24, no. 3 (Spring 1993): 6-21 To the Editor Search

---

Table of Contents

Previous Article Next Article

Works Cited

THE MLA's 1987–89 survey of foreign language programs included a series of questions about the curriculum, and the following pages summarize the findings. The questions dealt with characteristics of introductory language courses, including staffing patterns, the nature of intensive language courses, the availability and range of immersion experiences, and the types of courses offered. The presence and use of study abroad opportunities were also examined and are discussed in connection with the questions about immersion experiences.

The 1987–89 Survey of Foreign Language Programs

The 1987–89 survey represents the MLA's first effort to collect information from a stratified random sample of foreign language programs established in 1988. In its final form, the questionnaire for the survey deals with most aspects of collegiate foreign language instruction. In addition to the curriculum, these include institutional foreign language requirements, ¹ characteristics of faculty members, the faculty role in campus governance, fall 1988 enrollment figures, and number of majors in 1988–89. An overview of the findings dealing with noncurriculum issues appeared in the Winter 1992 issue of the ADFL Bulletin.

Because of its length, the 1987–89 survey was divided into two parts, with the first sent to department chairs in spring 1989 and the second in fall 1989. Thanks to extensive telephone follow-up, 85% of the language programs in the sample ( N =607) eventually participated in the survey, with fully 80% returning both parts of the questionnaire. Given the volume of information requested, this represents a very high response rate. The final response sample includes 23% of all college and university foreign language programs in the United States and 20% of all institutions with foreign language programs. Because large institutions were oversampled, the institutions included in the response sample educate 36% of the students enrolled at colleges and universities with foreign language programs in fall 1986. All major sample subgroups are well represented among responding programs. ²

Analysis revealed that a range of characteristics served to differentiate language programs with different curricular features. The percentages of programs belonging to the subgroups identified for each characteristic are listed in table 1. ³ The first 6 are institutional characteristics; they include source of funding, institutional type, institutional size as measured by the number of full- and part-time students in fall 1986, presence of an institutional language requirement, and the administration's view of language study. Institutional type involves a twofold distinction: between two- and four-year institutions and between 3 major types of four-year institutions (baccalaureate institutions with four-year liberal arts programs leading to a bachelor's degree, comprehensive institutions that offer master's and professional degrees in some fields but are primarily undergraduate institutions; and doctorate-granting institutions with multiple graduate programs).

Three departmental characteristics are listed in table 1: number of languages offered; highest degree granted by four-year programs; and type of language program (institutions with multiple specialized language programs vs. institutions with inclusive programs responsible for all language instruction offered). Finally, 7 measures of faculty size and composition are presented. In addition to varying by the number of full-time tenure-track and part-time faculty members present, programs with and without full-time non-tenure-track faculty members occasionally displayed different curricular features, as did four-year programs with and without teaching assistants. The percentage of full-time tenure-track faculty members among all faculty members and the percentage of full-time faculty members who have PhDs or who are native speakers also affected the nature of the curriculum in some instances. ⁴ The following pages outline which of the characteristics listed in table 1 help to structure each of the curricular features considered in the 1987–89 survey.

Characteristics of Introductory Language Courses

The vast majority of sampled programs reported that at least some aspects of their multisection introductory courses are administered in a uniform manner; only 7% reported that introductory sections in a single language are run entirely independently. Different individuals and groups are responsible for determining the form and content of introductory courses, as the following figures indicate:

As the above figures indicate, foreign language chairs rarely have sole responsibility for administering introductory language sections, while language coordinators have it with some frequency. In addition, two groups are often responsible for coordinating introductory courses: the instructors teaching sections during a given term and the instructors teaching introductory sections on a regular basis. The language coordinator shares the responsibility with one of these two groups in 9% of the responding programs, while the faculty as a whole determines the form and content of introductory sections in 10%.

Among programs in which aspects of introductory language courses are uniformly administered, texts and learning objectives are commonly defined in almost all cases. Similar syllabi are used in over four-fifths of the programs, and examinations are uniformly administered in three-fifths. In short, as the following figures make clear, a majority of the responding departments report that all 4 aspects of the introductory course considered are uniformly administered.

Relatively few of the responding departments (19%) let students choose from several types of courses during the second year of the introductory sequence. The most common option available is a conversation course; courses focusing on grammar and composition are also offered quite frequently. Other options offered are varied, as the following figures indicate:

Frequency and Length of Introductory Class Sessions

The vast majority of first- and second-year language classes meet between 3 and 5 times each week. Of the sampled programs, 38% said their first-year classes met 3 times a week, 29% said they met 4 times a week, and 26% said they met 5 times a week. The equivalent figures for second-year courses are 55%, 24%, and 11%. Thus, second-year classes tend to meet less frequently than first-year classes; the average are 3 and 4 times per week respectively. Seventy-eight percent of the survey respondents said that their first-year class sessions were 60 minutes long, while 80% said their second-year classes met for the same time period. The frequency of weekly class meetings does not affect length of class sessions, provided introductory sections meet 3 or more times a week. If introductory classes meet only 1 or 2 times a week, which is rare, class sessions are longer—about 2 hours, on average.

