Responsibilities of Member States for language instruction

Lorna Carson
Centre for Language and Communication Studies
Trinity College
Dublin
carsonl@tcd.ie

Introduction

In this short paper, I will briefly explore an outline of some responsibilities of EU member states in the field of language instruction. Before I begin, I would like to clarify my understanding of 'responsibility', and tell you I will not be examining this concept from a legal or political viewpoint, but instead from the perspective of an applied linguist, as a teacher of French and English, and a researcher in learning theories.

I will examine a few of the key points for consideration in any informed debate about the future of language instruction, and will explore the current situation, looking at areas where change would be welcome both in perceptions and practice in language teaching and learning.

Successful language instruction

But firstly, how would I define successful language instruction? Well, in short, it means enabling learners to communicate spontaneously in their target language. For years, accuracy was valued above all else, and the native speaker model acted as a global maximum attainment level, clearly out of reach of all but a few talented individuals. This has changed in many (although not all) language classrooms and departments across Europe. The importance of being able to operate through the target language has been be recognised, and in terms of assessment, what should first of interest is whether learners can successfully perform communicative tasks in the foreign language and only secondly what degree of formal accuracy characterises their performance. (Little, 2003:33). Moving away from the native speaker model, we should also validate partial competencies in foreign languages, and realise that not all proficiency levels will be equal across skill areas.

Language teaching and learning today

The current situation in language instruction is familiar to all present. Talking to language teachers, many feel that much of their time is taken up with 'jumping through hoops', trying to prepare pupils for the various tests and examinations around which the school curricula revolve. Language learning is often separated from language use, and leads to learners forgetting almost everything they have ever learned.

Talking to language learners, we hear of many who leave the language classroom after 5, 10 or 14 years of language instruction, only to say, "I learned French (or Swedish, Italian, Irish…) but I can't speak a word of it". Pupils in language classrooms often see it as a subject like any other school discipline, and in many cases, an easy option. We know this is not the case. Language is like no other school subject. In many ways, language ability is what organises our cognitive ability, it is our window on the world in terms of knowledge of self and others, and a badge on our sleeve, a sign of our identity and our belonging.

Successful language instruction, helping develop the ability to conduct spontaneous natural communication about topics of interest and importance of speakers, is often undersold to learners. Today we preach to the converted, but it does no harm to remind ourselves that successful foreign and second language instruction is of vital importance in individual lives, in terms of developing skills for life, extended personal and behavioural options, and enrichment for both speakers and wider society. So what issues should our leaders be aware of?

Our understanding of teaching and learning

Crucially, there must be a major change in the way languages are taught, and in our understanding of language learning. It is no exaggeration to say that most schools and universities across Europe are out of step with current research in Second Language Acquisition. Of course, there are exceptions, and it is these exceptions that we must learn from. To sum up current research, it can be said that the successful development of proficiency in spontaneous oral communication depends crucially on implicit (unconscious) processes that are activated by attempts to use the target language and fed by interaction with a large and varied diet of target language input. (Little, 2003:33). We learn a foreign language through using it - by speaking and writing -, through authentic responses to authentic input.

This for example leads to an seemingly obvious conclusion, that all language instruction, indeed all classroom talk, should be conducted through the medium of the target language, from the very first class onwards. Classroom teaching which concentrates on teacher initiation, learner response and teacher feedback, dominated by noses in textbooks, will not provide enough language input for learners.

Instead, initiatives such as the Council of Europe's European Language Portfolio, are to be welcomed. The European Language Portfolio supports the development of learner autonomy in the language classroom, where pupils are involved in planning and evaluating their own learning, and have choice in the content of their learning. As well as developing valuable life skills such as the ability to self-assess, and to set and work towards personally relevant goals, current research suggests that linguistic outcomes are also be enhanced. Learners quickly develop the ability to initiate conversations in the target language, and relate to real life situations and roles.

Comparing qualifications

The issue of comparing qualifications in the field of language instruction is a minefield. Employers, careers officers, teachers and pupils alike have all welcomed the inclusion of a European 'Language Passport' in the European Language Portfolio. It employs common reference levels of language proficiency, recognises linguistic experiences both in and out of the formal language classroom, and validates partial competencies. This has been piloted across Europe, and in my opinion its value cannot be overstated.

