Survey of Materials Development Needs in the Less Commonly Taught Languages
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 366 203 FL 021 796 AUTHOR Stansfield, Charles W.; Galloway, Ann TITLE Survey of Materials Development Needs in the Less Commonly Taught Languages. Final Report. INSTITUTION Center for Applied Linguistics, Washing!:on, DC. National Foreign Language Resource Center. SPONS AGENCY Office of International Education (ED), Washington, DC. PUB DATE Dec 93 NOTE 739p. PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143) EDRS PRICE MF04/PC30 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS College Second Language Programs; Foreign Countries; Higher Education; *Instructional Materials; *Material Development; Questionnaires; Second Language Instruction; *Uncommonly Taught Languages ABSTRACT A project surveyed the instructional materials development needs of the less commonly taught languages (LCTLs) language teaching community. The national survey in 1992 covered 82 languages and surveyed approximately 1,000 language course instructors and program directors at national resource centers and universities in the United States receiving graduate fellowships under the Foreign Language and Area Studies program. The questionnaire solicited information on language courses taught at each institution and the instructional materials used for these courses. The results of these queries comprise the bulk ofthis report. Each language was assigned to one of eight world areas: East Asia (e.g., Chinese, Japanese); Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union (e.g., Albanian, Greek); Latin America and Caribbean America and the Caribbean (e.g., Haitian Creole, Portuguese); Middle East and North Africa (e.g., Arabic, Hebrew); Northern Europe and Catalonia (e.g., Catalan, Danish); South Asia (e.g., Bengali, Hindi/Urdu); Southeast Asia and Pacific Islands (e.g., Burmese, Tagalog); and Sub-Saharan Africa (e.g., Acholi, Yoruba). Each world area report is introduced by a review briefly describing the status of languages in the world area. Each review is followed by individual reports on each language in that area; the descriptions vary in length from 5-15 pages. Language reports include the materials currently in use (textbooks, audiotapes, videotapes, computer courseware) arranged by level and the materials needed for each level. The four appendixes include a list of languages by world area, the language course report form, the program director questionnaire and a list of the participating institutions and reviewers of the reports. (VWL) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** A Survey of Materials Development Needs in the Less Commonly Taught Languages Final Report U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION t'ERMISSIoN IC REPRoouct Othce or Educational Research and Irnprovrnhent MA rER/AL I rw, EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION HAS OFF NGRANTED CENTER tERICI 81' ,zhnsdocument has been reproduced as Authors received from the ueiscin or organization Originating it fl Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality Charles W. Stansfield Points of vie* aopinions stated in this doce Ann Galloway tO THE EDUCA ment do nol necessarily represent OffiC TIONAL RESOURCES OE RI position or policy INFORMATION CE NTER :FRI() Collaborators Keller Magenau Adam Phillips Washington, DC December, 1993 This research was conducted at the Center for Applied Linguistics through support provided by the National Foreign Language Resource Center BEST COPY AVAILABLE Acknowledgements No project of this magnitude could be done in a reasonable amount of time without the assistance of many people. In the case of this project, over a dozen CAL staff and consultants were involved. All of their efforts and dedication cannot be described here. However, the information that follows will help give credit where credit is due. Charles W. Stansfield, the project director, was involved in the conceptualization, personnel management, and frequent decision making that a complex project entails. He also reviewed and edited drafts of individual language reports. Ann Galloway was the lead worker on the project from August 1992 through September 1993. She drafted or edited the majority of the individual language reports, and supervised part-time and temporary staff in the preparation and revision of reports, and the procedure used to obtain the individual language report reviews and world area reviews. Keller Magenau worked on the project on a full or part time basis for five months during 1993. During this period, she drafted language reports and edited others. She also communicated with professors in the field in an effort to obtain additional respondents in the uncommonly taught languages. Adam Phillips worked