Toward a framework for heritage learner service learning in languages for specific purposes

The Spanish subjunctive has been known to pose difficulties for learners of Spanish whose native language is English (e.g., Collentine, 1997, 2003; Terrell, Baycroft, & Perrone, 1987). Investigating the same feature in heritage learners of Spanish can provide more information about the linguistic development of this growing population. This pilot study compared heritage and foreign language (FL) learners' ability to recognize native-like and nonnative-like mood choice in volitional constructions. Students enrolled in heritage and traditional FL Spanish courses at 3 universities in the Northeast completed a grammaticality judgment (GJ) task and an editing task, which contained examples of indicative, infinitive, and subjunctive use in volitional constructions. Heritage learners scored significantly higher on average than their FL peers on the editing, GJ, and combined (editing and GJ) tasks. These results suggest that home and community exposure play an important role in subjunctive acquisition and that instruction should be tailored to heritage learners' abilities.

The historical exclusion of Latin@ students on university campuses is noted through the lack of diversity in higher education curricula, services, and organizations. The absence of appropriate support systems for Latin@ students is one of the main contributors to high attrition rates among this group as students often feel that they must choose between their cultural community and university community (Arellano & Padilla, 1996; Gloria & Pope-Davis, 1997). In order to remedy disparities between Latin@ students’ heritage culture and the European-based curricular structure of higher education in the United States, it has been suggested that educators build an academic community that is representative of diversity found in our community as a whole (Gloria, 1997; Pedraza & Rivera, 2006). To this end, educators must be engaged in culturally responsive teaching (Boykin, 1994; Gay, 2010) that acknowledges Latin@ students’ cultural background and reinforces their place in university settings (Diner, 1989; Pappamihiel & Moreno, 2011). Service-learning (SL) is an increasingly popular approach to second language education that can lead to culturally responsive teaching as it invites instructors to facilitate a democratic teaching process that allows students to use their past experiences and future goals to help design course curriculum (Abbott & Lear, 2010). However, most approaches to language-based SL focus on outsourcing L2 students to the same minority-language communities in which many HLs are reared (Barreneche & Ramos-Flores, 2013) and thus lose appeal for HL students. The current study provides an alternative to traditional language-based SL programs as it was designed to acquaint HLs with the academic communities from which they have been historically excluded. The SL project was part of an advanced Spanish for the Professions course that required students to create and broadcast campus radio programs. This initiative drew upon HLs’ familiarity with popular nationally-broadcasted Spanish radio programs and used said programs as a model to create/broadcast local Spanish-language radio programs for their campus community. Preliminary findings suggest that the HLs involved in the creation of the Spanish-language radio program experienced a greater sense of belonging in their academic community. The program became a platform from which Latin@ students could establish a presence on campus, voice immediate concerns, and learn skills that prepare them for a career in mass-media. Through this experience, HLs also began to understand their role in creating and maintaining spaces for underrepresented university members. Latin@ radio listeners expressed feelings of validation as topics related to their lives and experiences were broadcast in a university setting.

Within the integration of technology into language education, special attention needs to be paid to languages for specific purposes (LSP), drawing on developments in computer‐assisted language learning and applied linguistics, on the one hand, and on the pervasive use of technology in academic and professional communication, on the other. From a definition of LSP centered on learner need, specificity of activities and materials, and teacher and learner profiles, this article examines how technology has transformed LSP teaching and learning. Through technology, LSP teachers and researchers can access discipline‐specific materials and situations and compile corpora of specialized texts. Computer‐mediated communication provides learning tools and a gateway to the discourse community. Technology also provides opportunities for collaborating, creating virtual environments and online courses, and fostering learner autonomy. These applications are examined within the current LSP scenario, paying attention to conditions and challenges for implementation, as well as to the roles of teachers and learners. This article also points to areas that merit further analysis from an LSP perspective, such as the use of different technologies and modes for effective learning, the analysis of specialized texts, and the integration into LSP of emerging technologies that have made their way into social uses.

