cover
title: author: publisher: isbn10 | asin: print isbn13: ebook isbn13: language: subject publication date: lcc: ddc: subject:
next page >
Handbook of Undergraduate Second Language Education Rosenthal, Judith W. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 0805830227 9780805830224 9780585332710 English Language and languages--Study and teaching (Higher) , Second language acquisition. 2000 P51.H327 2000eb 418/.007 Language and languages--Study and teaching (Higher) , Second language acquisition.
cover
next page >
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
< previous page
page_iii
next page > Page iii
Handbook of Undergraduate Second Language Education Edited by Judith W. Rosenthal
< previous page
page_iii
next page >
< previous page
page_iv
next page > Page iv
Copyright © 2000 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by photostat, microfilm, retrieval system, or any other means, without prior written permission of the publisher. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers 10 Industrial Avenue Mahwah, NJ 07430 Cover design by Kathryn Houghtaling Lacey Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Handbook of undergraduate second language education / edited by Judith W. Rosenthal. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8058-3022-7 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 0-8058-3023-5 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Language and languagesStudy and teaching (Higher) 2. Second language acquisition. I. Rosenthal, Judith W., 1945 P51 .H327 2000 418'.007dc21 99-048802 CIP Books published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates are printed on acid-free paper, and their bindings are chosen for strength and durability. Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
< previous page
page_iv
next page >
< previous page
next page >
page_v
Page v
CONTENTS Preface One Language Is Not Enough
ix
Acknowledgments
xvii
List of Contributors
xix
Part I Second Language Learners and Learning 1 Linguistic Diversity, Immigration, and Today's Undergraduates: Demographics Jan M. Ignash 2 Fundamentals of Second Language Acquisition Susan Gass
3
29
Part II Major Models: Past, Present, and Future 3 Foreign Language Instruction Carol A. Klee
49
4 English as a Second Language Jessie M. Reppy and Jose Adames
73
5 Bilingual (Dual Language) Programs Judith W. Rosenthal
93
6 American Sign Language Phyllis Perrin Wilcox and Sherman Wilcox
< previous page
115
page_v
next page >
< previous page
next page >
page_vi
Page vi Part III Language Revival 7 Native-American Languages Jon Reyhner, Louise Lockard, and Judith W. Rosenthal
141
8 Heritage Languages Russell N. Campbell and Judith W. Rosenthal
165
Part IV International Perspectives 9 A Canadian Perspective: Second Language Teaching and Learning in the University 187 Marjorie Bingham Wesche 10 A European Perspective: Tertiary Languages with a Focus on German as L3 209 Britta Hufeisen 11 An Australian Perspective: Second Language Teaching and Learning in the University 231 Richard B. Baldauf, Jr. and Paulin G. Djité 12 A South African Perspective: Second Language Teaching and Learning in the University Timothy Reagan
253
Part V Preparing Teachers for a Multilingual Society 13 The Role of the University in Preparing Teachers for a Linguistically Diverse Society 279 JoAnn (Jodi) Crandall Part VI Resources 14 Technology and Second Language Teaching Mark Warschauer and Carla Meskill
303
15 An Annotated Information Source for University-Level Second Language Educators Trudy Smoke and Judith W. Rosenthal
319
< previous page
page_vi
next page >
< previous page
next page >
page_vii
Page vii Part VII Conclusions 16 Shared Concerns and New Directions Judith W. Rosenthal
347
Author Index
355
Subject Index
363
< previous page
page_vii
next page >
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
< previous page
page_ix
next page > Page ix
PREFACE ONE LANGUAGE IS NOT ENOUGH Rationale One day, several years ago, while catching up on some reading, I came across an article in a local newspaper describing Russian immigrants who were studying English as a second language at Mercy College's Brooklyn extension center (McDonough, 1995). Then, in The Chronicle of Higher Education there was a short piece lamenting declining enrollments in undergraduate Russian language courses (Crystal Cage, 1995). Though none of this information was earth shattering, the two articles, read back to back, became the inspiration for this volume. Together, they reinforced my belief that (a) for a wide variety of reasons it is increasingly important for students to know more than one language and (b) that greater collaboration among the diverse second language programs at colleges and universities not only will benefit the programs and their students but also will promote a more language-competent society. Today, there are English as a second language (ESL), foreign language, and dual language/bilingual programs; there are programs encouraging the revival and survival of Native-American and immigrant languages. There is rapid growth in the study of American Sign Language (ASL). However, the faculty of one second language program often know little about the other programs; and departmental divisions, academic hierarchies, competition for resources, historical precedents, and specialized professional organizations tend to reinforce this separateness. I, however, prefer to look at what all these second language programs have in common: The ability to promote bilingualism among students whatever their academic majors and for whatever their particular reasons, whether personal or professional for studying additional languages. The need to adapt programs, curricula, and instructional materials to a changing undergraduate student population, one that is increasingly linguistically diverse. The benefits and potential instructional applications of ongoing efforts to understand the nature of second language learning/acquisition.
< previous page
page_ix
next page >
< previous page
page_x
next page > Page x
The opportunity to use computer and online technologies to enhance second language teaching and learning, thus permitting "teachers and students to transcend linguistic, geographical, and time barriers" (chap. 14, this volume, p. 316). Shared concerns about students, faculty, curriculum, administration, as well as physical and financial resources. The ability to learn from each other and to collaborate in ways that will be beneficial to all. As summed up by Dr. David Maxwell, former director of the National Foreign Language Center at the Johns Hopkins University (Washington, DC), colleges and universities are facing "a dilemma that can be described as 'more languages for more purposes for more people,' i.e., an escalating demand for instruction in a broader range of languages by students with a variety of goals and increasingly diverse linguistic backgrounds" (Maxwell, 1996, p. 3). The Russian immigrant who is studying English as a second language, eventually majoring in biology and gaining acceptance to medical school; the student majoring in Japanese and thinking about a career in teaching or translation; the nursing major who minors in Spanish in order to be a more effective practitioner; and, the third-generation Chinese immigrant who in addition to being a business major is finally trying to learn the language her parents and grandparents have always spoken at home, these are just a few examples of today's students who are pursuing the study of a second language. Some are native English speakers; others are not. Some were born in the United States; others were not. Most are not foreign language majors nor are they studying these languages just to meet a general education requirement. Instead, all these students intend to use their newly acquired languages in academic, professional, and/or leisure and cultural activities. For each of them, one language is not enough. Other books and other authors (e.g., see Brynes, 1992; Donato & Terry, 1995; Kramsch, 1995; Liskin-Gasparro, 1996) have already addressed many of the ways in which second language education is changing and the reasons why this is happening. What makes this volume, this handbook, unique is not only its exclusive focus on undergraduate second language programs but also its inclusion of programs that extend far beyond the boundaries of traditional "foreign" languages. The chapter authors share with us how (and why) each type of second language program developed and continues to evolve and the unique challenges each presents to students, faculty, and administrators. Every attempt has been made to keep the focus on college/university students as adult second language learners; however, if "pipeline" issues are particularly relevant, information about K12 students is also included. Whenever possible, cross-referencing between chapters has been done to help readers appreciate just how interrelated are all these second language programs. Most of the chapters include several "case studies," descriptions of programs from colleges and universities that illustrate how second language instruction is being adapted to meet the specific needs of students at a particular institution. The program models presented in chapters 38 provide an "American" perspective on the issues under discussion. In contrast, chapters 912 address second language learning and teaching at the college/university level in Canada, Germany, Australia, and South Africa. Some of these countries are undergoing linguistic changes similar to those in the United States: a large influx of immigrants who need to learn the country's dominant languages(s), active efforts to preserve the ethnic languages of immigrants, and attempts to revive indigenous languages, which are often on the verge of extinction. However, in
< previous page
page_x
next page >
< previous page
page_xi
next page > Page xi
contrast to the United States, some of these countries have official, government-sponsored language-planning policies that promote bilingualism and multilingualism. Thus, we are able to compare how many of the same second language issues that we are facing here in the United States are being handled elsewhere. Some of the issues raised in this volume are controversial. For example, unlike French, German, and Spanish, ASL is not recognized by all institutions of higher learning as being equivalent to a foreign language. The chapter about bilingual/dual language programs in the United States brings to our attention one of the best kept secrets in higher education. And, in describing ESL programs, the authors argue strongly that ESL is not a form of remediation. One of the many difficulties in discussing languages is that by virtue of having at least mastered his or her native tongue, everyone is a self-made expert. Thus, opinions on language education and policy are offered freely and often are politically and emotionally charged. There will be readers who disagree with the stances taken by some of the authors in this volume and perhaps some who are offended by our efforts to make linkages and connections between programs that in the academic hierarchy are not perceived as equals. However, I believe that if we focus on the students and their desire to develop communicative competence in a second language, traditional academic boundaries are a detriment. What we need to do is examine the types of second language instruction currently available to undergraduates, looking for ways in which existing programs can work together to promote bilingualism (and multilingualism). Although some readers may actually peruse this entire volume, I suspect that others will look only at those chapters that are directly related to their particular interests or academic discipline. Though each chapter can stand alone, readers are again reminded that when applicable, cross-referencing between chapters is included. The case studies that appear in chapters 314 are richly descriptive and provide the kind of information one would need if he or she were going to implement a similar program. A focus on communicative competence, the many ways by which students can benefit from proficiency in more than one language, and the concerns, problems, and challenges shared by all second language programs are themes that run through all the chapters. Overview In this Preface, I provide the rationale for the volume and an overview of what follows. I make the fundamental argument, reiterated by the authors of subsequent chapters, and in their separate ways, that bilingualism provides benefits to individuals and to society as a whole. The volume is divided into seven parts. Part I: Second Language Learners and Learning, provides the background information, the framework, into which subsequent chapters fit. Today, in the United States, almost 1 in 10 persons was born in another country, and educational institutions from grade school through graduate school are grappling with how best to accomodate a rapidly growing population of students who are nonnative speakers of English. These students are affecting second language programs, increasing the demand for instruction in English as a second language and for bilingual/dual language programs. Their presence in the classroom is changing both the delivery of as well as long-held assumptions about "foreign" language instruction. In chapter 1, Ignash provides an in-depth analysis of the foreign-born population residing in the United States, including data on immigration, foreign/international students, numbers of limited English proficient
< previous page
page_xi
next page >
< previous page
page_xii
next page > Page xii
(LEP) speakers, and their impact on enrollments in ESL programs. She insists, however, that knowledge of demographic trends is not enough and continues by discussing issues related to access, retention, and success in meeting the educational needs of LEP students. Though focusing on the undergraduate population, Ignash takes into consideration educational "pipeline" issues, the yet to come impact of large numbers of LEP students moving up through primary and secondary school systems and who may eventually end up in our college classrooms. Chapter 2, this volume, by Gass, provides us with an overview of the process by which individuals learn non-native languages. In it, Gass discusses not only some of the variables that affect second language acquisition (SLA) but also what individual learners bring to this process and the factors that may influence their ultimate attainment. All of us who have attempted to and/or have learned a second language as adults know that the process is especially difficult. Gass' chapter helps us understand the complex nature of SLA and attempts to eliminate some of the naive assumptions that exist about language learning. Part II of this volume, Major Models: Past Present and Future, discusses the past, present, and future of foreign language, ESL, bilingual (dual language), and ASL programs for undergraduates. The presentation of these programs in the particular sequence used here has no deep or hidden meaning. Rather, I have chosen to begin with what I believe is most familiar to the majority of readers (the study of foreign languages) and then to move into an examination of programs that are possibly less familiar. Foreign languages have long occupied a highly respectable niche in the university curriculum. However, in chapter 3, this volume, Klee reminds us that the teaching of modern foreign languages was not always without controversy. Compared to the classical languages, they were considered "easy" and "not worthy of serious academic study." Today, the study of foreign languages is changing as more members of a linguistically diverse undergraduate population seek to learn a wider range of languages for various reasons. Traditional foreign language instruction (teaching languages such as Spanish, French, and German to monolingual speakers of English who are mostly fulfilling general education requirements, with a few students pursuing a foreign language major) is no longer the only "game" in town. Klee brings to our attention the rapid growth in the instruction of less commonly taught languages, heritage languages, and in content-based instruction. Though renewed interest in the study of second languages by undergraduates is encouraging, it also has created stresses and strains on foreign language departments. Klee shows us how institutions are coping with the linguistic demands of today's students. Compared to foreign language instruction, the teaching of ESL is a relatively recent addition to the college/university curriculum. Originally intended for foreign/international students, ESL is increasingly serving immigrant and refugee students. Reppy and Adames, in chapter 4, this volume, describe not only the methods used to teach English to these adult college students but also how instructional practices are changing to better meet the academic needs of a student population that continues to grow and to change over time. The authors also address three of the major misunderstandings about what ESL means and entails: the role of students' native or first language in the acquisition of English, the relationship between ESL and foreign language learning and teaching, and the most troubling of all, the perception that ESL is a form of remediation. In chapter 5, this volume, Rosenthal takes on a relatively unknown commodity in higher education, bilingual/dual language programs for adult students. These are programs that allow students who know little English to begin their college studies by concurrently
< previous page
page_xii
next page >
< previous page
page_xiii
next page > Page xiii
studying ESL and taking some credit-bearing introductory subject-matter courses (e.g., math, science, psychology, or economics) that are taught in their native language. As the students' proficiency in English increases, they are mainstreamed into the regular curriculum in which all subjects (except foreign languages) are taught in English. Based on an informal survey of campuses known to offer such programs, Rosenthal shares with us her findings about their goals, the services provided, the characteristics of student participants, issues related to administration and funding, and the curriculum, including ESL instruction, content-area courses taught partially or fully in the native language of the student participants, as well as heritage language instruction. She also addresses the theoretical foundations implicit in these programs. Though little has been published previously about such programs, some have been in operation for more than 30 years. Chapter 6, the final chapter in Part II of this volume, by Wilcox and Wilcox, shares with us the the evolution of undergraduate programs in ASL. Considered one of the ''less commonly taught languages," enrollment in ASL is booming. According to Brod and Huber (1992), total fall 1990 course registrations in ASL at 2- and 4-year institutions numbered 1,602; in 1995 (Brod & Huber, 1997), the comparable figure was 4,246. The Wilcoxes address the nature of signed languages in general and ASL in particular and compare the linguistic and cultural features of signed and spoken languages. In describing undergraduate ASL programs, they discuss curricular issues, faculty qualifications, reasons why students study ASL, and some of the unique challenges faced by hearing students when learning ASL. Because ASL is a "true human language, fully distinct from English, with its own literature and culture," they argue that ASL, like indigenous languages such as Navajo, should be included among foreign language options. In Part III of this volume, Language Revival, there are two chapters. In chapter 7, Reyhner, Lockard, and Rosenthal describe courses and programs at the undergraduate level in which Native-American languages are being taught. In order to fully appreciate their significance, the authors first present the historical events and political and educational policies that brought about the decimation of the Native-American population, its languages, and its cultures. Next, they provide an overview of Native-American enrollments in various levels of the educational system, information about ultimate educational attainment, and the key role played by the tribal colleges not only in promoting higher education for Native Americans but also in the teaching of tribal culture, history, and language. The remainder of the chapter addresses the teaching of indigenous languages at institutions of higher education, including data on the languages being taught, methods of instruction, textbook development, and the impact of technology on language revival efforts. The second chapter in Part III of this volume is chapter 8 by Campbell and Rosenthal. In it they compare traditional foreign language learners (monolingual speakers of English with no prior knowledge of a second language) and heritage language learners (the children and grandchildren of immigrants and refugees whose dominant language is English but who often can speak and understand the ethnic language spoken by their parents and grandparents but generally cannot read or write it). Because of the growing population of immigrants and heritage language students, colleges and universities are establishing separate tracks within foreign language departments, thus addressing the specific linguistic needs of true beginners and of heritage students. Campbell and Rosenthal discuss some of the difficulties in the design and implementation of university-level heritage language programs. They argue persuasively that "in order to develop a more language competent
< previous page
page_xiii
next page >
< previous page
page_xiv
next page > Page xiv
society in the United States, we should be emphasizing the retention and development of existing linguistic abilities of immigrants and refugees." Part IV of this handbook, International Perspectives, includes four chapters. Together, they show us that institutions of higher education in other countries (Canada, Germany, Australia, and South Africa) are confronted with many of the same second language education issues as we have in the United States. However, whereas monolingualism is considered the norm in the United States, bilingualism and multilingualism are much more accepted elsewhere. Thus, from an international perspective, second language learning is viewed in a very different light. In chapter 9, Wesche introduces us to the relatively complex nature of second language education in Canada. Of Canada's 30 million inhabitants, 60% are native speakers of English, 23% are native speakers of French, and the other 17% are speakers of immigrant and First Nations languages. As a bilingual country that recognizes both English and French as official languages, as a nation receiving increased numbers of immigrants and foreign/international students, and with renewed interest in the revival of indigenous languages, Canadian school and university second language programs are coping with extraordinary demands. These include the teaching of foreign languages, English as a second language, French as a second language, heritage languages, and First Nations languages. Wesche describes these programs within the context of Canadian history and changing political and educational policies and shows us the innovative ways in which Canadian institutions are rising to the linguistic needs of its citizenry. All across Europe, school children between the ages of 7 and 12 begin the study of a second language (L2), most often English. As they advance through school, other languages (L3, L4) are learned, and by the time they graduate from high school, many students are multilingual. Chapter 10 deals with tertiary or L3 language learning in the European context with an emphasis on German as a tertiary language. The author, Hufeisen, reminds us that most learners who take up an L3 are nearly adult in age, thus learning languages in a way that is quite different from young children. She contends that L2 learning "lays the foundation for a universal multilingualism that, in turn, has consequences for the learning and teaching of languages beyond L2." She describes how the study of L3 is becoming an independent research field and presents and evaluates current findings about L3 learning in general and German as L3 in particular. She also goes one step further, relating these findings to pedagogical practices. In chapter 11, Baldauf and Djité take us "down under" to Australia, a country in which English is the dominant language, yet 14% of the population uses a language other than English at home. In contrast to the United States, the Australian government has in recent years established language and language-in-education policies that promote not only competence in English for all students but also the learning of languages other than English (LOTEs). However, as the authors proceed to show us, policy changes shaped by the best of intentions do not automatically and rapidly translate into more students becoming proficient in the desired languages. This is borne out by recent data on school and university language enrollments and by a comprehensive study showing "the lack of correspondence between the perceptions of the language-teaching staff and those of the students, but also the lack of correlation between home use and subsequent language study." Nonetheless, Australia is rich in a multiplicity of languages and ethnic groups, and second language programs at the university level reflect not only this diversity but also, indirectly, government policy decisions. Increased emphasis on Asian languages, the flourishing
< previous page
page_xiv
next page >
< previous page
page_xv
next page > Page xv
business of ELICOs programs (English Language Instruction Courses for Overseas Students), and aboriginal language reclamation are a few of the topics the authors discuss in greater depth. In chapter 12, the final chapter of Part IV, Reagan provides us with an overview of the immensely complex multilingualism of postapartheid South Africa. In addition to Afrikaans and English, the two languages that during apartheid served as the country's dominant and official languages, nine indigenous African languages, five Indian languages, and a number of immigrant languages are currently in use. Whereas apartheid fostered ethnolinguistic divisions within South African society, today's Government of National Unity recognizes 11 official languages. Nonetheless, English is increasingly becoming the dominant language of South African society, and it, in turn, is affecting other second language programs at the university level. Although Reagan describes instruction in ESL as a "growth industry," Afrikaans, African languages, and even modern foreign languages are sometimes struggling to survive in the university curriculum. Nowhere else in this volume is the close relationship between language, politics, and power more evident than in Reagan's discussion of second language education in South African universities. Part V of this volume, Preparing Teachers for a Multilingual Society, consists of a single chapter, chapter 13. In it, Crandall addresses one of the most complex and significant issues in this entire volume, the role of the university in preparing teachers for the increasingly diverse student population. Unlike the second language programs described in chapters 38, teacher education programs in the United States are accountable to and greatly affected by state policy and public concerns. Crandall provides us with an overview of the various models being used in schools to promote second language learning, both foreign languages and ESL. She then describes four topics that are relevant to the education of all teachers. These include knowledge of (a) the relationship between first and second language acquisition; (b) the effects of cross-cultural differences as they relate to classroom practices; (c) ways to adapt materials and instruction to better meet the needs of linguistically diverse students; and (d) appropriate assessment strategies. Crandall shares with us how this knowledge can be incorporated into both preservice and in-service teacher education programs. Though her focus remains on making teacher education relevant to the increasingly diverse K12 student population, she also makes connections to the needs of teachers in adult education and at the college/university level. Crandall provides suggestions that allow educators at all levels to be better prepared to work with today's linguistically and culturally diverse student population. Part VI, Resources, includes two chapters. Warschauer and Meskill, in chapter 14, show us how emerging computer technologies have been incorporated into the teaching of second languages at colleges and universities. They review for us the history of technology and language learning and address the complex issue of whether instructional technology actually promotes language learning. By emphasizing the use of computer technologies to promote communicative competence, they remind us that "we can no longer think only about how we use technologies to teach language. We also must think about what types of language students need to learn in order to communicate effectively via computer. . . . The use of new technologies allows students to engage in the types of online communication and research that will be paramount for success in their academic and professional pursuits." This chapter is rich in examples of computer technologies being used in foreign language, dual language, and ESL programs, especially those technologies that promote a sociocognitive approach to language learning.
< previous page
page_xv
next page >
< previous page
page_xvi
next page > Page xvi
Chapter 15, An Annotated Information Source for University-Level Second Language Educators, contains information about organizations (foundations, associations, centers, etc.), books and reports, journals, electronic networks, Web sites, videotapes, and CD-Rom and other multimedia that are related to the topics discussed in the various chapters of this volume. These annotations were contributed by the chapter authors and should be useful to readers who what to learn more about the topics discussed in this handbook. Part VII, Conclusions, includes one chapter (16). It emphasizes the value and contributions of the various second language programs described in this volume, focusing on their ability to promote bilingualism. All of the languages and all of the second language programs described herein add to the linguistic richness of society. However, in order to increase opportunities for undergraduates to develop proficiency in more than one language, we need to share practices, materials, technologies, and information that contribute to successful language learning. This will be possible only by fostering more collaboration between and among the various second language programs, by learning from the experiences of other countries, and by demonstrating in all aspects of our daily lives that languages are for people to use and not the esoteric property of specific academic departments. This handbook, with its emphasis on undergraduate second-language programs, strives to do just this. References Brod, R., & Huber, B. (1992). Foreign language enrollments in United States institutions of higher education, fall 1990. ADFL Bulletin, 23(3), 610. Brod, R., & Huber, B. (1997). Foreign language enrollments in United States institutions of higher education, fall 1995. ADFL Bulletin, 28(2), 5561. Byrnes, H. (Ed.). (1992). Languages for a multicultural world in transition (Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Crystal Cage, M. (October 20, 1995). Russian-language programs report sharp enrollment declines. The Chronicle of Higher Education,. p. A19. Donato, R., & Terry, R. M. (Eds.). (1995). Foreign language learning: The journey of a lifetime. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (1995). Redefining the boundaries of language study. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (Ed.). (1996). Patterns and policies: The changing demographics of foreign language instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Maxwell, D. (Spring 1996). From the director: The Language Mission Project. NFLC perspectives, p. 3. {NFLC perspectives is a publication of the National Foreign Language Center at the Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC.} McDonough, S. (November 12, 1995). Small college teaches immigrants how to become part of America. The Newark Star Ledger, Section 10, p. 10.
< previous page
page_xvi
next page >
< previous page
page_xvii
next page > Page xvii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project would have never come to fruition without the help of many, many people. I would like to express my thanks to: Naomi Silverman at Lawrence Erlbaum Associates who was willing to take a chance on a biology professor with a vast interest in second language issues and who tactfully guided me through some bumpy spots. The librarians and library staff at the Nancy Thompson Library at Kean University who helped me with interlibrary loan requests and with numerous other matters; these individuals include Raymon Davis, Gerry Fallan, Chris Ford, Kim Fraone, Shirley Horbath, Ken Lambert, Martha Loesch, Tom McGinn, Sean Mara, and any others who I have unwittingly overlooked. Chip Codella, Robert Schiffl, Kamal Shahrabi, Dale Vitale, and Donna Ypesand with special gratitude to Mary Lewis, Heather Stokes-Huby, and Linnea Weilandfor their capable assistance and limitless patience with matters related to computer technology. W. Vance Grant at the National Library of Education who promptly filled all my requests for data, no matter how obscure. All those individuals who contributed to chapters 5 and 8 of this volume and whose names are listed and acknowledged there. H. Stephen Straight who provided me with many "leads" that were so helpful in so many ways. Finally, for providing information, documents, references, and referrals, I would like to acknowledge the help given to me by the many individuals with whom I spoke and corresponded over a period of years. They include Dyane Adam, Steve Baker, Kirk Belnap, Richard Brod, Dana Scott Bourgerie, Grace Burkart, Rubén Candia, Madeline Chu, H. Samuel Cheung, Jim Cummins, Michael Fishbein, Michael Gaulin, John Grandin, Thomas H. Hinnebusch, Elizabeth Huber, Roxanna Husain, Rick Jurasek, Steve Kirby, Merle Krueger, Robert Lapiner, Betty Lou Leaver, Antonio Loprieno, Ian Mason, David Maxwell, Scott McGinnis, John Means, Hiroshi Miyaji, Michael Morris, Laurence Péchère, Jaleh Pirnazar, Kay Richards, Jeffrey Riegel, Steve Roddy, Ho Min Son, Stephen Stryker, Ching-I
< previous page
page_xvii
next page >
< previous page
page_xviii
next page > Page xviii
Tu, Ronald Walton, Shu-han Chou Wang, Xueying Wang, Terry Weidner, and Barbara Wright. I am certain that there are others whose names I have inadvertently omitted, but that does not in any way lessen my appreciation for the help they provided.
< previous page
page_xviii
next page >
< previous page
page_xix
next page > Page xix
CONTRIBUTORS Jose Adames (Ed.D. 1987, Teachers College, Columbia University) is the Interim Dean of the School of Liberal Arts and a faculty member in the English Department of Kean University (Union, NJ). He has served as both assistant director and director of Kean's English as a Second Language Program. Adames is a reviewer in the field and an ESL program consultant. <
[email protected]> Richard B. Baldauf, Jr. (PhD 1975, University of Hawaii) is Associate Professor and Director of the University of Sydney Language Centre as well as President of the Applied Linguistics Association of Australia. He is coeditor with Allan Luke of Language Planning and Education in Australasia and the South Pacific (Multilingual Matters, 1990) and with Robert B. Kaplan of Language Planning in Malawi, Mozambique and the Phillipines (Multilingual Matters, 1999); principal researcher and editor for the Viability of Low Candidature LOTE Courses in Universities (DEET, 1995); coauthor with Robert B. Kaplan of Language Planning From Practice to Theory (Multilingual Matters, 1997), and executive editor of the new journal Current Issues in Language Planning (Multilingual Matters from 2000).
Russell N. Campbell (PhD 1964, University of Michigan) is Director of the Language Resource Program, Professor Emeritus, and former chair of the TESL/Applied Linguistics Department at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has served as president of International TESOL and is a former member of the Board of Trustees of the Center for Applied Linguistics (Washington, DC). He was instrumental in the establishment of the first bilingual immersion program (Culver City Spanish Immersion Program) and the first two-way bilingual immersion program (KoreanEnglish) in the United States. At UCLA, Campbell helped establish credit courses in Thai, Vietnamese, and Hindi that cater to heritage students. He has numerous publications. JoAnn (Jodi) Crandall (PhD 1982, Georgetown University) is Professor of Education, Co-Director of the ESOL/Bilingual M. A. Program in the Department of Education, and Director of the Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program in Language, Literacy, and Culture at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. She is past president of TESOL, WATESOL, and the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL). Crandall has written numerous
< previous page
page_xix
next page >
< previous page
page_xx
next page > Page xx
publications to assist teachers at all levels (K12, adult, and college and university) in adapting instruction for diverse student populations. Paulin G. Djité (PhD 1985, Georgetown University) is currently on leave from the University of Western Sydney, Macarthur, where he was Head of the Division of Languages and Linguistics. He is the Translation Manager of the Sydney Organising Committee for the 2000 Olympic Games. Djité has published regularly in journals like Language Problems & Language and Planning and is the author of From Language Policy to Language Planning (NLLIA, 1994). <[email protected]> Susan Gass (PhD 1979, Indiana University) is currently University Distinguished Professor at Michigan State University, Director of the English Language Center, and Codirector of the Center for Language Education and Research. She has served as president of the American Association of Applied Linguistics and has published widely in many areas in the field of second language acquisition. Britta Hufeisen (PhD 1990, University of Kassel, Germany) is the Director of the Language Resource Centre at the University of Darmstadt, Germany, and Adjunct Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. Previously, she was a research associate at the University of Kassel and an assistant professor at the University of Alberta. Hufeisen's research interests include third and tertiary language acquisition and learning, textlinguistics, multimedia language learning, and feminist linguists. She has published several books and articles on these topics. Jan M. Ignash (PhD 1994, University of California, Los Angeles) is Associate Professor, Department of Educational Leadership at the University of South Florida and formerly the Assistant Director of Academic Affairs with the Illinois Board of Higher Education. She is also a former research associate with the Center for the Study of Community Colleges at the University of California, Los Angeles, and publications coordinator at the ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges. Ignash has conducted research and written extensively about the growing enrollment in college-level ESL courses and about the policy implications resulting from this growth. Carol A. Klee (PhD 1984, The University of Texas at Austin) is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of Minnesota where she directed the Spanish and Portuguese language programs from 1985 to 1995. She has published numerous articles on Spanish language contact, applied linguistics, and foreign language pedagogy. In addition, Klee has edited several collections of research including Sociolinguistics of the Spanish-Speaking World (Bilingual Press, 1991) and Faces in a Crowd: The Individual Learner in Multisection Courses (Heinle & Heinle, 1994). Louise Lockard (PhD 1993, University of Arizona) is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Bilingual/Multicultural Education at Northern Arizona University. She is the publisher of a Navajo language textbook, Diné Bizaad: Speak, Read, Write Navajo (written by Irvy W. Goossen and published in 1994 by Lockard's publishing company, Salina Bookshelf, Flagstaff, AZ). Currently, Lockard is involved with a U.S. Department of Education grant
< previous page
page_xx
next page >
< previous page
page_xxi
next page > Page xxi
Learn in Beauty Master's Fellowship Project working with seven school districts to certify bilingual teachers and to develop Navajo language curricula. Carla Meskill (Ed.D. 1988, Boston University) is Associate Professor, Department of Educational Theory and Practice, University at Albany, State University of New York. She directs the Center for Electronic Language Learning and Research, a facility dedicated to exploring the use of new forms of technology in language education. Dr. Meskill's area of specialization is in, the design and evaluation of multimedia language teaching materials, computer-assisted language learning, and the use of media in the language classroom. Her research interests involve design and integration processes of technologies use, epecially as these relate to sociocognitive development, second language acquisition strategies, and interpersonal communication <[email protected]> Timothy Reagan (PhD 1982, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana) is Professor and Director of Foreign Language Education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Connecticut. He has lived and worked in South Africa. Reagan has published extensively on issues related to language and language policy in the South African context as well as on broader issues of language pedagogy and educational linguistics. Jessie M. Reppy (PhD 1980, New York University) is Professor of ESL in the English Department at Kean University. Reppy has taught ESL courses on all levels throughout her career both in the United States and overseas. At Kean she directed the ESL program for 6 years. Reppy is coauthor of Explorations in World Literature: Readings to Enhance Academic Skills (St. Martin's Press, 1994). She also has served as an ESL program consultant and as a reviewer of text and article manuscripts and research proposals in the field. Jon Reyhner (Ed.D. 1984, Montana State University) is Associate Professor of Education at Northern Arizona University. He is the editor of Teaching American Indian Students (University of Oklahoma Press, 1992) and of Teaching Indigenous Languages (Northern Arizona University, 1997), coauthor with Jeanne Eder of A History of Indian Education (Eastern Montana College, 1989), and column editor for American Indian Bilingual Education for NABE News. Reyhner has written and published numerous articles about bilingual education for Native Americans and the need to stabilize indigenous languages. <[email protected]> Judith W. Rosenthal (PhD 1971, Brown University) is Professor of Biological Sciences at Kean University where she teaches biology in both English and Spanish. Her doctorate is in physiological chemistry, and she also has a master's degree in bilingual/bicultural education. She is the author of Teaching Science to Language Minority Students (Multilingual Matters, 1996) and has published numerous articles about teaching university students of limited English proficiency. <[email protected]> Trudy Smoke (PhD1991, New York University) is Professor of English at Hunter College (City University of New York) and Director of Freshman and Developmental English. She has written several textbooks including A Writer's Workbook (for ESL writers; Cambridge University Press, 3rd ed. 1996) and Making a Difference (for developmental writers;
< previous page
page_xxi
next page >
< previous page
page_xxii
next page > Page xxii
Houghton Mifflin, 1994). Her most recent book is Adult ESL: Politics, Pedagogy, and Participation in Classroom and Community Programs (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998). Professor Smoke is also the Co-Editor of Journal of Basic Writing. She writes about issues related to ESL, developmental, and freshman composition and is a frequent speaker at local and national conferences. Mark Warschauer (PhD 1998, University of Hawaii) is a researcher investigating the development of new media literacies among culturally and linguistically diverse students. He is currently based in Cairo where he is assisting universities and the Ministry of Education to integrate technology in education. His most recent book is Electronic Literacies: Language, Culture, and Power in Online Education (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999). Warschauer is the editor of the journal Language Learning and Technology. <[email protected]> Marjorie Bingham Wesche (PhD 1975, University of Toronto) is a professor in language education (Second Language Institute and Faculty of Education) and has served as director of the Second Language Institute and director of the Centre for Research on Language Teaching and Learning (CREAL) at the University of Ottawa. Along with numerous publications about second language acquisition, language testing, and bilingual/immersion education, Wesche is coauthor with Donna M. Brinton and Marguerite Ann Snow of Content Based Second Language Instruction (Newbury House Publishers, 1989) and guest editor along with T. S. Paribakht of "'Incidental' Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition," a special thematic issue of Studies in Second Language Acquisition (Vol. 21, No. 2, Cambridge University Press, 1999). <[email protected]> Phyllis Perrin Wilcox (PhD 1993, University of New Mexico), Assistant Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of New Mexico, founded its Bachelor of Science Degree Program in Signed Language Interpreting in 1983. She has presented lectures and workshops on metaphorical mapping in ASL to native deaf users in Zurich, Paris, Rome, and cities all over the United States. Wilcox was principal investigator of a National Science Foundation grant to train signed language interpreters in linguistic terminology at the 1995 Linguistic Society of America's Conference. She is currently investigating the grammaticalization of ASL verbs and modals from langue des signes-francaise (French Sign Language). Sherman Wilcox (PhD 1987, University of New Mexico) is Associate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of New Mexico. Wilcox has done research on ASL as a foreign language, on American Deaf culture, and on the linguistics of ASL. His current research is focused on iconicity and linguistic universals of signed languages. His books include Gesture and the Nature of Language (with D. F. Armstrong and W. C. Stokoe; Cambridge University Press, 1995); The Phonetics of Fingerspelling (John Benjamins, 1992); American Deaf Culture: An Anthology (Linstok Press, 1989); and Learning to See: Teaching American Sign Language as a Second Language (with Phyllis Perrin Wilcox; Gallaudet University Press, 1997). He is currently general editor of the journal Evolution of Communication and serves on the editorial boards of Journal of Interpreting and Sign Language Studies. <[email protected]>
< previous page
page_xxii
next page >
< previous page
page_1
next page > Page 1
PART I SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS AND LEARNING
< previous page
page_1
next page >
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
< previous page
page_3
next page > Page 3
1 Linguistic Diversity, Immigration, and Today's Undergraduates: Demographics Jan M. Ignash University of South Florida As we near the year 2000, the foreign-born population of the United States is approaching a level not seen since the turn of this century. Twenty-six million persons living in the United States in 1997 were born in another country. That's almost 1 out of every 10 persons. Although the percentages of foreign-born people in the United States were actually higher during the decades between 1860 and the 1930sas high as 14.8% of the total population (Edmonston & Passel, 1994) in terms of sheer numbers of people immigrating to the United States, the late 1990s are at a record high. Approximately one third of the growth of the United States population today is due to immigration. Where are all these people coming from? First, half of current legal immigrants in 1997 were from Central or South America or the Caribbean. Another 27% were from Asia. Only 17% came from Europe. This contrasts markedly with the countries of origin for immigrants at the turn of the century who were mainly from Europe. The languages and cultural heritage of our new arrivals are more diverse than ever. What does this mean for our schools, colleges, and universities? It means that the enrollment of nonnative English-speaking students is increasing and that educational institutions are grappling with how best to serve this population. Fortunately, we have more information than ever before about this growing segment of the U.S. population and its impact on our schools and colleges. And the information we have is better. Recent research by the Rand Corporation provides sophisticated analyses of immigrants according to country of origin. National databases at the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the U.S. Department of Education now contain more extensive and more frequently collected information about immigrants and foreign-born populations that are available both online and in paper copy. The Census Bureau is now collecting useful information on the foreign-born in both the major decennial survey of the population as well as the annual Current Population Survey. Beginning in 1994, the Census Bureau added questions to the core Current Population Survey, conducted every year, to measure the foreign-born population of the United States. This improvement in data collection is critical: [It will] fill a gap in our knowledge about our newest residents . . . [so that] policy makers will have a basis for monitoring income and poverty levels, school enrollment and attainment, social program usage, and labor force participation, and assessing the progress of
< previous page
page_3
next page >
< previous page
page_4
next page > Page 4
foreign-born families and persons as they adjust to life in the United States of America. (Schmidley & Alvarado, 1998, p. 2) In a recent report, the U.S. Census Bureau clearly stated that the change was undertaken to allow for ''informed discussion based on fact rather than uninformed opinion and anecdotal evidence" (Hansen & Faber, 1997, p. 1). This chapter is devoted to a discussion of the growing population of students in the United States who need English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction and to some of the major challenges in providing that instruction. However, the details of how ESL is taught at the college/university level are not described here; that information appears in chapter 4 (by Reppy and Adames) of this volume. Perhaps this is the appropriate place to mention that immigrants and nonnative speakers of English also are affecting other types of second language programs, many of which are discussed in this volume. For example, foreign language instructors can no longer assume that the students they are teaching are monolingual speakers of English, and many immigrant students are trying to retain and/or improve their native or heritage language skills. Topics such as these are addressed in this Volume by Klee in chapter 3 and by Campbell and Rosenthal in chapter 8. Furthermore, some colleges/universities are providing dual language programs, which allow immigrant students to begin their academic course work by taking classes (such as biology or history) taught in their native language while they concurrently are studying ESL. Such dual language/bilingual programs are described by Rosenthal in chapter 5 of this volume. This chapter is divided into thirds: The first third provides general demographic information, comparing recent trends in the foreign-born population of the United States to those of earlier decades. This section also discusses shifts in immigrants' countries of origin and includes information on the numbers of limited English proficient speakers in each state. In addition, enrollment numbers and trends for foreign (or international) students are included. The second section examines the impact of these demographic trends on enrollment in ESL programs. Although this book focuses on undergraduate students, this particular chapter also investigates the enrollment of limited English proficient (LEP) students in the nation's elementary and secondary schools. Students in Grades K through 12 are part of the higher education "pipeline," and they will enter our colleges and universities within the next decade or so. The third and final section of the chapter discusses issues of access, retention, and success in meeting the educational needs of LEP students. It is not enough to simply project the enrollment of language minority students in higher education. Meeting the needs of these students includes looking at factors that affect not only whether they enroll in college, but also whether they stay in college and whether they succeed in college. These issues are discussed as they pertain to language minority students as a whole and to subgroups of students by country of origin. Some Terminology Before proceeding further, it is important to define several terms that are used frequently throughout this chapter. First is the term foreign-born. Foreign-born is not interchangeable with the term immigrant. Foreign-born is a more inclusive term and is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as including these categories (Schmidley & Robinson, 1998):
< previous page
page_4
next page >
< previous page
page_5
next page > Page 5
Civilians who entered the United States on immigrant visas. Persons who are spouses or children of immigrants. Refugees. Persons on student, work, or long-term business visas. Persons who entered on nonimmigrant visas, such as tourist visas, and overstayed. Persons without documents (illegal immigrants). The foreign-born group includes those persons who were residing in the United States on a temporary visa on the census survey date. "Immigrants" are a special, smaller category of the foreign-born group. These are persons who have made the United States a permanent home. Several other terms used frequently in this chapter have to do with ability of individuals to speak English and whether or not they do so in their homes. The term limited English proficient (LEP) refers to those persons who reported that they spoke English "not well" or "not at all" on the Census Bureau survey form. Language minority persons describes those who speak a language other than English at home, and includes those persons who speak English well and those who do not, those who were born in the United States and those who were not. Linguistic isolation is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as a "household in which no person age 14 years or over speaks only English and no person age 14 years or over who speaks a language other than English speaks English 'very well.'" Stated more simply, in the term linguistic isolation, the Census Bureau is measuring those households where all teenagers and adults use a language other than English and are unable to use English very wellor at all. Trends in Immigration: Past and Present What do we need to know to calculate the impact of immigration on schools and colleges? First, we need to know the current immigration levels for persons between the ages of 6 and 24 because these are the people who are most likely to enter our educational system. Second, we need to know from which countries foreign-born students come if we are to design appropriate curricula and support services. Third, we need to know the number of persons who are LEP, both foreign-born and second- or third-generation immigrants, because these are the people who most likely will need ESL instruction. And fourth, we need to know the number of foreign/international students studying in the United States. The Foreign-Born Population and Settlement Patterns In March 1997, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 9.7% of the U.S. population was foreign-born. In real numbers, this was 25.8 million persons (Schmidley & Alvarado, 1998) out of a total U.S. population of 265 million. That is more people than the entire population of any single state in the Union at that time except California. To give these percentages and numbers some historical perspective, let's compare 1997 figures to that of 1910. In 1910, the proportion of the population that was foreign-born was 14.7% (primarily due to massive immigration from Europe). But the total population of the United States was also much smaller then. In real numbers, only 13.7 million persons
< previous page
page_5
next page >
< previous page
page_6
next page > Page 6
Fig. 1.1 Foreign-born as a percentage of each state's population, 1990. From U.S. Bureau of the Census (1990). TABLE 1.1 Regions of Birth of the Foreign-Born U.S. Population in 1996 Regions of Birth % of the Foreign-Born U.S. Population in 1996 27.2 Mexico 10.5 Caribbean 7.0 Central America 4.9 South America 26.7 Asia 2.7 Canada 16.9 Europe 2.6 Elsewhere (Africa, Australia, Pacific Islands) 1.6 Unknown 100.0 Total All Countries Note. From Hansen and Faber (1997). From the U.S. Census Bureau. Adapted with permission. were foreign-born in 1910, just a little more than half of today's foreign-born population (Edmonston & Passel, 1994). According to the 1990 census, most of the foreign-born, almost 70%, lived in just six states: California, New York, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, and Illinois. Figure 1.1 shows the percentage of people in each state that was born outside of the United States. Table 1.1 shows that just a few regions of the world contributed the lion's share of foreign-born persons. Specifically, in 1996, the greatest number of foreign-born persons had come from Mexicoover 6.5 million. Just behind the country of Mexico are the foreign-born from Asia. Table 1.2 breaks down these data even further and lists the 13 countries that provided at least half a million foreign-born persons to the U.S. population by 1996. Although the Phillippines ranked second, just behind Mexico, the 1.16 million persons of Philippine origin in the United States (Hansen & Faber, 1997) is considerably smaller than the
< previous page
page_6
next page >
< previous page
page_7
next page > Page 7
TABLE 1.2 Country of Birth of the Foreign-Born U.S. Population in 1996 Country of Total Number of Foreign-Born Persons in the Origin U.S. in 1996 6,679,000 Mexico 1,164,000 Philippines 801,000 China 772,000 Cuba 757,000 India 740,000 Vietnam 701,000 El Salvador 660,000 Canada 579,000 Great Britain 550,000 Korea 523,000 Germany 515,000 Dominican Republic 506,000 Jamaica Note. From Hansen and Faber (1997). From the U.S. Census Bureau. Adapted with permission. 6.7 million of Mexican origin. Table 1.2 also shows the large number of foreign-born persons in the United States in 1996 from Asia (especially from China, India, Vietnam, and Korea) and from the Caribbean (Cuba, Dominican Republic, and Jamaica). Recent Immigration Of the foreign-born population, about one fourth is relatively new, having entered the United States since 1990. Almost 39% have been in the United States more than 15 years. We are currently approaching an annual legal immigration level of 1 million persons a year. If we add the estimated 150,000 to 250,000 illegal immigrants who also enter the United States every year, we arrive at 1.125 million persons predicted to enter the United States annually by the year 2005 (Edmonston & Passel, as cited in Stewart, 1993). For new immigrants, California is now the first choice of destination. In 1996, one fourth of California's total population8 million personswas foreign-born. New York was second with over 3 million (Hansen & Faber, 1997). As more immigrants come to the United States from Asia and Latin Americaand fewer from EuropeCalifornia has usurped New York's first-place standing as a favorite point of destination. For example, in 1950, 25% of immigrants chose to live in New York and 14% in California. Forty years later in 1990, 32.7% chose California and 14% New York (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990). This is due, in large part, because immigrants tend to settle near their ports of entry. With Mexico and countries in Asia providing greater numbers of immigrants, California is a more natural point of entry than New York (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993). Other areas of the country that attracted at least 1 million foreign-born residents in 1996 were Florida, Texas, New Jersey, and Illinois (Hansen & Faber, 1997). Immigrants are more likely to settle in the largest U.S. cities, affecting urban schools and colleges considerably more than those in rural areas. As the magnitude of this most recent wave of immigration began to be mapped, some researchers believed that less urbanized areas of the country would also feel the impact of this increased immigration. So far, this assumption has yet to be proven true, as those states and cities that have
< previous page
page_7
next page >
< previous page
page_8
next page > Page 8
TABLE 1.3 Immigration to Selected Cities in Fiscal Year 1996 Cities Number of Immigrants in Fiscal Year 1996 133,168 New York, NY 64,285 Los Angeles/Long Beach, CA 41,527 Miami, FL 39,989 Chicago, IL 34,327 Washington, DC 21,387 Houston, TX 18,726 Boston Area, MA 18,226 San Diego, CA 18,171 San Francisco, CA 17,939 Newark, NJ 17,580 Orange County, CA 15,915 Dallas, TX 15,759 Oakland, CA 15,682 BergenPassaic, NJ 13,034 Philadelphia, PA 11,929 Detroit, MI 11,399 Jersey City, NJ 10,594 NassauSuffolk, NY 10,429 Seattle Area, WA 10,314 Riverside/San Bernadino, CA 10,290 Fort Lauderdale, FL 9,870 Atlanta, GA 9,286 Middlesex/Somerset area, NJ 8,701 El Paso, TX 264,420 Other Metropolitan Statistical Areas 58,966 Nonmetropolitan Statistical Areas Note. The data in column 2 are from U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services (1998). always attracted the greatest share of immigrants continue to do so. Although there is some spillover effect in counties that ring large metropolitan areas, such as the growing Hispanic population in both DuPage and Lake Counties in Illinois, which adjoin the Chicago area, the effects are not as wide-ranging across the United States as originally predicted. Table 1.3 shows the cities in which the largest number of immigrants settled during fiscal year 1996. As mentioned previously, over the decades of the 1900s, there has been a marked shift in immigration from Europe to Central and South America and Asia. Between 1820 and 1945, most immigrants came from Germany, Italy, Ireland, the United Kingdom, the former USSR, Canada, and Sweden (Hodgkinson, 1995). In 1900, 85% of immigrants in the United States were from Europe. Today, only 17% are. There is one caveat to this shift, however. Increased immigration from Ireland, Poland, and the former Soviet Union during the 1980s did increase to select U.S. cities, most notably New York. The New York City Department of Planning reported that European immigrants increased from 9% of the city's total immigrant population in the 1980s to 22% in 1994 (Reese, 1997). Figure 1.2 provides a clear picture of just how different the composition of immigrants is today from earlier decades. In the period 19011920, most immigrants came from European countries. In the decade between 1980 and 1990, most came from Latin America and Asia.
< previous page
page_8
next page >
< previous page
page_9
next page > Page 9
Fig. 1.2 Shift in immigrants' region of origin, 19011920 to 19801990. From Stewart (1993). Copyright 1993 by Lexington Books, subsidiary of Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Maryland. Adapted with permission.
Fig. 1.3 Proportion of the population that speaks a language other than English at home, by state, 1990. From U.S. Bureau of the Census (1990). The Limited English Proficient Statistics on recent immigration and the total foreign-born population of the United States provide only part of the picture. We also need to know how many of these individuals do not speak English well and whether they were born in the United States or immigrated. Figure 1.3 shows the proportion of each state's population that spoke a language other than English at home in 1990. What is particularly interesting is that in every state the percentage of the population that speaks a language other than English at home exceeds the percentage of the population that is foreign-born. This can be seen by comparing the data in Fig. 1.1 with that in Fig. 1.3. In some states, like Texas, the difference is sizable. More than 25% of Texas residents speak a home language other than English (Fig. 1.3), but only 9% of the population was foreign-born (Fig. 1.1). This means that a sizable number of second- and third-generation immigrants continue to use their native or heritage language at home. Stewart (1993) noted that 70% of all the Hispanic immigrants living in the United States as of 1990 came to this country during the 1970s and
< previous page
page_9
next page >
< previous page
page_10
next page > Page 10
1980s. Many children have been born to these immigrants and have grown up speaking a home language other than English. A 1991 projection by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) estimated that about 17.4 million adults who are LEP will be living in the United States by the year 2000 (U.S. Department of Education, 1997c). This is more than the entire 1998 population of the country of Syria or the Netherlands or Chile. What this also means is that, by the year 2000, about 10% of the U.S. workforce will have been born outside the United States and at least 25% will be LEP (Chisman, 1989, in U.S. Department of Education, 1997c). Nonetheless, for many other immigrants (such as those from much of Canada, Great Britain, and Australia), English is their heritage language. And for still others, English is one of two or more languages in which they are proficient. We need to know how many persons will need instruction in English if we are to plan well for their educational needs. Though self-reported English proficiency and the extent of linguistic isolation are not perfect measures of how many adults will need additional instruction in English, at least they provide a solid estimate. According to the 1990 census, 3.11% (approximately 5,764,600) of those over 18 years old reported that they did not speak English wellor at all. Nationally, then, close to 6 million persons could be potential candidates for ESL instruction (Ignash, 1994). Foreign/International Students in Colleges and Universities The Institute of International Education (IIE) has conducted an annual statistical report of foreign students in the United States since 1949. These reports, called Open Doors, provide current data on international students and scholars, as well as U.S. students and scholars studying abroad. Students who are not studying at U.S. colleges or universities, such as those who enroll in intensive English language programs that are not part of a college or university, are included in a separate section of the report. The IIE classifies as a "foreign student" anyone who is enrolled in courses at a U.S. college or university and is not a U.S. citizen, immigrant, or refugee and who holds an F (student) visa, H (temporary work/trainee) visa, J (temporary educational exchange/visitor) visa, or M (vocational training) visa (IIE, 1998). The IIE reported that 457,984 graduate and undergraduate foreign students were studying at U.S. postsecondary institutions during the 19961997 academic year. These foreign students represented about 3.2% of the total college/university population for that year (IIE, 1997). About half of these were undergraduates. Fifty-seven percent of all foreign students were at colleges and universities in just 10 states. Figure 1.4 shows the states in which 5,000 or more foreign students enrolled during the 1996/1997 academic year. Although foreign students enroll in colleges and universities in every state in the Union, in huge metropolitan areas and small towns, more enroll in postsecondary institutions in the nation's largest urban areas, such as Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago. The (1997) IIE reported that "22% of all international students are enrolled in universities and colleges located in just 10 U.S. counties" (italics added; p. 76) and that over one half of all foreign students are found in just 50 of the total 3,100 U.S. counties. During the 19961997 academic year, 47.7% of the 457,984 total foreign students in the United States were undergraduates, pursuing either associate's or bachelor's degrees. A slightly smaller share, 41.5%, were graduate students. And 10.7% were enrolled in "other" programs: 4.6% in intensive English language programs, 2.2% in nondegree
< previous page
page_10
next page >
< previous page
page_11
next page > Page 11
Fig. 1.4 States with 5,000 or more graduate and undergraduate foreign students enrolled in colleges and universities, 19961997 academic year. From Open Doors 1996/97: Report on International Education, pp. 74-75, by T. M. Davis. Institute of International Education (1997). Copyright 1997 by T. M. Davis. Adapted with permission. programs, and 4.0% in practical training programs (IIE, 1997). Many colleges and universities limit the percentage of foreign students in the total student body. During the 19951996 academic year, most institutions reported that between 1% and 3.9% of their total student body was foreign students. About half of the 50 states reported foreign student enrollment rates between 2% and 2.9%. Only six states reported 4% or higher (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1997). What do we know about these students? Which countries send the most students? Where do they go to college? What fields of study are most popular? More than half of the foreign students who studied in the United States in 19961997 came from Asia, as shown in Fig. 1.5. What is not shown is that at least 1,000 students each came from 60 different countries. These students speak many different languages and come from diverse educational systems. Of the 12 countries that provided over 60% of all foreign students in U.S. colleges and universities in 19961997, 9 were Asian countries. Table 1.4 lists the 20 countries that sent the greatest numbers of foreign students to the United States in 19961997. Well over 80% of foreign students enrolled in 4-year colleges and universities in 19961997. Forty-two percent enrolled in our nation's major research universities, 14% in community colleges, and 6% in proprietary or other institutions (IIE, 1997). Recently, the community colleges have begun attracting more foreign students. Preliminary data from the IIE for the 19971998 academic year show that international enrollments in community colleges jumped by over 20% to a new high of 73,443 students (IIE, 1998). Table 1.5 shows the percentages of graduate and undergraduate foreign students in different fields of study. This side-by-side table highlights similarities and differences. Whereas business and engineering are the top two fields for both graduates and undergraduates, the #1 field of study is business for undergraduates, but engineering for graduate students. Considerably more foreign undergraduates were "undeclared" about
< previous page
page_11
next page >
< previous page
page_12
next page > Page 12
Fig. 1.5 Region of origin of 19961997 U.S. foreign students. From Open Doors 1996/97: Report on International Education, p. 8, by T. M. Davis. Institute of International Education (1997). Copyright 1997 by T. M. Davis. Adapted with permission. TABLE 1.4 Countries With the Greatest Numbers of Foreign Students in U.S. Colleges and Universities, 19961997 Academic Year Country Number of Number of Number of Other Total Undergraduate Graduate Students Students Students 32,444 8,406 5,441 46,292 Japan 5,020 35,472 2,011 42,503 China 16,427 15,881 4,821 37,130 Republic of Korea 6,083 22,962 1,597 30,641 India 10,524 17,300 2,663 30,487 Taiwan 12,725 9,097 1,163 22,984 Canada 11,877 2,138 512 14,527 Malaysia 3,806 8,373 1,302 13,481 Thailand 8,716 3,170 575 12,461 Indonesia 8,077 2,184 682 10,942 Hong Kong 3,766 4,347 877 8,990 Germany 5,096 3,351 528 8,975 Mexico 2,917 4,769 516 8,194 Turkey 4,362 2,393 602 7,357 United Kingdom 2,826 2,941 432 6,199 Russia 3,168 2,422 578 6,186 Brazil 3,633 2,214 249 6,095 Pakistan 2,621 2,436 635 5,692 France 2,479 1,782 413 4,673 Spain 2,405 1,705 480 4,590 Venezuela Note. From Open Doors 1996/97: Report on International Educational Exchange, by T. M. Davis. Institute of International Education. Copyright 1997 by T. M. Davis. Adapted with permission.
< previous page
page_12
next page >
< previous page
page_13
next page > Page 13
TABLE 1.5 Percentage of Foreign Student Enrollment by Major Fields of Study, 19951996 Academic Year Field of Study Percentage of Percentage of Undergraduate Graduate Enrollment Enrollment 27.3 14.9 Business 13.1 22.0 Engineering 12.5 4.9 Other (includes other fields, such as General Studies, Communications, Law) 9.6 1.4 Undeclared 8.9 10.3 Social Sciences 6.8 4.5 Fine and Applied Arts 6.5 9.5 Math and Computer Sciences 4.8 13.6 Physical and Life Sciences 3.8 5.0 Health Professions 2.5 5.3 Humanities 2.0 4.2 Education 1.1 0.1 Intensive English Program 1.0 4.1 Agriculture Note. From Open Doors 1996/97: Report on International Education Exchange, by T. M. Davis. Institute of International Education. Copyright 1997 by T. M. Davis. Adapted with permission. their choice of major field of study, reflecting the greater uncertainty of undergraduates everywhere about the choice of a career. During the early 1990s, foreign student enrollment in U.S. higher education began to stagnate after consistent increases in the nearly five decades since 1949, when enrollment was 26,433 for the 19491950 academic year (Zikopolous, 1988). Reasons for the lack of growth include rising U.S. tuition in comparison with falling economies in countries like Indonesia and increased competition from universities in the United Kingdom and Australia (Desruisseaux, 1998). For the 19971998 academic year, however, the IIE reported that foreign student enrollment at U.S. colleges and universities increased 5.1%, for a total of 481,280 students. The Director of Academic Programs at the United States Information Agency cautioned, however, that: Disturbing trends throughout the 1990s show that the United States may be losing its competitive edge in international education. From 1995 to 1997, for example, the U.S. share of all international students dropped from 32% to 30%, down from 40% in the 1980s. (IIE, 1998, see www.iie.org/svcs/pressrel/pr/20798.htm) A positive development, however, is the impressive increase in foreign student enrollment at U.S. community colleges, "where international enrollments have jumped by over 20% over the past four years, to a new high of 73,443" (IIE, 1998). Intensive English programs also showed strong growth over the past decade. During 19961997 IIE surveyed 464 preacademic intensive English language programs in U.S. colleges and universities and in schools owned by corporations and counted 43,739 foreign students enrolled. Whereas foreign student enrollment in U.S. graduate and undergraduate programs has shown very little growth in the past few years, enrollment in intensive English programs doubled between 1988 and 1997 (IIE, 1997).
< previous page
page_13
next page >
< previous page
page_14
next page > Page 14
So what impact will growing immigration and a steady flow of foreign students have on enrollment in our nation's schools and colleges? How can we make sure that we have the necessary resources available to meet the increasing demand for English language instruction? The Impact of Immigration on Schools and Colleges and the Unmet Demand for English Language Instruction The huge increase in immigrants has obviously had an impact on U.S. schools and colleges. Here are some statistics from a national study that tracked community college enrollment during spring 1991 (Ignash, 1994): At Passaic County Community College (Paterson, NJ), 35% of the student population took at least one ESL class during spring session 1991. At El Paso Community College (El Paso, TX) a conservative estimate calculated that 11% of the student population took an ESL course for credit. The college offered a total of 429 credit and 179 noncredit sections of ESL. 800 Russian immigrants showed up en masse at Harry S. Truman College (Chicago, IL) requesting ESL classes. Schools and colleges today often find themselves trying to balance the need to provide ESL instruction for all who want it (the quantity of instruction) with the need for adequate resources to provide effective instruction to as many students as feasible (the quality of instruction). Faculty and administrators at schools and colleges must consider class size, student contact with faculty, faculty remuneration, and the use of part-time versus full-time faculty in deciding how best to meet the demand for second language instruction in an era of declining resources. Portland Community College (Portland, OR) is an excellent example of an institution that wrestled with and then developed reasonable solutions when it was faced with the decision of whether to increase ESL course sections to accommodate twice as many students as the college was serving or to cut enrollment and better serve those who were already admitted. The steps the ESL Department took included involving full-time faculty in long-term planning, creating part-time positions to provide support for part-time instructors, improving off-campus management through the use of site leaders, improving curricular alignment through the use of ESL ''level" leaders, including part-time faculty in departmental matters through voice mail and e-mail systems, providing money for staff development for both full- and part-time instructors, providing better support so that instructors could focus on teaching, and changing administrative procedures so that ESL students were brought back into the mainstream of the college (Kurzet, 1997). So, what about the growing demand for English language instruction that schools and colleges are facing? Should each institution be developing strategic plans to better educate ESL students? And, what do we know about the students who need English language instruction that can help us in planning? Language Minority Students in the Schools: Enrollment and the Higher Education Pipeline The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that, of language minority school-age children between 3 and 19 years old in 1990, approximately 18.7%, or
< previous page
page_14
next page >
< previous page
page_15
next page > Page 15
Fig. 1.6 Percentage of "linguistically isolated" students, grades pre-K through 12. From U.S. Department of Education (1996). about one in five of these children, lived in "linguistically isolated" homes. Fig. 1.6 shows that one fourth of preschool children aged 3 and 4 were linguistically isolated, as were one of five elementary and junior high school children aged 5 to 13. The percentage is lower for the high school years, which is not surprising. High school students from language minority households who are not recent immigrants have had a longer period of time in which to develop English language proficiency. Also, the greater importance teens place on communicating with peers may account for some of the lower percentage in this age group. It is hard to determine with precision the number of students who will need English language instruction in our schools and colleges. Demographers rely on a variety of premises and assumptions to predict the rate at which numbers of people in a group will grow or decline. Assumptions about birth rates, death rates, immigration rates, poverty, and health levels are all factored into population projections. War, environmental changes, as well as economic and social instability can all affect immigration suddenly and dramatically. For example, between 1993 and 1997 Southern Illinois University (Carbondale, IL) experienced a drop of a third of the foreign student enrollment, nearly 1,000 students (Pearson, 1997). Part of the reason was that the university had recruited heavily from Asian countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and India where falling economies had made U.S. university tuition very expensive. But even without the unforeseeable vicissitudes of war and economic upheavals, we can still be assured that the number of children and adults needing English language instruction will increase. First, our current immigration policies favor continued high levels of immigration. Unless there is a backlash against immigration, such as the one that occurred after Congress "effectively closed the doors in the 1920s, taking a 40 year time-out to digest the high number of immigrants" (Schmid, 1998, p. 3) in the decades around the turn of the century) we can expect continued high immigration. Second, we know that the Asian and Hispanic populations, both foreign-born and native-born, are growing rapidly in the United States. Edmonston and Passel (1992) estimated that these two segments of the population are the fastest growing, with the Asian population predicted to grow from 7 million persons in 1990 to 35 million in 2040 and the Hispanic population from 22 million to 64 million. Third, Asian and Hispanic immigrants tend to be younger than the general population and are therefore likely to have higher fertility rates than the general population. Fourth, a certain percentage of the children of the foreign-born population, as well as a percentage of the children of subsequent generations, will be linguistically isolated and will need English language instruction. In order to calculate the future need for undergraduate ESL instruction, it is essential to know how many nonnative Englishspeaking students are in the elementary and sec-
< previous page
page_15
next page >
< previous page
page_16
next page > Page 16
Fig. 1.7 The higher education pipeline: total elementary and high school enrollment and extent of linguistic isolation (in millions). From U.S. Department of Education (1996). ondary school pipeline. Moreover, high schools will experience a greater demand for English language instruction than elementary and junior high schools by the year 2006. This mainly has to do with the advance of the current record number of elementary-age schoolchildren who will soon be reaching high school. The NCES made three projections in 1996: a "lower alternative" based on conservative estimates of assumptions about growth factors, a "middle alternative" based on moderate assumptions about growth, and a "high alternative" based on assumptions for strong growth. If we look at the middle alternative projections calculated by NCES, total enrollment in Grades K8 in U.S. public and private elementary and junior high schools will increase 5% between 1994 and 2006, and high school enrollment will increase 16% (U.S. Department of Education [USDE], 1996). Fig. 1.7 shows the growth in actual numbers of students projected in the year 2006. How many students in 2006 will likely be LEP? If we take a conservative approach and project the same levels of linguistic isolation in 2006 that we saw in Fig. 1.6 for 1996, then we can estimate that 21% of all students ages 5 to 13, and 12% of all students ages 14 to 19, will come from linguistically isolated households (USDE, 1996). In real numbers, this means that an estimated 8 million elementary and junior high school students and 2 million high school students will need English language instruction in 2006. Where will these students go to school? Which schools can expect a continuing or an increasing demand? Is the phenomenon only urban? An NCES report also found that, across the nation, almost half of all schools enrolled at least one LEP student (USDE, 1996). Other schools have hundreds. A larger share of linguistically isolated students were in urban schools (36%) during the 19931994 academic year. But rural schools are not exempt. Almost one fourth of all linguistically isolated students attended rural schools in 19931994. Thirty percent attended suburban schools (USDE, 1997c). In the future, we can expect that ESL instruction will not be the sole responsibility of big-city schools. There has been some concern about the ability of rural schools to meet the educational needs of language minority students. For example, only 37% of rural schools with LEP students offered dual language/bilingual programs, compared to 45% of urban schools. But nearly equal proportions of both urban and rural schools with LEP students
< previous page
page_16
next page >
< previous page
page_17
next page > Page 17
offered ESL programs85% and 82%, respectively (USDE, 1997b). Thus the concern, then, about the ability of rural schools to offer appropriate instruction is only partially supported. We can expect that large elementary and secondary schools will experience a continuing or increasing demand for English language instruction, particularly in the western United States. NCES reported that during the 19931994 academic year, two thirds of the nation's LEP public school children were in the nation's largest schools (USDE, 1997c). We also know that more LEP students will enroll in schools in the western United States. Almost 40% of immigrants settled in the western United States, according to the 1990 census, compared to 26% in the Northeast, 23% in the South, and approximately 11% in the Midwest (Hansen & Faber, 1997). English as a Second Language Instruction in Higher Education: Enrollment It is difficult to calculate enrollment in ESL throughout higher education because the central administrative units at many campuses do not collect this information. Of the ones that do, the data are collected in different formats across institutions, making it difficult for researchers to compile the information. For example, the University of California, Los Angeles, is typical of many institutions of higher education in that it asks students who enroll at the university to indicate their race or ethnicity, not their heritage language or whether they speak English well. So, a Japanese-speaking student from Japan is recorded in administrative databases the same way as a Japanese-origin student who was born in Orange County, CA, and has spoken English from birth. Several administrators from large universities have estimated that as many as 40% to 50% of entering foreign/international students take at least some ESL before beginning their major field of study. Part of the problem is that it can be difficult and costly for institutions to track ESL students once they are admitted to college. But short of conducting special studies asking institutions to report the number of students they believe enrolled in ESL, we have no way of calculating how much second language instruction U.S. colleges and universities are providing. Data do exist for community college students who take ESL courses for credit. In a 1991 national study of the community college curriculum, Cohen and Ignash (1992) reported that ESL was the fastest growing portion of the credit curriculum. (This does not include that portion of the ESL curriculum that is offered for noncredit.) In this study, the researchers coded ESL as a foreign language because it was considered akin to French, Spanish, Mandarin, and any other foreign language class for which students receive credit. Whereas only 40% of the sample of 164 community colleges across the United States offered ESL courses for credit in the 1991 study, ESL course sections accounted for 51% of all foreign language courses offered. ESL enrollment was estimated at 236,000 of the total 460,700 students enrolled in foreign language course sections (duplicated headcount). By comparison, in 1983 ESL course sections accounted for only 30% of all foreign language course sections offered (Ignash, 1994). This study of the community college curriculum was updated by researchers at the Center for the Study of Community Colleges, located at the University of California, Los Angeles, during the 19971998 academic year. Results will be reported in 1999. The field of adult education also enrolls a considerable number of students studying ESL. The NCES reported that ESL is the fastest-growing program in the field of adult education. These courses are typically noncredit but enable students to gain the language
< previous page
page_17
next page >
< previous page
page_18
next page > Page 18
skills they need to pursue work or further educational opportunities. Immigrants represent the majority of students in federally funded ESL classes for adults (USDE, 1997c). Interest in ESL instruction is even greater than current enrollment numbers indicate. Through the 1995 National Household Education Survey, the NCES surveyed adults age 16 and older who spoke a language other than English at home and who were not in high school. The NCES found that only about 11% of the adults who were interested in taking ESL classes in the year prior to the interview had actually done so. Almost one fourth (24.7%) of those interviewed, however, reported that they were either very interested, somewhat interested, or slightly interested in taking ESL classes. The study also found that four factors were significantly associated with adults who actually took an ESL class in the year preceding the interview: age ranging between 16 and 25, attainment of at least a high school education, residency in the United States for 5 years or less, and reading ability in English that was self-reported as less than "very well" (USDE, 1997c). The aforementioned 1997 NCES study helps provide a framework on which to base projections of the need for ESL instruction among adults. If 10.8% of approximately 12 million adults in 1995 actually took an ESL class and if 15.5% reported that they were very interested in taking a class (even though they had not), we have a basis on which to estimate the future need for ESL. Using the NCES projection of 17.4 million LEP adults, the potential pool of immigrants who are very likely to take an ESL class as we enter the new millennium is 4,576,200 persons. This estimate is conservative and includes only likely candidates for ESL instruction. To this 4.6 million persons, we need to add the number of foreign students who will need ESL. In a recent survey supported by the Policy Council of the Teachers of English as a Foreign Language, 54,052 foreign students were enrolled in intensive English programs (IEPs) for the 19971998 academic year (IIE, 1998). This represents an almost 24% increase in enrollment over the previous academic year. If we assume that IEPs will continue to show strong enrollment increases of 24% per year over the next several years, we can estimate that about 83,000 students will be enrolled in intensive English programs in the year 2000. If we add that number to the 4,576,200 adults who live in the United States who are likely to take ESL classes by the year 2000, we can conservatively estimate that the number of adults who will very likely enroll in English language classes will be at least around 4.7 million students. Because these are conservative estimates, the number may well be much higher. Issues in Meeting the Educational Needs of English as a Second Language Students Knowledge of trends in demographics and student enrollment is important in projecting the demand for English language instruction in our schools and colleges. But it is not sufficient. We also need to understand the kind of instruction that is effective in helping students enroll in school, stay in school, and succeed in school. Generalizations about factors that influence the educational persistence and attainment of all LEP students must be informed by research that disaggregates data on students by ethnicity, by country of origin, and by length of time in the United States. In their book, Meaningful Differences, Hart and Risley (1995) argued that to present results on students in the aggregate is often false advertising. Median traces and smoothing effects that are used to report results for all groups can mask a lack of real gains by some groups in achieving their
< previous page
page_18
next page >
< previous page
page_19
next page > Page 19
educational goals. The authors were discussing minority students in general, but the same is true for language minority students. Staying in High School and Preparing for College We have both good and bad news about the performance of LEP students in school. On the negative side, we know that students who speak a language other than English at home are more likely to drop out of school. In a study of the 1995 high school dropout rate, NCES reported that 12% of all students aged 16 to 24 dropped out of high school; that is, they did not complete high school and were not enrolled in school by October 1995. For students who spoke English at home, the rate was lower, as shown in Table 1.6. For students who spoke a language other than English at home, the dropout rate was almost one in four students. However, it is important to note that this rate varied considerably by home language. But there is positive news, too. In their study, How Immigrants Fare in U.S. Education, Vernez and Abrahamse (1996) analyzed data from the 1970, 1980, and 1990 censuses and from the 1980 National High School and Beyond Survey to compare the persistence and performance of immigrant youth to that of native-born youth. With one exception (discussed later), immigrant children performed very well on a number of measures. They enrolled in school in equal proportion to native-born children. They persisted through high school in equal proportion to native-born children. And, if they were still enrolled in a U.S. school by the 10th grade, they were more likely to take an academic college-bound program in high school that included 3 or more years of math, and more advanced courses such as Algebra 2, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, physics, and chemistry. These findings were also true for intragroup comparisons between foreign-born and native-born Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White students. In some cases, twice as great a proportion of foreign-born high school students took an advanced course such as calculus as did students of the same ethnic group who were born in the United States. The difference between foreign-born and native-born students' preparation for college is supported by research that examines underlying attitudes and aspirations for college between these two groups. Questions on the 1988 National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS:88) "High School and Beyond" database asked students and parents TABLE 1.6 Percentage of High School Dropouts by Home Language Language Spoken at Percent of Students Age 16 to Home 24 Who Dropped Out of School 9.6 English 29.6 Spanish 8.0 Other European 4.2 Asian 7.9 Other Language 24.2 Subtotal All Language Minority Students 12.0 Total All Students Note. From U.S. Department of Education (1997a). Adapted with permission.
< previous page
page_19
next page >
< previous page
page_20
next page > Page 20
about their attitudes and expectations toward college. Results showed statistically significant differences in the attitudes of immigrant and native-born students with regard to education. Immigrant students and their parents had higher aspirations and more positive views about school and college than did native-born students. Immigrant students more frequently reported that they liked to work hard in school, planned to go to college, and would be disappointed if they did not earn a college degree (Vernez & Abrahamse, 1996). Because of their overall higher aspirations and better preparation for college, it should not be surprising that, of students who completed high school, a higher proportion of foreign-born than native-born students tended to participate in higher education at any level. Vernez and Abrahamse also found that following high school graduation immigrants were a third again as likely as native-born students to persist in college for 4 continuous years. This study did not investigate educational attainment outcomes such as graduation or degree completion, but it did investigate and find significant differences in terms of continuous persistence in college. We know from other literature in the field of higher education that persistence correlates well with completion measures (Astin, 1993; Orfield & Paul, 1992). What this shows is that the behavior of foreign-born students matches their aspirations to go to college. A report commissioned by the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (NACME) found a clear and consistent gap between the expectations that most children and their parents have for the future and their understanding of the steps necessary to enter the professions to which they aspire (Leitman, Binns, & Unni, 1995). The study found that only two in five students and three in five parents believed that by not taking certain math classes, like algebra, a child will not be able to take other classes in the future. Fifty-six percent of parents believed that students could take any math class they wanted at any time they wanted. What this study highlights is the fact that many students profess an interest in going to college, but they may not be aware of what is required to prepare for college. Their course-taking patterns in high school, particularly in math and science, do not match their aspirations. The course-taking patterns of the foreign-born students who stayed in school, however, showed that these students understood the sequential nature of learning and the need to prepare for college while they were still in high school. It is important to know how immigrants in general fare in U.S. schools and colleges. But it is also important to know how well different linguistic, cultural, and generational groups of students fare in our educational system. Marketers in the business world do not treat foreign-born Hispanic students the same as first- or second-generation Hispanic students "because the two groups experience the U.S. in drastically different ways" (Hispanic Americans in 2001, 1997). If the U.S. business community educates itself about the differences among foreign-born and native populations, our schools and colleges should do the same so that we can design even better programs to encourage students to participate and persist in education. Vernez and Abrahamse (1996) also compared the participation and achievement rates of immigrants in U.S. schools and colleges. The study was thorough, disaggregating results by age, country of origin, length of time in the United States, and motivational factors. They found that, among elementary- and junior-high-school-age students, immigrant children participated in school at close to the same levels as that of native-born students. But the results were different for high-school-age students. Thus, there is one caveat to the better educational participation and persistence rates of immigrant youth compared to nativeborn youth. Among 15- to 17-year-olds, only 87% of immigrant stu-
< previous page
page_20
next page >
< previous page
page_21
next page > Page 21
dents attended school, compared to 93% of native-born students. In California, the state with the highest percentage of Hispanic immigrants, the difference in high school participation rates among native-born and foreign-born was even greater94% to 84%, respectively. This difference was due solely to the lower participation rates of Mexican students, with one in four immigrants from Mexico in the 15- to 17-year-old age group not attending school and fewer than two out of three attending school in 1990, if one counts just those students who were 17 (Vernez & Abrahamse, 1996). What is important for schools to note is that the difference for students who were born in Mexico is not that they drop out of school, but that they do not drop in to school in the first place: On the average, Mexican immigrants have completed seven years of schooling. By age 15, the average Mexican has been out of school for two years. It should not be surprising, then, that a substantial proportion of Mexican youths who may enter the United States as immigrants at age 15 or above may simply choose not to enter schools here either by choice, because of inability to catch up with others their age or their native and other immigrant counterparts who have benefitted from uninterrupted schooling either here or abroad, or by economic necessity because they must support themselves and their families. (Vernez & Abrahamse, 1996, p. 22) This finding did not hold true for Mexican students who were born in the United States. Vernez and Abrahamse reported that "native Hispanic participation rates were only slightly lower than for native Asians and whites and similar to blacks" (p. 21). It is not just the high schools that need to be thoughtful about the way programs are designed and delivered for language minority students. Colleges and universities should also be concerned. Dual language and ESL programs should include advising and mentoring components such as the highly successful Puente Project implemented by at least 20 California community colleges. The Puente Project documented that as a result of the use of teams of English teachers and Mexican-American counselors, there occurred a reduction in the number of Mexican-American/Latino community college students who dropped out of school and an increase in the number who transferred to 4-year colleges and universities. The Puente Project also relied on community role models to provide one-on-one support to students (Meznek, 1989). Persistence in College Students may not persist in college if they believe that the ESL or remedial/developmental reading and writing courses they are required to take have no connection to what they really want to study. When educators design programs that (often unwittingly) discourage students from pursuing more education, they are erecting "structural barriers" in higher education. For example, offcampus programs for ESL students that afford little contact with the main campus or with students in other college programs can act as structural barriers to the pursuit of further education. As an example of a well-designed program, El Paso Community College (El Paso, TX) worked its way through a scheduling nightmare to allow ESL students to enroll in some of the same classes either for credit or for noncredit. The result was that some students' aspirations for further education were "heated up" once they sat side by side with students who were taking the course for college credit and realized that they, too, could handle college-level work. (See Ignash, 1995, for a discussion of structural barriers to access for ESL students in higher education.)
< previous page
page_21
next page >
< previous page
page_22
next page > Page 22
Differences do exist, however, within ethnic groups. Hispanics of Mexican origin, either native- or foreign-born, were less likely than Hispanics from any other country of origin to be in school. And Asians from Japanese, Chinese, and Filipino origin were more likely to pursue postsecondary education than Asians from other countries, particularly southeast Asia and Cambodia (Vernez & Abrahamse, 1996). Educational Participation and Attainment Levels among Immigrant Groups In Immigration and Education, Stewart (1993) examined trends in the educational attainment of immigrant groups and found that how much education immigrants have varies considerably on their nation of origin. Table 1.7 summarizes the results of his study. In comparing the educational attainment of native-born and immigrant populations in Table 1.7, a greater percentage of immigrants have less than a high school education. But we also see that equal proportions of native- and foreign-born populations have completed 4 years or more of college. If we look at only the average for all immigrants, however, real differences among groups by country of origin are masked. The "average" misrepresents educational attainment levels for most groups. Immigrants from Cuba and Vietnam, as a group, probably come closest to the average for all immigrants, although their rates too vary somewhat from the average. Immigrants from India, the Philippines, and Korea have high educational attainment rates when compared to both the average for all immigrants and for the native-born U.S. population as well. And for Japanese immigrants, few have less than a high school education. Stewart (1993) posited that this is because immigrants from these countries have not had the kind of severe political or economic disruptions that can force people from lower incomes to move. Because these countries are also a considerable distance from the United States, immigrants with these educational levels who come to the United States are most likely doing so for professional or business advancement, constituting, in essence, a "brain drain" from these countries: "The economic and societal lure of the United States remains strong for college-educated people even in some lands of relative affluence" (p. 25). TABLE 1.7 Percentage of Educational Attainment of Adult Immigrants Age 20 and Over, 1988 Country of Less than High High 1 to 3 Years of 4 or More Years of Origin School School College College 37.2 27.4 15.0 20.4 All Immigrants 15.6 37.9 22.9 23.8 Canada 76.1 15.6 6.4 2.0 Mexico 35.1 32.2 16.4 16.3 Cuba 21.2 17.0 19.1 42.8 China 6.4 22.8 13.3 57.5 India 11.4 42.3 15.7 30.5 Japan 11.8 35.3 10.9 41.9 Korea 15.1 15.0 21.2 48.7 Philippines 30.9 26.8 23.4 18.9 Vietnam 21.1 39.9 19.6 19.3 Native-born Note. From Immigration and Educations (pp. 2324), by D. W. Stewart, 1993, Lexington Books. Copyright 1993 by Lexington Books, subsidiary of Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Maryland. Reprinted with permission.
< previous page
page_22
next page >
< previous page
page_23
next page > Page 23
Two results from Table 1.7 have implications for schools and colleges. First, we can expect a portion of immigrants with less than a high school education to enroll in further educationin both English language and adult basic education classes. And second, the substantial proportion of immigrants who have completed high school but have not gone any further, or who have completed 1 to 3 years of college and might be interested in associate or baccalaureate degree completion programs, comprise a pool of potential students for the nation's 2- and 4-year colleges and universities. Country of origin can make a big difference in the type of education students need, and school and college advisors should not expect that all foreign-born students will have come from equivalent educational backgrounds. In addition, the educational levels of immigrant groups by country of origin can change over time. As many schools and colleges in the United States saw in the late 1970s and early to mid-1980s when many Vietnamese entered the country, the first waves of immigrants often have higher educational levels than succeeding waves (Stewart, 1993). Other Factors Affecting Success in College A number of national studies provide information about language minority students, both immigrants and native-born, that can help educators design appropriate policies and programs. One of the factors that affects a student's eventual success in college is how well he or she has mastered basic skills in reading, writing, and math before enrolling in college. If a student needs only one or two courses, he or she usually does as well as a student who does not need any remedial/developmental education. But students who need three or more remedial/developmental education courses have markedly lower persistence and success rates (Adelman, 1996; Weissman, Bulakowski, & Jumisko, 1997). Using data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, Knopp (1995) found that 21% of students whose home language was not English took a postsecondary level remedial/developmental course, compared to 10% of those whose primary language was English. One third of all students in remedial/developmental reading and writing classes in 19921993 spoke a language other than English at home. These percentages illustrate the high demand for reading and writing courses for LEP students at the beginning of their college careers. Students whose skills in reading and writing English are not yet at the college level and who wish to pursue postsecondary education should be strongly encouraged to improve these skills upon entry to college (Weissman et al., 1997). An additional factor affecting success in college concerns nontraditional students who drop out, sometimes for years, and then return for further education. The status dropout rate is the percentage of students aged 18 to 24 who dropped out of high school, did not complete a GED (General Educational Development) certificate, and did not enroll in any further education. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that the status dropout rate for 16- to 24-year-olds in 1994 was 12% (USDE, 1996). The status dropout rate is highest in states with large minority and immigrant populations. Florida's status dropout rate is 41% (Hodgkinson, 1995). Ignash (1997) reported that the status dropout rate for Hispanic students in 1994 was 30%, compared to 8.6% for White, nonHispanic persons aged 16 to 24. Though many students who drop out may never pursue additional education, some do. About one third of GED recipients eventually enroll in further education, and many of these require at least one remedial/developmental course. Research has shown that minority language students who drop out or stop out of school and
< previous page
page_23
next page >
< previous page
page_24
next page > Page 24
receive the necessary language instruction and support as soon as they reenter college do better than those who delay recommended remedial/developmental work (Weissman et al., 1997). Finally, perceptions about the educational attainment levels of immigrants should not be allowed to take the place of facts. Some believe that new immigrants to the United States are not as well educated, compared to the native-born, as earlier immigrants (Gray, Rolph, & Melamid, 1996). Others, like the New York City Planning Department, believe that it is ''more common now for someone to come [to the United States] with a lot of education than 40 years ago" (Reese, 1997, p. 52). This dissonance in perceptions can be reconciled if we view the immigrant population as "bipolar" in educational attainment. Stewart (1993) observed this tendency in his 1988 study of immigrants: "The patterns of education for all nationalities of incoming immigrants are oddly bipolar relative to the native-born population at the upper and lower educational levels" (p. 25). We tend to find clusters of people who have a high school education or less and another cluster of persons who have completed at least one college degree. The implications for educators are that we need to design programs that assess the educational attainment levels of incoming students and provide services based on real needs. Concluding Thoughts The rise in immigration to the United States is occurring in a climate of increasing accountability and scarce resources with higher education. What does this mean for LEP students who enroll in our institutions of higher education? What are the policy implications regarding access to education for language minority persons, foreign- and native-born, in the United States? And what can we do to assist the foreign-born to successfully navigate the U.S. educational system? First, at federal, state, and local levels we need to continue collecting information on foreign-born, immigrant, and foreign/international students. And we need to do a much better job of this at the local level. Although U.S. schools and colleges do collect information on participation and persistence rates by race and ethnicity, far fewer institutions collect this information for foreign-born students and immigrants. At the very least, we need to ask students to tell us their country of origin, how long they have been in the United States, their educational goals, and their intended field of study. We also need to find out how well they speak English on entry to collegeeven if it is only a self-reported measure. Second, schools and colleges should keep track of the enrollment, persistence, and success rates of their foreign-born and immigrant populations. Success can be defined in a number of ways. Students could be given a list of objectives for entering the college (to learn English to get a job or a better job, to learn English to transfer to another college, to communicate socially with English speakers, etc.) and then asked to check "Yes" or "No" to indicate whether they achieved their objectives. We also need to pay attention to student outcomes and to ask whether foreign-born and immigrant students achieve their educational goals and whether they continue beyond ESL to pursue course work and degrees in other fields. This kind of information can help considerably in the design and delivery of effective instruction. Third, we need to tailor programs and methods to meet the needs of different groups of foreign-born and immigrant students. Is the population bipolar? Does a cluster of
< previous page
page_24
next page >
< previous page
page_25
next page > Page 25
students appear to be well prepared for college in terms of course-taking patterns and aspirations whereas another cluster of students lacks adequate preparation? Or is there a continuum? Are there cultural, language, and educational attainment differences by country of origin? Fourth, we need to pay attention to how we design our programs and to any structural barriers that might be prohibiting or limiting access and success. In cases where foreign-born and immigrant students are segregated from the rest of the campus and from students in other college programs, administrators and faculty should take a serious look at persistence and retention rates. How many students are continuing with further education after ESL? How many achieve their educational goals? Are structural barriers prohibiting these students from progressing beyond ESL? If, for example, only 5% of a college's ESL student body is continuing with "regular" college-level programs, that might be a sign of problems with the way a program is designed. We know considerably more about teaching and learning as well as about foreign-born and second- and third-generation students in our schools and universities than we used to. We have solid information based on research that can help us design programs that promote access and success. Some of these findings as well as innovative programs to meet the educational needsin particular those related to second language acquisitionof nonnative English speakers are described in subsequent chapters in this volume. In her history of "great school wars" of the New York City Public Schools, Diane Ravitch noted that every major reorganization coincided with a wave of new immigration to New York City (Ravitch, as cited in Stewart, 1993). We are experiencing a new wave of record high immigration to the United States in these final years of the 20th century. Demographic trends project an increase in LEP students in our schools and colleges. We are also seeing strong growth in foreign student enrollment in our nation's IEPs and community colleges. We must use what we know to build strong programs so that these students have the opportunity to fully participate and succeed in our educational system. We will all benefit. References Adelman, C. (1996, October 4). The truth about remedial work: It's more complex than windy rhetoric and simple solutions suggest. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A56. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. The Chronicle of Higher Education. (1997, August 29). Almanac, Vol. XLIV (1). Cohen, A. M., & Ignash, J. M. (1992). Trends in the liberal arts curriculum. The Community College Review, 20 (2), 5056. Desruisseaux, P. (1998, May 29). Competition intensifies for Asian students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A48A49. Edmonston, B., & Passel, J. S. (1992). The future immigrant population of the United States (Policy Discussion Paper). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, Program for Research on Immigration Policy. Edmonston, B., & Passel, J. S. (Eds.). (1994). Immigration and ethnicity. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. Gray, M. J., Rolph, E., & Melamid, E. (1996). Immigration and higher education: Institutional responses to changing demographics (Report No. MR-751-AMF). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Hansen, K. A., & Faber, C. S. (1997). Current population reports. The foreign-born population: 1996 (Report No. P20-494, Bureau of the Census) Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Available: http://www.census.gov/prod/2/pop/p20/p20-494.pdf Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences. Baltimore: Brookes. Hispanic Americans in 2001. (1997, January). American Demographics, pp. 1617.
< previous page
page_25
next page >
< previous page
page_26
next page > Page 26
Hodgkinson, H. L. (1995). Demographic imperatives for the future. In B. P. Bowser, T. Jones, & G. A. Young (Eds.), Toward the multicultural university (pp. 324). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Ignash, J. M. (1994). Compelling numbers: English as a second language. In A. M. Cohen, (Ed.), Relating curriculum and transfer. New directions for community colleges, 86 (pp. 4962). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ignash, J. M. (1995). Encouraging ESL student persistence: The influence of policy on curricular design. Community College Review, 23(3), 1734. Ignash, J. M. (1997). Who should provide postsecondary remedial/developmental education? In J. M. Ignash, (Ed.), Implementing effective policies for remedial and developmental education. New directions for community colleges, 100 (pp. 520). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Institute of International Education. (1997). Open doors 19961997: Report on international educational exchange (T. M. Davis (Ed.)), New York: Author. Institute of International Education. (1998). Open doors 19971998: IIE's annual report on international educational exchange (Press Release) http://www.iie.org/opendoors/od98text.htm Knopp, L. (1995). Remedial education: An undergraduate student profile. In Research Briefs (Vol. 6, p. 8). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Kurzet, R. (1997). Quality vs. quantity in the delivery of developmental programs for ESL students. In J. M. Ignash (Ed.), Implementing effective policies for remedial and developmental education. New directions for community colleges, 100 (pp. 5362. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Leitman, R., Binns, K., & Unni, A. (1995, June). Uninformed decisions: A survey of children and parents about math and science. NACME Research Letter, 5(1), 112. Meznek, J. (1989). The Puente Project. Sacramento: California Community Colleges, Office of the Chancellor. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 307 920). National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) (1988). [Electronic database]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (National Center for Educational Statistics, Producer and Distributor). Orfield, G., & Paul, F. G. (1992). State higher education systems and college completion (Final Report to the Ford Foundation): (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 041). Pearson, M. (1997, December 29). SIU sees foreign enrollment plunge. The Chicago Sun Times, p. 17. Reese, S. (1997, March). When Whites aren't a mass market. American Demographics, pp. 5154. Schmid, R. (1998, April 10). Immigration to U.S. highest in decades. State Journal Register, p. 3. Schmidley, A. D., & Alvarado, H. A.. (1998). Current population reports. The foreign-born population in the United States: March 1997 (Update) (Report No. P20-507, U.S. Bureau of the Census). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available: http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p20-507.pdf Schmidley, A. D., & Robinson, G. J. (1998, April). How well does the current population survey measure the foreign-born population in the United States? (Population Division Working Paper No. 22, U.S. Bureau of the Census). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available: http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0022/twps0022.html Stewart, D. W. (1993). Immigration and education. New York: Lexington. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1990). 1990 census of population. Characteristics of the population. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Ethnic and Hispanic Branch, Population Division. (1993). We the American foreign born. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Profile of children in U.S. school districts (Statistical Analysis Report No. 96-831). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1997a). The condition of education 1997 (NCES Report No. 97-388, Supplemental Table 4-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/ce/index.html U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1997b). A profile of policies and practices for limited English proficient students: Screening methods, program support, and teacher training (SASS 199394). (Statistical Analysis Report No. 97-472). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1997c). Statistics in brief: Participation of adults in English as a second language classes: 199495 (NCES Report No. 97-319). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available: http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97319.html U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services. (1998). Immigration and naturalization statistics. Annual statistical report. Immigration to the United States in fiscal year 1996. Table 4. Immigrants admitted by major category of admission and area of intended residents: Fiscal year 1996. Available: http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/stats/annual/fy96/
< previous page
page_27
next page > Page 27
Vernez, G., & Abrahamse, A. (1996). How immigrants fare in U.S. education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Weissman, J., Bulakowski, C., & Jumisko, M. K. (1997). Using research to evaluate developmental education programs and policies. In J. M. Ignash, (Ed.), Implementing effective policies for remedial and developmental education. New directions for community colleges, 100 (pp. 7380). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Zikopolous, M. (Ed.). (1988). Profiles: Detailed analyses of the foreign student population. New York: Institute of International Education.
< previous page
page_27
next page >
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
< previous page
page_29
next page > Page 29
2 Fundamentals of Second Language Acquisition Susan Gass Michigan State University What Is the Field of Second Language Acquisition? Second language acquisition (SLA) is a relatively young field, having its systematic origins in the 1950s and 1960s (see the exchange by Thomas, 1998, and Gass, Fleck, Leder, & Svetics, 1998). Briefly put, the study of SLA is the study of how nonprimary language learning takes place. The International Commission of Second Language Acquisition (ICoSLA) defined SLA, in part, as follows (http://www.let.ruu.nl/~icsla/): SLA is a theoretical and experimental field of study which, like first language acquisition studies, looks at the phenomenon of language development. . . . SLA researchers . . . describe and explain nonnative language behavior. SLA . . . research includes, for instance, studying the complex pragmatic interactions between learners, and between learners [and] native speakers, examining how non-native language ability develops, stabilizes and undergoes attrition, and carrying out a highly technical analysis and interpretation of all aspects of learner language with the help of, amongst other things, current linguistic theory. It is commonly believed that SLA refers to language teaching, but as the ICoSLA clearly stated. SLA is not about language teaching. Although it is focused on examining acquisition as a phenomenon in its own right and not on how acquisition is facilitated, the hope is often voiced that SLA research, will, together with other relevant disciplines, provide a firmer scientific basis for language instruction. With this in mind, I address some of the research areas in second language (L2) learning and let the authors of the remaining chapters of this volume tackle the topic of teaching. The purpose of this chapter is to lay out some of the accumulated knowledge of the field of SLA and, hopefully, to put to rest some of the naive assumptions that exist about language learning. It is further hoped that through this chapter I succeed in convincing the reader that the study of SLA represents a vibrant field with a sophisticated knowledge base. Finally, it is my goal that the reader will come to understand some of the complexities involved in L2 learning and by extension in the related field of L2 and foreign language teaching.
< previous page
page_29
next page >
< previous page
page_30
next page > Page 30
Terminology Because I deal with basic issues of nonprimary language learning, as a way of introduction, I explain my use of key terminology. First, nonprimary. I use this term to refer to language learning after the first language (L1) has been learned. I do not differentiate in this chapter between second and foreign language learning, where the former refers to language learning in the environment where that language is spoken (Italian in Italy, English in Australia, Japanese in Japan, etc.) and the latter refers to language learning in one's "home" environment (French in the United States, English in China, etc.). The reason for this lack of differentiation is that there is little evidence that the mental processes involved in learning a language beyond the native language (NL) differ as a function of whether the learning is in a second versus a foreign language environment. This is not to say that there are not significant differences in terms of the context itself, and hence the language material (both quantitative and qualitative) available to learners. The claim that is made is that the processes involved in learning a nonnative language are not dependent on the location of learning. I use the broad term second language (L2) learning, also not differentiating between second, third, or fourth languages. (Readers who are interested in the learning of tertiary and additional languages are referred to chap. 10 of this volume.) The second set of key words is acquisition and learning. In the early 1980s, based on work by Krashen (1980, 1982, 1985), a distinction was proposed between acquisition and learning. Basic to Krashen's approach is the assumption that in learning an L2, learners develop two independent L2 knowledge systems, one referred to as acquisition and the other as learning. In nontechnical language, acquisition is the unconscious "picking-up" of a language whereas learning refers to conscious knowledge of an L2 (i.e., knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them). (See criticisms of Krashen's work by Gregg, 1984, 1986, and articles in Barasch & James, 1994.) With regard to the function of these systems, Krashen argued that the acquired system is used to produce language. The acquisition system generates utterances. The learned system serves as an "inspector" of the acquired system; it checks to ensure the correctness of the utterance against the knowledge in the learned system. The distinction between acquisition and learning has had a much greater impact on the "lay" community than on the SLA research community (mainly due to the proposed independence of the two systems). In fact, many researchers use the two terms (acquisition and learning) interchangeably and without the theoretical connotations associated with Krashen's theory. Although Krashen's ideas regarding L2 learning are appealing, when examined in depth, they lack theoretical rigor and, hence, are of limited value. Second Language Acquisition Findings This section is intended to address some of the major issues and findings that SLA research has uncovered over the past few decades. Because of the scope of this article, the topics are selective and designed to give only an overview. Most SLA research has been conducted with adult L2 learners. There are studies, however, that are selected for discussion in this section that deal primarily or exclusively with child L2 learning. In such instances, the principles that they illustrate are general principles of L2 learning and therefore cross age boundaries.
< previous page
page_30
next page >
< previous page
page_31
next page > Page 31
The Development of L2 Knowledge A basic concept in SLA is that of "interlanguage" (Selinker, 1972). The assumption underlying this concept is that learners create a language system, known as an interlanguage. This system is composed of numerous elements, not the least of which are elements from the NL and the language being learned, known as the target language (TL). There are also elements in the interlanguage that do not have their origin in either the NL or the TL. What is important is that the learners themselves impose structure on the available linguistic data and formulate and internalize a linguistic system. Consider the following utterances from an adult native speaker of Arabic who is in the early stages of her acquisition of English: Example 1. Data from Hanania (1974) a. He's sleeping b. She's sleeping c. It's raining d. He's eating e. Hani watch TV (Hani is watching TV) f. Read the paper (He is reading the paper) g. Drink the coffee (He is drinking the coffee) It appears that this learner has created a system (unlike the system of either Arabic or English) where the progressive is used only when there is no overt direct object (Examples ad). When the direct object is present, the present tense form is used (Examples eg). Implied in the concept of interlanguage is the centrality of the learner (as opposed to the teacher, textbook, materials, etc.) in the learning process. It therefore follows that there is not a one-to-one relationship between learning and teaching. Input How do learners "create" interlanguages? One of the most important contributing factors is input. This refers to the TL that is "available" to learners. It comes from a variety of sources including the language that the learner hears (e.g., in the classroom by the teacher, outside of the classroom by speakers of the second language), reads (in textbooks, in other reading materials), or sees, in the case of a signed language. Input is to be distinguished from intake, which is the language that is not just available to a learner, but is the language comprehended and utilized in some way by the learner (for further elaboration, see Gass, 1997). In other words, the mere presence of input is not a sufficient condition for language learning. The fact of its presence must be noticed in some way. As a prerequisite to noticing some feature of the input, learners must focus their attention on and isolate some portion of the input. Once the input is noticed, learners have to determine what patterns are present. And, to do this, they first have to segment a stream of speech (if it is a written text, the task is easier because spaces usually exist between words) into meaningful units (probably words). Then they have to organize the words into syntactic units and come up with hypotheses about what the grammar might be like. In the 1960s and 1970s, SLA researchers believed that L2 learning was based on a behaviorist view of language. Within this framework the major driving force of language
< previous page
page_31
next page >
< previous page
page_32
next page > Page 32
learning was the language to which learners were exposed (the input). Input had major importance because it was believed that learning a language involved imitation as its primary mechanism. Subsequent research made it clear that L2 speakers do not merely imitate; they create a system that allows them to produce novel utterances. Since the early years of SLA research in the 1960s and 1970s, many studies have been conducted and numerous observations have been made of the speech used by native speakers (NSs) (teachers and nonteachers) when addressing nonnative speakers (NNSs). Language addressed to NNSs has been referred to as foreigner talk. In contrast to speech directed toward proficient speakers, foreigner talk has some of the following characteristics: louder speech, speech that is slower and more carefully articulated, simpler vocabulary, less frequent use of idioms, less complex syntax, and fewer contractions (see Hatch, 1983, for a fuller description). Interaction Long (1980) was the first to point out that conversations involving NNSs exhibit forms that do not appear to any significant degree when only NSs are involved (see also Scarcella & Higa, 1981, for similar research on children, and Gass, 1997). For example, confirmation checks, comprehension checks, and clarification requests are peppered throughout conversations in which there is a nonproficient NNS participant, in either NSNNS or NNSNNS conversation. Following are examples of each taken from Varonis and Gass (1985): Example 2. Confirmation check NNS1: When can you go to visit me? NNS2: visit? Example 3. Comprehension check NNS1: and your family have some ingress NNS2: yes ah, OK OK NNS1: more or less OK? Example 4. Clarification request NNS1: . . . research NNS2: research, I don't know the meaning. In addition to these features, different kinds of questions are asked, often with the answer being suggested by the speaker immediately after the question is asked. The "or-choice" question in Example 5 exemplifies this phenomenon: Example 5. From Long (1983) NS: Well, what are you doing in the United States? Are you just studying or do you have a job? Or . . . NNS: No. I have job A similar example of modification is given in Example 6 where the NS gives a suggested answer to the question he just posed. Example 6. Long (1980) NS: When do you take the break? At ten-thirty? The effect of such modifications (whether intentional or not) is to aid the NNS in understanding what is being said. This reduces the linguistic burden for NNSs in that they
< previous page
page_32
next page >
< previous page
page_33
next page > Page 33
are assisted by others in understanding and in producing language appropriate to the situation. Teachers, too, often adjust their speech according to the perceived proficiency level of the addressee. Example 7 illustrates the adjustment that a kindergarten teacher made in her mixed class (for similar adjustments to adult university-level learners, see Gaies, 1979): Example 7. Data from Kleifgen (1985) Speech to: A single NS Now, Johnny, you have to make a great big pointed hat. NS of Urdu; intermediate-level English Now her hat is big. Pointed. NS of Arabic; low intermediate-level English See hat? Hat is big. Big and tall. NS of Japanese; beginning-level English Big, big, big hat. NS of Korean; beginning level-English Baby sitter. baby. In looking at Kleifgen's data, one finds another interesting phenomenon. For those students whose English proficiency showed improvement over time, the teacher's talk changed; for those students who did not improve, the dynamic and changing nature of the teacher's talk was not apparent. Thus, foreigner talk changes according to individual and contextual factors. The use of foreigner talk appears to result from prior experience as well as from a basic human desire to maintain the smooth flow of a conversation. In sum, we have seen that it is frequently the case that the language addressed to NNSs is modified and that one of the main purposes of modification is to aid comprehensibility. However, although comprehensibility is a necessary condition, it is clearly not a sufficient condition for learning the TL. As mentioned earlier, conversations with L2 learners have characteristics that differ from those between or among native speakers. Beginning more than two decades ago with work by Wagner-Gough and Hatch (1975) and developed in the following years by many researchers (see the summary in Gass, 1997), L2 research has emphasized the role that conversations play in the development of an L2. Conversational interaction in an L2 forms the basis for the development of syntax rather than being only a forum for practice of grammatical structures. One way that a lack of understanding in conversation can be handled is through an interruption in the conversation itself through confirmation checks and other ways of seeking clarification and of thereby coming to a mutual understanding of what is intended. This is referred to as negotiation of meaning, and it is negotiation that is claimed to have significance for SLA (see Gass, 1997; Long, 1996). How does negotiation itself aid learning? Negotiation routines do more than just straighten out language difficulties. Negotiation forces a learner's attention on parts of the language that need modification in order to be comprehensible. Language per se therefore becomes the focus of attention. Example 8, from adult language learning, shows how the focus on form results in later incorporation into the learner's speech. The arrows indicate where negotiation is occurring:
< previous page
page_33
next page >
< previous page
page_34
next page > Page 34
Example 8. (Data from Gass & Varonis, 1989) NNS1: A man is uh drinking c-coffee or tea uh with uh the saucer of the uh uh coffee set is uh in his uh knee NNS2: in him knee NNS1: uh on his knee NNS2: yeah NNS1: on his knee NNS2: so sorry on his knee The two NNSs in this example have used the conversation as a learning device. The negotiation per se provided NNS2 with usable information (about the correct preposition and the correct form of the possessive), which was then used to make appropriate modifications. The claim is not that negotiation causes learning nor that there is a "theory" of learning based on interaction. What is claimed is that negotiation is a facilitator of learning; it is one means, but not the only means of drawing attention to areas of needed change. U-Shaped Learning A naive view of language learning is that it proceeds in a linear fashion. That is, one learns one grammatical structure and then another, and presumably, previously "learned" structures are retained as new ones are acquired. In fact, many language textbooks are based on this assumption with each chapter focusing on a different structure. Although it is true that there are predictable stages for learning (see the following section), it is also the case that in other ways language learning cannot be described in a step-by-step fashion. U-shaped behavior (see Kellerman, 1985, for use of this term in SLA) refers to stages of linguistic use. In the earliest stage, a learner produces some linguistic form that appears to conform to TL norms (i.e., error-free). Then, at a subsequent stage the learner appears to lose what she or he knew at Stage 1; the linguistic behavior at Stage 2 now deviates from TL norms. Stage 3 looks just like Stage 1 in that there is again correct TL usage. Lightbown (1983) presented data from French learners of English in a classroom context, examining the use of the -ing form in English among sixth-, seventh-, and eighth- grade learners. A typical Grade 6 utterance was: Example 9. He is taking a cake. By Grade 7, the response was: Example 10. He take a cake. This is a common phenomenon of language learning and one that causes great consternation and confusion for language teachers. How can we account for an apparent decrease in knowledge? Lightbown hypothesized that initially these students were only presented with the progressive form. With nothing else in English to compare it to, they equated it with the simple present of French. That is, in the absence of any other verb forms, there was no way of determining what the limits were of the present progressive. In fact, with no other comparable verb form in their L2 system, learners overextended the use of the progressive into contexts in which the English present would have been appropriate. When the simple present was introduced at a later point in time, learners
< previous page
page_34
next page >
< previous page
page_35
next page > Page 35
Fig 2.1 U-shaped curve. not only had to learn this new form, but they also had to readjust their information about the present progressive, in essence, redefining its limits. Evidence of the confusion and subsequent readjustment of the use of the progressive was seen in the decline in both use and accuracy. It takes time before learners restructure and reorganize their L2 knowledge appropriately and are able to use both the progressive and the present in targetlike ways. Thus, given these data, a U-shaped curve results, as can be seen in Fig. 2.1. Stages The preceding discussion focused on the nonlinear nature of L2 learning. However, this is not to say that there are not predictable sequences in L2 learning. This section deals with such stages in grammatical development. Corder (1967) noted that learners have a ''built-in" syllabus. Regardless of what they are presented with, certain parts of the language develop in a regular, predictable fashion. An example from syntax illustrates this. Pienemann and Johnston (1987) presented the stages shown in Table 2.1 in the acquisition of question forms in English. These stages are independent of any pedagogical syllabus and are a result of learners creating their own systems, perhaps limited in this case by processing constraints. Mackey (1995), in her study of the acquisition of English questions, showed that with regard to questions, stages are not skipped, even though the path through them can be accelerated. A similar example of stages in learning can be seen in the following sequence reflecting the acquisition of negation in English. Schumann (1979), in data from an adult NS of Spanish learning English, noted that initially negative utterances are formed by using the word no, which is placed before the verb as in the following examples: Example 11.
no understand no you told me no swim no correct
A second stage of development is seen with the occurrence of don't, even though this element is placed preverbally, as in Example 12: Example 12.
don't like I don't saw him
Next, learners show an increased use of not as opposed to no as a negator in Example 13:
< previous page
page_35
next page >
< previous page
page_36
next page > Page 36
TABLE 2.1 Example Table for Question Forms and Developmental Stages Developmental Stage Example Stage 1 Single units What? Single words What is your Single units name? Stage 2 SVO It's a monster? Canonical word order with question intonation. Your cat is black? You have a cat? I draw a house here? Stage 3 Fronting: Wh-word/Do Where the cats Direct questions with main verbs and some form of are? fronting. What the cat doing in your picture? Do you have an animal? Does in this picture there is a cat? Stage 4 Pseudo Inversion: Y/N, verb "to be" (Y/N) Have you In y/n questions an auxiliary or modal (e.g., got a dog? can/could) is in sentence-initial position. (Y/N) Have you drawn the cat? ("to be") Where is the cat in your picture? In wh-questions the verb "to be" and the subject change positions. Stage 5 Do/Auxiliary 2nd Why (Q) have Q-word Auxiliary/modal subj (main verb, etc.) (Aux) you (subject) left home? What do you Auxiliary verbs and modals are placed in second have? position after Wh-question words and before subject Where does your (applies only in main clauses/direct questions). cat sit? What have you got in your picture? Stage 6 "Can" Inversion, Negative Q, Tag Question (Can Inv) Can Cancel Inversion: Wh-question inversions are not you see what the present in relative clauses time is? (Can Inv) Can you tell me where the cat is? (Neg Q) Doesn't Neg Q: A negated form of do/auxiliary is placed your cat look before the subject black? Tag Q: An auxiliary verb & pronoun are attached to (Neg Q) Haven't end of main clause. you seen a dog? (Tag Q) It's on the wall, isn't it? Note. From Mackey (1995). Copyright 1995 by Mackey. Reprinted with permission.
< previous page
page_37
next page > Page 37
Example 13. not today They also use not following the verb "to be" and the auxiliary as in Example 14: Example 14.
I'm not old enough I will don't see you tomorrow
Still later, learners begin to use variants of don't (i.e., doesn't, didn't), as can be seen in Example 15: Example 15. I didn't went to Costa Rica And finally, most learners sort out the facts of negation and learn that in negation, do is the element that bears tense and person distinctions. In this section we have seen examples in which learners appear to follow predictable stages, immutable by instruction. This contrasts with the U-shaped learning curve that was discussed previously. That there is evidence for both predictable stages as well as nonlinear learning highlights the complexities of the process of SLA. What Do Learners Start With? Thus far, I have presented some of the characteristics of the linguistic system that L2 learners create. I have dealt with the input that learners have available to them and how they might manipulate the input through conversation to create new knowledge. In the sections that follow, I consider various perspectives on the starting point of learning. In other words, I look at what linguistic information learners start with as they enter the new language-learning process. Innateness A current question in L2 research is the starting point of language learning. To deal with this topic, I refer to some of the assumptions from the literature on child language learning. One theory of child language learning holds that children are born with a language faculty known as Universal Grammar (UG; for a discussion of UG as it relates to SLA, see Cook 1988, 1993; White, 1989). The theory underlying UG assumes that language consists of a set of abstract principles that characterize core grammars of all natural languages. The necessity of positing UG comes from the fact that all children have to learn a complex set of abstractions as they acquire their NL. There must be something in addition to the language input (which is "impoverished" in that it does not contain direct evidence of abstract knowledge) to which children are exposed in order for them to learn the TL with relative ease and speed. UG is postulated as an innate language faculty that specifies the limits of a possible language. The task for learning is greatly reduced if one is equipped with an innate mechanism that constrains possible grammar formation. In other words, certain kinds of linguistic systems are ruled out a priori. A similar situation applies in the case of L2 learning, and an even more complex problem exists because not only is the input impoverished, but also learners are influenced by their L1 or other languages known (White, 1992). But the UG position is not a uniform one. White (1996) pointed out that there are four current positions with regard to UG:
< previous page
page_37
next page >
< previous page
page_38
next page > Page 38
One position maintains that the initial state of L2 is actually the final state of L1; that is, UG has atrophied and is, therefore, no longer available for building L2 knowledge. White argued that the input feeds directly into the L2 system, which initially is essentially the L1 system. A second position also assumes that the starting point for L2 acquisition is the final state of L1, but unlike the previous position, assumes the availability of UG. Here the learner is assumed to use the L1 grammar as a basis, but to have full access to UG when the L1 is deemed insufficient for the learning task at hand. This differs from the first position in that the L2 input feeds into both the initial state system (= L1) and UG. A third position maintains that the initial state of L2 is the same as the initial state for L1, that is, UG. Here, the input is mediated through UG and not through the L1, as in the previous two positions. Thus, UG serves as a filter through which the L2 input passes. There is yet a fourth position, the compromise position. The L2 initial state is affected by both UG and the L1. Certain aspects of the initial state are based on UG and other aspects from the L1. This section has described the position that states that there is an innate mechanism that is responsible for language learning. In other words, this theoretical position argues for an innate language-learning mechanism as the starting point for learning. General Nativism There are other theoretical positions with regard to the starting point of L2 learning. The best articulated position of these is the general nativist approach of O'Grady (1996, 1997). In essence, in general nativist approaches it is argued that one does not have to invoke UGor any other innate language moduleto explain SLA. According to general nativist positions, whatever learning mechanisms are available for general (non-language) learning (e.g., issues relating to memory, chunking of units, processing constraints) are also available for SLA (Eckman, 1996; Hamilton, 1996; O'Grady, 1996; Wolfe-Quintero, 1996). What is common to both innate and general nativist positions is that they consider language devoid of the context in which it occurs. The criticism leveled against both of these approaches is that because language is used in context, one cannot understand SLA without a theoretical recognition of this fact. (I return to this briefly in the section on variation.) First Language Research on the importance of the NL in the learning of an L2 has had a rocky history over the past few decades. Early work in L2 learning, stemming primarily from an interest in language teaching, made the assumption that learners transferred forms and meanings from the NL to the TL (Lado, 1957). The terminology used in a language-learning setting and the associated concepts (e.g., interference/facilitation) come from the literature on the psychology of learning, and more specifically from work done within a behaviorist framework (see Gass & Selinker, 1994 for a more complete discussion of these issues). Central to this school of thought were the notions of transfer and interference. Transfer refers to the psychological process whereby prior learning is carried over into a new learning situation; interference refers to incorrect (L2) learning based on NL forms. I use only the term transfer or NL influences because there is little evidence
< previous page
page_38
next page >
< previous page
page_39
next page > Page 39
that interference (as a process) impedes L2 learning. It only describes incorrect forms of language use. During the 1960s there were challenges to the behaviorist theory of language and language learning. According to behaviorist theory, language was believed to be acquired by imitation, and language itself was conceived as a set of habits. However, it became clear that language could not be conceptualized as a set of automatic habits, but as a set of structured rules. These rules are learned by actively formulating them on the basis of innate principles coupled with exposure to the language being learned. An example from the child language literature is often cited as evidence against the imitation view of language acquisition: Example 16. From Cazden (1972, p. 92) Child: My teacher holded the baby rabbits and we patted them. Adult: Did you say your teacher held the baby rabbits? Child: Yes. Adult: What did you say she did? Child: She holded the baby rabbits and we patted them. Adult: Did you say she held them tightly? Child: No, she holded them loosely. Despite the modeling of the correct past tense form, the child continues to "regularize" the past tense by adding "ed" rather than changing the vowel. Imitation clearly played no role at this point in this child's speech. As Example 16 showed for child language learning, L2 learners also produce errors that could not have been heard in the surrounding speech. For example, common errors such as "She goed yesterday" demonstrate that learners attempt to impose regularity on an irregular verb (not dissimilar to what the child was doing in trying to regularize the verb hold in Example 16 discussed earlier). There is no way to account for this fact within a theory that was based primarily on a learner transferring forms from the NL to the TL. One way that researchers in SLA approached the study of transfer was to compare different groups of learners with different NLs, to determine the similarity of patterns of acquisition. Dulay and Burt (1974) found similar patterns of acquisition of English between two groups of children with different NL backgrounds (Spanish and Chinese) They concluded, contrary to the behaviorist view of automatic transfer of NL forms, that developmental factors rather than NL factors were at play and that universal mechanisms for SLA had to be considered primary. Similar results were noted in a study by Bailey, Madden, and Krashen (1974), who dealt with adult learners. Work in the 1970s on the role of the NL tended to take one side or the other of the dichotomous question: Is the NL important in L2 learning? In research over the past two decades, a more measured view of the role of the NL has been noted, with researchers observing different rates of learning, different paths of learning, and overproduction of use. Indirect influences such as these clearly depart from the earlier approach of automatic transfer of forms. Ard and Homburg (1992) viewed transfer as a facilitation of learning. They compared the responses of two groups of learners whose NLs were Spanish and Arabic on the vocabulary section of a standard test of English. Of major interest were the response patterns to noncognate items (in general, words of Germanic origin in English) on which the Spanish learners outperformed the Arabic learners. Ard and Homburg hypothesized that this suggests accelerated learning rates. The Spanish speakers, because so many cognates exist between their NL and the TL, can focus more of their "learning time" on
< previous page
page_39
next page >
< previous page
page_40
next page > Page 40
other aspects of language (in this case other vocabulary items). Thus, knowing a language that is related in some way to the TL can help in many ways, only some of which can be accounted for by the mechanical carry-over of items and structures. Zobl (1982) pointed out the importance of developmental pace. He reanalyzed data from Henkes (1974) in which three children (French, Arabic, Spanish) were observed in their acquisition of the English copula (the verb "to be"), a form that is present in French (sa maison est vielle "her or his house is old") and Spanish (su casa es vieja "her or his house is old"), but absent in Arabic (baytuhu [house] qadimun [old]). Copula use was not consistent for any of the three children. However, whereas the Arabic child continued to use the copula variably, even at a fairly advanced state of syntactic acquisition, the other two children regularly employed the copula. Thus, although the same phenomenon of copula use was observed in all three children, it took the Arabic child longer to use the English verb "to be'' appropriately due to the absence of the category in his NL. Although we have seen that there are stages in acquisition, there are instances in which these stages of acquisition are not identical for speakers of all languages. Zobl (1982) compared the acquisition of the English definite article by a native Chinesespeaking child and a native Spanish-speaking child. The Chinese speaking child, whose language does not have a definite article, used the English word this for the same function that the serves in English. The data also show that the definitizer this developmentally precedes the true English definitizer, the article the. On the other hand, the Spanish-speaking child, whose language does have definite articles, showed frequent use of both this and the. The differences between these two children suggest that their NLs led them down different pathsthe Chinese child through a stage in which this occurs before the definite article and the Spanish child to a starting point in which the definite article the and the demonstrative this co-occur. Not only are there different paths of development, but we also find quantitatively different uses of forms depending on the NL. Schachter and Rutherford (1979) examined compositions written by university students who were NSs of Chinese and Japanese learning English. Both Chinese and Japanese rely heavily on the concept of topic with sentences organized around a "topic comment" structure (As for meat [topic], we don't eat it anymore [comment]). What Schachter and Rutherford found was an overproduction of sentences such as "It is very unfortunate that . . . " and sentences with there is or there are ("There is a small restaurant near my house in my country. Many things of the restaurant are like those. . . . "). They claimed that these structures were being used to carry the weight of a particular discourse function, even though the TL makes use of other forms for that same function. They hypothesized that the NL is at play here: There is an influence of NL function (the need to express topiccomment type structures) to L2 form. All of these examples show indirect influence of the NL on the SLA process. An interesting proposal in the area of transfer is that made by Kellerman (1979). Basic to his view of the role of the NL is the learner's perception of the distance between the L1 and the L2. For example, a Spanish speaker learning Italian may consider a good portion of the NL grammar as being "the same" as that of the TL syntax. Hence, in this particular situation, we would expect to find a greater amount of reliance on the NL than we would if the same learner were learning Japanese. Kellerman's work and that of Gass (1979) is significant in that they attempt to place the study of transfer within a cognitive framework, thereby discrediting the implicit assumption of the necessary relationship between transfer and behaviorism. In this view, the learner is seen as "making decisions"
< previous page
page_40
next page >
< previous page
page_41
next page > Page 41
about which forms and functions of the NL are appropriate candidates for use in the L2. The constraints on language transfer transcend the linguistic boundaries of similarity/dissimilarity of the NL and TLs and encompass as a major variable the learner's decision-making processes relating to the potential transferability of linguistic elements. If learners use the NL to make predictions about the TL, what is the basis on which these decisions are made? Linguistic information can be categorized along a continuum that ranges from those parts of language that a learner believes to be common to both the NL and the TL (e.g., writing conventions, certain aspects of semantics, stylistics, certain grammatical structures) to those parts of language where a learner anticipates differences between the NL and the TL (e.g., most of the syntax, pronunciation, idioms, inflections). Those parts of language that the learner perceives as similar will more likely be used in an L2 situation. Variation There is much variation in the language that learners produce. Some of the variation is a reflection of learning. As learners are testing out various hypotheses about the L2, they inevitably do not produce correct forms at all times. Some of the variation is systematic (i.e., it reflects a [faulty] hypothesis that learners havesee Example 1) and some of it is free (i.e., learners use one form one time and another form another timeall with apparent randomness). However, there are times when variation is important as far as actual learning is concerned, in particular variation due to factors of context. Tarone and Liu (1995) argued, on the basis of interactional data in three settings, that a learner's involvement "in different kinds of interaction can differentially affect the rate and route of the acquisition process" (p.108). They examined data from a Chinese NS learning English in Australia (from age 5 to age 7). Data were collected in three situations: (a) in interactions with teachers, (b) in interactions with peers, and (c) in interactions with the researcher (in English, although the researcher was a native speaker of Chinese). With regard to rate of acquisition, Tarone and Liu argued that new forms nearly always emerge in one context (in this case, interaction with the researcher) and then spread to the context with peers and then to interactions with teachers. What is important, however, is the fact that new forms emerge from interactions themselves, and it is the unique demands of each interaction that differentially allow for the emergence of new forms. In other words, different contexts push the learner to produce new forms to a greater extent than other contexts. Ultimate Attainment Age Effects One recognized fact about L2 learning is that it is rare to become completely proficient in more than one language when the learning of the L2 begins as an adult. There have been a number of proposals over the years as to why a nonnative-like end state for acquisition is common. Among the arguments that have been put forth are (a) loss of neural plasticity, (b) lack of access to the innate module proposed for first language learning, and (c) cognitive maturity. Lenneberg (1967) made the strongest argument relating to the so-called "critical period hypothesis" (although it should be noted that his main claims were with regard to
< previous page
page_41
next page >
< previous page
page_42
next page > Page 42
L1 rather than L2 learning). The critical period hypothesis holds that there is a critical period for language learning. Although the age at which this occurs is in debate, some parts of language, for example pronunciation, might have a critical age as early as 6. If learning does not occur prior to that point, the ultimate attainment for L2 learning will be something less than nativelike ability. His argument rested on the assumption that there was a "termination of a state of organizational plasticity linked with lateralization of function" (p. 167). In other words, lack of language learning was directly related to brain functions due to the normal process of aging. A second explanation that has been posited is that there is a loss of access to UG, the innate mental faculty responsible for learning one's L1 (see discussion in Birdsong, 1999). One means by which this can happen is the "use it and lose it" phenomenon; that is, once it is used it disappears. A second way is that UG is still present, but for some reason not available for language learning. A third possible explanation for lack of completeness of adult language learning has been put forth by Newport (1990, 1991) and has to do with the greater cognitive maturity of adults. Children, with small memory capacity, are able to process the input more efficiently. That is, they take in smaller bits of input and can more readily analyze those small chunks. Adults, on the other hand, take in greater bits of information and have the concomitant problem of being confronted with the need to analyze large amounts of language, a process that is not successful given the onerous task involved. There is research addressing both sides of the critical period issue (i.e., that a critical period exists and that a critical period does not exist). There are those who make the argument that adult L2 learning is indeed constrained by age. Johnson and Newport (1989) in a study of Korean and Chinese learners of English (all with greater than 5 years of residence in the United States) in which age of arrival was varied, found that up until age 17, there was an age-of-arrival effect (knowledge of English decreased as a function of age of arrival), but after age 17, results on a test of linguistic knowledge were more or less random. These results have been challenged by a number of other researchers who have found age-of-arrival effects for learners who arrived in an L2 environment after age 17 (Bialystok & Hakuta, 1999; Birdsong, 1992); for further discussion, see Birdsong, 1999). Birdsong (1999) reported a number of studies that show nativelike attainment for learners who began learning an L2 after childhood (e.g., Cranshaw, 1997; White & Genesee, 1996). It should be noted that many of these studies deal with specific features of language and do not look at the entire picture of the learner's language. In a study that looked at a number of linguistic features, Coppetiers (1987) found that although many late learners could "pass" as NSs, they often had intuitions about the L2 that were dissimilar from those of NSs (however, see Birdsong, 1992, whose results differed). The jury is still out on the question as to the validity of the critical period hypothesis. What does seem to be relatively clear is that there are various "windows of opportunity" for L2 learning. For example, Long (1990) proposed that the window for pronunciation may be as young as age 6, but the window for other parts of language considerably later, perhaps as late as age 15. Aptitude and Motivation In addition to age-related explanations for lack of L2 learning are individual features such as motivation (i.e., attitude and other affective factors) and aptitude (relating to cognitive
< previous page
page_42
next page >
< previous page
page_43
next page > Page 43
capacities). With regard to motivation, like all types of learning, motivation to learn a language is undoubtedly at play in the success or lack of success in learning. Although IQ does not seem to relate to ultimate success, there do seem to be individual propensities toward language learning (language aptitude) (see Ellis, 1994; Gass & Selinker, 1994; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). In sum, the preceding sections have discussed issues of ultimate attainment and some of the possible reasons why L2 learning in adults almost inevitably falls short of native-like abilities. Clearly, SLA in adults differs from the seemingly effortless acquisition of one's NL by all normal children. Pedagogical Implications This brief summary of SLA has not dealt with teaching, partly out of a belief held by most researchers that we can only apply our findings with caution (see Hatch, 1978). However, there are some general lessons that we can learn. First, given that L2 systems are created by individual learners, it is inevitable that not all learners will organize their L2 grammars in exactly the same way. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that although teachers can teach (i.e., organize the language for students), learners may or may not learn precisely what teachers believe they are teaching. Second, language learning is a long process; results are not instantaneous. Learners must take the input and have the opportunity to "work" with it by using it (see Swain, 1985, 1995) in an interactive setting. Presenting bits of language and expecting that language to be assimilated by learners is a basic misunderstanding of how the process of language learning takes place. Third, as we have seen, language learning is arduous; it does not come easily. As Lightbown (1985) pointed out, we as teachers need to have realistic expectations of our students' successes as well as their lack of success. It is through an understanding of the processes involved in learning an L2 or a foreign language that we can ultimately come to appreciate the task that confronts students in language classrooms. A Possible Scenario Early in this chapter, I mentioned that I would not differentiate between L2 and foreign language learning because there is little evidence that the mental processes involved differ. Nonetheless, in spite of all they do have in common in terms of both theory and pedagogical issues, language professionals (whether in foreign languages, English as a second language [ESL] or a bilingual/dual language program) are often isolated from each other. For example, in a foreign language department, there may be only one person who has expertise in German language learning and/or teaching, one person with expertise in French language learning and/or teaching, and so forth. Further, on a given campus, the ESL and foreign language faculty may be housed in different departments and, as a result, rarely interact with each other. What is particularly unfortunate is that the discrete entities represented by departmental boundaries perpetuate the isolationism (noted also in high schools): The French language coordinator does not regularly talk with the German language coordinator. This same isolation is also seen in professional organizations, such as the AATs (American Association of Teachers of [your language here]), which are divided up by language, TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of
< previous page
page_43
next page >
< previous page
page_44
next page > Page 44
Other Languages), which deals with English, LCTL (less commonly taught languages) organizations, and so forth. A greater sense of language community is needed as a way of exploiting what we know of the commonalities of research in the learning and teaching of diverse languages. At Michigan State University we recently established, with federal funds, the Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR) (http://clear.msu.edu/). The Center has as its major goal the improvement of language teaching and language learning throughout the United States; it is doing this through greater coordination of L2 and foreign language-related activities. For example, individuals from Spanish and ESL are working together on joint research projects. Individuals with expertise in African languages are developing, together with those with expertise in ESL, a tutor's manual. What is being created on campus through a research center (other campuses [e.g., University of Arizona, University of Illinois] have accomplished similar goals through joint graduate programs) is a framework for cooperation and sharing of information. We firmly believe that there is no such thing as a theory of learning or teaching French that is separate from a theory of learning or teaching Spanish or English. As stated earlier, this is not to say that there are not contextual differences, but that as a profession, we all have the same objectives. To meet our common goals, greater efforts must be made to exploit our areas of common concern and to feed our areas of similarity while, at the same time, being mindful of where different languages force divergence. References Ard, J. & Homburg, T. (1992). Verification of language transfer. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 4770). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a "natural sequence" in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24, 235243. Barasch, R., & James, C. (Eds.), (1994). Beyond the monitor model: Current theory and practice in second language acquisition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1999). Confounded age: Linguistic and cognitive factors in age differences for second language acquisition. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Critical period hypothesis (pp. 161181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68, 706755. Birdsong, D. (1999). Introduction: Whys and why nots of the critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Critical period hypothesis (pp. 122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cazden, C. (1972). Child language and education. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Cook, V. (1988). Chomsky's universal grammar. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell. Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Macmillan. Coppetiers, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and non-native speakers. Language, 63, 544573. Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161170. Cranshaw, A. (1997). A study of Anglophone native and near-native linguistic and metalinguistic performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Montreal, Quebec. Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 3753. Eckman, F. (1996). On evaluating arguments for special nativism in second language acquisition theory. Second Language Research, 12, 398419. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Gaies, S. (1979). Linguistic input in first and second language learning. In F. Eckman & A. Hastings (Eds.), Studies in first and second language acquisition (pp. 185193). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29, 327344.
