Academic Program Review SUMMARY*
Department under review____Department of Modern Languages_____
Date self-study received in Dean’s office 2009
Date of external consultant’s review April, 2010
Date APR received report Fall, 2011
APR’S summary of self-study (first two boxes must be completed)
The department under review, the Department of Modern Languages (or MLG), is
exceptionally complex. It encompasses a diverse list of programs: three majors, four
minors, three business-related concentrations, two certificates, and a separate certification
in teacher education for the state of Wisconsin. In addition to three major languages,
faculty collaborate to offer six additional languages, as well as teaching English to
speakers of other languages (TESOL). The number of faculty and staff was recorded at
19.5 IFTE in 2008, and has expanded since that date. There are additional “Amity
Scholars” who visit on a yearly basis, a department chair, ADA, section heads, a separate
position for the director of the Learning Resource Center, a TESOL coordinator, and plans
for a coordinator for lower-level Spanish instruction -- totaling 27 individuals (08-09 self
study, p. 41). Along with all of that, MLG includes close coordination with the Office of
International Education and supports opportunities for cultural diversity on campus and the
study abroad program.
The size and diversity of this department makes it difficult for the APR committee to
summarize, but it is clear that this complexity results from a committed response to the
difficulty of its stated mission: “to help students develop the linguistic, literary and crosscultural competence necessary to live, work and become lifelong learners in our diverse
world” (p. 1). In honestly attempting to reach this difficult objective, there can be no doubt
that this department has expended significant effort and had great success.
APR’s comments:
Since the Modern Language Department self-study was written in AY 2008-09, this
department has undergone major changes, resulting both from internal initiatives and
in response to suggestions from external reviewers and UW-L administration. While
this history of transition indicates a dynamic and responsive academic enterprise
with engaged faculty making strategic decisions, the Self-Study document (which
includes portions written in 2009 and 2011) reflects different stages in the
department’s development. The comments and recommendations below are thus
tempered by the knowledge that this department is in a long-term state of transition,
and some commentary may no longer apply to current conditions.
Notable Strengths
The self-study, external review, and dean’s letters all indicate a department with
significant organizational, professional, and pedagogical strengths. There is a
noteworthy record of committed and professional faculty and cohesive interactions
between disparate components of the department. MLG has been successful in
arguing for and hiring GQA and replacement positions to meet increased student
demand. Finally, the professionally-engaged and dynamic faculty have collaborated
2
in creating meaningful assessment, curricular revision, and certification opportunities,
including a noteworthy commitment to the American Council on the Teaching of
Foreign Language’s Oral Proficiency Interview.
Notable Weaknesses
○
The department is dealing with persistent, serious and ongoing issues of
collegiality.
○
The department reports that it holds common objectives, methodologies and
resources; however, as demonstrated in the disjointed nature of this selfstudy document and in observations by the external reviewer, the department
continues to lack evidence of a shared identity. This is partly an obvious and
understandable consequence of the department’s complexity and diversity,
but also indicates missed opportunities in authoring documents meant to
represent the entire department. For example, the self-study document is
composed not as a single departmental response to the posed questions, but
instead as separate responses from each language, with an entirely separate
self-study from the Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages minor.
Likewise, assessment and curricular design appear to be unique for every
program in the department, with decreased opportunity for efficiency of
shared objectives, resources, or leadership.
○
The department continues to experience organizational and curricular
difficulties in responding to expanding and asymmetric demand in Spanish.
APR comments on any/all of the six specific components of the self-study (if
applicable)
Self Study: Purposes
Following the 2001 external reviewer’s recommendation, the Department of Modern
Languages (MLG) put great effort in 2008 into crafting a mission statement to reflect the
aims of the entire department:
“The ability to communicate across national and linguistic borders has become
essential in our globalized world. The mission of the Department of Modern
Languages is to help students develop the linguistic, literary and cross-cultural
competence necessary to live, work and become lifelong learners in our diverse
world” (1).
The purposes are clearly stated as objectives and focus on the following areas: developing
second-language communication, developing an awareness of diverse cultural contexts,
preparing students for professions involving second-language skills and cross-cultural
knowledge, contributing toward the University Core of general education, supporting study
abroad programs and providing opportunities beyond the classroom or making connections
within the community.
