|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IN THE field of foreign language pedagogy, many different methods, all with their own champions and detractors, have been touted as the best way to teach foreign languages. Some individuals espouse a communicative approach, while others believe that language learning means learning grammar. Advocates of these and other methods have presented solid arguments and have inspired a great deal of stimulating theoretical debate over the years. However, disagreements within a department over approaches to teaching and learning often result in tension and lack of cooperation among faculty members, divided camps, inconsistencies in the curriculum, and a generally ineffective language program. For students, inconsistent goals and methodologies can be both unsettling and frustrating: each semester students may have to adapt to different styles of teaching and testing, and success in one class does not necessarily guarantee adequate preparation for subsequent ones.
Different approaches need not be incompatible or mutually exclusive, however, for nearly all methodologies share important concerns. What follows is a description of the practical steps our department has taken over the last two years to develop and expand overlapping concerns both within and across language groups. Our aim has been to allow teachers a great deal of freedom in teaching styles and pedagogical approaches, and at the same time to ensure continuity and shared goals across the curriculum. I also describe how we have promoted communication and cooperation among instructors who have different teaching approaches and priorities and increased faculty interest in language teaching and research. Finally, I outline techniques we have initiated to help students adapt more easily to the different teaching styles they encounter in language courses.
The setting for these changes is the department of modern languages and literatures at a liberal arts college that enrolls approximately 3,500 students and has a two-year foreign language requirement. Departmental faculty members include tenured and tenure-track professors who teach language and literature at all levels and full- and part-time adjust instructors who teach first- and second-year language courses.
The education background of faculty members and the requirements for tenure and promotion in our department follow a pattern, typical of most colleges and universities, that often makes language teaching the “stepchild” of foreign language departments. All eleven tenure-track faculty members in our department have PhDs in literature, and while the remaining fourteen full- and part-time instructors have advanced degrees, only two have had specific training in foreign language pedagogy. In most colleges and universities, responsibility for foreign language instruction falls to one of three groups, none of which is primarily interested in research on language teaching: teaching assistants, tenure-track instructors, and nontenure-track instructors. In larger institutions teaching assistants often teach beginning and intermediate language courses. Although they may be enthusiastic instructors, teaching assistants often lack experience, have little guidance or training in teaching methods, and must give priority to the courses they take, which are usually in literature, not linguistics or pedagogy. Tenure-track instructors are hired for past or potential publications in their area of specialization, which is usually literature. For these individuals tenure and promotion ultimately depend on the number of articles and books they publish, not on the quality of their teaching in beginning and intermediate language courses. Furthermore, many tenure-track instructors have little or no training in language teaching, since teacher training is often patronizingly viewed as preparation for elementary- or secondary-school teaching. As Howard Altman points out:
Foreign language professors, like their colleagues throughout higher education, are highly educated in their discipline, but usually totally untrained (or nearly so) in the profession of teaching. … The full-fledged professor …, alas, learns most of what he or she learns about teaching, test preparation, syllabus design, advising students, etc. through on-the-job trial and error. (170)
Non-tenure-track instructors, both full- and part-time, may or may not have advanced degrees, but, like their tenure-track colleagues, they are often not specifically trained in foreign language teaching. Members of all three groups, then, may lack the incentive and training to cope with beginning and intermediate language learners.
Inconsistencies in the curriculum and disagreement about pedagogical goals were common knowledge in the department, but a particularly heated discussion at a faculty meeting made us realize that we had to address our differences. Our first step was to set up a series of meetings dedicated to pedagogical concerns. Two full-day meetings and one half-day meeting were scheduled, and all full-time faculty members were required to attend. Part-time instructors were also encouraged to participate, and nearly all of them chose to do so. Although we wanted the atmosphere at the meetings to be informal to encourage a free exchange of ideas, we nevertheless devised a formal agenda outlining what we hoped to accomplish: (1) to set common goals and realistic performance objectives for the different language courses we teach and (2) to establish minimum course requirements on which we could all agree. 1
An immediate benefit of the first meeting was to dispel rumors about what was going on in various classrooms. By frankly discussing what was actually taking place, we discovered that no instructors completely dismissed grammar as unimportant and all incorporated at least some communicative activities and cultural materials into their classes. We also established that, despite our different methodologies, we shared fundamental concerns: we wanted our students both to make progress in learning the target language and to gain insights into the cultures of the target language. Although there was disagreement about what constitutes learning a language and what is meant by culture , after much discussion we agreed on the following points: (1) grammar has a place in the foreign language classroom; (2) all four skills should be taught in each course, although perhaps not with equal emphasis at all levels; and (3) each course should have a cultural component that includes both high culture and patterns of everyday life.
