The following appeared in an article in a college departmental newsletter:
"Professor Taylor of Jones University is promoting a model of foreign language instruction in which students receive 10 weeks of intensive training, then go abroad to live with families for 10 weeks. The superiority of the model, Professor Taylor contends, is proved by the results of a study in which foreign language tests given to students at 25 other colleges show that first-year foreign language students at Jones speak more fluently after only 10 to 20 weeks in the program than do nine out of 10 foreign language majors elsewhere at the time of their graduation."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The presented article aims to promote a model of foreign language instruction. It tries to achieve this by presenting the results of a study. However, it fails to talk about either the source or the methodology of the study. It also fails to address possible cost-handicaps associated with a course that involves living abroad for 10 weeks.
The cornerstone of the reasoning is the result of the study conducted. Hence, it is extremely important to know how effective and authentic the study is as strength of the study will essentially determine the strength of the argument. If it was conducted by Jones University, its neutrality is questionable as the tests may have been designed to favor its own students. On the other hand, if the study was conducted by a neutral third-party, it would make the study highly credible.
Further, the background of students chosen for the test is also important to know. If they had a reasonable level even before they started the course, it would be unfair to compare them to students who were absolutely new to the language. The level of students on which the study was conducted has to be at a reasonably same level for the study to be credible.
Finally, the proposed programme involves staying abroad for 10 weeks. This may make the programme prohibitively expensive when compared to other programmes. A proper cost analysis is important to determine how much more a student may need to spend to complete the programme and whether such an investment is warranted. Sending students abroad may be a good way to teach them, but they should be able to afford to do it as well.
Concluding, the presented reasoning is flawed in some ways. In fact, it looks like a marketing gimmick undertaken by Jones University to promote its course. If Professor Taylor wants the article to be credible, he can do so by clarifying the source and the methodology of the study and whether his programme would inflate tuition cost significantly. Barring, all prospective students should take the presented arguments with a pinch of salt.
No comments:
Post a Comment