DESCRIPTORS: language learning; multilingualism and multiculturalism; common myths among adults about one's capacity to learn languages; language programs; capacity-building; education in the Northwestern Region of the U.S.; learning opportunities for international students.

SYNOPSIS: The author is challenging the reader with a number of common myths among adults about their capacity to study foreign languages; a number of interesting insights and ideas are introduced. The second part of the article talks about the non-profit Associates in Cultural Exchange and its innovative programs and methods of bridging the gap between cultures.

Language Learning in a Global Context
Introduction

For something as ubiquitous and essential as language and the meaning which is embedded in human communication, it is ironic that the means for acquiring the tools for this communication and understanding the contexts in which it is used, are so poorly understood by a vast proportion of human society. Myths about language, language learning, culture and cultures abound. Myths in themselves may be interesting or even beneficial, but when they dis-empower people, they become harmful. And because language and culture are so deeply personal and thus entwined in our emotional makeup, a lack of sufficient empathy and the ability to connect with those of a different language or cultural background may lead to severe conflict. And of course, the modern era has forced us to interact globally like never before, making the immediacy and intensity of these linguistic and cultural interactions increasingly rapid and more widespread.

For much of the world, this has not necessarily lead to increased enlightenment or greater harmony between populations. In fact, events such as the hysteria over Swine Flu in our current time can take on a momentum and significance beyond reason, creating a cascading effect and causing panic out of proportion to the actual threat. Fear has begun to replace expediency as the prime motivator. In part, human communication has devolved to a reliance on engendering emotions through images, rather than what we have traditionally done with verbal, non-verbal, and written communication which take much more time and require the attention of the listener, reader, or observer. In The Closing of the American Mind, Bloom describes how society has been going through a paradigm shift in which the depth of knowledge and insight expected of an educated individual, from the philosophical to the scientific, has been giving way to a predominant need for gratification, bypassing serious analysis and reflection.

Presumably, most members of society are not fully satisfied with this state of affairs excepting those who benefit outright from global conflicts and security-related industries and services. As wealth and gratification has grown through materialistic advancement and “time-saving technology”, humans do not seem to report increased levels of happiness or a greater sense of security. To the contrary, one has the distinct sense that as societies become wealthier, more powerful, and objectively speaking, more secure, they become increasingly isolated and in effect more paranoid due to their insularity. In Jihad vs McWorld, Barber lays out the essential paradox of our time: increasing homogenization of consumer society as well as media penetration contrasted with the strident defensiveness of populations who are trying to retain their distinctiveness or prevent assimilation into a global society. What to some is a wonderful boon – digital technology, mobility, easy access to information, and the global access it provides – is to another a bane because it fosters the breakdown of a group's internal cohesiveness and traditional way of life. Modernists have a tendency to dismiss the fears and anxieties of those attempting to resist the transformation of society. Reactionaries tend to view advocates of globalization as predatory social engineers. Thus the tension between the forces of globalization and isolation appears to be growing, and the field of education is only partly successful at remediating this tension.

For those who are committed to civil society, to rule of law, and to promoting engagement between people from different backgrounds – we may refer to this camp as “integrationists” – the primary role of multilingualism and multiculturalism is evident. Rather than argue the merits of integration of peoples, we will proceed on the axiomatic basis that both separate cultures and the sum total of human society will benefit from members of all societies gaining greater linguistic and relevant cross-cultural understanding. Second, we will also assume that the educational product of Western Civilization has great merit, though it is not alone in its worth. We therefore admit our bias toward a Western-oriented educational philosophy.

With these value judgments in place, we may then turn our attention to several common myths among adults about one's capacity to learn a second or additional language, as well as the challenges inherent in attempting to bridge cultural gaps.

