10

Click here to load reader

Teaching languages in higher education

  • Upload
    elspeth

  • View
    220

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Teaching languages in higher education

This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 14 November 2014, At: 13:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Language Learning JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rllj20

Teaching languages in higher educationAngela Gallagher-Brett a & Elspeth Broady ba Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies (LLAS),University of Southampton , UKb Joint Editor, The Language Learning JournalPublished online: 21 Sep 2012.

To cite this article: Angela Gallagher-Brett & Elspeth Broady (2012) Teaching languages in highereducation, The Language Learning Journal, 40:3, 263-271, DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2012.723938

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.723938

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Teaching languages in higher education

GUEST EDITORIAL

Teaching languages in higher education

Across a number of anglophone countries, there seems to be a crisis in languagelearning. Falling numbers of students studying languages have become a major pre-occupation for language educators (Doughty 2011). In the UK context, whereeducation is devolved to the four constituent countries, there are widespreadperceptions of a lack of public value attached to language learning (e.g. Coleman2009; Worton 2009). Declining uptake in languages at the ages of 14 and 16 in theUK has been well documented (e.g. various Language Trends surveys, CILT, ALLand ISMLA 2006, 2007, 2009; McPake et al. 1999). The sense of crisis appears to beparticularly marked in higher education. The UK has witnessed falls in under-graduate student numbers which have resulted in threats to provision and to actualdepartment closures in universities (Footitt 2005; Barclay 2011). This in turn has ledto concerns about shrinking national capacity in languages (Footitt 2005), threats tothe UK’s research base (British Academy 2009, 2011) and to the ability of UK firmsand UK citizens to succeed internationally (Worton 2009).

Similar downward trends and concerns have been reported in higher education inIreland, Australia and the United States. A recent Australian survey of universitylanguage departments (White and Baldauf 2006) echoed the findings of Footitt’s(2005) UK survey, highlighting a widespread belief that languages at university were‘under-valued and under-resourced’ to such an extent that this was ‘becoming aserious national problem’ (35). This in turn prompted the prestigious Group of Eightleading Australian universities to publish in 2007 a ‘rescue plan’ for languages whichcalls for ‘urgent action [. . .] to avoid the serious educational, national security andeconomic consequences of becoming monolingual’ (Go8 2007: 1). Their report notesthat the percentage of Australian final-year secondary school students graduatingwith a second language had fallen dramatically from 40% in the 1960s to 13% in2007.

In the Republic of Ireland, there is no requirement to study a ‘third’ language (i.e.other than the second national language, English or Irish) at any point inmainstream education system. In the wake of the publication of a NationalLanguage Strategy for Ireland, the Irish Times reported that ‘Ireland is miles behind’other countries in promoting languages (Kerr 2011). The National Strategy itselfhighlights ‘the lack of coherent language policies at both institutional and nationallevels [which] means that Irish citizens are often denied high-quality languagelearning experiences and opportunities’ (RIA 2011: 7). More specifically, theStrategy singles out the threat implied by the erosion of the ‘third language’ entryrequirement for the constituent colleges of the National University of Ireland (NUI):

One of the biggest threats facing language education in Ireland is the gradual erosion ofthe NUI third-language matriculation requirement. The removal of the third-language

The Language Learning Journal

Vol. 40, No. 3, November 2012, 263–271

ISSN 0957-1736 print/ISSN 1753-2167 online

� 2012 Association for Language Learning

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.723938

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

54 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 3: Teaching languages in higher education

requirement would have serious consequences for the sustainability of languages at alllevels, a situation which would ultimately undermine Ireland’s status and competitive-ness in global terms. (RIA 2011: 7)

Comparing national statistics in this area is fraught with difficulty but thingsseem to be a little better in the United States. The most recent Modern LanguagesAssociation of America report (Furman, Goldberg and Lusin 2010) notes a 6.6%increase in college and university enrolments for languages since 2002. However, thispositive figure may mask a less than positive situation: the overall percentage ofenrolments in languages has declined significantly over the past 40 or so years from16.5% in 1965 to 8.6% in 2009, and many of the enrolments are for shortintroductory courses. In a recent speech (Duncan 2010), the US Secretary ofEducation himself painted a pessimistic picture:

. . . the United States may be the only nation in the world where it is possible tocomplete high school and college without any foreign language study – let alone with themastery of another language. [. . .] Our education system is one of the reasons Americansaren’t learning other languages. Foreign language instruction in the United States isspotty – and unfortunately on the decline.

This perceived decline in modern language study in anglophone countriesironically comes at a time of increasing globalisation of higher education withincreasing mobility of students, particularly towards anglophone universities. Thetension is noted by Anne Pauwels in a recent article for this journal (Pauwels 2011).Pauwels points to energetic moves in non-anglophone countries to ensure effectiveuniversal provision of English language teaching within the school system in order towiden opportunities for study and employment, while typically in anglophonecountries, student uptake of other languages appears to be stagnating, particularly atthe specialist level.

Faced with this situation, the Australian Group of Eight report noted starkly(Go8 2007: 1)

In the past decade the number of languages offered in our universities has dropped from66 to 29 and most states and territories are experiencing difficulty recruiting adequatelyskilled language teachers. This is occurring at a time when monolingual native Englishspeakers are losing their linguistic advantages and are increasingly competing withmultilingual graduates from around the world.

The threat of being overtaken economically also informs strategic thinking onlanguages in the United States; in addition, the US has always linked languagelearning strongly to issues of national security, particularly in the wake of 9/11, aswas made clear in a recent US languages strategy document (Jackson and Malone2009: 1):

As a result of 21st century economic globalization and international terrorism, it hasnever been more urgent to develop American citizens who fully understand and cancommunicate effectively with people of other cultures.

The British Academy report of 2011 similarly contextualises its call for a morecoherent strategy for modern languages in a view of a multilingual global economyand research environment (British Academy 2011: 4):

264 Guest editorial

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

54 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 4: Teaching languages in higher education

The necessity for UK students to compete within a global economy requires us toexploit to the full the advantages that lie at the heart of a robust HE system. We can nolonger assume that English is the global language par excellence – 75% of the world’spopulation do not speak English. [. . .] If the global centre of gravity for scientificresearch shifts eastwards, there is no guarantee that English will be the preferredlanguage.

The 2011 Irish Strategy, meanwhile, also refers to the ‘multilingual global economy’but further acknowledges the significance of language study given ‘the developmentof Ireland as a multilingual society’ (RIA 2011: 6).

Rhetoric in these countries thus acknowledges the importance of modernlanguage study in developing in students the skills required of the effective player inthe ‘multilingual global economy’ and the international outlook of the ‘globalcitizen’ but it also recognises the challenges of social diversity at home, of developingunderstanding of other languages and cultures in order to promote what has come tobe known as ‘community cohesion’. Opportunities to study modern languages atuniversity level and to undertake study abroad are increasingly framed as part of abroad ‘internationalisation’ strategy.

Many anglophone universities have typically been ‘receivers’ rather than‘senders’ of international students; faced with national funding cutbacks, theyhave come to view international recruitment as a much needed source of revenue.However, the realisation that monolingual ‘home’ students also need to functioneffectively in increasingly multicultural and multilingual contexts – whether at homeor abroad – has led to an emphasis on ‘internationalisation at home’ whereby aninternational perspective informs the whole of the university curriculum andlanguage study is offered, and encouraged, for all students.

Yet to what extent is the rhetoric matched on the ground? The inclusive view oflanguage study as part of developing an international outlook for all students iscertainly belied by the reality in the United Kingdom. The study of modernlanguages has developed a reputation for social elitism; languages are now morelikely to be studied pre-university by students attending independent fee-payingschools and this imbalance continues into universities where language degrees aredisproportionately concentrated in elite Russell Group universities (Coleman 2011;Tinsley and Han 2012). The US Secretary of Education hinted at a similar situationin the US, stating that ‘low-income students and those who live in rural areas are alot less likely to attend a school with language instruction’ (Duncan 2010). Pressuresfor sustaining student numbers and cost-effective teaching have led to programmescutting back on languages options. Additionally, dramatic shifts in student fundingin England are causing serious concerns, particularly in relation to the viability of aperiod of residence abroad, which is currently an integral part of most languagedegrees (British Academy 2012). Relatively small numbers of UK students engage inwork or study abroad in comparison with their European counterparts anduniversities’ international strategies continue to focus on inward recruitment ofinternational students, with language study regarded as a separate concern (Doughty2008).

