Researching literacies and textual thinking in collegiate foreign language programs: Reflections and recommendations
Kate Paesani (PhD, Indiana University) is Director, Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) and Affiliate Associate Professor, College of Liberal Arts, at the University of Minnesota.
Abstract
This article reflects on the literacy turn in collegiate foreign language (FL) programs, taking as its central argument that the focus in FL curriculum, instruction, and research should not be on the content we teach, be it language, literature, or culture, but rather on textual thinking and literacies development. After providing a snapshot of findings from previous research, the article focuses on the need for scholarly innovation to fully understand and realize the potential of a literacies and textual thinking orientation for unifying collegiate FL programs. Six future research areas are recommended and discussed: operationalizing key concepts; reconsidering the notion of text in collegiate FL programs; exploring the sociocultural dimension of literacy; building transferable skills and cross‐disciplinary collaborations; investigating connections among literacies, textual thinking, and ACTFL guidelines and standards; and supporting instructors’ implementation of literacies‐based pedagogies.
1 LITERACIES AND TEXTUAL THINKING
Fifty years ago, when Foreign Language Annals and the discipline of applied linguistics were in their infancy, collegiate foreign language (FL) teaching was witnessing a shift away from a long‐standing focus on traditional literacy and the study of written language toward an emphasis on oral language development. This shift began with the audiolingual method and its behaviorist underpinnings, and continued with communicative language teaching and its grounding in the concept of communicative competence.1 Since that time, the field has been experiencing another shift toward text‐based teaching and learning and the development of students’ multiple literacies. Whereas reading, writing, and the literary canon are the focus of traditional FL literacy development, a literacies orientation is significantly broader: It involves overlapping language modalities (i.e., reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing); interpretation and transformation of multimodal texts of various genres; and linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural dimensions reflecting the language features and mental processes used to make meaning and the socially situated nature of learning and communication (Kern, 2000). This “literacy turn” has been inspired by both theoretical and practical realities in collegiate FL education. From a theoretical perspective, the literacy turn responds to the epistemological broadening of second language acquisition research to encompass social and cognitive orientations and to new understandings about the interplay between the study of written language and advanced speaking and writing development (e.g., Byrnes, Maxim, & Norris, 2010; Pavlenko, 2006; Rifkin, 2002). From a practical perspective, this turn provides a viable solution to the well‐documented language‐literature divide that continues to characterize many FL programs and to the urgent need to design FL curricula that address the realities of 21st‐century learners, universities, and societies (e.g., Kern, 2000; Paesani, Allen, & Dupuy, 2016; Swaffar & Arens, 2005).
Despite the practical possibilities of a literacies orientation, 21st‐century FL programs remain divided. Based on a survey of 134 faculty and administrators 10 years after the publication of the report of the Modern Language Association (MLA) Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages (2007), Lomicka and Lord (2017) found that 40% of respondents believed the two‐tier language‐literature system still exists, and only 39% had attempted to make curricular modifications to bridge that divide (n.p.). In addition, many literature courses still prioritize a traditional literacy orientation, to the detriment of students’ advanced proficiency development (e.g., Darhower, 2014; Donato & Brooks, 2004; Polio & Zyzik, 2009). Not only are there divisions between the language and literature sides of the undergraduate curriculum, but divisions also exist among departmental stakeholders and their language teaching and learning goals. For instance, two recent studies revealed that students valued more instrumental goals of FL study such as oral communication, cultural products, and connections to other disciplines, whereas instructors valued more intellectual goals such as literature and culture learning, critical thinking, and cultural perspectives (Hertel & Dings, 2017; Mills & Moulton, 2017). These persistent divisions have impacted FL enrollments and prevented colleagues from acknowledging what they share in common: the enterprise of educating learners about and through the languages, texts, and perspectives of different cultures.
