Foreign Language Learning and Instruction

This was an early presentation about learning the Russian alphabet and orthography, one of several in which I have promoted two principal ideas.  The first, currently accepted by many practitioners, holds that initial familiarization with the alphabet for novice students at the outset of study does not require a gradual letter-by-letter approach over the course of days, much less weeks.  Familiarity sufficient to support learning at this early stage can be achieved over the course of an hour or two at the most, through game-like activity.  Naturally, this requires subsequent reinforcement and deepening, but it ensures that students are able to exploit authentic target-language texts from their first day of study based on the principle of “fit the task to the text.”  The opposing traditional conception of “fit the text to the task” leads almost inevitably to a dependence on contrived or simplified texts.  The quick familiarization approach promotes learner autonomy from the outset of study and supports learner morale. 

The second conception, which I explored more fully in later work (see “The Source-Reference Approach to Language Drills” and “Why Russian Seems So Hard and Why It Needn’t: Using Computers to Solve an Instructional Dilemma,” below) relates to the follow-on stage of learning to use the Russian alphabet—Russian orthography.  This is where headaches tend to accrue for learners, caused in large part by the historically conditioned mismatch between the letters of the alphabet and the sound system they represent.  Current texts typically provide an accurate initial account of the phonological value of letter sequences (e.g., for sequences та /ta/ vs. тя /t’a/ vs. тья /t’ja/ , and similar), and distinguish between paired (for softness) and unpaired consonants, etc.  However, they may not follow through in follow-up discussions, and in so doing unnecessarily complicate learning.  Two primary issues in many pedagogical treatments for novice learners are thus the presentation of certain spelling rules as essentially arbitrary (e.g., “Spelling Rule 1, 2 and 3”) rather than exploiting their expression of an underlying simplicity, and the apparent proliferation of nominal and verbal paradigms where in reality their number is quite small.

There are feasible means to address both of these issues (that is, the ones caused by Russian orthography) effectively and comfortably at the outset of study.  This can be done, moreover, without detracting from an immersive production-oriented and learner-centered classroom environment, and without compelling learners to study for mastery dry linguistic explanations. 

The means to accomplish this were greatly enhanced at the outset of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in the late 1980s and 1990s.  We exploited these opportunities over a period of several years with students at the Claremont Colleges through a three-pronged pre-course approach (see Introduction to the Russian Language, below).  The first element consisted of immersive direct-method-type instruction to create a base of vocabulary, sentence structures, connective devices and task proficiencies to serve as “islands” in subsequent training.  This direct-method component of the pre-course included alphabet familiarization.  The second element was comprised of computer-assisted pre-training to create familiarity with the simplicity underlying Russian orthography and morphology.  The third was an explanatory student text that served as a guide to the previous two. 

The CALL component of this pre-course, in turn, combined two components.  The first applied game-like approaches to induce an addictive “Tetris-like” hypnotic effect for purposes of mastering the rules of orthography.  The second drew upon what we termed the “source-reference” approach to computerized drills for mastering the orthography-morphology interface.  These latter drills also sought to achieve a “Tetris-like” hypnotic effect, again with the objective of achieving a comfortable familiarity with the underlying simplicity of this interface.  In the source-reference approach, a drill program draws upon a modifiable database of elements to generate unpredictable, randomized and open-ended drill output with supportive feedback.  This enables learner-driven enhancement of performance even within a single use of the application.  Drills are not finite. Rather, learners can use them for any period of time or any number of drill problems, seeking to increase their proficiency and score as they go.  Results of these applications were promising for a broad cross-section of students, though rigorous testing was not carried out. 

I do not presently have a transcript of this talk available to share.  For further details, motivation and discussion see Introduction to the Russian Language , The Source Reference Approach and Why Russian Seems So Hard and Why It Needn’t, below, all to be posted subsequently as feasible.

I plan to post the “Introductory Course” for students when this becomes feasible.  I also hope to post at least a sample of the computerized drill programs (which will require further work due to the legacy technology in which they were coded), as their approach remains unique and their pedagogical usefulness undiminished to this day.  In the meantime, please see the extensive description above under “Обучение русскому алфавиту” (Teaching the Russian Alphabet)“.

I will post a transcript of this presentation when feasible.  In the meantime, please see the extensive description above under ““Обучение русскому алфавиту” (Teaching the Russian Alphabet)“

I will post a transcript of this presentation when feasible.  In the meantime, please see the extensive description above under “Обучение русскому алфавиту” (Teaching the Russian Alphabet)“.

This is the initial publication on a conversion immersion course held at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center over three months during the summer of 1993.  It was re-published with minor corrections in 1999 in Twelve Years of Dialogue on Teaching Russian: From the Front Pages of the ACTR Letter 1988-1999, ed. B. L. Leaver, Washington, D.C., ACTR/ACCELS Publications, 2000 (see below).  A further elaborated version with appendices was published in 1997 as “A Course to Convert Czech Proficiency to Proficiency in Serbian and Croatian” (see below).