< previous page
page_44
next page >
< previous page
page_45
next page > Page 45
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gass, S., Fleck, C., Leder, N., & Svetics, I. (1998). Ahistoricity revisited: Does SLA have a history? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 407421. Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1989). Incorporated repairs in NNS discourse. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage (pp. 7186). New York: Plenum. Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen's monitor and Occam's razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79100. Gregg, K. (1986). Review of Krashen (1985). TESOL Quarterly, 20, 116122. Hamilton, R. (1996). Against underdetermined reflexive binding. Second Language Research, 4, 420446. Hanania, E. (1974). Acquisition of English structures: A case study of an adult native speaker of Arabic in an English-speaking environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. Hatch, E. (1978). Apply with caution. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 123143. Hatch, E. (1983). Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Henkes, T. (1974). Early stages in the non-native acquisition of English syntax: A study of three children from Zaire, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of ESL. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 6099. Kellerman, E. (1979). Transfer and non-transfer: Where we are now. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 3757. Kellerman, E. (1985). If at first you do succeed. . . . In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 345354). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Kleifgen, J. (1985). Skilled variation in a kindergarten teacher's use of foreigner talk. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 5968). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Krashen, S. (1980). The input hypothesis. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Current issues in bilingual education (pp. 168180). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: Pergamon. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman. Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Long-man. Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley. Lightbown, P. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. In H. Seliger & M. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 217243). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Lightbown, P. (1985). Great expectations: Second-language acquisition research and classroom teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6, 173189. Long, M. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 5. 177193. Long, M. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 251285. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413468). San Diego: Academic Press. Mackey, A. (1995). Stepping up the pace: Input, interaction and interlangauge development, an empirical study of questions in ESL. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney, Australia. Newport, E. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 1128. Newport, E. (1991). Contrasting conceptions of the critical period for language. In S. Carey & R. Gelman (Eds.), The epigenesis of mind (pp. 111130). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. O'Grady, W. (1996). Language acquisition without universal grammar: A general nativist proposal for learning. Second Language Research, 4, 374397. O'Grady, W. (1997, October). Plenoquium: SLA and theories of mind. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI.
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45141). Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP.
< previous page
page_45
next page >
< previous page
page_46
next page > Page 46
Scarcella, R., & Higa, C. (1981). Input, negotiation and age differences in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 31, 409438. Schachter, J., & Rutherford, W. (1979). Discourse function and language transfer. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 19, 312. Schumann, J. (1979). The acquisition of English negation by speakers of Spanish: A review of the literature. In R. Andersen (Ed.), The acquisition and use of Spanish and English as first and second languages (pp. 332). Washington, DC: TESOL. Selinker, L (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209231. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensive output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125144). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Tarone, E., & Liu, G. (1995). Situational context, variation, and second language acquisition theory. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 107124). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Thomas, M. (1998). Ahistoricity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 387405. Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 7190. Wagner-Gough, J., & Hatch, E. (1975). The importance of input data in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning, 25, 297307. White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. White, L. (1992). Universal grammar: Is it just a new name for old problems? In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 217232). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. White, L. (1996, November). The tale of the ugly duckling (or the coming of age of second language acquisition research). Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston. White, L., & Genesee, F. (1996). How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 12, 238265. Wolfe-Quintero, K. (1996). Nativism does not equal Universal Grammar. Second Language Research, 12, 335373. Zobl, H. (1982). A direction for contrastive analysis: The comparative study of developmental sequences. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 169183.
< previous page
page_46
next page >
< previous page
page_47
next page > Page 47
PART II MAJOR MODELS: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
< previous page
page_47
next page >
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
< previous page
page_49
next page > Page 49
3 Foreign Language Instruction Carol A. Klee University of Minnesota Today, the study of a "modern" foreign language is such an integral part of the college/university curriculum that is it easy to forget that this was not always true. Modern foreign languages (MFL) began to appear in universities in the United States toward the end of the 18th century, and they did not become established as a formal part of the curriculum until the late 19th century (Bagster-Collins, 1930). The rise of MFLs paralleled the acceptance of a more liberal conception of college education, resulting in the development of the elective system of undergraduate courses (Bagster-Collins, 1930). The place of foreign languages in the curriculum was originally defined in relationship to the classical languages. In an attempt to overcome the reputation that modern languages had as "easy" and not worthy of serious academic study, modern language departments modeled themselves after two respected disciplines: the philological study of languages (the history of the language combined with reading texts illustrating earlier phases of the language) and classical studies (the analysis of literary texts that form part of the canon). Stern (1964), in his description of language study at British universities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, reported: At the beginning the model of the classics loomed so large that the fact that these languages were modern and living was treated as quite incidental. French and German texts were read in the manner of studying Cicero or Tacitus. Prose composition, regarded by teachers in the older public schools and in the universities as a great mental discipline, was adopted so as to prove to the skeptics that a modern prose could be as exacting as a classical one. (p. 50) Clearly, our perspective has changed over time, and many of today's college students consider the study of MFLs to be "hard." Furthermore, if they are going to learn a language, most students want to be able to use it, particularly to speak it. Even so, the reasons that undergraduates take foreign languages today are as varied as the students themselves. Adapting a classification scheme from Brecht and Walton (1995), the students can be categorized in the following ways: Students who have no commitment to language but are required to fulfill a basic language requirement, Heritage learners (either the children or grandchildren of immigrants, refugees, or Native Americans) whose needs are quite different from those of native English speakers studying the same target language, Students who are majoring in a foreign language,
< previous page
page_49
next page >
< previous page
page_50
next page > Page 50
Students majoring in international studies, business, engineering, nursing, and so forth, who would like to develop proficiency in a second language to enhance their career opportunities, Students who are studying languages "to meet specific personal or occupational desires or needs." Foreign language instruction today is undergoing exciting changes, and there are several reasons for this. First, colleges and universities are enrolling an increasingly diverse student population. Second, students (who are not foreign language majors) are choosing to study languages so that they can use them for business, professional, cultural, and/or personal reasons. Third, the range of languages being offered is broadening. And fourth, computers, the Internet, and the World Wide Web (WWW) are changing both instructional practices and available instructional materials. All of these topicswith the exception of computers, the internet, and the WWWwill be considered in this chapter. (The "new technologies" and their impact on language teaching and learning are described in depth in chapter 14 of this volume.) To provide the appropriate background against which to examine the status of foreign language instruction in the United States today, let us begin by looking at data collected by the Modern Language Association (MLA), which summarizes recent trends and current enrollments in foreign languages. In the section that follows, data related to total enrollments in MFLs, enrollment patterns by specific languages, growth of the less commonly taught languages (LCTLs), the increasing number of heritage language (HL) learners, and undergraduate majors in foreign languages are discussed. Current Enrollment Trends in Modern Foreign Languages Total Registrations in Modern Foreign Languages According to data collected by the MFA (Brod & Huber, 1997; Huber, 1996), registrations in the MFLs grew substantially during the 1960s, declined during the 1970s, and began to increase once again during the 1980s and 1990s (Huber, 1996). This is illustrated in Fig. 3.1 which, in addition, shows that registrations in foreign language courses have almost doubled since 1960. Enrollments in Specific Modern Foreign Languages Although Fig. 3.1 shows us that enrollment in foreign languages is once again increasing, it does not indicate which MFLs are being studied. In fact, over the last 40 years, the vast majority of foreign language registrations have been in French, Spanish, and German (Brod & Huber, 1997). Until 1968, French was the most widely taught foreign language; however, in 1969, it was surpassed by Spanish (Kant, 1970). In 1995, enrollments in Spanish comprised 53% of the total registrations at the postsecondary level, 50% of the foreign language registrations at 4-year institutions, and 69% at 2-year institutions (Brod & Huber, 1997). However, since 1960, total registrations in Spanish, French, and German have declined from 92% in 1960 to 85% in 1985. In other words, enrollment in other languages
< previous page
page_50
next page >
< previous page
page_51
next page > Page 51
Fig 3.1 Registrations in modern foreign languages at colleges and universities in the United States by year. From Brod and Huber (1997). Copyright 1997. Reprinted with permission of the Modern Language Association of America. is increasing. This is shown in Table 3.1, which includes registrations and percentage change in enrollment in 10 languages for select years between 1960 and 1995. As shown in Table 3.1, the two languages that had the greatest and most consistent growth were Chinese and Japanese. Nonetheless, together they account for only 6% of the total 1995 registrations. Enrollments in Arabic, Italian, and Portuguese also grew but showed some fluctuations. French and German demonstrated strong growth during the 1960s but suffered decline during the 1970s and the first half of the 1990s. Enrollments in Russian were volatile with strong increases in the 1960s and 1980s, but with dramatic declines in the 1970s and early 1990s. Enrollments in Hebrew increased during the period of 19601980, decreased during the 1980s, and showed only a minimal increase between 1990 and 1995. Registrations in Spanish have increased more than three-fold since the 1960s. As total enrollments in foreign languages and student interest in the different languages shift, foreign language programs at colleges and universities have had to adapt TABLE 3.1 Registrations in the 10 Leading Modern Foreign Languages in Selected Years with Percentage Change Registrations Percentage Change Between Surveys 1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 19601970 19701980 19801990 19901995 541 1,333 3,4555 3,475 4,444 +146.4 +160.0 +0.3 +27.9 Arabic 1,844 6,238 11,366 19,490 26,471 +238.3 +82.2 +71.5 +35.8 Chinese 228,813 359,313 248,361 272,472 205,351 +57.0 -30.9 +9.7 -24.6 French 146,116 202,569 126,910 133,348 96,263 +38.6 -37.3 +5.1 -27.8 German 3,834 16,567 19,429 12,995 13,127 +332.1 +17.3 -33.1 +1.0 Hebrew 11,142 34,244 34,791 49,699 43,760 +207.3 +1.6 +42.9 -11.9 Italian 1,746 6,620 11,506 45,717 44,723 +279.2 +73.8 +297.3 -2.2 Japanese 1,033 5,065 4,894 6,211 6,531 +390.3 -3.4 +26.9 +5.2 Portuguese 30,570 36,189 23,987 44,626 24,729 +18.4 -33.7 +86.0 -44.6 Russian 178,689 389,150 379,379 533,944 606,286 +117.8 -2.5 +40.7 +13.5 Spanish 604,328 1,057,288 864,089 1,121,977 1,071,685 +75.0 -18.3 +29.8 -4.5 Total Note. From Brod and Huber (1997). Copyright 1997. Adapted with permission of the Modern Language Association of America.
< previous page
page_51
next page >
< previous page
page_52
next page > Page 52
their course offerings (Brod & Huber, 1997). During the period between 1970 and 1990, almost all postsecondary institutions offered at least one of the three most commonly taught languages (Spanish, French, and German) and the percentage of institutions that offered Russian, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, Portuguese, or Arabic grew by 27% during the same period. Between 1974 and 1990, the East Asian and Southeast Asian languages demonstrated the greatest increases in the percentage of institutions that offered them, whereas smaller gains were registered in Arabic, Hebrew, and other Near Eastern languages. During the same period, declines were indicated in the percentage of institutions offering African languages, South Asian languages, German, Scandinavian languages, and Slavic languages (other than Russian). In general, the MLA surveys undertaken in the 1990s reveal higher overall registrations in foreign languages than at any time since 1960. However, it is important to keep in mind that college enrollments have been climbing concurrently. Thus, the ratio of MFL registrations per 100 enrollments actually fell from 16.1 in 1960 to 7.6 in 1995 (Brod & Huber, 1997). In fact, the proportion of college students studying MFLs dropped almost steadily from 1960 to 1980 when it once again began to rise. What is encouraging is that the recent growth in registrations in MFLs now exceeds the rate at which the college enrollment is increasing (Huber, 1996). Enrollment in the Less Commonly Taught Languages Languages other than the ones listed in Table 3.1 are designated LCTLs. More than 100 languages fall into this classification, and they range from Afrikaans, Akkadian, and American Sign Language to Yoruba, Yupik, and Zulu (Brod & Huber, 1997). LCTLs have demonstrated considerable growth since 1960. In fact, between 1968 and 1995 registrations in these languages have tripled (see Table 3.2). In 1995, the LCTLs with enrollments over 1,000 were American Sign Language, Hawaiian, Korean, Swahili, and Vietnamese (Brod & Huber 1997). The growing importance of the LCTLs raises a variety of questions about their place in American foreign language instruction (Walton, 1992), and three subsequent chapters in this volume also deal with LCTLs (American Sign Language in chap. 6, Native-American languages in chap. 7, and HLs in chap. 8). Several issues related to the LCTLs (low enrollments, hiring qualified faculty, finding appropriate instructional materials, and funding) are discussed later in this chapter. Heritage Language Instruction In the United States, foreign language instruction is also being changed by the increasing population of HL learners. Generally speaking, these are individuals who have grown up in homes where a language other than English is spoken. Some HL learners are Native Americans, and efforts at the college/university level to revive their languages are discussed in chap. 7 of this volume. Others are the children and grandchildren of immigrants and refugees who want to learn their ancestral language. It is this latter population who is having a notable impact on the foreign language curriculum. As a result of changes in U.S. immigration laws made in the 1960s, the number of heritage learners has increased significantly. This is particularly true for students with Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Russian home language backgrounds. These students demonstrate varying abilities and proficiencies in their heritage language, depending in
< previous page
page_52
next page >
< previous page
page_53
next page > Page 53
TABLE 3.2 Registrations in the Less Commonly Taught Modern Foreign Languages in Selected Years Registrations 1968 1972 1986 1990 1995 Less commonly taught 8,111 13,618 13,576 17,544 24,918 Note. From Brod and Huber (1997). Copyright 1997. Adapted with permission of the Modern Language Association of America. TABLE 3.3 Bachelor's Degrees Conferred by Institutions of Higher Education for Selected Years in Foreign Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics Year Total French German Spanish Other Languages 19,055 7,306 (38.3%) 7,068 (37.1%) 2,080 (10.9%) 19701971 2,601 (13.6%) 19751976 15,079 4,783 (31.7%) 5,984 (39.7%) 2.329 (15.4%) 1,983 (13.2%) 19801981 10,050 3,178 (31.6%) 3,870 (38.5%) 1,716 (17.1%) 1,286 (12.8%) 19851986 9,808 3,015 (30.7%) 3,385 (34.5%) 2,012 (20.5%) 1,396 (14.2%) 19901991 11,724 3,355 (29.6%) 4,480 (38.2%) 2,346 (20.0%) 1,543 (13.2%) 19951996 13,952 2,655 (19.0%) 5,995 (44.1%) 4,012 (28.8%) 1,290 (9.2%) Note. Data obtained from the National Library of Education, U.S. Department of Education. part on whether they are of the first, second, or third generation. Oftentimes, they are excellent at the interpersonal mode in oral modalities but have not had the opportunity to develop literacy skills and more formal registers in their HL. Because the presence of heritage learners in a traditional foreign language classroom may intimidate true beginners (those totally unfamiliar with the target language) and their language-learning needs are different, colleges and universities are beginning to develop separate courses and tracks for heritage students. These specially designed courses reinforce the strengths in the interpersonal mode and the cultural knowledge that heritage students have already acquired while providing them with practice and proficiency building in reading, writing, and the acquisition of academic registers in their HL (cf. Valdés, 1997). Unfortunately, there are no data available on the number of HL students, courses, or programs. (In chap. 8 of this volume, Campbell and Rosenthal describe the current status of post-secondary HL instruction, reviewing the literature, comparing ''typical" foreign language learners with HL learners, and discussing the many concerns still facing those in the process of developing HL programs.) Undergraduate Foreign Language Majors The number of undergraduates majoring in a foreign language and the languages they are studying follow trends similar to those discussed earlier, as is evident in Table 3.3. From a high of 19,055 in 19701971, the number of students who graduated with a B.A. in foreign languages dropped by almost 50% in 19851986, but in the 1990s has begun to increase once again. Whereas the percentage of French majors diminished dramatically during the same period, the percentage of Spanish majors grew slightly and the
< previous page
page_53
next page >
< previous page
page_54
next page > Page 54
percentage of majors in other languages, such as Russian, Japanese, Italian, and Chinese, increased 2.5 times, reflecting the expanding interest in LCTLs. From the information presented in this section about current enrollment trends in MFLs, it is clear that not only is student interest in the various MFLs shifting but also the undergraduate population is changing in ways that affect how courses are taught. For example, whereas foreign language instructors used to be able to assume that in most instances their students were monolingual speakers of English, this is no longer true. Not only is there an increasing HL learner population. The number of international/foreign undergraduates studying in the United States also reached a high of 267,600 in 1995 (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1998). Thus, as the undergraduate population grows increasingly diverse culturally and linguistically, more students enrolled in foreign language classes actually may be studying their second or even third foreign language. (Some of the issues related to these topics are discussed in chap. 4 of this volumewhich deals with the instruction of English as a Second Language (ESL)and in chap. 10 of this volume, which addresses tertiary [third] language learning.) The Changing Focus of Foreign Language Instruction The remarkable growth in the teaching of the LCTLs, heritage languages, and languages other than French, Spanish, and German illustrate that foreign language instruction continues to evolve. Change applies equally as well to the methods of foreign language instruction. In what follows, the methods used to teach foreign languages along with their rationales are discussed. The information is presented in two sections: "Historical Perspectives" and "The Here and Now." Historical Perspectives There has never been unanimity regarding the best approach to language teaching. When the study of MFLs became integrated into the college curriculum in the late 19th century, some faculty focused on a grammar translation approach (Patrikis, 1995). This involved the explicit teaching of the target language grammar and translation from the foreign language into English. Others, who were proponents of the direct method (which has existed from the time of the Renaissance, cf. Musumeci, 1997; Titone, 1968), were convinced that students learned more effectively if the foreign language was taught without translation and without the use of the learner's native tongue. With this direct method, grammar was taught inductively. Thus, even as MFLs were being established in the university curriculum, there was not a consensus on how they should be taught (Patrikis, 1995). Not only was there disagreement about the most effective methods for teaching MFLs, but there also were differences in opinion as to the importance of the various language skills (speaking, listening, reading, and writing). The Coleman Report (Coleman, 1929) recommended that language programs emphasize reading, and its implementation resulted in a critical deficit that was recognized with the advent of World War II and the subsequent development of the Army Specialists' Training Program (ASTP), which focused on the development of oral skills. A defining moment in foreign language education in the United States during the 20th century occurred, in part, as a result of the panic associated with the launching of Sputnik by the Soviet Union in 1957. For the first time, foreign language teaching became
< previous page
page_54
next page >
< previous page
page_55
next page > Page 55
a matter of national interest. As a result, Congress provided increased funding for the improvement of foreign language programs at all levels of instruction. With input from structural linguists and behavioral psychologists, a new "scientific" method of language teaching was developed for schools, the audiolingual method (ALM). ALM was an adaptation of the successful method used by the ATSP during World War II (Richards & Rodgers, 1986) but which in the version used in schools and universities eliminated the most expensive elements (e.g., small class size, immersion in the language, etc.) and focused on the development of oral skills through imitation and rote drill. Grammar and vocabulary tended to be assessed as discrete-point items, and students were expected to master the patterns of the language before creativity was encouraged. Unfortunately, the repetitious drills and audio labs that characterized the ALM did not deliver on its promise to provide a citizenry fluent in a second language. At the same time as ALM fell into disuse, advances in the fields of linguistics, second language acquisition, cognitive psychology, and critical pedagogy, among others, brought about major changes in foreign language instruction. The focus of language classes changed from grammar-based, teacher-centered instruction to an emphasis on functional language use and learner-centered practices. In the early 1970s, a new model of language acquisition that focused on the development of communicative competence was introduced (Savignon, 1997). The emphasis shifted from discrete phonological, morphological, and syntactic contrasts between the native and the target language to the functional use of the second language, that is, on negotiating meaning, getting a message across, and using language appropriate to the social context. Canale's (see Canale, 1983, Canale & Swain, 1980) definition of the subcomponents of communicative competence (including grammatical, discourse, sociolinguistic, and strategic competence) had an impact on the development of foreign language curricula and classroom activities. Although many instructors continued to use grammar-based syllabi, they introduced a variety of games, role-plays, simulations, and task-based communicative activities into their classrooms. In addition, more emphasis was given to the use of authentic, "real-life" texts as the basis for oral and written activities. An additional influence on foreign language instruction during this period (1970s and 1980s) resulted, in part, from the President's Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies (1980). The Commission, appointed in 1978, called for the establishment of "language proficiency achievement goals for the end of each year of study at all levels, with special attention to speaking proficiency" (p. 23). Lambert (1987) also made the case for developing and using "a common metric," equivalent across all languages, for "measuring in a objective, consistent fashion the degree of proficiency a person [ . . . ] has in a foreign language" (p. 13). The Educational Testing Service (ETS) and then the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) took the lead in developing proficiency guidelines for a variety of languages and in modifying the Foreign Service Institute's (FSI) oral interview for use at the high school and university levels (Liskin-Gasparro, 1984). Although the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines have been and continue to be widely used, they also have been strongly criticized (cf. Bachman, 1988; Bachman & Savignon, 1986; Bernhardt, 1986; Kramsch, 1986; Lantolf & Frawley, 1985; Lee & Musumeci, 1988; Savignon, 1985; Shohamy, 1990; Valdés, 1989). Nonetheless, in spite of these criticisms, the guidelines continue to be used in the United States as a standard for assessing proficiency, especially for speaking but also for the other modalities of listening, reading, and writing. They also have had an impact on curriculum development (cf. Hadley, 1993).
< previous page
page_55
next page >
< previous page
page_56
next page > Page 56
The Here and Now In the 1990s, attention has turned once again to the issues of methods of instruction and to the continuing debate of skills emphasis (oral/aural v. literacy skills). Many foreign language programs are now concentrating on content-based instruction (CBI) with foreign language learning being incorporated across the curriculum, into substantive courses. In addition, increasing numbers of students are studying languages to better prepare themselves for specific careers. (These "new directions" in foreign language learning are discussed further along in this chapter.) Computer technologies, the Internet, and the WWW also have greatly expanded foreign language-learning opportunities, and these topics, as previously mentioned, are discussed in detail in chap. 14 by Warschauer and Meskill. In summary, the debates over whether primacy should be given to the development of oral skills or reading, and whether the focus should be on grammar analysis or direct access to texts have, in fact, remained unresolved and continue to the present. Perhaps this is to be expected because more students are studying a wider range of foreign languages for multiple reasons. Indeed, four major foreign language associations (i.e., ACTFL, the American Association of Teachers of French, the American Association of Teachers of German, and the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese) recently approved Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century (1996) in which language educators are asked to broaden the way they think about language teaching. To quote the Standards, "the current organizing principle for language study is communication" which involves "knowing how, when, and why, to say what to whom" (p. 11). In other words, it is not enough to have knowledge of vocabulary and grammar; sociolinguistc and cultural aspects of language are also important. The Standards emphasize five goal areas: (1) communicate in languages other than English, (2) gain knowledge and understanding of other cultures, (3) connect with other disciplines and acquire information, (4) develop insight into the nature of language and culture, and (5) participate in multilingual communities at home and around the world. These goal areas encompass both the traditional reasons for studying a foreign language (Goals 2 and 4) and the more recent directions in which foreign language learning has been moving (1, 3, and 5). In fact, Goal 3 refers to many of the newer approaches to foreign language learningsuch as CBI and languages for special/specific purposes (LSP)which have become increasingly popular in recent years. Both CBI and LSP are described in the next two subsections. Content-based Foreign Language Instruction Stryker and Leaver (1997) defined a CBI approach as one in which "language proficiency is achieved by shifting the focus of instruction from the learning of language per se to the learning of language through the study of subject matter" (p. 5). They cited three major characteristics of content-based language instruction: 1. Organization of the curriculum is taken from the subject matter such as social studies, history, business, and economics, and communicative competence is acquired while learning about these subjects. 2. "Texts, videotapes, audio recordings, and visual aids" should be primarily authentic, that is, produced for native speakers of the language.
< previous page
page_56
next page >
< previous page
page_57
next page > Page 57
3. The topics, content matter, and learning activities should correspond to the cognitive, linguistic, and affective needs of students and should be appropriate to their professional and personal goals. CBI can be used at all levels of the curriculum and in courses whose primary objective is language development as well as those in specific content areas (cf. Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989). CBI has not only become increasingly popular for foreign language instruction; it is also widely used in the teaching of English as a Second Language (ESL), and in chap. 4 of this volume, Reppy and Adames describe CBI in the ESL context. One type of CBI that has become more widely disseminated in the 1990s is Languages Across the Curriculum (LAC), also known as Foreign Languages Across the Curriculum (FLAC). With LAC and FLAC, foreign languages are used for instructional purposes, for lecturing, in recitation sections, and/or for the reading of authentic materials in substantive courses representing a variety of academic disciplines. The rationale for LAC as stated by the Consortium for Languages Across the Curriculum (1996, http://www.language.brown.edu/LAC/Administration/Principles.html) is the following: 1. Understanding of a given culture and its documents and artifacts is greatly enhanced through a knowledge of its language. 2. A curriculum that includes materials in multiple languages provides access to a wider range of perspectives, encourages greater depth of exploration, and opens the door to greater understanding. 3. The use of materials in multiple languages significantly enhances any and all disciplinary inquiry. 4. LAC enhances cross-cultural competence and the ability of students to function in an increasingly multicultural society and a globalized economy. Traditionally, courses given in a second language have been housed in language and literature departments and have focused primarily on literary, cultural, or linguistic analyses from a humanistic perspective. LAC broadens work in second languages to include the social sciences, the fine arts, agriculture, and the professional schools such as business, law, and engineering (cf. the following volumes for a description of LAC programs at colleges and universities in the United States: Krueger & Ryan, 1993; Straight, 1994; Stryker & Leaver, 1997). Languages for Special/Specific Purposes An innovation closely related to CBI that began in the early to mid-1970s was language for special/specific purposes (LSP). LSP aims to prepare students for specific language needs and careers. In her 1979 survey of the undergraduate foreign language curriculum, Schultz (1979) reported that 31% of the respondents offered career-related courses. A 1989 survey (Grosse & Voght, 1989) of 4-year institutions revealed that 58% of the responding institutions offered LSP courses. Grosse and Voght (1991) reported that "[a]t 4-year academic institutions in the United States, over 60% of LSP courses are offered at the advanced undergraduate level, about 21% at the intermediate level, and about 9% each at the elementary and graduate levels" (p. 181). The development of LSP courses is largely the result of the desire to diversify the curriculum, the wish to attract more students to foreign language study, and the drive to internationalize American higher education (Grosse & Voght, 1991).
< previous page
page_57
next page >
< previous page
page_58
next page > Page 58
Cocurricular Support for Language Acquisition In addition to traditional foreign language courses, HL instruction, CBI, and LSP, many institutions offer cocurricular opportunities for students to practice and acquire a second language as well as to help retain second language proficiency. These include language clubs, which organize everything from lectures and presentations in the second language, to informal conversation groups and social activities. Some institutions provide language houses or language suites or floors in dormitories where students are expected to use the second language as they go about their daily activities. Other programs provide students studying a foreign language with the opportunity to work informally with ESL students who are native speakers of the target language. For example, students might meet over coffee in pairs and exchange 1 hour of conversation in English per week for 1 hour of conversation in the foreign language. Thus, both students benefit from the arrangement. Other types of universitysponsored support for language acquisition include study abroad programs and internship opportunities both locally and abroad. Spanish programs, in particular, have been able to provide internships in local communities because of the large number of Spanish speakers throughout the United States. The Department of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, for example, has developed a community service course that includes an internship program with a social service agency in the Twin Cities (MN) area. Students spend 3 hours per week in the internship and, at the same time, do coursework in Spanish in which they analyze social issues affecting the Spanish-speaking community. Other Relevant and Unresolved Issues in the Teaching of Foreign Languages Because of the changing nature of foreign language instruction, issues that at one time seemed relatively clear-cut and/or resolved are once again under discussion. Among these are (a) the housing and administration of foreign language courses and programs as they broaden their focus and diversify the languages being taught, (b) coping with student demands for a wider range of language offerings at a time when resources are limited, (c) the qualifications of instructors for the teaching of LSPs, LACs, and HLs, (d) the development and/or acquisition of instructional materials appropriate to HL instruction, the LCTLs, FLAC, and other "nontraditional" forms of foreign language instruction, and (e) measuring the linguistic outcomes of our existing foreign language programs. Thus, in the sections that follow these are the topics that are addressed. Housing and Administration of Foreign Language Courses and Programs The administrative structure of foreign language programs varies widely across institutions. Larger universities tend to have separate departments for each language or for groupings of two or more languages based on historical and geographic factors (e.g., Spanish and Portuguese, German and Dutch). Smaller universities tend to form departments of cognate groupings (e.g., department of romance languages and literatures) or place all foreign languages, both modern and classical, or all MFLs in the same department (e.g., department of modern languages). Cornell University (Ithaca, NY) is
< previous page
page_58
next page >
< previous page
page_59
next page > Page 59
one of the few institutions that created a department of modern languages separate from the programs in theoretical linguistics and literary studies, although in 1999 the programs were restructured and the MFLs are once again housed in national departments of literature. Some LCTLs, particularly those that are European (e.g., Portuguese, Dutch, Italian, Russian, Polish) or East Asian languages (e.g., Chinese, Japanese), are housed in humanities departments or in area studies programs (e.g., East Asian Studies or Slavic Studies). However, the truly LCTLs, such as Quechua, Bengali, or Navajo, are often found in linguistics programs or in social science departments, such as anthropology. As Patrikis (1995) pointed out, two different cultures have evolved in terms of the administration of foreign language programs in the United States: The one [that of LCTLs] [is] dependent on external funding, serving primarily graduate students and allied largely to the needs of the social sciences, and the other [that of the commonly taught languages] [is] dependent on internal support, serving primarily undergraduates, and allied largely to the teaching of the humanities." (p. 296) Walton (1992) also addressed concerns related to how "truly foreign languages" (non-Indo-European) should be taught and how the instructors of these languages and the students enrolled in such courses may not fit comfortably into a department that is structured after "the European university model with its emphasis on the arts, history, philosophy and literature of the Western tradition" (p. 8). More recently, a still small but growing movement to create foreign language centers has developed. These groupings generally have not affected the administrative structure of language programs but rather coordinate research projects on second language acquisition, assist with curricular development, placement testing, and teacher preparation, and provide greater visibility for the language teaching components of departments. Such centers have already been established at a number of larger institutions, such as Brown University (Providence, RI) , The University of Hawaii at Manoa, Michigan State University (East Lansing, MI) , The Ohio State University (Columbus, OH), San Diego State University (San Diego, CA), Stanford University (Stanford, CA), the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, and the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA). Phillips (1992) described the contributions of centers as follows: On the concrete side, centers frequently take responsibility for institutional tasks that cross language department boundaries such as placement testing or teaching-assistant training. Externally, centers and consortia often assume the organizing role for conferences, publish newsletters, and conduct outreach programs to schools. While one area of activity purports to deal with research, focusing the research mission to give the center an identity has not occurred in most cases. Rather, we see centers supporting individual research interests of faculty through funds or in-kind resources. . . . A last point: although activities of centers become more abstract when one attempts to assess their ability to foster a better climate for faculty interested in language teaching/learning, this is an area clearly stated in missions and identified by advocates as a major benefit of the centers." (p. 357) Language centers have been successful at providing more interaction and collaboration between faculty in ESL programs and those in foreign languages around joint research projects, conference planning, and curricular issues. The majority of these centers have been financed through the Department of Education's Title VI program for National Language Resource Centers.
< previous page
page_59
next page >
< previous page
page_60
next page > Page 60
Coping with Increasing Student Demand with Limited Resources Although the population of HL learners is increasing as is student interest in the LCTLs, foreign language departments do not necessarily have the instructional staff or the financial resources to meet the demand for such courses. Some institutions have joined together in consortial arrangements in order to meet the demand for LCTLs and/or HL instruction, such as The Five College Consortium (in the Amherst, South Hadley, Northampton area of MA, which includes the University of Massachusetts, Amherst College, Hampshire College, Mt. Holyoke College, and Smith College). Other institutions have turned to individualized or self-paced instruction in which students work through course materials on their own rather than within a structured classroom. Programs of this type began as an experiment in 19621963. In 1969, the Council for Intercultural Studies and Programs with support from the U.S. Office of Education and the Carnegie Foundation extended self-instruction in critical languages (what we now call the LCTLs) nationwide. And, in 1972 the National Association of Self-Instructional Language Programs (NASILP) was founded to foster self-accessed academic programs with a focus on the LCTLs. NASILP continues to offer assistance to institutions at the secondary, college, and university levels with materials selection and utilization, standardization of assessment, and curriculum design and operation. NASILP's programs currently offer individualized instruction in 4550 different languages to approximately 7,500 students each year (cf. their web page at http://www.councilnet.org/pages/FrameNASILPtext.html). Students work independently using a textbook, workbook, audio and video tapes, and computer programs. The most heavily enrolled languages are Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, Portuguese, Modern Greek, Swahili, Korean, and Russian. The mission of the NASLIP fits Brecht and Walton's (1995) recommendation that more attention be given to self-managed learning in which "the learner alone determines which language and culture is to be studied, for what task purposes, for which communication modalities, for which skill modalities, and to what levels of competency" (p. 122). Qualifications of Instructors For "traditional" foreign language instruction, a PhD in languages, literature, and/or linguistics has been the desired credential. However, with diverse students and nontraditional modes of language instruction, staffing issues are no longer so straightforward. For many of the LCTLs, it may not be possible to hire a PhD in the target language. Lambert (1990) referred to some alternatives that have been tried, and in general, have not been successful: "using a string of foreign visitors under, say, the Fulbright Program . . . ; employing the spouse of an expatriate faculty member for whom the language is a mother tongue; giving part-time employment to a foreign graduate student" (p. 30). Although these individuals may be fluent speakers of the target language, they may not be well equipped for teaching American students. As mentioned earlier, consortial arrangements and participation in NASILP have been ways to resolve such staffing problems. When it comes to HL instruction, a different problem arises. If foreign language instructors are trained to teach monolingual English speakers, what do they need to learn and what practices do they need to modify in order to teach HL students who are already somewhat familiar with the target language? This is a topic currently under discussion by HL professionals and is discussed further in chap. 8 of this volume.
< previous page
page_60
next page >
< previous page
page_61
next page > Page 61
And finally, as foreign language instruction broadens it horizons to include CBI and LSPs, questions are being raised as to whether it is more important for the teacher to have expertise in how to teach the foreign language or in the academic discipline that is being studied. Along these lines, Lambert (1991, as cited in Moore and Morfit, 1993) has recommended "developing the foreign language competencies of the faculty . . . outside of the foreign language departments" (p. 50). Clearly, issues related to the qualifications of instructors will not be resolved quickly or easily, and perhaps each institution will have to arrive at a solution that is appropriate to its courses and student population. Instructional Materials Today, the Internet and the WWW allow access to dictionaries, foreign newspapers, foreign language discussion groups, and so on. In fact, with the introduction of microcomputers in the 1980s, language laboratories have been reconstituted as "language media centers" or "learning resource centers" (cf. Scinicariello, 1997, for some recent examples) and now include computer workstations that provide students with access to videodiscs, interactive CD-ROMS, and the Internet (cf. Lafford & Lafford, 1997, for the use of Internet technologies in second language and culture learning). Nonetheless, computer technology "is not a panacea for language teaching; using it demands substantial commitments of time and money and brings no guaranteed results. Yet, when appropriately implemented, new technologies provide the means to help reshape both the content and processes of language instruction (Warschauer & Meskill, chap. 14, this volume)." Thus, in spite of computer technologies, the development and/or acquisition of instructional materials, especially for many of the LCTLs and for HLs, remains problematic. Traditional foreign language texts, in languages such as Spanish, French, and German, are written with the monolingual English speaker in mind. Though many of the students registering in foreign language courses are native English speakers, others are not. For some of the LCTLs, textbooks may have to be acquired from overseas, and they may not be appropriate for teaching native English speakers. In other cases, instructors of LCTLs are creating their own materials. For HL learners, there are a growing number of textbooks written and marketed especially for native Spanish speakers, and as described in chap. 8 of this volume, textbooks for other HLs are under development. However, textbooks are not the only item that is lacking. For example, Walton (1992) referred to the need for updated and improved dictionaries especially for the truly foreign languages. And, many HL instructors (see chap. 8, this volume) are searching for or creating appropriate placement tests. Thus, as foreign language instruction changes, new instructional materials are needed, so it is not surprising that even today there are unmet needs in this domain. The Outcome of Foreign Language Instruction In spite of the continuing effort to produce students who are competent in using a second language and the growing armament for second language instruction, there have been few studies of the linguistic outcomes of students who study foreign languages. The FSI estimates that it takes 240 hours of intensive language instruction for average learners to attain "survival" proficiency (i.e., the ability to "handle successfully a variety of uncomplicated, basic and communicative tasks and social situations"; ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, 1986) in languages such as French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, or
< previous page
page_61
next page >
< previous page
page_62
next page > Page 62
Swedish, and 480 hours to attain similar of proficiency in Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, or Korean (Liskin-Gasparro, 1982). As most college requirements are 2 years or less of nonintensive classes that meet three to five times per week, it is unlikely that undergraduates who meet the minimal language requirements attain even this basic level of proficiency. Furthermore, in both high school and college, 50% of the students at each level of foreign language study drop out at the next level (Lambert, 1992). As a result of these discouraging numbers, and with limited resources to be invested in the study of foreign languages, Lambert (1992) suggested that: At some point a choice will have to be made between putting more national resources into providing a little bit of language instruction to as many students as possible, and directing some of those resources to lengthening the period of study for some students so that they can acquire a meaningful level of competency. (p. 15) There have been few studies of the linguistic outcomes of foreign language majors. An early study reported by Carroll (1967) of 2,784 college seniors majoring in French, German, Italian, Russian, and Spanish at 203 U.S. universities found that "the median graduate with a foreign language major can speak and comprehend the language only at about an FSI speaking rating of 2+ . . . (p. 134)." Level 2 proficiency is described by the FSI as equivalent to "limited working proficiency." At this level speakers are "able to satisfy the requirements of everyday situations and routine school and work requirements. Can handle with confidence, but not with facility complicated tasks and situations, such as elaborating, complaining, and apologizing" (ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, 1986). Magnan (1986) found that a sample of 4th-year French majors at the University of Wisconsin ranged from Level 1 ("Survival Proficiency'') to Level 2+ (which is approaching Level 3, "Professional Working Proficiency") at the end of their college course of study. More recently, a large-scale Proficiency Evaluation Project (PEP) was conducted to assess the proficiency levels of a sample of graduating language majors at selected postsecondary institutions nationwide. This project, inspired by the Carroll (1967) study, was conducted by the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) in Monterey, California, in coordination with ACTFL and the U.S. Department of Education's International Education and Graduate Programs Service. Although research design differences between the two studies complicate direct comparisons of their findings, it was observed that in two of the three languages both studies had in common, larger proportions of PEP students performed at or above the target levels of 2+ and 3 than in the Carroll data, and that in general, Carroll's summary seems still to be true: "if you want to find students with high achievement, go to the largest institutions, especially the private ones" (Lett & Keesling, 1999). Conclusions The biggest challenges that foreign language departments now face are how best to broaden the foreign language curriculum to respond to the needs and interests of students, and how to articulate basic language courses with the upper division courses that follow. Heidi Byrnes (1998) pointed to the crucial role that foreign language departments must learn to play "in enhancing students' literacy, students' ability to interpret and produce texts, orally and in writing, in a fashion that shows a rich awareness of the relation
< previous page
page_62
next page >
< previous page
page_63
next page > Page 63
among the sociocultural contexts of use, meaning, and significance" (p. 283). Faculty need to determine what types of options for further study should be made available for lower division students and how to broaden the curriculum in a way that is academically rigorous and educationally sound. It is also essential that explicit attention be given to language learning at all levels of the undergraduate curriculum. As Dorothy James, a professor of German at Hunter College in the City University of New York, noted in a personal communication (November 1995): "The dichotomy between teaching skills and teaching content is a false one. In a properly organized language and literature program, contentbe it literary or otherwiseis better taught when student skills are simultaneously enhanced, and student skills are better enhanced when they are focused on increasingly challenging intellectual content." The issue of how best to balance content learning and language learning is one that needs to be resolved at all levels of instruction and in all courses that provide instruction in/through a second language. Increased collaboration with faculty involved in these efforts across campus, as is occurring through recently constituted language centers, will contribute to the efforts to develop students' proficiency in foreign languages and will help meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student population. Case Studies The following case studies focus on three types of foreign language programs that can currently be found at many institutions across the country: a "traditional" foreign language program for 1st-year students of German at Stanford University (Stanford, CA); an applied language program, that is, a Spanish class developed for health professionals, at the University of Connecticut at Storrs; and, an LAC program at the University of Kansas (Lawrence, KS). I also would like to thank the following individuals for providing information on their programs: Elizabeth Bernhardt (Professor of German and Director of the Language Center at Stanford University), Barbara Wright (Professor of German and Director of the "Spanning" Program at the University of Connecticut at Storrs), and Hodgie Bricke (Assistant Dean of International Programs at the University of Kansas at Lawrence). Case Study #1: The 1st-Year German Program at Stanford University Stanford University is a private institution that in 1997 enrolled more than 6,600 undergraduates and almost 7,500 graduate students. The University includes Schools of Business, Earth Sciences, Education, Engineering, Humanities, Sciences, Law, and Medicine and grants B.A., B.S., M.A., and PhD degrees in a wide variety of fields. Stanford is consistently ranked as one of the best universities in the United States based on the selectivity of its student body and the high research profile of its faculty members. In 1990, a Committee on Undergraduate Education was charged with analyzing the undergraduate curriculum and recommending changes. Among the recommendations they forwarded to the University Senate in 1994 was a strengthened language requirement. Subsequently approved by the Senate, it requires that all undergraduates complete 1 year of college-level study in a foreign language (or the equivalent). The language requirement can be fulfilled in the following ways (http://language.stanford.edu/requirement/index.html):
< previous page
page_63
next page >
< previous page
page_64
next page > Page 64
Completing three quarters of a 1st-year language course at Stanford or the equivalent at another recognized postsecondary institution. Scoring 4 or 5 on the Educational Testing Service Advanced Placement test in a language other than English. Achieving a satisfactory score on the Scholastic Assessment TestII (SATII) in the following languages (satisfactory scores are given in parentheses): Chinese (630), French (640), German (630), Hebrew (540), Italian (630), Japanese (620), Latin (630), and Spanish (630). Taking a diagnostic test in a particular language that either: (a) places the student out of the requirement or (b) diagnoses them as needing one, two, or three additional quarters of college-level study. In the latter case (b), the requirement can be fulfilled by (c) passing the required number of quarters of college-level language study at Stanford or the equivalent elsewhere, or (d) retaking the diagnostic test at a later date and placing out of the requirement. In addition, the Stanford Senate recommended that to provide high-quality language programs, new structures be established to monitor and assess language teaching and student performance within language departments. A Language Center was established and charged with "the responsibility for establishing and maintaining language performance standards, encouraging excellence in foreign language teaching, providing professional enhancement activities for teaching staff, and for establishing a research program about language teaching and learning "(http://language.stanford.edu/about/index.html). It is within this context that the 1st-year German program's objectives and curriculum were revised. Proficiency objectives were established for 1 year of study in all the languages offered at Stanford. The objectives for German are as follows (http://language.stanford.edu/requirement/1styrobjectives.html#german): Have a rating of Intermediate-Mid in listening, speaking, and writing; and a rating of Advanced in reading on the ACTFL-FSI scale or its equivalent. Have an active vocabulary of 2,000 words. Have worked with all grammatical constructions in German. Have a working knowledge of the broad historical outline of the history of German-speaking peoples. The ACTFL-FSI ratings to be attained by the end of the 1st year of language study are high compared to those at other institutions. The University of Minnesota, for example, requires a minimum level of Intermediate Low in the four skill areas. Stanford's higher levels may be possible due to the selectivity of the study body. A major concern in designing the 1st-year language curriculum at Stanford was how to provide students with basic tools to comprehend issues in German culture and history at a time when their language ability was limited. In other words, there was an attempt to address the mismatch between "linguistic complexities of language learning and the conceptual complexities of culture learning" (Bernhardt & Kamil, 1998, p. 41). Bernhardt's (1991) and others' (e.g., Steffensen, Joag-Dev, & Anderson, 1979) research on reading indicates that when individuals read foreign language texts they inevitably interpret them within their own cultural and knowledge framework. Bernhardt and Kamil (1998) view the task for second language instructors as imbuing "relevant and appropri-
< previous page
page_64
next page >
< previous page
page_65
next page > Page 65
ate knowledge so that foreign language texts do not get 'reinterpreted' within a cultural framework that is at odds with the intended cultural framework" (p. 42). They also discussed the importance of introducing systematic cultural study at the earliest levels of language instruction. Because learners in first- and second-quarter German do not have enough language to understand and discuss serious cultural issues in the foreign language, there are two separate sets of objectives, one for language learning and the other for cultural learning. An example from the first-quarter German syllabus follows (Bernhardt & Kamil, 1998): Objectives: This course is an introduction to the language and cultures of German-speaking peoples. To that end, we have both language objectives that we try to meet in the course and sociocultural objectives. Because this is a beginning language course about 90% of our time is devoted to language learning and about 10% to cultural issues. Research indicates that the more knowledge you have about the context in which language is used, the higher your skill level will be. Language Objectives: This course presupposes no prior knowledge of German. It focuses on vocabulary that will enable you to describe yourself and others, in terms of personal interests and academic and free time activities; on the present tense, on modal and separable verbs; and on the nominative, accusative, and dative cases. This course gives you an active vocabulary of around 800 words that you learn to use in speaking and writing. Listening comprehension is a major component in this course too! The primary textbook for the course is Deutsch Na klar! (by Di Donato, Clyde, and Vansant, 1998). (http://language.stanford.edu/courses/german.html#first) Culture: The first year German Studies program at Stanford also intends to provide you with a working knowledge of the broad historical outline of the history of the German-speaking peoples. It intends to introduce you to terms from geography; politics and society; history; and literary and aesthetic culture. German Studies 1, as the first course in the first-year series, also focuses on these topics and is directed toward bringing you toward these goals. Specifically, we will focus on the geography of the German-speaking areas of the world and on a set of cultural themes such as education, economics, and religion. (p. 44) To accomplish these objectives, a cultural syllabus in English accompanies the German language-learning syllabus. The culture syllabus consists of reading Gordon Craig's (1991), The Germans, which is a cultural history of the German-speaking peoples. The themes that are analyzed in the first quarter include religion, women, Hitler, money, and Germans and Jews. Students are required to post a comment in English in class discussions on the WWW for each chapter in the text. They are also encouraged to respond to classmates' comments. Bernhardt and Kamil (1998) indicated that most of the students participated in the discussion of the cultural readings and were substantially engaged in the task over time as evident in the number, variety, and length of their contributions. The intellectual content of the language course increased and resulted in the involvement of the language students as well as of senior colleagues and graduate students specializing in literary and cultural studies who monitored the electronic discussions and sometimes contributed to them. Bernhardt and Kamil (1998) also noted that of the 19 students who participated in the program for two quarters, 4 declared a German major and 5 a minor. Bernhardt (personal communication, February 1999) reported that thirdquarter students are meeting the oral proficiency objectives as determined by proficiency testing.
< previous page
page_65
next page >
< previous page
page_66
next page > Page 66
The use of an electronic newsgroup as a forum for the discussion of culture readings in English required little additional class time while allowing students to function at an appropriate intellectual level and rate in learning about culture. It does not have a negative impact on the language-learning syllabus but rather gives students a knowledge base that enriches their foreign language learning experience. By revising the 1st-year German curriculum, 1st-year language courses at Stanford University became more intellectually challenging and now count toward the major and the minor because "they meet the university criterion of significant subject matter" (Bernhardt & Berman, 1999). Bernhardt and Berman noted that this model requires the involvement of senior faculty in the teaching of 1st-year language courses as well as a labor-intensive approach to graduate student development. They believe that the revised curriculum fulfills the goal of the foreign language department "to provide to students the language skills and cultural literacy that will allow them to engage with other peoples with insight, background knowledge, and a critical appreciation of the accomplishments and failings of the other culture (p. 30)." Case Study #2: The Spanning Project at the University of Connecticut-Storrs: Spanish Language and Culture for the Health Care Professions The University of Connecticut at Storrs is a publically supported institution. It confers the bachelor's, master's, and doctorate in a wide range of academic disciplines and currently enrolls approximately 11,700 undergraduate and 6,000 graduate students (personal communication, R. Veilleux, February 1999). The program described here is the "Spanning" Project; it is an applied language program and will serve as an example of LSP. The Spanning Project began in the fall of 1994 with support from the Fund for Improvement of Postsecondary Education. The program was designed to "enhance the professional education of students in the Schools of Nursing and Allied Health by adding cultural knowledge and some facility in Spanish to their repertoire of skills" (Wright, Geissler, & Cowell, 1997, p. 69). It also sought to give graduate students in the Spanish program practical experience in LAC and CBI. Spanning began by adding one-credit modules in Spanish to heavily enrolled, required courses in the undergraduate nursing and allied health programs. These included: INTD 224-01: Spanish for Health Professionals I "A sampling of very basic vocabulary and phrases for asking and answering high-frequency questions in health care-related situations. Focus on intensive oral practice in small groups. For students with little or no knowledge of Spanish. Note: This courses does not prepare students for Spanish for Health Professionals II." INTD 224-02: Spanish for Health Professionals II "A selection of vocabulary and structures for dealing with situations or problems in a health care-related setting. Focus on intensive oral practice in small groups. For students with intermediate-level Spanish skill. Suggested preparation: 2 years of high school or 2 semesters of college Spanish." The project administrators, however, found that connecting the modules to specific courses was problematic for professional students who had to cope with rigid schedules and heavy course loads. In addition, the students had definite ideas about the kinds of information and language help they wanted from the modules. For this reason, four free-standing modules (each meeting 1 hour a week and earning one credit toward gradu-
< previous page
page_66
next page >
< previous page
page_67
next page > Page 67
ation) that could be elected at any point in the student's coursework were created: (a) beginning medical Spanish, (b) intermediate medical Spanish, (c) health issues in the Spanish-speaking community (taught in English), and (d) health issues taught in Spanish. In addition to these modules, an intensive 3-week content-based immersion course, Spanish 190: Language and Culture in the Spanish-Speaking Communities, was offered in the summers of 1995 and 1996. The minimum requirement for admission into the course was 2 years of high school Spanish or 1 year at the college level or the equivalent. This allowed the course to be taught entirely in Spanish using authentic materials from throughout the Spanish-speaking world. Thus, linguistic and cultural learning were brought together in one course. In addition to undergraduates in the health professions, professional faculty, adjuncts, and practitioners from the community enrolled in the course. Spanish 190 was taught by graduate teaching assistants who were selected on the basis of their pedagogical experience and talent, interest in content-based methodology, excellence in Spanish language skills, creativity, intellectual liveliness, and willingness to acquire "an educated layperson's knowledge" of the subject matter taught in Nursing and Allied Health (Wright et al., 1997, p. 75). The course included elements of classic immersion; for example, students pledged to speak only Spanish for the duration of the course both during formal classroom instruction as well as in their recreational activities. The content of the course included topics such as "beliefs and values in Spanish-speaking communities associated with diet, physical activity, weight, and body image, or high frequency illness in the Spanish-speaking population" (Wright et al., 1997, p. 70). In addition, the course examined social, economic, and cultural contexts of Spanish speakers in the United States and included topics such as "immigration, acculturation, the family, gender relations, generational differences, changes in economic or social status, spirituality, traditional health practices, and access to Western health care" (Wright et al., 1997, p. 70). Like the 1st-year language courses at Stanford (described in the previous case study), Spanish 190 had both cultural as well as languagelearning objectives. Wright et al. emphasized that by focusing on deeper cultural structures, this course is more compatible with liberal arts education than with a ''superficial notion of LSP conceived as a crash course in technical vocabulary" (p. 85). Wright et al. (1997) also reported that the responses to Spanish 190 were very enthusiastic; at end of program evaluations, students self-reported gains in linguistic proficiency and cultural competence. However, the immersion format was found to be labor-intensive and expensive because in addition to a staff of instructors, Spanish 190 required a language coordinator and an administrator, as well as funding for guest lecturers and feature films. Wright et al. pointed out that a course such as this is only affordable when subsidized by outside funds, at least in the development phase. While the Spanning Project was very successful in terms of student evaluations and institutional support, enrollments were not sufficiently high to continue the program. Thus in 1998, both the summer immersion course, Spanish 190, and the modules were canceled. Barbara Wright, Project Director, attributed the low enrollments to the problems that undergraduates experienced in fitting extra, nonrequired courses into already full schedules. In spite of these difficulties, she pointed out that the program created new cross-disciplinary and cross-campus collaborations, allowed the University to serve professional communities beyond its borders, and involved graduate students in LACs, enhancing both their knowledge and their marketability (personal communication November 1998). Thus, although this specific program no longer exists, it provides a useful model showing the kinds of linkages that can be made between languages and academic
< previous page
page_67
next page >
< previous page
page_68
next page > Page 68
disciplines, thus extending second language learning beyond the traditional foreign language classroom. Case Study #3: The Kansas University Languages across the Curriculum Project The University of Kansas, Main Campus (Lawrence, KS) is a publically funded institution of higher learning that grants the bachelor's, master's, and doctorate. It enrolls a total of approximately 25,000 students including over 6,000 at the graduate level. For undergraduate students enrolled in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, there is a 2-year university-level foreign language requirement. Most students fulfill this requirement by taking traditional foreign language courses. However, there now is a way for students to continue developing their foreign language proficiency whether or not they are foreign language majors. It is by participation in KULAC (Kansas University Languages Across the Curriculum), a program designed to provide students with the opportunity to supplement formal language training through the use of a foreign language in their coursework outside of traditional foreign language classes. In 1993, with funding from the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education and the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Office of International Programs began to offer a group of courses and discussion sections in history, the social sciences, and the professions (primarily business) in a foreign language. The rationale for this change included the following: To encourage students to use their foreign language skills (beyond the language requirement) in a variety of subject areas, To provide opportunities for students who are not foreign language majors to use their foreign language skills in their own major and to develop a working vocabulary that may improve their employment prospects, To increase the University of Kansas' efforts to internationalize the curriculum and to provide courses that would appeal to both international as well as domestic students, To provide a means for students who have studied abroad to maintain their language skills. Most KULAC courses are independent three-credit courses, but some are one-credit discussion sections that are attached to regular three-credit classes that are taught in English. The languages in which courses are offered are French, German, Italian, Russian, and Spanish. Information on the courses that were offered in fall 1997, spring 1998, and fall 1998 is available at the following Web address: . For example, the courses for the fall 1998 semester included: Taught in Spanish: Three-credit courses: LAA 502/EVRN 342. Conservation and Biodiversity in Latin America LAA 502/ANTH 400: Central American Indigenous Women LAA 502/HIST 510/ REL 602: Politics of Religion in Latin America One-credit discussion sections: LAA 500: Spanish Discussion Section for HIST 120, Colonial Latin America LAA 500: Spanish Discussion Section for HIST 121, Modern Latin America
< previous page
page_68
next page >
< previous page
page_69
next page > Page 69
Taught in French: Three-credit courses: FR 376: French Conversation and the Arts FR 410: Medieval and Renaissance Culture FR 440: French Film, Political and Social: From World War I to the Present FR 440/AFS 432: Francophone African Studies Taught in German: Three-credit course: HIST 510/GER 620: Das Dritte Reich During spring 1998, a course on Italian culture and one on Russian history were offered in addition to those available in French, German, and Spanish. And, in spring 1999, there were one-credit discussion sections in Spanish for courses in three other disciplines: ECON 584: Economic Development in Latin America; BUS 649: Special Topics in Business: Business in Latin America; and GEOG 571: Topics in Cultural Geography: Middle America. As in many LAC programs, there are more diverse offerings taught in Spanish than in other languages, and enrollments are most robust in Spanish sections. The fact that the University of Kansas has a strong Center for Latin American Studies helps attract students to the Spanish medium LAC courses. The LAC courses and discussion sections are taught by a variety of instructors. Most of the French offerings are taught by Assistant or Associate Professors in the Department of French and Italian (rather than by social scientists). In fact, the French LAC offerings are now part of the regular departmental course offerings. The Spanish LAC offerings are taught by faculty members and teaching assistants from the social sciences departments (not from the Spanish Department). According to Hodgie Bricke, Assistant Dean of International Programs (personal communication, February 1999), KULAC functions in a decentralized manner. Departments recruit instructors and check the foreign language proficiency of nonnative speakers before they are assigned to a course. However, Bricke does coordinate the KULAC list for the College (keeping within the allotted budget) and helps publicize KULAC courses with flyers and class announcements. She also answers inquiries from interested students. Thus, although decentralized, the program does need a coordinator. Further-more, although there is no formal preparation or training for teaching KULAC courses, Bricke meets with and talks to new instructors. Course adaptations (to meet the linguistic needs of the students) depend on the instructor, and the instructor also selects the "texts," which are generally packets of articles written for native speakers. Students are allowed to write their final papers in the foreign language or in English. The KULAC model has been successful because there has been strong institutional support even after the grant funding ended. The Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences provides a significant monetary contribution that allows six to seven lecture courses and several one-credit enhancement courses to be taught each year. As this University of Kansas case study shows, LAC courses can be effective in providing students access to texts and information in a foreign language that may not be available in English. They allow students who are not foreign language majors to continue to improve and refine their language skills by studying academic subjects taught in a language other than English. Likewise, foreign language majors have the opportunity to broaden their academic experiences using the target language outside of language and literature courses. For LAC programs such as this one at the University of Kansas to be
< previous page
page_69
next page >
< previous page
page_70
next page > Page 70
successful, it is important that there be faculty interest in initiating and maintaining the program as well as strong institutional commitment to finance the program after external grant funding ends. References ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. (1986). Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Bachman, L. (1988). Problems in examining the validity of the oral proficiency interview. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 149164. Bachman, L., & Savignon, S. (1986). The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: A critique of the ACTFL oral interview. Modern Language Journal, 70, 380390. Bagster-Collins, E. W. (1930). History of modern language teaching in the United States. In Studies in modern language teaching (Vol. 17, pp. 396), Publication of the American and Canadian Committees on Modern Languages. New York: Macmillan. Bernhardt, E. (1986). Proficient texts or proficient readers? ADFL Bulletin, 18, 2528. Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Bernhardt, E. B., & Berman, R. A. (1999). From German 1 to German Studies 001: A chronicle of curricular reform. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 32, 2231. Bernhardt, E., & Kamil, M. (1998). Enhancing foreign culture learning through electronic discussion. In J. A. Muyskens (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on technology and foreign language education (pp. 3955). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Brecht, R. D., & Walton, A. R. (1995). The future shape of language learning in the new world of global communication: Consequences for higher education and beyond. In R. Donato & R. M. Terry (Eds.), Foreign language learning (pp. 110152). Lincolnwood, IL National Textbook Company. Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Brod, R., & Huber, B. J. (1997). Foreign language enrollments in United States institutions of higher education, fall 1995. ADFL Bulletin, 28, 5561. Byrnes, H. (1998). Constructing curricula in collegiate foreign language departments. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages (pp. 262295). New York: The Modern Language Association. Canale, M. (1983). On some dimensions of language proficiency. In J. W. Oller (Ed.), Issues in language testing research (pp. 333342). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 147. Carroll, J. B. (1967). Foreign language proficiency levels attained by language majors near graduation from college. Foreign Language Annals, 1, 13151. The Chronicle of Higher Education. (1998, August 28). Almanac issue, p. 18. Coleman, A. (1929). The teaching of modern foreign languages in the United States. New York: Macmillan. Craig, G. (1991). The Germans. New York: Meridan. Di Donato, R., Clyde, M. D., and Vansant, J. (1998). Deutsch Na klar! [German, but of course!]. New York: McGraw-Hill. Grosse, C. U., & Voght, G. M. (1989). Foreign languages for business and the professions at US colleges and universities. Modern Language Journal, 74, 3647. Grosse, C. U., & Voght, G. M. (1991). The evolution of languages for specific purposes in the United States. Modern Language Journal, 75, 181195. Hadley, A. O. (1993). Teaching language in context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Huber, B.J. (1996). Variation in foreign language enrollments through time (197090). ADFL Bulletin, 27, 5784. Kant, J. G. (1970). Foreign language registrations and student contact hours in institutions of higher education, summer 1969. Foreign Language Annals, 3, 459476. Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. Modern Language Journal, 70, 366372. Krueger, M., & Ryan, F.(Eds.). (1993). Language and content: Discipline-based approaches to language study. Lexington, MA: Heath.
< previous page
page_70
next page >
< previous page
page_71
next page > Page 71
Lafford, P. A., & Lafford, B. A. (1997). Learning language and culture with internet technologies. In M. D. Bush & R. M. Terry (Eds.), Technology-enhanced language learning (pp. 215262). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Lambert, R. D. (1987). The improvement of foreign language competency in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 490, 919. Lambert, R. D. (1990). Language instruction for undergraduates in American higher education. Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center. Lambert, R. D. (1992). Foreign language planning in the United States. Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center. Lantolf, J., & Frawley, W. (1985). Oral proficiency testing: A critical analysis. Modern Language Journal, 69, 337345. Lee, J. F., & Musumeci, D. (1988). On hierarchies of reading skills and text types. Modern Language Journal, 72, 173187. Lett, J. A.Jr., & Keesling, J. W. (1994,June 4). The Proficiency Evaluation Project: A Comparative Assessment of Proficiency Then and Now. Presentation at ADFL Seminar, West Stanford, CA. Liskin-Gasparro, J. (1982). ETS oral proficiency training manual. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Liskin-Gasparro, J. (1984). The ACTFL proficiency guidelines: A historical perspective. In T. V. Higgs (Ed.), Teaching for proficiency: The organizing principle (pp. 1142). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Magnan, S. S. (1986). Assessing speaking proficiency in the undergraduate curriculum: Data from French. Foreign Language Annals, 19, 429437. Moore, S. J., & Morfit, C. A. (Eds.). (1993). Language and international studies: A Richard Lambert perspective. Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center. Musumeci, D. (1997). Breaking tradition: An exploration in the historical relationship between theory and practice in second language teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill. Patrikis, P. C. (1995). The foreign language problem: The governance of foreign language teaching and learning. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Redefining the boundaries of language study (pp. 293335). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Phillips, J. (1992). Language centers: Models and caveats. In W. M. Rivers, (Ed.), Teaching languages in college: Curriculum and content (pp. 351-71). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. President's Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies. (1980). Strength through wisdom: A critique of U.S. capabilities. Modern Language Journal, 64, 957. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press. Savignon, S. (1985). Evaluation of communicative competence: The ACTFL provisional proficiency guidelines. Modern Language Journal, 69, 373379. Savignon, S. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Schultz, R. A. (1979). Options for undergraduate foreign language programs. Four-year and two-year colleges. New York: Modern Language Association. Scinicariello, S. G. (1997). Uniting teachers, learners, and machines: Language laboratories and other choices. In M. D. Bush & R. M. Terry (Eds.), Technology-enhanced language learning (pp. 185-213). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Shohamy, E. (1990). Language testing priorities. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 38593. Standards for foreign language learning: Preparing for the 21st century. (1996). Yonkers, NY: National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. Steffensen, M. S., Joag-Dev, C., & Anderson, R. C. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 1029. Stern, H. H. (1964). Modern languages in the universities: Achievements and present trends. Modern Languages, 45, 4757. Straight, H. S. (Ed.). (1994). Languages across the curriculum. Translation perspectives, VII. Binghamton: State University of New York Press. Stryker, S., & Leaver, B. L. (Eds.). (1997). Content-based instruction in the foreign language classroom. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Titone, R. (1968). Teaching foreign languages: An historical sketch. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Valdés, G. (1989). Teaching Spanish to Hispanic bilinguals: A look at oral proficiency testing and the proficiency movement. Hispania, 72, 392401.
< previous page
page_71
next page >
< previous page
page_72
next page > Page 72
Valdés, G. (1997). Teacher preparation and the heritage language learner: What teachers need to know. Pedagogical Summit summary (pp. 3233). Greeley, CO: American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese. Walton, A. R. (1992). Expanding the vision of foreign language education: Enter the less commonly taught languages. Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center. Wright, B. D., Geissler, E. M., & Cowell, C. E. (1997). Achieving linguistic proficiency and cross-cultural competence in the health professions: An intensive content model. Global Business Languages, 2, 6888.
< previous page
page_72
next page >
< previous page
page_73
next page > Page 73
4 English as a Second Language Jessie M. Reppy Jose Adames Kean University English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction is the teaching of Englishin an English-speaking countryto individuals whose mother tongue is a different language. For example, a native speaker of Chinese who studies English in the United States or an immigrant from Italy who studies English in Australia is studying English as a Second Language. In contrast, the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language (often called TEFL) refers to the teaching of English in a country where English is not the dominant language. Thus, when English is taught in Mexico to native Spanish speakers or in Germany to native German speakers, this is the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language. Clearly, the "linguistic" environment in which instruction in English takes place distinguishes ESL from TEFL. The former occurs in an English-speaking countrywhere the learner of English is surrounded by the languagewhereas with TEFL, exposure to English may be limited to the classroom. In this chapter, we focus solely on ESL instruction in the United States for undergraduates at the postsecondary level. Moreover, although not all linguists differentiate between "second" and "foreign" language learning (e.g., see Gass' discussion in chap. 2, this volume), we make that distinction. The teaching of ESL began as a way to help nonnative speakers residing in the United States prepare for the newly enacted 1906 law requiring potential citizens to pass a citizenship test in English (Cavanaugh, 1996). This was part of the "Americanization movement," a prevailing attitude that immigrants needed to learn English to become better assimilated into American culture. ESL also began as a way to help nonnative speakers receive vocational training. High schools and private institutions offered English and reading courses to meet the growing demand by nonnative-speaking adults. By 1945, ESL "programs" started to appear, but it was not until the late 1960s that ESL professionals entered the classroom and began developing the teaching of English to nonnative speakers as a specialty (Farland & Cepeda, 1988). Students who are studying ESL (ESL students) are described alternatively as nonnative speakers (of English), language minority students, second language learners, and students of limited English proficiency (LEP). In this chapter, we use these terms interchangeably. Estimates of the number of language minority students in U.S. colleges and universities vary, and as yet, there is no national system for identifying and tracking such students. However, data from the Census Bureau show some interesting trends. There was a 50% increase in the Hispanic or Latino population between 1980 and 1990, and a doubling of the AsianAmerican population (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992). The 1990 census
< previous page
page_73
next page >
< previous page
page_74
next page > Page 74
reported that 25.5 million adults speak a language other than English at home; 5.8 million do not speak English well, and an estimated 1214 million have serious difficulties with speaking, understanding, reading, or writing English. Though most immigrants since the 1960s are from countries in Asia, the Caribbean, and Central and South America, recent immigration from Eastern Europe has helped to make the immigrant mix even more diverse. It appears that, with some exceptions, whenever there is an economic or political upheaval somewhere in the world, it eventually is reflected in the ESL classroom. (For a more detailed discussion about the effects of immigration on the undergraduate population, readers are referred to Ignash's discussion in chap. 1, this volume.) The students enrolled in ESL programs in colleges and universities in the United States reflect the rich linguistic and cultural diversity of this country. Though programs may include immigrant, refugee, and international students ("foreign" students studying in the United States on a temporary visa), the percentages of each vary from one program to another. In fact, this student "mix" affects to a large degree the type of ESL program that is offered at a given institution, including its curriculum, as well as the academic and nonacademic services it provides. Today's students arrive on campus with diverse academic backgrounds and with a wide range of English language skills. Cochran (1992) and her ESL colleagues at the City University of New York identified six groups within the college population needing some kind of help with English, including four groups specifically needing ESL instruction. Although these descriptions may not fit student profiles at all institutions, they do illustrate the range of possible student needs: 1. Native speakers (of English): Two types of native English speakersmonolingual and bilingual/bidialectalare identified. Born in the United States, they often need remedial or basic skills instruction in English (especially academic writing) in order to continue into college-level coursework. 2. Close to native speakers: These are students whose oral English fluency may exceed their ability to use English in academic tasks. They come from diverse ethnic backgrounds and may or may not have been born in the United States. In general, at home with their parents and/or with their peers, they speak a language or dialect other than standard English. 3. Foreign-educated adults with some knowledge of English: These are foreign-born students, often well educated in their native lands, with good native language skills. In addition, they have studied English as a foreign language (EFL) and have good grammar and reading knowledge in English. They may temporarily reside in the United States while earning an undergraduate or graduate degree. Nonetheless, in order to succeed academically, they may need to improve their listening, speaking, and writing skills in English. 4. Foreign-educated adults with no knowledge of English: Cochran divided this group of students into those who are mature adults with "virtually no knowledge of English from any other source" and those who immigrated to the United States and completed high school here. Although the latter may have received ESL and bilingual schooling, they often graduate from high school with many educational gaps, both in English and content areas. 5. Nonnative speakers with limited schooling: These are immigrant and refugee students with low-level language skills in both their native language and English. They may have limited formal schooling in the native language and in English and, as a result, "Their speech is usually nonstandard in both languages."
< previous page
page_74
next page >
< previous page
page_75
next page > Page 75
6. Nonnative not literate speakers: These are adults who have neither native language literacy nor any knowledge of English. Thus, they need to develop basic literacy in their native language as well as in English. The information presented in this introduction and by means of Cochran's (1992) classification scheme help to illustrate the extraordinarily diverse student population enrolling in ESL programs. The students come from many countries, speak a wide array of native languages, and vary considerably in terms of their native language literacy, the extent of their formal schooling (both in their homelands and/or in the United States), and in their prior knowledge of English. This is the population that college and university ESL programs are serving, a population that is growing and changing over time. What Is an English as a Second Language Program? There is no "typical" program in ESL in higher education. Programs begin and evolve over time to suit the needs and purposes of a particular (and perhaps, changing) student population within a given academic institution. The location of the ESL courses may be in an English department, an institute, or a program in another department or division such as developmental studies, extended studies, or continuing education. Or, the courses may even constitute an ESL department of its own. Programs may be very small with as few as 20 students, or they may be very large enrolling thousands of students. Academic credit may or may not be given for ESL coursework depending on the institution. (Readers are introduced to the many variations within ESL programs by means of the case studies that appear at the end of this chapter.) ESL programs affiliated with academic institutions teach students not only to speak and understand spoken English but also to read and write it. Students enroll in such programs to develop their second language proficiency for a wide range of reasons including preparation for the taking of tests in English (which will provide academic and career opportunities), preparation for subsequent postsecondary coursework, and reasons related to personal interests. Although some colleges will admit students who know no English, others require some degree of proficiency in English for acceptance. Thus, ESL programs often must test incoming nonnative speakers to determine how little or how much English they know. Test scores may determine if the student is accepted into the institution and/or in what class or level in the ESL course sequence he or she is placed. Placement tests may be written and/or oral, and whereas some are developed in-house, others are standardized. For example, some institutions of higher education in the United States require non-native speakers of English who are not U.S. citizens nor permanent residents to take the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) as part of the admissions process. TOEFL is a test prepared and administered by the Educational Testing Service (Web site: http://www.toefl.org) that is given in both the United States and abroad. Individual institutions decide on their own TOEFL cut-off scores for admission. Similarly, TOEIC is the Test of English for International Communication. It too comes from the Educational Testing Service and is used by businesses to test the English language proficiency of prospective employees. ESL programs offer a sequence of courses to develop students' proficiency in English, moving students from the beginner to intermediate to advanced level. How often and for how long the courses meet, the length of time it takes each student to complete the
< previous page
page_75
next page >
< previous page
page_76
next page > Page 76
program of study, and whether or not the ESL program teaches any content- or theme-based courses (described later) varies from program to program. Depending on the student's initial proficiency in and reasons for studying English, a course or two in ESL may suffice or up to a year or two of intensive study of ESL may be needed. Who teaches the ESL courses? Just because a person speaks English does not necessarily qualify him or her to teach ESL. In general, instructors are required to have at least a master's degree and often a doctorate in applied linguistics, ESL/TESL, or a related field. Some, but not all programs require that ESL instructors be native English speakers (or at least require that they demonstrate nativelike proficiency in English). Today, there is a broad range of materials for use with ESL students including both series and individual texts, workbooks, activity books, audio and video cassette tapes, films, computer programs, CD-ROM programs, and visual aids such as pictures, charts, and overhead transparencies. Materials may also refer the user to a Web site. Texts may be comprehensive, that is, teaching several language skills, or may concentrate on one aspect of language such as grammar or reading. There are materials adapted to the needs of beginners, intermediate, and advanced ESL students as well as abundant pedagogical material for those who wish to teach ESL. As the number of ESL students has grown, so has the amount of material available for students and teachers. Many of the major publishers of ESL materials in the United States, along with their addresses and Web sites, are listed in chap. 15 of this volume. Furthermore, TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages), which is the international association for ESL professionals, not only publishes material for the field but also offers what is probably the largest exposition of ESL/EFL publishers and software at its annual meeting. (Additional information about TESOL also is available in chap. 15.) Some but not all ESL programs in higher education are members of organizations that promote professional standards and quality instruction. Thus, they periodically undergo self-study and external evaluation to ensure that they meet "predetermined standards of performance." This is particularly true for intensive English programs (IEPs). IEPs may be either college or university affiliated or operate as independent private programs. Independent or private programs may be located on a college or university campus or stand alone. Intensive, semi-intensive, and even superintensive refer to the number of contact hours for which the student is enrolled. Typically, IEPs provide participants a minimum of 18 hours a week of English language instruction. Membership in one of the organizations that promotes standards ensures the quality not only of the English language instruction but also of the program's instructors and administration. Three organizations currently provide this service for IEPs in the United States: the American Association of Intensive English Programs (AAIEP ), a consortium of University and College Intensive English Programs (UCIEP ), and The TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) Commission on Accreditation (TCA ). In concluding this overview of "what is an ESL program," it is important to reiterate that ESL programs at the college and university level are serving a diverse population of adult students. Thus, although participation in an ESL program may greatly improve students' proficiency in English and successfully prepare them for their long-term goals, it cannot and does not guarantee that they will end up speaking and writing as if they were native-born English speakers. As explained by Gass in chap. 2 of this volume, "it is
< previous page
page_76
next page >
< previous page
page_77
next page > Page 77
rare to become completely proficient in more than one language when the learning of the L2 [second language] begins as an adult. . . . L2 learning in adults almost inevitably falls short of nativelike abilities.'' Thus, although ESL programs help adult college students make enormous progress in relatively short periods of time, ultimate achievement will vary from student to student. The reasons for this are inherent to the second language learning process (and are also discussed by Gass in chap. 2). Pedagogical Approaches Since ESL was first offered in institutions of higher education in the United States, a variety of pedagogical approaches have been used. However, through the years, there has been a shift in emphasis from preoccupation with the teaching methods to focusing on the ESL learners themselves and what they bring to the learning situation (including their emotional, physical, mental, conscious, and paraconscious states). Moreover, ESL instruction has expanded its range from developing linguistic competence in the classroom to a more general communicative competence. Though space does not permit us to describe each method in detail, the information that follows includes the primary characteristics of each of the major approaches to ESL instruction. (Many of these methods are also used in the teaching of foreign languages and thus are mentioned in that context by Klee in chap. 3, this volume). Grammar-translation Method The grammar-translation method is not a new method or one created especially for the ESL classroom (Kelly, 1969; LarsenFreeman, 1986). It was first used in the teaching of classical languages and today is still used to teach modern foreign languages. However, when used for ESL instruction, the primary goal of the grammar-translation method is to enable students to read literature written in English. Therefore, students need to learn the grammar rules and vocabulary of English as a way to acquire skills in reading and writing; less attention is paid to speaking and listening. If students make mistakes, the teacher corrects the students. The Direct Method The direct method developed because the grammar-translation method did not successfully prepare students to use the target language communicatively (the target language being the language under study). The goal of the direct method is to have students learn to communicate in the target language by being able to think directly in the language as opposed to translating from their native language to the second language. The direct method emphasizes the processes involved in actual communication such as requesting, apologizing, narrating, commanding, and expressing an opinion. Although the focus is on oral communication through the study of everyday speech, grammar also is taught through the use of examples in the target language, and writing through the use of dictation exercises. With the direct method, no translation is permitted (Diller, 1978). Therefore, in contrast to the grammar-translation method, the use of the students' first (native) language is not permitted in the direct method classroom. Audio-Lingual Method The audio-lingual method (ALM) was developed in the United States during World War II to train people quickly to use foreign languages for military purposes. Language learning was viewed as a process of habit formation
< previous page
page_77
next page >
< previous page
page_78
next page > Page 78
derived from learning language in context. ALM teaching techniques involved repetition and substitution drills directed by the teacher as well as imitation and repetition of dialogues. The goal was for students to learn to use the target language communicatively and automatically, without translation (Finocchiaro, 1974; Lado, 1957). An attempt was made to follow what is viewed as a "natural order" in language learning (the sequence in which children learn their first language): listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Grammar was not taught explicitly. With ALM, student errors are corrected immediately to avoid bad habit formation. Silent Way The goal of the silent way is for students to be able to use the target language to express their thoughts, perspectives, and feelings. The method is most associated with American educator Caleb Gattegno (1972) and derives its name from the idea that as students learn more of the target language, the teacher says less. Language learning begins with the sounds of the target language and then moves on to its linguistic structures. The teacher does not model the new sounds of the language, but rather uses gestures, sound-color charts, and Cuisinere rods to direct students. The teacher sets up situations that focus students on the structures of the target language. Although the four skills are taught from the very beginning, reading and writing skill development follow from what students have learned to say. With the silent way, student errors are seen as natural or necessary to language learning, and peer correction is encouraged. Suggestopedia Suggestopedia is based on the idea that environmental, social, and psychological variables positively or negatively influence a student's ability to learn a target language. This method was developed by a Bulgarian teacher, Georgi Lozanov, in the 1970s, who believed that language learning could be facilitated by removing the fear that one will fail. Suggestopedia emphasizes the importance of relaxation during the language-learning process (e.g., through listening to music) and of a comfortable learning environment (e.g., sitting in a comfortable armchair; Lozanov, 1982). There is an emphasis on the use of dialogues that contain language students can use immediately. Lozanov believed that students learn best by focusing on using the language rather than on its form; therefore, student errors are not corrected immediately and may be used in later lessons. Community Language Learning In the community language learning (CLL) approach, teachers consider their students as "whole persons" (Curran, 1976), taking into consideration their feelings, desire to learn the target language, their physical reactions, and instinctive defense mechanisms. CLL uses techniques derived from group counseling. Thus, teachers understand the difficulty of learning a new language and are there to assist and support students. There are six important elements to this approach: to provide students with a sense of security, to allow students to assert themselves, to focus on one task at a time, to allow students to reflect on what they have learned, to integrate new material with that previously learned, and to distinguish differences among target language forms. Cooperation among students is emphasized because it builds a sense of "community" in the classroom, and students are permitted to express their feelings in their native language, which are then translated into the target language. Total Physical Response Total physical response (TPR) gets its name because commands are used by the teacher to direct student behavior. By means of their responses
< previous page
page_78
next page >
< previous page
page_79
next page > Page 79
which involve physical movements or actionsthe students thereby indicate that a word, phrase, or concept has been understood. After learning to respond to oral commands, students learn to read and write them. This approach to language learning is based on observations of how children learn their first language by listening, observing, attempting to use the form heard, and eventually combining forms in different ways (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). At the beginning of the language-learning experience, students are allowed to use their native language to respond to the teacher, freeing them to concentrate on listening comprehension. Communicative Approach The goal of the communicative approach is to have students appropriately use "authentic language" in a given social setting. Authentic language is defined as language used in real-life contexts; feedback from the listener indicates whether the student is truly communicating effectively (Brunfit & Johnson, 1979). To accomplish the authentic use of language, students need knowledge of the linguistic structures and forms, meanings, and functions in the target language. Students work on the four language skillsspeaking, listening comprehension, reading, and writingfrom the very beginning, but typically, the lessons emphasize language function (its use to communicate ideas, express attitudes, apologize, command, etc.) over form (a linguistic unit such as "go, goes, going, gone, went"). The role of the teacher is that of a facilitator of student learning. The pedagogical approaches just described are often combined in an eclectic approach in college-level ESL classes. For example, in a first-level class where the four skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking) are taught, the goal may be for the student to achieve communicative competence using a teaching approach that combines TPR and CLL. Nonetheless, college ESL classes are not taught in isolation from the academic community. The learning of English skills has a broader purpose than only achieving a satisfactory level of communicative competence. More often than not, ESL students attend college with the goal of obtaining a degree. This being the case, the curriculum of ESL programs is often a combination of linguistic principles of language learning along with academic content to prepare students for their major and to help them eventually to graduate. Linking academic content with ESL teaching is, therefore, essential, and in the next section the introduction of academic content in language learning is discussed. Content-based Language Instruction In a continuing effort to meet the academic needs of the growing number of ESL students in institutions of higher education, many ESL programs have reexamined their traditional goals of mainly providing students with "general English proficiency and the ability to interact effectively in social situations" (Adamson, 1990, p. 68). Adamson argued that, "If students are to develop appropriate academic skills before they leave the ESL program, it seems reasonable that these skills should be taught in connection with real academic material in a setting with native English speakers" (p. 77). One approach to addressing these and other academic needs of ESL students is by means of content-based instruction (CBI). CBI can be defined as the "concurrent teaching of academic subject matter and second language skills" (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989, p. 2). There are three basic models of CBI being used in ESL in higher education: theme based, sheltered, and adjunct, along
< previous page
page_79
next page >
< previous page
page_80
next page > Page 80
with several variations. At the heart of each of the three models is the study of a subject-matter core, the use of authentic language, texts, and assignments, with adaptations of materials and teaching approaches and strategies to meet the needs of ESL students. Integrating language instruction with subject-matter instruction is not new (Crandall, 1987) nor is it unique to ESL. (For example, in chap. 3, this volume, Klee describes CBI as applied to the teaching of foreign languages.) However, the current focus on CBI in ESL has evolved over the last two decades as a result of: (a) developments in second language acquisition theory that have demonstrated the importance of both comprehensible input and a learning environment that reduces the student's level of stress (Krashen, 1981, 1982), as well as the existence of two types of language proficiency, one needed for communication in everyday, informal settings and the other needed for success in an academic setting, and which takes considerably longer to acquire (perhaps 57 years) (Cummins, 1981); and (b) various studies that have documented that even upon successful completion of their ESL coursework, college students do not feel adequately prepared for subsequent mainstream, academic coursework (Christison & Krahnke, 1986; Ostler, 1980; Sheorey, Mokhtari, & Livingston, 1995; Smoke, 1988; Valentine & Repath-Martos, 1997). In the discussion that follows, the three major types of CBI used in ESL instruction are described briefly followed by some variations on these three models. Specific examples appear in the case studies at the end of this chapter. Theme-based English as a Second Language Theme-based approaches to language learning have been used for a long time in foreign language education (Stryker & Leaver, 1997) and are increasingly popular in ESL programs. Theme-based ESL instruction is principally concerned with developing second language competency while focusing instruction on a theme or series of topics such as the family, the environment, society, and so on. Theme-based courses are popular because they "can be used effectively with students at any English proficiency level . . . if the students are homogeneous enough in interests or motivation to permit thematic exploration" (Crandall, 1993, p. 8). The courses engender discussion, develop critical-thinking and study skills, and lend themselves to reading and writing development through the study of texts, newspaper and magazine articles, and other written materials. Theme-based ESL courses are generally not credit bearing. Sheltered Content Instruction Another form of CBI is sheltered content instruction (Blanton, 1992). In this model, second language learners are grouped in a content class such as biology or history, and native speakers of the language are not permitted to register for that section. The course is taught by a language instructor who is responsible for teaching both the subject matter and language skills. However, the focus is on mastery of the subject matter. Sheltered classes are designed to meet the needs of intermediate to high intermediate ESL students and at the college level are generally credit bearing. Classes can be "sheltered" in any number of ways including extending a content course from one to two semesters, providing extra time for instruction, attaching a tutor to the course, and carefully selecting a linguistically appropriate text. The advantages of the sheltered model are that ESL students can be provided with linguistically appropriate instruction, do not have to compete in the same classroom with native English speakers, and will not be intimidated by the latter. Adjunct Language Instruction The adjunct model as used for ESL instruction involves the pairing of two courses (Brinton et al., 1989; Snow & Brinton, 1988). One is a
< previous page
page_80
next page >
< previous page
page_81
next page > Page 81
credit-bearing content-area class (such as science or literature) in which both native English speakers and ESL students can enroll. The course is taught by a subject-area teacher. Paired with this content-area course is a sheltered language class. It is taught by an ESL professional, and the ESL students who are taking the content-area course must enroll in it. Depending on the institution, they may or may not receive academic credit for this sheltered course. The content and assignments in both courses are closely coordinated and meant to complement each other. As a result, the adjunct model requires a willing interaction and coordination between instructors in different disciplines and across academic units. The adjunct model focuses on both content mastery and language learning, with the language instructor of the paired, sheltered course reinforcing language skills as well as sometimes helping the students to master the subject matter. The model is generally used with learners with high to advanced English proficiency skills. Linking courses in this manner "integrates the language curriculum with the academic language demands on students in their other university courses" (Brinton et al., 1989, p. 17). However, compared to the thematic and sheltered models of CBI, the adjunct model "may be administratively more difficult to arrange" (Brinton et al., 1989, p. 17) because it requires cooperation between instructors in distinct disciplines and may present more scheduling difficulties. Variations on Content-based Instruction Variations on the three major types of CBI have been implemented to meet the academic needs of specific groups of students. For example, in the "bridge model," a course is designed to prepare ESL students for a particular subject or content-area course: "A bridge course commonly uses readings and introduces vocabulary and themes that will subsequently be covered in detail in the subject area course for which it lays the groundwork" (Cochran, 1992, p. 29). Thus, a bridge course combines both the sheltered and thematic CBI models. Along similar lines, Kasper (1995/1996) offered a variation of the adjunct model that involves the linking of an ESL reading course with a specific academic discipline (e.g., psychology). The ESL instructor uses readings from psychology in the ESL reading class. As a result, the students' reading skills are developed through study of the content area. This variation on the adjunct model is effective when the ESL instructor has the requisite background in the subject-matter area. New Approaches in English as a Second Language Instruction The quest to find better approaches to the teaching of ESL continues. New approaches are often tried and found to be successful; others are tried and abandoned because they do not advance language learning. In the material that follows, we describe two of the newer approaches to ESL instruction. Fluency First The fluency first approach to language learning is based on the work of Mayher, Lester, and Pradl (1983), who suggested that teachers should focus language learning on the sequential order of fluency, clarity, and correctness. The fluency first approach is based on the idea that students need massive exposure to English to acquire sufficient proficiency to succeed in their college classes. Reading extensively, writing
< previous page
page_81
next page >
< previous page
page_82
next page > Page 82
large amounts of text, and getting abundant feedback lead to student writing that is fluent, clear, correct, and effective in communicating. MacGowan-Gilhooly and Rorschach adapted this three-stage model to the ESL Program at the City College of New York (CCNY), and according to MacGowan-Gilhooly (1997). It has worked at CCNY and elsewhere, in credit and non-credit courses, linked and un-linked. And there is potential for it to work in EFL [English as a Foreign Language] classes as well, especially because it is a "fun" way to learn English, pleasure being the grand motivator. Computer Technologies Computers are making a major impact on the teaching of ESL in colleges and universities in the United States. Many ESL programs have their own computer facilities or access to them on their campuses. Instructors are using the many capabilities of this technology in their classrooms as a tool for language teaching, using word processing programs for teaching writing, the Internet to access information and to conduct research, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) programs for individualized or group work, CD-ROM capability to help students practice speaking and pronunciation, and authoring programs that allow instructors to design their own materials. By means of the Internet students and ESL instructors can exchange electronic mail (e-mail), obtain access to distant libraries and other databases, subscribe to lists, discussion groups, electronic journals, and other electronic sources of information, transfer files, and participate in distance learning. Numerous publications about the applications of the computer to ESL instruction are available (e.g., Sperling, 1997; Warschauer, 1995a, 1995b). In addition, two other chapters in this volume present further information on this topic. In chapter 14, Warschauer and Meskill describe in considerable detail the uses of technology for second language teaching and learning, and in chapter 15, Smoke and Rosenthal list and describe various Web sites, electronic discussion groups, journals, and so forth, that are related to ESL instruction. These "new" approaches to ESL instruction demonstrate that the field of ESL continues to evolve as we strive to find more successful ways to motivate our students and to help them learn English. Misunderstandings about English as a Second Language Although the teaching of ESL has seen growth and has become better known in the United States, there are marked areas of misunderstanding about what ESL means and what it entails. For the purposes of clarification, we address three of these issues next: 1. One area of misunderstanding about nonnative speakers of English is the role of their first language in the acquisition of the English. As Cochran's (1992) classification scheme previously illustrated, nonnative speakers of English who are studying ESL not only have varying degrees of literacy skills in their first language but also a range of abilities and skills in English. Research (Cummins, 1981; Cummins & Swain, 1986) indicates that the higher the academic literacy skills are in the first language, the easier it is to transfer such skills into learning a second language. Though most of this research is focused on young children, the research done on adults suggests similar outcomes. However, the transfer of literacy skills from one language to another by adults is a complex process involving intervening variables such as educational experiences and cultural literacy practices in the native language, as well as economic and time constraints,
< previous page
page_82
next page >
< previous page
page_83
next page > Page 83
and social factors. In addition, depending on the student's native language, there may be similarities in grammatical rules and structures that can be easily transferred to the target language, in this case English (Cummins, 1979, 1991; Cummins & Swain, 1986; Ellis, 1985). Just the fact that a student literate in one language knows that there are rules governing languages may make it easier to learn a second language. 2. There are a number of areas of misunderstandings when comparing ESL and foreign language (FL) learning and teaching. For example, there are contrasts in the pedagogical approaches used to teach ESL and FL in higher education (Raphan & Gertner, 1990) as well as differences in the context in which they are taught. Exposure to FL is generally limited to a classroom, which affects the quantity of exposure and/or contact time in the language. Most likely, students who study a FL for the first time do not have "fossilized" errorsincorrect linguistic features that have become a permanent feature of a second language learner's production, for example, "Mary study everyday" (incorrect use of third-person singular). However, the ESL learner is immersed in the target language, in and out of the classroom, and depending on previous exposure to the target language may have developed nonstandard usage and acquired errors that must be unlearned. Thus, the factor of environment or context contributes to the differences in the goals established by ESL and FL programs. With FL instruction, often the goal is to prepare the student for "academically oriented communication" (Raphan & Gertner, 1990, p. 76). What this means is that oral communication is limited to the situational context, grammar is taught in a structured manner, the native language is used as its baseline (i.e., vocabulary and structures in the foreign language are compared to those in the students' native language), and the reading of classical literature in the target language may be an ultimate goal. In ESL, the first goal is having the learner achieve communicative competence and then to develop academic proficiency in English that will enable the student to successfully perform college-level work in the target language. Finally, in comparing FL and ESL instruction the role of motivation needs to be considered. Motivation plays a major part in language learning for adults (Gardner & Lambert, 1972) and may be affected by learner attitudes, experiences, and cognitive abilities. Generally speaking, college students study foreign languages in order to satisfy an academic requirement or to achieve some personal goal. Motivation can vary widely from enthusiasm for learning another language to dissatisfaction for being required to take a language they believe they will never use. In ESL, however, students may be motivated by the desire to integrate into the new society (if they are immigrants or recent arrivals), to pursue a career, or to achieve some personal goals. As a result, students in many cases have more reasons or stronger motivation for persisting in their ESL studies. 3. A third and particularly troubling misunderstanding about the teaching of ESL is related to its perceived status when compared to foreign language instruction. Administrators, teachers, students, and the public generally regard the learning of a foreign language and its associated culture (and/or literature) as the learning of a "prestige" language. In contrast, the study of ESL is often compared to remedial instruction in English that is provided to students who do not have the academic credentials to be in college. However, remedial language teaching is instruction designed to increase the level of achievement of a native language learner in his or her first language so that it meets expected norms. Generally, when speaking of remediation in college, the reference is to basic skills remediation (reading, writing, and math) in English for high school graduates
< previous page
page_83
next page >
< previous page
page_84
next page > Page 84
who have been exposed to and have been taught in English all their lives. Students in remedial classes "often must review work that should have been done in high school . . . " (Ward, 1997/1998, p. 5). The pedagogical approach in remediation is to build on, refine, and correct those things not learned properly in elementary, middle, or high school. In contrast, ESL instruction is given in the students' second language, English, and it does not build on, refine, and/or correct inadequate acquisition or learning of the students' first or native language. Rather, English is a language that, in most cases, ESL students have not been exposed to previously or taught in when growing up. Thus, one cannot remediate what is not there, and ESL instruction is not a form of remedial education. Conclusions English today has become the international lingua franca used in commerce, science and technology, diplomacy, telecommunications, and popular culture and entertainment (Crystal, 1997; Kachru & Nelson, 1996; Pennycook, 1995). Worldwide, people recognize the importance of knowledge of English. Thus, many people choose to come to the United States to study the language and to continue their education in their chosen fields. Others come as immigrants or refugees seeking a better life for themselves and their families. As a result, the number of second language learners in the United States, in grade school through graduate school, has increased significantly, especially throughout the last 35 years. Hence, the professionals in ESL in higher education have assisted countless students from all over the world to achieve their personal and professional goals through the study of English. During this period of time, the field of ESL in higher education has expanded and matured. There has been growth in the variety of programs offered, with the missions of the programs being tailored to the particular populations they serve. Moreover, there has been development and growth in the pedagogical approaches used in ESL programs. Now, there is a plethora of print and nonprint materials with which to teach. And finally, the use of technology in the field, particularly the computer, has caused another wave of renewal. There is every hope that ESL will continue to develop as a valued discipline in higher education in this ever-shrinking world. Case Studies The four programs outlined in the following sections give some idea of the breadth and scope of the teaching of ESL in colleges and universities in the United States. The authors wish to thank the following people for their assistance in gathering and furnishing the information for the program descriptions: Kean University, Nancy Brilliant and Director Sharon Snyder; MiamiDade Community College, Myra Medina and Director Cynthia M. Schuemann; New York University, Thomas Mohan and Director William Jex; and the University of California at San Diego, Dorothy Burak and Director Peter Thomas. Case Study #1: Kean University: An English as a Second Language Program Housed within an English Department Kean University (Union, NJ) is a state university offering both bachelor's and master's degrees. It enrolls over 9,500 undergraduate and more than 1,800 graduate students. Kean
< previous page
page_84
next page >
< previous page
page_85
next page > Page 85
students are often the first in their family to attend a college/university, and many hold part- and full-time jobs while enrolled in school. The student body at Kean is both culturally and linguistically diverse. Its ESL Program is housed in the English Department. The ESL Program began in the late 1960s when a member of the faculty in the English Department, Professor Nancy Brilliant, observed that students whose first language was not English were having considerable difficulty in the required freshman composition course. She suggested to the chair of the English Department that these students be placed in a separate section where they would receive the extra help that they apparently needed. At first, Professor Brilliant informally sought students from colleagues in the department. However, over time it became evident that a multilevel English as a Second Language program was needed for nonnative speakers of English. Demand for ESL instruction continued to grow, especially in the 1970s, when Kean initiated its dual language program for native Spanish speakers (the "Spanish Speaking Program," which is described by Rosenthal in chap. 5, this volume), and the Exceptional Educational Opportunity (EEO) Program began accepting students whose first language was not English. Gradually, the ESL Program became institutionalized, receiving the support of the administration, and over time, the ESL course offerings at Kean have evolved into the program that is described herein. Kean's ESL Program is designed "to help students whose first language is not English to achieve a degree of competency in English that will enable them to successfully complete a baccalaureate program at the University." Enrollment in the ESL Program is open to those students who have been admitted to Kean. In other words, the program does not accept nonmatriculated students. Approximately 500 studentsrepresenting 56 different countries and speaking a total of 41 different languagesparticipate in the program each fall and spring semester. The majority of the students, about 72%, are Hispanic. (A smaller ESL program is conducted during the summer, mainly for students in the EEO program.) Most of the ESL students are immigrants or the sons and daughters of immigrants. However, the ESL program also serves a small number of international students on F-1 visas. After students are admitted to Kean, they are given the ESL Placement Test, which consists of a writing sample, a reading test, and an oral interview. Based on the test results, as well as additional information provided by the students on a form that they fill out, they are placed in one of four ESL levels. On each level there is a six-credit core course. The core courses on Levels 1 (ESL 0100, English as a Second Language I) and 2 (ESL 0200, English as a Second Language II) are comprehensive skill courses and carry institutional credit but no credit toward graduation. These are beginning and low intermediate courses, respectively. The core course on Level 3 (ENG 1300, Writing in English I) is a passfail high intermediate prefreshman composition writing course that carries six credits toward graduation. Finally, there is the Level 4 course (ENG 1400, Writing in English II) which is a six-credit graded freshman composition equivalent. Students must earn a grade of "C" or better to successfully complete ENG 1400. ENG 1400 also provides a "bridge" to Landmarks of World Literature (ENG 2203), a required general education course for all Kean students. Thus, besides advanced expository writing, ENG 1400 introduces students to background information and vocabulary that they may encounter in Landmarks. Moreover, the students also are exposed to techniques of text and character analysis, and they practice writing about literature. In addition to the four core courses, there are satellite courses offered on each level. However, credits earned in these courses do not count toward graduation:
< previous page
page_85
next page >
< previous page
page_86
next page > Page 86
On Levels 1 and 2, the courses are in listening and pronunciation: ESL 0102, Pronunciation I; ESL 0103, Listening Skills I; ESL 0202, Pronunciation II; ESL 0203, Listening Skills II. On Level 3, the satellite courses are in vocabulary development and conversation: ESL 0302, Vocabulary Development I; ESL 0303, English Conversation. On Level 4, the satellite course is in vocabulary development: ESL 0402, Vocabulary Development II. For the more advanced ESL students, Kean's ESL coursework is becoming increasingly content based. For example, on Level 4 there is another graded course, ENG 1403, Investigative Skills, which carries three academic credits. This is a sheltered course taught by an ESL instructor and is equivalent to GE 2020, Inquiry and Research, a required general education core course that all Kean undergraduates must take. The ESL Program also has paired a selected section of ENG 1400 with GE 1200, Intellectual and Cultural Traditions of Western Civilization, another general education course required for all Kean undergraduates. Finally, as of this writing another pairing has been discussed, that of the third-level ESL core course (ENG 1300) with a mathematics course. A student can earn a total of 15 credits toward graduation in Kean's ESL Program. Furthermore, in addition to the courses previously described, there are two noncredit writing workshops, one between Levels 2 and 3 (ESL 0204, English as a Second Language Writing Workshop I) and one between Levels 3 and 4 (ESL 0304, English as a Second Language Writing Workshop II) for those students who need extra writing practice. The ESL Program at Kean University is located in the English Department in the School of Liberal Arts and is headed by a director who reports to the chair of the English Department. It has its own staff, assistant director, academic counselor, secretary, graduate assistant, and its own budget. Full-time faculty members hired to teach in the ESL Program (of whom there are presently four) are tenured in the English Department and must have a doctorate in Applied Linguistics, ESL, or a related area. Adjuncts who teach ESL (approximately 25 each semester) must have a master's degree in TESL or a related field. At Kean, it is not a requirement that ESL instructors be native English speakers. For additional information about Kean's ESL Program, contact Dr. Sharon C. Snyder, Director, ESL Program, Willis Hall, Morris Avenue, Kean University, Union, New Jersey, 07083; Tel.: 908-527-3019; Fax: 908-289-1067; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site: www.kean.edu Case Study #2: University of California, San Diego: English Language Program The University of California, San Diego (UCSD), is part of the nine-campus University of California system, one of the largest university systems in the world. The English Language Program (ELP) at UCSD began in 1980 and has been expanding in size and scope since that time. It has the same organizational structure as all ELPs in the University of California system: It is part of Extension, more formally known at UCSD as Extended Studies and Public Programs. UCSD's ELP focuses on providing intensive English language instruction in all skill areasreading, writing, listening, and speakingfor international students. Most of the students are studying in the United States on student visas and eventually will return to their home countries. At present, they represent 46 different countries and speak 27 languages. Students admitted to the ELP do not have a direct admission track to the
< previous page
page_86
next page >
< previous page
page_87
next page > Page 87
undergraduate or graduate programs at the University of California. However, UCSD content courses are available to qualified ELP students and carry transferable university credit. The ELP operates on a schedule of four 10-week quarters per year with an enrollment of approximately 300 to 370 students per quarter. Intensive instruction is provided at 11 levels, from beginner to near-native English proficiency. There is a minimum of 20 hours of instruction per week, divided into 10 hours of a comprehensive core class plus 10 additional hours of elective classes. The appropriate core class for each student is determined by placement tests, which include an in-house oral interview and writing sample plus the Comprehensive English Language Test (CELT) grammar and listening tests. The core classes meet for 2 hours each day and cover all central language skills. The elective list includes Business English, Film, American Culture, American Music, Idioms and Slang, and many more. In these 10-week electives, students continue studying English, but the focus is on the particular topic or theme of the course. Other possible choices for the elective slots are preparation for the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC). Finally, there are also elective courses in Conversation, Grammar Development, Everyday English, and Listening, that is, more general courses that continue to work on language development. In addition to the 10-week programs, there are also 4-week programs specializing in Business English, Medical English, Academic English, and Conversation. These are intensive English courses, again focusing on the content in a particular area. Moreover, 10-week programs in Travel and Tourism and Engineering Management have been added (which are content-area courses that earn continuing education credit); 3-month certificate programs in Marketing, Business Management, and the U.S. Legal System are also offered. The ELP at UCSD also provides contract short-term programs for various overseas colleges, universities, and corporations from time to time. UCSD's ELP is an intensive English program and a member of AAIEP. The program is headed by a director and has its own budget. Included in the program are an academic coordinator, 17 full-time instructors, 2535 part-time instructors, and 6 full-time and 25 part-time office staff. Instructors are required to hold an M.A. in TESL or in a closely related area and also must have very extensive and diverse experience. There is no tenure; contracts are renewable annually. Instructors do not have to be native speakers of English but must have native speaker proficiency in all language skills. For further information contact Peter Thomas, Director, English Language Program, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, California 92093-0176; Tel.: 619-534-6784; Fax: 619-534-5703; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site:www-esps.ucsd.edu/elp Case Study #3: New York University: The American Language Institute Another type of ESL program in higher education is an institute that is part of an academic institution. An example is the American Language Institute (ALI), School of Continuing and Professional Studies at New York University (NYU). Located in New York City, NYU is the largest private university in the United States. The ALI is a member of AAIEP and UCIEP. The ALI was started in 1945 by Mendor T. Brunetti who had founded the foreign language program of NYU's General Education Division in 1930. Today, the Institute provides a comprehensive program of English language instruction, evaluation, and
< previous page
page_87
next page >
< previous page
page_88
next page > Page 88
advisement, including an orientation to the many cultures of the United States. The Institute is designed to serve NYU students for whom English is not their first language and addresses two distinctly defined audiences: International students who have matriculated (or will soon matriculate) into the University's (or other metro-area colleges') undergraduate or graduate programs and whose primary English concerns are academic, Other metro-area international students of continuing education whose primary English language purposes are driven by career and professional concerns. Presently, the ALI serves 1,200 students from 75 countries; 54% are Asian, 25% Central and South American and Caribbean, 17% European, 3% Middle Eastern, and 1% African. Nearly half of the Institute's students are NYU degree and diploma candidates. They register for ALI coursesboth credit and noncreditthrough one of the 13 schools and colleges of NYU, such as the College of Arts and Science, the School of Education, and the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. Two hundred more ALI students are holders of student visas who are in the United States solely for the intensive study of English. The remaining ALI studentsbusiness people, diplomats, tourists, and so oncome from metropolitan New York's ever-growing international community. All ALI students take the ALI English Diagnostic Test including sections on grammar, listening comprehension, composition, and conversation. The test is the property of the ALI. The test results are expressed in terms of (a) Ranks on a 100-point scale that correspond to ALI course offerings and (b) six English proficiency levels reflecting a student's ability to meet the English language demands of coursework at an American college or university. On each of the six levels, there is a description of proficiency in terms of writing, reading and vocabulary, listening comprehension, and speaking. The Chart of English Proficiency Levels was developed by and is the property of the ALI. The Institute offers a 20-hour-per-week Intensive Program in American English and Orientation (to American culture) for students who wish to learn English in the shortest possible time. If the student's English proficiency is rated as limited (Levels 1, 2, 3) on the ALI proficiency chart, intensive (22 hr/wk) or comprehensive (9 hr/wk day; 6 hr/wk evening) English courses that are not credit bearing are recommended. If the proficiency rating indicates that the student is ready for part-time academic study (Levels 4 or 5), University Preparatory Courses are recommended along with additional regular course offerings in the university to complete the schedule. University Preparatory Courses are part of the University Preparatory Workshop (UPW) Program, which includes two college workshops in English and two workshops in oral communication and comprehension. Each of the two college workshops in English carries four academic credits for graduation if registered for through the College of Arts and Science, the undergraduate liberal arts school of NYU. These courses help advanced students to master skills essential in meeting the demands of university work in the United States. In addition, there is a noncredit program of advanced expository writing for students whose English language proficiency ranks at Level 6 and who still wish to continue working on their English language skills. Students at Level 6 are considered ready to enroll in regular full-time undergraduate coursework. The ALI also offers a program of courses in business English for international professionals for Proficiency Levels 4, 5, and 6 or Ranks 708090. The students within these
< previous page
page_88
next page >
< previous page
page_89
next page > Page 89
courses tend to be nonnative speakers of English who are being promoted within their companies but find that they do not have the written and oral skills to make formal and informal presentations in their professional areas. Moreover, the upper ranks (Ranks 40, 50, 60) of the 20-hour-per-week intensive ALI program include a series of workshops based on content or themes. These include: theater workshop, a course in reading and talking about fiction, American language and culture through movies, a course titled ''The New York Times," and a course in international short stories. Qualified comprehensive program students may also attend these workshops if they wish. However, the workshops are required for Intensive Program students. The ALI is administered by a director and assistant director. The program has its own budget, which is proposed and administered by the director. The ALI staff includes an academic coordinator, four program coordinators, a foreign student advisor, and an international activities assistant. Qualifications for full-time faculty are doctorate preferred, extensive experience in the field of ESL both in the United States and abroad, publications, and substantial professional development and activity. Full-time faculty hired in recent years receive Master Teacher status, that is, a 3-year renewable contract. Adjunct faculty must have a master's degree in TESOL or a related field or be in the final stages of completing the degree. Many full-time and adjunct faculty have had overseas experience and have knowledge of one or more foreign languages. Instructors need not be native speakers of English, but they must demonstrate nativelike proficiency, which includes having the rhythms and intonation of a native speaker. For further information about this program contact Dr. William Jex, Director, American Language Institute, 48 Cooper Square, Room 200, New York, New York 10003-7154; Tel.: 212-998-7040; Fax: 212-995-4135; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site: www.scps.nyu.edu/ali Case Study #4: ESL in a Community College: Miami-dade Community College The final case study in this chapter involves Miami-Dade Community College, the largest community college in the United States. Miami-Dade enrolls almost 130,000 students and has six campuses located in and around Miami, Florida. ESL is taught on all six campuses. For example, on the North Campus (located in northwest Miami and which includes two satellites, Hialeah Center and the Entrepreneurial Education Center), the ESL program began in 1969 as a four-level credit program enrolling approximately 100 students, most of whom were Cuban refugees. In the 1970s, the program was expanded to six levels. Since then, the program has grown to serve some 5,000 students per year, mostly Hispanic, a strong minority of Haitians, and a smattering of other language groups representing more than 30 nationalities. Unlike many other colleges and universities, ESL has departmental status on all six Miami-Dade campuses. All students wishing to enroll in Associate's degree programs at community colleges in the state of Florida take the Computerized Placement Test (CPT) published by the Educational Testing Service and the College Board. For students at Miami-Dade Community College whose mastery of English is insufficient to take the CPT, the Michigan English Placement Test (EPT) is given instead. Limited English proficient students are then placed in one of the six levels of ESL based on their EPT scores, a writing sample, and oral interview.
< previous page
page_89
next page >
< previous page
page_90
next page > Page 90
"ESL" is the course prefix given to the two lower levels for true beginners with no or very little proficiency in English. At these levels, students are learning English survival skills, basic language competencies that allow them to meet primary needs such as shopping for food, doing business at the post office, and so forth. Next, there are four levels of "ENS" (English for Non-Native Speakers) at the intermediate and advanced levels. The ENS courses are more academically oriented than the ESL courses, focusing on English for Academic Purposes (EAP). The ENS curriculum is designed for students who have indicated an intention to pursue higher education in the United States. (Although institutional credit is earned for ENS courses, these credits cannot be applied toward the Associate's degree.) At each of the four ENS levels, there are courses in writing, reading, grammar, listening, and speaking. As students progress to Level 5, there are some options. Those students who demonstrate oral fluency may be exempt from the listening/speaking component and may instead take a mathematics, study skills, or computer course. In some cases instructors offer courses following a learning community model. For example, in Level 6, students might be given permission to enroll in a regular section of Humanities, Social Environment, or Introductory Psychology along with their native English-speaking "American" peers. Supporting the content course is an ENS writing class that focuses on the development of essays related to the content theme, and an ENS reading course that utilizes the textbook of the content-area course as a means to develop reading, study skills, and vocabulary. The non-native English-speaking students take the ENS writing and reading courses as a cohort. The learning communities are a relatively new initiative. Nonetheless, preliminary research findings indicate that many of the ENS students are actually having greater success in the content classes than their native English-speaking "American" peers. Many of the ESL/ENS courses have companion laboratory sections where, with the help of their laboratory instructors and ESL tutors, the students work with specialized ESL software and audio-visual materials to improve pronunciation, listening comprehension, vocabulary, grammar, and general writing and reading abilities. Upon completing the last ENS level, students take the state-required CPT. Depending on scores earned, some students place into Freshman Composition; others who score below the cut-off must take additional writing or reading courses in the College Preparatory Department (on some campuses called Basic Communication). The chairs of the ESL departments on the six Miami-Dade Community College campuses report to an associate dean of the Division of Arts and Letters who reports to a campus academic dean. To teach ENS courses, full- and part-time faculty must have practical experience with teaching English as a Second Language and a master's degree in TESOL, linguistics, or a related field. If an individual has a master's degree, but not in TESOL, he or she must have completed at least 18 graduate credits in TESOL-required coursework. To teach ESL prefix courses (the beginning levels of English as a Second Language) instructors must have a bachelor's degree in ESL or in a related area plus relevant teaching experience. Full-time faculty have tenure and faculty rank. Faculty do not have to be native speakers of English in order to teach ESL/ENS courses but must have nativelike proficiency. For further information contact Dr. Cynthia M. Schuemann, Chairperson, ESL and Foreign Languages Department, Miami-Dade Community College, North Campus, 11380 N.W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33167, Tel.: 305-237-1768; Fax: 305-237-1219; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site: www.mdcc.edu
< previous page
page_90
next page >
< previous page
page_91
next page > Page 91
References Adamson, H. D. (1990). ESL students' use of academic skills in content courses. English for Specific Purposes, 9, 6787. Blanton, L. L. (1992). A holistic approach to college ESL: Integrating language and content. ELT Journal, 46(3), 285293. Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. New York: Newbury House. Brunfit, C. J. & Johnson, K. (Eds.). (1979). The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Cavanaugh, M. P. (1996). History of teaching English as a second language. English Journal, 85 (8), 4044. Christison, M. A. & Krahnke, K. J. (1986). Student perceptions of academic language study. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 6179. Cochran, E. P. (Ed.). (1992). Into the academic mainstream: Guidelines for teaching language minority students. New York: Instructional Resource Center, City University of New York. Crandall, J. A. (Ed.). (1987). ESL through content-area instruction: Mathematics, science, social studies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Regents/Center for Applied Linguistics. Crandall, J. A. (1993). Academic achievement for all students: Meeting the needs of language minority students in higher education. In J. M. Reppy & E. Coburn (Eds.), Working with the ESL student in the college classroom: A primer of hands-on how to's (Vol. 2, pp. 421). Union, NJ: The Resource Center for Language Minority Students. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimal age question, and some other matters. In Working Papers on Bilingualism, #19 (pp. 197205). Ontario: Bilingual Education Project, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 184 334) Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and minority language children. Toronto: OISE Press. Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 7089). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education. New York: Longman. Curran, C. A. (1976). Counseling-learning in second language. East Dubuque, IL: Counseling-Learning Publications. Diller, K. C. (1978). The language teaching controversy. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Farland, R. W., & Cepeda, R. (1988). English as a second language: A progress report on existing board policy directives. Sacramento: California Community Colleges, Office of the Chancellor. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 293 606) Finocchiaro, M. (1974). English as a second language: From theory to practice. New York: Regents. Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gattegno, C. (1972). Teaching foreign languages in schools: The silent way. New York: Educational Solutions, Inc. Kachru, B. B., & Nelson, C. L. (1996). World Englishes. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 71102). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kasper, L. F. (1995/1996). Using discipline-based texts to boost college ESL reading instruction. Journal of Adolescent Adult Literacy, 39(4), 298306. Kelly, L. G. (1969). Twenty-five centuries of language teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, England: Pergamon. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Pergamon. Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford, England: Pergamon. Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and principles in language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press. Lozanov, G. (1982). Suggestology and suggestopedia. In R. W. Blair. (Ed.), Innovative approaches to language teaching (pp. 146159). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
< previous page
page_91
next page >
< previous page
page_92
next page > Page 92
MacGowan-Gilhooly, A. (1997). Fluency first: A whole language approach. In K. Medina (Ed.), Selected papers from ESL for the 21st Century: A New Jersey statewide higher education conference (pp. 7180). Elizabeth, NJ: Union County College, (Sponsored by The New Jersey Commission on Higher Education, Union County College, & Kean University of New Jersey). Mayher, J. S., Lester, N., & Pradl, G. (1983). Learning to write/writing to learn. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook/Heinemann. Ostler, S. E. (1980). A survey of academic needs for advanced ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 489502. Pennycook, A. (1995). English in the world/The world in English. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and inequality in language education (pp. 3458). New York: Cambridge University Press. Raphan, D. & Gertner, M. (1990). ESL and foreign language: A teaching and learning perspective. RTDE 6(2), 7584. Sheorey, R., Mokhtari, K., & Livingston, G. (1995). A comparison of native and nonnative English speaking students as college readers. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 51, 661677. Smoke, T. (1988). Using feedback from ESL students to enhance their success in college. In S. Benesch (Ed.), Ending remediation: Linking ESL and content in higher education (pp. 719). Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Snow, M. A., & Brinton, D. M. (1988). Content-based language instruction: Investigating the effectiveness of the adjunct model. TESOL Quarterly, 22(4), 553574. Sperling, D. (1997). The Internet guide for English language teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Regents. Stryker, S. B., & Leaver, B. L. (1997). Content-based instruction: From theory to practice. In S. B. Stryker & B. L. Leaver (Eds.), Content-based instruction in foreign language education: Models and methods. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1992). Current population reports, P25-1092, Population projections of the United States, by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin: 19922050. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Valentine, J. F., & Repath-Martos, L. M. (1997). How relevant is relevant? In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom (pp. 233247). White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman. Ward, M. (1997/1998). Three myths about college English as a second language. TESOL Matters, 1, 5. Warschauer, M. (1995a). E-mail for English teaching. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Warschauer, M. (1995b). Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
< previous page
page_92
next page >
< previous page
page_93
next page > Page 93
5 Bilingual (Dual Language) Programs Judith W. Rosenthal Kean University <><><><><><><><><><><><> Maria and her husband, Luis, recently immigrated to the United States. They made that decision based on the existing economic and political conditions in Colombia and in response to the urging of other relatives who had already settled in northern New Jersey. Although the move was difficult, Maria and Luis found and rented an apartment in Elizabeth. Luis took a job in a local factory, and Maria decided to continue the university education she had begun in Colombia. Knowing little English and on a tight budget, her educational choices were limited. Thus, she enrolled in a local state university that offered English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction as well as a dual language/bilingual program. During her first semester, Maria took 6 hours of ESL instruction and two general education courses (biology and math), which were taught in Spanish. During several subsequent semesters, she successfully completed the ESL program, and took several more introductory courses taught in Spanish (including psychology, history, economics, and anthropology). Then, with a great deal of fear and trepidation Maria was "mainstreamed." All of the courses in her major (Medical Technology) plus most of her general education requirements and free electives were completed in English. She also took a course called "Spanish for Spanish Speakers," which allowed her to strengthen her native language skills and to polish up some of her grammar. With several personal problems along the way, Maria had to withdraw from a few courses and occasionally drop from full-time to part-time status. However, she persisted, and 6 years after entering the university graduated with a B.S. in Medical Technology and with bilingual language proficiency. Luis and other relatives proudly watched as she marched in the graduation procession. Now that Maria has her degree (and a good job) in hand, Luis is thinking about enrolling in the same bilingual program and majoring in computer science. His factory job is leading nowhere, and he is well aware that his future opportunities are limited by his lack of English proficiency and need for a university degree. <><><><><><><><><><><><> The programs described in this chapter are "bilingual" or "dual language" in the sense that two different languagesEnglish as well as the native language of the studentsare used for instructional purposes. Such programs have been established at a number of colleges and universities in the United States to meet the needs of adult students who (a) are academically ready to begin a college/university education but who (b) are still in the process of learning English. Some of these students are recent immigrants and refugees; others are "international" or "foreign'' students studying in the United States on temporary student visas.