Reassured that we shared fundamental goals for our students, we resolved to consolidate the curriculum by concentrating on the learner and desired outcomes rather than on specific teaching methodologies. To that end, we decided to use the ACTFL proficiency guidelines, which do not prescribe a specific teaching method but focus on learner outcomes, to help us establish goals for students. As a department we have concluded, as Alice Omaggio suggests, that seeking to impose a single approach on our colleagues would be “raging on the wrong battlefield.” We all agreed with her assessment that “instead of searching for one definitive approach to language teaching—a search that has consistently ended in frustration and a sense of failure—” we needed to use the proficiency guidelines, the “organizing principle by which our various methods, approaches, materials, and curricula might begin to make collective sense” (42).
Another immediate outcome of these meetings was the discovery that we had a common problem—not enough time to cover adequately all the material on our syllabi—and that this problem contributed greatly to our division into the “communicative” and “grammar” camps. Neither group was opposed to introducing grammar or communicative activities, but when faced with a great deal of material to introduce in a limited time, members of both groups deemphasized elements they deemed less important. As Janet Swaffar, Katherine Arens, and Martha Morgan argue, most methodologies use similar tasks but assign them different priorities (31). For some instructors in our department communicative activities were the frills, while others saw knowledge of complex grammar as unessential for beginning and intermediate students. We decided to address this problem by reducing the number of chapters presented each semester, with the understanding that material not covered in the first year would be introduced as new, not review, material in the second year. Furthermore, the complex grammar no longer presented in the beginning and intermediate language courses would be introduced in two advanced language courses—Composition and Conversation, and Advanced Composition. To allay fears expressed by some department members that students would not have adequate exposure to grammar before taking upper-division courses, the two advanced language courses were made prerequisites for upper-division work. Although this change has required close liaison among course coordinators, limiting course material has meant that teachers have far fewer “either-or” choices to make.
Having agreed on common exit goals for first- and second-year courses, we next tried to establish consistent course requirements both within and across the following four languages: French, German, Italian, and Spanish. We had two reasons: (1) to create enough consistency within each language to ensure that students who were successful in one class would be adequately prepared for subsequent classes and at the same time to allow for various teaching methods and (2) to avoid having languages labeled difficult or easy because of differing course requirements—a phenomenon that had previously led to unnatural and exaggerated differences in enrollments. After much discussion we agreed on the minimum number of compositions and revisions required for each course, as well as the specific percentages of the final grade compositions, the final exam, and language lab activities would be worth. To allow for differences in methodology, we did not establish a set number of quizzes or hour exams or specific percentages (of the final grade) for quizzes, hour exams, and class participation. Instead, instructors agreed on a range of values for each of these categories. For example, quizzes and exams could be worth from twenty to forty percent of the course grade, and class participation could account for ten to twenty percent.
To ensure a measure of consistency in testing, we agreed that each hour exam should test all four skills, as well as cultural knowledge and communicative ability. In addition, we agreed that there would be a common written and oral final exam for each course and that all instructors teaching sections of a course would jointly make up the exam. Unfortunately the testing system has sometimes been less successful than we had hoped, because not all instructors have adhered to the testing guidelines for the hour exams. Moreover, at times instructors making up a common final exam have such extremely different views on testing methodology that a confusing exam results. While we have made significant progress in testing, we recognize that improvement and rethinking are needed.
