Try this

[Peter A. Thomas]

The conclusions and recommendations of the National Foreign Language Center's
study of the teaching of Russian in the US should be of interest to subscribers
to SEELANGS.  See below, past the forwarding messages.
Linda Scatton, State University of New York
----------------------------Original message----------------------------

--condor.ca.sunycentral.edu:813602648:1570177694:1511456809:-1996962318
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


-------------------------------------
>>From Peter A. Thomas
Director, IDAS
State University of New York
SUNY Plaza
Albany, NY  12246
THOMASPA at INTERRAMP.COM
518 443-5125    465-4992 (Fax)


--condor.ca.sunycentral.edu:813602648:1570177694:1511456809:-1996962318
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; SizeOnDisk=34994; name="RUSSIAN.TXT"; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Description: RUSSIAN.TXT

                     [Academe Today: Document Archive]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted October 12, 1995: the conclusions and recommendations of the
National Foreign Language Center's study of the teaching of Russian in the
United States:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  RUSSIAN IN THE UNITED STATES: A Case Study of America's Language
  Needs and Capacities

  CHAPTER SEVEN

  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

  The conclusions reached in this study point to the need for
  intervention strategies which strengthen national capacity in
  Russian as the most effective strategy, from the point of view
  of results and cost, for addressing national needs in the
  language. Accordingly, the recommendations of this report are
  directed at the Russian language field as a whole, specifically
  at strengthening the base structures of the field and the
  academic "flagship" programs. We leave aside discussion of the
  infrastructure elements-not because recommendations cannot be
  made, but for the sake of focusing on the most pivotal aspects
  of a very complex problem.

  Before stating the conclusions and recommendations following
  from the analysis in Parts 1 and 2, we provide the following
  underlying premises upon which they rest:

  First, recommendations must address strategic concerns, not
  necessarily the issues of the day. Any advantage provided by a
  report such as this must be fully exploited for the long term
  because the impetus and energy for reform cannot be of frequent
  occurrence.

  Second, the situation of Russian as a less commonly taught
  language (LCTL), with regard to both demand and supply
  (including student enrollments), most probably will not change
  in the foreseeable future. Even with demand rising, as it
  apparently is doing, the current level of that demand is low
  and will probably remain so in comparison with, say, Spanish.
  Accordingly, strategies are needed to maximize fieldwide
  resources in support of dispersed expertise and marginalized
  programs, particularly within the academic sector.

  Third, there are few additional resources available to foreign
  language in general, and Russian in particular, from either
  public or private sources. Public perceptions will not
  tolerate any major financial commitment to the field unless
  something drastic happens in that area of the world.
  Therefore, the primary strategy must focus on the reallocation
  of resources rather than on the securing of major new funding.

  Fourth, against this background of limited resources, those
  issues must be addressed that offer the greatest return for the
  investment. This means that resources should be directed at
  targets affecting fieldwide, cross-sector capacity. Collective
  action is needed to address problems common to institutions and
  sectors.

  Fifth, measures recommended must be realistic; that is, they
  have to have some chance of being adopted by the field. While
  leadership is needed, reform both at the field and at the
  institutional level must be perceived as addressing vital
  issues in a manner that does not threaten the professionals and
  the good they are presently doing.

  Finally, the future of education in general and language
  training in particular will include much more attention to
  individualized learning environments. Such environments are
  defined by their accessibility when and where the need for
  learning arises and by their direct relevance to the need
  provoking the learning. This type of "just in time, just in
  place, and just in need" learning presumes a heavy reliance on
  distance education and, in particular, on electronic
  networking. The professionalization of this
  distance-language-learning industry will depend on individual
  fields setting the standards and, where feasible, providing the
  centralized facilities that would enable the delivery of
  quality programs, courses, modules, and learning materials.

  With regard to the conclusions and recommendations of this
  report it must also be stated clearly that much more needs to
  be said about our national needs and capacity in Russian than
  the current study attempts. In part these omissions are a
  result of time pressures and resource constraints. However,
  the recognition of omissions is also a result of the
  comprehensive analysis attempted here, for the process of the
  study revealed what more such a study could and should do. For
  example, the model of analysis with which we are operating
  requires much more elaboration concerning national needs and
  demand than was possible to include here. What are our
  national needs with regard to communicating with Russians and
  Russian speakers?  How can we determine them in the near and
  the long term?  What are the exact tasks demanded and the
  domains, skills, levels, and modes required?  We also need to
  understand better the supply system, in particular just what is
  being produced and how it matches the tasks demanded. And how
  can this characterization of supply impact on capacity in
  general and on educational programs in particular?  These and
  similar questions provoke the first recommendation we make
  below.

