|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BEFORE attempting to assess and evaluate undergraduate programs in German and to offer solutions to their problems or to give them new direction, we must consider several preliminary assumptions, some of which may seem obvious, others not.
First, although undergraduate departments across institutions have some commonalities, they can be decidedly different in their orientations and goals. Consider, for example, differences that may exist between four-year undergraduate programs and community college programs that may or may not lead to degrees. With respect to infrastructure, some departments or programs have developed great flexibility and quickly respond to new and innovative ideas, while others lack initiative and remain entrenched in old-fashioned ways that prevent growth altogether.
Second, instructional staff are not always on the same wavelength; they may contribute to the program in varying degrees, if at all. Getting faculty members to buy into new ideas or to implement new programs is often difficult and unrewarding.
Third, size may or may not play a big role in the success of a department. One would think that the more faculty members and students there are, the more visible the program. This is not necessarily so. Departments and programs with smaller numbers can have an enormous effect on a college or university as a whole and can enjoy a high profile in the academic community.
Fourth, departmental programs (and by “program” I mean support programs as well as academic offerings) need to analyze, evaluate, assess, and renew themselves continually.
Fifth, a German program can survive and succeed only by achieving visibility in the college or university as a whole, in the community, in the region, and beyond. Programs that are active in these areas—that are considered movers and shakers in the institution—not only attract students but also get them to invest themselves and their efforts in the program and to become part of it. More often than not, students like to belong. They say that German departments—often language departments in general—are one place where they really get to know their professors. After all, who do they come to first for letters of recommendation when applying to graduate school, for jobs, or for study-abroad programs?
Sixth, the term traditional , which has often been used to define departments and programs, is fast coming to signify a notion of the past. Although some departments may retain a traditional core, many have begun new programs and innovative efforts to meet students' needs.
And last, even if particular models or action plans are laid out for departments to follow, they will not fit the needs of every department. However, models and action plans do serve as a starting point from which departments can learn. Departments can apply what they learn to their own institutions and implement that knowledge as they see fit, whether by using the concepts and ideas of an action plan as a basis for departmental change or reshaping part of an action plan to suit their own situation.
Lest this litany of assumptions (and there are many more) get any longer, let me turn to specifics. In preparing this paper, I decided to use a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach. I went directly to undergraduates to discuss their needs with regard to learning German in the college or university setting. Two groups were surveyed: first, every undergraduate major and minor filled out a questionnaire and took part in an exit interview on completing Miami University's German program; second, a limited number of students majoring in German at Miami University were interviewed. The results of these questionnaires and interviews were both informative and enlightening. I have focused the summary of information on two general questions asked on the exit interview form. However, to give a broader picture, I have provided some additional information about students' goals in studying German and about their career plans.
When students were asked why they took German at the university, they responded, not surprisingly, that high school German played a major role in their desire not only to study German at the college level but also to major or minor in the language, a strong argument in favor of vertical articulation with primary and secondary schools. A second theme in student responses was a desire to link German to another subject area, and not just through double majoring. Students indicated that they wanted to continue connections they experienced at the secondary level between subjects such as German and social studies or German and art, a strong argument for forming linkages to other disciplines. Students were also asked about their intermediate or long-range career plans. Invariably they wanted to relate their study of German to their careers, but not necessarily in a traditional way. For example, one student wanted to study political science in graduate school and later work in Washington as a European policy specialist. Another wanted to connect German to research in archaeology while attending graduate school. A third had two interviews lined up in international sales and reported that knowledge of German was a factor in securing the interviews.
When asked, “Did courses provide the broad background of cognitive knowledge and skills you had hoped to acquire?,” students overwhelmingly responded that they liked the broad range of courses offered, from the professional sequence in business German to linguistics, literature, culture, and advanced language, but a number objected to any focus on literature in the program. We also asked, “What other types of courses would you like to see in the curriculum?” Students were specific here to some degree, mentioning, for example, “a more politically oriented class” and “a class focusing only on writing.” An even more interesting response was of a general nature, addressing two key concepts: “cross-fertilization of courses” and “real-life application.” Although our German program is sequenced logically and is characterized by a wide variety of offerings, students perceive the courses as not having much to do with one another. They see the courses as compartmentalized and would prefer to operate on a more holistic model. As an example of real-life application, students cited a face-to-face video conference organized with the University of Munich Deutsch als Fremdsprache Institut, as well as other class projects where they had direct contact with German speakers in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria either by phone, fax, or e-mail. 1 Students felt that they profited most from these experiences, which they saw as benchmarks that would stay with them for the rest of their lives.
Self-study initiatives and student opinion indicate that various factors both academic and extracurricular have contributed to program growth and expansion in our department. It is tempting to use these efforts to draft a kind of checklist of behaviors that lead undergraduate German departments down the path to success. As valuable as checklists can be, however, they are often superficial. It is important to remember that all elements of a program work in concert. It seems, however, that we can identify some features that contribute to the success of a German department. The following points are not meant to be prescriptive in any way, only to be an impetus for further discussion. To illustrate, I draw on examples from my own department at Miami University: German, Russian, and East Asian languages. Many more examples can be found in such noteworthy publications as The Future of Germanistik in the USA (McCarthy and Schneider) and Germanics under Construction (Roche and Salumets).
