REPORT OF COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS SECOND LANGUAGE TASK FORCE June 1991 Members: Chair, W. Phillips Shively, Political Science Ronald Aminzade, Sociology Maria Brewer, French & Italian Russel Hobbie, Institute of Technology Wesley Jacobsen, East Asian Studies Michael Metcalf, International Studies Lynn Anderson Scott, Student Academic Support Services James Tracy, History Ray Wakefield, German Ricki Weible, Student Intermediary Board Staff: Lavon Anderson, CLA Associate Dean's Office The College of Liberal Arts Second Language Task Force was formed by Acting Dean Craig Swan in Fall 1991. The Task Force met throughout the academic year 1990-91 and submits the following report to the Deans of the College. PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS Our concerns in examining preparation and graduation requirements were: 1. To improve the fit of our language training with student needs. 2. To build on the work of the first Language Training Task Force in locating responsibility for introductory language training in the K-12 system and creating an unbroken stream of instruction from high school into more advanced training in CLA. We were particularly concerned to build incentives for the K-12 system not only to provide a set number of years of preparation for their students, but to give their students preparation that would allow them to continue in CLA at as advanced a level as possible. Such preparation is greatly enhanced if instruction continues through the senior year of high school so that the stream of instruction is uninterrupted. 3. To simplify students' decisions (and advising on those decisions) in course selection. As part of this, we wished to end anomalies by which two language students would sit beside each other doing the same work, but with one getting college credit for it and the other not. We also wished to eliminate incentives for "strategic enrollment," by which, for instance, students might deliberately enroll at course levels below their level of competence, in order to pad their GPA with easy A's. 4. To continue to encourage training in a broader range of languages than French, German, and Spanish. Recommendation 1: The College should recommend that the Council of Undergraduate Deans approve the following policy: a) the University's Second Language Entrance Requirement--at least two years of high school second language instruction--contain the strong recommendation that these include the two years immediately prior to graduation. Comment: This would build greater continuity of instruction between high school and post-secondary language instruction; the Task force feels this is vital if we are to improve student success and make the most effective use of high school preparation. A year or two break between high school and post-secondary instruction may force students to largely start over again at the University because of what they have lost during the interruption. Since this simply recommends action to the schools, it should not require formal action by the Regents for implementation. b) all students matriculating as undergraduates at the University's Twin Cities campus who have not taken two years of second language in high school must complete or test out through the third quarter of a second language at the University. The College of Liberal Arts should continue to require that students pass the Graduation Proficiency Test. Six quarters of language instruction are usually required to enable the student to pass the Graduation Proficiency Test. Recommendation 2: Between Winter 1991 and Spring 1993, the University of Minnesota should negotiate on entrance testing with the State Department of Education and the State University System; the agenda for negotiations should include the following items: a) all three systems collaborate on the continuing development of Entrance Proficiency Tests for French, German, and Spanish. b) all three systems collaborate on the development of Entrance Proficiency Texts for Chinese, Japanese, and Russian. c) all three systems share the costs of administering Entrance Proficiency Tests to graduating Minnesota high school students in Spring 1993 and each Spring thereafter; primary testing sites will be those already established regionally by the State Department of Education. Additional testing sites and times will need to be established to accommodate students coming from secondary and post-secondary schools outside of Minnesota. This recommendation is contingent on receiving cost estimates for the development of Entrance Proficiency Tests. Comment: The Entrance Proficiency Tests are useful to us; and more importantly, they provide direct feedback to the high schools as to how well they are doing. If we could share the costs of development with the State University System, which will apparently need such tests for its new entrance requirements, and with the State Department of Education, then we should continue to use the test. This is a good bridge-builder to other systems and to the high schools. Spring testing (as proposed) would be far better than the Fall test that is now given as part of orientation and registration. If these recommendations are not in place by Spring 1993, the Entrance Proficiency Testing program should be dropped. Recommendation 3: a) A student who passes the Entrance Proficiency Test may enter the University sequence in that second language at any appropriate point in the first six quarters, and a student who fails the test may enter at any appropriate point in the first three quarters. Entrance into the sequence at fourth quarter or above by any University student requires completion of the previous course at the University or passing the Entrance Proficiency Test. Self-graded diagnostic tests or other procedures allowing students to place themselves accurately within the introductory course sequence should be made available by all language departments. The Committee on Second Language Education and the College of Liberal Arts advising offices should consult as to the adequacy of current procedures in this regard. b) Successful completion of any first University course beyond 1101 (a grade of "S" or a grade of "C" or higher) or passing a Special Exam for a course beyond first quarter will result in credit for all prerequisite courses in the sequence. Comment: This gives strong incentives to students and their high schools to prepare well in language before entrance to the University. Feedback to the high schools from students who have successfully (or unsuccessfully) placed themselves high in the sequence would be strong and direct. The anomaly of students taking University courses for no University credit would be eliminated. Recommendation 4: The College should immediately initiate a two-year study to determine whether students are deliberately placing themselves lower in the second language sequence than they should. If this study cannot be funded, or if the study shows that this is the case for significant