Try this
Harry Gaylord
galiard at let.RUG.NL
Tue Oct 17 05:05:54 UTC 1995
>
This arrived incomplete to my reader.
Harry Gaylord
> 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 subscriber
s
> 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-ASC
II
> 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--
>
More information about the SEELANG
mailing list