As exchange and study abroad programs proliferate and the range of countries and languages involved broadens, the role of language competence in such programs is in vital need of examination. Long-neglected policy issues, like standards and assessment as well as program design and management, must be addressed. Programs relying on or developing language competence are in need of a new national architecture, which brings to bear expertise from the field of second language acquisition, target languages and cultures, and exchange and study management.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. These initiatives include the Senator Edmund Muskie Fellowship Program, the National Security Education Program, the Freedom Exchange Act, the Freedom Exchange and Training Act, and the new initiative within the U.S. Department of Education to begin to work with the European Community on exchanges.
2.
R. D. Brecht and Jennifer L. Robinson, Qualitative Analysis of Second Language Acquisition in Study Abroad: A Case Study of the ACTR/NFLC Project, NFLC Occasional Papers (Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center, 1993).
3.
3. For example, the soon-to-appear study by the National Foreign Language Center of Russian in the United States clearly demonstrates that a basic functional ability in Russian is unlikely to be acquired on the basis of four years of studying Russian in a domestic college.
4.
4. According to Claudia P. Wilds, “Expected Levels of Absolute Speaking Proficiency in Languages Taught at the Foreign Service Institute” (Internal policy memorandum, Foreign Service Institute, 1973).
5.
5. Recently, the Center for Quality Assurance in International Education was founded under the direction of Marjorie Lenn.
6.
6. For example, the University of California, Santa Barbara's Education Abroad Program has developed a test—the Language Ability Assessment System—to determine a student's ability to take classes in-country.
7.
7. In the United States, to our knowledge, the only organizations that have invested heavily in pre- and post-program proficiency testing have been the American Council of Teachers of Russian and the American Council for Collaboration in Education and Language Study. These organizations, in association with the National Foreign Language Center, have then used these data for research on the process of SLA in SA. See, for example, Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsberg, Predictors.
8.
8. According to Wilds, “Expected Levels.”
9.
9. Outcome assessments, resulting from proficiency tests like the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages' Oral Proficiency Interview, are incapable of providing feedback regarding program deficiencies. They, by design, make no reference to the process by which the outcome skills are obtained and so cannot be used to improve the learning process.
10.
10. See Richard D. Brecht and A. Ronald Walton, The Case for a Framework for Learner-Managed Foreign Language Learning, NFLC Occasional Papers (Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center, forthcoming).
11.
11. See Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsberg, Predictors.
12.
12. See Brecht and Robinson, Qualitative Analysis, for some indication of the kind of data that can be brought to bear indicating that novice students have difficulty learning, while advanced-level students profit most.
13.
13. Brecht and Walton, Case for a Framework.
14.
14. Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsberg, Predictors.
15.
15. This kind of research is described in Brecht and Robinson, Qualitative Analysis.
16.
16. Richard D. Brecht and Xueying Wang, Evidence of the Role of Language Use in Successful Language Acquisition, NFLC Occasional Papers (Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center, forthcoming).
17.
17. For an outline of such an architecture, see Richard D. Brecht and A. Ronald Walton, “National Strategic Planning in the Less Commonly Taught Languages,” this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
