Petition Saves Second Language Programs at University of Saskatchewan

April 14, 2011

A recent news release from the Academia Group gave highlights from this article in the Star Phoenix by Sean Tremblath: “U of S language program cuts re-examined after petition“. The article starts with this punchy first line:

“A University of Saskatchewan language program is being overhauled after speculation of major cutbacks sparked a student petition with almost 2,000 names.”

The article goes on to talk about scheduled cuts to language programs at the University of Saskatchewan, and in particular to the German program. The result was a petition to save the program that received 2000 signatures – in 3 days. The article quotes David Parkinson, Vice Dean of Humanities and Fine Arts, a man I’ve met in my professional travels and have a great deal of respect for. He can see “the big picture” and can balance students’ needs with high level administrative pressures. I’ve admired his work for a long time… and don’t envy him one bit right now.

Language programs are being cut or having their funding reduced at alarming rates in North American schools and universities. Really, it’s shameful.

Here’s my response, in the form of a Letter to the Editor of the Star Phoenix:

I’m writing in response to Sean Tremblath’s article “U of S language program cuts re-examined after petition”, published on April 13, 2011.

Three cheers for the students at U Sask, who evidently know the value of learning languages in the 21st century and were willing to petition to keep language courses alive and well.

Cutbacks to second and modern language programs in North American universities is very troubling – particularly when all of Europe, as well as countries on other continents are encouraging – even mandating – the study of additional languages.

I’ve met David Parkinson, Vice Dean of Humanities and Fine Arts, who is quoted in the article and I have a great deal of respect for him. He’s a man who can see “the big picture” and can balance students’ needs with high level administrative pressures.

I’ve admired his work for a long time… and don’t envy him one bit right now. He now faces a situation that language program administrators across North America face: Advocating for the viability of modern language programs in a system that has changed its criteria for what it will support based on bottom-line numbers and a philosophy that says “bums in seats = program success”.

Across Canada and the US, we seem preoccupied with cutting programs that have lower enrolments or those for which there is less financial justification. As a specialist in the integration of business practices and philosophies into higher education management, and in particular, the marketing and management of language programs in Canadian universities, I am saddened when I see this. My own research in this field has shown me that the bottom line is not the only indicator of success in education. In fact, it’s probably one of the least powerful indicators of success of an educational program. Better questions to ask are: What skills are needed by 21st century professionals and leaders? How do we, as educational institutions, ensure that we are building the capacity of our students to set them up for success as global citizens in a digital age?

Language learning programs don’t need to be cut from educational institutions. They need to be updated. Get away from literature-based programs that revolve around faculty interests and focus on the students. It’s time to incorporate real-world language skills that students can carry with them into their future professional and personal lives. Focus on global citizenship, technology, mobile language learning (MALL), and other aspects of learning that actually make sense and are relevant for language learners of today.

If we updated the programs with a focus on making them truly learner centred, rather than focussing on the traditional literature-based programs that reflect the specializations of current or soon-to-retire faculty, then we might be better at engaging our students and increasing our enrolments.

Kudos to the students and all those who signed the petition at U Sask for having the vision to see the benefits of language learning in the 21st century. The challenge goes back to the institution to create relevant programs that keep learners engaged, provide them with real world skills and develop courses that fill the seats because they’re so darned interesting and relevant that students will beat down the doors to get into them.

I encourage you to read the original article and send your own Letter to the Editor to support the continuation and growth of second language programs at Canadian universities!

____________

Share this post: Petition Saves Second Language Programs at University of Saskatchewan – http://wp.me/pNAh3-Ck

Update – January 2018 – This blog has had over 1.8 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada.

Comments Off on Petition Saves Second Language Programs at University of Saskatchewan | education, language program administration, languages, marketing, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D.

The 3 C’s of 21st Century Learning and Leading: Creativity, Collaboration and Capacity-Building

April 13, 2011

What are the skills needed for 21st century leaders? I’d argue that they’re the same skills needed for 21st century students and learners. Why? Because the students and learners of today are not only the leaders of tomorrow, but also the leaders of today. Notions of leadership are changing. The component of leadership that involves wisdom gained through life experience will always rest with those who have more of that experience. But young people are pushing the boundaries of technology and social change. Here are the three skills leaders of today – and tomorrow – need.

Sarah Eaton - blog - iStock photo

Creativity

Leadership today need to be creative problem solvers. The issues that are arising challenge all that we know about the world and how to make it right. Authoritarian or cookie-cutter approaches to problem solving simply won’t work in the 21st century. Even the ability to “think outside the box” won’t be enough. Instead, learners and leaders will need to be able to say, “‘Box? There is no box.”

