Innovation in Language Education 2005-11-28T18:43:56Z Charting a new course for the future of language and language education tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2011:/chri1010/language//761 Movable Type Copyright (c) 2005, chri1010 Beyond Performance and Competence 2005-11-28T18:43:56Z 2005-03-22T17:48:32-06:00 tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2005:/chri1010/language//761.18132 2005-03-22T23:48:32Z Introduction The knowledge and innovation age, already upon us, presents new challenges and opportunities for language teachers and learners. The purpose of this essay is to apply key concepts from the field of knowledge and innovation management to the domain... chri1010 Introduction
The knowledge and innovation age, already upon us, presents new challenges and opportunities for language teachers and learners. The purpose of this essay is to apply key concepts from the field of knowledge and innovation management to the domain of language teaching and learning. New definitions of knowledge are needed to keep the field of applied linguistics current in a climate of globalization, rapid change, and continuous innovation.
The goal of this essay is to establish a new definition of knowledge that moves beyond the current accepted definition that is tied to performance and competence. New roles for teachers and learners and knowledge and innovation workers/learners are defined. Finally, a teaching and research agenda that draws on the potential of tacit knowledge is endorsed.
Defining Knowledge and Innovation
In the field of TESOL, much talk is made of linguistic and cultural knowledge. While care has been taken to define elements of language (e.g. Crystal, 1997) and culture (Atkinson, 1999), the term knowledge has been left undefined. A brief survey of introductory linguistics texts illustrates this point. For example, An Introduction to Language by Fromkin and Rodman (1998) begins Chapter 1 with a discussion of “Linguistic Knowledge.” Included in this section are the topics “knowledge of the sound system,” “knowledge of words,” “knowledge of sentences and nonsentences” (pp. 4-11). While each of these areas is subsequently defined according to linguistic principles, knowledge itself remains undefined. Similarly, The Language Files, another introductory linguistic textbook begins an early chapter/file with the question, “what do we know when we know a language” (Cipollone, N., Hartman Keiser, S., & Vasishth, S., 1998, p. 8). This time, linguistic knowledge includes “phonetics,” “phonology,” “morphology,” “syntax,” “semantics,” “pragmatics,” and “styles of speech” (pp. 8-10). Again, these headings provide the structural outline for several chapters/files that follow; none of these includes the nature or knowledge or what it means to know. In these introductory contexts, knowledge is often described to be actual tangible units that are discrete and well-defined.
Following from the categorization of knowledge as units of linguistic study is the notion of performance and competence. These concepts are the central set of concepts behind both communicative language teaching and Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar . Consider these definitions of competence and performance from Brown’s (2000) introductory text on language teaching:
“Competence refers to one’s underlying knowledge of a system, event or fact. It is the nonobservable ability to do something, to perform something” (p. 30).

“Performance is the overtly observable and concrete manifestation or realization of competence. It is the actual doing of something” (p. 30)
In making the connection between the linguistic and applied linguistic, Brown (2000) concludes, “In reference to language, competence is one’s underlying knowledge of the system of a language—its rules of grammar, its vocabulary, all the pieces of a language and how those pieces fit together. Performance is actual production (speaking, writing) or the comprehension (listening, speaking) of linguistic events” (p. 31).
Expanding on these concepts, O’Grady., Archibald, Aronoff, & Rees-Miller (2001) include a discussion of linguistic knowledge in their chapter on second language acquisition. Again, they align knowledge with competence, which, in their model can be broken down into several categories and subcategories as follows:
Communicative competence
A. Strategic competence
B. Language competence
1.Organizational competence
a. Grammatical competence
1. vocabulary
2. syntax
3. morphology
4. phonology/graphology
b. Textual competence
1. cohesion
2. rhetorical organization
2. Pragmatic competence
a. Illocutionary competence
1. functional abilities
b. Sociolinguistic competence
1. dialect
2. register
3. cultural references (O’Grady, Archibald,
Aronoff, and Rees-Miller, 2001, p. 454)
Each of these areas, according to O’Grady, Archibald, Aronoff, and Rees-Miller are the “target areas to be acquired” (p. 454) by the second language learner. In the process of acquisition, the learner is building her or his knowledge of the language through the development of these competencies according to the theory.
Thus, in both theoretical and applied linguistics, knowledge is placed on the competency side of the divide between performance and competence. Theorists and language teachers alike may agree, however, that knowledge is not necessarily exclusive to competence; rather, such a divide indicates that a language learner might have some familiarity with the system of language but not be able to produce the language, and vice versa.
However, this divide between performance and competence does, in fact, put knowledge erroneously on one side of the issue. This is problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that a person must have some knowledge of a language in order to be able to produce any amount of language at all. The bigger issue, though, is that linguistics and applied linguistics, in defining central concepts, have neglected to define knowledge itself. This is important because the societies in which we teach and learn languages are increasingly becoming knowledge and innovation societies. As such, our understanding of knowledge itself has changed. The implications for language teachers and learners suggest that performance and competence alone may not be salient enough to support our decisions in the current and future realities.
The Knowledge and Innovation Era
The knowledge and innovation era is upon us. The knowledge and innovation era can be characterized by increased globalization and exchange of information and services. As Harkins (2003) explains:
We are entering the knowledge era. The knowledge era recognizes
that change is rapid; that the primary job of people is to exchange
information and services; and that because of technology, people can
know what is happening in most places throughout the world. The
Knowledge Era also recognizes that to be effective workers and
citizens, everyone needs to productively use “resources, interpersonal
skills, information, systems, technology, basic skills, thinking skills
and personal qualities” [1991 SCANS report]. Employing these
competencies will bring added value—shaping and increasing the
impact of information—to our societies and industries (p. 29).
As Figure 1 below illustrates, the Knowledge Era follows historically from the Information Age. In this paper, I combine the Knowledge Era with the Innovation Age because our society is currently experiencing both as we transition to the Innovation Age.