< previous page
page_93
next page >
< previous page
page_94
next page > Page 94
By enrolling in a bilingual or dual language (from here on in abbreviated BL/DL) program, students can "jump start" their higher education. They learn to read, write, speak, and understand English by participating in an ESL program while concurrently enrolling in a limited number of credit-bearing introductory academic courses (e.g., science, history, and business) taught in their native language. As they progress through the ESL course sequence and their proficiency in English increases, the amount of coursework they take in their native language decreases. Eventually, these students are main-streamed, finishing their degree requirements side by side with their native English speaking peers. As a result, immigrant, refugee, and international students who successfully complete BL/DL programs graduate not only with an academic degree but also with proficiency in two languages. No one knows how many programs of this type exist in colleges and universities across the United States, and no higher education association or organization keeps count or tracks such programs. The publications that mention or describe BL/DL programs in higher education generally appear in obscure sources, and they can be counted on the fingers of one hand (Ronco, 1992; Rosenthal, 1990, 1996; Stern, 1994; Yorio, 1988). Nonetheless, some of these programs date back 30 years. It just may be that BL/DL programs for nonnative English speakers are one of the best kept secrets in higher education. Terminology and Methodology In this chapter two pairs of words are used interchangeably: (a) college and university and (b) dual language and bilingual. College/university refers to postsecondary institutions that award to undergraduates either the associate's or baccalaureate degree; bilingual/dual language indicates that two different languages are used for instructional purposes. It is important to emphasize that the focus of this chapter is on BL/DL programs for adult college students. Thus, this chapter is not about "transitional bilingual" education for schoolchildren (Grades K12), a topic (of considerable controversy) considered in depth elsewhere (Crawford, 1989, 1997; Cummins, 1994; Krashen, 1996; McQuillan & Tse, 1996; Padilla, Fairchild, & Valadez, 1990; Rossell & Baker, 1996; Spener, 1988). College students who choose to participate in BL/DL programs are adults. Unlike school-children, they do not have the luxury of 12 years to spend on their studies. In picking a college or university to attend, cost, geographic proximity (to home and work), and the availability of ESL instruction may be just as important as the selection of a particular academic major. In order to write this chapter, I requested information from a number of institutions that I had previously identified as having some type of BL/DL program (Cabrillo College, Aptos, CA; El Paso Community College, El Paso, TX ; Erie Community College (State University of New York), Buffalo, NY; Hostos Community College (City University of New York), Bronx, NY; Hudson County Community College, West New York, NJ; Kean University, Union, NJ; La Salle University, Philadelphia, PA; Lehman College (City University of New York), Bronx, NY; Mercy College, Dobbs Ferry, NY; and The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX). My point of reference was Kean University where I have been teaching a section of Principles of Biology (four credits) in Spanish since 1986. Kean's "Spanish-Speaking Program" was begun in 1972, and when I first got involved, I was under the impression that
< previous page
page_94
next page >
< previous page
page_95
next page > Page 95
it was the only BL/DL program of its type in a college or university in the United States. However, in talking to colleagues at other institutions, I eventually learned of similar programs elsewhere. To gather background material for this chapter, I wrote to the program directors and/or to various administrators at the institutions listed previously requesting information and data about their programs. The responses I received to my inquiries were varied. In several cases, someone was kind enough to answer a lengthy questionnaire that I had provided. For other institutions, I had to piece together what I could about their programs from information appearing in recent college catalogs, course schedules, and other available literature. This explains why not all of the aforementioned institutions are described in equal depth in the remainder of this chapter. No attempt was made to identify (and then contact) every college offering a BL/DL program in the United States. Thus, the findings reported in this chapter in no way represent a random sample of such programs at post-secondary institutions across the United States. Nonetheless, in spite of any shortcomings, this is unquestionably the most comprehensive survey of programs of this type carried out to date. I hope it will be a good starting point for additional inquiry and discussion. It would not have been possible to write this chapter without the help of the following individuals who provided me with data and information about the programs at their institutions. I am most appreciative of their participation in this study: Cabrillo College (C. Biancalana, Vice-President, Instruction; K. Gant, Assistant to the Vice-President, Instruction; and M. Armijo, Counselor, Career Planning Center); El Paso Community College (C. T. Delgado, Director of Curriculum and Instructional Development; D. Brown, Associate Dean for Institutional Effectiveness; J. Ritchey, Information Coordinating Council Representative; R. E. Melia, History Instructor; M. Martinez-Lasso, Director, Center for International Programs; O. Tavarez, Assistant to the Director, Center for International Programs; and M. E. Alvarez, Instructor, Biology); Erie Community College (E. Paterson, Director, Bilingual Program); Hostos Community College (S. J. Dicker, Professor of English; and I. Santiago Santiago, former President of HCC); Hudson County Community College (B. Abascal, Coordinator of the Bilingual Courses; K. Medina, Director of ESL; and F. Aquino, Dean, North Hudson Center/Instructional Support Services); Kean University (O. Edreira, Director, Spanish-Speaking Program; and A. Lopez, former Assistant Director, Spanish-Speaking Program); La Salle University (J. Devine, former Director of the Graduate Program in Bilingual/Bicultural Studies; and L. Ziegler, Director of B.U.S.C.A.); Lehman College (X. Totti, former Director, Bilingual Program; M. Gottlieb, Acting Dean of Arts and Humanities; and M. Ward, Acting Director, ESL Program); Mercy College (M. Han, Director of the Korean Bilingual Program; E. Spinelli, Associate Dean for Extension Centers; and M. Santapau, Associate Dean Bilingual Programs); The University of Texas at El Paso (D. Guerro, Director of Admissions; C. Santoyo, Mexican Student Advisor; F. Kluck, Associate Professor of Languages and Linguistics; and L. Del Rio, ESOL Coordinator). I also extend my gratitude to other contributors whose names I may have inadvertently omitted! Catalog Descriptions of Bilingual/Dual Language Programs For readers who are unfamiliar with the type of program that is the subject of this chapter, I have included two "typical" catalog descriptions:
< previous page
page_95
next page >
< previous page
page_96
next page > Page 96
Kean University (formerly Kean College of New Jersey, Union, NJ): The commitment of Kean University to students who are native Spanish speakers is reflected in the innovative Spanish-Speaking Program. Each semester a representative group of General Education, as well as interdepartmental, courses is offered in Spanish. Designed to be taken during the freshman and sophomore years, these courses enable Spanish-speaking students to earn credit toward the baccalaureate degree while simultaneously completing the English as a Second Language Program. (Kean College Undergraduate Catalog, 19961998, p. 24) The University of Texas at El Paso (El Paso, TX): The Inter-American Science and Humanities Program (Programa InterAmericano de Ciencias y Humanidades), a component of the Office of International Programs, is an initial entry program for students from Spanish-speaking countries who wish to attend an American university but whose English is less than adequate to do so. The IASHP coordinates many first level courses taught in Spanish which the student may take while receiving instruction designed to rapidly enhance English language skills. The Program also provides academic advising for all students entering the University under its auspices. (The University of Texas at El Paso Undergraduate Studies Catalog, 19961998, p. 62) What is evident from the catalog descriptions is that postsecondary BL/DL programs are not the same programs that train bilingual K12 teachers nor are they an academic "major." Rather, they allow immigrant, refugee, and international students to enroll in college and to begin taking academic coursework that is taught in their native language while concurrently studying ESL. Although the majority of programs that I have been able to identify serve Hispanic students, a few provide content-area instruction in languages other than Spanish. For example, Mercy College began its Korean Bilingual Program in 1991, and Hudson County Community Collegein addition to its Spanish bilingual programoccasionally offers courses taught bilingually in Gujarati/English and Arabic/English. In theory, there is no reason why a BL/DL program could not be started in any language as long as (a) there is a large enough population of students who would benefit from it, and (b) there are qualified (academically and linguistically) individuals to serve as teaching faculty and staff. Shared Characteristics of Bilingual/Dual Language Programs There are six characteristics shared by the institutions that offer BL/DL programs: First, they are committed to accessible higher education and to serving the diverse populations residing in their communities. Second, each has a program of instruction in ESL which provides coursework in English for nonnative speakers. Third, these institutions have a history of serving a relatively large group of immigrant and/or international students, many of whom speak the same non-English language. Fourth, there is a commitment to finding faculty members who are not only proficient in the students' native language but also qualified academically to teach content-area courses. Fifth, each institution offers a limited number of credit-bearing, content-area courses taught partially or entirely in the students' native language.
< previous page
page_96
next page >
< previous page
page_97
next page > Page 97
And sixth, as demonstrated by their willingness to support nontraditional BL/DL programs, these institutions recognize that adult students who are still in the process of learning English are just as educable as their native English-speaking peers. What is especially remarkable about the similarity among the programs is that each was developed independently, without knowledge of and/or consultation with any of the already existing programs. Thus, although each program claims to be unique, it isn't. BL/DL programs are evidently a practical solution to the "problem" of providing access to, retention in, and higher education for local populations of academically qualified adult students who are non-native speakers of English. Theoretical Foundations of Postsecondary Bilingual/Dual Language Programs Because of the pragmatic nature of postsecondary BL/DL programs, it is not surprising to learn that in response to my inquiries about their origin and history, no one ever referred to any of the theories of second language acquisition nor to the arguments commonly used to support bilingual education. In other words, there is no explicit theoretical framework justifying postsecondary bilingual education. Nevertheless, such programs embody many of the principles and practices supported by current research about second language acquisition and effective bilingual education. Consider the following questions and their answers: 1. How long does it take to learn a second language? Studies have shown that on average it takes 5 to 10 years to develop the level of second language proficiency required for academic success (Collier, 1987; Collier & Thomas, 1989; Cummins, 1981). Although these investigations involved school-age children, there is no evidence indicating that the acquisition of a second language for academic purposes is faster for adults. Therefore, allowing adult nonnative speakers to begin college in a BL/DL program reduces a language barrier that might otherwise discourage them from continuing their education. 2. Wouldn't complete immersion in an all-English curriculum help students to learn English even more rapidly? At first glance, it might seem that an all-English college curriculum would maximize the opportunities for non-native speakers to learn English. And, indeed, some students who know little or no English can and do succeed when "immersed" academically in English. This is particularly true if they have had a very good education in their native language and are intellectually prepared for the academic challenges they face (Krashen, 1996; Snow, 1990). However, for other non-native speakers, "submersion" or "immersion" in an all-English curriculum at the college level would spell disaster. This population includes (a) academically underprepared students who need remediation in reading, mathematics, and/or study skills, (b) students who are at the very beginning stages of learning English as a second language, and (c) students whose study time is limited because they have families to support and/or work obligations. For students such as these, a bilingual program allows them to develop their basic skills and to study English as a second language while they begin working toward their degree requirements. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no evidence that the acquisition of English as a second language is impaired by either maintaining one's native language or by receiving
< previous page
page_97
next page >
< previous page
page_98
next page > Page 98
content-area instruction in one's native language (Crawford, 1997; Krashen, 1996). This means that college students will not necessarily learn English any more rapidly or successfully by relinquishing their native tongue. Furthermore, for non-native speakers, improving their language proficiency and communication skills in English is only one facet of their college education. Whether they want to become medical technologists, teachers, business people, or lawyers, it is important to remember that language is a means to an end, not the end itself. 3. Can students transfer knowledge and skills from their first to their second language or does everything have to be relearned? College-level ESL students who are educated and literate in their first languagebe it Russian, Chinese, or Spanishbring to their second language readily transferable subject area knowledge (math, geography, history, science, etc.); knowledge of language structure and function; literacy skills (reading and writing); and math and problem-solving skills (Baker, 1993; Cummins, 1980, 1992; Cummins & Swain, 1986; Krashen, 1996; Snow, 1990). Although such students still need to learn the English names and terminology, they do not have to relearn the subject matter. In fact, it is this "linguistic transferability" that allows them to succeed in college even when their English language skills are weak. Thus, a good education in one's native language not only promotes second language acquisition but also contributes to the overall academic success of the second language learner. (For additional discussion of the role of the student's native language in the acquisition of English as a second language, readers are referred to chap. 4 of this volume.) As pointed out by Gray, Rolph, and Melamid (1996), institutions of higher education are not making systematic efforts to address issues and needs related to the growing immigrant, nonnative English-speaking student population. This is in spite of the fact that (a) the number of limited English proficient students (international as well as immigrant and refugee) is increasing dramatically at our colleges and universities (Gray et al., 1996; Rosenthal, in press; Sigsbee, Speck, & Maylath, 1997) and that (b) enrollment in ESL is booming (Bers, 1994; Cochran, 1992; Cohen & Ignash, 1992; Gray et al., 1996; Ignash, 1992, 1992/1993). (Both of these topics are discussed in considerable detail by Ignash in chap. 1 of this volume.) The lack of discussion about the theoretical foundations of bilingual higher education is, therefore, not surprising within a general picture of benign neglect, and those who want to start up a BL/DL program at their college or university might best be guided by the experience of others who have gone before them. Characteristics of Student Participants in Bilingual/Dual Language Programs Students who participate in bilingual programs must meet institutional entrance requirements. Along with an application form, students may be required to submit official high school transcripts; GED (general equivalency diploma) scores, ACT (American College Test), SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test), or PAA (Prueba de Aptitud Académica) scores; and letters of recommendation. In some cases, the students may have to present themselves for a personal interview. Admission of international students who are non-native speakers of English may be contingent on obtaining a satisfactory score on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). The students who enroll in dual language programs are as diverse as their native English-speaking peers (Bers, 1994; CelceMurcia, 1989; Clark, 1993; Cochran, 1992;
< previous page
page_98
next page >
< previous page
page_99
next page > Page 99
Gray et. al., 1996; Kinsella, 1997; McLeod, 1994; Vernez & Abrahamse, 1996). For example, some immigrants begin their education in their homelands but complete their studies by attending a high school here in the United States or by earning a GED. Their proficiency in English may be low or nonexistent. Others have studied and perhaps already graduated from a high school or university in their native country. However, their advanced academic credentials may not be recognized in the United States, and they may be handicapped by limited English proficiency. Still other immigrants and refugeesas a consequence of the economic and political turmoil in their homelandshave had very little formal schooling. With few educational opportunities, they are barely literate in their native language and know no English. In comparison, international students tend to be educationally well prepared. Often, they have had excellent academic preparation (which may include the study of English as a foreign language) prior to their arrival in the United States. Nonetheless, like their immigrant and refugee counterparts they may encounter some difficulty reading, writing, speaking, and understanding "American" English. Both the geographical location of a specific institution as well as the effects of immigration on a particular locale determine the precise nature of the student population participating in a BL/DL program. To illustrate this point, the characteristics of the student populations that are served by two BL/DL programs are given next as well as overviews of the institutions and brief histories of their BL/DL programs: 1. Hudson County Community College (HCCC) is a public, 2-year institution enrolling approximately 4,200 students: 48% Hispanic, 18% African-American, 15% White, and 11% Asian/Pacific Islander (F. Aquino, personal communication, January 1998). Chartered in 1974, HCCC's mission is "to offer high quality programs and services which are affordable, accessible, and community centered. All programs and services are designed to meet the educational needs of a linguistically and ethnically/racially diverse community, and to promote the economic, technological, cultural, social, and civic development of Hudson County and its service areas" (19971998 HCCC Catalog, p. 4). HCCC's bilingual program was founded in 1978 to meet the needs of the members of the community who did not yet speak English. Today, the program serves about 800 students per semester. Most have been in the United States for less than 5 years. Although the majority of students in the bilingual program are native Spanish speakers (from Colombia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Peru, and Puerto Rico), the number of students from Arabic-speaking and Slavic countries is on the rise. The native language proficiency of these students can run the gamut from university level to barely literate. However, most enter with low levels of English proficiency, which is determined by placement testing (F. Aquino, personal communication, January 1998). 2. La Salle University is a private, Catholic university, founded in 1863. It offers two associate degrees, the bachelor's degree in the arts, sciences, business, and nursing, and the master's degree in 10 selected areas of specialization (19961997 Academic Bulletin). La Salle's dual language program began in 1993 and is under the auspices of the School of Continuing Studies. It is called B.U.S.C.A. (Bilingual Undergraduate Studies for Collegiate Advancement). (If you are not familiar with Spanish, the Spanish verb buscar means "to look for" or "to seek"; thus, the program's name is a clever play on words.) The program began with 14 students and now enrolls about 70. As stated in materials provided by B.U.S.C.A.'s former Director, Dr. James Devine, "The Program is designed to ease the transition to college for those Latino students who have recently graduated from high
< previous page
page_99
next page >
< previous page
page_100
next page > Page 100
school, particularly from the public high schools in Philadelphia, and for those adults who have recently emigrated from the Caribbean to this [the Philadelphia] area. . . . B.U.S.C.A. combines substantive courses taught in Spanish with an intensive series of English as a Second Language courses leading to the associate degree. . . . One of the goals of the program is to encourage students to sharpen their skills in Spanish so that they leave the University completely bilingual." As these two short descriptions illustrate, BL/DL programs meet the needs of local populations of nonnative English speakers, which to date have been predominantly Spanish speaking. This is very much in keeping with the demographic picture painted by Ignash in chap. 1 of this volume. However, as already mentioned by Reppy and Adames (see chap. 4) whenever there is a political "hot spot" in the world or a country with economic instability, an influx of immigrants and refugees into our institutions of higher education soon follows. Thus, both BL/DL and ESL programs are seeing growing numbers of students who speak, for example, Haitian-Creole, Arabic, Asian, and Slavic languages. Just howand how wellBL/DL programs will be able to accommodate a more linguistically heterogeneous population has yet to be determined. Services Provided by and Goals of Bilingual/Dual Language Programs Although the bilingual programs identified in this study were developed independently, they generally provide similar services. These may include: Recruiting future participants from local high schools. Orientation programs for incoming students. Assistance with the intricacies of college admissions, course registration, and financial aid application. Testing students for appropriate placement in subjects such as English, math, and reading. Working with the ESL program and staff for correct student placement. Bilingual tutoring as well as academic and personal counseling. Recruiting and hiring of faculty to teach content-area courses taught in the students' native language. Coordinating the scheduling of the courses provided in the students' native language. Organizing social/cultural events, workshops, and conferences on campus. Collection of data to assess program effectiveness. These services and activities help to achieve the one overriding objective of all the BL/DL programs: to help students learn English so that they can benefit from a college/university education. Administration, Organization, and Funding Some BL/DL programs, such as those at Erie Community College (Buffalo, NY) and Kean University (Union, NJ), are fully institutionalized and have their own separate budg-
< previous page
page_100
next page >
< previous page
page_101
next page > Page 101
ets, designated office space, an official program director, and several support staff members (including bilingual academic advisors and bilingual secretarial staff). The director and staff members carry out a wide range of activities, such as those listed previously. In contrast, the Inter-American Science and Humanities Program (IASHP) at the University of Texas at El Paso does not have an office, director, or staff. In fact, it is not so much an academic program as a "condition for admission." That is, the Admissions Office of the University identifies and admits IASHP participants, and the Mexican Student Advisor in the Office of International Programs serves as their academic advisor. Institutions such as Cabrillo College (Aptos, CA) and El Paso Community College (El Paso, TX) offer what I have chosen to call de facto BL/DL programs. Though no official or formal bilingual program is recognized by these institutions, their catalogs include ESL course offerings, and the semesterly class schedules list content-area courses that are taught in Spanish. According to Carmen Delgado (Director of Curriculum and Instructional Development, El Paso Community College, personal communication, November 1997), El Paso Community College did have a formal bilingual program in the past. However, today, "much of what one might call dual language instruction is now a faculty prerogative only." Although the BL/DL programsde jure and de factoshare little in common in terms of administration and housing, their source of funding is similar. Each program is supported by its respective institution, and few have ever received outside funding. English as a Second Language Instruction All students who enter BL/DL programs are tested to determine their proficiency in English. The particular placement exam varies from one institution to another and may include both written and oral components. Students' placement in the ESL course sequence is determined by their test scores. Whereas some institutions (such as Erie Community College) will admit native Spanish speakers who know no English, others (such as Kean and UTEP) require at least a beginner or intermediate level of English proficiency. In chap. 4 of this volume, Reppy and Adames give an overview of the nature of ESL instruction and the types of ESL programs offered at the college/university level. Thus, to serve as examples, I add here only very brief summaries of the ESL requirements of two of the programs mentioned in this chapter. As these descriptions indicate, credits in ESL courses may or may not count toward the students' degree requirements: Hudson County Community College: The ESL program has six levels, which teach the following skills: grammar, listening/speaking, reading, and writing. Credits earned in ESL courses count toward the associate's degree. Kean University: The ESL courses fall into three categories: core level (with an emphasis on writing), reading/vocabulary enrichment, and oral skills (including pronunciation, listening skills, and conversation). Students may count a total of 15 credits in ESL (from the more advanced writing and research courses) toward their bachelor's degree. In the case studies that appear at the end of this chapter, additional information is provided about other ESL programs.
< previous page
page_101
next page >
< previous page
page_102
next page > Page 102
Content-area Courses Taught in the Students' Native Language The offering of a limited number of content-area courses taught partially or fully in a language other than English is what makes BL/DL programs unique. The rationale for these courses is quite simple and was repeated over and over again to me by individuals at different institutions: By means of these courses, students can begin working toward their degree requirements while they are still learning English. It does not appear that faculty members who teach in BL/DL programs receive any special training. However, they all must have the appropriate academic credentials to qualify to teach in their academic departments, and they, of course, must be bilingual. At some institutions, only full-time resident faculty teach in the bilingual program (such is the case of the eight faculty participants at Erie Community College, E. Paterson, personal communication, September 1997). At others, many of the bilingual courses are staffed by adjuncts. For example, at Hudson County Community College 14 out of the 15 instructors teaching in the Spanish bilingual program are adjuncts (F. Aquino, personal communication, January 1998). In the programs designed for Hispanic students, the number of content-area courses taught in Spanish (excluding Spanish "language" and "literature" classes) varies from one institution to another. Nonetheless, the number is never so great that students can graduate without doing the majority of their coursework in English. The "mix" of languages used for instructional purposes in the classroom also varies from program to program, ranging from all Spanish, mostly Spanish plus some English, to mostly English plus some Spanish. Sometimes the language of the text and tests is Spanish, sometimes English. Unfortunately, I was not able to obtain comparable information for the BL/DL programs that involve languages other than Spanish. (The details of the native language content-area course offerings in several BL/DL programs are presented in the case studies at the end of this chapter.) Instructional Materials and the New Computer Technologies Textbooks used in the content-area courses sometimes are in English and sometimes in the students' native language. Depending on the institution, textbook selection may be made by the division dean, by the bilingual program director, and/or by individual instructors. The language of the text may be a matter of institutional policy, instructor prerogative, or be limited to English because finding an appropriate text in another language is too difficult. The "new technologies" (e-mail, CD-ROM, World Wide Web [WWW], etc.) seem to have had little direct impact on BL/DL programs. The only responses I received to my inquiries about this topic indicated that students have access to computer labs and thus, the WWW, and by means of e-mail they can contact their instructors to ask questions or exchange drafts of papers for review. Because the incorporation of technology into a course is often an instructor's choice, it may be that in order to obtain more detailed information on this topic content-area course instructors would have to be queried directly.
< previous page
page_102
next page >
< previous page
page_103
next page > Page 103
Heritage Language Instruction Almost all of the institutions with bilingual programs for Hispanic students offer one or more credit-bearing Spanish courses specially created for native Spanish speakers. Eligibility for enrollment in such courses is frequently by placement exam. ''Spanish for Native Spanish Speakers" falls under the rubric of "heritage language" instruction. Heritage languages are the native or mother tongues of immigrants, indigenous peoples, and their descendants. Often, these are the languages used in the home, local community, and in places of worship. (In chap. 7 of this volume, Reyhner, Lockard, and Rosenthal discuss the revival of Native American languages at the college/university level, whereas in chap. 8, Campbell and Rosenthal discuss the development of university-level programs for immigrant heritage languages.) Thus, for the purposes of this chapter, I am restricting my comments to "Spanish for native speakers" and the relationship of such courses to BL/DL programs for Hispanic students. According to Valdés (1995), instructional goals for heritage language courses include (a) language maintenance, (b) continued development of age-appropriate language competencies, (c) acquisition of the prestige (standard) variety of the language, (d) increased literacy skills, and (e) expansion of the bilingual range. However, to achieve these objectives, the methods used to teach Spanish as a foreign language to monolingual native English speakers are not appropriate for heritage language learners. Quite simply, this is because immigrant and many U.S.-born Hispanics are already familiar with Spanish, may be able to speak and/or understand it, and some may also read and write it. At first glance, it may seem unnecessary to teach Spanish to native Spanish speakers. However, for the same reasons that many native English speakers benefit from English composition classes, so do many native Spanish speakers benefit from Spanish for native Spanish speakers. Nevertheless, unlike "English composition," which usually is required of native English speakers, "Spanish for native Spanish speakers" is an elective. Thus, students can choose whether or not to continue studying the finer points of their "heritage" language. Although this may not be a matter of concern to the majority of faculty members who will be teaching their courses in English, it is of considerable interest to those of us who teach content-area courses in Spanish in a BL/DL program. Just because the students can speak and/or understand Spanish does not ensure that their literacy skills are fully developed or that they are able to do university-level coursework in their native language. Classes in Spanish for native Spanish speakers help address some of these concerns. As instruction in Spanish for native speakers gains in popularity, a number of articles (Collison, 1994; Roca, 1992; Rodríguez Pino, 1997; Valdés, 1992a, 1992b, 1995, 1997) and books (Colombi & Alarcón, 1997; Merino, Trueba, & Samaniego, 1993) have been written on this topic. They address both theory and practice. At the university level, Spanish for native speaker courses may include "correct" speech, grammar, spelling, vocabulary development, usage of the written accent, composition, reading and writing skills, as well as literature and culture. The precise content of a course depends on the linguistic needs of the students attending a particular institution. (In the three case studies that appear at the end of this chapter, examples of Spanish for Spanish speaker courses are presented.)
< previous page
page_103
next page >
< previous page
page_104
next page > Page 104
Measuring the Success or Effectiveness of Bilingual/Dual Language Programs Assessing the effectiveness or success of dual language programs is difficult. First, someone must define what is meant by "effectiveness" and "success," and second, data collection and analysis are needed. Although some of the bilingual programs identify "data collection to measure program assessment" as one of their activities, none had any data to share other than figures showing increased enrollment and continued demand for such programs over time. However, Erie Community College's Bilingual Program Director (E. Paterson, personal communication, September 1997) did indicate that, ''The data show that retention rates are better than the rates for the college at large. The bilingual students show more persistence in completing their programs than other students." The success/effectiveness of a BL/DL program clearly is subject to interpretationpersonal, academic, programmatic, and administrative. A student's perspective might be considerably different from that of a faculty member or an administrator. Thus, we might ask, should success and/or effectiveness be measured by: The access that bilingual programs provide to a postsecondary education to students who otherwise might not ever have the opportunity to continue their studies? The students' improved proficiency in English as determined by successful completion of ESL coursework or by outcomes on standardized tests of English? Demonstrated academic achievement (i.e., grade point averages, retention rates, graduation rates, etc.) on the part of non-native speakers of English that is equal to or exceeds that of their native English-speaking peers? Growth over time in the number of students enrolling in a BL/DL program? The number of content-area courses offered in the students' native language through the BL/DL program? The size of the bilingual program's budget or staff or the number of activities and programs sponsored by the program? The personal growth and the educational experiences of the students who participate in a BL/DL program that would not otherwise be possible? The fact that the students have had the opportunity to complete some post-secondary coursework even if they do not continue on to graduation? Clearly, there are many programs in higher education for which questions of this type cannot or have not been answered. Although it would be nice to be able to carry out the type of research necessary to quantify and prove the value of a BL/DL program, the necessary resources and personnel are not available. Thus we are left with impressions and anecdotal evidence, which, perhaps, tell us what we need to know. BL/DL programs allow a number of students to graduate from college whose initial lack of proficiency in English would otherwise prevent them from ever attending an institution of higher education.
< previous page
page_104
next page >
< previous page
page_105
next page > Page 105
Case Studies In the case studies that follow, three BL/DL programs are described in greater detail. I have tried to include each program's history, goals, services, administrative arrangements, as well as information about ESL instruction, content-area courses taught in the students' native language, and heritage language instruction. I would like to thank the following individuals who made significant contributions to each of these case studies: at Erie Community College, E. Paterson; at The University of Texas at El Paso, L. Del Rio, D. Guerrero, and C. Santoyo; and, at Lehman College, M. Gottlieb, X. Totti, and M. Ward. Case Study #1: Erie Community College (Buffalo, NY) Erie Community College (ECC)part of The State University of New York systemis a public, 2-year institution. It was established in 1946 and today provides 60 programs of study leading to a certificate or the associate's degree. Spread over three campuses (North, City, and South), the college serves the academic needs of more than 6,600 full-time and 4,900 part-time students. Eighty percent of the students are White, 14% African-American, and 3% Hispanic. However, at the City Campus in downtown Buffalo, many of the students are Hispanic. In 1981, ECC began its Bilingual Program at its City Campus: To address the educational and job training needs of a growing Hispanic population. Today, the program serves about 200 students per semester who come from almost forty countries. While Spanish is the native language of about half the students in the Bilingual Program, twenty-six other languages (from Amharic and Arabic to Ukranian and Vietnamese) are spoken by the rest of the participants. Some of the students in the program were born in the United States while others have lived here no more than one year. Native Spanish speakers who have demonstrated at least an eighth grade proficiency in Spanish (as determined by the CTBS/español) are admitted to ECC even if they know no English. All other students who enter the Bilingual Program must score at least a scaled score of 19 on the Secondary Level English Proficiency test. (E. Paterson, personal communication, September 1997) As stated in the ECC Catalog (19961997): The goal of the Bilingual Program is to prepare students whose dominant language is not English to participate with confidence and success in college programs and curricula at Erie Community College. Courses are offered for the improvement of English, math, and academic skills. Introductory courses which are taught bilingually are available for Spanish-speakers. These courses are useful in vocabulary and concept building, which [sic] may be applied to many college programs and are credited, in most cases, to the program of the student's choice. Through the bilingual program, the student is prepared to have a rewarding experience at ECC.(p. 21) The Program itself is funded by the college and is administered by a program director, Dr. Eleanor Paterson. Additional staff include an administrative assistant, a secretary, and one or two work-study students. Students in the Bilingual Program gain proficiency in English by enrolling in ECC's ESL program. Placement in the ESL courses is by exam, and the courses are not credit
< previous page
page_105
next page >
< previous page
page_106
next page > Page 106
bearing. ESL consists of two three-level series of courses, one in reading and writing (Reading/Writing I, II, and III), and the other in speaking and listening (Oral/Aural I, II, and III). In addition, ESL I and ESL II are offered on the North Campus of ECC and are essentially equivalent to the upper levels of the reading/writing and speaking/listening courses. All ECC students (both native and non-native speakers of English), in addition, must pass EN 110 (College Composition, three credits) and, depending on their major, also may need to take EN 111 (Composition and Interpretation of Literature, three credits). In addition to the regular ECC curriculum, the Bilingual Program offers the following courses every semester: Three noncredit math courses (College Arithmetic, College Elementary Algebra, and College Elementary Algebra I) taught in Spanish with materials in English. Introduction to Human Biology, three credits (taught mostly in Spanish with English text and materials). Introduction to Microcomputers, three credits (taught in English; however, the instructor may give individual instructions in Spanish). College Success Skills, three credits (Taught mostly in Spanish depending on the makeup of the class. Speakers of other languages may enroll if the number of Spanish speakers is not sufficient to run the class. English text and materials). Introductory Sociology, three credits (Taught in English with some Spanish, depending on the enrollment. Some of the materials and tests may be in Spanish). At ECC, the decision to teach in English or Spanish and the language of the text, materials, and tests is decided by the instructor in consultation with the Bilingual Program's Director. Although the faculty that teach the bilingual classes report to their academic departments, the Director of the Bilingual Program does meet with chairs and faculty on a regularly scheduled basis to assure smooth operation of the program. In addition to ESL and the bilingual courses, Hispanic students may elect to enroll in two, three-credit courses (Spanish Composition I and II), which focus on improving writing skills in Spanish. These courses were specifically designed for native Spanish speakers, and the majority of students in them are of Hispanic heritage. However, other students who feel that their proficiency in Spanish is adequate may also enroll in these classes. Thus, placement in the first course (Spanish Composition I) requires successful completion of Intermediate Spanish I and II or an appropriate score on a proficiency test. In summary, according to the Bilingual Program's Director: The positive aspect of the program is that it allows the students to move ahead in their academic programs, taking content-area courses while improving their English language skills. The negative aspect is the amount of time spent at the college (an additional year, at least, because of the ESL and perhaps remedial math courses as well). On the other hand, there does not seem to be an alternative since many of our students have already taken courses in Adult Education programs, and this is usually not sufficient to bring their skills up to the college level." Case Study #2: The University of Texas at El Paso The University of Texas at El Paso was founded in 1913 and is part of The University of Texas system. It enrolls about 2,000 graduate students and 14,000 undergraduates (approximately 68% Hispanic, 19% White, and 8% Mexican). There are six undergraduate
< previous page
page_106
next page >
< previous page
page_107
next page > Page 107
colleges, offering more than 60 baccalaureate degrees, as well as a Graduate School, which awards 60 master's degrees in disciplines from all six colleges and doctorates in six areas of specialization. As previously mentioned in this chapter, UTEP's bilingual program is called The Inter-American Science and Humanities Program (IASHP). It was founded in the late 1960s and at that time was called the Inter-American Science Program (IASP). Its purpose was to provide academic support for large numbers of academically qualified Spanish-speaking students who were interested in science and engineering but whose lack of proficiency in English was contributing to a high dropout rate (Ronco, 1992). In its first year, the Program enrolled 28 students. Today, it serves approximately 150 students per semester. "Students in this program are primarily graduates of Mexican high schools, and may be either U.S. or Mexican citizens. Several other Latin American countries are represented" (Ronco, 1992, p. 5). Whereas other bilingual programs in other parts of the United States increasingly have to deal with the changing nature of the immigrant population, this is not true at UTEP. As a result of its location on the Texas/Mexico border, the population served by IASHP has remained primarily Mexican and Mexican-American for more than 30 years. According to the University's Director of Admissions (D. Guerrero, personal communication, June 1997), "In order to be admitted to UTEP, native Spanish-speaking students are required to score a minimum of 1,000 on the PAA. Their English proficiency is determined by the SLEP [Secondary Level English Proficiency] exam. Students are then placed in an IASHP major until they pass the ESOL [English for Speakers of Other Languages] level that would be equivalent to a score of 500 on the TOEFL." While the students in the program are studying English, they also can enroll in content-area courses taught in Spanish. The IASHP offers about five such courses per semester. They usually include Introduction to Linguistics, Introduction to Politics, History of the U.S. to 1865, Topics in Chicano Studies, and Introduction to Psychology. These are regular, three-credit introductory courses. Occasionally, other content-area courses are taught in Spanish, including geology and biology. Bilingual faculty members in the academic departments who are interested in working with IASHP students arrange to teach these courses in Spanish through their academic departments. Although the lectures are given in Spanish, the reading assignments, papers, exams, and student presentations are generally in English (D. Guerrero, personal communication, June 1997). The Department of Languages and Linguistics at UTEP provides placement testing (SLEP) for all students whose postelementary education has not been in English (19961998 Undergraduate Studies Catalog, p. 138). There are five levels of ESL instruction beginning at the intermediate level. The courses address pronunciation, reading, oral communication skills, basic English sentence structure, and writing and reading in English. Nonetheless, only the six credits earned in the two-semester sequence beginning with Expository English Composition for Speakers of ESL count toward the degree requirements (L. Del Rio, personal communication, November 1997). There is also a two-semester sequence of Spanish for Spanish Speakers. These are three-credit courses, SPAN 3203 and 3204. According to their catalog descriptions (The Undergraduate Studies Catalog, 19961998), SPAN 3203 is, "A first course for bilingual students who have already acquired listening and speaking skills in Spanish because Spanish is the spoken language in their home or social environment. Development of reading and writing skills, with attention to spelling and use of the written accent. Entrance into SPAN 3203 is by examination" (p. 142), and SPAN 3204 is, "a continuation of Spanish 3203, with
< previous page
page_107
next page >
< previous page
page_108
next page > Page 108
additional opportunities for reading and composition, a review of the written accent, and an introduction to the systematic study of Spanish grammar" (p. 142). Unlike Erie Community College's Bilingual Program (described earlier in Case Study #1), IASHP at UTEP is not a "formal" program, and there is no director, staff, special budget, or the like. Rather, as explained by the University's Director of Admissions (D. Guerrero, personal communication, June 1997), "It is a condition of admission for students who are academically eligible for admission but who are not proficient enough in English to pass the TOEFL. IASHP is designed to help students through their first year at the university. The Mexican Student Advisor in the Office of International Programs serves as academic advisor to IASHP students." UTEP's location on an international border has contributed to IASHP's success and longevity. Today, nearly 1,000 students per semester arrive daily from Juárez and are much in need of IASHP's services. The latter include not only academic advisement, ESL instruction, and the opportunity to enroll in content-area courses taught in Spanish but also an orientation program for new students, skills courses, and noncredit English conversation courses. Case Study #3: Lehman College, City University of New York, Bronx Lehman College, founded in 1968, is a public institution and part of The City University of New York system. It grants both the bachelor's and master's degrees in a wide range of academic disciplines and serves the educational needs of more than 9,300 students. Of these, approximately 44% are Hispanic, 33% African-American, and 16% white (X. Totti, personal communication, October 1997; 19971999 Undergraduate Bulletin). According to "informal" history (X. Totti, personal communication, October 1997) Lehman's Bilingual Program was developed in response to the elimination of a similar program at Bronx Community College in the late 1960s. Housed for many years in the Department of Latin American and Puerto Rican Studies, Lehman's Bilingual Program recently has been moved to the Provost's Office where, under the supervision of a faculty advisory committee and the Dean of Arts and Humanities, it is being restructured (M. Gottlieb, personal communication, February 1998). When the Bilingual Program was first instituted, its participants were mostly Puerto Rican and had to have graduated from high school in Puerto Rico or outside of the continental United States. However, according to the former director of the Bilingual Program (X. Totti, personal communication, October 1997), "that requirement was changed in 1985 since most of the students in the program were by then the product of bilingual programs within the New York City public school system." Though Lehman's Bilingual Program currently serves approximately 400 students per semester (88% Spanish speaking), their composition varies "according to the migratory currents into New York City." Today, 65% of the students are from the Dominican Republic, 10% from Colombia, 10% from Mexico, and 5% from Puerto Rico. The remainder are speakers of Slavic languages, Khmer, Vietnamese, and Haitian Creole. About 72% of the students participating in the Bilingual Program have completed at least 3 years of high school in this country and have resided at least 5 years in the United States (X. Totti, personal communication, October 1997.) In order to participate in the Bilingual Program, students must be concurrently enrolled in Lehman's ESL Program. According to the ESL Program Director (M. Ward, personal communication, March 1997), "Placement into the ESL Program is based on
< previous page
page_108
next page >
< previous page
page_109
next page > Page 109
test scores (the CUNY Reading and Writing Assessment Tests and the Lehman College ESL Placement Test, which evaluate listening comprehension, grammar, vocabulary, and reading ability) and, for some students, an informal oral interview. The ESL Program is housed within the Department of English and offers a sequence of four courses: ENG 085 (Low-intermediate ESL, two credits), ENG 086 (High-intermediate ESL, two credits), ENG 095 (Low-advanced ESL, three credits), and ENG 096 (High-advanced ESL, three credits). These courses lead to a two-course "Freshman Composition" sequence, which is required of all Lehman students. Students who complete at least two courses in the ESL Program satisfy Lehman's foreign language requirement." (N.B.: Until recently, the College did offer ESL instruction for true beginners, "students with little or no knowledge of English." However, that option is no longer available and the "lowest'' placement level in ESL is now at the "lowintermediate level.") Until 1997, the Bilingual Program provided Spanish/English bilingual versions of almost 40 credit-bearing introductory courses to fulfill the College's core and distribution requirements. Subjects included anthropology, art history, biology, chemistry, economics, geography, music, philosophy, physics, political science, psychology, sociology, and theater. These bilingual courses were divided into three "tiers," according to the amount of English used as the language of instruction. For students at the lowest ESL levels, several math courses were taught completely in Spanish. However, with the recent revision of the ESL program and the elimination of beginner-level ESL instruction, these "Tier 1" courses have temporarily been suspended. However, it is hoped that sometime in the future they will be reinstated and open both to students seeking to expand their knowledge of Spanish as well as to native Spanish speakers (M. Gottlieb, personal communication, February 1998). Currently, "Tier 2" courses are for students at an intermediate level of ESL; lectures and reading are in English but Spanish may be used for support as needed. It is estimated that lectures and discussion involve 75% to 80% English and 20% to 25% Spanish. Instructors are encouraged to keep Spanish usage to a minimum, and the majority of students enrolled in Tier 2 courses seem to prefer instruction in English with Spanish used only if needed for clarification. Tier 2 courses are scheduled by the academic departments and are designated by a "B" after the section number. Faculty who teach the Tier 2 courses are Spanish/English bilinguals, and their degrees are in the disciplines that they teach. They all have had experience working with ESL students and participate in training run by ESL specialists. Several three-credit core humanities courses are offered in Tier 2, including Introduction to Psychology, Introduction to Sociology, Great Political Thinkers, and Classics of the Western World. The third tier in the Bilingual Program was recently renamed "Language Transition." The courses in this tier are taught in English and are paired with special ESL sections (M. Gottlieb, personal communication, February 1998). The pairing of a content-area course taught in English with an ESL course that provides the kind of academic support often needed by students who are still in the process of learning English is called the "adjunct-model." (Readers who are not familiar with this type of pairing or with its rationale are referred to chap. 4 of this volume in which Reppy and Adames describe the adjunct-model as well as other forms of "content-based" ESL instruction.) Credit-bearing courses offered in Tier 3 have included Origins of the Western World, Introduction to Biology, Political Science, and Geography. Both ESL and native English-speaking students can enroll in these courses, but every effort is made to keep a 50/50 balance. Only the ESL students are simultaneously registered for the paired advanced ESL support
< previous page
page_109
next page >
< previous page
page_110
next page > Page 110
courses for which they receive three credits. The content-area courses in Tier 3 are scheduled by the academic departments in conjunction with the ESL Director. The faculty members who teach the content-area courses in Tier 3 have participated in training workshops and are familiar with the literature about strategies useful for teaching ESL students in mainstream courses. Most of the faculty teaching in Tier 3 have taught such course for years. As previously mentioned, the majority of students in Lehman's Bilingual Program are native Spanish speakers. If they so desire, they may study Spanish by enrolling in a sequence of four courses for heritage speakers of Spanish. The first two courses in the sequence (four and five credits, respectively) were specially created for "students with knowledge of spoken Spanish acquired outside the classroom." The third and fourth courses (three credits each) focus on reading and writing. Placement in these heritage language courses for Spanish speakers is by departmental placement examination. Successful completion of Level 2 or higher of this sequence satisfies Lehman's foreign language requirement. The three-tiered system provides more flexibility and can better meet the linguistic needs of Lehman's ESL students. Althoughin theoryany course can be offered in any of the three tiers of the Bilingual Program, right now only Tiers 2 and 3 are available. This is because of the need for developing the students' English competency skills by the end of the freshman year. Lehman's Bilingual and ESL Programsas already indicated in this case studycurrently are under revision. This is a result of political pressures in New York City to limit remediation at CUNY's senior campuses. According to the Acting Dean of Arts and Humanities (M. Gottlieb, personal communication, September 1998), "Lehman has actively fought the notion that ESL is remedial. [See Ward (1997) as well as the discussion by Reppy and Adames in chap. 4 of this volume]. Nevertheless, given the urgent need for ESL students to pass English language reading and writing exams in order to remain in college beyond the first year, the emphasis has shifted from bilingualism to the goal of transition to English and English competency. Once students have demonstrated English proficiency, they will be given ample opportunities to develop themselves as bilingual, biliterate professionals. Among the programs in which they can then participate are double majors, in any academic discipline and a language; multilingual journalism (which prepares them to work in ethnic as well as Anglo media); global studies (which has a strong language component); and Latin American Studies." Conclusions As the Lehman College case study indicates, bilingual educationeven at the post-secondary levelmay be controversial in the United States. Those who oppose it claim that today's immigrants don't want to learn English or that immigrants should "learn" English before they are admitted to college. They consider the study of English as a second language to be a form of remediation and not an appropriate college subject. They feel that we are "coddling" students by permitting them to take content-area courses taught in their native language and claim that students who graduate from bilingual programs can't speak or write English adequately. On the other hand, because the number of BL/DL programs in higher education is comparatively small, and the majority have received little publicity, most have been able to stay out of the public eye. Thus, they have
< previous page
page_110
next page >
< previous page
page_111
next page > Page 111
been able to avoid the rhetoric and politics that today surround bilingual education and bilingualism in the United States. As Fishman (1966) pointed out many years ago, "There is a widespread assumption among Americans that bilingualism must be defined as 'equal (balanced) and advanced mastery of two languages'" (p. 122). He argued that: [Insisting that bilingualism be defined in terms of equal and advanced mastery], "is no more justifiable than to require that intelligence be defined restrictively as equivalent to genius or that health be defined restrictively as equivalent to the complete absence of any dysfunction. We know very well that both intelligence and health are matters of degree as well as of kind. (p. 122) Likewise, I would argue that insisting that adult learners of English as a second language develop proficiency levels in reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills equal to that of highly educated native English speakersprior to their admission to collegeis unreasonable and, in most cases, unrealistic. Furthermore, I contend that there are additional benefits to be derived from BL/DL programs. First, by providing ESL as well as heritage language instruction, BL/DL programs include a mechanism for increasing the overall linguistic competency of our society by encouraging bilingual proficiency within the immigrant and refugee population. (This is a topic discussed in greater depth by Campbell and Rosenthal in chap. 8, this volume). Second, if the content-area courses in BL/DL programs were opened up to native English speakers who are serious about mastering a second language, such students would be afforded an incredible opportunity to develop their reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills while studying subjects such as psychology, history, mathematics, and science. This would greatly expand second language learning opportunities for students who otherwise have few options for learning another language except if they study abroad or become foreign language majors. A bilingual college graduate, linguistically speaking, gives us "two for the price of one." If we also count the academic majorbe it business, computer science, or teacher educationwe might then conclude that a BL/DL program, in fact, gives us "three for the price of one." This type of higher educationwhich allows mature students to graduate from college with an academic degree as well as bilingual language proficiencyis not only intellectually rigorous but also time- and cost-efficient. All of this suggests that BL/DL higher education is, perhaps, the direction in which more institutions should be moving to better prepare our citizenry for the global society in which we live. References Baker, C. (1993). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Bers, T. (1994). English proficiency, course patterns, and academic achievements of limited-English proficient community college students. Research in Higher Education, 35, 209234. Celce-Murcia, M. (1989). A language policy for ESL students at the University of California. In J. H. Esling (Ed.), Multicultural education and policy: ESL in the 1990s (pp. 5970). Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Clark, L. W. (Ed.). (1993). Faculty and student challenges in facing cultural and linguistic diversity. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Cochran, E. P. (Ed.). (1992). Into the academic mainstream: Guidelines for teaching language minority students. New York: The Instructional Resource Center of the City University of New York. Cohen, A. M., & Ignash,J. M. (1992). Trends in the liberal arts curriculum. Community College Review, 20, 5056.
< previous page
page_111
next page >
< previous page
page_112
next page > Page 112
Collier, V. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617641. Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become proficient in school English? The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 5, 2638. Collison, M. N-K. (1994, February 2). Spanish for native speakers. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A15A16. Colombi, M. C., & Alarcón, F. X. (Eds.). (1997). La enseñanza del español a hispanohablantes: Praxis y teoría [The teaching of Spanish to native Spanish speakers: Theory and practice]. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Crawford, J. (1989). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice. Trenton, NJ: Crane. Crawford, J. (1997). Best evidence: Research foundations of the Bilingual Education Act. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 175187. Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 11, 132149. Cummins, J. (1992). Bilingual education and English immersion: The Ramírez report in theoretical perspective. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 91104. Cummins, J. (1994). The discourse of disinformation: The debate on bilingual education and language rights in the United States. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson (Eds.), Linguistic human rights (pp. 159177). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education. New York: Longman. Fishman, J. A. (1966). The implications of bilingualism for language teaching and language learning. In A. Valdman (Ed.), Trends in language teaching (pp. 121132). New York: McGraw-Hill. Gray, M. J., Rolph, E., & Melamid, E. (1996). Immigration and higher education: Institutional responses to changing demographics. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Ignash, J. M. (1992, December). ESL population and program patterns in community colleges. ERIC Digest (ED0-JC-92-05). Ignash, J. M. (1992/1993). Study shows ESL is fastest growing area of study in US community colleges. TESOL Matters, 2, 17. Kinsella, K. (1997). Creating an enabling learning environment for nonnative speakers of English. In A. I. Morey & M. K. Kitano (Eds.), Multicultural course transformation in higher education (pp.104125), Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Krashen, S. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates. McLeod, B. (Ed.). (1994). Language and learning: Educating linguistically diverse students. Albany: State University of New York Press. McQuillan, J., & Tse, L. (1996). Does research matter? An analysis of media opinion on bilingual education, 19841994. The Bilingual Research Journal, 20, 1-27. Merino, B. J., Trueba, H. T., & Samaniego, F. A. (Eds.). (1993). Language and culture in learning: Teaching Spanish to native speakers of Spanish. London: The Falmer Press. Padilla, A. M., Fairchild, H. H., & Valadez, C. M. (Eds.). (1990). Bilingual education: Issues and strategies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Roca, A. (1992, November). Spanish for U.S. Hispanic bilinguals in higher education. ERIC Digest (EDO-FL-92-06). Rodríguez Pino, C. (1997). Teaching Spanish to native speakers: A new perspective in the 1990s. ERIC/CLL News Bulletin, 21, 45. Ronco, S. (1992, May). Enhancing academic success: A bilingual freshman year. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 349 885). Rosenthal, J. W. (1990). Innovative programs to help retain native Spanish-speaking students in college: The Kean College experience. NABE NEWS, 13, 19 2426. Rosenthal, J. W. (1996). Teaching science to language minority students. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Rosenthal, J. W. (1999). ESL students in the mainstream: Observations from content area faculty. In L. Kasper (Ed.), Contentbased ESL instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rossell, C. H., & Baker, K. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 774.
< previous page
page_112
next page >
< previous page
page_113
next page > Page 113
Sigsbee, D. L., Speck, B. W., & Maylath, B. (Eds.). (1997). Approaches to teaching nonnative English speakers across the curriculum. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Snow, C. E. (1990). Rationales for native language instruction: Evidence from research. In A. M. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild, & C. M. Valadez (Eds.). Bilingual education: Issues and strategies (pp. 6074). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Spener, D. (1988). Transitional bilingual education and the socialization of immigrants. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 133153. Stern, G. (1994). Lessons from the Bronx. Hispanic, 7, 54, 56. Valdés, G. (1992a). Bilingual minorities and language issues in writing. Written Communication, 9, 85136. Valdés, G. (1992b). The role of the foreign language teaching profession in maintaining non-English languages in the United States. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Languages for a multicultural world in transition (pp. 2971). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Valdés, G. (1995). The teaching of minority languages as academic subjects: Pedagogical and theoretical challenges. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 299328. Valdés, G. (1997). The teaching of Spanish to bilingual Spanish-speaking students: Outstanding issues and unanswered questions. In M.C. Colombi & F. X. Alarcón (Eds.). La enseñanza del español a hispanohablantes [The teaching of Spanish to native Spanish speakers: Theory and practice] (pp. 844). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Vernez, G., & Abrahamse, A. (1996). How immigrants fare in U.S. education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Ward, M. (1997, September 26). Myths about college English as a second language. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B8. Yorio, C. A. (1988). Bilingual education, getting it all together. Equity & Excellence, 23, 813.
< previous page
page_113
next page >
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
< previous page
page_115
next page > Page 115
6 American Sign Language Phyllis Perrin Wilcox Sherman Wilcox University of New Mexico <><><><><><><><><><><><> A young undergraduate student took several American Sign Language (ASL) classes and realized that she could combine her love for teaching with her newly found interest in signed languages. She decided to take a dual major in education and signed language interpretation and after graduation plans to work toward a master's degree in deaf education. <><><><><><><><><><><><> The mother of a young deaf boy had been learning ASL in evening classes offered at her son's elementary school. However, as he began growing older, she realized she needed to learn more signs in order to communicate better. She registered for ASL classes at the local university and subsequently heard about the interpreter education program. The next spring, she applied to the program and was accepted as a major. She now not only communicates better with her son but also is preparing for a career in signed language interpretation. <><><><><><><><><><><><> Instruction in American Sign Language (ASL) has seen some of the most explosive growth in undergraduate foreign language education in recent years. Universities report that ASL courses rapidly fill up and that no matter how many courses are offered, students want more. At the same time, administrators and foreign language faculty are often left wondering how ASL instruction will fit into the college foreign language curriculum, whether it should meet undergraduate foreign language entrance or exit requirements, who is qualified to teach these courses, and where the ASL program should be housed. In this chapter we survey the current state of the art in undergraduate ASL instruction. We begin by providing some preliminary information about ASL as a language, its history, and basic facts about its linguistic structure. We also provide an overview of some of the issues concerning undergraduate teaching of ASL, including a brief history of the movement to accept ASL as a foreign language. Three case studies are presented describing universities that have over the years offered ASL instruction, followed by some detailed information about what a typical undergraduate ASL instructional program includes. We conclude the chapter with a discussion of a few emerging issues in the field of ASL instruction including curriculum design, articulation between high school and college ASL programs, and the use of technology in the ASL classroom.
< previous page
page_115
next page >
< previous page
page_116
next page > Page 116
Before moving on to the rest of this chapter, it is, however, necessary to mention some preliminary information related to the nature of ASL and two important aspects of language. First, for most people, language is synonymous with speech. However, speech is a means of expression of language, but it is not language. Second, many people assume that signed languages are merely representations, in another modality, of the spoken language of a community. Nevertheless, natural signed languages such as ASL are fully distinct from spoken languages, and ASL is not a signed version of English. This topicof the relation between signed and spoken languagesis one to which we return later in this chapter. Keeping these points in mind, we are now ready to consider in greater depth language and its expression. Language and Its Expression As hearing people, we are all familiar with at least one language, our native language, and often with more than one language. We know that languages differ in their structure. However, most of us have experience with only way in which language is expressed in face-to-face interaction: the spoken modality, or speech. Nonetheless, speech is not the only means of linguistic expression. Most adults in this country are literate in their native language, and literacy is an important part of learning a second language. So, for many of us, it is more accurate to say that we are familiar with two ways in which language is expressed: the spoken and written modalities, or speech and writing. Many languages can be expressed through the spoken modality. A subset of these languages also have written forms and thus can be expressed in the written modality. But we must recognize that just because German and Chinese are both spoken does not make them related languages. The same is true for writing; the fact that Russian and Arabic are both written does not make them related languages. These points become significant when we realize that yet a third means of language expression exists: the signed modality. Languages can be expressed by speaking, writing, or signing. Thus, even if we find a number of languages that are expressed in the signed modality, it does not imply that they are the same or even related languages. ASL is not a universal language. ASL, British Sign Language, Italian Sign Language, Indo-Pakistani Sign Language, and all of the other signed languages of the world are in fact distinct languages. Like English, German, Chinese, Russian, and Arabic, the only thing they share is the fact that they are expressed in the same modalitysigned or spoken, respectively. We are now in a position to continue our discussion about the relationship between signed and spoken languages. Most of us are familiar with spoken and written expressions of the same language. For example, most Americans who are native speakers of English also know how to read and write in English. We know two means of expression in the same language: the spoken and the written modality. Because of this, we often assume that language must remain constant across modalities. We bring this assumption with us when we see deaf people signing. Many people believe that when deaf people sign they are actually using English. Of course, the fact that these same deaf people either do not use the spoken modality, or, if they do, they speak English, and that they also write English, only serves to strengthen this belief. ASL is, in fact, unrelated to English. How can we explain the fact that when deaf people interact with hearing people, either through speech or writing, they use English? Deaf people in the United States are, by and large, bilingual in ASL and English. Within their own deaf community, they rely on ASL for their daily interactions. When they must interact with hearing people,
< previous page
page_116
next page >
< previous page
page_117
next page > Page 117
however, they rely on their other language, English, and the two modalities that deaf people know are familiar to hearing people, speech and writing. One final point about the relation between signed and spoken languages requires mention. As a corollary to their assumption that ASL is really just English in the signed modality, people also believe that ASL is only interpretable into English. This is not the case. ASL can be interpreted into any other language. ASL can be interpreted directly into English, but it can also be interpreted directly into German, Arabic, Russian, or into British Sign Language, Catalan Sign Language, and so forth. ASL is merely a language, and to the extent that languages can be interpreted into other languages, so can ASL. The only requirement is that the interpreter be fluent in both languages. American Sign Language ASL is a naturally occurring language, one of several hundred, if not thousands, of the world's signed languages. ASL is used by deaf people in the United States and Canada. In both countries, ASL exhibits dialectal variation; across the provinces of Canada, this variation can be significant. In French-speaking Canada, in addition to ASL we find another signed language, la langue des signes québecoise (LSQ). ASL is the primary languagein other words, the language used by members of the deaf community in face-to-face communication, learned either as a first language or a second and preferred languageof an estimated 100,000500,000 Americans (Padden, 1987), including deaf people, hearing children of ASL-using deaf adults, and adult deaf signers who have learned ASL as a second language. A Brief History of American Sign Language Contrary to popular opinion, ASL is not an invented language. Just as no one invented English, German, or Spanish, no one invented ASL or any of the other natural signed languages. ASL and all other signed languages have, like spoken languages, a history of natural development. We can trace the historical roots of ASL to French Sign Language (LSF). The history behind this genetic relationship is long and complicated (see chap. 2 of S. Wilcox & P. Wilcox, 1997, for a more extended discussion). Nonetheless, the connection between ASL and LSF came about because an American by the name of Thomas Gallaudet in 1816 traveled to France to learn about methods of educating deaf children. At that time, the United States had no education for deaf children. The method used in Paris, in the renowned Paris Institute, relied on signs. The founder of the institute, Abbé de l'Epée, appropriated the lexical stock of signs from the existing language of the deaf community in Paris, LSF. He then modified the formation of the signs and the syntax in an attempt to teach the deaf children French. This instructional system of signing became known as methodical signs. Gallaudet brought back not only this method of instruction but also one of the teachers from the Paris Institute, a deaf man named Laurent Clerc. Together, they established the first school for deaf children in America, in Hartford, Connecticut. Gallaudet and Clerc modified the French educational method by adapting the French signs. These LSF-based methodical signs thus came into contact with the language that was used among deaf people in this country, which linguists often call "Old American Sign Language." No one knows what this language (or, perhaps more likely, set of related languages and
< previous page
page_117
next page >
< previous page
page_118
next page > Page 118
dialects) looked like. However, the contact between this so-called "Old ASL" and French methodical signs produced what has become modern-day ASL. Although ASL went on to become used in deaf education in this country and the primary language of the deaf community, it nevertheless has been ignored as a language for most of its existence. For a period of time, in the mid- to late-1800s, ASL was used in deaf education. However, by the turn of the century, a new method of educating deaf children, called the oral method, came to dominate schools for the deaf in Europe and in America. Proponents of the oral method believed that deaf children must learn to speak. In other words, they were more concerned with modality than with language and feared that if children were exposed to a signed language, they would never learn to speak. Thus, ASL and all other forms of signing, along with deaf teachers, were banned from deaf classrooms. This situation persisted in America until the mid-1960s. (For a more detailed account of the history of ASL in deaf education, see Lane, 1980, 1984.) There were several consequences that resulted from this oppression of ASL. However, one thing that did not happen was that ASL did not die. As so often occurs in situations where minority languages are oppressed by majority speakers, ASL merely went underground. It continued to be used by deaf people who became more and more reluctant to share it with hearing people. ASL became a marker of linguistic and cultural identity. Because it became a suppressed language, ASL and other signed languages were rarely studied by linguists. This situation changed dramatically in the United States in the early 1960s. William Stokoe, a professor of English at Gallaudet University in Washington, DC (the world's only liberal arts college for the deaf, established in 1864 by proclamation of President Abraham Lincoln), began to apply linguistic techniques to the study of the language that he saw deaf students using in his classroomASL. A few years later, Stokoe published the first dictionary of ASL based on linguistic principles (Stokoe, Casterline, & Croneberg, 1965/1976). Although Stokoe was shunned by his colleagues and ignored by linguists for many years, his pioneering research eventually led to a broad interest in the structure of ASL among linguists and, in fact, spurred a wealth of research on many other of the world's signed languages. The Linguistic Structure of American Sign Language Linguists examine languages and describe their structural characteristics, focusing on areas such as phonology (the study of the structure of the minimal units of language that combine to form words), morphology (the study of the meaningful units of language), syntax (the study of the patterns of words that form phrases and sentences), semantics (the study of linguistic meaning), and so forth. What Stokoe and scores of linguists since his pioneering work have demonstrated is that signed languages such as ASL are in fact natural languages with all the linguistic characteristics of other languages. Though differences in structure attributable to the spoken versus signed modality have been noted (Klima & Bellugi, 1979), the overwhelming conclusion is that signed languages share important characteristics with spoken languages. One of the discoveries made by Stokoe was that ASL could be described phonologically. ASL does consist of minimal units of structure. These units are called phonemes for spoken languages. Stokoe coined the term chereme for the equivalent unit in signed languages, but most linguists today simply call them phonemes, recognizing that what is lost by applying the term across modalitiesthe fact that the substance of spoken and
< previous page
page_118
next page >
< previous page
page_119
next page > Page 119
signed phonemes is differentis made up for by what is gained: recognition that the existence of the units of word formation and the rules for combining them can be described the same across spoken and signed languages. One lesson we learn from the study of morphology is that languages can vary enormously in how they combine minimal meaningful units, called morphemes, to form words. Some languages generally assign each morpheme to its own separate word. Linguists call such languages isolating languages. Chinese is an example of an isolating language. Other languages, such as English, French, and German, allow several morphemes to combine to form a word. We are all familiar with the stacking up of roots, prefixes, and suffixes to form more complex words. Linguists call these synthetic languages. Still other languages are unique in allowing a remarkable number of morphemes, even from different grammatical categories (such as nouns and verbs), to be combined into a single word. Linguists call such languages polysynthetic. Many NativeAmerican languages, such as Navajo, are polysynthetic. A typical single word in Navajo may require an entire phrase or sentence to be translated into English. This is because Navajo allows many more morphemes to be packed into a single word as compared to English. Likewise, polysynthesis is a prevalent morphological process in ASL. ASL words (i.e., signs) may combine a stem (e.g., "to-give") with morphemes indicating semantic role (e.g., first-person actor, third-person recipient), manner of action (e.g., "carelessly"), and verb aspect ("repeatedly"). The resulting combination is a single ASL word, "first person repeatedly and carelessly gives [some object] to third person," meaning something like ''I kept giving it to her over and over, but I wasn't very careful." We could continue on with this examination of the linguistic structure of ASL, but the point is clear: ASL, like any other language, can be described linguistically. When we examine the structure of this language, we see that it has all the features of any other human languagephonology, morphology, semantics, and syntax. What Makes Teaching American Sign Language Different from Teaching Spoken Languages Because of ASL's signed expression and polysynthetic nature, it poses several unique challenges for the second language learner as well as for teachers of ASL. First, it uses a different set of articulators. ASL students must learn not only to pronounce ASL correctly (i.e., they must learn the phonology so that they can begin to approach native language pronunciation), but also to use their hands, faces, and bodies in ways to which they are unaccustomed. Learning to speak another language is one thing. Learning to sign another language is quite something else. Second, ASL also presents unique challenges because it is so different structurally from English. Recall our discussion of ASL morphology and the comparison we made to another polysynthetic language, Navajo. Second language learners of Navajo often report that it is a difficult language to learn. We suspect that part of the reason is that the morphology of Navajo is so different from English. In this regard, ASL is on a par with Navajo in terms of difficulty for English speakers to learn. Third, students of ASL often must "unlearn" many hearing behaviors. The signed modality is shared with nonverbal communication used in conjunction with spoken languages, such as facial expressions, body posturing, and manual gesturing. Much of the grammar of ASL is conveyed through linguistic processes that involve facial expressions (e.g., the grammatical distinction between a declarative sentence and a yes/no or wh
< previous page
page_119
next page >
< previous page
page_120
next page > Page 120
question is made on the face); body posturing (which can indicate deixis, who is speaking to whom, in ASL); and pointing (pointing serves several linguistic functions in ASL, including person deixis, reestablishment of topic, locatives, etc.). Students not only have to learn that these behaviors are linguistic in ASL, they must also learn to feel comfortable producing a wide range of such behaviorsa sometimes daunting task in American culture, which often disapproves of the use of strong facial expression and active gesturing. Finally, ASL poses a challenge because it has no standard written form. Textbooks for teaching ASL are written not in ASL (as a textbook for teaching German, Spanish, Chinese, or Russian would be), but in an expanded method of glossing. Glossing is the practice of writing a morpheme-by-morpheme "translation" using English words. Glosses indicate what the individual parts of the native word mean. Glosses do not provide a true translation, which would instead use appropriate English ways of saying "the same thing." For example, German Es geht mir gut may be glossed as "It goes to-me good" (the hyphenated gloss ''to-me" indicates that it refers to a single word in the original). A true English translation of this expression would be something like, "I'm doing fine." The glossing method of "writing" ASL poses two problems. First, ASL students do not have a written reminder of how ASL words are pronounced, one of the advantages of writing (if the language employs an alphabetic writing system). To overcome this problem, ASL textbooks employ a second means of recording ASL signs: elaborate line drawings of a signer producing the sign. Second, glossing poses a problem because it encourages the ASL student to form connections between English words and ASL signs. This is a tendency exhibited by all beginning students of a second language: They want to learn second language vocabulary by memorizing translation equivalents. The Spanish word for dog is perro, and so forth. As language teachers, we must help our students break this habit because words rarely have exact translation equivalents across languages. Students of ASL are no different. They want to learn ASL translation equivalents for English words. Although a good ASL instructor will drill into his or her students that ASL words and English words are rarely precisely translatable, the glossing method used so pervasively in ASL textbooks works against this. We must point out that we are not saying that it is impossible to write ASL. Linguists can devise a writing system for ASL just as they can for any previously unwritten language. In fact, several writing systems have been developed for ASL; however, to date, none has become well accepted within the deaf community. Although some deaf educators and others are increasingly advocating that deaf children should be exposed to written ASLin other words, should be taught ASL literacythe general consensus within the deaf community still seems not to favor developing writing systems for ASL. Perhaps this is the appropriate place to mention that the lack of a commonly accepted form of written ASL does not mean that ASL literature does not exist. There is, in fact, a rich folk literature in ASL, conveyed by deaf poets, authors, playwrights, storytellers, and other artists. The use of this literature, primarily through videotape, is a critical component of a good ASL course. Case Studies In order to give the reader a better sense of the nature of undergraduate ASL instruction, we have selected three exemplary programs to describe. They include California
< previous page
page_120
next page >
< previous page
page_121
next page > Page 121
State University-Northridge; the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque; and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. All three of these institutions award the bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degrees. Although their signed language programs differ in many respects, they have common features that indicate an unrelenting drive for excellence in the teaching of ASL. It is important to mention, however, that there are many other excellent signed language studies programs in the United States, and those described herein are only a sampling of the undergraduate opportunities being offered to students across the nation. The authors would like to thank Larry Fleischer, Diane Brentari, and Jennifer Lizut for their invaluable assistance in preparing this article and the case studies. Case Study #1: California State University-Northridge Many of the first alumni from California State University-Northridge (CSUN) remember the rural environment that surrounded the campus less than 50 years agobanana squash growing beside the narrow dirt roads, jackrabbits scurrying among the piles of cleared orange trees. In 1956, the ground-breaking ceremony of a small branch of the Los Angeles State College led to the establishment of the San Fernando Valley State College 2 years later. In 1972, this campus acquired the name of California State University-Northridge and began exploding into what is now one of the largest campuses in the United States. The seed for the idea of the recently established (1994) Deaf Studies Department on the campus of CSUN actually took hold during the 1970s. Americans are currently well aware of signed language interpreters in the mainstream of society; they are seen working at political rallies, public meetings, and on television programs. This phenomenon has become commonplace across the country, due, in great part, to a small fortuitous beginning at CSUN. In 1964, two deaf persons were admitted to the National Leadership Training Program held on its campus. This was an innovative graduate program leading to a master's degree in administration. For their participation to be equal with hearing peers, signed language interpreters were assigned to accompany the two deaf students to class. At that time, obtaining a college education with the assistance of interpreters was almost unheard of. Thus, this assistance was a revolutionary idea in the education of deaf adults. From this auspicious beginning have come programs that influence the education of deaf people across the nation. Many deafrelated programs now functioning in other states were originally nourished on the campus of CSUN. A secondary-level teacher preparation program in the area of deafness was established in 1969. Deaf students began applying for undergraduate studies, thereby increasing the demand for qualified interpreters at the university level. The federal government sponsored National Interpreter Training Consortium held on the campus of CSUN enhanced the skills of interpreters long before many other states had established their own educational training programs. Another innovative program to come out of CSUN in the early 1970s was Project D.A.W.N. (Deaf Adults With Need), a program that trained deaf leaders from every state to establish continuing education programs in their home areas. Under the CSUN Department of Special Education, Lou Fant, a pioneer in ASL instruction, attracted deaf and hearing students from all over the nation. The National Center on Deafness founded on the CSUN campus in 1972 offered creative leadership through the direction and guidance of Ray Jones. Across the country, programs that dealt with deafness looked to CSUN for bold and innovative ideas.
< previous page
page_121
next page >
< previous page
page_122
next page > Page 122
Undergraduate ASL courses first were taught in the Department of Special Education in 19731974. As the demand for interpreters accelerated, signed language course offerings increased. Today courses in ASL I through IV (four credits each) are taught, along with many enrichment courses in conversational ASL, ASL/English translation, and creative uses of ASL. Presently, Deaf Studies majors are required to take ASL I through ASL III whereas ASL IV is an elective. The Department of Special Education offered an Interdisciplinary Major from 1983 to 1994; then in 1994, the Deaf Studies Department was officially approved. Today, under the leadership of Larry Fleischer, chair of the department, it is inspiring the nation with creative ideas in ASL education. Upcoming plans for ASL skills refinement courses include review of ASL grammar, ASL prose and poetry, and a literature course examining ASL masterpieces. Unfortunately, ASL is not offered as a foreign language because the Deaf Studies Program does not have sufficient faculty to provide foreign language equivalency to all CSUN students interested in satisfying their language credit through ASL. The ethnicity of the student population enrolled in deaf-related courses is varied and includes African-American, AsianAmerican, Native-American, Filipino, Latino, Mexican-American, Pacific Islander, and international students as well. AngloAmericans still comprise the majority of the student population, but the cultural and cross-linguistic aspects of the student body is rich. The number of students enrolled in both undergraduate and graduate levels is growing steadily, totaling over 500 students in recent years. The chair of the Deaf Studies department at CSUN is deaf, as are all of the ASL teachers, and all are native or near-native in their use of ASL. This represents a significant improvement compared to statistics of the early 1980s when 76% of the sign language instructors in America were hearing individuals (Cooper, 1997). Language teachers do not need to be deaf in order to teach ASL, but CSUN recognizes that competent native users provide insight and expertise that is especially enriching for students learning ASL as a second language. In a university that is less that 50 years old, we find one of the oldest pioneering signed language studies programs in our nation. Within its 30-year history of innovative deaf-related programs, CSUN's new Deaf Studies Department continues to provide a leading role in the ongoing development of signed language studies in America. Additional information can be obtained from Lawrence Fleischer, Chair, Department of Deaf Studies, California State University-Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330-8265. Phone: 818-677-5116 (v), 818-677-4973 (tty); fax: 818-677-5717; e-mail: Case Study #2: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Located in Albuquerque, the University of New Mexico (UNM) is flanked on its west by the banks of the historic Rio Grande and on the east by the Sandia Mountains. Established in 1889, UNM is a public institution, the flagship of the state's university system, and currently serves close to 24,000 students. Its academic programs recognize the heritage of the Southwest, particularly the Hispanic and Pueblo Indian cultures. After the Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments of 1965 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which mandated services for deaf people and prohibited discrimination, the job market for qualified interpreters across the nation began to experience tremendous growth. In Albuquerque, the public school system reported an increasing need for signed language interpreters, and other institutions such as hospitals, police, public libraries,
< previous page
page_122
next page >
< previous page
page_123
next page > Page 123
and both private and public business began demanding quality interpreting services. In 1979, a proposal for an Associate of Arts degree was presented to the College of Liberal Arts at UNM. This was the same year that the State Legislature passed a bill requiring that signed language interpreters be provided within the court system in New Mexico. The university curriculum committee looked upon this proposal favorably but requested that it be resubmitted in the form of a baccalaureate degree. Within 3 years, the interpreting degree was approved by the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences, and in the fall of 1983, 58 students applied for the 12 slots allocated to the program. (See Lamb & P. Wilcox, 1988, for a complete history.) The 4-year interpreting program evolved from a series of signed language classes offered in the Department of Communicative Disorders. When the bachelor's degree was approved, the program was still housed in that department. In 1988 the faculty moved the interpreting program to Linguistics, a department that recognized the research potential of American Sign Language. Having a coordinator of the interpreting degree program who was deaf during the emerging years ensured that the values of deaf people were considered in all areas of the program. The use of interpreters became commonplace throughout the university and created a widespread, natural acceptance of signed language interpretation. The faculty of the sign language interpreting program is currently composed of one tenured associate professor, two tenure track assistant professors, one full-time lecturer, as well as several temporary part-time positions. The Program has a full-time administrative assistant who serves the two deaf faculty members as an interpreter and handles the daily operations of the program. The UNM program has a progressive curriculum of ASL courses spiraling into the interpreter education courses. In its 15 years of operation, it has undergone several curriculum revisions. The state and local community is offered two educational tracks through this program: signed language instruction for interested community members and an interpreter education program that culminates with a Bachelor of Science degree in interpreting. Approximately 500 students sign up for the various signed language courses each year. Many students are interested in ASL and signed English classes because they have family members who are deaf (or hard of hearing), or they work with deaf people. The signed English courses offer an avenue of communication for individuals in the community who lose their hearing later in life. Although they do not want to learn a new culture and a new language (ASL), they still need to understand what their employers, family, and friends are saying. Signed English makes this possible. Signing skills are also in demand for professionals in fields such as counseling, education, linguistics, speech and language pathology, anthropology, and psychology. An average of 12 to 15 majors are screened into the interpreting education program each spring. Admission into the program is determined on the basis of the student's previous experiences related to signed language and deaf people, career goals, and scholastic ability. The small size of the program ensures that each student receives considerable individual attention and a rich practicum experience. The ethnic profile of the students in the interpreting program to some degree reflects the cultural diversity of the Southwest. Even with an overwhelming majority of Anglo-American students applying, there have been approximately 25% Hispanics and 6% Asian and Native-American students accepted as majors. The faculty strives to encourage ethnic minority participation in the program in order to promote a more balanced profession in the region. Although situated within the largest city of the state, the
< previous page
page_123
next page >
< previous page
page_124
next page > Page 124
program also endeavors to serve the outlying rural communities. For example, one Native-American graduate recently left UNM for a full-time interpreting position in the rural public school system in Shiprock, New Mexico. There, her native Navajo language and ASL interpreting skills have provided a service to deaf and hard of hearing Native-American students who had never worked with a Native-American signed language interpreter before. One major benefit of being housed in the Linguistics Department is the understanding that comes from having the ASL studies run parallel with the Navajo language track. Both languages were transferred into the department in 1988, Navajo from the Modern and Classical Languages, and Signed Language Interpreting from the Department of Communicative Disorders. ASL like Navajo is not a "foreign" language; both are indigenous to the United States. However, at UNM, both Navajo and ASL (since 1986) can be used to meet the university's "foreign language" requirement. In 1993, a doctoral degree in linguistics was approved at UNM. Because of the undergraduate signed language courses, graduate students from national and international programs recognized that UNM would be supportive of their desire to include signed languages in their doctoral work. Today, graduate students as well as visiting scholars are researching not only ASL, but also French Sign Language, Italian Sign Language, Jordanian Sign Language, Catalan Sign Language, and several others. The first dissertation completed in the linguistics doctoral program examined the syntax of ASL. Thus, the program that began as a onecredit course in signed language in 1971 has grown to a program that offers serious linguistic research in signed languages. Undergraduate students have found a place to learn ASL in a formal setting, and graduate students from across the world are doing research and presenting their findings on a variety of signed languages. (More information about the UNM program can be found in Lamb & P. Wilcox, 1988; P. Wilcox, Santiago, & Sanderson, 1992; and P. Wilcox, Schroeder, & Martinez, 1990.) For additional information contact the Coordinator, Sign Language Interpreter Program, 526 Humanities Building, Department of Linguistics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 87131-1196. e-mail: ; fax: 505-277-6355; phone: 505-277-6353 (tty/v). Case Study #3: Purdue University (West Lafayette, Indiana) Purdue University was established in 1865 by the Morrill Act of President Lincoln and a donation from a Lafayette, Indiana, merchant, John Purdue. Its original mission was to teach agriculture and the "mechanic arts." Situated 65 miles north of Indianapolis and 126 miles southeast of Chicago, it is an outstanding public, research university enrolling 35,000 students. Whereas Purdue has traditionally been known for the strength of its engineering and science programs, U.S. News and World Report, in its ranking of graduate programs, placed the Department of Audiology and Speech Sciences fifth in the country in 1998. The newly established American Sign Language Programfounded in 1997is housed in this department and has ties with the Graduate Interdepartmental Program in Linguistics, which is where most of the graduate students interested in ASL linguistics are enrolled. ASL courses were first taught at Purdue in 1981 in response to a request by students in the Audiology and Speech Sciences Department. Since that time, the ASL course offerings have expanded, and beginning in 1993, ASL has counted as fulfilling the foreign
< previous page
page_124
next page >
< previous page
page_125
next page > Page 125
language requirement at Purdue. Currently four levels of ASL are being taught in addition to a variety of language and linguistics courses related to ASL. Each semester approximately 250 students enroll in both the undergraduate and graduate courses. Students from all majors on campus take an interest in the ASL Program. Purdue's newly established American Sign Language Program is so "young" that as this is being written, no degrees have yet been granted. A minor in Deaf Studies is also in the process of being established. However, the ASL Program already offers many features that make it unique. Although the primary areas of research interest in the ASL Program are related to linguistic structure, the program also serves as a crossroads for discussion of important issues relevant to the deaf community in the medical, speech pathology, and audiology fields. This is a result of the Program's historical emergence from the Audiology and Speech Sciences Department where it is still housed. In fact, the two faculty members (a lecturer and a part-time instructor) are contracted through the Audiology and Speech Sciences Department. One teaching assistant is funded by the Graduate Interdepartmental Linguistics Program and one by the Audiology and Speech Sciences Department. The views of the ASL faculty are invited in courses taught by the speech and audiology faculty on topics ranging from educational choices for deaf children, language acquisition in sign and speech, and even cochlear implantsa practice that is politically charged in many segments of the deaf community. The atmosphere among the speech and language colleagues is one of respect for the views and expertise of the signed language studies program. Another important aspect of Purdue's ASL Program is that three ASL language instructors (including one graduate teaching assistant) are native signers of ASL. Native users of ASL comprise less than 10% of the total deaf population because only a small percentage of deaf people are born of deaf parents who use ASL. Thus, 90% of the deaf population learns ASL later in life, if at all. Having someone on the faculty who knows the language intuitively offers credibility to research and classroom teaching. Graduate students are attracted to Purdue by the Graduate Interdepartmental Linguistics Program, which grants MA and PhD degrees, and by funding opportunities for students in this program and in the ASL Program. The ASL Program has two primary goals: (a) to provide students the chance to take ASL as their foreign language and (b) to provide a research environment for graduate students and faculty working on questions in ASL linguistics. Besides having native signers on the faculty available for consultation and language interaction, there is a strong deaf community at the nearby Indiana School for the Deaf and in the surrounding area. Research into ASL linguistics is strengthened by having both a phonologist and syntactician who work on ASL. The future of this young program is bright. A grant from the Special Interest Group in Graphic Technology (SIGGRAPH) was recently awarded to Diane Brentari, the program director, to develop a lexicon of computer-related signs using virtual reality, three-dimensional animations. The computer lexicon will use current multimedia technologies to serve pedagogical objectives. The project will create materials that can enhance students' perception of sign language movements, an aspect of ASL that is difficult for adult learners to master, by allowing observation of a target sign from any perspective in a 360°, three-dimensional, virtual world. These materials will be accessible on the Internet, which makes them suitable for distance learning. In the past, signed language classes were often established in universities and community colleges as a first step toward the education of signed language interpreters. This
< previous page
page_125
next page >
< previous page
page_126
next page > Page 126
program has sought the advice from older established programs and is implementing the best ideas from the best programs. It has prepared itself to meet the future head onwith in-depth language courses, linguistic research and grants, and native users as instructors of ASL. Purdue's ASL Program was mentioned recently in The Christian Science Monitor in an article on the growing movement to teach ASL on college campuses (Conover, 1997). For additional information about Purdue's ASL Program's courses and personnel, contact Diane Brentari, Associate Professor and Director, ASL Program, Department of Audiology and Speech Sciences & Linguistics Program, 1353 Heavilon Hall, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1353; fax: 765-494-0771; phone: 765-494-9883; e-mail: Web sites: References to representative research publications by the faculty: http://www.sla.purdue.edu/academic/aus/aslprogram.html The General American Sign Language Curriculum Course descriptions vary among spoken language programs (such as Spanish, French, and German), and signed language programs are no different. However, course selections from the three case studies indicate that there is also a pattern to be found. For example, ASL I courses typically introduce students to basic sentence structures and the phonology of signs, with some morphological processes being introduced (i.e., verb aspects). Sentence types include assertions, negations, and questions (yes/no and wh). Conditional sentences, including hypotheticals and counterfactuals, and when-statements, are usually taught in more advanced courses than ASL I. Rhetorical questions and other means of marking topicality are used extensively in ASL. They are typically introduced briefly as naturally occurring language segments in the basic course, then are taught explicitly in ASL II through IV. An understanding of the various levels of formality (registers) possible in ASL is first introduced in an early course and then expanded on and taught in more detail in later courses. Likewise, some of the grammatical features introduced at the basic level are then spiraled upward in more depth at each instructional level. These include nouns, transitive and intransitive verbs, reciprocal verbs, adjectives, adverbials, quantifiers, pronominalization, possessives, demonstratives, emphatic and reflexive pronouns, pluralization, subject and objects, locatives constructions, and the complex ASL number system. Although relatively rare in English, classifiers are common in ASL. Basic classifiers, such as a person or vehicle, or size and shape specifiers, are introduced early. With each advancing course, the students are taught how to use ASL classifiers in order to indicate more complex functioning, that is, by adding verb morphemes indicating path of motion, adverbial morphemes for manner of motion, etc. Because grammatical features such as rhetoricals, relative clauses, conditionals, and wh and yes/no questions are marked on the face, much time is spent preparing the students for this modality difference. Physical exercises are used to free the body from the restraints of a hearing environment that generally restricts facial and bodily movements. The first semester may find some students hesitant to squint their eyes (necessary for a relative clause) or purse their lips (a bound, adjectival morpheme meaning "thin") while systematically synchronizing their facial movements with shoulder movements or specific head and body stances. Because the signed modality at first can be inhibiting to many students, courses include exercises to encourage free facial and bodily movement. By the second course, most students have shed their inhibitions about moving
< previous page
page_126
next page >
< previous page
page_127
next page > Page 127
their body in public. The interest in producing correct grammar takes over, and they are no longer concerned with signing in front of hearing people who have no knowledge of ASL. The UNM curriculum also offers a basic-level course called Introduction to Signed Language; this course is unique to UNM's curriculum and is of considerable interest to other institutions in the process of establishing ASL programs. Introduction to Signed Language is a holistic course designed to dispel from the beginning any previous misconceptions about the simplicity of ASL's grammatical structure and its community of language users. Adults with naive assumptions about the linguistics of ASL develop a keen interest when exposed to the work of pioneering linguistic and cultural researchers, such as the ground-breaking work of William Stokoe (Stokoe et al., 1965/1976); Klima and Bellugi's (1979) findings on the language acquisition of deaf children; Battison's (1978) study on lexical borrowing in ASL; Supalla and Newport's (1978) study of the morphological relationships between ASL noun and verb pairs; and Padden and Humphries' (1988) revealing cultural insights. This introductory course provides a place where students are free to ask questions in spoken English. They can satisfy their curiosity about ASL and discuss their own cross-cultural encounters with people who use signed language. In this class they also learn how to pronounce (produce) isolated language segments and lexical items and become familiar with the nonmanual facial grammatical markings that will be required of them if they continue studying ASL. Adults respond favorably to teaching strategies that correspond to the learning styles they have developed over the years. In this course they are cautioned about the possible and very real culture shock experienced by participants of cross-cultural encounters (Brislin, 1981). Once students establish a comfortable linguistic and cultural base in the second language, they often choose an immersion program as the next step (O'Grady, Dobrovolsky, & Aronoff, 1989). Whereas natural environments enhance the acquisition of ASL language skills, this introductory course provides adults with the opportunity to discuss issues freely and to gain a deeper understanding of what they will encounter in subsequent ASL courses. Introduction to Signed Language is offered either prior to or simultaneously with the 200-level ASL I course. All ASL language courses should be taught without the support of spoken language. Through the use of total immersion, the students become aware of the cultural mores and visual conversational regulators needed to communicate with deaf people. Typically signed language programs strive to offer at least ASL I through IV, paralleling spoken language requirements of four semesters for foreign language credit. Programs with strong financial support are able to offer advanced ASL courses and additional enrichment courses. For example, CSUN faculty teach and advanced course called Creative Uses of ASL. The focus is on artistic expression of ASL poetry and storytelling. Students gain a heightened appreciation of the language through this creative avenue. Other enrichment classes offered at CSUN are Advanced ASL Conversation, ASL/English Translation, andin the process of being adoptedReview of Grammar, ASL Prose and Poetry, and ASL Masterpieces. The linguistics of ASL and linguistic analysis courses at Purdue and UNM are similar. These courses include discussion of the basic characteristics common to all languages, whether signed or spoken. The courses are offered to both undergraduate and graduate students and include discussion of phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, historical linguistics, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, sociolinguistic variation in dialects, and linguistic typology. Also discussed at UNM is the latest research on ASL metaphor.
< previous page
page_127
next page >
< previous page
page_128
next page > Page 128
Fingerspelling is the articulation of hand configurations that produce the letters of the alphabet. Some programs teach fingerspelling embedded within the ASL courses; other programs offer an additional, separate course focusing primarily on fingerspelling. The objectives of a fingerspelling course are to develop fluency in producing and comprehending fingerspelled words and numbers. Skill-building strategies include memorization and the precise execution of spelling words; limbering exercises essential to avoiding repetitive motion damage to the wrists and fingers; and lexical borrowing that converts fingerspelled words to semantically and phonologically restricted "loan" signs. Predictive strategies based on linguistic, cultural, and contextual information assist the students in the comprehension of fingerspelled words and numbers. Studying a language without knowing about the culture of the people who use that language would be of little value. Deaf culture courses typically introduce students to the anthropological concept of culture and ethnography, or the study of culture; to the system of values, beliefs, and mores that comprise American deaf culture; to the role of language in deaf culture; and to social and political aspects of deaf culture. The Outcome of American Sign Language Instruction Although the field of ASL language instruction has developed enormously over the past 20 years, little research exists examining the proficiency outcome of students who study ASL in undergraduate courses. Klee (in chap. 3 of this volume) notes that the Foreign Service Institute estimates that "it take 240 hours of intensive language instruction for average learners to attain 'survival' proficiency . . . in languages such as French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, or Swedish, and 480 hours to attain similar proficiency in Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, or Korean." At least two factors are involved in developing proficiency in a foreign language: language internal factors (hence, the preceding distinction between French and Arabic), and language external factors. One language external factor is intensity of instruction. As Klee notes, most college foreign language requirements are 2 years or less of nonintensive classes. The same is true for ASL. Opportunities to interact with native speakers of a language in nonclassroom, everyday situations is one way to enhance language proficiency. In this regard, ASL students have an advantage over students of many other foreign languages because there are more opportunities for interacting with native users of ASL in the student's local community. ASL instructors are well aware of the benefit of combining formal classroom instruction with interaction with native ASL users. Well-designed ASL programs include various strategies for encouraging and rewarding students to seek such interaction in the local community. There are several language internal factors that make a language easy or difficult for a student to learn. We consider the following: phonology, lexicon, morphology, and writing system. Phonology One element in which students must develop proficiency is pronunciation. Clearly, phonological systems present different challenges for students. It is likely that learning to pronounce Spanish is easier for a native English speaker than learning to pronounce !Xûo, an African language that makes extensive use of clicks (the initial sound in the language's name, represented by "!", is a click) and other esoteric sounds (Ladefoged & Maddieson, 1995). For students of ASL, correct "pronunciation" involves a phonological system that is radically different than anything in their linguistic background. In order to learn correct
< previous page
page_128
next page >
< previous page
page_129
next page > Page 129
pronunciation of a signed language, students must be able to develop intricate motor control of their fingers, hands, arms, and faces in ways to which they are often unaccustomed. They must be able to visually perceive subtle differences in the teacher's signing, produce complex signs, and monitor their own production by means of visual and kinesthetic feedback. In our experience, some students are able to accomplish this task with relative ease whereas others struggle but never seem to develop the necessary motor control or self-monitoring skills. We know of no research examining what causes these individual differences. A few instructional texts suggest language exercises designed to develop these skills, but again we know of no research documenting which, if any, exercises are effective. Lexicon One of the most important tasks faced by foreign language students early in their development is learning sufficient vocabulary. Vocabulary acquisition is, by and large, a matter of memorization: Students must remember both the form and the meaning of thousands of words. Therefore, anything that can assist in this memory-intensive task will aid vocabulary development. This is an area where ASL students perhaps have a slight advantage. The relation between form and meaning at the word (or sign) level is often not arbitrary in signed languages such as ASL; rather, ASL signs often are motivated by iconicity. The ASL sign for TREE, for example, looks like a tree. Linguists have long debated the linguistic significance of iconicity and have noted that it is not predictive of form (the Chinese Sign Language sign for TREE, though it also iconically resembles a tree, is quite different than the ASL sign; Klima & Bellugi, 1979) and does not seem to figure in deaf children's language acquisition (Newport & Meier, 1985). Nevertheless, iconicity can serve as a mnemonic aid to adult second language learners of ASL, making vocabulary development somewhat easier. Morphology As we noted in our discussion of ASL linguistics, languages differ in the type and degree of their complexity in forming words. Languages that are close in morphological type to the student's native language are probably easier to learn than those that differ significantly. In our experience, languages that exhibit polysynthetic morphologies are among some of the most difficult for speakers of English to learn. This includes ASL (and several Native-American languages such as Navajo). Writing System As we noted earlier, the lack of a standardized writing system imposes a barrier to students learning ASL. What does all this mean for ASL proficiency outcomes? Again, almost no research exists examining the impact that these language internal and language external factors have on proficiency. Moreover, issues of curriculum and teacher qualification must be considered when determining what are reasonable outcomes of ASL instruction. However, assuming that a program is using a well-designed and implemented curriculum, that trained ASL teachers are used, and that students have opportunities for at least some interaction outside of the classroom with native users of ASL, we can make the following generalizations concerning proficiency: In our experience, these conditions produce students who, on average, exhibit proficiency levels on the ACTFL scale ranging from low-intermediate to high-intermediate. That is, ASL students who have completed four semesters of ASL courses, meeting three times a week with some interaction outside the classroom each week, will typically
< previous page
page_129
next page >
< previous page
page_130
next page > Page 130
achieve a level of ASL proficiency that will allow them to maintain simple face-to-face conversation in some informational and some transactional settings, on topics related primarily to self or the immediate environment. These students will be able to be understood by native ASL users but may have to repeat themselves; they will be able to produce discrete sentences and strings of sentences but will have difficulty producing extended discourse. It will be readily apparent to any native user of ASL that this student is an adult second language learner of ASL because of the student's pronunciation, reduced vocabulary, and lack of control over more complex grammatical and discourse structures. In terms of comprehension, these students will likely be able to understand ASL conversations about topics with which they have prior knowledge; acquiring new knowledge, especially as the topic becomes more technical or less linked to the student's immediate situation, will be difficult. One-to-one conversations with native users of ASL can proceed smoothly, but comprehension will decline rapidly if the student is engaged in a conversation with multiple native ASL users. Qualifications of American Sign Language Teachers As undergraduate ASL instruction programs become more popular, sponsoring departments are faced with the important question of who is qualified to teach ASL. Native or near-native fluency in ASL is, of course, a prerequisite. But ASL teachers, like other foreign language teachers, also need other skills and educational qualifications. Kanda and Fleischer (1988) described six qualifications that ASL instructors should possess: First, ASL instructors must respect the language and its history. They should have a sense of the importance of ASL in the daily lives of deaf people and should know the details of ASL's history of suppression. ASL instructors must be aware of the fact that ASL is poorly understood by most people. German instructors can assume that their students know that German is a language, that it is not English, and that its speakers have a cultural and linguistic identity. ASL instructors cannot assume such knowledge on the part of their students. They must explicitly teach this knowledge, and they must at all times model respect for the language and its users. Second, ASL instructors should feel comfortable interacting with native users in the deaf community. It is common for foreign language teachers to spend several years abroad, living with native speakers of the language that they will teach. In this way they perfect their fluency in the language and become even more knowledgeable about the culture and history of its speakers. ASL instructors have the same responsibility to spend time interacting with native speakers, if they are not themselves native speakers. The advantage that ASL instructors have, of course, is that there are ASL users much closer to homeevery city has a community of deaf people who use ASL. Local deaf clubs, sports organizations, and other gatherings are excellent places for ASL instructors and more advanced students to hone their ASL skills. At one point, all that was required of ASL instructors was that they be fluent in the language (actually, there was a point, sadly, when even this minimal requirement was rarely met; fortunately, we are beyond this stage of development in our profession). Fluency is not enough now, however. The third qualification that Kanda and Fleischer proposed is that, like their spoken language colleagues, ASL instructors must have solid academic backgrounds in the formal study of ASL and in principles of general education.
< previous page
page_130
next page >
< previous page
page_131
next page > Page 131
Along with this, a fourth requirement is that ASL instructors have training in second language pedagogy. Principles of second language instruction developed for spoken language classrooms often apply equally well to ASL classrooms. Teachers should know about various second language teaching approaches, such as grammar translation (which emphasizes memorization of vocabulary and rules of grammar), the audiolingual method (which, despite its name, can certainly be applied to signed languages), the cognitive approach (which organizes materials around a grammatical syllabus while allowing for meaningful practice and use of the language), and various holistic approaches. ASL teachers should also be aware of the learning styles of their students (Doerfert & S. Wilcox, 1986). Fifth, ASL teachers must be actively involved in personal and professional growth and development. This is especially important in a rapidly advancing field such as ASL instruction. ASL instructors, perhaps more so than their spoken language colleagues, must be able to stay in touch with new knowledge about the language as described by linguists. They must be able to read and understand linguistic research and be able to apply knowledge gained from such research to the ASL classroom. Finally, ASL teachers, according to Kanda and Fleischer, are human beings first, teachers second, and teachers of ASL third. ASL teachers face a unique and weighty responsibility in their classes: They will be teaching students with a diverse set of goals, ranging from students who are losing their hearing and are preparing for the day when they must rely on ASL or signed English; to students who have deaf children or members of their family; to students who are interested in this language for various scholarly or career reasons; to students are who merely trying to satisfy a foreign language requirement. The ASL instructor must attempt to meet the needs of all these students, and at the same time not only impart knowledge of and fluency in ASL, but also instill a respect for the language and its users. American Sign Language as a Foreign Language Interest in ASL as a foreign language has grown enormously in recent years. Many colleges and universities are beginning to recognize the study of ASL and deaf culture as legitimate academic pursuits and are starting to accept ASL in fulfillment of foreign language entrance and exit requirements. Some of the colleges and universities that formally accept ASL in fulfillment of foreign or second language requirements include Michigan State University, The State University of New York at Stony Brook, University of Arizona, University of Minnesota, University of New Mexico, University of Rochester, Purdue University, Grambling University, University of Washington, and many others. Recent years also have witnessed tremendous activity by state legislatures to support the teaching and acceptance of ASL as a foreign language. Legislation in Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and other states has been passed recognizing ASL as a foreign language for the purpose of meeting high school graduation requirements. In 1988, the parliament of the European Community recognized as legitimate languages the indigenous signed languages of its 12 member states, noting that there are 500,000 profoundly deaf people in member states whose first language is their national signed language and not the dominant spoken language of their country. Recognition
< previous page
page_131
next page >
< previous page
page_132
next page > Page 132
and acceptance of signed languages is clearly an idea whose time has come on an international scale. Many questions are raised when the topic of ASL as a foreign language is brought up. People often ask if it is appropriate to call ASL a foreign language. Is it really a language? Isn't it a derivative of English? Is ASL truly ''foreign" because, after all, it is used in the United States. Is there a body of literature associated with ASL? Others may note that foreign language courses teach students about the culture of the group of people who use the language. They may wonder if there is a full and distinct culture associated with users of ASL. The answers to all of these questions support the recognition of ASL as a foreign language. Because of its unique modality, many people wrongly assume that ASL is fundamentally different than spoken languages. However, as we described earlier in this chapter, ASL is a fully developed human language, one of the hundreds of naturally occurring signed languages of the world. The question of whether ASL is "foreign" depends on what we mean by foreign. As we noted earlier, ASL is not universal; it is indigenous to the United States and parts of Canada. This should not, however, exclude it from study as a foreign language. The same question also arises with other languages indigenous to North America. At the University of New Mexico, for example, Navajo is taught and accepted in fulfillment of the foreign language requirement, yet it is not used in a foreign country. For reasons such as this, many language scholars now speak of second language, rather than foreign language, requirements. One traditional reason given for foreign language study is that learning a foreign language will give students access to scientific literature. This is, we believe, an argument more appropriately made for the graduate study of a foreign language. Undergraduate foreign language requirements simply do not provide students with sufficient proficiency to be able to read scientific literature. However, we also must point out that learning ASL does, in fact, expose students to a large literature of scientific research on ASL and other signed languages. Even the limited proficiency in ASL that comes with undergraduate study gives students a valuable research skill that allows them to approach the study of linguistics, anthropology, education, and other disciplines with greater insight. One essential aspect of foreign language study is that is exposes students to literature in the language. There is a rich body of ASL literature by and about deaf people, as well as texts on ASL in both written and oral modes. The folk heritage of deaf people, passed down through generations of ASL users, includes legends, naming practices, tall tales, jokes, word play, games, poetry, customs, rituals, and celebrations. (For more examples of the heritage and folklore of deaf people, readers are referred Jack Gannon's Deaf Heritage: A Narrative History of Deaf America [1981].) Foreign language study necessarily involves learning about the values, world view, and way of lifethe cultureof a group of people. The same is true for the study of ASL. ASL students learn about the rich cultural life of deaf people. Deaf culture is now recognized and studied by anthropologists, ethnographers, folklorists, and others interested in culture and cross-cultural communication, and books describing deaf culture are readily available. (Examples include Padden and Humphries' Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture [1988]; S. Wilcox's American Deaf Culture: An Anthology [1989]; and Sacks' Seeing Voices [1989].) Though linguistic and cultural "facts" overwhelming confirm that ASL is a true human language, fully distinct from English, with its own literature and culture, it is
< previous page
page_132
next page >
< previous page
page_133
next page > Page 133
important to go beyond this, however, and to ask whether we do students a service by offering ASL as a foreign language option. Is ASL instruction a worthwhile addition to the university undergraduate curriculum? The answer, we believe, is clearly affirmative. One of the educational benefits of foreign language study is that it gives students a fresh perspective on their own language and culture. This is especially true of ASL. Applying linguistic and anthropological methods to the study of ASL and deaf culture is an excellent intellectual exercise for students. It leaves them with a better understanding of another people's language and customs, as well as a deeper appreciation of their own language and culture. We do not teach languages only for the intellectual rewards. There are also practical, economic reasons for learning a foreign language. For example, our nation's businesses need employees who can understand the language and customs of foreign people. This might seem to work against ASL because it is not associated with a foreign nationality. Again, the facts do not support such a contention. For example, students graduating from the Bachelor of Science degree program in sign language interpreting at the University of New Mexico are regularly recruited into competitive positions in business, education, and government. Many students report that they take ASL specifically to make them better qualified or more employable in nondeafness-related careers. Those students who want to continue their education at the graduate level find that a background in ASL opens up several avenues for advanced study and research. Finally, some might wonder whether offering ASL as a foreign language option will cause a decline in enrollment in other foreign languages. The evidence from those universities that accept ASL as a foreign language is precisely the opposite. At these universities there is no record of a decrease in traditional foreign language enrollment due to enrollments in ASL. As a matter of fact, ASL instruction may lead to increased foreign language enrollment. ASL students often report that they are more interested in other languagesand indeed more likely to take a traditional, spoken foreign languageas a result of their ASL study. Students who know a foreign language commonly find that their perceptions of themselves and the world are richer than those of their monolingual peers. The study of a language, culture, and literature different than their own propels students beyond the limits of their own world. In all respects, the study of ASL affords students the same challenges and rewards as do the more traditional foreign languages. Future Issues and Conclusions In this section we discuss some important issues facing the field of ASL and signed language instruction. These include meeting the diverse language needs of the deaf community, articulation between college and high school ASL programs, and the use of technology in teaching ASL. We also draw some final conclusions. Curriculum Design: Meeting the Language Needs of the Deaf Community The growing acceptance of ASL into the American mainstream has brought strength and pride into the deaf community. This has resulted in many far-reaching changes. One such impact was the national "Deaf President Now" movement in 1988 (Gannon, 1989). This huge protest resulted in the first deaf president being appointed at Gallaudet
< previous page
page_133
next page >
< previous page
page_134
next page > Page 134
University in Washington, DC, the world's only liberal arts university for deaf people. Since the University's inception in 1864 until 1988, every appointed president was a hearing person. During the protest, the students literally took over the campus, preventing most teachers and administrators from entering until their demand for a deaf president was met. While the students were protesting, deaf people from across the country traveled to the nation's capital for an unprecedented show of support for the students' demand. The visibility brought about when the nation's television and print media spot-lighted the upheaval during the week of March 712, 1988, created an awareness of deaf people and signed language on a vast scale in our nation. The tremendous "deaf pride" generated on the campus of Gallaudet University has carried over into every state. Public schools and universities across the country are now rapidly adopting ASL in their curricula. Deaf people are being recognized as equal citizens in many segments of society today; they are being allowed to serve on jury duty, and to enter into the professions of law, medicine, linguistics, philosophy, and almost any field they choose. This is a far cry from the early 1950s when many deaf people were not even permitted to hold jobs as teachers at schools for the deaf across America. Yet, as deaf people begin to enter mainstream society, a new myth is developingthat the dominant language of all deaf people in America is ASL. Thousands of deaf people respect ASL and use it. Public schools systems and colleges are becoming more vocal about the adoption of ASL as a second language. State legislatures are recognizing its legitimacy as a language. But there are also many deaf people who wish to use both ASL and signed English. This is creating a countervoice within the deaf community. Many possible language contact variations have been identified in the American deaf community (Lucas & Valli, 1989), and the sociolinguistics of that community is enormously complex. Deaf and hard of hearing people who cherish ASL, but often prefer to use a combination of spoken or signed English too, are struggling with the issue of how to express support for ASL without appearing to be opposed to the language that is at the core of the deaf culture. Frank Turk, a lifelong leader in the National Association of the Deaf, has noted a deepening division between deaf people who use ASL only and deaf people who also embrace signed or spoken English in their daily lives. He lectures across the country, urging deaf and hard of hearing people everywhere to accept the diversity that varied language use can bring into the deaf community, and to combine their political weight. A younger advocate of multilingual and multicultural interaction is Al Couthen, an outspoken leader in the Black deaf community. He sees the same resistance building up across America and eloquently lectures for the acceptance of diverse language needs as common goals to be achieved by all. These two men look at the widening split emerging within the deaf community and realize that the preferred languages used by deaf people are beginning to define their political goals. They know that the deaf community will lose its political strength if its number base is splintered. They believe that it is essential for deaf people to regroup if they are to obtain recognition from state and national congressional bodies. For too long, ASL was a suppressed language in America, and deaf people were an oppressed minority (Lane, Hoffmeister, & Bahan, 1996). The emerging popularity of ASL is creating great pride in most sections of the deaf community but is also creating new problems. In general, educational curriculum design is based on the needs of the consumers enrolled in the courses. There is a strong feeling in Deaf Studies programs that the purity of ASL must be preserved. All signed language interpreting programs respect ASL and a deaf person's right to use it.
< previous page
page_134
next page >
< previous page
page_135
next page > Page 135
Nonetheless, the question being raised is what to do with deaf and hard of hearing people who wish to learn spoken or signed English as well asor even instead ofASL. This issue is being debated by professionals in the field, and signed language studies curricula are being developed based on the decisions made. Some signed language interpreting curricula are being revised to emphasize ASL to the exclusion of signed English. Resolutions dealing with language preference are being considered in deafrelated organizations. In the coming years, the deaf community may embrace the diversity found within its own population, or it may enter a period of language polarization. University administrators have an obligation to ensure that publicly funded programs meet the needs of the local community. Departments and programs that offer signed language courses are now debating the issue of how to meet varying language preferences of the deaf community as the new millennium approaches. Articulation between College and High School American Sign Language Programs One issue that recently has created problems nationwide and has not yet been resolved is articulation between high school and university programs that offer ASL classes. For example, until 1988 there was no standardized curriculum available for ASL programs; teachers developed their own curricula and shared their teaching techniques on a haphazard basis. In 1988, ASL faculty at Vista Community College in California were awarded a grant from the U.S. Department of Education's Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education to develop an ASL curriculum. This curriculum, called Signing Naturally (Smith, Lenta, & Mikos, 1988), is now in wide use in colleges and universities. However, the Vista curriculum is also being used in many high schools. High school students who wish to continue their ASL studies at the university level are finding that the same Vista curriculum they studied in high school is often used by the university in its ASL courses. Another curriculum that has been developed more recently, Bravo ASL! (1992), is geared more toward K12 and is not appropriate for all university courses. College and university ASL programs must decide whether to implement test-out exams, or to require students to enroll in repeat courses using the same curriculum with different instructors, or to supplement the Signing Naturally and Bravo ASL! curricula with additional advanced materials. There is no national agency or organization proposing standardization of ASL curricula at this time. The articulation issue will require close cooperation between secondary schools and postsecondary institutions before it is resolved. Technology Technology is important in any type of undergraduate language instruction. Students are best served in their language education when they have access to language laboratories that are increasingly moving out of strictly audio or even audiovisual configurations into interactive, multimedia arrangements designed to operate in computer-based settings. ASL instruction is especially dependent on technological solutions. Many ASL curricula, such as those mentioned earlier, come with teacher and student videotapes containing exercises, dialogues, ASL literature performed by renowned deaf artists, deaf cultural material, and other language instructional material. If an undergraduate ASL program is to be successful, it must provide access at least to VCRs so that students may view this material.
< previous page
page_135
next page >
< previous page
page_136
next page > Page 136
A truly state-of-the-art ASL instruction program, however, requires much more. Today, materials and resources are available not just on videotape but also on CD-ROM and the Internet. Increasingly, we will see material begin to appear on the new DVD format. Students also can be more successful learners if they can record their production to be viewed at a later date, either by themselves, their peers, or the instructor. Again, this has been common practice in audio language laboratory settings with spoken languages. ASL programs need to consider ways in which this instructional strategy can be performed in the visual medium, for example, by providing video cameras in video-based language laboratories. In addition, the innovative ASL undergraduate program will require that its language laboratory facilities be based not on the older VCR/video camera model but on new technology that uses computer-based video conferencing hardware and software, electronic storage of video material, and local area network (LAN) connectivity among the individual student stations and the instructor "console." A prototype for such a language-learning laboratory is described in Vigil and S. Wilcox (1996). ASL has been recognized and taught as a second language for only two decades, but it has already become one of the fastest growing programs in undergraduate language education. Many ASL programs still show their historical roots: They are often associated with interpreter education programs and typically have not yet become fully integrated into foreign language departments. Nevertheless, a few innovative programs are leading the way, offering ASL instruction on a par with other, traditional foreign languages with faculty trained in second language pedagogy. More and more undergraduate programs are being established that offer ASL or Deaf Studies as courses of study in their own right. Clearly, the future holds great promise for undergraduate students who wish to study ASL and the rich cultural, historical, and literacy traditions embodied within the deaf community. References Battison, R. (1978). Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press. Bravo ASL! Curriculum. (1992). Salem, OR: Sign Enhancers, Inc. Brislin, R. (1981). Cross-cultural encounters: Face-to-face interaction. New York: Pergamon. Conover, K. (1997, December 18). In gesture toward change, schools sign on to "signing." The Christian Science Monitor [online edition]. Cooper, S. (1997). The academic status of sign language programs in institutions of higher education in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC. Doerfert, K., & Wilcox, S. (1986). Meeting students' affective needs: Personality types and learning preferences. Journal of Interpretation 3, 3545. Gannon, J. (1981). Deaf heritage: A narrative history of deaf America. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf. Gannon, J. (1989). The week the world heard Gallaudet. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Kanda, J., & Fleischer, L. (1988). Who is qualified to teach American Sign Language? Sign Language Studies, 59, 183194. Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ladefoged, P., & Maddieson, I. (1995). The sounds of the world's languages. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Lamb, L., & Wilcox, P. (1988). Acceptance of American Sign Language at the University of New Mexico: The history of a process. Sign Language Studies, 59, 213219. Lane, H. (1980). A chronology of the oppression of sign language in France and the United States. In H. Lane & F. Grosjean (Eds.), Recent perspectives on American Sign Language (pp. 119161). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
< previous page
page_136
next page >
< previous page
page_137
next page > Page 137
Lane, H. (1984). When the mind hears: A history of the deaf. New York: Random House. Lane, H., Hoffmeister, R., & Bahan, B. (1996). A journey into the Deaf-World. San Diego: DawnSign Press. Lucas, D., & Valli, C. (1989). Variation and language contact. In C. Lucas (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of the deaf community (pp. 1140). San Diego: Academic Press. Newport, E., & Meier, R. (1985). Acquisition of American Sign Language. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 1, pp. 881938). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. O'Grady, W., Dobrovolsky, M., & Aronoff, M. (1989). Contemporary linguistics: An introduction. New York: St. Martin's Press. Padden, C. (1987). Sign languages, American. In J. V. Van Cleve (Ed.), Gallaudet encyclopedia of deaf people and deafness (pp. 4353). New York: McGraw-Hill. Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (1988). Deaf in America: Voices from a culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sacks, O. (1989). Seeing voices: A journey into the world of the deaf. New York: HarperPerennial, HarperCollins. Smith, C., Lenta, E., & Mikos, K. (1988). Signing naturally. San Diego: DawnSignPress. Stokoe, W. C., Casterline, D., & Croneberg, C. (1976). A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press. (Original work published 1965) Supalla, T., & Newport, E. L. (1978). How many seats in a chair? In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp. 91132). New York: Academy Press. Vigil, N., & Wilcox, S. (1996, May). A state of the art sign language learning system based on computer videoconferencing technology. Paper presented at CALICO (Computer Assisted Language Learning Consortium). Albuquerque, NM. Wilcox, P., Santiago, J., & Sanderson, G. (1992). Triangulation of interpreting relationships: A model for connecting educational interpreter standards. In Expanding horizons: Proceedings of the Twelfth National Convention of the Registry of Interpreters for the deaf (pp. 166176). Silver Spring, MD: RID Publications. Wilcox, P., Schroeder, F., & Martinez, T. (1990). A commitment to professionalism: Educational interpreting standards within a large public school system. Sign Language Studies, 68, 277286. Wilcox, S. (1989). American deaf culture: An anthology. Burtonsville, MD: Linstok Press. Wilcox, S., & Wilcox, P. (1997). Learning to see: Teaching American Sign Language as a second language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
< previous page
page_137
next page >
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
< previous page
page_139
next page > Page 139
PART III LANGUAGE REVIVAL
< previous page
page_139
next page >
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
< previous page
page_141
next page > Page 141
7 Native-American Languages Jon Reyhner Northern Arizona University Louise Lockard Northern Arizona University Judith W. Rosenthal Kean University I have lost the language [Tlingit], my children never learned the language, and my grandchildren have lost the opportunity to learn the language. W. Demmert (1994) Throughout my education, I spoke Navajo. English was my second language. Today when I speak Navajo with my students, they often respond in English. I tell them they should not be ashamed of speaking the Navajo language, that it is good to know two languages. Ambrose Yazzie, Eighth-Grade Teacher, Chinle Boarding School, Many Farms, AZ (personal communication, March 1997) It has been estimated that before the arrival of Europeans to the North American continent there were millions of Native Americans who spoke 300 languages (Institute for the Preservation of the Original Languages of the Americas [IPOLA], 1998; Krauss, 1996). Today, with a population of approximately 2,300,000 Native Americans, only 210 of those languages remain. Of these, 175 are spoken in the United States and 35 in Canada (Krauss, 1996). In other words, in the United States alone, more than 100 indigenous languages are now extinct, and at the rate at which Native-American languages are disappearing, it has been estimated that by the year 2050 only 20 will remain (IPOLA, 1998). As reported in a New York Times article entitled "Indians Striving to Save Their Languages" (Brooke, 1998), only "20 [Indian languages] are still spoken by mothers to babies. . . . 70 languages are spoken only by grandparents, and 55 more are spoken by 10 tribal members or fewer" (p. A1). Clearly, without preservation efforts, when the small remaining number of speakers of these languages die, they will take with them their language as well as the history of the people and the culture each language embodies. Language loss is a worldwide phenomenon. For example, in Australia, it is estimated that 90% of the 250 aboriginal languages are approaching extinction whereas in Alaska and the former Soviet North, 45 of 50 indigenous languages (90%) are moribund (Krauss,
< previous page
page_141
next page >
< previous page
page_142
next page > Page 142
1992). Because most of us here in the United States go about our daily lives immersed in English and perhaps struggling to learn a "modern" foreign language, we might wonder why there should be concern about preventing the loss of indigenous languages. Clearly, they are used by relatively few members of our population and are of little significance in the mass media. Furthermore, many are oral, without written forms (IPOLA, 1998). Nonetheless, there are those who have argued strongly for efforts to stabilize and preserve indigenous languages. As stated by Reyhner (1996), indigenous languages represent "irreplaceable cultural knowledge" and, in addition, serve as "a cornerstone of indigenous community and family values" (p. 3). The causes of language loss are numerous. As summed up succinctly by Krauss (1992): The circumstances that have led to the present language mortality known to us range from outright genocide, social or economic or habitat destruction, displacement, demographic submersion, language suppression in forced assimilation or assimilatory education, to electronic media bombardment, especially television. (p. 6) In the case of Native-American languages, all of these apply. Revitalizing languages and reversing the loss of threatened languages is a common concern in the literature of language planning (Fishman, 1991; Kaplan, 1993-1994; Ruíz, 1988). However, in a society preoccupied with profits and material gain, it is often hard to explain the importance of conserving a resource such as a language. According to Krauss (1992): "Language endangerment is comparable to "the endangerment of biological species in the natural world. . . . Languages no longer being learned as mother-tongue by children are beyond mere endangerment, for, unless the course is somehow dramatically reversed, they are already doomed to extinction, like species lacking reproductive capacity" (p. 4). However, language loss is not the same as the death of a biological species: "Unlike natural species, languages have no genes and thus carry no mechanism for natural selection. Their prospects for survival are determined not by any intrinsic traits, or capacity for adaptation, but by social forces alone" (Crawford, 1995, p. 23). Thus, in describing what is needed for a language to survive, Krauss (1992) identified two "obvious positive factors: official state support and very large numbers of speakers'' (p. 7). For it was those events that decimated not only the Indian population but also wreaked havoc on the status of indigenous languages. (Reasons for the "recovery" of the Native-American population are discussed later in this chapter.) Therefore, for most of the history of the United States, there has been no governmental support for maintaining Native-American languages, and only recently the Native-American population, in terms of sheer numbers, has begun to recover. In order to fully appreciate current efforts to revive Native-American languages, we need to look at both the historical events and the political policies in the United States that brought about what Thornton (1987) called the "American Indian Holocaust." Historical and Political Policies and Practices Affecting Native Americans, Their Cultures, and Languages Exactly how many indigenous peoples lived in the Western Hemisphere prior to the arrival of Europeans has been subject to considerable speculation. Although the Native-American population in North America prior to 1492 has been estimated to be around
< previous page
page_142
next page >
< previous page
page_143
next page > Page 143
2 million, this figure may be much too low (Thornton, 1987). Whatever the precise number, we do know from U.S. census data that within less than 400 years, the number of Native Americans plummeted dramatically to 600,000 in 1800 and to approximately 250,000 in the 1890s. Among the many causes of this vast depopulation were warfare as well as outright efforts to kill Native Americans, the introduction of firearms and alcohol, diseases brought to the "new world" by the Europeans, starvation resulting from loss of traditional land bases and food sources, as well as assimilatory efforts. Forced off their lands and onto reservationssometimes to areas quite far from their homelandsNative Americans were subjected to policies and practices of the federal government aimed at destroying their culture and language. Educational policies were among the most destructive (see, e.g., Belgarde, 1996; Cantoni, 1996; Reyhner, 1992, 1997). Whereas missionaries often used indigenous languages to promote Christianity and for educational purposes, the schooling practices overseen by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) punished students for speaking their native languages. Every attempt was made to "blot out" the "barbarous dialects" used by Native Americans. Captain Richard Henry Pratt, who founded the Carlisle Indian Industrial School (Carlisle, PA) in 1879, wrote in a letter to the Honorable H. L. Dawes, Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate (March 24, 1881), "the sooner the Indian loses all his Indian ways, even his language, the better it will be for him and for the government . . . (Utley, 1964, p. 266). At Carlisle, Pratt ordered teachers to speak only in English, and students who spoke in native languages were forced to confess their offenses in front of the student body. Likewise, in 1887, the U.S. Commissioner of Indian Affairs wrote: The instruction of the Indians in the vernacular is not only of no use to them, but is detrimental to the cause of their education and civilization, and no school will be permitted on the reservation in which the English language is not exclusively taught. (Atkins, 1887, p. xxiii) Toward the end of the 19th century, the U.S. government established a network of boarding schools (U.S. Senate, 1969, p. 12), and often, students could not go home for years at a time. These boarding schools fairly effectively introduced English while providing only a second-rate elementary education and vocational training. By removing children from their homes and forcing them to speak English, in many cases the inter-generational continuity by which languages are normally transmitted from parent to child was irreparably damaged. The irony of these efforts to anglicize Indian children was that even when they dressed in "White man's clothes" and spoke English, they were still perceived and treated as Indians, not accepted into the White community, and often were "objects of ridicule" when they returned to their reservations. Nonetheless, the educational policies of the BIA were quite successful in limiting the use of Native languages. As a result, today, 87% of 155 American-Indian languages are spoken by adults who no longer teach them to their children (Krauss, 1992, 1996). More than one third of American-Indian and Alaskan-Native languages have fewer than 100 speakers, and Navajos constitute 45% of all speakers of Native-American languages. It was not until the passage in 1934 of the Indian Reorganization Act that Native languages could once again be used in BIA schools. This new policy was proposed by John Collier, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Commissioner of Indian Affairs. In 1936, Collier appointed Willard Beatty to serve as director of Indian education. Beatty established programs in bilingual education, adult basic education, Indian teacher training, and in-service education (U.S. Senate, 1969). Beatty also established the first course in Cherokee
< previous page
page_143
next page >
< previous page
page_144
next page > Page 144
language at the University of Oklahoma. He wrote, "It is desired that the Indians be bilingual, fluent and literate in the English language and fluent in their vital, beautiful and efficient native languages" (Beatty, 1935). The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s also helped to promote the revitalization of Native-American cultures and languages. In 1964, as part of the Johnson Administration's War on Poverty, the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) provided funding for demonstration projects in economically impoverished communities. Robert Roessel, who served as chairman of the task force on American Indian poverty and as a consultant to Sargent Shriver (the Director of the OEO), assisted in the formation of the Rough Rock Demonstration School, which was opened in 1966 by the Navajos in Rough Rock, Arizona. Roessel (1977) said, "We want to instill in our youngsters a sense of pride in being Indian. We want to show them that they can take the best of each way of life and combine them with something visible" (p. 91). And in 1975, as a result of the passage of the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act (PL 93-638), the BIA began turning many of its services over to the tribes themselves, including schools and schooling policies. The first tribally controlled community collegeNavajo Community College (Tsaile, AZ)was founded by the Navajo Nation in 1968. Increased funding and federal support was obtained 3 years later when Congress passed the Navajo Community College Assistance Act (PL 92-189). In 1983, President Carter signed PL 98-192, which provided federal funding for tribal colleges, and in 1994, Congress granted land grant status to the tribal colleges. Today, there are 31 tribal colleges29 in the United States and 2 in Canada. Their mission is to "focus on student development" as well as to "preserve, enhance, promote, and teach" each tribe's culture and language (Krumm, 1995). Tribal colleges want "their curriculum to be as fully reflective of their culture as Harvard is of Western culture" (Boyer, 1995, as quoted in Krumm, 1995, p. 5). Thus: [Tribal colleges] "work to express evidence of culturethrough ceremonies and the teaching of language, for exampleeven on reservations where the culture is almost lost and few, if any, members speak the language fluently. In this way, they are bringing the active expression of culture back to life, making it the common currency of the tribe once more." (Boyer, 1995, as quoted in Krumm, 1995, p. 5) Even more recently, in 1990, Congress passed the Native American Languages Act (PL 101-477), which states that it is now the policy of the U.S. government to "preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages." Before getting into a more detailed discussion of efforts to revive Native-American languages, it is important to point out that the Native-American population, as enumerated by U.S. censuses, is recovering. This upswing began at the turn of the century, with considerable growth taking place since the 1950s. By 1980, the Native-American population had once again surpassed the 1 million mark, and today, is about 2.3 million. Thornton (1987) described this repopulation in terms of better health services, the biological "mixing" of American Indians with non-Indian populations, increased fertility, and redefinition of who is classified as an American Indian. However, even if the Native-American population has shown considerable recovery, based on U.S. census data, it still is less than 1% of the total U.S. population. Not only the total number but also the geographical distribution of Native Americans is of considerable concern when it comes to language revival efforts. This is because it
< previous page
page_144
next page >
< previous page
page_145
next page > Page 145
takes a critical mass of speakers to keep a language alive. Nowadays, only about one fourth of the American Indian population lives on reservations. Half live in urban areas, and the other fourth in rural areas off reservation. In other words, the population is spread out, and opportunities to use a Native language with other speakers may be reduced. Krauss (1992) proposed that a speaking population of 100,000 is a "safety-in-numbers limit" (p. 7). Unfortunately, he estimated that today the median number of speakers for many of the world's languages is 5,0006,000 (Krauss, 1992), and in the case of Native-American languages, communities may be considerably smaller. Many Native-American languages also are at risk of disappearing because they are no longer being learned at home by the children. When a language is no longer being transmitted from parent to child, Krauss pointed out (1996) that: It does not really make that much difference if such a language has a million speakers or only a hundred. If a language of a million people is not spoken by anyone under fifty, then it is not going to last very much longer than such a language spoken by a hundred people. (p. 17) Thus, it is essential that revival efforts include teaching Native languages to children, training teachers to do this job, helping parents to recapture the languages they have lost, incorporating the Native language into daily and tribal activities, as well as developing appropriate instructional materials and documenting languages before they disappear. The latter is especially true for the 40 or so languages that Krauss (1996) estimated are "remembered by only one or two people in their eighties" (p. 17). Native Americans Today: Grade School through Grad School Today, almost 9 out of 10 American Indian and Native Alaskan students attend public schools; of the remaining students, about 80% attend schools funded or operated by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, and 20% attend private schools ("Indian Nations At Risk Task Force," 1991). According to the U.S. Department of Education (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]), in 19951996, there were a total of 44,840,481 students attending public elementary and secondary schools in the United States. Of these only 1.1% (493,245) were American Indian or Alaskan American (AI/AA). The states enrolling the largest percentages of AI/AA students were Alaska (24.5%), Arizona (7.3%), Montana (9.8%), New Mexico (10.4%), North Dakota (7.7%), Oklahoma (15.0%), and South Dakota (13.9%). These seven states therefore account for 88.6% of the AI/AA student population enrolled in public schools, and this distributionnot surprisinglyreflects the large numbers of Native Americans living in those states. American Indian/Alaskan American students are unlikely to have AI/AA teachers (U.S. Dept. of Education, NCES). In 19931994, there were 2,561,294 public school teachers in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Of these, only 0.8% were Native Americans, and they were teaching in 44 states. The states with the largest numbers of Native American teachers were Alabama (205), Alaska (1,106), Arizona (512), California (246), Kansas (205), Montana (512), Nevada (205), New Mexico (307), North Carolina (287), North Dakota (266), Oklahoma (1,475), Washington (205), and Wyoming (225). Thus, 13 states accounted for 28.1% of Native-American teachers.
