25, no. 2 (Winter 1994): 1-2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
No Works Cited |
|
From the Editor
Elizabeth B. Welles
AFTER just a short time as the new director of ADFL I am facing the challenge of writing the editor's column for the Bulletin. It is perhaps appropriate to introduce myself to my readers by sharing some reflections on the state of foreign language teaching in the United States that will inform my sense of ADFL activities. These comments are based on my experience in the Program for Higher Education in the Humanities at the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), where I was involved with the Special Opportunity in Foreign Language Education (SOFLE). Created to strengthen the teaching of foreign languages at all levels, with emphasis on such less commonly taught (LCT) but widely spoken languages as Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Russian, this initiative was able to build on advances by members in the field who had explored the cognitive theory behind second language acquisition, experimented with various approaches to teaching, devised new methods of testing, expanded the potential of audiovisual technology, and come up with new curricular models. Projects for Higher Education in the Humanities include curriculum development integrating authentic materials into language courses, the use of foreign languages in other disciplines (languages across the curriculum), the preparation of teachers, and the inclusion of the LCTs in foreign language programs. Under Special Projects, suggested categories include collaborations between secondary and postsecondary institutions, the development of magnet schools, and the creation of courses to improve graduate teaching. In the Program for Elementary and Secondary Education in the Humanities projects, applications are invited for summer institutes for schoolteachers, particularly in the LCTs.
As a program officer, I explained NEH objectives at conferences and workshops, advised applicants on the feasibility of their proposals, and monitored funded projects. This experience taught me a great deal about the field of foreign language teaching, and I learned as well that NEH objectives and the concerns of the field were not always the same. In curriculum development, for example, language across the curriculum (LAC) proved a popular model, but for LCTs there was little possibility of developing curriculum because of the small number of programs. For LCTs funding was needed for establishing new positions, especially in smaller schools without large area studies programs. Few projects in teacher education were received, and only one has been funded. In my view this sparseness of activity indicates not that the preparation of future teachers is considered unimportant but rather that the organization of a proposal to encompass both the content and education requirements is difficult. While for Special Projects some collaborative and other proposals were received, the overwhelming majority was for materials development in computer, video, television, still pictures, and sound, often in highly interactive combinations. These proposals demonstrate that well-directed use of technology can not only make second language learning more efficient and interesting but also, it seems to me, suggest ways to reconceptualize the classroom around audio, visual, and computer programs. Summer institutes for elementary and secondary school teachers have gone forward for all four LCTs, but the large number of applications in French, Spanish, and German illustrates schoolteachers' desire for further training in these languages and cultures as well. Although applicants for NEH projects may be an exceptional breed, I could only draw the conclusion that the discipline of foreign language teaching was peopled with energetic, imaginative, and focused practitioners.
These applicants and other members of the field, however, have not been entirely optimistic about the future of foreign language teaching either within their institutions or out in the public sphere. Certainly, there are many problems, not the least of which is lack of money to strengthen and expand foreign language teaching. While belt-tightening can be expected in a period of recession and deficit reduction, spending priorities have also determined the allotment of private, federal, and institutional resources available to education in general and to foreign languages in particular. Private foundations that used to fund collegiate education, for example, have often turned their focus to social causes. Much talk about the need for the United States to be a player in things “global” has sounded an educational alarm calling on institutions (especially of higher education) to strengthen international studies and improve foreign language teaching. Yet there seems to be a paradoxical disparity between the urgency for “internationalization” and the substantive government resources to realize these aims. The Department of Education's Center for International Studies and the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) continue to fund foreign language education, but the scale is small and the funding has not increased noticeably. Meanwhile, a few other initiatives have been implemented as a response to this need. NEH's Special Opportunity, created in 1989, can be seen in this light, but it is a small program with a modest budget, designated to run for only five years. At the most recent deadline (March 1993) only eighteen of seventy-five projects were funded, for a total of $4,318,707. SOFLE is also necessarily limited by the mandate of the National Endowment for the Humanities to the improvement of foreign language teaching solely in the humanities. The David L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 will launch a series of pilot programs by fall 1994 for under-graduate study abroad and graduate programs in international studies that will benefit foreign language study. The newest government agency is the Center for the Advancement of Language Learning (CALL), established in 1993, which will become a resource for federal agencies that need foreign language skills. What is important for us is its mission to act as a liaison between the government and the academy in order to share methods and resources developed by the government. I hope that ADFL will be able to assist in the flow of this information. It is also good news that the foreign language community has managed to have foreign languages included in the national plan Goals 2000: Educate America.
Even in the short time I have been at 10 Astor Place, ADFL has heard reports of institutional budget reductions that have resulted in cuts for foreign language teaching across the board. Further, I think the pervasive concern about globalization has had only mixed results for departments, since efforts to internationalize curricula do not always put foreign languages at the center of the enterprise. Many a SOFLE proposal cited the development of international studies as the justification for the creation of foreign language programs for which the applicant was requesting support. It was clear from the proposals, however, that the in political science and economics were often well in place before the role of foreign languages had been considered. Foreign language department members need to remind their colleagues in other disciplines that the study of another language gives a student a real encounter with another culture and is the most international of all educational experiences. LAC models can also be useful here in establishing links with international and area studies programs in order to ensure the prominence they deserve on campuses more self-consciously concerned with cross-cultural matters.
If emphasis on the shrinking world is to be of future advantage to the profession, it is really up to those of us who are in it to make it happen. As I mentioned before, advances in practice and research lead one to believe the field is on the verge of great accomplishments. Like the profession as a whole, this aspect of language teaching is not well known, either to the public or to the rest of the academy. At a recent conference of deans and foreign language professors, I was surprised to hear several deans confess that they had never before realized that foreign language learning was so demanding intellectually or so important academically. Such a confession by a dean, who is possibly a chemist or historian, might, perhaps, be forgiven. But what really shocked me was the admission by a number of foreign language and literature professors, who have spent a third to two thirds of their professional lives in the foreign language classroom, that they had never before attended a conference at which foreign language study was the chief topic. Of even greater concern are those foreign language teachers who do not attend professional meetings at all, who do not read this journal or, probably, any other foreign language journal. How do we reach these people and convince them of the advantages of being a part of the foreign language community? The potential strength of our profession lies in our ability to build on gains made; to solidify connections with other disciplines, departments, and institutions; and to reach the “unconverted” and isolated members of our own field. ADFL's mission is to serve foreign language departments and thereby strengthen the profession. Through its seminars, convention sessions, and publications ADFL can invigorate the field, make its members more visible, and demonstrate the intrinsic value of studying foreign languages, cultures, and literatures. I would like to invite all Bulletin readers to be in touch with me about their ideas and to let me know if they have any suggestions for addressing those who do not read the Bulletin.
© 1994 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
ADFL Bulletin 25, no. 2 (Winter 1994): 1-2 |
|
|---|
|
|
|
|
No Works Cited |
|
