|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRICULUM is certainly not a new concept in higher education circles. Yet, I would argue, it is not a concept that receives much serious attention in that context because the professoriate considers itself largely autonomous. To be sure, each department or each program within a department has its own curriculum. Professors teach two or three courses a semester in departments of foreign languages and literatures, but seldom are the contents of all courses brought together for an open discussion of what each course contributes to the total department program, engendering discussion of the knowledge to be taught, its organization and delivery, student assignments, and student evaluations. The purpose of this article is to discuss foreign language curricula not only to demonstrate that there is a crisis but also to make recommendations about how to lift the crisis (for a more complete treatment of the crisis in second languages curriculum, see Lange, “Sketching the Crisis”).
Simply stated, curriculum is considered to be the determination of what is to be taught, how to organize the “what,” and how to teach it. In order words, curriculum is a learning plan, while instruction is generally considered to be a coupling of such a plan to students as they learn. Thus, curriculum and instruction are both necessary elements in developing and delivering any program of learning, including foreign language programs. While this statement appears to indicate that both curriculum and instruction are neutral, let me state at the outset that they are not. Curriculum and instruction, but particularly curriculum, are influenced by and influence students' conceptualization of the world.
As we begin consideration of the curriculum crisis, I wish to describe three conditions relating to curriculum as background to statements that I will use to demonstrate the situation. First, at least in theory, foreign language curricula entail complex curricular and instructional choices. Second, foreign language curricula are controlled by factors external to college and university programs, such as publishers and textbook authors. Third, foreign language curricula are elaborate because of the need to respond to many expected learning outcomes.
In foreign language education, there seems to be no lack of notions about how curriculum and instruction are associated. Two recent examinations of this relation have categorized the several ways in which language curriculum and instruction are allied. Linda Crawford-Lange suggests that process, content, and instruction together affect curricular options. In reviewing curriculum designs (systems-behavioral and problem-posing processes), content alternatives (functional-notional syllabus and interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary approaches), and instructional alternatives (suggestopedia, counseling learning, and cooperative learning), Crawford-Lange assumes the validity of all alternatives. However, the conscious choice of one or more approaches over others results from considerations of students, learning environment, instructor, and desired outcomes.
Using H. H. Stern's now classic conceptualization of the four contents of language curricula (the linguistic, communicative, cultural, and general language-education syllabi), I have demonstrated the ability of systems-behavioral, proficiency, and content-oriented curricular designs to accommodate the integration of these contents. The result of this analysis reveals that content-oriented curricula (a process-governed cultural content and a framework directed toward world knowledge) have the potential to integrate the four contents, while other types of curricula (systems-behavioral, communicative, and proficiency-oriented) fail that test in differing ways (Lange, “Language Teaching Curriculum”).
What is important to take away from these analyses are two points: the complexity of options for the foreign language curriculum and the necessity for viewing the language-learning curriculum not merely as the acquisition of phonemic, syntactic, and lexical rules but as an integration of at least four contents for the expression of personal knowledge and meaning.
These analyses are provocative mainly because they display extensive curricular designs and approaches, including instructional ones. However, this abundance of choice is mostly theoretical because the options remain largely unrealized. The real curriculum is not necessarily determined by academics' speculative deliberations, practical requirements of classroom teachers, or student needs. It is determined more by publishers and textbook authors than by curricular theorists, curriculum supervisors, or teachers. Thus, in clear and direct language, we have handed the design of elementary, secondary, and college foreign language curricula to commercial interests, which have determined both the content and direction of such programs. What sells is what gets printed; what gets printed is used; what is used is considered appropriate in all ways because it has been published! Last, but certainly not least, commercial interests include their own political, social, and economic agendas in what they publish (see Apple).
We currently conceive the focus of foreign language curricula as developing student competence to comprehend and use language. This agenda is much expanded compared with that of the 1960s. Where earlier emphasis on language teaching attended to the language content of the curriculum (phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon), this statement connects comprehension of language and language use to the content of almost any discipline in the liberal arts. And this connection also includes the learner's personal, social, and political contexts and anticipates the learner's application of language within the contexts. In this conception, then, the foreign language permits the learner to think it another language, to comprehend, know, and interpret the environment in which the language is used; and to understand the self and its interrelation with that which is to be learned. The expanded agenda provides for much more than the drill of translation of textual meaning from one language to another. It involves an interpretation of each individual's development within the process of language learning or acquisition. Such recognition is usually not extended to language learning.
