Open Architecture Curricular Design in World Language Education ed. by Andrew R. Corin, Betty Lou Leaver, and Christine M. Campbell (review)

Reviewed by: Transforming World Language Teaching and Teacher Education for Equity and Justice: Pushing Boundaries in US Contexts ed. by Beth Wassell and Cassandra Glynn Diana Ruggiero Wassell, Beth, and Cassandra Glynn, editors. Transforming World Language Teaching and Teacher Education for Equity and Justice: Pushing Boundaries in US Contexts. Multilingual Matters, 2022. Pp. 202. ISBN 978-1-78892-650-8. In Transforming World Language Teaching and Teacher Education, editors Beth Wassell and Cassandra Glynn alongside contributing authors to this edited volume illuminate the ways in which educators are working toward greater social equity and justice in the world language classroom. In the process, they also critically reflect on how the structural and institutional dynamics of the field as well as their own respective backgrounds are complicit in upholding and perpetuating systemic injustice and inequity in world language education. Consciously drawing on a diverse range of perspectives from scholars on the margins of the field, many of them first-time authors, the chapters provide a snapshot of world language education in a state of transformation as scholars rethink the assumptions that inform how educators think about and approach world language teaching today. Introspective, critical, and bold in its honest assessment of and efforts to reform world language education, this book and its conclusions are both timely and relevant for a field in need of such critical reassessment and transformation. The volume consists of ten chapters, including an introduction, and is divided into two main sections. The introduction provides the premise for and approach to the book as well as a brief synopsis of the book’s contents relative to the major arguments. The remainder of the chapters are divided into two equal parts, the first part addressing systemic challenges to equity and social justice in world language programs as well as responses to them by educators, presenting theoretical frameworks and curricular models based on authors experiences and [End Page 164] research along the way. The second part similarly addresses more directly ways in which world language educators on the margins of world language education are addressing curricular reform. For instance, Dorie Conlon Perugini and Manuela Wagner present a model for integrating and foregrounding intercultural citizenship in world language education as a way of moving beyond a focus on vocabulary and grammar and engaging issues of social justice in the classroom. Similarly, Mary Curan and Joan Clifford in their respective chapters discuss the significance of community engagement in redressing issues of social justice in world education; Curran through a presentation of her pre-service Urban Social Justice Teacher Education Program at Rutgers University, and Clifford through the presentation of a curricular model that blends community-based language learning and global health to likewise enact greater equity and social justice in the world language curriculum. Though there are many books and edited volumes now calling for change and transformation in world language education, this book is unique in its call for and focus on critical self-reflection. Indeed, as a framing device for the book’s contents and approach, Wassell and Glynn use the tropes of “calling out” and “calling in.” By “calling out,” they mean looking at how educators themselves may be complicit in the process of maintaining and perpetuating systemic racism and social inequities in the classroom. This could include biases and unquestioned standards and norms in teaching world languages stemming from one’s own privilege (stemming from gender, race, ethnicity, etc.). By “calling in” they mean similarly reflecting on the ways in which the field itself is likewise complicit in perpetuating systemic racism, social inequity, and injustice. This includes an assessment of the field as a whole as well as the curriculum, standards, and approaches at the local, state, and national levels of world language teaching. While this level of critical self-reflection is not new in the field, Wassell and Glynn remind us that a positive first step in redressing these problems begins with recognizing that there is indeed a problem and that we, as educators trained within a field founded and situated within a specific historical context worth examining for its shortcomings, have much to rethink in order to and as we move forward. While the book presents...