  CONCLUSIONS

  Before turning to recommendations, it is appropriate to
  summarize the principal conclusions of this study.

  All indications point to a long-term national need for
  linguistically competent users of Russian in the United States.
  The meager actual demand and current low student enrollments
  belie the importance of effective interactions between Russia
  and the United States in the foreseeable future (Chapter 1).

  While the market forces of supply and demand seem to be
  sufficient at the present time, there are clear indications
  that the supply system is not operating efficiently and that
  its ability to respond to projected increases in demand is
  uncertain. The argument for inefficiency derives from the fact
  that the federal and private sectors feel the need to invest
  significant resources in language training facilities on top of
  those already supporting existing language programs in schools,
  colleges, and universities. Questions concerning the ability
  to respond to shifts in demand derive from deficiencies in the
  field architecture that underlies national capacity as well as
  from the failure on the part of the supply sectors to interact
  in a manner to make cumulative their experience, resources, and
  expertise (Chapters 2 and 3).

  The supply system, in particular the academic sector, is not
  producing a sufficient number of program graduates at a high
  enough level of competence in Russian. Enrollments are
  declining at a time when they should be increasing, and the
  levels of student competence produced do not instill sufficient
  confidence in enterprises anxious to hire Russian-proficient
  students directly out of school (Chapter 2).

  Our national capacity in Russian, as defined by fieldwide
  architecture, including flagship programs, can be significantly
  improved. Each aspect of the field architecture can be
  enhanced, while some entirely new elements should be added
  (Chapter 3).

  Undergraduate programs could benefit significantly by
  restructuring and by reallocating resources. Refocusing on the
  applied mission and reallocating resources to the higher levels
  of instruction are legitimate issues for consideration (Chapter
  4).

  High school programs are in need of support, particularly with
  regard to teacher training and the support of flagship
  programs. The marginalized status of Russian teachers and
  programs must be mitigated, while the fate of flagship programs
  cannot be left entirely in the hands of "adolescent market
  forces" (Chapter 5).

  RECOMMENDATIONS

  The recommendations that flow from these conclusions are broken
  down here into the following categories:  (1) those addressing
  the overall system of language needs in the United States; (2)
  those addressing directly national capacity in Russian in the
  form of field development and strengthening; and (3) those
  addressing Russian programs in the schools and the colleges and
  universities.

  The Overall System of Language Needs in the United States

  Recommendation 1:  A national database should be constructed
  and maintained that provides information on current and
  projected supply and demand, needs and capacity for Russian as
  well as for other languages.

  Rationale:  We simply do not have the data on what the national
  demand for Russian is, nor do we have a comprehensive picture
  of the supply that the five sectors are delivering, in terms
  both of numbers and of competency levels. On the strategic
  level, an estimation of current and future needs, let alone
  lost opportunities, is very difficult to make, nor is there an
  accepted definition of capacity. The remedy for this situation
  is data. The nation needs a data collection process that builds
  on what is already being collected by private and public
  associations, agencies, and institutions. This effort might
  take the shape of a "Center for Language Statistics" whose
  purpose would be to bring together electronically all the data
  being collected into one central base, making the data
  compatible, filling in the lacunae, adjusting to changing data
  requirements, comprehensively analyzing the data, and broadly
  disseminating the data and results of analysis. Such a process
  could serve as a guide to policymakers and program designers in
  all five sectors. In addition, it would provide important
  information to students so that they could make informed
  judgments concerning language choice and expectations of
  proficiency as well as employment.

  Recommendation 2:  The United States should initiate a
  long-term language policy planning process aimed at addressing
  the strategic national needs for language in general and in the
  LCTLs and Russian in particular.

