Developing Critical Cultural Awareness in Modern Languages

A Comparative Study of Higher Education in North America and the United Kingdom

Elinor Parks

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000026177
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

This volume explores the relationship between language and culture while considering its implications for the teaching of modern foreign languages in higher education. Drawing on a comparative empirical study conducted at universities both in the UK and US, this text problematises the impacts of a separation of language and content in German degree programmes.

Illustrating the need for a curriculum which fosters the development of intercultural competence and criticality, Parks reconceptualises established models of criticality (Barnett) and intercultural communicative competence (Byram). The chapters in this volume discuss a range of important topics including; language graduates with deep translingual and transcultural competence, observed differences and similarities between British and American universities and faculty and student voices: developing intercultural competence and criticality.

Aimed at scholars with research interests in intercultural communication, language education and applied linguistics, this volume provides a thorough discussion for the ways in which modern language programmes in higher education can be improved. Additionally, those carrying out research in the fields of language teaching and language policy in higher education will find Developing Critical Cultural Awareness in Modern Languages to be of great relevance.

1 Problematising the Separation between Language and Content in UK and US Modern Language Degrees

Modern Languages in UK and US Higher Education – The Rationale for a Comparative Study

The rationale for a comparative study originated from an identification in the literature of a similar problem within the ML curriculum: the separation of language and content. While it is acknowledged that this issue does not solely concern ML degrees in these two countries, as similar curricular structures exist elsewhere, the publication of the MLA (2007) report in the US has resulted in a number of responses in an attempt to address this nationwide issue, reflected both in the literature and in the way some universities have restructured their courses. While the separation between language degrees in the UK is perhaps even more pronounced than in the US, particularly in programmes which offer all of the content modules in English, the issue has gained less attention. Yet, while ML degrees attract a rather small number of prospective students compared to some other disciplines, the decline in uptake is more pronounced in the UK than in the US. The rationale for a comparative study is thus also motivated by an interest in making a contribution to the existing literature, which has addressed this issue in the UK and, through the dissemination of findings, provide new directions for ML degrees in both countries.

One of the justifications for conducting a comparative study relates to the concept that ‘comparison is actually essential to educational progress’ (Alexander, 2001, p. 27). Furthermore, examining similar issues related to the teaching of foreign languages in more than one context can lead to a better understanding since ‘comparative education can render a particularly useful service by providing a background of contrasts against which to examine our own problems’ (Grant, 1999, p. 139). The issue of separation between language and content in ML degrees, particularly in the aftermath of the MLA (2007) report, has gained attention from American academics. This is reflected in the more recent literature which, while it addresses US degrees, it also serves to expose issues relevant to language degrees elsewhere. Bartram (2010) similarly emphasises the benefits of a comparative study and points out that examinations of alternative scenarios can produce new perspectives on issues, helping to ‘refine our understanding of educational phenomena’ (p. 9).

One of the challenges that majority English-speaking countries share, when it comes to foreign languages, is the belief, held by many, that English is enough, coupled with the notion that English speakers are not good at learning foreign languages. For instance, comments such as ‘the British are notoriously bad at languages’ (Haughton, 2002, p. 1) or ‘Americans’ incompetence in foreign languages is nothing short of scandalous’ (Panetta, 199, p. 1) have been frequently expressed in the media (Bartram, 2010). Even in Australia the situation of language uptake is not promising, with only half of school pupils studying a foreign language, and policies that are not able to deliver a robust commitment to languages (Bartram, 2010). Thus, the aims and motivation of English speakers for choosing to study a degree in foreign languages are significantly different from those of students studying English elsewhere, particularly in the north of Europe where languages are often taught with more success. The following sections describe some of the changes that ML degrees have gone through over the years, both in the UK and in the US, which help contextualise some of the issues that the discipline is facing today in both contexts.

The Reshaping of ML Degrees in the UK

Higher education has been considerably ‘reshaped’ over the years and the various identities of the ‘modern languages’ degree that vary from institution to institution reflect those changes. Among the earlier forms of modern languages degrees, we find what used to be classed as a ‘philology’ degree, comprising of the study of language and literature. These types of degrees were introduced in most countries towards the end of the nineteenth century taking their pattern of study from classical languages, which included a canon of esteemed authors (Kelly, 2013).