Era Name Approximate
Time Period Characteristics of
Labor Characteristics of
Education
Pre-agriculture Began about 3 million
years ago Hunting and gathering Basic survival
Skills
Agriculture 13,000 -200 years ago Farming Skills needed to produce food and other goods
Industrial 200 years ago-
World War II Semi-automated
Machine labor Basic reading, writing, and math (3Rs)
Information Post World War II- 1990s Expansion of goods and services with automation Not keeping up with new approaches
Knowledge 1990s to present (2003) Bringing added value –shaping and increasing the impact of information Focus on the timely and successful application of information; personal leadership
Innovation The present (2003) and beyond Continuously adapting knowledge to meet the emerging needs of society Focus on the timely and successful application of information; personal leadership; adaptive technology
Figure 1 Adapted from Harkins (2003), pp. 30-31

Defining Knowledge and Innovation
A glance backward to the information age can be useful in considering definitions of data, information, knowledge, and innovation. While data was differentiated from information and knowledge, few distinction have been made between knowledge and information. Figure 2 below includes knowledge and innovation key words and definitions. In keeping with the applied linguistic nature of this paper, I give linguistic examples to illustrate each term.

Term Definition Linguistic Example
Data Raw, decontextualized information Words, words, words
(Standing alone, without a context)
Information Data that has been put into context and codified Words put together in predictable ways (Ex: exchanged hellos in passing)

Includes repetition of already created knowledge
Knowledge Information applied appropriately and successfully in context to make new information (adapted from Harkins, 2003) Words used to make (new) meaning in context
Innovation Continuously adapting knowledge and information to meet the emerging needs of society (adapted from Harkins, 2003) Words used to respond continuously and creatively to changes in context

Examples:
Pidgeons and Creoles

World Englishes

Invention of new words

Etc
Figure 2 Key Knowledge words, definitions, and examples

It is important to note that information and knowledge are often erroneously interchanged. Information has been codified while knowledge is in an emerging state. Once knowledge has been shared and agreed upon, it is no longer knowledge, but information. Similarly, while the invention of a new word is itself an act of innovation, the use of this word in context becomes knowledge production and eventually, the word becomes vocabulary (information). This transitory nature of knowledge and innovation reflects the current pace of society.
Tacit and Explicit Knowledge
A further consideration of knowledge that has salience for language teaching and learning is the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge. As Von Krogh, Ichijo, and Nonaka (2000) explain,
knowledge is both explicit and tacit. Some knowledge can be put on
paper, formulated in sentences, or captured in drawings. . . .Yet, other
kinds of knowledge are tied to the senses, skills in bodily
movement, individual perception, physical experiences, rules of
thumb, and tuition. Such tacit knowledge is often very difficult to
describe to others (p. 6).
Explicit knowledge can be considered accessible and relatively easy to codify. Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, is more difficult to grasp. Blair (2002) suggests two types of tacit knowledge: “that which has not been expressed but is potentially expressible, and that which is not expressible” (p. 1025). In terms of language, much of what we know about language is, in fact, tacit. Theoretical linguistics is the process of uncovering tacit knowledge of language. When that knowledge is made accessible, it becomes explicit knowledge about language that can be conveyed to others. Ultimately, such linguistic knowledge becomes codified information, and includes our current theories of vocabulary, syntax, morphology, phonology, and rhetorical organization, among other components.
Of course, language teachers know that much of language is, in fact, tacit and therefore difficult to transmit to students. In departments of applied linguistics, it goes without saying that while every native speaker has tacit knowledge of language, language teachers themselves know that not every native speaker of a language can teach that language. Furthermore, some tacit aspects of language are difficult for even experienced teachers to convey to students. Elements of sociolinguistics and pragmatics are often tacit, and even when they are made explicit, there are limitations to their usefulness. Consider cultural elements of communication styles, such as direct and indirect styles, for example. While a learner may be taught that U.S. Americans are often direct communicators, there are many contexts in which the direct style is not appropriate. Knowing when to be direct and when to be indirect is the type of tacit knowledge a native speaker possesses. Such tacit knowledge can be difficult to teach, and may even be avoided in many language learning contexts.
Performance and Competence in the Knowledge and Innovation Age
Returning to the theory of performance and competence, it is observable that the definition of knowledge as ”information applied appropriately and successfully in context” is different from the use of knowledge in connection to the competence side of communicative language teaching. The definition of knowledge put forth by this paper, including both tacit and explicit knowledge, includes both the performance and competence dimensions. Figure 3 below suggests possible relationships between the sets of terms in the context of language teaching and learning. To begin, both explicit competence and explicit performance include items that, while are emerging knowledge for the individual learner, can also be easily codified as information. Tacit competence and tacit performance require more effort to ascertain, on both the part of the learner and teacher. While these elements can also be codified, they can also be harder to describe or are idiosyncratic.


Explicit Competence
Knowledge of vocabulary, syntax, morphology, phonology, rhetorical organization, cultural references
Tacit Competence
Knowledge of exceptions to the rules, illocutionary force, dialects, registers, cultural references


Explicit Performance
Knowledge of speaking/writing conventions, discourse styles, L1
transfer issues

Tacit Performance
Knowledge of context, cultural references, humor, appropriateness
Figure 3 The relationship between tacit/explicit and performance/competence
“Cultural references” are included in three of the four blocks: explicit competence, tacit competence, and tacit performance. This is because while some cultural knowledge/information is explicit (e.g., foods, flags, festivals), other cultural knowledge is tacit (e.g. values, attitudes, and beliefs) and these tacit elements of culture can be both acquired as competence and/or acted on as performance.
Limitations of the Current Paradigm
While in the current context, knowledge and innovation is central to language teaching and learning, much actual language teaching remains firmly rooted in information dissemination. This is because what is primarily taught in language classrooms can be considered explicit language knowledge, which is easily codified and therefore, taught. However, language teaching in the knowledge and innovation age must not neglect the hidden dimension of language knowledge: tacit knowledge.
In order to incorporate the development of knowledge in language teaching and learning, language teaching theories and methodologies must account for the tacit dimensions of language knowledge, both tacit competence and tacit performance. Language teaching that does so recognizes that language teachers are knowledge and innovation workers and that language learners are knowledge and innovation learners.
Language Teachers are Knowledge and Innovation Workers
A knowledge worker can be defined as “a man or woman who applies to productive work ideas, concepts, and information rather than manual skill or brawn.” (Peter Drucker, cited in Harkins, 2003). Clearly, language teachers work with people, ideas, concepts and information, and are, therefore, knowledge workers. Furthermore, language teachers are knowledge and innovation workers because language teaching requires taking information (elements of language) and adapt it appropriately in the classroom context to the benefit of our learners. To do so requires understanding of the learners themselves, the learning environment, the learners’ need for the language, and the actual elements of the language itself.
Such a conceptualization moves beyond competence and performance. While a knowledge and innovation teacher addresses the notions of competence and performance, she does so in recognition of the needs of her students AND with the belief that knowledge and innovation are essential components of both competence and performance. This means that language learners must have some degree of competency in order to use the language and that innovation is both a strategy and an end-result. Language learning requires innovation; in a language-use setting, if we do not have the needed vocabulary or grammar, we must invent it. As language learners develop competency in the target language, innovation takes the form of communicating new ideas in the target language. A teacher, then, guides the learners through a timely and appropriate process of learning the language. At the same time, the language teacher serves as a leader and a model for successful knowledge and innovation integration.
Language Learners are Knowledge and Innovation Learners
A knowledge and innovation learner is a man or a woman who learns to develop greater capacity in his or her self to apply ideas, concepts, and information creatively and appropriately. Language learners are knowledge and innovation learners because language is a necessary component of communication in a society marked by increased globalization. While the notion of language learners as knowledge and innovation learners took shape with the communicative method: students want and need to use the target language in a communicative context, language learning in the knowledge and innovation age must adapt to changes in the learning environment. Knowledge and innovation learners are different from other learners in three primary ways—their relationship to technology, their personal individualism, and their ability to manage change (adapted from Harkins, 2003).
Knowledge and innovation learners are developing technological proficiencies. They are able to use software, telecommunications, and the internet with ease to access information. Language teaching must account for and adapt to the use of technology—move from Computer Assisted Language Learning to Technology Based Language Learning.
Knowledge and innovation learners are highly individualistic. Language learners have a wide range of backgrounds, experiences, and motivations. While English for Specific Purposes plays a large role in providing appropriate content in a wide variety of contexts, knowledge and innovation language learners may, in fact, require individualized programs of study as they creatively and enthusiastically approach the second language classroom.
Knowledge and innovation learners are constantly managing change. The current rate of change requires learners to always be mindful of the future. Knowledge and innovation learners are developing comfort in managing change; they are proficient at developing virtual selves (Harkins and Fiala, 2003)—understandings and engagement with aspects of the self in the past, present, and future. Knowledge and innovation learners are goal-oriented, but they are also pragmatic and therefore willing and able to modify goals as the context necessitates. Knowledge and innovation learners require flexibility and creativity as they begin the process of learning another language.
Implications for Teaching
Much current language teaching focuses solely on the explicit elements of language; language teaching in the knowledge and innovation age must incorporate these elements alongside tacit aspects of language as well. Because tacit knowledge is based on intuition, perception, and experience, as well as other elusive qualities, the challenge and opportunity for language teachers is to embrace the ambiguity.
Language teachers must also acknowledge the growing role of technology in the second language classroom. Software, telecommunication, and the Internet strongly influence teaching methods. Students can get instant translation via the Internet, communicate in real-time with native speakers in chat rooms or through distance-learning, and use software to simulate real language use contexts. While some of these technologies are still emerging, the reality for language teachers is that many explicit competencies (e.g. vocabulary, grammar, etc) may be available to students instantaneously through software or other technological means in the very near future. If the language classroom is not a location for developing this knowledge, how can the language classroom become a site of tacit language knowledge exploration and development? This is the primary question that language teachers must be asking themselves.
Another important issue language teachers must face is the highly individualistic nature of their knowledge and innovation learners. “Teaching to the center” will no longer be an effective strategy (if it ever was). While peer mentoring in the spirit of Vygotsky may be useful in some situations, other language learning environments may require multiple approaches to the multi-level, multicultural, multi-motivated classrooms (which may not be classrooms at all, but tv or computer screens accessed across the globe). Language teachers must be themselves knowledge workers to teach in such a multivariable and changing environment: they must be able to use information appropriately, timely, and successfully in order to facilitate the learning process for their students. Teachers must enable their students to become knowledge creators.
Implications for Research
In order for language teachers to be good knowledge and innovation workers, linguistic and applied linguistic research must develop the theoretical foundation supporting teacher practices. To do this, researchers must take a knowledge and innovation-oriented approach to linguistic knowledge. While research in the fields of explicit competence and explicit performance continue to be useful and necessary, much more dedication to uncovering the tacit knowledge of language, both competence and performance-based, is critical. Research exploring the cultural dimensions of tacit knowledge is emerging (e.g. Lazaraton, 2003; Cox, 2001; Holme, 2002; and Kramsch, 2002, among others). Such research can assist language teachers in making appropriate pedagogical choices to best enable the development of tacit language knowledge by their language learners.
Conclusion
The formulation of knowledge as an enabling practice moves beyond the current theoretical and applied linguistic postulation of knowledge in relation to linguistic competence and separate from linguistic performance. Understanding knowledge, instead, as “information applied appropriately and successfully in context to make new information” (Harkins, 2003) brings knowledge to all dimensions of performance and competence, expanding these terms into explicit competence, explicit performance, tacit competence, and tacit performance. Addressing these four elements in both linguistic research and applied linguistic practice will result in best practices for language learning in the knowledge and innovation age. Such practices will enable language learners to become knowledge and innovation learners (and ultimately, workers) who will be successful (and innovative) users of languages in a context marked by increased globalization and rapid change.


]]> References
Atkinson, D. (1999). TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly, 33. pp. 625-654.
Blair, D. (2002). “Knowledge management: Hype, hope, or help?” Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53. pp. 1019-1028.
Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, NY:
Longman.
Cipollone, N., Hartman Keiser, S., & Vasishth, S. (1998). The language files, 7th edition.
Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Cox, R. (2001). “Talking with students can reveal scientific aspects of cultural
knowledge: The Australian south sea islanders.” Language, Culture and
Curriculum, 14. pp. 235-243.
Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language, 2nd edition. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R. (1997). An introduction to language, 6th edition. Fort Worth,
TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Harkins, A. (2003). “Backgrounding the innovation society: How we came to the
knowledge era & how we will develop the new knowledge leaders.” Appendix 1
of IS5100 syllabus. Minneapolis, MN: IS 5100 course syllabus, pp.29-40.
Harkins, A. & Fiala, B. (2002). “Personal capital and virtual selves: Learning to manage
the five divides’.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota.
Holme, R. (2002). “Carrying a baby in the back: Teaching with an awareness of the
cultural construction of language.” Language, culture and curriculum, 15. pp.
210-214.
Kramsch, C. (2002). “From practice to theory and back again.” Language, culture and
curriculum, 15. pp. 196-214.
Lazaraton, A. (2003). “Incidental displays of cultural knowledge in the non-native-
English-speaking teacher’s classroom.” TESOL Quarterly, 37, pp. 213-245.
O’Grady, W., Archibald, J., Aronoff, M., & Rees-Miller, J. (2001). Contemporary
linguistics: An introduction. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: How to
unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. New
York: Oxford University Press.

