Foreign Language Annals

1 INTRODUCTION

A curious truism is that innovations always lead the field long before the results, impacts, and implications of them can be understood. This was the case with moveable print (McLuhan, 1962), the automobile (Flink, 1990), and the mobile phone (Ling, 2004). This has been the case with many breakthroughs in history; new ideas are welcomed as a novelty, as a labor‐saving device, as a more efficient version of some previous innovation, or as a novel reinvention of an essential element. It is only with time and perspective that one can begin to assess just how the new innovation has actually affected the society that welcomed it.

The same holds true in the field of foreign language education. A review of research from the last 50 years related to classroom practice attests that new ideas dominate the profession long before there is a clear consensus as to how they will affect the language classroom. In the 1940s, for example, the use of drills became a dominant methodology focusing on grammatical accuracy. Almost 75 years later, drills are still prevalent in our profession even after numerous calls for new perspectives in the classroom like Wong and VanPatten's (2003) article, “The Evidence Is IN: Drills Are OUT.” In a sense, we seem to continue asking the same questions about the same topics without learning from our past.

Adding to our historical amnesia, we seem to focus more on the now rather than the future, lacking a unified ability to predict and examine factors that are driving change in our field and thus spurring areas for innovation. Since 2012, ACTFL has begun to organize a research agenda focused on priorities to improve foreign language education (ACTFL, 2016, 2017). Albeit a step in the right direction, these research priorities could benefit from more forward thinking. Our colleagues in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESOL), for example, have organized their research agenda around future directions and influences. The TESOL Research Agenda Task Force (2014) identifies the change drivers for their field as “a) new theoretical perspectives on the nature and learning of language(s), b) technological support for learning and c) agency of teachers as advocates of change” (p. 2). As noted by the field of TESOL, research priorities must consider the changing nature of the discipline.

For these reasons, I argue that for research in teaching to move forward, it must start asking the right kind of questions, ones that change the public perception of foreign language teaching and learning. We must begin to coordinate and focus our research efforts to address our field's Grand Challenges, which are unsolved problems that have the potential to lead to significant advances in our field. In an ever‐changing educational and political landscape, now more than ever we need to identify our challenges and move forward with a united effort that is aligned to the needs of society. For these reasons, Grand Challenges call on “students, journalists, the public, and their elected representatives, to develop a sense of the possibilities, an appreciation of the risks and the urgent commitment to accelerate progress” (Omenn, 2006, p. 1696). The areas that deserve focused development have the potential to yield the greatest rewards for language learning, language teaching, and society as a whole.

2 GRAND CHALLENGES

The historical roots of Grand Challenges began with the German mathematician David Hilbert. In 1900, he outlined 23 “mathematical puzzles” and reasoned that the solutions of these problems would lead to the furthering of the field of mathematics. Hilbert explained,

Who of us would not be glad to lift the veil behind which the future lies hidden; to cast a glance at the next advances of our science and at the secrets of its development during future centuries?… As long as a branch of science offers an abundance of problems, so long it is alive; a lack of problems foreshadows extinction or the cessation of independent development…. A mathematical problem should be difficult in order to entice us, yet not completely inaccessible, lest it mock our efforts. It should be to us a guide post on the mazy paths to hidden truths, and ultimately a reminder of our pleasure in the successful solution. (as cited in Reid, 1996, p. 74)

Hilbert's problems have received significant attention in mathematics; 21 have been solved, while the other two are unsolved and may be unsolvable. Hilbert's 23 problems shaped the future of mathematics, outlined a research trajectory, and generated additional areas of inquiry.

Other disciplines, such as science, mathematics, engineering, and physical education, have started to identify and address their fields’ Grand Challenges (see Table 1). In science, mapping the human genome project was first seen as ridiculous, but it is now an international project. Within physical education, the Grand Challenge “to educate our children to live physically active and healthy lives today and into adulthood” (Metzler, 2016, p. 326) was met with government support through a campaign like “Let's Move!” with Michelle Obama.

In a sense, our colleagues in the science fields view these challenges as a starting point for further analysis, to garner support, and in many cases to change public opinion. Within chemistry, for example, one Grand Challenge is to “[i]mprove sustainability science literacy at every level of society” (National Research Council, 2005, p. 10). This specific challenge involves educating citizens as well as future scientists. Similarly, mathematics education is challenged to change “the public's perception about the role of mathematics in society” (Stephan et al., 2015, p. 3). Within language education, we can certainly acknowledge and understand this important battle as our field continues to advocate for recognition as a core subject with the public's eye (Byrnes, 2005).