To bridge this divide, this article builds on work by Swaffar, Arens, and Byrnes (1991) and Maxim (2006) and argues that the focus in FL curriculum, instruction, and research should not be on the content we teach, be it language, literature, or culture, but rather on textual thinking and FL literacies development. Adopting this perspective means prioritizing student engagement with textual content and entails a broadened understanding of texts as any oral, written, visual, or multimodal material that is characterized by linguistic, organizational, and other formal features and represents the signifying practices of a society (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Kern, 2000). A potential benefit of redefining collegiate FL programs as sites of textual thinking is the dismantling of silos that keep us divided. Indeed, this perspective is inclusive of a range of departmental subdisciplines, aligns with the academic mission of the humanities, creates space for incorporating text types extending beyond traditional literary‐cultural content, and affords opportunities for cross‐disciplinary collaborations. A literacies orientation and its associated pedagogies facilitate a focus on textual thinking by highlighting the synergistic relationship among language, literature, and culture, and between proficiency‐ and text‐oriented curricular goals. Yet to fully understand the potential of a literacies orientation for unifying collegiate FL programs, innovative scholarship is needed. The purpose of this article is thus to reflect on the literacy turn and to recommend new directions for thinking about literacies, texts, and textual thinking. The article begins with a snapshot of previous research on FL literacies and then suggests six broad areas of investigation to advance the literacies research agenda in the years to come.
2 RESEARCH REFLECTIONS: WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT LITERACIES AND TEXTUAL THINKING
Numerous scholars have argued that a literacies orientation is a viable means of uniting FL programs by integrating language development and textual thinking across the 4‐year undergraduate curriculum (e.g., Byrnes et al., 2010; Kern, 2000; Swaffar & Arens, 2005). Indeed, the definition of literacies adopted in this article reflects the interdependent nature of language and texts that is at the core of FL learning (Warford & White, 2012) and is consistent with the integrated approach to communication reflected in the World‐Readiness Standards (National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015). For instance, it facilitates the integration of interpersonal and interpretive communication and thus can be an appropriate framework for meeting the goals of undergraduate FL students, who place equally high priority on both communicative modes, regardless of curricular level (Magnan, Murphy, Sahakyan, & Kim, 2012).
Numerous course‐level proposals for implementing literacies pedagogies (e.g., Allen & Paesani, 2017; Maxim, 2006; Redmann, 2005) and three noteworthy models of literacies‐based collegiate FL curricula exist in the published research. The first is the well‐known “Developing Multiple Literacies” project in the German Department at Georgetown University (e.g., Byrnes et al., 2010). The curriculum, which adopts a literacy‐ and genre‐based approach, is organized into five levels that progressively develop students’ advanced language abilities through interaction with texts representing a range of personal (e.g., personal narratives, casual conversations) and public (e.g., documentaries, academic articles) genres. The empirical work arising from this project has been widely cited in applied linguistics scholarship and has inspired course‐level and curricular change in a variety of contexts, including the second noteworthy model: the retooled undergraduate German curriculum at Emory University (Maxim, Höyng, Lancaster, Schaumann, & Aue, 2013). The construct of genre was also applied in this context to develop a holistic and articulated undergraduate curricular sequence whose goal is to develop “advanced, culturally literate users of German who would be able to function successfully in a range of professional contexts” (Maxim et al., 2013, p. 5). Finally, a third and smaller‐scale curricular model is the introductory French program at Wayne State University (Paesani, 2017). Following the general trend in published scholarship on curricular models in FL programs exemplified by Georgetown and Emory Universities, this program adopted a literacy orientation and aimed “to prioritize students’ foundational knowledge of language, their communicative abilities, and their engagement with authentic texts” (Paesani, 2017, p. 5). In sum, published course‐level and curricular examples illustrate the process of creating and the feasibility of implementing a literacies orientation and serve as models for other programs wishing to prioritize students’ literacies development and textual thinking.