  Rationale:  This country has in place, on an ad hoc basis,
  language policy at the national, state, and local levels. The
  problem is that this policy is not explicit, nor are the
  policies at the different levels coordinated. Whether Russian
  or any other LCTL survives in the educational system depends on
  a myriad of local decisions, but the impact is indeed national.
  On the other hand, the major national resource represented by
  the rich diversity of our heritage communities is, for all
  intents and purposes, going to waste as we spend most of our
  effort inducing, for example, English speakers to learn Chinese
  and native-speaking Chinese to learn English. Language policy
  is important to this country and to the survival of Russian,
  and some more explicit process needs to be set in place that
  will begin to address the issues strategically on the national,
  state, regional, and local levels. This "National Language
  Strategy" needs to address the economic, political, and social
  aspects of language policy and begin to come to grips with the
  obstacles to and incentives for this country's having a
  citizenry able to deal with others in a language other than
  their native English.

  Recommendation 3:  A strategy must be devised to enable
  individuals as well as institutions to have "on demand" access
  to expertise, programs, and learning materials, all of which
  are accumulated centrally and answer to fieldwide standards of
  quality.

  Rationale:  The language learning needs called for in today's
  world entail the delivery of learning environments to more
  learners of more languages for more language functions. Given
  this vastly enlarged mandate, no institution or program can be
  expected to have the resources and expertise to provide the
  wide range of learning environments required. Nor is language
  learning any longer conceivable exclusively in terms of
  organized programs for young learners. The "just in time, just
  in place, and just in need" language learning delivery system
  has to be put in place, allowing learning on demand as
  professionals engaged in their careers encounter the need for
  language. Accordingly, each language field should have
  available one or more such "Language Resource Centers" devoted
  explicitly to its own needs (see below). Such centers should
  be sustainable because the services and materials they provide
  are valuable enough to survive on the "market."  However, it
  makes little sense for each field to have to develop its own
  electronic communications system, its own software development
  shop, its own video materials development facilities; nor is it
  reasonable to expect each LCTL field to have on its own the
  expertise needed to support such facilities. Such resources
  and expertise should be provided centrally, presumably in the
  form of a national language systems development and delivery
  shop. Again, in the interest of quality and
  cost-effectiveness, the existence of such a facility would
  greatly assist the establishment of the language-specific
  national resource centers, which in turn would make possible
  the kind of individualized instruction and program reform
  called for throughout this study.(1)

  Aspects of National Capacity: Field Development

  Recommendation 4:  Graduate education in Russian/Slavic should
  be reformed in order to produce more effectively the expertise
  needed to strengthen Russian language learning and teaching in
  the United States.

  Rationale:  The expertise base of the Russian field for all
  four domestic sectors depends on the graduate education
  provided by American institutions of higher learning. Given
  the dearth of professional second language acquisition (SLA)
  expertise in Russian, a special effort must be made to
  establish a set of flagship graduate programs in applied
  linguistics and Russian as a second language. Because of the
  sparseness of SLA expertise in existing faculties around the
  country, graduate programs so designed would have to be
  regional, serving areas of the country and drawing upon faculty
  from different institutions, presumably by means of
  telecommunications. The expertise required for such graduate
  programs would include anthropological, cognitive,
  sociological, and educational as well as linguistic.

  Recommendation 5:  Develop a fieldwide "Language Learning
  Framework."

  Rationale:  Russian programs at all levels of education and in
  all supply sectors are in need of standards by which students
  and policymakers can assess their success or failure. In
  particular, decisions regarding design of curricula, learning
  materials, and teacher training should be made on the basis of
  agreed-upon fieldwide standards defining what learning and what
  outcomes are expected for which goals. Such standards must be
  directed at defining what knowledge is required for what
  communication tasks, and how learners can design and manage
  their own learning under the conditions present in the local
  learning environment. Such a "Language Learning Framework" can
  then serve as a fieldwide guide to the design of language
  training programs, materials, and teacher training programs.
  It cannot dictate what each institution does, but it will allow
  local policymakers to place their program design and results in
  a national perspective.(2)

  Recommendation 6:  Develop and support a National Russian
  Language Resource Center.

  Rationale:  In order for reform to take place at the
  institutional level, as we discuss below, particularly reform
  directed toward a much broader menu of learning options, many
  more resources are needed than any one institution can muster
  on its own. Therefore, a strategy is needed to accumulate the
  resources of a field, particularly one with relatively sparse
  resources like Russian (as compared with French, for example),
  and distribute them to individuals for "just in time" learning
  or to programs that are in need of supplemental resources
  unavailable at the local level. One possible strategy is to
  develop a fieldwide national resource center that, for the most
  part, collects and distributes resources electronically. To
  assure quality, such a fieldwide enterprise should be overseen
  by a national panel of experts drawn from all five sectors. In
  addition, its existence should be validated by the demands made
  on it by programs around the country. In fact, if one center
  is not up to the task, competition from another is to be
  encouraged.

