The Common European Framework and Language Teaching Policy in Mexican Public Higher Education

Orencio Francisco Brambila-Rojo, Mexico

Mr. Brambila-Rojo is a French teacher and candidate for the PhD in Linguistics. He has written a book and some papers about methodology for Vernacular Languages Teaching, Language Planning and the Role of Languages in Higher Education. From 2003 to 2007 he was member of a Special Commission ordered to make a diagnosis on the situation of Languages Teaching at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, (UNAM). E-mail: bramtam@prodigy.net.mx

Menu

Introduction
Background: Teaching Languages in Public Higher Education
Examples: Diversity - A Case of Study
The Need for Standards
Choosing a Standard
Conclusions
References
Websites

Introduction

Language teaching in Mexican universities has its origins since the creation of the Real y Pontificia Universidad de Mexico in 1551 (predecessor to the Autonomous National University of Mexico, UNAM). Then, courses about Latin, Spanish, Mexican language (Nahuatl), Italian and French were included in the curriculum (Álvarez, 1989). At the time, language learning was synonymous to grammar analysis; aims were to translate classical literary or philosophical texts and to successfully apply Latin grammar rules. Later, following the tradition to teach to translate texts and to apply grammar rules, some professors trained in foreign universities helped its students to translate certain texts considered important. Little by little, this practice rooted and later became a necessity. Finally, it became a condition to obtain different academic degrees at UNAM (In Fact, certain curricula still indicate that students must translate from one or two foreign languages). In some Faculties, languages teachers were contracted to help students to develop more ample linguistic skills. Thus, language teaching was dispersed in different Faculties for long time. Later, the public universities created in each of the Mexican States followed more or less the same way.

In 1966, the UNAM created the Foreign Language Center (CELE) with the purpose of reverting the institutional dispersion in foreign languages teaching, and to elevate its efficiency enabling students in their practical use. Throughout the time, CELE became the reference in language teaching, in language testing and certification, in teacher training, professional update and in research. Recently, new academic groups in certain institutions show dynamic activity innovating curricula and teaching methodology.

During the sixties and seventies, demand for higher education in Mexico was growing very fast. Federal and state governments founded Institutes and Universities across the country. Actually, options are very large and diversified, although, they are still far behind in covering demand. Each educative option arose with its specific curricular requirements on foreign language knowledge. Nevertheless, the reading skill is the most frequent requirement in curricula. On other side, some institutions offer courses where the focus is on practical and correct oral use of languages, including cultural and educational aims. Thus, foreign language teaching in Mexico became a complex area with two central challenges: To help students satisfy the institutional requirement for language knowledge and to consolidate itself as an academic domain where it assumes the substantial tasks of Mexican public universities, which are teaching itself, academic research and cultural dissemination.

Background: Teaching Languages in Public Higher Education

Public universities and techs form the largest system of higher education in Mexico. In fact, private institutions do not cover even 30% of total demand (Luego, 2003). In the last twenty years, this system has included new curricula as Technological Universities (67 institutions with two year programs of studies in technical domains) and Intercultural Universities (7 institutions for indigenous students). These universities have been added to 110 institutes and centers of technological education, 73 campuses of the National Pedagogical University (UPN), 178 Normal Schools, 30 State Universities, three Autonomous Agricultural Universities, 12 Art Schools, two Anthropology Schools, a Restoration School, a School of Physical Education and Athletes, the Autonomous Mexico City University (UACM), the National Polytechnic Institute (IPN), Autonomous Metropolitan University and UNAM (with campuses in Canada, the USA and across Mexico).

Due to its accelerated growth, higher education in Mexico is very unequal, as much as in facilities, as in equipment, financing, and consequently in quality. With regard to language teaching, there is an enormous difference between the great language centers in Mexico City, the modest schools, departments and programs in the provinces, and those isolated teachers giving courses without adequate facilities.

If variety of facilities is evident; the diversity of institutional aims in languages teaching are higher. On one hand, students of literature, interpretation, translation, communication, foreign affairs or diplomacy reach frequently high linguistic and communicative competences and obtain foreign certifications such as TOEFL, Cambridge University Diplomas, DELF, DALF, etcetera. These students use their abilities as access to professional world and not as a purpose in itself.