The 1993 conversion immersion course achieved unexpectedly high proficiency outcomes for novice conversion students (40 students who had previously completed DLIFLC’s Basic Course Program in Czech, in which they had achieved a wide range of proficiency outcomes).  The course was conducted through application of “conversion immersion.”  This is a fully immersive (target-language only from Day 1) task-based and scenario-based approach without the use of textbooks.  Two students achieved ILR Level 3 (ACTFL Superior) Speaking in testing during the eleventh week of training.  For full results see the Full Text of the article (link below).  Important lessons from this course concerned the role of text vs. instructor in foreign language instruction, the use of immersive (TL-only) environment, task-based and scenario-based methodology, the role of attention to student learning styles, effects of preparedness for learning, and others.  The use of scenario-based instruction during this course also led to the later distillation and definition of what may be termed “vertical spiraling” (recycling of a progression of task types as opposed to the “traditional” concept of spiraling, which recycles topical areas).  This is described in later presentations which I hope to be able to post to this site, as well as work in preparation.

Link to the article.

Strictly speaking, this is not a presentation on learning foreign language. Rather, I have used it on a number of occasions to provide context for students and as a form of motivation for some. It aims to create a sense of fascination with the target language as an object of study, pointing out striking and unexpected etymological connections with English (the native language of most of my students), and drawing out the fallacies in certain “common knowledge” conceptions about the relationships between languages. In addition to this primary purpose, it can also provide an engaging introductory lecture for classes on language variation and language change.

The strategy of the presentation is to initially lead listeners, by unassailable chain of argumentation, to the absurd conclusion that Russian and English are the same language–not in some metaphorical or other extended sense, but that they are indeed the same language. The presentation then goes back and explores the fallacious assumption underlying this conclusion, that languages are discrete countable entities.

I have also used a variation of this presentation entitled “English and Serbian-Croatian: Two (Three, Four?) Languages or One,” and it can be modified for application to any two genetically related languages.

This is a revised and updated version of “Teaching for Proficiency: The Conversion Principle,” ACTR Letter 20/3, 1994, 1-5, with appendices added.  For commentary, see that entry (above).

Due to copyright restrictions, please access the full text of this version through your library or the publisher.

This is a re-publication, with minor updating and correction, of the version published in the ACTR Letter 20/3, 1994, 1-5.  For commentary, see that entry (above).

The full text of this version is available through the publisher.  It will be posted to the site if and when possible.

There is a video of the presentation.  The Web link no longer functions, and I am attempting to obtain a copy of the original video.  If this is possible, I will post it to the site.

The presentation reports on an early experiment in a form of combined content-based and scenario-based instruction for that we later termed “language to work” in professional development presentations (see “Language-to-Work,” below). 

This was one of my first professional development presentations following my return to the Defense Language Institute. It sought to familiarize current faculty with the lessons of the 1993 conversion immersion experience and their relevance for ongoing instructional development. To that end, the presentation tracked in large part my previous publications on this experience (see above). A major step forward in this presentation was that it also attempted to distill for the first time one of the implicit lessons of that experience, by defining an approach to curricular design that we later termed “vertical spiraling.” Spiraling is a term usually applied to the periodic recycling of study topics, with the goal of achieving greater depth of knowledge during each iteration. Vertical spiraling, in contrast, refers to the repeated recycling of a progression of ever more complex task types to achieve incremental growth of proficiency. This has proved to be a key component in enabling a modular open architecture approach to foreign language curriculum.

I delivered multiple iterations of variations of this presentation under a variety of similar titles. The annotated PowerPoint presentation from this iteration will be posted to the site after editing for general distribution.

This presentation was addressed to faculty at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC). It draws upon my years as a United Nations “research officer,” in which capacity I carried out a variety of functions–research, investigative and analytical. A number of my activities were relevant to faculty of DLIFLC’s Basic Course programs.

The presentation begins with an overview of the mission, structure and manner of functioning of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). It then surveys areas of relevance of the ICTY to DLIFLC’s instructional mission and to likely follow-on activities of many of its students. These areas of relevance fall into four general categories. The first concerns the ICTY as a creator of knowledge. The second views the ICTY as a repository of authentic evidentiary materials relevant to training students in the languages of the parties to the conflicts. The third area of relevance concerns insights regarding language training for personnel who will be active in kinetic and stressful contexts. This segment draws out the relevance of classroom vs. real-world environments for assessment of global and specific performance-related proficiencies, as well as lessons for the design of language curriculum. The fourth area of relevance concerns difficulties and opportunities common to a number of analytical tasks carried out by ICTY and military language analysts. One of the main lessons to be drawn concerns the distinction between investigative and analytical approaches to document exploitation. Among the benefits of the analytical approach is the ability to draw out critically important non-explicit content contained in documentary evidence. Another of the benefits is an appreciation of the inherent limitations of particular media in which evidence may be preserved. Finally, the presentation, by distinguishing between investigative and analytical approaches to document exploitation, highlights the power and mission-critical relevance of elite level global proficiency (ILR 3+ and above). By the same token, it brings into relief the inherent limitations (with the inevitable implications for mission success) of document exploitation by personnel with lower level global proficiency, especially proficiency below the Superior (full professional, ILR 3) level.

The presentation is based solely on information in the public domain, both in regard to the ICTY and DLIFLC. It is linked to video and audio evidentiary materials also in the public domain.  A link will be posted here.