Reviewed by: Brave New Digital Classroom: Technology and Foreign Language Learning by Robert J. Blake Raquel Oxford Blake, Robert J . Brave New Digital Classroom: Technology and Foreign Language Learning. 2nd ed. Washington, DC : Georgetown UP , 2013 . Pp 222 . ISBN 978-1-58901-976-8 Technology integration in teaching and learning is an area of concern, interest, and discovery for many educators and administrators at all levels for multiple reasons, from enrollment management to enhanced learner engagement. The field of language learning is no exception, and guidance for those willing to explore various technologies is desirable. In this second edition of Brave New Digital Classroom: Technology and Foreign Language Learning, in eight reader-friendly chapters—each conclude with discussion questions and activities and a glossary sufficient for both the novice and more advanced reader—Robert Blake adeptly presents the case for anchoring implementation of various technologies on a strong foundation of principles of language acquisition. In chapter 1, “Second Language Acquisition, Language Teaching, and Technology,” Blake begins an exploration and delineation of how technology meshes with tenets of second language acquisition and within language learning contexts. The groundwork is set to emphasize that it is the learning—not the technology—that should drive the design for curriculum and instruction. Myth busting of four myths about technology and second language acquisition also sets the tone for inquiry and thoughtful implementation of technology with a purpose. The author addresses perhaps the most daunting challenge for those interested in technology integration in the absence of a strong language lab staff or university instructional technology services, the need for continuing education with the ever-changing landscape of new technologies. Blake seems ever mindful of the need to encourage appropriate technology use, as the title of chapter 2 suggests, “Web Pages in Service of L2 Learning.” Again, technology is in service of learning. A brief history, along with basic functioning, of the Internet is presented with preliminary thoughts on the pitfalls of simply superimposing technology on traditional grammar-driven pedagogy. The author leads to a more collaborative, student-centered approach with task-based instruction (TBI), but the generic formula he presents as a suggested procedure to start building a web-supported learning environment may itself be daunting to some neophytes to either the technology or TBI. A natural progression follows as Blake moves to chapter 3, “CALL and Its Evaluation: Programs and Apps.” The author starts with a history of the original computer-assisted language instruction (CALI) and moves to computer-assisted language learning (CALL), which as a “paradigm assumes that students bring certain schema to the learning process” (52). A table summarizing the stages of structural CALL in the 1970s and 1980s, communicative CALL in [End Page 701] the 1980s and 1990s, and the integrative CALL of the twenty-first century includes technology type, teaching paradigm, view of language, principal use of computers, and principal objective, in order to graphically show the evolution of CALL. Another key point is the desirability to be able to evaluate CALL; Blake shares the complexity of the task since such “may examine design, procedures, approaches or a combination of all of these factors” (71). Communication is a central component of language learning and earns singular focus in chapter 4, “Computer-Mediated Communication.” Blake begins with the ubiquitous nod to interactionist practices fundamental to SLA theories and makes an excellent presentation and synthesis of research, weaving together theory and practice, minus a somewhat lengthy inclusion of a case study of bimodal synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC). Even as he advocates for use of certain technologies, the author is honest about limitations and difficulties that both instructors and students may encounter when using such. In chapter 5, “Theory in Practice: Putting It All Together,” Blake recaps the pedagogical threads that should guide the integration of technology into the FL curriculum: multiple technological entry points . . . ; theory-driven applications of new technologies, not just for the sake of the use of any specific digital tool; student-centered classrooms; interactivity, agency, and students as co-producers of technologically enhanced materials; and pursuit of a third place in the quest for bilingualism and the development of intercultural communicative competence. (109) The author once more builds...

This introduction will provide a thematic overview of the major issues raised byGrosse and Voght (1991), “The Evolution of Languages for Specific Purposes in the United States,” and the contributions in this Focus Issue that address those issues from a 2011 perspective. It will also explore contemporary (largely praxis‐oriented) languages for specific purposes (LSP) in the United States within a global LSP context that has historically evidenced strong connections between theory and practice. Points of comparison between LSP practiced in the United States and abroad include the rationale for LSP, curricula/programs innovations, professional infrastructure, researchers/practitioners, theoretical bases for research, and research topics and outlets for publication. Then follows a discussion of the challenges to LSP research (e.g., establishing norms of various workplace interactions, data collection, creation of assessment tools, lack of LSP practitioners and researchers with second language acquisiton [SLA] training), and future directions for the growth of LSP as an interdiscipline in the United States and for SLA and foreign language pedagogical research that would utilize data from LSP classroom and experiential settings in both domestic and international contexts. The introduction concludes with a discussion of LSP and community service learning as preparation for the workforce and for lifelong language learning.

