Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Of the more than twenty background papers and studies commissioned by the
them use the term “foreign language” in the title. A close reading of many of these
papers provides a multitude of statistics about how many students were in foreign
language programs at the time of the Commission; how many were studying the less
commonly taught languages; reports on the status of funding for international high
schools; concerns about attitudes and experience; and the like. Another dimension to the
set of papers concerned specifically with foreign languages revolved around issues of
While the former papers are important for the insights they offer into a particular
moment, the statistics they provide are no longer of any particular relevance. And
indeed, many of the concerns raised by Fred Starr, for example, in Foreign Languages in
the American School have been met, in particular most recently through the impact of the
K-16 foreign language standards. A minority of papers was commissioned that targeted
foreign language study in its specifics: Helen Warriner, Foreign Language Teaching in
examine these papers from the perspective of university language instruction at a distance
of twenty years. It tries to answer the questions What were outlined as issues and what
2
specific proposals were made within the context of each paper? Did the proposals made
come to fruition? To what extent do any of these issues remain? Which proposals need to
historical backdrop that she offers provides a succinct version of the hapless history of
specifically, the world wars. While Warriner does not go into many of the details that
had placed the knowledge of a foreign language at the reading level she indeed notes that
a knowledge of anything but written language was a rarity on the part of an American
school student until the Second World War. As a result of military needs during the war,
she notes the importance of the federal training program such as the Army Specialized
Training Program and the subsequent influence of these federal programs throughout the
The beliefs engendered by the federal response during the war were felt
substantially in the public school and university system by the 1960s and came to be
called the audiolingual movement. Warriner importantly points out that the most critical
dimension to the federal influence was the change in beliefs—to include all language
skills—not just reading. More importantly, though Warriner argues that the change in
philosophy which at one level fed a “spirit of revolution” ultimately led to “confusion,”
and “eclecticism” on the part of language teachers. She states that despite the positive
3
spirit behind the discussion “many of us [language teachers] developed professional guilt
complexes or became lonesomely disaffected because no one was talking with realism to
us. We had so many torches of leadership at the front of the troops that we hardly knew
which to follow—and the torches didn’t always move in the same direction” (p. 50).
looks like.” This section provides lists of activities; an explanation of how instruction
should be planned; comments on the nature of class climate; and what kinds of results
should be expected. She notes: “The ability to speak is a reasonably dependable measure
of performance in all of the skills. The same cannot be said of the others” (p. 53).
Warriner notes that despite what is “known” about effective foreign language classes, she
laments teacher development programs, arguing that that is “the greatest dilemma.” She
says: “Shamefully little if any progress has been made in teacher education despite the
advancement of the science of teaching foreign languages. The opportunities for young
teachers today to gain access to the vastly improved knowledge about the science of
dropout rate; teacher morale; learning effects; expenses; the role of the teacher; and what
happens (or does not happen) in small districts. She ends that the profession needs “the
moral support that…an out-of-the-ranks group” can give (p. 57) and urges the re-
Report.
Benseler and Schulz were asked to report on the state of foreign language
instruction in terms of methodology and course construction. They were also challenged
to answer the question of how successful language programs are (what kinds of standards
they meet) and to plot future teaching methodology trends. Like Warriner, they cite the
call for eclecticism as the single unifying character behind foreign language teaching as
practiced in 1978-1979. Despite chaos at some level as the unifying factor, they do
embark upon a clear and succinct review of specific “methods” noted in the literature.
The three primary methods discussed by Benseler and Schulz are: 1) the
drills; 2) the direct or natural method characterized by an exclusive use of the target
Latinate grammatical paradigm with the goal of “developing reading comprehension for
literary, philosophical, or scientific/technical materials” (p. 61). They add then to their
list a set of methodologies practiced on a “relatively small scale” such as 1) the confluent
which takes its oral emphasis from dimensions of the physical world; from personas; and
from activities; 3) the silent way in which “the teacher attempts to lead students to
language production and to inductive insights about linguistic patterns” (p. 62); 4)
subconscious processes” (p. 63) for the learning and retention of vocabulary; and 5)
5
total physical response which relates the learning and retention of vocabulary and form to
physical action. After describing these techniques, specifically labeled in the literature as
“methods,” Benseler and Schulz mention immersion approaches. They note that “the
distinctive characteristic of such instruction lies in increasing and concentrating the time
In the next part of their paper, Benseler and Schulz briefly address issues of
enrollment, attitude, and success rates. They note, importantly, that while most students
enroll in foreign language courses because of “requirements” most indicate that they want
to attain oral proficiency from the course and have utilitarian objectives for language
learning. Also importantly, they note that when students have had instruction in
languages that the attrition rate in language knowledge is not as substantial as “one might
Benseler and Schulz completed their report with the following recommendations:
1) support for intensive and immersion foreign language experiences; 2) support for
research” 4) summer institutes for college-level teachers that help them acquire
knowledge about research and development in language learning research and that give
students.