This was one of several presentations and reports related to curriculum review and development projects for the Serbian-Croatian and Russian programs at the DLIFLC School of European and Latin American Studies.  While the title and exemplification within the presentation are drawn from Serbian-Croatian, the presentation also relates by extension to Russian , with the proviso that Russian adds an additional layer of complexity due to the historically conditioned mismatch between its sound system and orthography.  This has the effect of making Russian morphology seem far more complex than it in fact is.  A version adapted to the needs of the Russian program was drafted, but remained in draft form following my transfer to the Academic Associate Dean position in the Directorate of Continuing Education’s School of Resident Education in November, 2009.

This particular presentation focuses on a coherent approach to the presentation and mastery of structural (grammatical or, more broadly, form-related) aspects of the target language.   It distinguishes between explicit and inductive (contextual) approaches to grammar learning, discussing the appropriate role of each, and how these can vary for different learners and at different stages of learning.  It goes on to advocate for an approach to grammar presentation and reference in support of the learning process that is both layered and unified (terms defined within the presentation), a characteristic that many textbook treatments fail to achieve.  

Briefly, a “layered” approach is one that makes available multiple levels, or layers, of grammatical support materials.  Here these include: a) pre-training materials to create schemata and allow learners to map out and benchmark their learning in advance; b) brief “textbook-style” explanations for small sub-systems of a grammatical system; c) summary reference charts for ongoing support as needed; and d) comprehensive descriptions of grammatical systems that cover most aspects of common usage.  These last are more akin to accounts found in academic reference grammars, but are composed for pedagogical purposes.  Academic reference grammars, scholarly books and articles lie outside the scope of the layered system.  Layers a) through d) are thus the materials that are designed and made available to support learning–to which learners and instructors alike will refer to support their roles in the learning process.

A “unified” system is simply one in which the various components (levels a-d across the various grammatical systems) are coordinated and in agreement with one another, so that the more complex treatments supplement the briefer ones without causing confusion.  As indicated above, coordination with the accounts in academic reference grammars or other scholarly contributions is not necessary, though of course it is desirable where feasible. 

An approach that is both layered and unified is valuable regardless of the approach to curriculum and instructional methodology that is adopted, but is especially useful in enabling instruction to fully support a broad range of learner and cohort profiles.  It can play a vital role in support of production-oriented (task-based, scenario-based and content-based) transformative open architecture and modular approaches that seek to maximally empower learners and enable learner autonomy.  Finally, it is critically important in a team teaching environment.  In this context, confusion can and often does arise when explanations offered by different instructors or accessed independently by learners clash.  This can be especially crucial when all instructors do not possess equal  linguistic sophistication for applying and reconciling differences between sources that they or learners have consulted.

A layered approach to grammar explanations is not a new concept.  For Serbian-Croatian, for example, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, a Textbook; with Exercises and Basic Grammar, Second Revised Edition, by Ronelle Alexander and Ellen Elias-Bursać (U. of Wisconsin Press, 2010) applies this aproach.  What is perhaps new here is the application of the concept for purposes of a non-textbook-based and team teaching-based approach, expansion of the number of layers, and the greater emphasis on a unified account.  The latter is needed on account of both the expanded scope of the materials and the needs of the team-taught environment.  This need would also arise in situations in which learners have one instructor during one term, but move on to a different instructor in a later course, though this will be a rare situation for Serbian-Croatian outside of the former Yugoslav republics. 

In addition to this PowerPoint-supported presentation, I also authored reports and analyses on Russian and Serbian-Croatian curriculum (see just below), which laid out a number of general concepts and common pitfalls in the pedagogical presentation of grammar (structural or form-related aspects of the target language).  Finally, I authored preliminary drafts or concepts of a variety of materials in support of the layered and unified approach, including several intended for pre-training use (see below).

While at the School of European and Latin American Studies, I authored a number of reports on curriculum development for Russian and Serbian-Croatian, assessing current materials and approaches and recommending guiding concepts.  Among other topics, these reports articulated a number of general observations and concepts related to the presentation and curricular treatment of grammatical (or, more generally, form-related) matters.  They provide some context and motivation for the design of grammatical materials discussed in the previous and following item.  While these reports in their original form addressed circumstances within particular programs, I look forward to producing revised versions that focus on the general matters that are of interest across the field.

The original versions of these materials were composed as contributions to a revision project for the initial semester of the DLIFLC Serbian-Croatian Basic Course program.  Due to dropping enrollments, the project was ultimately discontinued, but a number of the products remain useful as drafts (or, for those less developed, as concepts), and their design may provide models for other languages, including Russian.

These materials implement two intersecting approaches–pre-training and the layered and unified approach–that together provide one pillar of a broader approach to enabling rapid and sustainable proficiency growth for novice foreign language learners.  They seek to accomplish this in one part by providing true novices (i.e., not conversion novices) from a broad spectrum of learner profiles access to the rapid proficiency gains achievable through conversion immersion or similar approaches (i.e., in a manner similar to that described in write-ups of the 1993 conversion immersion experience; see Corin 1994, 1997, 2000, and 3 June 2008, above).  In the other part they accomplish this by simultaneously providing access to a layered and unified framework of grammatical support materials. The purpose of the latter is to ensure that rapid proficiency growth can continue, relatively unimpeded by serious fossilized inaccuracies and relatively unstymied by the complexity of particular grammatical systems, from novice level up through the Superior and Elite (ILR Level 3-4) levels of proficiency which demand grammatical accuracy.  Again, the goal is to accomplish this in a manner that is accessible to learners from across the full range of learner profiles.

