|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every newspaper reiterates our increasing responsibility for maintaining global leadership in order to protect our own way of life, as well as to work for the peace and security of the entire world.… What we have of technological know-how is eagerly sought by many peoples, but the technical experts we send, more often than not, lack the means of communicating directly with those they are attempting to help.
—Margit W. MacRae
In this world situation our country is called upon to serve a new role.… We are ill prepared as a people to serve this role. … Our understanding of other cultures is severely limited.… We have had to send hundreds of our people out on foreign assignment who could not speak the language of the country to which they went.…
—Hollis L. Caswell
THESE warnings may appear similar to those we see in every professional journal we read today. The difference, however, is that these articles appeared in 1955 and 1957—almost forty years ago! The fundamental needs in foreign language education have long been evident, and we have done little about them.
In his article, Caswell listed four suggestions to provide for the language preparedness needed for the future:
Look at the key phrases in that list again: “teaching competence,” “early stimulation,” “for a sufficiently long time,” “functional mastery,” “study abroad,” “communication approach.” Today these words jump out at us from the many discussions of the challenge of making foreign language learning a national priority. Leaders in American government, business, labor, and education insist that language instruction be made an integral part of education in the increasingly interdependent world of today (Eisenberg).
I believe that foreign language study has failed to secure a central place in the American curriculum, in part because of a lack of articulation from elementary through university studies. And this deficiency is largely due to the lack of universally accepted methods for assessing language development. The two are inextricably tied to each other. Most everyone in foreign language education agrees that articulation is a pressing problem, if not a crisis, yet nobody does anything about it. Given the resurgence of interest in foreign languages in the United States, I propose that we as foreign language department chairs take the initiative and redesign the educational system to create an articulated curriculum in language learning.
Heidi Byrnes describes articulation as “the well motivated and well designed sequencing and coordination of instruction toward certain goals, … with vertical articulation at the core of the issue” (281). Here, she refers to Dale L. Lange's concept of vertical articulation, “the continuity of a program throughout the length of the program” (115). (Lange imposes no limit on this length of program, implying, I believe, that it should last as long as it takes.) If we apply the recommendations of the American Council on Education in its statement supporting foreign language education as a national priority, perhaps we can identify the means of developing an articulated system of sequenced and coordinated foreign language instruction from kindergarten through university. There are three basic premises:
Continuity in language learning should exist throughout the course of education.
Language competence is a vital educational outcome.
Institutional initiatives are needed to facilitate the process of language learning for students and faculty members.
Research on successful language learners has strongly indicated the need for continuous study of languages over a period of several years (see “Standards”). Dorothy James proposes that educators in the United States adopt a policy similar to the European practice of requiring foreign language study for a minimum of eight years. That our schools are so far behind European schools in the outcomes of our language students illustrates the need for such a change. Byrnes posits, “The younger our learners are at the beginning of instruction, the more holistic, semantically based their language learning is likely to be for a number of years” (284). Research also indicates that students exposed early to continuous second-language study that incorporates cultural components are more tolerant and appreciative of cultural differences and have fewer prejudices (Gardner and Lambert; Heath).
If we are to achieve continuity in language learning, we must strive for articulation; seat time is no longer sufficient. And if we are to achieve articulation, the educational system as a whole must change. For example, the maintenance and expansion of elementary school foreign language programs are severely constrained by a shortage of trained teachers proficient in foreign languages (Met). The structure of undergraduate teacher preparation programs exacerbates this shortage by making it virtually impossible for a student to major in elementary education while taking sufficient foreign language coursework to attain a high level of proficiency. This lack of teacher preparation must be addressed in teacher training programs, a fact that underscores the central role of the department chair in achieving articulation throughout foreign language education. Continuity requires planning and leadership across the entire curriculum. It does not occur without systematic guidance, which must come from the colleges and universities. To determine how to provide it, we must establish what level of language competence we expect from students entering the college and university, and then we must work backward to determine how they can reach that level.
Second-language competence (i.e., performance at a level expected of college and university students) can only be achieved through articulated foreign language education before the postsecondary level. As David W. Pankenier points out,
We delude ourselves [and, I would add, our students] if we think that merely requiring a year or two of language instruction in college is going to produce significant improvement in the cultural or linguistic sophistication of our graduates or enhance our ability to compete internationally. If we are as serious about the importance of linguistic sophistication as we profess to be, then language study ought to be required from elementary school onward, just as the study of mathematics and writing is. (B3)
Foreign language educators have known for many years that we place unreasonable demands on language students when we maintain that four semesters of foreign language study (which is currently all that is required to obtain a bachelor's degree at most universities and colleges in the United States) will result in communicative competence in a language. We never put this claim in writing, of course, but it is certainly implied in the program offerings of our institutions. Why would we require just two years of study if the outcome were not supposed to be a “college” level of academic achievement in the discipline? We certainly do not intimate that the level of achievement will be, say, at the junior high school level or the tenth grade level. But instead of competence in the language, the usual result is great frustration on the part of the students, who with little or no preparation are forced into four semesters of language study. And, to most of them, learning a second language is not relevant, as they have no knowledge of the possible future benefits they might derive from this study. If students arrived at the university with sufficient background in language training, perhaps two additional years of study at the postsecondary level would indeed develop foreign language competence at a level acceptable for a college graduate.