If you’ve seen the movie, The Matrix, you may remember a scene with the small boy who bends a spoon with nothing more than his mind. When Keanu Reeves’ character, Neo, asks him how he bent the spoon, the boy replies, “There is no spoon”. A similar idea of thinking beyond what we currently know to be possible will be a common characteristic of 21st century leaders. A creative and open mind will drive that ability.

Sarah Eaton - blog - group of children

Collaboration

Young learners and senior leaders alike need to know how to play well with others. We accomplish more when we work together. There needs to be trust, appreciation and a willingness to join forces and collaborate. Phrases such as, “Trust me… just do it my way.” or “Because I’m the boss and I say so!” just won’t cut it in this century.

In this century, everyone has the ability and capacity to be both a follower and a leader. Those who try to exert authority over others without their consent will not only be questioned, they’re likely to be shunned. Learning to appreciate others’ strengths won’t be enough… Learning how to leverage each other’s strengths will be a key to working together, creating new work, solving problems and achieving new goals.

Geographical boundaries have been almost completely transcended in the first decade of this century. In a few more decades, people won’t think twice about working with someone at a distance on a collaborative project. Those who don’t partner and collaborate effectively will be left behind. In a century driven by technology, people skills are – and will continue to be – more important than ever.

Capacity-Building

Twenty-first century leaders will have the ability to look at those around them and help them build their capacity in order to help them grown personally. That growth will add to the organizational growth. In addition to leveraging one’s current strengths, there will be a drive to explore and learn by doing.

This century, more than any other period in history is passionate about – even addicted to – creating new knowledge using technology, to inventing new and visionary projects and making things happen on a large – even global – scale. To do so, a dedication to lifelong learning not only for ourselves, but also for our colleagues, partners and team members will become the norm. Learning in a traditional classroom has already been extended to the Web, to podcasts, to television… Learning, professional development and continuous self-creation will happen almost any place, any time.

Each of us is both a learner and a leader in the 21st century. I, for one, believe in our collective potential and look forward to what we can create together.

____________________

Share this post: The 3 C’s of 21st Century Learning and Leading: Creativity, Collaboration and Capacity-Building http://wp.me/pNAh3-BT

Update – January 2018 – This blog has had over 1.8 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada.

Comments Off on The 3 C’s of 21st Century Learning and Leading: Creativity, Collaboration and Capacity-Building | education, leadership, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D.

“Let Them Build It and It Will Be Amazing”

April 8, 2011

In over 20 years in the education sector, I’ve managed and collaborated with others to develop courses and programs in a variety of ways. Each has their merits. Using the wrong approach can be disastrous.

I was recently hired by a major organization to undertake the development of a new program for them. I thought about how to go about doing this and, because I don’t know them very well, I said, “Look, there are 3 ways we can do this. Here are the options:”

Traditional Approach

Tried and true. Teacher-centered. Deliver as much solid content as possible, to as many people as possible, in the shortest amount of time. Mostly one-way (trainer-to-participant) communication.

This approach is the easiest and in some ways, the most fun (at least for the developer). I develop my goals, objectives and outcomes, build content and deliver it. If I’ve done my job right, someone else can step right in and deliver the content. In the professional training and speaking world, this is called “canned content”. You literally open up the package of materials and feed it to the participants. Or to use another analogy, the program developer is the architect, construction company and interior designer. Once you have finished the job, you invite people in.

I can churn out a job like this on a fairly tight timeline. Because of my own tendency towards perfectionism, no one gets invited to see my work before I’m happy with it. And I’ve been doing this a long time, so I know how to produce quality and do it quickly.

Interactive Approach

This approach allows for increased learner interactivity. Feed them content, and keep them engaged. Allows time at regular intervals for discussion and interaction, rather than “saving all the questions until the end”.

The Interactive Approach, although sometimes cloaked as “learner-centered”, it is really still a “teacher-centered” approach, but does allow participants to ask more questions and permits some lively discussion. The teacher or trainer is very much in control of what happens, how it happens and when it happens. And it’s expected that he or she will maintain control throughout the process.

The teacher needs to know how to keep the discussion on track, cut off those who aren’t moving in the appropriate direction or who take up too much time and generally be an authority figure who guides the process, while building in some flexibility. The program developer is the architect, construction company and may invite others to give input on the final touches, but really, what they say doesn’t change much.

