IHE: Foreign Language Enrollment Declines 16% Since 2016

[marshwiggle]

There is some truth to this. A colleague was just telling me that some of their students in a required class are very vocal about not seeing it as valuable or as something that will enhance their professional goals.

That said, students don't always know what is best for them or for their professional development.

So, college is just the pursuit of professional goals?  Is college reduced to job training?

Let me ask you the question: If students aren't doing it as "job training" , and they're not passionate about what they're studying, then what do you expect them to get out of it that's worth 4 years and several tens of thousands of dollars?

Golly, Marshy, what I great question.  No one's ever thought of that.  I guess you could say...

increased general knowledge
a purchase on history -- since, you know, history shaped up
a purchase on science -- since, you know, our world is largely predicated upon science

a purchase on literature and the arts...you know, all the hallmarks of civilization
broader understanding of other peoples and cultures...since we have a multicultural world whether we like it or not
information and internet literacy
knowledge of how language works, not just the language one grows up speaking---maybe a little bi- or even tri-lingual because, you know, you might actually run into a non-native-speaker-of-English in your "professional career"
knowledge of the other important health and cultural measures of health such as psychology & sociology
a sense of ethos for college students instead of little pockets of professional training
tasking our future leaders and entrepreneurs of tomorrow with issues and problems they are not familiar with so they will learn to "think outside the box" or whatever metaphor fits a flexible, protean mind

And then students should have a solid grounding in their major, whether it will be their chosen field or not----because you know, of course, that only around 46% of college graduates work in their college major, so maybe, maybe it is a good idea to have someone with a "well-rounded" brain ready to embark on real-world "professional development."

And, as corny as it sounds, what we want are people who know a bit about the world and are able to think critically about it, not just think through the narrow lens of their college major.

This ignores all of the conversation on here of how little students get out of courses they don't want to be in. All of the benefits you list would apply to people who are engaged and pay attention. How much of that applies to the ones who are unwilling is the question I'm asking.

[Wahoo Redux]

This ignores all of the conversation on here of how little students get out of courses they don't want to be in. All of the benefits you list would apply to people who are engaged and pay attention. How much of that applies to the ones who are unwilling is the question I'm asking.

Well, firstly, I am not convinced students get "little" out of classes they don't want to be in.  I count myself in these numbers.  Even if they hate the class, if they are writing papers, taking tests, doing labs, completing projects then they are learning something whether or not they want too----you cannot do this stuff without learning; that's why we have them do it.  Will they retain the material in the same measure as a class they want to take?  Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  It is axiomatic that they will "get" a lot out of any class, even if they don't want to.

Secondly, I am counting students like myself who ended up with a whole new perspective and/or an actual interest in the subject matter from a class they did not initially want to take.  I have taught literature in two STEM schools; often students think they don't like literature because of a high school experience; often students really enjoy the class, and weirdly, some end up liking their writing classes.  They have told me so.

Thirdly, the "conversation" proves nothing factual.  There have been plenty of conversations about students gaining much from taking college classes whether or not  they want to in a number of other places.

Remember, my friend, the world is not the black-and-white dichotomy you seem to think it is.

[Parasaurolophus]

Almost all of mine are there--in any course--for the temporary work permit that comes with graduation. Nothing more, nothing less.

That doesn't mean they don't, can't, or shouldn't get something more out of their educations, however.

Then again, they're doing less and less for it. We may have sort of bottomed out a bit over here.

[Hibush]

Almost all of mine are there--in any course--for the temporary work permit that comes with graduation. Nothing more, nothing less.

That doesn't mean they don't, can't, or shouldn't get something more out of their educations, however.

Then again, they're doing less and less for it. We may have sort of bottomed out a bit over here.

It is good to know the school's actual mission and to serve it well. Your situation is distinctive (perhaps not that unusual given the demand for visas). What approach is appropriate for developing a curriculum and course content that actually serves the students well in their intended life course?

What role does instruction in the students native language play, and in choosing how much foreign (to the US) language instructino to offer?

[marshwiggle]

This ignores all of the conversation on here of how little students get out of courses they don't want to be in. All of the benefits you list would apply to people who are engaged and pay attention. How much of that applies to the ones who are unwilling is the question I'm asking.

Well, firstly, I am not convinced students get "little" out of classes they don't want to be in.  I count myself in these numbers.  Even if they hate the class, if they are writing papers, taking tests, doing labs, completing projects then they are learning something whether or not they want too----you cannot do this stuff without learning; that's why we have them do it.  Will they retain the material in the same measure as a class they want to take?  Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  It is axiomatic that they will "get" a lot out of any class, even if they don't want to.