Interestingly, Grand Challenges have yet to be identified and defined in the arts. However, there have been impactful reports providing solid reasoning and recommendations for the support and growth of languages including the American Academy of Arts & Sciences's Commission on Language Learning report (2017), entitled “America's Languages: Investing in Language Education for the 21st Century” (p. 1). In this document, the commission recommended a national strategy: for “[E]very school in the nation to offer meaningful instruction in world languages as part of their standard curricula” (p. viii). The commission also shared its vision of the future as advocating for “100 percent of learners in the U.S. education system [to be] exposed to international perspectives, cultures, and/or languages in order to inform life‐long decisions about work and learning, and to support language and international efforts broadly in society” (p. 7). This timely leadership from the commission paves the way for our field to take the next step by carving out and defining our future through Grand Challenges.

3 DEFINING GRAND CHALLENGES IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Grand Challenges are intended to be hard to do, yet doable (Gould, 2010). For the purposes of discussion, what might a Grand Challenge be in foreign language teaching and learning? The process of selecting Grand Challenges has varied from discipline to discipline. Mathematics education, for example, recently invited members of the profession to identify their field's challenges, thus building a community of scholars (Stephan et al., 2015). To define Grand Challenges, mathematics educators used the criteria delineated in Table 2.

Using a hypothetical example based on models in other fields, this section outlines a possible Grand Challenge for foreign language education:

Improve the functional proficiency of all students at a level that allows them to interact for personal and professional pursuits.

This Grand Challenge conveys an expectation that all students will develop proficiency, an ambitious learning goal yet one that is doable. Dissecting this challenge for future research necessitates an examination of various components, such as a greater understanding of the nature of language, teacher knowledge base, high‐leverage teaching practices, teacher education, and learner outcomes, among other areas. To delve deeper into this topic, an understanding of these interactions and their impacts within the classroom needs to be reached. Ultimately, this challenge compels our field to innovate and approach language teaching and learning in new ways.

To address the hypothetical Grand Challenge, we must first set the stage to move learners toward higher proficiency. According to the Oral Proficiency Levels in the Workplace chart (ACTFL, 2015), after two years of high school language study students are able to “Communicate minimally with formulaic and rote utterances, lists, and phrases” (see chart at https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/TLE_pdf/OralProficiencyWorkplacePoster.pdf) at the Novice level. The Intermediate level aligns with the language purpose to “create with language, initiate, maintain, and bring to a close simple conversations by asking and responding to simple questions” (p. 9). Based on our current recommendations, we must ask: What research would be needed to make progress in meeting the Grand Challenge? How do we increase instructional time in foreign language classes? How can we advocate for functional proficiency beyond the Novice level after two years of high school language classes? Can we imagine a world where the Novice level is insufficient? And how do we increase the functional proficiency of our students across all levels and learners? What follows are potential research ideas included with sample research questions (see Table 3).

First, few studies have investigated the guiding tools we use in the classroom for planning, instruction, and assessment, and “the various constructs that inform them have received scant research attention” (Larsen‐Freeman & Tedick, 2016, p. 1340). In general, there has been a paucity of research on the Standards (National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015), the Can‐Do statements (NCSSL and ACTFL, 2017), and oral proficiency ratings. For example, Rifkin (2003) concluded that “two decades of guideline‐influenced instruction have failed to have an impact on student learning” (p. 582). For this reason, we require more work investigating the validity of these tools, following the lead of Dandonoli (1990), Norris and Pfeiffer (2003), Troyan (2012, 2016), and Tigchelaar, Bowles, Winke, and Gass (2017). If we are using those tools as indicators and starting points for goal‐setting, then we must validate them and identify their limitations in order to more effectively guide student language development.