For more on the layered and unified approach, see “Grammar in Serbian-Croatian Curriculum Revision” (above).  For a more in-depth look, including the motivation for this approach, see the materials under Russian and Serbian-Croatian Curriculum Development (above). 

Pre-training in this context (i.e., for the purpose of enabling novices to learn in much the same manner as conversion learners, by participating in immersive, production-oriented, scenario-based and content-based activities with broad learner autonomy from Day 1) entails a combination of at least two preferably concurrent approaches.  The first consists of familiarizations focusing on unfamiliar structural systems of the target language.  The goal of these trainings is to create schemata and allow novices to mentally map out and benchmark the learning that lies ahead of them.  For Russian, additional kinds of familiarization pre-training, both text-based and computerized, may actually enable a significant level of mastery of the orthography in a way that will greatly simplify learning of morphology later; see ““Обучение русскому алфавиту” (Teaching the Russian Alphabet)” and Introduction to the Russian Language (both above).

The second concurrent approach to pre-training consists of essentially direct-method instruction to create a base of common sentence structures, connecting devices and frequent vocabulary related to the immediate environment.  These would then serve as “islands” in support of further proficiency growth within an approach more akin to conversion immersion. 

While the experiential base for application of this approach is limited, it does suggest that this combined approach to pre-training can ensure access to the benefits inherent in approaches such as conversion immersion for non-conversion novices.

The pre-training materials on grammatical systems, in turn, represent one component of the layered and unified approach to grammatical (structural) learning.

Materials originally drafted for purposes of this project include the following.  These are first working drafts or, in the case of the PowerPoint presentations, aesthetically rough pre-draft concepts which would benefit from more sophisticated coding and aesthetic work-up prior to broad testing.  Other course planning and textual materials were produced that represented a collective effort or the primary effort of other team members and are not cited here. 

1. Introductory Texts for inclusion in a novice level Serbian-Croatian text:
a) Related and Borrowed Words

2. Grammatical materials.  The “noun” (substantive) materials were intended to present one example of how a layered and unified system might be structured to meet the full range of needs. It includes one material each at the level of pre-training, short limited explanation, comprehensive explanation and quick reference guide.  The remaining materials represent portions of layered and unified systems.

a) Pre-training presentations on Serbian-Croatian morphological and syntactic systems.  Optimally, these presentations would first be presented with commentary by an instructor, and then studied out of class.  The accompanying exercises can be done independently or in a class setting. It should be reiterated that the purpose of these presentations is familiarization and schemata building as a component of pre-training, not mastery.

(1) “Serbian-Croatian Nouns.”  (Link pending)  This is a preliminary draft of a PowerPoint presentation with a practice exercise in .notebook format. It demonstrates an approach to introducing learners to the overlapping categories of case, grammatical gender and declensional class in the Serbo-Croatian substantive.  In its current form it is designed for proof of concept purposes only, using basic PowerPoint animation techniques and simple public domain drawings as illustrations.  At first glance, this may come across as a linguistic approach to grammar learning.  However, its purpose is diametrically opposed to that of grammatical explanations in a grammar-translation or similar approach.  Rather, it seeks to familiarize novice learners, for purposes of schemata creation, with those categories that even taken separately will be unfamiliar to most novices with English as a native language.  It is intended to support an approach to learning in which grammatical learning will generally take place in context, and which eschews, to the extent possible, form-focused grammatical presentations.  To be sure, the greatest benefit from this approach may indeed be derived by learners with “analytical,” “reflective” and associated components of learning style.  Some will no doubt benefit primarily through the development of schemata for autonomously interpreting language in context, while for some the primary benefit may be context within which later discussions of grammar, especially of grammar in context, may be more easily understood.  Reference can be made back to the PowerPoint presentation in support of later discussions as necessary.  As a component of a layered and unified approach to grammar, this pre-training’s explanations are coordinated with those provided in other “layers” (see b1, c1 and d1, below).

(2) “Serbian-Croatian Verbs.” (Link pending)  This is an early draft of a pre-training PowerPoint presentation analogous to “Serbian-Croatian Nouns,” though this version does not have an associated .notebook exercise and it is not illustrated. It is also a rough (in regard to coding and aesthetics) concept requiring further work-up.

(3) “Introduction to the Structure of S/C: Adjectives & Pronouns”  (Link pending)  This is yet another early draft or concept for a pre-training PowerPoint presentation analogous to “Serbian-Croatian Nouns” and “Serbian-Croatian Verbs,” for proof of concept purposes and requiring further work-up.  It has an accompanying exercise in Microsoft Word format.

b) “Textbook-chapter-style” limited explanations of small pieces of grammatical systems represent the next level in a layered approach to grammar.  Such materials typically represent the primary form of explanatory material  aimed at developing mastery of grammar within textbook-based approaches that utilize a scope-and-sequence (grammar rationing) approach.  They can also be used as brief explanations within other approaches that emphasize learning grammar in context.