Possible dangers

Revising our understanding of teaching and learning, and moving beyond opaque qualifications are both high on any applied linguist's wishlist. But will either of these points be relevant if languages are dropped from school and university curricula? If member states really espouse a 'unity in diversity' model, they should realise that making languages an optional extra and hoping that learners will choose small languages (or even any language at all), they should heed research by Eurydice that demonstrates where pupils are free to choose languages, they opt for the same ones as those that are compulsory elsewhere. Thus English remains the most popular language, followed by French and German. So-called regional and minority languages will continue to be marginalised in favour of 'big' languages,

Or what about the UK and Ireland, are foreign languages in danger of disappearing altogether? Decreased student numbers have led to the closure of some language departments in British universities. Not all matriculation requirements at third level institutions in Ireland continue to demand a foreign language and Irish. How many years before schools make languages an optional extra in these countries?

This move towards more 'economical' solutions is understandable to a certain degree: language learning is seen by many as a long-term investment to be undertaken whilst considering the choices made by others. The languages we elect to learn are generally those which give us an added advantage in our jobs, and allow us to communicate with a large number of people.

Two-tier language society

However, beyond the very real threat of loss of linguistic diversity and ensuing language death, there is also the danger of a new linguistic elite emerging, leading to what many envisage will be a two-tier European society of language haves and have-nots where those who do speak a number of languages would have a clear competitive advantage over those who don't.

Language classes, and indeed bilingual sections of schools, should not be reserved for the more academic, or fee-paying, pupils. Folk wisdom would have it that people who are successful language learners have a special aptitude. It should be very clear that language learning is not just for the academically gifted or for those who can afford to go to schools where more languages are offered. Many schools throughout Europe unfortunately continue to stream their pupils and reserve some language classes for the top stream (as is often the case for German classes). The slogan of the European Year of Languages, Languages for all, is not widely believed by many people beyond 'European' circles. We should also be aware that the private sector is ready to step in where national measures are lacking.

Language myths

Myths continue to be perpetuated in the field of language teaching and learning - regarding the utility of some languages, and the ease of learning others, why some people manage to learn languages, and why some don't. A counterweight to these urban myths is required, and member states are in a prime position to ensure that their decisions do not further language stereotypes.

I would like to stress the need for debunking these language myths, romantic myths about language and nation state, language and culture, myths about languages and their speakers, myths about language itself. We need to discuss language, and language instruction, in a rational manner if we are to find solutions befitting a modern and enlarged Europe. In particular, we need to move away from discussions about language instruction in terms of the different languages concerned, and concentrate on the language learners. Theo van Els, in a recent talk at Trinity College, Dublin, stressed the need to focus on speakers of languages when discussing future language solutions in the EU. I would embrace his opinion, and extend this to the future language learners, both in terms of which languages people need to learn, and their learning needs once they are in the language classroom.

Conclusion

In conclusion, although this brief address is certainly a oversimplified wish list, I believe there is a time for simplification and idealism, particularly on such an occasion as this symposium.

The complexities of decision makers' responsibilities in the field of language instruction are undeniable, but as a practitioner and a researcher, I would not hesitate to call for a major revision of member states' understanding of language teaching and learning, embedded in classroom research. This should be accompanied by moves to make our understanding of successful language instruction transparent across borders, in an effort to ensure that languages remain a viable choice, and to overcome the false perception that languages are only for some talented learners.

Successful language instruction leads to enhanced lifestyles for speakers, greater personal mobility, improved communication and closer co-operation. This wish list is relevant both for individuals and member states, not least in the promotion of democratic citizenship, tolerance and integration. The responsibility of member states in these policy areas is another story…

back to main page of Symposium
back to documents' list

References

Carson, L. (ed.) 2003. Multilingualism in Europe: A Case Study. Brussels: Peter Lang.

Coulmas, F. (ed.) 1991. A Language Policy for the European Community: Prospects and Quandaries. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Eurydice, 2001. Profile of Foreign Language Teaching in Schools in Europe. Brussels: Directorate General for Education and Culture, European Commission.

Little, D. 2002. An alternative approach to university language testing. In J.A. Coleman, R. Grotjahn & Raatz U. (eds.), University Language Testing and the C-Test. Bochum: AKS-Verlag.
Van Els, T. Languages of and for the European Union. Paper presented at an evening conference at the Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College, Dublin. April 2003.