|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE virtues and values of foreign language (FL) study have been extolled in the United States over the years by advocates beginning perhaps with Thomas Jefferson and in many reports, such as “The Yale Report of 1828,” which defended Latin and Greek in the classical curriculum. In 1893 the Committee of Ten (commissioned by the NEA and led by Charles W. Eliot) issued a report recommending the study of Latin, Greek, German, and French. Harvard University's 1945 General Education in a Free Society recommended language study but specified no language (Harvard Committee). Current defenders of FL study include persons from both ends of the political spectrum, from Lynne Cheney to Paul Simon, and members of the popular press, such as Sylvia Porter.
What values have people assigned to FL study over the years? How do current FL professionals in higher education view those values? For a study on the role of FL in general education, I developed a questionnaire that included a list in no particular order of fifteen values culled from the recent books and articles published in the United States on FL education (see app. and selected bibliography). Obviously, there is unavoidable overlap among categories.
The study of a foreign language is valuable because it
In the spring of 1994, I asked chairs of college-level FL departments three questions related to the list: whether there were any areas of value in FL study that they believed were not listed (not including subcategories of listed values); which six values they considered most important, ranked in order (including any values they added in response to the previous question); and how much study time they thought necessary for a typical student at their institution to have a reasonable chance to attain those six values. The results of the survey are shown in table 1.
In table 1 the values are listed in descending order of importance as determined by the statistical mean of their rankings (the rankings are from 1 to 7, with 1 being the highest rating and 7 indicating that the respondent did not choose the value). The rankings largely reflect the foreign language literature: six of the top eight choices were among the most commonly cited values in the literature. The two exceptions were “(k) exposes the learner to modes of thought outside the native language” and “(n) teaches and encourages respect for other peoples.” These values were each mentioned only once in the literature, the former by Maria Alter and the latter by Frank Ryder. The positive response to these choices could be attributed to the growing importance of multiculturalism (See app. for the sources in the literature of the fifteen listed values.)
The amount of time considered necessary to attain the values that foreign language study offers averages just over two years. Of 300 respondents, 181 (60%) answered 2 years, 56 (19%) answered 1 year, 45 (15%) answered 3 years, and 19 (6%) answered 4 years. It is interesting to compare these results with the actual amount of study that the faculty members reported was required at their institutions. The average required time was 1.3 years—about 60% less than the amount deemed necessary for students to benefit from the values.
The fifteen categories of values found in the literature were nearly sufficient for the respondents. Of the 52 who named additional values, 4 suggested two values that are not subcategories of the listed values. The additions show that just as language is a changing phenomenon, so is human thought about language and about its functions and purposes. The two ideas not found in the literature are that the study of a foreign language can be a point for integration of many areas of study and that it permits access to information unavailable in English. These values are significant additions to the literature on FL study, and indeed they have both recently been identified by the National Standards in Foreign Language Education project. The group lists similar values in its report, “The Five C's of Foreign Language Education”: Standard 3.1: Students reinforce and further their knowledge of other disciplines through the foreign language. Standard 3.2: Students acquire information and recognize the distinctive viewpoints that are only available through the foreign language and its cultures” (3). Had the two additional values been included on the questionnaire, they might have received substantial support. It is noteworthy that these two values are among the only ones listed that are offered exclusively by foreign language study.
I used a cross-sectional design to collect data from a random sample of foreign language departments in public and private institutions of higher education across the United States. I sampled public and private institutions in four categories (research or doctoral, comprehensive, liberal arts, and two-year institutions). The categories were based on the Carnegie classification system and were merged into four categories to produce a population large enough for meaningful statistical comparisons. The sample was drawn from the listing of departments in the September 1993 (Directory) issue of PMLA (“Department Administrators”) and is detailed in table 2. Of 557 departments surveyed, 316 (56.7%) responded. The sample numbers of departments appear in table 2.