Important to every program is an articulated curriculum with well-defined goals for each level of instruction and for each course, a curriculum in which courses in language, culture, and literature are articulated both vertically and horizontally so that compartmentalization does not occur. Course offerings must meet students' practical needs. Equally important are courses that are well taught, no matter what the teaching style. Departments should try to create and enhance percolating creativity to develop a program in which faculty members cooperate on courses, projects, or events within the department. Support of both intradepartmental and external faculty development opportunities can lead to a more actively involved instructional staff.
Faculty members need to be involved in outreach beyond the department whether in the college or university as a whole, in area schools, or in the region. Such involvement will inevitably increase the department's visibility in the university, in the community, and in the profession.
Central to a department or program is a mission statement. Department members should believe in the statement and adhere to it yet remain flexible enough to adapt to changes that may occur down the road. The mission statement sets the tone for the department and reflects the department's underlying philosophy.
Departmental success often relies on maintaining a tiered program, for example, levels such as academic offerings, academic plus cocurricular offerings, and cocurricular offerings. In addition, it is important that the tiers be viewed not as separate but, rather, as intrinsic to one another. At Miami University, for example, we have begun to conduct more academic activities through the German floor, where approximately eighteen to twenty students live, think, speak, eat, and steep German. The floor functions as a rallying point for activities related to students' course work and to the German program as a whole. Students conduct projects, share cultural evenings, watch films together, and have constant access to German television. A second-year conversation course is connected directly to the German floor. Students participate in German-floor events to fulfill some course requirements. The cocurricular program also involves students in Delta Phi Alpha (the German honor society), in Stammtisch (German table) at the international residence hall, and in Kaffeestunde (coffee hour) at a local café. It is worth noting that faculty support of such events is critical to their success.
The three-tiered program is enhanced by a myriad of activities sponsored both from within the university and from without. The Goethe Institute has been indispensable in providing support for a wide variety of seminars, workshops, readings, and lectures. Linkages with other departments also create support for these events, promote them within other departments, and enhance the German department's visibility throughout the university. At this point we are working on expanding a network of linkages to the area business community.
Intrinsic to German programs at the undergraduate level is a study-abroad component, whether it be administered by the department, by a consortium of schools, or by another college or university. Study-abroad programs take many forms. Meeting students' needs by providing a variety of study-abroad possibilities, such as year-round, one-semester, summer and work-for-credit programs, ensures that many students who would not otherwise have had the chance to go to a German-speaking country will have that opportunity.
Forming linkages to other departments and programs is an absolute must if departments are to survive. Linkages may involve as little as guest appearances in classes in other disciplines, team teaching, creating double majors, or cooperating on language-across-the-curriculum models. We began a small experimental program in Russian across the curriculum at Miami to find out whether there would be student interest. The response was heartening, and the first pilot section, a one-hour Russian-language add-on to a Russian history course, has been very successful. The Russian plan can serve as a model for other languages.
Technology must be taken into account if German programs are to be successful. Little by little, colleges and universities are beginning to require the incorporation of technology into curricula. Furthermore, students now come from high school with technological expertise and expect to use or continue it in some fashion at the university level. Models have been developed around the country for e-mail, CD-ROM, and World Wide Web projects. At present we make extensive use of discussion groups and conduct Internet projects with students in a wide variety of classes, from language to literature. In addition, we have systematized the use of technology in our beginning multi-section German classes through a supervised Cyberdeutsch lab in which students go beyond drills to sophisticated Internet and World Wide Web activities.
Departments do not operate in a vacuum. If they were not beset by negative influences, such as budget cuts and downsizing, unsympathetic administrators, uncooperative faculty members, and the like—we know the list all too well—it would be easy to implement change. The reality is that we must operate within existing circumstances.
If, however, we can shape our undergraduate programs to reflect and incorporate real-life applications in a global context; if we can articulate our program internally and reach out across the university, as well as to K-12 and the graduate programs; if we can remain open to new influences and encourage faculty members to cooperate and to implement new ideas where appropriate, our efforts may be rewarded, and we may turn the tide of shrinking enrollments and dwindling FTEs and create truly viable programs that can withstand economic and institutional whimsy.
The author is Associate Professor of German and Chair of the Department of German, Russian, and East Asian Languages at Miami University, Ohio. This essay is based on his presentation at the 1997 MLA convention in Toronto, Canada.
1 This video conference is set up each year by Ruth Sanders of the Department of German, Russian, and East Asian Languages at Miami University. For further information, see Sanders, Unterrichtspraxis, No. 2, 1997.
McCarthy, John A., and Katrin Schneider, eds. The Future of Germanistic in the USA. Nashville: Vanderbilt UP, 1996.
Roche, Jörg, and Thomas Salumets. Germanics under Construction. Munich: Iudicium, 1996.
Sanders, Ruth. “Distance Learning Transatlantic Style: How Video-conferencing Widened the Focus in a Culture Course.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 30.2 (1997): 135–40.
© 1998 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