MLA tests for secondary and college instruction as well as tests developed by Pimsleur
6
and by the various AATs and the College Board. All of these tests developed a speaking
session. Woodford contrasts these efforts with those in the “military, the Peace Corps,
the foreign service and the intelligence community” (p. 72) that developed operational
In the next section, Woodford begins to answer the question where should we be
in foreign language testing and how can we get there? He outlines three needs. First, he
argues for a “set of descriptors of foreign language ability that are based on real life
performance” (p.73). He wisely points out that one teacher’s A is another teacher’s B+
and that the meanings of such grades are generally fairly obscure. Therefore, he called
for the development of scales such as the FSI scale that could provide a “common
teachers so that they understand what they are testing and how to evaluate student
particularly in reading and writing to be based on authentic reading materials and real-
urges endorsement of the FSI scale for the development of the common yardstick and the
attached to the FSI scale. Second, regarding training programs for teachers he relies on
These papers are wonderful to read—they encapsulate the major issues of the time
and were in large part prophetic (admittedly, they were supposed to be); yet, in several
instances they discuss points or issues that just never surfaced again. In telegraphic style,
the three pieces can be summarized with the phrases eclecticism; methods and
example, the relationship between Warriner’s comments about eclecticism in the field of
foreign language teaching and Benseler’s and Schulz’ very structured outline of methods
is noteworthy. Warriner comments that there were so many “leaders” in the field that
teachers didn’t know which way to go; therefore, they went their own way (read:
eclecticism). Benseler and Schulz outline and discuss very specific methodological
procedures that were widely discussed in the field. One comes away wondering whether
they were discussed, but no one listened or whether they were merely discussed in
academic circles only to be modified in the “real world.” Warriner was a school-based
practitioner in the best sense of the word. Warriner had a practitioner focus. The data
cited in the Warriner report are based in discussions of how foreign language teachers
were thinking, feeling, and reacting. Benseler and Schulz, on the other hand, were
academics. There are citations and footnotes in their paper. Perhaps the two papers can
While it is true that Benseler and Schulz note that teachers often use a combination of
“methods”, this is never humanized the teaching process the way it is in Warriner.
The relationship between the Benseler and Schulz and the Woodford papers is
equally noteworthy. Benseler and Schulz outline procedures for teaching. Indeed, they
8
than seat time in their section on student expectation—not in the context of instruction.
writes about what the performance should like much like viewing a theater performance
The Aftermath of the 1979 Papers: Foreign Language Teaching over the Past Two
Decades
regarding for discussions of language teaching at the time: first, methods and approaches;
second, tests and measurement. This section of the paper examines each of these
categories in turn for what they meant for subsequent language instruction. Whether they
the concept of “method,” for example, is no longer with the profession; the concept of
tests and measurement is, in stark contrast, alive and well. The interaction of method and
In their paper, Benseler and Schulz cite the most common methods books used in
foreign language teacher education. The classic texts they list are Allen and Valette,
Languages; Rivers and others, A Practical Guide to the Teach of French (which also
included companion volumes on German, Spanish, and Russian; and Papalia Learner-
Centered Language Teaching: Methods and Materials. These texts remained as leaders
The books mentioned are products of their time—a time that had only a practice-
oriented literature and approach and no research base. The books are compartmentalized
and technique-oriented. Allen and Valette, probably the most frequently used text,
provides a flavor of the 1970s version of language teaching. Chapters are hierarchized
within units called “Presenting the Languages” and “Developing the Skills” in the
Writing. Against the backdrop of the Benseler and Schulz review, these chapters are
for example, provides evidence that supports the drill and kill notion behind
audiolingualism; the explanatory mode of cognitive; the notions of language use within
the direct method. The clear exception actually in all of the methodology books is the
example, Allen and Valette refer to translation with exactly 11 lines of text.
What these types of books tried to do was to provide a relatively thorough and
exhaustive treatment of foreign language teaching methodology – at least for the first-
words, one was to look up “reading comprehension” and find ten different way of
“teaching reading comprehension” in a very concrete manner much like the cookbook
approach (Lamb is what we have in the refrigerator. Let’s figure out something to do
with it.) Many of these books remained in production and are still produced.
This review should not be interpreted as the haughty post-modernist bash of the
1970s. All of the authors undertook a huge project: trying to communicate with
inexperienced teachers about how to “pull off” a language course. Their catalogue-like
approach was an enormous resource and convenience. Indeed, a huge portion of the
techniques reviewed in all of these books remain as viable techniques, used in any
“modern” instantiation of a language classroom. The books are also charming looks at
the past: the days of dittoes and overhead transparencies and opaque projectors. But
these kinds of books dispappeared from the scene. A last dying gasp of the large-scale
methods book was Omaggio, Teaching Language in Context, copyright 1986. This book
this juncture, however, because it is a reminder of the way in which methods of foreign
person authoring all of the components that go into a course; the concept of a “book”
encapsulating knowledge about the four skills; and the concept of a teacher being able to
ingest all of this information within the context of a course never to be revisited became
as outdated as leisure suits and platform shoes. The rejection of these concepts was
rooted in three key forces: the explosion of English language teaching across the globe as
teacher education; the recognition of the academic nature of understanding the teaching
and learning process in foreign languages and the concomitant development of a critical
mass of academics in the field. In other words, there was need; greater knowledge; and
significant numbers of professionals who understood the need and had the knowledge.
massive immigration and emigration is one of the key forces that led to the decline of
“methods”. Quite simply, there was no time for teachers to work through an entire
method. Teachers were faced with the reality of non-academic language learning—in
other words, many immigrants had neither the time nor the resources to cope with
traditional school learning. The forced march from present tense to past perfect subject
for use in academic papers was a very distant and mostly unrealistic need. Learners
needed to be able to understand health care professionals; needed to be able to get food,
clothing, health insurance and other immediate personal and familial needs; needed to
understand how to function in another language essentially yesterday. The notion of seat
already fully schooled professionals in homelands that either could not or would not
sustain them; other “students” were illiterate adults with families dependent on them.
The traditional notion of four skills; of practice with barely reasonable content; and of
delayed if ever positive outcome was completely at odds with the perceptions of adult
teachers and students. Limited resources and the notion of long term instruction for
languages were taught was enormous. Language classes in English were provided by
12
community agencies, civic groups, churches, clubs, and every conceivable educational
institution. Many books and articles in the 1980s and 1990s address these dilemmas
(Bernhardt, 1998; Scarcella, 1990;Tollefson, 1995). “Methods” were viewed as what one
learned in formal teacher education programs and formal teacher education programs did
not provide the staff for anything but formal educational programs--programs that
teacher education. Research in language learning meant the examination of the learning
of individual second language skills. Research into speaking led the profession to begin
to understand the concept of oral language development. Based in the research paradigm
of first language development, it became clear throughout the 80s that learners did not
learn and use forms in the order in which they were presented in traditional textbooks.
