|
|
|
Attendance: Approximately 153
Announced Agenda: 3 items
1. Approval of Minutes of January 31, 2001
(http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~facsec/facmin/01-01-31.html)2. Report from Undergraduate Curriculum Committee: Language Proficiency Requirement
(Three attachments Circulated in Advance)3. Other Reports and Announcements
Next Faculty Meetings: (all in Duncan Hall 1055)
Tuesday, March 13, 2001, 4:00 PM
Tuesday, April 3, 2001, 4:00 PM
Friday, May 11, 2001, 10:00 AM
President Malcolm Gillis called the meeting to order at 4:03 PM in McMurtry Auditorium of Duncan Hall and served as Chair. Alan Chapman served as Parliamentarian. Three guests from The Thresher were present. Gillis opened the meeting by asking Joe Hightower to show a transparency and read the groups of faculty members eligible to vote in elections. Hightower reminded the faculty that this meeting would deal with an undergraduate curriculum matter, which would eliminate Research Faculty from voting on that issue. Gillis commented that Rice has a long tradition of mutual trust through its highly esteemed honor code for students; he would not like to see any document test among the faculty which would be inconsistent with the culture of this university.
1. Minutes of 01-31-01 Faculty Meeting - On motion duly made and seconded, the Minutes were APPROVED as circulated in advance on the web.
2. Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Report on the Foreign Language Proficiency Requirement - Jack Zammito began by mentioning that the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) had undertaken its inquiry into the Foreign Language Proficiency Requirement (FLPR) at the request of the General Faculty. The UCC was charged with evaluating the consistency of implementation of the FLPR with the legislation passed in 1999. As Chair of the UCC, Zammito assumed that all faculty had access to three documents (ATTACHMENTS A, B, and C to these Minutes) that had been circulated on the web. The third (C) is a motion for consideration by the faculty.
After gathering information from a wide variety of sources, the UCC arrived at two very clear conclusions: 1) significant inconsistencies exist between the legislation and its implementation (use of standardized national examinations, misunderstanding of the intermediate/mid standard ACTFL, and use of FLAC courses), and 2) implementation of the FLPR has had unforeseen impacts on the curriculum. Expectations of the faculty in ratifying this legislation were threefold: 1) that ~40-50% of the incoming students would have already satisfied the FLPR before matriculating, 2) that only ~25% of the entering students would be expected to satisfy the requirement by taking four basic language courses, and 3) that by passing a variety of liberal options, we would avoid making the FLPR a course requirement. The UCC has found that implementation of the FLPR has contradicted all of those expectations.
Therefore, the UCC very, very strongly recommends (by a vote of 14 to 1) that the General Faculty reconsider the FLPR in view of the inconsistencies between the original legislation and its implementation. The UCC does not recommend that the current requirement remain in its current status but that it be modified or abandoned. Although sharply divided on which would be more appropriate, the Committee felt that since the General Faculty originally approved the legislation, it should be up to the General Faculty to legislate its future. He would prefer modification over abandonment because to abandon the requirement would be to do a "flip-flop" and give the impression of instability. Moreover, several universities with which we like to compare ourselves are also in the midst of formulating stricter foreign language requirements. Zammito therefore proposed that we begin with an attempt to MODIFY the current rules in a way that would maintain the initial idea but would also be consistent with our original expectations and the tenor of the original legislation.
The UCC moves that we modify the original legislation in the following ways:
1. Officially ratify the examination that has been created in the interval by our language departments and accredited by the ACTFL.
2. Using that instrument of appraisal we "lower the bar" by reducing the requirement from an"intermediate/mid standard" to the level of a first year language competence so that no more that no more than two language courses would be required to satisfy the requirement. This controversial proposal would essentially lower the foreign language requirement from the order of proficiency to something closer to familiarity.
3. Affirm the Interim Dean's pragmatic solution of allowing any FLAC course to serve to fulfill the language proficiency requirement .
4. Affirm that a semester spent abroad in a non-English speaking context would satisfy the spirit of the requirement without the need to sit for an examination as well.
5. Require an evaluation of the language program in three years to determine if it is in fact meeting the goals of the General Faculty. Only upon a satisfactory evaluation by the UCC would the program continue.
During the discussion several questions were raised about the meaning of certain points in the motion. Paul Stevenson moved to substitute the entire UCC motion with one that would simply abolish the FLPR altogether. The motion to substitute was seconded. Gillis ruled that the motion to substitute could be discussed along with the original motion before a vote.