The frequency with which first-year language classes meet varies by a number of factors. Of the programs in very large institutions, 40% have language classes that meet 5 times a week or more. The same can be said of only 23% of the programs in smaller institutions. In addition, programs in institutions in which the administration views language study as essential or indispensable are somewhat more likely to have their first-year language classes meet 5 or more times a week than those in institutions whose administrations have a less positive view of language study (33% vs. 19%). Among four-year programs, 64% of those in comprehensive institutions have their first-year classes meet 3 times a week compared with 32% of those in baccalaureate institutions and 20% of those in doctorate-granting institutions. Finally, the frequency with which first-year language classes meet becomes greater as the highest degree granted by four-year programs becomes more advanced: only 16% of the classes in programs granting no more than a BA meet 5 or more times a week compared with 52% of those in programs granting the PhD.

The frequency with which second-year language classes meet varies along one dimension only. As the highest degree granted by four-year programs becomes more advanced, the frequency with which second-year classes meet increases: 26% of those programs granting no more than a BA have their second-year classes meet 4 or more times a week compared with 51% of those granting the PhD. These findings suggest that the frequency with which second-year language classes meet is much more uniform than the frequency with which first-year classes meet, particularly among four-year institutions. First-year classes appear to meet most frequently in programs granting a PhD and in very large or doctorate-granting institutions.

Average Class Size in Introductory Courses

On average, the first-year language classes offered by sampled programs enroll 23 students, with half reporting average class sizes of 20 to 26 students. Only 6% report classes as small as 12, and 15% report classes of 30 or larger. Second-year language classes tend to be smaller than first-year classes. Half of the programs in the sample report that their second-year classes enroll between 15 and 22 students, on average; the median is 20. Thirty-eight percent report classes of 15 of fewer, while 19% report classes of 12 or fewer. At the other end of the spectrum, only 2% report that their classes are as large as 30, though 20% say their average class size is 25 or higher.

Guidelines developed by the ADFL in 1978 state that the optimum class size for introductory language classes is 12, while maximum class size should not exceed 20. The figures just cited indicate that few programs achieve the optimum for their first-year classes, while about a fifth have second-year classes that enroll no more than 12 students, on average. Just over half of the sampled programs (51%) report that their average second-year class sizes are between 12 and 20, while 34% say their first-year classes fall in this range. Consequently, 60% of the sampled programs report that their first-year introductory language classes generally enroll more than 20 students, exceeding the maximum recommended by ADFL. The same is true of second-year classes in 30% of the programs surveyed.

Average class size varies by a number of factors at the first-year level. First, programs in public institutions have larger classes than those in private institutions (24.8 vs. 19.6). And second, inclusive programs have larger classes, on average, than specialized programs (24.2 vs. 20.6). Among four-year programs, classes are, on average, largest in comprehensive institutional and smallest in baccalaureate institutions, with classes in doctorate-granting institutions falling somewhere in between (the averages are 24.6, 18.4, and 21.8 respectively). In addition, programs granting only the BA or MA tend to have larger classes, on average, than those granting the PhD or no degree (23.1 and 23.8 vs. 20.6 and 21.2).

Like first-year classes, second-year language classes tend to be smaller in private than in public institutions (16.3 vs. 19.7). The number of full-time tenure-track faculty members affects the size of second-year language classes as well; average class size increases as the number of full-time tenure-track faculty members increases (from 15.0 for programs with 2 or fewer-full-time tenure-track faculty members to 21.4 for programs with 11 or more). Class size also increases as the number of part-time faculty members increases (from 16.9 for programs with 1 to 2 part-time faculty members to 20.8 for programs with 6 or more). Regression analysis revealed, however, that the role of number of part-time faculty members in determining class size is limited, while the role of number of full-time tenure-track faculty members is substantial. ⁵

The findings just reviewed suggest that the size of both first- and second-year classes is dependent on source of funding and faculty size. On average, introductory classes tend to be larger in programs with large numbers of full-time tenure-track faculty members and in public institutions. In addition, first-year classes tend to be largest in programs granting BA or MA degrees and in comprehensive institutions. It appears, therefore, that a large faculty is no guarantee that introductory class size will be low, especially in public comprehensive institutions where resources are often limited.

Features of Introductory Language Courses

Respondents to the 1987–89 survey were asked to estimate the percentage of class time spent on 5 major facets of introductory language classes: grammar, oral communication, reading literary texts, reading nonliterary texts, and culture and civilization. The first column of table 2 indicates that, with one exception, approximately three-quarters or more of the programs in the sample spend at least some time on each activity in both first- and second-year classes. The exception is literary texts; over half of the respondents report that they do not read such texts in first-year classes. Whether they do varies by type of language program. First-year classes in specialized programs are more likely to make use of literary texts than those in inclusive programs; 51% and 36%, respectively, report using them in class.

Although the course features under consideration are widely incorporated into introductory classes, the emphasis they receive varies among departments. Table 2 indicates that grammar and oral communications receive the most attention in first-year classes, with half of the programs in the sample devoting 25% to 50% of all class time to them. Despite their widespread use, discussion of nonliterary texts and culture and civilization do not account for more class time, on average, than the less frequently used literary texts. Nonetheless, limited use is more frequent for literary texts than for the other 2 facets first-year courses. Of the respondents saying culture and civilization are discussed in their first-year classes, 17% say they account for no more than 5% of class time. The same applies to 22% of those saying nonliterary texts are used in first-year classes. In contrast, 32% of those using literary texts say readings from them account for no more than 5% of class time.

Use of class time in second-year classes is similar to the pattern observed for first-year classes. Grammar and oral communication continue to receive the most attention, taking up 30% of the class sessions, on average. Discussions of culture and civilization and readings from nonliterary texts again receive the least attention, accounting for an average of 10% of class time. Literary texts, in contrast, receive more attention in second-than in first-year classes. Of the programs using them, half report that readings from such texts account for 10% to 25% of class time.