Initially philology or modern languages degrees were largely literary, and the language element adopted a grammar-translation approach, characteristic of the model of the classics. The primary aim of these degrees was to enable students to undertake analysis of literary and philosophical texts. Many institutions historically modelled themselves on the nineteenth century concept of the study of literature and philology, with language competence viewed as means to an end (Kolinsky, 1993, p. 83). Many of these degrees were single-honours degrees though they may have involved two languages in some instances. In more recent years, joint-honour degrees have gained in popularity although the number of students overall is on the decline. In reference to the kinds of institutions, which exist in the UK, we often come across terms such as ‘old’ and ‘new’ universities; these terms not only refer to the age of the institution but often also to the curriculum and vision of the institutions themselves. The term ‘old universities’ refers to pre-1992 institutions to be contrasted with ‘newer universities’, a term referring to former polytechnics, which, following the Education Act of 1992, were awarded university status (Mackinnon & Statham, 1999). Around the 1960s applied language degree programmes acquired popularity and became popular predominantly in newer universities (Kelly, 2013). These degrees emphasised linguistic competence, often in at least two foreign languages, as well as placing focus on the business environment. However, in spite of their popularity, more recently language degrees in new universities have probably suffered the most nationwide. ‘Over the last decade […] some departments have grown, and others have declined. The result is that a majority of language students now study at Russell Group¹ universities’ (Kelly, 2013a). There are undoubtedly external factors, which may have also contributed to the overall decline in student numbers and the concentration of students in these institutions. There have been many changes in higher education in recent years, for instance the rise of tuition fees now costing students over £9,000 per year since 2011, has arguably prompted students to carefully consider their degree choice before applying for university admissions. The 2013 QAA commissioned report ‘Student expectations and perceptions of higher education’ found that across all student year groups, institutions and subjects, students hold a ‘consumerist’ ethos towards higher education, wanting ‘value‐for money’ (Kandiko & Mawer, 2013).

Arguably one of the concerns about language degrees is that for many prospective students it is not always easy to envision a specific career objective for which this course of study is necessary. The CEL/ELC (2013) report titled ‘The future of language degrees’ identifies the need for departments/schools of modern languages to address the question ‘What can I do with this degree?’ as students are ‘increasingly concerned with the potential value of their studies for their future employment’ (Kelly, 2013b, p. 7). To understand the current situation that language degrees face today, we need to consider some of the changes that took place towards the end of the 1960s when the new universities were established in the UK (Lodge, 2000). Universities began to be transformed from a ‘closed’ to an ‘open’ field and after the transformation of former polytechnics into universities in 1992, vocational qualifications were introduced in higher education degrees (Coleman, 2004). As a result, combined degrees and joint-honours gained popularity and the modular system was introduced to make combinations of different disciplines easier (Coleman, 2005). Furthermore, universities have then had to once again re-define and re-structure their programmes in order to respond to the important demands of globalisation, internationalisation of higher education and address issues such as student mobility across countries (Byram & Dervin, 2008; Byram & Feng, 2006). Universities can therefore no longer be viewed exclusively as the places for academic study but also need to consider employability and career outcomes. This brings us to re-look at modern languages as a discipline today and discuss what constitutes the new degree aims of the discipline in the context of a modern view of higher education.

The previous canonical models of philology or ‘language and literature’ are no longer adequate and attempts have been made to replace them with new models such as ‘languages and cultures’, ‘languages and area studies’, or ‘language, culture and society’ (Kelly, 2000). It is however not very clear what content these culture modules are meant to cover.

Cultural Studies poses big problems for its marriage with Modern Languages. […] From a sort of carbon copy of classics in the nineteenth century, […] it became a more pragmatically orientated subject in the twentieth (century), particularly with the increased centrality and professionalization of language teaching.

(Forgacs, 2001, p. 62)

Furthermore, the rise of an instrumental orientation towards language teaching in HE, for instance through Institution-Wide Language Programmes (IWLP), has affected the way the discipline is perceived. As Kelly et al. (2003, p. 105) notes ‘the languages community in higher education is compelled to manage a difficult interface between the intellectual and professional demands of its discipline. The result is at times a high-wire balancing act’. Meeting both professional and intellectual demands has also meant that the discipline has had to re-define itself in order to offer courses which meet the different needs of students.