Self-determination theory (SDT) provides a cross-cultural, empirical framework for exploring what world (i.e., “foreign”) language educators can do to support the satisfaction of their learners’ basic psychological needs and, in turn, their autonomous motivation and well-being. Despite this, the identification of approaches to world language pedagogy and curriculum development that are supportive of learners’ simultaneous and interdependent—rather than individual and isolated—basic needs satisfaction has been limited. To this end, this study sought to examine the characteristics of postsecondary world language learning environments that were supportive of the balanced, simultaneous satisfactions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, as well as beneficence, a candidate need. Participants in the study included thirteen undergraduate world language learners at a large public university in the United States. Semi-structured interviews were analyzed through a qualitative approach involving multiple rounds of deductive coding and two stages of inductive thematic analysis. Results of the analysis identified six themes representing the characteristics of world language learning environments that students perceived to support their autonomy, competence, relatedness, and beneficence. Further, the analysis identified textual evidence for the interdependent satisfaction of students’ basic psychological needs via the multidirectional influences of each need on the others. Recommendations for world language teachers and implications for theory and methodology are discussed.

World Language Education in an Era of Growing Nationalism Dieter A. Waldvogel The United States is undergoing a political tug-of-war between globalism and nationalism with world language education caught in the middle of this sociopolitical debate. The current political trend towards nationalism and isolationism is rendering world language education vulnerable to further cuts such as the 5.3 percent decline in language courses offered at colleges and universities between 2013 and 2016 as reported in 2019 by the Modern Language Association (MLA) (Johnson 2019). It is vital for the American people in general, and language educators and program administrators in particular, to be aware of the devastating effects that these political and social trends are having on second and world language (L2) programs in academic institutions nationwide. In the 1970s and 1980s, foreign investments, trade, and immigration played a major role in the expansion of the US economy. Over the past fifty years, the world has seen the United States internationalizing its labor market and its economy. American companies are expanding their footprint worldwide to capture a greater market share outside its borders as the global economy has become more interconnected. In turn, this globalization has been driving a demand to improve the overall global competence of Americans. In today’s increasingly competitive global economy, a workforce with more market-relevant L2 skills is a strategic economic asset for the United States (Wiley et al. 2012). Merriam-Webster defines globalism as a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence (“Globalism”). Another often cited definition is from Giddens (1990), who defined globalism as “the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa (64). Over the past three decades, globalism has been propelled by improvements in telecommunications, high-speed internet, satellite technology, rapid transit, cloud computing, digital streaming, and even artificial intelligence—the world as we know it has become a much smaller place. We can now send an instant message to friends and family in Europe, Asia or South America and expect a reply within minutes, if not seconds. We can conduct videoconferences with peers located around the world; businesses can promote and sell their products almost instantly around the world using e-commerce services, and students in small rural communities in the United States can enroll in online courses offered by the University of Salamanca in Spain or the University of Porto in Portugal to name just two institutions with online programs open to international students. Recent free trade and multilateral agreements have revolutionized commerce globally. In addition to the free flow of goods and services, the mass movement or migration of people between countries and across continents has become a more common phenomenon and a major factor in the globalization of the world’s economy. According to Stroud et al. (2018) roughly 258 million people or four percent of the world’s population lives outside their country of birth, and the World Migration Report 2018 (International Organization for Migration 2017) predicts this number will increase to 405 million by 2050. The United States alone had roughly 45 million foreign-born residents in 2018 according to the Migration Policy Institute (Batalova et al. 2020). This massive increase [End Page 37] in mobility, transnationalism, and free-market capitalism has created a large demand for a workforce with world language skills and cross-cultural competence, in other words, with the ability to understand and effectively engage people from different nations and cultures. The results from a 2019 survey of 1,200 US employers conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs for the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), highlight the dire need for language skills other than English in the US workplace and the negative impact that this shortage of multilingual workers is having on the US economy. According to the survey, 9 out of 10 US employers rely on employees with language skills other than English; 1 in 3 language-dependent US employers report a language skills gap, and 1 in 4 report losing business due to a lack of language...