Use of class time varies by program type. Table 3 illustrates this by showing, in order of rank, the average amount of time spent on various activities by different types of language programs. ⁶ At both the first- and second-year level, departments organized as language groups use class time differently than do other types of programs. First, language group programs tend to devote less time, on average, to oral communication and more time to grammar in their first-year courses than do other types of programs. Second, they tend to devote more time, on average, to literary texts. In second-year classes the difference in average time devoted to literary texts is even more clear-cut. The bottom part of table 3 shows that among programs organized as language groups the average amount of time spent on readings from literary texts accounts for the largest chunk of class time, while in other types of programs such readings rank third. In addition, oral communication receives somewhat less attention, on average, in the second-year classes of departments organized as language groups. Use of class time varies in one other respect: programs with larger percentages of native speakers among their full-time faculty members tend to devote more time to readings from literary texts in their second-year classes. The following figures make this clear.

Student Placement

The 1987–89 survey asked respondents to indicate how incoming students with previous language training were placed in appropriate introductory classes. The most frequent placement mechanism, as the following figures indicate, is the standardized test.

Whether programs use standardized tests for placement purposes varies by a number of factors. Programs in institutions with language requirements are more likely to use standardized tests than are those in institutions without language requirements (66% vs. 37%). Only 3 in 10 divisions use standardized tests for placement purposes compared with the majority of other types of language programs; single/dual language departments are most likely to use them (78%). ⁷ Programs with 2 fewer full-time tenure-track faculty members are less likely to use placement tests than those with larger faculties (36% vs. 79% of programs with 11 or more full-time tenure-track faculty members). Similarly, departments in which less than two-thirds of the full-time faculty members have PhDs are less likely to use standardized tests than those in which most faculty members have PhDs (43% vs. 71%). And finally, four-year programs granting more advanced degrees are more likely to use standardized tests; only 35% of the programs with no major use standardized tests, compared with 59% of those offering no more than a BA, 67% of those offering no more than an MA, and 82% of those offering the PhD. In sum, divisions with no majors and programs with few faculty members and/or programs in institutions without language requirements are least likely to use standardized tests for placement purposes, while PhD-granting programs with large faculties are most likely to use them. The reliance f the latter in standardized tests may well result from a need to place larger numbers of students in appropriate introductory language classes.

A wide range of tests is used for placement purposes, as the figures below indicate:

The figures indicate that programs rarely use oral examinations in isolation but use them with some frequency in combination with locally or nationally developed written tests. The figures also show that programs using standardized tests for placement purposes are as likely to use tests developed by their own faculty members or campus colleagues as they are to use nationally developed written tests. In addition to being asked about the types of standardized tests used, respondents were asked if they were willing to share tests developed by members of their own programs; a list of those who answered in the affirmative is available from the MLA's Foreign Language Programs office.

Almost three-quarters (73%) of the programs using standardized tests use them exclusively for placement purposes. The most frequently cited other uses, as the following figures indicated, are related to the placement process: awarding extra credits or exempting students from language requirements.

Assessment of Student Competence

Most programs in the sample do not assess the competence of students completing the introductory language sequence; only 31% reported doing so. Whether student competence is assessed does not vary by most institutional and departmental characteristics. Among four-year programs 2 sources of variation are evident. Departments granting the PhD are more likely than programs granting less advanced degrees to assess student competence (42% vs. 27%), and four-year programs are somewhat less likely to assess student competence if two-thirds or more of the full-time faculty members are native speakers than if native speakers are less dominant (25% vs. 36%).

Among programs assessing student competence, the means used are diverse, as the following list indicates:

Two means of assessment predominate: oral examinations and departmentally developed tests. The widespread reliance on oral examinations is striking in the light of their relatively infrequent use for placement purposes. As with placement tests, respondents were asked if they were willing to share their departmentally developed assessment tests. A list of the programs willing to do so is available from the MLA's Foreign Language Programs office.

Who Teaches Introductory Language Sections?

The following percentages of sampled programs said that one or more members of the faculty groups listed below had been involved in teaching the introductory language courses (first- and second-year) offered during fall 1988:

The figures suggest that 3 groups of faculty members are routinely involved in staffing introductory language courses: tenured faculty members, part-time faculty members, and, where they are present, teaching assistants. Junior faculty members and full-time non-tenure-track faculty members are also involved in the majority of programs but less universally than the other three groups mentioned. ⁹

The contribution of each faculty group to the staffing of introductory language courses was assessed by calculating for the sampled programs the percentage of all sections taught by each group in the fall of 1988. For individual departments the percentage of all sections staffed by specific faculty groups ranges from 0 to 100, but the averages differ, as the following figures indicate:

The average indicate that 3 groups tend to teach the largest percentage of introductory language sections: tenured faculty members, part-time faculty members, and, where they are present, teaching assistants. Thus, the same groups that taught 1 or more introductory language sections in the largest percentage of programs also tend to staff the largest percentage of sections within each.

Table 4 indicates that programs in two- and four-year institutions staff introductory language courses differently. In two-year programs, just over half of all introductory language sections, on average, are taught by tenured faculty members; most of the remainder tend to be staffed by part-time faculty members, in part because such temporary instructors are a ubiquitous feature of two-year foreign language faculties. In four-year institutions, the division of labor depends on whether TAs are present, as the last two columns of table 4 indicate. When they are absent, tenured faculty members staff almost half of the introductory sections, on average. Part-time faculty members also staff a good many, though reliance on them is not nearly as great as in two-year colleges. Where TAs are present, they staff approximately half of the introductory sections, on average. The remainder appear to be most frequently staffed by tenured and part-time faculty members, but their involvement is less pervasive than at other four-year or two-year institutions.

Staffing Introductory Language Sections in Two-Year Programs

Among two-year colleges, the percentage of introductory language sections staffed by tenured faculty members in fall 1988 varies by 2 factors. First, the average percentage of introductory sections taught by tenured faculty members decreases as the number of part-time faculty members increases; if no part-time faculty members are present, tenured faculty members staff 73% of the language sections offered, while if 6 or more are present they teach only 43%. Second, the average percentage of introductory language classes taught by tenured faculty members is higher in two-year programs where two-thirds or more of the full-time faculty members are native speakers than it is in programs where native speakers are less dominant (61% vs. 48%); the difference is not pronounced, however.

The percentage of introductory language sections taught by part-time faculty members varies by the number of languages offered; as the number increases, the percentage of sections staffed by part-time faculty members decreases (from 65% for programs offering 1 to 2 languages to 29% for programs offering 6 or more). In short, in two-year programs offering 6 or more languages and having relatively few, if any, part-time faculty members, the percentage of introductory sections staffed by tenured faculty members is high and the percentage staffed by part-time faculty members is slow. The opposite is true in two-year programs offering 1 to 2 languages and having large numbers of part-time faculty members.

Staffing Introductory Language Sections in Four-Year Programs

Among four-year programs different factors affect the percentage of introductory language sections taught by various faculty groups. The percentage of sections taught by tenured faculty members varies by 3 factors. The percentage is greater, on average, in inclusive programs than in specialized programs (48% vs. 27%). It is also higher in programs offering no more than a BA than it is in programs offering the PhD (46% vs. 16%). Further, as noted earlier, the percentage of introductory language sections taught by tenured faculty members is considerably higher in programs without TAs than in programs with TAs. These findings suggest that the percentage of introductory language sections staffed by tenured faculty members tends to be highest in inclusive programs that grant no more than a BA.

The percentage of introductory language sections staffed by part-time faculty members decreases as the percentage of faculty members in full-time tenure-track positions increases (from 46% for programs in which the percentage is less than 35% to 15% for programs in which it is 76% or more). The percentage increases, in contrast, as the number of part-time faculty members increases (from 21% for programs with 1 to 2 part-time faculty members to 38% for programs with 6 or more). Further, the percentage of introductory language sections staffed by part-time faculty members is somewhat lower among programs with full-time non-tenure-track faculty members than it is among programs without such staff (23% vs. 31%). In short, the percentage of introductory language sections staffed by part-time faculty members is highest in programs in which relatively few faculty members have full-time tenure-track positions and the number of part-time faculty members is large.

Among four-year programs, the way introductory language sections are staffed varies notably by highest degree granted, as the figures in table 5 make clear. Among programs offering courses but not degree, introductory language sections are staffed much the way they are in two-year colleges: primarily by tenured and part-time faculty members. Among programs granting a degree, in contrast, part-time faculty members play a much smaller role in the staffing of introductory language sections; in programs granting a bachelor's degree only, tenured and junior faculty members generally teach close to two-thirds of the introductory language sections. ¹⁰ In doctorate-granting programs, however, these groups staff only an average of 25% of the introductory language sections, while teaching assistants staff 55%, on average.

These findings indicate that in all foreign language programs, except those granting PhDs, tenured faculty members teach the largest proportion of first- and second-year language sections. Although part-time faculty members, when present, do teach introductory sections, the rarely appear to teach the majority of such sections. This finding suggests that most language programs hire part-time faculty members not as a means of relieving full-time faculty members of the “burden” of teaching introductory language sections but as a means of coping with enrollments that are too large tenured faculty members to handle. The consistently small role played by junior faculty members in the staffing of introductory language sections suggests that departments may be hiring part-time faculty members as a means of compensating for a dearth of junior faculty members, who have been hired in small numbers since the contraction of the academic job market in the 1970s. These hiring patterns will, of course, have consequences in the years ahead, when large numbers of currently tenured foreign language faculty members retire.

PhD-granting departments are an important exception to the general practice of having tenured faculty members staff introductory language classes. Since, however, such departments are in a minority—they account for only 19% of all foreign language programs—their practices are not typical of the field (Huber, “Characteristics of College” 43). Although tenured faculty members do not staff the majority of introductory language sections in PhD-granting departments, such courses are taught not by part-time faculty members but by TAs, who are presumably using the experience to prepare themselves for their future careers.

Availability of Intensive Courses

Respondents to the 1987—89 survey were asked whether their programs offered “courses organized as intensive learning experiences.” Forty-four percent said they did. The number of weeks that such intensive courses meet ranges from 2 to 32, with a median of 10. Half of the programs offering intensive courses have them meet for a total of 6 to 15 weeks. The number of sessions held per week ranges from 1 to 7, with 64% saying their intensive courses meet 5 times a week. Class sessions are 100 minutes, on average, with 50% meeting between 1 and 3 hours.

The number of times per week that intensive classes meet does not vary by course length; the majority of intensive classes meet 5 times a week regardless of the number of weeks they run. ¹¹ Class length does vary by course length, however.

The above figures indicate that class sessions in intensive courses become shorter as the number of weeks the course runs increases. Thus, class sessions are almost 3 hours, on average, in intensive courses that are 6 weeks or less, while they are 90 minutes, on average, in courses that run 14 weeks or longer.

When the 3 aspects of intensive courses discussed above are combined, it becomes clear that respondent's definitions of what constitutes an intensive course vary. Nineteen respondents, for example, stated that their intensive courses are 14 to 15 weeks long and meet 3 to 5 times a week for 2 hours, while 21 said their courses meet 5 times a week for 1 to 2 hours and run only 4 to 6 weeks. Because of such variation in what respondents considered an intensive course, an objective definition was developed for more detailed analysis. Table 6 presents the criteria used. The right-hand column indicates that the most common pattern for intensive courses is a 14-to-16-week course that meets 5 to 6 times a week for 1 to 2 hours. The second most common pattern is a 4-to-6-week course that meets 4 to 5 times a week for 3 to 6 hours. ¹² Three other patterns are fairly common: 14-to-16-week courses that meet 3 to 4 times a week for 2 to 6 hours; 7-to-9-week courses that meet 5 times a week for 2 to 6 hours; and 10-week courses that meet 5 to 7 times a week for 2 to 4 hours (in one such program class sessions are 5 to 6 hours).

Development of a more rigorous definition of intensive courses is important, since such courses have been shown to enhance language learning. Their presence, therefore, can be taken as a sign of a strong language program. Under the more rigorous definition, outlined in table 6, 29% of the programs in the sample offer intensive courses, while 71% do not. Thus, just under a third of the programs saying they offer intensive courses do not meet the criteria employed here (72 out of 232). Whether programs offer intensive courses varies by 3 characteristics. As institutional size and number of full-time tenure-track faculty members increases, so does the percentage of programs offering intensive courses (from 7% for programs in small institutions to 45% for programs in very large institutions and from 14% for programs with 2 or fewer full-time tenure-track faculty members to 47% for programs with 11 or more). In addition, programs in doctorate-granting institutions are most likely to offer intensive courses while those in baccalaureate institutions are least likely to do so (43% vs. 12%). These findings suggest that departments with larger full-time tenure-track faculties in very large doctorate-granting institutions may be particularly strong because they are the only ones offering intensive language courses with any frequency. Should this be so, the findings also suggest that institutional and departmental resources are a key factor in a program's ability to offer intensive courses; those programs most likely to offer them are also those with the most resources at their disposal. Thus, institutional context plays an important role in determining the strength of a foreign language program.

Opportunities for Immersion Experiences

Opportunities for immersion experiences appear to be more widespread than opportunities for taking intensive courses. According to the findings from the 1987–89 survey, 66% of the programs in the response sample said that their campuses offered “opportunities for intensive learning or immersion experience outside the classroom.” In fact, the percentage is probably higher because some respondents interpreted the question as referring to on-campus immersion opportunities only. Thus, they answered the question in the negative, even though their institutions are involved in study-abroad programs. ¹³

Nonetheless, the findings indicate that among programs answering the question in the affirmative, the most widely available immersion opportunities involve study abroad. The following figures make this clear:

Some care must be exercised in interpreting the above percentages, since 3 of the categories were added by respondents: brief immersion opportunities, short-term study abroad, and internship/work abroad. The number of programs offering such opportunities may be higher than the percentages indicate because some respondents may not have thought to add them to their responses. The percentage of respondents adding brief immersion opportunities (e.g., language clubs, tutorials, conversation hours, annual plays, immersion weekends) to the categories on the questionnaire is quite high and may indicate that such opportunities are as widely available as the other 3 on-campus options listed. Among the study-abroad options, however, the short-term study- and work-abroad options added by respondents are probably much less frequently available than the conventional study-abroad opportunities.

Whether programs offer one or more of the above immersion opportunities depends primarily on three institutional characteristics. The key determinant is institutional type; programs in four-year institutions are far more likely than those in two-year colleges to offer immersion experiences (73% vs. 36%). In addition, programs in private institutions are more likely than those in public institutions to offer immersion experiences (75% vs. 59%). The same applies to programs in large and very large institutions compared with those in small and medium-sized institutions; the percentages offering immersion opportunities are 70% and 57% respectively. The effect of number of language offered varies by institutional type. In two-year colleges the percentage of programs offering immersion opportunities increases as the number of languages offered increases (from 13% for programs offering 1 to 2 languages to 60% for programs offering 6 or more). In four-year institutions, only programs offering 6 or more languages are distinct; they are more likely to offer immersion opportunities that those offering fewer languages (87% vs. 68%).

The percentage of programs offering immersion opportunities also varies by four-year institutional type, with programs in comprehensive institutions less likely to do so than programs in baccalaureate or doctorate-granting institutions (63% vs. 80% and 78%). One other difference in the frequency with which immersion opportunities are available is evident among four-year programs: those in which all full-time faculty members are native speakers are less likely to offer immersion experiences than those in which one or more full-time faculty members are not native speakers (53% vs. 76%).

The findings just summarized indicate that immersion opportunities are infrequently provided by two-year programs but are available in the majority of four-year programs. Among the latter, they are least frequently provided by programs offering courses in relatively few languages and located in comprehensive institutions with fewer than 5,000 students. Thus, as with intensive courses, programs with limited resources are less able than others to offer immersion experiences.

Study-Abroad Programs

The prevalence of study-abroad programs and their sponsorship was explored in a questions separate from the one about immersion opportunities. When asked whether their campus or system sponsored or cosponsored a study-abroad program, 75% of the respondent answered yes. This is a higher percentage than the responses to the question on immersion opportunities lead one to expect; 57% of the respondents whose programs offered immersion experiences said they offered a study-abroad program, which represents 38% of the sample as a whole. The difference in the two sets of responses can be attributed to differing referents. The initial part of the question on immersion opportunities was restricted to on-campus programs, while the question on study-abroad programs encompassed consortia as well as university systems. ¹⁴ Consequently, conclusions about the prevalence of study abroad programs should be based on responses to the explicit question about such programs rather than on responses to the subquestion included in the broader query about immersion opportunities.

A 1987 survey by the American Council on Education (ACE) found that 63% of all four-year institutions and 12% of all two-year colleges “operate a study-abroad and/ or overseas internship program” for which academic credit is given (Andersen 21, 32). The comparable figures for the 1987–89 survey are 80% and 57%. The MLA figures are higher, at least in part because the question used was less restrictive than the question used in the ACE survey. More specifically, the ACE question excluded participation in programs operated by university systems and consortia, while the MLA question did not. The effect of this exclusion becomes clear if one examines differences among four-year institutions. The ACE survey found that 91% of doctorate-granting institutions, 77% of comprehensive institutions, and 49% of baccalaureate institutions operate their own study-abroad programs. The comparable figures for the 1987–89 survey are 88%, 71%, and 75%. The only significant discrepancy between the two sets of figures is for baccalaureate institutions; the reason: they are more likely to participate in consortia than are doctorate-granting or comprehensive institutions. ¹⁵

Study-abroad programs are most frequently administered by campuswide international programs offices or by single foreign language units. This is apparent from the figures below:

Study-aborad programs sponsored by university systems or consortia are more widespread than the percentage suggest. Since campus units such as foreign language departments or international programs offices are often involved in the administration of these programs, those sponsored by university systems or consortia were frequently included in the first residual category (two of the above). Another form of joint administration that occurs with some frequency involves several foreign language units sharing responsibility for a study-abroad program.

Whether foreign language programs and institutions are involved in study-abroad programs varies by 2 factors. The percentage of language departments involved in study-abroad programs increases as institutional size increases.

The clearest difference emerges between very large institutions and smaller ones; 93% of the programs in the former are affiliated with study-abroad programs compared with 67% of the programs in the latter. Further, institutions whose language programs are housed in divisions are less likely to sponsor study-abroad programs than are those whose programs are organized differently (50% vs. 80%). In short, the survey findings show that the only institutions unlikely to sponsor or cosponsor study-abroad programs are those whose language programs are organized as divisions.

Participation in Study-Abroad Programs

In addition to asking about the presence of study-abroad programs, the 1987–89 survey asked respondents as four-year institutions to specify the number of majors and minors who had participated in several types of language programs in 1988–89. As the list in table 7 indicates, 4 of the options listed deal with study abroad, and one deals with summer language programs or courses. For purposes of analysis, the numbers of majors and minors participating in each type of program were added together for a count of the number of student participants.

The first column of table 7 indicates that approximately half of the four-year programs in the sample had one or more students who spent a summer, a term, or a year abroad during 1988–89. Very few had students who spent a month or less abroad, and one-third had students who participated in a summer language program or course. Among programs whose students participated in one or more of the options listed, the number participating did not vary much. For all options, except the month-abroad program, half of the programs involved had between 2 and 10 students participating. For the month-abroad program, 23% of the few participating programs had 1 student involved and 31% had 2 students.

Whether four-year programs had students participating in the two summer language programs does not vary by any of the institutional and departmental characteristics under consideration. Whether students spent a term or a year abroad varies primarily by the number of full-time tenure-track faculty members in foreign language programs; the percentage increases along with the number of faculty members (from 41% and 30% for programs with 2 or fewer full-time tenure-track faculty members to 62% and 69% for programs with 11 or more). In addition, programs are less likely to have students spending a term abroad if two-thirds or more of the full-time faculty members are native speakers than if a smaller percentage are native speakers (44% vs. 59%). Further, programs in comprehensive public institutions are less likely to have students spending a year abroad than are programs in doctorate-granting public institutions (45% vs. 64%). ¹⁶

Preceding discussion has indicated that the percentage of native speakers among the full-time faculty members in a language department affects the curriculum in a number of respects. Departments in which the percentage of native speakers is high (two-thirds or more) are less likely than others to have students spending a term abroad, as just noted, and are less likely to offer immersion opportunities. In addition, they are somewhat less likely to assess student competence at the end of the introductory language sequence. ¹⁷ These findings suggest that language programs with high percentages of native speakers may feel less need to provide short-term immersion or study abroad experiences for their students because the students are exposed to an authentic language context in their classes. In addition, assessment may seem less important in such departments because learning is assumed to occur in the authentic class context provided.

Courses in Linguistics

When asked whether their foreign language unit offered courses in linguistics, 38% of the respondents said yes and 62% said no. Most of the programs offering linguistics courses offer language-specific rather than general courses, as the following figures indicate:

When linguistics courses are offered elsewhere in the institution, which is true for 18% of the programs in the sample, they are rarely offered by another language program. Most frequently they are offered by the English department.

Whether sampled programs offer linguistics courses varies by a number of characteristics. The courses are the exclusive province of four-year programs; two-year programs almost never offer them (47% vs. 1%). Among four-year programs, the percentage offering linguistics varies by several factors. Just over a fifth of the programs in small institutions (23%) offer linguistics compared with 66% of those in very large institutions. Further, departments with 11 or more full-time tenure-track faculty members are four times as likely to offer linguistics as are departments with 2 or fewer such faculty members (71% vs. 18%). In addition, departments offering 6 or more languages are more likely to offer linguistics than those offering fewer languages (68% vs. 39%). In short, four-year programs in large institutions having large full-time tenure-track faculties and/or offering a range of languages are more likely to offer linguistics courses than are smaller programs in smaller institutions.

Types of Language Courses Offered

The frequency with which the sampled programs offer the language courses considered varies, as the following figures indicate:

The first 3 courses listed are offered by three-quarters or more of the programs in the sample, while literature-intranslation courses are offered by just over half. Courses for bilingual speakers are offered by just under a fifth of the programs, and self-paced language courses are offered by just 1 in 10.

Factors Affecting the Frequency with Which Courses Are Offered

The frequency with which advanced language courses are offered varies by a number of institutional and departmental characteristics. Such courses are almost universal in four-year programs, but they are rarely offered by two-year programs (94% vs. 18%). Further, programs in institutions with language requirements are considerably more likely to offer advanced language courses than are those in institutions without language requirements (90% vs. 50%). In addition, programs with less than 35% of their faculty members in full-time tenure-track positions are less likely to offer advanced language courses than are those in which a higher percentage has full-time tenure-track positions (44% vs. 92%).

Among four-year institutions, the frequency with which advanced language courses are offered varies by institutional type and highest degree granted. Programs in baccalaureate institutions are somewhat less likely than those in comprehensive or doctorate-granting institutions to offer advanced language courses (86% vs. 95%), while almost all four-year programs except those granting no degree offer advanced language courses (99% vs. 56%). In sum, almost all four-year programs offering a degree and in institutions with language requirements offer advanced language courses. In contrast, four-year programs without a major, institutional language requirement, and/or a largely non-tenure-track faculty, are much less likely to offer advanced language courses.

Whether programs offer courses dealing with culture and civilization is affected by a similar set of factors. Institutional type plays a key role, with four-year programs far more likely than two-year programs to offer culture and civilization courses (89% vs. 26%). Further, departments with 2 or fewer full-time tenure-track faculty members are less likely than larger departments to offer culture and civilization courses (40% vs. 91%), while programs in which less than 35% of all faculty members have full-time tenure-track positions are least likely to offer culture and civilization courses (45% vs. 88% of programs in which the percentage of full-time tenure-track faculty members is greater than 35%). Finally, among programs with 1 or more part-time faculty members, the percent age offering culture and civilization courses increases somewhat as the number of part-time faculty members increases (from 71% for programs with 1 to 2 part-time faculty members to 85% for programs with 6 or more).

The degree to which four-year programs offer culture and civilization courses varies by 2 additional factors as well. Programs in baccalaureate institutions are less likely than those in doctorate-granting or comprehensive institutions to offer culture and civilization courses (77% vs. 91%), while four-year programs offering no degree are considerably less likely than others to offer culture and civilization courses (54% vs. 94%). These findings indicate that two-year programs and those four-year programs without majors and/or with small, largely non-tenure-track faculties are least likely to offer courses dealing with culture and civilization. Four-year programs in doctorate-granting institutions and/or with large, mostly tenure-track faculties, in contrast, generally offer such courses.

The frequency with which foreign language programs offer literature courses in the target language depends primarily on 2 factors. Once again, few two-year programs offer literature courses in the target language, while most four-year programs do (20% vs. 88%). In addition, programs with 2 or fewer full-time tenure-track faculty members are considerably less likely to offer such courses than programs with a larger number of tenure-track faculty members (37% vs. 90%). It appears, therefore, that literature courses in the target language are found in few two-year, but in most four-year, programs; only those four-year programs with small tenure-track faculties are unlikely to offer them.

Whether literature-in-translation courses are offered also depends on institutional type and the number of full-time tenure-track faculty members present. Four-year programs are far more likely to offer literature-in-translation courses than are two-year programs (69% vs. 12%), while inclusive programs are considerably less likely than specialized programs to offer literature-in-translation courses (40% vs. 84%). Further, the percentage of programs offering such courses increases along with the number of full-time tenure-track faculty members (from 25% for programs with 2 or fewer full-time tenure-track faculty members to 82% for programs with 11 or more). Among four-year programs, those in doctorate-granting institutions are more likely to offer literature-in-translation courses than are those in baccalaureate or comprehensive institutions (87% vs. 54%). In addition, four-year programs in which two-thirds or more of all full-time faculty members have PhDs are more likely to offer literature-in-translation courses than are those in which the PhD faculty is smaller (76% vs. 44%). In sum, most four-year specialized programs with large tenure-track faculties and/or in doctorate-granting institutions offer literature-in-translation courses, while inclusive four-year programs with small tenure-track faculties, along with two-year programs, are considerably less likely to do so.

Relatively few programs offer courses for bilingual speakers who speak the target language at home, and thus there is little variation in whether programs do so. The percentage of programs offering courses for bilingual speakers varies by one characteristics only: the number of full-time tenure-track faculty members; programs with 6 or more such faculty members are almost twice as likely as programs with 5 or fewer to offer the courses (12% vs. 22%).

Preceding discussion has indicated that similar factors affect whether foreign language programs offer specific types of courses. First, four-year programs are far more likely than two-year programs to offer linguistics and the 4 language courses that are frequently taught (advanced language, culture and civilization, literature in the target language, and literature in translation). In addition, programs with small numbers of full-time tenure-track faculty members and located in baccalaureate institutions are considerably less likely than others to offer various types of language courses. And finally, programs without majors and with largely non-tenure-track faculties are less likely than others to offer certain types of language courses (advanced language and culture and civilization).

These findings suggest that large degree-granting four-year programs generally offer an array of language courses, while those without majors or sizable tenure-track faculties are often able to offer little more than introductory language courses

Languages in Which Courses Are Offered

Table 8 shows the percentage of programs offering different types of courses among all those teaching a specific language. The first 4 columns of the table present figures for the 4 frequently taught courses, while the last 2 present figures for the 2 infrequently taught courses. Not unexpectedly, the latter are rarely offered in any language, except for courses for bilingual speakers in Spanish. These courses are offered more than twice as frequently in this language as in any other. ¹⁸ In fact, such courses are offered primarily in Spanish; only 23% of the programs with courses for bilingual speakers offer them in languages other than spanish.

Most of the 4 frequently taught courses are offered with unusual frequency in 5 languages: Spanish, French, German, Russian, and ancient Greek. Since all are among the more commonly taught languages, this finding is not surprising. In contrast, most of the frequently taught courses appear to be offered with below-average frequency in other Slavic languages and other East Asian and Southeast Asian languages. This finding must be interpreted with case, since the number of programs offering these languages is small. Finally literature-in-translation courses are offered with unusual frequency in Latin and the Scandinavian languages, while other types of frequently taught courses are offered with average frequency in these languages. ¹⁹ Undoubtedly, this reflects the special appeal of their literatures to American students.

The author is Director of Research for the Modern Language Association.

Notes

¹ For a summary of the findings relating to these, see Huber, “Characteristics of Foreign Language Requirements.”

² Data-collection procedures and subsample response rates are discussed in more detail in Huber, “The MLA's 1987–89 Survey.”

³ The figures presented in table 1 and elsewhere in this article may not sum to 100% because of rounding. In addition, the number of respondents in tables and tabulations varies because programs for whom information was missing on specific items were eliminated from consideration.

⁴ Native speaker , as used here, refers, to people whose mother tongue is the language they teach. Moreover, full-time tenure-track faculty members, as used here, refers to all faculty members with the rank of assistant, associate, or full professor. Interrelationships between the institutional, departmental, and faculty characteristics listed in table 1 are discussed in more detail in Huber (“MLA's 1987–89 Survey”).

⁵ Number of full-time tenure-track faculty members explains 10.6% of the variance in average class size, while number of part-time faculty members explains only 1.4%. Source of funding explains an additional 5.9%.

⁶ The 2 major program types referred to in previous discussion have been subdivided here. Inclusive programs include divisions , which offer courses in nonlanguage as well as language subjects, and collective programs , which are usually responsible for all language instruction at an institution. Specialized programs can be organized either as language groups (i.e., a family of related languages) or as single/dual language departments that focus in 1 or 2 specific languages.

⁷ See note 6 for a definition of the 4 program types. Among collective programs, 56% use standardized tests as do 70% of programs organized as language groups.

⁸ The number of programs is the number in which one or more members of each faculty group is present. The number of programs with junior faculty members is considered to be those having one or more assistant professors and/or one or more instructors. This may be an overestimate.

⁹ Faculty members in the other/no rank group are always involved in teaching introductory language courses, but they are present in so few programs that they are ignored in this discussion.

¹⁰ Even though foreign language programs without majors or granting no more than a BA do not have their own teaching assistants, some are located in graduate institutions and thus may draw TAs from other departments (e.g., native speakers in the sciences and social sciences).

¹¹ The one exception is the few classes running for 2 to 3 weeks. Five out of the 12 meet 5 times a week, while 6 meet 2 to 3 times a week and 1 meet 6 times a week.

¹² Of the 14-to-16-week courses, only 3 have class sessions that exceed 2 hours and the 4-to-6-week courses, only 2 have class sessions that exceed 6 hours.

¹³ As subsequent discussion will indicate, this was true for 19% of the respondents in the sample.

¹⁴ As a result of the differing referents, 105 respondents said their programs were involved in a study-abroad but their campuses offered no on-campus immersion opportunities. Further, the majority of respondents who said their study-abroad programs were sponsored by their university system or a consortium said their campuses did not have a study-abroad program in the question on immersion opportunities.

¹⁵ The findings from the 1987–89 survey indicate that 12% of all programs in baccalaureate institutions participate in study-abroad programs sponsored by consortia compared with 3% of those in doctorate-granting and comprehensive institutions.

¹⁶ None of the public four-year institutions in the sample are baccalaureate colleges.

¹⁷ Programs in which a high percentage of the full-time faculty members are native speakers also tend to devote more time than others to literary texts in second-year language classes.

¹⁸ Self-paced language courses also appear to be offered unusually frequently in Hebrew and other languages, but the numbers of programs offering these languages is relatively small, and thus the percentages may not be reliable.

¹⁹ The frequency with which advanced language courses are offered in Latin is also somewhat above average.

Works Cited

Andersen, Charles J. International Studies for Undergraduates , 1987: Operations and Opinions. HEP Report 76. Washington: ACE, 1988.

Huber, Bettina J. “Characteristics of College and University Foreign Language Programs.” Profession 89. New York: MLA, 1989. 39–48.

———. “Characteristics of Foreign Language Requirements at US Colleges and Universities: Findings from the MLA's 1987–89 Survey of Foreign Language Programs. ADFL Bulletin 24.1 (1992): 8–16. [Show Article]

———. “The MLA's 1987–89 survey of Foreign Language Programs: Institutional Contexts, Faculty Characteristics, and Enrollments.” ADFL Bulletin 24.2 (1992): 5–38. [Show Article]

© 1993 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.

ADFL Bulletin 24, no. 3 (Spring 1993): 6-21

---

Table of Contents

Previous Article Next Article

Works Cited