Publisher's Synopsis
Current instructional programs throughout the world continue to attempt to teach enrollees how to communicate in a second language - yet they struggle. They struggle because existing methodologies do not typically result in the learner being able to communicate effectively in the new language. The root cause of this global problem is that learners do not reach a sufficient level of "native-ness" in their speech which hurts the learner's career achievements - despite numerous attempts at language instruction policy and practice reform. Language Power consists of two key components: 1) an ability to speak and be understood, and 2) an ability to listen and understand. Individuals with strong language power possess the ability to communicate effectively in a social environment. When non-native speakers engage in oral communication, native speakers of that language recognize sufficiently well-formed speech. It is satisfactorily 'native' or sufficiently close to what they know as 'their language' to be completely understood. When non-native speakers listen to a secondary language, they need to be capable of interpreting and processing words that are spoken at real-world rates of speech in the manner spoken by native speakers of that language. Each year in the United States, many students are required to learn a language other than English in their educational careers. Often, after years of study and quite likely earning passing grades on final and college entrance exams such as the ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language) Oral Proficiency Interview, most students cannot speak at a level that will be understood or can they understand basic everyday exchanges at conversational speed in the language's native country, as one would encounter when watching television or listening to the radio. Language is taught to a level of certain academic competencies, further referred to as academic knowledge (AK): 1) grammatical competence to include proper use of grammar, extensive vocabulary knowledge, and appropriate pronunciation, 2) sociolinguistic competence, which is the proper use of words and grammar depending on social situations and knowledge of cultural politeness, 3) discourse competence - the ability to use the language in various settings, such as a debate or neighborhood gathering, and 4) strategic competence, the ability to use verbal and non-verbal means to communicate, especially during challenging situations. Academic knowledge measures are far more prevalent and comprise the majority of items we see informal language assessment. Also known as drill and kill, typical instructional programs continue to focus on rote memorization of vocabulary and grammatical structure instead of practical use of a language - a deficiency in the humanization of course material. Furthermore, there is a lack of appropriate materials in an academic setting, driving teachers to create homemade course materials for class. A study by Houston (2005) demonstrated that students learning Spanish valued "survival-skills" learning (ability to function in a social environment) more than academic knowledge of a language. Moreover, teachers report a lack of time and resources to practice a language within the classroom to strengthen competency. Vocabulary items are quite common and take many forms. From simple flashcard type exercises to more complex matching games and standard multiple-choice, over the year's test makers have employed a variety of ways to test the student's understanding of the meaning of a single word. This item type may be useful to increase the total number of words a student understands, however, it is not an indicator of communication competency unless the item combines either identification of real-world audio or oral production that connects the speaker to the real world.