< previous page
page_145
next page >
< previous page
page_146
next page > Page 146
Students enrolled in BIA schools as well as in public schools with high concentrations of Native Americans are much more likely to receive bilingual education and Native language classes. On the other hand, BIA schools, tribal schools funded by the BIA, and "high-concentration" public schools are less likely to offer college preparatory programs or the ones they do offer are weak (personal communication, J. Reyhner, June 1998). It is against stiff odds that Native Americans graduate from high school and continue their education by enrolling in a college or university. Compared to other studentsAsian and Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, African Americans, and Whitesthey are more likely to drop out of school, less likely to graduate from high school, less likely to participate in higher education, and less likely to graduate from college (Boyer, 1997). The number of Native-American students enrolling in higher education has, however, been increasing steadily. For example, in 1976, there were 69,700 American Indian undergraduates and in 1996, 126,500 (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1998). However, as a percentage of the total undergraduate enrollment, the proportion of American Indian undergraduates has only grown from 0.7% to 1.0%. For Native-American students who do go to college, the most popular fields of study are business management and administrative services, education, social sciences and history, health professions and related sciences, psychology, visual and performing arts, and foreign languages and literature. The number receiving associate, bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees in 19951996 are shown in Table 7.1. In 19951996, those institutions granting the most baccalaureate degrees (all disciplines combined) to Native Americans were Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, Oklahoma (214 degrees); Southeastern Oklahoma State University, Durant (187); Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff (152); Oklahoma State University, Main Campus, Still-water (138); University of New Mexico, Main Campus, Albuquerque (122); University of Oklahoma, Norman (109); Fort Lewis College, Durango, Colorado (92); University of TABLE 7.1 Degrees Conferred to American Indian/Alaskan Natives by Institutions of Higher Education in the United States, 19951996 Degrees Conferred Major Associate'sBachelor'sMaster'sDoctorate 5,458 6,809 1,692 153 All fields 1,951 2,810 665 76 Men 3,507 3,999 1,027 77 Women 857 1,035 281 6 Business Management and Administrative Services 205 872 571 49 Education 126 788 75 14 Social Science and History 808 509 150 2 Health Prof. and Related Sciences 42 470 80 22 Psychology 146 269 37 14 Visual and Performing Arts 194 217 11 0 Protective Services 1 60 11 1 Foreign Languages and Literatures Note. Data obtained from the U.S. Department of Education (NCES).
< previous page
page_146
next page >
< previous page
page_147
next page > Page 147
North Carolina, Pembroke (90); University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond (75); East Central University, Ada, Oklahoma (72); University of California, Berkeley (69); University of California, Los Angeles (65); Arizona State University, Main Campus, Tempe (63); Evergreen State University, Olympia, Washington (58); University of Arizona, Tucson (54); University of Washington, Seattle (53); and New Mexico State University, Main Campus, Las Cruces (52). (Data were obtained from Borden, 1998). Not one tribal college appears in this listing, but this is not surprising. First, as is described later, enrollments at tribal colleges are low, and second, most tribal colleges offer only the associate's degree. (Of the 31 tribal colleges, only 6 grant the bachelor's degree and 3, the master's degree; Krumm, 1995.) Just as public school students are unlikely to encounter Native-American teachers, so too are college students. As of the fall of 1995, there were a total of 931,706 faculty members employed by institutions of higher education in the 50 states and the District of Columbia (U.S. Dept. of Education, NCES). Of these, 0.4% (3,654) were American Indian or Alaskan Native. If the necessary academic credential to teach at a college or university is the master's or doctorate, obviously the small number of those degrees being earned by Native Americansas shown in Table 7.1contributes to this dearth of Native-American faculty. Even at most tribal colleges, 50% or less of the teaching faculty are Native Americans. In order to boost the number of NativeAmerican faculty members, the colleges themselves are working "informally" to help their students "continue their education and return as faculty" (Boyer, 1997, p. 92). Tribal Colleges As mentioned previously in this chapter, the first tribal college was Navajo Community College (Tsaile, AZ), which was established in 1968. Now called Diné College, it "serves the residents of the 26,000 square mile Navajo Nation which spans portions of the states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah" , September 17, 1998). Today, in addition to Diné College's main campus in Tsaile, there are "four community center locations in Window Rock, Chinle, Ganado, and Tuba City to serve Arizona residents, while a campus in Shiprock and a community campus in Crownpoint provide educational services to New Mexico residents" (Diné College General Catalog 19981999, p. 2). According to its educational philosophy, the College was "established to create educational programs that meaningfully connect Western education to the Navajo experience and knowledge of the traditional and contemporary worlds" . Included in Diné's mission is the promotion and perpetuation of Navajo language and culture. Since the founding of Navajo Community College, the number of tribally controlled colleges has continued to grow, and today there are more than 30 (Belgarde, 1996). Two are located in Canada and the rest in the United States in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin. As mentioned previously, whereas only a few of the tribal colleges offer bachelor's and master's degrees, the majority award the associate's degree, and several also offer vocational certificates. The most popular fields of study for the associate's degree are business, liberal studies, protective services, education, Native-American studies, and
< previous page
page_147
next page >
< previous page
page_148
next page > Page 148
computer science, and for a vocational certificate, business, construction trades, computers, health, and education (Slater & O'Donnell, 1995). Today, there are over 20,000 students enrolled at the tribal colleges, which is double the enrollment reported in 1989 (Boyer, 1997). Although this figure may seem almost trivial in terms of enrollments at some majority institutions, it is significant in terms of the educational opportunities and services that tribal colleges provide to reservations with "as few as 3,000 members" (Boyer, 1997, p. 35). Enrollments at tribal colleges are generally low. For example, according to the MOLIS database (fall 1998) , there were 270 students attending Bay Mills Community College (Brimley, MI), 198 at Sisseton-Wahpeton (Sisseton SD), 698 at Sinte Gleska (Rosebud, SD), 161 at Stone Child College (Box Elder, MN), and 452 at Blackfeet Community College (Browning, MN). Diné remains not only the oldest but also the largest of the tribal colleges, enrolling approximately 1,500 students (Boyer, 1997). Almost all of the tribal colleges are located on Indian reservations in rural areas, and most of the students attending them are Native Americans. The typical student is female, older (late 20s, early 30s), a single parent, and often the first person in her family to attend college (Boyer, 1997; The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1989). However, there is evidence that a subtle shift is taking place, and that the average age of the students is dropping and the number of men enrolling is increasing. Tribal colleges provide educational opportunities to high school graduates and others in the community interested in enhancing particular skills and knowledge. They also serve as a stepping stone for students who earn their associate's degree at a tribal college and then move on to a "majority" institution to complete a bachelor's degree. In addition, some Native-American studentswho for a variety of reasons drop out of majority institutionsreturn to the reservation, enrolling at the local tribal college to complete their education. Though providing their students with the curriculum, knowledge, and skills typically associated with a "higher education," tribal colleges also teach students their tribe's culture, history, and language (Belgarde, 1996; Boyer, 1995, 1997; Carnegie Foundation, 1989; Krumm, 1995). Moreover, the colleges work to strengthen not only the economic but also the "social fabric" of the tribal community. Most of the tribal colleges belong to the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), which was founded in 1972. The AIHEC has been instrumental in the development of educationally appropriate programs, has assisted in obtaining funding for the tribal colleges, has acted as a liaison between the tribal colleges and the federal government, and has promoted the distinctive quality education offered by the tribal colleges. Teaching Indigenous Languages at Institutions of Higher Education Whereas the revival of indigenous languages will be possible only through wide-scale efforts that focus on young children (e.g., use of the native language at home by the parents and native language instruction at the school level), the teaching of American Indian languages at colleges and universities is of considerable importance. It allows Native Americans to learn their heritage language, which they in turn can transmit to their children. College-level programs also train bilingual teachers who will be instrumental in further revival efforts. Moreover, it is those individuals who know the languages who will be important in writing and developing appropriate instructional materialstext-
< previous page
page_148
next page >
< previous page
page_149
next page > Page 149
books and dictionariesand in recording and preserving the languages that are today spoken by only a few tribal elders. Indian languages are taught at both tribal and nontribal institutions of higher education. Some of the courses are taught on a regular basis and others by special arrangement or through independent study. Depending on the particular institution, the courses themselves may be offered through the departments of humanities, education, languages, linguistics, foreign languages, modern foreign languages, anthropology, or through an American Indian/Native American Studies program. Whereas some course offerings are at the undergraduate level, others are part of master's and doctoral programs (Ballinger, 1993; IPOLA, 1998; Less Commonly Taught Languages at ). In Table 7.2, we have summarized the available information about Native-American course offerings at tribal and nontribal colleges and universities in the United States and Canada as described in IPOLA (1998) and in the Less Commonly Taught Language Course Offerings database (Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition [CARLA] at the University of Minnesota [November 1998]). We know, however, that this table is not complete. (For example, there is a Cherokee language program at Northeastern State University in Tahlequah, OK, described in one of the case studies at the end of this chapter, which does not appear in the IPOLA or CARLA listings.) Nonetheless, whatever its shortcomings, Table 7.2 identifies many of the institutions providing instruction in Native-American languages, and shows that whereas some languages such as Lakota, Navajo, and Ojibwe are taught at several colleges and universities, instruction in other languages may be available at only one or a few institutions. There are other pieces of information "missing" from Table 7.2 as well, such as (a) the Native-American languages that appear not to be taught at any college or university in the United States or Canada (such as Cayuga, Chinook, or Seneca) and/or (b) the level of endangerment of a given language. As for the latter, such information is available from Ethnologue which tells us (as of Ethnologue's 13th edition, 1996), for example, that there are 150200 fluent speakers of Assiniboine over 40 years old; 234 speakers of Shawnee, mostly middle-aged or older; 10 or fewer speakers of Unami; and no remaining speakers of Atakapa, Coquille, or Wyandot. Thus, although some might consider Table 7.2 to be an extensive list, it isn't. In fact, in comparison with "modern" foreign language offerings (see Chap. 3 of this volume), NativeAmerican language courses are few and far between. For example, the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, is the only institution in the world to offer a degree in Yup'ik Eskimo whereas most colleges across the United States offer majors in Spanish, French, and/or German. At the tribal colleges, students often are required to take courses in the tribal language. If students are already speakers of the language, the coursework focuses on literacy skills (reading and writing). For others who are native speakers of English, the tribal language is taught as a second language. For example, in the Diné College case study appearing later in this chapter, separate tracks for native and non-native speakers of Navajo are described. Methods of Instruction During the early years of teaching indigenous languages at the tribal colleges, the instructors were usually native speakers who had little or no training in teaching languages. Students learned, for example, the names of animals, colors, and how to count
< previous page
page_149
next page >
< previous page
page_150
next page > Page 150
Table 7.2 Native-American Languages Taught at Colleges and Universities in the United States and Canada Language Tribal Colleges Nontribal Collegs Apache Northland Pioneer C U of Arizona, Tucson Arapahoe Central Wyoming C Assiniboine Fort Belknap CC Blackfeet Blackfeet CC Lethbridge CC (Canada) Red Crow College Cherokee Haskell Indian Jr. C U of Oklahoma, Norman U of Tulsa Western Carolina U Chippewa Fond du Lac Tribal and CC Choctaw Haskell Indian Jr. C U of Oklahoma, Norman Coeur d'Alene Lewis-Clark State C Comanche Cameron U U of Oklahoma, Norman Cree Saskatchewan Indian Federated C Lakehead U (Canada) (Canada) Maskwachees Cultural C Turtle Mountain CC (Canada) U of CA, San Diego Cree/Chipowa Stone Mountain CC Creek U of Oklahoma, Norman Crow Little Big Horn C Dakota Little Hoop CC U of MN, Twin Cities Nebraska Indian CC Sisseton Wahpeton CC Dakota/Lakota Standing Rock C U of MN, Twin Cities Dene/Chipewyan Saskatchewan Indian Federated C Diné Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute Eskimo U of Alaska, Fairbanks U of Chicago Eskimo-Alutiiq U of Alaska, Fairbanks Eskimo-CentralU of Alaska, Fairbanks Yupik Eskimo-Inupiaq U of Alaska, Fairbanks Eskimo-Siberian U of Alaska Fairbanks Gros Ventre Fort Belknap CC Hopi Northland Pioneer C Inuktitut Arctic C (Canada) Iroquoian Mater Dei College Kootenai Salish Kootenai C Kiowa U of Oklahoma, Norman Koyukon U of Alaska, Fairbanks Kutchin/Gwich'in U of Alaska, Fairbanks Lakota Cheyenne River CC Black Hills SU Haskell Indian Jr. C Marylhurst C Oglala Lakota C Northeastern Illinois U Sinte Gleska U South Dakota State U Sitting Bill C Stanford U U of Nebraska, Lincoln U of South Dakota, Vermillion (Continued)
< previous page
page_150
next page >
< previous page
page_151
next page > Page 151
(continued) Language Lakota-Sioux Lummi Mohawk Native American Sign Language Navajo
Nootka Ojibwe
Omaha Oneida Quapaw Sahaptin Salish Salish-Interior Saulteaux
Tribal Colleges Northwest Indian C
NY State U, C of Potsdam Blackfeet CC Diné CC Haskell Indian Jr. C
Bay Mills CC Fond du Lac Tribal and CC Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa CC Saskatchewan Indian Federated C (Canada) Turtle Mountain CC Northwest Indian C at Tacoma
Arizona SU Brigham Young U C of Santa Fe Coconio CC Nothern Arizona U Northland Pioneer C Pikes Peak CC U of Arizona, Tucson U of CA, San Diego U of New Mexico, Albuquerque U of Utah U of Victoria (Canada) Algoma U (Canada) Augsburg C Bemidji SU Brainerd Technical CC C of Saint Scholastica Cambrian C of Applied Arts and Technology (Canada) Lakehead U (Canada) Northern Michigan U Northland C Rainy River CC Sault C of Applied Arts and Technology (Canada) U of MN, Duluth U of MN, Twin Cities U of Sudbury (Canada)
Nebraska Indian CC
Salish Kootenai C
U of Wisconsin, Green Bay Northeastern A & M C Heritage College U of Victoria (Canada) Simon Fraser U (Canada)
Saskatchewan Indian Federated C (Canada)
Shona Siouan
Nontribal Collegs Indiana U, Bloomington
Howard U Michigan State U Stanford U Saskatchewan Indian Federated C (Canada)
Tlingit Tohono O'odham
U of Alaska, Fairbanks Pima County CC U of Arizona, Tucson Yakut Indiana U, Bloomington NY State U, Geneseo Yaqui U of Arizona, Tucson Note. From IPOLA (1998) and the Less Commonly Taught Languages Project which is available:
< previous page
page_151
next page >
< previous page
page_152
next page > Page 152
in the indigenous language, but they did not learn how to carry out a conversation. As native language pedagogy has evolved, opposition to writing down or recording indigenous languages has remained (Adley-SantaMaria, 1997) even as reading and writing have been incorporated into the curriculum and as instructional materials and dictionaries have been developed. Teaching methods are often adaptations of those used for the instruction of modern foreign languages (see chap. 3, this volume) and English as a second language (see chap. 4, this volume). They include total physical response (which involves physically responding to the instructor's commands), communication-based instruction (which focuses on the development of oral communication skills), grammar-translation (in which students memorize vocabulary and learn the rules of grammar, often focusing on the written form of the language rather than on oral communication skills), and immersion (in which only the target language is used for instructional purposes) (Adley-SantaMaria, 1997; Cantoni, 1996; Reyhner, 1997). Clearly, a method effective for a young child may be inappropriate for a 30-year-old college student. Similarly, depending on the needs and goals of the student, there may be differences in the relative importance of reading and writing skills as well as speaking and listening skills. Textbook Development Although the development of textbooks to aid in the revival of native American languages seems to be a straightforward proposition, for many reasons it is not. As described by Adley-SantaMaria (1997) and de Reuse (1997)the former a linguist and Native American and the latter a linguistthere is controversy about a number of issues including the kinds of textbooks needed, the degree to which grammar and complex morphology should be explained, the most effective methodologies for teaching such languages, and even whether or not these oral languages should be written down and/or recorded. As de Reuse pointed out, all of this ties into much bigger issues such as whether or not ''textbooks are good tools for language renewal" and that textbooks "have never been efficient and sufficient aids towards language renewal" (p. 116). Clearly, not even the best of textbooks can ever replace intergenerational language transmission and the role of the home and family in keeping languages "alive." Nonetheless, textbooks can help to preserve languages by writing them down and by serving as instructional tools. Whereas teachers of modern foreign languages are inundated with books to support the instruction of Spanish, French, and German, the selection and availability of textbooks for the teaching of Native-American languages is much smaller. In fact, textbooks do not necessarily exist in each of the many Native-American languages (de Reuse, 1997; IPOLA, 1998). Textbooks also differ in terms of the depth of their explanations and the audience for which they are geared. Thus, de Reuse described three types of language textbooks for teaching Native-American languages: 1. Books designed for native speakers of the target language. Such books focus on literacy skills (reading and writing) and include some information about grammar. Because the learners are already speakers of the language under study, speaking and listening skills for oral communication are not taught. (Books of this type are similar to those being developed for the heritage language learners described in chap. 8, this volume.)
< previous page
page_152
next page >
< previous page
page_153
next page > Page 153
2. Books that teach the language to individuals who are native speakers of some other language (let us say, e.g., native English speakers) but that include some explicit grammar instruction. 3. Books that teach the language as well as the grammar and that try to provide information relevant to both native speakers of the target language as well as to linguists. Clearly, each of these three types of books is appropriate for different groups of learners. In his analysis, de Reuse also indicated textbook availability for various Native-American languages as well as the book's type (1, 2, or 3). Furthermore, he explained that Type 1 books are often unpublished, whereas Types 2 and 3 are more readily available. (An additional source of information about textbooks and instructional materials is the bibliography of language-learning materials that appears in IPOLA (1998), which covers languages from Abenaki and Ahtna to Yokuts and Zuni.) De Reuse and Adley-SantaMaria collaborated in the writing of a Native-American language textbook, and they described this partnershipindividuallyin de Reuse (1997) and Adley-SantaMaria (1997). Among other issues, Adley-SantaMaria discussed the inappropriateness of applying Euro-Western worldviews to the teaching of Native languages, and how textbooks need to be "culturally sensitive" in terms of content to be taught and methods of instruction. de Reuse described how linguisticsthe scientific study of human languagecan be "useful" to both Native-American educators and language revival efforts. In spite of their differing perspectives, this collaboration successfully resulted in a Western Apache textbook (Type 3), to be used by nonspeakers at the high school and university level. Furthermore, by dealing with ideological, practical, and cultural issues, these authors have provided us with significant insights into the potential difficulties inherent to Native-American language textbook development. Of course, instructional reading materials are not necessarily limited to textbooks. For example, teachers of Navajo may also turn to articles written in that language that appear in a variety of sources such as the Navajo Times, The Journal of Navajo Education, and the Rock Point Community School Newspaper (Rock Point, AZ). The latter is published four times a year as a class project and is writtenhalf in English and half in Navajoby high school students. The Impact of Technology on Language Revival Efforts Unquestionably, technology has been instrumental both in the loss of Native-American languages as well as in their revival. On the negative side, Krauss (1992) described the impact of television on language mortality as, "an incalculably lethal new weapon" (p. 6). Peterson (1997) noted that, "English-language videos, television, and popular music have replaced storytelling and other traditional medium, contributing to language shift among many Native American youth" (p. 214). Crawford (1996) commented on many of the same phenomena. On the positive side, there are numerous ways in which modern technologies are facilitating Native-American language revival efforts: Taff (1997) described how tribal elders, the remaining speakers of Deg Xinag, are teaching that language to young adults by means of a course offered by the University of Alaska, Interior Campus, over a teleconferencing network.
< previous page
page_153
next page >
< previous page
page_154
next page > Page 154
Ka'awa and Hawkins (1997) discussed the use of technology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa to document, promote, and revitalize Hawaiian languages. The Hawaii Interactive Television System connects the major Hawaiian islands for distance learning. Incorporated into the university-level Hawaiian courses are computer software programs, such as the Daedalus Integrated Writing Environment and WRITE/RESPOND/INVENT, that promote group/class discussions and facilitate the composing and writing process. Other technologies used in the intermediate and advanced courses include e-mail, interactive multimedia projects, and supplementary videos and cassettes. As described by Brooke (1998), "Putting electronic communications to work, the Hopi of Arizona have expanded Hopi language radio broadcasting, the Choctaw of Oklahoma have produced native language video dramas, the Sioux of South Dakota maintain a Lakota language Internet chat room, and the Skomish of Washington have produced a Twana language CD-ROM" (p. A22). KTNN is a for-profit commercial Navajo radio station that broadcasts beyond the borders of the Navajo Nation (Peterson, 1997). In an effort to preserve and to perpetuate the Navajo language, it provides programmingsuch as music, news, sports, local events, public service announcements, and so onin both English and Navajo. Peterson also mentioned other Navajo language radio stations as well as Navajo television station broadcasting. Along the same lines, Silentman (1995) discussed how the mediaincluding radio, television, and newspaperscan promote language revival. IPOLA (1998) has published a list of Internet resources (Web sites) related to indigenous language revival, book publishers, and bookstores. Boyer (1997) described the need to promote collaborations between tribal colleges and non-Indian institutions by means of distance learning technology. The former could offer courses in Native-American languages and cultures to traditional institutions, and the later, in exchange, could supplement academic areas for which there is a need at the tribal collegesfor example, in math, science, and general education. Not only would such collaborations be mutually beneficial educationally; they also would be cost-effective. Although technology alone cannot save endangered languages, it certainly can be used to facilitate revival efforts. In chap. 14 of this volume, Warschauer and Meskill discuss both the advantages and disadvantages of using technology in second language teaching. They emphasize that "the key to successful use of technology in language teaching lies not in hardware or software but in 'humanware'our human capacity as teachers to plan, design, and implement effective educational activity." Clearly, what they have to say about technology applies not only to the teaching of modern foreign languages but also to indigenous language revitalization efforts. Fishman (1996), however, insisted on reminding us that nothing will ever replace the role of intergenerational language transmission and described how he and his wife engage in "laptop publishing" with their grandchildren. However, he was not referring to laptop computers. According to Fishman: The true lap top here is my lap and her lap and the laps of the children's mother and father. That is a bond with the language that will stay with them after we are long gone. That is the lap top of language. And if you want that language revived, you have to use your lap also with your children or your grandchildren or somebody else's children or grandchildren. (pp. 9091)
< previous page
page_154
next page >
< previous page
page_155
next page > Page 155
Case Studies Although the teaching of Native-American language courses at the college and university level is only one (small) part of a larger revival effort, it is an important contribution. Therefore, in the case studies that follow, we describe the native language programs at three institutions, discussing who takes and teaches the courses and how the courses are taught (including instructional methods, textbooks, and computer technologies). We would like to thank the following individuals for their cooperation in providing the information used here: at Northeastern State University, Dr. Phyllis Fife, Assistant Professor of Education, and Ms. Bonnie Hutchins, Assistant to the Dean, College of Arts and Letters; at Diné College, Mr. O. J. Vecenti, Navajo Language Specialist; and at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, the following staff members of the Alaska Native Language Center (ANLC): Michael Krauss, PhD and Director; Lawrence D. Kaplan, PhD, Associate Professor; Patrick Marlow, PhD, Assistant Professor; and Helen Howard, Administrative Assistant. Case Study #1: Cherokee Language Instruction at Northeastern State University Northeastern State University (NSU) is a publicly supported comprehensive regional university that enrolls over 8,000 students. Located in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, the capital of the Cherokee Nation, it is not surprising to learn that nearly 25% of its students are Native American. NSU has a long history of educational excellence and tribal involvement with roots in the Cherokee National Male and Female Seminaries, which opened their doors to provide secondary education to Cherokee students in 1851. In 1909, 2 years after Oklahoma statehood, the site and facilities of the Female Seminary were purchased by the state for the establishment of Northeastern State Normal School. Today, NSU's Seminary Hall stands as a reminder of the institution's continuous operation. Within its classrooms, students with diverse interests and experiences earn college credits for courses such as Cherokee language, culture, and history, Native-American literature, English as a Second Language, and intercultural communications. NSU confers the bachelor's degree in the Arts, Arts in Education, Business Administration, Science, Science in Education, Nursing, and Social Work. Graduate degrees include the master's degree in the fields of Arts, Education, Science, and Business Administration, and a Doctor of Optometry. Unique among the undergraduate programs is the major in Native American Studies, which has been offered since the 1960s. Responding to the needs of regional public schools, many of which have American Indian populations ranging from 25% to 90%, the NSU College of Education also offers a special teaching endorsement in Bilingual/Multicultural Education and English as a Second Language. The NSU Heritage Committee has sponsored the Symposium on the American Indian for over 25 years, and the NSU Center for Tribal Studies has offered course credit for the Native Language Preservation component of the annual Oklahoma Sovereignty Symposium sponsored by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. (At one time, NSU offered a minor in Cherokee Bilingual Education. Although that minor is no longer available, some of the courses created for it remain in the catalog and are utilized for teacher preparation in the various Indian Education and Title VII Bilingual Education personnel training
< previous page
page_155
next page >
< previous page
page_156
next page > Page 156
programs, at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. The courses have only recently been moved from the College of Education to the College of Arts and Letters.) At NSU, the College of Arts and Letters provides undergraduate courses in Cherokee language and cultural heritage during each fall and spring semester. Students may earn three credit hours each in CHER 1113 and 1223 (Elementary and Intermediate Cherokee Language) and CHER 2113 and 2123 (Cherokee Heritage 1 and II). In addition, courses in CHER 2013 (Methods of Teaching English as a Second Language) and CHER 1313 and 1323 (Cherokee Oral Language I and II) are offered on an irregular basis as needed. For special teacher training programs, the Muscogee (Creek) language and the Choctaw language have also been offered in a series of short-term on-site courses. These offerings also include related curriculum development activities for both Native language and mainstream classroom teachers. In what follows, the catalog descriptions and some information about textbooks and teaching methodologies are provided for the regularly offered Cherokee language and heritage courses: Elementary Cherokee (CHER 1113): "Pronunciation drill with a native of Oklahoma Cherokee, basic sentences for memorization, drill on variations of these sentences, lectures on phonology, morphology and syntax of contemporary Oklahoma Cherokee." The textbook is The Cherokee Phonetic Reader (1981), which was developed under the supervision of Agnes Cowen and published by the Cross-Cultural Education Center, Park Hill, Oklahoma. Intermediate Cherokee (CHER 1223): "Cherokee conversation, instruction in the Sequoyah syllabary, readings in Cherokee, lectures in the history and culture of Cherokee Indians. Prerequisite: Cherokee 1113." The textbook is See-Say-Write (1991) written by V. Vance and D. Feeling (1st edition) and published by the Cherokee Nation. Accompanying the text is a writing book as well as a list of 500 Cherokee words. Cherokee Heritage No. I (CHER 2113): "A study of the Cherokee culture, heritage, and history through pertinent literature such as short story, fable, myth, and poetry. The visual arts and music of the Cherokee included." Supplemental textbooks are Cherokee Removal: A Brief History With Documents (1995), edited by T. Perdue and M. Green (Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, Boston, MA) and Fire and the Spirits: Cherokee Law From Clan to Court (1982) by R. Strickland (University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK). Cherokee Heritage No. II (CHER 2123): "Cherokee heritage continuation of the first course. Must be taken in prerequisite order." No textbook is required. According to Dr. Phyllis Fife, who teaches the heritage courses, the courses are "interactive, with many student-driven activities in the Cherokee communities. The courses require oral history research, participation in cultural activities, and historical and cultural study. Heritage I emphasizes the historic background of the tribe along with early cultural developments while Heritage II focuses on contemporary aspects of culture and current developments within the tribe" (personal communication, January 29, 1999). In some ways, the Cherokee language courses are taught like "foreign" language classes, with pronunciation practice and translation between Cherokee and English. Recitation, word recognition, worksheets, interviews with Cherokee speakers, and audio recordings are incorporated into the language courses. There is a computer software typesetting program (both MAC and IBM compatible) for Cherokee, which translates phonetic spellings into characters in the syllabary; it is produced by Project Studio in
< previous page
page_156
next page >
< previous page
page_157
next page > Page 157
Tulsa, Oklahoma. The heritage courses often employ videotaping, audio recording, and computer-generated presentation software. However, just as or perhaps even more important than what goes on in the classroom, is learning that takes place in the surrounding communities, which is described later in this case study. The Cherokee language courses are taught by Loretta Shade, a Cherokee and lifelong resident of the Cherokee Nation, who is fluent in the language and who reads and writes using the Cherokee syllabary. Professor Shade holds a master's degree in education. The Cherokee heritage courses are taught by Dr. Fife, who has a doctorate in education. Dr. Fife is a member of the Muscogee (Creek) tribe and has resided in the Cherokee Nation for more than 20 years. The students who enroll in the Cherokee language and cultural heritage courses do so for a variety of reasons. Whereas some are fulfilling degree requirements for Native American Studies, others choose the courses as electives. Teacher education students, and some returning teachers, enroll in the courses to earn the special teaching endorsement in Bilingual/Multicultural Education and ESL. Class rosters, with regularity, include degree-seeking as well as non-degree-seeking students from the surrounding communities. Teachers and personnel, including paraprofessionals, from public and tribal schools also enroll for professional development credit. Several candidates for Native language certification sanctioned by the Cherokee Nation have also enrolled for college credit. Surveys conducted in the Cherokee heritage courses revealed that students' majors were in nearly every area on campus including health, business, education, law enforcement, science, technology, social work, history, anthropology, art, and others. Many of the individuals enrolled in the courses expect to work or are already working in Indian communities or in service areas that involve working with Cherokees. Individuals of Cherokee descent, sometimes several members of one family group, are apt to have a personal interest in learning more about the language, history, culture, and other aspects of their heritage by interaction in class activities and research. Many are interested in genealogy, and the NSU John Vaughn Library holds important Cherokee archives and special collections documents, which provide invaluable support for the courses. However, not all students who enroll in the Cherokee-related courses are local. It is common to have several students each semester who are new to Oklahoma, either from another state or sometimes a foreign country, who are eager to learn about Cherokees. They often gain new perspectives on some of the stereotypes about Native Americans, their customs, language, and culture, which frequently have been the basis of their prior knowledge. NSU is in a position to teach Cherokee courses like no other university in the world. NSU has the privilege to be located on the very grounds of one of the first institutions of higher learning west of the Mississippi River. The university is located in the heart of the Cherokee Nation, and one needs only to step out the door of Seminary Hall and to go in any direction to find primary sources for firsthand learning experiences. Human, material, and environmental resources for learning are abundant. For study of the Native languages, especially Cherokee and Muscogee (Creek), learning goes beyond the physical classroom and out into the surrounding communities. Field experiences are required in both the Cherokee language and Cherokee heritage courses, and oral history research is an important method of instruction in the latter. In addition, observation of and participation in cultural activities allow students to experience the dynamics of intercultural learning.
< previous page
page_157
next page >
< previous page
page_158
next page > Page 158
Case Study #2: Navajo Language Instruction at Diné College As described earlier in this chapter, Diné College (DC) was founded in 1968 as Navajo Community College in Tsaile, Arizona. The first tribal college, it was established "to meet the educational needs of the Navajo people." Today, the Tsaile campus serves both residential and commuter students and is the administrative center for the institution, which now includes the Shiprock Campus, the Crownpoint Center, and the DC Community Campuses in Chinle, Ganado, Kayenta, Tuba City, and Window Rock. Almost 2,000 students attend the various Diné campuses, making it the biggest of the tribal colleges. Ninety-five percent of the students enrolled at Diné are Native American, and many are bilingual. The College awards the associate of arts (A.A.), the associate of science (A.S.), and the associate of applied science (A.A.S.) degrees, as well as certificates to "those individuals who have completed training programs in technical fields." According to the Diné College 19981999 General Catalog, all students in degree-granting programs are required to take nine credit hours in Navajo and Indian Studies. This includes at least one semester of the Navajo language as well as courses in Navajo culture (Foundations of Navajo Culture) and Navajo history (Navajo History to Present). The culture and history courses are taught in Navajo and English. Moreover, in order to complete their general education communications requirements, students may choose between the English (Plan A) or Navajo (Plan B) options. If they select the latter, the requirements are nine credit hours of specific Navajo coursework at the 200 and 300 level for the A.A. or A.S. degrees or six credit hours at the 200 level for the A.A.S. degree. However, most students select the English option. Diné College's Navajo language courses include: "For nonnative speakers of Navajo," a two-course sequence of Navajo as a Second Language (three credits each), Intermediate Navajo (four credits), and Advanced Intermediate Navajo (four credits). "For native Navajo speakers," Navajo Literacy for Speakers (three credits) and Navajo Literacy and Grammar for Speakers (three credits). "Additional Navajo course offerings" include Medical Terminology of the Navajo (three credits), Navajo Transcription (three credits), Navajo Linguistics (three credits), Advanced Navajo Public Speaking (three credits), Navajo Descriptive and Narrative Writing (three credits), Teaching Navajo to the Native Speaker (four credits), Teaching Navajo as a Second Language (four credits), Navajo Grammar and Applied Linguistics (three credits), and The Athapaskan Roots of Navajo (three credits). Students enroll in these courses for a variety of reasons that extend beyond general education requirements. For example, some who can already speak Navajo want to develop their reading skills. Others are enrolled in A.A. degree programs in either Navajo Bilingual-Bicultural Education or Navajo Language. After receiving their A.A. degrees, they will transfer to other higher education institutions. A few studentswho are fluent speakers of both English and Navajowill continue their studies in the Diné Teacher Education Program (a collaborative program with Arizona State University) earning a B.A. degree in K8 Elementary Education. The Navajo language courses are taught by native Navajo speakers who have a bachelor's degree. Most began their education at Diné, receiving an A.A. in either elementary education or in the Navajo language, and all have passed the Navajo Proficiency Test
< previous page
page_158
next page >
< previous page
page_159
next page > Page 159
developed by the Navajo Nation and administered by Diné College. The "natural approach" is used in the teaching of the language with an emphasis on the need to "live the language" in order to learn it. Instructors often develop their own instructional materials to supplement available textbooks. Written Navajo is taught, and students have access to Navajo fonts that are Macintosh and PC compatible. Mr. O. J. Vecenti, Navajo Language Specialist at Diné, emphasized the uniqueness of the Navajo language, the way it is taught, and the fact that it is almost exclusively taught on the Navajo Reservation in the states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Furthermore, he reminded us that unlike other languages that are used on a worldwide basis, the "Navajo language is for the People; it is not an international language; it is Ours" (personal communication, December 3, 1998). Case Study #3: Alaska Native Languages at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks The University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) has a total enrollment of more than 9,000 students and of these, 92% are undergraduates (19981999 UAF Catalog). Approximately 12% of the students are American Indian or Native American (Barnhardt, 1994). UAF offers certificate programs in addition to the associate's, bachelor's, and master's degrees, and it is the only doctoral-granting institution in the state of Alaska. In addition to the main campus, there are branch campuses in downtown Fairbanks, in Dillingham (Bristol Bay Campus), Kotzebue (Chukchi Campus), Bethel (Kuskokwim Campus), Nome (Northwest Campus), plus the Interior-Aleutians Campus (which services 54 towns and villages within the Doyon region and the Aleutians/Pribilof Islands). The University is home to the Alaska Native Language Center (ANLC), which was established in 1972 "to document and promote the cultivation of the Indian and Eskimo languages in Alaska." Moreover, it is "the major center in the United States for the study of Eskimo and Northern Athabaskan languages" (UAF Catalog, 19981999, p. 71). The Alaska Native Language Center is part of the College of Liberal Arts, and the College, in turn, supports a variety of courses and programs that promote the learning of Alaska Native Languages. To quote the University's Catalog (19981999): There are 20 different Alaska Native languages: Aleut, Alutiiq (also called Aleut or Sugpiaq), Central Yup'ik Eskimo, St. Lawrence Island Eskimo, Inupiaq Eskimo, Tsimshian, Haida, Tlingit and Eyak and 11 Athabaskan languages. These languages are becoming recognized as the priceless heritage that they truly are. Since the passage of the Alaska Bilingual Education Law in 1972 there has been a demand for teachers who can speak and teach these languages in the schools throughout the state where there are Native children. Professional opportunities for those skilled in these languages exist in teaching, research and cultural, educational and political development. Central Yup'ik Eskimo is spoken by the largest number of people, and Inupiaq by the next largest. In these two languages major and minor curricula are now offered. Courses are also regularly offered in Kutchin (Gwich'in) Athabaskan. For work in all other languages, individual or small-group instruction is offered under special topics. Thus there have frequently been instruction, seminars, and workshops also in Tlingit, Haida, St. Lawrence Island Eskimo, Aleut and Koyukon, comparative Eskimo and comparative Athabaskan (p. 81). Students pursuing a baccalaureate degree can take two semester-length courses in a single Alaska Native language in order to meet a core requirement in the humanities and
< previous page
page_159
next page >
< previous page
page_160
next page > Page 160
social sciences. Moreover, a variety of undergraduate programs in Native Languages are available including: A 30-credit certificate in Native Language Education in Athabaskan Language and teaching methods. A 60-credit A.A.S. degree (including a teaching certificate) in Native Language Education, with either an Athabaskan or Inupiaq Eskimo option. A minor in Alaska Native Languages, requiring a minimum of 15 credits in Eskimo or Alaska Native language courses (for students earning a bachelor's degree). A bachelor of arts degree in Inupiaq Eskimo. A bachelor of arts degree in Yup'ik Eskimo. A minor in Eskimo (either Inupiaq or Yup'ik), requiring a minimum of 15 credits in Eskimo electives (for students earning a bachelor's degree). The language courses take into consideration whether or not the students can already speak the target language. According to informal surveys (personal communication, L. Kaplan and P. Marlow, October 1998), one fourth of the students enrolling in the Eskimo and Athabaskan courses are nonnative Americans with little or no prior knowledge of these languages. However, three fourths of the students tend to be Alaskan Native and, as such, they mayto a lesser or greater extentbe able to speak and understand the spoken language but often are lacking in literacy (reading and writing) skills. (In other words, they are heritage language students, like those described in chap. 8, this volume.) Selected course descriptions from the 19981999 UAF Catalog are presented next to illustrate not only how the speaker/nonspeaker student distinction is addressed but also to show typical course descriptions. Whereas some courses are offered every fall and spring term, others are given "as demand warrants": ANL 108 (Beginning Athabaskan Literacy, three credits) is an "introduction to reading and writing in one of the Athabaskan languages for native speakers." Offered "as demand warrants". ANL 141 and ANL 142 (Beginning Athabaskan-Koyukon or Kutchin, five credits each) provide "literacy and grammatical analysis (in either Koyukon or Kutchin) for speakers" and "a framework for learning to speak, read, and write one of these languages for non-speakers." ANL 141 is taught in the fall and is the prerequisite for ANL 142 which is offered in the spring. ESK 101 and 102 (Elementary Central Yup'ik Eskimo, five credits) is an "introduction to Central Yup'ik, the language of the Yukon and Kuskokwim deltas and Bristol Bay. Open to both speakers and non-speakers. For speakers the course provides literacy and grammatical analysis. For others, it provides a framework for learning to speak, read, and write the language. Consideration given to dialect difference." ESK 101 is offered in the fall and ESK 102 in the spring. ESK 118 (Inupiaq Orthography, three credits) is an "entry-level course designed for students who are fluent in Inupiaq. Silent and oral reading and writing Emphasis on specific skills and practical application of skills through writing assignments. (Prerequisite: Demonstrated conversational Inupiaq skills)." This course is offered "as demand warrants." ESK 205 and 206 (Regaining Fluency in Yup'ik I and II, three credits each) provides "Yup'ik speaking skills and fluency for those with some background in the language.
< previous page
page_160
next page >
< previous page
page_161
next page > Page 161
(Prerequisite: Permission of instructor. Each potential student must be evaluated for language capabilities)." ESK 205 is a prerequisite for 206. These courses are offered "as demand warrants." Some of the courses are offered only at specific UAF branch campuses. These include, ESK 103 and 104 (Conversational Central Yup'ik, one to three credits) at the Kuskokwim and Northwest Campuses; ESK 155 and 156 (Conversational Siberian Yup'ik, one to three credits) and ESK 158 (Siberian Yup'ik Orthography, one to three credits) at the Northwest Campus; and ANL 151 (Interethnic Communications, three credits; concentrates on Yup'ik ways of communication) at the Kuskokwim Campus only, According to Lawrence Kaplan, PhD (Associate Professor, ANLC) and Patrick Marlow, PhD (Assistant Professor, ANLC) (personal communication, October. 1998): The courses themselves are taught either by linguists or by native speakers. Native speakers generally have a high-school education and are enrolled at the University in AAS or BA level coursework in Linguistics, Elementary Education, or Native Language Education. Textbooks used in the language classesif availableare in-house publications which can be purchased from the ANLC. There is a publications list with titles and prices which also indicates user level (beginner, intermediate, and advanced) as well as if the books include any English translation. Instructional methods include grammar translation, audio-lingual, and the direct method. [Readers who are not familiar with these methods are referred to chaps. 3 and 4 of this volume for brief explanations.] No computer technologies are incorporated into the language courses. What makes these courses unique is that UAF is the only institution in the world offering coursework in Alaska Native languages, and no other university in the world offers a B.A. in Eskimo. Thus, we can conclude that UAF and ANLC are making an especially important contribution to the revival of indigenous Native-American languages. Conclusions This chapter has only skimmed the surface in terms of covering Native-American language revitalization efforts. In it, we have been able to place the issue in context and have focused on the Native language courses that are offered at tribal and at majority institutions. The three case studies attempt to capture the spirit of these programs and how they are contributing to this revival effort. Even though such language programs cannot by themselves reverse the losses that have accumulated over 500 years, they do make an important contribution by supplementing other tribal and community programs aimed at preserving and perpetuating Native-American languages. As more individuals learn their tribal languages, they will once again be able to transmit those languages to their children. Thus, although there is much work left to be done, it is clear that for many, but not necessarily all, Native-American languages there is reason to be guardedly optimistic about their survival into the 21st century. References Adley-SantaMaria, B. (1997). White Mountain Apache language: Issues in language shift, textbook development, and native speaker-university collaboration. In J. Reyhner (Ed.), Teaching indigenous languages (pp. 129143). Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University, Center for Excellence in Education.
< previous page
page_161
next page >
< previous page
page_162
next page > Page 162
Atkins, J. D. C. (1887). Annual report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior for the year 1887. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Ballinger, F. (Ed.). (1993). A guide to Native American studies programs in the United States. Richmond, VA: The Association for the Study of American Indian Literatures. Barnhardt, C. (1994). Life on the other side: Native student survival in a university world. Peabody Journal of Education, 69, 115139. Beatty, W. (1935). [Untitled Report]. In Aw-o-tham a pa tac Papago Progress, I, no. 3. Tucson: University of Arizona Special Collections. Belgarde, W. L. (1996). History of American Indian community colleges. In C. S. V. Turner, M. Garcia, A. Nora, & L. I. Rendón (Eds.), Racial and ethnic diversity in higher education (ASHE Reader Series) (pp. 313). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster. Borden, V. M. H. (1998, July 9). The top 100: Interpreting the data. Black Issues in Higher Education, pp. 3844, 4658, 6065. Boyer, P. (1995). Tribal college of the future. Tribal College Journal, 7, 817, 45. Boyer, P. (1997). Native American colleges: Progress and prospects (An Ernest L. Boyer Project of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brooke, J. (1998, April 9). Indians strive to save their languages. The New York Times, pp. A1, A22. Cantoni, G. (Ed.). 1996. Stabilizing indigenous languages. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University, Center for Excellence in Education. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1989). Tribal colleges: Shaping the future of Native America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. The Chronicle of Higher Education. (1998, August 28). Almanac, p. 18. Crawford, J. (1995). Endangered Native American languages: What is to be done, and why? The Bilingual Research Journal, 19, 1738. Crawford, J. (1996). Seven hypotheses on language loss: Causes and cures. In G. Cantoni (Ed.), Stabilizing indigenous languages (pp. 5168). Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University, Center for Excellence in Education. Demmert, W. (1994). Blueprints for Indian education: Languages and cultures. ERIC Digest (EDO-RC-94-3). Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory. de Reuse, W. J. (1997). Issues in language textbook development: The case of Western Apache. In J. Reyhner (Ed.), Teaching indigenous languages (pp. 116128). Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University, Center for Excellence in Education. Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J. A. (1996). What do you lose when you lose your language? In G. Cantoni (Ed.), Stabilizing indigenous languages (pp. 8091). Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University, Center for Excellence in Education. Indian nations at risk: An educational strategy for action. (1991). Final Report of the Indian Nations At Risk Task Force, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Institute for the Preservation of the Original Languages of the Americas (IPOLA). (1998). Native Languages Revitalization Resource Directory (Work-in-progress publication). Santa Fe, NM: Author. Ka'awa, M., & Hawkins, E. (1997). Incorporating technology into a Hawaiian language curriculum. In J. Reyhner (Ed.), Teaching indigenous languages (pp. 151157). Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University, Center for Excellence in Education. Kaplan, R. B. (1993-1994). Language policy and planning: Fundamental issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 14, 319. Krauss, M. (1992). The world's languages in crisis. Language, 68, 410. Krauss, M. (1996). Status of native American language endangerment. In G. Cantoni (Ed.), Stabilizing indigenous languages (pp. 1631). Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University, Center for Excellence in Education. Krumm, B. L. (1995). Tribal colleges: A study of development, mission, and leadership. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 404 064) Peterson, L. C. (1997). Tuning in to Navajo: The role of radio in Native language maintenance. In J. Reyhner (Ed.), Teaching indigenous languages (pp. 214221). Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University, Center for Excellence in Education. Reyhner, J. (Ed.). (1992). Teaching American Indian students. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Reyhner, J. (1996). Rationale and needs for stabilizing indigenous languages. In G. Cantoni (Ed.), Stabilizing indigenous languages (pp.215). Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University, Center for Excellence in Education. Reyhner, J. (Ed.). (1997). Teaching indigenous languages. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University, Center for Excellence in Education. Roessel, R. (1977). Navajo education in action: The Rough Rock Demonstration School. Chinle, AZ: Navajo Curriculum Center, Rough Rock Demonstration School.
< previous page
page_163
next page > Page 163
Ruíz, R. (1988). Orientations in language planning. In S. L. McKay & Wong, S-l. C. (Eds.), Language diversity: Problem or resource? (pp. 325). New York: Newbury House. Silentman, I. (1995). Revaluing indigenous language resources through language planning. The Bilingual Research Journal, 19, 179182. Slater, G., & O'Donnell, M. (1995, Summer). What tribal colleges teach. Tribal College, pp. 3841. Taff, A, (1997). Learning ancestral languages by telephone: Creating situations for language use. In J. Reyhner (Ed.), Teaching indigenous languages (pp. 4045). Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University, Center for Excellence in Education. Thornton, R. (1987). American Indian Holocaust and survival. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. U.S. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Special Subcommittee on Indian Education. (1969). Indian education: A national tragedy, a national challenge. Senate Report 91-501, 91st Congress, 1st session. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (Commonly known as the ''Kennedy Report") Utley, R. (Ed.), (1964). In battlefield and classroom: Four decades with the American Indian 18671904. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
< previous page
page_163
next page >
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
< previous page
page_165
next page > Page 165
8 Heritage Languages Russell N. Campbell University of California, Los Angeles Judith W. Rosenthal Kean University <><><><><><><><><><><><> In "Korea Town" (Los Angeles, California) resides a family that includes grandparents, their son and his wife and their daughterlet's call her Namhee. The grandparents were born and educated in Korea and immigrated to the United States when their son was 6 years old. Even after 25 years of residence in the United States, the dominant language of the grandparents remains Korean. It is also the language they use as the primary means of communication with their son and his wife. The son has very little trouble talking with his parents in Korean. However, he is occasionally at a loss for words and phrases that are needed for describing in Korean many of his life experiences that took place growing up in Los Angeles. Although he studied Korean language arts in a kindergarten in Korea, his literacy skills (reading and writing) are at best rudimentary. Nonetheless, depending on the circumstances and who he is talking to, he easily switches back and forth between Korean and English. The same cannot be said for his daughter, Namhee. As a toddler, Namhee developed sufficient ability in spoken Korean to fulfill her needs at home and in similar households in the neighborhood. This happened because Korean was the language of communication between her parents and grandparents and the only language available for communication between herself and her grandparents. Indeed, by the time Namhee turned 5, she had becomein the same natural way that all normal children acquire their first languagequite proficient in the language of her parents and grandparents. Thus, she could carry out all of the usual verbal functions necessary for communication between children and adults in a typical household and could question, answer, describe, compare, persuade, suggest, deny, invite, demand, and transact other functions as required for social interaction. Her utterances conformed to the linguistic structures (phonology, morphology, syntax, discourse rules, etc.) of the adult Korean-speaking members of her home. She also had a vocabulary appropriate to these functions that corresponded to her life experiences at that age. However, at age 5, Namhee entered a typical American elementary school, and immediately, every effort was made to mainstream her into the English medium curriculum. At school, she had no opportunity to build on her 5-year-old Korean competencies nor to acquire Korean literacy skills. In fact, after 2 years of elementary school, Namhee moved rapidly toward English monolingualism. Now, she rarely initiated conversations in Koreaneven with her grandparents. Although her parents wanted Namhee to attend a community language school to retain her "native"
< previous page
page_165
next page >
< previous page
page_166
next page > Page 166
language, things just did not work out. Thus, Namhee's further development in Korean was aborted, and English became her dominant language. Later, at the age of 18, Namhee entered college and enrolled in a Korean language course designed specifically for heritage language (HL) students such as herself. Although completely illiterate in Korean (she could not read or write in Korean), Namhee had retained some degree of communicative competence. In addition, she had knowledge of and sensitivity to Korean traditions, values, and customs. Familiar with the sounds and structure of spoken Korean, she and her "Korean-American" classmates already had a "head start." When compared to true beginners (who would enroll in a different introductory Korean language course), they most likely would need less time to acquire the desired literacy skills. In addition, Namhee and her HL classmates would benefit from instructional techniques modified to suit their particular linguistic needs. In other words, they would not be taught Korean as if it were a totally "foreign" language. Namhee, like many of her HL classmates, believes that literacy in Korean will increase future job opportunities. In addition, her parents and grandparents are planning to take her to Korea when she graduates from college, and she wants to be able to enjoy that experience to its fullest. <><><><><><><><><><><><> Namhee's story is representative of the experience of many of the children and grandchildren of immigrants and refugees regardless of whether they are Korean-Americans, Persian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Chinese-Americans, and so on. Growing up in homes and communities in which the grandparents and parents continue to speak their native or heritage language (HL), the children develop some degree of HL proficiency. Even when English becomes the stronger of their languages, it is not surprising that they retain and demonstrate a wide range of speaking and listening skills in their parents' "ancestral" language. In the past, in order to facilitate the assimilation of immigrants and refugees into American society, their need to learn English was emphasized. Within two or three generations, the ancestral language was no longer used by any family members. Strangely enough, only recently, foreign language educators have begun to recognize and appreciate the native languages and linguistic abilities of the "newcomer" population. Now, HLs are described as national resourcesvaluable assetsthat if conserved, managed, and developed could significantly increase the linguistic capabilities of our nation (Campbell & Lindholm, 1990; Lambert, as cited in Moore & Morfit, 1993; Ruíz, 1988; Tucker, 1990; Valdés, 1992b). Interest in reviving and retaining such languagesnot only in the United States but in many other countries around the worldhas coincided with (a) increased recognition of minority rights (both civil and linguistic), (b) a new appreciation for multiculturalism and societal diversity, and (c) the effects of massive migration of people from one country to another whofor political, economic, and religious reasonsare looking for a better way of life. Thus, in this volume alone, HLs and their instruction are discussed not only in this chapter but also in chapters 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 12. The field of HL education remains in its infancy and still lacksas Valdés (1995) pointed out"coherent theories about language learning and development that can guide instruction" (p. 303). Although the emphasis is often on the role of the public school system as well as community/weekend ethnic language schools (for examples, see Chang, 1997; Chao, 1997; Christian, 1994; Cummins, 1989, 1991), HL instruction at the university level also is on the rise. For a variety of reasons, a growing number of college students want to develop their HL skills, and slowly but surely, the number of publications about university-level HL programs is increasing (see, e.g., Collison, 1994;
< previous page
page_166
next page >
< previous page
page_167
next page > Page 167
Colombi & Alarcón, 1997; Feuerverger, 1991; Gambhir, 1992; McGinnis, 1996; Merino, Trueba, & Samaniego, 1993; Roca, 1992; Rodríguez Pino, 1997; Sohn, 1995, 1996). In this chapter, we compare the characteristics of "typical" HL learners with those of "typical" traditional foreign language (TFL) learners. By means of this comparison, we argue that in order to develop a more language competent society in the United States, we should be emphasizing the retention and development of the existing linguistic abilities of immigrants and refugees. We also discuss some of the difficulties in the design and implementation of university-level HL programs and present three "representative" HL programs by means of case studies. We devote our attention to the relatively homogeneous population of college and university HL students (who fall between the two possible extremes of having almost no competence in their HL and of having a command of the HL near that of a native speaker). In many ways, we talk about students like Namhee. Characteristics of "Typical" Heritage Language Learners The following are descriptions of what we believe to be the competencies and knowledge that average/typical HL students bring to university foreign language programs. These are generalizations based on our observations and those of others who work with this population. Because there are no known experiments, analyses, or publications to support these claims, we offer them as "working hypotheses": 1. HL students have acquired nearly 90% of the phonological system of a prestige dialect of their ancestral language. That is, their pronunciation of the consonants and vowels and the production and recognition of stress and intonation patterns adhere almost completely to the rules of educated native speakers of the ancestral language. 2. They have acquired 80% to 90% of the grammatical rules that govern word, phrase, sentence, and discourse production and recognition. In their HL speech, they conform to the rules of a prestige dialect that allow for gender, number, and case distinctions, when required, as well as the production and recognition of syntactic structures that fall under rubrics such as interrogatives, passives, relative, adverbial, and adjectival clauses, conjunctions, pro-forms, and so forth. The converse of this statement is that 10% to 20% of their grammatical competence is not consistent with prestige dialect structures. 3. They have acquired extensive vocabularies; however, the semantic range of their vocabulary is limited to just a few sociocultural domains including hearth and home, neighborhood, and, not infrequently, religious institutions. For example, most HL speakers have command of the vocabulary related to household furnishings, food, colors, kinship terms (father, mother, aunt, uncle, grandparents, etc.), clothing, numbers, expressions of clock and calendar times (hours, days, months), and holidays and anniversaries. Of considerable importance, they also have acquired the grammatical words used for the formation of phrases, sentences, and higher level discourse (determiners, prepositions, adverbs, aspect markers, and lexical items required for sentential and discourse cohesion such as pronouns, connectives, etc.). Nonetheless, the lexicon of typical HL speakers is usually marked by a substantial number of "borrowings" from the majority language. Usually the pronunciation of these words conforms to the phonological rules and, to some degree, to the morphological rules of the ancestral language. For example, English "to park" might well become
< previous page
page_167
next page >
< previous page
page_168
next page > Page 168
"parquear" in a HL dialect of Spanish (and may be used instead of estacionarse which is the "correct" Spanish equivalent of "to park"). The number of such borrowings varies among HL speakers as do instances when they know both the borrowed word and its equivalent in the ancestral language and can choose one or the other depending on their interlocutors. As would be expected, the range of vocabulary acquisition of HL learners is limited to opportunities for social interaction in the immediate environment of home and neighborhood and to the usually small number of sociocultural activities in which HL children are engaged outside of these domains. 4. They have typically acquired sociolinguistic rules that govern the choice of registers appropriate for verbal interaction with different members of their families and others with whom they converse. For example, they choose one set of vocabulary, forms of address (e.g., pronouns), and other distinctive lexical and grammatical forms when speaking to their peers and siblings and another when they interact with parents and other adults in their communities. The acquisition of these distinctions is again limited by the extent of their social interactions in and beyond their homes and neighborhoods. 5. They have learned and adopted many of the customs, values, and traditions (collectively, "culture") that define the ethnolinguistic community into which they were born. This knowledge usually allows them to respond in a manner that is socially appropriate to the linguistic and extra linguistic features of communication in their HL. It has been noted, however, that the values, traditions, and customs of their ancestors often become hybridized with those of the majority population. This phenomenon may lead to a degree of insecurity, frustration, and confusion when dealing with both their ancestral communities and with the majority population. When these are in conflict, HL speakers find themselves in a state of "anomie," that is, functioning or behaving in a manner that is inconsistent with both groups. 6. They rarely have opportunitiesSaturday and after-school programs notwithstandingto gain literacy skills in their ancestral languages. Thus, although competent to participate successfully in oral discourse, albeit frequently marked by numerous lexical borrowings and linguistic and sociolinguistic deviations from prestige dialects, they usually lack the ability to read and write beyond the most elementary levels of literacy, if at all. 7. They present a wide range of reasons for wanting to study their ancestral languages. High among these is a desire to "reconnect" with their ancestry. There appears to be widespread recognition now, on the part of young "hyphenated Americans," of the tenuous ties they have with the language and culture of their forefathers. This recognition coincides with a maturing view in American society that there is value in diversity. There is also the feeling on the part of many representatives of ethnolinguistic groups that they need not sacrifice their ethnicity or their languages to be loyal, contributing citizens. Another reason given by HL students for studying their ancestral languages is pragmatic. They believe that knowledge of the HL language and that being bilingual will increase their future academic and/or professional opportunities, both in the United States and abroad. It should not be assumed, however, that all HL students are equally motivated to study their ancestral languages. As reported by Feuerverger (1991), there are "highly significant differences" among minority group members in terms of their commitment to ethnic identity and language maintenance. She found that whereas most groups reported a positive attitude toward study of their HLs, there were instances of little enthusiasm, even negative stances toward such study.
< previous page
page_168
next page >
< previous page
page_169
next page > Page 169
In closing this section on the characteristics of typical HL learners, we want to remind the reader of one other significant attribute of HL college students. If not so already, they are well on their way to becoming bilingual. Not only can they usually speak and understand their HL but also they have, in general, a high level of competence in English as a result of having advanced to the university in English medium schools. This bilingualism makes them markedly different from most TFL learners. Characteristics of "Typical" Traditional Foreign Language Learners TFL students who enroll in first-year or beginning language courses are usually monolingual speakers of English with little or no linguistic competence in or deep understanding of the culture of other ethnolinguistic populations. To gain a better understanding of the value of HLs as a national resource and to guide subsequent considerations of HL instructional programs, it is of some interest to examine the characteristics of "typical" TFL learners who have completed 2 years of formal language instruction. Using the same seven categories introduced previously to characterize the average HL learner, we make the following generalizations (again based on our experiences and those of others who work with this student population): 1. They have acquired 75% to 85% of the phonological system of the target language. Although it is probable that the TFL student's pronunciation will be accented, it is especially noteworthy that, most likely, it will conform to a prestige dialect of the target language. Comprehension of phonemic distinctions (phonemes being the meaningful and distinguishable sound units of a language) will be at the intermediate high level in ACTFL terms. (ACTFL refers to The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, which has established criteria for evaluating the oral proficiency of foreign language students, rating them along a nine-part scale from novice, to intermediate, to advanced, and superior.) 2. They have the ability to produce and comprehend a high percentage (estimated 60% to 65%) of the grammatical structures at all levels (word, phrase, sentence, and discourse) at least at the intellectual level. They typically are aware of rules of affixation, agreement, choice of tense and aspect markers, and sentence and discourse connectors, and so on, but are usually less than fluent in using this knowledge in real-life communication. It is also the case that their aural comprehension of grammatical structures in normal, rapid speech in real-life situations is limited. Again, the grammatical structures that are acquired conform to those of a prestige dialect of the target language. 3. They have acquired an extensive passive vocabulary required for purposes of classroom management and interaction and the vocabulary needed for comprehension of assigned reading materials. Typically, their active vocabulary, especially that needed for communication in extended social interactions in a number of domains (home, neighborhood, religious institutions, commercial sites, etc.), is extremely limited. Nevertheless, the vocabulary acquired is consistent with what is found in a prestige dialect of the target language. 4. They have very limited familiarity with and command of sociolinguistic rules that govern choices of forms of address, vocabulary, as well as extralinguistic behavior, when interacting with interlocutors of different social status. Their speech tends to conform to the register
< previous page
page_169
next page >
< previous page
page_170
next page > Page 170
appropriate for studentteacher dialogue and a writing style appropriate for classroom assignments only. 5. They have only a superficial understanding and sensitivity to the values, traditions, and customs (culture) of native speakers of the target language. Quite simply this is because they often have little or no contact with members of the culture that speak the target language and few opportunities outside of class to learn about the culture. 6. They have attained, depending on the writing system employed, a good to very good foundation for the acquisition of literacy skills in the target language. These skills are typically given considerable emphasis in TFL course curricula. 7. They share with HL learners only the pragmatic, instrumental reasons for learning a particular foreign language. By the end of 2 years of study, TFL students, if they choose to pursue more advanced study, may have identified career objectives that will be enhanced by higher levels of linguistic proficiency and deeper knowledge of the cultural characteristics of the societies that speak the target language. (However, as described by Klee in chap. 3 of this volume, such students are few and far between.) Comparison of Typical Heritage Language and Traditional Foreign Language Learners If we compare the abilities that HL learners bring to the language classroom to those of TFL learners who have completed 2 years of formal language instruction, we find significant differences. HL learners have a head start in terms of pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary, and greater understanding of both the sociolinguistic rules and of the culture of the ethnolinguistic community where the HL is spoken. However, in spite of the ability of HL students to speak and understand the language, they often are unable to read and write it, and their vocabulary may include many borrowings from the majority language. In contrast, TFL learners are exposed in the classroom to only the prestige form of the target language so that even if they do not "know" as much as their HL peers, what they know is "correct." Although the ability of TFL students to communicate orally may lag behind that of HL learners (as does their knowledge of sociolinguistic rules and target culture), their reading and writing skills are often more advanced. If we assume that the overriding objective of most university foreign language programs is to provide instruction that will result in students' acquisition of linguistic and cultural competencies that approximate those of educated, literate, adult native speakers of the target language, then it is informative to consider the comparative estimated distance between that goal and the characteristics described earlier for HL and TFL students. We can graphically plot, on a simplified ACTFL scale, the linguistic proficiencies (phonology, grammar, vocabulary, knowledge of sociolinguistic rules and culture, as well as literacy skills) of educated native speakers (ENS), HL, and TFL students. The results are shown in Fig. 8.1. In that figure, the comparison is being made between "typical" HL learners (i.e., excluding the bottom and top 25% of the HL population) and the middle 50% of the other two cohorts (ENS and TFL students). This graphic, in admittedly imprecise terms, allows us to compare visually the relative distances between the competencies of HL students and those of ENSs on the one hand with the distances between TFL students and ENSs on the other. By examining this figure, those who would mount a campaign to increase substantially the nation's foreign
< previous page
page_170
next page >
< previous page
page_171
next page > Page 171
Fig. 8.1 Comparative estimated distance between educated native speakers (ENS), heritage language (HL), and traditional foreign language (TFL) students. Proficiency in phonology, grammar, vocabulary, sociolinguistic and cultural knowledge, and literacy compared on a simplified ACTFL scale. In this figure, the comparison is being made between the "typical" HL learner (excluding the bottom and top 25% of the population) and the middle 50% of the other two cohorts (ENS and TFL students). language resources would see the obvious advantages of investing human and capital resources in instructional programs for HL students. The reason is clear. HL studentsin five of the six linguistic categories portrayed in Fig. 8.1already demonstrate abilities much closer to those of ENSs than do TFL learners. As has been pointed out: It is absurd that we spend so much of our time and money giving monolingual Americans a foreign language competency while we make little use of and, indeed, work to displace non-English-language competencies within our immigrant communities. We need a well-thought-out plan for raising these competencies to a professionally useful level and adding the occupational skills to make them marketable. (Lambert, as quoted in Moore & Morfit, 1993, p. 50) Heritage Language Instruction and National Needs It has been persuasively argued time and time again (e.g., see the President's Commission on Foreign Languages and International Studies, 1980; Simon, 1980) that this nation is in a "scandalous" state insofar as its foreign language and area studies resources are concerned. We are warned that America's economic, political, academic, and social status in the world has been and will continue to be negatively influenced as a result of the acute shortage of Americans who are linguistically and culturally competent to negotiate political solutions, compete in international commerce, and take advantage of collaborative academic research in science and technology, medicine, agriculture, and a multitude of other fields. Furthermore, it remains the case that many languages of the world are seldom or rarely offered in our universities. For example, the languages of what McCarthy (1998) called the Big Emerging Market countries of the future (Turkish and related languages, Hindi and other languages of India, Indonesian, Korean, Portuguese, Cantonese, and
< previous page
page_171
next page >
< previous page
page_172
next page > Page 172
almost all African languages) are among the less commonly or least commonly taught in American universities. Were it not for limited funding from the Higher Education Act, Title VI, most of the languages in these categories would fall into the category of never taught. Unfortunately, there is little to reportsince the aforementioned documents were published 20 years agothat would suggest our schools and universities have succeeded in increasing the number of students who graduate with verifiable levels of second language proficiency that would allow them to function effectively in the areas of need mentioned previously. Indeed, according to a recent summary of the current status of foreign language enrollments (Holzner & Harmon, 1998): Foreign language instruction in the U.S. focuses primarily on three languagesSpanish, French, and German. These three languages represent more than 95 percent of all enrollments at all levels. With the exception of Japanese and Chinese all other languages remain stagnant or are dropping in enrollments. . . . Most enrollments in all foreign languages are in basic classes. The attrition between years of study is high. In a 1989 survey of foreign language department heads, Richard Lambert observed that "The mean estimate by chairpersons was that 71.3% of students enrolled in the first term continued on into the second term, 49.4% went from the first year to the second, and 26% went from the second year to the third" (Lambert, 1989, p. 59). (p. 54) The contributions that HL students could make in counteracting this "scandalous" state of foreign language education should not be underestimated. Thus, it is extremely encouraging to note that there is growing evidence that language educators at all levels have already begun to recognize the great, mostly untapped, source of bilingual and bicultural talent embodied in the HL pool of students. Under ideal circumstances, the cultivation of HLs would begin at a young age. That is, all 5- or 6-year-old children who enter our schools having already acquired some degree of proficiency in a HL should have the opportunity to maintain and develop those competencies by participation in a dual language program. In such a program, the school curriculum is taught in roughly equal amounts of two languages, the HL and English. For example, courses in the morning are taught in one language, and those in the afternoon in the other. Or, certain subjects are taught in one language, and the remaining subjects in the other. Dual language programs of this type permit HL children to progress toward becoming literate adult speakers of their ancestral languages while concurrently acquiring English and achieving scholastically at a level that is equal or superior to their peer groups. Unfortunately, the total number of children enrolled in such programs constitute but a minute percentage of those for whom they would be beneficial (Christian, 1994). So it is still the case that there will usually be a hiatus of up to 12 years between the time HL students enter the public school system and their reentry into HL study at the university level. That these students can still be said to have residual competencies in all areas, except literacy skills, that exceed those of typical TFL students (who have studied a foreign language for 2 years) strongly suggests that extraordinary efforts should be made to attract them to the study of their HLs and to provide them with the most effective, relevant, and efficient courses possible. We do not put this argument forward to suggest that we lessen our efforts to enroll more students in TFL courses, that we stop trying to find ways to motivate TFL students to persevere to higher levels of proficiency, or that we reduce our efforts to accommodate students interested in the less commonly taught languages (LCTLs). Rather, it is to
< previous page
page_172
next page >
< previous page
page_173
next page > Page 173
present a case for the recognition of the enormous, largely untapped resources embodied in HL speakers and to consider ways in which these resources can be utilized for the benefit of individuals and society at large. The Current Status of University-level Heritage Language Programs Although there is no known survey that reveals the number of university HL courses and programs currently offered by North American colleges and universities, there is evidence of a great deal of planning, experimenting, and actual teaching of HLs in progress at this time (for examples, see Feuerverger, 1991; Gambhir, 1992; McGinnis, 1996; Sohn, 1995, 1996; Valdés, 1992B). Given the relatively large number of students of Hispanic heritage in our universities, it is not surprising that the teaching of Spanish to Spanish speakers has received the greatest amount of attention (for examples, see Collison, 1994; Colombi & Alarcón, 1997; Merino et al., 1993; Roca, 1992; Rodríguez Pino, 1997; Valdés, 1992a, 1995). However, there are, in addition, HL courses at the university level that we have been able to identify in languages other than Spanish. These include Chinese (e.g., at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ; University of California at Berkeley; University of California at Los Angeles; University of Maryland at College Park [see McGinnis, 1996]); Tagalog (University of California, Los Angeles; University of Hawaii at Manoa); Korean (Temple University, Philadelphia, PA; University of California at Los Angeles [Sohn, 1995, 1996]), and Persian (University of California at Los Angeles; University of California at Berkeley). Moreover, there are apparently de facto HL courses in other languages such as Armenian, Thai, and Vietnamese, TFL courses in which the majority of enrollees are now of ethnic origin. Many HL courses, especially those for native Spanish speakers, began as a form of remediation with an emphasis on "teaching an educated standard variety of Spanish." Whereas foreign language professionals are trained in the prestige (standard) variety of the language, many HL students speak a nonstandard (nonprestige) dialect. However, as Valdés (1995) in discussing this issue pointed out, we really do not know how speakers of nonprestige dialects can acquire the prestige form. Fortunately, HL instruction has moved beyond remediation. As illustrated in the case studies that appear at the end of this chapter, students may learn much more than to how to correct "stigmatized" speech. HL courses include not only speaking and listening skills but also grammar, vocabulary development, reading and writing skills, sociolinguistic knowledge, and exposure to materials related to the target culture and its literature. Some HL courses evolved as a result of increasing numbers of ethnic students enrolling in TFL classrooms (for examples, see McGinnis, 1996; Sohn, 1995, 1996). For the HL learners, the courses were often too easy, the pace too slow, and they grew bored. For their classmates who were true novices, the presence of students who could already speak and understand the target language was intimidating, and it was also a struggle to keep up. Additionally, the language needs of the two groups of students differed. Because the HL learners could already speak and understand the target language, they needed to focus on reading and writing skills. In contrast, the true beginners needed to develop oral/aural as well as literacy skills. To provide more appropriate placement and more homogeneous classroom cohorts, some institutions have chosen to separate the HL and TFL students in different tracks, at least at the elementary level. Eventually,
< previous page
page_173
next page >
< previous page
page_174
next page > Page 174
when the linguistic abilities of the two groups of students are more evenly matched, for example at the intermediate or advanced levels, they return to a single track. (Two of the case studies at the end of this chapter follow this model.) Unfortunately, not all institutions have the resources to develop a two-track system. As a result, certain TFL courses end up as de facto HL courses. For the reasons just given, this may present a variety of problems and depending on the number of HL learners in the classroom, may scare off the TFL students. Areas of Concern Related to Heritage Language Instruction HL instruction currently is guided by first and second language acquisition theory, sociolinguistic research, and, of considerable importance, critical analysis of the experience of a growing number of HL teachers. In fact, to date, much of what we know about the practice of HL instruction at the university level is based on the latter. In what follows, we list and comment on some of the concerns expressed by those working in this field: 1. The lack of information and the need to collect data about HL programs currently being offered at colleges and universities; the languages being taught, and the number of students enrolled in such courses and programs. A survey of this type would provide a baseline for systematic planning and research in this field. Moreover, this informationif properly disseminatedwould facilitate discussion and exchange of ideas among those currently (and those who in the future will be) involved in HL instruction. 2. Determining the appropriate pedagogical practices when teaching HL learners instead of TFL students. One of the questions facing those who are preparing to teach HL courses is, ''How should courses designed for HL speakers differ from TFL classes? " In other words, faculty members who have been trained to teach foreign languages to monolingual speakers of English are now confronted with students who arrive in the classroom with some degree of competence in the language being taught. What modifications and alterations need to be made to provide instruction that is appropriate for HL learners and their specific linguistic needs? Given the current state of applied linguistic theory regarding the teaching and learning of HLs, this question cannot be answered with a great deal of confidence. As Valdés (1995), stated, "language teaching professionals engaged in this [HL] instruction are concerned with such questions as the acquisition of a standard dialect, the expansion of bilingual range, the transfer of reading and writing abilities across languages, and the maintenance of immigrant languages" (p. 308). She continued by saying that, "They [applied linguists] have not yet developed, however, theories about how standard dialects are acquired, theories about how bilinguals expand their range in each language, or theories about skill transfer across languages" (p. 308). Thus, those who are already teaching HL courses are learning as they go as to what works best. 3. How to provide HL instruction (a) if student demand is low, (b) if the ethnic and linguistic backgrounds of the students are changing over time, and/or (c) if the institution cannot afford to hire additional faculty members. When HL instruction might otherwise be impractical or uneconomical, consortial arrangements that involve the pooling and sharing of resources of several institutions and/or the use of technology and distance education might be considered. Another possibility is offering HL courses in a self-instructional mode under the guidance of the National Association of Self-Instructional Language
< previous page
page_174
next page >
< previous page
page_175
next page > Page 175
Programs (NASILP; Barth, 1995; Dwyer, 1991; Gambhir, 1992; Mazzocco, 1995). NASILP offers assistance to its member institutions with "materials selection and utilization, testing standardization, curriculum design and operation, and multi-media training for program coordinators, students, tutorial assistants [who must be fluent native speakers of the target language], and examiners [qualified professors of the target language from other academic institutions]." Some institutionswhich have consortial arrangementsaugment their language offerings and meet the HL needs of their students by means of affiliation with NASILP (Mazzocco, 1995). The emphasis of NASILP is on the LCTLs (which include languages other than English, French, Spanish, and German). Thus, according to John Means (Executive Director of NASILP from 1977 to January 1998), "heritage language instruction is very much in the mainstream of NASILP activities" (personal communication, July 24, 1996). More than 100 institutions of higher education in the United States offer language classes under the auspices of NASILP, with approximately 6,000 to 7,000 students per semester studying any of 40 or so languages. Among the most heavily enrolled languages are Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, Portuguese, Modern Greek, Swahili, Korean, and Russian. (Additional information about NASILP appears in one of the case studies at the end of this chapter and in chap. 15.) 4. The need for training opportunities for HL instructors. As mentioned in Item 2, many instructors are learning "on the job" the kinds of modifications they need to make when dealing with a HL instead of a TFL student population. Currently, training opportunities for HL instructors are limited to ad hoc summer institutes and in-house orientation programs. Clearly, this is an area that needs attention. 5. Availability and development of assessment instruments to help screen and place students in the appropriate course levels. Many of the HLs in greatest demand are classified as LCTLs. And, as commented on in the HL literature (e.g., see Gambhir, 1992; McGinnis, 1996; Sohn, 1995), obtaining and/or developing placement instruments is of considerable concern. In addition, several other factors complicate the placement issue. First, it cannot be assumed that students who can speak and understand the HL can also read and write it. In other words, placement may not be accurate if based solely on an oral proficiency interview. Second, as was pointed out by Gambhir, self-reports by students may not be accurate. For example, students may conceal their actual abilities in order "to gain acceptance to a low-level course in order to earn an easy grade" (p. 15). Fortunately, Gambhir does not believe this practice is widespread. 6. The need for adequate instructional materials, including textbooks, authentic readings, as well as audio- and videotapes that are appropriate for HL courses. Often, textbooks are written for non-native speakers and thus, may be too simple or otherwise inappropriate for HL students. In addition, if the HL is also a LCTL, the choice among textbooks may be limited. Gambhir (1992) recommended that the best textbooks would be as authentic as possible and include (a) glossaries in each lesson, (b) a minidictionary at the end of the text, (c) grammar notes as well as grammar exercises, (d) review lessons and exercises to reinforce information previously covered, (e) supplementary audiotapes that would include exercises and drills, (f) supplementary slides and videos to provide authentic cultural input, (g) relevant computer exercises, (h) content that covers not only everyday experiences and social themes but also topics such as history, geography, mythology, religion, literature, and high culture, and finally, (i) exercises developed for the particular grammatical needs of the HL learners.
< previous page
page_175
next page >
< previous page
page_176
next page > Page 176
7. The need to incorporate computer technologies into HL instruction and training opportunities to learn how to do this. Computer-assisted instruction is already in use in TFL, English as a second language, and bilingual/dual language programs. Many of these computer technologies are described in chap. 14 of this volume. (In addition, we also recommend to the reader the following references for a relatively complete overview of the "electronic language learning environment" [Noblitt, 1995] and "online activities and projects for networking language learners" [Warschauer, 1995].) Very little has been written about the specific applications of computer-assisted instruction to the teaching and learning of HLs. For example, in the three case studies described at the end of this chapter, technology extends as far as audio- and videotapes and a course Web site! This does not mean, however, that computer activities are not being or cannot be incorporated into HL classrooms. One of the ways that technology may be of particular use in HL programs is in the development of literacy skills. Referring back to Fig. 8.1, it is clear that literacy skills constitute the major linguistic deficiency of university-level HL students. For those HLs that are written in the Roman alphabet, the task of learning to read and write is less daunting. This is because the students are already familiar with the Roman alphabet and readily transfer their preexisting literacy skills from English to the HL. However, many languages use different types of orthographies. This may mean that the students are completely unfamiliar with the writing system (e.g., Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Thai, Persian, Arabic, Russian, etc.) employed in their HL. They may need to learn a whole new set of symbols or characters as well as a whole new way of reading (e.g., some Chinese documents are written in vertical columns). Development of literacy skills in this case may take considerably more time. Computer technologies are helping students to overcome these difficulties. For example, in a case study described in chap. 14, a Japanese word-processing program allows students to type in phonetic approximations, and the software supplies the appropriate Japanese characters. There is also an online Japanese/English dictionary that facilitates this process. Although this case study does not deal specifically with HL learners, the technology could certainly be transferred to a HL classroom. Clearly, by means of the Internet and the WWW, the authentic reading materials in a HL course could be supplemented, and additional opportunities for authentic online "conversations" could be arranged. We suspect that with all the difficulties inherent in starting up a universitylevel HL program, exploiting computer programs and activities has not been a priority. Perhaps, in time, this will change. Finally, in summarizing the concerns of those involved in HL instruction, we add one last issue: 8. Within a given cohort, HL students may demonstrate a considerable range of language proficiencies and differences in the usage of standard and nonstandard dialects. Nonetheless, we feel that there are a number of factors attributable to universitylevel HL speakers that may reduce the significance of this variation. Among these are: HL university students make a conscious, individually motivated decision to invest in the study of their ancestral languages. Students admitted into HL courses, it is presumed, will have demonstrated, measurable, definable levels of proficiency in their HL to serve as a base on which further instruction can be built. HL university students are fully literate in English. It is reasonable to assume that literacy skills are generally transferable thus expediting the acquisition of reading and writing in their HL.
< previous page
page_176
next page >
< previous page
page_177
next page > Page 177
HL university students, as a consequence of all prior educational and life experiences, have acquired considerable worldly knowledge that is available for expression in their HL. Thus, their task, in many scholastic and social domains, is not the concurrent acquisition of both knowledge and language (as is the case, e.g., of HL children entering English medium elementary schools) but only to acquire the means of expressing that knowledge in their HLs. HL students increasingly have the attention of applied linguists and language educators who are dedicated to the development of instructional programs that will provide opportunities for them to build efficiently and economically on their pre-existing language competencies. We believe that these positive common attributes will be sufficiently powerful to neutralize to some degree the obstacles that both HL students and proponents of HL education face. Conclusions and New Directions We are persuaded that there is a serious national need for Americans who are highly competent in languages other than English, especially languages that, historically, have rarely or never been taught in our schools and universities. Because it can be strongly argued that investment in HL students can help satisfy that need, then there is justification for universities to seek ways to teach them. We believe that in spite of all the areas of concern that are addressed in this chapter, it is still reasonable and appropriate that interested language educators inaugurate new HL courses in their colleges and universities. Their efforts will have to be based on existing first and second language acquisition theories, descriptive analyses of prestige and HL learner dialects, and the collective experiential evidence available from those who have already launched HL courses. To help in such efforts, we recommend the following list of practical, commonsense guidelines to implementing a HL program: 1. As a first step, at the institutional level, it is necessary to garner the understanding and support of the administration and the appropriate home department of the validity of nontraditional courses for specific HL students. Such support must be manifested in commitments for resources for syllabus development, acquisition of appropriate instructional materials, and recruitment and assessment of potential students in the new program. 2. The teacher or teachers who decide to initiate HL programs who are, in all likelihood, trained to teach TFL students (i.e., true beginners) must now engage in an extensive self-education process by (a) reviewing the relevant HL literature, (b) examining the differences in the linguistic and literacy competencies of educated native speakers, HL learners, and TFL students, (c) developing or identifying appropriate placement exams, (d) finding appropriate instructional materials not only to address linguistic and literacy needs but also to introduce literature and culture, and (e) surveying the common and specific goals expressed by students in terms of the reasons they identify for studying their HL. 3. Define a set of objectives for each course based on the results of 2(a), (b), (c), and (e) and devise strategies for evaluations of the course. The results of ongoing (formative) evaluations will dictate necessary modifications of course syllabi as a consequence of
< previous page
page_177
next page >
< previous page
page_178
next page > Page 178
reconsideration and redefinition of student needs. Summative evaluations will ascertain whether or not the program has met its goals, expectations, and projections, and if additional changes and redesign are required. 4. Once the HL courses are in fact being taught, on a regular basis, seek evaluations of the courses from students and colleagues. 5. Share results of the experienceby means of publications, conference presentations, electronic discussion groups, and so onwith interested HL educators. This information will contribute to the growing body of experiential evidence that will serve to guide the work of future HL teachers. We have already given our reasons why we believe HLs need to be supported and nurtured. Thus, it is heartening to note that as of 1998, the National Foreign Language Center (NFLC, located in Washington, DC, and affiliated with the Johns Hopkins University) and the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL, Washington, DC) have successfully inaugurated what has been termed "A National Initiative on Heritage Languages." Its goal according to D. Maxwell (former Director of NFLC) and D. Christian (President of CAL) is "to build an education system more responsive to heritage communities and national language needs" (personal communication, July 1998). This initiative will bring to bear the energies and resources of universities and schools from across the country in support of research and development activities, teacher education, and the production of relevant instructional and assessment materials. It is anticipated that the results from this initiative will significantly advance the field of HL teaching. If so, students who bring to our campuses the valuable competencies described for the hypothetical Namhee will find opportunities for developing their HLs to the level of mature, adult, literate, educated native speakers in courses that are efficient, economical, and effective. Finally, before turning to the case studies, we would like to extend our gratitude to all those individuals who in some way contributed to this chapter: D. S. Bourgerie (Brigham Young Univ.), R. Brecht (NFLC), R. Buechler (U of Nevada, Las Vegas), R. Castells (Florida International Univ., Miami), H. S. Cheung (UC, Berkeley), M. Chu (Kalamazoo College), J. Cummins (OISE), D. Ellison (U of Miami, FL), M. Fishbein (UCLA), W. He (NYU), T. Hinnebush (UCLA), R. Husain (Saskatchewan Organization of Heritage Languages), R. Jiménez (U of FL, Gainsville), E. Kelly (Holyoke CC, Holyoke, MA), A. Loprieno (UCLA), D. Maxwell (NFLC), J. Means (Temple U), S. McGinnis (U of MD, College Park), A. Perches (U of AZ, Tucson), J. Pirnazar (UC, Berkeley), T. Ramos (U. of Hawaii, Manoa), J. Riegel (UC, Berkeley), C. Rodríguez Pino (NM State Univ., Las Cruces), K. Scorza (Florida Atlantic Univ., Boca Raton), S. O. Sohn (UCLA), L. Spencer (U of Nevada, Las Vegas), M. Sutherland (U of TX at Austin), J. Tafoya (U of TX at El Paso), R. Teschner (U of TX at El Paso), G. Valdés (Stanford U), R. Walton (NFLC), K. Watts (U of New Mexico, Albuquerque), and H. Ziai (UCLA). We apologize if we have inadvertently omitted any names! Case Studies Case Study #1: Persian at the University of California at Los Angeles In the catalog of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) under the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, there are listed two different elementary
< previous page
page_178
next page >
< previous page
page_179
next page > Page 179
Persian courses. For students with no prior knowledge of the Persian language, the course to be taken is Elementary Persian (1A-1B-1C). However, for students with some knowledge of spoken Persian, the entry level-course is Accelerated Elementary Persian (20A-20B-20C). Until 1996, UCLA offered only a single introductory course in Persian, which was open to both TFL students and students with some background in the language. However, as a result of immigration, a large Iranian-American community has developed in Los Angeles. And, as the number of HL students enrolling in the introductory course grew, it appeared that their already existing oral proficiency in Persian was "scaring away" their native English-speaking peers. Thus, based on almost 10 years of observing the difficulties of teaching "mixed" classes, the University's administration was effectively persuaded of the need for a two-track program, at least at the elementary level (H. Ziai, personal communication, August 1998). Essentially, what makes Accelerated Elementary Persian different from the traditional Elementary Persian course is that (a) the students are already familiar with spoken Persian, and as a result, (b) more material can be covered at a more rapid pace thereby (c) leaving time to introduce the students to additional works of Persian and "heritage" literature and to various aspects of Persian culture. Prior to entry into either of the elementary Persian courses, students must take an exam called the "Persian Language Profile" (PLP). The PLP was developed about 10 years ago by the Director of Iranian Studies (Dr. H. Ziai) with the assistance of several teaching assistants and lecturers. It measures all four language skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking) and includes both a written component as well as an oral proficiency interview. The resulting individual profiles not only help with student placement but also provide information about the Persian language proficiencies and deficiencies of the HL students. Dr. Ziai estimated that 70% to 80% of the students enrolling in the elementary accelerated course are of Persian heritage; however, most are not majoring in Iranian studies. Students who can speak vernacular Persian and who are somewhat familiar with the written language (including the script and simple grammar) arebased on their PLP profilesplaced in more advanced courses such as Intermediate or Advanced Persian. Demand for "Iranian" courses has been growing steadily at UCLA as demonstrated by increased enrollments. Currently, one sectionwith 15 studentsof the accelerated course is offered per quarter (20A in the fall, 20B in the winter, and 20C in the spring). These courses are sequential, and normally, students are not allowed to enroll midyear unless their PLP scores are adequate. For both the traditional and accelerated courses, the required textbook is W. M. Thackston's An Introduction to Persian (Washington, DC: Iranbooks, 1994). However, different readers and other materials developed in-house are used in the two tracks. About 30 hours of audiotapes accompany the Thackston text, and students are "urged" to use the tapes at least three times a week. Videos are also used on occasion. The accelerated course also has a Web site (
< previous page
page_179
next page >
< previous page
page_180
next page > Page 180
usage, as well as idiomatic phrases in prose and an introduction to poetic work. All three levels include speaking, listening, reading, and writing skills, but particular emphasis is given to reading and analysis. At a more advanced level, the two tracks merge. True beginners, after successful completion of Elementary Persian (1A-1B-1C) and the vast majority of heritage students who finish Accelerated Elementary Persian (20A-20B-20C) enroll in Intermediate Persian (102A). However, with their instructor's approval a very small percentage of heritage students move directly from the accelerated course to the advanced level, Advanced Persian (103A). Apparently, this two-track system is working well and better enables both TFL and HL students to maximize their proficiency in Persian. According to Dr. Ziai (personal communication, August 1998), "This has been a fine way to bring students up to the stage of real ability to read and comprehend multiple levels of the language including the formal levels so prevalently used in Persian discourse." Case Study #2: Chinese at the University of Maryland, College Park As a result of data obtained from a locally developed placement test given to students enrolled in Chinese courses in 1993 and 1994 (McGinnis, 1996), the Department of Asian and East European Languages and Cultures at the University of Maryland, College Park, concluded that there was justification for offering two tracks in elementary and intermediate Chinese. One track would provide instruction to students who had no prior knowledge of spoken Mandarin. The other would serve a growing population of HL learners who were proficient speakers of Chinese but who needed to develop their reading and writing skills. Thus, during the 19951996 academic year, CHIN 105 (Elementary Chinese-Accelerated Track, three credits) and CHIN 205 (Intermediate ChineseAccelerated Track, three credits) were added to the Chinese course offerings. These courses would focus on literacy skills (reading and writing), meeting three times a week for 50 minutes. Both CHIN 105 and CHIN 205 state in their catalog descriptions that they are "for students with prior Chinese language background, either through home use or formal instruction." In contrast, the traditional elementary (CHIN 101, 102, and 103) and intermediate (CHIN 201, 202, 203, and 204) courses are geared for "true novices" and emphasize both spoken and written language. As is often observed in two-track programs of this type, the majority of students enrolling in the course(s) designed for "true novices" will have no ethnic ties to the target language. Nonetheless, a percentage will be of the heritage background but have grown up without exposure to the HL. Thus, in CHIN 101, about 30% of the students are ethnic Chinese and 70% are others (not exclusively Caucasian). In contrast, enrollment in the accelerated courses (CHIN 105 and CHIN 205) is essentially 100% ethnic Chinese. Although the majority of students enrolling in the "accelerated" track were originally speakers of a nonMandarin dialect, the proportion of Mandarin dialect speakers has been increasing steadily. Single sections of both CHIN 105 and CHIN 205 are offered each semester, and the enrollment cap per section is 20. Of the 60-odd students who have taken either CHIN 105 or CHIN 205 since the courses were introduced into the curriculum, only 1 has become a Chinese major. According to Scott McGinnis, PhD (Assistant Professor and Chinese major advisor), the key to designing a program that will appropriately meet the needs of one's student population is being able to test potential students for their (a) listening comprehension, (b) grammatical knowledge, (c) reading ability, and if so desired, (d) oral proficiency and
< previous page
page_180
next page >
< previous page
page_181
next page > Page 181
(e) writing ability. Testing must be both time and cost efficient and permit individual and/or group/class testing as needed (McGinnis, 1996). According to McGinnis, who taught the accelerated Chinese courses at the University of Maryland (from their inception in the fall term 1995 through the spring of 1998 and who provided the information used in this case study), all students at the University with a self-reported prior background in Chinese are administered the Chinese Placement and Proficiency Test (CPPT). This is a written test that McGinnis previously designed for use at the University of Oregon (McGinnis, 1996). Students can take the CPPT within a typical class period of 50 minutes. It measuresin a multiple-choice formatlistening comprehension, grammatical structure, and reading comprehension. The test results are not only useful in placing students in the appropriate course; they also provide information that has been helpful in the design of "accelerated" courses. Until recently, both the traditional and accelerated Chinese courses used the same textbooks, primarily from the Practical Chinese Reader series (Boston: Cheng & Tsui Company). However, effective fall 1998, the core textbook for the accelerated courses was changed to Chou, Link, and Wang's Oh, China! Elementary Reader of Modern Chinese for Advanced Beginners (1998, Princeton University Press). Unlike the Practical Chinese Reader series, Oh, China! is expressly designed for HL classes. There is limited technology used in the accelerated courses. There are audiotapes (from the publishing company of Cheng and Tsui, Boston, MA), but they are basically little more than read-throughs of the text lessons (dialogue, vocabulary lists, substitution drills, etc.) At this time, the only computer-based technology used to enhance the courses involves the reading of authentic materials via Caprina, a local campus network-based set of high-resolution digital images. Regular in-class activities and homework exercises are based on a selection of approximately a dozen images each semester. Students in the two tracks merge in CHIN 301 (Advanced Chinese I). At this point, novice students have completed four semesters of Chinese coursework (culminating in CHIN 204, Intermediate Written Chinese II) for a total of 336 contact hours and HL students, two semesters (CHIN 105 and 205) for a total of 84 contact hours. Thus, it is evident that a major difference between the traditional and accelerated Chinese courses is pace. According to McGinnis (personal communication, August 1998), "For the time being, tracking is the best we can do even though it is not fully appropriate given the very diverse backgrounds of our students. A more fully modularized approach that has been conceived by Chinese language specialists such as Galal Walker and the late Ron Walton seems the answer for the next century. For example, we really do need at least a third track for fluent non-Mandarin dialect speakers with stronger reading/writing skills than our typical CHIN 105/205 students. At least at the University of Maryland, the wide range of student proficiencies and long-term career goals means that we need to continue to refine and improve both the methodology and content of the courses we offer to our ever-increasing heritage population." Case Study #3: Hindi at Temple University As mentioned previously in this chapter, one solution to offering HL instruction when student demand is low (and/or the hiring of a faculty member cannot be justified) is through participation in self-instructional courses under the auspices of NASILP (National Association of Self-Instructional Language Programs). For example, at Temple
< previous page
page_181
next page >
< previous page
page_182
next page > Page 182
University in Philadelphia, PA, Dr. John Means (who is the Director for the Center for Critical Languages, the Director of the Institute for Languages and International Studies, Professor of Brazilian-Portuguese, and former (1977January 1998) Executive Director of NASILP) reported (personal communication, May 1998) that there is "an ongoing demand for Hindi by secondgeneration East Indian-Americans but that enrollments are not (and probably will never be) sufficient to justify the hiring of an instructor of Hindi. Thus, we respond to this need with a six-semester self-accessed curriculum in spoken and written Hindi. A 'class' is seldom larger than 4 or 5; yet this is precisely the condition for which NASILP was created." Although the Hindi courses at Temple are the focus of this case study (and we would like to acknowledge Dr. Means for having provided the information used herein), the reader also is referred to the following references to learn more about NASILP programs at other institutions (The Critical Languages Program at Hamilton College in Clinton, NY, as described in Barth, 1995; Korean for HL learners at The Five College Consortium [Amherst College, Hampshire College, Mount Holyoke College, Smith College, and the University of Massachusetts] as described by Mazzocco, 1995). The six Hindi courses at Temple University are listed in the catalog under Critical Languages: CL 060 Hindi Elements I (four credits), CL 061 Hindi Elements II (four credits), CL 160 Hindi Intermediate I (three credits), CL 161 Hindi Intermediate II (three credits), CL 260 Hindi Advanced I (three credits), and CL 261 Hindi Advanced II (three credits). As explained by Dr. Means, "For true beginners, the first year's instruction emphasizes the oral/aural skills, though reading and writing are certainly incorporated into the mix. As students become more advanced, there is a gradual shift of emphasis toward literacy skills although oral competencies remain a significant part of the program." The textbook that has been used until recently for the first three or four semester levels (and the one recommended by NASILP) is Spoken and Written Hindi by G. H. Fairbanks and B. G. Misra (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1966). Unfortunately, this text is now out of print, and as a result, the Hindi curriculum is being restructured in terms of materials selection and pacing. Unlike a TFL course, there is no scheduled laboratory component. Instead, students are provided with their own sets of the audiotapes that accompany Spoken and Written Hindi, and they can practice with them daily at home or in their dorm rooms. In addition to the audiotapes, there are also videos (mainly produced at the University of Pennsylvania) that are used regularly by the students. At present, NASILP does not recommend any software programs in Hindi. However, this may change soon when NASILP along with NCOLCTL (the National Council of Organizations of Less Commonly Taught Languages) develop "LanguageNet" resources on the WWW. For self-instructional courses of this type, according to NASILP guidelines, tutorials must meet twice a week at a minimum. At Temple, there are three tutorial hours per week. Students prepare in advance, and then the tutors work with them on a wide range of exercises, dialogues, and conversational strategies, always using "authentic" oral and written Hindi. The tutors are, in general, graduate students attending Temple. All are fluent native speakers of Hindi. They undergo training (primarily based on a series of videotapes developed by NASILP) plus they are advised and monitored by the Program Coordinator. Tutors are paid an hourly wage commensurate with their experience in the program. As is the case for many of the LCTLs, useful placement exams often do not exist. Thus, students place themselves in the six courses according to their "self-perceived"
< previous page
page_182
next page >
< previous page
page_183
next page > Page 183
competence in one or more of the language skills. However, changes in placement may be recommended by the tutors, or the external examiner may be called when an "expert" opinion is needed. The external examiner for the Hindi courses at Temple is Professor Surendra Gambhir (Department of South Asia Regional Studies, the University of Pennsylvania). Gambhir's interest in HL students and their particular instructional needs are described in an article he wrote (Gambhir, 1992). Gamhbir has also written and developed several other reading materials and audio- and videotapes to supplement the textbook and to help students with their reading, writing, listening, and speaking skills in Hindi. (These supplementary materials are available from the office of South Asia Regional Studies at the University of Pennsylvania .) The examiner must meet with the students at least once per term. However, NASILP recommends a midterm exam as well as a final. Whereas students' reading comprehension and writing skills may be assessed in the conventional way, oral/aural skills are evaluated by means of a one-on-one oral "prochievement" test. "Prochievement" is NASILP's way of indicating that the oral proficiency test is actually an achievement test. In addition to testing students, the examiner is available to the program coordinator and to the tutors if they have questions pertaining to pedagogy or textual problems. The examiner also may be consulted by the coordinator if there is any doubt as to whether a prospective tutor speaks an educated form of the preferred Hindi dialect. As this case study illustrates, a self-instructional program requires that students take responsibility for their own learning. Instead of a professor "teaching" them the language, they are primarily dependent on the text, tutors, and tape. A selfinstructional program allows small numbers of students to study a LCTL when a faculty member is not available to teach the course, and it can readily be adapted to the needs of heritage students, particularly in terms of materials and pacing. Moreover, with a self-instructional program extra, individualized tutorials can be scheduled to meet the needs of any students, whether traditional or heritage. References Barth, M. B. (1995). The NASILP alternative from the lab director's viewpoint. NASILP Journal, 25, 2736. Campbell, R. N., & Lindholm, K. J. (1990). Conservation of language resources. In B. VanPatten & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Second language acquisitionforeign language learning (pp. 226239). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Chang, L. (1997). Quest for bilingualism and biculturalism: An alternative approach. NABE News, 20, 58. Chao, T. H. (1997). Chinese heritage community language schools in the United States. ERIC Digest (Report No. EDO-FL-9710). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Christian, D. (1994). Two-way bilingual education: Students learning through two languages. Washington, DC: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Collison, M. N-K. (1994, February 2). Spanish for native speakers. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A15A16. Colombi, M. C., & Alarcón, F. X. (Eds.). (1997). La enseñanza del español a hispanohablantes: Praxis y teoría [The teaching of Spanish to native Spanish speakers: Theory and practice. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Cummins, J. (1989). Heritage language teaching and the ESL student: Fact and friction. In J. H. Esling (Ed.), Multicultural education and policy: ESL in the 1990s (pp. 317). Ontario, Canada: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Cummins, J. (Ed.). (1991). Heritage languages [Special issue]. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des langues vivantes, 47 (4). Dwyer, D. (1991, October). Requirements for a successful self-instructional program. NASILP Bulletin, pp. 1, 411.
< previous page
page_183
next page >
< previous page
page_184
next page > Page 184
Feuerverger, G. (1991). University students' perceptions of heritage language learning and ethnic identity maintenance. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des langues vivantes, 47, 660677. Gambhir, S. K. (1992). Challenges of ethnic student enrollments. NASILP Journal, pp. 1319. Holzner, B., & Harmon, M. (1998). Intellectual and organizational challenges for international education in the United States: A knowledge system perspective. In J. N. Hawkins, C. M. Haro, M. A. Kazanjian, G. W. Merkx, & D. Wiley (Eds.), International education in the new global era: Proceedings of a national policy conference on the Higher Education Act, Title VI (pp. 3164). Los Angeles: University of California. Lambert, R. D. (1989). International studies and the undergraduate. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Mazzocco, E. H. D. (1995). A consortium discovers NASILP: The five college self-instructional language program. NASILP Journal, 25, 3746. McCarthy, J. S. (1998). Continuing and emerging national needs for the internationalization of undergraduate education. In J. N. Hawkins, C. M. Haro, M. A. Kazajinian, G. W. Merkx, & D. Wiley (Eds.), International education in the new global era: Proceedings of a national policy conference on the Higher Education Act, Title VI (pp. 6575). Los Angeles: University of California. McGinnis, S. (1996). Teaching Chinese to the Chinese: The development of an assessment and instructional model. In J. E. Liskin-Gasparro (Ed.), Patterns and policies: The changing demographics of foreign language instruction (pp. 107121). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Merino, B. J., Trueba, H. T., & Samaniego, F. A. (Eds.). (1993). Language and culture in learning: Teaching Spanish to native speakers of Spanish. Washington, DC: The Falmer Press. Moore, S. J. & Morfit, C. A. (Eds.). (1993). Language and international studies: A Richard Lambert perspective. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center at The Johns Hopkins University. Noblitt, J. S. (1995). The electronic language learning environment. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Redefining the boundaries of language study (pp. 263292). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. President's Commission on Foreign Languages and International Studies. (1980). Strength through wisdom: A critique of U.S. capabilities. Modern Language Journal, 64, 957. Roca, A. (1992). Spanish for U.S. Hispanic bilinguals in higher education. ERIC Digest (Report No. EDO-FL-92-06). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Rodríguez Pino, C. (1997). Teaching Spanish to native speakers: A new perspective in the 1990s. ERIC/CLL News Bulletin, 21, 4-5. Ruíz, R. (1988). Orientations in language planning. In S. L. McKay & S-1. C. Wong (Eds.), Language diversity: Problem or resource? (pp. 325). New York: Newbury House. Simon, P. (1980). The tongue-tied American, New York: Continuum. Sohn, S-O. (1995). The design of curriculum for teaching Korean as a heritage language. Korean Language Education, 1, 1935. Sohn, S-O. (1996). Issues and concerns in teaching multi-level classes: Syllabus design for heritage and nonheritage learners. Korean Language Education, 2, 139158. Tucker, G. R. (1990). Second-language education: Issues and perspectives. In A. M. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild, & C. M. Valadez (Eds.), Foreign language education: Issues and strategies (pp. 1321). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Valdés, G. (1992a). Bilingual minorities and language issues in writing. Written Communication, 9, 85136. Valdés, G. (1992b). The role of the foreign language teaching profession in maintaining non-English languages in the United States. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Languages for a multicultural world in transition (pp. 2971). Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company. Valdés, G. (1995). The teaching of minority languages as academic subjects: Pedagogical and theoretical challenges. Modern Language Journal, 79, 299328 Warschauer, M. (Ed.). (1995). Virtual connections: Online activities & projects for networking language learners. Honolulu, Hawaii: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
< previous page
page_184
next page >
< previous page
page_185
next page > Page 185
PART IV INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
< previous page
page_185
next page >
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
< previous page
page_187
next page > Page 187
9 A Canadian Perspective: Second Language Teaching and Learning in the University Marjorie Bingham Wesche University of Ottawa Languages in Canada Canada, whose almost 30 million inhabitants are unevenly settled over a vast territory, is home to speakers of many languages. The country's two official languages, English and French, are predominant, respectively, as the first languages of 60% and 23% of the population. Another 17% cite another language as their mother tongue. They include immigrants from Asian, European, Latin American, and African countries, who tend to settle in the largest cities, as well as members of widely dispersed and often relatively isolated First Nations communities, many in the North. Functional bilingualism is on the rise among Canadians, as partially reflected in 1996 census statistics (Statistics Canada, 1997), which report increasing French/English bilingualism (17%, up from 13% in 1971) and that approximately 10% of the population retains a home language other than English or French. Canada's Official Languages: English and French The shared history of the English and French languages in Canada dates from the period of early European settlement, and current distribution of speakers of these two languages reflects both that initial settlement and subsequent internal migrations. English is the majority language as well as the language of education and government in most provinces outside of Quebec and the three Territories. It is also the language of a significant minority community in Quebec, which comprises around 9% of the province's population. In Quebec, the country's second largest province with 7 million inhabitants (after Ontario with 10.5 million), some 81% of the population speak French as a first language, and 10% are native speakers of a language other than English or French. Native English speakers comprise a decreasing proportion of the Quebec population, and, since 1971, have been declining in absolute numbers (Caldwell, 1988). French is preeminent in all aspects of public life in Quebec, and the legislation enacted by successive governments since 1971 to promote the use of French has ensured that over 90% of immigrant children now attend French language schools, up from 38% in 19761977.