At this point department chairs who are short on time and funding may be crying, “And how is one supposed to do this?” It will take some time. First, we have to convince foreign language faculty members and administrators that creating a system to promote articulation is essential. Faculty members with students inadequately prepared to succeed in college-level courses witness the students' frustration and are themselves frustrated by a nonfunctioning system. These instructors should not be difficult to convert. Collaboration between community colleges and universities would provide a good start toward initiating the articulated curriculum. Articulation and collaboration are high-priority issues at postsecondary institutions today. A united front by university and community college department chairs could conceivably result in funding an adjunct faculty position or released time for a full-time college instructor interested in the issue of coordinating elementary, secondary, college, and university foreign language education. There is an excellent chance that a state or national organization might provide a grant to fund such a project in its first years. It is important to recognize that more responsibilities cannot be placed on department chairs who are already overworked. There must be commitment and involvement on the part of the administration from the very beginning.
Through careful research in collaboration with elementary and secondary teachers, we can determine how language acquisition occurs in various classroom settings, what methodologies are most successful at what levels of language development, and what are the best ways to organize the curriculum (Bailey et al.). The university or college foreign language “representative” will prove valuable at this stage—someone who can meet with foreign language teachers, explain the purpose behind our united efforts, and arrange meetings will be essential.
The consequences of such a collaboration would be numerous:
Research. University department chairs could encourage graduate students preparing to teach foreign languages to work with elementary and secondary teachers in the field. No one knows better than the teacher what works or doesn't work in a classroom situation. Teachers are eager to be informed of new methodologies and theories in second language acquisition but seldom have the time to do the research that graduate students do. Working together would better prepare the graduate student and also give the teacher access to new theories and methods to apply in the classroom. It is essential that researchers and practitioners be provided with opportunities to communicate with one another if meaningful theory building in language learning is to take place (Bailey et al.).
Summer workshops for L2 teachers. There is an urgent need to better prepare teachers with limited second-language training to teach in classes where L2 instruction is now mandated by the states. Four weeks of intensive practice with the target language, cultural awareness training, and study of new material would greatly increase foreign language effectiveness and enthusiasm in the classroom. (There are grants available for these types of programs.)
Assessment and evaluation. This is the most challenging task facing foreign language educators. Development of a process or system of evaluation of language competency that can be understood, used, and accepted at all levels of L2 instruction is at the core of successful articulation. How can we provide years of articulated curriculum in language study without a consistent means of evaluating student performance? This immense problem has baffled foreign language educators for years. We know that neither seat time in class nor discrete-point grammar and vocabulary tests are adequate for evaluating overall language competence, especially in regard to the communicative aspect of language. Today's emphasis is on how well students use the language, especially in speaking proficiency, not on how much they know about the language, such as knowledge demonstrated on a discrete-point grammar test.
The ACTFL guidelines for oral proficiency have provided much needed insight into evaluation issues. The oral proficiency interview is a useful instrument for determining how well students speak the target language. More than any other evaluative tool, it has influenced how we organize our curricula and how we state goals for student performance. It is not, however, a panacea for L2 assessment problems. Training teachers to administer the tests is expensive, and the testing itself is time-consuming. We have learned a great deal from this approach, though, and there are various ways it can be adapted for use at different levels. For example, in most college courses, steps one and two might be completely eliminated, and perhaps another category, such as “cultural awareness” or “sociolinguistic-culture,” might be added.
Compare the SOLOM (Student Oral Language Observation Matrix) (app. 1), developed by the Department of Bilingual Education in California, with the ACTFL criteria on speaking proficiency (app. 2). These examples demonstrate that evaluation criteria can be adapted to measure proficiency at different levels of foreign language education. The SOLOM is similar to the ACTFL criteria in that it rates competency in five categories. It is different in that it is more classroom-oriented and bases evaluation not on a single interview but rather on observation of a student over a period of weeks or months in differing situations. This instrument is used as one of the determining factors for the placement of elementary students in bilingual or ESL classes. Teachers are trained to use the SOLOM by listening to tapes of students and rating their oral proficiency; after a period of practice with others, teachers exhibit a high interrater reliability (Gold).