An important strand of empirical research on literacies development and textual thinking has focused on student learning outcomes. For example, studies emerging from the “Developing Multiple Literacies” project have provided robust evidence of the linguistic dimension of literacy, particularly through students’ written productions, and of students’ advanced language development through text‐based teaching and learning (e.g., Byrnes et al., 2010; Ryshina‐Pankova, 2010; Warren & Winkler, 2016). Specifically, this research shows that over time, students were able to understand and produce increasingly complex genres and demonstrated substantial levels of syntactic complexity development. Other studies related to student learning outcomes have shown how literacies‐based approaches contribute to students’ ability to conceptualize grammar as a meaning‐making resource, to connect reading and writing, and to interpret texts at various instructional levels (e.g., Maxim, 2002; Paesani, 2016).
Empirical research has also highlighted student and instructor struggles with respect to textual thinking and literacies‐based pedagogies. On the one hand, students show variability in their use of language as a tool for constructing meaning through texts and often can do so only with instructor guidance (e.g., Paesani, 2016; Urlaub, 2011). On the other hand, novice instructors struggle to attain nuanced understandings of literacies‐based concepts and to apply their knowledge to classroom practice (e.g., Allen, 2011a; Allen & Dupuy, 2013). These findings point to the long‐term nature of conceptual learning and to the need for ongoing student and instructor support to facilitate literacies‐ and text‐based learning and teaching.
This brief reflection illustrates the contribution of previous research to our understandings of the feasibility, outcomes, and applications of literacies‐based curriculum and instruction in collegiate FL programs. Nonetheless, additional curricular models are needed to understand to what degree a literacies orientation has been applied in postsecondary contexts and to inform FL programs wishing to adopt textual thinking and literacies development as overarching goals. Moreover, much work is needed to fully understand how a literacies orientation can be applied and empirically tested and why it is beneficial to students and instructors. The remainder of this article explores areas for future investigations into FL literacies and textual thinking and suggests questions that can advance the literacies research agenda in innovative ways.
3 RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS: WHAT WE HAVE TO LEARN ABOUT LITERACIES AND TEXTUAL THINKING
More than a decade ago, Kern and Schultz (2005), in reflecting on literature and literacy in collegiate FL programs, called for increased research to discover how a literacies orientation “affects student thinking, language performance, and cultural understanding as manifested through their literacy skills in order to determine its appropriateness to our constantly evolving practices” (p. 388). Although the existing body of knowledge on literacies and textual thinking has begun to meet this call, many questions remain unexplored, including the following: What are appropriate literacies and textual thinking objectives at different curricular levels? How do literacies and textual thinking goals respond to student and faculty needs? What is the place of literature and other traditional text types in FL programs adopting a literacies orientation? How can literacies pedagogies make literature and other text types accessible to learners? These questions are important not only to advancing the literacies research agenda, but also to helping FL program stakeholders to make well‐informed decisions about reframing their curricula and engaging students in textual thinking. To better understand the degree to which this orientation offers an appropriate solution to the language‐content divide and an effective framework for organizing FL programs, recommended topics for advancing the literacies research agenda include operationalizing key concepts; reconsidering the notion of text in collegiate FL programs; exploring the sociocultural dimension of literacy; building transferable skills and cross‐disciplinary collaborations; investigating connections among literacies, textual thinking, and ACTFL guidelines and standards; and supporting instructors’ implementation of literacies‐based pedagogies.
3.1 Operationalizing key concepts
Undertaking the challenge of operationalizing concepts related to literacies and textual thinking is an essential starting point for future research: This work can lead to the development of standardized instruments for use in empirical research and evidence‐based conclusions about the impact of a literacies orientation on FL curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Much progress has already been made in defining language proficiency and literary‐cultural texts; however, whereas proficiency has been operationalized and tested via the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL, 2012), defining literary‐cultural content has been less systematic. Indeed, Paesani and Allen (2012) identified varying conceptions of literature and culture in published research and suggested continued investigations into how different FL program members conceive of these forms of textual content and how their conceptions affect undergraduate FL education. On a larger scale, agreeing on definitions for literacies and textual thinking is crucial for empirically testing how students attain or how instructors understand and implement these and related concepts, particularly since our understandings have broadened over time to include more social epistemologies and frameworks. However, these concepts are abstract, highly theorized, and sometimes overlapping, making them difficult to operationalize (Barrette & Paesani, 2017). Questions that may shape this area of future research include the following: What factors comprise the concepts of literacies and textual thinking? What instruments are most appropriate for empirically testing these concepts? Which literacies and textual thinking factors are prioritized in curriculum, instruction, and assessment? Are literacies and textual thinking factors emphasized differently in different courses or curricular levels? What are student and instructor understandings and perceptions of literacies and textual thinking?
