Download this PDF file - Software @ SFU Library

calico.org

Download this PDF file - Software @ SFU Library

Voluntary Standards for Application of Technology in Foreign

Languages

LeRoy Walser

U.S. Department of Education

Luncheon Address, CALICO'88 in Salt Lake City

A speech teacher I had in a community college I attended in Arizona ages

ago used to give his classes some advice about how to make a good speech:

"Have a good introduction, a reinforcing closing, and have the two as close

together as possible."

Many educators I have talked with recently feel that the words "voluntary

standards" said together must be a marvelous conflict in terms. In education,

who ever heard of standards being voluntary? One person, after thinking about

our conversation on the matter, even went so far as to ask me, rather defiantly I

might add, "How can you use the word voluntary in the same sentence with

standards?"

Although I have been working with standards for several years, I have to

admit that it took me about two years to get to a point of feeling comfortable

talking about the idea. But it was guidance from good and fine professional

friends that helped me begin to understand what I needed to know about

voluntary standards and the management process used for achieving consensus.

I owe a debt of gratitude to some marvelous professional people at the National

Bureau of Standards, ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), the

largest standards developing organization in the United States, The American

National Standards Institute, known as ANSI, the keeper of American National

Standards, and fine professionals from several Federal and State agencies

involved in the common experience of implementing OMB Circular, A-119, with

its onerous name, "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of

Voluntary Standards." It has been my good fortune to have journeyed with such

good and knowledgeable people through the jungle of voluntary standards. It

has been exhilarating and exciting, to say the least.

Now, today, for the first time ever, (sounds like an introduction for a new

circus act) I will make some observations about voluntary standards, and how

they might be developed and used in the application of technology for language

teaching and learning. And also, as if talking about voluntary standards and

CALICO Journal, Volume 5 Number 4 17


technology were not enough, I will attempt to do the unimaginable (shades of

Houdini)! I will say something about the need for coming to agreement on

VOLUNTARY STANDARDS FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND

TEACHING.

I will try to tie together for you a suggested outline for a new effort, a new

approach, that might just make some sense, and at the same time, help us all

work together more efficiently and effectively in applying technology in the

language teaching and learning profession. To work together, no matter where

our geographical location, no matter what our job, (professor, fed, student,

parent, manufacturer, or beltway bandit—a term affectionately applied to the

dozens of consulting organizations that provide contractual services to the

Federal establishment, possibly including CALICO?) we need to join together to

make some additional significant advances in the use of technology in the language

teaching and language learning areas.

So this is what I am going to talk with you about today: (1) voluntary

standards; (2) problems in application of technology for language learning; (3)

voluntary standards for language learning; (4) resources, or knowledge needed

for standardization work, and; (5) a proposed approach for developing voluntary

standards for application of technology to language learning.

Come with me for a quick glimpse of the world of voluntary standards.

We need this experience together to make the most of what is to follow; and to be

able to tie together some concepts of voluntary standardization for technology

that can be applied to language learning.

Voluntary Standards

The word "standards" is an emotion laden word, particularly in education.

It carries with it many meanings and nuances of meaning. Many professional

educators, when they hear that an effort to improve standards is underway, fear

that someone beyond their immediate control is getting ready to "lay another one

on them." Often professional people feel that their relationship to a standard is

only to comply; they do not see themselves as having the opportunity or

responsibility to help develop a standard or agreement that affects their

professional interests. Somehow someone else, they think, is supposed to

develop the standards. That leaves the person—that "unfortunate professional"

who has to respond to the imposed standards—with the self-chosen "right" to

criticize and complain about the standards that have been mandated. And in

some instances, to do one's best to ignore them.

CALICO Journal, Volume 5 Number 4 18


A simple way to define a standard operationally is to look at it as an

agreement. A standard can be an agreement on expected outcomes. It can be an

agreement on procedures. It can be an agreement on approaches. It can be an

agreement on content, or specifications. It can be an agreement, in short, on

almost anything that affects any set of human interactions or even human

interactions with a machine!

But two questions rise quickly out of this operational definition. One; Who

agreed? and two; How did those who agreed manage to come to agreement?

The question "Who agreed?" is vitally important for anyone who might be

affected by the agreement. It is essential for people to discuss this question while

preparing to do additional voluntary standards work. It addresses the human

nature element of ownership and the consequential characteristic of adherence. It

sets the tone and environment for a democratic process to begin working within

our professional as well as political interests.

Questions about the process for achieving agreement, if asked and

answered appropriately, provide answers for issues of credibility. Was the

agreement arrived at by a selected few working in seclusion and then presented

for others to follow? Or was it developed by a self-appointed and self-anointed

group working for their own investment? Was the agreement arrived at by

majority vote, with little attention paid to those dissenters who lost the vote? Or

was the agreement hammered out through a process that carefully assured a

general consensus, a consensus that the agreement was the best possible outcome

for those affected by it at the time and under the circumstances of the agreement?

A good standard must provide value to all who use or are affected by it. It

must serve as an effective management tool to reduce confusion and increase

efficiency and effectiveness. Good understandable clear standards are absolutely

essential for accountability to be effective. How can someone be held accountable

if they don't know what they are accountable for? Also, people who have

participated in the process of developing good standards attest to the claim that

the process can distribute knowledge throughout a profession faster and more

efficiently than any other way.

Rowan Glie, editor of a book titled "Speaking of Standards" published in

1972, said of standards; "A standard is simply a name for a managerial control of

possibilities in a technological state of art. National standardization is a

voluntary effort of self-management; it provides for better utilization of all

American resources."

CALICO Journal, Volume 5 Number 4 19


We might look at a voluntary standard as a document which presents for

voluntary use a set of rules, conditions, guidelines, procedures, or requirements

agreed to and approved by the developers and those who issue the document.

You will notice in the above definition the attention given to the developers and

issuers of the standards.

Note what happens with the above definition of a voluntary standard

when it is expanded by the concept of consensus. A voluntary consensus standard

is a document which meets the definition of a voluntary standard and,

additionally was developed using a management system which adhered to and

complied with a documented, democratic, consensus building process involving

representation by all interested and affected parties in its formation.

If you choose, and I hope you do, to attend the session on Friday at 2:30

presented by Drew Azzara of ASTM you will hear described a magnificent

management process used to develop consensus on standards in the business

and industry sector of our national economy. The terms, concepts and definitions

associated with the words "voluntary consensus standards" will liven up and

take on new meanings for you. The ASTM management process for developing

voluntary consensus standards has been in effect for over 90 years, and through

refinement, has achieved a very high quality.

Application of Technology for Language Learning—Problems

Rather than presenting to you a long list of incompatibilities between

technological hardware and software, as any one of you could do better than I, I

will instead present a short description of a problem that, in one way or another,

faces us all. Let me give you some background. Over the past few years, the

Interagency Language Roundtable of the Federal Government has explored for a

solution to the problem of how to make different computers and their software

talk to each other. Here is a real-life example. I've chosen not to identify the

agencies involved to avoid disclosing too much. But one agency developed a

wonderful new approach to language learning for a specific language on their

Particular machine and its software package. After this project was completed,

however, no one else outside of their agency could use it. It couldn't be used

because their machines didn't know how to talk to each other.

Now, for people in the business of language instructing, that represents

the ultimate failure. The machines could talk back to the teacher but not to other

machines! Other agencies couldn't use the new program because the expense and

time necessary to overcome the problem of incompatibility was prohibitive. In

CALICO Journal, Volume 5 Number 4 20


short, the agencies could not cooperate, and thus were not able to save money

and multiply their effectiveness in their efforts to improve their respective

language departments. You see, their own agencies have separately purchased

machines that were not built to talk to each other. No one really asked the

language professionals what they would need a machine to be able to do.

Instead, a machine, or if you wish, a use for technology, was developed

and presented to language professionals to use as creatively as possible. But

language professionals, as a group, did not define outcomes, or performance

standards to be included in the purchasing specifications for acquiring the

hardware. The technology developers and manufacturers did not include in their

machines the capacity for being compatible with another machine because the

purchasers for the department did not have the language or performance factors

to include in the purchase specifications. The agencies were trapped by the

technology.

From a slightly different perspective, there is a big difference between the

case where a language educator sees existing technology hardware and wonders

how to make the technology work in a language learning setting; and the

language educator who knows and has come to agreement with other language

educators on what outcomes are expected of language learners, and works with

the technology developers and producers to make the technology serve the needs

of language learners.

In order to get to that point, we need to agree on the outcomes we expect

from the language teaching and learning profession. We need to know how to

apply existing technology and even suggest new technology to meet the ends we

agree on. We need to use technology as a tool to accomplish agreed-on outcomes

better than we ever have done before.

We need to be able to describe performance standards, for hardware, for

software, and for language learners too. As we learn to describe performance

standards for language learning success, and I am not talking about simply giving

grades to students, the arguments about which hardware is best becomes

somewhat muted, somewhat irrelevant. The real issues becomes how one can use

whatever piece of technology is available (or that with which you are stuck

because of past purchases) to best reach the language standards agreed on.

If you have developed good performance standards, and the hardware is

deficient, the reasons for deficiencies become apparent quickly. If you can

explain the deficiencies in terms of the performance you need, a burden is then

placed on the developer of the technology to adapt the capabilities of the

CALICO Journal, Volume 5 Number 4 21


hardware to your needs or lose the next sale.

