Foreign Language Teaching at University and the Challenge of Multilingualism in
Europe
Àngel Raluy & Anna Vallbona
1. Introduction
Two Modern Language Association (MLA) reports on the teaching of foreign languages
in American universities will serve as a starting point to present the current state of
foreign language teaching in Catalan universities. This article will focus on the
implementation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA, also called Bologna
Process) and its influence on language policies. Before starting the presentation, we will
provide a summary of both MLA reports as an anchor for discussion.
The report Foreign Languages and Higher Education: New Structures for a Changed
World (MLA, 2007) analyzes the current “language crisis” and proposes a change in
academic programs in order to transcend the dichotomy between instrumentalist and
constitutive perspectives. It is proposed to create programs with a clear aim, that is,
achieving translingual and transcultural competence. This general goal requires a new
organization, based on creating new cross-disciplinary studies, which will result in new
department structures. The overarching aim is to go beyond the watertight
compartments prevailing nowadays.
The Report to the Teagle Foundation on the Undergraduate Major in Language and
Literature (MLA, 2009) shows the need to reform the so-called liberal studies to make
them more attractive to students and also more consistent with the needs of the
American society. In particular, it argues for greater emphasis on the role of literature,
and highlights the urgency of an integrated degree that consists of an articulated whole
of teachers and subjects and moves away from the simple list of courses and
requirements.
2. Recent changes in Europe and multilingualism
The current landscape of teaching and learning of second languages in the European,
and by extension, the Spanish context is marked by five closely related events: a novel
concept of multilingualism, the role of two supra-national institutions such as the
Council of Europe and the European Commission, the Common European Framework
of Reference for Languages (Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte and Instituto
Cervantes, 2002), the implementation of the EHEA, and finally the Spanish
sociolinguistic situation.
The way of understanding multilingualism has changed in three aspects when compared
to the European Commission’s perception in the 90's. The three changes can be
glimpsed in the following quotation from the final report of the High Level Group on
Multilingualism (European Commission, 2007):
“The first decade of the new century has seen the introduction of an
inclusive language education policy, seeking to promote the learning of all
languages, including regional or minority, migrant and major world
languages. Moreover, the learning of foreign languages is no longer simply
regarded as being beneficial to the individual citizen, but as being of special
importance for the Lisbon aims of economic growth and social cohesion.”
These changes are primarily due to a fact which is stated by the European Commission
(2007, p. 6): “practically all EU Member States have by now become multilingual and
multicultural societies themselves, requiring strategies at local / regional / Member State
level for facilitating communication across language and cultural boundaries.”
As regards the role of the Council of Europe, it has been considered to be of crucial
importance in the promotion of languages. We must note that there is a clear distinction
between the US approach, which at best advocates for tolerance toward languages other
than English, and the explicit European support of bilingualism and trilingualism. In
this sense, the Language Policy Division of the Council of Europe has produced a
number of pioneering policy documents to enhance linguistic diversity, which is seen as
an asset of the European citizenry. The EU has consistently implemented policies to
improve language learning for all citizens while providing support for all languages,
regardless of their status as majority, regional, minority or lesser-used languages. Of
particular relevance is the work of the European Centre for Modern Languages
(ECML). The ECML is a Council of Europe institution which functions as a catalyst for
reform in the teaching and learning of languages and assists its stakeholders in member
states in bringing language education policies and practices together.
The European Commission has a much stronger political mandate than the Council of
Europe. Although it cannot impose a particular orientation on its state members, since
education is a national prerogative, the commission works through consensual
persuasion to promote multilingualism in Europe. The relevance of language policies
was pointed out by the appointment of a Commissioner (the highest level of decisiontaking) in 2007 with the specific purpose of working hand in hand with government
experts to produce scientific reports in the field of language studies. The European
Commission also channels financial support to specialized research and documentation
centers.
As for the Spanish sociolinguistic framework, it is noteworthy that a considerable part
of the Spanish population (42%) lives in areas where there are two co-official
languages: Castilian with Catalan, Basque or Galician, and this fact has a significant
impact on the use and promotion of languages at different stages in schooling.
Broadly speaking, both primary and secondary education show either a balanced use of
the two co-official languages or the prevailing use of one (Catalan in the case of
Catalonia), whereas in tertiary education a greater diversity of situations can be found
(Huguet and Madariaga). Thus, a considerable part of the Spanish population is
educated in three languages (an official, a co-official and a foreign language, mostly
English). The sociolinguistic situation is even more complex when we take into
consideration the arrival of immigrant-origin students, who speak a language different
from the co-official one (Amazigh, Arabic and Asian languages more recently).This
linguistic diversity is bound to reach our university campuses very soon. We will be
teaching students who speak a certain language at home and learn the two co-official
and a foreign language at school.