It would seem ironic that in the ‘global economy’ where high-level skills andknowledge are more explicitly viewed as economic values, and thus universities areseen more explicitly as playing a driving economic role, so the dominance of Englishmay have potentially undermined any immediate instrumental rationale for learninglanguages other than English. Learning a language to a functional level requires the

The Language Learning Journal 265

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

54 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 5: Teaching languages in higher education

investment of considerable resources; for anglophone students currently, theeconomic rewards of their time and effort are unlikely to be experienced inthe short term, despite the rhetoric about global competition. This then raises thequestion, particularly relevant to the anglophone university sector: what is the studyof modern languages at university really for? What is the nature of the discipline?

The restrictive traditional framing of university modern language study, as thestudy of literature and culture expressed in that language along with the honing ofadvanced language skills through translation, has given way over the last 40 years toa broader range of approaches and linkages (Coleman 2005). Contemporarylanguages degrees may offer opportunities to study a wide variety of content,drawing on ‘literary, cultural, linguistic, sociological, historical and political study ofthe country or countries where the target language is spoken’ (Coleman 2005: 4).Language teaching has come to focus more on students’ communicative needs and isnot restricted only to specialist study. Language courses are typically offered atdifferent levels to both specialist and non-specialist students. But perhaps it is thisvery diversity which has exacerbated the sense of crisis in the field?

This is part of the challenge highlighted by Pauwels in her 2011 article. It alsoemerges as a key issue from the recent report on modern languages in UK highereducation by Michael Worton (2009). Worton points to the tensions and divisionswithin the modern languages community and highlights the need for it to develop ‘aclear and compelling identity’ (4). He calls on the university languages community towork more proactively together to address the challenges they face and to movebeyond a position where they see their well-being as dependent on external bodiessuch as funding councils. He urges universities to recognise the important role oflanguages and study abroad in institutional international strategies and to movebeyond the rhetoric in this area. He argues in particular for greater collaborationbetween educational sectors; between universities and external organisations:including employers; between individual languages; and between modern languagedepartments (responsible for the teaching of content on languages degrees) andlanguage centres (responsible for language skills teaching).

Increased collaboration, then, and a more coherent use of limited resourcesappear to be key in enabling higher education institutions to develop research andteaching in modern languages, and, in particular, to sustain opportunities forlanguage study that can cater efficiently and effectively for the increasingly diversifiedneeds and interests of the student population. The Irish National Strategy (RIA2011), like the Worton report, highlights incoherence between educational sectors asa significant weakness that needs to be overcome. In Australia, collaborationbetween universities is also seen as crucial to maintaining language studyopportunities across a range of languages, as White and Baldauf (2006) concludein their survey. However, despite willingness in principle to collaborate, universitystaff reported experiencing significant difficulties on the ground in implementingcollaborative arrangements with differences in credit schemes, in academic cultureand timetabling typically needing to be resolved (White and Baldauf 2006: 37).

In England and Wales, cross-sector collaboration involving schools anduniversities working together to promote languages has come to be regarded as amajor tool in efforts to increase the appeal of language study (Doughty 2011). Theestablishment in both countries of a nationally coordinated and funded cross-sectoroutreach programme, ‘Routes into Languages’,1 followed the recommendations ofthe English National Languages Strategy in Higher Education (Footitt 2005).

266 Guest editorial

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

54 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 6: Teaching languages in higher education

Evidence has begun to emerge from a range of sources that the Routes programme ishaving an impact on increasing interest in language study and on developing‘potentially sustainable inter-sectoral and cross-sectoral partnerships’ (Worton 2009:8; Curtis and Cartwright 2011; SQW 2011).

This special issue, jointly edited by the LLAS Centre for Languages, Linguisticsand Area Studies and The Language Learning Journal editorial team, comes at a timeof crisis, perhaps, but certainly at a time of reflection on teaching languages in highereducation. Major surveys, strategic reports and policy papers on language teachinghave been published in England, Ireland, Australia and the United States. Languageshave been identified as areas for strategic investment in all four of these countries.There are some grounds for optimism. Steady enrolments to languages degrees havebeen reported in the last few years in the United States (Levine 2011), while inEngland, Worton (2009) could in fact find no overall trend with regard to studentnumbers. In relation to UK universities, Coleman (2011) reported a small but steadyincrease in undergraduate student numbers since 2004. Whatever the exact nature ofthe crisis, what is certain is that conventional approaches to delivering universitylanguage teaching and to modern languages as a ‘discipline’ are under pressure.