(1) “Grammar Note” to “Activity 7:Verb IMATI + Accusative Case.”  This was the sole draft of a brief grammar explanation produced for the project in question within the layered and unified framework.  It is coordinated with the accounts presented in the pre-training presentation described above, as well as with the comprehensive explanation and reference materials described below.

c) Comprehensive grammatical materials.  These serve multiple purposes.  First, they ensure consistency of presentation within a course.  This is critical in a non-textbook-based team teaching environment in which students might otherwise (and often in fact do!) receive differing accounts from different instructors.  Experience has demonstrated that the absence of such an authoritative account in such an environment can and often does lead to confusion and frustration on the part of learners.  Second, they provide a “go to” source for instructors in order to expand upon short accounts with confidence that the expanded account will be consistent with shorter accounts that have been previously presented.  Third, it provides a resource for learners seeking more detailed or comprehensive information or context than is contained in the shorter accounts.  A user-friendly resource of this nature that is coordinated with shorter explanations to which learners have already been exposed is crucially important in a program that seeks to maximally encourage and exploit learner autonomy utilizing authentic sources and emphasizing open-ended production.

(1) Central topics: “Introduction to Serbian–Croatian Nouns: Declension Class, Gender, Case.”  This draft is nearly complete, but requires review and revision, and contains a number of notations indicating additional content to be added. 

(2) Central topics: “Introduction to Serbian – Croatian Verbs: Tense, Mood, Voice; Aspect; Classification of Verbs.”  This 28-page draft is also nearly complete though in need of review and revision, and also contains several notations indicating additional content to be added.  This version does not attempt to key the system of verb classification to that found any one existing reference grammar.  This may be done in a subsequent version, depending on the inclination of the reviewer regarding variation between existing reference grammars, but the ultimate pedagogical purpose of the layered and unified approach should be borne in mind. 

(3) Central topics: “Introduction to Serbian/Croatian Adjectives.”  This 11-page draft also has a number of annotations indicating content that remains to be added.

(4) Difficult Topics: “Serbian-Croatian Enclitics.”  This is a ten-page draft that is generally complete though requiring review and revision. 

(5) Difficult Topics: “Existential Sentences in Contemporary Serbian-Croatian.”  Existential sentences, corresponding roughly to the English “there is …” construction, represent a significant if limited difficulty for native speakers of English, as the noun phrase is treated as a grammatical subject only if its referent is a singular countable noun and the sentence is affirmative.  Otherwise, if the noun is non-countable, plural or the sentence is negated, then in standard usage the noun phrase appears in the genitive case.  Further complexity occurs in the past and future tense, future tense, leading to complexity that can bewilder learners.  Typically, mastery can be expected only at ILR Level 3 (ACTFL Superior).  The present three-page draft includes a number of examples drawn from the periodic press.  It does not address existential sentences in conditional mood.

(6) Difficult Topics: “Conditional Sentences in Serbian-Croatian.” 

d) Brief grammatical “quick reference” support materials

(1) Combined SC Grammar Chart

The goal has been to create an approach to grammar that supports maximal learner autonomy and is adapted to the broadest variety of learner profiles, especially in regard to preferred learning styles.  To that end the model envisages learning of grammar primarily in context but supported by pre-training for schemata creation and multiple levels of grammatical explanations.  Initially, there are the pre-training introductions to major grammatical topics, focusing on those that are significantly different from those of learners’ native languages.  The pre-trainings, which may be in the form of text-based or PowerPoint-based presentations with associated exercises, are not intended to result in mastery of the systems described, although it cannot be excluded that certain learners will be able to learn to mastery through such an approach.  Rather, they are designed to allow learners to create schemata and mentally map out and benchmark the learning that lies ahead of them, keying them to recognize the significance of input when they begin to encounter it in target language input.   Second, there are short “textbook-style” explanations, such as are typically employed in the “grammar rationing” approach adopted by most textbooks, and are intended to allow learners to carried out a limited scope of communicative activities with a limited inventory of vocabulary items in constrained contexts.  Finally, there are extensive explanations sufficient to support learning up to ILR Level 3 (ACTFL Superior) proficiency, beyond which such coherent explanations over an entire realm of grammar lose their feasibility.

This two-part presentation, which I have offered on multiple occasions in several variants, has a different purpose from most professional development presentations.  In large part, especially in its second portion, it is speculative, intended to explore untried possibilities and stimulate out-of-the-box thinking on approaches to instructional methodology and curriculum.  Leitmotifs of the presentation include:

• Language learning as adventure: excitement as an essential ongoing component of effective FL learning and “stodge” as the enemy of excitement
• Identifying and questioning the “boxes” that limit our thinking re FL learning processes
• Putting the learner in control of the learning process

The initial (retrospective) component begins by drawing out the unique characteristics of the Defense Language Institute’s instructional environment, and suggests that these present opportunities that have yet to be exploited there or elsewhere. 