3.2 Reconsidering the notion of text in collegiate language programs
Adopting the concepts of literacies and textual thinking to frame collegiate FL programs also entails reconsidering how texts are defined and which texts are suitable for meeting literacies and textual thinking goals. The broad definition of text presented at the start of this article highlights the concept of multimodality, or the complementary and overlapping nature of language resources and modalities. Multimodal texts, then, combine oral and written language and can include images, gestures, hypertext, and the like. This definition creates the possibility of incorporating a range of text types across curricular levels and of expanding what are considered texts appropriate for FL study. For example, literature can be thought of as comprising the traditional genres of the canon (e.g., poetry, prose, theater) as well as nontraditional genres such as fairy tales, crime fiction, or science fiction. Moreover, this broad perspective is inclusive of additional genres such as graphic novels, romantic comedies, infographics, or public service announcements that can complement literary genres or stand on their own as products for developing students’ FL literacies. An expanded definition of text also creates new possibilities for engaging students in textual thinking through the various types of learning activities prioritized in literacies‐based instructional approaches, such as the knowledge processes framework of multiliteracies pedagogy (Kalantzis, Cope, Chan, & Dalley‐Trim, 2016). This framework engages students in four types of learning activities: experiencing a text through the expression of thoughts, opinions, and feelings; conceptualizing form‐meaning relationships expressed in a text; analyzing the sociocultural importance and consequences of textual meaning; and applying knowledge learned from a text to produce language in new and creative ways. Because this framework includes a range of cognitive learning processes (e.g., understanding, evaluating, creating) and encourages both language development and textual thinking, it is neither level nor content specific; rather, it can serve as a coherent instructional approach applied across the FL curriculum to any textual genre. Together, this pedagogical framework and the expanded notion of text can serve as a point of articulation with K–12 FL programs by building on the narrative, expository, and persuasive purposes of the texts they prioritize. Previous scholarship into the notion of text has addressed developing genre‐based FL curricula (e.g., Byrnes et al., 2010) and creating level‐appropriate instructional materials (e.g., Paesani et al., 2016), among other topics. Nonetheless, additional research is needed to understand the impact of this perspective on FL programs, and possible questions to explore include: What are faculty perceptions of an expanded notion of text? What is the perceived value of literary and nonliterary texts among teachers and students? What text selection principles are essential for building course and curricular content? What are effective instructional strategies for engaging students with multimodal texts?
3.3 Exploring the sociocultural dimension of literacy
Because concepts related to literacies, texts, and textual thinking are difficult to operationalize, existing research on student learning outcomes in these areas is limited and does not address the linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural dimensions of literacy in equal measure. Rather, as mentioned earlier, the majority of existing research has been limited to the linguistic dimension of literacy and the development of students’ advanced language competencies. Yet given the recent national emphasis on preparing globally aware, multilingual citizens in publications such as the report of the Commission on Language Learning from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2017), data‐driven understandings of the sociocultural dimension of literacy are increasingly important. This dimension of literacy reflects the socially situated nature of learning, the dynamic features of culture, and the variability of communicative norms and expectations within and across social groups as evidenced through texts (Kern, 2000). Initial research into this area has shown that students recognize the dynamic, variable, and relational nature of culture but that they prioritize language over culture learning and represent culture in stereotypical ways (Michelson, 2017). Additional research is needed to corroborate these findings as well as to investigate additional aspects of the sociocultural dimension of literacy. Questions driving this line of research might include the following: What is the relationship between the sociocultural and linguistic dimensions of literacy? How does the sociocultural dimension of literacy contribute to preparing globally aware, multilingual citizens? What are student and instructor understandings and perceptions of the sociocultural dimension of literacy? Is a literacies orientation more effective at promoting students’ dynamic, variable, and relational understandings of culture than other approaches? Which teaching practices promote dynamic, variable, and relational understandings of language and culture?