Abstracts This chapter explores the current status of world language education in the United States, including a discussion of which languages are most commonly offered as subjects in US schools, as well as which languages are not typically offered, and the reasons for these differences. It analyzes the extent to which world language programs in the United States can be considered successful or unsuccessful, and offers reasons for this. It then examines the goals and objectives of world language education in the United States, and critically considers both the “traditional” arguments that have been used to support world language education along with possible alternative rationales for such study. It also considers the difference between studying a world language and learning a world language. Next, it discusses ways in which the study of world languages in the US context can be made more effective. The chapter closes by exploring ways in which US students might be encouraged to study world languages, as well as discussing the role of critical pedagogy in world language education.

This study explored the potential effects of the Trump administration’s proposed budget cuts through the lens of language ideologies in the language education community. This community includes English as a second language (ESL), dual language bilingual programs, and world/foreign language education. The Trump administration proposed cuts totaling $4 billion by eliminating or reducing major language education programs. Through semi-structured interviews, the researchers explored the perspectives of stakeholders who would be impacted. Six participants who are actively involved in the language education community at different levels including ESL, dual language bilingual, and world language educators, administrators and coordinators of language education programs in the U.S. participated in this study. Thematic analysis of the interview data indicated that all participants from different stakeholder groups were ideologically aligned with the pluralist views. The budget cuts were perceived as representative of broader assimilationist ideology. The negative impacts of eliminations on teacher professional development programs, K-12 public education, post-secondary language education, and world language education in America were expressed by the participants. The participants’ counter arguments to the proposed budget eliminations are presented. This study has implications for the language education community, language policy makers, and educational policy planners in the U.S.

In the absence of cohesive national policy or established federal requirements for K–12 world language education, any existing government policies are typically set at the state or local level. State legislation establishes and guarantees opportunities for students, making it an important lever for change. In this study, we examine statutes and legislative codes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to understand if and how state governments require world language education in K–12 public schools. Our results show that it is rare for states to have requirements at the elementary and middle school levels. Many states have legal requirements for world language education in high school, including 13 states which require world language study for a standard or advanced high school diploma. Overall, world language is not prioritized in state education policy and is not typically treated as a core subject. We consider these policy results in light of available data on the prevalence of K–12 world language programs (NCES, 2024) and discuss implications for strengthening state and local advocacy in support of expanded world language instruction.

In view of the importance of increasing multilingualism in the United States, the current study examined state policy for high school graduation requirements in the 50 states and the District of Columbia as an index of the way in which the study of world language is positioned and prioritized in K–12 education. Only seven states require the study of a world language other than English as a prerequisite for high school graduation for all students. The majority of states do not include world languages as a requirement for high school graduation, but almost half include world language coursework as an option of fulfilling an elective graduation requirement. Overall, while there are some positive developments, principally the Seal of Biliteracy initiative, world language education is not prioritized in state‐level policies. Continued efforts, possibly at the federal level, are required to maintain and promote world language education in the United States

Teaching World Languages in Middle and Secondary Schools: A Critical Introduction is an introductory textbook for teacher education candidates, at either the undergraduate or graduate levels, who are seeking certification to teach a world/foreign language. It might also be used as a methods textbook in programs preparing teachers to work with English Language Learners (ELLs) in public school contexts. There is a growing shortage of world language teachers in the United States, and the market for such educators is likely to increase dramatically in the years ahead. Currently, only about 20% of US students study a language other than English, although this may change if more individuals are prepared to teach world languages. This book stands out from most world language education methodology books by combining ideas, concepts, and practices from two traditions in the world language education literature that rarely overlap: the technical skills and knowledge needed to be an effective and competent classroom teacher, and the growing literature on critical pedagogy in the specific context of world language education.

This case study looked at the transition of preservice teachers from world language education methods courses at a major U.S. university to a 5‐week field experience in secondary school classrooms. Data included lesson plans and self‐critiques of two lessons implemented during the field experience, world language teaching philosophies the preservice teachers wrote, e‐mail correspondence between the preservice teachers and their supervisor reflecting on the field experience, a final reflection paper, and responses to an open‐ended survey after completion of the field experience. Analysis of the data served to identify three teacher profiles: the communicative (CLT) teacher, the grammar‐translation teacher, and the hybrid teacher (a mix of the two other profiles). The article concludes with discussion of the findings and their implications for university methods courses, field experiences, and professional development.