Of the 316 respondents, 248 (79%) were chairs of departments. The remaining respondents were department members whose chairs had given them the questionnaire. A few respondents were professors who administered larger entities, such as divisions, that included FL. The chairs had served in office for one to twenty-nine years; 132 (55%) had served one to five years. Only 117 (37%) served on a general education committee. There were 187 male respondents (57%). Respondents with doctorates numbered 251 (79%); the rest held master's degrees. The respondents included 149 full professors (47%), 95 associate professors (30%), 31 assistant professors (10%), and 19 instructors (6%). In 21 departments (7%), mostly at liberal arts or two-year colleges, no academic ranking was utilized. The primary non-English language that 179 (57%) of the respondents taught was a Foreign Service Institute (FSI) group 1 language (Spanish, French, etc.); 43 (14%) taught a group 2 language (German, Modern Greek, etc.); 45 (14%) taught a group 3 language (Latin, classical Greek, Russian, etc.); 7 (2%) taught a group 4 language (Arabic, Japanese, etc.); and 40 (13%) listed no language. The respondents in the last group were administrators in departments or divisions that housed foreign languages among other disciplines. (See the first chapter of Omaggio for more information on the FSI groupings of languages.)
Larger institutions of higher education were represented more often than smaller ones because some housed more than one surveyed department. Of the 557 departments in the sample, 76 were from 43 institutions and of the 316 responses, 49 came from departments housed in 23 institutions. The sample included 481 institutions, of which 293 were represented among the respondents.
The foreign language professionals who responded to the survey believe that FL study offers the learner many values, at least eight of which are widely acknowledged among respondents: liberalizing one's experience; reflecting on the relation among language, thought, and culture; developing the intellect; encouraging respect for other peoples; gaining cultural literacy and awareness; acquiring language skills for practical use; improving the native language; and exposing the learner to modes of thought outside the native language. Respondents thought that when possible, students should study a language at least two years; less than two years is insufficient for the student to gain the values FL study offers, although it is considered preferable to no study at all.
One may wonder how the viewpoints expressed by FL professionals in this study fit in with the current emphasis on communicative competency as expressed by National Standards in Foreign Language Education and others. Does FL study in higher education need to emphasize communicative competency more and literature less? Or is studying literature still the best way to learn about a foreign culture and encourage intellectual growth? Analysis of this study shows that FL professors continue to value most the liberal education aspects of FL study. However, they do not ignore practical aspects or view the communicative and literacy values of FL study as mutually exclusive. Of the fifteen values listed, acquiring language skills for practical use was ranked sixth overall. Thus respondents do not appear to divide FL study into two campus of literature and communicative competency, but seem to agree with David Maxwell that “the ‘literature vs. competency debate’ is based on a false and unproductive dichotomy.” Maxwell suggests that the FL profession discuss questions about our effectiveness in meeting the general education goals of language education, about the national need for bilingual and bicultural competence, and about the “most effective means to achieve genuine competency in the higher education context” (2). Communicative competency and literature are the two feet on which FL study stands. Culture through literature and communicative competency are both necessary for a person to have solid footing in the language of another culture. Without a knowledge of cultural values and traditions, often gleaned through literature, little significant communication occurs. Without communicative competence, there is little understanding of the literature and culture.
The author is Assistant Professor of Foreign Languages and Assistant Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Idaho State University
The following is the list of sources for each of the fifteen values for the study of foreign languages mentioned in the questionnaire devised for this project:
Adelman, Clifford. “Saving the Baby: Language Study and the New Reforms in General Education.” ADFL Bulletin 13.2 (1981): 3–19. [Show Article]
Alatis, James. “Teaching Foreign Languages—Why? A New Look at an Old Question.” Foreign Language Annals 9 (1976): 447–58.
Alter, Maria. The Modern Case for German. Amer. Assn. of Teachers of German, 1970. Philadelphia: ERIC ED 058 809.
Altman, Howard. “Identifying and Meeting the Needs of Foreign Language Educators in American Colleges and Universities.” Foreign Language Annals 22 (1989): 169–73.
American Association of Colleges. Integrity in the College Curriculum. Washington: Amer. Assn. of Colls., 1985.
Arendt, Jermaine, Dale Lange, and Ray Wakefield. “Strengthening the Language Requirement at the University of Minnesota: An Initial Report.” Foreign Language Annals 19 (1986): 149–55.
