Why surviving? It sounds rather ominous, perhaps calling to mind technology rising up to subdue the humans who created it. Our intent is not to paint an apocalyptic picture for language educators. Quite the contrary, while technologies continue to develop and permeate an ever-increasing area of the human sphere, they also get deprecated, deactivated, and dethroned. Think of all the changes you’ve seen as an educator in just the last two decades. Change upon change (often, it seems, simply for the sake of change) has found its way into our classrooms through recommendation, institutional promotion, or plain desperation. Do you find it challenging to keep up with the ever-growing -- and shrinking -- list of technology aids that are supposed to make teaching more effective and learning easier, quicker, and better? Does it ever seem like the technology designed to facilitate your work has turned into just another responsibility or pedagogical innovation with which you must keep up? If so, you’re not alone. For adults who have seen the more rudimentary versions of it, technology now seems to equate to life itself. It is almost impossible for those born after the advent of the World Wide Web and iPhone to imagine a life without them. As a result, one could say that ‘technology is life,’ or at least, that technology impacts every life.
Multiple news sources early in 2017 cited a study by PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers) that estimated almost four in ten US jobs could be lost to automation and artificial intelligence over the next 15 years. Soon afterward, a report from the Institute for the Future, commissioned by Dell Technologies, projected that 85% of the jobs that will exist in 2030 have not yet been invented. While the economic landscape faces mind-bending changes, the education system has not fundamentally changed in more than 100 years. The disconnect between the discipline-based “industrial model” that prevails in educational institutions and the 21st-century needs of economic actors is acute, and educational consultants are sounding the alarm. The problem? Existing educational models built around the temporary mastery of bodies of knowledge, assessed using standardized testing, turn out to be very bad at helping learners retain the knowledge past testing time and apply the knowledge to produce creative solutions to real-world problems.
There are many benefits to knowing more than one language. For example, it has been shown that aging adults who speak more than one language have less likelihood of developing dementia. Additionally, the bilingual brain becomes better at filtering out distractions, and learning multiple languages improves creativity. Evidence also shows that learning subsequent languages is easier than learning the first foreign language. Unfortunately, not all American universities consider learning foreign languages a worthwhile investment.
We’ve all heard students say that they have chosen specific languages to study based on how easy they are to learn. In fact, the Washington Post has a quiz called “Which foreign language should you learn?” (found here: http://bit.ly/whichlang). If you choose responses that indicate you don’t want to put too much time and effort into language learning, you get told you should study Spanish. Changing your responses to say that you want to work harder gets you Arabic. A quiz such as the one in the Washington Post may seem like harmless fun, but pervasive ideas about language learning and teaching may have negative consequences for language teaching and learning.
It hardly seems possible that 20 years have passed since CLEAR was first awarded funds through the US Department of Education’s Title VI Language Resource Centers (LRC) Program. In its early years, CLEAR benefitted from the leadership and dedication of Professor Pat Paulsell, who together with Professor Susan Gass wrote the first grant proposal. Professor Paulsell’s vision, activism, and creative activities combined to help put CLEAR at the forefront of foreign language education. Professors Gass and Paulsell co-directed CLEAR for seventeen years. Following the latter’s 2013 retirement, CLEAR was joined in its current funding cycle by new co-director Professor Charlene Polio, whose expertise in second and foreign language pedagogy and second language acquisition greatly enhances the center’s current projects.
As described by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), Can-Do statements are simple self-assessment statements for learners to determine not what they know about language but what they can do with language. An example of a Can-Do benchmark statement for Intermediate-Mid proficiency is the following: I can participate in conversations on familiar topics using sentences and series of sentences. I can handle short social interactions in everyday situations by asking and answering a variety of questions. I can usually say what I want to say about myself and my everyday life.
CLEAR's directors and staff are pleased to announce that CLEAR has been granted Title VI Language Resource Center funding from the US Department of Education for a sixth funding cycle, which will run through September 2018.
In my work with preservice ESL teachers, I’ve seen both native speakers and international students find worksheets online that purport to teach students how to, for example, invite, compliment, or disagree in English. I have observed my student teachers give their students lists of expressions that most English speakers would never say. One particularly glaring example on a website for teaching invitations was “How do you fancy going to the restaurant for dinner?” One can only imagine the reaction an ESL student would get if he or she used this expression, even in the UK. Conversely, an ESL student may hear someone say, “How ‘bout havin’ lunch tomorrow?” and not understand that this is an invitation. When students’ exposure is limited to textbook language, they miss out on learning how language is used in real life.