]]> Language and Innovation Types 2005-11-28T19:05:06Z 2005-03-04T15:17:53-06:00 tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2005:/chri1010/language//761.17204 2005-03-04T21:17:53Z Download Language and Innovation Here is one powerpoint that demonstrates different types of innovations and their application in language education. Stay tuned for another powerpoint about language, evolution, and innovation.... chri1010 Download Language and Innovation

Here is one powerpoint that demonstrates different types of innovations and their application in language education. Stay tuned for another powerpoint about language, evolution, and innovation.

]]> Bibliographic References 2005-11-28T18:35:23Z 2004-11-16T17:35:02-06:00 tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2004:/chri1010/language//761.10634 2004-11-16T23:35:02Z Here's a little bibliography of things I want to read. It looks like the formatting is a little messed up. I'll have to fix it later. Allee, V. (1997). The knowledge revolution: Expanding organizational intelligence. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heineman. Amidon, D.... chri1010 Here's a little bibliography of things I want to read. It looks like the formatting is a little messed up. I'll have to fix it later.

Allee, V. (1997). The knowledge revolution: Expanding organizational intelligence.
Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heineman.
Amidon, D. M. (2003). The innovation superhighway: Harnessing intellectual capital for
sustainable collaborative advantage. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heineman.
Aronowitz, A., Fisk, M., & Holmstrom, N. (Eds.). (2000). Not for sale: In defense of public goods. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Banathy, B. H. (1991). Systems design of education: A journey to create the future.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Banathy, B. H. (2001). We enter the twenty-first century with schooling designed in the
nineteenth. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18(4), 287-290.
Beck, N. (1998). The next century: Why Canada wins. Toronto: Harper Business

Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and
interpretation. Organization Studies, 16(6), 1021-1046.
Brown, B. B. (1968). Delphi process: A methodology used for the elicitation of opinion of experts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice:
Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.
Brook, K. W. (1979). Delphi technique: Expanding applications. NCA Quarterly, 53, 377-385.
Choo, C. W., Detlor, B., & Turnbull, D. (2000). Web work: Information seeking and knowledge work on the world wide web. Paper presented at the meeting of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2002. Retrieved August 5, 2003 from http://www.viktoria.se/results/result_files/183.pdf
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways to transformation. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Cogan, J. J. (1997). Multidimensional citizenship: Educational policy for the 21st century: An executive summary of the citizenship education policy study project. Tokyo, Japan: Sasakawa Peace Foundation.
Cogan, J. J. (1998). Internationalization through networking and curricular infusion. In J. Mestenhauser & B. J. Ellingboe (Eds.), Reforming the higher education curriculum: Internationalizing the campus (pp. 106-117). Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press.
Collins, H. M. (1993). The structure of knowledge. Social Research, 60(1), 95-116.
Dalkey, N. C., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3). 458-467.
Dietz, T. (1987). Methods for analyzing data from Delphi panels: Some evidence from a forecasting study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 31, 79-85.
Dits, H., & Berkhout, G. (1998). How to replace the linear model of innovation: The
development and application of new intermediary policy theory. Paper presented
at the at the meeting of the Triple Helix II Conference, New York City, New York. Retrieved January 26, 2003, from http://www.csic.edu.uy/documentos/ doc3.pdf
Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Dunn, W. N. (1994). Public policy analysis: An introduction. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994).
The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.
Hajek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review,
35, 1-18.
Harkins, A. M., Tomsyck, J., & Kubik, G. (2002). Prospective education for an innovation economy. On The Horizon, 10(1), 17-22.
Helmer, O. (1967). Analysis of the future: The Delphi method. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Helmer, O. (1983). Looking forward: A guide to futures research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Innovation: How Singapore scores. (April-May 2002). Singapore’s Knowledge Industry
Journal. Retrieved August 10, 2003, from http://www.eduasia.com.sg/archieve/ apr_may/edu_coverstory.htm
Innovation Scoreboard 2002. (2002). Retrieved August 10, 2003, from http://trendchart.cordis.lu/Scoreboard2002/html/eu_member_states/eu_memeber_ 2.1html
Institute for Information on Education. (1998). Education in transition. Prague: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport in the Czech Republic.
Jencks, C., & Riesman, D. (1968). The academic revolution. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday and Co.
Kaghan, W. N., & Barnett, G. B. (1997). The desktop model of innovation in digital
media. In H. Etzkowitz & L. Leydesdorff (Eds.), Universities and the global economy: A Triple helix of university-industry-government relations (pp. 73-88). London: Cassell.
Kastein, M., Jacobs, M., van der Hell, R., Luttik, K., & Touw-Otten, F. (1993). Delphi: The issue of reliability. A qualitative Delphi study in primary health care in the
Netherlands. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 44(3), 315-323.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley Publishing Company.
Linstone, H. A., & Simmonds, W. H. C. (1977). Futures research: New directions. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley Publishing Company.
Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.
Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ohmae, K. (1990). The borderless world: Power and strategy in the interlinked economy.
New York, NY: Harper Business.
Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 129-141.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2000). Knowledge management in the learning society. Paris: OECD.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2002). Paris: OECD.
Parente, F. J., Anderson, J. K., Myers, P., & O’Brien, T. (1984). An examination of
factors contributing to Delphi accuracy. Journal of Forecasting, 3(2), 173-182.
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations: Preparing ourselves for 21st century capitalism. New York: Knopf.
Rowe, G., Wright, G., & Fergus, B. (1991). Delphi: A reevaluation of research and
theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 39, 235-251.
Sackman, H. (1974). Delphi critique. Lexington, MA: Lexington BooksSpek, R., & Spijkevert, A. (1997). Knowledge management: Dealing intelligently with
knowledge. Paper presented at the meeting of the 35th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, 2002. Retrieved August 5, 2003 from http://
www.viktoria.se/results/result_files/183.pdf
Venzin, M., von Krogh, G., & Roos, J. (2000). Future research into knowledge
management. In G. von Krogh, J. Roos, & D. Kleine (Eds.), Knowing in firms:
Understanding, managing, and measuring knowledge (pp. 26-67). London: Sage.
Wiig, K. M. (1993). Knowledge management foundations: Thinking about thinking – how people and organizations create, represent, and use knowledge. Paper presented at the meeting of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2002. Retrieved on August 5, 2003 from http://www.viktoria.se/results /result_files/183.pdf
Wilson, T. D. (2002). The nonsense of ‘knowledge management’. Information Research,
8(1). Retrieved August 30, 2001 from http://Information.R.net/ir/8-1/paper 144.htm
World Bank. (1999). World development report 1998/1999: Knowledge for development. New York: Oxford University Press.
World Bank. (2002). Constructing knowledge societies: New challenges for tertiary
education. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of
organizational capabilities: En empirical test. Organization Science, 6(1), 76-92.
Ziglio, E. (1996) The Delphi method and its contribution to decision-making. In M. Adler, & E. Ziglio (Eds.), Gazing into the Oracle: The Delphi method and its applicaton to social policy and public health (pp. 3-33). Bristol: Jessica Kingsley.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New
York: Basic Books.