Barnes, Betsy, Carol Klee, and Ray Wakefield. “Reconsidering the FL Requirement: From Seat-Time to Proficiency in the Minnesota Experience.” Magnan 55–69.
Barnwell, David. “Proficiency and the Native Speaker.” ADFL Bulletin 20.2 (1989): 42–46. [Show Article]
Beard, Joe. “Attitudes of Secondary School Counselors and Superintendents toward Foreign Language Teaching: A Descriptive Study.” Foreign Language Annals 7 (1984): 29–32.
Bennett, William. To Reclaim a Legacy: Humanities in Higher Education. Washington: Natl. Science Foundation, 1984.
Bouffard, Edward. “Foreign Language Study in the U.S.” Foreign Language Annals 13 (1980): 309–14.
Boyer, Ernest, and Arthur Levine. A Quest for Common Learning: The Aims of General Education. Washington: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1981.
Brod, Richard. Language Study for the 1980s: Reports of the MLA-ACLS Language Task Force. New York: MLA, 1980.
Brod, Richard, and Monique Lapointe. “The MLA Survey of Foreign Language Entrance and Degree Requirements, 1987–88.” ADFL Bulletin 20.2 (1989): 17–41. [Show Article]
Brower, Reuben. “English.” General Education: A Symposium on the Teaching of Non-specialists. Ed. Michael Yudkin. London: Butler, 1969. 1–27
Buck, Kathryn, and David V. Hiple. “The Rationale for Defining and Measuring FL Proficiency in Programs for Business.” Foreign Language Annals 17 (1984) 525–28.
Bugos, Thomas. “Defending the Foreign Language Requirement in the Liberal Arts Curriculum.” Foreign Language Annals 13 (1980): 301–06.
Bundy, Jean. “What Do We Do with the Language Requirement?” ADFL Bulletin 10.2 (1978): 43–49. [Show Article]
Burnett, David. “Elementary Foreign Language Courses and General Education.” ADFL Bulletin 12.4 (1981): 9–13. [Show Article]
Byrnes, Heidi. “Second Language Acquisition Research: Does It Suggest Program Goals?” ADFL Bulletin 18.3 (1987): 35–38. [Show Article]
Chastain, Kenneth. “The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines: A Selected Sample of Opinions.” ADFL Bulletin 20.2 (1989): 47–51. [Show Article]
———. “Second-Language Study: Historical Background and Current Status.” Grittner, Learning 1–25.
Cheney, Lynne. Fifty Hours: A Core Curriculum for College Students. Washington: NEH, 1989.
Clark, Margaret, and Marjorie Rudolph. “Why or Why Not Foreign Languages.” Foreign Language Annals 14 (1981): 317–24.
College Entrance Examination Board. Academic Preparation for College: What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do. New York: Coll. Entrance Examination Board, 1983.
Conant, James Bryant. The American High School Today. New York: McGraw, 1959.
Cook, Robert. “Foreign Language Study and Intellectual Power.” ADFL Bulletin 8.4 (1977): 6–9. [Show Article]
Cunningham, Stephanie. Foreign Language and Cultural Studies Report. Agenda Item IV, B, 4 Oct. 1990. Denver: Colorado Commission on Higher Educ., 1990.
Cuykendall, Diane, and Ray Parrot, eds. Vision 2020. [Papers from a conference of the Amer. Assn. of Teachers of Slavic and East European Langs. and the Amer. Council of Teachers of Russian.] N.p.: n.p., 1992.
Dandonoli, Patricia, and Grant Henning. “An Investigation of the Construct Validity of the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and Oral Interview Procedure.” Foreign Language Annals 23 (1990): 11–22.
Deeken, Hans. The Foreign Language Requirements: A Collection of Comments. Philadelphia: Amer. Assn. of Teachers of German, 1969. ERIC ED 048 784.
DeKeyser, Robert. “The Semester Overseas: What Difference Does It Make?” ADFL Bulletin 23.1 (1991): 42–48. [Show Article]
“Department Administrators.” PMLA 108: 873–99.