< previous page
page_187
next page >
< previous page
page_188
next page > Page 188
Outside of Quebec, French has long been and remains the second most important language for political, cultural, and business communication across Canada. Francophones (French native speakers) living outside Quebec are particularly concentrated in the country's eastern (''maritime") provinces, especially in New Brunswick where a third of the population of 730,000 (1996 census) are French speakers, and in Ontario, where the Francophone population numbers about half a million, mainly in the northern and eastern regions of the province. Overall, of persons with French as a mother tongue living outside Quebec, around 70% cite it as the language they use most often at home. If one excludes New Brunswick and Ontario, this figure is around 50% (Bourbeau, 1989, cited in Beaujot, 1998), indicating the importance of concentration of speakers of a minority language to its maintenance. In 1969, English and French were accorded the shared status of Official Languages in Canada's federal government institutions and Parliament, guaranteeing Canadians access to federal government services in both languages in areas where there is significant demand for such services. Provincial and territorial governments, however, with several exceptions, function in the majority language of their population: English in eight of the provinces and French in Quebec. New Brunswick is officially bilingual in English and French. The new northern territory of Nunavut gives official language status to English, French, and Inuktitut, and the Yukon, to English and French, whereas the Northwest Territories have eight official languages. Several other provinces, most notably Ontario, provide judicial and some other provincial services in both English and French. Minority language schooling (English in Quebec and French elsewhere) is available in most areas where there are significant populations of mother tongue speakers of the minority language. Given all the aforementioned factors, it is not surprising that a high level of proficiency in both official languages is important in many areas of Canadian life. This is reflected in school second language enrollments. Some 55% of elementary school students and 47% of secondary school students in English language schools in Canada study French as a second language, over 11% of these in French immersion programs (Commissioner of Official Languages, 1998). The corresponding enrollment figures for Quebec's Francophone schoolchildren studying English as a second language are 33% (elementary) and 97% (secondary), reflecting compulsory English study beginning in Grade 3 (formerly Grade 4; Commissioner of Official Languages, 1998). International Languages As of the 1996 census, nearly 17% of people in Canada, or some 4.7 million individuals, reported a language other than French or English as their mother tongue. This group consists both of mother tongue speakers of international (immigrant and ethnic) languages and of Native-Canadian (First Nations) languages. The distinction between these two groups is crucial because most international languages continue to be used and to evolve elsewhere in the world, providing support for linguistic and cultural maintenance by even a small number of speakers in Canada. This is not the case of Native languages, however, which except in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, benefit from neither official language status nor a base of speakers elsewhere in the world. Many of these are threatened with extinction (Allen & Swain, 1984). Since the Second World War, the face of Canada has changed considerably as the country has accepted increasing numbers of non-European immigrants. As a result, the
< previous page
page_188
next page >
< previous page
page_189
next page > Page 189
three most commonly cited mother tongues after English and French, which in 1971 were German (2.6% of the total population), Italian (2.5%), and Ukrainian (1.4%), were by 1996 Chinese (2.6%), Italian (1.8%), and German (1.6%) (1996 census). In addition, Punjabi, Arabic, and Tagalog have come to be counted among the 10 most common nonofficial languages. Around 80% of allophones (native speakers of nonofficial languages) live in large cities. Recent immigrants have been most attracted to Canada's three largest cities, namely Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. These three areas also have the highest percentages of people using languages other than French or English at home, most often Chinese, Italian, or Punjabi. The fact that nearly 20% of young people in the large centers of Toronto and Vancouver (1996 census) speak a minority language at home has greatly influenced public school systems and led to demands both for increased ESL (English as a Second Language) instruction and for the teaching of international languages. The latter demands are bolstered in some immigrant communities by the desire for intergenerational language maintenance; this is particularly true when the younger members of the community are shifting toward dominant use of English or French. In Canada, education is under provincial jurisdiction. Just as patterns of settlement of speakers of nonofficial languages differ greatly across regions, so do initiatives related to the teaching of these languages, which are quite variable from province to province and even between adjacent school districts. The Multiculturalism Act, adopted in 1988, has led to federal support for a number of programs across the country whose purpose is to maintain and strengthen Canada's international languages and communities. International languages are generally subjects of instruction in Canadian schools rather than mediums through which content is conveyed. The two best-known programs for language instruction at the elementary and secondary levels are the International Languages Program in Ontario and la Programme d'enseignement des langues d'origines (PELO) in Quebec. These two programs, serving Canada's two most populous provinces, differ both in their means of implementation and in their perceived goals (McAndrew, 1991). In Ontario, the teaching of international languages remains largely the initiative of individual school boards, although such instruction must be offered in cases where it is requested by the parents of 25 or more students. This teaching generally takes place outside of the normal class schedule, and its stated goals are collective cultural and linguistic enrichment and the facilitation of minority students' integration into the regular school system. In contrast, the teaching of international languages in Quebec is centralized by the Ministry of Education and forms parts of the regular school schedule. Though PELO is less widespread than is the corresponding program in Ontario, its goals tend more toward linguistic and cultural maintenance than toward the integration of immigrant groups. This orientation reflects the underlying belief that minority groups that maintain their ethnic identity will be less likely to become part of the Anglophone community, which, although a minority in Quebec, is perceived by some as a threat to the maintenance of French language and culture (McAndrew, 1991). As of 1991, other provinces supporting international language programs included Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. In some school board jurisdictions, instructional models include immersion language programs in which students take a significant part of their coursework through a language other than English. For example, the Edmonton Public Schools offer bilingual instruction in Ukrainian, German, Hebrew, French, Chinese-Mandarin, and Arabic (Cummins & Danesi, 1990; G. Chalmers, 1999, personal
< previous page
page_189
next page >
< previous page
page_190
next page > Page 190
communication). Early evaluations of such programs revealed them to be highly successful both in terms of developing the students' interest in the target language and culture, and in enhancing English language and arithmetic abilities. This success was crucial for wider acceptance of international languages as mediums of instruction and the expansion of such programs to other boards (Ewanyshyn, 1985). Native Languages Since the arrival of European settlers in Canada, Native communities have undergone dramatic language shifts, which have led to the loss of many languages and the continuing decline of others. Prior to large-scale European settlement, there were an estimated 450 languages (comprising 11 major linguistic groups) spoken in the geographic area that now makes up Canada. These major groupings have been maintained, but the number of individual languages has fallen to about 60 (Burnaby, 1996). According to the 1996 census, 208,610 people (0.7% of Canada's population) speak a First Nations' language as their mother tongue. The largest linguistic groups are Cree, with 87,500 native speakers, followed by Inuktitut with 27,800, and Ojibway with 25,900. The largest concentrations of people claiming First Nations ancestry are found in Ontario and British Columbia. However, in the Northern territories and prairie provinces, Native people make up the greatest percentages of the populations (approximately 45% in the Northwest Territories, 85% in Nunavut, 20% in the Yukon, 12% in Manitoba, and 11% in Saskatchewan; 1996 census). A number of Native languages in Canada have only a few remaining mother tongue speakers, mainly belonging to older generations. Although there has been interest in the revival of some of these little spoken languages, most are nonetheless being quickly overtaken by English or (to a lesser extent) French (Grimes, 1996). In some cases, the very isolation of Native communities works in favor of language maintenance; where there is little contact with non-Native populations, a Native language may remain the dominant language of all generations. Contrary to the education of non-Native Canadians, Native education is the responsibility of the federal, rather than provincial, government. Schools have traditionally either been administered by the federal government in First Nations communities, or alternately, students have attended provincially run institutions which, in turn, receive federal funding for teaching First Nations' children. This policy tends to promote assimilation, and, particularly in the case of residential schools, disparagement and loss of Native languages (Burnaby, 1996). However, since the release in 1972 of the influential Indian Control of Indian Education policy document by the National Indian Brotherhood, an increasing number of Native communities have taken control of their own schools, initiatives that have resulted in more teaching of Native languages, and, in some cases, their use as an instructional medium. Though content instruction through First Nations languages is still largely subordinated to teaching in English or, in Quebec, French, it is more likely to be found in areas where the Native language is widely spoken as a first language in the community. Such instruction is most often observed in the preschool and primary years. For example, the Cree School Board, which serves the James Bay region of Northern Quebec, offers instruction solely through Cree from prekindergarten to Grade 2. In the third grade, either English or French is introduced to a limited extent. As of the fourth grade, the second language is used to a greater degree in instruction although Cree remains an important component of the curriculum. Also crucial to this program is the introduction of liter-
< previous page
page_190
next page >
< previous page
page_191
next page > Page 191
acy in Cree rather than one of the official languages. The increasing control of Native schools by the communities in which they are located has created a demand for Native teachers who are capable of teaching through indigenous languages. In the case of the Cree School Board, this has meant development, in conjunction with McGill University (Montreal), of a teacher training program aimed specifically at Cree speakers and of a Cree literacy certificate for teachers. The Northwest Territories (NWT) provides the best example of sustained public policy to support aboriginal language maintenance and development. This stems from the Official Languages Act for the NWT of 1984 (Fettes, 1998) which, besides recognizing English and French, accorded official status to all Native languages. Inuktitut, the Inuit language of the Eastern Arctic (now Nunavut Territory), together with Dene and Cree have been the main beneficiaries of language development funding. A successful elementary school curriculum in Inuktitut has been established in what is now Nunavut, and work continues toward bilingual curricula for later grades. Elsewhere, primary school instruction in Dene and Cree is on the increase, although these languages are less well established in schooling than Inuktitut. The relative vitality and success of Inuktitut is related to the number and concentration of its speakers and to the commitment of Inuit communities and individuals to promoting the use of the Native language at home as well as in education (Fettes, 1998). Postsecondary Language Instruction Canada's universities, like its schools, are the responsibility of each province, and with few exceptions they are primarily funded through public monies. Universities vary considerably with respect to the languages taught or used for instructional purposes, the clienteles for second language study, and the kinds of programs offered. An important influence on the language programs in a given university is the presence of significant numbers of fluent speakers of major immigrant, Amerindian, and official languages in the region and in the student population. Taken together, these affect the level of demand and the quality of the language instruction that can be offered. Important trading partners and foreign sources of tourism for the region also influence postsecondary language programs; thus, in recent years, instruction in Japanese, Chinese, and other Asian languages has increased notably in British Columbia and Alberta. Overall, the presence of large numbers of bilingual Canadian students and foreign students, the importance of minority languages at home, and the value of language knowledge in many careers in Canada and abroad have led to diverse initiatives in the area of postsecondary language instruction across the country. Languages of Instruction at Universities Most of Canada's some 90 universities and its numerous community colleges function in the dominant language of the province or territory in which they are located, that is, French in Quebec and English in the other nine provinces and traditional northern territories. Thus, the vast majority of Canadian university students study through their first official language. Of particular interest here, however, are the exceptions, that is, the institutions that either function entirely in a minority language, or offer programs through several languages. The primary mission of such institutions or programs is in most cases
< previous page
page_191
next page >
< previous page
page_192
next page > Page 192
to serve regional language minorities even while offering speakers of other languages the opportunity to study through a second language. Western Canada has two important French language institutions affiliated with major English language universities. One, the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface in Winnipeg (established in 1871 before its now larger affiliate, the University of Manitoba), primarily serves the Francophone community of Manitoba. Its undergraduate and professional programs are focused in disciplines such as language and education, which are vital to the maintenance of a strong Francophone presence in the province and in Western Canada. The Faculté Saint Jean, part of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, plays a similar role in Alberta and beyond. It offers bachelor's degrees and some graduate programs, including education programs to prepare teachers of French as a mother tongue and in immersion programs. Of particular interest at the Faculté St. Jean is its French language residence as well as other services and facilities that allow students to immerse themselves in French in all aspects of their daily lifea rare experience for Canadian Francophones outside Quebec. In Canada's East, the Université Sainte-Anne in Church Point, Nova Scotia, is an undergraduate French language institution that serves both Francophones and second language speakers in its education and commerce degree programs. The bilingual University of Moncton, New Brunswick, offers many programs in both English and French, whereas, in Quebec, Montreal's McGill University, a distinguished English language institution, offers a number of degree programs and nonlanguage courses in French. In Quebec, secondary school graduation takes place at the end of the 11th year of schooling (sécondaire V), after which students attend 2- to 3-year academic or career-oriented college programs at CEGEPs (Collèges d'enseignement général et professionnel). Following graduation, many students take up university studies in Quebec or transfer to universities in other provinces. Quebec's CEGEPs generally function in either English (5 of 48) or French (the remaining 43), but in areas with small, mixed populations (e.g., Gaspésie, Sept-Îles), French language CEGEPs may offer certain programs through the medium of English. All CEGEPs offer language courses in the second official language. The new northern territory of Nunavut provides postsecondary bilingual instruction in which the second language of study is an indigenous language. Nunavut Arctic College, headquartered in the capital, Iqaluit, offers programs for teachers and interpreters partially through Inuktitut, the language of most of its Inuit student clientele. Other programs are offered through English. This college is also remarkable in that it operates across a vast region at numerous sites. (Nunavut Arctic College is described in the second case study toward the end of this chapter.) Ontario maintains the largest number of postsecondary institutions aimed at serving the minority French language community either through French language or bilingual instruction. Although there is no French language university in Ontario, a number of colleges have been established. Le Collège Boréal, a small French language college centered in Sudbury, serves a regional clientele in northern Ontario. In Ottawa, la Cité Collégiale, a French language college, has been operating independently since 1990, offering a wide array of diploma programs in arts and technology. Le Collége des Grands Lacs serves the Francophone minority of southwestern Ontario from multiple campuses. Most significant at the postsecondary level are Ontario's four bilingual universities, each of which offer a number of degree programs in both French and English. Primary among these is the University of Ottawa, the oldest and largest bilingual university in
< previous page
page_192
next page >
< previous page
page_193
next page > Page 193
North America and the major postsecondary institution serving Franco-Ontarians for the past 150 years. It is located in the national capital region of Ottawa-Hull, a transition area between English and French Canada, where French is the mother tongue of approximately 35% of the population and English of around 55%. The University offers undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs in all major academic disciplines in both languages. The presence in Ottawa of the Canadian Parliament and many federal government institutions that provide services in both languages further enhances the importance of second language education throughout the area's school systems and universities, as well as in the federal government. (Further information about the University of Ottawa is included in the first case study that appears in this chapter.) Ontario's other bilingual postsecondary institutions include Laurentian University in Sudbury, the Royal Military College of the Canadian Forces in Kingston, and Glendon College of York University in Toronto. Laurentian University offers certain undergraduate programs and professional programs in French as well as in English, and students enrolled in programs in either language have the opportunity to take some of their coursework through the medium of the other language. The Royal Military College in Kingston offers undergraduate programs in arts, science, and engineering in both English and French to officer cadets from all parts of Canada. The cadets are required to take a significant number of courses through the medium of their second language (French or English) with the goal of developing high levels of career-oriented communicative proficiency as well as an appreciation for Canada's bicultural heritage. Toronto's York University maintains a bilingual liberal arts faculty, Glendon College, which offers undergraduate programs in both English and French, as well as master's programs in translation and in études françaises. Glendon actively seeks a mixed clientele of French- and English-speaking Canadian and international students. Though students do not have to be bilingual to be admitted to Glendon, they must complete at least one second-year course taught in their second language before graduation. Many Glendon students take advantage of French language study opportunities at universities in Montreal and abroad (e.g., in France, Belgium, and Morocco) as part of their undergraduate programs. Postsecondary French Second Language Instruction Most English language universities have departments of French that traditionally have offered literature-oriented programs for French majors. Though literature almost universally remains the focus, some French departments have, over the past decade, broadened their programs to accommodate the needs of students who have graduated from secondary school French immersion programs. Few of these students wish to major in French; nonetheless, they are often highly proficient in the language, and many seek advanced instruction in grammar and writing as well as specialized French language skills for academic and career purposes such as business or law (Wesche, 1993b, 1996). In recent years, conferences and professional publications dedicated to university-level French language instructional issues attest to an increasing interest by the profession in language teaching (see, e.g., Besnard & Elkabas, 1988; Courchêne et al., 1995; Courchêne, Glidden, St. John, & Thérien, 1992; Department of Canadian Heritage, 1996; LeBlanc, 1994; LeBlanc, Compain, Duquette, & Séguin, 1989; Naiman & Furgiuele, 1996; Pellerin, 1996; Tomlinson & Lapkin, 1989). Content-based French language teaching has found a place in some university French programs, taking the form of "sheltered" and "adjunct" courses in nonlanguage disci-
< previous page
page_193
next page >
< previous page
page_194
next page > Page 194
plines (Burger, Wesche, & Migneron, 1997; Edwards, 1989; Leblanc, 1986; Wesche, 1985). A sheltered course uses the students' second language (in this case, French) as the medium of instruction for a specific academic subject area (such as psychology or history) in a class restricted to second language speakers. Because the course is taught in all the students' second language, linguistic and pedagogical adaptations tend to be naturally made by the instructor to facilitate learner comprehension (Ready & Wesche, 1992; Wesche & Ready, 1985). An adjunct course is a paired or linked second language course that supports the academic skills of second language students who are enrolled in regular French-medium courses for native speakers (again such as history or biology). Adjunct programs generally serve second language students who are more proficient in the instructional language than those in sheltered courses. Though both sheltered and adjunct courses have proven highly effective for the students who take them, a number of factors make them difficult to maintain, especially as university budgets shrink. Such courses tend to attract only limited enrollments because they require students with advanced second language skills who not only are interested in the academic subject area that is offered but also are highly motivated. Furthermore, sheltered and adjunct courses place extra demands on instructors: Subject-area instructors must be sensitive to the language limitations of second language students, and language instructors must have knowledge of the academic discipline being taught. Where sheltered and modified courses have continued to be offered on a regular basis, they usually depend on a particular student subpopulation to ensure their viability, such as students training to be French teachers or for international business. (See examples in the University of Ottawa case study.) Postsecondary English Second Language Instruction It is the presence of Canadian Francophone students that makes the situation of ESL instruction in English language universities in Canada distinct from that in the United States. For Francophone students in French language and bilingual universities, Anglais (English) programs offer advanced writing and grammar. However, these programs tend to emphasize literature and other "high" culture while assuming students' familiarity with day-to-day Canadian lifeways. Francophone students also seek to develop the practical language skills that underlie studies and careers in an English-dominant environment, often carrying out some of their library research, taking coursework and engaging in out-of-class activities in English. Otherwise, the ESL student clientele in both Canada and the United States is largely composed of "visa" and immigrant students who need to master the English and the culture of North American university life in order to pursue further academic studies. Many universities throughout Canada run intensive preuniversity ESL programs to prepare visa and immigrant students for academic study through English, in addition to credit-bearing courses in ESL for enrolled students. Such programs may also to some extent serve Canadian Francophones. The demand for intensive presessional and credit ESL courses has increased as Canadian universities have expanded their recruitment of visa students as part of a recent trend to "internationalize" postsecondary institutions. In fact, Canadian universities now welcome more than 30,000 "foreign" students each yearsome 3.7% of their total student clientele. Community colleges and large school boards in urban areas that receive many immigrants have been active for a number of years in dispensing intensive ESL training to
< previous page
page_194
next page >
< previous page
page_195
next page > Page 195
adult immigrants at all levels of education in programs receiving federal and/or provincial funding. These programs are mainly focused on developing basic language skills, emphasizing those that immigrants need most for employment rather than the language skills needed for further academic study. The same institutions may also offer both general and academic language programs that serve immigrants and visa students. (For more information on one such program, see the last case study about Vancouver Community College.) The 1990s have brought successive attempts to standardize language training for adult immigrants across the country, most notably through the development of the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) by a national working group established by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) in 1993. The Canadian Language Benchmarks Working Document (CIC, 1996) was published after an intensive process of consultation, development, and field testing. It provides detailed descriptions of 13 performance levels in English oral interaction, reading, and writing, from preliterate (0) to educated native speaker (12) as well as accompanying curriculum and testing materials. The Working Document, distributed to English language teaching educators, programs, and organizations across Canada, has led to ever increasing integration of the Benchmarks into programming and curricula by government-funded and private adult language programs, and in the schools. A similar process is underway in French, for which draft Benchmarks are currently being field tested. French and English Second Language Testing Initiatives The Canadian Language Benchmarks are increasingly applied not only to a range of language instructional situations but also to assessment. A major CIC-funded project in the mid-1990s was the development of a performance-based instrument for testing learners' English language skills for Benchmarks 18, called the Canadian Language Benchmarks Assessment (CLBA) (Peirce & Stewart, 1997). A network of trained and certified assessors has been established across English-speaking Canada to administer the CLBA, which is now required for CIC-funded language programs for immigrants. Current CIC-funded projects administered by the Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks (e-mail: [email protected]) include a survey of curricula and materials that have been developed using the framework, and preliminary work on the design of assessment instruments for levels 912. It is at these levels that the language skills needed for postsecondary study or occupations requiring high levels of English proficiency are situated. This assessment project seeks to determine whether Benchmarks-based assessment can be developed for trades, business, key professions, and academic study. Should such an approach prove viable, Benchmarks' influence on presessional and university credit ESL programs will increase. Canadian innovations in French and English language testing for academic and professional purposes have been particularly notable over the past several decades (Des Brisay, 1995; Des Brisay & Laurier, 1991; Fraser & Mougeon, 1990; LeBlanc, 1995; LeBlanc & Painchaud, 1985; Tréville, 1985; Wesche, 1987, 1992a, 1992b). These efforts have primarily been initiated by institutions that serve large numbers of nonnative speakers or that have second language requirements for entry or graduation. They include tests for diverse purposes, which employ methods ranging from self-assessment to performance of academic tasks in the second language. In the 1980s, a performance-based test of English for academic purposes, the Ontario Test of English as a Second Language (OTESL) (Wesche, 1987), was developed by a team of language testing specialists
< previous page
page_195
next page >
< previous page
page_196
next page > Page 196
from different Ontario postsecondary institutions. The specific objective of OTESL was to obtain diagnostic information about students' academic English use in listening, reading, writing, and speaking to determine their further specific language-learning needs. Its intended use was with students conditionally admitted to university programs, for example, on the basis of scores on the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language which is described in chap. 4, this volume). Parallel to or in conjunction with this collective test development experience, different institutions have developed academic purposes language testing instruments for particular clienteles (Des Brisay, Elson, Fox, & Ready, 1991). Several of these have gained national recognition and are used both for admission purposes and for diagnosis and placement of students in specialized English language courses in Canadian postsecondary institutions. The Canadian Test of English for Scholars and Trainees (CanTEST) and its French counterpart, the Test pour Étudiants et Stagiaires au Canada (TESTCan) (Des Brisay, 1995; Des Brisay & Laurier, 1991), are subtest-banking systems originally developed by the University of Ottawa for use in the selection of Chinese candidates for professional and academic training in Canada. CanTEST and TESTCan seek "to combine the content validity of theme-based performance tests . . . with administrative convenience" (Des Brisay, 1995, p. 260). They are accepted for admission purposes by many English and French language institutions in Canada, and a number of adapted versions for specific academic and professional clienteles also have been developed. The Canadian Academic English Language (CAEL) Assessment, an ESL testing system using a performance-based approach with theme-related materials within each version, is primarily used for admission and placement purposes by Carleton University (Ottawa, Canada) for its large international student clientele, with CAEL scores increasingly accepted by other Canadian institutions. Several institutions with bilingual program admission or graduation requirements in a second language have developed advanced-level tests for specific purposes. The Glendon Examination of Bilingual Excellence (L'examen d'excellence bilingue de Glendon) (Fraser & Mougeon, 1990) may be taken by students who have completed and achieved a minimum grade of B in two 1-year nonlanguage courses given through the medium of their second language. Success leads to a "Certificate of Bilingual Excellence," which is awarded with their degree at graduation. The written and oral examination assesses advanced written and oral proficiency in both languages, and it includes a "bilingual proficiency" requirement that candidates be able to integrate information from French and English texts and that they be able to shift languages in the oral test in response to questions posed in one or the other language. Performance criteria are used in test scoring. A number of specialized tests of French and English proficiency have been developed at the University of Ottawa including admissions tests for bilingual health sciences programs and the Faculty of Education teacher education programs, and certification testing procedures for faculty members with a bilingual requirement for tenure. (These are described in Hauptman, LeBlanc, & Wesche, 1985; Tréville, Bayliss, & Bourdages, in press; and Wesche, 1992a, 1992b). Postsecondary International Language Instruction As might be expected, Canada's universities offer undergraduate and graduate programs in a wide range of languages and literatures other than French and English, including Spanish (most frequent after French and English); German (in approximately half the institutions); followed by Russian, Latin, Greek, and Italian; then Chinese and Japanese
< previous page
page_196
next page >
< previous page
page_197
next page > Page 197
(with seven programs each); Slavic languages (six); Native-American languages (four), with a scattering of programs in Celtic languages, Farsi, Finnish, Hebrew, Hungarian, Korean, Portuguese and other languages. In many of these cases, the emphasis is on preparation for the study of literature, and in some cases for translation and language teaching. However, the commercial utility of Spanish and several other languages has increasingly led to specialized courses and programs for other professional purposes that serve limited populations (e.g., Acadia University's [Wolfville, Nova Scotia] joint Spanish and business administration program, or the University of Alberta's [Edmonton, Alberta] joint East Asian and bachelor of commerce program). In most institutions, language instruction in the major international languages primarily serves literature majors, whereas language courses in locally used nonofficial languages or in the absence of a degree program (such as in continuing education programs) are more likely to serve second- and third-generation immigrants who have some functional knowledge but lack previous formal study in the language. A study at the University of Toronto identified over 150 ethnic students taking courses in the following languages (in decreasing numbers): Italian, Portuguese, Ukrainian, Korean, Hebrew, Japanese, Chinese, and Yiddish (Feuerverger, 1991) A critical issue in postsecondary teaching of nonofficial languageswhether for degree purposes or personal needsis the frequent lack of specific instructor training for language teaching. In mixed classes, an important further issue is whether the same curriculum is appropriate for language majors and those wishing to build on functional skills. Though little research has been done on the latter issue in the context of international languages, the effects of "mixed" French language university classes including both minority Francophone students and immersion graduates are seen as in some ways detrimental to minority language maintenance and development (Tardif & McMahon, 1989; Tomlinson, 1989). Revival of Indigenous Languages Courses in First Nations languages (such as Cree, Ojibway, and Mohawk) exist on many campuses in linguistics and continuing education programs. However, only the University of Regina (Regina, Saskatchewan) has a Department of Indian Languages, Literature, and Linguistics (under the auspices of the affiliated Saskatchewan Indian Federated College). Lakehead University (Thunder Bay, Ontario) offers education certificates in Algonquian languages, and McGill University is involved in a number of Native language teacher education programs with the Cree School Board, the Kativik School Board, the Kahnawake Mohawk Language Education Centre, and Nunavut's Arctic College. Innovative Approaches to Postsecondary Language Instruction The Summer Language Bursary Program (SLBP) is an important program for Canadian students that supports end of secondary and postsecondary French and English learningwww.cmec.ca/olp/, 1999>. Intensive 5-week immersion courses in either or both languages, supplemented with cultural activities and contact with native speakers, are run by some 40 postsecondary institutions across Canada for students between Grade 11 (Quebec high school graduation) and second-year university. Bursaries, awarded across the country by lottery, defray the cost of tuition, instructional materials, and living expenses for between 3,000 and 4,000 Canadian students each summer. The program is funded by the Department of Canadian Heritage and administered by the government
< previous page
page_197
next page >
< previous page
page_198
next page > Page 198
department responsible for postsecondary education in each of the provinces and territories in conjunction with the Council of Ministers of Education (Department of Canadian Heritage, 1999). The Official Languages Monitor Program (OLMP) is another program that encourages postsecondary language learning and that provides financial aid to students. It is also funded by the Department of Canadian Heritage. The Program is for bilingual postsecondary students who agree to study outside of their home province, usually in an area where their second official language is dominant. They work in tutorial or teacher's aid positions in schools or postsecondary institutions in their first language and receive fellowships to help cover their tuition fees. This program benefits not only the over 1,000 students who participate annually but also the second language programs in which they work (Department of Canadian Heritage, 1999). Instructional Materials and Research on Language Education Numerous textbooks and published materials exist for the teaching of ESL and French at the postsecondary level in Canada, though materials published in the United States, Britain and France are also used. Major publishers of Canadian languageteaching and applied linguistics materials include the CEC (Centre éducative et culturel) and Nelson Canada. Dissemination and sharing of research, materials, and techniques takes place through professional journals such as the Canadian Modern Language Review, the TESL Canada Journal, and the CAAL Bulletin/Bulletin de l'ACLA. There are regular conferences of applied linguistics and language-teaching organizations; such as the Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics (CAAL)/l'Association canadienne de linguistique applique, TESL Canada and its provincial affiliates, the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers (CASLT), the Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers (CAIT)/l'Association canadienne de professeurs d'immersion (ACPI), and large provincial organizations such as the Ontario Modern Language Teachers Association (OMLTA), TESL Ontario, and the Société pour la promotion de l'enseignement d'anglais, langue seconde, au Québec (SPEAQ). Special conferences on university language teaching are frequently sponsored by individual institutions, for example in the 1990s, by Glendon College, the University of New Brunswick, the University of Ottawa, and the University of Victoria. Major collections of resource materials on language teaching are maintained by various institutions, such as the Modern Language Centre's collection at the library of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto (Toronto, Ontario) and the University of Ottawa's Second Language Institute's Resource Centres for Teaching and Learning. These collections serve as important archives for teachers and researchers. (Many of these organizations, resource centers, journals, etc., are described in chap. 15, this volume.) The most extensive resource center and dissemination service for second and minority language education in Canada is the Modern Language Centre (MLC) (Cumming, Weinrib, Paulauskas, & Hart, 1996; A. Weinrib, personal communication, March 1999). The main languages represented in the MLC collection are French as a second language (for core, extended, and immersion programs), English as a second language, Spanish, German, and Italian. The collection was developed to support both the theory and practice of second and minority language teaching in Canada. This collection is accessible at with additional information on second language education at .
< previous page
page_198
next page >
< previous page
page_199
next page > Page 199
Institutional and personal Web sites increasingly facilitate the sharing of unpublished second language instructional materials and research on language teaching. The vast majority of Canadian colleges and universities maintain Web sites, and Canada's schoolnet , a project sponsored by Industry Canada in collaboration with a variety of government and corporate agencies, provides a wide range of resources and links for both students and educators. In addition, the Department of Canadian Heritage sponsors the Canadian Languages Network , which serves the heritage language community by performing Internet searches and offering links to related sites. The Commissioner of Official Languages (COL) Web site provides information on the Official Languages Act, the Commission's work, and second language education in Canada. Electronic discussion groups also facilitate information exchange among language educators, such as the one maintained by CAAL/ACLA: <[email protected]> Impact of New Technologies on Second Language Instruction Distance education in Canada, which began with correspondence courses and commuting instructors, has in recent decades progressed through succeeding technologies such as the telephone, electronic blackboard, television, and now Internet links. Today, as in the past, distance education is of particular interest to universities serving scattered language minority communities in their own language; it therefore promises to remain an important focus of technology use in Canadian postsecondary education. For example, the University of Ottawa has traditionally offered distance courses in French to Francophone communities in northern Ontario and elsewhere in Canada through arrangements with other institutions. Computer technologies allow students in distance education programs to interact in the target language by way of electronic bulletin boards and electronic mail. The use of the Internet in distance education has become especially important in Canada given the country's size and relatively low population density. Though representation of Canada's two official languages on the Internet is unbalanced (globally, 90% of sites employ English as their means of communication whereas only 5% use French; Beaudoin, 1998), specific language learning sites for different languages can provide learners with vital links to language resources. Apart from the use of distance education for minority communities, Canadian experiences with new technologies in second and foreign language teaching have largely mirrored those of the United States and other Western nations. (For an in-depth discussion of the use of computer technologies in second language teaching in the United States, see chap. 14, this volume.) Most of Canada now has access to the Internet which has resulted in increased use of this resource in postsecondary language teaching of all kinds. The Faculté Saint-Jean of the University of Alberta (Edmonton, Alberta), for instance, has developed an extensive Web-based French grammar course , which incorporates a large number of distinctly Canadian themes and texts. Case Studies Three case studies have been selected to illustrate a range of innovative postsecondary language programs in Canadian universities and colleges with respect to the teaching of French, English, and Native languages. The fact that international/heritage languages
< previous page
page_199
next page >
< previous page
page_200
next page > Page 200
are not emphasized here reflects the reality that although outstanding school programs exist in these languages, they have received relatively less attention at the postsecondary level than have Canada's official languages. The first case study describes the varied language-teaching, -testing, and teacher-training programs at the bilingual (French/English) University of Ottawa. The second presents the unique Nunuvut Arctic College in Canada's newly independent northern territory that features instruction through the medium of Inuktitut, multiple campuses, distance education, and partnerships with ''southern" universities. The third case study presents the ESL programs of Vancouver Community College (VCC), an institution that serves one of Canada's largest and most ethnically diverse communities with a combination of preacademic and academic programs, featuring content-based language instruction for vocational purposes. I would like to thank John Clay at Nunavut Arctic College and Norm Dooley of Vancouver Community College for their contributions, and I am grateful to Karen Jesney for tracking down information and drafting the case studies on Nunavut Arctic College and Vancouver Community College. Case Study #1: The University of Ottawa The University of Ottawa, in Ottawa, Ontario, is a comprehensive, bilingual, public university offering bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree programs with instruction in French or Englishor in a few cases, bilingual programs or courses. It serves some 16,000 full-time and 7,000 part-time undergraduate students, and about 2,000 full-time and 1,300 part-time graduate students. Of the undergraduate student population, some 14,500 study primarily in English and 8,500 primarily in French. The approximately 800 visa students study through either language. This case study provides an overview of French and English language programs offered at the University and more detailed information on the sheltered/adjunct courses that students with intermediate to advanced proficiency may take through their second language. Since its inception in the mid-19th century, the University of Ottawa has promoted both institutional and individual bilingualism through second language graduation (and for some programs, entrance) requirements, bilingual professional programs, and various incentives for students to improve their second language proficiency. Many undergraduate students with high-level second language abilities refine their English and French skills through specialized academic language courses and take nonlanguage courses in other disciplines offered through their second language. In the latter case, students have the option to write examinations and present reports and assignments in their first language if they prefer to do so. This is a policy made possible because many instructors have near-native fluency in their second language, and most at least possess the high-level receptive L2 (second language) skills required for student evaluation purposes. In the 1960s, the University established a Second Language Institute (Institut des langues secondes), which offers a wide range of courses, programs, and testing services for different clienteles within the University community. These include second undergraduate majors in ESL and FLS (français langue seconde), credit courses in French and English at all proficiency levels, language courses for instructors and teaching assistants working in their second language, tutoring of university faculty members in their second language, and noncredit intensive programs for prospective students and others. Over the years, the Institute has gained prominence for its innovative programs, self-access
< previous page
page_200
next page >
< previous page
page_201
next page > Page 201
learning and multimedia facilities, research, and testing. Test development and administration within the university include Can TEST/TESTcan for admission; entrance tests for bilingual health sciences and for teacher education (BEd) programs; selfassessment, placement, and general proficiency tests; certification tests for faculty members with second language requirements seeking tenure; and others. (These are described in a report by Tréville et al., in press.) Language instruction is also an important mission of other academic units. The Faculty of Arts, the Department of English, and the Department of Letters françaises offer undergraduate and graduate programs in literature and writing geared to native speakers; the School of Translation offers degree programs at all levels featuring French, English, and Spanish (including a new specialty course on translation for the preparation of bilingual documents); and the Department of Modern Languages provides instruction for varied purposes in a number of other languages and literatures, of which Spanish has the largest undergraduate enrollments. The Departments of Linguistics and of Classical Studies and Religion also offer language courses related to their disciplines. A joint 3- or 4-year (honors) program in Second Language Teaching (which may be followed by a 1-year BEd Program for teaching certification in Ontario) is offered in both French and English by the Faculty of Education, the Department of Linguistics, and the Second Language Institute. The Institute and the Faculty of Education also jointly offer a 1-year Certificate in Advanced English and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) Pedagogy for teachers from non-English backgrounds, a program distinguished by its integration of EAP (English for Academic Purposes), sheltered and adjunct courses, along with courses in language pedagogy. In addition, the Faculty of Education offers graduate degree programs for second language educators in both the French and English languages at the BEd, MEd, MA, and PhD levels. An interdisciplinary "Centre for Research on Language Teaching and Learning/Centre de recherche en enseignment et apprentissage des langues" (CREAL) regroups many of the teaching faculty and graduate students concerned with language learning and teaching from the Faculties of Arts and Education for interdisciplinary seminars, conferences, and research projects. A sustained effort is made to maintain an equilibrium between French and English speakers at all levels of University life. Nonetheless, the sociolinguistic patterns found in the Ontario population from which most students come are reflected in second language knowledge and use among University of Ottawa students. Thus, on entry, a far larger proportion of incoming Frenchspeaking (Francophone) students are fluent in English and already able to take courses for native English speakers than is true of their Anglophone counterparts in French. However, in recent years increasing numbers of English-speaking graduates of French immersion programs have arrived with advanced French proficiency. Added to this mix are the ever increasing number of visa students from around the world, both undergraduate and graduate, many of whom use English as their language of study and who provide an additional large clientele for ESL courses at advanced levels. The Second Language Institute has, since the mid-1980s, offered adjunct French or English second language courses linked to selected courses in nonlanguage disciplines. (This adjunct program followed initial experimentation with sheltered courses [Burger et al., 1997].) In the adjunct program, speakers of English as a second language might, for example, take Introduction to Psychology, History of Canada Since its Discovery, or Physiology with native English speakers, along with a course in advanced EAP tailored to the discipline course. Likewise, a second language speaker of French could take Introduction à la
< previous page
page_201
next page >
< previous page
page_202
next page > Page 202
psychologie (Introduction to Psychology), L'histoire du Canada depuis les découvertes (The History of Canada Since Its Discovery), Les éléments du language (Introduction to the Study of Language), Introduction à la science politique (Introduction to Political Science), or La sociologie de la famille (Sociology of the Family), with native French speakers plus a specially tailored French second language course. The adjunct language courses are organized around the language content and students' functional language needs in the discipline course (e.g., specialized terminology and written genres, strategies for understanding lectures, practice in researching and writing term papers). Thus, they provide students with the language support necessary for success in the discipline class and offer opportunities to practice the target language in a "safe" environment. In adjunct format, both courses (academic subject matter and the EAP) bear credits and can count as undergraduate electives, or in the case of the language course, as part of a second undergraduate major in French or English as a second language. The aim of discipline-based language instruction is to provide students with a transition between second language courses and real-world uses of the language, in this case academic courses for native speakers at the University of Ottawa. Whereas the French language courses have mainly served Canadian Anglophones, the English language courses attract visa students as well as Canadian Francophones. Though adjunct courses, like the earlier sheltered courses, have proven to be effective vehicles for language learning by intermediate and advanced second language students, neither successful content learning nor successful language learning is guaranteed. Certain conditions must be present: The disciplinary course must be well taught, the language component carefully conceived, and clear linkages made between the two elements. Different courses enhance different aspects of language development (Wesche, 1993a). The University of Ottawa has responded to its unique mission with innovations in language education in curriculum, use of technology, innovative test development, interdisciplinary programs to prepare language teachers, and research. In doing so, it has over the past several decades provided continuous leadership in postsecondary language education in Canada. Further information about the University of Ottawa and its programs may be found on its Web site: and by contacting the Second Language Institute, University of Ottawa, 600 King Edward Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario KIN-6N5; Fax: 613-562-5126; Tel: 613-562-5800, ext. 3393. Case Study #2: Nunavut Arctic College Publically funded Nunavut Arctic College (NAC) was founded in 1995, when it separated from Aurora College of the Northwest Territories in preparation for the 1999 creation of Nunavut as a separate political entity. It now serves the vast new territory of Nunavut and has integrated a number of adult and postsecondary education systems and instructional sites that have emerged in Canada's Eastern Arctic over the past 30 years. Given a territorial population of less than 22,000 scattered across a number of relatively isolated communities, enrollment in Nunavut Arctic College is quite impressive with some 4% of Nunavut's adult population enrolled full-time as of 1996. (According to the College's data, 1996 enrollment included 634 fulltime and 2,081 part-time students.) Inuit, who comprise the main ethnic group of the territory, make up 94% of the full-time student population and 95% of NAC graduates. This relative homogeneity of NAC's student population has enabled the College to provide certain content-area courses to its students
< previous page
page_202
next page >
< previous page
page_203
next page > Page 203
through the medium of their mother tongue, Inuktitut. This is one of the most salient characteristics of the college and demonstrates the way in which relatively small institutions can accommodate the language needs of their clientele, rendering their programs both more effective for the students and more responsive to the desires of the local community. Nunavut Arctic College promotes access to education for people throughout the territory, offering programs ranging from Adult Basic Education and Prospecting, to Heavy Equipment Operation and Business Administration. Its curriculum includes certificate programs, 2- to 3-year diploma courses, and four-year bachelor's degrees. There are three primary campuses, in Iqaluit (the capital of Nunavut), Rankin Inlet, and Cambridge Bay, supplemented by 26 Community Learning Centres in communities across Nunavut, which serve approximately half of NAC's students. In addition, NAC maintains a number of interuniversity transfer agreements, which allow students to obtain credits toward degrees at southern Canadian universities. Other arrangements, such as that for the delivery of teacher education with McGill University (Montreal) (discussed later), involve coordination of NAC instruction and curriculum delivery with other postsecondary institutions. The Nunavut Teacher Education Program (NTEP) provides a valuable illustration of the way in which First Nations communities can adapt courses and curriculum to meet the needs of their people. Unlike the majority of teacher education programs directed toward Native students at Canadian universities, NTEP allows students to be trained as teachers at least partially through the medium of their native language. The program therefore prepares its students for work in the Nunavut public school system, where instruction from kindergarten to third grade generally is carried out in either Inuktitut or Inuiacqtin (a dialect of Inuktitut). The majority of students enrolled in NTEP have worked in these schools, often as classroom assistants, prior to their entry into the program. They are thus generally mature individuals who are seen as suitable for careers as teachers by community members involved in education. Though most trainees focus on the primary and elementary grades, the program also offers an opportunity for training to teach at the junior or senior high school level. The Nunavut Teacher Education Program, in collaboration with McGill University's Faculty of Education (Montreal), offers both a 3-year Teaching Diploma and a McGill Certificate in Education for First Nations and Inuit. Credits earned toward the diploma may be transferred to the 4-year (McGill) Bachelor of Education program, which is also offered by Nunavut Arctic College. NTEP maintains close links to McGill University's Office of First Nations and Inuit Education, a unit that also plays a role in the teacher education programs of the Kativik School Board, the Cree School Board, and the Kahnawake Education Centre. Within NTEP, instruction is carried out in Inuktitut wherever possible, approximately 80% of the time during the first 2 years of the program and 40% of the time during the 3rd and 4th years, with the remaining courses taught in English. Classes in pedagogy and other subjects take place in Iqaluit whereas classroom observation sessions and practical experience are scheduled each semester in various Nunavut communities. The program seeks to meet the specific needs of Nunavut teachers by including core courses in Inuktitut orthography and phonology, Inuktitut reading and writing, as well as educational administration. Furthermore, students may complete elective requirements with courses focusing on Inuktitut language and linguistics, second language teaching (which is important given the presence of ESL instruction in most Nunavut schools), and Inuit culture.
< previous page
page_203
next page >
< previous page
page_204
next page > Page 204
NAC also offers an Aboriginal Language Teacher Education Certificate for those who wish to become teachers of the Inuktitut language in schools from kindergarten to Grade 12. The program requires fluency in Inuktitut and includes internships as well as courses dealing with teaching methods, Inuit culture, and Inuktitut literacy. Similarly, Nunavut Arctic College administers an Interpreter/Translator program leading to either a 1-year certificate or a 2-year diploma. The courses offered provide training in Inuktitut linguistics and writing and English writing, as well as medical, legal, simultaneous, and consecutive interpretation, in addition to translation. Given that the language of government in Nunavut is Inuktitut whereas those of the federal government are English and French, the need for professionals capable of providing interpretation and translation services is marked. The future of Nunavut Arctic College appears bright. It has become affiliated with the Open Learning Agency, a British Columbiabased provider of distance education, and thus is able to offer an increasing variety of courses through its Community Learning Centres. In addition, the recently formed North Consortium, linking NAC to Canada's Yukon College, Aurora College (in the Northwest Territories), and the University of Northern British Columbia, as well as Sweden's Lulea and Umea Universities, the University of Lapland in Finland, and the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, provides opportunities for students to study abroad at other northern institutions. Nunavut Arctic College can be visited on the World Wide Web at . Bilingual Inuktitut/English Nunavut Arctic College academic calendars provide additional information regarding the College's programs whereas information on the McGill Faculty of Education may be found on the World Wide Web at . For additional information regarding the Nunavut Teacher Education Program contact: Nunavut Arctic College, Box 160, Aeroplex Building, Iqaluit, NT X0A 0H0; Tel: 819-979-7200. Case Study #3: Vancouver Community College Vancouver Community College (VCC), founded in 1965, is home to the largest postsecondary and adult ESL program in Western Canada. It is located in the heart of Vancouver, one of Canada's largest metropolitan centers, and has sought to respond to a highly diverse population by offering certificate and diploma programs in a wide range of business, technical, and health fields in addition to adult basic education and continuing education courses. Publicly funded, VCC serves approximately 6,900 full-time students. They represent a cross-section of Vancouver's urban community, a population in which over 25% speak a nonofficial language as their mother tongue. Chinese, Punjabi, German, and Tagalog all have higher numbers of native speakers in metropolitan Vancouver than does French (1996 census). VCC also maintains a strong international focus, attracting more than 1,000 visa students annually. Although these students are primarily from Asia, many are from other parts of the world. Vancouver Community College offers a wide range of ESL courses that correspond to the diverse linguistic backgrounds of its students. Basic communicative and grammar-based courses are supplemented by a number of courses that are oriented toward language use in specific contexts such as tourism and business. An even more significant innovation is found in VCC's contentbased ESL programs, which enable learners to expand their English skills through adjunct language instruction while receiving training in linguistically sheltered sections of certain technical and vocational programs. These
< previous page
page_204
next page >
< previous page
page_205
next page > Page 205
content-based courses are of particular interest as they seek to meet the needs of adult immigrants who lack both the language skills and the work qualifications necessary for gaining employment in Canada. They illustrate the way in which content-based courses may be successfully integrated into a community college environment, gaining acceptance from both the college and program funding agencies. The content-based courses were initially introduced in 1987 in an attempt to increase the effectiveness of the traditional 5 months of government-funded language training offered to adult immigrants. It was thought that the linking of ESL instruction with technical and vocational training might better prepare students to access employment opportunities upon completion of their studies. As a result, content-based instruction was established in three target areas. The program has since expanded considerably; eight ESL versions of VCC's programs are currently offered in areas ranging from accounting to baking and pastry arts, building service, and hairdressing. In these sections, regular technical and vocational programs are modified for ESL students by expanding their duration by approximately 30% to accommodate 2 hours of daily ESL instruction. This language training supports the content component by developing relevant background language knowledge, study skills, communicative abilities, and content concepts and terminology. The content instruction itself, which comprises the remaining 4 hours of daily class time, incorporates practical and theoretical work in addition to job experience. Instruction and practice take place entirely in English, providing intensive needs-related language practice. Completion of a program requires success in both the language and content components. The content-based programs are jointly taught by VCC's ESL and vocational program instructors. Priority for entrance into these programs is given to Canadian citizens and landed immigrants who are unable to register in regular content classes due to limited English proficiency. Admission requires English language abilities ranging from lower intermediate to lower advanced levels, depending on the cognitive and linguistic demands of the specific program. Courses of study range in length from 5 to 16 months, and graduation from a program entails the same certification as does graduation from a nonadapted VCC program. Vancouver Community College is also home to Canada's largest training program for teachers of ESL who are preparing to work outside the regular provincial school system. A number of TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) programs are offered, including one aimed specifically at teachers of ESL who do not possess a recognized certificate, and another that targets individuals wishing to teach overseas. In addition, a distance education TESOL certificate program (CERTESL) is offered in collaboration with the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. Links are also maintained between VCC and University College of the Cariboo in Kamloops, British Columbia, and Kwantlen University College in the South Fraser region of Greater Vancouver. Upon application to VCC, ESL students may be granted conditional admission to one of these institutions, dependent on completion of a certain level of English language training at VCC. In addition, certification from the content-based Accounting/ESL program is transferrable to other postsecondary institutions and professional associations. Both of the affiliated university colleges offer bachelor degrees and diploma programs, thus providing an additional means by which ESL students may further their education. Information regarding Vancouver Community College may be obtained on the VCC Web site found at or the VCC international education Web site
< previous page
page_205
next page >
< previous page
page_206
next page > Page 206
at . Specific details regarding the content-based programs are available from the Program Development Department, Vancouver Community College, 1155 East Broadway, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V5N 5T9, Tel: 604-327-3745. Acknowledgments I wish to acknowledge the very valuable assistance of Karen Jesney in the research for and drafting of this article. Her background as a French immersion graduate and honors student in the University of Ottawa's Second Language Teaching program, Internet skills, flair for writing, and ability to work under pressure were just some of the qualities she brought to the task. I am also grateful to Barbara Burnaby, Margaret Des Brisay, Carol Fraser, Marie-Claude Tréville, and Alice Weinrib for useful information and ideas; to John Clay of Nunavut Arctic College, Norm Dooley of Vancouver Community College, and Lynn McAlpine of McGill University for their help with the case studies; and to Jean MacIsaac for her careful reading of the draft. References Allen, P., & Swain, M. (1984). Language in education: The Canadian context. In C. Brumfit (Ed.), Language issues and education policies (pp. 112). Toronto: Pergamon. Beaudoin, M. (1998). De l'ensignement de la grammaire par l'Internet [Teaching Grammar through the Internet]. In J. Compain & R. Courchêne (Guest Eds.) Special Issue: The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(1), 6175. Beaujot, R. (1998). Demographic considerations in Canadian language policy. In T. Ricento & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language and Politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and realities (pp. 7183). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Besnard, C., & Elkabas, C. (Eds.). (1988). L'Université de demain: Courants actuels et apports de la didactique des langues à l'enseignement du français langue seconde [Tomorrow's University: Current trends and contributions of language didactics to the teaching of French as a second language]. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press. Bourbeau, R. (1989). Canada: A linguistic profile (Cat. No. 98-131). Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Burger, S., Wesche, M., & Migneron, M. (1997). Late, late immersion or, discipline-based second language teaching at the University of Ottawa. In R. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 6584). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Burnaby, B. (1996). Language policies in Canada. In M. Heniman & M. Burnaby (Eds.), Language policies in English-dominant countries (pp. 159235). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Caldwell, G. (1988). L'avenir de la communauté anglophone du Québec [The future of Quebec's Anglophone Community]. L'Action Nationale, 78, 359365. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (1996). Canadian language benchmarks: English as a second language for adults, English as a second language for literacy learners (Cat. No. Ci63-14/1996-E). Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Commissioner of Official Languages. (1998). Annual report 1997. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Courchêne, R., Burger, S., Cornaire, C., LeBlanc, R., Paribakht, S., & Séguin, H. (Eds.). (1995). Vingt-cinq ans d'enseignement des langues secondes à l'Université d'Ottawa [Twenty-five years of second language teaching at the University of Ottawa]. Ottawa: University of Ottawa, Second Language Institute. Courchêne, R., Glidden, J., St. John, J., & Thérien, C. (1992). Comprehension-based second language teaching [l'enseignement des langues Secondes axé sur la compréhension]. Ottawa: Les Presses de l'Université d'Ottawa. Cumming, A., Weinrib, A., Paulauskas, S., & Hart, D. (1996). Language documentation centres in Canada: A survey and future directions. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52(3), 416439.
< previous page
page_206
next page >
< previous page
page_207
next page > Page 207
Cummins, J., & Danesi, M. (1990). Heritage Languages: The development and denial of Canada's linguistic resources. Toronto: Garamond Press. Department of Canadian Heritage. (1996). The Canadian experience in the teaching of official languages. Ottawa: Author. Department of Canadian Heritage. (1999). Summer language bursary program 1999 (Information pamphlet). Ottawa: Government of Canada. Des Brisay, M. (1995). Practical considerations in the construction of program specific ESL tests: The Can-TEST Story. In R. Courchêne, S. Burger, C. Cornaire, R. LeBlanc, S. Paribakht, & H. Séguin (Eds.), Twenty-five years of second language teaching at the University of Ottawa (pp. 261269). Ottawa: Second Language Institute, University of Ottawa. Des Brisay, M., & Laurier, M. (1991). Developing small-scale standardized tests using an integrated approach. Bulletin of the CAAL, 13(1), 5772. Des Brisay, M., Elson, N., Fox, J., & Ready, D. (1991). Testing for academic readiness at the university and college levels. In G. Irons & T. S. Paribakht (Eds.), TESL 91: Make changes, make a difference (pp. 187194). Welland, Ontario: Éditions Soleil. Edwards, V. (1989). Bilingual education at the post-secondary level: A case study. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 19(3), 4352. Ewanyshyn, E. (1985). Evaluation of the Ukrainian bilingual programme in the Edmonton Catholic school district, 19749. In M. Lupul (Ed.), Osvita Ukrainian bilingual education (pp. 149159). Edmonton: University of Alberta. Fettes, M. (1998). Life on the edge: Canada's Aboriginal languages under official bilingualism. In T. Ricento & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language and politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and realities (pp. 117149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Feuerverger, G. (1991). University students' perceptions of heritage language learning and ethnic identity maintenance. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 47(4), 660677. Fraser, C., & Mougeon, F. (1990). Developing a test of advanced bilingualism: The Glendon experience. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 46(4), 723737. Grimes, B. (Ed.). (1996). Ethnologue: Languages of the world [On-line]. Available: http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/ Hauptman, P., LeBlanc, R., & Wesche, M. (Eds.). (1985). Second language performance testing. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Leblanc, A. (1986). Bilingual education: A challenge for Canadian universities in the '90's. Winnipeg: The University of Manitoba. LeBlanc, R. (1994). Language teaching at the university level: The emergence of a field of study. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(2), 250270. LeBlanc, R. (1995). La place de l'auto-evaluation dans le domaine de langues secondes [The place of self-assessment in the second language domain]. In R. Courchêne, S. Burger, C. Cornaire, R. LeBlanc, S. Paribakht, & H. Séguin (Eds.), Twenty-five years of second language teaching at the University of Ottawa (pp. 357377). Ottawa: University of Ottawa, Second Language Institute. LeBlanc, R., Compain, J., Duquette, L., & Séguin, H. (Eds.). (1989). L'enseignement des langues secondes aux adultes: Recherches et pratiques [Teaching second languages to adults: Research and practice]. Ottawa: Les Presses de l'Université d'Ottawa. LeBlanc, R., & Painchaud, G. (1985). Self-assessment as a second language placement instrument. TESOL Quarterly, 19(4), 673687. McAndrew, M. (1991). L'enseignement des langues d'origines à l'École publique en Ontario et au Québec: Politique et enjeu [Teaching heritage languages in Ontario and Quebec public schools: Policy and trends]. The Canadian Modern Languages Review, 47(4), 617634. Naiman, N., & Furgiuele, R. (Eds.). (1996). La convergence de deux visions [The converging of two visions]. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press. National Indian Brotherhood. (1972). Indian control of Indian education. Ottawa: National Indian Brotherhood. Peirce, B. N., & Stewart, G. (1997). The development of the Canadian language benchmarks assessment. TESL Canada Journal, 14(2), 1731. Pellerin, S. (Ed.). (1996). La didactique du français L2 dans les universités et collèges canadiens [The teaching of French as a second language in Canadian universities and colleges]. Proceedings of the National Symposium on the Teaching of French as a Second Language, University of New Brunswick, May, 1994. Actes du colloque national de didactique de français langue seconde, l'université du nouveau brunswick, mai, 1994. Montréal: Français canadien langue d'enseignement.
< previous page
page_207
next page >
< previous page
page_208
next page > Page 208
Ready, D., & Wesche, M. (1992). An evaluation of the University of Ottawa's sheltered program: Language teaching strategies that work. In R. Courchêne, J. Glidden, J. St. John, & C. Thérien (1992). Comprehension-based second language teaching (pp. 389405). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Statistics Canada. (1997). 1996 census: Mother tongue, home language and knowledge of languages. The Daily [On-line], December 2, 1997. Available: http://www.statcan.ca:80/Daily/English/971202/d971202.htm Tardif, C., & McMahon, F. (1989). Les francophones et les études postsécondaires [Francophones and postsecondary studies]. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 19(3), 1928. Tomlinson, T. (1989). An ethnographic study of students' oral performance in the mixed Francophone-Anglophone university classroom. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 19(3), 5372. Tomlinson, T., & Lapkin, S. (Eds.). (1989). Canadian perspectives on post-secondary bilingual education [Special Issue]: The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 19(3). Tréville, M.-C. (1985). Deux tests faits sur mésure. In P. Hauptman, R. LeBlanc, & M. Wesche (Eds.), Second language performance testing. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Tréville, M.-C., Bayliss, D., & Bourdages, J. (in press). Tests of French and English as a Second Language at the University of OttawaInventory of resources and needs. Ottawa: Centre for Research on Language Teaching and Learning, University of Ottawa. Wesche, M. (1985). What can the universities offer to the bilingual student? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 41(5), 956961. Wesche, M. (1987). Second language performance testing: The Ontario test of ESL as an example. Language Testing, 4(1), 2847. Wesche, M. (1992a). Les enjeux de l'évaluation: vers quoi s'oriente-on? [Trends in Testing: Which way are we headed?] The Canadian Modern Language Review, 48(2), 250275. Wesche, M. (1992b). Performance testing for work-related second language assessment. In E. Shohamy & R. Walton (Eds.), Testing and evaluation: Feedback strategies for improvement of foreign language learning (pp. 103122). Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center. Wesche, M. (1993a). Discipline-based approaches to language study: Research issues and outcomes. In M. Krueger, & F. Ryan (Eds.), Language and content: Discipline- and content-based approaches to language study (pp. 5779). Toronto: Heath. Wesche, M. (1993b). French immersion graduates at university and beyond: What difference has it made? In J. Alatis (Ed.), The Georgetown round table on languages and linguistics (pp.208240). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Wesche, M. (1996). Lessons learned from French immersion and their implications for French of the university level. In N. Naiman & R. Furgiuele (Eds.), La convergence de deux visions (pp. 141146). Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press. Wesche, M., & Ready, D. (1985). Foreigner talk in the university classroom. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 89114). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
< previous page
page_208
next page >
< previous page
page_209
next page > Page 209
10 A European Perspective: Tertiary Languages with a Focus on German as L3 Britta Hufeisen University of Darmstadt, Germany Learning Multiple Languages in Europe The learning of multiple "foreign" languages during the school years is typical in European countries (Bergentoft, 1994). Children begin to study their first foreign language somewhere between the ages of 7 and 12, the second between the ages of 12 and 16, the third between the ages of 13 and 16, and they may have an option to study a fourth language (Bergentoft, 1994). For example, in Germany, starting at age 10, every young person begins at least 5 years of English instruction at school. Then, depending on the type of school, students will have foreign language instruction in one or more additional languages. A fairly typical senior high school student in Germany might have started with English at the age of 10, then taken up Latin at the age of 13, begun to learn French at the age of 15, and may have taken Russian or Spanish at the age of 17. German students (like most European students) potentially have a great variety of languages to choose from. It is not surprising that English is usually the first foreign language to be studied by German students. It is the language that has come to dominate much of the mass media. Most of the music that is broadcast on radio is in English, as are the music videos on TV. The language of commercial advertising and computer operation is also mainly English. Thus, English can be regarded as a kind of unofficial second language, and some knowledge of English is now essential in Germany. This situation is not restricted to Germany but holds true for all of continental Europe. Even in Central and Eastern Europe, where Russian and German used to be prominent foreign languages, English is also beginning to become the primary foreign language. This situation emphasizes the position of English as a universal lingua franca. In Europe, the study of a second language is not as "big" an issue as it is in the United States, where the learning of one foreign language (by a native English speaker) is considered a major achievement. In Europe, nearly everybody speaks English in addition to their native tongue and is therefore bilingual. Much more interesting is what comes after the second language is learned, the learning of a third language (or L3) which many students begin at school or at university. Although all languages of the European Union's countries are considered equal and equally important, English and French are the two main languages of communication, and it is often argued by speakers of other languages that native speakers of English and
< previous page
page_209
next page >
< previous page
page_210
next page > Page 210
French have an advantage over other European citizens when it comes to employment and other opportunities. This is one of the many reasons why the European Union has started wide-ranging programs and projects aimed at enhancing language learning and instruction throughout the European Union. The goal is to provide every European citizen with opportunities to learn several European languages (including the minor ones like Danish or Dutch), to encourage speakers of major languages to learn at least one second language, and to enhance mobility among the European countries. There are exchange programs, such as SOCRATES,1 ERASMUS2 (at the university level), COMENIUS3 (at the school level), and LINGUA,4 which arrange for students to study and learn abroad for a term or for an academic year and which may also involve placement in an internship in business, for example, through LEONARDO.5 Other exchange programs are for faculty members and encourage them to work at another university. There are programs that concentrate on certain areas of Europe, like Central and Eastern Europe,6 and others that enhance open and distance learning.7 (Considerable information about these and other programs8 that promote the learning of languages within the European Community can be found on the World Wide Web at the addresses given in the footnotes. In addition, two of the case studies at the end of this chapter illustrate the kinds of educational opportunities available to university students through SOCRATES/ERASMUS.) It is important to emphasize that this chapter focuses on tertiary language (L3) learning. This is in marked contrast to many of the other chapters in this volume, which deal with second language (L2) learning. Over the last few years, the study of L3 learning has become increasingly popular, and it is in the process of becoming an independent re1 SOCRATES: > Among its many goals, SOCRATES promotes the development of the European dimension in education, the knowledge of European languages, mobility of students and teaching staff, and recognition of diplomas, periods of study, and other qualifications at both the school and university levels. 2 ERASMUS: This is the higher education branch of SOCRATES and involves both the university and nonuniversity sectors. The 15 Member States of the European Union as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway participate in ERASMUS, and the program is currently being expanded into Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus. 3 COMENIUS: This is the school education branch of SOCRATES. COMENIUS addresses all types of schools (preprimary, primary, secondary, general, technical, and vocational) and is designed to enhance the quality of school education and to promote and enrich the development of a stronger European dimension in the educational process. 4 LINGUA: This program promotes language learning, addressing all educational sectors and levels. It fosters improved knowledge of an increasing number of languages, which is fundamental for strengthening understanding and interaction between peoples while preserving their cultural and linguistic diversity. LINGUA addresses all the official working languages of the European Union (i.e., Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Swedish), together with Irish, Luxemburgish, and from outside the European Union, Icelandic and Norwegian. Special priority is given to the less widely used and less taught languages. 5 LEONARDO: This program promotes vocational training. 6 CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE. 7 OPEN AND DISTANCE LEARNING (ODL): This program promotes the integration of new information and communication technologies in traditional education and the use of these technologies to introduce distance learning systems to overcome educational barriers. 8 OTHER PROGRAMS:
< previous page
page_210
next page >
< previous page
page_211
next page > Page 211
search field. However, there are many questions related to L3 learning for which answers are still being sought. These include: What is specific about L3 learning? What makes L3 learning different from L2 learning? If learning L3 is fundamentally different from learning L2, then how does it differ from learning L4 or Lx (Lx = L3 + n)? Is L3 learning just based on a somewhat more complex interlanguage? What should we do, and how should we do it, in order to find answers to these questions? In order to address these issues, a terminological framework is first provided. Second, current research about L3 learning is presented and critically evaluated. Third, areas needing further investigation are described, and fourth, German as a tertiary language is discussed in detail. Finally, three case studies are presented that illustrate the types of tertiary language learning opportunities available to European university students. Terminology What Do We Mean by L3? What does L3 mean? L3 is a third language that someone learns or acquires. In this case, the term is used in a chronological sense. Consider my own (the author's) example. German is my L1 or native language, the language that was spoken at home to me by my parents. At the age of 10 (5th year at school), I began to study English. It came after German (L1) and thus, English is my L2. In my 7th school yearwhen I was 12 years oldI started French (my L3), and in my 9th year of school, at the age of 14, I took up Latin (= L4). Then, at the age of 27, I began to learn Swedish at the university. This is my L5. Later, during 3 1/2; years spent in Canada, I began to study Icelandicmy L6. Note that in this example I have sequenced the languages chronologically in the order in which I studied them. However, if I had to make a ranking according to my language abilities and competence, it would look like this: DL1 (German), EL2 (English), SL3 (Swedish), FL4 (French), and LL5 (Latin). A ranking of this type may not be particularly accurate, however, because it assumes that the subject can precisely define his or her language competence, which often is not true. Furthermore, proficiency in a language may change over time. For example, someone could speak their L3 better than the foreign language (L2) learned prior to it. Then it would useful to be able to indicate not just the sequence in which the languages are learned but also the relative degree of proficiency in each. This could be done by adding the letters a, b, c, and d to the L1/ L2/Ln designation to indicate a qualified (near native) speaker (a), an advanced learner (b), an intermediate learner (c), and a beginner (d). This way, it would be possible to indicate both the chronological sequence of language learning as well as the current level of proficiency. In my own case, using a subjective self-evaluation, I would sequence my current language competence as DL1, EL2a, FL3c, LL4d, and SL5b. This modified nomenclature indicates that I now speak Swedish (my L5) much better than French (my L3) although I learned Swedish much later in life. Nevertheless, the same objection that I raised previouslythe inability to accurately assess one's own language proficiencyremains a concern when the a, b, c, and d descriptors
< previous page
page_211
next page >
< previous page
page_212
next page > Page 212
are added. Thus, in spite of its inherent limitations, the chronological ranking of languagesaccording to the sequence in which they are learnedremains most reliable. Other factors further complicate the definition of L3. Consider the following: A child lives in an English-speaking environment with parents who speak German and grows up equally proficient in both English and German. The first foreign language studied in school would actually be the child's third language (L3). If a child is raised trilingually, then the first foreign language studied in school would really be his or her fourth language! Individuals often possess different proficiencies in terms of their various language skills. For example, depending on their needs and interests, a person could be a highly competent reader in one foreign language and possess oral fluency in another. The two languages might have been studied concurrently. How would these languages be ranked or sequenced? Articles dealing with contrastive linguistics often mention that the L2 under investigation is really the L3 (e.g., Faerch & Kasper, 1986). Such qualified statements are usually made for the sake of simplicity. The authors may not want to have to explain the role played by another language, or they are under the impression that there is no scientifically grounded difference between the learning of L2, L3, and Lx (e.g., Köhler, 1975), or it is assumed that ''a third language is a negligible factor" (Perdue, 1993, p. 48). This type of "simplification" is extremely regrettable because it puts many research results beyond our reach. In the future, it should be discarded in favor of a consistent chronological terminology for languages beyond L1 and L2. Language Learning versus Language Acquisition Linguists, depending on their research perspectives, may or may not make a distinction between the acquisition and the learning of a language (cf. Hulstijn & Schmidt, 1994; Krashen, 1976, 1981, 1982; Schmidt, 1994; and see Gass in chap. 2, this volume). For reasons that I explain later, this distinction is retained in this chapter. In the simplest possible terms, babies, toddlers, and young children unconsciouslywithout any formal instructionacquire their native language and begin to speak it. In contrast, the conscious act of studying a second, third, or foreign language is designated learning and more aptly describes how adults come to know or master additional languages. Learning is considered to be an independent form of language appropriation, and it is strongly influenced by external factors such as the learning site, and the temporal, the quantitative, and the qualitative amounts of input (e.g., a few hours of teaching with a textbook, explicit teaching of grammar rules, a constructed communicative situation rather than an immersion-like situation in the actual foreign country). The reason why the distinction between language acquisition and learning is being made here is that in terms of investigating L3s and the study of L3 as an independent field of research, L3 learning is better suited to scientific analysis than is L3 acquisition. This is because the individual variables and conditions that affect L3 learning can be more easily isolated and controlled than is possible for unguided language acquisition. L3 Versus L2Learner and Learning Differences When viewed from the perspective of learning theory, cognitional psychology, and constructivism, it is useful to make a clear distinction between learning an L2 and learning
< previous page
page_212
next page >
< previous page
page_213
next page > Page 213
an L3 or L3 + n. Learners who begin to study an L2 must be regarded as completely inexperienced as far as learning a foreign language is concerned. In contrast, when they start studying an L3, they can be regarded as more competent foreign language learners because they have access to their experiences in learning L2 (Hufeisen, 1998a; cf. Thomas, 1985, 1988). L3 learners are usually older, have more highly developed intellectual abilities, probably know how they learn best, and thus approach the new subject (L3) accordingly. They have developed strategies for learning foreign languages and for communicating in them. Furthermore, they may possess subjective theories about language learning (cf. Hufeisen, in press-b; Kallenbach, 1996), which, particularly at the beginning stages, make the L3 learning process easier. L3 learners approach a text more confidently than L2 learners. They make a focused search for known structures and words; they look for cognates; and they make guesses about the new and unknown. They know better than to try to understand every detail but rather concentrate on the essencethe main messageof the text. They are also familiar with what it feels like to want to say something without having the necessary language tools immediately available. However, because of their previous experience with learning a foreign language, they probably have learned to cope with this temporary "inadequacy" without panicking. L3 learners can thus better anticipate, or at least recognize, possible difficulties within the language-learning process (ambiguities or excessive demands) and tolerate them better. On the whole, their approach to L3 learning is more systematic and analytical than someone learning an L2. It can therefore be concluded that (in most cases), the decision to learn an additional (i.e., a third or fourth) foreign language is not as weighty as the move from the first to the second foreign language (cf. Hufeisen, 1998b). This is demonstrated in Figs. 10.1 through 10.4. As shown in Figs. 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4, L2 learning lays the foundation for a universal multilingualism which, in turn, has consequences for the learning and teaching of languages beyond L2. Therefore, for the purposes of the present discussion, it is important
Fig. 10.1 Acquisition of an L1. How well the L1 or native tongue is learned by an infant depends on the quality and quantity of the input from the learning environment.
Fig. 10.2 Learning an L2. The L2 learner introduces general life experience, learner experience, and general learning strategies into the L2 learning process. L1 interactspositively as well as negativelyto a personally variable extentwith the L2 learning process.
< previous page
page_213
next page >
< previous page
page_214
next page > Page 214
Fig. 10.3 Learning an L3. The factors that affect learning an L3 have not only become more complex, but they are also qualitatively different from L2 learning. First, familiarity with another foreign language exists, and second, specific experiences and strategies related to foreign language learning are now available in addition to general life and learner experience and general learning strategies. Thus, L3 learning is fundamentally different from L2 learning.
Fig. 10.4 Learning an L4. With L4 learning, the addition of one more input or variable to the L4 language-learning processin this case knowledge of L3is not nearly as significant as the expansion of additional areas between L2 and L3. to recognize that there is a considerable difference between learning an L2 and an L3, and much less of a distinction between learning an L3 and an L4. That is, once the student realizes that the language-learning skills developed to master L2 facilitate the learning of L3, then the learning of L4 and beyond does not seem nearly so arduous. The State of the Art: Research about L3 Learning Whereas bilingualism is a well-developed field of research, L3 learning until recently either has been ignored or has been subsumed into research on second language acquisition.
< previous page
page_214
next page >
< previous page
page_215
next page > Page 215
Fortunately, this situation is changing. Thus, in the material that follows, I present and critically evaluate some of the major topics under investigation as related to L3 learning. Language Interference and Error Analysis Everyday, practical problems related to schooling, such as interference between various foreign languages, first drew attention to the phenomenon that not only the mother tongue (L1) interacts with other languages (Lx). It was observed that different foreign languages (Lx and Ly) also interact with each other, often independent of L1. For example, in one of the first studies published about German as an L3, Stedje (1976, 1977) analyzed errors made by two groups of Finnish subjects. One was a control group that had only an L2 (German), whereas the other group had an L2 (Swedish) and an L3 (German). The subjects learning German as an L3 produced a number of errors that were due to the interference of their L2 (Swedish). Errors of this type were not produced by the subjects who did not speak Swedish. In a more recent study, learners in French classes in Germany were observed to produce errors that were obviously based on English, their first foreign language (= L2); these errors could not be explained by the influence of German, the students' L1 (Müller, 1993). The first publications about L3 arose as a warning to foreign language teachers that they should teach different foreign languages as strictly separate subjects. A larger number of articles on this subject appeared in the 1970s, at a time when strict separation of languages was considered to be important from the point of view of the psychology of learning (e.g., Ernst, 1975; Hombitzer, 1971; Lübke, 1977; de Vriendt, 1972). This interaction between the languages was seen as the sole source of interference, which led to the recommendation to avoid all contacts between the various languages under study. As for error analysis, it has become the standard methodological procedure for the investigation of language interference. Over the years, it has been progressively refined. For example, "deviations" (the expression used as a comprehensive term for "error") can be classified according to whether they are grammatical, lexical, or semantical. Nonetheless, such a one-dimensional classification scheme lacks the necessary differentiation, especially with regard to its didactical application. Hufeisen published an error analysis based on a two-dimensional classificatory framework (Hufeisen, 1991, 1993c), and it has proved to be much more meaningful and reliable than a one-dimensional grid. Furthermore, this two-dimensional error analysis grid (described in Fig. 10.5) can be usefully applied to didactics. Establishing categories for classifying deviations, one step in the process of error analysis, produces a finite number of fields to which deviations can be assigned. These fields take into account the location and extent of deviations relative to their nature. Location refers to the hierarchical language levels of grapheme (letter), morpheme (grammar unit), lexeme (word), syntagma (phrase), sentence/clause, paragraph, and text, and thus also refers to the extent (size or scope) of the erroneous expression. As shown in Fig. 10.5, these seven language levels form the vertical axis of a matrix for analyzing errors. The nature of the deviation refers to the relationship between the deviation and the various semiotic classes. For instance, is the violation syntactic (e.g., a problem with sentence structure such as "I *goes"), semantic (e.g., a problem with meaning or content such as "*tree" instead of "bush"), or pragmatic (e.g., a problem with function or intention such as ''*du" instead of "Sie")? The nature of the error thus appears on the horizontal axis of the error analysis matrix in Fig. 10.5. With this two-fold classification
< previous page
page_215
next page >
< previous page
page_216
next page > Page 216
Syntactics Semantics Pragmatics Grapheme Morpheme Lexeme Syntagma Sentence Paragraph Text Fig. 10.5 Two-dimensional error analysis matrix. This matrix considers not only the location and extent of the deviation (along the vertical axis) but also its nature (along the horizontal axis). scheme, it is possible to assign every deviation to a particular "box." The data are thus more easily differentiated and accessible to subsequent treatment than with standard one-dimensional classification schemes. With error analysis and the concept of interference between and among languages, the study of L3 as a specific research discipline was brought into existence. And today, error analysis (as a product-oriented method for assessing the languagelearning process) remains one of the standard methodological techniques for studying language interference; furthermore, it is unlikely that it will ever be completely replaced. However, as is discussed in the following section, error analysis has not remained the only method for studying language interference. Positive Transfer In the late 1980s and early 1990s, linguists discovered that the interactions between languages not only produce errors and lead to interference; they also present opportunities for both foreign language learning and teaching. It was realized that learners could transfer knowledge and skills that were previously acquired from and about L2 to the L3 learning process and to the perception, reception, and production of L3. In other words, knowledge of and about L2 could facilitate the learning of L3 by easing the burden at various levels (see Abel, 1971; Bieritz, 1974; Hufeisen, 1991; Müller, 1993; Schild, 1993; and, for a general discussion, Bausch, 1995). For example, Thomas (1988) compared bilingual college students who were learning an L3 with monolingual students who were studying this same language as their L2. She discovered that those who were already bilingual learned better, faster, and more effectively than the monolinguals and postulated that among other things, the difference was due to "metalinguistic awareness" (p. 239). The investigations carried out by Abel (1971), Bausch (1995), Bieritz (1974), Hufeisen (1991), Müller (1993), and Schild (1993) were for the most part at a systematic linguistic level (as well as performance and product oriented), and even today, they represent a major fraction of the empirical studies on L3 (cf. Ahukanna, Lund, & Gentile, 1981; Chamot, 1978; Hufeisen, 1991; Thomas, 1985).
< previous page
page_216
next page >
< previous page
page_217
next page > Page 217
A few relatively recent publications deal with competence- and process-oriented investigations (Ringbom, 1987) as related to the positive transfer between languages. And, even more recently, there has been a surge of research from a psycholinguistic perspective, which has expanded both the theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of L3 (Hammarberg, 1997; Hammarberg & Williams, 1993; Herdina & Jeßner, 1994; Jeßner, 1997; Williams & Hammarberg, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998). At the level of structure, lexeme-semantics, and pragmatics, this proven positive effect of prior knowledge of and about other languages is especially applicable to related languages (from the same language family; e.g., German and English are both Germanic in origin). However, general experience with and strategies about learning foreign languages can also be applied to the process of learning a nonrelated language (from different language families such as English, which is Germanic in origin, and Hungarian, which belongs to the Finno-ugrian language family). In other words, interference, errors, and the languages themselves are no longer of primary concern in terms of the problems they create in learning additional languages. Instead, the focus has shifted to the effects of positive transfer. Researchers are now also looking at the integration of learning experiences and ways of learning in general (e.g., Zapp, 1979, 1983) and, in particular, at foreign language learning experiences that extend beyond language competence per se. This approach to the learning of multiple languages takes us back to an old piece of folk "wisdom." That is, in the opinion of the Western "educated" classes, Latin has had a long-standing reputation for providing this positive effect not only for the learning of Romance languages. It was and is still believed that knowledge of Latin promotes logical insights, learning in general, and knowledge of language structures in particular. However, it has taken us until recently to demonstrate scientifically the positive transfer of this knowledge of Latin to the learning of modern foreign languages. L3 in the Context of Multilingualism L3 is occasionally mentioned in the literature in relationship to the general topic of multilingualism. Actually, there are many more publications about multilingualism in general than about L3 specifically (e.g., Herdina & Jeßner, 1994; Oksaar, 1983; Vildomec, 1963; Wandruszka, 1990). The same is true for trilingualism within one country, that is, literature on language interactions that arise from (usually) noncontrolled acquisition processes (e.g., Cenoz & Valencia, 1994; Jonkman, 1991; Murrell, 1966; Olesch, 1969; Singh & Carroll, 1979). For example, Oksaar observed her son as he was raised trilingually (Oksaar, 1977); Byram and Leman (1990) presented results from projects that were initiated within the Foyer Model of Bicultural and Bilingual Education, located in Brussels, Belgium (a country that is officially trilingual); and Leman (1989) reported on the relevant intercultural implications. New Research Directions The increasing interest in L3 has led to a variety of larger projects in various fields. Very recently, the Tertiary Languages Project was completed at the Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany. This investigation examined the process of learning foreign languages that are first taught at German high schools in Year 9 (4th secondary year), mainly Spanish and Italian (Bahr, Bausch, Kleppin, Königs, & Tönshoff, 1996). A subsequent project investigates the textbooks used to teach these L3s, with special focus on the question of
< previous page
page_217
next page >
< previous page
page_218
next page > Page 218
whether their didactics and methodology take into account the fact that the foreign language learners are not an unknown quantity. Preliminary results are available (personal communication, K.-R. Bausch, director of the project, 1997), and they show that these textbooks do not make use of the potential contained in language learning strategies that have been developed and of the already existing language knowledge of the learners. Drawing on this prior knowledge would dismantle an artificial barrier that often derives from considerations of timetables and curricula, but that is by no means present in the minds of the learners. Moreover, integration of previously learned languages could make the task and process of learning an additional foreign language easier. The earlier languages could be used for contrast or as backup languages (e.g., the teacher might point out that "That is exactly the same as you have already encountered in English."), as metalanguages (cf. Chandrasekhar, 1978, who called it a "base" language instead of metalanguage; cf. also the theoretical and practical aspects of backup languages discussed in Hufeisen, 1993a, 1993b, 1994), or as a bridge of intercultural knowledge. As stated by Strevens (1987), "No doubt the culture shock of learning one's fourth foreign language is damped down by the experience of three previous encounters with different cultures" (p. 173). In this quote, the assumption is made that learning a new language is facilitated by knowledge of and experience with prior languages already studied; however, it is not based on secure, systematically gathered data. Along related lines, Phillips and Stencel (1983) also presented some ideas at the curricular level about teaching and learning a second foreign language at schools, colleges, and universities in Great Britain. Conferences about Trilingualism In addition to extensive research projects, an increasing number of meetings and conferences are devoted to the field of L3. Two "Trilingual Conferences" have been held at the University of Haifa, Israel. In 1992, the conference focused on this new research field and its intrinsic theoretical and methodological scope (cf. Trilingualism, 1993), and in 1994, the emphasis was on "The Cross-Cultural Classroom: Practical Aspects of Multilingualism" (cf. Trilingualism, 1995). At the 1997 yearly meetings of the German branch of the AILA (Association Internationale des Linguistique Appliquée), and the GAL (Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik, Association for Applied Linguistics ), the study group "L3-specifics" met for the fifth time to discuss, among other topics, scientific theory and methods, empirical studies, and didactical consequences of L3 learning. This study group, which is open to all, provides a forum for regular discussions at which new research results are presented in the form of case studies or round table discussions, as well as access to the most recent literature. Result-oriented symposia were held in Tromsø, Norway, in September 1995 and in Sofia, Bulgaria, 12 months later. A central topic at both meetings was the formulation of the latest research questions (cf. Hufeisen & Lindemann, 1998). The 1998 L3 symposium in Göteborg, Sweden (Dentler, Hufeisen & Lindemann, in press) was also result oriented. Finally, trilingualism and tertiary languages are receiving greater attention at general conferences on bilingualism, for instance, at the 2nd International Symposium on Bilingualism in Newcastle, UK, . From September 16 through 19, 1999, the first international conference on trilingualism and tertiary languages was held in Innsbruck, Austria, .
< previous page
page_218
next page >
< previous page
page_219
next page > Page 219
It is a fact that research on tertiary languages is conducted mainly in Europe, North Africa, and in some Asian countries; much less is being carried out in North America and Australia (for a summary see Fouser, in press). This discrepancy may exist because in the United States, Australia, and Canada, the majority of the population is monolingual or bilingual, and "problems" related to tertiary languages do not occur particularly frequently. Furthermore, the psycholinguistic approach to language acquisition is dominant in North America and Australia. This approach regards multilingualism as a general concept within whose framework the singular features of "learning" and "acquisition," for example, are only considered marginally and that makes no distinction between bi-and trilingualism. L3 Research Questions Still to Be Answered The GAL-Report from 1993 (Hufeisen, 1993c) contained a number of desiderata for research in L3. The following discussion considers the list and the gaps in it that still remain to be filled. In 1993, it was requested that: 1. Investigative methods specific to L3 should be developed (comparisons of L1-L3, L1-L2, and L2-L3; comparisons of bi- and trilinguals) and that uniform terminology and reproducible research designs should be established. 2. L2-L3 research must be extended through more investigations (various languages, commonly occurring language sequences, L3 learning, L3 assimilation processes, skills [reading strategies], reception and production, code switching, variation, fossilization with respect to L2 and L3, universals). 3. More attention must be given to individual phenomena (lexicon, syntax, age). 4. These topics and problems, and especially their sociolinguistic and pragmatic implications, should be better integrated into the training of foreign language teachers. 5. The presence of two foreign languages should play a more important role in curriculum design (e.g., English and French teachers simultaneously in one class?). 6. Didactics specifically for L3 must be developed (contexts and contents should be more internationally oriented as starting points, amount of L2). 7. Appropriate L3 textbooks must be developed (specialized book for certain regions, more reference to target groups, inclusion of previously learned foreign languages, internationalisms, learning strategies that integrate L2 and general learner experience). 8. A specific L3 methodology must be developed (influence of the quality of L2 methodology on the motivation for L3 learning, identical methodologies for L2 and L3, active integration of L2 and learner strategies by both teachers and students, more conscious awareness and cognizance/recognition of language interweave on the part of learners; cf. Hufeisen, 1993c). Some of the information previously presented in this chapter touches on the eight research needs just listed. For example, the textbook project in Bochum (the study that found that the textbooks used for teaching tertiary languages in high schools do not utilize the preexisting language knowledge and skills of students) can be viewed as a step in the right direction. It relates not only to Item 7 in the preceding list (L3 textbooks) but
< previous page
page_219
next page >
< previous page
page_220
next page > Page 220
also to Item 8 (L3 methodology), Item 6 (L3 didactics), Item 5 (curriculum), and Item 4 (foreign language teacher training). The modern trend away from universal textbooks, and toward adaptations designed for countries and geographical and cultural regions, offers new and better opportunities to integrate language sequences typical of a country into these texts. Universal textbooks cannot fulfill this requirement. Items 4 (sociolinguistic and pragmatic implications for language teaching), 6 (L3 didatics), and 8 (L3 methodology) in the aforementioned list are significant far beyond their immediate importance for research into language teaching and learning. They touch on factors such as educational policy and educational methods. Unfortunately, education has, in general, encountered such enormous financial problems in recent years that it seems likely that the demands formulated therein will continue to exist for many years to come. It is clear, and understandable, that the greatest growth with respect to L3 has occurred in the area of empirical investigations. Such studies relate to Items 1, 2, and 3 of the preceding list. This, however, does not mean that the needs in this field have been satisfied. More work must be done, in particular, with different but common language constellations/combinations (Item 1). There is also a need to complement the mass of existing cross-sectional investigations with more longitudinal studies because the latter provide insight into individual learning progress (Item 3). L3 research is such a complex field that only a multitude of studies on apparently isolated factors ultimately will provide an overall picture. Nevertheless, the methodological situation is unsatisfactory, in my opinion, even though the error analyses were heuristically useful in creating an independent field of research. As described earlier, there have been attempts to provide a differentiated error analysis (cf. Hufeisen, 1993b), but future studies will undoubtedly have to move beyond an analysis of errors, or will have to expand the concept of deviations and errors. Studies that are primarily descriptive (cf. Bauer, 1989) will have to widen their scope to include questions relevant to scientific theory and methodology. Among others, Bausch and Heid (1990) provided some further approaches in their study, which focused on German as a second foreign language. With the exception of the projects enumerated previously, the author knows of no other relevant studies in the area of L3 research. In addition, more attention must be directed toward conscious multilingualism (cf. Hufeisen, 1994) and toward "metalinguistic awareness" (Thomas, 1988, p. 239). The field of investigation also needs to include oral discourse as well as written texts. Experimental subjects should play a greater role in the data evaluation. Nonetheless, thinking aloud and parallel introspection are probably unsuitable research techniques. First, they distract the subject from the real goallanguage productionand thus falsify the data. Second, they require the ability to simultaneously comment on the subject's own speaking and thinking, a skill that probably only specially trained people possess. Learners who do not normally talk to themselves about their thought processes cannot be expected to do this just because the experimental design requires it. Text production should be as far removed as possible from the goal(s) of the investigation. Subjects could be asked to reflect on their productions either immediately after completing the task, or after a delay. Goal-oriented questions ("Do you think that your L2 might have played a role here?") can elicit useful clues under these circumstances. In this way, more information about the attitude to language as well as statistically useful data (cf. Feigenbaum, 1998) about language frequency and sequence could be collected.
< previous page
page_220
next page >
< previous page
page_221
next page > Page 221
German as a Tertiary Language Research on German as a Tertiary Language German is a typical L3 in Europe because it is seldom learned as an L2 but frequently as an L3 or Lx (x > 3). In other words, students begin studying German after having already learned another foreign languagevery often English. In countries such as Hungary, in which German was usually taught as the first foreign language, English is now, in the 1990s, replacing German as the primary L2. Thus, German has become an L3. Even in countries where English is the L1, German usually ranks as an L3assuming that L3s are included in the curricula. For example, in the English-speaking regions of Canada (Hufeisen, 1995) or in Great Britain, German is often studied after French. And, in North Africa, German as an L3 is a common choice after French as the L2. In view of the differences mentioned earlier in this chapter between learning an L2 and learning an L3, it is possible to establish a field of research dealing with German as an L3 (as a specialized subform of German as a foreign language in general), which is distinct from German as an L2. Nevertheless, L3 research has only recently, and hesitantly, expanded to include German as the target language (e.g., Bauer, 1989; Stedje, 1976; Welge, 1987; also see Bausch & Heid, 1990, especially pp. 1118: "Zu den Besonderheiten des Lehrens und Lernens von Deutsch als zweiter Fremdsprache," Thesen und Empfehlungen eines Expertenkolloquiums des Goethe-Instituts ["Distinctive Features Related to the Teaching and Learning of German as a Second Foreign Language." Propositions and Recommendations From a Professional Colloquium of the Goethe Institute.]). With numerous language constellations possible prior to German as an L3, extensive investigations will be required before the field can be adequately described. The most common language sequence is X as L1, English as L2, and German as L3. To date, very few investigations have considered X as L1, French as L2, and German as L3. Research Methods for Studying German as an L3 Studies on German as an L3 are, like most of the investigations on L3, primarily error analyses (see, e.g., Hufeisen, 1993b; Vogel, 1992). There are two underlying causes for this. First, as described earlier in this chapter, during the historical development of this field, errors derived from previously learned foreign languages received increased attention in schools and universities. Second, it was necessary to start somewhere, in order to delimit the field. Error analysis is the fastest and simplest research method available. Data are usually collected from one or two groups of learners and subjected to a cross-sectional analysis. Several variants are then available: 1. Data from a group that has specified L1, L2, and L3 target languages are compared with those from a group that has the same L1, but the target language of the first group (its L3) is the first foreign language (the L2) of the second group. Particular attention is paid to the deviations from the norm made by the first group that are due to L2 interference. 2. Studies can also be performed on a larger group whose members have different L1s but who have the same L2 and L3.
< previous page
page_221
next page >
< previous page
page_222
next page > Page 222
As mentioned previously, these methodological approaches are unsatisfactory in the long run because they are based exclusively on production data. Although many more studies on error analysis with respect to various language combinations are necessary, in order to sharpen the profile of the L3 research field, other approaches must be taken. There needs to be increased emphasis placed on both process data and on learner-oriented data. I would like to suggest as well some other methods: Cloze tests (texts with gaps to be filled in at every x-th word). Learner questionnaires (interviews and retrospection). Introspection (e.g., learner diaries). Data collection with the help of, for example, acceptability judgments. All of these methods cannot avoid deducing the learning processes from the data, but a multiperspective point of view, that is, a combination of various types of surveytriangulationwill produce more valid explanations than error analysis alone. In addition, most of the results available today for the field of German as an L3 are based on cross-sectional studies with quantitative aspects. It would be informative to have more longitudinal investigations with qualitative evaluation goals. L3 Language Teaching: Didactics and Methods L3 research findings need to be related to pedagogical practices and expressed in terms of independent didactical and methodological concepts (see, e.g., Hufeisen, 1994; Krumm, 1995; Neuner, 1996). For example, Preconditions such as prior language competencies of teachers and students will have to be clarified. Independent curricula that take into account the respective language sequences will need to be developed. It might become necessary to create a completely new kind of foreign language textbook that meshes various foreign languages more tightly with one another. Trials will have to be run to see whether the cooperation between foreign language teachers of one learner group can be increased by, for example, phases of joint teaching, The previously learned foreign language might be able to be employed as a meta-language (or explanatory language), for instance, in beginners' classes (see Hufeisen, 1993a). Many of the issues I have just raised apply to the following example: At a senior high school in Luxemburg (where the native language of the students is Luxenburgish), students (about 14 years old) are taught English using German as a language of instruction, and Italian is taught (students are about 16 years old) using French as the language of instruction (Caroline Rieger, personal communication, June 1998). This represents the most consistent multilingual orientation for foreign language training that I know of to date, and it has important implications in terms of the training and further education of foreign language teachers. This multilingual approach to the teaching of languages means that foreign language teachers have to at least know how and what their colleagues are teaching at any given time. Moreover, they should possess passive and receptive abilities and skills in the other languages being taught.
< previous page
page_222
next page >
< previous page
page_223
next page > Page 223
The age of learners is also important when developing didactic and methodological plans for teaching L3. Most learners who take up an L3 are nearly adult in age. They learn very differently than children or younger teenagers. The L3 is learned more consciously, more cognitively, and more constructivistically. This, of course, has consequences, for instance, for the grammar progression in a textbook because the learners can assume more responsibility for the processing of the contents. Learners can participate more actively in the learning process through self-discovery. They can better control the continuous organization and reorganization of knowledge. They possess coping strategies for more complex language units. Texts, for example, can be viewed in terms of their specific structure (the way in which the information is organized and presented), function (the purpose served by the text), and by their systematic affiliations to particular text types (novel, recipe, obituary, etc.). Adults bring to the L3 learning process a wealth of skills and information that children do not yet possess. In considering the learning of an L3, it is also necessary to think about translation. To what extent does it play the role of an intercultural mediator between foreign languages in relation to conscious awareness, comparing and contrasting, and cognition? In the case of cooperation among foreign languages instructors, it would be possible to examine how a particular text type is presented in different languages. For example, in CVs (curriculum vitaes) written in English in North America, publications are listed beginning with the most recent, whereas in Germany publications are listed chronologically in a CV. Comparisons such as these could result in a much faster rate of learning because individuals who already know two languages are generally characterized by a more systematic approach (without striving for linguistic perfection), more conscious awareness and analysis, and increased self-directed learning. Textbooks for older L3 learners will have to be different from those for younger learners. Clearly, less emphasis would be placed on typical youth-oriented topics (such as information about peer groups in the country of the target language) and more on interesting facts and information about the respective countries. It is also likely that L3 is no longer a part of the obligatory canon in educational institutions, but rather is taken up because of personal motivation. Whatever their reasons (careers, travel plans, etc.), these L3 learners are definitely more motivated than when they started learning their L2. Conclusions It seems probable that we can expect a marked increase in the number of empirical studies about L3 during the next few years. They not only will crystallize the specific features of the field but also will help to delineate the borders between L3 and research on second languages, foreign languages, and language acquisition, in general. Difficulties may arise when the field is examined because of the variety of language constellations and of methodological approaches. Even though a comparison of results from different studies might therefore be more difficult, this is not reason enough to avoid performing the studies. In the last few years, research on L3 in general (and on the subarea of German as a tertiary language in particular) has firmly established L3 learning as a legitimate subject of study. This position will be consolidated by the results of additional investigations that may one day provide answers to the many remaining questions, previously cited in this chapter. What is most important is to recognize that the learning of L3, L4, or Lx is
< previous page
page_223
next page >
< previous page
page_224
next page > Page 224
different from the learning of L2, and because of these differences, requires unique methodological and didactic considerations. Case Studies The three case studies that are presented herein are "true stories"; however, for the sake of confidentiality the names of the students have been changed. In two of the case studies, European students through the SOCRATES/ERASMUS programs enroll at a "foreign" university, and in the third, a recently established university-level bilingual (German and English) program in mathematics with computer sciencefor both German and non-German studentsis described. As these case studies demonstrate, European students study abroad to develop additional language skills; however, equally important is the content-based learning as well as the fact that all credit earned is acknowledged and transferrable. I believe that it is important to point out that the kinds of programs presented in these case studies differ considerably from those in which North American study abroad students often participate. In reference to the latter, students may be in a "foreign country," yet take part in a program that has been designed exclusively for them. Although they are studying the target language, other courses that they take are frequently taught in English. Furthermore, surrounded by a group of their peers from home, they may rarely have contact with the people of the target language country and who are native speakers of the target language. In contrast, when European university students study abroad, they may be offered courses in their respective academic programs that are taught in English (which often is their L2). In these courses, they will be together with students from many different countries who speak many different native languages. In addition, it is recommended that the European students take regular courses taught in the target language of the country (often their L3 or L4) after their first term. Such courses enroll both foreign and native students. Through SOCRATES/ERASMUS, the European universities have agreed to acknowledge each other's courses and credits. Case Study #1 Heike is a student of math and computer sciences (similar to a double major in the United States) at the University of Darmstadt in Germany. She has already learned English (her L2) and French (her L3) at school and now wants to get to know another language and country. She applied to spend her 3rd year of study at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, which is a partner university of Darmstadt University. Before leaving for Sweden, Heike took a course in Swedish at the University of Darmstadt. Then, when she arrived in Stockholm, a few weeks before the term started, the Royal Institute offered an introductory intensive course in Swedish. When the term began, Heike enrolled in four math and computer science courses that were taught in English, one math course taught in Swedish, and an additional Swedish language course for advanced learners. In her second term, she chose to take all but one of her courses in Swedish, which means that she took part in the regular course offerings for the native Swedish-speaking students. Because of the SOCRATES program, all the courses taken and credits earned by Heike have been acknowledged and will be accepted by Darmstadt
< previous page
page_224
next page >
< previous page
page_225
next page > Page 225
University. Therefore, when she returns home, she can resume her studies without any delay. Heike appreciated that she had the opportunity to mingle with Swedish students and that her academic as well as social activities were not restricted to contact with other foreign students. She was enthusiastic about her experience and has subsequently recommended to many other students that they choose Sweden as their year abroad country. In fact, Heike has decided to return to the Royal Insitute of Technology in order to do her postgraduate studies, and she already has applied and been accepted. Heike is also very pleased that she has added Swedish to her ''repertoire" of languages and as a result of her experiences in Stockholm is now quite proficient in reading, writing, speaking, and understanding her L4. Case Study #2 In Germany, some universities are beginning to offer bilingual content-based programs under the sponsorship of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD9) in Bonn, Germany. Such a program was initiated in the 19981999 academic year at the Technical University of Darmstadt; located in the Department of Mathematics and Computer Sciences, it leads to a bachelor of science degree. Both German students as well as students from outside of Germany can enroll in this program. Thus, Roberto from Portugual and Dennis from Germany are in the entering class. The courses taught during the first four semesters are conducted in English. English, as described earlier in this chapter, is the L2 of most European students. It is also the common vehicle for communication in technology and science. German students like Dennis as well as foreign students with a primary background in German are offered orientation classes in English for the 3 weeks prior to the starting date of the program. These classes are intended to make it easier for German-speaking students to enter a program of studies taught in English. In the meantime, intensive courses in German are offered to those students, like Roberto, who do not yet speak German. These German language courses begin before the starting date of the program proper and continue through the first few semesters. The German language courses are designed for foreign students and not only help the students to master the German language but also facilitate their adjustment to life in Germany. During the final 2 years of the program, classes are held in English and German, and students are free to choose to take their examinations in either language. The objective of this dual language program is to educate graduates who are technically competent in mathematics and computer science and who are fluent in English and German. Thus, as a result of their participation in this dual language program, both Roberto and Dennis will be well prepared professionally and linguistically for the global job market. Case Study #3 Juri is a Finnish student from Jyväskylä University with a major in business administration. Planning to spend a year studying at Hamburg University in Germany, Juri had 9 DAAD:
< previous page
page_225
next page >
< previous page
page_226
next page > Page 226
studied 2 years of German as a language option in Jyväskylä. However, Juri still did not yet feel that he was ready to take all of his courses at Hamburg University in German. He therefore took part in a 4-week intensive German course offered by Hamburg Universityexclusively for ERASMUS students from all over Europewhich met for 5 to 6 hours of instruction daily. Juri also took part in the regular informal gatherings at the local students' bar in order to get to know other German and ERASMUS students. In the beginning, Juri could only communicate in English (his L2), but after a very short while, he and the other foreign students started speaking German with each other and with native German speakers. Soon, German was the only language of informal communication amongst the students. The business administration courses in which Juri enrolled at Hamburg University were mainly conducted in English. However, he did take a number of accompanying courses that were offered by the University's language center that would fit in with his program of study. In his first term, he enrolled in a course in business German, which helped him to understand business concepts and vocabulary and which subsequently enabled him to read the business sections of German newspapers, magazines, and some books in the University's library. In his second term, Juri took courses in advanced German grammar and attended a writing laboratory for foreign students. There, he learned how to write and prepare presentations that he was required to give in some of his courses. Not only did Juri's proficiency in German increase from his stay abroad; he also learned that German students have many of the same interests as Finnish students. Nonetheless, in spite of the gains that he made, Juri admits that he still is not fluent in German. He is therefore determined to take more courses in German and is now considering choosing German as an accompanying minor to his business administration major. Acknowledgments Although this is an original manuscript, I have drawn information from earlier publications in German that I have revised and updated for this chapter (cf. Hufeisen, 1998b, in press-a, in press-c). References Abel, F. (1971). Die Vermittlung passiver Spanishund Italienischkenntnisse im Rahmen des Französischunterrichts [The mediation of passive Spanish and Italian knowledge in the French language classroom]. Die Neueren Sprachen, 70(20), 355359. Ahukanna, L., Lund, N., & Gentile, J. (1981). Inter- and intralingual interference effects in learning a third language. Modern Language Journal, 65, 281287. Bahr, A., Bausch, K.-R., Kleppin, K., Königs, F. G., & Tönshoff, W. (1996). Forschungsgegenstand Tertiärsprachenunterricht. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven eines empirischen Projekts [Third language teaching: State of the art. Results and perspectives of an empirical investigation]. (Manuskripte zur Sprachlehrforschung 37). Bochum, Germany: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer. Bauer, H. (Ed.). (1989). Deutsch als zweite Fremdsprache in der gegenwärtigen japanischen Gesellschaft [German as a second foreign language in present-day Japanese society]. München, Germany: Iudicium. Bausch, K.-R. (1995). Erwerb weiterer Fremdsprachen im Sekundarschulalter [Foreign language learning in secondary school]. In K.-R. Bausch, H. Christ & H.-J. Krumm (Eds.), Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht (2nd ed.). (pp. 446-451). Tübingen, Germany: Francke (UTB Große Reihe).
< previous page
page_226
next page >
< previous page
page_227
next page > Page 227
Bausch, K.-R., & Heid, M. (Eds.). (1990). Das Lehren und Lernen von Deutsch als zweiter oder weiterer Fremdsprache: Spezifika, Probleme, Perspektiven [Manuskripte zur Sprachlehrforschung 32]. Bochum, Germany: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer. Bergentoft, R. (1994). Foreign language instruction: A comparative perspective. In R. D. Lambert (Ed.), Language planning around the world: Contexts and systemic change (pp. 1746). Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center. Bieritz, W. D. (1974). Semantischer Transfer auf verwandte Fremdsprachen. Die Bedeutungserschließung der Inhaltswörter des spanischen Grundwortschatzes durch Schüler und Studenten mit lateinischen und französischen Vorkenntnissen [Semantic transfer between related foreign languages. The acquisition of basic Spanish content words by pupils and students with knowledge of Latin and French]. (Manuskripte zur Sprachlehrforschung 6). Bochum, Germany: Ruhr-Universität. Byram, M., & Leman, J. (Eds.) (1990). Bicultural and trilingual education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters 54. Cenoz, J., & Valencia, J. E. (1994). Additive trilingualism: Evidence from Basque Country. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 197209. Chamot, A. U. (1978). Grammatical problems in learning English as a third language. In E. Hatch Marcussen (Ed.), Second language acquisition. A book of readings (pp. 175189). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Chandrasekhar, A. (1978). Base language. International Review of Applied Linguistics 16(1), 6265. de Vriendt, S. (1972). Interferenzen der ersten Fremdsprache beim Erlernen einer zweiten [First foreign language interference during the learning of a second]. In G. Nickel (Ed.), Papers from the International Symposium in Applied Contrastive Linguistics, Oct. 1113, 1971 (pp. 4350). Stuttgart & Bielefeld, Germany: Cornelsen-Velhagen-Klasing. Dentler, S., Hufeisen, B., & Lindemann, B. (Eds.). (in press). Tertiärsprachen: Projekte und empirische Untersuchungen [Tertiary languages: Projects and empirical investigations]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Ernst, G. (1975). Zur Fehleranalyse in einer Spätfremdsprache [Error analysis in late acquired foreign languages]. In W. Hüller, A. Rask, & F. J. Zapp (Eds.), Lernzielbestimmung und Leistungsmessung im modernen Fremdsprachenunterricht (pp. 84104). Frankfurt, Germany: Diesterweg. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1986). One learnertwo languages: Investigating types of interlanguage knowledge. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage and intercultural communication (pp. 211227). Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr. Feigenbaum, S. (1998). Bemerkungen zum Rang von DaF in Israel [Remarks on the status of German as a foreign language program in Israel]. In B. Hufeisen & B. Lindemann (Eds.), Tertiärsprachen: Theorien, Modelle, Methoden (pp. 7783). Tübingen, Germany: Stauffenburg. Fouser, R. (in press). Third language learning: Introductory readings. Tübingen, Germany: Stauffenburg. Hammarberg, B. (1997). Manual of the Andraspråkets strukturutvekling corpus, a longitudinal text corpus of adult learner Swedish. Stockholm: Stockholm University, Department of Linguistics. Hammarberg, B., & Williams, S. (1993). A study of third language acquisition. In B. Hammarberg (Ed.), Problem, process, product in language learning (pp. 6069). Papers from the Stockholm-Äbo conference, October 2122, 1992). Stockholm: Stockholm University, Department of Linguistics. Herdina, P., & Jeßner, U. (1994). A system's model of multilingualism. Network English Language Learning in Europe Newsletter, 5, 15. Hombitzer, E. (1971). Das Nebeneinander von English und Französisch als Problem des Fremdsprachenunterrichts [Learning English and French simultaneously: A problem for foreign language teaching]. In H. Christ (Ed.), Probleme der Korrektur und Bewertung schriftlicher Arbeiten im Fremdsprachenunterricht (pp. 2134). Bielefeld, Germany: Cornelsen-Velhagen & Klasing. Hufeisen, B. (1991). Englisch als erste und Deutsch als zweite Fremdsprache. Empirische Untersuchung zur fremdsprachlichen Interaktion [English as a first and German as a second foreign language. An empirical investigation into cross-linguistic influence]. Frankfurt, Germany: Lang (Europäische Hochschulschriften Reihe 21, Linguistik Bd. 91). Hufeisen, B. (1993a). DaF-Unterricht bei Lernenden mit Englisch als erster Fremdsprache [The teaching of German as a foreign language to learners with English as a first foreign language]. Neusprachliche Mitteilungen, 46(3), 167174. Hufeisen, B. (1993b). Fehleranalyse: Englisch als L2 und Deutsch als L3 [Error analysis: English as L2 and German as L3]. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 331(3), 242256. Hufeisen, B. (1993c). L3-Spezifika [Special features of L3]. GAL-Bulletin, 19, 1420. Hufeisen, B. (1994). Englisch im Unterricht Deutsch als Fremdsprache [English or German as a foreign language instruction]. München, Germany: Klett Edition Deutsch (Kleine Reihe DaF).
< previous page
page_227
next page >
< previous page
page_228
next page > Page 228
Hufeisen, B. (1995). Multilingual language acquisition in Canada and Germany. (Keynote: Proceedings of the Second Trilingual Conference, June 1314, 1994, The University of Haifa, Israel, & The British Council). Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 8(2), 175181. Hufeisen, B. (1998a). Individuelle und subjektive Lernerbeurteilungen von Mehrsprachigkeit. Kurzbericht einer Studie [Individual and subjective learner judgements of multilingualism. A synopsis of a study]. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 2, 121135. Hufeisen, B. (1998b). L3Stand der ForschungWas bleibt zu tun? [State of the art: What still needs to be done?]. In B. Hufeisen & B. Lindemann (Eds.), Tertiärsprachen. Theorien, Modelle, Methoden (pp. 161175). Tübingen, Germany: Stauffenburg. Hufeisen, B. (in press-a). Deutsch als Tertiärsprache [German as a tertiary language]. In L. Götze, G. Helbig, G. Henrici, & H.J. Krumm (Eds.), Handbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache (Vol. 1). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Hufeisen, B. (in press-b). How do foreign language learners evaluate various aspects of their multilingualism? In S. Dentler, B. Hufeisen & B. Lindemann (Eds.), Tertiärsprachen: Projekte und empirische Untersuchungen. Tübingen, Germany: Stauffenburg. Hufeisen, B. (in press-c). What is so special about learning a third language? In R. Fouser (Ed.), Third language learning. Introductory readings. Tübingen, Germany: Stauffenburg. Hufeisen, B., & Lindemann, B. (Eds.). (1998). Tertiärsprachen: Theorien, Modelle, Methoden [Tertiary languages: Themes, models, and methods]. Tübingen, Germany: Stauffenburg. Hulstijn, J. H. & Schmidt, R. (1994). Introduction. AILA Review, 11, 510. Jeßner, U. (1997). Towards a dynamic view of multilingualism. In M. Pütz (Ed.), Language contact: Conditions, constraints and consequences (pp. 1730). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Jonkman, R. J. (1991). Triangulation and trilingualism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 12, 7383. Kallenbach, C. (1996). Subjektive TheorienWas Schüler und Schülerinnen über Fremdsprachenlernen denken [Subjective theories: What schoolchildren think about learning foreign languages]. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr. Köhler, F. H. (1975). Zwischensprachliche Interferenzen. Eine Analyse syntaktischer und semantischer Interferenzfehler des Deutschen im Russischen [Interlanguage Interference: An analysis of syntactic and semantic interference errors of Germans learning Russian]. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 51). Krashen, S. D. (1976). Formal and informal linguistic environments in language acquisition and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 157168. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, England: Pergamon Institute of English. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Pergamon. Krumm, H.-J. (1995). Das Erlernen einer zweiten und dritten Fremdsprache im Rahmen von Mehrsprachigkeitskonzepten [Learning a second and third foreign languageA multilingual conceptual framework]. In R. Wodak & R. de Cillia (Eds.), Sprachenpolitik in Mittel und Osteuropa (pp. 195208). Wien, Germany: Passagen. Leman, J. (1989). Vivre l'interculturel. Les projets d'enseignement biculturel du Foyer B Bruxelles [Living multiculturally. The bicultural teaching projects of Foyer B. Brussels]. Brussels: De Broeck. Lübke, D. (1977). Dokumentation der Fehlergenese in französischen Klassenarbeiten [Documentation of error origins in French language classroom tests]. Die Neueren Sprachen, 76(1), 93102. Müller, A. (1993). Sprachenfolge EnglischFranzösisch: Chancen und Risiken des Transfers [French after English: The chance and result of transfer]. Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts, 2, 117122. Murrell, M. (1966). Language acquisition in a trilingual environment: Notes from a case-study. Studia Linguistica, 20, 935. Neuner, G. (1996). Deutsch als zweite Fremdsprache nach Englisch. Überlegungen zur Didaktik und Methodik und zur Lehrmaterialentwicklung für die "Drittsprache Deutsch" [German as a second foreign language after English: Reflections on pedagogy, methodology, and curriculum development for German as a tertiary language]. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 4, 211217. Oksaar, E. (1977). On becoming trilingual. In C. Molony, H. Zobl, & W. Stölting (Eds.), Deutsch im Kontakt mit anderen Sprachen (pp. 96307). Kronberg, Germany: Scriptor. Oksaar, E. (1983). Multilingualism and multiculturalism from the linguist's point of view. In T. Husén & S. Opper (Eds.), Multicultural and multilingual education in immigrant countries. New York. Olesch, R. (1969). The West Slavic languages in Texas, with special reference to Sorbian in Serbin. In G. G. Glenn (Ed.), Texas studies in bilingualism (pp. 151162). Berlin: de Gruyter.
< previous page
page_228
next page >
< previous page
page_229
next page > Page 229
Perdue, C. (1993). Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives: Vol I. Field methods. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Phillips, D., & Stencel, V. (1983). The second foreign language: Fast development, current trends and future prospects. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of first language in foreign language learning. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Schild, W. (1993). Englisch als zweite Fremdsprache [English as a second foreign language]. Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts, 4, 349353. Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA-Review, 11, 1126. Singh, R., & Carroll, S. (1979). L1, L2 and L3. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 5163. Stedje, A. (1976). Interferenz von Muttersprache und Zweitsprache auf eine dritte Sprache beim freien Sprechenein Vergleich. Zielsprache Deutsch, 1, 1521. Stedje, A. (1977). Tredjespråksinterferens i fritt talen jämförelse studie [Mother tongue and language interference in a third language during spontaneous speecha comparison]. In R. Palmbergg & H. Ringbom (Eds.), Papers from the Conference on Contrastive Linguistics and Error Analysis. Stockholm & Äbo: Äbo Akademi. Strevens, P. (1987). Cultural barriers to language learning. In L. E. Smith (Ed.), Discourse across cultures: Strategies in world Englishes (pp. 169178). New York: Prentice-Hall. Thomas, J. (1985). The role played by prior linguistic experience in second and third language learning. In R. Hall (Ed.), The eleventh Linguistic Association of Canada and United States Forum 1984 (pp. 510518). Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press. Thomas, J. (1988). The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third language learning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 9, 23547. Trilingualism, (1993). Proceedings of the Trilingual Conference at the University of Haifa (June 1516, 1992). Trilingualism, (1995). Proceedings of the Second Trilingual Conference at the University of Haifa (June 1213, 1994). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Vildomec, V. (1963). Multilingualism. Leyden: A. W. Sythoff. Vogel, T. (1992). 'Englisch und Deutsch gibt es immer Krieg,' Sprachverarbeitungsprozesse beim Erwerb des Deutschen als Drittsprache [English and German always at war, language development processes in the acquisition of German as a tertiary language]. Zielsprache Deutsch, 23(2), 9599. Wandruszka, M. (1990). Die europäische Sprachengemeinschaft. DeutschFranzösischEnglischItalienischSpanisch im Vergleich [The European language union. A comparison of GermanFrenchEnglishItalianSpanish]. Tübingen: Francke (UTB 1588). Welge, P. K. (1987). Deutsch nach Englisch. Deutsch als dritte Sprache [German after English. German as a tertiary language]. In S. Ehlers & G. L. Karcher (Eds.), Regionale Aspekte des Grundstudiums Germanistik (pp. 189225). München, Germany: Iudicium. Williams, S., & Hammarberg, B. (1994). An L3 learner's lexicon expansion attempts during interaction. Paper presented at EUROSLA, Aix-en-Provence, France. Williams, S., & Hammarberg, B. (1996). The roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production (Working Paper). Stockholm: Stockholm University. Williams, S., & Hammarberg, B. (1997). L1 and L2 influence in L3 production: Evidence from language switches. In Rapporter om Tvåspråkighet 12. Stockholm: Centre for Research on Bilingualism. Williams, S., & Hammarberg, B. (1998). Language switches in L3 production: Implications for a polyglot speaking model. Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 295333. Zapp, F. J. (1979). Verzahnung von Zweitund Drittspracherwerb [The interlinking of second and third language learning]. In G. Walter & K. Schröder (Eds.), Englisch (pp. 914). München & Wien, Germany: Oldenburg. Zapp, F. J. (1983). Sprachbetrachtung im lexikalisch-semantischen Bereich: eine Hilfe im Zweitund Drittspracherwerb [Language considerations in lexical semantics: A guide to second and third language learning]. Der fremdsprachliche Unterricht, 17, 193199.
< previous page
page_229
next page >
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
< previous page
page_231
next page > Page 231
11 An Australian Perspective: Second Language Teaching and Learning in the University Richard B. Baldauf, Jr. University of Sydney Language Centre Paulin G. Djité University of Western Sydney, Macarthur The Sociolinguistic Situation in Australia In Australia, a nation with a population of approximately 18 million, English is accepted as the common national language. Nonetheless, this is a nation of immigrants, rich in the language resources of a multiplicity of ethnic groups. Not only are there more than 150 languages other than English (LOTEs) spoken in Australia today but also there are some 120 Aboriginal languages still extant, of which perhaps 25 are spoken "right through" (used regularly for the full range of communicative purposes). The history of European settlement in Australia has always been one of migration. Whereas many of the first settlers came from an "Anglo-Celtic" background, the more recent waves of migrants have come from polities as diverse as Greece and Macedonia (1960s), the former Yugoslavia, Turkey, and Lebanon (1960s and early 1970s), and Hong Kong, Korea, Vietnam, India, and Central America (in the 1980s and 1990s). These successive waves of immigration during the best part of two centuries have added to the already rich mosaic of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages and creoles. However, when compared to the American experience, the numbers in particular of non-English-speaking language groups that have resulted from immigration to Australia are much more evenly spread. As a result, there is no single large linguistic minority in Australia that would be seen as a "threat" to the English language (in the way that Spanish is perceived in the United States; Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). Based on the 1996 census, the largest community language was Italian (with 375,752 speakers) followed by Greek (269,770), Cantonese (202,270), Arabic (177,599), Vietnamese (146,265), and German (98,808) (Clyne & Kipp, 1997). Over the years, there has been a significant rise in the number of Australians using LOTE at home. According to the 1986 census, 13.6% of the Australian population used a LOTE at home. In the 1991 and 1996 censuses, the percentages were 14.8 and 14.6 respectively, and in the latter, the number of LOTEs spoken at home reached a total of 248 (Clyne & Kipp, 1997). In fact, there is an active, state and Commonwealth government-supported community languages program (i.e., heritage languages, Saturday School),
< previous page
page_231
next page >
< previous page
page_232
next page > Page 232
and a number of these languages (as many as 38 in some states) are examined at Year 12 for the high school certificate. Australia also has been at the forefront among English-speaking nations in the area of language policy and language-ineducation policy. Since 1987, the Commonwealth government has put in place a National Policy on Languages (NPL) (Lo Bianco, 1987), which was subsequently revised and updated in 1991. These policies have provided substantial funding to support the teaching of community languages, key Asian languages (i.e., Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, and Korean), and other languages traditionally taught in schools (e.g., French, German, Italian). There is a general acceptance of multilingualism and multiculturalism especially in the large cities of Sydney and Melbourne (Clyne, 1997) where according to the 1996 Census (Clyne & Kipp, 1997) 26.4% and 25.4% respectively, of the population spoke a LOTE at home. But, as shown by its checkered history, multilingualism and multiculturalism have not always been a welcome phenomenon in Australia. Built on a laissez-faire basis, language policy and second language teaching and learning have been influenced, time and again, by attitudinal changes toward its immigrant population (cf: Clyne, 1991a, 1991b, 1997; Djité, 1994; Ozolins, 1993). Much has been said and done over the last two decades to advance the cause of multiculturalism and multilingualism, especially in the urban centers of Sydney and Melbourne. Nevertheless, the reemergence of a conservative discourse in segments of the community over the last few years has been supported in effect by the Liberal-National conservative government. For example, on "talk-back" radio in November 1998, the Prime Minister indicated that he wanted to reinstate a test of English for all prospective immigrants, and other Australians said they would prefer to speak of their city or country as being "cosmopolitan" rather than "multicultural.'' The rise of the One Nation Party to political prominence in 1998, particularly in rural Australia, in part on an anti-Asian, anti-Aboriginal platform is also symptomatic of these sentiments (Clyne, 1998). The Language Policy Context Up until the 1970s, as a result of the White Australia Policy, immigration to Australia was largely limited to those of European background. In the first half of this century Australia was mainly rural and agricultural, and Australians by and large thought of themselves as Britishunless of course they were of Irish background. Aboriginals were not counted as citizens until 1967 when the Commonwealth became responsible for their welfare. Prior to that, they were often "protected" on missions and reserves, and their rights were severely limited by the states (Baldauf, 1996). However, for White European migrants, assimilation was accepted at the societal level as "natural." Even after World War II when large numbers of migrants from Europe were brought in to help industrialize Australiaas a reaction to the global socioeconomic and political crises of the 1940s and 1950sthe overwhelming push continued to be toward cultural and linguistic assimilation. In other words, migrants were expected to progressively leave their language(s) and culture(s) behind, pick up English, and adopt the customs and way of life of the host country. Language and cultural diversity increasingly were perceived as a threat to nationhood, and the benevolent language policy of laissez-faire eventually gave way to English monolingualism. As migrant communities became better established, debates and lobbying on the part of both the ethnic communities and language professionals helped to produce a policy
< previous page
page_232
next page >
< previous page
page_233
next page > Page 233
change beginning in the early 1970s, from assimilation to multiculturalism. In 1982, the Commonwealth Department of Education produced a document entitled Towards a National Language Policy, which set the parameters for a Senate inquiry into the need for a national language policy. The inquiry commenced in September 1982. The Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, entitled A National Language Policy and released in 1984, laid down four guiding principles. These were (Senate Standing Committee, 1994): (a) competence in English for all (mother-tongue and English as a second language speakers), (b) the maintenance and development of Aboriginal languages, (c) opportunities for learning second languages for all, and (d) the provision of services in LOTEs (i.e., translating, interpreting, radio and television services). Acting on the basis of these principles, some states, including New South Wales, South Australia, and Victoria (State Board of Education & MACMME, 1987), produced their own language-in-education policy statements. The Commonwealth's National Policy on Languages (NPL) was not released until 3 years later, in May 1987 by the Department of Education. Although acknowledging the primacy of English for all, it stressed the importance for all Australians to learn a LOTE and made the point that these LOTEs were in fact a national resource that should be valued (Lo Bianco, 1987). According to this policy, there were four main reasons for second language learning, namely: Equity or social justice. Economic strategies. External relations. Cultural enrichment for all Australians. The NPL report was adopted by the Commonwealth government in the same year of its publication, and the Australian Advisory Council on Languages and Multicultural Education was established to oversee the implementation of its recommendations. In addition, the National Languages Institute of Australia (NLIA) was set up to provide for research into languages (Sussex, 1990). The NPL provided a list of nine key languages of wider teaching. These were Arabic, Chinese (Mandarin), French, German, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Modern Greek, and Spanish. Although the NPL was couched in broad social, cultural, and economic termsCommonwealth responsibilitiesits implementation was primarily educationalstate responsibilities. Thus, in the years since 1987, language-in-education policy statements have been drafted and issued by all eight states and territories to put into educational practice these sociocultural Commonwealth initiatives. With the downturn in the Australian economy in the early 1990s, it was felt that the NPL needed a change of balance to provide an appropriate response to the rise to economic power of a number of countries in the Asian region. Hence, a new policy entitled Australia's Language: The Australian Language and Literacy Policy (ALLP; Department of Employment, Education, and Training; DEET, 1991a, 1991b) was issued. In contrast to the broader NPL, the ALLP put more stress on English literacy and highlighted the vocational orientation of LOTEs (Moore, 1996). The companion volume to the policy explicitly stated: "Combined with other vocational skills, language knowledge can improve employability" (DEET, 1991b, p. 62). The ALLP designated 14 priority languages, namely: Aboriginal languages, Arabic, Chinese (Mandarin), French, German, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Modern Greek, Russian, Spanish, Thai, and Vietnamese. State/territory ministers of education were required to nominate eight of these languages as prior-
< previous page
page_233
next page >
< previous page
page_234
next page > Page 234
ity languages in order to qualify for extra Commonwealth funds allocated on a per capita basis, depending on the number of Year 12 students enrolled in a priority language. Based on further economic data, it was determined that Australia's major trading partners were the new economic powers of Asia (i.e., the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Indonesia, and Singapore; cf: Australian Language and Literacy Council [ALLC], 1994; Stanley, Ingram, & Chittick, 1990). Knowledge of their languages (Chinese [Mandarin], Korean, Japanese, and Indonesian) and cultures would improve Australia's capacity and preparedness to interact with these key Asian economies. Thus, these languages, and studies of Asia more generally, were introduced into the education system at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels. The Commonwealth, state, and territory governments set up the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) program to put in place a strategy. The aims of the NALSAS Strategy were spelled out in a report entitled Asian Languages and Australia's Economic Future (Rudd, 1994) and include: (a) professional development for teachers, (b) development of proficiency outcomes for students and teachers, and (c) development of curriculum materials. The strategy identified performance targets in terms of student participation and proficiency reached, as well as number of teachers trained and their proficiency. The Council of Australian Governments endorsed the NALSAS strategy for the period 1995 until 2006 and provided AU$70 million for its implementation in 19941995. Further funding of A$42.6 million has since been allocated in the 19981999 budget for the consolidation of this program. A NALSAS Taskforce, with representation from each state and territory, the school sector, and the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, has been established by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) to undertake the implementation of the national aspects of the strategy. Implications for Second Language Teaching The sociolinguistic situation and the language policies in Australia which we have just described in the first two sections of this chapter suggest thatover a relatively short period of timethere have been promising developments for the support of LOTEs. Home use of many of the second languages is relatively widespread (e.g., Italian, Chinese, Greek, Arabic, and German), parental motivation and support for the learning of these languages is generally high, and Commonwealth and state/territory governments have been willing to provide funding to expand community- and school-based educational programs. Furthermore, there has been general promotion of Australia as a multicultural and multilingual polity. Yet, the overwhelming feeling among those knowledgeable about language planning and policy in Australia is that some policies and developments have been effected with haste, with little or no real long-term planning, without an adequate supply of well-trained and language competent teachers (ALLC, 1996b), and on the basis of poorly understood short-term economic goals. For example, some teachers of French and German were "retrained" in summer courses in the mid-1990s to meet the shortage of Japanese and Indonesian teachers. And, in order to gain support for extra teaching staff from Commonwealth funds that would flow to their school (a NALSAS incentive), a number of schools made the decision to introduce one or two Asian languages. As "some language studies programs do not go beyond language awareness and cultural
< previous page
page_234
next page >
< previous page
page_235
next page > Page 235
understanding" (Baldauf, 1997a, p. 56), it is clear that a proliferation of policies alone will not improve the proficiency of students in second languages. However, the greater emphasis that these policies put on learning LOTEs in secondary schools could have the effect of boosting language enrollments at the university level. Although the extra funding for Asian languages through NALSAS has meant that there is a greater balance between "Asian" and "European" languages, this development has not been well thought through in terms of instructional practices for the learning of these more difficult (Asian) languages. For example, only a maximum of three or four 50-minute periods each week are being spent in secondary schools on teaching/learning these languages. Thus, it is impossible to put in the 2,700 to 2,900 hours required by a typical language learner to attain a Level 3Professional Competence in the four macro skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing on the International Second Language Proficiency Rating scalesfor languages like Chinese, Japanese, or Korean. Acquiring near-native proficiency in these languages would take an estimated 4,800 hours (ALLC, 1994). Besides the teaching of LOTEs, the maintenance and revival of Aboriginal languages, and instruction in English as a second language (ESL) for immigrants, there are other aspects of the sociolinguistic picture covered by Australia's recent language policies. These topics are discussed in separate sections later in this chapter. Second Language Study in Australia at the School and Tertiary Levels Second Language Study in Schools One may well ask what impact all this Commonwealth, state, and territory language policymaking and expenditure has had on enrollments in language programs at the primary, secondary, and tertiary (university) levels. A long-term goal is to make it compulsory for all students to have studied a language other than English in primary school and junior secondary school, and recent NALSAS efforts have mainly gone into developing programs at this level. However, language programs for upper secondary school remain optional, and it will be interesting to see what impact the earlier compulsory language learning (i.e., the flow on effect) will have on the number of students continuing to study languages. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to assess the effects of NALSAS and changes to language policies because the figures on school enrollments from the states and territories vary greatly in what they refer to (i.e., numbers of hours, content). Thus, a review of school language programs funded by the Commonwealth has shown that the impact of NALSAS is as yet elusive (Baldauf et al., 1998). Most school language-teaching programs are based on language-as-subject type provision, but there are a growing number of language-as-content or bilingual LOTE (e.g., Berthold, 1995; Fernandez, 1997; Read, 1996) and indigenous language (Lee, 1995) programs being offered. Unfortunately, at the end of 1998 the Northern Territory governmentwhere most indigenous bilingual programs are locatedabandoned more than 25 years' work in bilingual education to focus on "more appropriate" ESL provision, arguing that the bilingual programs were not cost effective nor were they improving student performance. This is a debate that has been going on for some time (e.g., Eggington & Baldauf, 1990). It is difficult for schools to evaluate the Aboriginal language
< previous page
page_235
next page >
< previous page
page_236
next page > Page 236
and knowledge side of the programcompared, for example, to French or Japanese bilingual programs where the languages and cultures are well known. Typically, comparisons are made between English monolinguals and the English side of the bilingual program, which is inappropriate. However, in the end, it is probably the additional cost of these programs that has led to their closure. Under NALSAS, the Commonwealth has set targets for the year 2006 of 15% of high school graduates having studied an Asian language and 10% a European language. (In 1996, 6.5% studied an Asian language and 8% a European one.) However, at present only about 14.5% of those graduating from high school do so with a language to Year 12, so large gains will be necessary over the next few years to reach these targets. The number of students studying a language at Year 12, based on figures collected by the Department of Employment, Education and Youth Affairs (DEETYA; Baldauf et al., 1998), are given in Table 11.1. These data cover the years 1990 to 1996 and shows that: Of the NALSAS Asian languages, enrollments in Japanese have more than doubled, and hundreds more students are now studying Chinese as well as Indonesian and Korean. Of the priority languages, enrollments in Modern Greek, Vietnamese, Spanish, Arabic, and Russian show notable increases whereas French (foreign language), German, and Italian (less recent migrant languages) show decreases. In addition, there are now a few students studying Aboriginal languages and Thai. From 1990 to 1996, the percentage of students studying a language to Year 12 increased from 11.82 to 14.45, but the percentage studying a non-Asian language has remained virtually static at about 8%. Second Language Study in Universities: LOTEs Australian universities have grown from a small group of 5 with about 14,000 students in 1939 to the current 37 with about 600,000 students in 1995. Over this period, the proportion of the 17- to 22-year-old cohort in undergraduate higher education programs has risen dramatically from 3.75% in 1955, to 16% in 1975, to about 30% in 1995 (Postle, 1995). The study of languages was first introduced at the University of Sydney in 1853, and up until World War I, only the classics and French and German were taught (Barko, 1995, 1996). Into the early 1970s, languages (primarily French and German) were compulsory subjects to gain university entrance, thus assuring that all university students had had some exposure to foreign language study. In the late 1980s, the university system was changed dramatically when the Colleges of Advanced Education and the Institutes of Technology were amalgamated with or upgraded to universities to bring about a unitary tertiary system but with a reduced number of institutions. During this period, the new university sector also began to market its programs overseas to attract more foreign/international students to come to Australia to study. These "fee paying" students increasingly were recognized as a source of revenue. Reid (1995) estimated that: Students whose native language is not English now comprise up to 25% of the university population in some states. At least one-third of these are from overseas, largely from the Asian region. Most of them have considerable bilingual skills and bring rich linguistic potentiality to their study (p. 4). Others are immigrants or their children who may speak English as a second language at home.