on the project on full time basis between June and October 1993. During this period he edited many language reports and recruited the authors of world area reports, with whom he communicated often regarding their task. Adam also assisted in checking the many incomplete bibliographic entries cited by respondents. Joyce Hutchins worked on the project on a part time basis during the Fall of 1993. During this period she checked at the library of Congress on the many incomplete bibliographic entries cited by respondents. When the information was not available at the Library of Congress, she communicated with the respondents or with others in the field in order to obtain complete bibliographic information. Andrea Mola worked on the project on a part-time basis from February to July 1992. She worked on the questions for a draft questionnaire, mailed out thequestionnaire, and key entered most of the responses into the project database. John Clark worked on the project between February and May 1992. He worked on questionsfor a draft questionnaire, mailed out the questionnaire and key entered some responses into the project database. Meg Malone worked on the project on a part time basis during March 1992. She draftedquestions for the questionnaire. Richard Thompson, Associate Director of the National Foreign Language Resource Center at Georgetown University, gave helpful advice and guidance throughout the project. He was particularly involved in the design of the questionnaire and assisted in project managementduring the Summer of 1992. Dora Johnson participated in the design of the questionnaire during the Winter of1992 and in project management during the Spring and Summer of 1992. Nell Hyman helped edit and revise many of the individual language reports fromDecember 1992 through June 1993. She contacted many of the reviewers for the individual language reports. Lisa Pinson was a great help with the revision process of the language reports which took place during the Winter of 1992 and the Spring of 1993. Debra Graham worked as a consultant on the project during the Fall of 1992. During this period she focused on editing and the layout of the language reports that make up the individual chapters of this study. A large number of individuals in the field reviewed and commented on a draft individual language report prepared by CAL staff. We appreciate their willingness to assist us in this way, without financial compensation. We are indeed grateful to the many professors who completed the language course reports, and provided us with important insight from their individual perspectives. We also wish to thank the many directors of national language resource centers at universities throughout the country who not only completed the program director's questionnaire, but also took charge of distributing the language course questionnaires at their respective institutions. Charles W. Stansfield Ann Galloway 4 Table of Contents Part I. Introduction Introduction to the Survey Methodology Organization of the Report Part II. World Area Reports: East Asia World Area Review: East Asia Chinese Japanese Korean Manchu Mongolian (Khalkha-Mongolian and Classical Written Mongolian) Tibetan Part III. World Area Reports: Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union Republics World Area Review: Eastern Europe and FSUs Albanian Armenian Azeri Bulgarian Czech Estonian Finnish Georgian Greek Hungarian Kazak Kirgiz Macedonian Polish Romanian Serbo-Croatian Slovak Slovene Tatar Turkmen Ukranian Uygur UzbekiChagatay Part IV. World Area Reports: Latin America and Carribean Haitian Creole Portuguese Quechua Part V. World Area Reports: Middle East and North Africa World Area Review: Middle East and North Africa Arabic Hebrew Persian Syriac Turkish Part VI. World Area Reports: Northern Europe and Catalonia Catalan Danish Dutch Irish Swedish Part VII. World Area Reports: South Asia World Area Review: South Asia Bengali Gujarati Hindi/Urdu Marathi Nepali Pashto Punjabi Sinhala Tamil Part VIII. World Area Reports: Southeast Asia and Pacific Islands World Area Review: Southeast Asia Burmese llokano Indonesian Khmer Lao Tagalog Thai Vietnamese Part IX. World Area Reports: Sub-Saharan Africa World Area Review: Sub-Saharan Africa Acholi Akan (Asante Twi, Akuapem Twi, and Fante) Amharic Chichewa Ewe Fulfulde Hausa Igbo Kpelle Krio Luganda Mande languages (Bambara and Mandinka) Mende Ororrio Setswana Swahili Temne West African Pidgin English Wolof Yoruba Zulu Part X. Appendices A - Languages by World Area B - Language Course Report C - Program Director Questionnaire D - Participating Institutions Introduction to the Survey This project was conducted to meet the needs of the language teaching community, particularly that part of the community that is interested in the less commonly