To implement the stated objectives and mission given above, the MLG Department offers
several majors, minors and certificate programs. The six majors include Spanish, Spanish
3
with Business concentration, French, French with Business concentration, German Studies
and German Studies with Business concentration. The minors include Spanish, French,
German Studies, and TESOL (Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages). It
should be noted that some students select TESOL as part of their teaching certifications.
Finally, two certificate programs have been added since the last APR report: French Studies
and Russian Studies.
While it is not housed in the MLG Department, the MLG faculty contribute significantly
toward the International Studies Minor (INS). Additionally, Dr. Francine Klein has provided
study abroad courses for the study abroad program, demonstrating the strength of this
collaboration between these organizations.
Self Study: Curriculum
APR’s ability to summarize the department’s curriculum is complicated by the fact that each
language’s curriculum is presented independently in the self-study report. Because French,
Spanish and German Studies all have degree offerings (see descriptions under “Purposes”),
a more extensive description is included.
French: a major, minor and a certificate program all exist for students choosing to study
French. The major requires 30 credits above the intermediate level, and has three tracks:
B.A. in French, B.A. in French with Business concentration, and a B.S. in Secondary
Education with a French major. The minor requires students to complete all 18 of their
credits from upper-division courses. The certificate was created for students interested in
continuing study in French, but who were unable to complete the number of credits required
for a minor due to their other majors’ credit requirements. Therefore, the French certificate
only requires completion of 18 credits -- 8 of which are at the intermediate level (201, 202).
Unique French courses include France and the Francophone World (covers topics such as
women’s rights, politics, colonial Africa), Business French, Current Events, French cinema,
and African and Caribbean Literature.
German Studies: a major and a minor are available. The major has two tracks: B.A. in
German Studies and a B.A. in German Studies with a Business concentration. Both the
German studies major and minor can be certified for education, but they have different
requirements including 1) demonstrate proficiency at a level equivalent to Intermediate High
on the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Oral Proficiency Scale, 2)
complete an approved foreign language immersion experience, and 3) pass the Praxis II
content test(s) in the language(s) to be certified for teaching. (An official test score report is
required prior to student teaching enrollment). In addition, students must take German 330
Conversation and Phonetics or equivalent.
The German Studies program provides a compelling and professionally-advanced approach
as it addresses “culture in a broader sense” (6). As a result, students do not study just
literature and history, but also language as situated in the broader context of education,
politics, European Union, and contemporary letters. The German Studies major requirement
of 33 credits beyond the intermediate level is comparable to peer institutions.
In order to complete a major in the German Studies program, students are required to have
an approved immersion experience in a German-speaking country. Many German Studies
4
minors choose to include the study-abroad experience as part of their programs as well.
Spanish program: students can select a major or a minor in this area. The major has three
tracks: B.A. in Spanish, B.A. in Spanish with a Business concentration, and a B.S. in
Spanish with Early Childhood to Adolescent Education. Both majors require 30 credits past
the intermediate level, a greater number than comparable institutions. The Education track
with a Spanish major requires a semester-long immersion experience, while those students
who might have another major or minor education track would only need 10 weeks of an
immersion experience. The Spanish minor is only 18 credits, allowing many students in
other majors to easily manage the required credits and to apply the use of Spanish
language and culture in their planned careers.
Newly-developed Spanish courses contributing to the curriculum include the following:
Spanish for the Medical Professions, Current Events, Films in Spanish, Theoretical and
Technical Aspects of Translation and Interpretation, Topics in Hispanic Cultures, Studies in
Hispanic Literature, Emerging New Hispanic Literature and Spanish Grammar for teachers.
The development of new classes on everyday life and popular culture in Spanish-speaking
societies “follows a growing trend in Spanish programs to serve the needs of students with
other majors who are looking for courses that will help to prepare them better for using the
Spanish language in other professions and meeting the challenge of understanding a
growing Hispanic population in the United States” (9).
Additional languages and programs: Beyond these degree offerings and minors, the
Department of Modern Languages provides a wide array of opportunities to study language
in the General Education program. The Department continues to seek ways to make these
opportunities available. The Department has been successful in receiving funding through
distance learning, both teaching and receiving courses in other languages. Currently,
Japanese and Russian have been part of this approach. Additionally, a very successful and
sustained relationship with Guangxi Normal University has provided a constant offering of
Chinese 101-102 (This has actually led to the creation of a full-time IAS position in Chinese,
with a new hire to begin Fall 2012).