]]> The End of History 2005-11-28T18:50:46Z 2004-11-06T10:52:28-06:00 tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2004:/chri1010/language//761.9213 2004-11-06T16:52:28Z “Nothing is stranger than the singularity because it is the end of knowledge production as we know it, the end of certainty as we know it…the end of history.” (AH November 6 2006)... chri1010 “Nothing is stranger than the singularity because it is the end of knowledge production as we know it, the end of certainty as we know it…the end of history.” (AH November 6 2006)

]]> Innovation Update 2005-11-28T18:49:52Z 2004-10-28T01:47:21-06:00 tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2004:/chri1010/language//761.8641 2004-10-28T06:47:21Z I'm really feeling particularly inspired this week by the work of Robert Logan. A physicist at the University of Toronto, Logan is interested in systems theory and the evolution of language. How's that for transdisciplinarity? I'll post my powerpoint presentation... chri1010 I'm really feeling particularly inspired this week by the work of Robert Logan. A physicist at the University of Toronto, Logan is interested in systems theory and the evolution of language. How's that for transdisciplinarity?

I'll post my powerpoint presentation here on my blog portfolio after I do the presentation in class tomorrow night. In the meantime, I want to add a couple comments about Logan's work that didn't make it into my powerpoint.

Logan says that "language is the link which united all the activities of human enterprise."

Also, Logan suggests that "language and conceptual thought are dynamically linked parts of a dynamically cognitive system, the extended mind which provides an environment for their mutual development." Logan traces the development of the extended mind through the evolution of language.

How this all applies to innovation is that innovation is both language and conceptual thought. I think I need to let that thought settle for awhile.

]]> Innovate Now! 2005-11-28T18:49:49Z 2004-10-28T01:39:24-06:00 tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2004:/chri1010/language//761.8640 2004-10-28T06:39:24Z Language education must begin by acknowledging changes in language and language use. Then, language educators must move quickly to change how languages are taught.... chri1010 Language education must begin by acknowledging changes in language and language use. Then, language educators must move quickly to change how languages are taught.

]]> Managing Curricular Innovation 2005-11-28T18:48:51Z 2004-10-18T11:36:12-06:00 tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2004:/chri1010/language//761.7924 2004-10-18T16:36:12Z Author Markee, Numa. Title Managing curricular innovation / Numa Markee. Published Cambridge [England] ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1997. Description xi, 227 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. Series ( Cambridge language teaching library) Availability TC Wilson Library... chri1010 Author Markee, Numa.
Title Managing curricular innovation / Numa Markee.
Published Cambridge [England] ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Description xi, 227 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.

Series ( Cambridge language teaching library)


Availability TC Wilson Library P53.295 .M37 1997 Regular Loan



Note Includes bibliographical references (p. 195-208) and indexes.

Subject LC Language and languages -- Study and teaching.

Curriculum change.

ISBN 0521555124 (hardcover)

0521555248 (pbk.)

Material Type bks

System No. 001203516

]]> From the Chronicle of Higher Ed 2005-11-28T18:48:51Z 2004-10-18T11:28:13-06:00 tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2004:/chri1010/language//761.7923 2004-10-18T16:28:13Z Higher Education Isn't Meeting the Public's Needs By FRANK NEWMAN, LARA COUTURIER, and JAMIE SCURRY Higher-education leaders, like many Americans, believe that we have the best postsecondary-education system in the world. Yet a dangerous gap is growing between what the... chri1010 Higher Education Isn't Meeting the Public's Needs


By FRANK NEWMAN, LARA COUTURIER, and JAMIE SCURRY

Higher-education leaders, like many Americans, believe that we have the best postsecondary-education system in the world. Yet a dangerous gap is growing between what the public needs from higher education and how colleges and universities are serving those needs. That gap has received little attention within institutions because they lack clear measurements for their performance and because they are generally satisfied with the status quo. But if the gap is not closed, it will increasingly impede higher education's ability to serve the public and ultimately threaten colleges' ability to thrive and grow.

The decades since the end of World War II have been a period of change and turbulence, generating new expectations of higher education. Shifting demographics, the movement from an industrial to a knowledge-based economy, new modes of communication, the rapid advance of technology, and the steady progress of globalization have heightened the demands on institutions to enroll a greater share of the population and to impart more knowledge and skills to students.

But colleges have been focusing their energies on a form of competition based not on improving graduates' skills and knowledge but on institutional prestige and revenues. That competition has been exacerbated by the rise of an expanding array of college rankings by publications like U.S. News & World Report, The Princeton Review, and The Financial Times.

The drive for prestige has led to important gains -- most notably, an enormous advance in the quality of university research that has propelled America forward -- but it has also hampered higher education's ability to serve the public. It has led to an inexorable mission creep as more four-year institutions push themselves toward the status of research universities, often developing low-quality and unneeded Ph.D. programs, and more two-year institutions seek to offer four-year degrees -- while neglecting other important educational goals.

Over the past five years, we at the Futures Project have analyzed the new competition in higher education and have determined that unchecked market forces are changing colleges and universities significantly and eroding the longstanding but unspoken compact that governs the relationship between higher education and society. We propose a renewal of that agreement, clearly defining higher education's role in serving societal goals and the public's support in return. We have identified seven critical areas in which the growing gap between the public's needs and the performance of colleges and universities calls for a new compact:

The need to take responsibility for learning. Ninety percent of college graduates have reported that their degree was useful in getting a job but did not prepare them with the necessary skills to succeed in the workplace. Employers also are concerned about students' lack of critical thinking, the ability to write clearly, and other skills. Despite the overall value of a college education, growing evidence suggests that students are not gaining the knowledge that they need in crucial areas.

Colleges should determine whether actual learning is taking place on their campuses instead of focusing on surrogate performance measures of limited relevance, like the scholarly reputation of the faculty. Even though some institutions successfully measure learning outcomes -- for example, Alverno College, Truman State University, the University of Phoenix, and Britain's Open University -- most colleges continue to claim that it is too difficult or expensive.

]]> Rather than assume that the students who have dropped out were simply a poor admissions decision, or that students who stop taking math courses despite demonstrated proficiency in high school are simply too lazy to do the hard work that math requires, faculty members must begin to ask hard questions about their own responsibilities. Much has been learned, for example, about how the brain functions and the many ways that students learn. Some students learn more by tackling a concrete problem, others by a discussion of abstract principles, still others by visualizing the subject in some form. Through new software technology, students can participate in simulation exercises that increase their comprehension, and faculty members can tailor course work to learning styles. But while many of those advances are now widespread in corporate or military training programs, little has changed in most classrooms.

It is time to elevate the status of teaching to that of research. Constant improvement in the teaching-and-learning process must take place. Moreover, colleges must communicate more effectively to the public about that process so that students can choose their colleges and courses based on the quality of the learning experience, not some vague sense of status.

The need to move beyond access to attainment. Today economic and social mobility requires a college education. Between 1973 and 1999, for example, after adjusting for inflation, the median family income for a high-school graduate decreased by 13.1 percent, while it increased by 9.9 percent for a four-year-college graduate.

In the past, educators and policy makers have been most concerned about encouraging a greater portion of the population to enroll in college. But retaining less-affluent and minority students through graduation has become a growing problem. For example, Thomas G. Mortenson, a senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, reports that those with the highest family incomes are "10 times more likely" to have a bachelor's degree by age 24 than those with the lowest. Twenty-nine percent of African-American students and 31 percent of Hispanic students who enroll in college leave before completing their first year. Our goals must now include improving completion rates for all students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The need to be more efficient and productive. Experience has shown that colleges save money when they collaborate on various activities like purchasing materials, obtaining library resources, and building technological infrastructures, as well as by outsourcing more tasks. But most higher-education institutions don't pursue those opportunities.

Moreover, colleges simply do not analyze their cost structure, particularly on the academic side. They view their growing costs as a function of their labor-intensive nature and beyond their control. They know the overall cost of the geology department or the admissions office, but not the cost of mounting different courses, or the efficiency of using faculty time in varying ways, or whether a redesign would improve the effectiveness of a large introductory course.

Institutions also use revenues from popular and relatively low-cost programs, like business, to support costly and low-volume programs, like classics. Yet there has been little analysis of whether such cross-subsidies help institutions make or save money or support activities that meet the public's needs.

As a result of higher education's sustained growth over the past half-century, along with the dearth of performance data and lack of interest in analyzing costs, most institutions focus on raising revenues rather than improving efficiency. But it would be surprising indeed if, after careful analysis, costs and performance could not be improved.

The long-overdue need to support elementary and secondary education. Colleges have an array of responsibilities to public schools: education and continuing support of teachers and school leaders, alignment of the two sectors in terms of curricula and expectations, and research that improves classroom efforts. But they have been only sporadically involved in the two-decade effort to reform elementary and secondary education. In teacher education, for example, a growing number of school districts have become so disenchanted with the failure of college programs to deal with the conditions that teachers face that they now educate their own teachers and principals. New York City is a prominent example: It has established the NYC Leadership Academy to recruit and train principals.

Such neglect on the part of higher education must change; higher education has a clear self-interest in improving school performance.

The need to reduce conflict of interest in research. Corporate influence has surged throughout colleges, as overall corporate giving grew from $850-million in 1985 to a whopping $4.25-billion a decade later. Such support will only increase; state governments, recognizing research and development as vital to energizing their economies, are pressuring colleges to develop closer links with industry.

Because of that heightened corporate support, the volume of research has grown, but the risk to its integrity has increased as well. In a survey of almost 2,200 biomedical scientists, 410 admitted delaying the publication of their research results by six months or more over a three-year period for reasons such as to "protect the financial value of the results, protect the scientists' lead in the race to produce a certain result, [and] delay the publication of undesired results." A study by Stanford University found that 98 percent of university research on new drug therapies with support from the pharmaceutical industry reported increased effectiveness, while only 79 percent of studies not supported by the industry found increased effectiveness.

The trustworthiness of university research is crucial to America's success. The lure of corporate sponsorship should not be allowed to supersede the integrity of scholarship.

The need to serve as society's critic. Academic freedom was designed so that academics would be free to teach and speak on controversial topics, and campuses could tolerate -- even encourage -- discussion that helped illuminate crucial public issues. But the amount and type of debate taking place on campus have changed markedly in recent years.

In part, fund raising has made presidents avoid taking positions that might upset their institutions' patrons. The salaries of college presidents are also often supplemented by private money and can obligate presidents to donors who have contributed to their personal compensation. Clara M. Lovett, president of the American Association for Higher Education, also blames the presidential search process, which "screens out potential intellectual and educational leaders in favor of men and women who look, speak, and act like candidates for political office."

The privilege of serving as an open center of analysis and debate allows higher education to make a critical contribution to the democratic functioning of society. If it is not used regularly, it will wither.

The need to rebuild political involvement to sustain democracy. Higher education's role in society extends beyond building work-force skills to include helping students understand their role as citizens and community members. Studies have shown that college graduates vote and participate in political campaigns at a higher rate than those who only attended high school. However, involvement in the political process for all groups, including college graduates, is falling. Voting rates are now so low that democracy in this country is endangered.

Civic responsibility is not limited to domestic issues. James M. Lindsay of the Brookings Institution has noted that public apathy has allowed special interests to gain growing control in foreign affairs, even when their actions are not in the best interests of the nation.

Higher education has the ability and responsibility to influence understanding of the political system and engender a sense of civic responsibility in its graduates. But, as the education professors Joel Westheimer, at the University of Ottawa, and Joseph Kahne, at Mills College, have noted about educators in general in the Campus Compact Reader: "As long as we remain at the level of rhetoric, we can get most educators to agree that teaching how to be a good citizen is important. But when we get specific about what democracy requires and about what kind of school curricula will best promote it, much of that consensus falls away."