• Myth #1: Older learners are less proficient than younger learners at language & cultural acquisition
• Myth #2: It is sufficient to speak a dominant global language (such as English or Chinese) in professional settings
• Myth #3: Understanding cultural context is less critical than knowing technical content
• Myth #4: Formal educational settings are the primary vehicle for second language acquisition
• Myth #5: Educational achievement (as measured by certifications and degrees) is highly correlated to levels of intelligence

Myth #1: Older learners are less proficient than younger learners at language & cultural acquisition

This is a very widespread and damaging myth that serves as a frequent barrier or rationalization for countless adults to forgo the attempt to adapt to a new language and culture with the requisite effort and strategy necessary. The myth is predicated on the “common sense” observation that small children are able to learn a second language in very short order in contrast with adults who labor to learn new sound systems and experience considerable anxiety about the process while exhibiting equal levels of impatience and resistance. What the layperson (and even a great many professionals who should know better) general miss are the following critical factors:

a. Young children in the process of acquiring a second language spend countless hours playing (generally with individuals or small groups), observing, imitating, and operate with an extremely limited set of vocabulary, limited syntactic usage, intellectual content, and are motivated by simple goals such as the desire to fit in rather than attempting to work, interact in complex social situations, or convey abstract concepts. There is no question that children appear to have a superior capability to imitate new sound systems and have far lower inhibitions to the process. But it is not clear to what degree adults are less capable intellectually vs what are affective barriers to adaptation.

b. Adults for the most part experience primarily formal language learning contexts in larger groups (15 to 50), with little direct interaction with native speakers, and relying heavily on intermediary materials and technologies. Adults spend relatively much less time as a result (counted in dozens or a few hundred hours of instruction and much less in direct interaction with native speakers) vs hundreds or thousands of hours spent by children interacting with other children who are native speakers.

c. Adults have a need to communicate sophisticated concepts long before sufficient language capacity is achieved in a target language, and therefore tend to be impatient when encountering communication barriers. This impatience undermines the natural process of language acquisition that requires a gradual build up of language competency and extensive repetition. For children the process of acquiring a second or foreign language is familiar because they have been going through the same process with their first language in relatively close time proximity. Children therefore accept the process as normal and part of the “game” of learning.

d. What is little known is that adults (in relatively small numbers) routinely engage in intensive language learning and can move from little proficiency to a level sufficient for successful college study in the matter of 6 to 18 months. If we consider for a moment what language competency a child has, it is obvious that these language capabilities are a small subset of what an adult requires for adult tasks. Conversely, it is evident that if an adult learning a second language limited the vocabulary and syntax needed to what a child requires to play or go to school, the adult would find the task fairly easy and could do so in an intensive educational program in just a few weeks or months. This assumes, of course, that the adult has the appropriate attitude, motivation, and program design.

Myth #2: It is sufficient to speak a dominant global language (such as English or Chinese) in professional settings

Working people around the world routinely debate whether one needs to take the time to adapt to a new language or culture when there is a common language already established. The individual involved will tend to rationalize this default position arguing that the functional communication is sufficient for most needs. To a degree, this approach is a self-fulfilling prophecy because those who are practitioners of this approach evaluate the success or failure of the interactions without regard to the potential loss of opportunity inherent. In effect, when one is incapable of sensing the problem, then one does not take note of it. When international initiatives fail, the uni-lingual practitioner tends to resort to finger pointing, exclaiming that their counterpart in cross-cultural interaction is somehow deficient. In the political arena, frustration may lead to the use of extreme critiques such as “He's crazy” because antagonists do not recognize the validity of an alternative paradigm.

We can accept the reality that not all languages are equal on the global stage, yet insist that even a modest investment of time and effort in acquiring some of a counterpart's language will invariably lead to an opportunity to develop a greater depth of human interaction and trust. What underlies this reality is the fundamental value of reciprocity in relationships. If one party has to make all the linguistic and cultural adjustments in order to work with another, then the relationship is inherently skewed. And while sophisticated professionals have the ability to accomplish their aims in spite of such imbalances, the imbalance in relationships remains a deleterious influence.

The implication of this point is that professionals can significantly enhance their work by investing time and energy in adapting to a counterpart's language and culture, even to a small degree. This effort conveys respect of the person as well as his or her community, and may then empower the individual to become more of an “insider”, empathizing to a much greater degree with the society in question. Through empathy, one develops a keener sense of what the counterpart thinks and feels.

Myth #3: Understanding cultural context is less critical than knowing technical content

In modern society, technical content is valued far more than cultural context. This is clear from how various positions are compensated ranging from roles in engineering and science to those which emphasize sociological, philosophical, or cultural expertise. The contrast is emphasized by terms such as “hard” skills vs “soft” skills. A young student when considering a career soon understands that having technical skills and knowledge is something one can “take to the bank” whereas exploring human society and culture is clearly less prestigious and less valued. Why not? It is due to the technical prowess that modern society has invented and built so much. In contrast, how does one measure in “real terms” advances in cross-cultural understanding?