About twenty faculty spoke to the issues with stimulating comments ranging from full support of the FLPR to abandoning the whole idea. Following some parliamentary procedures (terminating debate, etc.), the motion to substitute the Stevenson motion for the UCC motion PASSED overwhelmingly with only a few votes in opposition. After another vote to stop debate and a call for a hand count, the faculty voted 92 FOR to 26 OPPOSED to the motion to abolish the FLPR. Ruling that this is a substantive issue, Gillis said there would necessarily be a second reading on the substitute motion at the April General Faculty Meeting.
Gale Stokes rose to express deep thanks for the enormous amount dedication and commitment by the Language Departments, the Language Steering Committee, and the Language Resource Center. Even though the FLPR appears to have been abandoned, he believes we did the right thing by trying to make it a requirement. Very few other universities in the country have such a policy. As a result of this ambitious program, the way we teach languages at Rice will continue to improve and we will see students taking foreign languages "because it is the right thing to do." This statement was followed by lengthy applause.
Stan Dodds raised a question about the fate of students who entered in the fall of 2000 and are subject to the FLPR. In anticipation of such a question, Zammito read the following provision drafted by the UCC: "Students who matriculated this year under the FLPR should receive appropriate curricular compensation the exact terms of which should be determined by the program." John Ambler asked what the impact this action would have on the Distribution Requirement. John Hutchinson stated that it was a moot point because of a printing error in the General Announcements which stated that all students taking foreign language courses this year will automatically receive Distribution credit for those courses. Gillis ruled that if the FLPR is voted down again at the April 13 meeting, it would be appropriate at that time to consider a motion stating that students who matriculated in 2000 would not be subject to the constraints of the FLPR. Such a vote would require only one reading.
Now that the vote to abandon the FLPR has been approved on its first reading, Gillis read a list of other institutions which are addressing similar issues. Those having Foreign Language Requirements Across the Board are: Columbia, Georgetown, Harvard, and Yale. Those with such requirements for Arts and Sciences only are: Cornell, Duke, Northwestern, and Princeton. Universities with no language requirements are: Brown, Chicago, Johns Hopkins, MIT, and Washington University in St. Louis. He passed the list on to representatives of The Thresher.
3. Other Reports and Announcements - Speaking for University Council, Speaker Bob Patten summarized the Agenda for the next Faculty Meeting on March 13. After approval of the Minutes, the first item will be the second reading of the proposal to abandon the FLPR. The next issue will be the first reading of a new section of our University Policy on Tenure and Appointments dealing with the fate of faculty when departments or programs are terminated for reasons of financial exigency or because of curricular changes. He urged all to attend.
There being no other items of business, Gillis adjourned the meeting at 5:05.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe W. Hightower, Secretary of the Rice Faculty
ATTACHMENTS - 3
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
ATTACHMENT A
THE LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT
PASSED BY THE FACULTY ON SECOND READING APRIL 14, 1999
Each student must demonstrate competency in a foreign language. There are six alternative ways to fulfill this requirement:
1) By earning a score of 4 or 5 on the national Advanced Placement foreign language or literature tests while still in secondary school;
2) By earning on a nationally accredited standardized placement test a score equivalent of "intermediate-mid" or higher, as defined by the American Council on Teaching Foreign Languages;
3) By completing with a passing grade (equivalent to "intermediate-mid" or higher) a single Foreign- Language-Across-the-Curriculum (FLAC) course that has been designed to bring students up to the required level of competence. Such courses are content-based courses in which all or some of the instruction is conducted in a foreign language;
4) By one semester of study or work abroad in a foreign-language environment, followed by satisfactory performance ("intermediate-mid" or higher) on a Rice fourth-semester equivalency examination;
5) By completing a course of instruction in an intensive summer language program (in the United States or abroad), followed by satisfactory performance ("intermediate-mid" or higher) on a Rice fourth-semester equivalency examination;
6) By completing with a passing grade (equivalent to "intermediate-mid" or higher) the fourth semester of any foreign language taught at Rice, or at an institution accepted for transfer credit.
ATTACHMENT B
BACKGROUND CONCERNING THE FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY REQUIREMENT
Preamble
At the request of the general faculty, the UGCC has informed itself of the manner in which Rice's language proficiency requirement is currently implemented. Our information is derived from analysis of course enrollments and the outcomes of proficiency tests. It is also based on meetings with the chairs of language departments, the director of the Center for the Study of Languages, and the interim dean of Humanities. Other faculty also provided input to our deliberations. We thank everyone for their time and helpful attitude throughout this process. There is no doubt in the mind of any committee member about the high quality of language instruction at Rice, or about the thoughtfulness behind the present incarnation of the language proficiency requirement. Especially striking is the dynamism and effectiveness of internet-based language pedagogy at Rice, which appears to place our institution at the cutting edge of this technology. Because of circumstances unforeseeable at the time the language proficiency requirement was adopted, however, it has been necessary to implement the program in ways that seem inconsistent with the original intention of the general faculty.