  Recommendation 7:  Develop a fieldwide planning process.

  Rationale:  The Russian field is facing a crisis within the
  academic sector as a result of significant reductions in
  student enrollments; these enrollment reductions threaten
  support for graduate students as well as the very existence of
  school, undergraduate, and graduate programs. (Such enrollment
  cycles have occurred in the past, but the changed status of
  Russia and the real possibility of greatly reduced federal
  funding suggest that merely waiting for the inevitable
  "upswing" may be futile.)  This problem has direct consequences
  far beyond the academic sector. On the one hand, diminished
  student enrollments reduce the pool of Americans knowing
  Russian from which other sectors draw. On the other hand,
  these reductions diminish the support for graduate students and
  put at risk the very existence of graduate programs, a direct
  threat to the future expertise base of the field. Thus, all
  sectors have a stake in addressing these and other issues
  raised in the present report. Unfortunately, though, the
  supply sectors have no experience either in collaboration or in
  strategic planning. Inaction, essentially relying on the
  natural course of events under these uncertain conditions,
  seems foolhardy, particularly when there is little risk in
  attempting such strategic planning and policy formulation.
  Therefore, we propose the establishment of a fieldwide task
  force, with representation from all the sectors and existing
  national organizations, including:  the American Association
  for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, the American Association
  of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages, the American
  Council of Teachers of Russian, the Center for the Advancement
  of Language Learning, the National Council of Organizations of
  Less Commonly Taught Languages, the National Foreign Language
  Center, the Foreign Service Institute, the Defense Language
  Institute, the Interagency Language Roundtable, AT&T Language
  Line Services, and any other interested stakeholder. The
  mandate of this task force is to develop an ongoing strategic
  planning process, based on a coordinated data collection
  system,(3) as well as to serve as a national voice for Russian
  in language policy discussions in the public and private
  sectors.

  This process should result in a mechanism to ensure information
  sharing and collaboration across all supply sectors. Equally
  important as developing a strategic planning and policy
  formulation process are the will and the means to turn
  strategic planning into action. At this point there are no
  mechanisms to enable all five supply sectors to become informed
  about one another, let alone to share valuable resources. This
  task force must develop a permanent venue, perhaps in the form
  of a National Russian Language Coordinating Council, that
  brings together representatives from the academic, heritage,
  private, and public sectors for the purpose at least of
  exploring the issues raised in this report and the possibility
  of concerted effort in their behalf. Effective communication
  of this entire process will require, at the minimum, the
  setting up of a page, or a set of pages, on the World Wide Web,
  thus enabling input and information dissemination nationally
  and worldwide.

  Recommendation 8:  Establish a national initiative to support
  flagship programs.

  Rationale:  As this report is being written, important programs
  in schools and in colleges and universities across the nation
  are coming under threat of reduction or elimination as a result
  of declining enrollments. Accordingly, a mechanism is needed
  to guarantee the continued existence of a critical mass of
  Russian language flagship programs in schools and universities,
  particularly in the current atmosphere of inattention to Russia
  and Russian. The initiative should include a range of
  measures, for example:

  * A national alert network, enabling the field to respond by
    providing testimony to policymakers who are threatening
    important programs.

  * A reform plan outlining a concrete agenda for strengthening
    both the attractiveness and the effectiveness of
    institutional flagship programs. This reform should be
    supported by the field in the form of assistance from the
    National Russian Language Resource Center, contingent upon
    agreement from administrators to leave institutional
    resources in place to implement the reform.

  * Private and public funding efforts aimed at providing some
    sort of temporary subsidy to flagship programs to prevent
    marginal enrollments from eliminating whole courses or
    eliminating entire programs. (On the school level this
    subsidy can take the shape of support for exchanges with
    Russia, which is a proven method for winning support from
    administrators and for drawing students into Russian
    courses.)

  * Electronic links among these flagship programs that would
    enable them to support each other and serve as a collective
    national resource for the field.

  Such an initiative on the national level could properly be
  viewed as maintaining diversity in high school language
  offerings, for without such intervention there is a genuine
  risk that the LCTLs, including Russian, could be eliminated
  from the schools, if not from most colleges and universities.