The seven articles collected here reflect this and seek to address many of thechallenges highlighted by Worton (2009). The anglophone contexts of Australia,Ireland and the UK all feature. The articles are a mixture of empirical and discursivepieces, which deal with a range of themes including community and businessengagement; internationalisation, residence abroad and the student experience ofEuropean students at a British university; the use of technology to overcomechallenges facing languages and the separation of language and content on degreeprogrammes. Three articles explicitly refer to the Worton Review as their startingpoint.

Underlying Simon Gieve and Sonia Cunico’s article are questions about thenature of the modern languages discipline. While programmes at secondary leveltend to emphasise language skills, degree programmes typically comprise both‘language’ and ‘content’ but often with little integration between the two. Gieve andCunico begin by reflecting on Worton’s discussion of the unclear identity of modernlanguages as a university discipline and then explore how the ‘dualism’ in languagedegrees is experienced by undergraduate students. Their empirical study uses aqualitative approach, analysing data from semi-structured interviews. On the basisof their findings, they make recommendations for the delivery of content modules ondegree programmes.

Neil Hughes and Alaistair Rolls also reflect on students’ expectations of whatuniversity study of a modern language involves – what they refer to as the ‘realcurriculum’ – and how these expectations have contributed to modern languagecourses offered in Australian regional universities being increasingly reduced tointroductory-level language classes. This is part of what they highlight as the ‘loss’ ofdiscipline identity experienced by some modern languages departments in Australia,faced with the drive for cost-effective and vocationally relevant teaching. They tooargue strongly for the integration of ‘content’ (which they refer to as ‘Area Studies’)and ‘language’, and go on to suggest that this can be successfully achieved in thecurrent climate by greater use of blended learning. One particular advantage ofexploring innovative ways of marrying content and language, they argue, is that itcan alleviate the disjuncture between teaching and research, experienced by manymodern languages academics.

The Language Learning Journal 267

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

54 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 7: Teaching languages in higher education

The articles by Anne O’Connor and by Neil Hughes both reflect the need,highlighted by Worton, for modern languages departments to move beyond theconfines of the university ‘ivory tower’; to work more proactively to ‘helpthemselves’ and in particular, to collaborate with other educational sectors, businessand the local community. This is the area often referred to in the UK as ‘thirdstream’ activity, a term which reflects recent re-defining of the university’s mission asnot just teaching and research but also contributing directly to economic and socialdevelopment.

O’Connor’s article, set in the Republic of Ireland, focuses on the developmentand evaluation of a community-based component for students of Italian.Community-based learning for languages, particularly Spanish, developed in theUnited States where working with local hispanic communities provided studentswith opportunities both for social engagement and for ‘real’ and ‘relevant’ languagelearning. Increasingly, such experience-based learning is being incorporated into theUK university curriculum, and innovative ways of accrediting ‘community’ or ‘work’experience are being introduced. O’Connor’s article describes how students usedtheir Italian to support language teaching in local primary schools.

Neil Hughes focuses on the entrepreneurial side of the university’s ‘third mission’and in particular, one modern languages department’s attempt to commercialise itsknowledge and skill. Using a qualitative case study methodology, Hughes charts thebenefits and risks involved in a collaborative project with a software design businessto produce language learning materials. There was also a cross-sector dimension tothis project as the materials were designed to be part of a blended learningprogramme for primary school teachers. Hughes highlights in particular thechallenges that can arise due to what can only be called ‘cultural’ differences inexpectations and ways of working between a small business and an academicinstitution.

The remaining three articles are all concerned with the internationalisation of thecurriculum in one way or another. Two of these are empirical pieces. John Klapperand Jonathan Rees describe a longitudinal study, which is contextualised against thegrowing uncertainty facing residence abroad on UK language degree programmes.They investigated the linguistic benefits of the year abroad using interval languagetesting and interviews with participants (UK undergraduate students of German). Ashas been found in previous studies, Klapper and Rees point to gains for manyparticipants in target language fluency. However, there was significant variation insuch gains, and the researchers call into question existing explanations for this.Through careful examination of student reports, they pinpoint a relationshipbetween individual progress and the concept of emotional intelligence. They alsoshow how chance occurrences in students’ everyday circumstances can stronglyinfluence their progress.

