AAUSC Proposed Volume Title: Innovation and Accountability in Foreign Language Program
Evaluation
Description and Scope:
Despite rapid globalization within contemporary society and the seemingly obvious
need for the study of foreign languages and cultures, numerous post-secondary institutions
are decreasing their investment in language education by closing or restructuring foreign
language (FL) programs (Brockman, 2009; Lipsett, 2009; Wasley, 2008). In response to the
challenges of today’s economic climate, undergraduate recruitment to foreign language
degrees has dwindled, graduate programs have disappeared, and institutions have
restructured independent language departments into mega-departments of languages,
literatures, and cultures (Corral & Patti, 2008; Lipsett, 2009). At the same time, the FL and
humanities disciplines have begun to engage in ‘soul-searching’ exercises in an effort to
understand and express a renewed sense of value for the study of foreign language and
culture (e.g., MLA, 2008). As a result of these kinds of societal and disciplinary movements,
FL programs, along with other educational sectors, are facing the increased need to engage
with heretofore peripheral forces like accountability and accreditation, to express and ensure
their value through outcomes assessment, and to begin to think, innovate, and behave
programmatically. Key to enacting these changes systematically and effectively is heightened
awareness of the importance of program evaluation, not only as a means to demonstrate
how and why foreign language study is a valuable pursuit in today’s world, but also as a
heuristic via by which sound improvements can be made, participants can learn, and
educational relevance can be sought (Norris, 2009). According to Kiely (2009), program
evaluation is “a form of enquiry which describes the achievements of a given program,
provides explanations for these, and sets out ways in which further development might be
realized” (p. 99).
Recent commentaries and case studies have pointed to the potential contributions of
program evaluation in college foreign language programs (Bernhardt, 2006; Houston, 2005;
Morris, 2006; Norris, 2006; Norris, Davis, Sinicrope, and Watanabe, 2009; Sullivan, 2006;
Wright, 2006). Scholars and practitioners suggest that language program evaluation may
allow departments and institutions to gain empirical information about the attainment of
goals and outcomes, the program’s strengths and weaknesses, and a program’s congruence
across the diverse areas of language learning and the complex structures of university
departments (Sullivan, 2006). Furthermore, language program evaluation can assist language
program directors (LPDs) in demonstrating a program’s effectiveness to stakeholders like
students, professors, chairs, and administrators (Kiely & Rea-Dickins, 2005), as well as
encouraging the formulation of plans of action to enhance program achievements in the
lower and upper levels of foreign language instruction (Faculty Working Group on Foreign
Language Program Evaluation, 2007; Kiely, 2006).
In 2006, Heidi Byrnes introduced a discussion of outcomes, assessment, and
evaluation of collegiate foreign language programs in the Perspectives issue of the the Modern
Language Journal. In this issue, scholars such as John Norris, Elizabeth Bernhardt, Barbara
Wright, and Richard Kiely discussed questions surrounding the specification of educational
goals and learning outcomes, how departments may gain an understanding of learner
1
outcomes, and the role of instructors and administrators in the attainment of these learning
outcomes. In particular, Norris (2006) discussed the importance of addressing the
knowledge gap in language program evaluation in higher education and the necessity of
taking a proactive stance toward learning more about language program evaluation as an
integral part of our professional practice. The last AAUSC volume that addressed related
topics was the 1991 volume entitled Assessing the Foreign Language Proficiency of Undergraduates.
As the purview and scope of language program design has evolved considerably since the
early 1990s, and the current state of the discipline might best be described as in crisis mode,
it would seem high time to revisit language program evaluation and provide language
program directors with contemporary approaches, tools, and recommendations for how to
make the most of evaluation as a means for identifying and acting on a programs’ strengths
and weaknesses, enabling congruence across institutional, departmental, and professional
goals, and perhaps contributing to the survival of FL programs in higher education.
Relevance for lower level and graduate student coordinators:
An AAUSC volume devoted to language program evaluation could provide
important benefits specifically to language program directors. Paesani and Barrette (2004)
identify three elements of well-articulated language programs: 1) a well-planned curriculum,
2) coordinated instruction, and 3) an awareness of the learner’s experience and development.
In pursuit of these goals, coordinators and language program directors are called upon to
develop and implement well-planned course curricula through coordinated instruction, the
observation of instructors, engagement in common assessment procedures, and
encouragement of consistency throughout language requirement courses and often beyond.
Increasingly, as notions of FL curricula, degree program outcomes, and departmental
structure evolve to better meet the needs of students, institutions, and society, coordinators
also must engage in open communication to foster effective transitions among levels, to
establish continuity throughout course sequences, and to operationalize FL education in
response to the ‘big picture’ of what precisely our value is in the academy. While all three
elements of Paesani and Barrette’s (2004) conception of a well-articulated language
requirement program are often cultivated by language program directors, contemporary
challenges to FL education call for heightened systematicity, increased participation by
diverse stakeholders within FL programs, the need to balance frequently competing values,
and, fundamentally, evidence that the decisions being made are effective in leading to highquality learning experiences.
Although an understanding of learners’ experience and development is of perhaps greatest
importance, it is equally crucial to gain information about other key players in the language
program evaluation process – institutional goals, department agendas, language program
directors’ beliefs, oversight, and coordination, and the instructors and teaching assistants’
perspectives and performance. Paesani and Barrette (2004) define successfully articulated
programs as those that “consider the program as a whole as well as the experiences and
perspectives of the individuals within the whole.” (p. 3) This volume aims to provide a
means for conceiving of the “whole” as well as “the individuals within the whole” through a
discussion of innovative approaches to language program evaluation. The volume would
include topics such as the integration of professional standards, university benchmarks,
departmental goals, and outcomes assessment in language program evaluation; LPD and
2
instructor evaluation practices; and the evaluation of the development and perspectives of
language learners’ within language programs. These and related topics could provide LPDs
with the tools and knowledge to transform their language programs in response to pressing
needs to do so. Furthermore, an enhanced understanding of the program evaluation process
may allow for increased communication and collaboration among faculty members, the
identification of a program’s strengths and weaknesses, the articulation of strategies to
enhance a program’s effectiveness, and subsequently the maximization of students’
development as foreign language learners. The implementation of such evaluative projects by
language program directors could furthermore showcase a language program’s
accomplishments, enhance the departmental profile within an institution, and as a
consequence empower chairs, professors, and students within FL departments (Faculty
Working Group on Program Evaluation, 2007).
Questions to which this volume seeks to respond:

What are updated and innovative guidelines, methodologies, and frameworks in
language program evaluation?

What is the relationship between institutional and/or departmental goals and
language program evaluation? How can we encourage accountability from within
language programs?

What are innovative instructor evaluation practices? What role do the language
program director and students play in the instructor evaluation process?

How can technology play a role in language program evaluation today?
Possible chapters & themes with possible contributors:
I.
Methodologies, Guidelines & Frameworks in language program evaluation
a. Guidelines for the innovative design of language program evaluation
b. Evaluation of Student learning outcomes and progress
c. Instruments in language program evaluation
d. Heterogeneity of evaluation needs and approaches (ex. student selfassessment, etc.)
e. Longitudinal evaluation of language programs
Possible contributors:, J. Liskin-Gasparro, Y. Watanabe, R. Mackay, J. Norris, P. ReaDickins
II.
Relationship between Institutional and Departmental goals, outcomes
assessment, and language program evaluation
a. Influence of Benchmarks and standards on language program evaluation
3
b. Accountability to institutional and departmental goals in language program
evaluation
c. The influence of student learning outcomes assessment on FL programs
Possible contributors: E. Bernhardt, D. W. Birckbichler, G. Gorsuch, , K. Paesani, C.
Barrette; H. Maxim, L. Askildson, I. Walther, T. Cachey, H. Byrnes
III.
LPD, Instructor, and TA evaluation practices and language program evaluation
a. Instructor accountability and professional development
b. Innovative approaches to LPD, instructor, and TA evaluation
c. Assessment of instructor effectiveness
d. Evaluation of language program directors and coordinators
e. Developing practitioners’ competencies in evaluation
Possible contributors: P. Burden, G. Murdoch, T. Hedge, M. Peacock, , A. Zannirato, M.
Schulte-Nafeh
IV.
Technology-enhanced language program evaluation
a. Innovative online approaches to language program evaluation
Possible contributors: R. F. Sanders, J. L. Plass, N. Arnold, F. Rubio, C. Blyth
Editor’s affiliation (CVs attached)
Nicole Mills
mills@fas.harvard.edu
Harvard University
John Norris
University
jnorris@hawaii.edu
University of Hawaii / Georgetown
4