On the other hand, students of engineering, medicine, chemistry or dentistry are obligated to demonstrate minimal skills in understanding academic texts but not in communicating authentically. Institutional conditions could require a reading comprehension or translation exam. In some cases the requirement is an "English exam". The intercultural values attached to language learning do not seem to be appreciated by these students. Finally, many students take language courses due to institutional requirements. It is in this context where languages such as Japanese, Hebrew and Russian are taught. These factors and others cause a rich production of curricula, certifications and didactic resources. In spite of this, the reach of objectives is prevented not only by incompatibility but incoherence into different modalities and levels. For example, a student successfully taking English courses in secondary school (360 hours), then high school (360 hours), and two or three obligatory reading comprehension courses (240 hours) for a bachelor degree is incapable of fluent expression. This student could be ranked as false beginner in a four skills program.

Examples: Diversity - A Case of Study

The biggest university supplies a good example of the lack of common references in language courses. At UNAM 117,997 students take English courses annually in 23 academic entities. There, it offers three kind of courses: four skills courses (reading, listening, speaking, writing, grammar and cultural aspects), reading comprehension courses (scanning and skimming activities, extract specific information, analysis of text structure) and courses for specific purposes (preparing TOEFL, IELTS, Cambridge ESOL; conversation courses, pronunciation, etcetera). Every Faculty or Center has its own curriculum and certifies independently with their own diplomas, attestations or score reports. In some cases, studies are not certified. Thus, a diploma certifying English (four skills) could refer to as few as 160 or as much as 840 hours of instruction. The next table shows the total number of instruction hours in English per academic entity for reading comprehension and four skills courses.

The specific competences developed, or equivalencies with the other programs, are never specified.

The Need for Standards

The previous example explains why students have problems clearly knowing their own performance in English and why they are bad ranked when they pass from high school to the bachelor's level or when, being university students, frequent languages programs in another academic entity. Institutionally, there are not any clear criteria to define modality and level required in each curriculum. Student problems increase when, doing a bachelor in a university or tech, they take a master or a doctorate in another institution. In this context, certificates as the TOEFL, IELTS, or Cambridge ESOL do not receive validation for academic credit.

It has been said that diversity is true wealth. I would add that it is certain as long as it does not prevent the student's personal and professional development. Additionally, we must remember that education in 21st century signifies confronting a more and more complex global world. Adequate higher education must offer solid education exceeding the purview of any one professional discipline including abilities, values, reasoning and critical thought as much in professional activities as in continuous education throughout life. In this context, it is necessary to reframe language teaching in higher education in Mexico with common operative and operational policies. The goal must be to offer foreign language education going beyond pure linguistic programs, enabling students to interact with native speakers in conditions of equality, conscientious of their own identity. A pertinent language education must prepare students sensitive to the differences between foreign and their own language-culture. Any new language education must enable students to perform in foreign language professionally in international contexts. Finally, to learn a language would have to create an interest in continuing education.

Choosing a Standard

In order to create common educative references in language teaching, there are two basic documents with broad international consensus: the Common European Framework of Reference for Language (CEFR, 2001) and the American Standards for Foreign Languages Learning: Preparing for the 21^st Century (1998). It is also useful to consider the European Language Portfolio and the Standard Language Passport.

The CEFR is a comprehensive document which describes the competences necessary for communication in foreign languages, the related knowledge and skills, and the situations and domains of communication. The CEFR could be of particular interest in Mexican higher education to course designers, textbook writers, testers, teachers and teacher trainers (in fact to all who are directly involved in language teaching and testing). It facilitates a clear definition of teaching and learning objectives and methods and provides the necessary tools for assessment of proficiency. The CEFR has become an international key reference document and valuable tool for educational and professional mobility. It offers several advantages to the complex panorama of the languages teaching in Mexico: Oriented to communicative action, it allows establishing common reference points between curricula. On the other hand, CEFR allows planning for a more integral teaching of language. For the reason that the language levels are not separated of communicative and cultural components, it is possible to include more pertinent goals in each academic context. For example, a better access to the information, a more intense personal interaction, or the establishment of an intercultural dialogue promoting a deeper mutual understanding. This is especially important for Mexican institutions because their institutional requirements are oriented to the development of professional abilities and value formation and not only to obtain a linguistic level

Conclusions

Therefore, recently certain research groups in Mexico (principally UAM and UNAM) are updating their curricula, looking for modalities and levels covering the institutional requirements. At the same time, they relate their local necessities to the international context.

This is the beginning of a long road that requires the participation of many institutions and coordination at national level -- which is currently nonexistent. Such coordination could help improve the quality of the higher education in Mexico, through diagnoses of the institutional programs. It could have to promote inter-institutional collaboration in evaluation of curricula that results are used in institutional decision-making. So, there is a long way to go.