Edgerton, Mills F., Jr. “A Philosophy for the Teacher of Foreign Languages.” Modern Language Journal 55 (1971): 5–15.
Fradkin, Robert. “Watch Your Metalanguage.” ADFL Bulletin 25.2 (1994): 30–36. [Show Article]
Freed, Barbara. “Perspectives on the Future of Proficiency-Based Teaching and Testing.” ADFL Bulletin 20.2 (1989): 52–57. [Show Article]
———. “Preliminary Impressions of the Effects of a Proficiency-Based Language Requirement.” Foreign Language Annals 20 (1987): 139–46.
Frink, Orrin. “A New Relevancy for Foreign Language in the Curriculum.” ADFL Bulletin 14.2 (1982): 9–13. [Show Article]
Galinsky, G. Karl. “Preserving Greek and Latin in the University.” ADFL Bulletin 9.4 (1978): 25–29. [Show Article]
Grittner, Frank, ed. Learning a Second Language. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1980.
———. Teaching Foreign Languages. New York: Harper, 1969.
Gumperz, John. “Language Instruction and Crosscultural Awareness.” Patrikis, Language Learning 54–68.
Hagboldt, Peter. The Teaching and German. Boston: Health, 1940.
Hammandou, Jo Ann, and Leslie Schrier. “A Four-State Survey of Secondary Administrator's Perceptions of Foreign Language Supervision.” Foreign Language Annals 21 (1988): 259–67.
Hancock, Charles. “Second Language Study and Intellectual Development.” Foreign Language Annals 10 (1977): 75–79.
Harris, William T. “The Curriculum for Secondary Schools.” Report of the Commissioner of Education. Vol. 2. Washington; GPO, 1895. 1457–64.2 vols.
Harvard Committee. General Education in a Free Society. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1945.
Hawkins, Lee. “How Essential It Is? Foreign Language Study and the Federal Role.” NASSP Bulletin 65.448 (1981): 87–92.
Henning, Sylvie Debevec. “The Integration of Language, Literature, and Culture: Goals and Curricular Designs.” ADFL Bulletin 24.2 (1993): 51–55. [Show Article]
Henry, Kathryn. “What Is to Be Taught?” Cuykendall and Parrott 21–24.
Herbert, James, ed. Academic Preparation in Foreign Language: Teaching for Transition from High School to College. New York: Coll. Entrance Examination Board, 1986.
Herron, Carol. “Who Should Study a FL: The Myth of Elitism.” Foreign Language Annals 15 (1982): 441–49.
Higgs, Theodore, ed. Curriculum, Competence, and the Foreign Language Teacher. ACTFL Foreign Lang. Educ. Series 13. Skokie: Natl. Textbook, 1982.
Hilt, Douglas. “Foreign Language Learning: Why Bother?” ADFL Bulletin 14.1 (1982): 5–7. [Show Article]
Hirsch, Bette. Languages of Thought: Thinking, Reading, and Foreign Languages. New York: Coll. Entrance Examination Board, 1989.
Hoegl, Jürgen. “Education in the World System: The Demand for Language and International Proficiencies in Economic Development and National Security.” Foreign Language Annals 19 (1986): 281–87.
Hofstadter, Richard, and Wilson Smith, eds. “F. H. Hedge on University Reforms, 1866.” American Higher Education: A Documentary History. Vol. 2. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1961. 561–67.
Hollander, T. Edward. “Reconsidering the Importance of Foreign Languages.” ADFL Bulletin 12.1 (1980): 9–11. [Show Article]
Hubbard, John, and Robert Ristau. “A Survey of Bilingual Employment Opportunities in International Trade.” Foreign Language Annals 15 (1982): 115–21.
Huber, Bettina. “Characteristics of College and University Foreign Language Curricula: Findings from the MLA's 1987–88 Survey.” ADFL Bulletin 24.3 (1993): 5–21. [Show Article]
———. “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]
Jarvis, Gilbert. “Proficiency Testing: A Matter of False Hopes?” ADFL Bulletin 18.1 (1986): 20–21. [Show Article]
———. “The Value of Second-Language Learning.” Grittner, Learning 26–43.