Intercultural understanding is increasingly prioritized in the teaching and learning of world languages. Empirical evidence reveals the ways in which an intercultural communicative approach to foreign language instruction can foster learners’ intercultural competence (Garrett-Rucks, 2016). Yet, in the U.S., there remains a disconnect in the distribution of federal funds for internationalization efforts to foster learners’ intercultural understanding and the support given for world languages study, in which enrollment continues to fall (MLA, 2018). This position paper is intended to raise awareness of the crucial role of foreign language (FL) learning in fostering learners’ intercultural understanding in order to put into question the underestimated role of FL learning in U.S. educational policies and internationalization efforts. Despite the lack of financial, political and educational policy support, current World Language teacher certification practices in the U.S. require candidates to provide evidence of their intercultural approach to language instruction. This paper describes the emphasis on cultural reflection in current U.S. World Languages teacher certification practices and provides a review of meaningful culture learning projects to encourage all language instructors to take an intercultural communicative approach to their instruction.

Previous research has examined world language classroom‐based assessment practices as well as the impact of the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project, 1999) on practice. However, the extent to which K–12 teachers’ assessment practices reflect national and state standards has not been made clear. This article presents a multiple case study examining how the classroom‐based assessments used by four secondary world language teachers provided insight into students’ progress toward achieving the competencies that are specified by Ohio's Learning Standards for 9–12 World Language Programs and the five goal areas as they were described in the 1999 version of the nationally accepted standards framework. Qualitative analysis of assessment artifacts and interview transcripts showed that assessments principally targeted presentational writing and interpretive reading and that some assessments did not directly align with any of the goals or standards. Findings provide continuing evidence to support the results of the Standards Impact Survey (ACTFL, 2011) and have implications for world language teachers’ professional development needs and the role of standards in world language education.

This large‐scale study used a survey to collect data on K‐12 world language classrooms in Massachusetts public schools, focusing on core instructional practices, curriculum, and assessment. The study resulted in 383 individual teacher completed responses, representing 188 districts, which was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results indicate encouraging signs in the adoption of core proficiency‐based instructional practices, thematic curriculum design, and the use of performance‐based assessments. Further support for teachers in how to implement these practices is needed, along with attention to school leaders who may have no background in world language education but are tasked with supporting and evaluating world language teachers. Survey data were collected at the beginning of school closures due to COVID‐19, capturing a picture of K‐12 world language education and a point of comparison for future research.

Twenty years ago, this book introduced pre-service and in-service foreign language teachers to the basic concepts of critical educational study as applied to foreign language education in the United States. Since its initial publication, teachers now commonly known as world language educators are better prepared to understand issues of power in relation to, for example, language variety, language status, and language education. Indeed, much recent attention has been focused on critical approaches to language education including teaching for social justice.The author addresses issues such as the supposed “failure” of foreign language education, the educational filter role played by language classes, the concept of foreignness as seen in national standards, language curricula and textbooks, and the implications of these issues in terms of power relationships and cultural mediation both in and out of the classroom. The reader is encouraged to analyze the forms of cultural struggle that can be found within the world language classrooms of the United States including the likely impact those struggles have on members of the dominant and subordinate cultures. Two decades later, critical reflection continues to require these skills.