Inconsistencies between Legislation and Implementation
In the legislation regarding the language proficiency requirement (LPR), there were a series of very problematic presumptions.
1. The faculty misunderstood the availability of nationally standardized testing.
2. The faculty misunderstood what the American Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) standard of "intermediate-mid" would imply for course work at Rice.
3. It presumed that "intermediate-mid" was in fact equivalent to the minimal passing level of fourth-semester basic language instruction. That is not self-evident.
4. It presumed that passing the AP exam at the appropriate level (4 or 5) was equivalent to satisfying the ACTFL standard of "intermediate-mid." (More precisely, that question was begged both by the legislation and its implementation.)
5. It presumed that FLAC courses could be designed to "bring students up to the required [intermediate-mid] level of competence."
The legislation presumed the existence of a standardized national test which did not in fact exist. In addition, it incorporated terminology and standards (e.g., "intermediate-mid proficiency") derived from the ACTFL, thus implicitly ascribing authority for national accreditation to that body. Faced with these two points, the Language Steering Committee (LSC) determined that it could fulfill the "spirit" of the LPR by creating a test that would, by earning the approval of ACTFL, become a test that satisfied a national standard. Such tests have been successfully created by Rice language departments and accredited by ACTFL in most of the major European languages by this point.
This is one of the essentially contested issues. Should the LSC, the Dean, and the other agents of the Provost have referred the matter back to the General Faculty when it became apparent that there was no "standardized national test" at the outset? Is the action of the LSC in creating a standardized test and seeking national accreditation for it in the "spirit" of the LPR legislation? Is ACTFL actually a proper entity to provide national accreditation? Is ACTFL accreditation sufficient to establish a "standardized national test"? Does the ACTFL-certified test satisfy the legislative mandate of the LPR? Is the ACTFL standard of "intermediate-mid" as implemented in the testing instruments designed for Rice in fact "raising the bar" for language proficiency beyond what the General Faculty understood in ratifying this in the LPR?
The Interim Dean of Humanities maintains that the creation of a standardized test at Rice was fully in the "spirit" of the LPR. Moreover, he claims that the endeavor to create such a test has "tremendously invigorated" the language departments, generating high instructor enthusiasm and significant technological innovations. These, he maintains, have brought Rice language instruction to the "cutting edge" in proficiency appraisal and can make Rice a "national leader" in this area. The Chairs of the Language Steering Committee and the Director of the Center for the Study of Languages fully second the Dean on all these points. On the other hand, Chairs of the major European Language Departments have raised issues about the practicality of providing OPIs in terms of the cost, training for accreditation, and time consumed for instructors in administering the interviews. They also raised questions about ACTFL's stature as the proper accreditation entity. Most significantly, they underscored the point that a substantial majority of the regular faculty in the language departments do not appear to be involved in basic language instruction and that the LPR has not occasioned a "tremendous invigoration" among them. Rather, as one chair put it, they have "voted with their feet." There is no question that the preponderance of basic language instruction (90 percent) is provided by lecturers. They do not enjoy equal status with regular faculty. While lecturers do gain voting rights with time of service, they are never eligible for tenure. To implement the LPR is to fix this "two-tier" structure more firmly in the institutional fabric of the university.
Unforeseen Curricular Consequences
When the General Faculty approved the LPR it was operating on some crucial expectations about its impact. There were three crucial expectations:
1. That 40-50 percent of the entering student population would have satisfied the language requirement before even matriculating.
2. That no more than 25 percent of the student population would need to take fully four courses of basic language to fulfill the requirement.
3. That the LPR was to be not a "seat requirement" but a proficiency requirement, i.e., that language competence, however acquired, and not attendance of a series of language courses was the goal of the requirement.