With this background in mind, I briefly describe the six signs of a crisis in curricula for language learning:
A resolution of curricular problems and difficulties by discipline that have little to do with such problems or with the field itself. In many ways, foreign language education solicits solutions to issues and problems within by seeking resolution in other disciplines, such as linguistics, psycholinguistics, educational psychology, and psychology. In order not to be misunderstood, I suggest that these areas may certainly contribute to our broad knowledge of language and learning. Yet these disciplines are incapable of resolving curricular and instructional questions because their conceptualization is directed almost exclusively toward learning of the linguistic aspects of language and their theories give little consideration to the development of individuals or to the purpose of language.
Metatheoretical discussions of the resolution of problems and issues in foreign language learning. There is an increasing demand for clarification of the language-learning process from those who think and write about that process. There are at least contending theories of foreign language learning: a monitor model (Krashen, Principles, Second Language Acquisition ), a conscious reinforcement model (Carroll), a strategy model (Bialystok; Oxford), a social psychological model (Lambert, “Human Abilities,” “Bilingualism”), an acculturation model (Schumann), a social context model (Giles, Robinson, and Smith), an intergroup model (Giles and Byrne), and a socioeducational model (Gardner 145–66). All the models have some commonalities: there is a presumption of motivation; motivation is social in nature; language learning requires learners to make social adjustments; individual differences relate to differential learning or acquiring of language; and finally, all the models are descriptive, not predictive. But more important for our consideration is that none of the models focus on the development of the individual in school or in college or university settings in relation to language learning or acquisition. Instead, the focus is on the development of language per se. What is important here is not the details of these different models. What is important is that the models exist only in theory, not in practice. The practice is still the learning and teaching of language as rule-governed linguistic behavior.
Uncritical examination of research and writing in the field. There is a burgeoning literature of notions, ideas, and research reports in foreign and second language learning. By using the term uncritical examination , I am suggesting that these notions, ideas, and research reports are not being carefully examined in the light of the implications for curriculum and instruction. Two questions that such a critical examination could answer are, What is the contribution of language to the solid, economic, and political context in which the notions, ideas, and research reports may or may not be employed? and, What are the contributions of these notions, ideas, and research reports to the development of the ability of children, adolescents, and adults to know themselves and their worlds? The lack of critical examination of these ideas suggests that language learning in schools and in colleges and universities in uncorrected to a meaningful world and that a mindless choice of strategy, method (whatever that means), or activity is all that matters.
Preservation of known and existing practice and resistance to change. Many programs of language learning on both the secondary level and the college and university level represent changes from the practices of thirty to forty years ago. These changes, incorporated with great struggle, have become the known and comfortable practice called audiolingualism. Preservation of this “new” tradition came through textbooks, which in edition after edition created more and better behaviorally oriented drills. Currently, research and knowledge of language as communication has become a threat to this tradition. Publishers are hesitant to change directions. And teacher educators continue to work with the tried-and-true methods.
Quarrelsome interchange in the literature and at conferences on issues related to the language-learning curriculum (Lantolf and Frawley, “Oral Proficiency Testing,” “Understanding the Construct”). The literature on language as communication contains competing tenets and structures that seem to have both personal and political import (Savignon). Did communicative competence or language proficiency come first (Bachman and Savignon)? Whose description, principles, and procedures should endure (Lee and Musumeci, “Hierarchies,” Reply; Omaggio Hadley; Galloway)? Arguments and research are entertained to determine and “prove” which groups is correct. And finally, conferences are used to bring opposing sides together to debate issues that have become emotional and political rather than intellectual (Valdman).
Professional exhaustion. Secondary school language teachers; college and university language coordinators, instructors, and professors; and others who deliver the language learning curriculum are overwhelmed by the task and the demands of the context. There is little time to reflect on the tasks involved in language learning to determine whether those tasks are appropriate. The important changes that could be made are not even contemplated. The opportunities to examine the newest textbooks, to read the latest research report or interesting journal article, and to teach an experimental course all go begging (Delorenzo et al.). There is hardly any energy or time for renewal.
These six conditions contribute to my perception of a crisis in the language-learning curriculum. I believe strongly that a crisis exists. But it is not enough to describe the problem. What occurs next? How can we act on the situation to resolve it?
While I certainly cannot predict or guess all potential directions for action, I do have four suggestions that should be considered.