The CEFR is an innovative tool for the design, evaluation and implementation of
language teaching programs at the European level. It provides a basis for the mutual
recognition of language qualifications, which facilitates educational and occupational
mobility, and it describes in a comprehensive manner i) the competences necessary for
communication, ii) the related knowledge and skills, and iii) the situations and domains
of communication. Clearly, its publication in 2002 marked a milestone in the evaluation
of language methodology because it provided a framework adapted to the new needs
and possibilities of European citizens. Two notable developments of the CEFR are its
focus on language learning in action, i.e. what a user can do with the language under a
variety of conditions and limitations, and its broader scope by including some
competences such as pragmatic or sociolinguistic ones, which can be of equal or even
more importance in communicative encounters. Unlike many other European
documents, the CEFR has been of particular interest to course designers and textbook
writers due to the clarity of its objectives and methods, and it has become a key
reference for educational and professional mobility.
Finally, the so-called Bologna process has lasted about ten years and, in the case of
Catalan universities, has been implemented since 2010. It is the most far-reaching
university reform, in which Spain, together with 46 other countries, seeks to transform
the space of higher education. Its aims are mainly to develop the European dimension in
education, particularly through the teaching and dissemination of the languages of
Member States, to promote mobility of students and teachers, by encouraging the
academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study and to foster cooperation,
exchanges of information and experience between educational establishments. In the
end, it endeavors to make tertiary education more compatible, comparable, competitive
and attractive to students and teachers from Europe and from other continents.
3. Foreign language teaching: challenges for the EHEA in Spain
In recent years, press headlines such as: "I understand very little, I barely read it and I
definitely do not speak it" (La Vanguardia, 24.07.2008), "Just a little" (The Journal, 1/
2/2008) have become commonplace in the Spanish press. Obviously, they all refer to
the low level of English among Spanish students in both high school and postobligatory education. This low level is not just a perception that tourists get when they
land in Catalonia; it is certified by recent studies. On the English-language tests for 4th
ESO, the average percentage of correct answers was about 60% (specifically, 63.4%)
(Consell Superior d’Avaluació de Sistema Educatiu, 2008). Indeed, this is a rather
disappointing result if we take into account that these students have studied English for
eight years. Clearly, this low proficiency will have a negative impact on our future
university students. According to Berga et al. (2009), students at the end of high school,
that is, those who enter university, reach a level between A2 and B1 of the CEFR
(comparable to that of France, Italy and Germany, but far from that of Finland). In light
of this research, the aim of establishing an exiting level of B2 for college students seems
either overly optimistic or totally unattainable according to some experts.
European reports provide a second type of evidence on the low level of foreign
language knowledge among the Spanish population. Eurobarometer 243 (European
Commission, 2006) ranks Spain fifth from the bottom (of the EU-25) in secondlanguage skills and competence (along with Portugal, Italy, the UK and Ireland).
We cannot blame lack of linguistic diversity or insufficient language awareness, either
in Spain or in Catalonia, for the current state of foreign language levels among our
students. There is a clear legal framework in schools, administration, and commerce
which has adapted to the new sociolinguistic needs very smoothly. In particular,
primary education undertook a series of changes some years ago around what was
called the "new" language immersion (Mayans & Canal, 2009), which consisted of a
revitalization of the all-Catalan programs from the early 80s. The new arrangements
were basically three: newcomer classrooms, adapted educational plans and a more
welcoming environment. These measures are not directly related to the teaching of
foreign languages to primary school pupils, but they affect a large number of students
who learn Catalan and Castilian as a second language (newcomers to the Catalan
education system or children of immigrant parents).
In regards to university education and the EHEA, policies should address two issues:
first, the habits and attitudes of students toward Catalan linguistic diversity and,
secondly, the steps being taken by universities to enhance this diversity (including the
teaching of foreign languages).
Regarding the first issue, the study Usos, actituds i identitats lingüístics entre
l’estudiantat universitari (Ipsos Marketing et al., 2009) conducted in eight Catalan
universities points out the following conclusions:
-
Just over half of university students (58%) have some knowledge about the
language policies of their universities.
47% of university students adapt to the language used by teachers in class, while
41% always use Catalan.
42% of students always use Catalan in class when talking with peers, while 36%
adapt to the language of their classmates.
42% of university students prefer Catalan as a medium of instruction. 7% opt for
Castilian whereas 28% are indifferent.
About 85% of students think that knowledge of Catalan, Castilian and English is
very relevant to their degree.
Flexible attitudes with an implicit acceptance of bilingualism prevail regardless
of language preference (Catalan or Castilian). Monolithic attitudes (in favor of
Castilian or Catalan exclusively) are a minority.
The students’ lack of language competence in English is a real concern: there
exists an acute awareness of low proficiency and an express desire to catch up.
