Afterword and Next Steps

  • Margaret E. MaloneEmail author
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 37)


The afterword provides a broad overview of the volume and a forward-looking approach to the implications of the research presented for the field of language teaching. First, this chapter reflects on the papers in the volume and the individual and aggregate contributions. Next, the chapter contextualizes the book and the issues raised in current-day language teaching and learning and the challenges and opportunities facing the community. Finally, the chapter provides recommendations for ways that ongoing research and assessment can continue to support the field.


Assessment Teaching Curriculum Policy Language Pedagogy 


  1. AAAS. (2016). America’s languages: Investing in language education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: AAAS.Google Scholar
  2. ACTFL. (2010). Foreign language enrollments in K-12 public schools: Are students prepared for a global society? Alexandria, VA: ACTFL. ISBN: 0615408273, 9780615408279Google Scholar
  3. ACTFL. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL. Available from Google Scholar
  4. ACTFL. (2016). 2016 Annual report. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL. Available at Google Scholar
  5. Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 207–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callahan, R., & Gándara, P. C. (Eds.). (2014). The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy and the US labor market. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  7. Carroll, J. B. (1967). Foreign language proficiency levels attained by language majors near graduation from college. Foreign Language Annals, 1(2), 131–151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Damari, R. R., Rivers, W. P., Brecht, R. D., Gardner, P., Pulupa, C., & Robinson, J. (2017). The demand for multilingual human capital in the US labor market. Foreign Language Annals, 50(1). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldberg, D., Looney, D., & Lusin, N. (2015, February). Enrollments in languages other than English in United States institutions of higher education, fall 2013. New York, NY: Modern Language Association. Available at
  10. Jackson, F. H., & Malone, M. E. (2009). Building the foreign language capacity we need: Toward a comprehensive strategy for a national language framework. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Available at Google Scholar
  11. Olsen, S. A., & Brown, L. K. (1992). The relation between high school study of foreign languages and ACT English and mathematics performance. ADFL Bulletin, 23(3), 47–50.Google Scholar
  12. Pufahl, I., & Rhodes, N. C. (2011). Foreign language instruction in US schools: Results of a national survey of elementary and secondary schools. Foreign Language Annals, 44(2), 258–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 1(2), 147–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tigchelaar, M., Bowles, R. P., Winke, P., & Gass, S. (2017). Assessing the validity of ACTFL can-do statements for spoken proficiency: A Rasch analysis. Foreign Language Annals, 50(3), 584–600. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsGeorgetown UniversityWashington, DCUSA
  2. 2.American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)AlexandriaUSA

Personalised recommendations