This bias toward material productivity is logical for technology has enabled society to generate unprecedented wealth and thus far greater welfare for the masses than ever before in human society. And yet at the same time, the rise of technocracies has likewise lead to new generations that feel a strange sense of alienation and displacement. In traditional societies, youth do not generally wonder how they fit into society – that is a given. But as societies become technologically advanced and wealthier, the youth increasingly struggle to make sense of their existence. At the same time, organizations must now employ people from a range of cultures and must compete within multiple sociological environments, and schools must now educate children who's families are increasingly mobile. This leads to increased confusion about how to facilitate interaction when the cultural assumptions are nuanced and varied.

As a result, human interface has achieved a new level of priority. Leaders can no longer make easy assumptions about target markets, constituencies, or human resource pools. In effect, information is now cheap, but face time is expensive. Because resources can be found globally, relationships are at a premium as never before. And to the culturally sensitive and aware go the spoils. After all, when everyone has enough stuff, what really matters is human self worth and respect. What Obama-era politicians grasp as never before is the need for public figures to relate to a broad range of people, and to convey respect to them. One cannot afford to alienate large segments of society, even outside of one's boarders. This is a new reality for national political leaders where national self-interest has always been the rule. So how does one engender a sense of respect to people of widely disparate cultural backgrounds? The answer has always been there: demonstrate a real interest in their culture. The message is beginning to filter up to board rooms everywhere.

Myth #4: Formal educational settings are the primary vehicle for second language acquisition

Contrary to what people believe, the most effective means of acquiring a second or foreign language is not sitting in a classroom with 15-30 fellow classmates for hours a day. This may be how languages are taught worldwide out of necessity, but in the field of second language acquisition, we learn methodologies by considering first language acquisition where the end result is native-speaker competency. And while the typical student cannot exactly replicate that experience in learning a second or foreign language, there are important lessons to be applied. Working with an individual native speaker of a target language one-on-one is the most efficient mechanism. Not everyone realizes this. The type of language input received is likewise critical. It must be pertinent to the language learner, and phased in complexity. A trained professional can accelerate the process far ahead of what a language informant can do, because adults are able to take “short cuts” in the acquisition process. Thus what is generally most practical is a combination of group instruction in which a language educator provides learning tools to increase learning efficiency and effectiveness, combined with a living environment that reinforces learning through the day. Obviously, in the ideal, the living environment consists of native speakers who are available to the learner throughout the day, and are highly motivated to interact on topics of mutual interest. And ideally, this experience could last for a period of 6 to 18 months depending on the relation between first and target language and level of sophistication of the learner. In cases where the living context is outside of the target language environment, a highly motivated learner can typically discover a range of cultural niches by which to accelerate the learning process. In the digital era, this obviously extends to the use of web-based multimedia tools in the target language including YouTube, music, news, and language learning tools. But face-to-face interaction as pointed out above, remains king, and in most urban communities, there is a surprisingly wide range of cultural “pockets” available to the learner due to the global diaspora of many ethnic populations. The challenge is not finding these pockets, as much as it is in understanding the importance of this aspect of language acquisition. Without regular external reinforcement, the formal classroom-based language learning process is relatively ineffective, especially if spread over an extended time period as is typically done in K-12 curricula around the world. Thus we see again and again the syndrome of high school students who have been studying a target language for 4 to 6 years and yet struggle with the most basic communication in the target language and have little or no confidence in any productive competency. They may be able to perform passive exercises (particularly focused on reading) but little else. Yet to use a language meaningfully in a social context is the primary test of its relevance to the learner so this approach to education can unfortunately serve as a sort of inoculation of the learner against the language. Many a failed learner of a foreign language in the U.S. has declared that he took Spanish in high school and “is no good at learning languages.” Of course, this same individual no doubt uses English very proficiently and thus is perfectly adept at learning languages. He just doesn't realize it because of the poor methodology and experience he's experienced with little or no reinforcement outside the classroom.