Contents: Introduction. Part I: Important Social Contexts in Research on Second Language Teaching and Learning. Introduction. M.E. Brisk, Bilingual Education. M.R. Hawkins, ESL in Elementary Education. P.A. Duff, ESL in Secondary Schools: Programs, Problematics, and Possibilities. D.E. Murray, ESL in Adult Education. S. Carkin, English for Academic Purposes. P. Master, English for Specific Purposes. C. Roberts, English in the Workplace. B. Tomlinson, English as a Foreign Language: Matching Procedures to the Context of Learning. Y. Kachru, Teaching and Learning of World Englishes. Part II: Methods in Second Language Research. Introduction. L. Harklau, Ethnography and Ethnographic Research on Second Language Teaching and Learning. L. van Lier, Case Study. A. Lazaraton, Quantitative Research Methods. D. Nunan, Classroom Research. A. Burns, Action Research. Part III: Applied Linguistics and Second Language Research. Introduction. T. Pica, Second Language Acquisition Research and Applied Linguistics. S.L. McKay, Sociolinguistics and Second Language Learning. J. Zuengler, K.M. Cole, Language Socialization and Second Language Learning. G. Kasper, C. Roever, Pragmatics in Second Language Learning. J.P. Lantolf, Sociocultural and Second Language Learning Research: An Exegesis. N. Markee, Conversation Analysis for Second Language Acquisition. R.B. Kaplan, Contrastive Rhetoric. S. Conrad, Corpus Linguistics and L2 Teaching. Part IV: Second Language Processes and Development. Introduction. G. Ioup, Age in Second Language Development. R. DeKeyser, A. Juffs, Cognitive Considerations in L2 Learning. Z. Han, L. Selinker, Fossilization in L2 Learners. M. Swain, The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research. E. Tarone, Speaking in a Second Language. M. Rost, L2 Listening. T.G. Wiley, Second Language Literacy and Biliteracy. P. Byrd, Instructed Grammar. D.E. Eskey, Reading in a Second Language. I.S.P. Nation, Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. J.S. Hedgcock, Taking Stock of Research and Pedagogy in L2 Writing. E. Hinkel, Analyses of Second Language Text and What Can Be Learned From Them. Part V: Methods and Curricula in Second Language Teaching. Introduction. S.J. Savignon, Communicative Language Teaching: Strategies and Goals. S. Fotos, Traditional and Grammar Translation Methods for Second Language Teaching. J. Williams, Form-Focused Instruction. M.A. Snow, A Model of Academic Literacy for Integrated Language and Content Instruction. R. Ellis, Instructed Language Learning and Task-Based Teaching. M. Celce-Murcia, E. Olshtain, Discourse-Based Approaches: A New Framework for Second Language Teaching and Learning. C.A. Chapelle, Computer-Assisted Language Learning. N.J. Anderson, L2 Learning Strategies. Part VI: Second Language Testing and Assessment. T. McNamara, Introduction. A.J. Kunnan, Language Assessment From a Wider Context. A. Davies, C. Elder, Validity and Validation in Language Testing. M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. Deville, A Look Back at and Forward to What Language Testers Measure. T. Lumley, A. Brown, Research Methods in Language Testing. D. Douglas, Testing Languages for Specific Purposes. C. Leung, Classroom Teacher Assessment of Second Language Development: Construct as Practice. Part VII: Identity, Culture, and Critical Pedagogy in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Introduction. T. Ricento, Considerations of Identity in L2 Learning. M. Byram, A. Feng, Teaching and Researching Intercultural Competence. S. Canagarajah, Critical Pedagogy in L2 Learning and Teaching. Part VIII: Language Planning and Policy and Language Rights. R.B. Baldauf, Jr., Introduction. R.B. Baldauf, Jr., Language Planning and Policy Research: An Overview. T. van Els, Status Planning for Learning and Teaching. A.J. Liddicoat, Corpus Planning: Syllabus and Materials Development. R.B. Baldauf, Jr., R.B. Kaplan, Language-in-Education Planning. D.E. Ager, Prestige and Image Planning. S. May, Language Planning and Minority Language Rights.

