The MLA's Articulation Initiative:
High School to College in Foreign Language Programs

Some Thoughts on Articulation
Heidi Byrnes, Georgetown University

For me one of the key considerations in articulation is that of the nature of instructed second language learning (SLA), particularly on the part of linguistic adults--in the American educational system the majority of our students. Only once we have some reasonable understanding and broad agreement on that can we begin to tackle such crucial aspects of articulation as curriculum construction within the various educational levels, particularly the secondary and the postsecondary, and assessment and placement from one educational level to the next, seemingly the pivotal point for articulation.

There is, of course, no such thing as instructed second language learning in the abstract. It will always be affected by the kind of instruction learners are receiving. Likewise it will always be affected by the age of the learner, as is, of course, the learner's general educational development. However, what classroom-based SLA research of roughly the last decade has clearly shown is that some instructional approaches and emphases are more likely than others to lead to long-term success in language learning. Or, put slightly differently, since learners show certain patterns of second language learning no matter what the instruction is like and since learners clearly benefit more from certain instructional approaches than from others, it would be wise for us to take those patterns and approaches into consideration in both our curricular and pedagogical decision making. Among these very general insights I count the following:

• Classroom SLA is distinct in nontrivial ways from naturalistic acquisition of a second language and also distinct in nontrivial ways from child or first language acquisition. That means that the classroom is a valid learning environment of its own and should not be thought of as impoverished. The classroom should not attempt to mimic naturalistic language-learning environments (it will never be that!), but it should also not be the site for grammatical drills!
• Meaning is central to second language learning. Communicative abilities are the goal of language instruction. Thus right from the beginning instruction must be directed toward the creation of meaning in comprehension and production. The continuous message to students must be Whatever the activity, it should be meaningful to you, it should make sense in every way.
• Also, right from the beginning meaning and form must be careful integrated; meaning, a conceptual phenomenon, must be tied to form, a linguistic phenomenon. It is this connection that the classroom can bring to the learner's attention much better than naturalistic learning can, thereby contributing to efficient and effective language learning.
• A focus on form in relation to meaning, not our past emphasis on grammar for the sake of forms, is most conducive to helping students develop both communicative abilities and the formal inventory of the language. Communicative fluency and accuracy are our ultimate goals for language instruction, but the focus on formal elements is always contingent upon rather than anticipatory of language learning problems.
• That we aim for communicative abilities in our students does not mean that we should suddenly use a wide range of language material without judging the extent to which they can profit from it. The trick is to find a balance between a restriction of language materials through a topical focus, within which certain language forms are more likely to be needed, and creativity and open-endedness. No doubt, students will learn different things within different focused frameworks, but they will learn to express the things that are of greatest communicative interest to them. Restriction means security for the students, creativity means motivation.
• The acquisition of the forms of a language (grammar, vocabulary) is a project that spans many years. It is not the case that language is learned additively and in a mastery mode, from smallest to largest unit: that you can't do the next level until you have mastered this one. Instead, learners will continue to approximate the correct forms of the language, showing differentiated success under different task conditions (monologic vs. dialogic language), in different language modalities (writing vs. speaking), and in different settings. This is perfectly normal and must be considered as we assess students.
• Students use different paths to second language learning. Therefore it is imperative that instruction make available a wide repertoire of access routes from the start: reading, writing, speaking, hearing. A focus on language as communication is not the same thing, from the pedagogical standpoint, as a near-exclusive focus on speaking. On the contrary, very strong arguments exist for using the background knowledge and literacy skills that students already possess to advance their second language learning.
• In the delicate balancing act between communication and formal means to enable students to communicate, which exists throughout language instruction (and which we hope will ultimately lead to fluency and accuracy as well as complexity of expression), it is likely that we should initially tip the scales toward communication, if for no other reason than its motivational significance. Gradually, perhaps by year 2 or 3 of the instructional sequence--whether at the secondary or postsecondary level--we will start to tip the scales toward a more explicit and insistent focus on formal accuracy. Experience shows that students by then are ready for it, in fact want it, though even that emphasis on formal accuracy will look very different from our precious grammar drills. It will always have to be tied to meaningful contexts.

I am convinced that in the entire enterprise of articulation the greatest adjustments will be required at the college level, from the curricular, the pedagogical, and the assessment standpoints.

From the curricular standpoint, colleges will finally have to get away from the pointless distinction between language instruction and content instruction. Instead, content and language must be linked explicitly from the beginning. From the pedagogical standpoint, colleges must get away from equating language instruction with the conveyance of grammatical rules, where these are to be applied, primarily as a cognitive exercise!

From the assessment standpoint, colleges will have to learn to rethink their expectations of what constitutes language learning, particularly at the secondary level. In other words, grammatical accuracy is not the only, indeed not a particularly useful or insightful, way to assess a student's language learning. Therefore assessment must begin to consider what language learning has taken place for a student despite the student's remaining grammatical inaccuracies. Sampling of language abilities under different task environments is needed, with an unmistakable communicative and holistic focus.

Only when the multiple implications of instructed SLA have been considered is it possible for curricular and pedagogical decisions regarding the entire undergraduate program to be made. And it is imperative that they be made.

[continue to next article] [table of contents]

Copyright © Modern Language Association. All rights reserved. This page updated 9/10/98. Questions/comments to Steve Olsen, Manager and Editor, ADFL Web Site.