The first suggestion supports a vision for language learning that has already appeared in different guises. We need to find a balance between the tradition of teaching language as grammar or metasystem and the teaching of language as communication. In a broad sense, the study of language in higher education has evolved largely from the analysis of language as a concrete, human phenomenon. That broad sense must now include not only analysis of language, but the uses and intents of language as well. In other words, more emphasis must be fixed on the communication of human thought and feeling. Curricula and instructional practice must be reassigned to these purposes.
The second suggestion follows on the first in that the language-learning curriculum should focus more on the learner (Who are these individuals? What do they need to know? For what purpose is this knowledge to be learned? How can this learning be used to gain further knowledge and experience?) and less on the technological aspects of curriculum and teaching (goals, objectives, outcomes, methods, strategies, and testing). We have searched for, examined, and inquired after the holy grail of method, technique, and strategy. Perhaps knowledge, understanding, and active communication with learners could serve just as well as, or even better than, technological know-how.
The third suggestion follows on the second. We need constantly to be asking why language learning is important either before or during a liberal arts education (or technical education for that matter) on the college or university level. Having read a recent ADFL Bulletin article on increased language requirements in colleges and universities, I fear that we are counting on renewed emphasis on the entrance or graduation language requirement for curriculum renewal (Brod and Lapointe). A language requirement for what? The analysis of language is not sufficient to include language in a liberal arts education. Instead, the orientation must be toward a level of language use or language proficiency where students use that proficiency to learn about themselves in their world. It is at this point that language learning becomes an important element in higher education. There is, however, a catch. The suggested principle works only if there is cooperation in other areas of the liberal arts to provide for language use.
Let me provide an example of what I mean. The international relations major at the University of Minnesota includes an interesting course taught in the school of journalism. The course is a comparison of issues represented in the foreign press. There are two sections of the course, one each in French and in Spanish. The purpose of the course is to read the international press of either the French-speaking or Spanish-speaking world and to compare it with the American press. Students experience the importance of their language-learning background in pursuing the ideas and opinions of others as they formulate their own. In addition, they learn that multiple perspectives on the same issues exist. Sometimes those perspectives are not necessarily appreciated, but they do need understanding. The knowledge, appreciation, and understanding of different perspectives are central to a liberal arts education. The development of language skills, generally thought of only as skills, largely to be ignored once attained, becomes one means to understanding perceptions and meaning of others.
And the fourth recommendation follows on the third. Foreign language learning should be oriented toward the comprehension and expression of personal knowledge and meaning. In this regard, any content in the liberal arts curriculum could use a variety of authentic texts to relate the content and background students are building to the language proficiency they are simultaneously expanding. Students' personal responses to the ideas and information reflected in these texts should be encouraged. Orienting the use of language in this manner allows the student to build on already established knowledge and perceptions. Students build background on the political, social, economic, and scientific issues of our times and learn language to communicate knowledge and to express opinions and perceptions. This kind of language use is accomplished through group interaction where the target language is used to arrive at an understanding of students' worlds and of alternative actions they can take to live with those worlds.
Let me provide another example. As a result of a Title VI resource center grant, the international studies program at the University of Minnesota was able to support a trailer course in Spanish to a regular political science course, Latin American Government and Politics. In the trailer course, students were asked to study a Latin American country and to apply the theory of a political scientist whose work is available only in Spanish. The trailer course was conducted entirely in Spanish by the professor who teaches the political science course. The students worked with the professor in a group setting where the comprehension of political theory and its application were the ultimate goal. At the end of the course, the students made oral presentations in Spanish of written papers in which they not only completed the task assigned to them but also included their own assessments of the political theory and its application to Latin America. In addition, students helped each other clarify, intent, and meanings as the task was carried out. Student evaluations for this course were superlative. While there were only eight students in the class, it provides an excellent example of the direction I am suggesting.
This example suggests a different attitude toward language learning and language use in a liberal arts curriculum: giving the study of a foreign language and the development of language proficiency a prominent role. Courses outside language departments, such as history, philosophy, journalism, music, art, economics, and anthropology, in which language use is encouraged, provide students with a broader perception of the field within which they are working or the course they are pursuing. The example above all demonstrates that language is a key to understanding the student's world. It is not just another technology to be learned.
In these pages, I provide a view of the foreign language curriculum in crisis. The impressions I give are intended to be provocative, to help readers examine the situation for themselves and explore the recommendations for dealing with the crisis. The road to the crisis has been a long one, and the way out will not be short. Recognizing the complexity of the language-learning curriculum and taking action on that recognition will be important steps toward a successful future for language learning in schools, colleges, and universities.
