Where is World Language Education in Language Pedagogy?

• In Event: Where in the World are World Languages?

Abstract

From a curricular perspective, researchers have long noted the limitations of widely accepted World Language Education (WLE) curricula in terms of engaging students with critical content (Ennser-Kananen, 2016; Galloway, 1985; Johnson & Randolph, 2015; Tedick & Walker, 1994). Historically, the centering of “language proficiency” as the most important goal of WLE may have contributed to the perception that such critical content exceeds the language proficiency of learners—especially in introductory WL courses—and therefore is not appropriate for such learners (Kubota et al., 2003). Nonetheless, more and more, the discipline has embraced social justice-oriented pedagogies as a framework for addressing some of these curricular shortcomings (Davidson et al., 2023; Glynn et al., 2018; Osborn, 2006; Randolph & Johnson, 2017). Recent scholarship in particular has focused on themes of antiracism in WLE (Anya, 2021; Hines-Gaither & Accilien, 2022). Often at the core of such work is a focus on inclusion as a starting point to combat the legacy of anti-Blackness in WLE (Anya & Randolph, 2019; Padilla & Vana, 2022).


Building upon this work, my commentary will discuss how abolitionist and liberationist language pedagogies might provide a path forward as we boldly reimagine the future of language education in PK-16 contexts to be radically inclusive spaces. Abolitionist and liberationist pedagogies invite us to imagine schools as places where historically (and presently) marginalized students experience empowerment, liberation, and joy as integral components of their schooling (Baker-Bell, 2020; Love, 2019). I argue that in order to enact the ideals of an abolitionist or liberationist perspective, the field of WLE must first dramatically shift the way that it situates curriculum. For example, The World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages (National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015), the most ubiquitous curricular framework for WLE in US contexts, compartmentalizes the study of language into five discrete categories commonly known as The Five Cs: communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities. While these categories recognize the broad, nuanced, and interdisciplinary nature of language study, they do not envision language learning as an abolitionist and liberationist endeavor grounded in anticolonial, antiracist, and justice-centered frameworks . Moreover, the national standards rely on broad conceptualizations of such phenomena as “culture” and “diversity” in such a way as to inadvertently facilitate the erasure of underrepresented speech communities and to present a perceived neutrality of highly politicized concepts. This erasure is further proffered by the centering of “proficiency” as the main instructional goal.


In my commentary, I first highlight how, despite historical limitations, WLE is indeed uniquely situated to enact the vision of abolitionist and liberationist pedagogies. Next, I present and discuss frameworks and instructional practices that challenge linguistic oppression and that disrupt dominant language ideologies, curricular frameworks, and instructional practices. I conclude by briefly highlighting ways in which future research in WLE might continue to address curriculum and instruction to not only break down barriers but to also center Blackness and Indigenousness as part of an abolitionist and liberationist education. [476 words]

Author

• L.J. Randolph, University of Wisconsin - Madison