Work Package 3: One Future Language Teaching Scenario (12.5.2009)
Partner 6, University of Helsinki
Foreign Language Teaching in the Future
Advanced Information—One Future Scenario
Reference: Tella, S. (2004). Visualising future foreign language education: From revision and supervision to vision. In K. Mäkinen, P. Kaikkonen, & V. Kohonen (Eds.), Future Perspectives in Foreign Language Education (pp. 71–98). Oulun yliopiston kasvatustieteiden tiedekunnan tutkimuksia 101.
Retrieved 12.5.2009, from
(A graphic presentation of this article is at )
Visualising Future Foreign Language Education:
From Revision and Supervision to Vision
Seppo Tella
Research Centre for Foreign Language Education (ReFLEct)
Department of Applied Sciences of Education
University of Helsinki
An extract concerning one foreign language teaching scenario in 2020
Language Teaching in 2020
Visions should be placed far away in the future, at 10 or more years from now. Otherwise they are too close to our present-day problems, needs and urgencies. All in all, setting visions does not equal enumerating our contemporary needs. In this light, thinking ahead as far as the year 2020 might give us a proper distance. As this is just a preliminary paper on the topic, no real summary of all tendencies will be given; rather, I present a tool, a grid, that I expect to help language educators to visualise the future by using a certain number of initial categories.[1]
The grid is called a Future Grid (Table 2) and it can be modified to cover various areas of interest. This was the grid presented to some 20 language and media specialists, as they started envisioning what language teaching might be like in 2020.
Table 2. A Future Grid.
Option 1 / Option 2 / Option 3 / Option 4Work
Value Basis
Social
Integration
Using One’s
Resources
World Picture
The five categories were first modified to better reflect the work of a language teacher. A few new categories were added. So the new categories before the brainstorming sessions were: the student’s portrait; the language teacher’s portrait; challenges to our expertise; learning environment and technology; resources, financing and competition, and the world picture, the status quo in the world, attitudinal atmosphere and “driving forces”. The participants were given free hands—or free “minds”, rather—to foresee any possible world they could, without any initial constraints or limits.
Table 3. Language Teaching in 2020—Four Options Chosen by Some Language and Media Specialists.
Fully Techno / GDR (“DDR”) / Ultimate Individualism / World Village1)Student’s portrait / Part of the technological world / Obedient rat / Looking for one’s own best / Technical expert
2)Language teacher’s
portrait / Virtual tutor / Directed from outside / Waiter, with a tray in his hand / Cultivated mentor
3)Challenges to our expertise / No challenges / Adaptability; uncritical attitude / Obligation to cope / Complete mastery of technology
4)Learning
environment and technology / Virtual world / Determined by central administration / Many alternative options available / Mediated through mobile technologies
5)Resources, financing and competition / Hard competition: prices down – society must pay / No competition: society subsidises / Enormous competition; sponsors / Basic needs secured: according to one’s ability
6)World picture, the status quo in the world,
attitudinal
atmosphere; “driving forces” / “Everything for me, right now” / “It takes a village to raise a child”
Naturally, the language and media specialists’ views regarding four possible (or probable) futures are merely indicatory. Yet they might reveal a deeper understanding of some trends we can see some weak signals of at the moment. In my opinion, one of the most powerful methods of looking ahead is the “experiencing method” (eläytymismenetelmä) as presented by Eskola (1997, 138). The grid in Table 3 is a good example of reflections gathered this way. It is my intention to continue to reflect on the future of FLE along the lines illustrated in this grid.
Conclusions
Foreign language education has had a colourful past, but it is bound to face a more colourful future, once language educators start envisioning and visualising different possible worlds in which to teach, study and learn languages. All this activity does not happen in a vacuum, of course. As Byram (2003) has shown, FLE is closely linked to broader societal structures, such as national education systems, the creation of the human capital required for a country’s economy, national identity, and the promotion of equality.