The list of fissures between higher education's rhetoric and its performance is, in fact, long and growing. The rhetoric describes devotion to student learning while, in reality, the student bears principal responsibility for learning and the failure to learn. The rhetoric describes devotion to teaching while too many faculty members at four-year institutions are devoted to research, publishing, and outside consulting. The rhetoric calls for broader access to higher education while merit-based financial-aid programs are increasing at a greater rate than need-based programs, and institutions recruit the best and wealthiest students. The rhetoric calls for service to the community while attention is focused on improving rankings in magazines and newspapers. The rhetoric proclaims the importance of trustworthy scholarship that serves society while impartiality is undercut by corporate control of research and faculty conflicts of interest.

Every one of the problems that we've described lends itself to practical solutions. But the solutions require thoughtful and intentional public policies and institutional strategies, which in turn require the willingness of political and academic leaders to work together.

The two groups must ask what attributes are essential to preserving higher education's role as servant to the needs of society, so those qualities do not slip away to be lost forever in the heat of competition. The growing power of market forces -- with the emphasis on revenue streams, large-scale corporate sponsorship of research, high presidential salaries, and other trappings of private enterprise -- raise complex social issues that should become part of a national debate.

Political and academic leaders must grapple with such questions as: What are the social as well as economic goals for expanding access to higher education? What restraints on market forces are needed to preserve the public's interests? As boundaries blur, where is the appropriate dividing line between nonprofit and for-profit, between public and private? How much are the benefits to the student seen as a public good, and how much as a private good? Who pays for what? What skills, knowledge, attitudes, and capacities must graduates have for the world ahead? How much is a college education about the educated person, the life of the mind, and development of civic skills? How can the quality of learning be ensured? How can society ensure the integrity of research?

Meanwhile, each institution must ask what its responsibilities are to the public. Has the institution recognized the centrality of teaching and learning, even if it is a research university? Has it recognized that education includes more than simply job skills, that it entails development and practice of civic skills? Has it considered how use of resources, such as student aid, shapes the basic nature of the institution? Has the institution served the public as a center of open discussion of controversial issues in a way that values evidence and analysis, or has it reneged on that responsibility to avoid offending donors and the community? What expertise does it have that can be shared in ways that improve society?

At the same time, state governments must take on the responsibility for identifying and communicating their priorities and expectations. Accountability needs to be a clearly stated expectation and a workable plan, not simply a phrase to be bandied about as a sign of discontent. Research has shown that states with such clear expectations receive better results from their institutions.

Governments today are struggling with the task of creating policies that encourage greater responsiveness and accountability on the part of colleges. Every institution needs to join in that effort and help create a renewed understanding of what higher education will do for the public, and what support -- political and financial -- the public will offer in return. The opportunity for contributing to our society has never been greater.

The late Frank Newman was the director of the Futures Project, based at Brown University, and a visiting professor at Teachers College at Columbia University. He was a former president of the Education Commission of the States. Lara Couturier is the associate director and director of research, and Jamie Scurry is a research associate, at the Futures Project. This article was adapted from The Future of Higher Education: Rhetoric, Reality and the Risks of the Market, published this month by Jossey-Bass. Copyright © 2004 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Buy this book.)

http://chronicle.com
Section: The Chronicle Review
Volume 51, Issue 8, Page B6

]]> Definitions 2005-11-28T18:48:27Z 2004-10-14T19:25:01-06:00 tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2004:/chri1010/language//761.7683 2004-10-15T00:25:01Z “Innovation is the opposite of the struggle to be interesting.”—Art Harkins... chri1010 “Innovation is the opposite of the struggle to be interesting.”—Art Harkins

]]> Knowledge Production Update 2005-11-28T18:48:20Z 2004-10-13T23:56:22-06:00 tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2004:/chri1010/language//761.7623 2004-10-14T04:56:22Z This week, much of my work on my project has been informal. Last Thursday, I attended the Minnesota Association for Developmental Education, where I presented on technology and language learning. I introduced Prensky's concepts of digital immigrants and digital natives.... chri1010 This week, much of my work on my project has been informal. Last Thursday, I attended the Minnesota Association for Developmental Education, where I presented on technology and language learning. I introduced Prensky's concepts of digital immigrants and digital natives. I think part of my argument was that as teachers, we have much to learn about technology from our students. I think my presentation was very well-received, and many teachers seemed to be inspired to add a tech component to their courses. A high point for me was to talk to a seasoned teacher about her frustrations in adding technology. When I told her that the best technological components of a class are the ones that feel right and are do-able, she really took to the idea that she could add something to her course.

How does this relate to my project? I think language learning in the future is going to become increasingly individualized and context-specific. I don't think any cookie cutter is going to serve as a model for how language learning should be.

This next week, I want to spend more time getting into the knowledge and innovation literature and making connections between those readings and my project.

]]> Knowledge production update 2005-11-28T18:47:37Z 2004-10-06T23:23:41-06:00 tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2004:/chri1010/language//761.7086 2004-10-07T04:23:41Z I don't feel like I've made a lot of progress on my language innovation paper this last week. However, that doesn't mean I haven't done some pretty impressive things, including submitting a lengthy book chapter for publication. I think I... chri1010 I don't feel like I've made a lot of progress on my language innovation paper this last week. However, that doesn't mean I haven't done some pretty impressive things, including submitting a lengthy book chapter for publication. I think I should talk about it here, because it is definitely relevant to my work.

Essentially, this chapter is about the Commanding English program at the University of Minnesota. While the program has been around for 25 years (and has gone through several revisions in that time), there have been few people working in it who have had much interest in publishing (although, to the program's credit, there are a few articles out there, and more coming out this year). So, in this chapter, I think we felt like we had to tell all again, but our argument is that we question the model of preparing mulitlingual (Generation 1.5) students for college; instead, we embed the preparation into the freshman year. No waiting involved. We do this through a combination of things, including small learning communities, content-based instruction, collaborative networks, and an approach to multiculturalism that truly values the development of the student's voice, both academically and professionally.

Yes, this program is innovative, particularly in the fact that in some ways we do leap-frogging. We put the brakes on the catch up model, and in the process, we can see the students "taking over." In fact, as we were finishing the chapter, the idea came to me to collect the data on the supplemental instruction courses we offer and the corresponding grades in the content based courses. I think it's true to say that our students consistently outperform other students in the class.