Another interesting aspect of the Modern Languages Department is that Dr. Bee Lo is
teaching Hmong courses. While these offerings have been directed more toward a student
population serving local hospitals and school districts, the MLG has submitted Hmong 204
and 304 courses for inclusion in general education as a separate option to complete the
language requirement. These courses were approved Spring 2012.
TESOL: This undergraduate minor, coordinated though MLG, is open to all colleges and is
“designed to address the English as a Second Language standards” as developed by the
state DPI (43). Requirements have recently been reduced to a minimum 25 credits
(approved by UCC, 2008), although it appears there might be additional credits required for
education majors (up to 30 credits total). The minor is interdisciplinary, requiring a
combination of 16 credits from Modern Languages and English, and a minimum of 9 elective
credits, of which six must come from the following departments: anthropology,
communication studies, education studies, philosophy, psychology, and special education
(43). A strength of this undergraduate minor is that students will complete over a minimum
of 90 hours experience directly working with English language learners (43).
5
Self Study: Assessment of Student Learning & Degree of Program Success
The Department of Modern Languages uses two different sets of measurements: the
proficiency guidelines from the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
(ACTFL) and the National Standards for Foreign Language Learning (National Standards).
Since the National Standards were a more recent adoption for the MLG, they have provided
those approaches to assessments in the Self-Study Document:
MLG has used the ACTFL guidelines for measuring proficiencies in listening, speaking,
reading, writing and culture. Each proficiency has multiple components, and the department
summarizes which course offerings (across languages) address these individual
components. However, no assessment data of student work was provided in the self study
specifically in the context of the ACTFL proficiencies.
Methods of Assessment:
●
●
●
●
●
●
Student Writing Portfolios: Since 2002 the MLG has adopted the writing in the
major program. This writing portfolio is required for upper-division courses in FRE,
SPA and GER Studies (all majors and minors are required to keep this portfolio
every semester). The writing portfolio is assessed each semester for content and
presentation. Further, students also do a self-assessment and set goals for their own
writing. In the spring each language area (FRE/SPA/GER) reviews a sample of
portfolios to “determine strengths and areas for improvement for the program” (15).
Senior Exit Survey: Graduating seniors are sent an email with a link to an extensive
survey regarding their university experiences. Data is analyzed by and within
individual language areas, and then they were discussed in department meetings.
The form was revised in Spring 2012.
General Education assessment: The body of the self-study document reported an
oral assessment for the 102, 201 and 202 courses. Questions were recorded in the
Language Resource Center by Amity scholars and students recorded their answers
to these questions. However, since data was provided in the Appendices by
individual language, it was difficult to find how this common data might have been
used by the MLG.
Biennial Assessment results are provided in the Appendix. Each major language
area provides some forms of assessment, the collection of the data, and how they
interpret that data.
Education Students. All students first are evaluated through an Oral Interview (from
the ACTFL). When this was administered, all students passed, with many achieving
an “advanced” rating. There are two separate tracks based on the Oral Proficiency
Interview. The first track is for students who have achieved satisfactory coursework
in the classroom. Professors simply recommend these students to the School of
Education. The second track is for students who are marginal in their coursework,
and the MLG requires a faculty member to administer an additional written test.
Study Abroad. When students return to campus after a study-abroad experience,
the Department requires an additional three-credit course in the target language. The
Department takes this opportunity to study the impact on foreign language study, but
data is provided by language area and not for the department as a whole.
The Department also included several examples of informal assessment, which include
6
students successes in education employment, community programs and, in particular, the
study abroad program with Universitas Castellae in Valladolid.
The Department also provided each language area’s assessment documents. French,
German Studies and Spanish all seem to be very invested in a variety of approaches to
assessing student learning (no data was provided regarding Chinese, Russian and Hmong
language areas). The French area has done an especially clear job of providing data and its
impact on curricular reform. This data (provided by the French area) clearly represented all
course levels (100, 200, 300, and 400) and showed conclusions based on data as a whole.
Separately, TESOL also addressed assessment. TESOL provided a description of how
each standard stipulated by WI Department of Public Instruction (DPI) is addressed in
required courses throughout the minor. A required assignment for the TESOL minor
capstone course has been used for the assessment task. The evaluations of six students
each are provided from 2004, 2006 and 2008. Generally, the results suggest that students
are meeting most standards (which was a 2 out of a 3-point scale). The TESOL portion of
assessment also provided a lengthy response to the results along with curricular changes
made to improve the effectiveness of the program.