References

Allen, L. 2002. "Teachers' Pedagogical Beliefs and the Standards for Foreign Language Learning", in Foreign Language Annals. 35:5. Pp: 518-529.

Álvarez, E., O. Brambila-Rojo, A. García, et al. 1989. La Enseñanza del francés en las escuelas secundarias diurnas; diagnóstico, análisis y perspectivas. Reporte Técnico AMIFRAM, A.C. México.

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language. 1999. "Standards For Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century", in www.actfl.org/files/public/execsumm.pdf

Brambila-Rojo, O., C. Tamayo. 1997. "La Enseñanza de Lenguas y su Papel en la Universidad", in Colección Dialógica. FES-Zaragoza, UNAM. Mexico.

Brambila-Rojo. O. 2003. "L' Enseignement de Langues au Moment de la Globalisation-Mondialisation", en P. Ducoing (ed). L' Éducation au Moment de la Globalisation-Mondialisation. AFIRSE_CESU-UNAM. México. Pp: 555-560.

Comisión Especial de Lenguas Extranjeras. En Prensa. La enseñanza de Lenguas en la UNAM. Consejo Académico del Área de las Humanidades y de las Artes UNAM. México.

Consejo de Europa. 2002. Marco común europeo de referencia para las lenguas; aprendizaje, enseñanza, evaluación. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte/Grupo Anaya/Instituto Cervantes. Madrid.

Delors, J. 1996. La educación encierra un tesoro. Colección Educación y Cultura para el Nuevo Milenio. UNESCO. México.

García, L., R. Terborg. 2002. "¿Ha Cambiado el Panorama de Lenguas Extranjeras en México desde la Entrada en Vigor del Tratado de Libre Comercio?", en Memorias del Coloquio Pan-Americano Indústrias Culturais e o Diálogo das Civilizações das Américas. Montreal 22-24 abril. www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/gricis/actes/panam/GarciaPa.pdf

Herrera, M. E. 2006. "La Enseñanza de Lenguas Extranjeras en el CELE de la UNAM", in Reencuentros No. 47. Pp: 9-16.

Lee, M. 1994. "Reflexiones sobre Docencia Transcultural", en Perfiles Educativos No. 66.

Lee, M., J. Vivaldo, T. Flores, et al. 2006. "Directrices para el Diseño Curricular en la Enseñanza del Inglés en el Siglo XXI", in Reencuentros No. 47. Pp: 17-22.

Lee, M., J. Vivaldo, T. Flores, et al. 2007. Programa de enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras; Un currículum interdisciplinario e intercultural. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Iztapalapa. Mexico.

Lotherington, H. 2004. "Review: Teaching English as an International Language", in ELT Journal 58: Pp: 78-80.

Luego, E. 2003. "Tendencias en la Educación Superior en México: Una Lectura desde la Perspectiva de la Complejidad", in Seminario sobre Reformas de la Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe, realizado el 5 y 6 de junio del 2003, en Bogotá, Colombia, bajo los auspicios del Instituto Internacional de la UNESCO para la Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe (IESACC) y la Asociación Colombiana de Universidades (ASCUN).

Mendoza, F. "Las Intenciones Comunicativas: Problemática de su Descripción y Presentación con Fines Docentes", in
www.mextesoldf.upn.mx/doc/mendoza-lasintencionescomunicativas.doc

Pegliai, P. 2004. "Enseñar y Aprender Lenguas Extranjeras en México", in Perspectivas Docentes No. 28. Pp: 52-68.

Phillips, J., J. Hall, D. Lange et al. 1998. Foreign Language Standards: Linking Research, Theories, and Practices. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language. McGraw-Hill College. Terborg, R., V. Velazquez. 2005. "Enseñanza de Lenguas y su Impacto en la Ecología Lingüística", in Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada 23:41. Pp: 39-54.

UNESCO. 2003. "Education in Multilingual World; Guidelines on Language and Education". Education Position Papers. Paris. In www.unesco.org/education

Websites

Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior
www.anuies.mx/la_anuies/afiliadas.php

Coordinación General de Universidades Tecnológicas.
cgut.sep.gob.mx/cgut/CONTENIDO.HTM

Dirección General de Educación Superior Tecnológica
www.dgest.gob.mx/portal/index.php?option=com_joomap&Itemid=56

Universidad Pedagógica Nacional
www.upn.mx/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=46

Red de Universidades Interculturales
www.redui.org.mx

Please check the Teaching Advanced Students course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the CLIL - Teaching Other Subject Through English course at Pilgrims website.