Myth #5: Educational achievement (as measured by certifications and degrees) is highly correlated to levels of intelligence

Fortunately for everyone, this myth holds no water. Humans on the whole are extremely intelligent when born and raised in a healthy manner. Very few do not have the intellectual capacity to achieve high levels of formal education from vocational certificates to doctoral degrees given enough time, guidance, and material support. The establishment of life-long learning for adults is one of the great achievements of modern society, in many ways superior to many technological achievements because it has freed society from the historical trend of pigeonholing people into lives of drudgery and boredom. Today with the spread of community-based educational institutions, adults worldwide have unprecedented opportunities to retrain and re-educate at any stage of their lives. There is no need to sit on the shelf and waste one's valuable experience and knowledge because society has passed one by.

However, traditional attitudes about intelligence as correlated to the ability to learn remain strongest when it comes to linguistic and cultural adaptation. As suggested in the response to Myth #1, older learners even without a high level of formal education are just as capable of acquiring a foreign language and adapting to a new culture as anyone else. But the myth remains a powerful disincentive. Adults are fond of excusing themselves by saying “I'm too old to learn”. Likewise, if one is proficient in a second or third language, monolingual adults tend to remark that the polyglot is “smart” or “good at languages.” The subtext is the traditional belief that only “smart” people get college degrees and can work in multiple linguistic and cultural contexts. Historically our K-12 and higher education systems have reinforced such antiquated notions by tracking students and screening them out of opportunities. But older students are one of our most valuable resources and the time has come to integrate them into the global workforce.

What is our role in addressing these myths?

Our organization, founded as American Cultural Exchange, is located in the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rocky Mountain region of the U.S. extending from Washington State to Montana State. Our organization was founded in 1973 as a not-for-profit 501(c)3 organization headquartered in Seattle, Washington. In 2001 we adopted the trade name Associates in Cultural Exchange (also known as A.C.E.) to convey our role in promoting language and cultural education in a reciprocal model. Rather than being proponents of American culture, A.C.E. acts as a sort of small “UN of education” in the Northwest region, facilitating educational projects and relationships cross-culturally within the region and worldwide. At the core of our activities is language instruction, both English and a range of other languages. The latter are increasingly referred to in U.S. K-12 education as “world languages” and thus the department, which manages school-based foreign language programs for K-12 schools in the region, is called “World Language Programs”. Conversely, the department that manages English as a second language instruction for international students coming into the region from overseas is called “A.C.E. Language Institutes”. These two institutes are based on the campuses of Seattle Pacific University in Seattle, Washington, and Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana. The former is a private liberal arts institution which emphasizes character development and the fields of education, business, and health sciences. The latter is a state university that was established as a land-grant institution to provide teacher education, and has evolved into a major research institution with a wide range of undergraduate and graduate degrees.

Our fundamental competency is capacity building – that is, our purpose is to empower others so that they may become more effective in communicating and connecting with people and organizations of different language and cultural backgrounds. To illustrate the concept, we were approached in the late 1980s by a pair of sister cities, one in Japan and the other in U.S. They sought to develop a youth exchange program between the two cities but lacked the expertise or personnel. We proceeded to set up a group study tour for teenagers from Japan and after several years of managing the program, the two cities were ready to take over the project and manage it on their own. We have done similar capacity-building work for elementary, middle and high schools as well as college, universities, and private non-profit organizations in the U.S., Japan, Korea, Australia, the UAE, Oman, and Kazakhstan. But the Northwestern U.S. is our unique context.

Our approach to language education is essentially practical. That is, we begin with the outcomes sought by the students and trainees and develop the curriculum and program to support those outcomes. For university-bound students, our program design is anchored by the exit level (Level 6) which is directly tied into academic courses within the host university. These college observation courses insure that a graduate of the institutes is college ready. The levels leading to the exit level are designed to sequence naturally and accommodate students and trainees with diverse interests. In order to insure maximum value to the program participant, we offer daily tutorial with a native speaker as an alternative, and the program philosophy is to emphasize action research. The latter is a reference to a growing trend in pedagogy whereby the program participant conducts field research that is integrated into the regular course design. This insures that the trainees take full advantage of the native speaker environment around them, rather than simply replicating classroom instruction that they could have in their home country. In the K-12 world language program we likewise insure that children are using the target language from the first day of instruction. And because they are children, the emphasis is on intuitive and contextual learning experiences rather than discrete point analysis. This whole language approach has been a feature of the A.C.E. children's programs since their inception in 1982.