Self Study: Previous Academic Program Review and New Program Initiatives
On page 430 of the 2008 MLG self-study document, the department appended
recommendations from the 2002 APR summary of the 2001 department self-study. This
APR summary offered recommendations in three areas: Assessing and Improving
Instruction, Faculty/staff Concerns, and Technology. In the area of instruction and
technology, the APR identified concerns with the Oral Proficiency Interview, testing other
skills, offering a useful capstone on the study abroad experience (which they now have),
and a need for updated technology. None of these concerns appeared pressing. In the area
of faculty and staff concerns, however, the APR listed “desperate” and “great” concerns,
including a need for more positions, need to respond to growth of the Spanish demand, and
the fact that “Retention, promotion, and merit issues are of great concern,” including
addressing the questions of “how to provide more mentoring for junior faculty; how to
nurture a research tradition within the Department; how to clarify merit policies and
implement them; [and] how to get faculty promoted” (431).
At the time, the APR recommended the continuation and development of a number of
curricular and institutional arrangements, from the Oral Proficiency Interview, to assessment,
entrance exams, study abroad support, controls on the growth of Spanish, support of
TESOL, and technological development. Amongst many recommendations, a few stand out,
including the suggestion to “Provide more mentoring for junior faculty as regards retention,
tenure, and promotion;” and “Be sure the connection of the foregoing to merit and promotion
is clear. Be sure all promotion and merit expectations are clear for all,” including a
suggestion for “face-to-face annual review.”
Overall, in 2002 the APR offered 7 recommendations on Instruction, 5 on Faculty/Staff
issues, and an additional two in technology. In the 08-09 self-study, MLG noted a long list of
recommendations from APR and other sources (pages 34-40). Responses to
recommendations include progress on developing skills in assessing student work in oral
proficiency, holistic evaluation, and writing; decisions against pursuing entrance exams for
majors, with the proposition for a minimum GPA in Spanish but not other languages;
7
increased advising for study abroad; GQA hires to support large numbers of Spanish majors
but a decision against limiting the numbers of those majors; and continued growth in
organizational support for TESOL. In the faculty/staff area, MLG reported increased number
of staff and faculty, including the transfer of a faculty position from French to Spanish,
progress in “successfully mentoring probationary faculty” (36), success in producing
additional research under heavy teaching load, face-to-face interviews with staff and
probationary faculty, and good representation in faculty governance. In the area of
technology, MLG reported “great strides” in improving access to technology and funding.
New program initiatives reported in the 08-09 self study include plans to offer Hebrew as a
minor language, and planned expansion of the TESOL program. In a separate part of the
self-study, TESOL indicates that curricular changes contribute “to the possibility of a future
proposal for a post-baccalaureate TESOL certificate” (52).
Self Study: Support for Achieving Academic Program Goals (Resources)
In various locations throughout the self-study, the department assesses its resources for
reaching its goals, including access to classroom space, teaching technology, and support
services. While the report indicates that access to technology-equipped instructional spaces
had “evolved considerably” since 2001, there was still room for improvement (34). The
addition of technology to many teaching spaces in Graff Main Hall improved the situation;
the department obtained mobile technology carts; and the creation of a Language Resource
Center with digital resources greatly modernized offerings. An additional technology grant
written by the new director of the LRC helped here, as has the transition in Fall of 2011 to
some classrooms in Centennial Hall.
Staff and faculty offices were a concern in the 2008 self study; however, by 2012 MLG had
gained access to more office space previously used by Psychology, and at the moment “All
faculty and staff have individual offices in GMH,” according to the department chair.
APR examination of the appended budget data sheet indicates limited support in the
departmental budget for supplies and equipment, which is less than University average and,
more importantly, has not increased since FY 03-04, even while the department has
expanded significantly. On the other hand, CLS additional budgetary support has increased
significantly over that same time period, and is higher than average -- totaling $20,586 in FY
2010, more than the college average of ~$17,000.
External Reviewer Recommendations
APR’s Comments on External Reviewer (if applicable)
In April of 2010, MLG hosted Dr. Wendy Allen of St. Olaf College as an external reviewer.
Dr. Allen produced a detailed report consisting of seven single-spaced pages in May of
2010. The External Review is divided into three sections, dealing with the success of the
MLG program, the concerns for the next year or two (which as of 2012, have already
occurred), and the concerns that Dr. Allen felt needed to be addressed immediately, in
2010.
