Kappan authors have consistently called for more foreign language instruction, but they haven’t always agreed about the form such instruction should take. 

 

Over the decades, Kappan authors have contributed hundreds of articles on reading, writing, literacy, and other aspects of language learning. But what of the study of foreign languages?   

On the rare occasions that articles on foreign language instruction have been featured in the magazine, they have tended to bewail Americans’ lack of facility with foreign languages and to call for more language study, starting earlier in the K-12 curriculum. Such arguments go back at least as far as April 1935, when James Tharp (“Foreign language objectives”) responded to a newspaper article stating that foreign language study did not improve students’ performance in college. That’s hardly the point of such study, Tharp wrote. Rather, the general position of foreign language teachers was that studying a second language opens students’ eyes to the world, leading to “a broadening of the social outlook and an integration of world interests through intelligent comprehension of and respect for varying human customs in an environment extended beyond national bounds” (p. 86).  

In the midst of World War II, Edwin Lee (“Basic value of languages,” October 1942) pointed out in an address summarized in Kappan that foreign language study was vital not just for students but for the nation: 

Today as never before, the importance of a working knowledge of foreign languages is self-evident. An understanding of alien mores and ways of thinking is absolutely vital if we are to cooperate effectively with our allies. At this moment our nation needs literally thousands of persons who are equipped to develop contacts with China, Russia, India, and with various nations which have been overrun. We must also be able to understand our enemies, Germany, Italy, and Japan. In order to defeat them, we must know what they are doing and what they are liable to do. In the postwar reconstruction and stabilization, we dare not be ignorant of the contribution they may be expected to make. To collaborate successfully with other nations in the free world of tomorrow, we must understand our collaborators. To understand them we must know their languages. (p. 53) 

More than 10 years later, Earl McGrath (“Language study and world affairs,” January 1953) observed that the postwar United States was falling behind other nations when it came to language study. His article began with a recounting of an international meeting on education at which most of the participants were fluent in at least two languages, yet none of the five members of the U.S. delegation, all of them holding Ph.D.s speak a second language well enough to engage in conversation or address the conference: 

This is not an unusual situation. Americans who travel abroad are quickly impressed with the ability of other nationals to understand and to speak several languages. They are also keenly aware of and often embarrassed by their own inadequacies in this respect. (p. 144) 

Although not a frequent Kappan topic, the lack of foreign language instruction has remained a concern into the 21st century. For example, in November 2004, Myriam Met (“Improving students’ capacity for foreign languages”) explained, in a special section on international education, that facility with foreign languages was important for trade, diplomacy, national security, and relationships with immigrant communities. 

Which languages? 

In Kappan, much of the discussion of language instruction has dwelt on the need for more language study, with little attention to which languages should be studied. However, in the 1940s, a debate emerged about the value of French versus Spanish. In September 1945, Louis Foley (“Language-picture out of focus”) expressed exasperation at the promotion of Spanish at the expense of French: 

Though any language is well worth knowing if we can find time and opportunity to learn it, common sense should tell us that different languages have different values from any point of view. The spectacle of “educators” actually putting pressure upon students to take up Spanish, while totally neglecting French, under the pretext of a “good-neighbor” policy, in a part of the United States whose closest neighbor is French Canada, is an ironic commentary upon American intelligence. In any part of our country, it ought to be recognized that the French language holds a place of peculiar distinction in the whole world, aside from its incomparable contribution to the language and the life which we think of as our own. (p. 17)

Dewey Amer (“We need more foreign languages”) countered in January 1946 with the argument that Spanish is not just the primary language of one of our closest neighbors, but an important language within U.S. borders:

The United States is generally regarded as a one-language nation. This is not altogether true. The vast majority of the people of Puerto Rico are Spanish-speaking in spite of our policy of seeking to replace Spanish by English. These people are citizens of the United States. On the continent, we have also a good many other Spanish-speaking people who likewise are citizens of this country. I refer to those who were on the land, or whose ancestors were on the land when it was taken over by English-speaking people. The number of these two groups is well over 2,000,000 and approximates the number of French-speaking people in Canada. If we add to this number the Filipinos who speak Spanish, who are still at present United States citizens in spite of our promise of future independence, we arrive at an estimated five percent for the number of United States citizens whose native language is Spanish. (p. 152) 

How to teach? 

Another area of debate among Kappan authors has been the best way to teach foreign languages. For example, in March 1966, we published a set of three articles on the subject. Nelson Brooks (“Language learning: The new approach”) took up the cause of the audiolingual method, which, instead of focusing on the kind of grammatical lessons found in textbooks, “aims immediately and throughout at communication, the kind that takes place when one speaker faces another and when a writer addresses a reader” (p. 357). He noted that the research base for this method was scanty, but that may be because such measures were difficult to obtain. 

Dennis Hannan (“Common sense and the direct method in language teaching”) expressed skepticism about a reliance on the audiolingual and direct methods that were on the rise. Although he acknowledged the merits of these approaches, he observed that “there can be no one perfect method in teaching because what will work with one age group will be ineffective with another and because there is no such thing as one standardized type of student” (p. 360). The reliance on memorization and imitation might not be appropriate for every student, in every situation.  

A.F. Gronberg (“Is audiolingual what it’s gimcracked up to be?”) took a stronger stand, arguing that “the audiolinguists are barking into the wrong microphone” (p. 363). Trying to replicate the language learning method of a young child is futile when working with older learners, and relying on laboratory exercises often limited student learning by requiring them to memorize word patterns without receiving instruction in the rules behind them. 

An early start 

Although the question of audiolingual versus textbook-based methods was not settled in Kappan, authors seem to have been unanimous in their advocacy of an earlier start to foreign language instruction. Support of language instruction in earlier grades goes back at least as far as January 1953, when McGrath noted that, outside the United States, education in a second, or even a third, language often started in the primary years. In September 1993, Brian Peck (“The language explosion: Europe starts it early”) looked at European schools and found “clear evidence is emerging that an early start is both desirable and common” (p. 409). 

Likewise, Met observed in November 2004 that “Learning a language takes a long time. Students cannot begin a language in high school, study it for two years, and be able to use it for real-life purposes any more than they can take two years of beginning mathematics and be prepared to be engineers” (p. 216). Early language study has other benefits as well. Met cited research into how early language study is associated with improved mental flexibility, divergent-thinking skills, and test scores. However, she went on to explain early exposure on its own may be insufficient, if that exposure is limited to just 30 minutes a week. 

In May 2010, Anne Soderman (“Language immersion programs for young children? Yes . . . but proceed with caution”) looked at programs that seek to go beyond 30 minutes a week to immerse students in a fully bilingual environment. Such “an immersion model provides the best opportunity for children to attain high levels of proficiency in a target language, but only if children’s everyday experiences are well constructed, engaging, and developmentally appropriate” (p. 57). According to Soderman, an effective program would treat bilingualism as an asset, have teachers with extensive training in language acquisition and differentiation, include consistent ongoing assessment of students and teachers, include parents as supportive allies, and engage in longitudinal action research and share their findings. 

Attitude adjustment 

It is perhaps discouraging to see that arguments from the 1940s about foreign language learning could easily be made today. And, given the consistent agreement among Kappan authors about the need for more and better language instruction, it’s sensible to wonder what can be done to improve the status of foreign languages in U.S. schools. In November 2005, Donna Christian, Ingrid Pufahl, and Nancy Rhodes (“Fostering foreign language proficiency: What the U.S. can learn from other countries”) wrote that: 

Attitudes about language study in U.S. schools have reflected the attitudes of society at large. In an increasingly English-speaking world, foreign languages have not seemed to matter to many Americans. Obstacles to the development of a strong language curriculum in American schools seem daunting. (p. 226) 

In other nations, they pointed out, foreign languages are treated as core subjects. For U.S. schools to bring about such a change, attitudes will need to shift not just among educators, but among policy makers, thought leaders, and the American public.