Translation has been excluded from the language classroom for many years due to the fact that new methodologies helped avoid the use of the mother tongue in the classroom at levels other than the initial stages of learning. This study is based on the assumption that the pedagogical use of translation L1-L2 in an LSP (Language for Specific Purposes) course can have a relevant role in L2 learning. The analysis examines to what extent translation activities consisting of short sentences designed by the teacher can be a valid tool to improve the writing skills of two LSP groups of upper-intermediate level students: English native speakers who study Spanish as a second language and Spanish learners of English. These short sentences are aimed at learning the use of the article for generic reference and technical vocabulary in the field of computer science, which generally poses problems for this type of learners. An initial writing test and a final one together with an initial and final questionnaire designed accordingly show that translation can be a perfect tool to improve writing skills and that current LSP students value these tasks very positively. The comparison of the two groups of learners highlights the syntactic and lexical interferences each group experiences depending on their L1.

With the recent influx of immigrants from Chinese speaking regions to all over the world, in many countries there now exist a noticeable Chinese community. Within these overseas Chinese communities there emerge great needs to maintain the Chinese language and culture among the younger generations and accordingly there emerges a new type of learner who are ethnically Chinese and have some competence in Chinese yet still needs to learn the language systematically. When these learners go to the classroom to study the Chinese language, they are often treated the same as the traditional foreign language learners of Chinese, and their unique characteristics and learning needs are often ignored. The current article aims to provide an insight into the understanding of this new type of learner of the Chinese language. Adopting the term ‘heritage language learners’ to classify this new type of learner, the article starts with a discuss of how ‘heritage language’ and ‘heritage language learners’ are defined in literature, and then elaborates the general characteristics of HL learners that have be reported by previous research on heritage learners of various other languages. Based on this background knowledge, the specific challenges existing in the learning of Chinese as a heritage language are then discussed and the characteristics of Chinese heritage learners presented. Finally some existing research gaps in the research of Chinese heritage language learners are discussed.

The study of vocabulary and language for specific purposes (LSP) includes vocabulary in areas such as English for academic purposes, occupational purposes, and professional purposes. This vocabulary is important because it is linked to learners' language learning needs, specialized knowledge, and goals. Research suggests that up to one word in three in a specialized text is technical. The first half of this entry examines recent research into vocabulary for English for special purposes by describing this vocabulary, specialized and bilingual word lists, and analysis of spoken corpora, and multiword units. The second section focuses on LSP vocabulary in teaching and learning based on I. S. P. Nation's conception of learners' needs. It describes learners' use of tools to develop their own banks of specialized vocabulary, online resources and approaches available to teachers and learners, and specialized dictionaries for teaching and learning.

Language for Specific Purposes (LSP) has a long history in language teaching and learning. I describe the origins of LSP in the context of the paradigm shift towards learner-centred teaching in the 1970s and 1980s and the emergence of various perspectives on how ‘specific purposes’ can be defined. I discuss the definition of specific language sub-sets by focusing on the target situation and the practices of needs analysis for LSP curriculum design. I also outline in detail the research project on which the book is based. The study includes document analysis, teacher trainer interviews, teacher questionnaires and classroom observations. The rich data set lends weight to the arguments outlined in this book by giving relatable and insightful examples of the phenomena discussed.

