The Art of Teaching Russian

Evgeny Dengub, Irina Dubinina, Jason Merrill, Evgeny Dengub, Irina Dubinina, Jason Merrill

• Publisher: Georgetown University Press
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN:
  9781647120023
  9781647120016
• eBook ISBN:
  9781647120030
• Topic: Filología
• Subtopic: Idiomas

The Art of Teaching Russian offers Russian-language practitioners current research, pedagogy, and specific methodologies for teaching the Russian language and culture in the twenty-first century. With contributions from the leading professionals in the field, this collection covers the most important aspects of teaching the Russian language.

PART I

THE STATE OF THE PROFESSION

1
LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow

Aline Germain-Rutherford

Language learning is not isolated, but totally enmeshed with all important issues for the future of humanity. (Fischer, 2012, p. 23)

Perhaps the best way to start this chapter on language education in the United States is to quote an elementary school student who, in a video produced in 2014 by the Baltimore County Board of Education to promote the teaching of Spanish in elementary schools, explained why learning Spanish as a second language was special to her: “I think it is a good idea for kids to learn about Spanish because it’s important and you can learn more about the world and you can speak with more people” (BCPS-TV, 2014). This little girl is right. In today’s globalized world, learning languages and developing cross-cultural understanding can change our lives. These essential activities have important political and economic impact, and proficiency in world languages and intercultural awareness can have a transformative effect on our contemporary societies (della Chiesa et al., 2012). Numerous studies show, for instance, that sharing a common language increases the number of trade opportunities and that, conversely, communication barriers caused by a lack of cultural knowledge and language skills have a negative effect on business (della Chiesa et al., 2012; Helliwell, 1999; Hutchinson, 2002).

Paradoxically, in a country that throughout its immigration history has absorbed millions of speakers of languages other than English, “the American experience is remarkable for its near mass extinction of non-English languages” (Rumbaut, 2009, pp. 36–37). In his study analyzing immigrants’ native-language retention rates from 1980, 1990, and 2000 U.S. Census data, Rumbaut (2009) identifies a pattern of language loss in which third-generation immigrants use English as their dominant and preferred language and retain very little of their mother tongues: “To the extent that language fluency is an asset and that knowledge of a foreign language represents a scarce resource in a global economy, immigrants’ efforts to maintain that part of their cultural heritage and to pass it on to their children certainly seem worth supporting” (p. 55).

Unfortunately, language education in the United States is often overlooked when national and state education budget priorities are determined (Aujla, 2009; Friedman, 2015; Pufahl & Rhodes, 2011; Rivers & Robinson, 2012; Stein-Smith, 2016). And although more than 60 million people over the age of four in the United States today speak a language other than English at home, this number represents only 20.7% of the total population of that age. This number contrasts markedly with the 231 million people who speak only English at home (US Census Bureau, 2015; American Academy of Arts and Sciences [AAAS], 2017):

Most Americans do not speak another language, and the percentage of college students who are enrolled in a course in a language other than English has decreased from 16% in 1960 to 8% at the present time, this at a time when globalization has made knowledge of other languages and cultures exponentially more important to our economic and national security, as well as to our own ability as individuals to effectively navigate our multicultural communities and to enjoy to the fullest the experience of and interaction with other cultures. (Stein-Smith, 2014, p. 42)

This chapter presents a historical look at foreign language education in the United States and discusses why there is hope for better prospects in the future teaching and learning of languages other than English.

LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE UNITED STATES

The history of language policies and education in the United States is complex and checkered, and it has been largely influenced and shaped by the fluctuating feelings of national identity American citizens felt at different times in their history. In its early days the United States did not legislate language issues, and immigrant communities settling in the country were quite free to establish bilingual schools where both the language of the community and English were taught and used because “although the authors of the Constitution ultimately decided not to endow English with a special legal status, they assumed that English would develop as a common language in the United States” (Schmid, 2001, p. 15).

In fact, until an open immigration policy in the 1830s and 1840s encouraged large numbers of newcomers to settle in the United States, bilingual instruction was not unusual and was even legislated in several states, in both private and public schools (Macías, 2014; Schmid, 2001). Germans formed the largest immigration group throughout the first half of the 19th century, and despite the fact that they settled in largely unpopulated areas of the country, they were able to influence local governments to establish bilingual schools and even entirely German schools (Leibowitz, 1971). Involuntary linguistic assimilation processes, however, were also important forces shaping the linguistic landscape of the country. African languages, spoken by enslaved Black Africans brought to North America, were forcefully repressed with the compulsory ignorance laws that prohibited the Black population from learning how to read and write any languages; they were taught a circumscribed version of English that was just adequate enough to understand commands (Macías, 2014). Similarly, Native Americans were prevented from speaking their mother tongues, and government schools for Native American children were conducted exclusively in English (Leibowitz, 1971). In the off-reservation residential schools begun in 1879, “English-language instruction and abandonment of the native language became complementary means to the end” (Leibowitz, 1971, p. 70). Notably, all these language policies were driven by localized political, social, and economic factors and not by a systematic ideology about language itself (Macías, 2014; Nieto, 2009; Ovando, 2003; Schmid, 2001; Simon, 1980).

From the late 19th to the early 20th century large numbers of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe came to the United States and were able to fill the many unskilled positions the expanding economy was creating. They were, however, perceived as less educated and thus less able to be integrated easily into American society than previous immigrant groups from northwestern European countries such as Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. This negative perception contributed to a strong sense of national identity that included the desire to restrict entrance of others into the United States. This resentment resulted in the 1906 revision of the Naturalization Act to declare “the first English-language requirement for naturalization” (Schmid, 2001, p. 34), which contributed to a profound reduction of bilingual instruction in the United States (Nieto, 2009).