A feeling that the university does not offer enough solutions is quite widespread.
This last observation has urged tertiary education institutions to promote the teaching of
foreign languages, particularly after the implementation of the EHEA. Catalan
universities have undertaken measures to increase the presence of English in higher
education. An example of these policies could be the mandatory English subjects in the
College of Education at the University of Vic. The main objective of this core English
language program is to ensure that future graduates in pre-primary and primary school
teaching achieve a good communicative competence in English, and to guarantee that
they know how to apply the appropriate methodological tools and strategies for teaching
English in Primary Education. Students are required to study two subjects in English
regardless of their specialization.
The first one is called “English for Academic Purposes”, and its main goals are to give
students the necessary tools to read professional articles in English and, eventually, to
be able to present talks on their field of expertise in international conferences. Students
typically come with good grammar knowledge but they are unable to read long texts or
make an oral presentation in English. The second subject is called “English Didactics”,
and it uses Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) to teach the basis of
English Teaching Practice to all trainee teachers. The ultimate objective is to promote
mobility among our future graduates, in the belief that it may be a key factor in both
their professional development and their job placement.
The government has also launched a funding program, which will help encourage the
use of English as a language of instruction. The ultimate aim of these polices is to
ensure that students will attain a B2 proficiency level by the end of their degree. The
Ministry of Education has also started an initiative called the Multilingual Quality
Label, which certifies the implementation of language courses and CLIL programs in
university curricula. In addition, the European Diploma Supplement (the diploma
awarded to students that is valid on a European level) includes the level of English
achieved by students. Specifically, it requires students to demonstrate their proficiency
level after having completed at least 10% of their credits in English (either at their
institution in Spain or abroad).
All these policies point toward a progressive abandonment of simply teaching the
language itself and tend to adopt a philosophy of teaching foreign languages through
content (a CLIL approach). The implementation of CLIL in universities may have a
very positive impact, but it would be a mistake to unconditionally rush to teach any
subject in English. In this sense, Berga et al. (2009) outline a plan for implementing
CLIL methodology in a successful way. They note three crucial aspects to be taken into
consideration: the starting level of English that students and teachers have, in order to
avoid discrimination between proficient and struggling students; the CLIL
methodology, which involves a specific teaching methodology that affects the design of
materials and activities that take place in the classroom; and finally the imperious need
to train teachers in CLIL methodology.
4. Some reflections on the differences between the teaching of languages in the U.S.
and Europe
Bearing in mind the developments in the European university sociolinguistic landscape
and after reading the MLA reports, we would make three remarks. First, it appears that
the U.S. system is entrenched in the dichotomy between the teaching of literature and
language (and teachers allied on one side or the other). This dichotomy looks quite
outdated and the system should move towards an integrated model which would include
not only literature and language but the different languages that a nation-state may have.
So, past and ongoing ideological battles within the American university system appear
to be the reason why only the Spanish language and literature written exclusively in
Spanish (in Spain and Latin America) appears to be taught in Spanish Departments. As
mentioned in the Foreign Languages and Higher Education report (MLA 2007), several
institutions and departments have implemented substantial changes to break with this
monolingual and monocultural heritage, but it is still the norm to identify Spanish with
all that is done on the Iberian Peninsula.
The second reflection concerns the methodology for teaching foreign languages in
American universities. It is still standard that the first two years are dedicated to
teaching the formal aspects of language (with more or less emphasis on cultural aspects
according to the institution) while the second two years are devoted to teaching
“content”, which is usually limited to a review of the canonical literature and some
historical or cultural aspects. As mentioned above, the trend in the Spanish, Catalan and
European universities is to integrate the content and foreign language courses both in
initial and advanced stages (through CLIL approaches).
Finally, an aspect that distinguishes European and American universities is the impact
of certain government policies on syllabi and foreign language teaching approaches.
Certainly, the U.S. has some important programmatic documents on language teaching,
mainly the National Standards for Foreign Language Education (ACTFL, 1996) and
the above-mentioned reports, but their influence is limited in academia and unnoticeable
in the daily practice of foreign language classrooms at universities. In contrast, in the
European case, the impact of the CEFR has been more remarkable, and in only a few
years most institutions have adapted their courses to the new nomenclature and to some
extent to its innovative methodology. Furthermore, the fact that the European
Commission has had a special commission dedicated to multilingualism since 2004,
while an equivalent body is non-existent in the United States, also contributes to making
European citizens and their universities more aware of the need for and importance of
multilingualism and as a result fosters language learning.
In conclusion, the Catalan university system is facing one of the most significant
challenges in recent decades, and the teaching and promotion of foreign languages in
college will surely be affected by such changes. As shown here, in the Catalan case the
challenge of linguistic diversity is particularly difficult due to the low level of foreign
language skills among students and the configuration of the social space in a
considerable part of the country. Actually, both situations must be seen as opportunities
for experimenting with new methodologies and evaluating their results and progress in
the promotion of European linguistic diversity.
