--- Forwarded Message from Nina Garrett <[log in to unmask]> ---
>Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:09:23 -0500
>To: Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum <[log in to unmask]>
>From: Nina Garrett <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: #5986.5 Response from David Maxwell
>In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
------------------
As a professional courtesy I sent David Maxwell a copy of the message I
posted yesterday to LLTI and a couple of other lists. He had himself just
the day before sent off a long letter to the Chronicle, and he asked me to
post it to LLTI.
Best,
Nina
To the Editor [of the Chronicle of Higher Education]:
I am not at all surprised by the vehemence of the responses to The
Chronicle$E2s recent article, $E3A University Plans to Promote Languages by
Killing its Language Department: Russian professor-turned-president
eliminates all jobs
in French, Spanish, and German.$E4 Indeed, The Chronicle$E2s incendiary
headlines seem intended precisely to invoke an emotional, rather than
intellectual, response, and I managed to fuel the flames with a few
comments that, in retrospect and in print, read like ill-considered
wisecracks. Were I still a full-time member of a foreign language and
literature department (which I was for eighteen years), and did not read
the article carefully$F7with all of the skills in understanding subtexts that
most of us develop as literature critics$F7I, too, would be joining in the
Colloquy in loud protest against Drake$E2s seemingly draconian measures, and
criticizing (politely) its seemingly arrogant and ignorant president. I
would like to think, however, that I would have done it with civility and
respect. For the past week, my e-mail inbox has looked like the transcript
of The Jerry Springer Show. I have a scholar$E2s commitment to the value of
debate, and a thick enough skin to not take disagreement personally, but I
must admit to be truly astounded by the volume of mean-spirited,
self-indulgent, personal attacks that have been submitted to the Colloquy;
they do nothing to advance the debate, and they do everything to embarrass
the profession.
First, I would like to emphasize that Drake University did not $E3kill$E4 its
language department; we removed it from artificial life support after years
of sustained attempts to bring it back to life. Those who seem so ready to
criticize the University for this decision have indulged in a behavior that
they would not tolerate (I hope) in their students: a failure to undertake
a close and nuanced reading of the text (The Chronicle article), a
willingness to leap to unsubstantiated conclusions (would real scholars
ever base their research on a single newspaper article?), and a failure to
demand more evidence before reaching a conclusion (I am astounded that many
people took the time to send me belligerent diatribes via e-mail,
condemning both the University and me personally, yet only three wrote to
say, $E3There must be more to this than meets the eye, because it doesn$E2t
make sense to me. Can we discuss?$E4)
As might be expected, it would be neither judicious nor appropriate for me
to go into great detail publicly regarding the situation that we faced in
foreign languages at Drake University; if nothing else, it would be
demeaning and unfair to the faculty affected by our decision. I must limit
my comments on this issue to points that were made in the course of Faculty
Senate discussion, and that are therefore in the public domain. The
decision was based solely on quality; on the need to produce outcomes that
met our students$E2 learning goals, and that were consistent with the goals and
mission of the University. Allegations that the decision was driven in any
way by financial considerations are simply incorrect. It was not a decision
that I, as president, forced on anyone; thankfully, I have neither the
power nor the desire to do such things. Rather, it was the result of a
lengthy, institution-wide review of all programs$F7a process that involved,
in one way or another, the vast majority of faculty and staff on the
campus. The recommendation that we phase out on-campus language
instruction came from the faculty of Arts & Sciences, and forwarded with
support by the Provost and, ultimately, from an elected
faculty/staff/student Review and Priorities Advisory Committee. While I am
responsible for accepting that recommendation (and for proposing the basic
design of what we might do next), the notion that this was forced down
anyone$E2s throat by the president is entirely incorrect.
