Abstract:

This descriptive comparative study will describe and analyze the differences and similarities between how second and third world languages are taught in North America, specifically in the United States (US) and Canada, and countries in the European Union that are closely following those guidelines outlined in the Council of Europe’s Common European Framework of References for Languages (CEFR). This study will outline the most common frameworks used for teaching English as a second language (ESL) and world languages in the US and Canada. One of these frameworks, World-class Instruction Design and Assessment (WIDA), is used in 31 out of 50 states in the US. Another common framework that focuses on the teaching of world languages is that of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) which is used in the US and in some locations in Canada. This study will also analyze the underlying philosophical assumptions that underlie the policies, practices, and the language acquisition theories that generate these assumptions. This study examines three questions:

1. What are the linguistic beliefs, values, and theories that underlie the policies, practices, development of curriculum, implementation of curriculum, instructional methodologies, use of data gained from assessments, and revisions over time of the frameworks used in North America and the Eurozone?
2. How are these frameworks similar and how do they differ in all aspects of their theoretical underpinnings, construction, implementation, and revisions?
3. What are the implications for research at the global level that may serve to further deepen our understanding and appreciation of complex language acquisition processes.

This study will use the task comparison and juxtaposed data based on George Bereday (1964)’s model for comparative inquiry. The model includes a “juxtaposition” stage and recognizes the centrality of context. The first stage is termed “conceptualization” and represents the essential initial attempts in any investigation to identify the research questions and to neutralize them from any particular context. For example, questions such as “what is the nature of?” will be most useful at this stage. The second step comprises detailed description of educational phenomena in the countries to be investigated with attention paid to local context in terms of its historical, geographical, cultural, political, religious, linguistic, etc. The main question here is “What is the situation of x in the context of y?”, for example, X will be the United States and Y the European country selected. Stage three involves an attempt to isolate differences through direct comparison of the phenomena observed or the data collected. “How different and or similar in terms of the country X, is a from b in the context of country Y?” The last step will include explanations through the development of hypotheses: “Given that we can observe differences in terms of country X, between a and b in the context of country Y, what might explain those differences and similarities?” The final stage will consider the applicability of the findings to other situations. This structure is offered as a possible structure for comparative inquiry. In summary, the model presents the following stages: (1) Conceptualization, (2) Contextualization, (3) Isolation, (4) Explanation, (5) Reconceptualization, and (6) Application.

Keywords:

Second language learning, native language instriction, comparative inquiry, North America, Eurozone.