5. References
ACTFL. National Standards for Foreign Language Education. 1996.
http://www.actfl.org/advocacy/discover-languages/advocacy/discoverlanguages/advocacy/discover-languages/resources-6?pageid=3652>.
<
Amblàs, Sílvia, y Marta Estella. “L’elaboració d’un pla de llengües a partir d’un procés
participatiu: l’experiència de la UAB.” Llengua i ús, 42: 23-31. 30 julio 2009
<http://www.gencat.cat/llengua/liu/42/index42.htm>.
Baetens, Hugo. “Language promotion by European supra-national institutions”. In
Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Edited by Ofelia
Garcia. 2009. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 197-217.
Berga, Miquel, et al. “Estudi sobre les mesures adequades per aconseguir una millor
integració i presència de la llengua anglesa en l’activitat acadèmica del sistema
universitari català.” Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament d’Innovació,
Universitats i Empresa, Barcelona, 2008. 30 julio 2009 <http://www10.gencat.
cat/dursi/pdf/un/informe%20llengua%20anglesa%20estudis%20universitaris.pdf
>.
Comajoan, Llorenç. “The Sociolinguistic Situation of Catalan at the Turn of the 21st
Century: Immigration and the Intergenerational Transmission.” Catalan Review,
18: 67-95.
Consell Superior d’Avaluació del Sistema Educatiu. “La llengua anglesa en l’avaluació
de l’ESO 2006.” Quaderns d’avaluació, 11 (2008): 2-33. 25 July 2009.
<http://www20.gencat.cat/docs/Educacio/Home/Consell%20superior%20d%27a
valua/Pdf%20i%20altres/Static%20file/Quaderns11.pdf>.
De Rossello, Carles, and Emili Boix. “An Unbalanced Trilingualism: Linguistic
Ideologies at the University of Barcelona. Catalan Review, 20 (2006): 153-171.
European Commission. “Final Report. High Level Group on Multilingualism”. 2007. 20
July 2009 <http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/multireport_en.pdf>.
---. “The Bologna Process. Towards the European Higher Education Area.” 28 July
2009 <http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc1290_en.htm>.
---. “Special Eurobarometer 243. Europeans and their Languages.” 2006. 28 July 2009
<http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_243_en.pdf>.
Ferrés, M. Jesús. “El procés de Bolonya, una oportunitat o un obstacle per a la llengua
catalana?” Llengua i ús, 42: 2-12. 30 July 2009 <http://www.gencat.cat/llengua/
liu/42/index42.htm>.
Huguet, Àngel, and José María Madariaga. Fundamentos de educación bilingüe.
Bilbao: Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad del País Vasco, 2005.
Ipsos Marketing, et al. “Usos, actituds i identitats lingüístics entre l’estudiantat
universitari.”
2009.
<http://www.uab.es/Document/470/251/EstudiInteruniWeb.pdf>.
Mayans, Pere., and Imma Canal. (2009). “El pla per a l’actualització del programa
d’immersió lingüística a Catalunya.” Paper presented at the III Trobada sobre
semi-immersió a Catalunya, Bellaterra, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2829 April 2009.
Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte and Instituto Cervantes. Marco común
europeo de referencia para las lenguas. 2002. 28 July 2009
<http://cvc.cervantes.es/obref/marco/cvc_mer.pdf>.
MLA. Foreign Languages and Higher Education: New Structures for a Changed
World. May 2007. <http://www.mla.org/flreport>.
----. Report to the Teagle Foundation on the Undergraduate Major in Language and
Literature.
February
2009.
<
http://www.mla.org/pdf/2008_mla_whitepaper.pdf>.
Morales, Carmen, et al. La enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras en España. Madrid:
Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, 2000.
Pons, Eva, and Natxo Sorolla. Informe sobre la situació de la llengua catalana (20052007).
Observatori
de
la
llengua
catalana.
26
julio
2009
<http://xarxes.wordpress.com/curriculum-vite/>.
Biodata
Angel Raluy is a lecturer of English in the Faculty of Education at the University of
Vic. He holds a PhD in intercultural semantics and taught in the USA as a bilingual
teacher in language immersion programs for six years. His interests lie in the role of
new technologies as a tool for fostering intercultural communication among tertiary
students.
Anna Vallbona is a lecturer of English at the University of Vic. She graduated with a
degree in English Philology from the Universitat de Barcelona and she completed her
post-graduate studies in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) at the UAB (Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona), where she is currently doing her PhD on SLA and CLIL. She
has 20 years’ experience in training teachers of English as a Foreign Language