At the same time, I think innovation in language education can incorporate so much more. We don't do much to address the fact that due to the interrupted educations of our students, many of them are digital immigrants, not digital natives, like their peers. We don't even acknowledge the Singularity in our thinking about teaching. I think we teach skills, not competencies. But, our program does some pretty amazing things, and we're the only ones who do this kinds of work. Some schools (not many) have begun to do some of what we do, but not everything.

So, where does my paper fit into all of this? I'll admit that I'm thinking about my dissertation as I approach the paper for this class. I think I want to do some kind of preliminary review of literature, looking to define the problem of where language teaching is currently at and how that fits with the potential problems generated from improvements in technology as well as the Singularity. I'm probably doing some recursive wheel-spinning, but I think I am making progress, too. I think my task for the week is to figure out what kinds of categories I would need in a preliminary literature review.

]]> Technology, innovation, language learning 2005-11-28T18:47:37Z 2004-10-06T23:05:44-06:00 tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2004:/chri1010/language//761.7085 2004-10-07T04:05:44Z I've come across Auralog, a website sponsor of a language learning program that uses speech recognition for all four tones in Chinese. It can analyze a learner's pronunciation of Chinese! Pretty impressive, I'd say. Imagine the possibilities!... chri1010 I've come across Auralog, a website sponsor of a language learning program that uses speech recognition for all four tones in Chinese. It can analyze a learner's pronunciation of Chinese! Pretty impressive, I'd say.

Imagine the possibilities!

]]> The Perils of Tacit Knowledge Left Unspoken 2005-11-28T18:45:51Z 2004-09-23T23:03:25-06:00 tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2004:/chri1010/language//761.6100 2004-09-24T04:03:25Z Tacit knowledge, without the interest or skills to let it out, has no effect on society. (Art Harkins)... chri1010 Tacit knowledge, without the interest or skills to let it out, has no effect on society. (Art Harkins)

]]> Convergence 2005-11-28T18:45:39Z 2004-09-22T01:16:40-06:00 tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2004:/chri1010/language//761.5936 2004-09-22T06:16:40Z This week, I’ve been reading and thinking a bit about the last chapter in Rogers. In that chapter, he talks about the consequences of innovation, and the example he gives of the introduction of the snowmobile among Lapp people in... chri1010 This week, I’ve been reading and thinking a bit about the last chapter in Rogers. In that chapter, he talks about the consequences of innovation, and the example he gives of the introduction of the snowmobile among Lapp people in Finland is quite striking, I think. The case can certainly be made that the snowmobile changed their way of life, and due to the fact that they couldn’t anticipate the consequences, things didn’t go very well.

Yet, I’ve been thinking that there’s consequences of not innovating as well. In other contexts, not innovating may be the end to one’s way of life. I think this is true for language education because at the minimum, consequences of technological innovations and the impending singularity will likely change When language educators teach language for specific purposes, for example—business English—we think we know what we’re teaching. But, what if the business context is changing so fast and new language is being invented so rapidly that language teachers themselves not only cannot keep up, but they can’t predict what their students will need to know? The production and diffusion of new language may be faster than language teachers will be able to keep up.

I feel like I’m in a weird spot in my thinking because I’ve been doing a lot of active processing of my topic this summer. So, right now I’ve been checking out the website www.implicity.org, which is a website about innovation in education, and relates to the role of organizational culture in cognitive and linguistic processing and innovations. The website is definitely a harsh (and deservedly critical of the US educational system, basically arguing that the educational system goes against our natural tendencies to learn and sucks the creativity out of us.

I’ve also just begun some explorations of a few researchers who have been recommended to me as decidedly innovative and converging in the spheres I seem to be surfacing in. I’ve been starting to look into the work of John Schumann, a theoretical linguist who is interested in language as an evolutionary process (and I’ve been told that some of his ideas are considered to be quite “out there”).and Robert Logan, a theoretical physicist who is interested in the concept of the “extended mind,” which is about language from a systems theory/chaos theory perspective. (See this website for a good paper on the topic: http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Logan/Extended/Extended.html). In some ways, I think my paper will be an extension of this work, or maybe not an extension, but an application to the concrete nature of language education. In many respects, language educators are weary of theory; they want to think about, and act on, what works inside the classroom. They don’t really care why or how it works. My goal is that I can inspire the individual language teacher to become more innovative, to do some leapfrogging in terms of technological adaptations and acceptance of the singularity.


]]> Beginning Thoughts 2005-11-28T18:45:39Z 2004-09-22T01:10:22-06:00 tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2004:/chri1010/language//761.5934 2004-09-22T06:10:22Z I’ve been thinking quite a bit about paper topics for this class, and I want to focus on my interest in the future of language education. I have been a language educator in various forms for the past ten... chri1010 I’ve been thinking quite a bit about paper topics for this class, and I want to focus on my interest in the future of language education. I have been a language educator in various forms for the past ten years or so, and in my current work in the General College we think we’re pretty innovative because we teach “content-based” language. That is, we teach English through content areas, like anthropology, biology, or art, for example. My students are all multilingual, and English is not their mother tongue. While most programs would have them taking remedial classes, focusing on the so-called traditional areas of listening/speaking, grammar, reading, and writing, we teach those skills in the context of credit-based content courses. My point here is that what we do is better than the current alternative, which is the norm in English language learning, but it’s not sufficient. We still make a lot of assumptions: that disciplines, rather than transdisciplinarity, matter; that grammar editing is something that should be done without the aid of technology; and that somehow we know what they will need to know in the future. These are just some of my program’s assumptions, and obviously, my list reveals some of my own assumptions.

I just think that very soon, language education is going to have a serious breakthrough in terms of technological assistance, and that, along with our current and increasing spinning out of control approach to the singularity means that as a language teacher, I don’t know what my students will need to know. Language education, like practically every other profession, needs to innovate or risk extinction. I want to explore this for my term paper as a major destination on my path toward my dissertation.

A couple of resources I want to share:

http://whatthebleep.blogspot.com

This is a blog devoted to the film; it’s not the official website, but the guy who began this blog really wants to have an online forum with people interested in the film.

Also, Vernor Vinge has an article about the Singularity, and it’s located at the following url:

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/vinge/vinge-sing.html

]]>