It goes on to define the concept of “boxed thinking,” and then explore and challenge a number of our assumptions concerning how foreign language courses “have to be” structured and function–assumptions about the classroom, about our students, about our programs and about our instructors.  The presentation builds in a reduced version of the presentation on the 1993 conversion immersion course to provide concrete examples of how several such assumptions may be subverted in order to meet a seemingly impossible mission requirement.  Primary among these is the place and role of the classroom in the FL learning process. 

The presentation draws a distinction between instruction and training as concepts relevant to language learning, with an emphasis on the training component.  To be sure, training and education are inextricably linked in this process, and the educational component will be even more pronounced in an intentionally transformational learning environment.  Nevertheless, the inescapable skill and performance components of language learning can only be met efficiently through what is essentially a training process.

Part One also lays out a clear distinction between project-based instruction and scenario-based training, including multiple differential characteristics of each.

Part Two goes on to present an extended speculative example of how a foreign language course might be structured in a way that questions many, if not most, of our conventional assumptions about the structure and functioning of foreign language courses.  It draws upon the concept of “school to work,” and proposes what might be termed “language to work” (a term coined by Dr. Betty Lou Leaver, former Provost of the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center) as a form of apprenticeship-based learning environment that incorporates content-based instruction into a scenario-based framework.  Assumptions that are challenged in this model concern the role of the classroom as the primary locus of learning, coterminous enrollment as a necessary component of cohort structure, and others.

A link will be posted here when possible.

In February 2015, a “Diagnostic Assessment Summit” was held at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center as the culmination of several years of work on the development of a second generation of diagnostic assessment protocol for use across the full range of DLIFLC’s programs. Diagnostic assessment (DA)–a protocol-based form of formative assessment–had originated at the Defense Language Institute in the 1990s and had developed through multiple stages of protocol development and training regimes for diagnostic assessors. Later forms of DA, in the hands of trained and normed DA assessors, achieved a high level of correlation with results from the DLPT and Oral Proficiency Interview. Its purpose, however, was to serve as a formative, not summative, assessment, to support diagnostic instruction supported, in part, by developments in socio-cultural theory.

A PowerPoint presentation exists, which I plan to post here.

The past quarter century at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center has seen the gradual development and broad use of a multi-component protocol-based form of formative assessment known as Diagnostic Assessment. The following two articles describe the process, some of its history, challenges that it presents and some of the directions toward their resolution.

A) “Diagnostic Assessment at Upper Ranges of Proficiency” (September 2012)

B) “Protocol-Based Formative Assessment: Evolution and Revolution at the Defense Language Institute” (March 2015)

Descriptions and links will be posted here.

This is raw (unedited) video of a lecture presentation describing the concept of open architecture foreign language curriculum. It provides a number of examples of how an open architecture curriculum might appear.

The link will be posted here.

This was one of several reports and presentations related to curriculum review and development projects for the Serbian-Croatian and Russian programs at the DLIFLC School of European and Latin American Studies.  While title and exemplification within the presentation is drawn from Serbian-Croatian, the presentation also related by extension to the Russian program, with the proviso that Russian adds an additional layer of complexity through the historically conditioned mismatch between its sound system and orthography.  This has the effect of making Russian morphology seem far more complex than it in fact is.

This particular presentation focused on several aspects of the presentation and mastery of structural (grammatical or, more broadly, form-related) matters.   It distinguished between explicit and inductive (contextual) approaches to grammar learning, discussing the appropriate role of each, and how these may vary depending on the characteristics of individual learners.  It went on to advocate for an approach to “grammatical” learning that is both layered and unified (terms defined within the presentation), a characteristic that most textbook treatments fail to achieve.   An approach that is both layered and unified is invaluable regardless of the approach to curriculum and instructional methodology that is adopted, but is especially important if instruction is to fully support a broad range of learner and cohort profiles.  It is especially valuable in support of transformative open architecture and modular approaches, and those that seek to maximally empower learners through learner autonomy.

I also authored internal reports assessing pilot projects for Russian and Serbian-Croatian, and critiquing current curricular materials.  These elaborated on a number of general observations related to the presentation and curricular treatment of grammatical, structural or, more generally, form-related matters.  While these reports as such would not be appropriate for general distribution, I intend to produce “scrubbed” versions that focus on the general matters that would be of interest across the field.

Link to the PowerPoint presentation.

A link to the presentation will be posted here when fully edited.

This article provides a framework within the Ehrman & Leaver Cognitive Construct (E&L) to overcome misunderstandings concerning field independence, field dependence and field sensitivity that have limited application of these concepts to second/foreign language learning and assessment. Bipolar definitions, in which the opposed values “field independence” and “field dependence” (sometimes termed “field sensitivity”) are each positively defined, conflate perception and cognitive manipulation—two distinct aspects of cognitive functioning. This leads to incorrect generalizations that undermine the utility of the concepts. E&L overcomes misunderstandings in two ways. First, it contextualizes the field concepts within the broader category of synopsis/ectasis, thus elucidating the relationship of the field concepts to other cognitive style constructs. Second, and crucially, it de-conflates the perceptual and manipulation aspects of cognition by expanding the field concepts into a quadrangular construct of two parallel categories—field independence (synoptic perception) vs. field dependence (ectenic perception) and field sensitivity (synoptic manipulation) vs. field insensitivity (ectenic manipulation). A person can thus be field independent and field sensitive, field dependent and field sensitive, etc., in line with research results. The article concludes by showing how a contextualized and de-conflated field construct enables effective application of field concepts to instructional and curricular adaptation.