Envisioning the future of FLE is undoubtedly an example of post-modern education in the spirit of Parker (1997). It is post-modern in the sense that it does not enumerate facts, nor does it define some facts as correct and others as wrong or set strict aims for learning situations. It is post-modern, in the positive sense of the word, in providing language learners with different narratives or genres to support their growth, while giving them access to a rich collection of linguistic affordances.
FLE has witnessed a constant process of developments in a number of areas, some of which have been used as the ‘indicators’ above, in order to allow us to reassess past and present teaching, studying and learning practices. Looking into the future also involves looking backwards, with critical eyes.
= = =
References
Ansoff, H. I. 1984. Strategisen johtamisen käsikirja. (Handbook of Strategic Leadership.) Helsinki: Otava.
Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of Meaning. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Bruner, J. 1996. The Culture of Education. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Byram, M. 2003. Foreign language education in context. In Bourne, J. & Reid, E. (eds.) Language Education: World Yearbook of Education. London: Kogan Page, 61–75.
CEF 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. 2001. Council of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[
Downloadable at [
Cook, V. 2001. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Third Edition. London: Arnold.
Ellis, R. 1990. Instructed Second Language Acquisition: Learning in the Classroom. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.
Eskola, A. 1997. Jäähyväisluentoja. (Farewell Lectures.) Helsinki: Tammi.
Gibson, J. J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Hay, K. E. 1993. Visions of a Postmodern Educational Environment. In Estes, N. & Thomas, M. (eds.) Rethinking the Roles of Technology in Education: The Tenth International Conference on Technology and Education. March 21–24, 1993. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Volume 1. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, College of Education, 617–619.
Helakorpi, S. (ed.) 2001. Koulutuksen strateginen ja operationaalinen suunnittelu. (Strategic and Operational Planning of Education.) Helsinki: Tammi.
Hildén, R. 2002. ELP—Integrating Theory and Practices for Socially Responsible Autonomy. In Kohonen, V. & Kaikkonen, P. (eds.) Quo vadis foreign language edication? Reports from the Department of Teacher Education in Tampere University A 27, 177–121.
Hooper, D. S. 1981. Intercultural Communication Concepts and the Psychology of Intercultural Experience. In Pusch, M. D. (ed). Multicultural Education: A Cross-Cultural Training Approach. Chicago: Intercultural Press, Inc., 10–38.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. 1975. Learning Together and Alone: Cooperation, Competition, and Individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kaikkonen, P. & Kohonen, V. (toim.) 2000. Minne menet kielikasvatus. (Where Are You Heading, Language Education?) Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopistopaino.
Kauppinen, J., Jääskeläinen, L., Montonen, M. & Tella, A. (toim.) 2003. Lukion opetussuunnitelmaopas. (A Guide to the Framework Curriculum of Upper Secondary Schools.) Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
Kohonen, V. 1988. Kokonaisvaltainen oppiminen: sovellusnäkökohtia kielikasvatukseen. (Holistic Learning: Aspects of Application to Language Education.) Teoksessa Kohonen, V. & Lehtovaara, J. (toim.) Näkökulmia kokonaisvaltaiseen oppimiseen 2. Tampere University. Department of Teacher Education. Reports A 10.
Kohonen, V. 2002. The European language portfolio: From portfolio assessment to portfolio-oriented language learning. In Kohonen, V. & Kaikkonen, P. (eds.) Quo vadis foreign language edication? Reports from the Department of Teacher Education in Tampere University A 27, 77–95.
Kohonen, V. 2003. Student autonomy and teachers' professional growth: Fostering a collegial culture in language teacher education. In Little, D., Ridley, J. & Ushioda E. (eds.) Towards autonomy in foreign language learning: teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment. Dublin: Authenti, 149–162.
Kramsch, C. 2002. Standard, nord, and variability in language learning: A view from foreign language research. In Gass, S., Bardovi-Harlig, K., Sieloff Magnan, S. & Walz, J. Pedagogical Norms for Second and Foreign Language Learning and Teaching: Studies in Honour of Albert Valdman. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 59–79.