Koppel, Irene. “The Perceived Contribution of Foreign Language to High Priority Educational Goals.” Foreign Language Annals 15 (1982): 435–39.
Kramsch, Claire. “Beyond the Skill versus Content Debate: The Multiple Discourse Worlds of the Foreign Language Curriculum.” Patrikis, Language Learning 98–118.
———. “The Missing Link in Vision and Governance: Foreign Language Acquisition Research.” ADFL Bulletin 18.3 (1987): 31–34. [Show Article]
———. “Proficiency versus Achievement: Reflections on the Proficiency Movement.” ADFL Bulletin 18.1 (1986): 22–24. [Show Article]
———. “Redrawing the Boundaries of Foreign Language Study.” Language and Content: Discipline-Based Approaches to Language Study. Ed. M. Krueger and F. Ryan. Lexington: Health, 1992.
Kramsch, Claire, and Thomas Nolden. “Redefining Literacy in a Foreign Language.” Die Unterrichtspraxis 27.1 (1994): 28–35.
Lange, Dale L. “The Curricular Crisis in Foreign Language Learning.” ADFL Bulletin 25.2 (1994): 12–16. [Show Article]
———. “The Problem of Articulation.” Higgs 113–37.
Lange, Dale, and Charles James. Foreign Language Education: A Reappraisal. ACTFL Annual Review of Foreign Lang. Educ. 4. Skokie: Natl. Textbook, 1972.
Lantolf, James, and William Frawley. “Oral Proficiency Testing: A Critical Analysis.” Modern Language Journal 69 (1985): 337–45.
Lee, James, and Bill VanPatten. “The Question of Language Program Direction Is Academic. ” Magnan 113–27.
Lowe, Pardee, Jr. “Proficiency, Panaceas, Realities, and Football.” ADFL Bulletin 16.3 (1985): 7–8. [Show Article]
Magnan, Sally Sieloff, ed. Challenges in the 1990s for College Foreign Language Programs. Boston: Heinle, 1991.
Masciantonio, Rudolph. “Tangible Benefits of the Study of Latin: A Review of Research.” Foreign Language Annals 10 (1977): 375–82.
Maxwell, David. “From the Director: Finding Common Ground.” NFLC Perspectives Fall 1994: 1–4.
Mayhew, Lewis, Patrick Ford, and Dean Hubbard. The Quest for Quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.
Moravcsik, Julius, and Alphonse Juilland. “The Place of Foreign Languages in a Curriculum for Liberal Education.” ADFL Bulletin 8.4 (1977): 10–12. [Show Article]
Mueller, Marlies. “Cultural Literacy and Foreign Language Pedagogy.” ADFL Bulletin 22.2 (1991): 19–24. [Show Article]
Mueller, Marlies, Brigitte Goutal, Christine Hérot, and Ilona Chessid. “A Step toward Cultural Literacy: Language through Literature.” Rivers, Teaching 57–71.
National Standards in Foreign Language Education. Executive Summary: Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the Twenty-First Century. Yonkers: ACTFL, 1995.
Olsen, Scott, and Lionel Brown. “The Relation between High School Study of Foreign Language and ACT English and Mathematics Performance.” ADFL Bulletin 23.3 (1992): 47–50. [Show Article]
Omaggio, Alice. Teaching Language in Context: Proficiency-Oriented Instruction. Boston: Heinle, 1986.
Parker, William Riley. “The Case for Latin.” PMLA 79.4, pt. 2 (1964): 3–10.
———. “College FL Requirements.” PMLA 71.4, pt. 2: (1956): xxiv.
———. The Language Curtain and Other Essays on American Education. New York: MLA, 1966.
———. “The Problem of Time.” PMLA 71.4, pt. 2 (1956): xviii–xix.
———, ed. “Values of Foreign Language Study.” PMLA 71.4, pt. 2 (1956): xiv.
———. “Why a Foreign Language Requirement?” College and University 32.2 (1957): 189–230.