To improve our beginning- and intermediate-level language program, we have tried to increase faculty education and interest in language teaching and research. In keeping with our resolve to make the learner—and not a methodology—the focus of the curriculum, we have opted not to coerce instructors into “using strategies, techniques, and activities which they cannot seem to conceptualize and with which they are never really comfortable” (Strasheim 106). At the same time, however, we have not encouraged mediocre or unfocused teaching. While acknowledging the existence of a variety of teaching styles in the department, we have committed ourselves to keeping up-to-date with new methodologies, strategies, and techniques, so that we do not make haphazard teaching choices but rather act on sound research and advance our department's pedagogical goals. As K. Chastain points out:
Staying abreast of emerging ideas stimulates us and encourages us to try new approaches in our classes. Without new ideas we tend to become listless and unenthusiastic, and we become less and less receptive to experimentation and change. Long-held traditions and long-practiced techniques often move subconsciously and imperceptibly from subjective opinion to unchallenged assumptions. As one writer has said, the greatest obstacle to change is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. (173)
With the help of monies allocated by the dean of arts and sciences, we have been able to pay the registration fees for all full- and part-time department members for one local conference on foreign language pedagogy each year. We have introduced yearly “swap shops” where we demonstrate to one another activities we have used successfully in our classes. We have also held half-day in-house workshops for all department members to deal with issues such as testing, cooperative learning, and learning strategies. To take advantage of expertise at nearby colleges and universities at little or no cost, we have opened our workshops and talks on various topics in foreign language pedagogy to faculty members from other institutions, and they have returned the favor. We have started a small library within the department where faculty members share journals to which they subscribe, books on foreign language pedagogy, and teaching materials from their classes. Because the departmental library is conveniently located, instructors are much more likely to take advantage of their spare minutes to read an article there than to walk to the main library on the other side of campus. We have also found it helpful to have authors of textbooks we use in our language classes give workshops on how to use their texts. If approached directly, the publisher often picks up all costs for these workshops, including expenses for the author's room, meals, and transportation. By meeting with authors, faculty members not only learn how to use textbooks more effectively but also have the opportunity to give the authors feedback that can be incorporated into future editions. Finally, all instructors are strongly encouraged to visit two language classes each semester, not to evaluate their colleagues formally, but to get new ideas for their own teaching and to dispel myths and rumors about other instructors' methods.
We have succeeded in increasing interest in language teaching and research, and a key factor in our success has been the growing recognition in recent years of applied linguistics as a valid and respected discipline. More and more schools, including ours, are allowing research in this area to count toward tenure. To take advantage of this change, those of us on the faculty who are particularly interested in pedagogy have tried to involve in our research projects both adjunct instructors and department members who normally do research in literature. We have also organized sessions at national and local conferences on foreign language pedagogy and have invited those faculty members to participate. Fortunately, we are close to the sites of several annual conferences on foreign language pedagogy and are able to keep travel expenses to a minimum. Tenure-track and adjunct faculty members, as well as faculty members who teach different languages, have begun to co-write articles. For example, last year instructors in three different languages collaborated on an article in which they described how each had adapted the same teaching strategy to teach different concepts—in different languages. These faculty members said that they not only enjoyed working together but also found it “mind-opening” to see how methodology varies across languages. Another group of tenured and adjunct faculty members, also representing three different languages, is now editing selected papers from a conference on foreign language pedagogy organized and held at our college last year. The editors of this project have already benefited from the attention the conference brought to the college and will also benefit from the forthcoming publication.
The steps we have taken thus far to increase communication and cooperation among faculty members have been quite successful in (1) getting more instructors to attend conferences on foreign language pedagogy, (2) validating for both the department and the administration innovative teaching ideas, (3) increasing interest and research and foreign language pedagogy by integrating scholarship and teaching duties, (4) breaking down barriers among faculty members and encouraging an exchange of ideas about teaching both within and across language groups, and (5) creating an atmosphere where there is acceptance and appreciation of individual differences in teaching styles and recognition that a number of approaches to language teaching may be equally effective in helping students attain identical pedagogical goals. The involvement of full- and part-time adjunct instructors in conferences and research projects has also had positive effects. As Claire kramsch, as well as many others, has pointed out, instructors on limited appointments often feel “crushed” or “used” by the institutions where they work (34). By including adjunct faculty members in professional activities, the department can demonstrate its acceptance of these teachers as valued members of the faculty and help them accumulate the experience and publications that may permit them to move on to more permanent and better-paying positions. In addition, the department and students alike benefit from instructors who are more knowledgeable about, and interested in, foreign language pedagogy.