Second, we must recognize the role of high‐quality instruction in promoting language learning. For example, research during the last several decades has provided insights into the importance of classroom discourse (Kearney, 2015; Pryde, 2015; Wilkinson, 2001). It is now understood that the teacher's role within these dialogic exchanges can move a student further toward developing communicative language abilities (Thoms, 2012). As such, the construct of language teacher knowledge will need to be further delineated, researched, and validated (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Gitomer & Zisk, 2015; Halpin & Kieffer, 2015; Hlas & Hildebrandt, 2010; Martin‐Raugh, Reese, Tannenbaum, Steinberg, & Xu, 2016). Grounded in her work on high‐leverage teaching practices, Kearney noted that “[w]ork must be undertaken to better understand the relationships that link particular approaches to teacher education with subsequent instructional practices and eventually student outcomes” (2015, p. 121). Teachers employ a specific set of content and pedagogical content knowledge when they are teaching. For this reason, we need data‐driven approaches to determine our field's high‐leverage teaching practices in addition to systematic observations of teachers at all levels in various courses (Hlas & Hlas, 2012; Kearney, 2015). Further, we need to address the content validity of those core practices and continue researching their connection (or lack thereof) to learner outcomes.

Third, the research centered on this Grand Challenge must also include all learners. As Ortega (2017) noted, “we cannot serve language learners who we don't study” (slide 100). To date, there has been less research in the K–12 system, even within areas such as technology (Larsen‐Freeman & Tedick, 2016). Within the topic of classroom discourse, which has a relatively strong research foundation, Thoms (2012) noted that little research on young learners or higher‐level content courses has been conducted. In general, a more organized and unified study of learners must be included in our efforts including heritage speakers, speakers of all languages, and learners from diverse backgrounds (Bigelow & Tarone, 2004; Ortega, 2005). Including a wider range of learners within a large number of contexts is vital to understanding second language communicative abilities.

Fourth, the ways in which we provide instruction must reflect current views of language. As we consider new views, we must innovate in the classroom instead of teaching based on impoverished views of language. VanPatten (2017) argued that “[l]anguage is an implicit system; its content lies outside of our conscious awareness” (p. 29). In addition, the TESOL Research Agenda Task Force (2014) addressed how language teaching must consider new perspectives on the nature of language, arguing for more consideration of ways in which social views can complement cognitive perspectives. As a complex mental representation and one that cannot be necessarily translated from a page of the textbook (VanPatten, 2017), the connection between our theory and practice must continue to evolve. The way in which we allocate instructional time and the way in which curriculum reflects current theories about language acquisition must also consider these new perspectives and move away from traditional practices that are ineffective. New theoretical perspectives must be researched and considered as we define our research priorities.

Finally, a line of inquiry related to teacher education and the features that lead to innovative teaching must be studied. A better understanding of the nature of content courses, pedagogical courses, and reflective enactment is essential to our continued study of teacher education. Further, a research agenda that includes stakeholders who inform educational policy such as administrators and politicians would also contribute to our knowledge base. After a review of research on teacher development between 1916 and 1999, Schulz (2000) concluded that “[o]ur progress (i.e., any documented, measurable impact on quality, quantity, or both) in the area of teacher development has been disappointingly small” (p. 516). Addressing future directions in education can be challenging due to the considerable variability inherent in teaching and learning (Grossman & McDonald, 2008). That being said, there is a need for a coordinated plan to strengthen teacher education—one in which knowledge is shared and articulated while building a necessary common architecture based on empirical research across programs (Hildebrandt, Hlas, & Conroy, 2013).

4 CONCLUSION

Grossman and McDonald (2008) called for future research on teaching to broaden the types of questions the profession asks. They noted that “[t]wo critical attributes of a field include the existence of a common set of questions or concerns that unites its members and agreed‐upon ways to generate new knowledge and to organize and aggregate existing knowledge” (p. 198). Grand Challenges provide a way to build a comprehensive set of questions and thus provide a robust path forward that connects opportunities to learn with learner outcomes. Embedded within these research avenues are essential questions that our field must answer, such as: What does contemporary language teaching look like? How can our research influence public debate and opinion? How will we know what impact our practices have on our students’ developing proficiency, our teachers, and language policy in general? How can our research advocate for language learning within society?

Responding to the needs of the greater society, Grand Challenges establish vital lines of inquiry. They have the potential to enhance personal and civic lives as well as being an important issue of national security, economic growth, and diplomacy (American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2017). Ideally, these challenges reach every level of society—from citizens with informal education to future linguists, from practitioners to politicians. Taking a page from other fields’ book, we need to write our own story. Now is the time to begin to define and organize our future path for language teaching and learning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I sincerely thank Christopher S. Hlas, Susan A. Hildebrandt, Kelly Conroy, and Amy Young for their support and input related to this article.