Patrikis, Peter. “Consortium for Language Teaching and Learning.” Modern Language Journal 71 (1987): 422–24.
———, ed. The Governance of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning: Proceedings of a Symposium. New Haven: Consortium for Lang. Teaching and Learning, 1988.
———. “Is There a Culture in This Language?” ADFL Bulletin 18.3 (1987): 3–8. [Show Article]
———, ed. Language Learning and Liberal Education. New Haven: Consortium for Lang. Teaching and Learning, 1989.
———. “Reports and Reforms: Where Are the Foreign Languages?” ADFL Bulletin 20.1 (1988): 14–19. [Show Article]
Porter, Sylvia. “Learning Foreign Language Good Investment.” Idaho State Journal 28 Aug. 1989: B3.
Read, William. “Aims and Objectives of the Latin Program.” Foreign Language Annals 8 (1975): 118–22.
Redfield, James. “The Politics of Language Instruction.” Patrikis, Governance 34–36.
Rivers, Wilga. Speaking in Many Tongues: Essays in Foreign-Language Teaching. Rowley: Newbury, 1972.
———, ed. Teaching Languages in College: Curriculum and Content. Lincolnwood: Natl. Textbook, 1992.
Rosenthal, Alan. “Languages in the Core Curriculum? By All Means, But …” ADFL Bulletin 14.1 (1982): 1–3. [Show Article]
Ryder, Frank. “FL Study at the Postsecondary Level.” Grittner, Learning 128–49.
Sachs, Murray. “Literacy, Learning, and Foreign Language Study.” ADFL Bulletin 13.3 (1982): 13–15. [Show Article]
Sadock, Jerrold. “Dispelling Myths about Language.” Patrikis, Language Learning 86–96.
Sammons, Jeffrey. “Squaring the Circle: Observations on Core Curriculum and the Plight of the Humanities.” Profession 86. New York: MLA, 1986. 14–21.
Schaefer, William. Education without Compromise: From Chaos to Coherence in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.
Schoonover, Penny. “Foreign Languages Desired but Unrequired: Results of an Idaho Survey.” ADFL Bulletin 13.4 (1982): 16–19. [Show Article]
Shattuck, Roger. “Contract and Credentials: The Humanities in Higher Education.” Content and Context: Essays on College Education. Ed. Carl Kaysen. New York: McGraw, 1973.
Shepard, Joe. “Beyond the Language Requirement: The Role of Foreign Languages in the Upper-Level Curriculum.” ADFL Bulletin 14.2 (1982): 14–17. [Show Article]
Simon, Paul. “Priority: Public Relations: A Decade of Change to a Decade of Challenge.” Foreign Language Annals 24 (1981): 13–26.
Swaffar, Janeth. “Articulating Learning in High School and College Programs: Holistic Theory in the Foreign Language Curriculum.” Magnan 27–54.
Sudermann, David. “Foreign Language and Liberal Studies: Toward an Equal Partnership.” ADFL Bulletin 24.1 (1992): 40–46. [Show Article]
Titone, Renzo. Teaching Foreign Languages: An Historical Sketch. Washington: Georgetown UP, 1968.
Tonkin, Humphrey. “Specular Humanism: The Role of Foreign Languages in General Education.” Profession 86. New York: MLA, 1986. 10–13.
United States. Bureau of Education. Report of the Committee on Secondary School Studies with the Reports of the Conferences. Washington: GPO, 1893.
United States. Dept. of Education. National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform. Washington: GPO, 1983.
Valdman, Albert, and Cathy Pons. “The Training of FL Specialists in Major Research-Oriented FL Departments.” Patrikis, Governance 84–92.
Ward, F. Champion. “Languages.” The Idea and Practice of General Education: An Account of the College of the University of Chicago. Ed. F. Champion Ward. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1992.
Wheritt, Irene, and T. Anne Cleary. “A National Survey of Spanish Language Testing for Placement or Outcome Assessment at BA-Granting Institutions in the United States.” Foreign Language Annals 23 (1990) 157–65.
