Focusing on Learning: Refraining Our Roles

Focusing on Learning: Refraining Our RolesAuthor(s): Geoffrey ChaseSource: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 90, No. 4 (Winter, 2006), pp. 583-585Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers AssociationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4127046 .

Accessed: 18/12/2014 09:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:54:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmlta

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4127046?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Perspectives 583

Birckbichler, D. (Ed.). (2006). Evaluating FL programs: Content, context, change. Columbus: The Ohio State University FL Publications.

Byrnes, H. (2002). The role of task and task-based assessment in a content-oriented collegiate FL curriculum. Language Testing, 19, 419-437.

Dassier, J., & Powell, W. (2001). Formative FL program evaluation: Dare to find out how good you really are. In C. M. Cherry (Ed.), Dimension 2001: The

odyssey continues. Selected proceedings of the 2001 con-

ference on language teaching (pp. 15-30). Valdosta, GA: Southern Conference on Language Teaching.

Dickeson, R. (2006). The need for accreditation reform. Washington, DC: The Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education.

Ehrmann, S. C., & Zfifiiga, R. E. (1997). Flashlight evaluation handbook. Washington, DC: The TLT Group.

Ewell, P. (1999). Assessment of higher education quality: Promise and politics. In S. Messick (Ed.), Assess- ment in higher education: Issues of access, quality, student development, and public policy (pp. 147-156). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

FL Program Evaluation Project. (2006). Retrieved April 24, 2006, from http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/ evaluation

The Higher Learning Commission. (2003). Handbook

of accreditation (3rd ed.). Chicago: The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central As- sociation.

Kiely, R., & Rea-Dickins, P. (2005). Program evaluation in

language education. NewYork: Palgrave Macmillan.

Light, R. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Liskin-Gasparro, J. (1995). Practical approaches to outcomes assessment: The undergraduate major in FLs and literatures. ADFL Bulletin, 26(2), 21-27.

Mathews, T.J., & Hansen, C. M. (2004). Ongoing assessment of a university FL program. FL Annals, 37, 630-640.

Morris, M., & Cooke-Plagwitz, J. (2005). An assessment model for an undergraduate FL program. Paper pre- sented at the annual convention of the American Council on the Teaching of FLs, Baltimore, MD.

Norris, J. M. (1997). The German Speaking Test: Utility and caveats. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 30, 148-158.

Norris, J. M. (2000). Purposeful language assessment.

English Teaching Forum, 38, 18-23.

Norris,J. M. (2002). Interpretations, intended uses, and designs in task-based language assessment: Intro- duction to the special issue. Language Testing, 19, 337-346.

Norris, J. M. (2004). Validity evaluation in FL assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Hon- olulu: University of Hawai'i.

Norris, J. M. (2006). Assessing FL learning and learn- ers: From measurement constructs to educational uses. In H. Byrnes, H. Weger-Guntharp, & K.

Sprang (Eds.), GURT 2005: Educatingfor advanced FL capacities: Constructs, curriculum, instruction, assessment (pp. 167-187). Washington, DC: George- town University Press.

Norris, J. M. (in press). Validity evaluation in language assessment. New York: Peter Lang.

Norris,J. M., & Pfeiffer, P. (2003). Exploring the use and usefulness of ACTFL Guidelines oral proficiency ratings in college FL departments. FL Annals, 36, 572-581.

Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Resnick, L., & Resnick, D. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B. Gifford & M. C. O'Connell (Eds.), Changing as- sessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 37-75). Boston: Kluwer.

Rossi, P., Freeman, M., & Lipsey, M. (1999). Evaluation: A systematic approach (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shavelson, R., & Huang, L. (2003). Responding respon- sibly to the frenzy to assess learning in higher education. Change, 35(1), 10-19.

Spolsky, B. (2000). Language testing in the Modern Lan-

guage Journal. Modern Language Journal, 84, 536- 552.

Wholey, J. (1994). Assessing the feasibility and likely usefulness of evaluation. In J. Wholey, H. Hatry, & K. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 15-39). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing as- sessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

THE COMMENTARIES

Focusing on Learning: Reframing Our Roles GEOFFREY CHASE, San Diego State University

I agree withJohn Norris that we face a looming crisis, with potentially devastating effects in rela- tion to foreign language (FL) instruction and assessment, but I also believe that this crisis includes all of higher education. As Derek Bok makes clear

in Our Underachieving Colleges (2005), and as is evident from calls from many quarters, including the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education, higher education needs to demonstrate that students are learning,



584 The Modern Language Journal 90 (2006)

and that they are learning at high levels. Increas- ing pressure from outside the academy, from state legislators, from the federal government, from

parents, from business and industry leaders, and from the broader public make it essential that we address issues of accountability. Paradoxically, responding to this potential crisis will require a

paradigm shift that focuses us not on these outside pressures, but on our own commitment to

helping students learn and achieve at greater levels.

Norris notes that the current focus on assessment presents both an opportunity and a chal-

lenge to FL educators, and he does an excel- lent job of describing some of the steps we need to take as we rethink our own attitudes toward student learning. His analysis and argu- ment, however, are important not just for FL

programs but for departments across the curriculum. His observations that we need to be more exact with our definitions regarding assessment and his focus on the learning students achieve in programs as opposed to discrete courses are both important contributions. Perhaps most im-

portant, however, Norris underscores the critical distinction between the why of assessment and the how of assessment: What really is at stake is not meeting demands levied from outside the

academy but a focus on learning that is useful and

meaningful. This fundamental shift has been and will con-

tinue to be challenging because it alters the roles

faculty, students, and administrators play and

changes their relationship. When assessment efforts fail, or when they are sluggish, it is often because administrators and faculty in particular do not understand that focusing on student learn-

ing does not mean introducing another box to be checked off. It means reframing the work we do. In a department, program, or institution that focuses on learning, every member of the unit is a learner and contributes to the learning of others. The why of assessment thus leads to organizations truly committed to learning on all levels and by all parties.