LINK TO THE FULL ISSUE

LINK TO THE ARTICLE AT JSTOR

A link to the PowerPoint presentation, together with notes and references, can be found with the following item–the joint PowerPoint presentation for the entire panel

Panel description/abstract:

Open Architecture Curricular Design (OACD) provides an alternative to essentially fixed curricula based on a one-size-fits-all model. OACD curricula are structured to allow ongoing modification of all content during and between courses to meet emerging need without resource-intensive substantive revision processes. OACD curricula may be modular, eliminating most of the need for linear scope and sequence of target language elements/functions. Units or modules may therefore be freely switched out or their order and content modified as desired. OACD thus represents an attractive strategy for enhancing learning efficiency while maximizing learner autonomy and transformative learning effects. The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center and certain other Government FL training programs have been developing and deploying OACD curricula to meet ever higher proficiency outcome requirements. The intensive nature of these programs, their numbers of students, and the breadth of languages across which OACD curricula have been applied have allowed for accumulation of experience, including observation and assessment of effects of OACD, that might require significantly more time in programs with less intensive schedules, fewer languages and students. Panel participants will address opportunities and challenges associated with OACD from three perspectives. Betty Lou Leaver will discuss “Origins and Theoretical Bases of Open Architecture Curricular Design: A Step on the Road to Transformative Learning?” Irene Krasner will address “Open Architecture for Students at the Novice – Advanced Levels: Assessment Based on the Experience of DLIFLC Basic Course Programs.” Andrew Corin will assess: “The Challenge of the Inverted Pyramid: Open Architecture and Learning Efficiency in Achieving Superior and Elite Levels of Proficiency.” Jane Shuffelton, will serve as discussant from a perspective external to Government foreign language (L2) programs which includes K-12 education. Evgeny Dengub will chair the panel, bringing the additional perspective of college/university-based programs.

Abstracts for the individual presentations may be found through the AATSEEL website.

Link to the PowerPoint presentation.

Link to the article.

Link to the article.

Abstract

Drawing on imagery from a 1985 contribution by Pardee Lowe, Jr., this article frames the quest for distinguished-level L2 proficiency as the ascent from the foot of a mountain to the summit (near-native or distinguished-level proficiency). Success in this quest depends crucially on two conditions: (1) reaching the base camp (around superior-level proficiency) with sufficient time, and (2) with the equipment needed for the final ascent. For this to have any likelihood of occurring more broadly than at present, it is necessary to somehow defeat the phenomenon known as the inverted pyramid. This in turn requires us to probe the reality that underlies this metaphorical construct.  Once we understand its nature, shape and causes, the way forward becomes clearer, and there are in fact specific instructional and curricular design approaches that can help us mitigate, if not entirely eliminate it. One of these, a modular open architecture approach to curricular design, is described in Section 2, and a hypothesis is formulated as to one mechanism through which it appears to mitigate the inverted pyramid phenomenon. Section 3 surveys the origin and history of the inverted pyramid construct before turning to an examination of its substance, shape, and slope.  The final two subsections summarize the causes of the inverted pyramid phenomenon and realistic approaches to defeating it, which include the curricular approach described in Section 2.

Abstract

Today’s L2 learning environment is increasingly outcomes-based, which results in a rising demand for learning efficiency. This chapter describes the design and implementation of one form of transformative open architecture curriculum to meet two challenges requiring enhanced learning efficiency that arose during 2012-2014 at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC). In each case, the requirement was to achieve measurable proficiency growth (≥ .5 ILR level) in listening, reading and speaking for students entering with global proficiency typically between ILR 1+ and 2+ in shorter timeframes than previously considered feasible. The approach had to be applicable across all DLIFLC languages and allow courses to be brought online quickly and modified freely without lengthy revision processes. The response employed a modular content-based and scenario-based structure. In place of linear scope and sequence, “vertical spiraling” was employed. Integration of activities was ensured through multi-stage culminating scenarios, toward which all module activities were directed. Collaborative learning was ensured in part through an initial negotiation process that also enhanced learner empowerment, ensuring that students could mentally map out the learning needed in preparation for the culminating activity. In many instances, proficiency gains exceeding objectives were achieved in periods as short as 6-8 weeks.

The book is expected to appear by December 31, 2020.  Link to the publication site.

Abstract

Open architecture curricular design (OACD) is an approach to the organization of world language instruction which is being applied to an increasing extent for Serbian and other world languages.  OACD functions without a textbook and is often modular in organization.  OACD utilizes un-adapted authentic target-language texts, task-based, project-based and scenario-based instruction, as well as other activities which can be freely added, removed, re-ordered or switched out in response to emerging need or opportunity, such that instruction adapts continuously to the needs of learners without disruption or labor-intensive revision processes. OACD also allows for maximal learner participation in finding and selecting authentic materials.  OACD appears in various forms in various institutions and programs in response to an increasingly complex understanding of principles and best practices for effective and efficient world language learning, in the context of a growing awareness of a need for the accelerated attainment of a “professional-level” (ILR 3, ACTFL Superior) global competence in a target language.  The presentation describes the development of OACD primarily in the United States, the hypothesis of OACD as a key to overcoming the so-called “inverted pyramid” as an obstacle to the attainment of professional and near-native levels of language proficiency, and approaches to enabling learners at elementary levels of proficiency (ILR 0-1, ACTFL Novice — Intermediate Mid) to enjoy the benefits of OACD.

A more extensive version of this paper will be published in the conference proceedings (Naučni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane, vol. 51) in 2022.

Rezime

Kurikulum sa otvorenom arhitekturom (KOA) je pristup organizovanju nastave koji se sve češće primenjuje za učenje srpskog a i drugih stranih jezika.  KOA funkcioniše bez udžbenika, a često je modularno organizovan.  Koristi neadaptirane autentične materijale na ciljnom jeziku, zadatke, projekte, i druge aktivnosti koji se slobodno smenjuju ili premeštaju kada se ukaže potreba odnosno prilika, tako da se nastava kontinuirano prilagođava potrebama učenika bez poremećaja ili napornih procesa adaptacije. KOA takođe dozvoljava maksimalno učešće učenika u selekciji i nalaženju autentičnog sadržaja.  KOA se pojavljuje u raznim vidovima u raznim institucijama i programima kao odgovor na sve kompleksnije shvatanje principa i najboljih praksi efektivnog i efikasnog učenja stranih jezika pri rastućoj svesti o potrebi učenika za bržim postizanjem „profesionalnog nivoa“ (CEFR C1.2-C2) kompetencija na stranom jeziku.  U referatu se izlažu razvoj KOA prvenstveno u SAD, hipoteza o KOA kao ključu prevazilaženja takozvane „obrnute piramide“ kao prepreke postizanju najviših nivoa jezičkih kompetencija, i pristupi približavanju KOA mogućnostima učenika početnih kurseva srpskog i drugih jezika.

Link to the paper.

Here is a link to the published version: “Kurikulum sa otvorenom arhitekturom za učenje srpskog i drugih stranih jezika u SAD,” Naučni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane 51/1, 2022, 17-27.  

Protocol-based formative assessment (PBFA) can be a powerful tool for enhancing
learning and diagnosing learning challenges. Yet there is an inherent tension between
effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of PBFA. This can be addressed through a
variety of strategies: “rationing” PBFA to instances of individual learning difficulties,
applying PBFA to all students but in fewer instances, or by engineering greater efficiency
into the protocol. Regardless of the strategy adopted, it is taken for granted that PBFA
should be maximally integrated with instruction-based formative assessment (IBFA) as
an integral component of day-to-day classroom instruction. This article articulates the
dilemma as it developed at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center
(DLIFLC) between 1989 and 2015 and the path pursued to overcome it through re-design
of PBFA.

This article can be accessed through the JDLS internet site.

This volume contains an expanded exposition of the topic of Leaver and Corin (2019). It provides a more thorough introduction to practical applications of cognitive field awareness to increase the effectiveness, efficiency and enjoyment of language learning. It also focuses in greater detail on situating the field concepts within the broader domain of individual variation as it relates to language learning. This includes an examination of the phenomenon, in certain segments of the literature, of “style denial.”

The book is expected to appear late in 2020.

This was a videotaped introduction to open architecture curricular design: historical/conceptual basis; definition and principles; what OACD looks like in practice, including materials and activities; assessments.  The PowerPoint presentation will be linked here shortly.  The videotaped presentation is 83 megabytes large, and i will upload it if possible.

This presentation provided an introduction to transformative language learning and teaching and its nexus with open architecture curricular design.  In short, OACD is a key enabler for TLLT, though it also functions well in a non-transformative learning context.  Leaver presented on TLLT, while Corin discussed the OACD aspect.  I will upload Corin’s PowerPoint presentation shortly.  That presentation also contains a preview of our soon to be released edited volume, Andrew R. Corin, Betty Lou Leaver, and Christine Campbell, eds., Open Architecture Curricular Design in World Language Education, Georgetown University Press, to be released July 2025.

A guide to a textbook-free approach to world languages curriculums that will improve learning outcomes

Open architecture curricular design (OACD) is a textbook-free curricular design framework for teaching and learning world languages that integrates best practices in world language education to enhance learning efficiency and effectiveness. As editors and pioneers of this method, Corin, Leaver, and Campbell define OACD for world language instructors and second language acquisition researchers from middle school through higher education and beyond.

The book’s chapters demonstrate how to use OACD for a wide variety of languages and proficiency levels in government, service academy, and university programs. Topics covered include the use of authentic texts at all levels, learner involvement in the selection of content and activities, and methods of assessment and program evaluation.

The book is now available for preorder at https://press.georgetown.edu/Book/Open-Architecture-Curricular-Design-in-World-Language-Education with description, table of contents, and reviews, as well as at Amazon.