Designing a course like this is much like building a traditional course, except that you build in allowances for interactivity. Over the past 10 years, most of the projects I’ve been involved with have involved this type of project. It allows the client to pay lip service to the notion of learner involvement, without any fundamental changes to how they’ve always done things.

Participatory Capacity-Building Approach

Innovative. Edgy. Highly collaborative and creative. Teacher is replaced by a facilitator who is OK relinquishing some control to participants as they drive the learning process forward.

The Participatory Capacity-Building Approach is likely to be somewhat uncomfortable for participants, since they will be challenged to try new ways of doing things (e.g. using new technologies that they’re not entirely comfortable with). Participants are challenged to be co-creators of new knowledge, as they engage in peer-to-peer-teaching-and-learning. Saying it is an “active learning process” is an understatement.

Essentially, you construct a solid frame. Then you give the learners the tools to build around it, adding to the design, rolling up their sleeves and getting in on the design and doing some of the labour. They then add the final touches. The final product is their work (likely with a few mistakes here and there). In the end, they own it… and they know it. It ends up being a place to call home because they’ve made it themselves.

From a course developer’s point of view, it is highly challenging. The frame you build needs to be rock solid. It needs to make sense to the participants. They must agree to participate, or nothing is built. You have know what tools to give them and show them how to use them (safely) in a short period of time. You must give them guidance on how to protect themselves from distractions and overcome obstacles (such as fear, anxiety and perfectionism). You have to let them know that perfection is not the goal – creation is. You have to let them fail (just a little) and allow them to get up and try again. It requires a facilitator who is comfortable being uncomfortable, who inspires creativity and doesn’t cling to control.

I’ve used this approach with my own classes and internal project staff, but less so with external clients. It’s an uncomfortable place for many organizations. I once thought this approach would be great for a certain client, but when I designed a participatory course for them, they freaked. They said, “We don’t want to build capacity! We just want the frickin’ content!”

I learned my lesson. Since then, I’ve always presented the options. Most clients don’t go for the third option… Too radical… Too uncomfortable.  That is, until recently. A new, highly forward-thinking client, has just said, “Our people do good work. Give us the tools and show us how to build it. I don’t know what we’ll create, but I know it’ll be amazing.”

A leader who believes so deeply in the potential of their people is inspiring and exhilarating to work with.

Let them collaborate (Latin for “work together”).

Let them create something new.

Provide opportunities for them to build their capacity.

Watch them build something amazing.

___________

Share this post: “Let Them Build It and It Will Be Amazing” http://wp.me/pNAh3-BM

Update – January 2018 – This blog has had over 1.8 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada.

2 Comments | education, leadership, teaching, technology, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D.

Breathtaking Impact of Volunteers’ Contribution to Non-formal and Informal Literacy Education in Alberta

March 28, 2011

At the National Metropolis 2011 conference this year in Vancouver, I was part of a panel of experts presenting on Family Literacy and the New Canadian. My paper focused on the research I’ve done on Formal, Non-Formal and Informal Learning: The Case of Literacy, Essential Skills and Language Learning in Canada. I’ll post the entire paper shortly, but for now, I wanted to highlight one bit from it that generated some significant discussion.

My point was that when informal and non-formal learning for literacy and language learning are tracked and recorded, we can better see the impact. The example I gave was that in 2009, Alberta Advanced Education and Training, produced Living Literacy: A Literacy Framework for Alberta’s Next Generation Economy. The 19-page report talks about why literacy matters and outlines priority actions for 2009-2013.

Buried on page 12 of the 19-page report is a gem of information that deserves to be highlighted and explored, which is what I did at my presentation in Vancouver. It states that in Alberta,

“In 2008, 2,000 adults were matched with a volunteer tutor who assisted them with basic reading, writing and/or math. On average, these learners received 39 hours of tutoring. “

So what does this mean?

It means that volunteers collectively spent 78,000 hours assisting adults with literacy in non-formal and informal learning contexts.

78,000 hours. In one year. In one province.

Let’s put this into perspective.

According to the Government of Alberta, the average student will receive 950 to 1000 hours of instruction per year. Let’s look at that number of 1000 hours for a minute.

A student in school gets 1000 hours per year of instruction.

That means, collectively in Alberta, volunteers contributed the equivalent of 78 years of school, in the form of non-formal and informal education, helping other adults to improve their literacy skills.

That’s over three-quarters of a century in the equivalent of school years.

Doesn’t that just take your breath away?