The complex concept of “culture,” especially as it is commonly used in the context of world language education, is the focus of Chapter 12. The chapter begins with an examination of the distinction between the conceptions of aesthetic culture (C) and anthropological culture (c). It identifies some of the major components of anthropological culture, including language, values and beliefs, history, family and kinship systems, foods, traditional art and music, and taboos, and discusses the relationship among culture, language, and identity, especially as this relationship is manifested in the world language classroom. It considers the nature, purposes, and goals of teaching about culture in world language education. It describes what have been labeled the “four Fs” of culture (foods, fairs, folklore, and statistical facts), as well as the “three Ps” of teaching about culture (practices, products, and perspectives) in the world language classroom. The chapter offers an analysis of some of the challenges presented by the essentialization and reification of culture in the context of the world language classroom. It also offers a way to distinguish between cultural diversity and cultural pluralism, and presents a conceptual and historical model identifying different “ideologies of cultural diversity,” with particular focus on how each has been manifested in the US context. Finally, the chapter closes with a discussion of the central characteristics of multicultural education, and explores the implications of such an approach to educational practice for world language education.

It has been a decade since 2007, when the Modern Language Association (MLA) Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages recommended that translingual and transcultural competence become the primary goal of foreign language (FL) academic programs in higher education. The report suggested directions for overcoming language-content divide and making language curriculum more relevant, but did not get to discuss details of pedagogical guidelines on how FL education can develop curricula to meet those goals (Allen & Paesani, 2010; Bernhardt, 2010), Kumagai, Lopez-Sanchez, and Wu's edited book fills a gap there with a proposal of the pedagogy of “multiliteracies” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; New London Group [NGL], 1996) as a theoretical foundation and practical guide for bridging language and content. At the same time, it highlights the multiplicity of languages, genres and modalities, and learner agency that should be at the center of curriculum (Byrnes & Maxim, 2004; Byrnes, Maxim, & Norris, 2010; Kern, 2000). Compared to Cope and Kalantzis (2000)'s pioneer work, Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, it offers a more impactful, conceptually clear, and practical picture of the multiliteracies approach through well-defined and richly illustrated concepts of the framework and feasible applications for practice. The book will interest teachers of Korean and other FL educators who wish to meet their students' needs with creative and effective tasks and projects that promote linguistic and cultural applications in multiple modes of spoken and written communication.There are two major sections in the book: Part I “Designing Multiliteracies Curricula” (Chapters 2–5) articulates how innovative curricula could be conceived and designed through various interpretations of the multiliteracies framework, helping the reader to appreciate the principal concepts of the approach. Part II “Implementing Multiliteracies-Based Projects” (Chapters 6–9) showcases project-based classroom activities implemented in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, German, Italian, French, and Spanish courses for a range of proficiency levels, presenting to the reader concrete and practical applications of the framework.Chapter 1 “Advancing Multiliteracies in World Language Education” by Yuri Kumagai and Ana Lopez-Sanchez opens the book with a rich description of the socio-economic and educational climate spurring the approach and the theoretical development of multiliteracies from NLG to systemic functional linguists to digital and multimodal literacies. Chapter 2 “Developing Multiliteracies Through Genre in the Beginner German Classroom” by M. Warren and C. Winker presents a genre-based curriculum design and its application in writing and speaking tasks for beginner-level German language learners. Chapter 3 “Redesigning the Intermediate Level of the Spanish Curriculum Through a Multiliteracies Lens” by A. Lopez-Sanchez argues that multiliteracies and genre-based pedagogies that have only been implemented in L1 language education (i.e., language arts) need to be introduced to the FL curriculum at all levels for an enriched, transformative classroom experience.Chapter 4 “Multiliteracies and Multimodal Discourses in the Foreign Language Classroom” by C. Sagnier focuses on multimodality, as it means multiple meaning-making modes that are not limited to verbal language. It includes examples of classroom activities and tasks that would help learners comprehend many forms of human communication and their transformation through