< previous page
page_236
next page >
< previous page
page_237
next page > Page 237
TABLE 11.1 Year 12 Languages Enrollments: National Totals Language 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 NALSAS Languages 2,541 3,115 3,809 4,320 5,451 5,032 5,381 Japanese 2,027 2,041 1,944 2,198 2,952 2,469 2,361 Chinese 1,253 1,186 1,103 1,207 1,546 1,568 1,869 Indonesiana 0 0 0 0 247 185 248 Korean 5,821 6,342 6,856 7,725 10,196 9,254 9,859 Subtotal Priority Languages 5,071 4,822 4,361 4,264 4,560 4,311 4,201 French 2,956 2,801 2,680 2,561 2,768 2,657 2,674 German 2,429 2,369 2,195 2,125 2,312 2,227 2,100 Italian 865 824 1,731 1,656 1,929 1,433 1,356 Modern Greek 655 776 835 1,230 1,346 1,174 1,038 Vietnamese 545 583 636 725 968 728 767 Spanish 225 280 394 528 754 524 589 Arabic 89 95 106 137 173 131 166 Russian 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 Aboriginal 0 0 0 0 12 10 1 Thai 12,835 12,550 12,938 13,226 14,822 13,198 12,897 Subtotal Other Languages 25 30 54 61 79 56 88 Other Asianb 1,455 1,492 1,499 1,586 1,842 1,706 1,826 Other non-Asian 20,036 20,414 21,347 22,598 26,939 24,214 24,670 Year 12 Languages Year 12 Enrollments 169,471 183,257 192,511 186,936 179,863 172,357 170,729 3.84 3.90 4.02 4.81 6.46 6.09 6.43 Proportion Asian 7.98 7.24 7.05 7.00 8.53 7.96 8.02 Proportion non-Asian 11.82 11.14 11.09 12.09 14.97 14.05 14.45 Proportion Language Notes. From Baldauf et al. (1998). Copyright 1998. Reprinted with permission. a Includes Malaysian. b Other Asian languages include Bengali, Hindi, Khmer, and Sinhala. The impact of government policy decisions (i.e., the NPL, ALLP, NALSAS) on language instruction at the university level has been indirect because these government programs and their funding relate to schools. Universities have not developed their own complementary holistic language policies but rather have set up a variety of specific problem-oriented solutions (see Baldauf, 1997b). The government initiatives, however, have generally increased the demand for Asian languages without significantly altering that for other languages in a period when university enrollments have grown. Proportionally this has meant a drop in demand for European languages. Another factor that is having a major impact on language programs in universities is the current (since 1996) government's reduction in funding to universities, which has forced them to become "more efficient." The economic imperative is to make do with less teachingregardless of the pedagogical consequencesand to close relatively expensive programs that do not pay their own way. For example (White, Baldauf, with Diller, 1997), when looking at staff reductions or additions between the 19961997 year and the previous year, the statistical equivalent of 29.1 new language staff were employed whereas 69.3 positions were lost. All the new full-time appointments were reported in Asian languages with some part-time appoint-
< previous page
page_237
next page >
< previous page
page_238
next page > Page 238
ments made in European languages. There was also a widely reported reduction in class contact hours, from 6 hours a week to 4 and sometimes to 3. A number of university departments reported that enrollments were increasing while at the same time staff numbers and contact hours were declining. This has raised some questions about the effects on the quality of the instruction being provided. Although Australian universities continue to offer a wide range of languages, there is a disturbing trend toward fewer languages, reduced hours of instruction, and classes with more students. In Table 11.2, the number of universities teaching the larger languages are listed for the years 1990, 1994, and 1997, as well as estimates for equivalent full-time student units (EFTSUs) for 1990 and 1994 (data from Baldauf, Mühlhäusler, Sarre, et al., 1995b; White et al., 1997). For comparison purposes, the languages have been grouped using the same categories and order as those for the school languages in Table 11.1. What Table 11.2 shows is that over this relatively short period of time: For the NALSAS languages, the number of institutions offering Japanese and Chinese has increased considerably, (Not shown is the fact that Japanese is now taught in all universities except two.) The number of institutions offering Arabic, German, Italian, Modern Greek, and Russian (all community languages) have decreased, TABLE 11.2 University Languages, Numbers of Institutions and EFTSUa for 1990, 1994, & 1997 Language 1990 1990 1994 1994 1997 # Univ EFTSUa # Univ EFTSUa # Univ NALSAS Languages 28 2,185 33 2,670 35 Japanese 19 587 26 880 26 Chinese 21 408 21 690 23 Indonesian/Malay 8 48 12 100 9 Korean Priority Languages 21 1,295 22 1,375 21 French 19 764 21 840 14 German 26 885 21 875 16 Italian 14 392 14 305 10 Modern Greek 7 72 9 NA 8 Vietnamese 12 428 15 520 13 Spanish 7 58 6 95 4 Arabic 8 168 9 177 6 Russian NA NA 1 NA 2 Aboriginal 3 19 5 40b 6 Thai Other Languages 3 55 5 75 4 Hebrew NA NA 10 176 10 Latin NA NA 10 130 11 Greek (Classical)b a Equivalent full-time student units (EFTSU) are the measure of load used in Australian universities. For example, 31 EFTSU might represent 109 different students, i.e. 80 students taking a one-quarter load in first year, 21 students taking a one-third load in second year and 8 students taking a one-half load in third year. b Estimated.
< previous page
page_238
next page >
< previous page
page_239
next page > Page 239
The number of institutions offering a particular language does not necessarily correlate directly with EFTSUs. Other less taught languages with some presence at university level (with number of universities offering that language) in 1997 included: Akkadian (1), Aramaic (1), Balinese (1), Burmese (1), Cambodian (1), Cantonese (2), Catalan (1), Classical Chinese (2), Croatian/Serbian (1), Hindi (3), Irish (1), Javanese (2), Kaurna (1), Lao (1), Latvian (1), Macedonian (1), Pitjantjatjara (1), Polish (2), Portuguese (2), Rumanian (1), Sanskrit (4), Slovenian (1), Sundanese (1), Swedish (1), Syriac (1), Ugaritic (1), Ukrainian (2), Urdu (1), Welsh (1), and Yiddish (1). (It has been noted that instruction in the less taught languagesthose with low enrollments and offered in only a few universitiesis often based on the expertise of a single individual; Baldauf, Mühlhäusler, Sarre, et al., 1995). Written languages like Old English, Middle English, and Early Icelandic are also offered through several of the English departments. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Languages at Universities At the time of European settlement of Australia just over 210 years ago, it is estimated there were between 200 and 300 languages and upwards of 500,000 Aboriginal people with a history going back 40,000 years. Today, there are some 120 Aboriginal languages, many with only a few remaining speakers, and only about 1 1/2% of the population of Australia is of Aboriginal descent. Aboriginal people were only recognized as Australian citizens in 1967, and not until 1991 did the Commonwealth government begin to fund the Aboriginal Languages Initiatives Project that aims to maintain, protect, revive, and promote the right and freedom of indigenous Australians to use their languages. Though A National Language Policy included as one of its four guiding principles "the maintenance and development of Aboriginal languages," in general, government funding for languages given to the schools sector and universities has not been used to develop and teach Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages. Even the inclusion of Aboriginal languages as a priority language indicates a misunderstanding of the complexity of the Aboriginal language situation. As already shown in Tables 11.1 and 11.2, respectively, in 1996 there were only 5 Year 12 enrollments in Aboriginal languages and only two universities offering instruction in an Aboriginal language. Special funding from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has been used principally to support ESL programs in schools (see Baldauf, Mühlhäusler, Clayton, et al., 1995). Universities have received funding based on their number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, and most have established centers to support these students with programs that provide cultural activities, academic assistance, ESL provision, and the like (see, e.g., Draisma et al., 1994; McDonald, 1993). Baldauf (1996; Baldauf, Mühlhäusler, Clayton et al., 1995) described community language programs, run by the Federation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Languages, that aim to bring these languages back from the brink of extinction. Such programs involve working with adults; however, once materials are developed, there is a tendency to try to use them with children. Although there is some research occurring on Aboriginal languages at university level, there has been very little teaching of these languages. Only Pitjantjatjara (at the University of South Australia) and Kaurna (the University of Adelaide) are taught at the university level. The teaching of Kaurna, the language of Adelaide, is described in one of the case studies presented in this chapter.
< previous page
page_239
next page >
< previous page
page_240
next page > Page 240
English as a Second Language Instruction at Universities ESL instruction has a tradition in Australia that goes back to teaching migrants on their 6-week boat journey that, after World War II, brought them from Europe to Australia. This tradition has formed the basis of the Adult Migrant Education Service (AMES), which continues to supply English tuition to Australian migrants. Over the last 10 years, there also has been a growing interest in attracting and teaching overseas students, and ELICOS (English Language Instruction Courses for Overseas Students) programs have been set up to cater to fee-paying short-term English language learners from overseas and overseas students who want to learn English in order to complete university programs of study in Australia. All Australian universities have ELICOS Centres or other ESL assistance programs for foreign/international students, but these programs are considered noncredit preuniversity work. One such program, the Australian Centre for Languages in Sydney, is described in greater detail in a case study at the end of this chapter. Universities also have learning assistance centers to support students' language and other needs. However, there has been a basic assumption that university students arrive literate and that further specific training is not required. Training in the form of college composition courses is not generally provided or even available. Thus, departmentsparticularly in the professionsare increasingly being forced to confront not just discipline-specific needs but also more general literacy and ESL issues. The subject of tertiary literacy is one that universities are now only beginning to face (Golebiowski, 1997; Golebiowski & Borland, 1997). Curriculum Materials and Textbooks With the increased emphasis on language teaching in schools, and with additional Commonwealth funds being made available for language programs, there has been a major upsurge in the development and production of curriculum materials and textbooks in Australia suitable for Australian children. The materials, produced by both private publishers and governments, generally have a communicative focus and are based on the Australian Language Levels (ALL) guidelines (Scarino, Vale, McKay, & Clark, 1988). CIS Education, a Victorian publisher, has produced a series of textbooks in French, Italian, Indonesian, and Japanese suitable for secondary students. The Queensland State Government has produced language kits (in French, German, Japanese, Indonesian, Italian, and Korean) with books, tapes, videos, and CDs for each of the languages taught in the upper primary/junior secondary schools in the State. National curriculum project teams have produced a number of series of language texts for the major Asian languages (e.g., for Japanese at the primary level as well as for the first 3 years and the last 3 years of the secondary level). Although these developments have had a very positive impact on the teaching of the "major" languages, instructional materials for the smaller languages are still in short supply. When teachers are asked what they want most, many reply more and better language materials. At the school level, relatively few first language overseas materials are used (except in some community [heritage] language situations) because Australian programs primarily serve second language learners, but some second language text series are imported from the United States and United Kingdom for the school market. Whereas there is quite a lot of teaching material produced for schools in Australia, at the university level almost everything is imported from overseas. The market for second
< previous page
page_240
next page >
< previous page
page_241
next page > Page 241
language textbooks at the tertiary level is very small, making the production of textbooks in Australia uneconomic without government assistance. Some Asian language material is produced locally (in small quantities), and Australian authors often work with overseas authors and publishers. However, in general, economics rules. Thus, virtually all second language textbooks for university students come from overseas (the country where the language is spoken or the United States). The Use of Technology in the Teaching of Languages Technology to support language teaching is widely available in the university context. In the last 30 years, language laboratories have moved from reel-to-reel to digital technology, and there is now a wide range of audiovisual and video-recording equipment including satellite televisionto access overseas broadcasts in LOTEsto support language learning (see, e.g., Burston, MonvilleBurston, & Warren, 1996; Gassin & Smith, 1994; Mann & Baldauf, 1992). Technology (tapes, video, CDs, CALL) is also available to facilitate individual study (e.g., The Language Centre at the University of Sydney offers about 130 languages for self-study) or for class groups (e.g., Barbaux-Cooper, 1994; Lian, 1996; McCarthy, 1995, 1998). Computer-aided/enhanced language learning is also becoming more prevalent (Debski, Gassin, & Smith, 1997) as is the use of the Internet (Clayton, 1998a, 1998b, 1999; Clayton, Winklemann, & Baldauf, 1996). However, despite some very good work using computers and technology, much university language instruction is still firmly grounded in the literature tradition, and beyond the 1st year, language teaching for oral proficiency continues to struggle for proper recognition (Lo Bianco, Bryant, & Baldauf, 1997). (An example of how technology has supported the teaching of immersion Japanese is described in one of the case studies presented later in this chapter.) In 1996, a survey was sent out to 874 full-time university language teachers, excluding teachers of English, as part of a study examining the current applications of technology in language teaching and learning (ALLC, 1996a). Replies were received from only 73 respondents, perhaps due to a short time line, an indirect mailing procedure, and the complexity of the questionnaire. About 60% of the respondents were teachers of ideographic languages (i.e., Japanese, Chinese, Korean). Table 11.3 presents the forms of technologies that teachers used and shows that: Print and traditional technologies dominate this sample of university lecturers' teaching styles. A wide variety of technology is being used, at least by a few university language teachers. A "Review" of University Language Teaching Recently, a Review of the Teaching of Modern Languages in Australian Higher Education was commissioned to "investigate the current situation of modern language teaching in higher education, with a view to identifying or developing models for best practice and defining what pedagogical and other changes may be necessary, in order to meet Australia's language requirements." The preliminary findings of this review were reported in a major article entitled "The Management of Language Teaching and Training in Higher Education: New Directions for Australia." In it, Malcolm (1991) showed that
< previous page
page_241
next page >
< previous page
page_242
next page > Page 242
TABLE 11.3 Technologies Used Regularly by University Respondents in Rank Order Form of Technology Used Regularly 63 Conventional print publishing 50 Audio and video services 33 Word processing in languages other than English 30 Language laboratory (audio/video equipment only) 21 Computer-mediated communication 14 Internet navigation and information access software 12 World Wide Web resources 12 Any of: multilingual, etc. software 11 Electronic publishing 11 Broadcast television 10 Drill and practice computer-based teaching courseware, not IMM 9 Audio message systems 9 Desktop publishing in languages other than English 8 Postal and courier services 8 Tutorial computer-based teaching courseware, not IMM 8 Other forms of technology 5 Presentation and other graphics software 4 Outlining software in languages other than English 3 Narrowcast television 3 Interactive Multimedia (IMM) 3 IMM, video disk based 3 CD-ROM-based reference material other than IMM 3 Multimedia and composition software 2 Other computer-based teaching courseware, not IMM 2 Equipment to project computer screen for larger audience 1 Audio conferencing 1 Internet chat or role-playing discussions 1 IMM, online source 1 Shared document preparation software Note. N = 73. From ALLC (1996a). Copyright 1996 by Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Reprinted with permission. some of the assumptions about the impact of the language situation could be wishful thinking, highlighting not only the lack of correspondence between the perceptions of the language-teaching staff and those of the students, but also the lack of correlation between home use and subsequent language study. The review used five questionnaires, one for heads of departments from institutions of higher education (84 respondents), one for members of academic staff of departments teaching languages in higher education (377 respondents), one for students enrolled in the 3rd year or above in four institutions of higher education in four different states (144 respondents), one for recent graduates from nine institutions in New South Wales and Victoria (84 respondents), and one for language teachers who had been appointed within the last 5 years of the date of the review, predominantly from Western Australia and New South Wales (80 respondents). Three questions were examined: 1. What are the objectives of language teaching? 2. What level of language proficiency should be achieved by students? 3. How should the languages be taught?
< previous page
page_242
next page >
< previous page
page_243
next page > Page 243
The review found that, for the first question, language departments differed vastly from one another in the ways in which they conceived of their role and that the lecturers did not necessarily agree with the objectives their department had set. Whereas some lecturers believed that language departments value research about literature, others, such as Japanese language teachers, saw their departments valuing language-teaching research most and research about literature least. Language-teaching staff were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement or disagreement with the following nine teaching objectives: A high degree of oral/aural proficiency. Access to literature in another language. A high level of writing competence. An appreciation of the subtleties of language. A high level of reading competence. An appreciation of another society and culture. Proficiency in translating and interpreting. Enhanced powers of intellectual discrimination. Vocational preparation. Though all of these objectives were highly rated, staff from language departments identified oral/aural and reading proficiency as the most highly rated objectives, followed by cultural and literary objectives, then intellectual and vocational goals. Japanese and Chinese language teachers gave the lowest rating to intellectual and language awareness goals, whereas Spanish language teachers gave the lowest rating to vocational preparation. These responses did not coincide with those of the students, of whom more than 28% rated vocational aspiration as much more important in their approach to language study. The students also perceived the development of writing skills as the highest ranked objective of their language departments, with other important areas being literature and translating/interpreting. In contrast, the students' primary goals in language study were, unanimously, oral/aural proficiency, followed by reading and writing proficiency. In other words, language teachers are more interested in aspects of the teachinglearning process that the students find irrelevant. When asked about their career expectations, most students indicated ''future employment" as the main reason for studying a second language (teaching/instruction 20%, hospitality/tourism 7%, creative arts 7%, welfare 6%). Students of Japanese demonstrated particularly strong career aspirations. These opinions of language students were reinforced by those of recent graduates who also rated the language departments' vocational objectives very low even though, as students, they had a higher view of the place of translating/interpreting in the departments than did the teaching staff. Like the present-day students, recent graduates also felt that the development of oral/aural proficiency was less important to the department than some other objectives. In this same study, language teachers considered their own language training as "passable" at best. They wanted future language teachers to receive an increased emphasis on communicative skills, especially oral/aural. In summary, the students, recent graduates, and practicing language teachers (appointed within 5 years of the study) were calling for real oral/aural communicative proficiency in the second language.
< previous page
page_243
next page >
< previous page
page_244
next page > Page 244
When heads of departments were asked what they expected their students to have achieved by graduation, although their expectations of students' proficiency varied widely across the macroskills, they ranked oral/aural proficiency very high for European as well as Asian languages. The lowest expectations were for writing skills, especially in the case of Asian languages. This observation is particularly interesting when we consider the fact that according to the students' perceptions, writing is the most highly valued skill in their departments. The review also found that the language proficiency of tertiary language teachers themselves was very uneven across languages and macroskills (productive language skills vs. receptive skills). Finally, when asked about the medium of instruction that should be used in the language classroom, the responses of the teaching staff indicated that the target language was not being used consistently in the higher education language classroom. In fact, less than half of the teaching is in the target language. This is despite the students' preference for all the instruction to be carried out in the target language. Generally speaking, the review showed that language departments at university are conservative with respect to communicative methodologies and the use of the target language in the classroom. It also showed that cultural and intellectual goals are pursued in language courses for their own sake, in direct contrast of the students' overwhelming desire to achieve oral/aural proficiency in the language. Whereas university language departments are preoccupied with literature, reading, and writing, recent graduates and students would prefer that increased emphasis be put on actual language use. More important, the review revealed that whereas previous study of a second language is a relatively powerful motivator for language study at university, only 3% indicated home use as a motivator. A significant number of students who continue language study over 3 years or more at university began that study as a result of having learned the language in secondary school, not because their parents speak it. Read (1996) summarized the university's use of immersion programs in teaching second languages (also see Case Study #2 later in this chapter). Moreover, Malcolm (1992, 1995) found that students produced better results on written and oral communicative end-of-unit exams under intensive or immersion conditions (although some students found the pace of intensive learning difficult to sustain). However, immersion courses are the exception rather than the rule, and many universities still rely on overseas study to develop second language proficiency (Mann, 1992). Case Studies To provide a sampling of the kinds of second language programs currently in place at Australian universities, we have selected three very different case studies. Each exemplifies what we believe to be good practices, in terms of effective teaching and learning. Together, they illustrate the multilingual nature of today's Australia. We would like to thank Rob Amery (University of Adelaide), Tony Erben (University of Central Queensland), and Don Plimer (Consultant and former Director of the Australian Centre for Languages) for providing us with the information used in these program descriptions.
< previous page
page_244
next page >
< previous page
page_245
next page > Page 245
Case Study #1: Aboriginal Language ReclamationKaurna The following description of the instruction of Kaurna at the University of Adelaide was graciously provided to us by Dr. Rob Amery (personal communication, January 1999). Amery teaches in the linguistics program and has done extensive research on Kaurna (e.g., Amery, 1995), indigenous language revival, and indigenous language teaching in schools: The Kaurna course, as it is taught at the University of Adelaide, is a tertiary language course with a difference. Kaurna is one of a handful of Indigenous languages taught within Australia's universities. The others are typically relatively "strong" languages, such as Pitjantjatjara or Djambarrpuyngu, which still have well-established speech communities. Kaurna, on the other hand, is one of the many so-called "extinct" languages, which, for more than a century, has survived in publications and manuscripts compiled principally by missionaries. Some of these have been retrieved from South Africa and Germany. There were no sound recordings made of the language, though a sketch grammar, some 3,000 words, several hundred sentences, and a handful of texts and hymns were recorded in written form. Still, there is enough to enable a meaningful study of the language and a firm basis upon which to reclaim it. The Kaurna Language & Language Ecology course (henceforth KL&LE) was established in July 1997 and enrolls about 25 students per semester. It has as its primary focus Kaurna linguistics rather than Kaurna language learning, though language learning has always been a stated objective. Its establishment was primarily an act of status planningaccording recognition to the language belonging to the land on which the University of Adelaide is built. In the 5 years prior, Kaurna had been taught in several small programs within early childhood, primary, secondary, and adult education sectors. A tertiary level program was a natural development that to some extent supports the other Kaurna programs through training and development of teachers and exploration of linguistic issues associated with the revival of the language. Within the context of the discipline of linguistics, KL&LE is an excellent vehicle for teaching linguistics, especially philology, comparative linguistics, and a range of sociolinguistic topics. Most importantly, KL&LE serves to teach the principles of language reclamation showing not only how the language is being reclaimed from the historical sources but also the ways in which the language is now being used. However, students gain additional understandings along the way, such as local knowledge about the Adelaide Plains and its early contact history through the study of placenames, vocabulary, and the writings of early observers of the language. An excursion to Piltawodli (the "Native Location"), the site upon which almost everything we know about the Kaurna language was recorded, is a moving and enlightening experience. The site is now a golf course, almost totally devoid of any sign of prior Indigenous habitation. Students have often commented about the usefulness of KL&LE in promoting understanding and reconciliation. Assessment of student progress in KL&LE parallels that of other linguistics courses taught at the University of Adelaide. Practical exercises are set, requiring students to analyze and evaluate vocabulary sources, perform translation tasks and the like. Students are also required to write an essay and give a tutorial presentation. Students in the inaugural 1997 course gave resoundingly positive evaluations. Some saw the course as the highlight of their tertiary studies in that it addressed real community concerns. From its inception, the KL&LE course has involved the Kaurna community. The course was launched by Kaurna Elders and other dignitaries. Further, the course began with a panel of Kaurna Elders who discussed their experience of the language and culture, Kaurna identity, ethics, and protocol associated with the language etc., leaving the students in no doubt of the importance of the language to the community and of the privilege
< previous page
page_245
next page >
< previous page
page_246
next page > Page 246
offered to them in being given access to the language. Additional guest lectures on topics such as Kaurna "Dreamings" and cultural tourism were also given by Kaurna Elders, and an Indigenous tutor was engaged to assist in the teaching of the course. Several Kaurna people have also participated in the course as students. Most of the students enrolled in the course, however, are non-Aboriginal, including some international students. As this is a language revival program, some concern has been expressed within the Kaurna community that non-Indigenous students are gaining access to the language before the Kaurna have mastered it themselves. While there are some who would argue that no one can "own" a language, many indigenous people are concerned that the knowledge and control of their languages may be passing to outsiders. In an effort to address this issue of possible linguistic imperialism, two separate tutorial groups have been established. Students without a need to learn the Kaurna language are encouraged to participate in the tutorial group which focuses more on the exploration of linguistic issues, whilst a second tutorial focusing on language learning is convened for teachers of Kaurna and members of the Kaurna community. In addition, a set of language learning tapes is available for self-instruction in the language laboratory at the University of Adelaide. The major problem facing the KL&LE course is the need to find an ongoing funding source for the long term. This is because KL&LE is a little more expensive to run than other linguistics courses with the additional expenses involved providing for Indigenous input through guest lectures and tutorial support. The Kaurna Language and Language Ecology course is important because it demonstrates how a small languagewith perhaps 700 speakers in the early 1800sis relevant both linguistically and culturally today. Kaurna reclamation clearly illustrates the value of community commitment for language vitality and how language can contribute to both indigenous self-esteem and reconciliation. It also shows that language learning can be made meaningful and interesting, something all language programs could emulate. Additional information about KL&LE can be obtained by sending an e-mail message to . Case Study #2: Japanese Immersion for Teacher Education As indicated in the language policy context section of this chapter, Australian governments are making languageswith an emphasis on Asian languagesmandatory for all primary and beginning secondary students. This has led to an increased demand for qualified LOTE teachersone that some commentators believe will be impossible to meet (ALLC, 1996b). In addition to the general language-as-subject programs, some state governments are looking at setting up a limited number of immersion programs in primary and secondary schools. However, one of the major difficulties faced by schools in running immersion programsfor languages where there are not a large number of native speakers who can be trained as teachersis a lack of qualified language staff. In response to this need, the Faculty of Education at the University of Central Queensland has set up a 4-year Japanese language Bachelor of Education program that offers teaching degrees to English speakers through immersion (Erben, Cox, & Phillips, 1993). This Languages and Cultures Initial Teacher Education Program (LACITEP) claims to be the first full university degree program in the world to be taught using immersion methodology (although Canada has had a 30-year history of French immersion at the school level). The program involves eight semesters of coursework in 32 subjects. Of the latter, approximately 8 are taught in English (such as psychology, sociology, and English language
< previous page
page_246
next page >
< previous page
page_247
next page > Page 247
and literacy subjects), 10 by means of partial immersion or in a mixed modewith, for example, lectures in English and tutorials in Japanese(including some curriculum and teacher development courses), and 14 by immersion in Japanese (some curriculum and teacher development courses and the Japanese language and culture courses). Thus, as part of this Bachelor of Education program, 75% of the subject contact hours taken by the students are taught partially or fully through the medium of Japanese. About 20 students graduate from the program each year, not only with considerable proficiency in the Japanese language but also with a wide range of relevant cultural knowledge and social skills. Graduates normally achieve proficiency at Levels 3 or 4 in speaking whereas written proficiency is about 3 (on the Australian Second Language Proficiency Rating). Ultimate achievement may depend, in part, on whether or not the student studied Japanese prior to entry into the program. The program has now been running since 1993, and in 1998 it won its developers the education section of the Commonwealth government's Australian Awards for Excellence in University Teaching (Spenser, 1999). Parts of the program are also delivered through mediated teaching using audiographics technology. Audiographics is a system that includes a two-way interactive synchronous whiteboard, chat window, audio connection plus a slide show (stills and videos), and word-processing facilities. In other words, this is "a network based media tool that facilitates multimedia conferencing, data conferencing and visual conferencing in the classroom" (Erben & Bartlett, 1998, p. 1). This approach allows students to learn interactively and collaboratively at a number of linked remote sites using two-way audio and virtual-visual links to share information such as still video images, documents or pictures, CD-ROM images, and compressed audio or video clips (Erben & Bartlett, 1998). An activity-based resource manual with model computer lessons and a video have been developed "to uncover and explain [to the reader] 'best practices' of managing teaching through audiographics technology in an initial teacher education program delivered through Japanese immersion" (Erben & Bartlett, 1998, p. 2). This use of technology has proved to be not only a good teaching tool but also develops literacy in the use of electronic media, which is particularly important practical preparation for teacher education students who, on graduation, may need to teach Japanese in Queensland schools in a distance education mode. An additional aspect of the 4-year program is that most students get to visit Japan for up to 5 months, often with the aid of Commonwealth sponsorship (also see Marriott & Enomoto, 1995). This study abroad experience takes place in Year 2 of the program and includes an intensive language course, a practicum teaching experience, and a home stay with a Japanese family. Overseas experience is especially important because in-country residence has traditionally played an important role in helping students develop "professional fluency" (at least in the European languages; see Mann, 1992); likewise, the financial aid provided to the students makes possible a study abroad opportunity that often is not otherwise a realistic option. The 4-year Japanese language Bachelor of Education program gives students the maximum opportunity to use their Japanese in a realistic way to build good second language skills and also teaches students about the use of multimedia and computer-based technology while preparing them to be teachers. LACITEP also has had an impact on students' cultural understandings and identity formation (Bartlett, Erben, & Garbutcheon-Singh, 1996). Most Australians now acknowledge that Australia is a part of the Asian region, and programs like this help to build a sense of broader identity. Additional information about this program can be obtained at .
< previous page
page_247
next page >
< previous page
page_248
next page > Page 248
Case Study #3: The Australian Centre for Languagesproviding English as a Second Language Instruction The Australian Centre for Languages (in Sydney) is one of the largest ESL training organizations in Australia. Founded in 1987, it offers programs that cater to the three main groups of ESL students in Australia: Australian migrants, short-term overseas students, and overseas students who intend to enroll in secondary and university programs in Australia. ELICOS industry is big business in Australia, and there are both private and university related providers working to attract overseas students. Many of the providers are relatively small, serving the equivalent of 100200 full-time students per year. Whereas the largest groups of students come from Asia (at various times from Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, and China), programs also attract a good number of students from Europe. Not surprisingly, some overseas students have difficultieslanguage, academic, and personaladjusting to life in Australia, and these were described by Nixon (1993). Unlike many American universities where ESL programs tend to be integrated into the academic structure, ELICOS programs in Australia are usually separate for-profit units lacking academic status or connections. As mentioned previously in this chapter, Australia has had a long-standing migrant education program (Adult Migrant English Service, AMES) that began after World War II. It is a decentralized program run by the states and territories but funded primarily by the Commonwealth government. The Commonwealth's commitment to it is one of the four central tenets of the 1987 NPL (i.e., competence in English for all [mother-tongue and English as a second language]). Migrants are entitled to 200 hours of free ESL provision (classes or in some cases home tutor service) to help them better integrate into Australian society. The Commonwealth, through its Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, has established a National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research (NCELTR) at Macquarie University in Sydney to support research and teaching in the field of migrant education. NCELTR publishes a journal, Prospect, which began as a journal of the AMES but that has become a journal that more broadly reflects Australian TESOL (teaching of English to speakers of other languages). In the late 1990s, the Commonwealth government took the decision to open the AMES to competition and has been progressively tendering out all state and territory programs. In the Sydney region, a consortium lead by the Australian Centre for Languages won the right to run the majority of these programs with the rest remaining with the AMES. In line with the economic objectives of these programs, they have been broadened beyond ESL provision to cover literacy and numeracy skills and become competency focused (Docking, 1994). The Australian Centre for Languages, like many other ELICOS programs, runs a variety of courses for short-term overseas students who come to Australia primarily to learn English. These are market-driven courses to meet the needs of its clients and include programs to improve the English of teachers of English from overseas, courses in general English, programs with a focus on business, courses for tour groups, and English for young people on holiday. The Centre also runs programs with a school or university academic orientation, the latter in conjunction with the University of Western Sydney. These include secondary school preparation programs, certificates in English for academic purposes, advanced writing and speaking courses, and IELTS (International English Language Testing Service) preparation (similar to preparation for the TOEFL, Test of English as a Foreign
< previous page
page_248
next page >
< previous page
page_249
next page > Page 249
Language, which is commonly used for the evaluation of English proficiency for foreign students seeking admission to colleges and universities in the United States). The Centre also runs a graduate certificate in Teaching Adults ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages), Literacy and Numeracy that can be counted as a quarter of an M.A. in TESOL at the University of Western Sydney. The Australian Centre for Languages is unique in that it runs the full range of ESL programs that are to be found in Australia. It also represents the business (for-profit) orientation that programs have taken, even those in universities, where ESL provision is not usually related to academic TESOL programs. Additional information about the Australian Centre for Languages can be obtained at . References Amery, R. (1995). It's ours to keep and call our own: Reclamation of the Nunga languages in the Adelaide region, South Australia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 113, 6382. Australian Language and Literacy Council (ALLC). (1994). Speaking of business: The needs of business and industry for language skills. Canberra: AGPS. Australian Language and Literacy Council (ALLC). (1996a). The implications of technology for language teaching. Canberra: AGPS. Australian Language and Literacy Council (ALLC). (1996b). Language teachers: The pivot of policy. The supply and quality of teachers of languages other than English. Canberra: AGPS. Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (1996). Back from the brink? Revival, restoration and maintenance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Languages. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 15, 122. Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (1997a). Planning for teaching languages: Examining needs, defining goals and examining outcomes. In Proceedings of the AFMLTA 11th National Languages Conference (pp. 4359). Hobart, Australia: AFMLTA. Baldauf, R. B., Jr (1997b). Tertiary language, literacy and communication policies: Needs and practice. In Z. Golebiowski (Ed.), Policy and practice of tertiary literacy (Vol. 1, pp. 119). Melbourne: Victoria University of Technology. Baldauf, R. B., Jr., de Riva O'Phelan, J., Hooker, V., Di Biase, B., White, P., Vervoorn, A., Fane, B., Mangubhai, F., Pauwels, A., & Scott, M. (1998). Advancing Australia's languages:Overview report: Evaluation of the Commonwealth School Languages Programme. Canberra: DEETYA. Baldauf, R. B., Jr., Mühlhäusler, P., Clayton, J., Hill, L., de Riva O'Phelan, J., Lo Bianco, J., Royale, L., & Nguyen, D. (1995). Backing Australian languages: Review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Languages Initiatives Program. Canberra: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Baldauf, R. B., Jr., Mühlhäusler, P., Sarre, W., Barko, I., Stevens, A., Rubin, J., Lo Bianco, J., & de Riva O'Phelan, J. (1995). Viability of low candidature LOTE courses in universities. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. [Higher Education Division, DEET 95/9] Barbaux-Cooper, M-T. (1994). Modular authoring tools for designing language learning materials. In M. Ryan (Ed.), APITITE Proceedings (Vol. 3), (pp. 765772). Milton, Queensland, Australia: APITITE 94 Council. Barko, I. (1995). Low candidature LOTE courses in universities. In R. B. Baldauf, P. Mühlhäusler, & W. Sarre, Viability of low candidature LOTE courses in Universities (pp. 1131). Canberra: AGPS. Barko, I. (1996). A history of language education in universities: The background (18531965)/The recent past and today. Australian Language Matters, 4(1), 67 & 4(2), 67. Bartlett, L., Erben, T., & Garbutcheon-Singh, M. (1996). Teacher identity formation through language immersion in an initialteacher-education curriculum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 24, 173196. Berthold, M. (1995). Rising to the bilingual challenge: Ten years of Queensland secondary immersion. Canberra: NLLIA. Burston, J., Monville-Burston, M., & Warren, J. (1996). Issues and innovations in teaching French (Occasional Paper 15). Melbourne: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.
< previous page
page_249
next page >
< previous page
page_250
next page > Page 250
Clayton, J. (1998a). L'Italia in rete: guida all'uso di Internet a scopi didattici [An Internet guide for teachers of Italian]. Adelaide: South Australian Association of Teachers of Italian and the South Australian Department of Education, Training and Employment. Clayton, J. (1998b). A World Wide Web guide for teachers of Spanish language and culture. Adelaide: Spanish Teachers Association of South Australia and the South Australian Department of Education, Training and Employment. Clayton, J. (1999). An Internet guide for teachers of Chinese language and culture. Adelaide: Chinese Language Teachers Association of South Australia and South Australian Department of Education, Training and Employment. Clayton, J., Winklemann, L., & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (1996). Languages in cyberspace: The report from the Distance Education and Languages (DEaL) Project, Commonwealth of Australia. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Clyne, M. (1991a). Australia's language policiesAre we going backwards? Current Affairs Bulletin, November, 1320. (Reprinted in Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, S8, 322). Clyne, M. (1991b). Community languages: The Australian experience. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Clyne, M. (1997). Managing language diversity and second language programs in Australia. Current Issues in Language and Society, 4, 94119. Clyne, M. (1998). The language of exclusion and inclusion. Australian Language Maters, 6(4), 3, 10. Clyne, M., & Kipp, S. (1997). Trends and changes in home language use and shift in Australia, 19861996. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18, 451473. Debski, R., Gassin, J., & Smith, M. (1997). Language learning through social computing (ALAA Occasional Paper 16). Canberra: ALAA and Horwood Language Centre. Department of Employment, Education, and Training (1991a). Australia's language: The Australian language and literacy policy, Canberra: AGPS. Department of Employment, Education, and Training (1991b). Australia's language: The Australian language and literacy policy (companion volume). Canberra: AGPS. Department of Education. (1982). Towards a national language policy. Canberra: Author. Djité, P. (1994). From language policy to language planning. Canberra: National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia. Docking, R. (1994). Competency-based curriculathe big picture. Prospect, 9(2), 817. Draisma, K., Gluck, R., Hancock, J., Kanitz, R., Knell, W., Price, G., Shaman, G., & Squires, J. (1994). Tutorials in chemistry for Aboriginal nursing students. In Best practice in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education (pp. 3640). Canberra: National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia. Eggington, W., & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (1990). Towards evaluating the Aboriginal bilingual education program in the Northern Territory. In R. B. Baldauf, Jr., & A. Luke (Eds.), Language planning in Australasia and the South Pacific (pp. 89105). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Erben, T., & Bartlett, L. (1998). Managing Japanese immersion through audiographics: An activity based resource book. Rockhampton: Central Queensland University. Erben, T., Cox, R., & Phillips, S. (1993). Primary teacher training thorough immersion. Babel, 28(2), 3945, 50. Fernandez, S. (1997). Room for two: A study of bilingual education education at Bayswater South Primary School (2nd ed.). Melbourne: NLLIA. Gassin, J., & Smith, M. (1994). Innovations in language teaching (Horwood Language Centre Occasional Papers No. 1). Melbourne: University of Melbourne. Golebiowski, Z. (Ed). (1997). Policy and practice in tertiary literacy (Vol. 1). Melbourne: Victoria University of Technology. Golebiowski, Z., & Borland, H. (Eds.). (1997). Academic communication across disciplines and cultures (Vol. 2). Melbourne: Victoria University of Technology. Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon, England. Multilingual Matters. Lee, P. (1995). Thinking things through: Bilingual education for indigenous learners. Australian Language Matters, 3(3), 7. Lian, A. P. (1996). The management and distribution of language-learning resources in the digital era. In A. Scarino (Ed.), Equity in languages other than English: Conference papers of the Tenth AFMLTA Conference (pp. 177182). Perth: AFMLTA. Lo Bianco, J. (1987). National policy on languages. Canberra: AGPS.
< previous page
page_250
next page >
< previous page
page_251
next page > Page 251
Lo Bianco, J., Bryant, P., & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (1997). Language and literacy: Australia's fundamental resource. Canberra: Australian Research Council (NBEET). Malcolm, I. (1991). The management of language teaching and training in higher education: New directions for Australia. In V. Bickley (Ed.), Where from here? Issues relating to the planning, managing and implementation of language teaching and training programmes in the 90's (pp. 89115). Hong Kong: Institute of Language in Education. Malcolm, I. G. (1992). LOTE in higher education: Possibilities for intensive and immersion approaches. In C. Mann & R. B. Baldauf, Jr. (Eds.), Language teaching and learning in Australia (pp. 6982). Melbourne: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia. Malcolm, I. G. (1995). Innovation in university language teaching: Intensive and immersion. In A. Kirkpatrick, Y. Zhong, & H. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The hard workentertainment continuum: Teaching Asian languages in Australia (pp. 5363). Canberra: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia. Mann, C. (1992). Universities and LOTE proficiency. In C. Mann & R. B. Baldauf, Jr. (Eds.), Language teaching and learning in Australia (pp. 4968). Melbourne: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia. Mann, C., & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (Eds.). (1992). Language teaching and learning in Australia. Melbourne: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia. Marriott, H., & Enomoto, S. (1995). Secondary exchanges with Japan: Exploring students' experiences and gains. In A. Kirkpatrick, Y. Zhong, & H. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The hard workentertainment continuum: Teaching Asian languages in Australia (pp. 6482). Canberra: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia. McCarthy, B. (1995). Grammar drills: What CALL can and cannot do. ON-CALL, 9(2), 3041. McCarthy, B. (1998). CALL design: A grammar lesson for the student and a lesson in applied linguistics for the designer. ONCALL, 12(2), 2637. McDonald, H. (1993). Identity and the acquisition of academic literacy: A case study. Open Letter, 4(1), 314. Moore, H. (1996). Language policies as virtual realities: Two Australian examples. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 473497. Nixon, U. (1993). Coping in Australia: Problems faced by overseas students. Prospects, 8(3), 4251. Ozolins, U. (1993). The politics of language in Australia. Hong Kong: Cambridge University Press. Postle, G. (1995). Equity, diversity and excellence: Advancing the national equity framework. Canberra: National Board of Employment, Education and Training. Read, J. (1996). Recent developments in Australian late immersion education. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17(6), 469484. Reid, I. (1995). Student literacy in a cross-cultural perspective. Australian Language Matters, 3(2), 4. Rudd, K. (1994). Asian languages and Australia's economic future. Brisbane: Queensland Government Printer. Scarino, A, Vale, D., McKay, P., & Clark, J. (1988). Australian language levels guidelines (4 volumes). Canberra: Curriculum Development Centre. Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. (1994). A national language policy. Canberra: AGPS. Spenser, M. (1999, January 27). Japanese via immersion. The Australian, p. 20. Stanley, J., Ingram, D., & Chittick, G. (1990). The relationship between international trade and linguistic competence. Canberra: AGPS. State Board of Education and Ministerial Advisory Committee on Multicultural and Migrant Education. (1987). Report to the Minister, July 1985: The place of languages other than English in Victorian schools. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 63, 119157. Sussex, R. (1990). The Language Institute of Australia: An organizational model for centralized and distributed teaching and research. Multilingua, 9, 359375. White, P., Baldauf, R. B., Jr., with Diller, A. (1997). Language and universities: Under siege. Canberra: Academy of the Humanities.
< previous page
page_251
next page >
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
< previous page
page_253
next page > Page 253
12 A South African Perspective: Second Language Teaching and Learning in the University Timothy Reagan University of Connecticut South African society is characterized by extensive diversity. The society is multiracial, multicultural, multireligious, and multilingual. Indeed, the diversity present in contemporary South Africa is arguably nowhere manifested more clearly than in the case of language. In addition to Afrikaans and English, which during the apartheid era served as the country's dominant and official languages, nine indigenous African languages and five Indian languages are spoken (see Table 12.1). The picture is further complicated by the presence of a number of immigrant languages, languages used primarily or exclusively for religious purposes, and various kinds of nonstandard and koine languages. Despite this high degree of linguistic diversity, which is far from uncommon in "developing societies," South Africa nonetheless also shares a number of linguistic characteristics with the world's "developed" nations. The country's linguistic diversity includes a language of wider communication, English, which is widely spoken throughout the country, and by members of virtually all of the different ethnolinguistic groups. There is a high level and degree of bilingualism and even multilingualism, reflecting the educational level of the population as well as the extensive intergroup contact that continues, in spite of the legacy of apartheid, to characterize South African society (see Kaschula & Anthonissen, 1995). And, although still far too low to be acceptable, and certainly skewed disproportionately toward certain groups at the expense of others, the literacy rate in South Africa is impressive by "third world'' standards, if not by Western ones (see, e.g., French, 1982; National Education Policy Investigation, 1993b). Although it is obviously not possible to provide a complete survey of the linguistic situation in contemporary South Africa here, it is appropriate for this diversity to be briefly discussed at this point. The Demographics of Language in South Africa Afrikaans and English served historically as the two official languages of the Republic of South Africa, both before and during the apartheid era, and were constitutionally guaranteed equality of treatment in the country. Afrikaans, a Germanic language derived largely from Dutch, is the native language of the majority of White South Africans. It is
< previous page
page_253
next page >
< previous page
page_254
next page > Page 254
TABLE 12.1 Languages Spoken in South Africa as Home Language Language Number of Speakers 6,188,981 Official Languages Afrikaans 3,432,042 English 6,891,358 Xhosa 8,541,173 Zulu 799,216 Ndebele 3,437,971 Pedi 3,601,609 Tswana 926,094 Swazi 763,347 Venda 1,349,022 Tsonga 25,120 Indian Languages Gujarrati 25,900 Hindi 24,720 Tamil 4,000 Telegu 13,280 Urdu 11,740 European Languages Dutch 6,340 French 40,240 German 16,780 Greek 16,600 Italian 57,080 Portuguese 25,440 Other Languages Note. From National Education Policy Investigation (1992b). Copyright 1992 by Oxford University Press Southern Africa. Adapted with permission. also the native language of the majority of so-called "Colored" South Africans, though the Afrikaans that is generally spoken by members of this group is quite distinct from Standard Afrikaans (see Esterhuyse, 1986). English is spoken as a first language by significant numbers of South Africans, the overwhelming majority of whom are Whites (though the Indian English-speaking community is also significant; see Mesthrie, 1992). Both languages are widely understood and spoken as second languages throughout southern Africa, and there is a high degree of bilingualism in the two official languages among educated South Africans (for an interesting analysis of the effects of English on Afrikaans as a result of this widespread bilingualism, see Donaldson, 1988). The relationship between these two languages historically has been that Afrikaans is far more established as a home language in South Africa, whereas English is important as a second, socially, economically, and internationally useful language (Kloss, 1978). At the same time, the affective, or attitudinal, status of Afrikaans and English, especially among the Black population, differs significantly. Whereas Afrikaans has historically been seen as the "language of the oppressor," and remains to some extent closely identified with the Afrikaner establishment and with policies of apartheid (as the 1976 Soweto uprising made clear; see Reagan, 1985, 1987a), English has in recent years been generally seen as the "language of liberation." Despite this characterization of the two languages, however, it should be stressed that both views have been under increasing attack in recent years as far too simplistic (Reagan, 1986a, 1986b; Webb, 1992). For example,
< previous page
page_254
next page >
< previous page
page_255
next page > Page 255
many so-called "Coloured" writers and academics (especially at the University of the Western Cape) have been attempting to reclaim Afrikaans as an antiestablishment language (J. F. Smith, van Gensen, & Willemse, 1985). Others have challenged the perceived primacy of English in the liberation struggle, as well as in more general terms (see Mazrui & Mazrui, 1998; Ngugi, 1986; Pennycook, 1994; Phillipson, 1992). As Njabulo Ndebele (1987) noted, for instance: Basically, I think that we cannot afford to be uncritically complacent about the role and future of English in South Africa, for there are many reasons why it cannot be considered an innocent language. The problems of society will also be the problems of the predominant language of the society, since it is the carrier of a range of social perceptions, attitudes and goals. Through it, the speakers absorb entrenched attitudes. In this regard, the guilt of English then must be recognized and appreciated before its continued use can be advocated. (p. 11) The relative status of Afrikaans and English, in short, is to a considerable extent in something of a state of flux at the present time. It is also important to note here that although English and Afrikaans are both widely spoken in South Africa, somewhere between roughly 30% and 60% of the population of the country does not speak or understand either language (see Ridge, 1996). In addition to Afrikaans and English, there are some nine different indigenous African languages spoken in South Africa including Ndebele, Sepedi, Sesotho, Swazi, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa, and Zulu. Although there are very significant linguistic differences between the African languages spoken in southern Africa, these differences are not necessarily those that are reflected in the various orthographies used to represent the languages. The orthographic systems used to codify the various African languages, in some cases dating back to the 19th-century missionaries in southern Africa, are in many ways highly problematic (see Bailey, 1995). As a consequence of such factors, it is not unusual for similar linguistic features in closely related languages to be obscured by radically different written formsa situation that has served to maintain ethnic boundaries and to reemphasize ethnic divisions among the Black population. This kind of forced linguistic differentiation in some instances takes place even within single languages, reflecting the historically fragmented political situation in Southern Africa (see Esterhuyse, 1974). In this regard, some scholars have advocated the "harmonization" of closely related African languages into single standardized languages. Dalby (1981, cited in K. P. Prinsloo & Malan, 1988), for instance, suggested that the unification of Sotho/Tswana and Nguni might be a step toward the de-emphasis of apartheid (see K. P. Prinsloo & Malan, 1988), and Alexander's (1989) recent work offers similar, albeit highly controversial, suggestions as well. A further aspect of the indigenous African languages in South Africa that needs to be mentioned here is that of the need for lexical expansion and codification in all of these languages if they are to be used for educational, media, and governmental purposes (see, e.g., Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, 1997a; Mutasa, 1996). Knowledge of one or more additional African languages is very common in the Black community, with many South African Blacks speaking not only their own native language, English, and Afrikaans, but also speaking additional African languages (although often the varieties of these languages that are spoken are nonstandard or even what Schuring, 1985 labeled koine languages). In contrast, despite recently introduced mandatory school instruction, competence in an African language on the part of Whites and Indians remains uncommon (Lanham, 1978; von Staden, 1976). Further, Lanham's claim
< previous page
page_255
next page >
< previous page
page_256
next page > Page 256
to the contrary notwithstanding, this also appears to be the case for the so-called "Coloured" community, in which well over 90% of the population do not report knowing any African language. There are also a number of immigrant languages currently in use in South Africa including Tamil, Hindi, Telegu, Gujarati, and Urdu, which are all spoken in the Indian community, Chinese, and a variety of languages used by European immigrant groups, including Dutch, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese and French, among others. Although not used as native languages in South Africa, Arabic, Hebrew, and Sanskrit are also used in specific religious contexts. In short, South Africa is linguistically, as well as in many other ways, a highly complex society, in which language, ethnicity, race, and ideology interact in interesting and unusual ways. With our overview of the South African linguistic situation completed, we can now turn to an analysis of the historical development of language policies in South African education. South African Language Policy: Past and Present The taalstryd, or "language struggle," has been a central point of disagreement and debate throughout the history of South Africa, especially (though by no means exclusively) in the educational sphere (see, e.g., Malherbe, 1977; Nel, 1959; Potgieter & Swanepoel, 1968). Under the apartheid regime, the language-medium question was most controversial in Black education where the policy of initial mother tongue instruction was widely denounced as an attempt to retribalize Black South Africans (Bunting, 1986; Dunja-Blajberg, 1980; Hirson, 1981; Troup, 1976). To some extent, though, it must be remembered that the mother tongue policy was in fact a reflection of the historical language struggle that took place in the White community of South Africa in the 19th and early 20th centuries; that struggle deeply influenced both White perceptions and government policy with regard to language policies in education. This earlier language struggle had focused in part on the rights of Afrikaners to educate their children in their mother tongue, in the face of ongoing efforts at anglicization (see Kroes, 1978; Steyn, 1980). Although the tensions between English and Afrikaans were never eliminated, government policies of what might be termed "active official bilingualism," coupled with English and Afrikaans speakers attending their own-medium schools, mitigated what tensions existed. Language remained a highly controversial issue in Black education throughout the apartheid era (Alexander, 1990; Hartshorne, 1987; Marivate, 1993; Reagan, 1984, 1986a, 1986c). Somewhat ironically, it was the Afrikaner government that supported mother tongue schooling for Blacks, whereas Blacks themselves, for the most part, opposed such schooling. It is this irony that provides, at least in part, a key to understanding the apartheid-era (and, indeed, much of the postapartheid) debate on language policy in South African education. The apartheid regime consistently favored mother tongue schooling for Blacks (and, in fact, for almost all children in the country), but for arguably quite different reasons than those used to defend mother tongue instruction for White children. It is clear that mother tongue programs for Blacks not only were consistent with the ideology of apartheid, but also functioned as one of the pillars of apartheid in perpetuating both racial and ethnolinguistic divisions in South African society (see Reagan, 1987b). Mother tongue schooling for Blacks was employed from the passage of the Bantu Education Act of 1953 to the end of the apartheid era to support
< previous page
page_256
next page >
< previous page
page_257
next page > Page 257
the social and educational goals of Verwoerdian-style apartheid. The apartheid regime used such programs to reinforce ethnic and tribal identity among Black schoolchildren, seeking to "divide and conquer" by encouraging ethnolinguistic divisions within the Black community (see Hartshorne, 1987, 1992; Heugh, 1985). As Barnard perceptively noted: Moedertaalonderwys . . . is not the Afrikaans term for mother-tongue instruction. It is a political concept which has its roots in the dogma of Christian National Education. According to this dogma, each "race" or "volk" has its own identity which sets it apart from all others. . . . Surely one has to wonder and become suspicious when there is this insistence on the part of the authorities to force upon all children, against the wishes of their parents, a particular language. . . . What is being attempted is certainly not mother-tongue education in the interests of the children but the enforcement of "moedertaalonderwys" as an instrument of social control and subjugation, as a means to an end. . . . (quoted in Heugh, 1987, pp. 143144) Given this historical background, it is easy to understand the resistance to mother tongue education, as well as to mandatory instruction in Afrikaans (see Reagan, 1985, 1987a), found in many parts of the Black community during the apartheid era. Indeed, schooling designed to emphasize ethnic and cultural differences all too often falls prey to this sort of "pluralist dilemma." As the Australian scholar Brian Bullivant (1981) observed, programs designed and intended to encourage ethnic identification, including various kinds of multicultural education programs in many Western societies, "are ideal methods of controlling knowledge/power, while appearing through symbolic political language to be acting solely from the best of motives in the interests of the ethnic groups themselves" (p. 291). This was clearly the case in South Africa, and though few Blacks were taken in by the rhetoric of pluralism, the same cannot be said for much of the South African educational establishment, which began utilizing the language of multiculturalism and cultural pluralism toward the end of the apartheid era (van Zijl, 1987). The real problem that now confronts educators and language planners alike in the South African context is how the realities of cultural and linguistic diversity can be dealt with in an equitable and just manner. With respect to language policy, under the apartheid regime a number of related and overlapping language policies were implemented in South Africa (see Reagan, 1986c, 1990, 1995). These policies involved both status and corpus planningthe former referring to government policies related to what language(s) should be used in different functional domains whereas the latter refers to "planned changes to the structure of a language so that it may meet certain specified requirements" (Cluver, 1993b, p. 7; see also Cobarrubias, 1983; Cooper, 1989; Eastman, 1983). Among the more important of these language policies were: (a) status planning with respect to Afrikaans (see Steyn, 1992), (b) lexical development in Afrikaans (corpus planning) (see van Rensburg, 1993), (c) lexical development in the various African languages (corpus planning), (d) mother tongue schooling for nearly all students in the country (status planning), and (e) efforts to teach White schoolchildren African languages (status planning). Each of these policies is a clear example of language planning, and each could presumably be defended on a variety of linguistic, pedagogical, and psychological grounds. Further, taken together they are an impressive demonstration of the faith of the apartheid regime in language planning as an element of social engineering. As Kloss (1978) noted:
< previous page
page_257
next page >
< previous page
page_258
next page > Page 258
In South Africa, more qualified scholars, White and Black, are working on this "linguistic engineering" than in all the rest of Africa. Even Swahili is well behind the South African languages in educational development, in spite of its easy lead in political status. (p. 21) Language policy, in short, remained an important concern throughout the apartheid era. The policies identified here have all been discussed in considerable detail elsewhere (Reagan, 1985, 1986c, 1987b; Reagan & Ntshoe, 1987), and so our focus here is only on the features that they shared as educational policies. The language policies of the apartheid era were very questionable on ethical, normative, and political grounds. The policies were all characterized by the top-down nature in which they were formulated and implemented. What tied the policies together was that each was imposed on its target group, for the group's perceived good as determined by government bureaucrats. This approach to language policy was based on an essentially technical approach to the resolution of social problems, coupled with an absurd reliance on "experts" rather than on consultation with the individuals and groups most directly affected by and concerned with the policies. As the African National Congress (ANC) asserted: The languages of the people are not permitted to be developed by them in their own way. Ignorant and officious White professors sit on education committees as arbiters of African languages and books without consultation with the people concerned. The grotesque spectacle is seen of the White government of South Africa posing as a "protector" of so-called Bantu culture and traditions of which they know nothing. . . . (quoted in Heugh, 1987, p. 269) Further, the process by which these policies were determined, developed, and implemented was fundamentally undemocratic. In a society as highly politicized as that of South Africa, such policies were doomed almost from the start. The end result was that the policies were either accepted (as in the case of the first policy) or rejected (as in the other four cases) by the affected populations largely on political and ideological grounds alone. Finally, we come to current government language policy. The Government of National Unity, as well as the new constitution, recognized 11 official languages, rejecting the historical bilingual policy that reflected only the linguistic diversity of White South Africa, and replacing it with a multilingual policy more accurately reflecting the reality of South African society. Further, the Reconstruction and Development Programme of the ANC (1994) called for the development of "all South African languages and particularly the historically neglected indigenous languages" (p. 71). One should note here that this commitment to multilingualism does not entail maintaining all public and private sector services in all 11 official languages, which would be almost certain to prove cost-prohibitive. Such a scenario assumes that past models of bilingualism are to be superimposed on current realitiesthat is, that the absolute equality of English and Afrikaans sought by the apartheid regime (primarily as a component of Afrikaner political ideology) is the same kind of equality to be pursued by the democratic government of South Africa with respect to all 11 official languages. This, of course, need not be the case and in fact is quite clearly not the case in contemporary South Africa. With the end of the apartheid era and the election of a democratic government in South Africa, language policy in general, and in education in particular, has inevitably received considerable attention as the institutions of South African society are transformed (for detailed discussions of contemporary language policy in South Africa, see Beukes, 1991, 1992, 1996; Beukes & Barnard, 1994; Chick, 1992; Cluver, 1992; Desai,
< previous page
page_258
next page >
< previous page
page_259
next page > Page 259
1991; Heugh, 1995; Kashoki, 1993; K. Prinsloo, Peeters, Turi, & van Rensburg, 1993; Reagan, 1990, 1995; Ridge, 1996; Schuring, 1991; Swanepoel & Pieterse, 1993). One powerful example of this concern with language policy, especially in the educational sphere, is A Policy Framework for Education and Training, which is a discussion document issued by the Education Department of the ANC, and which sets out proposals related to issues of education and training (ANC, 1995). Included in this document are four lessons that are identified as being of "the utmost importance" in order that the "cycle of language oppression be broken" in South African society in general, and in education in particular. These four lessons are: (1) Language policy in education should be the subject of a nation-wide consultative process to ensure that proposed changes in policy have the broad consent of the language communities which will be directly affected by them. (2) No person or language community should be compelled to receive education through a language of learning they do not want. (3) No language community should have reason to fear that the education system will be used to suppress its mother tongue. (4) Language restrictions should not be used to exclude citizens from educational opportunities (p. 62). In order to ensure that these lessons are reflected in any language policy to be developed in South Africa, the ANC discussion document goes on to identify three general principles on which educational language policy should be based. These principles include the right of the individual to choose which language or languages to study and to use as a language of learning (medium of instruction), the right of the individual to develop the linguistic skills, in the language or languages of his or her choice, which are necessary for full participation in national, provincial, and local life, and the necessity to promote and develop South African languages that were previously disadvantaged and neglected (ANC, 1995). It seems clear, then, that both the lessons to be learned from past experience and the general principles on which educational language policies are to be based are reflective, in large part, of concerns about past practices in South Africa, and are intended to be consistent with the goal of a democratic and nonracial language policyas well as with the constitutional recognition of the equality of the 11 official languages of South Africa. An excellent example of the sort of approach to language policy formulation envisioned by the ANC is the National Education Policy Investigation's work on language (National Education Policy Investigation, 1992b, 1993b). The National Education Policy Investigation was a project undertaken by the National Education Co-Ordinating Committee between 1990 and 1992 that explored policy options in the educational sphere "within a value framework derived from the ideals of the broad democratic movement" (National Education Policy Investigation, 1992b, p. vi). The National Education Policy Investigation sought to set the stage for ongoing, and indeed protracted and extensive, debates about educational policy issues. The focus of the investigation can clearly be seen in the final concluding paragraph of the language report, which argues that: Any [language policy] option that is chosen can have an empowering or a disempowering effect on learners, depending on its suitability for the particular school's context, on how it is implemented, and on how it relates to the national language policy of the country. There is no one policy that is ideal for all schools. Language policy for education needs, therefore, to be flexible without being so laissez faire as to allow the perpetuation of present
< previous page
page_259
next page >
< previous page
page_260
next page > Page 260
discriminatory policies or ill-informed choices of alternatives to them. (National Education Policy Investigation, 1992b, p. 93) Current efforts now underway in South Africa, whether knowingly or unknowingly, are in fact moving in accord with this advice, and as a result the educational language policies that are in the process of being developed are far more likely to receive broad popular support than have past policies. Perhaps the most outstanding example of this has been the reception of the final report of the Language Plan Task Group (LANGTAG). This group was created in 1995 by Dr. B. S. Ngubane, the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, with the explicit task of devising a national language plan for South Africa. The final LANGTAG report, issued in August 1996, clearly attempted to achieve the following objectives that had been identified by Dr. Ngubane: (1) All South Africans should have access to all spheres of South African society by developing and maintaining a level of spoken and written language which is appropriate for a range of contexts in the official language(s) of their choice. (2) All South Africans should have access to the learning of languages other than their mother tongue. (3) The African languages, which have been disadvantaged by the linguistic policies of the past, should be developed and maintained. (4) Equitable and widespread language services should be established (Language Plan Task Group, 1996, p. 7). In short, what is occurring with respect to language policy in the contemporary South African context is an ongoing effort to both democratize the language-planning process and to ensure the protection of language rights for all South Africans. We turn now to a discussion of the implications of various parts of this process for the teaching and learning of languages at the university level in contemporary South Africa. In the material that follows, instructional languages at South African universities, the status of English and Afrikaans as second languages, the teaching of modern foreign and of indigenous African languages, and instructional materials development, both print and electronic, are addressed. The Medium of Instruction in South African Universities Under the apartheid regime, education in South Africa was segregated by race, ethnicity, and language not only in terms of primary and secondary education (see Hartshorne, 1992), but also in terms of university education. There were separate universities for Afrikaans-speaking Whites, English-speaking Whites, so-called "Coloreds," Indian South Africans, and, of course, different groups of Black South Africans. Although "grand apartheid," as originally envisaged by Verwoerd, would presume that in each case the language of the university would be that of the ethnic group (and thus, Zulus would attend a Zulumedium institution, Tswanas a Tswana-medium institution, etc.), in practice this never took place to any significant degree for most groups in South African society (see Giliomee & Adam, 1981). Rather, universities under the apartheid regime, even while maintaining strong ethnic identities, fell into two categories with respect to language medium: English-medium universities and Afrikaans-medium universities. In addition, the University of South Africa and the University of Port Elizabeth maintained bilingual policies (although the former did so more effectively than the latter). In the new
< previous page
page_260
next page >
< previous page
page_261
next page > Page 261
South Africa, this picture has changed to a significant degree, with English clearly predominating as the normal medium of instruction (or at least as an alternative medium of instruction) in nearly all South African universities, with even many of the historically Afrikaans-medium universities allowing students the option of studying and being examined in English. The Teaching of English as a Second Language The teaching and learning of English as a second/additional language in the South African context is very much a "growth industry," and it is arguably the area in which the most interesting and innovative efforts in second language education, at the university level and elsewhere, are taking place (see Rodseth, 1997). As Kathleen Heugh (1993) noted: There is little doubt that English will occupy some form of primacy in South Africa particularly in government, the economy and in educational provision. . . . The primacy of English is promoted by important stakeholders in the country. These include the business community; the progressive politics blocs through their choice of English in which to conduct political discourse; and other interest groups such as the English Academy. An attitudinal survey conducted . . . in 1989 concludes that urban black people want English in education from the onset of primary education. (p. 2) Competence in English is increasingly a sine qua non for advancement in one's career, education, and even politically and socially in the new South Africa. Hence, it is hardly surprising that much English as a second language instruction for adults takes place in the context of, or at least in relationship to, programs related to literacy education (see French, 1982; M. Prinsloo & Breier, 1996). Nor is it particularly surprising that workers often indicate very strong interest in workplace-based programs designed to teach them to communicate in English (see Reagan, 1986d). Even in the university context, where the concern is not literacy but the ability to function academically in English, significant efforts are underway to meet the increasing need for programs to help students overcome poor educational backgrounds, especially with respect to competence in English. An important aspect of such programs has been the focus on the need not simply for language skills conceived in technical terms, but rather for assisting students to develop critical language awareness (see Anthonissen, 1994; Bock & Hewlitt, 1993; Clarence, 1994; Janks, 1996; Janks & Paton, 1990; Kaschula & Anthonissen, 1995). Also relevant here have been the discussions about the type of English to be taught and learned, and about the status of standard English versus that of indigenous nonnative varieties of English, a debate that is far from merely a South African one (for the South African context, see Chick & Wade, 1997; Chisanga & Kamwangamalu, 1997; Peirce, 1989; Sarinjeive, 1997; for the broader international context, see Cheshire, 1991; Kachru, 1983; McArthur, 1998; Schmied, 1991; Trudgill & Hannah, 1994). In terms of actual programs at the tertiary level although virtually every university in the country is involved in such instruction, two are especially noteworthy: the work of the Language Education Unit in the School of Education at the University of Cape Town and the Applied English Language Studies Programme at the University of the Witwatersrand. The former is interesting because of its additive bilingualism focus and conceptualization, as well as its strong commitment to multilingualism and multilingual education in the South African context. The latter is of interest not only because of its
< previous page
page_261
next page >
< previous page
page_262
next page > Page 262
innovative and important work on critical language awareness, but also because international attention was drawn to it by Frank Smith's (1993) book Whose Language? What Power? A Universal Conflict in a South African Setting. Smith briefly taught in the Applied English Language Studies Programme (for some 5 months in 1992), and this book is his account of that experience. This is not an appropriate forum for a critique of that book, which is certainly interesting from a variety of perspectives. It is, though, worth noting that the book generated considerable controversy in South Africa, as well as very thoughtful and compelling responses that leads one to agree with Douglas Young (1994), of the University of Cape Town, when he argued that, "As it stands, Whose Language? What Power? says far more about Dr. Smith's own language-power struggle and psyche than it does about South Africa, Witwatersrand University, its Department of Applied English Language Studies or South African language education generally" (p. 82). The Teaching of Afrikaans as a Second Language As noted earlier, historically Afrikaans was perceived to be closely tied to the apartheid state and its policies, and was thus the subject of fairly widespread rejection in many quarters of South African society (see Beukes, 1991; Cluver, 1993a; Reagan, 1987a). Constitutional provisions notwithstanding, the postapartheid era has witnessed what is effectively a downgrading of the status and use of Afrikaans in South African society. In education, the media, business, and government, Afrikaans is employed far less often than in the past. With the abolition of specific legal mandates requiring the study and use of Afrikaans in various settings, enrollment in Afrikaans as a second language has experienced a dramatic drop in higher education, with university departments of Afrikaans under increasing threat of closure or combination with other departments (including, at least at the University of Cape Town, with African languages). Although such developments are real and significant, they are only part of the story. Afrikaans under apartheid was artificially maintained at considerable cost and effort; now, what is taking place is that the language is finding what might be termed its own natural equilibrium in South African society. Support for Afrikaans in contemporary South African society is very different from that experienced during the apartheid regime. Voluntary, nongovernmental organizations, emphasizing the cultural and pragmatic advantages of the language, now seek to make a case for the viability of Afrikaans (see Maartens, 1994; van Rensburg, 1997). A good example of this development is the creation of the Stigting vir Afrikaans ("Foundation for Afrikaans"), which argues in an informational brochure it has issued that, "Afrikaans is vital for South Africa. Through common usage in all walks of life, this modern, vibrant language and all who use it constitute a national asset." Stigting vir Afrikaans promotes this view through literacy programs, education, and training efforts, involvement in ongoing national and regional language-planning efforts, publications program, and in its monthly newsletter, Afrikaans Vandag ("Afrikaans Today"). In addition, efforts to reconceptualize Afrikaans as a meaningful "language of dissent" (see Brink, 1984), as well as to embrace nonstandard and ''alternative" Afrikaans (see Esterhuyse, 1986; Kriel, 1998; van den Heever, 1987, 1988; van Rensburg, 1993) continue to play an important role in the process of legitimatizing Afrikaans in contemporary South Africa. Such efforts notwithstanding, Afrikaans at the university level, at least in English-medium institutions in South Africa, is clearly a language under considerable pressure
< previous page
page_262
next page >
< previous page
page_263
next page > Page 263
(see Jacobs, 1991). Although there may well be compelling reasons for non-Afrikaans-speaking South Africans to study Afrikaans, at the present time these reasons continue, for the most part, to be outweighed by the growing dominance of English in South African society and the historical resistance to Afrikaans. The Teaching of Traditional "Foreign" Languages Although by no means subject to the sort of ideological resistance to Afrikaans found in some parts of South African society, the study of traditional "foreign" languages in South African universities has also suffered in recent years. Indeed, even before the end of the apartheid era there had been a diminished interest in the study of foreign languages (see Department of Education and Culture, House of Assembly, 1992). This trend has increased in the postapartheid era. The very public debates about language policy in the new South Africa have focused almost entirely on issues related to English, Afrikaans, and the indigenous African languages in the country, to the exclusion of discussions of the teaching and learning of other languages (see, however, B. Smit, 1993, 1996; E. Snyman, 1995; Strike, 1996). Although a number of European languages continue to be taught at the university level (including most commonly French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish, among others), as are select Semitic languages (primarily Arabic and Hebrew) and classical languages (Latin and Greek), all have been at risk of increasing marginalization (and in some cases of elimination altogether) as budgetary pressures on universities throughout the country increase. It is interesting to note that this is taking place in an environment where there is considerable rhetorical support for the teaching and learning of the traditional foreign languages, not the least evidence of which are two LANGTAG reports that explicitly consider the economic value of such study (see Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, 1997b; LoBianco, 1996). The Teaching of Indigenous African Languages If the traditional foreign languages have been left out of the language discussions in the new South Africa, this certainly has not been the case for the indigenous African languages (see Mawasha, 1996). Not only have these languages been accorded, at least in principle, equal constitutional status with English and Afrikaans, but the political rhetoric of contemporary South Africa clearly accords these languages an important place in the society. This having been said, the reality in South African universities is that enrollments in the African languages have generally tended to decline in recent years, and departments of African languages have begun devising ways to attract more students and increase enrollments. In the case of the University of South Africa, for instance, this has meant placing increased emphasis on Xhosa and Zulu, and reconceptualizing the 1st-year courses in these languages to include more social and cultural content, and to focus to some extent on awareness of the nature, structure, and use of the languages rather than developing competence in the language per se (though of course language learning still plays a key, indeed central, part in these courses). Although advanced courses in the languages continue to be taught, these courses are conducted in the medium of the target language, which means that students who are beginning at the university level as novices will find it quite difficult (if not impossible) to move on to the advanced-level courses, which tend to be designed with native speakers of the languages in mind. At
< previous page
page_263
next page >
< previous page
page_264
next page > Page 264
other institutions, with the notable and understandable exception of the historically Black universities, it is becoming more and more common to find that African language faculty are shifting their focus to the teaching of African literature in the medium of English. The situation in which the African languages find themselves with respect to study at the tertiary level in South Africa can be explained largely by two sets of factors, the first ideological and the second pragmatic. Ideologically, the African languages remain to some extent tainted by apartheid-era government policies, which, as noted earlier, sought to utilize the indigenous languages as a means to separate the Black population. The identification of English as the "language of liberation" during the antiapartheid struggle has continued to affect the status of such languages, in spite of the far more sympathetic and supportive government rhetoric of recent years. Pragmatic barriers faced by the African languages include their complexity and difficulty, especially for native speakers of English and Afrikaans, as well as the challenges presented by the need for extensive lexical development and limited practical communicative utility in many parts of contemporary South Africa society (see Mtintsilana & Morris, 1988). Contemporary government language policies, however, are designed and intended to challenge such views, and actively to support both functional multilingualism in South African society and, even more important, to encourage positive attitudes toward multilingualism. In other words, the government has undertaken to engage in what is essentially "language attitude planning," and to the extent to which such planning is effective, the study of African languages as second and additional languages at all levels of the educational system is likely (on issues related to contemporary language attitudes in South Africa, see, e.g., Finchilescu & Nyawose, 1998; Louw-Potgieter & Louw, 1991; U. Smit, 1994; Verhoef, 1998a, 1998b). Instructional Materials Development Instructional materials development in the South African context varies significantly depending on which language or languages one considers. For the most part, traditional foreign languages are taught utilizing imported instructional and curricular materials. In the case of English as a second or additional language, materials are both imported and developed locally. Perhaps the best example of innovative materials development in this regard has been the fairly extensive development of "critical language awareness" materials in South Africa (see Anthonissen, 1994; Bock & Hewlitt, 1993; Janks & Paton, 1990), among the most pedagogically useful of which are the volumes in the "Critical Language Awareness" series edited by Hilary Janks (see Janks, 1995a, 1995b; Newfield, 1995; Orlek, 1995; Rule, 1995). These materials are far more than merely language texts; they are politically grounded works that are intended to help students to begin to think about language, language attitudes, and language use critically, and are reflective of the ongoing debates in contemporary South African society about both the role and place of English and about the rise and legitimacy of different kinds of English (see Barkhuizen & Gough, 1996; de Kadt, 1996; Heugh, 1993; Peirce, 1989; Sarinjeive, 1997). Also worth noting with respect to materials designed for the teaching and learning of English are the "Bridge to English'' materials developed under the auspices of the Molteno Project, as well as the earlier "English Through Activity" books produced by publishers in the 1960s and 1970s (see Rodseth, 1997).
< previous page
page_264
next page >
< previous page
page_265
next page > Page 265
Materials for the teaching and learning of Afrikaans are produced in South Africa and tend to be fairly traditional and unexciting. A noteworthy exception to this generality is Ruimland 9 & 10 (Botha, Esterhuyse, Gouws, Links, & Pienaar, 1990), which is both politically and pedagogically up-to-date; though Ruimland 9 & 10 is intended to serve as a secondary school text, it has been successfully used at the university level (see Pheiffer, 1992). Finally, with respect to the teaching and learning of indigenous African languages, in recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the quality of introductory textbooks, most grounded in a more communicative approach to language learning than had been the case in the past (see Baai, 1992; also relevant here for their discussions of communicative approaches to language teaching in South Africa are Askes, 1991; Chick, 1996; Kroes, 1997). Outstanding examples of the new generation of African language textbooks include the introductory Sesotho text in the "African Languages Made Easy" series (Mokoena, 1998), Tswana for Beginners (J. Snyman, le Roux, & le Roux, 1991), published by the University of South Africa, and, for Xhosa, Anne Munnik's (1995) Learn Xhosa, Pinnock's (1994) Xhosa: A Cultural Grammar for Beginners, and Zotwana's somewhat more advanced Xhosa in Context (1991). New Technologies for Language Teaching In terms of new technologies for language teaching and language learning, clearly it is in the realm of computerization that the most significant activities are taking place in the South African context. Although for the most part somewhat behind similar developments in the United States, examples of impressive utilization of computer technology in language teaching are available for both the indigenous African languages (see Britz, 1988) and Afrikaans (see Swart, 1994). In addition, CD-ROM programs have been developed and are now commercially available for both Xhosa and Zulu. In the former case, Tessa Dowling and the Multimedia Education Project of the University of Cape Town are responsible for the creation of Speak Xhosa With Us/Thetha isiXhosa Nathi, which is an outstanding example of how a multimedia program can provide an effective communicative environment for the learning of a less commonly taught language (Dowling, 1998). Although perhaps only tangentially related to language teaching and learning technologies, a number of developments related to computer translation projects have been undertaken in the South African context, with respect both to the indigenous African languages and to Afrikaans. Worth mentioning here are the Lexinet Investigation of the Human Sciences Research Council (see Cloete, 1989; Morris, 1988) and the Lexica project of the Department of Computer Science at the University of Pretoria. Other Issues and Conclusions Although the South African experience in terms of second language teaching and learning is fascinating, complex, and historically unique, it nevertheless may have important lessons for such teaching and learning elsewhere. Perhaps the clearest lesson has to do with the overwhelming dominance of English, a dominance supported by both economic factors and by tacit government acquiescence in the face of considerable linguistic diversity. It is interesting that this has been the case even given articulated language
< previous page
page_265
next page >
< previous page
page_266
next page > Page 266
policies that encourage and support multilingualism. What seems to be taking place in contemporary South African society is that the linguistic "market" has created a context in which competence in English is the primary criterion for economic success and social mobility, and that this context has been clearly recognized and acted on by the population (see also Schiffman, 1996). Issues of linguistic toleration, language rights, and the relationship of language to ethnic identity notwithstanding, the economic return on competence in English is effectively overwhelming efforts to encourage competence in other languages (see also Mazrui & Mazrui, 1998; Pennycook, 1994; Phillipson, 1992). In short, what the South African case appears to demonstrate at this point in time is the incredible power of the English language, and, in fact, the threat that such power poses to virtually all other languages, especially in multilingual environments. Case Studies Institutions offering tertiary education in South Africa consist of universities, technikons, and colleges. As mentioned previously, depending on the particular institution, the medium of instruction may be English and/or Afrikaans, although the overwhelming trend at the present time is toward English-medium tertiary education. Whereas universities primarily offer bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, the technikons provide courses of study in commerce, industry, agriculture, health, engineering, art and design, and technology at the postsenior certificate level, normally leading to a 3-year Diploma, a 4-year Higher Diploma, and in some instances, to even more advanced credentials. The technical colleges and institutes offer vocational education and career-oriented training and upgrading through both formal and informal courses. The case studies selected for presentation here are all at the university level where second and foreign language education (with the exception of remedial second language coursework and literacy programs) are generally concentrated. They include (a) a traditional, comprehensive university (the University of Witwaterstrand), (b) a comprehensive university that provides instruction through distance education (the University of South Africa), and (c) a summary of the current status of second and foreign programs at the historically disadvantaged and Black universities. I am grateful to Rosalie Finalyson, John Morris, and Claire Penn, among others, for their assistance in collecting information for these case studies. Case Study #1: The University of Witwatersand The University of Witwatersrand ("Wits") is located in Johannesburg . The university currently serves a total student population of some 19,000 students, of whom roughly 60% are White and 40% are non-White. However, in recent years these percentages have been changing rapidly as non-White enrollment has increased. Wits offers virtually all degree and diploma programs one would expect of a major university and has nine faculties: architecture, arts, commerce, education, engineering, law, management, health science, and sciences. Depending on the academic discipline, the undergraduate Bachelor's degree may be a 3- or 4-year program of study. The University, like others in postapartheid South Africa, is in the process of undergoing significant transformations with respect to curricula, staff and student demo-
< previous page
page_266
next page >
< previous page
page_267
next page > Page 267
graphics, and institutional mission. In terms of offering second language instruction for undergraduates, several departments are involved including the Department of African Languages, the Department of Afrikaans & Nederlands, the Department of Modern Languages and Literature, and the Department of Applied English Language Studies. Whereas some of these departments offer an undergraduate major, others do not. The Department of African Languages "is one of the oldest in South Africa and offers courses in three languages [Sesotho, Zulu, and Northern Sotho] for mother tongue and second and third language students plus a course for Health Sciences students. . . . The vision of the Department is to take an entrepreneurial role in current language debates, policy-making, publishing, and journalism, and producing students who will be both broad and sharp, and contribute to broader issues concerning the development of African languages, literatures and linguistic rights, within the context of a unified, democratic, non-racist and non-sexist South Africa" . Thus: In the "Mother Tongue Undergraduate Stream," native speakers can major in Sesotho and Zulu, and, in addition, take courses in Northern Sotho. In the "2nd or 3rd Language Undergraduate Stream" students with no prior knowledge of either Sesotho or Zulu can work toward a major in these languages. The Department of Afrikaans & Nederlands offers Afrikaans undergraduate modules at various levels in language and literature, leading to a bachelor's degree, plus an "occasional course" in the Afrikaans language for adults who wish to begin the study of the language. The Department of Modern Languages and Literatures provides "a full range of undergraduate modular courses at 100, 200, and 300 levels in French, German, and Italian . . . [and] two level 100 modular courses in Portuguese. . . . For French, German, and Italian there are three level 100 courses: each is designed to admit students at different language proficiency levels ranging from ab initio students to native speakers of the language. . . . Students may major in any or all the languages offered by the department or may take a combination of the courses offered to make up the requirements for a B.A. degree. Computer Aided Language Learning is an integral part of all level 100 and 200 language modules offered by the Department. . . . All courses are designed to provide a thorough competence in the target language as it is spoken and written in the present day and a critical appreciation of diverse aspects of the literature, thought, history and civilization of the relevant countries through the study of major literary texts from selected periods" . Also operating under the auspices of the Department of Modern Languages and Literatures is the "Wits Language School," which provides courses in Afrikaans, English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Zulu in order "to enhance the performance of South African business" . Finally, there is the Applied English Language Studies Department (AELS) at Wits, which was established in 1992 and is housed in the Faculty of Arts. AELS is an outstanding example of the University's focus on the needs of contemporary South Africa. Including both undergraduate and postgraduate programs, its primary clientele are pre- and in-service educators teaching English in South Africa's present-day multilingual context. AELS courses deal with "the structure, function, and varieties of the English language, with special emphasis on the application of these issues to English as a medium of communication and instruction" in South Africa. Also included in
< previous page
page_267
next page >
< previous page
page_268
next page > Page 268
AELS are such themes as "language acquisition and development, language and society, language and power, language planning and policy in education, language and learning, language in the classroom and the workplace, and multilingualism" . AELS "works at the interface between language and social context" and examines the "connections between linguistic and social practices." AELS courses are recommended for teachers of English, people teaching "through the medium of English," and individuals in the fields of "journalism, translation, communications in the workplace, media studies and cultural studies." As this case study illustrates, the University of Witwatersrand through several departments provides second language instruction in a wide range of languages, which is in keeping with South Africa's current multilingual status. Case Study #2: The University of South Africa The main campus of the University of South Africa (Unisa) is located in Pretoria <www.unisa.ac.za>. Founded in 1873, it is the oldest university in South Africa and since 1946 has been an internationally recognized leader in the provision of distance education. Unisa's mission is to provide high-quality education to students throughout southern Africa (and around the world) for whom a full-time residential university would represent a difficult or even impossible alternative. Unisa offers nondegree and diploma programs in addition to bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees in the arts, economic and management sciences, law, science, education, and theology and religious studies. Currently, the total enrollment at Unisa is approximately 130,000 students, of whom over 100,000 are enrolled in bachelor's degree programs (which require a minimum of 3 or 4 years of study depending on the academic discipline). The Unisa student body is ethnically very diverse, with recent estimates indicating that 49% of the student body is Black, 38% White, 10% Asian, and 4% "colored." (These racial categories are those inherited from the apartheid era but are still utilized in some settings for statistical purposes in South Africa.) At Unisa, a wide range of language majors is possible including Afrikaans, Arabic, Classical Hebrew, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Latin, Modern Hebrew, Northern Sotho, Portuguese, Russian, Shona, Southern Sotho, Spanish, Swati, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa, and Zulu, and it is also possible to take courses in Mandarin (Chinese) . Unisa's Department of African Languageswhich is the largest such department in southern Africaserves both native speakers and second language learners. Because Unisa is a distance education institution, students study on their own and at their own pace . Students must buy the prescribed books. They are also provided with carefully prepared Guides developed by instructors and published by Unisa, together with periodic tutorial letters, examination papers, and audiotapes. Students can obtain additional assistance or advice from their instructors by telephone, fax, and e-mail, and faculty make site visits to locations around the country. Tutors and learning facilitators are available at learning centers in Pretoria, Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban, and Pietersburg, as well as at some additional "satellite" learning centers. Unisa offers an invaluable alternative to traditional residential university education for many students throughout southern Africa. With respect to second language education, the university provides a remarkably wide array of languages for students to study, thus reflecting the institution's commitment to South African multilingualism.
< previous page
page_268
next page >
< previous page
page_269
next page > Page 269
Case Study #3: The Historically Disadvantaged and Black Universities Under apartheid, the government sought to create separate systems of education for each of the four legally identified racial groups, with the ultimate goal that students would receive all of their education in institutions serving their own racial group (Hartshorne, 1992; Marivate, 1993). The result of past government policies in education designed and intended to accomplish this goal has been that: Almost half a century of apartheid has created an education system which mirrors the extremes of privilege and deprivation characteristic of South African society as a whole. While a minority enjoys levels of education comparable with those of the most advanced nations, overall the country has failed to build the educated human resource base necessary for economic development and the evolution of a more equal and democratic society. . . . The poor quality of black education is a contributing factor to South Africa's worsening economic position and the crisis of unemployment. Inadequate mathematics and science teaching in schools constrains the growth of high-level expertise in business, engineering, and the sciences. Poor language and communication skills undermine training, social mobility, and cultural development. (National Education Policy Investigation, 1993a, pp. 3738) The historically disadvantaged and Black universities are part of this legacy of oppression. They have had to deal with seriously underprepared students and with very limited funding and resourcesand when resources were made available in the past, it was rarely in the areas where they were most needed. Rather, ideological concerns about the maintenance of the apartheid state governed many of the funding decisions related to these institutions. As stated by Nelson Mandela (President of South Africa) in describing the current situation at the University of the North, where he is Chancellor : The ravages of Bantu Education have been such that our society, which now needs the highly trained and educated corps to steer and lead reconstruction and development, suffers from a crippling shortage of such high level human resources. Our universities and other tertiary institutions find themselves battling the heritage of inferior education and wide spread illiteracy as they strive to fulfil their function of preparing our studying youth to fully take up their places in the modem [sic] world. Unless we, as a nation, find ways to urgently address this crippling heritage of our apartheid past, our chances of being a competitive and winning nation are seriously diminished. The historically disadvantaged institutions are today undergoing rapid growth and enroll students of all "races." To give readers a "sense" of these institutions, three are described briefly as follows, including summaries of their language offerings: The University of Zululand in Kwadlangezwa was established in 1959, with an enrollment of 41 students. In 1985, the student population had grown to more than 3,000, and in 1996, to more than 7,000. It was only in 1985 that the University opened its doors to students of all races. Today, there are six faculties (arts, commerce and administration, education, law, science, and theology), and the Faculty of Arts includes departments of Afrikaans, African languages, English, French, and German. The University of Durban-Westville (UDW) was founded in 1961 to educate students classified by apartheid as Indian; initially there were 114 students, 90% male. In 1978 non-Indians were allowed to enroll, mainly for postgraduate study, and in 1984 the doors of UDW were opened to all students at all levels. By 1989, there were more Africans than Indians registered as 1st-year students, and by 1994, there
< previous page
page_269
next page >
< previous page
page_270
next page > Page 270
were more than 10,500 students, half women. Included in the UDW mission is the institution's commitment to accessible university education for all students, especially those who are educationally and financially disadvantaged. There are 61 academic departments grouped into nine faculties: arts, commerce, dentistry, education, engineering, health sciences, law, science, and theology. In terms of the study of languages, there are departments of classical languages, English, Hindu studies, Indian languages, Islamic studies, and modern European languages. Vista University in Pretoria was founded in 1982. By 1998, it had an enrollment of more than 28,000 students, including 10,000 participating in distance education. Vista includes seven contact campuses that are located in major Black urban areas (in Bloemfontein, in Daveyton, near Pretoria, in Zwide, near Vanderbijlpark, near Johannesburg, and in Thabong) plus a distance education campus based in Pretoria. There are five faculties (arts, economics & management sciences, education, law, and science). Among its 25 departments, there are several providing language instruction including Afrikaans, English, Nguni languages (Xhosa and Zulu), and Sotho languages (Northern and Southern Sotho as well as Tswana). The historically disadvantaged and Black universities, as well as the government and the higher education community in general, are now in the process of trying to determine what kind of role these institutions will play in the future South Africa (see National Education Policy Investigation, 1992a). At the present time, they serve relatively large numbers of students in fairly difficult circumstances. Although there are not really any second/foreign language programs in these institutions that are particularly noteworthy presently, it is nonetheless the case that several of these institutions have the potential (with respect to faculty) to develop impressive L2 programs, especially in terms of English and the African languages, should this be identified as part of their core mission. References African National Congress. (1994). The reconstruction and development programme: A policy framework. Johannesburg: Author. African National Congress. (1995). A policy framework for education and training (Discussion document). Braamfontein: Author. Alexander, N. (1989). Language policy and national unity in South Africa/Azania. Cape Town: Buchu Books. Alexander, N. (1990). The language question. In R. Schrire (Ed.), Critical choices for South Africa (pp. 126146). Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Anthonissen, C. (1994). Distinguishing between critical linguistics and critical language awareness: Implications for first language teaching in secondary schools. In R. Botha, M. Kemp, C. le Roux, & W. Winckler (Eds.), Taalwetenskap vir die taalprofessies/Linguistics for the language professions, 2 (pp. 249264). Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch, Department of General Linguistics. Askes, H. (1991). Some techniques in communicative language testing. Journal for Language Teaching, 25, 3663. Baai, Z. (1992). Towards a more communicative approach to the teaching of African languages, particularly Xhosa, as second languages. Southern African Journal of Applied Language Studies, 1, 6068. Bailey, R. (1995). The Bantu languages of South Africa: Towards a sociohistorical perspective. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Language and social history: Studies in South African sociolinguistics (pp. 1938). Cape Town: David Philip. Barkhuizen, G., & Gough, D. (1996). Language curriculum development in South Africa: What place for English? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 453471. Beukes, A. (1991). The politics of language in formal education: The position of Afrikaans. Journal for Language Teaching, 25, 6478.
< previous page
page_270
next page >
< previous page
page_271
next page > Page 271
Beukes, A. (1992). Moedertaalonderrig in 'n demokratiese Suid-Afrika [Mother tongue instruction in a democratic South Africa]. Per Linguam, 8, 4251. Beukes, A. (1996). New horizons in language laws and language rights: Multilingualism in the new South Africa. In XIV World Congress of the Fédération Internationale des Traducteurs proceedings (Vol. 2, pp. 609622). Melbourne: The Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators. Beukes, A., & Barnard, M. (Eds.). (1994). Proceedings of the "Languages for All" conference: Towards a Pan South African Language Board. Pretoria: CSIR Conference Centre. Bock, M., & Hewlitt, L. (1993). Critical language awareness (CLA): Applying CLA to an introductory first year course. Southern African Journal of Applied Language Studies, 2, 7386. Botha, K., Esterhuyse, J., Gouws, R., Links, T., & Pienaar, J. (1990). Ruimland 9 & 10. Cape Town: Makew Miller Longman. Brink, A. (1984). The future of Afrikaans. Leadership SA, 3, 2936. Britz, R. (1988). Microcomputer as medium in teaching African languages. South African Journal of African Languages, 8, 7580. Bullivant, B. (1981). The pluralist dilemma in education: Six case studies. Sydney: George Allen & Unwin. Bunting, B. (1986). The rise of the South African Reich. London: International Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa. Cheshire, J. (Ed.). (1991). English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chick, J. (1992). Language policy in education. In R. McGregor & A. McGregor (Eds.), McGregor's education alternatives (pp. 271292). Kenwyn: Juta & Co. Chick, J. (1996). Further thoughts on the adequacy of communicative competence as the goal of language teaching in a multilingual, multicultural society. Journal for Language Teaching, 30, 322332. Chick, J., & Wade, R. (1997). Restandardisation in the direction of a new English: Implications for access and equity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18, 271284. Chisanga, T., & Kamwangamalu, N. (1997). Owning the other tongue: The English language in Southern Africa. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18, 8999. Clarence, J. (1994). "Tensed" and "bumpered" in a university context: The case for the integration of critical linguistics into language programmes. In R. Botha, M. Kemp, C. le Roux, & W. Winckler (Eds.), Taalwetenskap vir die taalprofessies/Linguistics for the language professions, 2 (pp. 281297). Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch, Department of General Linguistics. Cloete, I. (1989). Intelligent machine learning of Afrikaans lexical categories. South African Journal of Linguistics, 7, 138142. Cluver, A. (1992). Language planning models for a post-apartheid South Africa. Language Problems and Language Planning, 16, 105136. Cluver, A. (1993a). The decline of Afrikaans. Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Southern Africa, 24, 1546. Cluver, A. (1993b). A dictionary of language planning terms. Pretoria: University of South Africa. Cobarrubias, J. (1983). Ethical issues in status planning. In J. Cobarrubias & J. Fishman (Eds.), Progress in language planning: International perspectives (pp. 4185). Berlin: Mouton. Cooper, R. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. de Kadt, E. (1996). Language and apartheid: The power of minorities. Alternation: Journal of the Centre for the Study of Southern Africa, 3, 184194. Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. (1997a). Standardising the designation of government departments (Language Planning Report No. 5.5). Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. (1997b). Trading with francophone Africa: The language issue (Language Planning Report No. 5.6). Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Education and Culture, House of Assembly. (1992). An investigation into the position of French and German in the Republic of South Africa. Pretoria: Government Printer. Desai, Z. (1991). Democratic language planning and the transformation of education in post-apartheid South Africa. In E. Unterhalter, H. Wolpe, & T. Botha (Eds.), Education in a future South Africa: Policy issues for transformation (pp. 112122). Houghton: Heinemann. Donaldson, B. C. (1988). The influence of English on Afrikaans. Pretoria: Serva Publishers. Dowling, T. (1998). Speak Xhosa with us/Thetha isiXhosa Nathi [CD-ROM program]. Cape Town: Mother Tongues Multimedia Development, in association with the University of Cape Town Multimedia Education Project.
< previous page
page_271
next page >
< previous page
page_272
next page > Page 272
Dunja-Blajberg, J. (1980). Sprach und Politik in Sudafrika [Language and politics in South Africa]. Bonn: Informationsstelle Suidliches Afrika. Eastman, C. (1983). Language planning: An introduction. San Francisco: Chandler & Sharp. Esterhuyse, J. (1974). Die ontwikkeling van die Noord-Sothoskryftaal [The development of the Northern Sotho written language]. Unpublished master's thesis, Universiteit van Pretoria, South Africa. Esterhuyse, J. (1986). Taalapartheid en skoolafrikaans [Language apartheid and school Afrikaans]. Emmarentia: Taurus. Finchilescu, G., & Nyawose, G. (1998). Talking about language: Zulu students' views on language in the new South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 28, 5361. French, E. (1982). The promotion of literacy in South Africa. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council. Giliomee, H., & Adam, H. (1981). Afrikanermag: Opkoms en toekoms [Afrikaner power: Origins and future]. Stellenbosch: Universiteitsuitgewers. Hartshorne, K. (1987). Language policy in African education in South Africa, 19101985, with particular reference to the issue of medium of instruction. In D. Young (Ed.), Bridging the gap between theory and practice in English second language teaching: Essays in honour of L. W. Lanham (pp. 6281). Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman. Hartshorne, K. (1992). Crisis and challenge: Black education, 19101990. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Heugh, K. (1985). The relationship between nationalism and language in education in the South African context. In D. Young (Ed.), UCT papers in language education (pp. 3570). Cape Town: University of Cape Town, Language Education Unit, Department of Education. Heugh, K. (1987). Trends in language medium policy for a post-apartheid South Africa. In D. Young (Ed.), Language: Planning and medium in education (pp. 206220). Rondebosch: Language Education Unit (UCT) and SAALA. Heugh, K. (1993). The place of English in relation to other languages in South Africa. Per Linguam, 9, 210. Heugh, K. (1995). Disabling and enabling: Implications of language policy trends in South Africa. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Language and social history: Studies in South African sociolinguistics (pp. 329350). Cape Town: David Philip. Hirson, B. (1981). Language in control and resistance in South Africa. African Affairs, 80, 219237. Jacobs, M. (1991). Remediërende onderrig van Afrikaans as vreemde taal: 'n eksperimentele ondersoek [Remedial instruction of Afrikaans as a foreign language: An experimental study]. South African Journal of Linguistics, 9, 3140. Janks, H. (1995a). Language, identity and power: Materials for the classroom. Johannesburg: Hodder & Stoughton in association with Witwatersrand University Press. Janks, H. (1995b). Language and position: Materials for the classroom. Johannesburg: Hodder & Stoughton in association with Witwatersrand University Press. Janks, H. (1996). 1996: Why we still need critical language awareness in South Africa. In R. Botha, D. Aarons, M. Kemp, & C. le Roux (Eds.), Taalwetenskap vir die taalprofessies/Linguistics for the language professions, 3 (pp. 172190). Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch, Department of General Linguistics. Janks, H., & Paton, J. (1990). English and the teaching of English literature in South Africa. In J. Britton, R. Shafer, & K. Watson (Eds.), Teaching and learning English worldwide (pp. 226248). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Kachru, B. (Ed.). (1983). The other tongue: English across cultures. Oxford, England: Pergamon. Kaschula, R., & Anthonissen, C. (1995). Communicating across cultures in South Africa: Toward a critical language awareness. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. Kashoki, M. (1993). Some thoughts on future language policy for South Africa. African Studies, 52, 141162. Kloss, H. (1978). Problems of language policy in South Africa. Vienna, Austria: Wilhelm Braumüller. Kriel, M. (1998). Taal en identiteitskrisis, en die alternatiewe Afrikaans musiekbeweging [Language and identity crisis in the alternative Afrikaans music movement]. South African Journal of Linguistics, 16, 1626. Kroes, H. (1978). Afrikaans in education. In L. Lanham & K. Prinsloo (Eds.), Language and communication studies in South Africa (pp. 169186). Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Kroes, H. (1997). The communicative approach, metacognition, and the OBE. Journal for Language Teaching, 31, 358369. Language Plan Task Group. (1996). Towards a national language plan for South Africa: Final report of the Language Plan Task Group (LANGTAG). Pretoria: Government Printer. Lanham, L. W. (1978). An outline history of the languages of Southern Africa. In L. Lanham & K. Prinsloo (Eds.), Language and communication studies in South Africa (pp. 1328). Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
< previous page
page_272
next page >
< previous page
page_273
next page > Page 273
LoBianco, J. (1996). Language as an economic resource (Language Planning Report No. 5.1). Pretoria: Government Printer. Louw-Potgieter, J., & Louw, J. (1991). Language planning: Preferences of a group of South African students. South African Journal of Linguistics, 9, 9699. Maartens, J. (1994). Teaching Afrikaans as emancipatory discourse. In R. Botha, M. Kemp, C. le Roux, & W. Winckler (Eds.), Taalwetenskap vir die taalprofessies/Linguistics for the language professions, 2 (pp. 298308). Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch, Department of General Linguistics. Malherbe, E. (1977). Education in South Africa (Vol. 2). Cape Town: Juta. Marivate, C. N. (1993). Language and education, with special reference to the mother-tongue policy in African schools. Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Southern Africa, 24, 91105. Mawasha, A. (1996). Teaching African languages to speakers of other South African languages: Operationalising the new democratic language policy in South Africa. Journal for Language Teaching, 30, 3541. Mazrui, A., & Mazrui, A. (1998). The power of Babel: Language and governance in the African experience. Oxford, England: James Currey. McArthur, T. (1988). The English languages. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Mesthrie, R. (1992). English in language shift: The history, structure and sociolinguistics of South African Indian English. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. Mokoena, A. (1998). Sesotho made easy. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik. Morris, R. (1988). LEXINET and the computer processing of language. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council. Mtintsilana, P., & Morris, R. (1988). Terminology in African languages in South Africa. South African Journal of African Languages, 8, 109113. Munnik, A. (1995). Learn Xhosa (2nd ed.). Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter. Mutasa, D. (1996). Constraints on the promotion of African languages to the level of English, French and Portuguese. South African Journal of Linguistics (Suppl. 32), 2334. National Education Policy Investigation (1992a). Post-secondary education. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. National Education Policy Investigation. (1992b). Report of the National Educational Policy Investigation Language Research Group. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. National Education Policy Investigation (1993a). Education planning, systems, and structure. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. National Education Policy Investigation. (1993b). The framework report. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Ndebele, N. S. (1987). The English language and social change in South Africa. The English Academy Review, 4, 116. Nel, B. F. (1959). Aspekte van die onderwysontwikkeling in Suid-Afrika [Aspects of educational development in South Africa]. Cape Town: Haum. Newfield, D. (1995). Words and pictures: Materials for the classroom. Johannesburg: Hodder & Stoughton in association with Witwatersrand University Press. Ngugi wa Thiong'o. (1986). Decolonising the mind: The politics of language in African literature. London: James Currey. Orlek, J. (1995). Languages in South Africa: Materials for the classroom. Johannesburg: Hodder & Stoughton in association with Witwatersrand University Press. Peirce, B. (1989). Toward a pedagogy of possibility in the teaching of English internationally: People's English in South Africa. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 401420. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman. Pheiffer, F. (1992). Review of classroom teaching materials: A new Afrikaans school textbook suitable for teaching university students of Afrikaans. Southern African Journal of Applied Language Studies, 1, 8288. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Pinnock, P. (1994). Xhosa: A cultural grammar for beginners. Cape Town: African Sun Press. Potgieter, F. J., & Swanepoel, C. B. (1968). Temas uit die historiese pedagogiek [Themes from the history of education]. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik. Prinsloo, K. P., & Malan, C. (1988). Cultures in contact: Language and the arts in South Africa. In H. Marais (Ed.), South Africa: Perspectives on the future (pp. 257281). Pinetown: Owen Burgess. Prinsloo, K., Peeters, Y., Turi, J., & van Rensburg, C. (Eds.). (1993). Language, law and equality: Proceedings of the Third International Conference of the International Academy of Language Law. Pretoria: University of South Africa. Prinsloo, M., & Breier, M. (Eds.). (1996). The social uses of literacy: Theory and practice in contemporary South Africa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
< previous page
page_274
next page > Page 274
Reagan, T. (1984). Language policy, politics and ideology: The case of South Africa. Issues in Education, 2, 155154. Reagan, T. (1985). ''Taalideologie" en taalbeplanning ["Language ideology" and language planning]. South African Journal of Linguistics, 3, 4559. Reagan, T. (1986a). Considerations on liberation and oppression: The place of English in black education in South Africa. Journal of Thought, 21, 9199. Reagan, T. (1986b). Taalbeplanning in die Suid-Afrikaanse onderwys: 'n oorsig [Language planning in South African education: An overview]. South African Journal of Linguistics, 4, 3255. Reagan, T. (1986c). The role of language policy in South African education. Language Problems and Language Planning, 10, 113. Reagan, T. (1986d). A sociolinguistic model for the analysis of communication and communication problems in industry. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council. Reagan, T. (1987a). Ideology and language policy in education: The case of Afrikaans. In H. du Plessis & T. du Plessis (Eds.), Afrikaans en taalpolitiek [Afrikaans and language politics] (pp. 133139). Pretoria: Haum. Reagan, T. (1987b). The politics of linguistic apartheid: Language policies in black education in South Africa. Journal of Negro Education, 56, 299312. Reagan, T. (1990). Responding to linguistic diversity in South Africa: The contribution of language planning. South African Journal of Linguistics, 8, 178184. Reagan, T. (1995). Language planning and language policy in South Africa: A perspective on the future. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Language and social history: Studies in South African sociolinguistics (pp. 319328). Cape Town: David Philip. Reagan, T., & Ntshoe, I. (1987). Language policy and black education in South Africa. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20, 118. Ridge, S. (1996). Language policy in a democratic South Africa. In M. Herriman & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language policies in English-dominant countries (pp. 1534). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Rodseth, J. (1997). Innovative second language education in Southern Africa. In G. Tucker & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: (Vol. 4). Second language education (pp. 207219). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Rule, P. (1995). Language and the news: Materials for the classroom. Johannesburg: Hodder & Stoughton in association with Witwatersrand University Press. Sarinjeive, D. (1997). Realities and ideologies of English and "other" Englishes. Journal for Language Teaching, 31, 6876. Schiffman, H. (1996). Linguistic culture and language policy. London: Routledge. Schmied, J. (1991). English in Africa: An introduction. London: Longman. Schuring, G. K. (1985). Kosmopolitiese omgangstale: Die aard, oorsprong en funksies van Pretoria-Sotho en ander koine-tale [Cosmopolitan community languages: The basis, origins and functions of Pretoria-Sotho and other koine languages]. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council. Schuring, G. K. (1991). Language policies in Africa and their relevance to a future South Africa. In D. J. van Vuuren, N. E. Wiehahn, N. J. Rhoodie, & M. Wiechers (Eds.), South Africa in the nineties (pp. 617647). Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council. Smit, B. (1993). Language planning for a future South African educational system: The German language scenarioPedagogical issues. Journal for Language Teaching, 27, 155166. Smit, B. (1996). Towards global learning in post-apartheid South Africa. Journal for Language Teaching, 30, 5967. Smit, U. (1994). Investigating language attitudes as a basis for formulating language policies: A case study. Southern African Journal of Applied Language Studies, 3, 2335. Smith, F. (1993). Whose language? What power? A universal conflict in a South African setting. New York: Teachers College Press. Smith, J. F., van Gensen, A., & Willemse, H. (Eds.). (1985). Swart Afrikaanse skrywers [Black Afrikaans writers]. Bellville: Universiteit van Wes-Kaapland. Snyman, E. (1995). The marketability of French as a foreign language. Journal for Language Teaching, 29, 278284. Snyman, J., le Roux, J., & le Roux, M. (1991). Tswana for beginners. Pretoria: University of South Africa. Steyn, J. C. (1980). Tuiste in Eie Taal [At home in one's language]. Cape Town: Tafelberg. Steyn, J. C. (1992). Die behoud van Afrikaans as ampstaal [The maintenance of Afrikaans as an official language]. In V. N. Webb (Ed.), Afrikaans ná apartheid [Afrikaans after apartheid] (pp. 201226). Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik.
< previous page
page_274
next page >
< previous page
page_275
next page > Page 275
Strike, N. (1996). Talking our way out of the laager: Foreign languages in South African education. Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Southern Africa, 27, 253264. Swanepoel, P., & Pieterse, H. (Eds.). (1993). Perspektiewe op taalbeplanning vir Suid-Afrika/Perspectives on language planning for South Africa. Pretoria: University of South Africa. Swart, M. (1994). The use of hyper- and multimedia in a computer-assisted language learning (CALL) remedial programme. Journal for Language Teaching, 28, 316322. Troup, F. (1976). Forbidden pastures: Education under apartheid. London: International Defence and Aid Fund. Trudgill, P., & Hannah, J. (1994). International English: A guide to varieties of standard English (3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold. van den Heever, R. (1987). Tree na vryheid: 'n studie in Alternatiewe Afrikaans [A step to freedom: A study in alternative Afrikaans]. Cape Town: Kaaplandse Professionele Onderwysersunie. van den Heever, R. (1988). Alternatiewe Afrikaans: Afrikaans en bevryding [Alternative Afrikaans: Afrikaans in liberation]. Cape Town: Kaaplandse Professionele Onderwysersunie. van Rensburg, C. (1993). Die demokratisering van Afrikaans [The democratizing of Afrikaans]. In Linguistica: Festschrift E. B. van Wyk (pp. 141153). Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik. van Rensburg, C. (Ed.). (1997). Afrikaans in Afrika [Afrikaans in Africa]. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik. van Zijl, J. (1987). Teacher education for a multi-cultural society: Seven strategies. South African Journal of Education, 7, 187190. Verhoef, M. (1998a). Funksionele meertaligheid in Suid-Afrika: 'n onbereikbare ideaal? [Functional multilingualism in South Africa: An unobtainable ideal?]. Literator, 19, 3550. Verhoef, M. (1998b). 'n teoretiese aanloop tot taalgesindheidsbeplanning in Suid-Afrika [A theoretical look at language attitude planning in South Africa]. South African Journal of Linguistics, 16, 2733. von Staden, P. (1976, April). Die studie van Bantoetale deur Suid-Afrikaanse blankes [The study of Bantu languages by White South Africans]. Onderwysblad, pp. 1617. Webb, V. N. (Ed.). (1992). Afrikaans ná apartheid[Afrikaans after apartheid]. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik. Young, D. (1994). Review article: Whose language? What power? Southern African Journal of Applied Language Studies, 3, 7788. Zotwana, S. (1991). Xhosa in context: From novice to intermediate. Cape Town: Perskor.
< previous page
page_275
next page >
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
< previous page
page_277
next page > Page 277
PART V PREPARING TEACHERS FOR A MULTILINGUAL SOCIETY
< previous page
page_277
next page >
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
< previous page
page_279
next page > Page 279
13 The Role of the University in Preparing Teachers for a Linguistically Diverse Society JoAnn (Jodi) Crandall University of Maryland, Baltimore County Because of immigration, refugee resettlement, differential family size, and other socio-cultural factors, the population of the United States has become increasingly diverse, ethnically, racially, and linguistically. As Garcia (1994) suggested, the United States is presented with a new scenario. Today: One in 15 Americans was born outside the United States. One in 7 children in U.S. schools comes from a home in which a language other than English is spoken. One in 3 children is a member of a racial or ethnic minority. Although this rich diversity represents a great resource to the United States, it also presents real challenges to teachers at all levels. Children who speak a language other than English are the fastest growing segment of the school-age population. Between 1985 and 1995, the number of language minority students in American schools more than doubled, growing from 1.5 to 3.1 million (Olsen, 1997). Whereas the U.S. school-age population grew by only 4% during that decade, the percentage of children with limited English proficiency (LEP) or "English language learners" (ELLs), rose by 50% (Fix & Zimmerman, 1993). Although the majority of ELLs are attending elementary schools, there also are substantial numbers in middle and high schools (as well as colleges and universities). In the latter, the linguistic and academic demands facing both the students and their teachers are not only much greater but also compressed into a few short years of study. Most ELLs are living in urban areas and attending large schools (particularly in California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey). Forty-two percent of all public school K12 teachers have at least one ELL in class, and this percentage is only likely to increase (Han & Baker, 1997). Today, Latino children are the predominant minority population in the schools, outnumbering African-American children for the first time in the nation's history. If demographic projections hold, Latinos will comprise 25% of the school-age population by 2020 (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 1998). In fact, the continued use of the terms minority and language minority are being called into question, as these minority populations become the majority in many school districts. Whereas the largest number of ELLs are native Spanish speakers, more than 100 countries and languages are represented in many metropolitan school districts, and suburban
< previous page
page_279
next page >
< previous page
page_280
next page > Page 280
school districts are being affected as well. In fact, the number of languages and cultures represented in the schoolage population continues to grow and change as economic and political conditions in other countries as well as U.S. immigration policy changes. The 1970s and 1980s brought students from Southeast Asia, Central America, Mexico, Haiti, and Cuba. They were joined in the 1980s and 1990s by students from Eastern and Central Europe, Africa, and the Caribbean, and more recently, from Bosnia, Croatia, Somalia, and Iraq. (Many of the demographic changes mentioned previously are discussed in greater detail by Ignash in chap. 1, this volume.) The diversity we are seeing is not merely racial, ethnic, and linguistic. Students attending U.S. schools arrive with different degrees of prior education and literacy, different educational expectations about classroom activities and roles for teachers and students, and different learning style preferences. An increasing number of students come with no prior schooling or schooling that has been interrupted, often for several years, by the political and economic conditions in their home countries. They face the double challenge of acquiring English while trying to make up for lost years of schooling (Crandall, Bernache, & Prager, 1998; Crandall & Greenblatt, 1999; Hamayan, 1994; Mace-Matluck, Alexander-Kasparik, & Queen, 1998). A similar situation exists in adult education where one half of all federally funded adult education enrollment is in English to speakers of other languages (ESOL) or English as a second language (ESL) (Office of Vocational and Adult Education/Division of Adult Education and Literacy [OVAE/DAEL], 1999). The percentage of ELLs among the adult education population has been steadily increasing for the past three decades, as the number of adult immigrants continues to rise (OVAE/DAEL, 1999). Almost as many immigrants arrived between 1990 and 1994 as during the entire decade of the 1970s, and these new arrivals are likely to be younger and also to have left school before graduation (OVAE/DAEL, 1999). Immigrants, as well as large numbers of adult residents who speak languages other than English, not only enroll in adult ESOL classes but also continue their education after they exit from ESOL, taking courses for a high school equivalency certificate (the GED) or continuing on to higher education, often at local community colleges (Fitzgerald, 1995). When one considers their participation in GED and college preparation courses, the actual percentage of language minority speakers among the adult education population may exceed 50%. U.S. college and university enrollment of bilingual students also continues to grownot only from international/foreign studentsbut also residents (immigrants, refugees, and native-born citizens who speak languages other than English). (See chaps. 1 and 4 of this volume for further discussion of these topics). Many of the bilingual students, particularly among the resident population, lack the college-level English language proficiency as well as academic skills and content knowledge expected for college participation. Courses in academic language and literacy skills, learning strategies, and study and higher order thinking skills are increasingly part of the program offered to these students, often by the ESOL teacher (Snow & Kamhi-Stein, 1997). Though international student enrollment in U.S. colleges and universities has plateaued in recent years (due to changing global economies, visa requirements, and other governmental policies; also see chap. 1 of this volume for further discussion), a number of factors point to continuing enrollment of foreign students in American English-medium universities where education promises not only enhanced knowledge of the humanities and sciences but also improved English language proficiency. These factors include:
< previous page
page_280
next page >
< previous page
page_281
next page > Page 281
The growing importance of English as the language of international commerce, communication, science and technology, travel, and information exchange. The increasingly early introduction of English in public schools around the world (e.g., Grade 1 in the United Arab Emirates and Oman; Grade 3 in Korea). The proliferation of (usually private) bilingual schools, in which one of the languages of instruction is English (e.g., throughout much of Latin America, Asia, and the Arab World). The growing practice of using English as a medium of instruction for at least some portion of higher education, either in classroom lectures or discussions or as the language of textbooks in disciplines such as science, engineering, or medicine. For ELLs, a number of program models have been developed. They differ principally in the degree of support for the primary (native) language, the instructional approach used to develop competence in the second language (in this case, English), and the means of transitioning students from second language classes into the mainstream classroom (Crandall, 1997). These models include: Bilingual education programs in which students spend at least some of the day developing basic literacy and numeracy skills and academic concepts through their native language while they are also studying English as a second language (ESL). Contrary to popular opinion, there is ample evidence that good bilingual programs are effective (Christian, 1994; Crandall, 1997; Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991). Later on in this chapter, the value of education through the student's primary language is discussed in greater depth, including how it enhances second language (English) acquisition. Whereas discussions of bilingual education generally focus on Grades K12, bilingual programsprimarily serving recent immigrantsalso exist at some colleges and universities. They are described by Rosenthal in chapter 5 of this volume. ESOL or ESL programs, specially designed English programs that assist non- or limited-English proficient students in acquiring the English necessary for a variety of purposes. This includes both informal, social use and the more formal, academic language and literacy needed for success in school. ESL instruction is offered in schools when either the number of ELLs is small or the number of languages spoken by the children is large, making bilingual education less feasible. In addition, ESL instruction is in great demand at the college/university level especially to prepare students who will be continuing their academic studies. (Reppy and Adames describe the types of ESL instruction provided at the college/university level in chap. 4, this volume.) Content-based language instruction, where language teachers take themes or concepts from academic disciplines such as mathematics, science, or social studies and use these to develop relevant academic language and literacy skills. Content-based language classes have several benefits. They may help students develop successful learning strategies by teaching basic study and critical-thinking skills; they provide ELLs with the opportunity to develop a better understanding of the rules and structures of English and the nature of English language texts and writing conventions, and they allow ELLs to try out these academic English skills in a relatively anxiety-free environment (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989; Crandall, 1993a). (Content-based language instruction is also being used in higher education not only in ESL classroomssee chap. 4, this volumebut also to teach foreign languagessee chap. 3, this volume.)
< previous page
page_281
next page >
< previous page
page_282
next page > Page 282
Sheltered (or language-sensitive content) instruction, in which content courses (such as mathematics, science, or social studies) are adapted to make them accessible to students who are still learning English (Crandall, 1993a; Krashen, 1993; Northcutt & Watson, 1986; Rosen & Sasser, 1997; Spanos, 1989). Sheltered instruction is especially important when there is limited support for the student's primary language. Originally, sheltered instruction referred to classes of only second language learners. However, today its use has been expanded to include mixed classes of both English language speakers and ELLs where special adaptations are undertaken to enable all students to participate and learn (Crandall, 1993a). The sheltered classroom fosters both content and English language learning for all students. Though sheltered instruction for ESL students is usually limited to those at an intermediate level of English language proficiency, the model has also included beginners (McNab, 1996). (Colleges and universities have also adopted sheltered ESL instruction, and this is described by Reppy and Adames in chap. 4, this volume.) Thematic instruction, which involves the coplanning and teaching of curriculum around themes, fostering integration of a number of different disciplines (Crandall, 1998; Enright & McCloskey, 1988). Because thematic instruction is common in elementary and secondary education for English-speaking students, it is relatively easy to include the ESOL teacher and to develop thematic curricula that accommodate students of different levels of English language and literacy development. Even when thematic instruction across the curriculum is not possible, an ESOL teacher at any level (K12, adult, or university) may use themes to integrate language learning with a number of different content areas. Adjunct instruction, which involves the pairing of a special language learning course that is taken by ESL students (usually focused on reading or writing) with a content course in which both the second language learners and native English speakers are enrolled (Brinton et al., 1989; Snow & Brinton, 1988). The adjunct model is frequently used at colleges and universities to enable advanced ELLs to enroll in core courses such as psychology, sociology, or history while still receiving some support in academic English development (see chap. 4, this volume). In adjunct programs, the content and paired ESL courses share a common content base, but the instructional emphasis differs. The content teacher focuses on academic concepts and ideas; the language teacher focuses on academic language skills such as reading and writing. In other words, the adjunct ESOL course is not just a review or drill section. Rather, it is a course with its own set of materials and a much wider range of activities than is usually found in the content course. Through small-group discussions, cooperative projects, writing workshops, and other techniques, students in the adjunct ESOL class are encouraged to use the language related to the content course and to develop academic literacy skills that will transfer beyond the particular content class. Team teaching (also referred to as plug-in or inclusion), a newer model being tried principally in elementary and secondary schools, involves coteaching by language and content teachers (Harper & Platt, 1998). The model fosters coplanning of the curriculum and enables ELLs to participate in instruction with native English speakers even in language arts classes. Inclusion models provide increased access to the core curriculum for ELLs who do not have the benefit of bilingual instruction. However, those using the model recommend that students still receive a separate period of ESOL instruction to provide the focused attention to English academic discourse and text conventions that these students may still require (Davison, 1992).
< previous page
page_282
next page >
< previous page
page_283
next page > Page 283
It is important to note that the seven types of programs just described for ELLs are not mutually exclusive. ESOL and sheltered courses are usually part of elementary or secondary school bilingual programs in the United States, and in ESOL-only programs, students often take sheltered or team-taught content courses while they are still enrolled in ESOL classes. Likewise, in colleges and universities, students frequently take special adjunct and sheltered courses while they are enrolled in ESL. At the same time as English is increasing in importance internationally, a number of political and trade alliances as well as greater opportunities for global communication have also underscored the importance of learning second languages, in particular languages other than English. This has led to the introduction of a number of innovative "foreign" language programs that can be found in schools, colleges, and universities in the United States. They include: Foreign language experience (FLEX) or foreign languages as subject (FLES) in an increasing number of public elementary schools (Curtain & Pesola, 1994). Foreign language immersion programs, primarily for children, who receive most of their instruction through another language in both public and private elementary schools (Genesee, 1987; Met, 1987, 1992). Two-way developmental language programs, which bring together children speaking two different languages (e.g., Spanishspeaking and English-speaking children) and place them in an instructional program in which each of those languages is used in the educational program for part of the school day (Christian, 1994; Genesee, 1987; Lindholm, 1990). Heritage language programs, which help immigrants, many of whom who are English dominant, to develop greater proficiency in the language of their parents or grandparents (including the ability to read and write the language and to use it in academic or other contexts). A variety of foreign language across the curriculum (FLAC) models at the college/university level (Jurasek, 1988; Krueger & Ryan, 1993; Leaver & Stryker, 1989; Stryker & Leaver, 1997) that are provided in addition to more traditional types of foreign language instruction. FLAC ranges from offering additional credit for reading a portion of course texts in another language (e.g., political science texts in Russian or business texts in Japanese) to actual instruction in a content course through the other language. (College- and university-level FLAC and heritage language programs are described in greater detail in chaps. 3 and 8, respectively, this volume.) What this introduction has attempted to show is that not only are native English speakers studying "foreign" languages but also large numbers of nonnative speakers are learning English as a second language. This is happening in grade schools, high schools, colleges and universities, and adult education programs. Today's student population is extraordinarily diverse in many ways, and instructors at all levels, whatever subject they are teachingbe it history, science, mathematics, languages, social studies, or the artsneed to be adequately prepared if they are going to be effective in the classroom. Although the remainder of this chapter emphasizes preparing pre-K through Grade 12 teachers to work with linguistically diverse student populations, much of the information that followsas well as some of the examples that are givenare just as relevant for college- and university-level instruction.