This comprehensive gem of a book is designed as a “textbook… intended for courses for prospective and in-service KFL teachers” (p. x). The book consistently combines theory and research with elements of practical application in each of its eight well-planned, thoughtfully discussed chapters that center on the following “key issues”: SLA (Second Language Acquisition), pedagogy, language in use, culture, heritage language learners, literacy and multiliteracies, assessment, and program building. These eight chapters collectively constitute Part I of the volume. Each chapter provides a basic overview of the topic, cites selected prior literature and research central to that topic, specifies with concrete illustrations how such issues emerge in the Korean as a Second Language classroom, and concludes with between five and 12 discussion questions, designed to encourage readers to: synthesize the contents and importance of each chapter, imagine themselves in the topic-specific contexts of learning and teaching, and expand their critical understanding of the chapter beyond the specific details provided therein. Part II is a robust assemblage and review of 524 research pieces (495 peer-reviewed journal articles and 29 doctoral dissertations), organized according to the focus areas of each of the eight chapters in Part I. The full volume showcases the academic expertise and practical experience of 18 contributors, all of whom are deeply involved in and committed to Korean language pedagogy, theory, and research, from such fields as linguistics, applied linguistics, literature, culture, civilization, and intercultural communication.Chapter 1 (Kim) provides a historical overview of the field of SLA, in general terms, but more specifically in relation to theories, approaches, and factors related to the teaching and learning of Korean as a Second Language (e.g., L1 influences in developmental sequence of grammatical forms and phonological (dis)similarities, implicit vs. explicit instruction, etc.). The chapter sets the groundwork by appealing to the classic SLA literature, including Kellerman (1979) and Krashen (1982), and building toward more current theories (e.g., Ortega, 2007; Spada & Tomita, 2010; White, 2007), and offers a wide range of application to multiple areas of Korean SLA (e.g., Ahn, 2015; Jeon, 2004; Kim H-Y, 2012; Lee, 2012).Chapter 2 (Park, Choi, and Ko) provides a view into the theoretical backgrounds and implementation of various Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) methodologies, focusing the discussion on where and how each approach is currently being applied in Korean language education programs. In this review of task-based language teaching, content-based instruction, and technology-enhanced language instruction methodologies, the reader finds an overview of current approaches in the field of Korean language education (e.g., Cheon, 2007; Kim, Choi, Yun, Kim, & Choi, 2020; Kong, 2012; Lim & Lee, 2015; Noji, Yuen, & Yuen, 2012; Roh & Kim, 2019).Chapter 3 (Kim and Yoon) reviews how “linguistic, pragmatic and interactional” features of Korean are used in “managing topic and reference” for coherent communication (e.g., Kim, 1999; Kim H-Y, 2012; Oh, 2007), “organizing discourse” according to interactional goals (e.g., Hwang, 2015), and “performing social actions” in terms of both speech act and stance expression (e.g., Kim, 2020; Lee, 1999; Park, 1999; Yoon, 2019). These patterns of usage are linked to a speaker's interactive competence (Young, 2008; Hall & Pekarek Doehler, 2011), and activity ideas for Korean language classes are included.Chapter 4 (Brown and Yoon) complexifies issues of culture in relation to language teaching, by first underscoring the assumed primacy of grammar in both SLA and language pedagogy. The authors propose multiple perspectives on “culture” and the multivariate ways in which culture is defined and discussed (Byram, 2008; Herron, Cole, Corrie, & Dubreil, 1999; Walker, 2000). Supplementing the more traditional, pragmatically grounded explanations of Korean society and culture, the authors also address issues of identity (“Korean adoptee returnees,” Higgins & Stoker, 2011) and note the use of media-based materials (advertisements) and pop culture, as resources for language-culture content, while also pointing out drawbacks of how culture is introduced and taught in Korean textbooks (Choo, 1999; Ree, 2000).Chapter 5 (Kim) reviews the characteristics of Korean heritage learners in terms of error types and cognition of language processing as compared to those found in L2 learners and bilingual Korean-English speakers (e.g., Kim, 2008; Kim H, 2012). Through this discussion, heritage learners' unique learner profiles are explained by their tendencies of attending to (Zyzik, 2016) and noticing (Schmidt, 1990) language patterns, which are informed by their background knowledge (Gass, 1988, p. 201) and history of Korean language input. Implications of these findings on Korean Heritage Language education are suggested in terms of concrete teaching approaches, feedback methods, and subject matter.Chapter 6 (Suh and Jung) centers on literacy and multiliteracies as conceptualized in the Korean L2 classroom. The authors underscore the fact that literacy extends far beyond reading, writing, and orthography in all L2 education. Rather, literacy and multiliteracies are grounded in the various layers of meaning within texts (explicit, implicit, and cultural). Literacy practices are also related to critical thinking, in the sense that texts are imbued with multiple voices and perspectives that are then decoded and subsequently appropriated by language learners. Crucially, the chapter underscores the robust ways in which literacy is social action (Kim, 2018), as enacted in TV dramas (Lee-Smith & Roh, 2016), Public Service Announcements (PSAs) (Lee-Smith, 2016), peer review in composition assignments (Byon, 2005), and overall writing skill development.Chapter 7 (Shin and Lee) considers timely issues in both standardized and classroom-based assessments of Korean language. An overview of standardized assessments particularly focuses on the contexts and limitations of prominent Korean language exams. The discussion of classroom assessments points out essential considerations such as the distinct needs of heritage versus nonheritage learners (Brinton, Kagan, & Bauckus, 2008; Cho & Chun, 2015; Kondo-Brown, 2005; Lee & Kim, 2008; Sohn & Shin, 2007; 손성옥, 2005) and the alignment of assessments with classroom instruction content (Norris, 2016). The creation of criterion-referenced tests for achievement assessments is suggested, and a framework for such assessments is described in detail (Davidson & Lynch, 2002). Finally, helpful guidelines are put forth for the creation of achievement assessments that mirror actual language usage as closely as possible, and alternative forms of assessment are also described.Chapter 8 (Yu Cho, Lee, and Wang) lays out the history and development of Korean language programs in higher education and at K-12 levels, underscoring such factors as the National Standards for Korean Language Education and the invaluable support by the Korea Foundation. The authors provide an overview of the various Korean language programs in North America, while illustrating the current Korean as a foreign language (KFL) faculty profiles and discussing the various types of professional development opportunities for preservice and in-service KFL teachers and their importance to continued growth and success (Im, Suh, Jung, Shin, & Choi, 2013; Kim, 2017). At the heart of successful Korean language programs are the KFL instructors.Part II of this volume is an extensive and detailed annotated bibliography consisting of 524 research pieces, of which 495 are peer-reviewed journal articles and 29 are doctoral dissertations. The journal articles were culled from 35 major journals that specialize in foreign language pedagogy, each of which has published at least one article on Korean foreign language education in English. Of these, 21 were published in North America and 14 in South Korea. Part II opens with a quantitative summary of relevant KFL-related research topics from the past 2.5 decades, a qualitative compilation of topic-based research trends, a brief discussion on the evolution of scholarship in Korean as a Heritage Language, and a summary of more recent research trends in KFL scholarship more generally. Following this introduction, the actual annotations to relevant research articles and dissertation appear in the same order and under the same headings as the chapter headings for the eight chapters in Part I. The annotated bibliography is designed as a “useful and ready-to-use resource” (p. 206).One drawback to the annotated bibliography is that the authors have designedly excluded such academic publications as “book chapters” (and thus also full book-length publications) because they are “not easily downloadable from online databases.” This focus may skew both the overall findings as well as the summaries of research trends, since much seminal research on Korean, Korean applied linguistics, Korean pragmatics, Korean language pedagogy, socialization, and so forth (written in English) also appears as chapters in important edited volumes, including the full series of Japanese-Korean Linguistics and the full series of conference proceedings from International Circle of Korean Linguistics (ICKL).Overall, this book is a welcome addition to the growing body of publications on Korean language pedagogy and professional development that serves multiple purposes: It is an invaluable resource for classic and more recent theoretical trends in linguistics, applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, literacy, multiliteracies, and language socialization.It provides insights into critical topics related to KFL issues and how such issues have been investigated and analyzed.It provides practical, concrete examples for potential application in the KFL classroom.It is user-friendly and includes discussion questions for readers to develop their own understandings of the eight key issues beyond the content and limitations of each individual chapter.

