzerland. The National Foreign Language Center in Washington recently published a paper from the foundation entitled “Towards a Common European Framework for Reporting Language Competency,” by Rolf Scharer and Brian North. This paper, which represented the conclusions of the final phase of the Council of Europe intergovernmental symposium, “Transparency and Coherence in Language Learning in Europe: Objectives, Assessment, and Certification,” held in Switzerland in November 1991, proposed a common European framework for reporting language achievement. The aims of the proposal were to enhance and sustain student motivation through longer-term continuing education; to provide a single record of individual language-learning achievement for the use of employers and others; and to build coherence between education systems and develop efficient interfaces between educational sectors. It seems to me that these goals echo what language educators in the United States are seeking in our programs. With the increase in worldwide business and social interaction, effective language skills are becoming more critical for everyone. Therefore, we need to create a tool for individual learners that enables them to appreciate the value and benefits of lifelong language learning and to participate fully in the educational process.
The recommendation stated by Scharer and North was for each language learner to have a “European language portfolio” with three components that would reflect “objectives, assessment, and certification.” The portfolio would contain a “passport,” which would record formal qualifications attained; a “map,” which would pinpoint levels of competence (especially in oral proficiency) reached during the learning process; and a “dossier,” which would include work samples and evidence of experience. If our language students had portfolios of their achievements that began with their L2 education and were updated throughout their language training, they could be placed at the university level with facility and accuracy.
Some questions, as yet not answered by our European colleagues, seem pertinent to our system in the United States. How could such a language portfolio help produce coordination between differing school systems? How could the portfolio help resolve problems in higher education by allowing recognition and transferability of results and achievement? How could the portfolio help language learners realize their potential?
There have been a number of methods devised to rate language proficiency, but we need to agree on and adopt a national scale that will allow flexibility and, at the same time, offer reliability and consistency. What is needed in foreign language education is not standardized texts, tests, or methodologies but instead explicit performance levels in speaking, listening comprehension, reading, writing, and cultural awareness and appreciation that can be understood by students, teachers, and the rest of the world. All this information could indeed be included in a language learner’s portfolio, allowing ease of transfer from one institution to another, regardless of what materials and methods were used to get these L2 performance outcomes. With this information collected, students would know what their levels of competence in L2 were and what they would need to do to arrive at their desired levels of performance. They could thus appreciate their progress and take responsibility for their success.
In conclusion, the leadership role of the department chair continues to expand in the face of changes in foreign language education, including:
Successful outcomes in these areas can only be reached through cooperative efforts at all levels and in all foreign language organizations and educational institutions. ADFL provides a stage for addressing these areas of concern, as indeed it is already doing by producing this special issue of the ADFL Bulletin for foreign language department chairs and maintaining a forum for examining pressing foreign language matters.
Bailey, Kathleen, Alice Omaggio Hadley, Sally Magnan, and Janet Swaffar. “Priority: Research in the 1990s: Focus on Theory, Building Instructional Innovation, and Collaboration.” Foreign Language Annals 24.2 (1991): 89–100.
Byrnes, Heidi. “Priority: Curriculum Articulation: Addressing Curriculum Articulation in the Nineties: A Proposal.” Foreign Language Annals 23.4 (1990): 281–92.
Caswell, Hollis L. “Modern Foreign Languages in a Modern Curriculum.” Education 75.8 (1955): 483–89.
Eisenberg, Diane U., ed. Foreign Language Policy Statement: The Future of Foreign Language Education at Community, Technical, and Junior Colleges. Washington: American Assn. of Community Colls., 1992.
Gardner, R., and W. Lambert. Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley: Newbury, 1972.
Henschen, Beth M. “Easing the Transition: From Doctoral Student to Academic Professional.” Political Sciences and Politics 26.1 (1993): 81–82.
James, Dorothy. “Improving Foreign Language at the Community College.” National Foreign Language Conference I. Washington, 9 Mar. 1993.
Lange, Dale L. “The Problem of Articulation.” Ed. Theodore V. Higgs. Curriculum, Competence, and the Foreign Language Teacher. ACTFL Foreign Language Education Series 13. Lincolnwood: Natl. Textbook, 1982. 113–37.
