EFLAC
English as a Foreign Language Across the Curriculum
This is based on a number of ideas. Let's take them briefly, one by one:
Whole language: Language is best taught and learned by using it for meaningful purposes. The opposite point of view is that exercises on discrete skills (pronunciation, grammar, conversation, listening comprehension, reading, writing, etc.) will eventually add up and work together in order to improve proficiency. This point of view is represented by the traditional grammar-translation method of language teaching, and later by the audio-lingual method. Since the 1970s, however, the trend has been to emphasize the language as a whole rather than as the sum of many parts, and as a tool rather than as an object of study in itself. (The latter, the study of language, is called linguistics; it is not the same thing as language teaching and learning.)
Communicative competence: This refers to what you can do with your language proficiency. Sometimes it is called functional competence. In fact, language proficiency, or how "well you speak" a particular language, is defined today not by "correctness" but by communicative or functional competence, meaning how effective your language use is in particular situations and for particular purposes. This of course includes appropriateness, since language use that is inappropriate in a particular situation is normally not communicatively effective.
Fluency first: This means that content comes before form. Your first objective in speaking or writing any language, including your mother tongue, is to express ideas. This is fluency. Your second objective is to make those ideas as clear as possible. Your last objective is to make the expression of your ideas as "correct" as possible -- bearing in mind what was just said about communicative competence. This is the order of priority: fluency - clarity - correctness. In reference to writing, fluency and clarity are developed by revision -- by putting your ideas in writing repeatedly and in different ways until you have said everything you want to say as clearly as you can. Once this is done, and only when this is done, should you concentrate on making what you have written correct. This is the opposite point of view of what many of us have been exposed to in the traditional classroom, where we are discouraged from saying or writing anything that is not "correct" for fear this might instill bad habits ("mistakes"). From the Fluency First point of view, "mistakes" are less important than ideas, and it is wrong (discouraging and ineffective) to try to "correct" mistakes before the ideas are clearly expressed. If a mistake impedes communication, of course, it must be "corrected," but the purpose is communication, not correction per se.
Collaborative learning: This is the principle that we learn more naturally and more effectively by interacting with other people than by ourselves. "Other people" means your classmates and your friends, as well as your teacher. By working in small groups, classroom activities become more learner-centered than teacher-centered (Frontalunterricht), more individualized, and also more task-centered, because the smaller groups allow more opportunities for individuals to participate and for different activities to occur simultaneously. The role of the teacher in this ideal situation is to provide general guidance and answer questions, not to determine every step of the learning process.
Content-based: All of these ideas are connected, so it almost goes without saying, given the above, that language teaching and learning should not take place in a vacuum, as exercises serving no purpose outside the classroom, but for real purposes. In an academic situation, the most realistic purpose to which the tool being acquired (the foreign language being learned) can be put is to deal with the ideas and information (the content) encountered in other classrooms. The best way for an electrical engineering student, for example, to learn English--assuming he wants to learn English and electrical engineering at the same time--would be to study electrical engineering in English--at least to the extent that this is possible. This is the same principle that underlies bilingual education, where "content" (non-language) courses are taught in, or partly in, the foreign language, and CLIL "Content and Language Integrated Learning." We learn best when we learn for a purpose, not merely for the sake of learning; we learn language best when we learn it in order to do something with it--for example, acquire some understanding of electrical engineering. The same can be said of any subject, but especially of the various language disciplines, such as literature, linguistics, area studies, and language teaching.
Across the curriculum: In the 1980s a movement called Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) began to revolutionize the teaching of English writing to native speakers at American universities by recognizing that content-based instruction was more effective, and more enjoyable, than the traditional "freshman composition" courses. At most US colleges and universities today, writing courses are subject-specific or theme-based, i.e., content-based. Students are encouraged to write about what they are reading and studying in their field of specialialzation. The notion of writing as process includes writing as an integral part of the learning process; we cannot be sure of what we mean, or of what we know (or do not know) or have learned, until we try to write it down, and this is a continuing process. Writing is a continuation of the conversation that takes place in our heads as we rethink our own thoughts, and with others as we seek their reactions to what we say and write. The traditional idea that writing is a skill that can be learned "in general" in a couple of semesters and then used in the various disciplines has given way to the idea that writing is an ongoing process that should accompany the learning process throughout one's academic career, and in all the disciplines.
The success of WAC programs at US colleges and universities led to the application of the same idea to foreign languages under the rubric of Foreign Languages ( or just "Languages") Across the Curriculum. Now it is common to find a certain number of courses in various disciplines (e.g., history, sociology, psychology, education, religion) designated as FLAC courses, meaning that they are accompanied by another course that meets separately for the purpose of discussing the material in a foreign language. The minimum level of language proficiency for such courses is normally B2+. This is the proficiency level that most Anglistik students entering German universities have already achieved in English, which means that all of the courses offered for Anglisten in this country are potentially FLAC courses. Since this does not generally apply to entering Romanisten, I use EFLAC ("ee-flak") to refer specifically to English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Across the Curriculum.
Double-entry journal: This is a technique that has been used successfully in many writing programs, and is particularly adaptable to EFLAC. The idea is simple: you copy a short passage from one of the books you are required to read for one of your other courses, and comment on it. The comment can be anything at all. No attention is paid to form in this activity; the point is to share your thoughts, feelings, and questions about what you have read with others who have read the same material. This is the best illustration not only of writing as process, but also of speaking as process (since you will also be discussing what you write in class), since the purpose is not to produce something (like a finished essay or an oral report), but to learn. Some authors call this writing (or speaking) to learn.
Process and product: Writing and speaking as products represent the traditional end-point view of the learning process. Here the emphasis is on the finished product--the essay, the oral report, the translation, the term paper, the exam, etc. Since we (students and teachers) are all bound by certain externally imposed requirements (Prüfungsordnungen, etc.), much of our attention has to be directed to these products, and to the assessment of them by others. Still, we should remember that each product is created through a process, and that the process is more important, because it can be replicated. The product in a sense is dead-on-arrival; it is what it is. The process--how the product is made--can be infinitely improved upon.
Portfolio: Your portfolio is the record of your progress. It contains some or all of what you have written over a longish period of time (usually a few months, at least), including first drafts, notes, and other communications (e.g., a double entry journal), and can be used for several purposes. It can be used by teachers to assess your progress, and by you to assess your own progress. This self-assessment can be intuitive, as you will notice on your own many ways in which your writing improves simply by comparing older texts with more recent ones, or it can be systematic, when you actively search your corpus (portfolio) for the development of certain qualities. Although you should not focus first or exclusively on "correctness" (see above), portfolio analysis is an appropriate way to find (especially with the automatic search functions in word processors) recurring mistakes and try to eliminate them. I have provided an outline for this on my website. The value of self-assessment is that it forces you to look both critically and creatively at your own work, which is a prerequisite for improvement.
Assessment: Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, for those with a more competitive spirit, lines have to be drawn sometimes. Grades have to be given. But what should be graded? Product or process? Usually, it is the product. This product, e.g., an essay, is evaluated according to certain criteria and graded. The most widely accepted set of criteria and "grades" (levels) to assess foreign language proficiency are those of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages published by the Council of Europe in 2001 (also available in German). This standard has been accepted on both sides of the Atlantic (see my Proficiency Assessment Benchmarks). I also use the criteria for the Cambridge Proficiency Examination in judging written and spoken proficiency. You can test your own profiency in several areas at the DiaLang website.