The author is Professor of Second Language Cultures and Education and Associate Dean in the College of Education at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. This article is based on a paper presented at the ADFL Seminar East, 1–3 June 1989, in Athens, Georgia.
Apple, Michael W. “The Culture and Commerce of the Textbook.” Contemporary Curriculum Discourses. Scottsdale: Gorsuch, 1988. 223–42.
Bachman, Lyle, and Sandra J. Savignon. “The Evaluation of Communicative Language Proficiency: A Critique of the ACTFL Oral Interview.” Modern Language Journal 70 (1986): 380–90.
Bialystok, Ellen. “A Theoretical Model of Second Language Learning.” Language Learning 28 (1978): 69–83.
Brod, Richard, and Monique Lapointe. “The MLA Survey of Foreign Language Entrance and Degree Requirements, 1987–88.” ADFL Bulletin 20.2 (1989): 17–41. [Show Article]
Carroll, John B. “Conscious and Automatic Processes in Language Learning.” Canadian Modern Language Review 37 (1981): 462–64.
Crawford-Lange, Linda M. “Curricular Alternatives for Second-Language Learning.” Curriculum, Competence, and the Foreign Language Teacher. Ed. Theodore V. Higgs. ACTFL Foreign Lang. Educ. Ser. Lincolnwood: Natl. Textbook, 1982. 81–112.
Delorenzo, William E., et al. “New Teachers: Developing Flexible Foreign Language Teachers.” New Contents, New Teachers, and New Publics. Ed. Warren C. Born. Reports of the Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Langs. Middlebury: NCTFL, 1978. 64–113.
Egan, Kieran. Educational Development. London: Oxford UP, 1979.
Galloway, Vicki. Letter. Modern Language Journal 72 (1988): 450–52.
Gardner, Robert C. Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Arnold, 1985.
Giles, H., and J. L. Byrne. “An Intergroup Approach to Second Language Acquisition,” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 1 (1982): 17–40.
Giles, H., W.P. Robinson, and P.M. Smith, eds. Language: Social Psychological Perspectives. Oxford: Pergamon, 1980.
Krashen, Stephen D. Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon, 1982.
———. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. New York: Pergamon, 1981.
Lambert, Wallace E. “Psychological Approaches to the Study of Language, Part I: On Learning, Thinking and Human Abilities.” Modern Language Journal 41 (1963): 51–62.
———. “Psychological Approaches to the Study of Language, Part II: On Second Language Learning and Bilingualism.” Modern Language Journal 41 (1963): 114–21.
Lange, Dale L. “The Language Teaching Curriculum and a National Agenda.” Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 490 (1987): 70–96.
———. “Sketching the Crisis and Exploring Different Perspectives in Foreign Curriculum.” Foreign Language Education: Perspectives and Points of View. Ed. Diane W. Birckbichler. ACTFL Foreign Lang. Educ. Ser. Lincolnwood: Natl. Textbook, 1990. 77–109.
Lantolf, James P., and William Frawley. “Oral Proficiency Testing: A Critical Analyses.” Modern Language Journal 69 (1985): 337–45.
———. “Proficiency: Understanding the Construct.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10 (1988): 181–95.
Lee, James F., and Diane Musumeci. “On Hierarchies of Reading Skills and Text Types.” Modern Language Journal 72 (1988): 171–87.
———. Reply to Letter of Alice Omaggio Hadley. Modern Language Journal 72 (1988): 454–57.
Omaggio Hadley, Alice C. Letter. Modern Language Journal 72 (1988): 452–54.
Oxford, Rebecca L. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury, 1990.
Savignon, Sandra J. “Evaluation of Communicative Competence: The ACTFL Provisional Proficiency Guidelines.” Modern Language Journal 69 (1985): 129–34.
Schumann, John H. “Social and Psychological Factors in Second Language Acquisition.” Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning. Ed. Jack C. Richards. Rowley: Newbury, 1976. 163–78.
Stern, H. H. “Toward a Multidimensional Foreign Language Curriculum.” Foreign Languages: Key Links in the Chain of Learning. Ed. Robert G. Mead, Jr. Reports of the Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Langs. Middlebury: NCTFL, 1983. 120–46.
Valdman, Albert, ed. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Evaluation of Foreign Language Proficiency. Bloomington: Committee for Research and Development in Lang. Instruction, Indiana U, 1987.
© 1994 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