3.4 Building transferable skills and cross‐disciplinary collaborations
In addition to comprising three interrelated dimensions (linguistic, cognitive, sociocultural), a literacies orientation also emphasizes textual interpretation and creation, critical thinking, and cross‐cultural communication. As such, an emphasis on literacies highlights the relevance of FL study for a liberal education, supports the development of critically engaged, globally aware graduates, and emphasizes the transferable skills (e.g., analytical thinking, ethical decision‐making, teamwork, leadership) that learners can apply to a range of career and personal objectives. Moreover, redefining FL departments as sites of textual thinking opens new possibilities for cross‐disciplinary collaborations that can further students’ literacies and transferable skills development while emphasizing the unique, text‐based expertise of FL faculty. Adopting literacies and textual thinking as organizing principles thus has the potential to address one of the major challenges facing 21st‐century collegiate FL programs: how to modify and expand offerings to acknowledge changing institutional priorities and student characteristics. Although the MLA report (2007) urged FL departments to face this challenge a decade ago, many programs have not implemented the report's recommendations. The question of cross‐disciplinary curricular approaches therefore remains relevant, not only because the language‐content divide prevails but also because many FL programs are experiencing demographic shifts in the form of declining majors and, in many cases, increasing minors. This increase suggests that students see the benefit of combining FL study with other disciplines (e.g., engineering, biology, business); however, it is time for the FL profession to recognize this benefit as well and to show students the importance of FL study for meeting their academic and career goals. Less‐commonly taught language (LCTL) programs, which are often housed in area studies departments, might serve as models for this kind of work given that collaboration with other disciplines is common and is often driven by students’ academic needs and professional objectives. Systematic research is needed to better understand the relationships between FL literacies and textual thinking on the one hand and transferable skills and cross‐disciplinary collaborations on the other hand; findings from this research can then inform curricular and pedagogical change. Possible questions to explore in future research include the following: How does a focus on literacies and textual thinking facilitate collaborations across the language‐content divide and across different disciplines? What literacies and textual thinking factors are common across languages (e.g., LCTLs and non‐LCTLs) and disciplines? What transferable skills develop from FL programs organized according to a literacies orientation? What are students’ goals related to literacies, textual thinking, and career readiness? How do cross‐disciplinary FL courses prepare students for a range of careers?
3.5 Investigating connections among literacies, textual thinking, and ACTFL guidelines and standards
Looking beyond the boundaries of FL departments is vital for building collaborations within universities as well as outside of them. A fifth key research area, then, is examining relationships among a literacies orientation, textual thinking, and ACTFL's World‐Readiness Standards (National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015) and Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL, 2012). Although collegiate FL educators have shown, to varying degrees, resistance to more closely aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment with the Standards and Guidelines (e.g., Allen, 2011b; Byrnes, 2002), ACTFL nonetheless sets policy for the FL profession as a whole and has a strong advocacy voice. Investigating connections among literacies, textual thinking, and the Standards and Guidelines could thus have important implications for the future of FLs as a discipline and for K–16 program articulation. Although some work in this area has already been done (e.g., Arens, 2010; Urlaub & Watzinger‐Tharp, 2018), it has not gained sufficient traction to shape FL programs in significant ways. Possible areas of future inquiry are many and might address questions such as: What is the impact of literacies pedagogies on students’ interpersonal, interpretive, and presentational communication abilities? Are literacies pedagogies more effective at developing students’ language proficiency than other approaches? How do the five goal areas of the Standards map onto a literacies‐oriented curriculum? What relationships exist between textual thinking goals and the Standards and Guidelines? What are the characteristics of an articulated literacies‐Standards‐proficiency curriculum at the postsecondary level?