Learners don’t “learn” the present tense and then “learn” the past tense. They don’t
absorb all of the prepositions and then move on to adverbs. They learn to use multiple
grammatical functors and syntactic patterns over time. And many of these patterns are
distributed across the learning of previous forms (Ellis, 1994; VanPatten, 1998). These
findings were clearly at odds with the sequencing of grammatical forms in traditional
all the words and all of the syntactic patterns—in other words moving from adding words
and patterns together did not necessarily lead to understanding. In fact, sometimes
13
learners’ language knowledge was low, but knowledge of the world was high, enabling a
reader to appear to be quite fluent. And sometimes language knowledge was substantial
but the knowledge of a particular topic being read or heard was limited and therefore
But the education of teachers, too, took on a very different form from what it was
at the time of the President’s Commission. The concept of input into students equaling
output from students was questioned (Schulman, 1986). Rather than focussing on teacher
“behavior” (in other words which teacher behaviors lead to the highest achievement) the
question became which student activities lead to the best student performance and how
teachers conceptualized the art of teaching (Wittrock, 1986). Teacher cognition and
teacher development research signaled the complexities of teaching and re-directed all
fields (certainly not just foreign languages) toward decision-making approaches that shut
out formal procedural, how-to- kind of thinking that is more akin to folding paper
airplanes than dealing with human beings. The notion of the reflective practitioner
knowledge regarding the learning of second languages and new linguistic theories created
a very different context for how the profession thinks about teaching (Clark & Peterson,
1986) .
learning process in foreign languages and the concomitant development of a critical mass
of academics in the field was a third force that led to the demise of the notion of
“method.” The field of language teaching found its identity in the conflation of
14
revolves around skills and dimensions of skills such as the differences between oral and
informal settings; the interrelationships between first and second language literacies;
crosslinguistic patterns in oral language development; and so forth. The field looks at
these diverse pieces as elements in the fabric of language teaching that must be
understood and exploited rather than “teaching the four skills—listening, speaking,
reading, and writing.” Indeed there are global networks of persons who work in each of
with applied linguistics and of decoupling itself from literature study. Literature study
throughout the end of the twentieth century has been seen as a narrow project that has
little practical application to language learning (Kramsch, 1995; Bernhardt, 1995; Byrnes,
1995).
This is a generic global (re: worldwide) description. Most assuredly, the British
Council and especially English, Australian, and Canadian academics were at the forefront
(Trim, 1978) were major players on the world stage of language teaching; significant
work was also conducted in Israel. While foreign language academics in the United
States participated in and contributed toward what could be seen as a global movement,
the Americans had a particular take on the issue. That particular take came arguably
15
from the Federal Government and was initially launched through the mechanism of the
Proficiency Movement.
While Warriner and Benseler and Schulz all refer to the spirit of the criticality of
“seat time” versus proficiency (meaning what a learner can actually do at the end of the
seat time), it is the Woodford paper that details the specifics of proficiency through the
testing is an absolutely critical feature because it was the American contribution to the
world stage to focus on testing and to move from testing to instruction—not the other
way around. Given that the United States is the home of the Testing Industrial Complex
(no other society genuflects at the notion of creations such as the PSAT, SAT, GRE, AP,
MCAT, etc they way Americans do), it is not terribly surprising that language educators
as an American subset would begin at their natural beginning—with tests. But the
influence of the foreign service model built as it is on tests for both placement and
advancement in its system was enormous—also not terribly surprising since it would be
(actually it became known as the common yardstick) for measuring language proficiency.
This common measure was to be a gauge external to particular curricula—in other words,
no matter which textbook, set of objectives, quality of teacher, or length of seat time
devoted to language learning, this common yardstick would enable a sense of what
16
learners could or could not do with the language that they had learned at any given point
in time NOT what they did or did not KNOW about that language. The common
yardstick was to be based on the Foreign Service Institute Scale. This scale
…proficiency ranges are not equidistant from one another; that is, the
scale is not linear. Rather, the ranges become farther and farther apart
In order to generate data for the scale, a structured interview—an Oral Proficiency
Interview (OPI)—which probes through questions and role plays, the function (what one
can accomplish with language), content (themes and topics), and accuracy (grammar and
different light on the notion of “teaching method.” The question became one of what
does a teacher need to ask the students to do in order to come up with a particular end-
result defined by the FSI/ACTFL scale. In actuality, all methods listed above are able to
provide an answer to the question; some dimension of all the methods listed was able to
facilitate the development of oral proficiency. “Teaching for Proficiency” became the
hallmark of the period and its full spirit was embodied in Omaggio’s Teaching for
Institute model of assessing oral proficiency on the five-point scale mentioned earlier. It
takes that same organizational model and extends it to the other language skills. Each
17
activity listed in the book is contextualized within the notion of one of the levels on the
scale.
conducted throughout the 1980s and continue to this day. The points on the scale
professional vocabulary at the end of the century. University and high school language
programs from coast-to-coast have articulated their objectives within the proficiency
parlance. The plan as set forth by the Commission’s papers most especially that of
Woodford was fully articulated and in place within the two decades following the
President’s Commission. There is little surprise that the entire philosophy and its
“The Proficiency Movement” was not, however, without its critics on a number of
levels. First, within the profession of language teaching in the United States there was
serious concern about governmental interference in and control of the secondary and
came from the highly visible presence of government language school staff—most
especially from the National Security Agency and the Foreign Service Institute—in
training to the exclusion of other activities lent credence to these concerns. The rejection
18
Second, there was some clear counter evidence and counter opinions about the
Lantolf and Frawley (1986), Bernhardt (1991), and Lee and Musumeci (1988) all
provided evidence that the neat hierarchical Foreign Service Institute scales were not so
neat and perhaps not so hierarchical at all. The wholesale imposition of an oral language
scale of development on the other language skills created extreme tension among
academics. The tensions surrounding writing and reading and listening remain;
controversy surrounding oral language scale subsided in the 1990s. While there may be
many reasons for this including exhaustion and capitulation, one positive reason may
well be that there is considerably more emphasis on oral foreign language skills in the
last decades than ever before. The vast majority of the foreign language profession views
Many of the recommendations from the 1979 report were indeed accepted and
characterize the past twenty years. The past years are also characterized by a discussion
of teacher preparation also mentioned by the three sets of authors. In this domain,
however, the set of successes is less clear. While it is true that the authors all refer to
19
summer institute models for teacher preparation, the reality became (at least in the early
years beyond the President’s Commission) that those professional development programs
yet relatively constrained and limiting framework. Certainly, the act of teaching was
more complex and more skills were involved than oral skills at the beginning and
intermediate level. Hence, while the reports all refer to opportunities for training, it
remains unclear about how and in what kind of context that training should take place.
Further, several issues were never mentioned in the Commission report. A key
word not found in the President’s Commission report is technology. At the time of the
videoconferencing, email, the internet, cell phones, DVD, were the stuff of research labs
and scientists—certainly not commonly owned property let alone common features in
offices and schools. This is not to say, however, that the foreign language profession had
not danced with technology. It had, in fact, squandered millions in audio cassette
designed to document the effectiveness of the audiolingual approach and the ancillary of
the language lab. The failure of audio drilling to bring about language acquisition
coupled with the major professional embarrassment of the Pennsylvania Project may well
Perhaps having been once burned by technology caused the language teaching
profession to be rather shy about pursuing the topic in the past decades. Nevertheless,
“teaching with technology” and “technology and language learning” have become
20
materials contain video components and digitized material for drills and exercises.
Computer-based labs have emerged prompted in part by these materials; in part by the
immediacy of the global experience brought on by the internet; and, in part, related to the
Finally, the Report is silent on the issue of upper-level skills. While there are
papers that underline the importance of language for business and language for research
purposes, the foreign language papers never refer to these issues. These issues became
based language instruction were attempts at addressing the language use of learners
beyond the social survival skills. These latter issues indicate that, in the final analysis,
the foreign language profession has outlived the agenda of the President’s Commission
one could argue that being able to use what one learns in a variety of contexts for a
complex and multifaceted world might be a proposition that many could affirm. Given
that, support for the acquisition of all language areas—listening, speaking, reading and
writing-- is critical. While embracing all language skills might seem a bit trite, it is
21
critical to recall that at the turn of the century emphasis was placed exclusively on the
acquisition of reading skills (NEA, 1894); by the mid to late century that emphasis
became almost exclusively on oral skills (Coleman and Fife, 1949); and by the last
decades of the century, a re-thinking of the role of literacy in the acquisition and the use
of foreign languages took place (Byrnes, 1990). The next century should see language
programs that utilize all language skills—a key difference now being all language skills
each in the support of the acquisition of the other three. The Standards project brings this
concept into full view and should be embraced and supported. Research in teaching and
learning the writing and comprehension processes in second language learning (namely
reading and listening) should be funded. Federal support for the past several years has
been substantially and rightfully targeted at oral proficiency; yet, for the future, the
literacy skills need to be considered. Questions such as the balance of literary and
expository material in the curriculum; notions of text support such as online dictionaries,
hypertext links; and how the literacy skills link, buttress, and enhance oral skills are
sequences.” This too perhaps might be an issue on which all are able to claim common
ground. In language learning—like in most learning—the longer one stays with it, the
better the learning. The Commission reports refer explicitly to the disjuncture between
high school and college, but offer few suggestions. Projects like the Articulation Project
sponsored by the Modern Language Association that pairs and partners school districts
and institutions of higher learner must be scrutinized and supported for the knowledge
they develop and deliver. When faculties are able to understand the cultural context of
22
each other and able to find common objectives and understandings—much like a relay
Perhaps another area of common ground is the notion of time. Time is probably
the most valuable commodity in any instructional setting. Rather than questioning in the
20th century way of what “method” or set of procedures a teacher in a given setting uses
or does not use, a more modernist question is whether there are ways in attaining that
same learning level in less time. Efficiencies in instruction – which activities and skill
practice must have a teacher/speaker present and which can be done in isolation – would
issue is not one of the initial licensure and then some summer institutes sprinkled here
and there. It is clear that teachers do not have significant time for professional
development; at present they are asked to give up significant amounts of their private
time for teacher development activities. Currently, professional development for other
professions takes the form of attendance at professional conferences. While this will
continue, problematic for teachers is that they cannot leave their students in the hands of
another caretaker without paying for their replacements. The financing of schools is such
significant hardships either on them, their fellow teachers, on their school districts or
development activities on their own turf are currently unavailable. The financial and
time costs involved in professional development are often prohibitive. And, clearly,
23
issues of language proficiency, its growth, and maintenance for teachers are still in need
of serious consideration.
Recommendations
which teaching foreign languages was constructed for the remainder of the century and,
probably most importantly, provided the blue print for Federal funding throughout the
1980s and 1990s. In many ways, the document served the foreign language profession
and the nation admirably. With the anniversary of its 1979 publication in 1999, the time
has come for a new generation to examine the issues and to determine whether the initial
challenges have been met; the extent to which new challenges have developed; and to
recommend a plan to meet and exceed those challenges in the new century. Clearly, the
provide critical foci for the study of foreign languages in the new century.
1. Additional support for researching and developing knowledge about literacy skills
(namely reading and writing) and how best to teach them is critical. Knowledge
among the literacy and oral skills; and about the interaction of content knowledge and
2. Support for research programs that analyze and teach upper-level language skills (i.e.,
important. The past twenty years has seen understandings regarding basic language
nature of activities and materials involved; the role, if any, of study abroad in the
programs and the language needs of the other professions should be undertaken and
should take the form of how these tools bring efficiencies to language instruction;
whether they enhance or impede learning; and how teachers can best be taught to
level language skills are also critical. Such examinations should provide insights into
conventional course structures; and actual costs of providing such language training.
Teacher Development
contexts (face-to-face; electronic; distance learning; self study, etc) for teacher
7. Investigations of how best to help teachers maintain and enhance their foreign
language skills must also be undertaken. Questions such as how best to use out-of-
country time should be posed as well as whether home country experiences can take
development processes and given the current minimum requirements for teaching
assistant training, how university literature programs can best prepare their students
for modern (in the 21st century sense) language teaching is a critical question.
Whether it remains possible for effective graduate student training for language
Works Cited
Allen, Edward D., & Rebecca Vallette. (1977). Classroom Techniques: Foreign
Jovanovich.
the Modern United States. In Heidi Byrnes, Ed., Learning Foreign and Second
Macmillan. 255-296.
Ellis, Rod. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Grittner, Frank. (1977). Teaching Foreign Languages. New York: Harper and Row.
Lantolf, James, & William Frawley. (1985). Oral Proficiency Testing: A Critical
Lee, James, & Diane Musumeci. (1988). On Hierarchies of Reading Skills and Text
Rivers, Wilga. (1975). A Practical Guide to the Teaching of French. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Rivers, Wilga. (1981). Teaching Foreign Language Skills. 2nd Ed. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Shulman, Lee. (1986). Paradigms and Research Programs in the Study of Teaching: A
Cambridge.
Macmillan.