World War I amplified this resistance to linguistic and ethnic diversity and in 1917 led to an amendment to the Espionage Act, which required all foreign-language newspapers to provide English translations of articles about the war, and in 1919 led 15 states to legislate English as the sole language of instruction (Schmid, 2001). This number quickly grew to 34 states by 1923 (Leibowitz, 1971). Americanization classes, which presented a glorified and ethnocentric image of American society, were introduced in numerous urban schools to help integrate recent immigrants (Macías, 2014; Ovando, 2003).

Adding to the anti-immigrant xenophobia of the 1920s, the scientific community of the time, relying on new psychometric tools based on standardized IQ tests and research methodologies that did not control for socioeconomic status as a variable (Barac & Bialystok, 2010), published reports and studies about the negative effect of bilingualism on first language acquisition and cognitive development. The results of these studies had a strong negative impact on language education and led to a significant reduction of bilingual and foreign language instruction in schools.

With the outbreak of World War II, monolingual Americans found themselves disadvantaged and unprepared for war. This shortage of speakers of other languages prompted the federal government to fund the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP), a large US wartime program for foreign language teaching, in order to address the need for American soldiers to become orally proficient in the languages of their allies and enemies. The ASTP was based on a new approach to language training developed in 1941 by the American Council of Learned Society (ACLS), which had anticipated the need for efficient language training. Funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, this new approach focused on learning to speak a language, contrary to the long-established norm in language education of putting an emphasis on reading and writing (Moulton, 1963). In 1942 a small group of linguists headed by J. Milton Cowan developed the Intensive Language Program, which included “no less than 56 courses in 26 languages at 18 universities, involving a total number of some 700 students” (Moulton, p. 85). Even after ASTP was terminated in 1944, linguists and language teachers saw how intensive method focusing on speaking skills could significantly benefit language instruction in schools and colleges. In 1946 Cowan adapted the ASTP approach to college language teaching at Cornell University, with the additional inclusion of reading instruction. In the late 1950s, during the Cold War and the Sputnik era, the National Defense Education Act contributed funds to help high schools and colleges implement adapted versions of the ASTP, with a primary emphasis on listening and speaking to be followed later by instruction in reading and writing (Moulton, 1963). Larger numbers of students were able to learn foreign languages in schools using newly installed language laboratories funded by Title III-A of the National Defense Education Act and Title VI-A of the Higher Education Act: “Unquestionably, the 1960s were the golden years of the language laboratory. There was an explosion in the number of facilities, thanks to generous federal support. [. . .] Keck and Smith claimed: ‘By mid-decade an estimated 10,000 language laboratories had been installed in secondary schools; 4,000 more could be found in institutions of higher learning (1972, p. 5)’” (Roby, 2004, p. 525).

Nonetheless, this increase in foreign language enrollments in schools and colleges was short-lived. In the 1970s and 1980s, “increased immigration and concentration of newcomers in a few states and metropolitan areas [fostered] the perception that immigrants [were] no longer learning English” (Schmid, 2001, p. 41), which reignited a strong sense of national identity and a rejection of languages other than English.

Some hoped that the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 would help to promote linguistic diversity in the United States. Indeed, while recognizing the unique education needs of children in US schools with limited English-speaking ability (LESA), the act, also called Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, stipulated that government funding would be provided to school districts through competitive federal grants for bilingual education program development and research, staff training, and educational resources. However, the ambiguity of the goals of the program and the lack of guidelines for the instruction of LESA students instead reinforced a perception that students who had been educated for a few years in both their mother tongues and English should assimilate quickly and transition into the English stream as soon as possible (Crawford, 2007; Nieto, 2009; Ovando, 2003; Schmid, 2001; Stewner-Manzanares, 1988): “The goal of a bilingual program was to prepare LESA students to participate effectively in the regular classroom as quickly as possible” (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988, p. 3).

The 1979 publication of the report “Strength through Wisdom: A Critique of U.S. Capability” by the President’s Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies revived the debate on the language skills deficit in the United States and proposed important recommendations “to extend the knowledge of other civilizations to the broadest population base possible and to build these topics into the general curricula for students of all ages at all levels of study throughout the nation” (Bullard, 1979, p. 1).

In an attempt to compare language education in the United States with language education elsewhere in the world, Rep. Paul Simon contacted all the nations that had an embassy in Washington and asked them to describe the language requirements in their school systems. After 77 nations responded, Simon (1980) commented that “none can compare with the United States in neglect of foreign languages” (p. 77). In 1991, 10 years after the publication of his book The Tongue-Tied American: Confronting the Foreign Language Crisis, now-senator Simon looked back at the previous decade and could only observe that the United States still needed to address a foreign language deficit compared to other nations in the world and that although some recommendations of the President’s Commission on Foreign Languages and International Studies had been implemented, many challenges still remained (Simon, 1991).

Political movements such as US English, English Only, and English First, all advocating for making English the official language of the United States by lobbying the government to restrict state and federal funding for bilingual and foreign language programs, grew rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s. Although scientists in several countries had already begun to report on the positive impact of bilingualism on cognitive development, in 1998 California passed Proposition 227, which eliminated bilingual education throughout the state. It was soon followed by similar measures passed in Arizona in 2000, Colorado in 2...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part I. The State of the Profession
• Part II. The Teaching of Russian and the World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages
• Part III. Approaches to Teaching Russian
• Part IV. Curriculum and Materials Development
• Part V. Teaching Culture
• Part VI. Teaching and Learning Russian with Technology
• Editors
• List of Contributors
• Index