< previous page
page_283
next page >
< previous page
page_284
next page > Page 284
The Challenge of Linguistic and Cultural Diversity for Teacher Education Although classes or schools have never been homogeneous, traditional teacher education programs have often proceeded as if they were, preparing teachers to teach a mythical or generalized mainstream, White, middle-class student with values and educational expectations that matched their own. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of U.S. public school teachers are White and English speaking, and though the student population is becoming increasingly diverse, the teaching population is becoming even less so. In 1990, when an estimated 30% of all students were minority, only 21% of the teachers were (Diaz-Rico & Smith, 1994). By the year 2000, that gap is expected to widen, with minorities comprising 38% of the students, but only 5% of the teachers (Diaz-Rico & Smith, 1994). There is a growing gap between the background, education, and expectations of those who teach and those they are teaching, and teachers have limited preparation for teaching students whose languages, cultures, and educational experiences differ from their own. In 1994, only 28% of public school teachers with ELLs in their classes had any training (even in-service workshops) for teaching these students (Henke et al., 1997). Few teachers have had even one course in second language acquisition, crosscultural communication, interdisciplinary pedagogy, or other relevant areas to prepare them for their changing classrooms. The required courses in psychology of learning or curriculum and instruction taken by most pre-K to Grade 12 teachers give only limited attention to pedagogical styles occasioned by differences in ethnicity, language, culture, or race. Recent efforts to restructure preservice teacher education on many campuses have resulted in new attention to student diversity, but until now, what teachers know about useful instructional techniques for working with diverse students has been learned on the job, often by talking with students or other teachers. Not surprisingly, few teachers believe this is adequate preparation, especially when coupled with the other challenges they face such as larger classes, reduced resources, increasing graduation requirements, and more mandated tests. ESOL and bilingual teachers, unlike most content-area teachers, have theoretical knowledge and practical background in teaching linguistically and culturally diverse students, but they often lack exposure to or understanding of the academic language, skills, tasks, and texts that confront their students when they exit from the ESOL or bilingual classroom. Traditional ESL and bilingual teacher education has focused on issues of language theory and practice, without attention to academic language across the curriculum or the contexts in which that language is used. Among adult and higher education faculty, the challenge is also great. Few states require teacher training for adult education, and in higher education, traditional academic preparation for the master's or doctorate has been limited to acquiring in-depth knowledge of the subject matter (disciplinary) knowledge, with limited attention to matters of teaching. Those faculty who have been graduate assistants may have had some teacher development, but even graduate assistant training programs rarely address differences among students, focusing instead on organizing and delivering instruction, grading, keeping office hours, and other logistical considerations. Ironically, international teaching assistants (ITAs) may be the most likely to have had some training on student differences because they frequently receive practical instruction to help them to understand
< previous page
page_284
next page >
< previous page
page_285
next page > Page 285
and teach mainstream American students (who may be resistant to the traditional teaching styles that characterize many of these ITAs' own educational backgrounds). Although there is growing recognition that bilingualism is a national resource, there is also a great deal of misunderstanding about bilingual students and the kinds of instruction that are appropriate for them. Both novice and long-time teachersespecially those with limited international experience or little knowledge of linguistic and cultural differences and their effects on educational expectations and achievementneed much greater access to information and additional training to enable them to better meet the needs of students in their increasingly diverse classrooms (Crandall, 1995; Darling-Hammond, 1996). What All Teachers Should Know about Teaching Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Students There is substantial agreement within the educational community regarding the knowledge, skills, and attitudes (or dispositions) that all teachers need if they are to effectively teach today's diverse students. A recent class action suit in Florida, undertaken on behalf of language minority public school students (League of United Latin American Citizens [LULAC] et al. v. Florida Department of Education, 1990; see Harper & Platt, 1998, for a review of subsequent activities), identified the following as topics for preservice course-work or in-service teacher education programs: First and second language acquisition and development. Cross-cultural communication and strategies for linking instruction with language and literacy activities in the home and community. Strategies for adapting materials and instruction (methodology of teaching ELLs both English and academic content). Appropriate assessment strategies. These same areas have also been identified by the California State Department of Education (where over one third of school-age ELLs reside), resulting in the restructuring of teacher licensing to include Cross-cultural, Language, and Academic Development (CLAD) and Bilingual CLAD (BCLAD) options. These options encourage teachers to focus on language development, culture, and integrated instruction as a part of their professional preparation. At a minimum, all teachers should know something about each of the four topics listed previously and their impact on teaching and learning. In the space of one chapter, it is not possible to discuss any of these in depth. Therefore, only the most salient points are addressed herein. The Relationship between First and Second Language Acquisition and Its Effects on Academic Achievement; and, Strategies for Supporting the First Language While Developing Proficiency in the Second. The relationship between the first and second language is best expressed by Cummins (1981) as linguistic interdependence. Knowledge acquired through one language can be accessed in the second if steps are taken to adapt instruction through the second language (in this case, English) to the level of the student's proficiency. In other words, people only need to learn to read or write one time (though they may have to learn special conventions such as different writing systems or layout of print
< previous page
page_285
next page >
< previous page
page_286
next page > Page 286
on a page). Similarly, a student only needs to learn how to divide fractions once; this skill transfers to another language. The student only has to acquire the new vocabulary and structures to be able to express it. Having learned something in one language is a resource that can be accessed in the second if teachers provide appropriate support for this to occur. It is for this reason that learning through the first language enhances second language learning. Thus, the better educated the student is in his or her native language, the easier it will be to master academic English. Ideally, schools (and universities) will provide at least some of the student's academic program through his or her primary language. This enables students to keep up academically with their peers, and, in the long runas a result of linguistic interdependencefacilitates the acquisition of English as a second language. In addition to some form of bilingual instruction, some schools offer special sections of foreign language courses specially adapted for ''native" speakers, such as the children of immigrants. These heritage language programs can be integrated into the school curriculum or offered after school or on weekends, with the school providing space, teachers, or other resources. By means of heritage language instruction, students further develop their native language and literacy while they are concurrently learning English. Such programs develop additive bilingualism; English is added without the loss of the mother tongue. (Heritage language programs also are beginning to emerge on college and university campuses across the nation, and this is described by Campbell and Rosenthal in chap. 8 of this volume.) Information about Cross-Cultural Differences in Communication and Interaction, Especially as These Relate to Educational Expectations and Learning Styles, and Ways to Connect Schooling with Previous Educational Experiences, Including Literacy and Language Activities in the Home and Community. As anyone who has spent time in educational institutions in other countries can attest, U.S classrooms allow and even encourage much more interaction and independence than is often the case elsewhere. Students who come from countries that value memorization and consider questioning a teacher to be disrespectful may face substantial difficulty when expected to be "independent" learners who "question" what they are learning or when asked to write a report from their own perspective (rather than copying sections of respected texts verbatim). Similarly, students from cultures that value group harmony and cooperative activity may find it difficult to offer answers that their peers might not know (thus drawing attention to themselves), and they may not even consider refusing to help with an assignment when asked by another student (although the teacher may consider this cheating). Teachers need to understand something of the range of differences between home and school language and literacy practices and the relative roles and responsibilities of children and adults. In some cultures, children are provided a great deal of time to observe and practice on their own, or to seek individual help, before they are asked to demonstrate their understanding to a group. In other cultures, group participation in story telling is the norm, rather than individual responses governed by raising one's hand. Where possible, teachers should use strategies that build on children's expectations of appropriate education and home and community language and literacy experiences (Heath, 1983; Heath & Mangiola, 1991; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). Though a teacher may not be able to learn all the combinations of cultural practices students bring to class, it is possible to become aware of the range of values, beliefs, and practices and to learn to consider the source of educational differences. It is also possible
< previous page
page_286
next page >
< previous page
page_287
next page > Page 287
to build into one's instruction a variety of learning experiences that will increase the likelihood that all students will be able to learn (encouraging a wide range of learning strategies or appealing to what Gardner, 1993, called "multiple intelligences"). Expecting cultural differences will at least cause one to stop and consider cultural reasons before negatively assessing a student who is participating differently from others in the class. Strategies for Integrating Language and Content Instruction, Adapting Instruction and Materials (Including the Use of Appropriate Technology), Thereby Permitting ELLs to Study Academic Content While They Are Also Learning the Language That Is the Medium of Instruction. It is neither possible nor desirable for students to postpone their academic learning until they have become proficient in English. Where bilingual programs are available, students can continue academic and conceptual learning through their primary language. But where bilingual programs are not available, students need access to sheltered or adapted instruction (Crandall, 1993a; Krashen, 1993; Spanos, 1989). Various strategies have been found to be useful (Chamot & O'Malley, 1992; Crandall, 1993a; Crandall & Tucker, 1990; Echevarria, 1995; Echevarria & Graves, 1998; Harris, 1995). It may be helpful to think of these in terms of the two continua suggested by Cummins (1981): (a) those strategies that increase the degree of contextual support, reducing reliance on written or spoken language for information, and (b) those strategies that reduce the cognitive complexity of the text and task. It should be noted that all studentsnot just ELLsbenefit from such strategies, and that in practice, it is often difficult to separate strategies that increase contextual support from those that reduce cognitive complexity. Specifically, those strategies are: 1. Strategies that increase the possible sources of information, reducing the reliance on written or spoken language (contextembeddedness): Using pictures, gestures, and visual sources of information to provide concrete examples to bridge to the more abstract. Involving students in demonstrations and experiential learning to reduce dependence on or provide support for developing oral or written language. Developing instruction around a meaningful context or theme that integrates concepts and relates them to students' own experiences. Involving students in project work to enable them to bring the full extent of their abilities or "intelligences" to bear, not just those that involve written or oral language. Using multiple grouping strategies to promote cooperative learning, peer tutoring, and other learner-centered approaches that result in increased opportunities for instructional conversations, scaffolding, and support from more experienced or languageproficient peers or the teacher. 2. Strategies that decrease the cognitive complexity of the text or task: Providing multiple opportunities for students to negotiate meaning and construct their understanding of the content through the use of multiple media (reading texts, writing assignments, class discussion, etc.). Using repetition, paraphrasing, summaries, and clarification strategies to check students' comprehension of both the concepts and the language. Focusing attention on important vocabulary and reducing attention to less important vocabulary.
< previous page
page_287
next page >
< previous page
page_288
next page > Page 288
Adapting both oral and written language texts to simplify presentation, eliminate less important material, and focus on significant information. Charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, and other graphic organizers (Venn diagrams, time lines, tree diagrams, or semantic maps) are particularly helpful for both presenting the information and for helping students to organize it as they are learning it (Mohan, 1986; Tang, 1992). Using frequent comprehension checks and clarification questions to provide an ongoing gauge of students' understanding. Consciously teaching study skills and higher order thinking skills, and modeling effective learning strategies through thinkaloud demonstrations, dialogue-journal writing, guided reading, and other means (Chamot & O'Malley, 1992). Assigning note taking, journal writing, and other written work to facilitate learning and provide checks on student progress. Using a variety of assessments to enable learners to demonstrate understanding in other than traditional writing assignments. These strategies are consistent with what is being recommended in recent standards documents from mathematics, science, and social studies associations and in essence represent good teaching practices. A number of mathematics educators (Cocking & Mestre, 1988; Cuevas, 1984; Secada, 1992), science educators (Anstrom, 1998; Fathman, Quinn, & Kessler, 1992; Rosenthal, 1996; Warren & Roseberry, 1992), and other educators (see Crandall, 1987; Short, 1994; Snow & Brinton, 1997) have demonstrated that adapted instruction fosters achievement in content areas at the same time as language minority students are developing academic language and literacy skills. Alternative Assessment Strategies That Provide Those Still Learning English with Opportunities to Demonstrate Their Understanding in a Variety of Ways. States have identified a number of "accommodations" that are made available to ELLs when they are taking standardized tests. Among these are providing additional time for students to respond to assessment tasks, permitting students to use bilingual dictionaries or word lists, reading directions aloud, or translating or explaining directions. But for classroom purposes, the range of alternative assessments is even greater. A good assessment plan for language minority students uses both standard and alternative assessments (August & Pease-Alvarez, 1996). Students may be asked to demonstrate or explain orally their understanding, rather than being asked to write it. They may be encouraged to work in groups, with the group's activities monitored by the teacher. Checklists and inventories can record when a student has demonstrated understanding of a concept or has remembered something (a name, place, or date) that is important, and portfolios may provide a much better estimate of what a student can do than performance on written end-of-unit tests (O'Malley & Pierce, 1996; Short, 1993). Additional Competencies for (ESOL, Bilingual, or Foreign) Language Teachers ESOL, bilingual, and foreign language teachers are centrally responsible for the development of academic language and literacy skills. Thus, in addition to the knowledge base discussed earlier, they also need: An understanding of the structures of English (grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary) and methodology for helping students to acquire these.
< previous page
page_288
next page >
< previous page
page_289
next page > Page 289
Strategies for integrating academic concepts, texts, tasks, and tests into the ESOL or other language classroom, including the development of content-based language activities and thematic units that introduce concepts and language from across the curriculum in a linguistically rich instructional plan. An understanding of ways to conduct needs analyses, including analyses of textbooks, curriculum, and classroom instruction across the curriculum. Techniques for helping learners to develop learning strategies (especially cognitive and metacognitive strategies that will increase students' effectiveness and efficiency in using English as an academic medium) and to become more independent learners. How Can Experienced Teachers (At All Levels of Education) Increase Their Understanding of and Ability to Teach Diverse Students? Because the majority of teachers have had little or no preparation for teaching linguistically and culturally diverse students, many have sought out or created opportunities to increase their understanding of these students and to learn additional ways to teach them effectively. Essentially, these can be grouped according to three different approaches to teacher development: the applied science model (providing courses that link theory to practice), the apprenticeship or skill-building model (where teachers observe and receive support from more experienced colleagues), and the reflective practice model, including classroom-based research and teacher inquiry groups (where teachers learn by researching and reflecting on their own teaching). (See Wallace, 1991, or Crandall, 1993b, for a fuller discussion.) In practice, these three approaches are usually combined, as the case studies at the end of this chapter illustrate. Examples of approaches to in-service teacher development are briefly described next. (Some are more fully developed in the case studies.) With the exception of the graduate courses, all are relevant not only to pre-K through Grade 12 teachers but also for college and university faculty in all academic disciplines who are teaching language minority students: Graduate courses or extensive professional development programs, which may be provided on-site or by means of distance education, Peer observation, which may involve "master" teachers who are willing to be observed or to provide demonstration teaching followed by questions and discussion. The pairing of teachers who share the same students in mutual observation, discussion, and reflection can also be effective. Peer observation is particularly fruitful in colleges and universities where direct teacher development is rare. Collaborative planning and curriculum development involves pairing teachers (e.g., a language teacher with a content teacher who teach the same students) in curriculum or lesson planning. This can lead not only to more effective integrated instruction for students but also to a much greater appreciation of the nature of academic discourse and of content knowledge and tasks for all involved. The language teacher develops a better understanding of the linguistic and academic content demands of other subjects, and the content teacher develops a better understanding of the complexity of academic language, the challenges of second language acquisition, and the positive role that she or he
< previous page
page_289
next page >
< previous page
page_290
next page > Page 290
can play in helping those who are still acquiring the language of instruction to continue learning. Team teaching or having instruction delivered by an ESOL (or foreign language) and a content-area teacher. In some schools, this modelwhich was developed to assist ELLs in learning math, science, or social studieshas inadvertently proven to be one of the most successful ways of promoting teacher development as well. Planning and implementing instruction together offers teachers a much deeper understanding of the role of language in content mastery and the ways in which language and content instruction can be effectively integrated. At many colleges and universities, adjunct programs linking ESOL and content-area faculty have proven to be beneficial not only to ELLs but also in terms of faculty development. Teacher research or inquiry groups focusing on issues of diversity as they relate to curriculum, instruction, student learning styles, and other shared concerns have developed within schools, on college campuses, or among teachers and researchers from a variety of institutions. Though all of these approaches are useful for in-service teachers and faculty members, if they are to be effective, they need to be long-term, site-based, teacher-designed and-directed, and with adequate time allotted for teacher inquiry and reflection (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Gonzalez & Darling-Hammond, 1997). How Can We Change Preservice Teacher Education to Make It More Relevant to the Changing Student Population? To date, in-service programsparticularly workshopshave been the principal means by which teachers acquire knowledge and skills for use in increasingly diverse classrooms. But changes are occurring in teacher preparation programs as well. Among the approaches that have been tried are the following: Adding special segments on second language learners or second language reading and writing to traditional educational theory or methods courses in teacher preparation programs. Creating special courses on linguistic, racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity and discussing implications for this diversity on teaching methodology, curriculum design, or assessment. Infusing diversity as a central theme throughout the teacher preparation program, especially in the core courses on the psychology of teaching and learning, methodology, and in the practical courses (classroom observation/field experience). Involving prospective teachers in activities that bring them closer to the communities in which their students live. Involving prospective teachers in a language "immersion" experience, such as taking a core course like educational psychology in another language. Increasing the focus on academic language in all theoretical and applied (methodology) courses for ESOL, bilingual, and foreign language teachers. Adding a course focused on teaching academic English, integrating language and
< previous page
page_290
next page >
< previous page
page_291
next page > Page 291
content instruction, or content-based language instruction to the elective or required courses in ESOL/bilingual teacher education. Adding ethnic studies or other multicultural literature, history, and culture courses to the core curriculum required of all students, not just those enrolled in teacher education. Creating linked or adjunct courses to enable prospective teachers to better understand the academic language and skill demands of university courses. Recruiting prospective teachers from among minority and bilingual students and members of the local communities. Case Studies In the following case studies, a number of the approaches discussed previously are integrated into extensive teacher education programs serving prospective and experienced teachers at a variety of levels and in a variety of contexts. What these programs have in common is a focus on increased academic achievement for English language learners and a recognition that collaboration (across departments, programs, or institutions) fosters both improved student achievement and teacher development. The case studies provide insights on ways in which teachers at all levels of educationelementary, secondary, adult, and universitycan be better prepared to teach the linguistically and culturally diverse students in today's schools and colleges/universities. The case studies were developed with assistance from Marguerite Ann Snow and Lia Kamhi-Stein at California State University at Los Angeles and Dorit Kaufman at the State University of New York at Stonybrook. Case Study #1: Strategic Integration: Collaboration between Schools and a University Teacher Education Program in Project WE TEACH Project WE TEACH (When Everyone Teaches, Everyone ACHieves) was a secondary immigrant education project funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation with a goal of improving the English language and literacy, academic achievement, and post-secondary education and career preparation of language minority students. A 5-year collaborative effort of the ESOL/Bilingual Teacher Education Program at the University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) and the ESOL/Language Minority Programs of the Prince George's County (MD) Public Schools, the project focused on two high schools and two (feeder) middle schools. Though project funding has ended, collaboration between the university and the school district continues in a number of ways (thus the use of the present tense in the following). Project WE TEACH schools have majority African-American student populations, as well as growing numbers of language minority, immigrant, and international students. These students speak more than 30 different languages and come from even more countries. About 10% of the nonnative English-speaking students arrive with limited prior schooling or literacy, which as previously mentioned is an especially challenging situation for secondary school students and their teachers. (For further information about the students initiatives relating to underschooled, high-achieving, and other immigrant students see Crandall, 1995; Crandall et al., 1998; Crandall & Greenblatt, 1999).
< previous page
page_291
next page >
< previous page
page_292
next page > Page 292
Most of the teachers in the schools have had little prior experience with teaching linguistically and culturally diverse students or students with little previous education. Few have had even one in-service course to prepare them for the multilingual and multicultural classrooms that represent their daily reality. However, a core of teachers were committed to making their schools more responsive to their diverse students' needs and were interested in working together and with graduate students and faculty at UMBC to both learn more and do more in this regard. Although the central focus of WE TEACH was on improved student achievement, the project emphasized professional development for teachers and administrators in the schools and also increased opportunities for relevant teaching, curriculum development, and research for prospective ESOL teachers enrolled in the teacher education program at UMBC. This resulted in the implementation of a number of activitiesfor example, special courses; afterschool and weekend programs; field trips and speakers; and cross-age and peer tutoring. As a result of the project, a Professional Development Center (Darling-Hammond, 1996) was established at one of the schools, encouraging ongoing collaboration and integration of preservice and in-service teacher education. One of the first requests by teachers in the schools was for a series of graduate courses, offered on-site after school. The placement and timing of these courses not only increased their convenience, but also their potential relevance, because teachers, graduate students/prospective teachers, administrators, and the secondary school students who were ELLs could all participate and be available for consultation. Four courses were offered during the 5 years of the project, including one focused on "strategies for working with linguistically and culturally diverse secondary school students." This course provided linguistic and cultural profiles of students in the schools; an overview of theories of second language acquisition with an emphasis on academic language learning; and, basic information on cross-cultural differences that may affect teaching and learning. Moreover, there were individual sessions conducted by expert teachers from the schools on specific strategies that could be used in different content areas to adapt instruction for ELLs (see Crandall, 1995, for more information). Following this course, which was offered twice at different schools, several of the participating teachers returned to their schools to offer in-service workshops for their colleagues, focusing on strategies and materials they had developed to use in their own classrooms. These teachers also emphasized the value of their adaptations (i.e., demonstrations, graphic organizers, cooperative learning, and the combined used of oral and written presentations) for all students, not just ELLs. Teachers presenting what they had learned and how they had applied that knowledge in their own classroom practice was more powerful and motivating than sessions led by outside "experts," but the support of university faculty and graduate students was also valuable. Another on-site, after-school, graduate course addressed the issue of the growing numbers of students from West Africa and the Caribbean who speak Creolized varieties of English. Many of these students have had little prior schooling and thus have limited access to the more standard Englishes that they would have been taught if they had been able to attend school in their home countries. The course, "World-Englishes and Their Speakers," not only engaged teachers and graduate students in semester-long tutoring but also required each to prepare a case study of one of the West African or Caribbean students. Participants met weekly with their students, engaged in dialogue journal writing, helped with schoolwork (especially reading and writing), and wrote weekly entries in their teacher logs. They also audiotaped and analyzed a segment of their student's
< previous page
page_292
next page >
< previous page
page_293
next page > Page 293
language, noting similarities across these languages and some urban varieties of African-American Vernacular English. Through this interaction with students, the involvement of students and community members in teaching the class, and reading and discussions in class, teachers were able to gain a greater understanding of and respect for these students and their languages and cultures. The teachers also learned a number of useful strategies for helping students with limited prior schooling to develop literacy and academic language skills that could then be used with other English-speaking students with similar delayed literacy and academic skill development. At the same time, the students themselves benefitted by the extra attention afforded them. School-based teams also engaged in curriculum development, often with the assistance of graduate student interns or researchers. Among these were special college preparation courses for juniors and seniors, development of thematic units to integrate curriculum for middle school ELLs, and adaptation of social studies and science curricula to accommodate nonnative speakers of English. Another facet of the school district-university collaboration involved opportunities for graduate students preparing to be ESOL teachers to assist in both ESOL and content classes. Students in the UMBC M.A. Program in ESOL/Bilingual Education come with a diverse set of academic backgrounds (with majors in law, economics, mathematics, biology, business, etc.), making it relatively easy for them to help out in sheltered content courses in those disciplines. But even those students with English or foreign language backgrounds are able to assist in a range of content classes because many strategies for sheltering instruction are common to language teaching. Collaborating across institutions also provided powerful ways of involving both graduate students (prospective teachers) and experienced teachers in classroom-centered research. In undertaking these studies, the graduate students assisted with instruction, carried out research, and engaged in feedback and reflection discussions with the teachers, a process by which all gained (the graduate students, the teachers, and the ELLs). Prospective teachers are leaving the program better prepared for the realities of schools, and teachers in the schools are benefitting from the presence of assistant teachers, coresearchers, and cocurriculum developers. (For more information about WE TEACH see Crandall, 1993b; Crandall, 1995; and Peyton & Adger, 1999). Case Study #2: Integrating Prospective ESOL, Science, and Social Studies Teachers in Preservice Education: The SUNY Experience In response to the increasing student diversity in public schools and "the high number of language minority students who score below national norms in mathematics and science and avoid careers in these areas" (Kaufman & Grennon Brooks, 1996, p. 231), the teacher education program at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Stonybrook has implemented a collaborative teacher education program integrating language, science, and social studies. The program was developed as a response to local needs: ESOL teacher candidates wanted opportunities to become better able to teach mathematics, science, and social studiesrelated classes whereas the science and social studies teacher candidates needed more exposure to strategies for teaching linguistically and culturally diverse students. The collaboration engages teacher candidates and faculty from the ESOL, science, and social studies teacher preparation programs in a number of problem-solving, handson experiences during the semester including the development of a unit of study that
< previous page
page_293
next page >
< previous page
page_294
next page > Page 294
integrates the respective disciplines. Prior to that event, however, the program provides opportunities for the ESOL, science, and social studies teacher candidates to help each other understand the special contexts and needs of their respective classes. For example, the ESOL teacher candidates design a number of activities to sensitize their peers from other disciplines to the linguistic, academic, social, and affective needs of ELLs, using role plays, simulations, and presentations through a variety of languages. They also model supportive learning environments that emphasize nonlinguistic instructional modes, including the use of visuals. Similarly, science teacher candidates engage their ESOL peers in developing models and interactive activities from simple materials to help them better understand how they can use real-world experiences and environments to integrate science into their ESOL teaching. Over the years, the collaboration has given rise to a number of projects, workshops for families, a student-edited newsletter, and a variety of forums for public presentation and display of the teacher candidates' interdisciplinary projects. The ESOL teacher education program has developed an ongoing partnership with several school districts with large numbers of low-income, linguistically diverse students. The partnership provides opportunities for the teacher candidates to develop and try out new constructivist-based hands-on science activities and to work with experienced classroom teachers in a variety of ways. The teachers benefit from the additional help and the enthusiasm of the teacher candidates, and the ELLs from the increased attention they receive. The collaboration also has resulted in the development of an interdisciplinary undergraduate course, Language and Science: A Multicultural Perspective, which is cotaught by teacher educators from the ESOL and science teacher preparation programs, and an advanced methodology course that focuses on content-based language instruction. These courses introduce students to instructional strategies and materials for integrating language, science, and other disciplines. They also involve a number of fieldwork assignments including opportunities to work in local schools, in the on-campus Discover Lab (an interactive laboratory to engage elementary and secondary school students in inquiry-based activities designed by the teacher candidates), at a campus biotechnology teaching laboratory, and at local museums. These fieldwork assignments provide rich contexts for development of teachers who will be able to engage students in effective discovery, problem-solving, and experiential learning. Future plans involve extension of the collaborative activities to other teacher education programs on campus and expansion of the interdisciplinary fieldwork activities. (For more information, see Kaufman & Grennon Brooks, 1996; and Kaufman, 1996, 1997, in press). Case Study #3: Improving the Ability of University Professors to Teach Language Minority Students: Project LEAP and LEAP2 Project LEAP (Learning English for Academic Purposes) was a comprehensive faculty development project aimed at improving the academic language and literacy skills of underprepared language minority students at California State University, Los Angeles (CSLA). CSLA is an urban university in which 70% of incoming students are language minority, and more than 80% of these are required to enroll in developmental reading and writing courses (Snow, 1997; Snow & Kamhi-Stein, 1997). The project paired ESOL instructors and peer study group leaders (undergraduate or graduate students who had successfully completed the content course) with content faculty who teach nine general
< previous page
page_294
next page >
< previous page
page_295
next page > Page 295
education courses (anthropology, biology [ecology and zoology], health science, history, political science, psychology, sociology, and speech communication). The objective was to make the courses more accessible to linguistically and culturally diverse students and to increase the academic language focus by the addition of a number of listening, speaking, reading, and writing activities. LEAP participants engaged in a three-part program. During the winter quarter, instructional teams (of PhD-level faculty members, M.A. ESOL teachers, and undergraduate or graduate study group leaders) met 4 hours a week to review second language acquisition theory and practice and to develop activities and materials to be used in both the content class and the paired "study group" class (cotaught by the ESOL instructor and an undergraduate or graduate student). The next quarter, they team taught the paired courses, meeting on a regular basis to ensure coordination. In the final quarter, the team wrote a manual providing a rationale for their instructional decisions and describing the instructional enhancements and activities that they used in both courses. These included ways of increasing structure and support in writing assignments (research papers, essay exams, and summaries); improving lectures by preteaching vocabulary, providing an agenda on the blackboard, and reviewing the main ideas from the previous class; teaching academic reading and note-taking strategies; and experimenting with a variety of teacher-student interactions, including ways of involving students in developing exam questions. Project LEAP also incorporated an adaptation of the adjunct model. That is, both the ESOL instructor and the study group leaders attend the content class on a regular basis, thereby ensuring coordination between the content course and the paired study group class. The ESOL instructor had primary responsibility for providing academic literacy instruction linked to the content course and the peer group leader responsibility for helping students to understand and process the content of the course. A unique feature of the model, however, is the shared responsibility of both the content and peer study group classes for improving language, content mastery, and critical-thinking skills in both classes. Faculty who participated in the first Project LEAP reported that their students were better prepared for exams and were writing research and examination papers that reflected increased understanding of the content and enhanced language facility. Students who participated in the project performed as well as or better than other language minority students enrolled only in adapted or sheltered content courses. As important, however, is the training the project provided to faculty to enable them to modify instruction to enhance the English-language learning of their students, and their subsequent mentoring of other colleagues in their departments wishing to learn how to better serve linguistically and culturally diverse students (Kamhi-Stein, 1997). Some have described their experiences at conferences, both those of their own discipline and those related to ESOL. Several have also had articles accepted for publication in discipline-specific journals such as The History Teacher (Bernier, 1994; Strole, 1994) and Advances in Physiology Education (Krilowicz, Henter, & Kamhi-Stein, 1997). Others have applied what they learned through Project LEAP to their training of graduate assistants responsible for laboratory or drill sessions connected with large lecture classes. Project staff have also seen changes in faculty-hiring practices, whereby "experience and interest in teaching linguistically and culturally diverse students has become a key hiring criterion" (Snow & Kamhi-Stein, 1997, p. 105). As in most teacher development efforts, the faculty who participated were those who were the most motivated to improve their teaching. With the second LEAP project, a
< previous page
page_295
next page >
< previous page
page_296
next page > Page 296
special effort was made to extend the professional development to less motivated faculty, or those resistant to any change in their teaching. It also expanded the program to help faculty at nearby California community colleges and universities, as well as the City University of New York, where a large proportion of the students are ELLs or were formerly in ESOL or bilingual programs. Through conference presentations, it also extended the project activities to faculty from other universities throughout the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Europe. Using a variety of formats (academies, workshops, departmentbased faculty development, and conferences), the project involved LEAP faculty as peer faculty mentors to other faculty wishing to learn how to enhance the academic language component of their teaching and to adapt their instruction to better accommodate native-born, immigrant, and international language minority students. The final activity of Project LEAP involved the development of a training manual, Teaching Academic Literacy Skills: Strategies for Content-Area Faculty, and a video, Improving University Instruction for Language Minority Students: Strategies From Project LEAP. Another useful resource is The Content-Based Classroom: Perspectives on Integrating Language and Content (Snow & Brinton, 1997), which presents a number of exemplary activities developed by various faculty participating in the project. (Copies of Teaching Academic Literacy Skills and of the video are available from Dr. Ann Snow, Charter School of Education, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032. The other three training manuals are available through ERIC: Project LEAP Training Manual Year I: Humans and Their Biological Environment, Introduction to Psychology, and United States Civilization [ED 363112]; Year II: Introduction to American Politics and Society, Principles of Sociology, and Speech Communication [ED 363112]; and Year III: Cultural Anthropology, Animal Biology, and Basic Health and Safety Studies [ED 418599]. References Anstrom, K. (1998). Preparing secondary education teachers to work with English language learners: Science. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Language and Education. August, D., & Pease-Alvarez, L. (1996). Attributes of effective programs and classrooms serving English language learners. Santa Cruz, CA, & Washington, DC: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Bernier, A. (1994). Diversity's challenge in the classroom: Language and history pedagogy from the student optic. The History Teacher, 28, 3748. Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based language instruction. New York: Harper & Row. Chamot, A., & O'Malley, M. (1992). A cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. In P. A. Richards-Amato & M. A. Snow (Eds.), The multicultural classroom: Readings for content area teachers (pp. 515), Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Christian, D. (1994). Two-way bilingual education: Students learning through two languages (Educational Practice Report No. 12). Santa Cruz, CA, & Washington, DC: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Cocking, R. R., & Mestre, J. P. (Eds.), (1988). Linguistic and cultural influences on learning mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Crandall, J. A. (Ed.), (1987). ESL through content-area instruction: Mathematics, science, social studies. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. Crandall, J. A. (1993a). Content-centered learning in the United States. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 111126. Crandall, J. A. (1993b). Strategic integration: Preparing language and content teachers for linguistically and
< previous page
page_296
next page >
< previous page
page_297
next page > Page 297
culturally diverse classrooms. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Strategic interaction and language acquisition: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 255274). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Crandall, J. A. (1995). Reinventing (America's) schools: The role of the applied linguist. In J. E. Alatis et al. (Eds.), Linguistics and the education of language teachers: Ethnolinguistic, psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic aspects (pp. 412427). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Crandall, J. A. (1997). Language teaching approaches for school-aged learners in second language contexts. In G. R. Tucker & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 4: Second language education (pp. 7584). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Crandall, J. A. (1998). The expanding role of the elementary ESL teacher. ESL Magazine, 1(4), 1014. Crandall, J. A., Bernache, C., & Prager, S. (1998). New frontiers in educational policy and program development: The challenge of the underschooled immigrant secondary school student. Educational Policy, 12(6), 719734. Crandall, J. A., & Greenblatt, L. (1999). Teaching beyond the middle: Meeting the needs of underschooled and high-achieving immigrant students. In M. R. Basterra (Ed.), Excellence and equity in education for language minority students: Critical issues and promising practices (pp. 4380). Washington, DC: American University, Mid-Atlantic Equity Center. Crandall, J. A., & Tucker, G. R. (1990). Content-based instruction in second and foreign languages. In S. Anivan (Ed.), Language teaching methodology in the nineties (pp. 8396). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. [ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 312895] Cuevas, G. J. (1984). Mathematics learning in English as a second language. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 134144. Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In Office of Bilingual Education, California Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 349). Los Angeles: California State University, Evaluation and Dissemination Center. Curtain, H. A., & Pesola, C. A. (1994). Foreign languages and children: Making the match. New York: Longman. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher development. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 410. Davison, C. (1992). Look out: Eight fatal flaws in support and team teaching. TESOL in Context, 2, 3941. Diaz-Rico, L. T., & Smith, J. (1994). Recruiting and retaining bilingual teachers: A cooperative school-community-university model. The Journal of Education for Language Minority Students, 14, 155268. Echevarria, J. (1995). Sheltered instruction for students with learning disabilities who have limited English proficiency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30(5), 302305. Echevarria, J. & Graves, A. (1998). Sheltered content instruction: Teaching English-language learners with diverse abilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Enright, D. S., & McCloskey, M. L. (1988). Integrating English. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fathman, A. K., Quinn, M. E., & Kessler, C. (1992). Teaching science to English learners, grades 48. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (1998). America's children: Key national indicators of well-being. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Fitzgerald, N. B. (1995). ESL instruction in adult education: Findings from a national evaluation. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, National Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education. Fix, M., & Zimmerman, W. (1993). Educating immigrant children: Chapter l in the changing city. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Garcia, E. (1994). Understanding and meeting the challenge of student diversity. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books. Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gonzalez, J. M., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). New concepts for new challenges: Professional development for teachers of immigrant youth. Washington, DC, & McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. Hamayan, E. (1994). Language development of low-literacy students. In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community (pp. 278300). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Han, M., & Baker, D. (1997). A profile of policies and practices for limited English proficient students: Screening methods, program support, and teacher training: SASS 19931994 (NCES 97-472). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
< previous page
page_297
next page >
< previous page
page_298
next page > Page 298
Harper, C. & Platt, E. (1998). Full inclusion for secondary school ESOL students: Some concerns from Florida. TESOL Journal, 7(5), 3036. Harris, J. (1995). Sheltered instruction. The Science Teacher, 62(2), 2427. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Heath, S. B., & Mangiola, L. (1991). Children of promise: Literate activity in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms. Washington, DC: National Education Association/American Educational Research Association. Henke, R. R., Choy, S. P., Cehn, X., Geis, S., Alt, M. N., & Broughman, S. P. (1997). America's teachers: Profile of a profession, 19931994. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Jurasek, R. (1988). Integrating foreign languages into the college curriculum. Modern Language Journal, 72, 5258. Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (1997). Enhancing student performance through discipline-based summarization-strategy instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 248262). New York: Longman. Kaufman, D. (1996). Constructivist-based experiential learning in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 18(2), 4050. Kaufman, D. (1997). Collaborative approaches in preparing teachers for content-based and language enhanced settings. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 175186). White Plains, NY: Longman. Kaufman, D. (in press). Developing professionals: Interwoven visions and partnerships. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Case studies in TESOL teacher education. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Kaufman, D., & Grennon Brooks, J. (1996). Interdisciplinary collaboration in teacher education: A constructivist approach. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 231251. Krashen, S. (1993). Sheltered subject-matter teaching. In J. W. Oller (Ed.), Methods that work (2nd ed., pp. 143154). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Krilowicz, B. L., Henter, H. J., & Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (1997). A quarter long exercise that introduces general education students to neurophysiology and scientific writing. Advances in Physiology Education, 17(1), 1925. Krueger, M., & Ryan, F. (Eds.), (1993). Language and content: Discipline- and content-based approaches to language study. Lexington, MA: Heath. League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) et al. v. Florida Department of Education (U.S. District Court, 1990). Leaver, B. L., & Stryker, S. B. (1989). Content-based instruction in foreign language classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 269275. Lindholm, K. J. (1990). Bilingual immersion education: Criteria for program development. In A. M. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild, & C. M. Valadez (Eds.), Bilingual education: Issues and strategies (pp. 91105). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mace-Matluck, B., Alexander-Kasparik, R., & Queen, R. M. (1998). Through the golden door: Educational approaches for immigrant adolescents with limited schooling. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems. McNab, C. (1996). A close look at a sheltered secondary science class in a suburban county school. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Met, M. (1987). Twenty questions: The most commonly asked questions about starting an immersion program. Foreign Language Annals, 20, 311315. Met, M. (1992). Second language learning in magnet school contexts. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 7185. Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132141. Northcutt, L., & Watson, D. (1986). S.E.T.: Sheltered English teaching handbook. Carlsbad, CA: Northcutt, Watson, Gonzales. Office of Vocational and Adult Education/Division of Adult Education and Literacy. (1999). Thursday Notes (March 11). Washington, DC: Author. Olsen, R. E. W. B. (1997). Enrollment, identification, and placement of LEP students increase (again). TESOL Matters, 7(4), 17. O'Malley, J. M., & Pierce, L. V. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches for teachers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
< previous page
page_298
next page >
< previous page
page_299
next page > Page 299
Peyton, J. K., & Adger, C. (1999). Enhancing the education of immigrant students in secondary school: Structural challenges and solutions. In C. J. Faltis & P. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents, bilingualism, and ESL in the secondary school (pp. 205224). New York: Teachers College Press. Ramirez, J., Yuen, S., & Ramey, D. (1991). Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit, and lateexit bilingual education programs for language-minority children. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. Rosen, N., & Sasser, L. (1997). Sheltered English: Modifying content delivery for second language learners. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom (pp. 35045). White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman. Rosenthal, J. W. (1996). Teaching science to language minority students. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Secada, W. (1992). Evaluating mathematics education of LEP students in a time of educational change. In C. Simich-Dudgeon (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues: Focus on evaluation and measurement (Vol. 2, pp. 209256). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual and Minority Languages Affairs. Short, D. (1993). Assessing integrated language and content instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 627656. Short, D. (1994). Expanding middle school horizons: Integrating language, culture, and social studies. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3), 581608. Snow, M.A. (1997). Teaching academic literacy skills: Discipline faculty take responsibility. In M.A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 290304). White Plains, NY: Longman. Snow, M. A., & Brinton, D. M. (1988). Content-based language instruction: Investigating the effectiveness of the adjunct model. TESOL Quarterly, 22(3), 553574. Snow, M. A., & Brinton, D. M. (Eds.). (1997). The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. White Plains, NY: Longman. Snow, M. A., & Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (1997). Teaching academic literacy skills: A new twist on the adjunct model. Journal of Intensive English Studies, 11, 93108. Spanos, G. A. (1989). On the integration of language and content instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 227240. Strole, C. (1994). Pedagogical responses to student diversity: History and language. The History Teacher, 28, 4955. Stryker, S. B., & Leaver, B. L. (Eds.), (1997). Content-based instruction in foreign language education: Models and methods. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Tang, G. (1992). The effect of graphic representation of knowledge structures on ESL reading comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 177195. Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. Warren, B., & Roseberry, A. S. (1992). Science education as a sense-making practice: Implications for assessment. In C. Simich-Dudgeon (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues: Focus on evaluation and measurement (Vol. 2, pp. 273304). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual and Minority Languages Affairs.
< previous page
page_299
next page >
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
< previous page
page_301
next page > Page 301
PART VI RESOURCES
< previous page
page_301
next page >
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
< previous page
page_303
next page > Page 303
14 Technology and Second Language Teaching Mark Warschauer America-Mideast Education and Training Services Carla Meskill University at Albany, State University of New York Intermediate students of Polish at Stanford University in California correspond by e-mail with counterparts in Cracow, Poland, to plan a bilingual web site they will be jointly producing on the World Wide Web (WWW). The students work in international teams to plan, design, and edit the web site, which consists of written and audiovisual information about their two universities (Barson & Debski, 1996). Students in an advanced business French class at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio watch French television news via satellite TV. They then peruse French online news groups to follow how French students are discussing a proposed minimum wage cutback. This helps them learn background cultural information about current events and attitudes in France, as well as the precise methods used by native French speakers for argumentation, persuasion, and negotiation (Scinicariello, 1995). Intermediate English as a Second Language (ESL) writing students at the University of Hawaii use real-time computer-assisted discussion to gain additional writing practice in class. The written interaction fosters greater student participation and collaboration. In addition, the students join e-mail discussion groups in their own fields and also learn how to conduct research on the WWW (Warschauer, 1999). The preceding examples are not atypical of what is occurring in language classrooms across the United States. With the advent of networked multimedia computing and the Internet, language teachers throughout the country have been warming up to using computers in the language classroom. This is particularly true in higher education where students and teachers have greater access to computer laboratories and Internet accounts than in K12 schools. However, the recent enthusiasm for technology in language teachingwitnessed, for example, by the large numbers of presentations at national conferences on this topicbrings a sense of deja vu. Three decades ago, language programs were also enchanted by promises of magic through technology. That technologythe audio-based language laboratorybrought disappointing results (and, indeed, it is the audio-based labs that are often being replaced by computer labs today). Thus, before looking at the use of technology in language teaching today, it is worthwhile to take a brief historical look at technology in the language classroom.
< previous page
page_303
next page >
< previous page
page_304
next page > Page 304
A Brief History of Technology and Language Learning Virtually every type of language teaching has had its own technologies to support it. Language teachers who followed the grammar-translation method (in which the teacher explained grammatical rules and students performed translations) relied on one of the most ubiquitous technologies in U.S. education, the blackboarda perfect vehicle for the one-way transmission of information that method implied. The blackboard was later supplemented by the overhead projector, another excellent medium for the teacher-dominated classroom, as well as by early computer software programs that provided what were known as ''drilland-practice" (or, more pejoratively, "drill-and-kill") grammatical exercises. In contrast, the audiotape was the perfect medium for the audiolingual method (which emphasized learning through oral repetition). University language classes in the 1970s and 1980s usually included obligatory sessions at the audio lab where students would perform the dreaded repetition drills. By the late 1970s, the audiolingual method fell into disrepute, at least in part due to poor results achieved from expensive language laboratories. Whether in the lab or in the classroom, repetitive drills that focused only on language form and ignored communicative meaning achieved poor results. The 1980s and 1990s have seen a shift toward communicative language teaching, which emphasizes student engagement in authentic, meaningful interaction. Within this general communicative trend, we can note two distinct perspectives, both of which have their implications in terms of how to best integrate technology into the classroom. These can roughly be divided into cognitive approaches and sociocognitive approaches. Cognitive Approaches Cognitive approaches to communicative language teaching are based on the view that learning a language is an individual psycholinguistic act. From this perspective, language learners construct a mental model of a language system, based not on habit formation but rather on innate cognitive knowledge in interaction with comprehensible, meaningful language (see, e.g., Chomsky, 1986). Errors are seen in a new lightnot as bad habits to be avoided but as natural by-products of a creative learning process that involves rule simplification, generalization, transfer, and other cognitive strategies (see Chaudron, 1987). Learners' output (i.e., what they say or write) is beneficial principally to the extent that it helps make input (i.e., what they hear or read) more comprehensible or salient so that the learners can construct their own cognitive models of the language. Technologies that support a cognitive approach to language learning are those that allow learners maximum opportunity to be engaged with language in meaningful contexts and to construct their own understanding of the system. Examples of these types of technologies include text-reconstruction software, concordancing software, and multimedia simulation software. Text reconstruction software (e.g., NewReader from Hyperbole or TextTanagers from Research Design Associates) allows teachers to provide students various texts in which
< previous page
page_304
next page >
< previous page
page_305
next page > Page 305
letters or words are either missing or scrambled. Students work alone or in groups to complete or rearrange the texts, thus supporting a process of mental construction of the linguistic system. Though such activity could in theory be carried out with paper and pencil, the computer facilitates the process for both teachers and students. Teachers can quickly and easily create rearranged texts or cloze exercises (i.e., texts with deleted words) from any original word-processed passage. Students can use hints provided by the computer to assist their learning process. Concordancing software (e.g., Monoconc from Athelstan) allows teachers or students to search through small or large texts to look for instances of the actual use of particular words. Concordancers are thus supplements to dictionaries in that they help illustrate the use of a word, rather than just its definition. Concordancers are also useful for investigating collocational meanings (e.g., "large box" vs. "big box," or "think about" vs. "think over") or grammatical features (e.g., ''was going" vs. "used to go"). Multimedia simulation software allows learners to enter into computerized microworlds with exposure to language and culture in a meaningful audiovisual context. The best of these programs allows learners a good deal of control and interactivity so they can better manipulate their linguistic input. One excellent example of this is the multimedia videodisc program A la rencontre de Philippe developed by the Athena Language Learning Project at the MIT Laboratory for Advanced Technology in the Humanities. Philippe is a game for intermediate and advanced French learners that incorporates fullmotion video, sound, graphics, and text, allowing learners to "walk around" and explore simulated environments by following street signs or floor plans. To help language learners understand the sometimes challenging French, the program provides optional comprehension tools, such as a glossary and transcriptions of audio segments, as well as a video album that includes samples of language functions. Students can also create their own custom video albums, which they store on their own computer diskettes. Whereas text-reconstruction programs, concordancers, and multimedia simulations are often used in pairs or groups, the software programs by themselves do not require human-to-human interaction. Sociocognitive Approaches Sociocognitive approaches, in contrast to cognitive approaches, emphasize the social aspect of language acquisition; learning a language is viewed as a process of apprenticeship or socialization into particular discourse communities (Gee, 1996; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). From this perspective, students need to be given maximum opportunity for authentic social interaction, not only to provide comprehensible input but also to give students practice in the kinds of communication in which they will later engage outside the classroom. This can be achieved through student collaboration on authentic tasks and projects (see, e.g., Breen, 1987; Candlin & Murphy, 1987; Long & Crookes, 1992; Prabhu, 1987) while simultaneously learning both content and language (see, e.g., Flowerdew, 1993; Meskill, 1999; Snow, 1991). The Internet is a powerful tool for assisting a sociocognitive approach to language teaching, and it is in fact this fit of the Internet with a sociocognitive approach that largely accounts for the new-found enthusiasm for using computers in the language classroom. The Internet is a vast interactive medium that can be used in a myriad of ways, as is illustrated next.
< previous page
page_305
next page >
< previous page
page_306
next page > Page 306
Computer-mediated Communication in a Classroom There are several different approaches for using telecommunications to facilitate interaction within and across discourse communities. One way is to use online activities to foster increased opportunities for interaction within a single class. This takes place both through computer-assisted classroom discussion and through outside-of-class discussion. Computer-assisted classroom discussion makes use of synchronous ("real-time") writing programs, such as Daedalus Interchange by Daedalus, Inc. The class meets in a networked computer lab, and students communicate through writing rather than through talking. Students type in their messages and hit a key to instantly send the message to the rest of the class. All the messages are listed chronologically on the top half of the screen and can be easily scrolled through and reread. The entire session can later be saved and passed on to students, either in electronic form or hard copy. Outside-of-class discussion is usually carried out using asynchronous tools, such as e-mail or conferencing systems. Special lists can be set up so that students' messages get automatically forwarded to either a small group or the whole class. Electronic communication within a single class might be viewed as an artificial substitute for face-to-face communication. However, it has been found to have a number of beneficial features that make it a good tool for language learning. First, computer-assisted discussion tends to feature more equal participation than face-to-face discussion; teachers or a few outspoken students are less likely to dominate the floor, resulting in class discussions that are more fully collaborative (Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995; Meskill, Swan, & Frazer, 1997; Warschauer, 1996, 1999). Second, computer-assisted discussion allows students to better notice the input from others' messages and incorporate that input into their own messages, thus expanding opportunities for learning new linguistic chunks (e.g., collocations, common phrases; see St. John & Cash, 1995; Warschauer, 1999). Third, computer-assisted discussion, which takes place in writing and allows more planning time than does face-to-face talk, features language that is lexically and syntactically more complex than oral talk (Warschauer, 1996). Finally, because computer-based discussion can take place outside of the classroom, it provides students increased opportunities to communicate in the target language. For all these reasons, language teachers (especially but not exclusively in courses that feature writing) have found single-class computer-mediated communication projects to be beneficial. Computer-mediated Communication for Long-Distance Exchange Computer-mediated communication between long-distance partners offers many of the same advantages, and then some. In particular, it allows students the opportunity for target language practice in situations where such practice might otherwise be difficult. This is especially important in foreign language instruction where students might have few other opportunities for authentic target language use. Long-distance exchange projects have been organized in a number of ways, generally using e-mail but also using web-based conferencing systems or various types of software for synchronous chatting. The most effective exchange projects are ones that are well integrated into the course goals and are based on purposeful investigation rather than just electronic chat (Warschauer, 1999). Such projects might involve joint exploration of culture, social conditions, film, or literature and often result in some kind of collabora-
< previous page
page_306
next page >
< previous page
page_307
next page > Page 307
tive publication (for examples and discussion, see Cummins & Sayers, 1997; Sayers, 1993; Warschauer, 1995a, 1995b). Accessing Resources and Publishing on the World Wide Web The World Wide Web offers a vast array of resources from throughout the world. Although the majority of web pages are in English, increasing numbers exist in other commonly taught (and some uncommonly taught) languages, including Spanish, French, German, Japanese, and Chinese. Accessing and using these pages in language education supports a sociocognitive approach by helping immerse students in discourses that extend well beyond the classroom, their immediate communities, and their language textbook. This is particularly critical for foreign language students who otherwise experience the target culture only through their instructor and select curricula. Students can use web pages as authentic materials for conducting research on culture and current events (see, e.g., Lixl-Purcell, 1995; Osuna & Meskill, 1998)or for gathering material for class projects and simulations (see, e.g., Deguchi, 1995; Rosen, 1995). Students can also publish their own work on the WWW, thus enabling writing for a real audience. In some cases, teachers have created in-class online newsletters or magazines that their classes have produced (see, e.g., Jor, 1995). In other cases, teachers help their students contribute to international web magazines, which include articles from many students around the world (see, e.g., Shetzer, 1995). And in other situations, students work together in collaborative teams internationally and then publish the results of their projects on the WWW (see, e.g., Vilmi, 1995). One particularly creative application pairs new technologies with service learning, in which students perform an authentic service for community organizations. At a college in Hawaii, ESL students work in small groups to make a web site on behalf of a community organization (see discussion in Warschauer, 1999). They interview members of the organization, gather information and documents from them, and put everything together in a coherent online package, learning both writing and presentation skills in the process. Advantages and Disadvantages What then are the advantages and disadvantages of using new technologies in the language classroom? One question often asked by administrators is whether or not technologies truly "work," that is, if they promote language learning and do so in a cost-effective way. These types of questions motivated much research in the 1970s comparing use of computers to nonuse of computers. This type of research ignored two important factors. First of all, the computer is a machine, not a method. The world of online communication is a vast new medium, comparable in some ways to books, print, or libraries. To our knowledge, no one has ever attempted to conduct research on whether the book or the library is beneficial for language learning. Seeking similar sweeping conclusions on the effects of the computer or the Internet is equally futile. Second, and even more important, new communications technologies are part of the broader ecology of life at the turn of the century. Much of our reading, writing, and communicating is migrating from other environments (print, telephone, etc.) to the
< previous page
page_307
next page >
< previous page
page_308
next page > Page 308
screen. In such a context, we can no longer think only about how we use technologies to teach language. We also must think about what types of language students need to learn in order to communicate effectively via computer. Whereas a generation ago, we taught foreign language students to write essays and read magazine articles, we now must (also) teach them to write email messages and conduct research on the WWW. This realization has sparked an approach that emphasizes the importance of new information technologies as a legitimate medium of communication in their own right rather than simply as teaching tools. In summary, then, the advantages of using new technologies in the language classroom can only be interpreted in light of the changing goals of language education and the changing conditions in postindustrial society. Language educators now seek not only (or even principally) to teach students the rules of grammar, but rather to help them gain apprenticeship into new discourse communities. This is accomplished through creating opportunities for authentic and meaningful interaction both within and outside the classroom, and providing students the tools for their own social, cultural, and linguistic exploration. The computer is a powerful tool for this process as it allows students access to online environments of international communication. By using new technologies in the language classroom, we can better prepare students for the kinds of international cross-cultural interactions that are increasingly required for success in academic, vocational, or personal life. What then are the potential disadvantages of using new technologies for language teaching? We focus on three aspects: investment of money, investment of time, and uncertainty of results. Investment of Money Uses of new technologies in the long run tend to result in higher productivity, at least in the economic sphere (see discussion in Castells, 1996). Productivity in education is certainly harder to measure, but it is not unreasonable to assume that over time new technologies will help create more effective education (bearing in mind the earlier point that the goals and nature of education are changing in the information age, thus making direct comparisons difficult). In any case, whatever results may be achieved over the long term, there are definite start-up expenses related to implementing new technologies in education. For college language learning programs, such expenses usually entail hardware, software, staffing, and training for at least one networked computer laboratory where students can drop in and use assigned software and one or more networked computer laboratories where teachers can bring whole classes on an occasional or regular basis. Intelligent use of new technologies usually involves allocations of about one third for hardware, one third for software, and one third for staff support and training. It is often the case in poorly funded language programs that the hardware itself comes in via a one-time grant (or through hand-me-downs from science departments), with little funding left over for staff training, maintenance, or software. Investment of Time Just as technologies may save money over the long term, they also may save time. But, potential long-term benefits to an institution are little consolation to an individual teacher who is spending enormous amounts of time learning constantly changing software programs and trying to figure out the best way to use them in the classroom.
< previous page
page_308
next page >
< previous page
page_309
next page > Page 309
Increased demands on time are due in part to the difficulty of using new online multimedia technologies in their still-early stages (comparable, perhaps, to the early days of tuning a radio or starting a car when those machines were first invented). However, time demands are caused not only from learning how to master the technology, but also from the changing dynamics of the online classroom. As indicated earlier, new technologies create excellent opportunities for long-distance exchanges, but such exchanges can be extremely complicated in terms of coordinating goals, schedules, and plansespecially when involving teachers from different countries or educational systems. Also, another benefit of electronic communicationthat it provides opportunities for student-initiated communicationcan also create a time burden, as a teacher's e-mail box becomes flooded with messages from previously reticent students. Uncertainty of Results As indicated earlier, there is no single predictable outcome for using computers, anymore than there is for using books or libraries. Thus teachers and institutions are expected to invest large amounts of time and money without any guarantee of achieving particular results. Research in both the business sphere (e.g., Kling & Zmuidzinas, 1994; Zuboff, 1988) and in education (e.g, Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997; Warschauer, 1999) indicates that simply bringing new machines into an institution does little to bring about the kinds of social transformation needed to make effective use of those machines. Whether in workplaces or in schools, the natural tendency is to use new technologies in ways consistent with previous methods of organization and practice. This can often result in inefficient or even demotivating uses of computers, in which workers or students see their interpersonal connections and personal power reduced (e.g., through highly automated uses of technology such as computer-based drills) rather than increased. As discussed earlier in this chapter, new online technologies match well with newer approaches to language teaching, in which students are viewed not as empty vessels to be filled but rather as active agents collaborating in their own learning process. Yet even in situations where instructors already adhere to such a perspective, teaching in an online environment can challenge teachers' epistemologies and practices. The online world presents important new challenges, and learning how to integrate new online technologies into the classroom will likely be as long and complicated a process as doing the same has been in the business worldbut made even more difficult in education by lack of dependable funding for equipment and support. Having said all of this, we still believe that integrating new technologies should be an important goal of language programs, but a goal of which the cost and complexity should not be underestimated. The most effective technology-enhanced language programs take many years to develop and are based on much trial and error, administrative support for teacher experimentation and collaboration, and sustained, careful attention to the forms of social organization and pedagogy that accompany the use of new machines. Examples of such programs are illustrated next. Case Studies: Introduction The following are examples of technologies being used well in three different contexts: one foreign language, one ESL, and one dual language program. Where these three contexts are very different in learner populations, goals, and processes, there is nonetheless a
< previous page
page_309
next page >
< previous page
page_310
next page > Page 310
consistency across them in how teachers are conceptualizing the role of technologies in the classroom. In each situation, the status quo has been altered by the new possibilities technologies represent for language instruction. Pivotal to all three of these case studies is learner involvement in shaping the learning process and constructing their own understanding of language and content through access to electronic tools and resources. Teachers and students are thus not simply using technology to perform previous tasks more efficiently, but rather to consider possibilities for action and engagement otherwise not possible with the goal of maximizing student autonomy and empowerment in the classroom. Case Study #1: Foreign Language Instruction and Technology Yoko Koike teaches undergraduate courses in Japanese language at Haverford, a small liberal arts college founded by the Quakers in Pennsylvania in 1833. Haverford is part of the Swarthmore, Bryn Mawr tri-college community (see information about her courses at ). Undergraduate courses in Japanese fulfill the colleges' 1year foreign language requirement. Students completing the required year may go on to advanced courses, participate in studyabroad programs, and/or continue on as East Asian Studies majors. Yoko views new technology as a means of supporting her pedagogical goals and processes and has been integrating telecommunications into her classrooms for the last several years. Learner Population Students in Yoko's Japanese classes come from all three of the community's colleges. Yoko finds the students enrolled in her Japanese classes to be highly motivated and serious students of Japanese. The Quaker tradition has a strong influence on them, and Yoko observes in her students a heightened social consciousness and an openness to differences that help shape a positive ethos in the language classroom. She also sees her students' orientation contributing to their propensities and abilities for taking on, negotiating, and articulating complex social and political issues. Teaching Epistemologies/Integration One of Yoko's major goals is to help her students come to see themselves as skillful communicators in Japanese, rather than as simply learners of the language. Activities both with and without new technologies are fashioned to support active learner use of the target language. Central to her course is conversation for meaningful purposes in Japanese. In class, she carefully guides these conversations between and among students to enable as much learner-centered interaction as possible. For this approach to be successful, her role, the role of her students, and the goals of her curriculum are of necessity nontraditional. Nonetheless, Yoko's class is not a free-for-all: She carefully builds in a system of guidance and accountability in her assignments. Students are required to systematically report in writing on their discussions following a standard guide. Learners therefore become proficient in reflecting on their experiences and producing written summaries of their Japanese chats. The students are also assigned to engage in (and summarize in writing) similar conversations with native Japanese-speaking language partners in the community. Yoko encourages her students in these conversations to be concerned less with accuracy and more with what they want to say, what is meaningful for them, and what, as she says, "comes from their hearts." Logistics/Integration Yoko sees technologies as potentially "noisy"; that is, learning to use them can get in the way of and overshadow the true goals and processes of her
< previous page
page_310
next page >
< previous page
page_311
next page > Page 311
communicative approach. Initially, she works hard with students to help "quiet down" the technology so that once the technology is mastered, the students can concentrate instead on communication. One of her main purposes in integrating a technology component is to expand opportunities for her students to interact with the language and culture. To these ends, she has effectively extended their conversational opportunities to include interaction with Japanese learners and native speakers from around the world. Preliminary to students' international interchanges, Yoko trains students in the use of word processing in Japanese and in using an online JapaneseEnglish dictionary. These training sessions and subsequent electronic communications sessions are held in the college's Language Learning Center. The Japanese word-processing program is particularly useful and time saving in that learners can type in the appropriate romanization and the software will supply an appropriate character. Students can then check that the desired character has been generated by comparing it to online dictionary entries. This speeds up an otherwise timeconsuming process and thus facilitates communication. Yoko also notes that although this process involves trial and error, it is a valuable language learning activity in and of itself. Once learners are comfortable word processing in Japanese, Yoko sets up in-class online chats using the Daedalus Interchange program. She posts questions for discussion and lets the class converse on the computer by typing in and immediately sending their messages to the rest of the class. Comparing these online discussions to face-to-face conversations in the class, Yoko has noticed that using the computer allows more "reserved" students greater opportunity to actively participate, and also seems to facilitate more open discussion of controversial subjects. For example, after her class viewed a disturbing documentary about forced prostitution of Asian women during World War II, the students sat in stunned silence. A little later, though, on the Daedalus Interchange, they freely expressed their reactions. Another Interchange assignment that was particularly effective was in conjunction with the class reading of a Japanese novel. Students were assigned to take on the role of characters from the novel and conclude a conversation that had been begun, but not completed, in the novel. Though students are not evaluated on the basis of their contributions to these discussions, Yoko analyzes the record of these conversations to note students' progress and language difficulties, and then uses this information to provide remediation and to tailor future class activities. Once students are comfortable communicating in Japanese via the computer, Yoko introduces her students to language partners in Japan. The students in Japan and Pennsylvania first "meet" each other through Internet-based audiovideo conferencing. They are then assigned to collaborate on various projects, such as the following: Research on social issues: Students query one another about their culture's key social issues, point one another to online information, and collaboratively prepare reports. One example is a comparative investigation of homelessness in Japan and the United States. Research on cultural similarities and differences: Students from the two societies share information on their respective cultures and collaborate to construct a report on their findings. An example is comparing the foods and eating habits in Japan and the United States. Responding to literature: Paired U.S. and Japanese students read the same Japanese novel and compare and analyze their reactions. Students' reports from these
< previous page
page_311
next page >
< previous page
page_312
next page > Page 312
collaborative projects are posted on the class web page. These are then open to critique, reaction, and input from all the students in both classes as well as interested outside readers. More extensive collaborations have taken place with advanced, 4th-year learners of Japanese who, along with a similar group of learners at the University of Hawaii and students at a high school in Japan, participate in the Ideal Town Construction Project. Over a 4-week period, learners from the three classes collaborated over the Internet to construct a fictional town that ended up including a bookstore, a restaurant, and an inn. Communication took place synchronously (in real time), which presented serious scheduling challenges. Nevertheless, students at all three sites persevered, and the town was built. Another group of advanced students worked with these same distant collaborators to create an online magazine called Choobarabarzine (potpourri), with teams working on both light pieces (e.g., a horoscope section) and more serious pieces (e.g., social or political commentary). The magazine was posted on the WWW, and other learners and speakers of Japanese from around the globe were encouraged to comment. Evaluation Yoko reports that students write much more via computer than they otherwise would with pen and paper, and they also attend closely to the messages they read and write because they are part of meaningful communication. According to Yoko, the computer-based collaborative activities encourage a great deal of listening, speaking, reading, and writing that are critical for students' mastery of Japanese, and they also help her students integrate issues of language and culture. As is true to her belief about learning, her students become active users of the language by virtue of her careful planning and implementation of these extensive and motivating communicative opportunities. Case Study #2: English as a Second Language and Technologies Douglas Mills, Computer Assisted Language Learning Coordinator for the Intensive English Program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has been working to implement and integrate technologies for ESL instruction since 1992 (see information on his work at ). The Computer Assisted Language Learning Center assists Institute instructors in examining technologies in light of individual needs, interests, instructional styles, and pedagogical possibilities and helps to design and implement computer-based classes accordingly. For the past 3 years, the Institute has offered a program of computer-based language learning sections for students in their intensive, integrated language skills program. Learner Population The student body of the Intensive English Program at the University of Illinois is comprised of a mix of preuniversity students seeking to gain academic skills and/or prepare for the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and those already enrolled in international universities who want a temporary study-abroad experience in an English-speaking country. Both types of learners are seeking to improve their skills in listening, speaking, reading, and writing English for academic and professional purposes. The approximately 150 ESL students in the Institute represent a broad range of interests and experiences. Many are drawn to learning English through technology by virtue of their professional and/or academic interest in computing and telecommunications. Others recognize computer and telecommunications knowledge
< previous page
page_312
next page >
< previous page
page_313
next page > Page 313
as crucial to their broader professional goals. The Institute's program of intensive study includes, for those at the top two levels of English proficiency, the opportunity to select courses in the English Language through Computers and Internet Project (ELCI). Such courses have consistently been a very popular and well-received component of the ESL curriculum. Teaching Epistemologies/Integration Teachers in the Intensive English Program are chiefly master's candidates in the University's master's in TESL (Teaching of English as a Second Language) program who teach under the supervision of full-time staff and faculty. The bent of their academic training in TESL is the eclecticism representative of what is often called communicative language teaching. One principle of communicative language teaching is that instructional design and implementation should carefully take into account the needs and interests of learners. This tenet is strictly adhered to within the Intensive English Program with content, materials, and methods selected, designed, and used according to learner interests and needs. There is also carefully crafted skills integration in teaching and activities so that learners practice reading, writing, speaking, and listening to English in a variety of real and engaging activities. Computers and the Internet represent for the Center a powerful tool for these purposes. Much teacher autonomy is encouraged and supported in the computer-based curriculum development process. Instructors are supplied with training and templated instructional routines to which they can fit their own objectives, content, and activities. In addition to developing the actual online curriculum, teachers also develop a paper-based course packet to accompany the courses they design. They essentially have free reign to shape the course as they see best, do so within the communicative framework that guides their professional development as graduate students, and exercise a great deal of initiative. Logistics The English Language through Computers and Internet courses are conducted twice weekly in a networked computer laboratory. Instructors design and facilitate task-based activities that require learners to read, write, listen, and speak in English. The content through which students improve their skills is computers and the Internet. Activities involve speaking, listening, reading, and writing with, around, and about technology. Task-based exercises are carried out online individually or collaboratively in the computer laboratory. Such tasks might focus on controversial topics regarding telecommunications (e.g., students conduct online research on policies and practices related to the Internet) or might focus on development of practical skills (e.g., students learn and teach their peers how to cut and paste images from the WWW). In short, activities require learners to use computers and the Internet to accomplish concrete, authentic tasks using English as the medium. One typical assignment involves having students join a chat site to argue the merits of a controversial topic, such as bilingualism. The students participate in extended online discussions, and then report back on these discussions to the class. Additionally, students' work is made public through web sites, and students' classmates and teachers later have the opportunity to provide feedback on these published works. In some cases students are assigned joint editorial work on a web essay or multimedia presentation. Finally, students make oral presentations of their technology projects to their classmates, and their works are then showcased at an end-of-semester open house attended by Institute students, teachers, and others.
< previous page
page_313
next page >
< previous page
page_314
next page > Page 314
Evaluation Students participating in these language-through-technology courses have responded very positively to both the content and methods of these classes. At the end of the term when formally asked whether these courses had met their expectations, the vast majority of students have responded favorably. However, it is interesting to note that approximately one half of these same respondents did not agree that the course contributed a great deal to the improvement of their English skills. The technology coordinator feels this is due to the students' expectations and notions of how one best learns another language. If learners come from cultures that adhere to a strictly grammar-based, teacher-centered method of language instruction, they may be more reluctant to accept task-based, learner-centered approaches as contributing to their language acquisition (even when they express satisfaction with how a course is taught). Teachers in the program, who have ongoing opportunities to assess language development through observing the process and product of students' online, oral, and written work, have felt that the use of technology has been highly advantageous, both for helping improve students' general language abilities and especially for assisting students to learn the kind of Internet-based English communication and research skills increasingly necessary for academic and professional success. Case Study #3: Bilingual Study and Technologies Orlando Kelm, at the University of Texas, Austin, conducts courses in Spanish and Portuguese in conjunction with his university's business program (for information on his courses, see ). These courses are designed for undergraduates who are dual majors in Spanish and business and for MBA candidates who opt for a language track for their degree program. Orlando has found that the integration of technologies into this curriculum allows his students to actively engage in language use in ways that were not previously possible. Learner Population Undergraduates who elect a dual major in business and Spanish must complete a minimum of three business-based courses that are taught in Spanish, thereby learning business concepts and the target language associated with them at the same time. The majority of students who take these courses are from homes where Spanish is spoken. Other students are native English speakers who have studied Spanish in school. Those who opt for the language track version for their graduate study take at least three courses for which the target language is taught exclusively through the content of business. As such, they become skilled not only as business professionals, but as bilingual business professionals. Teaching Epistemologies/Integration One of Orlando's most challenging courses is an advanced undergraduate Spanish grammar and composition class designated specifically for business majors. Students who take this course represent a wide range of ability levels. Using a lock-step, teacher- and text-centered approach with such a group is thus not a satisfactory option. Instead, Orlando has designed the course in such a way that language, content, and materials are sufficiently flexible and student directed to meet the needs of all students in the course. Technology plays a key supporting role. Advanced Grammar and Composition: Business, a three-credit course, is very much driven by a learner-centered approach to language instruction. The instructor adheres to the notion that students learn language best when they take on very active roles in
< previous page
page_314
next page >
< previous page
page_315
next page > Page 315
engaging in and shaping their own learning processes. This is a particularly critical issue at the advanced level where there is great variation in learner needs and abilities. Orlando sees his preparation of and provision for the multiple resources he develops and makes accessible to his students via the Internet as an integral aspect of motivating and supporting an active and engaged language learner. Whereas web-based assignments, resources, and online tools comprise the key material with which the course's major activities and assignments are undertaken, it is the dialogic use of the target language in the classroom that forms the core of this language-through-content curriculum. Technologies serve to feed and support these communicative processes. Orlando's beliefs about teaching and learning with technologies are best summed up by his statement, ''It's not so much what I do with technology, but what technology helps me get the students to do. That is what results in learning." Logistics Students in Advanced Grammar and Composition: Business are responsible for four major assignments/components. Each of these components is supported by web-based materials prepared by the instructor. All online materials and communication is in Spanish. The details of the course components are as follows: 1. Excel assignment: Students are assigned business-related problems that entail using several database and statistical functions of Microsoft Excel. Spanish definitions, explanations, examples of various functions of the software, links to help in both English and Spanish, and problems learners are required to solve are all posted on the course web page. In addition, Orlando posts a Power Point presentation of a correct solution to the problem as a model and guide for students to reference. His rationale for providing a correct solution is that the exercise is a language exercise, not a business test. The major objective is for his students to acquire structures and vocabulary related to business concepts, not to "get a right answer". Students are responsible for a total of 12 of these problems during the course of the semester. An example problem would be for students to calculate the depreciation of factory machinery over a given period of time. The problem is discussed by the entire group in class. Once a week, the class meets in the computer laboratory, and students are put in rotating pairs to discuss these problems and the solutions they have devised. Their culminating assignment for each problem is to write the instructor a formal business memo in the role of a company employee that describes the problem, provides needed data, and makes recommendations for future action. The memo must make use of relevant business and technical vocabulary. It is a realistic document that both practices and demonstrates students' grammar and composition abilities in Spanish. 2. Video-assisted oral presentations: The second web-based assignment for this course is an oral presentation students are required to make based on 1520 short articles on business issues. For each of these articles, a videoclip of a native speaker of Spanish discussing its content is made available on the course web page as well as on a CD-ROM. These video clips serve as models for students' own oral presentations. In addition, the accompanying transcripts of the video sequences serve as one of the course's primary language texts; the class analyzes these transcripts line by line to investigate grammar and vocabulary in use. 3. Business case study and grammar portfolio: Two additional assignments round out this demanding course. Students read, discuss, and write about an online business case study, and they create grammar portfolios in which examples of structures must be provided
< previous page
page_315
next page >
< previous page
page_316
next page > Page 316
and analyzed. Many of these examples are taken from the more than 500 video clips of Spanish speakers that Orlando makes available via the Web. Evaluation Orlando has been teaching Advanced Grammar and Composition: Business for 3 years. Response from participating students has been overwhelmingly positive. They feel the integration of technologies supports real models and contexts through which they can actively improve their listening, speaking, vocabulary, and writing abilities. Orlando's own assessment of the course is equally positive, and he is enthusiastic about continuing to reshape the content and processes of his teaching in light of the new possibilities that information technologies present. Conclusions Computer technology is not a panacea for language teaching; using it demands substantial commitments of time and money and brings no guaranteed results. Yet, when appropriately implemented, new technologies provide the means to help reshape both the content and processes of language education. As seen from the preceding three case studies, appropriate use of new technologies allows for a more thorough integration of language, content, and culture than ever before and provides students with unprecedented opportunities for both collaborative and autonomous learning. Computer technologies not only help teachers and students to transcend linguistic, geographical, and time barriers but also to build bridges between bilingual, ESL, and foreign language programs. The use of new technologies allows students to engage in the types of online communication and research that will be paramount for success in their academic and professional pursuits. In addition to the examples given in this chapter, there are many other uses of computer technologies in second language teaching, learning, and research. These include tracking the learning process of individual students (see, e.g., Noblitt & Bland, 1991) and testing language learners (Brown, 1998). Unfortunately, it is not possible to cover all of these topics in this chapter. We would like to emphasize that the key to successful use of technology in language teaching lies not in hardware or software but in "humanware"our human capacity as teachers to plan, design, and implement effective educational activity. Language learning is an act of creativity, imagination, exploration, expression, construction, and profound social and cultural collaboration. If we use computers to fully humanize and enhance this act, rather than to try to automate it, we can help bring out the best that human and machine have to offer. References Barson, J., & Debski, R. (1996). Calling back CALL: Technology in the service of foreign language learning based on creativity, contingency and goal-oriented activity. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 4968). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Breen, M. P. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. N. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Lancaster practical papers in English language education: Vol. 7. Language learning tasks (pp. 2346). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
< previous page
page_316
next page >
< previous page
page_317
next page > Page 317
Brown, J. D. (1998). Computers in language testing: Present research and some future directions. Language Learning & Technology, 1, 4459. Retrieved July 20, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://polyglot.cal.msu.edu/llt/vol1num1/brown/ Candlin, C. N., & Murphy, D. (Eds.). (1987). Language learning tasks. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Chaudron, C. (1987). The role of error correction in second language teaching. In B. K. Das (Ed.), Patterns of interaction in Southeast Asia. (pp. 1750). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger. Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1997). Brave new schools: Challenging cultural illiteracy. New York: St. Martin's Press. Deguchi, K. (1995). A virtual travel activity in Japanese using the World Wide Web. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners (pp. 301303). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Flowerdew, J. (1993). Content-based language instruction in a tertiary setting. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 121138. Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies. London: Taylor & Francis. Jor, G. (1995). Web newsletter '95: A collaborative learning project for technical writing instruction. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners (pp. 368374). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Kelm, O. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 441454. Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and quality of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457476. Kling, R., & Zmuidzinas, M. (1994). Technology, ideology and social transformation: The case of computerization and work organization. Revue International de Sociologie, 2, 2856. Lixl-Purcell, A. (1995). Popular cultural studies on the net. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners (pp. 295297). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 2756. Meskill, C. (1999). Computers as tools for sociocollaborative language learning. In K. Cameron (Ed.), CALL: Media, design and applications. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Meskill, C., Swan, K., & Frazer, M. (1997). Tools for supporting response-based literature teaching and learning: A multimedia exploration of the Beat Generation (Report No. 2.29). Albany: National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement, University at Albany. Osuna, M., & Meskill, C. (1998). Using the World Wide Web to integrate Spanish language and culture: A pilot. Language Learning and Technology Journal, 1, 2, 7192. From http://polygot.cal.msu.edu//llt/vol1num2/article4/default.html Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Rosen, L. (1995). City net: Travel the world from your desktop. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners (pp. 308309). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Sayers, D. (1993). Distance team teaching and computer learning networks. TESOL Journal, 3, 1923. Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163191. Scinicariello, S. G. (1995). Le SMIC Jeune: Gathering information and language from foreign language newsgroups. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners (pp. 263265). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Shetzer, H. (1995). EX*CHANGE: Electronic, Xross Cultural, Hypertextual Academy of Non-native Gatherings in English. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners (pp. 365367). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Snow, M. A. (1991). Teaching language through content. In M. A. Snow (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 315328). Boston: Newbury House.
< previous page
page_317
next page >
< previous page
page_318
next page > Page 318
St. John, E., & Cash, D. (1995). Language learning via e-mail: Demonstrable success with German. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners (pp. 191197). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Vilmi, R. (1995). International environment activity. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners (pp. 205207). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Warschauer, M. (1995a). E-mail for English teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications. Warschauer, M. (Ed.). (1995b). Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 726. Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York: Basic Books.
< previous page
page_318
next page >
< previous page
page_319
next page > Page 319
15 An Annotated Information Source for University-Level Second Language Educators Trudy Smoke Hunter College Judith W. Rosenthal Kean University Chapter 15 includes a series of annotated references for second language teachers, researchers, program administrators, and others who are interested in exploring further the topics addressed in this handbook. The information was contributed by the authors of the chapters of this volume and is listed alphabetically within seven categories: organizations (foundations, associations, centers, etc.), books and reports, journals, electronic discussion groups, Web sites, videotopes, and CD-ROMs and other multimedia. Every effort has been made to provide accurate, up-to-date information. Nonetheless, addresses, phone numbers, Web sites, and the like do change, and readers may have to use their own initiative to locate resources when this has happened. Organizations, Foundations, Associations, Centers, and So Forth American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL)The American member of the International AAL. Address: P.O. Box 21686, Eagan, MN 55121-0686; Tel: 612-953-0806; Fax: 612-431-8404; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.aaal.org/. For scholars who are interested in and actively contribute to the multidisciplinary field of applied linguistics. Promotes principled approaches to language-related concerns such as language education, acquisition and loss, bilingualism, discourse analysis, literacy and stylistics, language for special purposes, psycholinguistics, second and foreign language pedagogy, language assessment, and language policy and planning. American Association of Intensive English Programs (AAIEP)229 North 33rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104; Tel: 215-8955856; Fax: 215-895-5854; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.aaiep.org/. Promotes both excellence in intensive English instruction in the United States and high ethical standards in the administration of intensive English programs. Encourages and facilitates evaluation of intensive English programs. American Association of Teachers of French (AATF)Dept. of Foreign Languages, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-4510; Tel: 618-453-5731; Fax:
< previous page
page_319
next page >
< previous page
page_320
next page > Page 320
618-453-5733; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://aatf.utsa.edu/. Organizes workshops, seminars, and an annual conference on issues of concern to French teachers and provides professional development activities enabling teachers of French to keep abreast of the latest trends in French literature, culture, and pedagogy. American Association of Teachers of German (AATG)112 Haddontowne Court, No. 104, Cherry Hill, NJ 08034; Tel: 609-7955553; Fax: 609-795-9398; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.aatg.org/. Dedicated to the advancement and improvement of the language, literature, and culture of the German-speaking countries. Provides educational and professional services to teachers of German with students in all levels of instruction. American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese (AATSP)Butler-Hancock, Room 210, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639; Tel: 970-351-1090; Fax: 970-351-1095; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.aatsp.org. Promotes the study and teaching of Hispanic, Luso-Brazilian, and other related languages, literatures, and cultures at all levels. Through an exchange of pedagogical and scholarly information, encourages heritage and second language study and supports related projects. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)6 Executive Plaza, Yonkers, NY 10701-6801; Tel: 914-9638830; Fax: 914-963-8830; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.actfl.org. Dedicated to the improvement and expansion of the teaching and learning of all languages at all levels of instruction. Focuses on issues that are critical to the growth of both the profession and the individual teacher. Association of Departments of Foreign Languages (ADFL)10 Astor Place, New York, NY 10003-6981; Tel: 212-614-6320; Email: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.adfl.org. A group within the Modern Language Association (MLA) that addresses the professional concerns of administrators from nearly 1,000 departments of foreign languages and literatures and divisions of humanities at 2- and 4-year colleges and universities. American Sign Language Teachers Association (ASLTA)E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.aslta.org. A national organization of teachers of American Sign Language (ASL). Operates under the auspices of the National Association of the Deaf (NAD; address given later). Certifies teachers of ASL, advises teaching programs, provides professional development activities on the national and chapter levels, and seeks to advance the recognition of ASL in schools and state boards of education. Australian Council of TESOL Associations (ACTA)25 Kimmax St., Sunnybank, Queensland, 4109, Australia; Tel: 07-38643554; Fax: 07-3864-3988; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.acta.edu.au. Represents and supports the interests of all teachers of English to speakers of other languages in Australia. Membership in ACTA is through one of the eight State/Territory TESOL Associations. Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations (AFMLTA)Web site: http://www.epubresearch.unisa.edu.au/afmlta. Represents teachers of all languages and promotes language learning in Australia. Consists of eight member Associations in all Australian States and Territories. At the international level, AFMLTA is affiliated with the World Federation of Modern Language Teachers Association (Federation Internationale des Professeurs de Langues Vivantes, FIPLV) and actively participates in its work. Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA)333 Appleby Hall, 128 Pleasant St., S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455; Tel: 612-626-8600; Fax: 612-624-
< previous page
page_320
next page >
< previous page
page_321
next page > Page 321
7514; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://carla.acad.umn.edu/. Its mission is to study multilingualism and multiculturalism, to develop knowledge of second language acquisition, and to advance the quality of second language teaching, learning, and assessment through its many activities. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO) Southwest Texas State University, 116 Centennial Hall, San Marcos, TX 78666; Tel: 512-245-1417; Fax: 512-245-8298; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.calico.org. Serves a membership involved in both education and high technology. Emphasizes modern language teaching and learning but reaches out to all areas that employ the languages of the world to instruct and to learn. An international clearinghouse and leader in computer assisted learning and instruction. Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)4646 40th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20016-1859; Tel: 202-362-0700; Fax 202-3623740; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www/cal.org/. Aims to promote and improve the teaching and learning of languages by carrying out a wide range of activities including research, teacher education, analysis and dissemination of information, design and development of instructional materials, technical assistance, conference planning, program evaluation, and policy analysis. Conference of Interpreter Trainers (CIT)Web site: http://www.unm.edu/~wilcox/CIT/cit_info.html. An association of interpreter educators that provides professional development for interpreter educators; promotes high standards in institutions, faculties, programs, and curricula for the education of interpreters; advocates for research relevant to the practice and instruction of interpretation; and encourages collegial relationships with professionals in other related disciplines and organizations. The Endangered Language FundDepartment of Linguistics, Yale University, P.O. Box 208236, New Haven, CT 06520-8236; Tel: 203-432-2450; Fax: 203-432-4087; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://sapir.ling.yale.edu/~elf/. Devoted to the scientific study of endangered languages. Supports native efforts in maintaining endangered languages; provides grants for endangered language maintenance and linguistic work and disseminates the findings of these efforts. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics (ERIC/CLL)4646 40th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20016-1859; Tel: 800276-9834 or 202-362-0700; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.cal.org.ericcll/. ERIC/CLL collects and disseminates information on current developments in education research, instructional methods and materials, program design and evaluation, teacher training, and assessment in areas such as foreign languages, English as a second or foreign language, bilingualism, linguistics, intercultural education, and study abroad. Operated by the Center for Applied Linguistic (CAL). The European Second Language Association (EUROSLA)Web site: http://www.kun.nl/ttmb/news.html. A European organization dealing with second language acquisition. International Association of Applied LinguisticsThis is the umbrella organization for the various national Applied Linguistics organizations of which AAAL is one member. A conference is held every 3 years. The following is the web address for the 1999 conference held in Tokyo: http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jacet/AILA99/. Modern Language Association of America (MLA)10 Astor Place, New York, NY 10003-6981; Tel: 212-475-9500; Fax: 212477-9863; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.mla.org. Promotes the study and teaching of language and literature, encouraging high standards for teaching and scholarship in the field.
< previous page
page_321
next page >
< previous page
page_322
next page > Page 322
Modern Language Centre (MLC) at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6; Tel: 414-923-6641 (ext. 2620); E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/MLC/. Addresses a broad spectrum of theoretical and practical issues related to the teaching and learning of second and minority languages with a special focus on language issues in Canada. National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE)1220 L Street, Suite 605, Washington, DC 20005-4018; Tel: 202-8981829; Fax: 202-789-2866; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.nabe.org/. Through research, professional development, public education, and legislative advocacy, NABE strives to address the educational needs of language-minority students in the United States. National Association of the Deaf (NAD)814 Thayer Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20910-4500; TTY: 301-587-1789; Voice: 301587-1788; Fax: 301-587-1791; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.nad.org. Its programs and activities include grassroots advocacy and empowerment, captioned media, certification of American Sign Language and Deaf Studies professionals; certification of sign-language interpreters; deafness-related information and publications, legal assistance, policy development and research, public awareness, and youth leadership development. NAFSA: Association of International Educators1307 New York Avenue, NW, Eighth Floor, Washington, DC 20005-4701; Tel: 202-737-3699; Fax: 202-737-3657; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.nafsa.org. Promotes the exchange of students and scholars to and from the United States. Sets and upholds standards of good practice and provides professional education and training that strengthen institutional programs and services related to international educational exchange. National Association of Self-Instructional Language Programs (NASILP)1717 Speedway Blvd., Suite 3312, PO Box 210151, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0151; Tel: 520-626-5258; Fax 520-626-8205; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.nasilp.org/. Oversees self-instructional programs of study in more than 40 of the less commonly taught languages for college (and some high school) students. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. 20208-5574; Tel: 202-2191828; Fax: 202-219-1696; Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/. The primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. Much of this data is accessible at the NCES web site. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE)2011 Eye Street, NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006; Tel: 202467-4284; Fax: 800-531-9347 (or within the DC metro area 202-467-4283); E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/. Collects, analyzes, and disseminates information relating to the effective education of linguistically and culturally diverse learners in the United States. National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE)1111 W. Kenyon Road, Urbana, IL 61801-1096; Tel: 800-369-6283 or 217328-3870; Fax: 217-328-9645; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.ncte.org/. Devoted to improving the teaching and learning of English and the language arts at all levels of education. Provides a forum for the profession, opportunities for professional development, and a framework of cooperation to deal with issues that affect the teaching of English. The National Foreign Language Center (NFLC) at the Johns Hopkins University1619 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036; Tel: 202-667-
< previous page
page_322
next page >
< previous page
page_323
next page > Page 323
8100; Fax: 202-667-6907; Web site: http://www.nflc.org. Dedicated to the development and implementation of policies and programs to improve U.S. capacity for cross-cultural communications, particularly in languages other than English. Promotes research, develops policies, organizes conferences, disseminates information, and collaborates with others to promote these ends. National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC)University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1859 East-West Road, #106, Honolulu, HI 96822; Tel: 808-956-9424; Fax: 808-956-5983; E-mail:[email protected]; Web site: http://www.lll.hawaii.edu/nflrc. Focuses on the less commonly taught languages (LCTLs), particularly those of Asia and the Pacific; engages in research and materials development projects and conducts summer institutes for language professionals. The National Council of Organizations of Less Commonly Taught Languages (NCOLCTL)1619 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Tel. 202-667-8100; Fax: 202-667-6907; Web site: http://www.councilnet.org/pages/CNet_Issues.html. A federation of 17 language teaching associations in the United States representing the less commonly taught languages (LCTLs). Facilitates dialogue among its members, language educators, and policy makers in its efforts to promote and support the teaching and learning of the LCTLs. Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID)8630 Fenton, Suite 324, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3803; 301-608-0050 V/TTY; Fax: 301-608-0508; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.rid.org. Provides a forum and an organizational structure for the continued growth and development of the professions of interpretation and transliteration of American Sign Language and English. PacSLRFAn organization devoted to the study of Second Language Acquisition in the Pacific Rim. The web address for the year 2000 conference in Indonesia is: http://www.als.aoyama.ac.jp/pacslrf/pacslrf.html. Second Language Research Forum (SLRF)Holds annual conference devoted solely to research on second language acquisition. The address for SLRF '99 (held at the St. Paul Campus of the University of Minnesota) is: http://languagecenter.cla.umn.edu/esl/slrf99/. The Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas (SSILA)c/o Victor Golla, Native American Studies, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA 95521; Tel: 707-826-4324; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://trc2/ucdavis.edu/ssila. An international scholarly organization representing American-Indian linguistics. Open to all who are interested in the scientific study of the languages of the native peoples of North, Central, and South America. Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL)International Headquarters, 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Road, Dallas, TX 75236; Tel: 972708-7400; Fax: 972-708-7433; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.sil.org/. A service and development organization specializing in work with languages spoken by the world's lesser known linguistic groups. Develops programs in partnership with host governments, nongovernment organizations, universities, churches, and local people to promote linguistic research, language development, literacy, translation and other educational and research projects. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)700 South Washington Street, Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314; Tel: 703-836-0774; Fax: 703-836-7864; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.tesol.edu. Develops the expertise of its members and others involved in the teaching of English to speakers of other languages.
< previous page
page_323
next page >
< previous page
page_324
next page > Page 324
Helps foster effective communication in diverse settings while respecting individuals language rights. University and College Intensive English Programs (UCIEP)UCIEP Central Office, English Language Institute, Oklahoma State University, 210 USDA, Stillwater, OK 74078-2033; Tel: 405-744-7519; Fax: 405-744-7520; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.uciep.org/index.htm. An independent consortium of university and college-administered intensive English programs in the United States. Promotes the advancement of professional standards and quality instruction. United States Bureau of the CensusDepartment of Commerce, Washington, DC 20233; Tel: 301-457-2804; Fax: 301-457-3670; Web site: http://www.census.gov/. The preeminent collector and provider of timely, relevant, and quality data about the people and economy of the United States and the primary source of information about population issues including immigration and nonnative speakers of English. Data and reports are accessible through its Web site. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS)425 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20536; Tel: 202-514-4316 (4330, 4354); Web site: http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/. Through its Web site, provides access to many statistical reports including those dealing with immigrants, nonimmigrant visitors, illegal alien residents, refugees, and naturalizations in the United States. Books and Reports Ashworth, M. (1988). Blessed with bilingual brains - Education of immigrant children with English as a second language. Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational Press. A comprehensive overview of ESL instruction in Canadian schools including a chapter on the teaching of international languages. Alatis, J. (Ed.). (1993), The Georgetown Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Annual thematic round table dealing with language and linguistics with a strong emphasis on language learning, language education, and social issues in language use. Anstrom, K. (1998, August). Preparing secondary education teachers to work with English language learners: English language arts. Washington, DC: NCBE. (available on-line at http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/resource/ells/language.htm). Gives teachers and teacher educators a better understanding of how mainstream language arts instruction can be designed and implemented to enhance academic achievement for linguistically and culturally diverse learners. Baker, C. (1993). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. An introductory textbook about bilingual education and bilingualism Addresses the nature of bilingualism as well as bilingual education policies and classroom practices. Baldauf, R. B. (1995). Viability of low-candidature LOTE courses in universities. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Examines the prospects for low candidature languages at universities in Australia and recommends ways to strengthen such programs. Includes a list of languages taught and student numbers by languages. Also chapters on lesser taught languages in the United States and England.
< previous page
page_324
next page >
< previous page
page_325
next page > Page 325
Benesch, S. (Ed.). (1988). Ending remediation: Linking ESL and content in higher education. Washington, DC: TESOL. Examples of how ESL and content-area instruction can be linked in higher education and the benefits of doing so. Bennett, C. I. (1990). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice (4/e). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Provides the historical background, basic terminology, and social science concepts involved in multicultural education that teachers need before they enter the field. Besnard, C., & Elkabas, C. (Eds.). (1988). L'Université de demain: courants actuels et apports de la didactique des langues à l'enseignement du français langue seconde. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press. A collection of articles in French based on papers presented at a 1987 University of Toronto conference on the teaching of French as a second language at Canadian universities. Takes into accountamong other factorsthe increasing incidence of French immersion graduates desiring opportunities for advanced French study for non-literary purposes. Boswood, T. (Ed.). (1997). New ways of using computers in language teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Pedagogical uses of the new technologies to help learners develop their language and communication skills. Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. New York: Newbury House Publishers. Describes the three content-based teaching models at the university level (theme-based, sheltered, and adjunct), gives examples, and provides the information needed to implement content-based programs. Burnaby, B., & Cumming, A. (Eds.). (1992). Social-political aspects of ESL. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Press. Articles analyzing language policies and their implementation, including approaches to the language education of adult immigrants in Canada at the college and university levels and also through the adult education system. The majority of the volume deals with the Canadian situation. Bush, M. (Ed.). (1997). Technology-enhanced language learning. Chicago, IL: National Textbook Company. Looks at many forms of technology from email to interactive videodiscs and how they are currently being used in foreign and second language instruction. Of particular interest are discussions about the ways technology can assist language learners and reasons why technology is not being used to its fullest potential in the field of language learning. Byrnes, H. (Ed.). (1992). Languages for a multicultural world in transition, Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Papers from the Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Topics include multilingualism in the United States and the world, the role of foreign language instructors in maintaining non-English languages in the United States, the changing goals of language instruction, and technology and second language learning. Byrnes, H. (Ed.). (1998). Learning foreign and second languages. Perspectives in research and scholarship. NY: Modern Language Association. Provides an overview of second language acquisition research for a nonspecialized audience, addressing both theory and methodology. Canadian Heritage (Department of). (1996). The Canadian experience in the teaching of official languages. Ottawa: Department of Canadian Heritage. This bilingual volume provides the proceedings of a symposium dealing with the teaching of French and English in Canada. Addresses topics such as sociolinguistic trends, teacher training, and
< previous page
page_325
next page >
< previous page
page_326
next page > Page 326
teaching in minority language contexts. Available on-line at: http://www.pch.gc.ca/OFFLANGOFF/perspectives/english/sympo/index.htm. Cantoni, G. (Ed.). (1996). Stabilizing indigenous languages. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. Available on-line at: http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/stabilize/. Proceedings of the 1994 and 1995 conferences on ''Stabilizing Indigenous Languages." Addresses needs and rationale, language policy, families and communities, and education. Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course (2/e). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Provides teachers with information on the linguistic system and details of English grammar. Includes research findings, as well as practical teaching suggestions, exercises, and questions. Christison, M. A. & Stoller, F. (Eds.). (1997). A handbook for language program administrators. Burlingame, CA: ALTA Book Centers Publishers. A resource book for program administrators focusing on such topics as strategic planning, decision making, organization, budgets, multiculturalism, immigration, marketing, and includes activities for handling these and other issues. Cochran, E. P. (Ed.). (1992). Into the academic mainstream: Guidelines for teaching language minority students. New York: The Instructional Resource Center, Office of Academic Affairs, The City University of New York. Describes and classifies the linguistically diverse students attending CUNY and provides numerous recommendations about how content-area instructors can more effectively teach these students. Cook, V. (1993) Linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Macmillan Press. Second language acquisition from a linguistic perspective. Emphasis on formal linguistic models. Also includes areas such as input, pidgins/creoles, and variation. Courchêne, R., Glidden, J., St. John, J., & Thérien, C. (1992). Comprehension-based second language teaching. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Articles in English and French. Theory and practical implementation of language instruction; emphasizes the development of high level listening and reading comprehension skills as the basis of speaking and writing proficiency. Deals with different instructional contexts, including the post-secondary level. Cowan, W. (Ed.). (1993). Papers of the Twenty-fourth Algonquian Conference. Ottawa: Carlton University. Addresses issues related to First Nations languages such as attempts to train Native teachers as well as the acceptance of these instructors by First Nations communities; services available to First Nations students at Canadian universities; suggestions for the improvement of conditions to encourage Native Canadians to study at the post-secondary level, and so forth. Crandall, J. A. (Ed.). (1995). ESL through content-area instruction: Mathematics, science, and social studies. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems & Center for Applied Linguistics. Detailed descriptions of how content and English as a second language faculty can collaborate for teaching math, science, and social studies to K through 12 English language learners. Crawford, J. (Ed.). (1992). Language loyalties: A source book on the official English controversy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Articles addressing the historical roots of U.S. language policy, the debate over "Official English," the symbolic implications of language conflict, the question of minority language rights, language diversity and education, and international perspectives on language politics.
< previous page
page_326
next page >
< previous page
page_327
next page > Page 327
Cummins, J., & Danesi, M. (1990). Heritage Languages: The development and denial of Canada's linguistic resources. Toronto: Our Schools, Our Selves/Garamond Press. Argues for greater inclusion of international language instruction in Canadian schools and describes a number of programs that are currently in place. de V. Cluver, A. D. (1997). A selected bibliography on the sociology of language with emphasis on sources on language planning in Africa. Pretoria: University of South Africa. The single most complete bibliography available on works dealing with language policy and language planning issues not only in South Africa but in Africa in general. Contains listings for virtually every published document related to language policy in South Africa and Namibia, and is up-to-date through 1995. du Plessis, H., & du Plessis, T. (Eds.). (1987). Afrikaans en taalpolitiek: 15 opstelle. Pretoria: Haum. Now somewhat dated, this book sought to provide a critical examination of Afrikaans and the place of Afrikaans in apartheid-era South Africa. Outstanding chapters on the history and ideology of language politics in the South African context. Includes chapters in both English and Afrikaans. Davis, T. (Ed.). (1997). Open doors 19971998: Report on international educational exchange. New York: Institute of International Education. Annual report of the Institute for International Education. Includes extensive data about foreign students studying in U.S. colleges and universities, the number and activities of foreign scholars on U.S. campuses, and the numbers and destinations of U.S. students studying overseas. Directory of language resources in South Africa, (2/e). (1997). Pretoria: National Terminology Services, Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. Contains detailed contact information for virtually every institution involved in language issues in South Africa including the various language academies, dictionary projects, financial institutions, governmental institutions (at the local, provincial and national levels), language agencies, associations, bureaus, committees, councils, journals, and offices, as well as language services, publishers, and graduate and diploma courses related to language. Ducharme, J.-C. (1996). Status report: Minority-language educational rights. Ottawa: Department of Canadian Heritage. Reviews the situation of language education rights for French and English minorities in Canada. Legislation at both the federal and provincial levels is discussed as well as challenges to such laws. Can be downloaded from http://www.pch.gc.ca/OFFLANGOFF/english/EP04.htm. Echevarria, J., & Graves, A. (1997). Sheltered content instruction: Teaching English-language learners with diverse abilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Defines and describes sheltered instruction and provides strategies for its successful implementation in the classroom. Ellis, R. (1994) The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A comprehensive review of second language acquisition (SLA) including descriptions of SLA, explanations of SLA, individual differences, and classroom learning. For use by those who intend to conduct research in SLA, as a reference, and for those preparing to be second or foreign language teachers. Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Similar in organization to Ellis (1994), covering most of the same topics although greatly condensed. Erben, T., & Bartlett, L. (1998). Managing Japanese immersion through audiographics. Volumes 1 and 2. Rockhampton: Central Queensland University. (Includes video and
< previous page
page_327
next page >
< previous page
page_328
next page > Page 328
Apple format diskette.) These materials provide a teachers networking instructional set for use in an initial teacher education Japanese language program. Explanation of the theoretical basis, how the program is taught, provides instructional materials, and so forth. Fishman, J. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Case studies of threatened languages worldwide. Formulates eight stages of language vitality. Emphasizes the importance of intergenerational transmission of endangered languages in the home. Freed, B. F. (Ed.). (1991) Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company. Assesses "the general state of current foreign language acquisition research and its relationship to the classroom", addressing both theoretical and practical concerns. Freeman, D., & Cornwell, S. (Eds.). (1993). New ways in teacher education. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Focuses on activities that help teachers come to make sense of what they do; emphasizes such practices as exploration and experimentation, risk taking and cooperation, and balancing input and reflection. Gallaway, C., & Richards, B. (Eds.). (1994). Input and interaction in language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deals primarily with first language acquisition and the importance of input in various contexts by various kinds of speakers. García, O., & Baker, C. (Eds.). (1995). Policy and practice in bilingual education: A reader extending the foundations. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Addresses policy and legislation on bilingualism in schools and bilingual education, implementation of bilingual policy in schools, and using bilingualism in instruction and in the school community. Examples from the United States and abroad. Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Intended for those with or without a background in linguistics. Presents an overview of the history of second language acquisition (SLA) for the last 50 years as well as chapters covering the role of the native language, other disciplines, and nonlinguistic factors in present day SLA research. Attempts to account for the disparate research traditions within the field. Gray, M. J., Rolph, E., & Melamid, E. (1996). Immigration and higher education: Institutional responses to changing demographics. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Examines issues of access, academic support and retention, ESL instruction, cocurricular programs, as well as other issues related to immigrants in higher education in the United States. Grobler, E., Prinsloo, K. P., & van der Merwe, I. J. (1990). Language atlas of South Africa. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council. The single most complete geolinguistic study available on South Africa. Includes 23 maps detailing such linguistic information as concentrations of home language speakers (in English, Afrikaans, European immigrant languages, Indian and Asian languages, and indigenous African languages), dominant and relative language concentrations in the country, speaking knowledge of English and Afrikaans, and literacy rates by language. Hansen, K. A., & Faber, C. S. (1997, March). The Foreign-Born Population: 1996. Current Population Reports. Report P20494. Bureau of the Census. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Short update on data reflecting major findings of the Current Population Survey of the United States. Can be downloaded from http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/forborn.html.
< previous page
page_328
next page >
< previous page
page_329
next page > Page 329
Hauptfleisch, T. Language loyalty in South Africa. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council, (Vol. 1, 1977; Vol. 2, 1978; Vol. 3, 1979; Vol. 4, 1983). This four-volume report is the result of a large-scale, nation-wide survey of multilingualism in South Africa conducted in 19731974. Focuses on the attitudes of white South Africans toward language policy, first and second language use, and language loyalty and language shift. This report has remained a sociolinguistic landmark work in the southern African context. Herriman, M., & Burnaby, M. (Eds.). (1996). Language policies in English-dominant countries. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. The linguistic background, the status of languages (as determined by statute and practice), and current language policies and their consequences in the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Britain, and New Zealand. The Institute for the Preservation of the Original Languages of the Americas. (1998). Native language revitalization resource directory: The Americas, Alaska, Hawaii, Pacific Region. Santa Fe, NM: Author. A resource guide for those working on community-based language revitalization programs. Includes information about relevant international organizations, tribal and native community language programs, centers and individuals associated with native community language programs, funding sources, Internet resources, and bibliographies on indigenous language stabilization and on language learning materials. Issues in Language Program Direction: AAUSC Annual Volumes. Magnan, Sally Sieloff (Series Editor). Web site: http://www.heinle.com/aausc.html. Strives to further scholarship in second language acquisition and teaching with regard to undergraduate programs with multisection courses. Each of the annual volumes addresses a different topic related to foreign language instruction and programs such as technology, the changing demographics, development and supervision of teaching assistants, and the role of faculty and administrators in postsecondary institutions. Kaschula, R. H., & Anthonissen, C. (1995). Communicating across cultures in South Africa: Toward a critical language awareness. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. An introduction to applied sociolinguistics in the South African setting, with a particular emphasis on language learning in a multicultural, multilingual environment. Addresses language and culture, language prejudice, gender, power, and cross-cultural communication. Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1987). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. A classic book on the linguistics of American Sign Language. Knopp, L. (1995). Remedial Education: An Undergraduate Student Profile. ACE Research Briefs, 6(8), 11 pages. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Uses national data to report the characteristics of students enrolled in remedial/developmental education courses in U.S. higher education, with breakdowns by race/ethnicity, limited English proficiency, gender, age, number of remedial/developmental education courses taken, and type of course (reading, writing, mathematics). Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (1995). Redefining the boundaries of language study. (An AAUSC Annual Volume). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Focuses on the impact of demographic changes on foreign language programs and the language learning environment; addresses changes in the theoretical, educational, linguistic, and cultural boundaries. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Presents Krashen's Monitor Theory and covers topics including
< previous page
page_329
next page >
< previous page
page_330
next page > Page 330
acquisition of grammatical structures, effects of formal and informal linguistic environments, attitude and aptitude in language learning and acquisition, the role and significance of affective variables, age differences, and teaching methodology. Kreuger, M., & Ryan, F. (Eds.). (1993). Language and content: Discipline- and content-based approaches to language study. Toronto: D.C. Heath & Company. Considers theoretical and research issues of discipline based approaches to language study; presents case studies of exemplary programs, and considers the implications for instructional methods and materials, as well as for the discipline and profession. Lane, H., Hoffmeister, R., & Bahan, B. (1996). A journey into the deaf-world. San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press. An introduction to the lives, language, and culture of the Deaf World and the signing community in the United States. Addresses the history, culture, and political agenda of the Deaf World as well as the education of deaf children, deaf culture worldwide, and the ways in which technology helps and hinders deaf people. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman. Addresses topics such a second language acquisition (SLA) research methodology, the development and evolution of SLA research issues, individual learner variables and differential L2 achievement, the role of the linguistic environment, explanations of SLA, and theories of SLA. Leal, R. B., Bettoni, C., & Malcolm, I. (1991). Widening our horizons: Report of the Review of Modern Language Teaching in Higher Education. Volumes 1 and 2. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education and Training. A comprehensive review of modern language teaching in Australia with statistics on languages taught by universities and recommendations for ways to improve language teaching. Leap, W. L. (1993). American Indian English. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press. Describes how ancestral tribal languages influence both the grammar and use of Indian English dialects. Examines the sounds, grammar, and social uses of these dialects and discusses their implications in the school setting, makes recommendations for teachers. Lessow-Hurley, J. (1996). The foundations of dual language instruction. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers. Examination of second language development in the context of dual language programs for school children. Addresses relevant cultural, political, legal, and academic issues. Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. New York: Oxford University Press. A summary of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) research that attempts to explain why CALL is where it is today as well as where it is headed in the future. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. An introduction to the field of second language acquisition (SLA) specifically written for second and foreign language teachers. Presents both theory and research findings on a wide range of topics including learning a first language, second language learning, factors affecting second language learning, learner language, second language learning in the classroom and provides examples of points being illustrated. Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (Ed.). (1996). Patterns and policies: The changing demographics of foreign language instruction. (An AAUSC Annual Volume). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Addresses changes in foreign language instruction at the university level as a result of the changing student demographics.
< previous page
page_330
next page >
< previous page
page_331
next page > Page 331
Mesthrie, R. (Ed.). (1995). Language and social history: Studies in South African sociolinguistics. Cape Town: David Philip. Addresses major sociolinguistic issues in the South African context including chapters that deal explicitly with the Khoesan languages, the Bantu languages, South African English, German speakers in southern Africa, historical linguistics, language contact and borrowing, South African Indian English, South African Black English, language policy, and language education. Naiman, N., & Furgiuele, R. (Eds.). (1996). The converging of two visions/La convergence de deux visions. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press. Short articles in English and French synthesizing papers presented at a 1995 conference on the teaching of French and English as second languages in Canadian universities. Provides an overview of research, issues, and practice, with an emphasis on commonalities which should bring together the traditionally separate interests of postsecondary educators working with the two languages. Oller, J. W. (Ed.). (1994). Methods that work: Ideas for literacy and language teachers. (2/e) Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Practical information about teaching second languages. Topics include immersion, bilingual education, content-based instruction, students with special needs, literacy in multicultural settings, schema theory, grammar teaching, cooperative learning, peer teaching, instructor training, and computer-assisted language instruction. Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (1990). Deaf in America: Voices from a culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Through the use of folklore, stories, poetry, jokes, and discussion of split factions and advocacy organizations, explains how deaf culture works, what it means to its members, how they define themselves within it, and how they interact with the world outside. Pellerin, S. (Ed.). (1996). La Didactique du français L2 dans les universités et collèges canadiens: Acts du Colloque national du Département d'études françaises de l'Université du Nouveau-Brunswick. Montreal: FCLE (Français canadien langue d'enseignement) Proceedings of a conference dealing with the teaching of French as a second language at postsecondary institutions in Canada. Articles, written in French and English, cover a wide range of topics from grammar instruction to the use of hypnosis in language teaching. Pennington, M. (Ed.). (1996). The power of CALL. Houston: Athelstan. Emphasizes the benefits of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and how it can be used to improve the field of language learning. Addresses 3 major areas: CALL research, different types of technology associated with CALL, and language skills areas in which CALL can be of benefit. Piatt, B. (1990). ¿Only English? Law and language policy in the United States. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. An examination of the recurring language rights debate in the United States including a historical perspective, workplace issues, and the formulation of an equitable language rights policy. Reyhner, J. (Ed.). (1997). Teaching indigenous languages. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. Proceedings of the 1997 "Teaching Indigenous Languages" conference. Addresses tribal and school roles, teaching students, teacher education, curriculum and materials development, language attitudes and promotion. Available at http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/TIL.html. Reyhner, J., Cantoni, G., St. Clair, R. N., & Parsons Yazzie, E. (Eds.). (1999). Revitalizing indigenous languages. Compilation of papers from the 1998 "Stabilizing Indigenous
< previous page
page_331
next page >
< previous page
page_332
next page > Page 332
Languages Symposium". Addresses revitalization efforts and approaches as well as the roles of writing and technology in language revitalization. Available at: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar.TIL.html Ricento, T., & Burnaby, B. (Eds.). (1998). Language and politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and realities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Analyzes and explains the goals, processes, and effects of language policies in the United States and Canada from historical and contemporary perspectives. Several articles compare and contrast language issues in the two countries. Aboriginal issues also receive thorough treatment. Richard-Amato, P. A., & Snow, M. A. (Eds.). (1992). The multicultural classroom: Readings for content-area teachers. White Plains, NY: Longman. Addresses four major themes related to teaching language minority students in multicultural classrooms: theoretical foundations, cultural considerations, instructional practices and materials, and readings in specific content areas. Sacks, O. (1990). Seeing voices: A journey into the world of the deaf. NY: HarperCollins. Takes readers into the world of the deaf and offers a deeply felt portrait of a minority struggle for recognition and respect. Scarcella, R. C. (1990). Teaching language minority students in the multicultural classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Addresses both the theory and practice of teaching content-area courses that include both native and nonnative speakers of English. Schmidley, D. S., & Alvarado, H. A. (1998, March). The Foreign-Born Population in the United States. Current Population Reports: Report P20-507. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Short update on data reflecting major findings of the Current Population Survey of the United States. Can be downloaded from http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/for-born.html. Sharwood Smith, M. (1994). Second language learning. London: Addison Wesley Longman. An historical overview of the field of second language acquisition with an emphasis on formal linguistic models, particularly Universal Grammar. Silver, S., & Miller, W. R. (1997). American Indian languages: Cultural and social contexts. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Addresses the indigenous languages of the Americas, their status, structures, cultural and social domains, as well as the languages in context, and in space and time. Smoke, T. (Ed.). (1998). Adult ESL: Politics, pedagogy, and participation in classroom and community programs (1998). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Essays by noted researchers, professionals and practitioners in the field of ESL on political strategies, pedagogical models, and community programs that enable adult English as a Second Language learners to become members of U.S. society. Snow, M. A. & Brinton, D. B. (Eds.). (1997). The content based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Provides both theoretical insights and practical suggestions for modifying instruction for language minority students in both the K12 and postsecondary contexts. Covers program design, curriculum, materials, instructional strategies, program administration, and assessment, as well as models of teacher preparation. Sperling, D. (1998). The Internet guide for English language teachers (2/e). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. A practical, hands-on guide to the Internet for ESL/EFL
< previous page
page_332
next page >
< previous page
page_333
next page > Page 333
professionals. Intended for use by beginners to the Internet as well as a resource guide for professionals seeking everything from lesson plans to job hunting. Stewart, D. W. (1993). Immigration and education. New York: Lexington Books. Addresses topics such as immigration law, refugees, adult education for immigrants, learning English, bilingual education, the politics of immigration and education, and immigrants in higher education. Provides detailed statistics and comprehensive analysis of the impact of immigration upon U.S. education at all levels. Straight, H. S. (Ed.). (1994). Languages across the curriculum. (Translation Perspectives IV). Binghamton, NY: State University of New York, Center for Research in Translation. Describes the teaching of languages across the curriculum at the college/university level with examples from various institutions. Stryker, S. B., & Leaver, B. L.(Eds.). (1997). Content-based instruction in foreign language education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Examples of content-based foreign language instruction for adult learners at the novice, intermediate, and advanced levels as well as foreign languages across the curriculum. Addresses practical pedagogical concerns. Towards a national language plan for South Africa: Final report of the Language Plan Task Group (LANGTAG). (1996). Pretoria: Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. A key volume in an ongoing series published by the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology with respect to current government thinking about language planning and language policy in South Africa. Other volumes in the series include works on language as an economic resource, the economics of language, lexicography in the South African context, and practical works dealing with corpus planning issues. Towel, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Covers a variety of topics including the history of the field of second language acquisition (SLA) and the basic facts of acquisition. Explanations from a sociolinguistic and cognitive perspective. The bulk of the book is devoted to Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1990). 1990 Census of Population. Characteristics of the Population. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Provides immigration data that is derived from both the Census Bureau's decennial survey and the annual surveys of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS). Information is available at national, state, and county levels. Available through http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/popula.html#popspec. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Ethnic and Hispanic Branch, Population Division. (1993, September). We the American foreign born. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. An overview of the U.S. foreign-born population including the percentage of foreign-born persons by country of birth, settlement patterns, year of entry, gender and race/ethnicity as a proportion of the total population, educational levels, and occupation, income, and poverty levels. This report is one of a series of reports on subpopulations from the 1990 U.S. Census. Available through: http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/wepeople.html. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1997, June). Statistics in brief: Participation of adults in English as a second language classes: 19941995. NCES Report No. 97-319. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Provides statistics on the number of adults, both immigrant and American-born nonnative
< previous page
page_333
next page >
< previous page
page_334
next page > Page 334
speakers of English, in English as a Second Language classes in the United States. Available at: http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=97319. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1997, January). A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students: Screening Methods, Program Support, and Teacher Training (SASS 1993-94). Statistical Analysis Report No. 97-472. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Provides a profile of the 2.1 million public school students in the United States who are identified as limited English proficient (LEP). Includes information on the distribution of LEP students, schools' methods of identifying LEP students, the proportion of schools providing ESL or bilingual or other types of language instruction, and the qualifications of LEP students' teachers. Available through: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=97472. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). The Condition of Education, 1997. NCES Report No. 97-38. Contains 60 indicators to illustrate the condition of education in the United States, including student performance and graduation rates, course-taking patterns, reading proficiency, ability to speak English, minority student achievement, college-going rates, and attendance patterns. Addresses access, participation and progress; achievement, attainment, and curriculum; economic and other outcomes of education; size, growth, and output of educational institutions; climate, classrooms, and diversity in educational institutions; and human and financial resources of educational institutions. Available through: http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=97388. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1996, September). Profile of Children in U.S. School Districts. Statistical Analysis Report 96-831. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Description of the 55.3 million school-aged children in the United States by the 14,897 school districts in which they lived at the time of the 1990 decennial Census. Includes demographic, enrollment, and school district profiles. Enrollment patterns of children in different age groups are presented and analyzed by aspects such as linguistic isolation, race and ethnicity, and mother's ability to speak English. Available through: http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=96831. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services. (1998, June 22). Immigration and Naturalization Statistics. Annual Statistical Report. Immigration to the United States in Fiscal Year 1996. Information on legal immigration to the United States for the 1996 fiscal year. Describes the goals of the Immigration Act of 1990 and gives an update on the number of immigrants entering under the various provisions of the law during the 1994 and 1995 fiscal years. Selected characteristics of legal immigrants including age, sex, occupation, and place of intended residence. See http://www.census.gov/population/www.socdemo/immigration.html. van Rensburg, C. (Ed.). (1997). Afrikaans in Africa. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik/Akademies. Written in Afrikaans. Seeks to place Afrikaans as a language in its African context. Includes discussion of the historical evolution of the language and its standardization, the role of Afrikaans under apartheid, and issues related to its future in a post-apartheid South Africa. Vernez, G., & Abrahamse. A. (1996). How immigrants fare in U.S. education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Examines the participation and performance of immigrant children and youths in U.S. schools and colleges as well as the factors associated with immigrants' and native-born students' educational attainment.
< previous page
page_334
next page >
< previous page
page_335
next page > Page 335
Warschauer, M. (1995). Email for English teaching: Bringing the Internet and computer learning networks into the language classroom. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications. An introduction to the Internet and how it can be used in English teaching. Includes how and where to find online teaching resources and materials, how to set up effective international exchanges, and how to help students find their own authentic materials on the Internet. Warschauer, M. (Ed.). (1995). Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center (University of Hawaii Press). Includes contributions from foreign and second language teachers describing how they use the Internet for language teaching, with sections on electronic communication in a single class, electronic communication for cross-cultural exchange, and using Internet resources such as the World Wide Web. Webb, V. N. (Ed.). (1992). Afrikaans ná apartheid (Afrikaans after apartheid). Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik. In Afrikaans. Examination of issues related to Afrikaans in postapartheid South Africa. Includes chapters on the linguistic evolution and standardization of Afrikaans, the symbolic role and meaning of the language, corpus planning for Afrikaans, status planning for Afrikaans, and Afrikaans in education. Wessels, M., & van den Berg, R (1998). Practical guide to facilitating language learning: Methods, activities and techniques for OBE. Johannesburg: International Thomson Publishing. An introduction to current thinking and practice in South Africa, especially with respect to outcomes-based learning and the National Qualifications Framework primarily on the precollegiate level. Describes outstanding classroom practice as well as some of the serious problems and challenges faced by educators in South Africa. Wilcox, S., & Wilcox, P. (1998). Learning to see: American Sign Language as a second language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Addresses myths and misconceptions about ASL and describes the multifaceted elements of Deaf culture. Provides an explanation of the linguistic basis of ASL and useful information on teaching techniques and curriculum design, including the special features necessary for training interpreters. Journals American DemographicsP.O. Box 10580, Riverton, NJ 08076-0580; Tel: 800-529-7502; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.demographics.com/publications/ad/. While providing demographic trends for the U.S. marketing and business communities, some articles discuss U.S. demographic trends, immigration and naturalization patterns and population projections in an easy-to-read format. The table of contents and the text of articles in each monthly issue are available on-line. The ADFL BulletinPublished by the ADFL (see "Organizations")Essays dealing with professional, pedagogical, curricular, and departmental matters of particular interest to administrators, faculty members, and media-center coordinators in the fields of modern and classical languages and literatures, linguistics, and comparative literature. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (ARAL)Published by Cambridge University Press. Each yearly volume addresses a particular theme related to applied linguistics such as Language Policy and Planning, Discourse Analysis, Communicative Language Teaching, and international bilingual communities.
< previous page
page_335
next page >
< previous page
page_336
next page > Page 336
Applied LinguisticsPublished by Oxford University PressAims to promote a principled approach to research on language and other language-related concerns by encouraging inquiry into the relationship between theoretical and practical studies. Deals with second language acquisition as one of a number of areas of research. The Canadian Modern Language Review (CMLR)/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantesPublished by the University of Toronto PressArticles on all aspects of second language learning and teaching such as linguistics, language skills, curriculum, program design, psychology, and methodology. Topics range from ESL and French immersion to international and native languages, with articles appearing in English, French, and occasionally in other languages. The Chronicle of Higher Education1225 Twenty-Third Street, N.W., Washington, DC; Tel: 800-728-2803; Fax: 202-223-6292; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://chronicle.comAddresses personal and professional concerns of people in academe. Includes news from campuses in the United States and from around the world, updates on scholarly research and information technology, reports on government actions that affect colleges and their students, statistics related to higher education, opinion pieces, and much more. The annual Almanac includes data related to higher education for the nation as a whole and for each of the 50 states. COLLEGE ESL: A Journal of Theory and Practice in the Teaching of English as a Second LanguagePublished by the Instructional Resource Center, Office of Academic Affairs, The City University of New York, 535 East 80th Street, New York, NY 10021. Provides a forum for exploring questions and concerns regarding the education of ESL students, specifically urban immigrant and refugee adults in college and precollege settings. Topics include instructional practices in ESL; innovations in curriculum and pedagogy; research studies; teacher education and training; the culture, history, sociology, and anthropology of ESL populations; and relevant ethical, legal, and political issues. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO) JournalPublished by CALICO (see ''Organizations")Devoted to the exploration of the new technologies as applied to language learning and includes technology-related research articles, software and book reviews, reviews of related conferences, and commentary. Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)Published by Swets & ZeitlingerDedicated to all matters associated with the use of computers in language learning. Areas of inquiry include pedagogical principles and their application, observation and evaluation of CALL software, the application of Artificial Intelligence to language teaching, computer-assisted translation, multilingual learning systems, and computer-based learning environments. Die UnterrichtspraxisPublished by AATG (see "Organizations")Addresses topics such as classroom strategies, research, practical hints, and tested techniques; for teachers of German at all levels. Foreign Language AnnalsPublished by ACTFL (see "Organizations")Contains both practical and theoretical articles on teaching, administration, and research in the areas of curriculum design and development; instructional methods, materials, and techniques; issues in research and research methodology; language planning, and many others. The French ReviewPublished by AATF (see "Organizations")Publishes articles and reviews on French and francophone literature, cinema, society and culture, linguistics, technology, and pedagogy.
