Mastery‐Based, Self‐Paced Instruction in Foreign Languages at Ohio State University

This article reviews the topical and methodological trends in the past 85 years of research on language classrooms in The Modern Language Journal. The primary focus is on empirical investigations into oral classroom instruction in post-secondary classes, which include comparisons of language teaching methodology, observational procedures in classrooms, examinations of teacher and learner talk, and some reports on the influence of specific factors such as tasks and learner attitudes on instructional interaction. Since the review is limited to studies published in the MLJ, a critical comparison of findings is not feasible, although some general trends are noted. The article documents a substantial broadening of scope and sophistication of the methodology adopted for research on instruction in language classrooms. Some critical improvements in methodology are suggested.

Section: The 1970s As the "Me" Decade? Individualization Of Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Progress in Language Classroom Research: Evidence from The Modern Language Journal, 1916‐2000

Chaudron

2001

“…The 1980s saw the end of the Cold War and the publication of recomendations by the President's Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies; Benseler (1980b) published a special issue in the spring of 1980 about the Commission's report and ACTFL's booklet to disseminate it. In 1980 ACTFL held its National Conference on Professional Priorities, which recommended increasing empirical and action research; the MLJ published key research studies and papers on reading (e.g., Allen, Bernhardt, Berry, & Demel, 1988;Lee & Musumeci, 1988;Swaffar, 1988) and reported results of teaching innovation (e.g., Benmaman, Moore, Morgan, & Rowe, 1982;Twarog & Walters, 1981). In 1980, Paul Simon published The Tongue-Tied American, and, in 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education published A Nation at Risk: An Imperative for Educational Reform, which advised the country that its students were not being well prepared in core subjects; ACTFL responded with its Proficiency Guidelines and the MLJ published numerous studies and critiques both to challenge and to defend them (e.g., Bachman & Savignon, 1986;Kramsch, 1986;Lantolf & Frawley, 1985;Lee & Musumeci, 1988;Lowe, 1986;Magnan, 1988;Schulz, 1986).…”

Section: David P Benselermentioning

confidence: 99%

MLJ Editorial Policy: Reflections on the Profession, Definition of Its Disciplines

Magnan

2001

The MLJ, with its origin in 1916, was the first foreign language (FL) pedagogical journal in the United States to serve a variety of languages and teachers on both the secondary and postsecondary levels. This article traces the development of its editorial policy through examination of each editor’s policy statements and personal reflections and the contents of the Journal including articles, "News & Notes," and other columns, readers’ comments, and announcements used as page filler. The examination reveals the MLJ’s proactive role in helping to shape a unified, national FL teaching profession and in developing FL education and second language acquisiton (SLA) as scholarly disciplines anchored in empirical research, which has, especially in the past 2 decades, filled many MLJ pages. The history of reflections of the profession provided here offers insights into the development of the disciplines we know today and suggests possibilities for future editorial policy of the MLJ.

Language Testing: Past and Current Status — Directions for the Future

Clark¹

1983

THE TWO MAJOR PURPOSES OF THIS PAPER ARE: 1) to characterize the historical and present situation in foreign and second language testing in the United States with respect to the major measurement trends represented; and 2) to suggest a number of desirable development activities over the near-and mid-term future that may help to build, in an evolutionary way, on several current initiatives in the fieldinitiatives that already show, as of the early 1980s, substantial promise for facilitating and reflecting effective, performance-based language instruction to an extent not heretofore reached or even closely approximated. PREVIOUS TRENDSIn order adequately to discuss the current situation in foreigdsecond language testing, it will be helpful to review briefly the history of development of language testing theory and practice over the last several decades. In 1978, Spolsky identified three major historical trends in language testing, which he referred to as "pre-scientific" (roughly prior to the early 1950s), "psychometric-structuralist" (early 1950s through about the late 1960s, and "integrative-sociolinguistic" (late 1960s and following). 1 During the "pre-scientific" period, there was, in general, little concern about or attention paid to the reliability, validity, or other important psychometric characteristics of the testing activities carried out in the course of language instruction. In keeping with the grammar-translation, reading-oriented teaching approaches widely used at that time, classroom instructors found it both acceptable and adequate for their purposes to present the students fairly lengthy passages for translation from or into the target language, exercises on selected ~~ ~ The Modern Languap Journal, 67, iv (1983) 0026-7902/83/0004/431 fl.50/0 01983 The Modern Lanpagv LJournal grammatical points (often dealing with special usages or exceptions to the general rules), and various cultural items, predominantly of the "capital C" type. Teachers acted autonomouslyin preparing and grading their own tests, and it was implicitly assumed that any individual who was qualified to teach a language was, by the same token, fully competent to handle its assessment. Although the development of functional proficiency in listening comprehension and speaking-or, for that matter, of reading and writing competence in other than relatively artificial, academic contexts-was not at issue during the "pre-scientific" period, the testing approaches utilized during this period would obviously not for the most part have served to measure validly the student's ability to make use of the language as a means of functional communication in "real-life" situations outside of the classroom setting. The second period, the "psychometric-structuralist," may be considered to have evolved in very large part from the theoretical work and related empirical studies carried out by Lado in the mid-fifties.* The basic orientation for Lado's approach to testing grew out of, and closely paralleled, the then current structural-analytic approach to...