This type of evaluation can be utilized at many levels of foreign language education. An examination of “authentic” (performance outcomes) testing in Britain found that neither the old nor the new assessment tests told teachers more than they already knew about the attainments and abilities of individual students (Madaus and Kellaghan). Why not use a form of evaluation based on long-term observation by the teacher, if teachers can be trained to use this method and can gain a common understanding of the terminology?
One such possible instrument for evaluation that could be accepted across the United States is the portfolio concept proposed by the Eurocentre Foundation in Switzerland. The National Foreign Language Center in Washington recently published a paper from the foundation entitled “Towards a Common European Framework for Reporting Language Competency,” by Rolf Scharer and Brian North. This paper, which represented the conclusions of the final phase of the Council of Europe intergovernmental symposium, “Transparency and Coherence in Language Learning in Europe: Objectives, Assessment, and Certification,” held in Switzerland in November 1991, proposed a common European framework for reporting language achievement. The aims of the proposal were to enhance and sustain student motivation through longer-term continuing education; to provide a single record of individual language learning achievement for the use of employers and others; and to build coherence between education systems and develop efficient interfaces between educational sectors. It seems to me that these goals echo what language educators in the United States are seeking in our programs. With the increase in worldwide business and social interaction, effective language skills are becoming more critical for everyone. Therefore, we need to create a tool for individual learners that enables them to appreciate the value and benefits of lifelong language learning and to participate fully in the educational process.
The recommendation stated by Scharer and North was for each language learner to have a “European language portfolio” with three components that would reflect “objectives, assessment, and certification.” The portfolio would contain a “passport,” which would record formal qualifications attained; a “map,” which would pinpoint levels of competence (especially in oral proficiency) reached during the learning process; and a “dossier,” which would include work samples and evidence of experience. If our language students had portfolios of their achievements that began with their L2 education and were updated throughout their language training, they could be placed at the university level with facility and accuracy.
Some questions, as yet not answered by our European colleagues, seem pertinent to our system in the United States. How could such a language portfolio help produce coordination between differing school systems? How could the portfolio help resolve problems in higher education by allowing recognition and transferability of results and achievement? How could the portfolio help language learners to realize their potential?
There have been a number of methods devised to rate language proficiency, but we need to agree upon and adopt a national scale that will allow flexibility and, at the same time, offer reliability and consistency. What is needed in foreign language education is not standardized texts, tests, or methodologies but instead explicit performance levels in speaking, listening comprehension, reading, writing, and cultural awareness and appreciation that can be understood by students, teachers, and the rest of the world. All this information could indeed be included in a language learner's portfolio, allowing ease of transfer from one institution to another, regardless of what materials and methods were used to get these L2 performance outcomes. With this information collected, students would know what their levels of competence in L2 were and what they would need to do to arrive at their desired levels of performance. They could thus appreciate their progress and take responsibility for their success.
In conclusion, the leadership role of the department chair continues to expand in the face of changes in foreign language education, including:
the emphasis on communicative competence as a language education goal vitally affecting our political, commercial, and intellectual standing in the international community;
the “new breed” of students in foreign language classes, of all ages and from every walk of life and all professions;
the challenge of articulation; and
the urgent need for an assessment process that is universally accepted and understood by educators and the business community.
Successful outcomes in these areas can only be reached through cooperative efforts at all levels and in all foreign language organizations and educational institutions. ADFL provides a stage for addressing these areas of concern, as indeed it is already doing by producing this special issue of the ADFL Bulletin for foreign language department chairs and maintaining a forum for examining pressing foreign language matters.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Comprehension | Cannot understand even simple conversation | Has great difficulty following everyday social conversation, even when words are spoken slowly and repeated frequently | Understands most of what is said at slower-than-normal speed with some repetitions | Understands nearly everything at normal speed, although occasional repetition may be necessary | Understands everyday conversation and normal classroom discussion without difficulty |