We actually agree on that. But the lectures they *don't attend, and the assignments and labs they miss, and the projects they barely complete; they don't get a lot out of those.

Question for all: How much long term benefit does someone get if they wind up with a C or D in your course?

(* And the kicker is that nothing an instructor does to make lectures interesting matters at all for those who never attend them, and thus won't even know whether a given lecture was "worth" attending.)

[Wahoo Redux]

We actually agree on that. But the lectures they *don't attend, and the assignments and labs they miss, and the projects they barely complete; they don't get a lot out of those.

Question for all: How much long term benefit does someone get if they wind up with a C or D in your course?

(* And the kicker is that nothing an instructor does to make lectures interesting matters at all for those who never attend them, and thus won't even know whether a given lecture was "worth" attending.)

My experience has been that most students come to class and do the work whether or not they love the class.  My experience is also that there is not this overall level of angst and grievance among gen ed students; they may not always be genuinely interested, and they may resent the time and money to a degree, but they are not lolling in the aisles waiting to do mediocre work either.   

The "C" student in the boring gen ed requirement is probably a "C" student everywhere.  The "A" student in the boring gen ed requirement is probably an "A" student everywhere.

A good instructor can make a difference in how gen ed students react to the material----I utterly disagree with you there.

And yeah, as long as they deal with the subject, they are learning, even if their learning is only on a "C" level.  The "A" student learns a lot in a gen ed, even if they don't want to.

B'sides, it is not up to college professors to motivate their students.  If they want to be lazy, resentful "C" students, that is their perogative.

[jimbogumbo]

My experiences in math courses was almost "they all almost always attend and try" with a couple of notable outliers. I was an award winning teacher (yes, I really was) and overwhelmingly got great evaluations. But in the outliers (notably College Algebra) it didn't matter- student attendance was just not good. I used to refer to my class as similar to a drop-in shelter for the homeless.

And in the vein of dismalist, things didn't really improve until we achieved really good success (after years of sustained effort) in convincing advisors and departments that the course was intended to lead to calculus. They mostly switched to a really well designed and taught stat class intended for them to be more prepared for their chosen field. Things are now much better.

[kaysixteen]

Aha!  What be the value of hs or college FL classes for those not interested in majoring in said language, and esp for reluctant students forced to take an FL?  And what is learned by the kid with the C, or esp the D? 

1) A year of college level FL is usually supposed to (roughly) equate to two years of hs FL, but, well, if that is all one takes, even an A in said language is not going to create anything remotely resembling 'fluency' in it.  This is esp true for modern, spoken languages.   A C is extremely unlikely to mean much, and a D is essentially  the same as an F.  IMO.

2) Now we come to the tricky part-- exactly what does it mean to be/ become 'fluent' in a second language one starts to learn *after puberty*, esp if such fluency is to be gained primarily or exclusively via classroom instruction, and no immersive opportunities exist?  This is a very nebulous concept to define, and it is often true that job applications, etc., which ask the applicant/ candidate to list his level of 'fluency' in any given second tongue really give almost no criteria upon which said candidate can/ is supposed to judge his level of fluency, something which is especially problematic when John Q. GenXer or Mary P. Boomer tries to ascertain how much 'fluency' remains after 30+ years since the last vocab quiz was aced...

[marshwiggle]

2) Now we come to the tricky part-- exactly what does it mean to be/ become 'fluent' in a second language one starts to learn *after puberty*, esp if such fluency is to be gained primarily or exclusively via classroom instruction, and no immersive opportunities exist?  This is a very nebulous concept to define, and it is often true that job applications, etc., which ask the applicant/ candidate to list his level of 'fluency' in any given second tongue really give almost no criteria upon which said candidate can/ is supposed to judge his level of fluency, something which is especially problematic when John Q. GenXer or Mary P. Boomer tries to ascertain how much 'fluency' remains after 30+ years since the last vocab quiz was aced...

This is a good point. One of my daughters took French immersion in elementary school, and after French the rest of the way through high school did a residential program in French for a few weeks. When she was doing a co-op job working for the government, when they found out her French background they directed incoming calls from French-speaking people to her.

Even with all of that, she'd be hesitant to take a job where she had to operate primarily in French.

Fluency is HARD.

[ciao_yall]

2) Now we come to the tricky part-- exactly what does it mean to be/ become 'fluent' in a second language one starts to learn *after puberty*, esp if such fluency is to be gained primarily or exclusively via classroom instruction, and no immersive opportunities exist?  This is a very nebulous concept to define, and it is often true that job applications, etc., which ask the applicant/ candidate to list his level of 'fluency' in any given second tongue really give almost no criteria upon which said candidate can/ is supposed to judge his level of fluency, something which is especially problematic when John Q. GenXer or Mary P. Boomer tries to ascertain how much 'fluency' remains after 30+ years since the last vocab quiz was aced...