social, historical, and cultural connections made in the FL setting. How the multiliteracies framework can adopt different genres and critical approaches in language teaching is further illustrated in Chapter 5 “Reading Words to Read Worlds—A Genre-Based Critical Multiliteracies Curriculum in Intermediate/Advanced Japanese Language Education” by Y. Kumagai and N. Iwasaki. This chapter introduces the principles of, and the instructional sequence for, a genre-based critical multiliteracies curriculum in intermediate to advanced Japanese courses that guides learners to become aware of the effects of semiotic choices, specifically of writing systems, lexis, styles, and grammatical structures. As an alternative to monotonous comprehension checks for reading texts in intermediate to advanced level classes, the authors suggest a strategy for designing reading instructions that promote genre-based critical multiliteracies with specific goals connected to social situations and other disciplines, cultures, and societies.Part II, which showcases actual applications of multiliteracies, leads off with Chapter 6 “Fostering Multimodal Literacies in the Japanese Language Classroom” by Y. Kumagai, K. Konoeda, M. Nishimata, and S. Sato, which presents digital video projects for promoting multimodal literacies. Detailed descriptions of a Vodcast project in first-semester Japanese course and a digital storytelling project in second-year Japanese course are given which aim to cultivate intentional and purposeful learning. The chapter highlights the value of practicing multimodal literacies not only in intermediate to advanced levels, but also in beginning-level language courses. Chapter 7, “Implementing Multiliteracies in the Korean Classroom Through Visual Media” by L. Brown, N. Iwasaki, and K. Lee discusses incorporating Korean visual media materials to develop multiliteracies in third-year course in U.S. college. For example, clips from a Korean television drama and a talk show were used to foster a critical understanding of how foreigners are perceived and categorized in Korean society by analyzing the media portrayals of their appearances, gestures, behaviors, putative cultural knowledge, and language use. These exercises counteract the omission or delay of critical aspects of language learning that is particularly common in classroom teaching at lower levels. Learners would have opportunities to critique the target language culture as well as their own through the activities suggested.Chapter 8 “Empowering Students in the Italian Classroom to Learn Vocabulary Through Multiliteracies” by B. Spinelli introduces a multiliteracies-based project in intermediate level Italian conversation course. The project lets students produce an interactive dictionary by use of a Wiki site for their own vocabulary compilation. It sets an example of applying new literacies to take vocabulary instruction beyond the traditional resort to word lists, translations, and sentence-level practices and thereby demonstrates how new technological environments and platforms can be taken advantage of to create a context for learners' critical engagement and to facilitate the development of their literacy skills at multiple levels.The book ends with Chapter 9 “Creating an Effective Learning Environment in an Advanced Chinese Language Course Through Film, Poster Presentations, and Multiliteracies” by S. Wu. This chapter shows how a poster presentation can be used to guide students to explore a deeper layer of the target culture, society, values, and ideology past the linguistic elements, by foregrounding the significance of multimodality and intertextuality in communicating meanings at the academic level. A content-based project like this is particularly relevant for development of academic literacy involving research, critical reading and writing, and is closely aligned with the 2007 MLA report's recommendation of “transcultural and translingual” language teaching.In summary, the book engages language teaching practitioners in two main respects: project-based language learning and multiliteracies-based approach. Targeted for learners in higher education settings, the projects presented in it feature well-defined processes and products. Project-based learning contextualizes language learning with problem-solving tasks and tangible products (Buck Institute for Education [BIE], 2016; Stoller, 2006). In addition, students have ownership of the project and work in all modes of communication (Mikulec & Miller, 2011; Miller, 2006), and most importantly, such projects link language and content (Stoller, 2004). At the same time, throughout the process, students are encouraged to exercise critical-thinking skills, solve problems, and use multiple modes of meaning-making resources (Maxim, 2006; Morgan & Ramanathan, 2005; Norris, 2012; Swaffar & Arens, 2005). Ultimately, that is the heart of a multiliteracies-based approach—preparing language learners to be truly “literate” people in the 21st century. The book, however, does not address how to assess multiliteracies-based learning and project outcomes. The effect of the approach will have to be verified by appropriate and functional assessment.