Kristiansen, I. 1993. Sanaston muistaminen elaboroinnin tuloksena. (Remembering Vocabulary as a Result of Elaboration.) In Tella, S. (ed.) Kielestä mieltä – mielekästä kieltä. (From Language to Sense —From Sense to Language.) Proceedings of a Subject-Didactic Symposium in Helsinki on Feb. 7th, 1992. Part II. Department of Teacher Education. University of Helsinki. Research Report 118, 104–118.
Kumpulainen, K. 2002. Yhteistoiminnallinen oppiminen vertaisryhmässä: Tutkimuskatsaus. (Co-operative Learning in Peer Groups: Research Review.) Kasvatus 3.
Laihiala-Kankainen, S. 1993. Formaalinen ja funktionaalinen traditio kieltenopetuksessa: Kieltenopetuksen oppihistoriallinen tausta antiikista valistukseen. (The Formal and Functional Tradition in Language Teaching.) Jyväskylän yliopisto. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 99.
Lantolf, J. P. (ed.) 2000. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.
Lehtinen, E. 1983. Yhteissuunnittelu, konstruktivistisen oppimisnäkemyksen sovellutus lukion didaktiikkaan. (Joint Planning: Adapting a Constructivist Conception of Learnaing to Upper Secondary School Didactics.) Turun yliopisto. Kasvatustieteiden tiedekunta. Julkaisusarja A:97.
Lehtinen, E., Kinnunen, R., Vauras, M., Salonen, P., Olkinuora, E. & Poskiparta, E. 1989. Oppimiskäsitys. (The Conception of Learning.) Helsinki: Valtion painatuskeskus.
Leppilampi, A. 1991. Yhteistoiminnallinen oppiminen ja koulun kehittäminen. (Co-operative Learning and Developing School.) In Sava, I. & Linnansaari, H. (eds.) Peruskoulun toiminta- ja työmuotoja kehittämässä. Helsingin yliopiston Vantaan täydennyskoulutuslaitoksen julkaisuja 2, 143–164.
Lewis, R. D. 1999. When Cultures Collide: Managing successfully across cultures. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Liebermann, A. (ed.) 1990. Schools as Collaborative Cultures: Creating the Future Now. New York: The Falmer Press.
Littlejohn, A. 1998. Language Teaching for the Millenium. English Teaching Professional, Issue 8, July. [ (10.4.2003)
LOPS 1994. Lukion opetussuunnitelman perusteet. (A Framework Curriculum for Comprehensive Schools.) Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
LOPS 2003. Lukion opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2003. (A Framework Curriculum for Upper Secondary Schools 2003.) Nuorille tarkoitetun lukiokoulutuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
Malaska, P. 1993. Tulevaisuustietoisuus ja tulevaisuuteen tunkeutuminen. (Awareness of and Penetrating into the Future.) In Vapaavuori, M. (ed.) Miten tutkimme tulevaisuutta? Acta Futura Fennica 5. Helsinki: Painatuskeskus.
Meristö, T. 1991. Skenaariotyöskentely yrityksen johtamisessa. (Working with Scenarios when Leading an Enterprise.) Acta Futura Fennica 3. Helsinki: VAPK-kustannus.
Mustaparta, A.-K. & Tella, A. 1999. Vieraskielisen opetuksen järjestäminen peruskoulussa ja lukiossa. (Organising Teaching Through Foreign Language in Comprehensive and Upper Secondary Schools.) Helsinki: Opetushallitus. Kehittyvä koulutus 1. (Helsinki: National Board of Education: Developing Education 1.)
Mäkinen, K. 2002. Teaching foreign languages through drama. In Kohonen, V. & Kaikkonen, P. (eds.) Quo vadis foreign language edication? Reports from the Department of Teacher Education in Tampere University A 27, 177–195.
Määttä, M. 1996. Uudistuva oppilaitos ja johtaminen. (A Renewing Learning Institution and Leadership.) Acta Universitatis Tamperensis A 512. Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto.