  The Schools and the Colleges and Universities

  The Schools

  Recommendation 9:  Develop a strong high school component of
  the National Russian Language Resource Center that would be
  capable of providing, through telecommunications and computer
  networks, at least the following:

  * in-service teacher training in pedagogy and, in particular,
    in spoken-Russian skills;

  * high-quality pedagogical materials developed by other
    experienced teachers and by SLA experts;

  * authentic materials in the form of current newspaper
    articles, movies, and television programming;

  * on-line and downloadable courses and modules for students at
    different levels to work on independently after school and
    while in multilevel courses;

  * attractive cultural materials that can be used to strengthen
    the general-education component of beginning and intermediate
    courses, in order to increase retention of students; and

  * on-line telecommunications capability to permit information
    sharing and  networking" among teachers and among learners.

  Rationale:  Measures like these are aimed at addressing the
  "marginalized" status of Russian programs in schools by:

  * providing assistance in drawing students into the program as
    well as retaining students once they are enrolled by
    providing a much richer, more attractive, individualized
    curriculum that addresses student motivations, goals, and
    expectations;

  * providing more time-on-task for students, particularly those
    trapped in large or multilevel classes, through computer and
    telecommunications technology;

  * freeing teachers' time for planning and student consultation
    by providing pedagogical and authentic materials that are
    immediately usable in class;

  * providing convenient, nonthreatening in-service teacher
    training, particularly upgrading of language skills; and

  * providing contact with other Russian teachers, something that
    is sorely lacking in schools, where as a rule the Russian
    program has only one (often part-time) teacher.

  Through a project sponsored by the American Council of Teachers
  of Russian and funded by the Ford Foundation, a network of
  "hub" high school programs has been formed, each hub serving as
  a resource for a cluster of schools located nearby. With
  funding from the Department of Defense, Phillips Academy has
  established an electronic network along the lines suggested
  here but for the moment serving essentially the New England
  area. These initiatives can serve as the basis for the high
  school component of the National Russian Language Resource
  Center.

  Recommendation 10:  Actively promulgate exchange and study
  abroad, seeking support from the field for the design and
  management of such programs and from funding sources to expand
  the possibilities to schools and students whose resources have
  precluded such activities.

  Rationale:  Our questionnaires clearly indicate that exchanges
  and study-abroad programs are perhaps the most effective
  measures for recruiting and retaining students, as well as for
  winning the support of principals and school boards, not to
  mention the value of this experience for increasing cultural
  knowledge and spoken skills. Such programs are expensive, so
  means must be found to provide this valuable learning
  opportunity to all schools and students, regardless of their
  ability to pay. This is a reasonable role for the federal
  government to play, as it does for students of Russian, for
  example, in the Freedom Support Act. With the reduction or
  elimination of many of these federal programs now and in the
  future, support from other sources must be found.

  The Colleges and Universities

  Recommendation 11:  In accord with the "Language Learning
  Framework" and individualized and modularized modes of
  learning, promote the redesign of the language curriculum to
  conform more effectively with explicitly stated institutional
  missions and students goals and motivations, with special
  attention to the general-education, heritage, and,
  particularly, applied missions.

  Rationale:  The numbers of students beginning and continuing
  Russian can be increased by improving program designs aimed at
  general education (in order to attract and hold more students
  with an interest in Russian but whose future plans with regard
  to the language are not yet developed); at the heritage mission
  (for students of Russian heritage, the numbers of whom will be
  growing); and at applied skills (to attract and hold students
  from the science and professional disciplines with clear
  occupational interests in Russian). Such a reform plan is
  beyond the means of most institutions, but the development of
  the National Russian Language Resource Center is intended to
  assist in the design problems as well as to supplement the
  expertise and resources of the local programs.(4)

  Recommendation 12:  Reallocate institutional resources from
  lower- to higher-level courses as well as to study abroad.

  Rationale:  If the goal of a program is to produce students
  having usable skills in Russian, more emphasis must be placed
  on bringing students to higher levels of competency in Russian.
  At the present time, most programs' resources are being
  directed to the lower levels of instruction, where most of the
  students are. However, it is at the higher levels that the
  learning task becomes much more complicated and more demanding
  of resources, particularly if in-country immersion is included
  as an integral part of the program. It is clear that very few
  institutions can undertake the broad educational reform
  advocated here without the fieldwide resources as provided by
  the National Russian Language Resource Center proposed in this
  study. This center can provide courses and modules to
  accommodate all the missions mentioned, adding to the resources
  and strengths of each institution and program.