Actual outcomes have not lived up to any of these expectations. Only a much smaller percentage of entering students have satisfied the requirement at entry: approximately 25 percent, instead of 40-50 percent. The test that has been created to establish proficiency by a national standard ("intermediate-mid" according to ACTFL) has had rather disheartening results. For example, of some 278 students who took the Spanish proficiency exam, only about 70 (25%) passed the written part and of these only 18 students (6%) went on to pass the oral proficiency interview. A far larger component of the entering class appears to have enrolled in beginning language courses. Some 151 students (22%) enrolled in a first semester language course, suggesting they would need four full semesters of class work (18 credit hours) to fulfill the requirement. Some 71 students (10%) enrolled in the second semester language course, suggesting they would need three semesters of class work (13 credit hours) to fulfill the requirement. Moreover, it has been established that a significant group of entering students has done nothing about the LPR. This group equals close to 25 percent of the entering class. There is no reason to believe that those who have not taken the proficiency examination would outperform those who have. Thus the percentage of students who can be expected to take four courses in language is far greater than expected: approximately 60 percent, instead of 25 percent. Accordingly, despite intentions, the LPR has resulted de facto in a "seat requirement." Finally, basic language courses claim a lot of credit hours. First year courses earn 5 credits each, and second year courses, 4 credits each. That means that sitting through four semesters of basic language would accrue 18 credit units for a student, consuming as much as two-thirds of a typical S/E major's distribution requirement in the Humanities and probably foreclosing any additional course work in that area. Was it wise to create a requirement which displaces most other course work in the Humanities for the sake of basic language acquisition?
Foreign Language Across the Curriculum (FLAC)
We need to discriminate two forms of FLAC course. To fulfill the specific legislation of the LPR a FLAC program would have to consist of courses "designed to bring students up to the required level of competence [via] content-based courses in which all or some of the instruction is conducted in a foreign language." The other would be primarily for enrichment and to promote student interest in further language study. To date no course of the first sort has been designed or implemented. Moreover, all instructors who have hitherto volunteered to offer FLAC courses have made it clear that they are interested only in the second form. The Interim Dean has made an executive decision that any FLAC course will satisfy the LPR, and he has suspended the project of discriminating among them. In effect, that has promoted the second form of FLAC course into a role that is both inconsistent with the specific language of the legislation and incongruous with the pedagogical goals of all instructors who have hitherto undertaken such courses. The FLAC implementation is questionable relative both to the LPR legislation on the one hand and to the proper curricular use of FLAC on the other.
Coda
If the general faculty chooses to cancel the LPR, some consideration should be given to those students who enrolled this year and submitted to the requirement in their first-year course work. They would need some compensation in curricular requirements to make up for the deflection of their studies.
ATTACHMENT C
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY REQUIREMENT:
MOTION OF THE UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UGCC) deems it necessary to recommend that the language proficiency requirement be reexamined. The members of the UGCC have diverse preferences about the ultimate shape of the language proficiency requirement. There is broad agreement within the committee, however, that the disparity between the legislated language proficiency requirement and its actual implementation warrants a review of the question by the general faculty. The general faculty has a range of options it can consider. First, the general faculty may decide to ratify the language proficiency requirement as it is currently being implemented. The UGCC does not endorse that option. Second, the general faculty can decide to adjust the language proficiency requirement in the light of the inconsistencies that have arisen. Finally, the faculty can decide to cancel the language proficiency requirement.
For the sake of honoring the general faculty's earlier endorsement of a language requirement, because indeed language requirements have become a feature in programs at many institutions with which we routinely compare ourselves, and because we should strive wherever possible to maintain continuity and avoid drastic shifts in curricular policy, we recommend that the option to modify the language requirement be considered first and fully before we turn to other options. Accordingly, the UGCC presents this option as its formal motion to the general faculty.
Motion
To revise and yet maintain a language requirement consistent with the other goals of the general faculty, the UGCC proposes that the general faculty modify the existing language requirement by taking the following actions:
1. ratify the newly created language examinations at Rice, which have been accredited by ACTFL, as a suitable surrogate for a standardized national examination.
2. "lower the bar," in light of the manifest difficulty for entering students in attaining the "intermediate-mid" ranking through the examination. Essentially, the goal would be to keep students from needing more than two semesters of basic language instruction in the most extreme instances. This would result in a reduction in the requirement from "proficiency" to something closer to "familiarity" and also bring Rice more in line with our peer institutions. The precise terms of the new standard might be "intermediate-low" or "intermediate-mid" only in certain modalities - reading or speaking, for example. Working out the precise standard would be assigned to the various language instruction entities under the scrutiny of the UGCC.
3. affirm the Interim Dean's pragmatic solution of allowing any FLAC course to serve to fulfill the language proficiency requirement.
4. affirm that a semester spent abroad in a non-English speaking context would satisfy the spirit of the requirement without the need to sit for the examination as well.
5. require an evaluation of the language program in three years to see that it is in fact meeting the goals of the general faculty. Only upon a satisfactory evaluation by the UGCC would the program continue.
The effect of all these adjustments in the legislation would be to affirm the efforts of the language programs in striving to fulfill the spirit of the requirement, while at the same time reducing the demands of the requirement so that it will not generate such a massive amount of basic language course work.