Parker, S. 1997. Reflective Teaching in the Postmodern World: A Manifesto for Education in Postmodernity. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Parr, C. W. 1993. Back to the Future: Belief Systems which Prevent the Adoption of Technology in the Classroom. In Estes, N. & Thomas, M. (eds.) Rethinking the Roles of Technology in Education: The Tenth International Conference on Technology and Education. March 21–24, 1993. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Volume 1. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, College of Education, 458–460.
POPS 1985. Peruskoulun opetussuunnitelman perusteet. (A Framework Curriculum for Comprehensive Schools.) Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
POPS 1994. Peruskoulun opetussuunnitelman perusteet. (A Framework Curriculum for Comprehensive Schools.) Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
POPS 2003. Perusopetuksen opetuskokeiluissa lukuvuonna 2003–2004 noudatettavat opetussuunnitelman perusteet vuosiluokille 3–9 ja perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet vuosiluokille 1–2. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
[ (17.12.2003)
Sahlberg, P. & Sharan, S. (toim.) 2001. Yhteistoiminnallisen oppimisen käsikirja. (Handbook of Co-operative Learning.) Helsinki: WSOY.
Standards 1999. Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century. National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL. (Cited in Byram 2003, 63)
Swan, M. 1985a. A critical look at the Communicative Approach (1). ELT Journal 39 (1), 2–12.
Swan, M. 1985b. A critical look at the Communicative Approach (2). ELT Journal 39 (2), 76–87.
Säljö, R. 2000. Lärande i praktiken: Ett sociokulturellt perspektiv. Stockholm: Prisma.
Tella, S. (ed.) 1984. Report on the Council for Cultural Co-operation Workshop No. 3: Communicative Language Teaching in the Classroom. Aulanko, Hämeenlinna, Finland, 3–8 June, 1984. National Board of General Education. Educational Materials Bureau. Publications 1.
Tella, S. (ed.) 1985. Communicative Language Teaching in the Classroom. Project No. 12 'Learning and teaching modern languages for communication. International workshops for trainers of modern language teachers 1984. Report on Workshop 3. Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Co-operation.
Tella, S. 1993a. Opettajien visioista ja koulun kehittämisestä. (On Teachers' Visions and Developing Schools.) In Tella, S. (ed.) From Language to Sense—From Sense to Language. Proceedings of a subject-didactic symposium in Helsinki on Feb. 5th, 1993 Part II. Department of Teacher Education. University of Helsinki. Research Report 118, 179– 197. (In Finnish)
Tella, S. 1993b. Teknologis-humaanin tiedonkäsityksen mahdollisuuksista. (On Ways and Means of a Technologically Humane Concept of Knowledge.) In Tella, S. (ed.) From Language to Sense—From Sense to Language. Proceedings of a subject-didactic symposium in Helsinki on Feb. 5th, 1993. Part II. Department of Teacher Education. University of Helsinki. Research Report 118, 79–91. (In Finnish)
[
Tella, S. 1996a. Trends in Modern Language Teaching. In Tella, S. (ed.) Two Cultures Coming Together. Part 3. Theory and Practice in Communicative Foreign Language Methodology. University of Helsinki Department of Teacher Education & University of Helsinki Vantaa Continuing Education Centre. Studia Paedagogica 10, 45–49. (In English)
Tella, S. 1996b. Visions for the 21st Century: Utopian or Utility? In Tella, S. (ed.) Two Cultures Coming Together. Part 3. Theory and Practice in Communicative Foreign Language Methodology. University of Helsinki Department of Teacher Education & University of Helsinki Vantaa Continuing Education Centre. Studia Paedagogica 10, 255–271. (In English)
Tella, S. 1997a. A la recherche du temps à venir: La formation multimédia – Vers une citoyenneté de la société d'information et de communication. Département des études pédagogiques appliquées. Université de Helsinki. Publications OLE 5. (En français)
[
Tella, S. 1997b. An ‘Uneasy Alliance’ of Media Education and Multiculturalism, with a View to Foreign Language Learning Methodology. University of Helsinki. Department of Teacher Education. OLE Publications 4.