Regarding the success of the MLG Department, the reviewer noted the clarity of the
Department mission statement currently posted on the Department’s website; the presence
of devoted, caring faculty with strong knowledge and teaching skills who are described as
8
“professionals in the best sense of the term” (59); positive collaborations with Amity scholars
and study abroad programs; adequate and tailored curricula that reflects the strengths of the
faculty in each area; and “impressive strides” in assessment (61).
Some broader concerns from the External Reviewer included the perception of whether
MLG functions as a unified department and the management of the overwhelming size of
the Spanish program compared to other language areas.
The more immediate concerns from the External Reviewer’s perspective included the
following: a needed position in German Studies, the question(s) regarding the efficacy of the
Spanish Coordinator position, and the “deteriorating sense of collegiality” (65). While the
tenure-track search in German is highlighted as an important need, Dr. Allen spent more
time on the next two recommendations, writing that resolving the issues surrounding the
coordinator position as “the most serious—and potentially contentious—issue” for the
department’s future (62). Written in 2010, the external review has concerns about the
department’s plan to respond to high demand for lower-level Spanish courses by delegating
much of that instruction to faculty and academic staff who would be directed by a
coordinator of lower-level Spanish instruction. The external reviewer critiqued this plan,
questioning “whether the coordinator structure . . . is appropriate for the institutional context
and culture of UWL” as it would be more common in a larger, Ph.D. granting institution with
graduate students in lower-level instruction roles (63-4). Dr Allen recommended temporarily
negating the powers and responsibilities of the coordinator position pending reconsideration
at higher levels.
The collegiality of the faculty within the Department was also highlighted as an area of major
concern, with the reviewer reporting that “was becoming increasingly difficult for faculty to
discuss contentious issues dispassionately and with at least a modicum of civility” (65).
Unfortunately, the disagreements between colleagues have affected the student experience,
where students are feeling “‘caught’ between competing voices” (65). Dr. Allen wrote that
“faculty do not need to love their colleagues, but they must respect them as colleagues and
deal with them in a civil manner, whether in public settings or private ones” (65).
Despite these concerns, the external reviewer ended on an optimistic note, stating that the
department should be proud to possess “a shared vision of who you are as a department
and of the role and contribution of each individual program to the whole; a deep commitment
to your students and a genuine interest in them as language learners and as people; and
generally positive interpersonal relations” (65).
Department’s response to the Reviewer Recommendations
APR’s Comments on the Department’s Response (if applicable)
Beginning on page 66 of the self-study, MLG presented a plan of action for all of the nine
recommendations; rather than summarize all of these, the APR has decided to highlight
responses of interest.
Regarding the Spanish Coordinator position, the Department followed the recommendation
of the External Reviewer to reconsider this position and the overall strategy behind it. The
department subsequently renewed its commitment to this path of action, and worked to
clarify and facilitate the position’s responsibilities: “Following an all-department meeting on
this subject facilitated by the Affirmative Action Officer, the MLG Retention and Tenure
9
Committee held three meetings to define the role and duties of the lower-level Spanish
coordinator” (67). The department also indicated that it would work towards the large-scale
reassessment of Spanish curriculum, facilitated by an outside curricular expert,
recommended by the reviewer (67-8).
Two of the recommendations concern assessment, and the Department agreed that a
simpler format for reporting assessment might benefit both the authors and the reviewers of
such documents. Further suggestions are to clarify the focus of the assessment task,
improve analysis, discussion and how action will be taken regarding the data.
One of the recommendations focused on creating a “shared departmental identity” (66)
through facilitating meetings to discuss research, teaching, and shared goals. The
Department responded with a plan to provide opportunities to discuss teaching and learning
across the curriculum.
The most important recommendation in the eyes of APR is the final one, on the subject of
collegiality. The department responded by pledging to hold multiple meetings “facilitated by
the Affirmative Action Officer and attended by the dean” into 2010 (68).
Dean’s Letter
APR’s Comments on Dean’s Letter (if applicable)
In a letter written in August of 2011, the CLS Dean detailed the results of the external review
and included portions of the Department’s response to the recommendations. The letter
reiterates the reviewer’s positive evaluation of the department as a group of committed
professionals, and comments on plans for shared discussions of pedagogy and changes to
Campus Close-Up. The letter reported that the planned search for a tenure-track German
position was delayed into AY 2011-12. The letter also indicates support for workshops and
visits from external curriculum experts in AY 11-12 to re-conceptualize the Spanish
curriculum.