MacRae, Margit W. Teaching Spanish in the Grades. Boston: Houghton, 1957.
Madaus, George F., and Thomas Kellaghan. “The British Experience with ‘Authentic’ Testing.” Phi Delta Kappan 74 (1993): 458–69.
Pankenier, David W. “Foreign Language Requirements at the College Level Do Not Work.” Chronicle of Higher Education 5 Dec. 1990: B2–3.
Scharer, Rolf, and Brian North. “Towards a Common European Framework for Reporting Language Competency.” Occasional Papers. Washington: Natl. Foreign Lang. Center, 1991.
Schulz, Renate A. “Foreign Language Education in the United States: Trends and Challenges.” Eric Review 6.1 (1998): 6–13.
“Standards for Foreign Language Education.” ACTFL Newsletter 5.1 (1992): 7–9.
Standards for Foreign Language Learning:Preparing for the Twenty-First Century. Yonkers: Natl. Standards in Foreign Lang. Educ. Project, 1996.
Voght, Geoffrey M. “New Paradigms for U.S. Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century.” Foreign Language Annals 33.3 (2000): 269–77.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Comprehension | Cannot understand even simple conversation | Has great difficulty following everyday social conversation, even when words are spoken slowly and repeated frequently | Understands most of what is said at slower-than-normal speed with some repetitions | Understands nearly everything at normal speed, although occasional repetition may be necessary | Understands everyday conversation and normal classroom discussion without difficulty |
| B. Fluency | Speech so halting and fragmentary that conversation is virtually impossible | Usually hesitant; often forced into silence because of language limitations | Everyday conversation and classroom discussion frequently disrupted by student's search for correct manner of expression | Everyday conversation and classroom discussion generally fluent, with occasional lapses while student searches for correct manner of expression | Everyday conversation and classroom discussion fluent and effortless; approximately those of a native speaker |
| C. Vocabulary | Vocabulary limitations so extreme that conversation is virtually impossible | Difficult to understand because of misuse of words and very limited vocabulary | Frequent use of wrong words; conversation somewhat limited because of inadequate vocabulary | Occasional use of inappropriate terms and/or rephrasing of ideas because of limited vocabulary | Vocabulary and idioms approximately those of a native speaker |
| D. Pronunciation | Pronunciation problems so severe that speech is virtually unintelligible | Difficult to understand because of pronunciation problems; must frequently repeat in order to be understood | Concentration required of listener; occasional misunderstandings caused by pronunciation problems | Always intelligible, though listener conscious of a definite accent and occasional inappropriate intonation pattern | Pronunciation and intonation approximately those of a native speaker |
| E. Grammar | Errors in grammar and word order so severe that speech is virtually unintelligible | Difficult to understand because of grammar and word order; must often rephrase or restrict speech to basic patterns | Frequent errors of grammar and word order; meaning occasionally obscured | Occasional errors in grammar and word order; meaning not obscured | Grammar and word order approximately those of a native speaker |
| Global Tasks/Functions | Context | Content | Accuracy | Text Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Superior Can discuss extensively by supporting opinions, abstracting and hypothesizing |
Most formal and informal settings | Wide range of general interest topics and some special fields of interest and expertise; concrete, abstract and unfamiliar topics | Errors virtually never interfere with communication or disturb the native speaker | Extended discourse |
| Advanced Can describe and narrate in major time/ aspect frames |
Most informal and some formal settings | Concrete and factual topics of personal and public interest | Can be understood without difficulty by speakers unaccustomed to non-native speakers | Paragraph discourse |
| Intermediate Can maintain simple face-to-face conversation by asking and responding to simple questions |
Some informal settings and a limited number of transactional situations | Topics related primarily to self and immediate environment | Can be understood, with some repetition, by speakers accustomed to non-native speakers | Discrete sentences and strings of sentences |
| Novice Can produce only formulaic utterances, lists and enumerations |
Highly predictable daily settings | Common discrete elements of daily life | May be difficult to understand, even for those accustomed to non-native speakers | Discrete words and phrases |
© 2001 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
