*Uniform high marks, such as the ones given to the students in this course, are often seen as – and in fact often are – signs of teacher demagogy.  But not in teaching based on Constructivism and on a holistic implementation of Mastery Learning,  For such pedagogy assures that all students do effectively master the discipline taught – provided they dedicate the necessary time, which can vary widely from student to student, and provided that the “discipline” taught is not an abstract body of pre-defined concepts but rather that part of pre-existing knowledge which can best be used to help students find responses to the disciplinary questions they feel (or are led to feel) as worth grappling with.  The questions raised in this course were: What is “English” in today's globalized but fragmented world?  What does it mean to communicate “authentically” in English? And, with reference to the specific course theme, in what sense is “good” translation a form of accommodation and conversational accommodation a form of “good” translation?

In other words, the marks given to the students in this course have been determined by the principles of criterion based (not norm based) evaluation.  It is therefore, if anything, unsurprising that five bright graduate students all reach the established criterion and thus top marks at the end of the course. No demagogy here!  In any case, their written work is viewable in the section “TASKS: “reading it should convince any sceptic. 

The reader is advised, however, to keep in mind the following fact.  These students entered the present course after five years of studies in a curriculum which downplays language learning in favor of the “language sciences,” to the extent that many students actually loose, at Roma Tre, much of the English (or other language) they knew when they arrived.  This is precisely the case of these students.  They arrived at Roma Tre knowing English at level B1 or higher, as certified by the entry test, only to discover at the beginning of this course, after five years of hard study and good marks, that they now have a Dialang rating of... B1 or less in many of their written/oral abilities in English!  And yet, after five weeks of concentrated effort during our brief course, these selfsame students managed, for example, to take a mediocre English translation of an Italian press release and rewrite it communicatively at C1 proficiency level (from the standpoint of readability and appeal, not grammar). The students were not able to do so and knew nothing about notions such as “reader appeal” when they started the course.  It is therefore beyond a doubt that their capacity to rethink entrenched habits and to learn and apply new theories quickly – when given the opportunity to study English as interaction and not just as code – is very much above average.

On this note I would like to add a personal consideration, as the teacher of this course.  What a pity – indeed, what a crime – that the creativity, intelligence and verve of generations of students such as these should be frustrated, year after year, by an imposed “languages” curriculum that in fact does not teach them to communicate well in the languages they study, a curriculum made to satisfy the hubris of the handful of academics who determined it, instead of satisfying the desire for knowledge that inspires students, such as these five, to enroll at Roma Tre in the first place.  What an immense waste of learning potential!   How can Italy treat its young people this way?  How can Italy hope to assure its future in a global economy in this way?