21, no. 3 (Spring 1990): 1-2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
No Works Cited |
|
From the Editor
Judith Ginsberg
OUR IMPETUS in the foreign language field often seems to come from two directions. On the one hand, we work to strengthen the field from within. We explore ways of doing our jobs better-or differently, assess and reassess our goals, consider reward structures and issues of governance, negotiate with deans, and work with colleagues in other disciplines toward shared objectives. On the other hand, the world beyond our campuses affects our enterprise in many ways. The importance that society does or does not give to learning a language other than English influences the outcome of our work. As the societal realization that not everybody speaks English executes one of its cyclical returns, our tasks become potentially easier, our tone changes, and we concern ourselves with taking advantage of public interest. When the secretary of education, Lauro Cavazos, recently asserted that by the end of the century “50 percent of all bachelor's-degree recipients should be able to demonstrate proficiency in a language other than English,” it seemed that we had gained a voice that could contribute to our effectiveness. The secretary's statement was, of course, not the first sign from Washington acknowledging that foreign languages are vital to the national educational agenda. Unfortunately, we have yet to hear of concrete plans or budget requests, although we are told that further proposals and more details will be forthcoming.
As I thought about the possible effect of the secretary's attitude toward our field, I looked over the cumulative index of volumes 17–21 (1985–90) of the ADFL Bulletin that appears in this issue. I was impressed by the work accomplished by our colleagues, the new approaches offered, debated, and refined. The concept of proficiency and the issue of technology, for example, appear and reappear in these pages. Where is the proficiency movement going? contributors ask. What does it mean for native-speaker teaching assistants? How shall we evaluate the profession's response to the movement? Does proficiency offer false hope, as some say, or does it serve in curriculum planning and other areas to revitalize and redirect our efforts? And how shall we approach the technological break-throughs in foreign language teaching? How much will this revolution cost, and is it worth it? The Bulletin presents a case history and some additional observations from “the front lines.” One writer reports enthusiastically; another offers cautionary words about going overboard. The sum of the opinions in these pages is not so much a resolution as it is the record of a process of considered evaluation.
A concern with literature and language teaching has of course been evident in the Bulletin during the last five years, reflecting our attempts to provide our students with critical concepts and to encourage them to read and analyze like adults, even as they struggle to grasp meaning with their often very basic language skills. Language and literature departments are sometimes enmeshed in a difficult coexistence, yet they can offer a setting for students to engage fully in the study of the humanities and to expand their notions of world cultures. In this issue Nicolas Shumway joins in the discussion of this collaboration, offering a compelling retort to the disparagement that some literature teachers direct at their language-teaching colleagues.
Managerial topics have also appeared in the Bulletin's pages, in articles devoted to encouraging faculty development, approaching the administration, expanding or abandoning old models, making the most of new techniques, and finding funding. In this issue Christopher Jones describes an innovative program of peer tutoring, and Catherine Porter Lewis brings us up to date on a project supported by the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education to assess the foreign language major at the State University of New York. If reading about a successful grant-funded program inspires you to launch one, you will be interested in Elizabeth Welles's description of funding opportunities at the National Endowment for the Humanities. If you have an idea, you might want to call her at 202 786-0384 and discuss it; she can advise you about how to proceed. While securing outside funds is, of course, a victory in a competitive arena, a grant must be recognized as only the beginning. The stewardship of the funds is not always easy. Dorothy James offers advice about managing outside funds in the university, and her words may give sobering pause to anyone contemplating a quest for outside support.
Another topic that Bulletin contributors have addressed in the past five years is mentoring, looking at it from both sides of the relationship and in the contexts of gender and minority recruitment. One possibility mentioned is that, in literary theory, junior colleagues could serve as mentors to their elders. In the current issue John Kronik discusses some of the Changes during the last twenty years in the way men mentor women, while Beverly Harris-Schenz relates her experiences with mentors who, as she puts it, helped “with the bootstraps.” In the light of Bowen and Sosa's forecast of an increased demand for humanities faculty members in the late 1990s, Kronik and Harris-Schenz remind us that our duties include encouraging able students to pursue advanced study, as well as fostering their professional development with energy and sensitivity.
Collaborations between business and language programs have come a long way in the last five years, and interest in this aspect of the curriculum is growing. Bulletin readers have found reports of experiments and successes, as well as guides to setting up such partnerships and ensuring both cultural proficiency and linguistic competence. In this issue José Suárez describes a program that brings Portuguese into the world of graduate business training.
The secretary of education's appraisal of the significance of foreign language competence might offer some hope to departments in situations described by Howard Mancing in “Full Equal Partners.” This paper, like a number of the essays in this issue, was originally presented at Summer Seminar East in Georgia in June 1989. It touched a nerve in many participants who had observed on their own campuses that more favored disciplines have a considerable advantage in recruiting faculty members and in making the case for tenuring and promoting those who have benefitted from such privileges as reduced teaching loads, special travel and publication funds, research assistance, and summer research support. I would like to know your responses to this depiction of our status on campus.
I am also interested in your comments on Bettina Huber's “Compensation and Support for Foreign Language Department Chairs: A Survey of 1989 ADFL Seminar Participants.” The survey arose from informal discussions at the 1988 summer seminars in which some chairs were surprised to learn that not all institutions attach perquisites to the position of chair. The ADFL Executive Committee decided to collect more information on the subject, and the questionnaire was distributed the following year. Although the total number of survey participants is small, representing only 5.3% of all ADFL members, the responses seem significant. Do your experiences as chair fit somewhere along the continuum depicted here? Should a full-scale survey of all ADFL members be mounted to verify the results? I welcome your thoughts.
As we enjoy the first spring of the 1990s, I feel confident that our profession can continue to consider its work and refine its thinking as seriously and as carefully as it has in these pages in years past. I sincerely hope that the secretary of education will soon add his will, as well as his voice, to the energy and care with which we approach the work of teaching languages.
Work Cited
Bowen, William G., and Julie Ann Sosa. Prospects/or Faculty in the Arts and Sciences. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1989.
© 1990 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
ADFL Bulletin 21, no. 3 (Spring 1990): 1-2 |
|
|---|
|
|
|
|
No Works Cited |
|