< previous page
page_336
next page >
< previous page
page_337
next page > Page 337
HispaniaPublished by AATSP (see "Organizations")Topics include literature, language and linguistics, and pedagogy. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf EducationPublished by Oxford University PressIntegrates and coordinates basic and applied research relating to individuals who are deaf, including cultural, developmental, linguistic, and educational topics. Also addresses issues of current and future concern to allied fields, encouraging interdisciplinary discussion. Journal of InterpretationPublished by RID (see "Organizations"). Addresses a wide range of topics such as cultural variability and the interpreter, role of metaphors for interpreting, Deaf humor, the bilingual/bimodal courtroom, and team interpreting. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural DevelopmentPublished by Multilingual Matters Ltd.Addresses the many aspects of multilingualism and multiculturalism covering, for example, theory, research studies, educational policies and systems, teaching strategies, assessment procedures, etc. Journal of Second Language WritingPublished by Ablex Publishing CorporationIncludes theoretically grounded reports of research and discussion of central issues in second and foreign language writing and writing instruction. Addresses topics such as attitudes of second language (L2) writers, L2 writers' composing processes, readers' responses to L2 writing, and assessment and evaluation of L2 writing. Language, Culture and CurriculumPublished by Multilingual Matters Ltd.A forum for the discussion of the many factors (social, cultural, cognitive, and organizational) that are relevant to the formulation and implementation of language curricula; focuses on second languages, minority, and heritage languages; implications of first-language and foreign language studies on multiculturalism are also considered. Language LearningA Journal of Research in Language StudiesPublished by BlackwellArticles that apply methods of inquiry and theories from linguistics, psycholinguistics, cognitive science, ethnography, ethnomethodology, sociolinguistics, sociology, semiotics, educational inquiry, and cultural or historical studies to address fundamental issues in language learning, such as bilingualism, language acquisition, second-and foreign-language education, literacy, culture, cognition, pragmatics, and intergroup relations. Language Learning and Technology JournalPublished exclusively on the World Wide Web at: http://polyglot.cal.msu.edu//llt. Disseminates research to foreign and second language educators in the United States and around the world on issues related to technology and language education. The Modern Language JournalPublished by BlackwellQuantitative and qualitative research studies, documented essays, response articles, and editorials that challenge paradigms of language learning and teaching. Of interest to teachers and researchers of all modern foreign languages and ESL. MosaicProfessor Anthony Mollica, Editor, P.O. Box 890, Lewiston, NY 14092-0890; Publishes theoretical and practical articles focusing on second language teaching and learning. NABE NewsPublished by NABE (see "Organizations")Includes regular columns on many aspects of bilingual education such as parental involvement, ESL in bilingual education, American Indian bilingual education, Asian/Pacific American education
< previous page
page_337
next page >
< previous page
page_338
next page > Page 338
concerns, resources for bilingual educators, upcoming events, book reviews, plus articles about NABE policies and federal initiatives related to bilingual education. PMLA, the Journal of the Modern Language AssociationPublished by the MLA (see "Organizations")Contains essays of interest to scholars and teachers of language and literature; receptive to a variety of topics and to all scholarly methods and theoretical perspectives. Second Language ResearchPublished by ArnoldTheoretical and experimental papers concerned with second language acquisition and second language performance. Seeks to promote interdisciplinary research that links acquisition studies to related, nonapplied fields such as theoretical linguistics, neurolinguistics and first language developmental psycholinguistics. Sign Language StudiesPublished by Sign Media/Linstok PressResearch articles on a wide range of topics including semiotics, linguistics of signed languages, social and cultural aspects of deafness, and signed language interpreting. Sign Language and LinguisticsPublished by John Benjamins and HAG PublicationsProvides an academic forum for researchers to discuss signed language in the larger context of natural languages, crosslinguistically and crossmodally. A multimedia print and electronic journal with a PDF format to allow searching and retrieving texts, hyperlinks, and so forth. Studies in Second Language AcquisitionPublished by Cambridge University PressPrimarily publishes theoretical papers and reports of empirical research on issues in second language acquisition and foreign language learning, including problems such as language contact, interference, transfer, and pidginization. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du CanadaEditor, 287 Faculty of Education, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3T 2N2; E-mail: [email protected]. Includes full-length articles, practical suggestions, material reviews, and editorials aimed at teachers and researchers in the field of ESL/EFL education. TESOL JournalPublished by TESOL (see "Organizations")Articles on matters related to children, adolescents, and adults who are learning English as an additional language. Topics include classroom inquiry and research, teacher preparation, literacy or biliteracy, curriculum and policy issues, and teaching methodology. TESOL QuarterlyPublished by TESOL (see "Organizations")For teachers of English to speakers of other languages and standard English as second dialect. Addresses topics such as the psychology of learning, curriculum design, testing and evaluation, and language planning. Includes research articles, particularly those bridging theory and practice, as well as reviews and review articles, brief reports on and summaries of any aspect of theory and practice in the profession, and comments and reactions from readers. Electronic NetworksListservs CONTENT-ESLFor discussion of issues in content-based ESL at all levels and an avenue of communication for students and faculty participating in content-based projects. To subscribe, send an empty message to: [email protected].
< previous page
page_338
next page >
< previous page
page_339
next page > Page 339
DEAF-LFor discussion of topics related to deafness, signed language, and the deaf community. To subscribe, send a message to: [email protected]. Leave the subject line blank. In the message, write: SUBSCRIBE DEAF-L. ENDANGERED-LANGUAGES-LA worldwide communications vehicle and a central electronic archive for anyone working on, or interested in, the study and documentation of endangered languages. To join, send a message to: [email protected]. Leave the subject line blank. In the message write: subscribe endangered-languages-l. FLAC-LFor those interested in the teaching of foreign languages across the curriculum and in content- and discipline-based language study. To join, send a message to: [email protected]/LAC/. Leave the subject line blank. In the message write: subscribe FLAC- L. FLASC-LFor people supervising and coordinating university-level foreign-language programs. Topics include TA (teaching assistant) training and supervision, articulation of courses, textbooks, methodology, issues in grading, evaluation of TA performance, the articulation of TA training with graduate programs in literature, working conditions of supervisors/coordinators, and so forth. To subscribe, send message to: [email protected]. Leave the subject line blank. In the message, write: SUB FLASC-L (your name). FLTEACH (The Foreign Language Teaching Forum)For foreign language educators at all levels. Topics include foreign language teaching methods, school/college articulation, training of student teachers, classroom activities, curriculum, and syllabus design. To subscribe, send a message to: [email protected]. Leave the subject line blank. In the message write: SUB FLTEACH . LCTL-TFor teachers of the less commonly taught languages. To subscribe, send a message to: [email protected]. Leave the subject line blank. In the message write: subscribe LCTL-T . For additional information about the sublists for teachers of Celtic languages, Dutch, Hebrew, Hindi, Scandinavian languages, and Polish, see http://carla.acad.umn.edu/LCTL/listservs.html. NETEACH-LFor those in the field of ESL/EFL field who have an interest in using technology to enhance English language instruction. To subscribe, send a message to: [email protected]. Leave the subject line blank. In the message write: sub NETEACH-L . SLART (Second Language Acquisition Research and Teaching)For scholars and graduate students who conduct research on second language acquisition as well as for classroom foreign language teachers. To subscribe, send a message to [email protected]. Leave the subject line blank. In the message write: SUBSCRIBE SLART-L. SLLING-LFor discussion of research and applied aspects of signed languages. To subscribe, send a message to: [email protected]. Leave the subject line blank. In the message write: SUBSCRIBE SLLING-L. TEACHASLPrimarily for teachers of American Sign Language. Discussion tends to focus on pedagogy or current "hot topics" such as acceptance of ASL as a foreign language. To subscribe, send a message to: [email protected]. Leave the subject line blank. In the message write: SUBSCRIBE TEACHASL.
< previous page
page_339
next page >
< previous page
page_340
next page > Page 340
TESL-L (Teachers of English as a Second Language)For those who teach and conduct research on the acquisition of English as a second language. To subscribe, send a message to: [email protected]. Leave the subject line blank. In the message write: SUB TESL-L . Once you are subscribed to TESL-L, directions will be sent for subscribing to the sublists. Web Sites These are in addition to those given in other entries that appear in this annotated reference source. American Indian Higher Education ConsortiumThis consortium represents and supports more than 30 tribal colleges in the United States and Canada and promotes American Indian higher education. http://www.aihec.org/. American Sign Language BrowserOffers a list of lexical items from American Sign Language. Shows the signs as Quick Time movies. Because these files are often large (100k or more), this site is best viewed with a fast modem or ethernet connection. http://commtechlab.msu.edu/sites/aslweb/browser.htm. The Applied Linguistics WWW Virtual LibraryHas links to other sites related to the field of applied linguistics (including second language acquisition) such as societies and organizations, conferences and seminars, electronic and print journals, dissertations and theses, as well as to other related virtual libraries and indices. http://alt.venus.co.uk/VL/AppLingBBK/welcome.html. Center for Electronic Language Learning and Research (CELLAR) (University at Albany, State University of New York)Aims to improve the quality of foreign and second language instruction; practical pedagogical issues, materials, and lesson plans are available along with links to numerous academic resources for foreign and second language professionals. During the academic year, the site offers live chat sessions with native speakers of Spanish, French, and Russian. http://www.albany.edu/cellar/. Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research (University of Southern California)The Center provides a base for those interested in multilingual education, English as a second language, foreign language instruction, multicultural education, and related areas; with numerous links to relevant organizations, resources, and web sites. http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CMMR/cmmrhomepage.html. Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)Discussion of CALL by language professionals. Links to a number of relevant papers and conference proceedings. http://www.vein.hu/~rohonyia/kut1.us.html. Course Offerings for Less Commonly Taught LanguagesListing of the less commonly taught language course offerings at colleges and universities in North America. http://carla.acad.umn.edu/lctl/access.html. Dave's ESL CafeProvides current news, a chatroom and message exchange, an ESL discussion forum (for students and teachers), mailing lists, information on frequently asked questions, and a web guide (with an ESL/EFL search engine). http://www.eslcafe.com/. Deaf World WebThe most comprehensive deaf-related resource on the Internet. Includes a directory of organizations, e-mail directory of individuals, ASL dictionary,
< previous page
page_340
next page >
< previous page
page_341
next page > Page 341
news broadcasts, discussion forums, personal listings, informative materials, links to other Web pages and sites. http://deafworldweb.org/dww/. Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)This federally-funded center provides, through its 16 subject-specific clearinghouses, a large body of education-related literature. The data base contains more than 950,000 abstracts of documents and journal articles on education, research, and practice. ERIC has three major components: ERIC Clearinghouses, ERIC Adjunct Clearinghouses, and ERIC Support Components. http://ericir.syr.edu/. EthnologueA catalog of more than 6,700 languages spoken in 228 countries. Organized by areas of the world and by countries, data on number of speakers, geographic distribution of living languages, and more. http://www.sil.org.ethnologue/. The Forest BookshopLists, describes, and evaluates all the books, videotapes, and other materials distributed and published by The Forest Bookshop. Offers over 800 items on sign languages, deafness, and related issues. http://www.forestbk.demon.co.uk/pages/ABOUT.htm. Gallaudet University PressAn excellent source of academic and research books on deafness and signed languages. Publishes scholarly and general interest books, children's books under its Kendall Green Publications imprint, and sign language and textbooks under the imprint Clerc Books. http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/. Index of Native American Resources on the InternetHas links to culture, language, history, health, education, indigenous knowledge, and Native-American art. http://www.hanksville.org/NAresources/. Indigenous Language LinksLinks to Native American and indigenous language sites. http://www.wested.org/lcd/indigenous_ll.htm. Institute of German Sign Language and Communication of the DeafThe resources page (in German) is an excellent source of information about signed languages in general, with an emphasis on German Sign Language; wide range of links to relevant Web sites. http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/Quellen/Quellen.html. International Commission on Second Language Acquisition (IcoSLA)A clearinghouse for research and discussion on second language acquisition. http://www.let.uu.nl/~icsla/icslahom.htm. James Crawford's Language Policy Web Site & EmporiumSite provides information about the politics of language in the United States. Topics include bilingualism education, efforts to save endangered languages, language rights, the English Only movement, recent language legislation, and research finding; links to many relevant sites. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/. Language Futures EuropeLinks to texts, articles, essays, documents, national policy, language (policy) research, institutions, organizations addressing European language policy, multilingualism, global language structures, and the dominance of English. http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/eulang.html. L-3 Discussion forumInternational discussion forum on L-3 for the professional; referred, electronic English-German-French journal International Educational Linguistics for German as a Foreign Language. http://www.ualberta.ca/~german/ejournal/discussion.htm. National Foreign Languages Resource CentersHas links to the seven Centers and also allows one to search all the NFLRC Web pages or the database of NFLRC activities. http://polyglot.cal.msu.edu/nflrc/.
< previous page
page_341
next page >
< previous page
page_342
next page > Page 342
Native American LanguagesProvides links to information about specific Native American languages, preservation efforts, relevant legislation, teacher training, computer resources, and more. http://www.mcn.net/~wleman/langlinks.htm. Native American SitesProvides links to Native languages, tribal colleges, native studies programs, Indian education, individual Native Nations, Native arts, businesses, and media, and to other related topics. http://www.pitt.edu/~lmitten/indians.html. Native WebResources for indigenous cultures around the world with subcategories such as law and legal issues, organizations, historical materials, education, languages and linguistics, and libraries and collections. http://nativeweb.org. Statistics CanadaData on and analysis of aspects of Canada's economy, land, people, and government, including extensive population data. http://www.statcan.ca/start.html. Teaching Indigenous LanguagesProvides full text access to publications related to indigenous languages including the papers from the Indigenous Languages Symposia and selected columns on American Indian/Alaska Native Bilingual Education from NABE News; with links to bilingual, multicultural, and related Web sites. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/TIL.html. Videotapes ABC News ESL Video LibrariesSusan Stempleski, Series Editor; Prentice Hall Regents, 1 Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458; Tel: 800-223-1360; Fax: 800-445-6991; Web site: http://www.phregents.com/. Series includes 12 authentic ABC News video segments accompanied by instructor's manual and student texts with task-based exercises, integrated activities, and authentic readings that helps ESL students practice all four language skills. Basics of Teaching American Sign LanguageKeith M. Cagle, Instructor. Dawn Sign Press, 6130 Nancy Ridge Drive, San Diego, CA 92121-3223; TTY/Voice: 619-625-0060; Fax: 619-625-2336; Web site: http://www.dawnsign.com/index.htm. One 72 minute video with 12 page booklet. Presents basics for ASL instructors. Introduces information on topics such as teaching strategies, ASL grammar, Deaf Culture, how to select textbooks, and more. Birds of a Different Feather and For a Decent LivingBen Hahan and Sam Supalla; Dawn Sign Press, 6130 Nancy Ridge Drive, San Diego, CA 92121-3223; TTY/Voice: 619-625-0060; Fax: 619-625-2336; Web site: http://www.dawnsign.com/index.htm. Collector's Edition (60-minute video); Teacher's Edition (112 pages and 77-minute video), or Student Workbook and Videotext (208 pages and 120-minute video); literature to support studies in ASL including narratives by ASL storytellers. Bravo ASL! CurriculumSign Enhancers, Inc., at Harris Communications, Inc., 15159 Technology Dr., Eden Prairie, MN 553442277; V: 800-767-4461; TTY: 888-283-5097; Fax: 612-906-1099; Web site: http://www.signenhancers.com/toc.html. A complete curriculum/video course for ASL I and ASL II with instructional activities; includes a set of 15 videotapes. CNN Video ClipsHeinle & Heinle Publishers, 20 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116; Tel: 800-237-0053; Fax: 617-426-4379; Web site: +http://www.thomson.com/cgi-bin/plweb/hitlist.cgi. Seven ESL texts published by Heinle & Heinle are now accompanied by rele-
< previous page
page_342
next page >
< previous page
page_343
next page > Page 343
vant CNN Video Clips. The texts are Cause & Effect; Facts & Figures; Looking Ahead; Rethinking America (1, 2, and 3), and Writing Clearly. The video clips are topically related to each text and can be used to stimulate both writing activities and further discussion and exploration of themes. The Human LanguageProduced by Equinox Films, Inc. and available from Ways of Knowing, Inc., 200 West 72nd Street, NY, NY 10023; Tel: 800-666-9979. A three-part PBS series about human language: "Discovering Human Language," "Acquiring the Human Language," and "The Human Language Evolves." The Real Thing: A Skill-building Book and Video that Prepares Students for College Success. By Martha E. Kendall, Alta ESL Resource Center at Alta Books, 14 Adrian Court, Burlingame, CA 940010; Tel: 800-ALTA/ESL or 650-692-1285; Fax: 800ALTA/FAX or 650-692-4654; Web site: http://www.ALTAESL.COM/. This video and textbook program includes 15 taped, authentic college introductory classes and workbook activities to help prepares ESL students to enter the mainstream curriculum at American colleges and universities. Signing NaturallyDawn Sign Press, 6130 Nancy Ridge Drive, San Diego, CA 92121-3223; TTY/Voice: 619-625-0060; Fax: 619-625-2336; Web site: http://www.dawnsign.com/index.htm. Teaches signs and key phrases; includes teacher's curriculum guide and student videotext and workbook. For Levels 1 and 2. TransitionsNative Voice Public Television Workshop, VCB Room 222, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717; Tel: 406-994-6218; Web site: http://www.kusm.montana.edu/NativeVoices/docs/Films/transitions/html. By Blackfeet producers, this videotape explores the relation between language, thought, and culture, and examines the impact of language loss in Native communities. Focuses on the disappearance of the Blackfeet tribal language. In Blackfeet with English subtitles. True Voices: An EFL VideoJay Maurer and Irene E. Schoenberg, Alta ESL Resource Center at Alta Book Center Publishers, 14 Adrian Court, Burlingame, CA 94010; Tel: 800-ALTA/ESL or 650-692-1285; Fax: 800-ALTA/FAX or 650-692-4654; Web site: http://www.ALTAESL.COM/. Accustoms ESL students to natural language through 4 steps: dramatizations of social language; improvisations that bridge the gap between controlled and authentic speech; thematic presentations of authentic scenes from North American life; and short interviews with real people. Accompanying materials include tapescripts, teaching suggestions, and workbooks. When the Mind Hears: A Synopsis of American Sign LanguageBy Harlan Lane; Sign Media, Inc., 4020 Blackburn Lane, Burtonsville, MD 20866; V/TTY: 800-475-4756; Fax: 301-421-0270; Web site: http://www.signmedia.com. Set of 13, 1-hour tapes. A study of the history of deaf people in Europe and the United States, and the oppression of American Sign Language in the school systems. CD ROM and Other Multimedia The following are available from Alta ESL Resource Center at Alta Books, 14 Adrian Court, Burlingame, CA 94010; Tel: 1800-ALTA/ESL or 650-692-1285; Fax: 1-800-ALTA/FAX or 650-692-4654; E-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.ALTAESL.com/. Azar Interactive: A Multimedia Grammar ExperienceBy Howard Beckerman and Betty Schrampfer Azar. With a mix of video clips, original audio segments, a variety
< previous page
page_343
next page >
< previous page
page_344
next page > Page 344
of readings, and focused grammar exercises, students can explore such topics as verb tenses, auxiliaries, nouns, pronouns, articles, adjectives, adverbs, and high-frequency sentence patterns. Students are able to hear every exercise and practice pronunciation via an audio button. Macintosh and Windows formats. Culturgrams: Hyptertext VersionHelps students understand the ways of thinking and living in more than 100 areas around the world; the software program includes articles, maps, and discussions of customs and everyday courtesies, a look at life-styles, people, history, and government. Utilizes hypertext that links related information between articles. MS-DOS and Macintosh formats. Longman Interactive American DictionaryStudents can explore the world of English through interactive maps and illustrations. The software package helps students build vocabulary, practice pronunciation, increase writing and speaking skills, improve grammar, and orients students to American life and culture. Macintosh/PC/Windows 3.1/Windows 95 formats. ProteusThe Idea Processor: A Pre-writing Tool. By Robert Leonard. This software program is based on the "prewriting" concept that writing begins with exploring free-floating ideas and goes through stages of development; leads students through such writing stages as free writing, looping, and cubing, helping students to organize ideas into a first draft. MS-DOS and Apple II formats.
< previous page
page_344
next page >
< previous page
page_345
next page > Page 345
PART VII CONCLUSIONS
< previous page
page_345
next page >
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
< previous page
page_347
next page > Page 347
16 Shared Concerns and New Directions Judith W. Rosenthal Kean University As is apparent from the rich array of programs described in the chapters in this handbook, second language instruction for undergraduates is evolving and diversifying to better serve the needs of today's students. Languages that once were not even considered worthy of being part of the university curriculum not only are being taught but also are subject to active efforts promoting their use and/or revival. On a worldwide basis, for many students, the second language of choice is English, as it has come to be the language of international business and diplomacy, of science and technology, and of entertainment and the Internet. Some would argue that for such reasons English is the only language truly worth knowing. Nonetheless, history has shown us time and again that languages wax and wane in importance, and there is no reason to believe that English will be the exception. The truth is that of an estimated world population of about 6 billion, English is the mother tongue of only 380 million people. However, English is spoken in some form as a second language by an estimated 1.6 billion people (Fishman, 19981999). In other words, English is not replacing the mother tongue. It is being added to an individual's already existing linguistic repertoire and being learned in the context of bi- and multilingualism. Therefore, in spite of what some people think (particularly many who have grown up in the United States and who are English monolinguals), everyone in the world does not speak English nor is everyone studying English. Worldwide, people still prefer their local and regional languages, and nonnative speakers of English far outnumber the number of native English speakers . Indeed, as a reaction to the widespread use of English, many communities around the world are working to promote and strengthen the use of their local and minority languages. In the United States, we have no official language-planning policy. What we do have, according to Lambert (1992), are ''piecemeal initiatives" (p. 3) and a "de facto public policy on foreign languages comprising the sum of the various individual governmental initiatives for change in the current system" (p. 3). Many of these initiatives do not even pertain to undergraduate second language programs. Lambert (1993b) also described our language-teaching practice as follows: [It is] a mile wide and an inch thin; that is, everyone is enrolled in courses for the first year or two of a language. One consequence is that almost no one ever gets to a level of skill where he or she can truly use a language. (p. 184)
< previous page
page_347
next page >
< previous page
page_348
next page > Page 348
Along these lines, Brecht and Walton (1995) suggested that among the many changes we need to make "if a second language is to become part of every American's basic skills and knowledge" (pp. 143144) is "reallocation of resources from lower- to upperlevel learning environments" (p. 145). The classic arguments used to justify the study of foreign languages include that educated people should know another language and that learning another language helps us to better understand our own language and culture, disciplines the mind, makes students more understanding of other cultures, and helps them to develop their cognitive abilities (Lambert, 1993b). Clearly, college students in the United States do not buy these arguments. When it comes to picking free electives, they would just as soon study a foreign language as they would physics or calculus. Thus for many undergraduates, the foreign languagelike science and mathcourses they must take as part of their general education requirements are often the last such courses they will ever take (Brecht & Walton, 1995; Project Kaleidoscope, 1991). Rather than encouraging further study, these courses often discourage it. Learning a second language has been called a "life-long enterprise." To become sufficiently proficient in a second language, to be able to use that language in some way that is of value to the learner, takes considerable time. A year or two of college-level elementary and intermediate language coursework certainly does not do the job for a typical language learner. The limited hours spent in the classroom do not add up to those estimated by the Foreign Service Institute for a native speaker of English to master a relatively "easy" Category 1 language (e.g., French, German, or Spanish) and definitely not a much more ''difficult" Category 4 language (such as Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, or Korean; Walton, 1992). Furthermore, to be able to use a second language effectively, it is not enough "just" to learn the linguistic code (how to speak, comprehend, read, and write the language). Students also must become aware of appropriate uses of the second language in social contexts and when interacting with others (Kramsch, 1995; Walton, 1992). Learning a second language is such a difficult task that it has been suggested that we abandon the notion of trying to achieve an ultimately impossible goalto make second language learners as competent as educated native speakers (see, e.g., Blyth, 1995; Kramsch, 1995; Walton, 1992). As explained by Gass in chapter 2 of this volume, adult second language learners rarely achieve native-like proficiency. Not only accents, grammatical and lexical errors, but also clothes, appearance, and behaviors mark nonnative speakers. However, rather than perceiving these characteristics of nonnative speakers as negatives, Blyth suggested that we should view second language learners as "incipient bilinguals" and should value the "partial [bilingual] competence" that many do achieve (Blyth, 1995, pp. 169170). Second language learnersdepending on their ultimate goalsdo not necessarily need to be equally as proficient in all skill areas. The ability to converse and participate in everyday conversation, to translate documents, to give lectures on a particular topic, to comprehend a television show broadcast in a second language, and to read the original writings of great "thinkers" require different competencies. As pointed out by Fishman (1966), bilinguals (natural and school-made) "differ very greatly in the degree and in the kind of their bilingualism," (p. 123) and he argued persuasively against "a widespread assumption among Americans that bilingualism must be defined as "equal (balanced) and advanced mastery of two languages" (p. 122). Perhaps American studentsearly onpick up on this unattainable goal and as a result show little interest in or enthusiasm for
< previous page
page_348
next page >
< previous page
page_349
next page > Page 349
second language learning. In contrast, in societies and countries around the world where bilingualism and multilingualism are the norm, it is understood that different people use different languages at different times for different purposes and with different degrees of proficiency. Equal and advanced mastery of two or more languages are not expected thereby making bi- and multilingualism feasible. Here in the United States, by delaying the instruction of foreign/second languages until middle or high school, many students have already bought into the notion that learning another language is hard; they do not expect to become very proficient, and few can foresee the value that knowledge of another language might one day offer to them. Moreover, for those who are interested in learning another language, the choice of language may very well be limited. Thus, by the time many students arrive at college, the study of a second language has been an unrewarding experience. This outcome is in marked contrast with the linguistic achievements of European students described by Hufeisen in chapter 10. Second language instruction begins at an early age in European schools, and this initial bilingualism establishes a foundation on which multilingualism is built. If a year or two of college-level second language study is not sufficient to give students the ability to use their new language, the question then becomes how do we motivate students to continue studying languages so that they will eventually develop sufficient proficiency allowing them to use the language in some meaningful way? For college/university ESL (English as a Second Language) students who are working toward an academic degree at an institution where English is the language of instruction, motivation is high. So is it for students who intend to major in a second language or who plan to become language teachers or some type of language professional. But what is the "carrot" for native English speakers in the United States who do not fall into either of these categories? How can we encourage them to continue studying a second language, thereby producing a more language-competent citizenry? Are there opportunities to take substantive courses taught partially or fully in their second language and incentives for doing so? Do we incorporate applied language instruction into their academic majors so that they develop linguistic skills that will be an asset throughout their careers? Do we encourage them to study abroad to further enhance their second language proficiency? Do instructors across the curriculumnot just those on the foreign language facultythrough their teaching and research model the value of second language expertise? Does the college or university as a whole and its administration show support for bilingualism and second languagelearning activities? Do we provide the kind of assistance that students need to help them persist in studying a second language even when progress is slow and frustrating? Are there opportunities for students to experience and to see for themselves how knowing a second language will be useful both professionally and personally? Certainly, in many regions of the United States, bi- and multilingualism are evident. There are television channels with programming in languages other than English. Libraries and bookstores now carry titles published in a range of languages. Street and airport signs are cropping up in languages other than English. Bilingual courtroom interpreters, government employees, 911 telephone operators, police, and health care workers are in demand. Physicians and lawyers advertise that they are bilingual. LOTEs (languages other than English) are all around us and used on a daily basis. Who is going to fill positions that require knowledge of more than one language? Most likely immigrants who learn English as a second language or English-dominant heritage language students who have relearned their ethnic language. Why not native
< previous page
page_349
next page >
< previous page
page_350
next page > Page 350
English speakers who study a foreign language? First, they generally do not achieve significant levels of second language proficiency. (For further discussion of this topic, see chap. 3 of this volume.) Second, American students do not persist, often stopping the study of a second language as soon as they possibly can. For instance, it has been reported that at the college level, only about 70% of foreign language students continue from their first term to their second term, 50% from their 1st to 2nd year of foreign language study, and 25% from the 2nd to 3rd year (Lambert, 1993a). Evidently, the factors that keep students returning to the second language classroom until they achieve a useful level of proficiency need to be identified. So do the instructional practices that help students to stay the course even when they have "hit" a plateau and seem to be making little or no progress. Studies of this type have been helpful, for example, in rethinking how science is taught, another academic discipline where capable students often become frustrated and shift their interests to other fields of study (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Tobias, 1990). In comparing and contrasting the "truly foreign" (non-Indo-European, such as Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Burmese, Indonesian, and Swahili) and "cognate" (Indo-European, such as German, French, and Spanish) languages, Walton (1992) examined two educational models pertaining to second language programs: "coexistence" and "integration" (p. 11). In the former, the various language programs attend to their own agendas, possibly viewing each other as competitors for scare resources (students, funding, faculty lines, etc.). In the latter, the language programs look for ways to meet the nation's "educational goals'' and "long range needs" (p. 11), including the production of a language-competent citizenry. Although Walton was specifically referring to the relationship between truly foreign and cognate languages, what he had to say is equally as relevant, perhaps even more so, to the wide range of second language programs discussed in this handbook: "The coexistence model is unlikely to result in a fruitful exchange of teaching experience, curriculum design, pedagogical practice, and research on cognitive and second language acquisition factors. . . . The integration model, in contrast, is predicated on precisely such exchanges" (p. 13). Walton continued by emphasizing that "true integration can be achieved only when the administrative infrastructure includes the teaching and teachers" of the various languages "on an equal basis" (p. 13). This handbook provides an overview of the range of undergraduate second language programs currently available to students in the United States and also describes similar programs in several other countries. Although the coexistence model prevails, there is evidence of movement toward integration. Time and again, the same concerns and preoccupations are raised, most explicitly, some implicitly for each type of second language program: insufficient funding, not enough recognition as to its academic value, questions about the necessary qualifications for instructors, the need for better textbooks and/or more appropriate instructional materials, how technology can most effectively be incorporated into the curriculum, the best methods for helping students learn second languages, if and how second language acquisition research findings can be applied in the classroom, the effects of too much or too little language planning, the changing nature and increasing diversity of the undergraduate population, the best place to house second language programs (in what department), and on and on. This is not to say, however, that differences do not exist among the many second language programs herein described. Some are an integral part of the university curriculum; others are only gaining recognition. Some serve large numbers of students, others much smaller populations. Some merit their own academic departments whereas others
< previous page
page_350
next page >
< previous page
page_351
next page > Page 351
have varied housing arrangements. Some of the languages fulfill "foreign" language requirements whereas others do not. Coursework in some of the languages is deemed worthy of academic credit, but for others it is not. Opportunities to use the second language outside of the classroom vary considerably. Nonetheless, when we look at what all these second language programs offer to students, their outcomes are the same: the ability to promote (some degree of) bilingualism. Even the same methods are used to teach these languages, methods that are mentioned or described in chapter after chapter in this handbook. More important, as Gass points out in chapter 2, when it comes to non-primary language learning, "there is little evidence that the mental processes involved in learning a language beyond the native language differ as a function of whether the learning is in a second versus a foreign language." Chapters 38 share with us the current status of foreign language, ESL, dual language, American Sign Language (ASL), Native American, and heritage language instruction on campuses across the United States. Chapters 912 inform us about how other countries are dealing with second language learning at the university level, sometimes in the face of demographic changes similar to those occurring in United States. From Wesche in chap. 9, we find out that bilingual universities and bilingual academic programs have a long tradition in Canada, raising the question as to why we, here in the United States, cannot and do not promote bilingualism among more university students and faculty. As explained by Hufeisen in chapter 10, multilingualism is common in Europe, and university students often seek out opportunities to learn additional languages. As mentioned previously, bilingualism is promoted from an early age in European schools and is the foundation on which multilingualism is built. Clearly, if European students can master several languages so too can American students. However, how many times have we all heard students, friends, and colleagues claim to have no aptitude for learning second languages or that other languages were too hard to learn? Evidently, here in the United States we are not providing the right environment in which to nourish second language learning and to motivate American students to master more than one language. If people around the word are bi- and multilingual, why not Americans too? Chapters 11 and 12 introduce us to some of the positive as well as negative aspects of official language planning. From Baldauf and Djité in chapter 11, we learn that Australia's sociolinguistic picture is quite similar to that of the United States, and that Australia has become increasingly involved with language policy and language planning in education. Reasons to encourage the learning of second languages include "equity or social justice, economic strategies, external relations, and cultural enrichment for all Australians." However, it is much too soon to determine the impact of the various initiatives so recently begun in Australia. Moreover, Baldauf and Djité point out that not only are there are indications that the policies were implemented with insufficient planning and preparation but also that policies do not necessarily change public attitudes toward the use of languages other than English. Reagan in chapter 12 describes how language policies can be used for "social engineering," as they were under apartheid in South Africa. In contrast, today's Government of National Unity in South Africa recognizes 11 official languages, promotes multilingualism, and as Reagan states, is engaged in what is essentially "language attitude planning." Nonetheless, today's more equitable language in education policies in South Africa are not necessarily producing the desired results. For example, at the university level, the teaching of English as a second language is booming whereas the study of "traditional'' foreign languages, indigenous African languages, and Afrikaans as a second
< previous page
page_351
next page >
< previous page
page_352
next page > Page 352
language are declining. Again, policy and actual practice do not necessarily go hand in hand. What chapters 11 and 12 suggest is that official language planning may not necessarily be the answer to promoting a more language-competent society in the United States. It is just not that "simple." So how do we motivate American students to study other languages? And at the college and university level, how do we promote further integration of the many different kinds of second language programs that are offered? How can we break down existing boundaries and identify practices that "work" and ways of collaborating and sharing resources to the benefit of students, faculty, and departments? Clearly, there are efforts already being made in this direction. For example: As described in chapters 2 and 3 of this volume, federally funded language centers have been established at universities across the United States to promote these kinds of interactions. Second language educators are beginning to come to together to examine their common interests. For example, at the 33rd Annual Convention and Exposition of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), Inc. (held in New York City in March 1999), there were sessions fostering such connections. The abstract for one of these, entitled "Linking all Language Educators," stated that: Language is central to learning. The purpose of this session is to break down perceived academic barriers in ESL, bilingual education, immersion, foreign languages, language arts, and reading. The goal is to determine the shared common ground for all involved with languages, literacies, and learning in a pluralistic setting. (Cummins et al., 1999, p. 180) Clearly, collaborations of this nature need to be promoted. It has been suggested that "the influx of large numbers of international students into graduate and professional programs provides an untapped source of assistance in expanding the role of foreign languages widely beyond its current confines in programs of literary and area studies" (Straight, Gaddis Rose, & Badger, 1994, p. 22). Straight et al. then described how such students are being used as "resource specialists" to help incorporate foreign language materials into substantive courses taken by native English speakers. Along similar lines, students who are native English speakers are providing "supplementary English practice" for ESL students at a community college (Beyer & Kahn, 1999, p. 88) and are assisting in a "university-level academic support ESL program" (Tricomi, 1999, p. 101). In other words, academic programs are beginning to make use of the language diversity that exists in today's college/university population. Faculty members in many academic disciplines speak (read, write, etc.) languages other than English. By utilizing these abilities and providing greater opportunities to use second language skills in substantive courses, perhaps more students will begin to appreciate the value of bi- and multilingualism, and foreign and second languages will no longer be viewed as the esoteric property of specific academic departments. Byrnes (1998) in her examination of collegiate foreign language curricula development observed that discussion of and reflection on "educational and pedagogical issues . . . are often seen as concerns unbecoming to someone in a rigorous academic environment" (p. 275) and that "disciplinary preparation has by and large not developed in faculty members the rich culture of collaboration necessary for addressing larger professional issues" (p. 275). Thus, it is not surprising that there still is so little integration among the various second language programs. Imagine the campus-wide response to a
< previous page
page_352
next page >
< previous page
page_353
next page > Page 353
faculty member who suggests that the foreign language, ESL, ASL, and bilingual programs on his or her campus should form one administrative unit, and that by pooling their knowledge and resources, students would benefit. Feathers would fly and scathing memos would be written! As Byrnes suggested, perhaps greater collaboration will evolve as the findings of second language acquisition research increasingly apply to curriculum and pedagogical practices. Many of today's students want their education to be relevant. Few can afford the luxury of studying just for the sake of learning. Most see a college degree as a way of improving both their employment opportunities and future earning power. The same can be said for current attitudes toward second language learning, and this is seen in the shift from "language as subject matter" to language as "a means of acquiring information" (Fairchild & Padilla, 1990, p. 238). The present-day emphasis on communicative competence and content-based language instruction in a wide range of second language programs bear this out. However, it is not enough to learn a second language. If those language skills are not used on a regular basis, the student's proficiency will rapidly decline. Unfortunately, as pointed out by Tucker (1990), we pay "virtually no attention to the retention or reinforcement of language proficiency once acquired" (p. 18). In looking for ways to strengthen our second language programs, we also need to pay more attention to providing continuing opportunities to use and develop second language proficiency especially when students are not foreign language majors. Again, content-based language instruction and language courses related to professional needs quickly come to mind. In the United States, most college and university students have the opportunity to study and develop some degree of proficiency in a second language. Some choose to do so; others do not. However, as languages other than English continue to make their way into our daily activities, the value of knowing other languages will increase. The growing ethnic and language diversity in the United States; the impact of the immigrant population as consumers of goods and services, as well as on schools and in the political arena; a new emphasis in teacher preparation programs to attend to the needs of a linguistically and culturally diverse student population; changes such as these cannot help but boost the importance of bi- and multilingualism. Collaboration between and among existing second language programs will maximize opportunities for college students to develop additional language proficiencies. Needless to say, this is particularly important in this time of shrinking resources. Furthermore, second language acquisition research shows us that the mental processes are essentially the same regardless of the language being learned or the environment in which it is acquired. Thus, who are we to judge that studying French for a native speaker of English is more academic, more noteworthy, than for a hearing student to master ASL, or a recent immigrant to study English as a second language? I hope that by bringing together in this handbook the perspectives and prospects of the many types of second language programsand by emphasizing what they have in commonintegration will be enhanced; that faculty, administrators, and language educators in general will begin to look for connections and linkages that will increase opportunities for students to develop proficiency in more than one language, and that as a consequence, the boundaries that have separated one program from another will no longer seem so formidable or so important. If we can improve on the coexistence model by shifting toward integration, why not attempt to do so, especially if it will, in the long run, help us teach more languages to more people for more purposes?
< previous page
page_353
next page >
< previous page
page_354
next page > Page 354
References Beyer, L., & Kahn, V. (1999). Using native speakers to improve interactive communication [Abstract]. In Program book, TESOL '99: Avenues to success (p. 88). Alexandria, VA: TESOL, Inc. Blyth, C. (1995). Redefining the boundaries of language use: The foreign language classroom as a multilingual speech community. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Redefining the boundaries of language study (pp. 145183). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Brecht, R. D., & Walton, A. R. (1995). The future shape of language learning in the new world of global communication: Consequences for higher education and beyond. In R. Donato & R. M. Terry (Eds.), Foreign language learning: The journey of a lifetime (pp. 110152). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Byrnes, H. (1998). Constructing curricula in collegiate foreign language departments. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages (pp. 262295). New York: The Modern Language Association of America. Cummins, J., Goodman, K., Goodman, Y., Murray, D., Shin, F., & Wink, J. (1999). Linking all language educators [Abstract]. Program book, TESOL '99: Avenues to success (p. 180). Alexandria, VA: TESOL, Inc. Fairchild, H. H., & Padilla, A. M. (1990). Innovations in foreign language education. In A. M. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild, & C. M. Valadez (Eds.), Foreign language education (pp. 238249). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Fishman, J. A. (1966). The implications of bilingualism for language teaching and language learning. In A. Valdman (Ed.), Trends in language teaching (pp. 121132). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Fishman, J. A. (19981999). The new linguistic order. Foreign Policy, 113, 2640. Kramsch, C. (1995). Redrawing the boundaries of foreign language study. In M. Krueger & F. Ryan (Eds.), Language and content: Discipline- and content-based approaches to language study (pp. 203217). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Lambert, R. D. (1992). Foreign language planning in the United States (NFLC Occasional Paper). Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center. Lambert, R. D. (1993a). Language instruction for undergraduates in American higher education. In S. J. Moore & C. A. Morfit (Eds), Language and international studies: A Richard Lambert perspective (pp. 65112). Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center. Lambert, R. D. (1993b). Language learning and language utilization. In S. J. Moore & C. A. Morfit (Eds.), Language and international studies: A Richard Lambert perspective (pp. 179185). Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center. Project Kaleidoscope. (1991). What works: Building natural science communities (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Author. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Straight, H. S, Gaddis Rose, M., & Badger, E. H. (1994). International students as resource specialists: Binghamton's languages across the curriculum program. In H. S. Straight (Ed.), Languages across the curriculum (pp. 734). Binghamton: State University of New York, Center for Research in Translation. Tobias, S. (1990). They're not dumb, they're different. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation. Tricomi, E. (1999). Using NSs in university ESL programs [Abstract]. Program book, TESOL '99: Avenues to success (p. 101). Alexandria, VA: TESOL, Inc. Tucker, G. R. (1990). Second-language education. In A. M. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild, & C. M. Valadez (Eds.), Foreign language education (pp. 1321). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Walton, A. R. (1992). Expanding the vision of foreign language education: Enter the less commonly taught languages (NFLC Occasional Paper). Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center.
< previous page
page_354
next page >
< previous page
page_355
next page > Page 355
AUTHOR INDEX A Abel, F., 216, 226 Abrahamse, A., 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 99, 113 Adam, H., 260, 272 Adamson, H. D., 79, 91 Adelman, C., 23, 25 Adger, C., 293, 299 Adley-SantaMaria, B., 152, 153, 161 Ahukanna, L., 216, 226 Alarcón, F. X., 103, 112, 167, 173, 183 Alexander, N., 255, 256, 270 Alexander-Kasparik, R., 280, 298 Allen, P., 188, 206 Alt, M. N., 284, 298 Alvarado, H. A., 4, 5, 26 Amanti, C., 286, 298 Amery, R., 245, 249 Anderson, R. C., 64, 71 Anstrom, K., 288, 296 Anthonissen, C., 253, 261, 264, 270, 272 Ard, J., 39, 44 Aronoff, M., 127, 137 Askes, H., 265, 270 Astin, A. W., 20, 25 Atkins, J. D. C., 143, 162 August, D., 288, 296 B Baai, Z., 265, 270 Bachman, L., 55, 70 Badger, E. H., 352, 354 Bagster-Collins, E. W., 49, 70 Bahan, B., 134, 137 Bahr, A., 217, 226 Bailey, N., 39, 44 Bailey, R., 255, 270 Baker, C., 98, 111 Baker, D., 279, 297 Baker, K., 94, 112 Baldauf, R. B., Jr., 231, 232, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 241, 249, 250, 251 Ballinger, F., 149, 162 Barasch, R., 30, 44
Barbaux-Cooper, M.-T., 241, 249 Barkhuizen, G., 264, 270 Barko, I., 236, 238, 239, 249 Barnard, M., 258, 271 Barnhardt, C., 159, 162 Barson, J., 303, 316 Barth, M. B., 175, 182, 183 Bartlett, L., 247, 249, 250 Battison, R., 127, 136 Bauer, H., 220, 221, 226
< previous page
page_355
next page >
< previous page
page_356
next page > Page 356
Bausch, K. -R., 216, 217, 220, 221, 226, 227 Bayliss, D., 196, 201, 208 Beatty, W., 144, 162 Beaudoin, M., 199, 206 Beaujot, R., 188, 206 Belgarde, W. L., 143, 147, 148, 162 Bellugi, U., 118, 127, 129, 136 Bergentoft, R., 209, 227 Berman, R. A., 66, 70 Bernache, C., 280, 297 Bernier, A., 295, 296 Bers, T., 98, 111 Bernhardt, E. B., 55, 64, 65, 66, 70 Berthold, M., 235, 249 Besnard, C., 193, 206 Bettoni, C., 249 Beukes, A., 258, 262, 270, 271 Beyer, L., 352, 354 Bialystok, E., 42, 44 Bieritz, W. D., 216, 227 Binns, K., 20, 26 Birdsong, D., 42, 44 Bland, S. K., 316, 317 Blanton, L. L., 80, 91 Blyth, C., 348, 354 Bock, M., 261, 264, 271 Borden, V. M. H., 147, 162 Borland, H., 240, 250 Botha, K., 265, 271 Bourbeau, R., 188, 206 Bourdages, J., 196, 201, 208 Boyer, P., 144, 146, 147, 148, 154, 162 Brecht, R. D., 49, 60, 70, 348, 354 Breen, M. P., 305, 316 Breier, M., 261, 273 Brink, A., 262, 271 Brinton, D. M., 57, 70, 79, 80, 81, 91, 92, 281, 282, 288, 296, 296, 299 Brislin, R., 127, 136 Britz, R., 265, 271 Brod, R., xiii, xvi, 50, 51, 52, 53, 70 Brooke, J., 141, 154, 162 Broughman, S. P., 284, 298 Brunfit, C. J., 79, 91 Bryant, P., 241, 251
Bulakowski, C., 23, 24, 27 Bullivant, B., 257, 271 Bunting, B., 256, 271 Burger, S., 193, 194, 201, 206 Burnaby, B., 190, 206 Burston, J., 241, 249 Burt, M., 39, 44 Byram, M., 217, 227 Byrnes, H., x, xvi, 62, 70, 352, 354 C Caldwell, G., 187, 206 Campbell, R. N., 166, 183 Canale, M., 55, 70 Candlin, C. N., 305, 317 Cantoni, G., 143, 152, 162 Carroll, S., 217, 229 Carroll, J. B., 62, 70 Cash, D., 306, 318 Castells, M., 308, 317 Casterline, D., 118, 127, 137 Cavanaugh, M. P., 73, 91 Cazden, C., 39, 44 Cehn, X., 284, 298 Celce-Murcia, M., 98, 111 Cenoz, J., 217, 227 Cepeda, R., 73, 91 Chamot, A., 287, 288, 296 Chamot, A. U., 216, 227 Chandrasekhar, A., 218, 227 Chang, L., 166, 183 Chao, T. H., 166, 183 Chaudron, C., 304, 317 Cheshire, J., 261, 271 Chick, J., 258, 261, 265, 271 Chisanga, T., 261, 271 Chittick, G., 234, 251 Chomsky, N., 304, 317 Choy, S. P., 284, 298 Christian, D., 166, 172, 183, 281, 283, 296 Christison, M. A., 80, 91 Clarence, J., 261, 271 Clark, J., 240, 251 Clark, L. W., 98, 111 Clayton, J., 239, 241, 249, 250 Cloete, I., 265, 271 Cluver, A., 257, 258, 262, 271
Clyde, M. D., 65, 70 Clyne, M., 231, 232, 250 Cobarrubias, J., 257, 271 Cochran, E. P., 74, 75, 81, 82, 91, 98, 111 Cocking, R. R., 288, 296 Cohen, A. M., 17, 25, 98, 111 Coleman, A., 54, 70 Collier, V. P., 97, 111, 112 Collison, M. N-K., 103, 112, 166, 173, 183 Colombi, M. C., 103, 112, 167, 173, 183 Compain, J., 193, 207 Conover, K, 126, 136 Cook, V., 37, 44 Cooper, R., 257, 271 Cooper, S., 122, 136 Coppetiers, R., 42, 44 Corder, S. P., 35, 44 Cornaire, C., 193, 206 Courchêne, R., 193, 206 Cowell, C. E., 66, 67, 72 Cox, R., 246, 250 Craig, G., 65, 70 Crandall, J. A., 80, 91, 280, 281, 282, 285, 287, 288, 289, 291, 292, 293, 296, 297 Cranshaw, A., 42, 44 Crawford, J., 94, 98, 112, 142, 153, 162 Croneberg, C., 118, 127, 137
< previous page
page_356
next page >
< previous page
page_357
next page > Page 357
Crookes, G., 305, 317 Crystal, D., 84, 91 Crystal Cage, M., ix, xvi Cuevas, G. J., 288, 297 Cumming, A., 198, 206 Cummins, J., 80, 82, 83, 91, 94, 97, 98, 112, 352, 354, 166, 183, 189, 207, 285, 287, 297, 307, 317 Curran, C. A., 78, 91 Curtain, H. A., 283, 297 D Danesi, M., 189, 207 Darling-Hammond, L., 285, 290, 292, 297 Davis, T. M., 11, 12, 13, 26 Davison, C., 282, 297 Debski, R., 241, 250, 303, 316 Deguchi, K., 307, 317 de Kadt, E., 264, 271 Demmert, W., 141, 162 Dentler, S., 218, 227 de Reuse, W. J., 152, 153, 162 de Riva O'Phelan, J., 236, 237, 238, 239, 249 Desai, Z., 258, 259, 271 de Vriendt, S., 215, 227 Des Brisay, M., 195, 196, 207 Desruisseaux, P., 13, 25 Diaz-Rico, L. T., 284, 297 Di Biase, B., 236, 237, 249 Di Donato, R., 65, 70 Diller, A., 237, 238, 251 Diller, K. C., 77, 91 Djité, P., 232, 250 Docking, R., 248, 250 Doerfert, K., 131, 136 Dobrovolsky, M., 127, 137 Donaldson, B. C., 254, 271 Donato, R., x, xvi Dowling, T., 265, 271 Draisma, K., 239, 250 Dulay, H., 39, 44 Dunja-Blajberg, J., 256, 272 Duquette, L., 193, 207 Dwyer, D., 175, 183 Dwyer, D. C., 309, 317 E Eastman, C., 257, 272
Echevarria, J., 287, 297 Eckman, F., 38, 44 Edmonston, B., 3, 6, 15, 25 Edwards, V., 194, 207 Eggington, W., 235, 250 Elkabas, C., 193, 206 Ellis, R., 43, 44, 83, 91 Elson, N., 196, 207 Enomoto, S., 247, 251 Enright, D. S., 282, 297 Erben, T., 246, 247, 249, 250 Ernst, G., 215, 227 Esterhuyse, J., 254, 255, 262, 265, 271, 272 Ewanyshyn, E., 190, 207 F Faber, C. S., 4, 6, 7, 17, 25 Faerch, C., 212, 227 Fairchild, H. H., 94, 112, 353, 354 Fane, B., 236, 237, 249 Farland, R. W., 73, 91 Fathman, A. K., 288, 297 Feigenbaum, S., 220, 227 Fernandez, S., 235, 250 Fettes, M., 191, 207 Feuerverger, G., 167, 168, 173, 184, 197, 207 Finchilescu, G., 264, 272 Finocchiaro, M., 78, 91 Fishman, J. A., 111, 112, 142, 154, 162, 347, 348, 354 Fitzgerald, N. B., 280, 297 Fix, M., 279, 297 Fleck, C., 29, 45 Fleischer, L., 130, 136 Flowerdew, J., 305, 317 Fouser, R., 219, 227 Fox, J., 196, 207 Fraser, C., 195, 196, 207 Frazer, M., 306, 317 Frawley, W., 55, 71 French, E., 253, 261, 272 Furgiuele, R., 193, 207 G Gaddis Rose, M., 352, 354 Gaies, S., 33, 44 Gambhir, S. K., 167, 173, 175, 183, 184 Gannon, J., 132, 133, 136 Garbutcheon-Singh, M., 247, 249
Garcia, E., 279, 297 Gardner, H., 287, 297 Gardner, R. C., 83, 91 Gass, S., 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46 Gassin, J., 241, 250 Gattegno, C., 78, 91 Gee, J. P., 305, 317 Geis, S., 284, 298 Geissler, E. M., 66, 67, 72 Genesee, F., 42, 46, 283, 297 Gentile, J., 216, 226 Gertner, M., 83, 92 Giliomee, H., 260, 272 Glidden, J., 193, 206 Gluck, R., 239, 250 Golebiowski, Z., 240, 250
< previous page
page_357
next page >
< previous page
page_358
next page > Page 358
Gonzalez, J. M., 290, 297 Gonzalez, N., 286, 298 Goodman, K., 352, 354 Goodman, Y., 352, 354 Gough, D., 264, 270 Gouws, R., 265, 271 Graves, A., 287, 297 Gray, M. J., 24, 25, 98, 99, 112 Gregg, K., 30, 45 Greenblatt, L., 280, 291, 297 Grennon Brooks, J., 293, 294, 298 Grimes, B., 190, 207 Grosse, C. U., 57, 70 H Hadley, A. O., 55, 70 Hakuta, K., 42, 44 Hamayan, E., 280, 297 Hamilton, R., 38, 45 Hammarberg, B., 217, 227, 229 Han, M., 279, 297 Hanania, E., 31, 45 Hancock, J., 239, 250 Hannah, J., 261, 275 Hansen, K. A., 4, 6, 7, 17, 25 Harmon, M., 172, 184 Harper, C., 282, 285, 298 Harris, J., 287, 298 Hart, B., 18, 25 Hart, D., 198, 206 Hartshorne, K., 256, 257, 260, 269, 272 Hatch, E., 32, 33, 43, 45, 46 Hauptman, P., 196, 207 Hawkins, E., 154, 162 Heath, S. B., 286, 298 Heid, M., 220, 221, 227 Henke, R. R., 284, 298 Henkes, T., 40, 45 Henter, H. J., 295, 298 Herdina, P., 217, 227 Heugh, K., 257, 258, 259, 261, 264, 272 Hewitt, N. M., 350, 354 Hewlitt, L., 261, 264, 271 Higa, C., 32, 46 Hill, L., 239, 249
Hirson, B., 256, 272 Hodgkinson, H. L., 8, 23, 26 Hoffmeister, R., 134, 137 Holzner, B., 172, 184 Hombitzer, E., 215, 227 Homburg, T., 39, 44 Hooker, V., 236, 237, 249 Huber, B. J., xiii, xvi, 50, 51, 52, 53, 70 Hufeisen, B., 213, 215, 216, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 226, 227, 228 Hulstijn, J. H., 212, 228 Humphries, T., 127, 132, 137 I Ignash, J. M., 10, 14, 17, 21, 23, 25, 26, 98, 111, 112 Ingram, D., 234, 251 J Jacobs, M., 263, 272 James, C., 30, 44 Janks, H., 261, 264, 272 Jeßner, U., 217, 227, 228 Joag-Dev, C., 64, 71 Johnson, K., 79, 91 Johnson, J., 42, 45 Johnston, M., 35, 45 Jonkman, R. J., 217, 228 Jor, G., 307, 317 Jumisko, M. K., 23, 24, 27 Jurasek, R., 283, 298 K Ka'awa, M., 154, 162 Kachru, B., 261, 272 Kachru, B. B., 84, 91 Kahn, V., 352, 354 Kallenbach, C., 213, 228 Kamhi-Stein, L. D., 280, 294, 295, 298, 299 Kamil, M., 64, 65, 70 Kamwangamalu, N., 261, 271 Kanda, J., 130, 136 Kanitz, R., 239, 250 Kant, J. G., 50, 70 Kaplan, R. B., 142, 162, 231, 250 Kaschula, R., 253, 261, 272 Kashoki, M., 259, 272 Kasper, G., 212, 227 Kasper, L. F., 81, 91 Kaufman, D., 293, 294, 298 Keesling, J. W., 62, 71
Kellerman, E., 34, 40, 45 Kelly, L. G., 77, 91 Kelm, O., 306, 317 Kern, R., 306, 317 Kessler, C., 288, 297 Kinsella, K., 99, 112 Kipp, S., 231, 232 Kleifgen, J., 33, 45 Kleppin, K., 217, 226 Klima, E., 118, 127, 129, 136 Kling, R., 309, 317 Kloss, H., 254, 257, 258, 272 Knell, W., 239, 250 Knopp, L., 23, 26 Köhler, F. H., 212, 228 Königs, F. G., 217, 226 Krahnke, K. J., 80, 91
< previous page
page_358
next page >
< previous page
page_359
next page > Page 359
Kramsch, C., x, xvi, 55, 70, 348, 354 Krashen, S., 30, 39, 44, 45, 80, 91, 94, 97, 98, 112, 282, 287, 298 Krashen, S. D., 79, 91, 212, 228 Krauss, M., 141, 142, 143, 145, 153, 162 Kriel, M., 262, 272 Krilowicz, B. L., 295, 298 Kroes, H., 256, 265, 272 Krueger, M., 57, 70, 283, 298 Krumm, B. L., 144, 147, 148, 162 Krumm, H. -J., 222, 228 Kurzet, R., 14, 26 L Ladefoged, P., 128, 136 Lado, R., 38, 45, 78, 91 Lafford, B. A., 61, 71 Lafford, P. A., 61, 71 Lamb, L., 123, 124, 136 Lambert, R. D., 55, 60, 61, 62, 71, 172, 184, 347, 348, 350, 354 Lambert, W. E., 83, 91 Lane, H., 118, 134, 136, 137 Lanham, L. W., 255, 272 Lantolf, J., 55, 71 Lapkin, S., 193, 208 Larsen-Freeman, D., 43, 45, 77, 91 Laurier, M., 195, 196, 207 Leaver, B. L., 56, 57, 71, 80, 92, 283, 298, 299 LeBlanc, A., 194, 207 LeBlanc, R., 193, 195, 196, 206, 207 Leder, N., 29, 45 Lee, J. F., 55, 71 Lee, P., 235, 250 Leitman, R., 20, 26 Leman, J., 217, 227, 228 Lenneberg, E., 41, 45 Lenta, E., 135, 137 le Roux, J., 265, 274 le Roux, M., 265, 274 Lester, N., 81, 92 Lett, J. A., Jr., 62, 71 Lian, A. P., 241, 250 Lightbown, P., 34, 43, 45 Lindemann, B., 218, 227 Lindholm, K. J., 166, 183, 283, 198 Links, T., 265, 271
Liskin-Gasparro, J., x, xvi, 55, 62, 71 Liu, G., 41, 46 Livingston, G., 80, 92 Lixl-Purcell, A., 307, 317 Lo Bianco, J., 232, 233, 238, 239, 241, 249, 250, 251, 263, 273 Long, M., 32, 33, 42, 43, 45 Long, M. H., 305, 317 Louw, J., 264, 273 Louw-Potgieter, J., 264, 273 Lozanov, G., 78, 91 Lübke, D., 215, 228 Lucas, D., 134, 137 Lund, N., 216, 226 M Maartens, J., 262, 273 Mace-Matluck, B., 280, 298 MacGowan-Gilhooly, A., 82, 92 Mackey, A., 35, 36, 45 Madden, C., 39, 44 Maddieson, I., 128, 136 Magnan, S. S., 62, 71 Malan, C., 255, 273 Malcolm, I., 241, 251 Malcolm, I. G., 244, 251 Malherbe, E., 256, 272 Mangiola, L., 286, 298 Mangubhai, F., 236, 237, 249 Mann, C., 241, 244, 247, 251 Marivate, C. N., 256, 269, 273 Marriott, H., 247, 251 Martinez, T., 124, 137 Mayher, J. S., 81, 92 Maylath, B., 98, 113 Mawasha, A., 263, 273 Maxwell, D., x, xvi Mazrui, A., 255, 266, 273 Mazzocco, E. H. D., 175, 182, 184 McAndrew, M., 189, 207 McArthur, T., 261, 273 McCarthy, B., 241, 251 McCarthy, J. S., 171, 184 McCloskey, M. L., 282, 297 McDonald, H., 239, 251 McDonough, S., ix, xvi McGinnis, S., 167, 173, 175, 180, 181, 184 McKay, P., 240, 251
McLeod, B., 99, 112 McMahon, F., 197, 208 McNab, C., 282, 298 McQuillan, J., 94, 112 Meier, R., 129, 137 Melamid, E., 24, 25, 98, 99, 112 Merino, B. J., 103, 112, 167, 173, 184 Meskill, C., 305, 306, 307, 317 Mesthrie, R., 254, 273 Mestre, J. P., 288, 296 Met, M., 283, 298 Meznek, J., 21, 26 Migneron, M., 194, 201, 206 Mikos, K., 135, 137 Mohan, B. A., 288, 298 Mokhtari, K., 80, 92 Mokoena, A., 265, 273 Moll, L., 286, 298 Monville-Burston, M., 241, 249 Moore, H., 233, 251 Moore, S. J., 61, 71, 166, 171, 184
< previous page
page_359
next page >
< previous page
page_360
next page > Page 360
Morfit, C. A., 61, 71, 166, 171, 184 Morris, R., 254, 265, 273 Mougeon, F., 195, 196, 207 Mtintsilana, P., 264, 273 Mühlhäusler, P., 238, 239, 249 Müller, A., 215, 216, 228 Munnik, A., 265, 273 Murphy, D., 305, 317 Murray, D., 352, 354 Murrell, M., 217, 228 Musumeci, D., 54, 55, 71 Mutasa, D., 255, 273 N Naiman, N., 193, 207 Ndebele, N. S., 255, 273 Neff, D., 286, 298 Nel, B. F., 256, 273 Nelson, C. L., 84, 91 Neuner, G., 222, 228 Newfield, D., 264, 273 Newport, E., 42, 45, 129, 137 Newport, E. L., 127, 137 Ngugi wa Thiong'o, 255, 273 Nguyen, D., 239, 249 Nixon, U., 248, 251 Noblitt, J. S., 176, 184, 317 Northcutt, L., 282, 298 Ntshoe, I., 258, 274 Nyawose, G., 264, 272 O Ochs, E., 305, 317 O'Donnell, M., 148, 163 O'Grady, W., 38, 45 O'Grady, W., 127, 137 Oksaar, E., 217, 228 Olesch, R., 217, 228 Olsen, R. E. W. B., 279, 298 O'Malley, J. M., 288, 298 O'Malley, M., 287, 296 Orfield, G., 20, 26 Orlek, J., 254, 273 Ostler, S. E., 80, 92 Osuna, M., 307, 317 Ozolins, U., 232, 251
P Padden, C., 117, 127, 132, 137 Padilla, A. M., 94, 112, 353, 354 Painchaud, G., 195, 207 Paribakht, S., 193, 206 Passel, J. S., 3, 6, 15, 25 Paton, J., 261, 264, 272 Patrikis, P. C., 54, 59, 71 Paul, F. G., 20, 26 Paulauskas, S., 198, 206 Pauwels, A., 236, 237, 249 Pearson, M. 15, 26 Pease-Alvarez, L., 288, 296 Peeters, Y., 259, 273 Peirce, B., 261, 264, 273 Peirce, B. N., 195, 207 Pellerin, S., 193, 207 Pennycook, A., 84, 92, 255, 266, 273 Perdue, C., 212, 229 Pesola, C. A., 283, 297 Peterson, L. C., 153, 154, 162 Peyton, J. K., 293, 299 Pheiffer, E., 265, 273 Phillips, D., 218, 229 Phillips, J., 59, 71 Phillips, S., 246, 250 Phillipson, R., 255, 266, 273 Pienaar, J., 265, 271 Pienemann, M., 35, 45 Pierce, L. V., 288, 298 Pieterse, H., 259, 275 Pinnock, P., 265, 273 Platt, E., 282, 285, 298 Postle, G., 236, 251 Potgieter, F. J., 256, 273 Prabhu, N. S., 305, 317 Pradl, G., 81, 92 Prager, S., 280, 297 Price, G., 239, 250 Prinsloo, K., 259, 273 Prinsloo, K. P., 255, 273 Prinsloo, M., 261, 273 Q Queen, R. M., 280, 298 Quinn, M. E., 288, 297
R Ramey, D., 281, 299 Ramirez, J., 281, 299 Raphan, D., 83, 92 Ravitz, 25 Read, J., 235, 244, 251 Ready, D., 194, 196, 207, 208 Reagan, T., 254, 256, 257, 258, 259, 261, 262, 274 Reid, I., 236, 251 Reese, S., 8, 24, 26 Repath-Martos, L. M., 80, 92 Reyhner, J., 142, 143, 152, 162 Richards, J. C., 55, 71 Ridge, S., 255, 259, 274 Ringbom, H., 217, 229 Ringstaff, C., 309, 317 Risley, T. R., 18, 25 Robinson, G. J., 4, 26
< previous page
page_360
next page >
< previous page
page_361
next page > Page 361
Roca, A., 103, 112, 167, 173, 184 Rodgers, T. S., 55, 71 Rodríguez Pino, C., 103, 112, 167, 173, 184 Rodseth, J., 261, 264, 274 Roessel, R., 144, 162 Rolph, E., 24, 25, 98, 99, 112 Ronco, S., 94, 107, 112 Roseberry, A. S., 288, 299 Rosen, L., 307, 317 Rosen, N., 282, 299 Rosenthal, J. W., 94, 98, 112, 288, 299 Rossell, C. H., 94, 112 Royale, L., 239, 249 Rubin, J., 238, 239, 249 Rudd, K., 234, 251 Ruíz, R., 142, 162, 166, 184 Rule, P., 264, 274 Rutherford, W., 40, 46 Ryan, F., 57, 70, 283, 298 S Sacks, O., 132, 137 Samaniego, F. A., 103, 112, 167, 173, 184 Sanderson, G., 124, 137 Sandholtz, J. H., 309, 317 Santiago, J., 124, 137 Sarinjeive, D., 261, 264, 274 Sarre, W., 238, 239, 249 Sasser, L., 282, 299 Savignon, S., 55, 70, 71 Sayers, D., 307, 317 Scarcella, R., 32, 46 Scarino, A., 240, 251 Schachter, J., 40, 46 Schieffelin, B. B., 305, 317 Schiffman, H., 266, 274 Schild, W., 216, 229 Schmid, R., 15, 26 Schmidley, A. D., 4, 5, 26 Schmidt, R., 212, 228, 229 Schmied, J., 261, 274 Schroeder, F., 124, 137 Schultz, R. A., 57, 71 Schumann, J., 35, 46 Schuring, G. K., 255, 259, 274
Scinicariello, S. G., 61, 71, 303, 317 Scott, M., 236, 237, 249 Secada, W., 288, 299 Séguin, H., 193, 206, 207 Selinker, L., 31, 38, 43, 45, 46 Seymour, E., 350, 354 Shaman, G., 239, 250 Sheorey, R., 80, 92 Shetzer, H., 307, 317 Shin, F., 352, 354 Shohamy, E., 55, 71 Short, D., 288, 299 Sigsbee, D. L., 98, 113 Silentman, I., 154, 162 Simon, P., 171, 184 Singh, R., 217, 229 Slater, G., 148, 162 Smit, B., 263, 274 Smit, U., 264, 274 Smith, C., 135, 137 Smith, F., 262, 274 Smith, J., 284, 297 Smith, J. F., 255, 274 Smith, M., 241, 250 Smoke, T., 80, 92 Snow, C. E., 97, 98, 113 Snow, M. A., 57, 70, 79, 80, 81, 91, 92, 280, 281, 282, 288, 294, 295, 296, 296, 299, 305, 317 Snyman, E., 263, 274 Snyman, J., 265, 274 Sohn, S-O., 167, 173, 175, 184 Spanos, G. A., 282, 287, 299 Speck, B. W., 98, 113 Spener, D., 94, 113 Spenser, M., 247, 251 Sperling, D., 82, 92 Squires, J., 239, 250 St. John, E., 306, 318 St. John, J., 193, 206 Stanley, J., 234, 251 Stedje, A., 215, 221, 229 Steffensen, M. S., 64, 71 Stencel, V., 218, 229 Stern, G., 49, 71 Stern, G., 94, 113 Stern, H. H., 49, 71 Stevens, A., 238, 239, 249
Stewart, D. W., 7, 9, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 Stewart, G., 195, 207 Steyn, J. C., 256, 257, 274 Stokoe, W. C., 118, 127, 137 Straight, H. S., 57, 71, 352, 354 Strevens, P., 218, 229 Strike, N., 263, 275 Strole, C., 295, 299 Stryker, S., 56, 57, 71 Stryker, S. B., 80, 92, 283, 298, 299 Supalla, T., 127, 137 Sussex, R., 233, 251 Svetics, I., 29, 45 Swain, M., 43, 46, 55, 70, 82, 83, 91, 98, 112, 188, 206 Swan, K., 306, 317 Swanepoel, C. B., 256, 273 Swanepoel, P., 259, 275 Swart, M., 265, 275 T Taff, A., 153, 163 Tang, G., 288, 299
< previous page
page_361
next page >
< previous page
page_362
next page > Page 362
Tardif, C., 197, 208 Tarone, E., 41, 46 Terrell, T. D., 79, 91 Terry, R. M., x, xvi Thérien, C., 193, 206 Thomas, J., 213, 216, 220, 229 Thomas, M., 29, 46 Thomas, W. P., 97, 112 Thornton, R., 142, 143, 144, 163 Titone, R., 54, 71 Tobias, S., 350, 354 Tomlinson, T., 193, 197, 208 Tönshoff, W., 217, 226 Tréville, M. -C., 195, 196, 201, 208 Tricomi, E., 352, 354 Trilingualism, 218, 229 Troup, F., 256, 275 Trudgill, P., 261, 275 Trueba, H. T., 103, 112, 167, 173, 184 Tucker, G. R., 166, 184, 287, 297, 353, 354 Turi, J., 259, 273 Tse, L., 94, 112 U Unni, A., 20, 26 Utley, R., 143, 163 V Valadez, C. M., 94, 112 Valdés, G., 53, 55, 71, 72, 103, 113, 166, 173, 174, 184 Vale, D., 240, 251 Valencia, J. E., 217, 227 Valentine, J. F., 80, 92 Valli, C., 134, 137 van den Heever, R., 262, 275 van Gensen, A., 255, 274 van Rensburg, C., 257, 259, 262, 273, 275 van Zijl, J., 257, 275 Vansant, J., 65, 70 Varonis, E., 32, 34, 45, 46 Verhoef, M., 264, 275 Vernez, G., 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 99, 113 Vervoorn, A., 236, 237, 249 Vigil, N., 136, 137 Vildomec, V., 217, 229 Vilmi, R., 307, 318
Vogel, T., 221, 229 Voght, G. M., 57, 70 von Staden, P., 255, 275 W Wade, R., 261, 271 Wagner-Gough, J., 33, 46 Wallace, M. J., 289, 299 Walton, A. R., 49, 52, 59, 60, 61, 70, 72, 348, 350, 354 Wandruszka, M., 217, 229 Ward, M., 84, 92, 110, 113 Warren, B., 288, 299 Warren, J., 241, 249 Warschauer, M., 82, 92, 176, 184, 303, 306, 307, 309, 318 Watson, D., 282, 298 Webb, V. N., 254, 275 Weinrib, A., 198, 206 Weissman, J., 23, 24, 27 Welge, P. K., 221, 229 Wesche, M., 57, 70, 193, 194, 195, 196, 201, 202, 206, 207, 208 Wesche, M. B., 79, 80, 81, 91, 281, 282, 296 White, L., 37, 42, 46 White, P., 236, 237, 238, 249, 251 Wilcox, P., 117, 123, 124, 136, 137 Wilcox, S., 117, 131, 132, 136, 136, 137 Willemse, H., 255, 274 Williams, S., 217, 227, 229 Wink, J., 352, 354 Winklemann, L., 241, 250 Wolfe-Quintero, K., 38, 46 Wright, B. D., 66, 67, 72 Y Yorio, C. A., 94, 113 Young, D., 262, 275 Yuen, S., 281, 299 Z Zapp, F. J., 217, 229 Zikopolous, M., 13, 27 Zimmerman, W., 279, 297 Zmuidzinas, M., 309, 317 Zobl, H., 40, 46 Zotwana, S., 265, 275 Zuboff, S., 309, 318
< previous page
page_362
next page >
< previous page
page_363
next page > Page 363
SUBJECT INDEX A Aboriginal Languages Initiative Project (Australia), 239 Aboriginal languages of Australia Australian language policies and, 233 at Australian universities, 239 bilingual programs, 235236 current number and status of, 231, 239 revitalization program, 245246 Aborigines, Australian policies toward, 232 ACTFL, see American Council on Teaching of Foreign Languages Adapted instruction, see Sheltered content instruction Adjunct instruction, see also Content-based instruction in French second language instruction, 193194 overview of, 80, 81, 282 in Project LEAP, 295 at University of Ottawa, 201202 Adult education enrollments in ESL courses, 1718 growing number of English language learners in, 280 Adult Migrant Education Service (Australia), 240 Adult Migrant English Service (Australia), 248 ''African Languages Made Easy" materials, 265 African languages of South Africa current status in society, 264 demographic features, 255256 fragmentation in, 255 instruction at universities, 263264, 267 textbooks, 265 African National Congress (ANC), 258259 Afrikaans current status of, 262 historical tensions with English, 254256 instructional materials, 265 as language of instruction, 260 as mother tongue, 253254 second language instruction in, 262263 at South African universities, 267270 Age effects, 4142 Age-of-arrival effect, 42 A la recontre de Philippe, 305 Alaskan Americans, 145
Alaska Native Language Center, 159161 Alaskan native languages, 159161 Alberta, Canada, 192 ALI, see American Language Institute ALI English Diagnostic Test, 88 American Association of Intensive English Programs, 76
< previous page
page_363
next page >
< previous page
page_364
next page > Page 364
American Council on Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), 55, 169 American Indian Higher Education Consortium, 148 American Indians, see Native Americans American Language Institute (ALI), 8789 American Sign Language (ASL) absence of formalized writing system for, 120 articulation between high school and college curricula, 135 benefits of study, 132133 courses on deaf culture, 128 current trends in deaf culture and, 133134 demand for courses in, 115 dialectical variation, 117 enrollments, xiii, 52 fingerspelling and, 128 glossing of texts, 120 history of, 117118 immersion methods in, 127 impact on foreign language departments, 133 Introduction to Signed Language course, 127 linguistic structure of, 118119 literature in, 120 number of people using, 117 proficiency outcomes, 128130 recognition as a foreign language, 131133 relationship to spoken languages, 116117 signed English and, 134135 teacher qualifications, 130131 teaching, challenges in, 119120 technology and, 125, 135136 typical course contents, 126127 undergraduate programs, 120126 California State University-Northridge, 121122 Purdue University, 124126 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 122124 video technology and, 135136 ANC, see African National Congress Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, 291 Apartheid concepts of multiculturalism and, 257 South African language policies, 256258, 264 South African universities and, 260 Applied English Language Studies Programme (South Africa), 261262 Aptitude, in second language acquisition, 4243 Arabic
in Australia, 231, 236, 238 in Canada, 189 enrollment trends in U.S., 5152 Arabic speakers, acquisition of English, 3940 Army Specialists' Training Program, 5455 Asian immigrants to U.S. demographic trends, 15 foreign students, 11 persistence in higher education, 22 Asian languages, Australian second language education and, 234236, 237, 238 Asian Languages and Australia's Economic Future, 234 ASL, see American Sign Language Assessments of Canadian language programs, 195196 developing for the diverse classroom, 288 in heritage language programs, 175 Athbaskan, see Alaskan native languages Athena Language Learning Project, 305 Audiographics, 247 Audiolingual method, 304 in ESL instruction, 7778 in foreign language instruction, 55 Aurora College, 204 Australia assimilationist policies, 232233 immigration and, 231232 language policies, xiv, 232234, 237, 351 multiculturalism and multilingualism in, 232233 policies toward Aborigines, 232 second language education in, xivxv, 235244 case studies, 244249 Australian Centre for Languages, 248249 Japanese immersion for teacher education, 246247 Kaurna reclamation, critical evaluation of, 241244 ESL instruction, 240 instructional materials, 240241 in schools and universities, 235239 technology and, 241242 weaknesses in policy and planning, 234235 status of languages other than English, 231232 support of languages other than English, 234235 Australian Advisory Council on Languages and Multicultural Education, 232 Australian Centre for Languages, 240, 248249 Australian Language Levels, 240 Australia's Language:
The Australian Language and Literacy Policy, 232 Authentic language, 79 B Bay Mill Community College, 148 Beatty, Willard, 143144 Behaviorism, 3839 Bilingual colleges
< previous page
page_364
next page >
< previous page
page_365
next page > Page 365
Canadian, 192193 Bilingual/dual language programs, xiixiii in Australian schools, 235236 in Canada, 192193 testing initiatives, 196 in Germany, 225 in the United States administration and funding of, 100101 admission policies, 98 assessing success/effectiveness of, 104 benefits of, 94, 111 case studies, 105110 Erie Community College, 105106 Lehman College, 108110 University of Texas at El Paso, 106108 catalog descriptions of, 9596 characteristics of parent institutions, 9697 characteristics of students, 98100 content-area courses, 102 de facto programs, 101 ESL instruction in, 101 goal of, 100 heritage language learning in, 103 in elementary schools, 172 immersion methods in, 9798 instructional materials, 102 notions of bilingualism and, 111 opposition to, 110 overview of, 9394, 281 services provided by, 100 teacher qualifications, 102 technology and, 102, 314316 theoretical foundations, 9798 Bilingualism, xi in Canada, 187 in South Africa, 254 in the United States deaf persons and, 116117 failure to promote, 351 heritage languages and, 169, 286 notions of, 111 notions of language proficiency and, 348349 Bilingual students benefits of bilingual programs to, 94
general characteristics of, 98100 Bilingual Undergraduate Studies for Collegiate Advancement (BUSCA), 99100 Blackfeet Community College, 148 Blacks, see South African blacks Boarding schools, for Native Americans, 143 Bravo ASL! curriculum, 135 Brentari, Diane, 125 Bridge model, 81, see also Content-based instruction "Bridge to English" materials, 264 Brilliant, Nancy, 85 Brunetti, Mendor, 87 Bureau of Indian Affairs, 143144 BUSCA, see Bilingual Undergraduate Studies for Collegiate Advancement C Cabrillo College, 101 California high school participation rates, 21 immigrant settlement in, 7 Puente Project, 21 California State University, Los Angeles, 294296 California State University, Northridge, 121122, 127 Canada languages in, 187191 American Sign Language, 117 indigenous, 188, 190192, 197, 202204 second language education in, xiv case studies, 199206 Nunavut Arctic College, 202204 University of Ottawa, 200202 Vancouver Community College, 204206 English second language instruction, 194195 French and English testing initiatives, 195196 French second language instruction, 193194 impact of technology on, 199 innovations, 197198 instructional materials and resources, 198199 languages of instruction, 191193 revival of indigenous languages, 197 Canadian Academic English Language Assessment, 196 Canadian Language Benchmarks, 195 Canadian Languages Network, 199 Canadian Test of English for Scholars and Trainees, 196 Cantonese, 231 Carleton University, Canada, 196 Carlisle Indian Industrial School, 143 Carter, Jimmy, 144
Case Western Reserve University, 303 Census Bureau (US) data collection on immigration, 34 definition of foreign-born, 34 Center for Applied Linguistics (US), 178 Center for Language Education and Research (Michigan State University), 44 Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks, 195 Cheremes, 118 Cherokee, 143144, 155157 Chinese, see also Asian languages in Australia, 236, 238
< previous page
page_365
next page >
< previous page
page_366
next page > Page 366
enrollments in the United States, 5152 heritage language instruction in the United States, 173, 180181 Chinese speakers, acquisition of English, 4041 Choctaw, 154 Choobarabarzine (online magazine), 312 CIS Education, 240 La Cité collègiale, 192 Cities (U.S.), immigrant settlement in, 78 Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 195 City College of New York, 82 City University of New York, see Lehman College Civil rights movement (U.S.), 144 Classical languages, 49 Clerc, Laurent, 117 Coleman Report, 54 Collaborative planning strategies, 289290, see also Teacher development Le Collège Boral, 192 Le Collège des Grands Lacs, 192 Colleges and universities, Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages at, 239 case studies, 244249 Australian Centre for Languages, 248249 Japanese immersion for teacher education, 246247 Kaurna reclamation, 245246 critical evaluation of, 241244 ESL instruction, 240 government policies and, 237 instructional materials, 240241 languages other than English in, 236239 languages taught at, 238239 reductions in funding and, 237238 technology and, 241242 Colleges and universities, Canadian bilingual, 192193 case studies, 199206 Nunavut Arctic College, 202204 University of Ottawa, 200202 Vancouver Community College, 204206 diversity in language programs, 191 ESL instruction, 194195 French and English testing initiatives, 195196 French second language instruction, 193194 impact of technology on language instruction, 199 innovations in language instruction, 197198
languages of instruction, 191193 resources for language education, 198199 revival of indigenous languages, 197 Colleges and universities, South African Afrikaans as a second language, 262263 case studies historically disadvantaged and Black universities, 269270 University of South Africa, 268 University of Witwatersand, 266268 dominance of English in, 265266 ESL instruction, 261262 foreign language instruction, 263 indigenous African languages, 263264 instructional materials development, 264265 languages of instruction, 260261 technology and, 265 Colleges and universities, United States, see also individual institutions case studies bilingual/dual language programs, 105110 Erie Community College, 105106 Lehman College, 108110 University of Texas at El Paso, 106108 ESL programs, 8490 American Language Institute, 8789 Kean University, 8486 Miami-Dade Community College, 8990 University of California, San Diego, 8687 heritage language programs, 178183 Chinese at University of Maryland, 180181 Hindi at Temple University, 181183 Persian at UCLA, 178180 Native American language programs Alaskan native language at University of Alaska, 159161 Cherokee at Northeastern State University, 155157 Navajo at Diné College, 158159 characteristics of institutions hosting bilingual programs, 9697 educational participation and attainment levels among immigrant groups, 2223 enrollments in less commonly taught languages, 52 enrollments in modern foreign languages, 5052 factors affecting success of language minority students, 2324 foreign students in, 1014, 280281 growing number of English language learners in, xi, 98, 280 heritage language programs in, 5253, 173174 recommendations for implementation, 177178 immigration and the demand for ESL courses, 1418, 280
innovative foreign language programs, 283
< previous page
page_366
next page >
< previous page
page_367
next page > Page 367
languages for specific/special purposes, 57 Native Americans in, 146147 persistence of ESL students, 2122 promoting collaboration among language programs, 352353 undergraduate foreign language majors, 5354 Collèges d'enseignement général et professionnel, 192 Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface, 192 Collier, John, 143 COMENIUS program, 212 Commissioner of Official Languages (Canada), 199 Communicative competence in ESL instruction, 79 in foreign language instruction, 55 Communicative language teaching cognitive approaches, 304305 in Native American language instruction, 152 principles of, 313 sociocognitive approaches, 305 Community colleges, Canada, 194195, 204206 Community colleges, United States, see also Tribal Colleges ESL programs enrollments, 17 at Erie Community College, 105106 at Hudson County Community College, 101 immigration and, 14 at Miami-Dade Community College, 8990 persistence of students, 21 number of foreign students in, 11, 13 Puente Project, 21 Community language learning, 78 Computerized Placement Test, 8990 Computer software concordancing, 305 Excel, 315 multimedia simulation, 305 text-reconstruction, 304305 WRITE/RESPOND/INVENT, 154 Computer technology, see Internet; Technology; World Wide Web Concordancing software, 305 Conferences of Canadian organizations, 198 on tertiary language learning, 218219 Content-Based Classroom, The, 296
Content-based instruction, see also Adjunct instruction; Bridge model; Sheltered-content instruction; Theme-based instruction developing strategies for, 287288 in ESL programs, 7981 in foreign language instruction, 5657 French as a second language in Canada, 193194 overview of, 281 at Vancouver Community College, 205 Conversational interactions, 3234 Copula, acquisition of, 40 Cornell University, 5859 Corpus planning, 257 Council for Intercultural Studies and Programs (U.S.), 60 Couthen, Al, 134 Cree, 190191 Cree School Board, 190191 "Critical language awareness" materials, 264 Critical period hypothesis, 4142 Cultural study of deaf culture, 128 in German instruction, case study, 6466 Current Population Survey (US), 3 Curriculum development in the United States, 289290, 293 D Daedalus Integrated Writing Environment, 154 Daedalus Interchange, 306, 311 Dawes, H. L., 143 DAWN Project, see Deaf Adults With Need Project Deaf Adults With Need (DAWN) Project, 121 Deaf culture courses in, 128 "Deaf President Now" movement and, 133134 issues on the use of ASL and signed English, 134135 literature of, 120 recognition and study of, 132 Deaf education, see also American Sign Language at California State University-Northridge, 121122 history of, 117118 Deaf persons, bilingualism and, 116117 "Deaf President Now" movement, 133134 Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center, 62 Definite article, acquisition of, 40 Deg Xinag, 153 Dene, 191
Department of Canadian Heritage, 197, 198, 199 Deviations, see Error analysis Dictionaries, 61 Diné College, 147148, 158159 Direct method in ESL instruction, 77 in foreign language instruction, 54 Distance education in Canada, 199 at University of South Africa, 268
< previous page
page_367
next page >
< previous page
page_368
next page > Page 368
Dropouts, from US high schools, 2324 Dual language programs, see Bilingual/dual language programs E Edmonton (Canada), 189190 Educational Testing Service, 55, 75 El Paso Community College, 14, 21, 101 English, see also English as a Second Language in Canada, 187188 in Europe, 211212 as a foreign language, 73 in Germany, 211 growing international dominance of, 84, 209, 347 number of speakers worldwide, 347 signed, 134135 in South Africa, xv, 253 dominant position in education, 261, 265266 historical tensions with Afrikaans, 254256 second language instruction in, 261262 at University of Witwatersand, 267268 English as a Second Language (ESL), xii, see also Intensive English programs in Australia, 240, 248249 in Canada, 189, 194195 testing initiatives, 195196 at University of Ottawa, 200202 at Vancouver Community College, 204205 in South African universities, 261262 in the United States adjunct instruction and, 282 admission policies, 75 in bilingual/dual language programs, 101 case studies, 8490 American Language Institute, 8789 Kean University, 8486 Miami-Dade Community College, 8990 University of California, San Diego, 8687 compared to foreign language instruction, 83 content-based instruction, 7981 distinguished from remedial language learning, 8384 distinguished from Teaching of English as a Foreign Language, 73 enrollments, 1718 at Erie Community College, 105106 estimating future need for, 10, 1518
evaluation of programs, 76 fluency first approach, 8182 "fossilized" errors and, 83 growth of, 84 at Hudson County Community College, 101 impact of immigrants on, 1418, 280 at Lehman College, 108110 levels of interest in, 18 linguistic interdependence concept, 286 meeting the needs of students, 1617, 1824 motivation and, 83 native language skills and, 8283 origins, 73 overview of, 7577, 281 pedagogical approaches, 7779 proficiency outcomes, 7677 sheltered instruction and, 80, 282 status of, 83 teacher education in integrative program at the State University of New York, 293294 Project LEAP, 294296 Project WE TEACH, 291293 teacher qualifications in the United States, 76, 8689 team teaching and, 290 technology and, 82, 303, 312314 thematic instruction and, 80, 282 at University of Texas at El Paso, 107 English for Non-Native Speakers courses, 90 English Language Instruction for Overseas Students (Australia), 240, 248 English language learners, see also ESL students; Language minority students; Limited English proficient speakers in adult education in the United States, 280 developing alternative assessments for, 288 diversity of, 7475, 279280 growing numbers of, xixii, 279280 and immigration trends in the United States, 514 impact on schools and colleges in the United States, 1418 Latino and Hispanic, 15, 22, 279 meeting the needs of in American schools, 1824 program models for, overview of, 281283 (see also English as a Second Language) English Language through Computers and Internet Project, 312314 English Placement Test, 89 "English Through Activity" materials, 264 ERASMUS program, 212, 224 Erie Community College, 100102, 105106
Error analysis in tertiary language learning, 215216, 220222 ESL students, see also English language learners; Language minority students; Limited English proficient speakers
< previous page
page_368
next page >
< previous page
page_369
next page > Page 369
in Canada, Francophone, 194 in the United States categorization of, 7475 diversity among, 7475 meeting the needs of, 1624 persistence and performance in high school, 1921 persistence in college, 2122 recent immigration trends 7374 Ethnologue, 149 Europe, multiple language learning in, xiv, 209211 European Union, 212 Excel software, 315 F Faculté Saint Jean, 192, 199 Fant, Lou, 121 Federation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Languages, 239 Fife, Phyllis, 156157 Fingerspelling, 128 First Nations languages (Canada), 188, 190191, 197 Five College Consortium (US), 60 Fleischer, Larry, 122 FLS, see French as a Second Language Fluency first method, 8182 Foreign-born population (US), see also Immigrants/Immigration countries of origin, 67 defined, 45 households using a home language other than English, 910, 74 numbers of, 3, 56 persistence and performance in high school, 1921 settlement patterns, 6 Foreigner talk, 32, 33 Foreign language centers, 44, 59 Foreign language experience programs, 283 Foreign language instruction, xii, see also Heritage language instruction; Modern foreign languages; Second language acquisition; Second language education in Australian universities, 236239 in Canadian universities, 196198 multilingualism in, 222 in South African universities, 263 in the United States ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, 55 case studies, 6370 Kansas University Languages Across the Curriculum, 6870
Spanning Project, 6668 Stanford University, 6366 challenges and recommendations, 6263 cocurricular opportunities for students, 58 compared to ESL instruction, 83 content-based, 5657 coping with increasing demand on limited resources, 60 current status of, 171172 current trends, 56 history of, 49, 5455 housing and administration of programs, 5859 immersion programs, 283 innovative programs in, 283 instructional materials, 61 languages for specific/special purposes, 57 linguistic outcomes, 6162 self-managed learning, 60 teacher qualifications, 6061 technology and, 303, 310312 Foreign languages, see also Immigrant languages; Indigenous languages; Languages other than English; Less commonly taught languages; Modern foreign languages in Canada, 188190 students' reasons for studying in Australia, 243 in the United States, 4950, 168, 170 Foreign Languages Across the Curriculum, 57, 6870, 283, see also Content-based instruction Foreign language students, see also Bilingual students; Heritage language learners cocurricular opportunities for language learning, 58 compared to heritage language learners, 170171 reasons for language study, 4950, 243 typical starting competencies, 167168 Foreign Service Institute, 55 Foreign students in Australia, 236 in the United States, 1014, 18, 280281 Foundation for Afrikaans (South Africa), 262 Français langue seconde, see French as a Second Language Free variation, 41 French in Australia, 236 in Canada, 187188 bilingual institutions, 192193 as language of instruction, 191192 second language instruction in, 193194, 200202
in Europe, 211212 in the United States enrollment trends, 5052 trends in undergraduate majors, 53
< previous page
page_369
next page >
< previous page
page_370
next page > Page 370
French as a Second Language (FLS), 193194, 200202 French Sign Language, 117 G Gallaudet, Thomas, 117 Gallaudet University, 118, 133134 GED, see General Educational Development (GED) certificate General Educational Development (GED) certificate, 23, 280 General nativism, 38 German in Australia, 231, 236, 238 in Canada, 189 as a tertiary language, 221223, 225226 in the United States enrollment trends, 5052 at Stanford University, 6366 German Academic Exchange Service, 225 Germans, The (Craig), 65 Germany bilingual/dual language programs in, 225 English language in, 211 multiple language learning in, 211 Glendon College, 193, 198 Glendon Examination of Bilingual Excellence, 196 Glossing, 120 Graduate courses, for teacher education, 289, 292293 Grammar typical competency of foreign language learners, 169 typical competency of heritage language learners, 167 Grammar instruction, in American Sign Language, 126 Grammar-translation method in ESL instruction, 77 in foreign language instruction, 54 in Native American language instruction, 152 Grammatical development, 3537 Grduate teaching assistants, 284285 Greek, 231, 236, 238 H Hamburg University, 225226 Harry S. Truman College, 14 Haverford College, 310312 Hawaiian, 52, 154 Hawaii Interactive Television System, 154 Hebrew, 51, 52 Heritage language instruction, xiiixiv,
see also Indigenous languages in Canada, 197 in the United States areas of concern, 174177 in bilingual programs, 103 case studies Chinese at University of Maryland, 180181 Hindi at Temple University, 181183 Persian at UCLA, 178180 in Cherokee, 156157 comparisons between heritage language and foreign language learners, 170171 course content, 103, 173174 current status of, 173174 de facto courses, 173174 in developing bilingualism in children, 286 dual language programs for children, 172 at Erie Community College, 106 evolution of university level programs, 173174 growing demand for, 166167 instructional goals, 103 instructional materials, 61, 175, 179, 181182 at Lehman College, 110 national initiative on, 178 national needs and, 171172 overview of, 5253, 103, 283 pedagogical practices and, 174 rationales for, 103, 171173 recommendations for implementing programs, 177178 screening and placement of learners, 175, 179183 self-instructional mode, 174175 student assessment and placement, 175 student differences in proficiency and usage, 176177 teacher qualifications, 60, 174175 teacher training and, 175 technology and, 176 at University of Texas at El Paso, 107108 Heritage language learners bilingualism and, 169 characteristics of, 5253 compared to traditional foreign language learners, 170171 increasing numbers of, 5253 literacy skills and, 168, 170 motivation, 168 typical starting competencies, 167168 Higher education, see Colleges and universities Higher Education Act, Title VI program, 59, 172
"High School and Beyond," 1920 Hindi, 181183 Hispanic immigrants, see also Latinos; Mexican immigrants
< previous page
page_370
next page >
< previous page
page_371
next page > Page 371
demographic trends, 15 persistence in higher education, 22 Hispanic students, status dropout rate, 23 Hopi, 154 How Immigrants Fare in U.S. Education (Vernez and Abrahamse), 19 Hudson County Community College, 96 bilingual program at, 99, 102 ESL program at, 101 I Iconicity, 129 Ideal Town Construction Project, 312 Immersion method in ASL instruction, 127 in Australian universities, 244 bilingual instruction rather than, 9798 in foreign language instruction for children, 283 in Native American language instruction, 152 Immigrant languages, see also Heritage language instruction in South Africa, 256 Immigrants/immigration, see also Foreign-born population in Australia, 231232 in Canada, 187189 in the United States "bipolar" educational attainment levels among, 24 countries of origin, 8, 9 data collection on, 34 distinguished from foreign-born population, 45 educational participation and attainment levels among, 2223 as foreign students, 1014 households using a home language other than English, 910, 74 impact on ESL programs, 1417, 280 persistence and performance in high school, 1921 predicting future trends, 15 recent trends in, 514, 7374 recommendations for schools and colleges, 2425 settlement patterns, 78 Immigration and Education (Stewart), 22 Improving University Instruction for Language Minority Students (video) 296 Inclusion teaching, see Team teaching Indian Control of Indian Education (Canada), 190 Indian languages in South Africa, 256
Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (US), 143 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (US), 144 Indigenous languages, xiii, see also Aboriginal languages; African languages of South Africa; Native American languages; Native Canadian languages issues of extinction, 141142 revitalization programs for Native American languages, 142, 145, 153154 revitalization programs in Australia, 245246 Indonesian, 236, see also Asian languages Innate language-learning, 3738 Input, 3132 In-service development strategies, 289290 Institute for the Preservation of the Original Languages of the Americas (IPOLA), 154 Institute of International Education (US), 10 Instructional materials in Australian language education, 240241 for bilingual/dual language programs, 102 at Canadian institutions, 198199 for ESL courses, 76 for foreign language instruction, 61 for heritage language instruction, 175, 179, 181182 for Native American language instruction, 152153 in South Africa, development of, 264265 Intake, 31 Intensive English programs, see also English as a Second Language at the American Language Institute, 8789 enrollments, 13 overview, 76 technology and, 312314 at University of California, San Diego, 8687 Inter-American Science and Humanities Program (University of Texas at El Paso), 96, 101, 107108 Interference, 38, 39 in tertiary language learning, 215216 Interlanguages, 3132 International Commission of Second Language Acquisition, 29 International English Language Testing Service (Australia), 248249 International Languages Program (Canada), 189 International teaching assistants, 284285 Internet, see also Technology; World Wide Web Australian language education and, 241, 242 Canadian resources, 199 Native American languages and, 154 and the sociocognitive approach to language education, 305 Internship programs, 58 Interpreters, see Sign language interpreter programs
< previous page
page_372
next page > Page 372
Introduction to Persian, An (Thackston), 179 Introduction to Signed Language course, 127 Inuit, 202204 Inuktitut, 190192 at Nunavut Arctic College, 203204 Inupiaq, see Alaskan native languages IPOLA, see Institute for the Preservation of the Original Languages of the Americas Iranian, see Persian Isolating languages, 119 Italian in Australia, 231, 236, 238 in Canada, 189 enrollment trends in the United States, 5152 J Japanese, see also Asian languages in Australia, 236, 238 immersion course for teacher education, 246247 enrollments in the United States, 5152 students' reasons for studying, 243 Japanese speakers, acquisition of English, 40 Jones, Ray, 121 Journals, Canadian, 198 Jyväskylä University, 225226 K Kansas University Languages Across the Curriculum, 6870 Kaurna, 239, 245246 Kaurna Language and Language Ecology course, 245246 Kean University bilingual program at, 9496, 100101 ESL program at, 8486, 101 Kelm, Orlando, 314316 Koike, Yoko, 310312 Korean, see also Asian languages in Australia, 236 in the United States, 52, 173 KTNN radio station, 154 Kwantlen University College, 205 L L3, see Tertiary language learning and Tertiary languages Lakehead University, 197 Lakota, 154
Language acquisition, 30, see also Language learning; Second language acquisition distinguished from language learning, 212 psycholinguistic approach, 219 "Language and Science: A Multicultural Perspective" course, 294 Language Center (Stanford University), 64 Language clubs, 58 Language external factors, 128 Language houses, 58 Language internal factors, 128129 Language laboratories in Australia, 241242 in the United States, 61, 304305 Language learning, 30, see also Language acquisition; Second language acquisition distinguished from language acquisition, 212 psycholinguistic approach, 219 terminology in, 30 Language minority students (US), see also English language learners; ESL students; Limited English proficient speakers definition of "language minority," 5 diversity of, 279280 factors affecting success in college, 2324 growing number of, 279280 Latinos, 279 meeting the needs of, 1624 percent in linguistic isolation, 15, 16 Project LEAP, 294296 school enrollment trends and, 1517 LanguageNet, 182 Language planning policies, xxi Australian, xiv, 232234, 237, 351 South African, 256260, 264, 351352 United States and, 347 Language Plan Task Group (South Africa), 260 Language professionals, see also Teachers issues of professional isolation, 4344 Languages, signed and spoken modalities in, 116117 Languages Across the Curriculum, 57, 6870, 283, see also Content-based instruction Languages and Cultures Initial Teacher Education Program (Australia), 246247 Language-sensitive content instruction, see Sheltered content instruction Languages for specific/special purposes, 57, 6668 Languages other than English (LOTE) in Australia, 231232, 234239
used at home in the United States, 910, 74 La langue des signes Quèbecoise, 117 La Salle University, 99100 Latin, positive effects of, 217 Latinos, 279, see also Hispanic immigrants; Hispanic students; Mexican immigrants Laurentian University, 193 Lehman College, 108110 LEONARDO program, 212 l'Epé, Abb de, 117 Less commonly taught languages (LCTLs) coping with increasing demand on limited resources, 60 enrollment trends, 52, 53
< previous page
page_372
next page >
< previous page
page_373
next page > Page 373
housing and administration of, 59 instructional materials, 61 National Association of Self-Instructional Language Programs and, 175 teacher qualifications, 60 Lexica Project, 265 Lexicon in ASL proficiency, 129 of typical heritage language learners, 167168 Lexinet Investigation (South Africa), 265 Limited English proficient (LEP) speakers, xixii, see also English language learners; ESL students; Language minority students defined, 5 demographic figures, 910 persistence and performance in high school, 1921 LINGUA program, 212 Linguistic interdependence, 285286, see also Transfer Linguistic isolation defined, 5 percent of students living in, 15, 16 Literacy skills developing in heritage language learners, 168 typical competency of foreign language learners, 170 typical competency of heritage language learners, 168 Long-distance exchange projects, 306307 Lulea University, 204 Luxembourg, 222 M Mandela, Nelson, 269 Manitoba, 192 McGill University, 191, 192, 197, 203 Meaningful Differences (Hart and Risley), 1819 Means, John, 175 Melbourne, 232 Mercy College, 96 Metalinguistic awareness, in tertiary language learning, 216, 218, 220 Mexican immigrants, 67, see also Hispanic immigrants; Hispanic students; Latinos high school participation rates, 21 persistence in higher education, 22 Miami-Dade Community College, 8990 Michigan English Placement Test, 89 Michigan State University, 44 Microsoft Excel, 315 Mills, Douglas, 312
Modern foreign languages, xii, see also Foreign language instruction; Foreign languages; Second language acquisition in South African universities, 263, 267 in the United States changing characteristics of the undergraduate population, 54 enrollment in less commonly taught languages, 52, 53 enrollment in specific languages, 5052 heritage language learners, 5253 historical perspective on, 49 number of students in, 49, 5354 reasons undergraduates enroll in, 4950 Modern Greek, 231, 236, 238 Modern Languages Centre (Canada), 198 Molteno Project (South Africa), 264 Montreal, 189 Morphemes, 119 Morphology, in American Sign Language, 119, 129 Mother tongue, see Native language Motivation in ESL learning, 83 of heritage language learners, 168 of language students, 349, 353 in second language acquisition, 4243 of tertiary language students, 223 of traditional foreign language learners, 170 Multiculturalism in Australia, 232, 233 South African apartheid and, 257 Multiculturalism Act (Canada), 189 Multilingualism Case studies, 224226 in Australia, 232 in Europe, 209210 in foreign language instruction, 222 in South Africa, xv, 255, 258, 264 psycholinguistic approach, 219 ranking of languages, chronology vs. ability, 211212 role of second language learning in, 213214 tertiary language learning and, 217 Multimedia simulation software, 305 Multiple language learning, see also Tertiary language learning in Europe, 209211 N NASILP, see National Association of Self-Instructional Language Programs National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (US), 20 National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (Australia), 234, 236 National Association of Self-Instructional Language Programs (NASILP), 60, 174175, 181183
National Center for Education Statistics (US), 10, 1417, 19
< previous page
page_373
next page >
< previous page
page_374
next page > Page 374
National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research (Australia), 248 National Council of Organizations of Less Commonly Taught Languages (US), 182 National Education Policy Investigation (South Africa), 259260 National Foreign Language Center (US), 178 National High School and Beyond Survey (US), 19 National Indian Brotherhood (Canada), 190 ''National Initiative on Heritage Languages" (US), 178 National Interpreter Training Consortium (US), 121 National Language Policy (Australia), 232, 239 National Languages Institute of Australia, 232 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (US), 23 Native American language programs case studies Alaskan native languages at University of Alaska, 159161 Cherokee at Northeastern State University, 155157 Navajo at Diné College, 158159 importance of, 148149 languages offered in, 149151 methods of instruction in, 149, 152 technology and, 153154 textbooks for, 152153 Native American languages (U.S.), xiii, see also Native Canadian languages Alaskan, 159161 current population distribution and, 144145 current status of, 141, 143 federal education policies and, 143144 issues of extinction, 141142 number of, 141 as polysynthetic, 119 revitalization of, 142, 145, 153154 transmission within families and, 143, 145, 154 Native American Languages Act (US), 144 Native Americans (US) current geographic distribution, 144145 as faculty and teachers, 145, 147 federal education policies, 143144 forced assimilation, 143 in higher education, 146147 likelihood for success in education, 146 population decline, 142143 population increase, 144 in public education, overview of, 145147 tribal colleges, 144, 147148
Native Canadian languages, 188, 190191, 192 at Nunavut Arctic College, 203204 revival in Canadian universities, 197 Native language (mother tongue) acquisition of English as a second language and, 8283 bilingual learning and, 97, 98 multilingualism and, 215, 219, 221 second language acquisition and, 3841, 285286 Nativism, see General nativism Navajo at Diné College, case study, 158159 instructional materials, 153 KTNN radio station, 154 as polysynthetic, 119 at University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 124 Navajo Community College Assistance Act, 144 Navajo Community College/Diné College, 144, 147, 158159 Navajo Indians Navajo Community College/Diné College, 144, 147, 158159 Rough Rock Demonstration School, 144 Nagative utterances, stages in learning, 35, 37 Negotiation of meaning, 3334 New Brunswick (Canada), 188, 192 New York City, 7, 8 New York University, American Language Institute at, 8789 Ngubane, B. S., 260 Nonprimary language learning, 30 North Consortium (Canada), 204 Northeastern State University, 155157 Northwest Territories, 188, 191 Nova Scotia, 192 Nunavut, 188, 192 Nunavut Arctic College, 192, 202204 Nunavut Teacher Education Program, 203 O Office of Economic Opportunity (US), 144 Official Languages Act (Northwest Territories), 191 Official Languages Monitor Program (Canada), 198 Oh China! Elementary Reader of Modern Chinese for Advanced Beginners (Chou, Link, Wang), 181 Ojibway, 190 Old American Sign Language, 117118 One Nation Party (Australia), 232 On-line technology, see Internet; Technology; World Wide Web Ontario French and English languages in, 188 teaching of foreign languages in, 189
universities in, 192193 Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 198 Ontario Test of English as a Second Language, 195196
< previous page
page_374
next page >
< previous page
page_375
next page > Page 375
Open Doors reports, 10 Open Learning Agency (Canada), 204 Ottawa-Hull, 193 P Passaic County Community College, 14 Paterson, Eleanor, 105 Peer observation, 289 Persian, 173, 178180 Persian Language Profile, 179 Philippines, 67 Philology, 49 Phonemes, in American Sign Language, 118119 Phonology in American Sign Language, 118119, 128129 typical competency of foreign language learners, 169 typical competency of heritage language learners, 167 Pitjantjatjara, 239 Plug-in teaching, see Team teaching Policy Framework for Education and Training, A (South Africa), 259 Polysynthetic languages, 119 Portland Community College, 14 Portuguese, 51, 52, 314 Practical Chinese Reader, 181 Pratt, Richard Henry, 143 President's Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies, 55 Prince George's County Public Schools, 291293 Prochievement, 183, see also National Association of Self-Instructional Language Programs Professional organizations Canadian, 199 for ESL programs, 76 issues of professional isolation, 4344 Proficiency Evaluation Project, 62 Proficiency/proficiency outcomes Canadian testing initiatives, 195196 expectations of Australian students and educators, 242244 in the United States for ASL instruction, 128130 for ESL programs, 7677 for foreign language instruction, 6162 notions of, 348349 promoting the development of, 353 years to develop in a second language, 97, 348 La Programme d'enseignement des langues d'origines, 189 Project LEAP, 294296
Project WE TEACH, 291293 Pronunciation in ASL proficiency, 128129 typical competency of foreign language learners, 169 typical competency of heritage language learners, 167 Prospect (journal), 248 Puente Project (California), 21 Punjabi, 189 Purdue University, 124126 Q Quebec Collèges d'enseignement général et professionnel, 192 French and English languages in, 187, 188 teaching of foreign languages in, 189 Question forms, stages in learning, 35, 36 R Radio stations, Native American, 154 Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (US), 122 Remediation, 23 ESL learning distinguished from, 8384 Resource materials, see Instructional materials Review of the Teaching of Modern Languages in Australian Higher Education, 241244 Rock Point Community School Newspaper, 153 Rough Rock Demonstration School, 144 Royal Institute of Technology (Sweden), 224225 Royal Military College (Canada), 193 Ruhr University, 217 Ruimland 9 & 10 (Bhota), 265 Rural schools, 1617 Russian in Australia, 236, 238 in the United States, ix, 51, 52 S Schools (K12) Australian, second language learning in, 235236 Canadian, language instruction in, 188290 in the United States ASL curricula in, 135 dual language programs and, 172, 281 educational participation and attainment levels among immigrant groups, 2223 growing student population diversity, 279280, 283 meeting the needs of linguistic minority students, 1617 percent of students in linguistic isolation, 15, 16
< previous page
page_375
next page >
< previous page
page_376
next page > Page 376
persistence and performance of LEP students in, 1921 program models for English language learners, 281283 rural, 1617 trends in enrollment of linguistic minority students, 1517 Second language acquisition (SLA), xii, see also Foreign language instruction; Language acquisition; Language learning; Modern foreign languages aptitude and motivation effects, 4243 cocurricular opportunities for students, 58 comparisons between L2 and L3 learners, 212214 conversational interactions, 3234 critical period hypothesis, 4142 general nativist approach, 38 input, 3132 interlanguage concept, 31 linguistic information of learners, 3741 overview of, 29 recommendations for teachers, 43 stages in grammatical development, 3537 terminology in language learning, 30 transfer concept, 3841, 285286 Universal Grammar concept, 3738 U-shaped learning, 3435 variation and context in language production, 41 years to develop proficiency, 97, 348 Second language education, see also Bilingual/dual language programs; English as a Second Language; Foreign language instruction; Heritage language instruction; Second language acquisition in Australia, xivxv, 235244 case studies, 244249 Australian Centre for Languages, 248249 Japanese immersion for teacher education, 246247 Kaurna reclamation, 244246 critical evaluation of, 241244 ESL instruction, 240 instructional materials, 240241 in schools and universities, 235239 technology and, 241242 weaknesses in policy and planning, 234235 benefits of bilingualism and, xi in Canada, xiv case studies, 199206 Nunavut Arctic College, 202204 University of Ottawa, 200202 Vancouver Community College, 204206
English second language instruction, 194195 French and English testing initiatives, 195196 French second language instruction, 193194 impact of technology on, 199 innovations, 197198 languages of instruction, 191193 resources, 198199 revival of indigenous languages, 197 in South Africa, xv Afrikaans as a second language, 262263 case studies, 266270 historically disadvantaged and Black universities, 269270 University of South Africa, 268 University of Witwatersand, 266268 dominance of English in, 265266 ESL instruction, 261262 foreign language instruction, 263 indigenous African languages, 263264 instructional materials development, 264265 languages of instruction, 260261 technology and, 265 technology and, case studies in, 309316 bilingual instruction, 314316 ESL instruction, 312314 foreign language instruction in Japanese, 310312 in the United States attitudes toward, 348 coexistence and integration models, 350 differences between programs, 350351 diversity of programs, ix lack of student persistence in, 350 meeting student needs, x, 1624 notions of proficiency, 348349 promoting collaboration among language programs, 352353 promoting retention of language proficiency, xvi, 353 shared concerns and characteristics of programs, ixx, 350 student motivation, 349, 353 teaching practices in, 347349 Second Language Institute (University of Ottawa), 200202 Self-managed learning, 60, see also National Association of Self-instructional Language Programs Service learning, 307 Sesotho, 265, 267 Shade, Loretta, 157 Sheltered content instruction, see also Content-based instruction developing strategies for, 287288
in ESL programs, 80, 86 in French second language instruction, 193194 overview of, 80, 282
< previous page
page_376
next page >
< previous page
page_377
next page > Page 377
Shriver, Sargent, 144 Signed English, 134135 Signed languages, see also American Sign Language linguistic structure of, 118119 recognition as foreign languages, 131132 relationship to spoken languages, 116117 Signing Naturally curriculum, 135 Sign language interpreter programs at California State University-Northridge, 121122 at University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 122124 Silent way, 78 Sinte Gleska tribal college, 148 Sioux, 154 Sisseton Wahpeton tribal college, 148 Skomish, 154 Sociolinguistic rules and foreign language standards, 56 typical competency of foreign language learners, 169170 typical competency of heritage language learners, 168 SOCRATES program, 212, 224 Software concordancing, 305 Excel, 315 multimedia simulation, 305 text-reconstruction, 304305 WRITE/RESPOND/INVENT, 154 South Africa Afrikaans in, 253255 demographics of language in, 253256 English in, xv, 253255 immigrant languages in, 256 indigenous African languages in, 255256 language planning policies, 256260, 264, 351352 linguistic diversity in, 253 multilingualism in, xv, 255, 258, 264 second language education, xv Afrikaans as a second language, 262263 case studies, 266270 historically disadvantaged and Black universities, 269270 University of South Africa, 268 University of Witwatersand, 266268 dominance of English in, 261, 265266 ESL instruction, 261262
foreign language instruction, 263 indigencus African languages, 263264 instructional materials development, 264265 languages of instruction, 260261 technology and, 265 South African blacks apartheid language policies and, 256258 Black universities, 269270 multilingualism and, 255, 264 Spanish bilingual programs, see also Bilingual/dual language programs content-area courses, 102 at Erie Community College, 105106 at Hudson County Community College, 99 at Kean University, 9496 at LaSalle University, 99100 at Lehman College, 108110 technology and, 314316 at University of Texas at El Paso, 107108 Spanish heritage language instruction, 173 in bilingual programs, 103 at Erie Community College, 106 at Lehman College, 110 at University of Texas at El Paso, 107108 Spanish instruction/courses in Canadian universities, 197 in the United States enrollment trends, 5052 internships, 58 Spanning Project, 6668 trends in undergraduate majors, 53 Spanish speakers, acquisition of English, 3940 Spanning Project, 6668 Speak Xhosa With Us (multimedia program), 265 Special Interest Group in Graphic Technology, 125 Spoken and Written Hindi (Fairbanks and Misra), 182 Sputnik, 54 Standards for Foreign Language Learning (U.S.), 56 Stanford University, 6366, 303 State University of New York (SUNY), 293294 Status dropout rate, 23 Status planning, 257 Stigting vir Afrikaans, 262 Stokoe, William, 118 Stone Child College, 148 Students, see Bilingual students; ESL students; Foreign language students; Foreign students; Heritage language learners; Language minority students
Study abroad, 58, 224 Suggestopedia, 78 Summer Language Bursary Program, 197198 SUNY, see State University of New York Survival proficiency defined, 6162 Swahili, 52 Sydney, 232 Synthetic languages, 119 Systemic variation, 41 T Taalstryd, 256 Tagalog, 173, 189 Teacher development, see also Teacher education Project LEAP, 294296
< previous page
page_377
next page >
< previous page
page_378
next page > Page 378
strategies in, 289290 Teacher education, see also Teacher development Australian immersion course in Japanese, 246247 case studies in the United States Project LEAP, 294296 Project WE TEACH, 291293 State University of New York, 293294 challenges of linguistic and cultural diversity, 284289 developing alternative classroom assessments, 288 developing awareness of cross-cultural differences, 286287 developing awareness of linguistic interdependence, 285286 developing strategies for integrating language and content instruction, 287288 essential competencies, 288289 essential topics for, xv, 285288 evaluated by Australian teachers, 243 for heritage language instruction, 175 innovative approaches, 290291 in-service development strategies, 289290 at Nunavut Arctic College, 203204 Teacher qualifications for American Sign Language instruction, 130131 for ESL instruction, 76 for heritage language instruction, 174, 175, 177 issues in, 6061 for postsecondary bilingual programs, 102 Teachers Native Americans as, 145, 147 Native Canadians as, 191 Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), 76, 205 Teaching Academic Literary Skills (manual), 296 Teaching assistants graduate students as, 284285 Teaching of English as a Foreign Language (TEFL), 73 Team teaching, 282, 290 Technology, xv advantages and disadvantages of, 307309 American Sign Language instruction and, 125, 135136 application in language education, examples of, 303 audiographics, 247 in Australia, 241242 bilingual instruction and, 102, 314316 in Canada, 199 case studies, 309316
bilingual instruction, 314316 ESL instruction, 312314 foreign language instruction in Japanese, 310312 cognitive approaches to language education, 304305 computer-mediated classroom communication, 306 computer-mediated long-distance exchange, 306307 ESL instruction and, 82, 303, 312314 financial investment in, 308 foreign language instruction and, 61 heritage language instruction and, 176 history of, 304 language laboratories, 304, 305 in language revival, 153154 perceptions of, 307308 sociocognitive approaches, 305 in South Africa, 265 time investment in, 308309 uncertainty of outcomes, 309 using successfully, 316 video, 135136, 315 TEFL, see Teaching of English as a Foreign Language Temple University, 181183 Tertiary language learning, xiv case studies, 224226 comparisons between L2 and L3 learners, 212214 conferences about trilingualism, 218219 issues of translation in, 223 language interference in, 215216 metalinguistic awareness and, 216, 218, 220 motivation of learners, 223 multilingualism and, 217 notions of language learning and acquisition, 212 positive transfer and, 216217 research areas concerning, 211, 217220 study of, 210211, 223224 textbooks in, studies and issues, 217220, 223 Tertiary languages German as, 221223 issues in defining, 211212 pedagogical issues, 222223 Tertiary Languages Project, 217 TESOL, see Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), 75 Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC), 75 Test pour Étudiants et Stagiaires au Canada, 196 Textbooks
in Australian language education, 241 in South Africa, development of, 264265 for tertiary language learning, 217220, 223 in the United States for bilingual instruction, 102
< previous page
page_378
next page >
< previous page
page_379
next page > Page 379
for foreign language instruction, 61 for heritage language instruction, 61, 175, 179, 181, 182 for less commonly taught languages, 61 for Native American language instruction, 152153 Text-reconstruction software, 304305 Thai, 236 Theme-based instruction, 80, 282, see also Content-based instruction Title VI program, 59, 172 TOEFL, see Test of English as a Foreign Language TOEIC, see Test of English for International Communication Toronto, 189 Total physical response, 7879, 152 Towards a National Language Policy (Australia), 232 Transfer in acquisition of English as a second language, 8283 in bilingual learning, 98 in second language acquisition, 3841, 285286 in tertiary language learning, 216217 Translation, tertiary language learning and, 223 Translator programs, see also Sign language interpreter programs at Nunavut Arctic College, 204 Tribal colleges, 144, 147148, 158159 Indian languages offered at, 149, 150151 Trilingualism, see also Tertiary language learning conferences about, 218219 Turk, Frank, 134 Two-way developmental language programs, 283 U Ukrainian, 189 Umea University, 204 Undergraduates, see Bilingual students; ESL students; Foreign language students; Foreign students; Heritage language learners; Language minority students United States attitudes toward English, 347 attitudes toward foreign language study, 348 English language learners in, xixii, 1418, 7375, 279280 failure to promote bilingualism in, 351 foreign-born population in, see Foreign-born population immigrants and, see Immigrants/immigration lack of language policies in, 347 lack of persistence in second language learning, 350 language-teaching practices in, 347349
notions of language proficiency in, 348349 promoting collaboration among language programs, 352353 student motivation for second language study, 349, 353 Universal Grammar, 3738, 42 Université Sainte-Anne, 192 University and College Intensive English Programs, 76 University College of the Cariboo, 205 University of Aberdeen, 204. University of Adelaide, 245246 University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 159161 University of Alberta, 192 University of California, San Diego, 8687 University of Cape Town, 261, 265 University of Central Queensland, 246 University of Connecticut, 6668 University of Darmstadt, 224225 University of Durban-Westville, 269270 University of Haifa, 218 University of Hawaii, 303, 312 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 312 University of Kansas, 6870 University of Lapland, 204 University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 291293 University of Maryland, College Park, 180181 University of Minnesota, 58 University of Moncton, 192 University of New Brunswick, 198 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 122124, 127 University of Northern British Columbia, 204 University of Ottawa, 198 bilingual education at, 192193, 200 distance education at, 199 overview of, 200 Second Language Institute, 200202 testing initiatives for French and English proficiency, 196 University of Port Elizabeth, 260 University of Pretoria, 265 University of Regina, 197 University of South Africa, 260, 268 University of Sydney, 236 University of Texas, Austin, 314316 University of Texas, El Paso, 96, 101, 106108 University of the North (South Africa), 269 University of Toronto, 197 University of Victoria, 198 University of Western Sydney, 248
University of Witwatersand, 261262, 266268 University of Zululand, 269 U-shaped learning, 3435
< previous page
page_379
next page >
< previous page
page_380 Page 380
V Vancouver, 189 Vancouver Community College, 204206 Variation systemic and free, 41 Vecenti, O. J., 159 Video technology ASL instruction and, 135136 in bilingual instruction, 315 Vietnamese, 52, 231 Vista Community College, 135 Vista University, 270 Vocabulary in ASL proficiency, 129 typical competency of foreign language learners, 169170 typical competency of heritage language learners, 167168 Vocational Rehabilitation Amendment of 1965 (US), 122 W WE TEACH Project, 291293 Whose Language? What Power? A Universal Conflict in a South African Setting (Smith), 262 "World-Englishes and Their Speakers" course, 292293 World Wide Web, see also Internet; Technology accessing resources on, 307 Canadian resources, 199 foreign language instruction and, 303 publishing on, 307 WRITE/RESPOND/INVENT software, 154 X Xhosa, 263, 265 Y York University, 193 Yukon, 188 Yukon College, 204 Yup'ik Eskimo, see Alaskan native languages Z Zulu, 263, 265, 267
< previous page
page_380