Complementing Klapper and Rees’ study, Ariane Bogain’s interest is in theexperience of students coming to the UK from France, Germany and Spain as partof the European Union’s Erasmus programme. She highlights the significantdifferences in numbers between incoming and outgoing Erasmus students in the UKand focuses on the student experience of European Erasmus students studyinglanguages at one university. She employed questionnaires and semi-structuredinterviews at different points during the academic year to delve into languagelearning experiences prior to arriving in the UK and experiences of language learningat a British university. What she highlights are some of the ‘cultural’ differences

268 Guest editorial

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

54 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 8: Teaching languages in higher education

experienced by students from other European universities when studying in the UK;as she concludes, ‘students tend to replicate the ethos of the educational system theycome from’. Her study highlights yet again the challenges implied in theimplementation of the ‘internationalisation’ agenda but also the rewards; whereintegration of ‘home’ students and Erasmus students succeeds, it has a powerfulimpact but it is often harder to achieve than the ubiquitous rhetoric suggests.

This chimes with our final article by Michael Byram, who explores in detail theconcept of ‘internationalisation’ in higher education. He offers a critique of its oftensuperficial implementation and contrasts this with what he refers to as genuine‘internationalism’. Internationalism, in his definition, involves students fromdifferent nationalities coming together to explore their understanding of the world;crucially, it implies critical thinking and reflection on personal and national values.Byram argues that language study can fit well within an internationalist frameworkand offers opportunities for advancing not just an ‘internationalised’ universitycurriculum but also an ‘internationalist’ one.

To mark the new 2012–13 academic year, the UK’s national resource centre forlanguages, linguistics and area studies, the LLAS Centre at the University ofSouthampton, offered a workshop for heads of departments and academic leadersentitled ‘Thriving in an uncertain world’.2 The publicity for the workshop highlightsthe challenges facing modern languages departments in UK universities, in particularthose arising from the introduction of higher undergraduate tuition fees which inturn is driving much greater emphasis on student choice. Similar pressures are facingmodern languages departments elsewhere in the world. It would be facile, in thesecircumstances, for anglophone universities to stress a superficial instrumental valuefor modern language study in order to attract students; the speciousness of such anapproach would soon be revealed. It is thus particularly important that ineducational contexts where the immediate need for another language is often notfelt acutely, universities are able to communicate convincingly the richness ofmodern language study – its value, and the diversity of its many forms. The articlesin this special issue reflect that aim.

Notes

1. More on Routes in Languages at: https://www.routesintolanguages.ac.uk/index.html2. http://www.llas.ac.uk/events/6659

References

Barclay, F. 2011. Modern foreign languages: challenges and opportunities in an internationalcontext. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 10, no. 2: 123–5.

British Academy. 2009. Language Matters: The Supply of and Demand for UK Born andEducated Academic Researchers with Skills in Languages other than English. London:British Academy Policy Publications. http://www.britac.ac.uk/policy/language-matters.cfm (accessed 27 July 2012).

British Academy. 2011. Language Matters More and More. Position Paper. London: BritishAcademy Policy Publications. http://www.britac.ac.uk/news/bulletin/Language_matters11.pdf (accessed 13 August 2012).

British Academy. 2012. Valuing the Year Abroad: A British Academy – UCML PositionStatement. http://www.britac.ac.uk/policy/Valuing_The_Year_Abroad.cfm (accessed 26July 2012).

The Language Learning Journal 269

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

54 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 9: Teaching languages in higher education

CILT, The National Centre for Languages, Association for Language Learning andIndependent Schools Modern Languages Association. 2006. Language Trends 2006.www.cilt.org.uk/home/research_and_statistics/language_trends_surveys/secondary/2006.aspx (accessed 28 July 2012).

CILT, The National Centre for Languages, Association for Language Learning andIndependent Schools Modern Languages Association. 2007. Language Trends 2007.www.cilt.org.uk/home/research_and_statistics/language_trends_surveys/secondary/2007.aspx (accessed 28 July 2012).

CILT, The National Centre for Languages, Association for Language Learning andIndependent Schools Modern Languages Association. 2009. Language Trends 2009.www.cilt.org.uk/home/research_and_statistics/language_trends_surveys/secondary/2009.aspx (accessed 28 July 2012).

Coleman, J.A. 2005. Modern languages as a university discipline. In Effective Learning andTeaching in Modern Languages, ed. J.A. Coleman and J. Klapper, 3–9. London:Routledge.

