This volume begins with the warning that a crisis is about to happen within the field of FL education and that drastic measures will need to be taken to avoid it. In truth, such apocalyptic warnings are common in the literature (for a description of the use of this rhetorical tool, see Gee, 1990). This can be easily explained by the fact that, as Klein (2007) has so meticulously documented in her work, there is no better recipe to promote new agendas—be they political, educational, or other—and provoke rapid change than the use of the fear factor. But our warning is not a scheme to convince readers to rally to our side, although, in all fairness, we hope they will in the end. As the following sections will illustrate, solid evidence demonstrates that most conventional, school-based FL programs currently in place fail to deliver when it comes to achieving what we consider their primary mission: to motivate students to persist in learning a language during and after their formal schooling years.
Failure of a System
How many of us have heard people we encounter (close friends or family, complete strangers) say something along these lines when describing their language learning experience in school? “I took French, but I never really liked it, and I was never good at it. I can say a few words like Bonjour, comment allez-vous? but that’s about it.” When it comes to the U.S. K–12 FL educational context, for instance, general apathy toward language learning and little success in second language (L2) acquisition among the majority of Americans persist despite what the field has learned about the benefits of L2 acquisition and despite the clear need the United States has to develop a bi-, indeed multilingual, citizenry. This situation is not unique to the United States, however, as skill-driven FL programs are still the norm in many countries around the world.
Anyone involved in FL education should feel concerned by the fact that precious few language learners in the United States or other countries around the world exit secondary school or universities with a level of language proficiency that appropriately reflects the time they’ve invested in attempting to learn that language. In the particular case of the United States, a recent, large-scale study by Oregon’s Center for Applied Second Language Studies (CASLS), one of the national Foreign Language Resource Centers in the United States, 1 provides a sobering account regarding the state of affairs in FL education:
The majority of students studying a foreign language in a traditional high school program reach benchmark level 3 or 4 by the end of the fourth year of study, regardless of the language studied. These levels are similar to the ACTFL [American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages] levels Novice-High and Intermediate-Low. 2
(CASLS, 2010, p. 1)
In other words, after four years of study, students can only communicate with predictable, memorized phrases, and are just beginning to develop the ability to use the language forms they know in a novel fashion (ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, 2012; Martel, 2013).
These appalling outcomes have little, if anything, to do with people’s capacity to learn languages. Certainly there are individuals who have special aptitudes when it comes to language learning (e.g., more efficient information processing capabilities, keen ability to discriminate sounds). Nevertheless, we know that if an individual has been able to acquire one language, he or she has the ability to develop a sufficient level of control in at least one additional language. Why, then, do apathy and lack of success with language learning persist in the United States? While there are many reasons that contribute to these patterns (see, for example, Reagan & Osborn, 2002), we believe that a major culprit resides in the nature of today’s K–12 and post-secondary FL programs. By and large, their curricular structures are grammar driven and skills based, and fail to connect with learners’ lived experiences. Such structures fail to entice students to learn languages or use them beyond the classroom walls, and prevent the development of advanced literacy skills that foster higher levels of thinking. Indeed, this curricular dilemma is not unique to the United States; in other countries around the world grammar-driven language teaching remains pervasive. It is important to point out, however, that contexts vary greatly, and in the case of Europe, the proximity of and exposure to speakers of some of the most popular languages taught in school (e.g., English, Spanish, French, German) may at times compensate for the lack of effectiveness of conventional school-based foreign language programs. Regardless of the geographical context and possibilities of exposure to the target language, school-based FL programs around the world can play an important role in ensuring that learners continue to pursue language learning beyond their formal school years. Thus, it is essential for us to (re)examine our vision and figure out more effective ways to engage learners in the pursuit of language learning.
Re-envisioning FL Education as a Discipline: Where Should We Begin?
Motivation represents an engine crucial to the learning of second and foreign languages (e.g., Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Dörnyei, 2001; Gardner, 1985, 2001; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003; Nakata, 2006; Spolsky, 2000; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995), which means that the process of re-envisioning FL education as a discipline should begin with figuring out better ways to entice language learners to participate fully and wholeheartedly in the language learning experience within and beyond the classroom setting. Ideally, we would like to see students who feel compelled to study the materials provided in class, participate in the tasks, and use language for their personal pleasure outside of class (goals articulated as important by both the ACTFL as well as the Council of Europe 3). Such goals imply, among other things, that we need to reconsider what it is we ultimately want students to learn beyond the basic skills, that is, the ability to read, write, speak, and understand. In other words, we must rethink our approaches to instruction as well as the content we utilize to teach languages in order to better connect with students’ lives and interests here and now. But prior to defining what it is we want to do—that is, what goals we should pursue beyond the mastery of discrete language skills, what curricular approaches would be most effective to implement such goals, and what content other than language would be most appropriate to contextualize language instruction in this context—we must first clarify what it is we believe the field can do best. In other words, we must appraise its potential beyond the obvious communicative benefits we are all aware of.