Often when people think of adult non-formal and informal education, they think of developing countries, where formal education is harder to access than in developed nations. But the impact of non-formal and informal education in nations like Canada is significant. The problem is that we don’t track it. At least, not very often. And not very systematically.

What would we discover if every Canadian province, every US state and every developed country tracked the contributions made to language learning and literacy in the way that the Alberta government did in 2008? We’d be blown away by the results.

There’s a big push in the non-profit and education world to capture learner stories. I completely agree with that. But it’s not the whole picture. There’s a saying in evaluation: No numbers without stories; no stories without numbers.

The equivalent of 78 years of schooling, contributed completely by volunteers in one year alone is staggering.

One call to action in my presentation in Vancouver is that we must make a concerted effort to track the number of hours contributed by our volunteers – particularly those working in rural and remote areas – in order to understand the impact of volunteer literacy tutoring programs.

Stay tuned for the whole paper. It’ll be posted on line in a few days.

Related posts:

Formal, non-formal and informal learning: The case of literacy and language learning in Canada

Formal, non-formal and informal education: What Are the Differences?

Formal, Non-formal and Informal Learning: A podcast

Formal, Non-formal and Informal Learning (Infographic) https://wp.me/pNAh3-266

_____________

Share this post: Breathtaking Impact of Volunteers’ Contribution to Non-formal and Informal Literacy Education in Alberta http://wp.me/pNAh3-AK

Update – January 2018 – This blog has had over 1.8 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada.

Comments Off on Breathtaking Impact of Volunteers’ Contribution to Non-formal and Informal Literacy Education in Alberta | education, non-profit, teaching, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D.

Panel Speaker at Metropolis 2011 – Vancouver, British Columbia

March 14, 2011

If you’re in Vancouver, BC, come and join us at the Metropolis 2011: Bringing the World to Canada, March 23-26 at the Sheraton Vancouver Wall Centre.

This National Metropolis Conference focuses on “the role of immigration in connecting Canada with the rest of the world.” Organizers are expecting over 1000 participants from Canada and abroad. The main conference website says:

A recent report by Statistics Canada projects that, by 2031, at least one in four Canadians will have been born in another country. With this remarkable feature of our society as a backdrop, the conference will discuss the scale and nature of Canada’s immigration system and the policies and practices that have emerged to foster the socio-economic inclusion of new Canadians. Immigration and emigration are transforming the populations of most countries, and in this conference we will consider the place of Canada in this global process by asking speakers from elsewhere in the world to explain the migration and integration dynamics of their regions, thereby allowing us to understand better the effects of these trends on Canada.

I’m delighted to be speaking on a panel on Saturday, March 26. Here are the details:

E4 WORKSHOP | ATELIER (English | Anglais) Junior Ballroom D – Level 3 – North Tower | Niveau 3 – Tour Nord

Family Literacy and the New Canadian

This Workshop will bring together a panel of language experts from across Canada that will outline the importance and value of heritage / international languages and illustrate how schools, academics, community organizations and government policies can assist in maintaining and developing the multiple literacies of all Canadians.

Organizer | Organisateur
Bernard Bouska, Canadian Languages Association
Khatoune Temisjian, Québec Heritage Languages Association / Association québécoise des langues d’origine

Participants

Sarah Eaton, University of Calgary
Formal, Non-Formal and Informal Learning: The Case of Literacy, Essential Skills and Language Learning in Canada

Maria Makrakis, TESOL International and International Languages Educators’ Association (ILEA), Ontario
Language and Literacy for New Canadian Families

Constantine Ioannou, Government of Ontario
Ontario Schools and Communities Can Reflect the Languages of our Families

Khatoune Temisjian, Québec Heritage Languages Association / Association québécoise des langues d’origine
Literacy and Heritage/international Languages in Quebec: An Overview

Michael Embaie, Southern Alberta Heritage Languages Association (SAHLA)
Successful Implementation of Heritage / International Language Programs in Canada: Selected Strategies and Case-Studies

Chair | Modérateur
Marisa Romilly, Society For The Advancement of International Languages (SAIL British Columbia)

Discussant | Commentateur
Bernard Bouska, Canadian Languages Association

If you’re planning to attend the conference, please come and join us at the session!

_________________________

Share this post: Panel Speaker at the Metropolis Conference 2011 – Vancouver, British Columbia http://wp.me/pNAh3-A4

Update – January 2018 – This blog has had over 1.8 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada.

Comments Off on Panel Speaker at Metropolis 2011 – Vancouver, British Columbia | Literacy, Multiculturalism, research, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D.

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »