No description available.

No description available.

The purpose of this study was to investigate: (1) the extent to which world instructors report using specific communicative instructional strategies; (2) the difference between instructional strategies used by ESL only instructors, versus instructors of ESL and foreign languages, or instructors of only foreign languages; (3) the relationship between instructors* academic preparation and target language use in class; and (4) the relationship between instructors* pedagogical beliefs about second language learning and their reported target language use in class. The World Language Communicative Instructional Strategies Survey was administered to world language instructors from three academic institutions. Upon sending two requests, 48 instructors returned usable instruments (55%). Descriptive statistics revealed extensive use of communicative instructional strategies, yet a difference in application of these strategies exists. A comparison of means revealed that assuring that students learn collaboratively in 85% to 100% in target language, integration of all four language skills, and assuring students* independent target language practice were applied less than other strategies. ESL instructors reported a higher use of communicative instructional strategies than instructors of ESL and foreign languages, or foreign languages only. A comparison of means indicated the differences in communicative instructional strategies use are in integration of all four language skills and in assuring 85% to 100% in-target-language collaborative learning. Findings also revealed a discrepancy between the reported use of communicative instructional strategies and the academic preparation received in order to do so. This study provides implications for the preparation of world language instructors. Specifically, the findings focused on mastery of language taught, on specific instructional methodology courses, and the practicum experience.

While many high school English instructors in the United States teach world literature in translation, few of them explicitly present the literature as translated. High school English students would benefit from learning more about the linguistic origins of the world literature they read. This awareness would increase student understanding of the source culture and benefit their language skills. Various translation theorists have suggested methods to teach translational awareness, but few have offered advice on the type of translation to select. In my research, I examined the question of whether students would derive more cultural knowledge, and specifically language-related knowledge, by reading domesticated or foreignized translations. To explore this question, I created two different English translations of the same French literary texts and presented them to several classes of U.S. American high school students. One translation (Version A) was intended to be a domesticated version and the other (Version B) was deliberately foreignized. Classes read two versions of either Anna Gavalda’s short story “Happy Meal” or of a selection from Joseph Zobel’s novel La Rue Cases-Nègres. Following the reading, they completed a series of multiple-choice and free-response questions. Responses to the readings indicated that students found the foreignized translations more “sophisticated” but did not consistently demonstrate a greater cultural understanding as a result. The results failed to prove one translation method more effective than the other, but they did suggest limitations to Lawrence Venuti’s foreignization approach.