A signature A.C.E. group training program is teacher training for teachers of English as a foreign language. Since 2006 A.C.E. has conducted action research oriented training for over 150 teachers from the ministry of education of several Korean provinces. These are cutting edge programs which integrate the trainees into the U.S. community and provide the advanced trainees with an opportunity to observe fellow teachers and their students in local-12 schools as well as to give several units of instruction in Korean language and culture. Thus we are able to fulfill our mission of a fully reciprocal educational process by which all parties are both teachers and students.

Finally, A.C.E. provides consulting and capacity-building services internationally. A recent project involved providing a comprehensive review of the library system of a national university in the Middle East, and for another project in the same region we lead in the initial application for accreditation of a new publicly managed workforce education institute. The goal of these projects overseas is to assist with development of region-to-region linkages between institutions, and all sectors of the economy. Our unique role is to combine linguistic and cultural expertise in the process so that the relationships are built on strong foundation of mutual understanding and respect.

Education in the Northwestern Region of the U.S.

Our region is viewed from the European and Asian perspective as remote and untamed, but in fact it is neither. The Northwestern U.S. is equi-distant between London and Tokyo and is one of the world's leading hubs of international trade as well as global development. The former is due largely to the historical role of the Boeing Company and the dynamic economic growth between East Asia and the U.S., and the latter is due increasingly to the co-location in the region of Microsoft and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the largest private foundation in the world, and many philanthropic and scientific research centers with a global reach. However, the region is a major producer of agricultural products to a global market, as well as being known for mining and timber products since the 1800s. Massive natural resources and a vast and diverse topography combined with a relatively small population continue to distinguish the Northwestern U.S. from the rest of the country.

Commensurate with the cutting edge organizations based in the region, a highly developed educational system provides the necessary support for industry and technological development. At the same time, the region is home to many Native American tribal groups and a number of tribal schools and colleges. Moreover, the higher education infrastructure heavily emphasizes universal access to education through an extensive community college network. At the same time, these 2-year colleges are culturally diverse and international in their outlook. As a result, the 2-year colleges in the Northwestern region have developed sophisticated workforce training capacities and are highly respected by employers for the practical education they provide.

The leading educational institutions in the region include state universities, private universities, and many private institutes and non-governmental organizations. The distance from the Pacific coast to the northern Rocky Mountains is 1500 kilometers and with a smaller population the educational systems have needed to develop distance technologies in order to serve people who are in remote locations. This in turn has lead to innovations in distance education and a tendency to take risks and try new approaches to educations. In addition, the state and local governments only partially fund the educational needs of the population, and as a result all institutions and organizations seek to expand off-budget funding in order to expand programs. In the case of some major state universities, this has lead to the proportion of the state funding dropping to under 10% of the total budget of the institution with much of the funding coming via major research grants and other forms of revenue generation. At the K-12 level, families frequently prefer to contribute to the cost of education so that they have a say in the type of education their children receive.

Over the decades, this has lead to a reduction of the proportion of the children in public education in some urban areas to 50% of the total student population. The U.S. also does not have a national level of control of the public education sector by which curricula is mandated. Instead, the educational content is managed on a state or local level. This leads to a lack of systemization across the U.S. The locally-drive result reflects the U.S. preference for choice over homogeneity. This of course, results in disadvantages in some sectors and advantages in others. The obvious advantage is a heavy emphasis on self-reliance and entrepreneurship. The obvious disadvantage is a lack of guidance and continuity for children with lesser means or lack of family support. The major concern in this system is for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. We have not resolved how to insure that every child will indeed have the opportunity to reach his or her true potential. One antidote to this disadvantage is the continuing education system that allows adults to return for additional training and education at any point in their lives.

What is the opportunity for an international student or researcher?

There are several immediate implications of this context for prospective students and researchers from outside the U.S. The U.S. remains the hub of advanced research for the world, and the opportunities to gain mastery of the English language while attaining the highest levels of education in the U.S. are unparalleled. Historically, students and researchers in Europe have viewed the U.S. through the lenses of the Eastern U.S. and several other major population centers such as Ohio, Texas and California. However, the Northwestern U.S. in many ways is the leading edge of future development with the youngest population and the most innovative organizations. The quality of life in the region is superb and when combined with job growth, the result is a constant demographic flow into the region. The educational institutions are experienced in international educational exchange and eager to build ties worldwide. The Northwestern U.S. is an ideal starting point for one interested in exploring opportunities in the U.S.