numbers of students, then all first-year courses in French, German, and Spanish (i.e., 1101-1102-1103) should be offered only on an "S/N" basis. If a similar problem arises for any language other than French, German, and Spanish, then the first year of that second language should be treated the same in this regard as French, German, and Spanish. Comment: We now appear to have a problem of students placing themselves lower than where they should be in order to improve their GPA's. This is wasteful for them and for the University, and demoralizing to other students in their classes. Recommendation (3) adds a strong incentive to students NOT to do this, since the higher they start in a sequence, the more degree credits they will receive. However, if this incentive proves insufficient to eliminate the problem, it should be solved by making all first-year work "S/N" only. Recommendation 5: Qualified new and continuing students should be guaranteed space in second and third year French, German, and Spanish courses in order to provide continuity of instruction. Recommendation 6: In order to encourage students to take languages other than French, German, and Spanish, enrollments of first-year second language instruction in French, German, and Spanish should be managed. Among the possibilities for achieving this, one might include any or all of the following: a) the number of Day sections of first-year French, German, and Spanish (i.e., the total for Fall, Winter, Spring, and Summer) might not be permitted to exceed the annual average number of these sections in each language in the three years immediately prior to Fall 1993; b) the number of Fall Quarter Day sections of French, German, and Spanish 1101 might not exceed the number of Fall Quarter Day sections for 1102 or for 1103; and c) at least one Fall Quarter Day section of French, German, and Spanish 1101 might be set aside for students who are commencing study of their third or fourth language. Comment: We should try to encourage a range of language instruction broader than French, German, and Spanish. Students who had a particular reason to select French, German, and Spanish would presumably wait for the opportunity to take these languages if they were having difficulty getting into a section. Other students would presumably choose another language. We think the recommendations above will result in a simpler, more effective system of training CLA students to the same useful level of proficiency we now require, with an even more effective link to the high schools than the current system provides. GRADUATION PROFICIENCY TEST Recommendation 1: The College should continue to require the completion of the Graduation Proficiency Test due to its beneficial effects on student and instructor performance. Comment: The current College of Liberal Arts proficiency-based second language graduation requirement took effect in Fall 1986. It requires that students exhibit language proficiency usually attained after two years of college-level study. Most College of Liberal Arts students do complete the sixth quarter of second language instruction before attempting to pass the Graduation Proficiency Test (GPT). According to coordinators and instructors of first and second year French, German, and Spanish, students seem to be putting more effort into their second language studies because they know completing courses will not guarantee passage of the GPT. Registration in third-year language courses is increasing, suggesting that student interest in continuing their language study has been enhanced by the proficiency requirement. The GPT provides direct and valuable feedback to departments about their students' functional competence in the language. The curriculum of the first six courses of instruction is now focused on language proficiency and has led to a greater interchange among language departments about pedagogy and instruction standards. In addition, the U.S. Department of Education Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) fellowships are not granted to institutions where proficiency testing is not used or being developed. The existence of proficiency testing is also highly recommended for institutions seeking Title VI National Resource Center funding. Recommendation 2: The Language Center should coordinate the administration of the Graduation Proficiency Test. The GPT should not be incorporated into the sixth quarter of language courses. Comment: The Graduation Proficiency Test comprises four parts: Reading, Listening, Speaking, and Writing. The tests are administered at the beginning of Fall Quarter, and at the end of Fall, Winter, and Spring Quarters. The tests have traditionally been evaluated by the Director of Testing in the Language Center assisted by teaching assistants from the language departments. Recently, in response to a request by the Deans of the College of Liberal Arts, administration of the GPT was experimentally incorporated into the 1106 courses in French, German, and Spanish. Instructors and students were unhappy with this arrangement for several reasons: a) Due to the complex logistics of the four-part test, administrative time was not saved by incorporating the GPT into the sixth quarter of instruction. b) Approximately 10% of the 10-week instruction time was lost to administering the GPT. c) Non-CLA students, who do not need the GPT to graduate, were disadvantaged by the loss of instruction time. d) It was more difficult to maintain test security when instructors were responsible for their sections. e) Students' stress levels were greatly heightened by the fact that testing had to be spread over a week's time. Recommendation 3: The Deans of the College of Liberal Arts should continue to grant funding so that exit proficiency testing can be continued in French, German, and Spanish and that exit proficiency testing can be developed as appropriate in other languages. In order to better serve students, we strongly urge the Deans to a) fund the Language Center on a year-round basis (Fall, Winter, Spring, Summer Session I and II) and b) allocate additional money to the Language Center so that students may be informed of their performance on the EPT (Entrance Proficiency Test) and GPT by mail in a timely manner. A copy of these notification letters should be sent to the student's College office. Recommendation 4: The Deans of the College of Liberal Arts should support and the language departments should develop procedures which allow reasonable continuing preparation for students who do not pass the Graduation Proficiency Test. Comment: These procedures should be submitted to and approved by the Committee on Second Language Education (ComSLE). Recommendation 5: The Deans of the College of Liberal Arts should work with departments to address the issue of articulation between the first six courses of language and the courses which follow. Comment: The first six courses of language instruction have evolved differently from the subsequent courses in composition and conversation ever since the implementation of the Entrance and Graduation Proficiency Tests. This issue needs attention and further study so that students do not encounter barriers while moving from one level of study to the next. Recommendation 6: Requests for exceptions to the Second Language Requirement should be heard by a subcommittee of College of Liberal Arts staff who will meet together on a regular basis to review requests and make decision. Comment: The College's system for considering exceptions to College requirements charges Scholastic Committee Representatives, acting for the faculty, to review individual students' requests and to make decisions that provide both consistency and fairness to all students as well as flexibility in considering an individual student's best educational interests. Since the implementation of the 1986 Second Language Requirement, decisions on exceptions to this requirement have been made by the Committee on Second Language Education (ComSLE), if they relate to testing procedures, and by the Scholastic Appeals Committee (SAC), if they pertain to issues of the old or the new requirement or to requests for waiver of the Graduation Proficiency Test. This system has proven unworkable for two major reasons. First, the complexity of both versions of the requirement and the resulting complexity of an individual student's situation mean that anyone considering these requests must be steeped in the lore of Second Language issues. (College office advisers and Scholastic Committee Representatives must try to adhere to a seven-page training document.) The members of SAC (a rotating group of faculty, students, and staff) must try to master the issues, in order to be able to make decisions that are consistent and fair as well as meet the needs of individual students. Similarly, ComSLE, which deals with second language testing issues but not with the whole range of College policies, cannot be expected to understand the framework within which decision about exceptions are made. Secondly, second language issues have required an enormous time commitment from faculty and staff. Of the 40 appeals which SAC has heard thus far this year, 30 have related to the second language requirement and the number appears to be growing. ComSLE should be allowed to focus on issues of further test development, collecting research data, and test administration and correction rather than on issues of requirement implementation. Second language issues currently require more meetings for both groups than in past years. Therefore, the Task Force proposes that a subcommittee of College staff be formed (we recommend one faculty member and two experienced Scholastic Committee Representatives from different units within the College). The subcommittee would be convened and chaired by a staff member appointed by the Director of Student Academic Support Services (SASS). This person would not be a voting member. Reports on the types of requests and the dispensation of those requests should be made regularly to the Deans, ComSLE, the Director of SASS, and the Scholastic Committee. The guidelines for making these decision and the alternative ways of meeting the requirement should be developed in consultation with representatives of the Deans' Office, ComSLE, the Task Force, and SASS. THE USE OF TEACHING SPECIALISTS Teaching Specialist positions (Class Number 9754) are non-tenure track, annually renewable appointments which usually last for nine-month periods. Teaching Specialists do not receive Faculty Retirement, Life Insurance, or Disability Insurance benefits. Appointments ranging from 75-100% time carry health insurance benefits. Below this level, health insurance is either not available or the employee must purchase coverage on their own. Currently there are approximately 70 Teaching Specialists with varying teaching loads in the College of Liberal Arts. Teaching Specialists do not always hold a terminal degree in their discipline. The Teaching Specialist category allows some flexibility in the staffing of language courses which is valuable to both departments and the College. However, the use of Teaching Specialists should be monitored so that abuses do not occur. Recommendation 1: Teaching Specialists should not be an exploited class. Comment: Terms of employment should include proportional health, retirement, disability, and life insurance benefits. For those Teaching Specialists who are employed for a considerable amount of time, there should be opportunities for professional development. Recommendation 2: a) For languages where a full program including culture, literature, and research is intended, Teaching Specialists should be used only on an emergency basis, for example as replacements for faculty on leave. For languages which do not have a sufficient number of qualified graduate students to staff the needed number of introductory sections, however, the use of Teaching Specialists on a regular basis is acceptable. b) For languages where a full program including culture, literature, and research is not intended, the regular use of Teaching Specialists is acceptable. Recommendation 3: Teaching Specialists should receive, at a minimum, training in pedagogy on the same level as graduate Teaching Assistants. COLLEGIATE SUPPORT OF LANGUAGES It is important for the College of Liberal Arts to decide what level of support will be given to each language that is taught. One purpose for this is to avoid a situation whereby students may find themselves unable to complete required language instruction because of changes partway through their program of study due to lack of faculty and/or course offerings. Recommendation 1: The College of Liberal Arts should adopt the following structure of commitment levels to languages: _______________________________________________________________________ 6 quarters 6 quarters Sporadic Major GPT annually bi-annually offerings _______________________________________________________________________ Level I X X X _______________________________________________________________________ Level II X X _______________________________________________________________________ Level III X X _______________________________________________________________________ Level IV ? X _______________________________________________________________________ At Level I, a major would be available, graduation proficiency testing would be available, and the first six quarters of instruction would be offered each year. At Level II, graduation proficiency testing would be available and the first six quarters of instruction would be offered each year. At Level III, languages would offer a graduation proficiency test and quarter 1 through 3 would be available on alternate years from quarters 4 through 6. At Level IV, partial or sporadic instruction is available; graduation proficiency testing might or might not be available in these languages. Comment: Students studying language at the first or second level should have little difficulty. | 