We feel it is significant and encouraging that the Dean’s Office has arranged for meetings
with Affirmative Action and provided an outside faculty consultant in 2011-12 to help resolve
issues of civility and dissension, improved communication and leadership issues. What is
concerning to APR is that the Dean’s letter noted that these actions were taken in response
to the fact that progress on the issue of collegiality was “limited” in 2010-2011.
APR’s Recommendations (must be completed)
Recommendations:
Overall, the APR committee commends the department on responding to challenges and
suggestions that have arisen over the previous decade. While the APR will make specific
recommendations below, most of these points are merely re-statements of topics broached
by the external reviewer or administration, and the APR suggests that addressing the
serious matters in those documents should be the highest priority for the department in the
future. Nevertheless, here are recommendations from APR:
1. It is absolutely imperative that the department continue attempts to foster a culture of
respect and collegiality. Lack of collegiality is clearly impacting departmental decision
making, instruction, and most disturbingly, students. This cannot continue. Encouraging
10
collegiality is such a difficult thing that APR has no specific suggestions about how to
accomplish it; we only know that academic departments and programs work immeasurably
better when personnel respect and support each other. MLG should take every resource
and opportunity available to work towards this goal, or risk failing to function as an
administrative unit. We hope that the MLG Department will be able to present proof of some
considerable movement toward this end and feel that a more tangible consequence should
be considered by the administration should the faculty fail to demonstrate progress.
2. MLG should continue to respond to recommendations from inside the department, from
administration and from external reviewers to improve the cohesiveness of the department.
MLG has already taken steps to respond to these suggestions, ranging from creation and
posting of mission statements, to bulletin boards with names and faces of faculty and staff,
to a well-designed website and shared departmental events. These actions should be
continued in order to work towards the goal of a unified department, and the APR
Committee feels this would be beneficial to document in the next APR report; this could be
as simple as providing dates of meetings where the focus was this topic.
3. While earlier documents suggested the department work to mentor and encourage junior
faculty, and the 08-09 self-study the department indicated that it believed it had been
“successfully mentoring probationary faculty” (36), there is insufficient evidence of organized
attempts to mentor junior faculty in the documents available to APR. Subsequent events
also indicate continued concern in this area. The department should re-assess actions taken
in this area to consider relative success and future plans.
4. The department has demonstrated tremendous efforts in assessment for each language
area. However, the self-study document should include a collection of data that represents
the results of departmental assessment. It might be useful, for example, to report Senior
Exit Surveys (already a current practice) by the department rather than only by language
area. Secondly, MLG might consider simplifying assessment tasks so that data collection
might be efficiently analyzed as a group (rather than detailed evaluation of individual
responses) and could be more easily generalized across language areas to represent
student learning.
5. The Department appears to have addressed the Spanish coordinator issue, following the
suggestion by the External Reviewer to reconsider this approach. APR supports the
department’s choice of maintaining their strategy and plan of action despite the external
reviewer’s recommendation, as the committee believes that this choice is within the
department’s purview.
6. In response to both the direction above and concerns from external reviewer about the
cohesion of the department, MLG should work in the future to produce a single document
reflecting cooperation between different programs of the department. While it is true that
TESOL is significantly different, treating it as a separate department, with its own separate
responses (pages 43-52) to all questions, is detrimental to efficiency. Similarly, it is unclear
that there is enough difference between language areas to warrant presentation as separate
components of a report. Therefore, the Department of Modern Languages should work to
present a more compact summary of departmental work as a self-study -- a 432 page
document is too large and disorganized to be useful. The next full self-study document
should pay careful attention to succinctly and clearly summarizing departmental issues.
11
□ No serious areas to address – review in next regularly scheduled cycle
□ Some areas to address – review in next regularly scheduled cycle
✕ Some areas to address – department should submit short report on progress to Fac
Senate/Provost’s Office in 3 years
APR recommends that the department report on the results of recent changes in an
interim, three-year report in advance of the department’s next regularly scheduled selfstudy. Overall, the Department of Modern Languages has itself made several major
changes in the last few years, and has been pressed by external commentators and forces
to make more. For example, the Dean’s Letter indicates plans for AY 10-11 for a major
Spanish curriculum re-design. As such, many responses and reforms have only been
implemented recently. In particular, APR agrees that the issues of collegiality documented in
the External Reviewer’s report and Dean’s letter must be addressed in this three-year,
interim progress report.
* APR’s report to faculty senate will consist of this completed form in electronic form.