Despite curriculum reform and increased faculty cooperation and development, many students still find it difficult to adapt to different teaching styles. It seems logical, then, that we try to give our students the means to cope with these differences. We believe that we can do this by helping students become effective independent learners, and we have instituted one-credit courses in learning strategies for students in second-semester French, Spanish, and Italian courses. 2 The learning strategies courses are targeted at these students since the vast majority of our entering freshmen place into the second-semester level and have no training in learning strategies for foreign languages. Students in these one-credit courses learn strategies for listening, speaking, writing, and reading in the target language, and they practice these strategies on homework assignments for regular language classes. Another important aspect of making students independent learners is teaching them how to use textbooks effectively: to read textbooks and do homework exercises efficiently, to recognize when they really understand the material, to pinpoint what they do not understand, and to determine when they need outside help. Students are also introduced to learning styles to give them insight into how they learn best and to help them understand and adapt to unfamiliar teaching styles. Finally, students acquire strategies for dealing with the anxiety they may feel in foreign language classes. We hope to integrate the materials from these learning strategies classes into all beginning and intermediate language classes within the next two years.
Two years ago, when disagreements over teaching methodology surface during a routine departmental meeting, it became clear that our department faced many serious problems. We had a curriculum without a coherent, consensual focus; mutually exclusive views about what constituted “correct” methodology and “good” teaching; and little factual knowledge about one another's teaching methods. Our faculty members, whose background was primarily in literature, had done little research in second language acquisition, and because of tenure requirements, most had little incentive to conduct such research. While I do not pretend that we have solved all our problems or that progress has always been smooth, I can say that the steps we have taken during the last two years have strengthened our departmental program and improved faculty education and cooperation. These positive changes result in large part from our decision neither to ignore our problems nor to attempt to solve them by forcing all faculty members to subscribe to a single methodology. We have been successful in addressing many of our problems, I believe, for the reasons Jeannette Bragger has given for the popularity of the proficiency movement: “we are learning to avoid the extremes, we are ready to break down the dichotomies, and we seem to be willing to take chances” (14).
Recent trends in foreign language teaching have emphasized the learner, as well as the great variety of learning styles and their effect on classroom success (Chamot and Kupper; Horwitz and Young; Omaggio; Oxford; Swaffar; Wenden and Rubin). Strangely enough, while more and more willing to accept students as individuals with varying needs, language instructors seem to be less and less tolerant of different teaching styles among their colleagues. By seeing these differences as opportunities for learning rather than as threats to any particular method, we have created an atmosphere of cooperation and mutual respect both among ourselves and in the classroom.
The author is Assistant Professor of Modern Languages in the Department of Modern Languages and Literatures at Loyola College.
1 Because of the difficulty of learning Japanese, first- and second-year students of that language are not expected to reach the goals set for first- and second-year students of German, French, Italian, and Spanish.
2 We have not had time to train faculty members to teach learning strategies courses in other languages or at other levels, but we hope to be able to do so soon.
Altman, Howard B. “Identifying and Meeting the Needs of Foreign Language Educators in American Colleges and Universities.” Foreign Language Annals 22.2 (1989): 169–73.
Bragger, Jeannette D. “Teaching for Proficiency: Are We Ready?” ADFL Bulletin 18.1 (1986): 11–14. [Show Article]
Chamot, Anna Uhl, and Lisa Kupper. “Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Instruction.” Foreign Language Annals 21.1 (1989): 13–24.
Chastain, K. “On Methods, Theory, and Practice: Response to Ms. Losiewicz.” Hispania 69 (186): 173–75.
Horwitz, Elaine, and Dolly J. Young, eds. Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research to Classroom Implications. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice, 1991.
Kramsch, Claire J. “The Missing Link in Vision and Governance: Foreign Language Acquisition Research.” ADFL Bulletin 18.3 (1987): 31–34. [Show Article]
Omaggio, Alice C. Teaching Language in Context . Boston: Heinle, 1986.
Oxford, Rebecca. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know . New York: Newbury, 1990.
Strasheim, Lorraine A. “Preservice and Inservice Teacher Education in the Nineties: The Issue Is Instructional Validity.” Foreign Language Annals 24.2 (1991): 101–07.
Swaffar, Janet K. “Curricular Issues and Language Research: The Shifting Interaction.” Profession 89. New York: MLA, 1989. 32–38.
Swaffar, Janet K., Katherine Arens, and Martha Morgan, “Teacher Classroom Practices: Redefining Method as Task Hierarchy.” Modern Language Journal 66 (1982): 24–33.
Wenden, Anita, and Joan Rubin, eds. Learner Strategies . London: Prentice, 1987.
© 1993 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