FACULTY

First, focusing on student learning in courses, across programs, and in departments requires that faculty understand teaching as an intellec- tual activity that creates and contributes to the academic community. This understanding means valuing research and scholarship related to teaching and learning, being aware of and conversant with current learning theory, and engaging in

open dialogue with colleagues about learning outcomes and how best to achieve them.

Second, as members of a community dedicated to student learning, faculty must spend time de-

veloping outcomes and defining what they expect students to achieve. As part of these efforts, fac-

ulty should embrace outcomes that are distinc- tive, emerge from their expertise and strength, and reflect their own orientation and vision. It is

particularly important that they set high standards for their students and develop programmatic outcomes that are sophisticated and complex. That means requiring students to gain a broad knowl-

edge base, to acquire the ability to deal conceptu- ally with complex problems, situations, and chal-

lenges, and to develop facility in communicating their thinking in ways that are clear and coher- ent. It is most critical, however, that outcomes be

expressed in ways that are clear while unmistak-

ably signaling the sophistication and complexity inherent in them.

Third, faculty committed to student learning need to focus on helping students succeed. Thus, the outcomes faculty develop must be shared

openly and often with students on course descrip- tions and syllabi, in program materials, and in

college catalogues. Students need to know what

learning outcomes are expected in the courses

they take and how course outcomes build to help them achieve the program's goals.

Finally, faculty need to explore how students

may achieve learning outcomes, or components of them, through multiple learning environments, including those mediated by technology or those

involving internships and study abroad experiences. When learning outcomes become the primary means for determining whether a student has been successful or not, they necessarily call into question "seat time" and traditional Carnegie units.

ADMINISTRATORS

Typically, discussions of assessment or an in- creased emphasis on student learning focus pri- marily on faculty and their role, while the role of administrators-department chairs, deans, provosts, presidents-remains largely unexam- ined. In an institution committed to learning, however, these roles must also shift. What is perhaps most important, administrators need to support an environment in which it is clear to faculty and students that learning is the primary goal of the organization. This means, first of all, being clear about what a learning organization is and re- inforcing the understanding that compliance and



Perspectives 585

accountability, although important, are not the

primary structures guiding such an organization. Administrators can build a commitment to

learning through sustained emphasis on learning outcomes, repetition, through short- and long- term planning, and through reward structures. The aim is to make learning an integral part of their vision rather than understanding assessment and learning only as an exercise intended to sat-

isfy an accrediting body or a state agency. They can achieve this aim in part by building reward structures based on student achievement; they can also do it by providing development opportunities for

faculty to acquire, through workshops, hands-on

support, and conferences, the knowledge and so-

phistication about learning that they need. Academic plans and program reviews are addi-

tional mechanisms that administrators can use to reflect and reinforce a consistent focus on student

learning. As departments and programs survey their strengths, set goals, and request resources, they need to articulate how all three relate to student learning. Just as faculty should explore multiple pedagogical opportunities for students to reach expected learning outcomes, so administrators should consider alternative funding mod- els that move beyond a sole focus on full-time

equivalents (FTEs) and seat time.

STUDENTS

Although improved learning is the aim behind assessment efforts, frequently, and somewhat un-

derstandably, we do not consider students' roles as contributors to a learning community. Students, however, need to be engaged fully by developing their own outcomes, by examining how those outcomes align with those developed by faculty, and

by assessing their own progress and work. Students must also provide feedback to faculty on those outcomes, ask for clarification when they do not understand what is expected, and "put the pieces"

together themselves. These kinds of student roles

might well be the most important outcome of the entire process. As students focus on their learning and actively participate in developing their skills and abilities they learn how to learn.

The shifting roles I have sketched out involve all of higher education and thus have implications for collegiate FL programs. As Norris notes, these

programs have significant roles to play in the shift to a culture focused on learning. Engaging in the kinds of discussions and conceptual thinking he describes is key to moving FL programs forward. It is critical that they, along with the rest of higher education, do so.

The stakes are very high. The challenges college graduates will face over the next 50, 60, and 70

years will intensify. They involve the understanding of different cultures, the balance of global power, the depletion of environmental resources, and the ability to continue to grow in a rapidly changing world. It is because the stakes are so

high that I believe a focus on student learning is so critical and why FL programs have such an im-

portant role to play. While I am concerned about our competitiveness with other nations, I am most concerned about preparing all students so that they have the skills, abilities, and talents to meet these challenges in ways that make the world bet- ter for future generations. As we work to prepare our students, we must recognize that the real crisis is not about the calls for assessment from outside the academy; it is, instead, about our own commitment to helping students achieve at higher levels. The question still unanswered is "Are we-faculty, administrators, and students-willing to shift our own priorities to meet the challenge before us?"

REFERENCE

Bok, D. (2005). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Addressing the Challenges of Program Evaluation: One Department's Experience After Two Years MICHAEL MORRIS, Northern Illinois University

In his essay, John Norris makes a convincing case for the importance of program evaluation in university foreign language (FL) departments. In my response, I address some of the challenges that FL educators face in this undertaking, using

the experiences of my own department, the De-

partment of Foreign Languages and Literatures at Northern Illinois University, as the basis of dis- cussion. It was 3 years ago that my colleagues and I

began planning for program evaluation. We soon



Documents

Focusing on Learning: Refraining Our Roles