ADFL Projects

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

Culture and Articulation
Dale L. Lange, University of Minnesota

Obviously a definition of anything is a generalization that requires application to specific instances to see if it works. I offer this definition for discussion and modification: "Articulation is the interrelationship and continuity of contents, curriculum, instruction and evaluation within and between programs which focus on the progress of the student in learning to comprehend and communicate in a second language and to understand its culture" (Lange, "Articulation"). In this definition, the student is the main focus. It is to students that language, communication, language learning, and culture contents are directed. The interrelation and continuity of these contents may be focal points in examining the progress of students within and between programs (within-program learning is in all sections of a course of study across several years in secondary school or in a college or university; between-program learning takes place at the crossover between secondary school and a college or university). The emphasis here is on the progress a student makes. That progress is obviously individual. Assessment of progress recognizes that individuality.

Within the language learning framework, the teaching and learning of culture remains an add-on. Although we have new national standards (Standards), they have more meaning for the immediate and distant future.

To date in the specific discussion of articulation, culture has not received much attention. Most focus is on the interpersonal, presentational, and interpretive modes of communication (listening, reading, speaking, and writing, or some combination of them). Nevertheless, without cultural content, the interpersonal, presentational, and interpretive modes of communication remain shallow. At the same time, within the framework of national standards and the state standards that are being created with the national standards as model, it can be said that culture permeates each of the standard categories that are not specifically labeled culture (communications, connections, comparisons, and communities). Yet what is the quality of these standards? In a presentation to the NEC, I examined progress indicators in the national standards (culture, connections, comparisons, and communities), in the AATF standards for culture, and in thirty-three state standards documents, using as filters the cognitive and affective learning taxonomies of Benjamin Bloom and of David R. Krathwohl, Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia (Lange, "Collaboration"). My analysis shows significant differences between the national standards and the AATF standards for culture; the AATF standards appear to function more broadly across the taxonomies than the national standards do. The analysis of the thirty-three state standards for culture showed major emphasis on the lower ends of the cognitive and affective taxonomies. The study suggests that if the emphasis in the progress indicators for these standards is only on cognitive knowledge and comprehension and on affective receiving and responding, then students will not necessarily be able to compare, contrast, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate aspects of another culture. In addition they may not necessarily be able to value another culture, to understand the terms on which they value that culture, or to be perceived in terms of their values and attitudes toward that culture. While these issues are somewhat technical, my results indicate that the development of cultural awareness both cognitively and affectively requires significant exploration despite the new standards. And, in terms of articulation, we still need to discuss how the national standards for culture and cultural awareness fit into language learning, how culture is to be taught, and, most important, how culture is to be evaluated, whether within or between programs.

Works Cited

Bloom, Benjamin S. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay, 1956.

Lange, Dale L. "Articulation: A Resolvable Problem?" Shaping the Future of Foreign Language Education: FLES, Articulation, and Proficiency. Ed. John E. Lalande. Reports of the Central States Conf. on the Teaching of Foreign Langs. Lincolnwood: Natl. Textbook, 1988. 10-31.

---. "Collaboration on National Standards for Culture: Is There Alignment?" Northeast Conf. on the Teaching of Foreign Langs. New York. Apr. 1997.

Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: McKay, 1964.

Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the Twenty-First Century. Yonkers: Natl. Standards Project, 1996.

[continue to next article] [table of contents]