| B. Fluency | Speech so halting and fragmentary that conversation is virtually impossible | Usually hesitant; often forced into silence because of language limitations | Everyday conversation and classroom discussion frequently disrupted by student's search for correct manner of expression | Everyday conversation and classroom discussion generally fluent, with occasional lapses while student searches for correct manner of expression | Everyday conversation and classroom discussion fluent and effortless; approximately those of a native speaker |
| C. Vocabulary | Vocabulary limitations so extreme that conversation is virtually impossible | Difficult to understand because of misuse of words and very limited vocabulary | Frequent use of wrong words; conversation somewhat limited because of inadequate vocabulary | Occasional use of inappropriate terms and/or rephrasing of ideas because of limited vocabulary | Vocabulary and idioms approximately those of a native speaker |
| D. Pronunciation | Pronunciation problems so severe that speech is virtually unintelligible | Difficult to understand because of pronunciation problems; must frequently repeat in order to be understood | Concentration required of listener; occasional misunderstandings caused by pronunciation problems | Always intelligible, though listener conscious of a definite accent and occasional inappropriate intonation pattern | Pronunciation and intonation approximately those of a native speaker |
| E. Grammar | Errors in grammar and word order so severe that speech is virtually unintelligible | Difficult to understand because of grammar and word order; must often rephrase or restrict speech to basic patterns | Frequent errors of grammar and word order; meaning occasionally obscured | Occasional errors in grammar and word order; meaning not obscured | Grammar and word order approximately those of a native speaker |
| Based on your observation of the pupil, indicate with an “X” across the square in each category which best describes the pupil's abilities. The SOLOM should only be administered by persons who themselves score at level “4” or above in all categories in the language being assessed. Pupils scoring at level “1” in all categories can be said to have no proficiency in the language. | |||||
| Global Tasks/Functions | Context | Content | Accuracy | Text Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Superior | ||||
| Can discuss extensively by supporting opinions, abstracting and hypothesizing | Most formal and informal settings | Wide range of general interest topics and some special fields of interest and expertise; concrete, abstract and unfamiliar topics | Errors virtually never interfere with communication or disturb the native speaker | Extended discourse |
| Advanced | ||||
| Can describe and narrate in major time/aspect frames | Most informal and some formal settings | Concrete and factual topics of personal and public interest | Can be understood without difficulty by speakers unaccustomed to non-native speakers | Paragraph discourse |
| Intermediate | ||||
| Can maintain simple face-to-face conversation by asking and responding to simple questions | Some informal settings and a limited number of transactional situations | Topics related primarily to self and immediate environment | Can be understood, with some repetition, by speakers accustomed to non-native speakers | Discrete sentences and strings of sentences |
| Novice | ||||
| Can produce only formulaic utterances, lists and enumerations | Highly predictable daily settings | Common discrete elements of daily life | May be difficult to understand, even for those accustomed to non-native speakers | Discrete words and phrases |
Bailey, Kathleen, Alice Omaggio Hadley, Sally Magnan, and Janet Swaffar. “Priority: Research in the 1990s: Focus on Theory, Building Instructional Innovation, and Collaboration.” Foreign Language Annals 24.2 (1991): 89–100.
Byrnes, Heidi. “Priority: Curriculum Articulation: Addressing Curriculum Articulation in the Nineties: A Proposal.” Foreign Language Annals 23.4 (1990): 281–92.
Caswell, Hollis L. “Modern Foreign Languages in a Modern Curriculum.” Education 75.8 (1955): 483–89.
Eisenberg, Diane U., ed. Foreign Language Policy Statement: The Future of Foreign Language Education at Community, Technical, and Junior Colleges. Washington: American Assn. of Community Colls., 1992.
Gardner, R., and W. Lambert. Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley: Newbury, 1972.
Gold, Norman. Personal interview. 16 Nov. 1987.
Heath, Shirley Bryce. “Sociocultural Context of Language Development.” Beyond Language. Sacramento: California State Dept. of Education, 1986.
Hirsch, Bette G., and Chantal P. Thompson. “Proficiency Goals and the Teaching of Literature in the Foreign Language Classroom.” The Future of Foreign Language Education at Community, Technical, and Junior Colleges. Ed. Diane U. Eisenberg. Washington: American Assn. of Community Colls., 1992. 61–90.
James, Dorothy. “Improving Foreign Language at the Community College.” National Foreign Language Conference I. Washington, 9 Mar. 1993.
Lange, Dale L. “The Problem of Articulation.” Ed. Theodore V. Higgs. Curriculum, Competence, and the Foreign Language Teacher. ACTFL Foreign Language Education Series 13. Lincolnwood: Natl. Textbook, 1982. 113–37.
MacRae, Margit W. Teaching Spanish in the Grades. Boston: Houghton, 1957.
Madaus, George F., and Thomas Kellaghan. “The British Experience with ‘Authentic’ Testing.” Phi Delta Kappan 74 (1993): 458–69.
Met, Myriam. “Walking on Water and Other Characteristics of Effective Elementary School Teachers.” Foreign Language Annals 22 (1989): 175–81.
Pankenier, David W. “Foreign Language Requirements at the College Level Do Not Work:” Chronicle of Higher Education 5 Dec. 1990: B2–3.
Scharer, Rolf, and Brian North. “Towards a Common European Framework for Reporting Language Competency.” Occasional Papers. Washington: Natl. Foreign Lang. Center, 1991.
“Standards for Foreign Language Education.” ACTFL Newsletter 5.1 (1992): 7–9.
© 1994 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