3.6 Supporting instructors’ implementation of literacies‐based pedagogies
A final topic for advancing the literacies research agenda is studying instructor understandings and applications of literacies pedagogies to teach textual thinking. The small number of previous studies in this area shows that collegiate FL instructors can label and define key literacies concepts at the end of a required methods course, but they possess neither macro‐ nor micro‐level understandings of literacies‐based pedagogical tools and struggle to implement them in their classrooms (e.g., Allen, 2011a; Allen & Dupuy, 2013). Furthermore, research on instructor applications of literacies pedagogies—specifically the knowledge processes framework of multiliteracies pedagogy (Kalantzis et al., 2016)—reveals that text‐based lesson plans are imbalanced: They tend to prioritize experiencing textual content over conceptualizing form‐meaning connections in texts, analyzing the cultural messages in texts, or applying understandings gained through texts in new and creative ways (Menke & Paesani, in press; Rowland, Canning, Faulhaber, Lingle, & Redgrave, 2014). Overall, these research findings suggest that instructors need scaffolded and sustained professional development experiences to facilitate more complete understandings and applications of literacies pedagogies. In addition, more research is needed to understand how instructors implement literacies lessons in their classrooms and how literacies pedagogy is applied in advanced‐level courses. By focusing on instructor knowledge and practice, research in this area has potential implications for instructor professional development, the creation of literacies‐oriented curricula and text‐based instructional materials, and, by extension, students’ ability to engage in textual thinking. This line of research can also inform the creation of much‐needed instructor professional development resources grounded in FL literacies and textual thinking. To date, few resources exist beyond methods books, lesson plans and course models in scholarly publications, and Web‐based materials developed for the Foreign Languages and the Literary in the Everyday project (FLLITE, n.d.).2 Possible questions to frame this research include the following: What are instructors’ understandings of literacies pedagogies? What relationships do instructors see between literacies pedagogies and other approaches? How do experienced instructors apply literacies pedagogies in their classrooms? What are best practices for facilitating instructor applications of balanced, literacies‐based approaches? How do we equip instructors with the tools to teach textual thinking as a core component of all FL courses?
4 CONCLUSION
The purpose of this article was to reflect on the literacy turn in collegiate FL education and to recommend areas for future research that investigate the potential of a literacies and textual thinking orientation for unifying FL programs. The six topics discussed here provide a starting point for advancing this research agenda and are intended to challenge FL educators to innovate in both their scholarship and their classroom practice. Although much of this proposed research suggests rethinking the content of and approaches to collegiate FL education, it is important to emphasize that a focus on literacies and textual thinking does not mean abandoning the literary‐cultural content that has been a mainstay of the FL profession. Rather, it means broadening our definition of what constitutes an appropriate text and applying literacies pedagogies as a means to effectively engage students with those texts. It is thus crucial, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Foreign Language Annals and consider the past and future of the discipline of applied linguistics, to reshape FL programs in ways that reflect our evolving disciplines, respond to our students’ needs and goals, and are grounded in research‐based decision‐making. A literacies and textual thinking orientation that is consistent with the ideas presented here offers one strategy for carrying out this work and for making collegiate FL education matter for the 21st century.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Heather Willis Allen and the four anonymous reviewers of this article for suggestions that helped shape my ideas.
ENDNOTES
- 1 For a history and critique of communicative competence and communicative language teaching, see Byrnes (2006) and Jacobs and Farrell (2003).
- 2 FLLITE is a collaboration between the Center for Open Educational Resources and Language Learning (COERLL) at the University of Texas‐Austin and the Center for Educational Resources in Culture, Language, and Literacy (CERCLL) at the University of Arizona.