In the particular case of foreign languages, the institution-wide Program
Review Initiative followed years of concerted attempts to reform and
reposition the program. Faced with low and declining enrollments,
expressed dissatisfaction among students and other faculty, a devastating
external review, and a failure to respond both to offers of targeted
faculty development resources and finally to a mandate that the department
produce a feasible, credible strategic plan for its own renewal, the
University was left with little recourse. As I indicated to The Chronicle
in an e-mail that was not quoted$F7or paraphrased$F7in the article, in ideal
circumstances, we would of course have preferred a different solution to
our dilemma. But ideal circumstances are rarely encountered in higher
education, and sometimes drastic situations require a dramatic
response. The decision that we reached was not taken lightly; the minutes
of the Faculty Senate to which some have referred in the Colloquy do not
show the careful deliberations of a faculty advisory group within Arts &
Sciences (which rated the language program twenty-sixth in quality out of
twenty-six programs in Arts &
Sciences) and the lengthy deliberations of the elected Review and
Priorities Advisory Committee. Ultimately, all of us saw the decision to
phase out our on-campus language offerings as unfortunate, frustrating, and
painful.
Nonetheless, we are excited about the opportunities that our new approach
affords, and optimistic that it will provide significant and meaningful
learning opportunities for our students. My good friend (at least until
now) Prof. Heidi Byrnes has correctly pointed out to me an in email that a
real danger here is that other senior administrators will see our approach
as prescriptive, given my alleged (my term) credibility as the former
director of the National Foreign Language Center. However, ours is a
solution that we have chosen at Drake as a response to the particulars of
Drake$E2s situation;
it is not intended deliberately as a model for others, nor do we intend it
deliberately as an assault on the integrity and competence of the foreign
language profession. I am entirely aware of the potential shortcomings of
this model (though I don$E2t agree with all of the alleged flaws pointed out
in the Colloquy), and do not want to minimize their importance; but they
are vastly outweighed by the gravity of the situation that we faced, and by
what we believe to be the potential for success of the new initiative. We
will do our best to exploit the significant opportunities that this model
affords, and to minimize the impact of its flaws. We will also continually
monitor its effectiveness and impact, and make the necessary adjustments
accordingly. I should note that several of the alleged shortcomings of our
approach identified in the Colloquy strike me as straw men, erected for the
purpose of self-righteous posturing. We are not tossing unprepared
students into uncharted and unstructured waters overseas, nor are we
encouraging them
to enroll in other institutions$E2 programs. We are forging partnerships with
overseas universities to design programs that specifically address the
learning needs and goals of our students: they will include carefully
crafted instructional programs, course content in culture (high culture and
behavioral), home stays, etc. I have no idea where The
Chronicle$E2s phrase, attributed to me, $E3can$E2t shoot the breeze with a bank
teller,$E4 came from; our aspirations for our students in terms of linguistic
and culture knowledge and capability are far more meaningful than that: it
is our hope
that they will develop a sufficient level of competence (which, in my
definition, requires both linguistic and cultural knowledge) to function
effectively in culture. No one has said that culture is not important, and
no one has said that language and culture are not essential to liberal arts
education. What we have said is that we are going to try to address these
essential subjects in a manner that is far more effective than what we have
been doing at this university. Finally, cost to the student is not an
issue, as some have alleged (calling this an elitist approach); these will be
exchange relationships in which there will be no change in cost (or
financial aid) for Drake students.
I would also like to clarify some of the impressions regarding my views on
language learning in the U.S. conveyed by The Chronicle. While I do agree
that a U.S.-based classroom is not the place to $E3master$E4 a foreign
language, I did not remember saying anything remotely resembling the fact
that I am $E3not convinced that colleges in this country need classrooms at
all.$E4 I also did not say that I was an ineffective teacher. I did not rely
on the $E3grammar-translation$E4 model; even I knew, then, that it wasn$E2t a
very creative approach. Quite the contrary, my students became quite
competent in Russian language and culture$F7but I do feel that I could have
been much more effective had I been more knowledgeable about second
language acquisition and applied linguistics. In that sense, I was typical
of the time; very
few$F7if any$F7of my colleagues across the country in those days had any formal
training in language pedagogy, let alone applied linguistics. What I did
say is that we were constrained by the model, a one-size-fits all, 3-4
hours per week exposure to a foreign language in an English-speaking
environment$F7and that no one expected students to come out of that model
with communicative competence, unless they complemented it with an
immersion experience.