Coleman, J.A. 2009. Why the British do not learn languages: myths and motivation in theUnited Kingdom. The Language Learning Journal, 37, no. 1: 111–27.

Coleman, J.A. 2011. Modern languages in the United Kingdom. Arts and Humanities inHigher Education 10, no. 2: 127–9.

Curtis and Cartwright Consulting. 2011. Evaluation of HEFCE’s Programme of Support forStrategically Important and Vulnerable Subjects (SIVS). http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/year/2011/evaluationofhefcesprogrammeofsupportforsivs/ (accessed 28 July2012).

Doughty, H. 2008. Internationalisation and Modern Languages in Scottish Further and HigherEducation: A Scoping Study. http://www.llas.ac.uk/resourcedownloads/566/internationalisation_report_doughty_final.pdf (accessed 27 July 2012).

Doughty, H. 2011. Modern languages in Scotland: social capital out on a limb. Arts andHumanities in Higher Education 10, no. 2: 141–55.

Duncan, A. 2010. Education and the language gap. Secretary Arne Duncan’s remarks,Foreign Language Summit, University of Maryland, 8 December 2010. Available at:http://www. ed.gov/news/speeches/education-and-language-gap-secretary-arne-duncans-re-marks-foreign-language-summit (accessed 8 August 2012).

Footitt, H. 2005. The National Languages Strategy in Higher Education. Department forEducation and Skills: Research Report 625. http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RR625.pdf (accessed 27 July 2012).

Furman, N., D. Goldberg and N. Lusin. 2010. Enrollments in Languages Other than English inUnited States Institutions of Higher Education Fall 2009. Modern Languages Associationof America. http://www.mla.org/enroll_survey09 (accessed 13 August 2012).

Group of Eight (Go8). 2007. Languages in Crisis: A Rescue Plan for Australia. http://www.go8.edu.au/storage/go8statement/2007/Go8_Languages_in_Crisis_Discussion_Paper.pdf(accessed 8 August 2012).

Kerr, A. 2011. Irish students lost in translation. Irish Times. 8 November 2011. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/education/2011/1108/1224307200050.html (accessed 8August 2012).

Jackson, F.H. and M.E. Malone. 2009. Building the foreign language capacity we need:toward a comprehensive strategy for a national language framework. College Park, MD:National Foreign Language Center, University of Maryland. http://www.cal.org/resources/ languageframework.pdf (accessed 13 August 2012).

Levine, G.S. 2011. Stability, crisis and other reasons for optimism: university foreign languageeducation in the United States. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 10, no. 2: 131–40.

McPake, J., R. Johnstone, L. Low and L. Lyall. 1999. Foreign Languages in the UpperSecondary School: A Study of the Causes of Decline. Edinburgh: Scottish Council forResearch in Education.

Royal Irish Academy (RIA), National Committee for Modern Language, Literary andCultural Studies. 2011. National Languages Strategy. August 2011. http://www.ria.ie/getmedia/. . ./RIA-National-Languages-Strategy.pdf.aspx (accessed 8 August 2012).

Pauwels, A. 2011. Future directions for the learning of languages in universities: challengesand opportunities. The Language Learning Journal, 39, no. 2: 247–57.

270 Guest editorial

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

54 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 10: Teaching languages in higher education

SQW. 2011. Evaluation of Routes into Languages: Final Report. http://www.routesintolanguages.ac.uk/impact (accessed 28 July 2012).

Tinsley, T. and Y. Han. 2012. Language Learning in Secondary Schools in England: Findingsfrom the 2011 Language Trends Survey. CfBT Education Trust. http://www.cfbt.com/evidenceforeducation/pdf/Language%20Trends%20Report.pdf (accessed 28 July 2012).

White, P. and R. Baldauf. 2006. Re-examining Australia’s Tertiary Language Programs: a FiveYear Retrospective on Teaching and Collaboration, University of Queensland, Australia.Available from: altcfellowship.murdoch.edu.au/Docs/whitebauldaufreport2006.pdf (ac-cessed 13 August 2012).

Worton, M. 2009. Review of Modern Foreign Languages Provision in Higher Education inEngland. HEFCE Issues paper 2009/41.

Angela Gallagher-BrettCentre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies (LLAS),

University of Southampton, UKElspeth Broady

Joint Editor, The Language Learning Journal

The Language Learning Journal 271

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 13:

54 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014