However, if you cannot spell out through a consensus voice what you

need, then you run the risk of being controlled in your application of technology

to language learning by the capability of the equipment as conceived and

designed by the developer without your specific need in mind. If the glamour of

the technology itself receives the prime attention, rather than what the

technology can do for language learners, then you might well end up, in effect,

speaking technologically, of course, with a beautiful hammer that can't drive a

straight nail, or that won't fit anyone else's hand.

Voluntary Standards for Language Learning

I am sure that all of you are aware of the impressive work that was

accomplished by the ILR in producing the Language Skill Level Descriptions for

Speaking, Listening, Reading and Writing. I am sure that it is no surprise to you

to look on this set of descriptions of levels from I (no proficiency) to 5

(functionally native proficiency) as voluntary standards. The adaptations to this

set, done under guidance from ACTFL (American Council on Teachers for

Foreign Languages) and MLA (Modern Language Association), are also

voluntary standards. But neither is a voluntary consensus standard. And I am

not even sure that at this point it really makes a lot of difference.

What is important, however, is that language educators need to agree

generally on what specific language performance is to be targeted for application

of technology, both in terms of hardware and software. Use whatever standards

and guidelines exist, but set a target for the application of technology squarely on

an outcome expectation for language learners. This will accomplish amazing

things, both in the language learning profession and in the technology field.

The transfer of knowledge, skills and expectations of high performers in

the language teaching profession through a consensus management process for

standards development will improve the productivity of language learners. They

will try harder and be smarter in reaching performance standards that are

nurtured and owned by the language profession.

The technology community will listen and develop the technology we

language people need because they will be working right alongside us in the

process for arriving at consensus. They will know what we need technology to

do for us before we even tell them. They will have figured it out by observing

our deliberations as we debate and discuss the fine points of the language

CALICO Journal, Volume 5 Number 4 22


teaching profession's expectations for the application of high tech.

Resources

If CALICO decides to launch the standardization effort for the application

of technology for language learning, you have a good base with which to begin

represented in the high quality of your membership. But there are others outside

of CALICO that are able, and I am sure that they can be convinced to be willing,

to help and to participate. You need a broad representative base comprised of

technology producers, standards users, consumers, students, government

officials, teachers, and anyone else who wishes to participate in the

standardization efforts.

The Interagency Language Roundtable membership, as individuals and as

representatives of their respective agencies have expressed interest in the need

for voluntary standards for technology in language teaching and learning.

DECOLE (Defense Coalition on Language Education) is also interest in this area.

The National Bureau of Standards (NBS) has agreed to help in any way they can,

particularly in cooperation with the Interagency Language Roundtable's CALL

(Computer Assisted Language Learning) Committee headed by Steve Marini.

NBS has already done significant work on office automation systems and desktop

publishing, and is willing to work on issues of application of technology for

education.

I am sure two of the major language associations, ACTFL and MLA would

both participate. ASTM, from the business and industry sector, is here at your

symposium today to express their support for this needed effort. ANSI indicates

it supports standardization efforts and will facilitate needed contacts with

international standards organizations such as ISO. I won't go on listing

supporting resources because sooner or later, if I did, I would surely get into

trouble with someone. But I give you my personal commitment. I will personally

help if you want me to.

Approach

I suggest that the approach selected to initiate standardization work on

the application of technology to language learning is vital to its ultimate success.

Any number of different approaches are viable. But the work should be initiated

in the private, non-government sector. However, both Federal and State

language educators should be invited to participate as members of working

standards developing committees.

Those associations interested in language issues, at national and state

levels, and associations interested in the application of technology for

CALICO Journal, Volume 5 Number 4 23


educational purposes ought specifically to be sought out. Business and industry,

particularly those engaged in international business where language facility is

important, ought to contribute their experience and insights. Individual faculty

members of colleges and universities, and teachers in elementary and secondary

schools ought to be represented.

Foundations interested in the good work of language professionals ought

to be paired up with foundations and businesses engaged in research and

development of high technology, and participate in the standardization process.

Their resources and experience should contribute to the general knowledge base

required for good standards to emerge.

As standards are developed and defined, an extensive teacher

development effort ought to be launched, both for foreign language teachers who

use, or wish to use, technology to help in their foreign language teaching, and for

those who do not wish to use technology. The latter, however, should become

involved in the process for developing standards for language learning outcomes

or performance.

And to participate in all of this activity, one should not have to travel to all

of the called meetings to remain in good standing. After all, why not use

technology to communicate the results of the efforts of any given standardization

committee?

Author's Biodata

Mr. F. LeRoy Walser is the Executive Director of the Federal Interagency

Committee on Education at the U.S. Department of Education in Washington

D.C. and Chairman of the Management Committee of the Interagency Language

Roundtable of the Federal Government.

LeRoy Walser

Spec. Assist.

Intergovernmental Affairs

Rm. 3073 FOB6

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20202

Author's Address

CALICO Journal, Volume 5 Number 4 24

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines