24, no. 3 (Spring 1993): 36-43 To the Editor Search

---

Table of Contents

Previous Article Next Article

Works Cited

CHANGES in enrollment patterns often encourage, or even compel, foreign language departments to reexamine their staffing and curriculum. At institutions with both undergraduate and graduate programs, changes in undergraduate enrollment patterns are likely to affect not only the undergraduate curriculum but the graduate program as well.

This article discusses a potential and developing area of concern: how a shift in enrollment from first-year to second-year language courses could adversely affect graduate programs that rely on teaching assistantships. After discussing why first-year enrollment might be expected to decline and second-year enrollment to grow, the article suggests how departments could respond to this shift by assigning new, inexperienced teaching assistants (TAs) directlyto second-instead of first-year classes.

At many institutions there is a direct relation between the number of teaching assistantships offered and the number of graduate students who enroll in the TA program. Especially in large programs, TAs usually begin—and learn—to teach in first-year courses. As they become more experienced, they move into teaching at the second-year level. Smaller departments with fewer first-year sections are likely to offer fewer assistantships to new, inexperienced TAs. Fewer TA offers could lead to fewer graduate students recruited and a lower enrollment in the graduate program.

Although the arguments presented here speak most directly to institutions with a large number of teaching assistantships, they could easily apply also to schools with smaller TA programs or even to colleges where advanced undergraduate students help teach beginning language courses. Faculty members who teach first-year courses might also benefit from speculating about how shifting enrollment patterns from first year to second year could affect their curriculum.

Is First-Year Enrollment Declining>

The news about foreign language enrollment appears to be good. A 1990 MLA survey reports an 18% increase in foreign language study in higher education between 1986 and 1990 (Brod and Huber), and an ACTFL survey reports a 4.5% increase across all public school levels between 1985 and 1990: 6.1% in high school, 4% in grades 7 to 8, and a recognition that in twenty-two states 4.2% of public school students now begin to study foreign languages at the elementary level (“Foreign Language Enrollments”).

What is missing from these data is how enrollment has changed in each level of the postsecondary curriculum: in advanced, intermediate, and beginning college courses. Statistics gathered in 1990 by the United Stated Department of Education show that the number of people who earned BA degrees in foreign language grew 14% between 1985 and 1990 (ACTFL, “Languages in the News”). It is therefore logical to assume that enrollment in advanced courses is up. From the noted increase in foreign language study on the secondary level, it would also be logical to assume that enrollment in intermediate (or second-year) courses is increasing. As elementary and secondary foreign language programs become stronger and university entrance standards more rigorous, should not more students place directly into second-year university courses?

This situation is certainly a reality at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Following implementation of a state mandate requiring public schools to offer four consecutive years of language study and a new Madison admission requirement of two years of high school foreign language study, enrollment in second-year language courses grew substantially.

The second logical assumption carries with it potential concern for graduate programs that rely on teaching assistantships. For if enrollment is increasing because students are placing directly into second-year courses on entering the university, then first-year enrollments would logically be down.

The impact may first be seen in French, where both the ACTFL and MLA surveys showed an overall decline in enrollment. In the MLA survey this decline was reported as 1.6% in higher education nationally. Indeed, informal discussion at professional meetings ¹ suggests that a large part of the decline in French has come at the first-year level. As a case in point, the third-semester course at Madison has for the past two fall semesters enrolled more students that the first-semester course, a very different pattern of enrollment from that of even five years ago.

Isn't this what the profession wants—that students begin to study foreign language early and then continue toward majors or special certificates while at the university? As Carol Klee and Elizabeth Rogers and as Steven Loughrin-Sacco have pointed out, the profession has voiced concern over students who have two or three years of high school language study behind them but who start over in college. In fact, placement directly into second-year courses has at some institutions been encouraged by policies that deny credit for first-year courses (Barnes, Klee, and Wakefield) or that otherwise discourage false beginners (Loughrin-Sacco).

A related factor that could accelerate a decline in first-year enrollment is the national decrease expected in the number of postsecondary students. As we may soon see fewer college students generally, we might also expect to see fewer students begin their postsecondary study at four-year schools, especially at large research institutions. Might not two- year or technical schools draw enrollment from large universities, especially in financially troubled times? Indeed, the MLa survey reports that two-year colleges accounted for 36.2% of the net growth in foreign language registrations between 1986 and 1990. It may be that two-year schools attract students without foreign language background and supply that background, at least first-year courses, before the students later articulate to university bachelor degree programs.

Whatever the cause, low first-year enrollment poses serious problems for institutions that rely heavily on first-year programs to support and prepare TAs. The department with few first-year sections faces an uncomfortable choice; either limit the number of incoming TAs, to the detriment of the graduate program, or assign new TAs directly to courses beyond the first-year level where the enrollment is growing.

At present, it seems to be mostly French departments that are affected by an upwardly shifting enrollment pattern, because this shift is coupled with an overall national enrolment decline. However, other languages that benefit from strong high school teaching, such as German and Spanish, may be similarly affected in the future, as more and more students begin foreign language study before entering the university. A problem, then, noted now in French programs at some institutions may become more acute widespread in the future.

At What Level Do News TAs Begin to Teach?

At many TA-training institutions new, inexperienced TAs are commonly assigned to teach first-year courses. There are different reasons for this assignment. Beginning TAs may be less proficient in the target language than their more advanced colleagues. The practice may also reflect the discussions in professional literature that have focused on first-year courses when considering the preparation that new TAs need from orientation workshops and methods courses (Nerenz, Herron, and Knop). Or it may involve a staffing issue: faculty members and experienced TAs may prefer to teach second-year courses; more faculty members spend more time supervising first-year than second-year courses.

To confirm the supposition that new TAs are most often assigned to first-year courses and to determine what their preparation entails, in fall 1990 I sent a survey to language program directors (LPD) in French, German, and Spanish departments at institutions with large TA programs across the United States. Of the forty-two LPDs survey, 64% responded. ² Because two LPDs did not identify themselves, their institutions, or their languages, their responses are not tallied here. Table 1 shows how eleven LPDs in French, seven LPDs in German, and six LPDs in Spanish answered the five survey questions relating to the current discussion.

In considering these survey results, the reader must, of course, take into account the small number of institutions surveyed, especially when looking at each language separately. It is hoped that these data will encourage readers to ponder how their departments might respond to upward enrollment shifts that may occur as the profession promotes earlier and more sustained foreign language study. This article aims not to present a survey but rather to speculate about a potential and developing problem.

Responses to question 1 show that in 1990 96% of the programs assigned all or most of their new, inexperienced TAs to first-year courses. Question 2 reveals that by 1995 62% anticipate the possibility of assigning some new TAs to second-year courses. Since enrollment shifts making such assignments necessary seem more likely in French, it is useful to compare the survey responses from French programs with those from Spanish and German programs. More French programs (82%) than German (57%) or Spanish (50%) programs currently assign all new TAs to first year. By 1995, 82% of these French programs anticipate possibly moving these. TAs directly into second year, as compared with 29% of the German programs and 66% of the Spanish programs. Clearly, the problem is particularly acute in French given both the national enrollment decline and the heavy reliance of French departments on first-year courses for employing and training TAs.

The Present Focus of TA Development Programs

In anticipation of such a shift in teaching level for new TAs, the profession must consider a crucial question; Are our present TA development programs appropriate and adequate? Both the professional literature and the survey presented here suggest that some institutions may soon need to reconsider their TA development programs.

According to Ervin's 1991 survey, over 90% of TA development programs at large institutions include these now standard components: preteaching orientations and, during the semester, staff meetings, visits to peer classes, observations by faculty supervisors, and courses in methodology. The content of these components was defined largely by studies done in the 1970s and early 1980s that identified the needs and desired of new TAs about to begin teaching (Gilbert and McArthur; Azevedo; Berwald; Hagiwara; Nerenz, Herron, and Knop; Ervin and Muyskens). Since at that time beginning TAs taught mainly first-year courses, the content of TA development programs was designed for that level. It is probably not unfair to assume that, at least in large part, many TA developmental programs still focus on having TAs practice techniques for presenting basic material and conducting elementary practice activities rather than on analyzing principles of different methodologies or developing techniques for teaching at different levels.

The time available for TA development programs is also at issue. Since new TAs typically have many procedural questions and need help in handling routine matters, much time at first-year course meetings and in individual consultations is spent on administration rather than pedagogy. For efficiency, peer class visits are often limited to other first-year classes. Methodology courses call on examples from mostly first-year classes and focus mainly on issues of beginning learners. One might infer, then, that most TA development programs to little to prepare TAs to enter second-year classrooms.

Responses to part B of the survey support this inference, while indicating that, at least at some institutions, the situation may not be as bad as one might presume (see table 1, part B). Of the LPDs responding to the survey, 46% felt that their current TA development programs would not adequately prepare new TAS to teach second-year courses, and 38% found their programs at least partially inadequate. These findings are not surprising since of the twenty-four programs surveyed only 17% (4 programs) have orientation workshops and only 4% (1 program) have a methods course designed specifically for teaching at the second-year level. In all three languages, the most frequent component of TA development programs for second-year teaching is the staff meeting, used by 73% of French programs, 100% of German programs, and 67% of Spanish programs. Because of the limited time available and the large number of administrative matters to be covered, however, it is doubtful that staff meetings can offer much preparation.

Indeed, question 3 shows that LPDs would refer to revise TA development programs through forums other than staff meetings. While 46% of the LPDs said they would use staff meetings to help train inexperienced TAs, 83% would concentrate on redesigning the orientation and 71% on creating special workshops during the semester, perhaps as an option to developing a second methods course or refocusing the current course, favored by only 46% of the LPDs surveyed. In this regard, LPDs in German appear more supportive of staff meetings than do LPDs in French or Spanish, with 86% (6 LPDs) preferring to put equal emphasis on staff meetings and special workshops, both choices ranking after orientation, preferred by 100% (7 LPDs). Of the three language programs, Spanish would appear most interested in a second methods course, with 67% (4 of the 6 LPDs surveyed) supporting its use, equal to the 67% who support creating special workshops. Again, readers must remember the small numbers behind these percentages: in both the German and Spanish case just mentioned, the percentage difference reflects only one LPD.

Differences between First-Year and Second-Year Courses

Recognizing the diversity in perspective of LPDs and their various institutions, departments may benefit from considering instructional tendencies that have traditionally differentiated first-year and second-year courses and how their programs follow or depart from the traditional model. It is my hope that this article will stimulate introspection on individual campuses and help departments face the challenge of redesigning their TA development programs to respond to changing enrollment demands now or in the future.

First-year programs have historically had relatively clear goals: to teach the basic linguistics components and to provide adequate opportunity for oral practice. In contrast, the second-year program has long been problematic; not so affectionately termed the “ugly step sister” (Rava 43), it has also been seen as the “last stage before ‘serious’ study begins” (Suozzo 405). Typically a review of grammar supplemented with extensive reading, this second-year program attempts to bridge the gap between a beginning level where all learners are expected to master the same basic material and a level of advanced study where learners are expected to pursue particular questions and individual interests.

As we have developed communicative teaching methods, we have made the transition from first year to second year less abrupt. Introduction of basic grammatical structures is now often spread over three or even four semesters; all four semesters use authentic input to work toward communicative goals; and process-oriented learning begins early and continues throughout the basic two-year curriculum. As our language replication paradigm is being replaced by a language creation paradigm (Swaffer), we expect our TA development programs to be more suitable for both first year and second year than they have been in the past. While this may be true in theory, in practice there are still important differences between the two levels that demand reconsideration of TA development programs, especially if we are to assign new TAs to second-year courses.

A fundamental difference lies in the students at the two levels. Perhaps more than students at any other level, second-year students present a mixture of competencies, aptitudes, interests, and motivations. This diversity may stem from uneven high school preparation, weak placement procedures (Klee and Rogers), language loss between years of study (Lambert and Freed), or simply individual capacities for language learning. Particularly for inexperienced TAs, highly heterogeneous classes can pose serious problems, to the point where some institutions have opted to modify their second-year programs toward individualized instruction (Singerman; Respaut). Unfortunately, new TAs assigned to most second-year courses do not often have this option.

In addition to learner differences, curricular differences occur on these two levels. First-year courses tend to focus more on speaking, listening, and grammar, using the students' personal lives and travel as topics for oral practice. They tend to be more teacher-centered than second-year classes are, allowing TAs to follow detailed lesson plans.

While continuing this oral and personal emphasis, many second-year classes increase efforts to develop reading and writing skills and to examine cultural and literary notions. The competencies required of TAs teaching second year are thus broader than those of TAs teaching first year: not only do second-year instructors need sophisticated language skills and a conceptual knowledge of grammar, but they also need fairly well-developed cultural and literary awareness. Even when new TAs possess this knowledge, they may lack confidence in their ability to call it forth on the spot and make it accessible to students whose language abilities are highly diverse yet still quite limited.

More important perhaps is the conversational balance, which frequently shifts from a question-answer rhythm in first year to a more uneven pace in second year, characterized by combinations of monologues and extended dialogues. The second-year class then becomes more learner-centered as students more readily interact with one another and initiate and frame their own learning. By extending the pair and group work begun in first year, second-year instructors rely less on detailed plans as they strive to develop areas of student interest. Since new TAs often take comfort in having carefully laid-out lesson plans, they may be uncomfortable with second-year teaching, which demands a series of effective alternatives.

Homework is also likely to differ on the two levels. The first-year emphasis on workbook and laboratory exercises complemented by paragraph writing and video tends to shift in the second year to emphasis on composition and extensive listening supplemented by exercise checks. Differences in testing may also be noted: from a predominance of fill-in sentences, directed writing, and oral question-answer in first year to greater emphasis on free writing and extended oral discourse in second year. Perhaps already stressed by meeting the different, if not greater, demands of teaching second-year courses, new TAs may have little time and energy for the challenges of extensive grading and more global testing.

The differences discussed so far all relate to the fullness and complexity of discourse that students at each level are expected to understand and produce. The move toward more natural and integrated discourse in second year demands that TAs have relatively high linguistic sophistication and varied pedagogical skills. To work within a discourse framework, TAs need to understand optional features of speech that vary with the situation and the interlocutor, such as social distance, relative power, and degree of sociocultural imposition (Kramsch). To guide students through authentic listening and reading materials, TAs need to be familiar with processing strategies, such as schemata structuring, predicting, scanning, and skimming, that help students move beyond slow decoding strategies. Since many of these listening materials are available through technology, TAs need to be able to operate video systems and coordinate teaching with satellite TV programs. Perhaps most important, working with authentic, current sources required broad cultural knowledge.

Beyond linguistic skills and cultural understanding, there are pedagogical and administrative concerns that make it difficult for new TAs to move directly into teaching second-year courses. In first-year courses, TAs generally receive extensive support from their faculty supervisors. Ervin reports that the average supervising faculty member spends over nineteen hours a week holding meetings and individual consultations with TAs and providing them with materials, syllabi, lesson plans, and tests. Since few departments offer such extensive support systems for second-year courses, TAs who teach these courses must work more independently and invest more time. During the first semester of graduate school, they simply may not have this time available, unless they find it at the expense of their graduate studies.

Recommendations for TA Development Programs

In order for new TAs to move into second-year courses with skill and confidence, departments need to reshape the content and to some extent the format of TA development programs.

Orientations

Of all the components of TA development programs, it is still orientation that needs the most practical focus, yet it must also expose TAs to the theory and assumptions underlying classroom techniques. To include both practical and theoretical aspects and to work with TAs assigned to both first and second year, we need an orientation session of some focused length: at least a week, preferably two. Within this time frame, TAs assigned to first-year and second-year courses could meet together as well as separately, giving both groups insights into both levels.

First, all new TAs could meet together to discuss the department's methodological approach and its underlying theoretical assumptions. Both groups could then watch videotapes of classes at both levels. TAs teaching first year would gain understanding of their course goals by watching videotapes of second-year classes; TAs teaching second year would better understand the background of their students by observing first-year classes in action. From discussion of these videotapes and information provided by supervising faculty members, TAs could consider various student profiles: false beginners in first year and true beginners inhibited by their presence (Loughrin-Sacco), second-year students with different competencies in different skills, students with divergent learning styles and strategies that might be at odds with those of the TA (Oxford and Lavine), and students with misconceptions about language learning that create false expectations or high anxiety (Horwitz and Young).

Following these joint sessions, TAs could meet separately to discuss student goals and learning preferences for their instructional level, based on evaluations and surveys from their institution and on national data, such as those being provided for the intermediate level by Linda Harlow and Judith Muyskens. In these groups, TAs could also discuss course procedures and teaching techniques with faculty supervisors and TAs who have experience teaching these courses. Discussion would be level-specific and might include creating activities for practicing different skills, assigning and grading homework, and testing. TAs in both groups would no doubt receive similar information (such as scanning techniques for teaching reading), but this information would be tailored in different ways to respond to the classroom dynamics and complexity of discourse expected at each level. The two groups of TAs could then meet together and discuss the similarities and differences that mark each level, giving both groups a view of the continuum of language teaching and insights into what to do, and what not to do, at each level.

Perhaps the most important part of many orientations has been the microteaching modules, where TAs teach volunteer undergraduate students or TA colleagues from other foreign languages (Garner et al.). Microteaching should certainly continue, with TAs teaching lessons appropriate to the level to which they have been assigned. Student volunteers for second year might well be recruited among incoming freshmen who would like a preview of their classes. In fact, for students with problematic placements, participation in microteaching might be recommended as a way to evaluate and advise them about their potential success in second-year courses. Microteaching sessions for both first year and second year should be observed by all TAs so that both groups better understand the entire two-year sequence with its continuum of learner discourse from isolated words and brief question-answer exchanges to more extended monologues and interactive dialogues.

The orientation might conclude by having TAs compare the two levels, with an emphasis on different types of student interaction (choral work, teacher-student-student-student, group work), different modes of discourse (question-answer, monologue, pair and group dialogue), and when and how each is useful at each level. Such discussion would help TAs see the continuum of language learning that they witnessed in the video demonstrations and in the microteaching sessions and understand how communicative language teaching, through a variety of methodologies, can lead students from language practice with the support of the teacher and classmates to individual expression beyond the classroom context.

Workshops and Staff Meetings

Staff meetings are typically devoted to the mechanics of instruction, such as writing tests or making changes in the syllabus. Workshops, in contrast, usually discuss a theoretical principle demonstrated by course-specific techniques. Unfortunately, TA development programs now tend to have more meetings than workshops. Departments could offer workshops on instructional issues such as how to teach with video, how to engage students in writing as a process, and how to teach reading through literature and literature through reading. As suggested for orientation, these workshops might move from general sessions for TAs teaching both first year and second year to level-specific application groups and conclude with joint discussion periods. To allow time for workshops as an extension of the orientation, some of the business of staff meetings might be handled through written memos or by committees of experienced TAs working with the LPD.

TA Visits to Peer-Taught Classes and Faculty Observations

A relatively easy addition to a TA development program would be providing the opportunity for new TAs to visit classes taught by their TA colleagues. TAs in both first year and second year should visit classes at both levels. To focus the visits, TAs would preview lesson plans and identify areas for potential comparison between instructional levels, such as how listening activities differ by level or what types of errors students make in each year of study. Following the visit, the observing TA should discuss the class with the TA who taught it and then write a short report, concentrating on why and how well objectives for this class appear to articulate with the general objectives of the other level.

Likewise, faculty supervisors who observe TA classes should comment on the techniques used in that particular class and on how such techniques might contribute to an articulated two-year sequence. These comments would offer a starting point for exploring the eventual possibility of the TA teaching the other level.

Methodology Courses

For practical reasons, the methodology course will probably include new TAs assigned to both first year and second year. This combination could be advantageous as, with a more theoretical focus than in the past, the course could teach and compare techniques for first-year and second-year teaching. If the course is language-specific, it could also investigate cultural and literary notions as they might be made accessible to students at each instructional level.

To cover both levels adequately, we should consider a second methodology course. With the expansion of the disciplines of second language acquisition and teaching, it has become clear that one semester of language acquisition and methodology is not sufficient meeting the complex demands of preparing TAs to enter the professorate (Henderson; Lalande; Murphy). Instead of devoting the first course to general notions and the particulars of teaching first year and the second course to the special concerns of teaching second year, as John Lalande seems to suggest, we might systematically compare beginning and intermediate levels throughout both methodology courses. Articulation between first year and second year would thus be encouraged and TAs would gain a better understanding of the processes of language learning and teaching.

Administrative Support Systems

Although a development program such as I have described would help new TAs move directly into second-year courses, it still cannot be considered sufficient. We need to give our new TAs assigned to second year a support structure equivalent to the one we currently offer new TAs teaching first year. The materials, including textbooks and supplements, skeletal lesson plans, and quizzes and exams, that we supply to new TAs in first-year courses will have to be supplied as well to new TAs in second-year courses, for development programs cannot totally relieve the time constraints placed in inexperienced TAs who must assume the many demands of teaching stand-alone sections. If we neglect to respond to the very real time limitations of our TAs, their undergraduate students and their own graduate studies are likely to suffer.

Providing extensive support systems to second-year as well as to first-year courses may demand an increase in the number of departmental faculty members involved in TA supervision. Ervin's study revealed than in 60.3% of the institutions surveyed there is only one faculty member directing the department's language courses, perhaps with help from a secretary or TA. We may need to actively involve more faculty members in order to provide support for beginners teaching at different levels.

Mentoring or Team Teaching

It may be that, despite our best efforts, the burdens placed on new TAs assigned to second-year courses may be too demanding. In this case, we might consider coupling inexperienced and experienced TAs to teach the same course, through either mentoring or team teaching. Mentoring is already envisioned in the peer visitation and analysis activities. It could simply be carried further by providing a framework for trios of one new and two experienced TAs to work together. The two experienced mentors would be teaching their own classes: one a first-year class and the other a second-year class. The new TA, who would be teaching only one level, either first year or second year, would benefit from mentoring about both levels, receiving help with the immediate demands of teaching and insights into the broader instructional sequence. Mentors would help plan classes, discuss the success of particular lessons, invite the new TA to visit their classes, consult on concerns about individual students, and offer general advice and moral support.

An extended from of mentoring would be team teaching, in which one new and one experienced TA would share the same course, perhaps dividing the teaching by days or by units of one to two weeks. Students would have the benefit of two accents and two teaching styles, a variety that appeals to students (Magnan; Braun and Robb). Perhaps more important, new TAs would be naturally mentored by an experienced TA who shared the same students and could truly offer insights into their particular problems. A system whereby each new TA would begin by working with a mentor or in a team, then teach alone, the become a mentor or an experienced team member would contribute substantially to a well-balanced development program.

Developing the Future Professorate

In fact, what we are discussing here is how to prepare TAs to teach beyond the confines of one course. The practical need to staff second-year courses with new TAs could help keep TA training programs in step with the evolution of the profession. Claire Kramsch points out that intercultural communication requires a new type of teacher:

Teachers who have near-native linguistic and cultural competence… [and who are] distanced enough from both target and native cultures to be able to conceptualize and interpret similarities and differences; teachers who have a knowledge of how language and language acquisition work, how communication takes place, who have a critical understanding of the particular worldview espoused by natives of the target culture and of the native culture, [as well as] teachers who understand the nature of schooling in general and the dynamics of the foreign language classroom in particular. (7–8)

To prepare such a professor is an immense undertaking, clearly too ambitious for any single component of a TA development sequence. This goal is perhaps attainable through a carefully structured TA development program combined with graduate studies. As Milton Azevedo points out, the time has come to stop talking in terms of “training” TAs but rather of “educating” them. As the profession moves from teaching rote techniques to encouraging purposeful inquiry, from pragmatic preparation to reasoned education, it is changing from rather technical training of short-term instructors to professional development of future colleagues.

The 1984–85 MLA survey showed that most new PhD's expect to teach language as part of their professional duties (Devens and Bennett). It is not surprising then that the MLA Commission on Foreign Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics declared it the responsibility of graduate departments “to develop training programs for graduate students both in second language learning and in the teaching of literature” (3). As Katherine Arens explains, on-job training of assistant professors has become impractical in light of the pressure to publish for tenure. Guiding TAs beyond first-year teaching is more than a necessity for maintaining enrollment in large graduate departments. It is an issue that affects more than a few institutions and more than on language. It is responsibility of the profession.

The author is Professor of French at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Notes

¹ Meetings of the American Association of University Supervisors, Coordinators, and Directors of Foreign Language Programs; ACTFL; the annual meeting of department and course chairs in French and Spanish who are members of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, an organization representing Big Ten schools plus the University of Chicago and the University of Illinois, Chicago.

² Institutions from which language program directors responded: University of California, Irvine (French); University of California, Los Angeles (German); University of Georgia (French); University of Illinois (German, Spanish); Indiana University (French, German); University of Iowa (French, German); University of Massachusetts (French); University of Minnesota (French, Spanish); Ohio State University (French, German, Spanish); Pennsylvania State University (French, German, Spanish); Purdue University (French, German); University of Texas, Austin (French); University of Texas, El Paso (Spanish); University of Virginia (French); University of Wisconsin, Madison (Spanish).

Works Cited

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language. “Foreign Language Enrollments Increasing.” ACTFL Newsletter 4.2 (1992): 6.

———.“Languages in the News.” ACTFL Newsletter 5.1 (1992): 3+.

Arens, Katherine. “Training Graduate Students to Teach Culture: A Case Study.” ADFL Bulletin 23.1 (1991): 35–41. [Show Article]

Azevedo, Milton M. “Professional Development of Teaching Assistants: Training versus Education.” ADFL Bulletin 22.1 (1990): 24–28. [Show Article]

Barnes, Betsy K., Carol A. Klee, and Ray M. Wakefield. “Reconsidering the FL Requirement: From Seat-Time to Proficiency in the Minnesota Experience.” Magnan 55–69.

Berwald, Jean-Pierre. “Training Graduate Assistants in Foreign Language.” Designs for Foreign Language Teacher Educations. Ed. Alan Garfinkel and Stanley Hamilton. Boston: Newbury, 1976. 77–79.

Braun, Theodore E.D., and Bonnie A. Robb. “Team Teaching French with Teaching Assistants.” Magnan 71–88.

Brod, Richard, and Bettina J. Huber. “Foreign Language Enrollments in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 1990.” ADFL Bulletin 23.3 (1992): 6–10. [Show Article]

Devens, Monica, and Nancy J. Bennett. “The MLA Surveys of Foreign Language Graduate Programs, 1984–85.” ADFL Bulletin 17.3 (1986): 19–31. [Show Article]

Ervin, Gerard L. “Training and Supervision in Foreign Languages: A Diachronic Perspective.” Critical Issues in Foreign Language Instruction. Ed. Ellen S. Silber. New York: Garland, 1991: 232–50.

Ervin, Gerard, and Judith A. Muyskens. “On Training TAs: Do We Know What They Want and Need” Foreign Language Annals 15 (1982): 335–44.

Garner, Lucia C., Henry Geitz, Constance Knop, Sally Sieloff Magnan, and Robert Didonato. “Improved Training of Teaching Assistants through Interdepartmental Cooperation.” 1987. ERIC ED 279 210.

Gilbert, James F., and James F. McArthur. “In-Service Teacher Preparation of French Graduate Assistants: Design and Evaluation.” French Review 48 (1975): 508–21.

Hagiwara, Michio P. Leadership in Foreign Language Education: Trends in Training and Supervision of Graduate Teaching Assistants. New York: MAL, 1970.

Harlow, Linda L., and Judith A. Muyskens. “Defining and Attaining Intermediate Level Goals.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Nashville, 18 Nov. 1990.

Henderson, Ingeborg. “Training Teaching Assistants in the Yearlong Methods Course.” ADFL Bulletin 16.2 (1986): 49–52. [Show Article]

Horwitz, Elaine K., and Dolly Young. Language Anxiety: From Theory and Research to Classroom Implications. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice, 1991.

Klee, Carol A., and Elizabeth S. Rogers. “Status of Articulation: Placement, Advanced Placement Credit, and Course Options.” Hispania 72 (1989): 763–73.

Kramsch, Claire. “New Directions in the Study of Foreign Languages.” ADFL Bulletin 21.1 (1989): 4–11. [Show Article]

Lalande, John F., II. “Advancing the Case for an Advanced Methods Course.” Magnan 151–66.

Lambert, Richard D., and Barbara F. Freed. The Loss of Language Skills. Boston; Newbury, 1982.

Loughrin-Sacco, Steven J. “On Apples and Oranges: The Effects of Integrating Beginners and False Beginners in Elementary French Classes.” Magnan 89–112.

Magnan, Sally Sieloff, ed. Challenges in the 1990s for College Foreign Language Programs. Boston: Heinle, 1991.

———. “Teaming Teachers and Modifying Class Size: An Experiment in First-Year.” French Review 60 (1987); 454–65.

MLA Commission of Foreign Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics. “Resolutions and Recommendations of the National Conference on Graduate Education in the Foreign Language Fields.” ADFL Bulletin 17.3 (1986): 1–4. [Show Article]

Murphy, Joseph A. “The Graduate Teaching Assistant in an Age of Standards.” Magnan 129–49.

Nerenz, Anne G., Carol A. Herron, and Constance K. Knop. “The Training of Graduate Teaching Assistants in Foreign Languages: A Review of Literature and Description of Contemporary Programs.” French Review 53 (1979): 873–88.

Oxford, Rebecca, and Roberta Z. Lavine. “Teacher-Student Style Wars in the Language Classroom: Research Insights and Suggestions.” ADFL Bulletin 23.2 (1991): 38–45. [Show Article]

Rava, Susan. “A New Face for Intermediate French.” French Review 57 (1983): 43–47.

Respaut, Michèle. “Individualizing Intermediate College French: The Wellesley NEH Experimental Course.” French Review 59 (1986): 681–92.

Singerman, Alan J. “Intermediate French: An Eclectic Semi-Independent Model.” French Review 56 (1982): 20–30.

Suozzo, Andrew G., Jr. “Once More with Content: Shifting Emphasis in Intermediate French.” French Review 54 (1981): 405–11.

Swaffar, Janet K. “Curricular Issues and Language Research: The Shifting Interaction.” Profession 89. New York: MLA, 1989. 32–38.

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

ADFL Bulletin 24, no. 3 (Spring 1993): 36-43

---

Table of Contents

Previous Article Next Article

Works Cited