More Than a Decade of Standards: Integrating “Communication” in Your Language Instruction By Sandy Cutshall EDITOR’S NOTE: In this issue, we begin a series of five articles focused on the National Standards for Foreign Language Learning, or the “5 Cs.” In this first article, we look at Communication—a goal that is “at the heart of language study, whether the communication takes place face-to-face, in writing, or across centuries through the reading of literature,” according to the Standards document. In other articles this year we’ll focus on each of the rest of the goal areas in turn—Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, and Communities. sk someone why they are study- communication has always been the intent sidebar on p. 37 for more about what the ing another language and you will of language education. There was never a Standards survey shows.] almost always hear that they want time in our field when we said we don’t want “Prior to the development of the National A to be able to converse with native to teach people to communicate . But,” Standards, I tended to do what textbooks speakers during travel or in their own home she adds, “I think we have a much better stressed,” admits Terrill. “The Standards country. Additionally, they may wish to be match now between the intent and how we initially provided the framework to see how able to understand what they read and be go about doing it.” better units could be designed, what was able to write—particularly via communica- That better match comes out of the 5 good in textbooks, and what needed to be tive technologies such as e-mail, texting, Cs—the goal areas of the National Stan- enhanced. The learning scenarios that were Twitter, and blogs—using the language. dards—which for the past 15 or so years written as part of the National Standards What they probably won’t mention is have helped more and more educators provide good examples of what quality units conjugating verbs or memorizing discrete understand what it means to truly facilitate might look like.” grammar points. language acquisition and encourage authen- “Students come to language classes tic communication in their classrooms. Reframing Communication in because they want to be able to communi- Phillips, who was also recently co-chair Language Learning cate in the language,” says Laura Terrill, an of a federal grant to assess the impact of the independent consultant and expert in lan- National Standards, notes that the recent The National Standards present a very differ- guage education. “If we capture that energy survey of more than 2,100 individuals re- ent approach to communication, even com- in the first year of language instruction and veals that the Standards have had an impact, pared with the proficiency movement in the build on it by designing quality interper- helping to improve many language educa- 1980s and early 1990s which preceded their sonal activities, we will help them to meet tors’ teaching methods, particularly in the development. While teachers have tradi- their goal.” goal area of Communication. tionally thought of communicating through Communication as a goal area of lan- “We can see a fuller, deeper understand- the use of the four skills: reading, writing, guage education was an obvious inclusion in ing of how the three communicative modes speaking and listening, the Standards offer a the National Standards for Foreign Language play out in the communicative act itself,” new “Communicative Framework” consist- Learning when they were first developed she says about the survey, “and a greater ing of three modes which place primary and published in 1996. As June Phillips, knowledge of the best instructional ap- emphasis on the context and purpose of the project director for the grant to develop proaches to facilitate those.” Of course, this communication. These are: the Standards and a member of the original does not mean that there is not still room for Standards task force, puts it: “Of course, improvement in this area, Phillips notes. [See 34 The Language Educator I February 2012 Interpersonal ACTFL Associate Director of Professional U Characterized by active negotiation of Development Paul Sandrock offers this ex- meaning among individuals Communication ample: “When a teacher focuses on teaching U Involving adjustments or clarifications for and practicing writing as a skill and then is understanding #OMMUNICATE IN ,ANGUAGES /THER 4HAN trying to decide—‘Should I allow students U Most obvious in conversation where one %NGLISH to do a spell-check or not?’—the question to person does not know what the responses ask is really, ‘What mode is being used?’ If of the other person will be (i.e., not Standard 1.1 the writing is Presentational, the expectation scripted dialogues) Students engage in conversations, from the audience is that it is going to be provide and obtain information, express Interpretive pretty polished and accurate since the writer feelings and emotions, and exchange will not be there to negotiate meaning and U Focused on the appropriate cultural OPINIONS ;).4%20%23/.!, -/$%= respond to questions. However, if the writer interpretation of meanings that occur in is texting a message to a friend [Interperson- written and spoken form where there is Standard 1.2 al], the degree of accuracy can be signifi- no recourse to the active negotiation of Students understand and interpret cantly less because if you don’t understand meaning with the writer/speaker WRITTEN AND SPOKEN LANGUAGE ON A something you are going to text back and U Including the cultural interpretation of VARIETY OF TOPICS ;).4%202%4)6% -/$%= ask, ‘What does this mean?’” texts, movies, radio and television broad- Standard 1.3 Any rules for an assignment or activity casts, and speeches Students present information, therefore, notes Sandrock, depend on the U Not to be confused with the concept of concepts, and ideas to an audience mode—or the purpose—of what you are do- “comprehension” of listeners or readers on a variety of ing. Those modes should set up how you de- TOPICS ;02%3%.4!4)/.!, -/$%= Presentational sign a task, how you evaluate that task, and U Referring to the creation of messages in what criteria you use. “Staying in a skill with- a manner that facilitates interpretation of students will need experience in the other out saying which mode it is in is not useful to members of the other culture where no goal areas (i.e., the other 4 Cs) in order to the learner or the instructional choices,” says direct opportunity for the active negotia- have something worth communicating. Phillips. “The instructional choices you make tion of meaning exists Robert Harrell, who has taught German at differ according to those modes.” U Examples include the writing of reports Pacifica High School in Garden Grove, CA, “I think it’s important for any teacher to and articles or the presentation of speeches for 17 years, puts it this way: “If I’m going answer the question, ‘What do I want my Each mode involves a particular link to communicate, I have to have content. If students to be able to do with the lan- between language and the underlying culture I’m going to communicate, I have to know guage?’” says Harrell. “That answer, coupled that is developed gradually over time. The use something about the culture. If I’m going with what we know about how the brain of these modes is not compatible with a focus to communicate, a community is being functions and how languages are acquired, solely on grammar or the study of a language established in the very act of communication should then direct and inform everything we separate from its use for communication. The itself. Part of the content I’m going to com- do.” He continues, “My answer to the ques- Standards document is clear that, “students municate will make connections to things tion is: To communicate, to know how to do not acquire communicative competence other than language and then it’s really very continue acquiring the language, and to be by learning the elements of the language easy to make comparisons between the way able to advocate for their own best interests. system” [i.e., grammar, isolated vocabulary we communicate in the world language and I must reject methods that do not contribute words] first, and it points out that “an earlier the way we do in English. I think communi- to that goal, such as grammar translation.” emphasis on the learning of the language sys- cation really embraces all of the other things Harrell offers an analogy from the world tem to the exclusion of meaningful interactive that happen in language learning.” of science: “It’s the difference between dis- activities in the classroom has led to frustra- secting an animal and looking at it as a living tion and dissatisfaction for students.” What True Communication creature. I can learn a lot about it when I The Communication goal includes three Looks Like dissect it, but it’s dead. It’s never going to do standards based on the Framework of com- anything else. But, if I observe it in its habi- municative modes. The first focuses on the One major shift from thinking of skills to tat, maybe even interact with it, then I see it Interpersonal mode, the second on the Inter- thinking of communicative modes is that as a living organism. It becomes much more pretive mode, and the third on the Presenta- with a focus simply on skills, a teacher may fascinating, something you want to spend tional mode. (See box above.) not consider the reason behind a classroom time with.