[
Tella, S. 1999. Teaching Through a Foreign Language Revisited: From Tool to Empowering Mediator. In Tella, S., Räsänen, A. & Vähäpassi, A. (eds.) Teaching Through a Foreign Language: From Tool to Empowering Mediator. An Evaluation of 15 Finnish Polytechnic and University Level Programmes, with a Special View to Language and Communication. Publications of Higher Education Evaluation Council 5. Helsinki: Edita, 26–31. [
Tella, S. 2002. M-opiskelu – kybertekstuaalista matkailua vai postmodernin kasvatuksen airut? (M-learning—Cybertextual Travelling or a Herald of Postmodern Education?) Teoksessa Seppälä, P. O. (toim.) Mobiili opiskelu – joustavasti liikkeessä. Helsingin yliopisto. Opetusteknologiakeskus, 21–39.
Tella, S. 2003. M-learning—Cybertextual Traveling or a Herald of Post-Modern Education? In Kynäslahti, H. & Seppälä, P. (eds.) Professional Mobile Learning. Helsinki: IT Press, 7–21.
Tella, S. & Mononen-Aaltonen, M. 1998. Developing Dialogic Communication Culture in Media Education: Integrating Dialogism and Technology. University of Helsinki. Department of Teacher Education. Media Education Centre. Media Education Publications 7. |
Tella, S., Vahtivuori, S., Vuorento, A., Wager, P. & Oksanen, U. 2001. Verkko opetuksessa – opettaja verkossa. (The Net in Teaching—The Teacher on the Net.) Helsinki: Edita. (In Finnish) (Web addresses: [
Tella, S. & Vähäpassi, A. 2000. Foreign Language Skills as Mediators to Enhancing Lifelong Learning Skills. University of Helsinki. Department of Teacher Education. Didacta Varia 5 (1), 17–27.
Vahtivuori, S., Wager, P. & Passi, A. 1999. "Opettaja, opettaja, teletiimi 'Tellus' kutsuu …": Kohti yhteisöllistä opiskelua virtuaalikoulussa. Kasvatus 30 (3), 265–278.
van Lier, L. 2000. From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In Lantolf, J. P. (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 245–259.
VanPatten, B. 2002. Communicative classrooms, processing instruction, and pedagogical norms. In Gass, S., Bardovi-Harlig, K., Sieloff Magnan, S. & Walz, J. Pedagogical Norms for Second and Foreign Language Learning and Teaching: Studies in Honour of Albert Valdman. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 105–118.
Vähäpassi, A. 1998. Variations of Co-Operative Learning: An Analysis of Four Different Approaches. In Nummi, T., Rönkä, A. & Sariola, J. in collaboration with Kynäslahti, H., Ristola, R., Tella, S. & Vähäpassi, A. Virtuality and Digital Nomadism: Introduction to the LIVE Project (1997–2000). Media Education Centre. Department of Teacher Education. University of Helsinki. Media Education Publications 6, 51–69. [
Wilkins, D. 1976. Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wittrock, M. C. (ed.) 1986. Handbook of Research on Teaching: A Project of the American Educational Research Association. (3rd Edition). New York: MacMillan.
Acknowledgements
My special thanks go to the group of language and media specialists who took part in the visionary seminars organised by the Research Centre for Foreign Language Education (ReFLEct) at the University of Helsinki Department of Teacher Education in 2003 and thus helped develop my ideas in futuristically knowledge-strategic thinking.
I am also deeply indebted to my Research Associate Pirjo Harjanne, who worked with me when preparing the materials and background information for these two seminars. I hope some of this thinking will also be beneficially conducive to her scientific writing in her other special area of expertise regarding text-based spoken language proficiency
[1] I owe this particular grid to Dr. Anita Rubin, who gave a lecture on futures research in our visionary seminar as part of the Kielet Project co-run by the Research Centre for Foreign Language Education and the Media Education Centre of the University of Helsinki Department of Teacher Education in the spring of 2003. I felt tempted to call this chapter “Rubin’s Cube”, but then renamed it more traditionally.