I find total immersion gets me functioning in a language in a few weeks. I speak French and Spanish but it's always a little rough at first. When I travel I make myself read signs and menus in the other language, buy magazines, have simple conversations, etc. 

Watching TV or movies in another language really helps. I have taken to watching a Spanish series in Spanish - first dubbed in English, then dubbed in Spanish. Learning a lot of swear words!


This is a good point. One of my daughters took French immersion in elementary school, and after French the rest of the way through high school did a residential program in French for a few weeks. When she was doing a co-op job working for the government, when they found out her French background they directed incoming calls from French-speaking people to her.

Even with all of that, she'd be hesitant to take a job where she had to operate primarily in French.

Fluency is HARD.

[ciao_yall]

2) Now we come to the tricky part-- exactly what does it mean to be/ become 'fluent' in a second language one starts to learn *after puberty*, esp if such fluency is to be gained primarily or exclusively via classroom instruction, and no immersive opportunities exist?  This is a very nebulous concept to define, and it is often true that job applications, etc., which ask the applicant/ candidate to list his level of 'fluency' in any given second tongue really give almost no criteria upon which said candidate can/ is supposed to judge his level of fluency, something which is especially problematic when John Q. GenXer or Mary P. Boomer tries to ascertain how much 'fluency' remains after 30+ years since the last vocab quiz was aced...

This is a good point. One of my daughters took French immersion in elementary school, and after French the rest of the way through high school did a residential program in French for a few weeks. When she was doing a co-op job working for the government, when they found out her French background they directed incoming calls from French-speaking people to her.

Even with all of that, she'd be hesitant to take a job where she had to operate primarily in French.

Fluency is HARD.

(Editing because I messed up the quote function and the quick edit timed out)

I find total immersion gets me functioning in a language in a few weeks. I speak French and Spanish but it's always a little rough at first. When I travel I make myself read signs and menus in the other language, buy magazines, have simple conversations, etc. 

Watching TV or movies in another language really helps. I have taken to watching a Spanish series in Spanish - first dubbed in English, then dubbed in Spanish. Learning a lot of swear words!

Marshwiggle's daughter could probably handle simple conversations at first. As she gets more experience on the job, if she makes an effort to expand her French vocabulary to mirror her work experience, she'll be fine.

[Parasaurolophus]

When Stephen Harper became head of the newly united Conservative party, he did not speak French. It was an absolute disgrace, and his performance in the French debate was downright shameful.

By the next election, two years later, he was competent. And by the next election, he was unquestionably fluent.

I don't give him much credit for anything, but on this issue, the man sure put in the effort.

[kaysixteen]

Harper obviously had strong personal and political motivations to seek, as an adult, to become fluent in French, and whatever one's political views of him, he is probably pretty darn smart too, but most adults, at least most *American* adults, are going to be much less motivated and/or capable of doing something like this, wrt most all FLs (with the possible exception of Spanish, which is more or less similar in status here as French is in Canada-- similar, not exactly the same). 

I will stand on my claim that it is very hard to acquire, or even *reacquire* real second lang 'fluency', largely because, well... exactly what level of *vocabulary* control does one really need, in order to be 'fluent' in a language, and vocab control is usually more or less the first thing that goes when one ceases to have real sustained exposure to a spoken SL, and is also surprisingly harder than one might expect, for the post-pubescent learner to really acquire, in the first place.

[marshwiggle]

I will stand on my claim that it is very hard to acquire, or even *reacquire* real second lang 'fluency', largely because, well... exactly what level of *vocabulary* control does one really need, in order to be 'fluent' in a language, and vocab control is usually more or less the first thing that goes when one ceases to have real sustained exposure to a spoken SL, and is also surprisingly harder than one might expect, for the post-pubescent learner to really acquire, in the first place.

This is absolutely true, and it raises an obvious question.

For programs in foreign languages, especially at universities, what standards do they use to determine that someone has a "sufficient" grasp of the foreign language, especially when that language is not spoken in the local area, and if the program doesn't require any actual time spent in a region where that language predominates?

[Ruralguy]

Its certainly well below "fluency."  I don't think any college level programs, that is, the ones that are part of a requirement, suggest that students will become fluent. I think the goal is to have them be able to understand a native speaker, and to be able to be understood by a native speaker.