Institution-Wide Language Programmes and Language Degrees – The Distinction Between ‘Specialist’ and ‘Non-Specialist’ Language Learners in the UK

In light of the various discussions regarding the changes that have taken place more generally in higher education and more specifically in the discipline itself, defining a new aim for the field presents its challenges. The UCAS (Universities and Colleges Admissions Service) lists numerous titles for language degree combinations that reflect the very diverse and complex nature of the discipline. The variety of choice within the discipline may appear to best cater for the diverse needs of students, who may be interested in more traditional career paths; it also offers options for students, whose career prospects are more vocationally oriented or for whom the language element of the degree plays a more marginal role. Although this diversity may on the one hand open options and increase the number of students enrolled in specialist level language modules at university, on the other hand it denies modern languages a clear identity (see Coleman & Klapper, 2005). It appears to be increasingly difficult to define what constitutes the study of modern languages today and to identify clear aims for a languages degree. Klapper (2006) refers to the phenomenon as a ‘crisis’ resulting from a ‘the lack of centrality’ in accordance with ‘demand-led’ policies. This is perhaps due to modern languages facing continuous external pressures that dictate what range of options universities should offer students. Lodge (2000) and Phipps and Gonzalez (2004) also highlight the lack of own theory and method in modern language studies. In this regard, Coleman (2004) highlights potential outcomes for modern languages that don’t portray a very optimistic picture of the future of the discipline. He argues that it is probable that language skills as an adjunct to a professional degree will continue to be recognised as bringing real employability advantages and will presumably continue to be offered by language centres, while the employment advantages of ‘a good degree from a good university’ will also ensure the survival of a few specialist, however this may result in a further decline in the number of students graduating with either single or joint-honours degrees in modern languages. The most recent UCAS figures are not promising, with only 15,410 UCAS applications to degrees in European languages and linguistics in 2018 compared to 24,380 in 2009 (UCAS, 2018). Because of the progressive decline in applications to language degrees over the years, many modern language departments now rely on non-specialist language courses, such as those taught on Instruction-Wide Language Programmes (IWLP) to provide lecturers with the necessary teaching hours to secure contracts. Hence non-specialists have come to play a significant role in the language provision in HE. One of the arguments posed with regards to non-specialists is often the question of whether there should be a difference in the degree of progress expected and the learning outcomes. According to the QAA 2015 Benchmark statement (p. 11), while there are differences in expected outcomes, the learning experiences of specialists and non-specialist also have much in common.

The language learning experience of these specialists in other subjects has much in common with that of the specialist language student; in particular, the balance between receptive and productive skills, the exposure to authentic resources and the role of educational technology. […]. Similarly, for students of other subjects who pursue language study at a level equivalent to final year, those parts of the benchmark statement relating to language skills and standards and levels of achievement (see paragraph 7.11) may also be relevant and appropriate.

Di Napoli et al. (2001, p. 4) criticised the terminology of specialists versus non-specialists as he argued that this terminology ‘gives a restrictive view of language learning’. It also suggests a vocational orientation for IWLP, which are perceived as less intellectually challenging compared to degree courses.

The necessary implication of this opposition is that non-vocational language learning is understood to impart knowledge and felt to be intellectually challenging, whereas vocational language learning is understood to impart mere skills and is felt to be intellectually unchallenging – for both learners and teachers.

(Di Napoli, Polezzi & King, 2001, p. 4)

The distinction brings about an interesting argument concerning what constitutes vocational study and what place this kind of study occupies in higher education. As language skills, generally viewed as increasing employability prospects, are widely considered to be an advantage for all graduates, a need for a language provision ‘for all’ led to a more vocational purpose for language learning in HE. More recently other vocational initiatives have provided non-specialists and members of the public with a language provision run in some institutions by the university’s language centre and in others by the department/school of languages. Among these, initiatives such as Institution-Wide Language Programmes and Languages for All similarly cater for a vocationally oriented language provision in HE.

These programmes, as highlighted in the 2013–2014 UCML – AULC survey of IWLPs, typically offer elective modules that can be taken for academic credit alongside the student’s degree programme (Morley, Campbell & Howaerth, 2013).

In some institutions non-specialists take these modules as non-credit bearing while in others they may have a choice to follow an assessed or non-assessed rout...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 Problematising the Separation Between Language and Content in UK and US Modern Language Degrees
• 2 Language Graduates with ‘Deep Translingual and Transcultural Competence’
• 3 Fostering Criticality and Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) in Higher Education
• 4 Exploring Faculty and Students’ Views on the ML Curriculum and Students’ Development of Critical Cultural Awareness and Criticality
• 5 Observed Differences and Similarities Between British and American Universities
• 6 Fostering Criticality Development
• 7 The Development of Intercultural Competence and Critical Cultural Awareness
• 8 Defining and Contextualising Two Emerging New Competencies: Communicative Criticality and Savoir se Reconnaître
• 9 Towards a New Understanding of Language Degrees and Critical Cultural Awareness: Implications for Theory, Research and Practice
• Index