|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AS I was reading the contributions to the Summer 2000 MLA Newsletter addressing teacher preparation, I was struck by a recurring insistence on the importance of knowledge of content area:
What inspires bright students dies in a weak curriculum where no substantive subject mastery is required. . . . (Brown)
If there is one point on which we all agree, it is the necessity of mastery of content for our teachers. (Farkas A3)
Prospective teachers’ training can be strengthened by an increased emphasis on content knowledge. . . . (McHaney and Schatteman A8)
Deep subject matter knowledge is essential to good teaching. (Vipond A11)
Indeed, these remarks echo the concerns of Philip Churchman, who wrote in the field of foreign language education:
Strange as it may sound,—and though there are signs of improvement—the idea that a teacher should know his subject and be interested in learning how to teach it still needs to be argued. . . . It is the business of an institution training teachers to provide content courses of the kind needed. (1, 2)
It may surprise the reader to learn that these observations were made three-quarters of a century ago.
My point in juxtaposing these sets of quotations is not that foreign language educators such as Churchman “got it” before our colleagues in English did. It is rather that, as H. H. Stern notes, language-teaching theory suffers from a lack of “historical depth” (qtd. in Musumeci 5). And following Diane Musumeci, I would urge directors of foreign language education programs to remedy this situation by introducing novice teachers to the history of their discipline, with an emphasis on the cultural context of language teaching.
I do not claim that earlier writers—no matter how modern their remarks sound—have rendered superfluous (have preempted) all subsequent reflections on a particular topic. Consider the current phenomenon of rising enrollments in Spanish, a pressing issue that affects staffing, curricular planning, policy decisions, budgeting, and other matters. Writing in 1917, in the wake of the completion of the Panama Canal and increasing trade relations with South America, Samuel Waxman observes:
In the High School of Commerce in Boston, ninety-seven per cent. of the 1500 boys are studying Spanish, two and three quarters per cent. are studying French, and the remaining one-fourth of one per cent. have elected German. These figures afford an excellent indication of the hysterical state of the study of Spanish in this country to-day. . . . To use a familiar Americanism “Everybody is doing it.” (96)
Although these remarks sound remarkably contemporary—if a trifle overwrought for our sensitive times—the cultural frame of reference is, quite naturally, far removed from the present day. Indeed, Waxman’s “jeremiad” was written during a period of large-scale immigration, when cultural assimilation (the American “melting pot”) was the prevailing societal model. It is not surprising that these historical circumstances determine his response to this crisis:
Is there not a vast deal of energy wasted in trying to teach . . . a foreign language to every single child in our community, most of whom will never have occasion to use it? Is not English a foreign tongue to a great many pupils now attending the junior high schools in our large industrial cities? Is not the English of most of the others a corrupt jargon? To my way of thinking it is our first duty to teach a correct use of the English language to our youth whom we are trying to train for American citizenship. . . . Why not put our energy in the teaching of our masses into studies more vital to them than a foreign language? (101)
I use this example to make two points about the role of historical research. Insofar as it echoes present-day preoccupations, it allows us to establish a sense of professional continuity and evaluate seemingly provocative discussion or innovative solutions. It also highlights the culturally determined nature of pedagogical reflections. Thus, experienced teachers who react with expressions of weary skepticism when asked to readdress concerns they have already resolved to their own satisfaction should consider why these questions are being raised again: What cultural shifts account for new interest in seemingly old inquiries? How are these inquiries reformulated within a changed learning-teaching paradigm?
Might skepticism—weary or fresh—be an appropriate reaction in certain situations, however? Waxman complains of the volatile nature of foreign language education:
One of the difficulties which we teachers of languages have to face to-day is the fact that our educational theories are constantly changing. We poor down-trodden pedagogues are kept constantly on the qui vive trying to keep up with the A method of Mr. B or the C method of Mr. D. We attend religiously teachers’ conventions and modern language association meetings where we are told how much better my new method is than your old method. (95)
A critical evaluation of historical research is crucial in making sense of this volatility:
Each generation produces its own guides. Unfortunately some of these guides believe themselves to be prophets with entirely new and revolutionary thoughts and theories. They are quite sincere in their belief, and therefore, alas, never fail to invent what they proudly call “the best method.” They do not realize that their new ideas are as ancient as our remotest forefathers and as revolutionary as those of a Tory. The stronghold of their faith is a total and complacent disregard of the historical development of the various methods. (Hagboldt 625)
And sixty-five years later:
Language professionals who participate in or otherwise react to the current barrage of research findings, teaching manuals, and language textbooks, equipped with only a sketchy understanding of the history of language teaching, are at a distinct disadvantage. . . . Deprived of the wisdom that the measure of time and historical perspective affords, these professionals are blind to the difference between the ephemeral and the durable, between the gimmicky and the effective. (Musumeci 4–5)
That these authors are not overstating their case is suggested by a recent keyword search of a convention program for foreign language teachers. Entering innovative and unique brought up nineteen hits among the conference presentations, including innovative approach, innovative ideas, innovative technologies, innovative applications, innovative attempts, innovative methods, unique project, unique experiences, unique activities, unique assessment tools, and unique course. Emphasis on the innovative and the unique are reflections of American cultural ideals; these terms are also highly prized as academic currency. Despite these reservations, I, like Peter Hagboldt, do not question the sincerity of these “guides” and “prophets.”
Nevertheless, another lesson that a critical appraisal of historical research can teach us is that sincerity, or intensity of belief (cf. Waxman’s “jeremiad”) is not a substitute for empirical evidence and logical argumentation. In this statement, I am echoing Wendy Kaminer, whose criticism of present-day irrationalism cautions the reader against three types of propositions: “arguing by declaration, arguing from intensity and ubiquity of belief, and arguing from your conclusion” (122). Although Kaminer was referring specifically to personal development experts, her skepticism is equally applicable to a field that has given short shrift to its past as it awaits the revelations of new prophets.
Churchman, Philip H. “Wanted: The Graduate School of Teacher Training.” Modern Language Journal 9 (1926): 1–11.
Farkas, Paul D. “The Role of the English Department in Training Teachers.” MLA Newsletter 32.2 (2000): A3–4.
Hagboldt, Peter. “The Best Method.” Modern Language Journal 16 (1932): 625–31.
Kaminer, Wendy. Sleeping with Extraterrestrials. New York: Random, 1999.
McHaney, Pearl, and Renee Schatteman. “An English Department’s Role in Teacher Preparation.” MLA Newsletter 32.2 (2000): A8–9.
Musumeci, Diane. Breaking Tradition: An Exploration of the Historical Relationship between Theory and Practice in Second Language Teaching. New York: McGraw, 1997.
Vipond, Dianne. “Subject Matter Assessment through Portfolio Review.” MLA Newsletter 32.2 (2000): A11–12.
Waxman, Samuel H. “A Jeremiad on Modern Language Teaching.” Modern Language Journal 2 (1917): 95–101.
© 2003 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
