|
US. One of the most compelling arguments for undertaking this project has to
do with national resources. If you view programs in these languages from the
perspective of national need, and think in terms of overall capacity to train
functioning users of these languages, it quickly becomes clear that both the
programs and the learners represent relatively scarce resources. The goals of
the RLLF are: 1) to help programs be maximally effective at producing
functioning users of Russian, 2) in such a way that the learners can move
among programs. The latter goal stems from the observation that few learners
reach the first goal within the confines of a single program.
The framework in this first manifestation is comprised of two central parts.
First, as a guide for curriculum development in Russian language learning
programs across their two largest academic settings, there are necessarily
theoretical components, here in the form of six principles. Second, following
from these principles we define three stages of Russian language learning
that provide a logical structure to the general pattern of requiring three years of
college Russian prior to semester programs of in-country study.
A pressing practical need regarding articulation is addressedin chapter
four as a common curriculum(that is, as a recommended subset of any high
school or college Russian program's overall curriculum). As only one
component of an overall program, the common curriculum needs to be
embedded in the larger curriculum of any high school or undergraduate
program. There is no neat algorithm for this, but general ideas are presented in
chapter five as approaches to implementation.
The principles are intended to be theoretically neutral, and in fact were
designed with reference to the learning of any of the less commonly taught
languages. They are quite general, but also very powerful principles, which can
be met in a wide variety of ways. The stages are a Russian-specific proposal
that attempts to provide a rational, shared approach to the classroom learning
that leads up to in-country study. The common curriculum is much more
specific, but again, is not intended to favor any particular approach to language
learning. Its specificity derives from the need to facilitate smooth transitions by
learners across institutions. The implementation sections are offered not as
further requirements, but as demonstrations of flexibility, as examples of the
creative incorporation of relatively minimal fixed elements into a much larger
and malleable whole. Through all of this, even when the framework is at its
most specific, it is intended to be compatible with a broad range of textbooks
and programs.
While the framework is intended to be as neutral as possible with respect
to textbooks and pedagogical approaches, it is also intended to provide a
certain amount of principled uniformity. While the need for this uniformity is
most acute as students move from high school to college programs, it is relevant
as a resource issue at all levels at which students might move among programs.
Furthermore, the general structures outlined in the stages have strong cognitive
and developmental motivations, and we believe them to be valuable for
purposes of curriculum for any high school or college Russian program.
|
|
