|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE inspiration for this study dates back to 2001, when the Department of German Studies at the University of Arizona, Tucson, had an opening for a basic language program director. As then acting head of the department, I requested that the search committee develop a description for the position. The department approved a daunting list of duties, which led me to wonder whether our expectations were in line with the role that basic language program directors (LPDs) played in other departments. Having myself served in the capacity of LPD some years ago and having conducted a similar survey in the late 1970s, I wondered how the position and role of the LPD had changed over the past twenty years.
The position of LPD has received increasing attention since the 1960s. An MLA survey of 52 foreign language departments in 1966 indicated that only about 40% of responding departments offered some form of TA training (MacAllister). By 1978, 78% of departments surveyed reported training programs for TAs (Schulz). Michio Hagiwara was one of the first who attempted to survey the field regarding the role and position of the LPD in university foreign language departments (Leadership, “TA System,” “Training” [1968], “Training” [1970], and “Training” [1976]). Richard Teschner’s 1987 study investigated the background, preparation, and research interests of LPDs. Further, the annual publication series of the American Association of University Supervisors and Coordinators (AAUSC Issues in Language Program Direction, published by Heinle and Heinle) has since 1990 addressed the LPD’s role and position numerous times. James Lee, Beverly Harris-Schenz, and bibliographies such as the one compiled by David Benseler and C. Cronjaeger indicate that TA development, supervision, and evaluation continue to be important topics in the field of foreign language teacher education.
Before I examine the current state of the position of LPDs, let me restate relevant recommendations endorsed by the Committee of Institutional Cooperation (CIC) of ten major midwestern universities in 1985. According to the CIC, language program directors should
The results of this study shed light on the extent to which these recommendations have been implemented.
In spring 2002, a 39-item questionnaire was mailed to 197 members of the AAUSC, an organization for TA coordinators, supervisors, and basic language program directors (whatever title they are given) in university foreign language departments. Another 7 questionnaires were distributed to LPDs at the University of Arizona, and 14 went to graduates of the Interdisciplinary PhD Program in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching (SLAT), who were believed to have coordinating duties. The questionnaire was to be returned by 31 May 2002. Respondents could complete the survey online or submit a copy of the instrument by mail.
Of the 218 individuals contacted, a total of 116 or 53% responded. Ten respondents indicated that they were not or no longer performing the duties of LPD, and 7 served as coordinators of adjuncts at community colleges or in other contexts that were not representative of the population under study. The remaining 99 completed questionnaires provided the data reported in this study. The majority of respondents (77%) came from public institutions with an institutional enrollment of over 20,000 students (76%), and 98% of respondents were in departments offering graduate programs. Interestingly, only 26 people (22%) chose to respond online.
Table 1 provides a breakdown of respondents by language2 and presents a summary profile of the survey respondents.
As can be seen from the profile, 90% of respondents hold a PhD, and 72% have a specialty area in applied linguistics.3 Seventy-five percent of the respondents are female. Although only 65% indicated that publications were a job requirement for the LPD, 90% indicated that they were published authors. Seventy-eight percent held an academic-year (rather than a 12-month) appointment, and 63% served in a tenure-track position. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents reported being 40 or older. Forty-six percent reported between 1 and 5 years of experience, but almost half (49%) had fewer than 7 years, indicating pretenure status. ACTFL (traditionally hosting the AAUSC as well as the AATG meetings at its annual conference) was seen as the most useful professional organization for LPDs, followed by the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL).
Table 2 presents a long list of regular LPD duties checked by survey respondents. The list provides an overview of the multifaceted nature of the job and of expectations departments have of their LPDs.
Table 3 provides insight into the support system available to LPDs, their workload, and their job satisfaction.
Seventy-nine percent of respondents were satisfied with the support provided by the departmental chair. Almost three-quarters of the respondents had course release time. However, only 61% reported having regular access to secretarial help and only 37% reported the availability of an assistant coordinator. Less than 16% received extra monetary compensation for their work as LPDs or had access to special travel or research funds. Only 16% reported some control over budget factors, and more than half (55%) reported insufficient funding for relevant instructional materials.
Sixty-nine percent of the respondents perceived their workload to be higher than that of other faculty members. Despite this perception of overload, 71% rated their job satisfaction to be high or very high. Only 42% of respondents in the commonly taught languages indicated that the extent of professional interaction with other faculty members was high or very high, compared with 65% in the LCTLs. Slightly more than half of all respondents (54%) felt that their work was appreciated by their colleagues in the department.
The survey also solicited open-ended narrative comments regarding those factors that respondents found to affect their work positively or negatively, regarding which tasks they found to be most satisfying or rewarding and which they felt were most time-consuming and most difficult. Summary data, which should be self-explanatory, are provided in tables 4–8.
It is evident that interaction with high-quality TAs and departmental support are most valued by LPDs, mentioned by over 20% of the respondents (table 4). However, the rift between literary faculty members and applied linguists or individuals focusing on the teaching of language, often bemoaned in the past, still appears to be present. While 20% of the respondents mentioned as the most positive aspect of their job the support received from the faculty at large (table 4), 34% found the lack of such support and feedback to be the most negative aspect of their work (table 5).
The most frequently noted negative factor, mentioned by 42% of respondents, related to concerns about workload, lack of time to do research, and job security (table 5). The lack of time, particularly as it manifested itself in the area of research productivity, also was mentioned (by 33%) as the most difficult aspect of the job (table 6). Other problematic areas mentioned by numerous respondents were dealing with personnel or management issues (table 6), TA and adjunct instructor problems (table 5), training TAs as teachers, and developing tests or integrating technology into the curriculum (table 6).
That only 4% of respondents complained about lack of administrative support (table 5) should be seen as a positive sign, particularly since 20% listed the support of the departmental administrator as the most positive factor influencing their work (table 4).
The most time-consuming tasks in language program direction involve TA observation and evaluation, followed by program and test development and general program administration, including coordination meetings (table 7).
The most rewarding aspects of the LPD’s job are observing the growth of TAs and general program success, followed by positive professional and personal interactions with TAs, faculty members, and students, including the mentoring of TAs (table 8).
It is reassuring that a number of the recommendations made by professional groups in the 1980s have indeed been implemented by the profession, if we consider as proof of implementation a response rate of 50% or higher. According to the survey, increasingly, specialists in language teaching and learning occupy the position of LPD (72%). The majority of LPDs serve in tenure-track positions (63%), have course load reduction (74%), and have publications in applied linguistics that are recognized for promotion-and-tenure decisions. Whether their coordination work counts under the rubric of teaching for promotion-and-tenure decisions could not be determined from this survey.
John Lalande (cited in Harris-Schenz) found that 45% of LPD positions advertised in 1989 were non-tenure-track. The October 2003 issue of the MLA Job Information List shows that ten of the eleven LPD positions advertised are tenure-eligible (7) or continuing (3) appointments.
The Job Information List shows that increasingly departments are looking for individuals with expertise in fields related to applied linguistics to perform the duties of LPD. Between 1993 and 2002, the foreign language edition of the October issues of the List announced 149 openings for language program coordinators (Lusin). These positions accounted for between 9.6% (1993) and 1.3% of all jobs advertised in any one year.
A somewhat surprising finding was the high overall job satisfaction of the LPD, given the serious workload issues and related anxiety regarding job security. Seventy-one percent of respondents indicated high or very high job satisfaction. While LPDs have a lot to complain about, their work is gratifying and appears to offer intrinsic rewards. It should also be noted that 78% of respondents were satisfied (i.e., they gave a ranking of 4 or 5) with the support they received from the departmental chair, a very important factor for the LPD.
A finding that is still hard to interpret is that both the Schulz and the Teschner surveys (conducted respectively in 1979 and 1987) indicate that a larger percentage of individuals performing the duties of LPD were tenured in those earlier surveys and a larger percentage served in higher academic ranks than do now. Since many of the recent LPD hires have not yet come up for promotion, only the future will tell if the most serious issue— whether LPDs are able to perform satisfactorily in the area of published scholarship required for promotion and tenure— has been solved or is solvable, given their workload.
The continuing issue of the effect of workload on research productivity is the most crucial problem. The workload of the LPD is still considerably larger than that of faculty members in literary or cultural studies: 69% of respondents perceive their workload to be higher than that of other faculty members. The LPD remains “between a rock and a hard place,” as Harris-Schenz puts it.
In 1987, Lee singled out workload and tenure as the two most pressing issues that needed to be resolved by the profession. The LPDs’ duties were then and are now more those of an administrator and teacher trainer than those of a faculty member (interestingly, three respondents indicated that their title reflected their administrative role). Lee concluded that “a professional model of language program direction is emerging . . . in which the language program director is seen as a viable faculty member contributing to a legitimate scholarly field” (22).
This recent survey only partially supports Lee’s contention. While it is true that most people performing the duties of an LPD (72%) now list their academic specialty area broadly under applied linguistics (or, in Teschner’s terminology, “educational linguistics” [30]), that most publish in related areas, and that 64% serve in tenured or tenure-track positions, the workload reported and the angst related to achieving professional security while performing the duties of an LPD can hardly be labeled a professional model.
Although previous surveys already indicated that LPDs considered themselves to be carrying an inordinate workload, over the past two decades the duties of the LPD appear to have increased rather than decreased. Current expectations of LPDs often include expertise in technology, distance education, assessment, public relations, student recruitment, faculty development, outreach to schools and the community at large, and general administrative savvy (see table 2). Even the job descriptions in the MLA Job Information List indicate that the position of LPD now usually requires a specialty area in the field of applied linguistics and that departments are becoming more demanding with regard to the LPD’s background, expertise, and responsibilities.4
It appears that the LPD’s position has become the catchall for all those duties required by the university administration that other faculty members find tedious or do not wish to perform. Maybe it is time for the profession to define or redefine the position of LPD more clearly. Which duties are inherent or essential to the position and which are peripheral and could or should be performed by other faculty members or administrative staff members? Few junior-level LPDs have the courage to say no when approached by a frazzled department chair who needs yet another task performed that does not relate immediately to the teaching or research mission of the department.
The “ghettoization” of the LPD described by Trisha Dvorak (qtd. in Lee 23) is also still a problem. While LPDs now teach a range of courses in their field and no longer seem to be limited to teaching elementary language courses or methods, only 45% of respondents report much interaction with other faculty members in the department, and only 54% indicate that their literary colleagues value their work. There is no question that a successful language program (implying, by definition, well-trained, committed TAs; effective coordination; and an expertly developed, implemented, and supervised curriculum) needs broad departmental support. Further, if faculty members do not recognize the value of their graduate students’ efforts (and time spent) as TAs and do not support LPDs in their training efforts, harmonious working relationships between the TAs and the LPD are difficult to maintain.
Also on the negative side is an evaluation process of the LPD’s position that largely lacks input from TAs. Only 26% of respondents report that TAs have an opportunity to evaluate the performance of the LPD (table 1). Clearly, TA input should be solicited on a regular basis for formative as well as summative purposes.
What can be done to address the workload issue?
There is a need for ADFL, the AAUSC, ACTFL, and other professional organizations to revisit the issue of language program direction, in order to define the position more clearly and to make recommendations regarding workload expectations for LPDs. Organizations like the AAUSC may want to develop some models for coordination and supervision that distribute the various duties now performed by the LPD among regular or adjunct faculty members, specially trained advanced TAs, or clerical staff. It would be useful to explore which of the LPD’s responsibilities can or should be performed by support personnel and which require the expertise of a specialist.
Also, institutions with doctoral programs that prepare graduate students for LPD positions need to make certain that a mentoring system is available where job candidates can get advice about contract negotiations that determine their duties, research requirements, and release time available for such research. Both departments and institutions must ensure that mentoring and support systems are in place where individuals performing the duties of basic language program direction can share ideas; engage in joint curriculum development as well as in faculty development; and generally participate in communication that will benefit the individual, the department, and the students enrolled.
How to improve general faculty interest, cooperation, and support for the work of the LPD remains a difficult issue. It needs to be acknowledged that slightly over 50% of LPDs appear to be satisfied with the recognition they receive from colleagues. But this means that almost 50% feel insufficiently recognized by their colleagues. The department chair needs to play a role in getting more faculty members to recognize the contributions made to the department by the LPD.
A survey such as this can only be taken as a broad indicator of trends. In general, we can say that the profession appears to have come a long way in shaping, recognizing, and rewarding the work of the LPD. Given the clear evidence of inequities in workload, related anxieties about one’s professional security and advancement, and continuing perceived lack of faculty support and recognition, however, we still have a way to go. Foreign language departments in United States universities are a heterogeneous group, having different contexts, missions, goals, curricula, and needs. It will be impossible to arrive at a cookie-cutter definition of the role of the LPD in these varying contexts. But faculty exploitation of the LPD, as demonstrated by the findings of this survey, regardless of the context in which such exploitation takes place, needs to be addressed.
This essay is a revised version of a paper presented at the ACTFL Annual Conference in Philadelphia 21 November 2003. I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Hyunok Ahn, Kimberly Helmer, Claudia Kost, and Jihyon Park for their help with the data compilation.
1The MLA’s Commission on Foreign Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics issued similar recommendations in 1986 (reported by Lee).
2That most of the respondents were LPDs in a German program is probably due to the fact that the researcher soliciting the information was easily identifiable as coming from a German department. An analysis of the data by language, however, did not reveal major differences in response (i.e., over 10%), with the exception of “overall job satisfaction” (where only 61% of the German cohort marked a high or very high level of job satisfaction, compared with 78% for Spanish, 75% for French, and 65% for the less commonly taught languages [LCTLs]) and “extent of professional interaction with other faculty” (where respondents in the LCTLs reported significantly more interaction with departmental colleagues (65%) than their CTL counterparts (42%).
3A comment on the use of the term “applied linguistics” is in order. As the data from the questionnaires were compiled, it became evident that individuals performing the duties of LPD whose areas of interest and expertise fall broadly in applied linguistics do not use common terms to identify their academic specialty. Under “academic specialty” were listed foreign language education, applied linguistics, second language acquisition, second language acquisition and teaching, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, cognitive studies, computer-assisted language learning, and so on. Given the interdisciplinary nature of the field and the fact that advanced degrees in related areas are offered by a number of different departments (e.g., foreign language departments, English departments, linguistics departments, interdisciplinary programs), which are located sometimes even in different colleges, terminology, areas of concentration, and self-identification differ widely. William Grabe and Robert Kaplan define applied linguistics as “a multidisciplinary approach to the solution of language-related problems” (17) and call applied linguistics a “fuzzy field” (8) that is still defining itself. For the purposes of categorizing the data, we have used the definition of applied linguistics given in the Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (Richards, Platt, and Platt) and are using the classification of applied linguist for any person with preparation and research interests subsumed in the following definition:
Applied linguistics
4A recent job advertisement for an LPD included among other expertise required for the job, “state of the art knowledge in the use of technology . . . outreach to . . . school systems . . . working with our . . . School of Education in training language teachers . . . supervising and developing existing programs in languages for professional purposes and languages across the curriculum. . . . Expertise in grant writing, potential for external funding” (e-mail announcement of a tenure-track position at the University of Connecticut, dated 28 Oct. 2003).
Benseler, David P., and C. Cronjaeger. “The Preparation and Support of Graduate Teaching Assistants in Foreign Languages: A Bibliography.” Challenges in the 1990s for College Foreign Language Programs. Ed. Sally S. Magnan. Boston: Heinle, 1990. 207–32.
Dvorak, T. R. “The Ivory Ghetto: The Place of the Language Program Coordinator in a Research Institution.” Hispania 69 (1986): 217–22.
Grabe, William, and Robert B. Kaplan. Introduction to Applied Linguistics. Reading: Addison, 1992.
Hagiwara, Michio P. Leadership in Foreign Language Education: Trends in Training and Supervision of Graduate Assistants. New York: MLA, 1970.
———. “The TA System: Two Wrongs Do Not Make a Right.” ADFL Bulletin 8.3 (1977): 25–28. [Show Article]
———. “Training and Supervision of College Foreign Language Teachers.” Foreign Language Annals 3 (1968): 90–107.
———. “Training and Supervision of Graduate Teaching Assistants.” ADFL Bulletin 1.3 (1970): 37–50. [Show Article]
———. “The Training of Graduate Teaching Assistants: Past, Present, and Future." ADFL Bulletin 7.3 (1976): 7–12. [Show Article]
Harris-Schenz, Beverly. “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Position of the Language Program Coordinator.” ADFL Bulletin 24.2 (1993): 45–50. [Show Article]
Lee, James F. “Toward a Professional Model of Language Program Direction.” ADFL Bulletin 19.1 (1987): 22–25. [Show Article]
Lusin, Natalia. E-mail to the author. 26 Sept. 2003.
MacAllister, Archibald T. “The Preparation of College Teachers of Modern Foreign Languages.” Modern Language Journal 50 (1966): 400–15.
Richards, Jack C., John Platt, and Heidi Platt. Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Essex: Longman, 1992.
Schulz, Renate A. “TA Training, Supervision, and Evaluation: Report of a Survey.” ADFL Bulletin 12.1 (1980): 1–8. [Show Article]
Teschner, Richard C. “A Profile of the Specialization and Expertise of Lower Division Foreign Language Program Directors in American Universities.” Modern Language Journal 71 (1987): 28–35.
| Summary | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Total number of surveys distributed | 218 |
| Number of respondents | 116 (53.21%) |
| Questionnaires included in data analysis | 99 |
| Breakdown by language | |
| German and Germanic languages | 31 |
| French | 24 |
| Spanish and Portuguese | 27 |
| LCTLs | 17 |
| Terminal degree:PhD | 90 |
| Specialty area* | |
| Applied linguistics | 72 |
| Linguistics | 21 |
| Literature | 43 |
| Gender:female | 75 |
| Age range of majority | |
| 30–50 | 64 |
| 50–59 | 29 |
| Years of experience | |
| 1–5 | 46 |
| 6–10 | 24 |
| 11–15 | 16 |
| 16–20 | 5 |
| 20+ | 9 |
| Current rank | |
| Assistant professor | 31 |
| Associate professor | 22 |
| Professor | 10 |
| Senior lecturer | 11 |
| Lecturer | 15 |
| Instructor | 5 |
| Other | 5 |
| Tenured or tenure-track appointment | 63 |
| Academic-year (rather than 12-month) appointment | 78 |
| Regularly evaluated by* | |
| Department chair | 82 |
| Peers | 48 |
| TAs | 26 |
| Publication is job requirement | 65 |
| Published authors | 90 |
| Area of publication* | |
| Language pedagogy | 54 |
| Applied linguistics | 47 |
| Textbooks | 26 |
| Curriculum development | 24 |
| CALL | 24 |
| Testing | 17 |
| Literature | 35 |
| Cultural studies | 14 |
| Most useful professional organization:ACTFL | |
| (AAUSC and AATG meet jointly with ACTFL) | |
| Percentage | |
|---|---|
| Number of TAs supervised | |
| 0–10 | 56 |
| 11–20 | 27 |
| 21–40 | 11 |
| 41–74 | 5 |
| Number of TA-taught courses for which responsible | |
| Range 0–100+ | |
| 0–10 | 63 |
| 11–20 | 21 |
| 21–40 | 2 |
| 40+ | 14 |
| Courses supervised by LPDs | |
| First-year language | 93 |
| Second-year language | 81 |
| Third-year language | 28 |
| Grammar | 4 |
| Conversation | 4 |
| Graduate reading | 3 |
| Miscellaneous duties | |
| Evaluate teaching performances of TAs | 96 |
| Select books and instructional materials | 94 |
| Conduct coordination meetings | 94 |
| Plan and conduct preservice workshops | 92 |
| Do classroom observations | 92 |
| Develop course syllabi | 83 |
| Schedule courses | 68 |
| Teach a methods course | 62 |
| Participate in selection of graduate students | 59 |
| Recruit graduate students | 57 |
| Offer in-service development workshops | 57 |
| Coordinate placement testing | 56 |
| Develop achievement tests for courses supervised | 55 |
| Develop Web sites for classes supervised | 55 |
| Recruit undergraduate majors and minors | 43 |
| Coordinate extracurricular activities | 35 |
| Conduct outreach activities to schools | 34 |
| Serve as departmental undergraduate adviser | 24 |
| Conduct outreach activities to community | 20 |
| Serve as graduate adviser | 19 |
| Coordinate departmental proficiency testing | 15 |
| Coordinate study-abroad courses | 15 |
| Prepare budget for supervised courses | 12 |
| Manage departmental Web site | 11 |
| Coordinate departmental distance courses | 8 |
| Other | 20 |
| Percentage | |
|---|---|
| Support of department chair rated as high or very high | 79 |
| Availability of course release time | 74 |
| Access to secretarial help | 61 |
| Availability of assistant coordinator | 37 |
| No extra monetary compensation | 84 |
| No or little funding for material acquisition | 55 |
| No special travel funds | 83 |
| No special research funds | 86 |
| No control of budget factors | 84 |
| Workload perceived to be higher than that of other faculty members | 69 |
| Overall job satisfaction rated high or very high | 71 |
| Appreciation of LPD’s work by colleagues in | |
| department rated as high or very high | 54 |
| Percentage | |
|---|---|
| Cooperation of, interaction with, and positive feedback from TAs | 27 |
| Quality of TAs | 23 |
| Support of department chair and administration | 20 |
| Support and positive feedback from faculty members | 20 |
| Availability of assistant coordinators and supervisors | 8 |
| Collaboration and networking with LPD from other departments | 8 |
| Successful program | 7 |
| Workload and working conditions | 6 |
| Freedom to organize program as LPD desires | 5 |
| Percentage | |
|---|---|
| Workload and lack of time to do research; job security; promotion and tenure issues |
42 |
| Lack of faculty support, cooperation, and respect | 34 |
| Problems with TAs and adjunct instructors | 17 |
| Inadequate pay | 9 |
| Budget issues | 7 |
| Enrollment issues | 4 |
| Departmental and institutional politics | 4 |
| Lack of administrative support | 4 |
| Student problems | 3 |
| Percentage | |
|---|---|
| Finding time for research (18%), managing time (15%) | 33 |
| Dealing with personnel and management issues | 23 |
| Training TAs as teachers | 16 |
| Developing tests and materials, integrating technology | 11 |
| Ensuring program quality | 9 |
| Getting cooperation of regular faculty | 7 |
| Dealing with undergraduates | 5 |
| Scheduling | 3 |
| Classroom observations | 3 |
| Marketing (building the program, recruiting students) | 2 |
| Percentage | |
|---|---|
| Class observations and TA evaluations | 42 |
| Course and program development | 28 |
| Test development and assessment | 26 |
| Program administration | 25 |
| Coordination meetings | 12 |
| Supervising | 8 |
| Maintaining Web site | 7 |
| Scheduling | 6 |
| TA training | 4 |
| Mentoring | 4 |
| Advising undergraduate students | 4 |
| Dealing with undergraduate student complaints and problems | 4 |
| Teaching | 3 |
| Percentage | |
|---|---|
| Observing TA growth and success (45%), program success (12%) | 57 |
| Professional and personal interaction with TAs, faculty members, and students | 17 |
| Mentoring TAs | 15 |
| Course and program development | 9 |
| Supervising and coordinating | 9 |
| Teaching (language and applied linguistics courses) | 7 |
| Giving workshops, doing teacher training | 4 |
| Research and professional growth | 4 |
| Outreach | 2 |
© 2005 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