As Director of the National Foreign Language Center, I had the opportunity
to interact, in one way or another, with hundreds of language programs,
language faculty, and college/university administrators around the
country. While I do not pretend to ultimate wisdom and knowledge, I do
have some idea of what$E2s going on. So allow me, if you would, to make my
views perfectly clear: I know that there are extremely competent foreign
language teachers throughout the United States who are doing wonderful,
creative things with up-to-date, effective materials$F7I have met and
observed many of them. I know that there are thousands of language teachers
out there working very hard, and very effectively, to serve their students
well. Of course I know that many things have changed since I was a
full-time language and literature teacher$F7more sophisticated pedagogy
informed by research, the application of technology, better training of
language teachers, and so on. I also know that there also exist extremely
incompetent, unimaginative, and ineffective
foreign language teachers who are not only failing to meet students$E2
learning goals, but destroying any interest the student might have in
learning a language. I have met and observed them too, in numbers and in
places that I find disturbing$F7and not twenty years ago, but in the last
three or four. I have observed first-hand the $E3grammar hell$E4 that one
submission described in classrooms at elite private colleges, top public
institutions, and many other schools. I don$E2t think it$E2s the norm, but it$E2s
also not hard to find. I recognize that some of my comments, as reported
in The Chronicle, may convey an uncharitable view of the profession as a
whole; where my remarks were ill-considered and intemperate, I sincerely
apologize$F7where they were quoted out of context or paraphrased
inaccurately, I am as frustrated as anyone in reading them. Any criticism
that I have made, in The Chronicle and elsewhere, has not been direct
criticism of individuals (exercising the restraint that seems to have
escaped many of the participants in the Colloquy), but of a system that$F7in
spite of the best efforts of many$F7seems to be failing us. And that is the
issue about which I would have hoped The Chronicle$E2s coverage would have
sparked a debate, a discourse that might have helped all of us address the
difficult problems that we are facing on many of the nation$E2s campuses.
Let me provide just a few bits of evidence for my contention that the
system is failing to serve us well:
· we are the only country in the developed world that puts the burden of
foreign language learning on the post-secondary system
· there is virtually no effective articulation among levels of the
education system
· Only 8% of the nation$E2s undergraduates are enrolled in foreign language study
· The average persistence time of the students who do study a foreign
language is 2-3 semesters, hardly enough time for most students to acquire
usable competence
· Fewer than 15% of the pitifully small number of students studying any
foreign language are studying any of the less commonly-taught languages
that are so critical to the nation$E2s interest (and to a truly global
education), and very few of those who do stick with it long enough to
achieve anything remotely resembling mastery
· most colleges and universities offer only a one-size-fits-all language
learning track for its students, regardless of their learning goals and
backgrounds, i.e., whether they are studying language for general education
(or liberal education) purposes, to achieve communicative competence, to
prepare for graduate school in the field, or to acquire formal knowledge
and/or literacy in the language of their own family; I simply do not
believe that a single class$F7or sequence of classes$F7can address all of these
goals with equal effectiveness
· The National Foreign Language Center (NFLC) and the Association of
American Colleges and Universities (AACU), with funding from the Henry Luce
Foundation, conducted a three-year Language Mission Project with sixteen
colleges and universities seeking to refocus and revitalizing language
education; one hundred and ten four-year colleges and universities applied
for participation, and the application process required a detailed
explanation of their dissatisfaction with current practice on their campuses
· Similarly, the NFLC and AACU conducted four national workshops entitled,
$E3The Crisis in Foreign Language Learning in Higher Education,$E4 which
collectively attracted senior academic officer/faculty teams from nearly one
quarter (well over 200) of all the four-year institutions in the
country! We learned from our interactions with the institutional teams
that there is a significant and pervasive level of dissatisfaction and
frustration with the language programs on hundreds of the nation$E2s campuses.
I do hope that this response in some measure serves to clarify Drake$E2s
situation and plans, as well as my views on the state of foreign language
learning in the United States. I will be delighted if Drake$E2s action, and
The Chronicle$E2s coverage, serve to catalyze an ongoing discourse on some of
the issues that I have raised above, and on other critical concerns that I
know others will introduce. We all owe it to ourselves$F7and to the
profession (of which I am still proudly a member)$F7to demonstrate that we
are capable of a discourse that is more meaningful, more useful, and more
civil than much of what has taken place in the past week.
David Maxwell
President, Drake University
Nina Garrett
Director of Language Study
Yale University
P.O. Box 208349
New Haven, CT 06520-8349
Tel. (203) 432-8196
Fax. (203) 432-4485
[log in to unmask]
http://www.yale.edu/cls/
|