This chapter is a reflection of the author's service-learning (SL) experience as a graduate student as well as a faculty member practicing SL in the department of language at a northeastern university. In this chapter, the author mainly focuses on the experience and learning in the SL course and how SL project research focusing on students' perception of using WhatsApp as a language learning tool shaped the author's teaching and research in the Chinese language teaching and learning community. Findings from this study can then be utilized to help the Chinese language teaching community reflect on their teaching and consider ways of adjusting their use of technology in classroom instruction to engage their students actively. As an SL project, these efforts will contribute to developing effective teaching strategies in the Chinese language learning community.

Abstract: Many college students feel that learning a second language (L2) is necessary to bring value to their future. However, many also feel that during their years of learning an L2, the only experience they acquire starts when they enter the classroom and stops when they leave it. This view may bring a lack of engagement in learning the L2. Research has shown that by integrating service‐learning (SL) into the curriculum, students' role as L2 learners and speakers may take a new perspective as they feel more active and responsible for their learning. This article presents the impacts SL has on a group of college students of French who are involved in an SL project.

International immersion experiences do not, in themselves, provide students with the opportunity to develop cultural competence. However, using an anthropological lens to educate students allows them to learn how to negotiate cultural differences by removing their own cultural filters and seeing events through the eyes of those who are culturally different. Faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Global Health Institute believed that an embedded experience, in which students engaged with local communities, would encourage them to adopt this Cultural Competency 2.0 position. With this goal in mind, they started the Field School for the Study of Language, Culture, and Community Health in Ecuador in 2003 to teach cultural competency to medical, veterinary, pharmacy, and nursing students. The program was rooted in medical anthropology and embraced the One Health initiative, which is a collaborative effort of multiple disciplines working locally, nationally, and globally to obtain optimal health for people, animals, and the environment. In this article, the authors identify effective practices and challenges for using a biocultural approach to educating students. In a semester-long preparatory class, students study the Spanish language, region-specific topics, and community engagement principles. While in Ecuador for five weeks, students apply their knowledge during community visits that involve homestays and service learning projects, for which they partner with local communities to meet their health needs. This combination of language and anthropological course work and community-based service learning has led to positive outcomes for the local communities as well as professional development for students and faculty.

An expanding body of scholarship and other writing is emerging across may disciplines that views service learning as an effective, and perhaps core element of the higher education mission. James Applegate and Sherwyn Morreale, writing as disciplinary association officers of the National Communication Association, suggest that faculty, students and communities will continue to witness the proliferation of service learning initiatives as university service missions are recast with a new vision for community outreach that matches the expertise and values of the university with the needs of local, state, national, and international communities.1 It has not been clear to date how much of an impact service learning pedagogies have had among those who teach journalism and mass communication. The journalism and mass communication literature in this area is, in comparison to other disciplines, small. The study described below attempts to address this imbalance. Service learning has been defined by several scholars whose theoretical positions vary. Most acknowledge that the essence of service learning is in its ability to connect student involvement to community outlets.2 One of the more inclusive definitions of service learning is offered by the American Association of Higher Education: Service learning means a method under which students learn and develop a thoughtfully organized service that: is conducted in and meets the needs of a community and is coordinated with an institution of higher education and with the community; helps foster civic responsibility; is integrated into and embraces the academic curriculum of the students enrolled; and includes structured time for the students to reflect on the service experience.3 Although service learning can be categorized within the more general paradigm of experiential learning, its major distinction lies in the philosophical basis from which it springs-integrating a sense of civic responsibility into the academic environment in order to impart character development as part of the academic mission.4 For the democratic process to work, society needs active citizens with a sense of responsibility and involvement in the communities in which they live, not passive consumers. In fact, service learning has been posited as a way for the academy to acknowledge its commitment or renew its civic responsibility to the community it finds itself in. Studies that have assessed service learning experiences conclude that the outcomes have been positive for most involved: students, faculty, community and institution.5 Students are more motivated in their classwork, work harder and learn more; and many of the benefits acquired from their service learning experience are long term.6 Faculty find that student learning is enhanced and that there is an interaction between theory and practice and thought to action.7 Community organizations have also found student contributions valuable. Campus/community relationships are constructive, and connections are made that did not exist before.9 Researchers have studied particular class experience regarding the incorporation of service learning alongside more traditional classroom methods.10 With regard to the journalism/mass communication discipline, Cohen and Kinsey incorporated service learning projects into the Mass Communication and Society course and found that the greatest strength of this approach was in assisting students in placing classroom material into a meaningful context.11 They also found that both students and teachers observed the service learning projects they participated in were an effective use of academic time. Focusing on service-learning designated courses, Corbett and Kendall found that students enrolled in these courses believed that the service learning experiences heighten their sense of citizenship and assisted them in understanding basic concepts and theories of course content.12 Other researchers have looked at university-wide curricula and have determined that service learning components are found predominantly in education and social science courses. …