Williams, Aston. General Education in Higher Education. New York: Teachers Coll. P, 1968.
“The Yale Report of 1828.” ASHE Reader on the History of Higher Education. Ed. Lester Goodchild and Harold Wechsler. Needham Heights: Ginn, 1989. 171–78.
| Variables (in Order of Mean Importance Ranking) | Chosen First | Chosen Second | Total | Mean | SD | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (b) Liberalizing | 31.8 | (100) | 15.5 | (49) | 78.1 | (247) | 3.45 | 2.35 |
| (e) Reflection | 13.7 | (43) | 11.6 | (37) | 61.3 | (194) | 4.23 | 2.33 |
| (i) Development of intellect | 10.3 | (33) | 8.2 | (26) | 59.3 | (188) | 4.76 | 2.21 |
| (n) Respect for other peoples | 6.5 | (21) | 12.5 | (40) | 62.8 | (199) | 4.98 | 2.03 |
| (f) Cultural literacy | 5.5 | (17) | 10.3 | (33) | 52.5 | (166) | 5.15 | 2.03 |
| (l) Practical skills | 12.4 | (39) | 5.2 | (16) | 49.0 | (155) | 5.24 | 2.18 |
| (j) Native language knowledge | 2.8 | (9) | 8.2 | (26) | 55.7 | (176) | 5.27 | 1.88 |
| (k) Modes of thought | 2.8 | (9) | 11.3 | (36) | 47.4 | (150) | 5.46 | 1.98 |
| (a) Sense of relevant past | 4.0 | (13) | 5.2 | (16) | 29.9 | (95) | 5.86 | 1.91 |
| (c) Content and skills | 3.0 | (10) | 2.9 | (9) | 18.4 | (58) | 6.47 | 1.39 |
| (h) Leisure activity | 0 | (0) | 2.9 | (9) | 17.6 | (56) | 6.59 | 1.08 |
| (g) National goals | 1.1 | (3) | 1.1 | (3) | 17.9 | (57) | 6.60 | 1.07 |
| (d) Personality | 1.3 | (4) | 1.3 | (4) | 11.6 | (37) | 6.63 | 1.13 |
| (o) Transfer of training | 0.6 | (2) | 2.3 | (7) | 10.9 | (34) | 6.76 | .91 |
| (m) Cultured nation | 1.6 | (5) | 0.3 | (1) | 6.4 | (20) | 6.85 | .70 |
| Other | 0.6 | (2) | 1.3 | (4) | 6.4 | (20) | – | – |
| Note: Numbers in parentheses are base figures for percentages (weighted N = 311). | ||||||||
| Institutional Type | Departments | Institutions | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Population |
Number Sampled
(% of Total) |
Number Responding
(% of Sample) |
Number
Sampled |
Number
Responding |
|||
| Doctoral public | 342 | 75 | (21.9) | 46 | (61.0) | 49 | 39 |
| Doctoral private | 209 | 75 | (35.9) | 42 | (56.0) | 40 | 29 |
| Total | 551 | 150 | (27.2) | 88 | (58.6) | 89 | 68 |
| Comprehensive public | 345 | 75 | (21.7) | 48 | (64.0) | 67 | 46 |
| Comprehensive private | 270 | 75 | (27.8) | 36 | (48.0) | 72 | 35 |
| Total | 615 | 150 | (24.4) | 84 | (56.0) | 139 | 81 |
| Liberal arts public | 34 | 34 | (100) | 31 | (91.0) | 34 | 31 |
| Liberal arts private | 666 | 75 | (11.3) | 40 | (53.0) | 74 | 40 |
| Total | 700 | 109 | (15.6) | 71 | (65.1) | 108 | 71 |
| Two-year public | 753 | 75 | (10.0) | 35 | (47.0) | 75 | 35 |
| Two-year private | 73 | 73 | (100) | 38 | (52.0) | 70 | 38 |
| Total | 826 | 148 | (18.1) | 73 | (48.7) | 145 | 73 |
| Total | 2,692 | 557 | (20.7) | 316 | (56.7) | 481 | 293 |
© 1996 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