  Articulation

  Recommendation 13:  Form a national coalition of schools and
  colleges/universities that subscribe to the fieldwide "Russian
  Language Learning Framework"; seek funding for schools and
  colleges/universities to work collectively to revise the
  framework, and develop compatible curricula at both levels.

  Rationale:  School and university language programs are in
  desperate need of improved articulation. As we have seen all
  too often, students with several years of high school Russian
  are forced to begin the language again at the undergraduate
  level. One of the principal reasons for this is the lack of
  understanding on the part of college educators of what goes on
  in the schools as well as a general lack of common goals for
  "basic Russian."  The "Language Learning Framework" is intended
  to eliminate these problems. However, the implementation of
  this framework requires a special effort, one that will
  guarantee the cumulative effect of learning across levels by
  defining missions, improving placements, and specifying
  appropriate remediation. If a National Coalition of Russian
  Language Programs, including schools and universities, would
  adopt the framework (or any other set of common standards),
  they could assure their students that a set of colleges and
  universities were prepared to build upon what they had done in
  school, while on the other hand college programs could be
  confident about a pipeline of students attuned to their program
  goals. Whatever the exact details of the effort, clearly a
  special effort in behalf of school/college articulation, in
  addition to study abroad, is the surest way to improve the
  level of competency of students as well as to increase
  retention rates and reduce student frustration.

  SUMMARY

  We take it as given that Russian is central to the national
  well-being of the United States and will remain so for the
  foreseeable future. However, given the fact that Russian takes
  a great deal of time for native English speakers to master, it
  is probable that Russian will remain an LCTL, with relatively
  low student enrollments. We also understand that this means
  that resources for this and the other LCTLs are limited.
  Therefore, our recommendations, focusing on quality improvement
  with maximum management of resources, are designed to (1)
  maintain and strengthen capacity, by focusing on field
  architecture, particularly the base structure components and
  flagship programs; (2) merge field and institutional resources
  by bringing field capacity to bear directly on local resources
  through electronic communications managed by a new National
  Russian Language Resource Center, which will assist programs to
  become compatible with these resources and modes of delivery;
  and (3) redesign education programs to accommodate all missions
  and to maximize higher-level skills, and to accommodate
  individualized and modularized learning.

  If, as we have argued in Chapters 1 and 2, it is difficult, if
  not impossible, to determine to a sufficient degree of accuracy
  the nation's needs and unrealized opportunities, then the focus
  on building capacity is the only rational approach to the
  problem of language in the United States. In order to meet any
  and all future contingencies involving Russian, policy must be
  directed at ensuring the existence of a strong Russian language
  field in the United States. We feel that the preceding
  recommendations, aimed at strengthening the essential parts of
  the Russian field architecture, can be of immense benefit in
  guaranteeing for all supply sectors the existence and quality
  of the Russian language training programs in our schools,
  colleges, and universities, upon which individual student
  careers and the welfare of the nation as a whole depend.

  Endnotes

  1. Such a system of national language resource centers is
  distinct from the Title VI National Foreign Language Resource
  Centers as presently defined, in that the Title VI centers do
  not have a language-field-specific mission.

  2. As part of the general language frameworks initiative of the
  National Council of Organizations of Less Commonly Taught
  Languages (NCOLCTL), with Ford Foundation support, a draft of a
  "Language Learning Framework" for Russian is presently under
  development under the aegis of the American Association of
  Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages and the American
  Council of Teachers of Russian. See the forthcoming "Russian
  Language Learning Framework" being developed by Peter Merrill
  and Maria D. Lekic, ms.

  3. Such a fieldwide data collection process is already under
  way, initiated by the NCOLCTL with Ford Foundation funding.

  4. A general plan for such reform is given in Brecht and
  Walton, "The Future Shape of Language Learning in the New World
  of Global Communication: Consequences for Higher Education and
  Beyond," Foreign Languae Learning:  The Journey of a Lifetime
  (Lincolnwood, IL:  National Textbook Company, 1995)  pp.
  110-152.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front Page | News Update | Resources | Colloquy | Washington Almanac | This
      Week's Chronicle | Chronicle Archive | Jobs | Information Bank |
                            Advertisers | Help
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--condor.ca.sunycentral.edu:813602648:1570177694:1511456809:-1996962318--